Doctor in training "H. Krishna Susarla"
<susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu> in message
<ghenE2E8DA.7BG@netcom.com> briefly described his impressions
of Dr Prasad, (a man with whom I have enjoyed frequent
satsangh). In describing his impressions of Dr Prasad, Sri
Susarla aptly exampled a quality well known in spiritual
company: one sees what one wishes, until one wishes to see only Him.
That makes for a kind eye and loving speech.
>He held up his hands and started shaking his head and muttered "No no no no >no" like a used car salesman.
Is that seeing the man with a kind eye and loving speech? Oh
I suppose there are folks who met Swami Bhaktivedanta, and
instead of seeing a pure illumined devotee, rather saw a
fundamentalistic ranting old man, so perhaps one sees what
one wishes, until one sees Him? At any rate, I know no used
carsalesman of the fine moral character, genuine good
manners, spiritual insight, selfless service or mundane
intelligence of Dr. Prasad, but delight that Susarla has
encountered such. No doubt the vehicle ran trouble free for
many long years.
>I told him that it was illogical to think that we are all >God; God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, whereas >we are none of these. He then responded that we are not these >bodies, but that which is inside the body (the soul). I said >that was fine, but the fact remains that we as controllers of >our respective bodies make mistakes, and are thus subject to >illusion.
I am ever surprised when men who call themselves devotees
demand that GOD be logically explained. Still, one can
apprecaite why those who identify themselves as bodies might
wish it were possible. Frankly I believe it is that stated
belief of Susarla, that `we are the controllers of these
bodies', which is the unexamined maintainance of his current
state of spiritual understanding. It appears to me that what
Susarla calls `we' is in fact but an aspect of the five
sheaths and is therefore in the physical, not spiritual
realm. Besides which, I find that `we' do not control these
bodies; He does. (I believe scripture supports me.) Since,
as Susarla aptly reminds, He is not known to make mistakes, I
suggest all who agree with Susarla do well then to examine
that `we', for I find that under examination, it not only
submits to Him entirely, even if not immediately on all
occasions, but in a sense, loses its sense of wee-ness to
"become" the I known as ATMA, which is not physical, and not
a we. I will not say more, since such matters are rarely
resolved in forum, but become clear rather via sadhana, seva,
and satsangh, all of which manifest in Grace.
>I then said that my personal experience was that I am not >God. He then went on and on about how there is no right or >wrong, and that my "beliefs" were right for me while his >beliefs were right for him. I pointed out that *Absolute* >Truth means that it is beyond subjectivity.
When Susarla is able to enunciate *Absolute* Truth, I will
attend His every word with utter surrender. Were he however
to at least define what he means by the word GOD, others
might understand why his personal experience is other than
that. As long as he expresses only his opinions based only on
his assumptions, there is little to say other than, thanks
for sharing.
>Anyway, the reason I am going on like this is as follows. I >think cult is often used to refer to any spiritual movement >which is still in its infancy and is centered around a >particular spiritual leader and his teachings. The reason >something is called a cult is because it rejects, either >implicitly or explicitly, accepted scriptural sources in >favor of the leader's teachings.
In part I agree with that, in that a cult is often a young
"spiritual" movement, but I then note a cult is most easily
identified not by the teacher (whose level of holiness is
like any person's- known only to himself and GOD), nor by his
title, be it acharya, minister, mullah, guru, or Bhagavan,
but is best determined by how he (and especially in how his
students) live and interacts with others in society, rather
than in what the founder, acharya, guru, minister, mullah,
leader "says", in my view. Cults tend to produce
fundamentalist antisocial uppity folks who preach a dogmatism
of exclusion, while genuine spiritual movements tend to
produce good neighbours who abide other views with respect
and affectionate concern. By their fruits shall ye know them.
>Since Sai Baba is considered to be God by his followers,
Stop. Pardon Susarla, but you seem to have assumed that.
Please note that Sai followers as you call them, do not ALL
consider Swami to be GOD, and since your idea of GOD is as
yet undefined, and as you have but assumed you know how every
Sai follower defines GOD, I suggest you reconsider your
statement, as it does not apply.
