Consensus on continuing the discussion

[Guest guest]

>>> I think it's essentially unethical to enter a forum in which members of any

given sect dominate--if one deliberately plans to post inflammatory or

insensitive remarks about their revered acaryas. It's frankly just crass and

uncultured, if not also simply immature. If it gets a fairly hot response,

it's probably because such was desired in the first place. <<<

 

In an earlier message, Krishna Susarla expressed a desire to examine and discuss

what he felt, based on his readings, were the main objections on the lineage of

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I recall reading that input from others outside the

following of Bhaktisiddhanta was also welcome, provided the discussion keeps

civil and proper evidence is supplied along with arguments.

 

Could the respected members of the forum come to a consensus on whether the

discussion is worth prolonging at all, and if it indeed is, whether you wish to

continue it with or without input from myself and others from the "classical"

Gaudiya tradition.

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Madhava" <harekrishna@s...> wrote:

 

> In an earlier message, Krishna Susarla expressed a desire to

examine and discuss what he felt, based on his readings, were the

main objections on the lineage of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. I recall

reading that input from others outside the following of

Bhaktisiddhanta was also welcome, provided the discussion keeps civil

and proper evidence is supplied along with arguments.

>

> Could the respected members of the forum come to a consensus on

whether the discussion is worth prolonging at all, and if it indeed

is, whether you wish to continue it with or without input from myself

and others from the "classical" Gaudiya tradition.

>

 

As moderator, I feel that it is perfectly reasonable to address the

behavior of the babajis who criticize Bhaktisiddhanta, with the goal

of determining who is more closely representing Lord Chaitanya.

 

I also feel that it is reasonable to examine the shaastric basis of

the paramparaa and other issues which the babaji critics claim to

base their objections on. I hope by saying "babaji critics," I am not

going to be accused of inciting mass genocide. I still don't have a

better term by which to refer to them.

 

And no, I currently refuse to call you or the babji critics

as "classical" Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, because whether or not that is

true is very much at the heart of this discussion. As a participant

in the discussion, I continue to maintain that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

has remained true to the ideals of Lord Chaitanya, while others have

not, as revealed by the nature of their objections (i.e. varna based

on birth, discarding varnaashrama, and host of other scripturally

incompatible views).

 

I think it is reasonable to comment on what is acceptable character

for a Gaudiiya Vaishnava if that becomes an issue here. I would

rather we stick to the above points, though, and refrain from

attacking each others' character.

 

yours,

 

- K