What is wrong with the sahajiya viewpoint?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

You posted the same quote twice, Beggar, so I'd say my thinking didn't change at all between the first and the second quote.

 

Have I *ever* presented myself as a follower of anybody or anything??? If you think I have, you're imagining things. Rather, I've said the Srila Gurudev has mercifully granted me his shelter. To which extent I avail myself of his shelter and follow his instructions and which extent I follow the suicidal impulses of my own mind is strictly a question of my free will.

 

How am I judging *anybody* by saying that no one is qualified to judge the acharya?

 

A thief sees everyone else as a thief.

 

 

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

 

Until the time you wrote 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!

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I'm not talking about me imagining I'm Sri Krishna. I'm talking about you imagining Sri Guru is *not* as good as Sri Krishna.

 

If it's an offense to say that Srila Prabhupada could have transgressed any arbitrary moral standards and still remained a pure empowered incarnation of Nityananda Prabhu, then let me happily accept the fruit of my offensive thought.

 

 

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.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

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.

 

Sruta's going to kick my butt, isn't he?

 

I guess I'd better start worshiping at the Catholic Church instead.

[Beggar]

 

Have I *ever* presented myself as a follower of anybody or anything??? If you think I have, you're imagining things.

 

We all imagined this:

 

 

Of course it's absurd to say that nobody can appreciate Srila Sridhar Maharaja without falling at the feet of Srila Gurudev, but certainly, those with the *greatest* appreciation for Srila Sridhar Maharaja do. The rest are honey-bees, dabblers, or spiritual prostitutes (wear the description that fits best).

[Beggar]

 

Sruta's going to kick my butt, isn't he?

 

I guess I'd better start worshiping at the Catholic Church instead.

No, I didn't discuss this with Sruta. Feeling guilty?

[Beggar]

 

I'm talking about you imagining Sri Guru is *not* as good as Sri Krishna.

 

But we all know it is an absurd offense to even theorectically imagine a Rupanuga acarya is imitating rasa lila, which in essence is what you are saying.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

We all imagined this:

 

Do you see any "I" in there? I sure don't. What makes you think I'm talking about myself?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

But we all know it is an absurd offense to even theorectically imagine a Rupanuga acarya is imitating rasa lila, which in essence is what you are saying.

 

No, that's what *you're* saying.

 

I'm saying it's not our place to say what the acharya is doing or not doing.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

No, I didn't discuss this with Sruta. Feeling guilty?

 

I wouldn't want to get punched in the face. That's a different feeling than guilt--that's fear.

[Beggar]

Even the Gauranga Nagaris do not think of Mahaprabhu, who is Krsna Himself, as the Enjoyer in his sannyasa lila. They only allow themselves to see Him as the Supreme Enjoyer is his form of Nimai Pandit in Navadvipa. In His sannyasa lila Mahaprabhu did not even want to see the form of a woman.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Even the Gauranga Nagaris do not think of Mahaprabhu, who is Krsna Himself, as the Enjoyer in his sannyasa lila. They only allow themselves to see Him as the Supreme Enjoyer is his form of Nimai Pandit in Navadvipa. In His sannyasa lila Mahaprabhu did not even want to see the form of a woman.

Then *you* focus on Mahaprabhu and stop staring at the young ladies.

 

Who's the one wracked by guilt here? Is it me or is it you?

 

The Supreme Lord can enjoy with whomever He pleases at whatever moment He chooses.

[Vedesu]

 

Then *you* focus on Mahaprabhu and stop staring at the young ladies.

 

Who's the one wracked by guilt here? Is it me or is it you?

 

The Supreme Lord can enjoy with whomever He pleases at whatever moment He chooses.

 

Who's harrassing who here? You can't even debate Gaudiya Vaishnava issues on an honest level. When you trip yourself up with contradictions and they are pointed out to you, hopefully for further clarification, (or *gasp*, an admission that you may actually be wrong?), you launch an attack on a personal level, even calling people "intellectual jackasses." Some of your posts have to be deleted as a result, and the ones that remain simply make you look... well, rather thoughtless, to put it kindly. You're just mincing words here in the hopes of winning an argument, not actually offering anything of substance. King of the sandbox mentality, placing higher importance on saving face (false ego) than presenting the correct siddhanta.

[Beggar]

 

The Supreme Lord can enjoy with whomever He pleases at whatever moment He chooses.

 

That is a secondary issue in this instance. The point is that it is rasabhasa to view Mahaprabhu in sannyasa lila as the purusha or enjoyer. I thought that we established this on a previous thread. Tattvic concerns like the independence of Bhagavan, are eclipsed by rasik concerns when the Rupanugas, both real and aspiring, consider Krsna lila, Gaura lila and Acarya lila etc.

[Audarya-lila dasa]

This is really nonsense. Beggar is quite correct to call you to the mat Murali. Acharya teaches by example. His/her words are in complete concert with his/her actions. Beyond that, it is an axiomatic truth that actions speak louder than words.

 

Where exactly in sastra or in the words of sadhus (in the lineage of Bhaktivinoda Thakur) or the words of Acharyas in our lineage do you find backing for your absurd hypothetical idea? It is not that anything and everything goes. Krsna himself says in the B.G. that whatever a great man does, common men follow. You have absolutely zero backing for your offensive hypothetical and you should think deeply about it and retract it if you have any good sense at all.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I have no face to save. I'll happily admit when I'm wrong, but I won't accept words being put into my mouth as Beggar has been trying to do.

 

As for my posts being deleted, I trust the judgement of the moderators. It's interesting to note which posts of mine have *not* been deleted. It seems that discussing hypothetical scenarios regarding the previous acharyas is not forbidden, as distasteful as you or others might find some discussions.

 

Feel free to blow as much hot air as you like in my direction. Perhaps if you let off some steam you'll see things more clearly.

 

 

Who's harrassing who here? You can't even debate Gaudiya Vaishnava issues on an honest level. When you trip yourself up with contradictions and they are pointed out to you, hopefully for further clarification, (or *gasp*, an admission that you may actually be wrong?), you launch an attack on a personal level, even calling people "intellectual jackasses." Some of your posts have to be deleted as a result, and the ones that remain simply make you look... well, rather thoughtless, to put it kindly. You're just mincing words here in the hopes of winning an argument, not actually offering anything of substance. King of the sandbox mentality, placing higher importance on saving face (false ego) than presenting the correct siddhanta.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

You can't even debate Gaudiya Vaishnava issues on an honest level. When you trip yourself up with contradictions and they are pointed out to you, hopefully for further clarification, (or *gasp*, an admission that you may actually be wrong?), you launch an attack on a personal level, even calling people "intellectual jackasses."

 

If you think I'm interested in debate, then you are sorely mistaken. I'm interested in sadhu-sanga, part of which is *revealing one's mind* to the sadhus.

 

If you think I'm interested in avoiding contradiction, then you are still sorely mistaken. Life is fraught with contradiction. I embrace contradiction.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I'll try to take your advice to heart. At this point, though, I retract nothing.

 

While Srila Gurudev exhibits an example in line with the Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas, and no one questions his upright character, if Sri Guru tells me a rope is a snake, it's a snake, and if he tells me a snake is a rope, it's a rope.

 

Sri Guru is the authority. We look to shastra to support what Sri Guru says, but ultimately, Sri Guru is the authority--a *greater* authority than the previously-revealed scriptures. Sri Guru is the living scripture.

 

Certainly, I'm a nonsensical fool, but I know this much beyond any doubt.

 

 

This is really nonsense. Beggar is quite correct to call you to the mat Murali. Acharya teaches by example. His/her words are in complete concert with his/her actions. Beyond that, it is an axiomatic truth that actions speak louder than words.

 

Where exactly in sastra or in the words of sadhus (in the lineage of Bhaktivinoda Thakur) or the words of Acharyas in our lineage do you find backing for your absurd hypothetical idea? It is not that anything and everything goes. Krsna himself says in the B.G. that whatever a great man does, common men follow. You have absolutely zero backing for your offensive hypothetical and you should think deeply about it and retract it if you have any good sense at all.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Where exactly in sastra...

 

To a fool like me, the scriptures are but pieces of paper with confusing words on them.

 

Gurudev says to be humble, tolerant, and to give *honor* to others--even those who offend us. Never have I heard Srila Gurudev call someone a Sahajiya, though he certainly warns us to be wary of sahajiya tendencies in our own hearts.

[Beggar]

 

 

While Srila Gurudev exhibits an example in line with the Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas, and no one questions his upright character, if Sri Guru tells me a rope is a snake, it's a snake, and if he tells me a snake is a rope, it's a rope.

