cbrahma

There are so many other interests that Prabhupada's way does not serve. He is criticized from all fronts. The traditionalists don't even believe he is properly initiated into the parampara. There are a variety of GM disciples who need to throw his whole credibility into question, in order pass over him as just some mundane personality. There are even his own disciples who make apologies for him, 'correcting' his books and his instructions. Whatever the case, since his samadhi a subtle wave of apharada has swept to try to diminish his purity and importance. Those who see him as a threat to their religionist agenda have moved in for the kill.

I totally agree. But the whole guru system depends on this hierarchy of varna and ashrama. To remove it means to dismantle the diksa guru cadre.

The abrupt disconnect between GM and traditional Vaishnavism is as deceptive as the current disconnect between the GM and ISKCON. It unfortunately reflects badly on Vaisnavism in general. making it looks like a hotbed of infighting and religious hyprocrisy.

We are told that the 'real' diksa is initiation into gayatri , which is termed the 'brahminical' initiation. What mantra would it be if not gayatri?

Obviously, it proves that the succession at least going backwards to Bhaktivinode were defining their membership to the parampara in this way.

I didn't know we could actually talk to Krsna. Isn't that sahajiya? Don't we need layers and layers of mediators?

The whole controversy as I understood it, was about the absolute need for an 'embodied' guru, not the desirability of Vaisnava association. The two are entirely different. The more proper association, the better. The question is where is this available? There have been devotees who were left without association without it being the case that they were insincere. That is a huge condemnation, especially in Kali Yuga, where real Vaisnavas are as rare as blue diamonds.

The arrogance is minizing the book bhagavata in favor of some kanistha guru, or neophyte Vaisnava to 'interpret' for us. When Prabhupada was embodied, of course, it would be important to associate physically, but how much face time if any did he give to his disciples? You are already dessiminating false doctrine on the subject of vapu and vani, so what good is the association? Guru is one.

Oh please. There were so many deviations even when Prabhupada was physically present. Give up this pointless campaign. I have given ample evidence from Prabhupada himself of the superiority of vani over vapu. You are chasing your own tail. Prabhupada's words need no intermediary explanation. It is this notion of necessary mediation from which precipitates all the corruptions of mundane religiosity.

"just with books"? How can the word "just" be in the same phrase as Prabhupapda's books? This is an offense to book bhagavata. Anyway the statement has about as much authority as anybody's opinion. I am not going to say this again. The insistence on living guru is a traditionlist stance. It obligates one to a mundane religionist conception of both the bhakti marga and guru. It is an obvious ISKCON marketing strategy to sell its embarassing showcase of kanistha gurus. Guru is one.

That Bhaktivinode Thakur's diska guru is not mentioned by Prabhupada speaks for itself and his taking Jaganatha das Babaji to be Bhaktivinode Thakur's spiritual master, shows irrefutably that formal diksa is NOT the condition for membership in the parampara. That being said, it is not surprising that Prabhupada would also have said that one is not any particular guru's disciple. Could it be because Guru is One? That Guru is Caitya guru? Seems quite in keeping with Vaisnava siddhanta. Any other conclusion leads to impossible incoherence.

Apparently there is nothing that Kula is not expert on.. We just have to take his word that everything that has been documented is now questionable. He has been undermining Prabhupada's credibility as long as I've read his posts. He is in 'Prabhupada's village'?? Well in name only. ISKCON used to be Prabhupada's society.

Going to an article on Dandavats to prove that we need a 'living link' is like going to a drug dealer to prove we need drugs. The well is already poisoned in this case. Obviously ISKCON embraces living link. How else is it going to sell its panolply of manufactured diksa gurus? Here is proof that the issue of diksa succession is logically independant from the issue of vapu vs vani.

I unfortunately was lead to read Beggar's personal rantings. The presumption that there has to be something terriblY wrong with a person who knows the diksa lineage is hopelessly fragmented is an exercise in wishful thinking. That idea is based on historical report about Bhaktisiddhanta's formal diksa supported by many 'traditional' Hindus like Lalita Prasada, not personal pathology. It is irrelevant in the context that Prabhupada , whom I incessantly quote, made the statement about being nobody's disciple in particular, a statement which transcends the simplistic diksa lineage idea.

