Representative of God (Letters) - Revision history

Vani bot: Change of category of page from Letters, Conversations and Lectures to Compilations from Letters, Conversations or Lectures

2009-11-01T16:39:40Z

Change of category of page from Letters, Conversations and Lectures to Compilations from Letters, Conversations or Lectures

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 1 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div id="compilation">
			<div id="facts">
	{{terms\|"representative of god"\|"god's representative"\|"representative of Krsna, God"\|"representatives of god"\|"representing god"}}		{{terms\|"representative of god"\|"god's representative"\|"representative of Krsna, God"\|"representatives of god"\|"representing god"}}

Line 19:		Line 21:
	[[Category:Representative of God\|1]]		[[Category:Representative of God\|1]]

	[[Category:Letters]]		[[Category:Compilations from Letters]]
			</div>

	== Correspondence ==		<div class="section" id="Correspondence" text="Correspondence"><h2>Correspondence</h2></div>

	=== 1970 Correspondence ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="1970_Correspondence" text="1970 Correspondence"><h3>1970 Correspondence</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~Religion is the Law of God and no one but God or empowered representatives of God can put forward religious formulas.~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Let" link="Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970" link_text="Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970">
			<div class="heading">Religion is the Law of God and no one but God or empowered representatives of God can put forward religious formulas.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LET-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970\|Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970]]:'''		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970\|Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970]]:'''

	The next point is that religion without philosophy is sentimentalism or fanaticism. Simply performing empty ritual without understanding is condemned by Srila Rupa Goswami in his Bhaktirasamrta sindhuh—pure devotional service which ignores the injunctions of the scriptures is simply a disturbance to the society. In Bhagavad-gita it is stated "One should approach a spiritual master and inquire from him submissively, render him all kinds of service. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the Truth." One has to hear the message of Godhead from the lips of the pure devotee of the Lord or Acarya. The religion is originally spoken by Krsna Himself and that message or science is coming down directly through the chain of disciplic succession and one who is in that chain is called acarya or one who teaches by his life. Religion is practically presented by the bona fide spiritual master or acarya.		The next point is that religion without philosophy is sentimentalism or fanaticism. Simply performing empty ritual without understanding is condemned by Srila Rupa Goswami in his Bhaktirasamrta sindhuh—pure devotional service which ignores the injunctions of the scriptures is simply a disturbance to the society. In Bhagavad-gita it is stated "One should approach a spiritual master and inquire from him submissively, render him all kinds of service. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the Truth." One has to hear the message of Godhead from the lips of the pure devotee of the Lord or Acarya. The religion is originally spoken by Krsna Himself and that message or science is coming down directly through the chain of disciplic succession and one who is in that chain is called acarya or one who teaches by his life. Religion is practically presented by the bona fide spiritual master or acarya.

