Gaudiya Discussions - Revisions - Please read before you wonder

As many of you know, revisions aiming to bring Gaudiya Discussions back to its original focus have been in the air for a while now. Let today be the first day of the new era.

Our Principles and Guidelines, the section that was formerly called Board Rules and Statement of Purpose, has been thoroughly rewritten. The old rules were cluttered with unnecessary yadda-yadda and were likely not read by many. We are hoping the revised principles will make the intended focus and dynamics of this site clear to everyone involved.

The abovelinked page is open for revisions. However, while respecting the views of all others, we are naturally primarily concerned with the suggestions of our main target audience, namely (1) practicing Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and (2) aspiring Gaudiya Vaishnavas. It is unlikely that the spirit of the presentation is going to change all that radically.

* * *

In the course of the following couple of days, some structural revisions will be made. Some of the areas where most heated and/or irrelevant discussions have taken place will be closed down and archived for future reference. The IGM and Controversial sections are the first to go.

* * *

If some members feel there's a vital section missing, please PM me. We cannot possibly be everything for everybody. That will merely turn the board into a grand kichari that has a rather odd flavor to it. We really need to focus on our core purposes. In the immediate near future, likely at the cost of other topics. In the course of time, we may again accommodate a wider range of topics once the infrastructure of the audience has reached a reasonable ratio of practicing Gaudiyas to other members to ensure such topics will stay somehow relevant to most practicing Gaudiyas reading the board. In the meantime, please try to live with it.

If members feel a need to post more than this board can accommodate, here are links to some current Vaishnava discussion forums where you may post other topics.

Audarya Fellowship - A part of the IndiaDivine project ran by JNDas of Bhaktivedanta Ashram, Mysore. A popular forum with topics on the various Vaishnava-traditions and Hinduism. Their sister-forum Hindu-Religion may also be of interest.

Istagosthi - The current free-for-all and uncensored forum where just about anything goes. Officially seeking to improve ISKCON, in practice hosting a very wide range of discussions with variable quality.

Krishna Premonmaada - This group will discuss love for Krishna. It is specifically focused towards maadhurya rasa - kaantaa bhaava - love for Krishna as a lover or a wife.

NamaHatta - A friendly forum working in conjunction with the mantra-kit program. Mainly directed towards newcomers, a friendly community.

There are also others out there that I can't think of right now. Feel free to post links in this thread.

Krishna Premonmaada - This group will discuss love for Krishna. It is specifically focused towards maadhurya rasa - kaantaa bhaava - love for Krishna as a lover or a wife.

Oh sorry it was missing? I'm absolutely sure I just typed it in, I went to the site and grabbed the URL, wrote a brief description and all. It must have gotten removed when I snapped out another forum that wasn't really worth being advertised.

Edit: Oh jeez, I left in the one that was supposed to go and deleted that one.

I am certain this revision will leave many wondering as to what may be happening.

I would not want people to think that we are ousting anyone due to their beliefs or disbeliefs. Indeed, many of those whom I suspect voted as not being Gaudiya in the recent poll are personally very dear to me, and I value their insights very much. I would hate to see them not post in the occasional gem of an insight they do due to not feeling welcome.

At the same time, we have a burning need to maintain the original purpose of the forums. I trust you all understand the reasons why the current revision is underway. We each must maintain a proper focus on our respective fields to get something sensible out of our endeavors in the end.

With regards to "cleaning up", I have a feeling there is much out there that would need to be "archived" that has been accumulating over the last month or so. With this, I would kindly request our members to participate. There is the button at the bottom left corner of each post. Please click on that whenever you come across a post that is (1) in bad taste, (2) irrelevant or (3) mislocated. We're more than happy to hear from you, and don't worry if you're misreporting by accident.

Coming soon:

For those who started as being Gaudiyas of any sort. Alternatives, experiences, experiments.
Gaudiya Repercussions.

I'm freezing.

I wonder, Madhava, Jagat and Malatilata: you are all in Vrindavan, how come the winds from there are so chilly?

I hesitated to write this, as I have little to offer by way of constructive criticism. But it keeps coming up even when I am busy doing other things.

I know you have created this forum for a purpose and you need to keep it focused. I can relate to how it may feel when you get all kinds of strangers coming in and giving the place their own mood. It's perhaps a bit like how Swedes feel about immigrants from distant countries. They may have nothing personally against them, but they also need their own space where they can be themselves.

I liked how the forum was run before Jagat went to India: being fast and relatively strict with rogue posts and monitoring stray topics, while allowing them to be. And posting a lot yourselves as well. You were engaging in dialog with the challengers, rather than telling them to stop or closing down their topics. I thought it was working well. It felt like a community, it was a pleasure to come here, an inspiration. And most of the challenges from the unorthodox you could deal with in such a way that they enriched everyone's understanding. So it looked to me.

Now it feels so freezing cold that I don't even feel like opening any of the devotional topics that are active.

I don't know what feeling the forums are now giving to those of you who are faithful, practicing Gaudiyas. But I think you have more to reconstruct than the forum structure.

Respectfully,
Dhyana

I would think the chillness arises out of a sense of frustration.

I was uncomfortable over some of the undercurrents developing in the forums since a couple of months prior to my departure for Vraja. I found myself skipping more and more topics as I felt they were not relevant to me all that much. I let that be as it is without giving it much thought, as there were still a good many topics directly relevant to practicing Gaudiya sadhakas in the forums.

However, the focus of topics tipped completely off balance, particularly after Jagat's departure. I felt the scene had changed from one where a community of practicing Gaudiyas hosted some who were not such to one where many practicing Gaudiyas were feeling less and less inclined to participate due to the excessive quantities of posts and topics they felt were either irrelevant or counter-productive for their spiritual life.

I have personally spent countless hours with a sincere hope to provide a medium in which practicing Gaudiyas may discuss topics on their theology and practices, bringing about a sense of community that would strengthen their spiritual lives. I felt the recent developments undermined all I had worked for over the last couple of years.

As if that were not enough, then we got people who started posting snide remarks about believers and religious fanatics with evidently little respect for our beliefs and traditions, creating an undercurrent of scepticism we felt was not at all conducive towards the atmosphere we aimed to create.

I hope that gives some ideas on why the winds are chilly at the moment.

I've been mulling the new changes, since yesterday and just wanted to share my thoughts, which are rather few:

I think it is perfectly reasonable for Madhava and other Gaudiya-sadhaka members of GD to want to keep this site primarily for discussions relating to Rupanuga Vaisnavism, since that is their practice. I am personally not a Rupanuga Vaisnava, nor do I aspire to be, so my participation has been limited mostly to the fringes, which I was fine with.

