Not signed in (To ask a question, Sign In)

Pariprashnena (to inquire submissively). Questions & Answers resource for all devotees.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    •  
      CommentAuthormishra
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2009 edited
     
    I have to personally thank yuga_avatar_das and all like him for supporting, permitting, enforcing and perpetuating the "wonderful" state of ISKCON nowadays. If not were by devotees like you I will still be in the illusion that something can be done in this respect and would be still wasting my time.

    Prabhu yuga.... everything is gonna be all right. Do not cry. The Sun demons will be slashed, all devotees contrary to your perception are going to be showed a lesson, your gurus are going to be avenged and you will sleep sound again soon in the lap of the witch ma-ya (what is not).
  1.  
    Thank you Swarup prabhu for taking the time to answer but I should have been more specific - my question was directed towards Jahnava dasi.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2009
     
    'molester messiah cult' - never heard of anything like that happening in ISKCON in the last 20 years or so. That person really loves to live in the past.

    Btw, 'free speech' is unknown in Vedic society. Any adharmic speech is stopped, esp. by brahmanas (curses) and ksatriyas (weapons).
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2009 edited
     
    VEDA:'molester messiah cult' - never heard of anything like that happening in ISKCON in the last 20 years or so. That person really loves to live in the past. Btw, 'free speech' is unknown in Vedic society. Any adharmic speech is stopped, esp. by brahmanas (curses) and ksatriyas (weapons).
    Talk about living in the past... What contemporary brahmana has the power to stop anyone by curses? "Shut the F- up!" is about the best they can do, but I doubt that's a Vedic mantra. LOL.

    Of course, everyone considers his own view to be dharma. The Sampradaya Sun provides a place for various views to be discussed among devotees so that we can see which withstand scrutiny. Those who are opposed obviously don't have much confidence in their propaganda.

    In the matter of ksatriyas shutting people up, was that an endorsement of the folks who blew Sulocana's face off with a few bullets at close range?



    http://www.igor-film.org/gb.html
  2.  
    [quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]
    Btw, 'free speech' is unknown in Vedic society. Any adharmic speech is stopped, esp. by brahmanas (curses) and ksatriyas (weapons).[/quote]

    Yes, ISKCON surely is full of experts on vedic society..... And on adharmic speech too.

    First make vedic society happen, and then you can dream of banning free speech. By preventing people to expose rascals you don't create vedic society. ISKCON tried that for last 30 years, but it did'n work out that well.... Of course, you could argue, that ISKCON failed in developing vedic society only due to free speech..... Free speech, and of course ritviks.

    Now GBC just has to demonize all free speech, and sue to death all ritviks... and then the vedic society will rise.....
    • CommentAuthorKyros
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2009
     
    I wasn't aware that free speech wasn't allowed in Vedic culture.
  3.  
    "Veda: Btw, 'free speech' is unknown in Vedic society. Any adharmic speech is stopped, esp. by brahmanas (curses) and ksatriyas (weapons)."

    I don't think so its true. When Lord Ramchandra returned to Ayodhya from exile, people expressed their doubts about chastity of Mother Sita. They even criticized Lord Rama for keeping mother Sita and eventually Lord Rama has to give up Sita. No one was ever cursed or beheaded for saying their opinion. Is this not an example of free speech from Vedic society?
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2009 edited
     
    Pandu P., curses still work today, although not as efficiently as before.

    > everyone considers his own view to be dharma.

    Therefore POVs don't count as evidence, due to well-known four errors of baddha jivas.

    No endorsement. Sulocana wasn't doing anything adharmic. Kirtanananda was.

    Girinayaka P., all this is a strawman. I speak about Vedic society in old times.

    Today's free speech means just whatever one thinks regardless of dharma/g-s-s. Even in religious forums like Beliefnet prevails prajalpa in the form of sentiment, wishful thinking and attacks on religion. Hardly anyone is able to talk acc to g-s-s.

    >people expressed their doubts about chastity

    Yes, but they didn't claim She's unchaste without proof. That's quite a difference.
    If it'd be nowadays we'd see huge tabloid headlines: "Sita unchaste!" That's a lie, i.e. adharma.

    Doubts are not adharma but a function of buddhi. (SB 3.26.30) Still, doubts are best revealed humbly and in private (pranipatena pariprasnena), to not disturb others. Not in a challenging mood, what to speak of a public insinuation. Going public should be only the last step. Nowadays it's often the first.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     
    Veda Prabhu,

    How do you separate anyone from their point of view? If we take the Vedas as the authority, still various people may reach different conclusions. Sankaracarya presented a mayavadi conclusion very expertly; I wouldn't have wanted to debate against him. One can say to follow a guru, but there are many so-called gurus who are imperfect in their philosophical teachings or their personal conduct, and many people are mislead by false gurus. Also people do not all have the same information and some may have analyzed points in ways that others have not considered.

    In the matter of Sulocana, Kirtanananda, et. al., many if not all the persons involved in the murder probably thought they were acting according to dharma. For one reason or another, Kirtanananda was seen as a pure devotee by many devotees, and devotees involved presumably saw themselves as protecting him. Apparently Radhanatha thought Kirtanananda was pure, I guess, and I even recall seeing a picture of him dancing with or near Kirtanananda just a few years ago and read about him and another swami visiting Tirtha in prison. One may therefore argue that some of Radhanatha's behavior is inconsistent with dharma (I accidentally wrote "charma" which seems more like it), so are Radhanatha's supporters acting according to dharma or against it? I think it's a judgment call.

    As Krishna said in Mahabharata, "It is difficult to grasp the highest understanding [of morality]. One ascertains it by reasoning. Now there are many people who simply claim 'morality is scripture.' Though I don't oppose that view, scriptures do not give rules for every case." (MB 8.49.48-49)

    Sampradaya Sun is a place where devotees can share information and reasoning and discuss how to apply sastric principles to our present situations to determine what is dharma in our various circumstances. In many ways it's similar to this forum. The rtvik subject is a significant topic discussed here, for and against, yet I don't think anyone would call this a rtvik site, nor should they.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009 edited
     
    These various conclusions should be within the range of dharma though. That's important. Sankaracarya, interestingly, didn't debate with Vaisnavas, at least I'm not aware of it.
    Also, at the end of his Sariraka bhasya he accepts difference between liberated jiva and isvara, i.e. doesn't contend sutras. This is pretty revealing.

    I can't say anything about Radhanatha M., since there is contradictory information.

    Although dharmasastras don't give rules for every case, one who understands the general principle won't be confused in most cases.

    So I try to stay away from aparadhas. When Chakra became offensive, I stopped reading it.
    For the same reason I don't feel attracted to Sun or other similar sites.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     
    I read the left column with a mind to understand the challenges ISKCON faces so that I can help address them.
    The column on the right is usually very spiritually inspiring.
    Thankful People: mishra, dweller-in-peace
  4.  
    I like your attitude Pandu Prabhu, please keep sharing such good thoughts.
    •  
      CommentAuthormishra
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
     
    VEDA: So I try to stay away from aparadhas. When Chakra became offensive, I stopped reading it. For the same reason I don't feel attracted to Sun or other similar sites.
    So, for you VEDA, anything quoting a different perspective is "offensive" and you stop reading it?. A nice way to protect the tender devotional creeper. But at some point reading others perspectives and points becomes necessary to form ones own opinion. If you self shelter like that, ¿how are you going to mature? I am talking here about others point of view like ritvik, etc, not about plain ranting, insult or abuse by words. Also, it is interesting how you label a website "offensive". Websites aren´t offensive, people can be. I stopped reading Dandavats for only one reason, It is the same boring rosy picture and "pat my back" stuff. But any gentleman´s wrong point of view of the philosophy interests me, as I am myself in the process of ascertaining the truth.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
     
    Mishraji, no way, different doesn't mean automatically offensive. The tone and purpose count. A common sense.
    While preaching online I'm far from being sheltered. 8)
    For me a website (it's editors, obviously) is offensive when it allows an offense against a Vaisnava to be published, what to speak of repeatedly. Many devotees took aparadha lightly and they're not anymore around.
    Everyone reads acc to one's tendencies. And I read these news sites sparsely anyway.
    •  
      CommentAuthormishra
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
     
    So, here we come to the crux of the matter: Being offensive is publishing or allow to publish an offense against a Vaishnava.
    Now, what is an offense? And what is a Vaishnava? and under which circumstances a vaishnava aparadha occurs? Big words, don't you think?

    If you analyze this simple questions it will turn that 99,9 of 'vaishnava aparadhas' are dissensions, insults, quarrel and havoc among conditioned souls, striving for perfection, not elevated vaishnavas anyway, but expert at throwing each other the ashtra of mad elephant offense as to destroy the others reputation.
    And that trickles down to the general devotees that are busy cataloguing who is 'offensive' and who is just exposing the truth.

    Does the word vaishnava applies to pure vaishnavas only? If not, is there a difference between offense to a pure devotee and a sadhaka immersed in the modes of nature?

    Humility does not mean being gullible nor stupid. Many people thinks the Pope is a saint, but is he?
    How much of this papism is in ISKCON today?

    The one that we are sure that is a pure devotee w/o a doubt is Srila Prabhupada.

    Is it not an offense changing his instructions? Is not an offense indirectly preaching that he is dead and we should carry on with new ideas and discard the old ones?
    The real offenders 'to the pure devotee' might be some of the ones we are paying obeisances to and many of the ones we are tossing in the offensive hellish pit might be those who really care.

    Possible? Yes
    Probable. Certainly
    A fact? You judge.
    Thankful People: Giri-nayaka das
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2009
     
    several definitions of a Vaisnava:
    http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/vaisnavism.htm#7

    Vaisnava aparadha:
    http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/bhaktiyoga-1.htm#2

    > Does the word vaishnava applies to pure vaishnavas only?

    No.

    Btw, I also heard of pure kanistha, pure madhyama and pure uttama. Any references?

    > If not, is there a difference between offense to a pure devotee and a sadhaka immersed in the modes of nature?

    The strength of reaction. Plenty of examples in Vedic and GV history (Ramacandra Puri vs. Haridas Thakur, Ramacandra Khan vs. Sri Nityananda, etc. etc.).
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2009
     
    The sole cause of the appearance of sraddha is the association of a devotee who has deep love for the narrations of Krsna's pastimes. When sraddha appears, one becomes a kanistha-adhikari. When one executes the limbs of sadhana-bhakti such as sravana, and when by the influence of sadhu-sanga one becomes free from anarthas and his sraddha becomes dense and transforms into nistha, one develops the madhyama- adhikara or intermediate qualification for suddha-bhakti. By the further pursuance of the activities of sadhana-bhakti such as sravanaand by the influence of associating with devotees who are more advanced than oneself, one's nistha intensifies and assumes the form of ruci. The sadhaka within whom such ruci has developed is called an uttama-adhikari. Only such an uttama-adhikari attains suddha-bhakti. This is the eternal process for the attainment of suddha-bhakti. But if during the execution of this gradual process of sadhana one keeps the bad association of those who are attached to sense pleasure or those attached to an impersonal conception of the absolute truth, or if one disrespects a pure devotee or commits any other offence to him, sraddha at the kanistha level as well as that at the madhyama level will dry up from its very root and the sadhaka will be unable to achieve suddha-bhakti. In such a condition the sadhaka is either entangled in chaya-bhakti-abhasa or, in the case of committing numerous offences, even glides down into pratibimba-bhakti-abhasa. Therefore, until one attains the stage of uttama-adhikara, the faithful and sincere sadhaka should remain extremely careful. Otherwise it will be very difficult to achieve suddha-bhakti which ultimately bears the fruit of prema.

    Bhakti Tattva Viveka, 4, by BVT


    Neophyte devotees (kanistha), intermediate devotees (madhyama), and advanced devotees (uttama) are the three kinds of persons who have turned their faces toward Lord Krsna. The neophytes who have turned their faces toward Lord Krsna have renounced the worship of the demigods and are engaged in the worship of Lord Krsna with the motive of fulfilling their own personal desires. However, these neophytes remain unaware of the true nature of themselves, Lord Krsna, and other devotees. Still, they are neither fools nor offenders. But they are interested in their own personal benefit. They are not not pure Vaisnavas (suddha-vaisnava). Rather, they are almost-Vaisnavas (vaisnava-praya). The intermeditae (madhayma) devotees have turned toward Lord Krsna, but it cannot be said that they are pure Vaisnavas (suddha-vaisnava), or very advanced and expert in devotional service. Still, the intermediate devotee is neutral and disinterested in material things, although he may not know much beyond the truth that Lord Krsna is not different from His holy name.

    Sri Hari Nama Cintamani, 15, BVT

    Purity of kanistha is in rejection of demigod worship, purity of madhyama is in avoiding bad association and serving pure devotees. Uttama bhakta is normally called suddha-bhakta (pure unalloyed devotee). Anyone on the path of pure bhakti can be called pure devotee:

    Here is another quote that suggests that kanisthas have a 'tinge' of pure devotion:

    "Persons who are polluted by dvesa can never attain pure devotion . they do not possess even the slight tinge of pure devotion a kanistha - adhikari owns due to his deity worship"

    Jaiva Dharma, 8 BVT

    Pure kanistha, pure madyama and pure uttama may refer to 3 levels of uttama bhakta as in SB 11 and described in detail by Jiva Goswami.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2009
     
    Yes, SB 11.2.45-. Long and interesting purports. Thanks for refs.
  5.  
    pandu said: "Kirtanananda was seen as a pure devotee by many devotees, and devotees involved presumably saw themselves as protecting him. Apparently Radhanatha thought Kirtanananda was pure, I guess, and I even recall seeing a picture of him dancing with or near Kirtanananda just a few years ago and read about him and another swami visiting Tirtha in prison. One may therefore argue that some of Radhanatha's behavior is inconsistent with dharma (I accidentally wrote "charma" which seems more like it), so are Radhanatha's supporters acting according to dharma or against it? I think it's a judgment call."

    veda responded:
    "I can't say anything about Radhanatha M., since there is contradictory information."

    vedaji, doesn't that imply that one set of information may be absolutely false, created by the lying party to tarnish the name of the other individual? it isn't like it's a case of mistaken understanding of the same set of events, both parties were present and one side is lying. it wouldn't even take much "logic" to figure out which side that is. to remain "unclear" on the matter, one must, at some point, willlfully put on the official ISKCON issue "our gurus can do no wrong" blinders. haven't you? if kirtanananda didn't order the sulocan murder plan in december 1985, then who did? whomever you come up with will be a power player in the ISKCON that emerged in the aftermath of kirtanananda's expulsion from ISKCON, and the US government ordered replacement by someone acceptable to them. that personality was was richard slavin, AKA radhanath swami, and he initiated janet reno's neice as "his disciple". may he take all her karma for eternity. she was a government covert opertaive that slept her way to the post of "spokesperson for NVC" and she gave specific instructions to the devotees, in the prasdam hall at the sunday feast, that anyone knowing anything about child abuse should keep their mouths shut when police investigators were canvassaing NVC for child abuse testimonies. this was done with radhanath's knowledge and blessings, and while these matters are all easily verifiable, denial requires even less output of concern on the part of the individual.

    <<< >>>

    veda further said:

    "different doesn't mean automatically offensive. The tone and purpose count. A common sense.
    While preaching online I'm far from being sheltered. 8)
    For me a website (it's editors, obviously) is offensive when it allows an offense against a Vaisnava to be published, what to speak of repeatedly."

    which raises the question, "is it 'offensive' even if it's true?", because apparently both situations can and do exist, this being such a case in point. that is, if some thing were both 'true' and 'offensive' at the same time, must it be a topic that cannot be discussed?
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2009
     
    Risking to offend someone by suggesting a truth is not an offense. Implication that by revelation of the truth the Vaisnava is actually not a Vaisnava is. It is the insinuations that are offensive, not the truth itself. Why would a Vaisnava be offended by truth? Anything will serve to help him to feel more humble, but your intent could be an offense (and could be a desire to help on contrary). I find some articles in SS to be far from trying to find a truth and are specifically only personal attacks, which is by definition is an offense. If you do not find it, we must be talking about two different SS.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2009
     
    Agreed, ccd.

    > to remain "unclear" on the matter, one must, at some point, willlfully put on the official ISKCON issue "our gurus can do no wrong" blinders. haven't you?

    No and no. There are more positions than just outright pro- and outright anti-ISKCON.

    > these matters are all easily verifiable

    If one has access to gov files, sure. Any other way?

    To tell the truth is not an offense. However, one has to be sure that it's really a truth, i.e. do a thorough investigation. And one shouldn't be enthusiastic to tell others about someone's (even non-Vaishnava's) faults. For some reason, this tendency seems to be prominent in and around ISKCON. I don't know of any organization with similar attitude.

    Sun Tzu, author of the famous Art of War, lists 13 principles how to conquer an opponent without war which are widely used in modern society. See for yourself how many are used in ISKCON-related discourse.

    1. Discredit everything good in opponent's country. [modern media before war attacks]
    2. Pull leaders and prominent members of leading society echelons of opponent's country into criminality. [provocations]
    3. Undermine their good name. At proper time expose them to a disdain of their countrymen. [character assassination, nowadays due to modern media more efficient than ever]
    4. Get a cooperation of the most wicked and abominable persons. [criminals and modern media 'icons']
    5. By all means disorganize the efficiency of opponent's government. [or replace it by bureaucracies like EU]
    6. Sow passions and disagreements among citizens of opponent state. [modern media and politics]
    7. Pit youngsters against elders. [modern media and education system]
    8. Ridicule traditions of your opponents. [modern media, current India is a great example]
    9. By all means introduce a chaos into rear, logistics and armies of opponent. [sabotage, disinfo]
    10. Weaken the will of opponent's soldiers by sensuous songs and alcohol. [entertainment ('bread and games'), drugs]
    11. Send prostitutes to complete the destructive work. [including STD]
    12. Don't economize on promises and gifts to get information. Don't regret money because money so spent will return a hundred times. [huge amount of money goes into this agenda]
    13. Infiltrate your spies everywhere. [cameras, satellites, etc.]
    •  
      CommentAuthorraj108
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2009
     
    What pariprashnena(or you can say the people("Devotees") here on the forum) have done to me is, pushed me more into the ignorance of confusion. I thought it to be a website(as the name suggests) where all my questions would be answered but after going through this particular discussion I feel myself in a quagmire of doubt.

    Thanks to those who answered my questions earlier.
    Good bye, pariprashnena and team.

