Kripamoya

I watched that little video link of siddha I found on the forum the other day. Personally, I didn't find much charisma in siddha. He was just talking about drug abuse, though he seemed to avoid lumping marijuana into the category with cocaine and alchohol. As far a being potent, charismatic person, I don't see what all the hype is about siddha. I am not saying that he is not a broad-minded and spiritual person. I just didn't personally feel any magnetisim or feel the charisma.

Outside the L.A. temple in 1975 I was approached by Jadurani also. She asked me if I could come to her studio and pose for a painting. I was quite shy, but I was willing to do it. My senior godbrother advised me against that. So, I missed the chance to be one of the Yamadutas in the famous picture of Ajamila.

I just wanted to add to that, that nowhere in the history of the Sankirtan movement has the grassroots principle been more successful and splendid as it was in South India, according to the Caitanya Caritamrita of Kaviraja Goswami. Maybe that movement in south India eventually dwindled down to very little, but in the time of Mahaprabhu it was said to have flourished more than anywhere in India. We hear of no accounts of the Sankirtan movement in South India as having any orthodox structure as we know it since the time of the Six Goswamis. Imagine the Sankirtan movement in it's most glorious form. Imagine that there was no orthodox smriti dogma to weigh it down. What a funny coincidence..... Was it really a coincidence?

No doubt. Yet, ISKCON devotees are really living in a bubble. They live like "bubble-boy" who got stuck in a time warp and lost his grasp on "the real world". ISKCON has ceased to be a movement and has become a private club controlled by a cult. The Krishna consciousness movement is "off the chain" when it comes to being the monopoly of ISKCON. Mahaprabhu's spiritual movement can never be contained or bottled-up in any institutional bubble. Sri Krishna Sankirtanam is a grassroots movement - not a religious corperation.

In fact, you could completely peal away and strip the Hindu garb and customs from Krishna consciousness and still have Krishna consciousness. I think in many ways that has already happened to some degree.

Just like we sometimes refer to Christianity as "Churchianity". In the same way, sometimes devotees get all enamored with ritual, scholarship and ornamental conceptions. It will also impede the Krishna consciousness movement if devotees try to turn Mahaprabhu's Sankirtan movement into Smritianity.

Exactly. ISKCON had it's own "orthodoxy" and formal rituality. It was not the same as "traditional" or orthodox rituals, but there was ritual and vidhi nonetheless. When that form of orthodoxy and ritual that Srila Prabhupada established gets lost or ruined, then all bets are off and many devotees will just reject ritual altogether rather than accept the smriti version of Krishna consciousness. Ritual is an ornament. It is not the living form of Bhakti.

the best image if Krishna is the image you will envision in your heart when you hear authoritative descriptions of Krishna from his pure devotees. All these pictures are like cartoons compared to the actual vision of Lord Krishna. Try to imagine that he appears to have been carved out of a dark-blue sapphire gem and that he has long dark curling hair with eyes more beautiful than lotus flowers. can somebody else describe some of the beautiful bodily features of Krishna?

Yes, but Mahaprabhu himself did not practice this orthodoxy in South India which is where he was said to have manifested his greatest shakti. All the acharyas and all the Goswamis were living in India and under the same social pressure that caused hari-bhakti-vilas to promote smrti in the name of Vaishnavism. I wouldn't expect any acharya or Goswami in India to blatantly reject smriti and turn Gaudiyas into the laughing stock of the smarta domimated Hindu society. The hari-bhakti-vilas just became chronic in it's standard, though the same idea had been around for as long as there were acharyas trying to present bhagavat-dharma in a country where religion means smriti. That was the mission of the Goswamis - to give Gaudiya Vaishnavism an orthodox structure to make it more appealing and satisfying to the smriti based Hindu society. Back in them days, preaching in India was it. It was everything. thus, smriti dogma became an accepted evil amongst the Gaudiya acharyas. They gave the Gaudiya cult a smriti face, to make it respectable in the higher rungs of Hindu society. Here in the USA, that smriti face is more or less an obstacle and needs to be reduced down to a minimum.

