What is wrong with the sahajiya viewpoint?

[theist]

 

I am primarily talking about modern day Vaishnava sahajiyas, or those encountered in the last 100 years. Seems to me you assume that sahajiyas of the 17th century were "less degraded" than sahajiyas of today. I am not sure that is the case. The sahajiyas were always a very diverse bunch, and the excesses of a small fraction of these people coloured the entire group black. Call it "religious racism" if you like, but of all people you should be more sensitive to this situation.

 

I know nothing of past sahajiya movements, lines or practices and I am not particulary interested.

 

 

My point in this discussion is that devotees have a very simplistic understanding of the issue and your posts confirm that. If you want to hear only what you like, why bother opening a topic to discussion? The sahajiya current is not at all simply a black and white issue. Perhaps you should study it more in depth.

 

My topic was very narrow and simple purposely. I have no interest in studying it more in depth. If you want to start a thread on the history and various practices of sahajiyaism then start a thread and go for it. it would be interesting and has not been done before on this board that I am aware of. Again that was never my purpose. Why can't you process this simple fact.

 

As far as I am concerned between Shakti Fans posting of the talks of NM and more pointedly suchandra's #5 the purpose of this thread was fullfilled in those first few posts.

 

 

You and many other Iskcon devotees think that dovetailing ill gotten money in the service of Krsna is permissible, but dovetailing consensual sex with Krsna lila smaranam is not? That is at least debatable.

 

I am not an Iskcon devotee nor do I practice now or ever illegal or street scams to get money to dovetail to krsna. Where the F*** do you get off accusing me of such?

 

 

As to being "strangely defensive", you are first insinuating that "One can see the sahajiya mentality creeping in" in relation to my post, and now you call my response "strangely defensive" - that is some chutzpah, brother theist... or maybe you are just being "mislead by your own mind"?

 

I have seen sahajiya mentality creeping in for a long time and can't remember your post. I started this thread after reading Murali's post on another thread about how Krsna can enjoy woman in a "rasa dance" through one's own senses and that is the platform of one "with great faith" as he said. That is creeping sahajiyaism. I have no idea what you think about the issue.

[Kulapavana]

 

My topic was very narrow and simple purposely. I have no interest in studying it more in depth. If you want to start a thread on the history and various practices of sahajiyaism then start a thread and go for it. it would be interesting and has not been done before on this board that I am aware of. Again that was never my purpose. Why can't you process this simple fact.

 

The title of this thread is:

 

What is wrong with the sahajiya viewpoint?

 

and the simple fact is that you have very little clue as to what that viewpoint really is, as in the following sentence:

 

"I have heard that sahajiyas put forward the idea that when ones faith becomes strong they can understand that Krsna can enjoy with women through their own material senses."

 

You build a boogy-man only to have him burned...

 

You are one of the few people on this forum who tries to see theism and true spirituality in other traditions, especially in Christianity. I thought you might be interested to know what the Sahajiya Vaishnavism is really about. After all, it is also Vaishnavism. I was wrong. You just want the "nigger" lynched...

[gHari]

Truth is: we will use God to get what we want in this life. That is the problem we see all around us. We dovetail our vision of God with our desires. Hence we get 107 flavours of each of twenty churches, loosely spread out to accommodate our demands for enjoyment.

 

Maybe it's just the way it has to be. Otherwise He could have no part at all in our lives.

 

For the few who occasionally rise above their conditioning, there is a chance to approach God. Then the rubber-stamping of a belief system can have some influence in their lives.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

I would ask you what ridiculous point you are trying to make with that comment but in truth I am really not interested in your viewpoint.

I see that. No doubt, you are much more interested in being the de facto "acharya" of Audarya and accepting tribute from your grateful "disciples" while being critical of other acharyas.

 

Cheers!!

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Well said, Kula! Way to call a lynching what it is.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

If Srila Prabhupada had, hypothetically-speaking, had an intimate relationship with one of his lady disciples, I would not think of him as any less than what he is--a pure, cent-per-cent dedicated devotee of the Lord.

 

I suspect the (all too shallow and conditional) faith of theist and many others would be shattered.

[Beggar]

 

If Srila Prabhupada had, hypothetically-speaking, had an intimate relationship with one of his lady disciples, I would not think of him as any less than what he is--a pure, cent-per-cent dedicated devotee of the Lord.

 

I suspect the (all too shallow and conditional) faith of theist and many others would be shattered.

As Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur has stated in the "The Bhaghavat" speech, no thought is a bad thought. What is the inner meaning of this, perhaps even that an antithesis will arise and then synthesis? Another meaning is perhaps couched within that thought is the seed of a more progressive representation of that thought. So the idea that a liberated soul can do anything, or that ones faith should be unconditional is perhaps the thought behind your thought. But what would be the motive for expressing such a thought by the wording and the name you have chosen to invoke? If I say, "Hypothetically if I called you an ass, which in real life I would never do...", wouldn't that on some level be the same as actually calling you an ass? Also if one has no idea of what your motives are they could perhaps come up with the theory that you have knowledge that your guru is not following the regulative principles, and you are trying to float that idea through a hypothetical situation. You are posting lectures from Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math speakers and your param guru, Srila Sridhar Maharaj has said that he was even more conservative than his guru Maharaja, Srila Saraswati Thakur. How is this consistent? One minute you are representing your Math and the next minute not? Or the doubt will creep in, "oh maybe he is trying to tell us something about his own Math?" Or the classic law school example, is shouting out , 'fire' (if there is no fire) in a crowded movie theater protected under the right of free speech? Is your hypothetical, protected under the universal right of freedom of thought given by the Creator? The controversy you stir up may seem like fun, even superficially for me, also. But as Srila Prabhupada said when he installed the Radha Krsna dieties in L.A., "be careful you are dealing with Krsna".

[Murali_Mohan_das]

You're implying that my thought is somehow scandalous. To you it might be. To me it is not.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaja refused to think or speak ill even of those who had attempted to have him killed, or those who blasphemed him.

 

In my mind, Srila Prabhupada, as is Srila Gurudev, is beyond repproach whatever their apparent actions may be.

 

To some folks, some questionable (to them) statements Srila Prabhupada made about women or people of color is enough to shake their faith in him. How shallow must that faith be?

 

 

As Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur has stated in the "The Bhaghavat" speech, no thought is a bad thought. What is the inner meaning of this, perhaps even that an antithesis will arise and then synthesis? Another meaning is perhaps couched within that thought is the seed of a more progressive representation of that thought. So the idea that a liberated soul can do anything, or that ones faith should be unconditional is perhaps the thought behind your thought. But what would be the motive for expressing such a thought by the wording and the name you have chosen to invoke? If I say, "Hypothetically if I called you an ass, which in real life I would never do...", wouldn't that on some level be the same as actually calling you an ass? Also if one has no idea of what your motives are they could perhaps come up with the theory that you have knowledge that your guru is not following the regulative principles, and you are trying to float that idea through a hypothetical situation. You are posting lectures from Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math speakers and your param guru, Srila Sridhar Maharaj has said that he was even more conservative than his guru Maharaja, Srila Saraswati Thakur. How is this consistent? One minute you are representing your Math and the next minute not? Or the doubt will creep in, "oh maybe he is trying to tell us something about his own Math?" Or the classic law school example, is shouting out , 'fire' (if there is no fire) in a crowded movie theater protected under the right of free speech? Is your hypothetical, protected under the universal right of freedom of thought given by the Creator? The controversy you stir up may seem like fun, even superficially for me, also. But as Srila Prabhupada said when he installed the Radha Krsna dieties in L.A., "be careful you are dealing with Krsna".

[Beggar]

First, just quoting my post doesn't mean that you took the time and energy to carefully read what I wrote. Next, when Srila Govinda Maharaj was in Soquel in 2004 he remarked, "everyone knows that Guru Maharaj and Swami Maharaj (Prabhupada) were charged against Mayavada and Sahjiyaism". Even from the neutral point of view we can understand that this is also the position of Srila Govinda Maharaj. In the minds of Gaudiya Vaisnavas the most classic form of Sahjiyaism is trying to experience aprakrata parakiya bhava by having sex outside of marriage. To infer that a Gaudiya Vaisnava guru is or has done such a thing is to impune his character. This would be true even theorectically. It doesn't matter whether I think that it is scandalous, it matters what those situated in reality think - those like Srila Sridhar Maharaj and your guru etc. It is your duty as an initiated disciple to bring your thoughts in line with theirs. If you cannot control your mind in such a way than at least when you write after you have identified yourself as a disciple, you must be careful about what you write because you are representing your guru, param guru and entire guru varga. If you want to come on as a "civilian" under an assumed screen name then that's another thing entirely.

