Gauracandra

I was wondering how you were going to tie the two ends together. Very funny [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 05-17-2001).]

Ok, try this one out. I'm going to do a world wide psychic reading. Do one step at a time, and don't peak at the answer. Pick a number from 1 to 10 1) Multiply by 9 2) Subtract 5 3) Sum the digits, repeat this step until you have a one digit number (eg. if your number is 12, then sum 1+2=3) 4) For whatever number you have pick that letter of the alphabet (eg.if your number is 9 your letter is I) 5) Think of a country that begins with that letter. 6) Now think of an animal that begins with the second letter of the country. 7) Think of the color usually associated with the animal. Now I have never met any of you. Look below to marvel at my psychic abilities.

Just a quick note on how Christians misrepresent Hinduism. There was an audio tape on this site which I listened to several months ago. It tells how the Seventh Day Adventists were taking Prabhupada's Gita and going to Hindu's saying that "Here is proof, Krsna Himself says he is a demon. So you should reject this demoniac Hinduism". The quote was that of the demons, Krsna is the best of the demons - Prahlad. It was very funny when I first heard it. Gauracandra

No I don't think I am mistaken and I'll explain why. One of the main problems with the author’s presentation is that he wants to appear authoritative, and as such continually makes exclusive statements to take on the air of authority. In so doing he makes repeated logical mistakes. These mistakes take on the form of misidentifying a subset as the superset. This is really a basic logical fallacy that I personally learned in 6th grade geometry. Here is an example of what I mean: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. A rectangle, if I remember Mrs. Noah’s geometry lessons, is a 4 sided parallelogram made up of right angles. A square is a 4 sided parallelogram made up of right angles, and with 4 equal sized sides. Thus a square is a subset, of the superset of rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Suppose someone were to tell me that they were far more advanced in mathematics than I and that my teachers didn’t know mathematics at all. They may say “I know Geometry, Trigonometry, Advanced Statistical analysis and Quantitative methods, I know more than you, so you should listen to me and not your teacher.” Now if someone were to say this, and then proceed to tell me that all rectangles are squares, and make continuous logical mistakes like all ellipses are circles, I would dismiss that individuals proclamations of the superiority of his knowledge. The author of this article, wants to appear authoritative, but in the process simply appears foolish. He misidentifies his subset, limited experience of Vaisnava traditions, and assumes they are the superset. In the process, he only reveals his own lack of scholarship and analysis. If you make such simple mistakes (to me the most blatant one being that Mahaprabhu would disagree with chanting the Holy Names of the Lord before the deities, found in another post) then why should I accept that you have such advanced knowledge? I don’t. Gauracandra

Ouch

This is pretty broad. In general people speak of the caste system when referring to Indian inequality. Indian society ideally is to be broken down by relious experts, military/administrators, business men, and laborers. This system has deteriorated to the extent that it now creates abuse. The Why is the easy part. As with every culture it will be based on money, status, social positioning etc.... The how is a bit trickier. But when everyone has their place in society, it makes it very difficult to move out of that place. So once you are part of the outcastes, others won't let you into their group and so you more or less take whats given to you. Depends on who you speak with. I consider them bad. Others will say its the person's karma. This wouldn't necessarily be a statement that its good or bad, simply that its how it is. Depends on who you speak with and what religion we are referring to. Check the thread called "Who is a Hindu?" to see what I mean. There will always be inequality in society. Some will be smarter, stronger, more risk-taking etc... I think in general it is seen as the way things are, neither good nor bad. Again, depending on your religion, perhaps or perhaps not. I would think in general it is just seen as the way things are. I know I haven't answered your questions satisfactorily, but hopefully others will chime in. Gauracandra [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 05-16-2001).]