In my observation, a little friction once in while only serves to increase the rasa; Radha-Shyam have Jatila, Sita-Rama, Ravana etc. That is probably one reason why the controversial section gets quite a bit of attention. What I appreciated about GD is these more eclectic issues were kept on a more philosophical level than any other of the Gaudiya-type sites I have visited to date, with most participants here being learned and having interesting viewpoints (not that I agreed with them all). Though, some turns lately have been a little overboard on both sides of the fence.

If I have truly offended anyone, I apologize. With the closure of the acedemic/eclectic/controversial section I will not find much to say, as where I have found myself in the unfolding of my life could probably be considered by many a strange mix of those three.

I think (hope) the creation of Gaudiya-Repercussions will be a natural solution that will leave everyone feeling a little more at ease. Spiritual life and faith is described in the Upanishads as a razor's edge. How true. Everyone has a perspective, and if we are not truly convinced of our own, it's easy to become aggrivated with that of another.

One thing that I am convinced of, is that every situation, every thing we like, or that which makes us really mad (or challenges our faith), is like an invitation to dive deep into the realization that there is nothing but our Lord (or Lordess)...

In the immortal words of George Harrison:

I certainly hope that none of my comments can be seen as "snide remarks" about those who are traditional adherents of Gaudiya Vaishnavas. That certainly has never been my intent. Nor did I see the bulk of comments by non-Gaudiyas here as being in that vein. If my discussions did cause any practicing Gaudiya Vaishnava to feel that their practices or beliefs were being criticized or demeaned, I heartily apologize.

However, we non-Gaudiyas did receive our fair share of snide remarks in the past month and again the tone of your comments, Madhava, seem to reinforce the thrust of some of them.

We are happy to take our non-GV related topics and posts elsewhere, of course. From my first week here I expressed that I would be happy to restrict my posting as you saw fit:

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=2160

As I read the above topic I commented that I'd be happy to not post in the Rupanuga section if you preferred, and you can see your reply. Everything about that topic said that your strategy at that time to deal with this recurring issue was to create the other topics areas for those kinds of posts to be contained in--to keep them out of your Rupanuga section.

It is fine with me if you feel like that didn't work out for you, and you wish to simply eliminate them at this time. It is your forum and your rules. As I'm putting together the new forum I can appreciate the time and money that goes into them.

All I would like to say is that, by your rules at that time, we were not doing anything wrong by posting non-Rupanuga posts in the other sections that you yourself provided for them as your initial solution to this problem.

I'd like to see a simple acknowledgement of that fact since we were criticized in your absense for "rearranging the furniture" or being "so ISKCON" and not making every post or topic in the other sections relate back to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. At that time it was not in your expressed rules that we had to do so; now it is very clear.

Further, I'd like to see an acknowledgement that we didn't just stumble on this site and decide to take it over. I was invited over and so were some of the other (if not all of the other) non-Gaudiyas, and at the time I was posting the same kind of stuff, more or less. I was not told, "But don't come unless you can post pure Gaudiya Vaishnava related posts." Nor did your own guidelines in the above linked topic say that. Your guidelines said keep non-GV topics in the areas designated for them, and I endeavored to do so. If I failed in some way to accomplish that, you have my heartfelt apology.

I think we will feel less chill in the new arrangements if our good faith intentions can be validated in some way. As it stands now, we've simply been made to feel that although you like us personally, we hijacked your forum and changed its focus. I don't see any of us as having behaved that way.

I very much hope that much of Gaudiya-repercussions will carry the flavor of the controversial eclectic section as well as room for other subjects and just plain fun.

And in defense of Istagosthi, because it is so free, what happens there is up to anyone who goes there and posts. We've had some wonderful, productive topics amid the political discussions.

Dear Tapati,

I believe I already expressed on a number of occasion my respect for your posts, stating that you were not a problem. As a matter of fact, it would be hard to define the situation as the outcome of any single individual's efforts alone. Rather, it was the cumulative impact of so many individuals that tipped the forums far off the balance. They were already slightly off balance before, more so than I (and many other practicing Gaudiyas) had hoped for, anyway.

We have always had a very clear statement in our Statement of Purpose outlining how this forum is "founded to serve the ever-growing audience of people who share an interest in the teachings and the tradition of Sri Caitanya and the Six Gosvamins", though that has now been rewritten to make it as clear as possible. We have also had several topics in the Community Etc. forum (such as [url=http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=2228]this[/i]) outlining the intended focus of the forums.

The other (basically two to three) forums were there to give a space for the occasional topic that might not be strictly "on topic", though we'd still expect topics to be somewhat relevant. However, topics not at all relevant to a good many of our audience began to appear, and many topics in those sections became were among longest and most discussed topics in the entire forums. I had hoped that topics in those other sections would still be relevant to our core audience, as well, but evidently they were not.

Regarding the acknowledgements, I readily acknowledge that there was nothing wrong as such for any given individual to post non-Gaudiya topics in those other sections. However, collectively I would say that the posters there showed a lack of discretion in that they were virtually becoming the most dominant part of the forums.

I have not really read the invitations that were sent to people out there. However, I believe one would expect, if he/she invites another to a forum, that the guest would try to blend in to the current atmosphere as far as possible.

In all honesty, I have still not reviewed every single thread where someone may have commented something on your "redecorating" and so forth. (Feel free to send me links to make it easier for me to find the occurences.) It would not come as a surprise if someone had gone beyond what's fair to say. I plead you to understand the reasons prompting them to say what they have said; evidently much of it arises out of their attachment to purely Gaudiya-related topics and subsequent anxiety upon seeing the site is tipped off balance.

Madhava,

I don't think it is completely correct to say that the practicing Gaudiyas refrained from posting because of the change of scene. One can say just as well that the change was very gradual, took place over many months, and that the practicing Gaudiyas decreased their participation for reasons that are yet to be determined, and the eclectic discussions simply filled the vacuum and naturally attracted new members with the same eclectic leanings.

Jagat did encourage this kind of discussions both privately and publicly and did steer them well. I agree with Tapati that there appears to be, at least to us who see you both only virtually on this board, some difference of opinion regarding this. At least between you in your present frame of mind and Jagat as we know him. But who knows, maybe after this trip to Vraja we won't recognize Jagat anymore.

I also would like to add that although such discussions were not strictlly Raganuga, they were a wonderful forum for exchanging ideas and definitely not a waste of time and cyberspace. I also think that they served very well the needs of some aspiring Gaudiyas. If, because of the honest discussions, one could see that raganuga-bhakti is not for them (Openmind comes to mind), I still think that the site has fulfillled its purpose.

