Discussion and Philosophy

[Guest guest]

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

> vaishnava aparadha from all sides.

 

I agree - that's why I said it's a little dangerous to merge the issues. I

doubt there's anything that can be said that hasn't been said before a

million times.

 

> 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.

 

> 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.

 

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

Consciousness as the name for