Guest guest Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 We had looked into it earlier for you. We were not sure what you ment by the hhk site. But if you ment the hare-krishna.org site, the article there was never removed from that site earlier. Maybe when you checked, you were viewing your stored cache memory, or maybe it had not been uploaded by your server as yet. It has been removed now, as Babhru has requested that the article not be posted elsewhere untill he has time to correct some typos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 yes it was Hare-Krishna.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 thanks for clearing that up for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 just when you think it's safe to condemn Vaisnava sanyassi's outside of Iskcon, wham ,boom, open mouth ,insert foot. Danavir needs to worry less about what other people write and more about what he writes. If he wanted instant Karma, well maybe he's a believer now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 Admin5: It has been removed now, as Babhru has requested that the article not be posted elsewhere untill he has time to correct some typos. Thank you. And thanks to everyone for your kind encouragement and your corrections. Back to work, Babhru! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul108 Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Hare Krishna. I don't have time right now to read this long thread, and I look forward to doing that, but I can't resist voicing my opinion about this... I saw this book in the local library about 6 months ago. I was somewhat shocked by a few things. 1) What sane person would want his translation of Bhagavad-gita beside Srila Prabhupada's on a bookshelf? Did he think his would be an improvement? 2) Where is the mangalacaranam? 3) He discussed that Srila Prabhupada said to write books, but didn't he consider that Srila Prabhupada probably wanted additional books written, rather than alternative translations/commentaries for books he had produced? 4) One of my favorite things about _Bhagavad-gita As It Is_ is that Srila Prabhupada instructs the readers to chant Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare/ Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare on almost every page. As I thumbed through this "new Bhagavad-gita," I didn't see the maha-mantra even once. I assume it must be in there somewhere, as I only thumbed through the book and read a few pages in their entirety, but the maha-mantra certainly wasn't jumping out at me like in _Bhagavad-gita As It Is_. I remember other disturbing thoughts back then, but I must go to sleep now. I was glad to see Danavir Swami's article. Hare Krishna Pandu das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 this is from Srila Prabhupadas Caitanya Caritamrta The characteristics of Krsna are understood to be a storehouse of transcendental love. Although that storehouse of love certainly came with Krsna when He was present, it was sealed. But when Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu came with His other associates of the Panca-tattva, they broke the seal and plundered the storehouse to taste transcendental love of Krsna. The more they tasted it, the more their thirst for it grew. Sri Panca-tattva themselves danced again and again and thus made it easier to drink nectarean love of Godhead. They danced, cried, laughed and chanted like madmen, and in this way they distributed love of Godhead. In distributing love of Godhead, Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates did not consider who was a fit candidate and who was not, nor where such distribution should or should not take place. They made no conditions. Wherever they got the opportunity the members of the Panca-tattva distributed love of Godhead Although the members of the Panca-tattva plundered the storehouse of love of Godhead and ate and distributed its contents, there was no scarcity, for this wonderful storehouse is so complete that as the love is distributed, the supply increases hundreds of times. Although the members of the Panca-tattva plundered the storehouse of love of Godhead and ate and distributed its contents, there was no scarcity, for this wonderful storehouse is so complete that as the love is distributed, the supply increases hundreds of times. The Krsna consciousness movement will inundate the entire world and drown everyone, whether one be a gentleman, a rogue or even lame, invalid or blind. When the five members of the Panca-tattva saw the entire world drowned in love of Godhead and the seed of material enjoyment in the living entities completely destroyed, they all became exceedingly happy. The more the five members of the Panca-tattva cause the rains of love of Godhead to fall, the more the inundation increases and spreads all over the world. The impersonalists, fruitive workers, false logicians, blasphemers, nondevotees and lowest among the student community are very expert in avoiding the Krsna consciousness movement, and therefore the inundation of Krsna consciousness cannot touch them. Divine love is like a resorvior of nectar,from that many rivulets and streams are flowing down to