Most persons who are attracted to raganuga-bhakti have already had a couple initiations and reinitiations in IGM, and to spare somebody the trauma of going through one more guru/ miracle mantra and then realizing that they did it for the wrong reasons, is quite a nice service in my opinion. You yourself mentioned elsewhere that the drop-out rate among Western initiates in traditional Gaudiya lines is quite high, so obviously there is something note quite right in their approach to the Tradition.

It seems now that you want the site to serve only the needs of those who have *already* made up their mind and chosen raganuga-bhakti as their exclusive devotional path, and as you are the main force behind this project this is definitely your right. I just want to say that those eclectic discussions helped me enormously to crystalize my ideas about spiritual life in general. Without the mood of openess and the synergy that was created, this wouldn't have happened. It was a somewhat unpleasant surprise to read that it was precisely this mood that you and others find counterproductive, but you are definitely right to say that this site can't be all things for all people.

So I would like to thank you very much for hosting those eclectic and IGM discussions. It was really great, as long as it lasted. I also would like to apologize to those who think that the site was highjacked and their sadhu-sanga spoiled. I wish you sincerely all the best in your efforts on this path and hope that you will find what you are looking for. If after the drastic measures taken by Madhava, thoughtful and dynamic raganuga discussions blossom on this site, then his decision is justified. If, however, this doesn't happen, know that you have the regrets of some people on your conscience.

Dear Madhava,

Thank you again for your kind words regarding my individual posts, but that is not the sole issue here.

I don't want to completely rehash the entire long discussion, but you might find it very illuminating to go back and read the following topic in its entirety when you have more time, and at least from the page following your own post:

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...opic=2975&st=45

I don't feel like we have a black and white/right or wrong situation here. What we have, to quote a famous line, "is a failure to communicate."

Communication broke down on both sides, at several points. I am just trying to explain what I see as your part in it, as well as our perception of how it went down, so that at least we can all come to some sense of emotional closure. In the topic I linked to above, it was clear that there was a lot of hurt and pain on both sides, and it is simply in my nature to try to find a way to heal that. My offering to create another forum to draw away some of the topics and posts that were cited as being objectionable was my first effort to heal this conflict. Yet it seems from the reactions to the closure of those topics that some more discussion might be in order.

I can see from what you've said that you felt that the nature and goals of your site were clearly evident, and that we ought to have understood that posts to the other topics were to be kept to a minimum or in some kind of lesser balance to the topics in the above portion, the strictly raganuga bhakti/Gaudiya Vaishnava section. Some times our concept is so clear to us that we assume everyone perceives it in the same way. Sadly, in the realm of interpersonal communication that is not always the case. It seems like this was one of those instances.

My understanding was that you simply wanted the posts in that section to be carefully on topic, and that the lower portion was for any posts not pertaining strictly to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or containing elements that might be objectionable. The preamble to those topics seemed to support that interpretation, the fact that you and Jagat were also posting there seemed to support that interpretation, and my lack of knowledge about your tradition led me to believe, simply, that you were very modern, sophisticated, and more broadminded in your idea of what was ok than some ISKCON related forum might be. Given that Jagat invited me, an "out" bisexual and pagan, to come and visit also led me to believe that this was not my mother's Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I was not subtle about these parts of myself where he found me posting.

I also revel in inter-faith discussion and in reading books by members of many faiths, translating what they are saying into my own terms and relating it back to my own belief system. I thought, quite frankly, that we were all doing so with some of these eclectic topics and deriving something useful and inspirational out of them.

From speaking to others in PMs, I believe we all were thinking along similar lines and had no idea that you wanted us to watch the balance of posts, restrict ourselves in some way within the lower topics, or anything other than be respectful when we posted up in the top section. (Which served to make me hesitant to post up there for the most part, in fear of offending, especially when it seemed like I was often corrected for using ISKCON style vocabulary--the only bhakti related vocabulary I know. Maybe a glossary of equivalents would help.)

The only special instruction I got in PMs from Jagat were that you guys don't like to talk about ISKCON/GM (and until my "iskcon and other topics" posts, I didn't, much) and that you prefer quality to quantity. (Ok, I talk a lot, I do admit. I even poked fun at myself for doing so, at one point.) If he had said, or you had said when I raised the issue, "try not to post much in the lower topics and mainly come visit when you want to talk about Gaudiya Vaishnavism, strictly," then I would have done so and I am sure so would the others. Perhaps that needs to be made explicit when issuing such invitations. One of us in fact was invited over and asked to start a controversial topic that had appealed to Jagat on another forum.

Where the problem came in when you left is that you and Jagat were two of the biggest volume posters in the upper topics, and your contributions kept all of us more interested in them. There was a sudden vacuum, and our posts and topics probably then drew more attention and posts away from that upper section. This made some of your Gaudiya Vaishnava guests uncomfortable, and a couple of them started making remarks that hurt our feelings. I moved the discussion deliberately down to the lower section of the board out of respect for the upper section topics, as I could see it was about to come to a head and better that it happened down there.

I was actually expecting you to say that we were correct in assuming that we were free to post our non-GV topics in the lower sections. That's how firmly I misunderstood your intent.



It is this notion that we were somehow being deliberately disrespectful of your forum that we are finding hurtful. Nothing could have been further from our minds! We have nothing but respect for the Gaudiya Vaishnavas here. Even when we didn't feel qualified to post in the GV topics, we often carefully read them. It saddens us that our GV friends couldn't be as enlivened by our posts as we have been by theirs.

We couldn't read your mind(s); we couldn't read between the lines, and even now we are astonished that our cumulative or individual posts received the overall reaction that they did. We weren't keeping score between posts in the different sections, trying consciously to balance it out. We had no idea we were expected to. If asked, we would have made the effort to do so. (And as I said in that long topic, for us this is bringing up echos of being told we weren't Krsna Conscious enough, or that we were in maya, back in the day.)

Can you please see that this was an honest mistake, that no one meant any disrespect, and that things could have been made a bit clearer from the outset?

We are all people of good will. I really hope that each side of this dispute can see that about the other side.

Blessed Be--

Tapati

Freezing ?
I am a second class citizen here
and I am burning ......

The message I keep receiving from many of those practicing Gaudiyas is indeed related with the change of the scene, gradual or otherwise. Many have expressed feeling uneasy posting in an environment where people do not share a similar mood, a mood of keen interest in cultivating our spiritual ideals.

I agree that the change was gradual. However, I'm sure we all agree it escalated quite a bit during our absence.



It's a bit hard to say collectively that Jagat encouraged such discussions. At any rate, he also made many of them actually relevant to practicing Gaudiyas. The direction the topics have been taking over the past month or two hasn't really had that element to it.



And I sincerely hope no-one has suggested such. There's a difference between something being a waste of time and space, and something valuable being somewhat in the wrong time and space.



