Statement Of Purpose Amended - Participants: Please read before posting.

Board Rules and Statement of Purpose Amended

In response to recent feedback from a number of regular participants in the forums, we have amended the statement of purpose and board rules of the forums to better reflect the general mood of its regular participants.

The following paragraph has been added to the statement of purpose:


The following rule has been added to clarify this:


Additionally, the following note has been added to the end of the board rules:


The moderators do not warn many times. If a member repeatedly contributes posts which are not in harmony with the general spirit of the forums, he will become a moderated member, which means that all of his posts will be reviewed by the moderators before going online. If the breaches are blatant and directly aim at insulting other individuals or groups, a member will be indefinitely suspended.

As a friendly reminder, there is no need to be in a place where one is not comfortable. If someone is not comfortable with the general mood in the forums, we cordially invite him to spend his leisure time with other, more productive hobbies than stirring trouble and unnecessarily annoying others in a place he'd rather not be in. That should be just plain old common sense.

If our members observe disruptive behavior, they are invited to contact any member of The Board of Moderators to rectify the situation, preferably by PM:ing them in the forums. Please include in your report a link to the undesired thread and a short explanation of why it should not exist in the forums.

Wishing years of fruitful discussions,
The Board of Moderators

As an addendum to the post above, we wish to specify that attempts to convert others and intimidation based on affiliation grants equal rights and responsibilities to members of all Gaudiya-groups, whether one might consider them heterodox or not.

Conversion, or adoption of new insights, must be an internal matter arising from a greater understanding. One should not, at least not in the premises of these forums, intimidate others to discard any particular beliefs in favor of others.

An example of an unacceptable post:

"You are a member of the International Haribol Coalition. You know, your guru/group is teaching apasiddhanta because he speaks against shastra, and therefore you should join a bonafide group. If you can't realize that, then too bad for you. I guess not everyone is sincere enough to seek a genuine guru/group."

An example of an acceptable post:

"The members of the International Haribol Coalition propose as follows: Blah blah blah. However, in Rupa Gosvami's Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu (1.2.294) we read the following: Sadhu sadhu sadhu. Does anyone know whether they have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction or not?"

An example of an unacceptable response:

"Yes, but my Guru Maharaja's Guru, Srila Haribolpada, taught this, and he was a pure devotee. If you are a blind owl who cannot recognize the splendor of a pure devotee such as Srila Haribolpada, then too bad for you. And remember, the shastra warns that one who offends pure devotees like Srila Haribolpada goes straight to hell for a long, long time. So I am humbly asking you to please be careful with your words and not criticize a pure devotee, just for the sake of your spiritual well-being."

An example of an acceptable response:

"Yes, I am aware of the issue, and it has been brought up several times before. I know that it appears contradictory, but this verse can be interpreted in two ways. Although you may not agree with our interpretation, please be courteous and grant us the right for our own interpretations, even if you might not agree."

Or (for the really honest folks):

"Oh, that's interesting. To be honest, I have no idea how to reconcile that, and it seems that it is indeed quite different from what the acaryas have commented on that verse. I'll have to research this further and also ask whether my Guru Maharaja could clarify the matter further. After all, the whole thing might just be a simple misunderstanding."

We trust you grasp the basic idea.

Radhe Radhe!


I like you Admin Avatara

I vehemently protest the way you are moderating this forum.
You are little short of actually writing everybody's posts for them.

You pledge non sectarianism. Whose comfort does the forum has in view?

The Board Rules and Statement of Purpose are available from the link at the top left of the forums. They are the guiding principles of the forum, and form the basis of moderation here. As you may note from this thread, the regular participants in the forums agree with the ideals therein either in toto or for the most part.

If you are not comfortable being a moderated member in our forums, you are free to participate in some other forum of your choice. If you have an objection with the moderation policies of an individual moderator, you may file a complaint to the Board of Moderators, explaining your reasons for the same.

Whose comfort does the forum have in view? Primarily, the moderators aim to creating an environment in which the regular members of the forum feel comfortable. If you browse the member you'll find for example the following individuals whom we consider regular, respected long-time contributors in the forums: Mina, Gaurasundara, Advaitadas, Jagat, Adiyen, Vamsidas, Nabadip. There are many others, too, who have demonstrated over longer periods of time an ability to make positive and constructive contributions into the forums.