This entire line of argument is basically the same as when you were writing on another thread opposing the sastric schedule of incarnating Yuga Avataras by using the argument that the Lord is completely independent. No doubt the Lord is completely independent but that line of thought was irrelevant to the discussion. Now you are saying that because a self realized sadhu or guru who is "as good as the Lord" can therefore do anything and everything. Because the topic is Sahajiyaism your theory might seem on point because sleeping with a disciple like that would be a classic case of such Prakrta Sahajiyaism, at least according to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. But actually what you have brought up is not on point at all, if the idea of the independence of the Lord and pure devotees is the issue then it is only on point or relevent if you are proposing that adultry is way to experience the transcendental parakiya bhava, which in fact, I believe you are doing in an unconscious manner.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Is it our place to judge the acharya and his actions?

 

 

First, just quoting my post doesn't mean that you took the time and energy to carefully read what I wrote. Next, when Srila Govinda Maharaj was in Soquel in 2004 he remarked, "everyone knows that Guru Maharaj and Swami Maharaj (Prabhupada) were charged against Mayavada and Sahjiyaism". Even from the neutral point of view we can understand that this is also the position of Srila Govinda Maharaj. In the minds of Gaudiya Vaisnavas the most classic form of Sahjiyaism is trying to experience aprakrata parakiya bhava by having sex outside of marriage. To infer that a Gaudiya Vaisnava guru is or has done such a thing is to impune his character. This would be true even theorectically. It doesn't matter whether I think that it is scandalous, it matters what those situated in reality think - those like Srila Sridhar Maharaj and your guru etc. It is your duty as an initiated disciple to bring your thoughts in line with theirs. If you cannot control your mind in such a way than at least when you write after you have identified yourself as a disciple, you must be careful about what you write because you are representing your guru, param guru and entire guru varga. If you want to come on as a "civilian" under an assumed screen name then that's another thing entirely.

This entire line of argument is basically the same as when you were writing on another thread opposing the sastric schedule of incarnating Yuga Avataras by using the argument that the Lord is completely independent. No doubt the Lord is completely independent but that line of thought was irrelevant to the discussion. Now you are saying that because a self realized sadhu or guru who is "as good as the Lord" can therefore do anything and everything. Because the topic is Sahajiyaism your theory might seem on point because sleeping with a disciple like that would be a classic case of such Prakrta Sahajiyaism, at least according to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. But actually what you have brought up is not on point at all, if the idea of the independence of the Lord and pure devotees is the issue then it is only on point or relevent if you are proposing that adultry is way to experience the transcendental parakiya bhava, which in fact, I believe you are doing in an unconscious manner.

[Beggar]

 

Is it our place to judge the acharya and his actions?

What if the "acarya" didn't have sex with his disciple, but rather had a T-bone steak for dinner? What if the "acarya" cannibalised several of his disciples? What if the "acarya" was a biggest serial killer in modern history? Under these circumstances would you "judge" the acarya? No CHECKMATE -- this has nothing to do with whether or not the acarya should be judged. The topic is Sahajiyaism and your hypothetical scenario is Sahajiyaism. A so-called acarya who has sex with his disciple is not an acarya in the line of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, he would either be fallen or a Prakrta Sahajiya, end of discussion. You are quite wrong and yes, foolishly aparadhic to say the least. Your guru and any of the real living gurus at present would slap your face if you ever said to any of them what you have written here (concerning your "hypothetical" scenerio).

WILL THE REAL MURALI MOHAN PRABHU PLEASE STAND UP:

 

 

That's impossible!! Nobody's *ever* supposed to concede *anything* on Audarya!!!!

 

In any case, why bother getting out of your warm bed early and elbowing your way into Srila Gurudeva's veranda and sit at his feet if you're not going to leave your speculating, calculating, second-guessing, knowing-better-than-the acharya mind at the door with your shoes???

 

 

I was thinking about this last night as I lay in bed.

If the acharya is truly on the plane of Raganuga (spontaneous) bhakti, and is performing every action in a mood of service to the Lord, who is to say that such an acharya is wrong to engage in intimacy with a disciple? Perhaps the Lord is enjoying via His pure servant? Who are we to say?

 

Thanks for the tips. I'll try to keep them in mind. Of course, I need to go back and review (or view for the first time) the ABC's.

 

I guess. The Lord makes rules He won't break?

It's not worth an argument, to be sure. Time will tell.

 

How about, "Just accept Prabhupada as your personal Lord and savior and He will take away all your sins"?

 

Srila Prabhupada has soooo much common sense, doesn't he? He just cuts through all the mental crap like a knife.

 

 

If you can't summarize what you believe in a sentence or two, then you're probably hopelessly confused.

 

My consistency is something like that of halavah.

But, seriously, how is it inconsistent to say that we should never judge others (regardless of how often I myself fall into that trap)?

 

It's not a question of imitation. It's a question of which ideal we reverently hold upon our heads.

 

You are right, Pita-ji. I let my emotions get the best of my reason.

 

Thank you for your kind correction!!

[gHari]

Eminem, sometimes it is best to just walk away. They may keep following you around offering unrequested fatherly advice, but I don't buy any of it. It always sounds more like harrassment to me.

[Beggar]

 

Eminem, sometimes it is best to just walk away. They may keep following you around offering unrequested fatherly advice, but I don't buy any of it. It always sounds more like harrassment to me.

With all due respects gHari I don't think that you are following this closely enough. Why should I be oppressed by an ultra right wing attitude such as,

 

 

In any case, why bother getting out of your warm bed early and elbowing your way into Srila Gurudeva's veranda and sit at his feet if you're not going to leave your speculating, calculating, second-guessing, knowing-better-than-the acharya mind at the door with your shoes???

IOW that I am suspected and subtly accused of disloyalty not only to the "real" acarya but to the entire guru varga.

 

When Murali Mohan can then turn around and actually speculate,

 

 

I was thinking about this last night as I lay in bed.

If the acharya is truly on the plane of Raganuga (spontaneous) bhakti, and is performing every action in a mood of service to the Lord, who is to say that such an acharya is wrong to engage in intimacy with a disciple? Perhaps the Lord is enjoying via His pure servant? Who are we to say?

and then insist a few days later, (after admitting the rasabhasik nature of this)

 

 

If Srila Prabhupada had, hypothetically-speaking, had an intimate relationship with one of his lady disciples, I would not think of him as any less than what he is--a pure, cent-per-cent dedicated devotee of the Lord.

 

I suspect the (all too shallow and conditional) faith of theist and many others would be shattered.

Which one is it? That we must leave all our intelligence "at the door" or we are free to speculate and come up with the most classic Prakrta Sahajiya theory of all? And after all if one is "questioning" the "real" acarya by giving an opinion on the meaning of their words the they must by inference be an imitation devotee which by definition implies Sahajiyaism of some sorts. Then after being covertly accused of imitation devotion to be subsequently accused of "all too shallow and conditional faith" because one doesn't even care to hypothetically accept such a nasty thought about Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. (and I and every "normal thinking" aspiring devotee who reads such a thing should immediately jump into the ocean or a river without even taking the time to disrobe). So our sensibilities should be attacked by either far right wing sectarianism oscillating to extreme (beyond left wing) nihilism either at whim or due to confusion, at the drop of a hat? Each extreme opposes and nullifies the validity of the other. I find it difficult to stand by and not oppose such a misrepresentation of reality.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Eminem, sometimes it is best to just walk away.

 

I think you're right.

 

Debating with the atheists and meat-eaters on another web-site lately has been a lot more nurturing of my faith.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

By mundane calculations, our beloved Sri Krishna is the greatest meat-eater, mass-murderer (think: Universal Form) and philanderer of them all.

 

He is so beautiful, though, He could do anything and the gopis would still adore him as Govinda.

[Kulapavana]

 

Debating with the atheists and meat-eaters on another web-site lately has been a lot more nurturing of my faith.

 

Murali, you must admit that writing certain things on this site is asking for a very close shave with a scythe... Certain things are best discussed among like-minded friends.

 

As to the controversy on hand...

 

The way I understand your hypothetical statement about Prabhupada, is that to you: an individual is what he really is, not what his projected image is, or what his followers think he is. And I agree with that.

 

I have seen disciples of a fallen guru throwing out into trash their guru's books and tapes just a few days after his falldown was made official, and their attitude towards that guru turning from blind acceptance to blind rejection. Yet, before and after the fall-down that guru was essentially exactly the same person. That is a total idiocy.

 

I rejected Harikesha as my guru not because he had sex with a woman while being a sannyasi, but because he no longer represented our sampradaya in his thougts, teachings, and deeds. If he gave up sannyas, settled down as an honest married man, and actually represented our sampradaya in every way, I would not have rejected him, or thought any less about him.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Thanks for your kindness, and understanding, Kula-ji.

 

You see the point which I am trying to make.

 

Beggar seems to be blinded by his emotions (as I so often am).

 

 

Murali, you must admit that writing certain things on this site is asking for a very close shave with a scythe... Certain things are best discussed among like-minded friends.

 

As to the controversy on hand...

 

The way I understand your hypothetical statement about Prabhupada, is that to you: an individual is what he really is, not what his projected image is, or what his followers think he is. And I agree with that.

 

I have seen disciples of a fallen guru throwing out into trash their guru's books and tapes just a few days after his falldown was made official, and their attitude towards that guru turning from blind acceptance to blind rejection. Yet, before and after the fall-down that guru was essentially exactly the same person. That is a total idiocy.

 

I rejected Harikesha as my guru not because he had sex with a woman while being a sannyasi, but because he no longer represented our sampradaya in his thougts, teachings, and deeds. If he gave up sannyas, settled down as an honest married man, and actually represented our sampradaya in every way, I would not have rejected him, or thought any less about him.

[Beggar]

 

The way I understand your hypothetical statement about Prabhupada, is that to you: an individual is what he really is, not what his projected image is, or what his followers think he is. And I agree with that.

 

 

Thanks for your kindness, and understanding, Kula-ji.

You see the point which I am trying to make...

 

The topic of this thread is "what is wrong with the sahajiya point of view"?

On a previous thread Murali Mohan wrote,

 

 

I was thinking about this last night as I lay in bed.

If the acharya is truly on the plane of Raganuga (spontaneous) bhakti, and is performing every action in a mood of service to the Lord, who is to say that such an acharya is wrong to engage in intimacy with a disciple? Perhaps the Lord is enjoying via His pure servant? Who are we to say?

On this thread exploring the implications of Sahajiyaism he again brings up the same point although couched in a different way,

 

 

If Srila Prabhupada had, hypothetically-speaking, had an intimate relationship with one of his lady disciples, I would not think of him as any less than what he is--a pure, cent-per-cent dedicated devotee of the Lord.

 

I suspect the (all too shallow and conditional) faith of theist and many others would be shattered.

If you examine both quotes from Murali Mohan he gives the reason why in his theory it is not always wrong for an acarya to have sex with his "disciple" that, "... the acharya is truly on the plane of Raganuga (spontaneous) bhakti, and because, [an acarya] ...is performing every action in a mood of service to the Lord and the Lord is enjoying via His pure servant." Now in his statement on this thread where he theoretically projects this behavior onto Srila Prabhupada, he is not seeing such activity as a fall down because he is viewing Prabhupada or any real acarya as "pure, cent-per-cent dedicated devotee of the Lord". But before he learns of the acarya having sex with his disciple he already accepts that the acarya is a "pure, cent-per-cent dedicated devotee of the Lord". Then one must ask why, on what basis has he accepted the acarya as pure? Srila Prabhupada refered to a "testing period" (this is based on sastra) where both the guru and the disciple test each other for sincerity and that they are both following the Vaisnava regulative principles.

So actually both ideas are interrelated but only indirectly. Again the two ideas to which I am referring are 1) that a pure devotee may have Krsna enjoy ladies through him as a form of raganuga bhajan, and 2) that pure devotee may break the regulative principles and enjoy himself and he can do this because he is already pure. And then there is Kulapavana Prabhu's point taken from sastra that if the guru falls down, one should wait to see if he can become rectified.

To sum this up I am asserting that Murali Mohan is continuing to promote the possiblity of the acarya having sex with a disciple as a form of raganuga bhajan and is trying to disguise it through presenting it in a slightly different manner. And that it is easy to be fooled by this tactic as has Kulapavana Prabhu. Murali Mohan on the previous thread admited that an advanced Rupanuga bhakta would never behave in this way and to even think of it is a distasteful rasabhasa. So he essentially admitted defeat. But because he cannot take good counsel and is attached to such a classic sahajiya concept he is again presenting it in a very slightly different manner.

Ultimately people can believe what they want. It is really not up to me. I am not here just to control and fight, but really over the last year and a half I have learned very much. But I cannot sit by idley why Murali Mohan Prabhu sometimes represents himself as disciple in the line of Srila Sridhar Maharaj and sometimes proposes ideas that are nauseating to the followers and aspiring followers of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the Sarsawat line.

[Kulapavana]

 

To sum this up I am asserting that Murali Mohan is continuing to promote the possiblity of the acarya having sex with a disciple as a form of raganuga bhajan and is trying to disguise it through presenting it in a slightly different manner. And that it is easy to be fooled by this tactic as has Kulapavana Prabhu.