water the fields, sometimes this water is coming here,sometimes there, but always the water is nourishing the growing plants,the water coming down one stream and others is good for the crop, just one stream may not be enough. So in this way the more the merrier, those who for some reason reject Prabhupada may accept Tripurai or some other book, the nectar flows from the same source with the objective of helping growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 A Storm Brewing over the Battlefield By Umapati Swami Posted October 23, 2003 All glories to Srila Prabhupada! Some e-mail has come in objecting to Danavir Maharaja's article "Battlefield Fancy," so I may have to print some articles in defense of the book that Maharaja criticized. I would like to post the ground rules as to what can and cannot be printed on dipika.org in this regard. First, some background. I did not know the book was written by Tripurari Maharaja. Maharaja is not a member of ISKCON. He has his own institution, and he is free to write as he sees fit for his followers. He does not interfere in the affairs of ISKCON, and the ISKCON policy has been to offer him the same courtesy. Danavir Maharaja did not mention the name of the author in his review because he was only interested in defeating a philosophical point of view that he fears may be creeping into ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada, however, has told his own disciples not to go outside of ISKCON for instruction, so I do not see why other ISKCON leaders have been reviewing the book. Philosophically, Danavir Maharaja's point is unassailable: one should not mix Kuruksetra rasa and gopi rasa, and Maharaja quotes ample instructions from Srila Prabhupada in this regard. The objection raised against his article, as far as I can see, is that the book does not encourage any such mixing of rasas and that Danavir Maharaja has simply used it as a foil for presenting his point of view. Although I do not normally print articles by people outside of ISKCON or publicize their books, I have offered Tripurari Maharaja the right to respond and I have offered to print the articles by the objectors. But I will not print just anything. Here is what I will print: statements showing that the book does not encourage such mixing of rasas or proof that Srila Prabhupada did indeed allow it. Danavir Maharaja made two points: that the book encourages this mixing and that Srila Prabhupada was opposed to it. If you cannot refute either of these points, you have no valid objection. Here is what I will turn away: just about anything else, including examples of previous acaryas if these examples cannot be corroborated by proof from Srila Prabhupada, any other kind of proof that is not corroborated by Srila Prabhupada, personal attacks on Danavir Maharaja or anyone else, statements that the personal qualification of an author can allow him or her to overstep the bounds of scripture (this is not the example set by the great acaryas), statements encouraging ISKCON members to read this book or any other non-ISKCON book, statements encouraging ISKCON members to go outside of ISKCON for instruction. I was not expecting a debate on this topic, but if one is to come, let us stick to the point and keep it on a high level. "In all circumstances, be a yogi." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 "Any press is good press". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 this is obviously a "damage control" effort by Umapati Mah. "Danavir Maharaja made two points: that the book encourages this mixing and that Srila Prabhupada was opposed to it. If you cannot refute either of these points, you have no valid objection." Danavir Mah. made a lot more points than these two in his article. If he kept it to these 2 issues, few would find his article worth objecting to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 what a bunch of malarky, He says that he will not allow the views to express encouragement to read books not published by Iskcon. Well Swamiji, that excludes the Srimad Bhagavatam by Srila Prabhupada. In the intro to the work Prabhupada mentions several authors whose works he encourages readers to study for furthuring their study of Bhakti yoga, these are works not published by Iskcon. So in effect, i cannot quote Prabhupada because he breaks the rule made by Umapati Swami. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Umapati says: First, some background. I did not know the book was written by Tripurari Maharaja. Seriously, does he expect someone to believe this? He publishes such a rant and doesn't bother even checking up what it's about? Either he is a liar or a terribly irresponsible editor. You pick. Here is what I will turn away: just about anything else, including examples of previous acaryas if these examples cannot be corroborated by proof from Srila Prabhupada I have always been under the impression that in parampara the authority descends instead of ascending. Do the previous acaryas validate the present guru, or vice versa? If some statements made by the previous acaryas cannot be found in the writings of Prabhupada, are they de facto invalid evidence in a philosophical