Guest guest Posted February 22, 2002 Report Share Posted February 22, 2002 > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Braja wrote: > > Mukunda datta prabhu wrote: > I had a host of atheistic ideologies in mind, since they're all > basically just permutations of the same thing--different agents only. Yes, well you would say that wouldn't you > The key thing is that our ideology is alive; it has no real value if we > remove it amnifestation as a living, conscious, sentient, actor; this is > why the bonafide guru is so essential. Could you elaborate a little on that please? What is the relation between our ideology and guru? > People essentially opposed to > Krsna's principle try to discredit His tangible manifestations. But that can be seen everywhere - even in the name of religion. What does 'atheist' then mean? Opposition of God comes from all quarters, from ourselves in so many different forms. Of course the line of atheism can be drawn at one who is 'actively' opposed to God, and makes it his mission in life to prove the non-existence of God. But frankly, I've seen discussions on supposed ISKCON forums take such turns, so what defines one's questioning of all things being under God's control as 'doubtful enquiry' as opposed to 'outright atheism'? > However, I would agree that atheists can be fanatical too. Everyone is capable of fanaticism, it seems. > That no one can erase anyone's prarabdha-karma is a tough truth to > eccept if our karma is relatively bad--even merely as theory. Conversely, > if we accept it as truth, everything is immediately galvanized > accordingly, and everyone gets pegged. That's pretty tough on the false > ego too. But people generally know that truth isn't always pleasant, and > we don't really have to approach it on these lower levels of absorption. I agree, although I'm surprised to say that even in circles of devotees that there is extreme opposition to the theory of bad karma. When it confronts emotion it seems incredibly destructive [on the part of the emotionalists]. > I don't know if I understand you here, but Kavikarnapura says the > this world is more attractive to the Lord than Goloka; it's the only place > He can find real opposition! As I mentioned earlier, He does like to > play. - good quote. Opposition is necessary. > That's just how I read it. > > In Sanskrit, the word for any intelligent person is "kavi," poet. > Significantly, this is also one of the twenty-six virtues of a devotee > (Please refer to Srila Prabhupada's lecture on Bhagavatam 1.5.11 at New > Vrndavana (6/10/19), in which he expounds on poetry and cites extensively > from Sridharasvamin's Bhavartha-dipika commentary on the Bhagavatam.) Thanks for that referral - I write poetry, though I doubt on the level he is speaking, but it will be interesting to hear that lecture. > George Herbert (1593-1633) wrote something we've been > wondering about lately ourselves: > > My God, what is a heart? > Silver, or gold, or precious stone, > Or star, or rainbow, or a part > Of all these things, or all of them in one? > > My God, what is a heart, > That Thou shouldst it so eye, and woo, > Pouring upon it all They art, > As if Thou hadst nothing else to do? That's beautiful. > > There are even better examples than this, many more; Babhru Prabhu, if > he's still with us, undoubtedly knows some. Sometimes I think there's > nothing at all that hasn't already been said long, long ago. There's nothing new under the sun ... Braja Sevaki dd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2002 Report Share Posted February 22, 2002 > That no one can erase anyone's prarabdha-karma is a tough > truth to eccept if our karma is relatively bad--even merely as > theory. Conversely, if we accept it as truth, everything is > immediately galvanized accordingly, and everyone gets pegged. > That's pretty tough on the false ego too. But people generally know > that truth isn't always pleasant, and we don't really have to > approach it on these lower levels of absorption. I find this a very interesting point. Sometimes it seems, as devotees, we have become intimidated by the standards of the current material culture. An atmosphere has been created in which one has to cringe at the mere mentioning of basic philosophical tenets like karma and reincarnation. The funny thing is that these concepts are essential for the correct understanding of the world around us. Today one is not allowed to say that being born in an ugly body is an example of one's prarabdha karma. In the modern society such ideas are considered horrendous, and this sentimentality has spilled over into ISKCON. Personally, if I had been born in a, say, deformed body, I would find comfort and solace in the thought that this body was not me, and that I had aquired it as a result of the activities and the mentality cultivated in the last life. Isn't that a more liberating thought than simply reinforcing the bodily identity with social welfare work? I heard Srila Prabhupada said in a class to his disciples, he was pointing at them and he said (paraphrasing): The fact that you have been born in Kali-yuga means that you are very, very sinful. It takes humility and philosophical understanding to accept that one is sinful. ys, jahnu das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 Dandavats. Jaya Prabhupada! I'm replying by email in order to focus the list's attention on our recent