Some Stray Thoughts

[Sadhananda]

OK there was a reaching out in the past. But presently, what we have presently is a big empty space where the tradition could be performing very dynamically. Instead what is there is much less impacting, and honestly, should not be there anymore. But its the only thing still thriving, like weeds in an empty garden. Clearly writers such as Satyaraj das, Radhanath Swami, etc should be diectly challenged. Should not be so free to 'officialize' Gaudiyaism into the mediocre version that Iskcon has become. There is so much need for a 'sane vaishnavism', but dwelling in the wrong side of history is not the way to bring this about.

[Deleted]

Jun 2, 2009 12:44:13 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Now, I am not in agreement with buddhysattva's characterization of IGM being an example of nectar in the hands of demons. He has himself criticized people who demonize their opponents. I think that was in fact part of his characterization of the way cults operate. That is not the way I operate or the way anyone else I know of in authentic CV operates. I think he spoke mistakenly and will probably be the first to admit it.

I wasn't being literalistic, I don't think they are all actually demons (some though, like those of them who put out murder contracts, like Kirtanananda and Hansadutta, and probably others). Although I used the example of the asuras and amrita on purpose because it illustrates the attitude of IGM towards all other vaishnavas. In the story of the churning of the ocean of milk (Samudra manthan) the asuras gain control of the universe over the devas. The devas propitiate Vishnu for help and he tells them to act diplomatically and make a truce with the asuras so they could work together to gain some amrita. After the amrita (which gives great power and immortality) is created with the aid of Mahadeva (who drank the poison saving them all from harm) there was a fight between the asuras and devas for control of the amrita. The devas hid the amrita but the asuras were able to find it but were inticed into giving it up by the Mohini avatar of Vishnu. Eventually the devas retake control of the universe from the asuras because they were unable to gain the benefit of the amrita.

My point was in making a metaphoric connection between that myth and the story of the history between IGM and CV:

IGM took control of the Gaudiya universe away from the CV tradition; by the successful missionary work of IGM they became seen as representing CV to the world. If you go anywhere in the world outside of a few places in India and ask people what they think of Hare Krishna, the response will be based upon how IGM has influenced them. IGM has gained control of the amrita (which gives great power & immortality). Amrita in this analogy is the mantle of authority as the authentic representative of Sri Krishna.

My criticisms of cults was about how they are defined in some scholarly circles: they create a dualistic vision of the world -- there is Us versus Them, with Us being God's chosen, and Them being against God and therefore sinful or even evil. Who is Them? Everyone outside of the cult. I am not saying everyone besides those who believe as I do and belong to my cult are sinful or evil.

[Jaganath]

Was my reaction "umpleasant"? I thought I was doing pretty well, staying on topic and conceding that there are tremendous flaws in IGM.

Anyway, I have to maintain my main point which is I don't think the no connection issue is as much an issue as the issue of the whole religion being in need of revision. The foundation is solid, but something presently is amiss, and possibly was amiss since a long time back. Blaming IGM for having the history it has does not explain how, on reading Advaitadas' replies to questions, for example, one cannot but feel that when unsupervised the tradition can be just as, well, absurd as IGM can be.

Regarding Sridhara Maharaja, he may have tried to protect, just as any IGM's initiates do, what he felt was his first source of bhakti. Krishna came through that channel, he had no choice but to protect it. I agree with you that in his sub-texts he does speak about his line not needing to be connected, or something to that effect. However, he also spoke from the heart about his own experience, about being rescued, about coming a long way to a point of no return, a great attraction to Krishna, reality the beautiful, these kinds of things. So obviously he was trying to protect a little bit of a taste that he experienced. I don't think such thing is completely imaginary. It can't be.

so... oh I'll take a break...

