Kulapavana

It's just like the Catholics who disagree with the church's stance on abortion. Instead of finding another church or even starting their own they make trouble for others by hanging around and trying to impose their views over the Popes.

 

Just like the Catholics have an amazing flexibility of belief and practice developed over 2000 years of existence, ISKCON will continue to evolve over time, despite the desires of people like the author of this text.

The claims of such people to posess the 'only valid way' are laughable and merely reflect their desire for control.

Instead of conducting real takeover of power from the current ruling elite, they merely whine about returning to the 'good old days', where of course people like them would be in charge...

Yes, at times like that you can only surrender to Krsna and pray... Forest fire is one of the most scarry things you can experience...

And of course the writer is the guy who determines what precisely is the "Prabhupada's way"...

I'll post any news when I can. My fingers are crossed (I can't get them into an Om--too old, I guess). The new temple and all the work of the devotees there over the last several years, including Maharaja's place and the cow barns, are at risk. And all my books and other possessions are there in my yurt right at the edge of the forest.

Braja was sending updates to our Vrinda site but she has been silent for a while. Where are you now?

The ashram is not set up to minimize fire risk. The trees are too close to the buildings and the water supply is barely adequate for normal use let alone for fighting a minimal fire.

Thanks for the update, Babhruji. I hope Agni will spare the Audarya Ashram...

Haribol! Didis and Prabhus,

Tripurari Maharaja's California ashram is now threatened by a large forest fire, less than a mile away, completely out of control. The animals were evacuated but a couple of devotees are still there keeping an eye on the fire. Tripurari Maharaja is in Costa Rica but was informed of the situation.

Please keep them in your prayers!

Would you be willing to support your assertion by naming your "several reliable sources," or are we compelled to accept it because you said so?

I would have to ask them if I can do that.

I understand the need for editing. I worked for BBT for several years, translating and editing Prabhupada's books. I even started a thread on this forum a while back, "Places where books need to be changed". But I would have never changed the conversation with Cardinal Danielou to the extent it was done by the BBT.

The stamps? I can't say I know for sure--can you? And if you can, how?

What--specifically--is your evidence? I actually held one in my hand, had it in my possession for a while. They weren't what you might think, or at least this one wasn't. It was not a rubber stamp made at a copy shop. It was metal, no handle, irregularly shaped. Perhaps it was from an offset plate or something.

I know from several reliable sources, that such stamps were made, and that some letters now in the folio were stamped with them. If nothing else, that part should be fairly easy to investigate and settle.

Btw. what do you think about the original subject matter (records of conversation between Prabhupada and Cardinal Danielou)? Any idea if the book "Prefect Questions, Perfect Answers" is a similar editing job?

I asked him about it personally in 1973. I told him that some devotees didn't trust his letters because they didn't think he wrote them. He told me that his secretary read him the letters he received, he told them what to say in reply. Then he read the replies and made any corrections before he signed them. "If they don't trust my system," he told me, "they don't trust me." So as far as the style goes, it's generally either his secretaries' own style, or their style influenced by his in some way, or perhaps their attempt to sound like him.

 

Does that mean there was no hanky-panky among his secretaries? Probably not. When I first met Srila Prabhupada in Honolulu in 1970, I had nagging suspicions of the men around him. And from what I've read about what was going on at the time, he had deep suspicions about some of his leaders. Nevertheless, he showed he was in control.

 

A question for you: Do you actually believe that these letters written by his secretaries have any siddhantic value for the movement in general?

The mistrust was clearly there: both then and now. And what do you think the signature stamps were for?

I find it starting that some believe Prabhupada was unaware of what he was signing. Just cuz he spoke his letter to his secretary who next typed it up, Prabhupada read and signed it. One example is his Will (not trying to get into that tho, just making a point.) He had given specific dictation, which the devotee did not approve of, so he changed it. Then he brought the Will back for Prabhupada's signature, but Prabhupada would not sign it. No, we can not think Prabhupada was covered over as we might be. He surely knew everything he signed. Everything. We should not doubt his awareness. ....

Based on various sources, including the B. Archives, many letters were simply stamped with Prabhupada's signature. Several of his secretaries were also quite good at forging his signature. Many letters are not writen in Prabhupada's style and are far too polished linguistically to be his own (see his very early letters for his style). But many letters to various disciples were indeed written by his secretary and signed by him. Do they truly represent Prabhupada's vani? I have my doubts about that.

