Kulapavana

Do not worry about the rules you are not able to follow. Worry about following the rules you CAN follow, like hearing, chanting, remembering, rendering service, etc. Concentrate on the positive purification. Prabhupada gave here a very high standard few people (especially of the non-brahminical variety) can follow. Set yourself a realistic standard of no sex outside marriage - that is hard enough for most people to follow. If you live like that all your life (following realistic standards and performing devotional service) when you are old you will be ready to follow the highest standards. Be patient.

Haribol Ksamabuddhi... I kind of suspected it was you... You have grown and you think more and more for yourself. Sincere pranams...

Even Madhvacarya did not make a claim that his writing is to be accepted as shastra or some divine revelation. His writing is merely a commentary to the shastra. That is the difference between Madhvas and the Gaudiyas, who claim to represent Madhva sampradaya.

And where does Bhaktivinoda admit that? And how do we know it is not a made up story? Bhaktivinoda used fiction in his writings all the time. Jaiva Dharma is a fictitious dialogue - the fiction part does not detract from it's philosophical or doctrinal value but the book itself is not a 'shastric proof' of anything.

Nobody has referenced this Upanishad in the 2000 years of very extensive writing about Vedic literature, not even the Goswamis who spent years on research trying to substantiate Lord Caitanya as yuga-avatara. Also, the language it is written in suggests a modern source, and is similar to other writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda.

It is certainly not necessary to fabricate evidence for the sake of preaching. Why does it happen? Because some people passionately believe in something, and want others to believe in it as well. It is very human. And deifying their acharyas is not just a problem for Gaudiyas. The followers often want to see their guru elevated to the most divine platform possible. And that is human as well.

It seems that it was Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself who wrote that text for the sake of preaching. At times Bhaktivinoda would pretend to be a Baul so that he could better preach to Bauls (see his Baul Sangeet). He did not do it for money - he did it for a good cause. I find such actions much less problematic than accepting money raised by very questionable means for the sake of building a spiritual mission. Once you believe that end justifies the means, it is a very slippery slope.

Here is the analysis of this text by Jagadananda: http://www.gaudiya.com/pdf/An_Analysis_of_Three_Suspicious_Texts.pdf

Do some basic research on it, Sonic-ji... Sri Chaitanya Upanishad is just as 'authentic' as the Allah Upanishad. I do not know of anybody outside the Saraswata circle who believes it is genuine.

It must be tough to be this dense... I just showed you TWO different definitions used by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and not a single one that I developed.

It is unfortunate that sometimes Gaudiyas to the philosophy of "end justifies the means", which leads some otherwise good devotees to fabricate evidence to support their religious claims. Seeing the flurry of supposedly Puranic quotes here I am surprised that nobody from Iskcon is quoting "Caitanya Upanishad" which even most Gaudiyas consider to be a forgery.

How is jiva not changing? It desires may change, it's taste may change, it's consciousness may change. That is what separates those who chase independent enjoyment trom Vaishnavas - desires, taste, and consciousness. And you can not become a Vaishnava unless you get the seed of bhakti from one who is already a Vaishnava. When shastra says that Brahman is changeless it simply means that it does not transform into something else. Here is an example of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta using a different definition of a Vaishnava than the one you quote above: (16) je ‘phalgu-vairagi,’ kohe nije ‘tyagi,’ se na pare kabhu hoite ‘vaishnava’ hari-pada chadi’, ‘nirjanata badi,’ labhiya ki phala, ‘phalgu’ se vaibhava je-who; phalgu-vairagi-false renunciant; kohe nije-calls himself; tyagi-an accomplished renunciant; se-he; na pare-is not able; kabhu hoite-to ever be; vaishnava-a devotee; hari-pada-the lotus feet of the Lord; chadi’-rejecting; nirjanata badi-residence in solitude; labhiya-obtaining; ki phala-what result?; phalgu-false; se vaibhava-that opulence. 16) "One who falsely gives up things that could actually be used in the Lord’s service proudly calls himself a ‘renunciate,’ but unfortunately he can never become a Vaishnava by such an attitude. Abandoning his servitorship to the lotus feet of Lord Hari, and resigning himself to his solitary home-whatever is gained by that exercise can only be the worthless treasure of deception." From Vaishnava Ke?-“Who is a Real Vaishnava?” As JN pointed out, you can not have several different definitions of one term without creating confusion. It is a common problem in our movement - contradictory statements, and contradictory definitions confusing the heck out of the followers and creating needless divisions among them.

You see just what you want to see - both in me and the world AROUND YOU. There are very elevated sentiments in some devotees and that is what I had in mind saying: "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's statement quoted above can be taken as his devotional mood rather than an objective and fact (or shastra) based truth." While all jivas may have the potency to become Vaishnavas, they are most certainly not all Vaishnavas (one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return) NOW. That is an observable reality you are trying to ignore. There is a potency of fire in wet wood but calling wet wood 'fire' is not an objective knowledge. People like you will make all kinds of ridiculous word gymnastics and logical charades to 'prove' their point. But who is getting fooled by such jugglery? And when cornered, all you can do is to scream: Aparadha!!!

It would be nice if we had clear cut definitions of the terms we use, and were consistent about it. One time we say "every Jiva is a Vaishnava", and at other times we are contrasting Vaishnavas with Buddhists, Christians, Advaitins, etc. And when we say: "'Vaishnava', which literally and naturally means one who worships Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return", we are actually speaking of supremely pure Vaishnavas. How many jivas in this world worship Lord Vishnu out of pure love expecting nothing from Him in return? I am not even sure you can say that about jivas who exist in the Brahmajyoti. Do they even know Lord Vishnu? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's statement quoted above can be taken as his devotional mood rather than an objective and fact (or shastra) based truth.

ha! that thread predictably turned into quite an all out brawl... jai! Jesus of New Testament is most likely a composite character - lives of at least 3 separate people went into it (Jeshu the Magician, John the Baptist, Appolonius of Tyana - and Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the Nazarene if he indeed had a separate existence). Whether it was invented by 'disgruntled Jews' or followers of this new religion from a different ethnic group is really beside the point. Still, there is no harm believing that Jesus of New Testament is a historical person. It is a positive and a heart warming story, just like the one about Santa Claus. I like the Santa Claus story better, because no religious wars were ever waged in his name.