[Nitaidas]

Jun 2, 2009 16:27:32 GMT -6 @buddysattva said:

Jun 2, 2009 12:44:13 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Now, I am not in agreement with buddhysattva's characterization of IGM being an example of nectar in the hands of demons. He has himself criticized people who demonize their opponents. I think that was in fact part of his characterization of the way cults operate. That is not the way I operate or the way anyone else I know of in authentic CV operates. I think he spoke mistakenly and will probably be the first to admit it.

I wasn't being literalistic, I don't think they are all actually demons (some though, like those of them who put out murder contracts, like Kirtanananda and Hansadutta, and probably others). Although I used the example of the asuras and amrita on purpose because it illustrates the attitude of IGM towards all other vaishnavas. In the story of the churning of the ocean of milk (Samudra manthan) the asuras gain control of the universe over the devas. The devas propitiate Vishnu for help and he tells them to act diplomatically and make a truce with the asuras so they could work together to gain some amrita. After the amrita (which gives great power and immortality) is created with the aid of Mahadeva (who drank the poison saving them all from harm) there was a fight between the asuras and devas for control of the amrita. The devas hid the amrita but the asuras were able to find it but were inticed into giving it up by the Mohini avatar of Vishnu. Eventually the devas retake control of the universe from the asuras because they were unable to gain the benefit of the amrita.

My point was in making a metaphoric connection between that myth and the story of the history between IGM and CV:

IGM took control of the Gaudiya universe away from the CV tradition; by the successful missionary work of IGM they became seen as representing CV to the world. If you go anywhere in the world outside of a few places in India and ask people what they think of Hare Krishna, the response will be based upon how IGM has influenced them. IGM has gained control of the amrita (which gives great power & immortality). Amrita in this analogy is the mantle of authority as the authentic representative of Sri Krishna.

My criticisms of cults was about how they are defined in some scholarly circles: they create a dualistic vision of the world -- there is Us versus Them, with Us being God's chosen, and Them being against God and therefore sinful or even evil. Who is Them? Everyone outside of the cult. I am not saying everyone besides those who believe as I do and belong to my cult are sinful or evil.

Thanks for the clarification, buddy. I figured you were referring to that myth and that you did not intend for your comment to be taken literally. It is often a mistake to take things too literally, but some folks are very literal minded. It is an interesting image. IGM is not, of course, really in control of the amrta. It only appears that way. And it is true that the mainstream tradition has not of late matched it in making its presence felt around the world. That is a shame. Initially, of course, the mainstream tradition was the first to come to the West in the figures of Premananda Bharati (1902-1907, 1910-11) and Mahanamabrata Brahmacari (1933-37). Premananda was sent to the West by Sri Radhika who appeared to him in a dream when he was living in Radhakund. Such is the story at any rate. That is one of the reasons I am so interested in republishing his works. We have done his classic Sri Krsna. Now I would like to do his novel Jim and some of his other essays and works. He was really an extraordinary ambassador for the tradition. Mahanamabrata Brahmacari was no less so. He wound up getting a PhD from the University of Chicago for a thesis on the philosophy of Sri Jiva. He may have exerted a profound influence on his teachers who were some of the founders and prime-movers of Process Theology. Process theology is basically the recognition of the relational nature of God. Sound familiar? God in relationship, not only to the world but to the beings of the world. How much of a role Mahanamabrata had in that is hard to say. He may have only provided the process theologians with a solid example of what a relational God would be like, a God who is loves and is loved and is changed by that love. In Process Theology and Philosophy one might say that the West finally caught up with where Indian philosophy and theology had been for millennia.

But lately the mainstream tradition has been silent and somewhat lethargic. Sure, Premagopal Goswami comes to the West from time to time and Satyanarayana does as well. But no one notices much less cares. Ananta Das Babaji is doing great work, but he can't leave India.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 2, 2009 14:21:34 GMT -6 @Sadhananda said:

OK there was a reaching out in the past. But presently, what we have presently is a big empty space where the tradition could be performing very dynamically. Instead what is there is much less impacting, and honestly, should not be there anymore. But its the only thing still thriving, like weeds in an empty garden. Clearly writers such as Satyaraj das, Radhanath Swami, etc should be diectly challenged. Should not be so free to 'officialize' Gaudiyaism into the mediocre version that Iskcon has become. There is so much need for a 'sane vaishnavism', but dwelling in the wrong side of history is not the way to bring this about.

So advise us. I must admit I am wrapped up in my own work and seva and never read such folks. Hard to respond to them.

Not sure what you mean by "dwelling on the wrong side of history." Please explain. What do you see as the biggest need of the moment and how might that need be met?

[Nitaidas]

Jun 2, 2009 16:34:20 GMT -6 @Jaganath said:

Was my reaction "umpleasant"? I thought I was doing pretty well, staying on topic and conceding that there are tremendous flaws in IGM.

Anyway, I have to maintain my main point which is I don't think the no connection issue is as much an issue as the issue of the whole religion being in need of revision. The foundation is solid, but something presently is amiss, and possibly was amiss since a long time back. Blaming IGM for having the history it has does not explain how, on reading Advaitadas' replies to questions, for example, one cannot but feel that when unsupervised the tradition can be just as, well, absurd as IGM can be.

Regarding Sridhara Maharaja, he may have tried to protect, just as any IGM's initiates do, what he felt was his first source of bhakti. Krishna came through that channel, he had no choice but to protect it. I agree with you that in his sub-texts he does speak about his line not needing to be connected, or something to that effect. However, he also spoke from the heart about his own experience, about being rescued, about coming a long way to a point of no return, a great attraction to Krishna, reality the beautiful, these kinds of things. So obviously he was trying to protect a little bit of a taste that he experienced. I don't think such thing is completely imaginary. It can't be.

so... oh I'll take a break...

It is a dangerous thing to mess with someone's sacred cows. I am sure that Dr. Kapoor observed me for weeks before he decided to let me in on the secret. Even then I am sure he was nervous, not quite sure how I would take it. I might have become angered and broken a chair over his head. There is always a risk involved. He wanted me to get properly initiated and stay in IGM. He figured someday I might be a big cheese there and then if I were to become an initiator, the real connection would have been forged at least for part of the society. I couldn't do that for some reason, but maybe he convinced someone else to do it. I don't know. Even my gurudeva after he gave me the mantras instructed me to think of him as my siksa guru and regard Bhaktivedanta as my diksa guru. That surprised me. I've often wondered what he meant. Did he expect me to go back to ISKCON? By then it was too late, though. There was no going back. ISKCON gundas were searching for me in all the usual places to do me harm, maybe even kill me. I don't know. But I find I still can't follow that instruction. I can perhaps think of BV as a siksa guru, but not as my diksa guru.

Interesting comment on Advaitadas. He is kind of anachronism, isn't he?

[Vaishnava Seminarigana]

I don't have time to read through all comments here but perhaps the following point has not been touched upon.

Just the other day I was reading something about the current direction of religion/spirituality and the bottomline was; people are no longer concerned with whether or not something is TRUE or not, they are no longer concerned with its AUTHENTICITY.

What they are concerned with and what will get them inspired to dedicate themselves to a particular practice is whether or not it works for them.

This is a logical and practical approach because afterall, spirituality is a highly subjective phenomenon. I mean, can we objectively prove that Sri Sri Radha and Krishna ever existed on this planet or that they are still alive now as Divine Spirit Beings?

No.

Therefore anything that comes after that is highly subjective. Everything - from whom you take as guru to whom I think in my mind is a "maha-bhagavat".

One person's mrta is another person's amrta.

Humans tend to venerate "saints" after the fact. I'm sure that many of the people whom are venerated as "maha-bhagavats" or "rasik vaishnavas" or "maha purush" or "siddha mahatma" now, probably had people around them in their own home towns hundreds of years ago that did not think that highly of them.

What to speak of iskcon or gaudiya math, anyone who's lived in India knows that there are siddhantic differences and points of contention, including questions of "authenticity", between what we might consider "traditional gaudiya/chaitanya vaishnava" lineages in West Bengal and throughout India.

So, assuming all of this to be highly subjective, it seems the most practical approach would just be to adopt a "live and let live" attitude, much like we adopt when we interact with people of different religions.

It works for them, it makes them happy, we encourage them in their practice and move on with our own.

Information about various vaishnava lineages has been available for years now. Almost every vaishnava I know is familiar with these topics and knows where to obtain more information and sanga if desired. If there are not too many takers then that means what they are doing (whatever it is), is working for them.

If and when it no longer works, perhaps they will switch up their game.

More than that - what is there?

But I think that Nitai has made it clear that he is not at all concerned with IGM topics. Amazing though that people keep wanting to discuss that with him.

Nitai, maybe its time you start declaring, "no, that was not me back in the day. it must've been another Nitai das".



Best of luck!

[Suchandra]

Yes Tungavidya has said it very well.

It doesn't matter what exactly happened because ultimately no one can know what went on to the last minute fact. At some point it ceases to be black and white history and becomes a matter of subjective experiences. What people stick with is what works for them. And IGM did work at some level.

What can the tradition do now? Offer an even better product, which you do have compared with what is out there. What can be more attractive than Radha-Krishna bhajan?

People want bhakti, not fights and obsolete, archaic rules of conduct.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 2, 2009 18:01:00 GMT -6 @Vaishnava Seminarigana said:

I don't have time to read through all comments here but perhaps the following point has not been touched upon.

Just the other day I was reading something about the current direction of religion/spirituality and the bottomline was; people are no longer concerned with whether or not something is TRUE or not, they are no longer concerned with its AUTHENTICITY.

What they are concerned with and what will get them inspired to dedicate themselves to a particular practice is whether or not it works for them.

This is a logical and practical approach because afterall, spirituality is a highly subjective phenomenon. I mean, can we objectively prove that Sri Sri Radha and Krishna ever existed on this planet or that they are still alive now as Divine Spirit Beings?

No.

Therefore anything that comes after that is highly subjective. Everything - from whom you take as guru to whom I think in my mind is a "maha-bhagavat".

One person's mrta is another person's amrta.

Humans tend to venerate "saints" after the fact. I'm sure that many of the people whom are venerated as "maha-bhagavats" or "rasik vaishnavas" or "maha purush" or "siddha mahatma" now, probably had people around them in their own home towns hundreds of years ago that did not think that highly of them.

What to speak of iskcon or gaudiya math, anyone who's lived in India knows that there are siddhantic differences and points of contention, including questions of "authenticity", between what we might consider "traditional gaudiya/chaitanya vaishnava" lineages in West Bengal and throughout India.

So, assuming all of this to be highly subjective, it seems the most practical approach would just be to adopt a "live and let live" attitude, much like we adopt when we interact with people of different religions.

It works for them, it makes them happy, we encourage them in their practice and move on with our own.

Information about various vaishnava lineages has been available for years now. Almost every vaishnava I know is familiar with these topics and knows where to obtain more information and sanga if desired. If there are not too many takers then that means what they are doing (whatever it is), is working for them.

If and when it no longer works, perhaps they will switch up their game.

More than that - what is there?

But I think that Nitai has made it clear that he is not at all concerned with IGM topics. Amazing though that people keep wanting to discuss that with him.

Nitai, maybe its time you start declaring, "no, that was not me back in the day. it must've been another Nitai das".



Best of luck!

All this sounds, well, too subjective, even somewhat solipsistic. The objective world has a way of crashing into our subjective worlds and spoiling things. This is, I guess, the "me" generation or are we already at the post-"me" generation? Anyway, there is something that makes me feel uneasy about the idea that things should be judged solely on the basis of "what works for me." Sometimes I am not sure we all know what is best for us. We have to be told or be given a larger vision. Otherwise, the little wells we live in become our whole worlds and our prisons, too, and we never discover that there are vast oceans out there that we can live and play in.

One of the beauties of the Vaisnava vision of reality is that we are placed in an eternal world. The world has no end or beginning and so if we don't make it this time there is always the next. Space, too, is infinite. We are parts of various infinite sets. Thus, unlike the Western traditions there is no end in view. In some respects this is can be a terrifying prospect, but in other ways it is liberating. One doesn't feel one should stuff one's religion down someone's throat otherwise that person could go to an eternal hell from with there is no escape. One also doesn't have to feel guilty for not stuffing hard enough.

So people no longer look for or respect the authentic. Does that mean that the authentic has become meaningless? But the authentic must bring with it some advantages. Certainly a real Rolex is a better watch than a fake one. It will also work longer, tell better time, and maintain its value longer than a fake one. So in short a real Rolex will work better for one. So the authentic should have some advantages in the realm of what works better for one.

The real problem, i think, is that people are not willing to put in the work needed to succeed in any spiritual or religions discipline. "What works for one" really translates into "what comes easily to one." The sad thing is that "what comes easily to one" is generally the fake. One can buy a fake Rolex for $25, but one gets what one pays for.

So here is what it boils down to, as I see it. Everyone wants to do bhajan of Radha and Krsna, but are they willing to pay the price, do the work?

My guru-bhai wants to set up an ashram/intentional community in a beautiful environment for people who are serious about doing intense sadhana. He basically wants to recreate the conditions under which we lived when we were with Baba. It would mean rising early, greeting their lordships at mangalaratrika, observing the rules of ritual purity and cleanliness that are called sadacara, chanting at least one lakh of nama a day (3-6 hours, actually he wants to set the limit at two lakhs), doing at least two hours of kirtana everyday, participating in the pujas, hearing the sacred texts read and commented on (the Bhagavata, and various lila-texts), nirjala (even without water) fasting on Ekadasi and other fast days, possibly doing lila-smarana (requires training and memorization), etc etc. These are the tried and proven ways of cultivating prema-bhakti in CV. This is how our gurudeva did it. No preaching, just cultivation. Cultivation is the highest form of preaching or pracara (not actually translatable as preaching). It is a noble ideal. What do you think? Will anyone want to join?

[Deva]

I actually disagree that 'what comes easily to one is generally the fake'. Fisrt of all, what is easy? For some people hard work /discipline in itself is easy to follow. But the routine of it, going through the motions becomes quickly meaningless and an actual burden. On the other hand, if such people are unencumbered by external restrictions and given instead the freedom to design their own expression of faith, they may blossom in a much more effective way.

It seems to me that 'easy', as in that which one really wants, that within which one can actually function, so long it brings the aimed result, so long the person is serious about his/her goal, should be encouraged over mechanical routine.

Regarding the discipline you described, you said, "these are the tried and proven ways of cultivating prema-bhakti in CV." The key here is 'cultivating'. Cultivating requires funcionality within a culture. The social culture within which those practices where tried were in perfect harmony with the practice. But are those still operable in our present western culture? I know that, for myself, I tend to avoid the element of Indian last century culture nowadays. To me, the last century Bengaliness lends more of an element of fakness to my daily routine than of authenticity. I find it works better for me if I practice according my own culture and present social situation. With a few adjustments, of course.

[malati]

Nitaidas: But lately the mainstream tradition has been silent and somewhat lethargic.

Sananda: there was a reaching out in the past. But presently, what we have presently is a big empty space where the tradition could be performing very dynamically. Instead what is there is much less impacting, and honestly, should not be there anymore. But its the only thing still thriving, like weeds in an empty garden. Clearly writers such as Satyaraj das, Radhanath Swami, etc should be diectly challenged.

I think it seems that there's something going on in IGM because simply they have the critical mass. Besides, we are all thinly spread around the globe. I'm the only one here in Australia, yeah, there's another one in another state here but I don't know her. To get together physically is hard. You there in the US can do something more than me. Thus my idea of the e-zine.

Everyone, please contribute materials if you can. There's nothing else for you all to do except contribute materials. I'll shoulder everything financially and technically.

Semiragana, I do not agree about cutting the corners of the system to make it work for westerners. If the fundamental or the core of GVism is let go then the whole system will collapse. The core should be preserved.

Its like the law of physics. The fundamental laws serve as the ground basis for the other laws. Without the fundamental laws the next level laws will not work.

We might have disagreement on which ones to adopt or leave out but I think we are all in agreement that initiation (Krishna commands of us that in the BG) japa chanting, bhoga offering, kirtan, manasi mental seva, being clean before offering food at our altar and the Radha Krishna lila should be preserved. That core is not hard to do everyday in the west. We only need commitment and sincerity and honesty.

Jaganath:Blaming IGM for having the history it has does not explain how, on reading Advaitadas' replies to questions, for example, one cannot but feel that when unsupervised the tradition can be just as, well, absurd as IGM can be.

What exactly do you mean by that? Please give examples

[Seminarigana]

Semiragana, I do not agree about cutting the corners of the system to make it work for westerners. If the fundamental or the core of GVism is let go then the whole system will collapse. The core should be preserved.

Its like the law of physics. The fundamental laws serve as the ground basis for the other laws. Without the fundamental laws the next level laws will not work.

We might have disagreement on which ones to adopt or leave out but I think we are all in agreement that initiation (Krishna commands of us that in the BG) japa chanting, bhoga offering, kirtan, manasi mental seva, being clean before offering food at our altar and the Radha Krishna lila should be preserved. That core is not hard to do everyday in the west. We only need commitment and sincerity and honesty.

Malati ji, that is not what I wrote or implied in any way.

To summarize, my point is that we all need to just be mindful of our own spiritual practices. What other people do is their business and they are not going to change religions or gurus just because we say so. (and who would want to say so in the first place?)

If we meet people who are inspired in their paths (and I meet them all the time), we simply just need to appreciate that, encourage them in their bliss, and become inspired in our own.

Nitai, your gurubhai's retreat idea sounds awesome. Going on your description, that is something that myself and my friends would probably deem worthy of attending.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 3, 2009 9:58:32 GMT -6 @Deva said:

I actually disagree that 'what comes easily to one is generally the fake'. Fisrt of all, what is easy? For some people hard work /discipline in itself is easy to follow. But the routine of it, going through the motions becomes quickly meaningless and an actual burden. On the other hand, if such people are unencumbered by external restrictions and given instead the freedom to design their own expression of faith, they may blossom in a much more effective way.

It seems to me that 'easy', as in that which one really wants, that within which one can actually function, so long it brings the aimed result, so long the person is serious about his/her goal, should be encouraged over mechanical routine.

Regarding the discipline you described, you said, "these are the tried and proven ways of cultivating prema-bhakti in CV." The key here is 'cultivating'. Cultivating requires funcionality within a culture. The social culture within which those practices where tried were in perfect harmony with the practice. But are those still operable in our present western culture? I know that, for myself, I tend to avoid the element of Indian last century culture nowadays. To me, the last century Bengaliness lends more of an element of fakness to my daily routine than of authenticity. I find it works better for me if I practice according my own culture and present social situation. With a few adjustments, of course.

You have to understand my statements in their context. I said "generally" because I recognize that sometimes easy things or cheap things are not fake. Still, one major sign that you are not getting a real Rolex is that you are able to buy it on the street from someone for much less money than they ordinarily cost. So by "easy" I mean finding surprisingly easy access to and acquisition of something ordinarily very rare and valuable it without having to pay full price.

Sometimes, people just give away real Rolexes and that is certainly a text book case of "easy," but that does not happen very often and to depend on that rare event is surely a sign of foolishness. The rest of us have to put our hours in at work, save up our money, and then go to an authorized dealer to buy our Rolexes. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't see that as mechanical or limiting or meaningless. If you want something badly enough, you should be willing and happy to put in the time and effort to get it. And what you really want is not the fake Rolex, but the real one. Once you get it, you prize it more than ever and safeguard it and enjoy it more. It is the same with bhakti.

