Reference Corrections

[shvu 1]

The other point that I forgot to mention in preamble to any further discussion with shvu, is that we approach the writing of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura from the angle of vision of accepting him as a nitya siddha self realized acarya in our line. Therefore we consider his "opinion" a world of difference from that of a bhadda jiva.

Which is why we are having this dscussion for we approach BVT in different ways and thus disagree with each other about his authenticity. How I approach him has already been explained by me. I personally know iskcon people who called Ramakrishna a scoundrel and Ramana a bogus guru. That is the way they see Ramana while there are several others to whom Ramana is Bhagavan. The problem here is to understand the person one has to have faith in him. And to have faith in him, one should have understood him, for otherwise it is blind. It is a typical chicken_and_egg situation.

 

tadvidhi praNipAtena pariprashnena sevayA |

upadekshyanti te jnAnam jnAninastattvadarshinaha ||

 

Know that through prostration, inquiry and service, the knowers of truth will instruct

you in wisdom. BG 4.34

 

We know this now, but the real question is how to identify such a knower? I myself being a skeptic, can never believe that anyone is realized. If I were to sit before Ramana or anyone else, my single thought would be, "what is it that that can tell me beyond doubt, that he is genuine?"

 

And I have not found an answer to that question yet and by the looks of it, I never will.

 

Therefore we caution the participants of this discussion to consider this sloka from the skanda purana:

 

"A fool who blasphemes Vaisnavas goes to the worst kind of hell along with generations of his ancestors. One who kills a devotee, as well as one who blasphemes devotees, or one who is envious of devotees, or who who fails to offer obeisances to Vaisnavas upon seeng htem, or one who becomes angered at a Vaisnava, or who does not become joyful upon seeing a Vaisnava--these six classes of men are al considred to be candidates for falling down into hell.

(Skanda Purana)

Sri Gaudiya Kantahara 17.81

To add, those who do not believe in Jesus as the only true savior will go to eternal hell. Those who do not accept Allah also meet with the same fate. Since I do not already accept these two, the Vaishnava part doesn't matter. If there is anywhere to go after death, I know where I will be going.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-06-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I personally know iskcon people who called Ramakrishna a scoundrel and Ramana a bogus guru.

Personally, I like Ramana a lot. According to the seers of his time, he was one of the few souls who was "seen" to attain mukti. That is, when he left his body, several saints, without "knowing" of the event, revealed he had attained mukti.

 

[Audarya lila 0]

Just a quick note on the Papal infallibility comment by Jagat. Papal infallibility is really quite different from how you percieve it and is a well thought out philosophical doctrine. Papal infallibility does not, as you seem to have inferred, mean that the Pope is incapable of error. The Pope is considered human and capable of error like any other person. The drawing line is when the Pope speaks on issues of 'doctrine'. In that arena alone he is considered to be incapable of error. This does not refer customs, politics, temporary policies etc.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Puru's post and my own went up at more or less the same time. East is East and West is West!

 

Krsna is the supreme controller jagat. Timely as they are juxtaposed to each other in viewpoint.

 

We can discuss the question of what constitutes "blind following" and what "absurd inquiries" along the lines of inquiry found in the "Tao of Krishna Consciousness" thread.

 

No prabhu. You can discuss it all you like, but not with me. I'm only posting on this topic to make a clear distinction between my perspective and yours' and shvu's. That is all.

 

But is seems to me, Puru Prabhu, that as soon as we say "This is samadhi labdha truth that can't be questioned," we have fallen into the realm of blind following. I mean, is not the a priori acceptance of someone as infallible the same thing as poking one's own rational eyes out?

 

I did not say not to question. IN SB 1.1.5 purportthis is what my gurudeva writes about inquiry:

 

"Those who listen to the Bhagavatam may put questions to the speaker in order to elicit the clear meaning, but this should not be done in a challenging spirit. One must submit questions with a great regard for the speaker and the subject matter. This is also the way recommended in Bhagavad-gita. One must learn the transcendental subject by submissive aural reception from the right sources.

HDGACBSP

 

Just think: the Pope is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, infallible. Yet he has apologized to the world for the errors that his infallible predecessors made. Now there's a conundrum for you.

 

No conundrum at all. Srila Jiva Gosvami says:

 

Paramartha-gurasrayo vyavaharika-gurvadiparityagenapi kartavyah

"One should not accept a spiritual master based on hereditary, social or ecclesiastical

conventions. Such a professional guru should be rejected. One must accept a qualified

spiritual master, who can help one advance toward the ultimate goal of life, krsna

prema (Bhakti-sandharba, annucheda 210)

 

The pope is elected by ecclesiastical politics and not in the same category of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and other self effulgent acaryas jagat. SBSST has also remarked that:

 

""The Supreme Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, in pursuance of the teachings of the scriptures

enjoins all absence of conventionalism for the teachers of the eternal religion. It does not follow

that the mechanical adoption of the unconventional life by any person will make him a fit

teacher of religion. Regulation is necessary for controlling the inherent worldliness of conditional

souls.

But no mechanical regulation has any value, even for such a purpose. The bona-fide teacher of

religion is neither any product of nor the favorer of, any mechanical system. In his hands

no system has likewise, the chance of degenerating into a lifeless arrangement. The mere

pursuit of fixed doctrines and fixed liturgies cannot hold a person to the true spirit of doctrine or

liturgy.

The idea of an organised church in an intelligible form, indeed, marks the close of the living

spiritual movement. The great ecclesiastical establishments are the dikes and the dams to

retain the current that cannot be held by any such contrivances. They, indeed, indicate a

desire on the part of the masses to exploit a spiritual movement for their own purpose.

They also unmistakably indicate the end of the absolute and unconventional guidance of the bona-fide spiritual teacher."

 

You and I have gone through the infallibility question before, Puru Prabhu, and I am not really enthusiastic about going another round, but as I recall, we always come to one point of agreement, that Prabhupada was not infallible. He was capable of making mistakes of varying degrees of severity. We must now go on to examine and accept the implications of that fallibility.

WE cetainly have. And I have no intention of re hashing it yet again. We come from different states of heart. That is all.