Signing up with any formal religion that is non-sectarian should be fine, but try and find one -it's almost a contradiction in terms.

The manifest topic of the sentence is succession . Being nobody's disciple in particular has nothing to do with vapu or vani. One can still insist on formal initiation by a particular guru and understand that vani is more important, even after the vapu is gone. In fact there are a number of Prabhupada disciples who believe this. The point made in the quoted sentence is logically an additional point quite outside the context of that issue and has little to no bearing on it.

I just can't take it any more - it's just too funny ROFL how a religionist will dodge and weave in the face of unambiguous teachings from the guru Himself. It betrays the secondary motives of such a disciple - the prestige the automatic credential that the ritualism confers - who wants to minimize that? Rather milk it for everything it's worth. We don't want to get too involved investigating Bhaktisiddhanta's diksa status. It is questionable exactly who his diksa guru is supposed to be according to many 'traditionalist' reports, not the least is Lalita Prasad, his brother. Bipin Goswami is never mentioned by Prabhupada, Bhaktivinode's true traditional diksa guru. Jaganatha dasa babaji was his siksa guru. From a traditional diksa point of view the whole issue is a mess. There is no blending, just pastiche.

Submersion of the individual experience into the collective hierarchy is essential to the prosperous control of the priviledged priestly class. Jesus attacked the temple system

You are a good person - sincere and spiritually inclined. The 'sandhu sanga' imperative when it comes from a religious institution is just another control mechanism. I feel that proper association, not self-righteous, but proper truly spiritual association is what you are craving. I think it's what we all are craving , but it's very rare.

Actually that is what sadhu sanga is supposed to address. You will find of course that is an empty phrase in a cult-controlled environment where the relieving of the mind is forbidden.

There are basically two kinds of people - devas and asuras. It isn't always that easy to tell them apart. In Kali Yuga they exist in the same person. But the devil often comes disguised as an angel of light. Egotism is often more effective wearing the mask of benevolence. The religion that should be the via media for the dissemination of God's mercy so easily turns into a demonic mechanism for the exploitation of the innocent. Deadly hypocrisy - the Pharisees- the Smarta Brahmanas - the 'official' ISKCON gurus, the hereditary caste Goswamis all wolves in sheep's clothing. All you have to do is question their superior status and watch the fangs comes out.

Authoritarian hierarchies , at least in the history of the Western world, have always been abusive, especially to the weakest members, women and children. This is regardless of whether they are religious or political. That is the essence of Bhaktisiddhanta's essay - that real spirituality cannot be controlled and traded like a mundane commodity. It is what ISKCON and the Catholic church have in common.

The traditional notion of formal diksa intiation dies hard. It is the cornerstone of religious Hinduism. I don't think any amount of pounding Prabhupada's unambiguous statement will work. There's just too much prestige to be squeezed from that ritual. (ignore religionist Beggar)

What is succession? (ignore Beggar)

The cornerstone of religion or I should say religiosity is mediation. Somebody or something stands in for God. In Hinduism it is diksa. One must be formally admitted into the kingdom of God, as the rightful and credentialed recipient of his grace. In Catholicism it is the priesthood and ultimately the Pope. The supplicant or neophyte must sacrifice himself in trade for the precious commodity of grace. In Catholicism one actually had to pay for such 'indulgences'. Once you have membership earned through so many ritual sacrifices granted by those who have the 'keys to the kingdom', one can consider one's self justified and 'saved', a legal citizen in the kingdom of God. It is all about a controlling clergy, a priestly elite who are the gatekeepers , in short - a cult. They grow fat and prosperous on the voluntary (and some points in history, coerced) labor and support of large numbers of disciples and inductees. I don't have to elaborate the history of such religious power and its devasting effects, but corruption is and has been proven inevitable, its signature crime for some reason always being child abuse. I find the very idea that a person or collection of persons can be authorized merchants and traders in divine favors, is primitive, repulsive and preposterous.