stonehearted

Originally posted by amanpeter:

Right! Enough fearful speculation already. Thread closed!

 

 

Let's hope this thread is indeed closed. These so-called Nostradamus predictions that have beengoing around this week have been called hoaxes, often leaving an implication that they're new, after-the-disaster interpretations. More plainly put, they are just made up. Even Art Bell, who loves weirdness and conspiracy as well as anyone alive (they are, after all, his livelihood), has made this point clearly. Once more: they're not even misinterpretations; they're just made up.

 

I'm only 54, but I've long ago lost track of how many ends of the world came and went in that short time.

Originally posted by jndas:

The real point is that the word 'ajna' means order in virtually all indic languages. This is undesputable. Srila Prabhupada has chosen to use this exact word when explaining that his guru 'ordered' him to preach in the west.

 

Stonehearted: No one disputes this (note the spelling--there is a spelling checker that works with this message software).

 

jndas: I choose to accept his direct statement, where as others choose to reject it.

Stonehearted: Here's where the dispute is: your contention that others whose perspective is different from yours must necessarily be deviants. In the process, you'll not only say any damned thing, but publish it. (There's an old Prabhupada says: "You may say any damned thing, but don't write it.")

Caveat interlocutor.

Originally posted by jndas:

It just goes to show that if you want to see an offense you will see one. I said that Bhaktisiddhanta never personally left India. You take that as an offense? It is a fact.

 

The fact is that you implied that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta cannot be considered the senapati vaishnava predicted by Bhaktivinoda becuase he never left India, even when invited. I was responding to the tone of your message. Please pardon me, as it's a habit: I'm a writing teacher by profession, trained in rhetoric.

 

Otherwise you can provide your evidence that he left India and preached throughout the world. The fact that he never left India does not minimize him in anyway. As Srila Prabhupada has said when asked why Lord Chaitanya didn't spread Krishna consciousness throughout the world, "Lord Chaitanya left it for me," as did all the other acharyas.

 

Can you provide a specific quotation and citation. My guess is that you're paraphrasing based on your best memory and/or your own biases. This is language rather uncharacteristic of His Divine Grace. What he said was most likely closer to "left it for us." You may, of course choose to either read that as the "royal we" or as an inclusive term indicating the Lord's devotees, including Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and their followers. For 32 years, I have always understood the latter as more consistent with Srila Prabhupada's character.

 

 

My point is that when Srila Prabhupada tells us directly that he was ordered by his guru, and then someone else say, no that's not correct, he was only suggested by his guru, I will choose to accept the words of Srila Prabhupada:

 

se karja je koribare ajna jadi dilo more

jogya nahi an dina hina

tai se tomara krpa magitechi anurupa

aji numi sabar pravina

 

"Although my Guru Maharaja ordered (ajna) me to accomplish this mission, I am not worthy or fit to do it. I am very fallen and insignificant. Therefore, O Lord, now I am begging for Your mercy so that I may become worthy, for You are the wisest and most experienced of all."

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta knew exactly who Srila Prabhupada was. He knew what he would accomplish. Knowing this, he ordered him to go to the west and preach.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but it frankly seems as though your real point is that you know better than the rest of us who Srila Prabhupada is. If I'm wrong, I beg your pardon. Again, I have inferred this from the tone of your messages.

 

Originally posted by Audarya lila:

Dear Stonehearted (surely you must have a nicer name than this),

 

Actually, the name is a sort of double entendre. When my consciousness is clear (as Srila Sridhar Maharaj would say,"normal") my heart belongs to my worshipable Lords, Murali-manohara (shalagram shila), and two tiny Govardhan shilas (the larger is about 1/2" by 3/8"). However, its other meaning is more approriate for my consciousness most of the time.

 

As you know the whole book is nectar and a must read for all of us. In fact, we should read it again and again and try to understand the seriousness of Vaishnava-aparadha.

 

It's very grave indeed, and, unless we're very intropsective and have good guidance, a very easy trap to fall into.

 

In this regard Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has commented that if the Lord will withhold prema-bhakti from Saci for such an offense, what will be the fate of an ordinary soul?

 

Some among us apparently believe we are immune, that we are above the platform even of Mahaprabhu's eternal associates. This is a ver dangerous platform.

 

Thanks for giving us more context and details for this pastime.

 

Mahalo, prabhu. Did you transcribe this yourself?

Originally posted by Audarya lila:

In light of the recent rash of slanderous posts and self-righteous justification of false propaganda meant to defame other vaishnava's I am posting a excerpt from a wonderful book published by Mandala titled, 'The Heart of Krishna', sy Bhakti Promode Puri Goswami Maharaja

 

The Lord is overly protective of his devotees (bhakt-vatsala). He cannot tolerate any offenses against them. They have bhakti (devotion), and they can awaken it within us. Bhakti is the sole means to attract Krishna, who is a slave of devotion. The same is true of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The Caitanya-Bhagavata states: "A person can attain the shelter of Mahaprabhu only by the grace of a higher Vaishnava. Religious practices and even chanting the Holy Name without devotion is useless." Vrndavana dasa Thakur says: "If a person commits an offense at the lotus feet of a Vaishnava, even though he may have received Krishna's mercy, he will never attain divine love, prema."

 

 

Regarding the phrase Krsna krsp hoiles ('even though he may receive Krishna's mercy"), Srila Saraswati Thakur comments: "People may think that because an offender appears to continue to chant without difficulty, the Lord must still favor him, but they are wrong. The Lord is not even slightly moved by their sham devotion."

 

 

To understand the seriousness of vaisnava-aparadha, offending devotees, one must grasp the multi-dimensional nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Mahaprabhu is the source of all incarnations in Kali-yuga and the savior of all souls. He is Krishna, the son of Maharaja Nanda, fully enriched with the mood and radiance of Sri Radha.

 

Thak you, Audarya-lila, for the fresh breeze. Regarding Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and sadhu-ninda, Srila Puri Maharaj includes in his book an incident when Mahaprabhu said that of all the devotees in Nadiya, only his mother, Saci-mata, could not have Krishna prema. This was due to a (probably half-joking) remark she made about Advaita, caused by fear that if her only remaining son associated too much with the vaishnavas, He may also leave home (a perfectly natural maternal fear). Only when she took the dust from Advaita Prabhu's lotus feet did she become eligible for Krishna prema.

 

You may correct me or fill in any blanks, please. My books are all in the mail, as I've just moved back to Hilo from San Diego.

Originally posted by jndas:

Srila Prabhupada was ordered by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati to preach in the western world. It was not a suggestion as some want us to believe. Why they say it was a suggestion? Because they want to minimize the prominece of Prabhupada, "Oh, Bhaktisiddhanta suggested to everyone to do this." No, Srila Prabhupada was ordered by his spiritual master to preach in the west. This is the direct statement of Srila Prabhupada:

 

Considering the tone of some of the discussions I've reviewed on this site, I hesitate to jump in here. But, since fools rush in where angels fear to tread, here I go:

There's really no dispute that SBSST told Srila Prabhupada to preach in English--at their first meeting as well as the letter written just before the end of his pastimes. Quibbling over whether calling it a suggestion that Srila Prabhupada took so seriously that he came to save us is evidence of a proclivity for picking quarrels. In fact, there's no reason to assume that SBSST didn't make such suggestions to any educated men he met (remember that he made the 1922 suggestion to the group with which Srila Prabhupada came--"You are all educated young men. Why don't you take this movement seriously and preach it widely."). We know that he sent disciples to the west. We have heard that he sometimes said that if he had another 10 years, he would go to New York to preach. And we know that at the end he repeatedly exhorted all his disciples to be willing to give 200 gallons of blood to relieve the fallen souls' suffering. To say, then, that preaching in the west was a suggestion,and that our guru-maharaja's guru-nistha was so strong that he took it as an order is not denigrating to Srila Prabhupada, but glorifying his example of taking the word of the spritual master as our life and soul.

However, to try to "defend" Srila Prabhupada by denigrating other vaishnavas--including SBSST(I find it hard to express how shocked I was by some of jndas's remarks in this regard; I can't imagine that Srila Prabhupada would have approved of them in any way)--glorifies no one.