Hare Christians?

[theist]

 

Madhudviṣa: “The ten offenses to avoid while chanting the mahā- mantra. Number one: Blaspheming the Lord’s devotee.”

 

Prabhupāda: Now just try to understand. Any devotee of Lord should not be blasphemed. It doesn’t matter in any country. Just like Lord Jesus Christ, he is a great devotee. And even Muhammad, he’s also a devotee. It is not that because we are devotee and they are not devotee. Don’t think like that. Anyone who is preaching the glories of God, he is a devotee. He should not be blasphemed. You should be careful. Then?

 

Thanks suchandra for this wonderful quote.

[theist]

 

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

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

Looks like you were in the wrong place Babhru? Sorry you had such a negative experience.

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

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

I was exactly where I needed to be. I had a need to understand God that could be filled only by Srimad-Bhagavatam, nothing less. And when I found it I was ready.

 

OK, it is just semantics isn't it. You came to realize you were in the wrong place but apparently that experience helped you appreciate SB when exposed to it. You made the best of a bad bargain.

[suchandra]

All this "gee" doesnt help you this time, you're caught!

 

 

I've never said anywhere that Jesus is not a bona fide representative of God.

This is of course not with all your heart but rather halfheartedly.

 

And when applied on Prabhupada immediately rejected - Lord Jesus can guide you from within and absorb your sins but Prabhupada cannot.

 

In other words, your so called Jesus glorification says, if we preach that Lord Jesus can give spiritual diksha we have no explanation whatsoever why Prabhupada cannot give diksha.

 

Therefore we just say, "Jesus loves you", but understand secretly that Jesus is fantasy, illusion, hallucination.

 

Quite a sure procedure how to blaspheme a "great devotee of the Lord who preaches the glories of the Lord".

 

Luckily people don't fall for this kind of ambivalence anymore and avoid such kind of "spiritual enlightenment" altogether.

[stonehearted]

 

And when applied on Prabhupada immediately rejected - Lord Jesus can guide you from within and absorb your sins but Prabhupada cannot.

 

In other words, your so called Jesus glorification says, if we preach that Lord Jesus can give spiritual diksha we have no explanation whatsoever why Prabhupada cannot give diksha.

I was tempted to post a "Yep, you've outed me," but I have to say I fail to see how anything in this post has anything to do with anything I've posted.

 

 

Therefore we just say, "Jesus loves you", but understand secretly that Jesus is fantasy, illusion, hallucination.

Who says? And what? Maybe theist can explain all this to me.

[theist]

 

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> I see in Prabhupada's teaching a very broadminded understanding of spiritual life as well as an honest appreciation for even the slightest move towards God from any soul regardless of religious affiliation as shown in the quote below. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Yes, honest appreciation for any move toward God in order to show us what real movement toward the Godhead is. The first thing I learned from him is that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The second is that anything less than pure devotion to Krishna has no real use.

 

To this I strongly disagree. There are 4 kinds of people that approach the Lord. Motivated by less then pure devotion sure but not useless. Why? because they are consciously reaching out for a personal connection with the Supreme person. That reaching out is never useless.

 

A good example is found in the story of Gajendra. Here are two verses from Gajendra to Vishnu.

 

 

SB 8.3.18-19 My Lord, those who are completely freed from material contamination always meditate upon You within the cores of their hearts. You are extremely difficult to attain for those like me who are too attached to mental concoction, home, relatives, friends, money, servants and assistants. You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, uncontaminated by the modes of nature. You are the reservoir of all enlightenment, the supreme controller. I therefore offer my respectful obeisances unto You.

 

 

After worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, those who are interested in the four principles of religion, economic development, sense gratification and liberation obtain from Him what they desire. What then is to be said of other benedictions? Indeed, sometimes the Lord gives a spiritual body to such ambitious worshipers. May that Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is unlimitedly merciful, bestow upon me the benediction of liberation from this present danger and from the materialistic way of life.

 

We know Gajendras prayers, even though mixed with distress over his immediate situation and his desire for mukti, were not useless.

[suchandra]

 

I was tempted to post a "Yep, you've outed me," but I have to say I fail to see how anything in this post has anything to do with anything I've posted.

 

 

Who says? And what? Maybe theist can explain all this to me.

When it comes to Prabhupada giving diksha you say, Prabhupada is dead and gone. When it comes to Lord Jesus you say, yes, Jesus Christ is so powerful, he can give spiritual diksha?

 

"...Can explain all this to me", not sure if you're actually willing to understand all this.

Rather a question of being disposed.

[theist]

 

Who says? And what? Maybe theist can explain all this to me.

 

Suchandra may have you mixed in with all the Christ haters that find there way onto this board and the confused iskconites who are trying to follow their concocted idea of parampara.

 

I have known you longer and know you are more of a free thinker and not a Christ hater by any means.

 

His points are correct though IMO. Especially on our need to separate Christ from present day Christianity like we sometimes need to separate Prabhupada's teaching from those that claim to represent him.

[stonehearted]

 

When it comes to Prabhupada giving diksha you say, Prabhupada is dead and gone. When it comes to Lord Jesus you say, yes, Jesus Christ is so powerful, he can give spiritual diksha?

Well, now I can see you're confused. Somehow you've mixed some sort of ritvik thing in here, but I don't see where it comes from. I've never said Jesus can give diksa. I have acknowledged on many occasions, and quite happily, that he was a powerful spiritual teacher. I accepted him in my heart when I was 10. And I've never said Srila Prabhupada is dead and gone. He's very present in my life, and in ways I'd sure never share with you.

 

You seem not to have any idea who I am. I sure have no idea of who you are.

[stonehearted]

 

Suchandra may have you mixed in with all the Christ haters that find there way onto this board and the confused iskconites who are trying to follow their concocted idea of parampara.

Well, as you know, I often have less patience than would be ideal for folks with some sentimental ideas of who Jesus was (or is), but I have very little for those who come off as "Christ haters."

 

And I'm not much of an ISKCONite, either, I suppose. At least I have little faith in their understanding of guru-tattva, and less in their system of making sannyasis and gurus. But I do accept the principle of guru-parampara taught by Srila Prabhupada and all of our acharyas. You and I have misunderstood each other on that issue, too, so we probably understand each other better than many others do.

 

 

I have known you longer and know you are more of a free thinker and not a Christ hater by any means.

Thanks.

 

 

His points are correct though IMO. Especially on our need to separate Christ from present day Christianity like we sometimes need to separate Prabhupada's teaching from those that claim to represent him.

I think I've acknowledged this point. I could try to be more explicit, if anyone thinks they need it. But they may just be deliberately misreading what I've written here.

[stonehearted]

When it comes to Prabhupada giving diksha you say, Prabhupada is dead and gone. When it comes to Lord Jesus you say, yes, Jesus Christ is so powerful, he can give spiritual diksha?

Just to be clear, if this is a question (and it's written as a question), the answer is no. Can you show me anywhere I have said this--where I've said either of these?

[suchandra]

 

Well, now I can see you're confused. Somehow you've mixed some sort of ritvik thing in here, but I don't see where it comes from. I've never said Jesus can give diksa. I have acknowledged on many occasions, and quite happily, that he was a powerful spiritual teacher. I accepted him in my heart when I was 10. And I've never said Srila Prabhupada is dead and gone. He's very present in my life, and in ways I'd sure never share with you.

 

You seem not to have any idea who I am. I sure have no idea of who you are.

Ritvik, meanwhile a four-letter word. No, I talk of real knowledge - no I'm not confused but you're are either acting the fool or afflicted with blocked intelligence.

