Guest guest Posted February 20, 2002 Report Share Posted February 20, 2002 > > People unfortunately think of 'sainthood' in relation to Gandhi and > > Mother Teresa (interestingly both tied up with India, though neither of > > them were from there ...) > > Neither were their ideals, in large part; Gandhi was really more > influenced by Theosophy, and Jainism, than by Vaisnavism. Precisely. I don't think there's much value in belittling Jainism, or Theosophy for that matter, yet somehow Vaisnavism seems to require a little more. Todays versions of Buddhism seem similar to Gandhi's movement - a very popular 'solution' to one's search for something with a basis. Yet it is a very poor relation to Vaisnavism. I don't think it's elitist at all to say it, because the ultimate practitioners of *any* bona fide religion are those who are actually living and practising it, which is the greatest achievement and one fraught with the most difficulties and obstacles - no matter what 'strain' of Godliness it is. > > However, most of us aren't above learning something even from them, > in some way. At least on the economic platform--i.e., simple living and > high thinking--I don't see much difference between what Gandhi taught and > what Srila Prabhupada taught. Certainly on an external level, although he did of course minimise the Gita. > Similarly, Mother Teresa once told a priest > who felt unworthy of the mission she had given him, "God is very humble. > He chooses those who are most unfit to do his work, so that it is clear > for all to see that it is HIS work they are doing instead of their own." > I can use that kind of lesson. It may be a little far reaching, but I saw the same effect with Princess Diana. Of course there were the externals and the media glitz, but behind all that was her very effective welfare work. She was at the time the most famous and possibly the most influential woman in the entire world, yet the thing that gave her true joy was this work, which I heard her say once was her way of repaying God for the gift of her life. There's a saying I heard recently by a currently famous American woman, Maya Angelou - "You did what you knew how to do, and when you knew better, you did better." So whilst all these people can be commended for their welfare work, they didn't know any better. When you do, you do better. And better than welfare work is Krishna consciousness. > > it takes much less effort > > Exactly. But even Gandhi found that his people rejected his > ideas, PRACTICALLY, because they wanted sense gratification more than the > austerities his path required. Almost everybody wants preyas (the > immediately appealing) more than sreyas (the ultimately beneficial). And > ultimately Gandhi was one of them too, which is why Srila Prabhupada later > rejected him. Yes, I see what you mean. And it continues. I think we become comfortable in our niches, and if we can take a wake up call in the way it's meant, then it can be very beneficial. > > Devotees seek that which is eminently worthwhile but enormously > difficult--the destruction of the false ego, and even beyond that, the > quintessence of spiritual attainment, Krsna-prema. Only the nonenvious > can really desire this, practically; this is the disclaimer found at the > very outset of the Bhagavatam (1.1.2). > > At the same time, it's nothing that isn't already within us, and > swans like Srila Prabhupada are able to encourage anyone else to work at > bringing it out into one's actions. Drops of water wear away even stone. > And unlike nondevotees, only bhaktas have the Omnipotent Krsna, who is > the most merciful and who is more than ready to assist them in every way > (Bhagavata, 3.2.23): > > "Alas, how shall I take shelter of one more merciful than He who > granted the position of mother to a she-demon [Putana] although she was > unfaithful and she prepared deadly poison to be sucked from her breast?" > > There are many instances of this omnipotent mercy even now. > > MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Braja wrote: > I don't think it's elitist at all to say > it, because the ultimate practitioners of *any* bona fide religion are those > who are actually living and practising it, which is the greatest achievement > and one fraught with the most difficulties and obstacles - no matter what > 'strain' of Godliness it is. Yes, personal experience is really the essence of the sastra; as Goethe said (in Faust): "Gray is all theory; green grows the tree of life alone." Our sankirtana is the life of transcendental knowledge. Everyone is always chanting; it's just a question of what, or how well. We simply cannot erase our ontology. We can only pervert it and try to call it something else. > famous and possibly the most influential woman in the entire world, yet the > thing that gave her true joy was this work, which I heard her say once was > her way of repaying God for the gift of her life. That's certainly consistent with Bhagavata 10.22.35: "It is the duty of every living being to perform welfare activities for the benefit of others with his life, wealth, intelligence and words." > There's a saying I heard > recently by a currently famous American woman, Maya Angelou - "You did what > you knew how to do, and when you knew better, you did better." So whilst all > these people can be commended for their welfare work, they didn't know any > better. When you do, you do better. And better than welfare work is Krishna > consciousness. Yes, but it isn't exclusive, because real bhakti by nature subsumes every other attainment and virtue (cf. Gita 8.28). Krsna consciousness is *real* welfare. All others are merely ineffectual shadows, which treat only karmic residues that are themselves already fading away. They chase smoke instead of fire, effects rather than causes. The *real* actions have long since moved on, within inner worlds no one else can ever see. The cheaters will never admit this, because doing so pulls the rug out from beneath them, where they're swept all their dirt. They won't understand it, either. > Yes, I see what you mean. And it continues. I think we become comfortable in > our niches, and if we can take a wake up call in the way it's meant, then it > can be very beneficial. It's a perpetual process, necessarily renewed every second, in every discreet act--because time itself doesn't actually even exist, except in imagination. Krsna reveals us the truth as much as we sincerely work for it; as He does so, we're presented with the obligation to give more. This relates to Maya Angelou's statement above. It's also why the dharma-sastras are so contradictory; one's adhikara is constantly changing, while all such prerogatives have to be accomodated and given Divine direction. This is all ultimately pointless too, except to serve the whims of "the transcedental autocrat," Krishna. It's mere child's play, for Him. MDd 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.