But these reasons are being discussed, and they are a part of what this site is here for. Pardon me if I'm reading you wrong, you're speaking of doing a service in demonstrating how some traditional gurus and mantras would have been taken for wrong reasons? I may be missing something, but I haven't really come across all that many traditional "drop-outs", hardly any. So I seem to be missing something in there.

Regarding Openmind as an example, I may be missing something (for change), but a debate on Buddhism and so forth doesn't really have much to do with raganuga one way or another. As far as I recall, his reasons were coming from outside this board.

Western dropout ratio, I can't recall mentioning such a thing. We seem to be doing pretty good, if contrasted to the leader on the field in the West, anyway. Wherever you have a religious tradition that involves a conversion, you'll always have a certain amount of drop-outs.



As you may have read in the revised statement of purpose, we wish to have this site serve primarily two kinds of persons:

1. Practicing Gaudiyas.
2. People interested in taking up the practices of the tradition.

In other words, people who are interested in going forward on the path of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Other people may be there, certainly. However, I see the main merit in cultivating people who are actually doing the Gaudiya thing and want to progress in it. We really want to see people coming and progressing.

Regarding focusing on people who have already made up their minds, (2) is also there, people who are working on making up their mind and with that aim in mind are asking questions. They are also people who are moving on, potentially to the direction we aim at and consider a most worthy direction to head for. We are servants of the servants of Sri Chaitanya, and I am confident the direction he would like to see is bringing people onwards on the path he gave us.

I find the topics I have been raising to be directly related to Gaudiya theology and incredibly pertinent things to explore for someone with a backround in indian philosophy. I would be embarassed to bring anyone here with such a backround. I have been emailing parts of the threads to academics and I am even embarassed to do that, having to explain that I am sure not every Gaudiya is this way. As a vociferous defender of Gaudiya for the past few years I am saddened at the harsh treatment I have received here. Anyone who has spent time practising vedanta or other indian philosophy pre-iskcon would be raising these same issues. The fact that no people like that come here or bother is a testament to something and should lead you to reflect on why that is.

The image that is being displayed by some people here is one of intense close-mindedness and lack of exposure to anything outside their sect. I pray that this sort of behaviour does not render the Sankirtan movement unsweet to so many sincere people. When I told my buddhist teacher/monk that i was now spending every moment with the 'hare krishnas,' he began to chant the mahamantra in the middle of the supermarket and gave me the name of a gaudiya to seek out for guidance, heartily encouraging me.

It is because of my optimism toward that person, my private interaction with some official gaudiyas here, and because of my own persistance and attraction to the tunes, that I have not dimissed every adherent of this movement as sectarian and underexposed, hence impossible to have a real conversation with, as I know many others like me have done. Taking sastra out of any where in vedanta to prove any point, oblivious to what those verses mean to others, hence thinking that your point has been signed sealed and delivered, is a hard thing to sit through. Maybe this kind of atmosphere is the natural result of being encouraged to shut out anything that doesn't fit into your existential narrative, in case it disturbs you.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop pretending you exist in a vacuum, and that issues that your texts -directly- speak about have no relevance to raganuga, just because you do not feel up to discussing them probably because of your lack of exposure to them. I do consider myself an aspiring Gaudiya and I find this insular environment very discouraging to anyone with a backround in indian philosophy independant of iskcon, unlike the overwhelming majority of others here who were mainly introduced to it by ACBSP.

I have zero desire to go around discussing buddhist voidism in Interfaith Forums.
I am here to engage with what I assume are traditional Gaudiyas out of my own desire to explore the traditional Gaudiya path. I idealistically doubt however that if I were to seek out traditional Gaudiyas myself in India, that they would be engaging me in the way that some of the people here have.

To say such discussions have nothing to do with raganuga when even Ananta Dasji and the previous acaryas talk about them, I find very desillusioning. My experience here as a whole leads me to question the sincerity I expected to find here. This realization has come as a serious personal blow to me. Seeing that the section is now closed, and that publically discussing this was leading no where fast, with images to protect on display taking precedence over real honest conversation by far, I will continue my discussions privately, troubled by the fact that a great bulk of the people here are unable to have them.

With respect,
evakurvan

Tapati --

I agree that there was definitely a failure of sorts in communication. I must say, though, that I have been under the impression, and I believe a good many others have as well, that the core being of these forums has been fairly clearly defined as being a community of practicing Gaudiyas. I would think that anyone with knowledge of the history of the forums knows that. Of course, for newcomers this may not have come across as clearly as it should have. Hopefully the purpose of the forums is now defined clearly and will contribute towawrds avoiding such instances in the future.

Evidently it is unfair to say that you would have done anything bad intentionally. People should not be saying such things.

If the core of these forum is as a community of practiing Gaudiyas and the core essence of recieving an experiencal realization is sharing these understandings with others, spreading the love..., then why such a resistance to non-Gaudiyas coming here an inquiring about the faith?

In my personal revelations of the faith, I have come to understand that a Gaudiya community is not so much defined by it being a closed knit circle but its openness.

And too, the vaisnava faith has been defined as well by this lion heartedness in its debate of opposing points of view and so I wonder why this timidness now seen here when met with challenging questions?

I got that it was a core community of practicing Gaudiyas. I thought the activity and existence of these lower sections indicated that it was a community of very open minded Gaudiyas interested in having such discussions as long as they didn't clutter up the above topics. I figured that's why Jagat asked me over, since I certainly wasn't going to contribute much to the Sanskrit verse slinging up above. Perhaps he asked me over as part of a preaching mission of his own. I hope not, I hope that he had some essential respect for my own path being just as valid and valuable to me as his is to him. I also agree that he guided the lower topics--and that we didn't realize that it made them more acceptable to you. This was all happening without anyone discussing the issue. When he left, no one knew to take his place in doing that because we didn't realize it was a requirement of some kind.

You have to also understand, when I first arrived I assumed that everyone but me was a practicing Gaudiya--or aspired to be, and it seemed to me that lots of them wanted to have these other conversations. It was only later, when we polled, that I realized how many of us weren't Gaudiyas. Remember, we came into the middle of this story. We aren't up on your history, we had no way of knowing in what ways your approach to your tradition differed from that we were familiar with. All we knew was what you wrote, and what you wrote was that such topics should be kept down below.

I think that now your purpose is clear enough and you should not have a repeat of this particular problem. In retrospect, I think I shouldn't have been invited at all. I'm glad I was, and got to meet you all. I just think it should have been obvious that this was not the right place for me.

Radhe!



First of all, I would like to say that I very much welcome these new steps.
I pretty much felt the same way like Madhavaji. Too many topics and threads were no more focused on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. This is not to say that all other people are not welcomed, but clearly the purpose of the board should be served.