The Christian Missionaries often target minority populations who have been abused by the Brahmanic society. Its a smart strategy. They go in with their millions of foreign dollars, that go a long way in India, and swoop down into local tribal villages. The caste system which has been so abused is their strong point. On the one hand they might do some good with food relief, clothing, medical attention etc.... The main reason they can thrive is because of money, and the abuses by the religious community in India against other castes. This is unfortunate but inevitable. And they are extremely organized. I have some Mormon co-workers and they tell me straight up that India & China are the big blocks they want. China is too difficult do to because of the communist regime. All of the rest of the world has more or less been christianized. So India is their target. And they plan everything methodically. Like a military strategy. But India is so divided by religion, caste, economics, geography, language and such, that She can't really create a united stand. Its unfortunate, but there isn't much we can do. Certainly the violence against Christian missionaries is not the way to go. Gauracandra

I'm sorry but I simply disagree that you have shown anything. Even simple things like singing Hare Krsna before the deities, we are told Mahaprabhu would disagree with this. This was clearly refuted. Now if you can't understand something this simple, then why should we conclude that you are correct on other issues. JNDas showed over and over again that the writer here lacks in many cases even a basic understanding of Vaisnava traditions. I'm sorry but you have not shown anything as far as I'm concerned. Gauracandra

I didn't see any anger. Just a quotation from a book about apasampradayas. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur has outlined these apasampradayas, and this was an introduction to them. It was pretty mild and tame compared to some of the things I've seen posted here. Gauracandra

My personal opinion is that two of the key drivers of culture are technology and government policy. Perhaps in a future posting I will get into the reasons that government policy often skews the culture in dramatic ways through the coersive use of taxation and laws. Here, however, is an article showing the further breakdown of the American family.

Here's an interesting article to consider.

Ok, now I'm gonna do a duck and run

Proof that girls are evil First we state that girls require time and money: Girls = Time(X)Money And as we all know "time is money" Therefore: Girls= Money(X)Money=(Money)^2 (money squared) And because "money is the root of all evil" Money=(Evil)^1/2 (square root of evil) Therefore: Girls = ((Evil)^1/2)^2 (square root of evil squared) And we are forced to conclude that: Girls = Evil [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 05-15-2001).]

This next joke is childish, immature, and sexist.... I guess that pretty much sums me up Actually, its all in good fun, and if any Mataji's out there want to take equal revenge against us guys go for it If you are also mathematically inclined, childish, immature, and sexist it will probably be even funnier. Apologies to all women in advance. Have I covered myself enough yet?

It takes a simple charm to tell a simple story. The following comes from "Sadhu-sanga, the Birthplace of Bhakti" by Srila Gour Govinda Swami under the section called "Try to understand the essence of what I say". Hope you enjoyed that. Gauracandra [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 05-15-2001).]

Show me where we have attacked others in these forums prior to the entrance of some outsiders. I have been here for a while, as have Shvu, Animesh, JNDas, Dasha, Viji, and a few others. We NEVER had any conversations about babajis, sahajiyas, this person said this, that person isn't real. We've had our debates, gotten angry perhaps a few times, but ever since these outsiders have arrived, its like every day its been nothing but attacks against others. Show me where I have attacked any other Vaisnava. Me as an individual. You can't. I like this place because it wasn't VNN. But all of you are just bringing in your own pollution. We'll argue and argue and argue about who has and who doesn't have Bhakti, and when we die we'll go straight to hell. I don't remember exactly how the story goes but once there was a brahmana who lived in the vicinity of a prostitute. Every day he'd do his puja, and look over at the prostitute and think of how fallen she was and how virtuous he was. The prostitute on the other hand would every day think of how fallen she was and admire the religious virtues of the brahmana. One day the brahmana dies and he is taken straight to hell, because his heart was full of hatred, the prostitute because she only longed to have those virtues was taken upwards. The lesson: Look at your own faults, and try to correct them. Simply attacking will just lead you down the path to hell. This life is too short for such nonsense. Lets develop a little bit of devotion (actual not theoretical). Gauracandra

What I find even more interesting is that several weeks ago, a bunch of outsiders come into these forums and immediately started bashing Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and others. If you want to praise someone go right ahead, but most of what I have seen in the last few weeks has simply been attacks. Gauracandra

