My experience in Vrindavan

[Nayana]

Hi all! I have recently returned from a trip to Vrindavan, I stayed in Gaudiya math temples, I must say it was an enlightening experience. I found myself so inspired to follow devotion and it was also very easy to do so. Listening to lectures was much more enjoyable, something in the atmosphere made it much easier to understand from a spiritual level.

I took home a lot of books given to me by my god brothers and sisters under Narayan Maharaj, with Jaiva Dharma being one of them. I was told it was the "Handbook" of gaudya vaishavism and the essence of the vedas/gita etc.

I have found it to be an absolutely amazing book, my understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism has increased so much as well as my Bhakti. Not only that, but I felt it gave a very in depth explanation of others paths of hinduism and other religions.
I see on here a lot of criticism or skepticism of gurus such as Prabhupad etc. One of the most interesting things about Jaiva Dharma is that is seems to completely contradict the notion that Hare Krishna's hold of the Guru "seeing all, knowing all" and being "perfect in everyway".
The men/women in the book all seemed to have their own life experiences, troubles, faults and joys which they had come from and were perfecting their bhakti with some of them accomplishing this.

A phrase that stuck in my head, when a Babaji said to a disciple "Slow down, I am an old man and cannot keep up." in regards to a conversation they were having. I realise our gurus although they have perfected their spiritual practise, have material bodies which have needs, functions and limitations, so this Babaji is stating the imperfections and deteriorating of his body and mind.
(I use Prabhupad as an example but this applies to many other gurus) Often people think that 100% of what Prabhupad said is to be followed, which I find interesting as we, as jiva will never fully understand the whole creation and Lord, yet when Prabhupad is not sure of certain material conditions or events e.g.. evolution, homosexuality, people either think whatever he said that isn't correct is perfect, and follow to their detriment spending years in confusion and eventually losing the path, or others doubt his integrity as a pure devotee and also step off the path of devotion. It makes me realise that in Jaiva Dharma and Saints of Vraja, we should see our gurus as Jiva, which for the purposes of this life are covered in material nature, goodness passion and ignorance, and provide an example FOR us as to HOW we can transcend our body. This false perception of the Guru which is the equivalent of god I feel is detrimental to our whole religion and is a contradictory practise according to these texts.

Our aim is to love the Lord wholly and fully. But often I find people (as I do sometimes) get bogged down in asking Gurus the particulars of material knowledge, and in the process are not taking opportunities to have spiritual realisations as the human brain can only function in a certain way, assimilating a finite amount of knowledge. People become disillusioned expecting our gurus to know what a person on the other side of the world is doing and their comings and goings, it's ridiculous.
The fantastic thing about Jaiva Dharma, is reading it to me dispels the "omnipresent/omnipotent" guru figure and puts responsibility back on the individual devotee to realise their eternal function and relationship with the lord by chanting and associating with devotees and guru. Understanding and being tolerant of our material natures and simultaneously seeing and realising the lord in all.

Has anyone else read Jaiva Dharma or Saints of Vraja? I can't get these books from my mind, I feel all hindus should read these books to receive a thorough understanding of the essence of devotion and love.
I thought I would post this, to share my experience as a first timer to Vrindavan and someone who was born into a devotee family but was not raised with the religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dear Nayana, greetings. No one here finds faults with Sri La Prabhupada. We all respect him dearly as an Acharya of Hinduism, though we all may not be following Gaudiya Vaishnavism. We are all as delighted in our Lord Krishna as with other Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism. Many here do follow Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

[Nayana]

Oh I don't think people on here do, I mean people in general. This was just a post about my general experience with the devotee community. I grew up amongst a lot of devotees fighting about nit bits said by various gurus. Basically the end result was that I didn't end up learning about the religion of my family and only now starting to discover it.
I don't come on here much but I wanted to share my experience somehow, I forgot how much skill it takes to write on the internet and get your point across by writing only!

 

[Prayag Das]

Nayana:

You bring up a very important point. Many people consider the guru omniscient. They concoct that whatever the acarya (guru) says is the absolute truth, because a bona-fide guru is said to know Krishna and since Krishna knows everything they incorrectly reason that the guru also knows everything.

There was a significant conversation with Prabhupada during a morning walk on April 8, 1974.

In the first excerpt Jayadvaita is asking:

"Jayädvaita: Because we see... For instance, sometimes the äcärya may seem to forget something or not to know something, so from our point of view, if someone has forgotten, that is...
Prabhupäda: No, no, no. Then...
Jayädvaita: ...an imperfection.
Prabhupäda: That is not the... Then you do not understand. Äcärya is not God, omniscient. He is servant of God. His business is to preach bhakti cult. That is äcärya."

Then later Satsvarupa is asking:

"Satsvarüpa: Prabhupäda, in one purport in the Bhagavad-gétä, you write that a disciple of a bona fide spiritual master is supposed to know everything.
Prabhupäda: Yes, if he follows the spiritual master.
Satsvarüpa: But how could he know...? What does that mean, "everything"?
Prabhupäda: Everything means whatever his guru knows, he should know, that much. Not like God, everything. Within his limit, that's all. If he tries to understand whatever his guru has said, that much is "everything." Otherwise, "everything" does not mean that we know everything, like God, like Krishna. That is not possible. If he regularly chants and follow the regulative principles, follows the orders of guru, then he knows everything. That's all. Not very much... Knows everything, then what is the use of reading books when he knows everything? [break] ...everything—except Krishna. Aham... Sarvasya cähaà hådi sanniviñöo [Bg. 15.15]. He knows past, present, future, everything. You cannot expect anyone to know like Krishna, everything."

I first started following Srila Prabhupada's teachings in 1973. I accept that his teachings on bhakti-yoga are perfect and can enable one to develop love for Krishna. His other comments and opinions, which many find offensive, have nothing to do with devotional service. So, if someone does not think the sun is closer than the moon or that women are less intelligent, or that dark-skinned people are by nature thieves, etc., that should not cause them to reject all of Prabhupada's teachings. Just the opinion of a man who grew up during the end of the 1800s.

Hare Krishna.

Prayag das

 

[shivsomashekhar]

73. I accept that his teachings on bhakti-yoga are perfect and can enable one to develop love for Krishna. His other comments and opinions, which many find offensive, have nothing to do with devotional service. So, if someone does not think the sun is closer than the moon or that women are less intelligent, or that dark-skinned people are by nature thieves, etc., that should not cause them to reject all of Prabhupada's teachings. Just the opinion of a man who grew up during the end of the 1800s.

Hare Krishna.

Prayag das

Brilliant. This is true for all Gurus...we need to separate out the spiritual teacher from the person (his culture, personality, opinions and preferences).

Many devotees do not make this distinction and treat every word and thought of the Guru as the absolute truth - especially pertaining to non-spiritual matters - and make things harder for themselves and for others.

 

[Vinayaka]

It helps if the Guru doesn't behave like a know-it-all in all subjects. Then it's obvious there are two levels.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

It helps if the Guru doesn't behave like a know-it-all in all subjects. Then it's obvious there are two levels.

Many disciples do not want to see two levels. They want to see just one - where the Guru is perfect and practically a demi-God. It is simpler that way.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, I get that. But the Guru, if He saw it, could easily dispel it, by simple asking a question about something he knew nothing about, like some medical situation, for example. That would be doing those devotees a favour.

 

[Poeticus]

Many disciples do not want to see two levels. They want to see just one - where the Guru is perfect and practically a demi-God. It is simpler that way.

For me, it's far from being simple. You see, I want to engage with the guru, I want to debate the guru. What good is the guru if he can be bested? You see, I grew up watching Shaolin vs. Lama, a movie wherein the protagonist went around challenging all the masters to combat, beating them all one by one until he came across a reclusive Shaolin monk who bested him in the process. And it was that defeat that made him humble, and thus he sought to acquire training under only that monk. Here's the movie that I'm talking about, it's awesome.

