stonehearted

What I posted was copied and pasted from the pdf version available online. There's no publication information in that file. My hardbound version is with all my other books in California, so I don't have easy access to it right now. I much prefer the translation you posted, especially in light of this controversy. I thought about writing Brajanath about this, but maybe I'll wait until I can see what versions are being distributed now. I know that Tripurari Maharaja's edition is more like the version you posted, and I heard Hridayananda Maharaja on NPR a few years ago explaining this verse in this way. Thanks for pointing this out; I hadn't considered that there may be several versions around.

Narayana Maharaja is actually saying that the editors--not Srila Prabhupada--have included women, as well as vaishyas and shudras, among the lowborn. He says that Srila Prabhupada could never have written such a thing. It's interesting to note that Narayana Maharaja's edition of Bhagavad-gita does exactly the same thing: "O Partha, by taking shelter of Me, even the lowborn, such as women, merchants, sudras, or whoever, are certain to attain the supreme destination." The '68 version of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, however, avoids making "women, vaishyas, and shudras" an explanation of what it means to be low born: "O son of Pritha, anyone who will take shelter in Me, whether a woman, or a merchant, or born in a low family, can yet approach the Supreme Destination."

Thanks, mahak. I like the analogy of initiation with marriage. I've also used the same analogy for decades. The two make a binding, public commitment before God and society. When the guru accepts the disciple, it's tantamount to Krishna accepting him or her. In fact, Lord Chaitanya told Sanatan Goswami that at the time of initiation, when the sadhaka commits to a life of progressive atma-samarpana (dedication to Krishna's service), Krishna accepts that sadhaka to be as good as Himself. This is, as as been discussed here, not just some formality; rather, it is the reciprocal commitment between guru and disciple.

Srila Prabhupada repeatedly used school as an example. He often said that someone may read many medical books on his (or her) own, but they won't be accepted as a surgeon unless they've been admitted to a recognized medical school, submitted to qualified medical professors for instruction and been examined and certified by them.

Actually, surrender as taught by our acharyas is under-emphasized. Perhaps what's over-emphasized is a misunderstanding of what surrender is. Actually, the essence of surrender is complete dependence on Krishna for everything. Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Saranagati prayers explore quite well what surrender is and what it may look like. Surrender is the gateway to bhakti, and, the Thakura says, Sri Nanda Kumar actually hears the prayers of those actively engaged in surrender.

My spiritual master simply said, "morning, noon, and evening." Of course the sandhyas move, if you're using sunrise and sunset. But I don't see any harm in doing sandhyavandanam at 6:00, 12:00, and 6:00.

Real gulabjamuns should have no grains and no baking soda. They should ideally be made with 1/2 khoa and 1/2 curds kneaded together. The backup way, the way Srila Prabhupada taught us, is with whole powdered milk made into a very thick paste. Making gulabjamuns correctly takes much longer than the current fashion, with flour and baking soada, because they must be cooked more slowly on a lower heat and watched constantly. They also need to soak for a couple of days. However, the result is something that makes the imitation sweetballs seem not at all worth the bother.

I've read a translation of Keshava Maharaja's book, and the evidence he presents is quite extensive. I don't remember any details right now, and my copy is about 3000 miles away, so I can't check. The book is rather difficult to read because it needs serious editing (at least to my editor's and former English professor's eye). And the point of that book is that Mayavada philosophy is merely covered Buddhism. Considering the popularity of Buddhism in the world today, I don't think it would be a book that would sell well or make many points for Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Has Krishna given you any service? That's how he would reveal himself to us, as far as I understand.

Oh, I don't know if you erred in posting this; I was just wondering why it was here. I like your citing Bhagavad-gita; could you share what else you saw in this clip? I don't know anything about the song, except what was on the clip. It's apparently from a film called Bandit Queen, which was about a famous woman rebel. The music is by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, a famous qawwali singer and composer, who has also done music for some American films. I found his work in Dead Man Walking was very moving.

Without detracting from this kid's singing talent and the emotional impact the song obviously has on the audience, I'm trying to figure out how a clip of a boy singing a cinema song by a famous qawwali singer fits in "Spiritual Discussions."

Indulekha, I want to join the other devotees in thanking you for your nice example of vaishnava behavior. It's so refreshing to see this on internet forums. Good luck with your studies, and do grace us with your company as time allows.

Who knows what they expect from us any more, especially after all the foolishness they've seen in us? But what they (and we) need is just that clarity. And honesty. And if there is weakness in our faith, in our surrender (which is the external manifestation of faith), we should admit it and defer some responsibilities to others who can carry the weight. Otherwise, we create the kind of disruptions we have unfortunately become familiar with.

