Regarding the homophobia - before I left I remember some lectures that were quite explicit. Apparently this is getting worse.

Is this consistent with his technique of propping up straw dogs and knocking them down? I remember an earlier poster commenting quite nicely on this technique of his but I can't recall who the poster was.

Other infamous leaders used this technique very well. I don't think FL is as dangerous as them. But he does endeavor to influence the political scene to further his agendas, doesn't he?

Could his attention to the gay issue be labeled hate-mongering?

I mean there is a difference in being, say anti-abortion and pro-life. Why doesn't he just be pro-hetero? Or pro-celibacy? Isn't better to promote your beliefs as opposed to going on an tirade about those who do not follow your beliefs?

This anti-gay platform, and I can imagine the obscene analogies that FL uses to illustrate his points, seems to me to be, well, very shallow.

Here is something else that I would like to add. I'm in a posting mood tonight...

I have recently returned to the Catholic church. I am not here to promote Catholicism and I am well aware of whatever negative things you want to say about it. Frankly, I don't really care because it's working for me and I take out of it what I feel I need.

I have heard well over a hundred sermons in the past few months. The theme has been overwhelmingly the same: love God for he loves you, forgive others because God has forgiven you, spend more time focusing on God, try to imitate Christ and serve others, tend to the sick, give to the needy, be an example for others, transcend your selfishness, be humble etc.

My one-on-one discussions with various priests have been very pleasant and I have found them to be, in general, sympathetic, knowledgeable, empathetic, approachable, and insightful regarding the human condition.

I simply did not experience this being a devotee of FL. There were very few devotees that I found I admired and looked up to and could rely on for insight and advice.

As for the overall message being preached by FL, it was more of an "in your face better surrender to me" than one of bona fide instruction on how to develop love for Gad and what love for God means.

There's my two cents for the night!

I would like to make something clear here before I continue on. I am not here to recruit anyone to another Vaishnava mission. I am a person who was in the cult of Chris Butler for a long time, who left his cult but did not leave Vaishnavism. In fact I believe what I was taught was a perversion of Vaishnavism and not the real thing. So I could say I found Vaishnavism outside of the cult of Chris Butler. I am here to give a different angle of vision and my opinion. I am here to help expose one I consider to be a bogus spiritual master. I can see there are some Vaishnavas appearing here. Please do not PM me asking such things as who you can trust, what mission I would recommend etc. My advice to all of you is do your own homework. I found my way and so can you if you want to remain Vaishnavas. If you want to give it up, that is up to you and I don’t blame you if you do. I understand why you would want to. Anyway I am not here to recruit you to another Vaishnava mission. I have been accused of doing that in the past and it is simply not true. So please do not misunderstand what I am doing here as others have. Ok so now I have said my 2 cents for the evening. Good nite and may God bless you all.

Quote
hoax108
Here is something else that I would like to add. I'm in a posting mood tonight...

I have recently returned to the Catholic church. I am not here to promote Catholicism and I am well aware of whatever negative things you want to say about it. Frankly, I don't really care because it's working for me and I take out of it what I feel I need.

I have heard well over a hundred sermons in the past few months. The theme has been overwhelmingly the same: love God for he loves you, forgive others because God has forgiven you, spend more time focusing on God, try to imitate Christ and serve others, tend to the sick, give to the needy, be an example for others, transcend your selfishness, be humble etc.

My one-on-one discussions with various priests have been very pleasant and I have found them to be, in general, sympathetic, knowledgeable, empathetic, approachable, and insightful regarding the human condition.

I simply did not experience this being a devotee of FL. There were very few devotees that I found I admired and looked up to and could rely on for insight and advice.

As for the overall message being preached by FL, it was more of an "in your face better surrender to me" than one of bona fide instruction on how to develop love for Gad and what love for God means.

There's my two cents for the night!

Can't seem to sleep so I am going to burn the midnight oil...

Hoax,
It is was kind of ironic being in FL's group because of the 64 key practices of Vaidhi Sadhana (devotional service in practice) association with devotees is taught to be in the top 5 next to chanting the holy name. In fact it can said to be the third most important aspect of Vaidhi Sadhana next to residing in a holy place and chanting the holy name.. But I soon found out some of his top devotees did not like associating with the rest of the crew. I am thinking of one particular top devotee. Everyone respected him as being so advanced but he actually did not like associating with the lower folk. This is just so contrary to Vaishnava philosophy it screams. But said devotee was promoted, taken care of, given big responsibilities and respected by the lower folk as being an advanced vaishnava. Then there was another guy running one of the stores who was very clear he did not like having devotees work in the store. Of course because he was making much moo la la $$$$$$$ for fearless leader he got his way. And then of course FL also separated himself from the lower folk and only associated at gatherings, coming floating in like a god or something with his queen bee consort. But on a daily basis he never really liked associating with other devotees unless they were groveling at his feet serving him hand and foot. And everyone knows he hated associating with his own godbrothers, unless they were groveling at his feet respecting him as the Jagat Guru on the same level as his own guru. This is just one more example of the deviation of a bogus guru who does not at all reflect the activities of a Vaishnava guru and teaches the terrible example to others. Those who did get constant association were confined to gulag like circumstances sleeping in attics on carboard while working on a project or his personal service. Man this is NOT the way it is supposed to be. So it is understandable that the devotees on the lower side would feel association with others of their like was not such a great thing. It is understandable that people like Hoax found no one they could admire in the group. Like you I did not find many I could admire or who I felt really gave a crap about my advancement in Krishna Con. I really found few heart to heart friends in that group or any I could look up to. I think for some of us it was actually torture to force ourselves to go to a gathering and chant. Gadz who could make any advancement in such an environment????


Which brings me to Catholicism.

Hoax, I can understand your attraction to Catholicism. I was brought up in a Catholic household and attended Catholic grammar and High School. I remember the priest of our parish being a very pious and humble man. In fact I can honestly say that by his influence I understood that God must exist. I was never much for the whole organized institution but I maintained friendship with that priest until he passed away about 7 years ago. I remember once I came into the Cathedral, I was only 9 or 10, and it was completely empty except for Father who was at the front of the church with his head hanging over the rail that separated the people from the altar. He was shedding tears and praying so intensely it left an impression on me forever. I could see this man was a sincere soul praying to God in all humility. I can still see him in my mind intensely praying and shedding tears. He never made it past Monsenior but in my opinion they should have made him a Cardinal if not the Pope. I am completly not biased against the Catholic Church due to the misdeeds of so many of their clergy in recent history. All that sexual deviation was the result of weak men and had nothing to do with the Catholic Faith. I would hope others would see this the same when it comes to deviations in other religious traditions perpetrated by weak men who do not represent the tradition whose name they spoil.

Quote
rrmoderator
Akhenaten:

Your response to my previous post is disturbing.

Please understand that if you break the rules you will be banned.

Akhenaten, it is nice to have new people with something to offer come on the thread. I am sure you have something valuable to say about Chris Butler. Please don't break the rules and get banned before telling us something. You must understand if you don't offer something to the plate, it does appear that you are trolling. But I am sure you are not. So come on and tell us something interesting you know about Chris.

Well, you will have to be more specific about what kind of information you are after, then I can help you. The more specific your question, the more specific will be my answer.

Giving scandalous bitchy information, will be what it is, and will just appear to be gossip mongering be it fact or not.

Personally, my view is that the whole tragedy of this situation is that people have been falsely led into massive personal tragedies and family divisions, personal heartaches on the basis of a false guru, trudging, chanting and counting little beads that lead nowhere. They teach these lies to their innocent children on the basis of the account of a false and luxury loving teacher, who loves and lives the material life more than most.

You really have to decide actually what it is that you really want to know and where you stand in the univeral count of things.

Quote

[b:abd190bc27]I wish that he was reading here too, although I am fairly sure that he would not be concerning himself with such things[/b:abd190bc27]

That he would not concern himself, with the mundane and pathetic things of the matters of his flock is generally well known. Truly this is what has been made known to them, because his people are so worthless, so useless, so fallen and so very low, that even the slightest gesture made from him to you, is a huge favour.

By the way, when was the last time he made a visit to you, in whichever state or country you may reside? Remember by his own word, you do not deserve him and any gesture (which are mostly derogatory) made to you, are by his supreme grace and generosity (when he is in the mood).

All the members of his congregation, including the children, are made to bow down at all spiritual days, bow down low and crawl on the floor and chant to the effigy of his photograph, so that when they worship, they worship him and him alone.

They make their children worship a common man as a God.

Quotesman - I'm glad to see that you are still a Vaishnava. I think that this is a wonderful process and may the Lord look with favor upon you.

I can relate what you said about dreading going to gatherings. I felt this way and these feelings also contributed to my wanting to leave. I was attending to avoid guilt. I should have been attending out of love. But this was not the case.

It also bothered me that some of the devotees seemed to enjoy kirtan for sense gratification. They only enjoyed real "rockin" chants. I know I am being judgmental here but how could I overcome this in FLs group where there wasn't any tangible spiritual advancement?

I remember an answer by an advanced devotee (whom I do have respect for) to the question of what spiritual advancement means. He said it means that you want to chant all the time. Somehow this just seemed insufficient for me.

Regarding the Catholic church - yes, it is an institution but FLs group is also an institution. There is a hierarchy, rules of conduct, chains of command, and so on. Is Vaishnavism supposed to be this way? What do you think, Quotesman?

Regarding the sins of priests - yes, there have been great indiscretions and cover ups. However, Quotesman is correct in saying that these are sins of men. For men are born with sin. Those who condemn the Catholic church for this therefore condemn all men, and perhaps rightly so, for men have committed and continue to commit the gravest atrocities.

That is why spiritual life must be a purification process. To realize that you are a sinner and beg forgiveness and try to overcome your sins. FL preaches that serving him is a purification process. I don't think anyone on this forum ever felt that they were being purified by serving him. If anything you end up feeling more stressed, resentful, and disillusioned.

I remember a lecture where FL said regarding a devotee who wished to return to Christianity, "W-Well, ahhh... what is that?" How profound. Didn't help me to know that I was on the right path with him.

I truly believe that spiritual life must involve a process of purification. To do so, one must follow the example of one without sin - such as Christ or Krishna. If you think that FL is without sin, I think you are sadly mistaken.

"quotesman - I'm glad to see that you are still a Vaishnava. I think that this is a wonderful process and may the Lord look with favor upon you." Hoax

Ditto. :D

"It also bothered me that some of the devotees seemed to enjoy kirtan for sense gratification. They only enjoyed real "rockin" chants. I know I am being judgmental here but how could I overcome this in FLs group where there wasn't any tangible spiritual advancement?" Hoax

