Jagat

Dear Kailasa, I am sorry if I sound a bit impatient. I am rather busy and evidently this is not my prefered activity. I ask that you read my posts on this thread carefully. Study them. Use them to direct your research into English. Rewrite the sentences that are under the microscope and try to improve them so they say exactly what you want them to say. Language is a precise instrument. If you use it imprecisely, you will not achieve your goal of communication. Even those who have mastered the use of a language are constantly misunderstood, what to speak of those who use it imprecisely. If there is anyone else out there reading this thread----one contributor on another thread said he was an English teacher--I have two requests. Contribute comments and better explanations where I have rushed through. It is obvious that I sometimes bite off more than I can chew. It looks like one Kailasa sentence provides ample fodder for a day's lesson. If I take two or three, I am overextending myself. Secondly, if you see Kailas post another one of his labyrinthine messages on another thread or forum, DO NOT ENGAGE WITH HIM, but simply give him the URL of this thread and tell him to pay attention to his English lessons instead of wasting his time. I don't know what you do all day, Kailasa, but time is precious. Learn English and Srila Prabhupada may one day send you to the USA to preach the Holy Name. Just think that Prabhupada has inspired me to do this service just for you. This is not me who is doing this, but Krishna and Srila Prabhupada who are doing it through me. Thank you, Jagat

Use of the citation by a wrong image have leaded into error, as though the purpose of spiritual life is their pleasure. A longer, more complex sentence. Good effort. Some positive things here. Lesson. Verb past tenses. Like German, English has a lot of irregular past tense forms. This is not unusual, but it is a pain in the neck. If you have a German-English dictionary, it probably has a list of these verbs. A quick search on the Internet turns up a gazillion sites with irregular verbs. Here is the first one: http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones.htm. There is a self-test on there that would probably be helpful. All that to say “leaded” should be “led”. “Leaded” means “with the metal lead” like leaded gasoline. Still many problems: “Use of the citation” What citation? “wrong image” What wrong image? What do you mean? Do you mean “Even the Devil can quote scripture to his own ends.”? There is also a deeper, more fundamental problem with this sentence. The subject in the first half doesn't seem to match the second half of the sentence. The key is the pronoun "their." Who is it refering to? “Use of the citation by a wrong image have leaded into error, as though the purpose of spiritual life is their pleasure.” “Using quotations with an incorrect understanding leads one into error, that is, that the purpose of spiritual life is one’s own pleasure.” The problem here is – how does using quotations incorrectly lead one into error. Obviously one is already in error if he is misquoting scripture. Is this malicious person using scriptures with a wrong understanding to induce others into error? Is he using scripture to convince people that they can please their senses in the name of serving God? So today's lesson, had I thought about it more carefully and patiently, would have been PRONOUNS. Make sure that you are clearly refering to an well-established antecedent when you use a pronoun. Know the difference between "he, she, it, they," and use them appropriately. Hour's up. That'll be 500 roubles. Jagat

