andy108

I never thought like that. How do you know what I think. In a typical Iskcon fashion you attack my character and you label me an offender.

I gave you practical examples of problem areas requiring change and you are just a broken record: ...no change......no change...no change...no change...no change...no change...no change...

The areas are a problem, but you don't know how those areas would look if the people in them followed instructions.

So knowing everything else you do about Srila Prabhupada, you still refuse to give a crack at his instructions to see what would eventuate, instead you will spend your time trying to change his instructions.

If you would just stop linking his instructions with failure, that would be a start and might gain you credence with those who consider such a position to be illogical, unreasonable, and insane.

Then you could go ahead and use his ideas as a blueprint, change what you want, and start your own mission. Go ahead. I dare you. Just beware of the 4 cardinal sins mentioned and nary a criticism will you hear from my mouth, and I wish you good fortune in an endeavor which I believe will provide poor short term results, ending in your good fortune of coming back to your senses and the sadhana prescribed by the Jagat Guru.

Of course if you could prove me wrong.... But so far you haven't even got to step 1, and continue your illogical rantings against the Acarya, so I won't hold my breath.

Apparently none of the people Prabhupada made leaders of his movement were sincere... he was fooled by them and so was I... shame on us forever... at least I was not the one who gave them keys to the Ferrari

That "none of the people" he made leaders of his movement were sincere seems apparent to you because your brain is in a fog due to a combination of understandable bitterness at having been duped, and a not-so-understandable case of acarya envy due to having contracted DADS (Dreaded Acarya disease syndrome) somewhere along the way.

Srila Prabhupada made many other leaders, but due to your handicap you cant recognize them, or even imagine they exist for that matter. There are dozens who broke off before being heavily doped by the dupers, read his books and instructions, and are collaborating and cooperating in small ways very gradually outside the perview of Apa-ItsaCon, the Narayana gopi-bhava fanatics, Tripurari's groupies, etc.

There are some on this very forum, who have for years tried to lead you from your bleary-eyed limited conception of what a Saktavesha Jagat Guru Maha-Bhagavat Acarya did and can accomplish even "when he is gone", who you have resisted with both heels dug in, flailing arms, and gnashing of teeth.

But if you keep insisting they don't exist, you may get your wish, and be left to strike out on your own. Of course spending 8 hours a day managing materialistic scientists will hold you back in your endeavor at Founding Worldwide spiritual mission in America, without leaning improperly on the efforts and properties of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

But of course another way of looking at it would be to think, "Srila Prabhupada's instructions are perfect, but we just do not have the purity to carry them out properly."

Impossible to do when one's brain is covered over by Mahamaya's illusion that one is better than Srila Prabhupada.

Impossible to do when one equates people not following a system to the author's frailty in providing a workable system, and not the free-will choice of the so-called followers to reject the system while claiming to be following it.

Impossible to do when a person thinks they have had enough success at preaching in Poland that they can come to America and do better than a Saktavesha Avatara.

Good fortune in our acarya's conception would be to have a substantial connection with Krsna Consciousness. How can one not care what someone does and then hope that they do the best thing for themselves and others?

That sound mutually contradictory. On the other hand if you're saying something like, "do what you're going to do, but just not in the direct name of Srila Prabhupada", then it makes sense. On the other hand why is it that Krsna Consciousness has to come in a particular way or paticular brand?

That is exactly what I said. If it is not in his name, I don't care what you do, meaning you can do whatever is in the range of your desires, I will not try and influence it in anyway. And withdraw my care and attention from that person through obvious practical necessity.

You "pragmatists" should be on the same page as that right?

Actually all I care about it My Guru's orders, and those who want to follow them. Otherwise I wish people good fortune, but it goes without saying that because I follow my Guru strictly and believe he was a Jagat Guru, I believe that would have the highest benefit not just for me, but ultimately for everyone. So if they need to make gradual advancement elsewhere before coming to the ultimate, that is their choice, I can have nothing more to say to them on the matter and withdraw any care and attention from them.

But simultaneously, I wish them the good fortune that they will eventually come to realize that they are not more potent and capable then the latest Saktavesha Avatara Maha-Bhagavat Acarya and possibly ruin their spiritual lives, and those of others.

Beggar writes:

It's one of the inherent dangers of "The Ten Thousand Year Acaryaship" Theory: There can be no changes for changing times, changing circumstances and changing places because no one is qualified, nor ever will (at least for ten thousand years) be qualified to do so.

The Founder AND Acarya of Iskcon has stated that he wished his disciples would not change the system of management that he put in place.

So Beggar, please point to the relevant portion of the Gaudiya Scriptures which describes the statute of limitations at which time a disciple may disobey the order of his Spiritual Master.

Of course, you cannot, so you appeal to the less intelligent with your hyperbolic "10000 year acaryaship" comment in order to trigger emotional agreement with your position. The order is permanent until the end of time. This does not force you to work within his system. It does obligate you to not claim discipleship or representation of that Acarya if you want to disobey him. It does obligate you to follow his system on his property, and not coopt such property for your own mission.

You also present the following straw man to receive the brunt of your quibble.

That what is implied by the analysis in the post you were replying to (#1 of "Change = maryada-vyatikrama") is that there will be no soul qualified to do anything different than Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami did.