1 ) Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami and Sri Kisori Das Babaji witnessed that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, when asked by Siddha Sri Ramakrsna das Pandit Baba in the early 1930s, declared that he was initiated in a dream. The entire argument is based on rumors that cannot be substantiated. Well, I personally know that Langa Baba of Rishikesh heard that Kaupin Baba had been told by Sri Ramakrishna Das Pandit Baba that the moon is made of blue cheese. Go figure? >>No it is not based on rumours. Sri Nitai Das personally heard from the Babaji who heard the actual conversation! So in other words IT WAS BASED ON RUMORS. SOME NITAI DAS HEARD IT FROM SOME BABAJI WHO CLAIMS HE WAS SOMEWHERE AND HEARD IT. OK, then I was told by Dianne Feinstein that she heard George Bush admit he lost the election to Al Gore. Did you ever consider motive? Like maybe a Democratic senator claiming that a Republican President admitted losing an election to a Democratic candidate might not be real convincing. Jeez, is this all ya got. Weak. Very, very weak. quote: Sannyasa cannot be taken from a photo, without physical permission of the person on the photograph, but from a living sannyasi. This presumes that it is not possible, while being situated in the stage of samadhi, to have a direct relationship with eternaly liberated souls. >>That may be possible. But sannyasa should anyway be received from a sannyasi, babaji-vesa from a babaji. Your opinion. quote: How can you wear saffron cloth while your would-be sannyasa guru wore white? Like I said... their socks don't match, thats' proof they're wrong. >>Would Sri Gaurkisora Das Babaji have given saffron cloth and sannyasa to his disciple? It seems very unlikely, because no Gaudiya Vaishnavas were tridanda sannyasis at that time. (OK, there might have been a couple, but it´s very rare.) It certainly was not the custom to wear saffron and danda! Again, your opinion. “It seems very unlikely” you say which proves this is pure supposition on your part. Not very convincing. Then you say “No Gaudiya Vaishnavas were tridanda” and then switch positions to cover yourself by saying “Ok, there might have been a couple, but it’s very rare.” So in other words, you don’t know what you are saying. First you give your opinion, then you make a declarative statement, then you reverse that declarative statement. Ok, get back to me when you have made up your mind (by the way, have you since changed your position and acknowledged that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu would not mind chanting the Holy names of God in front of the deities? I’d be curious on that flip flop as well.) quote: And saffron dhotis do not exist at all, only saffron bahirvasas (outer cloth) for Vedic eka-dandi (mayavadi) sannyasis and white dhotis for householders. There are plenty of Vaishnava sannyasis who have taken ekadanda sannyasa. To assume that ekadanda sannyasa indicates that one is a mayavadi is a foolish conception and shows a lack of overall knowledge of the Vedic traditions. >>There are cases like that, but they are quite rare. But you must admit that most ekadanda-sannyasis are mayavadis. He doesn’t have to admit anything. He has proven the prior statement to be foolish. JNDas is correct. The idea that eka-dandi sannyasis are mayavadis “shows a lack of overall knowledge of the Vedic traditions.” quote: Grhasthas should not wear a kaupina (loincloth). The kaupinam is meant to be worn by all people, begining from childhood. The iron kaupinam is not allowed to be worn by householders. >>Kaupina refers to the type of cloth worn only by babajis and sannyasis here. So you are saying that Kaupina is ONLY worn by babaji’s and sannyasis. First of all show me where it says the Kaupina is ONLY worn by babaji’s and sannyasis. What if I’m wearing one right now. Am I violating some Vedic injunction because I’m wearing a piece of cloth. Then show me where this is said. I think I need to quote JNDas yet again that this notion “shows a lack of overall knowledge of the Vedic traditions.” Maybe in West Bengal only Babajis and Sannyasis wear a Kaupina (though you haven’t even shown that), but perhaps you should look at other traditions as well before you make such a statement, because clearly you are wrong. quote: Shaving the head is also only for sannyasis and not for others. Every Vedic tradition has prescriptions for shaving the heads of the brahmacharis and brahmanas. The position of the shikha varies according to the lineage. In smarta lines the front of the head is shaved, and the remaining hair is tied into a large shikha. In Vaishnava lines the size and position of the shikha varies according to sampradaya and shaka. >>Yes, but should grihasthas shave their head? I don´t think it matters. Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur would shave his head while being a grihastha for example. How is shaving the head only for sannyasis. Suppose its really hot outside, and I like my head shaved because it nice and cool. Where is this idea that “Shaving the head is ONLY for sannyasis and not for others”. This is silly. Show me verse. Again, I have to quote JNDas that this notion “shows a lack of overall knowledge of the Vedic traditions.” Maybe in West Bengal only Sannyasis shave their head, and now one else is allowed to (though you haven’t even shown that), but perhaps you should look at other traditions as well before you make such a statement, because clearly you are wrong. quote: suklavaso bhaven nityah "One should always wear white clothe." ...or one's cloth should not be dirty. Sukla doesn´t mean "not dirty", it means the color white. quote: ...the ocean of samsara, which is hard to cross by yatis (mayavadi sannyasis)... Yati does not mean "mayavadi sannyasi". This conception that everything else is "mayavadi" is very childish and displays a clear lack of understanding the various traditions. Sripada Ramanujacharya is also known as yati-raja, as are a number of Vaishnava saints. >>In West Bengal a yati is generally a mayavadi sannyasi. Here we go again with this West Bengal thing. “Oh in West Bengal a Yati is GENERALLY a mayavadi sannyasi”. Ok, so GENERALLY in one region of India, Yati refers to a mayavadi sannyasi. Back to quoting JNDas: this notion that Yati means mayavadi sannyasi “shows a lack of overall knowledge of the Vedic traditions.” Maybe in West Bengal only mayavadi Sannyasis are called as Yati (though you haven’t even shown that), but perhaps you should look at other traditions as well before you make such a statement, because clearly you are wrong. quote: 6) Where did Bhaktisiddhanta get his brahmana-thread from? From that small shop in Navadvipa just next to Gauranga Brass Works on the road connecting to the ghata. At least thats where I got mine. >>That´s not even funny. What he asks is how he received brahmana initiation when he wasn´t born in a brahmana family. Actually I thought it was rather funny. quote: This means that 2nd initiation is not the same as brahmana-initiation. There is no such thing as a "second initiation" in vedic culture. There are three classifications of initiation, none go by the name "second initiation". >>In ISKCON and GM there is a second initiation however, which is called >>"brahmana initiation". >>The majority of Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not give the brahma-gayatri at the time of >>diksa. Only the vaishnava mantras are given, such as Gopala-mantra and Kama->>gayatri. Note the word majority. Also not how he uses the word generally in his responses. quote: "Even the vultures will not eat the dead corpse of the ungrateful one who abandons the amnayagatam guru." Yes, when the family traditions are preserved, the brahmanas and family gurus are to be respected. But in Kali yuga, when, according to the scriptures, the demons are born in brahmana families, and the caste guru's only business is sense gratification, it is advisable to reject such association in favour of a liberated soul. >>"I feel sorry for all persons who are born in Sri Nityananda-vamsa. Because they are all materialists!" >>What an offensive attitude. I would prefer taking diksa from a relative of Sri >>Nityananda Prabhu, if he was truly qualified. And the persons from the >>Nityananda-vamsa I have met were very learned and devotional. >>What would make an ex-hippie more qualified than a Nityananda-vamsa Gosvami >>who is a true devotee? Perhaps that he ate cow meat before he became a >>devotee, or that he was a slave of beautiful women? >>What I am trying to say here is that it is ridiculous to reject a Guru because he >>happens to be appear in a Prabhu-vamsa. JNDas did not make any statement about Sri Nityananda-vamsa, you did. Of course you are trying to slip and slide to change what he said. Just like when you were claiming that Mahaprabhu would be against chanting Hare Krsna before the deities. Then when he proved you wrong, you tried to change the argument to “Why are you against me chanting softly”. This is childish. If this is the best you’ve got then just give it up because you aren’t fooling anyone. quote: What is the tilaka svarupa of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his followers? In every vaishnava line there are variations of the tilak based on one's personal mood of surrender. Even within a single sampradaya there are many branches, each with a different tilak representing their process of sharanagati. >>That was far out man! Is the tilaka based on one´s mood and surrender? No it is >>not. The tilakas of the particular parivaras are very specific. Yawn. quote: In Hari-bhakti-vilasa (2.85) it is quoted: sampradayika mudradi bhusitam tam krtañjalim, "At the time of initiation the disciple receives the sectarian signs from the guru". Traditional Vaishnava schools consider mudra to refer to shankha (conch), chakra (discus), gada (club) and padma (lotus), and these symbols should be marked on your body. >>What is referred to here is the particular tilaka of the guruparampara. Your point being? Yawn yet again… man am I getting sleepy. quote: Why did Bhaktisiddhanta not wear his guru's tilaka if he was really his disciple? And why didn't saints like Shyamananda wear the tilak of their initiating gurus? This argument is not sound. Actually none of these arguments have any substance. >>Shyamananda Prabhu was a nitya-siddha, Bhaktisiddhanta was not. That is a a big difference. Your opinion. So you acknowledge that Jndas is correct YET AGAIN. Score another one for JNDas quote: a) In ISKCON/Gaudiya Matha we see everyone ultimately receiving brahmana-initiation. But which varnasrama-society has only brahmanas? This question is like asking why do all universities create graduates when in society the majority of people are not graduates. ISKCON and Gaudiya matha are spiritual organizations within the larger