Someone may come to the forums with intents other than "stir trouble" or spend some "leisure time", and still cause discomfort to members. In my view, the administration should improve its policy in relation to such cases. If the comfort of most members is the primary consideration for setting guidelines in participation, even as on how one will phrase one's thoughts, there is risk in the forum missing potential good opportunities for discovery.

I am very sorry to phrase it this way but, "positive" and "constructive" in relation to a public forum open to discussions of such a subjective matter as Raganuga Bhakti, sounds like a childish way to put it. Wouldn't you agree that any approach to Raganuga as a subject for thought and consideration is already positive and constructive, anyways?

I am very comfortable in being a moderated member, thank you very much, I am getting special attention. However, if such moderation is a burden to the adminstration and thus cause of discomfort, I rather not be moderated. It is not very charitable of me to be a burden and I will probably go away if this continues.

You say regular members' comfort is priority over others'. But such policy does imply sectarianism. Just an observation.

Do you have any specific suggestions on how we should improve our policies in this regard? Perhaps we should help people out in phrasing statements in a less inflammatory manner. Would that be acceptable? We could contact members and request them to amend their style, giving suggestions on possible improvements.



I believe this forum is labeled "Gaudiya Discussions", and as such encompasses a wide variety of other topics in addition to raganuga-bhakti. That being said, I fail to see how persistent critique of certain individuals has anything to do with either raganuga or bhakti.

Please, you are cordially invited to start a topic discussing a verse or a particular nuance on the matter of raganuga-bhakti. I would be more than happy to explore such discussions, as I am certain would many others.



We have four moderators here, and that's what we are here for, to serve you and to accommodate you. Please do not worry, there is no inconvenience for us.



Well, non-sectarianism does not mean that anything goes. How would you define sectarianism? Though the exact definition of the word "sect" is an open debate, the following are dictionary definitions from M-W online:

* a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical

This is not exactly the fact, since the main audience of the forums consists of people from all walks of life, who hold varying opinions on different topics. There is no solid religious body, what to speak of a dissenting or a schismatic one.

* a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader

Well, there are some distinctive doctrines, the foundational writings of our sampradaya, which we all follow. That, however, is by no means unique to the members of the forums. There is no particular adherence to a single living individual among all the participants here.

* Sectarian (adjective): limited in character or scope

Yes, we more or less stay within the parameters of the Gaudiya tradition.

* Sectarian (noun); a narrow or bigoted person

Though any given individual here may be narrow-minded or bigoted, I trust you'll agree that this is not the general mood of the assembly.

If you mean sectarian in the sense that we are comfortable discussing peacefully with like-minded individuals, then I suppose we are sectarian in that sense of the word. I hope that is not a bad thing.

I believe the discussing group as an entitiy (as defined by you) has already assumed itself being "good" as oposed to "bad". This characterization in itself qualifies as an Authority. How and by whom this authority is sanctioned I believe is the addressable question in the life of the group as such. How much an entity is acquainted with and concerned about the needs of those it affects is, probably, what would determine an entity's authority.







Correct me if I am wrong but, bypassing the scenic route so to get to the point quickly, I am very sure that the overall idea of these discussions being procured and encouraged is so to seek to establish that Gaudiyaism is, as a matter of fact, Raganuga, only by another name. Personally, at this point I would say, "bad" or "good" are just words. It seems to me that to discuss "individuals" is at the core of Gaudyiaism. Raganuga "is" about persons. Very, very complex persons, actually. Attractive, disturbing, all kinds of persons.



You have already included that as an ammendment to your set rules, actually. I don't think your problem is so much in how people phrase their thoughts. Monotone phrasing can become boring and so dilluting to the discussions. Too much color can be distracting as well - entertainment alone is not your business here. I am not very clear myself what would be a good suggestion for this situation but I suspect what you need is to be less defensive and more personal with certain newcomers. Newcomers are not necessarily new to the "general mood" of the discussions.

I apologize if all this is not clear enough. In my defense I have to say that I don't have a lot of time to phrase my thoughts adequately. As silly as it sounds, I write posts in the middle of a household where the rest of the family must be kept unaware of my participation. But I participate somehow because I believe such is in the interest of myself and my family. And of course, I am not looking into disturbing your people in anyway. It just happens.

