brajeshwara das

That we can be proper receivers of that mercy is another matter alltogether.

I feel extremely sorry for you anadi because prasadam is freely available to all across the world with no qualifications. That is causeless mercy and it is a torrential downpour. The Lord's mercy is endless, that you tie your justifications that it is an exception to shastra makes me think you have made up your mind to back up your conclusions with scripture, not the other way around. The people hearing a hari nama party, the folks at the homeless shelter I used to bring prasadam, etc. sure, they are not attaining the mercy of the Lord through the methods stated in the sloka you mention, but show me where it says causeless mercy is an exception? Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityananda are distributing it to all without qualification, the untouchables are touchable with Thier causeless mercy.

May you receive some causeless mercy and understand this essential point.

I have been initiated twice: once as a child in confirmation in the Episcopal Church. I never rejected Christ but I rejected the Bible in it's current manifestation and I rejected the Episcopal faith and perspective on Christ. I didn't feel they represented Guru Jesus so I left. I thought the Lord's mercy must be available to all even if they never heard the name Jesus so couldn't accept Christianity.

I was initiated by Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda dev-Goswami Maharaj and consider myself properly initiated at present.

I did commit plenty of Vaishnava aparadha which made me live in exile from the Math for a long while (7 years bad luck!) but I never rejected my Guru or Gaudiya Vaisnava teachings, though my faith was pretty weak for a while. The mercy is the Vaisnavas don't take offense, so here I am again. Dayal Nitai!

I am an ignorant person and have many faults, so please forgive any misrepresentations or offenses I may have commited here. They are solely my own.

Yes, all well and good especially if you fully accept the current Bible as unpolluted teachings of Jesus (which I don't), but when you say Christ (meaning the Lord God) does that mean to you only that incarnation (as Christ) can be accepted, or do you acknowledge that the Lord's mercy extends beyond that one time, place, and circumstance and that the Lord can manifest whenever He wants to for the salvation of the spirit souls? Does the Lord have that freedom? This is the teaching in the Bhagavad Gita that allows us to accept Christ as valid and accept Christians as having a bona-fide connection to the Lord. An issue arises when we are denied the same.

The Lord we speak of is one and the same as the Christian God, described in a differnt way, so when in the Bible it says to follow Him, we accept that and try to hear and follow Him wherever He speaks, for us most clearly in the vedic literature and through our Gurus. We don't limit Him to ancient Israel nor ancient India.

I have a feeling this same post appears in a hundred different forums across the web. What is especially telling is that the poster says HE DIED in caps but has absolutely no clue whatsoever about what he's talking about. Christ also apparently died, it says so in the Bible, it may say he rose again but it does say he died . I want to be respectful and give the guy a chance to discuss the Lord we all want to serve, and I have to believe he is sincere and wants to do some sort of service, but this really seems a counterproductive way of going about it.

This is the issue: faith. If you have no faith in our scriptures, why would you expect us to have faith in yours? (which I actually do have some regard and limited faith in BTW). They just become so many empty words if faith isn't present. I believe the Lord's mercy descends to all depending on thier capacity to receive it, so I can see validity in your faith for you. What I am uncomfortable with is the notion from many Christian quarters that the Lord's mercy is limited to thier faith. I sincerely hope that isn't the case with you.

Um, ok. Where to begin? You are not the body:

One time Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaja was asked about Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's apparently contradictory statement about topics such as the origin of the soul. He replied that sometimes for the sake of pravacana (preaching), "siddhanta (devotional conclusions) may be crossed".

Thanks for that Beggar. Even so, in this case I don't think Srila Swami Maharaj was contridictory, that doesn't seem to be anadi's contention.

Dear brajeshwara, dandavat pranam,

 

dervarji asked this question:

If someone is claiming that one of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's purports does not stand the proof against revealed writings, that charge ought to be backed up with some principle example.

 

 

That example with Karma came up by chance in a discussion with CBrahma, where he used a statement of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami as the absolute evidence.

Many people use to think that whatever he wrote is the absolute truth,

but many thigs were circumstancial, as you also admit.

 

You can see the whole context under:

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/435055-perfection-life.html

 

I'm not going to play semantic games here. I'm not 'admitting' that he changes the truth depending on the circumstances. I'm saying just because he doesn't say 10,000 slokas in one sitting or quote the entire Mahabharat in a purport doesn't mean that he in any way, shape or form is inaccurate.

I have had experiences with devotees chanting while driving, I didn't want to cause offense but is this an OK practice? It seems you couldn't really focus on eaither correctly, and though I am plenty guilty for inattentive chanting with my mind wandering off constantly, it seems there is no way to not be inattentive while driving.

If driving is something to be avoided while chanting, what else should be avoided? I walk while chanting for example. Though moving much more slowly and at much less risk, maybe it is a similar situation.

Please forgive my ignorance.

Theist: thanks for clarifying.

anadi: If Srila Prabhupada had only given the explanation of karma you have issue with, then ok, incomplete would be inaccurate. But that isn't the case. If you take the one purport out of context with the whole of Srila Prabhupada's teachings and say because it isn't complete it is inaccurate, who could say that is fair? This could be done with any commentary from anyone.

Now,

It is important to know what the incompleteness and inaccuracy were referring to.

I still don't think your criticisms of Srila Prabhupada are valid, because you ignore the context where something may not be fully explained because of the limitations of the audience.

It's not chance, but the will of the jiva that he was in that place at that time. It's by the will of the Lord that he sees the sadhus, temples, smells the incense, and bathes in the Ganges.

I would say that having anyone around you that is being kind to you, and helping you guide yourself, would be someone to keep around. Regardless of religion, we can learn from one another. How wonderful that is.

Thanks for the very nice, encouraging words!

Prabhupada's use of the word karmi was always understood to be used in a generous way.

 

A devotee is empowered by Lord Nityanada to spread the Holy name around this fallen less then human world and which he does at an advanced age and at great sacrifice to himself and still some want to criticize even if they have to resort to nit-picking over some insignificent word usage.

 

Sheesh

I meant no disrespect to Srila Prabhupada. I was just referring to what I had seen used in a improper way, not referring to anything Srila Prabhupada had ever said or written at all. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.

Edit: Incidentally, I heard this at my Math's ashrams, since I have almost no exposure to ISKCON.

Guru Maharaj ki jaya!

Yes, (quote from memory) Devotee said: "I am the most fallen" Prabhupada said: "You aren't the most anything."

I personally have never heard of Ananta Das Babaji Maharaja, probably showing how sheltered I am, but I think anadi is being sincere in his comments here, and had not mentioned anyone as an alternative to anyone else.

Regarding 'karmis' as mentioned by anadi, in Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math I also have been told not to call western pleasure seeking workers 'karmis' because 'karmi' is actually a higher thing that should be respected as mentioned. Only thing is who is really a 'karmi' in Kali Yuga? Varnashrama is in shambles and all are pleasure-seekers. But I really think we shouldn't throw the term around as a slur at people we see as materialistic.

I'm chaste to my Gurudeva, that won't change from anything anyone says here or who thier guru or inspiration may be, and I think as long as the discussion is respectful then why bring up some mention of sepparate agendas? The Truth should be the only agenda.

I don't think that " ...when it is incomplete, ...it is inacurate" is a realistic assumption. One sloka of the Bhagavad Gita standing alone may appear incomplete, but is it inaccurate? I don't believe so. Depending on the listener's capacity the Guru may limit the discussion. My Gurudeva will not talk about the intimate pastimes of Sri Radha and Krishna with me because I'm obviously not qualified, for example. Does that make anything he says about the pastimes in Vrindavan inaccurate? What nonsense! Srila Swami Maharaj Prabhupada is not beyond some critical study before you accept His interpretation, but I think the justification used by anadi is bogus and limited in understanding of Guru and how He is revealed to each jiva.

I've had 'buddhas' around me for years, and always have seen them as individual people, and though not a Buddhist I have seen them as 'psychologists' to me, encouraging me to see beyond my illusions in searching for the truth. I'm just wondering what kind of realationship is 'proper' and since I don't see them as the impersonalist sort, is it ok to keep them around? I don't do any puja etc, they just keep me company.

Doesn't take much though sir, and does explain why most senior swami maharaj disciples are with BVNM....

 

Perhaps you should rethink?

The point is you can meet a 'real devotee' through the books of Srila Prabhupada if you can see that He is there in the books. Not being able to see him there, and therefore needing to find a 'real devotee' elsewhere shows a lack of vision. Of course who has that vision in reality?

I Googled this and found it on http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/demigods.htm

This is pretty interesting:

Q: It is stated in Srimad Bhagavatam that Lord Buddha was an incarnation of Krsna but Lord Buddha did not accepted Vedas, neither he accepted reincarnation, nor soul. So how is it possible that he was an incarnation of Krsna?

A: In the purport to BG 4.7, SB 1.3.24, etc. Srila Prabhupada explains that Buddha (different from widely known Sakyamuni, Siddharta Gautama) had a special mission in Lord's plan to restore Vedic dharma. He came to dismantle the degenerate approach of brahmanas of that time. They were killing animals in the name of Vedic sacrifice. Thus he rejected the Vedas to deprive them of the basis of their misconduct. Later Adi Sankara came and continued this plan by establishing the authority of Vedas but he taught that the Absolute is impersonal. After him came Vaisnava teachers like Ramanuja, Madhva etc. who preached the genuine Vedic conclusion - Absolute is ultimately a person. This supreme person is Visnu/Krsna. At last came Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and established His doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, the ultimate Vedic siddhanta. This is the gist.

The Buddha who was supposedly born in 563 BC is not the incarnation of Sri Narayana. Gautama Buddha is one who has publicized the Buddha philosophy which was preached by Sri Narayana as a child. It should be assumed that Gautama Buddha is not the manifestation of Sri Narayana.

I never heard that before.

I thought it would be nice to learn more about Lord Buddha, not from a Buddhist perspective but from the Vaisnava perspective. Could anyone speak on this topic?

So Krishna's divine movements are kept in reserve by His sweet will: "All Rights Reserved." We want to search for some law above His sweet will, but this is inconsistent, self-contradictory. On the one side we say that Krishna moves by His own sweet will, but on another side we try to find some law governing His movement. This is a contradiction.

—Loving Search For The Lost Servant

One could say, " my gurudeva was so merciful to me that he revealed to me in a vision that he is not a person of this world. Yet despite this I am still so fallen that I am not yet fullfiling his divine orders." Best to preach from sadhu, sastra and guru.

But even so, what if someone then asks what the vision was? Would it be best just to never bring it up? It was pretty powerful, somehow I feel it wasn't just for me.

I guess I should ask my Gurudeva.