Guruvani

but, the examples in shastra are of faith leading the experience. these people that want the experience first before they believe are the ones with the wrong idea. God reveals to the faithfull. He doesn't reveal to the atheist to convince the atheist to believe. so, I think you are not understand the point I was trying to make. I am saying that the faith must come first and then the experience. Those who want the experience first before they believe are not the one's that God reveals himself to. I get an experience every time I chant some rounds on beads. I get proof everytime I chant. If others don't then I am sorry about that.

So, the "VEDIC" rule is that a brahmana cannot accept a servant from amongst the lower classes. That is the "VEDIC" tradition. Mahaprabhu showed however that a Vaishnava is already a brahmana by quality and can thus be accepted for initiation by a brahmana. The "VEDIC" rule that prohibits the brahmana from initiating lower class men is relevant to the Varnashrama system that also contains karma-kanda and jnana-kanda prescriptions. The Vedas don't deal ONLY with Vishnu-bhakti. They also contain systems of karma-kanda, jnana-kanda - dharma, artha, karma and moksha and the worship of different devatas. But, Mahaprabhu showed that the Vaishnava system is beyond the common principles of the Vedas dealing with Varnashram. He showed that there are rules and regulations in the Vedas which must be rejected from the Vaishnava system of spiritual realization. So, Mahaprabhu was a revolutionary. He rocked the boat of the Hindu culture. He began the resistance movement that faught against the dogma of the caste brahmans that have a long history in Indian society going back thousands of years. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur struck the death-blow to this caste brahmanism that had even managed to pollute the Nityananda vamsha of the Gaudiya tradition. Since then, the monopoly has been broken and Vaishnavas from all over the world are getting proper recognition as brahmanas in India and around the world.

I have never heard any description that each cell of the body has a soul. The cells in the body get their LIFE from the soul of the human being. The soul of the body spreads it's conciousness throughout the body through blood circulation. So, body cells appear to have life because of the consciousness of the human soul. Atoms appear to have life, but do they have a soul?(other than the Superoul?) There is an inferior energy that Lord Krishna describes in Bhagavad-gita. Not all "energy" is the superior energy of the jivatama. There is a lot of energy of the inferior nature. All energy is not para-prakriti. There is prakriti as well.

It's not a matter of chance. The Paramatma Supersoul decides the next birth and the next body. The souls are all sparks of his effulgence and the Supersoul decides who gets what body in their next birth. So, the whole goal is to please the Lord in the heart so that he will gives us a suitable body for performing devotional service. Bhaktivinode prayed that at the least he wanted to be a bug in the house of Vaishnava.

yep, you have it all figured out. now, go away...... Find some atheist forum to haunt. Devotees are not supposed to listen to people like you. go.................get lost................. bye bye.............

I read something somewhere that souls come down in rain and enter into grains and then enter into sperm from that. but, that was I think a description of souls falling from higher planets. I don't know if that applies to all souls or not. to me it makes sense that the sperm is the material seed and then when the sperm and egg combine there is the first chance for a soul to enter a body. the body starts when the egg and sperm combine. a don't see how a sperm alone can support life. It takes sperm and egg to start the body that supports life.

One needs intelligence and above all faith to understand the truth of God. It's not something that could be or should be validated by so-called experiences. If your intelligence does not create faith in your heart, then you will be hard pressed to understand God even if some miracle happens in your life. You shouldn't look for miracles or signs. You should try to understand God with your intelligence and your faith. Faith is something that comes natural for many people. Faith is something that is repulsive to many people. Faith generally comes from pious works and good deeds. People without strong faith are most likely lacking in pious deeds and good work. Then with natural faith, when we meet spiritual masters we can recognise them and learn from them the higher truths and mysteries of life.

If you have a guru and you can't honestly accept him as non-different than Krishna, then you don't have a real guru. If you don't accept that, then you don't have a guru. You have a pet.

the hearts of many people are like a jungle. so, yes, God lives in the jungle. People go to the jungle to get away from society and become introspective. Many cities of the world are "concrete jungles". In fact the whole material world is a jungle of illusion. God lives in the jungles, in the cities and in the germs. God lives everywhere, but nobody can see him. When the eyes are smeared with the ointment of love of Krishna, then you can see Krishna in the jungle or in the city.

Well folks, the followers of Narayan Maharaja consistently come on the forums and attempt to "debunk" ritvik or assault ritvik or decry the ritviks. They simply refuse to leave ritviks alone. They want everyone to follow Narayana Maharaja. They say that if ISKCON and the whole Krishna consciousness movement doesn't bow to the supremecy of Narayan Maharaja that ISKCON will never amount to anything. So, they keep the ritvik battle going. When they learn to respect the faith of others then maybe there can be peace. As long as they come on the forums and say ritvik is bogus and Narayana Maharaja is the ONLY WAY, then of course they are just begging for a fight. then, of course, they want to blame the whole situation on the ritvik proponents. they are of course deluded by their own arrogance. live and let live. But, they refuse to accept that. as such................ the war rages on. see, the ritvik system is an obstacle to the goals of Narayana Maharaja and his followers to take over the Krishna consciousness movement. As long as there is an alternative to the fallen guru system of ISKCON, these anti-ritviks aren't happy because they don't want there to be any alternative to the ISKCON fallen guru system except of course their Narayana Maharaja. as such, they are very much against the ritvik system and allowing another generation of devotees to accept Srila Prabhupada as spiritual master. they insist that the next generation of devotees must follow Narayana Maharaja because they all think they are better than everyone else. they are not. it's just false ago.

