Kulapavana

Very good analysis. Are religious institutions bound to fail after their founding guru departs? I think they are more likely to fail if the founder acharya does not create a clear succession plan, and a properly working administrative body before he departs.

That is very true. Spiritually advanced people are rarely attracted to cheaters.

Good one, Babhru-ji! Thanks!

I second that What we need is more specifics... For example, if we see that trully fallen people become truly and sustainably purified by following a particular process, than that process can be seen as effective. If out of thousands of sincere followers only one becomes a pure devotee, that is not such a great success, as some people are already quite advanced when taking shelter of a particular guru. The same can be said about a particular way of sadhana - such things need to work for a lot of people to be considered valid and worthy of further of propagation.

Send me a private message with your name and address and I will mail it to you.

yunjann evam sadatmanam yogi niyata-manasah santim nirvana-paramam mat-samstham adhigacchati "By meditating in this manner, always controlling the body, mind and activities, the mystic transcendentalist attains to the kingdom of God through cessation of material existence." (Bg. 6.15) Prabhupada writes in his purport to 6th Chapter: "Thus carefully controlling his mind, the successful yogi engages his mind, body and his self in Krishna's service. A true yogi is a sannyasi, who is unattached to the fruits of his work, not one who performs no work." Statements like that can be seen as speaking in terms of success/failure in regards to spiritual topics.

Pranams... How do we verify success in spiritual life? When is a disciple a success? When is a guru a success? When is a spiritual movement a success? When is your spiritual life a success? When is a particular spiritual practice a success? It seems easy to cover up just about any failure with complex philosophical excuses. But will a child like person buy such explanations? Does Krsna seem closer to you today than He was 5 or 15 years ago? Are you making progress? Are you less attached to material concepts and posessions? Do you treat others like they were really spirit souls, parts and parcels of Krsna? I would like to hear your reflections in this area.

If any bhakta wants Tulasi seeds I will be happy to send them to you, at no charge. The seeds are from my Tulasi plants - they are the Krishna variety (green) with larger leaves (there is a small leaf variety as well). Jaya Sri Vrinde!

After 2012 there is of course the dreaded 2013! Scam artists have been writing best selling books about this 'end of days' scenario since ancient times. They tend to belong to one particular tribe, that has been peddling pseudo religious hysteria since ancient times.

You may want to also try some anti-parasitic herbal formulas.

And where do you see me blaming Prabhupada for the myths his disciples created? There are things in Prabhupada's teachings which are absolute in nature, but there are also things which are relative and subject to practical validation. In other words: some of Prabhupada's teachings are based on shastra and some are based on his opinion.

These myths are quite common in Iskcon circles. Here is one example: http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/06-09/editorials4581.htm Some of Prabhupada's disciples think that there is no need for the sastra, because whatever their guru said is more important than sastra. There is no need to pay attention to the sadhus as well. Just like there is no need to observe the rules established by their guru's guru (Srila Bhaktisiddhanta). Such disciples are nothing but a guru-cult grouppies.

You are welcome. Srila Prabhupada had his own vision of Krsna consciousness and his own approach to training his disciples, many of whom were really low class people with huge egos. He sacrificed a LOT when he came to NY from Vrindavan. The eventual success of his mission was a very, very significant development which in many ways shaped Prabhupada's message and practical approach. I think he actually wanted to develop a new world religion based on Gaudiya Vaishnavism, rather than simply stick to GV itself. This is something that perhaps goes back to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. You have to look at Srila Prabhupada with your own eyes. Simply rejecting the myth his fanatical disciples are trying to force on everybody is only part of the picture. The core of his teachings is very solid, and his methods are mostly effective. But there is a lot of stuff on the edges that is very debatable, very controversial, and often very ineffective. Some of his disciples developed into very nice advanced devotees, while others developed into obnoxious and ignorant fanatics and guru-groupies. So ultimately it is a somewhat mixed picture but certainly the primary tone is very positive.

Nothing. I posted all of these verses to show that monism was always part of the Bhagavata school, despite the many attempts to prove otherwise by the Saraswatas.

SB 1.9.43sūta uvāca kṛṣṇa evaḿ bhagavati mano-vāg-dṛṣṭi-vṛttibhiḥ ātmany ātmānam āveśya so 'ntaḥśvāsa upāramat SYNONYMS sūtaḥ uvāca — Sūta Gosvāmī said; kṛṣṇe — Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead; evam — only; bhagavati — unto Him; manaḥ — with mind; vāk — speech; dṛṣṭi — sight; vṛttibhiḥ — activities; ātmani — unto the Supersoul; ātmānam — the living being; āveśya — having merged in; saḥ — he; antaḥ-śvāsaḥ — inhaling; upāramat — became silent. TRANSLATION Sūta Gosvāmī said: Thus Bhīṣmadeva merged himself in the Supersoul, Lord ŚrīKṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, with his mind, speech, sight and actions, and thus he became silent, and his breathing stopped. PURPORT The stage attained by Bhīṣmadeva while quitting his material body is called nirvikalpa-samādhi because he merged his self into thinking of the Lord and his mind into remembering His different activities. He chanted the glories of the Lord, and by his sight he began to see the Lord personally present before him, and thus all his activities became concentrated upon the Lord without deviation. This is the highest stage of perfection, and it is possible for everyone to attain this stage by practice of devotional service.

The good qualities of Prabhupada are self evident to any sane person. There is no need to invent imaginary glories by fabricating myths about him like his disciples often do. But you cant expect better from those who turned Gaudiya Vaishnavism into an updated guru personality cult of karta-bhajas.

