Is disciplic succession a scriptural injunction?

[Guest guest]

It means that when Srila Prabhupada says in his books that association with advanced vaishnavas is the key ingredient to advancing in spiritual life you take that instruction to heart. You are associating with Krsna and Srila Prabhupada by reading his books - now follow the instructions. Read, pray, associate. There are gradations of devotees. It is very important to associate with those who are more advanced than yourself because they will help you progress.

[AncientMariner 0]

 

It means that when Srila Prabhupada says in his books that association with advanced vaishnavas is the key ingredient to advancing in spiritual life you take that instruction to heart. You are associating with Krsna and Srila Prabhupada by reading his books - now follow the instructions. Read, pray, associate. There are gradations of devotees. It is very important to associate with those who are more advanced than yourself because they will help you progress.

 

 

What do you make of this?

 

"It is sometimes misunderstood that if one has to associate with persons engaged in devotional service, he will not be able to solve the economic problem. To answer this argument, it is described here that one has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life." (SB 3:31:48)

[AncientMariner 0]

"There are gradations of devotees."

 

Isn't Prabhupada the highest grade of devotee?

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

What exactly do you mean by balanced approach? Does that mean I have to agree that Prabhupada is not accessible by his books?

Come on if I was making an absolute statement that, "Prabhupada is not accesible by his books", then I would be completely contradicting my own post. I don't see how you can construe that kind of blanket statement from what I wrote. You need to go back and read it again.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

"There are gradations of devotees."

 

Isn't Prabhupada the highest grade of devotee?

Also, here you seem to be implying that no association with devotees in this world has any value because you can associate with the highest devotee in his books. Yet in his books he is repeating the instructions of the past acaryas that we should associate with devotees, and specifically devotees who are more advanced than ourselves. How do you justify such a glaring contradiction in your conception of Krsna Consciousness? And how can you read Srila Prabhupada's books and ignore the hundreds of times this major canon of Krsna bhakti is mentioned?

[theist 1]

 

It means that when Srila Prabhupada says in his books that association with advanced vaishnavas is the key ingredient to advancing in spiritual life you take that instruction to heart. You are associating with Krsna and Srila Prabhupada by reading his books - now follow the instructions. Read, pray, associate. There are gradations of devotees. It is very important to associate with those who are more advanced than yourself because they will help you progress.

 

Do you see the problem here guest? In the same sentence you agree that associating with Prabhupada's books is associating with both him and Krsna and then you instruct to follow the instructions which are "read, pray, associate."

 

If agree someone is already associating with Krsna and Prabhupada what would impell you to instruct that person that he needs to associate?

 

Very few people are so jadded that they have become hermits. Actually I am the only one I know. Then again there may be more but how would I know. ;-)

 

Anyway nobody is suggesting never going to a kirtan or to gather together for festivals and feasts as well as studying satra together and taking advantage of more advance devotees.

 

If that is all this is about then I trust you now see your mistraken thinking and will drop it. Of course you won't drop it if your motive is really to canvass for your particular guru which I suspect is the motive of several on this thread.

[Guest guest]

Let's put it like this. Some very gay and jolly fellows think Prabhupada was happy for people like them to carry on just as they do, since he tolerated a whole lot of jolly gay fellows and even put them in positions of Power. Their reading of the things Prabhupada said is that Prabhupada agrees with their gay philosophy. Now will Srila Prabhupada speak out against them and say they are doing wrong? Is he going to make some new pronouncements, in 2007, about the gay crowd? Similarly the ritviks say Prabhupada agrees with their ideology. They say things Prabhupada said and wrote support their ideology.

 

Truly, if Prabhupada is "present" now, is he going to speak out about these riduculous distorted ideologies - gay-ism, ritvikism, GBCism, and the rest?

