kaisersose

You can scream from rooftops, but that will not change a thing. Varna is by birth alone and it is made abundantly clear in scripture and has been accepted that for thousands of years. "Prabhupada said so" does not change things even a little bit. And who gives a damn what a forger like Bhakti Vinoda says? If anything, you should take offence at him for giving you false stories about how he discovered a Chaitanya Upanishad. Instead of dealing with your own unscrupulous Gurus, you are living in denial choosing to attack people who are showing you facts instead of fabricated stories. To me, that is a blatant display of lack of intelligence. It does no such thing. Show me how, if you know what you are talking about (which is highly doubtful). Else, I would advice you to keep your mouth shut and focus on matters you really know. Cheers

Dear Andy, If you used your eyes and your average intellect to read the post, it is not Raghu, but Baladeva Vidya Bhushana who says so. Now either you did not read the post before responding, which is bad enough or you read it and are pretending that Baladeva never took that position which is even worse. Either way, shame on you. You have a lot of cleanup to do within yourself before you preach to others on discussion forums. If you want to be taken seriously, first acknowledge whatever Baladeva has written about Shudras . As long as you pretend and ignore and tap dance, your posts on the topic are completely worthless. Cheers

In other words, you just called Madhva a barking dog. The problem here is inconsistency. As someone who does not care a hoot for Sampradaya and Parampara, you sure seem to get riled up when presented with the real facts. If you are angry at anyone, it should be at those people from your sampradaya who fed you a line about their "authenticity" since 1975. But strangely, it is the other way around! You are instead angry at those who are showing you the truth. And that too on a topic for which you do not care a hoot. Cheers

Most Matha swamis do not read english to check first hand what was written in the position paper. Their letters were a response based entirely on the storyline provided by Hare Krishnas who instead of dealing with facts, chose to complain to the Swamis about how Tattvavadis are "envious" of them. Apparently, this is what some people do when the truth is not on their side. Anyway, eventually the Pejavar Matha head released another letter asking iskcon to stop fabricating stories about how Chaitanya appeared in Madhva's dream, etc. Stories that were concocted by a luminary of that tradition - Bhakti Vinoda Thakur. Cheers

At India's population = 1.3 billion and counting, I dont see any danger to Sanatana Dharma/Hinduism in the conceivable future. It will undergo changes, yes as it has been for the last 2500 years. But it is not in any danger of becoming extinct. Cheers

I agree with both points. Cheers

Then why read the books since 1975? They cannot possibly contain anything useful as Krishna is inconceivable and everything in the book is conceivable? Cheers

Obviously he must be the latter as he holds a view that is hostile to your view. In spite of countless disparaging, condescending, arrogant, ad-hominem assertions by his distinguished colleagues, has anyone heard Beggar ever ask either of the below? - Is Theist a sincere seeker of truth or a person who derives pleasure in insulting others? - Is Shiva a sincere seeker of truth or a person who derives pleasure in insulting others? - Is Andy108 a sincere seeker of truth or a person who derives pleasure in insulting others? I bet, no one has and here is the single reason. To qualify as someone who "derives pleasure by insulting others" the necessary prerequisite is, the person should espouse views different from Beggar's own. Cheers

Mathematically speaking, The above post + ( you asking me for proof -> me showing you proof -> you going silient) = you concede your earlier positions that the Gaudiyas have a link to the Madhva sampradaya - neither by doctrine nor by magical diksha*. Let me know if I am wrong. *The Doctrine connection has been refuted because they are different. A real no-brainer, this one. The diksha connection is refuted because allowing such a connection, would also mean allowing a Hridayananda dasa to allow same sex couples Krishna Bhakti against the wishes of his Guru. So by similar logic, no diksha connection exists between Madhva and Prabhupada either. Cheers

Of course, everyone read the OP. But if you are looking for someone to show the guts to call a spade a spade, then you will be disappointed. Remember that you are talking to people who have cultivated denial into a fine art form. They will circumvent the truth any which way and continue doing what they have been all along. Cheers

Of course, people who point out flaws in your system and back them up real with evidence, must be hate mongers. What else can they possibly be? Here is the MO, 1) Argue in support of ridiculous assertions made by Gaudiyas. 2) Any argument goes..try all tricks in the book. For instance, 3) First try "Gaudiyas fully follow Madhva and add to his doctrine". 4) If that is countered, then try "the succession is through the mood, a mental/diksha connection" 5) If that is countered, then there are no more arguments left. Now take one of the following two positions. A) I personally never cared for the parampara system or B) These people are hate mongers. Let us put them on our ignore list and continue in our blissful state of ignorance and/or denial. So what else is new? Cheers

