Google
Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » DEVOTIONAL PRACTICES
Discussions specifically related with the various aspects of practice of bhakti-sadhana in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Is astakaliya-lila-smarana not necessary? -



Madhava - Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:31:18 +0530
QUOTE
2. According to the acaryas, one may follow raga-marga without being concerned with astakaliya-lila and nevertheless attain the nitya-lila of Radha-Krishna (which means astakaliya-lila).

I am opening a thread for the second point deducted from Ksamabuddhi's writings.
Rasesh - Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:45:27 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Nov 22 2003, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE
2. According to the acaryas, one may follow raga-marga without being concerned with astakaliya-lila and nevertheless attain the nitya-lila of Radha-Krishna (which means astakaliya-lila).

I am opening a thread for the second point deducted from Ksamabuddhi's writings.

Maybe I spewed that out a little incomplete. What I meant to imply was that for preachers, who are the tri-danda sannyasis of the Saraswata parivar, there is no explicit necessity to perfom the asta-kalika-lila smaranam process as related to the eka-dasa bhava that has been given for raganuga-sadhana.
Srila Saraswati Goswami implied this with the way he taught and trained his preachers, and Srila Prabhupada carried on with that doctrine in his own practice and in how he taught his disciples.

Surely, you are not going to attribute this doctrine to poor little Ksamabuddhi? Are you saying that Saraswati Goswami actually trained his tri-dandi sannyasis to perform asta-kalika-lila smaranam in the ekadasa-bhava ? I am not aware of that if he did. I certainly know for sure that Srila Prabhupada did not train his disciples to perform asta-kalika-lila smaranam in ekadasa-bhava. And, since he is my spiritual master, I naturally am inclined to advocate his school of thought.

Is their any challenge to this? Is Ksamabuddhi supposed to be the fall-guy for Srila Prabhuapda's school of thought regarding devotional service in raganuga bhakti?

Why is this being called one of "Ksamabuddhi's 14 points" when it is not really my idea, rather the parivar of Srila Prabhuapda? crying.gif
Madhava - Sat, 22 Nov 2003 22:57:45 +0530
It is the 2/14 of Ksamabuddhi's insights into the Saraswata doctrine. Regardless of whose points they are, we need to examine whether they are valid or not.

The question is whether an approach which neglects astakaliya-lila smaranam can lead one to the desired goal or not.

This astakaliya-lila is the zenith of the realm of lila and the supreme aspiration of all Gaudiya Vaishnavas. We do intend to eventually reach the realm of Vraja, and in that realm, the eight-fold daily pastimes of Sri Yugala eternally unfold.

The principle of sadhana is that you will attain exactly that which you contemplate upon and desire to attain.

sAdhane bhAvibe yAhA, siddha dehe pAbe tAhA |
rAga mArge ei sei upAya || (Prema-bhakti-candrika 57)

“Whatever you think of during your sadhana, you will attain in your siddha-body. Such is the means on the path of raga.”

sAdhane ye dhana cAi, siddha dehe tAhA pAi |
pakkApakka mAtra se vicAra || (ibid. 58)

“The treasure I covet during my sadhana, I will attain in my siddha-body. It is merely a matter of its being ripe or raw.”


It logically follows that if one does not contemplate on astakaliya-lila during sadhana, he will not attain it at the time of siddhi -- that is, if he is to ever attain siddhi with such sadhana to begin with.

I do not look forward to reading a response where I am called impudent for proposing that the sadhana introduced by so-and-so is invalid. I am merely hoping to hear a philosophical explanation asserting how one may attain that which he does not contemplate on or long to attain day and night.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:05:57 +0530
Oh yes, a note on "the asta-kalika-lila smaranam process as related to the eka-dasa bhava". If one does not meditate on the lila with a proper mood of service, misconceptions will arise. How may one long to serve in the lila? What kind of form is suitable for such service?

The form of a tridandi-sannyasi will not do. The form of a babaji will not do. What we need is an antaz-cintitAbhISta sAkSAt-sevopayogi-deha (viz. tikas on BRS 1.2.295) , an internally contemplated, desired body suitable for direct service; a form similar to those of Rupa Manjari, Rati Manjari and others. Without such a form, there can be no entrance into the lila.
braja - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:41:24 +0530
QUOTE
The question is whether an approach which neglects astakaliya-lila smaranam can lead one to the desired goal or not.



A couple of thoughts:

The deliverance-without-specificity idea can appear somewhat Christian--believe/serve and you will go to heaven after death. However I think there is a case for this approach in our theology: tesam satata-yuktanam, yoga-ksemam vahamy aham, Krishna as bhava-grahi janardana. The mood of the practitioner could be one of extreme humility--throwing yourself at the feet of Radha-Krishna, feeling yourself unfit to view them and your mind too contaminated to know them, while still retaining full faith.

In any case, if there is an intense faith and a wholesale dedication to the service of Mahaprabhu and Radha-Govinda, can that be viewed as less developed than a mechanical meditation, even if that meditation is the zenith of our sadhana and ultimate reality? Could that earnest mood of humility and service be the same thing that is manifest in siddha, albeit without the specifics? What are the devices of ekadasa bhava and astakaliya lila but a means to adopt the mood of Vraja? Can Radha Krishna be your life and soul without a desire to serve them betel nut in a particular setting?

The apparent lack of engagement in astakaliya-lila smaranam is not the yardstick by which to judge the bhakta's inner state nor the destination they aspire to. Mahaprabhu did not constantly manifest those activities and neither would a siddha-bhakta who has taken on responsibilities as a guru.

We also have the examples of Khatvanga and Pariksit attaining "quick realization" at the time of death.

I don't think these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Mina - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:48:30 +0530
I don't agree that smaranam is a 'mechanical meditation', Braja. You are implying that it is some forced practice devoid of feeling. Certainly if one were to take it up without any devotional attitude, then that might constitute what you are talking about. However, that is not the recommended approach - the qualification of lobha would not be present.

Your other statement about a 'siddha bhakta' that has taken on the responsibilities of a guru not manifesting such activities is based on what exactly? There are numerous examples of highly advanced sAdhus that have done so. What about your own Bhaktivinod, or does he no longer count? Also, if the guru were not practicing smaranam himself/herself, then what business would they have teaching it to disciples? That would be akin to giving instrucings in hearing and chanting without doing any of it oneself. Sorry, but go to the back of the class.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:55:08 +0530
QUOTE(braja @ Nov 22 2003, 07:11 PM)
A couple of thoughts:

The deliverance-without-specificity idea can appear somewhat Christian--believe/serve and you will go to heaven after death. However I think there is a case for this approach in our theology: tesam satata-yuktanam, yoga-ksemam vahamy aham, Krishna as bhava-grahi janardana.

Well, dadami buddhi-yogam tam yena mam upayanti te -- for such a person, He gives the means to come to him. His mercy manifests in the form of a siksa-guru who will educate you in matters of sadhana.


QUOTE
The mood of the practitioner could be one of extreme humility--throwing yourself at the feet of Radha-Krishna, feeling yourself unfit to view them and your mind too contaminated to know them, while still retaining full faith.

That is not, however, the examplary mood we read in the writings of Rupa and Raghunatha Das. Despite their submission of disqualification, they express intense yearning for darsana and become absorbed in siddha-rupa seva. Look at Vilapa Kusumanjali and Utkalika-vallari as examples in this regard.



QUOTE
In any case, if there is an intense faith and a wholesale dedication to the service of Mahaprabhu and Radha-Govinda, can that be viewed as less developed than a mechanical meditation, even if that meditation is the zenith of our sadhana and ultimate reality?

Who ever spoke of mechanical meditation? It is not intended as mechanical any more than chanting the holy names is.


QUOTE
What are the devices of ekadasa bhava and astakaliya lila but a means to adopt the mood of Vraja?

They are not devices any more than the form and qualities of Krishna are. They are the goal, not devices! They are the mood of Vraja.


QUOTE
Can Radha Krishna be your life and soul without a desire to serve them betel nut in a particular setting?

If they indeed were your life and soul, would you not be longing to serve them in specific ways?


QUOTE
The apparent lack of engagement in astakaliya-lila smaranam is not the yardstick by which to judge the bhakta's inner state nor the destination they aspire to. Mahaprabhu did not constantly manifest those activities and neither would a siddha-bhakta who has taken on responsibilities as a guru.

Now, what do you envision as "manifesting those activites"? Certainly Mahaprabhu, particularly during the last half of his life, manifested such activities!

A siddha-bhakta who has taken on the responsibilities of a guru, but is not engaged in lila-smaranam? Examples, please?


QUOTE
We also have the examples of Khatvanga and Pariksit attaining "quick realization" at the time of death.

They are not the exemplary models to be followed by the sadhaka. Rupa-Sanatana and others are.
Mina - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:00:55 +0530
I think they are still exemplary models, but you do have a valid point, Madhavananda, with respect to who our own exemplars are. I don't see anything inherently wrong with following the example of Pariksit Maharaj, for his level of devotion is something to aspire to. On the other hand, bringing him into the argument really makes no sense.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:13:15 +0530
Here's an excellent verse from Narottama's Prema-bhakti-candrika, verse 14, which seems to clarify both issues at one shot:

mahAjanera yei patha, tAte hobo anurata,
pUrvApara koriyA vicAra
sAdhana smaraNa lIlA, ihAte nA koro helA
kAya mane koriyA susAra || 14 ||

vizvanAthaH : daNDakAraNya-vAsi munayo bRhat vAmanokta zrutayaz ca candrakAnti jayadeva vidyApati caNDi dAsa bilvamaGgalAdayaz ca pUrva mahAjanAH SaD gosvAminaH para mahAjanAH | susAra – susiddham || 14 ||

"I will fondly follow the path of the Mahajanas,
discriminating between the former and the later.
Do not neglect the practice of lila-smarana,
but make it the very essence of your mind."