    Hare Krishna.
    Das
  6.  
    "Sun Tzu, author of the famous Art of War, lists 13 principles how to conquer an opponent without war which are widely used in modern society. See for yourself how many are used in ISKCON-related discourse.

    1. Discredit everything good in opponent's country. [modern media before war attacks]
    2. Pull leaders and prominent members of leading society echelons of opponent's country into criminality. [provocations]
    3. Undermine their good name. At proper time expose them to a disdain of their countrymen. [character assassination, nowadays due to modern media more efficient than ever]
    4. Get a cooperation of the most wicked and abominable persons. [criminals and modern media 'icons']
    5. By all means disorganize the efficiency of opponent's government. [or replace it by bureaucracies like EU]
    6. Sow passions and disagreements among citizens of opponent state. [modern media and politics]
    7. Pit youngsters against elders. [modern media and education system]
    8. Ridicule traditions of your opponents. [modern media, current India is a great example]
    9. By all means introduce a chaos into rear, logistics and armies of opponent. [sabotage, disinfo]
    10. Weaken the will of opponent's soldiers by sensuous songs and alcohol. [entertainment ('bread and games'), drugs]
    11. Send prostitutes to complete the destructive work. [including STD]
    12. Don't economize on promises and gifts to get information. Don't regret money because money so spent will return a hundred times. [huge amount of money goes into this agenda]
    13. Infiltrate your spies everywhere. [cameras, satellites, etc.]"

    ???did you say "in ISKCON-related discourse" or did you mean "in ISKCON", or "by ISKCON"? these sound like the guidelines for establishing supremacy of your "guru" during the zonal acarya period.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     
    raj108: Not sure what exactly made you confused. If you specify, I'll try to elaborate.

    Janmastami P.: I purposely said "in ISKCON-related discourse". Don't personally remember ZA period but from what I know about it have no reason to disagree with you. Otoh, I've identified ritvik strategy in points 1,2,3,5,6,8 and 9. These are all materialistic ways which should be absent among devotees.
    • CommentAuthorKyros
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     
    VEDA prabhu (mataji?), I don't see where you get #9 from.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     
    re: #9 -- Misinformation and preaching to the 'rear' ranks of the devotees is a common tactic of the enemies of the movement. That includes -- taking quotes out of context, using misunderstanding to flame passions of resentment, suggestive implication that anyone who is a leader must be wrong, because of some other wrongs, making any mistake of leadership into a cause of failure instead of a ''pillar of success'' as Prabhupada wanted, etc. Is it right Veda Prabhu. (do you still wear glasses? have not seen you since '96:)
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     
    Kyros P.: There's a recent example (2 weeks ago) from Prague. One lady, a rather fresh devotee, was talking on FB with another devotee who was first posing as if from ISKCON but then started preaching ritvikism to her, telling her how her guru is off, etc. She was pretty dismayed and confused, not coming into contact with ritviks before. This covert approach reminds me of JWs.

    ccd: yep
    • CommentAuthordeena
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2009
     
    VEDA:I've identified ritvik strategy in points 1,2,3,5,6,8 and 9. These are all materialistic ways which should be absent among devotees.
    Regarding these materialistic strategies, remember that most of them are taught, promoted and encouraged in the in the Manu-samhita and Mahabharata as bonafide and essential strategies in managing a kingdom, i.e. sowing dissension, sending spies, using gifts and bribery, ridiculing opponents. Note also that some of these strategies are used in spreading Krishna consciousness to preach against materialism; i.e discredit the opposition, undermine good name, ridicule leaders, gifts and bribery, ridicule traditions. So in and of themselves the strategies are not bad. As always, it's the motive behind the performer that counts.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     
    Sure, motive counts. When used they must be solidly based on facts. Otherwise they won't work in a long run and will turn against us. It's like a walk on a blade.
    I myself don't use ad hominem in the form of discrediting or ridiculing.
  7.  
    [quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite] There's a recent example (2 weeks ago) from Prague. One lady, a rather fresh devotee, was talking on FB with another devotee who was first posing as if from ISKCON but then started preaching ritvikism to her, telling her how her guru is off, etc. She was pretty dismayed and confused, not coming into contact with ritviks before. This covert approach reminds me of JWs.[/quote]
    ============

    Veda, there are mistakes on all sides. Not hard to find mistakes. One should learn to see good in others. Devotee is like a bee.

    I'm sure, if you try a bit, you will be able to find good even in actions of those ISKCON devotees, who are being demonized by the label "ritvik".

    BTW, your points from your list could be applied also to some actions of some GBCs. It is not that mistakes are copyright of ritviks, and GBC proponents are imune to making any mistakes.

    Try to see good, become a bee, and your life will be a much happier one.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009
     
    Giri-nayaka P., the talk is not about mistakes but patterns, tactics. 'Wolf in sheep's clothes' mentioned above being just one of them.
    I can see good in devotees who accepted ritvikism out of frustration and lack of information, i.e. became its victims. But I have no respect whatsoever for those running their agendas based on envy, hate and greed. The effect of aparadha is full-fledged in their case. Unfortunately, they don't seem to believe in it. That's maya apahrta jnana.
    Being like a bee doesn't apply in case of apasiddhanta and adharma in general. They have to be opposed by all means, otherwise one gets implicated.
  8.  
    [quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Giri-nayaka P., the talk is not about mistakes but patterns, tactics. 'Wolf in sheep's clothes' mentioned above being just one of them.
    I can see good in devotees who accepted ritvikism out of frustration and lack of information, i.e. became its victims. But I have no respect whatsoever for those running their agendas based on envy, hate and greed. The effect of aparadha is full-fledged in their case. Unfortunately, they don't seem to believe in it. That's maya apahrta jnana.
    Being like a bee doesn't apply in case of apasiddhanta and adharma in general. They have to be opposed by all means, otherwise one gets implicated.[/quote]
    ==============

    ok, ok.... I can see that you are full of determination to expose all those who are 'Wolf in sheep's clothes' , their "patterns, tactics".... You say you have no respect whatsoever for those running their agendas based on envy, hate and greed, those full-fledged aparadhis. Although they don't consider themselves to be so. But, as you say, that's "maya apahrta jnana"... As you say, "Being like a bee doesn't apply in case of apasiddhanta and adharma in general." They have to be opposed by all means, I see what you mean.

