Jiber Swarup & Swadharma - An excellent book to read

I have been recently reading a book by Srimad Kanupriya Goswami entitled "The True Nature and Function of the Living Entity", translated by our Jagadanandaji. It is an excellent book that describes the ABC's of samandha, abhideya and prayojana in such a clear and understandable manner. It can be obtained in Nitai's bookshop on the web. Reading this book has made clear in my mind some of the fuzzy philosophical concepts regarding the jiva, Paramatma, bhakti manifests unto the heart as opposed to the idea that bhakti is eternally present in everyone's heart, the necessity of association with advanced devotees as the only means to attain bhakti, and others.

A highly recommended book!

Kanupriya Goswami writes in his book that bhakti is not present within the hearts of the jivas, the conditioned souls within the material world. Bhakti is eternally manifest within the hearts of the Lord's eternal associates in the eternal spiritual world. Bhakti belongs to the Lord's svarupa shakti, whereas the jivas are of the Lord's marginal potency. Bhakti makes it way into the material world through the channel of disciplic succession of devotees. When a conditioned soul situated in the muck of material existence associates with advanced devotees and consequently hears from them topics concerning the Lord, only then can bhakti dawn on the hearts of the jiva. There is no other means.

Any thoughts?

This is the old debate about whether sandhini, samvit and hladini are inherent within the baddha-jiva, along with the svarupa, as in the logic of the seed and the tree, or not. I trust you've seen my brief essay on that.

I think he also says though that Krishna-dasya is inherent.

(Is anyone familiar with Fakir Mohan Das? Is he a disciple of Kanupriya Goswami?)

Does Kanupriya Gosvami therein explain the meaning of verses like nitya siddha krishna prema sadhya kabhu noy, and jivera svarupa hoy krishner nitya das? They seem to indicate that servanthood, and even prema are inherent in the jiva.......

These verses are easily explained in a variety of ways. They do not contain sufficient precise expressions to nail the meanings down to a single interpretation.

nitya-siddha kRSNa-prema sAdhyA kabhu noy -- Krishna-prema is not something you can force to appear, nothing you can manufacture; it is an eternally perfect reality. In fact, if you consider this verse carefully, if all it took for the manifestation of prema was purification of the heart, then you could endeavor to purify the heart, and by its nature, prema would have to appear, because she would be the default state of the pure heart. However, sAdhyA kabhu noy -- prema is not something you can dig up from the heart through purification, it is a reality appearing because of her independent grace, whenever she pleases. What you can do is purify the heart and make it a befitting receptacle by purifying it through sravana and so forth, and then prema may appear at her will.

jIvera svarUpa hoy kRSNer nitya-dAs -- The natural, or truly intended function of the living entity is to eternally serve Krishna; or, the living entity serves Krishna indirectly in bondage through serving His maya-sakti, and directly through his svarupa-sakti, hence "nitya-dAs".

This was my first venture into translation, when Indian English was my second language I haven't even looked at it since it was published out of the cringing feeling I get. As to its contents, I haven't got the foggiest! It was all so long ago. I actually did this book when I was feeling lonely in Nabadwip and I went to Kanupriya's ashram and stayed there for a month or so in a room downstairs and did bhajan and translated. I went upstairs for arati and meals, and Debu Da took good care of me.

Fakir Mohan Das was one of a team of young Gaudiya Math scholars who were devoted to Sundarananda Vidyavinoda, and left with him when he did. Fakir Mohan did take initiation from Kanupriya Goswami and I met him once or twice at his ashram. He is an Orissan devotee scholar living in Bhubaneswar, who has now retired. He seems to have had a great influence on Bhaktarupa Das and Madhavananda (the editor of Krishna Kathamrita magazine) and disciple of Gaur Govinda Maharaj. This has apparently resulted in some controversy...

Fakir Mohanji is retired and apparently deeply absorbed in bhajan these days.

"Mr Jam Bresenaski" is a pretty cool nom-de-plume though. The Sweet Russian, perhaps?



A friend of mine sees him quite often and his name just came up in a discussion a couple of days back. I hadn't made the connection before. Interesting.

You are only citing half the stanza.

jagad-vyApAra-varjaM prakaraNAd asannihitatvAt |

"Having attended incoherent discourses, Jagat has no business sense."

Don't try to cover up your tracks by censoring evidence. The Hare Krishnas spoiled your business sense, and you're ashamed to admit that you once were so gullible.

He comes to the UK every summer or so to talk about Gour Govinda Swami and his experiences as well as indulge in a little philosophical discourse. Thanks for explaining his history vis-a-vis S. Vidyavinoda and his initiation by Kanupriya Gosvami. This probably explains why he devoted a substantial part of his PhD. thesis to Kanupriya Gosvami's "prophecies," which I've been hearing about for some time. I asked Nitai about it (and cc'ed you at your Yahoo address) but he wasn't able to help.
Anyway I like him very much. Despite his advanced age he is quite a humble person and I have had nice dealings with him which has resulted in very warm memories. I was unable to meet him when he came to UK earlier this year which is sad. I wonder what is the controversy that you speak of?

Those who have spent time in ISKCON may be more familiar with the usage of this verse in conjunction with the worrying and questionable "doctrine" in regards to the fall of the jiva from Vaikuntha. Despite falling from such an exalted position, such a fallen jiva contains the hidden treasure of krsna-prema deep in the innermost recesses of his heart, albeit the fact that it is covered with the dirt of anarthas and general materialism.
When good fortune arises, the fallen jiva comes into contact with a bona-fide guru and receives the seed of devotion from him. Continuing in this way, Jiva Das sets about uncovering his own heart from dirty anarthas until one day, voila! Your Krishna-prema manifests! But it was always there, only that you were too blind to see it!

nitya-siddha kRSNa-prema 'sAdhya' kabhu naya
zravaNAdi-zuddha-citte karaye udaya

That he is initiated in a Traditional lineage.

Hey, that means he can, if he feels to, give Traditional diksha. All of you who are interested can add him to your list of potential Gurus, if he is agreeable.

But I wonder if that would jeopardise his relationship with Iskcon?

As far as I know, he is already causing quite a stir there. He was close to Gour Govinda Maharaja, and consequently many of GGS's followers now come to him. This may be a similar case in developing as the Narayan Maharaja issue once was. Let us hope it doesn't escalate in such a way.

But the personalities are so very different.

See this story entitled Humbler Than A Blade of Grass when you scroll right down this page:
http://www.wavesofdevotion.com/journal/200...002/200211.html

excerpt:
'Like most senior ISKCON leaders, Partha Sarathi neglected his parents and practically anything they represented when he joined ISKCON in the early '70s. That was our mood as the pioneers of the Hare Krishna movement and as its dedicated missionaries. Like most of us, Partha Sarathi is now trying to make up for his past indifference. He told me that he had practically nothing to do with them for 28 years, but had now come to the realization that he should be compassionate to his family and try to give them some appreciation for Krishna consciousness. Although they know practically nothing about what he is doing, they have all become quite favorable during their short visit to Vrindaban.

Partha Sarathi's mother is a very refined, reserved, and sweet English lady from Oxford. His sister was five years old when he left and is eager to revive her relationship with her brother. His aunt, brother, and sister-in-law are also here. All seem to be favorably overwhelmed by their experience in Vrndaban.

When Partha introduced Fakir Mohan to his mother, again to our astonishment, Fakir Mohan immediately paid his obeisances to her. He then began glorifying Partha Sarathi by quoting verses describing how when someone becomes a devotee "14 generations in the past and 17 generations in the future become liberated." Afterwards, he paid obeisances to each and every family member. Partha Sarathi was a little embarrassed, so he explained Fakir Mohan's position as "a distinguished professor, a naisthika brahmacari (a perfect celibate), a research scholar, a sangeetacarya (master of classical Indian singing), and an exalted saint."

"Yes," Fakir Mohan responded, "it is our etiquette to offer respect, but it is not just etiquette." He paused for just a moment, and then said with an utmost conviction, "It is not just etiquette. We feel it." '

That, my friends, is a Vaishnava!

Why not? I like him very much as an advanced Vaishnava. He is proabably the seniormost Vaishnava I know and his humility has to be experienced to be believed. Gour Govinda Swami once quoted his (FMD's) PhD. thesis on Kanupriya Gosvami in one of his lectures regarding the prophecies of KG. I tried to ask him about this thesis and I asked him if he was a scholar. His reply was something like, "I have been professor."
Because to be a scholar is a very BIG thing, ya know! I'm just sad that I have not associated with him as much as I could have. If I'm lucky, there's still time...


Probably, and if that happens then I sincerely think that would be a matter of severe ungratefulness on the part of ISKCON. I'm not going on a critical-trip of ISKCON like has happened on other threads, but there is no denying that he has done great service for ISKCON in a manner that suits only them. By that, I mean that he did all the running around and searching in old government courthouses to dig up records pertaining to the location of Bhaktivinoda Thakura's ancestral land. As if that wasn't enough, he spent quite a bit of time fighting in the courts to get that land in the official possesion of ISKCON. He has written a nice book about this, 'Choti', which I haven't yet read.
His deep friendship with Gour Govinda Swami is already a matter of public knowledge, and if anyone wants to associate with him, why not? So if, for any reason, they start treating him badly then I think that would be a most lamentable occurrence. 'The eleventh among the tenth' as they say in India.

Does any devotee here know of his email or snailmail address? Ever since Jagat revealed that he was a disciple of Kanupriya Gosvami my curiosity has been even more pronounced. I would like to ask him some deep questions about Kanupriya Gosvami and his fantastic prophecies.

Radhe!

I also read Srila Kanupriya Goswamis book.

It was somehow clear to me before that bhakti is not somewhere deep in my heart. In "Madhurya Kadambini" and also in "Ragavartma Candrika" it is said that "bhakti is infused in the heart" , if i remember correctly. Also i read that it "enters" into the heart via realized soul.

Any siddhantic references?

It seems not to be supported that "bhakti" is already in the heart, waiting to be "awakened".

Radhe!

Tarunji

Interesting topic Tarunji!

All I know is that there is 'something' inside my heart trying to get out. Yesterday when I was chanting krsna nama japa I began to focus on my heart. In there I saw so many things vying for prominence. My sex desire was there, my desire for wealth and comfort, and also my pride eagerly awaiting the favourable opinions of others. But apart from these anarthas (and a few others) there was something else definitely there. As I focused more on the mantra and allowed Krsna to fill my awareness I felt inside my heart something deep stirring. Has anyone ever been in love and had your heart beat so hard? It was like that kind of feeling. Like a huge heart beat trying to get out but incapable. Like a sneeze that wants to come out but wont. Even now if I concentrate I can feel this. It feels like my heart should be overflowing with love but it doesn't. I presume I am feeling the presence of my bhakti lata bija. I wish it would grow some leaves! If a genuine kanistha adhikari has a bhakti lata bija then surely this is the same as having 'bhakti dormant in the heart'. My question is does this dormant bhakti only enter the heart upon receiving one's first infusion of sraddha from a sadhu or is bhakti inherrent deep within even the baddha jiva?

There are already several topics about this. Let's keep similar posts on same topics. I have merged Tarun Kishor's new thread with the one here.

Radhe!

one more thing:

suppose there are two sadhakas. one is inclined to the mood of vatsalya-bhava and one is inclined to the mood of madhurya-bhava.

what is it that determines that inclination?

since there seems to be nothing like a seed sleeping in the heart of the jiva-soul, how to explain the inclination towards the different moods?

with the theory of "dormant in the heart", the blueprint of that inclination would be there....

also,
what would be the motivation behind preaching
a) the no fall-theory
b) the "love-dormant-in-the-heart-theory"?

Tarunji

If there is a latent inclination, it is most likely from a previous birth, caused by association with saints of a particular inclination. Also, it may be a combination of a general attraction and one's psyche.




Lobha is attained by the grace of sadhus and Krishna. It arises from mercy.



I suppose all preaching is generally motivated by a desire to broadcast that which one believes in. There need not necessarily be any special motivations.

Is there a problem with the no-fall theory?

Radhe!

no- not a problem.

i was just wondering why should one favour the version of "having been there" instead of the no-fall.
and even preach that?

Tarunji

Confusion and conviction are formidable allies.

I wouldn't necessarily call it confusion or conviction. Many devotees are confused about Gaudiya siddhanta, but I hardly think that ACBS was. He was a preacher. A preacher may say many things to get people to take up Krsna consciousness.

Just like any subject matter - it is revealed according to the audience.

The basic idea is that all souls have a home which is eternal and in which they will be happily engaged in loving service to God.

There may be some subtle pyschology at work as well. You know the saying - home is where the heart is - or - one may be born in hell, but to him/her it is heaven, or it is home. There seems to be an intrinsic yearning to seek out one's roots and origins.

Sometimes preachers speak of our potential in such a way. For instance in the Brhad Bhagavatmrita - when Gopa Kumara finally showed up in Goloka - Krsna said to him, 'Your back, why did you stay away so long?' I'm paraphrasing here so if any of you have the exact quote and this is not how it was written I will gladly concede the point. However - it still is a very valid point that preaching is done according to time, place and circumstance. Just like in beginning math the student is told that there is no such thing as negative numbers. Later he is told that there are such numbers.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Sometimes preachers may be so ambitious for people to take to Krsna consciousness that may say things although they really don't know what they're talking about.



They sure are because we weren't taught right in the beginning and the one's teaching didn't have it right themselves.



But none of the other of Krsna's associates recoginzed Gopa Kumar.

In Narottama Das Thakur's Prarthana, Sri Radha asks Sri Rupa Manjari about Narottama Das Thakur in his siddha deha, "Who is that NEW girl?" Sri Rupa Manjari replies, "Manjulali Manjari brought her to me." Narottama Das Thakur prayers to be recognized and engaged in manjari seva under the guidence of her Gurudevi, Manjulali Manjari and Sri Rupa Manjari.

And sometimes preachers may end up saying so many things that in the end nobody will figure out what they really meant.

In Brhad Bhagavatamrta Sarupa calls himself a newcomer, 'nutna' (dure'stu tavad varteyam tatra nitya nivasinam; na tisthed anusandhanam nutnanam madrsam api, B.B. 2.6.359) Furthermore it is said:
tallokasya svabhavo'yam krsna sangam vinapi yat; bhavet tatraiva tisthasa na cikirsa ca kasyacit — "Nobody desires to leave Goloka." BB 2.6.366

When Gopakumara arrived in Goloka, the gopis did not recognise him, which they would have if he had previously fallen from Goloka. They said ko’tragato va kim idam cakara – “Who has come here and what has he done (to our Krsna, who has fainted)?” (B.B. 2.6.62) Krsna Himself saw Gopakumara as if he was a long lost friend, not an actually lost friend - ciradrsta prana-priya sakham ivavapya sa tu mam – “He attained me as if I was a long lost friend.” (iva means ‘as if’) (B.B. 2.6.76) Earlier in this chapter Krsna said to Sridama: “Now I have found my friend Sarupa”, sarupah prapto me suhrd iti vadann (B.B. 2.6.55), without any adjective like ‘the fallen devotee coming back’ or so. If one argues “Well, why did Krsna recognise Gopakumara at all then, if he had never been to Goloka before?”, Krsna Himself replies to that: vedaham samatitani vartamanani carjunah bhavisyanam ca bhutanam mam tu veda na kascana (Bhagavad Gita 7.26) “Arjuna, I know past, present and future and all living beings, but nobody knows Me.” The conditioned soul does not know Krsna, but Krsna knows the conditioned soul and its future.

a very simple point - but unfortunately lost on those who want to find something wrong or sinister.

Madhava- do you think you are so advanced and so familiar with Gaudiya siddhanta that you have surpassed ACBS? From your smug comment above it appears so - I hope I am simply misreading your comment.

Advaitadas - I wasn't suggesting that the siddhanta is that souls fall from Goloka - quite the contrary. I was merely pointing out that devotees preach according to time, place and circumstance. A crude example may be given of a mother giving medicine to her sick child. The mother may tell the child that the medicine is candy in order to induce the child to take it. There is no fault in such activities of a loving mother because they are for the benefit of the child. Similarly, the preacher may say so many things to inspire people to take up Krsna consciousness - it is in the best interest of those suffering from material identity. I gave the example of Gopa kumara because it is sometimes presented that Krsna said 'your back' as I previously said. This implies that he was there before, although we know he wasn't.

I find it incredibly silly and moronic for anyone who has taken up KC due to the sincere efforts of BSS and ACBS to sit behind a computer screen and denigrate them or speak in such a way that they try to show that they are superior in knowledge or realization to such great vaishnava souls. You wouldn't even be discussing Gaudiya siddhanta if it wasn't for them! They were empowered to spread KC throughout the world and we are all the beneficiaries of that empowerment.

I merely tried to show why in the works and words of ACBS there appears to be two different sets of ideas about the 'fall' of the jiva. He certainly knew the siddhanta, yet he sometimes spoke about the jiva having been with Krsna and having fallen. Undoubtedly this has led to confusion for many and in that sense I understand your comments. On the other hand, those who seek to understand why the two contradicatory ideas can be found in his words and works will come to the correct understanding. I put it simply - for preaching purposes he said many different things to different people. If one looks in his books however, the proper siddhanta will be ascertained.

ACBS was very practicle - he was all about engaging everyone and everything in Krsna's service. When asked about this issue of 'fall, no fall' at one point he simply said to chant sincerely and try to make tangible progress. Where you came from - your history - is insignificant compared to your need to sincerely engage in sadhana.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Here's what I said:


Now if that sounds smug to you, then so be it.

However, is it not true for example in regards to the jiva-issue? ACBS taught so many things, and in the end nobody can figure out what he actually meant. If that was not so, then why would there be a dozen different theories going around among his followers?



Devotion is hard to measure over the internet, nor is that the question here. Knowledge can be assessed by measuring the degree of coherence in content of the writer and the foundational scriptures, and the writer's ability to present and cross-reference scriptural information. That does not speak of realization, but of knowledge, it certainly does. Let each person be measured on their own merit in this regard, instead of superimposing a predefined obligatory hierarchy of knowledgeability over them. Spoken realization is expected to comply to the parameters of scriptural knowledge.

I wish that Madhava would add this to the FQV, because I have to post this in ad nauseum (I already made a standard file of this myself to make it easier for myself to copy and paste in), this is the 12.345th time :
All this is not being 'ungrateful to Prabhupada'. Everybody is entitled to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. My father has worked hard for my food, shelter, clothing and education, but later I decided that it is wrong to eat beef and drink liquor, as he is doing. So I no longer follow him in that, yet I am grateful to my father. Similarly we owe the introduction to the basics of Krsna consciousness to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, but that does not mean that we should forever continue to follow him in things that we feel are deeply flawed, such as disowning Vaisnavas and Brahmins and misleading aspirants about the teachings of raganuga bhakti. We should be grateful for the good things we learned from Swamiji, not for the bad things. I learned walking and beef eating from my mother, now I am still walking, thank you, but I quit the beef long ago. Similarly we want to keep the good things we learned from A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, but we will not take the wrong things along on the path of sadhana.

We would not be discussing GV siddhanta if it were not for Swamiji, but if we had not left him we would never have found out the right siddhanta either. It is a dilemma but so be it. It is like that and if you are sincere you will admit it.

Those who give sole credit for western Gaudiyaism to Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, are ignoring the words of Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

"To My Father, Gour Mohon De (1849-1930)

a pure devotee of Krishna, who raised me as a Krishna conscious child from the beginning of my life...I imbibed from him the ideas later solidified by my spiritual master, the eternal father."

All Glories to Sri Gour Mohon De, forgotten inspiration for the worldwide Krishna consciousness movement, and to his unknown traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava Gurudeva! Without them, none of us would be here!

'The meek shall inherit the earth'

Radhe!

Madhavaji is totally right.
i met so many people in ISKCON/GM who taught completely different siddhantas.
and always the nice excuse of "according to place, time and circumstances". no, its not like that.
one doesnt have to be arrogant to say that this "according to blablabla" is just like washing down the whole thing.
of course one should take serious the adhikara of the audience, but that doesnt mean changing the philosophy.

and its not correct to tell a child:
"dear son, you have been brought by the bird with the red legs." and when he has grown up you say:
"dear son, the semen of your father mixed with the ovum of your mother."


yesterday i had to give a seminar in a Sivananda-yoga-center .
i thought: nope, nothing like the regular stuff.

as an intoduction i spoke about the descent of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his contribution to the world.
then i took the introduction from Madhavaji (raganuga-bhakti-sara) and explained from it the way of raganuga-bhakti.
soon i used the book of Srila Ananta das Babaji and i spoke for three hours about the 8 verses of the Siksastakam.
there were 10 persons and at the end everybody was touched and very blissful.

i realized that it is totally OK to speak about raganuga-bhakti, if the audience has faith in the Lord and in the process of bhakti.
these people have been a mixture between neophytes and long time knowers of ISKCON.

it was so nice for me to speak to them, free of any controversal issue.
Advaita das, i also have to admit that i get more and more astonished, how many points in the philosophy of BSS and ACBVS are not congruent with the philosophy of the 6 Goswamis.

someone with an open heart will see these points.
i´m so happy that i know now what the siddhanta is.

all glories to Srila Ananta das Babaji
all glories to the assembled Vaishnavas.

Tarunji

Advaitadas - I hardly think that my sincerity will be measured by whether I reach the same conclusions that you have. In fact I have reached quite different conclusions. However for conclusive truth, I await on the mercy of my Gurudeva as I try my best to engage in sadhana under his tutleage. BTW, I personally believe that devotees can develop bhava by following different lineages. It is rare for anyone, however.

You have every right to choose the path you follow - but that doesn't mean that I agree with your assessment and your analogy, nor will many others regardless of how many times you repeat it. To those who have full faith in ACBS and his ability to bring his disciples fully under the shelter of Mahaprahbu your analogy will be viewed as an offensive affront to him and his teachings. I respect the fact that some people, such as your good self, left his mission and lost faith in him. I am happy that you have found a place to rekindle your faith and that you are continuing to engage in bhakti sadhana. However, your experience and the experience of others here is subjective, as is my own. I have a different experience and my faith is strong and unencumbered by doubt or misgivings that something is missing. I find the critique of BSS and his innovations by most to be quite shallow and superficial and for the most part, external and really missing in depth of understanding. That is my own opinion, of course - which I know you don't share. At any rate - some people felt the need to go elsewhere, away from the lineage of BSS that they started with. That's fine - others didn't have the same need. You may wish to justify your own need by theorizing that everyone who is sincere will have the same need, but I hardly think your own personal need to justify your movements will disqualify others who don't follow the same path.

Madhava - yes, there certainly is a distinction between book learning and realized knowledge. It is important to have an intellectual understanding in order to get one's bearings, but ultimately mind will fail. That's why Sridhara Maharaja stressed jnana sunya bhakti, especially when he found a tendency in those who approached him to rely heavily on their minds. The mind is material and reliance on it will only end in suffocating the devotional creeper. I don't mean that one should not use their mind to their fullest capacity - but part of that utilization is the ultimate realization that bhakti is really about stopping the mind and entering the heart. The reason that so many people are confused about what ACBS taught is that they don't have advanced devotees to associate with who can help them to understand. I am not aware of dozens of ideas about the origen of the jiva. I have seen two basic themes - fall/no fall. The confusion, as I already said is easily cleared up.

Let me set the record straight here, I merely answered the question that was posed as to why one would preach a concept of falling from Goloka. I don't agree with your assertion that it is because he who was preaching (ACBS) didn't know Gaudiya siddhanta with regards to the origin of the jiva. We all have a natural tendency to want to seek out our origins and by stating that our origin is Krsna (which is true, but there is quite a bit more to the story) it will give us all impetus to try to seek him out. Empowered preachers find the ways and means to engage fallen conditioned souls in devotional service.

Adiyen - yes, by all means - glories to all vaishnava devotees of the Lord.

My point is not a dogmatic one, btw. What ACBS did in such a short time was miraculous. It opened the door for people all over the globe to engage in Krsna bhakti. My point really is that every person should think deeply about this and how it was done and by whom. Before one speaks denigrating or belittling words toward a servant so dear to Mahaprabhu I would think it wise to assess our own commitment and accomplishments in service first. Mahaprabhu's lila is Audarya lila - the inner life coming out and distributing itself freely throughout the land. Engaging oneself in helping others to take up this path brings about the inner life we all seek - it is not something mundane or material. It is real bhajana.

I'll leave this discussion with the parable of the fox and the grapes. You all know the story. The reason I bring it up should be obvious.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Who here has ever said that? We are also preaching here.



Little do they know, due to lack of alternative association, how deeply grieved the Vaishnavas in India are by BSS and ACBS insults and aspersions - "I could not find a single GV in Vraja" (BSS, 1932) "Dark age of Vaishnavism", plus the countless slanderous insults in ACBS' CC Commentary. But to call an offender an offender makes you an offender? (Another one for me to save for copying and pasting)



The evidence provided on the pages of this forum from the Goswamis, Narottam, Visvanath etc.'s writings that contradict BSS' teachings is hard as granite and carved in rock, I would say. You might like to peruse the square defeat suffered here by Gita Govinda (in 2002) and Rasesh (2003).



If you refer to the red cloth, tilak and illegal brahmin threads - one serves not only internally but also externally - seva sadhaka rupena. It is all bhakti and therefore there is also no 'form vs substance'. It is all substance. Lack of understanding? I think that ball lies firmly in your court.

Oh but this has nothing to do with jnana-sunya-bhakti! The term may be applied in two ways, namely either referring to bhakti devoid of aspiration for attaining the nirvisesa-brahma, or bhakti devoid of aisvarya-jnana, in other words madhuryamayi-bhakti.

Of course ultimately one must come to realize everything, but if there is no theoretical framework, who will guarantee the accuracy of your realizations? Also, is there a clear line between "philosophical intuition arising from the mind" and "philosophical intuition arising from revelation"? I do not think so. There is no such thing as "entirely non-realized". However, those who discredit assimilating a theoretical framework and stress only the revelational aspect merely cast suspicion upon themselves; why can they not bother with the "knowledge" and present that along with the "realization"?

The mind may be material or spiritual depending on its application. When the mind and the senses are engaged in bhakti-sadhana, they attain the quality of spirit due to the potency of bhakti descending into them and permeating them, as discussed in the tikas of the kRti-sAdhya bhavet sAdhya - verse.



According to whom?



Many ISKCON folks would take offence from your saying that. Their gurus are advanced devotees, and by associating with them they come to understand the primeval sin of falling from Goloka.

One of the most interesting explanations I have heard in regard to the "jiva issue" is that the living entity is meant to take responsibility for their entanglement and not think of it as an issue of constitutional nature--"I was created to fall and am therefore not completely responsible for my position" versus "I have knowingly drunken poison." Thus, the original sin.

Radhe!

dear Audarya -lila,
you seem to be very educated and you bring up many relevant points.

but:

why do you and so many sellers of the ISKCON/GM-siddhantic warehouse always bring up this totally incorrect approach:



i heard this sooooooooooooo many times.

what need is there to understand?

there is NO NEED IN PREACHING ACCORDING TO TIME , PLACE or CIRCUMSTANCE!
its not correct to teach someone the no-fall-theory and someone else the fall-theory.
and how to explain and wash away the many bad remarks in the CC-commentary, including the philosophical incongruencies...

ACBVS did so many wonderful things, but if someone finds a fault in his teachings or his works, oh, to hell with them, right?
why not admit that he did some mistakes?
whats the problem?
still he deserves so much respect and appreciation.

there´s no use in beating around the bush. there are SERIOUS mistakes.
i was also in ISKCON, i also had "nobody so advanced" to explain to me these different controversies.
you know why?
nobody can.
simple as that.
proven often enough here on this forum.

forgive me my sight of view
Tarunji

You may also recall from Bhaktivedanta Swami's biography of his early years a plague in Calcutta that was claiming the lives of many people. A Gaudiya Vaisnava babaji began a Harinama sankirtan procession throughout the streets and according to the biography, the plague stopped.

Well, there is certainly a need to preach according to time, place and circumstances, but the question is whether one is permitted to twist the siddhanta for that aim. "Purity is the force," said the old wise Chineseman.

How about this my dear Madhava -

B.G. 10.53 naham vedair na tapasya...... It seems as though Krsna is the one saying that study will not be the means of revelation.

You might also see S.B. 10.14.4 which compares trying to get a clear conception with the intellect with trying to beat rice from an empty husk.

jnana-karmady-anavrtam.... it is clear to me at least that a desire to know the Lord through the intellect is a defect. The intellect should be fully utilized in Krsna's service as I said - and yes that does include reading and understanding the scriptures and not be lazy in that regard - but ultimately the mind gets in the way of real knowing. The heart is all important. Cultivating the heart includes reading scripture, no doubt - but what is the motivation? We should read scripture with a view to change our very lives and we should pray to get the inspritation to do so by what we read. In that sense, yes, cultivate knowledge - as long as gives rise to an impetus to serve. When the gathering of knowledge is done for the purpose of argumentation or to increase one's own ego of having mastered Krsna by gaining such knowledge - it is obviously counterproductive. What can you or anyone really know with your limited intellect? Mind and intellect are described by Krsna as part of his material energy. You can serve Krsna by controlling your mind and utilizing your intellect in his service - which I already said includes using it to the point of realizing it's very limitation in terms of ever gaining the darshan of Sri Krsna.

Advaitadas - I really don't think that any dialog between the two of us will bear much fruit of any positive or uplifting quality. I already told you that I am happy for you - and I am. Let's simply leave it at that. I don't agree with you on many issues, but that doesn't mean I consider you foolish or confused. On the contrary, you seem to be a very serious devotee who is dedicated and quite knowledgable. My point about depth of understanding was very specific to the innovations and preaching of BSS and I stand by that comment. I have already seen your volley in that regard and it missed the 'court' completely. On the other hand - I give Jagat quite a bit of credit for trying to understand his mission and for gaining quite a bit of clarity over on the issues through time and introspection.

Tarunakishor das - there is indeed preaching according to time, place and circumstance - this is elementary to any type of informational exchange. Will you walk into an advanced calculus class without having any knowledge of algebra or geometry? You may do so, but you will gain little to nothing and will end up confused rather than enlightened. Progress is made gradually - step by step. Times do change and with them culture, history, politics, science, etc. That preaching which fails to take into consideration new facts and information will be outdated and irrelevant at best. This is obvious of course, but since you so emphatically stated your case in capital letters I felt the need to address the fallacy of your assertion.

I never said that ACBS was infallible in every way and was incapable of making mistakes. He also had editors working at a frantic pace on publishing his books who also made mistakes.

Interestingly enough, even Vyasadeva tells us that that literature which seeks to glorify the Supreme Lord, even though imperfectly composed should be heard and glorified. One can find fault anywhere if that is one's purpose. Why do you think that so many 'intelligent' individuals are athiests and laugh at our theology as simply foolish mythology - the opiate of the masses? I am not talking about fools here, many of these athiests are geniuses by most standards of measuring intelligence.

Logic is inconclusive - so what will you do when you find, like many have, that Rupa Gowami's metanarrative can be found to have 'serious' faults and problems? Or when you find that your new found guides are human and just as faulty as those you have left? My education is in the biological sciences. You will find that scientists don't place any faith in subjective claims, or those that can't be objectively verified. A theory is only as good as the experiments and evidence that support it. When we speak of God and the soul, we speak of that which lies beyond the purview of objective science or verifiable facts.

So, what to do? The proof of the pudding is literally in the tasting. I am finding quite a wonderful taste in the association of my Guru Maharaja and many others who belong to the lineage of BSS - so I follow my heart. I don't expect everyone to feel as I do but that doesn't invalidate my own experience in any way. I wish you well in your pursuit of divine life as I do everyone.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Radhe!

right, Madhava scored first.

what i meant was twisting the philosophy for the time,place... -purpose.

thank you , dear Audarya-lila for correcting me.
i wish you all the best.
i too know some very devotees in the line of BSS and they are truly dear to me.

Dandavats
Tarunji

Dear Audarya lila, Thank you for the appreciation. I am sorry you dont wish to respond to my last post. Anyway I dont believe that 'following the heart' means turning away from the hard facts as they are carved in the Gosvamis books. Why should you? The Gosvamis are our shining example, arent they? They had a heart and a brain, look:

ha radhe vraja devike ca lalite he nanda suno kutah - this is very emotional.

In the same astakam:

nana shastra vicaranaika nipunau sad dharma samsthapakau

"They studied different shastras to establish the sad dharma, the true religion." - They had a brain, too.
Speaking of which, one who blantantly contradicts this hard work of the Gosvamis is - asad dharma samsthapaka?

Then you said:


Excuse me, but the teachings of BSS are not the slight technical faults that this Bhagavat verse that you refer to speaks about (abaddhavatyapi). Flagrantly contradicting the Gosvamis' teachings is not like a missing comma, dot or anusvara I think.

Radhe!

me the fool re-thought:

i was meaning this:

i agree that there must be preaching according to circumstances.
but how about telling the youngest pupils:

"1+1=3" (wrong )

and the advanced students:

"1+1=2" (right)

thats exactly what happened and is still happening.
to neophytes:
"yes, we were with the Lord"

oh, and to the advanced:
"we never been there. tatastha, baddha-jiva, anandi, chupidu."

your servant
Tarunji

Dear Advaitadas - I agree with you and I do study the teachings of the Goswami's. My point has never been and never will be that one should be lazy when it comes to exercising the mind and intelligence in trying to understand our scriptures and the conclusions of our acharyas. My point is much simpler, yet for some reason difficult to grasp mainly due to our own attachment and ego of trying to know and capture the truth. My point is that Krsna cannot be known by the mind or intelligence. Krsna is adhoksaja - he reserves all rights and he reveals himself as he sees fit. It is indeed a defect to think that we can capture Krsna with our limited intellect.

I do not at all agree with you that BSS 'flagrantly' contradicted the teachings of the Goswamis.

You have said that you don't believe in the concept of substance and form - need I remind you of a very simple analogy? Laws are passed with specific purposes in mind - the spirit, or substance of the law. However, there is also the letter of the law, or the form, and many times people will adhere very tightly to the letter of the law but in fact in doing so they will be actually going against the intention for which it was drafted.

Got to go.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

There are only 42 verses in the 10th chapter. That's the 11th chapter.

So, should we not read the Vedas, then? Commenting on this verse, Baladeva explains that if a person devoid of bhakti studies the Vedas, he will not attain the darsana of the Lord. Therefore, the Vedas and so forth are to be studied with bhakti.

That devotion which neglects the guidelines of sruti, smriti and so forth a cause of disturbance.

zruti-smRti-purANAdi- paJcarAtra-vidhiM vinA |
aikAntikI harer bhaktir utpAtAyaiva kalpate || brs 1.2.101 ||

"That exclusive devotion to Lord Hari, which does not follow the rules and regulations prescribed by the Srutis, Smritis, Puranas, or the Narada Pancaratra, is only causing disturbance."

If there would be no point to studying and teaching the shastra, then why would the shastra have been compiled to begin with?



Bhaktim udasya -- rejecting bhakti; klizyanti ye kevala bodha -- who struggle with mere intellect. Obviously nobody is advocating the rejection of bhakti in favor of mere intellect here.



To try to understand the Lord through the intellect is a defect. To try to meditate upon the Lord through the mind is a defect. To try to serve the Lord throug hthe senses is a defect. Really? Bhagavad-gita 18.70:

adhyeSyate ca ya imaM dharmyaM saMvAdam AvayoH |
jJAna-yajJena tenAham iSTaH syAm iti me matiH || 18.70 ||

"He who studies this righteous discussion of ours worships me in the sacrifice of knowledge; this is My opinion."

The intellect is engaged in the service of the Lord through studying His philosophy and His pastimes, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

The jnana that you hear condemned is cultivation of monistic knowledge. As in the anyAbhilASa-verse, Visvanatha comments: jJAnam atra nirbheda-brahmAnusandhAnaM, na tu bhajanIya-tattvAnusandhAnam -- "Jnana here means inquiry into the nondifferentiated brahma, not inquiry into truths about the worshipable object."



No! vairAgyaM phalgu kathyate! Ultimately the mind becomes spiritualized! It is not that you eventually reject the mind and the intellect. You perfect them through bhakti-sadhana.



I trust you are not attributing the flaws of the last sentence upon the audience here.



Where did you learn this philosophy from? The senses, mind, intellect and ego do not become spiritualized through contact with bhakti, as the iron becomes in the fire -- rather, they are forever material items which you use as much as you can (how much matter can you use in serving the spiritual one?) and eventually give them up.




Serious faults and problems, such as?

I just wanted to make a small observation of my own about these various discussions centered on ISKCON and its founder:

I find those apologists that are actually objective to be in the minority. For the most part the attitude is fight to the death at all costs and take no prisoners. Even when the institution is exposed as fostering misogynist, fascist, pro-slavery and other strange doctrines such as the earth being the center of the universe, it is in their minds nonetheless beyond reproach. The evidence presented to support their claims of infallibility is ultimately as insubstantial as a wisp of fog on the morning breeze. This inevitably includes the supposed fullfilment of prophecies, the messiah status of their leader and the ludicrous claim that the books they have published meet the minimum standards set by academia. "You can see by all of the miraculous accomplishments" - or so the argument always goes. There is always one thing that they completely overlook: The power of the Holy Name. In their twisted minds, only their messiah can act as the vessel of the Name. "George Harrison and Allen Ginsburg have no such power on their own, they are merely agents for our fearless and empowered leader." That is balderdash. It is also nAmaparAdha, as well as Vaisnava-aparAdha. I was not personally introduced to the mahA-mantra by Prabhupada (although he was a major influence in my chanting of it - that cannot be denied), but by a fifteen year old girl in 1968 who was neither initiated nor fully understood its significance. (I did not hear of Prabhupada until two and a half years later.) Still it had the power to transform. I was rendered speechless and confounded by hearing it, and at the time I could not understand why. Although I don't consider her to be any sort of guru, she still was able to wield the power of the mantra.

We here don't have a problem with acknowledging the accomplishments of such groups, but there has to be some perspective. Yes, there were some notable achievements, but at the same time there were some glaring failures. The minority that has some objectivity will be able to learn from the mistakes of the past and will continue to grow, whereas the stubborn majority will continue to spin their wheels and stay stuck in one muddy spot.

Dear Minaketana Ramdas -

Your post was very insightful, I appreciate it very much and I wholeheartedly agree with you. I wouldn't end the critique with the apologists of Iskcon or GM, however. What you have said is applicable to a much broader audience and of course no one who would read it would think that they are the small minded individuals in question - it is, of course - them. I would suggest that we can all own a bit of what you had to say to varying degrees, of course - but we all are certainly conditioned by our minds and our experiences and yet we generally think that we are somehow above pettiness or small mindedness.

Dear Madhavananda -

Please don't put words in my mouth. What purpose will that serve? I am not fighting with you in any way. Everything certainly should be used to serve Krsna and I never said one should give anything up that is useful for service. What I said is really quite simple - gathering knowledge and thinking that by such one has captured Krsna or that they are somehow better situated is a fallacy. One obviously must apply the knowledge and transform their very life into one of surrender and seva rather than exploitation. No, I did not mean to denigrate or accuse a particular section of devotees by my comments - they stand for all of us, especially me.

One cannot actually know Krsna with the mind and intelligence. Krsna reveals himself to the sincere sadhaka. One can only know Krsna through revelation and mercy. Of course we must also endeavor and struggle to perform our sadhana sincerely and dilgently, but ultimately we rely on Krsna's mercy alone for any hope of ever really 'knowing'. Besides that, really what we are after is the exercise of our heart in relation to Krsna. Real knowing will come about through service and surrender and by giving our very heart to Krsna. At least that is what I am told - but what do I know? I'm still very much a work in progress and have much to learn and much to overcome in my approach toward Krsna. At any rate, we all know that Krsna is the connoisseur of love and that he is attracted by bhakti.

Gaura Hari Bol!

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Well, what should I say? Please don't attribute ideas my mind? Or perhaps, please don't cite irrelevant evidence which implies attributing odd doctrines to me? You put those words in your mouth, and strange words they were, and I wondered.


The first suggestion, "by such one has captured Krishna" -- true, they do not capture Krishna by seeking knowledge.

The second suggestion, "by such they are somehow better situated" -- false. As in the Gita, describing the misra-bhaktas:

catur vidhA bhajante mAm ... teSAM jJAnI nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir viziSyate | priyo hi jJAnino ' tyartham ahaM sa ca mama priyaH || 7.16-17 ||

vizvanAthaH (16) : tatrAdimeSu triSu karma-mizrA bhaktiH | antime caturthe jJAna-mizrA | ... caturthyA jJAna-mizrAyAs tata utkRSTAyAs tu phalaM zAnta-ratiH sanakAdiSv iva | bhakta-bhagavat-kAruNyAdhikya-vazAt kasyAzcit tasyAH phalaM premotkarSaz ca zrI-zukAdiSv iva | karma-mizrA bhaktir yadi niSkAmA syAt tadA tasyAH phalaM jJAna-mizrA bhaktiH |

At any rate, we are speaking of cultivating bhajanIya-tattva-jJAna, and that is good. That is why the bhakti-scriptures are written. Of course one must also apply the knowledge in practice, but if one lacks the knowledge, how will he apply it in practice? It logically follows that he who is better equipped with scriptural knowledge of bhakti is in a better position to apply it in practice. As in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu:

zAstre yuktau ca nipuNaH sarvathA dRDha-nizcayaH |
prauDha-zraddho 'dhikArI yaH sa bhaktAv uttamo mataH || brs 1.2.17 ||

"He, who is an expert in scriptures and logic, who is always firmly convinced, and whose faith is mature, is known as the greatly eligible (uttama-adhikari)."

yaH zAstrAdiSv anipuNaH zraddhAvAn sa tu madhyamaH || brs 1.2.18 ||

"He who is not expert in scriptures, but is faithful, is of mediocre eligibility (madhyama-adhikari)."

yo bhavet komala-zraddhaH sa kaniSTho nigadyate || brs 1.2.19 ||

"He whose faith is fragile is known as one with inferior eligibility (kanistha-adhikari)."

Here the one who is expert in scriptures and who is of strong faith is clearly declared as the one having the highest eligibility for engaging in bhakti-sadhana, and the one who is not expert in scriptures, but who still has strong faith, is the one with mediocre eligibility. Of course, a person with fragile faith has the least eligibility, regardless of his scriptural learning, but in a situation where both have faith, the one with expertise in the scripture is evidently more eligible for sadhana-bhakti.

dear Madhava, Ananga and other contributors of the forum in this discussion

This is the voice of Sri Sridhar Maharaja speaking through Audarya-lila das. The whole vocabulary is borrowed from him, very significantly noticable in the expression to capture Krsna, and many other standardized expressions, not the least the final greeting the famous Gaur haribol. It is nice talk. This man knows what he is repeating, true to his guru or paramguru.

What you end up with is: You can only lick the jar, never ever the honey. Do not even dare to think of it. And a step further: Even your thoughts of Krsna are Maya. That's Govinda Maharaj talk, a bit less eloquent than his role-model.

What I mean to say here, give it up, there is no chance against these word-players who describe beauty and love which you can never ever taste yourself, you can only do seva, yes, and what is that seva, beloved friends? Bring money to the honored center of seva, so that they can build another marble guesthouse right next to Rupa goswamis bhajan kutir. That is real seva. sorry, I am sarcastic, forgive me, but unfortunately it is the truth.

My advice here, discussion is fine, but it is meaningless for someone imprisoned in his ivory tower of word-creation like the Sridhar-camp bhaktas. they are enamoured with their capacity to speak of high conceptions which they never have to feel out, because feeling is forbidden. It is untouchable. the conception however, the real invention of the mind, that is the medium of divine revelation. Thus spake the great wise man of Kolerdanga.

Jai Nitai. Nitai-Gaur Hari.

I remember inviting a couple initiated by Govinda Maharaja to my home in Slovenia. I wanted to read the Radha Rasa Sudhanidhi by Prabodhananda Saraswati and when I told them what I was intending to do they said, "Now our spiritual lives will be finished!"

It is interesting how things are but I do remember that the followers of S.S.M use to praise a lot Sri Prabhodananda Sraswati Thakura. In his Sri Sri Prapanna Jivanamrtam, S.S.M. has some nice quotes from S.P.S.T; this is one example:

3.16
aprakrta-raty-udayas ca -
yat tad vadantu sastrani, yat tad vyakhyantu tarkikah
jivanam mama caitanya-, padambhoja-sudhaiva tu

Supramundane attachment also develops -
"The Scriptures may say whatever they have to say (in their various areas of jurisdiction), and the expert logicians may interpret them as they wish. But as far as I am concerned, the sweet nectar of the lotus feet of Sri Caitanyacandra is my life and soul."
Sri Prabodhananda Saraswati

May is the variety that makes the difference. I guess…

Dear Nabadip -

I am glad that you hear Sridhara Maharaja in my words as I do indeed take him as a revered guide. His is the Siksha Guru of my beloved Guru Maharaja.

You seem very cynical about his teachings and his followers - how unfortunate. Why would you have a problem with understanding, at least conceptually, that experience of Krsna is a conscious experience - it is above the mind and senses. Mind, senses, intelligence, earth, water, fire, air, ether - these are Krsna's seperated, material energies. Above these however is the soul - which is who you are acutally - the experiencer. Engage in Krsna seva and utilize everything in his service - but don't mistake what you find in your eye, or mind with the real image of divinity. My Guru Maharaja has spoken of it this way - 'What we think is Krsna consciousness and what it is are actaully quite different' - I am paraphrasing him here - but the point is that when a sadhaka actually has the darshana of Krsna and realizes his/her own siddha deha - that will be quite different than what we have concieved in our minds prior to such an experience.

Madhava -

Here is what I mean by you putting words in my mouth:

"To try to understand the Lord through the intellect is a defect. To try to meditate upon the Lord through the mind is a defect. To try to serve the Lord through the senses is a defect. Really?"

I never said the above - it is what you conjecture and argue against. I have been merely pointing out the limitations of the mind and intelligence and the need to utilize them properly to understand this conclusion. I, however, have never said that one shouldn't fully engage his/her mind and intelligence, or that one should avoid meditation or not serve the Lord through the medium of one's senses. Understand my point?

Here's another conception you have attributed to me:

"The senses, mind, intellect and ego do not become spiritualized through contact with bhakti, as the iron becomes in the fire -- rather, they are forever material items which you use as much as you can (how much matter can you use in serving the spiritual one?) and eventually give them up."

I obviously never said that either. It is a fact, however, that since the mind, intelligence, false ego, senses etc. are matter and are what Krsna refers to as his 'separated' energies, in order to enter the spiritual kingdom the jiva will indeed have to 'give them up'.


I also said was that it was a fallacy to think that one is somehow better situated in bhakti based on extensive scriptural knowledge. Your reply was to show how extensive scriptural knowledge does give one greater eligibility. I accept that argument – but it still leaves a large gap. The gap is simply put this – it should be obvious that great learning and intellectualism isn’t a requirement for entrance into bhava bhakti. If that is the case, then will there not be examples of greatly advanced (read ‘better situated’) devotees who have developed to very high levels of attainment who are nonetheless seemingly lacking due to having a lesser acquaintance with the scriptural cannon? It is this type of analysis which I was refering to as fallacy.

Here is something I composed with the help of my Guru Maharaja regarding in exercise of the intellect:

Logic (does not equal) Bhakti

Logic is merely a language for attempting to convey love (bhava). It is one form through which the substance of love is conveyed. Some people speak it better than others, but those who do not have much of it are hardly barred from attaining love of God. In her article on conflict Niscala devi dasi said that realization is conveyed through
intelligence. What about ajnata sukriti? If someone hears the holy
name, that person is purified, although no intelligence need be
exercised by either the chanter or the hearer. Mahaprabhu simply
looked at people and they became filled with bhava. One may be very
intelligent and present well reasoned arguments supported by
scripture and still have an impure heart. Can he distribute love of
God? Another may be illiterate but filled with prema. Just being in
his company, being near him, will be better for one than hearing
learned lectures from those of impure heart.

No doubt everyone should use all of the intelligence at their
disposal. No one is arguing otherwise. But to say that Krsna consciousness is necessarily conveyed through intellect seems to make one's progress dependent upon this material faculty. Mahaprabhu conveyed Krsna consciousness to wild animals. Examples like this abound, not for the sake of telling us that we don't need to apply our intellect in Krsna's service, but for the sake of stressing that love spreads Krsna consciousness. One who has it can spread it. Doubts can be removed by knowledge and they can also be removed by experience derived from what could be called transrational activities, such as chanting God's name. Knowledge is of the nature of sattva guna. It can bring us to sattva, not transcendence. Krsna nama can bring us directly to Goloka. There is no one activity that is more efficacious in terms of awakening love of God than chanting the holy name of Krsna. Proper use of intelligence is to chant the holy name.

Again, no one is saying that intelligence (for those who have it)
does not have a role in spiritual practice. But some people seem to
be saying that all progress in Krsna concsciousness is dependent upon it. This is simply not true. Logic and love are two opposite poles. Logic is material and love is spiritual. The two are categorically different. Logic is dry and can never satisfy the soul, whereas love is capable of quenching the thirst of the soul. Love picks up where reason
leaves off. If there is spiritual logic, this is it. We require logic
to bash the intellect so that it will not get the best of us
resulting in an intellectual slight of hand passing for spiritual
advancement.

None of our acaryas has explained the words buddhi yoga found in
several places in the Gita as mere intelligence. It first appears in
Chapter two (2.39). There Visvanatha Cakravarti says it means bhakti
yoga. In 10.9 buddhi yoga refers to the cognitive aspect of bhakti
(samvit) not mundane intelligence. To those who engage in his
service, he gives them realization from within the heart. Real
intelligence is to engage in the Lord's service. Only bhakti gives
bhakti, only bhakti gives bhakti, only bhakti gives bhakti, bhaktya
sanjataya bhaktya (SB11.3.31) Intelligence cannot give bhakti. Indeed
it cannot even reveal the soul, being inferior to it in constitution.
Use it in God's service to the extent you have it, but that is about
it.


What is the meaning of Bg.18.70? It speaks of jnana yoga, the fruit of which in the context of studying the Gita is to understand the value of unalloyed bhakti and engage in it to realize the highest truth. The words used in this verse are jnana-yajna. This refers to the sacrifice of knowledge that has been mentioned in chapter nine (jnana-yajnena,
9.15) where Krsna describes "others" who worship him by means other than unalloyed devotion. Here in 18.70 Krsna is saying that one who studies the Gita in jnana yoga will take to unalloyed bhakti, by
which he can be known. The idea here also is that the entire arduous
process of jnana yoga can be easily practiced simply by studying the
Gita, and in such a way that it will bear the fruit of bringing the
practitioner to unalloyed bhakti!

Here is what Madhusudanan Saraswati, a great jnani says on this
verse. "Adhyesyate (study) implies reading the Gita as though one is
repeating a mantra. Thus from the mere repetition of the text, even
without understanding its meaning, one attains liberation. How is
this possible? Krsna, hearing that someone is singing about his
glories, understands what he is saying and delivers him, even though
that person may be ignorant."

Here, like many other later commentators, Madhusudan Saraswati takes his lead from the great Sridhara Swami who Mahaprabhu so revered.

Sridhara Swami says this verse refers to "Repeating the Gita like
japa." He continues , "Thus one engages in the sacrifice of
knowledge. Even though one repeats the Gita without understanding its meaning, Krsna says 'I shall know that he is revealing me.' Just as
when in the world one casually utters someone's name and the latter
thinks he has been called and thus comes to that person, in
the same way Krsna says here that he will approach one who reads the Gita without understanding its meaning. Krsna says here that 'As I am pleased by the mere utterance of my name by the likes of Ajamila and Kshatrabandhu, so too will I be pleased by one who thus reads the Gita.'"

Not logical or Gaudiya enough for you? Mahaprabhu embraced an illiterate brahmana in Sri Rangam who tried to read the Gita daily but could not understand the words. Still he tried because his guru told him to do so. From this effort alone he developed ecstatic symptoms and Mahaprabhu told him that he was the true knower of the Gita. He then revealed the truth about himself the the brahmana.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam we find that intelligence is compared to the outer cover, or the form within which the substance of love is carried. We are warned that trying to gain a clear understanding of Krsna consciousness by intellectual endeavor will end in frustration (S.B. 10.14.2)”O Lord, those who want to have a clear conception of you through their intellect find their attempts useless. Their endeavors end only in frustration, like those who try to beat rice from an empty husk”.

So Jnana, knowledge is compared to the empty husk in this verse. The real substance, the rice, is love – devotion – bhakti. That is the tasteful thing within. Other things are only covers. If we focus too much on the cover we can never get the substance within.

Your servant,
Audarya lila dasa

[quote=Audarya lila,Dec 9 2003, 08:50 PM]Madhava -

Here is what I mean by you putting words in my mouth:

"To try to understand the Lord through the intellect is a defect. To try to meditate upon the Lord through the mind is a defect. To try to serve the Lord through the senses is a defect. Really?"

I never said the above - it is what you conjecture and argue against.  I have been merely pointing out the limitations of the mind and intelligence and the need to utilize them properly to understand this conclusion.  I, however, have never said that one shouldn't fully engage his/her mind and intelligence, or that one should avoid meditation or not serve the Lord through the medium of one's senses. [/quote]
Did I say that you said that? I merely pointed out that if this applies for the intellect, it must apply to the rest as well. Here's what you said:

[quote].... it is clear to me at least that a desire to know the Lord through the intellect is a defect.[/quote]
I assume I paraphrased you correctly when I said that "To try to understand the Lord through the intellect is a defect."

Perhaps you need to be more clear in your expression to avoid further misunderstandings.


[quote]Here's another conception you have attributed to me:

"The senses, mind, intellect and ego do not become spiritualized through contact with bhakti, as the iron becomes in the fire -- rather, they are forever material items which you use as much as you can (how much matter can you use in serving the spiritual one?) and eventually give them up."

I obviously never said that either.  It is a fact, however, that since the mind, intelligence, false ego, senses etc. are matter and are what Krsna refers to as his 'separated' energies, in order to enter the spiritual kingdom the jiva will indeed have to 'give them up'.[/quote]
Here's what you said:

[quote]Mind and intellect are described by Krsna as part of his material energy. You can serve Krsna by controlling your mind and utilizing your intellect in his service - which I already said includes using it to the point of realizing it's very limitation in terms of ever gaining the darshan of Sri Krsna.[/quote]
You are saying that the mind cannot come to the point of ever gaining the darshan of Sri Krishna. Spirit can have the darshan of Sri Krishna. It logically follows that the mind is inherently material and cannot become spiritualized to the point of having the darshan of Sri Krishna. I disagree with the theory of giving them up. I advocate the theory of transforming them into spirit, since this is the position of the acaryas.

I understand that this is not only your idea. As Sridhar Maharaja puts it:

[quote]The nature of the mind is mental speculation (manodharmma). That speculative thought has nothing to do with truth. The experiences of the mind are all drawn from the material world, the world of misconception. The mind is full of misconception (avan-manaso gocarah). Mind cannot reach the stage of feeling or perceiving truth proper. It is only related to mundane things and selfish exploitation.
...
Mind cannot be pure. Just as a fossil cannot produce life, so similarly, mind cannot produce sraddha. Sraddha is original and fundamental. When the Supreme Lord appears in the heart, mind vanishes. Darkness cannot produce light. Light comes, darkness vanishes. Truth appears when real pure consciousness appears, and mental speculation vanishes.[/quote]
Here Sridhar Maharaja presents a highly dualistic concept. He insists that the mind is fundamentally and forever material, and it must vanish. I disagree. It must be transformed, not annihilated.


[quote]I also said was that it was a fallacy to think that one is somehow better situated in bhakti based on extensive scriptural knowledge.  Your reply was to show how extensive scriptural knowledge does give one greater eligibility. I accept that argument – but it still leaves a large gap. The gap is simply put this – it should be obvious that great learning and intellectualism isn’t a requirement for entrance into bhava bhakti.[/quote]
Nobody said it is an obligatory requirement of any sort. The question was whether extensive scriptural knowledge is a distinct advantage. I take it that we agree that it is, since Srila Rupa Gosvami himself has said so. I forgot to point out, but he added expertise in yukti, logic, in addition of expertise in sastra to the characteristics of the one who is most eligible for sadhana-bhakti.


[quote]No doubt everyone should use all of the intelligence at their disposal. No one is arguing otherwise. But to say that Krsna consciousness is necessarily conveyed through intellect seems to make one's progress dependent upon this material faculty.[/quote]
Certainly Krishna consciousness can be conveyed through whatever is permeated with Krishna consciousness, be it intellect, mind, senses, words, gestures or glances. However, when we revel in the realm of scriptural discussions, intellect is one of the more distinct mediums of expression. Wouldn't you agree?


[quote]Knowledge is of the nature of sattva guna. It can bring us to sattva, not transcendence. Krsna nama can bring us directly to Goloka.[/quote]
Now, this is a false dilemma you're throwing in! Knowledge, or information, can be in any one of the three modes of nature, or it may be transcendental, depending on the content. Similarly, names can be in any one of the three modes of nature, or they may be transcendental, depending on the object of the name. For example, knowledge of the spirit underlying the world is in the mode of goodness, knowledge of stock market gambling is in the mode of passion, knowledge of preparing alcoholic beverages is in the mode of darkness, and knowledge about the relationship between God and the living entities is transcendental (para-vidya). Similarly, the name of Canakya Pandit is in the mode of goodness, the name of Bill Gates is in the mode of passion, the name of Ozzy Osbourne is in the mode of darkness, and the name of Krishna is transcendental.


[quote]Real intelligence is to engage in the Lord's service. Only bhakti gives bhakti, only bhakti gives bhakti, only bhakti gives bhakti, bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya (SB11.3.31) Intelligence cannot give bhakti. Indeed it cannot even reveal the soul, being inferior to it in constitution. Use it in God's service to the extent you have it, but that is about it.[/quote]
I do not understand this obsession of dragging intelligence away from the realm of bhakti. If you engage your intelligence in bhakti, then that is bhakti, and then intelligence acts as a medium of bhakti, and bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya, through that medium bhakti awakens, just as it does when bhakti is applied in any other way.


[quote]The words used in this verse are jnana-yajna. This refers to the sacrifice of knowledge that has been mentioned in chapter nine (jnana-yajnena, 9.15) where Krsna describes "others" who worship him by means other than unalloyed devotion. Here in 18.70 Krsna is saying that one who studies the Gita in jnana yoga will take to unalloyed bhakti, by which he can be known.  The idea here also is that the entire arduous process of jnana yoga can be easily practiced simply by studying the Gita, and in such a way that it will bear the fruit of bringing the practitioner to unalloyed bhakti![/quote]
You are pulling 18.70 out of context. Instead of taking it in the context of verses 68 and 69, you are linking it up with the 9th chapter. The 68th verse encourages discussing the Gita with bhagavad-bhaktas, and the 69th verse continues the eulogy of its glories. This bhagavat-katha is one of the core practices of Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The jnana-yajna of the 70th verse is a natural continuation of the idea, study of the words of Bhagavan is arcana of the intellect (viz. Baladeva). The act of verse 68, abhidhAsyati, and verse 70, adhyeSyate, is the same activity Krishna calls jnana-yajna, and it is evidently the same buddhi-yoga spoken of throughout the Gita -- not a matter of jnana-marga.

It would be ludicrous to have the phala-stuti of the Bhagavad-gita wind up the narration with an encouragement for jnana-marga which leads to bhakti. Bhakti is the point, and bhakti is what is being recommended in the final verses of blessing.


[quote]Sridhara Swami says this verse refers to "Repeating the Gita like japa." He continues , "Thus one engages in the sacrifice of knowledge. Even though one repeats the Gita without understanding its meaning, Krsna says 'I shall know that he is revealing me.' Just as when in the world one casually utters someone's name and the latter thinks he has been called and thus comes to that person, in the same way Krsna says here that he will approach one who reads the Gita without understanding its meaning. Krsna says here that 'As I am pleased by the mere utterance of my name by the likes of Ajamila and Kshatrabandhu, so too will I be pleased by one who thus reads the Gita.'"[/quote]
Certainly I hope that you are not suggesting that reading and repeating the Gita without understanding is actually bhakti-yoga, but if one is intent on understanding the contents, it is instead jnana-yoga which eventually leads to bhakti-yoga?

Now I know whom to blame for encouraging those Vaishnava who keep repeating without understanding!

Actually, Madhava, I don't agree with you in total. Relying heavily on the intellect and gathering all sorts of information can lead to a sadhaka engaging in a sort of intellectual 'slight of hand'. By that I mean that a sadhaka may end up fooling him/herself about his/her own standing in bhakti based merely on a conceptual understanding, when in actuality they may be on only a very beggining stage of bhakti.

I actually think that the distinct advantage in developing bhava bhakti goes to one with Guru nistha and who has genuine humility and a heathly dose of the 'serving mentality' as opposed to the exploitive tendency. We are always in a dengerous position up to the point of actually developing ruci. Why do you think that ACBS used to call the univerisities slaugher houses? The problem with intellectualism is ego and identification with the mind and intellect - the master's of the universe complex if you will.

We should develop our intellect and familiarize ourselves with the scriptures under the supervision of our Guru Maharaja. The emphasis of BSS and his followers is that real knowing can only be had through service and surrender. As we develop a genuine serving tendency we will be less likely to become servants of our mind and intellect and be able to keep them firmly in control and engaged in Krsna's service.

Think of the example of Sarvabhauma in CC. He was a great scholar and he was very familiar with vaishanva literatures. Still, he was unable to recognize Lord Chaitanya. Through the mercy of Gopinatha Acharya he was able to obtain the mercy of Mahaprabhu and he became enlightened. But his enlightenment was not a function of his education or familiarity with scripture.

Sarvabhauma even asked Gopinatha Acharya how it is he can say he has gotten the Lord's mercy and that Sarvabhauma hadn't. His answer was that it was obvious because he recognized him while Sarvabhauma didn't. Gopinatha Acharya was unable to convince him with scriptural evidence, but by his well wishing and good intentions he did come to know the Lord.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

I'd appreciate if you would clearly state what exactly it is that you don't agree with.

I think writing off our esteemed Audarya Lila Das as a mere puppet whose strings are pulled by Sridhar Maharaj is totally unjust. Despite our disagreements, he is an exemplary individual just like his guru. Although we have never met face to face, I think we have cultivated a substantial friendly relationship in cyberspace. Yes, sometimes friends quarrel, but that does not turn them into enemies. I would like to think of all of the Vaishnava community (including the Bauls, Sahajiyas, GM and ISKCON) as my friends. It is unfortunate that rhetoric becomes an obstacle to friendly relations for many.

Personally I do not agree with that assessment. I think the grade schools are the real slaughterhouses. By the time people get to college they are already virtually brain dead from their conditioning, unless they indeed have very strong ego structures that empower them to rise above the mass consciousness and herd mentality. Einstein did not develop his brilliant insights from the strength of a formal scientific education but rather from his exposure to a flow of innovation while working at the Swiss patent office and pondering so many new inventions.

The discipline of education is useful as long as it does not stifle creativity and actually stimulates intellectual achievement rather than indoctrinating people via rote learning. That is true irrespective of the subject matter, whether it be mathematics, biology or bhakti.

Intellectualism has been given a bum rap in various devotee circles over the years, IMO. It has been an underlying cause of institutional despotism of the worst order.

This was indeed a fascinating statement, coming as it did from a man whose career as a pharmacist wouldn't have been possible without his university education at Scottish Churches College, and who learned at that university that women's brains were half the size of men's, thus proving their lesser intelligence.

Does his own apparent mis-education help prove his point about the ill effect of universities? Should we be grateful that he told most of his disciples that it was better to spend their time learning the "change-up" than to spend their time learning at a university as he had done? Is there a lesson to be learned in his taking one course of action for himself, and living with the consequences, then recommending a different course of action for most of his disciples? Quite an interesting point to poinder...

Sorry if I’m just getting in middle of it. (Not that I’m supporting the idea) but I have an observation in here. Is not the Vedic literature and all it’s Mantras transcendental to the three modes of nature and therefore no external reason can stop one to get the benefits (liberation) by reciting the Mantras even not knowing them very well?

According to the text below, one gets liberation based on devotion not on knowledge.

Is the understanding coming from bhakti, it is vice verse or a combination of both?

If spiritual advancement is according to knowledge, how many people out there would be pronouncing Vedic texts with its Mantras properly...



Madhya 9.93
TEXT 93

sei kñetre rahe eka vaiñëava-brähmaëa
devälaye äsi’ kare gétä ävartana

SYNONYMS
sei kñetre—in that holy place; rahe—there was; eka—one; vaiñëava-brähmaëa—a brähmaëa following the Vaiñëava cult; deva-älaye—in the temple; äsi’—coming; kare—does; gétä—of the Bhagavad-gétä; ävartana—recitation.

