stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 The interpolation is inserting the word "siksa" as if it were part of the quotation. The two quotations you gave have very different contexts (too bad if I sound teahcery--the use of sources is part of what I've been teaching in college for 15 years). (In one quotation, he makes the point that even someone fomr a low social station, even if illiterate, can become guru by hearing from the proper source and sharing what he has heard with whoever he meets. In the other, he's speaking of selecting to whom we should surrender our lives. A low-class person is not the proper object of surrender; however, if he were perfectly Krishna conscious, eventhough he works carrying others' luggage, he's not low class, is he?) That's exactly why I made the point earlier that we need to study the entire science of Krishna consciousness. The qualification Srila Prabhupada gives for becoming guru is to teach the science of Krishna consciousness without adding or subtracting anything to suit our own purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 I inserted a word somewhere? I did not see that. I can't imagine doing that! It must have been a mistake cuz I would not intentionally insert anything into Prabhupada's words. I will go back and check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 You inserted it in your subject line in order to give a particular spin to the quotations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Here is my post Babru, and I do not see anywhere I have inserted a word. I realized I had to sign in cuz I can't edit the mistakes on on my posts, and as well as end up making more posts then necessary since I can't add on, so thanks for tolerating. With that said....... I had heard that Prabhuapda said even a coolie can be siksa guru. So I looked it up. Tho he does not use the word 'siksa' here, I feel that is what he means, especially after reading the next quote following it. Tho to each, their own. Anyway, thats my opinion on it. ---- "This is guru. Suppose you are family member. So many living entities, you sons, your daughters, your daughter-in-law, or children, you can become their guru. Exactly like this you can sit down in the evening and talk about the Bhagavad-gita, yare dekha tare kaha krsna-upadesa. You haven't got to manufacture something. The instruction is there; you simply repeat and let them hear--you become guru. It is not difficult at all. So that is our preaching. We do not want to become alone guru, but we want to preach in such a way that every, the chief man, or any man, he can become guru in his surroundings. Anyone can do that. Even a coolie, he can also, he has got family, he has got friends, so even though he is illiterate, he can hear the instruction of Krsna, and he can preach the same. This we want. And we invite all respectable gentlemen, leaders, to learn this, it is very simple: man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru, and by executing this order of Krsna, he assures, mam evaisyasi, "You come to Me." Yad gatva na nivartante tad dhama paramam mama. Tyaktva deham punar janma naiti mam eti kaunteya. Very easy thing." BG 7.1, Bombay, India ---- "Prabhupada: That is... Therefore the Vedas says, tad-vijnanartham: "In order to know that transcendental science," sa gurum evabhigacchet, "he must go to a guru. He must approach." A guru means not bogus guru. One who knows expert. But one has to do that. There is no other alternative. That is the injunction of every Vedic sastra. And this order is from the Kathopanisad. Then, on the Bhagavad-gita the same thing is said, tad viddhi pranipatena. Pranipata means surrender. Surrender where? Where to surrender? To a coolie? No, to a superior person, guru. Similarly, Bhagavata says, tasmad gurum prapadyeta jijnasur sreya uttamam: "One who is inquisitive to understand the spiritual science," tasmad, "therefore," gurum prapadyeta, "must surrender to a guru." Just our, this morning prayer is guru, beginning of life, beginning of day's work, first worshiping guru. Samsara-davanala-lidha-loka-tranaya-karunya-ghanaghanatvam, praptasya kalyana-gunarnavasya vande guroh sri-caranaravindam. So in our, this Vedic way of life, to accept guru is essential. Even big, big acarya... Even Krsna, He accepted guru, Sandipani Muni. Lord Caitanya accepted guru, Isvara Puri. They are perfect, but still, the ways They are showing because They are acarya. Krsna is teaching, taking the part of the acarya, so he is also accepting, although the fact is as soon as went to, within a few days He learned everything. That is stated in our Krsna Book. " Room Conversation, January 17, 1971, Allahabad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 You're worried about the subject line? lol And you say your not a fanatic. /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif Prabhu, your opinions also have a spin. Everyone does, or that could be said. Bedises, I did my best to explain that in my post, but then you called it an interpolation. Now you call my title a "spin." But ya left out the part where I said "to each their own." Ya know, all a person has to do is read Prabhupadas words, and I feel confident they'll come to their own conclusions. /images/graemlins/smile.gif (shuddering in preparation for