Discussion on Madhava's thesis thread- - point by point analysis

Since, Madhava wants to keep his siddha-pranali thesis thread uncluttered with responses, debate and discussion, I am starting another thread to discuss the verses and theories he has presented. I will close this opening post and begin my first point of analysis and discussion in my next post.

According to Madhava, this verse begins the discourse and instruction on the concept of a siddha-deha. Since I do not read Sanksrit, I will take his word on that.
Now, this verse says that the sadhaka should cultivate the mood and feelings of the residents of Vraja in his physical body and mind as well as his "siddha" form.
Since there has been no mention of this siddha-deha prior to this verse, we should expect that Sri Rupa Goswami will elaborate further on this concept in upcoming verses. In the thesis document of Madhava, he never again returns the BRS as a source of reference to further illuminate the concept of siddha-deha. I take it that this is the sum and substance of what Sri Rupa Goswami has written about it? If so, this seems a little dubious that the definitive and concise texts of BRS never again return to the subject of siddha-deha nor explains anything further about it; how it is obtained, when it is obtained, qualification etc. etc.
The BRS is supposed to be the Bible of Bhakti-yoga. It seems that whatever is to be known about siddha-deha and ekadasa-bhava should be covered in that text.


My next point on this verse is that this verse clearly says that one can cultivate this raganuga-bhakti in the physical body during standard sadhana. This seems to support a more generic approach to raganuga-bhakti by saying that one can perform his daily sadhana and service in the mood of the resident of Vraja that he aspires to follow after. Now, if raganuga-bhakti can be performed in the physical body during regular sadhana, this seems to refute the proposition that raganuga-bhakti is explicity and exclusively defined as lila-smaranam and ekadasa-bhava.
In fact this verse mentions nothing of ekadasa-bhava and according to what Madhava has presented in his thesis the BRS does not even elaborate or expound any further on the matter than what has been told in this verse.
If so, then it seems that the Saraswata version of raganuga-bhakti is more likely the system of raganuga-bhakti prescribed in BSR than is the siddha-pranali process which is not at all dealt with in any detail within the book.
In fact, in order to put together the siddha-pranali theory Madhava had to leave aside the BRS and start piecing together verses from here and there in a haphazard way to try and formulate a siddha-pranali doctrine which is not scientifically and concisely presented in any way except from a patchwork of quotes and verses pieced together so as to formulate the siddha-pranali theory.

To break the news, that's all there is to it. You'll find the complete translation of the raganuga-sadhana - section of BRS here.

It's not dubious or defective though. Take the astakaliya-lila for example; Rupa Gosvamin wrote ten verses, and that's it. Others, such as Krishnadas Kaviraja and Visvanath Cakravartin, and later Siddha Krishnadas of Govardhan, have elaborated on the concept of astakala-seva. In fact, I don't recall that BRS would even mention astakaliya-lila at all! Shall we cast it aside, then?



You've challenged this idea of "exclusively defined as..." often, and I believe just as often we've replied that you're arguing against shadows. It is well known that there's a two-fold division of raganuga-sadhana. In the words of Krishnadas Kaviraja:

bAhya, antara ihAra dui ta' sAdhana |
bAhye sAdhaka-dehe kare zravaNa-kIrtana || 156 ||
mane nija-siddha-deha kariyA bhAvana |
rAtri-dine kare vraje kRSNera sevana || cc 2.22.157 ||

"The external and the internal, they are the two aspects of sadhana.
Externally, in sadhaka-deha one engages in sravana and kirtana.
In his mind, one meditates on his very own siddha-deha,
Serving Krishna in Vraja day and night."



No, it doesn't mention ekadasa-bhava. It mentions siddha-deha. The ekadasa-bhava are aspects of siddha-deha. Is that all right? Just like someone says "matter", but he doesn't say "earth", "water", "fire", "air", "ether". Are they not included?

BRS in general is not a book which elaborates on everything it discusses. That's what the commentaries are there for.

If you have a better theory on what Rupa Gosvamin meant when he said that during a sadhana (the non-siddhstage), one should serve in siddha-rupa like the residents of Vraja-loka, I'm all ears. The verse clearly says that one should serve in both sadhaka-rupa and siddha-rupa. How is siddha-rupa seva conducted one is clueless about one's siddha-deha? Such seva is clearly prescribed.



You can't just eliminate the rest of the Gaudiya canon and insist it's all in BRS. If it's all in BRS, then why did anyone bother writing any other books?



I did not do it in a haphazard way. I am not a person who just types out quotes from verse books. I look up the context. The sole exception in that document is the quote from Siddhanta-ratna, which I do not have at hand. At any rate, the meaning of that quote is evident enough on its own, and is very unlikely to change when read in its context.

Do you not think that Bhakti-sandarbha is a relevant book to consider when we examine Gaudiya-siddhanta?

If you don't like what's practiced in most of the tradition, I'm not asking you to. If you don't like the idea that it is supported by the framework of Gaudiya theology, that's all right too. Just please don't seem so desperate to prove it all wrong.

Madhava,

Here is my response to your essay:

http://www.saraswata.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=383#383

- Muralidhar

The verses you cite describe various causes of motivation. It is not that one first hears of one's siddha-rupa and then becomes eager for raganuga-bhakti. First one becomes eager by hearing, through the grace of Bhagavan and raganugiya-sadhakas, and then one commences on the path. No-one has argued that one should hear of his siddha-deha to attain lobha and to be qualified for raganuga-sadhana. Rather, after attaining lobha one inquires.



Many persons born in Vaishnava-families receive diksa at a very young age, and later explore the matter of sadhana deeper, inquire about their guru-pranali and so forth. This was also the case with my param-guru.

I must be getting blind, but I couldn't see any mention of Jayakrishna Das Baba being the source of this method of raganuga-sadhana. If Kapoor indeed said such a thing, he's obviously wrong in the face of all the evidence from the writings of Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra. Jayakrishna Das Baba was certainly an influential teacher, but that hardly means that he invented the method. Just like we may say that Bhaktivedanta Swami is the source of Western Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but that certainly doesn't mean he invented it.



I wonder, which guru would initiate a disciple unless he had a guru-parampara himself? If the guru has a parampara, then there is guru-pranali. Do you know of any "bonafide" gurus without a parampara?


I won't comment on #4, since there is little effort there to understand the thoughts of a mahatma. You bring it to a very mundane level. I believe I've noted this in an earlier discussion at Audarya forums too.



I don't suppose you've brought it up here, have you?

Let me ask you, how do you view guru-tattva? Does guru-tattva depend solely on the realization of the bhagavat-bhakta acting in the position of a guru? If one is not an uttama-bhagavata, can he not act as a medium of revelation?



I believe it has been pointed out a number of times that raganuga is also a form of sadhana, and in the course of sadhana one becomes free of anartha. Then he gradually advances to nistha, ruci and asakti, finally attaining rati, or bhava, when he is free from those material attachments.

But Madhava, the siddha-deha means "the form in perfection". Doesn't the very term "siddha-deha" describe one's eternal spiritual form that one comes to know upon attaining svarupa-siddhi? Isn't svarupa-siddhi a realized state of perfection where one comes to know his eternal form and relationship with Krishna?
How does one come to know his siddha-deha without being svarupa-siddha?
It just doesn't sound right that one is going to know his svarupa-siddhi before he is svarupa-siddha.
When Srila Rupa Goswami refers to siddha-deha it seems quite apparent that he is also refering to the stage of svarupa-siddhi wherein one realizes his rasa with Krishna through his ruci after being nistha and attaining to bhava.

It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that Rupa Goswami is referring to siddha-deha a something one learns theoretically from a guru. The natural assumption after reading that verse is that one will attain siddha-deha after attaing his svarupa-siddhi through suddha-nama bhajan. To extropolate siddha-pranali from that verse takes quite a bit of work doesn't it?

Please don't be angry with me. I am just posing my doubts and questions that i actually have. I am not trying to defeat siddha-pranali, but I expect that all my questions should be answered intelligently and with sound evidence apart from liberal interpretations of the verses.

Oh yes. It does mean "the form in perfection". Therefore, to solve the matter of engaging in siddha-rupa seva during sadhana (the non-perfected stage), Jiva, Mukunda and Visvanatha have explained that one should contemplate upon himself in a mentally conceived siddha-deha suitable for the services one longs to attain.



Why not? Do you not hear of Krishna before realizing Him? Of course you do. Do you not hear of Subala and Sridama, of Lalita and Visakha? How does it then feel wrong to hear of your own siddha-deha before attaining it?



I hate to say it but you disagree with Jiva, Mukunda and Visvanatha here.



You should have been there a few centuries ago to educate the commentators that in fact Rupa didn't speak of a mentally conceived, desired siddha-deha, but he meant that one should attain svarupa-siddhi to be able to engage in siddha-rupa seva during sadhana.



I am certainly not angry, though occasionally I seem to share a degree of frustration with some others over repeating the same points over and over again. Anyway, please don't mind us cranky fellows. That's the way we are, lots of bubbles in the stream.

As I already expressed to you in a PM, siddha-pranali and siddha-rupa seva is not a matter which is elaborately discussed in the Gosvami-granthas. As I noted, even the congregational chanting of Hare Krishna Maha-mantra is not explicitly mentioned! What, then, to say of various more esoteric practices that have been passed down in the course of the tradition.

By the way, now that I mentioned astakaliya-lila as one of the things not elaborately described in Rupa Gosvamin's writings, may I add manjari-bhava to the list. Rupa mentions bhavollasa-rati in one verse of Ujjvala-nilamani, and that's all there is on the theology of manjari-bhava really, give or take a couple of prayers from which you may point out certain aspects of the mood.

I wrote:
Madhava has failed to address the issue that in some "traditions" there is a succession of gurus who give siddha-pranali information to the disciples, but the gurus in this line are not realized souls, just kula-gurus (family gurus).
______________
Madhava wrote:
I don't suppose you've brought it up here, have you?

*************

For your interest, and in view of all the antagonism and fighting that I have seen when I look at this site during the past few months, I must tell you plainly that I have never posted anything on your website since that Mayapura discussion we had many months ago. Not until I logged in with this Perumal alias in order to post a few quotes from Bhaktirasamritasindhu. I can assure you that I have never come here as any sort of ghost identity or faceless poltergeist trying to disturb you people. You have your beliefs and I have mine, and the universe is a big enough place to accommodate both your views and mind. I used the name Perumal because I wanted to stay clear of all this fighting. Everywhere else I go on any forum such as IndiaDivine I always use my real name.

Muralidhar

And I was wondering about the identity of our South Indian - sounding friend who spoke of Bon Maharaja's translations.

I don't mind people using nicks without identifying themselves if they don't become all that involved in discussions. No problem there.

No.

But in the case of Madhusudana das babaji (the vesha guru of Srila Jagannatha Das Babaji), and Gopakumara in the Brhadbhagavatamrtam, they were never told about any guru-pranali or siddha-pranali by their initiating guru. Maybe it is not essential information to communicate to a disciple. This is what I am thinking.

Other examples? Well, Bhagavatam if full of them.

Anyway I will leave you with these parting words, and say Goodbye:

In the case of Madhusudan das Babaji, he actually attempted suicide because he wasn't able to follow the ritual method of Jaya Krishna Das Babaji. Indeed if Gopakumar of the Bhagavatamrtam happened to arrive at Jaya Krishna Das Babaji's door, he would also have been rejected because he never was told his siddha-pranali. Which is all the more curious to think about, given this statement below of Sri Rupa Goswami in Bhaktirasamrtasindhu(1.4.20):
Sri_Rupa_Goswami wrote:

srimat prabhupadambhojaih sarva bhagavatamrte
vyakti-krtasti gudhapi bhakti-siddhanta-madhuri
- The most revered master Prabhupada Sanatan Gosvami has explicitly described the ambrosial sweetness of the philosophy of bhakti in his Brhat-Bhagavatamrta even though this bhakti philosophy (bhakti-siddhanta) is most abstruse and a mystery.

The next point in Madhava's thesis:


It says here that the siddha-deha is "internally thought". To some readers this verse is saying that the siddha-deha comes from within as a spiritual thought.
What does "internally" mean? Does that mean that one thinks about it in his mind, his intelligence or his brain? "internal" ? Internal to what? The skin? The mind? The intelligence? Ultimately, the real internal aspect of the devotee is his soul, his pure consciousness. Even the mind and intelligence are external to the soul. It we take "internal" in it's most fundamental conception we have to arrive at the soul. So, the siddha-deha is thought of in the pure conciousness of the living entity.
A sadhaka, struggling with the modes of nature, his karma, his mind, his senses etc. cannot really access that internal spiritual realm of the soul. Thus, to "internally" think of the siddha-deha cannot actually take place until one is situated in the nirguna stage above the modes of material nature.
The second verse says that the siddha-deha is mentally thought. The mind is made up of matter, therefore such a siddha-deha would also be made of matter. Then one has a siddha-deha made of material energy and it is with this materially composed gopi form that one is attempting to enter lila with. Is there really any difference between a mental form of a gopi and physical form of a woman? They are both made of material energy.

May I ask what this "Mukunda" refers to as the source of the verse that says :
manaz-cintita-svAbhISTa ?

Is the "siddha-deha" a material form that one assumes within his mind? If so, how does this material form at some time become transformed into sat-chit-ananda?
Is a mental body considered pure and "siddha" perfect?
How can a body made of matter be "siddha" (perfect)?

My learned, respectful and may I add, desperate one, 'this' Mukunda is a disciple of Srila Krishnadas Kaviraja Gosvami, and he needs no source but his own revelation, like the other acaryas who commented on the BRS, Jiva Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravarti.



In Bhagavad Gita Krishna says (5.11) : kayena manasa buddhya kevalair indriyair api yoginah karma kurvanti sangam tyaktvatma suddhaye

"The yogis purify themselves with their bodies, minds, intelligence and even their senses."

Furthermore, Krishna says not just once, but even twice in the Gita man mana bhava mad bhakto - mam evaisasyisyasamshayah - "Think of Me (mana means the mind) then you will undoubtedly come to Me." So you think the mind is eternally a dull material tool, then? Or you will agree with Sri Krishna that it can be spiritualised?

Furthermore the seva sadhaka rupena verse is in the sadhana bhakti chapter of BRS, not in the bhava- or prema bhakti chapters, they follow in chapters 3 and 4. So see it in the context of sadhana bhakti, where it belongs.
Already forgotten the songs of Narottama I quoted?

sadhane bhavibe yaha siddha dehe pabe taha

Whatever I think of during my sadhana I will attain in my siddha deha.

sadhana smarana lila iha na koriho hela

"Do not neglect the sadhana of lila smarana..."

Etc etc.

I don't see how this verse supports or substantiates the siddha-pranali process.
It clearly says that one would meditate on the form of a resident of Vraja that the guru has instructed to meditate on. This clearly refers to a nitya-parshada and not the mentally conceived ekadasa-bhava assigned by a guru.
I guess they think they can get around this verse by saying that one's siddha-deha already exists in the spiritual world and that one should meditate on that eternally existing form. I guess there are spiritual bodies without souls walking around Vraja waiting for a soul to take them over?

Madhava says:


So, our siddha-deha is already there in the spiritual world? It is like a coat hanging in a spiritual closet somewhere? I guess this is somewhat in line with the idea of svarupa - that the spiritual relationship with Krishna is eternal?

Other than this, the verse above clearly says that one should meditate on an eternal associate of the Lord and aspire for the same perfection.
This is the gist of the Saraswata version of siddha-deha and svarupa-siddhi.
It is verified in this verse of Bhakti Sandarbha.

This about as generic as it can get. It just says that one should think of oneself as a gopi assistant to a sakhi and decorated with ornaments she has worn. This does not mention ekadasa-bhava or siddha-pranali. It sounds more like the situation Lord Brahma attained:

According to Srila Saraswati Goswami, Lord Brahma came to understand that he was an eternal maidservant of Krishna, though the details were not revealed to him at that time.
The above verse from SKS seems to imply a similar concept; knowing oneself to be an eternal maidservant of Krishna in a more general way without knowing all the specific details.

This verse certainly does not show, prove or expound the siddha-pranali process in any sort of definitive way. If anything, it supports and promotes something more along the line of the Saraswata standard of siddha-deha.

The Guru who gives you siddha-pranali is just doing that: Instructing on what to meditate.

The Lord gave the sceptics eyes to see. but they refuse to use them....

Tarunji

could you please give some references to that standard?

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami had a standard of siddha-pranali?
BSS too?

never read, never heard anything the kind.

help us and bring the standard to light!

Tarunji

Well, Mukunda Das Goswami puts it clearly, manas-cintita, thought of in the mind.

Also:

bAhya, antara ihAra dui ta' sAdhana |
bAhye sAdhaka-dehe kare zravaNa-kIrtana || 156 ||
mane nija-siddha-deha kariyA bhAvana |
rAtri-dine kare vraje kRSNera sevana || cc 2.22.157 ||

"The external and the internal, they are the two aspects of sadhana.
Externally, in sadhaka-deha one engages in sravana and kirtana.
In his mind, one meditates on his very own siddha-deha,
Serving Krishna in Vraja day and night."

Also, Caitanya to Raghunatha Das:

amAnI mAnada haJA kRSNa-nAma sadA labe |
vraje rAdhA-kRSNa-sevA mAnase karibe || cc 3.6.237 ||

"Do not expect any respect from others and offer all respect to them, always taking the name of Krishna and in your mind serving Radha and Krishna in Vraja."

The mind is not forever a material element; it becomes transformed, as in the logic of the iron and the fire, upon coming in contact with the potency of bhakti, thus transforming into a suitable vessel for smaranam. The tongue, also, is material and cannot produce a spiritual vibration lest it come in touch with bhakti and be blessed for spiritual undertakings.



A coat hanging in a spiritual closet is an interesting way of putting it. I recall hearing the expression "shadows of the spiritual world", though I can't quite recall the source at the moment.

Sri Kunjabihari Das Babaji explains the idea as follows:


Moreover:

It is actually rather specific. Ajna is one of the ekadasa-bhava, seva is another one. Rupa is too, as are alankara / vesa.

One reference concerning siddha-pranali in the Saraswata line is in the same verse of Brahma Samhita that I quoted already:


According to this purport the kamagayatri mantra revealed to Lord Brahma that he was an eternal maidservant of Krishna. This kamagayatri is given to disciples of the Saraswata sampradaya at the time of diksha.

According to something I read by Srila Keshava Maharaja, he said that it also comes in the sannyasa mantra of the Saraswata parivar. However, according to this purport in the Brahma-samhita by Saraswati Goswami, it comes, at least in a general way, through the kamagayatri mantra. It also says:


Through internal introspection Lord Brahma became aware of his gopi form and the ocean of truth.

Radhe!



Lord Brahma as an eternal maidservant?



where in the Gaudiya Vaishnava canon is Lord Brahma depicted as a gopi?
any comments by the scholars here?

Tarunji

But this is not the same thing as siddha-pranali. The verse describes the awakening of lobha through contemplation on kama-gayatri. No details were revealed to Brahmaji, but he got an inspiration about his identity in general. This is generally what leads people to approach a guru and inquire further on the desired identity.



Some, such as Narayan Maharaja (viz. Prabandha Pancakam chapter 4), suggest that at the time of receiving sannyasa, some sort of ekadasa-bhava is given. He isn't very specific about it. I know this is not the standard in most Gaudiya Maths. B.H. Bon gave siddha-identities to some of his senior disciples. He did, of course, learn much about the ways of raganuga-bhajan at Govardhan among the Babas.

The comment posted by Rasesh is from Bhaktivinod's tika. Jiva doesn't much comment at all on verse 28. However, given that Kama-gayatri is a mantra we receive to cultivate kAmAnugA-bhakti, what do we expect that Brahmaji would attain but that?

Siva did indeed meet Radha as Gopisvara Mahadeva. The story is well known. The point is that in their male identities, they have no access to the circle of Radha's maidservants.

No way as far as I know. Note that Rasesh is quoting this from the purport of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, and not from the original text of Brahma Samhita. One will have to ask Bhaktisiddhanta or his followers about the manjari name of Lord Brahma.

That's actually Bhaktivinod's, ISKCON misattributed it to the publisher. People think that it is the English commentary of Bhaktisiddhanta, while it is in fact the Bengali commentary of Bhaktivinod translated into English by a certain Prof. Sanyal.

I knew that already. I actually learned that from Puru's bvml. I just didn't get into all those details because most devotees think it is the work of Bhaktisiddhanta because his name appears on the front as the author.
The prevailing idea amongst most devotees is that the translation and commentary was by Srila Saraswati Goswami. I am not so sure that Professor Sanyal actually did the translation. Maybe he edited it or something, but the commentaries seem to reflect the kind of language and highly sophisticated presentation that Saraswati Goswami was known for.

Wasn't Haridas Thakur supposed to be the incarnation of Lord Brahma?
If so, then the gopi form of Haridas would be the answer to this question.
I don't know where, if at all, the gopi identity of Haridas is revealed.

There was a whole lengthy topic on this. There is no clear information on the Vraja-svarupa of Haridas.

Again, this verse and commentary could be understood in a more general way that one would should start to basically conceive of oneself as an associate of the sakhis, serving Radha-Madhava according to their wishes, possessing a form that is captivating to the mind of the Lord etc. etc. This is quite reflective of the standard rupanuga conception that aspiring for service in madhurua-rasa is the pinnacle of aspiration. It does not concisely refer to a complete ekadasa-bhava; only a general understanding of the concept of madhurya-bhava. The generic concept of madhurya-bhava is the overt theme of this verse, though a more covert meaning could possibly be drawn from it by an accomplished, siddha-purusha. This verse is just dealing with the same concepts of rupanuga bhakti that have been well established already by Srila Rupa Goswami. It ads a few nuances like the idea of being decorated with ornaments and garlands that are hand-me-downs from Sri Radhika, but it falls short of prescribing the full-fledged ekadasa-bhava of the siddha-pranali process.
According to intent, adhikar and approach, both schools of practice could be supported with this verse and commentary by VCT. It certainly does not exclusively support a siddha-pranali process of receiving ekadasa-bhava from a guru. It might be seen to hint at such a process, though it could just as easily be shown to support a Saraswata doctrine of generic madhurya-bhava that will be consummated fully in the realization of samadhi through the perfection of anusmriti of Hari-nama kirtan and bhajan.

Madhava wrote:


The Saraswata doctrine does not ever say anything about thinking that one has become one of the eternal associates of the Lord. It says that one should constantly think of the Lord and that parshada and use that parshada as a prototype. All the names given out in the siddha-pranali system are names of eternal associates of the Lord. However, it is not that one has become that parshada but that he is to become an exact replica of that parshada. So, thinking about the parshada of choice is the same in the Saraswata doctrine. One finds a parshada that he most appreciates and then meditates on that parshada and aspires to be just like that parshada. The idea that the ekadasa-bhava in the siddha-pranali camps is something unique and unidentified with an original parshada seems to violate the code that one should not think of oneself as a parshada, which is what is being done when one things that his ekadasa-bhava is something original and exclusive as opposed to being the form of a parshada that one should meditate on.

Please show us anywhere in the Gaudiya canon where it explains that one should at some point stop thinking about the parshada prototype and then start thinking that one himself has a unique and original form, features and qualities distinct from any parshada. I have not seen any such reference in these verses. The theme that is consistently presented by the Rupanuga siddhanta is that one should think about the parshadas. The idea that one eventually stops thinking about the parshada and starts thinking about some unique ekadasa-bhava given by his guru is not proven in any of the Goswami literatures. When one realizes his own svarupa by meditating on the parshadas, he will at that time know something of himself. Even then, in the accomplished form of siddha-deha, one continues to remember the parshadas like Sri Radha, Lalita, Sri Rupa etc. At no time does one become forgetful of the Lord and his parshadas and start to meditate on his own form.
One's own form might become known at some point, but that still does not stop the rememberance of the parshadas and the instructions on devotional service.

As I've mentioned, seva and other such aspects of the siddha-deha are a part of the ekadasa-bhava.

If you wish, you can read a more elaborate treatise on ekadasa-bhava in Dhyanacandra's Paddhati. I suppose you are not in doubt over the existence of ekadasa-bhava?

As I said, ekadasa-bhava are the constituents of siddha-deha, and they need not be mentioned separately each time the siddha-deha is being spoken of; they are obviously understood to be included in it. Just like we don't need to mention "material energy consisting of earth, water, fire etc." every time we speak of the material energy.

At any rate, the main reason why I cited the tika is to point out that one must not think of oneself as one of the parshadas like Rupa Manjari or Rasa Manjari, but rather as a maidservant who is in their association; in other words, a unique parshada.



I don't know if it has been clear from my previous posts, but nobody disagrees with the idea of aspiring for "generic madhurya-bhava". It's just that it gets more specific from there, and a person eager to progress towards the pinnacle of madhurya-bhava will naturally want to inquire deeper and deeper into the specifics of the matter. Just like initially one may be attracted to the idea of prema in general and start on the path of bhakti, and eventually have his generic attraction narrowed down to a particular mood due to the association he is in. In the same way, the conception is further refined through the instructions of the guru to give one an optimally clear vision of the object of attainment.

As Rupanugas, Sri Rupa is the guru and meditating on his form as a gopi is the process of the Rupanuga. Srila Rupa Goswami is the leader of the Rupanuga sampradaya. He is the siksha-guru to one and all. All the six Goswamis are siksha gurus to the Rupanuga sampradaya. This verse does not say that one has to know or meditate on the spiritual form of the diksha-guru exclusively. It says that one should meditate on the Manjaris beginning with the guru. Ultimately, there is only one guru of the Rupanuga sampradaya and all other gurus are serving and promoting Sri Rupa as the ideal and prototype of manjari-bhava.
There is no requisite that it must be the diksha-guru's spiritual form that one obsesses with. It simply says "guru". Guru ultimately is one. In the Rupanuga sampradaya, Srila Rupa Goswami is THE GURU. Even Sanatan Goswami defers to Sri Rupa, though he was his older brother from the external view. All other gurus are assistants to that one topmost guru of the Saraswata sampradaya.

Do you have any support for this prototype-theory of yours? There are no exact replicas. Everyone is an individual with their very own seva, dress and so forth. What you may emulate is the mood, tat-tad bhAvAdi mAdhurye ... but you may not think of becoming an exact replica.



Is there such a code? If I have not entirely misread the AtmAnaM cintayet verse and the others, it does speak of meditating oneself as a manjari in the association the sakhis and the rest (ie. parshada, associate).



Please show us anywhere in the Gaudiya canon that one should think about a parshada prototype in his meditation. You have to prove that first. Otherwise, your argument is no different from insisting that I provide evidence from the scriptures where it says that one should at some point stop thinking that the sky is yellow, and start thinking that it is actually blue.

Of course we do look up to Rupa Manjari and others and derive all inspiration from their moods and services, but we are to incorporate all of that into our own frame of reference, our very own siddha-deha. There is never a time when we aspire to become exact replicas of the already existing parshadas.

This is getting redundant, but this verse again refers to contemplating the parshada of one's aspiration and the corresponding service of that parshada.
This verse clearly expounds the Saraswata school doctrine of identifying with a parshada and their service. By so doing one attains the status of an associate identical to that of the parshada.

The text doesn't speak anything of which parsada-deha one should contemplate on. The idea of inhabiting a body identical with a parshada soundds intrusive to me. I for one wouldn't like to have anyone meditating on himself / herself being a replica of myself! To me, the natural conclusion is that one should meditate on his very own siddha-deha and engage in meditation. As in the Caitanya Caritamrita, mane nija-siddha-deha koriya smaran. Your very own siddha-deha.

Just to ensure that you are fairly representing the Saraswata doctrine, may I ask whether this doctrine of exact replication is documented anywhere in the writings of the Saraswata teachers?

According to Mahaprabhu, our position is dasa-dasa-anudasa; servant of the servant of the servant. Srila Sridhar Maharaja explained that it means we we have the third position as servant to the servant of Srimati Radharani.
This means that in the first position of service to Krishna is Sri Radha. The second position is the principle sakhis like Lalita and Vishaka. The third position is Sri Rupa and the other parshada manjaris like Rasa, Rati Manjaris etc. Therefore, the guru in the Rupanuga sampradaya is Sri Rupa Goswami, the param-guru is Svarupa-Damodar. That means that we first meditate on the guru-pranali of Sri Rupa as Sri Rupa Manjari in the immediate position as guru. Then, the paramguru to think about is Svarupa Damodar as Lalita Sakhi. After that, in the topmost position of servitude is Sri Radha.
We have heard that Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami compiled Sri Caitanya Caritamrita from the kadacas of Sri Svarupa Damodar and Murari Gupta. Therefore, the Caitanya Caritamrita represents the siksha of Sri Svarupa Damodar. As the principle book on Sri Caitanya's teachings and precepts, the Caitanya Caritamrita stands as the principle source of siksha concerning the teachings of Mahaprabhu, which makes Svarupa Damodar the paramguru for the whole Krishna consciousness movement.
Therefore, this verse in reference here can be said to refer to meditating upon the rasa-acharya Srila Rupa Goswami as Sri Rupa Manjari and Srila Svarupa Damodara as Lalita Sakhi.
Otherwise if we take guru and paramguru to mean the diksha guru and his diksha guru we do not arrive at the Sakhi referred to in this verse, as the diksha guru and his diksha guru are manjaris and not sakhis. The verse clearly refers to a sakhi as all the manjaris must be serving Sri Radha in the line of a particular sakhi. The paramguru referred to in this verse must be a sakhi for the service order to be maintained according to the dasa-dasa anudasa conception.

So, you're in effect suggesting that we jump over our entire guru-parampara directly to Rupa and Svarupa? Now that's the ultimate ritvik way.

You may want to read Narottama's views in his Prarthana, there are several beautiful songs there describing his relationship with his guru-rupa-sakhi. Also, Visvanatha's Sankalpa-kalpadruma, where he prays for his siddha-pranali and serves under their guidance in the astakaliya-lila.



Perhaps you didn't notice, the verse says zrI-guru-parama-guru-krameNeti. It doesn't stop with parama-guru. Then there is the paratpara-guru, the paramesthi-guru, and so forth. The parampara. The text clearly states this: maJjarI-rUpAn gurvAdIn tu svIyAn svIyAn praNAly-anusAreNa - in manjari forms - guru etc. - one's own pranali - following them. It couldn't really be more clear, could it?

The idea of dasa-dasanudasa doesn't really translate into 1 - 2 - you're 3. I hope that's not what you are suggesting. Rather, the mood should be that when you find the last servant, then you are his/her servant. Not that you go past the queue and step right before Rupa Manjari, thus effectively stepping over your entire guru-parampara. This jumping process is not authorized.

Madhava wrote:


I don't know about your guru, but Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada teaches from the very beginning that we should aspire to attain the shelter of the lotus feet of Srila Rupa Goswami. As such, he has given this verse as the second verse of his teachings in the introduction to his Bhagavad-gita As It Is:



It is not a matter of jumping over one's guru. The real guru takes one to the lotus feet of Srila Rupa Goswami. Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami taught his disciples to pray for the shelter of the lotus feets of Srila Rupa Goswami. At that position one then thinks about the spiritual form of Sri Rupa Manjari as a maidservant to Srimati Radharani.


That is what Srila Sridhar Maharaja taught. Mahaprabhu didn't say dasa-dasa-dasa to the infinite degree. Sridhar Maharaja explained that it means that the jivas can attain to the third level in servitorship as Manjaris to the sakhis of Sri Radha.

Yep, this is exactly what I am saying, because this is how I heard it from Sridhar Maharaja.

But, that does not carve in stone that all future generations of devotees will exactly correspond to this exact scenario of the siddha acharyas. This was the case with such great acharyas but not necessarily an absolute criterian for all acharyas to come in the future.

In fact, you are here proposing that we jump over all the current links and look to previous examples rather than current acharyas. If the modern day acharyas institute specific methods and procedures for the modern world then it would be invalid to try and overstep them and claim to be following bygone acharyas.

So, the siddha-acaryas saw fit to serve under the guidance of their guru-pranali and siddha-pranali, but we don't really need to since times they change? We can just go directly to Rupa Gosvami and Rupa Manjari?

Our subordinate position in relation to our gurus never vanishes. Janme janme prabhu sei.




Well, there are a good deal of ancient-to-current lineages to bear testimony to the time-proven approach.

This verse is like beyond the conceivability of a conditioned soul when it talks about staying in the home of Sri Radha. This is referring to something beyond raganuga-sadhana into the realm of svarupa-siddhi and the siddha-purusha. The conditioned minds of this age have no power to contemplate these things beyong some morbid imaginative faculty.
Besides that, this verse does not say anything about ekadasa-bhava and clearly recommends meditating on the "manjaris" (not ekadasa bhava) that have been described by the guru. "One should always stay with them" This is not raganuga-sadhana or lila-smaranam - it is the stage of entering Vrajadhama and taking up one's service there. If the verse was meaning to say that one should think about his own ekadasa-bhava it should have said so. It did not. It said to meditate on the manjaris (plural). It said nothing about ekadasa-bhava. To extract ekadasa-bhava from this verse is quite the stretch, as the meaning is clearly NOT that.

Oh yes, the verse cited from Narottama's Prema-bhakti-candrika. Thakur Mahasaya also first prays to guru, ajJAna timirAndhasya etc., then to Rupa Gosvamin. And then again, zrI-guru-caraNa-padma ... zrI-guru-caraNe-rati ei sei uttama-gati ... janme janme prabhu sei. It is not that the allegiance ceases. And since the same is true of the guru, that his allegiance to his guru never ceases, we must accept the parampara wholesale if we are to serve Sri Yugal.



Well, on that I certainly disagree. I wonder if any follower of Sridhar Maharaja could clarify whether this is a fair representation of his teachings. Certainly we are after Rupa Manjari, but not ourselves first; rather along with our manjari-gana and under the guidance of the guru-rupa-sakhi.

Are we supposed to think that Narottama das was practicing raganuga-sadhana with this prayer? Narottama was a sadhaka? Or, was he siddha? This depiction of the eternal service of Narottama das Thakur is not some ekadasa-bhava that he was given to think about. It is the revelation of his eternal service that he realized in the trance of pure devotion and wrote about in his songs.
I dont' see how this verse has got anything to do with siddha-pranali, as it does not depict or describe Narottama das getting this as an ekadasa-bhava given by his guru. Where does Narottama Das say that this was a guru given ekadasa-bhava that he was practicing in raganuga-sadhana?

Nivasa is one of the ekadasa-bhava. One who is not educated in the ways of raganuga-sadhana may think that such a thing is beyond the grasp of the sadhaka. Sripad Dhyanacandra certainly doesn't present such restrictions in the paddhati. It is, after all, a manual for sadhana!



The manjaris all have their ekadasa-bhava, their unique characteristics, that we learn from the guru or from the various manuals for raganuga-sadhana. Dhyanacandra, for example, has explained the various aspects of the prominent manjaris in his Paddhati. Of course, when it comes to one's own manjari-gana, that must be heard of from the guru, since there are countless manjari-ganas, and certainly all of them are not documented in the scriptures.



The verse is cited to demonstrate the need of meditating on the various aspects of the manjaris according to the instructions of the guru. Please do not assume that each and every verse would say everything about everything. That is not reasonable in any matter.

As for living in Vrajadhama, the commentators on BRS 1.2.294, the verse right before the siddha-rUpena verse, which recommends kUryat vAsaM vraje sada (to always live in Vraja), recommend also mental residence in Vraja, the abode of pastimes. And this is a section describing sadhana. For the time of siddhi, no instructions need to be given; the deeds of the siddhas are narrated for our inspiration, they do not need basic guidelines on how to enact their devotion.

This item is not detailed enough to be a support for siddha-pranali or a guru given ekadasa-bhava. It merely mentions the 11 characteristics of svarupa-siddhi.
The way it has been presented here offers no support or evidence for a siddha-pranali process.

He certainly did play the role of a sadhaka for our inspiration. If you read his Prarthana in its entirety, the gradations in mood are evident. If we would have no exemplary sadhakas who showed the way, how would we ever come to know the path?

That aside, the song narrates a longing. svAbhISTa-lAlasA is the heading for the poem, longing for the cherished goal. You'll find that many of his songs, such as this one, are in a future tense. "Oh, one day I will serve like this."

The next song begins, hari hari! Ara ki emon dazA hobo? "O Hari Hari! When will I attain that state?"

Please stop insisting that each and every verse should be complete evidence for siddha-pranali. Look at the context I've given them for God's sake!

At any rate, now that you brought it up, here's the verse before the ekadasa-bhava are enumerated:

asyaiva siddha-dehasya sAdhanAni yathA-kramam |
ekAdaza-prasiddhAni lakSyante 'ti manoharam || 92 ||

"The eleven well-known enchanting characteristics designating the siddha-deha are gradually enumerated ... "

I believe sAdhanAni yathA-kramam can also be translated as follows:

asyaiva siddha-dehasya sAdhanAni yathA-kramam |
ekAdaza-prasiddhAni lakSyante 'ti manoharam || 92 ||

"The eleven well-known enchanting characteristics of the gradual practice of the siddha-deha are ...."