 

Actually, I was trying to bring this subject to a close by offering a possible way out.

 

If a guru accepts the sannyasa vesa, he cannot have any illicit dealings with women, regardles of any possible justification. Avadhuta gurus may be in a different category, but avadhutas should not be confused with acharyas. The Saraswatas have rejected all sahajiya practices and if one wants to represent that branch of GV tradition he must comply with that policy, be it an acharya or a regular guru.

 

However, an entirely separate issue is whether any of the more controversial sahajiya practices are actually useful in the practice of Krsna consciousness. In my opinion, if they are practiced with the proper aspiration, they may actually have some value.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

To sum this up I am asserting that Murali Mohan is continuing to promote the possiblity of the acarya having sex with a disciple as a form of raganuga bhajan and is trying to disguise it through presenting it in a slightly different manner.

 

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying it's wrong for us to *judge* the acharya, whatever our imperfect senses suggest to us he/she may be doing.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

However, an entirely separate issue is whether any of the more controversial sahajiya practices are actually useful in the practice of Krsna consciousness. In my opinion, if they are practiced with the proper aspiration, they may actually have some value.

 

I keep thinking of the bhajan by Bhaktivinoda Thakur which indulekha didi posted, in which the Thakur was seeing his entire family as being the prasad of the Lord. Surely, that is proper vision.

[Kulapavana]

 

Again the two ideas to which I am referring are 1) that a pure devotee may have Krsna enjoy ladies through him as a form of raganuga bhajan, and 2) that pure devotee may break the regulative principles and enjoy himself and he can do this because he is already pure.

 

This is not related to the acharya issue, but to the "pure devotee category".

 

If we look at Arjuna's case we can see that Lord Krsna made every effort to help Arjuna win Lady Subhadra's hand, even as she was promised to Duryodhana. Few people will object to Arjuna fitting in the "pure devotee category". Krsna is not jealous of pure devotees enjoying life, but this enjoyment needs to follow a dharmic path. What is the dharmic path? That there is no harm to both parties, no exploitation on any level, and the negative influences on others are minimized. Arjuna was not breaking regulative principles with Subhadra yet the enjoyment was definitely there.

[Kulapavana]

 

I keep thinking of the bhajan by Bhaktivinoda Thakur which indulekha didi posted, in which the Thakur was seeing his entire family as being the prasad of the Lord. Surely, that is proper vision.

 

Yes, this is a proper vision, but I think only he really knows what he means by that.

[Beggar]

 

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying it's wrong for us to *judge* the acharya, whatever our imperfect senses suggest to us he/she may be doing.

You would have to show how your position has changed from the time you wrote,

 

 

I was thinking about this last night as I lay in bed.

If the acharya is truly on the plane of Raganuga (spontaneous) bhakti, and is performing every action in a mood of service to the Lord, who is to say that such an acharya is wrong to engage in intimacy with a disciple? Perhaps the Lord is enjoying via His pure servant? Who are we to say?

Until the time you wrote

I was thinking about this last night as I lay in bed.

If the acharya is truly on the plane of Raganuga (spontaneous) bhakti, and is performing every action in a mood of service to the Lord, who is to say that such an acharya is wrong to engage in intimacy with a disciple? Perhaps the Lord is enjoying via His pure servant? Who are we to say?

BTW I tried to read your statements to two Prabhupada disciples and after several words they both refused to hear the rest of your comments. From my perspective both statements are interestingly interrelated. Again if you wish to write such things on Audarya in the name of free thought then please do not represent yourself as an orthodox follower of the Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math International and please refrain from judging others from that perspective because you are not holding yourself accountable to that standard. You can't just assume diametrically oppossed positions at your whim. Actually the free thinker Murali Mohan is despite his rasabhasa, a less pernicious threat than a judgemental junior member of the local...., well you know what!

[theist]

 

Perhaps the Lord is enjoying via His pure servant? Who are we to say?

 

No perhaps about it. The Lord does enjoy the actions of His pure devotees because everything they do is offered with LOVE to Him.Yes He enjoys their offerings.

 

But this gets PERVERTED when one thinks the Lord is enjoying the movement of his penis inside some female disciple while having intercourse and thinking he is Krsna and the woman is some gopi. Why in God's name would Krsna be attracted to participate in that scenario?

 

It boggles the mind.

 

And add further to the offense he uses Srila Prabhupada's name into the example.