can we talk about Adwaita Vedanta here?
how do you approach Bhakti from a Jnana perspective, especially after the realization that all is Brahman? what should a devotee with that understanding do to better serve Bhagavan?
>how do you approach Bhakti from a Jnana perspective
You are asking how does one logically come to the conclusion that they love someone?
I dont know if you can. I think you can come with reasons there are advantages that come with love, but doesnt that kind of remove the love part - turn it into a transactional decision?
Love almost NEEDS an irrational aspect. An "everything tells me to choose A, but I dont care because I love B" or "my love for B means I can overcome even the impossible to overcome".
There's an illogical leap that needs to take place, and can take place - but through sraddha, faith, not jnana. I think that is partly why you get such verses: >Brahma Samhita 5.34: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, only the tip of the toe of whose lotus feet is approached by the yogīs who aspire after the transcendental and betake themselves to prāṇāyāma by drilling the respiration; or by the jñānīs who try to find out the nondifferentiated Brahman by the process of elimination of the mundane, extending over thousands of millions of years. >Srimad Bhagavatam 1.7.10: Sūta Gosvāmī said: All different varieties of ātmārāmas [those who take pleasure in the ātmā, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls. >what should a devotee with that understanding do to better serve Bhagavan?
Hmm. So a devotee with monist vision, interesting.
Remembrance might be a good devotional activity in this state. The very awareness, as you observe, that all this seeming diversity is One, is Brahman, is Krishna, is a devotional awareness.
You might want to look into the writings and disciplic lines coming from Vallabha Acarya, the founder of Shuddhadvaita.
> Love almost NEEDS an irrational aspect. An "everything tells me to choose A, but I dont care because I love B" or "my love for B means I can overcome even the impossible to overcome".
You just described my relationship with Hinduism and God. Thanks!
thank you for your response. i believe my approach through insight and knowledge has led to an impersonal understanding, whereas Bhakti and Krishna are very personal. so my problem is to unify these perspectives and grow a personal relationship with Krishna. >Hmm. So a devotee with monist vision, interesting.
i would say that monism has subtle differences from non-dualism, but yes, i feel like i am approaching this differently than the dualists. >Remembrance might be a good devotional activity in this state
i believe this is good advice. devotional awareness is a state of consciousness that comes and goes for me, but i am practicing maintaining it and by chanting, reading, remembering, doing service, etc. i will look research Vallabha Acarya. thanks again.
>Love almost NEEDS an irrational aspect. >There's an illogical leap that needs to take place, and can take place - but through sraddha, faith, not jnana
Shraddha generally means "faith", yes, but the philosophical meaning of the word is different. Shraddha is a quality of the individual sentient self-- It is neither physical nor Pranic nor mental. It is irrational in the sense that the mind/intellect cannot grasp it, but, shraddha is rooted in knowledge, not ignorance.
The difference between regular love/"sneha" and Bhakti (Love for God) is that Bhakti is firmly rooted in Jnana.
Thank you. Does this mean shraddha is an aspect, or based on the cit potency? A sort of delving into inherent and eternal understanding?
I often use the analogy of fitness for spirituality. That spirituality >a sense of calm joy coming from an understanding of self and self's position in reality
is analogous to fitness, and religion >recommendations of how to live and judge designed to give the most people in a society a high chance of attaining spirituality
is like a diet and exercise program.
Sraddha, then, would be the innate sense that being fit and healthy is preferred over the opposite?
Yea reading from the thread you seek a different path. But for ISKON I dont like the isolationist doctrine. There is in my view however room for people like you. Just as there is room for the social people who want to expand. To each his effort and activities.
Do you also have a video link to prabhupa speaking about this topic? I need to bully a dutch ISKON group into submission. So that they listen to the EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND
>Do you also have a video link to prabhupa speaking about this topic?
Hrmm, I cant find, but remember some saying like "the temple should be a like a military base - the point isnt for the soldiers to stay there, but to always be going out on missions."
Unfortunately, most of this is couched in the idea of giving people books, and as I said I think that might be a relic instruction.
I have no idea what Prabhupada would say about the internet, and I dont deign to surmise, other than >incredible reach >incredible distraction
and that he was no fan of television, but he would gladly sit down to broadcast Krishna-katha.
>aspect, or based on the cit potency?
Not sure what exactly you mean by cit "potency", but yes, it is a characteristic of pure cit/caitanya.
>Sraddha, then, would be the innate sense that being fit and healthy is preferred over the opposite?
The innate keenness/eagerness to be fit and healthy.
I do accept the prophecy (I think the Badri-Narayan Purana?) that has Vishnu saying one day a "great general" of his will cross the ocean to convert the heathens - that this refers to Srila Prabhupada.
But I also, at this point, kinda see him as more of a Saint Paul character, rather than a Lord Jesus character.
NOT in that he started as some opponent, but in that he changed a number of minor to kinda important things to be more palatable to another culture. Saul/Paul "reduced" the message of Lord Jesus, made it more Roman, and in doing so converted millions and millions across the globe.
Srila Prabhupada "reduced" the message of Lord Chaitanya to be more Westernized, and in doing so has made the sankirtan movement a global phenomenon that I accept will have Prabhupada's books as the spiritual basis for the next thousand years.
The problem is I'm not a big fan of Saul of Tarsas, and think he did a lot of damage to the deeper understandings. So this new "appreciation" of my grand-guru and prime pure connection to Krishna causes a bit of tension.
To add a bit of ego to my position, Rupa Goswami called this aparasa, perverted or incompatible mixing of mellows.
>cit "potency"
In sat-cit-ananda. Sat - eternality, the ultimate basis which is Krishna. Cit - awareness, the situation or spiritual environment which is Balarama. Ananda - joy - the bliss of aware existence which is Radha.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Oh wait, according to that pic - and probably the Brahma Samhita, then - I'm wring.
Balarama is sat, Krishna is cit, and Radha is ananda/hladini.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Guess that makes sense.
I've heard Balarama can be considered as like all the surroundings or situations or environment where Krishna and Radha have their activities. So for sat - eternality - to be the environment where cit and ananda play tracks.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Entirely uncertain of the providence of that text, but, Sat ([Unconditional] Truth), Cit ([Unconditional] Consciousness) and Ananda (Bliss) are the distinguishing characteristics of the Brahman/Narayana in the Upanishads.
In other contexts, "cit" can also refer to the individual self.
https://i.imgur.com/LQXU35r.jpg
I do accept the prophecy (I think the Badri-Narayan Purana?) that has Vishnu saying one day a "great general" of his will cross the ocean to convert the heathens - that this refers to Srila Prabhupada.
But I also, at this point, kinda see him as more of a Saint Paul character, rather than a Lord Jesus character.
NOT in that he started as some opponent, but in that he changed a number of minor to kinda important things to be more palatable to another culture. Saul/Paul "reduced" the message of Lord Jesus, made it more Roman, and in doing so converted millions and millions across the globe.
Srila Prabhupada "reduced" the message of Lord Chaitanya to be more Westernized, and in doing so has made the sankirtan movement a global phenomenon that I accept will have Prabhupada's books as the spiritual basis for the next thousand years.
The problem is I'm not a big fan of Saul of Tarsas, and think he did a lot of damage to the deeper understandings. So this new "appreciation" of my grand-guru and prime pure connection to Krishna causes a bit of tension.
To add a bit of ego to my position, Rupa Goswami called this aparasa, perverted or incompatible mixing of mellows.
>cit "potency"
In sat-cit-ananda. Sat - eternality, the ultimate basis which is Krishna. Cit - awareness, the situation or spiritual environment which is Balarama. Ananda - joy - the bliss of aware existence which is Radha.
Quite a few of these realms are allegorical (Please don't debate me on this).
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Quite a few of these realms are allegorical
Well, when all of "physical reality" is a temporal illusion, where does the difference between real and allegorical go?
🙂
But yeah - these are not physical locations, or even moments in time. All of that thinking remains in the material realm.
The pic I still think is nice in that it shows how the material and spiritual are mirrored reflections of each other.
You could just as easily interpret it as showing external and internal existences.
10 months ago
Anonymous
If reality that is nothing but the sportive creation of Paramatma is any form of illusion, then, it directly means that the sports (Lilas) of the Paramatma are an illusion. In that case, one must ascribe either lack of omniscience of lack of omnipotence to him. To escape this problem, one must, like Shankara, indirectly attribute both these flaws to Him by saying that He can (inherently) neither know nor act. Hardly a robust view point. >these are not physical locations
Vaikuntha and Earth are. Otherwise, the Chhandogya Upanishad passage "He does not return again" used in the physical sense becomes meaningless. What "Physical" means is another issue altogether.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>If reality that is nothing but the sportive creation of Paramatma is any form of illusion, then, it directly means that the sports (Lilas) of the Paramatma are an illusion.
Ooh, interesting.
Do you make no distinction between the karmic events of material energy and the ternal events (or rumors of events) that are Lila? >Vaikuntha and Earth are.
Hm. I would not categorize Vaikuntha along with any physical location like Earth. >Otherwise, the Chhandogya Upanishad passage "He does not return again" used in the physical sense becomes meaningless.
I accept there is a necessity that material and spiritual locations must have SOME difference, whether it is one we can understand or not.
Does it have to be a physical (meaning defined by length/width/height - or mass/physics properties) sense?
10 months ago
Anonymous
Karmic events are "conditionally true" with respect to time, much like Lilas. If Lilas were not conditionally true, then, one must argue that creation and dissolution occur at the same time, which is nonsensical. But in terms of the basis for Karma and Lilas, first's basis is conditionally true while the second is unconditionally true.
"Physical" here means that the senses of sound/touch/vision/taste/smell exist.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>If Lilas were not conditionally true, then, one must argue that creation and dissolution occur at the same time, which is nonsensical.
Would you consider that Lila are not influenced by time? They are eternally in the "now"? When do they start? Now. When do they advance? Now. when do they conclude? Now.
In the realm of Narasingha-deva, the events of Narasingha-Lila are eternally ever-present now.
It is material events that are temporally limited - this event cannot be accessed because it happened earlier or later. The spiritual is always accessible in the now. >first's basis is conditionally true while the second is unconditionally true.
I hope I see. Thank you.
[...]
For me and you to inquire into the nature of Vaikuntha is like a dreaming man inquiring into the waking state. You can do a little if you're lucid, but can never know completely.
>For me and you to inquire into the nature of Vaikuntha is like a dreaming man inquiring into the waking state.
Oh def. It is just my nature to be all kinds of autistic and nerdy about the cosmology. Lokas and tastashta-saktis and Jaiva-Dharma are my jam, dig?
10 months ago
Anonymous
Karmic events are "conditionally true" with respect to time, much like Lilas. If Lilas were not conditionally true, then, one must argue that creation and dissolution occur at the same time, which is nonsensical. But in terms of the basis for Karma and Lilas, first's basis is conditionally true while the second is unconditionally true.
"Physical" here means that the senses of sound/touch/vision/taste/smell exist.
For me and you to inquire into the nature of Vaikuntha is like a dreaming man inquiring into the waking state. You can do a little if you're lucid, but can never know completely.
I am looking at these videos from ISKON amsterdam and it has shit marketing, shit reach, the videos of grande activities get like 200 views at most. Its on youtube. I keep wondering why it is so shit, it can be much better. I blame the tyrant israelite god that still partly lives on in the minds of the people that tells them to be meek and passive.
Yes, but it is rare. "Sinner" in this case being defined as "going against the societal dharma of the time".
The first example I can think of is Bhisma-dev, the Grandsire of the Kaurava and Pandava lines. He is considered a mahajan - a great personality all should look to as a role model - and a great devotee who has entire chapters to their words in both the Mahabharata and Bhagavatam.
And yet due to the circumstances of fate, he is obliged to fight against the Pandavas, against God, at Kurukshetra. He knew he was on the wrong side, and would lose, but still he held fast to his dharmic honor (which is a whole issue and central point is the Mahabharata - the complexities and problems with dharma).
Of course, there is also a more esoteric understanding of how Bhisma opposing the Pandavas - to the point of angering Krishna and having Him almost-break his vow to not fight - was actually a loving exchange between the two, with Krishna fulfilling Bhisma's wish to see Krishna in the mood of a fierce warrior.
A second example would be Vritrasura. there is a whole backstory about his appearance and all that, but the main thing is he was summoned to attack the devas, and particularly to kill Indra.
And yet when he and Indra fought, Vritrasura suddenly gave out this incredible monologue full of devotion to the Supreme and spiritual understanding. To the point where Indra started to hesitate and he had to be reminded by Vritrasura that they were enemies and needed to fight to the death.
This is described in the 6th Canto of the Bhagavatam. Prabhupada's intro to chapter 12: >Vṛtrāsura used his remaining arm to strike Indra with an iron mace, making the thunderbolt fall from Indra’s hand. Indra, being very ashamed of this, did not pick up the thunderbolt from the ground, but Vṛtrāsura encouraged King Indra to pick it up and fight. Vṛtrāsura then spoke to King Indra as follows, instructing him very well. >“The Supreme Personality of Godhead,” he said, “is the cause of victory and defeat. Not knowing that the Supreme Lord is the cause of all causes, fools and rascals try to take credit for victory or defeat themselves, but everything is actually under the control of the Lord. No one but Him has any independence. The puruṣa (the enjoyer) and prakṛti (the enjoyed) are under the control of the Lord, for it is by His supervision that everything works systematically. Not seeing the hand of the Supreme in every action, a fool considers himself the ruler and controller of everything. When one understands, however, that the real controller is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is freed from the relativities of the world, such as distress, happiness, fear and impurity.” Thus Indra and Vṛtrāsura not only fought, but also engaged in philosophical discourses. Then they began to fight again.
I dont know if I would use such a direct and connective sounding phrase like "causing my sin". >Gita 4.13-14: According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable. > There is no work that affects Me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action. One who understands this truth about Me also does not become entangled in the fruitive reactions of work. >Gita 5.15: Nor does the Supreme Lord assume anyone’s sinful or pious activities. Embodied beings, however, are bewildered because of the ignorance which covers their real knowledge. >9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. >9.9-10: O Dhanañjaya, all this work cannot bind Me. I am ever detached from all these material activities, seated as though neutral. > This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction...producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.
It's more of a "technically causing". Like you can say technically the sun causes oil drilling because no sun means no energy hitting earth, means no life, means no civ, means no demand for fossil fuels.
> I can have a wholesome relationship with him even while sinning?
Let me legalese this by saying that I think one can perform devotional service and be making their way on the path back to Godhead while still engaging in activities that maintain and increase material identity and attachment.
I dont know if I want to put that in the grouping of "wholesome relationship", but corrupted sadhana is better than no sadhana. I know anecdotes about Prabhupada offering advice to a drunkard that he see Krishna as the enjoyment he gets from alcohol. Just to get the mind on Krishna.
> Prabhupada offering advice to a drunkard that he see Krishna as the enjoyment he gets from alcohol. Just to get the mind on Krishna.
Very cool, thank you. I am extremely corrupted and live in corruption but I still desire peace and divinity, so this is my dilemma.
Do you think Prabhupada is the real deal? You are knowledgeable — there are things about him that I’ve learned that give me pause
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Do you think Prabhupada is the real deal?
I do.
I will say I used to be with ISKCON for ~5 yrs, and havent been for ~13 yrs.
I'll also say I dont have horrible things to say about ISKCON, and think they are fine to associate with, but I heavily advise against tying yourself to them in any legal or financial way. I think they are too isolationist, to the point of excluding and denigrating even other vaishnavas.
That said, I think Prabhupada was a pure devotee. I dont know, and dont think that his life was all auspicious. And even when he was present on Earth, there was serious shit wrong with ISKCON like child abuse already. So either he saw no issue, thought it better to ignore/hide it, or had no idea it was going on.
I got no issue with the last one - he always made a distinction between having "perfect knowledge" and "all knowledge"
The second feels...possible, but disappointing. Like if Maya/Kali got just a tiny bit of influence, and he made a decision that the society was "too important to let this be addressed", and thus allowed the rot to set in and spread.
The third is also possible - that he saw what I consider abuse and his mind/body from an older time did not judge it to be. But from the tellings and quotes I have seen, I do not accept this. I dont think he saw children being physically or sexually abused and went "this is fine".
I think at most he heard of such things and went "this is exagerrated" and "I cant let this harm the movement" and made a wrong choice.
I mean, there are Puranic examples of great souls doing the wrong thing for one reason or another. But no matter how you slice it - the problems with ISKCON especially when he was alive puts a question on his bona fides, as we he would put it.
Then again - do we question Narada Muni's pure devotee status when he went to Kamsa - who was thinking he only needed to kill the 8th chiold, nbot the 1st - and Narada convinced him "No, you need to kill ALL these kids"?
10 months ago
Anonymous
>I do
Why leave then?
10 months ago
Anonymous
That said. I consider Srila Prabhupada and the Gaudiya Vaishnava line my connection to the Supreme Person, and will never give them up.
I dont think I will be initiated in this life, but I believe my guru is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada.
On the other hand, I encourage all to move outward from his and ISKCON books. Look to the writings translated by other groups, and really get a sense of what the other Vaishnava branches conceive.
Learning more about Krishna and the way others love Him will only grow your own love.
>I do
Why leave then?
1 - I did not feel qualified to remain in temple. I was IMO failing to achieve a minimum standard, and felt horrible when people would come over and start treating me like some sage.
2 - Problems with the society as mentioned in my previous post - isolationist, and remnants of an old and festered corruption
3 - I am a VERY reclusive person, and have issues with living around other people. If I was more arrogant, I would say I am on the path of an avadhuta, or babaji: those who reject social norms to follow their devotional expression. More likely I am just entrenched in Maya and dont fit in with a sattvic lifestyle.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Why not just live alone (like me), downplay your status in the community out of humility, and try to chill? It’s obvious that you have a strong connection to it. You think he’s the real deal and consider him your line to God. That alone is enough justification for me to say that you belong there. Idk.
For me, I really like it as well, but I am also wanting to try out some “regular” Hindu temples. But I doubt they will make my brain feel as light and cotton candy-ish as the Hare Krishnas, so I want to go back to ISKCON too. I just don’t believe they are the final, ultimate, and supreme “church of God” the way they claim, so I probably will never get toooo deep with them. But I still appreciate it.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Why not just live alone (like me), downplay your status in the community out of humility, and try to chill?
I do? My association with Srila Prabhupada and his devotees is mostly through books and lectures. I go to greet the nearest dieties on special occasion. I dont spend much time around people physically because I dont spend much time around people physically. I acknowledge it's a block to my spiritual development, but it isnt one that is going away this life. >I want to go back to ISKCON too
No doubt my time in temple was some of the most formative, on the same level as middle and high school. It was like all my obsessive buttons were pressed with that life.
It's just - I had to deal with other people.
Anyway - let's hear of your glories.
What attracts you to them? Do you have a particular pastime you enjoyed? In what ways have you loved Krishna?
10 months ago
Anonymous
> let's hear of your glories
Glory to Krishna 🙂 > What attracts you to them?
The focus on Krishna. I am hypnotized by Krishna. I just want to melt into oneness with his being. Their devotion to Krishna is really singular and likewise hypnotizing in that sense. Also I want an Indian gf. > Do you have a particular pastime you enjoyed?
I listen to melodic chanting for hours on end while reading commentaries of the Gita, both ‘As It Is’ and my primary ‘guru’ named Easwaran. > In what ways have you loved Krishna?
I am a total n00b. But I love his all-attractive, beautiful nature. It is superficial of me maybe but that’s what I love. It fills me with bliss and joy. Much lighter than my Orthodox Christian experience. Krishna’s yoke is lighter than Christ’s.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>Do you think Prabhupada is the real deal?
I do.
I will say I used to be with ISKCON for ~5 yrs, and havent been for ~13 yrs.
I'll also say I dont have horrible things to say about ISKCON, and think they are fine to associate with, but I heavily advise against tying yourself to them in any legal or financial way. I think they are too isolationist, to the point of excluding and denigrating even other vaishnavas.
That said, I think Prabhupada was a pure devotee. I dont know, and dont think that his life was all auspicious. And even when he was present on Earth, there was serious shit wrong with ISKCON like child abuse already. So either he saw no issue, thought it better to ignore/hide it, or had no idea it was going on.
I got no issue with the last one - he always made a distinction between having "perfect knowledge" and "all knowledge"
The second feels...possible, but disappointing. Like if Maya/Kali got just a tiny bit of influence, and he made a decision that the society was "too important to let this be addressed", and thus allowed the rot to set in and spread.
The third is also possible - that he saw what I consider abuse and his mind/body from an older time did not judge it to be. But from the tellings and quotes I have seen, I do not accept this. I dont think he saw children being physically or sexually abused and went "this is fine".
I think at most he heard of such things and went "this is exagerrated" and "I cant let this harm the movement" and made a wrong choice.
I mean, there are Puranic examples of great souls doing the wrong thing for one reason or another. But no matter how you slice it - the problems with ISKCON especially when he was alive puts a question on his bona fides, as we he would put it.
Then again - do we question Narada Muni's pure devotee status when he went to Kamsa - who was thinking he only needed to kill the 8th chiold, nbot the 1st - and Narada convinced him "No, you need to kill ALL these kids"?
>too isolationist
lol, not the guy you are replying here in this thread but. Well I am speaking on a group of ISKON why they have such weak energy, no big dick shiva energy, in regards to their non desire to branch out and to embed vedic traditions into the european volk. Like yoga, I asked them where the yoga centers were, why atheists and Buddhists make them but they never bothered to.
"durrr hurrr only chanting works in this age"
to which I replied
"most people who hear the chanting dont join in because they dont know the context, the videos of the iskon activities barely generate 200 views per video"
so yea, very isolationist, I am not sure prabhupada would have liked this.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>their non desire to branch out
Well that's just a wilting of ISKCON. I am 2nd gen and never met him, but everything I read of Prabhupada's letters was like "expand expand expand. When I am gone, at the VERY minimum, just try to hold onto what I made, but expand expand expand." There are some who still have that proselytizing spirit, though it is one of the things I do not align with. I'm definitely not one who can help people in spite of themselves.
Personally I think they should go back to just being a visual example of being happy. They used to be obviously out on the streets, they arent any more.
Book distribution is over. the books are fully online, just give people the link. But be out there and be visible, or be like me and pull away from society.
I dont know. It feels at once too Christian with looking to mega-churches for an answer, and too Hindu with looking toward pujas and devas for an answer. Like the just chant and be happy of Chaitanya isnt considered any more.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Yea reading from the thread you seek a different path. But for ISKON I dont like the isolationist doctrine. There is in my view however room for people like you. Just as there is room for the social people who want to expand. To each his effort and activities.
Do you also have a video link to prabhupa speaking about this topic? I need to bully a dutch ISKON group into submission. So that they listen to the EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND
10 months ago
Anonymous
> Like the just chant and be happy of Chaitanya isnt considered any more.
They are happy and chant on the street in Ottawa, Canada
In Montreal I remember them as recently as about 10 years ago on the street being happy
10 months ago
Anonymous
I have begun reading Ramanujacharya's commentary on the Gita. Any others you'd recommend as "bona fide" (ie not atheistic or impersonalist or watered down for middle class western hippies)?
10 months ago
Anonymous
Thank you for your frank assessment and comments. Srila Pranbhupada has somehow very often been in my life - via his books - and so I see him as my guru despite my having my own hesitation about ISKCON.
>All beings are in Me, but I am not in them
what about Paramatma? I never understood this contradiction
10 months ago
Anonymous
The literal translation is "All beings are stationed in me, but, I am not resident in them".
Means that the Paramatma's omnipresence is not dependent on the objects He pervades and that He receives no help/effort from the beings in pervading them (Explanation from Ramanuja Bhashya).
10 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/fYqK0jy.jpg
Oh wow, that's a good question.
There's the easy out of "Krishna is Supremely Independent and isnt bound by logic".
But that isnt satisfying at all.
Prabhupada wrote: >Yet one should not conclude that because He is spread all over He has lost His personal existence. To refute such argument the Lord says, "I am everywhere, and everything is in Me, but still I am aloof." For example, a king heads a government which is but the manifestation of the king's energy; the different governmental departments are nothing but the energies of the king, and each department is resting on the king's power. But still one cannot expect the king to be present in every department personally. That is a crude example. Similarly, all the manifestations that we see, and everything that exists both in this material world and in the spiritual world, are resting on the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The creation takes place by the diffusion of His different energies, and, as is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, He is everywhere present by His personal representation, the diffusion of His different energies.
I dont think that really answers the question, though.
The Bible has a similar mood. I dont remember where, but theres a whole part about "You can see me in the mountain, but I am not in the mountain."
[...] >Paramatma's omnipresence is not dependent on the objects He pervades and that He receives no help/effort from the beings in pervading them
Oh wow, thank you. Jai Ramanujacarya. Honestly I find a lot of help from his association, and it's so weird to me that Lord Chaitanya didnt take his lineage, rather than the strict Dvaita of Madhva Acarya.
thank you bros
10 months ago
Anonymous
Oh wow, that's a good question.
There's the easy out of "Krishna is Supremely Independent and isnt bound by logic".
But that isnt satisfying at all.
Prabhupada wrote: >Yet one should not conclude that because He is spread all over He has lost His personal existence. To refute such argument the Lord says, "I am everywhere, and everything is in Me, but still I am aloof." For example, a king heads a government which is but the manifestation of the king's energy; the different governmental departments are nothing but the energies of the king, and each department is resting on the king's power. But still one cannot expect the king to be present in every department personally. That is a crude example. Similarly, all the manifestations that we see, and everything that exists both in this material world and in the spiritual world, are resting on the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The creation takes place by the diffusion of His different energies, and, as is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, He is everywhere present by His personal representation, the diffusion of His different energies.
I dont think that really answers the question, though.
The Bible has a similar mood. I dont remember where, but theres a whole part about "You can see me in the mountain, but I am not in the mountain."
The literal translation is "All beings are stationed in me, but, I am not resident in them".
Means that the Paramatma's omnipresence is not dependent on the objects He pervades and that He receives no help/effort from the beings in pervading them (Explanation from Ramanuja Bhashya).
>Paramatma's omnipresence is not dependent on the objects He pervades and that He receives no help/effort from the beings in pervading them
Oh wow, thank you. Jai Ramanujacarya. Honestly I find a lot of help from his association, and it's so weird to me that Lord Chaitanya didnt take his lineage, rather than the strict Dvaita of Madhva Acarya.
10 months ago
Anonymous
1 Kings 19:11-13
“And he said, ‘Go out and stand on the mount before the Lord.’ And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave.”
That last was kinda why I stopped making threads here on BOT, but I will always be monitoring in my tamasic life to reply to any thread.
These things are some days the deepest meditation I have on Krishna.
Thank you all for making that possible.
> These things are some days the deepest meditation I have on Krishna.
Thank you all for making that possible.
It’s always good to be absorbed in the imagination of Krishna.
>does my mleccha-ness insult Him?
Krishna, and especially Lord Chaitanya, is more pure and merciful than the sun.
There is no chance of any contaminant corrupting the sun - it will purify all.
So, too, will Krishna purify all who approach, and not be tainted by any impurity form an imperfect devotee. >But at the same time, am I supposed to believe that everyone around me is racing straight into Hell?
I dont know. I suppose that is where the whole proselytizing thing comes from. Or the whole "it's all illusion, dont worry, bro".
Ultimately I see I can only control what I put into the world, not what the world gives me. This isnt a good answer, but I dont have a good one.
Sorry I deleted my post, I felt like I had put a little too much out there about myself.
I appreciate your answers though. I’m less worried about “tainting” God than I am about Him thinking I’m trying to “rise above my station” and approach Him even without qualifications.
I actually like the idea of freeing us from some of our cares by embracing the idea that the world is too illusory and temporary to really feel too much angst over.
TIL Swami Prabhupada/ISKCON teaches that Lord Buddha is one of the incarnations of Krishna > Vaiṣṇavas do not agree with the materialist or voidist aspects of Buddha's philosophy, they do worship him as an āvatāra of Kṛṣṇa and respect him for his mission, his qualities and his basic instruction of nonviolence and renunciation
https://vanipedia.org/wiki/Buddha:_A_Vaisnava_Perspective#ixzz86jcpxeI1
This thread is an incredible gift to me today, specifically. I have felt myself drawn to Krishna of late, with an immediacy and (entirely chaste) intimacy which actually frightened me at first, it feeling so different from my relationship with God in the mode of Christianity. Please tell me - is this the beginning of appropriate bhakti? Or, if it not, also tell me so that I don't remain in error.
Passion and emotional feelings for Krishna is a normal and encouraged part of Bhakti (one meaning is literally "fondness"). It's common to think about him, speak about him, learn about his past times, and generally to be engaged in performing devotional service for him.
Rama Dama Ding Dong
Jai Gaura-Nitai.
You call out for God, and His devotees will assemble.
What aspects of God are we discussing and glorifying today?
I just want to share God’s all-attractive peace and beauty
Well if you or anyone wants more than images, I'm am monitoring.
That’s a great question
can we talk about Adwaita Vedanta here?
how do you approach Bhakti from a Jnana perspective, especially after the realization that all is Brahman? what should a devotee with that understanding do to better serve Bhagavan?
>how do you approach Bhakti from a Jnana perspective
You are asking how does one logically come to the conclusion that they love someone?
I dont know if you can. I think you can come with reasons there are advantages that come with love, but doesnt that kind of remove the love part - turn it into a transactional decision?
Love almost NEEDS an irrational aspect. An "everything tells me to choose A, but I dont care because I love B" or "my love for B means I can overcome even the impossible to overcome".
There's an illogical leap that needs to take place, and can take place - but through sraddha, faith, not jnana. I think that is partly why you get such verses:
>Brahma Samhita 5.34: I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, only the tip of the toe of whose lotus feet is approached by the yogīs who aspire after the transcendental and betake themselves to prāṇāyāma by drilling the respiration; or by the jñānīs who try to find out the nondifferentiated Brahman by the process of elimination of the mundane, extending over thousands of millions of years.
>Srimad Bhagavatam 1.7.10: Sūta Gosvāmī said: All different varieties of ātmārāmas [those who take pleasure in the ātmā, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls.
>what should a devotee with that understanding do to better serve Bhagavan?
Hmm. So a devotee with monist vision, interesting.
Remembrance might be a good devotional activity in this state. The very awareness, as you observe, that all this seeming diversity is One, is Brahman, is Krishna, is a devotional awareness.
You might want to look into the writings and disciplic lines coming from Vallabha Acarya, the founder of Shuddhadvaita.
> Love almost NEEDS an irrational aspect. An "everything tells me to choose A, but I dont care because I love B" or "my love for B means I can overcome even the impossible to overcome".
You just described my relationship with Hinduism and God. Thanks!
thank you for your response. i believe my approach through insight and knowledge has led to an impersonal understanding, whereas Bhakti and Krishna are very personal. so my problem is to unify these perspectives and grow a personal relationship with Krishna.
>Hmm. So a devotee with monist vision, interesting.
i would say that monism has subtle differences from non-dualism, but yes, i feel like i am approaching this differently than the dualists.
>Remembrance might be a good devotional activity in this state
i believe this is good advice. devotional awareness is a state of consciousness that comes and goes for me, but i am practicing maintaining it and by chanting, reading, remembering, doing service, etc. i will look research Vallabha Acarya. thanks again.
>Love almost NEEDS an irrational aspect.
>There's an illogical leap that needs to take place, and can take place - but through sraddha, faith, not jnana
Shraddha generally means "faith", yes, but the philosophical meaning of the word is different. Shraddha is a quality of the individual sentient self-- It is neither physical nor Pranic nor mental. It is irrational in the sense that the mind/intellect cannot grasp it, but, shraddha is rooted in knowledge, not ignorance.
The difference between regular love/"sneha" and Bhakti (Love for God) is that Bhakti is firmly rooted in Jnana.
Thank you. Does this mean shraddha is an aspect, or based on the cit potency? A sort of delving into inherent and eternal understanding?
I often use the analogy of fitness for spirituality. That spirituality
>a sense of calm joy coming from an understanding of self and self's position in reality
is analogous to fitness, and religion
>recommendations of how to live and judge designed to give the most people in a society a high chance of attaining spirituality
is like a diet and exercise program.
Sraddha, then, would be the innate sense that being fit and healthy is preferred over the opposite?
>Do you also have a video link to prabhupa speaking about this topic?
Hrmm, I cant find, but remember some saying like "the temple should be a like a military base - the point isnt for the soldiers to stay there, but to always be going out on missions."
Unfortunately, most of this is couched in the idea of giving people books, and as I said I think that might be a relic instruction.
I have no idea what Prabhupada would say about the internet, and I dont deign to surmise, other than
>incredible reach
>incredible distraction
and that he was no fan of television, but he would gladly sit down to broadcast Krishna-katha.
>aspect, or based on the cit potency?
Not sure what exactly you mean by cit "potency", but yes, it is a characteristic of pure cit/caitanya.
>Sraddha, then, would be the innate sense that being fit and healthy is preferred over the opposite?
The innate keenness/eagerness to be fit and healthy.
I do accept the prophecy (I think the Badri-Narayan Purana?) that has Vishnu saying one day a "great general" of his will cross the ocean to convert the heathens - that this refers to Srila Prabhupada.
But I also, at this point, kinda see him as more of a Saint Paul character, rather than a Lord Jesus character.
NOT in that he started as some opponent, but in that he changed a number of minor to kinda important things to be more palatable to another culture. Saul/Paul "reduced" the message of Lord Jesus, made it more Roman, and in doing so converted millions and millions across the globe.
Srila Prabhupada "reduced" the message of Lord Chaitanya to be more Westernized, and in doing so has made the sankirtan movement a global phenomenon that I accept will have Prabhupada's books as the spiritual basis for the next thousand years.
The problem is I'm not a big fan of Saul of Tarsas, and think he did a lot of damage to the deeper understandings. So this new "appreciation" of my grand-guru and prime pure connection to Krishna causes a bit of tension.
To add a bit of ego to my position, Rupa Goswami called this aparasa, perverted or incompatible mixing of mellows.
>cit "potency"
In sat-cit-ananda. Sat - eternality, the ultimate basis which is Krishna. Cit - awareness, the situation or spiritual environment which is Balarama. Ananda - joy - the bliss of aware existence which is Radha.
Oh wait, according to that pic - and probably the Brahma Samhita, then - I'm wring.
Balarama is sat, Krishna is cit, and Radha is ananda/hladini.
Guess that makes sense.
I've heard Balarama can be considered as like all the surroundings or situations or environment where Krishna and Radha have their activities. So for sat - eternality - to be the environment where cit and ananda play tracks.
Entirely uncertain of the providence of that text, but, Sat ([Unconditional] Truth), Cit ([Unconditional] Consciousness) and Ananda (Bliss) are the distinguishing characteristics of the Brahman/Narayana in the Upanishads.
In other contexts, "cit" can also refer to the individual self.
Quite a few of these realms are allegorical (Please don't debate me on this).
>Quite a few of these realms are allegorical
Well, when all of "physical reality" is a temporal illusion, where does the difference between real and allegorical go?
🙂
But yeah - these are not physical locations, or even moments in time. All of that thinking remains in the material realm.
The pic I still think is nice in that it shows how the material and spiritual are mirrored reflections of each other.
You could just as easily interpret it as showing external and internal existences.
If reality that is nothing but the sportive creation of Paramatma is any form of illusion, then, it directly means that the sports (Lilas) of the Paramatma are an illusion. In that case, one must ascribe either lack of omniscience of lack of omnipotence to him. To escape this problem, one must, like Shankara, indirectly attribute both these flaws to Him by saying that He can (inherently) neither know nor act. Hardly a robust view point.
>these are not physical locations
Vaikuntha and Earth are. Otherwise, the Chhandogya Upanishad passage "He does not return again" used in the physical sense becomes meaningless. What "Physical" means is another issue altogether.
>If reality that is nothing but the sportive creation of Paramatma is any form of illusion, then, it directly means that the sports (Lilas) of the Paramatma are an illusion.
Ooh, interesting.
Do you make no distinction between the karmic events of material energy and the ternal events (or rumors of events) that are Lila?
>Vaikuntha and Earth are.
Hm. I would not categorize Vaikuntha along with any physical location like Earth.
>Otherwise, the Chhandogya Upanishad passage "He does not return again" used in the physical sense becomes meaningless.
I accept there is a necessity that material and spiritual locations must have SOME difference, whether it is one we can understand or not.
Does it have to be a physical (meaning defined by length/width/height - or mass/physics properties) sense?
Karmic events are "conditionally true" with respect to time, much like Lilas. If Lilas were not conditionally true, then, one must argue that creation and dissolution occur at the same time, which is nonsensical. But in terms of the basis for Karma and Lilas, first's basis is conditionally true while the second is unconditionally true.
"Physical" here means that the senses of sound/touch/vision/taste/smell exist.
>If Lilas were not conditionally true, then, one must argue that creation and dissolution occur at the same time, which is nonsensical.
Would you consider that Lila are not influenced by time? They are eternally in the "now"? When do they start? Now. When do they advance? Now. when do they conclude? Now.
In the realm of Narasingha-deva, the events of Narasingha-Lila are eternally ever-present now.
It is material events that are temporally limited - this event cannot be accessed because it happened earlier or later. The spiritual is always accessible in the now.
>first's basis is conditionally true while the second is unconditionally true.
I hope I see. Thank you.
>For me and you to inquire into the nature of Vaikuntha is like a dreaming man inquiring into the waking state.
Oh def. It is just my nature to be all kinds of autistic and nerdy about the cosmology. Lokas and tastashta-saktis and Jaiva-Dharma are my jam, dig?
For me and you to inquire into the nature of Vaikuntha is like a dreaming man inquiring into the waking state. You can do a little if you're lucid, but can never know completely.
I am looking at these videos from ISKON amsterdam and it has shit marketing, shit reach, the videos of grande activities get like 200 views at most. Its on youtube. I keep wondering why it is so shit, it can be much better. I blame the tyrant israelite god that still partly lives on in the minds of the people that tells them to be meek and passive.
Jai shri jesus christ
hes so beautiful and strong hi krishna love you
Hare Hare
Can I be enlightened as a sinner if I don’t identify with my degenerate outer self?
Yes, but it is rare. "Sinner" in this case being defined as "going against the societal dharma of the time".
The first example I can think of is Bhisma-dev, the Grandsire of the Kaurava and Pandava lines. He is considered a mahajan - a great personality all should look to as a role model - and a great devotee who has entire chapters to their words in both the Mahabharata and Bhagavatam.
And yet due to the circumstances of fate, he is obliged to fight against the Pandavas, against God, at Kurukshetra. He knew he was on the wrong side, and would lose, but still he held fast to his dharmic honor (which is a whole issue and central point is the Mahabharata - the complexities and problems with dharma).
Of course, there is also a more esoteric understanding of how Bhisma opposing the Pandavas - to the point of angering Krishna and having Him almost-break his vow to not fight - was actually a loving exchange between the two, with Krishna fulfilling Bhisma's wish to see Krishna in the mood of a fierce warrior.
A second example would be Vritrasura. there is a whole backstory about his appearance and all that, but the main thing is he was summoned to attack the devas, and particularly to kill Indra.
And yet when he and Indra fought, Vritrasura suddenly gave out this incredible monologue full of devotion to the Supreme and spiritual understanding. To the point where Indra started to hesitate and he had to be reminded by Vritrasura that they were enemies and needed to fight to the death.
This is described in the 6th Canto of the Bhagavatam. Prabhupada's intro to chapter 12:
>Vṛtrāsura used his remaining arm to strike Indra with an iron mace, making the thunderbolt fall from Indra’s hand. Indra, being very ashamed of this, did not pick up the thunderbolt from the ground, but Vṛtrāsura encouraged King Indra to pick it up and fight. Vṛtrāsura then spoke to King Indra as follows, instructing him very well.
>“The Supreme Personality of Godhead,” he said, “is the cause of victory and defeat. Not knowing that the Supreme Lord is the cause of all causes, fools and rascals try to take credit for victory or defeat themselves, but everything is actually under the control of the Lord. No one but Him has any independence. The puruṣa (the enjoyer) and prakṛti (the enjoyed) are under the control of the Lord, for it is by His supervision that everything works systematically. Not seeing the hand of the Supreme in every action, a fool considers himself the ruler and controller of everything. When one understands, however, that the real controller is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is freed from the relativities of the world, such as distress, happiness, fear and impurity.” Thus Indra and Vṛtrāsura not only fought, but also engaged in philosophical discourses. Then they began to fight again.
What I take from this is if I realize that God is causing my sin, I can have a wholesome relationship with him even while sinning?
I dont know if I would use such a direct and connective sounding phrase like "causing my sin".
>Gita 4.13-14: According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable.
> There is no work that affects Me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of action. One who understands this truth about Me also does not become entangled in the fruitive reactions of work.
>Gita 5.15: Nor does the Supreme Lord assume anyone’s sinful or pious activities. Embodied beings, however, are bewildered because of the ignorance which covers their real knowledge.
>9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
>9.9-10: O Dhanañjaya, all this work cannot bind Me. I am ever detached from all these material activities, seated as though neutral.
> This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction...producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.
It's more of a "technically causing". Like you can say technically the sun causes oil drilling because no sun means no energy hitting earth, means no life, means no civ, means no demand for fossil fuels.
> I can have a wholesome relationship with him even while sinning?
Let me legalese this by saying that I think one can perform devotional service and be making their way on the path back to Godhead while still engaging in activities that maintain and increase material identity and attachment.
I dont know if I want to put that in the grouping of "wholesome relationship", but corrupted sadhana is better than no sadhana. I know anecdotes about Prabhupada offering advice to a drunkard that he see Krishna as the enjoyment he gets from alcohol. Just to get the mind on Krishna.
> Prabhupada offering advice to a drunkard that he see Krishna as the enjoyment he gets from alcohol. Just to get the mind on Krishna.
Very cool, thank you. I am extremely corrupted and live in corruption but I still desire peace and divinity, so this is my dilemma.
Do you think Prabhupada is the real deal? You are knowledgeable — there are things about him that I’ve learned that give me pause
>Do you think Prabhupada is the real deal?
I do.
I will say I used to be with ISKCON for ~5 yrs, and havent been for ~13 yrs.
I'll also say I dont have horrible things to say about ISKCON, and think they are fine to associate with, but I heavily advise against tying yourself to them in any legal or financial way. I think they are too isolationist, to the point of excluding and denigrating even other vaishnavas.
That said, I think Prabhupada was a pure devotee. I dont know, and dont think that his life was all auspicious. And even when he was present on Earth, there was serious shit wrong with ISKCON like child abuse already. So either he saw no issue, thought it better to ignore/hide it, or had no idea it was going on.
I got no issue with the last one - he always made a distinction between having "perfect knowledge" and "all knowledge"
The second feels...possible, but disappointing. Like if Maya/Kali got just a tiny bit of influence, and he made a decision that the society was "too important to let this be addressed", and thus allowed the rot to set in and spread.
The third is also possible - that he saw what I consider abuse and his mind/body from an older time did not judge it to be. But from the tellings and quotes I have seen, I do not accept this. I dont think he saw children being physically or sexually abused and went "this is fine".
I think at most he heard of such things and went "this is exagerrated" and "I cant let this harm the movement" and made a wrong choice.
I mean, there are Puranic examples of great souls doing the wrong thing for one reason or another. But no matter how you slice it - the problems with ISKCON especially when he was alive puts a question on his bona fides, as we he would put it.
Then again - do we question Narada Muni's pure devotee status when he went to Kamsa - who was thinking he only needed to kill the 8th chiold, nbot the 1st - and Narada convinced him "No, you need to kill ALL these kids"?
>I do
Why leave then?
That said. I consider Srila Prabhupada and the Gaudiya Vaishnava line my connection to the Supreme Person, and will never give them up.
I dont think I will be initiated in this life, but I believe my guru is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada.
On the other hand, I encourage all to move outward from his and ISKCON books. Look to the writings translated by other groups, and really get a sense of what the other Vaishnava branches conceive.
Learning more about Krishna and the way others love Him will only grow your own love.
1 - I did not feel qualified to remain in temple. I was IMO failing to achieve a minimum standard, and felt horrible when people would come over and start treating me like some sage.
2 - Problems with the society as mentioned in my previous post - isolationist, and remnants of an old and festered corruption
3 - I am a VERY reclusive person, and have issues with living around other people. If I was more arrogant, I would say I am on the path of an avadhuta, or babaji: those who reject social norms to follow their devotional expression. More likely I am just entrenched in Maya and dont fit in with a sattvic lifestyle.
Why not just live alone (like me), downplay your status in the community out of humility, and try to chill? It’s obvious that you have a strong connection to it. You think he’s the real deal and consider him your line to God. That alone is enough justification for me to say that you belong there. Idk.
For me, I really like it as well, but I am also wanting to try out some “regular” Hindu temples. But I doubt they will make my brain feel as light and cotton candy-ish as the Hare Krishnas, so I want to go back to ISKCON too. I just don’t believe they are the final, ultimate, and supreme “church of God” the way they claim, so I probably will never get toooo deep with them. But I still appreciate it.
>Why not just live alone (like me), downplay your status in the community out of humility, and try to chill?
I do? My association with Srila Prabhupada and his devotees is mostly through books and lectures. I go to greet the nearest dieties on special occasion. I dont spend much time around people physically because I dont spend much time around people physically. I acknowledge it's a block to my spiritual development, but it isnt one that is going away this life.
>I want to go back to ISKCON too
No doubt my time in temple was some of the most formative, on the same level as middle and high school. It was like all my obsessive buttons were pressed with that life.
It's just - I had to deal with other people.
Anyway - let's hear of your glories.
What attracts you to them? Do you have a particular pastime you enjoyed? In what ways have you loved Krishna?
> let's hear of your glories
Glory to Krishna 🙂
> What attracts you to them?
The focus on Krishna. I am hypnotized by Krishna. I just want to melt into oneness with his being. Their devotion to Krishna is really singular and likewise hypnotizing in that sense. Also I want an Indian gf.
> Do you have a particular pastime you enjoyed?
I listen to melodic chanting for hours on end while reading commentaries of the Gita, both ‘As It Is’ and my primary ‘guru’ named Easwaran.
> In what ways have you loved Krishna?
I am a total n00b. But I love his all-attractive, beautiful nature. It is superficial of me maybe but that’s what I love. It fills me with bliss and joy. Much lighter than my Orthodox Christian experience. Krishna’s yoke is lighter than Christ’s.
>too isolationist
lol, not the guy you are replying here in this thread but. Well I am speaking on a group of ISKON why they have such weak energy, no big dick shiva energy, in regards to their non desire to branch out and to embed vedic traditions into the european volk. Like yoga, I asked them where the yoga centers were, why atheists and Buddhists make them but they never bothered to.
"durrr hurrr only chanting works in this age"
to which I replied
"most people who hear the chanting dont join in because they dont know the context, the videos of the iskon activities barely generate 200 views per video"
so yea, very isolationist, I am not sure prabhupada would have liked this.
>their non desire to branch out
Well that's just a wilting of ISKCON. I am 2nd gen and never met him, but everything I read of Prabhupada's letters was like "expand expand expand. When I am gone, at the VERY minimum, just try to hold onto what I made, but expand expand expand." There are some who still have that proselytizing spirit, though it is one of the things I do not align with. I'm definitely not one who can help people in spite of themselves.
Personally I think they should go back to just being a visual example of being happy. They used to be obviously out on the streets, they arent any more.
Book distribution is over. the books are fully online, just give people the link. But be out there and be visible, or be like me and pull away from society.
I dont know. It feels at once too Christian with looking to mega-churches for an answer, and too Hindu with looking toward pujas and devas for an answer. Like the just chant and be happy of Chaitanya isnt considered any more.
Yea reading from the thread you seek a different path. But for ISKON I dont like the isolationist doctrine. There is in my view however room for people like you. Just as there is room for the social people who want to expand. To each his effort and activities.
Do you also have a video link to prabhupa speaking about this topic? I need to bully a dutch ISKON group into submission. So that they listen to the EXPAND EXPAND EXPAND
> Like the just chant and be happy of Chaitanya isnt considered any more.
They are happy and chant on the street in Ottawa, Canada
In Montreal I remember them as recently as about 10 years ago on the street being happy
I have begun reading Ramanujacharya's commentary on the Gita. Any others you'd recommend as "bona fide" (ie not atheistic or impersonalist or watered down for middle class western hippies)?
Thank you for your frank assessment and comments. Srila Pranbhupada has somehow very often been in my life - via his books - and so I see him as my guru despite my having my own hesitation about ISKCON.
>All beings are in Me, but I am not in them
what about Paramatma? I never understood this contradiction
The literal translation is "All beings are stationed in me, but, I am not resident in them".
Means that the Paramatma's omnipresence is not dependent on the objects He pervades and that He receives no help/effort from the beings in pervading them (Explanation from Ramanuja Bhashya).
thank you bros
Oh wow, that's a good question.
There's the easy out of "Krishna is Supremely Independent and isnt bound by logic".
But that isnt satisfying at all.
Prabhupada wrote:
>Yet one should not conclude that because He is spread all over He has lost His personal existence. To refute such argument the Lord says, "I am everywhere, and everything is in Me, but still I am aloof." For example, a king heads a government which is but the manifestation of the king's energy; the different governmental departments are nothing but the energies of the king, and each department is resting on the king's power. But still one cannot expect the king to be present in every department personally. That is a crude example. Similarly, all the manifestations that we see, and everything that exists both in this material world and in the spiritual world, are resting on the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The creation takes place by the diffusion of His different energies, and, as is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, He is everywhere present by His personal representation, the diffusion of His different energies.
I dont think that really answers the question, though.
The Bible has a similar mood. I dont remember where, but theres a whole part about "You can see me in the mountain, but I am not in the mountain."
>Paramatma's omnipresence is not dependent on the objects He pervades and that He receives no help/effort from the beings in pervading them
Oh wow, thank you. Jai Ramanujacarya. Honestly I find a lot of help from his association, and it's so weird to me that Lord Chaitanya didnt take his lineage, rather than the strict Dvaita of Madhva Acarya.
1 Kings 19:11-13
“And he said, ‘Go out and stand on the mount before the Lord.’ And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave.”
A pretty boy in snapchat filter
That last was kinda why I stopped making threads here on BOT, but I will always be monitoring in my tamasic life to reply to any thread.
These things are some days the deepest meditation I have on Krishna.
Thank you all for making that possible.
> These things are some days the deepest meditation I have on Krishna.
Thank you all for making that possible.
It’s always good to be absorbed in the imagination of Krishna.
pakistani transexual migrant
>does my mleccha-ness insult Him?
Krishna, and especially Lord Chaitanya, is more pure and merciful than the sun.
There is no chance of any contaminant corrupting the sun - it will purify all.
So, too, will Krishna purify all who approach, and not be tainted by any impurity form an imperfect devotee.
>But at the same time, am I supposed to believe that everyone around me is racing straight into Hell?
I dont know. I suppose that is where the whole proselytizing thing comes from. Or the whole "it's all illusion, dont worry, bro".
Ultimately I see I can only control what I put into the world, not what the world gives me. This isnt a good answer, but I dont have a good one.
Sorry I deleted my post, I felt like I had put a little too much out there about myself.
I appreciate your answers though. I’m less worried about “tainting” God than I am about Him thinking I’m trying to “rise above my station” and approach Him even without qualifications.
I actually like the idea of freeing us from some of our cares by embracing the idea that the world is too illusory and temporary to really feel too much angst over.
You are clearly traumatized by the religion of your youth. Krishna is all positive, non-judgmental and compassionate with regards to defiling conduct.
I would fully admit that I’m messed up from the religion I was raised in. But that’s the baggage that I’m working with, in this life at least.
Check this out to reorder your view of God
TIL Swami Prabhupada/ISKCON teaches that Lord Buddha is one of the incarnations of Krishna
> Vaiṣṇavas do not agree with the materialist or voidist aspects of Buddha's philosophy, they do worship him as an āvatāra of Kṛṣṇa and respect him for his mission, his qualities and his basic instruction of nonviolence and renunciation
https://vanipedia.org/wiki/Buddha:_A_Vaisnava_Perspective#ixzz86jcpxeI1
How tf do you delete a post on BOT?
The three dots next to the poster name have the options.
Bros, I fear I have shirked my dharma. I fear I am the one spoken of in BG 2:33-36
Bhagavad Gita 2.33
If, however, you refuse to fight this righteous war, abandoning your social duty and reputation, you will certainly incur sin.
Bhagavad Gita 2.34
People will speak of you as a coward and a deserter. For a respectable person, infamy is worse than death.
Bhagavad Gita 2.35
The great generals who hold you in high esteem will think that you fled from the battlefield out of fear, and thus will lose their respect for you.
Bhagavad Gita 2.36
Your enemies will defame and humiliate you with unkind words, disparaging your might. Alas, what could be more painful than that?
Why are Hindus so abnormal?
This thread is an incredible gift to me today, specifically. I have felt myself drawn to Krishna of late, with an immediacy and (entirely chaste) intimacy which actually frightened me at first, it feeling so different from my relationship with God in the mode of Christianity. Please tell me - is this the beginning of appropriate bhakti? Or, if it not, also tell me so that I don't remain in error.
Passion and emotional feelings for Krishna is a normal and encouraged part of Bhakti (one meaning is literally "fondness"). It's common to think about him, speak about him, learn about his past times, and generally to be engaged in performing devotional service for him.
The restaurant next to my office is playing hare Krishna bhajan lel
God bless everybody Hare Krishna
Jai Shivāya.