RE: Discussion and Philosophy

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Mukhya (dd) (BES Asst. SysOp) wrote:

> If you think that ISKCON is a perfect society, with perfect leadership,

> following perfectly Srila Prabhupada, and thus unable to inflict any "ills"

> upon anybody, I am very happy for you. But the fact is that there are many

> devotees and former devotees who are disillusioned. You may call them

> demons, sentimentalists, losers, whatever you like, but that doesn't mean

> that they don't exist or that they don't have valid concerns.

>

I don't have any references, but someone once told me that Srila

Prabhupada explained that when devotees leave, the "blame" is usually a

fifty-fifty affair between the managers and the rank and file. This seems

reasonable too. There's no harm if someone wants to address the crucial

need of reform, which is also an eternal one in this world. Didn't the

GBC long ago decide to make reclamation of disaffected devotees a priority?

I just hope we can direct that positive ambition in ways we can safely know

will most please Sri Guru and Gauranga.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Mukhya (dd) (BES Asst. SysOp) wrote:

> Can I suggest that perhaps it doesn't have so much to do with the philosophy

> itself but with the way it is presented?

 

If you don't mind, could you please elaborate a bit on what this

statement means to you? Thanks.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Mukhya (dd) (BES Asst. SysOp) wrote:

> TD was started as an experiment intended for discussions of all sorts,

> including controversial issues. Participating in the conference doesn't mean

> that the members automatically agree with everything that is posted there.

 

However, as someone else mentioned earlier, it does mean that they

have to deal with it (unless perhaps they just delete texts or killfile

certain people known to be obnoxious or incoherent). I noticed that people

on TD had trouble discussing their views at all, once it was pointed out that

there were clear sastric pramanas countering the same, when those pramanas

were interpreted as Srila Prabhupada and his predecessors are seen to have

done.

 

 

 

> You are asking what TD has to do with ISKCON. Nothing in the official sense.

 

That development was interesting in itself.

 

 

 

> Its having to do anything with ISKCON is due only to the fact that all of

> its members are or were at one point ISKCON devotees.

 

Yes. That's significant too, because they are still associating

with ISKCON devotees, for some reasons. However, I agree with your tacit

observation that the TD "experiment" seems to have failed; in that sense,

it's a dead horse. Hence I suggested we instead discuss some of the

underlying probable causes of that failure, since I think those who

harbored these are undoubtedly still hanging around and sharing their

views with ISKCON devotees.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Braja wrote:

> (re: TD, dubious pramanas, blasphemous posts, etc.)

> But the rule of thumb is "we use all sorts of sources here - not just

> Prabhupada's books", but I never saw anything that put Prabhupada's books

> above any other source: especially supposed 'common sense' and

> 'intelligence', both of which are questionable without spiritual guidance.

> Personally I'm not content to rely on the interpretation of someone who dug

> into their great 'source' of 'common sense' when discussing an issue as deep

> and intrinsic as karma. That concept alone is ridiculous, what to speak of

> any 'conclusions' that come from it. THAT is common sense.

 

This is especially valid when someone wants their lower pramanas

to override higher ones, something I admit I've often witnessed there.

 

 

 

> > This behavior of the moderators needs to

> > be addressed responsibly, with reference to our books. I cannot

> > imagine why any sincere devotee would avoid doing so.

> That seems to be the bottom line, though. No sincere devotee hangs around

> there very long, do they? And there is a difference between 'questioning

> with intelligence' and 'outright slamming', as far as I know.

 

Yes, Vaisnava inquiry must be respectful, and predicated on a

modicum of faith in generic Gaudiya siddhanta. But of course, this

etiquette is not limited to Vaisnavas only.

 

 

 

> I saw one or

> two doing so on TD, others were simply there to make themselves feel better

> about all the 'ills' ISKCON had 'inflicted' upon them in a group of people

> who felt much the same way.

 

It seems to be that there were people with many and various personal

and spiritual problems on TD, so my best faith is that the moderators

practically suspended our Vaisnava-siddhantas there just to try to somehow

encourage these people in any way they could. That motive, if so, is noble

and compassionate. However, none of the moderators ever explained this to me,

even though I requested any explanation for it, several times; rather, my

inquiry was summarily and impersonally dismissed as "challenging conference

rules." So I found their behavior to be fairly suspicious, if not offensive.

So my above assumption necessarily remains wholly speculative; I just wanted

to give the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, else I would never

have stayed there and participated as long as I did.