    Well, it seems you are from Czech yatra. Why bothering with ritviks at all, they are few and confused anyway. BUT, your own GBC's group could be well approached with your determined approach. You would have plenty of work to do cleaning the Prague, for example, including Czech GBC representative. Ritviks are far and weak, why are you even bothering. Do the cleaning where it is really needed - in front of your own door. By demonizing ritviks left and right, the GBC courtyard will not get any cleaner.

    Sorry, but I will not accept any biased fanatical statements from anybody, who is demanding purity from some, but is actually screaming out of his self inflicted repressed environment. You are well conditioned by GBC system (and especially the Czech version of it, which is a kind of weirdness in itself), and all your anti-ritvik ranting may as well be just result of your own feeling of repression within GBC system. Are you sure you are right? Are you sure you are not misled? I mean' it's not like you never made mistake before, is it?

    Why not take a bit of distance from GBC system, and their numerous, numerous nonsense. Be fair judge. Put GBC's and ritvik's side by side, and judge them from a bit of distance. You may be surprised about who is more into "apasiddhanta and adharma in general", "running their agendas based on envy, hate and greed", and who needs to be "opposed by all means, otherwise one gets implicated".
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2009 edited
     
    Veda: "I can see good in devotees who accepted ritvikism out of frustration and lack of information, i.e. became its victims."

    Why say "victims?" I came to ISKCON totally fired-up based on what I read in Srila Prabhupada's books, in other words knowing the philosophy but not the mess that was made of it after Nov. 77. Then I saw how badly things went under the modern gurus' rule (I moved to New Vrindavana in 1997 thinking it a "farm community" since it said so in the temple listing in the back of B.g.) and I left the movement feeling horrible and confused. After a while I embraced Srila Prabhupada's teachings again and tried a second time. Then I accepted an ISKCON guru and it quickly went downhill real bad and stayed that way for years. When I eventually looked at the rtvik side and saw that the evidence supports their view, I felt happier about Krishna consciousness than I had since I first stepped into a temple. Now I'm practically certain Srila Prabhupada arranged to continue being the diksa guru for ISKCON, and I'm doing very well considering my situation.

    At least in my personal history, trusting the GBC has always hurt my Krishna consciousness, and trusting Srila Prabhupada has always helped it. So I don't see how I can be called a victim of rtvikism; more like a somewhat rescued victim of the GBC.
  9.  
    Veda: >>>One lady, a rather fresh devotee, was talking on FB with another devotee who was first posing as if from ISKCON>>>>

    Veda Prabhu, Why do you think that devotee mentioned in this example does not belong to ISKCON. What makes us part of ISKCON, what is your definition of ISKCON?
    Thank you.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     
    Giri-nayaka P., you're shifting the debate. If you want to talk about GBC deviations, it'd belong to another thread. However, I don't know how this fits the purpose of Pariprashnena. Seems like Pariprashnena recently went the same political way as many other devotee forums, despite it's hopeful statement to avoid politics.

    Let's differentiate between philosophical deviations from the norm and less than ideal practice of the norm. Otherwise we'll get to the old false argument 'Church is corrupt therefore religion is off'.

    You've overlooked what I said above: 'There are more positions than just outright pro- and outright anti-ISKCON.' Still, you label me without knowing me. Funny.

    Pandu P., your approach is not philosophically-sastric but 'I take what I like'. Then anything goes. Do you really trust Srila Prabhupada as you say? In his books, lectures or conversations there's no ritvikism. If that's not good enough, what can I do.

    Alchemical: There may be more definitions of ISKCON depending on time, place and circumstances. In this case, the official rejection of post-samadhi ritvik doctrine in 1999 GBC resolution defines everyone related to it as out of ISKCON, the organization established by Srila Prabhupada.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsitapati
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     
    I think for a lot of people it comes down to this: they know that Srila Prabhupada is never going to fall down, so they have faith in him. Any other living person they cannot be so sure about, so they are attracted to putting their faith principally in Srila Prabhupada. Present-day ISKCON's official stance on the role of Srila Prabhupada and the ritvik idea are very close. The idea is to "put Prabhupada in the center". Turning it into an -ism introduces other dynamics.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     
    Veda,

    Thanks for summing your opinion of my approach. [/sarcasm] It's a nice trick when you can't defeat the arguments I've made. You say that "I take what I like," but early in this discussion you admitted that the July 9 letter and Srila Prabhupada's Last Will both support the rtvik view as you were dismissing them.

    "In his books, lectures or conversations there's no ritvikism." He appears to have made the decision in early 1977. At that point it was mostly conversations. There is evidence from statements much earlier in ISKCON's years that Srila Prabhupada optimistically hoped for a successor, but he never indicated that he'd found one. He said he wanted one moon, not many stars, for example. Just as you say there's no record of him propounding rtvikism (if we conveniently disregard the July 9 letter and other evidence), there is also no record of him naming a successor. There is also no record of him describing the transition of rtviks to zonal acaryas would take place, and no record of him explaining how multiple diksa gurus would function under the authority of the GBC. Whatever one believes Srila Prabhupada intended, all this is missing.

    That "missing" seems important. There is a surprising lack of tapes available from 1977. I have heard many devotees reference to tapes that have been locked away or destroyed, and heard from Srila Prabhupada's disciples saying numbers as high as 150 tapes are missing. We know for certain that at least some conversations on the rtvik subject are missing from recordings. For example, in the July 7 conversation they end up with 9 rtviks by the end, but the July 9 leter lists 11 names. Therefore there must have been another conversation in the interim whereby two more rtviks were named, but there is no recording of that available.

    Beyond that, Satsvarupa's _Lilamrta_ mentions a brahmacari fanning Srila Prabhupada during a conversation on July 7. (I'm taking that date from memory now, but I think it's correct.) Gauridas Prabhu was reportedly serving in that capacity at that time, and he says he was in fact the one described. He says he heard Srila Prabhupada say that he wanted to remain the diksa guru operating through rtviks, or something to that effect (my paraphrasing here). Similarly Bhaktiviabhava Puri Maharaj is quoted as saying that Srila Prabhupada told him, "I have not selected. Only rtviks to act in my place now."

