We're Authors of our Own Bewilderment

[suchandra]

Thoughtful article quoting Prabhupada, "Our poor embodied souls often fail to get this message."

 

 

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="4" align="left" valign="top" width="100%"><arttitle>We're authors of our own bewilderment</arttitle>

6 Sep, 2007, 0510 hrs IST,Vithal C Nadkarni,

</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="10">http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorials/Were_authors_of_our_own_bewilderment/articleshow/2341916.cms

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>

</td> </tr> <tr> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="4" style="padding-bottom: 10px;" align="center" valign="top" width="100%"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td align="left" valign="top"><!--google_ad_region_start=article--> Pope Benedict has described Mother Teresa’s decades-long crisis of faith as "the silence of God", a phenomenon the Pontiff says is "known to all believers".

 

Referring to the book of letters detailing the tormented state of Mother Teresa’s faith, the Pope says this isn’t unusual. All Catholics have to contend with the silence of God, which so sorely tested even the saintly Mother despite all her charity and force of faith, he has added.

 

By the Pope’s own admission, the cat is finally out of the bag: hereafter it would be extremely disingenuous to claim special access to the Big Boss who allegedly lives beyond the Pearly Gates.

 

Nor should you believe those who claim to have a hotline to heaven. This also rules out such prospects as barters with God, or bribing Him into benevolence with your little acts of piety. Does this sound pitiless? But that’s exactly how the universal cookie crumbles, even according to Bhagwad Gita.

 

That’s precisely the revolutionary message of the fourteenth verse from fifth chapter of the Lord’s Song: “Of course there is no God,” Krishna says to Arjuna, at least not in the sense that countless generations of priests and shamans have led you up to believe.

 

If at all there’s something, it’s what the Gita is willing to concede as “embodied consciousness”, which Swami Prabhupada, founder of the Hare Krishna movement, translates as “the master of the city of your body”. “He does not create activities, nor does he induce people to act. He also does not create the fruits of action,” the verse goes on to elaborate. All that pops out from the tendencies inherent in material nature.

 

The verse that follows makes even more revolutionary assertions: The Supreme Spirit lies indifferent beyond all epithets and categories; it does not care for your sinful activities nor is it pleased by your pious acts. “(Thus) the Lord neither hates nor likes anyone, though He may appear to,” says Swami Prabhupada. Our poor embodied souls often fail to get this message.

 

Enslaved by our own desire to escape from supreme consciousness, we become authors of our own bewilderment and grow forgetful of our own essential nature. This can only heighten the so-called darkness of the soul suffered by embodied beings, for ignorance has knowledge enthralled (ajnanavruttam jnanam tena mhuyanti jantavah) in its coils.

 

The way out of the impasse is through faith and enlightenment.

 

 

</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

[gHari]

An impersonal quotes Prabhupada - is that odd or good?

[Guruvani]

Lord Krishna says here that we are all BORN INTO DELUSION.

If we are born into delusion, then what does that say?

 

 

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 7.27

 

icchā-dveṣa-samutthena

dvandva-mohena bhārata

sarva-bhūtāni sammohaḿ

sarge yānti parantapa

 

SYNONYMS

icchā — desire; dveṣa — and hate; samutthena — arisen from; dvandva — of duality; mohena — by the illusion; bhārata — O scion of Bharata; sarva — all; bhūtāni — living entities; sammoham — into delusion; sarge — while taking birth; yānti — go; parantapa — O conqueror of enemies.

 

 

TRANSLATION

O scion of Bharata, O conqueror of the foe, all living entities are born into delusion, bewildered by dualities arisen from desire and hate.

 

[theist]

 

An impersonal quotes Prabhupada - is that odd or good?

Most odd. I hate it when some impersonalist spins the words of His Divine Grace.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Most odd. I hate it when some impersonalist spins the words of His Divine Grace.

 

What makes you and gHari think this author is an impersonalist? I read the article and saw nothing that struck me as impersonal.

[Guruvani]

What makes you and gHari think this author is an impersonalist? I read the article and saw nothing that struck me as impersonal.

[gHari]

 

What makes you and gHari think this author is an impersonalist? I read the article and saw nothing that struck me as impersonal.

These words I found not coming from a personalist: "The Supreme Spirit lies indifferent beyond all epithets and categories; it does not care for your sinful activities nor is it pleased by your pious acts."

 

They sometimes say "He" but they always mean "It".

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I prefer to use generic terms like "the Divine" at times. It does not change my belief that "the Divine" has a personality. If one is referring to a "Spirit", it makes sense not to assign gender to it (see, it would sound weird if I said "him" or "her" here, wouldn't it?).

 

The author isn't saying that God is without any form (spiritual or material).

 

 

These words I found not coming from a personalist: "The Supreme Spirit lies indifferent beyond all epithets and categories; it does not care for your sinful activities nor is it pleased by your pious acts."

 

They sometimes say "He" but they always mean "It".

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Is the Universal Form a "He" or a "She"?

 

 

I prefer to use generic terms like "the Divine" at times. It does not change my belief that "the Divine" has a personality. If one is referring to a "Spirit", it makes sense not to assign gender to it (see, it would sound weird if I said "him" or "her" here, wouldn't it?).

 

The author isn't saying that God is without any form (spiritual or material).

[gHari]

But the Supreme Spirit is a He, the He, Sri Krsna.

[Guruvani]

 

But the Supreme Spirit is a He, the He, Sri Krsna.

 

boy howdy......

[gHari]

It is not that The Divine has personality, but that the personality is Divine. Sri Krsna is always the subject.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

But the Supreme Spirit is a He, the He, Sri Krsna.

 

*The* He, to be sure. The *only* "He".

 

Not like any sense of masculine gender with which we are familiar. So stupendous as to look like some sort of "it" to our puppy brains.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

It is not that The Divine has personality, but that the personality is Divine.

 

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense (maybe some words are missing emphasis).

 

Maybe you're saying that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In that phrase, there is some distinction between Krishna and the rest of Godhead. Krishna is a personality, clearly. Is Godhead a personality? Is Godhead a "He"?

 

Doesn't Godhead include all of us feminine jiva-souls?

[Guruvani]

 

It is not that The Divine has personality, but that the personality is Divine. Sri Krsna is always the subject.

 

Even if the supreme is a rascal, I still respect his supremecy.

 

Stealing the clothes from the gopis at Yamuna, stealing butter from the homes of Vrajavasis, sneaking out of the house at midnight to dance with gopis in the moonlight on the Yamuna?

 

Divine rascaldom...... yep..... divine rascaldom.

[theist]

 

These words I found not coming from a personalist: "The Supreme Spirit lies indifferent beyond all epithets and categories; it does not care for your sinful activities nor is it pleased by your pious acts."

 

They sometimes say "He" but they always mean "It".

 

That's it. They speak the same words but with a totally different feeling and meaning. Paramhamsa Yogananda is a good example of this.

[theist]

 

I prefer to use generic terms like "the Divine" at times. It does not change my belief that "the Divine" has a personality. If one is referring to a "Spirit", it makes sense not to assign gender to it (see, it would sound weird if I said "him" or "her" here, wouldn't it?).

 

The author isn't saying that God is without any form (spiritual or material).

 

That is simply the impersonalist speaking in a condenscending way to simple sentimental people of this age who are only fit to practrice bhakti yoga. We are not ready to hear we are God yet.

[passionate_freak]

No matter who says what but most of the People in this forum are to fullfill the EGO and try proving the best in Knowledge, but do you think the bookish knowledge is all we can perceive??? Hasn't the supreme power made us with own potentials? Can't we be the one knowing all the things said so far in books by ourselves??? Don't we got guts walking the paths those great people traded on earlier???

The real man in us is dead and seeks the truth to be found in others's words.

Christians misunderstood Jesus's teachings and misinterpreted his teachings, just like that Krsna's Gita been translated by many in own accord. By this we won't be able fathoming his words even in next million years. To understand his words we gotta, at least stand on that ground of consciousness. And it is possible by Kundalini awakening only. But how we can awake that thing??? Definitely not by going to so-called, self dignified Gurus and Bhagavans available in the streets.

[Guruvani]

 

And it is possible by Kundalini awakening only.

 

That is wrong.

Spiritual knowledge is acquired through srota parampara.

If we don't acquire knowledge as revealed in sruti, smrti and Purana then we can try for millions of years without success trying Kundalini yoga.

 

Vaishnavas accept scriptural authority.

They don't speculate about some Kundalini magic revealing the highest knowledge.

You can't discover the highest knowledge by yourself.

If you don't recieve knowledge from the scriptural authorities, then you can try for millions of years and never come to highest knowledge.

[suchandra]

 

An impersonal quotes Prabhupada - is that odd or good?

 

Well, you're of course right this doesnt look really bonafide - seems like while the different Vaishnava groups are in odds with each other a third party attacks from the back side to drag present Vaishnavism even more into questionableness.

Prabhupada also immediately pointed out when things got polluted:

 

Prabhupada: Regarding the two books you have mentioned, Sri Ramacharitamanasa by Goswami Tulasi das is not very authorized, and Ramayana is authorized. One thing is though, you have got enough other books to study. Did you appear in the examination held on Janmastami Day? Why should you go to Ramayana when you have got Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam and Teachings of Lord Caitanya? Don't divert your attention in that way.

 

Prabhupada (Letter, September 6, 1969): The author of Ramacharitamanasa, Goswami Tulasi das, has a tint of Mayavadi philosophy. He belongs to the Ramananda Sampradaya. They are mixed up combination of personalist and impersonalist. Therefore, the author is not considered as pure Vaisnava. Pure Vaisnava is free from all material contamination of fruitive activities and mental speculation.

 

The pure Vaisnava is simply, purely disposed to transcendental loving service to Krishna. The pure Vaisnava rejects anything which has no pure idea of serving the Personality of Godhead.

 

I hope this will meet you in good health.

 

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami