Literary Incarnation

[Kulapavana 0]

 

For instance no where have I said all books about God are literary incarnations of God so I am wondering what you are objecting to.

 

This is not an objection to your statement, just a general word of caution, because many devotees have a tendency to go overboard with their extrapolations.

[bija 0]

That's interesting Kula, do you see the works of Vyasadeva and Sri Rupa for example as in a different category?

 

Also could you please explain extrapolation a little, my english is simple (in case I am doing this) thank you?

[theist 1]

 

This is not an objection to your statement, just a general word of caution, because many devotees have a tendency to go overboard with their extrapolations.

 

Yes how but is what I said an extrapolation at all?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

That's interesting Kula, do you see the works of Vyasadeva and Sri Rupa for example as in a different category?

 

Also could you please explain extrapolation a little, my english is simple (in case I am doing this) thank you?

 

Yes, I do see them in a different category, just like most other Vaishnavas or Vedic scholars. Works of Vyasa are seen as authoritative even by the Advaitins and Shivaites. They are apaurusheya. Not so with the works of Rupa Goswami. They are considered to be authoritative only among the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

 

Extrapolation is describing the unknown by comparing it to the known, like using the past to try to determine what will happen in the future. In this case one may be tempted to say: my guru's literary contribution is just like Vyasadeva's. Therefore his books must be apaurusheya shastra just like the Vedas. I have seen it happen many times.

[bija 0]

Thanks for clarifying that kula.

 

A little thought that come into mind while reading your response. It's interesting to note the mood of the Gaudiya writers, they often begin their books by glorification of Sri Gauranga, and the line of siksa, then they express their own humility and inadequacies.

[theist 1]

I personally do not care a fig about what the advaitins think about Rupa Gosvami nor do I intend to write according to their sentiments. I am partial to the opinions of the Gaudiya Vaisnava's however and while certainly not a representative of them will show a bias towards their views in what I write.

 

You may consider comparing Rupa Gosvami to Vyasadeva an extrapolation but as someone who has positoned himself as in the GV line I am very curious as to why you would take such a watered down position.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

A little thought that come into mind while reading your response. It's interesting to note the mood of the Gaudiya writers, they often begin their books by glorification of Sri Gauranga, and the line of siksa, then they express their own humility and inadequacies.

 

The problem is usually with their overzealous followers, who think that by elevating their guru to a supernatural, almost comic book superhero status, they themselves become great too. But in reality, other people look at their display of sentimentalism and say "these people are out of their mind!" and reject even their very humble and qualified guru.

[theist 1]

As if it is even in our power of thought or speech to overstate the position of Rupa Gosvami.

 

This is the danger of trying to be all things to all men. One becomes so diluted as to end up being nothing of substance to himself.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

You may consider comparing Rupa Gosvami to Vyasadeva an extrapolation but as someone who has positoned himself as in the GV line I am very curious as to why you would take such a watered down position.

 

Watered down? Hardly. FOR ME PERSONALLY the writings of Rupa Goswami are just as authoritative as Vyasa's but I am not foolish enough to claim that RG authority in a general sense is equal to that of Vyasa - that is a completely bogus claim. Vyasa is an avatara of Lord Vishnu mentioned in the Vedic writings, while Rupa Goswami is simply a sage in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya. Objectively speaking, there is a significant difference between the two.

[theist 1]

You may claim that objectivity for yourself but personally I don't. If you consider Rupa Gosvami as authoritative as Vysadeva then again I am curious as to why you consider my words implying the same thing an extrapolation worthy of caution.

[bija 0]

The problem is usually with their overzealous followers, who think that by elevating their guru to a supernatural, almost comic book superhero status, they themselves become great too. But in reality, other people look at their display of sentimentalism and say "these people are out of their mind!" and reject even their very humble and qualified guru. kula

It's a fine balance on this devotional path and devotion to guru. Maybe these misconceived tendencies are due more to things like sectarianism and other power plays which are not conducive to simple devotion and humility.

 

As we gradually grow in relationship to guru, intimacy may start to awaken in the heart, ofcourse not to minimize guru's station, but at that stage he may be seen as the dearest friend. I think I recall reading that in scripture somewhere. This also shows the patience of guru, and his lack of self prestige and glorification, even if the zealous disciple taints his humility by immature devotion.

 

I guess all love is like that until it cools and deepens. I presume those further on the path of love have patience with those awakening to its tender touch. I have often wondered why guru allows that breathing space, for us all to grow. It makes me smile.

 

Been thinking lately Kula about Krsna, the cosmos, and love. What a bizarre personality this is....very sweet. Hari! Hari!

[Kulapavana 0]

 

You may claim that objectivity for yourself but personally I don't. If you consider Rupa Gosvami as authoritative as Vysadeva then again I am curious as to why you consider my words implying the same thing an extrapolation worthy of caution.

 

Because it IS an extrapolation based on our personal choice and our personal sentiment. And because it does not stop with Rupa Goswami. It is a tendency of a follower to inflate the position of their leader. And when the words of their leader collide with the words of another leader, there is often a bitter fight among the followers, sometimes leading to serious offenses. All because of bogus extrapolations.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

I guess all love is like that until it cools and deepens. I presume those further on the path of love have patience with those awakening to its tender touch. I have often wondered why guru allows that breathing space, for us all to grow. It makes me smile.

 

Been thinking lately Kula about Krsna, the cosmos, and love. What a bizarre personality this is....very sweet. Hari! Hari!

 

I am millions miles away from any such elevated sentiments. I would be happy if I ever reached an actual dasya rasa, as my current stage is at best shanta rasa with some hints of dasya.

[bija 0]

I dont know how to love another human being really, let alone Krsna, but I am very eager to learn how. Due to recent encounters and failings in life such thoughts are in the forefront of my mind, I guess that shows Krsna's kindness and mercy....and my desperate need for lightness, humor, and humility. Its inconceivable how far from love some of us are. Gotta keep reaching for grace.

 

It's a concern actually, I wonder whether I am dancing some fine line in my soul of sahajiya - click here

 

Or otherwise a very fallen follower of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's line and thought.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

I dont know how to love another human being really, let alone Krsna, but I am very eager to learn how.

That is one of the problems in our line. We are focusing on something very far away while neglecting what is in front of us. I do not believe that you can develop a love for Krsna if you never truly loved people all around you. I see way too much heartless pseudo-transcendence among devotees to believe otherwise.

[bija 0]

That is one of the problems in our line. We are focusing on something very far away while neglecting what is in front of us. I do not believe that you can develop a love for Krsna if you never truly loved people all around you. I see way too much heartless pseudo-transcendence among devotees to believe otherwise. kula

I have seen that heartlesness in dealings too. Text book philosophy. But I have also seen beauty in the few devotees I have met also. The forums are so heartless often, the times I have met devotees in real life is much sweeter.

 

Last night before rest I was thinking of Christ's response when he was asked by the pharisees, 'what is the greatest commandment'.

 

His response was 'love God with all your heart, mind and soul.' Then he said the second greatest is like that 'love your neighbour as yourself.'

 

When we awaken to some aspect of sentiment and feeling for Krsna, does he point us straight back to earth, and say 'this is the field to discover me'. Isn't that application, and the way of things? I see transcendence in this light in some ways, not some aloof spirituality.

 

Srila Prabhupada, in some quotes I have posted recently - click here - says all things are Krsna, Sri Caitanya says never to offend a 'vaisnava'....these two realizations have a deep significance and shared importance.

 

That is why I am concerned about imitationism in my personal life, because things are within, and transcendence points me back to earth. How to find balance? And questions arise, are the feelings of love only dried up shadows, ignited by the grace of a sadhu who cares for me, or are one's personal feelings of love real and not fake. From most of what I have read on the internet (as I am on my own in Australia internet has been my companion) devotees writings would accuse me as fake. Anyway Kula I am just a fringe internet devotee, who somehow found a teacher who bares with all these shortcomings, and has faith and patience I will find my way, by simple faith in Naam and Sri Nityananda-Gauranga. He knows I am very simple.

 

But my God! I know in my heart, if I do not love my neighbour as myself, as an extension for my desire for love, there is no hope to justify my claims that I love the Supreme Personality.

 

Which comes first, commandment one or two? Or are ideas of first and second too simple. Maybe us neophytes and the madhyama devotees need to talk about the 'unity' in diversity sometimes, or the 'oneness' in difference, rather than philosophical pride in our sampradaya's beauty of individuality. The chicken and the egg need each other!

[theist 1]

 

Because it IS an extrapolation based on our personal choice and our personal sentiment. And because it does not stop with Rupa Goswami. It is a tendency of a follower to inflate the position of their leader. And when the words of their leader collide with the words of another leader, there is often a bitter fight among the followers, sometimes leading to serious offenses. All because of bogus extrapolations.

 

A couple of things that need to be considered. There is a difference between inflating someone's position based on our beliefs and recognizing someone's exalted position based on seeing things as they are. So not everyone is extrolating or elevating their gurus out of sentiment. Someone may just be right. So to label everything as extraplolation is a false statement. You may consider it false but then that is your choice and you might be wrong.

 

This distinctlion has to be acknowledged. Now I admitted I don't have such a personal revelation but am only going with a certain bias towards the Gaudiyas. I base that bias on other parts of their teachings which are clearly superior.

 

I do see that the Advaitin view of the absolute truth falls far short and so am not concerned with their opinion in the slighest. In fact if their opinion never again enters my ears I will be the happier for it.

 

And you neglected the context of my comparison to Vyasadeva and Rupa Gosvami in the first place. Rupa Gosvami wrote plays concerning the pastimes of Radha Krsna. Those plays need not based on some historical occurances. The reason I was explaining (IMO) is that he is writing from the absolute plane and so what takes place in his mind is not some fictional pastimes but rather an appearance by the Lord Himself.

 

Now when he wrote those lilas of Krsna down that becomes (IMO) what I call a literary incarnation of the krsna and is not one bit less than if Krsna had performed them on the earth plane 4,500 previously.

 

There are no time considerations that apply to Krsna-lila. Likewise there are no spatial limitations to Krsna-lila.

 

I don't mind if people disagree with me or not. All I ask is that people disagree with me based on my actual position. That is not too much for anyone to ask.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

There is a difference between inflating someone's position based on our beliefs and recognizing someone's exalted position based on seeing things as they are. So not everyone is extrolating or elevating their gurus out of sentiment. Someone may just be right. So to label everything as extraplolation is a false statement.

 

The Vedas elevate Vyasa to a position which no other literary giant can achieve. That is as objective and true as it can be found in our tradition and Vedic scriptures. Therefore we should not try to change that by proclaiming that there is another person of the same caliber when it comes to literary achievments. In other words, Vedas do not permit us to elevate our guru (however accomplished in the literary sense) to the same level of scriptural authority as Vyasadeva.

[theist 1]

Aaarghhh... forget about it.