once saved, always saved?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I stumbled across a website that said the following. It was discussing Bill Bradley's previous acceptance of Christianity, and his later rejection of it.

 

What I found very odd was the first sentence of the second paragraph. It appears that some people believe that once your saved (once you've accepted Jesus into your heart), then your eternally saved no matter what - even if you change your views, reject God, and do every thing sinful.

 

Can anyone with more understanding of Christianity commment on this?

 

These are chilling words from a man who was once very active in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. It appears that he has either renounced his faith entirely--or he has decided, for political reasons, to renounce it publicly. After all, the Democratic Party has never really warmed up to evangelical Christians. And politicians in general are afraid to talk about tough moral issues.

 

Now, since I believe that a person once saved is always saved, I have to conclude that either Bradley was not truthful in his earlier testimony, or that this is purely a political move--that deep down, Bill Bradley does know the truth. But is there anything scarier than someone who knows the truth and yet publicly denies it? One trembles for the state of his soul.

 

[Guest guest]

I am not a Christian, but most of my associates are, and I have to tell you, their siddhanta is pretty screwy. They say that Timmy McVeigh ain't going to Hell for slaughtering 168 men, women and children. Go figure!?:

 

 

Timothy McVeigh got religion in his final moments - requesting last rites after he was strapped onto a gurney to be executed for the Oklahoma City bombing.

 

 

"He asked for it when he was on the table," said Bureau of Prisons spokesman Jeff Grondolsky.

 

 

Prison chaplain Frank Roof administered the Roman Catholic sacrament of the anointing of the sick, in which blessed oil is daubed onto the body, just before curtains opened to reveal McVeigh to the execution witnesses.

 

 

McVeigh's lawyers said he considered himself agnostic - but the Rev. Ron Ashmore, who had visited him at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind., said the mass murderer understood the meaning of the sacrament.

 

 

"Tim was raised Catholic," Ashmore said. "He knows when you ask for that, it's like saying, ‘I'm sorry for everything I've done, Lord. Please love me.'"

 

 

Despite his last-minute request, McVeigh was publicly unrepentant as the government he despised put him to death. He met his fate with a stony stare and a defiant written statement.

 

 

In the hours before his execution, McVeigh coolly previewed the fate that awaited him, channel surfing on a black-and-white cable-equipped television.

 

 

"He was aware of what was going on," lawyer Chris Tritico said after the execution, which drew 400 death-penalty protesters to the prison grounds.

 

 

McVeigh's father, Bill, also tuned in - at an undisclosed location - after leaving his hometown of Pendleton, near Buffalo, days earlier.

 

 

"We're all right," the retired autoworker told a Buffalo News reporter.

 

 

Cate McCauley, who worked on the defense team, told the elder McVeigh: "I'd like to say you have a very brave son, and he's free."

 

 

The father, who has said he loves his son but deplores his monstrous deed, had only a two-word reply: "Thank you."

 

 

McVeigh was pronounced dead at 8:14 a.m. EDT. The cause of death was listed as lethal injection.

 

 

Lawyer Rob Nigh said McVeigh, a Gulf War hero turned anti-government zealot, died believing the worst terrorist act on U.S. soil was justified.

 

 

In Washington, about 90 minutes after the first federal execution since 1963, President Bush said McVeigh had sealed his own fate.

 

 

"The victims of the Oklahoma City bombing have been given not vengeance, but justice," he said.

 

 

But Bush said the execution wouldn't end the tragedy for the families of the 168 people killed in the April 19, 1995, blast.

 

 

Survivors and relatives agreed.

 

 

"Without saying anything, [McVeigh] got the final word. His teeth were clenched. His lips were pursed and just a blank stare," said Jay Sawyer, who lost his mother in the blast.

 

 

 

====================================

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur Prabhupada summed up the Christians very succintly in one of his articles. I'll search my database for the quotes on them.

 

 

 

[Jagat 1]

Actually, Vaishnavas say pretty much the same thing, don't they? At least there are verses in the shastras on both ends of the spectrum -- from very liberal to conservative.

 

The question is similar to the "What is a Vaishnava?"

[Maitreya 0]

I brought this up in another forum and got an angry response.

 

Some Christians think that by undergoing a baptismal rite that they are now secure in their spiritual fate.

 

Similar to that some think that undergoing a fire sacrifice guarantees them eternal discipleship staus irregardless of what they do.

 

The difference may be reincarnation is added.So in this scenario the spiritual master has to keep coming to back to find you irregardless.Birth after birth.

