Siksa as most important guru

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2330316 from COM]

>

>

> Why try to perform diksa if we are not doing it

> correctly? Do not the qualifications for guru apply to diksa guru (freed from

> ALL material contamination, 100 percent Krsna conscious) ?

 

We are told that Lord Caitanya took diksa initiation from a mayavadi -- not

that

He required to take initiation from anyone, but to set an example that everyone

should take initiation.

 

Question: If we had a mayavadi sannyasi in ISKCON, is there any possibility

that

we would say that he was "freed from ALL material contamination"? I just

don't

think we would ever give this kind of endorsement to a mayavadi.

 

The example seems to be that even though one's diksa guru might not be 100

persent

free of ALL material contamination, the disciple can still achieve spiritual

success. Lord Caitanya's external means of achieving spiritual success was to

reject speculation on Vedic literature and focus on His diksa guru's advice to

always chant Hare Krsna.

 

We're not Lord Caitanya, so we need more guidance than He was given. Thus, He

has

kindly provided a Pure Devotee to give us siksa instruction.

 

Nevertheless, the diksa guru has an important role to play in putting us on the

path to Krsna consciousness. Personally, I never had much taste for studying

Prabhupada's instructions. In what I intended to be a show of loyalty, I once

told my diksa guru, "Actually, I don't need all these other things. It is

sufficient for me simply to listen to the tapes of your lectures." He became

very

sober and replied to me, "If that's what you are thinking, I feel very sorry

for

you. If you simply follow what I say, you will get a very narrow version of

Krsna

consciousness. To get a full understanding, you have to study Srila

Prabhupada's

instructions. Otherwise, your spiritual life will be very limited."

 

Prabhupada was not personally present to guide my first steps in spiritual

life,

but my diksa guru, whatever his limitations, was able to give me indispensible

personal guidance.

 

My understanding from this is: Don't minimize siksa, but don't minimize diksa

either. Krsna has sent the guru -- in whatever form -- to guide you in

spiritual

life. But, also, don't be a blind follower. As Srila Prabhupada states in the

Bhagavad Gita, "Everything must be accepted with care and caution."

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

On 19 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

> We are told that Lord Caitanya took diksa initiation from a mayavadi -- not

> that

> He required to take initiation from anyone, but to set an example that

everyone

> should take initiation.

>

> Question: If we had a mayavadi sannyasi in ISKCON, is there any possibility

> that

> we would say that he was "freed from ALL material contamination"? I just

> don't

> think we would ever give this kind of endorsement to a mayavadi.

 

 

I am sure my memory is failing me right now and I do not have access to my

books here but I thought Lord Caitanya took initiation from Isvara Puri - our

parampara guru, disciple of Sri Madhavendra Puri. He was a mayavadi sannyasi?

 

I think Lord Caitanya took SANNYASA from a mayavada sannyasi and He did not

want to take it at all but did it for facilitating His preaching in Bengal?

 

 

 

> The example seems to be that even though one's diksa guru might not be 100

> persent

> free of ALL material contamination, the disciple can still achieve spiritual

> success.

 

 

I was asking a question when I suggested that the diksa guru have the same

qualifications Srila Prabhupada gives for "guru" (100 percent KC, etc.) Maybe

not. The "guru" obviously should be an uttama-adhikari. That is the

instruction. Maybe a diksa guru does not have to be an uttama-adhikari because

he is acting in an official ritual?

 

 

 

> Prabhupada was not personally present to guide my first steps in spiritual

> life,

 

 

He wasn't "personally" present for thousands of his disciples either.

 

 

> but my diksa guru, whatever his limitations, was able to give me

indispensible

> personal guidance.

 

 

We used to call such a person our "senior godbrother".

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2331097 from COM]

>

> On 19 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

>

> > We are told that Lord Caitanya took diksa initiation from a mayavadi -- not

> > that

> > He required to take initiation from anyone, but to set an example that

> everyone

> > should take initiation.

> >

> > Question: If we had a mayavadi sannyasi in ISKCON, is there any

possibility

> > that

> > we would say that he was "freed from ALL material contamination"? I just

> > don't

> > think we would ever give this kind of endorsement to a mayavadi.