    Also, in the matter of rtvik supporters being "out of ISKCON," the 1999 resolution uses the term "in good standing." There are many ways a devotee may not be in good standing but not be considered "out of ISKCON." At what point would you say I became "out of ISKCON?" When I first looked at the rtvik issue with an open mind, when I began arguing on the rtvik side for the sake of finding out the best opposing arguments, or when I became relatively convinced to a certain degree? You may also note that the 1999 resolutions established an Executive Committee addressing this and applying certain steps of discipline and rectification. Are you on this committee? Was the devotee you referred to the subject of any action by this committee? If not, then you are out of place in describing him as out of ISKCON. Similarly I have not been notified of any action against me by this committee, and I continue to serve to my top capacity at my local ISKCON temple. So who do you think you are to say that someone is out of ISKCON based on your own whims? Perhaps you'd like to call the local temple president and have him take away my service and ban me from the property.

    Funny though that the same 1999 resolutions ban the overglorification of ISKCON gurus, but these rules are ignored. For example, last night I happened to see the Facebook fan page for Jayapataka Swami Acaryapada and the web page for Hrdayananda Swami www.acaryadev.com (who's "Understanding Srila Prabhupada Correctly" video blatantly criticizes Srila Prabhupada, but that's OK), both in violation of ISKCON Law 6.4.8.2. So I guess it's OK to violate ISKCON law if one is a voted-in guru but not to favor Srila Prabhupada.

    Actually that overglorification of gurus seems like a tangent at first, but in fact it's important. It is an example of the power struggle between the GBC and the diksa gurus, which exists because Srila Prabhupada never explained how multiple gurus would share authority with the GBC or in fact never explained how multiple diksa gurus would function in ISKCON at all. Perhaps that's because it is not what he intended.
    •  
      CommentAuthoradmin
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     
    VEDA:Giri-nayaka P., you're shifting the debate. If you want to talk about GBC deviations, it'd belong to another thread. However, I don't know how this fits the purpose of Pariprashnena. Seems like Pariprashnena recently went the same political way as many other devotee forums, despite it's hopeful statement to avoid politics. .
    Could you please be more specific where you see our terms of service violated and we´ll do the needful.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsitapati
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     
    admin:
    VEDA:Giri-nayaka P., you're shifting the debate. If you want to talk about GBC deviations, it'd belong to another thread. However, I don't know how this fits the purpose of Pariprashnena. Seems like Pariprashnena recently went the same political way as many other devotee forums, despite it's hopeful statement to avoid politics. .
    Could you please be more specific where you see our terms of service violated and we´ll do the needful.
    This is more like a debate than honest questioning. If nothing else each person could question to explore and understand the perspective of the others. Also, you could try advocating each other's positions, rather than simply trying to impose your own. No-one is qualify to refute the position of another until they can present it to their opponent's satisfaction - and that doesn't mean a sarcastic strawman, which is making a too frequent appearance here.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsitapati
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     
    As my contribution:

    The issue of how to structure a society based on Vedic principles within an existing society is not a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue. Anything involving multiple people is always going to be complex, because people are individuals. Any society has a shifting center of balance as competing interests and needs vie for ascendancy. This is natural.

    The disciplic succession, established by Krishna Himself, is not immune to the environmental factors of the material world. This is why in Bhagavad-gita He states that over time it is lost, and He must return to re-establish it.

    To demonstrate some of the complexity of the situation, which is too often rendered down into two simple, opposing ideological positions, I would like to tell of one aspect.

    Srila B.R. Sridhara is claimed as both a proponent of ritvikism and also as a proponent of the Zonal Acarya system (even "its architect") by different people.

    In terms of claming him as a ritvik proponent, his words (quoted in the book "Sermons of the Guardian of Devotion") are cited:

    "With this I transfer these beads; from now he [Govinda Maharaja] will do so on my behalf as ritvik. The ritvik system is already involved both here and in the foreign land. The ritvik is the representative, so if you want to take [initiation] from me and you take from his hand then it will be as well and as good as taking from me. In the maha mandal [earth] Sargar Maharaja [formerly Akshayananda Swami] and many others, they are also ritviks of Swami Maharaja [Srila Prabhupada] and also myself and they may do so. But in this Math he, Govinda Maharaja will be the representative. Henceforth he will represent me in this affair beginning from today's function.

    Now I shall go from here, [depart the material world] he will do the necessary on my behalf. He will give Hari Nama diksa, sanyasa and everything."

    As a counter point to this, the transcripts of the conversations between Srila Sridhara Maharaja and the ISKCON leaders who went to see him after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance (which can be found in Srila B.A. Paramadvaiti Swami's book "The Search for Purity") paint a fuller picture.

    Srila Sridhara Maharaja tells how after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, all the disciples met to decide what to do. One disciple made an impassioned speech that no-one was fit to occupy the post of acarya after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. He advocated some kind of ritvik system. After he finished speaking everyone looked to Srila Sridhara Maharaja, who said: "I agree with everything that you have said. I will add only one more thing: We are not Sikhs."

    With this he was referring to the elevation of Guru Nanak to the position occupied by Jesus Christ in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. It represents a transformation of the essential dynamic of transmission of Vedic knowledge and culture from guru to disciple.

    There are faults in everything, and no matter which way you look at it there will be some discrepancy. But the clear message was: "Tradition, for all thy fault and our inability to do it perfectly, I still love thee. We have to uphold the tradition as best we can, because that is what we pass on to the next generation, as well as the knowledge that travels through this tradition."

    When the ISKCON leaders approached Srila Sridhara Maharaja for advice after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada, he attempted to advise them based on his experience of the post-Prabhupada Gaudiya Math.

    Some of his advice was used to justify the Zonal Acarya System, and some of it, which could have ameliorated the excesses of that system, was ignored and suppressed.

    For example, he suggested, after some discussion, that rather than having the pranam mantra of a particular successor guru sung in kirtan in a temple, the non-sectarian "om ajnana" mantra could be used, followed by Srila Prabhuapda's pranam mantra. In this way the disciples of all successor gurus could think of their guru when they sung the mantra, and no-one would be overly discriminated against or for.

    He also recommended that successor gurus should not occupy Srila Prabhupada's seat in his temples, but should always sit on a lower seat. They should open their own temples where they could demonstrate in practice their spiritual potency, and receive an appropriate reciprocal recognition and status. In this way unqualified persons riding on Srila Prabhupada's reputation and running the goodwill and momentum of ISKCON into the ground could be avoided.

