Bhava dasa

Thank you, this is a good point. However, it raises the question, How did he become elevated to bhava-bhakti without a guru?

When a devotees heart gradually transforms through the process of sadhana, it reaches a butter-like state. Then Makhana-taskara appears, to steal it.

Bharata Maharaja had to accept the body of a deer in his next life even though he had attained the platform of bhava-bhakti. And yet, a devotee is guaranteed a human birth in his next life. This is an apparent contradiction...how is it rectified?

Kratu Prabhu is a very nice and learned Vaisnava, and worth taking shelter of.

Paramatma is situated in everyone's heart, and knows the wanderings of all living beings. If He allows us to have a hint of some impending event, that is one way for us to realize His presence. Non devotees and neophytes may become attracted to exploit this for their personal gain, but a more advanced devotee is not bewildered by it, and accepts it His mercy to convince us. To remind us of His greatness. This ability is coming from Him, not us.

Regarding your above question, I have looked it up in my (full) Vedabase, and find no such statement. Hare Krsna

This was the kind of sensitive and mature response I was hoping for.

Not to “remember to be a man, or a woman”. He heard that the condition of the mind determines the body (both gross and subtle) in the next life. He feels like a woman trapped in a mans body, and wants to know if following Krsna consciousness will set the mind to be compatible with the body he has acquired in this life. He is reading these, so please be thoughtful and considerate in your replies

Someone is struggling with this issue, and has turned to devotees for compassionate guidance, and this is your enlightening response? Such an embarrassment! You did right by not giving your name.

Someone asks: "If the mind is conditioned at the time of death to be like a woman's but somehow gets a mans body, can he recondition his mind to be like a man? From gay to straight." Any thoughts?

There are obvious differences in our realizations and philosophical viewpoints. Nevertheless, for the sake of constructive discussions, let’s try to make it a little more respectful and friendly. There are a number…Srila Prabhupada is one. If you are talking about one who is still present (in vapuh), that would have to be determined. No, I’m not implying that at all. I was responding to your statement, “Again the relevance of Narada Muni and a "Spiritual Master" as a regular Iskcon acharya seems to be on a same level.” By this statement it appeared that you were referring back to Hari Kesh. However, if you want to broaden it to include all the GBC, that’s your prerogative. My response is the same. However, by following in the footsteps of Narada Muni, they (or any one of us) can reach the same spiritual destination. Srila Prabhupada was specifically giving the example of Narada Muni. Such a Vaisnava guru is “always liberated”. He is situated on the eternal platform of Vaikuntha. According to Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta, Even if one is from the category of kanistha or madhyama, he can be accepted as guru. However, his conclusions and statements must properly align with the sastras and previous acaryas. If not, he should be rejected as guru. Also, if he accepts the responsibility of too many disciples, but is not mature enough, he runs the risk of falldown. In addition, the sadhaka should be aware that he can only advance as far as the adhikari of his guru. Even if his guru is in good standing, and properly situated, the disciple needs the siksa of gurus who are more advanced. Therefore, one may accept diksa from any of the categories, but to advance to the highest level, he must take the guidance and blessings from higher authorities. If that guidance is not available through a living guru, then by associating through hearing from the Uttama adhikari guru one can still make advancement, although it may be slower. You stated that, “Distributing books can be service but not a Vedic Sadhna leading to a Siddhi.” This appears to be your opinion, and I was pointing out that the acaryas (at least in our line) have stated otherwise. If what you are saying is from the Vedas, please provide evidence, and let’s discuss it further. Hare Krsna

Very well put.

Thank you for this very nice quote. Here are a few more: "O my Lord, Your devotees can see You through the ears by the process of bona fide hearing, and thus their hearts become cleansed, and You take Your seat there. You are so merciful to Your devotees that You manifest Yourself in the particular eternal form of transcendence in which they always think of You." (SB 3.9.11) "The Kumaras said: Our dear Lord, You are not manifested to rascals, even though You are seated within the heart of everyone. But as far as we are concerned, we see You face to face, although You are unlimited. The statements we have heard about You from our father, Brahma, through the ears have now been actually realized by Your kind appearance." (SB 3.15.46) "So therefore real eyes -- the ear, not these eyes. Real eyes. That is real seeing. Therefore sastra says, Vedic knowledge, that sastra-caksusat, pasyati jnana-caksusat: "One can see by the eyes of knowledge," not by these blunt eyes. This is useless. They cannot see. And how you can see through the sabda? Sastra means sabda. Through the ear... My Guru Maharaja used to say, "Don't try to see a saintly person by your eyes. You see a saintly person by the ear." (SB 6.1.42 Lecture-- Los Angeles, June 8, 1976) "susruma: "We have received knowledge through the ears, not with the eyes." Those rascals says, "I want to see practically." He cannot see. That is not possible. The modern defect is that they do not hear. The so-called scientists, philosophers, they do not hear. They simply want to see, want to touch, want to smell, want to lick up. That is not knowledge. So they are all failure. They do not hear. But the process is here, as it is said, susruma: "We have received knowledge by hearing from the authority." That is perfect knowledge." (SB 6.1.40 Lecture-- San Francisco, July 21, 1975) ""My dear king..." Sukadeva Gosvami is speaking to King Pariksit that "There are many subject matters for the persons who are materialistic." What sort of... Why they are engaged in so many topics? Atma-tattvam apasyatam. They do not see what is self-realization. Apasyatam atma-tattvam [sB 2.1.2]. Apasyatam... Generally, we do not know, we cannot see what is atma in these material eyes. Therefore the material scientists, they say that there is no soul, because they cannot see. With their instruments or with their knowledge it is not possible. Apasyatam. They do not see it. Therefore we cannot believe our eyes. These eyes are not fit to see anything. It is under certain condition it gives us some impression. Otherwise... Therefore my Guru Maharaja used to say that saintly persons should be seen not through the eyes, but through the ears. There are different processes of seeing. Don't believe that eyes are sufficient to see everything. No." (SB 2.1.1-6 Lecture Excerpts -- Los Angeles, July 2, 1970) Hare Krsna (Did you see that?)

It appears that you are saying the same in both questions. "Person Bhagavata is present within the Book Bhagavata" = "Book Bhagavata is...an expresssion of the Person(s) Bhagavata". Is that how you meant to phrase this?

Do you mind giving your definition of “Real faith”? Do you mean nistha?

Even if one is from the category of kanistha or madhyama, he can accept the position of guru. Here Srila Prabhupada is specifically referring to the uttama-adhikari guru. He is always liberated. No. This interpretation of yours is not correct. Your opinion on this does not align itself with the great maha-bhagavata acaryas in our sampradaya. Their opinions is that the distribution of this great literature and the public chanting of the Holy Names is the yajna of the present age, and leads to the highest perfectional stage of love of God—Krsna prema. "But just service"? Yes, they could be, but since they are posted here, why should we not be allowed to discuss them? After all…you are. Aside from that, you enter into those forums and try to impose your viewpoints there. Why should we remain silent while you continue on with this distortion of Gaudiya siddhanta? Hare Krsna

I have included the following for your consideration: Srila Prabhupada (Letter to: Tamala Krsna -- Los Angeles 21 June, 1970): "[1.] A Spiritual Master is always liberated. In any condition of His life He should not be mistaken as ordinary human being. This position of a Spiritual Master is achieved by three processes. One is called sadhana siddha. That means one who is liberated by executing the regulative principle of devotional service. Another is krpa siddha, one who is liberated by the mercy of Krsna or His devotee. And another is nitya siddha who is never forgetful of Krsna throughout his whole life. These are the three features of the perfection of life. So far Narada Muni is concerned, in His previous life He was a maidservant's son, but by the mercy of the devotees He later on became siddha and next life He appeared as Narada with complete freedom to move anywhere by the grace of the Lord. So even though He was in his previous life a maidservant's son there was no impediment in the achievement of His perfect spiritual life. Similarly any living entity who is conditioned can achieve the perfectional stage of life by the above mentioned processes and the vivid example is Narada Muni. [2.] So I do not know why you have asked about my previous life. Whether I was subjected to the laws of material nature? So, even though accepting that I was subjected to the laws of material nature, does it hamper in my becoming Spiritual Master? What is your opinion? From the life of Narada Muni it is distinct that although He was a conditioned soul in His previous life, there was no impediment of His becoming the Spiritual Master. This law is applicable not only to the Spiritual Master, but to every living entity. There are thousands of examples explained in our books that the conditioned soul is never affected with the material body. It is said in the Vedas asamga ayam purusa which means the living entity is always unaffected with matter. Another example is given that the reflection of the moon on water appears to be moving, but actually the moon is not moving, it is fixed up. So any living entity is like that. His reflection on the material body appears to be changing, but the spirit soul is fixed up, therefore this movement is called illusion. Liberation means liberation from this changing condition. So far I am concerned,[3.] I cannot say what I was in my previous life, but one great astrologer calculated that I was previously a physician and my life was sinless. Besides that, to corroborate the statement of Bhagavad-gita "sucinam srimatam gehe yogabhrasta samyayate'' which means an unfinished yogi takes birth in rich family or born of a suci or pious father. By the grace of Krsna I got these two opportunities in the present life to be born of a pious father and brought up in one of the richest, aristocratic families of Calcutta (Kasinath Mullick). The Radha Krsna Deity in this family called me to meet Him, and therefore last time when I was in Calcutta, I stayed in that temple along with my American disciples. Although I had immense opportunities to indulge in the four principles of sinful life because I was connected with a very aristocratic family, Krsna always saved me, and throughout my whole life I do not know what is illicit sex, intoxication, meat-eating or gambling. [4.] So far my present life is concerned, I do not remember any part of my life when I was forgetful of Krsna." 1. The instruction speaks for itself. 2. This is practically a chastisement not to dwell on this subject. After all, what does it matter? If the guru comes from the category of "sadhana siddha" or “kripa siddha”, does that make him any less qualified? No. Not according to the example above regarding Narada Muni. 3. Here Srila Prabhupada is not confirming as such, as much as stating that according to one great astrologer, he was a physician in his previous life. Note also that he includes the word "sinless". The point here is that even if he had a previous life, it was not ordinary—it was without sin. Who that person was is not known; that in itself raises a number of other questions. Was it as we might initially conclude, as a physician in the ordinary sense? Or, could it be personally with Krsna...? We don't know. Why speculate. We have a relationship with him as our Gurudeva in this life. We are his servants, to assist him in his mission of fulfilling the desire of his dear Lords, Sri Sri Radha Krsna. That is our meditation. And if he sees fit, we will continue to assist him in his future loving service to Them—even if it is as a blade of grass. 4. Here he is clearly stating his position. This is nitya-siddha. Hare Krsna.

When a new person comes to the temple, he (or she) doesn't have enough experience or realization to know who is qualified and who is not. Consequently, the kanistha may become misguided by sentiment to prematurely surrender to someone not qualified. The GBC have the responsibility to protect the neophyte devotees [sadhakas] from this, and they are doing their best. Hare Krsna

Not necessarily.

Then accept this statement as referring to Sri Lakshmi Devi. That's alright, we accept that as well. Hare Krsna.

Yes: ataeva sarva-pujya, parama-devata sarva-palika, sarva jagatera mata ataeva -- therefore; sarva-pujya -- worshipable by all; parama -- supreme; devata -- goddess; sarva-palika -- the protectress of all; sarva jagatera -- of all the universes; mata -- the mother. "Therefore Radha is parama-devata, the supreme goddess, and She is worshipable for everyone. She is the protectress of all, and She is the mother of the entire universe." (Adi 4.89) Hare Krsna

This is from Sri Caitanya Caritamrita: krsna-vancha-purti-rupa kare aradhane ataeva ‘radhika' nama purane vakhane krsna-vancha -- of the desire of Lord Krsna; purti-rupa -- of the nature of fulfillment; kare -- does; aradhane -- worship; ataeva -- therefore; radhika -- Srimati Radhika; nama -- named; purane -- in the Puranas; vakhane -- in the description. "Her worship [aradhana] consists of fulfilling the desires of Lord Krsna. Therefore the Puranas call Her Radhika." "The name "Radha" is derived from the root word aradhana, which means 'worship.' The personality who excels all in worshiping Krsna may therefore be called Radhika, the greatest servitor." (Adi 4.87)

It's not a matter of "can't". Why do you have an objection to seeing quotes of scriptural authority? We are challenged to produce Vedic scriptural evidence. We ask if quotes from the smrti-sastras are acceptable...the response is yes. However, when we produce them, they're dismissed as text only acceptable to the Gaudiyas--even though spoken by such personalities as Lord Brahma himself. I find it odd that two individuals who appear to have so much objection to the supremacy of Radha & Krsna, are in the "Hare Krishna Discussions" forum. Why is this?

Believe what you wish.

This is only one piece of the picture taken out of context. Unless you have experience with the other pieces, how can you possibly understand it? Naturally it won't make sense. The other pieces are there, but you refuse to accept them. What can be said?