Beggar

I don't know either. There are definitely different views on dependence on the Lord. Should it be like a cat or a monkey? Simultaneous, inconceivable oneness and difference or acintya bheda [a]bheda tattva is Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhus doctrine on the difference between the jiva and Bhagavan. It can also be said that everything existing is also bheda and abheda. Suddha-dvaita-vada, Visistadvaita-vada, Dvaitadvaita-vada and Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva all accept that devotion to Bhagavan is eternal. The subjectivity I'm reffering to is whether a Mayavadi accepts this or not.

One hundred years ago in British colleges in India, the word 'sectarian' did not have a strong pejorative connotation nor did the word 'cult'. Why don't you guys argue this subject in classical sanskrit and see what you come up with.

Still there must be some endeavor on the practitioner's part otherwise there would be no practice. Then when Krsna and guru are pleased with the endeavor they may bestow their mercy. Some rare persons may attain an honorary degree, but generally it takes 120 units with at least a C average.

From Vishnu Swami, He accepted total dependence on Krishna. This just means that Mahaprabhu accepted Vishnu Swami's particular realization on total dependence on Krishna. Mahaprabhu viewed His doctrine and that of Ramanuja as simultaneously one and different. He never saw Ramanuja as somehow flawed but accepted him as a great acarya. It means a rigorous siddhantic proof that defeats Mayavada. Of course since we are talking about religious subject whether there is defeat or victory would be subjective.

Visva dharma The cult of Chaitanya philosophy is richer than any other and is admitted to be the living religion of the day with the potency of spreading as Visva Dharma or universal religion. We are glad that the matter has been taken up by some enthusiastic sages like Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaj and his disciples. We shall eagerly wait for the happy days of Bagavat-Dharma or Prema-Dharma inaugurated by the Lord, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. {SB INTRO} Please we invite you to take up the cult of Chaitanya philosophy!

Mahaprabhu took two principles from each sampradaya Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted two principles from each of the 4 Acaryas. From Ramanuja: 1) He accepted the concept of unalloyed devotion untinged by karma and jyana 2) service to the vaisnavas From Madhavacarya: 1) He accepted the complete destruction of mayavadism 2) worship of the deity form of the Supreme Lord Krishna From Vishnu Swami: 1) He accepted total dependence on Krishna 2) the mellow of spontaneous devotional service From Nimbarka: 1) He accepted as the truth the exalt love of the gopis for Krishna 2) the necessity of taking exclusive shelter of them {vaisnava Vijay, page 98, Bh. Prajana Kesava Maharaj}

Yes I agree. If one is a very simple person the style of program that is in place at the Seva Asrama if effective. It is also effective if one with an intellectual, inquiring mind is a self-starter and reads the basic Gaudiya Vaisnava literatures on their own. From what I have observed new persons who have inquiring minds and just depend on the program there will not get enough of the "first installment" so that they have a chance at digesting the "second installment". This is my observation from what I've seen over the last 16 years. There were two men who are your godbrothers at the asrama when Srila Govinda Maharaj was there who live at the ISKCON farm in Mississsippi. I noticed that the one I know is now much more educated in the basic philosophy than he was before. Clearly this comes from attending the classes there and reading Srila Prabhupada's books.

You have to remember that Hinduism is thought of as a great world religion from a distance. When you get up close to it you see that it is far more diverse than say Christianity. Kali worshippers in Bengal are considered Hindu, and are very, very different than any kind of Vaisnavas. Srila Prabhupada was trying to insulate his followers and prospective followers from such a hodge podge. Yet the British still considered Gaudiya Vaisnava's as Hindus and this mentality had crept into the British educated Indian elite who the Gaudiya Math was trying to preach to. Maybe the question goes deeper like, "can something that has a form be transcendental?"

Prabhupada wrote about "the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu". When he wrote that before coming to America, he certainly thought of the word "cult" in a different way than the anti-cult movement did some 15 years later. Could the same be said for the word, "sect"? It's all about selecting an established definition and then looking at the denotation and connotation of the word. Words are just tools that we use to express thoughts. The word and the object the word describes are different. We are not talking about the Name of Krsna here.

What I mean by define is choosing which definition to apply since many words have multiple definitions. Then there is always connotation and denotation. Srila Sridhar Maharaj was fond of saying, "as denotation increases connotation decreases and as connotation increases denotation decreases". That is a valid way to look at it. There may be other valid ways also.

