Dear Hari
I would like to ask you what relevance or significance (I hope I chosed the right words), do you mean has the knowledge of the various revealed
Scriptures of the past, if one can say it like this, for the time we are living in now. We are living in a changing world and changing circumstances, I guess that,s the nature of things here also, would this not mean also that knowledge which was spoken or revealed in the past to those living at that particular time and place should be also adabted for the time, place and circumstances we are living in now? I would say that truth as well as art lies in the eyes of the beholder or in other words the angle of vision one may be locking at it acording the personal background one may be in or come from.
I guess what I whant to know by saying this, is what could be the best posible way, to understand or to define the absolute nature, if there is any, in the statements or evidence one may find in the revealed scriptures, from whatever background they may come from. Which could be the best way to handle theyr statements in other words, for our entire good. (again if I expresed myself corctly in the english language)
I hope you understand what I mean by saying this.
Relevance or significance of Scriptures
I shall assume that all who read these texts are smart people who do not need long-winded replies to form their own conclusions, and in this spirit I shall concisely address your points. If you want any point expanded, let me know.
The wisdom of the past is certainly a product of those who lived then. God certainly wishes that people receive wisdom they can understand and accept. God certainly wants to make it easy for people to advance if they want to. Just consider -- if people lived in a society where the most important resources were the land, cows and bulls, their scriptures would compatibly refer to their milieu. If God were to present to such people statements which related to international communications networks where people all over the world could contact each other at the speed of light, or in terms compatible with the mentality and resources required to utilize such systems, the people would have been lost and confused. Perhaps this is why the secrets of the pyramids were rapidly lost? Perhaps that which we consider to be the ultimate expression of spiritual wisdom is actually a version modified to the requirements of the people living in non-modern times? I think this kind of modification was required and necessary. I think it is required now. Much is being revealed through advanced souls who are similar in many ways to the wise souls of the past. Sure there are differences, but the times are also extremely different. Those who respect and cherish the experiences of yogis go to places where they can meet such persons. Most do not. Spirituality is for everyone so I see no benefit in limiting the manner in which it is experienced.
There are other places in the universe, including the celestial realms, where people live in situations which are far more advanced than our very advanced technological society. Even though there are incredibly smart people in the world today and the number of spiritually, philosophically, and intellectually evolved people is astounding, still, we are far behind the power, capacity, and speed of those in the celestial dimensions. Their spiritual understanding and the words, concepts and culture that is derived from it is quite different from what we are aware of on Earth. Those who are teachers there will speak from their own realizations and experiences that are born of their highly developed environment. The body of recorded wisdom will naturally reflect this. Spiritual teachings and practices find their homes within the hearts and minds of the people of the time. Even those who live today yet follow ancient teachings adapt those disciplines to fit them within their everyday reality.
Why shouldn't those who have the capacity to extract the essence from the wealth of spiritual wisdom present their realizations and experiences in ways which flow with the times within which they live? Whether it is approved by the traditional religions or not, the reality is that this is now happening. Those who are in this flow are touching the hearts of those who contact them.
I do not like to live in the past. I like to live in the present. If this means adapting those aspects of my life that I formerly considered as timeless and unchangeable, then I shall.
The wisdom of the past is certainly a product of those who lived then. God certainly wishes that people receive wisdom they can understand and accept. God certainly wants to make it easy for people to advance if they want to. Just consider -- if people lived in a society where the most important resources were the land, cows and bulls, their scriptures would compatibly refer to their milieu. If God were to present to such people statements which related to international communications networks where people all over the world could contact each other at the speed of light, or in terms compatible with the mentality and resources required to utilize such systems, the people would have been lost and confused. Perhaps this is why the secrets of the pyramids were rapidly lost? Perhaps that which we consider to be the ultimate expression of spiritual wisdom is actually a version modified to the requirements of the people living in non-modern times? I think this kind of modification was required and necessary. I think it is required now. Much is being revealed through advanced souls who are similar in many ways to the wise souls of the past. Sure there are differences, but the times are also extremely different. Those who respect and cherish the experiences of yogis go to places where they can meet such persons. Most do not. Spirituality is for everyone so I see no benefit in limiting the manner in which it is experienced.
