Comments on: What’s Love Got to Do With It?

By: Kula-pavana

Kula-pavana — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:50:25 +0000

The person who truly embodied total lack of pratistha was Srila Sridhara Maharaja. That was evident from both his behavior and from his teachings. He has inspired so many devotees all over the world despite the often nasty Iskcon propaganda against him. His writings continue to inspire both young and and old devotees who are attracted by its form and content.

By: swami bv tripurari

swami bv tripurari — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:40:34 +0000

Yes, many people thought Prabhupada was desirous of pratistha, but not those who knew him well, not Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja, not others like myself. So you have to get to know a sadhu well. Takes time.

By: Gaura-Vijaya

Gaura-Vijaya — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:31:24 +0000

That is extremely hard to know for a person who is not perfect himself/herself.How to find fault with a teacher when one is not perfect himself/herself. Generally many people suspect that most sadhus have a desire a pratistha. Even if a sadhu avoids pratistha, they feel he/she is doing that to gain pratistha.
How can one externally know that somebody is free from desire for pratistha. Even simple and austere people can be chasing this dream.

By: swami bv tripurari

swami bv tripurari — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:23:35 +0000

Look for absence of pratistha, desire for followers and position.

By: Syama Gopala dasa

Syama Gopala dasa — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:17:50 +0000

“is given the humble role of service to the three asrama’s which focus on material detachment.”

This made me think, because it can be said that renunciates serve the other ashramas just as humbly. Eg Would there be a temple where you could worship if there wasn’t anyone maintaining it?

By: Kula-pavana

Kula-pavana — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:48:37 +0000

Thank you for the explanation, Maharaja, and the common sense approach to these issues. It is quite refreshing.

Sometimes we think that just because we add bhakti to something it will make the river flow uphill, so to speak. While that proves we have a lot of faith in bhakti, it also sets us up for a lot of disappointments. General trends of this world are hard to beat.

By: madan gopal das

madan gopal das — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:31:05 +0000

Thank you for offering some clarification of sannyasa and detachment in bhakti.

However, if a devotee is renounced, she should be respected as more advanced by those who are not,

A question I have from your comment is – can one see detachment that has resulted from attainment in bhakti? Sadhaka’s will attain more and more bhakti throughout their practice, but their external presentation/situation may stay the same. They may have become detached as a product of bhakti, but continue in their same external situation. Detachment can also make one detached from changing their circumstance right?

Confirmation of your point and those of others in this thread about the inferiority of the grhastha asrama is confirmed in Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s Jaiva Dharma. In the context of daivi-varnasrama, I take it that the grhastha has all the eligibility for bhakti, but is given the humble role of service to the three asrama’s which focus on material detachment. A proper situation (usually household life) is recommended for all who practice bhakti, but those rare souls who have the adhikara from previous practice and who can honestly forego the entanglement of household life are worthy of utmost respect. And what harm is there in being humble and serving those who are externally renounced/detached?

By: swami bv tripurari

swami bv tripurari — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:18:28 +0000

I am speaking of the term in a classical sense. Sannyasa is generally more identified with jnana marg. Therefore the controversy over the sannyasa institution of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. He in turn looked to the Sri sampradaya for a precedent and of course found it. But as much as bhakti is about pravritti (bhava/prema) more than merely nivritti (renunciation unto itself) sannyasa unto itself is more readily identified with jnana. Sannyasa is the goal of jana marg but not the goal of the bhakti marg. This is what I meant.

Otherwise abuse of the concept is unfortunately rampant.

By: Kula-pavana

Kula-pavana — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:09:47 +0000

You lost me there, Maharaja…
The only sannyasis I know up close and personal are those from the Saraswata line. Are they not identified with bhakti marg?

In the practical sense how do we evaluate person’s renounciation? Please forgive my bluntness, but is a formerly gay sannyasi abstaining from married life a renounced person? I have seen plenty of grihastha devotees leading very austere lives, working hard to maintain their family and to keep alive their sadhana, sacrificing a lot of their personal ambitions to be good fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives. And I have seen many sannyasis leading lives of comfort, ease, adoration, and open pursuit of various personal ambitions.

As they sometimes say in the military, I respect the rank but not always the person holding the rank. Saraswatas had some truly great sannyasis, but they also had some truly rotten ones.

By: swami bv tripurari

swami bv tripurari — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:10:26 +0000

One of the difficulties I see with this discussion is that sannyasa is typically identified more with jnana-marg than it is with bhakti- marg. But nonetheless renunciation is an interim result of bhakti. Classically sannyasa is about attainment, not practice. But in bhakti there is more to attain than renunciation (sannyasa). So the difference between sannyasa and attainment in bhakti is love of God. However, if a devotee is renounced, she should be respected as more advanced by those who are not, given that her detachment is a result of her bhakti. And bhakti practiced with a clean heart or detachment will bring more rapid progress. This is the implication of sadyo hrdy avarudhyate 'tra