to remain in iskcon

[Yofu]

Who Cares? Iskcon or any organisation will not give you bhakti...

[Guruvani]

 

Who Cares? Iskcon or any organisation will not give you bhakti...

 

Can you prove that with shastric support?

[Kulapavana]

 

Who Cares? Iskcon or any organisation will not give you bhakti...

 

You say these things because you never experienced Iskcon "as it should be". I did and that experience helped me and many other devotees. Iskcon may not give you bhakti because nobody can "give" you bhakti - it is something that you develop in the association of devotees, and that is what Iskcon provides.

[Kulapavana]

 

Even if they don't personally accept disciples. This was my initial hope when I heard about the "ritvik" movement and their desire to just hear Prabhupada as their exclusive guru . Seemed so perfect to me. Carry on as is with new bhaktas accepting Srila Prabhupada as their siksa guru and developing love of God. But no they had to fight with the tar baby of Iskcon and try to reform it and came out hating all other gurus Iskcon and out and screwing it all up.

 

Ritviks simply want to create another Christianity type religion with Prabhupada as their Jesus. Twisting shastras and spinning myths they created their own little personality cult. That is exactly what the early Christians and Moslems did with the founders of their religions. There are some benefits to this approach, but in the end it is simply a material path with lies and legends embeded in it.

[Guruvani]

 

Ritviks simply want to create another Christianity type religion with Prabhupada as their Jesus..

 

As if that would be a terrible thing.

What is so wrong about people wanting Srila Prabhupada as their personal saviour?

There is no shastric injunction against a ritvik system.

It is not forbidden in shastra.

 

Career ISKCON gurus don't like the idea because it would put them out of a job.

[Kulapavana]

 

As if that would be a terrible thing.

What is so wrong about people wanting Srila Prabhupada as their personal saviour?

There is no shastric injunction against a ritvik system.

It is not forbidden in shastra.

 

 

First of all, these personality cult religions (Ritvikism, Christianity, and Islam) are based on thin extrapolations of scripture and logic, misrepresentation of the facts, and half-truths at best. They invariably lead to sectarianism and intolerance.

 

While there may be no explicit shastric injunctions against ritvikism in the Vedas, all such sectarian religious systems are condemned as dharma-kaitava, or man-made imitiation of religion.

[cbrahma]

 

Who Cares? Iskcon or any organisation will not give you bhakti...

The only way one gets bhakti is through the inconceivable mercy of Krsna and the usual way one gets the inconceivable mercy of Krsna is through the greater mercy of his pure devotee. Organizations have nothing to do with it.

[krsna]

Who is Crazy?

BY: HDG A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI

<CENTER></CENTER>

 

 

 

 

The whole world is divided into factions, and each accuses the others of being crazy. But if there are no criteria by which to judge sanity, then who can decide?

<CENTER>man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru

mam evaishyasi yuktvaivam atmanam mat-parayanah </CENTER>

 

“Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, engage your body in My service and surrender unto Me. Completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me.” (Bg. 9.34)

 

Here Krsna says that one should always think of Him, be His devotee and worship Him. This is the process of devotional service; it is not very difficult, and anyone can execute it by thinking of God, offering obeisances and rendering some service unto Him. Generally people identify with some party, either socially, politically, economically or religiously. In America there are the Republican and Democratic parties, and on the international scale there are the capitalists and the communists. Religiously, people identify with a party as Christian, Moslem, Hindu and so on. In India there are social parties also, like the brahmanas and kshatriyas. In short, to avoid belonging to some party or other is not possible. Spiritualism, however, means that we should identify ourselves with God’s party.