 

If you say you believe in Jesus as great devotee of the Lord and say, no, Jesus cannot guide you from within (di) and absorb your sinful reactions (ksha) and thus giving diksha, you better join the camp of Jesus aparadhis.

 

Not join, you were actually always right there. Acceptance of Lord Jesus Christ implies the understanding that it is only Lord Jesus who gives diksha and nobody else. Not the pope and not the priests. They are all ritiviks, officiating priests. In fact if anyone in the church claims of being on the level of Lord Jesus and sitting on Lord Jesus' vyasasana he is immediately excommunicated.

 

And you know it! So, you say, you believe that Lord Jesus is the son of God but you say he cannot give diksha?

 

This is direct violation of the teachings of all the Vaishnava acaryas of our sampradaya, and thus to be rejected. Anyone who teaches Lord Jesus cannot give diksha speaks against the teachings of Vaishnava acaryas and has to be rejected.

 

These are rather gross misconceptions (apasiddhanta) regarding the validity of our parampara.

[theist]

Babhru,

 

I would like to explore thise quote of yours from above. I may not understand how you meant it. I see two ways it might mean. One is that it is just useless to pray unless we pray wihout motivation which is how I originally took it. But now I think you may be meaning from looking down from the eternal plane such motivated prayers may be useless because they are not purely meant for krisna's satisfaction.

 

Similar to

the wrong church idea from above. It only became "the wrong place" once you had found something better. I see a similarity in motivated prayer. Once liberated from material conception Gajendra would have also seen it useless to pray for the crocidile to let go of his elephant bodies leg.

 

Self-motivated prayer is present in everyone, including SP disciples.

[stonehearted]

 

Ritvik, meanwhile a four-letter word. No, I talk of real knowledge - no I'm not confused but you're are either acting the fool or afflicted with blocked intelligence.

Well, the foolishness is no act.

 

 

If you say you believe in Jesus as great devotee of the Lord and say, no, Jesus cannot guide you from within (di) and absorb your sinful reactions (ksha) and thus giving diksha, you better join the camp of Jesus aparadhis.

But I've asked you to show me where I said that. In fact, I think I asserted just the opposite. In fact, my heart opening to the devotees back in 1969 seemed to me to be a direct response to my calling to God to help me understand what He is like and what my life should be about.

 

 

Not join, you were actually always right there. Acceptance of Lord Jesus Christ implies the understanding that it is only Lord Jesus who gives diksha and nobody else. Not the pope and not the priests. They are all ritiviks, officiating priests. In fact if anyone in the church claims of being on the level of Lord Jesus and sitting on Lord Jesus' vyasasana he is immediately excommunicated.

And I've already said I agree with that.

 

 

And you know it! So, you say, you believe that Lord Jesus is the son of God but you say he cannot give diksha?

Whatever you want to call it, I've never said that. And you apparently cannot show me where I have. You're arguing with a ghost, my friend. Have fun. I was going to issue a certificate of defeat, but I changed my mind. There is in fact no argument I can see here except with a figment of your imagination. Do with that whatever you like, and have fun.

[suchandra]

 

Babhru,

 

I would like to explore thise quote of yours from above. I may not understand how you meant it. I see two ways it might mean. One is that it is just useless to pray unless we pray wihout motivation which is how I originally took it. But now I think you may be meaning from looking down from the eternal plane such motivated prayers may be useless because they are not purely meant for krisna's satisfaction.

 

Similar to

the wrong church idea from above. It only became "the wrong place" once you had found something better. I see a similarity in motivated prayer. Once liberated from material conception Gajendra would have also seen it useless to pray for the crocidile to let go of his elephant bodies leg.

 

Self-motivated prayer is present in everyone, including SP disciples.

It is rather impossible that Babhru doesn't know exactly what he's doing.

 

He says, yes, Prabhupada is right, Jesus is a great devotee of the Lord who does nothing but to glorify the Lord.

 

But then he says, no, Lord Jesus cannot give diksha.

 

Did any great acarya of our sampradaya ever say this?