 

No prabhu, we don't come to the same conclusion at all. I agree that there may be some editing mistakes in some of the books, and that Srila Prabhupada never boasted of being a sankskrit scholar, but his motive and the motives of Srila Bhaktivinoda are unquestionably crystal clear and infallable from our perspective. His Divine Grace writes in his preface to SB:

 

"Srimad-Bhagavatam is the transcendental science not only for knowing the ultimate source of everything but also for knowing our relation with Him and our duty toward perfection of the human society on the basis of this perfect knowledge. It is powerful reading matter in the Sanskrit language, and it is now rendered into English elaborately so that simply by a careful reading one will know God perfectly well, so much so that the reader will be sufficiently educated to defend himself from the onslaught of atheists. Over and above this, the reader will be able to convert others to accepting God as a concrete principle.

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam begins with the definition of the ultimate source. It is a bona fide commentary on the Vedanta-sutra by the same author, Srila Vyasadeva, and gradually it develops into nine cantos up to the highest state of God realization. The only qualification one needs to study this great book of transcendental knowledge is to proceed step by step cautiously and not jump forward haphazardly like with an ordinary book. It should be gone through chapter by chapter, one after another. The reading matter is so arranged with its original Sanskrit text, its English transliteration, synonyms, translation and purports so that one is sure to become a God-realized soul at the end of finishing the first nine cantos.

The Tenth Canto is distinct from the first nine cantos because it deals directly with the transcendental activities of the Personality of Godhead Sri Krsna. One will be unable to capture the effects of the Tenth Canto without going through the first nine cantos. The book is complete in twelve cantos, each independent, but it is good for all to read them in small installments one after another.

I must admit my frailties in presenting Srimad-Bhagavatam, but still I am hopeful of its good reception by the thinkers and leaders of society on the strength of the following statement of Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.5.11):

 

tad-vag-visargo janatagha-viplavo

yasmin prati-slokam abaddhavaty api

namany anantasya yaso 'nkitani yac

chrnvanti gayanti grnanti sadhavah

 

"On the other hand, that literature which is full with descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, form and pastimes of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a transcendental creation meant to bring about a revolution in the impious life of a misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though irregularly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest."

 

Om tat sat

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

Dated at Delhi

December 15, 1962

 

 

Even in face of apparant "fallable errors" by your estimation we do not consider our acarys to be bhadda jivas who make ordinary mistakes by the influence of material illusion or imperfect sense perception. SBSST has remarked:

 

Absolute Knowledge is capable of revealing all the potency

of the Divinity. Those who want to understand the contents of

the volumes penned by the piece-meal acquisitive method

applicable to deluding knowledge available to the mind on

the mundane plane, are bound to be self-deceived. Those

who are sincere seekers of the Truth are alone eligible to find

Him, in and through the proper method of His quest. . .

These plain words need not be misrepresented, by arrogant

persons who are full of the vanity of empiric ignorance, as the

pronouncements of aggressive sectarianism. The

aggressive pronouncement of the concrete Truth is the crying

necessity of the moment for silencing the aggressive

propaganda of specific untruths that is being carried on all

over the world by the preachers of empiric contrivances for

the amelioration of the hard lot of conditioned souls. The

empiric propaganda clothes itself in the language of negative

abstraction for deluding those who are engrossed in the

selfish pursuit of worldly enjoyment.

. . .In order to be put on the track of the Absolute, listening to the

words of the pure devotee is absolutely necessary. The

spoken word of the Absolute is the Absolute. It is only the

Absolute Who can give Himself away to the constituents of

His power. The Absolute appears to the listening ear of the

conditioned soul in the form of the Name on the lips of the

sadhu. This is the key to the whole position. The words of

Thakur Bhaktivinode direct the empiric pedant to discard his

wrong method and inclination on the threshold of the real

quest of the Absolute. If the pedant still chooses to carry his

errors into the Realm of the Absolute Truth he only marches

by a deceptive bye-path into the regions of darker ignorance

by his arrogant study of the scriptures. The method offered by

Thakur Bhaktivinode is identical with the object of the quest.

The method is not really grasped except by the grace of the

pure devotee. The arguments, indeed, are these. But they

can only corroborate, but can never be a substitute for, the

word from the living source of the Truth who is no other than

the pure devotee of Krishna, the concrete Personal Absolute.

 

and as far as "mistakes are concerned he observes:

 

Thakur Bhaktivinode did not want us to go to the clever

mechanical reciter of the mundane sound for obtaining

access to the Transcendental Name of Krishna. Such a

person may be fully equipped with all the written arguments in

explanation of the nature of the Divine Name. But if we listen

to all these arguments from the dead source the words will

only increase our delusion. The very same words coming

from the lips of the devotee will have the diametrically

opposite effect. Our empiric judgment can never grasp the

difference between the two performances. The devotee is

always right. The non-devotee in the shape of the empiric

pedant is always and necessarily wrong. In the one case

there is always present the Substantive Truth and nothing but

the Substantive Truth. In the other case there is present the

apparent or misleading hypothesis and nothing but un-truth.

The wording may have the same external appearance in both

cases. The identical verses of the Scriptures may be recited

by the devotee and the non-devotee, may be apparently

misquoted by the non-devotee but the corresponding values

of the two processes remain always categorically different.

The devotee is right even when he apparently misquotes, the

non-devotee is wrong even when he quotes correctly the very

words, chapter and verse of the Scriptures.

 

We are trying to dedicate out life to their service and you have rejected them as your guides. We see them through the their love and affection and eternal connection to us and you do not. Plain and simple difference, and you can not minimize ior rationalize our conscious choice by your laukika estimations.

 

 

 

[mahak 0]

haribol, Ive been doing a bit of reading without too much comment, but was thinking of doing something biblical here, and guess what. Inspiration from a writer that I have always appreciated.

 

"Just a quick note on the Papal infallibility comment by Jagat. Papal infallibility is really quite different from how you percieve it and is a well thought out philosophical doctrine. Papal infallibility does not, as you seem to have inferred, mean that the Pope is incapable of error. The Pope is considered human and capable of error like any other person. The drawing line is when the Pope speaks on issues of 'doctrine'. In that arena alone he is considered to be incapable of error. This does not refer customs, politics, temporary policies etc. "

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

 

Thanks, audarya lila dasa. This infallibility issue is completely correct, and the seat of authority is taken by the pope when invoking doctrinal infallibality. This brings up a quotation from Srila Prabhupada when someone pigeonholed him into a discussion about his "perfection". His response was " I am not perfect, I am an old man. However, the teachings I present as I have understood them are perfect, and this is my perfection."

