Beggar

He was both. Just like the color pink is made up of the colors red and white. The problem is that you have to mix them exactly the right way to come out with the correct color. This is what it means to harmonize. It's interesting that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's fortnightly was called, The Harmonist.

Here I completely agree with cbrahma. While all these things are true it is no reason to reject the process given by Srila Rupa Goswami in Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu. The general way to think about such "wolves in sheep's clothing", is "there but for the grace of God, go I." It is also proper to warn others who's spiritual life may be in jeopardy, but it is not proper to obsess about the faults of others, for they will come into our mental system.

cbrahma thinks that Srila Prabhupada wanted to destroy the process of having a disciple receive the holy name from a guru, yet Srila Prabhupada chanted on tulasi japa malas for his initiates who were recommended after senior disciples (usually the TP) observed their behavior for six months (the Seventies). At the hare nama initiation ceremony the new initiates promised to chant at least 16 rounds and follow the 4 regulative principles Then after six months or a year the TP would recommend the disciple for diksa or second initiation. We all know the famous quote where Srila Prabhupada says that, at first initiation the disciple accepts the guru and at the second initiation, the guru accepts the disciple. We are personalists not impersonalists. When the devotee is accepted by the bonafide guru, it is supposed to form a deep bond. That bond is based on the feeling that at first, "I am like a soldout animal and I am the property of my guru", then later the feeling becomes so intense that the advanced disciple feels that, "gurudeva is mine". The silent chanting of the diksa mantras or gayatris are meant to nourish and hasten on this process of attachment to guru or asraya vigrah and Krsna, visaya vigrah. In cbrahma's world the so-called follower is left to imagine whether or not they are accepted by guru. Since such persons treat everyone with suspicion they consult no higher authority to see if their service is pleasing or not [to guru and Krsna]. So in essence such persons are their own guru and they have twisted Srila Prabhupada's words to attempt to genuinely destroy the real conception of guru tattva. They make their propaganda to try to dissuade the innocent from surrendering to a spiritual preceptor. The basis of their fallacious thinking is that they mistake transcendental knowledge for empiric knowledge, so on one level they are correct. Yes, cbrahma, if you want empiric knowledge of Krsna Consciousness like a professor of Comparative Religions then you only need "the books". yaha, bhagavata pada vaisnavera sthane ekanta asraya kara caitanya-carane, but if you want to understand the bhagavat books and achieve real bhakti or real Krsna Consciousness (anyabhilasita sunyam) they you must approach a self realized devotee with a straw between your teeth.

But those persons in the line of siksa gurus coming through Srila Saraswati Thakur were all the direct disciples of someone, even if that guru was not a significant contributor to the line or was not in "the" diksa line as was the case of Srila Baladeva Viyabusana Thakur. It's not that the process of formal diksa is neglected, but rather we see that even Krsna and Mahaprabhu also had a formal relationship with a guru parampara. Yet clearly the line of thought or siddhanta overshadows (really over-illuminates) the consideration of formal diksa.

Remember that Krsna is bhagavan and He is therefore non-dual like brahman and paramatma. vadanti tat viddha...brahmeti, paramatmameti, bhagavan iti shabyate. So as Srila Sridhar Maharaj paraphrases Krsna in Bhagavad Gita, "I, am here but I am not here." So there is always this acintya or inconceivable nature of the Absolute. He would also say, "Krsna is not a sweetball that you can have in your hand." The books of the bonafide spiritual master are very important, very powerful and very potent to deliver the association of guru and Krsna. But within those books we will find so many times it is told that we should hear with our ears from the lotus mouth of Sri guru. So if we read the books then we must follow their advice and seek out sadhu sanga. It is only common sense. When there is no sadhu sanga then we can always take shelter of the holy name and the books of the bonafide spiritual master (and this doesn't mean that they will be neglected within sadhu sanga)..

