Murali_Mohan_das

Thakur Bhaktivinoda ki jai!!!

The crazy thing is the Pyschiatrists and Phd. Pyschologists would want to medicate someone like Jada Bharata to help him become functional in this world.

 

Up is down and black is white in this inside out world.

That's for sure. I myself have no desire to be "normal" by conventional standards.

It is ignorance to think we are equal to God. Period. End of story.

While we can harmonize our will with God's will, we will never be God any more than my left foot will be my whole body.

Thanks for your kindness, and understanding, Kula-ji.

You see the point which I am trying to make.

Beggar seems to be blinded by his emotions (as I so often am).

Murali, you must admit that writing certain things on this site is asking for a very close shave with a scythe... Certain things are best discussed among like-minded friends.

 

As to the controversy on hand...

 

The way I understand your hypothetical statement about Prabhupada, is that to you: an individual is what he really is, not what his projected image is, or what his followers think he is. And I agree with that.

 

I have seen disciples of a fallen guru throwing out into trash their guru's books and tapes just a few days after his falldown was made official, and their attitude towards that guru turning from blind acceptance to blind rejection. Yet, before and after the fall-down that guru was essentially exactly the same person. That is a total idiocy.

 

I rejected Harikesha as my guru not because he had sex with a woman while being a sannyasi, but because he no longer represented our sampradaya in his thougts, teachings, and deeds. If he gave up sannyas, settled down as an honest married man, and actually represented our sampradaya in every way, I would not have rejected him, or thought any less about him.

By mundane calculations, our beloved Sri Krishna is the greatest meat-eater, mass-murderer (think: Universal Form) and philanderer of them all.

He is so beautiful, though, He could do anything and the gopis would still adore him as Govinda.

Eminem, sometimes it is best to just walk away.

I think you're right.

Debating with the atheists and meat-eaters on another web-site lately has been a lot more nurturing of my faith.

I must point out that intoxicated hippies of 1960's San Francisco are no more qualified to hear Hari-katha than were "the simple folk" of ancient Palestine. If the establishment of iskcon in an environment of free sex and free drugs is possible, then it begs the question as to why these other supposedly shakti-avesha avatars did not come teach what iskcon taught in their respective historical periods, which were no more degraded than is contemporary modern civilization.

Good points. Srila Prabhupada was certainly "Abhay", or fearless.

Also, as has been said many times before, Jesus was no fool. If he *had* studied in India, he knew that he was preaching to simple folk in Palestine, so he couched his teachings in parables and presented things in terms that would be accessible to his audience, rather than use traditional Vaishnava terminology and history.

Well, anything is possible. Perhaps my vision is deluded and there is something there that I am not seeing. What specifically do you see as the obviously Vaishnava influences on Jesus' teachings that distinguish them from Judaism? Note that I am not asking what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism, but rather what are the Vaishnava influences on Christianity?

I wish I could give you a patient, detailed reply.

There is a member of Audarya called HerServant who could give you a much better response than I could. If you look through his postings, you'll find a lot of interesting thought and information.

To me, it's not so much that Jesus was influenced by Vaishnava thought, but that certain spiritual principles are universal and may be revealed by the Lord in the hearts of sincere seekers anywhere at any time.

In brief though, Jesus said to focus on our own shortcomings rather than pointing out the shorcomings of others. Srila Gurudev says, "my religion is finding fault with myself". Jesus placed love of God above all else, as do the Vaishnavas. Jesus placed service to God (though service to God's representative) above ritualistic activities as do the Vaishnavas.

That's all I can manage at the moment.

The idea that, in the material world, there can be some objective standard of justice is an illusion--wishful thinking.

It is a fact that there are double-standards everywhere and the law is almost never applied equally to all.

A police officer told me that he had once pulled over a prominent local businessman who was clearly drunk. Rather than arrest him for DUI, he advised him to drive carefully and sent him on his way.

Ultimately, the only fair justice is karma. Beyond that, mercy is higher than justice.

Is it our place to judge the acharya and his actions?

First, just quoting my post doesn't mean that you took the time and energy to carefully read what I wrote. Next, when Srila Govinda Maharaj was in Soquel in 2004 he remarked, "everyone knows that Guru Maharaj and Swami Maharaj (Prabhupada) were charged against Mayavada and Sahjiyaism". Even from the neutral point of view we can understand that this is also the position of Srila Govinda Maharaj. In the minds of Gaudiya Vaisnavas the most classic form of Sahjiyaism is trying to experience aprakrata parakiya bhava by having sex outside of marriage. To infer that a Gaudiya Vaisnava guru is or has done such a thing is to impune his character. This would be true even theorectically. It doesn't matter whether I think that it is scandalous, it matters what those situated in reality think - those like Srila Sridhar Maharaj and your guru etc. It is your duty as an initiated disciple to bring your thoughts in line with theirs. If you cannot control your mind in such a way than at least when you write after you have identified yourself as a disciple, you must be careful about what you write because you are representing your guru, param guru and entire guru varga. If you want to come on as a "civilian" under an assumed screen name then that's another thing entirely.

This entire line of argument is basically the same as when you were writing on another thread opposing the sastric schedule of incarnating Yuga Avataras by using the argument that the Lord is completely independent. No doubt the Lord is completely independent but that line of thought was irrelevant to the discussion. Now you are saying that because a self realized sadhu or guru who is "as good as the Lord" can therefore do anything and everything. Because the topic is Sahajiyaism your theory might seem on point because sleeping with a disciple like that would be a classic case of such Prakrta Sahajiyaism, at least according to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. But actually what you have brought up is not on point at all, if the idea of the independence of the Lord and pure devotees is the issue then it is only on point or relevent if you are proposing that adultry is way to experience the transcendental parakiya bhava, which in fact, I believe you are doing in an unconscious manner.

It's curious don't you think, that if he supposedly studied in India and was influenced in some way by Krishna, that no trace of this Vaishnava influence seems to have survived in his teachings?

Perhaps that is more a limitation in your vision than an actual reality.

I see plenty of Vaishnava influence in Jesus' teachings. His teachings are certainly a radical departure from the Jewish orthodoxy of his time.

Others say Jesus was an Essene.

You're implying that my thought is somehow scandalous. To you it might be. To me it is not.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja refused to think or speak ill even of those who had attempted to have him killed, or those who blasphemed him.

In my mind, Srila Prabhupada, as is Srila Gurudev, is beyond repproach whatever their apparent actions may be.

To some folks, some questionable (to them) statements Srila Prabhupada made about women or people of color is enough to shake their faith in him. How shallow must that faith be?

As Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur has stated in the "The Bhaghavat" speech, no thought is a bad thought. What is the inner meaning of this, perhaps even that an antithesis will arise and then synthesis? Another meaning is perhaps couched within that thought is the seed of a more progressive representation of that thought. So the idea that a liberated soul can do anything, or that ones faith should be unconditional is perhaps the thought behind your thought. But what would be the motive for expressing such a thought by the wording and the name you have chosen to invoke? If I say, "Hypothetically if I called you an ass, which in real life I would never do...", wouldn't that on some level be the same as actually calling you an ass? Also if one has no idea of what your motives are they could perhaps come up with the theory that you have knowledge that your guru is not following the regulative principles, and you are trying to float that idea through a hypothetical situation. You are posting lectures from Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math speakers and your param guru, Srila Sridhar Maharaj has said that he was even more conservative than his guru Maharaja, Srila Saraswati Thakur. How is this consistent? One minute you are representing your Math and the next minute not? Or the doubt will creep in, "oh maybe he is trying to tell us something about his own Math?" Or the classic law school example, is shouting out , 'fire' (if there is no fire) in a crowded movie theater protected under the right of free speech? Is your hypothetical, protected under the universal right of freedom of thought given by the Creator? The controversy you stir up may seem like fun, even superficially for me, also. But as Srila Prabhupada said when he installed the Radha Krsna dieties in L.A., "be careful you are dealing with Krsna".

So Jesus is a form of the "supreme consciousness" and not to accept this is silly?

 

Why would you expect to see tilak on Jesus? He is not a Vaishnava.

Some folks claim Jesus visited and studied in India.

I have Jewish blood in my body from my mother's side, and *I'm* horrified by some the stances taken by Zionists. The bombing of the King David Hotel seems to have been a clear act of terrorism which was commemorated 12 years ago or so by the state of Israel.

They claimed it was a "mistake", though the ship was clearly marked, but Israeli fighters killed U.S. servicemen on the U.S.S. Liberty.

Go ahead. Call me a "Jew-hating Jew", theist.

My bias is mostly directed towards distortions of the facts and truth in general, as in the above posted exchange. You may chose to read anything you like from my posts, just like you may chose to read anything you like from Prabhupada's letter above.

 

Btw. Altough Lord Krsna is a transcendental person, He had offspring while here on Earth thus the issue of blood line is perfectly legitimate. Because Krsna did not want ANYBODY to make claims of connection to that blood line, He destroyed all of His kin. Those who claim otherwise are either misinformed, or are lying. This is how I read shastra on this subject, and this is what Prabhupada is saying.

If Srila Prabhupada had, hypothetically-speaking, had an intimate relationship with one of his lady disciples, I would not think of him as any less than what he is--a pure, cent-per-cent dedicated devotee of the Lord.

I suspect the (all too shallow and conditional) faith of theist and many others would be shattered.

Well said, Kula! Way to call a lynching what it is.

I would ask you what ridiculous point you are trying to make with that comment but in truth I am really not interested in your viewpoint.

I see that. No doubt, you are much more interested in being the de facto "acharya" of Audarya and accepting tribute from your grateful "disciples" while being critical of other acharyas.

Cheers!!

Funny. My birth father (not my step-father) is a self-proclaimed sahajiya.

I guess I'm a son of a sahajiya. I'm still working on achieving sahajiya status, what to speak of true Krishna Bhakti.

visiting www.krishna.org and listening to govinda used to be one of my favourite activities...... is all i have to say....... you win...

That's impossible!! Nobody's *ever* supposed to concede *anything* on Audarya!!!!

There's a difference between imitating the Lord's Rasa Lila and seeing that all enjoyment is coming from the Lord and is ultimately *for* the Lord.

Wasn't it *you* theist, on another thread, who was in essence calling Srila Prabhupada's body a "bag of bones"?

A thief thinks everyone else is a thief.

when krishna says in the bhagvad geeta that the whole world rests on" me" as pearls on a string ...what is the "me" that krishna is reffering to ?? is he trying to say that the planets are resting on his 2 armed form???.. catch the drift.....

I recently saw something by an ISKCON scientist discussing how it is said in Scripture that everything rests within the Lord and that, simultaneously, the Lord exists within each atom of creation. Taken to a logical extreme, these two statements mean that all of creation is contained within each particle of creation. Truly, this is inconceivable.

As you say, discussing these things are useless, as they are inconceivable. Only by the Lord's Mercy can we have any insight.

Remember the principle of "dovetailing" material desires and tendencies with the service for Krsna Srila Prabhupada was talking about? This is what the sahajiyas are saying as well: dovetailing the sexuality with remembering Krsna.

 

One could ask a question: What is more artificial? A sannyasi who constantly struggles with his sexuality, living a bitter life of pretentious denial, or someone who sees in his sex life the re-enactment of the union between God and Goddess, the purusha and prakriti. Not all Vaishnava sahajiyas were taking their tradition as a license for unlimited sense gratification - some were actually very sincere practicioners of bhakti.

It is about what you remember on your deathbed.

Good points, Kula!

Going back to the opening of this thread:

My question is why would Krsna want to enjoy a bag of flesh, blood and bones? This type of thinking portrays Krsna as a mundane womanizerlust after meat instead of the unlimited transcendental lover.

Some people see the body of Sri Guru as being a "bag of flesh, blood and bones". As Srila Prabhupada pointed out in a morning walk quoted elsewhere on this forum, at what point does the flower growing on the tree become spiritualized? Is it that it was mundane when it was growing on the tree, but it suddenly becomes spiritual when we offer it to the Deity? No, he says (if my memory serves), it is our *vision* of it which has changed.

On the ultimate level, this is all the energy of the Lord. Ultimately, *everything* is spiritual, though, for the sake of sadhana, we must distinguish between that which is favorable and that which is not favorable.

I keep thinking about Kama Gayatri...

No kidding!!! Well-said.

It's funny how many materialists I run across on another site who assume that one's choice of diet, for example, is a strictly personal choice, with no consequences to anybody else. *That's* just how narcisistic we've become!!!

Missing the understanding that they dig out their own grave by plunging their foot soldiers into impoverishment and hard knocks? Managing directors presently earning 400x more than average workers, insatiable greed for wealth but dwelling in a state of severe partnership disorder? Appears like another intermediate stop in the timetable of ongoing kali-yuga.