 

Now we get to the gist of the Revelation of St5 John the Divine, who ends the so-called bible (he didnt end it, it was just placed at the end by the demoniac canonists) by stating that all the plagues and evils described in his prophecy will befall all those who change the MESSAGE of the book of Prophesy.

 

Now he did not curse King James for contracting Shakespeare and Byron and other contemporary writers of the day to translate the canonized scripture to the queens english. Not did he curse the greeks (who inherited the earth according to Brian, sorry, a littly monty python levity), romans, gideons, or anyone else, for the message remains intact. Put it on the table and say, "what is the bible telling me?" The answer is to love God with mind, body, and spirit, and thus, others will be loved as much as one's self.

 

Vedavyasa also received good information from His Guru Maharaja, Srila Narada Muni. After calling out in frustration at the incomplete nature of the Veda and the dryness of it all, Narada inspired Vyasa to enter into Vaisnavism by compiling Srimad Bhagavatam, and the description of motive far outweighs the dots and dashes of erudition and scholarship. "The works that describe the Names, Forms, pastimes, associates, etc of the Supreme Personality of Godhead will be heard and appreciated by thoroughly honest men, even if fault is found in grammer, style, etc." (sorry, paraphrase is my faulty work, but the gist should be seen by thoroughly honest folks).

 

So, If Bhaktivinode paraphrases, or if I plagarize nag hamadhi, ramayana, kebra nagast on my website, this is a fault, indeed, but if the intent and motive is to give the reader a little nectar, as in hairs rising on the backside of the neck or incessant tears for no apparent reason, who cares about such flaws. Let the grammerians bicker about this stuff, Ill take the sentiment any day. Srila Prabhupada's perfection is that he can deliver bhava to a mleccha, despite irregularities in wordplay.

 

Okay, carry on, you guys, I hope you dont thinkl by my post that I think scholarship is worthless, for it is not my intent, nor is it my true belief, but Ill take the high any way I get it, even from ol solomon.

 

By the way, King Solomon worshipped God as Man and Wife, the secret meaning of the song of solomon.

 

Back to the vedas, signing off, ys in cooperation, mahaksadasa

 

[Jagat 1]

This is all very circular. You know very well,Mahaksha, that from the very first time I raised this issue on Garuda Express, I explained papal infallibility and ex camera, etc.

 

If we agree that guru infallibility is restricted, then it is our responsibility to determine what the limits of that infallibility are.

 

As I said in my earlier post, if I say, "I am not infallible, but everything I say is infallible," then it comes to the same thing, doesn't it?

 

If my parAtpara-gurudeva put a cat under a basket at my initiation ceremony, does that mean henceforward cats must always be put under baskets whenever there is an initiation ceremony?

 

There are so many examples of such things, but they indicate that a tradition stagnates as soon as we become excessively attached to the statements of the predecessor acharyas without understanding.

 

For instance, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and BHaktivinoda Thakur made many statements about Vaishnava history, for instance, the identity of Prabodhananda Saraswati. They come to a particular conclusion that is shown very clearly by historical evidence to be erroneous. Are we allowed to examine the evidence and come to our own conclusions?

 

Or must we "ask submissively with respect" with the predetermined conclusion that whatever the "authority" says must be accepted as correct?

 

Am I allowed to say the following: "My spiritual master told me that things are like this. But he was not aware of the evidence that you have presented me. Looking at the evidence, I have to agree with you that his conclusion was erroneous."?

 

There are two realms - that of faith and that of reason. Do the same rules apply to both these realms?

 

 

[mahak 0]

Haribol, Jagat, ya know, Ill take heat for this, but I have always been of the opinion that Guru is appreciated from many levels. At the beginning stage, there is sort of a santa rasa and rasa servitude, and from this point, there is a necessity that the disciple be bred with awe and reverential attitude. This is important, and one should not pretend discipleship if such discipline is not given and taken. This means that what guru says, goes, and disciple accepts, no dialogue, no debate.

 

But, as in relationship with God, of which Guru is external manifestation of, relationship grows, and the growth increases intimacy, equality, and confidentiality. Srila Prabhupada has disciples that were of this caliber, they were beyonf mere diswciples, they were actually more friends and confidants. In such an increased intimacy and decreased awe and reverential feeling, a give and take, and dialogue is somewhat possible. This is natural.

 

But, for the purposes of teaching sadhana bhakti, there has to be the totality of discipline. Guru's duty is to make the disciple do guru puja, not because he may want the adulation, but because it is a part of the sadhana process, and this is given intact, by the book.

 

Anyway, I just ran out of time, but I think the reprocussions will follow me until next week and beyond. I like the Idea of friendship with spiritual authority, it makes the whole game much more compatable with our loving propensity.

 

Haribol, for now, ys, mahaksadaswa

[Jagat 1]

Originally posted by mahak:

But, for the purposes of teaching sadhana bhakti, there has to be the totality of discipline.

Actually, I am glad you made this post so I could agree with it pretty much totally. I get nervous when I am too radical -- I don't want to make any more enemies than I already have.

 

The guru --

<ul>[*]instills faith

[*]teaches a spiritual discipline

Faith is not logical, as I pointed out on the Tao thread. But it is still our most significant possession. It could and should guide our lives, because it can be the most enriching thing we have. For this reason, the Guru is seen as God.

 

But the analogy of a parent is very good. Is the adult's relationship with his parents the same as it was when he was a baby?

 

Anyway, Mahaksaji, thanks for saving me again from myself. Not that it will keep all the wolves at bay, it just lets me know that I have some breathing room.

 

Jagat

 

 

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

jagat wrote:

 

For instance, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and BHaktivinoda Thakur made

many statements about Vaishnava history, for instance, the identity of Prabodhananda Saraswati. They come to a particular conclusion that is shown very clearly by historical evidence to be erroneous. Are we allowed to examine the evidence and come to our own conclusions?

