cbrahma

Bhaktisiddhanta said it best:

Diska is always present because there is always somebody claiming to be in the parampara by virtue of diksa. With ample supply of mantra purveyors, the salvation brokerage is always open for business. Corruption is lucrative.

Denominationalism is an American phenomenon which orginated from its Revivalist roots.

Says who? Gosh and the fire sacrifice prevents them from being shmos? ...All those unqualified ISKCON gurus falling like a summer shower. Note very carefully To date the diksa lineage is corrupted (read caste goswami) News flash---the parampara is a siksa not a diksa parampara.

How do you know?

So much miscommunication occurs on the internet because it's impersonal. So the question how can you tell somebody is angry is an important one.

Is this enough to dispel the sentimentality of the bodily conception? Not being a mundane religionist/traditionalist I don't wish for something I don't need. Whew (enough already)

Wonderful:rolleyes:

How does the rhetorical question not define the issue? Papers are full of inline quotes BTW. This a forum, so there is no 'back of the book' reference section. Also in a devotional setting such as this forum - authority counts.

My question was rhetorical. A lead to one possible answer. Best not to make characterizations. Basing one's statements about a particular belief system like Gaudiya Vaisnavism, by quoting an authority on the subject is not parroting - it's called supporting with references. If you've ever written a paper that is what is expected.

It could be taken that way 'The British are trying to take over the world'. They didn't literally steal from the Vedas...did they?

This is the text in question Now Prabhupada appears to be literally forming a conspiracy theory about 'Britishers'. That they just used the Vedas to their advantage. Britishers were Indologists. They had been to India , were familiar with the culture. It isn't obvious that they didn't plagiarize. But that idea aside, we need to look at the point, the spirit of the statement rather than its technical truth. The Vedas do trump so many materialist theories. All knowledge comes from the Vedas. In fact Veda means knowledge. That is the philosophical principle Prabhupada is applying here.

I don't see significant differences in meaning - just the language differences cleaned up.

How does one determine if a response is angry, especially over the internet? Obviously if one is making personal remarks about character and spiritual state, then that is not a good sign. It is best therefore to avoid all personal characterizations. To address issues, statements, without such attacks is always valid, but if a person continues to respond with you are such and such bad character, then ignoring is best IMO.

<DD>I know the about the theory of evolution. I have a science degree. <DD>I already made the distinction of which I am fully aware, between the evolution of the soul and evolution of the species. <DD>But the basic concept of evolution is the same, simply applied in two completely different ways, the one valid, the other invalid. <DD>It's like the Hegelian spiritual dialectic being appropriated by Marxist materialism. And yes I know that in that case, there was a clear borrowing, but the relationship between the two theories is analogous. <DD>We don't want to be asses taking things in a stupid literal way. Prabhupada was making a philosophical point about the primacy of the Vedas. To turn around and fault him for not being academically factual is myopic like Dr. Frog in the well. <DD> <DD> <DD> </DD>

The point that Prabhupada was making (which is obvious to me) is that the Vedas already have the knowledge we need, that even the correct idea of evolution (that is the evolution of the soul through all the species of life) is there. It's not exactly that Darwin literally consciously stole the idea from the Vedas, but that it was already in existence in the Vedas, and that he was purporting it to be his original theory which he misapplied and distorted n some deterministic, materialistic way. That is sufficient qualification for his rascaldom. It is not the result of Prabhupada's bigotry or hatred, but of his Vedic and spiritual vision.

Of course that is what he is saying. That's all he ever says, in spite of the fact that there are Prabhupada disciples that will not even associate with GM disciples. It's all about status and position etc..Being on the inside... But that goes back to the traditional religious system - which for all intents and purposes Bhaktisiddhanta rejected. There are a lot of ways in which the GM gurus and disciples undermine Prabhupada - so it's all a matter of what side of the fence you're on. I dont' want to continue with this side-dialogue with beggar. I have him on ignore for a reason. Because his one and only ploy is to make wholesale personal attacks - 'ad hominem' - conveniently dismissing everything anybody could say. It's kind of a brain-dead tactic which I'm not interested in pursuing. (ignore beggar)

I don't need credentials to speak from experience. Prabhupada is the guru I quote almost exclusively and not in a negative way. My personal status has nothing to do with the accuracy of my statements. That kind of argument is 'ad hominem'. It is both allacious and non-Vaisnava at the same time.

A travesty of logical inference.

It depends what you mean by sadhana.