Marginal potency of the Lord

[Beggar]

 

...including for ritvik initiations in his Iskcon institution.

 

 

I am convinced that ritvik initiations would have been the best interpretation and the best way to go for the beginning of the post-Prabhupada-manifest period. At least for the first 10 - 30 years; and I don't buy some Ten Thousand Reich. But long time has passed and the cat of GBC gurus got out of the bag a long time ago. What about Tamal Krsna Goswami's disciples? Its like telling a widow with grown children (who also now have children) that, "you were really never married." What's the point of that going on 33 years later? It seems to me that some of Srila Prabhupada's Indian sanyassis were qualified persons, but not all, and that's another story.

[andy108]

The truth can hurt, if a person wishes to continue being cheated, but it must be spoken forthright anyway. Who I speak to is the group of individuals who had the inner mettle to resist the facist interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's institutional orders, and skeptically and patiently gather the facts as to what he really ordered, and why.

 

They, as a group, have the potential to get together and "do it right the first time." Create the prototype according to the instructions, and then offer it as shelter to all comers.

 

Worrying about what this hypothetica mataji's feelings about her sham marriage, or that bhakta's feelings avout loss of his karmi job is a sentimental but counterproductive exercise. They made their choices. Is doing nothing going to even have the potential to offer these victims better direction in the future?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

In Gaudiya Vaisnavism the words of the acaryas or saints is considered as good as Puranic sastra itself. Consequently unlike other traditions, especially in the West, there is no real distinction between the scripture itself and the commentaries of the saintly acaryas. Sometimes these acaryas have different opinion on a specific subject. Sometimes they are giving a different angle of vision. And sometimes they are taking the liberty of using the same terminology in different ways. Thus some acaryas say that the word 'jiva' refers to conditioned souls only and some say that it refers to the soul in the liberated state also. Some commentators say that the jiva is tatastha only in the conditioned state and some say that they are tatastha in also the liberated state. Sometimes Srila Prabhupada uses the apparently contradictory thoughts of these commentators as if he is simply presenting them without giving an opinion. Sometimes the saintly commentators even use different defintions for the same words, like 'tatastha' and 'jiva'. Sometimes the same commentator uses different definitions in separate parts of their own work or even give concepts that contradict what they themselves have already given. This seems so obvious. Yet still especially on this forum and on these related topics, most posters act as if this never happens and that there is only one opinion and one definition that is correct. When I bring this up the waring parties call me a "fence sitter". This kind of thinking ultimately culminates in GBC proclamations on the Truth and such things as Rtvik ideas of a 'final order'. The modern mentality seems to desire to take Gaudiya Vaisnavism into the same realms as the Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages. It makes one think that such institutions and institutional thinking is draging us into a new 'dark age'.

 

Honestly, I read the books quite a bit and one thing I seem to find in the books of Srila Prabhupada is consistent contradiction.

 

Like, in places he says they never went to the moon and in other places he admits that they did.

 

In some places he says that no one fall from the spiritual world and in other places he says all the fallen souls come from Vaikuntha.

 

In some places he says all his disciples must become gurus, then in other places he says they are not qualified.

 

So, Prabhupada is a complex combination of contradictions.

 

So, what I have chosen to do is accept the side of the contradictory issue that makes the most sense to me and I go with that.

 

Otherwise, for anyone who reads the books of Srila Prabhupada very closely they will find many contractions on all sorts of topics and issues.

 

All you can do is accept the part that makes the most sense to you and just overlook the contradiction.

 

Many devotees find these many contradictions of Srila Prabhupada to just be more than they can handle and so they go on to another guru.

 

I don't see myself doing that.

I think there is a purpose for the contradictions, though they do make problems for a lot of devotees.

[primate]

 

... I think there is a purpose for the contradictions, though they do make problems for a lot of devotees.

The 'meaning' of these contradictions might be that Absolute Knowledge is extremely difficult to communicate (if at all) through the relatively simple medium of sequential natural language..

[andy108]

 

Honestly, I read the books quite a bit and one thing I seem to find in the books of Srila Prabhupada is consistent contradiction.

 

Like, in places he says they never went to the moon and in other places he admits that they did.

 

In some places he says that no one fall from the spiritual world and in other places he says all the fallen souls come from Vaikuntha.

 

In some places he says all his disciples must become gurus, then in other places he says they are not qualified.

The problem really comes from reading his books somewhat piecemeal and helter-skelter, while simultaneously randomly sampling somewhat more confidential utterances meant for more advanced disciples such as room conversations and morning walks, before a solid basic foundational conception has been put into place.

 

For, Srila Prabhupada's actual advice was to start with Bhagavad Gita. Read that til it is comprehended in its entirety, and then one may then graduate to the lotus feet of Lord Krsna, the Srimad Bhagavatam Chapters 1 and 2. Which Srila Prabhupada claims summarize in detail the entire Gaudiya Vaisnava Philosophy.

 

Concomittant with this reading, one is free to read Krishna Book, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Nectar of Instruction, and Sri Isopanishad as supplements at any time. Also, and adding the hearing of public lectures should be suitable.

 

Once such a foundation is built, (BG and SB 1&2), the rest of the Bhagavatam may be discovered, IN ORDER.

 

Sometimes adding reading room conversations/morning walks could be confusing unless one was weaned off the Pablum properly, since they often tended to be intimate and specific to those present.

 

The CC comes last.

 

As for how to weave in Nectar of Devotion gets weaved in, I have not heard properly on the matter to comment.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

The problem really comes from reading his books somewhat piecemeal and helter-skelter, while simultaneously randomly sampling somewhat more confidential utterances meant for more advanced disciples such as room conversations and morning walks, before a solid basic foundational conception has been put into place.

 

 

 

I think the proposal that room conversations and morning walks are more advanced than the books it just not the case.

 

In fact I would say just the opposite.

 

Your theory is based on the assumption that the so-called disciples were very advanced and getting some higher instruction.

 

I could not disagree more.

 

In fact that idea is the same premise that Gauragopal the Dreamervadi operates on.

 

As well, your assumption that I just jump around the books helter-skelter is another bad assumption.

 

I study the books systematically.

 

Sometimes in doing research I will tap the Vedabase for keywords.

 

But, the references you see me posting here are most often coming from notes I take as I do a systematic study of the books.

 

When I study the books I keep notes of things that I want available for future reference.

 

Most of my quotes come from notes and not from Vedabase or Google searches.

 

I have hundreds of references saved as Vedabase bookmarks and I can just go back and find a reference in a few seconds.

[Kyros]

People see contradictions because they have poor fund of knowledge.

 

Say for instance someone said that shooting a gun is good, and then later on the same person said shooting a gun is bad.

 

Both are apparent contradictions, but in order to explain them you need to add more detail.

 

Shooting a gun to save your life is good, but shooting a gun to unnecessarily kill someone is bad.

 

There are no contradictions in Prabhupada's books.

 

It's also hard to take someone serious when they use childish labels like "dreamervadi" and "fallvadi."

[andy108]

 

I think the proposal that room conversations and morning walks are more advanced than the books it just not the case.

 

In fact I would say just the opposite.

 

Your theory is based on the assumption that the so-called disciples were very advanced and getting some higher instruction.

 

The disciples being instructed may have been those who under SP's watchful eye had been proceeding through their lessons systematically under his care, and maybe not. Your point is taken on that issue.

 

The real point is that he sometimes divulged information and made points based on scripture that would seem to contradict the information a person who was only on chapter 3 of BG.

 

My prescription is for people starting NOW. Reading conversations could definitely be confusing until a foundation is reached. Even lectures for that matter, unless the subject matter the lecture was based on was current reading material.

 

Do you mean to tell me that from when you were a beginner Bhakta you did not skip around and were perfectly systematic?

 

Did you read the BG As it is, and SB 1-10 in order?

 

Did you do this before reading the works of Gaudiya Math devotees that SP warned in general not even to hear from?

 

I didn't.

 

But by Srila Prabhupada's mercy, I saw the error of my ways, and began doing what you say you are doing now. And after reading BG twice and then the 1st 2 cantos of SB, I had a memory purification and was set straight. Then went on from there.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

People see contradictions because they have poor fund of knowledge.

"

 

That could only be spoken by someone who doesn't read the books.

 

I have been reading these books for 34 year and anyone that tries to tell me there are no contradictions in there is just telling me they really haven't studied the books beyond a casual approach.

 

The contradictions are part of the philosophy.

Its all a part of the fact that you cannot figure out Krishna or the spiritual master.

As soon you think you have it all figured out you miss the whole concept of an inconceivable reality.

 

I guess some people have Prabhupada and Krishna in their fist.

 

I have never been able to do that.

They both seem to manage to escape the mental prison I try to put them in.

[Kyros]

Prabhu, what I said was exactly what Prabhupada wrote in one of his books.

 

I'm sorry but not everybody needs to spend decades to understand the books. Not everybody is like you.

 

Some people are taking up Krishna consciousness for the first time in millions of lifetimes; some are halfway through the process; and some are nearing the end.

 

I'm nowhere near the end, but I'm nowhere near the beginning.

 

Truth can have no contradictions.

 

1 + 1 = 2 is truth, but so is 1 + 1 = 1.

 

Contradictory, but add some more information, and it goes away.

 

Say you have a drop of water, that is one, and add another drop of water, it is now two, but it still is one.

 

Hence, 1 + 1 = 1 is also true.

[Beggar]

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

 

escape the mental prison

escape the mental prison

[andy108]

 

People see contradictions because they have poor fund of knowledge.

There are no contradictions in Prabhupada's books.

Contradictory, but add some more information, and it goes away.

 

 

All true, simultaneously. A contradiction? Yes and No.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Prabhu, what I said was exactly what Prabhupada wrote in one of his books.

 

Funny.

I am not seeing references from the books in you posts.

 

See, I read the books.

have been since 1975.

 

Anyone that says there are no contradictions in the books clearly have not studied the books.

 

See, I don't just read the books.

I study them, contemplate them, meditate on them and bow to them.

 

Anyone that says there are no contradictions in the books has never STUDIED the books.

 

Krishna is full of contradictions.

 

That is why he is inconceivable to the mundane mind.

[kaisersose]

 

See, I read the books.

have been since 1975.

 

Anyone that says there are no contradictions in the books has never STUDIED the books.

 

Krishna is full of contradictions.

 

That is why he is inconceivable to the mundane mind.

 

Then why read the books since 1975? They cannot possibly contain anything useful as Krishna is inconceivable and everything in the book is conceivable?

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Then why read the books? They cannot possibly contain anything useful as Krishna is inconceivable and everything in the book is conceivable?

 

Cheers

 

But, Guru and Krishna give you a lot of mercy just for trying.

 

You can't put Guru and Krishna in a bottle and think you have it all figured out.

Anyone that thinks otherwise clearly has no conception of the unlimited potencies of the Supreme Godhead Krishna.

 

You can't figure out Krishna.

Even trying to only betrays one as a fool.

[kaisersose]

 

But, Guru and Krishna give you a lot of mercy just for trying.

 

 

You can't figure out Krishna.

Even trying to only betrays one as a fool.

 

I agree with both points.

 

Cheers

[primate]

Apparently Prabhupada 'figured out' more about the absolute truth than most (if not all) of his followers. Did he compile that knowledge from scripture, or from spiritual experience? Why did he make the effort to explain it, if he felt that absolute truth can’t be explained logically?

[andy108]

He mercifully met people where they were at.

 

If one is a logician, and approaches all things via fact, logic, and reason, why cannot the Origin of fact, logic, and reason come up with a program where some things can be known about Him in that way, to give a fallen soul a taste, and then imbue his Acarya with superior intelligence to guide the logician to apparent contradictions that force him to intuitional development, and then beyond to direct perception via the dictation of Supersoul who is in his heart?

 

He can and does.

 

The knowledge is in the scriptures in form of true theory, but it is only practically realized slowly in conjunction with purifying life experiences.

[primate]

 

... The knowledge is in the scriptures in form of true theory, but it is only practically realized slowly in conjunction with purifying life experiences.

Does this imply that true theory in the scriptures may not be absolutely true?

[Kyros]

 

I am not seeing references from the books in you posts.

 

Science of Self-Realization: Choosing a Spiritual Master--What Is a Guru?

 

“The genuine guru has only one opinion, and that is the opinion expressed by Krishna, Vyasadeva, Narada, Arjuna, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and the Gosvamis.”

Lecture: What is a Guru? London, August 22, 1973

 

 

 

“Real guru will not talk differently. Some guru says that, "In my opinion, you should like this." And some guru will say, "In my opinion, you'll do this." They are not guru; they are all rascals. Guru has no "own" opinion. Guru has got only one opinion, the same opinion which was expressed by Krishna, Vyasadeva, or Narada, or Arjuna, or Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, or the Gosvamis. You'll find the same thing.”

Cc. Adi, 12.8 verse; 12.9 purport

 

 

 

“But later they followed two different opinions, as ordained by Providence. . . . Any opinion different from the opinion of the spiritual master is useless. One cannot infiltrate materially concocted ideas into spiritual advancement. That is deviation.”

(As you can see by the above statements, spiritual masters only have one opinion. Having two opinions on the same subject means one is right, and the other is wrong. Right and wrong is a contradiction.)

 

See, I read the books.

have been since 1975.

Anyone that says there are no contradictions in the books clearly have not studied the books.

See, I don't just read the books.

I study them, contemplate them, meditate on them and bow to them.

Anyone that says there are no contradictions in the books has never STUDIED the books.

Krishna is full of contradictions.

That is why he is inconceivable to the mundane mind.

The keyword there is mundane mind. We are suppose to see through the eyes of the scriptures.

Prabhupada said that too.

 

[Beggar]

Srila Rupa Goswami only focuses on Vrndavana, and does not admit that Krsna leaves Vrndavana for He is there is the tears of the Vrajavasis. Srila Sanatana Goswami traces Krsna lila from Vrndavana to Mathura to Dvaraka.

Which one is right?

Ome commentor says that Ramananda Raya is Visakha and Swarupa Damodara is Lalita, another says that Ramananda Raya is Lalita and Swarupa Damodara is Lalita.

Which one is right?

[Beggar]

Srila Narayana Maharaja:

 

Some say that Baladeva Prabhu and Krsna took birth in Mathura, but this understanding belongs to ordinary persons, not rasika and tattva-jna bhaktas. They have a different opinion. In Srimad Bhagavatam and Hari-vamsa it is stated that Devaki is another name for Yasoda. This is written in so many Puranas, and especially in Hari- vamsa.

There was no birth in Mathura. Krsna appeared there as Visnu, as Parambrahma, as a youth of sixteen years. In Mathura He appeared in the form of Vasudeva. He was four-handed and was holding His sanka, gada, cakra, and padma. He had long, wavy hair. He wore sarana makuta, a golden crown, and He was adorned with golden ornaments. Bhagavan never takes birth. But Krsna is not only Bhagavan; He is Svayam Bhagavan. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has written a sloka that reveals the opinion of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu: "Aradhyo bhagavan vrajesa-tanayas tad-dhama vrndavana." First of all, Krsna is Vrajendra-nandana, the son of Nanda Maharaja, and He is aradhya, the supreme worshipable Deity. Tad-dhama vrndavanam. His abode, Vrndavana, is equally worshipable. Lord Sri Krsna and His abode, Vrndavana, are equally worshipable.

This is the idea of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Krsna is not the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. He is only the son of Yasoda and Nanda Baba. Vrajesa-tanayas means Nanda Baba. Our aradhyadeva is Krsna, and He took birth in Gokula.