Srila Prabhupada's Dilemma?

[Guruvani 0]

Here is an example of Srila Prabhupada saying two contradictory things in the same breath.

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 9.137

 

 

Only when one regains his original spiritual body can he enter into the spiritual kingdom. As far as the rāsa-līlā pastimes of the Lord are concerned, it is futile for one who is within the material world to attempt to imitate the Lord's dances. One has to attain a spiritual body like that of a gopī to enter into the pastimes of the rāsa-līlā.

As far as my limited intellect goes, I consider "regaining" and "attaining" as two different things altogether.

Regain means we had it but lost it.

Attain means we never had it but can acquire it.

 

Honestly.................... Srila Prabhupada sometimes just confuses me.

 

As far as I can see he is saying two very different things in the same breath.

 

I have to confess, I am at a loss as to what he is trying to say or convey to his reader.

 

This kind of preaching tactic just discourages me.

I don't like to be told two different things in the same breath.

 

Can anybody save me from eternal damnation?

[Guruvani 0]

All I can figure is that Srila Prabhupada is trying to satisfy two different ways of thinking at the same time.

 

Is it that there are two different ways of understanding things and Srila Prabhupada was just trying to appeal to both parties at the same time?

 

What a dilemma.

 

Why did it have to be this way?

[theist 1]

Srila Prabhupada is not confusing you...your mind is. You are hearing contradiction where there is none. Why have so much faith in your mind that you don't question if it is just possible you are not hearing him correctly?

 

What is the mind's business? Accepting and rejecting. Without coming to the point of realization it someytimes will accept one thing and then turn around and reject the very same thing.

 

The mind is controled by hearing krsna conscious subject metter from the devotee of Krsna. This is not the same as reading Srila Prabhupada's books and then sailing off into whatever our mind thinks about what we have just read.

 

Our hearing must go deeper than mental and intellectual levels to satisfy the self.

 

Too much thinking is only maya's smokescreen whereby she continues to cover the soul while leading us to believe we are deep into the process of self realization. The Christian saying that the devil quotes scripture is applicable here. In this case the devil is the materially conditioned mind which can be hyperactivitically chattering away and "thinking about God consciousness" and keeping us so preoccupied with listening to it that we never get around to tasting actual God consciousness.

 

Just like the body can speak too much the mind can think too much. I find truth in the statement, Think less, Know more.

[Avinash 0]

I did not get confused at all. Rather, I found it quite clear. Consider the words "regains his original spiritual body". Consider the word "original". It means that there was a time, when we had spiritual body. And we should have that body again. If we gain something, which we had in the past, then we use the word "regain".

The statement "Only when one regains his original spiritual body can he enter into the spiritual kingdom." means that there was a time when we had spiritual body and now we do not have. Before entering into spiritual kingdom, we once again need to have spiritual body. In other words, one cannot enter into spiritual kingdom with material body.

 

Next, consider the statement "One has to attain a spiritual body like that of a gopī to enter into the pastimes of the rāsa-līlā."

It means that gopis are always having rasa-lila with Lord Krishna and those gopis have spiritual bodies. If we also want to participate in the rasa-lila, then we also need to have spiritual bodies. Here the word "regain" is not used because there is no word "original" or any other word to indicate that we already had spiritual body and we should gain it again.

Do not miss forest for trees. If a statement as a whole has simple meaning, then be happy with that meaning. If you start disecting the statement to find more accurate meaning, then rather than finding more accurate meaning, you will lose even the simple meaning.

[Guruvani 0]

 

I did not get confused at all. Rather, I found it quite clear. Consider the words "regains his original spiritual body". Consider the word "original". It means that there was a time, when we had spiritual body. And we should have that body again.

 

Sorry, I don't buy it.

That would say that we had a spiritual body but we more or less died.

At least became comatose in our spiritual body.

 

Well, that concept flies in the face of everything that shastra says about the infallibility of spiritual perfect souls in spiritual bodies.

 

I don't accept such contradictory concepts.

 

Krishna says his devotees are infallible.

Shastra says marginal jivas are fallible.

 

So, obviously the pure devotees of Krishna are not marginal jivas with all sorts of fallibility to become ensnared in illusion.

 

Nope.

