Is Mukti A Myth?

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by kaisersose

If Shankara changed his mind about Advaita on his deathbed, then why do we still have Advaita 1300 years later? Why is it that only Hare Krishnas know about this change of heart and not Advaitins or anyone else?

 

 

.............................................................................

Shankara was avatar --therefore he was on a mission. Learn it. Do not contradict him.

Shankara set the standard --especially at the time of death. Learn it. Do not contradict him. Become a proper student.

 

 

Advaita is known perfectly by Iskcon people and thus they understand Shankara and what Shankara's philosophy is.

 

All estudious Iskcon people know "Advaita philosophy" --which Iskcon people do you know that do not know their Advaita?

 

Shankara gives praise to. . . Oh now that confuses the topic [why does RamanaDasi speak out both sides of her mouth?]

 

Suchandra is your Vaishnav Guru --good enough for you all --learn something for once.

 

If you all want to state your opinion, for God's sake feel free to do so --but please don't be so silly as to pass it off as Authentic-Bonefide-Authoritative Opinions as recorded in the recognized scholastic history book Texts.

 

Real Scholars provide a list of references lest they be considered bloviators.

 

Your welcomed,

Bhaktajan

[RamanaDasi]

 

Advaita is known perfectly by Iskcon people and thus they understand Shankara and what Shankara's philosophy is.

 

All estudious Iskcon people know "Advaita philosophy" --which Iskcon people do you know that do not know their Advaita?

 

 

Sri Krishna teaches Advaita philosophy in Srimad Bhavavat 11.28.19

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Krishna

Gold remains gold both before and after ornaments are made of it. It only gets different names such as ring or necklace. Similarly, the Reality, the Cause of creation, is the same both before and after worldly objects receive their various names and forms.

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

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

there is also this

 

 

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Ito nrsimhah parato nrsimho

Yato yato yami tato nrsimho

Bahir nrsimho hrdaye nrsimho

Nrsimham adim saranam prapadye

 

Wherever I go Nrsimha is there. He is in the heart and is outside as well. I surrender to Lord Nrsimha, the origin of all things and the supreme refuge.

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

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

This type of view of God is called Advaita.

[jeffster]

Please let me clarify the meaning of my post # 363. It was not that Sri Adi Sankara had regretted anything in his life and then turned to Govinda on his deathbed as some kind of change of heart. in fact, I believe that he factually knew that the Krishna conception was the most complete conception of divinity. But he could not preach that to his disciples because they could not or would not accept it. Preaching must be according to time, place, circumstance and the mentality of those being preached to. It was this charade that he tired of, that he couldn't preach all that he was capable of teaching, the full measure of theism, so he finally told his disciples that they were fools and rascals and should simply "Bhaja Govindam."

 

Srikanth, the fact that Sankaracharya composed the poem "Bhaja Govindam" upon meeting the grammaratician (grammarian ?) is proof of the depth of his realization.

 

Kaiserose, unfortunately I have misplaced the book; as I have already mentioned, it is NOT a Vaishnava publication, including Iskcon. Actually I believe that it is the poem "Bhaja Govindam," but I will attempt to find it to confirm.

 

And in your post # 365, Srikanth, you state that if we repeatedly chant bhajans, "the tendency of the mind to enjoy will not grow more and more. In fact it becomes less and less." Actually, when chanting bhajans or in kirtan we can, and often do, go on for hours without wearying of it. The kirtan or bhajan IS the meditation. No difference between God and His Holy Names. It becomes a form of divine communion. This would not be possible if these Names were mundane. We would tire of the sound and become bored and quit.

 

Pranams,

jeffster/AMdas

[srikanthdk71]

 

Shankara was avatar --therefore he was on a mission. Learn it. Do not contradict him.

Shankara set the standard --especially at the time of death. Learn it. Do not contradict him. Become a proper student.

 

Please give one reference to your statement 'Shankara at the time of death' without refering the Iskcon books.

 

 

Advaita is known perfectly by Iskcon people and thus they understand Shankara and what Shankara's philosophy is.

 

All estudious Iskcon people know "Advaita philosophy" --which Iskcon people do you know that do not know their Advaita?

 

First and foremost was SP who knew nothing about Advaita and termed it as Mayavaada and Advaitins with the R factor. What about others?

 

 

why does RamanaDasi speak out both sides of her mouth?

 

Suchandra is your Vaishnav Guru --good enough for you all --learn something for once.

 

Are you a Iskcon Jehadi. Is this the language you speak for your brothers and sisters? People like you should be either given immediate help or thrown out of this forum.

 

 

If you all want to state your opinion, for God's sake feel free to do so

The above statement of yours is not an opinion. It is personal attack.

 

 

--but please don't be so silly as to pass it off as Authentic-Bonefide-Authoritative Opinions as recorded in the recognized scholastic history book Texts.

Real Scholars provide a list of references lest they be considered bloviators.

Your welcomed,

Bhaktajan

Dear Bhaktjan, HATE BREEDS HATE. Why dont you understand this?

[Ravindran Kesavan]

One is not sure whether Sankara wrote all those that are attributed to him. Sankara is even supposed to have written a work on very sensual love called Amarusadaka. The story behind this goes like this. When he defeated Mandanamisra by debate in philosophy, mandanamisra's wife came to resque her husband by cornering Sankara with questions relarted to intimate love life. Obviously sankara could not answer them being a celebate monk. He asked for time and went to Kashmir, entered , by prakaya pravasa siddhi in to a dead king Amaru's body, engaged in the sex life with the king's multitude of young wifes and composed the love poetey called amarusadaka, came back and answered all the questions of mandanamisra's wife, there by won the seet of jnana peeda.

 

It is highly doubtful that a saint like sankara has anything to do with such a notoriously sexual work like amarusadaka ( I have a copy. It is explicitly sexual and sensual)

 

Another work arrtibuted to sankara is Soundarya Lahari. There is a story attached with that too. Sankara went to Kailasa to visit Siva. When Lord Siva saw a mortal approaching the Kailasa shrine, He instructed his attendent Dravida Kasibu, to wipe away the songs of the goddess that is written on the wall of the temple, as that was not suitable for the mortal to learn them . But while Dravida Kasibu was engaged in wiping the song Sankara was quick enough to learn almost half of it and commited them to memory. Then he composed the rest himself to complete the work.

 

Though this work is attributed to Sankara there is evidence that the said work is in existence and available in certain tantric tradition much before Sankara.

 

Around great personality there are stories and myths and false attributions of works of all sorts. This kind of attribution is very common those days. There are many other examples of fictitious and false attribution like this on many other great personalities too like Agastia, Truvalluvar (A reputed tamil poet) which could be easily proved as fictitious . There is in any case controversy as to Sankara's auther ship of Soundarya Lakhari, and Amarusadaka, and most other religious work that he is supposed to have written. The only uncontroversial thing about Sankara is his work on advida. There is a strong oppinion amoung scholars that he did not write anything else in his entire life time.

 

Ravindran

[srikanthdk71]

 

Please let me clarify the meaning of my post # 363. It was not that Sri Adi Sankara had regretted anything in his life and then turned to Govinda on his deathbed as some kind of change of heart. in fact, I believe that he factually knew that the Krishna conception was the most complete conception of divinity.

 

Whatever you think, is right for you.

 

 

But he could not preach that to his disciples because they could not or would not accept it. Preaching must be according to time, place, circumstance and the mentality of those being preached to. It was this charade that he tired of, that he couldn't preach all that he was capable of teaching, the full measure of theism, so he finally told his disciples that they were fools and rascals and should simply "Bhaja Govindam."

 

Oh yeah, nice student to a great guru.

 

 

Srikanth, the fact that Sankaracharya composed the poem "Bhaja Govindam" upon meeting the grammaratician (grammarian ?) is proof of the depth of his realization.

 

Whatever you think is right for you.

 

 

And in your post # 365, Srikanth, you state that if we repeatedly chant bhajans, "the tendency of the mind to enjoy will not grow more and more. In fact it becomes less and less." Actually, when chanting bhajans or in kirtan we can, and often do, go on for hours without wearying of it. The kirtan or bhajan IS the meditation. No difference between God and His Holy Names. It becomes a form of divine communion. This would not be possible if these Names were mundane. We would tire of the sound and become bored and quit.

Pranams,

jeffster/AMdas

 

Read again. Again I repeat,

 

1. Take a favorite bhajan of your choice.

2. Sing the same bhajan for just 10 times. Your enjoyment the 10th time with not be the same of the 1st time. Why? If it were God, then why do you get lesser enjoyment the 10th time and not multiplied by 10.

 

Try Meditation. It is practical experience. The more you are into it. The more you gain. Try. No harm. Only gain. But if you are adament to cling to your Bhajans, All the best.

[Amlesh]

 

 

1. Take a favorite bhajan of your choice.

2. Sing the same bhajan for just 10 times. Your enjoyment the 10th time with not be the same of the 1st time. Why? If it were God, then why do you get lesser enjoyment the 10th time and not multiplied by 10.

 

Try Meditation. It is practical experience. The more you are into it. The more you gain. Try. No harm. Only gain. But if you are adament to cling to your Bhajans, All the best.

 

Singing Bhajan is not a mechanic process, such that I'll tag a counter to it.

It is more a loving process with no rules.

 

The Alvars, Bhakta Narsingh Mehta, Mother Mira, Madhava, Ramanuja, Vedanta Deshikar, BhaktiVinoda Thakur, Tulsidasa and so many other great saints came here and wrote so many songs; maybe they knew our problems; but I suppose it was there own love that were penned down.

 

Even if I say for once after singing 10 times, I'm fed up; the Sweet Lord is Here to cater for more songs.

 

Now: our motive to sing, that is Ram Naam is to one day get Ram Kaaj.

What is the purpose for your meditation?

 

PS: Don't worry we are not idle; we are still thinking good and doing good.

But to act according to HIS plans is another thing and another charm.

The most beautiful and most exciting.

 

But to be his instrument; that is a different story.

[Justin]

 

Sri Krishna teaches Advaita philosophy in Srimad Bhavavat 11.28.19.

Who was God teaching Advaita to? Just want to know who listened or received it, thats all.

[Justin]

 

Read again. Again I repeat,

 

1. Take a favorite bhajan of your choice.

Bhaja Govindam and mahishasura mardhini

 

 

2. Sing the same bhajan for just 10 times. Your enjoyment the 10th time with not be the same of the 1st time. Why? If it were God, then why do you get lesser enjoyment the 10th time and not multiplied by 10.

Amazing! You might have got this sixth sense because of your meditation!

[jeffster]

O.K. then, chant a variety of bhajans. "Variety is the spice of life."

jeffster/AMdas

[RamanaDasi]

 

Who was God teaching Advaita to? Just want to know who listened or received it, thats all.

 

Uddhava

[bhaktajan]

 

Please give one reference to your statement 'Shankara at the time of death' without refering the Iskcon books.

[i suppose that you MEANT where is the "Bhaja-Govinda" --but Krishna says not to disturb your mind.

Where is Sripad Shankaracarya's famous moment of death recorded--you mean after all the postings under this Topic, you don't have his biography at your finger tips;

and so, you ask me to do further work. Haven't I accused you of throwing mud without stating proof of yourown scholarship?]

 

First and foremost was SP who knew nothing about Advaita and termed it as Mayavaada and Advaitins with the R factor. What about others?

 

[Look at what I plagerized:

"Sri Krishna teaches Advaita philosophy in Srimad Bhavavatam 11.28.19"]

 

Are you a Iskcon Jehadi.

Is this the language you speak for your brothers and sisters?

People like you should be either given immediate help or thrown out of this forum.

[be a Man!]

 

The above statement of yours is not an opinion. It is personal attack.

[Ma Sucah! I'll shave your head--and I'll leave a nice sikha.]

 

Dear Bhaktjan, HATE BREEDS HATE. Why dont you understand this?

["Transference" --I did not post any thing til long after you layed out your previously unwritten ground rules.]

 

[srikanthdk71]

 

Amazing! You might have got this sixth sense because of your meditation!

 

Thats the reason I told that 'If you are adament on staying with the bhajan culture believing that there is nothing above it, its your choice'. So be it. And moreover no sixth sense is needed for common sense. That was a simple, general analysis.

[srikanthdk71]

 

O.K. then, chant a variety of bhajans. "Variety is the spice of life."jeffster/AMdas

 

Cheers mate. There you are.

[srikanthdk71]

 

[i suppose that you MEANT where is the "Bhaja-Govinda" --but Krishna says not to disturb your mind.

Where is Sripad Shankaracarya's famous moment of death recorded--you mean after all the postings under this Topic, you don't have his biography at your finger tips; and so, you ask me to do further work. Haven't I accused you of throwing mud without stating proof of yourown scholarship?]

 

[Look at what I plagerized:

"Sri Krishna teaches Advaita philosophy in Srimad Bhavavatam 11.28.19"]

 

[be a Man!]

 

[Ma Sucah! I'll shave your head--and I'll leave a nice sikha.]

 

 

Hmm.. first of all where were you when the debate of Bhaja Govindam started? You just come in the middle, meddle and watch the fun. And dear, everyone in this forum knows who enjoys bad language and have a heart full of hatred.

 

Learn to love. Only then you will be a man and have the manhood to overcome such language and not with mere strength of bad language. Ramanadasi, DW, Bija, Amlesh, Justin, Jeffster....how many of the staunch Vaishnavas? Did they ever use such words like you have done against Ramanadasi? Why dont you learn from your brothers atleast a little.I repeat, dont ever use foul language with your sisters.. never.

 

Shave my head? Have you tried it on yourself? I have lived like that for almost 8 years now. If you are so willing to be my barber, you are welcome.

 

Unfortunately so, I have to address you in personal here dear Bhaktjan. I apologize to the others for diviating from the flavor of the thread.

[Justin]

 

Who was God teaching Advaita to? Just want to know who listened or received it, thats all.

 

Uddhava

 

 

Ok, let me explain for those who did not understand my original question. So in this scenario, there was the Lord Sri Krishna and then there was Uddhava who he was teaching to. This doesn't sound right for non-dualism. 'Teaching' consists of a 'Teacher' and the 'taught'. If Sri Krishna is God and nothing else exists other than Him, who was he teaching to? to a person? or to Himself?

[RamanaDasi]

 

 

Ok, let me explain for those who did not understand my original question. So in this scenario, there was the Lord Sri Krishna and then there was Uddhava who he was teaching to. This doesn't sound right for non-dualism. 'Teaching' consists of a 'Teacher' and the 'taught'. If Sri Krishna is God and nothing else exists other than Him, who was he teaching to? to a person? or to Himself?

 

Sri Krishna teaches Advaita philosophy to Uddhava in Srimad Bhagavat 11.28.19

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Krishna

Gold remains gold both before and after ornaments are made of it. It only gets different names such as ring or necklace. Similarly, the Reality, the Cause of creation, is the same both before and after worldly objects receive their various names and forms.

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

 

Krishna says that though we perceive differences in nature, in reality we are only giving names and we are only perciving imaginary differences. In reality, THE PERMANENT TRUTH IS BEYOND OUR MIND AND IT IS JUST THE MIND THAT IS DIFFERENCE-PERCEIVING.

 

This is not my opinion. This is the teaching of Krishna to Uddhava.

 

Everyone and everything is part of Sriman Narayana. This is the teaching of Vaishnava Acaryas such as Sri Ramanuja, and Sri Sridhar Swami who Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said gave the proper commentary to Vedanta. The name Vishnu means all-pervading. He is all in all . As this verse says:

 

 

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Ito nrsimhah parato nrsimho

Yato yato yami tato nrsimho

Bahir nrsimho hrdaye nrsimho

Nrsimham adim saranam prapadye

 

Wherever I go Nrsimha is there. He is in the heart and is outside as well. I surrender to Lord Nrsimha, the origin of all things and the supreme refuge.

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

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

This type of view of God is called Advaita. Vasistha-Advaita, Suddha-Advaita.

 

Sanatkumara said to king Prithu

 

 

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0">I take refuge in that everlasting Reality which is always free and unpolluted, beyond the mire of material qualities. The perception of a snake in a flower garland is only perception of an apparent fact and not a real fact, a perception that vanishes when the correct understanding of the garland arises. Similarly the perception of worldly objects, which is but an empirical perception, ceases as soon as the correct knowledge of the Absolute dawns on us.

 

Bhagavatam 4.22.38

 

(translation by Dr K Bharadvajan, of Ramanuja sampraday) </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

 

 

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0">Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.5.5

 

 

ghaṭe bhinne ghaṭākāśa

ākāśaḥ syād yathā purā

evaḿ dehe mṛte jīvo

brahma sampadyate punaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

ghaṭe — a pot; bhinne — when it is broken; ghāṭa-ākāśaḥ — the sky within the pot; ākāśaḥ — sky; syāt — remains; yathā — as; purā — previously; evam — similarly; dehe — the body; mṛte — when it is given up, in the liberated condition; jīvaḥ — the individual soul; brahma — his spiritual status; sampadyate — attains; punaḥ — once again.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

When a pot is broken, the portion of sky within the pot remains as the element sky, just as before. In the same way, when the gross and subtle bodies die, the living entity within resumes his spiritual identity.

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

Alternatively:

In the same way, when the gross and subtle bodies die, the living entity within is Brahman, as always.

 

 

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by srikanthdk71,

 

Did they ever use such words like you (Bhaktajan) have done against Ramanadasi?

 

Why dont you (Bhaktajan) learn from brothers atleast a little. I repeat, dont ever use foul language with your sisters.. never.

 

....................................................................................

My name is bhaktajan an I approve this message.

 

PS: I don't know what it refers to. But I Approve!

[new---new]

Samkhya Karika

tSmaÚvXyte naip muCyte naip s<srit kiñt!,

s<srit vXyte muCyte c nanaïya àk«it>.62.

tasmännavadhyate näpi mucyate näpi saàsarati kaçvit|

saàsarati vadhyate mucyate ca nänäçrayä prakåtiù||62||

Verily not any soul is bound, nor is released, nor migrates; but nature alone, in relation to various beings, is bound, is released, and migrates.

i understand the above verse .... those who can understand this verse will understand what mukti is and wht maya is ,what is temperory and what is permanent ....only tthing they wont understand is the concept of 'time' which i dont fully understand yet

 

I wont explain the above verse as i dont want any controversey or arguments over which path is right and which is wrong etc ....

 

those who cant understand should simply continue taking the name of god ... understanding is not a prequisite for faith....but faith is a prerequisite for mukti (if it exists).

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Sri Krishna teaches Advaita philosophy to Uddhava in Srimad Bhagavat 11.28.19

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

What did

 

1) God

 

teach

 

2) Uddhava, a person,

 

about non-dualism?

[jeffster]

Prabhupad's translation of Bhagavatam 4:22:38 is a little different:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as one with the cause and effect within this body, but one who has transcended the illusory energy by deliberate consideration, which clears the misconception of a snake for a rope, can understand that the Paramatma is eternally transcendental to the material creation and situated in pure internal energy. Thus the Lord is transcendental to all material contamination. Unto Him only must one surrender."

jeffster/AMdas

[srikanthdk71]

To the people who came in late, I just couldnt resist to enliven this thread for it has too good things that one can think of. The posts of Dark Warrior, Bija, Ravindran, Radhikakulakarni, Bart Happel, Ramanadasi, Kaisersose (Shvu)...etc are mindboggling. Moreover, you will be surprised to know the amount of interest the threaders took to visit this thread for its content.

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey says:

Sorry, I cannot understand the discussion fully as the terminology used in the posts is in Sansikrit or Hindi and I don’t know these languages. I would request the opener of the discussion/thread at least, to kindly translate the terms for me so that I could also comprehend the discussion and benefi from it.

As of now, please don’t mind, as I understand from Christ/Krishna Second Coming 1835-1908, Yes; the present understanding of the Hindus is incorrect and impossible. Mukti to humans under the present Hindu cocepts; one just cannot attain it naturally, rationally and ogically. GodAllahParmesherYHWH does not confirm it by His word of Revelation from His mouth; neither in the text for a claim, nor for the reason given by Him. Human wise men; I respect them all, but they cannot match the Wisdom of the ONE-Creator of Heavens and Earth; neither have they claimed it, in my opinion.

I am convinced by Christ/Krishna Second Coming 1835-1908 in this connection; but others are free to convince me otherwise, if they could surpass him.

Christ/Krishna Second Coming 1835-1908 says:

But if particles and souls are not related to God as His creation, there will be no justification for such a relationship either.

There is no doubt that for such 'independent' souls, the existence of Parmeshwar is of no use, nor will they have anything to lose by His non-existence. In this situation, salvation—which the Arya Samaj refer to as mukti—becomes impossible to attain, for it wholly depends upon the personal love for God which He has created in the very nature of the souls.

If souls have not been created by Parmeshwar, how can they love Him by their very nature? And Parmeshwar could not have placed His love in their nature afterwards, because natural love is something that has to be eternally inherent in them and not something that was created later on. This is what God refers to in the Holy Quran when He says: i.e., I asked the souls, "Am I not your Creator?" And the souls replied, "Yes, indeed."(Quran: Al- A‘RAF, 7:17) The meaning of this verse is that the soul contains in its very nature the testimony that God is its Creator.

The soul, being God’s creation, loves Him naturally and instinctively.

Fountain of Christianity http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Fountain-of-Christianity-20080505MN.pdf

 

Thanks

[srikanthdk71]

Dear Paarsurrey, infact Mukti means Salvation. Not to be born again. The debate was, is it possible. Is the theory correct? If yes, why, if not why? To my knowledge in this thread, i have use the most common laymans language in all my postings except where I had to reply to any other posters opinion. Similary, there are many posts by Ravindran Kesavan, Bart Happel, Radhika Kulkarni where you do not need any pre-requisits to understand salvation. It can be discussed more scientifically also where many of us have tried to do keeping in mind that we dont belong to the past anymore.

[bija]

This idea of salvation seems to be well built into abrahamic faiths. Is the abrahamic concept of salvation necessary for all? I think not.

 

Maybe Srikanth, the vedic concept of mukti, and the abrahamic concept of salvation, have some key fundamental differences.

 

I am not qualified or studied enough to go into specifics about fundmamental differences. But one can see that processes do vary, by observing the practicioners of the various faiths. And the natures they have developed. And their behaviours, word usage, practices etc.

 

Some on this forum like to class people like myself as, Hare Christians. So in this regard I just mentioned, they may well be right! If one is self-honest, that he is not yet on the transcendental platform, such may be the case, and criticism accepted. Such a devotees faith may be influenced by the modes of material nature. As long as one is aware of that, his progress is sure (for he has acknowledged a higher principle than his current nature and station). If he is not aware, or denies it due to pride, then his religion may be nothing but a dividing point. And as history has proven, sometimes even quite dangerous.

 

Those who are critical (of neophytes) and their current station, may need to see that each living being is on the progressive path, one way or another. And that such a development is sanctioned by the grace of God.

 

There is a Bhagavad Gita verse in this regard:

 

 

Chapter 17 verse 3

sattvanarupa sarvasya

sraddha bhavati bharata

sraddha-mayo yam puruso

yo yac-chraddhah sa eva sah

 

O son of Bharata, according to one's existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired.

So really, unless one gets to the transcendental position, his faith may be still influenced by the material modes (of goodness, passion, and or ignorance) depending.