cbrahma

How many non-scientists understand Darwinian evolution enough to accept or reject it? No contemporary biologist accepts classical Darwinism, primarily because of Darwin's ignorance of genetics. Most of the atheists I argue with are not scientists and accept the edict of Darwin as though it were sastra. Botany was my minor in college and believe me, it barely qualifies as a scientific theory. Where is the experimental evidence? Who has observed evolution? Why would fitness of survival necessarily lead to 'higher' species? Unicellular organisms are as nicely adapted to the same environment as we are. If the principle of 'natural selection' was sufficient to explain the emergence of new species, why is there so much diversity within the same environment? Darwin's explanation does nicely once the persistence of new traits is assumed, but not so well on the emergence of exactly those traits that are 'successful' enough to persist long enough to create another species. It's basically a biological or genetic crap shoot. Eons of time are necessary to 'select' just those small differences that add up to a whole new complex species. The scenario must happen millions of times and requires naive faith to believe it. That's what Darwinism is - faith, not science.

So it's Krsna - not the GBC - or are they non-different? Diska diska diska - where all the trouble begins. If only it could end there. If by objective standards - there are non bona fide gurus around - I guess you're transcendentally screwed.

"of course" in principle does not mean "of course" in practice. All the second generation devotees believe their guru to be a pure devotee. He's a GBC approved guru isnt' he? He has to be a pure devotee otherwise they would have to believe they are being cheated. But the means of discernment , of matching behavior and qualities against the adhikara has been sabotaged by GBC absolute authority.

And what methods can be used. The temple devotees seem only to recognize book distribution as a truly valid form of preaching. That those who do not 'preach' in this sense are kanistha. Yet when they return to the temple they basically ignore those very people for whom the books are meant - and don't know how to act. Anyone who is not in their aristrocracy is looked down upon. This is preaching? This is madhyama?

Discussion may use many kinds of authority and valid forms of argument. One doesn't need authority to inquire, or make statements of fact not necessarily based on sastra. For instance there are historical facts, not in sastra that might be relevant. Discussing spiritual topics is different from preaching or a guru/disciple instruction.

ISKCON has often justified no so honest tactics on the basis of spiritual benefit - ajnata sukriti. A line needs to be drawn. Their assumption that anybody should be tricked like this is faulty and in bad faith.

Who's 'us folks". I don't represent any group. I despise group-think. And the highlited definition is not my concoction. "In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Visnu. This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness." (C.c. Madhya, 9.61, purport)

Your logic escapes. There's nothing here to infer that diska and siksa are the same thing. Siska is more important certainly - because the most important meaning of guru is teacher. Diksa, on the other hand is the transmission of the knowledge being taught by a qualified guru to a qualified disciple who acts on the instructions.

The reason the ISKCONVadis don't want to admit the deeper intent of diksa is that it knocks the religiosity right from under them. No more institutional control by the totalitarian GBC. There are now about eighty ISKCON diksa gurus. If they conform to the standards for being guru - they should all be uttama adhikari - The GBC is so powerful - a little fairy dust and poof! 80 pure devotees- (Gambling is against the regulative principles.)

Quite honestly I'm burnt out on the topic of diska. It's just such an obsession at the LA Temple where anybody who frequents it will be plagued with the question "Which spiritual master are you aspiring to be initiated by?" and my response usually is "Krsna hasn't told me yet".

The justification I've been given for the proliferation of diska gurus in ISKCON is that the disciplic succession must be continued so they gotta initiate lots of disciples. But is the continuation of the parampara contigent on diska or siksa?

What you know about Jesus could be inscribed on a grain of rice.

You're playing off individuals against religions. The subject matter was religions where you quoted 'sarva dharman...' then you side-stepped to bash Jesus the individual, because you can't justify bashing other personalistic religions in the name of Vaisnavism. So you try to justify Vaisnava aparadha by saying Prabhupada doesn't always speak the truth (not true) - because he is preaching, on the one hand, and on the other hand , he 'rejected' his godbrothers (not true). How much more are you going to twist and prevaricate to make your nonsense point?

Regardless of the history - the soul is a basic doctrine of orthodox Christianity. I should know I was one for a good part of my life.

Where does this come from. Catholics and Lutherans alike mention the soul in their theology.

We are dealing with semantics. A religious sect is not an individual. Prabhupada's godbrothers do not amount to a religion. I rarely bring in Jesus on these topics. Your antipathy against Jesus is what drives the subject matter.

Non-sectarian is non-excluding. It is a contradiction to exclude specific religions from the scope of sanantan dharma.

Your jumping to conclusions in the most distorted way. I didnt' suggest anybody should abandon anything. My words were quite clear and unambiguous. Krsna is not sectarian.

The method of immediate surrender is not possible in Kali Yuga. The process of chanting the holy names is that method. Either way to twist what Krsna said into some kind of sectarian pronouncement misses the siddhanta entirely.

I have a friend who use to be a devotee and left the movement (blooped) because he had an attachment to eating chicken. He is hugely overweight. He is now completely vegetarian as far as I know. He is conflicted about the idea of giving up Jesus. I tell him he doesn't have to give up Jesus, just sinful activities. The Gaudiya Vaisnava process requires chanting and hearing at least. He rarely does either but is a loyal Catholic.

So Prabhupada is dressing the truth or just straight out lying as a preaching method? If Krsna's order were sufficient, he would not have had to incarnate as Lord Caitanya to spread the mercy of the holy name to all towns and villages.

The idea that one has to stop 'clinging to Jesus' as some kind of precursor to surrender is strange. If Jesus is a bona fide guru , and Prabhupada admitted he was, then there is no question of letting go. This is a false dichomoty. There can be increase, more knowledge, not rejection.

I we understand karma in the simplistic way it's usually understood there are no innocent victims.

I agree completely except there is a dangerous fanatical interpretation to the 'humility' tolerance idea that was being quoted