Jagat

I am sorry, I only looked at the last line of the article. At any rate, I already mentionaed above how, in the Vaishnava conception, sat chit and ananda are applicable to Brahma, Paramatman and Bhagavan. Though the analogy to Father, Holy Ghost and Son is not perfect, it is far better than the Trimurti concept, which other than having "three" in it, has nothing at all to do with the three-in-one concept of Deity. Though Christianity has gone through various turns, orthodoxies and heterodoxies in its Christology, the idea that the Lord takes human form and becomes a personal and intimate object of devotion thereby is definitely a historically valid understanding of Christ. Though Christians generally have a "Father" concept that is somewhat more personal than the pure "Brahman" idea, it is still a thread in Christian theology, found most prominently in Tillich's "ground of being" concept. In Vrindavan I once had a conversation with a Catholic priest who was one of the purest Shankarites I had ever met. The "Holy Ghost" idea is also different in many ways from the Paramatma, but nevertheless analogous. But all this is really moot. Why should the Christians not refer to their deity as "being, consciousness and bliss"? Is it not the same God, after all? What is sac-cid-ananda but a kind of base-line concept that has been mined by theological speculators for generations and generations. If Christians now mine the same concept, they are in effect entering into the Upanishadic dialogue, accepting the essential insight of the rishis. Why should we object? We may argue that they misunderstand, but that is a different issue. Hindus could profit from Christian history and understanding of the Deity; why should Christians not learn from Hinduism? What do you have against the possibility of dialogue that would arise from the use of common vocabulary? Indeed, what is this very discussion but an attempt to understand common ground that exists between Christian and Hindu theologies? In many ways, I would say that Christians are further advanced in their understanding of "rival" traditions. Hindus (and Muslims are even worse) are usually strumming around on a superficial level based on caricatures born of ancient propaganda wars. Such superficiality exists on both sides of the fence, that is sure, but profound comparative research into other traditions has a long history in Western Christianity, whereas it exists hardly at all in Hinduism or Islam. John Carman, for instance, was a committed Christian, yet a respected leading scholar of Ramanuja Vaishnavism. Rudolf Otto, one of the most influential thinkers on religion in the 20th century, was very influenced by the Gita and Ramanuja devotionalism. R. C. Zaehner, a Catholic scholar of the Bhagavad Gita and comparative mysticism, was deeply influenced by the Gita, which he considered the "closest thing to Christianity." That might be considered condescension, but it indicates that he at least entered into a serious dialogue with the Hindu theistic tradition and found the potential to inform his own Catholic faith with what he found there. Raimundo Panikkar should be mentioned as an example of another very influential Catholic theologian whose deep interaction with Hinduism is extraordinary. May I suggest the following <a href=http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/indian.htm>introductory article</a> that discusses Christian theology in the Indian context. I could go on, but the point is that we should be aware that provocative articles of this kind seem meant to provoke Hindu nationalist feeling and to exacerbate anti-Christian sentiment in India, which is already far too great. The too-ready willingness to participate in this kind of sectarian quibbling is an affront to true religion. We should rather welcome the Sanskritization of Christianity, which will increasingly make it an integral part of the Indian fabric, which once adopted and assimilated foreign ideas instead of rejecting them out of petty prejudice. Your servant, Jagat

So now I have become a victim of JN censorship? What was wrong with what I said, other than disagreeing with you, Jahnava Nitai?

Anyway, the original article made it clear that the Christians were not using the term as a translation for the Trinity.

New usages for old terms is as old as language itself. Look in your Monier-Williams at a word like "dharma" and see how different sects used the term differently at different times. How many key words mean different things to Buddhists, Jains, Hindus or others. These usages are not artificial, and we should not think that this Christian adoption is completely artificial, either. Is the Christian God NOT eternity, knowledge and bliss?