There are other places in the universe, including the celestial realms, where people live in situations which are far more advanced than our very advanced technological society. Even though there are incredibly smart people in the world today and the number of spiritually, philosophically, and intellectually evolved people is astounding, still, we are far behind the power, capacity, and speed of those in the celestial dimensions. Their spiritual understanding and the words, concepts and culture that is derived from it is quite different from what we are aware of on Earth. Those who are teachers there will speak from their own realizations and experiences that are born of their highly developed environment. The body of recorded wisdom will naturally reflect this. Spiritual teachings and practices find their homes within the hearts and minds of the people of the time. Even those who live today yet follow ancient teachings adapt those disciplines to fit them within their everyday reality.
Why shouldn't those who have the capacity to extract the essence from the wealth of spiritual wisdom present their realizations and experiences in ways which flow with the times within which they live? Whether it is approved by the traditional religions or not, the reality is that this is now happening. Those who are in this flow are touching the hearts of those who contact them.
I do not like to live in the past. I like to live in the present. If this means adapting those aspects of my life that I formerly considered as timeless and unchangeable, then I shall.
"The wisdom of the past is certainly a product of those who lived then. God certainly wishes that people receive wisdom they can understand and accept. God certainly wants to make it easy for people to advance if they want to".
Thank you Hari for this very instructive and progressive explanation, which I appreciate very much. It clarified my understanding of this indeed complex issue. To the way you are approaching and explaining things, Bhaktivinoda Thakur would have said, I am shure:
"Thought is progressive. The author´s thought must have progress in the reader in the shape of correction or development.
He is the best critic, who can show the further development of an old thought; but a mere denouncer is the enemy of progress and consequently of nature.
Progress is certainly the law of nature and there must be correction and developments with the progress of time. But progress means going further or rising higher... The true critic advises us to preserve what we have already obtained, and to adjust our race from that point where we have arrived in the heat of our progress."
From his speech "The Bhagavat"
Thank you Hari for this very instructive and progressive explanation, which I appreciate very much. It clarified my understanding of this indeed complex issue. To the way you are approaching and explaining things, Bhaktivinoda Thakur would have said, I am shure:
"Thought is progressive. The author´s thought must have progress in the reader in the shape of correction or development.
He is the best critic, who can show the further development of an old thought; but a mere denouncer is the enemy of progress and consequently of nature.
Progress is certainly the law of nature and there must be correction and developments with the progress of time. But progress means going further or rising higher... The true critic advises us to preserve what we have already obtained, and to adjust our race from that point where we have arrived in the heat of our progress."
From his speech "The Bhagavat"
Open up your mind and heart to new experiences of consciousness.
Certainly I agree with what was quoted but sometimes making an adjustment means to leave aside something which is the cause of a problem. I do not agree with the idea that a complete change is improper simply because it rejects that which came before it. For example, medical science made a complete change when it discovered bacteria.
I do like to build upon those principles of the past which have value and which encourage growth. I do not like to build upon principles which stifle individuals. Therefore, adjustment could be seen as an attempt to maintain the essential principles of spiritual evolution while leaving aside those aspects which create conditions not advantageous at present.
If this is what the Thakur meant then I can certainly agree. Building upon a previous thought can also mean going back to the origin of the thought and restoring its essence instead of being bound to progressing on a distortion of a once good concept.
I do like to build upon those principles of the past which have value and which encourage growth. I do not like to build upon principles which stifle individuals. Therefore, adjustment could be seen as an attempt to maintain the essential principles of spiritual evolution while leaving aside those aspects which create conditions not advantageous at present.
If this is what the Thakur meant then I can certainly agree. Building upon a previous thought can also mean going back to the origin of the thought and restoring its essence instead of being bound to progressing on a distortion of a once good concept.
"If this is what the Thakur meant then I can certainly agree. Building upon a previous thought can also mean going back to the origin of the thought and restoring its essence instead of being bound to progressing on a distortion of a once good concept."
Thank you Hari for the clarification you have given.
"The KCM is an attempt to make people fortunate. In this age, everyone is unfortunate but now we are trying to reverse the situation."
Unfortunatelly, this good desire of someone we all know, did not fulfil itself, rather became for some, examined from a relative point of view, quite the opposite. And still, I am somehow interested to find out what could Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu have meant by saying to Rupa Gosvami
guru-krsna-prasade paya. By the mercy of the spiritual master and the mercy of Krishna, the supreme merciful Lord can appear to his devotee, or can be known for someone who so desires.
Maybe, if you dont mind, you could write something about this matter, I would appreciate it very much.
Thank you Hari for the clarification you have given.
"The KCM is an attempt to make people fortunate. In this age, everyone is unfortunate but now we are trying to reverse the situation."
Unfortunatelly, this good desire of someone we all know, did not fulfil itself, rather became for some, examined from a relative point of view, quite the opposite. And still, I am somehow interested to find out what could Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu have meant by saying to Rupa Gosvami
guru-krsna-prasade paya. By the mercy of the spiritual master and the mercy of Krishna, the supreme merciful Lord can appear to his devotee, or can be known for someone who so desires.
Maybe, if you dont mind, you could write something about this matter, I would appreciate it very much.
Open up your mind and heart to new experiences of consciousness.
I appreciate your doubt very well for it has been echoed by many who find reconciling such statements difficult. However, if one sees things slightly differently, it becomes easier to understand how it is not only relevant in our own lives but an essential factor.
Those who follow a traditional path include many aspects of a guru when they define the term and although some of these aspects have value they are not all axiomatic truths. Compare the simple and unassuming gurus of Lord Caitanya's time to the way gurus are presented in these modern times and you will see what I mean.
Let's put aside these modern notions and reflect on the essence of a guru as a teacher. My experience is that those who know their subjects very well can teach them best. When the subject is complex, the best teachers are those who have lived within these complexities and successfully dealt with them. They have experience relating to and interacting with the concepts and components of their fields and have found their way around the obstacles and stumbling blocks that deter neophytes. Due to their realized knowledge they have a wisdom which is apparent in their discussions with others, their presentations, and their capacity to share the ways and means for people to get to the same point they have reached and beyond. Those teachers who are also sensitive to the particular qualities and characteristics of others are further qualified due to their ability to adapt the subject matter to those they teach. They are the most effective teachers of all.
Considering this 'mundane' example, one can see how a guru expert in the subject matter, experienced about what he or she speaks, and sensitive to the energy of those to whom this understanding is presented, has a very good chance of imparting the tools and conceptions that would most amplify the disciple's capacity to evolve spiritually. This evolution would include those conceptions which are considered to be the highest and best by the guru and shared by the disciple.
From this point of view, the words of Lord Caitanya would make sense even according to what I have been sharing with you in my lectures and writings.
I say the guru is a teacher. I dislike the way the word has come to include influence over others, position and elitism, and above all dis-integration from human quality when the guru has to accept a role "as good as God." This we have already discussed often and therefore your doubt. Now if we were to set aside all the external impositions which are placed upon those who take up the task of initiating others we can see that any teacher who knows well what he or she is doing has the capacity to fulfill the statement of Lord Caitanya. This can be any person even those not recognized by some organization or within a specific line of thought. Further, it can mean someone who has realized the essence of spirituality yet does not see it the same way as some say they should, for after all, reality is vast and there are many ways to see the same thing. How many arguments and debates are there within spiritual organizations where learned and intelligent people who believe in the same thing and have learned from the same person disagree about important spiritual points? Expand that concept a bit and one can see that God is great and can manifest that greatness in a wide variety of ways that impact humans deeply for we are all different and require different stimulus to become inspired.
If you use the word 'mercy' strictly as an imparting of some mystical energy which makes the impossible possible, then Lord Caitanya's statement is hard to reconcile with what I am saying. If you take the word mercy to mean basically an unexpected gift of compassion and sympathy from one who has the power to assist another and doesn't need a reason to do so, then we are speaking about anyone who has the capacity to assist others in their path of evolution and who does so even without compensation. We can be sure that the supreme always is ready to bestow assistance and loving support to any sincere seeker and thus the scene is set for the teacher and God to offer valuable gifts to those who wish to take them.
Let me rephrase it in my terms:
An experienced teacher who reflects the principle of love and kindness towards others which characterizes the Supreme and all higher forms of beings, who has a clear and undistorted vision of what is the essence of life and who knows how to empower others to share in that vision while developing their own unique and powerful spiritual experience, can be instrumental in the evolutionary journey of any sincere person not afraid to resolutely work on themselves to attain ever increasing loving contact with the Supreme.
I have presented my understanding in this format as an appropriate response to your question and do not mean to imply that anything I have written here should be taken as a rationale for me to assume some role as a guru. I am simply here to assist and nothing more.
Those who follow a traditional path include many aspects of a guru when they define the term and although some of these aspects have value they are not all axiomatic truths. Compare the simple and unassuming gurus of Lord Caitanya's time to the way gurus are presented in these modern times and you will see what I mean.
Let's put aside these modern notions and reflect on the essence of a guru as a teacher. My experience is that those who know their subjects very well can teach them best. When the subject is complex, the best teachers are those who have lived within these complexities and successfully dealt with them. They have experience relating to and interacting with the concepts and components of their fields and have found their way around the obstacles and stumbling blocks that deter neophytes. Due to their realized knowledge they have a wisdom which is apparent in their discussions with others, their presentations, and their capacity to share the ways and means for people to get to the same point they have reached and beyond. Those teachers who are also sensitive to the particular qualities and characteristics of others are further qualified due to their ability to adapt the subject matter to those they teach. They are the most effective teachers of all.
Considering this 'mundane' example, one can see how a guru expert in the subject matter, experienced about what he or she speaks, and sensitive to the energy of those to whom this understanding is presented, has a very good chance of imparting the tools and conceptions that would most amplify the disciple's capacity to evolve spiritually. This evolution would include those conceptions which are considered to be the highest and best by the guru and shared by the disciple.
From this point of view, the words of Lord Caitanya would make sense even according to what I have been sharing with you in my lectures and writings.
I say the guru is a teacher. I dislike the way the word has come to include influence over others, position and elitism, and above all dis-integration from human quality when the guru has to accept a role "as good as God." This we have already discussed often and therefore your doubt. Now if we were to set aside all the external impositions which are placed upon those who take up the task of initiating others we can see that any teacher who knows well what he or she is doing has the capacity to fulfill the statement of Lord Caitanya. This can be any person even those not recognized by some organization or within a specific line of thought. Further, it can mean someone who has realized the essence of spirituality yet does not see it the same way as some say they should, for after all, reality is vast and there are many ways to see the same thing. How many arguments and debates are there within spiritual organizations where learned and intelligent people who believe in the same thing and have learned from the same person disagree about important spiritual points? Expand that concept a bit and one can see that God is great and can manifest that greatness in a wide variety of ways that impact humans deeply for we are all different and require different stimulus to become inspired.
If you use the word 'mercy' strictly as an imparting of some mystical energy which makes the impossible possible, then Lord Caitanya's statement is hard to reconcile with what I am saying. If you take the word mercy to mean basically an unexpected gift of compassion and sympathy from one who has the power to assist another and doesn't need a reason to do so, then we are speaking about anyone who has the capacity to assist others in their path of evolution and who does so even without compensation. We can be sure that the supreme always is ready to bestow assistance and loving support to any sincere seeker and thus the scene is set for the teacher and God to offer valuable gifts to those who wish to take them.
Let me rephrase it in my terms:
An experienced teacher who reflects the principle of love and kindness towards others which characterizes the Supreme and all higher forms of beings, who has a clear and undistorted vision of what is the essence of life and who knows how to empower others to share in that vision while developing their own unique and powerful spiritual experience, can be instrumental in the evolutionary journey of any sincere person not afraid to resolutely work on themselves to attain ever increasing loving contact with the Supreme.
I have presented my understanding in this format as an appropriate response to your question and do not mean to imply that anything I have written here should be taken as a rationale for me to assume some role as a guru. I am simply here to assist and nothing more.
"From this point of view, the words of Lord Caitanya would make sense even according to what I have been sharing with you in my lectures and writings.
I say the guru is a teacher. I dislike the way the word has come to include influence over others, position and elitism, and above all dis-integration from human quality when the guru has to accept a role "as good as God."
What you have written is, in my opinion, very easy to understand and makes a lot of sense to me. I find, how shall I put it:
Is God not in some way moore as the total amount of his parts?
What do you think?
I say the guru is a teacher. I dislike the way the word has come to include influence over others, position and elitism, and above all dis-integration from human quality when the guru has to accept a role "as good as God."
What you have written is, in my opinion, very easy to understand and makes a lot of sense to me. I find, how shall I put it:
Is God not in some way moore as the total amount of his parts?
What do you think?
-
Guest
-
Guest
Oh yes, I am able to have many opinions. But opinions are beliefs, and beliefs are memories and memories are only memories and not truth.
Therefore all that you have learned and believe in is not helpful to you in a spiritual sense. It is memories learned from frauds who, knowing or unknowingly, and out of selfish motives, taught you and convinced you to have that belief. You still carry so much of that baggage. You have a large burden of beliefs from gurus (people who are false, pretenders and brainwashed themselves). It is a burden which has no relief in it's knowledge.
My teacher is not a permanent teacher. He only has a student for a short while. Then that student is discharged into the world to fend on their own. There is no hanging on to every word of a 'guru' or bowing down to another body. There is no special treatment to plain people or holding statues to be more important than persons.
My teacher dislikes gurus, spiritual leaders, authorities and other frauds who set out to take advantage of people, as they all do. Every one of them. They are users, who satisfy their selfish desires by deluding followers into believing in myths and thereby gaining some pathetic measure of power.
My teacher would be mad at me if he knew I was calling him my teacher. Thats because he knows I have the ability to see life clearly. And it starts by understanding thought. Something the myth believers will never understand.
I hope this answers your question.
Therefore all that you have learned and believe in is not helpful to you in a spiritual sense. It is memories learned from frauds who, knowing or unknowingly, and out of selfish motives, taught you and convinced you to have that belief. You still carry so much of that baggage. You have a large burden of beliefs from gurus (people who are false, pretenders and brainwashed themselves). It is a burden which has no relief in it's knowledge.
My teacher is not a permanent teacher. He only has a student for a short while. Then that student is discharged into the world to fend on their own. There is no hanging on to every word of a 'guru' or bowing down to another body. There is no special treatment to plain people or holding statues to be more important than persons.
My teacher dislikes gurus, spiritual leaders, authorities and other frauds who set out to take advantage of people, as they all do. Every one of them. They are users, who satisfy their selfish desires by deluding followers into believing in myths and thereby gaining some pathetic measure of power.
My teacher would be mad at me if he knew I was calling him my teacher. Thats because he knows I have the ability to see life clearly. And it starts by understanding thought. Something the myth believers will never understand.
I hope this answers your question.
Dear niab.
In my opinion the teacher is like a man who helps others to learn how to ride a bicycle. My kid sow how I ride a bike, but that would not help her to ride herself. She had to try, though some time she could fall down. When I'm teaching my kid how to ride a bicycle, I keep the bike from behind while she is riding. In that time she is being all attention trying and forgets even that I'm holding from behind. And gradually seeing that she is making, I'm letting her go herself. And I'm quite happy when I see that she has learned to go her own, because after all what for I started teach her at first place? And besides that it will look fanny if all the time I will run after her bike, holding it. People will laugh at me.
I'm agree with your teacher in some points. But the way you quote his ideas is a bit bewildering.
You say your teacher said all other teachers are bogus cheaters. After these words one can conclude that the only "right teacher" is your teacher.
I also was like that ten years before. I read much Prabupada's books and had a huge database with his words and thoughts in my head. In every situation of life I had a quote from Prabupadas database. But now I can see it all was useless because I didn't realize what I was quoting. I was like parrot just repeating others words hoping that in this way I also will get benefit from other's realizations. Now I also read a lot and naturally had another database but I will not make the same mistake again. I'm first trying, if it possible for me, to deeply realize other's thoughts which touched me. And when I have realized that, it gives me strengths to have my own opinion on what's going on around me, without quoting or believing somebody.
And I think you forgot to mention what your teacher says about, if everyone are bogus then what should one do to get to the reality?
In my opinion the teacher is like a man who helps others to learn how to ride a bicycle. My kid sow how I ride a bike, but that would not help her to ride herself. She had to try, though some time she could fall down. When I'm teaching my kid how to ride a bicycle, I keep the bike from behind while she is riding. In that time she is being all attention trying and forgets even that I'm holding from behind. And gradually seeing that she is making, I'm letting her go herself. And I'm quite happy when I see that she has learned to go her own, because after all what for I started teach her at first place? And besides that it will look fanny if all the time I will run after her bike, holding it. People will laugh at me.
I'm agree with your teacher in some points. But the way you quote his ideas is a bit bewildering.
You say your teacher said all other teachers are bogus cheaters. After these words one can conclude that the only "right teacher" is your teacher.
I also was like that ten years before. I read much Prabupada's books and had a huge database with his words and thoughts in my head. In every situation of life I had a quote from Prabupadas database. But now I can see it all was useless because I didn't realize what I was quoting. I was like parrot just repeating others words hoping that in this way I also will get benefit from other's realizations. Now I also read a lot and naturally had another database but I will not make the same mistake again. I'm first trying, if it possible for me, to deeply realize other's thoughts which touched me. And when I have realized that, it gives me strengths to have my own opinion on what's going on around me, without quoting or believing somebody.
And I think you forgot to mention what your teacher says about, if everyone are bogus then what should one do to get to the reality?
The text that Gaura is replying to has been deleted and his quoted text has also been edited. The user who has posted the deleted text has been deleted as a user. We have given him multiple chances to be civil and to not flame others (flaming means to severely and harshly write about another person or organization) and have written him personal messages to that effect, but he ignored them. His tone, his ideas, and his fixation on his own personal problems without consideration of the other members of this forum were incompatible with the interests of those who have created this site and many members were writing complaints to the administrators. Although we are not happy with having to delete members, it is easier than having to moderate discussions or censor everything posted. We are sorry if anyone is offended by the deletion of niab as a member but enough is enough. We hope we shall not have to do this again.
Dear niab
>Believing in a fraud and his pipe dreams is a belief. An opinion.
>Not a practical reality. Only something to divert attention away from the real thing.
This big problem is always exist - chousing a teacher. It's very hard to say who knows the truth and who bewildered himself. A sticking a label is not seems to me the way to solve the problem. How do you know that the person you are calling so much as "your teacher" is the only "REAL TEACHER". One day you also can wake up and say that it was also a big belief and make another label.
>My teacher only teaches for a short while
You didn't again say what he teaches about the path of reaching the reality.
>My teacher does not teach myth.
How do you know. It's like when children tell- my father is the only true one, others say no my father is the best and then fight, broken noses...
In my opinion no guru is needed. If we waked up to some extent we can use every opportunity, every man as our teacher. I think the main teacher is the reality it's self, when we are able to cooperate with it. And being all the time waked up we every day become closer and closer to it, without blindly believing anybody.
Dear niab
>Believing in a fraud and his pipe dreams is a belief. An opinion.
>Not a practical reality. Only something to divert attention away from the real thing.
This big problem is always exist - chousing a teacher. It's very hard to say who knows the truth and who bewildered himself. A sticking a label is not seems to me the way to solve the problem. How do you know that the person you are calling so much as "your teacher" is the only "REAL TEACHER". One day you also can wake up and say that it was also a big belief and make another label.
>My teacher only teaches for a short while
You didn't again say what he teaches about the path of reaching the reality.
>My teacher does not teach myth.
How do you know. It's like when children tell- my father is the only true one, others say no my father is the best and then fight, broken noses...
In my opinion no guru is needed. If we waked up to some extent we can use every opportunity, every man as our teacher. I think the main teacher is the reality it's self, when we are able to cooperate with it. And being all the time waked up we every day become closer and closer to it, without blindly believing anybody.
Dear Hari, the next post is from russian forum, the author is saranagati
Dear Hari, we have come to love You for all these qualities. And I do not care if You are belong to some organization or not. You import for us as a spiritual person, as a guidance and a dear friend!Hari wrote: An experienced teacher who reflects the principle of love and kindness towards others which characterizes the Supreme and all higher forms of beings, who has a clear and undistorted vision of what is the essence of life and who knows how to empower others to share in that vision while developing their own unique and powerful spiritual experience, can be instrumental in the evolutionary journey of any sincere person not afraid to resolutely work on themselves to attain ever increasing loving contact with the Supreme.