Visvanatha: "The sages who resided in Dandakaranya-forest, the Srutis mentioned in Brihat-vamana Purana, Candrakanti, Jayadeva, Vidyapati, Candidasa, Bilvamangala and others are the former Mahajanas; the six Gosvamis are the later Mahajanas. The very essence - its very perfection."


Notes from the Sudhakanika Vyakhya of Sri Ananta Das Babaji:

Srila Thakura Mahasaya has said: purvapara koriya vicara, meaning that there is a distinction between the mahajanas of yore and the current mahajanas and that the sadhaka must, as far as fitting, do bhajana in allegiance to the current mahajanas, whose hearts are filled with the desired mood.

. . .

The current mahajanas, the six Gosvamis, headed by Sri Rupa and Sanatana, are the teachers and preachers of Sriman Mahaprabhu's dearmost practice of manjari bhava; therefore the Gaudiya Vaisnavas who have surrendered to Sriman Mahaprabhu's lotus feet do not practise the worship of the previous mahajanas, who practised sakhi-bhava, but instead follow the current mahajanas, the six Gosvamis, in the practice of manjari-bhava.
Rasesh - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 02:03:57 +0530
I just had a nice discussion with a big, big ISKCON guru who was visiting my home. I am not going to mention any names, but I can say that it was nice to have his association and to have some nice discussion with him.

Let me say, that he was not here instructing me how to deal with you prabhus. Mainly, we were discussing Tripurari Maharaja and the matters around him. I did mention this group to him and told him something about the discussions here. He said that he was not very concerned about this kind of group because you at least admit that you are not followers of Prabhupada. He said that the leadership in ISKCON is more concerned with the camps of those that are claiming to be following Prabhupada, yet are straying from his teachings i.e. Narayana Maharaja and Tripurari Swami.
Rasesh - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 02:33:23 +0530
QUOTE
They are not the exemplary models to be followed by the sadhaka. Rupa-Sanatana and others are.


Are you saying that we should think that Rupa and Sanatana were sadhakas performing asta-kalika-lila smaranam in raganuga-sadhana? Were they sadhakas or siddhas? Are you saying that we should follow their example or their prescriptions for sadhana? Can we really follow the "model" of the siddhas who were steeped in prema?

What do you mean by "following" them? Are you saying that we should try and be replicas of them in form? Or, are you saying that we should follow their guidance? Did they advocate that they were the "models" of sadhana, and that everyone should try to duplicate their practices?

What about their diet? If you are going to "follow" them, then are you going to subsist off of a handful of chickpeas or a glass of milk a day? Did the six Goswamis ever eat Pizza or vegetarian lazagna for supper? Are we supposed to follow portions of their "model" and just pick and choose the parts we like and reject the one's we can't handle?
braja - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 02:34:19 +0530
I apologize for the word "mechanical." I meant...aspiratorial (if there is such a word). Sadhana. "I aspire for this and shall therefore adopt these practices." Now, if by those practices you are in direct personal contact with Radha Krishna lila, then that's another matter. But the basic division I was getting at was one where someone has manifest a mood of service vs someone who was striving to manifest a mood of service.

The point of Khatvanga and Pariksit was simply meant to illustrate the point that there are examples for intense changes prior to death, i.e. a sadhaka who has ignored raganuga bhajan may adopt an intense raganuga mood in his final moments.

And by way of comparison: say you're a raganuga practitioner for 50 years and you're heading to the grocery store to buy your decaffeinated green tea when suddenly you look up and see a bus. You shout "Jesus Christ!" waving your arms to attract the attention of the bus driver, all the while the Mercedes logo coming closer to your skull. Now, it seems unlikely that Krishna will make you appear as the Messiah, a bus driver, or the owner of a German vehicle. He will accept the mood of your practice, not the specific memory at death. (OK, I do deserve bottom of the class with this example.)

Actually, after my first post I went and did some yard work and was thinking a lot about this issue, trying to distinguish "intense feeling" and "compassion" and the provisions for raganuga.

I have a two-year old son and often read to him at night. Last night he picked a book about Prabhupada's childhood ratha yatra. It recalls Abhay Charan's desire, the finding and rebuilding of the cart, etc., and ends with a picture of Prabhupada sitting on a ratha cart in one of the Western cities. I think of the crescendo of emotion for someone who manifest simple devotion as a child and now sees his Lord becoming visible, literally and figuratively all over the Western world. I don't know how to classify or understand that emotion, and obviously nor do I know how to defend it, should it even need defending.

Apples and oranges, I guess. I shouldn't be trying to subvert the teachings of the Gosvamis in deference to that which is my life.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 02:45:54 +0530
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 22 2003, 09:03 PM)
QUOTE
They are not the exemplary models to be followed by the sadhaka. Rupa-Sanatana and others are.


Are you saying that we should think that Rupa and Sanatana were sadhakas performing asta-kalika-lila smaranam in raganuga-sadhana? Were they sadhakas or siddhas? Are you saying that we should follow their example or their prescriptions for sadhana? Can we really follow the "model" of the siddhas who were steeped in prema?

Regardless of their status, they played the role of sadhakas; this is evident from their writings. Just like the songs of Narottama Das Thakur.


QUOTE
What do you mean by "following" them? Are you saying that we should try and be replicas of them in form? Or, are you saying that we should follow their guidance? Did they advocate that they were the "models" of sadhana, and that everyone should try to duplicate their practices?

Well, Visvanatha Cakravarti was quite clear about that in his interpretation of the "sAdhaka-rUpena" part of BRS 1.2.295; just as we aspire to follow Rupa Manjari and others in siddha-deha, we should aspire to follow Rupa Gosvami and others in sadhaka-deha.

It may be of interest that Mahaprabhu Himself noted (CC 1.3.20-21) that He was an exemplary model to be followed:

Apani karimu bhakta-bhAva aGgIkAre |
Apani Acari’ bhakti zikhAimu sabAre ||
Apane nA kaile dharma zikhAna nA yAya |
ei ta’ siddhAnta gItA-bhAgavate gAya ||

"I will personally accept the mood of a devotee;
With my own example, I will teach bhakti to everyone.
One who does not engage in dharma himself cannot teach others;
this is the conclusion given in the Gita and the Bhagavata."



QUOTE
What about their diet? If you are going to "follow" them, then are you going to subsist off of a handful of chickpeas or a glass of milk a day? Did the six Goswamis ever eat Pizza or vegetarian lazagna for supper? Are we supposed to follow portions of their "model" and just pick and choose the parts we like and reject the one's we can't handle?

It's not a matter of rejecting what we can't imbibe at the moment. It's a matter of growing into it. As far as possible, we should adopt the exemplary practices of Rupa-Sanatana and others. As we advance, we adopt more.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 02:50:47 +0530
QUOTE(braja @ Nov 22 2003, 09:04 PM)
I apologize for the word "mechanical." I meant...aspiratorial (if there is such a word). Sadhana. "I aspire for this and shall therefore adopt these practices." Now, if by those practices you are in direct personal contact with Radha Krishna lila, then that's another matter. But the basic division I was getting at was one where someone has manifest a mood of service vs someone who was striving to manifest a mood of service.

The mood of service of someone who has no specific desires for the service of Radha and Krishna is what it is, a general mood of service. Now, if one wouldn't have a general mood of service, what on earth would drive him to long for speficic services?
Rasesh - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:56:11 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Nov 22 2003, 09:20 PM)
QUOTE(braja @ Nov 22 2003, 09:04 PM)
I apologize for the word "mechanical." I meant...aspiratorial (if there is such a word). Sadhana. "I aspire for this and shall therefore adopt these practices." Now, if by those practices you are in direct personal contact with Radha Krishna lila, then that's another matter. But the basic division I was getting at was one where someone has manifest a mood of service vs someone who was striving to manifest a mood of service.

The mood of service of someone who has no specific desires for the service of Radha and Krishna is what it is, a general mood of service. Now, if one wouldn't have a general mood of service, what on earth would drive him to long for speficic services?

I think the mechanical aspect of asta-kalika-lila smaranam is in the routine of repetitious practice of a set regimen of thoughts and
mantras according to rigid rules of time and procedure. I think that there is a mechanical aspect to it, inasmuch as there is a mechanical aspect to chanting a regular number of rounds every day. The mechanical process of the routine gives us a chance to develop our feelings our "raga", though it is not an expression in itself. The real mood and emotion of the bhajan is the raga, more so than is the performance of a systematic practice of thoughts and mantras.

We need to focus more on the emotion of raganuga, more so than the mechanics of systematic rememberance according to a rigid routine.
The routine is only a platform where we can exercise our "emotion". If the emotional characteristic of smaranam is not being aroused, then the mechanical performance is not raganuga in and of itself.

Some acharyas have found that preaching Krishna conciousness is much more conducive to raga than is asta-kalika-lila smaranam. The goal of both is to increase our feelings of love. Whichever one works best for the individual is the best service for him.

Somehow or other, if we attain a feeling of love for Krishna, then it seems like the goal has been accomplished.

After all, isn't it love for Krishna that we are looking for? The process and the path for getting there should be irrelevant as long as we get there in the least amount of time with the least difficulty. wink.gif
Gaurasundara - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:16:57 +0530
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 22 2003, 11:26 PM)
Some acharyas have found that preaching Krishna conciousness is much more conducive to raga than is asta-kalika-lila smaranam.

Have you got any specific quotes from specific acharyas on that point? Here's one I found:

"Proper sravana hearing, is accomplished through the medium of kirtana, and this will give one the good opportunity to practice smarana, remembrance. Then internal experience of rendering direct service to the astakaliya-lila, Sri Radha-Krsna’s pastimes in each of the eight parts of the day, becomes possible." - Point 20, Upadesavali of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

Nothing about preaching in there. Rather, this is all about personal sadhana.
Rasesh - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:04:19 +0530
QUOTE(Vaishnava-das @ Nov 23 2003, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 22 2003, 11:26 PM)
Some acharyas have found that preaching Krishna conciousness is much more conducive to raga than is asta-kalika-lila smaranam.

