Universality and transcendance

[tackleberry 1]

 

Yes I call surrender to Christ surrender to Krsna.

 

But Krishna doesn't! So you're going against the Lord's teaching....

[cbrahma 0]

 

How can one surrender to Reality, whilst yet attached to myths?

That is your assumption. Not Prabhupda's.

[tackleberry 1]

 

That is your assumption. Not Prabhupda's.

 

What then was Prabhupada's assumption?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

...would you care to join me in a cup of tulasi tea kind sir. I add some herbs and spice and it is tasty, Krsna loves it too. Bienvenido!

 

 

I would not dare to drink Tulasi tea... I really like the aroma of Tulasi manjaris offered to my Shalagram silas but that's all.

[theist 1]

 

How can one surrender to Reality, whilst yet attached to myths?

 

LOL Now that is rich coming from a Hindu. Another question I'll direct back to you Mr. Hindu? That is two you need to answer.

[cbrahma 0]

 

ISKCON was a religion from day one. When you specify the devotional practices, like japa, mantra, puja, etc. you have a typical religion. And there is nothing wrong with that! Pretending that you are not a religion, however, is just misleading yourself and others.

Then you are accusing Prabhupada of hypocrisy because he did not want ISKCON to become a religion, otherwise he would not have spoken out so strongly against sectarianism.

[cbrahma 0]

 

What then was Prabhupada's assumption?

Prabhupada stated what he meant in volumes of writing. Read them and you will find out. I have quoted him several times on the subject of Christianity and Christ. You can speculate about his assumptions. I will not.

[theist 1]

 

ISKCON was a religion from day one. When you specify the devotional practices, like japa, mantra, puja, etc. you have a typical religion. And there is nothing wrong with that! Pretending that you are not a religion, however, is just misleading yourself and others.

 

Well I see a difference between a simple sadhana and religion. You obviously do not.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Then you are accusing Prabhupada of hypocrisy because he did not want ISKCON to become a religion, otherwise he would not have spoken out so strongly against sectarianism.

 

Quite clearly Prabhupada's use and definition of the word "religion' is different than mine. I use the standard dictionary definition, while Prabhupada has his own system, where (more or less) all man-made historical religions are "religions" while Vaishnavism is considered eternal and of divine origin.

 

Yet even within traditional Vaishnavism he rejects many groups as less than acceptable. How can you say that ISKCON as created by Prabhupada was not sectarian to some point? He often did not accept as pure the missions of his Godbrothers, what to speak of more distant Vaishnava camps?

[theist 1]

Where did you go tackleberrie? You owe me some answers.

 

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by tackleberry

How can one surrender to Reality, whilst yet attached to myths?

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

LOL Now that is rich coming from a Hindu. Another question I'll direct back to you Mr. Hindu? That is two you need to answer.

 

The second question was, are you prepared to renounce Hinduism per Krishna's instruction in the Gita?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Well I see a difference between a simple sadhana and religion. You obviously do not.

 

Iskcon has a Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine, philosophy, sadhana, and ritual. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a religion, therefore Iskcon is a religion as well.

 

Sanatana dharma maybe something you do while in Iskcon, but Iskcon and our movement in general IS a religion.

[theist 1]

 

Quite clearly Prabhupada's use and definition of the word "religion' is different than mine. I use the standard dictionary definition, while Prabhupada has his own system, where (more or less) all man-made historical religions are "religions" while Vaishnavism is considered eternal and of divine origin.

 

Yet even within traditional Vaishnavism he rejects many groups as less than acceptable. How can you say that ISKCON as created by Prabhupada was not sectarian to some point? He often did not accept as pure the missions of his Godbrothers, what to speak of more distant Vaishnava camps?

You take yourself way to seriously in thinking you have Prabhupada properly analyzed. Prabhupad orignal was trying to start a Gaudiya Matha temple in New York.

 

Of course you no doubt see Bhaktisiddhanta as starter of a sectarian religion.

[theist 1]

 

Iskcon has a Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine, philosophy, sadhana, and ritual. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a religion, therefore Iskcon is a religion as well.

 

Sanatana dharma maybe something you do while in Iskcon, but Iskcon and our movement in general IS a religion.

Yes if you are only seeing the outer shell of the transcendental teachings then you must see only a religion. This will lead you to conclude that Vaisnavism is another religion.

 

There is a difference between realization and religion.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Quite clearly Prabhupada's use and definition of the word "religion' is different than mine. I use the standard dictionary definition, while Prabhupada has his own system, where (more or less) all man-made historical religions are "religions" while Vaishnavism is considered eternal and of divine origin.

 

Yet even within traditional Vaishnavism he rejects many groups as less than acceptable. How can you say that ISKCON as created by Prabhupada was not sectarian to some point? He often did not accept as pure the missions of his Godbrothers, what to speak of more distant Vaishnava camps?

He obviously meant Religion with a capital 'r' and synonomous with sanatana dharma. But religion is not 'group' or 'math' or 'mission'.

[shvu 1]

 

Quite clearly Prabhupada's use and definition of the word "religion' is different than mine. I use the standard dictionary definition, while Prabhupada has his own system, where (more or less) all man-made historical religions are "religions" while Vaishnavism is considered eternal and of divine origin.

 

Yet even within traditional Vaishnavism he rejects many groups as less than acceptable. How can you say that ISKCON as created by Prabhupada was not sectarian to some point? He often did not accept as pure the missions of his Godbrothers, what to speak of more distant Vaishnava camps?

 

If I may,

 

You are an odd bird in the flock. Theist and CBrahma are model Hare Krishnas who cannot think beyond "Prabhupada said so". You on the other hand, by thinking logically and calling a spade a spade, are in danger of being ostracized by the HK community.

 

Cheers

[Kulapavana 0]

 

You take yourself way to seriously in thinking you have Prabhupada properly analyzed. Prabhupad orignal was trying to start a Gaudiya Matha temple in New York.

 

Of course you no doubt see Bhaktisiddhanta as starter of a sectarian religion.

 

Yes, he was trying to get the backing of Gaudiya Matha for his preaching. Too bad they did not have much money to help him in that regard.

 

And sectarian religions (Prabhpada was proudly admitting to belinging to Lord Caitanya's sect) are a very, very old phenomenon and not necessarily a bad one. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta had his vision of reforming Gaudiya Vaishnavism and he certainly started a completely new current in that religion.

[cbrahma 0]

 

If I may,

 

You are an odd bird in the flock. Theist and CBrahma are model Hare Krishnas who cannot think beyond "Prabhupada said so". You on the other hand, by thinking logically and calling a spade a spade, are in danger of being ostracized by the HK community.

 

Cheers

I am not a Hare Krsna. I don't frequent ISKCON temples which I consider to be Hinduism in a Western corporate package.

If you are going to accept Gaudiya Vaisnavism you have to accept their siksa gurus. To 'interpret' what they say because it doesn't suit your particular twist on the subject, is disingenous.

[tackleberry 1]

 

You take yourself way to seriously in thinking you have Prabhupada properly analyzed.

 

In all honesty, Kulapavana seems to be one of the few people around here to have analyzed Prabhupada, critically and rationally. Others are refusing to do so, NOT out of love for SP, but on account of their irrational attachment to their former religious backgrounds.

[cbrahma 0]

 

In all honesty, Kulapavana seems to be one of the few people around here to have analyzed Prabhupada, critically and rationally. Others are refusing to do so, NOT out of love for SP, but on account of their irrational attachment to their former religious backgrounds.

LOL. This is just too much. Yes we should scrutinize the professed guru, but once we have accepted that he is bona fide , then we should take him at his word. Are you saying that Prabhupada is not bona fide?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

 

You are an odd bird in the flock. Theist and CBrahma are model Hare Krishnas who cannot think beyond "Prabhupada said so". You on the other hand, by thinking logically and calling a spade a spade, are in danger of being ostracized by the HK community.

 

 

I was kicked out from the movement some 25 years ago for being honest and for speaking out against what I considered substandard practices. Few years later I was proven to be right and accepted back - yet this time I did not take up any functions within the Society. I have been active mostly on the fringe of Iskcon ever since, not giving up my sadhana or my convictions. There are many new generation devotees who think just like I do, even as they may be less open about it. Iskcon is changing, and when the old dinosaurs are gone, it will truly go to the next level.

[shvu 1]

 

LOL. This is just too much. Yes we should scrutinize the professed guru, but once we have accepted that he is bona fide , then we should take him at his word. Are you saying that Prabhupada is not bona fide?

 

I'll partially agree with this point. If I accept a Guru as bonafide after appropriate scrutiny, then it makes sense that I take him at his word.

 

However, in this case, you scrutinized the Guru for his abilities as a spiritual Guru only. You did not evaluate his knowledge on the english language, history, geography, politics, etc as that is irrelevant to your spritual quest.

 

But you seem to say that the Guru's word should be the final matter on these subjects too. And that is where most of the differences here are. I will remind everyone once again that this thread is on semantics and has nothing to do with spirituality.

 

Cheers

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Yes we should scrutinize the professed guru, but once we have accepted that he is bona fide , then we should take him at his word.

 

That is just another Iskcon myth, invented by Kirtanananda, Hansadutta, and their other bogus guru buddies. Guru's words must always be firmly supported by the authority of guru, sadhu, and shastra. His instructions must always be understood in the light of the tradition.

[cbrahma 0]

 

That is just another Iskcon myth, invented by Kirtanananda, Hansadutta, and their other bogus guru buddies. Guru's words must always be firmly supported by the authority of guru, sadhu, and shastra. His instructions must always be understood in the light of the tradition.

You're saying that Prabhupada's words don't measure up to sastra and sadhu?

[cbrahma 0]

 

I'll partially agree with this point. If I accept a Guru as bonafide after appropriate scrutiny, then it makes sense that I take him at his word.

 

However, in this case, you scrutinized the Guru for his abilities as a spiritual Guru only. You did not evaluate his knowledge on the english language, history, geography, politics, etc as that is irrelevant to your spritual quest.

 

But you seem to say that the Guru's word should be the final matter on these subjects too. And that is where most of the differences here are. I will remind everyone once again that this thread is on semantics and has nothing to do with spirituality.

 

Cheers

The guru's mundane knowledge is not at issue. You have a materialistic idea of what guru means. But even in the material area of university, we take many things on authority, because the institution has given this or that teacher a post.

[shvu 1]

 

I was kicked out from the movement some 25 years ago for being honest and for speaking out against what I considered substandard practices. Few years later I was proven to be right and accepted back - yet this time I did not take up any functions within the Society. I have been active mostly on the fringe of Iskcon ever since, not giving up my sadhana or my convictions. There are many new generation devotees who think just like I do, even as they may be less open about it. Iskcon is changing, and when the old dinosaurs are gone, it will truly go to the next level.

 

I admire your ability to survive in a group for so long where rational thinking is discouraged. I know I could never have managed that. But like you said, things can always get better.

 

I have been arguing with theist for quite a few years now and he is a practical man too, as long as he does not get emotional. But he gets emotional all too quickly and then most discussions go south after that.

 

Anyway, we are all born with different endurance levels. I do not think it is something we can cultivate.

 

Cheers