That is easy. 1) Did Prabhupada accept the concept of the varna of the soul? No. 2) Did Prabhupada interpret Brahman in "Brahmano hi Prathishta aham" as Laxmi? No 3) Did Prabhupada accept Madhva's position that Krishna is the avatar of Vishnu and not the other way around? No 4) Did Prabhupada accept the basis of Madhva's doctrine - the trayi and hold the same position that Puranas are valid only when they do not contradict the trayo and not otherwise? No The list is long. It is not possible to keep adding stuff to a doctrine - things which the founder would have most certainly disagreed with - like Radha worship, a loose interpretation of the varna system, creating new avatars like Chaitanya, etc. Just like you would object to a Prabhupada disciple adding new material, you should in all honesty accept that Prabhupada cannot do this either and yet claim to be in the line of Madhva. There is the proof you asked for + evidence that he disagreed with Madhva. I will ask the same question again - about honesty. Are you willing to extend this logic to a Prabhupada disciple who promulgates personalism by extending it to a particularly new audience - say same sex couples? If not, your logic does not hold. Note that Madhva directly rejects Shankara's and Buddha's position that they are *always* incorrect. He does not make allowances that these doctrines were valid for their time and circumstances nor does he claim authenticity through the Advaita Sampradaya. i.e., Shuka-> Gaudapada-> Shankara. Cheers

And yet, you have made quite a few objections on this thread and engaged in ad hominem attacks in support of the alleged Madhva-Prabhupada link, all of which belies your above statement. Why the sudden change in position now? Cheers

Try "common sense". Since Prabhupada claimed to follow Madhva and yet disagreed with his teachings, he has commited serious Vaishnava aparadha (for ignoring the words of a sampradaya acharya). I am sure you agree with this, as you disagree with the concept of a Prabhupada disciple differing from Prabhupada's teachings and yet claiming to be in his parampara. The second aparadha he commited was his attempt to play God & assign Brahmana status to pedophiles, etc. Those are very two serious counts of Arapadha that no one can deny - except for sentiments that is. But again, this requires some common sense and at least a modicum of honesty - both of which are seriously lacking in your case as most people here already know. The rest will know soon and then you will probably have to come back with yet another new identity. Cheers

Here is the simple test. 1) Madhva is a direct disciple of Vyasa and provided an interpretation of the Gita to the world which is obviously endorsed as correct by Vyasa. 2) Prabhupada provides a different interpretation of the Gita and yet claims disciplic succession from Madhva. Position (2) is logically flawed and the only reason someone would try to defend this absurdity is sentiment. For such sentimentalists, here is the test. 3) A disciple of Prabhupada writes his own commentary of the Gita (different from Prabhupada's doctrine) and claims it is correct because he has followed a disciplic succession from Vyasa -> Madhva -> Prabhupada. If you agree with (3), then you at least have a claim to argue in support of (2). If you disagree with (3), then you have disagreed with (2) as well. So before you repeat more of the same nonense over and over again, please vote on the validity of (3) and we all can save some time. Cheers

Here we go with the same nonsense all over again. How many times should your errors be pointed out before your thick heads can grasp them? 1) Brahmana is by birth only. Prabhupada disagreed with tradition and tried to play God by giving Brahmana status to some of his followers and we all know how that went. So if you disagree that Brahmana is by birth, then how do you identify a Brahmana or better how does a Brahmana identify himself? Consult an Iskcon scholar? 2) The chandogya story actually refutes your position and you are so dumb that you have quoted it in support of your position! Note that Jabala's question to his mom is about his lineage. When he approaches his Guru, the Guru's question is abut his lineage as it is evidently a pre-requisite. The Guru did not say, "varna is not by birth..I have a test that determines varna". He ascertains the boy must of Brahmana lineage as he spoke the truth without fear. Next time, you may want to read your own posts before embarassing yourself by posting evidence against your own position! The Chandogya ranks as the highest authority among all the various quotes you posted and by showing that the Chandogya rejects your position, the rest of the quotes become moot and do not warrant a response. And btw, your own Hare Krishna colleagues do not take your position. That is why they write articles titled "Vaishnava is better than Brahmana" and post them on gosai.com. Hence, if you are eager to convince anyone, first convince your own people. Better luck next time, Cheers

