Universality and transcendance

[cbrahma]

 

I was kicked out from the movement some 25 years ago for being honest and for speaking out against what I considered substandard practices. Few years later I was proven to be right and accepted back - yet this time I did not take up any functions within the Society. I have been active mostly on the fringe of Iskcon ever since, not giving up my sadhana or my convictions. There are many new generation devotees who think just like I do, even as they may be less open about it. Iskcon is changing, and when the old dinosaurs are gone, it will truly go to the next level.

Twenty five years ago, ISCKON was not measuring up to Prabhupada's standards - it was enlisting Hindus to reform ISKCON as a Hindu church.

[Kulapavana]

 

In all honesty, Kulapavana seems to be one of the few people around here to have analyzed Prabhupada, critically and rationally. Others are refusing to do so, NOT out of love for SP, but on account of their irrational attachment to their former religious backgrounds.

 

Srila Prabhupada is my spiritual guide. I owe him a LOT! The only reason I sometimes make critical remarks about his legacy is so that our tradition may be understood properly by the newcomers, as many of his disciples hold a purely sentimental view of both him and the tradition he represents, distorting both scriptural truth and historical facts.

 

I often pray to Srila Prabhupada for guidance and for forgiveness in case my words seem offensive to some of his disciples.

[Kulapavana]

 

You're saying that Prabhupada's words don't measure up to sastra and sadhu?

 

In some very rare cases that is what I think.

[cbrahma]

 

So it appears contradictory, the Vedic injunction. But still we accept because it is Vedic order. That is... That is the acceptance of Vedas. Just like Bhagavad-gita. Bhagavad-gita, there are so many rascals, they cut short: "I like this; I do not like this." No. Arjuna says sarvam etad rtam manye. That is understanding of Vedas. If a rascal makes cut, cutting, "I do not like this, I interpret" this is not Bhagavad-gita. Bhagavad-gita means you have to accept as it is. That is Bhagavad-gita. We are presenting therefore Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Krishna says, the speaker of the Bhagavad-gita, He says sa kaleneha yogo nastah parantapa. "My dear Arjuna, this Bhagavad-gita science," imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam, "I spoke first of all to the sun-god, and he spoke to his son," vivasvan manave praha. To Vaivasvata Manu. Manur iksvakave 'bravit. Evam parampara-praptam imam rajarsayo viduh. This is the process. Sa kaleneha yogo nastah parantapa. Anyone who does not come through this parampara system, if he presents any interpretation of Vedic literature, it is useless. It is useless. It has no meaning. Yogo nastah parantapa. So that is going on. It has no meaning. You cannot interpret on the words of God. That is not possible. And dharma means dharmam tu saksad bhagavat- pranitam. You cannot manufacture at your home a kind of religious system. That is rascaldom, that is useless. Dharma means saksad bhagavat-pranitam. Just like the law. Law means what is given by the government. You cannot manufacture law at your home. Suppose in the street, common sense, the government law is keep to the right or keep to the left. You cannot say "What is the wrong there if I go to the right or left?" No, that you cannot. Then you'll be criminal. Similarly nowadays... Not nowadays--from time immemorial there are so many religious systems. So many. But real religious system is what God says or Krsna says. Sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. This is religion. Simple. You cannot manufacture.

 

[760819VP.HYD] Sri Vyasa-puja Hyderabad, August 19, 1976 His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 

[Kulapavana]

 

I admire your ability to survive in a group for so long where rational thinking is discouraged. I know I could never have managed that. But like you said, things can always get better.

 

 

Thank you. I see it as paying back the debt I owe to Prabhupada. I speak daily with both new and old devotees and I am encouraged that my approach is both needed and appreciated by others. It is strictly seva, on a rational and practical level. My heart is somewhere else, but my duty binds me here. As Prabhupada would say: "work now, samadhi later".

[cbrahma]

 

In some very rare cases that is what I think.

So the succession is adulterated then. His siksa is imperfect. It throws the entire parampara into question.

[Kulapavana]

 

So the succession is adulterated then. His siksa is imperfect. It throws the entire parampara into question.

 

when a guru tells his disciple that a snake is a rope it is part of the treatment this disciple requires, but it is not an absolute truth. Many of SP letters have such elements.

 

you just can not limit the siksa to one person. Prabhupada represents a disciplic succession and his siksa MUST be seen in the context of the entire Parampara. That is the safeguard against any misunderstandings.