This is general preaching. By understanding the problems of life [birth, death, disease and old age] one will desire to find a solution. In order to find the solution one must surrender to the spiritual master which is the doorway or basis of bhakti. But this is certainly a very preliminary stage of vaidhi sadhana bhakti. This means that one should not consider a real spiritual master to be like some sort of a doll. We must hear hari katha from him and not just try to get close to him in some sort of [mundane] sentimental fashion. Association by vibration means to hear through submissive aural reception. Again hearing means with the ears, from the lotus like mouth of gurudeva. (2) guru-mukha-padma-vakya, chittete koriya aikya ar na koriho mane asha shri-guru-charane rati, ei se uttama-gati je prasade pure sarva asha (2) My only wish is to have my consciousness purified by the words emanating from his lotus mouth. Attachment to his lotus feet is the perfection that fulfills all desires. Krsna's body is aprakata or transcendental. It is never prakata like the imitationist prakrta [prakata] sahajiyas maintain. We cannot see Krsna's swarupa or form with our prakata or mundane eyes. We will have to be given spiritual eyes to see Krsna. But before that stage we can hear about Krsna from the lotus mouth of the spiritual master. In that way we will develop some greed or laulyam to meet with Krsna and serve him in our transcendental swarupa, or spiritual body.

Why is Brahmananda feel very strongly about Srila Prabhupada's absence? Maybe its because he experienced his vapuh presence. Do we want to meet Krsna or do we want to remain separated? Did Gaurasundara have direct personal association with Srila Prabhupada?Yes, it is an historical fact. Was he accepted by Srila Prabhupada and did he take diksa or second initiation? Obviously he did, so Srila Prabhupada's statements are in this context. Why didn't Srila Prabhupada say that he still considered Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur to be present with him in his (the Thakur's) vani? Was it perhaps that he had hare nama and diksa directly from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur? Didn't he also directly receive instructions from his guru to preach in English, especially in the West? Sure you interpretation is correct if you ignore all the ideas that I just presented.

Was Srila Prabhupada confused about the process of bhakti? His principle criticism of his prominent godbrothers was over the acaryaship in relation to the Gaudiya Matha institution, but it was never over siddhanta or devotional conclusions for they were never confused about the process of bhakti. Was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati or Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur confused about the process of bhakti? So the line of disciplic succession is made up of those who have passed far beyond the level of confusion. Just because we are confused it doesn't mean that everyone else is, especially the great devotees. Otherwise how would they be great devotees? Bhagavad Gita As It Is 2.7: karpanya-dosopahata-svabhavah prcchami tvam dharma-sammudha-cetah yac chreyah syan niscitam bruhi tan me shishyas te ’ham sadhi mam tvam prapannam Translation Now I am confused about my duty and have lost all composure because of miserly weakness. In this condition I am asking You to tell me for certain what is best for me. Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me. Persons like cbrahma are disciples of the Prabhupada of their imagination. They do not submit to a anyone including the balancing agents of sadhu and sastra. On the other hand there are those like theist who had association with Srila Prabhupada but didn't take formal initiation for some reason or other. I know cbrahma is in a similar position, but the difference between him and theist is that cbrahma writes mostly nonsensical apasiddhanta whereas generally, theist has a good understanding of Krsna Consciousness. So if you want to listen to an experienced person who doesn't over-empahsize formal diksa don't listen to cbrahma but rather listen to theist. Yes, I'm dropping out of the race and endorsing theist for President of Audarya Fellowship, Spiritual Discussions. Now maybe he'll help me pay my campaign debts!