It's all about words and how you define them. Srila Prabhupada was giving the old wine (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings) in a new bottle (ISKCON). Unless one is pure and inspired like Prabhupada then whether it is a new bottle or not the "wine" will have a different, and displeasing taste. So what Srila Prabhupada did was that he preached Krsna Conciousness in a unique way for the unique audience of his time while keeping it's timeless universality. It takes a special devotee to do this and the extra speciality of Srila Prabhupada is that he was able to do it in the foreign lands of the Mleechas.

In the early to mid-eighties Haripada Prabhu and his wife Phalini d.d. opened an ISKCON temple in Fullerton, California. It was one of the biggest Indian preaching projects in America up to that time. The temple flourished and was listed in BTG. There is a law in most U.S. states including Calif. that allows the member of a church to elect the board of directors. What constitues a member of the church can just me a person who attends weekly services. Eventually the Indian congregation elected the board of directors and the new board broke its ties with ISKCON and established Hindu pancapasana but allowed the Radha Krsna and Gaura Nitai dieties to remain.

Sripad B.G. Narasingha Maharaja,

Srila Sridhar Maharaj http://www.bvml.org/SBRSM/saranagati.html

But you are applying most of the concepts in a improper and incorrect manner!You can't pretend and rationalize that you did not write, Quote 1, Or Quote 2, The saying that one should not judge Lord Nityananda even if they see him coming out of a wine shop with a lady is not relevant to what you "theoretically" said about Srila Prabhupada in Quote 1 as I have showed previously. You have also stated that you may be influenced by your birth father's sahajiya leanings. It is one thing to think these things, another to say it, still, another to write it. And it is even another thing make a campaign of first defending your position and then when cornered trying to rationalize your statements with further misapplications of siddhantic concepts. Now it is time to come clean and I humbly implore you to apologize to the members and guests of Audarya - Spiritual Discussions, especially Srila Prabhupada's disciples and followers. Then go before the dieties and your guru's Vyasasana and ask for forgiveness. Then go before Srila Prabhupada's picture in the temple room and ask him for forgiveness. In the end this all that I can tell you.

Some of the GBC men have Ph.d.s but that is also not a qualification for bhakti, if fact Srila Prabhupada preached that it was a disqualification. Remember Western society is a cow eating society, so some Western devotees have a difficult time fitting in to the "normal" society of the West.

Yes, definitely and I expounded upon this in my last post. But this is not exactly from focusing too much on the rasa lila and other parikiya pastimes per se but rather confusing the very concepts of parakiya, raganuga and the Supremely independent position of the Lord. Other concepts which are cloudy here are what it means to be as good as God, or what did Cakravarti Thakur mean when he wrote saksad-hari, that Sri Guru is directly Hari? And such persons have the gall to believe that practically all Gaudiya-Saraswats outside their Math are imitationists and sahajiyas?

