Sorry borokrishna das ...actually one of the punja family banned Tamala Krishna Goswami through his political connections in fiji, Prabhu,however it all turned out for the better he came here to South Auckland and literally helped destroy Narayanna maharajas preaching for the next ten years....by backing out of financing their temple project at the last moment!Sorry your sexual fantasies are not forfilled....borokrishnadas.Try chanting hare krishna....maybe jion the Catholic church as a preist,you might fit in there,but please give your blaspheme.....sorry i forgot thats how you get your kicks!

I am 99% sure that there is a GBC resolution restricting the establishment of guru murtis, with an exception placed on the Gaura-Govinda Maharaja murti in Bhubaneshwar.

What is wrong with just a picture Jaya Govinda Das? You look good on it as well.

SGD, can you give refs?

I have no objection to such worship, provided all vaishnavas and all siksa gurus given the same worship in the temple.

Actually if you worship equally all vaisnavas, it hardly inflate anyone's ego. But if you select a 'few' and worship them it inflates the ego. It is not personality cultism, just paying obeisances to the vaisnavas. I know that it will never happen, but I have no objection, since it is truly that the sanga of the vaisnavas is the most worshipable object, that is the guru, that is the actual guru-centric program. But how can you worship the best vaisnavas if you have so many? Best to not have any special worship for the selected few diksagurus as if they are more worshipable than others. So we agree there.

The change starts from you and your own example will lead the way. I will try to do it in my own life.

ccd:

Actually if you worship equally all vaisnavas, it hardly inflate anyone's ego.

Kula-pavana:

We are so far from worshipping equally all vaishnavas it is not even funny

Scriptures say many times that not all devotees / Vaisnavas are equal, but that there are different classes of them, and different conduct is prescribed for dealing with each class (e.g. NoI 5).[br]
So why should all be worshipped equally? Or in what way should all be worshipped equally?

Baker: This refers to the difference between the approach of madhyama vs. uttama vaisnava.

Any Vaishnava who chanted a holy name sincerely is worshipable. Because you do not know who is advanced and who is not, better to worship all Vaishnavas, there is no sin in it and it is proper. The lower kind of devotees do not understand that all Vaishnavas are worshipable and they need to differenciate to keep up a rudimentary faith in their teacher.

maybe the gbc should also revise and update Sri Chaitanya's siksastakam verse to "..and ready to give all 'worship' to others." in order to satisfy certain conditioned souls speculations!

Honour is Certainly not the same thing.Bhajan Shri Guru andGauranga!

Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy distinguish between adoration or latria (Latin adoratio, Greek latreia, [λατρεια]), which is due to God alone, and veneration or dulia (Latin veneratio, Greek douleia [δουλεια]), which may be lawfully offered to the saints. The external acts of veneration resemble those of worship, but differ in their object and intent. Protestant Christians question whether such a distinction is always maintained in actual devotional practice, especially at the level of folk religion.

According to Mark Miravelle, the English word "worship" is equivocal, in that it has been used in Catholic writing, at any rate, to denote both adoration/latria and veneration/dulia, and in some cases even to as a synonym for veneration as distinct from adoration:

Adoration, which is known as latria in classical theology, is the worship and homage that is rightly offered to God alone. It is the acknowledgement of excellence and perfection of an uncreated, divine person. It is the worship of the Creator that God alone deserves. Veneration, known as dulia in classical theology, is the honor due to the excellence of a created person. This refers to the excellence exhibited by the created being who likewise deserves recognition and honor. We see a general example of veneration in events like the awarding of academic awards for excellence in school, or the awarding of the Olympic medals for excellence in sports. There is nothing contrary to the proper adoration of God when we offer the appropriate honor and recognition that created persons deserve based on achievement in excellence. Here a further clarification should be made regarding the use of the term "worship" in relation to the categories of adoration and veneration. Some schools of theology use the term "worship" to introduce both adoration and veneration. They would distinguish between "worship of adoration" and "worship of veneration." The word "worship" (in the same way the theological term "cult" is traditionally used) in these classical definitions was not at all synonymous with adoration, but could be used to introduce either adoration or veneration. Hence Catholic writers will sometimes use the term "worship" not to indicate adoration, but only the worship of veneration given to Mary and the saints.[3]