If you were willing to accomodate a wider variety of moods, here is a suggestion: When someone approaches with a proposition but does not bring his/her 'homework', this "paperwork' could perhaps be done by some designated neutral party. Advaitadas, for example, has deep faith in sastra and would probably be very helpful to those not so privileged. Where there is a will there is a way, sort of deal...

Yes, most of us have basically concluded that the goals and means of our association are fruitful and worth preserving. That notwithstanding, the association is not an authority speaking with a single voice when it comes to conclusions, or dogma. Rather, we agree for the most part on certain working principles of dialogue.



Well, the exploration of the principles of rAgAnugA has certainly been a major theme in our discussions. As for rAgAnugA being concerned with persons, certainly this is so, but which persons? The dear associates of Sri Krishna. Discussions on other persons, when it does not fall in the realm of discussing the glories of saints engaged in rAgAnugA-sAdhana, do not strictly speaking fall within the realm of rAgAnugA, and I am not certain that they fall within the realm of vaidhi either. Rather, they are somewhat marginal issues, and their relevancy strictly in terms of bhakti-sAdhana is often questionable. Evaluating the faults of other persons has nowhere been defined as an aspect of sAdhana-bhakti.



Please feel free to be as expressive as you wish. However, if you feel an urge to evaluate the faults of other persons, then indeed I suggest you try a rather monotonic approach, in contrast to an approach colored with vivid emotional outbursts. That is, if such contributions are necessary to begin with.

As for being defensive, I have tried my level best to give all issues a fair treatment here. If at any time you feel that a sense of defense rules over my better judgement, please feel free to point that out, citing an example in my words demonstrating the same.



And I suspect that we have all sympathy for your situation.



I wonder, though, whether he would find the time for doing others' paperwork, though I am certain that he is available to advice on shastra. Suggestion noted, anyways. What exactly would you suggest that this 'homework' includes, besides digging up the scriptural basis for whatever one is about to propose?

So that your standards remain as high as desirable, please assume that in principle all are dear associates of Sri Krsna.


Yes, this can only be absolutely correct. I am a shameless fault-finder.


I might be wrong but I think you are demonstrating here that in actuality conclusions and dogma are an authority, one that was sanctioned by the heart. The heart is always the ultimate authority, and this is true here too. For example, you and I have come to opposite conclusions about a topic, and yet we continue discussing. The topic itself and the separate conclusions have gone into the background but we still find opportunity for association because the heart has so commanded us, each separately, as individuals. It is all about individuals and their feelings, no matter how you approach it. Keep encouraging that feelings go up another notch so to speak and you should soon have a society that will not only discuss Ragabhava, but actually be able to GIVE that to whomever comes near desiring the same thing.






Perhaps get acquainted with new people in an individual a basis as possible. Developing a relationship with a newcomer prior to disucssing differences might save lots of time in argumentations and rebutals since in the end what everyone is interested in to find the MCD.

As far as I am aware of, those below the level of uttama-bhAgavata exercise a certain degree of discrimination between the various classes of devotees.

At any rate, the persons relevant to rAgAnugA are (1) those who have attained a pArSada-deha in Vraja, and (2) the exemplary sAdhus who are steeped in rAgAnugA-bhajana. The rest are only marginally relevant.



Well, we've been at this in another thread, discussing the threefold pramAna of zAstra-sAdhu-guru. They are all recognized as authority, since they speak of a single conclusion or doctrine (sAdhu-zAstra-guru-vAkya cittete koriya aikya). Since the association here consists of people with a degree of disagreement over various conclusions, I would not designate it as an authority as such.



This is quite true, and just as well as it applies to us, it applies to the rest of the assembly. Given the diversity herein, I find it hard to cope with your definition of the assembly here vis-a-vis being an authority, as in a previous post:


At any rate, I feel this is a play of words here.


Yes, that should certainly be the aspiration of everyone here. Therefore, we try our level best to excercise a certain degree of discrimination in our moderation policies in filtering out moods that are neither neutral nor supportive of rAga-bhAva.



That's a very good suggestion there. I only wish I had the time to interact with everyone as much as I wanted to. I suppose most of us here are more or less entrapped in the wheel of saMsAra, trying to make our living and mixing in some bhakti on the way, too.

At any rate I am not very good with words. I am sorry.



Yes, we all have our priorities.

I appreciate the moderators care in regarding everyone in the forums as worth of time and attention. Your service in particular is comendable. I have been inspired by this forum. I am indebted.