discussion? I find this attitude most concerning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuralidharDas Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 In reply to: Here is what I will turn away: just about anything else, including examples of previous acaryas if these examples cannot be corroborated by proof from Srila Prabhupada <blockquote> Raga wrote: I have always been under the impression that in parampara the authority descends instead of ascending. Do the previous acaryas validate the present guru, or vice versa? If some statements made by the previous acaryas cannot be found in the writings of Prabhupada, are they de facto invalid evidence in a philosophical discussion? I find this attitude most concerning. </blockquote> My reading of Umapati Swami's statement is that he sees his role, and the role of Dipika, as a forum for ISKCON insiders, where they can read articles that relate to issues within ISKCON. Danavir Swami's article is also an attempt to preach to the ISKCON devotees and advise them to follow the official, authorised "Krishna Consciousness" philosophy presented by ISKCON. These people, in my view, are seeking to preserve the cult mentality prominent in ISKCON in the 1970's and 80's. This is typical cult behavior, this "preaching" that the leaders of a new religion are prophets of Truth and that Truth doesn't exist outside their new religion. This kind of thinking is sometimes described as "kanistha adhikari" mentality. One feature of the kanistha adhikari attitute is that the neophyte has no respect for devotees outside his own church. Another feature is that the neophyte is more interested in getting fame as a philosopher and spiritual leader, when in fact the neophyte has been very lazy in dealing with his own lack of inner development and inner purification. I think it is laughable that Danavir Swami is supposed to be the head of an authentic "educational institution". Maybe his so-called college is just a training camp for cult members. The article below by Ravindra Swarup is interesting. But ISKCON as a whole seems totally ISKCON-centric, even to the point where "Swamis" such as Umapati can make the claim: "Here is what I will turn away: just about anything else, including examples of previous acaryas if these examples cannot be corroborated by proof from Srila Prabhupada" <blockquote> Ravindra Svarupa Dasa A society of devotees in which proper Vaisnava relations are not yet the norm is called a kanistha-adhikari society. Its distinguishing characteristic is contentiousness arising from envy. Envy is a product of false ego. Because of false ego, the members are unable to establish spiritual friendship among themselves. Instead, they view with each other for prestige, power, and perquisites. Intensely desiring the honor and respect of others, the contentious neophyte pretends to be more advanced than he actually is. He tries to conceal his shortcomings and falldowns, and in so doing he develops a secretive mentality and holds himself back from entering into open and honest relations with his Godbrothers. Because he cannot reveal his mind in confidence, he remains aloof from real fellowship. He strays from the path of devotional service, but his peers do not help him. For he thinks that if he allows someone to preach to him, he implicitly admits his own subordination. Therefore he cuts himself off from hearing and becomes impervious to instruction or good advice. Because he has many secret misgivings about himself, he becomes eager to find the faults of others; that way he reassures himself of his own superiority in spite of his many unacknowledged weaknesses. Spiritual immaturity often leads a kanistha-adhikari to identify spiritual advancement with organizational advancement. He thinks that attaining prestige, power, and the perquisites of office is evidence of spiritual advancement. Lacking the assets for real spiritual achievement, he substitutes organizational elevation, which he can attain through his cunning or political prowess. He therefore competes intensely with others for high office, and he comes to believe implicitly that one achieves a spiritually elevated state only by becoming victorious over others. In this way material competition becomes institutionalized in kanistha-adhikari societies. Fortunately, however, the kanistha stage is followed by the madhyama stage. A kanistha-adhikari advances to the madhyama platform by means of sadhana-bhakti. Sadhana-bhakti, pursued diligently and attentively, destroys false ego, and as long as the neophyte devotees attend to their sadhana they can be sure of elevation to the higher stages. There is, however, no other assured means of advancement, and habitual negligence in sadhana is therefore fatal to progressive spiritual life. Furthermore, when a neophyte devotee has risen to the madhyama platform, sadhana is absolutely necessary to maintain him in that position. If he becomes slack in sadhana, he rapidly reverts to the neophyte condition. Therefore, the essential prerequisite for both creating and sustaining a madhyama society is intense common commitment to sadhana. http://www.ifast.net/Publications/le/ve30.htm </blockquote> My