 

On this platform also there is “party-ism” in that the spiritualists call the materialists crazy, and the materialists call the spiritualists crazy. We have formed a Society for Krishna Consciousness, and those who do not like it say that we are “crazy.” Similarly, a person in Krishna consciousness sees a person who is acting in material consciousness as a crazy person. Who, then, is actually crazy? Who decides? How are the parties involved capable of deciding? Indeed, the whole world is divided into parties, each accusing the others of being crazy, but if there are no criteria by which to judge sanity, then who can decide? If we ask any man, any common man on the street, what he is, he will reply, “I am this body.” He may give some further explanation by saying that he is Christian, or Hindu, or Jewish, or that he is Mr. So-and-So, or whatever, but all these are simply designations he attaches to the body. In other words, they all arise from the body. When a person says that he is an American, he is referring to the body because by some accident or reason he is born into the land of America and so takes the title of an American. But that is also artificial because the land is neither American nor French, nor Chinese, nor Russian, nor anything-land is land. We have simply artificially created some boundaries and said, “This is America, this is Canada, this is Mexico, Europe, Asia, India.” These are our concoctions, for we do not find that these lands were originally divided in this way. Three or four hundred years ago this land was not even known as America, nor was it even inhabited by white men from Europe. Even a thousand years ago Europe was inhabited by different peoples and called different names.

 

These are all designations that are constantly changing. From the Vedic literatures we can understand that this whole planet was known as Ilavrita-varsha, and one king, Maharaja Bharata, who ruled the entire planet, changed the name of the planet to Bharata-varsha. Gradually, however, the planet became divided again, and different continents and sectors became known by different names. Even recently India has been divided into a number of countries, whereas earlier in the century India had included Burma, Ceylon and East and West Pakistan. In actuality the land is neither Bharata-varsha, India, Europe, Asia or whatever-we simply give it these designations in accordance with time and influence.

 

Just as we give the land designations, we also give our bodies designations, but no one can say what his designations were before birth. Who can say that he was American, Chinese, European or whatever? We are thinking that after leaving this body we will continue as American or Indian or Russian. But although we may live in America during this life, we may be in China in the next, for we are constantly changing our bodies. Who can say that he is not changing bodies? When we are born from the womb of our mother, our body is very small. Now, where is that body? Where is the body we had as a boy? We may have photographs that remind us what the body was like in past years, but we cannot say where that body has gone. The body may change, yet we have the feeling that we do not change. “I am the same man,” we think, “and in my childhood I looked like this or like that.” Where have those years gone? They have vanished along with the body and everything that came in contact with it. But although everything is changing at every moment, we are still sticking to our bodily identification so that when we are asked what we are, we give an answer that is somehow or other related to this body. Is this not crazy? If a person identifies with something he is not, he is considered crazy. The conclusion is that one who identifies with the body cannot really be considered sane. This, then, is a challenge to the world: Whoever claims God’s property or earth as belonging to his body, which is constantly changing, can only be considered a crazy man. Who can actually establish that this is his property or that this is his body? By the chances of nature a person is placed in a body and is dictated to by the laws of material nature. Yet in illusion we think we are controlling that nature. Therefore Krishna says in

<CENTER>Bhagavad-gita:

prakriteh kriyamanani

gunaih karmani sarvasah

ahankara-vimudhatma

kartaham iti manyate </CENTER>

 

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by nature.” (Bg. 3.27)

 

Prakriteh kriyamanani: Material nature is pulling everyone by the ear, just as a stern teacher pulls a student. Every individual is under the dictations of material nature and is being put sometimes in this body and sometimes in that. We are now fortunate to have acquired a human body, but we can easily see that there are many other types of bodies (8,400,000 according to Padma Purana) and by the laws of nature we can be put into any type of body according to our work. Thus we are completely in the grip of material nature. Although this lifetime we may be fortunate in acquiring a human body, there is no guarantee that the next time we will not have the body of a dog or some other animal. All this depends on our work. No one can say, “After my death, I will take my birth again in America.” Material nature will force us into this body or that. Since we are not authorities, Bhagavad-gita informs us that everything is being conducted by the supreme laws of nature, and it is the foolish man who thinks, “I am something. I am independent.” Ahankara-vimudhatma: this is false reason. Although the living entity is different from the body, he thinks, “I am this body.” Therefore Sankaracarya basically preached the same message over and over: aham brahmasmi, “I am not this body; I am Brahman, spirit soul.”

