stonehearted

You apparently misread my post, O king. I wrote, "Let 'im have it." In plainer words, let him (HDG) have it. I expected to see some of our members go off on him.

One of our acharyas, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, wrote that Sri Nanda Kumar, the Lord of Vraja, hears the prayers of those who commit themselves to the sixfold process of surrender.

What "whole article"? There's hardly anything there. I think the devotee from Santa Barbara may be a disciple of Hridayananda Maharaja's. Perhaps these two men are friends of the temple. "Chatsworth District" sounds like they live in the northern part of the San Fernanda Valley, near the Santa Susana mountains. Maybe they sometimes go to programs at Sarvatma's in SB. (I don't know if there's an official ISKCON center there; my guess is that this devotee lives there and has programs at his home.) What the article means by his "presiding" over the ceremony (sounds like a simple commitment ceremony to me--have folks you care about over to your home--or the park, or wherever--and make your promises), I don't know. Do you? As far as Govinda's Restaurant, that's not a tough one, either. My immediate guess it that the partners hired Govinda's to cater it. So Sarvatma did something, Hridayananda sends a telegraph subtly preaching that love is ultimately meant for God, and they hire Govinda's to cater it. That makes it a gay ISKCON marriage? I'd need more than what we have to draw any such conclusion.

I find this a little curious. Maharaja acknowledged human love as a reflection of the Lord's love for us and wished that these two people's love may become perfected some day. And suddenly he's performing a gay marriage by remote control! Here's something he wrote to a Godbrother after hearing some Godbrothers accused him of gaming the system, pushing an agenda: Okay, let 'im have it!

And now, when you wonder if it might be a place, I treat you like an idiot again. Sorry.

Hmmm . . . I don't remember knowing anyone who thought of Godhead as a place. As far as the Back To Godhead slogan is concerned, it's one of Srila Prabhupada's translations of a Chaitanya-charitamrita verse: krsna--surya-sama; maya haya andhakara yahan krsna, tahan nahi mayara adhikara (Adi 22.31)He translatesthis verse in Cc. as "Krsna is compared to sunshine, and maya is compared to darkness. Wherever there is sunshine, there cannot be darkness. As soon as one takes to Krsna consciousness, the darkness of illusion (the influence of the external energy) will immediately vanish." In another place he gives it as "Krsna is bright like the sun. As soon as the sun appears, there is no question of darkness or nescience." When Srila Prabhupada gave a lecture at the University of Hawaii in may of 1972, a student asked him what he means when he calls Krishna the supreme personality of Godhead. His reply was the it means that Krishna is the head god.

I just checked the bio on his Web site. As far as I can tell, he's presenting himself as a Hindu teacher whose qualifications come from his life as a practitioner and a scholar. Even the reference to his initiation is very vague. So he has a post as the leader of a Hindu community in the Midwest. It's probably a nice gig that gives him the chance to share his experience with Sanatana Dharma with others, support ethnic Hindus, and help Westerners gain some appreciation for Hindu practice.

Even more to the point, would he have gotten the job if he taught that moksha is not at all desirable, at least when it's devoid of bhakti. Krishna das kaviraja considers the desire for moksha as a symptom of the cheating mentality the Bhagavatam rejects right off the bat. I'm not aware of the circumstances that brought him to where he is now. Nor do I know anything of the nature of the initiation he gives. I think it's likely that it's not what many of us dyed-in-the-wool Gaudiya Vaishnavas probably have in mind. Whatever he's doing has little effect on most of us here.

I remember corresponding a little with Pranakrishna some years ago. He seemed like a nice fellow. I'm not sure how he moved from Gaudiya Vaishnavism to Sri Vaishnavism, but he seems to be appreciated by the Hindu folks there. I'm not sure whether anyone could reasonably accuse him of maryada-vyatikrama. I find it a little hard to see how anyone could find any shelter other than Srila Sridhara Maharaja's appealing, but we're talking about faith, affairs of the heart. Waddya gonna do?

There's no end to his self promotion.

And here's a link to audio of a talk on the same subject (Prof. Smith was probably promoting his book of the same title). http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/forum/for_20010128.shtml

Here's a link to a talk by Huston Smith, someone who's every bit as smart as Jillette, and who has a lot more experience: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/video/Kenan/Smith/

No surprise here. Penn Jillette is a professional skeptic. Along with coming up with mind-boggling illusions, he also spends much of his energy debunking things. His experience is limited to his senses and mind, and his imagination can't carry him beyond that. Too bad. If he had some experience or association that could shake his faith in matter as all there is, he could be a fun guy.

