vijay

okay occasional (or maybe even the first time) unconstructive, unsubstantiated fault finding. Its very danjerous for our own spirtual lives no matter how advanced we think we are and those that we are an example for will also follow as we have seen. Any unsubstantiated offence to any type of devotee, belonging to any math or instutution, is the begining of the end. I have personally offended gurus and vaishnavas by speach and mind in iskcon and outside iskcon and have felt loss of taste in krishna conciousness, slowly we stop appreciating those devotees that are chanting krishnas holy names and dedicated thier lives to krsna we end up seeing their faults,and mundanaze bhakti with our mental speculations. We feel happy when a new bhakta comes and starts chanting the holy names, but critises those that have dedicated their lives to krishna and see (worse speculate) on thier faults instead of feeling bliss that these devotees are trying. Spirtual life will become depressing and may even temporarily stop. No one has ever been punished for glorifying vaishnavas for what little they do, but for offending a devotee the price is high. Quotes Advanced devotee never disobey or disrespect another devotee. Disrespect to another devotee is a great offense. Vaisnava aparadha. Vaisnava aparadha is very serious offense. Therefore we teach to address amongst the devotees, "Prabhu", "Prabhu", "Such and such Prabhu." This should not be simply spoken by the lips. It should be realized. Everyone should think other devotee as his prabhu, master. Not he should try to become master. Of all sinful activities, an offense to a pure devotee, or Vaisnava, is the most severe. An offense at the lotus feet of a Vaisnava is so disastrous that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has compared it to a mad elephant that enters a garden and causes great havoc by uprooting many plants and trees. If one is an offender at the lotus feet of a brahmana or Vaisnava, his offenses uproot all his auspicious activities. One should therefore very carefully guard against committing vaisnava-aparadha, or offenses at the lotus feet of a Vaisnava. Durvasa Muni, unless you beg pardon from Ambarisa Maharaja, there is no question of excusing you. The sudarsana-cakra will not excuse." Therefore Vaisnava aparadha is very, very offensive. You should be very careful. Caitanya Mahaprabhu has warned vaisnava aparadha, hati mata. Vaisnava aparadha, offense at the feet of Vaisnava, is exactly like mad elephant.

First let me apologise for any offences I caused that wasnt my intention. Also me quoting that story of local vaishnavas being envious of srila prabhupada was not ment to insult any senior vaishnavas or any ones guru maharaj, the point was that we must try and see the good in devotees not constant fault finding constructive is okay but what i see is not constructive. I didnt "brand" anyone envious, I just said anyone with that motivation or mentality is envious, if the shoe fits it fits if it doesnt than thats good. "I'm sure it makes them feel important, and having this meeting with models, drawings, and attendees with deep pockets makes them feel as though they're accomplishing something. In those years, though, many other "spiritual" organizations have built enormous, impressive temples all over the world. So has ISKCON, but this one seems to be a big boondoggle. Perhaps it's the concept--the idea that it has to be bigger and flashier than any other temple in Gauda, even looking down on the temple Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati built at the Yogapitha" Your comments are just so critical its annoying so sorry i have to speak up no its not because its " little different from ISKCON's party line" I dont mind theists post about keeping it simple may be thats an alternative but your posts are just rude. Its like you generalise everyone and it seems like that they have no intention of pleaseing prabhupada they are just doing things out of ego. "makes them feel important, and having this meeting with models, drawings, and attendees with deep pockets makes them feel as though they're accomplishing something." Mr phychic, i guess. Or ISKCON has made so many mistakes this is must be another one so they must be thinking in this way. Srila prabhupada seems to of wanted "big and flashy" temples. Letter to Tamala krishna goswami 71-08-14 I have already engaged Nara Naryana, Vasudeva and Ranchor to prepare a grand scale plan for the Mayapur land and as ... Letter to gopal krishna goswami, Regarding the mayapur center, this is almost settled up that we shall have a temple there. Very soon we shall purchase a piece of land there, so when you return to india it will be in your charge for constructing a temple in grand scale there. Bhaktivinoda takhur enviged a centre in mayapur where all the russians, british, germans will come and chant the Holy names of krishna. Maybe there are other ways of doing it but theres no need to degenerate the management that they are doing this to feel important blah blah. "And it's more of a shame that less experienced devotees feel no compunction about so freely criticizing devotees " Well if you wernt so freely critising devotees in your subtle ways then maybe people like me would learn. "This thread opened by asking us to express our opinions about the design for the temple. If it ever gets built, it will be big and flashy, and that will be of some benefit to those who are attracted by such things. Indeed, Krishna should be glorified beyond anyone else. But Muralidhar is simply pointing out that, to the extent this project is meant to overshadow all others, it is likely to disturb many dhamavasis who are our well wishers. " Thats right it began like that but then you decided to be a phychologist or a phychic and speculated that the managemnt are doing this to feel important and overshadow others in your not so subtle way. I dont see it as an offence to crisize, uncontructive critisers. My apologies to Murli if I took your words in the wrong way. Im sure all of you vaishnavas have had much more experience and mercy than what il ever get. But just be careful of vaishnava aparhad it will turn all of that into ashes. And dont get an ego trip with how much service you have done and therefore feel its okay to critise others. Rupa kaviraja was on the stage of bhava but look what happened when he commited vaishnava apahrad, we are no where near that level (else we wont be on a bullitien board speculating on devotee mangers intentions) so please you should also be careful.

Pankaja prabhu, i got the who is mahaprabhu an incarnation of wrong. I always here 2 things, that he is radha and krsna combined and also that he is krishna in the mood of radharani, how to understand this?

"It gets weirder all the time. Iskcon is in Rudradwip, not Mayapura, and now they will be building something that overshadows Mahaprabhu's birthplace in importance, in the eyes of the ignorant. But surely some devotees will walk out the gate, go up the road towards the Yoga-pitha, and find.... something better." Its such a shame when ever someone tries to do any good only fault is found, just as when prabhupada bought devotees to mayapur local vaishnavs would critises as prabhupada ate food from so called unclean 'mellechas'. They could not go beyond that conception. Nityanand prabhu and haridasa takhur would go into ecstasy if some soul became a devotee by chanting the name of krsna once as they went door to door begging them to chant, he appreciated such so called 'small' service, however this service is not small it is the greatest thing, we mundanize it with our egos. Im sure Mahaprabhu would be very happy with any small service like building a temple which propogates the mission he established. Only a fool would think 'this is not good the ignorant will think it will overshadow mahaprabhus birth place therefore better not to build it' Prabhupadas mission and other senior vaishnavas have attracted many devotees to mahaprabhus birth place, thinking that any temple where the lord is being worshipped will overshadow and not enhance the glories of the dham are fools.

