cbrahma

There are significant differences? What are they? These are considered Sampradaya acaryas because of their siksa. It is their knowledge that is being transmitted in the sampradaya. Why should it take generations to ... crystallize. In the Vedic system which honors the process of descent rather than ascent, that doesn't make sense

There are some critical differences in the siddhanta unfortunately, especially on the subject of physically present guru. I haven't found any need to move 'laterally' from Prabhupada. I have read Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinode Thakur, however. These are what Rocana dasa calls 'Sampradaya acaryas'

It would be nice to be able to find one as good as Prabhupada.

Of course that's his fevered fantasy. I'm only responding to your surprising agreements. If he is so transcendental he would just ignore me rather than waste his time. But he's dedicated a lot of effort trying (trying is the operative term here) to discredit me. I guess I should be flattered that I'm worth that much attention. BTW he thinks Gopal batta is a not a good example of a Vaisnava. Now if I made that kind of judgment, I would be accused of being offensive. If I were that obsessed with emnity I would research all his posts so I could make some kind of global character judgment and satisfy myself that he is always wrong and I am always right. If I were as much of a troll as he would like to make me out to be, I would never put anybody on ignore...uh prabhu. There are a number of members here who love to engage in flame wars. I'm not one of them.

Well you're easily convinced about this global statement - over the years apparently. You have been tracking all my posts - goodness, how scary. And you think triple dot's behavior appropriate and reasonable? Everybody debates what they believe is right. And everybody has been in disagreement? Hardly.

I didn't say there was. I only know that they supported zonal gurus that were so involved.

If you think I'm just wanting to be offensive then stop arguing. We were talking about charlatans. They can be found everywhere. You are pretending to be an advanced devotee. Not I. You are not the only one who knows Prabhupada. I know several Prabhupada disciples who are not so elitist and arrogant as yourself. Consider yourself ignored and of course you'll respond even after I've said that.

Because I am in touch with those who do. Besides a lot of them come here to peddle their nonsense. It's not a matter of geography but consciousness.

That would be applicable to you. I'm not sniffing all over the forum for your out of context quotes like a desperate dog - in the name of Vaisnavism--of all things. Sick.

You're going over the top to fight. Desperate character assasination attempts that I haven't even remotely had to try. Your style is that of a rabid dog grabbing at anything you can find. I speak on topic from a consistent position. Unless, you can prove otherwise on topic, don't bother.

These are very old quotes - so you did go back in history for much of it. And you still don't understand the basic principles of debate. Such as not basing an argument on attacking the person - 'ad hominem'. As far as sanga is concerned, India is just as full of charletans and the West. Are you supposed to be an example of an advanced Vaisnava? Waffling? Between what points? Perhaps from a simple-minded sectarian viewpoint. I haven't contradicted myself in any of these quotes. My expertise is based on quoting Prabhupada and the sastras. What's your excuse? As for angry, if you arent' totally hostile , you sure make a good imitation. I don't need to launch a smear campaign to prove you totally off the wall.

I see. So this is the 'you too' argument. Because allegedgly Prabhupad did it, then it's ok for the GM gurus to do it. But it remains to be proven whether Prabhupada actually supported the corruption like racketerring, drug-dealing and child molestation. He dismantled the GBC at one point because it was getting derailed.

In your desperate attempt to smear character , in true beggar style, you had to dig deep and long for this stuff. You are also quoting out of context, which gives a false impression. I am arguing against anti-Christian bigots in much of this and using a style of argument called 'argument ad absurdum' which obviously has gone over your head. The character evaluation that I have no belief system is absurd. I have had years of practicing sadhana-bhakti whether you like it or not. There are folks like Kulapavana that question statements made by Prabhupad and others who don't take Bhagavatam literally. That doesn't mean they don't have any beliefs. What confused, atrocious and desperate reasoning.

I'm not interested in undermining anybody. I am not 'like' anybody in particular since I don't belong to any group. I just know the zonal acarya system was an unauthorized debacle and will not blame Prabhupada for it. I don't trust the GM, or I should say the ex-GM of course, because they were around to do some damage control. They supported Kirtananda and Bhavanada in all of their corrupt dealings. This is historically available fact. I don't know anything more about these gurus, nor do I care to speculate beyond that.

Oh to find a real Vaisnava, among the priests.

In the meantime , of course, one is isolated or chained to a group of pseudo-Vaisnavas or material kanisthas?

Don't get the point of copying all these arguments. They are easily read from their own thread. If you think that together they make some kind of point, then you need to show that.

I didnt' say anything about when they turned bad. The whole idea was bad regardless of when they revealed their true colors. How is questioning the zonal guru fiasco so questonably authorized defying Prabhupada? Nothing could be more twisted. It is obvious why this authorization has become a religious dogma with you. You need to justify imperfect unqualified gurus, not to mention the GM complicity and their subsequent so-called 'guru reform'.

You flatter yourself to think I needed to miss a point that isn't well taken. If you are not judging gurus by their disciples, then you are judging gurus by who they put in charge. Well the GM gurus ratified and promoted these gurus - so they are just as implicated. It is all of a piece. You can't single out Prabhupada in your blasphemous agenda. Besides you still beg the question whether he clearly did promote them.

Well , if you insist, but your misrepresentations on the behalf of Hindu religiosity are more easily misleading than say, svu.

Whose purification? The gurus or the GBC guru-appointers? I put to you that it is first the process of appointment that needs reform. Certainly the gurus themselves have not reached the platform of uttama-adhikari or there would be no need of reform. So once they have acheived such purity, it will be obvious, as it was in Prabhupada's case and there will be no need of an appointment/authorization process. GBC doesn't want that of course, because that would decentralize their power.

Theist is indeed patient. He is also wise. He put Kula on ignore.

the idea of guru reformation is an oxymoron. If a guru is need of reform he is not a guru.

Ahhh. So we judge the guru by his disciples. Poor NM and Sridhar Maharaj. Of course your hidden premise ,that Prabhupada intended these men to be gurus on their own behalf, is a lie. BTW, it makes more sense to deify (treat as good as God) a pure devotee, than a formal ritual (formal diksa).