Dear Mud-born Lotus Flower, don't let these things discourage you. They all come from our previous conditioning, and we need to work through them. Remember that a climb to the mountain's summit begins in the foothills. Even though you appear to be ascending, then descending, then ascending and descending again, in the longer view of the process you are moving up. After some time you'll find yourself out of the foothills and on the mountain's slope. Then you'll look back at this stuff as insignificant as you look forward to the positive part of your journey. Spend some time with Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura's Madhurya Kadambini. Read a good translation of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Harinama Cintamani. Reflect on the potential Srila Puri Maharaja must see in you, and persist in your endeavor to fulfill that vision, to fulfill your real destiny. But, in the meantime, don't let yourself become too discouraged by the moments (and that's all they are) when you seem not to. Don't be shy about sharing your "down" moments with those you trust, or about calling out to Krishna and Mahaprabhu for help in your chanting (I've found Lord Nityananda particularly merciful at these moments). And remember that, as Thich Nhat Han says, you can't grow a lotus on marble; you need mud.

Rishi--long time no see. Hope you're well and happy. Babhru

Hridayananda das Goswami currently resides in Gainseville, Florida, where he's teaching a course at the University of Florida. I saw him a few weeks ago. I haven't heard anything about a car accident, but that doesn't really mean a lot because I'm not exactly an insider here.

Well, Indulekha, it's nice to see you here. Was that your poem? Bija was kind enough to share it with me, but I couldn't thank him because he turned off his PM feature. Thanks to you both.

As noted, I referred to him as among "extra-ISKCON" gurus, which means outside ISKCON, not formerly of ISKCON. I have met him on many occasions beginning in 1982, and I'm well aware that he has never been a member of ISKCON, although he has been known to claim that he is ISKCON.

Here's a talk given by my Godbrother Jayadvaita Swami earlier this year: http://www.jswami.info/dont_badmouth_sadhus

It is the Gaudiya vaishnava perspective that, based on our understanding of Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.28 (ete camsa-kalah pumsah krsnas tu bhagavan svayam), under the guidance of the six gosvamis of Vrindavan and Srila Krishna das Kaviraja, as well as of the fifth chapter of Brahma-samhita, that Krishna is the source of all, including Narayana in Vaikuntha and the Vishus. Other lines don't accept that. Since they are not under the shelter of our acharyas, it makes little sense for us to argue the point in most cases. They're just not going to buy it. Of course there may be someone who feels he or she can argue the point so expertly that they can "convert" a Sri Vaishnava to our line. Unfortunately, such overconfidence is very rarely warranted. It just ends up in pointless wrangling.

I think it would be a mistake to refer to the Gaudiyas' tilak marks as a deviation. Each community develops its own tilak for its own reasons. Moreover, you'll find different explanations of the different tilak marks worn by vaishnavas. One version can be found at the Radha-Ramana temple's Web site. Another is in a book by an academic. I have a copy, but it's not with me, and I can remember neither the title nor the author.

I was underwhelmed by this article. It's clear that Kurma (the original) chose to write about early pastimes in Australia, up to the time of Srila Prabhupada's disappearance. What's the big deal? What does Kurma (the latter) mean by "cover up"? The Sun article by Kurma (the latter) seems to show that he's more interested in generating heat than light. And it seems to indicate a paucity of editorial discrimination on the part of the Sun staff. If he wants to write about the things that happened in Australia after the Fall of '77, he's free to do so and see if he can get it published and read.

This is probably not the best forum for this question. And I think more information would be necessary for an answer.

It seems a shame that Suchandra started such a nice thread for discussing the glories of Tulasi-devi, but it has, as often happens, veered off course rather quickly.

You've missed again. It's the "ritvik"-ey churches I've rejected, not Jesus. I thought I'd made that clear. I embraced his teachings to the point that I spent much of my childhood and youth contemplating the ministry as a livelihood. The more clearly I saw the churches' failings (and, as I've mentioned before, I examined several), the more my interest in such a life waned. BTW, I don't care for the terms "ritvik" or "ritvikism" as they're commonly used in and around ISKCON. They're imprecise and used as a sort of ad hominem to dismiss whatever may be said by someone with whom interlocutors disagree. I used the term in that posting only loosely, and not without apprehension. Neither do I care to argue the ideas that are grouped under those terms with their advocates because such arguments inevitably degenerate into tar babies. And I aplologize to all if my earlier comments have created a digression from the thread's original intention. Perhaps some found it entertaining . . .