Srila Prabhupada taught a wrong philosophy

[Guest guest]

> Since we find how Srila Prabhupada tells us repeatedly that we were

> experiencing the spiritual relationship with Krsna, why not to belive him

> on that?

>

> One strong reason is this: Every single Indian spiritual leader clearly

> says the opposite:

 

Then it is quite simple. You still don't know, but you got to

belive to someone on this. So you may make your choice to whom

to belive, to Srila Prabhupada or to "everybody" else. I have no

problem with understanding this. Nothing to discuss really.

It' all the question of a personal choice to whom to believe.

 

However, then one got to leave those who belive to Srila

Prabhupada on his word, to read and understand his purports

in his books on the way these are written by Srila Prabhupada.

You do not call them speculators if they "assume" that Srila

Prabhupada means with his words how we had previous experience

of the spiritual relationships.

 

 

> Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka sampradaya, even Shankara

> and his followers, and even the atheistic Jains! I would guess the

> Buddhists too, in their own way. Furthermore the Vedantists (including

> ours Baladeva) have specifically explained it rationally based on the

> Vedanta sutras. There is no controversy on this.

 

Great. Now you are learned and conversant in the absolute siddhanta.

Now you don't belive to Srila Prabhupada on this one anymore. That is

OK for you. But why insist that everybody else got now to follow the

same pattern? The whole issue has turned into a nasty fraternal war.

Why?

 

 

> Therefore to say that

> Srila Prabhupada taught fall-vada is to indicate he does not know Vedanta,

> thus making his name a big farce. However, the idea of a temporal sequence

> of perfection, fall, liberation is a useful way to think about the

> concept of the jiva's origin and constitutional position. Ravindra svarupa

> explains this last point in his BTG essay (at http://www.rsdtm.com).

 

 

I really appreciate your being open in your approach to this topic.

You are acknowledging that Srila Prabhupada's purports indeed mean

that what he says, just that it is a wrong philosophical concept

that he presents. So you are not trying to twist around Prabhupada's

words by the help of some OED, as Vijay does, to mean something else

and then proclaim "See, it means this, not that". I really

can't stand that somebody lies me into face, trying to

fool me, calling me a speculator if I "assume" otherwise.

But you are being honest here, in this regard. Thanks.

 

The issue is now all different. It is not "What Prabhupada

means actually in his books", but "Why Prabhupada presented

the false philosophy in his books".

 

 

As far as I am concerned, EVEN in the case of Srila Prabhupada's

deliberate presentation of wrong philosophical concepts

(a hypothetical premiss for me) for the sake of strategical

purposes, I would expect from his faithful disciples and

followers not to "blow" his strategy away, becoming thus more

clever then the Acarya in term of what and how to preach. For

me a dedicated Prabhupadanuga will in such circumstances go

along with the Acarya and play in his "theatre". Now you don't

trust to Prabhupada only on some highly philosophical concepts,

but you don't trust in him anymore as a good preaching strateg

either (otherwise you wouldn't be so eager to show the world how

you have cleverly found out that in his books the wrong philosophical

concept is being presented).

 

 

Thus you, as a follower of Prabhupada (I assume you are) have had

two choices:

 

1.To make a farce of Prabhupada's name in term of his being

knowledgeable in Vedanta.

2.Or to make a farce of Prabhupda's name in term of his being

an excellent preacher who knows what philosophical conception

we got to belive in.

 

You rejected the first one. Congratulations.

 

 

 

 

- mnd