Why Vaishnava & Vaishnav Gods Targeted ?

[AncientMariner]

 

But on 4-8-08 here is cbrahma strenuously objecting to the trinad api su-nicena siksastakam verse of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

 

 

Thats why I like the story of Jada Bharata so much. His father wanted to train him to be the perfect Brahmana studied in the scriptures and all that and Jada Bharata acted like a dumb idiot so his father would quit trying to teach him all that stuff because he was too busy thinking about Krishna.

[Kulapavana]

 

I only consider Prabhupada to be infallible on matters of siddhanta.

 

And how did you arrive at that conclusion? By faith alone? Did you study the siddhanta from sources other than Prabhupada? Did you compare the two? If not - that is just what I said: sheer sentiment.

[Kulapavana]

 

Thats why I like the story of Jada Bharata so much. His father wanted to train him to be the perfect Brahmana studied in the scriptures and all that and Jada Bharata acted like a dumb idiot so his father would quit trying to teach him all that stuff because he was too busy thinking about Krishna.

 

That is a fine approach when it comes to your private life. But when you are trying to preach to the modern, well educated, rational, and inquisitive people, this approach just does not work.

[AncientMariner]

 

That is a fine approach when it comes to your private life. But when you are trying to preach to the modern, well educated, rational, and inquisitive people, this approach just does not work.

 

 

I am not much of a preacher. Never felt comfortable tyring to convince anyone anything about religion. People tend to be set in what they believe so even if you try and preach to them it doesn't change anything. It takes an inquisitive soul to figure out all this Krishna Consciousness stuff in my opinion.

[cbrahma]

 

And how did you arrive at that conclusion? By faith alone? Did you study the siddhanta from sources other than Prabhupada? Did you compare the two? If not - that is just what I said: sheer sentiment.

How did you come to the conclusion that Sridhara was infallible or is his authority up for grabs like Prabhupada's?

[cbrahma]

 

That is another myth making apologist theory. Prabhupada said on many occasions that the astronauts could not have been to the moon because it is further away than the sun and he even accepted the distance to the sun established by modern science as factual.

Big deal. What does that matter in the spiritual scheme of things?

[Beggar]

 

How did you come to the conclusion that Sridhara was infallible or is his authority up for grabs like Prabhupda?

 

Since cbrahma is probably ignoring me can someone please ask him to clarify the above statement and question.

[Kulapavana]

 

How did you come to the conclusion that Sridhara was infallible or is his authority up for grabs like Prabhupada's?

 

Only Krsna is infallible.

[cbrahma]

 

Only Krsna is infallible.

If there is no guarantee that a guru commits no error in siddhanta, what good is he?

[Kulapavana]

 

Big deal. What does that matter in the spiritual scheme of things?

 

It DOES matter. You can not reach to the modern, well educated, rational, and inquisitive people without sooner or later addressing this issue. People read and then they have questions. How you answer these questions determines whether they will keep on reading Prabhupada's books and continue with the process. I have seen it play out in that fashion hundreds of times. Krsna consciousness must be presented in a rational way or the rational people will walk away.

[cbrahma]

 

It DOES matter. You can not reach to the modern, well educated, rational, and inquisitive people without sooner or later addressing this issue. People read and then they have questions. How you answer these questions determines whether they will keep on reading Prabhupada's books and continue with the process. I have seen it play out in that fashion hundreds of times. Krsna consciousness must be presented in a rational way or the rational people will walk away.

So what does it matter to the important purports with spiritual relevance? Or are they also all questionable?

[Kulapavana]

 

If there is no guarantee that a guru commits no error in siddhanta, what good is he?

 

That is why we have the sampradaya and the shastras. If there is an error it is usually a very minor one, easy to rectify using the system of guru, sadhu, and shastra.

 

The Catholics have the dogma of Papal infallibility. We do not.

[Kulapavana]

 

So what does it matter to the important purports with spiritual relevance? Or are they also all questionable?

 

I do not know when was the last time you talked to new people interested in Krsna consciousness, but I do it quite often and you would be surprised how important these issues are to them. When the moon controversy hit Iskcon for the first time there were scores of established devotees who left the movement for good. Of course it was (and still is) relevant.

[matarisvan]

 

If there is no guarantee that a guru commits no error in siddhanta, what good is he?

 

Who gives such a guarantee?

 

No such guarantee is available in traditional doctrines. The guru must substantiate his teaching from scriptures. He cannot make things up and expect his disciples to believe him. Similar to a professor/student relationship where the student does not accept the professor's statement which cannot be backed by evidence. A traditional Guru who follows the proper approach cannot make thing up like christ loka or categorize people as avatars without support in scripture.

 

The Guru's teaching is not accepted for sentimental reasons.

[cbrahma]

 

Who gives such a guarantee?

 

No such guarantee is available in traditional doctrines. The guru must substantiate his teaching from scriptures. He cannot make things up and expect his disciples to believe him. Similar to a professor/student relationship where the student does not accept the professor's statement which cannot be backed by evidence. A traditional Guru who follows the proper approach cannot make thing up like christ loka or categorize people as avatars without support in scripture.