 

Nonetheless, even when we have resolved to take to the path of self-realization, maya or illusion persists. By self-realization a person may come to realize that he is not the body but a spiritual soul. What then is his position? Void? Impersonal? People think that after the demise of this body there is nothing but nirvana or void. The impersonalists similarly say that as soon as the body is finished, one’s personal identity is finished also. In actuality, however, the body can never be identified with the living entity any more than a car can be identified with its driver. A person may direct a car wherever he wishes, but when he gets out of the car he does not think that his personality is gone. In Bhagavad-gita Krishna speaks of the living entity in this way:

<CENTER>isvarah sarva-bhutanam

hrid-dese ’rjuna tishthati

bhramayan sarva-bhutani

yantrarudhani mayaya </CENTER>

 

“The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone’s heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.” (Bg. 18.61)

 

These various bodies are like cars, and they are all moving. One person may have an expensive kind of car, and another person may have an inexpensive one; one person may have a new car, and another person may have an old one. Should we then think that when we are out of the car of the body the personality no longer exists? This is another kind of craziness. The void philosophy, which maintains that after death we become nothing, is also a craziness that has been contradicted. We are not void but spirit. When one attains spiritual realization, knowing himself as spirit outside the body, he can advance further by inquiring about his duty as spirit. “What is my spiritual work?” he should ask. Realizing one’s spiritual identity and asking about one’s spiritual duty is actual sanity. So much individuality and discrimination are displayed by the living entity even in the body. Should we think that at death one’s intelligence, discrimination and individuality no longer exist? Although we may make such great plans and work so hard within the body, are we to assume that when we leave the body we become void? There is no basis for this nonsense, and it is directly refuted by Krishna at the very beginning of Bhagavad-gita:

<CENTER>na tv evaham jatu nasam

na tvam neme janadhipah

na caiva na bhavishyamah

sarve vayam atah param

dehino ’smin yatha dehe

kaumaram yauvanam jara

tatha dehantara-praptir

dhiras tatra na muhyati </CENTER>

 

“Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” (Bg. 2.12-13)

 

Thus the spiritual identity of the individual soul continues after death, for Lord Krishna assures Arjuna of the eternality of all the individual souls assembled on the battlefield. The spiritual spark or self is within the body from the moment the body begins to form within the womb of the mother, and it continues existing in the body as the body undergoes all of its changes through infancy, childhood, youth and old age. This means that the person who is within the body is present from the moment of conception. The measurement of this individual soul is so small that the Vedic scriptures approximate it to be no larger than one ten-thousandth part of the tip of a hair-in other words, as far as human vision is concerned, it is invisible. One cannot see the soul with material eyes, but the soul is there nonetheless, and the fact that the body grows from the shape of a pea to full-grown manhood is proof of its presence. There are six symptoms of the soul’s presence, and growth is one of them. If there is growth, or change, one should know that the soul is present within the body. When the body becomes useless, the soul leaves it, and the body simply decays. One cannot directly perceive the soul’s leaving the body, but one can perceive it symptomatically when the body loses consciousness and dies. In the Second Chapter of Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna gives the following simile to illustrate this process:

<CENTER>vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya

navani grihnati naro ’parani

tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany

anyani samyati navani dehi </CENTER>

 

“As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.” (Bg. 2.22)

 

Although the soul takes on new bodies, the soul does not select the bodies himself, the selection is made by the law of nature. However, the mentality of the soul does affect the selection, as indicated by Krishna in the following verse:

<CENTER>yam yam vapi smaran bhavam

tyajaty ante kalevaram

tam tam evaiti kaunteya

sada tad-bhava-bhavitah </CENTER>

 

“In whatever condition one quits his present body, in his next life he will attain to that state of being without fail.” (Bg. 8.6)

 

As one’s thoughts develop, his future body also develops. The sane man understands that he is not the body, and he also understands what his duty is: to fix his mind on Krishna so that at death he can attain Krishna’s nature. This is the advice of Krishna in the last verse of the Ninth Chapter:

<CENTER>man-mana bhava mad-bhakto

mad-yaji mam namaskuru

mam evaishyasi yuktvaivam

atmanam mat-parayanah </CENTER>

 

“Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, engage your body in My service and surrender unto Me. Completely absorbed in Me, surely will you come to Me.” (Bg. 9.34)

 

Every embodied soul is in the constant act of thinking. To refrain from thinking something is not possible for a moment. The duty of the individual, therefore, is to think of Krishna. There should be no difficulty in this, nor any harm; Krishna has pastimes and activities, He comes to earth and leaves His message in the form of Bhagavad-gita, and there are so many literatures about Krishna that thinking of Him is neither a difficult nor costly task. There are enough literatures on Krishna to last one a lifetime, so there is no shortage of material. Thinking of Krishna, however, should be favorable. If a man is employed, he may always be thinking of his employer: “I must get there on time. If he sees me late, he may deduct from my paycheck.” This kind of thinking will not do. It is necessary to think of Krishna with love (bhava mad-bhaktah). In the material world when the servant thinks of the master, there is no love; he is thinking only of pounds, shillings and pence. Because that kind of thinking will not save us, Krishna requests that one just be His devotee.

 

Thinking of Krishna with love, or devotion to Krishna, actually means service. The spiritual master prescribes various duties to enable the neophyte devotee to think of Krishna. In the Society for Krishna Consciousness, for instance, there are so many duties assigned: printing, writing, typing, dispatching, cooking, and so on. In so many ways the students are thinking of Krishna because they are engaged in the service of Krsna.

What is the duty indicated by Krishna? Mad-yaji mam namaskuru. Even if we are not inclined to obedience, we must obey and offer respects (namaskuru). Bhakti, or devotion, minus respect is not bhakti. One should engage in Krishna consciousness with love and respect and should thus fulfill his designated duties. Then life will be successful. One can never be happy by identifying himself with the material body and engaging in all kinds of nonsensical activities. For happiness, there must be consciousness of Krishna; that is the difference between spiritualism and materialism. The same typewriter, dictation machine, tape recorder, mimeograph machine, paper, ink, the same hand-on the surface, everything is the same, but everything becomes spiritualized when it is used in the service of Krishna. This, then, is spiritual. We should not think that something has to be uncommon to be spiritual. The entire material world can be transformed into spirit if we simply become Krishna conscious. By ardently following the instructions of Krishna in Bhagavad-gita and following in the footsteps of the great acaryas, teachers of Bhagavad-gita in the line of disciplic succession, we can spiritualize the earth and restore its inhabitants to sanity.

[theist]

 

First of all, these personality cult religions (Ritvikism, Christianity, and Islam) are based on thin extrapolations of scripture and logic, misrepresentation of the facts, and half-truths at best. They invariably lead to sectarianism and intolerance.

 

Sounds like impersonalism. Why did you leave out the Caitanyaites? Everything is based on Personality. So you want to see guru as some impersonal thing that is part of the paraphenalia to your sadhana and that you can be done with either when he leaves his body or you become enlightened. We should be very careful here.

 

There are false personality cults built up around Jesus Christ and Srila Prabhupada. Any teacher will attract such cultists based on externals. But beyond these false personality ideas which people try to superimpose on guru there is the real personality of guru which is part and parcel of Krsna and is eternal.

[theist]

 

Ritviks simply want to create another Christianity type religion with Prabhupada as their Jesus. Twisting shastras and spinning myths they created their own little personality cult. That is exactly what the early Christians and Moslems did with the founders of their religions. There are some benefits to this approach, but in the end it is simply a material path with lies and legends embeded in it.

 

I disagree with your assessment. Faith in a pure devotee of Krsna and association and following his vani are transcendental and setting up an offical rubber stamp imitiation factory are mundane religious activities. I believe you have it quite upside down.

 

And to think faith and association with Krsna's devotee is made impossible because he no longer wears an earthly form is a very gross way of thinking limited to the realm of the lowest five elements.

[Kulapavana]

 

Sounds like impersonalism. Why did you leave out the Caitanyaites? Everything is based on Personality. So you want to see guru as some impersonal thing that is part of the paraphenalia to your sadhana and that you can be done with either when he leaves his body or you become enlightened. We should be very careful here.