Gaining bhakti is a lot like learning to dance or play an instrument. One has to learn the steps or the scales and practice them over and over again. Sure, it becomes to some degree mechanical and monotonous, but not ever meaningless. Once you have practiced the steps or scales over and over they become almost second nature to you. You then become able to use them spontaneously to express yourself. In other words, you become free and spontaneous and creative, adding new steps and melodies, and new variations of steps and melodies. Through discipline one gains freedom.

I don't really understand what you mean in your critique of the practices I mentioned as typical of cultivation of bhakti. I don't see them as particularly Bengali or even Indian. There are certainly aspects of Sadacara that were developed in the context of the conditions under which the Babas were living, and certainly those no longer apply. We don't need, for instance, to only use our right hands to eat or without forks and knives, for that matter. No one wipes their butts with their left hands any more. We can use soap instead of mud to clean our dishes and bottoms, etc, etc. But how can Nama-japa or Nama-kirtana be replaced or curtailed? The whole way of life fits together with a certain inner logic and harmony. We become the companions of Radha and Krsna in training, rising before them, greeting them first thing in the morning, meditating on them while they are being bathed and clothed and fed, sharing in their food, envisioning their sports throughout the day and night from the identity of their servant-maids, reading and tasting poets' accounts of their lila, singing songs about them and then wishing them good night.as they are placed in bed. This is all based on playing a part that one may not in the beginning be entirely into or like, but which becomes in time natural and spontaneous. Again, through discipline we become spontaneous and free. There is something truly timeless and transcultural about this process.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 4, 2009 10:56:24 GMT -6 @Seminarigana said:

Semiragana, I do not agree about cutting the corners of the system to make it work for westerners. If the fundamental or the core of GVism is let go then the whole system will collapse. The core should be preserved.

Its like the law of physics. The fundamental laws serve as the ground basis for the other laws. Without the fundamental laws the next level laws will not work.

We might have disagreement on which ones to adopt or leave out but I think we are all in agreement that initiation (Krishna commands of us that in the BG) japa chanting, bhoga offering, kirtan, manasi mental seva, being clean before offering food at our altar and the Radha Krishna lila should be preserved. That core is not hard to do everyday in the west. We only need commitment and sincerity and honesty.

Malati ji, that is not what I wrote or implied in any way.

To summarize, my point is that we all need to just be mindful of our own spiritual practices. What other people do is their business and they are not going to change religions or gurus just because we say so. (and who would want to say so in the first place?)

If we meet people who are inspired in their paths (and I meet them all the time), we simply just need to appreciate that, encourage them in their bliss, and become inspired in our own.

Nitai, your gurubhai's retreat idea sounds awesome. Going on your description, that is something that myself and my friends would probably deem worthy of attending.

Great! Glad to hear you like the idea. I was a little doubtful after I heard "Deva's" response. In his usual somewhat vague, somewhat negative way, he seemed to be rejecting it in favor of, well, who knows what. Something to be invented later and specially for westerners. Not that adjustments and changes can't be made and new ideas vetted.

Plans are already afoot to create such a place for intense sadhana, though the details are still being worked out. Land has been acquired. It probably won't exist for some years yet. If Mahaprabhu wills it and such a place were to come into existence, I think I would probably want to retire there and end my days doing Nama-japa (I still owe my gurudeva 3 lakhs of Nama a day) and reading and discussing the Bhagavata and Goswami granthas.

[subala]

Considering the points mentioned in many of the above posts, I think everyone would agree the video (link below) raises many concerns about the preaching conducted by IGM "devotees".

matchlessgifts.org.uk/galleryfriday.html

As you see, Iskcon and Neo-Iskcon are now having Harinama wars on the streets of London.

I wonder if we'll ever get to see the traditional CVs engage in such nectarine activities?