society of the world. It is natural for a spiritual organization to create spiritually focussed brahmanas. There are plenty of materialistic people in society, and we shouldn't expect spiritual institutions to have to create them as well. >>Are you living in space or here among the human beings? So you seriously mean >>that everybody in ISKCON and GM are brahmananas? That does not explain, >>however, why the members of these organizations have different natures, from >>sudra up to brahmana. All you are doing is criticizing with no basis. Everything is in a state of change. In 50 years there may be more structure to the Varnashram arrangement, but you are criticizing because “where is it right now”. Chill out. quote: ...and, what to speak of knowing Sanskrit, the men don't even know Hindi or Bengali... Nor Russian, nor chinese, nor sign language... I fail to see the spiritual significance of knowing Hindi, which has more connection to Muslim invaders than to the sages of ancient India. >>Are you a new devotee? You fail to see the necessity of being able to read the >>original writings of the Gosvamis and the other scriptures if one claims to be >>Guru. For example, catolic and protestant priests candidates must study Greek >>and Latin to become qualified for priesthood. A Vaishnava Guru must know his >>scriptures too! That is one of the qualifications of a true Guru, knowledge of >>Scripture! Srila Gaura Kisore Das Babaji was by materialistic standards illiterate but had pure devotion. There are a number of people who know Sanskrit who follow absolutely no religious regulations. Materialistic knowledge has no basis on spiritual understanding. One doesn’t have to know Sanskrit. Everyone likes to believe that only pure and noble things are written in Sanskrit. There are curse words in Sanskrit, and the equivalent of pornographic writings in Sanskrit. Again, materialistic knowledge has no basis on spiritual understanding. quote: ...or even what the weather is like in India. Here it is quite hot now. But the monsoon season will be starting soon. Everyone is looking forward to that. The guru's mercy is also like a monsoon cloud that extinguishes the forest fire of repeated birth and death. I wish more people would be looking forward to that monsoon. quote: Envy is the cause of the mentality: "Nowadays brahmanas are full of faults, so now we will launch our own varnasrama-system." Spiritually speaking, the brahmanas are factually full of faults nowadays. In Orissa the brahmanas eat fish and drink liquor while continuing to pose as priests and family gurus. In South India, the brahmanas are not so bad, but they all virtually eat onion and garlic, drink tea and cofee, and work mostly as accountants and the such. Nowadays the younger generation has started eating eggs as well, on the grounds that they are "vegetarian". In some traditional holy places such as Udupi and Sri Rangam you can still find a few brahmanas who follow proper principles. In Udupi there is even a restaraunt(hotel) next to the Krishna Temple that cooks without onion and garlic and remains closed on Ekadashis. Such things are very rare though. Regardless, the scriptures tell us that everyone is born a shudra, and by samskara they are elevated to the position of a brahmana. And elsewhere it is stated that in the age of Kali everyone is born a shudra. Throughout the modern history of India, the brahmanas have greatly exploited the lower castes, to the point that they are now suffering the consequences of their actions. Only a fool would think the glorification in the scriptures of brahmanas referred to the modern birth-based caste. >>It seems like you know every brahmana in India. Silly and childish. He didn’t say that. It is a fact that todays Brahmanas have factually let spiritual standards slide. There was an intern at my job who was Indian. I spoke to him and he told me he as a Brahman. Then I saw him eating hamburger at a company lunchout. quote: The Bhagavata (7.11.13) declares that a brahmana must first be born in a family that has always, throughout the generations, followed all the samskaras for brahmanas. No, this verse does not say that. Samskaras are not only for brahmanas. There are samskaras for all varnas. >>That is not what the text says. It says that a brahmana must be born in a >>brahmana family, otherwise he is no brahmana and can never become one. But >>hey, anybody can become an inhabitant of Goloka or Vaikuntha, cos it´s the >>nature of the soul! Perhaps you didn’t notice two very famous and specific examples that prove you wrong yet again. Please read below the examples of Vishvamitra and Valmiki. Regardless, there are countless examples of those belonging to other varnas acquiring the status of a brahmana. For example, Kaushika (Vishvamitra) was a Kshatriya, but by tapasya he became a brahma-rishi. Valmiki was a shudra, but by chanting the name of Rama he became a brahmana (and eventually the Vyasa for the 24th Chatur-yuga). quote: The Vedas teach that a sannyasi renounces his brahmana-thread when he takes sannyasa (sutra-sikha-tyaga, C.C.). This is again incorrect. The practice of removing the hair and brahmana thread is a custom in the line of ekadanda sannyasa. This is not the case in other lines, such as the Sri Vaishnava line, wherein the tridanda sannyasa is accepted. And last time I checked the Chaitanya Charitamrita was not part of the Vedas. >>Has it occurred to