 

yes, some Caitanyaite groups have personality cult issues as well, that is a valid point.

 

as to guru being some impersonal element of the sadhana - that is completely un-vedic and not what I was talking about. There is a huge space between a guru personality cult and seeing guru merely as a ladder that is abandoned after climbing to the higher level.

[Kulapavana]

 

... to think faith and association with Krsna's devotee is made impossible because he no longer wears an earthly form is a very gross way of thinking limited to the realm of the lowest five elements.

 

again, that is not what I said. Out of some 800 verses in the Gita only a handful relate to the guru issue. It is a matter of perspective. When preaching, Prabhupada was not pushing himself, he was pushing Krsna. His disciples should also concentrate on pushing Krsna, not their guru. Creating another kaitava-dharma by pushing their guru is not a better way to preach. Most people see such attempts as just another cult and want nothing to do with it. People respect God-consciousness, not guru-consciousness. With time they may be able to realize the need for approaching a guru in a proper mood, but it is actually a very advanced level of understanding.

[Guruvani]

 

First of all, these personality cult religions (Ritvikism, Christianity, and Islam) are based on thin extrapolations of scripture and logic, misrepresentation of the facts, and half-truths at best. They invariably lead to sectarianism and intolerance.

 

While there may be no explicit shastric injunctions against ritvikism in the Vedas, all such sectarian religious systems are condemned as dharma-kaitava, or man-made imitiation of religion.

That is your opinion.

However, there was a big scholar from the Ramanuja sect that said that there is no shastric restrictions againt a ritvik system.

 

Shastra has all sorts of prohibitions - does and don'ts.

There is no "don't" concerning a ritvik system.

 

The difference between a living ritvik system and a post-samadhi ritvik is an imaginary line drawn by devotees who think like you.

However, their arbitrary drawing of the line is simply based on their conjecture that such a system cannot work post-samadhi.

 

Srila Prabhupada already went beyond tradition with his living ritvik system.

The step to a post-samadhi ritvik system is actually just one small step.

It is not a quantum leap as far as I am concerned.

 

Srila Prabhupada never mentioned any restrictions about continuing the ritvik system.

If he was concerned about that then I am sure he would have made a point of it.

He never expressed any concern that the ritvik system might be continued after his departure.

 

In my view, no restriction against it opens up the door.

[fish]

 

Well, first one must correct themselves. I don't find institutional religion (which present day Iskcon is) inspiring.

 

About, I also. I only speak about a case if someone is dissatisfied with some things in iskcon, even in this case there is no need to leave. Actually for a spiritual life any organization with an authoritative scripture approaches, there is no sense to leave whence. And it is especial iskcon approaches for a spiritual life

 

We can correct ourselves in a society practising devoties. If we think, that all over again we correct ourselves and then we shall come in a society of devoties, most likely it is instrutions of maya.

[fish]

 

yes, the change must come from within. Iskcon devotees must demand accountability from the leaders, as well as adherence to Iskcon laws. it is through these local devotees that the change must become manifested.

Yes, from the outside it is impossible to affect a situation. For example, ritviks did attempts, but they were unlucky

[fish]

 

As if the GBC and their buddies give a ***t about what the rank and file bhaktas think as long as they keep giving donations and doing work. What are the basic level bhaktas going to do...fire them?

Yes, anyone who follows, is valid to dismiss that who does not follow, irrespective of his formal position. Probably, it will take place not at once, but who follows, he will influence. One person who follows - is stronger than hundreds and thousand which do not follow. The history shows it. For example SP was one but as he followed, he influenced the whole world, and GM did not influence something

[fish]

 

It all hinges on the will of the founder acarya. His will is everything. And since he is Iskcon (NOT Iskcon is him) by serving his will you are serving Iskcon regardless of property address.

 

Yes it is true idea

[fish]

 

Who Cares? Iskcon or any organisation will not give you bhakti...

All in creation of the God is organized, the spiritual world is organized also

[Kulapavana]

 

The difference between a living ritvik system and a post-samadhi ritvik is an imaginary line drawn by devotees who think like you.