 

The Guru's teaching is not accepted for sentimental reasons.

The guru is a teacher - where is there question of sentimentality or politics for that matter. Of course there must be reference to scripture. But if sastra were sufficient there would be no need of guru and vice versa?

As soon as one asserts a non-sectarian doctrine, established by the Gaudiya-Vaisnavas then the guru's sastric credibility is attacked.

So one shouldn't even bother with guru authority if one group's interpretation of sastra is the final word.

[Beggar]

 

Who gives such a guarantee?

 

No such guarantee is available in traditional doctrines. The guru must substantiate his teaching from scriptures. He cannot make things up and expect his disciples to believe him. Similar to a professor/student relationship where the student does not accept the professor's statement which cannot be backed by evidence. A traditional Guru who follows the proper approach cannot make thing up like christ loka or categorize people as avatars without support in scripture.

 

The Guru's teaching is not accepted for sentimental reasons.

 

Sometimes pravacan can cross siddhanta. It does not change the siddhanta.

Such statements about Christ were meant to bridge the cultural gap in order to spread Krsna bhakti.

[matarisvan]

 

Sometimes pravacan can cross siddhanta. It does not change the siddhanta.

Such statements about Christ were meant to bridge the cultural gap in order to spread Krsna bhakti.

 

cbrahma has been arguing for a long time that the link between christ and vaishnavism is real and part of siddhanta. The traditional meaning of the term vaishnava was changed to make this link possble.

[cbrahma]

 

cbrahma has been arguing for a long time that the link between christ and vaishnavism is real and part of siddhanta. The traditional meaning of the term vaishnava was changed to make this link possble.

If a guru is bona fide in a particular sampradaya, he is by definition, speaking from tradition. To question his authority is to question, either his succession or the entire sampradaya. Either way it makes a mockery of the system, because it is basic siddhanta.

[Kulapavana]

 

If a guru is bona fide in a particular sampradaya, he is by definition, speaking from tradition. To question his authority is to question, either his succession or the entire sampradaya. Either way it makes a mockery of the system, because it is basic siddhanta.

 

First you have to establish that he actually represents the sampradaya - not based on the testimony of his disciples or his own claims, but based on actual comparison between the tradition he claims to represent and his teachings. That can take some time! Questioning the authority of a guru is initially a wise move, because there are plenty of frauds out there. And people can and do change. If you can fall down from Goloka you can certainly fall down from being a bona fide guru

[matarisvan]

 

If a guru is bona fide in a particular sampradaya, he is by definition, speaking from tradition. To question his authority is to question, either his succession or the entire sampradaya. Either way it makes a mockery of the system, because it is basic siddhanta.

 

We differ here. If the Guru makes unsubstantiated claims, the disciple is not bound to accept them.

[Beggar]

 

We differ here. If the Guru makes unsubstantiated claims, the disciple is not bound to accept them.

 

Why are you neglecting the following? Can't you handle it?

 

 

Sometimes pravacan can cross siddhanta. It does not change the siddhanta.

Such statements about Christ were meant to bridge the cultural gap in order to spread Krsna bhakti.

[theist]

 

Sometimes pravacan can cross siddhanta. It does not change the siddhanta.

Such statements about Christ were meant to bridge the cultural gap in order to spread Krsna bhakti.

In Sankrit or English, love God means love God. It's like seva or service, what is the difference? It is not a preaching device it is simply commen sense.

[Kulapavana]

 

We differ here. If the Guru makes unsubstantiated claims, the disciple is not bound to accept them.

 

Sometimes you also have to understand the reasons for making such claims. Promising a child the moon to get him to settle down and take rest. The snake is a rope, the rope is a snake. Once the child is grown up he should not fault the father for promising him the moon. That is one way to judge whether one is fully grown.

[cbrahma]

 

First you have to establish that he actually represents the sampradaya - not based on the testimony of his disciples or his own claims, but based on actual comparison between the tradition he claims to represent and his teachings. That can take some time! Questioning the authority of a guru is initially a wise move, because there are plenty of frauds out there. And people can and do change. If you can fall down from Goloka you can certainly fall down from being a bona fide guru

Have you established this? Do you accept his succession? On what improved basis do you think he is bona fide? Everything with Srila Prabhupada 'clicks', not to mention the correspondence in my own heart with Caitya guru. He is self-effulgent.

[Shakti-Fan]

 

Everything with Srila Prabhupada 'clicks', not to mention the correspondence in my own heart with Caitya guru. He is self-effulgent.

could equally be said,

 

Everything with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada 'clicks', not to mention the correspondence in my own heart with Caitya guru. He is self-effulgent.

or

 

Everything with Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura 'clicks', not to mention the correspondence in my own heart with Caitya guru. He is self-effulgent.

Why not? And there is no living, breathing representative of the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya today? Why not? Just because Owls do not see the Sun, does it mean that the Sun does not exist? And what is self effulgent, and what does Caitanya Caritamrta say about this?