>

> I am sure my memory is failing me right now and I do not have access to my

> books here but I thought Lord Caitanya took initiation from Isvara Puri - our

> parampara guru, disciple of Sri Madhavendra Puri. He was a mayavadi sannyasi?

 

Hmmm. I don't have my books here, either. A discussion without books -- sound

dangerous. But-- I think you are correct about this. And in that case I have

made an offense against Isvara Puri, so I hope he forgives me.

 

 

> I think Lord Caitanya took SANNYASA from a mayavada sannyasi and He did not

> want to take it at all but did it for facilitating His preaching in Bengal?

 

But again -- it is usually called, is it not, "sannyasa guru." So this is

another

kind of guru. He has to have *some* qualification. No one is going to

approach a

hamburger chef at MacDonalds for sannyasa initiation. He must have *some*

spiritual qualification, but as he was a mayavadi, it appears that even though

Lord Caitanya accepted him as a guru, he was not "freed from ALL material

contamination."

 

 

**********************

 

Second: I have another question here. I see that our header says "Siksa as

most

important guru." So my question is: Who is your siksa guru? And, how is he

more

important than Srila Prabhupada.

 

We can have so many siksa gurus. Perhaps one siksa guru is more important than

our diksa guru. But in other cases, perhaps the diksa guru is more important

than

a certain siksa guru.

 

And -- from another perspective -- the guru is one. In that sense

Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati and the un-named librarian who instructed Srila Prabhupada to print

books are equally important, because they are simply two different means that

Krsna has sent to deliver the same message. Although in another perspective,

it

is obvious that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is more important. Still, when the

librarian spoke to Srila Prabhupada, he took it as a message from Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

So, in that sense, it seems important to remember that it is a matter of

perspective.

 

-- Just wondering, though: Where does this saying come from?: Siksa is the

most

important guru.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

COM: Hare Krsna dasi (Brunswic

 

> We can have so many siksa gurus. Perhaps one siksa guru is more

> important than

> our diksa guru. But in other cases, perhaps the diksa guru is more

> important

> than

> a certain siksa guru.

 

The diksa guru may ( and in most cases is) be a siksa guru to the

disciple.

 

 

-- Just wondering, though: Where does this saying come from?: Siksa is

the

 

> most

> important guru.

>

> your servant,

>

> Hare Krsna dasi

 

It just seems to follow from the following verse. Elevating is more

important than regulations, isn't it? See Delivering the wives of the

brahmans in Krsna book.

The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual life

iscalled the vartma-pradarsaka-guru, the spiritual master who initiates

according

to the regulations of the sastras is called the diksa-guru, and the

spiritual

master who gives instructions for elevation is called the siksa-guru.

Factually

the qualifications of a spiritual master depend on his knowledge of the

science of Krsna. It does not matter whether he is a brahmana, ksatriya,

 

sannyasi or sudra.

<p>>>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 8.128

[Guest guest]

COM: Hare Krsna dasi (Brunswick, Maine - USA) wrote:

 

> [Text 2331238 from COM]

>

> "WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

>

> > [Text 2331097 from COM]

> >

> > On 19 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

> >

> > > We are told that Lord Caitanya took diksa initiation from a

> mayavadi -- not

> > > that

> > > He required to take initiation from anyone, but to set an example

> that

> > everyone

> > > should take initiation.

> > >

> > > Question: If we had a mayavadi sannyasi in ISKCON, is there any

> possibility

> > > that

> > > we would say that he was "freed from ALL material

> contamination"? I just

> > > don't

> > > think we would ever give this kind of endorsement to a mayavadi.

> >

> > I am sure my memory is failing me right now and I do not have access

> to my

> > books here but I thought Lord Caitanya took initiation from Isvara

> Puri - our

> > parampara guru, disciple of Sri Madhavendra Puri. He was a mayavadi

> sannyasi?

>

> Hmmm. I don't have my books here, either. A discussion without books

> -- sound

> dangerous. But-- I think you are correct about this. And in that

> case I have

> made an offense against Isvara Puri, so I hope he forgives me.

>

> > I think Lord Caitanya took SANNYASA from a mayavada sannyasi and He

> did not

> > want to take it at all but did it for facilitating His preaching in

> Bengal?

>

> But again -- it is usually called, is it not, "sannyasa guru." So

> this is

> another

> kind of guru. He has to have *some* qualification. No one is going

> to

> approach a

> hamburger chef at MacDonalds for sannyasa initiation. He must have

> *some*

> spiritual qualification, but as he was a mayavadi, it appears that

> even though

> Lord Caitanya accepted him as a guru, he was not "freed from ALL

> material

> contamination."

>

> **********************

>

> Second: I have another question here. I see that our header says

> "Siksa as

> most

> important guru." So my question is: Who is your siksa guru? And,

> how is he

> more

> important than Srila Prabhupada.

>

> We can have so many siksa gurus. Perhaps one siksa guru is more

> important than

> our diksa guru. But in other cases, perhaps the diksa guru is more

> important

> than

> a certain siksa guru.

>

> And -- from another perspective -- the guru is one. In that sense

> Bhaktisiddhanta

> Sarasvati and the un-named librarian who instructed Srila Prabhupada

> to print

> books are equally important, because they are simply two different

> means that

> Krsna has sent to deliver the same message. Although in another

> perspective,

> it

> is obvious that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is more important. Still, when

> the

> librarian spoke to Srila Prabhupada, he took it as a message from

> Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta.

>

> So, in that sense, it seems important to remember that it is a matter

> of

> perspective.

>

> -- Just wondering, though: Where does this saying come from?: Siksa

> is the

> most

> important guru.

>

> your servant,

>

> Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

On 19 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

> But again -- it is usually called, is it not, "sannyasa guru." So this is

> another

> kind of guru. He has to have *some* qualification. No one is going to

> approach a

> hamburger chef at MacDonalds for sannyasa initiation. He must have *some*

> spiritual qualification, but as he was a mayavadi, it appears that even

though

> Lord Caitanya accepted him as a guru, he was not "freed from ALL material

> contamination."

 

 

Actually Kesava Bharati was considered the disciple of a Vaisnava and he was

also the incarnation of Sandipani Muni, or some say, Akrura.

 

 

 

> Second: I have another question here. I see that our header says "Siksa as

> most

> important guru."

 

 

I didn't give the header its name. Although I do agree with it.

 

 

So my question is: Who is your siksa guru? And, how is he

> more

> important than Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada is my siksa guru. I have never had another guru (qualified)

in my life. He is not more important than himself. Or did you have something

else in mind with your question?

 

 

> We can have so many siksa gurus. Perhaps one siksa guru is more important

than

> our diksa guru. But in other cases, perhaps the diksa guru is more

important

> than

> a certain siksa guru.

 

 

One or the other has to have the qualifications of being completely freed from

material contamination and 100% Krsna conscious. Why would we ever want to

change that? To be cheated?

 

 

> -- Just wondering, though: Where does this saying come from?: Siksa is the

> most

> important guru.

 

 

 

Ask our resident poet.

[Guest guest]

Thus the Lord accepted the sannyäsa order of life after full

consideration.

PURPORT

There was no need for Lord Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu to accept sannyäsa,

for He is God Himself and therefore has nothing to do with the material

bodily concept of life. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu did not identify Himself

with any of the eight varëas and äçramas, namely, brähmaëa, kñatriya,

vaiçya, çüdra, brahmacäré, gåhastha, vänaprastha and sannyäsa. He

identified Himself as the Supreme Spirit. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, or

for that matter any pure devotee, never identifies with these social and

spiritual divisions of life, for a devotee is always transcendental to

these different gradations of society. Nevertheless, Lord Caitanya

decided to accept sannyäsa on the grounds that when He became a sannyäsé

everyone would show Him respect and in that way be favored. Although

there was actually no need for Him to accept sannyäsa, He did so for the

benefit of those who might think Him an ordinary human being. The main

purpose of His accepting sannyäsa was to deliver the Mäyävädé sannyäsés.

This will be evident later in this chapter.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Ädi 7.33

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > but my diksa guru, whatever his limitations, was able to give me

> indispensible

> > personal guidance.

>

>

> We used to call such a person our "senior godbrother".

 

 

How do you make me into a "junior godbrother" of my diksa guru?