However, their arbitrary drawing of the line is simply based on their conjecture that such a system cannot work post-samadhi.

 

And devotees like you draw their imaginary line somewhere else...

 

It is not that we say post-samadhi ritvik "cannot work". What is the practical criteria to evaluate such a non-traditional system? In other words: How can you actually verify it is actually "working"? The system used by the Vaishnavas up to this point was verified over the centuries as effective. That is not the case with the ritvik system. Just because you say it was invented by Prabhupada does not make it proven or effective. The gurukula system Prabhupada introduced proved to be a practical failure for example. That is a fact.

 

It is not a matter of imagining anything: be it a success or a failure. It is a matter of verifiable performance of such new introductions.

[sevabhakta]

 

And devotees like you draw their imaginary line somewhere else...

 

It is not that we say post-samadhi ritvik "cannot work". What is the practical criteria to evaluate such a non-traditional system? In other words: How can you actually verify it is actually "working"? The system used by the Vaishnavas up to this point was verified over the centuries as effective. That is not the case with the ritvik system. Just because you say it was invented by Prabhupada does not make it proven or effective. The gurukula system Prabhupada introduced proved to be a practical failure for example. That is a fact.

 

It is not a matter of imagining anything: be it a success or a failure. It is a matter of verifiable performance of such new introductions.

 

Hare Krsna!

 

It is quite absurd to imagine that Srila Prabhupada introduced anything that could not be practiced into practicality as long as the instructions were followed exactly.

 

It is quite absurd to insinuate that Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai , the origin of all Gurus, would deliver any system through his transparent via medium (Mahabhagavat Acharya) that is not practicable.

 

He allows for free-will. Thus the potential and evidentially the manifestation of failure.

 

This is actually a basic and simple transcendental axiom which some who post here have never been able to wrap their heart around.

 

It is for those persons to decide which unwanted creeper in their garden is preventing them from recognizing the essentiality of an Acharya's instructions and PULL THAT WEED OUT ALREADY.

 

The practical criteria to evaluate a system implemented by a perfectly transparent via medium to Sri Nityananda Balarama is as follows.

 

If the Acharya ordered a system implemented, and was explicit in the detailed instructions of execution, then it is practical if you can get out of your false ego and just do it. If you even subtly twist one thing to your own speculative advantage, this spells doom.

 

 

SB: 3.15.45 - Purport

 

A person in full Krsna consciousness acts by the dictation of Krsna. In the beginning of Krsna consciousness, dictation is received through the transparent medium of the spiritual master. When one is sufficiently trained and acts in submissive faith and love for Krsna under the direction of the bona fide spiritual master, the dovetailing process becomes more firm and accurate.

 

 

In other words, first learn to crawl. Then walking. Then running.

 

We are not talking about the CEO of a mundane corporate institution taking some latitude due to the confidence of the mundane board who hired him.

 

We are talking about a spiritually based approach to mundane lifestyle. And when we meet the Acharya we don't understand the spiritually based approach yet. Thus we listen to him to understand. It is not some new age hokey "remembering" or such nonsense. We must be submissive to the same extreme that we came to the Acharya. Extremely ignorant.

 

Then, maybe, we can execute one of his spiritual plans.

 

Otherwise we are just perpetuating whatever degree of speculative acumen we have aquired by guna and karma (pre-Bhakti realization), by applying it to a Bhakti Acharya's Fully Spiritual Plan, and thus will remain outside the realm of SUCCESS in Sadhana Bhakti, but will perhaps build up a cute little Neophyte cult for Mahadeva to demolish sometime in the near future.

 

Caveat Emptor.

 

Be Smarter than the Sky Pirates. Fly Swami Bhaktivedanta Airlines to your ultimate destination, Back to Godhead.

 

Jaya Prabhupada!