Kailasaji, You really have to respect the moratorium, otherwise I will stop. I just saw a post on x--a very long one indeed. Let me ask you a question: Are you trying to serve the devotees, or are you trying to make them suffer? Your brilliant realizations are clouded by your utter incapacity to express yourself in English. No doubt you are lighting up the Novgorod Vaishnava community with your insights, but trying to read your posts is like listening to the radio with a lot of static. The first two sentences are almost incomprehensible. But let me say to you that this is the last time I will do this if I see that you are not taking it seriously. I know that you don't want to learn from an old Sahajiya like me, but I think that if you are smart you will take this chance to learn something useful. There is an 80% chance that five years from now you will be loading fish onto trucks in the Novgorod railway station and spitting on anyone that chants Hare Krishna. Then you will be able to say that at least you learned to speak English. 1. By him you simply have increased pride - " great, " rasika "( some GM ).” What does this mean, “By him you simply have increased pride”? By “him” are you refering to a person? It is not clear. Never use a pronoun without making clear the reference. What does this mean “you simply have increased pride.” Is “increased” an adjective or a verb? If it is an adjective, “You have (possess) increased pride.” If a verb “you have increased”, then this is an indication that the “you” in question has been busily increasing his pride. Is this something that people do? Now what is this “by him”? “You have been increasing your pride by him.” What can this possibly mean. Are you saying, “You are using him to increase your pride”? Perhaps you mean, I suspect, “Through [saying, believing, doing] this, your pride in being a great rasika has simply increased, as we see in some Gaudiya Maths.” This is still far from being a coherent sentence. And though there are several flaws in the latter part of the sentence, the worst flaw is “by him”, by far. 2. After the man has felt that he is great, he can be used. This sentence actually almost makes grammatical sense. It is an interesting thought, therefore I don’t trust that it is what you meant. “After a man has (once) felt that he is great, he can be used. (by whom?)” This is perhaps true—when one becomes proud, he can be manipulated. It sounds much like what goes on in cults—people are inflated with the idea that they have the “one way to God, the one truth” and are then used and manipulated by the cult leaders. Is this what you meant to say? If not, please try to clarify the thought in concise clear English. Ask a friend to help you. I do not want to wade through six paragraphs. I have now been analyzing two sentences you wrote for 45 minutes. My time is valuable, Kailasa. I am giving it to you free of charge. Use it, don’t abuse it. It may take you an entire day to understand what I have written here. Find books on English. Look up these points. Open your dictionary. Learn the vocubulary that you don’t know. Let’s go. Work hard on your English. No wasting time cutting and pasting and trying to explain things when you have no tools to do so. You are like a car with maple syrup in the tank. How can you go anywhere? 3. These low you high. This is another enigmatic sentence. Are you paraphrasing the prideful thoughts of a puffed up devotee? “These” is again a pronoun with no clear antecedent. It takes perfect knowledge of English to be concise, Kailasa. Spell out what you mean. Think carefully about what you are saying and say each part of it. ===> Do you mean: “The prideful person thinks, ‘All these people are low, while I am high.”? SPELL IT OUT. Of course, “I am high” in English does not mean what you want. Standing alone it can only mean “high on drugs.” You need another adjective: “great, something special, the bee’s knees, a fugleman, a Cadillac and a Rolls-Royce, number one, a standout, a record-breaker, one in a million, a whizbang, a whizkid, a world beater and a tough act to follow, a mover and shaker.”

