Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cbrahma

  1. But Lord Caitanyas mission is for everyone - there is no elite selection.
  2. I'm not sure what you are saying. The Lord doesn't qualify his statements with 'fully surrendered'. He states quite simply and unambiguously that varna-asrama is superficial and totally unrelated to spiritual progress in bhakti. How can material dharma bring us to a point of transcendence?
  3. I don't think that is quite true when one reads Lord Caitanya's opinion that it is superficial and that bhakti is not contingent upon it.
  4. Very nice analysis. You obviously understand varna-ashrama.
  5. Varna-asrama are the divisions of society not reducable to clergy/congregation. The religious dvisions, the asramas are not necessarily connected to temple living except perhaps brahmacari.
  6. Prabhupada never used the word 'congregation' when speaking of varna-ashrama. That is a post-samadhi GBC concoction taken straight out of Christian churchianity. When I was in ISKCON nobody spoke of the uninitiated people who frequented the temples as 'congregation'. In New Dwarka a 'club' was formed called FOLK, friends of lord Krsna. There was also a 'guest' house. But that was before ISKCON got Hinduized. Since then, it has become a condescension to give some second class membership to the many Hindus who come to perform marriages and other cultural rites and give donations. The translation of brahmana to priest doesn't capture the meaning because 'intellectual' is also an essential part of it. It not a spiritual ashrama so 'monk' doesn't really convey it either. Brahamacari is more like monk because the brahmacari is technically supposed to live in the 'house of the spiritual master' and serve him. Let's not forget that a lot of brahmanas are married householders, which is hardly a monkish state. The temple is not a chruch where the initiated are 'clergy'. What is the temple president? A bishop? A pastor? I don't think so. He really performs a mixed role of ksatrya and brahmana. That institutional church concept has not any thing to do with varna-ashrama.
  7. What does 'living in the temple' have to do with varna-ashrama? Does living 'outside' the temple become a disqualification to a particular varna or ashrama? He had householder brahmanas and brahmacari brhamanas. In New Dwarka some of either lived on temple property and some did not. What defined the "Inside" of the temple was a matter of ISKCON real estate. This seems a really trite and superficial reason, because there already were asrama and varnas being defined.
  8. Prabhupada didnt' seem to have much luck or time to implement whatever he did put in place of the varna-ashrama dharma. Brahmanas fell down, or just didn't seem to fit their appropriated varna (yes brahmana is not an ashrama). The managers, supposedly Ksatriyas were also brahmanas. Many did not succeed in either. The amount of effort and conscious attention devoted to either attaining an ashrama or varna seemed to only distract sadhakas from the goal of spiritual development. I certainly never 'got it' and still don't. The caste system in India is a perverted reflection of true varna-ashrama, what to mention the democratic Western culture whose ideal is the classless society. Lord Caitanya didn't seem to think it that important. The most important issue in this regard seems to be that whatever social class one happens to be in, one should not engage in false renunciation. Making a separate and focused endeavor to 'qualify' for an asrama or varna seems from what Lord Caitanya said a distraction from the goal of being "detached from the material attachment and proportionately realise the transcedental loving service of the Lord." So when I see too much an emphasis placed on this material distinctions I become suspicious that there is a corresponding decrease in spiritual ambition.
  9. Agreed. Committing offenses against a pure devotee is spiritual suicide.
  10. Excuses excuses. Oooh it's a different story when the truth comes out about your guru. If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. Everything that was alleged about Prabhupada regarding the child abuse applies with solid proof to NM. NM is the blasphemer, not I. I merely report the historical facts.
  11. Suffice that I was there and witnessed Prabhupada and his disciples first hand. Living history is a lot better than believing your biased accounts of it. I am thoroughly familiar with the ISKCON history up to his samadhi at least. After that I studied it. There is nothing cultic about acknowledging Prabhupada's elevated status just because others can't measure up (like your fallen guru) and have to minimize him. What you think about what Prabhupada knew or thought (without a shred of evidence) is inconsequential. He gave sannyasa to those who at the time were candidates for it. They deceived him and over time without his knowledge took advantage of their position. It is as simple as that. NM is giving him God-like status by claiming he knew things omnisciently.
  12. Prabhupada did not consider himself above the standards he dictated. Spare me the history lessons. I was in the movement before and during that time. Twisting transcendence to justify corruption is what the cheaters do. My 'historical' research has led me to understand where this theory about Prabhupada's knowing about the corruption and doing nothing, inititiating sannyasi whom he knew where child molestors, came from. Narayana Maharaj. Of course that applies to NM without a doubt because by the time he was directly involved in ISKCON much of the corruption had been exposed.
  13. Oh yes keep feeding into the no-duality rationalization. ISKCON is in good order. All the bogus gurus are merely a pastime along the way, not to mention the child molestations. Collateral damage, like the rationalizations for the Iraq war. Never mind that Prabhupada himself called the bogus sanyassis demons. Never mind that he insisted that the spiritual master be perfect and untouched by the gunas , self-realized. Nerve mind free will. If you need quotes, they are easy to provide. It isn't a matter of my point of view.
  14. Yes in the end. That doesn't necessarily mean at the beginning he gave sannyasa to people he knew were child molestors. There is free will. Its just like what I hear from people like Kula whose spiritual master falls down. They say 'Oh he was qualified to begin with. Really sincere but later..." So they see it like that- that one can begin sincerely and then decide to act demonically. But to rationalize misrepresentation and crime as what 'comes with the territory' just to spread the mission is a demonic complacency. Jesus said that those who would give scandal to the 'little ones', it would be better that a mill stone be tied around their neck and they be cast into the sea.
  15. Our first business is not to forgive demons but to destroy the demonic mentality. The demon wants to kill Krsna and the spiritual master. That is unforgivable. BTW ISKCON persecuted disciples that were loyal innocent followers of Prabhupada and continue to do so to this very day. Because they don't accept the bogus gurus and the GBC they are not allowed even to set foot in an ISKCON temple.
  16. We're supposed to believe that Prabhupad deliberately gave power to people he knew would either be child-molestors or harbor child-molestors and he did this to spread the mission. Right. This must also be true of Sridara Maharaj and NM because they definitely knew about the scandals. NM certainly did nothing to circumvent these crimes until the law stepped in.
  17. Thank you for reviving this very important topic. I think I am a sahajiya because I long to chant the Holy Name and they tell me (the devotees) that thinking one has attraction for it is a disqualification, so I don't chant.
  18. As I've said before I'm not interested in what you think Prabhupada knew or thought and you are absolutely wrong in your comparison between old ISKCON and new ISKCON since I have experienced both. You have a need to relativize it because you are a traditional religionist which is sooooo boring and sooooo dry and sooooo cheap.
  19. Who said anything about forums? http://therealexplanation.org/article/CHEAP_GURUS10.html
  • Create New...