Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru. ... The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called this world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism". ... Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's.... ... "And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form"
That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, "Bhagavan". By this he really means "Krishna". It's obvious this deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guru....only the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same old critter but differing stripes). ... OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a "Bhagavan"), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that Krishna is "Bhagavan"? ... In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced "Supreme Personality of Godhead", with "Bhagavan", and tricked you even more. ... Next, the sentence says "...which is the Absolute". Duuuhhh....everything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute "above" the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not "more" Absolute than dog crap. Dog = "God" backwards, same stuff. ... Next to Last, he says..."...Absolute with Personal Form". Again, this is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying "Supreme Personality of Godhead". Everything is "Absolute with form", if it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN. ... Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, "Personal Form", this is faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's "Personal Form" (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you.... ... See what he's doing? He's eliminated "Supreme Personality of God", replacing that with "Bhagavan", and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of "Absolute Body", or "Viratarupa", with essentially, an equally faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form. ... Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously "The Absolute in Personal form". Even Hitler. So go figure. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the > > Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims > > Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, > > what's the evidence? > > > You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He > didn't claim that Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". > > This is what he said: > > "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute > personal, is the Absolute impersonal?" And sometimes I would get very vague > answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers > against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. > > "And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the > two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy > scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. > And I'll share with you a little piece of it. > > "There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then > explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can > call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. > > And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously > has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan. > > "Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is... the > realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. > > "Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the heart > of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we actually > connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to connect to that > Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give power, who can give > wisdom, who can give everything. > > And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form." > > ----- > > > > > The Guru below appears to be more "liberal" than the Fundie Bhakti's since > he's saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute > in terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a > devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali. > > ... > > However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a > > form of "Godhead" Personality worship; even though he's provided no > > evidence that Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. > > Again, there's no evidence that one or the other of these "gods" is the > > "Supreme Personality of Godhead". > > ... > > The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare > > Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman > > Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it. > > ... > > Either there is a "Supreme Personality of the Godhead" or there is not. But > > should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses > > such as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male "gods": Krishna, YHVH, > > Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather > > than Soma. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not > > > > the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". > > > > > > > > > Nowhere in the interview was that claimed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely > > > quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. > > > > > > > > > > So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with > > > one of these "gods"; whomever She/He may be. > > > > http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick > > > > > Archer - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day > > > > > who > > > > > had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in > > > > > tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers > > > > > espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little > > > > > talk of God among them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense > > > > > of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said, > > > > > well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great > > > > > blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the > > > > > allure that I expected it to have. > > > > > > > > > > I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was > > > > > not > > > > > necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization > > > > > or > > > > > awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more > > > > > to > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and > > > > > that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every > > > > > week, > > > > > I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much > > > > > of > > > > > God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they > > > > > have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And > > > > > I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's > > > > > further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become > > > > > richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on. > > > > > > > > > > Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any > > > > > further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me > > > > > anyway, > > > > > it's only half the package and there's more to be known. > > > > > > > > > > Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper > > > > > and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same > > > > > dilemma > > > > > on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home' > > > > > that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion > > > > > ans > > > > > self-control and enlightenment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very > > > > > all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving > > > > > personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools, > > > > > and the many variations among these schools. > > > > > > > > > > I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. > > > > > And > > > > > I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I > > > > > questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual > > > > > is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would > > > > > get > > > > > very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing > > > > > side. > > > > > And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I > > > > > found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on > > > > > the > > > > > Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole > > > > > line > > > > > of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with > > > > > you a little piece of it. > > > > > > > > > > Rick: Please. > > > > > > > > > > Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse > > > > > in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth > > > > > we > > > > > can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And > > > > > according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, > > > > > simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which > > > > > is... > > > > > the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the > > > > > heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we > > > > > actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to > > > > > connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give > > > > > power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything. > > > > > > > > > > And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form. > > > > > > > > > > Rick: The Personal aspect of God. > > > > > > > > > > Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God just like the > > > > > sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's > > > > > all-pervading, > > > > > it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously existing > > > > > with > > > > > the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists, but > > > > > God > > > > > is infinite. > > > > > > > > > > When we say that form limits God, to say that God has no form is also > > > > > a > > > > > limit of God. So the Bhakti scriptures teach that the form of the > > > > > Lord, > > > > > or Bhagawan is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss. > > > > > > > > > > It's not material. It's not conceivable. Like I have eyes, and because > > > > > my eyes can only see a certain distance, my eyes are limited. So some > > > > > will say for God to be unlimited he has to have no eyes. The Bhakti > > > > > scriptures say that God has eyes but God's eyes can see all things at > > > > > all times everywhere. Now we may say, how is that possiblebut the > > > > > Bhakti > > > > > scriptures say that the Absolute is beyong the limits of what we > > > > > consider possible otherwise what's the use of Him being the Absolute? > > > > > > > > > > So, for those who seek this mukti, or this eternal freedom from all > > > > > suffering, from all pain, from all ego, the ecstacy of mukti is the > > > > > goal > > > > > of those who seek the non-dual aspect of the Absolute. And the goal of > > > > > those who seek the personal aspect is 'prema' which means Divine love > > > > > based on intimate, loving relationships which are forever. > > > > > > > > > > The Vedas explain that beyond this material creation there's the > > > > > spiritual sky which is the all-pervading Brahman. Then there is many > > > > > many spiritual planets within the spiritual sky where there are the > > > > > different aspects of God; Ram, Shiva, Krishna. These different aspects > > > > > of God are eternally existing and exchanging eternal unlimited loving > > > > > relationships with their devotees. > > > > > > > > > > Radhanath Swami recites a verse and explains it as expressing that we > > > > > are inconceivably one with God and different from God. God is > > > > > inconceivably personal and impersonal and according to how we > > > > > approach the Lord, the Lord will reveal accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > And this was very important to me because I met people who worship > > > > > Ram, > > > > > who worship Krishna in a very very personal way and their goal in life > > > > > was to have eternal loving relationship with the person of God. And I > > > > > met others who wanted to go beyong all form and enter into this > > > > > all-pervading Oneness. And both sides, they were great saints. But in > > > > > my > > > > > heart, I was pulled toward prema toward this eternal sweet, loving > > > > > relationship that we can eternally have with Bhagawan. > > > > > > > > > > ~~ The complete interview along with a brief bio of Radhanath Swami > > > > > can > > > > > be seen here: http://batgap.com/radhanath-swami/ > > > > > <http://batgap.com/radhanath-swami/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