If anything, all of his letters should be thoroughly authenticated by the analysis of language and verification of signature.

It could be taken that way 'The British are trying to take over the world'. They didn't literally steal from the Vedas...did they?

They were tryining to take over the world, but in an old fashion imperial way, not through secret conspiracy way. They were quite open about it.

As to British trying to steal from the Vedas - that never happened, as they were too stupid to recognize its value. British despised the Vedas. Germans on the other hand were fascinated by the Vedas and tried to take the fullest advantage of its wisdom. they were the smart bunch.

Now Prabhupada appears to be literally forming a conspiracy theory about 'Britishers'.

"Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” And this was their pledge."

I think he is talking about the pride of British people and their belief that they are the best in everything. Sort of like Americans now.

I do not get the drift that this is some conspiracy theory.

 

ps... thx for the integrity and even solutions.....

you are welcome.

this should actually be considered a pretty serious matter, especially to the 'Prabhupada absolutist' crowd, who claim that everything he said and wrote is absolute. problem is that not everything they think he said or wrote are actually his statements.

sort of like those Bible thumpers who refuse to acknowledge the extensive editing of that book during the first 4 centuries.

It's not exactly that Darwin literally stole the idea from the Vedas, but that it was already in existence in the Vedas, and that he was purporting it to be his original theory which he misapplied and distorted n some deterministic, materialistic way.

<DT>evolve <DD>1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" . Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution. </DD>

These are the FACTS. What commonly passes as the Darwinian theory of evolution is a highly modified and refined concept that Darwin himself developed. Certainly in no way connected with the ideas presented in Vedic literature, which were completely alien to Charles Darwin.

Criticize the man for his real crimes, not for what you blame him for. Criticize Darwin for being a materialist, not for stealing something from the Vedas.

And again, what is present in the Vedas has nothing to do with material bodies (forms) evolving gradually over time. The Vedic idea is that all physical bodies come from Prajapatis and their wives uniting to generate various species of life. You cant even claim that the soul is evolving because the soul is ever the same, changeles.

Thanks Kulaji, you seem to say, thank God, that this nightmare of Prabhupada's era is gone forever.

I never even remotely suggested that...

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory...

The question is, whether Darwin took his idea from the Vedic literature as Prabhupada says. And the answer is NO, as I have shown above. Thus it is true that Prabhupada did not bother to check the facts before making this statement.

If you want to be taken seriously by the scientific comunity, you have to say things which are based on facts.

Prabhupada wanted his scientist disciples to present KC in a rational and scientific way to the world. One of the reasons it did not happen is the reluctance of his disciples to contradict Prabhupada precisely by presenting KC in a rational and scientific way.

Do you see me support the theory of evolution, Darwin or Dawkins on this forum or anywhere else? No, you don't. But I will also not support statements of Prabhupada or other devotees which are not based on facts.

"We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love." BVT

That is Bhaktivinoda's greatest contribution. Yes, it is OK to question Prabhupada or Bhaktivinoda, and to chart our own course of thought and deed. Anybody who does not accept that is basically enslaved by his own misconceptions of Krsna consciousness.

Considering the hateful, bigoted speech above, is it any wonder that religious people aren't taken seriously? Calling someone 'rascal' is hardly the way to convince people...but then again, religion and tolerance don't go together.

That speech is not really hateful or bigoted. Srila Prabhupada would often 'shoot from the hip' in such debates, not bothering to check the facts or trying to understand the issue on hand in a deeper way. He simply wanted to make his own point, and to promote Krsna consciousness.

To claim that Darwin took the idea of evolution from the Vedas is not based on facts. Number one: there is no mention of this type of evolution in the Vedas, and number two: Darwin did not know the Vedas.

Prabhupada was not a hater but he was a passionate debater. He was pretty much criticizing everybody and everything in these debates, but only to promote Krsna consciousness. He was also not a bigot. Bigotry is defined as irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. I do not see that in Prabhupada. His embracing of Christianity and Islam as some low form of Vaishnavism is a good example. Prabhupada was not irrational.

