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 also believe such a system is not workable in the west and causes more confusion then anything else. If not scrapped it should be deempasized in my opinion under the same principle in which it began time place and circumstance.

 

If anything today's jet set, over weight, wealthy property owning "sanyasis" only make a mockery of the renounced order. It is having a reverse effect from Bhaktisiddhanta's original intent.

 

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

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.

Try Gopal mantra for starters (which is what Sri Chaitanys got from Isvara Puri, not gayatri at all) that has been given in the Gaudiya Sampradaya for over 400 years prior to this inovation by Gaudiya Math.

 

There was never such a thing as 'brahminical' initiation in Gaudiya Vaishnavism before Gaudiya Math...NEVER

 

Study the history

 

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.

Gaudiya Math claims diksha mantras contain ' gayatri mantra', this is wrong. Sri Chaitanyas sampradaya never used any diksha mantras mixed with gayatri before GV...

 

Sri Chaitanya never received gayatri from Isvara Puri at Gaya...

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?

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.

 

No it does not at all, it only shows Prabupada accepted the Gaudiya Math version of all this and loyal to BSS version of things.

 

Do you think BVT lied about Bipin Behari being his Guru..?

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

Bhaktivinode writes: "The initiating spiritual master (diksa-guru) shows his cause-less mercy by giving his disciples instructions in chanting the mantra. By so doing, he points the disciples in the direction of the truths pertaining to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krsna. I consider the numerous instructing spiritual masters (siksa-gurus) to be more important, for they show more mercy by training the sadhakas in all the essential aspects of sadhana-bhakti." (Kalyana-kalpataru)

 

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.

Let me tell you a short story. In 1973, the Temple President of Sydney forced us all to EAT left over prasadam from the Sunday feast on the Monday morning. This went on for weeks.

The Temple President read to us that prasadam is always transcendental and pure so it cannot be contaminated.

When Prabhupada heard about eating left over prasadam out of rubbish bins, he said this practise must stop because we are only imitating a pure devotee, we were only imitating what we read in his books, and really, we did not see that 'prasadam' was transcendental. He then went on to explain that what we read in his books could only be correctly understood with the association of pure devotee.

Therefore, this fanaticism of excentric imitation, like that of that foolish young Temple president in Sydney in 1973, is the result of tying to understand Prabhupada’s Books without the expert guidance of an ‘embodied’ Guru.

Fortunately back then we had Prabhupada to tell that Books alone are not enough; there must be association of an embodied Guru. Otherwise, one just ends up a fanatical expert bookworm like that idiot Temple President. Why? Because he tried to understand Prabhupada’s books without checking with Guru to see if what he understood through reading, was correct.

Without an embodied bonafide Guru, one can NEVER understand the essence of Prabhupada’s Books or Vedanta.

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.

This is because we are really not that advanced to do it on our own just with books.

 

"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.

Agreed, there're people who are confused about what Prabhupada actually said and in what context he said something. Just like when Krsna appears in this world many people become confused and start to deride Krsna and Krsna has to remind, they're asses. This is the normal functioning of material brains to always see flaws. However, at least the residents of "Prabhupada Village" shouldn't jump on this bandwagon of swimming with the public opinion. They should rather try to put Prabhupada's general framework into perspective. Or rather rename "Prabhupada Village", into something else.

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.

 

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=5975#more-5975

 

 

 

 

 

Gauragopala dasa -“You couldn’t get a place further away from the rest of the world than down under Melbourne Australia. This young boy never found Prabhupada, Prabhupada came all the way down there and found him.

Although to be satisfied with the Guru in the form of his books can also be very personal and instructing,

I just believe some of us need the personal embodied touch of a Guru as well, simply for the purpose of helping us with their personal association and instructions.

 

This is because we are really not that advanced to do it on our own just with books.

That’s how I feel anyway.

Krsna is in the heart that we must NEVER forget.

God’s representative will come to us in the embodied form if we want, if we pray unconditionally, if we learn to have faith in Krsna in the heart.

Why not?

Why does it have to be Prabhupada?

His ‘embodied pastimes’ on this planet finished in 1977, you don’t think Krsna from within ones own heart also has other great devotees here on this planet waiting for us to attract them by our helplessness and sincerity?

Do we genuinely feel helpless and materially exhausted like that boy did in the Church?”

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.

Jesus seems to be like many of the 'great personalities,' radicals and reformers of their traditions. The temple system practiced at the time must have looked like dead religion to Christ; even showing anger at the counterfeit.

 

Strong story from the bible for sure.

 

I have not come to a conclusion yet cbrahma, as to what place religion holds for me in this time and place and my own personal spiritual encounter. But I will say from what I have seen there is much negative aspect to religion, even if it is necessary and serves a purpose. Even to the point of self-reflection and questioning if religion serves any purpose for me and my relation with Spirit.

 

What do you think?

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.

'...Organized religions tend to create hierarchical systems focusing on the pursuit of power, control, politics, money, possessions, and other secular concerns. under these circumstances, religious hierarchy as a rule dislikes and discourages direct spiritual experiences in its members, because they foster independence and cannot be effectively controlled. When this is the case, genuine spiritual life continues only in the mystical branches, monastic orders, and ecstatic sects of the religions involved...' New Dimensions - Grof.

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

Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those selling and buying things there, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves, and refused to allow anyone to carry things through the temple. That is at least Mark's brief description of what happened (11,15–16), to which he adds the doubtless interpretative frame story of the cursing of the fig tree (11,12–14.20–21) together with Jesus' quotations from Isa 56,7 and Jer 7,11 (11,17). Some see, too, a link to 15,38: Jesus' act is for Mark ratified by the rending of the temple screen, which in turn symbolizes God's departure from the temple.

<!-- /abstract content --><!-- fulltext content --><!-- /fulltext content -->

Jesus says in John 4:24, "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."

I dont know about that. Touchy point for me...bhakti hopefully is sweeter and bigger than conformity. Maybe my drifting has already begun, many years ago...

 

 

I can understand why people walk away from all religious structure in due course...whether for right or wrong reasons.

The craving for wholeness and spiritual seems to be much deeper in humankind, than the craving for religion. Religion can be let go of, spirit unfolds. But until we discover a particle of spirit and the vision of that, we may possibly continue to look for God in religion and like structures (I guess).

 

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.

Some experiences of religion:

 

Terms like 'backslider' and 'fringie' seem to be applied sometimes in religious movements to those who do not adhere to the principles fully. Often there can be a dividing line and the so-called backslider can begin to feel marginalized from the religious body and its people. The religious structure seems to enforce a silent authority that the backslider must conform. A subtle pressure that has no face.

 

This seems to go on in religious structures alot, and very few of the religious seem to be willing to talk about it. Personally I have found that kind of power play to be an awful face of religion. When infact the fringie may be experiencing personal internal spiritual growth in accord with higher will.

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.

cbrahma, why do you think there has been need to develop religious structures?

 

Why after the manifestation of a great saint or mystic do the religious structures eventually form?

 

As humans in this 21st century, do we need religion? Or can the organism live spiritually and 'whole' without the hierarchy etc?

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.

I grew up in religion cbrahma (that forbade spiritual discussion). Catholic school, abuse (sick priests and brothers both sexually and physically abusive) etc. It is definetly a much different encounter than the spiritual aspect of the self. The control and abuse of religion was awful, and infact stifeled spiritual awakening. It seems many who choose to remain religious in those structures remain blinded by the structure.

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.

Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person.

Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person.

Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person.

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?

 

 

The abbreviated definition of "initiation" is the admission of a neophyte disciple into the unadulterated philosophical and transcendental mysteries handed down by a succession of past Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya Acaryas. As Srila Prabhupada stated:

 

 

"Well initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing."

 

Srila Prabhupada Press Interview, 10-16-76, Chandigarh

 

 

 

 

 

The past Acaryas have established the principle that a sincere candidate can be connected to the Sampradaya via the advanced siksa guru. In fact, one of the distinguishing common features of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada is that both emphasized and reinforced the concept and principle of siksa guru being as important as diksa.

 

 

"Thakura Bhaktivinoda was not official Spiritual Master of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja. Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja was already renounced order, Paramahamsa, but Thakura Bhaktivinoda, while He was even playing the part of a householder, was treated by Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja as Preceptor, on account of His highly elevated spiritual understanding, and thus He was always treating Him as His Spiritual Master. The Spiritual Master is divided into two parts; namely, siksa guru and diksa guru. So officially Bhaktivinoda Thakura was like siksa guru of Gaura Kisora das Babaji Maharaja."

 

Srila Prabhupada Letter to Dayananda, 05-01-69:

 

 

 

Over 100 years ago, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura challenged the religionists of his day, which he identified as Caste Goswamis, Smarta Brahmins, mundane intellectuals, western scholars, and even those purporting to be in direct disciplic succession to associates of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura introduced the relevance, significance and importance of the siksa guru as a bonafide initiator into our Sampradaya. His own brother, Lalita prasad, sided with the representatives of traditional diksa lines that traced their linage clear back to the Caitanya Lila. These "Goswami lineage" successions claimed that initiation through them was the only possible way to link to Lord Caitanya’s Sampradaya. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati dismissed this self-serving concept, stating that regardless of one's spiritual genealogy, the prerequisite qualifications for successfully linking up to the Sampradaya are achieved wholly and solely upon the genuine advancement in Krsna consciousness by contacting a genuine Sampradaya Acarya. As such, he included Jagannatha dasa Babaji and Gaura Kisora das Babaji as qualified members of the Sampradaya, and he excluded all the established diksa lines who traced themselves back to the Caitanya Mahaprabhu lila period

Rocana dasa

 

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.