Murali_Mohan_das

Delightful exposition!! As you and Srila Sridhar Maharaja say, we are more with evolution of consciousness than with evolution of the species. However, taking what you said one step further (into the realm of my speculations)... I've often wondered if "showing off" is a strong evolutionary factor. Rather than seeing creation as a desperate struggle for survival among adversaries, why not consider that each minute jiva soul is yelling "Look what *I* can do!!" as they do back-flips in glee! Of course, maybe I've just run past the skate park one too many times

OK, Lowborn Prabhu. You just triggered an acid flashback!! Very good discussion. Loved the article Vikram-ji. I'd mention one point of disagreement--the fact that the existence of God lies outside the purview of science doesn't mean that it lies exclusively in the realm of faith. Many beings have had *direct experiences* of the God-nature. This certainly is not the exact same thing as "faith". I can accept evolution without dismissing the Vedic cosmology as "myths". They both have their validity within their respective frames of reference. Also, notice the scientist's use of the word "useful" when talking about the theory of evolution. Regardless of whether it's true or not, the theory is found *useful* by scientists. Isn't this in the same vein as "accepting the favorable" and "rejecting the unfavorable"? It is not that what we reject is not Krishna (everything is Krishna). It is that we reject things that are not *useful* to us in our devotional life.

So, you take the 25%/75% numbers literally, eh? I like to imagine the numbers are more like .00000000000001% come to the Material World and the rest go straight Home. But, hey, call me a rosy optimist!!

'Can you say "inconceivable", children? I knew you could!' --Mr. Rogers

Megaditto's Guruvani!! I want to be swept up in the personality cult of Gurudev, Mahaprabhu, and Sri Sri Radha-Krishna!!! Heck, on the mundane platform, I'm pretty carried away by the personality cult of Hugo Chavez.

In another discussion on this forum, someone made mention of a need to "slam Maya". This adversarial attitude is familiar from my childhood in and around ISKCON, and, I'm afraid, is a misinterpretation of the mood of Srila AC Bhaktivendanta Swami Prabhupada. The problem with "slamming" Maya (and all the incumbent sexual overtones) is: when you "slam" Her, She tends to slam you back with just as much force. Really, what is the Vaishnava mood regarding Maya Devi? Gurudev has expressed an almost reverential mood towards Maya Devi. We are to give her all respect due to the Energy of the Supreme Lord. Think of the phrase "sleeping in the lap of the witch Maya". Yes, She is being called a "witch", but what is *our* position? We are sleeping contendedly IN HER LAP!! That does not sound like an adversarial mood! She is nurturing us in her own "deceptive" way! So, really, there is no need to "slam" Maya (well, there may be a need, but it is a material one). The only need is to embrace Krishna. Seeing our sincerity and our hankering for her Lord, Maya Devi happily lifts us to our feet and sends us on our way. Isn't it????

How about servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant? What an insult, eh?

In the interest of giving credit where credit is due, I believe the below passage has been modified from an essay by Mark Twain. Of course, in the adaptation lies the adaptor's brilliance!!

Muralidhar Prabhu. Thanks for clarifying something for me. In Prapanna Jivanamritam, I saw that quote attributed to "Jagannatha" and wondered just which Jagannatha was being quoted. That's amazing about JDB chanting only the pancha-tattva mantra. In a rare moment of (relative) humility, I recently mused that, whereas I have seen chanting pancha tattva as a chore to get through before chanting mahamantra, really, I ought to chant that mantra exclusively for lifetimes in hopes of eventually chanting Hare Krishna Mahamantra without offense. I see there is some precedent!!

No, actually it's a not a matter of IQ, it's a question of understanding what science and empiricism are. By the definition of science and empiricism it's impossible to prove that God exists in the same way it is impossible to determine with 100% certainty that humans are behind the currently observed global warming trend. In the IPCC reports, language like "high confidence" is used when making pronouncements. Elsewhere in the documents, "high confidence" is defined to be 80% certainty or something like that--which, in itself, is just an estimate. A good scientist knows he or she can state nothing with certainty, merely express a degree of confidence in his/her assertions. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's just the way it is. If you can't accept that, it doesn't mean you have a higher IQ than we do, it just means you are stubbornly ignorant in this regard. I'm not saying to abandon logic and reason. St Augustine was very fond of logic and reason, and used them to take him as far as they would take him. At a certain point, he found it necessary to take a leap of faith.

