stonehearted

Actually, good on Suchandra. I think that excerpt was a gentle way of chiding me for posts that don't really shed light on the topic of the thread. I created a digression with my remark about central banks, and I feel he was calling me on it. I appreciate that, and the gentle way in which he did it. I'm not sure Suchandra proposes that everyone do nothing but chant the holy names (which I agree would certainly change the environment in so many ways). I think he's just reminding us that the holy names are the real solution. I think preaching vegetariansm, ahimsa, environmental conscoiusness, social justice, etc. are good, perhaps even necessary. But they're adjuncts to the real business we have, which is instilling and cultivating faith in Sri Krishna sankirtan in as many hearts as we can. My sense is that Suchandra gave the quotations he did with this in mind.

Hmmm . . . nice quotation, Suchandraji. Thanks. May every post in every thread serve to shed light on the topic under discussion.

??? Now, there's a non sequitur. I was referring to your suggestion that no member of a vaishnava institution had ever uttered the words "central bank." In fact, the problems of central banks, and a laundry list of other such topics, have long been topics of discussion in ISKCON. I don't know what the heck that has to do with SDG's problems. Have fun . . .

Man, is your experience limited!

Don't worry; I think KB has withdrawn from the forum business from time to time. I do understand how that could be. And maybe his business took off and requires his time and energy. Maybe--even better--he found a more spriritually satisfying way to spend that time and energy. I have a hard time imagining him becoming very involved in Narayana Maharaja's sanga, but who knows? He may well show up here after a few months, maybe with a different user name, and after a couple of weeks, one or another of you will start to figure out it's him.

I intended to offer a fairly direct answer to CCC's question early on. Here it is again: It is Krishna who inspires and empowers devotees to preach and make disciples. He does this through any number of agents, first and foremost of which are the spiritual masters. krishna shakti vina nahe tara pravartana. . . . Srila Prabhupada writes, "Gurun is plural in number because anyone who gives spiritual instructions based on the revealed scriptures is accepted as a spiritual master. Although others give help in showing the way to beginners, the guru who first initiates one with the maha-mantra is to be known as the initiator, and the saints who give instructions for progressive advancement in Krsna consciousness are called instructing spiritual masters. The initiating and instructing spiritual masters are equal and identical manifestations of Krsna, although they have different dealings." (From Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, Adi 1.34, purport)

Well, at least you and I tried.

Speaking of making mistakes and making things up, where's the evidence that I repeated called you an idiot--or the apology? And I'd like to echo the laments about hiw far this thread has gone from the initial question.

What I don't see here is the relevance to the original question. I guess you've successfully hijacked the thread. I also don't see your evidence that I've repeatedly called you an idiot, or that I'm an "old crony" of Beggar's. If you like, I can string together some quotations from Srila Prabhupada that may give a different perspective, at least on Srila B. R. Sridhar Maharaja.

Not a bad idea. It might not be a bad idea to stay away from people who criticize anyone who has dedicated their lives to preaching the glories of the holy names of Krishna. The letter itself is not necessarily offensive. When someone mentioned it to Srila Sridhar Maharaj, he reportedly chuckled and said something like, "He has spared not even me." I think he understood that there was a context for Srila Prabhupada's comments. However, the letter has been taken out of its context and used to commit and perpetuate innumerable offenses. That does not please Srila Prabhupada or his men. And those who do so ignore the many times Srila Prabhupada praised Srila Sridhar Maharaja. When asked of the fate of Tirtha Maharaja (whom he and so many of his godbrothers criticized on many occasions) on his passing, Srila Prabhupada averred that he had gone back to Godhead because of his dedication to maintaining his guru maharaja's mission. On one morning walk, when one of his disciples started criticizing Bon Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada stopped him cold: "You cannot say such things. You have no business." We would all do well to remember the example of Ramachandra Puri.

First, a correction. Subala is not gay; the sannyasi referred to was Sudama, who was bisexual. Second, and perhaps more important, could you explain what this conversation has to do with this thread? We've gotten so far away from the original question that I don't see a thread at all any more.

Let's clear up two things for the record. You call me Beggar's "old crony." I am old, I guess, at 60, but I don't have a clue about who Beggar is, or even his or her gender, so I don't know whether we know each other or not. More to the point, though, please show me where I have ever called you an idiot even once, much less repeatedly. If you can show me that evidence, I owe you an apology because I try to avoid name calling. If you cannot show me that evidence, you owe me an apology. As for your evidence, I'll read it later and see if it warrants any comment. Yours in service, Babhru das

If you say so. . . . I have to say, though, that I'm not sure I'm cosmopolitan enough to know precisely of what or whom you write. I've never gotten around much. I've spent much of my adult life in the middle of the ocean, and even when I lived in California I didn't travel much or meet a lot of folks from ISKCON or other missions. I've only been to India twice (the last time in fall of '82), never visited any place in Europe. Even now, I really haven't met a lot of preachers from ISKCON or those other missions. I have met a few, though, and I haven't heard the "Prabhupada is not bona fide" line to which you refer. Broad generalizations don't work for me. I taught English and writing at colleges and universities for over 16 years, and unsupported generalizations are signs of weak writing, probably faulty thinking. I think that's mistaken. It may change the credibilty of your assertions for those unaware of what you're talking about. Sorry, but my life is small enough that I honestly don't think I know what--or who--the hell you're talking about here. I saw a sannyasi disciple of one "GM" guru curl his lip and almost spit at the thought of varnashrama (this sannyasi is from Europe, but I don't know anything else of his background). But I know others who are into living off the land and taking care of cows. Anyway, the question that started this thread was something about how one may be "empowered" to accept students, and I'm not sure how this stuff is relevant.

Ditto that, Beggar. If any prominent leaders of any Gaudiya-Math have made such declarations, let's have some evidence. And they didn't suddenly "decide" that Srila Prabhupada is their siksa guru. One of them has become famous for claiming that, but there's some historical basis for it. Another wrote four pranam mantras for Srila Prabhupada, one of which glorifies Srila Prabhupada as the best among millions of gurus, and another of which declares that he was empowered, having taken his guru's order on his head, to spread the glories of the Hare Krishna mahamantra in the West, and also in the East. There are so many nonsense accusations going around that it makes many embarrassed to have any connection with ISKCON. Ugh!

Gurun is plural in number because anyone who gives spiritual instructions based on the revealed scriptures is accepted as a spiritual master. Although others give help in showing the way to beginners, the guru who first initiates one with the maha-mantra is to be known as the initiator, and the saints who give instructions for progressive advancement in Krsna consciousness are called instructing spiritual masters. The initiating and instructing spiritual masters are equal and identical manifestations of Krsna, although they have different dealings. (From Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, Adi 1.34, purport) It is Krishna who inspires and empowers devotees to preach, whatever outward form it may take, through the spiritual masters. krsna sakti vine nahi tara pravartana . . .

And a couple of little Girirajas, as you can see to the left.

I like your poem very well, too, Indulekha. I hope you'll keep writing. (And for the record [Ash!], I am stonehearted. <------

What, for example, might Bhakti Charu Maharaja, with whom I have a good relationship, say about an ISKCON leader (sannyasi, guru, GBC chairman, etc.) who asserts publicly that only one of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's disciples was any good, and that all others became mayavadis or sahajiyas? How would such an assertion glorify Srila Sarasvati Thakura (to say that he was only able to make one good disciple--no, wait, that disciple descended from the spiritual world, so BSST didn't really have anything to do with that)?

Ditto that, gHari.

This tendency underlies so many of the problems surrounding ISKCON, as well as those that arise between ISKCON and other groups. I had this in mind when I wrote "Considering Srila Prabhupada's Mercy" a few years ago. Srila Prabhupada did not come out of nowhere; he came from a lifetime of immersion in Gaudiya Vaishnava culture and an adult life immersed in the mission of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, in different forms, and how his vision extended the revolutionary preaching of Sri Cahitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and Srila Sarasvati Thakura.

Actually, they were initiated before the New Vrindavan Janmastami/Vyasa-puja incident, in June or July.

Siddhasvarupa's sannyasa name was Siddhasvarupananda Goswami. Also add Sudama Vipra Goswami.

Sadhu! Sadhu!

Of course you're right, but only from a certain perspective. It's also true that all are subordinate to Krishna, be they themselves different forms of Krishna, because Krishna is the origin of them all (the original dipa or candle in the quotation you gave). Jiva Goswami says that the verse ete camsa kalah pumsam krishnas tu bhagavan svayam is the verse that unlocks the meaning of the rest of the Bhagavatam. Many schools of Vaishnavas ignore this, some called Jiva crazy for saying so. Tough. BTW, the post to which you refer contains not one word of mine. It is a straight quotation from the purport cited at the end. (My bad for not formatting it to indicate that.) I just thought of it as I read the question starting this thread. There was no realization of mine there, no attempt at a definitive response, but just sentiment.

No one but Visnu has any independence. If we develop consciousness of this fact, then we are in actual Krsna consciousness. We should always remember that Krsna is the only supreme master and that everyone else is His servant (ekale isvara krsna, ara saba bhrtya). Be one even Narayana or Lord Siva, everyone is subordinate to Krsna (siva-virinci-nutam). Even Baladeva is subordinate to Krsna. This is a fact. ekale isvara krsna, ara saba bhrtya yare yaiche nacaya, se taiche kare nrtya [Cc. Adi 5.142] One should understand that no one is independent, for everything is part and parcel of Krsna and is acting and moving by the supreme desire of Krsna. This understanding, this consciousness, is Krsna consciousness. SB 10.13.53, purport