    This advice, and other advice like it, was discarded, and chosen parts of his advice were presented and implemented, and devotees forbidden to speak to him directly.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsitapati
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     
    We are all aware of the problems of Zonal Acarya excess. By creating a system that embues more power into a single person that they are qualified to manage, the whole thing becomes perverted and a parody of real spirituality.

    On the other hand, the excess of Ritvikism is the removal of a personal relationship between a teacher and a student, with the attendant accountability that comes from that.

    Either one of these represents an unhealthy swing to an extreme.
    Srila Sridhara's advice and his approach, based on his experience, indicates a mature understanding of the situation - it's fluid. There are competing concerns that need to be balanced, and there needs to be healthy discussion and consideration of those points and how to address them, rather than a recourse to pre-cooked absolute ideologies and religious fundamentalism. We are talking about complex situations involving individuals and the transition from one social structure to another.

    The present idea in ISKCON is closer to Srila Sridhara's original advice than the Zonal Acarya system. Position should be matched to qualification, and the system should support that. Practically speaking the ability to ascend to a higher position than warranted based on Srila Prabhupada's reputation has been severely curtailed as the good will and reputation of the organisation have been spent into the ground by previous persons.

    There are still problems. The strength of the guru-disciple relationship and tradition of parampara is in the relationship of accountability between the guru and disciple. Flying around initiating disciples and then not taking care of them is like having children all over the place and not maintaining or raising them.

    It "Ritvikism" an answer to this?

    It depends on what you mean by "Ritvikism". If you mean a particular ideology or political rallying point, then the answer is no. Too often the ideas of ritvikism have been subordinate to a political struggle for power and influence within ISKCON.

    If on the other hand you mean the idea that each initiating guru should think of himself as the humble servant of Srila Prabhupada and doing it on his behalf, then I think this will go a long way to helping. If you mean a system where we have support structures in place to help each initiated disciple to grow and progress in Krishna Consciousness after initiation, then sure.

    However, I don't think that we need to call it "Ritvikism vs Zonal Acarya" - it seems to me to be just a case of "I am the doer and the enjoyer" vs "I am the humble servant and this is my service - let me do it properly". Either of those mentalities can manifest in any political system.

    So again, I think the situation is more complex than a simple battle between "good and evil", "democracy and communism", "zonal acarya-ism and ritvikism". We need to drop the -isms and discuss the actual issues more, and search for real solutions which involve a reformation of internal consciousness, and not the top-down application of yet another political system or adoption of another ideological label as the silver bullet.

    My 10c.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009
     
    Why should anyone have to go outside of ISKCON for an answer for how to obey Srila Prabhupada's order for initiations? Satsvarupa, representing the GBC, asked him directly on May 28, 1977. Obviously the matter wasn't clear from his prior conversations, books, letters, etc., or there would have been no need to ask. So he was asked, but unfortunately the tape has been determined by the GBC's own professional analyst to be unreliable, showing signs of possible tampering. I don't know why they won't provide the original tape for forensics, but it suggests they have something to hide. In any case it does not matter because the subject of the May 28 conversation is undisputed -- how to conduct initiations after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance. The other fact that is indisputable is that the July 9 letter begins by referencing that conversation, and this can only mean that it is an official written promulgation answering the same question. I don't see how it can be any other way, and so far no one has even offered a challenge to this reasoning. Hare Krishna.
    • CommentAuthorAlchemical
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2009 edited
     
    Pandu Prabhu, you said:

    >>>>as high as 150 tapes are missing

    >>>>>>>Similarly Bhaktiviabhava Puri Maharaj is quoted as saying that Srila Prabhupada told him, "I have not selected. Only rtviks to act in my place now."

    >>>>>Satsvarupa, representing the GBC, asked him directly on May 28, 1977. Obviously the matter wasn't clear from his prior conversations, books, letters, etc., or there would have been no need to ask. So he was asked, but unfortunately the tape has been determined by the GBC's own professional analyst to be unreliable, showing signs of possible tampering. I don't know why they won't provide the original tape for forensics, but it suggests they have something to hide. In any case it does not matter because the subject of the May 28 conversation is undisputed -- how to conduct initiations after Srila Prabhupada's disappearance. The other fact that is indisputable is that the July 9 letter begins by referencing that conversation, and this can only mean that it is an official written promulgation answering the same question>>>>>>>>

    Pandu Prabhu, Even if all this is true, and present Guru system is a lie, because it is not what Srila Prabhupada ordered. We need to understand that this lie has been spoken for last 30 years. 30 years is a long time and if a lie is spoken for 30 years, it becomes the truth. Who is going to listen now. Implementing Ritvik system in ISKCON means all the Gurus are out of their profession and that too when they are either in old age or approaching old age. This proposal can not sound sweet to their ears. Second, all Gurus and their disciples are nicely situated in this established system. Though there are some exceptions, some disciples who are not happy but majority of disciples are accustomed, used to this system.

    If we will be having this discussion in 1977, it will make more sense. But now it is already 2009. Implementing ritvik system now will be disturbing the whole balance of society. First Ritviks do not have the required support of devotees, and even somehow they manage to gain the support of devotees, there are thousands of devotees who will have to give up their relationships with their gurus, revoke their diksha status. It can not be done practically. What has been done in last 30 years, it can not be undone now.

    So what is the point in arguing about Ritvik system when we all know that it will never be implemented in present ISKCON.

    Eventually, purity will be the deciding factor for the future. If Gurus will not follow the principles of purity, they will not be able to last for long just because they have the support of shastras. And same goes with the Ritviks, if they lift their spiritual standard rather than criticizing others, become the shining bright sun of purity, there is no reason why they will not be able to attract followers.

    Veda Prabhu: >>>> Otoh, I've identified ritvik strategy in points 1,2,3,5,6,8 and 9.>>>>>>

    But if someone thinks because he is a Guru or leader, so he has got the license to condemn others and call all sort of bad names to others (whether Ritviks or followers of Narayana Maharaja),then they should not be complaining if others do the same to them.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     
    Pandu P., I didn't notice any solid arguments of yours. No g-s-s, no practice in established sampradayas, only two docs meant to overthrow all the previous standard Vaishnava teachings of SP.

    > There is evidence from statements much earlier in ISKCON's years that Srila Prabhupada optimistically hoped for a successor,

    One of those much earlier statements: "Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program." (Letter to Hamsaduta, LA Jan 3, 1969)

    > one moon, not many stars

    This simply means that one pure devotee is better than hundreds of neophytes. BSST also said it.

    > There is also no record of him describing the transition of rtviks to zonal acaryas would take place, and no record of him explaining how multiple diksa gurus would function under the authority of the GBC. Whatever one believes Srila Prabhupada intended, all this is missing.

    My understanding is that due to his ill health and inexperience of his disciples with legal matters the successorship issue was very much neglected.

    Gauridas's testimony was challenged. You can look up details.

    Talk about missing tapes and their possible content is useless unless they're found. Before that it's only a conspiration theory.

    > Similarly Bhaktiviabhava Puri Maharaj is quoted as saying that Srila Prabhupada told him, "I have not selected. Only rtviks to act in my place now."

    "Now" = before tirobhava. So this "now" specifies "henceforward".

    One who is not in "good standing" can't fulfil any official functions in ISKCON.
    Membership in an organization means to accept its philosophy. If someone doesn't want that, why should he remain in? If you think ISKCON deviated from a proper path (ritvikism), why do you support it by your service? To me it's a contradiction. Or?

    > Similarly I have not been notified of any action against me by this committee

    Then contact them to get their position in writing.

    Overglorification of ISKCON gurus was greatly reduced in the last 20 years. It'd require some kind of police to search for 'guru fans' all around the net and discipline them. Hope you see the infeasibility of this idea.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009
     
    > Could you please be more specific where you see our terms of service violated and we´ll do the needful.

    1. Keep the posts short.
    2. Do not use the forum for endless debates, just post your contribution and let
    everyone use it (or not).

    These two are violated in "is sampradaya sun a ritvik site?", "If one accepts Srila Prabhupad as his guru, is there a need of intiation(ritvik)", "The "I am a Prabhupada disciple" card" threads.

    Besides, your earlier requests are also not followed:

    admin
    Aug 25th 2007

    Please use this forum as a humble question and answer facility (pariprashnena). No censorship on (related) themes or comments.

    But, if we see someone using the forum as a way to advance or impose own agenda on others we will act. Same goes for personal evaluations that cover no purpose.

    Thank you.

    admin
    Oct 10th 2007

    Tulsiananda and govindas108, you are repeatedly hammering the same theme at any opportunity. If you have a cause to advance we recommend you open your own website and make your theme available to the world. Otherwise Pariprashnena becomes a political means, not a questions and answer medium. Your questions aimed at advancing your position will be deleted. Please stick to the rules and stop making this site your "preaching" field.

    admin
    Dec 27th 2007

    Some users insist on "asking" questions to provoke a response to advance their mission whatever it may be.
    When admins delete them they get upset and accuse us of narrow minded, biased or God knows what else.
    Please understand we have delimited this site for questions that you do not know the answer in the spirit of pariprashnena.
    Any effort to advance a mission is not condemned but has its own place on the net.
    Hope this helps further clarify what is stated in the terms of service.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009 edited
     
    Alchemical: Let them follow Prabhupada who didn't condemn anyone but his deviant disciples, materialistic scientists, mayavadis and apasiddhantas. I don't recall him calling bad names anyone.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPandu das
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009 edited
     
    Veda,

    It's obvious that I'm wasting my time talking with you about this. What's the point of repeating the same arguments again when you're obvoiusly set on keeping your predetermined conclusion. I suppose you'd like to sit on the guru throne yourself one day.



    As for why I continue to serve in ISKCON...

    It's funny, I was criticized by ISKCON devotees for failing to act as though the gurus have no fault even though a serious fault was apparent; and I'm also criticized for trying to work with them to glorify Krishna despite any faults or disagreements. I guess I won't be accepted as a real devotee until I forget Srila Prabhupada and become a totally blind follower of a GBC-authorized guru.



    Lol.
    •  
      CommentAuthorccd
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2009 edited
     
    It is funny how tradition and sastra just does not stick to the western mindset (and combined with video mobile phones look funny as well). One can only smile on overemphasis of diksa -- Prabhupada did not care about diksa process so much - as we discovered... He stressed instructions of Krsna and following it. Why are we so much hung up on diksa? Are we some quasi-disciples of Sridhara Maharaja of Navadvipa (as Sitapati pr. suggests in a way). In any case - be one an impersonalist-like-ritvikvadi or thinking oneself to be a big-acharya, whatever pitfalls one gets into, there is a way out - devotee association and discussion of Bhagavatam and Gita together. Try it and you will give up taste for Sampredicament Sin and its spinoffs.

    So stop this obsession and resulting looped discussion with diksa roles and duties, it is not central. Bhakti process is, so avoid offenses to both camps and just associate with devotees without reservations and without projecting your own misunderstandings on others.

    Real enemies are:

    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2009
     
    Pandu P.,

    > What's the point of repeating the same arguments again when you're obvoiusly set on keeping your predetermined conclusion.

    np, please repeat any gss-based arguments anytime for our purification.

    > I suppose you'd like to sit on the guru throne yourself one day.

    You suppose wrongly. But if you think to be a guru means sitting on a throne then it'd explain why you didn't provide any solid pramana so far.

    > I was criticized by ISKCON devotees for failing to act as though the gurus have no fault even though a serious fault was apparent;

    There's a procedure for such cases in ISKCON Laws.

    > and I'm also criticized for trying to work with them to glorify Krishna despite any faults or disagreements.

    By whom?

    > I guess I won't be accepted as a real devotee until I forget Srila Prabhupada

    Says who? Forgetting Srila Prabhupada is not an option. We can't repay him what he gave us.

    > and become a totally blind follower of a GBC-authorized guru.

    No. Blind followers fall into a ditch (SB 7.5.31, Mundaka Upanisad 1.2.8).

    Why arguing against strawmen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

    And if you want to see an example of 'tu quoque' fallacy, look at the last text of Giri-nayaka P. in this thread.
    •  
      CommentAuthorVEDA
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2009
     
    ccd: Agreed. I'm suprised that Pariprashnena remained free from politics for almost two years. Would be nice to keep it as such for the benefit of all devotees.
 
Powered By ISKCON Tech