No More Sadhu-Ninda

[Guest guest]

>

> Obviously, as a disciple of Srila Bhakti-Prajnana Maharaja, Narayan

> Maharaja is not BY DIKSA, Prabhupada's godbrother. Our relationship with a

> superior Vaisnava, however, is primarily determined by SIKSA not a

> straight DIKSA line. Srila Bhakti-pradip Tirtha Maharaja was initiated as

> a diksa-disciple of Bhaktivinode Thakura, but that didn't prevent him from

> becoming a siksa-disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, who was much

> superior in spiritual adhikara. The line of taking instruction or offering

> of respect is determined more by SIKSA than DIKSA.

 

 

It is interesting that you stress SIKSA as the mean to determine the

position of NM as being as Srila Prabhupada's godbrother actually,

and thus to be accepted of a superior position to all other Prabhupada's

disciple.

 

However, when Narayana Maharaja's claim to be the next ISCKON acarya,

coming in the line of Srila Prabhupada, is being questioned, then

Narayana Maharaja is all of sudden NOT Srila Prabhupada's godbrother,

but his disciple. NM himself claims that he is Prabhupada's SIKSA

disciple. But in the same time, depending on the need the claim

will be that he is Prabhupada's SIKSA *godbrother* (and siksa

godbrother of his own diksa spiritual master)

 

You are right in saying that the line [in our Sampradaya] is

determined more by SIKSA than DIKSA. But then you got to decide once,

and settle for ONE guru as your guru in the line. We all know well

that there may be unlimited numbers of siksa gurus in one's life,

but when it comes to determining the position in the guru-parampara

LINE such as (as this is the obvious case here), then get yourself

straight once and for all.

 

 

So, *whose* SIKSA disciple Narayana Maharaja is after all? WHAT is

exactly his place in the Sampradaya? Is he Prabhupada's godbrother

or is he is disciple?

Or is he "sometimes this, sometimes that" perhaps. Whatever it

takes to promote him as the legitimate superior to all ISCKONiaties,

one will go for. And if it is an obstacle, then he is "sometimes

not this, sometimes not that".

 

 

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

 

And, inspite of your "straw-blade" cutting off the head of Ravindra

Swarup (see, he's one among ISCKON leaders, a GBC, so you again

have kindly exposed to the public the hypocrisy of somebody's

position, so you "eliminated" him so smoothly), we still don't

have any idea on:

 

Where from, or *whom* from, did Narayana Maharaja received his

"rasika" siksa??

 

You say:

 

> Srila BP Puri

> Maharaja, the seniormost living Vaisnava and disciple of Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has confirmed that Narayan Maharaja is bona fide

> *rasika* Vaisnava. But our impertinent leaders, who think they know more

> than Vaisnavas twice their age and adhikara, hold no shame in publicly

> decrying a truly qualified Vaisnava.

 

This is NOT what is questioned/objected by RS. The question was

*WHOSE* line is it? NOT Bhaktisiddhanta's. WHICH Sampradya at al??

>From WHICH guru he got it?

 

But you are attacking and blasting here, again, ISCKON "impertinent"

leaders, instead. Is *that* the answer on Ravindra Swarup's clear

points? If you are unable to give the right answers to dispel our

ignorance on WHICH exactly line we are to be following if we accept

Narayana Maharaja's teachings, then better stay silent instead of

attacking the whole ISCKON leadership.

 

You are trying to convincing here everybody how RS is a maha offender,

since, see, NM is bona fide "rasika Vaisnava". So what? Ravindra

Swarup's point was that it is not from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Saraswati Thakura, but it is a deviation from **him**. Maybe still

from somebody else (Vrindavan babajis being proposed), maybe still

some Vaisnava line. God knows.

 

Thus the question of actual SIKSA line of Narayana Maharaja gets

even more uncertain and unclear. And who ever points it out, you

blast him away right on the spot. "No more sadhu-ninda", you

insist. All we got to do, in your expectation, would be to

shut down our intelligence and admire your brilliant "conclusion"

"he is a bona fide rasika Vaisnava" when the question of "Which

SIKSA we are following?" is being discussed.

 

 

Again, if you are unable to reasonably and coherently discuss the

points that are of interest to be both addressed and cleared,

then restrain from discussion all together. "Hearsay" is what

some of us are not falling on, when it comes to the issues like

who is the legitimate successor of Srila Prabhupada, and who not.

Your consistency in threatening everybody here with some Doomsday,

instead of offering intelligent and satisfying clearance on raised

points, is all what's left from you. Simply some screams that

demand blind acceptance and following you into unknown. To try to

make people first to be fearful of any move that would be not

"blessed" by you, and then manipulate their minds on that "wave",

is the old good sect-fanaticism method. Go on.

("No more sadhu-ninda", don't forget to scream it in "response",

as your chosen subject line says all bout where you are at)

 

 

 

 

- mnd