 

We forget the two way nature of the realationship.And that the purpose is to help us develop a change of heart at the most core level.A process that the disciple must keep sincerely engaging in.

 

The Christians are most unclear on what 'saved' is.Saved from what we ask?Saved from hell they answer.Well, hell is desiring apart from Krishna's[God's] desire.So we must be saved from our very core.

 

It's the serving two masters dilemna.Can't work.

 

YS MC

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It is said that the ways of bhakti are indecipherable. To accept Hari, the contact with His servants, places related to His lilas, and so on may cause unexpected situations.

 

Some say that baptism may save forever. Smrtis say something like that. In Padma Purana there is a very amazing story on two brothers who had the ardent desire to go hell!!! They spend all of their lives performing activities suitable for it, killing cows, brahmanis, children, robing, drinking liquors, and so on.

 

Kala has called them up and one was bitten by a snake and the other was eaten by a tiger. The seers of karma certify that these kind of deaths are meant to the inhabitants of hell.

 

But the brothers saw themselves inside of a vimana being drove to Vaikhunta by four-armed and blue colored sweet smiling fellows! Visnu-duttas!? So, they ask Visnu-duttas; "Why we are not going hell? We wanted to face Yama and thereafter be placed in several different hells for countless kalpas. Why we were saved from hell?" Visnu-duttas said; "Do you remember the time when you want to profane a fire sacrifice performed by pious brahmanins? You pass urine on the fire, the pious ones got upset and run away after you. In your path you felt down into puddle. The water of that puddle was Yamuna's water. It is stated that whoever receives some drops of the water of Yamuna in his body never faces her brother, Yama. They are indeed inhabitants of Vaikuntha no matter what kind of sinful activities the may perform in this world. So, we are taking you home!!!"

 

[Maitreya 0]

Satyaraja how are we to take that story?I am left with the picture of two people in Vaikuntha who don't want to be there.How can that be?

 

Somewhere along the trip there must be a change of heart.

 

Of course, what ever is gained in devotional service is never lost.

 

I don't mean to be offensive to the Padma Purana, so please help me understand this story in a fuller way.

 

Thanks MC

 

I mean why preach and try to attract people to KC? Why not just sprinkle everyone with Yamuna water whether they like it or not and send them home?

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 06-12-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Always protect your discrimination and perseverance:

refuge should be carefully nourished.

True wisdom is seeing that Beloved Hari

will accomplish everything

according to His own will.

(From Srimad Vallabhacarya's WISDOM, PERSEVERANCE AND REFUGE - Viveka-Dhairaya-Ashraya - 1st sloka)

 

Dear Maitreya, do we really know what is Hari's will? What is 'to preach' according His conception?

 

Here is another story from sastra. This one is fond in Narada Pañcaratra and it is related with a very aberrant form of preaching.

 

Once there was a great mahotsava promoted by some Vaisnavas and they had prepared and eaten a large amount of mahaprasadam. Prasadam was served in prates of leaves and the plates were disposed into a pit nearby and a dog came to eat the remnants.

 

It had eaten too much and the excessive amount of food caused it vomit. A very fallen brahmanin, who used to live on any kind of foodstuff fond in streets, and his son, noticed that vomit in the street and they collected it to eat. They had washed it and they swallowed it at once.

 

Kala was nearby and the dog met her in the form of a blow in its head by a hatred civilian to whom it was barking at. The boy met Kala in the river and the brahmanin in a form of a tiger. The tiger also met Kala in the form of a snake.

 

The boy, his father and the tiger were all placed into a vimana and drove to Vaikuntha. The brahmin ask Visnu-duttas; "Why are we going to Vaikuntha? I was a very fallen brahmanin, and my son had shared all my sins. This tiger is the embodiment of tamas and never has performed a pious activity in his life." Visnu-duttas said: "It was by the mercy of your guru. He was the dog who had given you mahaprasada, the Vaisnavas' remnants that are so dear to Hari. He is coming in a special vimana that Hari is personally driving to salute him. The tiger had eaten your body that was transformed into mahaprasada due the contact of these remnants that you had eaten. Known that mahaprasada is Hari Himself."

 

[ggohil 0]

Once in a long discussion with a person of Christian faith, I could not make him understand following sentence.

 

“If we can sin in ignorance, then we must accept suffering without understanding.”

 

He believes, living a life as Christian he no longer sins. Therefore I guess he believes he is

saved.

