This is a reply to a comment from kalki das on the Narayana Maharaja’s Guru Tattva post.
kalki das wrote:
ye me bhakta-janah partha
na me bhaktas ca te janah
mad-bhaktanam ca ye bhaktas
te me bhakta-tama matah“[Lord Krishna told Arjuna:] Those who are My direct devotees are actually not My devotees, but those who are the devotees of My servant are factually My devotees.”
I got owned with this… Krishna should I run to a vaishnava sect an become the servant of the servant of the servant of your so called servant? (leader, spiritual master obviously)
First off that translation is a bit off. It doesn’t mention “servant.” Prabhupada probably changed it to make it seem that being devoted to him was real bhakti. It says:
“Those who are devoted to me aren’t my devotees, those who are devoted to my devotees are really my devotees.”
It’s a paradoxical statement. If the real bhaktas are devoted to his devotees and not to Krishna, how can you be devoted to his devotee since anyone devoted to Krishna is not a devotee? So it’s not meant to be taken literally since it makes no sense if we do so. While it’s trying to get across the importance of being devoted to Krishna’s devotee, at the same time it’s paradoxical in order to make the point that it isn’t meant literally. Why?
Exploiter gurus use that sloka to try to get people to believe that God will reward you if you worship and serve them, and that you cannot advance and will offend Krishna if you don’t. There are a bunch of similar slokas to that one that exploiter gurus like to regularly use to get the conception across that serving them is all-important.
We need to understand why that is taught, or, have blind faith that by worshiping and serving devotees or gurus, that Krishna will magically elevate you to a higher level of consciousness and make you dear to him — and that if you don’t — then Krishna will not be pleased with you and you won’t be able to spiritually advance.
So, first thing we should wonder when hearing teachings like that is — why? Why do we find sastra saying in various places that Krishna is more pleased by you worshiping or being devoted to his devotee than devotion to himself? The answer is commonly misunderstood because exploiters misuse those teachings in trying to get people to be devoted to them. They remove the context of those teachings and thereby change their purpose in hopes of gaining your worship and service directed towards them.
What is the Vedic system supposed to be all about? It’s meant to bring you to the perfectional stage of existence. It’s meant to liberate you from samsara and give you entrance into the realm of ananda or joy. What is that joyful reality? We are taught that the ultimate destination for the soul is to awaken to our inherent relationship with God — and then to engage in lila or play with God. The ultimate goal is rasa, to experience the enjoyment of an intimate relationship with God.
How does a person attain that apotheosis? Most importantly one is advised to hear, or learn, from authoritative sources the knowledge on self-realization presented in sastra. It is through spiritual knowledge that avidya, spiritual ignorance, is cleared up. Until modern times the knowledge on God-realization found in sastra was for most people only accessible through an oral tradition. Books were rare, and people who could read sanskrit proficiently were rare. Brahmins were trained in studying sanskrit, learning rituals, yoga and memorizing sastra. Because of that they were considered to be the most important people, they were the priests and gurus of Vedic society.
In order for them to do their job they needed to spend their time in pursuit of learning sastra, teaching and priestcraft. They were supposed to be supported by everyone else because their job required total dedication to their craft. If they were bona fide brahmins they didn’t have time to do anything else. How were they to make a living if they had to spend their time and energy engrossed in brahminical duties? They weren’t supposed to charge money or work for anyone, that was believed to potentially lead to the degradation of the brahmin class. If they charged money for their services or worked for people, they could become dependent on and then used by those who pay them for unscrupulous purposes. Therefore, because they were the most exalted and important members of society, brahmins were supposed to remain independent, free from obligation to anyone, free from potentially being used by others for exploitation.
How did they survive? Why would anyone want to be a brahmin if they couldn’t make a living?
Vedic society was based upon a spiritual presumption that our lives here on Earth are for a singular purpose — to become free from samsara and attain moksha. Therefore the teachers on how to attain that purpose were taught in sastra as being the most important people in society. That is why worship and service to sadhus was stressed in sastra. In order to inspire you to do your duty in order that brahmins could remain stable as a class, there are instructions in sastra giving you incentive to do that. According to sastra it was the dharma of everyone else in society to serve the brahmins. Even today the remnants of Vedic society still exist in India and in Buddhist societies. They still have to one degree or another the tradition of it being an obligation for everyone to give charity to sadhus or monks.
In order to make everyone take seriously the importance of supporting the brahmins, you can find many places in sastra where it is said or implied that it is more important to serve or worship brahmins or gurus than to serve God, that worshiping or serving sadhus gives good karma, gives spiritual advancement, etc. Service or worship of God for an average person is an abstract concept. How can you know if your worship or service towards God is anything substantial or concrete? Therefore the Vedic system stressed service to the sadhus as the most practical service to God. It was the dharma of everyone within the Vedic social paradigm to serve the sadhus. Serving them was more important than serving God. God doesn’t need your service, brahmins or sadhus do. And everyone else needed them.
We shouldn’t misunderstand or underestimate the importance of the social context of that ideology and teaching found in sastra. Brahmins or sadhus were given supreme importance because they were the keepers of the Vedic ritualistic religion and philosophy. It wasn’t like today where all Vedic knowledge is easily and widely available for most people without dependence on an oral tradition kept by a special class of highly learned and trained holy men. We are no longer dependent on people to teach us the sastra because we can read it ourselves.
Exploiters will not admit that simple fact. In fact they always go in the opposite direction, giving more importance to service and worship of sadhus then sastra does. It’s always about their desire to gain your devotion for them. If they were truly bona fide sadhus, worthy of being seen as enlightened seers of the truth, they would know that service towards them isn’t some magical panacea which will increase the power or effectiveness of bhakti-yoga. They should see that the importance of serving and worshiping sadhus that is spoken of in sastra, was relevant in an age where society was dependent on them as keepers of sacred knowledge. They should see that today’s world has made what was once a relevant important teaching, obsolete.
Still, many or most bhaktas have been so thoroughly psychologically manipulated that they fear what I am saying will be some great offense to God if they believe it. That is the result of the exploitative manipulation they have gone through and abide in. The exploiters use fear, fear of offending God, as a means towards their ends. Most bhaktas don’t see that their theological justification or motivation for their attitudes and beliefs towards gurus — are largely fear based. The successful exploiters are quite adept at using flowery language and promises of bliss to hide their motivation for taking the role as your guru/savior. They overtly try to project a vision of their motivation as being all about selflessness, pureheartedness and compassion — while making sure you subtly or even not so subtly get the message ingrained in your psyche that doubting them, or lacking a worshipful service attitude towards them, will greatly offend God and cause you to suffer, possibly or probably in hellish conditions for many lifetimes.
ye me bhakta-janah partha
na me bhaktas ca te janah
mad-bhaktanam ca ye bhaktas
te me bhakta-tama matah
This just simply points to Radha dasyam or the service of Sri Radha in the manjari mood. There can be no exploitation in that consciousness if it is genuine. So the real campaign is to help everyone become genuine or sincere. And of course, “charity begins at home.”
raghavendu
That sloka has nothing to do with Radha or manjari bhava. I really am tired of pretentious devotees who think they know everything about Radha Krishna (yet have no experience of what they think they are experts on) and try to relate all kinds of teachings from various sastras to their delusional conception of manjari bhava.
“That sloka has nothing to do with Radha or manjari bhava. ”
The same could be said for the entire Srimad Bhagavatam since Sukadeva Goswami never directly mentions the name of Srimati Radharani anywhere in his replies to the questions of Maharaja Pariksit. Yet, Mahaprabhu saw Her in every sloka, word and syllable of that divine work. Do you suppose that she is imaginary?
excuse me, what is the real context of that sloka?, is possible to read the whole chapter somewhere?
raghavendu
Why is it that pretty much every single thing you say is pretentious b.s? Seriously, you can say the most stupid things while acting like they are very profound, when in fact they are a sign of ignorance and pretentiousness. Take your latest comments for instance, it’s all just a bunch of useless twaddle, yet you seem to think that it brings some type of enlightenment. It’s just so typical though isn’t it? So many devotees turn into sentimentalist or fundamentalist wankers, yet think they are highly advanced and profoundly realized when in fact they are simpletons with a superficial confused understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Some even become gurus who attract other sentimentalists or fundamentalists, who then sit around and talk about manjari this and Radha dasyam that while fantasizing that they’re all such great frickin sadhus. When really they’re just pretentious morons.
