Murali_Mohan_das

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.

It's from their own endeavors, is it? It has nothing to do with Sri Guru and his Grace?

Sorry to be challenging, when you are being concilliatory. Surely, I am a wicked, evil-hearted demon.

I was there Sunday night begging forgiveness from Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga Gandharvika Giridhari-jiu.

I noticed that you (and your kids) were *not* up at the Ashram (unless you were cutting vegetables in the kitchen the whole time and I missed you).

Surely, you had something better to do. Some pressing service, perhaps?

Do you still cook for Their Lordships once a week? Truly, that is admirable.

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.

I was there Sunday night begging forgiveness from Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga Gandharvika Giridhari-jiu.

Regardless of whether you feel the leadership of Sri Chaitanya Saraswata Math and its affiliated centers are preaching at a level appropriate for the attendees of their programs, it is a fact that those leaders are inspiring many souls disaffected with material life to engage in practical service and sadhana bhakti.

So, does this all mean that we ought not to worry about who is a sahajiya (besides ourselves) and what they believe and why they believe it?

Sripad Janardana Maharaja describes the period preceding Sri Gaura Purnima as it is celebrated at Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math in Nabadwip, India, including Nabadwip Dhama Parikrama.

Due to the author's error, this video is presented in two parts.

Part 1 -

Embedded:

<embed style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3916571373232826013&hl=en" flashvars="">

Link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3916571373232826013&hl=en

Part 2 -

Embedded:

<embed style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3427939224068357277&hl=en" flashvars="">

Link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3427939224068357277&hl=en

Very beautiful!!

Out of curiosity, krsna, is the first post in this thread your writing, or was it copied from elsewhere? In any case, it's very moving.

I just enabled downloading of the track, which I had forgotten to do earlier this morning.

There ought to be a link to download an mp3 here.

I hope I didn't murder the song too badly, Mahaksa-ji.

I added a couple of chords to the chorus (a major and a 9th (I think, maybe it's an 11th))--hopefully, that doesn't make it too "jazzy".

When I get some time, I might go back and clean it up a little (especially the lead guitar) and mix it a bit more carefully.

Let me know what you think. Was it anything like what you had in mind? Did you record an original version on the 4-track?

My cover of "Fury of Puri" by Mahaksa Dasa (finished (for the time-being) just now):

<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style=" background-color: #FFFFFF ;border-color: #cccccc; color:#000 ; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:11px; padding:0px; border-width:1px; border-style:solid"><tr><td align="center"><embed quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" width="372" height="169" src="http://res0.esnips.com/escentral/images/widgets/flash/player_dj.swf" flashvars="autoPlay=no&theFile=http://www.esnips.com//nsdoc/2092ee3d-f9e4-4046-b511-50dc514b6dbe&theName=Maitreya (covering Mahaksa Dasa) - Fury of Puri&thePlayerURL=http://res0.esnips.com/escentral/images/widgets/flash/mp3WidgetPlayer.swf"></embed></td></tr><tr><td style="font-size:11px" valign="bottom" align="center"><a style="color: #000" href="http://www.esnips.com/doc/2092ee3d-f9e4-4046-b511-50dc514b6dbe/Maitreya-(covering-Mahaksa-Dasa)---Fury-of-Puri/?widget=flash_player_dj_comm">Maitreya (covering...</a></td></tr></table>

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.

Since you know better than they do, why not start the Beggar Sampradaya?

The whole point of the statement regarding Sri Nityananda (which was inexplicably deleted in its most recent incarnation on this thread) is that external appearances are simply external appearances. What appears to be sense-enjoyment to us might, in reality, be preaching. It's not for us to say.

This is getting tedious ("If you can't beat 'em with brains...")

I don't apologize for expressing that Sri Guru is above all social standards (even if he demonstrates a perfect example of following rules and regulations), but I apologize to you for having expressed that idea in such a distasteful manner.

Yes!!!!!

Are you willing to do that, Murali prabhu?

I would feel it to be imprudent to raise the issue with him myself. If he's meant to hear of this and if he's meant to provide correction to me (which I must certainly welcome, should it come), then so be it.

Meanwhile, let me thank you for so generously deigning to correct me yourself. I wish I were capable of accepting your generosity.

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.

Once again, you are trying to ascribe thoughts to me which I am not having.

I'm saying, when Sri Guru is pleased, the Supreme Lord is pleased. Sri Guru's mood, as always, remains one of unalloyed devotion and service. Sri Guru does not see himself as the enjoyer. Sri Guru sees everything as being for Sri Krishna's enjoyment.

The fact that you and I may be envious and incapable of offering to the Lord everything that comes to us doesn't mean that Sri Guru is incapable of doing so.

Whether preached to Vaishnavas or to Christians, the idea that Jesus is a Vaishnava still remains a lie.

Making such categorical statements is the sign of a bigot.

I have never claimed to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava. I try (often without success) to *follow* a Vaishnava.

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.

I use logic and reason when they suit me. At no point, I hope, do I mistake logic and reason for truth, though.

What is illogical about saying it is not for you or me to judge the acharya?

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.

Is not that exactly what Lord Buddha did? Is *He* not guru?