On the contrary, I have just shown how according to Vaishnava usage, these three terms are analogous to Trinity theology in Christianity. When translating, we must find words that are analogous for various concepts. This opens the door to dialogue by asking us to understand how sac-cid-ananda can be meaningful to Christians. It also invites Hindus to understand how the Christian trinity is analogous to their cherished concept. It is easy for someone who has only a superficial understanding of both terms to treat this as an affront. Who knows, maybe the Vaishnavas got the Brahma-Paramatma-Bhagavan trinity concept from the Christians in the first place. I realize that the two are not perfectly similar in concept (as for Christians, the Father is not exactly impersonal Brahman, the Holy Ghost is not exactly Paramatma, and the Son is not exactly Bhagavan), but the similarities are as significant as the differences. Therefore, the door opens to dialogue and INCREASED understanding, if we are willing.

ahaM samatItAni vartamAnAni bhaviSyANi ca bhUtAni veda | kazcana tu mAM na veda | The problem here is probably "veda", which is an irregular unreduplicated perfect tense with a present meaning! It is the same in both the first and third persons (ahaM veda = "I know"; sa veda = "he knows"). The second person is vettha, which is also found in the Gita (4.5, 10.15). The object in the first half is bhUtAni ("beings, things"), the other three words (past, present, future) are adjectives modifying bhUtAni. This is confirmed in Sankara, Ramanuja and Sridhar. Madhusudana Saraswati, however, interprets the three adjectives as nouns, and bhUtAni as a separate, fourth object of the Lord's knowledge. This is the interpretation that Prabhupada has followed, but I don't know where he got it as neither Vishwanath nor Baladeva discuss this part of the verse. I don't have either of Bhaktivinoda's translations, which Srila Prabhupada probably used, but Narayan Maharaj (who uses Vishwanath and Bhaktivinoda's Vishwanath translation) follows the traditional version, as does Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar. Tripurari Maharaj, however, has followed Prabhupada/Madhusudan. Zaehner's comment on this verse:<font color=#660099>Zaehner 256: At this stage we can but note the discrepancies in this chapter on whether or not it is possible to know God. The opening and closing verses of the chapter are optimistic, but verse 3 says that perhaps one in a million can know God as He really is, while verse 26 says flatly that no one can know Him at all. Perhaps the meaning is that God can be known as eternal Being because every liberated self participates in this, but He cannot he known as He operates through mäyä because it is the very function of mäyä, of matter, to bewilder and confuse (7.14-15, 25). As Shankara would say, mäyä is something you cannot pin down or adequately describe (anirvacanIya); it neither is nor is not; yet in the Gita it is inextricably intertwined with the being of God. "Brahman in its wholeness", as we shall see in the next chapter, comprises (i) the "Imperishable" (see 8.3 n.), (ii) the law of karma which gives rise to individuality, (iii) material Nature, and (iv) eternal individual selves. In addition there is God who is especially connected with the sacrifice (see 8.4 n.). Each of these categories can be learnt in theory by those who "strive to win release from old age and death". The totality of them all in God can only be "known" once a man's mind and thoughts are fully integrated. This, however, is not to know in the ordinary sense of the word, but an intuitive apprehension beyond all discursive thought. The Kena Upanishad 2.2-3 has the last word to say on this "knowledge" or "wisdom": I do not think, "I know It well", I do not know, "I do not know"; He of us who knows It, knows It, He does not know, "I know It not". Who thinks not on It, by him It's thought: Who thinks upon It, does not know— Ununderstood by those who understand, By those who understand not understood.</font> nAhaM manye suvedeti no na vedeti veda ca | yo nas tad veda tad veda no na vedeti veda ca ||2|| yasyAmataM tasya mataM mataM yasya na veda saH | avijJAtaM vijAnatAM vijJAtam avijAnatAm ||3||

Words are what we make them mean. The reason the use of sac-cid-ananda as a synonym for the Trinity is controversial for Catholics themselves is that it opens up an interesting avenue of Christian/Hindu dialogue. Within the Hindu tradition itself, the term is a source of much fertile speculation about the Supreme. Why should Hindus not take the Christian understanding into consideration? Try this: sat = Father = Brahman chit = Ghost = Paramatman ananda = Son = Bhagavan

manuSyAH pArtha sarvazaH Krishna said it twice.

Hari-nama-cintamani.