	The next point is philosophy without religion is mental speculation. No one can manufacture a system of religion. Religion is the Law of God and no one but God or empowered representatives of God can put forward religious formulas. Therefore, because every living entity is the eternal fragmental part and parcel of God, it is practical that by simply accepting the authorized statements of bona fide scripture without mental speculation or fashionable interpretation one fulfills the mission of human life very easily and goes back to home, back to Godhead.</~~span~~>		The next point is philosophy without religion is mental speculation. No one can manufacture a system of religion. Religion is the Law of God and no one but God or empowered representatives of God can put forward religious formulas. Therefore, because every living entity is the eternal fragmental part and parcel of God, it is practical that by simply accepting the authorized statements of bona fide scripture without mental speculation or fashionable interpretation one fulfills the mission of human life very easily and goes back to home, back to Godhead.</div>
			</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~You should always remember that the Spiritual Master is the representative of God and should be given the respect of God but that doesn't mean that he is God Himself!~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Let" link="Letter to Gargamuni -- Bombay 27 October, 1970" link_text="Letter to Gargamuni -- Bombay 27 October, 1970">
			<div class="heading">You should always remember that the Spiritual Master is the representative of God and should be given the respect of God but that doesn't mean that he is God Himself!</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LET-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Gargamuni -- Bombay 27 October, 1970\|Letter to Gargamuni -- Bombay 27 October, 1970]]:''' In regards to why you have been branded as Mayavadi sannyasi by society members, that is because you are identifying the Spiritual Master as God. We always represent ourselves as servant of God and you are preaching contrary. The Spiritual Master should be given respect of God but that doesn't mean he is God. That is Mayavadi. You should always remember that the Spiritual Master is the representative of God and should be given the respect of God but that doesn't mean that he is God Himself! You can speak of the Spiritual Master as "servant God'' whereas Krishna is "master God''. I think this is sufficient to clear the idea.</~~span~~>		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Gargamuni -- Bombay 27 October, 1970\|Letter to Gargamuni -- Bombay 27 October, 1970]]:''' In regards to why you have been branded as Mayavadi sannyasi by society members, that is because you are identifying the Spiritual Master as God. We always represent ourselves as servant of God and you are preaching contrary. The Spiritual Master should be given respect of God but that doesn't mean he is God. That is Mayavadi. You should always remember that the Spiritual Master is the representative of God and should be given the respect of God but that doesn't mean that he is God Himself! You can speak of the Spiritual Master as "servant God'' whereas Krishna is "master God''. I think this is sufficient to clear the idea.</div>
			</div>

	=== 1972 Correspondence ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="1972_Correspondence" text="1972 Correspondence"><h3>1972 Correspondence</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~There is no difference between surrendering to God or surrendering to God's representative, therefore Christ is also saying just surrender to me, the son or representative or spiritual master, and that is the same as surrendering to my father. ~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Let" link="Letter to Dasarha -- Bombay 4 March, 1972" link_text="Letter to Dasarha -- Bombay 4 March, 1972">
			<div class="heading">There is no difference between surrendering to God or surrendering to God's representative, therefore Christ is also saying just surrender to me, the son or representative or spiritual master, and that is the same as surrendering to my father.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LET-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Dasarha -- Bombay 4 March, 1972\|Letter to Dasarha -- Bombay 4 March, 1972]]:''' Regarding your questions on Christianity, we are not very much keen to engage them in argument because for the most part they are sentimentalists and have no philosophy, therefore they become fanatics or dogmatists, and this type of person we cannot change. But if you find some Christian person who is intelligent to understand philosophy then you may argue that if God is unlimited, how He can be confined to having only one son? The son is the representative of the father, and in that sense he is the same as the father, but also he is different than the father. So Christ is speaking in this sense, that only through the representative of God can one come to God. Just like Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that one should surrender to a bona fide spiritual master, and then He also says that one should "Surrender unto Me." So there is no difference between surrendering to God or surrendering to God's representative, therefore Christ is also saying just surrender to me, the son or representative or spiritual master, and that is the same as surrendering to my father. Accepting the Lord or His representative as one's savior means to render loving devotional service to Him, and in return he will give you all protection. But the foolish Christians they think God is their order-supplier so that simply by performing some religious ceremonies they are entitled to receive all benedictions for enhancing their material life. First of all, to be saved by God means that one must obey what God orders or His laws of commandments. But in the Bible God says "Thou shall not kill," but where is the Christian who does not kill animals and eat? They have changed the meaning of kill to mean "murder," and for them, murder means only		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Dasarha -- Bombay 4 March, 1972\|Letter to Dasarha -- Bombay 4 March, 1972]]:''' Regarding your questions on Christianity, we are not very much keen to engage them in argument because for the most part they are sentimentalists and have no philosophy, therefore they become fanatics or dogmatists, and this type of person we cannot change. But if you find some Christian person who is intelligent to understand philosophy then you may argue that if God is unlimited, how He can be confined to having only one son? The son is the representative of the father, and in that sense he is the same as the father, but also he is different than the father. So Christ is speaking in this sense, that only through the representative of God can one come to God. Just like Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that one should surrender to a bona fide spiritual master, and then He also says that one should "Surrender unto Me." So there is no difference between surrendering to God or surrendering to God's representative, therefore Christ is also saying just surrender to me, the son or representative or spiritual master, and that is the same as surrendering to my father. Accepting the Lord or His representative as one's savior means to render loving devotional service to Him, and in return he will give you all protection. But the foolish Christians they think God is their order-supplier so that simply by performing some religious ceremonies they are entitled to receive all benedictions for enhancing their material life. First of all, to be saved by God means that one must obey what God orders or His laws of commandments. But in the Bible God says "Thou shall not kill," but where is the Christian who does not kill animals and eat? They have changed the meaning of kill to mean "murder," and for them, murder means only
	other humans.</~~span~~>		other humans.</div>
			</div>

	=== 1976 Correspondence ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="1976_Correspondence" text="1976 Correspondence"><h3>1976 Correspondence</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~This is alright that you will chant the names of Christ for after all he was the representative of God. ~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Let" link="Letter to David B. Richeter Hughes -- Vrndavana 8 September, 1976" link_text="Letter to David B. Richeter Hughes -- Vrndavana 8 September, 1976">
			<div class="heading">This is alright that you will chant the names of Christ for after all he was the representative of God.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LET-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to David B. Richeter Hughes -- Vrndavana 8 September, 1976\|Letter to David B. Richeter Hughes -- Vrndavana 8 September, 1976]]:''' Thank you very much for your kind offer to have me as your Permanent Acarya and Honorary Chairman. I will accept this if your organization and members are agreed to follow the four regulative principles which discriminate animal life from human life, i.e. no eating of meat fish or eggs; no illicit sex life outside of marriage and then only for the begetting of God conscious children; no intoxicants, including coffee, tea, or cigarettes; no gambling, not even bingo. Unless one follows these principles, spiritual life is not possible.		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Letter to David B. Richeter Hughes -- Vrndavana 8 September, 1976\|Letter to David B. Richeter Hughes -- Vrndavana 8 September, 1976]]:''' Thank you very much for your kind offer to have me as your Permanent Acarya and Honorary Chairman. I will accept this if your organization and members are agreed to follow the four regulative principles which discriminate animal life from human life, i.e. no eating of meat fish or eggs; no illicit sex life outside of marriage and then only for the begetting of God conscious children; no intoxicants, including coffee, tea, or cigarettes; no gambling, not even bingo. Unless one follows these principles, spiritual life is not possible.

	I can give you all guidance and direction for there are millions of Christians in the world today. We are not concerned with how, so much as the fact that one must develop his dormant love for God. This is alright that you will chant the names of Christ for after all he was the representative of God. People are lost due to not following a bona fide religious system. If you can revive their God consciousness that will be very good service.</~~span~~>		I can give you all guidance and direction for there are millions of Christians in the world today. We are not concerned with how, so much as the fact that one must develop his dormant love for God. This is alright that you will chant the names of Christ for after all he was the representative of God. People are lost due to not following a bona fide religious system. If you can revive their God consciousness that will be very good service.</div>
			</div>
			</div>

Visnu Murti at 06:46, 26 March 2009

2009-03-26T06:46:23Z

New page

{{terms|"representative of god"|"god's representative"|"representative of Krsna, God"|"representatives of god"|"representing god"}}

{{notes|}}

{{compiler|Visnu Murti}}

{{complete|ALL}}

{{first|26Mar09}}

{{last|26Mar09}}

{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=0|Let=4}}

{{total|4}}

{{toc right}}

[[Category:Representative of God|1]]

[[Category:Letters]]

== Correspondence ==

=== 1970 Correspondence ===

'''Religion is the Law of God and no one but God or empowered representatives of God can put forward religious formulas.'''

'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970|Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970]]:'''

The next point is that religion without philosophy is sentimentalism or fanaticism. Simply performing empty ritual without understanding is condemned by Srila Rupa Goswami in his Bhaktirasamrta sindhuh—pure devotional service which ignores the injunctions of the scriptures is simply a disturbance to the society. In Bhagavad-gita it is stated "One should approach a spiritual master and inquire from him submissively, render him all kinds of service. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the Truth." One has to hear the message of Godhead from the lips of the pure devotee of the Lord or Acarya. The religion is originally spoken by Krsna Himself and that message or science is coming down directly through the chain of disciplic succession and one who is in that chain is called acarya or one who teaches by his life. Religion is practically presented by the bona fide spiritual master or acarya.

The next point is philosophy without religion is mental speculation. No one can manufacture a system of religion. Religion is the Law of God and no one but God or empowered representatives of God can put forward religious formulas. Therefore, because every living entity is the eternal fragmental part and parcel of God, it is practical that by simply accepting the authorized statements of bona fide scripture without mental speculation or fashionable interpretation one fulfills the mission of human life very easily and goes back to home, back to Godhead.

'''You should always remember that the Spiritual Master is the representative of God and should be given the respect of God but that doesn't mean that he is God Himself!'''

'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Gargamuni -- Bombay 27 October, 1970|Letter to Gargamuni -- Bombay 27 October, 1970]]:''' In regards to why you have been branded as Mayavadi sannyasi by society members, that is because you are identifying the Spiritual Master as God. We always represent ourselves as servant of God and you are preaching contrary. The Spiritual Master should be given respect of God but that doesn't mean he is God. That is Mayavadi. You should always remember that the Spiritual Master is the representative of God and should be given the respect of God but that doesn't mean that he is God Himself! You can speak of the Spiritual Master as "servant God'' whereas Krishna is "master God''. I think this is sufficient to clear the idea.

=== 1972 Correspondence ===

'''There is no difference between surrendering to God or surrendering to God's representative, therefore Christ is also saying just surrender to me, the son or representative or spiritual master, and that is the same as surrendering to my father. '''

'''[[Vanisource:Letter to Dasarha -- Bombay 4 March, 1972|Letter to Dasarha -- Bombay 4 March, 1972]]:''' Regarding your questions on Christianity, we are not very much keen to engage them in argument because for the most part they are sentimentalists and have no philosophy, therefore they become fanatics or dogmatists, and this type of person we cannot change. But if you find some Christian person who is intelligent to understand philosophy then you may argue that if God is unlimited, how He can be confined to having only one son? The son is the representative of the father, and in that sense he is the same as the father, but also he is different than the father. So Christ is speaking in this sense, that only through the representative of God can one come to God. Just like Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that one should surrender to a bona fide spiritual master, and then He also says that one should "Surrender unto Me." So there is no difference between surrendering to God or surrendering to God's representative, therefore Christ is also saying just surrender to me, the son or representative or spiritual master, and that is the same as surrendering to my father. Accepting the Lord or His representative as one's savior means to render loving devotional service to Him, and in return he will give you all protection. But the foolish Christians they think God is their order-supplier so that simply by performing some religious ceremonies they are entitled to receive all benedictions for enhancing their material life. First of all, to be saved by God means that one must obey what God orders or His laws of commandments. But in the Bible God says "Thou shall not kill," but where is the Christian who does not kill animals and eat? They have changed the meaning of kill to mean "murder," and for them, murder means only
other humans.

=== 1976 Correspondence ===

'''This is alright that you will chant the names of Christ for after all he was the representative of God. '''

'''[[Vanisource:Letter to David B. Richeter Hughes -- Vrndavana 8 September, 1976|Letter to David B. Richeter Hughes -- Vrndavana 8 September, 1976]]:''' Thank you very much for your kind offer to have me as your Permanent Acarya and Honorary Chairman. I will accept this if your organization and members are agreed to follow the four regulative principles which discriminate animal life from human life, i.e. no eating of meat fish or eggs; no illicit sex life outside of marriage and then only for the begetting of God conscious children; no intoxicants, including coffee, tea, or cigarettes; no gambling, not even bingo. Unless one follows these principles, spiritual life is not possible.

I can give you all guidance and direction for there are millions of Christians in the world today. We are not concerned with how, so much as the fact that one must develop his dormant love for God. This is alright that you will chant the names of Christ for after all he was the representative of God. People are lost due to not following a bona fide religious system. If you can revive their God consciousness that will be very good service.