posts, which I feel raises a much more important issue. I hope this is okay. On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Jahnu (das) (San Rafael, CA - USA) wrote: > > That no one can erase anyone's prarabdha-karma is a tough > > truth to eccept if our karma is relatively bad--even merely as > > theory. Conversely, if we accept it as truth, everything is > > immediately galvanized accordingly, and everyone gets pegged. > > That's pretty tough on the false ego too. But people generally know > > that truth isn't always pleasant, and we don't really have to > > approach it on these lower levels of absorption. > > I find this a very interesting point. Sometimes it seems, as devotees, > we have become intimidated by the standards of the current material > culture. An atmosphere has been created in which one has to cringe at > the mere mentioning of basic philosophical tenets like karma and > reincarnation. The Sanskrit word for this social context is "asat-sanga." It is everywhere qualified that bhagavata-dharma is only for the "satam," those who want to get real. They want only "satyam," reality. Their association is therefore called "sat-sanga," just as they are themselves "sattvika." Satsanga produces everything else in spiritual life, just as asat-sanga produces everyuthing material (sangat sanjayate kamah). > The funny thing is that these concepts are essential > for the correct understanding of the world around us. This is what I read in Isopanisad 11; without knowing untruth you can't communicate truth, and without knowing truth, you can't communicate truth either. Sankara calls these two "vyavaharika" (conventional) and paramarthika (ontological) realities, but Prabhupada didn't adopt his somewhat handy nomenclature, so neither would I. > Today one is not allowed to say that being born in an ugly body is an > example of one's prarabdha karma. One has to be careful about this if one is surrounded by ugly people, especially if one is also ugly! > In the modern society such ideas are > considered horrendous, and this sentimentality has spilled over into > ISKCON. I would rather say we probably brought it in with us at the outset, or perhaps tried to repress it for a while. But it's also true that some of our bogus gurus have agreed to accept some of these folks as devotees. The sentimantality which ignores such real and heirarchical distinctions extends from the kind of impersonalism Prabhupada intended to destroy (pascatya-desa tarine). By bad association we forget and ignore that. But we all choose our associations, don't we? > It takes humility and philosophical understanding to accept that one > is sinful. Yes, Krsna polarizes people in this way; or perhaps I should say His satsanga polarizes the asuras and the suras. Your servant, MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Braja wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Braja wrote: > > > Mukunda datta prabhu wrote: > > The key thing is that our ideology is alive; it has no real value if we > > remove it amnifestation as a living, conscious, sentient, actor; this is > > why the bonafide guru is so essential. > Could you elaborate a little on that please? What is the relation between > our ideology and guru? The relation is our attitude and behavior, towards his Divine grace--who is Krsna incarnate in the form of His pure devotee (study this ideology in Cc. Adilila 1.44-61). How can bhaktas see Krsna as everything else (i.e., vasudevah sarvam iti, sarvam khalv idam brahma, etc.), but NOT as their own guru? Unlike realization of mere jnana, pure devotion involves real action :-), seva. All sevakas serve our sevya-bhagavan through our sevaka-bhagavan. This is "nityam bhagavata-sevaya." Our ideology is useless until it is applied, and our applied ideology is normative in this respect (i.e., how to respect one's guru); it's already well established. There are standard injunctions regulating worship of the bonafide guru, whom we are enjoined to view and serve as our manifestation of Bhagavan. Envious people become impersonalists because in bhakti such things are just way *too clear* for comfort. Same goes for those who lack faith. > > People essentially opposed to > > Krsna's principle try to discredit His tangible manifestations. > But frankly, I've seen discussions on supposed ISKCON forums take > such turns, so what defines one's questioning of all things being under > God's control as 'doubtful enquiry' as opposed to 'outright atheism'? I would suggest it pivots on the degree of respect involved; it's explicit throughout our literature that one is to inquire with respect, with a service attitude. One also has to recognize that some things are just inconceivable, and in those cases, argument is simply pointless (na tams tarkena yojayet); that's where it's also important to follow the standard Vaisnava epistemology. > > But people generally know that truth isn't always pleasant, and > > we don't really have to approach it on these lower levels of absorption. > I agree, although I'm surprised to say that even in circles of devotees that > there is extreme opposition to the theory of bad karma. Of course--many of us have pretty bad karma, even though we may also have faith in Krsna. Hence we will even challenge standard siddhanta due to our misfortune, despite the fact that karma is beyond our ken of reason. 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.