Women's appeals to boys, men, males to 'be good,' is the wrong approach. This may appeal to girls, but not to boys. Naturally, a boy may try to be good out of affection for his mother, but not because he values being 'good.' He tries to be 'good' because it is what is important to his mother, or effeminate father. And it is not because boys are by nature ungentle. No. It is simple a matter of their nature. It is biology. I'm not saying that this trait cannot be trained out of them, but that to attempt this is working against nature.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gaudiya Vaishnavism (also known as Chaitanya Vaishnavism) is a Vaishnava religious movement founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534) inIndia in the 16th century. "Gaudiya" refers to Gauḍadeśa (present day Bengal/Bangladesh) with Vaishnavism meaning the worship of Vishnu. Its philosophical basis is primarily that of the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata Purana, as well as other Puranic scriptures and Upanishads such as the Isha Upanishad, Gopala Tapani Upanishad, and Kali Santarana Upanishad.
The focus of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is the devotional worship (bhakti) of Radha and Krishna, and their many divine incarnations as the supreme forms of God,svayam bhagavan. Most popularly this worship takes the form of singing Radha and Krishna's holy names, such as 'Hare', 'Krishna' and 'Rama', (most commonly in the form of the Hare Krishna mantra) which is known as kirtan. The movement is sometimes referred to as the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiyasampradaya referring to its traditional origins in the disciplic succession of spiritual masters (gurus) believed to originate from Brahma. It classifies itself as amonotheistic tradition, seeing the many forms of Vishnu as expansions or incarnations of the one Supreme God, adipurusha.
Concerning the Upanishads and Vedas, he writes in The World as Will and Representation:
If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.
He summarised the influence of the Upanishads thus: “It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death!”