Why?

[harsi]

I realy think that you are wrong one should question everything especially teachers.

Well, you are free to think whatever you want thats your right. I just say that everything has its time and its justification in life. Even that what you may call "blindly accepting" And indeed one should not really accept something "blindly" rather accept something consciously, meaning that you should try to understand something in your own personal way taking it from different angles of vision until it may become part of ones own understanding and consciousness. But to do this you have to be educated first in such a way that you may feel the need to do such a thing. So some "blind" acceptance may be also needed for you while you may be a child in school until you are grown up and mature and really learned enough so that you may understand the basics on which you should orientate or guide yourself in life. Prabhupada takes this understanding further by saying that whenever you feel the need to understand and learn something spiritual more deeply one should so called surrender to the teachings of the spiritual master. I just write this as an information I was reading ones in his books. So like I said this black and white idea of you where you complitelly exclude the necessity of something like accepting something so called blindly doesnt really convince me.

You write that a "good teacher will like such a desciple" I would say a teacher may indeed like someone who is inquiring something more in order to understand something better but I doubt that every teacher will like it if a pupil or disciple will always put into question his integrity as a teacher of a certain institution or that what he may teach to him.

You write: "And more then that before accepting teacher one should really deeply question if the teacher really knows what he teaches, it is very esential since one is going to give his life to the other person figurativelly saying." No doubt one should take some time to inquire, explore and investigate if a person is indeed that what he may pretend to be. I was also reading ones a story in our local newspaper about a doctor, a physician who was working for a few years in a hospital here in Nuremberg until it somehow was found out that he was actually a fake and his so called diploma or certificate was also faked. But he was somehow naturally talented to be a physician and the pacients liked him and he also knew what he was doing and his diagnosis were also corect. So there are also such naturally talented persons.

Krishna also tells Arjuna "Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth. (Bhagavad-gita)

So why not try to discuss and argue among us what that what Krishna told Arjuna could really mean. Like you said "Blindly accepting anything is dangerious. Especialy spiritual teachers," one like Krishna may also be, I suppose.

So what is really "the truth" what one should "try" to "learn"? What does it mean to "inquire from him (the spiritual teacher or guru) submissively and render service unto him"? What kind of "service" should one render to him and why? What may Krishna mean by saying "self-realized soul" which should be able to "impart knowledge unto you"? What kind of knowledge? What could Krishna mean by implying that such a person a so called "self-realized soul" may have "seen the truth"? What truth? Questions over questions which I guess will engage us for quite a while to discuss.

[kamalamala1]

Read the next question when Arjuna asked how to recognise self realized soul.
Lord never told that one should blindly accept even self realized soul.

You know there are tonns of so calle d spiritual masters and all there desciples declaring that they are realy self realised.
Mostly they speak very well even can act in public very nicly and so on say and quote tons of scriptures.
Even be austire.The followers, like you are doing each time will quote the
unfinite recordings and intervews and so on.
But personaly for me it is most importan not even there teachings but there motivation,that is why Lord told Arjuna see how he act how even he seet and live.Look how he motivated in life.
To find out the real motivation is not easy, real mistics wich means so called self realised souls [this by the way very strange definition wath means self realized?]never act in the way that evrybody glorify them they dont realy care about it at all they dont make money on there teaching nor they into power.For me it is abvious.
Look all examples in Mahabharata/
Even one can get all glorry but not relay motivated by that.This realy not easy and all present so called gurus eccept very few out of this ability.
The followers of let say Rajnesh or Sai baba say the saim about ther guru whom by the way Prabhupad doesnt like at all so you think
who is right you or there followers.Both of you accepting evething blindly.
One should even question wath his spiritual master said it is my opinion if he is even desciple.
But nowadayes all this games desciple and teacher look more like theatre.
For me it is old and useless idea.Which havvenly exploited by many thousand of ill motivated people.
I realy appreciate masters and ready to learn but i first realy investigating who he is a nd realy he is a master.

[Nanda-grama]