However, the balance of your thesis is good...
>then it is reasonable to assume that his philosophy must be
without flaw. God is beyond defects, so it is reasonable to
assume that when He claims to speak about the Absolute Truth,
then His teachings should also be without defect. So, I
suggest you accept those assumptions temporarily and ask Sai
followers questions about what they believe and why they
believe that (emphasis on later part).
... good up to that point. The philosophy of Sai surely might
better be determined by the study of the philosophy,
*directly*, rather than through any middleman. Surely that is
clear. (Or would Susarla suggest that folks interested in
finding if ISKCONite philosophy were "flawless", determined
taht by listening only to Swamiji's students, INSTEAD of via
His own Writings?) Even if Susarla would prefer that, I
suggest any interested in Sai's philosophy, study it via
himself and via Sai's words and deeds, directly. Sai you see
does not authorize gurus, teachers, nor zonal acharyas to
represent him, so any who listen to other than him on such
matters, err.
>In my opinion, a religion which cannot stand up to polite >scrutiny of its beliefs is probably not one that is worth >practicing. At the very least, one would expect that a belief >system should make some sense based on its assumptions, and >that it would stick to its assumptions (like accepting or not >accepting something as scripture) rather than simply teaching >what others want to hear at that time. I would expect that >members of a religion would at least try to give me >intelligent answers to relieve me of doubts, while a cult >follower would simply tell me what he thinks I want to hear >in an attempt to get me to join.
Ah now that is apt! Would that all attended such sage advice.
>When I spoke to Dr. Prasad that day, I got the sense that >questioning in his "religion" was most unwelcome and >generally unheard of.
I do not speak for either of the
two men, but suggest that sincere
questions are welcome, while
taunts to convert, are of little
utility to either.
>It was obvious that he had no clear answers to anything I >asked.
In that case it is wise to instead go to the source for
answers, as I ever suggest. (Why Susarla assumed that Dr
Prasad Is An Authority On All Things Sai, is unclear, but
were someone else to approach an ISKCONite and not find his
doubts removed, I wager Susarla would suggest a study of
BGAII would be apt rather than continued mocking of the poor
ISKCONite who was not acceptable to the doubter.) In similar
wise I suggest a reading of Gita Vahini might help in this
case-- IF the doubts are sincere and the questions are not
meant to mock.
So Susarla (or any who endure sincere doubts), might well
visit Sai directly for answers rather than complain about
middlemen's worth. Swami after all is rather well known as
being able to remove sincere doubts, as his many Vaishnava
students might confirm, were one to seek any out in the
ashram. As a rule, they wear full Vaishanva garb, and so it
is not hard to find them. Such devotees however in and out of
the ashram do not detail Swami to non-devotees, as such
matters are
well, the reason is rather well explained in Gita...
>I very much got the impression that he was simply trying to >sell me something, rather than being concerned for my >spiritual welfare.
Perhaps what one puts out, is what one gets back? But since I
was not there, I can but note Susarla's perspective, and
suggest it is his experience, period. If he cherishes the
impression, no doubt it will maintain. If he wishes to be
free of it, no doubt it will change accordingly. After all,
what one puts one attention on, grows.
>Cultists will go on believing what they believe in spite of >the fact that you have pointed out obvious flaws in their >beliefs which they cannot reconcile.
Sometimes that is so. It depends on how the "flaw" is pointed
out, I believe; when one is corrected with loving concern,
rather than fervor or arrogance, one tends to appreciate such
report cards. Rarely does winning an argument serve as the
basis of genunine conversion, in my view.
>Again, it is up to you. Please feel free to judge for >yourself.
The finest thing I have ever read from Susarla, those words.
Amen, (or for those who prefer its ISKCONite alternative)
Hare Krishna.
*+*
More of my views can be found at http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/ |=========================================================| | "A golden ring, an ornament of the finest gold, is a | | wise rebuke to an attentive ear. -Proverbs 25.12 |
+=========================================================+
*+*
