cbrahma

Wishful thinking? Why would he need to fantasize on this subject? Apparently LP had some major influence on the ISKCON members because they blasphemed Bhaktivinoda. Logically Bhaktisiddhanta would be in the same mood as his spritual master, so it still makes no sense.

Not sure what the diksa statement is in response to. It makes no sense that Bhaktivinoda was 'traditional' or in line with Lalita Prasada, considering both Bhaktivinoda's clearly stated view on the 'traditional' and how Lalita Prasada turned people against him.

Rocana dasa prabhu is a brahminical initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada since 1970. He was temple president in Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada, where I met him. He has always been a compassionate honest and very knowledgeable (brahminical) dedicated disciple . He set up the Sampradaya Sun on line publication, of which he is Editor-in-chief to encourage free uncensored forum for discussion on Vaisnava topics and accepts articles from a wide range of people (unlike Dandavats). What he has NOT done is try to set himself up as a diksa guru. In short he is a very senior Vaisnava whose opinion ought to be given very serious consideration.

Sucandra's responses are always so inoffensive, meek and humble even in the face of scurrilous attacks. I wish I could attain this wisdom of serpents and gentleness of doves.

<embed src=" " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>This is a widespread current phenomenon here and in India. What's up with this 'Sri Bhagavan'? He is providing a 'mukti' process.He says he is avatar. His wife goes around giving darsana and 'hugging' people.

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GIQTuUJwwA&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GIQTuUJwwA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><EMBED src="" width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash 5GIQTuUJwwA&hl="en" v www.youtube.com http:> George Harrison's bhajan </EMBED></OBJECT>

Yes that is important. An acarya is a uniquely empowered individual.

Be careful with whom you ally yourself. I've unblocked you, just to see if you were going to say something relevant on this important subject, other than posting generic statements. This is what Rocana dasa has to say on the subject of Jagadananda Das

That is a difficult one. There are exalted Vaisnavas that have reprimanded some who were not their disciples calling them 'asses'. Prabhupada used the terms 'rascal' and 'mudha' liberally, sometimes naming names. Jesus tore into the Pharisees, calling them hypocrites. It seems to depend on the enormity of the fault. If somebody in a position of authority is molesting children for instance, it can hardly be called fault-finding to blow the whistle. If somebody is promoting lies about somebody else, one has to speak up. Silence is consent. So there are many cases where it is irresponsible not to point out fault. In those cases, however, where the fault is simply common human imperfection, fault finding is just a way of making oneself look better at the expense of another. The verse - trnad api su-nicena taror iva sahisnuna amanina mana-dena kirtaniyah sada harih ["One who thinks himself lower than the grass, who is more tolerant than a tree, and who does not expect personal honor yet is always prepared to give all respect to others can very easily always chant the holy name of the Lord." (Adi-lila 17.31)] That is the quality of a Vaisnava. Such an individual is very very rare.

I'm not sure I understand the basis of your disagreement.

yes individual sparks

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Not to minimize your kind affirmation, I have had many others agree with me, as well. Anybody who is taken in by three-dot's childish smear tactics is not somebody I care to discuss with anyways. Religionist arrogance dies hard.

ignore ♣♣♣

Prabhupada lives - I don't need a membership card.

It's only a couple of 'people'. The triple dot, a new member who went ballistic and Vedesu. Everybody else who I don't want to deal with, I've got on ignore. There's still plently left. And one has to realize that Krsna consciousness since Prabhupada's leaving has pretty much descended into traditional Hinduism, with the whole religious protocol of initiation, rites and distinctions. Thanks.

There it is again - the club mentality - the literal religious membership into the 'parampara' - a formal credential. What does that have to do with the association?

These are not essential to the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaisnavism - it isn't even doctrine, though I disklike that word because it sounds like the product of jnani speculation. Using logic and reason - I would certainly opt out of a blind religious subjection of my intellect to a diksa guru.

Here we go again with the living Guru doctrine. Prabhupada lives in his vani. He said so. His spiritual master said so. What's up with this church membership idea? That is religiosity pure and simple.

It's very simple then. The Vaisnava I've learned the most from, the one who got me to practice sadhana would be - Prabhupada. Problem solved.

Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0> if one is sincere, that sincerity will attract a Spiritual Master to guide one. If we have firm faith that Krsna is in our hearts, then why not believe He will help us climb out of this 'stagnated' mundane material creation by sending us His beloved representative?? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> Where does this opinion come from? And exactly what does that mean - that those who have found a physically present diksa guru are sincere? That those who abstain from entering into the institutional concept of religion by diksa are insincere? There are so many initiates that have wreacked havoc in the community with criminal and debased activities. The same applies to some of the gurus themselves. So where is this rule manifest?

Beggar's battle lines are drawn according to to his own loyalties and biases of course. He clearly is allied with the GM and my experience with those disciples is that they ( as does ISKCON) indulge in a subtle undermining of Prabhupada's credibility as the main representative of the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, the 'Sampradaya Acarya'. Why is this minimizing important? Well that's obvious. If you absolutely must have a physically present diksa guru, then you look around for a living GV guru and lo and behold there are the GM gurus! Their disciples are the 'real' successors , the 'real' Vaisnavas. ISKCON is not different because their guru system was initially ratified by the same GM gurus - belief in a physically present diksa guru - for exactly the same reasons. The vying for religious entitlement as the true 'inheritors' of Lord Caitanya is material, political and divisive. Bhaktivinode Thakur had no patience with that sort of sectarian infighting. He called such squabblers, asses- as opposed to the transcendental swans. He did not consider being Christian Protestant or Catholic an automatic disqualification, because Vaisnavism isn't a club, a church or any other kind of organization. It is a completely spiritual transcendental society, which is precisely why physical presence isn't the point.

Questioning sastra is quite different from changing its meaning. One can play off guru, sastra and sadhu, criticizing one in favor of the other. I've seen that game played in Christianity as well. No doctrine AS IT IS??? Everything Prabhupada says decries such changes. Again you seem engrossed in a thoroughly mundane conception of a religious process.

In my association with Rocana dasa prabhu, who is a very dedicated compassionate Vaisnava, I learned the profound respect one ought to have for Srila Prabhupada. I can understand why he now finds the proliferation of diksa gurus to be disturbing. In fact he understands that succession properly speaking is primarily a siksa rather than diksa succession and that it depends on the appearance of very elavated Vaisnavas called maha-bhagavats at critical periods. We should seek a pure devotee uttama-adhikari for our spiritual master. These are not always manifest nor need to be to preserve the succession. This 'dissent from religiosity' which sums up my approach to Vaisnavism and always has throughout the years, is , I believe, critical for the promotion and preservation of the Gaudiya Vaisnava mission. It deemphasizes the diksa/religious aspect and brings to prominence the siksa/spiritual/universal aspect. - that is diksa subordinate to the siksa of a Sampradaya Acarya.

I said I read Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinode Thakur and you said there were differences as recently as they. What are these significant differences?