 

 

 

> I can't for the life of me imagine why someone

> would even think that such a site has anything to do with ISKCON, and I

> can't understand how the organisers of pamho can maintain some level of

> integrity and respect without questioning it themselves.

 

I guess that's another way of putting it. Noticeably, Madhu still

hasn't commented on this, despite my inviting her to do so (again) a

couple days ago, here. Maybe she's busy now. Harivallabha, perhaps you'd

like to say something about Braja's concern here? I'm just genuinely

curious as well.

 

 

 

> > Your statement may be seen as a conspiracy theory, but at the

> > very least, it would only be responsible of those accused of

> > accomodating and/or encouraging such questionable "poetry" to openly

> > discuss the valid concerns many others (including their seniors)

> > have expressed about them.

> Such 'questioners' are no doubt labelled in much the same way as other

> 'stupid followers' of a 'cult' are.

 

Right.

 

 

 

> These are not "arguments"

> that were raised: they are our philosophy. There is a gulf of difference

> between making a philosophical point and arguing mindlessly,

 

This is an excellent point; in my experience, those who don't like

what the pramanas demonstrably say will try to depict them as someone's

personal opinion, or interpretation--even when it can similarly be

demonstrated that Srila Prabhupada and his purvacaryas interpreted the

given pramana in exactly the same way.

 

There's no problem with having different opinions among Vaisnavas,

but all Vaisnavas agree that these must demonstrably have guru/sadhu/sastra

as their logical basis. Maybe this doesn't apply for nonVaisnavas, but if

that's whom we're speaking of, one has to wonder why these nonVaisnavas

would associate with devotees so much, use Vaisnava names, and otherwise

express concern and even opinons about Prabhupada's teachings as if they

were practitioners too.

 

 

 

> It may not be

> considered "polite" to point that out publicly, but if, as you suggested, we

> are to get to the heart of the problem, lets start with facts. I have yet to

> see any evidence - here or anywhere else - of such spiritual intelligence on

> her part. Several previous discussions on GBC Unmoderated have left me in no

> doubt as to this.

 

This is a reasonable conclusion, but it's usually possible to

bring attention to such important factors like this without insulting

anyone personally. Let's remember that emotion is the absolute truth, in

light of Gita 6.32.

 

 

 

> > Since there is no conference rule prohibiting anyone here from

> > asking about such crucial deviations as you and others vehemently

> > oppose regarding TD, I would like to invite Madhu to explain this

> > (and this only, please) right now.

> I second that.

 

For what it's worth, my invariable experience on TD was that such

invitations were either ignored altogether or deflected with what appeared to

be various prevarications. We'll see what happens here now. There have

been a lot of posts here in the last day or two, but I haven't seen the TD

moderators directly address this issue of pramanas yet; they definitely

understand the question, as I've raised several times on TD.

 

 

 

> All that aside, I would also like answers. I would like to see less

> grandstanding and some explanation. Less condeming as 'heartless' and

> 'compassionless' and more explanation on a philosophical basis.

 

Good point.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

> > facts. I have yet to see any evidence - here or anywhere else - of such

> > spiritual intelligence on her part. Several previous discussions on GBC

> > Unmoderated have left me in no doubt as to this.

>

Mukunda wrote:

> This is a reasonable conclusion, but it's usually possible to

> bring attention to such important factors like this without insulting

> anyone personally. Let's remember that emotion is the absolute truth, in

> light of Gita 6.32.

 

I almost felt from my chair!!! First time in two years I hear you talk like

that.

 

> There

> have been a lot of posts here in the last day or two, but I haven't seen

> the TD moderators directly address this issue of pramanas yet; they

> definitely understand the question, as I've raised several times on TD.

 

Not again? Please Madhu, keep your promise; don't get into that. You are not

a vaisnavi anyway from his standard.

[Guest guest]

At 08:31 AM 2/26/02 -0800, M. Tandy wrote:

>However, I agree with your tacit

>observation that the TD "experiment" seems to have failed; in that sense,

>it's a dead horse.

 

Mukhya, is this really what you meant? Could you please clarify before it

becomes a "fact".

Thanks!

Madhu

[Guest guest]

At 07:15 AM 2/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Mukhya (dd) (BES Asst. SysOp) wrote:

> > If you think that ISKCON is a perfect society, with perfect leadership,

> > following perfectly Srila Prabhupada, and thus unable to inflict any "ills"

> > upon anybody, I am very happy for you. But the fact is that there are many

> > devotees and former devotees who are disillusioned. You may call them

> > demons, sentimentalists, losers, whatever you like, but that doesn't mean

> > that they don't exist or that they don't have valid concerns.

> >

> I don't have any references, but someone once told me that Srila

>Prabhupada explained that when devotees leave, the "blame" is usually a

>fifty-fifty affair between the managers and the rank and file. This seems

>reasonable too. There's no harm if someone wants to address the crucial

>need of reform, which is also an eternal one in this world. Didn't the

>GBC long ago decide to make reclamation of disaffected devotees a priority?

>I just hope we can direct that positive ambition in ways we can safely know

>will most please Sri Guru and Gauranga.

 

I heard this more than 25 years ago--that when someone leaves, we should

see that it's at least half our fault. One of the great faults of the

Zonal-guru days was the push to drive out all who didn't support the party

line. Any movement in that direction by anyone makes me want to find other

company.

 

Babhru

[Guest guest]

At 05:50 AM 2/28/2002 +1000, Braja wrote:

>In fact, I seriously doubt Prabhupada would be crying *at all* over those

>who went to NM - I think he'd be extremely disturbed by NM's behavior. I've

>no doubt either that he's helped a lot of people, and that's fine. The fact

>remains that he has been incredibly offensive to Prabhupada. The fact that

>he has been a magnet for all the disgruntled ISKCON-itesdoesn't alleviate

>his own wrong-doings. One does not offset the other. It's a little dangerous

>to let the issues merge.

 

I will not discuss this issue publicly. It seems tailored for generating

vaishnava aparadha from all sides.

 

>As you said yesterday, this is not a challenge, but I'd like you to please

>explain what you actually define as the 'party line'? And where would you

>draw that 'line'? Is that what we're reduced to calling Prabhupada's

>teachings?

 

The party line is whatever a particular group says is the real meaning of

Lord Chaitanya's teachings. This party may be the GBC or any other group

seeking to exert power over others. I do not mean to use the term to

distract from anything else but to point out what I see as errors in

application. Sometimes these assertions resemble the emotional fallacy of

scare tactics. I don't like them. The plain fact is that different devotees

will have different understandings of what purity and strictness mean in

the context of following the teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and

Rupa-Sanatana. I'm convinced there's no room for vaishnava aparadha,

regardless of how we try to justify it.

 

Babhru

[Guest guest]

At 07:48 AM 2/28/2002 +1000, Braja wrote:

> > The party line is whatever a particular group says is the real meaning of

> > Lord Chaitanya's teachings. This party may be the GBC or any other group

> > seeking to exert power over others. I do not mean to use the term to

> > distract from anything else but to point out what I see as errors in

> > application. Sometimes these assertions resemble the emotional fallacy of

> > scare tactics. I don't like them.

>

>OK, that's understandable. Yet isn't that the responsibility also of the

>individual, to understand the philosophy correctly so as not to be misled?

>Perhaps again it's a matter of varnashrama dharma, that societal changes are

>effected to protect those who can be taken advantage of, and that

>'leadership' doesn't depend on leading people astray to maintain one's

>position.

 

More to the point, real leadership precludes this.

 

> > The plain fact is that different

> > devotees will have different understandings of what purity and strictness

> > mean in the context of following the teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and

> > Rupa-Sanatana. I'm convinced there's no room for vaishnava aparadha,

> > regardless of how we try to justify it.

>

>Or how we may try to disguise it.

 

We may well be of one mind on this. (Careful, Braja! You may not want to

get caught agreeing with me.) ;-) I actually deliberately chose not to use

that very word; "justify" was my euphemism.

 

 

>I think that's why Mukunda datta prabhu's suggestion of Applied Krishna

>Consciousness as the name for

[Guest guest]

At 09:27 AM 2/28/2002 +1000, you wrote:

> >

> > We may well be of one mind on this. (Careful, Braja! You may not want to

> > get caught agreeing with me.) ;-)

>

>Or you with me :

 

Let's make it our little secret.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN) wrote:

> Braja wrote:

> > following what Prabhupada said, but if by your own admission you are

> > unable to do that, then leave.

> Mukunda, do you second that!

Sorry, I just haven't been able to keep up with every thread;

what's the context here?

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

At 07:56 PM 3/1/02 +0100, Mahanidhi (das) (S) wrote:

>Here are some of the moments that might enable

>something like that happen (especially in some several hundreds

>of years yet to come):

 

Thanks for sending in that thoughtful summary. I think it hit several nails

right on their heads.

 

> (Love of

>Godhead can be obtained only through the love of Prabhupada

>and this one can be demonstrated only by cooperating with the

>GBC and this one can be accomplish only by never disregarding

>them on any way what to speak of rejecting their authority.)

 

Sounds like material for a Monty Python movie - maybe a follow up to "Life

of Brian"? ;-)

 

>-- The very revolutionary spirit and the open critical thinking

>being those principles on which the "birth" and the growth

>of ISKCON as the institution has been supported on, become

>condemned and outlawed once the "door-step" has been crossed

>over:

 

Ironic, isn't it?

 

Madhu

[Guest guest]

Braja wrote:

 

> Well I'm sure you - and anyone who agrees with you - would think it was

far

> superior to ISKCON. In absolutely every way.

 

As a matter of fact: No.

 

>For example, they nailed the

> founder-acharya to the cross...

 

This is almost too silly to comment on, but I will do so anyway, just so

that it's crystal clear that I think it's offensive to suggest that anyone

here would be in favor of this. There has been absolutely no texts

indicating that anyone here would have wanted to harm Srila Prabhupada. You

on the other hand have a history of writing that you'd be in favor of

causing bodily harm to devotees (both Ek and Adri).

 

Madhu

[Guest guest]

> This is almost too silly to comment on, but I will do so anyway,

> just so that it's crystal clear that I think it's offensive to

> suggest that anyone here would be in favor of this. There has been

> absolutely no texts indicating that anyone here would have wanted to

> harm Srila Prabhupada. You on the other hand have a history of

> writing that you'd be in favor of causing bodily harm to devotees

> (both Ek and Adri).

 

".. Just like goats. We have seen goats eating twenty-four hours. Not

only goats, they..., all other animals. Even if he is strong animal.

That, they are... I told you. Na hi suptasya siˆhasya pravianti mukhe

mg€ƒ. Suptasya, sleeping lion. Lion is very powerful; he is given the

honor of becoming the king of the animals. But still, he has to work

for eating. It is not that because he is lion he will be sleeping, and

some animal will come and enter into his mouth. No. That is not

possible. He has to work.

 

Similarly, everyone has to work. Therefore there must be systematic

work so that whole society may develop KŠa consciousness, the ideal

or the goal of life. Without program working... Just like I was

hearing that in Japan they are very much, the people have very much

liking for working, but, by law, they are being prohibited, “Don’t

work.” So this civilization has been created that they do not know

anything more. They are not taught that working is not our main

business. Our main business is, as it is stated, hari-toaŠam.

Saˆsiddhir hari-toaŠam [sB 1.2.13]. We have to satisfy KŠa, the

Supreme Personality of Godhead. Or God, whatever you say. But they do

not know what is God..." (SB lecture LA Aug.17 1972)

[Guest guest]

> Both yours and Mahanidhi's text are off topic in this group. The

> conference is called Applied Krishna Consciousness. Nowhere in your

> texts was Krishna consciousness applied,

 

I would expect from "applied Krishna consciousness" to involve

some ability of being ready to honestly recognize the need

for some individuals to discuss the problems of the society that

they have given half of their lives to, the society that they

still would like to see improving in various ways. Could you

do that much?

 

Maybe I should simply keep repeating again and again the

slogan "Jay Prabhu, all bliss, all glories to the absolutely

perfect and pure ISKCON and its leadership!" and you will

maybe then give me the licence for being on topic in this

group.

 

 

> To apply Krishna consciousness one has to first

> stop the fascination with what other people do or don't do, and start

> applying Krishna consciousness to one's own life. This is the first

> and most important step.

 

Your entire text was an example of fascination with what other

people do or don't do, and what they got to do or not to do..

Is perhaps that what you have envisioned the "Applied Krishna

Consciousness" forum is supposed to be? A kind of a military

polygon for your personal training in "How to apply KC on other

fellow people".

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> >For example, they nailed the

> > founder-acharya to the cross...

>

> This is almost too silly to comment on,

 

But I belive it does reflect something of the "old good school"

where to ridicule and put-down everybody else's religious movement,

in order to feel oneself well situated on the only actually genuine

path of spirituality... "they nailed the founder-acharya to the

cross..." Did they really? Did the Apostles of Jesus and his

first missionaries and disciples really nailed him on the cross?

While one of them (Judas) did betray him, one who nailed Jesus

was the Roman ruler Pontius Pilate. Prabhupada also was betrayed

by some of his disciples, yet to condemn the entire disciplic

succesion and the followers coming after wouldn't be that much

honest thing to do.

 

"they nailed the founder-acarya to the cross" is the statement

just as good as "they poisoned the founder-acarya with the

arsenic". Did they really?

 

But I must be again seeing things from the negative viewpoint..

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

At 01:00 PM 3/2/02 +0100, Mahanidhi (das) (S) wrote:

 

>While one of them (Judas) did betray him, one who nailed Jesus

>was the Roman ruler Pontius Pilate. Prabhupada also was betrayed

>by some of his disciples, yet to condemn the entire disciplic

>succesion and the followers coming after wouldn't be that much

>honest thing to do.

 

Good point. Pontius Pilate couldn't really be called "an early Christian"

and it was their behaviors that were noted.

 

>"they nailed the founder-acarya to the cross" is the statement

>just as good as "they poisoned the founder-acarya with the

>arsenic". Did they really?

 

This whole discussion and the insinuation that those of us who advocate

allowing non-vedic sources are nailing the acarya onto the cross is

actually a bit ironic. My service for the last 4+ years has been to co-edit

the Chakra website and a big reason why we started Chakra was to provide

the ISKCON side in the poison controversy. At the time (1997), only the

poison advocates' voices were heard in cyberspace and Tamal Krsna

Maharaja's good name was being smeared all over the anti-ISKCON webpages,

suggesting that he had in fact done the equivalent of "crucifying the

founder-acarya" by poisoning him to death. Chakra was the only webpage

that focused on an actual objective presentation of the medical evidence

(and lack thereof), which shows that the poison theory lacks any credible

foundation. Another ironic piece to this is that - in order to do so - we

have to assume that Srila Prabhupada's body was in fact material, in the

sense that it could be afflicted by diabetes. On the average, people with

diabetes live 20 years less than people who don't have this disease,

because it's very hard on so many organ systems. From the UK hospital

records it seems very clear that this, not any arsenic in his blood stream,

was responsible for his body giving out.

 

Of course there are also spiritual reasons for things and maybe Prabhupada

or Krsna *chose* this particular disease or chose to make it *look like*

his body had this particular disease. But that's somewhat besides the point

when trying to prove that he was not poisoned by arsenic. Maybe it was all

lila - what do I know? But if this ever gets to a court, I think we'll have

to argue based on medical records and those clearly show (as far as I'm

concerned) that there was no poisoning. And this evidence was shared on Chakra

 

>But I must be again seeing things from the negative viewpoint..

 

Always look on the bright side of life.

[whistling]

Always look on the light side of life.

[whistling]

 

Madhu

[Guest guest]

> Maybe I should simply keep repeating again and again the

> slogan "Jay Prabhu, all bliss, all glories to the absolutely

> perfect and pure ISKCON and its leadership!" and you will

> maybe then give me the licence for being on topic in this

> group.

 

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

 

It would be wrong of me to enter into a battle of wit with one who is

unarmed.

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Mahanidhi (das) (S) wrote:

> What I do think is that the Christianity in the time of Jesus

> Christ and just after his immediate departure was certainly

> far more idealistic and pure in the spiritual ideas than perhaps

> the nowadays institutional Church is about.

 

Yes. Those who want to relax standards enough to let the whole

world in comfortably must know that this is the price. They might also

consider if their own forefathers did it to Christianity.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes. Those who want to relax standards enough to let the whole

> world in comfortably must know that this is the price. They might also

> consider if their own forefathers did it to Christianity.

 

Indeed, that was the point. The relaxing of the religious

standards is hardly ever really installed by the general

folk, but rather by the leadership that may loose its

spiritual power and the edge of the austere and pure life-stile,

getting succumbed by the acquirement of the institutional power

and the various opportunities available through the position.

 

As said in the Bhagavad-gita, verse 3.21:

"Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow.

And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the

world pursues."

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

At 12:13 PM 3/2/2002 +1000, Jahnu (das) (San Rafael, CA - USA) wrote:

>Both yours and Mahanidhi's text are off topic in this group. The

>conference is called Applied Krishna Consciousness. Nowhere in your

>texts was Krishna consciousness applied, so the texts don't belong

>here. I think we should stick to the name of the conference and

>represent it nicely.

 

Well, that brings up a minor detail. The conference's members haven't yet

clearly defined its purpose. We discussed why we'd like it named this way

but didn't go any further. So I'd like to invite respectful, reasoned

discussion of the conference's purpose, in the hope that we can develop

some sort of consensus. Nota bene: I hope all members will participate and

will respect others' opportunity to express their opinions. If one or two

members insist on dominating the conference, we won't achieve what most of

us hope to.

 

>To apply Krishna consciousness one has to first

>stop the fascination with what other people do or don't do, and start

>applying Krishna consciousness to one's own life. This is the first

>and most important step.

 

Well said.

 

>The only way to do that is by reading Srila Prabhupada's books and

>chanting a prescribed number of rounds every day. If you don't do

>these things you are actually barred from Krishna consciousness.

 

Can you support that statement with evidence from guru, sadhu, and shastra?

(And what about those pesky regulative principles?) Much of ISKCON and the

rest of the krishna consciousness movement recently spent much time and

energy celebrating someone who didn't fit this description during most of

his association with Krishna consciousness.

 

If we look at progressive Krishna consciousness as described by Srila Rupa

Gosvami in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, it begins with a little faith--just

enough to stop and listen a moment, grows through association with

devotees, which should lead to initiation and engagement in devotional

activities. This eventually (quickly, we hope, but not always, apparently)

gives rise to freedom from activities and attachments inimical to

devotional progress, after which we become steady. Then positive growth in

our progress becomes prominent, until we attain ecstatic love for Krishna.

 

If you want to be an ISKCON member you have to learn to follow the

>party line. To do that you have to educate yourself in Srila

>Prabhupada teachings because they formulate the party line of ISKCON.

>It is as simple as that really.

 

Based on my few years of experience, I don't think Srila Prabhupada would

support the use of such terms. First of all, he spoke consistently and

tirelessly against party spirit. Secone, he and all the acharyas

consistently presented Lord Chaitanya's teachings, without claiming any

credit for them. Srila Prabhupada repeatedly referred to the guru as a

peon. Just one example: "I am Krishna's servant. What Krishna says, I am

carrying. That's all. That is my position. I am peon. When the peon

delivers one thousand rupees or shillings to you, it is not his money. The

money is paid by somebody, but I honestly deliver to you. That's all"

(Nairobi, October 28, 1975).

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

> Well, that brings up a minor detail. The conference's members

> haven't yet clearly defined its purpose. We discussed why we'd like

> it named this way but didn't go any further. So I'd like to invite

> respectful, reasoned discussion of the conference's purpose, in the

> hope that we can develop some sort of consensus.

 

I think the name of the conference is self explanatory. What need is

there for a big discussion on this?

 

 

> >The only way to do that is by reading Srila Prabhupada's books and

> >chanting a prescribed number of rounds every day. If you don't do

> >these things you are actually barred from Krishna consciousness.

 

> Can you support that statement with evidence from guru, sadhu, and

> shastra?

 

"You simply have to keep yourself always in the fire of Krishna

consciousness. Read my books daily, chant 16 rounds, and worship Lord

Caitanya in your home. If you do this maya will never touch you."

(letter from Srila prabhupada)

 

"Lord Caitanya’s spiritual master instructed Him, therefore, that one

must read ®r…mad-Bh€gavatam regularly and with scrutiny to gradually

become attached to the chanting of the Hare KŠa mah€-mantra.

 

 

> (And what about those pesky regulative principles?)

 

What about them?

 

The thing is that one cannot police how everyone is following the 4

regs. That must be between you and Krishna. But it can be policed how

everyone is presenting the philosophy. Srila Prabhupada was absolutely

adamant we understand the philosophy from him and not from anyone

else.

 

> Much of

> ISKCON and the rest of the krishna consciousness movement recently

> spent much time and energy celebrating someone who didn't fit this

> description during most of his association with Krishna

> consciousness.

 

If you don't have information to the contrary I'll just go on

accepting what one of his close friends told Braja, which was that

George Harrison read Srila Prabhupada's books and chanted the Hare

Krishna mantra all his life.

 

> If you want to be an ISKCON member you have to learn to follow the

> >party line. To do that you have to educate yourself in Srila

> >Prabhupada teachings because they formulate the party line of

> >ISKCON. It is as simple as that really.

>

> Based on my few years of experience, I don't think Srila Prabhupada

> would support the use of such terms. First of all, he spoke

> consistently and tirelessly against party spirit.

 

What Srila Prabhupada did speak tirelessly and consistently about was

how much we should cooperate together within ISKCON. He even said that

one who thought he could go outside of ISKCON to become Krishna

conscious was in a big illusion.

 

"Now, we have by Krsna's Grace built up something significant in the

shape of this ISKCON and we are all one family. Sometimes there may be

disagreement and quarrel but we should not go away. These inebrieties

can be adjusted by the cooperative spirit, tolerance and maturity so I

request you to kindly remain in the association of our devotees and

work together. The test of our actual dedication and sincerity to

serve the Spiritual Master will be in this mutual cooperative spirit

to push on this Movement and not make factions and deviate. Try to

convince Gaurasundara and Siddha-svarupa to return to ISKCON and let

us forget whatever has happened in the past." (letter to Babhru das

1973)

 

Furthermore Srila Prabhupada created the GBC and he wanted everyone to

support and follow it. I'd say that anyone who doesn't like it should

just be honest about it and go away.

 

Ys, Jahnu das

[Guest guest]

At 03:59 PM 3/3/2002 +1000, you wrote:

> > Well, that brings up a minor detail. The conference's members

> > haven't yet clearly defined its purpose. We discussed why we'd like

> > it named this way but didn't go any further. So I'd like to invite

> > respectful, reasoned discussion of the conference's purpose, in the

> > hope that we can develop some sort of consensus.

>

>I think the name of the conference is self explanatory. What need is

>there for a big discussion on this?

>

>

> > >The only way to do that is by reading Srila Prabhupada's books and

> > >chanting a prescribed number of rounds every day. If you don't do

> > >these things you are actually barred from Krishna consciousness.

>

> > Can you support that statement with evidence from guru, sadhu, and

> > shastra?

>

>"You simply have to keep yourself always in the fire of Krishna

>consciousness. Read my books daily, chant 16 rounds, and worship Lord

>Caitanya in your home. If you do this maya will never touch you."

>(letter from Srila prabhupada)

>

>"Lord Caitanya's spiritual master instructed Him, therefore, that one

>must read zrImad-BhAgavatam regularly and with scrutiny to gradually

>become attached to the chanting of the Hare KRSNa mahA-mantra.

 

These are essential instructions, but they don't necessarily support the

assertion you made earlier--that unless someone chants 16 rounds daily and

reads Srila Prabhupada's books, they have no access to Krishna consciousness.

 

 

> > (And what about those pesky regulative principles?)

>

>What about them?

 

Aren't they as necessary as the 16 rounds?

 

>The thing is that one cannot police how everyone is following the 4

>regs. That must be between you and Krishna. But it can be policed how

>everyone is presenting the philosophy.

 

The same is true of how one chants japa and studies the bhakti-shastras.

 

>Srila Prabhupada was absolutely

>adamant we understand the philosophy from him and not from anyone

>else.

 

Paramahamsa: Srila Prabhupada, I remember once I heard a tape where you

told us that we should not try to read the books of previous acaryas.

Prabhupada: Hmm?

Amogha: That we should not try to read Bhaktivinoda's books or earlier

books of other, all acaryas. So I was just wondering...

Prabhupada: I never said that.

Amogha: You didn't say that? Oh.

Prabhupada: How is that?

Amogha: I thought you said that we should not read the previous acaryas' books.

Prabhupada: No, you should read.

Amogha: We should.

Prabhupada: It is misunderstanding.

Paramahamsa: I think maybe he was thinking that there was some things about

some of the Gaudiya Matha books.

Prabhupada: Maybe.

Paramahamsa: And sometimes you said that better not to..., better to read

your books.

Amogha: When the devotees went to India this year, they said that

Acyutananda Swami very..., chastised them that "You should never... If I

catch any of you buying Bhaktisiddhanta's books from Gaudiya Matha then I

will take it away," something like this.

Paramahamsa: Yeah, that was, the reason was because of, he didn't want the

devotees going to Gaudiya Matha. But there's nothing wrong with the idea of

studying the previous acaryas' books.

Prabhupada: No. Who said? That is wrong. We are following previous acaryas.

I never said that.

(Morning Walk -- May 13, 1975, Perth)

 

> > Much of ISKCON and the rest of the krishna consciousness movement recently

> > spent much time and energy celebrating someone who didn't fit this

> > description during most of his association with Krishna

> > consciousness.

>

>If you don't have information to the contrary I'll just go on

>accepting what one of his close friends told Braja, which was that

>George Harrison read Srila Prabhupada's books and chanted the Hare

>Krishna mantra all his life.

 

16 rounds daily? That was your assertion.

 

>"Now, we have by Krsna's Grace built up something significant in the

>shape of this ISKCON and we are all one family. Sometimes there may be

>disagreement and quarrel but we should not go away. These inebrieties

>can be adjusted by the cooperative spirit, tolerance and maturity so I

>request you to kindly remain in the association of our devotees and

>work together. The test of our actual dedication and sincerity to

>serve the Spiritual Master will be in this mutual cooperative spirit

>to push on this Movement and not make factions and deviate. Try to

>convince Gaurasundara and Siddha-svarupa to return to ISKCON and let

>us forget whatever has happened in the past." (letter to Babhru das

>1973)

>

>Furthermore Srila Prabhupada created the GBC and he wanted everyone to

>support and follow it. I'd say that anyone who doesn't like it should

>just be honest about it and go away.

 

Well, I've stayed because he personally asked me to. I have worked

cooperatively with the GBC for about 33 years, but I will not follow their

deviations from Lord Chaitanya's teachings. If you don't like that, perhaps

you should go away.

 

Babhru das

Babhru

[Guest guest]

> I think the name of the conference is self explanatory. What need is

> there for a big discussion on this?

 

Why to immediately go making a kind of a cult and the list of

unsutable topics (with "no_discussion_about_it" motto) out of

one chosen name of one conference that needed to get renamed

somehow or other?

 

> > Can you support that statement with evidence from guru, sadhu, and

> > shastra?

>

> "You simply have to keep yourself always in the fire of Krishna

> consciousness. Read my books daily, chant 16 rounds, and worship Lord

> Caitanya in your home. If you do this maya will never touch you."

> (letter from Srila prabhupada)

 

I do not think Prabhupada's recommendation for what to do

in order to never be touched by maya is supposed to mean

that what you want to claim to be the case:

 

"If you don't do these things you are actually barred from

Krishna consciousness."

 

As far as Prabhupada's approach to it, even a drunkard

who thinks that the taste of his vine is "Krsna" is already

involved in Krsna consciousness and gradually he might

become liberated. Not barred from KC. Whoever even once

utters the name of Krsna is never barred from KC, in

my understanding of the same philosophy.

 

Besides it, you had also made another claims, like:

 

> Srila Prabhupada has clearly explained that any

> idea or statement must be properly backed up by scriptural evidence.

> If you don't accept that you have nothing to do in ISKCON.

 

I haven't seen you properly backing up by scriptural evidence

this idea of yours that who ever does not accept that *any* idea

or statement must be properly backed up by scriptural evidence

has *nothing* to do with ISKCON. Where is that stated?

 

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

 

"Barred from Krsna consciousness...nothing to do with

ISKCON..." Was that really Srila Prabhupada's mood of

preaching Krsna consciousness, as you would want us to

believe in? The mood of finding out how most effectively a

person could be barred or have nothing to do with it?

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> What Srila Prabhupada did speak tirelessly and consistently about was

> how much we should cooperate together within ISKCON. He even said that

> one who thought he could go outside of ISKCON to become Krishna

> conscious was in a big illusion.

 

The controversial issue being what does it really mean

nowadays to be "within" or "outside" ISKCON. Simply loosing

the trust in and leaving the ISKCON institutional way of

"fallowing the GBC" may not be understood by many devotees

as leaving Prabhupada and ISKCON. Indeed, it appears that

many are actually convinced that they are in no way leaving

neither ISKCON nor Prabhupada nor his teachings/instructions

on that way, by accepting the guidance of Narayana Maharaja

that has presented himself as the siksa disciple of Srila

Prabhupada. Not that I am in agreement with all the polices

of his, but I do recognize he got some valuable points.

As well as that he is inspiration for many devotees in

their spiritula life, much more than the GBC could be.

 

Besides, I belive that in those times, what Prabhupada meant

with "leaving ISKCON" was essentially falling back to the old

materialistic habits, to maya. There was no much alterative

as there is today when many devotees have been actually

rather more inspired to pursue their Krsna consciousness

development by so-called "leaving".

 

 

 

- mnd