Got to keep the loonies on the path

This is a response to a comment from raghavendu on the Breaking news: Hare Krishna guru too average looking post. He was responding to an article on Hare Krishna News where I commented on how writers at the Sampradaya Sun were acting like cult fanatics in their uproar over Hridayananda Swami not wearing “devotional clothes” 100% of the time. Raghavendu wrote:

Breaking news: Hare Krishna guru too average looking

http://harekrishnanews.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/breaking-news-hare-krishna-guru-too-average-looking/

Malibu Radha

In the comments to the previous post kalki das brought up the topic of archana, deity worship, and how it is taught by Prabhupada. He mentioned this verse from Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita: http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/19/152/

Kalki pointed out how that verse is about the importance of sravanam kirtanam — hearing and chanting — as the process of “watering the seed of bhakti,” but how in the purport Prabhupada emphasizes deity worship as all-important. I want to point out that he also goes into a long harangue about the absolute necessity of “pleasing a spiritual master and following regulative principles otherwise all of your bhakti-yoga will be without effect.” Which is a bunch of nonsense, but it shows one of the reasons that Prabhupada’s books are so problematic — they are geared into making you think that without joining ISKCON and following all that Prabhupada demands from the inmates of that institution — that you cannot advance in bhakti-yoga.

Das Kapital

This is a reply to a comment from kalki das on the Narayana Maharaja’s Guru Tattva post.

kalki das wrote:

ye me bhakta-janah partha
na me bhaktas ca te janah
mad-bhaktanam ca ye bhaktas
te me bhakta-tama matah

“[Lord Krishna told Arjuna:] Those who are My direct devotees are actually not My devotees, but those who are the devotees of My servant are factually My devotees.”

I got owned with this… Krishna should I run to a vaishnava sect an become the servant of the servant of the servant of your so called servant? (leader, spiritual master obviously)

First off that translation is a bit off. It doesn’t mention “servant.” Prabhupada probably changed it to make it seem that being devoted to him was real bhakti. It says:

“Those who are devoted to me aren’t my devotees, those who are devoted to my devotees are really my devotees.”

It’s a paradoxical statement. If the real bhaktas are devoted to his devotees and not to Krishna, how can you be devoted to his devotee since anyone devoted to Krishna is not a devotee? So it’s not meant to be taken literally since it makes no sense if we do so. While it’s trying to get across the importance of being devoted to Krishna’s devotee, at the same time it’s paradoxical in order to make the point that it isn’t meant literally. Why?

Sense and Nonsensibility

http://harekrishnanews.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/sense-and-nonsensibility/