What does the Supreme really want?

[R Gitananda]

Namaste

Dear Marga mana das

Bhagavad-gita verse 4.34 does not have a Sanskrit term that corresponds to the word 'bona-fide'. I can't believe that Sri Krishna would have forgotten to add that term in that verse if that is what he wanted to convey. Even if he did add the term bona-fide the term cannot mean only one who has a disciplic succession preceding him. Big-time acharyas like Valmiki and Prahlada didn't have human gurus yet someone would have been privileged to be able to have either one as their guru; agreed?

So then, what if a teacher claims to have learned directly from God? Is that disciplic succession?

Hari Aum

-A good example of materially conditioned logic, and the mistaken conclusion it produces.

Trying to understand the nature of the Absolute by means of mundane reasoning is going to fail. One of the reasons the Absolute is called Acintya - incomprihensible, is that He is not understood by mundane logic. The nature of the Absolute is going to be understood when it is revealed by the Absolute Himself - through the medium of His representative, the spiritual master. Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita, verse 4.34

tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah


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.



So one has to learn from a bona-fide spiritual master, who again has learned from a bona-fide spiritual master, and so on. Lord Krishna refers to this system of disiplic succession - guru-parampara, in verses 4.1-2. ...

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Pranams,

Thank you for your reply and explanation devotee Prabhu Ji

In regards to a bona fide spiritual master its a bit more complex than saying there is no sanskrit word for bona fide. Srila Prabhupada uses that term in his purports. Purports or translations and commentaries can address the current situation, environment and mindsets of the people, a bit more flexibility in language can be used in purports.

In the 1960-70's there was a type of explosion with eastern philosophies, everyone was getting into this or that yoga, this or that meditation and nothing was really structured. You had sampradaya representatives and all sorts of guru's, baba Ji, Zen/Buddhists masters and Taoist teachers all influencing the new mind to the subjects of dharma in all it's varieties. Some were valid others were not, so bona fide to me means using ones intelligence before accepting and bowing down in surrender to a teaching. People have often been mislead and end up ruining their chance of true spiritual progress.

Another problem was people over estimating their own understandings, I used to joke that for every practitioner of spiritual life in America there was a book to show their understanding. If only it were that easy where we do a yoga course and then get realized

In Indian culture it is very different, Guru is not always a person who is fully self realized, our parents are our guru's, the teacher at school is a guru, so the term in India is more widely used, often as a term for respect from someone we can learn from. In western Culture we dont have that, so the term guru for us is mostly one who has some form of realization of the siddhanta. In western culture we institutionalize the guru.

On a personal note I think I am lucky, my diksha guru is very broadminded and saintly and not sectarian, but He is not my only Guru, I can learn from anything or anywhere as long as I am still in alignment with Him.

For many years I have always liked this picture of Milarepa, it shows his hand to ear because it represents that he is always listening to dharma in all situations. I am not sure how to insert the picture but the its Jetsun Milarepa on the page

http://egarchen.weebly.com/actividades.html



Ys md

[Marga mana das]

Namaste

Dear Marga mana das

Bhagavad-gita verse 4.34 does not have a Sanskrit term that corresponds to the word 'bona-fide'. I can't believe that Sri Krishna would have forgotten to add that term in that verse if that is what he wanted to convey. Even if he did add the term bona-fide the term cannot mean only one who has a disciplic succession preceding him. Big-time acharyas like Valmiki and Prahlada didn't have human gurus yet someone would have been privileged to be able to have either one as their guru; agreed?



Hari Aum

Dear Gitananda

Well, both Valmiki and Prahlada had Narada Muni for guru. Valmiki, who was a cruel hunter when he met Narada, received the mantra "mara" (which means death) which when repeated becomes Rama Rama, and got purified in that tricky way. Prahlada listened to Naradas spiritual instructions to his mother, from within his mothers's womb. (Narada belongs to the Brahma-Madhva line, as I mentioned).

So then, what if a teacher claims to have learned directly from God? Is that disciplic succession?

No. He must be connected via parampara. I'm not claiming one can never get any realizations by inspiration, but to be able to actually take the disciple back to Godhead, he must be connected. Please read the purport to the verse in question(Bg. 4.34):

tat--that knowledge of different sacrifices; viddhi--try to understand; pranipatena--by approaching a spiritual master; pariprasnena--by submissive inquiries; sevaya--by the rendering of service; upadeksyanti--initiate; te--unto you; jnanam--knowledge; jnaninah--the self-realized; tattva--truth; darsinah--the seers.

TRANSLATION

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.

PURPORT

The path of spiritual realization is undoubtedly difficult. The Lord therefore advises us to approach a bona fide spiritual master in the line of disciplic succession from the Lord Himself. No one can be a bona fide spiritual master without following this principle of disciplic succession. The Lord is the original spiritual master, and a person in the disciplic succession can convey the message of the Lord as it is to his disciple. No one can be spiritually realized by manufacturing his own process, as is the fashion of the foolish pretenders. The Bhagavatam says: dharmam tu saksad bhagavat-pranitam--the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. One has to approach a bona fide spiritual master to receive the knowledge. Such a spiritual master should be accepted in full surrender, and one should serve the spiritual master like a menial servant, without false prestige. Satisfaction of the self-realized spiritual master is the secret of advancement in spiritual life. Inquiries and submission constitute the proper combination for spiritual understanding. Unless there is submission and service, inquiries from the learned spiritual master will not be effective. One must be able to pass the test of the spiritual master, and when he sees the genuine desire of the disciple, he automatically blesses the disciple with genuine spiritual understanding. In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. One should not only hear submissively from the spiritual master, but one must also get a clear understanding from him, in submission and service and inquiries. A bona fide spiritual master is by nature very kind toward the disciple. Therefore when the student is submissive and is always ready to render service, the reciprocation of knowledge and inquiries becomes perfect.


This is the system the Lord has established. So we can leave aside our false egoes and take advantage of this great mercy and perfect our lives, or we can remain in material existence. Krishna wants us to make the intelligent choise.

Hare Krishna.

[Marga mana das]

Namaste Marga,

I didn't want to proceed on this thread but I would answer your questions :

See, the scriptures are not unanimous on this issue. So, the cause of this "creation" is not known. That is why Rig Veda says, "Perhaps He (God) knows, or perhaps He doesn't". So, Rig Veda makes it clear that no one knows the real cause of the creation.

However, there is one consistency in scriptures that Prakriti and Purusha have been considered as "AnAdi". If Prakriti is AnAdi i.e. beginningless then how can there be a cause of Prakriti and if there was Prakriti from the beginning, then there was no time when the creation occurred and it must be beginningless in whatever form it might be.

-The sun is the cause of the sunrays, and yet the rays have existed as long as the sun. Prakriti is manifested into the material universes (Creation)and annihilated again and again, forever, by the will of the Lord.

Prakriti or MAyA is the cause of three states of Brahman i.e. Ishvara, this gross world and the subtle world. The gross-world and the subtle world arise and end into Ishvara but there was never a time when this cycle started. That is why Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita Chapter -2 that there was never a time when He (Lord Krishna) was not there or Arjuna was not there ... etc.

-Not according to Krishna: Krishna is the source of everything (Bg.10.8), and
he specifically refers to maya as mama-maya - (bg. 7.14) My energy.

This verse should be clear (Bg.9.10):

mayadhyaksena prakrtih
suyate sa-caracaram
hetunanena kaunteya
jagad viparivartate

SYNONYMS

maya--by Me; adhyaksena--by superintendence; prakrtih--material nature; suyate--manifests; sa--with; cara-acaram--the moving and the nonmoving; hetuna--for this reason; anena--this; kaunteya--O son of Kunti; jagat--the cosmic manifestation; viparivartate--is working.

TRANSLATION

This material nature is working under My direction, O son of Kunti, and it is producing all moving and unmoving beings. By its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.

The VedAnta Gurus say that this question is absurd. There is no "why" for this creation and there is no need that there must be a "why" for everything. We have somehow got this idea that everything in this creation must have a "why" ... but that is not true. Why E= MC**2 and not E = MC ** 3 ? Why do we have only two eyes and not three ? Why father doesn't produce a child but mother does ? Why all rivers are of water and none of it is of cow's milk ? Why do we need Oxygen to live and not nitrogen ? Why must everyone die or take birth ? Why aren't we designed to take energy directly from the Sun ? etc. etc.

-All this questions I can answer. Do you want me to?
The question why the universe exists is no more absurd than to question why I exist (athato brahma jijnasa - vedanta sutra, first verse) The vedanta gurus may not be able to explain the cause of creation - unfortunately for them, they should have taken shelter of someone who knows. The cause of creation is no mystery to the Vaishnavas.

These questions have no answer. Because the things are as they are.

-No. Things are not just as they are. They are that way because God created them that way - with a purpose.

There is no "why" and there is no compulsion that there should be a "why" for everything.

-The Supreme is the cause of all causes, He is all-pervading and fully cognisant, and He does not act whimsically. Claims to the opposite are insults to Him.



OM

Hare Krishna.

[Marga mana das]

Namaste Marga,

I can understand your devotion to Lord Krishna and emotions attached to Vaishnava PuraNas. However, I cannot accept that only Bhagwatam is free any blemishes and all other PurANas are tainted. I would place all PurANas at the same level as they are all PurANas and for one sect one PurANa can be the authority and for another sect another PurANa can be the authority. That is the issue with the PurANas. PurANas must conform to the Shruti i.e. the Vedas and wherever they differ from what Shruti says cannot be accepted as authority as the Vedas are the highest authority.

Thanks for your invitation. I am a devotee of Lord Krishna (and greatly inspired by Bhagwad Gita) and I am an Advaitin. So, I don't differentiate among various forms of God.

OM

Namaste devotee,

It is not my claim that all other puranas than the Bhagavatam are tainted, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead - Sri Krishna Caitanya Mahaprabhu glorified it in this way, emphasizing it's importance. The gaudia vaishnavas regularly quote verses from a number of puranas.

Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita (15.15): vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

So we take Krishna as the supreme authority on vedic wisdom. Bhagavad-gita are His direct words.


Hare Krishna.

[Marga mana das]

Namaste Marga,

I can understand your devotion to Lord Krishna and emotions attached to Vaishnava PuraNas. However, I cannot accept that only Bhagwatam is free any blemishes and all other PurANas are tainted. I would place all PurANas at the same level as they are all PurANas and for one sect one PurANa can be the authority and for another sect another PurANa can be the authority. That is the issue with the PurANas. PurANas must conform to the Shruti i.e. the Vedas and wherever they differ from what Shruti says cannot be accepted as authority as the Vedas are the highest authority.

Thanks for your invitation. I am a devotee of Lord Krishna (and greatly inspired by Bhagwad Gita) and I am an Advaitin. So, I don't differentiate among various forms of God.

OM

Namaste devotee,

-the Vedas are the highest authority, you say. In the gita Lord Krishna speaks these words (2.43):

yam imam puspitam vacam
pravadanty avipascitah
veda-vada-ratah partha
nanyad astiti vadinah

kamatmanah svarga-para
janma-karma-phala-pradam
kriya-visesa-bahulam
bhogaisvarya-gatim prati

SYNONYMS

yam imam--all these; puspitam--flowery; vacam--words; pravadanti--say; avipascitah--men with a poor fund of knowledge; veda-vada-ratah--supposed followers of the Vedas; partha--O son of Prtha; na--never; anyat--anything else; asti--there is; iti--thus; vadinah--advocates; kama-atmanah--desirous of sense gratification; svarga-parah--aiming to achieve heavenly planets; janma-karma-phala-pradam--resulting in fruitive actions, good birth, etc.; kriya-visesa--pompous ceremonies; bahulam--various; bhoga--sense enjoyment; aisvarya--opulence; gatim--progress; prati--towards.

TRANSLATION

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

And in 2.45:

trai-gunya-visaya veda
nistraigunyo bhavarjuna
nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
niryoga-ksema atmavan

SYNONYMS

trai-gunya--pertaining to the three modes of material nature; visayah--on the subject matter; vedah--Vedic literatures; nistraigunyah--in a pure state of spiritual existence; bhava--be; arjuna--O Arjuna; nirdvandvah--free from the pains of opposites; nitya-sattva-sthah--ever remaining in sattva (goodness); niryoga-ksemah--free from (the thought of) acquisition and preservation; atma-van--established in the self.

TRANSLATION

The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self.

So the vedas may be the oldest, but that does not automatically mean that they give us the highest and most complete knowledge. Lord Krishna's words in these verses are quite clear.

You identify yourself as a devotee of Lord Krishna. Do you then accept His words in the gita as supreme authority? The gita is not a part of sruti.

Hare Krishna.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Dear Gitananda

Well, both Valmiki and Prahlada had Narada Muni for guru. Valmiki, who was a cruel hunter when he met Narada, received the mantra "mara" (which means death) which when repeated becomes Rama Rama, and got purified

Can you please guide me, where in shastra the Valmiki Ramayan, this Mantra 'Mara' as you mention was given to Valmiki rishi!

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

No. He must be connected via parampara. I'm not claiming one can never get any realizations by inspiration, but to be able to actually take the disciple back to Godhead, he must be connected. Please read the purport to the verse in question(Bg. 4.34):

Hare Krishna.

I am sorry I keep asking this, I am trying to understand what is this 'Parampara' you keep mentioning, is it dependent on institute? If so can you guide me which institute Valmiki or Prahlad or Dhruvmaharaj belonged to?

NB a purport does not form an evidence only except to a person who has faith in that particular person.

Jai Shree Krishna

[renuka]

What does the Supreme really want?


I feel partly we humans tend to Humanize God in order to relate to Him.

Becos we have desires we think that God too should be having some desire and we start to think "What does the Supreme really want?"

Partly some Puranas paint a picture of a God that ever wants to be pleased and praised.

Is God really all that much an attention seeker?

I don't really think so.

It's we humans that are attention seekers and want appreciation and we imagine God to be the same.

To me I feel the word "Want" should not be used in the case of God because to want is to desire and desire arises when we are not in possession of something.

When God is verily everything and beyond everything..where does the question of Him wanting anything arise?

[Believer]

Namaste,

What does the Supreme really want?


I feel partly we humans tend to Humanize God in order to relate to Him.

Becos we have desires we think that God too should be having some desire and we start to think "What does the Supreme really want?"

Partly some Puranas paint a picture of a God that ever wants to be pleased and praised.

Is God really all that much an attention seeker?

I don't really think so.

It's we humans that are attention seekers and want appreciation and we imagine God to be the same.

To me I feel the word "Want" should not be used in the case of God because to want is to desire and desire arises when we are not in possession of something.

When God is verily everything and beyond everything..where does the question of Him wanting anything arise?

+1

The Supreme is our final abode and if he is not beyond want then how can we ever hope to transcend it?[/SIZE]

Be rest assured that the SUPREME is beyond want. Our prayers, our glorification of Him, our hankering to be in His presence are means to breaking our bonds to the material world and to reach a higher state of consciousness.

Pranam.