Raga said: Yes, but for the followers of Srila Prabhupada, he differs somewhat from the orthodox standards as he said: He also states in Caitanya Caritamrita: So, Srila Prabhupada has not fully supported the orthodox standard that is delineated in hari-bhakti-vilas. It is our view that much of the orthodoxy of the Gaudiya tradition was influenced by the pressure to avoid criticism and assault by the smarta dominated Hindu society. As Srila Prabhupada said about hari-bhakti-vilasa: Thus he said: So, many of us Americans, Europeans and Australian etc. prefer to elimate as much formality and orthodoxy as possible and just reach for the essence. I know this does not set well with orthodox followers. It goes against everything they stand for. We don't expect you to agree or see eye to eye. Nevertheless, this is what we believe is the essence of Mahaprabhu's Sankirtan movement. We don't really believe in orthodoxy and the smarta-influenced Vaidic version of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. We don't really accept the Vaidic brahmana version of the Sankirtan movement, as the Sankirtan movement is based upon bhagavat-dharma and a bhagavat-parampara. The orthodox Gaudiyas are a product of this effort of the Goswamis to keep the Gaudiya's above the scorn and ridcule of the smarta-community and their attachment to the Vedic rituals. As ISKCON was also spreading in India, it is not surprising that you can also find some references in the books of Srila Prabhupada that support this orthodox standard. However, for Europe and America he said there was a shortcut and no need for all this smarta-vidhi. Chant Hare Krishna and Be Happy!

Personally, I would think that Bharati had no influence on Srila Prabhupada. I doubt if Srila Prabhupada ever read anything he wrote. The moment Srila Prabhupada heard about this Jagabandhu incarnation he would have rejected the whole bunch wholesale. so, in reply to the title of this topic I would have to suspect that bharati had no influence at all on Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada came to America to preach in pursuance of the instructions of his spiritual master. It had nothing to do with being inspired by Bharati. It is told that Bharati "followed the Krishna consciousness movement". so, if that is the case, then the term and the movement existed even before his coming to the west.

Srila Prabhupada wrote: so, that includes Narayana Maharaja and all other learned Vaishnavas. ISKCON does not fear or hate other Indians who come to the west to preach. But, if they come out and start claiming to be the next acharya of ISKCON, then that will not accomplish anything and simply create friction with those that are trying to keep ISKCON afloat, despite all odds and shortcomings.

Myrla, It's not a mystery that Narayana Maharaja did not understand Srila Prabhupada, though he has talked many times as if he did. The shastra says that NOBODY can understand the mind of great devotees who are of great spiritual genius. That includes Narayana Maharaja presuming to understand Srila Prabhupada, when in fact he was very much disconnected with Srila Prabhupada's mission during it's entire time. Narayana Maharaja is a great Vaishnava of his own tattva. His presuming to have understood Srila Prabhupada was probably a mistake. Many followers and admirers of Srila Prabhupada have come accross plenty of criticism of Srila Prabhupada and the entire Saraswata parivar, yet they continue undaunted in their faith. You have to become callous to all these things if you want to be a part of the internet community and all the topics, issues and discussions that take place. Narayana Maharaja is not a carbon copy of Srila Prabhupada. He doesn't have to be. Neither do all the followers of Srila Prabhupada have to find a lot of love and appreciation for Narayana Maharaja. Narayana Maharaja has spoken very harshly about many followers of Srila Prabhupada who fell away and could not keep up the Vaishnava principles. Surely, he shouldn't expect then to have a whole lot of appreciation from them. He is generally very critical of all the devotees who have not accepted him as siksha guru in the absence of Srila Prabhupada. Surely, he can't expect a whole lot of love and affection from them. Many devotees found Sridhar Maharaja to be an ocean of mercy and kindness in the absence of Srila Prabhupada. They did not find the scathing criticism from him that they hear from Narayana Maharaja. Narayana Maharaja is a severe critic. There is room for everybody in this world. But, many devotee want their icons to be oceans of kindness and mercy. It doesn't take but a couple of severe insults like: to really hurt a lot of devotess and earn yourself a reputation as a cruel and critical person. Because, many devotees fell down simply out of weakness of heart as Srila Prabhupada described in his teachings. It does not have to be offense. If you find faith in Narayana Maharaja then that is your right. That doesn't mean that a lot of other devotees aren't going to have plenty of differences with him. Have you ever read the books of Sridhar Maharaja?

India has hundreds if not thousands of bogus incarnations in it's history.