Evil consequenses of Guru-Guru-Guru

[Guest guest]

>A person who desires to search and search and search all kinds of books of

>knowledge in hopes of obtaining a degree in transcendental knowledge is no

>closer to God than the simple sweeper in the street

 

That reminds me. We don't even have to be literate to go back Home. As a

matter of fact, sometimes education, literacy and comptuer knowledge seems

to be more of a distraction than a help to "always remember Krsna".

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 06 Jul 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> comptuer knowledge seems

> to be more of a distraction than a help to "always remember Krsna".

 

Yeah, those "comtuers" are bad things. And those computers are pretty bad

sometimes, too! ;-)

 

Hari! Hari!

[Guest guest]

On 07 Jul 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

 

> On 06 Jul 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

>

> > comptuer knowledge seems

> > to be more of a distraction than a help to "always remember Krsna".

>

> Yeah, those "comtuers" are bad things. And those computers are pretty bad

> sometimes, too! ;-)

>

> Hari! Hari!

>

 

..

..

 

I better learn how to spell on my "comPtuer" some day! :-(

 

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

[Guest guest]

> >A person who desires to search and search and search all kinds of books

> >of knowledge in hopes of obtaining a degree in transcendental knowledge

> >is no closer to God than the simple sweeper in the street

>

> That reminds me. We don't even have to be literate to go back Home.

 

I don't get it? Is full knowledge not necessary to go back home? Or maybe

you're just talking ideal? Why then acaryas spend so much time writing

books? Interesting indeed, if more developed however. The way I read these

statements are much too vague. (I guess I missed something.) Comparatively

speaking, I'll give more chance to "A person who desires to search and

search and search all kinds of books of knowledge", for whatever reason,

than to a mere "simple sweeper". This objection, maybe, because I am a

"bookta" instead of a bhakta.

Sincerely

[Guest guest]

> >A person who desires to search and search and search all kinds of books

> >of knowledge in hopes of obtaining a degree in transcendental knowledge

> >is no closer to God than the simple sweeper in the street

>

> That reminds me. We don't even have to be literate to go back Home.

 

I don't get it? Is full knowledge not necessary to go back home? Nowadays,

getting knowledge implies necessairely to be literate. Or maybe you're just

talking ideal? Why then acaryas spend so much time writing books?

Interesting indeed your point, if more developed however. The way I read

these statements are much too vague. (I guess I missed something.)

Comparatively speaking, I'll give more chance to "A person who desires to

search and search and search all kinds of books of knowledge", for whatever

reason, than to a mere "simple sweeper". This objection, maybe, because I am

a "bookta" instead of a bhakta.

Sincerely

[Guest guest]

>I don't get it? Is full knowledge not necessary to go back home?

 

I thought it was love of Krsna that was necessary. I didn't say it was

*easier* to develop that if you're illiterate. Just that literacy is not a

*requirement*. Or are you saying that only people who can read and write

can develop love for Krsna?

 

Your servant and fellow "bookta",

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 08 Jul 1999, Akhilesvara das wrote:

 

>

> I don't get it? Is full knowledge not necessary to go back home?

 

Transcendental knowledge comes by execution of devotional service so a sweeper

engaged in devotional service and a scholar engaged in devotional

book-reading, both get the same results. However, before you surrender and

engage in devotional service, a person into analysis and book reading is more

likely to take the message of Krsna consciousness seriously (as stated in BG

about the 4 types of men who approach Him- the jnani being the best).

 

> talking ideal? Why then acaryas spend so much time writing books?

 

Because most of the people are into rationalism, they won't accept the process

of devotional service if you just told them to chant 16 rounds. So they need

the preaching contained in the books to remove their doubts and purify them.

 

your servant,

 

Virender

http://www.krishnasoft.com

[Guest guest]

> > >A person who desires to search and search and search all kinds of books

> > >of knowledge in hopes of obtaining a degree in transcendental knowledge

> > >is no closer to God than the simple sweeper in the street

> >

> > That reminds me. We don't even have to be literate to go back Home.

>

> I don't get it? Is full knowledge not necessary to go back home?

 

The way I understood it, once one has the mercy of a pure devotee, all

knowledge is automaticaly revealed to him.

 

There is a kund in Vraja about which it is stated that the understanding of

all the purports of all vedic literature is bestowed to one who bathes there

(I took bath there 3 times so watch out!;-) No but seriously once one

acheives the mercy of the Lord by pleasing his intimate devotee. then the

lord can bestow all knowledge unto us, as he is the source.

 

I always understood that reading kind of prepares us or brings us to the

stage where we surrender. But simply studying and becoming a scholar does

not necesarily help anyone become a surrendered devotee.

 

Of course once one has received mercy, it does not mean that he has to stop

study, rather he would continue, as devotees love to churn their

understanding of Krsna's pastimes, and hear what the previous acaryas have

to say.

 

And of course until we receive mercy, we can and should continue to read and

search for truth, in that way once we have received mercy, we will in any

case be well versed in many sastras, and be able to use such authoritative

texts to convince others.

 

The way I understood it, is that once having gotten the mercy of a pure soul

the *understanding* of all the purports of vedic literature is there, but

not necesarily the chapter and verse of particular commentaries. it is just

that in all situations one will have the understanding of what to do, and

what not to do, according to dharma. Just like Srila Prabhupada.

 

Prabhupada had Lord Krsna, but yet he quoted extensively from the writings

of the precious acaryas. The changes he made in ISKCON were his own

inspiration according to his divine understanding, and could not be found in

the works of previous saints (bramacarini asrams, etc).

 

YS

[Guest guest]

On 07 Jul 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

> Bhagavad-gita As It Is, with purports written by the pure lover of the Lord

of Goloka, CAN grant Krsna-prema. Arjuna IS a lover of Krsna.

 

>> not mundane study, Janesvara -- Srimad Bhagavatam.

>

> You are offensive to Srila Prabhupada. His Bhagavad-gita As It Is is not

mundane.

 

It seems you are misreading me. I never said studying Bhagavad-gita was

"mundane." Please don't put (straw-man) arguments into my mouth and then call

me "offensive." The offensiveness, if anything, results from your own

misunderstanding of what I am saying.

 

Attaining love of Godhead is not static but a developmental process. Love is

not a matter of some blind dogma, "I beleive..." and it mechanically happens.

We have to consciously develop our attraction and attachment for that special

someone, Krsna, who is not only the Supreme Personality (the mood of

aisvarya-jnana) but the darling son of Nanda and Yasoda (the mood of

Vrndavan). Such development of love and attraction is a function of

our *desire*, *practice* and *perserverence* -- in addition to Divine Grace.

Until love actually awakens in the heart, knowledge of the object of love and

our relationship is essential in motivating us and focusing our interest.

 

As Srila Prabhupada himself said, Bhagavad-gita is the "preliminary" study of

the Absolute Truth, Srimad Bhagavatam was the "graduate study," and

Caitanya-caritamrta is the "post-graduate" study. Did not Srila Prabhupada

say this or is it my concoction? If Prabhupada said this, then what is

offensive about discussing it?

 

Are you somehow so stuck on Bh.gita that you don't want to know more or think

there is anything further in the study of the Absolute to be understood and

realized? That is a misunderstanding, I would think. If you are satisfied

with Bh.gita, then fine. Be happy.

 

But don't try to deny there are more advanced levels in the expansive ocean of

the spiritual science. Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami states there in this age of

Kali, there are three essential treasures for Vaisnavas -- the Holy Name,

advanced devotees and Vaisnava sastras.

 

kali-kalera dharma nama-sankirtana

vaisnava, vaisnava-sastra -- ei sarva marma

 

Vaisnava literatures are our great treasures because they can lend invaluable

guidance to our progressive advancement, whereas neglecting them is

potentially if not inevitably risky. I think that it would be a foolish

position to adovcate that there are not ever-increasing levels of spiritual

attainment in Krsna consciousness and that each level doesn't require a

developmentally appropriate knowledge of *rasa*

and *tattva* -- *sambandha*, *abhideya* and *prayojana*.

 

In Caitanya-caritamrta, it is explicitly stated that Krsna-prema to "the Lord

of Goloka" can ONLY be attained by following in the footsteps of the eternal

residents of Vrndavan. That process and understanding was given to us by the

mercy of Mahaprabhu through the Six Goswamis and especially in the writings of

Rupa and Raghunatha.

 

By Srila Prabhupada's immeasurable compassion and sacrifice, this great wealth

of *rasa* and *tattva* has now been delivered to the people of the entire

world -- Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya-caritamrta. Let's be

careful not to limit the shores of that great ocean of transcendental

knowledge by our own misunderstandings.

 

>From Caitanya-caritamrta we learn that such extaordinary love of godhead in

the line of Mahaprabhu is to be distinguished the mechanical process

of *vaidhi* or love of God in awe and reverence (Vaikuntha, Mathura or

Dwaraka). But if you only read Bhagavad-gita, how will you understand the

deeper truths of Krsna consciousness? And if you don't know the goal or what

Krsna consciousness actually is (krsna-bhakti-rasa-bhavita- matih, BRS), how

can you possibly reach it?

 

 

> "One should not, therefore, consider that His (Krishna) dealings with the

Pandavas are less important than His dealings with the Gopis." S.B. 1.8.36

 

Undoubtedly, in the beginning stages we should take great care so as to not

consider any relationship with the Lord from a mundane or contaminated view as

"lower" or "higher." Still, Prabhupada says that the relationships with Krsna

in Vaikuntha, Mathura or Goloka are respectively, "perfect,more perfect"

and "most perfect."

 

Or should we conclude from the statement you quote (one-side of the picture)

that there is no difference between the love of the gopis who are in

madhurya-prema and the loving admiration of the yogis who are in *santa rasa*?

Is this what you wish to say? "No *rasa* = *mayavada*"?

 

 

> Sorry, oh great sadhu, I disagree. I have faith in my gurus instructions.

 

There is no call to flatter me with false praise. If you actually have faith

in your guru's instructions, then why don't you read ALL of his books? Then

you will see what I mean.

 

Faith must be experiential and progressive, not blind and dogmatic.

 

 

Respectfully,

Srila dasa