- Prev: Re: sexy krishnas.....
- Next: Re: WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS DARK...
- Index: The Sudarsana Archive -- Date Index
- Thread: The Sudarsana Archive -- Topic Index
Date Index | Topic Index
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org
madhudvisa@krishna.org (Madhudvisa dasa ) wrote:
>Madhudvisa,
>For some reason this still has not appeared in my newreader so I reply as
>email - feel free to put totality back in newsgroup if you can - I don't
>seem to be able to do this for some resaon known only to the computer's
>innards :)
> Marian wrote:
>>> You can call me either. Whatever you like. Madhudvisha is nice because
>>> it is Krishna's name. It means Krishna, the killer of the Madhu demon.
>>> So I am Madhudvisa dasa, dasa meand servant, so "servant of Krishna
>>> who killed the Madhu demon". Swami means one who has controlled his
>>> senses and it refers to someone in the renounced order of life.
>Please explain more about the conferring of the title Swami - how, how
>identified, by whom etc....
In the Vedic system there are four "asramas" or orders of life.
Up to the age of five years one is a child and there is no attempt at
any formal training. Of course these are very formative years and the
first five years are VERY important, but it is not considered the child
is responsible for his activities before five so there's no question of
punishment. He learns a great deal from the people around him. If his
parents and his family are spiritually inclined that will be of great
benefit to him because naturally the tendency for a child is to follow
the example of the adults he lives with.
The traditional Vedic system is at the end of their fifth year boys
would go to live in the "gurukul", it means "the house of the guru".
They would stay there up to the age of around twenty. The purpose of
this was to get an education in both material [reading, writing, etc]
but more importantly spiritual knowledge. The boys would learn the
scriptures, chant the Vedic mantras, and they would serve the guru by
collecting alms. They lived simple lives, rising early in the morning
and spending the day in educational and spiritual activities. Of
course, they also played together, like all boys do...
At the age of fifteen it is considered the boy has become a youth and
he can't be told what to do any more. In the gurukul educational system
things are fairly rigid. The students have to follow the instructions
of the guru, and the guru's used to be qualified, they were very
intelligent and quite capable of imparting both material and spiritual
knowledge. So the students didn't mind this. It's not possible to teach
a student if he doesn't accept the authority of the teacher so this
authority of the guru is necessary otherwise what will the students
learn? But at the age of 15 a youth can't be treated in the same
authoritarian way. So the time up to the age of 15 is very important.
If children are not properly educated in this period it is very
difficult to do this later on. Of course in the guru/disciple
relationship the disciple always accepts his guru as superior but after
the age of 15 this should be a real relationship based on respect and
trust whereas when the children are younger the guru may have to
"encourage" some of his students to come into line by disciplinary
measures. But this should not be required after the boys are 15. If the
boys are still disobedient at this age then discipline won't work any
more. They have to be treated as friends. If you try to discipline
them they will most probably hit you back!
When were about 20 if they wanted to stay in the gurukul and continue
serving the guru and practicing spiritual life they were most certainly
welcome to do this but if they wanted to go back to their parents homes
and get married and start a business or work in the family business
they were free to do that as well. It's now their choice. You can't force
them anymore.
So student life is called "brahmacarya", married life is called
"grhastha", retirement from married life is called "vanaprastha" and
renounced life is called "sannyasa".
The Vedic system is geared towards making spiritual advancement, to
becoming detached from the material world, so although there is full
facility for family life, it is not expected that one remain caught up
in family life till the day of death. If one dies thinking of his wife
and family he will have to come back here again [and perhaps be with
the same family again] but if his thoughts are spiritual he doesn't
come back but returns back home, back to Godhead.
So after the family have grown up and there are some older sons to take
care of the business the husband [and often the wife as well] give up
material life. They leave home and travel to the holy places of
pilgrimage and dedicate their remaining years to becoming closer to
God. this is called "vanaprastha" (or retired) life.
Sometimes the husband would take sunnyasa and then he was no longer
allowed to associate with his wife so she would go back and live with
the family...
Many brahmacaris would not get married and they could take sannyasa
directly from brahmacary life.
Today the situation is somewhat different.. There are not many
qualified brahmans to run the gurukuls and everything is upside-down.
So we chant Hare Krishna and serve Krishna. That is above the whole
system of varnasrama. Everyone is equal in Lord Caitanya's movement, a
woman or a householder is no less important than a sannyasi. We take
sannyasa for preaching. Sannyasa means formally giving up all ties with
the material world and living as a mendicant, going door to door and
trying to remind people about the spiritual purpose of life.
Generally speaking one decides to take sunnyasa himself after becoming
mature in spiritual life. The real qualification for one who wants to
take sunnyasa is he has to have conqured the sex desire. It is the most
abominable thing for someone to present himself as a sannyasi and at
the same time be involved in mundane sexual relationships...
Usually one accepts sannyasa from another sannyasi. But there are
special cases. My spiritual master, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupada took sannyasa from one of his sannyasi godbrothers.
Srila Prabhupada's spiritual master, Srila Bhaktsiddhanta Saraswati
Maharaja took sannyasa in front of a picture of his spiritual master
Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji Maharaja, who had already physically
departed from this world.
I took sannyasa from my spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada, on the
appearance day of Srimati Radharani in Vrndavana in 1993. Srila
Prabhupada physically left this world in 1977 but he lives on in his
instructions. The real proof of a sannyasi is his preaching, his
ability to convince others to take to Krishna consciousness, to spread
Krishna consciousness all over the world. In this age we are seeing
many people take sannyasa for the wrong reasons, for fame, profit,
adoration and distinction, but these people are not actually sannyasis,
nor do they have any potency to preach and spread Krishna consciousness
all over the world.
>I assume dasa and das have the same origin and effective meaning?
It's the same word. If you write it in sanskrit it's d<long a>s<short
a>. The short a at the end is more-or-less silent, it modifies the way
you pronounce the "s". So "das" is a more accurate English
representation of the pronunciation.
>>> Yes. The differences are superficial. But there is a class of people
>>> who want to create different groups for their own purposes... that is
>>> why we have so many religious groups. But really everyone is trying to
>>> reestablish their relationship with God. Some may say Brahman, some say
>>> Jesus, some Krishna, some Allah, but there is a common thread running
>>> through them all. They all accept the existence of the soul, a
>>> spiritual particle within the body who is eternal, who will continue to
>>> exist after the body is long gone. They all recommend living this life
>>> not just for the pleasure of the moment but to advance spiritually so
>>> after this body is finished we can reestablish our relationship with
>>> God.
>D'accord!
>>> I see beauty and wonder in this world too. Krishna says in the
>>> Bhagavad-gita: (10.41)
>>
>>> yad yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va
>>> tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-'msa-sambhavam
>>
>>>"Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but
>>>a spark of My splendor."
>>
>>> So when I see beauty I see it as a small manifestation of Krishna's
>>> opulences, of Krishna's beauty. He's unlimited of course, but the
>>> manifestations of beauty in this world can give us some idea...
>absolutely in agreement - our point of difference is in that which you
>regard as 'not beautiful' I think...
>>
>>> If you read the tenth chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, it is called
>>> "Vibhuti Yoga" or "The Oppulence of the Absolute" you will find Krishna
>>> explains His beauty and opulence in terms of things in this world (I am
>>> the taste of water, the light of ths Sun and the Moon, the sylible
>>> OM...) The whole chapter is very interesting reading.
>will do - not that familiar with it. Will return to the discussion of this
>text and how we probably read it from somewhat different perspectives
>sometime, heh?
>>
>>> (But I don't accept this world as permanent. I am not miserable [I
>>> chant Hare Krishna!] but there is a lot of misery here. It would be
>>> hard to ignore the famines, the disease, the old age...)
>Again absolutely, but for me this is still part of the creation - a facte, a
>manifestation, as real as the spirit, but one which we mere mortals do not
>understand rather than which we should 'wipe'. Again this leads to your and
>my conception of karma - ha! we'll get to that pretty soon but not today - I
>at least need to take things simply and tackle one thing at a time...
>>>"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this
>>>non-dual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan." (Srimad Bhagavatam
>>>1.2.11)
>>
>>> So there are three ways of seeing the supreme. Brahman means perceiving
>>> an all-pervading spiritual energy and liberation for such
>>> transcendentalists is becoming one with or merging with the "supreme
>>> oneness".
>>
>>> The next level of realization is the one possible through yoga and
>>> meditation. The perfect yogis come to the stage of Paramatma
>>> realization. We, the soul, the living entity are called the "atma" but
>>> there are two entities within our heart. We, the atma, are there but
>>> Krishna in His four-armed Visnu form is also there. He is called the
>>> "Param-atma" or the supreme atma. The yogis can come to the point of
>>> seeing the Paramatma within their hearts.
>>
>>> The final realization is of Bhagavan. Bhagavan literally means "the
>>> possessor af all opulences". Bhagavan refers to a person, the supreme
>>> person, and the other two energies [Brahman and Paramatma] are
>>> emanating from His body.
>>
>>> The analogy of the sun and the sunshine is often given. Seeing the
>>> sunshine is like Brahman realization, seeing the sun is like Paramatma
>>> realization and actually entering the sun planet and meeting the sun
>>> god is like Bhagavan realization. As the light of the sun disc and the
>>> sunshine are coming from the body of the sun-god so the Brahman and
>>> Paramatma emanate from the body of Bhagavan [Vishnu or Krishna]
>Fine! somewhere I'd read a text (British, on the Hare Krishna movement, I
>think, which suggested that for some reason - specified but forgotten by mje
>- that you sort of stopped at Krishna - and somewhere else, I believe you
>also stated saomething to the effect of not acknowledging a One - yet surely
>that is what Brahma is?
No. Brahma and Brahman are two completely different things. "Brahman"
is the all pervading energy eminating from Krishna [the brahmajyoti]
but Lord Brahma is the principal demigod in this universe who
directs the creation of the universe and creation within the universe
generally.
>Perhaps it is to do with the perception of the Supreme Oneness - and the
>ability to 'see' that to be One and All at the same time is no paradox????
>For me this ins necessary, for anything else must be only a portion of the
>truth.
>>
This is our philosophy. Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu preached
"acintyabeda beda tattva" or "Inconceivable simultaneously one and
different". It's a bit of a mouthful, but it means we accept that
"simultaneously" Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and He
has His own independent existence and He is the source of everything
[including the brahmajyoti] AND everything is brahman AND that this is
inconceivable! So you are right, there is a paradox but we sometimes
come up against such paradoxes when trying to explain transcendental
things in material terms. To our material vision it may be difficult to
see how these two truths can exist simultaneously, but they do! And
that is inconceivable to us until we become a little advanced
spiritually.
This article has become too long so I'm posting the mind,intelligance,
spirit things to a new thread. "Mind, body and spirit". See you
there...
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa .
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa
(madhudvisa@krishna.org) /sudarsana
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org