 

Worship of Jesus is humbug since the succession is cut off?

 

No great acarya of the Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya sampradaya ever offended and attacked the giving of diksha directly through Lord Jesus so badly as presented herewith by Babhru.

 

Babhru thus represents the inner conflict and ambivalence of present Vaishnava institutions who concocted the idea that only physically present gurus can bestow diksha.

[stonehearted]

theist, I didn't say motivated prayer has no use at all. I said anything less than pure devotion has no real use. By that I meant ultimate or essential use. Of course, prayer motivated by selfish desire is better than none at all. (I think I already said that, too.) But it doesn't have anything to do with the soul's real relationship with God as servant. We begin or end many prayers with "namah," which means, according to Padma Purana, "not me."

 

One of my favorite perspectives on prayer comes from a Christian, or at least a play about a Christian, C. S. Lewis. In Shadowlands, after his wife's bone cancer goes into remission, one of Lewis' friends comments that God has answered his prayers. Lewis replies, "That's not why I pray, Harry. I pray because I can't help myself. I pray because I'm helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time, waking and sleeping. It doesn't change God, it changes me."

Another of my favorite perspectives is from Bhaktivinoda Thakura's introduction to his Saranagati. He says there the Nanda's darling son hears the prayers of those who are engaged in the six-fold process of saranagati.That's what I'm talking about.

[stonehearted]

One more time: Where have I ever said that worship of Jesus is humbug. I've said that humbug "worship" of Jesus is humbug. But whatever you keep repeating I've said is not something I have ever said, here or elsewhere, and your repeating it doesn't make it so.

[bija]

 

no teacher is pure unless that teacher knows life (bliss) an loves enough to share without the need of things, power or to lead.........

 

so test your guru.......... ask them for life! by bishadi

This ( the writing below) is what I have found through association with someone more realized in life than me. Infact Bishadi the guru serves the heart of the disciple, the bliss potency - service to Srimate Radharani. The higher principle, not the mayic field. That is one sign of true. As you say Bishadi, all those other things are illusion.

 

Chapter One Message of Godhead by Srila Prabhupada

Transcendental Knowledge

We offer our most sincere and humble obeisances to our spiritual master, who is all merciful and the savior of the fallen. He dissipates the darkness of nescience by opening our eyes with the probe of knowledge transcendental. He reveals this transcendental knowledge for the benefit of all people.

 

thoughts by bija: The sincere disciple feels deep gratitude toward his spiritual master. The spiritual master is considered the external guru, the super-soul being the internal guru. The disciples inner self realization is such a beautiful encounter, intimacy with God, that his/her heart overflows with gratitude. Both guru's accepted as one manifestation of mercy, beauty, and charm.

 

We are very proud of our two small eyes, and puffed up with vanity, we are always enthusiastic to see everything with our own eyes. But we do not know that whatever we are seeing at the present moment is covered with the darkness of nescience, and, as such, whatever we are seeing is either misperceived or only partially perceived. It is not a fact that we can see everything as it is simply by applying our ocular power to it.

 

thoughts by bija: Humility is the pre-requisite for receiving higher knowledge. Transcendental subject is the deepest aspect of human experience. As long as we are attached to the imperfect sense faculty and pride, the higher platform will not reveal itself. As soon as one realises smallness and humility, the door way to transcendental reality begins to open. Why is that? Constitutionally the jiva soul is a minute spark of the complete whole. Once that constitutional position is accepted by the minute soul, real harmony begins to awaken. If the minute soul maintains the misconception of being the Lord of all it surveys, then the door

to transcendental realization remains locked.

 

Every morning when the sun rises, we see this vast mass of matter as if it were just a small disc. Of course, the sun is much larger than the earth on which we live, and thus every morning of every day

our self-reliant ocular vanity is put to the test and reduced to absurdity. Our eyes can gather knowledge only under certain favorable conditions. We cannot see things that are too far away from us; we cannot penetrate the darkness, nor can we see things that are very close to the eye, such as our own eyelids. Thus we

can be proud of our eyes only under certain favorable conditions created by an external agency, namely the material nature. Otherwise, even though we have our wonderful eyes, we cannot see things in their true perspective. What is true for the eyes is also true for the other senses we use for gathering knowledge. Under these circumstances, whatever we are experiencing at the present moment

is totally conditional and is therefore subject to mistakes and incompleteness. These mistaken impressions can never be rectified by the "mistaker" himself or by another, similar person apt to commit similar mistakes.

 

thoughts by bija: Here Srila Prabhupada gives a simple example of how to attain humility. This example is practical for every living entity conditioned by material nature. The material energies purpose is to cover the spiritual intelligence of rebellious souls – souls who wish to be lords of all they survey.

 

In the darkness, if we want to perceive a certain object, we cannot use just our eyes; we have to rely on some other means to aid our perception. So, in the darkness, the object cannot be known to us in its entirety. In such a situation, even if we get some knowledge by touch or otherwise, it is all either mistaken or incomplete. It is just like the group of blind men who had encountered an elephant and tried to describe the strange new creature to one another. One man

felt the trunk and said, "This is a huge snake." Another man felt a leg and said, "No, this is a great pillar." And so forth. There is but one way to perceive things in the depth of darkness. Only if somebody brings a light into the darkness is it truly possible to see things as

they are. Similarly, the light of knowledge is kindled by our receptors, and we can see things as they are only by our preceptors' mercy. From our very birth we have become accustomed to gathering knowledge by the mercy of our preceptors, whether father, mother, or teacher. We can march along the path of progressive knowledge only by the help of such preceptors, from whom we gather experience by submissive hearing.

 

thoughts by bija: Here we can very clearly see our dependance. As babies we are dependant upon a carer for milk and nurture. As children we are dependant on a teacher to learn fundamentals of mathematics. The question may then be asked by the thoughtful person; who are we dependant upon for our very existence?

 

We go forward on the path of knowledge by the mercy of our preceptors--from learning the alphabet up to completing our university career. And if we want to go still further and acquire knowledge transcendental, we must first of all seek qualified transcendental preceptors who can lead us on the path. The knowledge that we gather by our education in the schools and colleges may help us temporarily in the study of some particular subject in the present span of life, but this acquisition of knowledge cannot satisfy our eternal need for which we hanker life after life, day after day, hour after hour. To achieve success in any subject, it is necessary to establish a relationship with a master of that subject and to work favorably in that particular line.

 

thoughts by bija: What are the credentials of a transcendental preceptor? What qualification is evident?

 

To acquire a degree at an academic university, we first have to

establish a relationship with that institution. We have to abide by the

direction of our instructors there and work favorably according to their direction. This is essential in order to achieve the ultimate desired success. In the same manner, if we are really anxious to know the principles of eternal life or life after death, and if we really want to see things in their true perspective, it is necessary for us to establish a relationship with a preceptor who can really open our eyes and lift us from the clutches of nescience.

 

thoughts by bija: Here Srila Prabhupada has given one evidence of the qualification. That evidence is; spiritual realization imparted by the preceptor, will be confirmed within the heart of the student in due course. Another evidence that comes to mind is humility. The bonafide spiritual preceptor, will have realized his/her constitutional nature – smallness, service mood, and humility. And will teach the student the same.

 

This process of approaching the spiritual master is an eternal verity. No one can do without abiding by this eternal rule.

 

thoughts by bija: We are infact fully dependant upon the higher principle. We actually find real happiness in serving the higher principle, rather than being lords of a lower field. Being lords of a lower field brings frustration. Our true constitution is servant of the higher plane. The highest plane being the Complete Absolute Truth Personality of Godhead.

[bija]

 

The first thing I learned from him is that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The second is that anything less than pure devotion to Krishna has no real use. stonehearted

 

...I didn't say motivated prayer has no use at all. I said anything less than pure devotion has no real use. By that I meant ultimate or essential use. Of course, prayer motivated by selfish desire is better than none at all. (I think I already said that, too.) But it doesn't have anything to do with the soul's real relationship with God as servant. We begin or end many prayers with "namah," which means, according to Padma Purana, "not me." by stonehearted

This is evident in Srila Prabhupada's teachings and in the message of Srimad Bhagavatam as presented by him.

 

This suddha-bhakti is the main theme of Gaudiya Vaisnavism isnt it. Free of religiosity, economic development, sense gratification, and liberation. In other words love of Godhead free of the modes of material nature. Ofcourse many practicioners may not be at that elevated stage of consciousness, so utilization comes into play. But at least we know the goal, when utilizing our present situation. That is the wonderful thing about this spirituality which is not about negation.

 

Therefore we can be grateful for the progressive walk, where we have been, where we are, and where we are going.

 

 

from message of Godhead by Srila Prabhupada

Almost all the leaders of the people have popularized various modes of

religiosity that have to do only with the material body and mind.

 

thoughts by bija: Therefore it should be understood that pure devotional service is the function of the soul.

 

But very few of them know that the body and mind are nothing but the outward coat and shirt

of the soul proper. Simply by taking care of the outward coat and shirt, one

cannot do any good for the real self, the soul proper. Since factually the soul

is the chief interest, the real self, no sane man can look after the interest of

the outward paraphernalia while overlooking the chief interest, his very self;

the interest of the subordinates, the material bodies, is looked after

automatically. But no one can serve the chief simply by serving the

subordinates. In other words, it is not possible to satisfy one's inner hunger

simply by soaping the outer clothing.

 

thoughts by bija: The spirit soul is the finest of the finest. If operating from the finest principle all outward manifestation will be automatically taken care of by the Lord's grace. Devotional service is not idle or static, the soul function is dynamic spiritual activity.

And personally, deep gratitude for the faithful walk of the servant, Lord Jesus Christ.

[theist]

 

theist, I didn't say motivated prayer has no use at all. I said anything less than pure devotion has no real use. By that I meant ultimate or essential use. Of course, prayer motivated by selfish desire is better than none at all. (I think I already said that, too.) But it doesn't have anything to do with the soul's real relationship with God as servant. We begin or end many prayers with "namah," which means, according to Padma Purana, "not me."

 

One of my favorite perspectives on prayer comes from a Christian, or at least a play about a Christian, C. S. Lewis. In Shadowlands, after his wife's bone cancer goes into remission, one of Lewis' friends comments that God has answered his prayers. Lewis replies, "That's not why I pray, Harry. I pray because I can't help myself. I pray because I'm helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time, waking and sleeping. It doesn't change God, it changes me."

Another of my favorite perspectives is from Bhaktivinoda Thakura's introduction to his Saranagati. He says there the Nanda's darling son hears the prayers of those who are engaged in the six-fold process of saranagati.That's what I'm talking about.

 

Ok I thought that might be what you really meant, but only on second reading.

 

All of vaidhi bhakti is really practiced under self motivation most notably the desire for mukti or salvation,for until we are free from the modes of nature how could we possible offer anything to the Lord withoutsome material taint.

 

There is a tendancy to think others are offering motivate service but GV are not because the conception of pure unmotivated service is so prominently seen as the goal. No other group of spiritualist that I have encountered have such a clear understanding including the Christians. Their stated goal is 99% of the time salvation irregardless of the fact that Christ Himself exhibited pure bhakti, "Not my will but Thy will be done".

 

And on His teaching people to prayer, "give us this day our daily bread ", that is so misrepresented by devotees. He is not teaching those people to beg for bread from God but rather to acknowledge their dependence on God. Even elevated devotees feel dependent on the Lord.

 

There is that prayer that Lord Caintya used to sing, ".......Rama Raghava raksa mam...."

If I remember right it is a call for the Lord to protect and maintain Him.

 

My main point is devotees should feel some joy on hearing that someone, anyone, is acknowledging God in these dark days.

 

I remember when I was in elementary school that before the whole school was allowed to take a bite of their lunch we would all recite this prayer in unison, "God is great, God is good, let us thank Him for our food. Amen"

 

A couple hundred children reciting that in unison is a beautiful thing. Better even then group of bhaktas chanting "sariwa? avidya jal...." in a languqge few understand and thereore thoughtlessly, before they get down to the real business.

 

It is sad you know, that most of us memorize the philosophy of Krishna consciousness but never get around to developing the humility enough to be true devotees. And yes I am a classic example.

Maybe a place to start is appreciating the efforts of others to find God even if they have a different style or at a stage lower then where we think we are.

 

These last paragaphs Babhru are not pointed at you. I'm just rambling on a bit.

[theist]

 

This suddha-bhakti is the main theme of Gaudiya Vaisnavism isnt it. Free of religiosity, economic development, sense gratification, and liberation. In other words love of Godhead free of the modes of material nature. Ofcourse many practicioners may not be at that elevated stage of consciousness, so utilization comes into play. But at least we know the goal, when utilizing our present situation. That is the wonderful thing about this spirituality which is not about negation.

 

I agree Bija, the problem I want to stress is that we too often mistake the philosophical understand of the goal with actually being situated on that platform.

 

This is a very dangerous trick that maya plays on our minds.

[bija]

 

I agree Bija, the problem I want to stress is that we too often mistake the philosophical understand of the goal with actually being situated on that platform. by theist

Thank you Theist. We do work from where we are at, even mixed bhakti, dont we, or wherever we are. If we realize where we are at, then we know what needs to be done to reach the goal. Thank you for sharing your insight.

 

It seems when people criticize us as Hare Christians, they either dont understand this point. Or, they do but simply wish to criticize. The essential point is that we are all on the path. Lord Jesus Christ is reported as saying in the gospels, that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. I dont know whether that is true or not, but I do know that criticizing super-souls sanction in the heart of another being, is direct criticism of the working and grace of God, who wishes to bring all his children home. To be honest mate, I really need to work on that everyday, my mind is full of offence.

 

And another important point, we do not know the depth of devotion in others hearts. They may be so loved by Krsna for their service. Truth is hidden in strange places often. We will never know the other fully if we do not search out our own. This is the mystery of the two and in a way such is found in Sri Gauranga in a very elevated pure sense of rasa!

 

Now to another matter of the heart area:

 

Considering this thread ended up on the subject of Ritvik, who am I to say what is right or wrong in the heart of another devotee. Devotion is the thing that needs to be the centre piece in my small opinion. Ever-well wisher is a good motto directed toward those seeking Krsna. The is the safe way, for me at least.

[suchandra]

 

One more time: Where have I ever said that worship of Jesus is humbug. I've said that humbug "worship" of Jesus is humbug. But whatever you keep repeating I've said is not something I have ever said, here or elsewhere, and your repeating it doesn't make it so.

It is very difficult to counter a double mill and to get out of a tight spot, now you have chosen to become an advocate of ritvikism, although I remember that you clearly rejected ritvikism. Ritvikism means by officiating priests not by successors it is how Lord Jesus is being worshiped and his mission continued since 2000 years.

[stonehearted]

You've missed again. It's the "ritvik"-ey churches I've rejected, not Jesus. I thought I'd made that clear. I embraced his teachings to the point that I spent much of my childhood and youth contemplating the ministry as a livelihood. The more clearly I saw the churches' failings (and, as I've mentioned before, I examined several), the more my interest in such a life waned.