Orthodox Judaism and orthodox Sunni Islam hold that for all practical purposes veneration should be considered the same as prayer; Orthodox Judaism (arguably with the exception of some Chasidic practices), orthodox Sunni Islam, and most kinds of Protestantism forbid veneration of saints or angels, classifying these actions as akin to idolatry.

Similarly, Jehovah's Witnesses assert that many actions classified as patriotic by Protestant groups, such as saluting a flag, are equivalent to worship and are therefore considered idolatrous as well.

Individual souls are under the direction of Nityananda. They receive their service of Shri Gaurasundara, i.e., of Krishna, at His hands. Nityananda is not a jiva. He is Divinity. He is the ultimate source of the jiva. The jiva is a potency of Nityananda. No jiva can be the medium of the service of the Absolute to another jiva. The Absolute alone may communicate His service to the separable constituents of Himself. This is the real nature of the function of the guru.” Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur 

U have no understanding?

Kula-pavana:

Today Western Vaishnavas fight and quarrel among themselves precisely because of the guru-centrism introduced into the sadhana and tradition. What happened to the old teaching that the guru is one? It disappeared in the new teaching that only my guru knows the truth and has the right solution.

And probably along with that - "And because I am the disciple of such a guru, who is the only one who knows the truth and has the right solution, I am also special and all others who are disciples of other gurus should bow to me (otherwise I and my guru will take offense and you will burn in the hell of Vaisnava aparadha)."

[br][br]

Kula-pavana:

In Iskcon it naturally developed around Srila Prabhupada - he was of course not taking advantage of his followers but he did nothing to prevent it from becoming truly cultish. After his passing the officiating acharyas he nominated started their own personality cultism and most of them definitely took advantage of their followers, seriously degrading our movement. From the philosophy of 'guru is one' they developed a philosophy of 'my guru is the only one'. That is the danger of guru-centric approach.

But how exactly is it degrading and endangering? Because the devotees fight and quarrel amongst themselves, can't come to a joint resolution how to act and then don't act, don't appear attractive to outsiders ...?[br]
On the grounds of what is this considered "degrading", though?[br]
[br]I am not asking this idly, I would just like to understand the reasoning behind all this. Because, on the other hand, there seem to be many devotees who feel perfectly justified in acting the way they do, even if it alienates others - "Those who don't agree with us are wrong and should leave".

I have to admit this is beyond my scope. I cannot imagine that in any religious tradition, at any point in time or space, there could be a much different mood than that of "If you don't like something, there's the door. If you leave, you will be damned, and this is all your problem."

The fight is about accepting those who are qualified as Sri Guru and those who are not as regular guru. It is about trying to establish the demarcation for the benefit of all.
We r trying to emphasise the demarcation while u people are trying to negate the demarcation to defend the status of ur regular gurus that u have bought into.
It is not about any particular Guru or Acharya on our part,just establising the rarity and some understanding,at least theoritical,of Sri Vaisnava Thakur.

Baker:

I have to admit this is beyond my scope. I cannot imagine that in any religious tradition, at any point in time or space, there could be a much different mood than that of "If you don't like something, there's the door. If you leave, you will be damned, and this is all your problem."

You obviously have not studied history of religion... ;) --- It gets much, much worse, just look at the history of Abrahamic religions... and it is still there... you have to keep things in perspective... :)

Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Please accept my humble obieances.

anandahari prabhu,
please accept my humble obeisances. thank you for amazing siddhanta and quotes. may i know where else are you posting?