[Guest guest]

I don't see a problem with what I wrote at all. Let me re-word it since you feel there is a 'problem' with it. Srila Prabhupada translated and commented on various scriptures using the tikas of the previous acharyas. In those books, translations, commentaries are the unequivocal instructions about the need to associate with advanced sadhakas by hearing the books in their sanga. So, the conclusion is that both Prabhupada and Krsna agree - association with advanced vaishnavas who can help you advance is important and he is specifically instructing everyone who is associating with him by reading his books to seek out that sanga. There is no slight of hand or double message there. You have to accept the direct meaning of what is being said. You can't say - but look, over here it is said that reading the book and associating is non-different and then try to apply that everywhere and in the process cover the direct meaning of scritpural texts.

 

The other thing is that when reading sastra the siddhanta is always established by citing from scriptures directly. That is so because not everyone will agree with every point of commentary - especially if it can't be substantiated with direct quotes from sastra.

 

But what I am really objecting to is one can ignore the direct instructions of sastra regarding the process of devotional service and the need for associating with advanced sadhakas and at the same time suggest that they are associating with Srila Prabhupada. If association means hearing and FOLLOWING the message - then actually - I see a completely different problem than you do - which is why I have been posting on this thread.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

But what I am really objecting to is one can ignore the direct instructions of sastra regarding the process of devotional service and the need for associating with advanced sadhakas and at the same time suggest that they are associating with Srila Prabhupada. If association means hearing and FOLLOWING the message - then actually - I see a completely different problem than you do - which is why I have been posting on this thread.

Ah Ha! Here is Mister Aurobindo Ghosh!

[theist 1]

 

 

 

But what I am really objecting to is one can ignore the direct instructions of sastra regarding the process of devotional service and the need for associating with advanced sadhakas and at the same time suggest that they are associating with Srila Prabhupada.

 

I see the development of Krsna consciousness as an individual thing. Even in a group living situation we must advance as an individual. Now what is needed for one person will not be what is needed by another. Some can withdraw and chant and read all day for years and some just chant japa day and night. Some are on the streets day and night preaching and that is also where Krsna will reveal Himself to them. Others like a mixture of alone time to read and chant plus lots of kirtan, festivals and service as well. Each individual is at their own place due to the mixrture of the modes of nature.

 

No one size fits all formula can be imposed on another. Which is what you are implying with your denial that someone who spends most of his devotional energy on reading Prabhupada cannot really be associating with Prabhupada. there is more than a little hubris involved in such a judgement.

 

In Prabhupada's books one will find instructions to go live at Radha-kunda. Prabhupada stressed preaching also in his books and by example. So to say that someone who goes to live at Radha kunda and chant all day is not associating with Prabhupada because he doesn't preach is as absurd as saying one who preaches all day but has no time for 64 rounds a day is not following Prabhupada.

 

Please don't place chains around the practices of others. Allow others to follow their own inspiration without harassment even if it is very different from your own.

 

 

 

If association means hearing and FOLLOWING the message - then actually - I see a completely different problem than you do - which is why I have been posting on this thread.

 

Same point. Hearing is following! One instruction is to hear. We follow that by hearing. There are other ways of following also but who are you to criticize anothers choice in these matters.

 

As an aside if you are going to get involved in extended conversations it would be helpful if you showed some courtesy by distinquishing yourself in some way.

[theist 1]

 

Let's put it like this. Some very gay and jolly fellows think Prabhupada was happy for people like them to carry on just as they do, since he tolerated a whole lot of jolly gay fellows and even put them in positions of Power. Their reading of the things Prabhupada said is that Prabhupada agrees with their gay philosophy. Now will Srila Prabhupada speak out against them and say they are doing wrong? Is he going to make some new pronouncements, in 2007, about the gay crowd? Similarly the ritviks say Prabhupada agrees with their ideology. They say things Prabhupada said and wrote support their ideology.

 

Truly, if Prabhupada is "present" now, is he going to speak out about these riduculous distorted ideologies - gay-ism, ritvikism, GBCism, and the rest?