Sung Yi Ting: Mr. Chow!
Master Chow: I suppose you want to be my student...
Sung Yi Ting: Yes, I'm Sung Yi Ting. I've pledged myself to learn Kung Fu, but I know I'm still ignorant. I have a long way to go. I have been looking for a teacher without success, but I heard you're an expert. So, I have come to test you out.
Master Chow: Test me? I thought you wanted to be my student.
Sung Yi Ting: I want to have the best teacher, but [if] you can't beat me at Kung Fu [then] how can I ever expect to learn anything from you?
Master Chow: Hahaha! Alright! You've got guts. And you're smart.
Sung Yi Ting: And if you do beat me, feel free to use this stick to beat me for my insolence. And I promise you my complete loyalty. [Sung Yi Ting defeats Master Chow]​

But when Sung Yi Ting takes on the Shaolin Monk:

Sung Yi Ting: [defending a blow from the Shaolin Monk] Hah! That doesn't work on me!
Shaolin Monk: Doesn't work?! Hah, we'll soon see! [does a counter attack and bests Sung Yi Ting easily] Your basic Kung Fu is no good. You can't move fast enough. And you don't have enough strength. And your body movements are like a street fighter. It's too easy for me to trip you up.

^Just look at all those analogies! It's pretty much how vAda-bhiksha worked in India back then, minus the awesomely choreographed Kung Fu moves, of course.​

 

[shivsomashekhar]

For me, it's far from being simple. You see, I want to engage with the guru, I want to debate the guru. What good is the guru if he can be bested?

I agree. It is pretty much the same with me.

However, from my experience, I have seen that most people are not wired this way. They do not like to analyze, test, verify. They like to be given a figure of absolute authority, which is all they will ever need.

 

[Poeticus]

I agree. It is pretty much the same with me.

However, from my experience, I have seen that most people are not wired this way. They do not like to analyze, test, verify. They like to be given a figure of absolute authority, which is all they will ever need.

But analyzing, testing, and verifying is what made Indian dialectics so great many centuries ago:

"For debate, India was the most developed of the traditions. The rules were more elaborately worked out than elsewhere, and the practice of debating had a deep, culturally pervasive influence. To give some sense of the types and rules of debate, I follow the Logic School, which is nothing if not systematic. It divides debates into three basic types, those of discussion, disputation, and wrangling. In the first of these, discussion, the persons engaged are set on attaining the truth rather than on winning. To attain the truth, thesis is set against thesis, proof is based, point by point, on a combination of evidence and argument, and no argument known to be untrue is used---what kind is true and what untrue is clearly specified. In contrast to Western philosophy, though not Western law, the rules of evidence include a careful assessment of the verbal testimony relied on. The defeated side is said to harbor no anger...Held in a monastery or a royal court, a debate between eminent philosophers was a great public entertainment."

- in Ben-Ami Scharfstein's A Comparative History of World Philosophy: From the Upanishads to Kant, pages 31-32​

It's discouraging that this is no longer the case with Dharmic schools of thought, thoroughly uprooted by the unnecessary pedestaling of past texts and commentaries. For a reality that was once self-refining and in a constant state of change, Indian dialectics has become, in my opinion, complacent, and perhaps, as painful as this is for me to say, nearly extinct, if not entirely.

ps - Please do watch the movie when you get time, Shivji, I believe you will enjoy it.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Nayana ji

jai jai I am glad you enjoyed your visit and hope you have come home inspired to continue in your practice

I see on here a lot of criticism or skepticism of gurus such as Prabhupad etc. One of the most interesting things about Jaiva Dharma is that is seems to completely contradict the notion that Hare Krishna's hold of the Guru "seeing all, knowing all" and being "perfect in everyway".

sadly it is only recently that there has been a spate of discussions on the subject of gurus and criticism of Srila Prabhupada , it is a subject that seems to rear its head occasionaly , ...unfortunatly every time it does the same missunderstandings seem to come to the surface again and again .

one of these common missunderstandings is inturpretation of 'omnipresence' , 'omnipotence' and 'omnicience' , ...these are the qualities of the Supreme Lord , .....when we talk about the 'omnicience' , of the Guru , this refers to his realisation of the true nature of reality , his realisation of the relationship between the the individual Jiva and Parameshwara , this does not mean that he Knows or needs to know what a devotee ate for breakfast , ....in all truth he has more important things on his mind , ...you say "seeing all, knowing all" and being "perfect in everyway" this is not the veiw held by All of iskcon or the attitude promoted by all gurus , it is a missunderstanding promoted by those who do not understand the correct attitude .

when you hear some one say that the Guru should be treated as a god , ....this is for reasons that are not often fully understood , ...the Guru should be treated with the same reverence as we would give to the Deity , ...why ? because he gives the divine word of God , ...we should treat the Guru in much the same way that we treat the Deity form of the Lord and in the same way that we treat the Bhagavad Gita , ....as both Guru and Gita give instruction on the Supreme , ..we should revere the Guru in this way because not only does he instruct , but He gives the chanting of the Holy name , he is the unbroken link between the supreme Lord and the diciple , ....it is not the Guru that tells you to treat him like a god , this is just the tradition , ...this is Vaisnava etiquete , ....

also this Idea of ''perfection'' again this is being missconstrued , .....the Gurus perfection lay in his surrender , ..I am speaking of the true Guru only I do not speak of the pretender who has not renounced the ego but that feigns renunciation , ...this is not a true Guru .....

But a true Guru , ...yes he is worthy of worship but he does not demand it , infact the truest way to tell the true Guru from the 'Would be Guru' is the totality of his surrender , the completeness of his renunciation , ...his body may be failing he may suffer tiredness due to his age , ...but this is not a sign of ignorance .

it is often said but seldom fully understood , ...''that we should not judge the Guru on a material level'' .....as he does not exist on a material level , he lives in the spiritual realm .

A phrase that stuck in my head, when a Babaji said to a disciple "Slow down, I am an old man and cannot keep up." in regards to a conversation they were having. I realise our gurus although they have perfected their spiritual practise, have material bodies which have needs, functions and limitations, so this Babaji is stating the imperfections and deteriorating of his body and mind.
(I use Prabhupad as an example but this applies to many other gurus) Often people think that 100% of what Prabhupad said is to be followed, which I find interesting as we, as jiva will never fully understand the whole creation and Lord, yet when Prabhupad is not sure of certain material conditions or events e.g.. evolution, homosexuality, people either think whatever he said that isn't correct is perfect, and follow to their detriment spending years in confusion and eventually losing the path, or others doubt his integrity as a pure devotee and also step off the path of devotion. It makes me realise that in Jaiva Dharma and Saints of Vraja, we should see our gurus as Jiva, which for the purposes of this life are covered in material nature, goodness passion and ignorance, and provide an example FOR us as to HOW we can transcend our body. This false perception of the Guru which is the equivalent of god I feel is detrimental to our whole religion and is a contradictory practise according to these texts.

on a matreial level the Guru is the same as us in that he inhabits a body of flesh and bones , ...but in every other way he is not like us , .....we canot judge him we are not qualified to do so , ...and if a person looses their path it is not the failig of a true Guru but the failing of the devotee to listen with an open mind rather than to remain fixed in his ignorance , ..if the devotee will surrender the ego then he will be free to realise much to which he is now blind .

Our aim is to love the Lord wholly and fully. But often I find people (as I do sometimes) get bogged down in asking Gurus the particulars of material knowledge, and in the process are not taking opportunities to have spiritual realisations as the human brain can only function in a certain way, assimilating a finite amount of knowledge. People become disillusioned expecting our gurus to know what a person on the other side of the world is doing and their comings and goings, it's ridiculous.

this is just foolish missunderstanding , ...firstly we will not aquire true realisation through the aquisition of Knowledge this just inflames the Ego , ...Oh .. look how much Knowledge I hold ! ...am I not the Greatest of Devotes ? ...yes this is just material knowledge , ...interlectual knowledge , ....what we need is experiencial knowledge , ...., and how do we get experiencial knowledge ? , ...by following the Gurus instructions , by accepting the seva he gives to the devotee , ...we do the Guru a great injustice if we do not love him with the deepest of gratitude , for who else can give is the seva of the Supreme Lord ? ....who else can give you the mercy of Srimati Radharani ?

and what noncence is this that thinks a guru needs to know what you are doing in your material life ?...what the Guru knows about you is something far more valuable , ....he knows the moment that he sees you , he knows from your demeanor if you are advancing and he knows from your demeanor when you are not advancing , he is like a doctor he can diagnose your condition except he does not need a stethascope, ...this is knowledge of true value , ...why should he need to know of your comings and goings ? this kind of stuff is only of interest to the material mind .

The fantastic thing about Jaiva Dharma, is reading it to me dispels the "omnipresent/omnipotent" guru figure and puts responsibility back on the individual devotee to realise their eternal function and relationship with the lord by chanting and associating with devotees and guru. Understanding and being tolerant of our material natures and simultaneously seeing and realising the lord in all.

prehaps you will now understand that we are not meant to be inturpreting omnipresent , omnipotent in such a materialistic way , ...yes Guru is a Devotee , ...but he is the Top most devotee , he is the most devoted , the most surrendered , the most beloved of Srimati Radhrani and it is for this reason that we worship him , ....I understand what you are saying and I agree that we should take responcibility for developing our relation ship with the supreme , ...but with out the Grace of Guru , please be Honest , ...there would not even be a book in your hand to study , no temple to study it in and no one to give you direction and no one to give you seva , .....

 

[ratikala]

It helps if the Guru doesn't behave like a know-it-all in all subjects. Then it's obvious there are two levels.

if he is a true Guru then He knows the Supreme Lord , .....in all truth what else is there to Know ?
true guru never behaves like a know it all , he behaves like a servant of the servant , ....

 

[Nayana]

....I understand what you are saying and I agree that we should take responcibility for developing our relation ship with the supreme , ...but with out the Grace of Guru , please be Honest , ...there would not even be a book in your hand to study , no temple to study it in and no one to give you direction and no one to give you seva , .....

I do agree about surrendering to Guru, I meant by taking responsibility that we should listen, surrender and associate with our Guru as they supply all that we need to know, Devotion.
My problem was only the ignorant culture surrounding our Gurus that sometimes make it hard to follow their teaching as one can get bombarded with "Narayan maharaj said this... Prabhupad said that." when they didn't... Haha I guess it's just human nature to do these sorts of things.

But analyzing, testing, and verifying is what made Indian dialectics so great many centuries ago:

It's discouraging that this is no longer the case with Dharmic schools of thought, thoroughly uprooted by the unnecessary pedestaling of past texts and commentaries. For a reality that was once self-refining and in a constant state of change, Indian dialectics has become, in my opinion, complacent, and perhaps, as painful as this is for me to say, nearly extinct, if not entirely.

ps - Please do watch the movie when you get time, Shivji, I believe you will enjoy it.

In Jaiva Dharma there are multiple times where the babajis are challenged to debates. The most important thing they do is agree to speak to the person who challenged them but the purpose is not to "win" the debate. They simply tell the nature of the lord and the material experience humbly surrendering to the lord. It's very difficult to put into word the message the Bhaktivinoda Thakur had for debates, but, following bhakti we do not engage in debates as we are surrendered to the lord, who is the source of everything. There is no old, new, before, after. The lord is the ultimate resevoir of knowledge and sweetness, we simply surrender to guru and lord and explain our eternal function. They were fully able to engage with people who had a desire to debate and listen. There were many who came and left unable to surrender material logic.

The path of Bhakti is forever fresh, we are always being revealed various pastimes of the lord through our gurus.

Material Logic is not able to grasp the workings of the lord or the feelings of bhakti. This is the reason we surrender to the Lord and Guru for it to be revealed to us. Logical debates keep us locked in the cycle of samsara and material existence. They do not help us to have spiritual realisations. Many of the Saints of Vraja were very simple people with almost no education, some were erudite scholars, they all hold in common the process of relinquishing logic and surrendering the ego to the Guru and the Lord.
However, questioning is a must. We must always question our gurus and be willing to engage and understand, this enables us to see the perfection of their devotional practise and builds our own Bhakti.

on a matreial level the Guru is the same as us in that he inhabits a body of flesh and bones , ...but in every other way he is not like us , .....we canot judge him we are not qualified to do so , ...and if a person looses their path it is not the failig of a true Guru but the failing of the devotee to listen with an open mind rather than to remain fixed in his ignorance , ..if the devotee will surrender the ego then he will be free to realise much to which he is now blind .

100% agree.

Sorry to everyone, I'm not used to posting online so I hope my posts are coherent.

 

[ShivaFan]

There is some discussion here about different levels of Gurus and the teachings from the Guru as being one vessel and the body and personality of the Guru being a different vessel.

Then comes those who are accepted or taken by the Guru as "disciples" or sometimes even called "followers".

There are some mistakes here.