[matarisvan]

 

I'll partially agree with this point. If I accept a Guru as bonafide after appropriate scrutiny, then it makes sense that I take him at his word.

 

Even then the Guru cannot invent something that cannot be validated in Shastra. iI the Guru says one and Shastra the other and no reconciliation is provided, then Shastra wins.

[cbrahma]

 

when a guru tells his disciple that a snake is a rope it is part of the treatment this disciple requires, but it is not an absolute truth. Many of SP letters have such elements.

 

you just can not limit the siksa to one person. Prabhupada represents a disciplic succession and his siksa MUST be seen in the context of the entire Parampara. That is the safeguard against any misunderstandings.

I don't think the word succession translates nicely into 'context'.

I was not under the impression that guru-sahdu-sastra was a smorgasbord of items from which one can pick and choose.

If guru is at odds with some important sastric teaching, then he is not bona fide as siksa. On a very broad definition anybody who teaches you is a siksa. But that is not the sense in which Prabhupada is siksa - he is a bona fide siksa in that parampara, not just some brahmin who happened to come over to the West and built a global society.

[tackleberry]

 

LOL. This is just too much. Yes we should scrutinize the professed guru, but once we have accepted that he is bona fide , then we should take him at his word. Are you saying that Prabhupada is not bona fide?

 

Don't see what the big deal is. SP referred to christ loka, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the shastra. If you're intelligent at all, you'll reject SP's idea and stick to shastra. Doesn't mean you reject SP completely. So you keep SP and shastra, both.

[Kulapavana]

 

If guru is at odds with some important sastric teaching, then he is not bona fide as siksa. On a very broad definition anybody who teaches you is a siksa. But that is not the sense in which Prabhupada is siksa - he is a bona fide siksa in that parampara, not just some brahmin who happened to come over to the West and built a global society.

 

I do not have a problem with siksa coming from Prabhupada, 99% of which is supported by the tradition. And I do not have the problem with the remaining 1% because I know what is a snake and what is a rope. But when his disciples invent apasiddhanta based on the snake-rope instructions from his guru, I am not going to support them.

[cbrahma]

 

Don't see what the big deal is. SP referred to christ loka, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the shastra. If you're intelligent at all, you'll reject SP's idea and stick to shastra. Doesn't mean you reject SP completely. So you keep SP and shastra, both.

When did SP mention anything called christ loka?

[cbrahma]

 

I do not have a problem with siksa coming from Prabhupada, 99% of which is supported by the tradition. And I do not have the problem with the remaining 1% because I know what is a snake and what is a rope. But when his disciples invent apasiddhanta based on the snake-rope instructions from his guru, I am not going to support them.

When Prabhupada was in charge, ISKCON was NOT just another Hindu religious sect.

[theist]

 

When did SP mention anything called christ loka?

 

In conversations or a lecture. Do you have vedabase? If so run a search on Christ-loka.

 

These characters who claim Srila Prabhupada was being diplomatic when he praised Christ are just so full of ****.

[tackleberry]

 

In conversations or a lecture. Do you have vedabase? If so run a search on Christ-loka.

 

These characters who claim Srila Prabhupada was being diplomatic when he praised Christ are just so full of ****.

 

And those who don't are implying that SP went against shastra. Which would you prefer, then? SP the diplomat, or SP the ajnAni? If the latter, why would you follow him?

[matarisvan]

 

These characters who claim Srila Prabhupada was being diplomatic when he praised Christ are just so full of ****.

 

These dimwit characters who try to link Jesus and Vaishnavism are a pain in the ***.

[cbrahma]

 

In conversations or a lecture. Do you have vedabase? If so run a search on Christ-loka.

 

These characters who claim Srila Prabhupada was being diplomatic when he praised Christ are just so full of ****.

They will say 'it's not in sastra', so then Prabhupada is attacked.

[matarisvan]

 

They will say 'it's not in sastra', so then Prabhupada is attacked.

 

Yes...Prabhupada cannot make things up that are not in shastra. No Guru has the authority to do that.

 

This is why I say people who link Jesus and Vaishnavism without basis are either idiots or hypocrites. Pick your choice.

[Kulapavana]

 

When Prabhupada was in charge, ISKCON was NOT just another Hindu religious sect.

 

Well, some of the most serious abuses happened in those days. In those days "sect" is precisely what Iskcon was. Maybe it was not a "Hindu" sect, but it was a sect. If it was pure transcendence, how come there were so many serious problems?