response. ha) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 "In one quotation, he makes the point that even someone fomr a low social station, even if illiterate, can become guru by hearing from the proper source and sharing what he has heard with whoever he meets." Agreed. And that is siksa. "In the other, he's speaking of selecting to whom we should surrender our lives." Also agreeing, and that is diksa. "A low-class person is not the proper object of surrender;" Right. "however, if he were perfectly Krishna conscious, eventhough he works carrying others' luggage, he's not low class, is he?)" No, he's not. But I dont feel that was the topic. Matter of fact, Prabhupada says in other places that anyone can become elevated. A siksa can become a diksa. I never said they could not. "That's exactly why I made the point earlier that we need to study the entire science of Krishna consciousness. The qualification Srila Prabhupada gives for becoming guru is to teach the science of Krishna consciousness without adding or subtracting anything to suit our own purposes. " You are adding the topic of diksa, and my understanding of the original poster is he did *not* want to get into the qualificaitons of diksa guru, etc., and was just wondering about siksa guru. Therefore, I have read (and studied) the books prabhu. ha But let me say, I think here, we agree more than we disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Yes, because it's like a title or headline, and every writer knows how important those are in any piece of writing. I hope that when folks carefully read Srila Prabhupada's words, as part of a life of strict practice and preaching, they will come to Mahaprabhu's conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Writer? English class? Hmmmmm Thought it was message boards. Ok then, better watch your subject lines Babru. I've got my eye on you now. lol By the way, I too hope eveyrone will also come to the same conclusions of Lord Caitnaya. Not the way you understand them, not even necessarily the way I understand them, but the way *they* understand them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Pritha: You are adding the topic of diksa. . . . No, actually you did by attempting create a distinction where Srila Prabhupada doesn't. I know we agree on the principles of Krishna consciousness. What we apparently don't agree on is the spelling of my name. What about yours? Are not not named after Kunti? Is your name a feminine formm of prIta, which means pleased? I'm guessing I've been mistaken about your name since I've been spelling it differently fomr the way you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 I ususally copy the line from the post I'm responding to because it may otherwise be hard to follow a thread. P: Writer? English class? Hmmmmm Thought it was message boards. Babhru: Well, this is writing. (Who said anything about English class?) And it's not a chat room. This is not as ephemeral as chat rooms are. One advantage to writing is that we can think twice before publishing (and posting is a form of publishing). These messages are archived and show up in other places. You come across them with Google searches. That's one reason (only one reason)I have often suggested that we be more careful about what we write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Well, if I'm spelling your name wrong, my apologies. (And yet another correction on message boards. sigh) Anyway, I will 'explain' myself to you. The reason I use Priitaa instead of PrIta, or the Sanskrit Prtha, is because I got tired of being called Preetu, and PrItee, Prutee, Preety (not interested in the compliment ha), and the list goes on. So I followed how some Hindus spell, for example, Pooja. Then one day in a talk/chat room for computer help, for the first time I heard someone say my name right! And that is purifying since its a name for Queen Kunti. So sue me. Or give me a D or F - guess I flunked. Guess it means I'm not fitting the definition you gave of being very pleasing either. As for changing the topic of Diksa, just because Prabhupada does not use the words siksa and diksa to make a distinction, does not mean its all one and there is no distinction. Just look at the difference in the qualifications of the two quotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 "These messages are archived and show up in other places. You come across them with Google searches. That's one reason (only one reason)I have often suggested that we be more careful about what we write. " I hpoe the other 2,000 devotees also follow your instructions on this for the sake of a Google search or archives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Simply means PrIthA or so it seemed to me. Maybe PRthA? I can't find the sanskrit source now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Nothing to apologize for, dear sister. You're hardly alone in that. And I wasn't criticizing your spelling of your name, but asking for clarification. The spelling variation confused me. And speaking of clarification, I have never said there's no distinction between siksha guru and diksha guru. Rather, I only pointed out that in all the passages that have been quoted, Srila Prabhupada does not (at least explicitly) make the distinction. Anyway, most of the discussion of this issue seems to be a distraction from our real business, which is becoming more qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Yes, but that's not Kunti's name. The Sanskrit letters R and RR (or rii) are different letters. That's why I was confused. The correct spelling with the Harvard-Kyoto system is pRthA; using the double-letter system (whatever that's called) it would be Prithaa. Using the goofball-Babhru-from-Lompoc system, it's "pretty." (Okay, now sue me for sexual harrassment.