 

[dasanudas 0]

Just a tangent to this thread, but that last story reminds me of one of the most mangy dogs who would visit Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math every day to scavenge the remnants of the devotees leaf plates that they discarded in one huge compost pile. This one dog in particular would even fight all the others for the mercy and afterwards would go around howling and wincing like it was in it's death throws, to the sound of the kirtan. Nothing anyone ever did to remove it would phase it. It was so diseased the devotees didn't dare touch it. One day it was conspicuous by it's absence, and low and behold he was discovered stretched out in full dandavats at the feet Of Sri Sri Guru Gauranga Gandhava Govinda sundarajui no longer breathing.

Who can understand the way of mercy?

[dasanudas 0]

To sin on the strength of the Holy name is an offence against the Holy Names, the only one we are fooling is ourselves. It may be the beginning of the saving process. But for real salvation one has to act on it, by following the will and instruction cent per cent of our saviour, our heart and soul becomes purified to make us befitting candidates to enter that divine world of love and devotion.

My observation is that those who are truly saved feel in humility that they are no where near saved. And vice-versa.

[Gauracandra 1]

Two things I'm reminded of by this posting.

 

First, in one publication Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj discusses the different types of disciples. There is the "Monkey Logic" and the "Kitten Logic" type of disciples. When a monkey is new born it has to grasp its mother very tightly to stay on board. And so it is very difficult. When a new born kitten is born the mother picks it up gently and moves it. The idea is that some disciples think that by their own strength they will pull themselves up, and others think that simply by having a nice guru they will be taken to their destination. But he rejects both. The guru will do his share but the disciple must also do work.

 

The other thing I am reminded of is a story from the "Memories" series (the series is really good because it gives an outlet for any disciple of Srila Prabhupada a chance to discuss his or her experiences). In one a disciple tells a very sad story. I believe this took place in South America. The disciple took Srila Prabhupada to a hotel room or something similar and then stood outside the room. After a little while he started to hear audible weeping coming from Srila Prabhupada's room. But he didn't know what to do. The crying kept going on until, finally he had to enter. He slowly opened the door and found Srila Prabhupada sitting on the edge of the bed weeping. He approached Srila Prabhupada and asked what was wrong, why was he crying? Srila Prabhupada simply replied "They have killed their spiritual master so that they can sin" Then the disciple saw that on the wall facing Srila Prabhupada was a cross with the figure of Christ on it. It was one of those very graphic crosses with Christ in very tortured form, a crown of thorns, a stab wound on the side. Then Srila Prabhupada said "Please take it away, I can't bear to look at it".

 

This to me illustrates how much Srila Prabhupada loved Jesus Christ. He always wanted Christians to be the best Christians, but not to sin in the name of being saved by their spiritual master.

 

Gauracandra

[Maitreya 0]

That was a very powerful story Gauracandra.

 

I am very glad to learn that Lord Jesus Christ has approved our activities. Perhaps you have marked it in my preaching work that I love Lord Jesus Christ as good as Krishna; because He rendered the greatest service to Krishna according to time circumstances and society in which He appreared. letter SF April 7 1967

 

[Dharma 0]

It seems to me that the message of Christ was moksha-liberation from the cycle of births and deaths. Perhaps because the framework of the religion of that region did not allow for mukti.

 

[talasiga 0]

the ignorant monkey

dying of hunger locked in a cage full of ripe bananas

is saved on learning that the bananas are edible

but still must eat regularly even after the first saving

or the redeemed monkey risks

dying of hunger

just as he would have in ignorance.....

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by Dharma:

It seems to me that the message of Christ was moksha-liberation from the cycle of births and deaths. Perhaps because the framework of the religion of that region did not allow for mukti.

Dharma,

 

I am finding that the message of Christ is Bhakti and not salvation.He taught and exemplified Bhakti only."Not my will but Thy will be done".100% service in love.

 

The so-called Christians of today are mostly salvationists.Of course all of us that are stuck in the modes are in some degree desiring salvation even though philosophically we may be able to conceptualize past it.Presently I see myself as suffering and want it to end so I can't take a superior position to them.

 

YS MC

 

 

[shvu 1]

The so-called Christians of today are mostly salvationists...

What does so-called mean?

 

Jesus's message was salvation in very clear terms. He spoke about heaven, hell, judgement day and forgiveness. The "so-called" christians have been following this message right from the beginning.