The story of Madhavendra Puri sure sounds like a test doesn't it? I call it "play" (yes, I read the translation). The Lord certainly *does* like to play doesn't He? Does the Lord ever doubt the devotion of Madhavendra Puri? When we talk about testing in the sense of the Biblical Book of Job, then we're really talking about Maya Devi, aren't we? Sure, Maya Devi is a potency of the Lord, but it is *her* job to "test" us, so to speak, isn't it? Of course, it is also said that, to the degree we embrace Maya, she embraces us. Not that she has us helpless in her clutches (though it certainly feels that way sometime, doesn't it?). Rather, we are clinging desperately to her and she is holding us just as tightly to her ample bosom. We create these "tests" for ourselves where Maya Devi is concerned. Where the Sweet Lord is concerned, all is play, even the "tests".

We can't even see within ourselves without Krsna giving us vision, let alone being able to see through the samskaras of others. From my own experience, I know what a tremendous capacity for self-deception I possess. How many times I have I justified nonsense behavior on my part in the name of "distribution" (I prefer to do my preaching in bed )? Without Gurudev (chaitya or otherwise) opening our darkened eyes with the torchlight of transcendental knowledge, what can we see? Sure, there are many symptoms of devotion which are clearly lain out. However, symptoms can be very easily faked by a skilled actor (and we've been studying our current roles for how many lifetimes?). As to saying the KC is not based on faith (which was not you, theist), I can only respond with a loud guffaw. Whatever you say about the scientific nature of Bhakti Yoga, without faith, it is merely a system of gymnastics like any other. Do I really need to pull dozens of quotes out to illustrate?

What I'm trying to say below is: if something I say or do pleases you or any other Vaishnava, then I am certain that the Lord is pleased. Conversely, if I say something to offend you or the other Vaishnavas, then I fear My Lord is not pleased with me.

Thank you for that answer, theist. It is a perfectly good answer and I place it upon my head. I must admit, though, that the question was a loaded/baited one. Despite honestly wanting to see what you or others would say (and not wanting to initially color the discussion), I had something in mind. In these regards, I have heard it said that, if Gurudev is pleased, Krsna is pleased. Of course, in order to have this sort of feedback (and be more sure it is not just our minds tricking us), we would need to have some sort of relationship with a fully-surrendered, qualified guru. Of course, even then, should I run to Gurudev each time I leave the lavatory and ask if he is pleased with the fruits of my actions? Despite his infinite mercy and patience, doing so would not likely bring him satisfaction, would it? Still, by seeing the reaction of the Vaishnava to our words/deeds, we can have some sense of whether the Lord Himself is pleased, can we not? In any case, your initial post was a wonderful start of what could be an enlivening discussion. Let's hope it is not tainted any further by acrimony!

Very nice, theist! This raises the question: how do we know if Krsna is pleased by (and accepts) our attempts to serve? Or is it not possible to know, and therefore impossible to guage our own success?

Thank you, GuestWestern, for highlighting the humble mood of Gurudev! Considering the mood of devotion you display for Gurudev Srila Prabhupad, can you really blame my Godbrothers, Guruvani-ji, if they were to say (which they don't as far as I know) that Govinda Maharaj is the second coming of the Christ, can walk on water and heal the lame (I know *I'm* pretty lame and I'm feeling more healed from day to day)? Isn't it the mood of the disciple to see Gurudev as the all-in-all, the storehouse of all scriptural wisdom, the friend of the fallen? If they are "psycophants", then aren't you as well?

To be clear, it's Harvard School, an exclusive college prep school in L.A., and not Harvard College. http://www.hw.com/ I never tried to define ISKCON Gurukulas as an unmitigated success. I merely hoped to counter the assertion that they were an utter failure. Obviously, not all of us felt like we were let down. I really can't speak for the current state of ISCKON gurukulas. I believe there is still some sort of day school in L.A. No doubt there still *are* Gurukulas somewhere (if only in India). However, I *would* be willing to say, the main reason for the (presumed) lack of vitality today would be lack of demand. If there are no householders in the immediate temple community, what need is there for a school? It's not a failure of the Gurukula system as much as a general failure to maintain strong, close-knit communities. At the height of the L.A. Gurukula, there must have been over 100 children in a number of different ashramas--you should have seen the faces of the "karmi" parents when the vans pulled up at Lindbergh Park (in a few minutes, we usually had the park to ourselves)!! My own ashram teacher, Traidish (sp?) Prabhu was as (maybe even more) affectionate and patient with us as our own parents. One could argue that the Gurukula success stories are isolated anecdotes and not indicative of the overall health of the system. Conversely, I would argue that the instances of abuse were mostly isolated. Perhaps in Dallas and Mayapur (or was it Vrindavan) Gurukulas, abuse was more systemic/endemic, but those two (or three) schools certainly did not comprise the majority of the historical ISKCON Gurukulas. No doubt abuse happened at New Vrindavan, but so did a lot of good things as well. The seemingly endless tales of abuse have certainly clouded the historical perception of the Gurukulas. Hopefully, others will step forward to challenge the prevailing notion with some personal experiences. All true things you say, and beyond the scope of my reach. From my personal perspective, Gurukula was a success. I know whom I have to thank. I have no one to condemn.

No apologies necessary Prabhu! I really can't say, though, if Gurukula prepared BR or myself better materially than spiritually. To my knowledge, there aren't any standardized tests to guage spiritual advancement (despite the existence of tests to guage reading retention). I am what I am. As for BR, when I see him from time to time, I am struck by his sincerity. If you asked him, he would not claim to be a devotee. He is in no way pretentious (unlike me). Still, I cannot help but see him as a Vaishnava due to his sincerity and exposure to saintly persons in his childhood. Honestly, isn't his position as secure or more secure than somebody (anybody) on this forum offending the Vaishnavas in the name of Bhakti?

I never said you did. I called it that. Certainly, it *is* his spiritual will and testament, is it not? Clear enough! If I wanted to discuss his legal will and testament, no doubt I would have done so on a forum named "Legal Discussions" and not one called "Spiritual Discussions" wouldn't I? For those who have some love for him, Gurudev is the sweetest, most humble personality they have had the fortune of meeting. In all he does, he *is* a transparent medium for the conception of his Gurudev. His chastity to his Gurudev is never in question. Don't think anybody said it was. However, I've heard the term "acharya abhiman" used to describe the confidence of the Guru. Sometimes Gurudev will say something that might sound like pride if it was coming from somebody without his sincerity (for example, "Ask me any question. I can answer...not that I have qualification, but that I have heard from my Gurudev"--I'm paraphrasing something I've heard from his lips). That is understood to be acharya abhiman. So, while Srila Sridhar Maharaj was before our eyes, Gurudev maintained a certain mood (I won't even try to characterize it--especially since I had no experience of Gurudev from this period of time). Now that Srila Sridhar Maharaj is no longer manifest, perhaps the mood is different, but the difference is external--for the sake of audarya/distribution of mercy. To anyone with the eyes to see (and even to one as blind as I am), it is obvious that Gurudeva's legendary surrender to Srila Sridhar Maharaj is as complete now as it was at age 17. Agreed! Agreed!! Beyond obeying his Gurudev fully, I am certain Srila Govinda Maharaj continues to *delight* him (and Srila Swami Maharaja Prabhupada) as only he can. Thank you Gauravani Prabhu for giving me this opportunity to try to praise Gurudev. Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Dev-Goswami Maharaj ki Jai!!!!!

Wow!! So it's time to split hairs, eh? I defer to your greater knowledge about Harvard-Westlake. If memory serves, BR did not graduate from Harvard School (or Harvard-Westlake, or...) since the funds to send him there stopped after a period (perhaps when Ramesvar Mj left?). The point of raising this example was to illustrate that Gurukukla provided an adequate education as measured by conventional standards for those with some eagerness to learn. If BR could gain admission to Harvard School, it's a safe assumption that he was adequately prepared by his Gurukula education. Whether he graduated is immaterial (in fact, he went on to graduate from a law school and is a member of the California Bar). Considering his family name is "Smith", yeah, I'm sure the name would have jumped out at you, Prabhu Surely, there couldn't have been many Smiths at the school! As for him not showing up to school every day in dhoti and kurta playing a mridanga and singing "Jiv Jago"--he isn't Prahlad Maharaj (who couldn't very well get expelled from Demon High, now could he, considering who his Dad was?). I read recently that the devotee, out in the world, will often conceal his devotional mood to facilitate performance of his mundane duties. BR was there to get an education (presumably to facilitate future preaching activities). Dandavat pranamas at your very well-educated feet!!

I have no idea what you're talking about with the two different documents. I was referring to the document you posted as Maharaja's "Will and Testament". Now that that is hopefully clear, can you address my actual questions? To reiterate--how do you come to the conclusion that, by placing his full faith and blessing in Gurudev, and empowering him to initiate disciples of himself (Srila Sridhar Maharaj) via ritvik, there was any implication that, contrary to established custom, Srila Govinda Maharaja was to remain eternally in the formal position of ritvik (after all, he *is* eternally empowered to connect the sincere seeker with the lotus feet of his own Master) and not assume the full splendor of Acharya after his Gurudeva's departure?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't guage the success of anything (except maybe propaganda) based on polls. What you say may have some truth from a particular perspective, but it's not a perspective I care to adopt. I really don't know anything about "widespread abuse" or what most Gurukulis would say. I know my own experiences and have a fair sense of the mood of the Gurukulis I know personally. If I had attended an elite East Coast prep school like Choate or Andover, no doubt I could have found instances of abuse, but would you take those instances as proof that the whole prep school system is a "failure" (from the material perspective--of course they are failures from a particular spiritual perspective)? Yet again, mundane sustainability is not a consideration for me with regards to success. If Srila Prabhupada's journey to the West had led to his discovery of only *one* pure devotee before the movement (apparently) collapsed--that would have been more than enough. For that matter, was the eventual collapse of the Gaudiya Math a sign of the failure of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati? I think not!!

Sent an e-mail, but, since I don't guard my identity on this forum (I've mentioned my family name a couple of times as well as my father's full legal name), I'll respond generally. I only spent one month at BV. If memory serves correctly, I was in Madhusudana Prabhu's Ashram. You see, I was (and still am) very attached to my parents. The first time they tried to send me to BV, I got on my bike half an hour before the van was scheduled to leave and went bike riding for an hour and a half. So, my parents made me a deal: go to BV for a month and check it out. If you're not happy, come back home after the month. I agreed. It was a good month. At first, I jumped out of bed in the morning before the other kids and performed my morning ablutions. Then we'd walk under the most star-filled skies I've ever seen to a lovely Mangala Arati. My academic teacher (who's name escapes me at this moment) was a kind, intelligent devotee (with a British accent, perhaps?). Really, it was an idyllic month with, in addition to sadhana, swimming in the lakes and playing soccer in the association of the devotees. As the month wore on, though, my initial enthusiasm faded and I dragged myself out of bed just like the other children. I missed my parents and went back to L.A. After that, I attended the day school at New Dwaraka being expertly nurtured by Mohana devi dasi. My point is, Gurukula was certainly not all bad--in fact, for many of us, it was very, very good. Really, though, can anybody point out a formal system of education that has had no problems with abuse of authority?

When you read the Will and Testament of Srila Sridhar Maharaj, the meaning seems abundantly clear to you. When I read the same words, another meaning is abundantly clear to me. Why mention ritvik at all? Because so many captivated souls were coming to seek shelter of Param-Gurudev Srila Sridhar Maharaj and he wanted them to not feel cheated. He wanted to assure them that, by taking shelter of the lotus feet of Srila Govinda Maharaj, they were getting his full conception in its pure state. Why would you assume that, contrary to established tradition, Srila Sridhar Maharaj intended Gurudeva's position as Ritvik to extend past Srila Sridhar Maharaja's manifest pastimes? I have some Godbrothers and Godsisters who, due to a strong attachment for him, took hari-nama and diksha initiation from Sripad B. A. Sagar Maharaj (who is mentioned by Srila Sridhar Maharaj as an authorized ritvik of himself). They took initiation from *him* (certainly cognizant of the trust and faith placed in him by his siksa Guru) as Guru, not as ritvik, despite the presence of Srila Govinda Maharaja. No scandal. No difficulty. When circumstances changed and Sripad Sagar Maharaj left sannyas ashram, he lovingly guided his disciples to the feet of Srila Govinda Maharaj. This was all done with the utmost sweetness and no fuss. Nobody lost any faith in anybody or anything (as far as I can see). You can call my worshipable God-Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters "idiots and fools" if you like, since, I am certain, you worship them in your heart even as you call them names.

What a wonderful (and simultaneously sobering) realization!! I've joked for a while now that, "We all get the gurus we deserve!"