I find it very rude to accuse people like (and especially like) Madhavaji of being narrow-minded when the structure and the purpose of the board was and is now again clearly laid out.

Honestly, and this is NO SHOOTING against Buddhism or the like, but really nothing is further away from a practicing Gaudiya aspirant than to read or discuss about a philosophy so vehemently opposed to Gaudiya Vaishnavism in a Gaudiya-forum.
This has nothing to do with narrow-mindedness, but a lot with "focusing on".

I must say that it is a very good idea to open up a new forum where all these non-Gaudiya-topics can be discussed. It is my heartfelt wish that this new forum fulfills the desires of its members. One last thing, I learnt a lot of some of its new members.

Good luck

Jay Sri Radhe!

Tarunji

@Tapati

I never felt that you were at the wrong place here.

I am perfectly happy taking my thoughts elsewhere, and leaving GD members to discuss purely Gaudiya topics. Yet for God's sake, if one had a problem with the Controversial/IGM section while it was existant, one should not not have went there! The above is just lame reasoning. It is an internet discussion board, its not like someone was on a loudspeaker in your living room that you can't ignore, and giving a discourse on sunyata or whatever else!

The mistake was, there was a controversial, acedemic and eclectic section and some people here just didn't like being exposed to such things. That's fine. But lets be honest about it and not try to say somehow the focus of the board itself was shifting. If it was shifting it was because peoples out in cyber-land were taking their little computer mice and clicking on that section and posting, a wide range of members in fact.

The point is now mute since that section does not exist, but lets be honest. Now the problem is rectified, but the real problem was: the forum was there, and some didn't agree with what was said in it. Bas. Enough finger pointing. It's things like this that remind me why I left Iskcon in the first place.

Tarunji, that's very sweet of you to say, but since there is so very little that is specific to Gaudiya Vaishnavism that I have to offer, this is clearly not the place for me and I shouldn't have been invited. I can cheerlead you guys on: great post, cool verse, etc. I can ask an occasional question if an issue about Gaudiya Vaishnavism comes up in our new forum and I need a refresher course on a point of doctrine. But it is not my path and nothing I have to offer is likely to stimulate your desire to serve your Guru or follow your scriptures (unless, like me, you have become used to translating others' spiritual commentaries into the terms of your tradition in your own mind).

I look at the various topics left and I really don't have anything to add to anyone's understanding of them. I don't feel I have the time to start reading a bunch of Gaudiya texts just so I can keep hanging out with my friends here--and I do consider those of you who are Gaudiyas my friends too.

Liking each other is a completely separate issue from whether we belong in this forum together.

I will say that traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas will be welcome to our inter-faith discussions at Gaudiya Repercussions in the spirit of mutual respect. I hope some of you will drop in sometimes. I will keep looking to see if there's a topic I can offer something of value in here, when I can. I'm not leaving in a huff or anything. I just don't think I'll have much to say here now.

POST NO 500



No no, not at all. It is a SEMINARY for kanishta Gaudiiya and aspiring Gaudiiya practitioners.

Evakurvan --

If you intend to have a meaningful dialogue on the relationship of the Gaudiya theology in relation with Advaita or any other tradition, I'd suggest that you (1) ensure that the Gaudiya in question is well, if not thoroughly, acquainted with the precepts of his own tradition, and (2) ensure that he is preferably well aware of the other tradition in question. Otherwise, you'll end up having discussions that may not be very satisfactory for you. Perhaps a private line of communication would indeed be preferable to a public forum if you are uncertain over the expertise of the audience over any given subject matter.

Knowing the precepts of many other traditions is not really a prerequisite for being a Gaudiya, nor is it really a necessary further requirement. Therefore, you shouldn't be surprised to find Gaudiyas who aren't that well versed in other traditions. Not everyone is a pandit, nor is everyone meant to be such.

Please try to pay careful attention to not forming a collective view of the Gaudiyas on the basis of your encounters with a few individuals who may or may not represent the tradition in a very wholesome manner.

With regards to lame reasoning, I do agree that one does not need to necessarily read all topics that appear onboard. I find myself frequently skipping topics. However, whenever we come online and look for new posts, we'll find the entire list displayed; not only the topics we naturally would like to read. Sometimes we need to glance over such topics to get an idea of what the topic is all about, the title not being descriptive enough about the thoughts and vibes in the thread. Naturally, if on a daily basis one ends up clicking on a good many of those threads while finding that very few of them were actually relevant to his taste, one would find it distracting and possibly if he always came in search of particular kinds of topics. The kinds of topics this forum was originally created to host.



I find this a bit of a stretch of an argument. The focus of the board is not calculated as some kind of average click ratio for each individual. The focus is a rather objective thing to measure, we only need to look at the quantities of topics on different themes and the quantities of posts in those threads. That alone tells much of the focus of the board. Is that not so? If the quantity of non-directly-Gaudiya-related posts increases and the quantity of directly relevant posts decreases, then how is the focus not shifting? The focus of any given individual is a whole other topic. The focus of the board as a whole is fairly easy to measure.

Tapati, thank you for your mature and balanced approach to the issue at hand. One would hope everyone shared the same.

I can't recall reading it defined as such anywhere. If this is a smart remark about the level of our main audience, you shouldn't be making it in public, as it most definitely will not lead to anything good.

I think my vibe and words are pretty much indicative of the fact that I do not mean all Gaudiyas this, all Gaudiyas that, but that I often end up in the uncomfortable position of having to use such language when i am comparing and contrasting. I think I have tried to say 'some' gaudiyas as often as possible. I have responded to this comment several times. I do not like the fact that people get hung up on that as opposed to ideas.

Also, i think i said Gaudiya is PERFECT within itself and you do not need to become a 'pandit' in other vedanta to be religiously potent.

However, I do think the abheda aspect of Gaudiya is underplayed, and some official gaudiyas agree. I also think understanding of one's path can be enriched when not taken in a vacuum. I also think it strange to not be curious about the profuse criticisms against other paths, taking those critisisms at face value even if they represent a ridiculously reductionistic understanding of those other paths. I think a better understanding of those other paths can enrich one's understanding of Gaudiya in a serious way, though it is by no means necessary. It is necessary however to stop the reductionistic dismissive interepreting of those other paths since it will only make people who are knowledgeable in them get a very bad impression of Gaudiyas as lacking in knowledge or ill-intentionned. Also, I find it strange that some Gaudiyas want to deny that these paths are even critisized, to avoid the topic, when it is there in visible quotations, and when you have Tarunji referring to his gaudiya reading list and the condemnations of those paths you find therein.

