Harimedia Forum

In this letter Hari answered my questions. His answer seems to me valuable. May be, it will be interestingly for somebody some more.
Dear Hari!
I want to ask you to explain me one thing. I sticked in this question. You give us so many ways for connection with Divine, and you teach us how to love and accept ourselves completely, with all our peculiarities and deficiencies and together with them to be in this connection with Divine. But why does Prabhupada insist that a person can contact God only through spiritual master or only when he will get rid of material desires? It creates a snare for his followers. Can you explain me ,how do you think, why he did so? He should know that it is not truth. He gave so many good things, but why did not he tell a main thing- how any man could easily connect with Divine?

He was a dedicated follower of a system of traditional culturally based religiosity that taught dedication to the guru and austerity in activity as a means to reach God. Therefore, 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. That it is not the best thing now for us is a value judgment we make due to our differing experiences and tastes. Because we have a different experience and we no longer feel bound by a tradition, we have chosen to see things differently. That it works well for us and for others is our good fortune.

Therefore, there is no need to start making comparisons to other traditions (including the one that Prabhupada represented) as it would be comparing apples and oranges. These traditions were in different times and they acted appropriately to their time and situation. We are in another time and situation, and we are people who have lived through certain traditions and have moved on from them.

Many things in a simpler society were extremely different than modern times. For example, the social interactions and lifestyles of the people in the Mahabharata were very different than those of Indians in the last millennium. Whether it is better or worse is something each of us will decide according to our own experiences.

I hope this helps.

I am trying to demonstrate the manner in which Lord Caitanya embraced people and made them spiritually conscious. By tapping into that energy, everyone is sharing the same experience He wished them to have. From this viewpoint, what I am doing is an extension of the tradition of Gaudiya spirituality as it concentrates as its essence the act of Lord Caitanya's mercy. All I am asking people is to accept His love, embrace His love, and experience His love. Everything I teach is meant to bring us to the point where we let go of all those things that prevent us from getting to this point. In other words, I am (more or less successfully) preparing the ground for someone to accept the embrace (and thus be embraced) by Lord Caitanya. This is causeless and does not depend on prior acts, acceptance of a guru, austerities, or anything else.

Very few people can understand this or what I am doing. It is rather subtle, I do not advertise it as such, neither have I ever explained this in public. I wanted that people would figure it out for themselves. ISKCON devotees have little desire to understand what I am doing. My situation would create too many questions were it examined neutrally. Devotees have a hard enough life and they need to remain in a peaceful ignorance due to their limited capacity to see beyond that which they are supposed to see according to their conceptions of what is their own tradition. I have to live with this. Such is life.



Thank you for your answer. It soothed me a little. But I don't
understand why did this tradition, which Prabhupada presented, do
connection with Divine such difficult cause , after all , this was
also the tradition of Lord Chantanya? It seems to me that any good
thing when it becomes approached for masses of people gets some
protectioned device which does most attractive part of it hardly
accessed. Therefore some person should be who gives most essence.

Every spiritual tradition goes through revisions and evolves as do all things over time. Sometimes jumping to a "final" conclusion (if that is even possible to state) is not the optimal way in which a tradition can grow or assist people. Sometimes it has to go through its natural growing pains and process. Further, it is obvious that not everyone will understand or want to participate in this growth and amongst then many will declare this is not growth but a tumor. Each person has to deal with this situation according to their own understanding.

I can only think that this growth that we have shared is a natural extension of the original tradition, a required modification for us according to what we are as people. From this point of view there is no need to wonder about why Prabhupada did or did not do anything. He did what he did as that was the best he could do at the time. And this was better than anyone else at that time, believe me!

Hari about Prabhupada:

He did what he did as that was the best he could do at the time. And this was better than anyone else at that time, believe me!

To this quote by Hari I agree also. It reflects also my own opinion, experience and understanding of this issue of understanding what someone may have said or written ones upon a time. I think that everyone of us, if one is honest with oneself, is doing and is saying that what the state of ones personal knowledge, understanding or realization and abilities allows or inables one to say, write or do at the time one may do it. At least I can say that I am like that and I know myself the best, at least I hope so.

Therefore I think that to evolve our understanding of a certain issue may not really put into question fully the knowledge and understanding of someone else from the past or his motivation and integrity as a person, neither may it become therefore completely obsolete and outdated. Rather I guess it just shows the way things may really be in this God's creation. I mean the Supreme is supposed to appear also from time to time in various forms or avatars in this world and often what he teachis or is doing may contradict that what he may have said and done in one of his former appearances. Lord Buddha or some other spiritual personalities of the past for example weren't they often somehow contradicting or completing with their teachings or activities, the state of knowledge known until than? Does therefore God loose his integrity as the Supreme, his sense for spiritual perfection or his ability to give and deliver some spiritual guidance for us in life? I dont think so. I think that since the state of being of this world is that it is ever changing, our experiences, our knowledge and understanding may also need or require a constant adaptation to the realities we may find ourselfs in in life.

Therefore 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."

Quotations attributed to the famous Indian poet Rabindranath Thagore sais: "Those institutions which are static in their nature raise walls of division; this is why, in the history of religions, priesthood has always maintained dissensions and hindered the freedom of man. But the principle of life unites, it deals with the varied, and seeks unity."

And: "When we accept any discipline for ourselves, we try to avoid everything except that which is necessary for our purpose; it is this purposefulness, which belongs to the adult mind, that we force upon school children. We say, "Never keep your mind alert, attend to what is before you, what has been given you." This tortures the child because it contradicts nature's purpose, and nature, the greatest of all teachers, is thwarted at every step by the human teacher who believes in machine-made lessons rather than life lessons, so that the growth of the child's mind is not only injured, but forcibly spoiled. Children should be surrounded with the things of nature which have their own educational value. Their minds should be allowed to stumble upon and be surprised at everything that happens in today's life; the new tomorrow will stimulate their attention with new facts of life."