 

If you place more stock in such "evidence" and see fit to accept it instead of what two or possibly three of acaryas have said then it is your evaluation of history compared to theirs, is it not? As you wish.

 

Intrigued by his remark I have found these references to Prabodhananda Saraswati and his identity as explained by my spiritual master in several Cc. purports.

 

 

. . . Yet Srimat Prabodhananda Sarasvati writes in his Caitanya-candramrta. . .

Cc. Adi 7. 27 purport

 

 

TEXT 149

 

TEXT

 

sei haite sannyasira phiri gela mana

'krsna' 'krsna' nama sada karaye grahana

 

SYNONYMS

 

sei haite--from that time; sannyasira--all the Mayavadi sannyasis; phiri--turn; gela--became; mana--mind; krsna krsna--the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna; nama--name; sada--always; karaye--do; grahana--accept.

 

TRANSLATION

 

From that moment when the Mayavadi sannyasis heard the explanation of the Vedanta-sutra from the Lord, their minds changed, and on the instruction of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, they too chanted "Krsna! Krsna!" always.

 

PURPORT

 

In this connection it may be mentioned that sometimes the sahajiya class of devotees opine that Prakasananda Sarasvati and Prabodhananda Sarasvati are the same man. Prabodhananda Sarasvati was a great Vaisnava devotee of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but Prakasananda Sarasvati, the head of the Mayavadi sannyasis in Benares, was a different person. Prabodhananda Sarasvati belonged to the Ramanuja-sampradaya, whereas Prakasananda Sarasvati belonged to the Sankaracarya-sampradaya. Prabodhananda Sarasvati wrote a number of books, among which are the Caitanya-candramrta, Radha-rasa-sudha-nidhi, Sangita-madhava, Vrndavana-sataka and Navadvipa-sataka. While traveling in southern India, Caitanya Mahaprabhu met Prabodhananda Sarasvati, who had two brothers, Venkata Bhatta and Tirumalaya Bhatta, who were Vaisnavas of the Ramanuja-sampradaya. Gopala Bhatta Gosvami was the nephew of Prabodhananda Sarasvati. From historical records it is found that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu traveled in South India in the year 1433 sakabda (A.D. 1511) during the Caturmasya period, and it was at that time that He met Prabodhananda, who belonged to the Ramanuja-sampradaya. How then could the same person meet Him as a member of the Sankara-sampradaya in 1435 sakabda, two years later? It is to be concluded that the guess of the sahijiya-sampradaya that Prabodhananda Sarasvati and Prakasananda Sarasvati were the same man is a mistaken idea.

CC. Adi 7. 149

 

 

TEXT 105

 

TEXT

 

sri-gopala bhatta eka sakha sarvottama

rupa-sanatana-sange yanra prema-alapana

 

SYNONYMS

 

sri-gopala bhatta--of the name Sri Gopala Bhatta; eka--one; sakha--branch; sarva-uttama--very exalted; rupa--of the name Rupa; sanatana--of the name Sanatana; sange--company; yanra--whose; prema--love of Godhead; alapana--discussion.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Sri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, the forty-seventh branch, was one of the great and exalted branches of the tree. He always engaged in discourses about love of Godhead in the company of Rupa Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami.

 

PURPORT

 

Sri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami was the son of Venkata Bhatta, a resident of Srirangam. Gopala Bhatta formerly belonged to the disciplic succession of the Ramanuja-sampradaya but later became part of the Gaudiya-sampradaya. In the year 1433 sakabda (A.D. 1512), when Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu was touring South India, He stayed for four months during the period of Caturmasya at the house of Venkata Bhatta, who then got the opportunity to serve the Lord to his heart's content. Gopala Bhatta also got the opportunity to serve the Lord at this time. Sri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami was later initiated by his uncle, the great sannyasi Prabodhananda Sarasvati. Both the father and mother of Gopala Bhatta Gosvami were extremely fortunate, for they dedicated their entire lives to the service of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. They allowed Gopala Bhatta Gosvami to go to Vrndavana, and they gave up their lives thinking of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. When Lord Caitanya was later informed that Gopala Bhatta Gosvami had gone to Vrndavana and met Sri Rupa and Sanatana Gosvami, He was very pleased, and He advised Sri Rupa and Sanatana to accept Gopala Bhatta Gosvami as their younger brother and take care of him. Sri Sanatana Gosvami, out of his great affection for Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, compiled the Vaisnava smrti named Hari-bhakti-vilasa and published it under his name. Under the instruction of Srila Rupa and Sanatana, Gopala Bhatta Gosvami installed one of the seven principal Deities of Vrndavana, the Radharamana Deity. The sevaits (priests) of the Radharamana temple belong to the Gaudiya-sampradaya.

When Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami took permission from all the Vaisnavas before writing Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Gopala Bhatta Gosvami also gave him his blessings, but he requested him not to mention his name in the book. Therefore Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami has mentioned Gopala Bhatta Gosvami only very cautiously in one or two passages of the Caitanya-caritamrta. Srila Jiva Gosvami has written in the beginning of his Tattva-sandarbha, "A devotee from southern India who was born of a brahmana family and was a very intimate friend of Rupa Gosvami and Sanatana Gosvami has written a book that he has not compiled chronologically. Therefore I, a tiny living entity known as jiva, am trying to assort the events of the book chronologically, consulting the direction of great personalities like Madhvacarya, Sridhara Svami, Ramanujacarya and other senior Vaisnavas in the disciplic succession." In the beginning of the Bhagavat-sandarbha there are similar statements by Srila Jiva Gosvami. Srila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami compiled a book called Sat-kriya-sara-dipika, edited the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, wrote a forword to the Sat-sandarbha and a commentary on the Krsna-karnamrta, and installed the Radharamana Deity in Vrndavana. In the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, verse 184, it is mentioned that his previous name in the pastimes of Lord Krsna was Ananga-manjari. Sometimes he is also said to have been an incarnation of Guna-manjari. Srinivasa Acarya and Gopinatha Pujari were two of his disciples.