There was a great sadhu, now passed on, who once said we should not chant the holy name in the enjoyer spirit as if the name is there to give us enjoyment. If one makes progress then of course real ananda or bliss (enjoyment) does manifest. However he said if we approach the name with the mentality of enjoyment we will never actually taste the holy name. He specifically said we should be careful not to introduce the holy name in such a way. And yes I have seen this in the group, it is all about personal sense gratification. The rock and roll kirtan is really just a substitute for the disco and if one is very attentive they will see this type of thing arouses mundane lust more than love. Concerning the rock and roll kirtan in front of the deities, I see it as another deviation. This is unprecedented in the sampradaya. Of course for the general public to introduce them to the name such things are acceptable. But quickly they should be given the name in the proper context. For instance George Harrison did wonders. But to make it a standard is a very bad idea. It was a cardinal sin to chant the same ragas (melodies) that ISKCON did. But in fact many of those ragas were given by Mahaprabhu Himself and they have the tendency to calm the senses and lift the spirit whereas rock and roll simply agitates the senses and lust. And in more traditional Vaishnava circles it is understood that ragas are very important. There are different ragas for different times of the day for example. It is very scientific. The agitating sound of rock and roll does not fit in the picture at all. When I first left that group and began to associate with sadhus and devotees on the outside I actually had a bad taste for the more traditional ragas, it took me a good while to become use to them. That is how conditioned to the rock and roll non- sense I had become.
Now of course I could never go back to rock and roll as a standard.
Don’t get me wrong I am not against rock and roll and listen to it on occasion. There is a place for it, in front of the deities or in the temple however is not one of them.

Speaking of rock and roll here is a great piece done by some Korean kid. Check it out. [www.youtube.com] this Korean kid is better than Hendrix.
Utube is a place to hear rock and roll.

"I remember an answer by an advanced devotee (whom I do have respect for) to the question of what spiritual advancement means. He said it means that you want to chant all the time. Somehow this just seemed insufficient for me." Hoax

It is a fact if one makes progress in most traditions they will become more attacched to the main thing offered and practiced.. It is no different in Vaishnavism. The name is the central thing. If one does not develop attachment for the name then it can only mean they are either not following properly or they are following a bogus guru who is not teaching properly. It takes the best Professor to give the best knowledge. But if one has a dinky Professor with little knowledge that is all they will receive from him.


"Regarding the Catholic church - yes, it is an institution but FLs group is also an institution. There is a hierarchy, rules of conduct, chains of command, and so on. Is Vaishnavism supposed to be this way? What do you think, Quotesman?" Hoax


Yes there are rules in any process. And there is hierarchy everywhere. But if the hierarchy is headed by unqualified teachers then everything on down the line will be disrupted. If you go to college but your Professor is teaching you the wrong thing, then you will end up with the wrong thing. In Vaishnavism one should adopt the mood of their teacher. So if you want to be uptight at the slightest thing, agitated most of the time, always cursing people around you, making your servants pay fines etc for transgressions etc. If that is how one wants to end up then they should continue to follow FL because if they follow perfectly that is what they will become.



"Regarding the sins of priests - yes, there have been great indiscretions and cover ups. However, Quotesman is correct in saying that these are sins of men. For men are born with sin. Those who condemn the Catholic church for this therefore condemn all men, and perhaps rightly so, for men have committed and continue to commit the gravest atrocities." Hoax

Those who condemn any religious tradition based on the sins of weak men are in my opinion not seeing things very clearly. If we can show you in the Bible or the teachings of past Saints within Christianity that they teach it is ok to have sex with kids then of course we should condemn the Bible and those saints. But if it is taught the opposite and then men who are supposed to represent the Bible and those saints engage in that activity how can we blame the Bible or the process? It should be seen the same for any tradition including the Vaishnava tradition. Those who think differently are simply biased and bigoted in my humble opinion. They are angry people with an axe to grind. But sadly they cut many innocent people with their blade.




"That is why spiritual life must be a purification process. To realize that you are a sinner and beg forgiveness and try to overcome your sins. FL preaches that serving him is a purification process. I don't think anyone on this forum ever felt that they were being purified by serving him. If anything you end up feeling more stressed, resentful, and disillusioned." Hoax



Yes I agree with this. Again, having a qualified teacher is a very big part of the picture.



"I truly believe that spiritual life must involve a process of purification. To do so, one must follow the example of one without sin - such as Christ or Krishna. If you think that FL is without sin, I think you are sadly mistaken." Hoax



Yes I agree here. In many Christian traditions it is said one must become Christ like. It is really not different in the Vaishnava tradition. One who is not Christ-like should not pose as one who is. Such posing only causes a disturbance.