[theist]

 

again, that is not what I said. Out of some 800 verses in the Gita only a handful relate to the guru issue. It is a matter of perspective. When preaching, Prabhupada was not pushing himself, he was pushing Krsna. His disciples should also concentrate on pushing Krsna, not their guru. Creating another kaitava-dharma by pushing their guru is not a better way to preach. Most people see such attempts as just another cult and want nothing to do with it. People respect God-consciousness, not guru-consciousness. With time they may be able to realize the need for approaching a guru in a proper mood, but it is actually a very advanced level of understanding.

 

I agree on the idea of not pushing guru. You are right it has created huge problems. The ritviks blew it because instead of presenting Krsna and letting Krsna reveal Srila Prabhupada as siksa guru they felt the need to start some silly formal initiation system and artifically "connecting" people to Prabhupada. That connecting is done by Krsna alone.

 

This is why I stress the first guru to point someone to is Caitya guru in their own heart. Approaching Caitya guru sincerely guaruntees He will connect us with any "outside" help we need.

 

For the person who is about to complain that "we can't hear caitya-guru" I can only say we can't properly hear His representative either. But no worry the Lord in the heart hears us and is capable of making His presence known and directing us rightly.

 

Now I understand more clearly where you are coming from and I agree.

[Kulapavana]

 

It is quite absurd to imagine that Srila Prabhupada introduced anything that could not be practiced into practicality as long as the instructions were followed exactly.

 

Why is it absurd? Srila Prabhupada tried introducing chanting of 64 rounds to his disciples for example. That did not work so he settled for 16 rounds. Of course you can chant 64 rounds if you "follow his instructions exactly". The problem is that practically nobody can follow such instructions in the long run, thus the instructions have to be modified. Sometimes it takes a few years to evaluate whether an instruction is practical or not. You judge by the results - that is also Prabhupada's instruction.

 

You say: "If the Acharya ordered a system implemented, and was explicit in the detailed instructions of execution, then it is practical if you can get out of your false ego and just do it."

 

No, it does not mean that such a system is practical. That is merely your belief. Things are practical if they actually work as promised and lead to the intended result. That is a definition of "practical".

 

Prabhupada said you can maintain yourself by living on one acre of land and having one cow. Ever tried doing just that? You should. It would sober you up. Otherwise you will simply live in make-believe world.

[Guruvani]

 

Why is it absurd? Srila Prabhupada tried introducing chanting of 64 rounds to his disciples for example. That did not work so he settled for 16 rounds. Of course you can chant 64 rounds if you "follow his instructions exactly". The problem is that practically nobody can follow such instructions in the long run, thus the instructions have to be modified. Sometimes it takes a few years to evaluate whether an instruction is practical or not. You judge by the results - that is also Prabhupada's instruction.

 

You say: "If the Acharya ordered a system implemented, and was explicit in the detailed instructions of execution, then it is practical if you can get out of your false ego and just do it."

 

No, it does not mean that such a system is practical. That is merely your belief. Things are practical if they actually work as promised and lead to the intended result. That is a definition of "practical".

 

Prabhupada said you can maintain yourself by living on one acre of land and having one cow. Ever tried doing just that? You should. It would sober you up. Otherwise you will simply live in make-believe world.

 

I just wonder why Srila Prabhupada never bothered to mention even one time that his ritvik system could not be continued after his samadhi?

I don't think Srila Prabhupada abandoned ISKCON.

I think Srila Prabhupada was willing to continue his mission in ISKCON after his passing if the GBC was up to the task.

Obviously, they were not.

They were more concerned to divide the assets and replace Srila Prabhupada as the acharya of ISKCON.

[kailasa]

Teist. Missions similar Sidhasvarupa are weak and never can change anything in ISKCON. But if devotes remains and ISKCON (he can not go to official temples) and tries to change ISKCON in the best party, he can be successful.

 

They were more concerned to divide the assets and replace Srila Prabhupada as the acharya of ISKCON.

 

At the some people it has failed to make. It is necessary to continue the sermon him.

[Kulapavana]

 

I just wonder why Srila Prabhupada never bothered to mention even one time that his ritvik system could not be continued after his samadhi?

 

Maybe because it was quite obvious that after his samadhi his disciples would continue the parampara as it was always done since ancient times?