 

Cc. Adi lila 10.105

 

TEXT 1

 

TEXT

 

kathancana smrte yasmin

duskaram sukaram bhavet

vismrte viparitam syat

sri-caitanyam namami tam

 

SYNONYMS

 

kathancana--somehow or other; smrte--by remembering; yasmin--whom; duskaram--difficult things; sukaram--easy; bhavet--become; vismrte--by forgetting Him; viparitam--just the opposite; syat--become; sri-caitanyam--Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu; namami--I offer my respectful obeisances; tam--unto Him.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Things that are very difficult to do become easy to execute if one somehow or other simply remembers Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. But if one does not remember Him, even easy things become very difficult. To this Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu I offer my respectful obeisances.

 

PURPORT

 

In his book Caitanya-candramrta Srila Prabodhananda Sarasvati says: "One who receives a little favor from the Lord becomes so exalted that he does not care even for liberation, which is sought after by many great scholars and philosophers. Similarly, a devotee of Lord Caitanya considers residence in the heavenly planets a will-o'-the-wisp. He surpasses the perfection of mystic yoga power because for him the senses are like snakes with broken fangs." A snake is a very fearful and dangerous animal because of his poison fangs, but if these fangs are broken the appearance of a snake is no cause for fear. The yoga principles are meant to control the senses, but there is no scope for the senses of one engaged in the service of the Lord to be dangerous like snakes. These are the gifts of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

The Hari-bhakti-vilasa confirms that difficult things become easy to understand if one remembers Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and easy things become very difficult to understand if one forgets Him. We actually see that even those who are very great scientists in the eyes of the general public cannot understand the very simple idea that life comes from life because they do not have the mercy of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. They defend the false understanding that life comes from matter, although they cannot prove that this is a fact. Modern civilization, therefore, progressing on the basis of this false scientific theory, is simply creating problems to be solved by the so-called scientists.

The author of Caitanya-caritamrta takes shelter of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to describe the pastimes of His appearance as a child because one cannot write such transcendental literature by mental speculation. One who writes about the Supreme Personality of Godhead must be especially favored by the Lord. Simply by academic qualifications it is not possible to write such literature.

 

Cc. Adi lila 14.1

 

 

TEXT 82

 

TEXT

 

sri-vaisnava eka,----'vyenkata bhatta' nama

prabhure nimantrana kaila kariya sammana

 

SYNONYMS

 

sri-vaisnava eka--a devotee belonging to the Ramanuja-sampradaya; vyenkata bhatta--Venkata Bhatta; nama--named; prabhure--unto Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu; nimantrana--invitation; kaila--did; kariya--offering; sammana--great respect.

 

TRANSLATION

 

One Vaisnava known as Venkata Bhatta then invited Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to his home with great respect.

 

PURPORT

 

Sri Venkata Bhatta was a Vaisnava brahmana and an inhabitant of Sri Ranga-ksetra. He belonged to the disciplic succession of Sri Ramanujacarya. Sri Ranga is one of the places of pilgrimage in the province of Tamil Nadus. The inhabitants of that province do not retain the name Venkata. It is therefore supposed that Venkata Bhatta did not belong to that province, although he may have been residing there for a very long time. Venkata Bhatta was in a branch of the Ramanuja-sampradaya known as Badagala-i. He had a brother in the Ramanuja-sampradaya known as Sripada Prabodhananda Sarasvati. The son of Venkata Bhatta was later known in the Gaudiya-sampradaya as Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, and he established the Radharamana temple in Vrndavana. More information about him may be found in a book known as Bhakti-ratnakara, by Narahari Cakravarti.

 

Cc. Madhya lila 9..82

 

TEXT 177

 

TEXT

 

bilvamangala kaila yaiche dasa apanara

ihan dekhi' sei dasa ha-ila amara

 

SYNONYMS

 

bilvamangala--Bilvamangala; kaila--did; yaiche--as; dasa--condition; apanara--his own; ihan--here; dekhi'--I see; sei dasa--that condition; ha-ila--became; amara--mine.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"Bilvamangala Thakura abandoned his impersonal realization for the realization of the Personality of Godhead. I now see that my condition is similar to his, for it has already changed."

 

PURPORT

 

In his early life, Bilvamangala Thakura was an impersonalistic monist, and he used to meditate upon the impersonal Brahman effulgence. Later he became a devotee of Lord Krsna, and his explanation for this change is given in a verse (text 178) that is quoted in the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. Sometimes a devotee gradually comes to the stage of Bhagavan realization, realization of the Supreme Person, after having attained the lower stages of realization--impersonal Brahman realization and localized Paramatma realization. The condition of such a devotee is described in the Caitanya-candramrta (5) by Prabodhananda Sarasvati:

 

kaivalyam narakayate tri-dasa-pur akasa-puspayate

durdantendriya-kala-sarpa-patali protkhata-damstrayate

visvam purna-sukhayate vidhi-mahendradis ca kitayate

yat-karunya-kataksa-vaibhavavatam tam gauram eva stumah

 

Kaivalya, oneness in the effulgence of Brahman, appears hellish to the devotee. The heavenly planets, the abodes of the demigods, appear to a devotee like phantasmagoria. The yogis meditate for sense control, but for the devotee the senses appear like serpents with broken teeth. The devotee doesn't have to control his senses, for his senses are already engaged in the Lord's service. Consequently there is no possibility that the senses will act like serpents. In the material condition, the senses are as strong as poisonous snakes. But when the senses are engaged in the Lord's service, they are like poisonous snakes with their fangs removed, and so they are no longer dangerous. The entire world is a replica of Vaikuntha for the devotee because he has no anxiety. He sees that everything belongs to Krsna, and he does not want to enjoy anything for himself. He does not even aspire for the position of Lord Brahma or Indra. He simply wants to engage everything in the service of the Lord; therefore he has no problem. He stands in his original constitutional position. All this is possible when one receives Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's merciful glance.

In the Caitanya-candramrta there are many more verses illustrating this same principle.

 

dhik kurvanti ca brahma-yoga-vidusas tam gauracandram numah

 

tavad brahma-katha vimukta-padavi tavan na tikti-bhavet

tavac capi visrnkhalatvam ayate no loka-veda-sthitih

tavac chastra-vidam mithah kala-kalo nana-bahir-vartmasu

sri-caitanya-padambuja-priya-jano yavan na dig-gocarah

 

gauras caurah sakalamaharat ko 'pi me tivra-viryah

 

A discussion of the impersonal Brahman is not very palatable to a devotee. The so-called regulations of the sastras also appear null and void to him. There are many people who argue over the sastras, but for a devotee such discussions are but tumultuous roaring. By the influence of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, all these problems disappear.