Firstly, there are different LEVELS of disciples. You could be given a mantra and in somecases a Hindu name and yet be a grihastra or married householder, BUT you were given initiation by the Guru's grace. They are a lower LEVEL than a sanyasi who even if having a Hindu name from birth then takes much more serious vows and often a new name or at least a title. There are brahmacharis who are celebite students who could be very beginners in accepting the knowledge, a lower level, or can range to being very advanced. I can go on regarding the levels of the "disciples" or "initiates".

But returning to the Guru.

If you are accepted by a Guru, the Guru, including personality, body, either stern or funny or loving or aloof or other factors of the person, and the body, the voice, the times when awake verse sleeping and so on, THAT IS THE VESSEL of the knowledge you will receive, the "book" cover. When you have a precious book, where it is the "first edition" with beloved pages of WORDS, you do not mistreat that book, bring it to the toilet to read or risk it to water damage and so on.

Some of the covers of the precious books might be gold plated, or gilt, or it might be between wooden plates, or thick paper, or rolled in a fine carpet, or just cloth, or have cardboard book cover with cloth glued to it, or cloth cover or just paperback.

The vessel. Different covers, different personalities. The vessel of a precious book inside means that vessel is treated like gold even if it is not. Because of the words in the precious book. There is a saying, "do not judge a book by the cover".

There are no "levels" to the Guru, the vessel, the book cover, if this is the precious book with the words inside. The one gazing into those words, the "reader" might be at different levels.

BUT THE BOOK ITSELF IS THE ONE LEVEL no matter what the cover is. The rare book in the treasure may have a weak binding, a stain on it, a simple old pleat of pounded rice or wooden plate - but the treasured, priceless book is in that treasury of the priceless books next to another priceless book in a gold leaf cover. Both are priceless, handled with care, like you only child, like a King, irreplaceable. That book cover is the Guru. You do not put levels there. Only you have levels.

When you get all that is in the book, then one day you might be a book cover for words, precious words, inside. Then that day you can be a gold cover or a paper back, either cover you are the same. You are the precious book. You can act happy or stern, the cover of YOUR book you have become can be black or white, gold, or become an old stained cover. You do not attack the precious book that was before you. But no matter what cover you are, you are precious. Those who will read those words, can be all sorts.

Those all sorts MUST treat the precious book with REVERENCE, be the cover gold, or bound well, or stained psper, or even if there is no cover jacket or even no title on the book cover at all. Because the book is precious, your fingers have oil, be careful, revere that book and it's cover. You must serve that book like a great archivist to the library of book treasures. You should wear a "suit and tie" just to WALK into the library chamber.

And be quiet in the LIBRARY or be thrown out. If loud, do not go to the library at all. Please leave.

GURU is Brahma. GURU is Vishnu. GURU is Mahesvara.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Nayana ji

Sorry to everyone, I'm not used to posting online so I hope my posts are coherent.

Dear prabhu , do not worry it is up to us to do our best to understand ....you will soon come to notice that speaking here there are so many nationalities , ...some with wonderfull english , ...some whos english is not so good and some people who are just not so used to conversation on line , ....we just need to be a little considerate with each other , ...

I do agree about surrendering to Guru, I meant by taking responsibility that we should listen, surrender and associate with our Guru as they supply all that we need to know, Devotion.

the question here of recent has been about recognising when the Guru is a true Guru , knowing that he is fully qualified , that he knows the correct way to handle his students , that he is fully versed and that he himself is truely surrendered ?

all this being said then then yes we must surrender our ego , if we canot give up these traits how can we become filled with Bhakti , ....impossible , ...instead we become filled with a false pride , this is where the problem begins ...this is the problem which leads to false gurus .....those who are still not fully surrendered , those who are not worthy to take deciples .

My problem was only the ignorant culture surrounding our Gurus that sometimes make it hard to follow their teaching as one can get bombarded with "Narayan maharaj said this... Prabhupad said that." when they didn't... Haha I guess it's just human nature to do these sorts of things.

this is the problem , ...when the ego is not fully surrendered then one canot fully understand what the Guru is saying , ..then the deciple is allways looking for somthing that Guru said to back up his argument , ...and to make matters worse because he is missunderstanding , ..he missinturprets , he creates a false impression , ...

it is very laudable to praise the guru and repeat his words of wisdom , but it is not laudable to use the gurus words as a stick to fight with ones neighbour , or to chastise others , ...this was not their purpose , when the guru speaks these words are for our instruction , ...to do him the correct honnour we must try to understand these instructions , ...just repeating them only proves that one has a retentive memory , what is realy important is whether or not we can put these instructions in to practice , ..whether we can understand them sufficiently to put them into our own words , ...whether we our selves can become fluent , ....fluency ir self comes from Knowledge , knowledge comes from practice .

In Jaiva Dharma there are multiple times where the babajis are challenged to debates. The most important thing they do is agree to speak to the person who challenged them but the purpose is not to "win" the debate. They simply tell the nature of the lord and the material experience humbly surrendering to the lord. It's very difficult to put into word the message the Bhaktivinoda Thakur had for debates, but, following bhakti we do not engage in debates as we are surrendered to the lord, who is the source of everything. There is no old, new, before, after. The lord is the ultimate resevoir of knowledge and sweetness, we simply surrender to guru and lord and explain our eternal function. They were fully able to engage with people who had a desire to debate and listen. There were many who came and left unable to surrender material logic.

jai jai , ....to many times this debating comes from a false sence of pride , so why even engage ? so many times this debating is fueled by an ignorance which says my guru is better than your guru , my knowledge is better than your knowledge , ...no no , ..your guru is good for you my guru is good for me , that is enough .
...I agree fully , ...the Bhakta is eternaly living in vrindarban in Krsna lila , ...he will not waste time arguing .

The path of Bhakti is forever fresh, we are always being revealed various pastimes of the lord through our gurus.

jai jai , ...

Material Logic is not able to grasp the workings of the lord or the feelings of bhakti. This is the reason we surrender to the Lord and Guru for it to be revealed to us. Many of the Saints of Vraja were very simple people with almost no education, some were erudite scholars, they all hold in common the process of relinquishing logic and surrendering the ego to the Guru and the Lord.
However, questioning is a must. We must always question our gurus and be willing to engage and understand, this enables us to see the perfection of their devotional practise and builds our own Bhakti.

yes we must question , ...meaning that we must examine the words of the guru , ...but we should not chalenge the word of the guru , this is foolishness , ...we must chalenge our own understanding , ....

true yes , I agree , ..... too many times , ....Logical debates keep us locked in the cycle of samsara and material existence. They do not help us to have spiritual realisations. ....we must be very carefull not to fall into this trap .

any how Bhaktas are just a little crazy , they do not live in the same world and do not have anything to prove , ....
all they want is to share love of God .[/quote][/quote]

 

[Poeticus]

In Jaiva Dharma there are multiple times where the babajis are challenged to debates. The most important thing they do is agree to speak to the person who challenged them but the purpose is not to "win" the debate. They simply tell the nature of the lord and the material experience humbly surrendering to the lord. It's very difficult to put into word the message the Bhaktivinoda Thakur had for debates, but, following bhakti we do not engage in debates as we are surrendered to the lord, who is the source of everything. There is no old, new, before, after. The lord is the ultimate resevoir of knowledge and sweetness, we simply surrender to guru and lord and explain our eternal function. They were fully able to engage with people who had a desire to debate and listen. There were many who came and left unable to surrender material logic.

The path of Bhakti is forever fresh, we are always being revealed various pastimes of the lord through our gurus.

Material Logic is not able to grasp the workings of the lord or the feelings of bhakti. This is the reason we surrender to the Lord and Guru for it to be revealed to us. Logical debates keep us locked in the cycle of samsara and material existence. They do not help us to have spiritual realisations. Many of the Saints of Vraja were very simple people with almost no education, some were erudite scholars, they all hold in common the process of relinquishing logic and surrendering the ego to the Guru and the Lord.
However, questioning is a must. We must always question our gurus and be willing to engage and understand, this enables us to see the perfection of their devotional practise and builds our own Bhakti.

When the quote I posted mentioned "the Logic School", it was referring to the Nyaya Darshana. This is the same Astika school of thought that gave, and heavily influenced, the many sampradaya-s we have today the idea of Ishwara, the concept of there being an Absolute. In other words, these are the same "material logicians", who in their dismal materialistic ignorance, born from a thorough relinquishing of spiritual reservoirs, brought about and solidified what ISCKONITES today refer to as "Absolute Personality". Kind of ironic for such degenerate "material logicians" to have articulated something in their spiritually decadent debates a theological concept now so heavily appropriated by almost every single sampradaya we know today, eh?