 

(just curious)

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2334354 from COM]

>

> On 20 May 1999, Samba das wrote:

>

> >If the

> > spiritual master were able to deliver him from anywhere why would he say

> > come back to deliver.

>

> So just how is it that Srila Prabhupada DOES deliver his disciples, Prabhu?

Is

> he coming back soon?

 

Why are you deliberately mis-understanding his logic? He asked "Why does Srila

Prabhupada state that the disciple should not make the spiritual master come

back

to deliver the disciple, if the guru does not have to be physically present to

give diksa?" He is talking about in the event that the disciple does not

follow

the instructions given, and somehow takes a new material body.

 

Instead of responding logically to his question, you have swept his whole

question

off the table, and countered with a cleverly insulting question.

 

Janesvara prabhu, your sarcasm is becoming quite tiresome.

 

And the tinge of bitterness in it makes it appear, that quite the contrary to

your

claims of complete satisfaction in your relationship with Srila Prabhupada,

that

you are envious of those of his granddisciples who are enjoying the opportunity

to

personally serve their diksa guru and go to him with their specific questions

about spiritual life.

 

I am sure this is not what you intend, but the more you protest that only you

have

a satisfying relationship with your guru, because all those who have taken his

disciples as their gurus are vulnerable to cheating, then the more it appears

that

you are actually not at all satisfied with your relationship with your diksa

guru. You are feeling some lack, and you can't stand it that others are not

feeling that lack. This is how you are making it sound.

 

As a mother, I would say that maybe you need to take a little time out from

this

discussion and come to terms honestly with all the different aspects of your

relationship with Srila Prabhupada and how you feel about it. Otherwise, your

comments will be simply a disturbance.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

On 21 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

> Why are you deliberately mis-understanding his logic? He asked "Why does

Srila

> Prabhupada state that the disciple should not make the spiritual master come

> back

> to deliver the disciple, if the guru does not have to be physically present

to

> give diksa?" He is talking about in the event that the disciple does not

> follow

> the instructions given, and somehow takes a new material body.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada said the guru "stays" until all of his disciples have gone

back home. I, personally, do not feel that means "physically". Some people

seem to have lost faith that things get done in Krsna consciousness through

"non-physical" means more often than not. Actually I've always found that to

be the essence of the instructions.

 

 

 

> Instead of responding logically to his question, you have swept his whole

> question

> off the table, and countered with a cleverly insulting question.

 

You may have taken it that way but I did not mean it in that way and honestly

I do not think Samba Prabhu took it that way. He's a big boy, Mom. And he

answered it quite maturely and intelligently. We do not agree on everything

but, I think, we have a mutual respect for each other.

 

 

 

> Janesvara prabhu, your sarcasm is becoming quite tiresome.

 

 

Sorry. I'll keep an eye on it, Mataji. This is not the easiest of subjects to

deal with after all. But it is highly important I think.

 

 

> And the tinge of bitterness in it makes it appear, that quite the contrary

to

> your

> claims of complete satisfaction in your relationship with Srila Prabhupada,

> that

> you are envious of those of his granddisciples who are enjoying the

opportunity

> to

> personally serve their diksa guru and go to him with their specific

questions

> about spiritual life.

 

 

 

Now, now Mother. Don't get your sari in an uproar over Janesvara dasa.

Them's are fightin' words.

 

I have no problem with anyone having a personal service relationship with

their accepted guru. I do have a problem with someone trying to stop someone

else from having a "non-personal" service relationship with Srila Prabhupada,

my guru maharaja, because they say he is "gone" and therefore inaccessible.

 

I also feel some compassion for those who HAVE been cheated by bogus gurus and

who are wanting to take shelter of a guru who has an unquestionable record of

pure devotion. I would like encourage them to take shelter of Srila Prabhupada

and feel confident that he will protect them AND give them siksa/diksa if they

so deserve.

 

> You are feeling some lack, and you can't stand it that others are not

> feeling that lack. This is how you are making it sound.

 

 

Are you taking psychology courses now? I have had some very nice

correspondence with disciples of my godbrothers on this conference and

privately and I do not discourage any of them to give up their good service

relationship with their chosen guru. I do suggest that they keep vigilant in

their review of their gurus qualifications and not put blinders on as so many

have done before.