Yes, I am very grateful for receiving so many great gifts from Krsna. Initially I approached Him for knowledge. Over the years I have received that, and much, much more. The ability to appreciate others is a true mature fruit of spiritual knowledge, because you realize how they are all dear to Krsna, and how we are all part of the same river of being flowing from Krsna. That is monism, and perfect realization of it makes you a great soul.

I see it as a case of over-emphasis on dvaita understanding, out of fear that his disciples might venture too far into the modern versions of monism. Compromising the truth to tell a useful tale. Prabhupada did that quite often. However, there comes a time when a child no longer believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I do not blame Prabhupada for sometimes telling his disciples fairy tales. I blame his adult disciples for clinging to these fairy tales as aif they were the absolute truth.

SB 4.7.38 yogeśvarā ūcuḥ preyān na te 'nyo 'sty amutas tvayi prabho viśvātmanīkṣen na pṛthag ya ātmanaḥ athāpi bhaktyeśa tayopadhāvatām ananya-vṛttyānugṛhāṇa vatsala SYNONYMS yoga-īśvarāḥ — the great mystics; ūcuḥ — said; preyān — very dear; na — not; te — of You; anyaḥ — another; asti — there is; amutaḥ — from that; tvayi — in You; prabho — dear Lord; viśva-ātmani — in the Supersoul of all living entities; īkṣet — see; na — not; pṛthak — different; yaḥ — who; ātmanaḥ — the living entities; atha api — so much more; bhaktyā — with devotion; īśa — O Lord; tayā — with it; upadhāvatām — of those who worship; ananya-vṛttyā — unfailing; anugṛhāṇa — favor; vatsala — O favorable Lord. TRANSLATION The great mystics said: Dear Lord, persons who see You as nondifferent from themselves, knowing that You are the Supersoul of all living entities, are certainly very, very dear to You. You are very favorable toward those who engage in devotional service, accepting You as the Lord and themselves as the servants. By Your mercy, You are always inclined in their favor. PURPORT It is indicated in this verse that the monists and the great mystics know the Supreme Personality of Godhead as one. This oneness is not the misunderstanding that a living entity is equal in every respect to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This monism is based on pure knowledge as described and confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (7.17): priyo hi jñānino 'tyartham ahaḿ sa ca mama priyaḥ. The Lord says that those who are advanced in transcendental knowledge and know the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness are very dear to Him, and He also is very dear to them.

SB 1.4.4 tasya putro mahā-yogī sama-dṛń nirvikalpakaḥ ekānta-matir unnidro gūḍho mūḍha iveyate tasya — his; putraḥ — son; mahā-yogī — a great devotee; sama-dṛk — equibalanced; nirvikalpakaḥ — absolute monist; ekānta-matiḥ — fixed in monism or oneness of mind; unnidraḥ — surpassed nescience; gūḍhaḥ — not exposed; mūḍhaḥ — stunted; iva — like; iyate — appears like. TRANSLATION His [Vyāsadeva's] son was a great devotee, an equibalanced monist, whose mind was always concentrated in monism. He was transcendental to mundane activities, but being unexposed, he appeared like an ignorant person.

I remember reading somewhere in the Puranas (Markandeya?), that each of the 14 worlds (lokas) within this Universe (brahmanda) is separated from others in every way. Thus what you see in the sky is not higher planets, but at best their reflection within our world - like an image of a Moon in a lake.

First of all, you have to look at the translation of this verse, BG 13.34. yathā prakāśayaty ekaḥ kṛtsnaḿ lokam imaḿ raviḥ kṣetraḿ kṣetrī tathā kṛtsnaḿ prakāśayati bhārata SYNONYMS yathā — as; prakāśayati — illuminates; ekaḥ — one; kṛtsnam — the whole; lokam — universe; imam — this; raviḥ — sun; kṣetram — this body; kṣetrī — the soul; tathā — similarly; kṛtsnam — all; prakāśayati — illuminates; bhārata — O son of Bharata. The word 'lokam' simply means 'this world' or 'this place', refering not necesarily to Brahmanda, but to our earthly realm. examples of translation of this word: http://vedabase.net/l/lokam

http://vedabase.net/sb/10/88/5/ "Lord Hari, however, has no connection with the material modes. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the all-seeing eternal witness, who is transcendental to material nature. One who worships Him becomes similarly free from the material modes."

Posted by Sonic Yogi Prabhupada didn't authorize him to give diksha. He appointed him a ritvik. Your claim that Prabhupada authorized him to give diksha is a lie. Too bad he did not make it abundently clear in a way accessible to all newcomers. He handpicked the team that was supposed to carry on his work and authorized these people to initiate. Now you ritviks lay the blame on 'naive newcomers' duped by the people Prabhupada picked as leaders. Do you think any of us in the late 70's would have taken initiation from anybody unless they were authorized by Prabhupada? Tell me please, which coach does not bear any responsibility for the way the team he handpicked plays the game? In your ritvik theories you have divorced yourself from the reality, because it is much easier for you to lay the blame only on the players, and those who got played. I do not need a guru who takes zero responsibility for the disciples he supposedly trained. I do not think Srila Prabhupada was like that, and all I have written here is actually meant to show you how idiotic and inconsistent the ritvik theories are. Actually, most of the disciples he chose to be gurus were sincere. They were just inexperienced and immature and eventually they got corrupted by the power and opulence they had accepted.

If you have a problem with him acting as a guru in those days, blame the person who gave him that position. If it was not for Prabhupada's authorization, I would not have taken diksa from him. You ritviks have a very selective memory, remembering only that part of the chicken that lays eggs for you.