Nitya-siddha Sadhana-siddha- Is there a difference?

[theist 1]

.

[theist 1]

Meant to start a new thread.

[theist 1]

 

Absolutely!! That's why I say that, in a sense, everybody is right in this philosophical discussion (though the Vaishnava aparadha of some must be roundly condemned).

 

That's also why I keep coming back to the question: which attitude is most *useful* to us in our practicing lives, that we are eternally perfect, or that we are most fallen?

 

Right. Of course we are presently condition by the time energy. Just because it is a dream does not make it unreal as Shakarites propose. It is a real dream. So we must remain in the attitude of most fallen as you say in order to genuinely attain sadhana siddhi.

 

Libertion is not an artifical state that we can just attain by saying we are already there. I have not heard anyone suggest that however. The difference is by intelligence we are able to somewhat conceptualize a view from the otherside and can roughly indicate that view in words. This is where I see Sarva Svarupa Vigraha (as one or many) being misunderstood and treated unfairly,

[theist 1]

 

I understand both the question and the verses I posted. Only from the nitya baddha category the sadhana-siddhas can arise. Madhvacarya actually went as far as to propose that most nitya-baddhas never make it out of this world, because they like it here. But if they do get out, they are called sadhana-siddhas.

 

To turn this around: If everybody is nitya-siddha, who is sadhana-siddha?

 

I'm sorry I did not make the connection earlier, I see your point.

Yes it's all connected but my question was specific that's all. No problem.

[Kulapavana 0]

Moved to another thread

[theist 1]

Sorry I deleted the post to start a new thread which is what I thought I was doing all along. Care to move your reply?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

This is where I see Sarva Svarupa Vigraha (as one or many) being misunderstood and treated unfairly,

 

Perhaps they are misunderstood and treated unfairly. It is without a doubt that they misunderstand and treat unfairly param-gurudev Srila Sridhar Maharaja. If only for that, they are worthy of contempt.

 

No excuses can be made for their offenses (just as I can make no excuses for my own offenses).

[theist 1]

 

Perhaps they are misunderstood and treated unfairly. It is without a doubt that they misunderstand and treat unfairly param-gurudev Srila Sridhar Maharaja. If only for that, they are worthy of contempt.

 

No excuses can be made for their offenses (just as I can make no excuses for my own offenses).

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. They are separate issues and should be dealt with separately.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. They are separate issues and should be dealt with separately.

 

Perhaps, but don't offenses often lead to misconceptions and vice-versa?

[theist 1]

 

Perhaps, but don't offenses often lead to misconceptions and vice-versa?

 

What perhaps? Of course they are misconceptions and lead to more misconceptions. That is why they must be dealt with separately.

 

If someone is right about something then admit it. If he commits an offense call him on it. Don't say he is wrong about the thing he s correct on and try to justify it by saying he made some offense in another area. That makes no sense.