cbrahma

He says all love is love of self - but since the self doesn't really exist - that's what we mean when we say we love - I love myself - so I can be 'there' - exist. But there's no there there, just some vaccuous universal Love thing. It's really utter nonsense. His wife goes around hugging people and they feel the 'electricity'. LOL. He's very popular right now, all over the world, including India. But Westerners are suckers for this kind of thing - now India because its' culture has degenerated into Western values.

Darwin didn't really invent Darwinism. That is something that was spun off of his theory of the origin of the species. The conclusions that all life comes from matter, really wasn't exactly his. His idea was the evolution of the species, not the evolution of individuals. So all life forms evolved - from so-called lower life forms, unicellular probalby marine organisms. The evidence for this is flimsy at best. The big hole is the lack of transitional forms.

Darwinism is a paradoxical blend of vedanta and demonic ignorance. Evolution is a fact of embodied consciousness. Propelled by its karma, the jiva migrates through the three worlds, heavenly, earthly and hellish throughout the lifetime of the particular cosmic manifestation; the wheel of birth and death, samsara. Of course, the jiva can seek mukti and ascend to Brahman, the static state of pure consciousness, only to fall down at some future cosmic manifestation. Optimally the jiva can reach Vaikuntha and even Goloka Vrindavan in a particular rasa with Krsna. That is the vedic part. The demonic part is the determinism, that life came from matter, that strife is the father of all things. It is truth cominated with a lie - the worst kind.

Bhaktivinode's mood is so different from many Gaudiya-Vaisnava proponents I've encountered from ISKCON, GM and on this forum. It lacks even the slightest strain of dogmatism.

With all the infighting that seems endemic to these maths, especially when something non-traditional is being promoted, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that this is what happened. It puts Prabhhupada's diksa succession in question from the traditional standpoint, and I'm perfectly fine with that, since Prabhupad so obviously broke with tradition.

Right. So many links about how Bhaktisiddhanta didn't really get diksa initiation.

He begins by saying 'the self does not really exist'. I presume that means we don't have to listen to him because he really doesn't exist... His philosophy is pure Mayavadi.

If by Jagat jijaji means Jagadananda Das, who BTW is aligned with Lalita Prasad, then that Jagat gives no clue in his paper "The Parampara Institution In Gaudiya Vaisnavism" that Bhaktisiddhanta was 'kicked out' by his father. In fact my on line searches don't reveal a single such reference.

Desperately grasping at typos I see. You simply posit that you are analyzing critically. But critical means at least logical and the logic is hardly obvious. I know what appositive means, but just because a phrase follows another it doesn't automatically have that sense. It could be a list. It certainly isn't deductively obvious.

The quote "Our Indian spiritual life is guided by the acaryas, sampradaya acarya, the Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnuswami and Nimbarka. There is... Whole Indian spiritual culture is dependent on the guidance of these acarya. And in the Bhagavad-gita also, in the Thirteenth Chapter, it is advised, acarya upasanam: "One should follow the instruction of the acarya." That is our Vedic civilization" You'll notice that acarya has been used in the plural.

Of course, common knowledge. Not being interested in the GM, I would be going there all the time. I suggest if you can't make yourself clear and logical you are definitely wasting your time and would advise you to stop responding to 'people like me'.

I've been on this forum for years and have never seen this issue discussed. And it is hardly a settled issue just because you say so. Apparently there are number of people who are not convinced. No doubt you know all about it, but if you're going to post a refutation you can do the courtesy of pointing to some sort of proof instead of making some dismissive bored comment. If the truth is that Bhaktisiddhanta was kicked out - then what is the advantage of claiming he criticized BBG when he did not?

Which story was false? If you are going to use demonstrative adjectives like 'this' you really ought to quote what you are refering to. If you are going to claim something is false - you really need to provide some sort of proof. It's the least you can do.

Pretty filmsly logic. 1. Prabhupada names the heads of the paramparas and the names of paramparas and then uses the term sampradya acarya, ergo only they are the sampradaya acaryas . 2. Prabhupada didn't call himself a sampradaya acarya, therefore he is not.

It is obvious that Bhaktivinode Thakur and BBG had a serious difference of opinon in any case. Such was the perception of Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja at least and he should have known, because he defnitely rejected BBG.

The term 'Sampradaya Acarya' does not just apply to every and any guru. One may have a siksa guru who is not a Sampradaya Acarya, but what makes the acarya a 'Sampradaya Acarya' is the standard of his teaching and realization. They are the siksa 'gold' standard. Also Prabhupada did himself use the term

The facts color depending on whom you read, but the following sounds more accurate The confusion of course is that Jagannatha dasa babaji is presented as Bhaktivinode Thakur's spiritual master and that the latter accepted him as such - which is maybe why there is this idea of a siksa-parampara, a concept I do not endorse. There is evidence that Bipin Bihari Goswami did reject Bhaktivinode. There must have at least been a 'distancing'.

The reference that you are objecting to is from Jagadananda das who befriended Lalita Prasad. This is one of the points on which Jagadananda and Rocana dasa agree, and both have dissented from the ISKCON canon. Nevertheless Prabhupada never once taught that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami, nor that Bipin Bihari Goswami was the guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Curiouser and curiouser -

One can also quote Sridhara Maharaj on this same subject

No. There is a double standard. I don't dare venture to even insinuate negative criticisms of the GM gurus, because 'people like you' will do what you are saying - shout apharadi! Or just dismiss me or anybody else who makes such statements as not knowing what they are talking about. The break from the traditional caste gurus came from Bhaktivinode, exactly the doctirne that Lalita Prasad was criticizing Bhaktisiddhanta about.

I don't doubt. Rocana wouldn't lie. It comes down once again to your claims against his and so far he has more credibility, considering your cavalier attirude toward the GV acaryas like Bhaktisiddhanta and Prabhupada. Now if I made claims, and believe me I have evidence to do so, about NM or Sridar Maharaj in the same dismissive mood, you would be incensed.

If you read the quote, they said he was a fraud. That the disciple of Bhaktivinode Thakur would be in such a different mood that the spiritual master seems unlikely. That casts aspersions on Bhaktisiddhanta.