Trusting Srila Prabhupada (naively vs profoundly)

[Guest guest]

Haribol,

 

>But why insist that everybody else got now to follow the

same pattern? The whole issue has turned into a nasty fraternal war. Why?

 

Good point. Too much energy is being wasted on wars. Here is the final

solution from a *physically* present guru who heads the Philosophical Defense

committee for Srila Prabhupada's body that reconciles guru sadhu and sastra's

statements. This is sufficient for Srila Prabhupada's followers. Not only is

this sufficient, but it also has the additional bonus of being the correct

version. This is acceptable to faithful, not those with ritvik methodology

and the like.

 

> You are acknowledging that Srila Prabhupada's purports indeed mean

> that what he says, just that it is a wrong philosophical concept

> that he presents.

 

Not "wrong", but simplified: Ravindra svarupa says this: "For our better

understanding, however, we need to be aware of one simplification that takes

place—quite naturally—in the telling of the narrative of fall...This

simple dramatic narrative [of the fall]...there is no fault in it" "It is

necessary to recognize that the seemingly straightforward linear narrative is

more complicated than it appears because the narrative's scope of action

spans two "worlds," one eternal and the other temporal." (http://rsdtm.com)

 

> The issue is now all different. It is not "What Prabhupada

> means actually in his books", but "Why Prabhupada presented

> the false philosophy in his books".

 

Not wrong but the way its understood is simple..

 

> I would expect from his faithful disciples and

> followers not to "blow" his strategy away, becoming thus more

> clever then the Acarya in term of what and how to preach. For

 

I am not allergic to the word "fall." The fall story is both the perfect

truth and strategy to philosophically understand the the souls ontological

origin. (See the Namasankirtana thread on Krsna katha.)

 

> Now you don't

> trust to Prabhupada only on some highly philosophical concepts,

> but you don't trust in him anymore as a good preaching strateg

 

Ritviks "trust" Srila Prabhupada, but a faithful follower of his must trust a

physically present guru's understanding of the issue in terms of guru,

sastra, sadhu, especially if he is accepted by Srila Prabhupada's body as the

foremost person for philosophical defense for that body against deviations.

According to him, the idea of "fall" as a discrete point in ancient time is

not the (whole) "truth":

 

"This is the representation of all the events in the story as though they

take place on a single temporal continuum. For example, we habitually

characterize our entry into time as though it were itself a temporal

occasion, a dateable event. However, as we have seen, "once" we become

conditioned, we have always been conditioned."

 

"Similarly, we think of our rebellion against God as a distant, aboriginal

event, one that took place long ago and far away, in that world. In truth,

that single act of rebellion is perpetual; that very same aboriginal event is

taking place right now. We have only to look into our hearts to confirm

this."

 

The simple jiva fall story is a perfect explanation (and good preaching

strategy) to understand our *ontological* *origin*. However, to explain God's

non-partiality, karma and the *historical* origin of the jiva's day-to-day

situation (NOT the intention of the story) one must "expand" the story to

include its full complexity which includes the no-fall concept. To try to do

so without expansion is to not know Vedanta.

 

Vijay does this "expansion process" using OED, even in a situation that may

not discuss God's fairness and the history of this fairness in terms of a

particular jiva. Although such "expansioon" may not be necessary, it is not

intrinsically wrong as the concept of "expansion" of simple fall-vada into

the greater fall/no-fall vada is consistent with the principles explained in

the paper of the chief of the ISKCON Dept of Defense (at http://rsdtm.com).

Of course, the approach of ritviks and the like does not accomodate that as

evidence, and is therefore unfaithful to Srila Prabhupada.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

Haribol,

 

>But why insist that everybody else got now to follow the

same pattern? The whole issue has turned into a nasty fraternal war. Why?

 

Good point. Too much energy is being wasted on wars. Here is the final

solution from a *physically* present guru who heads the Philosophical Defense

committee for Srila Prabhupada's body that reconciles guru sadhu and sastra's

statements. This is sufficient for Srila Prabhupada's followers. Not only is

this sufficient, but it also has the additional bonus of being the correct

version. This is acceptable to faithful, not those with ritvik methodology

and the like.

 

> You are acknowledging that Srila Prabhupada's purports indeed mean

> that what he says, just that it is a wrong philosophical concept

> that he presents.

 

Not "wrong", but simplified: Ravindra svarupa says this: "For our better

understanding, however, we need to be aware of one simplification that takes

place—quite naturally—in the telling of the narrative of fall...This

simple dramatic narrative [of the fall]...there is no fault in it" "It is

necessary to recognize that the seemingly straightforward linear narrative is

more complicated than it appears because the narrative's scope of action

spans two "worlds," one eternal and the other temporal." (http://rsdtm.com)

 

> The issue is now all different. It is not "What Prabhupada

> means actually in his books", but "Why Prabhupada presented

> the false philosophy in his books".

 

Not wrong but the way its understood is simple..

 

> I would expect from his faithful disciples and

> followers not to "blow" his strategy away, becoming thus more

> clever then the Acarya in term of what and how to preach. For

 

I am not allergic to the word "fall." The fall story is both the perfect

truth and strategy to philosophically understand the the souls ontological

origin. (See the Namasankirtana thread on Krsna katha.)

 

> Now you don't

> trust to Prabhupada only on some highly philosophical concepts,

> but you don't trust in him anymore as a good preaching strateg

 

Ritviks "trust" Srila Prabhupada, but a faithful follower of his must trust a

physically present guru's understanding of the issue in terms of guru,

sastra, sadhu, especially if he is accepted by Srila Prabhupada's body as the

foremost person for philosophical defense for that body against deviations.

According to him, the idea of "fall" as a discrete point in ancient time is

not the (whole) "truth":

 

"This is the representation of all the events in the story as though they

take place on a single temporal continuum. For example, we habitually

characterize our entry into time as though it were itself a temporal

occasion, a dateable event. However, as we have seen, "once" we become

conditioned, we have always been conditioned."

 

"Similarly, we think of our rebellion against God as a distant, aboriginal

event, one that took place long ago and far away, in that world. In truth,

that single act of rebellion is perpetual; that very same aboriginal event is

taking place right now. We have only to look into our hearts to confirm

this."

 

The simple jiva fall story is a perfect explanation (and good preaching

strategy) to understand our *ontological* *origin*. However, to explain God's

non-partiality, karma and the *historical* origin of the jiva's day-to-day

situation (NOT the intention of the story) one must "expand" the story to

include its full complexity which includes the no-fall concept. To try to do

so without expansion is to not know Vedanta.

 

Vijay does this "expansion process" using OED, even in a situation that may

not discuss God's fairness and the history of this fairness in terms of a

particular jiva. Although such "expansioon" may not be necessary, it is not

intrinsically wrong as the concept of "expansion" of simple fall-vada into

the greater fall/no-fall vada is consistent with the principles explained in

the paper of the chief of the ISKCON Dept of Defense (at http://rsdtm.com).

Of course, the approach of ritviks and the like does not accomodate that as

evidence, and is therefore unfaithful to Srila Prabhupada.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Not "wrong", but simplified: Ravindra svarupa says this: "For our better

> understanding, however, we need to be aware of one simplification that

> takes place—quite naturally—in the telling of the narrative of fall..."

> "This simple dramatic narrative [of the fall]...there is no fault in

> it" "It is necessary to recognize that the seemingly straightforward

> linear narrative is more complicated than it appears because the

> narrative's scope of action spans two "worlds," one eternal and the other

> temporal." (http://rsdtm.com)

 

What does he say? No previous experience of the realtionship

with Krsna? Or yes? Please. I don't see he is telling it here.

 

 

>

>

> The simple jiva fall story is a perfect explanation (and good preaching

> strategy) to understand our *ontological* *origin*.

 

"Fall story"? I wasn't aware that Prabhupada was writing

in his SB purports "stories", instead of saying the straight

philosophical *truth*, whatever that might be.

 

All what I wish to hear is wether it is *philosophically* correct

that what Srila Prabhupada writes in his books, i.e. tat the

conditioned soul had the previous experience of the Spiritual World.

One "yes" or "not", can't be more simple than that.

(It is just like asking "Is there a law of karma existing?".

Philosophically correct? Yes or No.)

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Not "wrong", but simplified: Ravindra svarupa says this: "For our better

> understanding, however, we need to be aware of one simplification that

> takes place—quite naturally—in the telling of the narrative of fall..."

> "This simple dramatic narrative [of the fall]...there is no fault in

> it" "It is necessary to recognize that the seemingly straightforward

> linear narrative is more complicated than it appears because the

> narrative's scope of action spans two "worlds," one eternal and the other

> temporal." (http://rsdtm.com)

 

What does he say? No previous experience of the realtionship

with Krsna? Or yes? Please. I don't see he is telling it here.

 

 

>

>

> The simple jiva fall story is a perfect explanation (and good preaching

> strategy) to understand our *ontological* *origin*.

 

"Fall story"? I wasn't aware that Prabhupada was writing

in his SB purports "stories", instead of saying the straight

philosophical *truth*, whatever that might be.

 

All what I wish to hear is wether it is *philosophically* correct

that what Srila Prabhupada writes in his books, i.e. tat the

conditioned soul had the previous experience of the Spiritual World.

One "yes" or "not", can't be more simple than that.

(It is just like asking "Is there a law of karma existing?".

Philosophically correct? Yes or No.)

 

 

 

- mnd