I accept your apology on the taste/distaste aspect. But still you will have to give more explanation about how "Sri Guru is above all social standards." Actually the term, "Sri Guru" imples akhanda guru tattva or the universal aspect of guru tattva. So we might be more accurate if we say that guru (an individual guru) is above all social standards. But, what social standards are you talking about? Generally "social standards" for Vaisnavas means varnasrama dharma (the daiva type). If that is true then we could logically assume that you mean a real guru is above all the rules and regulations of daiva varnasrama dharma. Unmarried sex is prohibited amongst all four varnas and asramas. So then the next logical assumption is that since a bonafide guru is beyond all of these DVD constraints he/she can engage in illicit sex. Now we know that no camps that we know of actually believe this (yes even the prakrta sahajiyas), so where are we? The only possibility is from Quote 1, Now we have again arrive at the most classic conception and actual basis of the prakrta sahajiya philosophy. So now we remain wondering how a bonafide guru is beyond the social restrictions of varnasrama dharma? We know that the sannyasa asram is the fourth asrama and that the sannyasi is the guru of the other three asramas. Babaji is not an asrama and it was considered by Srila Saraswati Thakur the position for paramahamsas. He gave sannyasa so that such young (in the 1920s-30s) sannyasi preachers would not overestimate their position and keep the position of the paramahamsas high above their heads. matala hari jana kirtana range/pujala raga patha gaurava bhange. Also in the very era that Srila Saraswati Thakur established triadandi sannyasa for his Gaudiya Math, there were abuses of the position of babaji taking place. So called babajis were smoking ganja and having sex with their female disciples and because of this the very name of Gaudiya Vaisnavism was scoffed at by the Western educated class in Bengal. And this was the very class targeted by both Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur in their preaching mission of Sankirtana. They had the vision that if the British educated Indians would take to the Sankirtan Movement of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, that it could be then spread to the English speaking world. As a disciple of Srila Govinda Maharaj in the line of Srila Sridhar Maharaj, you have heard or read these things at least dozens of times. Then you try to say that, and give the justification that you were only, "expressing that Sri Guru is above all social standards"? Or that, Or that, The first two books of Srila Sridhar Maharaj provided to the Western world in the early eighties were, "Search for Sri Krsna, Reality the Beautiful" and then "Sri Guru and His Grace. One time Srila Govinda Maharaj remarked that although Sripad Goswami Maharaj had done such a great service by providing these books and the others in the series from The Guardian of Devotion Press, that the second book should have been on the subject of how to be a disciple rather than how to be a guru. I think this illustrates how much of what Srila Sridhar Maharaj was giving to Srila Prabhupada's disciples (who were struggling to maintain ISKCON in Prabhupada's physical absence) in the early and mid-eighties was from the viewpoint of the teacher rather than the student. Of course, Srila Sridhar Maharaj would also admonish, "we are all students", which was a statement of caution. Personally I do not think that the senior persons in the Western section of SCSM understand that much of what they are giving is really the second installment and that it is going right over the heads of those who do not have a basic education in Krsna Conscious philosophy. It is very easy to misapply the concepts of the second installment without having the proper foundation. Perhaps this is what has happened here.

Quote 1, Quote 2, Quote 3, Quote 4, First, you continue to interchange the terms, acarya, pure servant, pure (cent-per-cent dedicated) devotee, guru (from the Lord Buddha reference) and now Sri Guru. Although the denotative and connotative meanings overlap at times there are also significant differences. These differences change the meanings of your statements. In both Quotes 1 and 2 your scenario and explanations are more like the lila of Lord Balarama's Rasa Dance. Srila Sridhar Maharaj has explained that although Lord Balarama is Krsna's first expansion and Visnu tattva, He still has the abhiman or mood of Sri Krsna's servant therefore He danced with the Gopis as a service to His Lord. Lord Balarama may be also described as adi-guru and in his expansion as Nityananda Prabhu, akhanda guru tattva, but He is still Visnu tattva so to ascribe a similar behavior to an acarya, guru or pure devotee is a mistake, a rasabhasa and an aparadha. [Remember although Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is Krsna Himself, he is playing the role of an acarya, therefore sometimes His lila is described as "Acarya Lila"] So clearly Balaramji is a "great controller" and it is a mistake to ascribe the the actions of an isvarah to an acarya or guru. It would be good for you to take responsibility for your mistake in tattva, your error leading to a distasteful rasabhasa, and your subsequent offense which has been now compounded by your illogical and absurd defenses.