Have you got any specific quotes from specific acharyas on that point? Here's one I found:

"Proper sravana hearing, is accomplished through the medium of kirtana, and this will give one the good opportunity to practice smarana, remembrance. Then internal experience of rendering direct service to the astakaliya-lila, Sri Radha-Krsna’s pastimes in each of the eight parts of the day, becomes possible." - Point 20, Upadesavali of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

Nothing about preaching in there. Rather, this is all about personal sadhana.

Well, for starters, let's look at what Lord Krishna has to say about the matter. After all, Rupa Goswami is not God - Krishna is, and I doubt that Rupa Goswami would argue with his Lord on this issue:
QUOTE

Chapter 18. Conclusion--The Perfection of Renunciation
TEXT 68

ya idam paramam guhyam
mad-bhaktesv abhidhasyati
bhaktim mayi param krtva
mam evaisyaty asamsayah

SYNONYMS

yah--anyone; idam--this; paramam--most; guhyam--confidential; mat--Mine; bhaktesu--amongst devotees of; abhidhasyati--explains; bhaktim--devotional service; mayi--unto Me; param--transcendental; krtva--having done; mam--unto Me; eva--certainly; esyati--comes; asamsayah--without doubt.
TRANSLATION

For one who explains the supreme secret to the devotees, devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me.
PURPORT

Generally it is advised that Bhagavad-gita be discussed amongst the devotees only, for those who are not devotees will neither understand Krsna nor Bhagavad-gita. Those who do not accept Krsna as He is and Bhagavad-gita as it is should not try to explain Bhagavad-gita whimsically and become offenders. Bhagavad-gita should be explained to persons who are ready to accept Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is a subject matter for the devotees only and not for philosophical speculators. Anyone, however, who tries sincerely to present Bhagavad-gita as it is will advance in devotional activities and reach the pure devotional state of life. As a result of such pure devotion, he is sure to go back home, back to Godhead.


TEXT 69

na ca tasman manusyesu
kascin me priya-krttamah
bhavita na ca me tasmad
anyah priyataro bhuvi

SYNONYMS

na--never; ca--and; tasmat--therefore; manusyesu--among mankind; kascit--anyone; me--My; priya-krt-tamah--more dear; bhavita--will become; na--nor; ca--and; me--My; tasmat--than him; anyah--other; priya-tarah--dearer; bhuvi--in this world.
TRANSLATION

There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will there ever be one more dear.



I think that Lord Krishna has made it quite clear that he is very favorabaly disposed to the preacher. His satisfaction is the goal of the devotee. Pleasing him is the whole idea of devotional service.
Gaurasundara - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:28:44 +0530
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 23 2003, 03:34 AM)
I think that Lord Krishna has made it quite clear that he is very favorabaly disposed to the preacher. His satisfaction is the goal of the devotee. Pleasing him is the whole idea of devotional service.

As far as I know, I don't think there is any direction in the scriptures telling us not to preach; rather there are several examples of incidences that we should preach, the famous 'yAre dekha tAre kaha kRSNa-upadeza' (CC Madhya 7.128) verse being just one.

However, you did earlier say: "Some acharyas have found that preaching Krishna conciousness is much more conducive to raga than is asta-kalika-lila smaranam."

Therefore the question arises as to how preaching causes raga (or lobha, whatever) to arise? Is there such a thing? Rather raga/laulya/lobha arises simply by just hearing about Krishna's pastimes. This is reflected in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's saying; that chanting and hearing is conducive to smaranam. Again, this is not about preaching but it is about personal sadhana.

(Side-thought: What is the use of preaching to others without taking care of oneself as well? Both have to be done, after all isn't it so that we must "practice what we preach"?)

By the way, is there any backing the idea that such "preaching" is normally restricted to topics about the glory of the holy name, Krishna-tattva, etc.? I think there is, according to CC Madhya 7. I don't think it is a normal practice to give details of astakaliya-smarana to Tom, Dick, and their old chum Harry. This is the whole point.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:40:16 +0530
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 22 2003, 11:26 PM)
Some acharyas have found that preaching Krishna conciousness is much more conducive to raga than is asta-kalika-lila smaranam.

This is a false dilemma you're presenting. It is not an either/or matter. Many great acaryas, beginning with Narottama, Srinivasa and Syamananda, preached and engaged in lila-smaranam. This is the example shown to us by the acaryas. Strive for doing both. The power of lila-smaranam will give your preaching the depth it needs to be effective.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:06:53 +0530
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 23 2003, 03:34 AM)
Well, for starters, let's look at what Lord Krishna has to say about the matter. After all, Rupa Goswami is not God - Krishna is, and I doubt that Rupa Goswami would argue with his Lord on this issue:
QUOTE
ya idaM paramaM guhyaM mad-bhakteSv abhidhAsyati |
bhaktiM mayi parAM kRtvA mAm evaiSyaty asaMzayaH || 18.68 ||

na ca tasmAn manuSyeSu kazcin me priya-kRttamaH |
bhavitA na ca me tasmAd anyaH priyataro bhuvi || 18.69 ||

I think that Lord Krishna has made it quite clear that he is very favorabaly disposed to the preacher. His satisfaction is the goal of the devotee. Pleasing him is the whole idea of devotional service.

Please let me give you a context for those two verses. Verse 67 reads as follows:

idaM te nAtapaskAya nAbhaktAya kadAcana |
na cAzuzrUSave vAcyaM na ca mAM yo ’bhyasUyati || 67 ||

"What I have told you, do not speak to one who is not austere, who is not bhakta, who is not willing to hear, or who is envious of me, at any time."


Having said this, Sri Krishna (in verse 68) praises the one who explains (abhidhAsyati) this most confidential secret (paramaM guhyam) among His devotees (mad-bhakteSu). Neither Visvanatha nor Baladeva comment much at all on verses 68-69. Sridhara repeats three times that Sri Krishna means what he says, "among My bhaktas", "those devoted to me". In other words, the object of such discussions, according to these verses, are not the ignorant out there, but His devotees. There may be license for preaching to a select audience who are not envious and so forth, but what makes one dear to Krishna is discussing this topic among His devotees.

The commentary of Sridhara Svami on verse 67 is particularly interesting:

evaM gItArtha-tattvam upadizya tat-sampradAya-pravartane niyamam Aha idam iti | idaM gItArtha-tattvaM te tvayA atapaskAya dharmAnuSThAna-hInAya na vAcyam | na ca abhaktAya gurAv Izvare ca bhakti-zUnyAya kadAcid api na vAcyaM na cAzuzrUSave paricaryAm akurvate vAcyam | mAM paramezvaraM yo'bhyasUyati manuSya-dRSTyA doSAropeNa nindati tasmai na ca vAcyam ||67||

"The restriction for instructing these precious truths of the Gita to those belonging to one's sampradaya is thus spoken. These precious truths of the Gita spoken unto you (Arjuna) should not be spoken to those who are not austere or acting according to dharma. They should not be spoken to non-devotees, who are devoid of bhakti for guru and God, at any time; nor should they be spoken unto those unwilling to hear, and not engaged in worship. They should not be spoken because envious persons may offend Me by attributing the fault of perceiving Me, the Supreme Lord, like an ordinary man."


Visvanatha and Baladeva echo the same thoughts in their commentaries.

Not that I'd be opposed to preaching; I'm just opposed to quoting verses out of context and against the commentators to prove one's position.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:13:34 +0530
QUOTE(Vaishnava-das @ Nov 23 2003, 03:58 AM)
By the way, is there any backing to the idea to the idea that such "preaching" is normally restricted to topics about the glory of the holy name, Krishna-tattva, etc.? I think there is, according to CC Madhya 7.

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule on this. Obviously one must consider the level of the recipient's understanding.

QUOTE
I don't think it is a normal practice to give details of astakaliya-smarana to Tom, Dick, and their old chum Harry. This is the whole point.

Of course not. That much should be obvious.

Now, if someone wishes to take objection to what we are doing over the internet, I wish to point out that whatever is online is static content, we do not force anyone to read it, and in fact we hardly even invite people to study more advanced topics of bhakti. In this sense, it is non-different from printing books and having them available for sale. Whoever wishes may read, and the one who is not inclined to hear / read may freely go away. Practically the entire Gaudiya canon is available for anyone willing to visit a bookstore and pay a couple of rupees. It is there for the sincere and the envious alike. During the century of book publishing in Gaudiya - sampradaya, I don't think there have been any problems in that regard.
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:23:57 +0530
This preaching among devotees is one of the things we very frequently do. These websites should bear testimony to that. All around Vraja, discussions on Bhagavata and Gosvami-granthas are going on among devotees. At Radha Kunda, it is not at all uncommon to see three discourses going on at the same time, or right after one another; someone speaking at Tinkudi Ashram, someone speaking at Radha-Gopinath Mandir or Das Gosvami's samadhi, and Sri Ananta Dasji speaking at Sri Krishna Caitanya Sastra Mandir.
Rasesh - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:29:48 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Nov 23 2003, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 23 2003, 03:34 AM)
Well, for starters, let's look at what Lord Krishna has to say about the matter. After all, Rupa Goswami is not God - Krishna is, and I doubt that Rupa Goswami would argue with his Lord on this issue:
QUOTE
ya idaM paramaM guhyaM mad-bhakteSv abhidhAsyati |
bhaktiM mayi parAM kRtvA mAm evaiSyaty asaMzayaH || 18.68 ||

na ca tasmAn manuSyeSu kazcin me priya-kRttamaH |
bhavitA na ca me tasmAd anyaH priyataro bhuvi || 18.69 ||

I think that Lord Krishna has made it quite clear that he is very favorabaly disposed to the preacher. His satisfaction is the goal of the devotee. Pleasing him is the whole idea of devotional service.

Please let me give you a context for those two verses. Verse 67 reads as follows:

idaM te nAtapaskAya nAbhaktAya kadAcana |
na cAzuzrUSave vAcyaM na ca mAM yo ’bhyasUyati || 67 ||

"What I have told you, do not speak to one who is not austere, who is not bhakta, who is not willing to hear, or who is envious of me, at any time."


Having said this, Sri Krishna (in verse 68) praises the one who explains (abhidhAsyati) this most confidential secret (paramaM guhyam) among His devotees (mad-bhakteSu). Neither Visvanatha nor Baladeva comment much at all on verses 68-69. Sridhara repeats three times that Sri Krishna means what he says, "among My bhaktas", "those devoted to me". In other words, the object of such discussions, according to these verses, are not the ignorant out there, but His devotees. There may be license for preaching to a select audience who are not envious and so forth, but what makes one dear to Krishna is discussing this topic among His devotees.

The commentary of Sridhara Svami on verse 67 is particularly interesting:

evaM gItArtha-tattvam upadizya tat-sampradAya-pravartane niyamam Aha idam iti | idaM gItArtha-tattvaM te tvayA atapaskAya dharmAnuSThAna-hInAya na vAcyam | na ca abhaktAya gurAv Izvare ca bhakti-zUnyAya kadAcid api na vAcyaM na cAzuzrUSave paricaryAm akurvate vAcyam | mAM paramezvaraM yo'bhyasUyati manuSya-dRSTyA doSAropeNa nindati tasmai na ca vAcyam ||67||

"The restriction for instructing these precious truths of the Gita to those belonging to one's sampradaya is thus spoken. These precious truths of the Gita spoken unto you (Arjuna) should not be spoken to those who are not austere or acting according to dharma. They should not be spoken to non-devotees, who are devoid of bhakti for guru and God, at any time; nor should they be spoken unto those unwilling to hear, and not engaged in worship. They should not be spoken because envious persons may offend Me by attributing the fault of perceiving Me, the Supreme Lord, like an ordinary man."


Visvanatha and Baladeva echo the same thoughts in their commentaries.

Not that I'd be opposed to preaching; I'm just opposed to quoting verses out of context and against the commentators to prove one's position.


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


Didn't Mahaprabhu come with a much more magnanimous proposition than Lord Krishna offered in the Gita?
Adi-lila ch.6 verse 23

QUOTE
patrapatra-vicara nahi, nahi sthanasthana
yei yanha paya, tanha kare prema-dana
TRANSLATION
In distributing love of Godhead, Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates did not consider who was a fit candidate and who was not, nor where such distribution should or should not take place. They made no conditions. Wherever they got the opportunity the members of the Panca-tattva distributed love of Godhead.



Since the advent of Mahaprabhu, the consideration of "devotee" or "non-devotee" has become irrelevant. He taught the unconditional distribution of love of Godhead, that begins with understanding the basic spiritual concepts that Lord Krishna taught in the Gita. Mahaprabhu also broadcast the lessons of the Gita without discriminating who was "devotee" or "non-devotee".

Would this be any sort of acceptable proposal behind the lavish and liberal distribution of books as advocated by Swami Prabhupada?
Madhava - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:36:14 +0530
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 23 2003, 05:59 PM)
Didn't Mahaprabhu come with a much more magnanimous proposition than Lord Krishna offered in the Gita?

Adi-lila ch.6 verse 23
QUOTE
patrapatra-vicara nahi, nahi sthanasthana
yei yanha paya, tanha kare prema-dana
TRANSLATION
In distributing love of Godhead, Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates did not consider who was a fit candidate and who was not, nor where such distribution should or should not take place. They made no conditions. Wherever they got the opportunity the members of the Panca-tattva distributed love of Godhead.



Since the advent of Mahaprabhu, the consideration of "devotee" or "non-devotee" has become irrelevant. He taught the unconditional distribution of love of Godhead, that begins with understanding the basic spiritual concepts that Lord Krishna taught in the Gita. Mahaprabhu also broadcast the lessons of the Gita without discriminating who was "devotee" or "non-devotee".

Would this be any sort of acceptable proposal behind the lavish and liberal distribution of books as advocated by Swami Prabhupada?

If the warnings of Sri Krishna are no longer relevant, then I suggest you stop quoting them and only cite Caitanya in this regard.

And if according to what you quoted anything goes, then what's the problem if we choose to preach astakalin lila to every Tom, Dick and Harry, after all?
Rasesh - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:47:53 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Nov 23 2003, 06:06 PM)
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 23 2003, 05:59 PM)
Didn't Mahaprabhu come with a much more magnanimous proposition than Lord Krishna offered in the Gita?