kalki das
I don’t know the context of that sloka in the Adi Purana since I have never seen a copy of it, but it’s said to be between Arjuna and Krishna, therefore it certainly wasn’t referencing manjari-bhava or Radha. But, Mahaprabu quotes that verse in the Chaitanya Charitamrita. The context was: During a coversation with Ramananda Raya where Ramananda is telling Mahaprabhu how he was able to retire from government work and receive a pension in order to devote himself to being with Mahaprabhu, he told the story that when he asked the King to be able to do that, the King enthusiastically agreed and gave him a pension because he was a devotee of Mahaprabhu as well. In response Mahaprabhu quoted that verse from the Adi Purana.
You can read the incident at http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/11/en2
I am not asserting that a direct meaning of the ye me bhakta-janah partha verse is referencing Radha dasyam, but rather this is an indirect meaning. If Mahaprabhu can be seen as Krsna in the mood and luster of Srimati Radhika and Sri Ramananda Raya is Srimati Visaka Sakhi and this verse is being quoted from Adi Purana by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, then it is certainly a possibility.
raghavendu
Yeah right. Why not interpret it to mean that smoking crack is what it’s really meant to inspire? It can mean anything if you’re really intent on believing what you want. BTW, if you didn’t “assert that a direct meaning ” of that sloka was about manjari bhava, than what were you jabbering on about when you wrote:
“This just simply points to Radha dasyam or the service of Sri Radha in the manjari mood.”
Every movement will need lot of sacrifice to become success. Achievement of Prabhupada is that he made a movement on Bhagavad Gita that caused good amount of killings, rape etc . This has resulted in sacrifice of lot of human lifes- because of which Hare Krishna has become a criminal movement. That is also a nice way to propogate Hare Krishna?
Vrajabhumi, good comments.
I happen to know a guru who never accepted worship and would consider accepting worship as means of falldown.
He would say — “If I accept worship, then I will falldown and I won’t be worthy of worship. If I don’t accept worship and you want to worship me, then you will get benefit of your bhaav.”
Most of the worship taken by gurus if worship of their body. It is physical worship or sometimes worship of their picture of body. But the real guru tells us that we are not this body. If our self is not body and dies when our body dies, how can gurus body be eternal? Worship of temporary body is never accepted.
Krishna’s murti or picture is worshiped because his form is sat cid ananda. Guru’s perishable body is not sat cid anand.
Now, I have stopped worshiping perishable inert body and pictures of such bodies.
Another suggestion — I understand you moderate comments. What is purpose of accepting anonymous comments! It would be better if you don’t accept comments which are hateful.
typo –> If our self is not body and body dies when guru dies, how can gurus body be eternal?
“…if you didn’t “assert that a direct meaning ” of that sloka was about manjari bhava, than what were you jabbering on about when you wrote:
“This just simply points to Radha dasyam or the service of Sri Radha in the manjari mood.” ”
Yes, you are correct. It was an error not to explain, in the original post that what I gave is more of an inferred and indirect meaning. A similar example would be of Srila Visvanatha Charkravarti Thakur’s explanation in his tika of B.G. 18.66. He says that when Krsna spoke, mam ekam saranam vraja, that when He said “vraja” he thought of Vraja and felt so much separation from Srimati Radhika that His legs trembled and became weak. How could he know that? How could he say that? The answer is that he is projecting his own bhava everywhere and onto everything – or maybe he is correct? But this is certainly an indirect hidden meaning within the verse.
raghavendu
Trying to interpret a statement where Krishna is using hyperbole in order to make a point about the importance of an attitude of service towards sadhus — to being about manjari-bhava, i.e. interpreting the statement to be saying Krishna doesn’t accept you as being a devotee unless you have an attitude of a young servant girl towards Radha — is stupid on a number of levels. First off, Radha is not a devotee, she is Krishna as a female. Secondly, what about other bhavas? Why would Krishna say he doesn’t consider people to be devotees unless they see themselves as young servant girls of Radha?
No need to try to explain it any further, it was a mistake, that’s all.
astrologically- Prabhupada was a capricorn ascendant and was a strong cult. Saturn/Rahu in 10th from Asc/moon makes him strong cult like personality . Amala yoga is when person has benefic in 10th like Mahatma Gandhi. Though people speculate that he is sagittarius ascendant and give him happy married life, that was not the case as actually he had unhappy married life which is justifiable with rahu in second(capricorn ascendant) and timing of events.
Prabhupada’s teachings are not straight forward. He twists actual meaning of sastras by giving mentally speculated meanings(at last he himself is unable to support his statements – this is effect of saturn in midheaven- it can take person high, but will make him fall down.) . His death was also perfectly predicted by capricorn ascendant than sagittarius.
saturn in 10th is very dangerous position as it takes person to great height of power and glory and he will have great fall. ISKCON founder saturn in 10th with no benefic aspect.
Jupiter /sun in 8th house of death is asura yoga.
anonymous
I don’t know astrology, but I remember years ago there was a lot of controversy over Prabhupada’s horoscope with astrologers fighting over the exact time of Prabhupada’s birth. Some were saying that Prabhupada gave the wrong time because his horoscope for that time gave all sorts of bad indicators, whereas if they changed the time and made it it a bit earlier in the day then they would get a much better chart. Others were saying that was preposterous, that there was no need to challenge what Prabhupada said about his time of birth because his chart was perfectly fine. I don’t know who to believe since I know nothing about jyotish, but I do know that leading the charge against changing what Prabhupada said about his birth time was Syamasundara, one of the leading voices of the anti-feminist crusaders “The GHQ” — and leading the charge for changing the time Prabhupada gave, due to what he saw as bad things for that time, was Nalini Kanta, who is known to be a liberal progressive devotee.
Vrajabhumi,
Everything predicted by people who support sagittarius ascendant is predicatble with capricorn as well(travelling abroad..). capricorn seems to be more accurate for that matter. (its somewhat like a gradual gradient change in character which reach peak matching point at capricorn ascendant)
He has good planets in ninth in either case which makes him religious. Judgement has to be made on basis of 10th and 8th. If saturn is in 10th – it justifies negativity in his literature. Mercury/venus- in 10th of karma would have made him write literature that is sober type(Gaandhian type- see good even in criminal).
active 8th will make him break established order of things. 8th house represents sudden change/revolution/killing/getting killed etc.. Wasn’t he a revolutionary changing established order of Bhagavad Gitas? He was highly against other Bhagavad Gitas.
in capricorn – 3rd lord in 8th – he took charge of things that he has no authority over(that is when Bhagavad Gita as it is was released in 1972 – when jupiter effect showed).
Jupiter in 8th gave him a peaceful death before its period got over in 1977.. He will have danger/threat in old age is because of highly active 8th house(could have been poisoned).
my two cents!!
He broke down some nasty Bhagavad Gitas(8th house). But he certainly got wrong when he attacks Bhagavad Gita of Sankaracharya or Gandhi or few others who are better/famous personalities than him.
both ways he is having powerful horoscope, but capricorn is more stronger and more cultish(anti amala yoga)
saturn in 10th makes one a servant , which is reason why Prabhupada wanted everyone to be a servant.
everyone was brainwashed to think that Advaita is mayavada.
Vrajabhumi, I am not exactly clear on this issue regarding ACBS’ birth time.
So, you are saying that some people had reason to believe that ACBS had misrepresented his birth time because he thought the actual time had inauspicious indications? And that somehow some devotees came to be aware of this? And that some of the devotees who were aware of this misrepresentation, including Nalini Kanta, were advocating in favor of “correcting” the time that ACBS gave back to what they had reason to know was the actual time?
Servant of Krishna
Not quite, you got it kinda backward. The time that Prabhupada gave is considered by some astrologers to have bad aspects to it and not suggestive of a brahminical person, Nalini Kanta is one of them. His idea was to claim that Prabhupada probably forgot the actual time because a time hours earlier on the same day is a better chart — or so he claims. Others, led by Syamasundara, dispute that Prabhupada’s chart according to the time Prabhupada gave, is actually bad in any way. I don’t know for sure one way or the other since I know nothing about Vedic astrology, but I do know that Syamasundara is one of the leaders of the GHQ anti-feminist faction in ISKCON. What that says about his reliability in being honest about Prabhupada’s chart, I don’t know.
OK, that’s what it sounded like when I found this after submitting my comment:
http://krishnascience.com/Vaisnava%20Library/Astrology/Horoscope%20of%20Srila%20Prabhupada.htm
So basically: ACBS gave his birth time. Nalini and others think the chart is inauspicious and were trying to say ACBS must have been mistaken by 30 minutes or so. But Syamasundara (and there’s a lot more bad stuff about him besides just his GHQ involvement, by the way) advocates for leaving the time/chart as it is, but just finagling the reading of it so that it sounds better.
As we might expect, Syamasundara’s paper is just chock full of the classic manipulative ISKCON cult jargon:
“A 2. If a disciple is unable to understand something about Srila Prabhupada which appears to be a contradiction then the disciple should understand that this apparent contradiction is an illusory creation of his mind based on a combination of ignorance and a lack of training and experience. The disciple should accept what the guru states as true…Indeed, all apparent contradictions in spiritual life exist only in the ignorance of the disciple, not in the guru or the sastra. This applies equally well to the horoscope of the guru. If an astrologically inexperienced disciple cannot understand the horoscope of the guru because it appears to be contradictory, then he should understand that the contradiction exists only because of his ignorance.”
This would have been a perfect topic for Swami Iconoclast to write one of his brilliant commentaries on!
P.S. So which reading is Anonymous advocating for above? The actual 4:00 p.m. chart that Nalini thinks is inauspicous, but with an honest and unvarnished reading?
wow just see how he distort the meanning of this verse with his purport!!
Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 19.152
mālī hañā kare sei bīja āropaṇa
śravaṇa-kīrtana-jale karaye secana
SYNONYMS
mālī hañā — becoming a gardener; kare — does; sei — that; bīja — seed of devotional service; āropaṇa — sowing; śravaṇa — of hearing; kīrtana — of chanting; jale — with the water; karaye — does; secana — sprinkling.
TRANSLATION
“When a person receives the seed of devotional service, he should take care of it by becoming a gardener and sowing the seed in his heart. If he waters the seed gradually by the process of śravaṇa and kīrtana [hearing and chanting], the seed will begin to sprout.
PURPORT 1st paragraph
To live with devotees or to live in a temple means to associate with the śravaṇa-kīrtana process. Sometimes neophyte devotees think that they can continue the śravaṇa-kīrtana process without worshiping the Deity, but the execution of such śravaṇa-kīrtana is meant for highly developed devotees like Haridāsa Ṭhākura, who engaged in the śravaṇa-kīrtana process without worshiping the Deity. However, one should not falsely imitate Haridāsa Ṭhākura and abandon Deity worship just to try to engage in śravaṇa-kīrtana. This is not possible for neophyte devotees…
Vrajabhumi,
I just wanted to say that I’m so glad I found this blog today and I hope to keep reading it. I first became interested in spirituality and following a true, consistent dharma, about 7 years ago, and was attracted to ISCKON. But then I read a book by Prabhupada and it seemed really out of touch with reality to me, especially on men and women. So although I worshipped God personally since then, I haven’t had a guru, or the scriptures at hand. Now I’m just trying to learn what I can from the internet.
ISCKON’s views of society have been really disheartening to me. Prabhupada’s varnashrama sounds like something Dick Cheney would want! – except of course cows cannot be killed, since they are more intelligent than women.
A few discussions I’ve had on facebook with some other Hindus on dharma turned especially bitter for me as one Prabhupada-reincarnate guy told me Western feminism wasn’t compatible with Hinduism and that I should stop interpreting scriptures as I don’t have the knowledge.