I think, Harsi, your example with school teacher is not very good. Yes, when teacher speaks front big gang of small children, his authority and the discipline is very important. But does he give real knowledge or simply some information? I think a spiritual training is very individual process, this knowledge goes personally from a teacher to his disciple. If somebody will tell some information on spiritual topics it will not mean that he will give spiritual knowledge. I studied in special music school for talented children. We had common subjects as physics and so on and also individual school hours with personal teacher of music. I was an excellent pupil but I didn't like physics. I interested only how I could get my "excellently". I never asked this teacher of physics about something, I simply remembered the information and I had my "5". Now I remember nothing from school's physics. It was not a knowledge, it was simply an information.( this teacher had big authority in our group ) But I liked very much my violine, and I asked my music teacher about all constantly, I was a most fidget. And now I remember every word of his answers. This individual teaching was more similar on process of transmission of spiritual knowledge. Because the teacher gave not simply some information but shared also his experience, his understanding, his feeling, his soul. And a disciple didn't simply remembered, he tried it worked or didn't, it helped him or didn't and only then accepted it, did it own and then used it by his own way. If I would feel nothing when at the first time I chanted Hare Krishna I would never come to ISSCON. If I would not see that what Hari tells now -works and helps me I would not listen him presently. If I see that something contradicts my experience, common sense or does harm me I ask-why? I will not accept something blindly. I think any normal man will do so. Why do you think that if a man want to get spiritual knowledge he should stop to be normal?

[harsi]

Why do you think that if a man want to get spiritual knowledge he should stop to be normal?

I as you Nanda-grama am also just trying to understand the deeper meaning of this words we sometimes accepted in the past without verifying further what they may actually really mean or may have meant ones upon a time. I mean a few thousend years ago when Krishna so called may have spoken the Bhagavad-gita. In my inquisitive nature I try to imagine or should I say I try to put myself in the situation of the time when this knowledge if it can be called as such was first thought or spoken to people. In this way I try to understand what may be written somewhere or what some so called positions or functions in society of people may have meant in the beginning. In this way I try to find some parallels or some basis of comparison with the way things or functions or positions may be nowadays in the world of today. Thus I find the parallels with the school teacher of today who is somehow similar to the so called guru of ancient times at least when it comes to the way he teaches his so called knowledge, wherever he may have got it or may have "invented" it.

Wordnet explains the semantics of the word "questioning" First maening is: (challenge the accuracy, probity, or propriety of) like "We must question your judgment in this matter"

So I think that the word "inquiring" what a teacher or "guru may have to say is a better word in this connction than "questioning". Like inquiring (a request for information) - (have a wish or desire to know something) - (inquire about) of course being also critical about something but I would not say to do that in a challeging mood, like who are you to tell me something like that, what are your refferences as a teacher, who was your school-master or spiritual master etc, because if you would do that posibly no teacher will be inspired to give you some knowledge you would like to know. And yes also use your common sence in applying that what someone may have told you. That is a god given gift of everyone I guess, so use it in your life and dont just follow something with an open mind without judjing also the value of it in your life and your understanding.

I allways inquire more knowledge from Hari or ask him to explain something further if I dont understand what he meant so say in his lectures. So do the same, be a critical listener not just a uncritical consumer of that what he may teach you or be just a devoted and uncritical admirer of him and what he may have to say. That is the mood I am listening to what someone may have to say or is teaching me, although I must admit that it was not always like that. Be a listener of age or an adult one.

[Nanda-grama]

Thank you for your anxiety. But I will decide independently how I will listen Hari. I don't need your admonitions.

[harsi]

Yes please do that. I am also of the opinion that your questions may be best answered by Hari. Let us hope he will be inspired to do so. I quote here your inquisitive questions to him. Somehow it dissapeared from the Discussions with Hari page.

Dear Hari
I have a question. I read in Harsi's topic about Prabhupada the conversation of Prabhupada with you and with other his disciples( on 1 page), when he said: "if anyone wants to contact directly Krishna, that is not possible... Because unless we are completely purified, Krishna will does not talk directly. Therefore you have to understand Krishna through the spiritual master. If one has become pure, without any material derire, then that is possible. But if there is some material desire, we cannot expect direct communication". I heard it or similar things in ISCKON many times , and it was normally. But now I was surprised . It is untruth! I have tons of desires, but I can contact Krishna. When I blame some my desires and try to struggle with them, this connection becomes more difficult. I know many people who can contact Krishna. Owing to your meditations it is not hardly. I think all constantly contact God, but may be, not all realize it good. But why did Prabhupada say so? If it would be simply an episode of some personal conversation, it would be OK, but it became dogma in ISCKON, more that, it seems to me the main thing which ISCKON is based on. People think that they are fell therefore they can't contact God directly, therefore they need guru very much, therefore they will worship him and will accept his instructions without any doubt like God's instructions. Therefore they will stop to think independently. I interest very much why did Prabhupada create this situation. I have my theory that Prabhupada interested more the creation of spiritual organization than people and their self-realization. Then there is a new question: why? He should be loving, compassionate devotee of Krishna. Kamalamala has his theory that Prabhupada was the incarnation of Prahlada Maharaja, therefore he acted like a king of demons among rascals-demons. Indeed, all we quarreled when discussed this topic You knew Prabhupada very good,you were the participant of this conversation. What do you think about it?