Yes some gurus are special...loyal and through time become recognised...such character and realisations fail to be appreciated by the crowd sometimes.....Quote of Glories of Bhaktisiddanta saraswatitakura

"I'm speaking, you are hearing, but there is a gap between us!"
[This statement gives us some hint of how a great Vaishnava preacher,
although moving amongst us, apparently as one of us, is always apart from
us.] Srila Bhaktisiddanta sarawati takura had many disciples at different levels of spiritual advancement, all committed to folowing him. Some were apparently advanced and intimate,
yet Srila Prabhupada himself knew of the great gap between himself and his followers. Even
his close associates could not catch up with him. Later, events showed that
almost all of his disciples had failed to grasp the essential purppose of his
mission.
Even those who had some realization of what he wanted (a strong,
united preaching movement) were later unable to implement it very
effectively (with the obvious exception of AC Bhaktivedanta swami Prabhupada ACBSP).
This profound statement also gives insight into the "lonely" position of a guru
and a sannyasi. Of course, mahabhagavata devotees are never lonely,
because they are fixed in their relationship with Krsna. But in this world
there may be few or no people for them to relate with on an equal, friendly
platform..

Kula-pavana:

[quote]

Baker:

I have to admit this is beyond my scope. I cannot imagine that in any religious tradition, at any point in time or space, there could be a much different mood than that of "If you don't like something, there's the door. If you leave, you will be damned, and this is all your problem."

You obviously have not studied history of religion... ;) --- It gets much, much worse, just look at the history of Abrahamic religions... and it is still there... you have to keep things in perspective... :)[/quote]

It's true, I haven't formally studied the history of religion. I dare say I do know a bit about how bad it can get. Such as forced conversions, the Spanish Inquisition and its methods of establishing culpability (just the questions they have asked can make a person insane, to say nothing of the torture and the imprisonment), and so on.[br][br]
Like I said, it find it hard to imagine that the mood could be much different in any religious establishment, even if the actions are not. So I find it hard to appreciate that guru-centrism is bad. Not that I think it is good, I just imagine that this is as good as religion/spirituality gets. I have never seen or heard of anything that would be better, and I am probably not the only one. I can't imagine what the "higher platform of objectivity and universality" is, as opposed to that of "subjectivity and sectarianism".

Even my 10 year old grandson last summer -- when I took him to a Rathayatra festival -- on the way home he commented that Krishna consciousness seemed so different than other religions coming from India because with all the others it's all about the person who started it like Swami this or Guru that or some Baba guy --- but with Krishna consciousness it's all about Krishna. It's like Prabhupada wanted people to only know Krishna and not him. He didn't want it to be the Prabhupada religion (he kept using the word religion -- he's 10 years old) -- he just wanted to tell people about Krishna. So from the mouths of babes -- the innocent and direct perception of what is guru-centric and what is sectarianism and what is pure.

As for those who are constantly engaged in a "my guru's better than or just as good as your guru" -- they haven't understood very much and have a lot of learning and growing up to do. The problem is that while they are supposed to be learning and growing up they are instead running their mouths via their keyboards all over the Internet. I can't even imagine how confused a person must be who decides they want to learn about Krishna consciousness and then "Googles" "Hare Krishna." It's a shame! Sad state of affairs all this fighting about gurus.

Kula-pavana:

What you see between Iskcon and Narayana Maharaja's sanga for example is a sectarian conflict caused by guru-centrism. Objective reality matters very little to the followers of a guru centric tradition. Even as theoretically there should be zero degree difference between these camps, followers of one guru would rather see Christians speak in their temples than disciples of the other guru. Isn't that almost insane?

You will have to explain this, please. Why should there be zero degree difference between these camps?[br][br]
Because to me, it seems there are only two sides: sectarianism (different traditions/factions fighting over who has the one and only right understanding),[br]
or New Age and the like ("anything goes").[br][br]
You seem to be suggesting that there are other possibilities. Perhaps they are not even on the continuum between the two mentioned above?

Interesting discussion. Portnoy (Purusottama) made rather a powerful argument too.