When the obvious point I made is that according to all principles since time immemorial, no disciple has the authority to disobey the order of his spiritual master, and does so at their own peril, and will surely dissappoint their Guru. If he said no change in the system, and you don't have faith that you can succeed by working with the mgmt. system he gave, then go do something else.

If you think times and places and candidates have changed enough to require a system of sadhana different than what Srila Prabhupada created for Iskcon then just freakin do it already, and leave your criticism of him and his system stuffed down your gullet. For your own good, and because you sound like a broken record.

You Change-Vadis are so transparent.

Originally Posted by andy108

"And MY point is that SP was himself exclusively qualified to make any changes to his management system"

 

In case you have not noticed, he is not around to make the changes needed now.

 

Quote:

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width: 100%;" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style=""><td style="border: 1pt solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding: 4.5pt 0.25in; background: rgb(224, 224, 224) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;">Originally Posted by andy108

 

The reason why Srila Prabhupada gave Dogma (strict instructions) is to preempt the possibility of students like Kulapavana from attempting to justify “Change” based on their illusory perception that the Acarya’s view lacked pragmatism according to current circumstances. Upon closer examination, everytime a student gives reasons to justify their viewpoint of needed “Change”, the analysis will reveal they are in error.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Srila Prabhupada gave power to a lot of ambitious and unqualified people, like Gurukripa of this thread, creating a top down authocratic management system extremely easy to abuse. Iskcon history is full of examples showing how poorly this system worked.

Of course the dogmatists like you will argue that no changes are needed - you most likely have a hard time conceiving that there ARE better systems of management. You just like to blame only the people who were executing this system for it's failures.

To a pragmatist like me there is no question Iskcon management should be reformed, perhaps using DOM as a starting kernel of the new system. Why? Because people are NOT perfect, and they WILL try to abuse power given a convenient situation. When creating a mangement system you MUST consider the level of skill and the quality of people who will be implementing it in real life.

 

How convenient. The "vedic traditionalist" suddenly has a problem with Top-down Autocracy.

All management systems can be abused. And will be. That is the material world.

Your "new improved" management system can and will be abused.

Srila Prabhupada put in checks and balances. That is why there are so many people, like me, who are not involved in the shadow Iskcon with its usurped management system, but are slowly and steadily implementing Srila Prabhupada's original system amongst those who are claiming to be willing to do so in good faith. Those who appreciate their fallen nature and what checks and balances will do to keep themselves honest.

Just like those who you approach with your new improved Iskcon (International Society for Kula Consciousness) will claim.

You have been known to be fooled before. Bigtime. How will you prevent anyone you choose to work with from choosing to use any managment system for their own aggrandizement if they so choose?

Just give up any of the 4 deadly sins I mentioned... Don't be a person who will

- represent themselves as being a member of Iskcon.

- a disciple of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami,

- use his physical properties for such a purpose,

- or use his intellectual property without full disclaimer of their breaking with his established instructions on how to use his intellectual property.

And I don't care what you do and wish you good fortune.

In another thread, unfortunately our friend Kulapavana has made a mistake and is in danger of committing offenses. As a gesture of good-will to him and as a cautionary tale to those who would receive fair-warning, it would be good to learn from this example. Let me break it down for you.

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by kulapavana

Prabhupada himself changed things quite often when he saw that they were not working Prabhupada was pragmatic, not dogmatic.

It is dogmatic slogans like "don't change ANYTHING Prabhupada implemented" that prevent much needed reforms in our movement.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Kulapavana is conflating the Authority(Acarya) with the one’s he authorizes(disciples).

The reason why Srila Prabhupada gave Dogma (strict instructions) is to preempt the possibility of students like Kulapavana from attempting to justify “Change” based on their illusory perception that the Acarya’s view lacked pragmatism according to current circumstances. Upon closer examination, everytime a student gives reasons to justify their viewpoint of needed “Change”, the analysis will reveal they are in error.

Srila Prabhupada was quoted probably hundreds of times warning his students not to change anything unilaterally, that such an action shows lack of respect for their Guru, that it is never justified no matter what the student “thinks”.

The fact that the Acarya personally changed one of his own rules, such as the awarding of Sanyassa order, (which he never gave any of his students the authority to award to anyone else by the way), cannot be construed as an excuse that the Acayra would condone his students neglecting his multitude of instructions NOT TO CHANGE his orders and system, and is a sure sign of material ambition clouding one’s vision.

In fact the Founder-Acarya of the Iskcon movement Kulapavana claims to be part of and represent went so far as to take careful legal measures according to the law of the Country where he founded his movement in order to guard against such ambitious unauthorized changes to his movement. In his last will and testament we find item #2. regarding the system of management for is temples.

2. Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be managed by three executive directors. The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change.

Now. To cast more light on how such ambitious material delusions will manifest, let us look closely at the justifications Kulapavana uses to convince others that we have the right and duty to change things.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by kulapavana

Srila Prabhupada signed the DOM document yet later on he did many things that were contrary to it, such as appointing temple presidents and GBCs without a vote and making GBCs a position for life.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

First, the Hyperbole “many changes” should give one pause immediately.

Moving to the DOM document, the only item that bears ANY instruction regarding how a temple president gets into office is #8

8. Removal of a Temple president by the GBC requires support by the local Temple members.

So Srila Prabhupada appoints a temple president, as he had done always, and obviously makes a terrible argument to justify changing anything, even if change was allowed.