Admittedly the first one is probably the primary meaning the author intended, but I cannot escape from providing an intriquing alternate translation. The wise often teach many matters with a single sentence. Objections from our pandits?

The forms awaiting liberated souls eternally exist within the forms of Radha and Krishna. They will be manifested when such souls attain to their svarupa-siddhi which already exists within Radha-Krishna. All these expansions of svarupa eternally exist within the forms of Radha-Krishna and at the appropriate time they will be manifested as individual forms of liberated souls.
Thus, unless and until the soul attains liberation, his spiritual from will remain within the form of Radha-Krishna unknown to anyone but themselves. Until that form is manifested it will remain mysteriously hidden within the forms of Radha-Krishna and will manifest as a product of their love and emotions.
(Kshamabuddhi Purana)

Nice verse. Nothing about siddha-pranali.

Generic description of how one attains svarupa-siddhi. Nothing about siddha-pranali.

Not specific enough to prove anthing other than bhakti comes down through the Lords devotees. No details. Nice verse.

Could be used just as easily to support a generic raganuga approach like in the Saraswata sampradaya. Nothing specifically relating to the guru giving ekadasa-bhava or siddha-deha.
No need to cover the details they are already explained in the verses. Whatever you think about in sadhana will be attained in siddha-deha which clearly refers to the siddha-deha as the actual svarupa of the devotee and not as some mentally thought of form used in the so-called raganuga-sadhana.
The treasure one covets? Where does it refer to a guru given ekadasa-bhava?
If one treasures the service of the manjaris and meditates on them and their service, one will attain the same service in svarupa-siddhi.
Nothing specifically referring to ekadasa-bhava or guru given siddha-deha.
Just a general description of raganuga bhakti.

Evidently that's again for the time of sadhana, not for the time of siddhi. The previous verse speaks of rAgAnugA-mArga, which is sAdhana. The verse before that speaks of lobha, the qualification for rAgAnugA. rAgAtmikA is siddha, not rAgAnugA. The theme comes up again after a couple of verses:

siddha-dehe cinti' kare tAhAGJi sevana |
sakhI-bhAve pAya rAdhA-kRSNera caraNa ||CC 2.8.229

"Meditating on siddha-deha and serving there [in rAdhA-kRSNa-vihAra] in sakhi-bhAva, one attains the feet of Radha and Krishna."

Again, not "having attained siddha-deha", but rather meditating on siddha-deha. As in BRS 1.2.295, at the time of rAgAnugA-sAdhana.

Again, quoting the siddhas as if they are practicing raganuga-sadhana with some guru given ekadasa-bhava.
No siddha-pranali here, though that does not necessarily rule out that a siddha-pranali process is not one form of raganuga sadhana given by great siddha.

Siddha-pranali has not been concisely substantiated here in this thesis, though that does not totally discount that certain parivars have a more detailed form of raganuga sadhana.
This thesis has not discredited or disproved the Saraswata doctrine of raganuga-bhakt.
that's a good thing.................

I don't suppose you looked at the context I gave to it. Specific services are described, so specific meditation must be there. A specific meditation during sadhana leads to a specific perfection in siddha-deha.

The question is wherefrom you learn of all of this during the non-realized stage, if not from the guru?



If that's all there is to it, then we're going to have quite a bunch of dasis dressed in peacock-feather colored clothes and serving tambula all day long, of bright-yellow complexion, all 13 years and 6 months of age.

I don't suppose that after they attain siddhi and the time for the next Gaura-avatar comes, they all incarnate as Rupa Gosvamis in Bengal? Now that would be quite a sight.

Now, thank you for the verdict. I note the same pattern we had in our earlier discussions. You put in a couple of arguments and then move on to the next point without finishing the previous one. I don't suppose I have to again start making lists of 14 points and starting a separate thread for each?

The collection of references was not meant to disprove anything. You asked for a presentation demonstrating the theological basis of the siddha-pranali concept, and that's what I gave.

If someone would do a clear presentation of the Saraswata doctrine of raganuga-bhakti in the words of the founder, I suppose we could have a look at it. Otherwise, it is nothing but so many opinions and varying interpretations.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

After a hard day of working through 2004 Operating budgets to account for each respective expense, as well as 32 Million in yearly revenue, for 14 stores I decided it was time to relax a bit. So I head over to Gaudiya Discussions and I take a look at this thread.

After 30 minutes of reading each post I have decided to go back to rebuilding my 2004 Operating Budgets as it would be a vacation compared to what I just read .

Is it just me or is it just mind numbing to jump from one point to the next without reaching any consensus on any one point? I am the type that appreciates when questions or points are addressed one at a time. However, this thread has touched on various different aspects without once settling on one aspect to ride it to a conclusion. My god.... if someone wants to build a thread to debate then that’s great but step 1 of any debate, or civil conversation for that matter, is built upon addressing one point and one question at a time.

Ok, I am going to take a break from my break because this break is making my head hurt...

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami translates this verse:

We can see a difference in the way that Srila A.c. Bhaktivedanta Swami translates these verses and the way that Madhava does.
Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami clearly says that the siddha-deha referred to in this verse is the actual nitya-svarupa of the devotee wherein he serves in Lord Krishna in Vrindavan 24/7. The Saraswata version therefore is that the siddha-deha is the actual realized form of the devotee and not some "mentally thought" ekadasa-bhava that is given by the guru.

There was nothing in anything you presented in the thesis that gave evidence of the process of "hearing about one's siddha-deha" from the guru, beyond a general description of the types of service and devotees that one may model himself after.
I have not seen yet a verse where it says that the guru assigns the ekadasa bhava of the disciple as a "mentally thought" form. Such mentally conceived forms are the forms of the parshadas that one aspires to emulate. The ekadasa-bhava seems to refer to the 11 qualities of the parshadas that one is supposed to meditate on, more so than one's own ekadasa-bhava as supposedly given by a guru.
Actually, I have nothing against the siddha-pranali conception. I just don't really see it as being there in the teachings of the Gaudiya siddhanta. I was actually expecting that there would be something more specific and definitive regarding the siddha-pranali school of thought, but I did not see it there.

I still am open to the possibility that there is a legitimate aspect to the siddha-pranali doctrine. As Jaganananda pointed out to me some time back; that if I am accepting of a rtvik doctrine that is a rather innovative approach to parampara, then why should I be so closed minded to a siddha-pranali form of raganuga sadhana.
In the final analysis, I am open to the possibility that the siddha-pranali process is a legititimate innovation in the process of raganuga bhakti. However, I think that it really would be an innovation and not really the "traditional" form of Gaudiya sadhana.
Having said that, I don't see that Ananta das Babaji fits the description of any "sahajiya" referred to in the Saraswata school. But, then again, I really don't know much about him except that Madhava has presented his bio in such a way as to show that he is very much a serious and sincere follower of the Gaudiya faith.

I think the "non-sahajiya" profile of some siddha-pranali parivars indicates that there is a legitimate form of the siddha-pranali, though it is not necessarily the standard and obvious doctrine of the Gaudiya canon. It appears to be some sort of innovation. It might very well be legitmate in the parivars of authentic Vaishnavas.

Whatever the translation of Swami Bhaktivedantaji may be, it is his interpretation; an interpretation not to be found directly in the verse, and not implied by the context. Sadhana is the stage of practice. Siddhi is the stage of perfection. Self-realization, or apana-dasha as Bhaktivinod put it, comes at bhava-bhakti, which is the object of sadhana.

In any case, this is not a thread about the teachings of the Saraswata tradition or Bhaktivedanta Swami; it is a thread about the teachings of the Gosvamis and their immediate followers.

That aside, I agree with Rasaraja on completing one point at a time. Could you please see to that? I get the feeling that whenever you run out of things to say you move on to the next point. I hope I am mistaken and that your skills of structured debate are just a bit rusty.

You did not see any evidence there, nothing at all, and none of the texts cited really even clearly imply anything of the sort. The question is, are you as willing to see as you profess? I get the feeling of trying to wake up a man pretending to sleep, or talking to a man not willing to hear. A tiresome task it is, and a futile one.

If you really can't see any compelling evidence in the compilation I put together or in this thread, then so be it for you. I really don't have much further to say, and for that I apologise. If you wish to interpret that as a victory for the Saraswata tradition, then please be my guest. I can give that to you signed in three copies. I think we are all eager to move on to other, more conducive discussions.

C,mon Madhavaji, don't tell me that there is nothing in the writings of Saraswati Goswami or Bhaktivedanta Swami that gives any instruction on raganuga bhakti?
Are you telling me that there is nothing in the books of Bhaktivedanta Swami about raganuga bhakti?
You, the boy who can find siddha-pranali in the sky, cannot find anything about raganuga bhakti in the Saraswata canon?
If you weren't so busy trying to find that raganuga-bhakti is not in the Saraswata canon, you might be able to look a littel closer and see what he says about ragnuga-bhakti.
Why do you want to dump on me the responsibility of representing the Saraswata version of raganuga bhakti? If you really wanted to you could find it there in his commentaries and books.
Let me tell you as best I can put it. The Saraswata doctrine on raganuga bhakti is the exact same doctrine as that of Srila Rupa Goswami. You have admitted that he does not even mention ekadasa-bhava or siddha-pranali in any of his writings.
The Saraswata version of raganuga-bhakti is the standard obvious, overt form of raganuga-bhakti that is given in the Goswami literatures. It is the siddha-pranali process that is the innovation and very difficult to validate apart from a patchwork of references pieced together in a very irregular way. It might be a legitmate innovation, but the Saraswata version of raganuga bhakti is nothing new - just the same thing that Srila Rupa Goswami taught in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindu; simple, obvious and uncomplicated = following in the footsteps of the parshadas, thinking about them and aspiring for the same kind of service; as one is engaged in his service to his spiritual master.

I am really not interested to see this thread go down the same road as the earlier debate on raganuga-bhakti stored in the archives, where in the end a certain participant admitted: ...I am tired of arguing off- the-cuff statements I made coming in here for the sake of argument... These so-called "14 points of ksamabuddhi" are derived from statements I made that I knew would rub you all the wrong way and instigate an argument.... ...Why did I want to start a fight?... I wanted to come in here and ruffle your feathers and get your dander up...

Arguments for the sake of arguments, unsubstantiated claims, skipping points at one's convenience. We are hoping that with the forums in the new address and all of that, we could have a fresh start with the discussions.

I am hereby declaring that Rasesh (Ksamabuddhi) has defeated me fair and square in a fair, unstructured and incoherent debate, and he may thus proclaim the same to whomever he wishes without hearing an objection from me.

I suppose enough is enough.

A final note to this thread.

I received a note from Ksamabuddhi stating that he doesn't consider having defeated me in debate. I'll leave that up to his discretion. At any rate, I appreciate his contributions in this matter.

At any rate, it seems that we stand too far on different shores in this matter to hope to ever reach a consensus, no matter how clear the evidence. After all, what can be proven to a person who desires to understand otherwise? There is always a doubt, and always an alternative explanation. Each has their allegiances, and their own consequent peculiar perspectives. What seems obvious in a verse to one is an obscure meaning to another, and vice versa.

Frankly speaking, it is not reasonable to expect to find a vast body of evidence relating to ekadasa-bhava and meditation on siddha-deha in the writings of Rupa Gosvamin. It is, after all, a rather esoteric aspect of rAgAnugA-sAdhana. As I noted earlier on, the subject matter of manjari-bhava is hardly discussed at all in the writings of Rupa Gosvamin; we find but a single mention of bhAvollsa-rati in Ujjvala-nilamani, and some scattered prayers from which the mood may be deducted. How can we, then, expect to find, or even demand, a vast body of evidence on the details of the practice of manjari-bhava?

Astakaliya-lila is another subject matter that finds little mention in Rupa's writings. He wrote the Smarana-mangalam, which served as the basis of the elaborate narration of Krishnadas Kaviraja. That's about it. In fact, even such a commonly adopted practice as the congregational chanting of Hare Krishna Maha-mantra is not directly mentioned in the entirety of the Gosvami-granthas even once! What then to speak of esoteric practices that are handed down from guru to disciple and veiled in secrecy.

If there are some vital points in this thread that need to be explored further, please start a new thread. The present thread is in a way too chaotic state with twenty-something points on which the participants never reached a conclusion. To keep this thread open would be a waste of our members' time and resources. Let us just agree to disagree and focus on matters in which we have more common ground to explore.