? on diksa

[cbrahma]

How do we know somebody is a sadhu? Because of how they're dressed? Because they claim to be?

 

Q1) The sants and sadhus don't need anything from us. But it's nice to interact with them if you get the chance to do so

[Guest guest]

If I am not mistaken, I believe that each religious tradition has a checklist of criteria. Such as in Christianity there are the Ten Commandments and all of the things that allegedly Christ said, such as in the New Testament there are over two thousand admonitions by Christ to help the poor, zero admonitions to give capital gains tax to the rich, and zero admonitions to invade Iraq.

 

Then you have to see if over a long period of time they are actually doing what they say they are doing. For example if you are a Christian then you can google "Preachers Scandals" and in Wikipedia it has a list of Televangelists

that claimed God was personally talking to them and then what the result of God personally talking to them was: having Rolex, Swiss bank account, air-conditioned dog house for their dogs, Rolls Royce, and what have you.

 

Then compare and contrast that with Jesus' 2000 admonitions to help the poor. Rinse and repeat and do the same if you are Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. In Gaudiya Vaisnavism they have the list of "Qualities of A Devotee"; in Tibetan Buddhism in The Teachings of Gampopa they have

"The Eleven Marks of A Holy Person".

 

That's why I like to compare and contrast religions and see what the best of the best is; cuz maybe my birth religion is getting off track, so compare multi-culturally what is considered the topmost standard in various traditions. Then if the one that I think is all of that seems to be getting a little bit funky, then it is nice to keep in touch with what "the best of the best" or the highest standard of excellence is vis-a-vis the nice people who seems to have a clue aka saints.

 

In many religions the sants were/are everyday people that just lived a normal life. I don't recall any religion saying that how you dress is a criteria; in the film The Devil Wears Prada how one dressed seemed to be important. So if how a person looks externally is really important to you, then maybe you can become a fashionista! And if your criteria for if a person is highly evolved or not is if the person claims to be highly evolved or not, then I have a bridge you may be interested in purchasing in Brooklyn.

 

I mean how do we know anything? How do you know who is a good dentist or a person to date? Do some background reading as to what are the qualities of a good dentist or spouse are first. Then google the potential prospect, hire a private detective, and see what their references are. Read their website and you be the judge. And see what they do in secret for ten years if you are looking for a spiritual mentor is what the Dalai Lama advises; spy on them!

[cbrahma]

So it's the tradition that decides who is authority. This means then that one needs prescience and foreknowledge about who knows.

Knowing that checklist, is seems is at least as important a form of knowledge as one would need a sadhu to authorize. We have to know that the tradition has the authority to decide who is authority.

This is what is known as infinite regress.

I disagree with these criteria of course, since traditions have been wrong. The sale of indulgences was a tradition in the Catholic Church so it was not questioned by Catholics until Martin Luther decided (prompted by the Holy Spirit) to appeal solely to Scripture.

We have the same issue with Scripture. How do we know which version of scripture is authoritative? Well the guru, the sadhu tell us. And the scriptures tell us how to identify guru and sadhu and round it goes.

The only way to break the vicious circle is by an appeal to a direct inner sense, a still small voice in the heart. The 'ah ah' which has the ring of Truth. There is direct vision as when sunlight appears we can see.

I believe this is what is meant by 'self-effulgence'. It represents the upper limit on appeal to authority.

 

 

 

If I am not mistaken, I believe that each religious tradition has a checklist of criteria. Such as in Christianity there are the Ten Commandments and all of the things that allegedly Christ said, such as in the New Testament there are over two thousand admonitions by Christ to help the poor, zero admonitions to give capital gains tax to the rich, and zero admonitions to invade Iraq.

 

Then you have to see if over a long period of time they are actually doing what they say they are doing. For example if you are a Christian then you can google "Preachers Scandals" and in Wikipedia it has a list of Televangelists

that claimed God was personally talking to them and then what the result of God personally talking to them was: having Rolex, Swiss bank account, air-conditioned dog house for their dogs, Rolls Royce, and what have you.

 

Then compare and contrast that with Jesus' 2000 admonitions to help the poor. Rinse and repeat and do the same if you are Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. In Gaudiya Vaisnavism they have the list of "Qualities of A Devotee"; in Tibetan Buddhism in The Teachings of Gampopa they have

"The Eleven Marks of A Holy Person".

 

That's why I like to compare and contrast religions and see what the best of the best is; cuz maybe my birth religion is getting off track, so compare multi-culturally what is considered the topmost standard in various traditions. Then if the one that I think is all of that seems to be getting a little bit funky, then it is nice to keep in touch with what "the best of the best" or the highest standard of excellence is vis-a-vis the nice people who seems to have a clue aka saints.

 

In many religions the sants were/are everyday people that just lived a normal life. I don't recall any religion saying that how you dress is a criteria; in the film The Devil Wears Prada how one dressed seemed to be important. So if how a person looks externally is really important to you, then maybe you can become a fashionista! And if your criteria for if a person is highly evolved or not is if the person claims to be highly evolved or not, then I have a bridge you may be interested in purchasing in Brooklyn.

 

I mean how do we know anything? How do you know who is a good dentist or a person to date? Do some background reading as to what are the qualities of a good dentist or spouse are first. Then google the potential prospect, hire a private detective, and see what their references are. Read their website and you be the judge. And see what they do in secret for ten years if you are looking for a spiritual mentor is what the Dalai Lama advises; spy on them!

[theist]

 

So it's the tradition that decides who is authority. This means then that one needs prescience and foreknowledge about who knows.

Knowing that checklist, is seems is at least as important a form of knowledge as one would need a sadhu to authorize. We have to know that the tradition has the authority to decide who is authority.

This is what is known as infinite regress.

I disagree with these criteria of course, since traditions have been wrong. The sale of indulgences was a tradition in the Catholic Church so it was not questioned by Catholics until Martin Luther decided (prompted by the Holy Spirit) to appeal solely to Scripture.

We have the same issue with Scripture. How do we know which version of scripture is authoritative? Well the guru, the sadhu tell us. And the scriptures tell us how to identify guru and sadhu and round it goes.

The only way to break the vicious circle is by an appeal to a direct inner sense, a still small voice in the heart. The 'ah ah' which has the ring of Truth. There is direct vision as when sunlight appears we can see.

I believe this is what is meant by 'self-effulgence'. It represents the upper limit on appeal to authority.

Absolutely! In the beginning of course we can't hear that still small voice. That's our problem. Caitya-guru is so merciful that He expands Hinself or empowers a living entity who has a pesence on the material side within the purview of our sense perception to teach us.

 

But how to perceive who is really Krsna's representative among the frauds? Not by relying on your mind's ability to scrutinize people ro spying on people that's for sure.

 

One needs to sincerely pray to the Lord to kindly guide us in the right path despite our inability to see or hear Him. He sees and hears us. The Lord will arrange things so that we somehow come in contact with His servant.

 

How did Srila Prabhupada's first disciples come to recognize him as a pure devotee? They didn't know enough to scrutinize him to see if he all the qualities of a devotee or not. So how did they come to know? Caitya-guru gave them that initial revelation and faith.

[Guest guest]

Since you are Lutheran, then why not develop your own internal rubric of 95 items which indicate spiritual excellence and nail it to the door of your heart?

 

Here is a possibile criteria to help you determine who is a sadhu/ saintly person that might apply to an internal checklist that you yourself develop:

 

2 Timothy 2

"A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient..."

 

Maybe someone else hates it, but I feel it has universal appeal. I feel that we are fortunate to live in the information superhighway post-modern world, for we learn about and then mix and match the very best of each tradition in the privacy of our own homes and hearts without the fear of being burned at the stake. Well some of us anyway, during this brief moment in time at least.

 

I myself appreciate Martin Luther's contributions and idea that we have a direct connection to the Divine that does not require a priestly intermediary.

This echos an idea found in the Shaivite tradition: "There is only one thing that God cannot do, He cannot take Himself out of you and your heart."

 

At the same time, if I knew that someone like Saint Francis of Assisi was hanging out in my neighborhood now and then distributing alms to the poor, I might want to get to know him also. And I'd probably get to know a very interesting side of him if we met while distributing alms to the poor together.

 

So to meet saints go do what the saints do. Aum Tat Sat.

[cbrahma]

These are nice suggestions. As far as argumentation is concerned, that can be a little misleading. Jesus argued. Prabhupada argued and certainly Martin Luther argued. Then again the word 'quarrel' has a connotation of arguing pointlessly. It has to do with fight style (getting personal and nasty) and motive (wanting to do one better).

We are culturally conditioned to associate being good with being 'nice'.

The saints and prophets weren't always nice.

I've seen self-effulgent personalities on rare occasions. Interestingly , they were at both extremes of age, very senior or very young.

What they had in common is they were personal and treated everyone as though they were their most intimate friend. When they see you they smile.

Now I haven't seen very much of that at all in religious settings, Christian or Vaisnava. Aloofness, impersonality seems to be the norm.

 

 

 

 

 

Since you are Lutheran, then why not develop your own internal rubric of 95 items which indicate spiritual excellence and nail it to the door of your heart?

 

Here is a possibile criteria to help you determine who is a sadhu/ saintly person that might apply to an internal checklist that you yourself develop:

 

2 Timothy 2

"A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient..."

 

Maybe someone else hates it, but I feel it has universal appeal. I feel that we are fortunate to live in the information superhighway post-modern world, for we learn about and then mix and match the very best of each tradition in the privacy of our own homes and hearts without the fear of being burned at the stake. Well some of us anyway, during this brief moment in time at least.

 

I myself appreciate Martin Luther's contributions and idea that we have a direct connection to the Divine that does not require a priestly intermediary.

This echos an idea found in the Shaivite tradition: "There is only one thing that God cannot do, He cannot take Himself out of you and your heart."

 

At the same time, if I knew that someone like Saint Francis of Assisi was hanging out in my neighborhood now and then distributing alms to the poor, I might want to get to know him also. And I'd probably get to know a very interesting side of him if we met while distributing alms to the poor together.

 

So to meet saints go do what the saints do. Aum Tat Sat.

[Guest guest]

What you described sounds remarkably similar to item eight of The Instructions of Gampopa's "Eleven Marks of A Holy Person":

 

"Eighth, to have no partiality with respect to sentient beings and not to differentiate between old friends and new friends is the mark of a holy person. Partiality means thinking these people are in my side and those people or those beings are on the other side, and therefore having more compassion for some than for others...A holy or genuine person is the same to the people he or she associates with from the time of first being introduced to them until the last time of seeing them...

 

I feel happy that you were able to have several peak experiences of meeting various nice people. Because you have had several peak experiences like this, perhaps that is why you can now can speak with a type of spiritual self-confidence. The question or concept of "who genuinely commands my respect" is no longer simply a theoretical construct for you.

 

In education this is called "prior knowledge" or "background experiences." There is some research which indicates that learners who have had alot of prior knowledge/ background experience in a topic, i.e. many experientially rich, hands-on real life experiences can better grasp material presented on that subject with greater ease. They can more readily comprehend the nuances of the various theoretical constructs presented better than those who have had no hands-on life experience in the subject matter at all.

 

I appreciate your sharing of what you consider to be one characteristic of a fully functioning [and thus "whole"], genuine [and thus "holy" or worthy of note], human being in this our classroom of the material world, planet earth, Bhu Loka.

[Guest guest]

According to a lecture I stumbled across, it says that diksa with a fire sacrifice etc was invented for faithless persons, who if they did not have this would be eating fish and eggs the next week had they not participated in one.

 

The lecture says that Rupa Goswami did not receive a fire sacrifice from Lord Chaitanya, basically the criteria for diksa was he was inspired by Him. So it appears that there is a precedent in the Gaudiya tradition that diksa was once viewed as an internal thing.

 

purebhakti dot com/ lectures/ lecture 20000610 dot shtml

 

So this would go with Prabhupada said, "If they read my books then they are already initiated" and when people who had just read the books were inspired by him and did good things, "They are MORE than my disciple". It sounds like it is possible to view externalities as formalities.

 

Just as there are eight forms of marriage in the Hindu culture, I would not be surprised if there were eight forms of diksa. Some forms being in the mode of ignorance like giving sannyasa to unqualified people and initiating people who are still eating meat and unqualified person giving the diksa. Then might be mode of passion diksa, giving diksa to people to get alot of followers or diksa to obtain some perceived benefit like status as a devotee to impress people.

 

Then there might be diksa on a formal level to transfer wealth, the equivalent of a brahma-vivaha: a person gets diksa so the external assets such as wealth, temples, and disciples of an institution can be transferred to others when the founder dies so the external form of marble buildings can continue.

 

Lastly there might be equivalent of gandarva's marriage diksa where all that is required is you give your heart to another, and then if the person you give it to falls down then you may renounce them per BSS' 1928 newspaper article "Initiation into the Spiritual Life".

 

If you view it as there are actually eight forms of diksa which correspond to the different modes of material nature then all of the diksa madness that we have seen in the history of humanity in the name of religion as well as all of the nice things that have happened in the world make sense.

[Guruvani]

 

.

 

Just as there are eight forms of marriage in the Hindu culture, I would not be surprised if there were eight forms of diksa. Some forms being in the mode of ignorance like giving sannyasa to unqualified people and initiating people who are still eating meat and unqualified person giving the diksa. Then might be mode of passion diksa, giving diksa to people to get alot of followers or diksa to obtain some perceived benefit like status as a devotee to impress people.

 

Then there might be diksa on a formal level to transfer wealth, the equivalent of a brahma-vivaha: a person gets diksa so the external assets such as wealth, temples, and disciples of an institution can be transferred to others when the founder dies so the external form of marble buildings can continue.

 

Lastly there might be equivalent of gandarva's marriage diksa where all that is required is you give your heart to another, and then if the person you give it to falls down then you may renounce them per BSS' 1928 newspaper article "Initiation into the Spiritual Life".

 

If you view it as there are actually eight forms of diksa which correspond to the different modes of material nature then all of the diksa madness that we have seen in the history of humanity in the name of religion as well as all of the nice things that have happened in the world make sense.

That is a lot of speculation and conjecture.

I hope nobody who reads this concotion takes it as anything authorized or coming through parampara.

 

I just read today where Srila Prabhupada used the term diksha in conjunction with the term "inspire".

 

Inspiring people to take to Krishna consciousness is what the mission of Mahaprabhu is all about.

Giving diksha or trying to inspire souls to take up the principles of Krishna consciousness is never in the mode of ignorance.

 

What IS in the mode of ignorance is the attempt to give some unauthorized commentary on different forms and kinds of diksha, when one is in fact just dreaming up some ideas in a fickle mind.

 

Endless speculations will never be siddhanta.

[cbrahma]

I've been inspired by so much instructions from devotees who have no institutional agendas, to simply chant. Just chanting has inspired me to realize that the admonition to be 'sinless' is essential. That is , the four regulative principles, the principles of religion which topple the four pillars of sinful life in Kali-yuga, namely Illicit sex life, intoxication, meat-eating, and gambling.

Hope I'm not being too preachy here. Just speaking for myself.

[theist]

Guruvani,

 

Maybe reread the guest's post again and perhaps you will see what he means. I think you may have missed it. I for one liked it very much. If we want to call guest's post speculation than surely it is philosophical speculation which is intergral to the Q&A process.

 

Diksa is a loaded word used differnetly in different circumstances. Because of this I think it should dropped for practical reasons and use the english for the meaning one wants to convey. For those who know sanskrit and it's uses the different way diksa is used is probably obvious due to the context in which heard. For most of us westerners this is not the case.

 

So for me the only relevant meaning for the word diksa is that it is the process of transfering transcendental knowledge from one who knows to the one who needs and desires to know.

 

I need to keep things as simple as possible or I just get confused. :-)

[Guruvani]

 

Guruvani,

 

Maybe reread the guest's post again and perhaps you will see what he means. I think you may have missed it. I for one liked it very much. If we want to call guest's post speculation than surely it is philosophical speculation which is intergral to the Q&A process.

 

Diksa is a loaded word used differnetly in different circumstances. Because of this I think it should dropped for practical reasons and use the english for the meaning one wants to convey. For those who know sanskrit and it's uses the different way diksa is used is probably obvious due to the context in which heard. For most of us westerners this is not the case.

 

So for me the only relevant meaning for the word diksa is that it is the process of transfering transcendental knowledge from one who knows to the one who needs and desires to know.

 

I need to keep things as simple as possible or I just get confused. :-)

Guest wrote:

 

 

Just as there are eight forms of marriage in the Hindu culture, I would not be surprised if there were eight forms of diksa. Some forms being in the mode of ignorance like giving sannyasa to unqualified people and initiating people who are still eating meat and unqualified person giving the diksa. Then might be mode of passion diksa, giving diksa to people to get alot of followers or diksa to obtain some perceived benefit like status as a devotee to impress people.

 

I don't buy that.

There is only one kind of diksha as far as Gaudiya Vaishnavism is concerned; real diksha.

 

Bogus diksha is not diksha.

If it is not real diksha, then it is not diksha.

 

Fake diksha is not diksha.

 

There are many fake gurus out there looking to slip someone the diksha, but that is not real diksha.

If it is not genuine diksha then it is not diksha.

There are not many different kinds of diksha.

It is either real or it is not diksha.

 

No?

[theist]

 

I've been inspired by so much instructions from devotees who have no institutional agendas, to simply chant. Just chanting has inspired me to realize that the admonition to be 'sinless' is essential. That is , the four regulative principles, the principles of religion which topple the four pillars of sinful life in Kali-yuga, namely Illicit sex life, intoxication, meat-eating, and gambling.

Hope I'm not being too preachy here. Just speaking for myself.

 

Not too preachy at all, just right on point.

 

Here is the on-line websters definition for inspiration. I have read fuller definitions that say that 'inspiration' comes from 'in-spirit' which was used as in someone taking in-spirit from someone else who 'inspired' him. This is also known as diksa or the transfering of transcendental knowledge.

 

Also like diksa it comes with many other uses but devotees should be concerned with the transcendental meaning.

 

 

Merriam Webster

nspiration

 

One entry found for inspiration.<form name="entry" method="post" action="/cgi-bin/dictionary"><table valign="top" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td> <input name="hdwd" value="inspiration" type="hidden"><input name="listword" value="inspiration" type="hidden"><input name="book" value="Dictionary" type="hidden">

</td></tr></tbody></table> </form> Main Entry: in·spi·ra·tion

Pronunciation: <tt>"in(t)-sp&-'rA-sh&n, -(")spi-</tt>

Function: noun

1 a : a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation b : the action or power of moving the intellect or emotions c : the act of influencing or suggesting opinions

 

2 : the act of drawing in; specifically : the drawing of air into the lungs

 

3 a : the quality or state of being inspired b : something that is inspired <a scheme that was pure inspiration>

 

4 : an inspiring agent or influence

[AncientMariner]

Here are some various quotes on initiation that I got from another board. Take them for what they are worth. Not trying to be argumentative just posting the quotes.

 

 

 

5) THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE FORMAL INITIATION CEREMONY

 

---

 

 

Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real

initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination.

That is initiation.

 

(Srila Prabhupada - Morning Walk, Seattle, 02/10/68)

 

 

 

Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge,

and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.

 

(Srila Prabhupada - Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh)

 

 

 

This diksa, second process is not very essential. The essential is to

chant.

 

(...)

 

In this age there is no need of this second initiation, but those who

are going to [should] be recognized as properly initiated, so this

second instalment was introduced by Sanatana Gosvami.

 

(Srila Prabhupada - Lecture 05/21/68)

 

 

 

...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be

initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the

disciplic conclusion.

 

(SP Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69)

 

 

 

The chanting of Hare Krsna is our main business, that is real

initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that

matter, the initiator is already there.

 

(SP Letter to Tamal Krsna, 19/8/68)

 

 

----

 

6) "INITIATION" AS A TRANSFER OF DIVYA JNANA

 

----

 

 

Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness.

 

(CC Madhya 9.63 Purport)

 

 

 

From 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the

impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. . . . And that was

the initiation by my Guru Maharaja. Then officially I was initiated in

1933 . . .".

 

(Srila Prabhupada lecture in Hyderabad, Dec. 10, 1970)

 

 

 

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa

Babaji, who initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn

initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji.

 

(CC Adi, Intro to Chapter 1)

 

 

 

Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental

knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity.

 

(CC Madhya 15.108 Purport)

 

 

 

Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental

knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.

 

(CC Madhya-lila, 4.111 Purport)

 

 

 

This is called initiation. Or initiation from the very beginning. This

is called diksa. The Sanskrit term is called diksa. Diksa means... Di,

divya-jnanam, transcendental knowledge, and ksa, iksa. Iksa means

darsana, to see, or ksapayati, explain. That is called diksa.

 

(Lecture by Srila Prabhupada, July 29, 1968)

 

 

 

So initiation means, the Sanskrit word is diksa. Diksa, divya jnanam

ksapayati iti diksa. Divya-jnana.

 

(SP initiation lecture, June 17, 1976)

 

 

 

...one who is situated on the platform of love of Godhead chants the

holy name loudly for all concerned. As a result, everyone becomes

initiated in the chanting of the holy names...

 

(Chapter 18 of the Teaching of Lord Caitanya)

 

 

 

Eternal bond between disciple and Spiritual Master begins from the day

he hears.

 

(Letter to Jadurani, 4/9/72)

 

 

 

. . There was one doubt that was plaguing me . . .I had always been

taught when I was first joining that the parampara is like a link, a

chain. If you don't have the perfect link, if you are not initiated-

You really cannot go back to Godhead . . . I presented this question

to Prabhupada. I followed Srila Prabhupada from Rupa Gosvami's Samadhi

back into the courtyard, and just before Srila Prabhupada took the

steps, in the courtyard, I said "We are distributing so many books but

if people who read them aren't initiated then they can't go back to

Godhead." And Prabhupada turned and looked at me right in the eyes and

he said "Just by reading my books they are initiated".

 

(In the "Memories of Srila Prabhupada" tape #31, Vaikunthanatha Prabhu

is speaking about Srila Prabhupada. He is describing an event that

apparently took place in Vrndavana in 1972)

 

 

Devotees interested in hearing and chanting [śravaṇaṁ kīrtanam] regularly discuss the pure characteristics of Bharata Mahārāja and praise his activities. If one submissively hears and chants about the all-auspicious Mahārāja Bharata, one’s life span and material opulences certainly increase. One can become very famous and easily attain promotion to the heavenly planets, or attain liberation by merging into the existence of the Lord. Whatever one desires can be attained simply by hearing, chanting and glorifying the activities of Mahārāja Bharata. In this way, one can fulfill all his material and spiritual desires. One does not have to ask anyone else for these things, for simply by studying the life of Mahārāja Bharata, one can attain all desirable things. SB 5.14.46

[theist]

 

There is only one kind of diksha as far as Gaudiya Vaishnavism is concerned; real diksha.

I am sure you and I agree on what is real diksa. But doesn't the word get used with a variety of contexts. Ceremonies from the villiage guru when the child reaaches a certain age, diksa for brahmana status so one may be a pujari etc.

 

Even frat boys have initiations into their fraternity, or the masons or whatever. I received initiation into the Boy Scouts when I was a boy. (They uncermonious threw me out after two weeks but that another story ;-) )

 

And I believe that is exactly what Guest was saying. He is agreeing with us but just raising the point about context which I find very helpful.

[Guest guest]

No, you know one from his qualities.

 

But if you are envious, you will try to see through those qualities and find fault. Enviousness & fault finding are major obstacles and will drag you down.

 

 

How do we know somebody is a sadhu? Because of how they're dressed? Because they claim to be?

[cbrahma]

Can we not dismiss our seeing any disqualifications as fault-finding?

Every self-styled guru gets off scott free.

 

 

No, you know one from his qualities.

 

But if you are envious, you will try to see through those qualities and find fault. Enviousness & fault finding are major obstacles and will drag you down.

[Guest guest]

No, we cannot dismiss like that. Because we ourselves are impure, our vision is colouded. Therefore we must find our faults first.

 

Someone posted a remarkable statment by His divine grace Bhakti Sundar Maharaj that 'my religion is finding fault with myself'. We must meditate on this truly profound statement and derive inspiration from it to fix ourselves first.

 

 

Can we not dismiss our seeing any disqualifications as fault-finding?

Every self-styled guru gets off scott free.

[cbrahma]

If self-doubt is all you have to go on, then you don't have much of a basis to make a decision do you?

 

 

No, we cannot dismiss like that. Because we ourselves are impure, our vision is colouded. Therefore we must find our faults first.

 

Someone posted a remarkable statment by His divine grace Bhakti Sundar Maharaj that 'my religion is finding fault with myself'. We must meditate on this truly profound statement and derive inspiration from it to fix ourselves first.

[Guest guest]

Our scriptures tell us what to look for in a person to judge whether or not they are a sadhu. There is nothing there about how a person is dressed or what they claim to be. You have read Bhagavad - gita - take a closer look - how a sadhu speaks and acts are very clearly spelled out for you there.

 

You cannot judge a person by only having a slight aquaintance with them. To really know a persons characteristics and unique qualities requires that you get to know them more intimately. When your around a sadhu you will find that they are always focused on Krsna. They are always absorbed in hearing and chanting about Krsna. The genuine sadhu sees the good in everyone and helps them to see their own prospect in life.

 

We are not talking about the hypocrit here who has gathered some book knowledge and can regurgitate it like a tape recorder. We are talking about the person who has applied the teaching practically in their own life and whose very being is permeated with Krsna bhakti.

 

Because you are interested in Krsna you will definitely feel it when you meet a sadhu. Your heart will jump for joy. Do you remember when Mary went to visit Elisabeth and John 'jumped' in her womb at the very presence of Jesus? You might not have the same keen sense as John but if you are serious and sincere you will not be fooled - you will know when you meet a genuine sadhu.

[cbrahma]

So far the only personality in my experience that meets the criteria is Prabhupada. Now that I've found the gold, why do I need to keep searching?

 

 

Our scriptures tell us what to look for in a person to judge whether or not they are a sadhu. There is nothing there about how a person is dressed or what they claim to be. You have read Bhagavad - gita - take a closer look - how a sadhu speaks and acts are very clearly spelled out for you there.

 

You cannot judge a person by only having a slight aquaintance with them. To really know a persons characteristics and unique qualities requires that you get to know them more intimately. When your around a sadhu you will find that they are always focused on Krsna. They are always absorbed in hearing and chanting about Krsna. The genuine sadhu sees the good in everyone and helps them to see their own prospect in life.

 

We are not talking about the hypocrit here who has gathered some book knowledge and can regurgitate it like a tape recorder. We are talking about the person who has applied the teaching practically in their own life and whose very being is permeated with Krsna bhakti.

 

Because you are interested in Krsna you will definitely feel it when you meet a sadhu. Your heart will jump for joy. Do you remember when Mary went to visit Elisabeth and John 'jumped' in her womb at the very presence of Jesus? You might not have the same keen sense as John but if you are serious and sincere you will not be fooled - you will know when you meet a genuine sadhu.

[Guest guest]

Because you haven't overcome your anarthas.

 

 

So far the only personality in my experience that meets the criteria is Prabhupada. Now that I've found the gold, why do I need to keep searching?

[Guest guest]

When you overcome your anarthas, at that point the self-doubts will all disappear. Until then you must give up fault-finding in others.

 

 

If self-doubt is all you have to go on, then you don't have much of a basis to make a decision do you?

[cbrahma]

I have to have anarthas to be satisfied with Prabhupada?

What a pronouncement!

 

 

When you overcome your anarthas, at that point the self-doubts will all disappear. Until then you must give up fault-finding in others.

[Guest guest]

More speculation.

 

 

I have to have anarthas to be satisfied with Prabhupada?

What a pronouncement!