I am give to you translation too. Knowlege sanskrit it is no knowlege spiritual life. These two short sentences contain at least six or seven mistakes. Though you have apparently understood something about "am", there is still more: The verb "to be" is used as an auxiliary verb in what are called the "continuous" tenses. These tenses are not universal -- Polish doesn't have one, so I'll bet Russian doesn't either. French doesn't have one, so it takes a while for the French to get a hang of using it in English. Whenever you are engaged in some action at a particular moment, you use the continous tense to describe it. "I do something." This means I do it all the time, or regularly. "I eat tofu." This means that I eat tofu from time to time. But if I say "I AM EATING TOFU." It means that right now, in this very moment, I am engaged in the act of eating tofu. The continuous tenses are formed of the verb "to be" PLUS the verb in its present participle form, i.e., you add "-ing" to the verb stem. Thus "I am give to you translation" should be: I am giving you a translation. From the look of it, however, you really meant to use a past tense here. The English tenses are tricky--there are more of them than in any language I know except Hindi. Are you giving a translation right now? No. Did you give a translation earlier? It seems that you did. So you should have said: I also gave you a translation. But we will look at past tenses later. For the time being, try to master the present continuous tense: I am eating. I am sleeping. I am mating. I am defending. You are eating. You are sleeping. You are mating. You are defending. He is eating. He is sleeping. He is mating. He is defending. She is eating. She is sleeping. She is mating. She is defending. It is eating. It is sleeping. It is mating. It is defending. We are eating, sleeping, mating or defending. You are eating. You are sleeping. You are mating. You are defending. They are eating. They are sleeping. They are mating. They are defending. Please observe the interrogative form: Am I eating? Am I sleeping? Am I mating? Am I defending? Are you eating? Are you sleeping? Are you mating? Are you defending? Is he eating? Is he sleeping? Is he mating? Is he defending? Is she eating? Is she sleeping? Is she mating? Is she defending? Is it eating? Is it sleeping? Is it mating? Is it defending? Are we eating? Are we sleeping? Are we mating? Are we defending? Are you eating? Are you sleeping? Are you mating? Are you defending? Are they eating? Are they sleeping? Are they mating? Are they defending? Observe also the negative form. "not" goes after the auxiliary verb. I am not eating. You are not sleeping. He is not mating. She is not defending. It is not walking. We are not chanting. You are not arguing. The jivas are not falling from the spiritual world. <hr> Your first sentence contains other errors also. They are not as important as the verb tense, but betray an ignorance of English syntax. I am give to you translation too. When using the verb "to give", the indirect object (dative case) does not need the preposition "to." Thus, "I give you my heart." "I am giving you a translation, too." The words "too" and "also.". This is a bit subtle, so I will just say that you really want to use "also" here. It is an adverb and so should sit near the verb. "I am also giving you a translation." "I too am giving you a translation." You need an article in front of "translation". Now the question is which one, "a" or "the"? Is it a specific translation that you gave? Or was it another translation out of many possible translations? In this case, the answer is clearly the latter, because someone else gave a translation, you gave a translation, everyone is giving a translation. If you say, "I am giving you the translation, it (1) makes it seem as though you think that this is the only translation, or (2) you are refering to a specific translation from a specific context. "I gave you the translation." I.e. This is what the Sanskrit means in English; there are no other possibilities. OR, "I gave you the (specific) translation" that was found in Prabhupada's (or another) book, not another translation. As I said earlier, mastering the use of articles is one of the most difficult things for non-English speakers, unless they have something similar in their own language (and even then there are often subtle differences, as with French and English.) <hr> That is already a big chunk, but your second sentence also cries out for comment. Knowlege sanskrit it is no knowlege spiritual life. There are at least three things that need to be pointed out in this sentence, my dear Kailasa. Here is the correct version: Knowlege of Sanskrit is not knowlege of spiritual life. You need "of" before "Sanskrit". Knowledge of what? Knowledge of Sanskrit. You might say Sanskrit knowledge, but that is an inferior choice in this sentence. "It" is redundant, i.e., not necessary. "Knowledge of Sanskrit" is the subject of the sentence. "is" is the verb. What is "it" doing in this sentence? Nothing. It is a pronoun refering to "knowledge of Sanskrit", but it is not necessary until we start a new phrase or sentence. Example: Knowledge of Sanskrit is good, but it is not the same as knowledge of spiritual life. "No" is used in various ways, but when we want to negate a verb, we use "not". See the above negations of the present continuous tense. "No" usually modifies a noun. "Sir, you are no John F. Kennedy.She is no spring chicken." This is not quite the same as saying: "You are not John F. Kennedy.She is not a spring chicken." It means something more like, "You really are nothing like John F. Kennedy.She really is nothing like a spring chicken." Anyway that's all I have time for. Kailasa, I expect you to take these lessons seriously. Take out your dictionary and look up any words you don't know. Practice repeating the corrected sentences. Practice using the verbs. Keep your answers short. You haven't got the time for philosophical discussions. You are now in a philosophical moratorium. You are learning English. You want to learn English. You need to learn English. When you know how to say what you mean in English, you can talk of other things. I will deal with some things in your other post tomorrow, if I find the time. There is enough in there for three months all by itself. Your servant, Jagat

I'll be watching carefully, Kailasa. Apply these teachings or face my wrath!!!

Last post for today: snake have skin? The verb have conjugates as follows: I have you have he, she, it has we have you have they have Thus "The snake has skin." "A snake has skin." "All snakes have skin." "I have skin, you have skin, we all have skin." Asking questions. In English, when writing a question, the word order changes. We don't use "question marker words" to indicate a question, like "czy" in Polish or "kim" in Sanskrit. A question is announced by changing the word order. Unfortunately, we have to use the auxiliary verb "to do" in this case. The correct form of your question was: "Do snakes have skin?" "Do I have skin?" "Do you have skin?" "Do we all have skin?" "Does Krishna have skin?" "Does the snake have skin?" "Do you have a guru?" "Does the jiva fall from the spiritual sky?" "Do you understand?" "Do snakes have skin?" (Assuming this was your question) "Yes, snakes do indeed have skin."

I don't want to overload you, Kailasaji, but here is more stuff. You wrote:<hr>If you follow YOU understanding sastra it is YOU coise(?). Sastra writes for understanding. Whit out guru nobody not understand sastra. Needs guru. <hr> If you follow YOU understanding sastra it is YOU coise(?). Unfortunately, if you don't look in a dictionary from time to time, you will use words like "coise" which mean nothing to anyone. This entire sentence is turned into a guessing game. I think you mean "choice." The sentence actually begins properly: "If you follow" By "YOU" it is evident you mean "your". This is what you meant: "If you follow YOUR understanding OF sastra, it is YOUR choice." Sastra writes for understanding. Sastra does not write. Someone writes sastra. You perhaps mean "Sastra is written to be understood." "The Sastras were written for our understanding."<hr> Whit out guru nobody not understand sastra. Needs guru. "Without guru, nobody understands sastra." "Without a guru, nobody can understand the sastra. Everyone needs a guru."<hr>Like Polish, Hindi and Bengali, Russian has no articles ("the, a, an"). This will always be a problem for you, Kailasji. Try to understand how these are used, but you probably never will master it, try as you might.<hr>Avoid double negatives: "Nobody not understands." You probably use double negatives like in Polish: "Nic nie wiem." This is not allowed in English. Two negatives cancel each other out (in theory). Of course, some Americans do say things like "I don't know nothing" or "I ain't going nowhere." But this is not good English. <hr>Now the question is, if the sastras were written in order to be understood, why can they not be understood without a guru? Certainly it is my choice to follow my own understanding, but I assume it is also a choice to follow the understanding of a guru. But I seriously doubt that anyone can follow anyone else absolutely. No one can BE his guru, so no one can understand exactly like his guru. I eat a mango. My guru eats a mango. Do we both taste the same thing? Yes, but no. Anyway, I don't mean to get into a side issue. Let's stick to learning English here, Kailasa. Let's go. Three months. We can do it!!

Dear Kailasa, Now that you have learned the conjugation of the verb to be, I would like you to master English word order. English is not free like Russian and other inflected languages. You must put words in the proper order. "I am a devotee." GOOD. "Devotee am I a." NOT GOOD. "Am devotee a I." NOT GOOD. There is really only one option: "I am a devotee." The same with other verbs. Subject, verb, object. "I have a guru." GOOD "I a guru have.Guru I have." etc. NOT GOOD. I will admit that occasionally in poems, English authors will play around with word order. But beginners in the language should definitily stick to SUBJECT, VERB, OBJECT. Furthermore, you are not allowed to just drop words whimsically. Include ALL the words, even the little ones. "I devotee." NO GOOD "Am devotee." NO GOOD. "Devotee am." NO GOOD. "I am a devotee." VERY GOOD. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif Any questions?

I notice, Kailasa, that you often use the word "am" in an unusual way. I have never been able to figure out what you mean. Here I finally got a clue: It appears that you think "am" means "I". I don't know any Russian, so I cannot translate. Here are a few equivalents. I = ja = ego = ich = je = aham am = jestem = sum = bin = suis = asmi So had you said "I too," you would have written good, concise English. But for practice, I advise writing complete sentences. "I too have a guru. He is a paramahamsa and a rasika, too." So Lesson ONE, Kailasa. Conjugate the verb "to be" I am you are he is we are you are they are

As an act of special mercy, I will take a few sentences from Kailasa's posts and try to help him rephrase them in correct English. Anyone wishing to contribute may post here. Kailasaji's desire to express himself exceeds his ability. Hopefully, he will try to work on this and make a bit of progress. Then we can find out what he really means to say.

I came across this site, where Mahendranath Gupta, the author of the Kathamrita of Ramakrishna, meets Siddhanta Saraswati and gives an account of it. No dates are given. http://www.kathamrita.org/apostle/m09_18.htm

Changing times.

<h3>The great game gets serious</h3> It's not a question of whether there will be a war soon in Kashmir, says security specialist EDWARD LUTTWAK, but of how bad the war will be By EDWARD LUTTWAK (Edward Luttwak is a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.) Thursday, June 6, 2002 – Globe&Mail Tension rises and falls day by day, but absent an improbable diplomatic breakthrough, India will go to war against Pakistan over the continuing infiltration of armed militants into India's part of Kashmir and into India itself. On average, three Indian citizens and two infiltrators are killed each day, in addition to the combat casualties of both armies along the Line of Control that divides Kashmir. For months now, the Bush administration has been asking the Indian government to be patient with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, noting that he has dismissed Islamic extremists within his own Intelligence Service, that a number of leading militants have been arrested, and that some organizations have been banned, including the Jaish-e-Mohammed, or Party of Mohammed. The Indians were skeptical from the start, in part because of an intelligence assessment that General Musharraf himself is an Islamic extremist, despite his "very British" style, and mostly moderate language. Nevertheless, they decided to give American diplomacy a chance. Having seen it achieve a total reversal of Pakistani policy toward the Taliban in Afghanistan, Delhi hoped that Pakistan's Kashmir policy might also change. In the meantime, however, the buildup of Indian air and ground forces facing Pakistan continued, both to put more pressure on Gen. Musharraf, and to prepare for action if diplomacy failed. That point has almost been reached. India's multiparty coalition government is, not surprisingly, divided: Some cabinet members argue that force should be used immediately, while others still believe that U.S. diplomacy should be given more time to achieve results. Recently, however, the advocates of immediate force have been gaining ground, both because Indian security forces continue to encounter armed militants newly arrived from Pakistani territory, and because of Gen. Musharraf's insistence in recent speeches that armed resistance within Kashmir is legitimate. The Pakistani leader does not distinguish between local resisters and infiltrators from Pakistan. The difference, however, is important: While local Kashmiris mostly favour independence, the infiltrated Islamic militants are fighting to unify the territory with Pakistan. Of course, it does not help that Mr. Musharraf continues to reject Indian demands for the extradition of several Muslim Indian citizens accused of major acts of terrorism within India. Add to that the fact that some of the militants arrested in past months have already been released, or been placed under very loose house arrest, while units of banned organizations continue to recruit, train and operate armed infiltrators, and Indian patience has worn thin. India's multiparty coalition governs by reaching major decisions collectively, often after extensive discussions. But because so many people are involved, even secret decisions soon leak out. It is evidently on that basis that the U.S. government has now concluded that India is preparing to go to war. That is why the Bush administration sent deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage to Delhi, and now is sending Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. Because India and Pakistan have been fighting a low-level war for many years along the Line of Control, with almost daily exchanges of rifle, machine-gun and mortar fire, what is now at issue is not war or peace but rather the scope and purpose of the larger military operation that India has planned. Rather like the recent Israeli operation in the Palestinian West Bank, India's aim is to destroy "terrorist infrastructures" by raiding the Muzaffarabad district in Azad (or "free") Kashmir -- the Pakistani sponsored mini-state in northwest Kashmir -- to find weapon stores, training facilities, leaders, trainers and militants. To capture as many of their enemies as possible, the Indians would bomb the bridge over the Jehlum River and send commandos into action behind the Pakistani lines. Equally as important, is what the Indians will not do, so as to try to keep the fighting well below the "nuclear threshold." They will not attack the Mirpur district of Azad Kashmir even though it contains terrorist infrastructure because it is on the road to Islamabad and Rawalpindi. They also will not advance toward the major city of Lahore, which is within easy reach of Indian armoured forces in the Punjab. They will not attempt deep encirclement operations on any sector of the front and they will not bomb Pakistani cities behind the lines. It is also unlikely that India would immediately use its superior naval power to impose a maritime embargo on Pakistan. To dissuade attack, Mr. Musharraf and his spokesmen have stated that Pakistani forces would not limit themselves to defensive actions or local counterattacks in the sectors India chooses to invade, but would, instead, launch their own offensive operations in sectors of their choosing. That of course opens a dangerous path to escalation: If the Pakistani army launches major attacks against Indian troop concentrations, and if battles do develop among the roughly one million troops deployed by both sides, there is the possibility that one side or the other may suffer a major defeat. At that point, the use of one or two nuclear explosions to avoid defeat could be possible.

By the way, I have a beadbag problem. I have big size beads, but my beadbag is a bit small. This means the beads keep falling out. Can anybody help me out?

By the way, I have a beadbag problem. I have big size beads, but my beadbag is a bit small. This means the beads keep falling out. Can anybody help me out?

This is actually a very good question. I would like to know (1) when chanting japa actually began, (2) when japa beads came into use. It would be interesting to know if Greek Orthodox and Muslim traditions antedated Hindu practices. Jagat

This is actually a very good question. I would like to know (1) when chanting japa actually began, (2) when japa beads came into use. It would be interesting to know if Greek Orthodox and Muslim traditions antedated Hindu practices. Jagat

BVI, Raga means go into your original message where you put all those zeros and edit it. That will correct the problem.