As far as making GBC a position for life. He stated on May 28<SUP>th</SUP> 1977

Satsvarūpa: Śrīla Prabhupāda, we were all asked by the rest of the GBC to come to ask some questions. Most... These are the members of the original GBC as you first made it up. So our first question is about the GBC members. We want to know how long should they remain in office?

Prabhupāda: They should remain for good.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They should remain for good.

Prabhupāda: Selected men are chosen, so they cannot be changed. Rather, if some competent man comes, he should be added. I shall recommend that Vāsudeva become one of the GBC.

The first thing a responsible manager would do after hearing this is to bring the DOM paperwork to Srila Prabhupada to be amended and signed to reflect his change in orders. Especially the point about adding to the overall ranks of the GBC if a competent man comes along. Which would require amending to the election process.

Of course we know that the managers at the time were thinking of one thing, their own glorification and ambition, so there was no way they even remembered what the DOM said, and if they did, they certainly did not want to bring it up. But looking closely at the relevant portions of the DOM, and taking the spirit of Srila Prabhupada’s mood on change, we find no substantial contradiction, but an opportunity perhaps to give clarity to the process of electing GBC from among temple presidents, while simultaneously assuring they are elected for life.

2. His Divine Grace will select the initial 12 members of the GBC. In the succeeding years the GBC will be elected by a vote of all Temple presidents who will vote for 8 from a ballot of all Temple presidents, which may also include any secretary who is in charge of a Temple. Those 8 with the greatest number of votes will be members for the next term of GBC. Śrīla Prabhupāda will choose to retain four commissioners. In the event of Śrīla Prabhupāda's absence, the retiring members will decide which four will remain.

3. The commissioners will serve for a period of 3 years, and they may be re-elected at the end of this period.

Just looking at these 2 successive items, a person might make the mistake of seeing a contradiction within the very DOM itself.

It is a self-evident fact that Srila Prabhupada would never encourage the capricious removal of someone who was fulfilling their appointed role properly. Thus his statement on May 28<SUP>th</SUP> 1977 that “they cannot be changed” should be seen in that light.

And in keeping with Srila Prabhupada’s spirit of no change, we can see this reflected in #2 and #3 of the DOM.

He qualifies the instructions of item #2 by stating in #3 that “the commissioners” = “they” (referring to ALL) “may be re-elected”, in otherwords placed back upon the ballot as a qualified nominee.

So even in the event that his disciples choose 8 temple presidents every three years from all eligible temple presidents, and nominate those 8 for election, it is apparent that according to item #3 there are to be 2 segments to the elections. The first wherein the all Temple Presidents and secretaries in charge of a temple are allowed to re-elect the entire body of the GBC if they see fit, and according to the Spirit of Srila Prabhupada’s no change policy in general, and his statement on 5/28/77, if a GBC member is performing his duty properly, has not broken with the parameters of his appointment, and wishes to continue, the TPs SHOULD ceremonially re-elect the whole lot of them.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kulapavana

My point was that SP himself was changing his own decisions as he saw fit at a particular time. Prabhupada wanted to make sure things WORKED, producing desired RESULTS.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

And MY point is that SP was himself exclusively qualified to make any changes to his management system.

And furthermore, I would like to point out that no-one is forced or beholden to follow the instructions of the Founder-Acarya of Iskcon. If they think they can do better, and even want to use His institutional paradigm as a working model, they have the free-will and my blessing to do so.

However, such a person seeks to ..

- represent themselves as being a member of Iskcon.

- a disciple of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami,

- use his physical properties for such a purpose,

- or use his intellectual property without full disclaimer of their breaking with his established instructions on how to use his intellectual property.

They do not have my blessing to do so, and I will correct their errors forthwith each and every time.

But this could be considered a blessing if they see reason and change their ways, for it is written...

3rd Canto (3.4.26), “Although one may be well versed in transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science.”

Prabhupada himself changed things quite often when he saw that they were not working Prabhupada was pragmatic, not dogmatic.

It is dogmatic slogans like "don't change ANYTHING Prabhupada implemented" that prevent much needed reforms in our movement.

Kulapavana is conflating the Authority(Acarya) with the one’s he authorizes(disciples).

The reason why Srila Prabhupada gave Dogma (strict instructions) is to preempt the possibility of students like Kulapavana from attempting to justify “Change” based on their illusory perception that the Acarya’s view lacked pragmatism according to current circumstances. Upon closer examination, everytime a student gives reasons to justify their viewpoint of needed “Change”, the analysis will reveal they are in error.

Srila Prabhupada was quoted probably hundreds of times warning his students not to change anything unilaterally, that such an action shows lack of respect for their Guru, that it is never justified no matter what the student “thinks”.

The fact that the Acarya personally changed one of his own rules, such as the awarding of Sanyassa order, (which he never gave any of his students the authority to award to anyone else by the way), cannot be construed as an excuse that the Acayra would condone his students neglecting his multitude of instructions NOT TO CHANGE his orders and system, and is a sure sign of material ambition clouding one’s vision.

In fact the Founder-Acarya of the Iskcon movement Kulapavana claims to be part of and represent went so far as to take careful legal measures according to the law of the Country where he founded his movement in order to guard against such ambitious unauthorized changes to his movement. In his last will and testament we find item #2. regarding the system of management for is temples.