That said, it is my own perosnal hunch that if I were to read the teachings of the Goswamis very closely I would find quite a bit of 'monist' thought in there. Adiyen has suggested this in another thread. However it seems a lot of people do not pay much mind to things like this and would like to see gaudiya as 'anti-monist.' Also it is my personal hunch that if I were to seek out Gaudiyas in India, not everyone would be an adherent of this kind of rhetoric and understanding that I often see here.

Lastly, I eschew panditry hence my aversion to constant quoting i find it elitist and tedious and dry. I usually only find it truly relishable in the context where it is followed by reflections as opposed to put out there as the law of manu like a factbook.

Radhe Radhe!

This is exactly what I was about to say. I often have days were I can't participate at GD so my only way of catching up is to hit View New Posts. Many times I skip a topic based on its name (i.e. such as the Saddam topic) but otherwise I will read regardless of what sub topic a topic may be found in because many times there is relevant information there. However when you wade through topics and find no real relevance to the topic at hand (i.e. Gaudiya Discussions) it becomes a bit trying.

If we think that Message Boards or Forums should hold no such criteria then where does it end? I believe Madhava’s original Statement of Purpose was clear but regardless he has updated to make it even clearer.

Rasaraja dasa

You're welcome. I should point out that I had to overcome my first reactions in order to do so. It's very human to feel hurt and rejected in this situation. Basically, I think we all feel that our contributions weren't valued. I know you've stated otherwise in regard to mine, but the vocal opposition to our posting in those topics by others here indicates that not everyone shares your opinion. It also still upsets me that some are still implying that we should have understood that those topics weren't there to be used in the way that we did--even when the intros to those sections seemed to be in keeping with what we did there. What someone who shares your faith understands from your words and what others may understand can be very different. I am glad you understand that we were operating in good faith and I wish or hope that others could too.

Meanwhile, there were undercurrents behind the scenes in this past month. I myself received a series of PMs bashing Srila Prabhupada and insistently giving me the history of the "break" in his lineage. I could see this as nothing but hostile, since I have been very open about my continuing affection for him even while I no longer share his beliefs.

On balance, I have received much that is positive here from both Gaudiya Vaishnavas and others of a more eclectic bent. I am trying very hard to focus on that and not on the pain that this change has brought. From our point of view, while you are inviting us to participate in the Gaudiya oriented topics, our ability or inclination to do so does not match yours and so it feels like we have no place here. It's not hard to make the leap to feeling like it is a good way to get rid of us without looking like that's what you wish to do.

Blessed Be--

Tapati

I used to hold down the fort when Madhava was in India and Jagat was busy with his other projects, back when I was a member of the moderator team. Of course, there were only a couple of occasional troublemakers to deal with in those days, like the hobbit in Switzerland that kept ranting about the serpents. Since then there has been an influx of many new people here of the demographic that lies outside of our traditional lineages generating a big spike in the volume of posts. I apologize for not being able to spend the time necessary to keep things on track these days. I know what a huge undertaking it is to monitor all of the content on a busy board such as this one.

Hopefully Tapati and some of the others that came here with a geniune curiosity have been able to take away some piece of the treasure that is our tradition and some understanding of how it differs greatly from what IGM has to offer the world. For those that could not recognize the priceless wealth of wisdom here - that is their loss.

With all due respect to everyone involved, I think I'll have to politely disagree with this point. I felt that the previous set of rules had some good guidelines on how members should behave when posting. As this is a thread that discusses the recent forum revisions, I should note that as well as an increase in the quantity of "off topics," we also regretfully saw an increase in bad behaviour. I do not think that the new rules reflect this point about behaviour although I agree that they are much clearer in other ways.

I am also in complete agreement with Rasaraja-ji's other points.

If people persist to imagine i do not see the wealth of wisdom in gaudiya despite my continuous constant claims to the contrary i feel utterly deflated. I know this point keeps being endlessly re-raised at me at every corner and i keep having to repeatedly prove myself as sincerely interested. I do not know what more to say about it i frankly find proving my sincerity publically a bit of an unnecessary display. I have disclaimers at every step to avoid such misunderstandings. Is it acceptable at times to engage a tradition via seemingly uncommon points, and still be considered sincerely interested in it, or is sincerity measured by the yardstick of potentially acceptable text one is expected to produce in reaction to what is being said. I am sorry I feel many people in this tradition misunderstand a key concept of another tradition, i have spent a lot of time studying that concept, i cannot just up and lie and pretend that i do not feel it is being misunderstood. Does that instantly put me in the box of a non-gaudiya outsider in people's minds, I guess so. I guess that would explain the defensive hostile remarks.

The definition is evinced from your approach here. You have made it very clear who is your "target audience" and the scope of interaction you have in mind for them has seminarian overtones. Quite clearly it is not a broad discussion board and the strict demarcation as per your closed announcement topic of who you consider is a Gaudiiya.
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=3064
In my opinion such demarcations bear the hallmark of kanishta as well as the rampant level of understanding that pitches one vada against the other and is unable to reconcile or contend the spirituality in other traditions without being threatened or confused by them.

Whether my points may lead to anything good or not will depend on your humility as much as mine and the admirable one displayed by Tapati.. As leader here, I invite you to show us the lead. Otherwise we may follow Tapati instead. Thank you.

Radhe Radhe!

In terms of how people react to you... that is their problem. If it is something deemed inappropriate or aggressive please feel free to hit 'report' on the post and it will be reviewed and the parties involved will be spoken to.

Personally I have found you to be very thoughtful and think that some may be over sensitive to how you express yourself. First impressions, good and bad, are always hard to shake.

All in all I think everyone needs to stop reading into one another. Let us view March 1 as the first day of Gaudiya Discussions.

I think if we did that you wouldn't feel such heat from others as they would tend to take your posts for what they are which would allow you to do the same with them. Once we start reading into everything it never goes well.

Anyhow... I think most appreciate your insights and contribution. For those that you have had some tough exchanges with in the past I think they and you just need to start new.

Radhe!

Rasaraja dasa

And, admitting that not all I write is devotional, I would ask you to consider this:-

All three of you (meaning Jagat, your wife and yourself) please select what you each consider to be the best of my devotional haikus and the worst of devotional haikus. Show these six poems to Shree Ananta Daas Babaji and ask him whether, albeit I do not fit the bill of your definition of "target audience", I should be entitled to participate in this sanga with equal honour.

Please do not gratify my ego with the outcome of your enquiries publicly if it is positive towards me. Also, if it goes the other way, it will be enough if Jagat were to send me a private email advising me of the Guru's comment if it were better for me to leave you all. My time is also precious.

I also am not taken seriously here and am clearly told that I am not in alignment with Krishna conscious siddhanta. But does not the sheer hilariousness of my jokes make it clear that I am empowered?

I seriously didn't know (until recently) that a lot of you were non-gaudiya. And I don't think it matters. In my opinion the genuine seekers from different traditions have more in common with each other than one might have with members of one's own tradition. And even within one's own tradition who really understands life exactly like the next person? That many non-gaudiyas were attracted to this website can only be positive for gaudiya vaisnavism. Madhava, you have your reasons for changing the forums but I fear that without realising it you may be excluding the genuine people you want to attract.

Dear Bhaktashab,

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I don't think the revisions should be seen as a way to eliminate all "non believers". Rather they are made to redefine the sense of purpose of the board itself. No one website or society can be everything to everyone. In order for any vehicle of communication to be effective, be it philosophical, political or social, it needs to be defined, refined and honed in order for it to remain relevant. Unlike a conversation one has with a friend where you can let it go where it may this is a communication forum for hundreds of individuals, and potentially thousands, which needs to be guided, refined and focused in some respects.

Regardless of any boards purpose there comes a time and just as with Gaudiya Discussions, usually many different time periods, where a reset is in order just to bring about a sense of direction. Can you have a board were there is no destination, focus or meaning? Yes. Do most chose to avoid that course? Yes. This is in essence what you see here today at Gaudiya Discussions.

There can be many boards that function as Gaudiya Vaisnava based outlets. Some may be focused on a particular segment of society, some of specific philosophical tenants, some on the general aspects of the theology and so on. I think what we have here is a consensus that Gaudiya Discussions, as per it's original intention, continue to be focused as a place to cultivate bhakti.

Does that necessarily exclude "non believers"? No, but it does subtly demand that their participation be focused on discussing points and/or subjects in a way that continually faces the board in a certain direction.

Will that make all happy? No. Will it make all feel welcome? No, but neither will a board where "anything goes" even if that "anything" must be kept within reason of not offending or preaching to others. Everyone has their flavors, needs and preference. So this change isn’t about driving other's away but bringing them in. Maybe it isn't bringing those in who are here today... maybe it is for those that come tomorrow.

You may ask how do "non believers" fit in and why were they invited in the first place? Well I don’t want to speak for Jagat but I would venture to guess that he feels much like the rest of us do: Just because one no longer claims absolute faith in something doesn’t mean they don’t have insight into it. So communication and participation from this segment isn't something to be scared of. I think it is fairly safe to say that no one here is "threatened" by those who don't hold the same faith. Nor do I think anyone participating is trying the threaten anyone’s faith.

I think all of those that wish to see the board move in this direction mean nothing negative towards those that either feel alienated or that will feel alienated. That isn’t the intent. I think it is a great evolution when 1 site can bring so many together and due to need sprout another site for a growing segment. We don't need to see this as a messy divorce. Let Gaudiya Repercussions be the eclectic site for anything related to those with a background, former interest or current interest in aspects of Gaudiya theology. That is great. Just because it isn't here doesn't mean it needs to be seen in a negative light. If anything I think most of us here see at as a positive. Maybe we won't participate there but we are happy to see that alternative as it allows Gaudiya Discussions to further refine it's identity and focus while giving an alternative for those that need something else.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

* “Non believers” isn’t meant as a slight to anyone as there is of course gradations of faith. I am using the term to define those who don’t see their goal as service to Sri Radhika and her dear Yugal Kishor and Sri Gauranga.

@Madhavaji

Thank you for reminding me of my shortcomings. I will try my best to become more and more acquainted with the precepts of our tradition. Also I will stop replying to posts where other traditions are discussed of which I am not very well aware.

I again apologize for having been sometimes kind of "hot-tempered".
Forgive me for that.



@evakurvan

Hmmm, I thought we buried the hatchet?
What did I do wrong here again?
What "reading list" with what condemnations?
Sorry, I am not getting the point?

Dandavats.
Tarunji

I think perhaps it is an unrealistic expectation for a chat room to substitute for a real world community such as the one that some of us are a part of in Braj and West Bengal. It is a gathering place for conversation, no doubt, but not anything close to a genuine gathering of bhaktas in one place for kirton and patha. The message I have for those who have not yet spent time with our community in those places in India is this: Until you have done so, you are not really going to have the necessary experience to see what it is all about first hand. There are many different environments in which to practice bhajan. Some are more conducive to success than others.

So, you can get some valuable knowledge here, but that is only one piece to the puzzle. Sitting at home doing your solitary bhajan is going to be more advantageous than sitting in some hostile setting, and I would not discourage you from that approach. On the other hand it is not going to be the same as it would be in ideal surroundings.

I think the biggest obstacle, and one that I had to a lesser degree (since I already had a bit of mastery of conversational Bengali), for those that are native speakers of English is the language barrier. That is something we need to work on. Either we need to have some crash course in Bengali available or we need to gather a group of competent bilingual interpreters that are fluent in both Bengali and English to assist people that do make it to Braj and West Bengal. A tour company would not be a bad idea. Green first time pilgrims need to be insulated from a lot of things, including greedy and unscrupulous pandas and sources of disease.

tarunji..

You misunderstand what I was saying it is not due to any kind of new troubles..I am not trying to recreate hatchets by bringing up this point. I am just referring to the fact that some gaudiya literature does critisize the traditions I am talking about and that you mentionned that you had been reading some texts that do do that. Anyway i will send you a pm....

radhe radhe!

Just a note for all those who are waiting for the new forum, we've got the free demo to work with our server by employing a fix for the php to work. (Or so my tech advisor says.) We need to clear that with the lead engineer to use on an ongoing basis. Once he says yes (and I haven't been into work today to find out) I can purchase the license and we can load and start designing the forum. I am working on rules and guidelines to keep all you unruly people in line.

Our moderators are discussing procedure right now, and talking about rules and presentation, topic areas, and so forth. If you have a specific suggestion, feel free to send me a PM. I'll relay that to our team.

We are working quickly since we do understand that people are waiting and need that outlet now that these topics are not available here. I am hoping no more than a week or so, in fact. We may continue to refine it once it is open for business, just to make it available sooner. (You don't mind wearing a hard hat, do you?)

(I figured our core audience is reading this topic--please excuse this tangent, although I do feel it relates to the overall topic.)

My two rupees....

When I first came here, seeing the title (how did I find this site anyways, I can't recall...think I saw reference to it at Hindu-religion.net ) I thought it was another Vaishnava forum... except that I was imediately impressed with the depth and quality of the topics at hand... plus too that you had to get approval to post made it attractive to me. This I knew to be a serious site. However, I wasn't clear as to what the General Purpose was... probably cause I did not take the time to read it. I was under the impression that members where of the only type of "Gaudiya Vaishnavism" I knew. The IGM brand. My embarresment still haunts me regarding my early posts.