When debating any subject, it is incumbent upon you to build your arguments upon logical parts. This cannot be at your whim. Logic will have to be suspended when we approach the mystical paradoxes of acinyta bheda-abheda tattva, but then we should repeat or paraphrase the thoughts of the higher section to explain what may be the unexplainable. Sri Guru and His Grace Chapt. Eleven (Excerpt) Srila Sridhar Maharaj First, perhaps we should step back. How are you defining the word "acarya" here? For instance in your next statement you use the word guru to describe Lord Buddha, using a rhetorical question. Are you using the word acarya interchangeably with the word guru (on this thread)? Now another point is that you have actually switched over to the acarya or guru conception. Look at your post at #31 on this thread, Now there is a sudden switch from pure devotee to acarya on post #35, Remember the story of Pundarika Vidyanidhi and Gadadhara Pandit as told by Srila Sridhar Maharaj, which actually comes from Caitanya Bhagavat? Pundarika Vidyanidhi eventually became the guru of Gadadhara Pandit. So he went from being a pure devotee whose actions cannot be judged to being a guru whose actions cannot be judged. Srila Sridhar Maharaj as well as Srila Prabhupada sometimes used the terms acarya and guru interchangeably (see the conversation with Jayatirtha Maharaja, March 5, 1982). But at one point (I'm having trouble finding the source) Srila Sridhar Maharaj defined acarya as one who is the head of a Gaudiya institution. In fact in that context he said that such an acarya should not be a grhasta. I am trying to apply explanations that I have heard from my gurus. One time in the early or mid-eighties, Bhargava Prabhu was taking considerable darshan time asking Srila Sridhar Maharaj questions, and he wanted the answers to help him compose a text to accompany a photography book on the Holy Dhama that he was working on at that time. The questions were so trite and about things that Srila Sridhar Maharaj thought Bhargava should already know the answers. Finally Srila Sridhar Maharaj said with some seeming frustration in his voice (to paraphrase), "I am not a question and answer machine! Has not Swami Maharaj already explained these things? It is a system, if you understand the system, then you can answer all these questions yourself." This system is laid out in a very logical format in the books of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Acting as siksa guru Srila Sridhar Maharaj gave the next "installment" and with that will help one refine their conception of the system of the Gaudiya Siddhanta or Krsna Conscious philosophy. This debate has allowed me to refine some of my own concepts. Again I will go back to what I have recently posted, To think of both Mahaprabhu or Srila Prabhupada in their sannyasa lilas as purusas, enjoyers is an extreme rasabhasa. Your "hypothetical" is not so much an offense to the sraddha or faith of the devotees but more of an offense to their sense of tastefulness. This is the basis of the concept tastelessness. This renders your quote below as mute, I have already shown how you hypothetical is distasteful from the viewpoint of rasa. Now I will illustrate how the concept of the Lord's independence can be misapplied from a tattvic viewpoint. What if someone proposed that because the Lord is independent that He could obliterate His own existence. And because He is infinite and His existence takes place in "infinite time" then all possibilities can occur simultaneously and therefore God has killed Himself and is dead? It must be true because He can do whatever He likes. Clearly no theistic system would accept this. Just like when the man told Srila Sridhar Maharaj, "If God is infinite then He cannot be known by finite intelligence." Then Srila Sridhar Maharaj replied, "If the infinite is really infinite then He can make Himself known to the finite". God is infinite, so the theistic argument is that He can make Himself known, not that He has killed Himself! This seems like you are using a rhetorical question to insert a sacarstic barb into to your post. What else could be the point of doing this? My advice was that you should take the time and energy to be logical and reasonable in your arguments. In the above statement you make no attempt even to explain why you believe that I am not applying logic and reason to my arguments as far as possible. That is why this is obviously an attempt to inject negative emotions into the mix. Why are you not following the advice of your guru and Mahaprabhu Himself to try to be humble, tolerant and offer respects to others? It actually appears to me that you are acting out your own emotional conflicts and that they are bubbling up from you unconscious mind on this forum.

namnam akari bahudha nija-sarva-saktis tatrarpita niyamitah smarane na kalah etadrsi tava krpa bhagavan mamapi durdaivam idrsam ihajani nanuraga O my Lord, Your holy name alone can render all benediction to living beings, and thus You have hundreds and millions of names, like Krishna and Govinda. In these transcendental names You have invested all Your transcendental energies. There are not even hard and fast rules for chanting these names. O my Lord, out of kindness You enable us to easily approach You by Your holy names, but I am so unfortunate that I have no attraction for them.[sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu] Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 2.45 na prema-gandho 'sti darāpi me harau krandāmi saubhāgya-bharaḿ prakāśitum vaḿśī-vilāsy-ānana-lokanaḿ vinā bibharmi yat prāṇa-patańgakān vṛthā TRANSLATION Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu continued, "'My dear friends, I have not the slightest tinge of love of Godhead within My heart. When you see Me crying in separation, I am just falsely exhibiting a demonstration of My great fortune. Indeed, not seeing the beautiful face of Kṛṣṇa playing His flute, I continue to live My life like an insect, without purpose.' Kabe Habe Bolo (When, O When, Will That Day Be Mine?) by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura (1) kabe ha'be bolo se-dina amar (amar) aparadha ghuci, suddha name ruci, krpa-bale habe hrdoye sañcar When, O when, will that day be mine? When will you give me your blessings, erase all my offences and give my heart a taste [ruci] for chanting the Holy Name in purity? (2) trnadhika hina, kabe nije mani', sahisnuta-guna hrodyete ani' sakale manada, apani amani, hoye aswadibo nama-rasa-sar When will I taste the essence of the Holy Name, feeling myself to be lower than the grass, my heart filled with tolerance? When will I give respect to all others and be free from desire for respect from them? (3) dhana jana ara, kobita-sundari, bolibo na-cahi deha-sukha-kari janme-janme dao, ohe gaurahari! ahaituki bhakti carane tomar When will I cry out that I have no longer any desire for wealth andfollowers, poetry and beautiful women, all of which are meant just for bodily pleasure? O Gaura Hari! Give me causeless devotional service [bhakti] to your lotus feet, birth after birth. (4) (kobe) korite sri-krsna-name uccarana pulakita deho gadgada bacana baibarnya-bepathu ha'be sanghatana, nirantara netre ba'be asru-dhar When will my body be covered with goose bumps and my voice broken with emotion as I pronounce Krishna's name? When will my body change colour and my eyes flow with endless tears as I chant? (5) kobe nabadwipe, suradhuni-tate gaura-nityananda boli' niskapate naciya gaiya, beraibo chute batulera praya chariya bicar When will I give up all thought of the world and society to run like a madman along the banks of the Ganges in Navadvipa, singing and danvcing and sincerely calling out the names of Gaura and Nityananda? (6) kobe nityananda, more kori' doya, charaibe mora visayera maya diya more nija-caranera chaya, namera hatete dibe adhikar When will Nityananda Prabhu be merciful to me and deliver me from the enchantment [maya] of the sense objects? When will he give me the shade of his lotus feet and the right to enter the market place [hama-hatta] of the Holy Name? (7) kinibo, lutibo, hari-nama-rasa, nama-rase mati' hoibo vivasa rasera rasika-carana parasa koriya mojibo rase anibar When will I buy, borrow or steal the ecstasies of the Holy Name? When will I lose myself in the intoxication of the Holy Name? When will I immerse myself in the nectar of the Holy Name after grasping the feet of a saint who constantly relishes the flavours [rasa] of devotion? (8) kabe jibe doya, hoibe udoya, nija-sukha bhuli' sudina-hrdoya bhaktivinoda, koriya binoya, sri-ajña-tahala koribe pracar <big>When will I feel compassion for all living beings [jivas]? When will I forget my own pleasure in genuine humility? And when will I, Bhaktivinode, meekly go from door to door, preaching your message of love? </big>

You write that you are not interested in debate while you are certainly debating. But while debating you generally do not quote or allude to authorities to substantiate your points and you do not even try to make sure that your arguments are logical. Don't counter with Krsna Consciousness is beyond logic and reason because the siddhanta although full of paradoxes is always presented in the most logical manner so that the minds of the aspiring practitioners can at least grasp a semblance of it's reality. But this argument has it's limitations, for instance if the guru says that Krsna is an imaginary figure then he is not guru for he has deviated from sastra and sadhu. You are misapplying concepts given by Srila Sridhar Maharaj to Prabhupada disciples who had read his books through, several times. What is discussed in the graduate seminar is not meant for those in the introductory classes, otherwise it leads to confusion. You have become the classic example. Go back and read Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya Caritamrta and I suggest Jaiva Dharma also. The classes at SCSSeva Asrama do not seem to be helping you for several of the leading speakers tend to discuss topics is a manner which is far over the head of the listeners.

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 2.45 na prema-gandho 'sti darāpi me harau krandāmi saubhāgya-bharaḿ prakāśitum vaḿśī-vilāsy-ānana-lokanaḿ vinā bibharmi yat prāṇa-patańgakān vṛthā SYNONYMS na — never; prema-gandhaḥ — a scent of love of Godhead; asti — there is; darā api — even in a slight proportion; me — My; harau — in the Supreme Personality of Godhead; krandāmi — I cry; saubhāgya-bharam — the volume of My fortune; prakāśitum — to exhibit; vaḿśī-vilāsi — of the great flute-player; ānana — at the face; lokanam — looking; vinā — without; bibharmi — I carry; yat — because; prāṇa-patańgakān — My insectlike life; vṛthā — with no purpose. TRANSLATION Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu continued, "'My dear friends, I have not the slightest tinge of love of Godhead within My heart. When you see Me crying in separation, I am just falsely exhibiting a demonstration of My great fortune. Indeed, not seeing the beautiful face of Kṛṣṇa playing His flute, I continue to live My life like an insect, without purpose.' [url="http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/2/46/en"]

How did you "discover" Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu?