Offering Food: Elaborately

[Guest guest]

do you think that your diksa or siksa guru is watching over you at all times ?

•••yes, the guru is a manifestation of the paramatma and he's empowered by krsna to see in the heart of the disciple.. vaishnavas are omnipotent

 

 

Wrong,there is only one guru,that guru,God, manifests through the devotee ,what Prabhupada called the

"transparent via medium", do not make the foolish

attempt to establish the vaisnava who is acting

as diksa or siksa guru as being able to

act As God,only god is omniscient,not the devotee,

The diksa or siksa Guru is consdered as good as God

because God is acting through him,not that the diksa or siksa

guru has the abilities of God,that is a complete

and utter fallacy.

 

 

 

That they or He is unaware of you as you prepare food ?

•••of course, otherwise why to take another conditioned human as a master?

 

 

No, the jiva is not omnipresent and has no ability

to be conscious of everything you do,You take on a guru

for guidance,He/She is representing God,not that

the diksa or siksa guru is the same as God,another utterly

ridiculous fallacy.

 

That they are aware of your offering ?

•••definitely yes, sri guru is in the heart, in the murti, in the foto... he's a shaktiavesha avatara, he has the shakti by krsna to do this

 

 

 

wrong,Paramatma is in your heart,no other being

is omnipresent,you mistake esoteric philosophy

as literal,way off the mark,again Guru is God,the diksa or siksa

guru is the "via medium" for the One Guru ,or God.

 

God is the only all pervading consciousness, Being present

in your heart only God is conscious of your

activities and mood,as you prepare and offer

food only God is cognizant of these things and only

God is accepting the offering.

 

 

•••yes.. and being the pure vaishnava in his task to act as a master a manifestation of god, god's vision and vaishnava's vision are non different.. so god is CIT, conscious, and the vaishnava is also CIT.

 

 

 

here you contradict your previous statement,

you said

 

 

•••yes, the guru is a manifestation of the paramatma and he's empowered by krsna to see in the heart of the disciple.. vaishnavas are omnipotent"

 

"That they or He is unaware of you as you prepare food ?

•••of course, otherwise why to take another conditioned human as a master?"

 

 

 

which is silly, only god is omnitpotent,only god is

able to see in your heart(mind).

 

the Guru(siksa or diksa)

is not an all pervading being able to

receive that offering,

 

 

•••he's pervading because of empowering by krsna, hes saktiavesha avatara, chatya guru manifestated in a human form... he's conscious

 

 

some more silly ideas,jiva is not and never wil be

like God.

 

 

 

•••yes, for this purpose and for many other things as explained... in krsna consciousness nothing is ritual or formal, everything is essential, if you offer an apple before the picture of the spiritual master you are offering to him, otherwise why this farce? a spirtual master is not an assistant, hes "janme janme prabhu.." our lord life after life

 

 

 

it is done to

instill devotion to Krsna's devotees who

are more dear to Krsna then Himself.

 

Sadhana bhakti is full of rituals,

those rituals are there for purification,

if you offer to a picture of the the guru

that is for your purification,the diksa or siksa

guru is not omnipresent.

 

There is a big difference between a vaisnava acting

as diksa or siksa and between the supreme lord,

Because of devotees misunderstanding the difference

there has been much anguish by those who have accepted

diksa or siksa only to later see that person

as not being like God.

 

The Guru is One, as Srila Prabhupada states

 

"Gentlemen, the offering of such an homage as has been arranged this evening to the acaryadeva is not a sectarian concern, for when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application. There does not arise any question of discrirninating my guru from yours or anyone else's.

 

There is only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others.

 

In the Mundaka Upanisad (1.2.12) it is said:

 

tad-vijnartham sa gurum evabhigacchet samit-panih srotriyam brahma-nistham

 

"In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Truth."

 

So within the Bhakti practice there are the literal

and the symbolic understandings, literaly the diksa or

siksa Guru is not the same as God, symbolicaly he is as Good as God because God is acting through Him,

never think that the devotee/guru has the powers of God,

that will only lead you to deify a human and that can only lead to disillusionment and aparadha when you see the

devotee/guru for what he really is,as always happens,

if you expect the devotee/guru to be some kind

of supernatural omniscient,omnipotent,Vishu tattva,

that is a misunderstanding and will lead to rejection

when he shows that he is not.

 

Guru is God,the diksa or siksa guru is a via medium,

not God,not empowered like God,His empowerment

is the ability to speak for God,nothing more,

that is Saktyavesa,empowered to speak for God,

not empowered to become like God.

[Guest guest]

750408mw.may Conversations

 

Jayadvaita: ...they know everything and they're perfect in everything. But sometimes, from our material viewpoint, we see some discrepancies. Just like we think that...

 

Prabhupada: Because material viewpoint. The viewpoint is wrong; therefore you find discrepancies.

 

Jayadvaita: So we should think that we have the defect.

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Acarya is explained, bhakti-samsanah: "One who's preaching the cult of devotional service, he's acarya." Then why should you find any discrepancy?

 

Jayadvaita: Because we see... For instance, sometimes the acarya may seem to forget something or not to know something, so from our point of view, if someone has forgotten, that is...

 

Prabhupada: No, no, no. Then...

 

Jayadvaita: ...an imperfection.

 

Prabhupada: That is not the... Then you do not understand. Acarya is not God, omniscient. He is servant of God. His business is to preach bhakti cult. That is acarya.

 

Jayadvaita: And that is the perfection.

 

Prabhupada: That is the perfection. Hare Krsna.

 

Jayadvaita: So we have a misunderstanding about what perfection is?

 

Prabhupada: Yes. Perfection is here, how he is preaching bhakti cult. That's all

[yasodanandana]

The diksa or siksa Guru is consdered as good as God

becasue God is acting through,not that the diksa or siksa

guru has the abilties of God,

•••it is exactly what i said... the spiritual master is good as god because he's empowered not because his potency comes from he himself.. so he's empowered by god and he has the powers of god in doing his devotional service. There's a famous conversation of prabhupada when a disciple asked "why bhaktivinoda takura has not completed the job to preach krsna consciousness to the whole world?", prabhupada answers "he's omnipotent, he's a vaishnava, he could convert the whole world.. but for his mercy he leave some work for us, to share some glory and service with him" i remember exactly the word OMNIPOTENT

 

god is omnscient,not the devotee

•••when we say that devotee sees present paste and future it is another way to say that he's omniscient... the only constitutional difference from god is that the vaishnava has his powers by god, god has his powers from himself

 

No, the jiva is not omnipresent and has no ability

to be conscious of everything you do

•••yes for the jiva... not for the jiva empowered by god, you can pray spiritual master, you can pray devotees of parampara', prabhupada, you can worship their murtis, photos, paintings. why we put the picture of spiritual master and parampara' in the altar if they cannot listen or see our service? they're not symbols, they're the real thing

 

You take on a guru

for guidance,He/She is representing God,not that

the diksa or siksa guru is the same as God

•••good as god, empowered, shakiavesha.. not god... transparent medium as you said.. thru guru you see krsna, he has not his own shaktis, he has the krsna shakti

 

Paramatma is in your heart,no other being

is omnipresent,

•••yes.. guru is empowered by paramatma, empowered (shaktiavesha) means that paramatma gives his powers (shakti)... so guru sees your heart by krsna shakti, very easy.. he's not god, but he's enpowered by him to see your heart exactly like the paramatma

 

only God is cognizant of these things and only

God is accepting the offering.

•••no, there's anything symbolic in the spiritual realm... if i offer to guru, if i pray guru, guru accepts directly the offerings and prayers. It is not so difficult to find, open the lilamrita and you will find many examples of the omniscience of srila prabhupada, how many disciples feel his presence VANI even if he's not there phisically. In this way you are negating the existence of VANI. Who gives to a soul the power to be with the disciple even if he's phisically thousand kilometers away? krsna... this is called VANI association.. so when you offer to gurudeva you have his direct association via the shakti given to him by balarama, paramatma

 

here you contradict your previous statement,

•••please reread my messages and kindly explain my contradiction.. i do not see it, but maybe i am wrong

 

only god is omnitpotent,only god is

able to see in your heart(mind).

•••but god gives powers to the masters, krsna enters in the murti for his internal potency, guru enters in the murti because krsna gives him the power to do it.. a murti of prabhupada is the real prabhupada or a symbol, an idol? do he sees us, hear us, receives our devotion when we offer him the food or not? my answer is that the murti of prabhupada is prabhupada as the murti of krsna is krsna.. the same with the photo or picture.. So the vaishnava is omnipotent deriving his omnipotence by god

 

jiva is not and never wil be

like God.

•••no one can become god... but spiritual master is good as god, like god, empowered by god, manifestation of god because god wants it and give him his powers.. shakti

 

wrong again, Sadhana bhakti is full of rituals,

those rituals are there for purification,

•••yes but the rituals are purifying because they are real, not allegoric or symbolic, how can a ritual purify me if there's not the real thing present? who is purifying me? the illusion that the master is present in the murti? but illusion is not purifying

 

... a photo of the guru is the guru, a statue of krsna is krsna, a puja to krsna is a real offering not a symbol, if you offer flowers, food, prayers you are really offering. The murti is not symbolic, is krsna, chanting is not symbolic .. he's krsna bhagavan.. prabhupada's murti, bhaktisiddhanta's murti and photos are not symbols, they are real... otherwise the mayavadis and impersonalists are right saying that these things are for ignorants that still do not understand the impersonal nature of divinity

 

There is a big difference between a vaisnava acting

as diksa or siksa and between the supreme lord,

•••the difference is that krsna is THE POWER and guru is THE EMPOWERED

 

srila prabhupada. There is only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others.

•••yes.. of course... this is the omnipotency... the phisical guru has the powers of god because he's the representative of the original chaitya guru, not because he's himself god... i am saying it from the beginning and srila prabhupada does not contradicts me.. krsna is sat cit ananda for his powers, guru is sat cit ananda because krsna acting thru him gives him the powers

 

guru is not a dress, a masque, krsna is not entering in him as a phantom a demon and guru is inconscious when he does his service.. so prabhupada hears your prayers, has his feet touched when you touch the murti in the temple, receives the food when you offer.. he's real, shaktiavesha avatara of paramatma, not a symbol or an idol where there's hidden the paramatma like a ghost

 

literaly the diksa or

siksa Guru is not the same as God, symbolicaly he is as Good as God because God is acting through Him,

•••yes.. true.. acting thru him is that he receives the shakti from god to act as his avatara, representative... not symbolically but really.. you never find this concept of "symbolically" in the guru tattva. Impersonalists are saying that guru and krsna are a symbol of the absolute one. Symbol is an object with no intrinsecal nature..

 

that will only lead you to deify a human

•••definitely no... guru has powers given by god, i do not make any attempt to say that he's god, not so difficut neither so subtle

 

is you expect the devotee/guru to be some kind

of supernatural omniscient,omnipotent,Vishu tattva,

•••i am not saying that he's vishnu tattva.. otherwise i'd not call shaktiavesha avatara

he's supernatural because he is beyond the matter and the human nature (for the god's grace).. and in the same way he can do everything in the service of god, this is his omni(=all) potence(=power)

 

His empowerment

is the ability to speak for God,nothing more.

•••there's much more... or we can say that his speaking of god comes from his empowering, otherwise there's not real speaking of god

 

shaktiavesha avatara of god, not god... very simple

[yasodanandana]

"Prabhupada: That is not the... Then you do not understand. Acarya is not God, omniscient. He is servant of God. His business is to preach bhakti cult. That is acarya."

•••••yes... pefect because he's doing the business(shakti.. another meaning is "purpose") given by god, not because he's god

 

the same for omniscient

 

Prabhupada: Because material viewpoint. The viewpoint is wrong; therefore you find discrepancies.

••••so to see the guru as imperfect is to have a material vision of the guru, a wrong vision... guru is perfect

[Guest guest]

you make many assumptions and read way to much into

things,it is very simple but by making things

complicated and trying to turn the acharya into

some kind of mystical equivalent of Vishnu tattva

you confuse and misunderstand the whole thing.

 

you ask why offer worship to a murti or picture

of the Guru if the Guru is not there ?

 

Because that is the process of Sadhana Bhakti,

you perform regulated forms of worship and by

that process your consciousness becomes

purified from material vision.

 

The murti or picture of the Guru shouldn't

be seen literaly the same as the Guru,the jiva

is empowered but not able to have the powers of Vishnu,

the jiva is empowered to represent Vishnu but never

is empowered to act as Vishnu,that concept is

bogus.

 

Don't think that the acharya becomes empowered as

another Vishnu,Bhaktisiddhanta or Bhaktivinoda or Bhaktivedanta or any after them are jiva tattva,

they are not nor ever will be empowered as you think,

they do not exist within their picture ,they do not have

the ability to exist anywhere other then where

they are, only Vishnu is omnipresent.

 

you make the foolish mistake of saying that Vishnu empowers

the jiva to become like Vishnu, that is bogus,

The jiva when liberated and gone from the material world

goes into the pastimes of Sri Radha Krsna,it would be

a foolish mistake to think that Krsna would bother them

in their eteranl enjoyment of lila with the thousands

upon thousands of daily offerings,puja etc ,being performed by their disciples on earth.

 

They are engaged in the eternal pastimes,they are under yoga maya and are unaware of Krsna's divinity as are all the residents of Vraja,they are not being bothered by anything you do here.

 

The acharya is empowered as Krsna's representative,

He/She doesn't recieve any kind of omnipotency nor do

they share Krsna's omnipotentcy or any other

Vishnu Tattva power,That kind of thinking is not supported

anywhere.

 

Guru is as good as God,therefore by offering food or puja

to the guru's murti that pleases God, but it is a ritual

for your purification,the advanced devotee does not

worship God in that mood, The advanced devotee

serves God as friend and lover and any kind of

worshipfull reverence would create a rasa bhasa,

The ritual stage of Sadhana bhakti is performed

as a form of meditation for the purification of

the performer, it is not an eternal function.

 

These aspects of Sadhana bhakti should not be misunderstood

to be some kind of mystical connection between

you and the acharya,the acharya is simply the representative of God,He is not empowered in any way

other then the ability to give out the words of God,

the acharya is not aware of anything when he leaves

the earthly realm,he goes back home ,back to godhead,

and engages in uninterrupted blissful pastimes.

 

hare krsna

[yasodanandana]

you make many assumptions and read way to much into

things,it is very simple but by making things

complicated

•••really i am exposing with a very strange english my comprehension on the subject... i have no other interest, i do not make any assumption... you are saying that i want to make a vishnutattva of the guru, thing that i do not say... but no problem

 

trying to turn the acharya into

some kind of mystical equivalent of Vishnu tattva

•••why?

 

you ask why offer worship to a murti or picture

of the Guru if the Guru is not there ?

Because that is the process of Sadhana Bhakti,

you perform regulated forms of worship and by

that process your consciousness becomes

purified from material vision.

••••no... in vaishnavism we do "real" things... if we worship something this has be god or his representative, so if we worship the murti of the guru, we are worshiping the guru... of course the guru comes in the murti not for his power but because of krsna's power... the purification is there because there's the real thing, otherwise no purification

 

other then the ability to give out the words of God,

the acharya is not aware of anything when he leaves

•••this is your speculation,as we see in the life of many devotees a vaishnava can live multiple realities... prabhupada, gaura govinda maharaja say many times that they are ever feeling the presence of their spiritual master, so the acharya, the guru, the vaishnava has a VANI aspect that gives his presence to us even if with the body he's away.. in another part of the world or in the spiritual world

 

what gives the exact boundaries to the guru tattva is the word SHAKTIAVESHA

 

guru is not god, he takes his powers (shakti) from krsna

guru is not a common human, he is empowered by the shakti of krsna

 

so there's two deviations

 

one who states that the guru is a common man, one who states that the guru is god and that the power is in the deified guru and not in the fact that he's representing the caitya guru for the purpose of preaching, This leads to many offences, first of all not recognizing the presence of the original chaitya guru in other vaishnavas.

 

So, in my opinion, you believe to fight in me the deviation of the deification of the guru, but it is not so.. even if my english is very bad i have many times explained the concept of "shaktiavesha avatara", empowered by krsna for a special purpose... preaching

 

and your concept of symbolic in vaishnavsm for me is totally out of my comprehension... we worship the real thing, not that we worship some false idols showing to lord that we are devotees so we purify ourselves... yes, we do it, but when we worship the murti of god, we are worshiping god, when we worship the murti of the guru, we are worshiping the guru... the same when we chant the name of the devotee in the kirtan (jaya prabhupada.. jaya gurudeva... jaya prahlada maharaja... jaya hanuman...), the same when we offer food to the picture of the spiritual master... he accepts, he sees, he bless from the picture and he sees our heart because he's empowered by paramatma..

 

to see a murti and to believe that under this murti there's not a reality but a concept is a buddhist theory... in the temples we see the goddess tara and we are explained that there's not a person in the murti, but same concept of detachment from the matter and so on... but this is not vaishnava

[livingentity]

what makes you right and us wrong? You use so many words and at times say the same things we are saying then turn around and contradict yourself.

 

I go back to what I said before....so often we make things much more difficult than necessary and this includes using convoluted paragraph after paragraph to try to appear to be more authoritative than others.

 

Back to basics...do as Lord Krishna tells us in Bhagavad Gita and make your offerings with Love and Devotion and He will accept.

 

Also, know that the spiritual master is there and knows that you are doing this.

 

Very basic but works for me.

 

Basta

[Guest guest]

i'm not sure what you mean by us,so i assume it means

emotional people who disregard the proper authority

(see my post of Bhaktivedantas words)and concoct

bogus conclusions based on the Kanistha outlook.

 

Or by "us" do you mean you, what do I care what you

think ? What have you to show for your derogatory

attitude ?

 

If you think what i said is wrong,instead of trying

to foolishly make a divide between "us" meaning you,

and anyone who disagrees with "us" meaning you,

then show some support from a source other then your

egotistic attempt to show your superiority,

if you find what i say to be disagreeable,thats your right,

but in your attempt to claim I am

 

 

"what makes you right and us wrong? You use so many words and at times say the same things we are saying then turn around and contradict yourself.

 

I go back to what I said before....so often we make things much more difficult than necessary and this includes using convoluted paragraph after paragraph to try to appear to be more authoritative than others."

 

 

 

This is foolish,I am not simply repeating what you said

and claiming what i say is superior,I point out the

basic mistaken concepts you post,show where I do different.

 

If you have a problem with what I said,instead of making some kind of general attack on my sincerity,show

where I am wrong,otherwise your pompous egotism

only highlites what i have said, You have no

authority to make baseless attempts to establish

your conception and yourself as the "true" and

"pure" and "perfected" visionary,instead you

show yourself to have an affinity for self promotion

by attacking others,this is hardly a sincere

motivation,yet this is what you claim i do,

i wonder why ?

 

Could the attempt to position yourself as "empowered"

or " perfected" by unjustly criticizing those

who find a mistake in your vision be the real motivation ?

 

Physician,heal thyself.

[ancient_paztriot]

Shiva, please temper your speech. I like your comments. I don't agree with everything you say. But I tend to favor your view concerning the powers of Godhead.

 

Alot of us didn't jump in. I personally am a little bewildered how it came to this… the way the conversation flowed.

 

You both have good points. I think you agree on more than you know at the moment. Patience can see this through.

[Guest guest]

lets see, living entity makes the "authoritative"

conclusion that I am posting nonsense,

while He is the "gaurdian of all good and holy"

and then I call him on that offensive stance,

you have a problem with that ?

 

Anyone who makes a grand blanket offensive statement

with nothing other then his opinion and self promoting

attitude by denigrating others, needs to be shown

the error of his ways,i am not offended in any way,

but by this type of derogatory attack he clouds the issue,

he attempts to promote His own limited vision and those

whose mundane views are the same without any evidence

to back them up, If He made a specific complaint about

a specific point and then made an attempt to correct

my mistake, then that is the accepted process,that is faultless.

 

But he doesn't do that,He makes a general statement

using untruth to demean another person, this i point

out,nothing else,he is welcome to His views,but If He

wants to establish His vision as superior to another

He should do it in the non offensive sanctioned

way,otherwise it is nothing more then egotistic

and aparadha.

[Govindaram]

Hare Krishna

 

I like your comments prabhu, and living entitie Mata, i don't know what started this so-called material fued, but alls good in love and war, premsa kaho jai sri radhe!

 

 

[ancient_paztriot]

"… you have a problem with that ?"

 

I think there is miscommunication.

 

(I don't agree with either of you wholly, but I'm not gonna get nasty about it. My views probably have something wrong with them too.)

 

I don't want to take part in your attitude. I'll humbly bow out.

 

I think you have to be more careful with devotees than karmis.

[Guest guest]

We have to see Krsna in all things, She makes Her

statements by the will of God, As do I, I know

she is simply following the purpose of the supreme will,

knowing that i also know what is nothing more then

an attempt to denigrate a person whose views you disagree with.

 

I think the basic vision i promote is the same vision

As Bhaktivedanta which i have shown, I can post the same

from other acharyas,but what is the point if you see

your own vision as the final word ?

 

I know these concepts have been a source of a lot

of debate within the vaisnava community,what is the

position of Guru Tattva and the accompaning worship

of Sri murti etc.

 

The literalist make statements like "if the photo

or murti is not the same as the guru why worship

it ? "

 

This concept shows the basic misunderstanding of the concept

of "worship".

 

Why worship anything ,murti,photo,person,God ?

 

What is worship ?

 

What is the purpose of worship ?

 

Without understanding these things first then any attempt

to establish proper worship will be faulty.

 

What is worship ? Is worship bowing down and making an external show of humility ?

 

The process of Sadhana bhakti is different for devotees

on different levels, the kanistha adhikari,the beginner

sees things in a certain way ,he doesn't have expertise

in shastric conclusions or realization of siddhanta,

He takes the external process of Sadhana bhakti and the

the forms of worship as all in all, he sees worship

as ritual performed for the benefit of the worshipped,

when it is really for the benefit of the worshipper.

 

from Bhaktivedanta swami

 

"Kanistha-adhikari, he worships the Deity, but he does not know how to do good to others, neither he knows who is devotee. In the kanistha-adhikara, in the lower stage of devotional service, one cannot distinguish. But he should be engaged fully in Deity worship so that gradually he will develop his maha-bhagavata stage. And madhyama-adhikari means he knows how to make others hari-jana, or devotee.

 

isvare tad-adhinesu

balisesu dvisatsu ca

prema-maitri-krpa upeksa

yah karoti sa madhyamah

 

He not only worships the Deity wholeheartedly... That is prema. Isvare prema. But beyond that, tad adhinesu -- he knows how to respect the devotees, tad adhinesu, isvara adhinesu. That means other devotees. Then he becomes madhyama-adhikari. If he simply takes care of the Deity worship and if he does not offer respectful behavior to another devotee, he is kanistha-adhikari. He is in the lower stage. So isvare tad adhinesu. He must see that "Here is a devotee." He must have power to see that "Here is a devotee."

 

" There are three stages to realization of the Supreme Lord's presence. The kanistha-adhikari is in the lower stage of realization. He goes to one place of worship, such as a temple, church or mosque, according to his religious faith, and worships there according to scriptural injunctions. Such a devotee considers the Lord to be present at the place of worship and nowhere else. He cannot ascertain who is in what position in devotional service, nor can he tell who has realized the Supreme Lord. Such devotees follow the routine formulas and sometimes quarrel amongst themselves, considering one type of devotion better than another. These kanistha-adhikaris are actually materialistic devotees who are simply trying to transcend the material boundaries in order to reach the spiritual plane.

 

Those who have attained the second stage of realization are called madhyama-adhikaris. These devotees observe four principles, which are:

 

(1) They see, first of all, the Supreme Lord.

(2) They see next the devotees of the Lord.

(3) They see the innocent, who have no knowledge of the Lord.

(4) They see the atheists who have no faith in the Lord and who hate those in devotional service.

 

The madhyama-adhikari behaves differently according to circumstances. He adores the Lord, considering Him to be the object of love, and he makes friends with those who are in devotional service. He tries to awaken the dormant love of God in the hearts of the innocent, but he does not approach the atheists who deride the very name of the Lord."

 

'Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism,' Srila Prabhupada wrote in his commentary to Bhagavad-Gita 3.4. He amplified this in a lecture of l966: 'You should be religious, but should understand everything philosophically. Otherwise one becomes fanatic, religious fanatic. In the Caitanya-caritamrta it is clearly said that caitanyer dayera katha karaha vicara. You people, you try to understand the gifts of Caitanya Mahaprabhu by your philosophical understanding. Not blindly, philosophically.' This instruction is applied in the matter of the guru: As stated in the Science of Self-Realization (Chapter 2): 'The sastras [scriptures] enjoin that before we take a guru we study him carefully . . . . We should not accept a guru suddenly, out of fanaticism. That is very dangerous."

 

 

" The process is that we first surrender to Krsna's representative; then we surrender to Krsna. There it is said, saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastraih: the guru is as good as God. When we offer respects to the guru we are offering respects to God. Because we are trying to be God conscious, it is required that we learn how to offer respects to God through God's representative. In all the sastras the guru is described to be as good as God, but the guru never says, "I am God." The disciple's duty is to offer respect to the guru just as he offers respect to God, but the guru never thinks, "My disciples are offering me the same respect they offer to God; therefore I have become God." As soon as he thinks like this, he becomes a dog instead of God. Therefore Visvanatha Cakravarti says, kintu prabhor yah priya eva tasya. Because he is the most confidential servitor of God, the guru is offered the same respect that we offer God. God is always God, guru is always guru. As a matter of etiquette, God is the worshipable God, and guru is the worshiper God (sevaka-bhagavan). Therefore the guru is addressed as prabhupada. The word prabhu means "lord," and . means "position." Thus prabhupada means "he who has taken the position of the Lord." This is the same as saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastraih. "

 

 

"The sastras enjoin that before we take a guru we study him carefully to find out whether we can surrender to him. We should not accept a guru suddenly, out of fanaticism. That is very dangerous. The guru should also study the person who wants to become a disciple to see if he is fit. That is the way a relationship is established between the guru and disciple. Everything is provided, but we must take up the process seriously. Then we can be trained to become a bona fide disciple. First we must find a bona fide guru, establish our relationship with him, and act accordingly. Then our life will be successful, for the guru can enlighten the sincere disciple who is in darkness. "

 

[livingentity]

you are reading more into my posts than what they are. I have seen you do this before with others so I should have known this would happen.

 

When I asked what made you right and the rest of us wrong I was responding to the posts that you made telling yasodanandana that he is wrong and telling me to "get it right" about some things we said. You have been the "authority' here in all your posts. Read back...

 

It is quite obvious that it is ok for you to disagree with things that are said but when someone questions or disagrees with you then it is a different story. I end my participation in this now.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

i disagree,I was having a philosophical debate

with yasodanandana and then you decided that

you would tell us the truth(your version)

 

 

what makes you right and us wrong? You use so many words and at times say the same things we are saying then turn around and contradict yourself.

 

 

 

 

here we see you making up "truth",setting up your proposition that what I have said is bogus,you don't

make any reference to what you mean,just a general

condemnation.

 

 

I go back to what I said before....so often we make things much more difficult than necessary and this includes using convoluted paragraph after paragraph to try to appear to be more authoritative than others.

 

 

 

Then here you drive home your point,that what i have

said is not anything more then an insincere attempt

to appear "authoritative",by the use of "convoluted"

ideas, again no specifics,just a general

demonization.

 

 

Back to basics...do as Lord Krishna tells us in Bhagavad Gita and make your offerings with Love and Devotion and He will accept.

 

 

And then out of left field you make some unknown

point,trying to make it seem as if i am preaching against

the idea of the Bhagavad Gita,Krsna,devotion,

or Love.

 

 

Also, know that the spiritual master is there and knows that you are doing this.

 

 

then comes the admonishment,putting forth first the demonization,

then the warning that my "demonic" ideas are seen

for what they are by the "spiritual master"

from some all seeing dimension,and that you also

have this power,that is, to put me in my place,

which is of course beneath you.

 

 

Very basic but works for me.

 

Basta

 

 

 

then you end with a note of exasperation,

'Basta', enough,

Well thank you very much, your tattva siddhanta is much appreciated, i am glad you were able to contribute to the discussion in such "spiritual" way, clearly you had a lot to contribute,i guess you were not trying to demonize what you disgreed with.

[Guest guest]

You tried the same tactic earlier

 

"Actually, Shiva....

 

Lord Krsna - Himself instructs us to offer with love and devotion....

 

Bhagavad Gita; Chapter Nine, Verse 26:

 

patram puspam phalam toyam

yo me bhaktya prayacchati

tad aham bhakty-upahrtam

 

If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it"

 

This implied i was preaching against that concept,

you imply I was preaching that Krsna doesn't

accept.

 

Again you are creating untruth,then demonizing me for

speaking that, I had said if you go back and see,

that Krsna doesn't only accept the devotion,but the

offering as well, in your haste to demonize me

you created a phantom point, that i was against

the concept of Krsna accepting these things,

this shows your motive,you create false reality,

then demonize me by use of that false reality,

then when i point this out you claim i misread

and created "convoluted" arguments to appear

superior.

 

Which is in fact exactly what you have done,

you create the false reality,the straw man,

then attack that false reality,all the while

claiming i put forth that false reality.

 

why are you doing this ?

 

If you disagree with a point i make,

that is perfectly all right,

you can debate that properly,

but if you resort to demonization

through dishonesty,you will be

taken to task,all in love.

[Guest guest]

dear shiva:

"What is worship ? Is worship bowing down and making an external show of humility ?"

•••no, but why associate external show of humility with the worship of the murti or the person of the vaishnava? one cannot worship the murti believing that he's really krsna with humility?

 

prabhupada: He not only worships the Deity wholeheartedly... That is prema. Isvare prema. But beyond that, tad adhinesu -- he knows how to respect the devotees, tad adhinesu, isvara adhinesu. That means other devotees. Then he becomes madhyama-adhikari. If he simply takes care of the Deity worship and if he does not offer respectful behavior to another devotee, he is kanistha-adhikari. He is in the lower stage. So isvare tad adhinesu. He must see that "Here is a devotee." He must have power to see that "Here is a devotee."

•••prabhupada is simply saying that the deity worship of the kanista is done in a material mood... not that deity worship is kanista

 

and, in my opinion all the nice citations add nothing to this... please indicate what particular citation you are bringing is supporting your idea, maybe i can change mine, maybe i can give an answer

 

[Guest guest]

you were asking what is the point of worshipping

a murti or photo of the Guru if the Guru is not

literaly present in those things.

 

I am trying to point out that "worship" is not for

the purpose of pleasing the worshipped,it is for

purification of the worshipper,ultimately

Radha Krsna is only receptive to intimate

love,devoid of any form of worship.

 

what is worship ?

 

In the sense of puja ?

 

offering incense or food to the murti or photo ?

 

That is a specific form of Sadhana bhakti,it's purpose

is to elevate the consciousness of the performer,

the kanistha sees this ritual from the external

viewpoint, He sees the murti or photo as literaly

the same as the Guru not understanding that the ritual

itself is a process of Sadhana,the Guru is present

in a symbolic fashion,by engaging in the worship

of the murti or photo the Guru is not actually

experiencing that worhsip, the worshipper is

engaged in a meditation,The murti of the diety

is another matter,although similar.

 

the guru/vaisnava is a jiva, He is empowered as Saktyavesa,

this doesn't mean He becomes like Vishnu,He cannot

exist in more then one place at a time,he cannot

do anything that Vishnu can do,As i quoted Prabhupada

saying,guru is not omniscient,the Guru is empowered

to present Bhakti,not anything else,He cannot

be aware of you worshipping a murti or picture,

He is a jiva.

 

the concept of a guru having more mystical powers

is not supported by anything in any Gaudiya shastra,

if you can show this to be wrong,go ahead.

 

When someone says they feel the presence of their Guru

that does not mean the Guru is actually there,

Paramatma is there, you feel whatever Paramatma

wants you to feel,On the Battlefield of Kuruksetra

the entire scene is being related by the mystic

vision of a jiva, the jiva himself has no power

for that,if the Paramatma wishes then the jiva can

see anything,but that is not the jivas power,

it is given by God.

 

So the guru is a jiva,he may have some vision given

by paramatma,he doesn't have the power of paramatma

in all things, he cannot exist in his murti or picture

or anywhere like Vishnu ,Vishnu is omnipresent

therefore the murti or diety of Radha Krsna or any Vishnu

diety is non different from Vishnu in every sense,

Vishnu exists everywhere in fullness,therefore the diety

is in fact 100% God, the guru is another matter entirely,

we should not confuse one with the other.

 

Guru is one, Prabhupada many times has said the Guru

is the "transparent via medium", you disagreed

and said this was like some phantom or ghost

concept of guru.

 

This is the Vedic understanding,as Prabhupada said

in my earlier post,"there is only One Guru",

in fact the devotee/guru is exactly as he puts it,

"a via medium" , God speaks through and inhabits

the mind of the Guru,in this way Krsna says;

 

"acarya mam vijaniyat", "I am the acarya",

 

The guru is a medium for Krsna,the Guru is Krsna, the devotee is not Guru,the devotee is a medium for Sri Guru,

 

" There is only one Guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others."

 

thus from Srila Prabhupadas words we should understand

that the worship of Sri Guru is in fact as a

medium for the One Guru who appears in an infinity

of forms.

 

That should be our vision, the devotee is not some kind

of mystically empowered entity that can see and hear

through the murti or photo as Visnu can,the devotee

is the medium for the One Guru,that One Guru

is God,and God can be seen as one with murti or photo,

so in that sense,in a symbolic fashion,the devotee/guru

is empowered,not as God but as medium for Guru.

 

 

[Guest guest]

When Sridhar Swami wrote his commentary on the Bhagavat it was rejected by the Sankarites of Banaras due to the bhakti content and the acceptance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as parabrahma. However, Sripad Sridhar Swami was vastly learned in the Vedanta etc., and thus the Sankarites could not refute his arguments. Nonetheless, because Sridhar Swami's opinion did not stride alongside that of the established institution of the advaitic school, the Sankarites would not accept it.

 

Lastly the Sankarites proposed what seemed to be an impossible test. They suggested that the Bhagavat commentary of Sridhar Swami be placed in the temple of Viswanatha over night and if Lord Shiva accepted the commentary, then, so would they.

 

Sridhar Swami was a saranagata-bhakta, a fully surrendered soul who had embraced the ashraya-tattva, i.e., the shelter of the Supreme Lord. Therefore he agreed to the test with the faith within that his destiny was in good hands.

 

The Bhagavat, with commentary, was placed in the temple of Lord Visvanatha for the night and when the doors of the sanctum-sanctorium were opened in the morning this verse was revealed:

 

 

aham vedmi suko vetti, vyaso vetti na vetti va

bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam, na buddhya na ca tikaya

 

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted the first line of this sloka which says that the position of the guru is relative not absolute. The disciple may see him as absolute, that is another thing, but not others or more importantly he does not see himself as absolute.

 

In this regard Sriman Mahaprabhu spoke to Sanatana Goswami;

 

Sanatana, Krishna is going to give His kindness to you through me. I am talking to you like a madman. I feel many things are passing through me to you. But I do not know that I myself have the thing.

 

So the verse;

 

 

aham vedmi suko vetti, vyaso vetti na vetti va

bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam, na buddhya na ca tikaya

 

is accepted at least in the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya as authoritative. What has passed through Srila Vyasadeva may or may not be known to him.

 

[Guest guest]

offering incense or food to the murti or photo ?

That is a specific form of Sadhana bhakti,it's purpose

is to elevate the consciousness of the performer..

••••what i am saying is that in bhakti there's not a separation of the goal by the method, chanting hare krishna is not a practice that brings to a goal different from chanting, chanting brings the chanting, we worship the real thing, not a symbolic thing to bring some advancement then when there's a more mature understanding it is abandoned. In the murti there's krsna, otherwise how can we be elevated? the demonstration is that the murti worship is done at every stage, kanista, madyam, uttama, there's not a word from any acharya saying that in the murti there's not really krsna or the spiritual master (the same with the photo). And the problem is in the kanista because he do not sees krsna in the murti.. he sees only himself performing puja and being perfect for the fact of following perfectly rules and regulation. This fits in your idea, he could be worshiping really krsna or not, but he do not cares, for the perfection is achieved by the mere exact performing of the rituals in itself.

The practices are elevating? yes.. because they put in contact the practitioneer with the object of devotion, in the murti there's krsna or the master, in the name there's krsna, not that chanting someday will bring us krsna, He's already there.

In my opinion you can't bring any quote from any acharya to contradict the things i have said, but if you can, you're welcomed, but it would be a complete revolution in the idea of bhakti and sadhana

 

the Guru is present in a symbolic fashion,

••••not demonstrated logically neither by quotations of the acharyas, this is a buddhist concept, to make a practice to achieve a different goal, in vaishnavism practice and goal is the same, there's nothing beyond, there's not a more deeper reality.. only our understanding has to be much deeper and our vision sharper

 

the guru/vaisnava is a jiva, He is empowered as Saktyavesa, this doesn't mean He becomes like Vishnu,

•••it is this shakti given by vishnu for the purpose of preaching that makes him as good as god, this is the difference.. krsna is empowered by his own powers, guru is empowered by the krsna's power.. and this power is meant to save the people from ignorance, so if guru accepts to be worshipped in the murti he is there by the powers of krsna, not his powers. In this way there's the real advancement, we advance because we are in contact with the real thing, the guru is there in his VANI kind of associaion

 

He cannot exist in more then one place at a time

•••this could be very easy to discuss... there's millions of examples of saints in every religion who manifestate themselves simultaneously in many places, we know also that the guru, being a "vaikunta man" lives a "parallel" role in the krsna lila, as stated in guruvastakam and as recalled in many vaishnava lilas

 

As i quoted Prabhupada saying,guru is not omniscient,the Guru is empowered to present Bhakti

•••yes, that's the point... shaktiavesha avatara!! empowered by krsna to do is job, and "empowered to present bhakti" means many things, all the things i have said.. empowered also to be in the murti and in the photo, a power given by krsna

 

He cannot be aware of you worshipping a murti or picture, He is a jiva.

•••not a jiva, an empowered jiva, a jiva who is given powers by god to be aware (CIT!!!)

 

When someone says they feel the presence of their Guru

that does not mean the Guru is actually there,

Paramatma is there, you feel whatever Paramatma

wants you to feel,

•••so the paramatma is bringing to me some illusion? maya?... no, the meaning is that guru comes because being his representative, his incarnation, his avatara, he is given the powers to come... prabhupada says "i feel constantly the presence of my guru maharaja", not that "paramatma makes me remember my guru maharaja" it is very hard to contradict this statement

 

So the guru is a jiva,he may have some vision given by paramatma

•••••no he has the complete vision given by paramatma, or the complete vision for the purpose of preaching.. shaktiavesha avatara, sended for a purpose with the necessary powers

 

he doesn't have the power of paramatma in all things

•••already said... he has powers given for his job.. and to do his job he have to be in association with the disciple also in VANI form, the remembering, the execution of the service given to him. even when he's in another part of the planet or in another planet. In iskcon we have seen also the ritvik practice, prabhupada said to some disciples to give HIS initiation to many disciples also without his manifest phisical presence or manifest approvation. But prabhupada was there, was approving, was accepting and was initiating by the powers given to him by the paramatma, chaitya guru

 

the guru is another matter entirely,

we should not confuse one with the other.

•••the difference is that god has powers, guru is empowered

 

Guru is one, Prabhupada many times has said the Guru

is the "transparent via medium", you disagreed

and said this was like some phantom or ghost

concept of guru.

••no you have read not wery well or my english is desperate... i said that the guru is not a shape, a dress, a function, an office, an inconscious man where krsna enters as a ghost making he doing something like a puppet.. guru is a person, CIT, conscious, and he manages directly and personally the powers given to him by the caitya guru, paramatma, balarama, krishna

 

" There is only one Guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others."

•••yes, and as avatar, every form is a complete individual, full of personality, not simply a puppet or a robot inhabited by the paramatma.. like a gost in an iinconscious individual

 

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted the first line of this sloka which says that the position of the guru is relative not absolute. The disciple may see him as absolute, that is another thing, but not others or more importantly he does not see himself as absolute

•••it does not demonstrates that the guru is not empowered by krsna.. the guru is empowered to preach to the disciples and he himself has similarly empowered friends and godbrothers who even cannot have the same opinion on some preaching subjects... the guru has also a guru (empowered by krsna to do his service) who treat him as a disciple, correcting, chastizing and teaching... but all of them are incarnating the principle of chatya guru, they are empowered, and in the empowering there's variety.. not that this variety of rasa exchanges demosntrates that the guru is a common man sometimes in maya!! (so one thinks that sridhara maharaja is more perfect than prabhupada or the opposite.... no they are equally empowered and in the empowering there's variety, lila, exchange)

 

Sanatana, Krishna is going to give His kindness to you through me. I am talking to you like a madman. I feel many things are passing through me to you. But I do not know that I myself have the thing.

•••yes, this is the exact spirit... and there's the famous lila when gaura and nitai give their murtis to the devotee who did not want to be separated by them, and this devotee "so if you and the murti are the same... you remain and the murtis go away!!"

and they stand still raised hands like the murti, they became "wooden" and the murti became "flesh"..

 

this several times until the devotee understands that them and their murti are exactly the same

 

hare krishna

[Guest guest]

you have yet to provide a single source for your

ideas, i have provided ,you have not,

Prabhupada said the power of the guru is

in presenting Bhakti,that is all,Mahaprabhu

has said he is being used and he may not know

how or what is coming through him,yet you keep

saying the guru has this power himself,the guru

is empowered in so many ways, where are the

shastric evidences ?

 

Is the siksa or is it the diksa guru who is literaly present in his picture ?

which one can have expansions ?

We can have many many siksa gurus,we can have more then

one diksa guru,are they all empowered as you believe ?

 

any vaisnava who gives relevant instructions is considered

to be a siksa guru,are the many thousands who can do this

all empowered as you believe ?

 

Which gurus have this power you speak of ?

do you know of any ?

Have they told you they are doing these things ?

Can you show anywhere where anyone claims these powers?

 

The line of Bhaktisiddhanta is considered a line of siksa,

the instructions are considered to be the relevant

connection, Jiva goswami even said an actual

diksa guru in person is not even necessary,

so are all of the siksa gurus,are they all

empowered to appear in many thousands of places at once ?

 

I mean in practical terms we see gurus having thousands

of disciples,they are all offering food and puja to the

murti or picture,are all of those gurus expanding

thousands of times every day and experiencing

this Vishnu type of lifestyle ?

 

Have you asked any of them if they are experiencing

this phenomena of expansions like Vishnu tattva ?

 

 

This is from Bhaktisiddhanta

 

"No jiva can be the medium of the service of the Absolute to another jiva . The Absolute alone may communicate His service to the separable constituents of Himself. This is the real nature of the function of the guru.

 

Nityananda is the Primary Manifestive Constituent of the Divinity. Nityananda alone possesses the distinctive function of the guru. In Nityananda the function is embodied. Nityananda is the servant-God. He serves Sri Gaurasundar by the distinctive method of reverential servitude. He is identical with Sri Balarama of Krsna-lila."

 

“In the Bhagavad-gitä both the living beings and the Supreme Being are said to be all-pervading (‘yena sarvam idam tatam’), yet there is a difference between these two kinds of all-pervasiveness. A common living being or soul can be all-pervading within his own limited body, but the supreme living being is all-pervading in all space and all time. A common living being cannot extend its influence over another common living being by its all-pervasiveness, but the Supreme Supersoul, the Personality of Godhead, is unlimitedly able to exert His influence over all places and all times and over all living beings." ”(A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srimad bhagavatam 1:12:11. Purport.)

 

 

"If you offenselessly chant Hare Krsna, everything will be revealed from within because Krsna is sitting within you. If you are strong and have faith and conviction in Krsna, as well as in the spiritual master, the transparent via medium to Krsna, then Krsna is there. The Vedas say that if you have implicit faith in God and implicit faith in your bona fide guru, who teaches you Krsna consciousness, then the result will be that all the Vedic scriptures will be revealed authoritatively."

(A.C.Bhaktivedanta)

 

[Guest guest]

you have yet to provide a single source for your

ideas, i have provided ,you have not,

••your quotes are not your exclusive property :-).. in my opinion they demostrates what i am saying

 

Prabhupada said the power of the guru is

in presenting Bhakti,

••of course.. i said it too.. shaktiavesha.. for a purpose

 

Mahaprabhu

has said he is being used and he may not know

how or what is coming through him

•••yes

 

yet you keep

saying the guru has this power himself,

•••• yes, his power is given by krsna... but he's not a symbol, he's active in using this power, not a robot or a puppet.. and his empowering gives to him the possibility to go beyond the realm of the material nature.. like being in the murti and accepting the food from the photo or seeing the heart of the disciple... this is empowering, he has the necessary powers to play the role of the incarnation of the paramatma

 

where are the

shastric evidences ?

••i quoted vaishnava songs and i have used your quotes

 

Is the siksa or is it the diksa guru who is literaly present in his picture ?

•••the guru... there's not significative differences in for this purpose

 

which one can have expansions ?

•••both

 

We can have many many siksa gurus,we can have more then

one diksa guru,are they all empowered as you believe ?

•••in this life you can have only ONE diksa and infinite siksas.... they have to be pure, uttama adhikari and they all are empowered by paramatma

 

any vaisnava who gives relevant instructions is considered

to be a siksa guru

••siksa has the same duties of the diksa, he must have the same purity, he has to be an uttama adhikari... in the songs gurudeva, guruvandanam and guruvastakam there's not distinctions... of course also the disciple has the same duties

 

Which gurus have this power you speak of ?

••the real guru.. siksa or diksa

 

do you know of any ?

••yes, many disappeared.. others living

 

Jiva goswami even said an actual

diksa guru in person is not even necessary,

•••not in the "caste" sense... but if one is following a siksa, it is natural that the siksa takes all the entire responsibility and gives also the initiation

 

so are all of the siksa gurus,are they all

empowered

••yes

 

I mean in practical terms we see gurus having thousands

of disciples,they are all offering food and puja to the

murti or picture,are all of those gurus expanding

thousands of times every day and experiencing

this Vishnu type of lifestyle ?

•••apart your hirony yes... prabhupada is in every statue, murti, photo of him... the same with prahlad maharaja, garuda and your uttama adhikari gurudeva

 

This is from Bhaktisiddhanta: "No jiva can be the medium of the service of the Absolute to another jiva . The Absolute alone may communicate His service to the separable constituents of Himself. This is the real nature of the function of the guru

••••• yes.. the guru is the expansion of the absolute.. everything in krsna consciousness is done by the absolute or by the power given by the absolute to the vaishnava,, there's no real difference

 

prabhupada: ". A common living being or soul can be all-pervading within his own limited body"

••.a common living being... not the empowered vaishnava who is not common

 

If you are strong and have faith and conviction in Krsna, as well as in the spiritual master, the transparent via medium to Krsna, then Krsna is there.

•••transparent medium, if you see the master you see krsna, if you hear the master you hear krsna, if you offer to the master you offer to krsna... if the master is not sat, cit, ananda.. special.. empowered... as good as god.. why to have faith in him?

 

there's not any of these citations that demonstrate that the guru is only a symbol... they demonstrates, in my opinion, the opposite.. the guru, empowered by krsna, has the powers of krsna for the purpose of doing his service.. otherwise, if he's a symbol and he's not really partecipating, what's the meaning of this "enpowering"? you are believing in a "non enpowered" guru, symbolic is the opposite of empowered. The sign of the subway or the sign of radioactivity, or road signs are propery symbols because they are not at all the real thing, they are only an indication of the existence of the real thing behind them.. a danger.. the subway.. a road crossing etc. This is not for murtis, mantras, pictures, japa, tilak, the fire in the yajna worshipping acts, "jayas", bowing, dandavats etc... this is the bhakti, everything is real and we see it when our eyes will be opened by the torch of consciousness lighted by the spiritual master.. om ajnana timirandasya...

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

where are the

shastric evidences ?

••i quoted vaishnava songs and i have used your quotes

 

 

To such a misguided interpreter we may reply, “Why should you suggest such fallacious logic? An interpretation is never accepted as evidence if it opposes the principles of scripture. (Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi-lila 2:73.)

 

as of this moment you have not provided a single

source other then your interpretation for

your ideas,you have yet to provide anything from

shastra that agrees with your concept of a jiva

becoming a special type of empowered omnipresent

entity, your interpretation is yours,where is the shastra that says exactly what you say ?

 

If you cannot present that then you are using your

interpretation as authority,what is the point of

shastra or guru if you can create your own

philosophy and claim the shastra is what you present ?

 

If what you say is correct surely you can find something

in the vast amounts of shastra available that says

EXACTLY what you say, if not then you should accept

your interpretation as your vision,correct or incorrect

if it is not in shastra then we cannot simply accept

your interpretation as authoritative.

 

 

yet you keep

saying the guru has this power himself,

•••• yes, his power is given by krsna... but he's not a symbol, he's active in using this power, not a robot or a puppet.. and his empowering gives to him the possibility to go beyond the realm of the material nature.. like being in the murti and accepting the food from the photo or seeing the heart of the disciple... this is empowering, he has the necessary powers to play the role of the incarnation of the paramatma

 

 

 

 

"Only by Your causeless mercy will my words become pure. I am sure that when this transcendental message penetrates their hearts, they will certainly feel gladdened and thus become liberated from all unhappy conditions of life.

O Lord, I am just like a puppet in Your hands. So if You have brought me here to dance, then make me dance, make me dance, O Lord, make me dance as You like."

(Bhaktivedanta Swami)

 

"After Prabhupada encouraged all of us to write and distribute books about Krsna, one of my godbrothers commented, "We are simply your puppets, Srila Prabhupada. You're giving us the books." This did not seem to satisfy Srila Prabhupada, as he made the following reference to the guru-parampara. "No.

We are all puppets of Krsna. I am also a puppet. This is disciplic succession."

 

 

"Thank you very much and all the devotees for offering me a garland daily as you were doing when I was physically present. If a disciple is constantly engaged in carrying out the instructions of his spiritual master, he is supposed to be constantly in company with his spiritual master. This is called vani-seva. So there are two kinds of service to the spiritual master. One is called Vani seva means 'executing the instruction,' and vapuh seva means 'physically personally rendering service.' so in the absence of physical presentation of the spiritual master, the vani seva is more important."

(Bhaktivedanta Swami)

 

“No one should attempt to create or manufacture answers. One must refer to the sästras and give answers according to Vedic understanding. The words yathä-srutam refer to Vedic knowledge. The Vedas are known as sruti because this knowledge is received from authorities. The statements of the Vedas are known as sruti-pramäëa. One should quote evidence from the sruti—the Vedas or Vedic literature—and then one’s statements will be correct. Otherwise one’s words will proceed from mental concoction.” (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srimad Bhagavatam 7:13:23. Purport.)

 

"Therefore, a pure devotee, who does not say anything beyond which was spoken by Krishna, therefore his statement is also without mistake. Common man within this material world, he commits mistake: "To err is human." Even big, big personalities, they commit mistake. But narayana parah. He is transcendental. Krishna is transcendental. There cannot be any mistake; there cannot be any illusion. Those who are in this material world, they have got four defects: they commit mistake, they are illusioned, and their senses are imperfect, bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, and they're cheaters. Because... Just like modern-day scientists and philosophers, they propagate so many branches of knowledge, but when, on the crucial point, they are caught, they say, "I, I, I do not know perfectly. I do not know perfectly. We are trying to know. In future, we shall tell you the perfect." But if you are not in perfect knowledge, why should you take the post of a teacher? If your knowledge is imperfect, then whatever you speak, that is imperfect. Therefore with imperfect knowledge, why you should become a teacher? That is cheating. That is cheating. Therefore purposefully Vyasadeva is writing, sri-bhagavan uvaca, where there is no cheating, no imperfection, no illusion, no mistake. Four things.

 

This is Bhagavan. Why we are taking Bhagavad-gita so seriously? There are so many other books we can read, so many theories, so many philosophers, big, big philosophers. But we cannot take them because they are defective. The author is sure to commit mistake. He is illusioned. Because his senses are not perfect, therefore imperfection.

 

So with all these defects, we cannot accept anyone's knowledge. This is Vedic process. This is called parampara system, disciplic succession. We receive knowledge perfectly from the Supreme Bhagavan. And if I receive the knowledge from Bhagavan, and if I distribute the same knowledge as Bhagavan has said, without any interpretation of my cheating policy, then the knowledge which I distribute, that is also perfect. I may not be perfect, but the knowledge which I have taken from Krishna, if I present it as it is, without any interpretation, then what I give you, that is perfect. It is very easy to understand. I have given this example several times... Just like a peon has brought a money order for you, thousand dollars. So he's giving you. So you cannot say, "Oh, here is a peon. He's a poor man. How he can give me one thousand dollars?" He's not giving; the money is sent by somebody else. He's simply handing you. Therefore Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says, aamaar aajnaaya guru haya taraha ei desh. He's asking everyone to become a spiritual master. So how everyone can become a spiritual master? A spiritual master must have sufficient knowledge, so many other qualifications. No. Even without any qualifications, one can become a spiritual master. How? Now the process is, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says, amara ajnaya: "On My order." That is the crucial point. One does not become spiritual master by his own whims. That is not spiritual master. He must be ordered by superior authority. Then he's spiritual master. Amara ajnaya. Just like in our case. Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that "You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English." So we have tried it. That's all. It is not that I am very much qualified. The only qualification is that I have tried to execute the order of superior authority. That's all. This is the secret of success."

(Bhaktivedanta Swami)

[Guest guest]

as of this moment you have not provided a single

source other then your interpretation for

your ideas

•••no.. the sources are not yours... the fact that you have brought some verses is not in itself a guarantee.. especially if i have an exactly opposite interpretation of your quotes.. so wich quotes i have brought?... yours!! 'til now it is like you have brought the quotes for me (in my opinion)

 

"Only by Your causeless mercy will my words become pure. I am sure that when this transcendental message penetrates their hearts, they will certainly feel gladdened and thus become liberated from all unhappy conditions of life.

O Lord, I am just like a puppet in Your hands. So if You have brought me here to dance, then make me dance, make me dance, O Lord, make me dance as You like."

(Bhaktivedanta Swami)

•••this is due to the humbleness of srila prabhupada.. he says that his words are pure because of the causeless mercy of the lord... ok. shastric and logic... the puppet is for his infinite humbleness, if the spiritual master would be simply a puppet the message of any spiritual master would be exactly the same without any variation. So the spiritual master is not a puppet, he's an interpreter, he's active.. go to prabhupad or to any pure spiritual master and say "hey.. you are only a puppet!!".. do you think it is right? if the spiritual master is not active and partecipating like a real person, not a puppet or a robot, what is the use of a present guru?.. why not simply some books? i can put the bhagavad gita in the automatic speech of my macintosh, but what's the use? so what's the use for krsna to send puppets?

 

in many times prabhupada says that he's insignificant and that he's an ordinary man.. would you use these for your purpose or you accept that many times the guru shows his humility?

 

this is another example... you bring quotation and for me the interpretation is the opposite

 

 

 

"Thank you very much and all the devotees for offering me a garland daily as you were doing when I was physically present. If a disciple is constantly engaged in carrying out the instructions of his spiritual master, he is supposed to be constantly in company with his spiritual master. This is called vani-seva. So there are two kinds of service to the spiritual master. One is called Vani seva means 'executing the instruction,' and vapuh seva means 'physically personally rendering service.' so in the absence of physical presentation of the spiritual master, the vani seva is more important."

(Bhaktivedanta Swami)

•••i do not understand.. do you think that this demonstrates that i am wrong? i think the opposite... the disciple is supposed to be constantly in company of the spiritual master.. vani-seva.. ok!! this is the power of the master, he's present, he's assisting, he's protecting even if he's phisically away.. Prabhupada does not say: "render service when i am away and you will be in the company of krsna" he says: "render service and you will ever be in MY association!!!!!" so prabhupada, enpowered by krsna.. IS THERE!

 

“No one should attempt to create or manufacture answers. One must refer to the sästras and give answers according to Vedic understanding.

•••••thanks for giving me the shastra quotation to make my points a little more autoritative than saying them only by logic..

 

hare krishna prabhu

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Devotee: Can you explain this concept of the absolute and relative position of the spiritual master?

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: By the special will of Krsna, gurudeva is a delegated power. If we look closely within the spiritual master, we will see the delegation of Krsna, and accordingly, we should accept him in that way. The spiritual master is a devotee of Krsna, and at the same time, the inspiration of Krsna is within him. These are the two aspects of gurudeva. He has his aspect as a Vaisnava, and the inspired side of the Vaisnava is the guru. On a fast day like Ekadasi, he himself does not take any grains. He conducts himself as a Vaisnava, but his disciples offer grains to the picture of their guru on the altar. The disciples offer their spiritual master grains even on a fast day.

 

The disciple is concerned with the delegation of the Lord, the, guru's inner self, his inspired side. The inspired side of a Vaisnava is acarya, or, guru. The disciple marks only the special, inspired portion within the guru. He is more concerned with that part of his character. But gurudeva himself generally poses as a Vaisnava. So, his dealings towards his disciples and his dealings with other Vaisnavas will be different. This is acintya-bhedabheda, inconceivable unity in diversity.

 

There may be imitation, and there may be deviation. Both are possible. For ulterior motives, one may make a trade of guruship, just as in the case of the caste goswamis and the sahajiya imitationists. For some reason or other, one may pose as a guru, but the syrnptoms of a real guru are given in the scriptures: sabde pare ca nisnatam brahmany upasamagrayam: "A bona fide spiritual master must be conversant with the conclusions of the Vedic literature, fixed in realization of the Supreme Truth." (Srimad Bhagavatam 11.3.21).

 

Devotee: I don't know if this is correct, but I have heard it said that if the disciple is not spiritually successful, then the Guru may not return back to Godhead but may remain in this brahmanda (universe). He may not return to Krsna until the disciple can also go.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: If that is the case, then no Guru can ever return to Krsna at any time, because the continuation of the disciples will go on, so he will have no final result at any time in his life. But we cannot think that it is so. Sometimes he may be deputed himself, or others also may be deputed in that case. But the inner instruction and inner feeling and paraphernalia will be such that in any case the disciples will have no trouble. The officer may change, but the function will go on smoothly. So the Guru may return - the nama-guru, mantra-guru, sannyasa-guru - they are all Gurus, but we must recognize something similar in them, and hence we are given the statement about the ontological aspect of Guru: saksadd haritvena samasta- "I Myself appear as the Guru, who is simultaneously and inconceivably one with and different from Myself."

 

Krsna says, acaryam mam vijaniyat: "You should look there for Me. I am there. I am your Guru. With My different types of sakti, by the jivas' recruitment or by any other way, it is My function to take you up to a different place. In every case I am there. I am there in My Madhura-rasa sakti, or Sakhya-rasa sakti, My Vatsalya-rasa sakti, Dasya-rasa sakti, and in a general way also." Sometimes one may be recruited by the Ramanuja Sampradaya and then be converted to join the Krsna Sampradaya, the Gaudiya Sampradaya. That is also possible. We are to remember the eternal link.

 

Devotee: So if someone says that the Guru himself will personally come back - that is a mundane conception, a wrong conception?

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: Yes. The main thread is there, but it will not always appear in the same form. Although to the beginners one may say that "he will come back," ultimately we find that a disciple may even be transferred into another section, and then another section, so that he may gradually reach his destination. According to the unfolding of his inner necessity, the departmental change may occur. And he will always perceive his own Guru in newer and newer ways. At first sight he perceived his Guru to be of one type; then again with progress he will see the same Guru in another way, and thereafter another new characteristic will be found in his Gurudeva. The disciple will feel, "I could not detect so much in my Guru in the beginning. I saw him in one particular way, but now I find that he is something more, and then he is still more." In this way there is divine unfoldment.

 

In this world there is unfoldment, and in the higher domain also there is unfoldment. So avesa, the Guru is something like saktyavesa. There is the "chance contingency" saktyavesa who is deputed according to a particular time, place, or circumstance, and there is also the permanent saktyavesa; but in all cases, according to the necessity of the situation and by the divine dispensation of the Lord, the disciple will be connected, and he won't feel any distrust, it is the presence within. He will quench the thirst for the full progress of his heart, there will be divine unfoldment within his heart, and again he will begin a new thirst. And that new thirst will be quenched by whom? His Guru. It will be quenched by his Guru and he won't have any feeling of unscrupulousness or anything else. As his internal thirst is being satisfied, he will feel, "There is my Gurudeva."

Wherever there is unfoldment - gradual unfoldment and full attention given to that - then we can understand that from the upper side there is Guru. Gurudeva is my guide; and as I progress, guidance of different types will be necessary for me. Always new guidance, and my progress will take me into different places, and there a new type of guidance, a new life, will again come. In this way dynamic life is going on, and the main thread is there: raso vai sah - the pure rasa, pure ecstasy. And my inner heart will approve: "Yes, I want this. This is my fate; this is my fortune." Otherwise, if any madhyama-adhikari is appointed as Guru and has so many disciples, and if he is to come back again and again, then he could never enter into nitya-lila. But that cannot be so. In any case, whoever is connected with a genuine Guru will be satisfied, because the Lord is present there.

 

acaryam mam vijaniyan, navamanyeta karhicit

na martya buddhyasuyeta, sarva deva-mayo guruh

 

(Bha: 11.17.27)

 

Krsna says, "Don't try to limit the Acarya! You may have come up to a high position, but will you then think that you have surpassed that Acarya through whom you received your initial instruction in spiritual life? No, navamanyeta don't think that there is less in him, don't consider him to be of lower position. Navamanyeta - I Myself was there! I was there in your primary teacher, in your 'college-level' teacher, and I am there in your 'post-graduate professor' also! So navamanyeta, don't look at only the outside. I Myself am your guide in different forms. It is I."

 

Sarva deva-mayo guruh: the Acarya has got more spacious characteristics than that of the ordinary, general Vaisnava. Krsna says, "For you, I am there. And mayanukulena nabhasvateritam - I am backing so many Acaryas. There are so many Acaryas, and I am working through them. The Acaryas are like helmsmen in so many different boats, and I am the favorable wind helping those boats to make progress. So don't limit the Acarya - try to see him on the same level as Me."