For whatever reason, I was tolerated and I appreciate that imensly for it afforded me the time to realize and learn gradually what this sites intended direction was. I found it intriguing, and still do. Even though I am active in ISKCON, I try and respect the views and feelings of those other members here by not being grandiose about it or asseert my position or raise arguments. Perhaps this is why I do not get blasted by others? But I can only attribute my approach to the courteous help of a few other members, particularly Tapati, who filled me in a little. Thanks Mathaji!

So my point is this.... welcome the newcomer.... with posts and with PM's...tell them about the site and what makes for good posting experience... encourage them to be humble. Encourage inquiry. Tolerate Inquiry. And if necessary...call them on their nonsense!

Change is always uncomfortable. But I don't see the change as really a change...I understand it to be a correcting of the rudder.

I look forward to the day that I can give back what everyone has been giving me...a terrific schooling.

Until then I remain
... your admirer.

Under your definition I would be accepted here as a primary participant whereas not under your Moderator's

Any back-up on this really outrageous claim?
I am very sorry, but I find it quite hard to tolerate such statements.The Goswamis and "monism"?
Did I miss something?

Really, on the one hand, you make such claims and then, on the other hand, if someone quotes from the Goswami-literature you find it tough.
The Goswamis were pretty much opposed to "monism".

Read
Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu, Brhad-Bhagavatamritam, Jiva Goswami´s sandharbhas,...

I do not have any 'back-up' i said it is just my hunch, and i was rephrasing what i saw adiyen say in another thread, who appears to be a knowledgeable official gaudiya familiar with these literatures. It is in the limbic system thread. Regardless, it was my hunch before i even saw that. And since when is sharing your personal experiential reflection not allowed without being chastized into quote-bulleting mode. I have already presented myself as largely unread in this tradition there is no need to approach me this way.

I am not against quotes i very much love sanskrit, what i meant with what i said before is that i find it dry if people are just quoting to prove points like facts without analyzing the quotes to give more in-depth understandings. A lot of people think a quote speaks for itself, but it often doesn't, and even if it does, it's nice to hear what the person had in mind when pasting it.

yes i would love to read all these things you are naming i just do not own them at the moment.

anyway please stop taking everything i say so badly just because you do not agree with it, i am not trying to insult you. You do not have to defend against me everytime i say something unorthodox. I can't help having these thoughts they are not meant as solid stone I am not trying to dictate anything to you. I am sorry you find my current reflections on gaudiya theology hard to tolerate, I am by no means saying that you should adopt them or even interested in convincing you of them. If every time i say something unorthodox you always reply back in this tone, then i will just have to repeat this disclaimer endlessly and it will clog the flow needlessly.

You are truly empowered by the hAsazakti

Looks like EARLY next week! We are working hard on our organization and intro, etc., so if we've been scarce over here for now, that's why. I'm writing feverishly to get us up and running soon as possible for all those who are patiently waiting.

Blessed Be--

Tapati

oh, the kichari is bubbling up, gotta run!

I have been as vocal as anyone about not liking the way this situation came about and was handled, but even I am feeling uncomfortable with the recent group of snide posts in other topics that are digs at Madhava. Any one of them might not seem like much (and I understand the feelings behind them) and yet the group of them must be really hurtful. I don't think Madhava deserves that. I am sure that each post was made without considering that the effect might accumulate with other such posts, so I am not trying to say that hurting Madhava was a deliberate effort. Yet it must sting all the same.

I would like to suggest that if anyone still has things to say regarding the forum management or changes, that they do it directly in this topic or in PMs. Since I imagine I may be seen as a ringleader of the resistance to these changes, having been so vocal, I feel it is my responsibility to help direct this feedback into a more positive vein.

Perhaps it is my newfound identification with the position of operating and moderating a forum, as we discuss rules and measures we can take to keep our visitors aligned with our own purpose, that causes me to want to step in and defend Madhava even though I am unhappy with the shift at GD.

We are his guests here, and even if he wanted to make major changes to his forum every month it is his right to do so. We often don't really think about what goes into creating and running a forum--until we try to do it. My friends and I are working really hard right now, and I would be dismayed to put all that effort into creating a forum just to have people make snide comments at my dictatorship all the time because I won't let them bash other gurus.

Ultimately, if anything good comes out of our new forum, we owe it to Jagat and Madhava for creating a place where we could meet and come to recognize our differing needs in the first place.

Blessed Be--

Tapati

Me too.

How is a parampara traced back to Lord Chaitanya less traditional than one coming from His associates?
What makes one practitioner traditional, another not? Forgive my question, I ciouldn't find a satisfactory conclusion in the archives.

Intrigued. . .

Sorry!
I meant 'me too' as a reply to this - I'm new to this forum thing...

This is a big topic and perhaps those of us who are familiar with the arguments forget that it's not all set out in the archives in one place. Essentially the "parampara traced back to Lord Caitanya" as referred to in ISKCON books is a siksa-guru (instructing guru) line, which actually has some long breaks in it if you look at the dates of birth and death of those listed in the front of BBT books, and it was an innovation of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. By contrast, traditional Gaudiya Vaisnavas are in an actual unbroken line of diksa (initiation) going back in time to one of the associates of Mahaprabhu, such as Nityananda, Advaita etc.

As you are at present within ISKCON, if you want to become informed on this in depth, I would suggest you read the booklet Sri Guru Parampara written by Tripurari Swami, to get the side of the argument from the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. When you are familiar with that, there are people here who will be able to give you the reasons why they feel those arguments are not valid.

(I hope this is not outside the scope of GD - I do feel that people need to make an informed choice and that booklet for me set out the arguments from that side, understanding which I believe is a prerequisitive to consider whether one needs to move over to "this side" )

Since Gaudiya Discussions will be taking a break, and I won't be able to announce here when we are up and running, I just wanted to say that we expect to have gaudiya-repercussions.com up and running early in the week, so just check our url periodically to see if it is up. We welcome our Gaudiya Vaishnava friends also--I hope there are topics areas that you will feel welcome to share your specialized knowledge of what I consider to be a valuable tradition.

We expect to have the same procedure for becoming a member as we do here--fill out a profile and await approval before you can post anywhere besides our community section.

I want to express my support of the Gaudiya Discussions team and their desire to provide true support for members of their tradition in their ongoing quest for love of God.

Blessed Be--

Tapati

All the best to you Tapati......

I will stick with my percussion on Gaudiya Discussion.....

Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur was born some years after the passing away of Sri Narottama Das Thakur, his alleged initiating spiritual master. Some 50 years or so are between the passing of Sri Visvanath Cakravarti and Jagannath Das Baba, the alleged initiating guru of Sri Visvanath Cakravarti. Some gaps!