I don't see anything in Maharaja's book about monkeys being better than Jesus. All he says is that, based on guru, sadhu, and shastra, those who aren't necessarily situated in prema (which is what an uttama bhagavat is, after all), but who are actually madhyama adhikaris, can share their faith with others, including through initiation. Does that mean that he necessarily endorses any of ISKCON's gurus specifically? Not at all, at least in practical terms. He easily dismisses the qualifications of anyone who won't go to hear him, or who won't allow his or her disciples to go hear from him. The claim I was pointing out was what you seem to extrapolate from Maharaja's remarks, with all the pejorative language, which is very reminiscent (although clearly much milder) of something the aforemetnioned godbrother does, and which has marginalized him among even the most strident critics of ISKCON's guru system, whatever the heck it is. (Please note: I'm on record, here and other places, as having serious doubts about the "understanding" of guru-tattva evident in whatever ISKCON's system of selecting gurus is. It's a bureaucratic mess with little to no relation to Gaudiya siddhanta. I'm also not a member of Narayana Maharaja's sanga. I'm currently staying in Alachua with my wife, but I haven't been to see him yet.) If I've somehow misunderstood your remarks, please accept my apology.

Well those are quotations from conversations with Sripad Narayana Maharaja about some issues related to applying guru tattva. But that's quite different from "These 11 [monkeys] are to be worshiped as rati keli: assistants of Srimati Radharani and also equal to Jesus Christ. . . . Quit Jesus and replace him with monkeys who can now absorb your sins." That's what you claim he told Jayadvaita Swami, is it not? And what about your lauding Srila Prabhupada's imputed statement that we're all monkeys nut apparently discounting his repeated claim that we're all pure devotees? My broader point isn't whether either is true, or whether or not they're mutually exclusive. It's to be careful about taking a quotation out of context and making some other point with it.

I've heard this assertion (that Narayan Maharaja was the last person Srila Prabhupada spoke to), but I just don't buy it. He was surrounded by his disciples 24/7, and he certainly spoke with them when he felt inclined. More is made of this claim than it merits, as much as I respect Maharaja. Ugh! Do you have this quotation? Otherwise, such claims sound like a certain godbrother of mine who quotes Srila Sridhara Maharaja as saying that pedophiles and "butt busters" (apparently a favorite mantra of this godbrother's) are paramahamsa uttama-adhikari gurus. Of course, Srila Sridhar Maharaja never said any such thing, or anything on the same planet, much less in the neighborhood, of such a thing. But this character keeps repeating it, much as people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly become enamored of cute little phrases they come up with and repeat them year after year, ad nauseam. And your assertion that "it must be true" when Srila Prabhupada says his disciples are monkeys, but it cannot be true when he says, as he did on many occasions, that all his disciples are pure devotees? What we all need to do is to try to understand such statements in context and try to see the bigger picture.

Why not worship a picture of Tulasi, or one of Vrinda-devi?

I think Jahanava Nitai's analysis is the clearest here. I met Bhagavan das in Honolulu in 1971 (maybe '72). While there he stayed at a home down the street from the ISKCON temple on McKinley Street. This house had a huge banyan tree in the front yard, and a couple of my old friends lived there. Bhagavan das came regularly to the temple for kirtan, and I would often go with Siddhasvarupananda down to the house to preach to Bhagavan das and the others. (One of my friends was a printer by training, and Goursundar really wanted him with us so we could have our own press.) Bhagavan das was a hippie attracted to Indian sadhu style and was clearly interested in gathering a following. When he saw it wasn't going to happen there at the time, he moved on. He has since developed a lucrative business as a sort of new-age guru. Krishna das has similarly capitalized on Baba's request that he sing for the Lord by developing his kirtan perfornance into a very lucrative new-age business. I don't feel any great attraction to his chanting.

It's good advice if it helps you. However, it's especially good for me to think like this, too.

Be patient and persistent in your practice, and always do your best to avoid the offenses that undermine our progress. Patient. Persistent. Consider how much you chant, how assiduous you are about avoiding offenses, and for how long you have been chanting.What other desires do you nurture in your heart. he honestly introspective, and seek the best association you can get--not someone who will flatter you, but someone committed to actually helping you in your progress. Don't make any demands on the holy name; rather, submit yourself to him as his servant. If it's service to the Name you want, he'll give it. If it's some "bliss," you May want to reconsider your approach.

Are there more accounts of meeting Srila Prabhupada to share?

Raghunatha is younger than Dvarakadhisa. He's 41 or 42.

To whom do you refer here? I know a disciple of Srila Prabhupada's who is younger than 45.

Dear Yogesh, there is a definition of mahatma, which you can find in Bhagavad-gita (9.13): those who, having taking complete shelter of the svarupa shakti, undertanding that Krishna is the Supreme personality, original and inexhaustible, and who therefore engage wholeheartedly in devotional service. Srila Prabhupada certainly answers such a definition. However, so do many of his disciples and their disciples, as well as many other devotees in other missions, no doubt even other sampradayas.

Well, these tikas are given by Vaishnava acharyas, namely Sri Ramanujacharya and Pillai Lokacharya. They are considered authoritative by Sri Vaishnavas, and certainly Ramanuja is considered authoritative by all Vaishnavas. Sri Vaishnavas cite Lokacharya with the same confidence we Gaudiyas cite Sanatana, Rupa, or Jiva Goswami. I'm sure that if we were to read his 18 treatises explaining Ramanujacharya's darshan, we'd find them as replete with citations to previous acharyas and various shastras as we do Santana's or Jiva's works.