Sorry for the long story, but I’m happy to see someone learned in the scriptures believe, like me, that our fellow human beings, or animals, are not there to serve us. I will be writing my own commentary on Hinduism on my blog, and would be really happy if you shared your opinions once in a while.
desifeminists
Prabhupada taught a fundamentalist evangelical form of Hinduism, similar to Christian fundamentalists in their view of themselves and the world around them, e.g. they are the one and only Godly people, the world needs them to save them all from hell. Prabhupada’s views on feminism were similar as well to Christian fundamentalists. They also preach that women should be submissive servants of men, but Prabhupada took it even further by claiming that if women did anything but become housewives that they are prostitutes, girls shouldn’t be educated beyond reading or writing or they become prostitutes**, women should always be under the control of men, etc. Really, it’s more like what is found in Muslim society under harsh sharia laws than what is found in Hinduism. But if you ask his followers they are convinced that Prabhupada was just relaying the “Vedic” truth, not that he was concocting anything. Which wasn’t true, Prabhupada was good at convincing people that what he taught was God’s holy writ. Common sense is expected to be left at the doorway to ISKCON, they worship blind faith in Prabhupada as the highest form of yoga.
**What’s ironic about Prabhupada using the term prostitute in a negative way all of the time for women who deviated from being submissive housewives, is that prostitution was acceptable in Vedic culture. Even in Prabhupada’s writings he mentions the thousands of courtesans who were part of Krishna lila.
In Vedic culture prostitutes, or courtesans, were respected professionals, like Geishas in Japan. The following is from Krishna lila — after the battle of Kurukshetra he went to Dvaraka and the people greeted him, including hundreds of courtesans:
http://vedabase.net/sb/1/11/19/en
Thousands of courtesans took part at Rukmini’s marriage to Krishna:
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/53/42-43/en
Krishna enjoys with courtesans, although this following translation doesn’t say it, the word vāra-mukhyā or varamukhya means courtesan, as is translated in the above two verses correctly:
http://vedabase.net/sb/10/69/27/en
Servant of Krishna
Anonymous is talking about Prabhupada’s chart according to the time Prabhupada gave at 4.
What else was Syamasundara doing besides GHQ?
kalki das
Mahaprabhu’s teachings were focused on raganuga bhakti, whereas Prabhupada’s teachings were focused on vaidhi-bhakti. So it is very common for Prabhupada to write about vaidhi-bhakti while commenting in Caitanya Caritamrta even though the verses he is commenting on have nothing to do with vaidhi-bhakti.
Deity worship or archana is one of the limbs of vaidhi-bhakti. In ISKCON because of the over emphasis on vaidhi-bhakti it is common for devotees to become overly attached to deity worship. Because they were not taught properly the tattva and purpose of deity worship, they tend to think that deity forms are like real people, except people who demand punctual service free from all so-called “contamination” or you are greatly offending them and will be punished. It’s all quite mad.
Deity worship serves two purposes for neophyte bhaktas: It helps to focus your emotional feeling towards the conception that God is a person, not just a cosmic energy field; and it is supposed to aid in elevating bhaktas from the conception that God wants worship of the majestic “supreme lord” in fear and trepidation, towards a more intimate love based relationship, e.g. dressing and feeding like you would a child.
But because they weren’t taught properly, it is not uncommon amongst ISKCON devotees to become overly attached to deities and deity worship, as if deities are real people instead of substitutes to aid in developing intimacy and bhakti. And instead of developing intimacy and moving away from deity worship, and all worship, they tend to become even more reverential and worshipful over time. They also tend to neglect trying to develop their internal relationship with God in intimacy, and instead focus their devotion on reverential worship of deity forms.
thanks for your reply, personally i don’t like deity worship and i’m not attached to it, this is due to my christian background. but you have said two very interested points:
“Deity worship serves two purposes for neophyte bhaktas: It helps to focus your emotional feeling towards the conception that God is a person, not just a cosmic energy field; and it is supposed to aid in elevating bhaktas from the conception that God wants worship of the majestic “supreme lord” in fear and trepidation, towards a more intimate love based relationship, e.g. dressing and feeding like you would a child.”
It seems that here is the subtle difference between ideal deity worship and idolatry respectively. Here we go:
I accept your comment quoted above, even I don’t like deity worship but to be honest i like very much paintings about the Lord so is the same thing as seeing the lord as a murti, is very inspiring, also the forms of the Lord are made according the sastras so viewing Him in a murti or picture one can meditate in His form easily, but I don’t see as necessary to worship images an murtis.
“But because they weren’t taught properly, it is not uncommon amongst ISKCON devotees to become overly attached to deities and deity worship, as if deities are real people instead of substitutes to aid in developing intimacy and bhakti.”
“They also tend to neglect trying to develop their internal relationship with God in intimacy, and instead focus their devotion on reverential worship of deity forms.”
for me this is plain idolatry and this is the danger of deity worship as you say if is not taught properly, but I know that Bhaktisddhanta Sarasvati (maybe the whole parampara), Advaita Acarya and even Lord Caitanya used to worship idols, for example when Lord Caitanya went to Ratha Yatra and worshipped Lord Jagannath, and Prabhupada used to say that there is no difference between the Lord and His Murti, so according to them the deity must be treated like a real person.
so? if they are not kanistha bhaktas why they worship deities??
I think this topic is very important, also what i think is not very important but we are not in iskcon or others mathas, so i can think quietly. Thanks, If you want to open a new topic about deity worship with details will be helpful
Vrajabhumi, I don’t know anything about astrology either, but I am finding this whole topic (Anonymous’ reading of the Capricorn rising chart) to be completely fascinating.
Just look at Anonymous’ descriptions and how they perfectly depict ACBS and the incredible damage that he wrought…..
“Saturn/Rahu in 10th from Asc/moon makes him strong cult like personality.”
“…actually [ACBS] had unhappy married life which is justifiable with rahu in second(capricorn ascendant) and timing of events.”
“Prabhupada’s teachings are not straight forward. He twists actual meaning of sastras by giving mentally speculated meanings(at last he himself is unable to support his statements – this is effect of saturn in midheaven- it can take person high, but will make him fall down.)”
“If saturn is in 10th – it justifies negativity in his literature.”
“…in capricorn – 3rd lord in 8th – he took charge of things that he has no authority over.”
Just one of the things “he took charge of” that “he had no authority over” was child-rearing, with his morally criminal “gurukula” directive.
Wow. Heavy stuff.
[...] the comments to the previous post kalki das brought up the topic of archana, deity worship, and how it is taught by Prabhupada. He [...]
Vrajabhumi,
nice post. Quite perceptive thinking too, and of course, another note: Who ever said that verse was told by Krishna? Or any other verse attributed to him?
If we want to go to the very detail of things, and examine all the evidence, Krishna as a God-like person is a myth, same as Jesus son of God is a myth too.
Someone, sometime, wrote hundreds of verses delegating them to Krishna, the hero and mythical person, but did Krishna real person really told them? No.
Thank you.
Anon
Of course it is impossible to prove that Krishna actually spoke what is attributed to him, but it’s also impossible to disprove it. A self-realized person understands and sees that everything that occurs is a manifestation of Krishna’s control, so in that sense everything attributed to Krishna really was caused by Krishna — whether or not he actually physically spoke those words. Does that mean that everything attributed to Krishna should be taken as Krishna’s perfect teaching? No. Anyone can write something and attribute that to Krishna, or take previous writings and interpolate them to have Krishna say what they want him to say. Still, God or Krishna is always in complete control of whatever anyone does or whatever you experience. Brahma-Samhita says:
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.29.20-23
That sloka is mistranslated but gets the point partially across, yoga-ratam doesn’t mean one who constantly engages in devotional service, it means someone who is immersed in yogic awareness, someone who has the vision of seeing everything united, yoga, with God, can perceive the constant presence of God – just like smelling an aroma wafting through the air.
Whether or not Krishna physically spoke these teachings, the fact remains that if you take them to heart and try to apply them you will experience Krishna’s presence and control, everywhere.