theist

On another board I saw this:

Dhira Govinda's definition of diksa is precise, and that is precisely the reason why Srila Prabhupada cannot be accepted as one's diksa guru. Transmission of transcendental knowledge has two parts, according to the tad vidhi pranipatena verse: enquiries, and submissive service; both of which require a physically present spiritual master. In every instance of the Bhagavatam, exchanges between disciples and their spiritual masters attained perfection in this way. Answering the doubts of the disciple is the way by which the transcendental knowledge is revealed to him, and a submissive service attitude softens the heart of the master, so that he is impelled to speak more, as the knowledge is being fully appreciated. Its like a gardener who sees that a certain part of his garden has soft soil, and so waters it, rather than the stony paths.

 

 

Q.1)enquiries; Since Supersoul knows our questions can we not ask Him and then be directed to the answers in Prabhupada's books? Did those thousands of disciples of Srila Prabhupada have access to his vapuh even while he was physically here? What has changed then?

Q.2) Do you think you need a physically manifest spiritual master to render submissive service?

I mean isn't service the fullfilling of someone else's will? Don't we know what Prabhupada's will is? This is not meant to preclude the taking of advice from those physically present also. But why say we can't serve a pure devotee just because he has left his earthly mission physically?

We serve his will and his will is clear. isn't it a matter of internal dedication? Doesn't Supersoul know our true intention? If you bow down and offer your humble service to Srila Prabhupada sincerely will it be accepted or rejected.?

What do you think?

Ever wonder how that soul became the resident of a womb destined to face abortion? Could it be because that soul was the doctor or pregnant woman in the past that aborted a child?

Human form is a very rare gift. From the human form Krsna can be realized. Wanted or unwanted. What we call a shame that the child was unwanted may be a factor in that soul's seeking Krsna, the true parent.

As I said, the idea that the choice should remain with the woman is mostly a rhetorical move.

 

 

Babhru, I admit to being a simpleton. For me questions that ask for a yes or no answer are only understandable when answer with a yes or no. After that pages of explanations can follow. Maybe its a reactrion I am suffering from 8 years of Clinton speak. "...depends on what the definition of is is " I tend to sense it everywhere after that. No doubt a symptom of some form of paranoia or something.

I'll try again. This is a yes or no question.

Do you think the right to an abortion should be by law left solely in the hands of the woman who is pregnant?

Your idea of more stringent laws sounds reasonable to me.

 

 

Stringent laws means its not the woman's choice. That we have to agree on and present it boldly and unequivically when this issue comes up.

However, the situation we have is very different. The question is, How do we get from here to there? Another question is how it would be enforced. Crime means punishment.

 

 

Well we have only been "here" for 3 decades. There is still enough opposition to legal abortion to give them a good fight and by electing sympathetic lawmakers we can overturn it.

By making it a felony like murder or manslaughter a Dr. would think long and hard about performing one as it would mean that Dr. losing their license as well as going to prison.

The stigma that was present before towards unwed women who got pregnant has largely gone. We can use this to our advantage. It was that stigma that caused many to seek back alley abortions. Many states have programs now for women who give birth but don't want the child to just leave it at a hospital with no questions asked. We could expand that to include proper birthing of the child in interest of the mother and baby. They could enter as Jane Does even.

I still think that any "solution" that minimizes real, profound education of society will disappoint us if we're actually intersted in creating a more humane society. We're a little way into Kali-yuga, whose influence Srila Prabhupada asserts can only be eroded by constant chanting of the holy names.

 

 

I agree. But nothing in the material world remains static. All things move in one direction or another. We need to oppose abortion for the direction as well as the act. It is tied in with eugenics when coupled with abortion will mean killing the handicapped at birth or even after birth. That ties in to euthanasia, killing off the elderly and "unproductive" to make room for the young and fit.

All these demonic programs tie into each other and support each other on the mental level.