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.

*You* say I am misaspplying concepts. On what do you base this assumption, your own limitless realization?

Take your own advice.

Where exactly in sastra...

To a fool like me, the scriptures are but pieces of paper with confusing words on them.

Gurudev says to be humble, tolerant, and to give *honor* to others--even those who offend us. Never have I heard Srila Gurudev call someone a Sahajiya, though he certainly warns us to be wary of sahajiya tendencies in our own hearts.

I'll try to take your advice to heart. At this point, though, I retract nothing.

While Srila Gurudev exhibits an example in line with the Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas, and no one questions his upright character, if Sri Guru tells me a rope is a snake, it's a snake, and if he tells me a snake is a rope, it's a rope.

Sri Guru is the authority. We look to shastra to support what Sri Guru says, but ultimately, Sri Guru is the authority--a *greater* authority than the previously-revealed scriptures. Sri Guru is the living scripture.

Certainly, I'm a nonsensical fool, but I know this much beyond any doubt.

This is really nonsense. Beggar is quite correct to call you to the mat Murali. Acharya teaches by example. His/her words are in complete concert with his/her actions. Beyond that, it is an axiomatic truth that actions speak louder than words.

 

Where exactly in sastra or in the words of sadhus (in the lineage of Bhaktivinoda Thakur) or the words of Acharyas in our lineage do you find backing for your absurd hypothetical idea? It is not that anything and everything goes. Krsna himself says in the B.G. that whatever a great man does, common men follow. You have absolutely zero backing for your offensive hypothetical and you should think deeply about it and retract it if you have any good sense at all.

You can't even debate Gaudiya Vaishnava issues on an honest level. When you trip yourself up with contradictions and they are pointed out to you, hopefully for further clarification, (or *gasp*, an admission that you may actually be wrong?), you launch an attack on a personal level, even calling people "intellectual jackasses."

If you think I'm interested in debate, then you are sorely mistaken. I'm interested in sadhu-sanga, part of which is *revealing one's mind* to the sadhus.

If you think I'm interested in avoiding contradiction, then you are still sorely mistaken. Life is fraught with contradiction. I embrace contradiction.

I have no face to save. I'll happily admit when I'm wrong, but I won't accept words being put into my mouth as Beggar has been trying to do.

As for my posts being deleted, I trust the judgement of the moderators. It's interesting to note which posts of mine have *not* been deleted. It seems that discussing hypothetical scenarios regarding the previous acharyas is not forbidden, as distasteful as you or others might find some discussions.

Feel free to blow as much hot air as you like in my direction. Perhaps if you let off some steam you'll see things more clearly.

Who's harrassing who here? You can't even debate Gaudiya Vaishnava issues on an honest level. When you trip yourself up with contradictions and they are pointed out to you, hopefully for further clarification, (or *gasp*, an admission that you may actually be wrong?), you launch an attack on a personal level, even calling people "intellectual jackasses." Some of your posts have to be deleted as a result, and the ones that remain simply make you look... well, rather thoughtless, to put it kindly. You're just mincing words here in the hopes of winning an argument, not actually offering anything of substance. King of the sandbox mentality, placing higher importance on saving face (false ego) than presenting the correct siddhanta.

 

Technically Buddhists are atheists

 

 

And they are honest with themselves and others.

Many who call themselves "Vaishnava" or "Christian" have little or no faith and are, in effect, atheists.

Who's better?

Even the Gauranga Nagaris do not think of Mahaprabhu, who is Krsna Himself, as the Enjoyer in his sannyasa lila. They only allow themselves to see Him as the Supreme Enjoyer is his form of Nimai Pandit in Navadvipa. In His sannyasa lila Mahaprabhu did not even want to see the form of a woman.

Then *you* focus on Mahaprabhu and stop staring at the young ladies.

Who's the one wracked by guilt here? Is it me or is it you?

The Supreme Lord can enjoy with whomever He pleases at whatever moment He chooses.

<center>grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah

vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah

</center>

"One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava. (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana)

Since Shvu threw down the gauntlet, let me take it up.

Who here is qualified to say definitively, that the Christian is *not* worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna, *regardless* of the name by which they address the "Lord" (I understand that some in India, even, pronounce "Krishna" as "Kishan")?

Who here is qualified to say that the Lord's Prayer is not a translation (literal or otherwise) of the Vaishnava mantra?

Who here is qualified to judge the sincerity of the sincere Christian?

It is a hard lump to swallow for many of us with Judeo-Christian backgrounds - but the fact is that Christianity is not a transcendental religion.

Sorry, oh self-proclaimed defender of the faith, but I stop reading after this sentence. The rest must be drivel when it is forwarded by this nonsense.

*NO* religion, even so-called "Gaudiya Vaishnavism" is transcendental.

The Lord unequivocably says, "Abandon *all* varieties of religion and surrender unto Me". "All" means "all".

You can call yourself whatever you like. You remain a bigoted partisan (at least in appearance).

Oh no, not with the "mayavardi" again.

Vigraha, your response to the verse is quite humorous. I hope you can see why.

Your consciousness must be almost covered if you see Christ katha as being "inauspicious".