To Sumeet

[shvu]

Hi Sumeet,

 

Some thoughts.

 

Do you realize that you are only allowed to discuss, with the intention of changing the other persons's view, but never yours?

 

As you belong to a System, what you should think and how you should think has already been defined by other people before you. You cannot step out of the boundary that they have set. Which means, even if there is arises a situation to show that some of your beliefs may be wrong, you dare not accept it because that will mean going against your Gurus. Therefore all discussions coming from a person who belongs to a belief system will be one-way. To change the other person's views only.

 

It means that if you ever get any doubts, you can only ask a person who beongs to your system. And you have to accept whatever they tell you, however illogical it may appear to be. You cannot accept a different answer from an outsider. Even if it sounds logical to you, you are not allowed to accept that.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Perhaps you have not had the great fortune of coming in contact with a muktatma guru, and thus you are not able to properly understand the relationship between guru and disciple. It is a very rare occurence for one to find shelter at the lotus feet of such a great soul. Most people struggle to comprehend the textual message of books, but the muktatma has directly perceived the absolute reality and therefore does not need to rely on speculative interpretations of written books. When one has the proper guidance of such a liberated soul there is no question of doubt, for all doubts will be removed by the effulgence of transcendental knowledge. Where there is light there canbe no darkness. Thus the Upanishads advise us to move from darkness to light. That light is the feet of the liberated soul, the sad-guru.

 

 

[shvu]

Hi Jndas,

 

That is exactly what I have written too. The Guru has the final word. What I am saying is when a person belongs to a belief system, he can only follow this rule during discussion,

 

---

Does the argument conform to my beliefs?

 

if Yes,

Ok

 

if not,

then simply ignore.

---

 

Note that the person is not at liberty to doubt anything. That by itself would be a big Aparadha.

 

Howver when a person does not belong to a any set belief,then he has a chance of reviewing his position and always changing it, if he finds it wrong. Which is impossible in the former case.

 

That was the point.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

A sat-guru must be a liberated soul. And thus by definition it is impossible for him to be wrong. If someone mistakes a conditioned soul for a sat-guru, he will certainly be mislead. This is due to his lack of sincerity. The paramatma in the heart arranges for the sincere soul to meet a sat-guru.

 

If the guru is truly liberated (which is actually a redundant statement, for the word guru implies liberated), then it would be foolish for one to reject his instructions in favour of those of one's mind. The idea that one cannot question a guru is a faulty conception, as throughout the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna raises his doubts to the guru and they are cleared by divya-jnanam. But such doubts should be raised humbly and respectfully for the purpose of acquiring knowledge. Foolish challenges would not help one's spiritual advancement at all.

 

The acceptance of a spiritual master is acknowledging that we are in ignorance. One who understands that he doesn't know is fit to receive transcendental knowledge.

 

In summary, if one has the guidance of an omniscient liberated soul, what need is there for text book academic knowledge? One is given the opportunity to acquire vijnana, or realization.

 

Your statement that one is not allowed to reject the guru's statement is kind of silly. For the definition of a true guru includes perfect understanding. I hope no one would reject perfect understanding just for the sake of being free to think under the influence of illusion.

 

Of course, the majority of people do not find the shelter of a sat-guru. They mistake a long beard to be a sign of spiritual advancement, and look for an easy path to God realization that involves little sacrifice. Such people actually do not have a guru, though they may have one by name. It is like calling a piece of stone as gold. No matter how much you call it as gold, factually you do not possess gold.

 

[shvu]

 

---

Your statement that one is not allowed to reject the guru's statement is kind of silly.

---

 

If a person doubts the Guru, is that not considered bad?

 

---

For the definition of a true guru includes perfect understanding.

---

 

So now we have Guru and True Guru. So first of all one has to dfferentiate between the two. And how is one to do that? By testing him out? Is that a permissible thing?

 

btw if Madhvacharya had not rejected his Guru's words; If he had simply choosen to faithfully follow whatever his Guru had told him, accepting it all as true, then there would have been no new System coming up.

 

If a Gurus compulsorily has to be a realized person, then that would mean that all the GV Gurus are realized people, because they claim that their lineage is unbroken. As also the Shankara line and the Madhva line. And I find that hard to believe.

 

The way I see it is, a Guru is one who can teach knowledge to a student. Beyond that a student is on his own.

 

Again, how does one test a realized person to check if he is genuine? If I prick him with a pin, he is likely to get angry and will shout at me. Even if he smiles and says "I am indifferent to such things", is that proof? He may simply be pretending.

 

There is no way of determining if someone is genuine or not. One simply has to go by faith. It is a gamble.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

In my personal opinion, based on whatever I have read, the teaching of the Guru depends on the Spiritual maturity of the Student. The texts indicate that this a gradual process, which means that different people are at different levels. Obviously one teaching will not serve the purpose of all. Which explains people like Ramana, Ramakrishna, and several others as advanced, ripe souls who were liberated without a Guru. They are described as Yoga-brashtas, people who came within inches of liberation in their past life.

 

The majority of the people in the world are not even remotely interested in Spirituality or Liberation and such stuff. I don't see them suddenly getting interested in a formless Brahman and throwing away everything else. The gradual way for them is a personal diety, chanting, mediation and the like. And even for something like this to begin will be a remarkable thing.

 

To get a person interested in Krishna, chanting, etc, I don't think a person has to be liberated. I can talk for hours on Krishna and Brahman. While that does not mean that I am liberated, it may still benefit someone else.

 

Another point is that the Guru does not necessarily have to be a physical person.

 

Cheers

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra]

"What I am saying is when a person belongs to a belief system, he can only follow this rule during discussion"

 

Shvu,

 

I think you are making a fairly weak argument here. Everyone belongs to a "system" even if they claim they belong to no system. An atheist is not by nature a more "open minded" person. He has his beliefs that have been formed but culture, society, fellow atheists etc.... A while back on C-Span (this is a tv channel in the U.S. covering politics) they showed one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It was an election/convention for the Anarchist Party. The Anarchist Party is not part of "THE SYSTEM" and yet they have a head of the party. Its nonsense. You have a system of belief, and I dare say I doubt you are any more open minded than Sumeet.

 

Gauracandra

[shvu]

Hi Gauracandra,

 

First of all, I think none of you even understood what I was trying to convey to Sumeet.Secondly,I never indicated anywhere that I am more open-minded than anyone else. Perhaps you may want to read my postings more carefully before arriving at such conclusions. If I were part of an organised belief, then like you, I would have been very restricted too.

 

But since I am not, I am flexible enough to change my opinions, if something more logical comes up. That doesn't make me better than others in any way. It is simply because I am not bound by any tradition.

 

An example:

 

If Sumeet, even begins to doubt that Vyasa did not write the Bhagavatam, then he is immediately doubting Chaitanya and Madhvacharya. And a person can't be a disciple to a Guru, and doubt the Guru at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

 

A more clearer example.

 

Show me proof that Krishna was a historical character and I will accept it as true. But show you proof that there was no Krishna, ever and you still cannot accept that without breaking away from your tradition and all the the Gurus.

 

Hope you got it now.

 

Cheers

[Gauracandra]

“If I were part of an organised belief, then like you, I would have been very restricted too.”

 

I find it curious that you use the word “organized” belief. I find this curious because all belief has been organized for you. You simply want to pretend that religion is organized belief while everything else is people coming to “their” own conclusions. There was a television series in the 1960s called The Prisoner. It was sort of a spy, science fiction, allegory on society. Really weird and esoteric. The point of the show was that no one is a man unto themselves. The problem I have with what you are saying is that you wish to set yourself above all this. “Yes you are all restricted because you belong to a system of belief. But I don’t belong to a system of belief so I am not restricted.” Or as you stated “…how you should think has already been defined by other people before you.” As though “How YOU think hasn’t been defined by other people before you.” You want to pretend you’re not bounded, that you set your beliefs while others have their beliefs set for them. Nonsense. You’re just as much bounded as everyone else. Don’t fool yourself. I’m reminded of that posting a while back where it was stated “Just remember to think for yourself, just like I taught you.”

 

I’m also reminded of a conversation I had with a co-worker on me being vegetarian. He was shocked. He said “So you think I’m doing something bad” and I said “Yes”, and he said “You think I’m commiting sin by eating meat” and I said “In all honesty Yes”. To which he replied “Well you’re just saying that because you’re vegetarian.” Yeah, I suppose in some sense that’s true. I’m part of “the vegetarian system”. He seemed to imply by this statement that “I’m not restricted in my beliefs. I eat meat and vegetables. As such I can see the meat perspective, and the broccoli perspective.” What he doesn’t realize is that he is part of the “meat and brocolli system of thinking”. This sort of argument is fallacious. It infects our U.S. politics all the time. “Oh I’m pro-choice. If someone wants an abortion, ok, if not don’t have an abortion. You see I’m not restricted by a “one-sided view against abortion”.” Or how about marriage “Hey if a man and woman want to get married, fine. If an man and man want to get married, ok. You see I’m not restricted by a “one-sided view of marriage””. This sort of argument extends all over as though not being “restricted” actually allows you to see both sides of an argument. It doesn’t. Those who stand for nothing like to think themselves wise and “above it all”, unrestricted by society, and considering the issues from “their” own perspective. They have the COURAGE to stand for nothing (beyond the principle of standing for nothing).

 

Gauracandra

 

[janardana prabhu]

"For the definition of a true guru includes perfect understanding"(shvu). It is soo much more than just a definition folks. Its like asking 'can you define Krishna'. all our so called definitions end up defining nothing accept our ignorance. Even if you try to translate 'true Guru' falls short. Srila Prabhupda interupted a question with a simular bent and said that there is no such thing as untrue or bad Guru. Guru is appointed by KRISHNA. A so called bad guru is simply something else but NOT GURU and such unproductive speculations do not help anybody anyway. Does not Sri Krishna say in the Bhagavad Gita that HE IS THE CHEATER OF CHEATERS. I think that if you look for anything other than KRISHNA, you will find it! But I don't recommend it. Why waste time with defining KRISHNA, better to WORSHIP KRISHNA He prefers that anyway!

[shvu]

 

Sorry Gauracandra,

 

You are going off on a tangent.

 

Like I said before, I don't think you even understood my first posting on the thread, let alone the rest. Maybe you just read a couple of lines and assume the rest of it. I don't know.

 

I gather that you believe that I am pretending to be superior. To point out how x and y are different does not mean that I am trying to show that x is superior. But I guess that is the way you view things. In the past when I used the word fan, I was using it as a comfortable term as devotee sounded formal. But you interpreted that as sarcasm. Now I have no idea why you have a way of looking at things in a negative way. Some kind of insecurity or is it that the truth is bitter? Or perhaps you are a virgo.

 

Whatever be the reason, you are welcome.

 

Cheers