SEEDS

[westcoast]

The subject of the post is the recent discovery of what is the root of destruction and uncooperation in the movement that is making devotees arguing about the Vani, Vani vs. Vani, this cannot be as the Vani is one. It is offensive then is it not to have Vani vs. Vani. Now this is Krishna Consciousness Srila Prabhupada Vani so we have to be very sensitive do we not?

 

Just because of Vani vs. Vani so many formal and informal divisions amongst the devotees have been formed and are forming. There is the division in Commissioners of GBC, IRM, PADA etc deemed formal. Then in the talking and surfing there are informal divisons.

 

WHY IS THIS?

 

There is PURITY(P) but it is mixed with IMPURITY(I) and when it is proven that it is IMPURITY(I) it is falsely acknowledged as PURITY(P) because of IMPURITY(I), P+I=I=P=I or "Piipi".

 

The answer is P-I=P or "Pip".

 

So the Vani is Pip, however due to the divisions mentioned earlier the Vani is falsely seen to be Piipi, this is offensive. The arguments and divisions will always be there unless Pippi is rejected for Pip.

 

For example there is a devotee saying that pure devotees are not within the jurisdiction of the Srila Prabhupada's Vani. In other

words, the Vani is not Pip but Piipi. This devotee is therefor saying that the Vani is imperfect and impure. To say this is it not

being offensive? Then there is another devotee instead of being happy with the Vani is requesting for another different Vani, is this not offensive?

 

Pip not Piipi is required.

 

 

[stonehearted]

Originally posted by westcoast:

For example there is a devotee saying that pure devotees are not within the jurisdiction of the Srila Prabhupada's Vani.

 

Huh? Fortunately, I haven't heard this one--at least recently enough that it sticks out in my mind. Such an idea is indeed piipi (or, more colloquially, peepee). Do we want to know where you've heard this "'devotee' saying"?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by stonehearted (edited 03-26-2002).]