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 O Son Of Prtha, Arjuna....... But if you want it exactly, I'll have to go look up a quote. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 I've explored the correct spelling in edited versions of my previous post: The Sanskrit letters R and RR (or rii) are different letters. That's why I was confused. The correct spelling with the Harvard-Kyoto system is pRthA; using the double-letter system (whatever that's called) it would be Prithaa. Using the goofball-Babhru-from-Lompoc system, it's "pretty." (Okay, now sue me for sexual harrassment.) One of my fanatic's peeves is spelling Sanskrit words as if we were using the diacritics. I much prefer Krishna to Krsna. I know I'm part of a very small minority on this, so I have rarely, if ever, brough it up. Krsna just looks goofy, and if I've never been exposed to ISKCON, how do I know how it's pronounced? It's harder than your name. Should this be a separate thread? (Or better put to bed?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Reminds me of Queen Kunti. So that's enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Actually, I too prefer the spelling of Krishna to Krsna. Didn't know it was a minority thing. Regarding the pronouncition of my name, though I was in a chat room as mentioned, one with sound, they could not hear me. (Thats why I was in there! I wanted to play Prabhupada bhajana's.) Only, I could hear them. So they were trying to help and had to call my name when it was my turn, and they pronounced my name (correctly) from the written word. Hurray! ---- Oh yes, another reason I went for the phonetic spelling is cuz so many kept using the American "th" sound as in PriTHa instead of the "Prit-ha" sound. Sometimes even calling me "PerTHa." Oh yeah, that was great. lol I think I found the "TH" American sound the most annoying of all. Funny, there was a time I didn't give a hoot what anyone called me. You know that old saying, 'call me anything, just dont call me late for dinner.' ha So I would joke like that. To lighten their mitake. But now I care. Guess its old age. ha Tho I do also feel it's for their spiriutal benefit to get it right. May be putting myself to bed soon. :-) Tho with my nearly two years of insomnia, I make no promises. (Well, probalby over a year. I dunno exactly - when ya cant sleep, it feels like forever. But hey, I'm ok.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 No, no, no! Please dont feel you can't speak simply because you are less then perfect or may make a mistake. My goodness, we all make mistakes and my name is way up there on that list. ha Its one of the 4 human propensities, and its also why we need each others associaiton so very much. Besides, I am not even saying you made a mistake, only because you feel like this. So please, dont beat yourself up. Haribol. No, Pritha, that's not it. I just mean there is a tendancy to noit double check to make sure I remember correctly before I speak. The minds belief's then get mixed in with Prabhupad's conclusions. I'm conditioned so I know I make mistakes all the time. I'm not punching on myself, in fact I'm happy that I have realized this so I can learn to be more careful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priitaa Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 gH, you are too kind. Wrong ha, but kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 For what it's worth, I prefer Krsna to Krishna. It seems somehow balanced with the five letters -- like Radha, Nimai and Nitai. Still, a rose by any other name... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Krsna and Caitanya are for insiders who formed an attachment to Krsna while reading Prabhupada's books. Krishna and Chaitanya are for the rest of the world, the unfortunate. They seem further and further away every day. I don't know how Lord Caitanya is going to make all this happen, but it's quite apparent that He hasn't given up yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 Says who? That's funny, since Srila Prabhupada used Krishna and Chaitanya for quite a long time. That's how they were spelled in the Bhagavad-gita I got, as well as in my Teachings of Lord Chaitanya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 The first books I read by Srila Prabhupada, the early gita edition without sanskrit, and teachings of lord chaitanya, were written with the holy name of the lord as "Krishna". I have always preferred that spelling. also, i find the general public don't understand what the funny spelling of krsna means. and, my Guru established a temple called Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math in Nabadwip. (Nabadwip is the official spelling of this city in modern day bengal) No sanskritization in the temple's name either - "Math", not "Matha". -m.das 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.