2. Each temple will be an ISKCON property and will be managed by three executive directors. The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change.

Now. To cast more light on how such ambitious material delusions will manifest, let us look closely at the justifications Kulapavana uses to convince others that we have the right and duty to change things.

Srila Prabhupada signed the DOM document yet later on he did many things that were contrary to it, such as appointing temple presidents and GBCs without a vote and making GBCs a position for life.

First, the Hyperbole “many changes” should give one pause immediately.

Moving to the DOM document, the only item that bears ANY instruction regarding how a temple president gets into office is #8

8. Removal of a Temple president by the GBC requires support by the local Temple members.

So Srila Prabhupada appoints a temple president, as he had done always, and obviously makes a terrible argument to justify changing anything, even if change was allowed.

As far as making GBC a position for life. He stated on May 28<SUP>th</SUP> 1977

Satsvarūpa: Śrīla Prabhupāda, we were all asked by the rest of the GBC to come to ask some questions. Most... These are the members of the original GBC as you first made it up. So our first question is about the GBC members. We want to know how long should they remain in office?

Prabhupāda: They should remain for good.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They should remain for good.

Prabhupāda: Selected men are chosen, so they cannot be changed. Rather, if some competent man comes, he should be added. I shall recommend that Vāsudeva become one of the GBC.

The first thing a responsible manager would do after hearing this is to bring the DOM paperwork to Srila Prabhupada to be amended and signed to reflect his change in orders. Especially the point about adding to the overall ranks of the GBC if a competent man comes along. Which would require amending to the election process.

Of course we know that the managers at the time were thinking of one thing, their own glorification and ambition, so there was no way they even remembered what the DOM said, and if they did, they certainly did not want to bring it up. But looking closely at the relevant portions of the DOM, and taking the spirit of Srila Prabhupada’s mood on change, we find no substantial contradiction, but an opportunity perhaps to give clarity to the process of electing GBC from among temple presidents, while simultaneously assuring they are elected for life.

2. His Divine Grace will select the initial 12 members of the GBC. In the succeeding years the GBC will be elected by a vote of all Temple presidents who will vote for 8 from a ballot of all Temple presidents, which may also include any secretary who is in charge of a Temple. Those 8 with the greatest number of votes will be members for the next term of GBC. Śrīla Prabhupāda will choose to retain four commissioners. In the event of Śrīla Prabhupāda's absence, the retiring members will decide which four will remain.

3. The commissioners will serve for a period of 3 years, and they may be re-elected at the end of this period.

Just looking at these 2 successive items, a person might make the mistake of seeing a contradiction within the very DOM itself.

It is a self-evident fact that Srila Prabhupada would never encourage the capricious removal of someone who was fulfilling their appointed role properly. Thus his statement on May 28<SUP>th</SUP> 1977 that “they cannot be changed” should be seen in that light.

And in keeping with Srila Prabhupada’s spirit of no change, we can see this reflected in #2 and #3 of the DOM.

He qualifies the instructions of item #2 by stating in #3 that “the commissioners” = “they” (referring to ALL) “may be re-elected”, in otherwords placed back upon the ballot as a qualified nominee.

So even in the event that his disciples choose 8 temple presidents every three years from all eligible temple presidents, and nominate those 8 for election, it is apparent that according to item #3 there are to be 2 segments to the elections. The first wherein the all Temple Presidents and secretaries in charge of a temple are allowed to re-elect the entire body of the GBC if they see fit, and according to the Spirit of Srila Prabhupada’s no change policy in general, and his statement on 5/28/77, if a GBC member is performing his duty properly, has not broken with the parameters of his appointment, and wishes to continue, the TPs SHOULD ceremonially re-elect the whole lot of them.

My point was that SP himself was changing his own decisions as he saw fit at a particular time. Prabhupada wanted to make sure things WORKED, producing desired RESULTS.

And MY point is that SP was himself exclusively qualified to make any changes to his management system.

And furthermore, I would like to point out that no-one is forced or beholden to follow the instructions of the Founder-Acarya of Iskcon. If they think they can do better, and even want to use His institutional paradigm as a working model, they have the free-will and my blessing to do so.

However, such a person seeks to ..

- represent themselves as being a member of Iskcon.

- a disciple of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami,

- use his physical properties for such a purpose,

- or use his intellectual property without full disclaimer of their breaking with his established instructions on how to use his intellectual property.

They do not have my blessing to do so, and I will correct their errors forthwith each and every time.

But this could be considered a blessing if they see reason and change their ways, for it is written...

3rd Canto (3.4.26), “Although one may be well versed in transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science.”

 

 

Kaiser Schmagegi:mad2:

 

 

Come on Andy...don't be a baby. It is not a Brahmana characterestic to run away from bonafide questions.

 

You did cleverly skip the fundamental question that was asked several times over and over again. How do you determine one's varna?

I wouldn't in a million years enlighten you as to the answer to that question because it would do anything but enlighten you, but simply empower you to use that tidbit to twist it to your own purposes, and with your intellectual acuity you might just approximate the process enough to fool a few people and do some damage. Figure it out for your self O' Mighty Kaiser of Schmaiser. And then bugger off, please.

First off where are your translations from? And an ISKCON officially approved anything means nothing on the street, just in the cult!

 

What does anyone know about varna? Or vedic? What ever he has received from his guru! That is considering he has no excess baggage from his previous life. In this regard I do not! Most that actually accept Prabhupada are of various inclinations, hence varna and asrama division.

 

We have as followers of Srila Prabhupada received definitions and explanation that he take as vedic scriptures. This is as much as we know. Prabhupada has said that we should divide the society into varna and asrama, four + four, the society of 8. Prabhupada has given the definition of those divisions. One of those varnas is sudra, but he is never to be considered like a mundane sudra. He is Vaisnava first and foremost! Everything he will get! If he follows the rules and regulations of his varna, that includes samskaras.

 

Prabhupada said previously the thinking was that only brahmana could get perfection. With the Daivi Varnasrama Dharma division and execution, ALL varnas are spiritually equal. This is Srila Prabhupada's declaration for ISKCON, you do as you like.

 

Once it is determined that a person is a particular varna he should be left to his work with no other encumbrance from the other varnas to forcibly improve. It can not be done, not by force. Why bother, just for your own ego? Leave him to him work for Krsna.

 

We are Vaisnavas that perform our work in varna and asrama general divisions, with Krsna as central recipient. As explained in Bhagavad Gita, Who gives a .. who is in what varna? Just outsiders!!!! Prabhupada told us that do to the rejection of the sudra class in India, those rejected then sought shelter in Islam, people like you drove them away.

 

As far as sudras studying scriptures? Hell, yes as much as he is capable, this is the Kali yuga, we are not here to follow perfect varna and asrama as applies to the Satya yuga. No, only as explained by our Guru!

 

What ever the previous acaryas have written is amalgamated in the over all works of Srila Prabhupada. Delivering to us a completed plan for a house that the whole 10k yr golden age can live in. His complete vani constitutes, what I like to think, as the last word on of the consummate purport on all the predecessor acaryas. But that is me and mine, you do as you like, our sudra's will be literate for the purpose of reading the books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

Get the pure purports, trust no imitation explanations. Read the books.

 

Hare Krsna

 

RCB

Bravo! Well spoken.

I am already catching a whiff of burning hair, as the caste brahmanas are feverishly burning with envy as they imagine a lowly sudra being allowed by the Gaudiyas to put their grubby hands upon a sacred book, and desecrate it with their lowly glance.

Jihad! Jihad against the blashpheming Gaudiyas who would seek to unseat the high and holy from their ivory perch as guardians of the truth!

My god what childish banter.

I agree and will no longer enable the perpetuation of such with those who actually are not seeking the truth, but seek only to denigrate others in order to feel better about their own imagined position in life.

Sonic Yogi posted some real nectar that I could never hold a candle to anyway on the matter.

1) The Hare Krishnas make a big case for how Brahmanas are not by birth[/quuote]

 

Noone ever said that a brahmana cannot be born in a brahmana family and be a brahmana. This is just your typical loathsome tactic of twisting words and fabricating straw man arguments.

 

Your assumptions are presumptuous and ignore points already provided by me.

 

You are lost, and will no longer receive another iota of my valuable time.

 

You can lead a horse to water....

"BUMP"

For the Extraordinary Glories this Article Reveals about Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami and his Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Macmillan 1972 edition.

He mercifully met people where they were at.

If one is a logician, and approaches all things via fact, logic, and reason, why cannot the Origin of fact, logic, and reason come up with a program where some things can be known about Him in that way, to give a fallen soul a taste, and then imbue his Acarya with superior intelligence to guide the logician to apparent contradictions that force him to intuitional development, and then beyond to direct perception via the dictation of Supersoul who is in his heart?

He can and does.

The knowledge is in the scriptures in form of true theory, but it is only practically realized slowly in conjunction with purifying life experiences.

Mahak's speculative opinions aside.

A Harinama Sankirtana devotee in Kali Yuga, if inclined, may develop all the brahminical qualities according to the mode of goodness by following the rules and regulations of a brahmana according to Pancaratrika Vidhi, as dispensed and enumerated by Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami.

Just because you might be sudra/streetweeper by guna and karma does not mean that everyone else in the Western hemisphere is. If they are humble and sincere in their efforts at following the rules and regulations of their varna as prescribed by their Acarya, their Kirtana will "command" the presence of the demigods just as much as yours.

Someone please enlighten me.

 

Why are the Hare Krishnas obsessing about the varna-system? Why is it important for them to become Brahmanas?

 

I fail to get it. Since the Hare Krishna's goal is Krishna, why this deep-seeded need to become a Brahmana? I don't see the link.

 

It looks like they believe only Brahmanas are eligible for Krishna, which I find to be a very weird position for an international organization, not to mention lack of scriptural support for such a position.

 

Cheers

Actually, the obsession with Varna is displayed by those who insist that a soul's varna must exclusively be determined by the qualities of the person who's womb they squirt from.

All the questions, and assumptions you express above could be answered simply by reading the Bhagavad Gita As it Is, 1972 Macmillan edition. Written by the Founder-Acarya of the "Hare Krsnas" HDG AC Bhaktivedanta Swami, this explains everything about the Basic Gaudiya philosophy, and is expanded in greater depth in his exposition of the First 2 cantos of Srimad Bhagavatam.

From there, you can compare the knowledge you will gain with whatever is being expressed by anyone claiming to represent that method of becoming a devotional servant of Sri Hari.

