once saved, always saved?

[leyh]

Dear Shvu:

I think that maybe the spirit of true bhakti can be illustrated with the following analogy. A very rich man has a daughter. The daughter sincerely loves her father not because of his wealth, but because out of genuine affection. The father on the other hand, also loves his daughter very much and continually showers gifts on her as a sign of his love. Thus, these gifts are a result of the reciprocation of the father¡¦s love for his daughter, but the loving relationship between father and daughter goes beyond the giving of mere presents. The daughter, in the spirit of true love, does not love her father¡¦s presents, but she loves him for the person he is.

 

So similarly, the gift of Liberation is the natural result of devotion. But devotion goes beyond the bestowing (from God) and the attainment (by the devote) of liberation. The loving relationship between God and devotee is based on the Lord¡¦s causeless mercy and also inestimable subtlety. It should not be compared to a business transaction, where one practices bhakthi with the aim of attaining some benefit from God. The pure devotee of God does not desire even liberation. This is confirmed by the Srimad Bhagavatam:

 

A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation --- salokya, sarsti, samipya, sarupya, or ekatva --- even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.29.13)

 

(Note: Salokya-mukthi means the mode of liberation where one lives on the same planet as God. Sarsti-mukthi is the mode of liberation where one has the opulence of God. Samipya-mukthi is the mode of liberation where one always remains with God as one of his associates.Sarupya-mukthi is the mode of liberation where one attains the same bodily features of God and ekatvam-mukthi is the mode of liberation where one becomes one with God.)

 

You write: ¡§This was 500 years back. Since then are you aware of him having been born again and again? Surely such births would have been noticed, for his devotional fervor would have been more intense than before. And if he was not born again, his prayer did not work. If it did not work for such a great devotee, how do you expect such prayers to work for common people?" Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Siksastaka was an illustration of the true spirit of bhakthi.Maybe Chaitanya Mahaprabhu composed the Siksastaka to show devotees how pure bhakthi does not have to include any thought for liberation. Just like the "Lord's Prayer", which is attributed to Jesus is also an example of how prayer should be delivered.Actually,if you're wondering why the prayer(specifically Text 4) did not "work" for such a great devotee like Chaitanya Mahaprabhu,it must be said that bhakthi is like the loving exchange between two lovers. The man, in the spirit of selflessness, does not want any benefit from his lover. For example, he does not expect her to give him anything for his birthday. ¡§I do not want any presents from you. I just want the pleasure of your company.¡¨ But his lover on the other hand, insists on giving him a birthday present as an expression of her love for him. ¡§I want to buy you a gift to make you happy on your birthday.¡¨ This is the tug-of-war that can be found in loving exchanges between two lovers. Similarly, the devotee does not crave for liberation from God, and only desires that God is happy. But God also wants to bestow liberation on the devotee because God does not want the devotee to suffer in the material world.As Srila Prabhupada writes in the Science of Self Realization: "A pure devotee does not even desire to go to the supreme abode of Krsna. Of course, he goes, but he has no desire. He simply wants to engage himself fully in Krsna's service." (The Highest Love)Such is the sublime position of bhakti yoga.

 

So when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says:¡¨ I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service birth after birth." I don't think that He was expressing his sentiment that he simply did not desire anything from Krishna. not even liberation and this sentiment is a part pf the tug-of-war of love between God and devotee. So actually, the important point is not that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu¡¦s prayer was not answered. The important point is that it reflects to us the intensity of a pure devotee.

 

You write that: ¡§Similarly the follower of Chaitanya engages in Bhakti for one of the following reasons, 1. Because Chaitanya taught so. 2. It gives him a kick to engage in Bhakti. So the follower of Chaitanya is being selfish too, and is also proved by the following,¡¨ It seems to me that this is a rather cynical (and some might even say offensive) way of presenting the relationship of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his followers. Love of God is dormant within all spirit souls and out of his mercy, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu generously aroused it in the souls of many people that he had encountered. When the devotee engages in Bhakti, it is not because it gives him/her a kick. The devotee is only manifesting what lies dormant in him/her. The propensity for love of God has been aroused by a Vaishnava. The disciple¡¦s gratitude towards the Vaishnava is expressed in a song by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura entitled Ohe! Vaisnava Thakura: ¡§Krishna is yours. You¡¦re able to give Him to me, for such is your power. I am indeed wretched and simply run after you, crying ¡§Krishna! Krishna!¡¨ Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, through his life and teachings, has given Krishna to the whole world, saving many from material contamination by making them run after God with love and devotion. I sincerely request you not to show disrespect to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his movement even if you do not believe in it.

 

You write: ¡§Note that there is still a want. (regarding the devotee¡¦s wanting to engage in Krishna¡¦s service) It is not motiveless as some may think. In Moksha however, there are no more wants, making it more superior. In fact, that is why it is the ultimate goal and is known as the Parama-purushartha.¡¨ But the wanting of the devotee cannot be equated with materialistic self-centered desires. The interest of the devotee is entirely one with Krishna¡¦s. Regarding your statement that: ¡§In Moksha however, there are no more wants,¡¨ I would like to point out that The Bhagavad Gita says:

 

A person who has given up all desires for sense gratification, who lives free from desires, who has given up all sense of proprietorship and is devoid of false ego --- he alone can attain real peace.¡¨ (Bhagavad Gita 2.71)

 

Note that Krishna is talking about ¡§desires for sense gratification.¡¨ As Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport for that verse: ¡§The living entity cannot be desireless or senseless, but he does have to change the quality of the desires. A materially desireless person certainly knows that everything belongs to Krsna (isavasyam idam sarvam), and therefore he does not falsely claim proprietorship over anything.¡¨ Souls, like the gopis, who have changed the quality of their desires from that of material sense gratification to transcendental love of God, are considered as liberated souls. This is confirmed too in the Bhagavad Gita:

 

But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds on Me, O son of Prtha --- for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.¡¨ (Bhagavad Gita 12.6-7)

Here, Krishna says that he gives liberation to those who are devoted to him, and for devotion to take place, there has to be desire --- but for Krishna. That is transcendental desire. So it is not that there is no desire in liberation, but rather the desire is now raised to a higher platform. This is further confirmed by the Srimad Bhagavatam:

 

¡§ Although those who are atmarama, self satisfied, are liberated from all material contamination, they are still attracted by the pastimes of the Supreme Lord, and thus they engage themselves in His transcendental service.¡¨ (Srimad Bhagavatam 11.2.40)

 

You write: ¡§Sorry. There are several devotees who earnestly pray to Krishna for relief from disease, poverty, etc. No response from Krishna, though.¡¨ This statement is incorrect because a true devotee of Krishna would not pray to Krishna for relief from disease, poverty, etc. This is because a devotee would see everything as Krishna¡¦s mercy. As Srila Prabhupada writes in Teachings of Queen Kunti:

 

A devotee, however, is never disturbed by dangers, reverses, or calamities. Rather, he welcomes them. Because he is a surrendered soul, he knows that both dangers and festivals are but different demonstrations of Krsna, who is absolute. In the sastra, the Vedic literature, it is said that religion and irreligion, which are complete opposites, are merely the front portion and the back portion of God. But is there any difference between God's front and God's back? God is absolute, and therefore a devotee, either in opulence or in danger, is undisturbed, knowing that both of these are Krsna.

When a devotee is in danger, he thinks, "Now Krsna has appeared before me as danger." In His form of Nrsimhadeva, the Lord was dangerous to the demon Hiranyakasipu, but the same Nrsimhadeva was the supreme friend to the devoted Prahlada Maharaja. God is never dangerous to the devotee, and the devotee is never afraid of dangers, because he is confident that the danger is but another feature of God. "Why should I be afraid?" the devotee thinks. "I am surrendered to Him." (Teachings of Queen Kunti, Chapter Eight)

 

The mentality of a devotee is reflected in Queen Kunti¡¦s prayer: ¡§I wish that all those calamities would happen again and again so that we could see You again and again, for seeing You means that we will no longer see repeated births and deaths.¡¨ (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.8-24-25)

 

You write: ¡§But according to you, none of these people should have been liberated because their Bhakti was not pure. How do you explain that?¡¨ I am sorry if I have caused any misunderstanding, but I did not intend to imply that people whose bhakthi is impure were not liberated. As Vedic literature records, even demons like Hiranyakasipu were liberated. Nor do I mean to say that bhakti is the only path to liberation.What I intended to convey is the idea that although bhakti does lead to liberation, but it is also more than just about being liberated. Pure bhakti is about love of God without any thought for obtaining any benefit from God like salvation or liberation. This teaching is certainly not unique to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The Muslim mystic Rabi`a al `Adawiyya prayed:

 

¡§O God, if I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell,

And if I worship You in hope of Paradise,

Exclude me from Paradise.

But if I worship You for Your Own sake,

Grudge me not Your everlasting Beauty."

 

Swami Sivananda, Founder of the Divine Life Society also wrote: ¡§The highest kind of Bhaktha is one who wants nothing from God. He merely wants God. He says: ¡§O Lord! I want Thee. Nothing else do I want. What is there which I have to get after getting Thee, the source and root of everything?¡¨ (Kingly Science, Kingly Secret, Chapter 24). Yours Very Sincerely

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 06-18-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 06-18-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 06-18-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by leyh:

[long message]

 

Dear leyh

Such a very long response

to such a short sighted view!

But

With antagonists like you

Who needs friends?

Lucky Shvu!

Kindest Regards

Talasiga

 

 

[leyh]

Originally posted by talasiga:

Dear leyh

Such a very long response

to such a short sighted view!

But

With antagonists like you

Who needs friends?

Lucky Shvu!

Kindest Regards

Talasiga

 

 

Dear Talasiga:

I wasn't really trying to antagonize anyone.I hope my attempts to write about bhakti will not offend anyone.Yours Very Sincerely

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by leyh:

I wasn't really trying to antagonize anyone.

 

Just as being a protagonist does not require someone to be protagonised

So being an antoganist does not infer you have antagonised anyone.

 

Please relax -

You are greatly appreciated

 

[leyh]

Dear talasiga:

Thank you very much for your kind words and encouragement.Yours Very Sincerely

[DayalGovinda dasa]

Shvu, you say:

"in Moksha however, there are no more wants, making it more superior."

Do you mean that peolpe engaged in this path do not even desire moksa?

Why then do they engage in the practice?

The idea of Pure Bhakti is that the Bhakta desires nothing for themselves, they only desire Krsna's happiness thus they cultivate selfless desire.

To become desireless in your vision would mean that peolpe would become indifferent to everything, even striving for moksa, would this not make them just lazy?

I would appreciate your response.

Dayal

[shvu]

"in Moksha however, there are no more wants, making it more superior."

Do you mean that peolpe engaged in this path do not even desire moksa?

It means, a person who has attained Moksha, is free of desire (all desires including attraction to golden colored forms or blue colored, green colored, etc). It also means, if there is some state where there is desire [whatever be the desire], it is inferior to Moksha, and this person is still caught in the cycle of birth and death.

 

The idea of Pure Bhakti is that the Bhakta desires nothing for themselves, they only desire Krsna's happiness thus they cultivate selfless desire.

Krishna is not a human, to feel happy at times and depressed at some other times. So desiring Krishna's happiness has no meaning. We are always desiring our own happiness. If someone helps someone out, he is doing it because helping others makes him happy. There is no such thing as cultivating selfless desire. Desire and selflessness do not go together.

 

To become desireless in your vision would mean that peolpe would become indifferent to everything, even striving for moksa, would this not make them just lazy?

Not according to Krishna.

 

He whose actions are all free from the

hankering for desires, whose actions have

been burnt by the fire of knowledge, him the

wise call a sage. - BG 4.19

 

Read the next few verses in that chapter as well. As Krishna says elsewhere, such a person is exceedingly rare. Certainly not as commmon as people wearing saffron, initiated by someone else who wears saffron. It is not as simple as that.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 06-19-2001).]

[shvu]

 

The idea of Pure Bhakti is that the Bhakta desires nothing for themselves, they only desire Krsna's happiness thus they cultivate selfless desire.

The idea of pure Bhakti is that the Bhakta has been liberated and his Bhakti [devotion] has been perfected. He does not desire anything [nothing], for he has attained the ultimate possible goal that a human can attain.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

leyh,

 

I appreciate the long post, but I am still waiting for references from you to back up your earlier claims,

 

Bhakti as a path to liberation seems to be misrepresentation.

 

True Bhakti is above liberation.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

It is said that the ways of bhakti are indecipherable. Bhakti is eternal and have no motivation such as the mentioned 'to always satisfy Krsna.' Bhakti is considered as causeless.

 

yato bhaktir adhoksaje / ahaituky apratihata

(S.B. 1.2.6)

 

"Bhakti to Sri Adhoksaj is causeless and uninterrupted..."

 

The word ahaituki, causeless, means that bhakti has no cause (hetu). Bhakti works by her own independent sweet will.

 

And the Srimad Bhagavatam (11.12.9) also states:

 

yam na yogena sankhyena / dana-vrata-tapo-'dhvaraih

vyakhya-svadhyaya-sannyasaih / prapnuyad yatnavan api

 

"Even though one engages with great endeavor in the mystic yoga system, philosophical speculation, charity, vows, penances, ritualistic sacrifices, teaching Vedic mantras, or the renounced order of life, still one cannot achieve Me."

 

So, a doubt may be raised here. Gaudiyas' acaryas state that bhakti is brought about by a sadhana, such as follow 4 principles and by chanting 16 rounds, then obviously bhakti must not have existed previously. It arose by the performance of this sadhana, or by following 4 principles and by chanting 16 rounds. In that case bhakti would be anitya (non-eternal) or krtrim (that which is not natural or spontaneously manifest).

 

Therefore, how could this anitya-bhakti be accepted as something nitya-siddha (eternally accomplished), or in other words, as the supreme object of attainment (parama-purusartha-vastu)?

 

This discipline instructed by these acaryas seems to be a perfect absurd and a non-sense. It only may create an anitya (non-perennial) phenomena called by them bhakti by a karmic process. If you interrupt the process this anitya and unique phenomena is also interrupted.

 

All the other acaryas in bhakti line establish that union with the Ultimate Reality is the aim. This is the eternally established aim mentioned in srutis and Gitopanisad; and it is not brought about by any sadhana. It automatically manifests itself to someone by Sri Hari's mercy or by the mercy of His devotees. Nothing can create it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

True Bhakti is above liberation.

 

According Gaudiyas's vision, krsna-prema is the aim of their bhakti.

 

It is stated that the bliss and joy of a union between soul and god is so intense, it is almost impossible to describe this feeling except as an intense and prolonged orgasm. In the ultimate union, one sees love overflowing the body and soul. This is an experience related by a seer who has realized this aspect of the Ultimate Reality. Indeed it is a very beautiful way to describe his own experience.

 

But the logic of the Gaudiyas' path is as follows; "If you observe our process of sadhana you will feel this bliss and joy of the union with Hari that may be compared to an intense and prolonged orgasm. We call this krsna-prema. To feel this is to attain Hari. "

 

It is not guaranteed that you will realize Hari Himself, but that you will feel something like those who had realized Him in this specific aspect.

 

This seems to follow the same logic on how to attain the moon; "If one is faithful on the premise that the moon is made of blue cheese to taste blue cheese should be the same as to be at the moon. So, the moon is attainable by tasting blue cheese."

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Again you are shooting off with impersonalist. I consider that as impolite too. You know nothing about Advaita to call Advaitins as impersonal. Neither did any of your Gurus know anything about Advaitins to call them impersonal.

Either you dont understand the meaning of the words "impersonalist" and "impersonal", or you're intentionally doing the Shvu slide again. Please refer a dictionary on the two terms, and you will see that calling someone an "impersonalist" does not mean you are calling them "impersonal". "Impersonalist" refers to a category of philosophies, as does "personalist". A personalist is not necessarily personal, any more than an impersonalist is impersonal.

 

Since you base your entire argument on switching the actual word used, it is likely you are doing the slide again. But maybe you actually don't know; who can tell?

 

If you do your research, I'm sure you will also find that the word "impersonalist" is not an insult.

 

But you never care much for research. You just like to label others as foolish, blind, mislead, etc. Anytime you disagree with someone's statement, you just say its based on "tabloid articles". When someone proves you wrong, you just slide around and change the subject till people get tired of discussing with you. And as far as your arguments are concerned, you just copy and paste them from others like Shrisha Rao (yes, we do notice those things). You're about as original as a duplicate rolex. You like to imply others are all foolish, others don't understand the Vedas like you, others don't have knowledge of sanskrit; but the extent of your discussions is the use of the copy and paste command. Most people have better things to do with their time then argue in circles. At least if they follow the advice of Narada: vado navalambyah, "One should not indulge in argumentative debate."

 

Do you even know what you are talking about? I will repeat this again, "There is something higher than moksha" is an outright lie concocted by someone and people like you who know nothing about the basics of Hinduism have been misled. It is not your fault, and since you are ignorant of the basics...

Thats the usual Shvu answer; you can find it repeated in numerous threads. Of course many people on these forums do know sanskrit; many people have studied the Vedas in a traditional manner; but they just aren't intelligent enough to have figured out what Shvu figured out by meditating on the apple pie at Burger King.

 

It's a funny world, isn't it.

 

You will know what I am talking about and why I call certain people as liars.

Speaking of liars, wasn't it Shirsha Rao (whom you borrowed this argument from) that falsified documents such as a letter from Pejavar Swamiji and a bogus "position paper". We are still waiting for his response, but he seems to be silent. The Swamijis haven't been quite so silent. What Shrisha did was not only morally wrong, it was illegal. From what I hear coming out of Udupi, that will be dealt with soon enough.

 

 

Yet you are not concerned about calling the Advaitins as impersonalists. Multiple standards?

Actually, its called English. There are other words which could also be used; perhaps non-dualist. Take your pick.

 

Some may wonder how one can be so blunt.

Wasn't it Confuscious who said, "One who is not very sharp, will certainly be blunt." I don't know; maybe I just made that up.

 

The concept of Bhakti in any old text is clearly a way to Moksha [salvation].

Regarding bhakti, I will discuss it in a separate thread when time permits.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-19-2001).]

[Maitreya]

By contemplating the objects of the senses one develops attachment.By contemplating Krishna one becomes attached to Him.

 

At first it may be regulated [vaidi].By by controlling the mind to this degree one is redirecting one's consciousness to Krishna.At the same time material attachments are not being strengthened.

 

As attachment to Krishna service becomes one of having a taste for it,and it becomes spontaneous in nature, it is known as raganuga.

 

It is not that there anyone is teaching a magic formula of a certain # of rounds and 4 regs. and then Bhakti is forced to appear as some consistently and blindly assert.

 

If no change of heart is reguired then why doesn't bhakti just land on every soul right now,irrespective of their desires and be done with it?Why does it appear that Bhakti discriminates?Why the material world at all?

 

In other words Satyaraja, it is a clearing process and not a creating process.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 06-19-2001).]

[Guest guest]

In other words Satyaraja, it is a clearing process and not a creating process.

 

This is a general thesis. By following karma, jñana, bhakti, or any other process such as Tantra, one will be cleaned. He will finally lost the sense of ahamta (I am) and mamata (this is mine) and he should be considered as a pure jivatma, suddha-sattvic or sat-cit-ananta.

 

And there what happens? He will for certain attain Hari? The Ultimate Reality? No there is no guarantee even then. He may be placed again into the Causal Ocean according Gaudiyas' theology (as he is a tathasta-jiva), or may fall again under the spell of maya according the orthodox viewpoint.

 

He only will attain Hari due Hari's free will and nothing else. No matter whatever he has done in this world, a clearing or a dirtining process.

 

[amanpeter]

As attachment to Krishna service becomes one of having a taste for it,and it becomes spontaneous

in nature, it is known as raganuga.

 

Attachment to devotional service, which is not at all material, means a desire for the close association of Srimati Radharani, who is the personification of devotion. Only Radha serves Krsna since She ALONE is qualified and wholly acceptable to Him. He wants ONLY Her. That spontaneous attraction is known as Raganuga. As Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur points out, it is a type of FAITH, not an `attainment`. For one who insists on trying to maintain the illusion of their own personal control, such faith is extemely difficult to understand or accept. Vaidhi can continue for so very many lifetimes until one receives the lotus foot dust of a pure devotee and TRULY appreciates that which has been freely given as His Divine Grace, who remains one with Sri Radhika always. Raganuga bhaktas are also considered `essence seekers`... JAI JAI SRI RADHE!

 

------------------

No offense meant to anyone...

[shvu]

 

Please refer a dictionary on the two terms, and you will see that calling someone an "impersonalist" does not mean you are calling them "impersonal".

 

Which dictionary, may I ask? Following your tip, I did check up the miriam webster dictionary and it has no entry for the word impersonalist. Besides, I am sure you remember the "impersonal" Brahman as labelled by some worthies. And perhaps you did verify to see if there was a sanskrit equivalent in the original that maps to this word. And then again, maybe you did not.

 

Since you base your entire argument on switching the actual word used, it is likely you are doing the slide again. But maybe you actually don't know; who can tell?

 

Well, hopefully you know now.

 

But you never care much for research.

 

This is coming from someone one who believes in the Puranas in toto, for they are old sanskrit books. In fact, when alternate views were offered, they were summarily rejected as biased. But I guess, you are writing for the sake of writing something. To me it sounds like I just heard the words, "sour grapes".

 

You just like to label others as foolish, blind, mislead, etc. Anytime you disagree with someone's statement, you just say its based on "tabloid articles". When someone proves you wrong, you just slide around and change the subject till people get tired of discussing with you.

 

I just heard "sour grapes" again.

 

And as far as your arguments are concerned, you just copy and paste them from others like Shrisha Rao (yes, we do notice those things). You're about as original as a duplicate rolex.

 

"Sour grapes", once more?

 

You like to imply others are all foolish, others don't understand the Vedas like you, others don't have knowledge of sanskrit; but the extent of your discussions is the use of the copy and paste command. Most people have better things to do with their time then argue in circles. At least if they follow the advice of Narada: vado navalambyah, "One should not indulge in argumentative debate."

 

[yawn]

 

Thats the usual Shvu answer; you can find it repeated in numerous threads. Of course many people on these forums do know sanskrit; many people have studied the Vedas in a traditional manner; but they just aren't intelligent enough to have figured out what Shvu figured out by meditating on the apple pie at Burger King.

 

That is sundae-pie. And you don't meditate on it. You eat it and relish it.

 

It's a funny world, isn't it.

 

Sometimes, yes. Not always, though.

 

Speaking of liars, wasn't it Shirsha Rao (whom you borrowed this argument from) that falsified documents such as a letter from Pejavar Swamiji and a bogus "position paper".

 

Nice try, but false unfortunately. The position paper is clear about it's content. The right way of doing things would be to rebute it's content with proper references. This approach of complaing to the swamiji and him telling people not to fight reminds me of the weak kid, who did not have the strength to fight back and went running for help. In this case, there was no fault to be found in the paper, so people resorted to this trick.

 

We are still waiting for his response, but he seems to be silent. The Swamijis haven't been quite so silent. What Shrisha did was not only morally wrong, it was illegal. From what I hear coming out of Udupi, that will be dealt with soon enough.

 

The paper is on the web-site till date. Let us wait and see what happens and who is legal. Speaking of illegal, may I remind you of "we are specks of dust at the feet of prabhupada" ?

 

Wasn't it Confuscious who said, "One who is not very sharp, will certainly be blunt." I don't know; maybe I just made that up.

 

"Where a sharp tool does not work, sometimes a blunt one will". And this one is not made up.

 

Regarding bhakti, I will discuss it in a separate thread when time permits.

 

Waiting with bated breath.

 

Cheers

 

[Bhaktavasya]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

 

Christian- manifesting the qualities or spirit of Christ,also one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

 

MC

 

 

Luke 14.26 is a lie, one of those inserted 'Jesus said'. Christ is an avatar of Love, agreed? He would and could not 'instruct' his disciples to hate anyone, and if one must hate at all, to hate the sin and not the sinner. Teaching disciples to hate their mothers, brothers, friends and 'the world' is the equivalent of the false teachings that one can and should reject family life 'as easily as one passes stool'. Christ is more likely to have said the quote attributed to him; "He who says he loves the Father in heaven, who he cannot see but cannot love his brother, who he can see, is a liar." By his own definition, that would make Christ a liar, so as Sridhar Maharaj would say, the higher concept has to be embraced and the lower one rejected.

 

 

[Bhaktavasya]

Maitreya, this in response to your post of 6.17.2000 10:52

 

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

Luke 14.26 is a lie, one of those inserted 'Jesus said'. Christ is an avatar of Love, agreed? He would and could not 'instruct' his disciples to hate anyone, and if one must hate at all, to hate the sin and not the sinner. Teaching disciples to hate their mothers, brothers, friends and 'the world' is the equivalent of the false teachings that one can and should reject family life 'as easily as one passes stool'. Christ is more likely to have said the quote attributed to him; "He who says he loves the Father in heaven, who he cannot see but cannot love his brother, who he can see, is a liar." By his own definition, that would make Christ a liar, so as Sridhar Maharaj would say, the higher concept has to be embraced and the lower one rejected.

 

 

 

[leyh]

Originally posted by shvu:

leyh,

 

I appreciate the long post, but I am still waiting for references from you to back up your earlier claims,

 

Bhakti as a path to liberation seems to be misrepresentation.

 

True Bhakti is above liberation.

 

Cheers

 

 

Dear Shvu:

I didn't mean to convey the idea that bhakti is not a path to liberation.What I meant was that although bhakti does lead to liberation,it is also more than just about liberation.It is about establishing a loving relationship with God,so in that respect it is above liberation.In my previous post,I quoted a verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam (3.29.13)which confirms that pure devotees do not accept liberation even if it is offered by God.I would like to bring this verse to your attention again:

 

A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation --- salokya, sarsti, samipya, sarupya, or ekatva --- even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. (Srimad Bhagavatam 3.29.13)

 

(Note: Salokya-mukthi means the mode of liberation where one lives on the same planet as God. Sarsti-mukthi is the mode of liberation where one has the opulence of God. Samipya-mukthi is the mode of liberation where one always remains with God as one of his associates.Sarupya-mukthi is the mode of liberation where one attains the same bodily features of God and ekatvam-mukthi is the mode of liberation where one becomes one with God.)

 

It seems that this verse implies that pure bhakti is above the desire for liberation.In that way,bhakti is above liberation.Yours Very Sincerely

 

 

[talasiga]

Amanpeter

You have probably offended

Lakshmi already

Take care.....

 

[shvu]

 

Leyh,

 

Got it. That verse is from the Kapilodesha portion of the Bhagavatam and is misleading when read singularly. Kapila's sAnkya spans thru several chapters. So hopefully in a day or two, I will sift thru it and pull out the relevant verses that describe sAnkya and the ultimate goal in brief. Meanwhile, if you have the Bhagavatam, you can read it yourself.

 

btw, sAnkya is an independent philosophy and is rejected by vedAntins. The brahma-sUtras devote several sUtras to refute sAnkya. The fact that Chaitanya said the Bhagavatam is a commentary on the sUtras, and Baladeva Vidya Bhushana write a commentary on the sUtras indicates that the Gaudiyas are in favor of vedAnta and not sAnkya. I also remember Prabhupada quoting athAtobrahmajijnasa [the first sutra] somewhere. However it makes no difference to us, in this particular case.

 

Will post it soon.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

btw, sAnkya is an independent philosophy and is rejected by vedAntins.

The sankhya of the Bhagavatam has absolutely no connection with the sankhya-darshana established by another muni with the same name (Kapila). The philosophies are completely opposed to each other. Every school of Vedantic philosophy deals with sankhya, which literally is the dilineation of existence. The Bhagavad Gita has many sections dealing with it; and Krishna states yoga is not different from sankhya.

 

If you want you can try to find which texts of the sankhya-sutras explain the process of bhakti.

 

The Sankhya-darshana, which establishes the material nature to by the cause of all causes is what is rejected in the brahma-sutras, not the systematic analysis of existence.

 

But don't mind me, go on with your usual straw man thing.

 

[Guest guest]

 

>> If no change of heart is reguired then why doesn't bhakti just land on every soul right now,irrespective of their desires and be done with it?

 

Bhakti may land in every soul. Smrti texts are full of such examples. Dogs, trees, stones, rivers and other non-mobile creatures, completely tamasic and unable to follow any kind of discipline suddenly attain utmost bhakti by Hari's exclusive mercy. How can one explain and rule bhakti? How can one prescribe any real path for it? Hari's mercy is above all rules and prescriptions.

 

As someone posted in other thread: "One may invite Hari for his party. But there is no guarantee that He will came."

 

Is there any statistics proving that someone will have a better chance to attain Hari by following the bhakti-marga as prescribed by Gaudiyas? Or by any other sect? Or showing that without following any discipline at all bhakti is not attainable?

 

[amanpeter]

In other words Satyaraja, it is a clearing process and not a creating process.

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 06-19-2001).] ___________

 

Actually, Bhakti Devi is a person, not a process. Her basis is Srimati Radharani and I can only pray that She reveals Herself to you personally as She has to me; not because of any qualification on my part, but solely due to Her own causeless mercy and unlimited compassion on this most helpless, hopeless fallen soul.

 

------------------

No offense meant to anyone...

 

[This message has been edited by amanpeter (edited 06-19-2001).]

[Guest guest]

>> Only Radha serves Krsna since She ALONE is qualified and wholly acceptable to Him. He wants ONLY Her. (amampeter)

 

So, by following this thesis, devotional service is impossible to everyone else but Radha. Not even Rukmini, Laksmi, and all the other bhaktas may ever serve Krsna.

 

But all Vedic lore states otherwise, Hari would accept to be served even by aborigines, demons, mlecchas and inanimate beings. He is always relishing all sort of lilas with all sort of jivas. This concept of Radha's exclusive service seems to be very, very sectarian. It has no sastric support at all.