brother george

[mahak 0]

 

Haribol. Ill share my outrage against a person on this forum here, because this mentality is prevalent everywhere. On this forum, many claim exclusive adherance to Prabhupada's desire, yet unduly

criticize those He accepts as his own.

 

On the other topic, someone affected with kanistha mentality that rules and regulations of religion equate with ultimate Krsna Consciousness blasted George Harrison, claiming that he was not a

devotee because he chained smoked cigarettes and gave a portion of his estate to SRF, the vehicle of Sri Paramahamsa Yogananda.

 

This attitude is bogus. Thank Krsna for not sending fanatics for our salvation. Thank Krsna that the Captain of our ship does not look for our disqualifications and is all- inclusive in his approach to distribute his gurukrpa.

 

Disciples are arrogantly displeasing to Srila Prabhupada by not accepting those who he fully accepts as his own. He made no errors in his decisions to engage us in his missionary work. The disciplic succession can only continue in the application of the liberalism and

tolerance of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Prabhupada.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

 

[Haridham 0]

Well I have seen people blasphame george and didnt like it. Total vaisnava apardha. Oh well, what can you do.

 

When people are envious it shows.

[Guest guest]

I agree completely prabhu. Actually, "My Sweet Lord" was most probably the very first time that I ever heard the maha-mantra chanted. From a certain point of view, Sriman George Harrison is a Jagad Guru.

[Guest guest]

 

Krsna Consciousness blasted George Harrison, claiming that he was not a

devotee because he chained smoked cigarettes and gave a portion of his estate to SRF, the vehicle of Sri Paramahamsa Yogananda.

 

 

 

Yogananda was an impersonalist. I personally would never give money to a person or an organization which dedicated itself to leading people away from Krishna.

 

[Priitaa 0]

Sriman George Harrison was not Jagad guru, that is the position of a pure devotee like Srila Prabhupada. But George did chant Hare Krishna at the moment of death, so he is saved.

 

As for giving money to Yogananda who was an impersonalist, we don't have to approve, we dont even have to like it. I dont like it, but to take it the point of judging any one who chanted Hare Krishna upon their death is an offense, judging, and putting yourself at risk. George brought more people to Krishna than most of us ever could. I have been told that Srila Prabhupada said something along those lines. Not to criticize George cuz we could never do all he has done. To the critics I say, what have YOU done today to preach? And to how many? (Not looking for an answer, just food for thought.)

 

If George was less than perfect & gave $ to Yogananda, instead of criticizing George we should instead look to see what made him turn away from ISKCON and toward SRF. ISKCON must have burned him somehow, so we need to clean up our own mess rather than blaming others for seeing it. (Tho blaming others is what we have a habit of doing.)

 

Not to misunderstand, he never totally gave up Iskcon either!

[Guest guest]

 

Haribol. Ill share my outrage against a person on this forum here, because this mentality is prevalent everywhere. On this forum, many claim exclusive adherance to Prabhupada's desire, yet unduly

criticize those He accepts as his own.

 

 

 

He speaks for tolerance, and yet the tone and language is that of a fanatic.

 

If there is any one thing that seems to be a constant about fanatics, it is that they will almost invariably misrepresent others in order to give themselves a reason to shout him down.

 

When asking a question or having a doubt becomes seen as "criticism" of an authority figure, one can know in an instant that it is fanaticism, once again, which has reared its ugly head.

 

"Don't disagree with us. Don't wonder why we say what we say. Just accept it. Don't question. Shut up and do as you are told."

 

This is the fundamentalist credo, although no one says it in those words. Usually these sentiments are more cleverly concealed -- for example, "you have to accept this because it was taught by our guru who is an avatar." Or, "you should not question this because our guru is in a very elevated position," etc. Like that, fundamentalists can't seem to understand that outsiders don't share their assumptions, and they are only too happy to ram those assumptions down the throats of anyone who dares to disagree.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Interesting. The critic of the fanatic shows greater qualities of a fanatic then the fanatic he criticizes. Get it?

 

Tis true, one dare not disagree with shastra or guru, unless it is submissive inqurey for the purpose of understanding. When its for the purpose of maintaing his criticism as right, like we should all follow him, we turn to a pure devotee and Vedic literatures that state one who chants at the time of death goes to Krsna

 

No one is saying just accept it. Shastric facts are facts.

 

Rebels of bona fide authroity, we do not accept. Can't write your own scripture.

[Guest guest]

 

No one is saying just accept it. Shastric facts are facts.

 

 

 

We aren't dealing with sastric facts. George Harrison being a devotee or a jagad-guru is not a sastric fact, but the opinion of some people.

 

 

Rebels of bona fide authroity, we do not accept. Can't write your own scripture.

 

 

 

In that case, where in scripture is "jesus is a shaktyavesa avtara" stated? Please answer with an authentic quote (in Sanskrit) from scripture.

 

You won't of course. Instead, someone will start labelling me as "offensive" or "rascal" because I even dared to ask the question.

 

Hence - fanaticism.

 

[theist 1]

Before you try to ascertain if someone is a devotee or not you should yourself have a clear understanding of what is meant by the term devotee.

 

The sectarianist sees a Muslim repeating rising and falling before God in prayer, or a Christian kneeling before God with folded hands in prayer,or a Hindu laying prostrate before the Deity of Bhagavan offering his prayers and concludes they are all doing something different.

 

The devotee however sees they are engaged in the same thing,devotional prayer.

 

Now who prays to God? A devotee,who else?

 

The self is by nature a devotee. From our fallen position we are seen to be in different stages of realizing our devotional selves. So we may pray with higher or lower motivations. Most everyone on Earth who is in this process is more or less classified as a materialistic devotee. "God give me money", "God heal my broken back","God I am curious to know about this..."God give me liberation" or varying mixtures. Few approach the Lord saying "Lord, how may I please You?" Those unmotivated devotees are very rare in this world.

 

We should be a little generous side. If we must error let's error in the positive direction.

 

Most of us are just in the mix somewhere. George Harrison, under Prabhupada's inspiration, spread the maha-mantra around the world. That should enough of a clue shouldn't it?

[mahak 0]

Haribol. Jagat Guru means universal guru. The mantra that george sung was carried on radio waves far beyong the earthly plane, so he was a universal guru in this context. But I certainly do not equate him with who he has said is greater than he, any more than Narada Muni would still worship Lord Brahma after knowing that Lord Brahma worshipped another, greater SUPREME LORD.

 

I do not quibble in calling george GURU, however, because he did what Sri Chaitanya insists is the only thing that can be done in this age for religious purpose, George probably caused more folks to chant than any other person. George was the siksa guru who delivered many a sleeper to the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada.

 

I do not hate the fact that SRF got some large grant from the Harrison estate. I do not have a different opinion of Yogananda than I do of a vast number of those who claim to be Krsna Conscious or followers of Srila Prabhupada. Yogananda is accepted, even by srila prabhupada, as a transcendentalist and a yogi. The bhagavad Gita describes all the yoga systems for those who care, but the yogis, in their perfection, also accept the Supreme Yogi, Sri Krsna. The process may be a bit more mecjhanical, but as far as I know, Yogananda didnt rape any boys or create white slavery cells to fund his foundation. Harrison earned every bit of his money, and his disbursement of such funds is only criticized by those who wanted their grubby fingers on it for their not-so-spiritual desires.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Haridham 0]

George is gone. Whereever he is gone he is gone. Krsna is taking care of him. Let him be. wether he was a good devotee or not only krsna knows and some of his close personal associates. Lets leave our George alone.

 

He is with Krsna and krsna is taking care of him.

 

Let him be.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

 

In that case, where in scripture is "jesus is a shaktyavesa avtara" stated? Please answer with an authentic quote (in Sanskrit) from scripture.

 

 

Those who disagree with words of the pure devotees are makers of great offenses, repeatedly.

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

Yogananda was an impersonalist. I personally would never give money to a person or an organization which dedicated itself to leading people away from Krishna.

 

 

Do you actually know anything about Yogananda and/or his philosophy? How do you know he is an impersonalist?

[Gaurasundara 0]

 

I do not quibble in calling george GURU, however, because he did what Sri Chaitanya insists is the only thing that can be done in this age for religious purpose, George probably caused more folks to chant than any other person. George was the siksa guru who delivered many a sleeper to the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

I am in full agreement with you. Shall I tell you something?

 

Everyone knows that Sriman George donated Bhaktivedanta Manor to ISKCON, and it is my local temple also. You know, shortly after Sriman George passed on, a lady turned up at the Manor. She was interested in Krishna Consciousness, and she frankly admitted that she was interested in it because she was a fan of George Harrison's music and was curious about this "other side" of George's personality ie:- where he got his inspiration from.

 

Can you imagine? This woman didn't even have a clue about Krishna or Krishna Consciousness, but she got curious about it just by being a fan of George's music! This is why I have always said and will say: George Harrison is vartma-pradarsaka-guru; In life, In death.

 

Perhaps not a lot of people know this, but Sriman George was planning to re-release his "My Sweet Lord" single, all nice and remixed. He unfortunately passed away before the release date, but the record company released it anyway since it was finished. Once again, the mahamantra dominated the airwaves just as it did then.

 

George Harrison is vartma-pradarsaka-guru; In life, In death.

[bhaktachris 0]

The sanskrit word avatara literally means "he who descends." One who descends from the spiritual universe into the material univers through His own will is called an avatara. Sometimes Sri Krsna descends Himself, and sometimes He sends His representative. The major religions of the world--Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Moslem--believe in some supreme authority or personality coming down from the kingdom of God. In the Christian religion, Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God and to be coming from the kingdom of God to reclaim conditioned souls. As followers of Bhagavad-gita, we admit this claim to be true. So basically there is no difference of opinion. In details there may be differences in culture, climate and people, but the basic principle remains the same--that is God or His representatives come to reclaim conditioned souls.

 

Taken from Bhaktivedanta Veda Base typed by "bhakta chris"more.........Shaktivesa Avatara (sorry cannot put to sanskrit)

 

Yes, Lord Jesus was jivatattwa. He is not Visnu tattva. When jiva tattva becomes specifically empowered by the Lord, he is called saktyavesa avatara.. But they were not in conditioned state when they appeared:..........

 

Regarding your question about Lord Jesus Christ, we accept him as saktyavesa avatara. ......Similarly, even if we accept Lord Jesus Christ as saktyavesa avatara, it doesn't mean that we have to accept his philosphy..........

 

Lord Jesus Christ is a saktyavesa Avatara., an empowered living entity or jiva. In order to attain such a position one must be pure, so in this sense Lord Jesus Christ was a pure devotee.

 

All the above taken from search and from various places in letters, conversations etc. Vedabase by another "Shaktivesa Avatara" speaking truth, but for "our" culture, climate and people A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA KI JAYA

 

 

 

 

[bhaktachris 0]

Hare Krsna,

 

George was responsible for my early chanting in "76"(so i guess that makes him some kind of "guru' to me)And just a few years back i saw an interview of him and he was preaching how "Swami Bhaktivedanta the founder of Hare Krsna said he was the 'servant of the servant of the servant of God' but I am the 'servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of God'!

 

I also noticed in that rescent interview he was wearing neck beads too. (so i put mine back on)

[Guest guest]

 

No one is saying just accept it. Shastric facts are facts.

 

 

---------------------------

 

 

We aren't dealing with sastric facts. George Harrison being a devotee or a jagad-guru is not a sastric fact, but the opinion of some people.

 

 

Amongst Iskonites not everyone agrees George is jagad guru. Most don't view him as jagad, only a few. A devotee he is for certain. A pure devotee is something else. My reference to shastra was not about George as jagad guru or devotee, but his chanting at the time of death has assured his position next to Krishna.

 

Bhagavada geeta 8.5, 8.8 "And whoever, at the time of death, quits his body remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt. He who meditates on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his mind constantly engaged in remembering Me, undeviated from the path, he, O Partha [Arjuna], is sure to reach Me."

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 7.7.50 "If a demigod, demon, human being, Yaksa, Gandharva or anyone within this universe renders service to the lotus feet of Mukunda, who can deliver liberation, he is actually situated in the most auspicious condition of life, exactly like us [the mahajanas, headed by Prahlada Maharaja]."

 

The topic of George as factually a devotee has been covered so extensively on these boards i dont know if you did not read them, or have decided not to believe them. Srila Prabhupada accepted him, which is all that matters.

 

 

Rebels of bona fide authroity, we do not accept. Can't write your own scripture.

 

---------------------------

 

In that case, where in scripture is "jesus is a shaktyavesa avtara" stated? Please answer with an authentic quote (in Sanskrit) from scripture.

 

You won't of course. Instead, someone will start labelling me as "offensive" or "rascal" because I even dared to ask the question.

 

Hence - fanaticism.

 

 

Lets take these one at a time.

 

The subject of shaktyavesa avtara has all ready been addressed by some recent posts here. if you find the words of Srila Prabhuapda not to be qualified, there is nothing more anyone can say. I wonder however where you get your authority from then. I also wonder if you have been treated poorly by christians and are therefore lumping in Christ and christians, or Christ and the bible, to be one and the same.

 

Your second comment about sanskrit, to this I say Prabhupada was so expert in translating Sanskrit into English that sanskrit scholars have been impressed with his deeper grasp of the knowledge. Many others may know sanskrit but often learn it from an impersonalist and sometimes mayavadi, or there can be a mixture of one who worships Krishna yet accepts some aspects of impersonalism. That becomes tricky. Curretnly we have omeone who is not only pure Vaisnava, but expert, yet we take shelter of what we learned elsewhere of sanskrit. I can't change your mind am not out to. That Prabhupada knew his stuff is fact and recognized by many.

 

If you desire the sanskit, while I can get it, it sounds like you have many such books in your personal library and can cross reference any quotes placed here. You will see they concur.

 

I dont know why you automatically take the stance, with no evidence, that everyone will call you offensive or rascal. Again I wonder if someone gave you a raw deal. Also i wonder if you hide behind that to sock it to us later. The truth will come out over time which i hope its the first.

 

To say "hence fanatic," indicates that you get to decide the definition of fanatic, that no other point of view can be taken into consideration, and that you have all ready decided. therefore why waste anyone's time in conversation if you dont want to converse. Such a comment brings out fighting words from others, so not to wonder why you get the responses you get. You appear to have a lot of anger.

[Guest guest]

 

 

In that case, where in scripture is "jesus is a shaktyavesa avtara" stated? Please answer with an authentic quote (in Sanskrit) from scripture.

 

 

I'm still waiting for that quote from scripture about Jesus being an avatar. I'm only asking because it was you who claimed that one "can't write your own scripture."

 

Perhaps what you meant to say is, "if I believe in someone, it's ok for him to write his own scripture. But not anyone else."

 

Oh and by the way, the whole "offensive" thing already started, just as I predicted: "One who doubts the words of a pure devotee commits offenses, repeatedly." - posted by another guest (you?)

 

So obviously, one should not doubt or ask questions. Just shut up and do as one is told. George Harrison is a jagad guru and Vaishnava devotee. Jesus is a shaktyavesa avatar. Mohammed is a bona fide prophet for Krishna. Christianity is a religion on the level of bhagavata dharma. Meat-eating is ok if you aren't Hindu but belong to some other "bona fide" religion. Mary is an incarnation of Krishna's energy. The Holy Ghost is actually the same as Paramatama. The list of completely unsubstantiated and seemingly politically-motivated remarks goes on and on.

 

Scriptures are only important for proving our point, but if someone requests us to justify our beliefs from scripture, then suddenly that sort of thing is not necessary.

 

Anyway, as Mahak and one other guest have already noted, I am Offensive. Therefore, no response is required, other than to point this out (that I am offensive, rascal, and so on). It amazes me how the blood pressure of the pure devotees on this forum gets elevated so quickly.

 

You should just admit that many of your beliefs have no sastric basis, rather than pretending otherwise or trying to justify it. Then the issue can be dropped.

 

Aside from FANATICISM (for aggressively requiring others to believe as you do, even though you have no sastra to back it up), this is also HYPOCRISY (for requiring others to have sastra for their beliefs, but not feeling inclined to give similar evidence for your own).

 

[Guest guest]

 

Amongst Iskonites not everyone agrees George is jagad guru. Most don't view him as jagad, only a few. A devotee he is for certain. A pure devotee is something else. My reference to shastra was not about George as jagad guru or devotee, but his chanting at the time of death has assured his position next to Krishna.

 

 

On this we agree. Being able to chant the name of Krishna, if that is indeed what he was doing, at the time of death, assures one of a brighter future in the next life. No doubt about it.

 

But "jagad guru?" Come on. Some people in iskcon have overactive imaginations. People will recall that when Princess Diana died some years ago, iskcon people back then were also talking about what a great devotee she was. It seems to be the notorious trend of "celebrity worship" wherein iskcon devotees want so badly to claim certain famous people as their own, even though these very people had little if any interest in iskcon. If I were a member of iskcon, I'd find this behavior embarassing.

 

I guess anyone these days can be a "jagad guru." It seems like all one has to do is give some lectures, copy Prabhupada's style of doing it, and then put up a website advertising himself as a jagad guru and making certain to include enough syncretist comments like "Jesus is a devotee of Krishna" to attract a large following of the uninformed and uninitiated. Never mind that he has more hair on his head than Sai Baba.

 

Isn't this what Siddaswarupa did?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

In reply to:

--

 

Amongst Iskonites not everyone agrees George is jagad guru. Most don't view him as jagad, only a few. A devotee he is for certain. A pure devotee is something else. My reference to shastra was not about George as jagad guru or devotee, but his chanting at the time of death has assured his position next to Krishna.

 

 

 

 

"On this we agree. Being able to chant the name of Krishna, if that is indeed what he was doing, at the time of death, assures one of a brighter future in the next life. No doubt about it."

 

Yes we do agree on this.

 

That is what he was doing.

 

 

"But "jagad guru?" Come on."

 

 

I did not call him jagad guru.

 

"Some people in iskcon have overactive imaginations."

 

Most in iskcon don't call him jagad guru.

 

I think he would not like that title either.

 

 

"People will recall that when Princess Diana died some years ago, iskcon people back then were also talking about what a great devotee she was."

 

 

You're always going to find a handful of devotees who say tihs or that. They are the minority. They should not be the focal point.

 

Though we should not feel hard hearted when anyone dies. we also should not go the other extreme and view a humanitarian as a Vaisnava. However i think she was favorable to Krishna concsioucness.

 

 

"It seems to be the notorious trend of "celebrity worship" wherein iskcon devotees want so badly to claim certain famous people as their own, even though these very people had little if any interest in iskcon. If I were a member of iskcon, I'd find this behavior embarassing."

 

 

we dont hate anyone. as explained in countless posts, Prabhupada encouraged those with position, that they be preached to because they had the power to spread Krishna consciousness. anyone who chants Hare Krishna makes advancement in this life. we hope they make otehr changes, but if they do not, that choice is theirs. they will continue next life.

 

 

"I guess anyone these days can be a "jagad guru." It seems like all one has to do is give some lectures, copy Prabhupada's style of doing it, and then put up a website advertising himself as a jagad guru and making certain to include enough syncretist comments like "Jesus is a devotee of Krishna" to attract a large following of the uninformed and uninitiated. Never mind that he has more hair on his head than Sai Baba. "

 

again, very few use this term. Have you considered you get stuck on ideas and can't detach?

 

"Isn't this what Siddaswarupa did?'

 

who said I agree with him? or that most iskconites agree with him. Most stay far away from him. only a handful here are drawn to siddaswarupa.

 

Focal point should be on the words of a pure deovtee, Srlia Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

Rebels of bona fide authroity, we do not accept. Can't write your own scripture.

 

 

--

 

 

In that case, where in scripture is "jesus is a shaktyavesa avtara" stated? Please answer with an authentic quote (in Sanskrit) from scripture.

 

 

--

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for that quote from scripture about Jesus being an avatar. I'm only asking because it was you who claimed that one "can't write your own scripture."

 

Perhaps what you meant to say is, "if I believe in someone, it's ok for him to write his own scripture. But not anyone else."

 

 

 

you seem to leave out other points i also said, such as one can inquire submissively from the pure devotee. that is the way to get all questions answered. you appear to want to fight with Prabhupada, so why should i put his words here for your to argue with?

 

its not that i can't give quotes, its that they are not what you challenge them to be, because they are not from the books on your shelves but from Prabhupada's books, his personal quotes. it appears you do not accept them. if you tell me otherwise, i will post them. be honest.

 

 

 

Oh and by the way, the whole "offensive" thing already started, just as I predicted: "One who doubts the words of a pure devotee commits offenses, repeatedly." - posted by another guest (you?)

 

 

for someone who claims to know the Vedas so well, you dont understand the severe reaction from criticizing a pure devotee.

 

 

 

So obviously, one should not doubt or ask questions.

 

 

now you're speculating. that's not what that means. which is also my point. you will not understand Prabhupada's teachings without reading Prabhuapda's books. not just on sundays.

 

 

 

Just shut up and do as one is told.

 

 

again, this was not the message at all. you are hearing what you desire to hear. seems you enjoy a good fight.

 

 

 

George Harrison is a jagad guru

 

 

again, i never said that. most deovtees dont say that. let it go.

 

 

 

and Vaishnava devotee.

 

 

Prabhupada accepted him, again i say this, so are you saying you reject who Prabhuapda accepts?

 

 

 

Jesus is a shaktyavesa avatar.

 

 

 

Prabhupada said this. you disagree with him again?

 

 

[qoute]Mohammed is a bona fide prophet for Krishna. [/qoute]

 

 

Prabhupada AND Bhaktisiddhanta said this. you disagree with them?

 

 

 

Christianity is a religion on the level of bhagavata dharma.

 

 

 

i never said this. again, you are adding your own speculations as facts.

 

 

 

Meat-eating is ok if you aren't Hindu but belong to some other "bona fide" religion.

 

 

 

where the heck you getting that one from? you must have to work hard to dig up all these rare points of view preached by the minority.

 

 

 

Mary is an incarnation of Krishna's energy.

 

 

 

Prabhupada said this. and once again you fight with the pure devotee's words instead of surrender the false ego of haivng to be right all the time?

 

 

 

The Holy Ghost is actually the same as Paramatama.

 

 

 

who cares?!

 

 

The list of completely unsubstantiated and seemingly politically-motivated remarks goes on and on.

 

 

seems the only one politically motivated here is the one who refuses to see any spirutal conneciton to anythiing other then what he practices.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

you never answer my questions, you ignore them and keep up the battle.

 

whereas i have answered and addressed your questions.

 

answering mine will make some of my points, which you surely dont want to do.

 

let go of this 'mine and yours' nonsense and just go toward Krishna consciousness teachings, regardless of who is right and who is wrong. who cares? we only care what it is Krishna wants. therefore all questions should be addressed.

[Haridham 0]

That was nice, I especially liked the point you made about being taught as a kid. Yeah I have met many that even after vedic evidence they dont want to budge because this is what they know.

 

They should leave devotees like george out of this.

 

When people are envious what can you do.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

[sigh]

 

You don't seem to be getting the point.

 

Oh well, apologies. The fault was mine for trying to have an intelligent discussion with an iskcon devotee.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

[sigh]

 

You don't seem to be getting the point.

 

Oh well, apologies. The fault was mine for trying to have an intelligent discussion with an iskcon devotee.

 

 

 

Yes, that was it. We are stupid and you are intelligent.

 

You wonder why you get the reactions you get? You are in the attack mode and in the know-it-all mode.

 

One must first surrender to a bona fide guru before they have genuine spiriutal knowelege. What we learned as children needs upgrading.

 

Let me know when you honestly want quotes NOT to disagree with or fight over, but to surrender to.

 

Before I get accused of insisting you blindly surrender to a guru, this I am not saying. A guru must be thoroughly investigated to see if they meet up to the standard of a pure devotee.

 

Then one must surrender to such a pure soul and study under him before they have sufficient knowledge to speak or instruct others.