As part of the sadhana given by the Swami, one is to act within his Varna and Asrama and do his material duty and enjoy his material senses under the restrictions of the rules and regulations commensurate with that varna and asrama, while gradually adding more purely spiritual/transcendental activities of direct devotional service, thus a two pronged approach to gradually purifying material attachments while gradually increasing attachment to the 9 processes of direct spiritual devotional service. In a nutshell.

His disciples are not obsessed, but compelled, to correct the myth that a person's varna is determined by birth only, as those adhering to such dogma will inevitably prevent them from being able to help someone align with their natural tendencies and keep them ignorantly engaged in a way they are materially unqualified for, which leads to the inability to develop the equanimity and dispassion required for spiritual qualities to make inroads into that person's life.

It is not necessary for one to be a Brahmana to be saved as you mistakenly have assumed.

Again, prescribing such a view to me, without evidence of such words coming from my pen, is a poor tactic. It is your own baseless assumption. There is every reason to imply however that the development of Brahminical qualities indicates advancement for one who has already been saved by virtue of accepting shelter of the Vaisnava Cult.

And yes the answer was in the question. I was subtly hinting that you are wasting your time on your jihad, for unsubmissive inquiry is tantamount to manipulation to fulfill an agenda, and anyone involved in such an effort is better off waving some incense in front of Sri Murti, or cooking some Capati, or just about anything else actually.

You, Sonic Yogi, Shiva, and Theist are confused.

 

No one is arguing in support of a system which privileges one exclusively based on birth.

 

On the contrary, all that has been said is that in Vedic culture, one's varna was determined by birth and *then* one was raised and expected to act according to that varna.

You have a very short memory as to what was posted on the "who is a brahmana thread" by one of your teammates.

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?

as for this piece

No one is arguing with the principle that even a shUdra or mleccha should be given respect equal to that given to a brAhmana when the former display brAhminical qualities. This is a theoretical point, however, since most people cannot objectively ascertain who has enough "brAhminical qualities" to merit promotion to a different varna.

Again, nice that you change your tune, but this is not all there is. You are stymied by pigeon holing existince into categories of what "most people" can or cannot do. While it would be foolish to ignore the truth of such stereotypes, we should not do so at the expense of exceptions.

If you are too intellectually lazy or uncaring or perhaps, giving you the benefit of the doubt, priorly indisposed, to scour the world looking for the lost servants of Sri Krsna who have been temporarily dazed by a karmic birth unsuitable to bringing out their best qualifications, that is understandable. What is offensive to your own soul is your relentless campaign to belittle those who are engaged in such efforts. Your shoot first and ask questions later approach to that which seems mysterious to you does not serve you well.

 

That is a candid admission. Can we agree then, that just as Prabhupada did something that Baladeva would never have sanctioned , it is also ok for Hridayananda to bless same sex couples?

It is a different time after all, with different circumstances and just as Prabhupada deviated from tradition for this reason, Hridayananda should by the exact same logic, be able to do the same?

Cheers

The difference is, you don't have tape recordings and unchanged manuscripts so as to know EXACTLY what Baladeva would or would not have sanctioned.

I have such from my Prabhupada, and I can say, and have argued based on the evidence, that Hridayananda has no sanction by his acarya to do what he is doing, and is in fact one who has cheated, and neglected his Guru's instructions.

You have yet to prove that there was any tradition, whereby Baladeva stated one must be squirt from the womb of a brahmana woman in order to be trained as brahmana. Yet you claim this is a tradition my Guru broke with.

You have no leg to stand on yet persist in your sophistry. It is a shame.

You withheld comment on the rest of my lucid analysis on the difference between the use of samskaras via the Vedic Vidhi system and those of Narada's Pancaratrika Vidhi, and how this relates to the saving of those souls born in gross ignorance outside of Bharata Varsa, and instead cherry picked a "candid admission" and twisted what was said to support your unsubstantiated claim that my Guru is taking license to be licentious similar to a known rogue and theif.

Is this brahminical activity? Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Like perform a puja or cook some roti or something?

SO if you can do that, then why could not Prabhupada?

 

Why did Prabhupada mistakenly identify Kirtananda and many others as brahmanas?

 

What do you have that he lacks?

you again miss the point.

He did not make a mistake. It is you who cannot recognize that he came to reclaim the most fallen of the brahminical varna. Including me.

Many of those who the Lord sent to my Prabhupada had mostly poor moral and ethical qualities, and only the intellect.

He saved us anyway, giving us his association, reducing the punishment for the eons of demoniac sins we committed by virtue of our high level of material intellectual intelligence, and probably saving the entire universe from our perverted wrath.

And not all were as degraded as I allude. You are simply and wholly ignorant as to the existence of hundreds of his disciples who had actually some of the more refined moral, ethical, and equalminded qualities of a Bramana, who rejected the ostentatious and abusive institutional power grab of the worst of Prabhupada's disciples.

They are in exile on the fringe of society. Working quietly as librarians, teachers of young children, writers, grocery store clerks, some living off inheritances. They chant, read, pray, hold kirtanas, generally keep a low profile, sometimes participate in internet forums, but rarely.

So you again are locked into your assumption of the "great failure of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, by focusing solely on the little blip on the radar which is the false abusive Iskcon of the tabloids as ammunition to prove your criticisms.

Too bad for you.

But now, perhaps, you can see the hidden mercy distribution even in that apparently horrendous escapade, and rejoice. If not that is ok, just go easy with the blasphemy for your own sake.

Aren't YOU the one who claimed that everyone in Kali Yuga is born a shUdra?

If you have to ask, and cannot provide a quote from me, then the answer to your question is evident.

No I never claimed such a thing.

My Guru told me that everyone born in Kali Yuga should be assumed to be of the quality of Sudra until they can prove otherwise. This as a result of the general population of India adhering to "Caste by Birth-ONLY" wherein plenty of rascals, due to their desire, are allowed by the Lord to incarnate into higher caste families, while not displaying the moral and ethical qualities of those higher castes, but simply being there so they can exercise false power over others in order to make up for the fact they have tiny hearts and even smaller linga.

Well, Baladeva wrote in the commentary that I quoted that a shUdra is not eligible to undergo saMskAras.

At the time, he saw it best that those with sudra qualifications would have no use for the samskaras of Vedic Viddhi and that is understandable.

Andy, being the expert on Gaudiya Vaishnavism that you are, can you explain to me how a shUdra becomes a brAhmana when he is not allowed to undergo saMskAras?

Sure. It is impossible, as previously stated to "make" a person who is Sudra by tendency and qualification "become" a brahmana by some ritual.

But in regards to those who are intellectually inclined, but largely ignorant in all other capacities and thus "Sudra'' by Kali Yuga's nature,

First of all, there has been the appearance of another Acarya in Baladeva's line. He has, as acarya's are wont to do, taken into consideration the time place and candidates he was preaching to, and authorized the dispensation of samskaras according to Sri Narada's Bhakti based Pancaratrika Viddhi, which are tailored to taking those most fallen in Kali yuga, who have even the slightest inclination to surrender to inquiry about Self-realization, and initiate their gradual path back home.

So as I related in the other thread, if one is ever at any moment honest and sincere in inquiry as to "who am I?", "who is supreme?" and willing to begin rudimentary sadhana instruction, we Gaudiya's share the mercy, and know that they are on the path, regardless of the near term failure to maintain sincerety which occurs quite often.

Even one born to Sudra caste and displaying Sudra qualities is eligible for certain of the Pancaratrika Vidhi Samskaras in order that they may benefit from their subtle purifying effects, yet it is not imagined, nor implied, that they will suddenly become highly qualified brahmanas in that lifetime. However if they follow the rules and regulations instructed according to their Varna, sudra, within a Gaudiya Vaisnava society, they are considered "as good as a brahmana", especially a so-called brahmana who is proud of his vedic scholarship but did not study the vedas with the goal of becoming a humble servant of the Lord, and thus may be brahmana, but not Vaisnava.

Hope this helps you see.

The key point is, he was born as a Shudra for a reason, and therefore he should perform the approprate Karma for his varna. No one has the ability to identify their own "actual" varnas or someone else's and change their Karma's based on such identification.

Wrong. I can identify someone elses actual varna by simply observing their behavioral tendencies and qualities. And I can change their karma too. For if they have the karma of being born into a situation where their father is not qualified to engage them according to the actual guna that is attached to their soul, I could recommend that child be placed into Gurukula with a teacher of higher varna, or instruct them myself. Very simple. Karma is altered due to mercy. If the soul is willing and surrendered to the step, and the father amiable, it is a done deal. Try and stop me. So I have proved you wrong inherently.

Or you can take the words of Srila Sanatana Goswami in Hari Bhakti Vilas, or Srila Jiva Goswami, or Vyasa's Srimad Bhagavatam as mentioned in the purport to CC Adi 7.47...

In this Hari-bhakti-vilāsa Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī gives definite instructions that by proper initiation by a bona fide spiritual master one can immediately become a brāhmaṇa. In this connection he says:

 

yathā kāñcanatāṁ yāti kāṁsyaṁ rasa-vidhānataḥ

tathā dīkṣā-vidhānena dvijatvaṁ jāyate nṛṇām

 

 

"As bell metal is turned to gold when mixed with mercury in an alchemical process, so one who is properly trained and initiated by a bona fide spiritual master immediately becomes a brāhmaṇa." Sometimes those born in brāhmaṇa families protest this, but they have no strong arguments against this principle. By the grace of Kṛṣṇa and His devotee, one's life can change. This is confirmed in Śrīmad-Bhagavatam by the words jahāti bandham and śudhyanti. Jahāti bandham indicates that a living entity is conditioned by a particular type of body. The body is certainly an impediment, but one who associates with a pure devotee and follows his instructions can avoid this impediment and become a regular brāḥmaṇa by initiation under his strict guidance. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī states how a non-brāhmaṇa can be turned into a brāhmaṇa by the association of a pure devotee. Prabhaviṣṇave namaḥ: Lord Viṣṇu is so powerful that He can do anything He likes. Therefore it is not difficult for Viṣṇu to change the body of a devotee who is under the guidance of a pure devotee of the Lord.

 

 

As a Hare Krishna you have direct evidence of how this failed in the case of the ISKCON tradition. Such an identification procedure is not mentioned anywhere in scripture.

What is a "Hare Krsna"?

Anyway, this procedure is mentioned in scripture as above.

As regarding the process used by Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, he said that if someone is for a moment honest and sincere about endeavoring to know God, and inquiring "who am I", they are qualified to be initiated into the Maha Mantra. Which is the only way to save the grossly ignorant western world who didn't have the privelege of your own good karma and birthright.

harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā. [Cc. Adi 17.21]

SYNONYMS

hareḥ nāma—the holy name of the Lord; hareḥ nāma—the holy name of the Lord; hareḥ nāma—the holy name of the Lord; eva—certainly; kevalam—only; kalau—in the Age of Kali; na asti—there is none; eva—certainly; na asti—there is none; eva—certainly; na asti—there is none; eva—certainly; gatiḥ—destination; anyathā—otherwise.

TRANSLATION

" 'In this Age of Kali there is no other means, no other means, no other means for self-realization than chanting the holy name, chanting the holy name, chanting the holy name of Lord Hari.'

And then trained as brahmana. He also qualified this by stating that any dishonesty or insincerety that crept in to the student would prevent him from taking guidance and training seriously and strictly and prevent him from making further advancement, as per the elucidation of Sanatana Goswami's conclusion. But there is no loss or dimunition on the path any advancement on the path is permanently stored in the Samchit storehouse despite falldowns.

There are plenty of people who are intellectual by nature, yet have little or none of the other positive traits of a Brahmana. This is Kali Yuga. There were millions of such souls born outside of Bharata Varsa left for dead eternally. He had the mercy and compassion to step out of his comfort zone and start the ball rolling for all of them. Even if they immediately turned on him in a fit of selfishness.

Savior of the fallen. Patita Pavana. You cannot see the forest for the trees, are throwing the baby out with the wash water, and are missing the glory in the situation.

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

Kaiser Says so]"Varna is by birth alone and it is made abundantly clear in scripture and has been accepted that for thousands of years"

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of such a statement. I have seen none. Although, if you were to show such a scriptural statement that argued it was not possible for a person to be placed into a birth family whos father's varna did not match his inner qualities, I would be suspicious that the translation was simply a motivated interpretation because I have seen evidence with my own eyes, corroborated by the similar perceptions of countless others, that the birth cycle is not so cut and dry. To imagine that God Almighty, (source of all scripture), would contradict what is plainly evident to untold numbers of persons of "average intelligence" stretches the boundaries of sanity.

Of course, Lord Buddha rejected the Vedic evidence completely to fulfill his particular mission of gradually enlightening those who were so lost as to twist scripture to suit their own sensual gratification.

Buddhists would declare whatever translation a Gaudiya Acarya ascribed to Devanagari Sanskrit text from Vedic Scritpure as irrelevant because it was made abundantly clear to them that the Vedas are worthless.

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

It is you who cannot read the very words he wrote. He spoke of SUDRAS.

What he means is exactly that. One who is a Sudra.

Someone who is actually a Sudra actually has no qualification to read and understand Scriptures. They have at most the capacity to kindly surrender to and follow the instructions of the person of higher caste who decides what labors they should execute.

His use of the term Sudra in no way describes one born in a Sudra family who displays incongruity with Sudra varna and should be matched with Gurukula of higher varna.

This is the whole point and the only point that is crucial for you to understand.

I, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and all the Gaudiya branch acaryas strictly disagree with your criteria for determining who a sudra is, and nothing you have quoted from Srila Baladeva Vidya Bhushana indicates that he agrees with your caste by birth only theory.

You Madhvites fail to recognize the extreme chastisement Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and his stalwarts like Srila Bhaktivinode and his son Bhaktisiddhanta had leveled at the Gaudiya Community as well, and much more frequently than the rare occasion they addressed the Madhva lineage. They particularly focused their chastisment upon that section of the Gaudiya community who insulated themselves into a self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating caste by birth only lineage.

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami was able to share the glories of Sri Krsna around the world. He criticized even his own godbrothers for remaining comfortable in their own little kutirs, and failing to understand the depth of devotion, wherein one can take the risk of wandering far and wide sharing the glories of the holy names even to those the scriptures have described as unreceptive. Even if a such a person was unable to instantly develop 100% of their latent Vaisnava brahminical qualities, they still benefited from hearing the glories of the Lord, effectively beginning their slow march back Home. Such Mercy NEVER is shared by those considering another untouchable and fully excluded by birth to read of the Lord in the Vedas.

Such chastisement was never meant to be a fanatic condemnation of the progress such caste-by-birth-ONLY adherents had made in meditating on the names of the Lord, but to point out they had a long way to go to realize the largely inconceivable nature of the Lord's mercy, the special mercy and grace that he has imbued his holy names with in this age, and how he places jivas BY BIRTH into various situations that do not exactly match their inner inclinations.

This is an observable and recognizable truth, and you only fail to give admittance because it removes you from your comfort zone and challenges your cherished position as having a corner on the market of truth, the high priest of spiritual knowledge, as if the Lord cannot appear as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and add a thing or two that you don't know, that Sri Madhva did not choose to share with you for his own divine reasons, and that is not meant to hurt you but to further your advancement in spiritual life.

Instead of minimizing the "only thing he wrote", the Siksastaka, why don't you read it, you might catch a clue.

Don't let the fact that some fanatic so-called disciples of Gaudiya Acaryas misuse these facts to bludgeon you about the head with it prevent you from taking advantage of the original intention of these revelations which were meant to help you, not hurt you.