Narayana Maharaja went to war with the ritviks. They faught back. They are still fighting back. If Narayana Maharaja hadn't started the war, there would be no war with Narayana Maharaja. You can't blame the enemy if YOU start a war with them. the best thing would have just been to let others believe what they believe. attacking the beliefs of the ritviks was just begging for war and he got one. Nobody told him he had to be a ritvik. What were they supposed to do? Lay down and take it?

but, if it weren't for ISKCON and it's thugs Narayana Maharaja wouldn't be jagat-guru now. so, Narayana Maharaja owes ISKCON and it's thugs a big debt of gratitude. I think in the process of spreading Krishna consciousness around the whole world, ISKCON had relatively little scandal and controversy. The bell-ringers in India certainly couldn't accomplish anything. ISKCON succeeded beyond measure. A handful of men created a BIG scandal. The majority if ISKCON devotees were good folks. Narayana Maharaja became jagat guru off of some remnants of ISKCON. so, ISKCON is the best.

But Narayana Maharaja just initiates a lot of devotees, though he is not doing anything to provide for their ongoing support. He has no temples and no structure and just dumps disciples back into society with nothing. I don't see that as any kind of success formula. It looks to me like a cheating process. Srila Prabhupada arranged for temples and ashrams for his disciples. Narayan Maharaja just bops around the world initiating people without any kind of support structure. That is not preaching as far as I am concerned. It's not about "society" it's about the association of devotees. Narayan Maharaja is not doing anything to develop any temples or ashrams. Initiating disciples without providing for temples and ashrams is a scam in my book. I guess he is just banking on ISKCON to someday absord all his people, but I don't think that will ever happen. He is leaving behind a movement without any foundation. It's built on a wish and a prayer. Srila Prabhupada didn't operate like that.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism shining in the west is about as bright as a birthday candle in a coal mine. The west needs a lot more illumination than is currently being generated by the defunct Hare Krishna movement. The lights went out when Srila Prabhupada left and they haven't come back on since. Now, all we have are some lightening bugs in the night. We need the Sun to come back up.

But, I try to deal in facts not opinions. the fact is that Sridhar Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada both used the ritvik system. You say it is bogus. that is just your opinion. I have facts that Srila Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja both used ritvik systems. So, if anything is bogus I would say it is your OPINION. (but, I still love you)

And you are the mighty genius of Gaudiya siddhanta? Narayana Maharaja said he was a madhyama-adhikari. do you think he was telling a lie? Is he a liar?

It's Gaudiya siddhanta if an acharya like Sridhar Maharaja says it is. Sridhar Maharaja referred to Govinda Maharaja as an acharya and a ritvik in the same breath. That makes it siddhanta. You can't decide what is siddhanta and what isn't. That is for the self-realized acharyas to decide - not you.

You don't have the right or authority to say ritvik is bogus. Narayana Maharaja has proclaimed himself as a madhyama-adhikari AT BEST. So, if we accept his own words then he is not as good as the Gaudiya Acharyas because the Gaudiya acharyas were UTTAMA ADHIKARI. If Narayana Maharaja has declared himself as Madhyama-adhikari then he is just a sadhaka and not a siddha like Srila Prabhupada. I'll take him for his word that he is just a aspiring madhyama-adhikari trying to practice sadhana.

So, the representatives of the acharya are what? If you know the Gaudiya siddhanta you would know that all Vaishnavas are gurus. That doesn't exclude ritviks of the acharya. An ISKCON ritvik is the representative of Srila Prabhupada. Who can represent Srila Prabhupada besides a guru? Sridhar Maharaja said Govinda Maharaja was acharya and ritvik both. So, you can't be a ritvik unless you are an acharya.

A ritvik is a guru. Can a non-guru initiate devotees on behalf of the acharya. Ritviks are Vaishnavas. Who can initiate on behalf of the acharya? a demon? Your tradition is bogus from top to bottom, so why do you keep pretending it is anything except an empty formality? You don't know what Mahaprabhu wants. That is for the acharyas to decide, not you.

a ritvik is a guru. All Vaishnavas are guru. Why should a ritvik be considered non-guru? The ritvik is showing one the way to serve the acharya. That is a guru. A ritvik is a guru who initiated on behalf of the acharya. Ritviks don't come from the 7-11 store.

I don't remember Srila Prabhupada saying that the qualification for being ritvik was that one had to be unqualified? You people are the ones that say that a ritvik is unqualified. How can one represent the acharya and be unqualified? It's not our business to question why Srila Prabhupada instituted his ritvik system. It's just our concern that his instructions are followed. Qualified or unqualified is not the issue. The order of the acharya must be followed by those who claim to be his disciples. He appointed 11 ritviks. If you insist that they are unqualified, then that is your idea. Srila Prabhupada never said that a ritvik was a lesser Vaishnava - you did! In ISKCON the ritvik is the representative of the acharya. How is that a position for an unqualified person?

a love orgy would be better eh? But, that would get old fast. If we didn't argue my friend we wouldn't have anything to talk about!

of course that brings up the question of what is knowing Krishna in "truth". Krishna tattva. What exactly is "tattva". What does it meant to know Krishna in "truth". Tattva is most often understood to mean "reality". At what point does the devotee know Krishna in reality? Sometimes tattva is translated as "principle". So, it seems that there could be two ways of looking at this verse. Does the devotee have to know Krishna in "principle" or in "reality"? What is the difference between the two, if any?

check out this web site: http://www.thevedicfoundation.org/bhartiya_history/mahabharat.htm and this one: http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/2_bhartiya_civilization.htm and this one: