brajeshwara das

I'll admit to being stupid, sure I'm a donkey But when did I ever say my Guru is the only one, or even Gaudiya Vaishnavas are the only path? Where do you get this from? I accept the Lord in whatever way He choses to decend, but I believe in Him. I am not Him. That is one distinction I won't deny for the sake of civility or acceptance by you. Simultaneously one and different. If you don't accept that then you don't accept Caitanya Mahaprabhu and you should stop saying you do. To do so would be dishonest. Others here are espousing beliefs that exclude my path and I don't see you singling them out saying they have 'blinkers on'. Maybe you are the one with a bias, some grudge against Gaudiya Vaisnavas? They didn't show you some respect you are sure you deserve? I have no idea, but just as it is unfair for me to speculate on the internal working of your heart you should be careful in your dealings with others here. But it is always easy to find fault outside of ourselves and being honest with ourselves is the hardest of all. You repeatedly tell me to work on my sadhana, I'll take that advice like I would take all good advice even when coming from fools. I'll give that same advice back to you, if you are wise you will accept it even from a fool such as me. Namaste, Hari Bol.

Dandavats Prabhu, I need to become more conscious in all things, including my postings. I always find your posts quite helpful, for what that's worth.

I don't know why myself, but I would say because Guru is telling to do it like this, accept it and do it in a mood of service and you will be benefitted. Of course figure it out why if you need, but until then at least it may give you peace of mind and feeling of purpose - because it is service - in the meantime.

I don't buy it. The very fact that there is even a moment that that you are under illusion shows you are not omnipotent and one whole, you are sepparate. You can deny your individuality and mine and the Lord's and say Oneness is Satya, but I truly believe 'It all' is inconceivably, simultaneously one and different. Sraddha is essential for either position, and I respect your sincerity in your belief, but I'm not you and you are not me. We are we. We are both covered by illusion now and I wish you well in your search for liberation, but I search for the land of dedication where there is a dynamic relationship between myself, others and the Lord. Again, this is all a matter of faith.

It's absurd to deny we are individuals. If you disagree you prove my point.

No, because that requires a 'me' which simple 'oneness' denies. There must be a difference or we wouldn't be discussing this.

We don't dispute the oneness, but the 'difference' part is essential, and the 'inconceivable' part maybe moreso. We are marginal, and have an eternal relationship as part and parcel of the Lord but individuality. So we are one but different. Srila Swami MAharaj Prabhupada "Practically speaking, there is no conflict between personalism and impersonalism. One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintyabheda-and-abheda-tattva -- simultaneous oneness and difference."

More: Proper knowledge is not possible under the philosophical systems of Buddha and Shankaracarya. If what they say is true – the world is false – then we must ask, “Why do you speak? And to whom? If everything is false, is your philosophy also imagination?” We will have to ask Shankaracarya, “Does your coming to this world and your endeavor to refute Buddhism and establish oneness as the ultimate truth have no meaning? Who have you come to preach to? Why have you come to preach if this world has no reality? If this world is false, then why are you taking so much trouble to explain your philosophy? For what? Is your mission also imagination?” The first great opponent of Shankaracarya was Ramanuja. Ramanuja’s refutation was very strong and based on a sound foundation. Ramanuja argued: “What is the necessity for Shankaracarya to endeavor with so much energy to establish his philosophy if it is all fictitious? To say, the world is false, is a suicidal position. Has he come here to do nothing? He has come to correct us and free us from error, but there must be errors. Error or misconception has reality, otherwise, what is the necessity of spending so much energy refuting so many propositions? Maya exists. Maya is eternal. The individual soul is eternal, and maya is also eternal.”

Continuing: This material world is only a reflection of complete reality; it is a conception we find exciting to us. Compelled by local interest of enjoyment, we have embraced this creation of the Lord. With our spiritual vision covered by the spectacles of prejudice, we are seeing things in a distorted way. The Lord is not to be blamed; our spectacles should be blamed. Everything is meant for Him; the only difference in our vision of reality is that our vision is tainted with the colors of our different kinds of selfish interests. And the different planetary systems in the material world are different sub-planes in the plane of enjoyment or exploitation. Our distorted consciousness is the source of the different colors of the things that surround us. And when these illusory conceptions are fully removed, we will find that everywhere it is Krishna and Krishna only. And when the conception of Godhead as Lord and Master is removed, then receiving his impetus of activity from Krishna consciousness, the soul will find himself in Vrindavana. But in order to attain that stage, we must have no consciousness of this body, or the mind, or the country conception, the nation conception, or the globe conception. All planes of limited conception must be crossed. From soul to Supersoul, the soul must enter deeper and deeper into reality. You will find everything there. There you will find that Radharani and Krishna in Vrindavana is not false. It is neither poetry nor imagination.

Yes, but if I am God (ok, so you don't believe in God, fine) and if everything in the world is false, couldn't I just control the illusion since I (we) are all one consciousness? Why don't I have that ability, if I am Brahman? Why am I under illusion if I am Reality? If I'm Brahman, why am I so limited? Of course we also believe this world is false in a sense, but a reflection of the truth. Srila Sridhar Maharaj: We should understand that we are living in the plane of misconception. The whole thing is false. It is all a part of illusion. Within the world of illusion, some thing may have its place, but when we deal with the real truth, however, we will conclude that everything here is like a dream. This whole world is like a dream, a misconception. Any part of this world will therefore also be misconception. What is real, what is truth, will become apparent when a thing is judged in connection with the real world. The association of saints who have a genuine connection with spiritual reality promotes this transaction. What is real and what is unreal? Whatever has a connection with the real self, with the soul, is real. Soul is consciousness in the world of pure consciousness. Whatever is connected with the mind in the mental world of false-ego is all false. A part of the false is also false, extremely false. But it has got its negative utility. Everything is true only by having connection with the Absolute Truth. Everything is there in the absolute. So the finite cannot produce anything which is not in the infinite. The finite world, therefore, is rather a shadow or a perverted reflection of the whole truth. The foundation of my argument is as follows: Caitanya Mahaprabhu explained that while Shankaracharya has denied the existence of this perverted reflection, we cannot dismiss it. If it does not exist, then why has Shankara come to preach Vedanta? Illusion means “this is not that.” One thing may appear to be some thing else. An illusion is not what it appears to be, but it is not nonexistent. In that way it is real. It has its existence. Within the real world which is created by the help of the Lord’s internal energy, svarupa-shakti, this world of misconception has no place. But in a relative way, the conditioned world has an indirect relationship with the unconditioned world. So maya is existing. In that sense it is true. But it is false in that it cannot give you the desired result you are searching after. In that sense it is all false.

Sorry, I should be more tolerant.

Of course, that's what I thought. You can't explain it because we are not ready, or because your conception is bankrupt and can't hold up under scrutiny? It is very convenient for you, I guess. Whatever. Nonsense.

Sorry, posted inthe wrong forum! Totally didn't mean that for you

Hi Candice, No need to take offense, the views expressed are natural when approaching from a materialistic viewpoint. Helping the poster to understand there is something higher would be best IMO. But thanks for having my back, it is appreciated :-)

~~Didn't mean to post this here~~

Sorry, you are correct and I forgot the word 'false'. We still need to try and take a humble position, and receiving undo praise sometimes has a undesirable effect of puffing up our false ego, thinking we are more clever than we actually are, and causing us to take credit for the praise instead of immediately offering it to Guru. I've seen that in others and I've felt that in myself, so I know I am correct in that. If we keep it for ourselves the praise serves us, not Guru. Thats all, I didn't mean to contribute to 'the epitome of mayavada nonsense' Please forgive any offense.

So what position does God play? Does God exist from your point of view? What does exist? Who are we, here having this discussion? Are we 'one'? Why do we have the illusion of multiple identities if we are? So far you haven't said anything of any substance.

If God doesn't exist, if you don't exist, if the scholars don't exist, if we are not all really here, what is your point in posting? Why bother? Funny how when asked directly for scriptural backing you just say the answer is provided by all traditions. You have no clue, your answer doesn't exist. I guess that's appropriate.

So am I God and you are all just a figment of my imagination? Then I want a Ferrari. D'oh, that didn't work. Guess I'm not God after all. (Sorry God).

So, can you post references from sastra? That is what theist was asking for I believe.

I just mean there isn't just one Acarya that represents our sampradaya. Srila Swami Maharaj Prabhupada was not necessarily the most recent, but a branch.

What I meant to say I guess is that you are hearing Caitya Guru from others, you are hearing your Guru, maybe not your diksha Guru whom you will meet one day, but Guru all the same.

Even to the point of Sampradaya Acarya.

For me personally I think sometimes the concept of Bhakti Yoga is better to share because most can understand that with their current conception of God, I don't risk them offending Krsna directly, and in my own heart it is easier because I am thinking of service because I'm talking about service, so it is more likely to be service Sometimes telling those with no exposure about the little blue boy in Vrindavan playing a flute, with cows following Him around is a bit over the top. Also, even if they don't want to hear too much more, they may walk away with a strengthened idea that they are servitors of the Lord, not beggars for material boons, and if they take that into the church of their choice it will still help them in their relationship with the Lord, which is my understanding of the goal from preaching, not necessarily to convert someone to our particular line.

Or it would feed our egos to think we helped. Guru helped, if you heared Guru through me it had nothing to do with me, I assure you