Egalitarian Animal Farm?

[Guest guest]

> On 18 Dec 1999, Sraddha dd wrote:

>>

>> > I didn't speak about the animals. Animals don't go to the universities

>> > and colleges.

>

>>Two-legged animals *do* go to universities and colleges.

>

>"The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a

learned and >gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater

[outcaste]." (Bg. 5.18) On >the spiritual platform, the learned person not

only gives up the duality of man and >woman, but also gives up the duality

of man and animal. This is the test of >self-realization. One must realize

perfectly that the living being is spirit soul but >is tasting various types

of material bodies."

 

>So prabhu, seems like that you didn't pass the test of self-realization.

 

If you say I have failed, then I appeal to higher authorities, Mataji. First

of all (as you should well know by now) the term *dvi-pasu* (two-legged

animal) is used in Srimad-Bhagavatam. Does this mean that Sukadeva Gosvami

has failed the above test? No. On the one hand, the pure devotee sees

equally the spirit soul in all bodies, while on the other hand, he

discriminates appropriately (he does not embrace the tiger). And he neglects

the atheist. And accepting the version of the previous acaryas, he considers

men (and women) who are *acting* like dogs, hogs, camels, and asses to be

"two-legged animals."

 

>You are not understanding that on the spiritual level we are all equal.

 

I humbly submit that it is not a very reasonable prospect to draw such

conclusions about another person based upon a meager few cybermessages that

he has written.

 

>> Why do they think that? Is it because the devotees really *are* proud and

>> unfriendly, or because the devotees refuse to descend to the sentimental

>> platform?

>

>Good question? And another one is why didn't they think like that about

Rupa and >Sanatana Gosvami? Why everybody really loved them, even the

demons? Why were Rupa and >Sanatana Gosvami descending down to the

sentimental platform and helping everybody even >with the marriage

arrangments and whatever anybody needed? Is there maybe something for >us to

learn????

 

I wouldn't say that Rupa and Sanatana descended to the sentimental platform.

But because they were the best well-wishing friends of all, they were able

to give marriage counseling and were even liked by the "ruffians." (The

prayer says *dhira-adhira*, "the gentle and the ruffians." It doesn't say

*sura-asura*, "the saintly and the atheist.")

 

>Yes, but if one's practicing of bhakti-yoga just makes him more and more

proud and he >thinks that he is so much better than others, then it will

take a very long time. It >might be that those so-called mundane

religionists get much faster to the goal.

 

Why would one who is practicing bhakti-yoga (cleansing the mirror of the

mind) *not* progress faster than a mundane religionist? (Ye yatha mam

prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham) Has Krsna recently decided to become

partial to mundane relgionists?

 

>You can't see on which level of advancement they are. Krishna is

recupricating with >everybody, not just with the souls in the bodies of Hare

Krishnas.

Agreed. So we should let Krsna be the judge of that which we cannot see or

understand. But while He is the judge, our duty is still to preach. And

preaching means recognizing and discriminating between higher and lower

levels of spiritual advancement. We must heed the warning *not* to imitate

the uttama-adhikari. Do you know that? Especially the neophyte devotee is

warned *not* to imagine himself to be on the uttama platform and thus wreak

havoc in his spiritual life by not properly making distinction between

devotee and nondevotee.

 

Hare Krsna.

 

--gkd