Letter to: Dinesh

--

Tittenhurst

31 October, 1969

69-10-31

My Dear Dinesh,

Please accept my blessings. I beg to thank you for your letter dated October 21, 1969 along with a contribution of $25. I have already acknowledged receipt of your new record. Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion. Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna and Brahma was also a disciple of Krishna. Thus there is no disagreement between the conclusions of Brahma and Arjuna. Vyasadeva is in the disciplic succession of Brahma. The teachings to Arjuna was recorded by Vyasadeva verbatim. So according to the axiomatic truth, things equal to one another are equal to each other. We are not exactly directly from Vyasadeva, but our Gurudeva is a representative of Vyasadeva. Because Vyasadeva and Arjuna are of equal status, being students of Krishna, therefore we are in the disciplic succession of Arjuna. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.

Regarding your second question about Sanjaya, he was a student of Vyasadeva, and by the mercy of Vyasadeva he was able to receive the message of the conversation of Krishna-Arjuna. Thus Sanjaya was able to speak to Dhrtarastra about the conversation on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra.

Regarding your final question, the marginal potency means internal potency. But because the marginal potency sometimes comes within the external position, therefore, in spite of its being internal potency it is turned to marginal potency. This is stated in Visnu Purana: Any potency of Krishna is spiritual energy, but due to varieties of actions a section is called marginal potency or external potency.

Please offer my blessings to your good wife, Krishna Devi, and daughter, Visnu Arati. I hope this will meet you all in good health.

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Letter to: Dinesh

--

Tittenhurst

31 October, 1969

69-10-31

My Dear Dinesh,

Please accept my blessings. I beg to thank you for your letter dated October 21, 1969 along with a contribution of $25. I have already acknowledged receipt of your new record. Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion. Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna and Brahma was also a disciple of Krishna. Thus there is no disagreement between the conclusions of Brahma and Arjuna. Vyasadeva is in the disciplic succession of Brahma. The teachings to Arjuna was recorded by Vyasadeva verbatim. So according to the axiomatic truth, things equal to one another are equal to each other. We are not exactly directly from Vyasadeva, but our Gurudeva is a representative of Vyasadeva. Because Vyasadeva and Arjuna are of equal status, being students of Krishna, therefore we are in the disciplic succession of Arjuna. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.

Regarding your second question about Sanjaya, he was a student of Vyasadeva, and by the mercy of Vyasadeva he was able to receive the message of the conversation of Krishna-Arjuna. Thus Sanjaya was able to speak to Dhrtarastra about the conversation on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra.

Regarding your final question, the marginal potency means internal potency. But because the marginal potency sometimes comes within the external position, therefore, in spite of its being internal potency it is turned to marginal potency. This is stated in Visnu Purana: Any potency of Krishna is spiritual energy, but due to varieties of actions a section is called marginal potency or external potency.

Please offer my blessings to your good wife, Krishna Devi, and daughter, Visnu Arati. I hope this will meet you all in good health.

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Babhru,

Here is an example of what you are trying to say, I believe.

I have just noted that the Maharashtran Government is lifting the prohibition of liquor in this state, because they cannot prevent people from taking illegal liquor and sometimes killing themselves because it is bad quality, and also they lose so much tax money. So it is very clear that simply by prohibiting something will not mean the people will stop. If you tell a thief not to steal, despite all sorts of warnings, he will continue to steal. Therefore, the best way is not to prohibit by laws but to cleanse the heart. That is the real prevention of sinful activity. letter Jayapataka dec 22 1971

 

 

However drinking beer and murder are not in the same catagory and need to be dealt with differently. Yes the heart needs to be cleansed. But should murder continue unrestricted or unopposed until all society undergoes a heart cleansing. If so then why have any laws at all? No laws or enforcment of laws means anarchy. Of course in Vaikuntha laws are not necessary but this isn't Vaikuntha. here anarchy translates into open and escalating barbarism.

People will always break the law in dark rooms. but many others will not fearing the consequence. And what we have noe is a tacit approval of abortion by the state. "Its a woman's right..." Murder is no one's right.

I still look forward to what you mean by more stringent laws.

A simple question. But you danced around it.

You said the laws should be more stringent. What does more stringent mean. Please answer the question.

Here is my view. Abortion should be against the law except if the women's life is in danger. Any exception as in the case of EXTREME problems with the fetus would take a court exemption.

That's great Kelly. Congrats on making the change. It takes strength to go against the flow.

What I like about a vegan vs. vegetarian diet is that even by drinking cow's milk we are supporting the slaughter of cows. The male calves are sold by the dairy industry to veal producers. And the cows that produce milk are treated horribly and killed for meat when they are deemed unsuitable for further milk production.

Many Krsna devotees struggle over this issue as we are taught to respect other life forms and especially the cow is considered a type of mother. This is a nice philosophy but in today's western societal framwork this aspect of using dairy products from common commercial dairies makes no sense, at least to me.

Hare Krsna

In the meantime, sure, the laws should be more stringent,

 

 

So that is what we have been saying! You really insult us by arguing we don't understand the real problem is deeper than societies laws professor.

So now let's focus on just how stringent.Please try to stay focused. You have stated the woman should have the choice. Now you say the laws should be more stringent. So explain in more detail just what more stringent means to you.

So if you aren't willing yourself to take a positive stance against abortion then how will you convince anyone else?

You give reasons why it is wrong and then say a woman should have the right of choice. We are not talking about jaywalking here.

I don't consider an "It's the woman right to choose" position to be strong enough. It is NOT the woman's right to choose. I prefer the truth told simply and in a straight forward manner.

Abortion is murder.

The convience arguement holds no water. A woman with a child has a legal responsibility for the child up to 18 years. That means housing clothing food education etc. So woman are denied by law to avoid that responsibity. Why by law should they be allowed to choose just because the child is in the womb?

The rare exception is if the women's life(not health) is at stake. then you can make the self defense arguement.

Ever wonder who is in the womb being aborted? Someone who previously aborted most likely. A vicious cycle.

saw it but I'll check it out when it comes around again.

Knowledge is everywhere.

When abortion became a so-called right in America in 1972 the rate of abortions shot up to around 1 1/2 million per year, increasing every year. Why the increase? It became legal and thus socially acceptable. Abortion clinics started opening up openly. People who never would have considered abortion now felt it was just another form of birth control.

Education is the answer. DUH

But people don't have to all the esoteric facts straight on an issue to be on the correct side. For instance we have laws against murder. Do our lawmakers have too have a detailed understanding that at death the soul is forced out of the body before they can make laws against murder? Should we make murder a person's choice? Or should we keep our laws against murder and at the same time try to increase understanding of what happens at death?

Feeling a little defensive there professor? You brought Siddhasvarupa's name up so I will bring up the time when Siddhasvarupa spoke at an anti-abortion rally at the state capital building in Honolulu. He was decided NOT pro-choice.

I won't address the rest of your post directly as it is apparent you just want to argue.

No problem with that. As long as everything is open and out front.

Babhru:

I believe that the choice should be left to the woman involved,

 

 

Why is that? I thought those ignorant middle-aged men were in the legislature to make laws protecting the weak.

I would be interested why you are pro-choice. I find that a difficult postion for a devotee.

I see no use in trying to straighten out the deatils of the past. That will never happen.

I am hoping we can all agree on the solution, which I see in Rupa Vilas' letter.

Let Supersoul sort all the rest out. Easy for Him, impossible for us.

I have had some pro-abortion rights folks answer this question to me in this way.

They say that its the woman's choice. If she wanted to have the baby then it could be considered murder. If she didn't want the child then it wasn't murder.

You are right. That makes no sense.

Scientific knowledge is needed. Even the pro-life groups have varying views on when life begins. They mostly say conception. The truth is, as we know, life does not begin. The presence of life signals the beginning of biological life. Matter will only show growth under the influence of the animating life force, the soul.

These abortionists are simple demons.

I see the need for a third option. Here is my situation. I believe it possible that errors were found and corrections warranted in some cases. I also believe the editors have added their own conclusions to Prabhupada's word's.

I have no idea how much of each may have taken place or where. We are told all is well. We are told to "just believe". Well ___k blind faith.

The third option as put forth by Rupa Vilas das and others before him is to print the books as Prabhupada had written them and with the corrections and alterations duely noted at the bottom of the page. I'm sure there is a well established procedure for these things in academia, the details I am not in knowledge off.

I cast my vote for this third option.

Come loose with ALL the changes BBT. Doling out some of them only makes the others more suspect.

Response To Akruranath's Challenge

BY HANSADUTTA DAS

EDITORIAL, Jun 1 (VNN) — Dear VNN readers, obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Even in the material world, if you tamper with the works of an author, musician, artist or kitchen chef you will find yourself the target of intense verbal, physical or legal reaction. How anyone could think himself qualified, or entitiled to tamper with the works of Srila Prabhupada is incomprehesible to me. Therefore let the world wide Vaishnava community give their opinion, and supporting Vedic evidences in this highly contraversial issue. Simply respond with a yes in favor of editing Srila Prabhupada's books, or a No, opposed to editing Srila Prabhupada's books, PREFERABLY backed with reference to vedic authority. No opinions, or speculations, everything based on quotations from shastras.

From my side I have already referred to what Srila prabhupada said to me when I, As a BBT trustee, suggested that we revert back to his original Indian publication of Srimad Bhagavatam " No, whatever Hayagriva has done is perfect, I have full faith in him as the editor of my books " This is all I need to Know, who is a greater authority than Srila Prabhupada, about the books of Srila Prabhupoada? Jayadvaita?, Akruranath?, or anyone else?

Instead of an insignificant like myself taking up the challenge of Akruranath, I will defer to the Vaishnava community for a interactive world wide decision.

Your humble servant,

Hansadutta das

P.S. Those with pertinent vedic knowlege more than myself are invited to comment in detail for the illumination of the world wide vaishnava community.

I have read vaisnavis post that they would naturally and gladly submit to a man in Krsna consciousness if they could find one. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Maybe more time should be spent on what defines a man in KC. Afterall if the woman should submit to a man then it should be well known by attributes one can be recognized.

So what is the difference between a man and a beast? Then between a man and a man in Krsna conscious life?

I should add an addendum to my previous post so as to not upset anyone's mind.

At the end of the play the shrew is tamed before her husband and becomes totally submissive. Such a transformation. The husband is well pleased with his tamed wife. As they leave the crowded hall she is far ahead of him and he is calling after her as he pushes his way through the crowd.

In other words she tamed him as well by her submissive behavior. Sooo funny and true.

This is one reason we don't chant for results other than Krsna's pleasure, ideally. If we don't see immediate results according to our petitioning then doubt may creep in.

So many atheists say things like "I prayed to God that my son not die in this war, but he did." Therefore they conclude there is no God. We must be caeful here.

What syncronicity! I just this minute finished watching a movie, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in Shakespears The Taming of The Shrew.

This movie should be required viewing before any marriage is entered onto.

The last part of the last scene is so telling and funny.

I am being somewhat serious. Don't bother throwing pots as I'm safe behind this screen.

Vaisnava's are the real body builders. They are realizing their eternal forms in connection to Krsna rasa. Forms that will remain eternally young, free from disease and composed of knowledge and bliss.

All karmis are also bodybuilders. We are karmicly developing our future physical forms by our actions and desires in this life.

The body is important in that it is a good ship for crossing the ocean of misery. It is also good as a preaching/teaching tool for helping others. So from that perspective we should maintain IT in good health.