 

the question is: how much really "in charge" was Srila Prabhupada in those days? Devotees often lied to him about important problems, or at least witheld the nasty details as "not to bother him", and they painted overly rosy pictures of the situation, especially when it came to book distribution and fundraising. Leaders often acted without his consent, which in turn often led to more lies and cover-ups. His disciples turned Iskcon into a sect rather quickly and despite his best intentions.

[theist]

Christ-loka is mentioned in his lecture on SB7.9.12-13.

 

I just noticed his lectures appear to have greatly condensed(means cut up) in the latest vedabase. There was an extended conversation on this point in response to a question by Rukmini dasi and now it is just acouple of sentences.

 

Anyone know about this?

[theist]

 

Well, some of the most serious abuses happened in those days. In those days "sect" is precisely what Iskcon was. Maybe it was not a "Hindu" sect, but it was a sect. If it was pure transcendence, how come there were so many serious problems?

 

the question is: how much really "in charge" was Srila Prabhupada in those days? Devotees often lied to him about important problems, or at least witheld the nasty details as "not to bother him", and they painted overly rosy pictures of the situation, especially when it came to book distribution and fundraising. Leaders often acted without his consent, which in turn often led to more lies and cover-ups. His disciples turned Iskcon into a sect rather quickly and despite his best intentions.

The problem you are having Kulapavana is seeing Iskcon as a manifestaion of Prabhupada's teachings. And you are right it never was because while he was speaking transcendence everyone was hearing with mundane ears. And this is the destinction I make between religion and the transcendental movement of Mahaprabhu.

 

Out of many many thousands hardly a few will search for the truth and of those that do hardly one will know Krsna in truth. That is not the speakers intent or fault that is the problem with the hearers.

[cbrahma]

 

Well, some of the most serious abuses happened in those days. In those days "sect" is precisely what Iskcon was. Maybe it was not a "Hindu" sect, but it was a sect. If it was pure transcendence, how come there were so many serious problems?

 

the question is: how much really "in charge" was Srila Prabhupada in those days? Devotees often lied to him about important problems, or at least witheld the nasty details as "not to bother him", and they painted overly rosy pictures of the situation, especially when it came to book distribution and fundraising. Leaders often acted without his consent, which in turn often led to more lies and cover-ups. His disciples turned Iskcon into a sect rather quickly and despite his best intentions.

I'm not sure what time frame and what disciples you are speaking of, but Prabhupada cannot be held responsible for the vagaries of his disciples. Either way that did not make ISKCOn a sect. The evidence would be in temples where I lived who were careful to follow his instructions as under Rocana dasa, a wonderful compassion and intelligent Vaisnava.

[Kulapavana]

 

I'm not sure what time frame and what disciples you are speaking of, but Prabhupada cannot be held responsible for the vagaries of his disciples. Either way that did not make ISKCOn a sect.

 

No, strictly speaking you can not blame the guru for the behavior of his disciples, and some devotees were real saints.

[bija]

This is just another example of my complete ignorance and isolation from vaisnava sangha.

 

Arent we supposed to consume Tulasi? Someone once told me she would not offer tulasi to Krsna in an aromatic tea with spice?

The couple of times I have been to a temple, receiving the bathing liquid from the deities is a beautiful experience. Several times the kind devotee would make sure large manjaris were in the mixture for me.

 

I take tulasi after the offering as a medicine for her properties to maintain a health disorder.

 

Could you please enlighten me?

 

What do you do with Tulasi after you have taken her aroma? Do you place her back in the soil?

 

Gaura!

[AncientMariner]

I have heard some good points made on both sides of this argument and I always find these arguments kind of confusing because essentially it comes down to people trying to either guess or infer what Prabhupada meant by various statements especially in regards to Jesus. For me I tend to believe that Prabhupada really did hold Jesus as being on the level of Haridasa Thakura and Prahlada Maharaja but I admit that may be only for the reason that I don't want to or have any plans of ever giving up my attachment to Jesus.

 

The only thing I don't completely understand about the hardcore traditionalists is if I remember right in Srimad Bhagavatam I think it was Jada Bharata who had a father who wanted him to become a great vedic scholar and honor all the Vedic traditions etc. but Jada Bharata behaved like a deaf and dumb idiot so his father would quit bothering him with that stuff and he could perform devotional service by constantly thinking of Krishna.