"scs"  wrote:
>Ananda wrote:
>> . . . it would prove he could not possibly have been a liberated soul.
>>I think this is setting the bar artificially high.
>
>What is the basis of your statement, begining with "I think. . ."?  Who
>cares what you, or I, or everyone else thinks?  

I do. 

>We should care about what
>shastra, as explained to us by our acharyas, thinks.  This is what Lord
>Krishna says:

What is shastra? Merely a material to think about, and form one's own
opinion. It can be useful, but should it be accepted unconditionally?
No. When you meet God, accept him unconditionally, but everything else
should be accepted with a grain of salt. Some things should be
accepted with an entire salt factory. ;)

>No, not a mistake.  That is not the version of scripture.  In contrast to a
>pure devotee, a conditioned soul's unique, distinguishing features are that
>he commits mistakes, has imperfect senses, is prone to illusion, and has a
>cheating propensity:

Well, Prabhupada had all those qualities, and therefore it is absurd
to call him pure. He might have been less crazy than the drugged
hippies in the '60s, but that's all. His purity was very relative, and
very exaggerated. If I would call someone pure, it would be some
spiritual giant, such as Vivekananda, Sankaracarya or Arjuna. With
them, such a line of argumentation could even make sense, since it is
likely that they would do things that are beyond normal people's
understanding, and one should look for the deeper meaning instead of
calling something an error. But with Prabhupada, who mostly said utter
nonsense, and only occasionally said something that made sense, and
who had no spiritual power at all, this is absurd.

>"The difference between a conditioned soul and a liberated soul is that the
>conditioned soul has four kinds of defects." (Sri Isopanisad, Introduction)
>
>To claim that Srila Prabhupada had these defects is contrary to the
>definition of what a liberated devotee is. Just to show you how
>anti-devotional this is, consider the following logical progression:

One should first see what the definition of a pure devotee is. Then
one should see if someone fits the definition or not. This is a
logically correct procedure. But axiomatically stating that someone is
a pure devotee, and then fitting the qualities of that person into the
definition, is a logical error. 

>    - A person who is free from the four defects is a liberated soul.
>    - Srila Prabhupada is not free from these defects
>      (at least one of them--he commits mistakes).
>    - Therefore, Srila Prabhupad cannot be a liberated soul.

Of course. And if you were free from the misconception that he _must_
be a pure devotee (or your world would be immediately crushed), then
you would have no problem with such an obvious conclusion.

>But if we accept the above definition of a pure devotee (who is therefore a
>liberated soul), and you accept that Srila Prabhupada was such a liberated
>soul, then we must conclude that Srila Prabhupada did not commit mistakes.

Here we go, that's where the invalid premise leads you, into pits of
dark ignorance, into illusion and away from the reality. Just observe,
and name it as you see it, and that will be the path towards the
perfection. 

>To say that Prabhupada made mistakes is always incorrect, because a pure
>devotee cannot commit mistakes.  

This attitude is utterly ridiculous and unworthy of argument. You can
as well repeat that 2+3*5=25, it will still be 17.

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net