Vani bot: Change of category of page from Letters, Conversations and Lectures to Compilations from Letters, Conversations or Lectures

2009-11-01T16:45:45Z

Change of category of page from Letters, Conversations and Lectures to Compilations from Letters, Conversations or Lectures

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 1 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div id="compilation">
			<div id="facts">
	{{terms\|transgress \| transgressed \| transgresses \| transgressing \| transgression \| transgressions \| transgressor}}		{{terms\|transgress \| transgressed \| transgresses \| transgressing \| transgression \| transgressions \| transgressor}}

Line 19:		Line 21:
	[[Category:Transgress\|1]]		[[Category:Transgress\|1]]

	[[Category:Letters]]		[[Category:Compilations from Letters]]
			</div>

	== Correspondence ==		<div class="section" id="Correspondence" text="Correspondence"><h2>Correspondence</h2></div>

	=== 1968 Correspondence ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="1968_Correspondence" text="1968 Correspondence"><h3>1968 Correspondence</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~I am greatly surprised for Bon Maharaja's initiating you in spite of his knowing that you are already initiated by me. So it is deliberate transgression of Vaisnava etiquettes and otherwise a deliberate insult to me. ~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Let" link="Letter to Mukunda -- San Francisco 26 March, 1968" link_text="Letter to Mukunda -- San Francisco 26 March, 1968">
			<div class="heading">I am greatly surprised for Bon Maharaja's initiating you in spite of his knowing that you are already initiated by me. So it is deliberate transgression of Vaisnava etiquettes and otherwise a deliberate insult to me.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LET-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Mukunda -- San Francisco 26 March, 1968\|Letter to Mukunda -- San Francisco 26 March, 1968]]:''' I understand that he has been induced by Bon Maharaja to be initiated by him for giving him shelter, and this foolish boy has accepted his inducement. This isn't very happy news, and I have replied Hrsikesa's letter in the following words, which please take note, and in the future, we shall be very cautious about them. "My Dear Hrsikesa, Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter of March 14, 1968, and I am greatly surprised. I am greatly surprised for Bon Maharaja's initiating you in spite of his knowing that you are already initiated by me. So it is deliberate transgression of Vaisnava etiquettes and otherwise a deliberate insult to me. I do not know why he has done like this but no Vaisnava will approve of this offensive action. I very much appreciate your acknowledgement of my service unto you and you will always have my blessings, but you must know that you have committed a great blunder. I do not wish to discuss on this point more elaborately now, but if you are desirous to know further about it, I shall be glad to give you more enlightenment. Mukunda is not here. He has gone to L.A. Hope you are well.'' If Hrsikesa writes you letter I think you may avoid reply. I do not approve both Hrsikesa's and Bon Maharaja's this offensive action. Hoping you are both well.</~~span~~>		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Mukunda -- San Francisco 26 March, 1968\|Letter to Mukunda -- San Francisco 26 March, 1968]]:''' I understand that he has been induced by Bon Maharaja to be initiated by him for giving him shelter, and this foolish boy has accepted his inducement. This isn't very happy news, and I have replied Hrsikesa's letter in the following words, which please take note, and in the future, we shall be very cautious about them. "My Dear Hrsikesa, Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter of March 14, 1968, and I am greatly surprised. I am greatly surprised for Bon Maharaja's initiating you in spite of his knowing that you are already initiated by me. So it is deliberate transgression of Vaisnava etiquettes and otherwise a deliberate insult to me. I do not know why he has done like this but no Vaisnava will approve of this offensive action. I very much appreciate your acknowledgement of my service unto you and you will always have my blessings, but you must know that you have committed a great blunder. I do not wish to discuss on this point more elaborately now, but if you are desirous to know further about it, I shall be glad to give you more enlightenment. Mukunda is not here. He has gone to L.A. Hope you are well.'' If Hrsikesa writes you letter I think you may avoid reply. I do not approve both Hrsikesa's and Bon Maharaja's this offensive action. Hoping you are both well.</div>
			</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~In the case of Lord Krishna, He played as full independent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Apparently, therefore he transgressed so many moral and ethical principles.~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Let" link="Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968" link_text="Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968">
			<div class="heading">In the case of Lord Krishna, He played as full independent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Apparently, therefore he transgressed so many moral and ethical principles.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LET-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968\|Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968]]:''' The point is that Krishna appeared as the full fledged Personality of Godhead. But Ramacandra appeared as an ideal king. Therefore in the Lila of Ramacandra, principles of morality and ethics as they are to be followed by ideal king and ruler was followed. In the same sense, He banished Sita in order to prove Himself as an ideal king who wanted to make His subjects always happy. The whole program was on the basis of an ideal king. But in the case of Lord Krishna, He played as full independent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Apparently, therefore he transgressed so many moral and ethical principles. These comparative studies on the life of Krishna and Ramacandra is very intricate, but the basic principle is that Ramacandra appeared as an ideal king and Krishna appeared as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although there is no difference between the two. A similar example is Lord Caitanya. He appeared as devotee, and not as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is Krishna Himself. So we should accept the Lord's mood in particular appearances and we should worship Him in that mood.</~~span~~>		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968\|Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968]]:''' The point is that Krishna appeared as the full fledged Personality of Godhead. But Ramacandra appeared as an ideal king. Therefore in the Lila of Ramacandra, principles of morality and ethics as they are to be followed by ideal king and ruler was followed. In the same sense, He banished Sita in order to prove Himself as an ideal king who wanted to make His subjects always happy. The whole program was on the basis of an ideal king. But in the case of Lord Krishna, He played as full independent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Apparently, therefore he transgressed so many moral and ethical principles. These comparative studies on the life of Krishna and Ramacandra is very intricate, but the basic principle is that Ramacandra appeared as an ideal king and Krishna appeared as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although there is no difference between the two. A similar example is Lord Caitanya. He appeared as devotee, and not as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is Krishna Himself. So we should accept the Lord's mood in particular appearances and we should worship Him in that mood.</div>
			</div>
			</div>

Visnu Murti at 11:36, 25 November 2008

2008-11-25T11:36:25Z

New page

{{terms|transgress | transgressed | transgresses | transgressing | transgression | transgressions | transgressor}}

{{notes|}}

{{compiler|Visnu Murti}}

{{complete|ALL}}

{{first|25Nov08}}

{{last|25Nov08}}

{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=0|Let=2}}

{{total|2}}

{{toc right}}

[[Category:Transgress|1]]

[[Category:Letters]]

== Correspondence ==

=== 1968 Correspondence ===

'''I am greatly surprised for Bon Maharaja's initiating you in spite of his knowing that you are already initiated by me. So it is deliberate transgression of Vaisnava etiquettes and otherwise a deliberate insult to me. '''

'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Mukunda -- San Francisco 26 March, 1968|Letter to Mukunda -- San Francisco 26 March, 1968]]:''' I understand that he has been induced by Bon Maharaja to be initiated by him for giving him shelter, and this foolish boy has accepted his inducement. This isn't very happy news, and I have replied Hrsikesa's letter in the following words, which please take note, and in the future, we shall be very cautious about them. "My Dear Hrsikesa, Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter of March 14, 1968, and I am greatly surprised. I am greatly surprised for Bon Maharaja's initiating you in spite of his knowing that you are already initiated by me. So it is deliberate transgression of Vaisnava etiquettes and otherwise a deliberate insult to me. I do not know why he has done like this but no Vaisnava will approve of this offensive action. I very much appreciate your acknowledgement of my service unto you and you will always have my blessings, but you must know that you have committed a great blunder. I do not wish to discuss on this point more elaborately now, but if you are desirous to know further about it, I shall be glad to give you more enlightenment. Mukunda is not here. He has gone to L.A. Hope you are well.'' If Hrsikesa writes you letter I think you may avoid reply. I do not approve both Hrsikesa's and Bon Maharaja's this offensive action. Hoping you are both well.

'''In the case of Lord Krishna, He played as full independent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Apparently, therefore he transgressed so many moral and ethical principles.'''

'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968|Letter to Satsvarupa -- Montreal 16 June, 1968]]:''' The point is that Krishna appeared as the full fledged Personality of Godhead. But Ramacandra appeared as an ideal king. Therefore in the Lila of Ramacandra, principles of morality and ethics as they are to be followed by ideal king and ruler was followed. In the same sense, He banished Sita in order to prove Himself as an ideal king who wanted to make His subjects always happy. The whole program was on the basis of an ideal king. But in the case of Lord Krishna, He played as full independent Supreme Personality of Godhead. Apparently, therefore he transgressed so many moral and ethical principles. These comparative studies on the life of Krishna and Ramacandra is very intricate, but the basic principle is that Ramacandra appeared as an ideal king and Krishna appeared as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although there is no difference between the two. A similar example is Lord Caitanya. He appeared as devotee, and not as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although He is Krishna Himself. So we should accept the Lord's mood in particular appearances and we should worship Him in that mood.

Transgress (Letters) - Revision history

Vani bot: Change of category of page from Letters, Conversations and Lectures to Compilations from Letters, Conversations or Lectures

Visnu Murti at 11:36, 25 November 2008