Auttareya wrote:Janus wrote:In the beginning one can see Krsna only in the temple. As one progresses however one begins to recognize Krsna elsewhere. Krsna is Guru ans id in everything and evrywhere, so eventually even a seashell or a rock can serve as a transparent via medium. they just aren't aware that they can't see you nor appreciate what is being revieled to you through their tansparency. It is not for them, it is for you. In the absence of a bonafide Guru Krsna will act this way, so just because you see through something or someone does not mean that they are not rocks, not stones, not worse than senseless things, just that they are transparent. Krsna can shine through anything and anyone
Yes, that is an amazing truth. Therefore advance persons can be happy in any conditions of life. No matter whether they are rich or poor in material sense. That is a wonderful state of life.
But beyond of such kind of realization we strongly need to have a personal reciprocation and direction of advanced person. It is our intuitive desirability, which is flowing out from depth of our identity.
As you said nicely: "...Guru is one. You can get such realizations from a stone, but the stones still a stone."
Personal reciprocation is the main point. Reciprocation in all its shades. Even harsh words, even anger, even irritation and even laughing at somebody.
We need personal treatment. We need mutual exchange of our emotions, feelings and inspirations.
Simply, we are thirsty for a love.
Hmm. Those are secondary moods present in one's pure relationshup with Krsna, but that is not how you mean them, you mean them in respect to your relationship with Hari.
We have witnessed this type of secondary relationship between guru and disciple before, as when Jayatirtha was beheaded and Kirtanananda brained by their disciples. I am not at all sure of the spiritual value of it, but I am sure of what you are displaying. It is not a concept from clinical or experimental psychology, but rather an empirical generalization made by the writer A.E. Van Vogt, in a pamphlet Report on the Violent Male.
Van Vogt had been writing a novel on concentration camps and investigating the personality types of war criminals in order to understand them. He thought that he saw a pattern emerging, the Viloent Male (and almost all violence is commited by males.)
The Violent Male seems to be a man who in his own mind can never admit that he might be wrong. He knows he is right; he is the total psychological opposite of the agnostic, in claimingabsolute gnosis, total certitude about what he believes in. The Violent Male is thus also referred to as the Right Man.
Not all Right Men become criminals. Vogt found considerable incedence of them in divorce cases however. In every case in which the Right Man became the Violent Male it was because his wife was seeking a divorce. The Right Man not only knew that he was right, but also that his wife had a duty to remain with him. Van Vogt noticed that the transition from being the Right Man to the Violent Male only occurs when a divorce was being sought by the wife.
The Right Man seems a chronic case of what clinical psychologists cal the Authoritarian Personality and what Freudians call the anal retentive.
Such persons as the Right Man do not take any suggestion that they might be wrong to heart. They are attempting to esacpe nihilism, the foundation of all pathology. There simple would be no meaning to their lives (they believe) if what they happened to believe is wrong.
No one here has convinced you that Hari is not A guru and your guru who has entered into an eternal relationship with you which he is oblighed to see through, through the terms of your "marriage" contract. You cite cause for your case, 12 years of fidelity, neglecting your health while you busted your ass for him, and that he doesn't seem to give a crap doesn't cause you to reconsider that you might be wrong in your consideration that he was ever qualified, that you were ever truely married except in delusion. Hari doesn't want to be your Guru but you will accept no other. God help you both.
You cited Srila Prabhupada, so I will too.
"Once only, by their permission, I took the remnants of their food, and by so doing all my sins were at once eradicated. Thus being engaged, I became purified in heart, and at that time the very nature of the transcendentalist became attractive to me."
Pure devotion is as much infectious, in a good sense, as infectious diseases. A pure devotee is cleared from all kinds of sins. The Personality of Godhead is the purest entity, and unless one is equally pure from the infection of material qualities, one cannot become a pure devotee of the Lord.. The bhakti-vedantas as above mentioned were pure devotees, and the boy became infected with their qualities of purity by their association and by eating once the remnants of the fod stuffs taken by them. Such remnants may be taken even without the permission of the pure devotees. There are sometimes pseudodevotees, and one should be very much cautious about them. There are many things which hinder one from entering devotional service. But by association of pure devotees all these obstacles are removed. The neophyte devotees become practically enriched with the transcendental qualities of the pure devotee, which means attraction for the Personaloty of Godhead’s name, fame, quality, pastimes, etc. Infection of the qualities of the pure devotee means to imbibe the taste of pure devotion always in the transcendental activities of the Personality of Godhead. This transcendental taste at once makes all material things distasteful."
Like sex with little boys, or with teenage girls, like wanting your spiritual master to hurry up and die so that you can take over his mission.
I’m sorry but I am extremely cautious about accepting people like Kirtnanada, Rameswara, Hansaduta or anyone of the 11 appointed as Rtvik’s by Srila Prabhupada as being anything but pseudo-devotees. I am, and have always been extremely cautious of them in any of their "incarnations", whether such incarnations be as "the most advanced disciples of Srila Prabhupada, or later as the self appointed Zonal Acharya’s, or now, in any of their later manifestations. I don’t trust any of them as a general rule, but you and thousands of others did and some still do.
It would seem that Srila Prabhupada was wrong, for all of these individuals mentioned had much more of his association than the rest of us did. But he wasn’t wrong, it’s just that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
No amount of the remants of foodstuffs from a pure devotees plate, their association or any other thing is going to purify you if that isn’t what you want
As I said earlier I have extended the benefit of the doubt to Hari because unlike the several former ISKCON gurus that I have met and studied I have neither met not studied him. But by his own admission he is not a Guru and not in the disciplic succession, an you see yourself as a disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada I suggest that you abandon those who are not his disciples and seek for guidance, inspiration and meaning to your life in the company of one (or many) who is.
But no one can make you drink.
l