1)I took the text from Grantha Mandira but I have seen a iskcon book where in the same verse the word rajjUbhir is spell rajjubhir, I looked in the dictionary (Monier's) and found rajju (in earlier language also rajjU) as rope, could you kindly explain how rajju becomes rajjUbhir? --> Some Sanskrit words have unstable or multiple forms, which are usually taken advantage of by poets for metrical reasons. It is sometimes useful to check the metre to see whether a short or long syllable was needed at a particular place. I did not look when I went through the verse. It should indeed be rajjubhiH as a short syllable is needed. Please tell me which file you found this in and I will have it corrected. 2)The same for aghAreH, there is agha (Agha, or sin) that is clear, but what about the enemy and how the internal saMdhi works? --> What's the problem here? The sandhi is agha + ari --> aghAri. 3)vartma-pAtibhiH, there is vartman, the road, and pAti, the lord or master of the road, but highwaymen? How pAti becomes pAtibhiH? --> No. It's "pAtin" not "pati" vartma-pAta "coming in the way, waylaying." 4)If you can give the full details of case, gender, person, number, tense, mode, etc. that will be great Whoops. Too much right now. As for the other. I have started up a web page on the granthamandira site (and hope to post the Gita on there). As a matter of fact, I am giving a seminar this weekend and I will be trying to use this system as a way of introducing novices to Sanskrit. When translating a word like "house of love" you have to be careful. You don't want it to sound like a "house of prostitution." The normal words for love are "prema, prIti, sneha, rAga, anurAga," etc. each with different shades of meaning. For home, abode, refuge, etc., you can use "gRha, Alaya, geha, sthAnam, vezman, nilayaH, bhavanaM, etc." with similar shades of meaning. "premAlayaH" seems good.

kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH pratiSThA-rajjUbhir baddhaM chittvA tAH saMharantas tAn aghAreH pAntu mAM bhaTAH ||1|| The kernel of the sentence is: aghAreH bhaTAH mAM pAntu: "May the soldiers (bhaTAH) of Krishna, the enemy of the Agha demon, or the enemy of sin (aghAreH) save me." Now modifying mAm is the first half of the verse: kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH pratiSThA-rajjUbhir baddhaM baddhaM "bound" pratiSThA-rajjUbhiH "by the ropes of [desire for] prestige", [tied there] by kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH "the highwaymen led by Kama." How should the soldiers of Krishna save me? chittvA tAH "by cutting the ropes" and saMharantas tAn "killing them." Need more details?

kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH pratiSThA-rajjUbhir baddhaM chittvA tAH saMharantas tAn aghAreH pAntu mAM bhaTAH ||1|| The kernel of the sentence is: aghAreH bhaTAH mAM pAntu: "May the soldiers (bhaTAH) of Krishna, the enemy of the Agha demon, or the enemy of sin (aghAreH) save me." Now modifying mAm is the first half of the verse: kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH pratiSThA-rajjUbhir baddhaM baddhaM "bound" pratiSThA-rajjUbhiH by the ropes of [desire for] prestige, [tied there] by kAmAdyair vartma-pAtibhiH the highwaymen led by Kama. How should the soldiers of Krishna save me? chittvA tAH>/i> by cutting the ropes and saMharantas tAn killing them. Need more details?

Was the following post deleted from this thread? If so, why? <blockquote><hr>Thank you shiva for that sweet Radha nectar. My understanding is that She is completely dependent on Her closest girlfriends, for without them Krsna would be impossible to handle since She is so overwhelmed by Her love for Him. The Radha-dasi manjaris in particular design as well as facilitate Their pastimes and rendezvous. Radhika is certainly exceptionally appreciative of Her friends and always considers Herself obligated to them, similar to Krsna's admission of His inability to repay the gopi's limitless devotion.<hr></blockquote>

Keep in touch with me about the HNC. I was wondering who was being assigned that. You have my email address? I believe it's in my profile.

As a matter of fact, I wish that someone would just burn "Dialectical Spiritualism." For the most part, it just makes Prabhupada look bad. I cringe almost every time I read a passage from this book. It starts from the premise that Prabhupada is going to "defeat" all the materialistic empiric scholars, about whom he really knows little other than what he is fed by his somewhat sycophantic disciples. Of course, neither Syamasundara or Hayagriva hung around much longer after they did these interviews with Prabhupada. Maybe they saw that he was being far from truly dialectic, which after all means engaging in some kind of dialogue, not just trying to beat the interlocutor into the ground with dogma. You cannot engage in debate without understanding and even sympathizing with your "opponent." If you are both seeking the truth, then who is the "opponent" anyway? This is the dogmatic Prabhupada that gave birth to a thousand Purus.

As usual, one gets the impression from these dialectic spiritualism discussions that neither Syamasundar nor Prabhupad really understood what the philosopher himself was getting at. At any rate, Syamasundar has a hard time defending Kierkegaard's position. The point, I believe, is that there is "real" and "false" knowledge. Just like there is in devotional service. What is the point of following externally rules and regulations, chanting, being a vegetarian, if it is all done superficially, without having made existentially significant commitment. If one recognized that "leap of faith" and "surrender to Krishna" are the same, then one would bring Kierkegaard and Prabhupada closer to one another. Of course, I don't know if Prabhupada would have agreed even if it had been presented in this way.

