Hare Krishna clash

I was sent a link to an interesting video on YouTube. It's a bit Blair Witch Projecty but that seems to add to the action.

ISKCON continues to go through the doldrums. Here we see a civil war at Ratha Yatra in Detroit. It is a not so epic battle between those who would follow Srila Prabhupada as the sole guru of the movement and those who would follow the zonal acharyas who seem to drop like flies with regard to sticking to the basic principles that the founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada laid down for them.

The magazine at the center of this little controversy is called "Back to Prabhupada". This is the magazine which the local Temple President's wife is seen ripping up in a hissy fit.
Here's the link, enjoy!

Desire the Unattainable

Fervently desire the unattainable otherwise all that you will find will be that which you expect... and that which you expect can only be relative fiction - never absolute truth. Those who find, and are content with, that, which they expect, believing it to be absolute, are responsible for the preponderance of the various schools of thought. A little bit of relative fiction mistaken for the whole truth all too soon expands into a plethora of superstitious ideas. Although the original founder of a particular school may abide in truth, the followers, in their enthusiasm to attain the state of the founder, often stop short without breaking free of their very own fictional Idea-I.

Provider and providee

A couple of friends popped in today. We got to chatting about this and that and a question arose which lead to a convoluted discussion. I listened for a while. It was much of the same old, same old, neo advaita. You know the stuff that begins "there is not a thing you can do..." and then goes off on one. Apparently this type of fatally-sic philosophy is becoming increasingly prevalent and very popular. Of course it is, it justifies your life and any behavior you care to do, because, after all, the self-proclaimed enlightened chappy said "nothing is my fault" and justified his own eye-raising behavior in the same way. Sounds great!!

It was a fun conversation until I piped up, "Sorry folks, this is all just so much cowpat. You pay $495 (or whatever charge there might be) for a weekend satsang so that some self-indulgent chappy sitting on a dais will tell you it's not your fault and you just have to go with the flow. You actually paid for this, did you? Are you completely mad?"

My friend then said, rather sheepishly, "But he was entertaining, I enjoyed the experience. And there was a resonance."

I replied, "The resonance was merely the outcome of your relationship as a buyer with a provider. You believed you were getting something from him. As for the entertainment, at that price it bloody well should be entertaining. One side of your newly formed resonant relationship laughed, and I bet he laughed all the way to the bank."

My friend was quiet for a while. Then we had tea.

Non-duality

Unless one operates directly from the innate state of common sense, any reference to "non-duality" holds validity only as a dogmatic position set up in opposition to its counterpart 'duality'.