Satire aside, what made both Astika and Nastika schools of thought once great was their tendency to challenge, to consistently and constantly test hypothesis against hypothesis. Before the bhakti cults arose, this is how those of the Veda-derived darshana-s operated. This wasn't anything about ego. To stress such "material inquiries" as inherently inferior to "devotional practices" downplays the greatness of earlier realities that gave the Dharmically-inclined so much, what many Hindus now, and I assume you are Hindu since you freely post non-question posts in the Hindu DIR, often take for granted without giving proper credit due to the ancient darshana-s. Such decadent spiritually-devoid inquiries most certainly did help ancient Hindus have spiritual realizations. And they did it without relinquishing logic, without ever involving ego. What drove them most fervently was curiosity. And it was through that curiosity that they arrived at both the defenses of the Absolute as well as, what the Mimamsaka-s later derived at but now widely parroted by many Astika-s without ever consulting their works, the non-authorship of the Veda-s.

 

[Shantanu]

Brilliant. This is true for all Gurus...we need to separate out the spiritual teacher from the person (his culture, personality, opinions and preferences).

Many devotees do not make this distinction and treat every word and thought of the Guru as the absolute truth - especially pertaining to non-spiritual matters - and make things harder for themselves and for others.

There is a distinction between 'shishya and guru' and a 'bhakta and guru' relationships. In the latter the bhakta (devotee) does not have a right to expect the guru to be faultless and clear in what he is preaching. But the shishya does have a right to expect this and if the guru is not up to scratch he must tell the shishya to find another guru or the shishya should leave of his own accord.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Before the bhakti cults arose

what the Mimamsaka-s later derived at but now widely parroted by many Astika-s without ever consulting their works

Am curious, which of the schools would be considered "bhakti cults" and other than the classification as such by western orientalists, your rationale for approving/adopting it? Also, most later schools, at least the tattvavāda school, do consider the pūrva-mīmāṅsakas thesis (pūrvapakṣa) about apauruṣeyatva and svataḥ-prāmāṇya and suggest improvements. And i know for a fact that you fully understand the pūrvapakṣa-siddhānta methodology, there can never be any scope for plagiarism

Also may i suggest the as yet unrefuted (even by the navya-naiyāyikas) work on Logic - Tarka Taṇḍava by Śri Vyāsa Tīrtha which considers every position of nyāya-vaiśeṣika school and presents improvements. [Available here w/ ww shipping tarka tandava Search Results | MadhwaKart

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Poeticus]

Am curious, which of the schools would be considered "bhakti cults" and other than the classification as such by western orientalists, your rationale for approving/adopting it? Also, most later schools, at least the tattvavāda school, do consider the pūrva-mīmāṅsakas thesis (pūrvapakṣa) about apauruṣeyatva and svataḥ-prāmāṇya and suggest improvements. And i know for a fact that you fully understand the pūrvapakṣa-siddhānta methodology, there can never be any scope for plagiarism

Also may i suggest the as yet unrefuted (even by the navya-naiyāyikas) work on Logic - Tarka Taṇḍava by Śri Vyāsa Tīrtha which considers every position of nyāya-vaiśeṣika school and presents improvements. [Available here w/ ww shipping tarka tandava Search Results | MadhwaKart

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Thank you for your reply, Tattva-ji. I believe every Shaiva, Shakta, and Vaishnava sampradaya to be a bhakti cult, even the most glorious Ramanandi sect that prostrates before the unconquerable Lord Shri Ram. Since they are sampradaya-s, then, by default, they would qualify for being considered as "bhakti cults". I adopted this as a rather poor continuation of my earlier satirical post (because I became discouraged with, what I saw to be at least, the scoffing of "logical" approaches). But yes, of course there can never be any scope for plagiarism since the rules pertaining to commentaries would recommend acharya-s and philosophers to continuously add and refine previous hypotheses and thoughts (which is another reason why Indian dialectics was so incredibly beautiful!). And thank you for your link, I shall definitely consider the Tarkatandava for future reading (You Vedantists are so stubborn! Like me, a Hindu that is of the "bahudeva" line. ).