It is nice that we have someone to speak for the Vrajavasis at Radha Kund. It is a burden to have to defend every idiot who happens to call himself a Babaji and happens to live at Radha Kund. As soon as we start speaking monolithincally of Babajis as a blanket category because this one or that one has done or said something, we are in a dangerous space. This appears to be the kind of territory we are on here. When we see this kind of stereotyping, it is usually the result of something other than clear thinking. There is little doubt in my mind that there is something racial going on between Bengalis and Vrajavasis, and this is augmented by economic considerations, etc. Radha Kund is a possible source of profitable income from pilgrims and both Babajis and Vrajavasis profit from it. Bengalis are stereotyped as miserly compared to other Indian races. This is fairly well known. It is also true that many of the Bengali Babas at Radha Kund come from rather unfavored social backgrounds. They have, however, accepted a life of poverty, so we can hardly condemn them. After all, would we have condemned Raghunath Das for only offering a shallow leaf-bowl of ghol to his Giriraj? As far as the Vrajavasis only giving a small bit of madhukari, this is a natural result of economics. There are more babajis than the local economy can support. Some babajis walk ten fifteen miles to find a village where they can do madhukari and actually get enough to eat. But heck, I was a white (not a Bengali) babaji in Puchari, where there was little competition and I used to go nuts. The people are poor. I went weeks without getting any subji. One day I came to the house of a very poor man who was celebrating some special occasion and had prepared a feast--chapatis and sweet rice. He was happy to give me a little of his thin sweet rice and he said, "ye sab bhagavAn kA vaibhav hai." It was one of the most touching things I had ever experienced. If you're a babaji, that's what you've got to expect. You don't become a beggar to eat ghee off golden plates. But being a beggar is not a high status job, as even the Vaishnavas don't want it. They'd rather have singhasans and payasanna. Radha Kund is Raghunath Das's home. Now we condemn the few rare souls who attempt to follow that tradition because they don't use ghee lamps. sei ram-o nai, sei ram-rajya-o nai. But on the whole, BVI, I appreciate your concern, especially for the cleanliness of Radha Kund and the local sewage treatment. Perhaps you should get in touch with Friends of Vrindavan and see whether you can do something constructive. If you organize something, I will certainly become your humble servant and try to do something to help. I am thinking of setting up some kind of local branch office. Have you read Ranchor Prime's book? Jai Radhe!

I find it rather unusual that people place the Veda and Sruti above the Goswamis. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came with a dispensation that "had never been given before." You will find nothing about Radha and Krishna lila in the Veda. Nothing about sambandha, abhidheya and prayojan as we know it. There is no chanting of Hare Krishna, there is no deity worship. So I am somewhat mystified that someone professing to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava would say this. Any reference to the Vedanta is to establish legitimacy, not to find any new siddanta. Why did Baladeva write? Good question. Better question yet, why did Rupa or Chaitanya not write? As far as disproportionate emphasis is concerned. This kind of thing sometimes happens when a matter is generally accepted in a certain time and place. It is mentioned in passing or not much time is spent explaining because everybody already knows that. Then later when it ceases to be obvious the little trace proofs take on a greater importance. I am sorry that I haven't been able to keep up with this discussion, but I am certainly not convinced by either JN or HK's "scriptural evidence." Arjuna "initiated" by Krishna? Come on!

It was Sanjay Gandhi, not Rajeev. But the abuses of the sterilization program are documented way beyond that. They were sterilizing old men to make their quotas.

"the trappings of a cult" Please explain.

Also inquire from the local Brajabasis about the standoff in 1986 where so-called babajis armed to the teeth with machine guns opened fire on a group of 150 or so Brajabasis who were coming down the parikrama path minding their own business. Rambo Das Babaji and Terminator Das Babaji. Were they friends of Hamsaduta? Did they chant "Jaya Radha Madhava" for two hours before or after they opened fire? Maybe it was the influence of a Bhaktivinoda song that has corrupted their pure intentions. The ecological problem is one that is everywhere in Vrindavan. It needs to be dealt with by people who know what they are doing. There have been conflicts between Babajis and Brajavasis over the ownership of the Kund. The Brijvasi Pandas claim ownership so they can make more money from it. [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 06-02-2002).]

Bhaktivinoda says that we are for the most part chanting Namabhasa or Namaparadha. The pure Name comes only after much purification. Does this mean that the spiritual master does not give the Holy Name?

It seems to me, Vishal, that I said something very similar either on this or the siddha pranali thread. Please excuse me as I am a bit time challenged these days and am cutting back on my involvement here. Yours, Jagat