theist

There maybe many ways to see the same subject, in this case - how we define the word tatastha in relation to the jiva and so on. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur said in the Bhagawat Speech, "no thought is a bad thought". On the other hand if our subjective viewpoint precludes a basic tenent of the Gaudiya Siddhanta such a the preminent nature of the ragatmika bhaktas of Vraja then we are making a major error. The idea of the free nature of love and how it must extend to all levels of Reality must be harmonized with the spiritual hierarchy in that "Land of Love" - Goloka or Vraja dhama. Otherwise all that remains is the worship of Krsna alone, without His principle Sakti and shaktis, the ragatmika bhaktas. Srila Sridhar Maharaja remarked that the worship of Krsna alone is "half-mayavada"? He narrates the story of how Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur met one gentleman who was alledged to be a big devotee of Krsna. Saraswati Thakur asked that man, "under what devotee are you serving" and the man remarked, "none, I have no need, I am serving Krsna directly". Later Saraswati Thakur told to some disciples after that man had left, "I could not trace out any devotion proper, there".

Srila B.R. Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja also comments as follows:

So is it your conclusion then that you as a present resident of the outer world can never become a ragatmika bhakta?

maybe acintya bheda bheda tattwa is at play here, but there is a fact. In krsna book, the story of how Yasoda became yasoda is there, the many pious other lives she led, the perfection being manifest in her position in gokuladhama.

 

So, if she is a resident of Goloka, meaning as I have read on this thread, that she has never been others, always yasoda, there is a difference.

 

Myself, I fully accept both. Without getting into the very drfy discussion that has been going on concerning origin of jiva, The krsna book description of yasodas prior lives has to be taken into consideration. Like, when krsna pulls all the residents of gokula into goloka as he wraps up his manifest pastimes, does the yasoda of gokula merge into the yasoda of goloka? What is all this merging stuff anyway? Is someone actually saying that vishaka and lalita are not individuals separate from Radharani?

 

individual identity is the basis of this philosophy, and a snare of monism is grabbing all who deny that I am me, not you, not anyone else. This nonsense has me going to gokula, then merging with someone else in goloka?

 

Im going back to sleep.

 

mahak

Never thought of like that but that is the conclusion that that line of thought ends up with. It is monism. I can hear one of these monist's now, calling himself a vaisnava and preaching krsna-lila with the idea that you first merge into a character in krsna lila like Mother Yashoda and then you merge into the Brahman which is beyond lila. Krsna lila being just a fairytale to attract the poor slobs of kali-yuga who can't see beyond the illusion of variegatedness.

Razor's edge baby. We ain't out of the woods yet...danger lurks behind every tree.

all glories to your individuality, bro, mahaksadasa

And to yours Madmax. =:-). And especially to Krsna's, the Supreme Individual.

You have certainly identified a major kali-yuga problem suchandra. In America it is known as this wall of separation between church and state. Here we have demon atheists who raised a huge stink when Bush proposed his "faith-based initiative". All that did was allow religious groups who did basic humanitarian work like feeding and clothing the poor, medical aid to third world countries etc. to receive tax money for those efforts (not to build and run temles and chuchs even). This inflamed the demons because they saw it as supporting the theists.

Prabhupada used the example that Buddhism was spread throughout India by the sponsorship of King Ashoka. Kystriyas have a parental role for the rest of society. Is it not the duty of the parents to look after the spiritual welfare of their children as well as their material needs?

Thanks Theist prabhu, yes, present Western Vaishnavism is in such a confused state that one wonders why people even dare to proclaim their wisdom?

But what can be done - could be that it's all Krishna's plan, to create order out of chaos. Formerly we used to wait with glowing eyes for the arrival of the American sannyasi, now, people are hysterically laughing when hearing the term, "American sannyasi". Something like Hugh Hefner trying to become a celibate.

Yes I know this happens but that is the same as laughing at a female guru. An intelligent person will wait to hear from the person before making up their mind.

I only met and spoke with Vishnujana Swami maybe 3 times and heard him speak in lectures a handful more than that in the very early 70's (over 35 years ago) and I tell you that even thinking about him now makes my eyes wet.

My proposal is individual and not institutional. I propose that we pray to the Lord in the heart to grant us "The ears to hear and the eyes to see.." who is actually His devotee and not at all be concerned with their American or Indian, woman or man, brahmana or sudra status.

Institutions feel they have to formally decide these things to enforce control. I as an individual am under no such pressure. And afterall I am an individual and not an institution.

Originally Posted by Sarva gattah

“The fact is the individual living entities are eternally part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, and both of them are very intimately related as friends. But the living entity has the tendency to reject the sanctions of the Supreme Lord and act independently in an attempt to dominate the supreme nature, and BECAUSE HE HAS THIS TENDENCY; he is called the marginal energy of the Supreme Lord. " BG 13.23 pp.

Srila Prabhupada explains that marginal energy means the TENDENCY of the living entity to reject the sanction of the Lord and act independently.

Marginal energy can be situated either in the external or internal energy of the Lord and according to the living beings free will and contact with either the material or spiritual energies, the living being is situated in proportionally higher or lower levels of existence. If marginal energy can freely choose to be situated in either external or internal energy, then marginal energy (because of his free will) can also choose to leave either external or internal energy.

 

Well without needing to become offensive to the other side we can agree that there are different ways of viewing the word marginal by devotees. Some see it as a geography while others like myself see it as the intregal nature of the jiva.

My view is that I am tatashta or that demarcation line between the land and the sea. By use of my free will I can be controlled by the internal energy or the external energy meaning I can place my consciousness in either field and shift back and forth like the shifting of the line where sea meets the shore.

You may have a different view which is your right because you are also marginal. Just because you may have a different view doesn't mean you are incapable of abstract thinking or thinking outside the box as they say.

Marginal ultimately means free will to choose to be wrong if one so desires. Free will marks the place where one individual living being has his boundary between himself and all other living beings.

Beyond being just a possibility, it is virtually assured, isn't it?

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada is pretty unequivocal in his statement--the transcendental tide cannot be held back.

There you go. Stronger ....more faith.

Maybe, in the broadest sense we can say that.

However, guru, in the context of he who is the authorized agent of the Godhead sent as his ambassador to the fallen souls, we have to understand that guru is the direct agent of the Godhead with full authority and empowerment to lead and deliver fallen souls out of illusion to the service of the Godhead.

 

Guru Krishna can act through even a bird or a dog to show us a lesson.

However, most of us think of guru in terms of he who is authorized by the Godhead to represent him and make a contract to deliver fallens souls if they are willing to accept and abide by his guidance and directions.

Yes but if a liberated soul in a woman's body is speaking Krsna consciousness then does it not mean that that soul is being directed to by Krsna? The authority and empowerment are to be found in the quality of the sound vibration. Is it out and out mundane (karmi talk) and yes I know I am still a karmi), is it shadow Krsna consciousness (tinged with motivation for fame and prophet and not motivated by realization and the love for other souls that need to hear), or is it full blown Krsna consciousness, untinged with material motivation or misconception emanating from the suddha sattva platform?

This is what we need to be aware of. Shadowy Krsna-katha gets taken to be ful blown pure Krsna-katha.

So again if the real thing is emanating from a female form and the male form is giving out shadows it seems the choice is obvious.

"Abandone all varieties of religion..." Religion means shadow spiritual life. It is a transitional stage from gross mundane life toward spiritual life. The problem with istitutional thinking is that shadows tend to get written into lawbooks and those lawbooks then start to take on the air of final authority when really all they everwere is someone attempt to manage a shadow institution.

I don't think I agree.

These are topics and conclusions that are dealt with in shastra.

Anybody can read the books and understand.

You don't have to realize these things as much as you just have to internalize them and accept what the shastra and the acharyas have said.

Yes we disagree on this. I am not well read in the scriptures but then they also have been translated by someone who may have an opinion one way or another into English before I can even have peek.

On this issue especially which necessitates an experience of the eternal nature free from past and future conceptions to grasp I will wait for the relization. I see no other way.

If we refer back to pre-ISKCON Gaudiya Vaishnavism then many of the issues and questions can be resolved because no acharya or guru has the right to change or alter the siddhanta and the conclusions of Mahaprabhu's direct disciples and the great Goswamis of Vrindavan.

Same problem of translation and beyond that even if you speak sanskrit or bengali people see different things when looking at the same verses sometimes. That is controlled by Supersoul's direction. Look at the Gita for example. Some see Krsna as personal some see only the Brahman.

And beyond that there is the idea of increasin revelation. I see the sampradaya as a dynamic living thing. Look at the conception of conjugal love. This wasn't always accepted and many if most still don't. So just looking to the past is not enough.

It appears that in bringing Gaudiya Vaishnavism to western people there has been some confusion and indeed Srila Prabhupada himself said he was perplexed about how exactly to push forward the movement in the western world.

I think you are reading too much into that statement of perplexity. He was always very straightforward although certainly his audience also dictated how much he could reveal.

Afterall he came to America teaching that God is a little bluishblack cowherd boy who steals butter and feeds it to monkey's. I mean if what is the origin debate compared to that.

My opinon is the Crow and Tal fruit letter explains Prabhupada's positon on the topic completely and he ends it by placing the importance of the question in it's proper perspective as not worth squabbling over. I mean he did make many clear statements on the issue. There are also statements that appear to contradict each other.

Or take Spiritual Sky incense for example. I read a letter from Prabhupada back to someone in India remarking how he intended the incense business to just be something to bring in a little extra laxsmi but his disciples had ran with it and turned it into a big business.That means the mode of passion was dominant and a guru has to work with his disciples in accordance to their particular mix of the three gunas.

Maybe he was a little over-protective and reserved about just blasting westerners with the deepest aspects of Gaudiya siddhanta.

As such, his words were sometimes a little ambiguous and allowing some western people to misunderstand some things.

Yes as I said above I agree with you here. But not everything falls into category and the tendancy to place things there according to if they fit our personal beliefs is always there and is dangerous.

It is also improper to just make statements as to the internal motive of Srila Prabhupada in such a way that makes it seem he really thinks as we do even when he says the opposite. That is a very bad precedent for a formally initiated disicple to display on a world wide forum. I am sorry for being blunt but I had to say something.

I for one certainly do not accept literally everything Srila Prabhupada said.

Other than literal meanings, I think his teachings were sometimes allegorical as are some of the stories and fables in the Bhagavatam.

I feel the same way but cannot say with certainty which are literal and which allegorical. Some are obvious but many are not. I believe the answers will be given by Supersoul as we advance and there is no need to over-emphasize which is which as it disturbs many minds.

I still consider your past post on paroksa (sp?) a classic and have saved it to file. I may not agree to include the last few sentences however, but I certainly agree with the central idea.

Sorry to have sidetracked your thread.

Yes I know it's going to happen

I can feel you getting near

And soon we'll be returning

To the fountain of our youth

And if you wake up wondering

In the darkness I'll be there

My arms will close around you

And protect you with the truth

Yes mahaksa it is in how we hear it. Keep the inner vaisnava translator on

and the above verse from the MB's could be Mother Yasoda worrying about Krsna being late to return for dinner as darkness starts to set in.

Prabhupada wrote or said that "Who you hear from, that is your guru."

If a liberated soul is in a female body would a sincere aspirant not hear from "her" and instead hear from a GBC sanctioned guru who is not liberated just because he is in a male body and upholds some tradition or another?

Of course a sincere aspirant would hear from the liberated soul who is in a woman's form.

Here is another example where spiritual life divides from religious considerations. The question is a religious one and may be how any certain religious institution wants to run their business...no female popes for example.

So I think we have to be firm in our inner purpose which is spiritual life over religious life if a conflict arises.

How about the sea refuses no river.

 

Some paths up the mountain end because the trail blazer dropped dead.

 

Only from the top of the mountain can one see how many trails led there. So, to avoid this mess, one approaches a sherpa (guru), or else he is insane.

 

Hindu refers to a culture, within which are many diametrically opposed religious systems.

 

If the mountain top is desired, hear from one who descends from the mountain, not the throngs crowded in confusion at the base camp.

 

mahak

Nice answer to an important question. Also it matters that one understand the goal is not liberation from matter it is Bhakti or loving devotion to Krsna that is the goal.

Bhakti is the top of the mountain.

If that is so, then why did Mahaprabhu teach Sanatan Goswami that before a devotee can attain Goloka he must first take birth in a material universe where the pastimes of Krishna are being manifested in his Vraja lila where the devotee is born from the womb of a gopi and grows through a natural sequence just like in the material world?

 

Actually, there is no such thing as just popping-up in Goloka and transcending time altogether.

First, in the realm of time, the devotee takes birth in a material universe where the pastimes of Krishna are manifesting.

Then, after the pastimes of Krishna are concluded the devotee is elevated to Goloka at the end of his life.

So, it is not just as simple as popping-up in Goloka and realizing that you were never gone.

First, one must take birth in Krishna's earthly pastimes and then from there he can go back to Goloka and transcend the conception of material time.

 

First, one connects with Krishna within the realm of TIME.

Then, from there he eventually attains to the realm beyond time.

 

In Goloka one resumes the service that he perfected in the Gokula Vraja earthly pastimes of Krishna.

You just don't pop-up in Goloka without a prior sequence of developing the relationship with Krishna in the material realm of time.

This is what the acaryas teach but although true it proves nothing except one must regain (or gain?) that experience before going (back?) to Goloka.

I still maintain this puzzle cannot be solved philosophically and that we must take Bahtivinodes advice and realize it rather than bat it about between those with opposing opinions.

I also still admit I don't know the answer. Then why don't I stay out of it altogether? Because this is a divisive topic that has become a wall between aspiring devotees of Mahaprabhu and I think such walls are tragic.

Mathematically then if there is no past, present or future as we are acquainted with it, can we take for granted we are likely already in Goloka, is that your aphorism?

Well trying to respect Guruvani's desire to make this as free as possible of the 'fall from' arguments which have dominated this board for months I can certainly understand how that could be. That is one side of the argument and it is not possible to defeat it philosophically. On the other hand IMO there is no way one can establish it philosophically either. The reason being one could be a pencilpoint of brahmajyoti and still cast his consciousness into the dreamland of matter.

Or one could even have been amalgomated in the Brahman with no individual sense of identity and desiring again personal life cast his consciousness back into the three modes.

So dreaming is there no matter what the origin of the soul is. The point is it is ONLY by the medium of projecting the conciousness into the field of temporay forms (dreaming) that the soul has any contact with matter from any position.

But the question of class distinction being in the spiritual sky seems so odd to me especially in a land where everyone is the servant of everyone else in the service of Krsna.

The thing that concerns me is the difference between the way an impersonalist hears the term transparent via medium to God and the way the Vaisnava hears the same phrase.

 

The impersonalist takes transparent to mean the person of guru has disappeared into the Brahman and so no more of his personality is in the way.

 

The Vaisnava, especially the followers of Mahaprabhu, see the real person of Guru has been awakened to his natural position as being both one and different from the Supreme Brahman.

 

He is not only still there with Krsna (and as Krsna) but he is there in his realized unchanging state. We accept the liberated Vaisnava Acarya as the Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead.

 

So when we look at such a guru we see him and Krsna simultaneously. Transparent just means free from the darkness of ahankara. We have to be careful that in our mind we are not blanking guru out to get to God.

Kulapavanna:

I disagree that transparency just relates to the lack of ahankara.

And where did I say in my post above that being liberated alone without being fixed in an eternal serving relationship to Krsna is all that is required?

It is baffling how you could squeeze that idea from the post you quoted.

I don't understand, are we not suppose to worship Guru as God?

Yes but the point is he must be factually situated in the liberated position which means free from ahankara (falsely identity) AND established in his natural position as Servitor Godhead.

It is not enough to be free from ahankara alone. That is seen in impersonalism as well. One must be liberated and fixed in relationship to Krsna then he is fit to be worshipped as God.

To accept a kanishta adhikari or even a second class person as guru and then worship him as God is not an intelligent thing to do. Prabhupada teaches one should accept a first class devotee as guru.

I am not talking about going back, falling down or understanding the time factor.

Sorry but if you think the other residents of Goloka are going to be looking at someone as a newcomer and an outsider then your question is infected with the concept of past. "This baddha-jiva was not here a minute ago and now he is here."

You rightly object to the idea of souls falling asleep in Goloka and/or disappearing altogether (as have heard some people claim). but yet you are then stuck with the exact same problem in nature with the idea of a new soul arriving and raising the conception of class distinction. Your problem is on the back end and others have their problem at the front end.

This problem is only solved with the elimination of our notions of past present and future.

The thing that concerns me is the difference between the way an impersonalist hears the term transparent via medium to God and the way the Vaisnava hears the same phrase.

The impersonalist takes transparent to mean the person of guru has disappeared into the Brahman and so no more of his personality is in the way.

The Vaisnava, especially the followers of Mahaprabhu, see the real person of Guru has been awakened to his natural position as being both one and different from the Supreme Brahman.

He is not only still there with Krsna (and as Krsna) but he is there in his realized unchanging state. We accept the liberated Vaisnava Acarya as the Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead.

So when we look at such a guru we see him and Krsna simultaneously. Transparent just means free from the darkness of ahankara. We have to be careful that in our mind we are not blanking guru out to get to God.

TRANSLATION SB 4.28.48.

O best of kings, please get up! Get up! Just see this world surrounded by water and infested with rogues and so-called kings. This world is very much afraid, and it is your duty to protect her.

PURPORT

Whenever an acarya comes, following the superior orders of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or His representative, he establishes the principles of religion, as enunciated in Bhagavad-gita. Religion means abiding by the orders of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Religious principles begin from the time one surrenders to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is the acarya's duty to spread a bona fide religious system and induce everyone to bow down before the Supreme Lord. One executes the religious principles by rendering devotional service, specifically the nine items like hearing, chanting and remembering. Unfortunately, when the acarya disappears, rogues and nondevotees take advantage and immediately begin to introduce unauthorized principles in the name of so-called svamis, yogis, philanthropists, welfare workers and so on. Actually, human life is meant for executing the orders of the Supreme Lord, and this is stated in Bhagavad-gita (9.34):

man-mana bhava mad-bhakto

mad-yaji mam namaskuru

mam evaishyasi yuktvaivam

atmanam mat-parayanah

"Engage your mind always in thinking of Me and become My devotee. Offer obeisances and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me."

The main business of human society is to think of the Supreme Personality of Godhead at all times, to become His devotees, to worship the Supreme Lord and to bow down before Him. The acarya, the authorized representative of the Supreme Lord, establishes these principles, but when he disappears, things once again become disordered. The perfect disciples of the acarya try to relieve the situation by sincerely following the instructions of the spiritual master.At the present moment practically the entire world is afraid of rogues and nondevotees; therefore this Krishna consciousness movement is started to save the world from irreligious principles. Everyone should cooperate with this movement in order to bring about actual peace and happiness in the world.

-----------

So the problem is identified by many but who will be the perfect disciple and relieve the situation by sincerely following the instructions of the spiritual master?

Oraganized religious establishments may be unattractive to the transcendentalists but they are a great help to the materialist in gaining some solid sukriti. Souls are still moving forward. For some souls simply bowing down before the Lord offers as much advancement as more experienced souls doing active service.

And there is always the possibility that a real saint may come forth often on the periphery of such an organization like St. Francis of Assisi.

"All my external enviroment is nothing but a reflection of my own consciousness."

That's a little much- solipsism. I just told you I wasn't blaming ISKCON for anything but what ISKCON is responsible for - misleading others on the topic of guru-tattva - I didn't create that situation. If it was my consciousness, I would give in to it.

Well we are not tracking on this one. I am sorry I was unable to be more clear.

Dreams are real. Real dreams. Illusion does not mean it is not there but only that it is not what it appears to be.

When measured up against spiritual existence it can be said that matter is non-existent. But that does not mean it is not there at all. It just means that the definitive meaning to something having true existence is that it is based in eternity.

A simple example is a child playing in the sand at the beach. He sees a great castle standing high on the cliff overlooking the shore. In his play he builds a replica of that castle out of the wet sand.

When someone sees the castle the child has built they call it a castle because of the resemblance that sand has at the moment to a real castle. But the relity is it is not a castle at all. Just a child's molding of the formless sand. When the tide comes in or when the sun dries the sand it will lose it's "castle"shape and merge back into the totality of sand.

Sand represents the dream matter(earth water etc.) that is used by the dreaming soul to give form to his imaginings and attempts to build his own kingdom in this world apart from Krsna.

To hear devotees criticizing other devotees because they accept this world is a dream is truly bizarre. Of course it is a dream.

I always read this first -

 

"If a devotee accepts Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as the universal guru and Lord Jagannatha as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Krsna, he is benefited by the combined mercy of Krsna and guru." - Madhya 13.18 purport

Dandavats Prabhu:)

Since it is difficult to ascertain someone’s level of bhakti,and to ensure stability, it may be considered prudent by the GBC to place some relative prerequisites, not absolute ones (otherwise it would violate the kibä-vipra verse [Cc Madhya 8.128]), on female guru candidates in ISKCON. Here are a few humble suggestions:

Here it is right here. Since they admit they can't ascertai anyone's level of bhakti or ensure stability then why in the hell do these people think they have anyright saying who can or cannot becaome guru?

What a sad joke.