you that the Caitanya Caritamrita includes many quotes from >>Vedic literature? Has it occurred to you that the Caitanya Caritamrita is not part of the Vedas? I can’t believe you are making that statement. This is silly. JNDas is right again. quote: Initiation into krsna-mantra is a separate initiation which is only given to active Vaisnava brahmanas. This entire article is filled with a misconception as to what is vaidika diksha and what is pancharatrika diksha. A thorough study of these two lines would be useful, otherwise one's attempt to appear scholarly makes one look foolish. The Vaishnavas who accept vaidika diksha follow the vaikhanasa agamas. Those that accept pancharatrika diksha follow the pancharatra agamas. Their systems and procedures are completely different. To fail to acknowledge this difference leads one to make many mistakes. quote: Introducing varnasrama dharma, which is an institution of karma-yoga, is a namaparadha. Varnashrama dharma is not an institution of karma-yoga. This is like saying all knives are murder weapons. Sripada Ramanuja considers varnashrama dharma to be much more than an institution of karma-yoga. Without having a proper conception of traditional vaishnava acharyas, one will never be able to understand the essence of vaishnava siddhanta. To think that vaishnavism means to just say "hare rama, hare rama" is the conception of a neophyte. >>I don´t see how varnasrama-dharma can be a nama-aparadha. Of course if one >>forgets to chant the Holy Name due to focusing too much on varnasrama-dharma, >>then it might be "offensive". Then lets always chant the holy name – even in front of the deities in harinam. quote: 11) Who is a sannyasi? One who performs sat-nyasa is a sannyasi. quote: A Vaisnava tyagi is not called sannyasi. This is false. >>A vaisnava-tyagi is called a babaji. Ok, maybe I have to say it yet again: this notion that a vaisnava-tyagi is called a babaji “shows a lack of overall knowledge of the Vedic traditions.” Maybe in West Bengal only vaisnava-tyagis are called as babaji (though you haven’t even shown that), but perhaps you should look at other traditions as well before you make such a statement, because clearly you are wrong. quote: In India a mayavadi is called sannyasi. This is also false. The problem with many gaudiya-wanna-bes is that they don't have a clue as to what is anything. They just stamp everything as mayavada, a word which for most part, they cannot define. Then they go ahead and say "in India a mayavadi is called a sannyasi..." Where do you come up with this stuff? Now I'm beginning to wonder if _this author_ knows what the weather is like in India? >>You don´t understand that in West Bengal a sannyasi is not a Gaudiya Vaishnava renunciant. A sannyasi wears saffron cloth and danda, not babaji-vesa. Here comes the whole West Bengal thing again. Yawn… quote: In his Durgama-sangamani commentary on the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.113) Sri Jiva Gosvami sees a difference between a sannyasi and a Vaisnava-nivrtta (tyagi): sisyan naivanubadhniyad ityadiko yadyapi sannyasa-dharmas tathapi nivrttanam api bhaktanam upayujyata iti bhavah - "Just as it is wrong for a sannyasi to take too many disciples, so it counts also for renounced bhaktas." There is a difference between a sannyasi, a babaji, and an avadhuta. A sannyasi is still following the varnashrama dharma. This topic is discussed in the fourth adhyaya of the Vedanta sutra. There are Vaishnavas who belong to each of these categories. quote: There has never been a prohibition by the Gosvamis or the scriptures against calling householder-acaryas 'Gosvami'. Gosvami is a titled applicable to anyone who has complete control of his senses, not to those engaging in illicit sex and other material activities. >> And if a Prabhu-vamsa Gosvami has control over his senses, then he may use >>the title Gosvami? JNDas has clearly said that “anyone who has complete control of his senses, [and is not] engaging in illicit sex and other material activities” may be called a Gosvami. Where is the confusion? quote: sadhu-sastra guru vakya, hrdaye koriya aikya - "The words of the guru must be compatible with the words of sadhu and sastra..." No, that is not what this verse says. The correct translation is "Make the teachings of the guru, the sadhus, and the shastra one with your heart." >>And there should be no difference between what these three teach. This is often the case in ISKCON/GM though. quote: Babajis are not sahajiyas, for sahajiyas are Saktas or Mayavadis who have tantric sex with other men's wives... Again, this word 'mayavadi' pops up. The definition of sahajiya has no connection with either shaktas or mayavadis (advaitis). >>A sahajiya is not even a Vaishnava. A real sahajiya engages in many activities which are quite abominable. No true Gaudiya Vaishnava babaji would even think of performing such activities. PD A sahajiya is not even a Vaishnava – fine, but that was not JNDas’s point. He was showing this individuals lack of understanding of what a sahajiya is – because a “sahajiya has no connection with either shaktas or mayavadis (advaitis)”. Is this all clear now? This article, which JNDas deconstructed surgically, is full of so many holes. JNDas, good job, but don’t waste your time on this silliness. I’ve spent too much answering this myself. Gauracandra [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 05-30-2001).]

Great posting Peter. Here's a little bit of nectar for you in return. Will Radharani be reunited with Her true love? Will Krsna beg for Radha’s mercy to take him back? (see preview for a hint) And how exactly do Caitanya and the deities of Lord Jagannatha fit into all of this? To find the answers to these questions and more pick up a copy of “The Embankment of Separation” by Srila Gour Govinda Swami. Preview: Who says this? “Oh Radhe! Oh Radhe! Please give Me Your lotus feet. I want to put them on My head.”

Satya, Now I thought we were going to have high class debates. Lets keep this clean. Just one man's opinion. Gauracandra

Out of curiousity, could someone give me a verse from Caitanya Caritamrta where Mahaprabhu gives someone pancaratrika-diksa? Thanks for your help. Gauracandra

Weird. I might just have to rent that movie. But I'm not sure whats worse - watching an Eddie Murphy movie or brain cancer Gauracandra

Not if we don't let it. And that 21st Century song didn't help either. Let's not go down the VNN road. I always avoided that place because everyone was attacking each other. VNN was simply a tool of Kali Yuga. I always liked this little corner in the wall because it was small enough that it didn't get out of hand and didn't attract the never-ending attackers over at VNN. We've had vigorous debates in the past, and even gotten in each others faces a few times, but we have more or less kept it under control. Just remember this: We each, individually, add or detract from the atmosphere here. We control how the debates go, and we can keep it as high as we want. Gauracandra [This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 05-13-2001).]