 

 

 

> As a mother, I would say that maybe you need to take a little time out from

> this

> discussion and come to terms honestly with all the different aspects of your

> relationship with Srila Prabhupada and how you feel about it. Otherwise,

your

> comments will be simply a disturbance.

 

 

Suggestion noted.

 

 

Hare Krsna.

[Guest guest]

> Srila Prabhupada said the guru "stays" until all of his disciples have

> gone back home.

and since you can not go back to Godhead without being a 100 % pure there

can be no failure for his granddisciples to simply cling on to the

lotusfeet/instructions of those faithful disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Your servant Gunamani d.d.

[Guest guest]

On 22 May 1999, Gunamani dd wrote:

 

> > Srila Prabhupada said the guru "stays" until all of his disciples have

> > gone back home.

> and since you can not go back to Godhead without being a 100 % pure there

> can be no failure for his granddisciples to simply cling on to the

> lotusfeet/instructions of those faithful disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

Do you feel you cannot also cling to Srila Prabhupada's lotus feet?

 

"I shall remain your personal guidance, physically present or not physically,

as I am getting personal guidance from my Guru Maharaja."

(Conv. 7/14/77)

[Guest guest]

>

>

> (ooops... I almost forgot to keep up to my endless sarcasm style,

> but have just about starting becoming "serious&constructive")

>

> ys mnd

 

Ah, Mahaniddhi, I see you too suffer the fate of having your dry humor (which

I for one appreciate) mistaken for seriousness.

[Guest guest]

> If all of us were to

> live eternaly, we would be sitting at our computers, arguing eternaly over

> what Srila Prabhupada meant here, and what he meant there, and never getting

> anywhere nearer. It might be simpler to just admit we need help, and ask the

> lord to send it.

 

This is starting to sound like the Ramayana. If an infinite number of _______

sat at an infinite number of terminals for an infinite amount of time, we

would

have an infinite number of interpretations of what is was Srial Prabhupada

said.

 

Philosophy can point the way; it remains for those with eyes to see.

Plotinus.

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2338649 from COM]

>

> On 22 May 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

>

> > Taking diksa from a departed guru has no precedence in the

> > history of the Parampara,

>

> What is it that happened between Narottama dasa Thakur and Srila Visvanatha

> Cakravarti Thakur? Narottama dasa Thakur was "departed" for 100 years but

> Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur accepted him as his guru. This is in our

> parampara.

>

> "Regarding parampara system: there is nothing to wonder for big gaps.[...] we

> find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita was taught to the sungod, some

> millions of years ago, but Krishna has mentioned only three names in this

> parampara system--namely, Vivasvan, Manu, and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do

> not hamper from understanding the parampara system. We have to pick up the

> prominent acaryas, and follow from him.[...] We have to pick up from the

> authority of the acharya in whatever sampradaya we belong to."

> (Letter Dayananda 4/12/68)

 

Stupendous. I cannot believe that you are deliberately misconstruing this. It

seems quite clear that Narottama dasa Thakur was Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti

Thakur's *siksa* guru. Where is the evidence that he was his *diksa* guru.

 

Indeed, is not this whole recitation of parampara the source of our conclusion

that "siksa is more important than diksa"?

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote:

 

 

> Stupendous. I cannot believe that you are deliberately misconstruing this.

It

> seems quite clear that Narottama dasa Thakur was Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti

> Thakur's *siksa* guru. Where is the evidence that he was his *diksa* guru.

 

 

 

Duh. That was my whole point. I never said Visvanatha Cakravarti took diksa

from Narottama das Thakur, did I?

 

Seems the relationship worked out just fine for Visvanatha Cakravarti.

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> >It

> >> seems quite clear that Narottama dasa Thakur was Srila Visvanatha

Cakravarti

> >> Thakur's *siksa* guru. Where is the evidence that he was his *diksa*

guru.

> >

> >

> >Duh. That was my whole point. I never said Visvanatha Cakravarti took diksa

> >from Narottama das Thakur, did I?

> >

> >Seems the relationship worked out just fine for Visvanatha Cakravarti.

