Bhava dasa

Thank you, this is a good point. However, it raises the question, How did he become elevated to bhava-bhakti without a guru?

When a devotees heart gradually transforms through the process of sadhana, it reaches a butter-like state. Then Makhana-taskara appears, to steal it.

Bharata Maharaja had to accept the body of a deer in his next life even though he had attained the platform of bhava-bhakti. And yet, a devotee is guaranteed a human birth in his next life. This is an apparent contradiction...how is it rectified?

Kratu Prabhu is a very nice and learned Vaisnava, and worth taking shelter of.

Paramatma is situated in everyone's heart, and knows the wanderings of all living beings. If He allows us to have a hint of some impending event, that is one way for us to realize His presence. Non devotees and neophytes may become attracted to exploit this for their personal gain, but a more advanced devotee is not bewildered by it, and accepts it His mercy to convince us. To remind us of His greatness. This ability is coming from Him, not us.

Regarding your above question, I have looked it up in my (full) Vedabase, and find no such statement. Hare Krsna

This was the kind of sensitive and mature response I was hoping for.

Not to “remember to be a man, or a woman”. He heard that the condition of the mind determines the body (both gross and subtle) in the next life. He feels like a woman trapped in a mans body, and wants to know if following Krsna consciousness will set the mind to be compatible with the body he has acquired in this life. He is reading these, so please be thoughtful and considerate in your replies

Someone is struggling with this issue, and has turned to devotees for compassionate guidance, and this is your enlightening response? Such an embarrassment! You did right by not giving your name.

Someone asks: "If the mind is conditioned at the time of death to be like a woman's but somehow gets a mans body, can he recondition his mind to be like a man? From gay to straight." Any thoughts?

There are obvious differences in our realizations and philosophical viewpoints. Nevertheless, for the sake of constructive discussions, let’s try to make it a little more respectful and friendly. There are a number…Srila Prabhupada is one. If you are talking about one who is still present (in vapuh), that would have to be determined. No, I’m not implying that at all. I was responding to your statement, “Again the relevance of Narada Muni and a "Spiritual Master" as a regular Iskcon acharya seems to be on a same level.” By this statement it appeared that you were referring back to Hari Kesh. However, if you want to broaden it to include all the GBC, that’s your prerogative. My response is the same. However, by following in the footsteps of Narada Muni, they (or any one of us) can reach the same spiritual destination. Srila Prabhupada was specifically giving the example of Narada Muni. Such a Vaisnava guru is “always liberated”. He is situated on the eternal platform of Vaikuntha. According to Gaudiya Vaisnava siddhanta, Even if one is from the category of kanistha or madhyama, he can be accepted as guru. However, his conclusions and statements must properly align with the sastras and previous acaryas. If not, he should be rejected as guru. Also, if he accepts the responsibility of too many disciples, but is not mature enough, he runs the risk of falldown. In addition, the sadhaka should be aware that he can only advance as far as the adhikari of his guru. Even if his guru is in good standing, and properly situated, the disciple needs the siksa of gurus who are more advanced. Therefore, one may accept diksa from any of the categories, but to advance to the highest level, he must take the guidance and blessings from higher authorities. If that guidance is not available through a living guru, then by associating through hearing from the Uttama adhikari guru one can still make advancement, although it may be slower. You stated that, “Distributing books can be service but not a Vedic Sadhna leading to a Siddhi.” This appears to be your opinion, and I was pointing out that the acaryas (at least in our line) have stated otherwise. If what you are saying is from the Vedas, please provide evidence, and let’s discuss it further. Hare Krsna

Very well put.

Thank you for this very nice quote. Here are a few more: "O my Lord, Your devotees can see You through the ears by the process of bona fide hearing, and thus their hearts become cleansed, and You take Your seat there. You are so merciful to Your devotees that You manifest Yourself in the particular eternal form of transcendence in which they always think of You." (SB 3.9.11) "The Kumaras said: Our dear Lord, You are not manifested to rascals, even though You are seated within the heart of everyone. But as far as we are concerned, we see You face to face, although You are unlimited. The statements we have heard about You from our father, Brahma, through the ears have now been actually realized by Your kind appearance." (SB 3.15.46) "So therefore real eyes -- the ear, not these eyes. Real eyes. That is real seeing. Therefore sastra says, Vedic knowledge, that sastra-caksusat, pasyati jnana-caksusat: "One can see by the eyes of knowledge," not by these blunt eyes. This is useless. They cannot see. And how you can see through the sabda? Sastra means sabda. Through the ear... My Guru Maharaja used to say, "Don't try to see a saintly person by your eyes. You see a saintly person by the ear." (SB 6.1.42 Lecture-- Los Angeles, June 8, 1976) "susruma: "We have received knowledge through the ears, not with the eyes." Those rascals says, "I want to see practically." He cannot see. That is not possible. The modern defect is that they do not hear. The so-called scientists, philosophers, they do not hear. They simply want to see, want to touch, want to smell, want to lick up. That is not knowledge. So they are all failure. They do not hear. But the process is here, as it is said, susruma: "We have received knowledge by hearing from the authority." That is perfect knowledge." (SB 6.1.40 Lecture-- San Francisco, July 21, 1975) ""My dear king..." Sukadeva Gosvami is speaking to King Pariksit that "There are many subject matters for the persons who are materialistic." What sort of... Why they are engaged in so many topics? Atma-tattvam apasyatam. They do not see what is self-realization. Apasyatam atma-tattvam [sB 2.1.2]. Apasyatam... Generally, we do not know, we cannot see what is atma in these material eyes. Therefore the material scientists, they say that there is no soul, because they cannot see. With their instruments or with their knowledge it is not possible. Apasyatam. They do not see it. Therefore we cannot believe our eyes. These eyes are not fit to see anything. It is under certain condition it gives us some impression. Otherwise... Therefore my Guru Maharaja used to say that saintly persons should be seen not through the eyes, but through the ears. There are different processes of seeing. Don't believe that eyes are sufficient to see everything. No." (SB 2.1.1-6 Lecture Excerpts -- Los Angeles, July 2, 1970) Hare Krsna (Did you see that?)

It appears that you are saying the same in both questions. "Person Bhagavata is present within the Book Bhagavata" = "Book Bhagavata is...an expresssion of the Person(s) Bhagavata". Is that how you meant to phrase this?

Do you mind giving your definition of “Real faith”? Do you mean nistha?