The problem is not with the basic thoughts expressed above but rather with the language and logic used to express such thoughts. If "no one really leaves Goloka" then what about those devotees who have an eternal serving relationship with Sri Rama in Ayodhya? Hanuman may be a great devotee but he never is allowed or even desires to enter Goloka Vrndavana. So in an attempt to answer a paradox we create another paradox. If it is a real paradox and it certainly is, then it cannot really be answered. Such is the situation in the "great debate" over the origin of that which has no origin! Remember we can experience meeting Krsna or meeting Him again if you wish to see it that way; but can we experience our origin? If our eternal service to Krsna in our swarupa bodies is there, beyond time, then so would our "origin". But guess what? It is not, because we really have no origin for the jiva soul is eternal. We say "tatastha shakti" for this is what Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu told. But can you really say where the sea ends and where the shore begins and visa versa. No you cannot for it is merely a logical construct in thought, IOW it is only an idea used to convey other ideas. The descriptions of the origin of the jiva from the tatastha shakti is only an idea to emphasize other ideas which may be substantial truths like the pristine infallible position of Krsna's eternal siddha parikaras like Vishaka, Yasoda, Subal and Symala etc. Otherwise the tatastha idea has no reality for it is only an idea that must be viewed in the proper context of other ideas. If you want to think that the devotees of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's sankirtana movement are really eternally serving both Him and Radha Krsna in Goloka but are merely covered by a dream-like condition then that is siddhantically correct. But you cannot say that the jivas have fallen from Goloka Vrndavana because the previous acaryas have not written in this way. At the same time we can understand that the tatastha is just an imaginary concept. We should only tell what they have told on this matter, especially Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur and leave it at that. We cannot know everything but if we chant Hare Krsna and serve guru and sadhus then some realization will come. BTW I am just parphasing what Srila Narayana Maharaja has recently said about this subject.

Go back late last year and read the posts of cbrahma expressing doubts in the holy name of Krsna and the entire process of sadhana bhakti as given by Srila Rupa Goswami. Then it is easy to see the connections between those doubts and his doubts in guru tattva. This is all justified in an atmosphere where the guru tattva principle has been politicized by those promoting a mundane conception in the name of Krsna bhakti. How do such things become politicized? By looking at everything from an external viewpoint, na te viduh svartha gatim hi visnu [sB 7.5.31].

It's not exactly, "who is and who is not in the good graces of Krishna and Prabhupada." It is who is giving the proper devotional conclusions or siddhantas. The answer is - guru, sadhu, sastra vakhya citte te koriya aikya. Whatever guru says will be seen in relation to sadhu and sastra. Whatever sadhu says will be seen in relation to guru and sastra. Whatever sastra says will be seen in relation to guru and sadhu. You or I may not be the determiners of siddhanta but we can at least apply this principle and if we cannot apply it we can at least understand it. And perhaps if we cannot understand it then we can accept and appreciate it.

cbrahma represents those who endorse Srila Prabhupada but use the failures of ISKCON to rationalize their own doubts. This is just the opposite strategy than that of a real disciple. But how can one be a real disciple if they cannot accept any correction from Srila Prabhupada's or any real Gaudiya Vaisnava's followers?Srila Sridhar Maharaj said, "I am a faith maker not a faith breaker." Chipping away at faith in guru tattva on a mad campaign in the name of Om Visnupada Paramahamsa Parivrajakacarya Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is a great travesty. To go in the opposite direction of bhakti in the name of an imaginary Prabhupada - amazing. It just shows the power of the external energy of the Lord..

Now here's futher evidence of the Protestant Christianization of Gaudiya Vaisnavism: Note that modern Protestant Christianity is completely dualitistic. No acintya bheda [a]bheda tattva in this permutation of the philosophy. Here we find only the duality of good and evil. The myth of the good Prabhupada and his evil godbrothers. In this paradigm the all evil emanates from the evil godbrothers especially the evil Iskcon gurus. Why not just read a Stephen King horror novel? Remember cbrahma is blocking my posts so someone should quote this.

cbrahma's criticisms of the GM (The Gaudiya Math) are part and parcel of their Protestant Christianization of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Not only do they accept that revelation must always come through reading "the books" without the help of a transparent via media in apparent corporal form, but they also believe that the disciples of Prabhupada's godbothers and their disciples and grand disciples are stained with the "original sin" of their param guru's not coming to the West to help Srila Prabhupada. So in this kind of philosophy these persons need no diksa connection with a living line of preceptors yet the persons who are connected by diksa with the disciples of Prabhupada's godbrothers are somehow inheriting the "original sin" of their grandguru (param guru) through the diksa process. What a strange philosophy! Why not just be a Protestant Christian since God is one?

This is a scene from the original Ocean's Eleven. The one made a couple of years ago was garbage. Tamal was highly influenced by this movie that he saw when he was a youth. That's why he added Jayatirtha to get to the magic number, 'eleven'.

I can kind of see what cbrahma is saying; after all GM makes Chevy. Personally I believe that Ford Trucks rule!