Cc. Madhya lila 10.177

 

 

TEXT 68

 

TEXT

 

sei haite bhagyavan rajara nandana

prabhu-bhakta-gana-madhye haila eka-jana

 

SYNONYMS

 

sei haite--from that day; bhagyavan--the most fortunate; rajara nandana--the son of the King; prabhu-bhakta-gana-madhye--among the intimate devotees of the Lord; haila--became; eka-jana--one of them.

 

TRANSLATION

 

From then on, the fortunate prince was one of the most intimate devotees of the Lord.

 

PURPORT

 

In this regard, Srila Prabodhananda Sarasvati writes: yat-karunya-kataksa-vaibhava-vatam. If Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu simply glanced at someone for a moment, that person immediately turned into one of the most confidential devotees of the Lord. The prince came to see the Lord for the first time, but by the Lord's mercy the boy immediately became a topmost devotee. This was not in theory but in practice. We cannot apply the nagna-matrka-nyaya formula. This states that if one's mother was naked in her childhood, she should continue to remain naked, even though she has become a mother of so many children. If a person is actually blessed by the mercy of the Lord, he can immediately become a topmost devotee of the Lord. The logic of nagna-matrka states that if a person is not elevated on such and such a date, he cannot become an exalted devotee overnight, as it were. This particular instance offers evidence to contradict that theory. On the previous day, the boy was simply an ordinary prince, and the next day he was counted as one of the topmost devotees of the Lord. This was all made possible by the causeless mercy of the Lord. The Lord is omnipotent, all-powerful and almighty, and He can act as He likes.

 

C. Madhya lila 12.68

 

*******************

Not only are you ready to believe Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's realizations and some of his writings are questionable, but that he and his followers also distort history. Krsna has given you plenty of "historical evidence" so you can feel comfortable with your position. Forgive me if I have the tendancy to doubt you and trust others in such matters.

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-06-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

Puru's post and my own went up at more or less the same time. East is East and West is West!

 

We can discuss the question of what constitutes "blind following" and what "absurd inquiries" along the lines of inquiry found in the "Tao of Krishna Consciousness" thread.

 

But is seems to me, Puru Prabhu, that as soon as we say "This is samadhi labdha truth that can't be questioned," we have fallen into the realm of blind following. I mean, is not the a priori acceptance of someone as infallible the same thing as poking one's own rational eyes out?

 

Just think: the Pope is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, infallible. Yet he has apologized to the world for the errors that his infallible predecessors made. Now there's a conundrum for you.

 

You and I have gone through the infallibility question before, Puru Prabhu, and I am not really enthusiastic about going another round, but as I recall, we always come to one point of agreement, that Prabhupada was not infallible. He was capable of making mistakes of varying degrees of severity. We must now go on to examine and accept the implications of that fallibility.

[shvu 1]

We don't know the calibre of the early people who interpolated the Puranas. (Those who think that the Puranas are all clean and have not been interpolated, please read some research material that shows how many different recensions each Purana has in India, with the Bhavisya Purana topping the list). The scope of the puranas was clear. Make spirituality, philosophy, etc to the layman which was previously exclusive to Brahmanas and even among them, only for the qualified few. The simplest way to achieve this was to use stories. Naturally this would have modified over time, depending on the region, circumstance and unfortunately sometimes on personal prejudice [Vaishnava, Shaiva].

 

Taking the Bhagavatam as an example,

 

The stories of Parikshit do not match up with Mahabharata. The version of sAnkya as taught by Bhishma to Yudhistira is vastly different from what Kapila teaches in SB.

 

The following is from another post,

 

//////////////

 

The Bhagavatam was in all possiblity composed in the South. For one thing, the Mahabharata is almost exclusively descriptive of events in North India. So far as I know, the only Southern place mentioned is the "Kanya Teertha" (Kanyakumari). Why then does the Srimad Bhagavatam talk so much about the South?

 

In Bhagavatam 11.5.38-40, it is mentioned that the Kaveri, the Tamrapani,the Payasvini and the Kritamala - all from Tamilnadu - are the most holy rivers. And those who drink from these waters become devotees of Lord

Vasudeva. The description of hills and rivers in India begins from those in South India (5.19.onwards).

 

More on the subject by George Hart:

 

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

One of the most intriguing contributions of the Tamil area to Sanskrit is the Bhagavatapurana. It is pretty universally agreed that it was written by a Tamilian and that it is filled with motifs and themes from the Divyaprabandha and other Tamil literature. Its author also uses "Vedic" forms -- sometimes incorrectly! -- to try to make it sound old and hoary. This work has catalyzed Bhakti movements all over India and is, arguably, one of the most important works in the Sanskrit language. An example of Tamil is the word avamocana, "inn." This occurs nowhere else in Sanskrit -- it is clearly a translation of Tamil viTuti.

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

 

That's the actual evidence: the language of the Bhagavatam is vastly different from the Sanskrit in other works, and there are some words that have been "borrowed" from Tamil.

 

//////////////////////////

 

This would have worked back then, because people as groups were mostly isolated and each version stayed within their own group. It is when the British indologists who began reasearch found various recensions, that these facts began to come to light. The Navadwipa Dham would have remained unoticed by the Madhvas if it were not for the internet, I think. So with media the way it is today, it is practically impossible to get away with such tactics. Had these authors known that technology would improve to such levels they may probably have been more cautious.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

He was not the only one who yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting.

Whether or not he yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting, or whether he was actually a realized drashta who visualized the sacred texts directly, we can never know.

 

I find it odd that someone like Satguru Subrahmanya Swami from Hinduism today can "channel" ancient Tamil manuscripts from the lost continent of Lemuria*, and everyone claps their hands. But if a Vaishnava has a divine vision through samadhi and records it, its a counterfeit or he's a fraud or whatever.

 

I think the double standard has to do with the fact that Vaishnavism is perceived as sectarian (only worship Krishna,etc.), and as such people are usually eager to reject such views.

* Now available in print from Hinduism Today.

[Tarun 6]

Dear Shvu, dainyik daNDavat praNAms.

Thanks for retyping this ZvetAzvataropaniSad verse accurately.

Kundali's print has a few diacritic & spelling errors.

I left my UpaniSads over the Atlantic.

No prapti siddhi here.

This UpaniSad zloka is directly related & similar to BhAg (10.14.8)

tat te'nukampAM susamIxamANo...

so much so, it can very easily be established, "They are 2 sides of the same coin."

"2 fingers" or "2 inches" in YazodAmayi's case.

aroha ~ avatAr

mala = dirt - singular.

malAm = all dirt - plural

Caturmukha BrahmA's son Rudradev aka Ziva is slightly tinged by TriguNa.

Ergo he's neither amala nor nirmala.

So nirmalAm cannot refer to him.

What about sadAziva? He's certainly nirguN. He's certainly nirmalAm.

Yet can He, sadAziva be referred to as sunirmalAm?

In this present Kaliyuga, sadAziva appears as whom?

We can say 1/2 AdvaitAcarya.

Ergo, AdvaitAcarya is certainly nirmalAm, the usual KaliyugAvatAr.

However...

I'm you sure can capture the rest. Good day.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Those who think that the Puranas are all clean and have not been interpolated, please read some research material that shows how many different recensions each Purana has in India, with the Bhavisya Purana topping the list.

I'm curious if you've done any research on Bhavishya Purana, or if you are just assuming. How many versions have you compared? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The stories of Parikshit do not match up with Mahabharata. The version of sAnkya as taught by Bhishma to Yudhistira is vastly different from what Kapila teaches in SB.

The difference between the Bhagavatam's narration of Parikshit and the Mahabharata's are due to yuga-bheda, or the variations in a pastime occuring in different yugas. One is describing the present Dvapara and Kali yugas, and the other is describing a previous Dvapara and Kali yuga.

 

To be honest, these type of arguments always seem very weak and foolish to me. To think that some author thousands of years ago was trying to copy another text, and he was just too stupid to match the stories properly.

 

Regarding Sankhya, almost all sources of sankhya eventually tally in regards to descriptions of the principles of existence and the process of creation. The variations occur when one school focuses on a particular level of creation, or when they merge several categories under one heading. Of course their ultimate aim varies pretty widely based on what they identify as the ultimate source. But in the actual sankhya aspects they can all be synthesized quite easily.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-06-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

Originally posted by jndas:

I find it odd that someone like Satguru Subrahmanya Swami from Hinduism today can "channel" ancient Tamil manuscripts from the lost continent of Lemuria*, and everyone claps their hands. But if a Vaishnava has a divine vision through samadhi and records it, its a counterfeit or he's a fraud or whatever.

Not at all. I doubt that Shivu is clapping his hands for anyone who is channeling lost Tamil texts from the lost continent of Lemuria; certainly I am not.

 

As I said, this is a time-honored tradition in India and one has to be aware of it. The Mahayana Buddhists "discovered" lost Buddhist scriptures that justified their doctrines.

<blockquote>

"...the Hinayana followers charge that the Mahayana is based on sutras which are not the words of the Buddha, but on the works of later followers. To this charge, the Mahayanists reply that the Buddha preached on two levels. To those who were not learned and ill-equipped to understand the message, he preached the simple Hinayana sutras, but to those who were wise and advanced, he preached the profound and abstruse Mahayana sutras. These were transmitted by the elite disciples from generation to generation by word of mouth until they blossomed forth in the Mahayana sutras of a later age." (K.S. Chen, Buddhism, the Light of Asia.</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>"An alternative explanation recorded by Buddhist historians [Taranath] was that though the Buddha had taught them, they were not in circulation in the world of men at all for many centuries, there being no competent teachers and no intelligent students; the sutras were however preserved in the Dragon World and other non-human circles, and when in the 2nd century A.D. adequate teachers suddenly appeared in India in large numbers, the texts were fetched and circulated." (A. K. Warder, Indian Buddhism, p. 352.)</blockquote>

 

Haribol, Jagat

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

That's the actual evidence: the language of the Bhagavatam is vastly different from the Sanskrit in other works, and there are some words that have been "borrowed" from Tamil.

 

I have read Bhagavatam several times, but I haven't noticed any Tamil words up till now. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, or maybe there aren't any. Perhaps you can post the list of Tamil words you found in the Bhagavatam; then I can comment properly.

 

Until then I have no reason to believe it.

 

One funny thing is that almost every Purana, when analysed separetly will be criticized for having a unique language style in some manner. As a result there is no standard language style left to compare it to.

 

 

[Jagat 1]

I guess that answers my question: "No!"

 

Submissive questioning means knowing that you are always wrong if you disagree.

 

Absurd enquiries are those that demand one take contradictory evidence into consideration.

 

As far as Prabodhananda Saraswati is concerned -- have you read the account of his life given by Bhagavant Mudita? Do you think that a 17th century text written by a Gaudiya Vaishnava who joined the Radha Vallabh sampradaya might be worth considering when making pronouncements about Prabodhananda?

 

Is there any indication that Bhaktivinoda Thakur or Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur knew of this book?

 

 

[kailasa 0]

>You and I have gone through the infallibility question before, Puru Prabhu, and I am not really enthusiastic about going another round, but as I recall, we always come to one point of agreement, that Prabhupada was not infallible

Please put(cause) examples of errors.

 

****

 

>Actually, I am glad you made this post so I could agree with it pretty much totally. I get nervous when I am too radical -- I don't want to make any more enemies than I already have.

 

The guru --

 

 

instills faith

 

teaches a spiritual discipline

Guru gives diksa and in it(her) all is concluded. Simplly if devoted is not successful or for him(it) is not present To trust, it(he) still will be long to be tormented.

 

Even if Guru kanistha, but the diciple sincere, Krisna will transmit to such diciple all blessings through anyone Guru . The dependents search "uttama" Guru and as a rule fall on a fraud. It arranges with him(it) Krisna .

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Not surprised to see that you still believe you know more than your former diksa guru and the predecessor acaryas in his line.

 

Be as sarcastic as you like.I don't have any information if SBSST and SBT were aware of the book you mention. What makes you so convinced it is more authentic than the historical references they alude to? Because you will look for anything that validates your own rejection of our guru varga wherever you can find it.

 

Give it a rest jagat. We don't accept your position and never will, and you won't accept ours. Finished. No discussion, no exchange, only mutual upeksa is called for.

[Tarun 6]

This sunirmalAm word indicates vizuddha-sattvam, flipside.

AdvaitAcarya = sadA-Zivaji can be nirmalAm, it's true.

Only ZacI-suta Gauranga MahAprabhu can be sunirmalAm.

At least in recent history.

PrabodhAnanda's poetic style differs from Sarvabhauma's significantly.

Sometimes parSadas are hard to precisely identify.

Even more so than God Himself.

[BDas 0]

Dear Jagat,

 

I have always been of the opinion that books like Jaiva Dharma, NDM, and Brihat Bhagavatamrita were in the same category. That is they are literary expressions of the realizations of our saints. In this regard Srila Sridhar Maharaja said that whatever appears through the heart of a pure devotee is not to be considered fiction but rather to be considered reality. Of course we do not expect those outside our circle of faith to see those works in the same way. Those outside our circle may express faith in other ways that may or may not be objectively reasonable from a neutral view.

 

The various schools of Classic Vedanta or sanatan dharma may faithfully accept sruti or smrti but those outside who take an objective look may not see any reasonable way to accept such writings as revelation or apauruseya. Indeed the term UN-authored or not of human origin is in itself unreasonable when applied to writing of any kind. Only when we add the element of mystic revelation can we accept that any book may be called apauruseya. And what are scriptures other than the mystic revelations of the sages.

 

These mystic revelations of various types are supposed to be judged authentic by standard sruti texts. But how is it reasonable to accept those texts as the standard? In other words is faith in the sruti objectively reasonable and acceptable? Not according to scholars who are outside that type of faith. Here is what Ambedkar says of the Rg Veda.

 

(As to philosophy there is nothing of it in the Rig-Veda. As Prof. Wilson observes there is in the Rig-Veda, which is the stock Veda, scarcely any indication or doctrinal or philosophical speculation. The Vedas may be useful as a source of information regarding the social life of the Aryans. As a picture of primitive life it is full of curiosity but there is nothing elevating. There are more vices and a few virtues.)

 

My point in all this is to express my opinion that faith is faith whether one is expressing it in the smriti, sruti, or the writings of Bhaktivinode. Those outside of any faith have a tendency to belittle that faith while those within its ranks revere that faith beyond mundane reason. If the writings of Bhaktivinode are mystic revelations than we are to bow down to them and if not than we are simply deceived. In one meeting with Sridhar Maharaja he told us that to know what is genuine spirituality requires a type of intuition that is indefinable. If we have that type of intuition than we are fortunate. Other than that what is or is not mystic revelation cannot be proven by any scholarly thesis.

 

Respectfully, Brahma Das

 

[BDas 0]

Jagat, I sent your post to Tripurari Swami for comments and this was his reply. He wanted to express however that if I posted his comments I should let it be known that he would not be available for extended discussions on them at this time. Brahma

 

From Tripurari Swami:

 

I think the question is whether the books were intellectually contrived, or

were actual realizations that came to the Thakura in samadhi. It is easy to

choose the former because we have experience of this and we are prone to it

ourselves. Most people, however, have no experience of the latter, and thus

it is harder to give credit where such credit may be due. Also, great

persons should be given some license. If it is a spot, it is a spot on the

moon."

............

Jagadananda's view does not give much consideration to the possibility that

Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote those books in samadhi and attributed the names

to those who inspired him in that trance. Rather than being a propagator of

falsehoods, it is conceivable that BVT attributed the writing of these books

to those who inspired their manifestation. It is probably worth noting that

other than the Bippin Bihari criticism it appears that most respectable

people accepted the books and the Thakura's vision of the Yoga pitha,

including saints like Jagannatha dasa babaji. Books like Harinama Citnamani

are as manufactured as the story in Brihad bhagavatamrita of Sanatana

Goswami. Thus the title 6th Goswami was attributed to BVT by a prominent

writer of the time, Sishu Kumara Gosh (I believe). So it seems that the

Thakura did indeed have the kind of wide if not universal support that

allowed people to view him as a modern mystic capable of manifesting

scripture in our line like the original Goswamis themselves did. BVT was of

the opinion that saints were the active principle in the dissemination of

transcendental knowledge and that scripture involved ongoing revelation

manifesting through such saints.

 

 

>"Devotees of the Supreme Lord are not controlled by the scriptures

>since their activities are congenial to divine wisdom. Therefore

>when the self-realized devotees ordain any new arrangement, this

>should be followed as a religious code, even if such new

>arrangements are not found in the scriptural dictums of the previous

>sages."-- Bhaktivinoda Thakura

 

 

I do think it is an important discussion, but it is likely one that will not

be resolved. Since it is possible to argue reasonably as I have in defense

of BVT, I believe it is best for members of the Bhaktivinoda parivara to

take this approach, while not demonizing those who take the other side.

 

Tripurari Swami

 

[Janus 0]

"Those who listen to the Bhagavatam may put questions to the speaker in order to elicit the clear meaning, but this should not be done in a challenging spirit. One must submit questions with a great regard for the speaker and the subject matter. This is also the way recommended in Bhagavad-gita. One must learn the transcendental subject by submissive aural reception from the right sources."

HDGACBSP

 

Every minute of our lives we are recieving about 100,000 bits of info from sensory imput. By the time they reach our conscious appraisal we are getting about 10 out of that 100,000, partly due to sensory imperfection but mainly due to editing which is going on subconsciously. We hold a static grid up between ourselves and our experience, we aren't at all eager to admit anything in that doesn't supply us with our interests. Fundamentalists are the worst cases for they are always presuming every one else to be subjective, they react passivivly, have very little sense of humor, charity, or consideration of the hurt that they cause to others. They are Authoritarian personalities as existentialist psychologists refer to them or Anal retentive if you prefer Freudian terminology. Some are fetishists, presuming that simply because they carry the tail of a hyeana around with them that they have the hyenas power. The normal converstaional mood of others is frequently suppressed in its development by such persons who attack with insult and condemnation anyone who does not share there consideration that they are right, claiming that they are authorized by Krsna, or Guru to do so.