This story touches the heart. I just wonder what kind of mercy radhanatha swami had to leave his home at 18 in america after the pursuance of god then travel to europe then the muslim countries then the himalayas and eventually becoming a shivate and then ending up in the holiest dham of vrindavan on janmastmi day by accident and not being able to leave again at a time when there were no westerners in vrindavan and not known in the west at all. Special mercy.

I also had the fortune of Kanakabja pranhu teach me a 12 week course (for free), he is a nice devotee that has a family, he charges for some courses he also has to work part time to mantain his family as any income he does get from teaching is infrequent and low, he spends very little on himself and his family and is dedicated to spending as much time on preaching and helping devotees. Before he was married he was a bramhachari for many years he survived on book distribution throughout europe. Unfortunately we dont live in a society which is charitable or cultured in terms of giving charity to brahimins.

Wisdom lies in compromise by Kanakabja das Bhaktivedanta Manor, UK Posted November 5, 2004 I have read Anantadeva prabhu's article with great interest and felt impelled to share a few further thoughts that might help him to see the issue from a different angle. The issue seems to be that courses on Bhakti topics such as Bhagavad-gita or Srimad Bhagavatam cost money, while, as evident from the quotes posted, Srila Prabhupada was against such a practice and it doesn't seem right from a traditional Vedic perspective -- Brahmins depend on charity and do not take salary. I don't think that there is an argument about that at all. The quotes are very clear. However, let us try considering a role of a 'brahmin' in ISKCON. There are several educational institutions within ISKCON, such as VIHE, VTE or MIHE. Devotees running those institutions are trying very hard to provide high quality educational material and courses to the devotees. To get that done, they have to develop course materials and curricula, as well as train the teachers. Teachers also need to live, eat and pay their travel costs, etc. -- the list is long. Knowing quite a few devotees working actively on those projects, and having been involved myself, I have good insight into what it actually takes to offer a good-quality seminar. All the things mentioned above cost money. The ideal situation would be if our Society had funds to financially support these activities; however, the reality is that this doesn't happen to the degree necessary to cover everything required. That leaves one option: money has to come from the students. It would be great if voluntary donations from the students covered all the costs needed, but it doesn't seem to work nowadays. If we asked anyone with experience in that field, we would find ourselves unable to cover even a portion of travel costs with 'generous' donations. It's kind of sad, but it is reality. We therefore have two remaining choices: charge fixed fees for the course or accept some other employment and let devotees be happy with the Bhagavatam class. In the ideal Vedic society, Brahmins were fully maintained by Kshatriyas; it was the duty of a Kshatriya to tax Vaishyas and give that money to Brahmins for their daily needs. Unfortunately, we are very far from that ideal today and devotees are struggling very hard to provide education to the members of ISKCON. I do not believe there is a single teacher in ISKCON who got rich and made a business out of teaching. How many can we find who can actually pay for their daily basic needs? It saddens my heart to see that their hard work is so little appreciated. This is why so many of the very qualified devotees in our Society gave up on educational development within ISKCON and got jobs outside -- jobs that can pay for their bread. It all comes down to recognising what the principle is, what the goal is, and how to apply all of that today so the goal can be reached. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati went to preach to Calcutta, although Gaura Kishore das Babaji had clearly instructed him not to stay in Calcutta, and Srila Prabhupada adjusted so many rules practiced within the Gaudiya Math in order to spread Krishna consciousness. We have to use common sense and, if two principles are unattainable at the same time, we have to choose the more important one. I hope this makes some sense.

Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami has advised in Caitanya-caritamrita that we should not shy away from controversy, for it comes to either strengthen our conviction or elevate us to a higher conception. This statement is in relation to his assertion that Krsna is the original Godhead from whom all other incarnations and expansions emanate. More controversial still is the second part of his argument--Sri Caitanya is that same Krsna, svayam bhagavan. siddhanta baliya citte na kara alasa iha ha-ita ksrne lage sudrdha manasa "A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions, considering them controversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one's mind becomes attached to Sri Krsna." Praying for the grace of Krsnadasa Kaviraja and subsequent attachment to Sri Krsna, discussion of the Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta (krsnas tu bhagavan svayam) is undertaken herein in response to the challenge of Dr. B.N.K. Sharma. Dr. Sharma has written a commentary on Madhva's Gita-bhasya. His book is blessed by Sri Visvesa Tirtha, acarya of the Pejavara Matha in Udupi, one of the principal mathas of the Madhva sampradaya. The Madhva sampradaya maintains that the source of all avataras is Narayana, of whom Sri Krsna is an incarnation. Dr. Sharma, in his discussion on the tenth chapter of the Gita, has mentioned our Gaudiya sampradaya and its emphasis on Sri Krsna as the source of all incarnations. He comments on the Bhagavata verse krsnas tu bhagavan svayam (SB 1.3.28), describing our understanding of this verse as a grammatical misunderstanding, resulting in the misconception that Krsna is the source of Narayana. According to Dr. Sharma, we have it backwards, Krsna is not the source of Narayana, rather Narayana is the source of Krsna. Dr. Sharma says that the followers of Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada must "answer to the textual objections raised by the Madhvas against such an interpretation." Dr. Sharma states: "The particle 'tu' in krsnas tu bhagavan svayam (Bhag. 1.3.28) is used here for emphatic iteration (and not for drawing a contrast). The distinction sought to be made by some commentators on the Bhagavata that Varaha, Nrsimha and other avataras of the Lord mentioned before are only His amsas (partial aspects) while Krsna avatara is alone the full-fledged, complete, undivided whole (amsi) is not authenticated anywhere else." About this, Dr. Sharma could not be less than blinded by his love for Narayana to have missed, not only hundreds of scriptural statements in support of Krsna's supreme position, many of which are found in the Bhagavata itself, but the very essence of the Bhagavata as well. The Gaudiya understanding of tu in krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is that tu (but) is used for drawing a contrast between Sri Krsna and all of his avataras, including Narayana. If one insists that tu is used for emphasis, however, that does not change the meaning of the verse. In this case tu serves to stress the conclusion that Krsna is the source of all incarnations. Tu can be translated as indeed or certainly. Certainly, Krsna is svayam bhagavan as all the scriptures proclaim. The fifth chapter of Sri Brahma smahita, the hymns of Brahma, who is the adi-guru of the Madhva sampradaya, begins with the statement: isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah anadir adir govindah sarva-karana-karanam "The supreme controller is Krsna, who has an eternal form of eternity, knowledge, and bliss. He is known as Govinda and he is the cause of all causes." Sri Jiva Gosvami's commentary on this verse cites more than fifty statements from the Bhagavata that directly support this statement. Five other verses in this same fifth chapter bring home the same truth with no ambiguity. It is no wonder that Sri Caitanya, who brought the Brahma-samhita to light, had such an appreciation for it. About the Brahma-samhita, Sri Caitanya has said, siddhanta sastra nahi brahma-samhita'ra sama govinda-mahima jnanera parama karana alpaksare kahe siddhanta apara sakala-vaisnava-sastra-madhye ati sara "There is no scripture equal to the Brahma-samhita as far as the final spiritual conclusion is concerned. Indeed, that scripture is the supreme revalations of the glories of Lord Govinda, for it reveals the topmost knowledge about him. Since all conclusions are briefly presented in Brahma-samhita, it is essential among all the Vaisnava literatures." (Cc. Madh. 9.239-240) Yet some like Dr. Sharma may doubt the authenticity of the Brahma-samhita. After all, they doubt that Krsna is the origianal Godhead and do not accept that Sri Caitanya is even an avatara of the Lord, what to speak of being svayam bhagavan Sri Krsna Himself. If the Brahma-samhita is a questionable source for some, their doubt will be removed after reading Sri Jiva Gosvami's commentary on the text. Such a reading will remove all doubt that the Brahma-samhita is presenting anything less than the essence of all revealed scripture. The Bhagavata is accepted by all, and Jiva Gosvami's references to the Bhagavata in support of the conclusions of the Brahma-samhita are exhaustive. In Sri Jiva Gosvami's Krsna-sandarbha, he cites every possible statement of the Bhagavata that could possibly be construed to contradict what he describes as the paribhasa-sutra (referring to krsnas tu bhagavan svayam) and explains how they to actually support the Gaudiya siddhanta. By paribhasa-sutra, Jiva Gosvami means a verse that explains how one can understand an entire book in context. It is one statement found in the beginning of a book that serves as a key to understanding its actual purport and the apparently unrelated facts of the book. Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is such an authoritative statement from the most authoritative book (the Bhagavata). The more important question on authority, however, is on what authority did Madhva elect to exclude two chapters of the Bhagavata? The bewilderment of Brahma (Brahma-vimohana-lila) in the Bhagavata was a source of bewilderment to Madhvacarya. Yet in Chapter Fourteen of the Tenth Canto, where Brahma was bewildered about the position of Krsna, we find what Krsnadasa Kaviraja describes as the essence of Srimad Bhagavatam. ei sloka tattva-laksanna bhagavata-sara paribhasa-rupe ihara sarvatradhikara "The truth indicated in this verse (SB 10.14.14) is the essence of the Srimad Bhagavatam. This conclusion, through synonyms, applies everywhere." This verse from the Brahma-vimohana-lila is the opinion of Brahma on the issue under discussion. narayanas tvam na hi sarva-dehinam atmasy adhisakhila-loka-saksi narayano 'ngam narabhu-jalayanat tac capi satyam na tavaiva maya "O Lord of lords, You are the seer of all creation. You are indeed everyone's dearest life. Are You not, therefore, my father, Narayana? Narayana refers to one Whose abode is in the water born from Nara [Gar bhodakasayi Visnu], and that Narayana is your plenary portion. All Your portions are transcendental. They are abosolute and are not creations of maya." Here Brahma is speaking to Sri Krsna after having witnessed innumerable forms of Narayana emanating from the trancendental body of Krsna. If universes emanate from the body of Narayana, and Narayana emanates from the body of Krsna, it is fair to say that Dr. Sharma has it backwards, not us. In this pastime Sri Krsna is demonstrating among other things the super-opulence of Vrndavana. Although madhurya (sweetness) overrides the aisvarya (opulence) of Vrndavana, this lila makes it clear that Vrndavana is not only sweeter than Vaikuntha, but it is more opulent as well. Sri Krsna's abode exceeds the Vaikuntha lokas in aisvarya. Sri Krsna is the source of all opulence, yet his sweetness and charm is something that is greater than all of his majesty. Dr. Sharma cites a reference from the Visnu Purana, which he and others of his stamp interpret to mean that Krsna is an incarnation of the hair (kesa) of Narayana. Therefore, Dr. Sharma reasons, why should we accept Krsna as svayam bhagavan? There are other so-called references to Krsna being an incarnation of the hair of Narayana as well. Yet all of the verses said to describe Krsna as a black hair and Balarama as a white hair are misunderstood by foolish commentators. Where in any scripture has the Lord been describe as having white hair? He has black hair. If he drew from his head a black and white hiar as they misconstrue, from where did the gray hair come? The Lord is eternally youthful. His hairs do not turn gray over time. Sridhara Svami refutes this foolish idea by explaining that the word kesau in the Visnu Purana sloka is used in the sense of splendor. The complexions of Krsna and Balarama are thus being described as beautiful or splendorous. The Visnu Purana states: ujjaharatmanah kesau. Sridhara Svami explains that this phrase properly understood means "The Lord in his splendid origianl forms as Balarama and Krsna relieved the burden of the earth." The misunderstanding of the word kesau as hair is further defeated by the explanation of Vopadeva Gosvami in his Muktaphala-tika. Vopadeva states that kesau means ka (blissful) and isau (the two personalities). A comprehensive refutation of the misunderstanding of the so-called kesa avatara is presented by Srila Rupa Gosvami in his Laghu-Bhagavatamrta, verses 156-164, in the chapter entitled Krsnamrta. Rupa Gosvami's opinion is also supported by the commentary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who was originally initiated into the Madhva sampradaya. Grammatical syntax, says Dr. Sharma, seems to be lacking in the krsnas tu bhagavan svayam verse under analysis, if we accept the Gaudiya understanding of the text. Srila Prabhupada's translation of the text is what Dr. Sharma would call an example of this. ete camsa-kalah pumsah krsnas tu bhagavan svayam indrari-vyakulam lokam mrdayanti yuge yuge "All of the above mentioned incarnations are either portions or parts of plenary portions of the Lord, but Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of Them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists in order to protect the theists." Dr. Sharma explains that "the plural verb mrdayanti (they protect the world harassed by the enemies of Indra) will not agree with its subject in the singular." In other words, krsnas and bhagavan svayam, which are singular, seem to conflict with the plural mrdayanti. If, as has been done in Srila Prabhupada's translation, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is taken as a parenthetical phrase in order to overcome the difficulty of case agreement, and ete (all these incarnations) becomes the subject of mrdayanti, Dr. Sharma argues that such an arrangement would be grammatically awkward. It is only as awkward, however, as the phrase krsnas tu bhagavan svayam is, in Dr. Sharma's words, "an intrusion of an unconnected topic." But this phrase is hardly unconnected, rather it is central to the entire chapter and to the proper understanding of the entire Bhagavata! Dr. Sharma insists that there is no need to break up the unity of thought (which only he perceives has occurred in this translation) by assuming that the word krsna in this verse refers to the personality of Krsna. Rather he says that the verse is better constructed grammatically if we understand krsna here in its etymological sense as the one who absorbs the world within himself (pralaya). Krsna also means to bring an end to the world, krs, a grand arrangement, na, to bring an end to, or karsati, who attracts all the worlds, as during the cosmic annihilation (pralaya). Dr. Sharma would translate this verse thus: "All these incarnations are either parts or plenary portions of the Lord Himself, who destroys all the worlds. They appear in the world whenever there is a disturbance created by the demons." Even if we were to grant Dr. Sharma that grammatical syntax might be better kept intact by his translation, does he really believe that Vyasadeva after mentioning Krsna only five verses earlier would use the same word krsna here to indicate destruction of the world, when any number of other unambiguous words could have been used? Furthermore, why should we grant him this when the Nyaya-sastra states, tata etad anu guna tvenaivottara-grantho 'pi vyakhyeyah. "The generally understood meaning of a word is its primary meaning, and etymology based meanings are secondary to that generally understood meaning." At this point in the Bhagavata, although other avataras have been mentioned along with a description of Their characteristics, Krsna's characteristics have not been mentioned. Yet if anyone insists that His characteristics have been described earlier, they can only be referring to the word bhagavan (rama-krsnav iti bhuvo bhagavan aharad bharam [sB 1.3.23]), which is not used when describing any of the other incarnations. In the paribhasa-sutra (SB 1.3.23), the characteristic of Krsna as svayam bhagavan is described, reiterating with emphasis what has been cited earlier (SB 1.3.23), however awkward Dr. Sharma may perceive it to be. Furthermore, the fact that this description has been left until the end of the description of the incarnations serves to emphasize the conclusion that Krsna alone is svayam bhagavan, and for this reason it has been placed there. As per the rules of literary composition, facts meant to be emphasized should be placed at the end of the composition. The fact that Krsna is mentioned earlier is not sufficient reason to conclude that this verse is not also ultimately about Him. Even if the grammar is somewhat awkward, which we are not willing to concede to, the author of the Bhagavata, Vyasadeva, has compensated for that in his statement yasmin prat-slokam abaddhavaty api. Here abaddhavaty means irregularity in composition. Vyasadeva has said that in such literature even if there is any irregularity in composition, it should not be allowed to get in the way of the urgency of the message. The urgent message of the Bhagavata is that Krsna is the ultimate expression of Godhead, the reservoir of all transcendenal loving exchange (rasa). There are ten subjects discussed in the Bhagavata. The first nine are asrita, dependents requiring shelter, and the tenth is the asraya, the object providing shelter. Among the asrita is isanukatha, discussion of the incarnations of Godhead. The asraya, however, is their source and shelter, svayam bhagavan Sri Krsna. No one can argue that the Bhagavata does not reach its apex in the discussion of Krsna-lila. This discussion constitutes the entire Tenth Canto, which is almost three times longer than any other canto. Krsna and his family members are also the exclusive subject of the Eleventh Canto. Together these two cantos make up more than half of the entire Bhagavata. Why so much attention to Krsna? Because Krsna is the asraya-tattva, the summum bonum of the Bhagavata, and thus even Narayana is his plenary portion. Sridhara Svami has stated this in his commentary on the Bhagavata: dasame dasamam laksyam asritasraya-vigraham sri-krsnakhyam param dhama jagad-dhama namami tat "The Tenth Canto of the Bhagavata reveals the tenth subject, who is the shelter of all. He is known as Sri Krsna, and he is the ultimate source of all the worlds. Let me offer my obeisances unto him." At this point, it must be asked what is more inept, to awkwardly state the truth or to artistically miss the point? Dr. Sharma has missed the point of the Bhagavata, and our sampradaya seeks to make it clear. Krsna is the source of all incarnations, and He has appeared in this Kali-yuga as Sri Caitanya. Sripada Madhvacarya is a great devotee, a parama Vaisnava. Sri Caitanya appreciated his emphais on the form of God, as opposed to Sankara's emphasis on the formless aspect of divinity. Our sampradaya is known not only as the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, but also as the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. Yet there are ten differences in siddhanta, or conclusion, between our Gaudiya sampradaya and the Madhva sampradaya. We hold that Madhva ultimately wanted to preach the gospel of Sri Caitanya after receiving the darsana of Sri Caitanya during his visit to Navadvipa. Bhaktivinoda Thakura describes this vision in Navadvipa-dhama-mahatmya. At that time, Sri Caitanya told Madhva that He Himself intended to preach His own gospel, and that Madhva should in the meantime keep his dasya-bhaktas. It is implied from this, and later in the same book directly stated by Thakura Bhaktivinoda, that a time would come when all of the sampradayas join together under the banner of Sri Caitanya. That time is not so far off when all will join together in nama-sankirtana, the universal yuga-dharma. If devotees like the learned Dr. Sharma insist on going to Vaikuntha, we have no objection. He will go there that much sooner, however, by embracing the extension of the Madhva sampradaya in the shape of the divine precepts of Sri Caitanya.

