Prabhupada Clarification #1

[Guest guest]

This portion of my original post:

===============

However, spiritual life is such that it cannot be

owned by an institution. It only lives in people. So

you have to have it in you. If you don't, there's no

faking it really. Not for that long anyway. They'll

find out.

 

You cannot "feel it" around a person who doesn't have

it. It's a living thing. Only the real thing has real

effect, makes people actually FEEL something.

===============

 

was not about Prabhupada. This was not easy to tell. One might think I

was talking about him here. I was not. I was referring to attempting to

make institutions by rules, such as "we are his disciples, therefore

follow us". I'm saying that "isn't felt" spiritual lineage, but one more

of coerced followers. So it's important to not think that this was

about him. I believe he did have something, or "it" for the simple

minded, that's obvious.

[Guest guest]

Das,

 

At 01:35 PM 8/6/02 -0700, you wrote:

 

>This portion of my original post:

>===============

>However, spiritual life is such that it cannot be

>owned by an institution. It only lives in people. So

>you have to have it in you. If you don't, there's no

>faking it really. Not for that long anyway. They'll

>find out.

>

>You cannot "feel it" around a person who doesn't have

>it. It's a living thing. Only the real thing has real

>effect, makes people actually FEEL something.

>===============

>

>was not about Prabhupada. This was not easy to tell. One might think I

>was talking about him here. I was not.

 

OK, that's good - this is getting better. However, there were some direct

"snipes" that you in fact did take to the guru himself, not just the

institutionalization or blind following of some.

 

>I was referring to attempting to

>make institutions by rules, such as "we are his disciples, therefore

>follow us". I'm saying that "isn't felt" spiritual lineage, but one more

>of coerced followers. So it's important to not think that this was

>about him. I believe he did have something, or "it" for the simple

>minded, that's obvious.

 

If it was not about him, then, will you retract statements made directly

defiling him? I will quote them from your other list posting, if you want.

 

There "is" such a thing as universally accepted protocol, even if you do

not choose to follow this or that guru, or his institution. Think about

that for a moment, and then give "Clarification #2".