 

Sri Guru is the authority. We look to shastra to support what Sri Guru says, but ultimately, Sri Guru is the authority--a *greater* authority than the previously-revealed scriptures. Sri Guru is the living scripture.

 

You write that you are not interested in debate while you are certainly debating. But while debating you generally do not quote or allude to

authorities to substantiate your points and you do not even try to make sure that your arguments are logical. Don't counter with Krsna Consciousness is beyond logic and reason because the siddhanta although full of paradoxes is always presented in the most logical manner so that the minds of the aspiring practitioners can at least grasp a semblance of it's reality.

 

 

Sri Guru is the authority. We look to shastra to support what Sri Guru says, but ultimately, Sri Guru is the authority--a *greater* authority than the previously-revealed scriptures. Sri Guru is the living scripture.

 

 

But this argument has it's limitations, for instance if the guru says that Krsna is an imaginary figure then he is not guru for he has deviated from sastra and sadhu. You are misapplying concepts given by Srila Sridhar Maharaj to Prabhupada disciples who had read his books through, several times. What is discussed in the graduate seminar is not meant for those in the introductory classes, otherwise it leads to confusion. You have become the classic example. Go back and read Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya Caritamrta and I suggest Jaiva Dharma also. The classes at SCSSeva Asrama do not seem to be helping you for several of the leading speakers tend to discuss topics is a manner which is far over the head of the listeners.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

You write that you are not interested in debate while you are certainly debating. But while debating you generally do not quote or allude to authorities to substantiate your points and you do not even try to make sure that your arguments are logical. Don't counter with Krsna Consciousness is beyond logic and reason because the siddhanta although full of paradoxes is always presented in the most logical manner so that the minds of the aspiring practitioners can at least grasp a semblance of it's reality.

I use logic and reason when they suit me. At no point, I hope, do I mistake logic and reason for truth, though.

 

What is illogical about saying it is not for you or me to judge the acharya?

 

 

But this argument has it's limitations, for instance if the guru says that Krsna is an imaginary figure then he is not guru for he has deviated from sastra and sadhu.

Is not that exactly what Lord Buddha did? Is *He* not guru?

 

 

You are misapplying concepts given by Srila Sridhar Maharaj to Prabhupada disciples who had read his books through, several times. What is discussed in the graduate seminar is not meant for those in the introductory classes, otherwise it leads to confusion. You have become the classic example. Go back and read Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya Caritamrta and I suggest Jaiva Dharma also. The classes at SCSSeva Asrama do not seem to be helping you for several of the leading speakers tend to discuss topics is a manner which is far over the head of the listeners.

*You* say I am misaspplying concepts. On what do you base this assumption, your own limitless realization?

 

Take your own advice.

[Vedesu]

 

To a fool like me, the scriptures are but pieces of paper with confusing words on them.

 

Very nice. And a very nice "out" for avoiding taking responsibility while debating siddhanta.

 

 

Gurudev says to be humble, tolerant, and to give *honor* to others--even those who offend us.

 

Yes, the innocent victim mentality, meanwhile launching offensives right and left at anyone who disagrees with your "logic." What was it someone recently said, "for a thief, everyone else is a thief?"

 

 

If you think I'm interested in debate, then you are sorely mistaken.

 

I was actually being kind. Call it something else if you will: arguing, or heckling. Whatever. Better to have left it as "debating," wouldn't you think?

 

 

Feel free to blow as much hot air as you like in my direction. Perhaps if you let off some steam you'll see things more clearly.

 

As Sriman Puru Prabhu Ji would say: "pot, kettle, black." I've only written one reply to all of your numerous posts in this thread. I'm not "steaming", just trying to shed some perspective on your manner of arguementation. Take it for what it's worth. If it's hot air to you, so be it. I admit I'm full of hot air. But just know that there are folks observing these discussions, some of whom may be watching closely, searching for answers. Are you providing a service to them by behaving in a hostile, irrational manner? It seems anyone who disagrees with you, even while quoting what you've stated (no one is putting words in your mouth) and backing it up with Sastra, gets the 1-800-Dial-an-Insult treatment. And who is the Guru whom you claim not to represent?

 

Like it or not, hopefully you have enough common sense to be aware that you are representing your Srila Gurudeva. If you have any doubts, please ask an older Godbrother or a senior God Uncle. (Sruta Srava, for example, whom I've had the honor of meeting while being a member of the San Jose Temple during the late 1980's.) Show him everything you've written on this thread and ask him his honest opinion. Are you willing to do that, Murali prabhu?

[Beggar]

 

I use logic and reason when they suit me.

When debating any subject, it is incumbent upon you to build your arguments upon logical parts. This cannot be at your whim. Logic will have to be suspended when we approach the mystical paradoxes of acinyta bheda-abheda tattva, but then we should repeat or paraphrase the thoughts of the higher section to explain what may be the unexplainable.

 

Sri Guru and His Grace

Chapt. Eleven (Excerpt)

Srila Sridhar Maharaj

 

 

So not only in the supreme goal of life, but in everything, our knowledge depends on more than one source. We mainly learn from one place, but this is verified and corroborated by many sources; then it comes to be proper knowledge. In the nyaya sastra, the codes of logic, the six processes of acquiring knowledge are mentioned: visaya, the thesis, samgaya, the antithesis, purva-paksa, cross-examination, mimamsa, synthesis, siddhanta, conclusion, and samgatih verification from different sources. After these six stages, something may come in the name of truth in this world. Any knowledge presupposes consultation with different sources, although mainly we can get it from one source. In the beginning we inquire about the truth, not from one, but from many sources. Then we concentrate to inquire from a particular higher source.

 

What is illogical about saying it is not for you or me to judge the acharya?

First, perhaps we should step back. How are you defining the word "acarya" here? For instance in your next statement you use the word guru to describe Lord Buddha, using a rhetorical question.

 

 

Is not that exactly what Lord Buddha did? Is *He* not guru?

Are you using the word acarya interchangeably with the word guru (on this thread)? Now another point is that you have actually switched over to the acarya or guru conception. Look at your post at #31 on this thread,

 

 

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.

 

 

Now there is a sudden switch from pure devotee to acarya on post #35,

 

 

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

Remember the story of Pundarika Vidyanidhi and Gadadhara Pandit as told by Srila Sridhar Maharaj, which actually comes from Caitanya Bhagavat? Pundarika Vidyanidhi eventually became the guru of Gadadhara Pandit. So he went from being a pure devotee whose actions cannot be judged to being a guru whose actions cannot be judged. Srila Sridhar Maharaj as well as Srila Prabhupada sometimes used the terms acarya and guru interchangeably (see the conversation with Jayatirtha Maharaja, March 5, 1982). But at one point (I'm having trouble finding the source) Srila Sridhar Maharaj defined acarya as one who is the head of a Gaudiya institution. In fact in that context he said that such an acarya should not be a grhasta.

*You* say I am misaspplying concepts. On what do you base this assumption, your own limitless realization?

 

I am trying to apply explanations that I have heard from my gurus. One time in the early or mid-eighties, Bhargava Prabhu was taking considerable darshan time asking Srila Sridhar Maharaj questions, and he wanted the answers to help him compose a text to accompany a photography book on the Holy Dhama that he was working on at that time. The questions were so trite and about things that Srila Sridhar Maharaj thought Bhargava should already know the answers. Finally Srila Sridhar Maharaj said with some seeming frustration in his voice (to paraphrase), "I am not a question and answer machine! Has not Swami Maharaj already explained these things? It is a system, if you understand the system, then you can answer all these questions yourself."

This system is laid out in a very logical format in the books of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Acting as siksa guru Srila Sridhar Maharaj gave the next "installment" and with that will help one refine their conception of the system of the Gaudiya Siddhanta or Krsna Conscious philosophy.

This debate has allowed me to refine some of my own concepts. Again I will go back to what I have recently posted,

 

 

Even the Gauranga Nagaris do not think of Mahaprabhu, who is Krsna Himself, as the Enjoyer in his sannyasa lila. They only allow themselves to see Him as the Supreme Enjoyer is his form of Nimai Pandit in Navadvipa. In His sannyasa lila Mahaprabhu did not even want to see the form of a woman.

To think of both Mahaprabhu or Srila Prabhupada in their sannyasa lilas as purusas, enjoyers is an extreme rasabhasa. Your "hypothetical" is not so much an offense to the sraddha or faith of the devotees but more of an offense to their sense of tastefulness. This is the basis of the concept tastelessness. This renders your quote below as mute,

 

 

The Supreme Lord can enjoy with whomever He pleases at whatever moment He chooses.

I have already shown how you hypothetical is distasteful from the viewpoint of rasa. Now I will illustrate how the concept of the Lord's independence can be misapplied from a tattvic viewpoint. What if someone proposed that because the Lord is independent that He could obliterate His own existence. And because He is infinite and His existence takes place in "infinite time" then all possibilities can occur simultaneously and therefore God has killed Himself and is dead? It must be true because He can do whatever He likes. Clearly no theistic system would accept this. Just like when the man told Srila Sridhar Maharaj, "If God is infinite then He cannot be known by finite intelligence." Then Srila Sridhar Maharaj replied, "If the infinite is really infinite then He can make Himself known to the finite". God is infinite, so the theistic argument is that He can make Himself known, not that He has killed Himself!

 

 

Take your own advice.

This seems like you are using a rhetorical question to insert a sacarstic barb into to your post. What else could be the point of doing this? My advice was that you should take the time and energy to be logical and reasonable in your arguments. In the above statement you make no attempt even to explain why you believe that I am not applying logic and reason to my arguments as far as possible. That is why this is obviously an attempt to inject negative emotions into the mix. Why are you not following the advice of your guru and Mahaprabhu Himself to try to be humble, tolerant and offer respects to others? It actually appears to me that you are acting out your own emotional conflicts and that they are bubbling up from you unconscious mind on this forum.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

To think of both Mahaprabhu or Srila Prabhupada in their sannyasa lilas as purusas, enjoyers is an extreme rasabhasa. Your "hypothetical" is not so much an offense to the sraddha or faith of the devotees but more of an offense to their sense of tastefulness. This is the basis of the concept tastelessness.

Once again, you are trying to ascribe thoughts to me which I am not having.

 

I'm saying, when Sri Guru is pleased, the Supreme Lord is pleased. Sri Guru's mood, as always, remains one of unalloyed devotion and service. Sri Guru does not see himself as the enjoyer. Sri Guru sees everything as being for Sri Krishna's enjoyment.

 

The fact that you and I may be envious and incapable of offering to the Lord everything that comes to us doesn't mean that Sri Guru is incapable of doing so.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Are you willing to do that, Murali prabhu?

 

I would feel it to be imprudent to raise the issue with him myself. If he's meant to hear of this and if he's meant to provide correction to me (which I must certainly welcome, should it come), then so be it.

 

Meanwhile, let me thank you for so generously deigning to correct me yourself. I wish I were capable of accepting your generosity.

[Beggar]

Quote 1,

 

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?

Quote 2,

 

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.

 

Quote 3,

 

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

Quote 4,

 

Once again, you are trying to ascribe thoughts to me which I am not having.

I'm saying, when Sri Guru is pleased, the Supreme Lord is pleased. Sri Guru's mood, as always, remains one of unalloyed devotion and service. Sri Guru does not see himself as the enjoyer. Sri Guru sees everything as being for Sri Krishna's enjoyment.

 

First, you continue to interchange the terms, acarya, pure servant, pure (cent-per-cent dedicated) devotee, guru (from the Lord Buddha reference) and now Sri Guru. Although the denotative and connotative meanings overlap at times there are also significant differences. These differences change the meanings of your statements.

In both Quotes 1 and 2 your scenario and explanations are more like the lila of Lord Balarama's Rasa Dance. Srila Sridhar Maharaj has explained that although Lord Balarama is Krsna's first expansion and Visnu tattva, He still has the abhiman or mood of Sri Krsna's servant therefore He danced with the Gopis as a service to His Lord. Lord Balarama may be also described as adi-guru and in his expansion as Nityananda Prabhu, akhanda guru tattva, but He is still Visnu tattva so to ascribe a similar behavior to an acarya, guru or pure devotee is a mistake, a rasabhasa and an aparadha. [Remember although Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is Krsna Himself, he is playing the role of an acarya, therefore sometimes His lila is described as "Acarya Lila"]

 

 

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.33.30

naitat samācarej jātu

manasāpi hy anīśvaraḥ

vinaśyaty ācaran mauḍhyād

yathārudro 'bdhi-jaḿ viṣam

 

One who is not a great controller should never imitate the behavior of ruling personalities, even mentally. If out of foolishness an ordinary person does imitate such behavior, he will simply destroy himself, just as a person who is not Rudra would destroy himself if he tried to drink an ocean of poison.

So clearly Balaramji is a "great controller" and it is a mistake to ascribe the the actions of an isvarah to an acarya or guru.

It would be good for you to take responsibility for your mistake in tattva, your error leading to a distasteful rasabhasa, and your subsequent offense which has been now compounded by your illogical and absurd defenses.