 

He already has in his books, lectures, letters and conversations.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

Anyway nobody is suggesting never going to a kirtan or to gather together for festivals and feasts as well as studying satra together and taking advantage of more advance devotees.

 

If that is all this is about then I trust you now see your mistraken thinking and will drop it. Of course you won't drop it if your motive is really to canvass for your particular guru which I suspect is the motive of several on this thread.

I don't know about that. If rtvik philosphy falls into the wrong hands then an inexperienced person can come to conclusion that there is no reason to associate with devotees of any type in this world. On the other hand if one really is niskincana, has nothing in this world and is completely dependent on Krsna they may retire to a bhajan kutir and take only the Name and read sastra. But that is a very advanced stage of bhajananandi and not to imitate. So the concept of nirjana bhajan is there. But obviously if one is very neophyte and not trained up properly they may take the sastra which obviously includes Prabhupada's books in quite the wrong way. In the mid 70's there was a prison preaching program in California. One inmate was a charasmatic impersonalist, ganja guru and had a small following. This inmate was doing a life without parole sentence. He was given a number of Prabhupada's books but after a while the devotees stoped the program and he was left on his own. Twenty years later some of the people he had converted and "initiated" started showing up especially at ISKCON temples in Southern California. The self-proclaimed prison guru was preaching a strange mix of Charlie Manson-like apocolyptic philosophy and Krsna Consciousness. The entire episode was quite bizzare to say the least. In fact in his correspondences the bogus prison guru was quite delusional and very scary. The prison guru thought that everything that he was doing by authorized by Srila Prabhupada. He thought that Prabhupada was speaking to him directly, encouraging him in his ganja program. This is an extreme example of what can happen when a so-called follower has no service connection under the higher guidance of an advanced sadhu. And personally I don't care where anyone finds higher guidance as long as its coming in paramapara and genuine. If I wanted to be a lobbyist, then I would do just that in Washington D.C. At least I'd get paid for it, but really I am not interested enough to give the effort.

[Guruvani 0]

 

I don't know about that. If rtvik philosphy falls into the wrong hands then an inexperienced person can come to conclusion that there is no reason to associate with devotees of any type in this world.

 

that is peabrain hogwash.

According to the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada set-up, a person had to meet all the principles and requirements under the guidance and supervision of a temple president and a GBC.

6 months following for Harinama

1 year for Gayatri.

 

So, how in the hell can you say that a ritvik follower can ignore devotees and live alone without association.

 

What kind of drugs are you vapuvadis on?

 

Man, you guys will go to any length to lie and distort the real meaning of ritvik diksha.

 

All this does is show how ignorant and desperate you are to try and make your case against the ritvik system.

 

You guys need something to stimulate brain function.

I take Gotu-kola everyday.

Maybe you should take some brain power herbs to stimululate brain-cell function?

You seem to have a short-circuit somewhere in the mainframe!

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

To Guest:

 

The answer is quite simple ... most 'book vadis' are simply envious of the current Spiritual Guru's in the gaudiya vaisnava community today.

 

It is much more likely that the past "current Spiritual Gurus" who turned out to be child molestors and homosexuals had more to do with it.

 

To Kulapavana:

 

just ask yourself a question: what if he does NOT fall down? was Gour Govinda Maharaj fallen when he passed on? or Bhaktiswarup Damodar Maharaj? are YOU ready to accept them as next links past Prabhupada?

 

"Not falling down" is not the qualification of a spiritual master. There are thousands of people throughout the world who "do not fall down", but that doesn't make them the 33rd link in the parampara. So in answer, someone not falling down doesn't really tell you anything. On the other hand, someone falling down confirms that they were never a link in the parampara. I hope you can catch the distinction in this. One shows who is not a guru, the other shows nothing - other than the fact that they didn't fall down. It never identifies who is a guru.

 

 

these gurus passed on in good standing, they were very mature, wonderful Vaishnavas. to THEIR DISCIPLES they were a valid current link.

 

And if Harikesh had passed on "in good standing" you would still be fooled by him. Passing away in good standing proves nothing. The parampara isn't a matter of opinions "of their disciples". Either they are the link, or they are not the link. Our opinions of them have no bearing on their spiritual connection to Krishna. Opinion of validity is different from validity.

 

 

suuuure. and all the other sages who already had proper diksha from their gurus and were present during that conversation got another "diksha" from Sukadeva Goswami at no extra charge...

 

You fail to comprehend basic philosophical points, so I don't think theist can really convince you of anything. It is a fact that Parikshit is a disciple of Sukadeva Goswami. He was initiated solely by hearing the Bhagavatam. You foolishly laugh at such an initiation saying no one else in the audience could have received the same initiation by the same process of hearing. It just displays your ignorance. Theist made a very intelligent point which flew right over your head, and you replied with sarcasm that displayed your ignorance of philosophy. And then you tried to pretend that you knew every sage in the audience who was listening to Sukadeva Goswami, and that you knew that each one had already been initiated, and you also knew who initiated each one. Are you sane or not? Why do you try to pretend so much, especially while ridiculing other devotees like Theist?

 

Of course from the beginning you haven't displayed any aptitude for philosophical research. You continually put forward your own blind opinions with claims that they were "repeatedly" spoken by Srila Prabhupada, and then scoffed at all the rest of us fools. When it is pointed out that you had provided a fake quote, and you had then claimed it was spoken by Prabhupada, rather than get some sense and realize the mistake of your foolishness you just kept insulting people like Theist. When it was shown that Prabhupada never "repeatedly" said what you claimed he said, you didn't get the significance. It shows that you have no comprehension of Prabhupada's basic teachings, yet you want to scoff at people like Theist and belittle them.

 

You pretend to have the perfect complete philosophical conclusion on the guru issue, yet you are not initiated by a bonafide guru. You speak volumes of the need to approach a LIVING guru and receive PERSONAL guidance from him. So show us by your actions. Go and approach your living guru and receive personal guidance from him. The fact is you are all talk. Your living guru ran off with a lady and is living in luxury off of the money he stole from his disciples. What personal guidance did you get from all of that?

 

So rather than trying to laugh off people like Theist, you need to grow up and realize you don't have all the answers you pretend you have. And if you want to prove me wrong, then act on your philosophy and find the living guru you say you really need. Because until you find him, you will be a blind person by your own philosophy. You should really not speak until you get the "personal guidance" you claim is required to remove your misconceptions.

 

 

initially, to his Godbrothers, Prabhupada was not a current link either.

The link in the parampara is not determined by the opinions of the public, nor by the opinion of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers. Krishna remains Krishna regardless of what Kamsa thinks. And Srila Prabhupada remains the parampara acharya regardless of what blind people think.

 

 

To Muralidhar:

 

I particularly liked the refence about Bhaktisvarup Damodara Maharaja, who I am sure was a genuine Guru.

 

-muralidhar

 

Yet you have serious doubts about the legitimacy of Srila Prabhupada, his guru, simply because someone posted one letter where he criticized his god brothers. What is the use of such weak or sentimental faith? You will glorify Bhaktiswarup Damodar Maharaj while questioning his own guru.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

LOL....What arrogance "I have counselled many devotees after their gurus fell down" ......

 

Was this before or after your guru Harikesha fell down?

 

 

mostly after. but I have never given up the process of sadhana bhakti simply because my diksha guru left the fold of our sampradaya. yes, it was very traumatic, but because my understanding of the guru tattva was not based on iskcon folklore but on traditional vedic understanding I was not devastated and have not lost any faith in the process. quite the contrary - my understanding deepened, and I realized how much I really need a living guru, and how much I owe Harikesh for the many years he acted as my guru.

 

but I doubt very much you understand these things.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The link in the parampara is not determined by the opinions of the public, nor by the opinion of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers.

funny, but I get a distinct feeling that you are trying to sell me your opinion on that matter as the final word on this subject - the same thing you are accusing me of...

 

there ARE different opinions on that matter, it is a FACT. you may say Prabhupada's instructions in that matter are clear and that I should simply accept them as they are. I debate that point that they are CLEAR. if they are so clear why there are so many different opinions about it among his disciples?

 

I can easily say that it is clear my point of view is strictly based on what Prabhupada said - the same claim the ritviks, zonal acharyaites, or current GBC-ites make. but there is more to it than just making a claim. the confusion regarding this issue IS the reality and the books dont seem to solve it.

 

of course, you can always pretend that the problem does not exist...

[Guest guest]

 

[

The link in the parampara is not determined by the opinions of the public, nor by the opinion of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers. Krishna remains Krishna regardless of what Kamsa thinks. And Srila Prabhupada remains the parampara acharya regardless of what blind people think.

 

Just out of curiosity Prabhu in your humble and honest view do you recognize any other parampara acharyas apart from Srila A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad that could be seen also as a 32nd link from Srila Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati Thakur.

Say for instance do you recognize Srila B.R.Sridhara Maharaj as such?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It is a fact that Parikshit is a disciple of Sukadeva Goswami. He was initiated solely by hearing the Bhagavatam.

 

are you saying that Maharaja Parikshit did not receive mantra diksha and sacred thread from the preceptor of the royal family when he reached the right age?

 

yes, he became a disciple of Sukadeva Goswami by hearing the Bhagavatam from him, but he did not get diksha from him in the normal and traditional sense of this term. sure, you can come up with your own definition for everything, but that simply creates a complete mess when it comes to understanding things and relating to people who dont use your definitions.

 

let me clue you in what Jiva Goswami meant when he wrote that famous diksha verse, at least based on the traditional understanding of that verse:

"Diksha is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksha." Cc. Madhya 15.108

 

just giving someone a mantra and a thread is not sufficient for a real diksha. real diksha also should include instruction and transfer of treanscendental knowledge that destroys our karma. in the absence of thread and mantra such good instruction from a pure self realized Vaishnava will suffice if needed.

[Kulapavana 0]

and this is to all of you bookavadis:

 

NOI 1.

"A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world."

 

The Goswamis wrote lots of most excellent books. Find me a single quote where they say books replace the need for a living guru qualified to make disciples all over the world.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

You pretend to have the perfect complete philosophical conclusion on the guru issue, yet you are not initiated by a bonafide guru. You speak volumes of the need to approach a LIVING guru and receive PERSONAL guidance from him. So show us by your actions. Go and approach your living guru and receive personal guidance from him. The fact is you are all talk. Your living guru ran off with a lady and is living in luxury off of the money he stole from his disciples. What personal guidance did you get from all of that?

I never claimed to have a perfect complete philosophical conclusion on anything. Another bogus claim on your side.

 

as I said earlier, I am actively looking for a living guru.

 

as to Harikesh, I got a lot more out of him then he ever got out of me. as his ex-disciple it is not my job to judge him. I wish him all the best. he tried to fill his role, he did a lot of great things - I even took part in some of them - and he made some mistakes even he regrets today. what guidance did I get from all of that? I doubt you would understand if I told you...

 

I have no regrets. I am deeply thankful to Krsna for all the help He gave me, and all the devotees He put on my path. These were good, sobering lessons. They made me who I am today. I may not be much of a devotee to you, but that does not bother me one bit. I have learned to value and appreciate all kinds of good devotees, from all kinds of camps. I bow down to all of them. They are my living gurus.

[Kulapavana 0]

more on the diksha issue for all the confused readers:

 

Rupa Goswami begins his delineation on the angas of sadhana bhakti thus (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, txt 74)

gurpadasrayas tasmat krsna diksadi siksanam

 

1. Take shelter of the feet of the guru

2. Take initiation from him

3. Take siksa from him

 

 

Thus diksha is clearly differentiated from siksha. if diksha is viewed simply as a "process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity" in the sense of pertinent instruction from a self realized soul (basically siksha - as in Parikshit listening to Sukadeva) why do we say that you only have one diksha guru?

 

when does that awakening take place? in the esoteric sense it is generaly understood that that awakening takes place when one receives the sacred sound (shabda brahman) of the sampradaya mantra in the ear from his diksha guru.

[Guest guest]

LOL! So everyone that hasn't received initiation now should consider himself on the level of Sukadeva Goswami and understand that initiation is not necessary!

 

You're drifiting more and more toward the impersonal philosophy. You need to renounce whatever philosophy your associates are feeding you and get some genuine Vaisnava association before it's too late.

 

 

Sukadeva Goswami never received "diksha".

When Vayasdeva tried to give him diksha, Sukadeva actually turned away and RAN off and never came back.

 

So, maybe this is why Lord Siva said that Vyasadeva may or may not know the actual inner meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

funny, but I get a distinct feeling that you are trying to sell me your opinion on that matter as the final word on this subject - the same thing you are accusing me of...

 

there ARE different opinions on that matter, it is a FACT.

You are too dense to communicate with. I never said there are not various opinions. I said opinions do not make the reality. Neither my opinion nor your opinion adds or subtracts anything from an Acharya's position.

 

Thus whether Prabhupada's god brothers accepted him or not as an acharya made no difference to him being an acharya.

 

The fact that you couldn't comprehend the english means there is no point speaking, because either you can't hear or you can't comprehend.

 

 

are you saying that Maharaja Parikshit did not receive mantra diksha and sacred thread from the preceptor of the royal family when he reached the right age?

Your statements are just completely incoherent. You are trying to equate an upanayana samskara (receiving sacred thread for the three higher castes) with the bhagavat parampara diksha. Rather than taking Prabhupada's statement on this matter, you use your fertile imagination to imagine what might have occured when Parikshit was a child in the palace. "Well, maybe he could have been initiated into the sacred thread as a child." It is obvious you have no clue what so ever about our parampara. Please read Prabhupada's books more thoroughly.

 

Maharaja Parikshit was the direct disciple of Sukadeva Goswami, and he was initiated by hearing the Bhagavatam. Go ask your living guru and his therapist wife and they can confirm that for you.

 

Srila Prabhupada answers your speculations like this:

 

"Maharaja Parikshit was such a maha-bhagavata devotee because he was initiated by a maha-bhagavata devotee, Shukadeva Gosvami." (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.18.16)

 

yes, he became a disciple of Sukadeva Goswami by hearing the Bhagavatam from him, but he did not get diksha from him in the normal and traditional sense of this term.

...

just giving someone a mantra and a thread is not sufficient for a real diksha.

Again, you contradict yourself in the same post. First you try to cite Parikshit supposedly receiving sacred thread as a child as being his real diksha, then you conclude that simply receiving the sacred thread is not the real diksha. The you say it is the spiritual knowledge that is the real diksha. You are confused and arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

You are just a pretender who has no knowledge of anything you are speaking about. You tried to claim you knew that all of the sages hearing from Sukadeva Goswami had already been initiated: Go ahead and list all the sages who were in the assembly, tell us who each one was initiated by and when. You were a bluffer trying to pretend you had some spiritual knowledge, all to silence Theist.

 

When you are properly initiated according to your belief system, then come back and speak and I will take you seriously. But while condemning all the rascals for not having a living guru, you simultaneously don't have a living guru, and you get all your knowledge from Amar Chitra Katha comic books.

 

Srila Prabhupada often spoke about knowing a fool when he opens his mouth. It was clear as soon as you started this thread. You made up fake quotes from Prabhupada which he never said. Then you challenged:

 

"Prabhupada always spoke of belonging to the unbroken chain of disciplic succession. Which part of "unbroken" do you not understand? Who came up with that phrase? What is the meaning of unbroken in that context? that it gets broken and fixed again and again? is that the meaning of unbroken?"

After making up a quote from Prabhupada, you then made the above claim that Srila Prabhupada "always" spoke about belonging to the unbroken chain of disciplic succession. It was shown that Srila Prabhupada mentioned this one time in his life, in 1951. So you don't even know what Srila Prabhupada teaches and what he didn't teach. Yes, you claim he "always spoke of this".

 

Other nonsensical speculations you have presented in this thread:

 

 

"Prabhupada presented the parampara as person to person contact. That is a fact."

No, Srila Prabhupada never did that. You made that up and then put Prabhupada's name to make it look authoritative.

 

Then you suggest Prabhupada would be a useless nobody if it wasn't for his few days of associating with Bhaktissidhanta Saraswati:

 

 

"who would Prabhupada be without a direct contact with Bhaktisiddhanta?"

Even if Srila Prabhupada had never seen his guru physically, he would still be a pure devotee of Lord Krishna.

 

Then you made the absurd claim that you could trace the diksha line from Bhaktisiddhanta to Bhaktivinoda Thakur:

 

 

"to deny direct disciplic linkage between Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinoda is purely imaginary contortionism."

Then you made another incoherrent statement about our parampara absolutely always being a physical connection... except for those numerous gaps:

 

 

"the line BST has drawn for us is using both siksha and diksha, yet in every case it is a case of a direct linkage (not counting the "gaps" for which there simply is no record of intermediate gurus)."

Then you again lied and said Prabhupada wanted to maintain the idea of an unbroken disciplic succession, which as had been shown, was only mentioned once by Srila Prabhupada in a letter from 1951:

 

 

"Prabhupada also wanted to maintain the idea of unbroken spiritual succession, as it definitely has a value."

Then you again lied and said Prabhupada presented his parampara in a new and unique way:

 

 

"just as BST chose to present the idea of parampara in a new and unique way, so did Srila Prabhupada."

No, it was you who presented it in a new and unique way, not Srila Prabhupada.

 

Then you tried to trace your parampara from Harikesh to Bipin Bihari:

 

 

"and if we accept that our line goes through Bipin Bihari Goswami it gets even easier to trace it back to Mahaprabhu, as that line kept fairly good records, at least as far as I know."

I can honestly say you don't have a clue about what you are talking, and are just stumbling around looking like a fool - all the while criticizing the other devotees here like Theist and Guruvani because they don't agree with you.

 

Doens't Harikesh have a forum of his own for ex-disciples like you to talk and offend Srila Prabhupada?

[Guest guest]

Honestly, it seems like you're the one twisting things around. Where did anyone say that Srila Prabhupada needs to be abandoned? I don't know why the 'book vadis' keep saying that. All I see from the opposite camp is that books are not enough.

 

So all the people that took initiation from Srila Prabhupada ... did they abandon Srila Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati?

 

 

I thought it was lame to dismiss my concerns of a falldown and twist that into saying I was trying to promote Prabhupada over anyone else. For me it is a real concern when people say you have to abandon Prabhupada and find the current link. How am I supposed to know the current link isn't going to falldown. That is a valid concern in my opinion but apparently you don't think so and you are entitled to your opinion. I wasn't commenting on the Vaisnavas you mentioned one way or another as I know virtually nothing about them.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

"do you really believe there is no difference in associating with Srila PRabhupada in person and through his books."

-------

In his books he has put everything which one can associate with at any time.

If you had his personal association for a few minutes what do you thing would happen, he'd touch you and you'd see some bright light?

 

why trivialize association with advanced Vaishnavas? devotees who came in direct contact with Prabhupada usually remember and treasure these moments their entire life. it was a tremendous inspiration to practice bhakti yoga, something that is makeing his books come alive for them. you say it is unimportant, and I say you are wrong.