In his statement above he belittles devotees in the military who are serving in Iraq. The devotee in question has been spreading Krishna consciousness right in the middle of that hellish situation, distributing books, teaching japa meditation, holding class and even aRatha-yatra last year .

yes, we should encourage more devotees to sign up with the US military, so that this stupid and demonic war can go on forever, while we are proud to hold Ratha-yatras in the middle of that insanity... we should also join the chorus of devotees like the GBC Hari Vilas prabhu who claim this war is good for our movement because once Muslims are defeated we can go in there and preach...

lets not forget who created that 'hellish situation' in the first place and let's support them by encouraging devotees to risk their lives serving the US war machine... a Swami supporting that position would certainly be considered very Krsna conscious and not swayed by popular opinions...

"the minimum that isn't"

advancement in Krsna consciousness is not mechanical. it does not depend on the level of your sadhana or the number of books you distribute. Sadhana and service are essential to our advancement yet in themselves are not a guarantee of success. It is all about changes in our consciousness, changes in our desires. The most important part of the sadhana is actually sadhu-sanga, maintaining the favourable association with devotees. we change based on that association.

do not be worried about meeting the 'minimum requirements' list - just be with other devotees and have fun. so what that it may take you several lifetimes to get out of this world? You are already on the train out of here. Never, ever forget that.. and enjoy the ride.

It is important to point out that none of the 6 Goswamis actually took sannyasa in the sense of accepting formal sannyasa initiation, saffron cloth, danda, etc.

 

The Reprehensible Delusions of Guruship

 

 

1. The delusions of ‘preceptorship’ -

thinking of oneself as the preceptor - a guru should think of himself as simply a conduit of the Lord’s Grace and not as a teacher of sacred lore, this awareness prevents the guru from developing the egotistical notion of being a great and learned person and having custodianship of spiritual knowledge.

 

2. The delusions about the role of the disciple -

thinking of the disciple as one’s own personal adherent - the disciple should rather be thought of as a co-disciple of the same acharya. Thus the guru avoids the potential for exploitation inherent in the relationship.

 

3. The delusions arising from the process of instruction of a sisya - these are of four categories:-

 

a. seeking to gain financially from the disciple, either by tuition fees or dakshina.

 

b. the delusion that one is actually facilitating the liberation of the disciple.

 

c. the delusion that one is assisting the Lord in his salvific agenda.

 

d. seeking or expecting social companionship or service from disciples.

very, very relevant!

The same Washington Post praises resurection of the long dead Hebrew language in Israel

I have since gotten over some of my bitterness (I hope) and see things in a different light, meaning I honor all my spiritual teachers that have blessed me in this life even though I may disagree with them on certain points.

 

The stories of Bhaktisiddhanta being kicked out of Bhaktivinodes home and Puri were told to devotees primarily by Lalita Prasad as he was a direct witness and saw 1st hand.

 

Now some accept Lalitas Prasads version others accept Bhaktisiddantas and never shall the twain meet it seems.

 

I have a similar approach with regard to honoring all my spiritual teachers while disagreeing with them on some minor points. Without that deep respect and appreciation for a guru such disagreements can easily turn into offensive mentality.

The stories of disagreements between Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta are quite well sourced, directly and indirectly. What to make of them is a real question. I think that Vaishnavism needs both currents: the militant proselytizing current of Bhaktisiddhanta, and the reflective, private bhajana current of traditional GV parivars and Lalita Prasad.

I hope the war hatchets will be buried and both sides will realize that they really need each other to carry on with Mahaprabhu's legacy.

There is evidence that Bipin Bihari Goswami did reject Bhaktivinode. There must have at least been a 'distancing'.

BBG rejected Bhaktivinoda Thakura only several years after BVT passing from this world, when the issue of book authenticity came into light. There is no record of such 'distancing' during the lifetime of BVT, even over the issue of giving blessings to Raghunatha dasa Goswami, an incident much overblown by the Saraswatas.

Prabhupada never once taught that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami, nor that Bipin Bihari Goswami was the guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

That does not change history or historical facts. You can understand who was Bhaktivinoda's guru by reading Bhaktivinoda's writings. Where in Bhaktivinoda's writings does he claim to be a disciple of anybody other than Bipin Bihari? Even the title of "Bhaktivinoda" was oficially and in writing bestowed to him by his guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, who was very proud of such a qualified disciple. BVT referred to himself by using that title to his last days. It was something he clearly cherished. I doubt he would have appreciated his grand-grand-disciples belittling BBG.