This is from Metta Meditation: This is from Srila Sridhar Maharaj's devotional (bhakti) Bhagavad Gita: Our minds can be our best friend also, if it becomes convinced to surrender to Krsna by reading real bhakti literature. Metta meditation devotees believe that we are our own best friend for they have no real information about the supreme personality of godhead, Sri Krsna.

Some of the original "Eleven" hatching their dastardly plot:

Theist, I don't think that you are anti-diksa but I think that the statements cbrahma has made would put him in that category. Maybe when it really comes down to it, he is not anti-diksa, maybe its just the extreme style of his rhetoric. I have posted this before, once Srila Sridhar Maharaj was asked about Peter Bourwash, the tennis pro, who had Srila Prabhupada's association but was never formally initiated. Bhakta Peter soon after Prabhupada left had a dream that he was being initiated by Srila Prabhupada. Later he refused to accept initiation from any of the Zonal Eleven (wasn't that with Frank Sinatra and his gang?). When they asked Srila Sridhar Maharaj about Bhakta Peter's "dream" initiation, Srila Sridhar Maharaj said,[paraphase] "it may be, it just may be in a special circumstance, after all Krsna says in Gita (9.22), yoga kseman vahamyaham, 'I carry what they lack,' so it just may be." So here is another reason why formal diksa can be an external affair, and someone may receive an even deeper connection in a dream. And this is confirmed by Srila Sridhar Maharaj. So this kind of mercy is very rare, but we can see that it must have been percipitated by the personal association Peter Bourwash had with a pure devotee. So the siksa is most important thing not the diksa. But still if you look at everything in context we must recognize that Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaj encouraged their followers to take formal diksa and current Gaudiya preachers are following that example. Everything must be viewed in the proper context. The argument is not formal diksa vs. substantial, realized diksa, but rather how to properly adjust all these concepts.

This is completely bogus!!! First of all Theist, you don't even know how to spell - N. E. W. M. A. N. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Second, I know for a fact that the honorable Alfred E. Newman received crazy man diksa on Oct. 13, 1939. (Which just happenned to be on Friday the 13th). So there you cad!!! ----------------------------- C. C.C. brahma, now see what you have done....

No combining with kitty cat brain!!!

Is that after you eat fish!!!

C C brahma, see what you done done C C brahma, you see what you done done You C C brahma, you see what you done done You done made me listen to you and now my bhakti creeper is done My home is in Vaikuntha, I don't like no matter at all Home's in Vaikuntha, I don't like no matter at all I'd rather be dead than to stay here and be your dog So you C C brahma, see what you done done C C brahma, you see what you done done C C brahma, you see what you done done You done made me listen to you and now my bhakti creeper is done

Because during his manifest lila during the years from around 1943 to 1988 Srila Sridhar Maharaj was a "living guru". IOW he was a person who appeared to have form in this world although we accept that his body was totally spiritualized. Through his sound vibration he always emphasized substance over form (formality). Yet, he gave formal hare nama and diksa mantra initiation to his followers, the same way that his guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur did. The same way that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada did. You could always take the concept of subtance over form to the extreme as some do. You could say that since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said there are no hard and fast rules for the chanting of the holy names of Krsna, it is completely unnecessary to chant on tulasi mala, that one should just chant in his mind. But we have been instructed to chant on tulasi mala at least 16 rounds of hare nama daily. We have also been told to receive these beads after they have been chanted on by our guru. Then there are so many details of devotional service; the idea of substance over form is basically not to sweat the details. The details are there, but try to look for the inner devotional meaning of the details. The anti-diksa proponents not only minimize the details of sadhana bhakti but the main pillar which is guru nistha or firm faith in guru. They think that only Prabhupada's books are necessary but within those books he has given the example of how one cannot become a medical doctor just by reading books, but rather one must study directly under a bona fide medical doctor (medical college). Srila Sridhar Maharaj had formal diksa from his guru and most of the persons that he was speaking to (Sri Guru and His Grace comes from recorded talks) also had formal diksa. And most of those who did not, later took it directly from him. His teachings must be viewed in this context otherwise one will get a completely wrong idea about things.

Sri Guru and His Grace From Chapt. Nine: