cbrahma

One has to be practical, live in a normal state of life. It's not about the 'taking over' so that practical living becomes impossible and I never believed it was about living in the temple. Beyond the sixteen rounds and the four regs, everything becomes impractical.

He doesn't have to manifest externally. Bodily conception is ignorance.

hmmmm. I didn't start out thinking it was about living in the temple, but I guess that's what is amounts to.Temple life is ok if you're in your twenties, thirties, maybe even forty. After that, the stress is way too much. Most presidents want to see productivity , money coming in etc... It's really sad to see how many older devotees have been disenfranchised, even kicked out. There is no retirement program - other than hitting the street. It's cold-blooded and scary. If you've spent most of your life in a temple without building a job resume, or retirement fund, you're basically homeless. Like I say, it's cold-blooded. I thank my lucky stars I didn't stay.

Bodily conception is ignorance.

It's magic you're talking - not reality. So many have a physical guru - so many have fallen due to religious arrogance. No thanks. Bodily conception is ignorance. ISKCON - the guru vendor.

Oh goodie! I will wish really really hard and POOF - a guru will appear! If it doesn't happen, it means I'm not sincere. For what reason I don't know- since you don't need a guru to be physically present for so many reasons that have been repeated over and over again. I will give you a hint - because they can't be two places at once - and eventually leave their body.

What does he have special magic couriers that send gurus that are really bona fide? Do they just descend from some other planet? Cause I haven't seen any so far.

So much discussion has taken place on the subject of formal initiation that I don't want to start it up again. The conclusion that is obvious from the evidence is that diksa does not have to be formal. In fact some people have claimed to have been initiated in a dream. Others have been initiated by 'proxy' (ritivik) etc... So formal diksa aside, especially considering so many disciples have minimal interaction with their diksa guru, if at all, there really isn't a critical need to have a physically present spiritual master. I stress this for two reasons. 1. There are almost no bona fide spiritual masters extant that I would trust as far as I could throw them. 2. Formal diksa is a religious obsession - that ties into traditional ideas of succession, the very ideas that Bhaktisiddhanta rejected.

"Money is the honey" - (Prabhupada)

One problem I have with the so-called sadhana, at least how it's taught in ISCON - is the claim that the 'minimum' sadhana is chanting 16 rounds and following the four regulative principles. But nobody accepts that really - it's just what is publicized. You find out after accepting that sadhana that you have to not eat bhoga, which means you either have to eat food prepared and offered by a devotee or do it yourself. That is not as simple as it sounds, if you lead a life in the working world. Then there's the whole issue about ghostyanandi and bhajananandi, preaching over chanting. That is time and money expense right there, since in ISKCON at least, it means selling (and therefore buying) books. Over and above that we have the initiation pressure - etc.... So there is no mininum sadhana. Even though sadhana implies regularity, there isn't one that seems acceptable other than full second intiation preacher who chants all his/her rounds. of course, being in that state of life pretty much precludes very much else (like making a living in the working world).

These are nice words and nice ideals - Where are the 'real' gurus and 'real' disciples? The one's who dish out and receive formal diksa? O that's right, it's all about sincerity, isn't it?

Jaya Radhe, all places pastimes and attributes and above all the Name -

Association with sadhus means one must know 'who is sadhu', just as one must know 'who is guru'. It isn't blind following. Given that knowledge I find that such people are very very rare. I see Prabhupada. He is sahdu and guru. What is the difficulty?

There are impersonalists who take the Gita as allegorical. God would not ask anybody to kill, they say. War is evil. How could God condone it? If you read the Gita, Arjuna is just as doubtful about killing as you. But Arjuna is a ksatrya - it is his duty.

If Prabhupada is my guru, he leaves his body so now I don't have a physically present guru. I really desire to have him present (like you say), so, if he doesn't appear, it means I'm not sincere.

So if I want Prabhupada to appear physically and he doesn't I'm not sincere.

Which 'Hare Krishnas' are criticizing it,(which I am not BTW)? Prabhupada is criticizing Darwin and Darwinism, not the idea of evolution as such. You are confused.

Mayavadis say what? That evolution is vedic? I already explained that materialsim is not Vedanta. If you don't know why, that would take a whole education which is beyond the scope of one reply.

Obviously blaspheming Prabhupada doesn't make you a Prabhupada-lover. It isn't the fact of a label. It is the use of the word 'rascal' for the proper reason - that is, claiming a philosophy as one's own when it is not.

You seem quite determined to blaspheme Prabhupada. But spiritual evolution is a vedic idea whether you know it or not. If you don't see anything demonic about saying life comes from matter you don't understand the first thing about Vedanta. Materialism is demonic - it is atheistic.

Yet this indiividual calls himself goswami. He is just spouting platitudes, all material. According to Prabhupada, humanistic philanthropy is a fall down. So some mention of Visnu, Krsna must be there, if one is a real goswami. Also, to all traditional 'Vedic' Hindus , please note - in the Kali-yuga all these things are not possible to revive.

He calls himself Sri Bhagavan.

I hardly see hatred in calling a spade a spade. Since evolution is originally a Vedic idea, then passing it as one's own is a sort of rascaldom, especially when it is mixed with the demonic philosophy that life came from matter.

Where did dinasours come from? Who came from dinasours? The earth is silent as a tomb. There are no traces of neo-dinasours or dinasours-on-their-way-to-becoming-bird skeletons etc...