There are six opulences. Whenever anyone possesses these opulences, even one of them, in a fairly great amount, he starts to get worshiped. It is the natural tendency of all human beings, though many pretend to be cynical. Krishna says the opulences come from a spark of his splendor. So we bow down to the source.

Westernized Indians are so cut off from their ancient traditions that they don't realize that the ancients modeled their worship of the Deity on the way they honored great human beings--kings, Brahmins and saints.

There is merit in this argument, but there are different parts of society. One who wishes to renounce should take a renunciate guru. And of course, there is no harm in getting the "real deal" from a St. Francis. However, the large majority of people have many preoccupations, big and little. Facile answers like "Renounce everything and live under a tree" is what you would expect from a Gaur Kishor Das Babaji, but that is not the right answer to give to a king. This was my point about sympathy for a lay congregation. Householder or not, salaried or not, the guru who has integrity will win the respect of his congregation. The one who has been trained to serve and then serves honestly will merit his status. Why deny him the right to live decently? Is a sannyasi who hopes for a million dollar donation to build his temple and math going to necessarily be honest with his client? Ever seen an Iskcon GBC suck up to a rich Indian industrialist? It's not pretty. My point, which is a little radical for most people accustomed to heavy Gaudiya Math preaching about the absolute good-as-God guru, which has been so destructive to Iskcon, is that the guru can be a little more ordinary than Jesus, Francis or Prabhupada. The guru can and should be much closer to us than that.

You are understanding posts through an unreliable translator. You are then posting the texts that are produced by an unreliable translator. NOTHING CAN BE GAINED EXCEPT CONFUSION.

Are you also using a translator to understand what other people write?

This is all very well and good, but how is someone supposed to live? How is a Brahmin supposed to maintain and support his family? How is he supposed to raise his children and give them an education? A Brahmin is not a sannyasi. Let's be realistic. The student or yajamana is supposed to give dakshina generously. That is a payment by another name. Look at the accounts in the Puranas of cows and land given to Brahmins. The Brahmin needs to be free from the burden of seeking an alternative livelihood so that he can engage in the work of his caste. A genuine Brahmin will not turn away the poor and needy, any more than a genuine doctor will turn a sick patient who is unable to pay, but this doesn't mean that we expect to not pay our doctors. I gave the alternative possibility that the congregation could pay a salary to the minister-priest-guru, etc. This idea of not paying has just had repercussions in the Montreal temple where the temple personnel has dropped to practically 0. A nice householder devotee with all the Brahmin qualities was doing the pujari work. He cannot maintain the service because he has to work to support his wife and two small children. He requested the temple authorities to pay him a salary, but they refused on principle. So they lost a very qualified and sincere pujari. Was he less sincere because he asked for a salary? I am sure he was not asking for the kind of money a busboy or gas station attendant gets. So the temple will now depend on whatever six-month brahmachari is around to do the service. Is this rational?

<h2>Vipramukhya’s retirement</h2> Jagadananda Das Vipramukhya Prabhu writes that he still has faith in doctrines taught by Srila Prabhupada, yet because of feelings of loneliness and the desire to find companionship in members of the opposite sex is unable to continue in his functions as a sannyasi and guru. As a result, he feels obliged to leave Iskcon after thirty years of service in which, I assume, he has achieved immense expertise in inspiring devotees, knowledge of the scriptures, experience of Iskcon management, and even a certain amount of devotion. I would like to propose that this “falldown” is probably a step to increased wisdom and that Vipramukhya’s enhanced experience might make him even more qualified to lead and guide devotees, if only the institution itself would allow it. Longtime devotees have by now become accustomed to the “retirement” of leading sannyasis like Vipramukhya Swami. Though few are shocked or surprised, those who knew him, those who were his disciples, those who depended on his experience and knowledge, have no doubt been greatly disturbed by his departure. Some will just feel sad and let down, others cheated and angry. The cynical devotee says “punar mushiko bhava” and “vantashi” or some other derogatory term, but the fact remains that a sannyasi’s falldown is a great loss to the movement, making waves not only of a practical nature, but touching the very basis of the movement itself—faith in the process of bhakti yoga. I do not know Vipramukhya. He may be a dishonest man who has prepared his departure by embezzling money that is rightfully Iskcon’s. I hope this is not the case, but I will write this article as though it were not. Even so, the embezzlement of funds might be considered a rather natural consequence of being in his position. After sacrificing years of one's life, when one knows that has been living a lie and decides to leave, he realizes that once "on the outside" he will have to find a way of maintaining himself as a householder. Though some falling sannyasis may have a parachute of some kind, many gave up their material heritage and then spent years and years as preachers, accumulating little in the way of material wealth or qualifications that would make them able to live productive householder lives. This is no doubt a rather large impediment to many who would like to take the step of leaving, even though they may feel the burden of hypocrisy weighing heavily on their shoulders. Others who cannot tolerate that burden may well consider embezzling funds rather justifiable as a kind of retirement pension. Be that as it may, I propose here that the monopoly granted by the movement to celibate monks to act as its unique spiritual leaders of the society is tremendously unproductive. I think it is time to radically rethink the sannyasa and householder institutions in Iskcon. The householder state is not in itself a disqualification to pure devotion, nor is celibacy a necessary precondition to pure devotion. The life and teachings of Bhaktivinoda Thakur should be sufficient evidence for this. It is time to return to the pre-Gaudiya Math tradition of promoting householders as gurus. This is the essential step that to the cultivation of a congregational community or lay society, in other words, the creation of Varnashram culture. The Varnashram system means, as Prabhupada taught, a Brahminical society. Iskcon’s failure has been to place the Brahminical functions, i.e., the work of guru (varnanam brahmano guruh), almost exclusively in sannyasis, to the detriment of the entire creation of Varnashram. Further confusion has been caused by fuzzy thinking on the distinction between Brahmins and Vaishnavas. Let me develop that thought. The Varnashram idea is important, but if one confuses Vaishnavas with Brahmins by making all Vaishnavas Brahmins makes the concept totally meaningless. A person who has taken Vaishnava diksha may not have the guna or karma of a Brahmin. (A Brahmin who is not a Vaishnava is not a concern here.) Sad-achara (i.e., the four regulative principles and other fundamental aspects of Brahminical behavior) is not the only criterion of a Brahmin. A Vaishnava society automatically serves the Brahminical ideal in terms of sad-achara, but Vaishnavas not working as preachers, priests or teachers, even though following Vaishnava sad-achara, should not automatically be given Brahminical status in Varnashram. This distinction between ordinary Vaishnavas and Brahmin Vaishnavas could be institutionalized by a reform of the initiation process. Brahma Gayatri was traditionally not given to non-Brahmin disciples by most Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Upanayan and diksha should be recognized as two different things. Saraswati Thakur started giving Brahma Gayatri to his disciples as an element of the Daivi Varnashram Dharma. It was a statement appropriate to the time and place, but we must seriously examine the context of creating Varnashram institutions in the world outside of India, where it has to be created from scratch. The criticism of abuses in the Brahminical or Varnashram society are simply not relevant and we should make the necessary adjustments. If Brahma Gayatri and the sacred thread are signs of a Brahmin, they should not be given as a part of Vaishnava initiation, but in a separate upanayan ceremony that consecrates an individual who shows special qualifications as a Brahmin. I know that this calls for hierarchisation in what is essentially an egalitarian movement, but we already have that, with sannyasis, etc. The very concept of Varnashram is hierarchical in nature. The test is whether the society’s Brahmins will be able to combine their leadership with respect for all other members of society, as enjoined in Gita 5.18 and elsewhere. It would thus be in the interest of developing the concept of Daiva Varnashram if upanayana were given separately from Vaishnava diksha. Diksha would be given when one has reached the requisite level of sad-achar and commitment to Vaishnavism. Upanayana, however, would only be bestowed on people who had attained a certain level of learning and cultural competence, a Brahmin in the full sense of the term. The deliberate consequence of this decision would would be the creation of a householder Brahmin class, which is currently missing from the Iskcon/Gaudiya Math social structure. In the Gaudiya Math and Iskcon, only sannyasis act as priests and preachers and receive maryada. Householders are thus for the most part automatically marginalized. Siddhanta Saraswati’s strong criticism of householders making a living from devotional service is the crux of the matter. This criticism is not without basis and naturally a certain amount of checks and balances are needed, but such checks and balances should be in place to protect against all abuses by anyone—householder or sannyasi—who is dependent on the congregation for his livelihood. A householder priest could be the paid employee of the congregation, for example, and still act as personal guru to householders and trainer to new brahmachari and brahmacharini students. Householders who are qualified Brahmins could be allowed to make disciples, receive gifts, charge money for services rendered, including Bhagavata path, etc., as long as these were reasonable. I don't see that the dangers inherent in receiving gifts, etc., are all that different in a preaching environment where renunciates are involved. The embezzlement problem discussed above is evidence of this. There are advantages and disadvantages both in householders and renunciates preaching. However, Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition gave initiating duties to householder Vaishnavas. There were good reasons for this: sannyasis were advised to keep away from materialistic people, women, making many disciples. The Bhagavata and the Goswamis had a radically ascetic version of sannyasa that has to some extent been compromised. A householder was not restricted in this way, therefore Nityananda Prabhu, Advaita Prabhu and Srinivasa Acharya all became householder gurus. Why not Vipramukhya? Some time back, I wrote to some devotees in Iskcon suggesting that the society should create a number of sannyas ashrams or monasteries (distinct from regular temples) where sannyasis can go into a real monastic environment where there are no women. Similar ashrams for women should also be set up. Sannyasis who travel and preach should be required to spend a minimum period of time every year (chaturmasya, Karttika) in intense bhajan to keep their sadhana pure. These ashrams could also be curing places where devotees with difficulties could be sent for cure and reflection about vocation change, etc. Perhaps certain devotees who have a taste for bhajan could stay there year round. Of course, these ashrams would be open for retreats throughout the year for all male devotees, and for classes and certain programs during the day. Strict rules would hold that women would not be allowed to come even for cleaning or cooking duties, which is generally allowed in Gaudiya Maths because of manpower shortages. Sannyasis would continue living, visiting, doing so many things, in other, non-sannyas ashrams where women would be present. This is because Saraswati Thakur’s sannyasi was, like the Roman Catholic priest, “in the world,” and thus a certain amount of compromise with the standards of sannyas shown by Mahaprabhu was necessary. The creation of sannyas ashrams would give the sannyasis a chance to regenerate their spirit of renunciation without creating tension or negative vibes in temples, etc., where women of necessity play a vital role that should and must be encouraged if the movement is to flourish. This kind of institution would enhance the prestige of the sannyas ashram in Iskcon and would also empower sannyasi preachers who tend to get overinvolved in management and other superficial activities. These ashrams could also function as Vaishnava universities for Brahmins. In the meantime, householder-based preaching centers would be the principal method of expanding the movement. This would (1) enhance the position of women in the movement, (2) create a priestly class more sympathetic to the worldly concerns of the congregation, (3) free sannyasis to travel and preach, and (4) help prevent the urge for people looking for labh, puja and pratishtha to take sannyas as a way of attaining it. Why can't Iskcon support householder gurus? Not only would the above benefits accrue, but solidly implanted householder Brahmin families would result in the privileged education of their children, giving them the kind of from-birth training that would result in the development of future leaders of the movement. Householders with Brahmin qualifications who are obliged to make their living by other means are seriously handicapped in their culture of Krishna consciousness. They are being told, in effect, that you are not allowed to work according to your nature because you wish to live in the company of a woman. If Vipramukhya were allowed to continue in his functions, even after becoming a householder, would the movement not on the whole be benefitted? Too much emphasis has been placed on the spilling of semen and not enough on the individual qualifications of the spiritual teacher. Jagadananda Das (Hiranyagarbha Das) was the first headmaster of the Varnashram College in New Vrindavan in 1974. He was also headmaster at Mayapura Gurukula from 1975-1979.

I have decided to stop doing this until (1) Kailasa admits or denies that he uses a translator, and (2) expresses a desire to follow through on this.

Yes, come clean, Kailasa. Are you using an automated translator? If that is the case, then we may have to do things completely differently. Thank you, Stonehearted, for your support. I translate for a living and have a degree in translation from McGill University. The professors in the programme often gave demonstrations of translation software to instill confidence in the students that their job prospects were not in immediate danger of being taken away by machines. I tried once or twice to use such software, thinking that perhaps it would give me a little headstart on a job. But in the end I found out that the time it takes to get the first draft of a translation on my own followed by editing my own version was less than that needed to edit the automated translation. Misunderstood terms, corrupted idioms, etc., send you scurrying back to the original to unravel strange mysteries so often that in the end there is no point in using it for anything more complex than "The book is good." I hope that international relations never depends on automated translations. We'd have a war the very next day.