Adi-lila ch.6 verse 23
QUOTE
patrapatra-vicara nahi, nahi sthanasthana
yei yanha paya, tanha kare prema-dana
TRANSLATION
In distributing love of Godhead, Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates did not consider who was a fit candidate and who was not, nor where such distribution should or should not take place. They made no conditions. Wherever they got the opportunity the members of the Panca-tattva distributed love of Godhead.



Since the advent of Mahaprabhu, the consideration of "devotee" or "non-devotee" has become irrelevant. He taught the unconditional distribution of love of Godhead, that begins with understanding the basic spiritual concepts that Lord Krishna taught in the Gita. Mahaprabhu also broadcast the lessons of the Gita without discriminating who was "devotee" or "non-devotee".

Would this be any sort of acceptable proposal behind the lavish and liberal distribution of books as advocated by Swami Prabhupada?

If the warnings of Sri Krishna are no longer relevant, then I suggest you stop quoting them and only cite Caitanya in this regard.

And if according to what you quoted anything goes, then what's the problem if we choose to preach astakalin lila to every Tom, Dick and Harry, after all?

Isn't the babaji ashram the paramahansa ashram? Don't paramahansas see everyone as devotee except himself? Would a paramahansa see "non-devotee" anywhere but in himself?

Would a paramahansa who has humbly taken the lower status of parivrajakacharya tri-dandi, really discriminate between the fit and the unfit? Isn't the vision of "devotee" vs. "non-devotee" the vision of the lower platforms of the kanistha and madhyama?

When a paramahansa sees all as "devotee", he does not discriminate in the fit or unfit. He sees all living entities as "devotees", though they might be covered by illusion and unaware of that. The paramahansa knows better. He knows that all living entities are actually covered devotees.
Rasesh - Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:54:20 +0530
Madhavaji said:
QUOTE
If the warnings of Sri Krishna are no longer relevant, then I suggest you stop quoting them and only cite Caitanya in this regard.


If my memory serves me correctly, it was not I who posted the "warnings" of Lord Krishna. Someone else posted that in reply to my post showing Krishna's favoritism to the preachers. I intentially DID NOT post the "warnings", as I focused on the positive aspect of Krishna's mercy and not the "aishvarya" aspect of his "fire and brimstone" warnings to the "non-devotees".
Madhava - Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:54:21 +0530
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 23 2003, 06:24 PM)
Madhavaji said:
QUOTE
If the warnings of Sri Krishna are no longer relevant, then I suggest you stop quoting them and only cite Caitanya in this regard.


If my memory serves me correctly, it was not I who posted the "warnings" of Lord Krishna. Someone else posted that in reply to my post showing Krishna's favoritism to the preachers. I intentially DID NOT post the "warnings", as I focused on the positive aspect of Krishna's mercy and not the "aishvarya" aspect of his "fire and brimstone" warnings to the "non-devotees".

Yes, exactly. You cannot just take the recommendation and neglect the caution. The logic of accepting half the hen, I'm sure you know.
Madhava - Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:02:56 +0530
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 23 2003, 06:17 PM)
Isn't the babaji ashram the paramahansa ashram? Don't paramahansas see everyone as devotee except himself? Would a paramahansa see "non-devotee" anywhere but in himself?

I don't recall ever reading such a definition anywhere. Besides, it is not a "babaji ashram". It is out of varnashram, at least it's supposed to be.

What is a paramahamsa, anyway? What does it take to be one? I'm asking for a scriptural definition for what it takes to be one.


QUOTE
Would a paramahansa who has humbly taken the lower status of parivrajakacharya tri-dandi, really discriminate between the fit and the unfit? Isn't the vision of "devotee" vs. "non-devotee" the vision of the lower platforms of the kanistha and madhyama?

So, then only the uttama-adhikaris should preach to those whom us lower-grade folks see as non-devotees, right?


QUOTE
When a paramahansa sees all as "devotee", he does not discriminate in the fit or unfit. He sees all living entities as "devotees", though they might be covered by illusion and unaware of that. The paramahansa knows better. He knows that all living entities are actually covered devotees.

I don't suppose Sridhar Svami, Visvanatha and Baladeva are paramahamsas, then, since they seem to have discriminated in such a way.

If we just say that "everyone is ultimately a devotee", it renders Sri Krishna's words of caution meaningless. The commentary specifically speaks of those who have no faith, who are not engaged in worship and so forth. This seems to be the criteria used for discriminating between a devotee and a non-devotee here.
braja - Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:35:58 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Nov 23 2003, 02:32 PM)
QUOTE(Rasesh @ Nov 23 2003, 06:17 PM)
Isn't the babaji ashram the paramahansa ashram? Don't paramahansas see everyone as devotee except himself? Would a paramahansa see "non-devotee" anywhere but in himself?




Excuse me, Sir, are you from here or out of town...Great, you get a copy!

As much as I hated book distribution, I have to advise those who haven't read Ananta Das Babaji's explanation of "sadhu--amogha darsi" to do so. Very beautiful.