 

Maitreya, the following is generic and for all,

 

The concept of Bhakti in any old text is clearly a way to Moksha [salvation]. It is one of the three classical paths along with Jnana and Karma. The BG too clearly shows Bhakti as a means to attain liberation only. Nowhere does it say that there is something "above" Moksha and that is what "true" Bhakti is, as falsely concocted by some people. These so-called gurus came up with a pack of lies, and unfortunately a lot of people who lacked schooling in the basics of Hinduism have fallen prey for their sweet-talk. The only good point is that it makes no difference.

 

Some may wonder how one can be so blunt. No problems here because these people [whom I was referring to] do not think twice about calling Advaitins as impersonalists, christians as so-called christians, etc. Thus it is my belief that, they will not take offense when others point out their own short-comings. With a true sportive Vaishnava attitude, they will receive pleasure and pain equanimously.

 

I salute them.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 06-17-2001).]

[Maitreya 0]

 

Originally posted by shvu:

What does so-called mean?

 

shvu, so-called means means taking on an appearance of following without really doing it internally.We have a tendency to try and have it both ways.To remain enjoyers of the material delights and at the same time try to claim eternal status in the Kingdom of God on the back of Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Jesus said, "pick up your cross and follow me".That part we convieniently forget.Not all do this, they are the Christians, the followers of Christ.To them I offer my obeisances.

Jesus's message was salvation in very clear terms. He spoke about heaven, hell, judgement day and forgiveness. The "so-called" christians have been following this message right from the beginning.

 

Jesus's message was to do the will of the Father.That is beyond mere salvation from sinful reaction.Read the book of John again shvu.It is acintya bhedabheda through and through.

 

You have Sankara, please do not impose your impersonalist views onto Christ or Krishna.It is impolite.

Maitreya, the following is generic and for all,

 

The concept of Bhakti in any old text is clearly a way to Moksha [salvation]. It is one of the three classical paths along with Jnana and Karma. The BG too clearly shows Bhakti as a means to attain liberation only. Nowhere does it say that there is something "above" Moksha and that is what "true" Bhakti is, as falsely concocted by some people. These so-called gurus came up with a pack of lies, and unfortunately a lot of people who lacked schooling in the basics of Hinduism have fallen prey for their sweet-talk. The only good point is that it makes no difference.

 

I simply reject your impersonalist interpreation.I won't convince you nor you me.

Some may wonder how one can be so blunt. No problems here because these people [whom I was referring to] do not think twice about calling Advaitins as impersonalists, christians as so-called christians, etc. Thus it is my belief that, they will not take offense when others point out their own short-comings. With a true sportive Vaishnava attitude, they will receive pleasure and pain equanimously.

 

I personaly take no offense as a so-called Christian[vaisnava] myself.But when you aim that term at my teachers I do, even though they don't.

 

I salute them.

 

Cheers

Really?Even as you call them liars?

MC

 

 

[shvu 1]

That is beyond mere salvation from sinful reaction.Read the book of John again shvu.It is acintya bhedabheda through and through.

 

You have Sankara, please do not impose your impersonalist views onto Christ or Krishna.It is impolite.

?

 

With due respect, you are claiming that the message of Christ has been misunderstood by the masses, by calling them so-called christians. I consider that as impolite, just as many others will. Again you are shooting off with impersonalist. I consider that as impolite too. You know nothing about Advaita to call Advaitins as impersonal. Neither did any of your Gurus know anything about Advaitins to call them impersonal.

 

I simply reject your impersonalist interpreation.I won't convince you nor you me.

My interpretation is the same as that of Madhva as well as Ramanuja. Are they impersonalists too? Do you even know what you are talking about? I will repeat this again, "There is something higher than moksha" is an outright lie concocted by someone and people like you who know nothing about the basics of Hinduism have been misled. It is not your fault, and since you are ignorant of the basics, I certainly cannot convince you. But in case you are interested, check with your gurus about what a Purushartha means, how many of them were in existence before 1600 AD, and what happened later. You will know what I am talking about and why I call certain people as liars.

 

But when you aim that term at my teachers I do, even though they don't.

Yet you are not concerned about calling the Advaitins as impersonalists. Multiple standards? Do your Gurus have some kind of a prerogative over other Gurus? If so, I would like to know how.

 

In a nutshell: Don't indulge in name-calling [so-called christians, impersonalists, etc]. If we criticize others, keep in mind that others can and will criticize us too. No one set of people are better than the others, although some Gurus may have led some to believe so.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

 

You have Sankara, please do not impose your impersonalist views onto Christ or Krishna.It is impolite.

yet you are trying to interpret Christianity in terms of Acintya Bheda-abheda.