Nice breakdown theist prabhu.

I agree with guest, before stereotyping all ISKCON temples with one brush stroke, we should think abit and ask which temples are doing this. It might be a problem with a few ameriacan temples or maybe even a few other countrys, but ISKCON operates in at least 50 countries, and each temple has individual circumstances. The critisism may be valid but speculating on who is doing it where and why is a dangerous business, partial knowledge is dangerous. Some people like chucking bricks with generalisations, whatever turns them on. I think theres more constructive ways to write an article, to establish first where and in what circumstances the problem is occuring.

You're right that i shouldnt be lazy, one day i will read up on this issue as soon as Ive read srila prabhupadas books and maintained regulated sadhana, im sure there is alot to go through, until then i make no conclusion. Thanks for the material. Hari Hari

Actually to give an example when i was staying there, i noticed all the congregation caried prashad with them (biscuits) and they used to give them out to the beggers when they were approached. I asked them why, they replied that sometime ago some incident happened and radhanatha maharaj saw devotees neglecting the beggers, he said from then on that devotees should carry prashad with them, else their hearts will become heard. This is what i noticed when i stopped giving to beggers a while back i used to feel some compassion in the beginning on them, eventually as i was taught to ignore them that compassion completely went. They also have other small things like when they serve prashad even if its hundreds of devotees, they will always come round with hands folded ask you if you are satisfied, at first i found this very starnge but eventually i found that i apprecieted the servers and the prashad more and im sure the servers felt more for those being served. Trancendental knowledge can never be revealed in a hard heart. Thiest prabhu i very much appreciate your mood it seems very introspective, please keep me on a leash on this bullitien boards (-:

Looks like the scientist are getting closer, Drutakarma prabhu, in his book hidden history of human race shows that scientist when finding a fossil which does not fit the theory they dismiss it, they couldnt do that in this case as there were 8 of them. It also shows that humans were intelligent earlier else how did they make it on to the island without boats. It may also show that intelligence comes from something other than the brain. I think sadaputa prabhu in his book maya, discusses cases where humans have less than 10% of the normal brain tissue and the rest filled with liquid, yet they are normal people that go to university with iq's of 155. I cant remember the technical name of the diesese

Chris Stringer holds a cast of the 18,000-year-old hominid LB1 Scientists have discovered a new and tiny species of human that lived in Indonesia at the same time our own ancestors were colonising the world. The three-foot (one-metre) tall species - dubbed "the Hobbit" - lived on Flores island until at least 12,000 years ago. The fact that little people feature in the legends of modern Flores islanders suggests we might have to take tales of Leprechauns and Yeti more seriously. Details of the sensational find are described in the journal Nature. The whole idea that you need a particular brain size to do anything intelligent is completely blown away by this find Dr Henry Gee, Nature The discovery has been hailed as one of the most significant of its type in decades. Australian archaeologists unearthed the bones while digging at a site called Liang Bua, one of numerous limestone caves on Flores. The remains of the partial skeleton were found at a depth of 5.9m. At first, the researchers thought it was the body of a child. But further investigation revealed otherwise. Wear on the teeth and growth lines on the skull confirm it was an adult, features of the pelvis identify it as female and a leg bone confirms that it walked upright like we do. "When we got the dates back from the skeleton and we found out how young it was, one anthropologist working with us said it must be wrong because it had so many archaic [primitive] traits," said co-discoverer Mike Morwood, associate professor of archaeology at the University of New England, Australia. King of the swingers? The 18,000-year-old specimen, known as Liang Bua 1 or LB1, has been assigned to a new species called Homo floresiensis. It was about one metre tall with long arms and a skull the size of a large grapefruit. The researchers have since found remains belonging to six other individuals from the same species. LB1 shared its island with a golden retriever-sized rat, giant tortoises and huge lizards - including Komodo dragons - and a pony-sized dwarf elephant called Stegodon which the "hobbits" probably hunted. A male Homo floresiensis may have looked something like this (Image: National Geographic) Chris Stringer, head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum said the long arms were an intriguing feature and might even suggest H. floresiensis spent much of its time in the trees. "We don't know this. But if there were Komodo dragons about you might want to be up in the trees with your babies where it's safe. It's something for future research, but the fact they had long arms is at least suggestive," Professor Stringer told BBC News Online. Studies of its hands and feet, which have not yet been described, may shed light on this question, he added. H. floresiensis probably evolved from another species called Homo erectus, whose remains have been discovered on the Indonesian island of Java. Homo erectus may have arrived on Flores about one million years ago, evolving its tiny physique in the isolation provided by the island. What is surprising about this is that this species must have made it to Flores by boat. Yet building craft for travel on open water is traditionally thought to have been beyond the intellectual abilities of Homo erectus. Legendary creatures Even more intriguing is the fact that Flores' inhabitants have incredibly detailed legends about the existence of little people on the island they call Ebu Gogo. The islanders describe Ebu Gogo as being about one metre tall, hairy and prone to "murmuring" to each other in some form of language. They were also able to repeat what islanders said to them in a parrot-like fashion. "There have always been myths about small people - Ireland has its Leprechauns and Australia has the Yowies. I suppose there's some feeling that this is an oral history going back to the survival of these small people into recent times," said co-discoverer Peter Brown, an associate professor of archaeology at New England. When we got the dates back from the skeleton and we found out how young it was, one anthropologist working with us said it must be wrong Mike Morwood, University of New England The last evidence of this human at Liang Bua dates to just before 12,000 years ago, when a volcanic eruption snuffed out much of Flores' unique wildlife. Yet there are hints H. floresiensis could have lived on much later than this. The myths say Ebu Gogo were alive when Dutch explorers arrived a few hundred years ago and the very last legend featuring the mythical creatures dates to 100 years ago. But Henry Gee, senior editor at Nature magazine, goes further. He speculates that species like H.floresiensis might still exist, somewhere in the unexplored tropical forest of Indonesia. Textbook rewrite Professor Stringer said the find "rewrites our knowledge of human evolution." He added: "To have [this species] present 12,000 years ago is frankly astonishing." Homo floresiensis might have evolved its small size in response to the scarcity of resources on the island. "When creatures get marooned on islands they evolve in new and unpredictable courses. Some species grow very big and some species grow very small," Dr Gee explained. LB1 was an adult female that stood just one metre in height Enlarge Image The sophistication of stone tools found with the "hobbit" has surprised some scientists given the human's small brain size of 380cc (around the same size as a chimpanzee). "The whole idea that you need a particular brain size to do anything intelligent is completely blown away by this find," Dr Gee commented. Because the remains are relatively recent and not fossilised, scientists are even hopeful they might yield DNA, which could provide an entirely new perspective on the evolution of the human lineage.

You are right, I guess the tone has improved, and I must say I have learnt alot, like srila prabhupada says Iskcon is made up of many different kinds of devotees and a utopia can not be expected, however it is still up to us those a part of iskcon and other vaishnavs to try and do our small part to rectify and help the mission along in a constructive fasion. I for one can not give up on the vision srila prabhupada wanted, and one day i pray i can be an instrument in help bringing it closer to what he wanted. Although I have been defending iskcon all of this time from what i considered over critisism for an organisation that does much good, please dont think that i dont see any thing in it that can not be improved and the wrongs it has done, child abuse, the zonal acarya system, vashnava aparadha, pradyumna prabhu and other vaishnavs being driven out, i can go on. However the mood i have been taught is not direct confrontation as this brings about everyone becoming defensive and sometime seen as superiority complexes and egos and results in offences to each other. With humility and compassion a vaishnava can be rectified. I believe intellectual arguments only go so far in changing a society, changing the heart is another more deeper and subtle matter. I recently stayed (about a year ago) at Iskcon chowpaty at his holiness radhantha swamis temple for a few months, and it was so nice to see devotees that are so persnol and genuine, in the west and even other temples in india it seems to be much more impersonal. I saw 50 bramhacharis at that temple, they all seemed to have soft hearts and deep compasion for whoever they met. Their preaching out look was completely different to what i am used to, im used to hearing make as many devotees, set up projects etc, but they empahsise quality only and numbers are seondary. I never heard any critisism to anyone even karmis, and their mood is to give selflessly. However when they preach the preached like lions and very scholorly. Anyway cutting it short I do believe a mindset shift can eventually be bought around, what is lacking in me and many others is basic qualities like repect, tolorance, and humility, without these, changes are near impossible to bring about.

"Because our origin is less significant than our destination does not mean that His Divine Grace wanted us to ignore the gaudiya siddhanta in this matter, or be a blind follower." His divine grace when asked directly many times, he said we were with krsna, 'back home back to god head' etc, when he has said directly that is what we accept as founder acarya of iskcon, he told us not to jump over him trying to know what previous acaryas ment He also said the issue is not so important. I dont think it will block anyone from going back to godhead whatever theory they hold true. That is what I accept. simple for the simple "Two years ago Srila Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami Maharaja was invited to speak at the Krsna Balarama Mandira on the occasion of His Divine Graces' disappearance mahotsava. Guru Krpa prabhu arranged his participation. At that time I went there from our sanga in Govardhan, to take darshan at His Divine Grace's samadhi. I heard Srila Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami Maharaja say very clearly, "You cannot go back to Godhead unless you have the association of a sad-guru." I don't know if he was ever invited back. Also two years ago Sripad Svarupa Damodar Maharaja came to visit Srila B.V. Narayana Maharaja at the Devananda Gaudiya Matha in Nabadwipa, during the Nabadwipa Dhama parikrama. During their meeting Svarupa Damodar Maharaja expressed some desire to "mend sounds" and expressed the thought that the gbc would like to better relations between iskcon and the GVS (Gaudiya Vedanta Samhiti). Srila Narayana Maharaja told him that there was actually no problem from his end. He visits other mathas and their members visit his with no problem. The problem, was coming from duplicitous behavior of some iskcon gbc members, saying one thing and doing another. Svarupa Damodar Maharja had no reply. What could he say? " As a side point it also seems from the above that these great souls also do not consider it a major difference in opinion if the are willing to give talks in so called "appasidhantic" iskcon. May be they have a broader vision than fault finding brick chucking at every fault neopyhtes "Auotmatically selected does not mean elected, or the current approval-disapproval system utilized by the iskcon gbc. The position of acarya is not necessarily the same as the position of a guru either. Acarya was explained nicely by Pradyumna in his l977 letter to the gbc, " Yes GBC made mistake with pradumnya prabhu. Well I dont know what your version of "Auotmatically selected " means. - As far as I know this approval system was not considered wrong but on contrary sridhar swami helped develop it. - Narayan maharaj also in the hay days even asked guari prabhu who had 2 fallen gurus to go and get initiated by tamal krishna goswami and stay in iskcon. (this is at the time of the approval system) - Gaura govinda maharaj was a part of it, and as far as i know he did not have a mahraj protest with this. "SGGM also said in the same talk that there are many different kinds of gurus, kanishta, madhyama. . .you will get the one you deserve baba! I agree Anyway prabhu its been fun, but these arguments can go on forever, we can quote selected passages to prove our preconcieved ideas ad infinitum, but unfortunately these things take away our time and effort from the real goal and effort which is krishna conciousness. ( I have learnt this by engaging in this bb board).

"They are already there. Get your glasses on" No in most of the verses it just has the name of the purana or upanishad. ie,Vayu Purana no specific reference to the verse. "I believe in *Guru/Sadhu/Sastra Anybody who doesn't can go jump to another Sampradaya. " Yes so do I, but I often speak to swaminarayans and other hindus, when i claim that mahaprabhu is in scripture I need to make sure he is in scripture in the verses i quote, as this is one of the ways to prove an incarnation. I can not expect any of them to look through the whole purana trying to look for the verse thats not the way it works, I would want them to give me specific verses for thier claims and I give specific verses for my claim. Anyway thanks for posting the verses. Hare Krishna.

Okay prabhuji, It has been ineresting and im going to call it a day, please forgive me for any offences, I may speak to you soon if i post at work but it will be only on a thread which is discussing krishna nectar. I have resolved to not do anything thats a distraction from the purpose of life this month which is chanting, reading krishna katha, and waking up early which has always been a bummer. Best of luck in the month of kaartik Hari Hari

Fogive me for any offences puru prabhu i did get annoyed at some of your words toward all of iskcon but i guess i must of said a few things also, i guess we will be divided in opinion for the forseeable future. I am not going to be posting in the month of kartik which i believe starts tommorow, i am going to try and remain engaged in krsna katha with out any political distractions. Hare krishna

"On p. 25, he writes, "Some instruction is merely educational; other goes beyond this world, having been secured for eternity by service and surrender." He footnotes this assertion. When I went to the footnote, I expected a citation of something from Srila Prabhupada or one of our other previous acharyas for some support. But he cites his own book!" Yes he does, this is one of the only places he does that, simply because he deals with it in his book the siksa guru. You may consider it advertisement, but he is making a simple point and if you want clarification he deals with it in another book. I dont see how that becomes advertising? warped minds... "On p. 49, he claims that, although in the early days of his preaching outside India, Prabhupada entertained the idea of working conjointly with his Godbrothers; in footnote 14 Sivaram Maharaja claims, "In time Prabhupada became indifferent to sorking co-operatively." That's a pretty big leap, and it ignores Srila Prabhupada's "earnest" invitation to Sridhar Maharaja in March 1977 (clearly later on, I think) and his assertion that "We want cooperation" in November '77." You missed out the whole of footnote 14 “So far as cooperating with my Godbrothers is concerned, that is not very urgent business. So far until now my Godbrothers have regularly not cooperated with me and by the grace of my Spiritual Master, things are still going ahead. So cooperation or non-cooperation …” (Letter, Gorakhpur, February 23, 1971) It is clear he stopped seeing as it as a major priorty and we can see his indifference, you cant see it? as for "ignores Srila Prabhupada's "earnest" invitation to Sridhar Maharaja in March 1977 (clearly later on, I think) and his assertion that "We want cooperation" in November '77." the below 2 deal with it well doubt 8 does anyway. Doubt 5: Srila Prabhupada attempted to recruit other senior Vaishnavas to work in or with ISKCON. How, then, could they not be qualified as Siksa-gurus? Answer: The question itself contains the answer. How? Because in actuality no such Vaishnava came to Prabhupada’s side. Therefore, none could qualify as Siksa- guru. Had any senior Vaishnavas accepted Prabhupada’s invitation to work in ISKCON, they would have had to accept him as founder-acarya(In response to a letter, Prabhupada writes, “… you write to say, ‘It is clear to me that you are great powerful acarya in the Vaishnava world at present.’ Sometimes S also says like that. So, actually if you are feeling like that let us work conjointly.” (Letter, Vrndavana, November 9, 1976)) and represent him. That would have made them regular members, fully qualified to give Siksa. On the other hand, were such Vaishnavas not to join ISKCON, yet work with it, Srila Prabhupada envisaged that they would have authority only in proportion to their preaching.(In a conversation with Srila Prabhupada, a devotee recalls, “I remember a letter they wrote you in Los Angeles in 1969. You replied them, ‘Yes, I will join, but since I have preached in eleven-twelfths of the world, eleven of my men will be representatives, and you can put one.’” (Conversation, Bombay, April 22, 1977)) That would have given Prabhupada’s disciples considerably more authority than those instructing them on Prabhupada’s behalf —hardly a relationship one might expect between Siksa-gurus and their disciples. But this doubt is theoretical, for the reality is that, despite Srila Prabhupada’s many kind overtures,(As late as 1976, Srila Prabhupada wrote, “So, actually if you are feeling like that let us work conjointly.” (Letter, Vrndavana, November 9, 1976)) not one senior Vaishnava took up his offer to work in or with ISKCON. Doubt 8: It appears that Srila Prabhupada instructed at least some senior Vai¢£avas to help his disciples after his departure. Does this not indicate that they would be ªik¢§- gurus for ISKCON’s members? Also, is it not possible that one of them may be Srila Prabhupada’s self-effulgent successor, as Prabhupada was the self-effulgent successor to Bhaktisiddhanta thakura? Answer: First-hand sources testify that Prabhupada requested at least one senior Vaishnava to care for his followers. (Two devotees present heard the discussion.) Those same sources, however, confirm that the request was brief and clearly not an invitation to be a Siksa-guru, rather, a well-wisher. That explanation is consistent with other evidence; Srila Prabhup§da gave no instruction that he had empowered any Vaisnaava from outside ISKCON to be a Siksa-guru —what to speak of his successor. The very idea of a successor is contrary to Prabhupada’s set-up of the Society.(Prabhupada modelled ISKCON according to Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura’s will, which he explained in a letter: “… on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self-effulgent acarya would be automatically selected.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974) Therefore, if there is to be an acarya, he will not be self-appointed; he will come from members of the GBC, not elsewhere.) Nor is there any written or verbal instruction indicating a successor; in fact, Srila Prabhupada opined that among the Vaishnavas he knew,none was qualified to be acarya.(In a letter Prabhupada wrote, “Actually amongst my Godbrothers, no one is qualified to become acarya.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974) Those suggesting that a Vaishnava from outside ISKCON could be its acarya are obliged to provide irrefutable evidenceof their claim. And that evidence must be of a superlative quality, as referred to in the previous answer (to Doubt 7). It is not the burden of ISKCON to disprove the successor theory. Until irrefutable evidence is provided in its favour, we will have to assume there is no successor Siksa-guru to Srila Prabhupada. "On p. 60, Sivaram Maharaja answers an objection that "these gurus may fall down" with a quotation given in a drastically different context. In the cited quotation, Srila Prabhupada was referring to students, some rather new, who were at the time abstaining from intoxication, not to those whose own students were to accept them as good as God." I dont know where you got the "these gurus may fall down" quote from he never says that. But I agree the example he uses doesnt refer to same context, but heres all of it for those that are interested. Doubt 9: Considering the fall-down of so many ISKCON gurus and the disorganised state of the Society, can it really be said that members of ISKCON can give sufficient guidance? Answer: This doubt argues “the logic of the remainder,” (Parisesya-nyaya, means “the logic of the remainder,” or by elimination of unsatisfactory evidence, what is left is proof.) which translates as follows: ISKCON is in trouble, and since there are no qualified gurus in the Society, out of necessity devotees must take Siksa (and diksa) from Vaishnavas outside. This doubt is built on two wobbly fundamentals. The first is the misconception that disarray in certain areas of ISKCON is a sign of spiritual failure. The second extrapolates that because some ISKCON gurus have proven themselves disqualified, all ISKCON gurus are disqualified. To argue that problems in the Society are a sign of its failure is naïve.(Srila Prabhupada scoffed at the idea of perfection even in ISKCON: “So we shall not expect that anywhere there is any Utopia. Rather, that is impersonalism. People should not expect that even in the Krishna Consciousness Society there will be Utopia. Because devotees are persons, therefore there will always be some lacking. …” (Letter, Bombay, February 4, 1972)) For example, Srila Prabhupada writes that even the disorder that customarily accompanies the passing of the acarya can be rectified by the efforts of his sincere followers.(Commenting in the Bhagavatam, Prabhupada writes, “The acarya, the authorized representative of the Supreme Lord, establishes these principles (religion), but when he disappears, things once again become disordered. The perfect disciples of the acarya try to relieve the situation by sincerely following the instructions of the spiritual master.” (Bhag. 4.28.48, purport)) It is paradoxical that some Vaishavas condemn ISKCON’s struggles, their own societies having transited through similar problems in the past, nay, even experiencing such problems at present. And if these same Vaishnavas, who, in srila Prabhupada’s estimation, were responsible for chaos in their own organisation(Speaking about the turmoil caused in another Society, Prabhupada wrote, “So S and his two associate gentlemen unauthorizedly selected one acarya and later it proved a failure.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974) Prabhupada writes, “Despite the spiritual master’s order to form a governing body and execute the missionary activities … the two unauthorized factions began litigation that is still going on after forty years with no decision.” (Cc. adi 12.8, purport) Prabhupada says, “That T, unnecessarily he was envious, whole life fighting, fighting, fighting in the court and died. Simply planning.” (Conversation, Bombay,January 8, 1977)) are now qualified to be gurus, then why not value the devotees of ISKCON by the same standard? "On p. 62, footnote 50 is supposed to support his assertion that any siksa different from Prabhupada's creates havoc. But the footnote refers not to approaching a point of siddhanta from a differnt angle, as in the case of the jiva's origin, but a sannyasi disciple who had left ISKCON, reportedly so he and his followers (he had been a guru befor e coming to ISKCON and brought about 100 disciples and several valuable pieces of Hawaii real estate) could have sex and smoke ganja. I know, because I was there. And I also know the disciple in question and can say that the rumors--at least those about him--were without foundation in fact. So as evidence, this quotation is, as lawyers would say, not on point." Prabhup§da said, “A ªik¢§-guru who instructs against the instruction of spiritual [master], he is not a ªik¢§-guru. He is a demon. … ¼ik¢§- guru does not mean he is speaking something against the teachings of the d¦k¢§-guru. He is not a ªik¢§-guru. He is a rascal.” (Bg. lecture, Honolulu, July 4, 1974 The point of the foot note stands, im sure there are other places where prabhupada makes that simple point especially when he says that if they say one word different it will create havoc Thank you stone hearted, I thought you would of picked out major flaws, any way you better get back to your marking. Ive actually realised that this is not gona get us anywhere except waste each others time.

"I asked you how can anyone be accepted as a guru in our gaudiya line when he rejects the statements of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in the 15th chapter of Jaiva Dharma with regard to the origin of the jiva in favor of a resolution to the contrary, written by an ecclesiastical board. You never answered me. I also said that genuine guru cannot be rubber stamped, but is self effulgent. " Prabhu if you read drutakarma prabhus paper on the issue which i have read and I have also read papers against and then for, i concluded it is beyond me and acrayas can have their differences, prabhupada many times said it is not important where you came from the main thing is where you are going, I will not take something which i will not understand fully until liberated to judge gurus. "I also said that genuine guru cannot be rubber stamped, but is self effulgent. " Thakuras’s will, which he explained in a letter: “… on the night before he passed away he talked of so many things, but never mentioned an acarya. His idea was acarya was not to be nominated amongst the governing body. He said openly you make a GBC and conduct the mission. So his idea was amongst the members of GBC who would come out successful and self-effulgent acarya would be automatically selected.” (Letter, Tirupati, April 28, 1974) Therefore, if there is to be an acarya, he will not be self-appointed; he will come from members of the GBC, not elsewhere. Again the gbc system is not perfect and you can not rubber stamp a guru, however the society needs to athorise or whatever the word is, if the diciples see someone as self effulgent and the vaishnava gets approval to initate and later that guru grossly deviates he's athorisation form the society as a guru is revoked (diciples may continue to still regard him as guru in case of kirtananda). Think of that as rubber stamping which it isnt. Please understand that it is still the diciples responsibility to try and find a pure guru not anyone elses. If he sees no one in iskcon he is free to go else where. "Sorry if my understanding of what a mahabhagavata is and yours' differ. I had the good fortune to meet and hear from His Divine Grace directly many times between l970 and l976 and have personally met several other pure devotees who are followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura since. What is your basis for comparison? Of course we all have to take additional guidance from shastra, what is pure and what is something else. " So far personal association with the Guru is concerned, I was only with my Guru Maharaja four or five times, but I have never left his association, not even for a moment. Because I am following his instructions, I have never felt any separation. There are some of my Godbrothers here in India who had constant personal association with Guru Maharaja, but who are neglecting his orders. This is just like the bug who is sitting on the lap of the king. He may be very puffed-up by his position, but all he can succeed in doing is biting the king. Personal association is not so important as association through service. HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Prabhu I have no basis for comparison, I once briefly got chastised by puri maharaj on a train to jaganatha puri, we gave him our space so him and his diciples can be together, I then spoke to his personal secretary asking him about maharaj he seemed very fixed even in his old age. His secertary for the next 20 minutes was telling me how srila prabupada didnt give everything he gave only basics for the rest come to us. He went trhough it all, anyway thats another story. I myself believe that according to my purity and sincerity Krsna will arrange that guru for me, in turn guru gives krishna. My intelligence is limited and it is impossible for us to judge someones purity with out ourselves having purity. Else we will judge with our polluted intelligence. (not saying we shouldnt use intelligence but out desire and sencirity is what krsna sees and thus arranges a guru). "Siva Rama Maharaja's responce still works on the false assumption that the gbc can succesfully appoint anyone by its political process for chosing gurus" As I said its not an appointment. And its also a system that was worked out by senior vaishnavas before the wars and offences started. "The question is worth considering why any sincere Vaisnava would reject the association of Vaisnavas more advanced than himself ? " Ive already posted a reply to this, twice i think. "Did you expect us to just roll over and accept his evaluations? " I have never said this, I have actually been asking for specific points against his logic not general dismisals. "He is bhogus if he discourages sincere souls from taking the association and hearing the harikatha of self realized souls. He is bhogus if his disciple approaches him with a request to hear from such a soul and he falsely advises that disciple he should not take association of Vaisnavas who are higher than himself. " I have also given a post on this so if you re read and find a flaw in mine or sivarama swamis logic then say so, no point coming out with the same things over and over again. Hare Krsna.

"if your guru gave restrictions in mixing freely with me, you are not following his instructions.. " Srila prabhupada gave that instruction, personally we have discussed stuff and that to me is fine i havent accepted your siksa which is in conflict of what I have been taught and read from srila prabhupadas books. I have not accepted your siksa about iskcon and prabhupadas intentions, that iskcon is bogus and full of cheaters unless approaching your guru. with views like that i do not want to mix with you freely. And i therefore think the advice is sound. Hare krishna You may not be puru and these may not be your views, my apologies if that is the case, with a guest username i can not tell

You may say mix freely but its not what prabhupada said he has said opposite so there needs to be guidelines according to his instructions. I am not going to post eveidence for this again we keep on going round and round and round. Haribol.

"Hopefully one day there can be true collaboration and everyone will learn how to deal with vaishnavas in the best possible way" so you want this but you promote separatism for days helped by that unfortunate book by sivaram swami ------------------- By collaboration I mean preach together in harmony and help each other if the desire is there on both sides and issues can be sorted. I dont mean taking any gaudiya matha guru as the siksa guru for iskcon.

Prabhu do you have all the verse numbers and chapters for the verses quoted, And also I know some people have said not all the verses are in the quoted sastra, do you know which ones are actually in scripture? I believe some where quoted by jiva goswami but are missing but im not sure.