personal view is that ISKCON is a collection of individuals who are aligned with various factions, much like the factions within political organizations. Umapati Swami and Danavir Swami are representative of a particular faction, but their point of view is not shared by lots of other ISKCON devotees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 I think Umapati is taking the position that Prabhupada was teaching those descending principles in a time and circumstance that is most relevant for him and in a way that will emphasize certain aspects of siddhanta over others accordingly. He is not advocating an ascending approach IMO. He has chosen to hear from Srila Prabhupada and is only trying to show fidelity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Maintaining the institution This is what they have to do in order to safeguard the ISKCON Institution. ISKCON is Krishna Umapati,Danavir et al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 basically he wants a discussion without any type of scholarship that deviates from what can be looked up in Prabhupadas books. This is an offense against the writings of the previous acharyas,if all the writings of Sanatana,Rupa,Raghunath,Jiva,Bhaktivinode,Bhaktisiddhanta are not cited by Prabhupada somewhere(an impossible feat) then they are not Valid writings ? What kind of fools does he take his readers to be ? Clearly he has made a mistake, and needs to ask forgiveness from the vaisnava community, any citation of a bona fide source is acceptable,otherwise you are making the offense Danavir spoke of, Impertinence, thinking that what you preach is superior to the bona fide acharyas of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 well, does it mean that Danavir Mah. article is now the official position of the GBC on this issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 clearly not, the post by Babhru tells that many Iskcon authority figures praise the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Like most of these controversies the principles write some statments, publish it, and then are not heard of again. Leaving the general devotees including, lay people, to argue over it. Probably won't happen but I would like to see Danavir and Tripurari Mahahraja's discuss their points on a forum where participation from others was closed off. As I am sure both are very busy in their respective services this could be a prolonged debate over several weeks. Like a chess game through the mail. This pace would allow time for the gallery to consider the points made for themselves and maybe discuss them on a separate thread. Since Audarya Fellowship is the most open Vaisnava forum on the web(IMO) this would be the perfect place. Just a thought. Hare Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 that would be a bad idea, enough aparadha in the name of sectarian ideals ,better that Danavir simply apologize and go back to what he does best,running his school. Tripurari shouldn't have to defend his work as bona fide simply because some person finds the idea of another gita repulsive. all that can happen is more ill will. Best for the matter to be put to rest now, apologize, and all will be forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Kulapavana: does it mean that Danavir Mah. article is now the official position of the GBC on this issue? Considering his position on the GBC and as an officially recognized initiating guru, that was my concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Interesting idea, but not likely to happen, and I'm not sure this would be the best place. Shiva may be right. I understand Danavir Maharaja's concerns, but he's just wrong about this book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 I agree. But you say he is wrong about the book. but then you were one of the editors. I assume his students would agree with Danavir. There are many of us in the middle who have no established opinion. I am sure I am wishing for a fantasy but wouldn't it be nice to see two leaders debate and one of them actually admiting his mistake publically and then they agree to move on? It would be a great example of truth seeking if nothing else. Oh well, I always seem to come up with these things on cloudless days when I don't have more substantial things to occupy my mind. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Kulapavana: does it mean that Danavir Mah. article is now the official position of the GBC on this issue? Babhru: Considering his position on the GBC and as an officially recognized initiating guru, that was my concern. I have a strong feeling that Danavir Maharaja is not just acting on his own. At the very least he must be representing a strong fraction in the GBC. The intensity of his article can be seen as a general "call to arms" and warning to all possible "deviants" within ISKCON ranks. It is possibly far more political than may seem on the surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 theist: There are many of us in the middle who have no established opinion. The evidence is in the book. Why take anyone's word for it; find out for yourself. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.