Really? If that is what Prabhupada came for, then he was clearly a failure. Other than a bunch of morons who probably never cleared elementary school and are laboring under the misconception that evolution and theism are mutually exclusive, no one has rejected evolution by accepting an iskcon story over science. And therefore... has nothing to do with evolution - the topic of this thread. Cheers

Obviously, a marriage can and does provide a number of other benefits besides procreation. It is not logical to make procreation the primary focus of marriage and if there is any "vedic text" that says so, I would like to see it. A male and female coming together solely for procreation is an animal characterestic. No society in the history of mankind, has taken that position. Gay men or women can come together to adopt and raise a child, which potentially may be a better life for the child. Do we need past precedents in "vedic texts" before we will step up to make the life of a child better? Culture is dynamic and localized. It does not make much sense to take a 2000 year old culture from North India and try to apply it to the entire world in 2009. We know it is not gonna work, we also have direct evidence of some religious groups trying to do exactly that in the past few decades and failing. Spirituality has nothing to do with any specific culture. Any interest or involvement in cultural aspects is a distraction and in my opinion, most people here are drawn away by such silly distractions. A good part of their time seems to go in pointless criticisms, partisan politics and judging others - all hiding behind the cloak of spiritualism. Cheers

Does the Bhagavatam say anywhere that it covers all "normal and natural expressions of relationships in human society" and that anything not covered thusly is disapproved? or are we just assuming it does? If the answer is the latter, then it means nothing - just like some drawing on the Bhagavatam to measure distance to the moon. Using a text for something it was not meant for, is abuse. Cheers

I believe most of the gentlemen objecting to the concept here are solely doing it on the grounds that it sounds ridiculous to them. I would be truly amazed to find out there is anything more than that to their position. I am curious. What is "vedic culture"? We see the phrase bandied about by several iskconites here. If we are just subjectively basing that on individual opinions, then it does not mean much. There was an iskcon gentleman on this forum a few years ago who was of the opinion that watching TV is not "vedic culture" or appropriate for devotees. Not just R-rated programs, but watching TV in general. Then there are some who believe it is inappropriate for Brahmanas to cross the ocean and travel beyond. And then there is reinterpreting the concept of varnashrama to include Mlechchas, not eating beetroots, etc, etc. So what/who defines the boundaries, the shape and size of "vedic culture"? I would interpret the phrase literally and say it was the culture of the time of the composition of the vedas, a lifestyle of which, most, if not all aspects, have become outdated and are no longer in practice anywhere in the world. But clearly, the general view on this forum appears to be different and I am curious to understand this view better. (Not that it should matter, but I am not gay, btw) Cheers

In which case, my post was not directed at you at all. Why are you bothering to respond? To me, losers like you who poke their noses into other people's lives and whine and complain at what you see, are no better than trash. It is certainly important to keep you idiots under check and that is precisely what I am doing. Cheers

You will not get the hints. Instead you have already been given a certain level of intelligence, a certain level of willpower and placed in a certain environment. Rely on your best judgement and accept that whatever choice you make at any point of time is the best thing for you at that time. Cheers

You are asking too much from copy-paste artists. They apparently have the time and energy to engage in partisan politics among the various Gaudiya camps and to pontificate on gay marriages. If that is how they wish to spend their time, so be it. That is funny. There is no disciplic succession from Vyasa or Krishna to Prabhupada where the message of the Gita was transferred faithfully without change. Madhvacharya is part of that alleged disciplic chain and his message of the Gita was very different. So anyone who came after him in that chain and differs from his teaching has effectively broken the chain and therefore Prabhupada is not in a disciplic succession. QED. It is obviously just a sales pitch to fool people who do not know better and evidently it has worked well too. Cheers

Aren't you following the same socio-religious principles? Then how is that you are OK with gays, but only Hridayananda should not be OK with that?The OP specifically says his problem is not with gays, but with Hridayananda blessing the gay couple, which to me appears to be a dishonest statement. Hridayananda calls them devoted souls. Shouldn't that be the only criteria? This is funny too, because the OP is known for publicly flaunting the concept of rules in devotional practice and how he could not follow rules for even 6 months - rules put in place by Prabhupada. And now suddenly, it is about rules? I hear dishonesty, hypocrisy, double-speak, head stuck-in-sand and what else? Cheers

How do you know your prayers were not heard? You have no way of knowing that. If by prayer you mean you asked for something that did not get what you asked for, then that is true for everyone in the world. There is no rule that one will get something because one prayed for it. If that was the way things worked, then the world would be a very different place today. Cheers