 

 

 

>

> OK, now I'm with you and can finally answer your question to me. Yes, of

> course I think Prabhupada can be the only guru to newcomers, who don't feel

> inspired by any of the current gurus. And yes, I believe that they can

> still make spiritual advancement, develop a relationship with him and

> ultimately go back Home. But only as siksa, not diksa guru.

 

 

 

Fine. That's about all I'm saying. (Maybe a little more here or there but this

will do just fine for now!)

 

 

Do I speak in Greek or something to everyone else and you just know Greek?

 

Thanks, Prabhu. Your answers are clear and concise.

 

 

 

>

> The fact that I hope they also do meet up with other gurus who inspire them

> (as diksa or siksa gurus) is a separate issue.

 

 

Agreed.

[Guest guest]

>> Stupendous. I cannot believe that you are deliberately misconstruing this.

>It

>> seems quite clear that Narottama dasa Thakur was Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti

>> Thakur's *siksa* guru. Where is the evidence that he was his *diksa* guru.

>

>

>Duh. That was my whole point. I never said Visvanatha Cakravarti took diksa

>from Narottama das Thakur, did I?

>

>Seems the relationship worked out just fine for Visvanatha Cakravarti.

 

OK, now I'm with you and can finally answer your question to me. Yes, of

course I think Prabhupada can be the only guru to newcomers, who don't feel

inspired by any of the current gurus. And yes, I believe that they can

still make spiritual advancement, develop a relationship with him and

ultimately go back Home. But only as siksa, not diksa guru.

 

The fact that I hope they also do meet up with other gurus who inspire them

(as diksa or siksa gurus) is a separate issue.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

>

> The fact that I hope they also do meet up with other gurus who inspire them

(as diksa or siksa gurus) is a separate issue.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

>

 

If someone wishes to serve Srila Prabhupada so intensely, one can at least

respect the diksa guru as a senior devotee in Srila Prabhupada's disciplic

line. At least the respect and honor afforded to a senior Vaisnava can always

be there, and that would seem to be the most basic expression of a sense of

gratitute and humility allowed within the confines of Vaisnava ettiquette.

 

ys,

 

Sthita-dhi

[Guest guest]

>

> Frankly,

>

> Srila dasa

>

> PS: Let's hear some more quotes, "Satan."

 

You denigrate someone as a redneck for using the term hogwash and then refer to

him as "Satan"? Hard to not consider you as simply baiting him.

[Guest guest]

On 30 Jun 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > PS: Let's hear some more quotes, "Satan."

>

> You denigrate someone as a redneck for using the term hogwash and then refer

to him as "Satan"? Hard to not consider you as simply baiting him.

 

Funny that you pick up on peripheral interpretations and ignore the essential

issues at stake. But yes, since you mention it, there was some "aikido"

footwork that turned the innuendo back into his court. I am simply replying in

kind, however.

 

Janesvara Prabhu made the original denigrating remark ("hogwas!") and I simply

called him on it, making an equally heavy counter-challenge.

 

"Satan" (in quotes) means in context to my argument, not literally.

 

In the spirit of genuine discussion,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

> "Satan" (in quotes) means in context to my argument, not literally.

>

> In the spirit of genuine discussion,

>

> Srila dasa

>

 

 

 

 

Phew, that's a relief! Janesvara is already scary enough without having "The

Prince of Darkness" on his resume.

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 02 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

 

> I am not sure why we need to discourage anyone from finding shelter in

> Prabhupadas written and spoken word. Prabhupada seem to feel they were

potent,

> and Janesvara Prabhu feels that's good enough for him.

>

> If Srila wants to find a new siksa guru to better understand his old siksa

> guru, that is certainly his personal perogative.

 

 

I agree. Let's get this entire thing out of the way. We can have peaceful

dealings. I will never say anyone cannot go to Narayana M or anyone else if

they want to, but no one should be saying that everyone SHOULD or HAS to go to

NM or someone else for pure shelter.

 

Everything is FINE just like it is; Srila Prabhupada's books are sufficient to

deliver ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. By reading his books we are serving the

guru and only by this means can we hope for the causeless mercy of the Lord.