 

BTW, I don't care for the terms "ritvik" or "ritvikism" as they're commonly used in and around ISKCON. They're imprecise and used as a sort of ad hominem to dismiss whatever may be said by someone with whom interlocutors disagree. I used the term in that posting only loosely, and not without apprehension. Neither do I care to argue the ideas that are grouped under those terms with their advocates because such arguments inevitably degenerate into tar babies.

 

And I aplologize to all if my earlier comments have created a digression from the thread's original intention. Perhaps some found it entertaining . . .

[bija]

No worries...the thread digressed of its own accord. Here is something I was reading tonight and it reminded me to utilize my past experiences in search for truth, in an intelligent way. Thought of us all when I was reading it. In regards to our diverse backgrounds etc and shared goal:

 

 

Notes On The Bhagavata : full e-book click here

By Bhaktivinoda Thakura

PART I - Introducing The Subject:

The Fruitless Reader & The Shallow Critic

1. We love to read a book which we never read before. We are anxious to gather whatever information is contained in it and with such acquirement our curiosity stops. This mode of study prevails amongst a great number of readers, who are great men in their own estimation as well as in the estimation of those who are of their own stamp. In fact, most readers are mere repositories of facts and statements made by other people. But this is not study. The student is to read the facts with a view to create, and not with the object of fruitless retention.

2. Students like satellites should reflect whatever light they they receive from authors and not imprison the facts and thoughts.... Thought is progressive. The author's thought must have progress in the reader in the shape of correction or development. He is the best critic who can show the further development of an old thought; but a mere denouncer is the enemy of progress and consequently of Nature.

3. "Begin anew," says the critic, because the old masonry does not answer at present. Let the old author be buried because his time is gone. These are shallow expressions. Progress is certainly the law of nature and there must be corrections and developments with the progress of time. But progress means going further or rising higher.

4. Now, if we are to follow our foolish critic, we are to go back to our former terminus and make a new race, and when we have run half the race, another critic of his stamp will cry out: "Begin anew because the wrong road has been taken. In this way our stupid critics will never allow us to go over the whole road and see what is in the other terminus. Thus the shallow critic and the fruitless reader are the two great enemies of progress. We must shun them.

The True Critic & The Useful Reader

1. The true critic, on the other hand, advises us to preserve what we have already obtained, and to adjust our race from that point where we have arrived in the heat of our progress. He will never advise us to go back to the point whence we started as he fully knows that in that case there will be a fruitless loss of our valuable time and labor. He will direct the adjustment of the angle of the race at the point where we are.

2. This is also the characteristic of the useful student. He will read an old author and will find out his exact position in the progress of thought. He will never propose to burn the book on the ground that it contains thoughts which are useless. No thought is useless. Thoughts are means by which we attain our objects. The reader who denounces a bad thought does not know that a bad road is even capable of improvement and conversion into a good one.

3. Thoughts will necessarily continue to be an endless series of means and objects in the progress of humanity. The great reformers will always assert that they have come out not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it. Valmiki, Vyasa, Plato, Jesus, Mohamed, Confucius and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu assert the fact either expressly or by their conduct....

[Bishadi]

 

The higher principle, not the mayic field. That is one sign of true. As you say Bishadi, all those other things are illusion.

and what succintly is the principle? What single item of choice does each have at every moment?

 

 

. The bonafide spiritual preceptor, will have realized his/her constitutional nature – smallness, service mood, and humility. And will teach the student the same.

Perhaps the 'humility of not knowing'.... that is what all the real guru's taught.... that none know the absolute!

 

 

thoughts by bija: We are infact fully dependant upon the higher principle.

 

and that principle is honesty!

 

That is the choice each can make and that is the highest of all 'principles'. Be true!

 

so for a guru to suggest you 'need them' is foolish as the true guru, simply shares to be 'absolute of honesty' (follow the core principle) even if it means growing beyond them (see thakura and srila for an example)

 

because any real teacher knows the next generation must progress beyond them or they failed to teacher the truth.