Guest guest Posted January 26, 2002 Report Share Posted January 26, 2002 > uh-oh, I've heard your husband make lots of those kinds of > statements...... ;-) And that would be a problem for you? Is there something wrong with being inspired by someone else, especially my own husband? Imagine if I was only inspired by what I perceived to be the "greatness" of my own mind and intelligence? I don't find that a very attractive option. Thank you for your kind blessings. ys Braj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2002 Report Share Posted January 26, 2002 Madhusudani-radha wrote: > At 10:18 AM 1/26/02 +1000, Jahnu (das) (Byron Bay - AU) wrote: > > > I still maintain, though, that our philosophy is being explained > >very clearly by Srila Prabhupada and his followers. > > But if all his followers were clear - we wouldn't have these > debates, would we? ;-) That's right. But I think if more followers practiced and studied our philosophy they wouldn't become unclear about it. > Or is it just those who agree with you who can call themselves his > followers? :-( I guess Srila Prabhupada's followers can be said to be those who want to follow Srila Prabhupada to the exclusion of anything else. How do you propose we define a follower of Srila Prabhupada? >I'm not sure I agree. It seems most people think their beliefs do >represent the philosophy - even if they have radically different >views from each other. Therefore it is so important to be fixed in the philosophy so one can descriminate between right and wrong. If one is not fixed in Srila Prabhupada's teachings there is of course no way one can discern who is right or wrong. It will just be a matter of individual opinion. > Well, at least that's a testable hypotheses - if people are honest > at least. What bothers me more is seeing devotees who chant their > rounds religiously, but who still do detestable things, like abusing > their wives, or molesting children. Yes, that is unfortunate, but the only way to overcome the fault of offensive chanting is to continue chanting. Some may need longer time to purify themselves than others depending on previous advancement. It is always better to chant imperfectly than not at all. It can actually not under any circumstances be detestable to chant the holy name. Ys, Jahnu das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2002 Report Share Posted January 26, 2002 At 10:31 PM 1/26/02 +1000, Jahnu (das) (Byron Bay - AU) wrote: >It is actually very simple. As Srila Prabhupada said, Krishna >consciousness is simple for the simple minded, and complicated for the >complicated minded. But who gets to decide who's understanding of sastra and Prabhupada's words that is correct? I think that's an intensly personal decision that no one can make for anyone else. So you may see yourself as simple/honest and someone else may judge you to be complicated? You may see yourself as having the correct understanding and someone else may think you're off. Does it really matter? >But that is exactly the the point of Krishna consciousness, Madhu. It >works for everyone, for everyone is a part and parcel of Krishna. That is our belief, but there also seems to be a lot of discussion about what exactly KC means and when it comes down to it, I don't think we can interpret that meaning for anyone except ourselves. >If >it is not working for you, then what you are doing is not Krishna >consciousness. ;-) that's circular reasoning if I ever saw it. What happened to KC being a science... madhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2002 Report Share Posted January 26, 2002 At 10:31 PM 1/26/02 +1000, Jahnu (das) (Byron Bay - AU) wrote: >That's right. But I think if more followers practiced and studied our >philosophy they wouldn't become unclear about it. But there are people who have spent years doing that, who think they're followers of Srila Prabhupada, and *still* not everyone agrees with you. >I guess Srila Prabhupada's followers can be said to be those who want >to follow Srila Prabhupada to the exclusion of anything else. That still won't guarantee that they all have the same understanding of what Prabhupada wanted them to do. >How do >you propose we define a follower of Srila Prabhupada? I wouldn't begin to define that. It's something each person has to do for him/herself - in their hearts. If someone feels like a follower of Prabhupada, it's not up to me to say if they are right or wrong. >Therefore it is so important to be fixed in the philosophy so one can >descriminate between right and wrong. If one is not fixed in Srila >Prabhupada's teachings there is of course no way one can discern who >is right or wrong. It will just be a matter of individual opinion. But that's my point. It always comes down to individual opinions anyway. Prabhupada said so many things and sometimes he seemingly contradicted himself. It's actually possible to have two people holding different opinions and yet both can back them up with quotes from Prabhupada's books. What do you want to do - establish a quote police? I think it's healthy that there is variability and would even argue that it's needed for religions to grow and take root in new settings. All established religions have a spectrum of followers. Only fundamentalist groups like the taliban and the GHQ insist that tere is only one correct understanding and that everyone must share it. madhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2002 Report Share Posted January 26, 2002 > But who gets to decide who's understanding of sastra and > Prabhupada's words that is correct? That decision has to be based on guru, sadhu and sastra, exactly as it has been explained by Srila Prabhupada. Personally I'll listen to someone who is fixed up in Srila Prabhupada's teachings, someone who displays spiritual intelligence, rather than take my clues from someone who rarely if ever opens a book or chants his or her rounds. I find it quite simple. If you actually know Bhagavad gita it is no problem to figure out whose advice we should take and whose is to be rejected. > Now > I think that's an intensly > personal decision that no one can make for anyone else. Of course. But if one is not intelligent enough to understand the spiritual science, he is advised to listen to those who _have_ the intelligence. If one doesn't even posses the intelligence to figure out who is spiritual advanced and worth listening to, then there is not much one can do, except to continue being enamored by his own mind life after life. Why do you think Krishna lists humility as the first prerequisite for aquiring knowledge? Think about it. "O son of Pth€, that understanding by which one knows what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, what is to be feared and what is not to be feared, what is binding and what is liberating, is in the mode of goodness. O son of Pth€, that understanding which cannot distinguish between religion and irreligion, between action that should be done and action that should not be done, is in the mode of passion. That understanding which considers irreligion to be religion and religion to be irreligion, under the spell of illusion and darkness, and strives always in the wrong direction, O P€rtha, is in the mode of ignorance." (Bg. 18.31-33) So as you can see here, a person predominantly in the mode of passion is always bewildered as to what is right or wrong, what is to be done and not be done, whereas a person governed by ignorance is not even in doubt. He is convinced that that which is wrong is right, and he always makes the wrong choices. Now if you don't want to accept Krishna's guidelines in the Bhagavad gita on how things are to be understood, that's _your_ problem, not mine. Nor does your lack of spiritual intelligence in any way invalidate Krishna's clear instructions and guidelines. > So you may > see yourself as simple/honest and someone else may judge you to be > complicated? You may see yourself as having the correct > understanding and someone else may think you're off. Does it really > matter? It matters if you want to understand how things really are. If you are satisfied with your own meager and limited understanding of things, I guess it doesn't matter. Obviously it matters to you, though, otherwise you wouldn't be questioning and discussing. Finally we have some proof that at least some of your intelligence is situated correctly > >But that is exactly the the point of Krishna consciousness, Madhu. > >It works for everyone, for everyone is a part and parcel of > >Krishna. > > That is our belief, but there also seems to be a lot of discussion > about what exactly KC means and when it comes down to it, I don't > think we can interpret that meaning for anyone except ourselves. It is not only a belief. It is concrete knowledge to be had by anyone who desires it, and who follows the right method. Krishna says that by focusing one's attention on Him, which is done in this age by chanting His name, one can come to a clear understanding of Him. No where does Krishna say that we will have to be satisfied with mere belief in Him. If you don't want to accept guidance in spiritual matters and in stead leave it over to your own mind, it means you dismiss the most important factor of gaining spiritual knowledge, namely to seek out proper guidance. Further more, if it is true what you say, all the missionary activities of Iskcon become null and void. Here I thought we were actually trying to bring people back to Godhead, but according to you we are just preaching to people about our personal beliefs. What's the use of that? > >If > >it is not working for you, then what you are doing is not Krishna > >consciousness. > > ;-) that's circular reasoning if I ever saw it. What happened to KC > being a science... That is certainly not circular reasoning. You complain that the practices of KC don't work for you, but how can they work if you don't practice them? It's like saying I hate the taste of pumpkin without ever having tasted it. It's the argument of a child. Have you ever chanted your 16 rounds every day, regularly since initiation? Do you offer everything you eat? Do you practice any sadhana at all? Have you ever enquired submissively from anyone with a more profound understanding than your own? Have you ever sat down and read Prabhupada's books for a set amount of time every day? Note how I haven't asked you if have surrendered your individuality; if you have abandoned your intelligence, or if you are following blindly. These things are not required, but the first questions are what it takes to enter into a spiritual understanding. If you are not prepared to do these you cannot reasonably question the validity of our philosophy. Ys, Jahnu das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.