[kamalamala1]

You know i want to add some ideas wich came just in mind.

Afcourse one after asking questions also will come to a state when he can just accept but it is his own decicion not that somebody tell him you should accept it is complittly his own voluntary decicion.
And also Just as Nanda told about Bhagavat Gita .
Arjuna knows that infront of him Suprime Lord and still he didnt think that he should just accept wathever Lord want .
Think about that.
Arjuna knows that Lord wants that he fite but still he told him he will not fite and more then that Lord didnt tell him you know Arjuna you will go to hell since you dont accept my desire and still asking questions.And more then that even after seeing Universal form he still was asking questions.
Is nt it more natural for Arjuna just accept wath Krsna wants without asking questions
No gurus showed universal form
Why why one should blindly accept anything from them,?
Prabhupad is not Krsna nor he is Arjuna and you think that watever he said people should just blindly accept.
By the way Lord Budha at last moment of his life told his desciples dont accept anything wath i said just experianse it only then accept.
See the difference.

[kamalamala1]

Harshi my teory is not like that
Wath you are writing it is wath you understood
i wrote many times..
My theory that Prabhupad has his mision to distribute Name Of Krsna and he needs army an oraganisation wich had it goal to distribute not to take care of people.And in army nobody realy cares about people nor it realy possible.And for executing organisations goal he centralised evrything on himself.

[Nanda-grama]

.

[harsi]

"Good teacher helps his disciple to know all that he knows himself and even (how to) go further. I had a wonderful teacher in violin when I studied in conservatoire. He was a magnificent violinist. At first he interrupted me every time and did not allow me to play even one bad note. He showed me how it should sound, but then he always explained why he did this and that and how he did it. One time he asked me: "Do you know why I discuss every note with you? I want you would (to) understand the principles, mechanisms of what I do, how I play. I want you would become independent of me and at the end you would play better than I"

In this quote from you, you said it all. I am of the same opinion with you on how a teacher should behave and how he should teach his pupils or disciples. Regarding your last comment I am of the opinion that since that is a public dicussion forum which can be read worldwide, everything what is being written to public online chat-rooms or discussion forums enters the public domain and as such one can quote it or refer to its source in ones own comment to the forum. I am interested myself in what you have asked Hari and I hope he will write ones to us here, if he so desires, his personal opinion and understanding in regard to what you have asked.

[harsi]

Harshi my teory is not like that. What you are writing it is what you understood. I wrote many times. My theory that Prabhupad has his mision to distribute Name Of Krsna and he needs army an organisation which had it goal to distribute not to take care of people. And in army nobody realy cares about people nor it realy possible. And for executing organisations goal he centralised everything on himself.

What do you mean by reffering to "my theory." Theory about what? The guru as a teacher or Prabhupada? I would say the guru as a teacher is one topic we may discuss here and Prabhupada another if you want to discuus it. I am open to anyones conclusions and understandings regarding this two topics, I am sure it could help me to develop further my own understanding and opinion in this regard.

Regarding Prabhupada and his mission I was reading today a quote on Wikipedia which he supposed should have written ones in his published Back to Godhead magazines in India. The quote is: "Under the circumstances since 1936 up to now, I was simply speculating whether I shall venture this difficult task and that without any means and capacity; but as none have discouraged me, I have now taken courage to take up the work." - Back to Godhead magazine (Vol.1, 1-4, 1944). Maybe you or someone else would want to write or edit something on this page it can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._C._Bhak ... Prabhupada

You write Prabhupada may have had the mission to distribute the name of Krishna. I would say he did even more than that he gave to his followers also the philosophy upon how to understand Krishna and his name. So why not discuss this further what of his teachings may still be aplicable today and what may be already somehow old fashioned or surpassed by a better philosophycal understanding of Hari or of someone else, and thus Prabhupada's philosophical understanding may need a revision. That could be an interesting topic for us to discuss further I guess.

[Nanda-grama]

(Harsi wrote in " discussions with Hari": I think that those of us who somehow or other fear that to adapt the knowledge we may have gotten from someone or may have developed ourselves in the past, to the state of being of our present time and the knowledge and understanding we may have reached today, would put into question the integrity of a spiritual teacher or "guru" or the favorable remembrance or study of his legacy, of that what he may have said or written ones, may be just an indication which shows their own static understanding of spirituality and their uniform understanding of spiritual growth rather than a reality. It's interesting in this regard what Hari writes about Prabhupada: "he did not "cheat" anyone, neither did he do something he thought was wrong. He did what he thought was best at the time he did it.")
I don't think that my understanding of spirituality or my spiritual life is static . My today's spiritual experience is different than my spiritual experience which I had when I was in ISSCON. My understanding of many things changed itself.Now my experience is in contradiction with some dogmas which is in ISSCON. ISSCON's people accept any words of Prabhupada as absolute truth, I don't think so, but I like and respect him and therefore I wanted to understand why he who was very wise and loving created some difficulties for his followers. Therefore I asked this question.

[harsi]

I am a little bit astonished and surprised that you, Nanda-grama, feel that my comment was directed towards you. I think that we share the same opinion and progressive spiritual understanding in our life. My comment was rather directed towards the many persons who may read our forum and accept, like you wrote, what Prabhupada may have said or written ones upon a time as being absolute, free from any necesity that some of his spiritual understandings and conclusions may also need to be changed or adapted to some more progressive or better understanding one may have reached today.

Or who may have the opinion that to change something or some basics spiritual understandings given or explaind by him or some other spiritual personality from the past may put into question his authority as a spiritual teacher or the positive remembrance of his legacy or of that what he may have said and done ones upon a time in his life. That is what I meant with having a somehow static understanding of spirituality. When someone thinks that everyone has to come to some conclusions and spiritual perfection in life without any deviation from the path and spiritual understanding given by some spiritual personality of the past.

I personally would not blame Prabhupada in regard to what you have written and wanted to know rather the somehow naive and not "fully cooked or boiled" or reached understanding of spirituality and spiritual perfection of his followers. For many people who tried to follow what Prabhupada said or wrote ones was something complitelly new and they tried in their childish understanding to follow it ad literam, or word for word without understanding also the deeper meaning or taking into consideration also the cultural, religious or spiritual background of that what they may have heared or read from him. You may know the words "Prabhupada said..." or this or that spiritual personality said...

In journalism or in the media for example one can find a lot of quotes in some articles where it is written what someone may have said or done ones upon a time. But in the media this quotes from someone are meant to give to the public some factual information in order that the people may can reach their own opinion and conclusions about a certain issue. But the so called "followers" of Prabhupada or of some other spiritual personality like him, think or are of the opinion that one would have to accept the quotes from Prabhupada made public as they are and they would not be meant to give us a posibility to form our own opinion or reach our own conclusions by reading them or listening to that what he may have said in his lectures.

The Communists in the past had the same static understanding in their presentation of the so called Dialectical materialism, which forms the philosophical basis of the Communistic idea and understanding. Which means according to Wikipedia: "Materialism is based in the conviction that all phenomena can be explained through natural means. Some aspects of Marxism are informed by materialist philosophy. According to materialism, matter is the total explanation for space, nature, man, psychic consciousness, human intelligence, society, history and every other aspect of existence. Marxism assigns the task of knowing all truth to science. If science can get to know everything about matter, then it can get to know about everything. Conclusively, matter is accepted as the beginning and ending of all reality."

When I went to Romania in August 1989 a few month before the fall of Communism in this my former homeland, I went in some book shops and was astonished how many books were there for selling about the philosophy of Communism and all books shared the same static or basic understanding of dialectical materialism. All the daily or weekly newspapers shared in their presentation of the news the same "given" or "authoritative" understanding put forward by the state. Everything was censured and presented to the public with the same Communistic understanding of dialectical materialism.

Just enter today a shop, center or web site of ISKCON or of some other society of this kind you will find the same strategy followed there in the presentation of their books or of their presented information to the public. The so called Dialectical Spiritualism put forward or presented by Prabhupada. So is there any difference among Communism and ISKCONism? I would say not really since some people in some of this societies still share the same "authoritative" or should I rather write out of date understanding of just following in a kind of authoritarian way either the dialectical materialism of Marx or the dialectical spiritualism of Prabhupada... Some do it even today in China or in North Korea or in some parts of ISKCON. But everywhere in this societies there are for sure also many people who may share with us also a more free, liberal and progressive understanding of spirituality and spiritual practice.

[Nanda-grama]

Indeed, you wrote about me or not , it has not great significance. Now when I discussed this question with other people(thank all you) and when Hari told his opinion, I got an answer for my question.Here it is.
I think, usually normal person tells something today, but tomorrow when he will be in other circumstances he can tell something another. A problem arises when other people accept his today's words as absolute truth and create some dogmas and principles of their life from it. When Prabhupada came to USA with his mission he dealed with hippies, narcotists and so on. Therefore he created some protective, cleansed device , he made the gate to God tight as needle's eye. I think if he would live now he would say this people who chants Hare Krishna 40 years : forget my words, you are already enough good and pure, simply accept yourself as you are and be in love with Godness.
Indeed, Hari does it.