 

Since when did the Gaudiyas/iskconites patent all views about Krishna, prohibiting others from offering any views? FYI, Shankara the "impersonalist" talked about Krishna, more than 700 years before Chaitanya and 1300 years before Prabhupada.

 

But in case someone has recently reseved all rights to offering views on Krishna, I would be very interested to know about it.

 

Cheers

 

[amanpeter 0]

But in case someone has recently reseved all rights to offering views on Krishna, I would be very

interested to know about it.

Shvu, did you hear about how I$KCON in Australia attempted to prevent other vaishnavas from using the term `Hare Krsna`, because they had proprietary rights? It was on VNN.

 

------------------

No offense meant to anyone...

[Maitreya 0]

What use in calling myself a Christian, Vaisnava, Muslim or anything else unless I am ready to renounce the conceptions of this world?

 

If I do accept these labels upon myself as a another designation of this world then the term so-called can rightly be applied to me.

Luke 14.26 Jesus speaking:

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother,wife and children, brothers and sisiters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

 

Luke 14.33

 

"So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."

If everyone that claimed to be a discple of Christ or Caitanya and His devotees actually was the world would have a totally different appearance.

 

Let's not pretend. It doesn't help us.Most of us are so-called followers.We are improving and progressing towards the ideal but we may have a long ways to go.Let our lives as a whole declare our faith and not just our lips or the button on our lapels.Christ never called Himself a Christian and neither did His followers.Outsiders called them Christians when they saw how their lives were resembling Christ.

 

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

 

Christian- manifesting the qualities or spirit of Christ,also one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

 

MC

 

 

 

[leyh 0]

Dear Shvu:

You write:"The BG too clearly shows Bhakti as a means to attain liberation only. Nowhere does it say that there is something "above" Moksha and that is what "true" Bhakti is,as falsely concocted by some people. These so-called gurus came up with a pack of lies, and unfortunately a lot of people who lacked schooling in the basics of Hinduism have fallen prey for their sweet-talk. The only good point is that it makes no difference."

If I understand you correctly, yous eem to be saying that bhakthi is merely a path to liberation and just that --- a path. It seems to me that this is simply a misrepresentation of bhakthi. Pure bhakthi is the love of God without hankering for any salvation or heaven of God.In pure bhakthi,as I understand it, the devotee does not desire liberation. He or she only wants to engage in service of the Lord. This spirit is motiveless bhakthi for God is illustrated by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who writes in his Siksastaka:"O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service birth after birth."(Siksastaka Text 4)The words "birth after birth" implies that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu does not desire liberation, but instead is contented with serving the Lord in the material world.

True bhakthi is indeed above the desire for liberation.If the devotee engages in the process of bhakthi to secure liberation, then it is not true bhakthi, just as if a person serves his father only with the intent of securing his father's wealth,it only means that the person does not truly love his father.Similraly, if a person serves God out of a desire for liberation, then that person can not be said to truly love God.In The Science Of Self Realization, Srila Prabhupada writes about pure devotion to God:

"Pure devotees, however, do not accept these various forms of liberation. They only want to be engaged in Krsna's service. They are not concerned with any kind of liberation. Those who are actually Krsna conscious achieve the association of the Supreme Lord, but they do not desire it; their only ambition is to be engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. The highest perfection of devotional service, or Krsna consciousness, is exhibited when a devotee refuses to accept any benediction or profit from the Supreme Lord. Prahlada Maharaja was offered whatever he liked, he had only to ask for it, but he said, "My Lord, I am Your eternal servant. It is my duty to serve You, so how can I accept any benefit from it? Then I would not be Your servant; I would be a merchant." He replied in that way, and that is the sign of a pure person. Krsna is so kind that He fulfills all the desires of a devotee, even if he wants material benedictions. If at the bottom of the devotee's heart there is some desire, He also fulfills that. He is so kind. But the sublime position of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service, is that a pure devotee refuses to accept the various kinds of liberation, even if offered by the Supreme Lord." (The Highest Love)

If bhakthi which is above moksha is "falsely concocted by some people" and that "so-called gurus came up with a pack of lies" But motiveless love of God without thought for liberation has been taught by Prahlada Maharaja, Chaitanya MAhaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada. I sincerely hope that your accusations of false concotions and packs of lies do not implicate these, and other saintly personalities who taught pure love of God.

 

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 06-17-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 06-18-2001).]

[shvu 1]

 

If I understand you correctly, yous eem to be saying that bhakthi is merely a path to liberation and just that --- a path.

Exactly. As said in the BG and elsewhere. This is how Bhakti is viewed by the majority of Vaishnavas [non-Gaudiyas], because that is what the scriptures say. btw these Vaishnavas have been in existence since, hundreds of years before Gaudiya Vaishnavism. A small change; I would not use the word merely. There is nothing mere about it.

 

It seems to me that this is simply a misrepresentation of bhakthi.

With due respect, that is not good enough. You will have to backup your statements with some concrete references [not Gaudiya literature].

 

In pure bhakthi,as I understand it, the devotee does not desire liberation.

 

Yet he is not free of desire, is he? So makes no difference. We will see that below.

 

This spirit is motiveless bhakthi for God is illustrated by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who writes in his Siksastaka:"O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service birth after birth.

This was 500 years back. Since then are you aware of him having been born again and again? Surely such births would have been noticed, for his devotional fervor would have been more intense than before. And if he was not born again, his prayer did not work. If it did not work for such a great devotee, how do you expect such prayers to work for common people?

 

True bhakthi is indeed above the desire for liberation.

References, please.

 

If the devotee engages in the process of bhakthi to secure liberation, then it is not true bhakthi, just as if a person serves his father only with the intent of securing his father's wealth,it only means that the person does not truly love his father.

Similarly the follower of Chaitanya engages in Bhakti for one of the following reasons,

 

1. Because Chaitanya taught so.

 

2. It gives him a kick to engage in Bhakti.

 

So the follower of Chaitanya is being selfish too, and is also proved by the following,

 

Prabhupada says : Pure devotees, however, do not accept these various forms of liberation. They only want to be engaged in Krsna's service.

 

Note that there is still a want. It is not motiveless as some may think. In Moksha however, there are no more wants, making it more superior. In fact, that is why it is the ultimate goal and is known as the Parama-purushartha.

 

Prahlada Maharaja was offered whatever he liked, he had only to ask for it, but he said, "My Lord, I am Your eternal servant. It is my duty to serve You, so how can I accept any benefit from it? Then I would not be Your servant; I would be a merchant."

Many will interpret such behavior as that of a liberated soul.

 

Krsna is so kind that He fulfills all the desires of a devotee, even if he wants material benedictions.

 

Sorry. There are several devotees who earnestly pray to Krishna for relief from disease, poverty, etc. No response from Krishna, though.

 

If at the bottom of the devotee's heart there is some desire, He also fulfills that. He is so kind.

 

Is he? Watch Schindler's list.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 06-18-2001).]

[shvu 1]

 

To add:

 

According to you, true Bhakti is not poosible for one who seeks liberation. Yet Krishna says in the BG that liberation requires steadfast devotion. He also says many have attained him in the past.

 

But according to you, none of these people should have been liberated because their Bhakti was not pure. How do you explain that?

 

Cheers

 

[kailasa 0]

shvu, the time works it seems not on you.

To what there are a lot of words? What for to you of the reference? All references are already given.

Still your friends that write.

 

But in case someone has recently reseved all rights to offering views on Krishna, I would be very

interested to know about it.

------ ------ --

 

Shvu, did you hear about how I$KCON in Australia attempted to prevent other vaishnavas from using the term " Hare Krsna ", because they had proprietary rights? It was on VNN.

 

------------------

No offense meant to anyone...

 

ISKCON has. (By the way Symbol of dollar this insult, in Russia we are not rich, in Sweden, Germany, Hungary, Poland, of riches too is not observed. You want to tell what we serve for money? You joke? Clean(remove) either badge, or this inscription " No offense meant to anyone... " If to write Hare Krisna, the correct balance will be expressed, according to the conclusions.)

 

> With due respect, that is not good enough. You will have to backup your statements with some concrete references [not Gaudiya literature].

 

Good course, now please adhere similar in the letters.

 

> You know nothing about Advaita to call Advaitins as impersonal. Neither did any of your Gurus know anything about Advaitins to call them impersonal.

 

It that that new. Is executed of great desire to hear about your explanation Advaita, I can not insist, as consider(count) necessary. But agree with you as a whole, Lord Siva calls to worship the Person the God, I speak, nothing costs(stands) on one place. shvu similar will rise above brahman and clearing, to a level of devoted service Supreme Lord! All glory Advaita! All glory Lord Siva!