It's not possible that we previously had a spiritual body that we forgot about because we fell into illusion.

 

Maya cannot touch the devotees of Krishna in the spiritual world.

Maya has no influence and no entrance there.

 

As such, there is no possibility that a liberated devotee of Krishna can ever at any time forget his spiritual body in service to Krishna.

 

To propose such is against the shastric conclusions.

[theist 1]

 

Sorry, I don't buy it.

That would say that we had a spiritual body but we more or less died.

At least became comatose in our spiritual body.

 

You having been repeating this misconception daily for months now never hearing that the answer is there is no past or present conceptions in transcendence.

 

Ah well, please continue to beat your head against the wall all you like. It appears to be your chosen path for ultimately rejecting your spiritual master. Far be it for me to interfer with your chosen path. To do so you need to concoct a reason which you have done and now you are in the process of solidifying that within your mind.. I hate to see it happen though. I also hate to see you doing it on a public forum and potentially dragging others into your mess.

[Guruvani 0]

 

You having been repeating this misconception daily for months now never hearing that the answer is there is no past or present conceptions in transcendence.

 

Ah well, please continue to beat your head against the wall all you like. It appears to be your chosen path for ultimately rejecting your spiritual master. Far be it for me to interfer with your chosen path. To do so you need to concoct a reason which you have done and now you are in the process of solidifying that within your mind.. I hate to see it happen though. I also hate to see you doing it on a public forum and potentially dragging others into your mess.

Actually, it finally came to me what Srila Prabhupada is saying.

Our original form is as a spirit spark 1/10,000th the size the tip of a hair.

If we regain that form without the material covering then we can enter into Vaikuntha as a spirit spark like we were originally.

 

But, if we aspire to reach Goloka as an associate of Krishna we must ATTAIN a proper spiritual body for reciprocating that particular exchange of love with Krishna.

 

So, I have resolved the dilemma and all is well in baddha-jiva land.

 

This understanding resolves all the similar references and apparent contradictions that are found in the writings of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Our original form is as a spirit spark.

We can attain a spiritual form for serving Krishna if we are blessed by his pure devotee and given the seed of a higher kind of relationship than we had constitutionally as a spirit spark in the glance of Maha-Vishnu.

 

For me, this perfectly solves the enigma and I am absolutely convinced that this is actually what Srila Prabhupada has been trying to get into our thick heads from the beginning.

 

Others can maintain their bizarre and apa-siddhanta conception that we were gopis or cowherd boys and turned against Krishna.

 

Myself, I don't buy that fairytale for a nano-second.

[theist 1]

Guruvani, I can sense a certain resolution and relief of stress in your last post. That is really good to hear. As I have said I take no position on the fall controversy. I just don't know and I can see strong points on both sides of the issue.

 

But I can see why Srila Prabhupada always suggested we not worry about it. It causes great and needless divisions amongst devotees who agree on 99% of the rest of the philosophy.

 

As far as as the spiritsoul having the form of a pinpoint of spiritual essence I agree on that point that such should also be considered a form. I can't remember the referrence but there is a Prabhupada statement like that somewhere in the body of his work.

 

Again the question might be is even that state a secondary state between the spiritself's dreaming itself away from it's svarupa or rasa body before entering the mahat-tattva? There is an allusion to this in Crow and Tal fruit.

 

As even then this is still all happening in the realm beyond material time so who among us can say. Certainly not me. Yet another reason to step back from the abyss of this debate and just let others have their own opinions.

 

Again I am just happy to see your mind peaceful over this one.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Guruvani, I can sense a certain resolution and relief of stress in your last post. That is really good to hear. As I have said I take no position on the fall controversy. I just don't know and I can see strong points on both sides of the issue.

 

But I can see why Srila Prabhupada always suggested we not worry about it. It causes great and needless divisions amongst devotees who agree on 99% of the rest of the philosophy.

 

As far as as the spiritsoul having the form of a pinpoint of spiritual essence I agree on that point that such should also be considered a form. I can't remember the referrence but there is a Prabhupada statement like that somewhere in the body of his work.

 

Again the question might be is even that state a secondary state between the spiritself's dreaming itself away from it's svarupa or rasa body before entering the mahat-tattva? There is an allusion to this in Crow and Tal fruit.

 

As even then this is still all happening in the realm beyond material time so who among us can say. Certainly not me. Yet another reason to step back from the abyss of this debate and just let others have their own opinions.

 

Again I am just happy to see your mind peaceful over this one.

As far as the issue being untouchable and inappropriate, I think the fact that Bhaktivinoda Thakur has given elaborate and sophisticated coverage of the topic in Jaiva Dharma shows that it is in fact an important aspect and concept in the Gaudiya siddhanta.

The matter of the fall and illusionment of the jiva is also well-covered and discussed in Sri Chaitanya Caritamrita and other shastric literatures as well.

 

So, the attempt to derail and sideline the issue and the discussion with assertions that the topic is off-limites doesn't fly in my book.

 

As far the the jiva falling to become a spirit spark from the position of pure devotional service to Krishna as an eternal associate and devotee, that too would have to include the matter of a pure devotee of Krishna becoming ensnared by illusion from the platform of pure devotional service as a liberated associate of Lord Krishna.

 

I cannot accept that theory either that before we fell from the spirit spark form we had a form of sandhini shakti as servant of Radha and Krishna.

 

All those ideas are based on the necessity that a devotee in Goloka fell into maya.

Nothing but illusion can turn a devotee against Krishna.

Maya cannot touch any devotee of Krishna in Goloka or Narayana in Vaikuntha.

That is a shastric conclusion.

 

I don't see how Srila Prabhupada can suggest that we dismiss any issue that is already included in matters covered in the shastra.

 

During the Prabhupada-era that might have been avoidable.

In the post-Prabhupada era it has become a major issue that divides ISKCON from the classic Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

I don't see it as irrelevant or improper to seek resolution to these issues.

 

I am certainly going to resolve it in my own mind sooner or later.

I am getting real close to finding the answers I have been looking for.

 

So, for me it has been a very enlightening issue to research and I am solaced and satisfied with the conclusions I am finding.

 

I am not a finished professor by no means.

 

I am a researcher and a student.

But, I can't yet claim to be a devotee of Krishna or a disciple of Srila Prabhupada.

[theist 1]

Yes research but remember the mind has no access to the answer. It comes by revelation. What is useless is the constant "debate" that has been going here and elsewhere for the last decade or more on the issue. I have yet to see a mind changed on the topic and if if some mind is changed what does that mean?

 

It is like the diksa debate. Over and over and over again. But whatever.

 

And as far as I can remeber from my one and only reading of Jaiva Dharma when questioned on this point the teacher (name?) finally answered that to undestand the answer "you have to go there".

 

So I am not suggesting that one not question but I am saying if we really want the answer we will have to "go there", to the place where the answer lies.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Yes research but remember the mind has no access to the answer. It comes by revelation. What is useless is the constant "debate" that has been going here and elsewhere for the last decade or more on the issue. I have yet to see a mind changed on the topic and if if some mind is changed what does that mean?

 

It is like the diksa debate. Over and over and over again. But whatever.

 

And as far as I can remeber from my one and only reading of Jaiva Dharma when questioned on this point the teacher (name?) finally answered that to undestand the answer "you have to go there".

 

So I am not suggesting that one not question but I am saying if we really want the answer we will have to "go there", to the place where the answer lies.

 

The issue can be reconciled in the mind.

It is conceptual, not necessarily dependent on revelation.

It's just a matter of understanding the phraseology of Srila Prabhupada and the acharyas.

I think the answers can be found in shastra for an issue like this.

It's not your relationship with Krishna that has to be developed in raganuga bhakti and realized per se.

It's just sorting out shastric conclusions.

You don't have to be self-realized to understand what the books are saying.

 

But, if you don't like the topic then maybe you can come up with an interesting topic and generate some discussion on some other subject.

 

I guess we could talk about the weather?

There are few topics that I get interested in.

I see topics coming and going daily here as they flop.

 

I don't get interested in petty topics and small talk.

I like to deal with the most controversial and divisive issues that are confronting the KC movement and causing sectarianism within the movement.

[theist 1]

Well if you notice I am talking about the topic(note referrence to Bhaktivinodes Jaiva Dharma). I am just taking a different angle and not entering into your divisive intent. Is that the only mode you are capable of discussing in?

 

I like to deal with the most controversial and divisive issues that are confronting the KC movement and causing sectarianism within the movement.

 

You are correct in that divisivness and controversy get the most attention and if that is the way you measure success then have at it. This is the age for it.

 

I'll just shake off the dust and move on.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Well if you notice I am talking about the topic(note referrence to Bhaktivinodes Jaiva Dharma). I am just taking a different angle and not entering into your divisive intent.

My divisive intent?

The divisive intent is not on my part.

 

I seek harmony and unity through a common shastric understanding of controverisal issues.

 

If devotees can get past the fairytales and myths, then there is a good chance that the Gaudiya community can find peace and unity.

 

As long as ISKCON wants to rewrite the Gaudiya siddhanta on the basis of myths, then ISKCON will not be able to maintains it's prominent position as a leading Gaudiya Vaishnava organization around the world.

 

You are very quick to make harsh judgements about my intent.

I just as easily turn it around and say that you are a divider yourself because you persist to embrace the fairytale as actual Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

As far as I am concerned I seek unity and harmony.

If you think me a divider then I would just have to remind you of something your Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

[theist 1]

If you really seek some form of unity then you will have to accept unity in diversity and tolerate others holding a different view from yours on this subject. UNITY DOES MEAN CONFORMITY.

 

The same goes for the other side of this debate. They quote Prabhupada extensively yet ignore his advice not to worry about it. They also must learn to tolerate others having an opposing view to theirs and possibly even their spiritual master's viewpoint.

 

Just look at the titles of your most recent threads. If not directly offensive to Srila Prabhupada they certainly border on it.

 

Then there is this statement.

 

I just as easily turn it around and say that you are a divider yourself because you persist to embrace the fairytale as actual Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

I have consistently said I take no position in this debate yet you accuse me of believing in fairytales. I have not promoted either position. You can't say what I think is the ultimate truth about this topic because I myself admit I don't know the final answer.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Actually, it finally came to me what Srila Prabhupada is saying.

Our original form is as a spirit spark 1/10,000th the size the tip of a hair.

If we regain that form without the material covering then we can enter into Vaikuntha as a spirit spark like we were originally.

 

But, if we aspire to reach Goloka as an associate of Krishna we must ATTAIN a proper spiritual body for reciprocating that particular exchange of love with Krishna.

 

So, I have resolved the dilemma and all is well in baddha-jiva land.

 

 

You are very much on track IMO. Here is an additional thought.

 

In the spiritual sense our consciousness is our body. The development of our spiritual body IS the development of our consciousness - right now our consciousness is very small - downright atomic - but as it grows and develops a particular rasa, THAT is the development of our spiritual body.

 

Originally we are just a spark in the dazzling brilliance of outer brahmajyoti, without much flavor (rasa). It is the interaction with other devotees and Krsna that gradually inspires us to develop our own particular spiritual nature and form.

[Kulapavana 0]

Once you actually DEVELOP a spiritual body - it never goes away. That is why no-one ever falls from Vaikuntha.

[suchandra 1]

 

 

I cannot accept that theory either that before we fell from the spirit spark form we had a form of sandhini shakti as servant of Radha and Krishna.

 

 

Since thousands of years a very similiar situation is there in all the other religions who believe in God. Somehow the followers of other religions seem to be more humble in drawing conclusions than present Vaishnavas. Present Vaishnava mentality is to even immediately quit their sadhana when such kind of controversy comes up. So better to remain at the ABC level.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Since thousands of years a very similiar situation is there in all the other religions who believe in God. Somehow the followers of other religions seem to be more humble in drawing conclusions than present Vaishnavas. Present Vaishnava mentality is to even immediately quit their sadhana when such kind of controversy comes up. So better to remain at the ABC level.

 

Just like many Christians turn away from God when faced with serious dillema ("why bad things happen to good people", etc.) for which their doctrine has no good answer, devotees also have this problem.

 

We preach that our guru is always right, that acharyas have perfect knowledge that comes directly from Krsna, and that we have all the answers - yet despite all that we also have our controversies and inconsistencies. Consequently quite a few devotees are bewildered when faced with these issues.

 

Why the followers of other religions seem to be more humble and more able to cope with such controversies? IMO it is because they dont think they have all the answers, perfect knowledge, and perfect gurus - their expectations are lower and more realistic. We have created some myths and now we pay the price for taking everything at a face value.

[krsna 3]

"Being ordered by his father, Parasurama killed his mother,

Renuka, just as if she were an enemy. Laksmana, the younger

brother of Lord Ramacandra, immediately engaged Himself in the

service of His elder brother and accepted His orders. The order of the spiritual master must be obeyed obeyed without consideration. "

 

What specific, particular and personal order did you receive from His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, that you must as of necessity follow without consideration?

[Guruvani 0]

 

"Being ordered by his father, Parasurama killed his mother,

Renuka, just as if she were an enemy. Laksmana, the younger

brother of Lord Ramacandra, immediately engaged Himself in the

service of His elder brother and accepted His orders. The order of the spiritual master must be obeyed obeyed without consideration. "

 

What specific, particular and personal order did you receive from His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, that you must as of necessity follow without consideration?

 

I didn't get anything like that.

I just got a questionable ritvik initiation in ISKCON from Jayatirtha das, so I really don't consider myself a proper disciple of anyone.

 

I am just a new bhakta that has been reading some books for the last 32 years.

 

I am not a proper disciple of anyone.

 

I don't really acknowledge my make-believe initiation I got from Jayatirtha and a tape recording of the gayatri mantra.

 

I had a chance to meet Srila Prabhupada and get some direct connection and instructions, but neither HE or the GBC gave me that opportunity even though I was standing right in front of him.

 

I am not really an initiated devotee.

I have rejected the organization that gave me some formal ceremony, so I guess that makes me a real "nowhere man" living in his nowhere land.

 

 

He's a real nowhere Man,

Sitting in his Nowhere Land,

Making all his nowhere plans

for nobody

 

The Beatles.

[suchandra 1]

 

Just like many Christians turn away from God.................. devotees also have this problem.

 

 

The false estimation of a Council to install within a period of 30 years 40 pontifexes who prove to be failures would have driven the Church right into the abysm of being a pit of deception and having to close its churches.

Still the presumptuousness of the GBC is to insist upon its proceeding.

So I dont see how ecclesiastical consistory bodies and the GBC can be compared?

[krsna 3]

 

I didn't get anything like that.

I just got a questionable ritvik initiation in ISKCON from Jayatirtha das, so I really don't consider myself a proper disciple of anyone.

 

I am just a new bhakta that has been reading some books for the last 32 years.

 

I am not a proper disciple of anyone.

 

I don't really acknowledge my make-believe initiation I got from Jayatirtha and a tape recording of the gayatri mantra.

 

I had a chance to meet Srila Prabhupada and get some direct connection and instructions, but neither HE or the GBC gave me that opportunity even though I was standing right in front of him.

 

I am not really an initiated devotee.

I have rejected the organization that gave me some formal ceremony, so I guess that makes me a real "nowhere man" living in his nowhere land.

 

 

 

The Beatles.

 

<TABLE width=950 bgColor=#ffffee><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=middle width=200 bgColor=#ffffee>

 

 

</TD><TD vAlign=top align=middle width=550 bgColor=#ffffee>

THE BEATLES lyrics - Nowhere Man

He's a real nowhere man

Sitting in his nowhere land

Making all his nowhere plans for nobody

Doesn't have a point of view

Knows not where he's going to

Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man, please listen

You don't know what you're missing

Nowhere Man, the world is at your command

He's as blind as he can be

Just sees what he wants to see

Nowhere Man can you see me at all?

Nowhere Man, don't worry

Take your time, don't hurry

Leave it all till somebody else lends you a hand

Doesn't have a point of view

Knows not where he's going to

Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man, please listen

You don't know what you're missing

Nowhere Man, the world is at your command

(with a keyboard and mouse of course)

 

He's a real Nowhere Man

Sitting in his nowhere land

Making all his nowhere plans for nobody

Making all his nowhere plans for nobody

Making all his nowhere plans for nobody

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[cbrahma 0]

I don't see the confusion. For one thing, not everybody's svarupa is that of a gopi.

I think it's a question of tenses. 'Had attained' might be more clear. But that would be faulting Prabhupada on English grammar rather than content.