TRANSLATION
In the holy place of Çré Raìga-kñetra, a brähmaëa Vaiñëava used to visit the temple daily and recite the entire text of the Bhagavad-gétä.

Madhya 9.94
TEXT 94

añöädaçädhyäya paòe änanda-äveçe
açuddha paòena, loka kare upahäse

SYNONYMS
añöädaça-adhyäya—eighteen chapters; paòe—reads; änanda-äveçe—in great ecstasy; açuddha paòena—could not pronounce the text correctly; loka—people in general; kare—do; upahäse—joking.

TRANSLATION
The brähmaëa regularly read the eighteen chapters of the Bhagavad-gétä in great transcendental ecstasy, but because he could not pronounce the words correctly, people used to joke about him.

Madhya 9.95
TEXT 95

keha häse, keha ninde, tähä nähi mäne
äviñöa haïä gétä paòe änandita-mane

SYNONYMS
keha häse—someone laughs; keha ninde—someone criticizes; tähä—that; nähi mäne—he does not care for; äviñöa haïä—being in great ecstasy; gétä paòe—reads the Bhagavad-gétä; änandita—in great happiness; mane—his mind.

TRANSLATION
Due to his incorrect pronunciation, people sometimes criticized him and laughed at him, but he did not care. He was full of ecstasy due to reading the Bhagavad-gétä and was personally very happy.

Madhya 9.96
TEXT 96

pulakäçru, kampa, sveda,——yävat paöhana
dekhi’ änandita haila mahäprabhura mana

SYNONYMS
pulaka—standing of the hairs of the body; açru—tears; kampa—trembling; sveda—perspiration; yävat—during; paöhana—the reading of the book; dekhi’—seeing this; änandita—very happy; haila—became; mahäprabhura—of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu; mana—the mind.

TRANSLATION
While reading the book, the brähmaëa experienced transcendental bodily transformations. The hairs on his body stood on end, tears welled up in his eyes, and his body trembled and perspired as he read. Seeing this, Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu became very happy.

PURPORT
Although the brähmaëa could not pronounce the words very well due to illiteracy, he still experienced ecstatic symptoms while reading the Bhagavad-gétä. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu was very pleased to observe these symptoms, and this indicates that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is pleased by devotion, not by erudite scholarship. Even though the words were imperfectly pronounced, Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, Lord Kåñëa Himself, did not think this very serious. Rather, the Lord was pleased by the bhäva (devotion). In Çrémad-Bhägavatam (1.5.11) this is confirmed:

tad-väg-visargo janatägha-viplavo
yasmin prati-çlokam abaddhavaty api
nämäny anantasya yaço-’ìkitäni yat
çåëvanti gäyanti gåëanti sädhavaù

“On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms and pastimes of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world’s misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.”
The purport to this verse may be considered for further information on this subject.

Madhya 9.97
TEXT 97

mahäprabhu puchila täìre, çuna, mahäçaya
kon artha jäni’ tomära eta sukha haya

SYNONYMS
mahäprabhu—Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu; puchila—inquired; täìre—from him; çuna—please hear; mahä-äçaya—My dear sir; kon—what; artha—meaning; jäni’—knowing; tomära—your; eta—so great; sukha—happiness; haya—is.

TRANSLATION
Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu asked the brähmaëa, “My dear sir, why are you in such ecstatic love? Which portion of the Bhagavad-gétä gives you such transcendental pleasure?”

Madhya 9.98
TEXT 98

vipra kahe,——mürkha ämi, çabdärtha nä jäni
çuddhäçuddha gétä paòi, guru-äjïä mäni’

SYNONYMS
vipra kahe—the brähmaëa replied; mürkha ämi—I am illiterate; çabda-artha—the meaning of the words; nä jäni—I do not know; çuddha-açuddha—sometimes correct and sometimes not correct; gétä—the Bhagavad-gétä; paòi—I read; guru-äjïä—the order of my spiritual master; mäni’—accepting.

TRANSLATION
The brähmaëa replied, “I am illiterate and therefore do not know the meaning of the words. Sometimes I read the Bhagavad-gétä correctly and sometimes incorrectly, but in any case I am doing this in compliance with the orders of my spiritual master.”

PURPORT
This is a good example of a person who had become so successful that he was able to capture the attention of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu even while reading the Bhagavad-gétä incorrectly. His spiritual activities did not depend on material things such as correct pronunciation. Rather, his success depended on strictly following the instructions of his spiritual master.

yasya deve parä bhaktir yathä deve tathä gurau
tasyaite kathitä hy arthäù prakäçante mahätmanaù
[ÇU 6.23]

“Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed.”(Çvetäçvatara Up. 6.23)

Actually the meaning of the words of the Bhagavad-gétä or Çrémad-Bhägavatam are revealed to one strictly following the orders of the spiritual master. They are also revealed to one who has equal faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In other words, being faithful to both Kåñëa and the spiritual master is the secret of success in spiritual life.

Madhya 9.99
TEXT 99

arjunera rathe kåñëa haya rajju-dhara
vasiyäche häte totra çyämala sundara

SYNONYMS
arjunera—of Arjuna; rathe—in the chariot; kåñëa—Lord Kåñëa; haya—is; rajju-dhara—holding the reins; vasiyäche—He was sitting there; häte—in the hand; totra—a bridle; çyämala—blackish; sundara—very beautiful.

TRANSLATION
The brähmaëa continued, “Actually I only see Lord Kåñëa sitting on a chariot as Arjuna’s charioteer. Taking the reins in His hands, He appears very beautiful and blackish.

Madhya 9.100
TEXT 100

arjunere kahitechena hita-upadeça
täìre dekhi’ haya mora änanda-äveça

SYNONYMS
arjunere—unto Arjuna; kahitechena—He is speaking; hita-upadeça—good instruction; täìre—Him; dekhi’—seeing; haya—there is; mora—my; änanda—transcendental happiness; äveça—ecstasy.

TRANSLATION
“While seeing Lord Kåñëa sitting in a chariot and instructing Arjuna, I am filled with ecstatic happiness.

Madhya 9.101
TEXT 101

yävat paòoì, tävat päìa täìra daraçana
ei lägi’ gétä-päöha nä chäòe mora mana

SYNONYMS
yävat—as long as; paòoì—I read; tävat—so long; päìa—I get; täìra—His; daraçana—audience; ei lägi’—for this reason; gétä-päöha—reading the Bhagavad-gétä; nä chäòe—does not quit; mora mana—my mind.

TRANSLATION
“As long as I read the Bhagavad-gétä, I simply see the Lord’s beautiful features. It is for this reason that I am reading the Bhagavad-gétä, and my mind cannot be distracted from this.”

TEXT 102

prabhu kahe,——gétä-päöhe tomärä-i adhikära
tumi se jänaha ei gétära artha-sära

SYNONYMS
prabhu kahe—the Lord replied; gétä-päöhe—in reading the Bhagavad-gétä; tomäräi adhikära—you have the proper authority; tumi—you; se—that; jänaha—know; ei—this; gétära—of the Bhagavad-gétä; artha-sära—the real purport.

TRANSLATION
Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu told the brähmaëa, “Indeed, you are an authority in the reading of the Bhagavad-gétä. Whatever you know constitutes the real purport of the Bhagavad-gétä.”

PURPORT
According to the çästras: bhaktyä bhägavataà grähyaà na buddhyä na ca öékayä. One should understand the Bhagavad-gétä and Çrémad-Bhägavatam by hearing them from a real devotee. One cannot understand them simply by erudite scholarship or sharp intelligence. It is also said:

gétädhétä ca yenäpi bhakti-bhävena cetasä
veda-çästra-puräëäni tenädhétäni sarvaçaù

To one who reads the Bhagavad-gétä with faith and devotion, the essence of Vedic knowledge is revealed. And according to the Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (6.23):

yasya deve parä bhaktir yathä deve tathä gurau
tasyaite kathitä hy arthäù prakäçante mahätmanaù
[ÇU 6.23]

“Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed.”
All Vedic literatures are to be understood with faith and devotion, not by mundane scholarship. We have therefore presented Bhagavad-gétä As It Is. There are many so-called scholars and philosophers who read the Bhagavad-gétä in a scholarly way. They simply waste their time and mislead those who read their commentaries.

Madhya 9.103
TEXT 103

eta bali’ sei vipre kaila äliìgana
prabhu-pada dhari’ vipra karena rodana

SYNONYMS
eta bali’—saying this; sei vipre—that brähmaëa; kaila äliìgana—He embraced; prabhu-pada—the lotus feet of Lord Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu; dhari’—catching; vipra—the brähmaëa; karena—does; rodana—crying.

TRANSLATION
After saying this, Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu embraced the brähmaëa, and the brähmaëa, catching the lotus feet of the Lord, began to cry.

Madhya 9.104
TEXT 104

tomä dekhi’ tähä haite dvi-guëa sukha haya
sei kåñëa tumi,——hena mora mane laya

SYNONYMS
tomä dekhi’—by seeing You; tähä haite—than the vision of Lord Kåñëa; dvi-guëa—twice as much; sukha—happiness; haya—there is; sei kåñëa—that Lord Kåñëa; tumi—You are; hena—such; mora—my; mane—in the mind; laya—takes.

TRANSLATION
The brähmaëa said, “Upon seeing You, my happiness is doubled. I take it that You are the same Lord Kåñëa.”

Madhya 9.105
TEXT 105

kåñëa-sphürtye täìra mana haïäche nirmala
ataeva prabhura tattva jänila sakala

SYNONYMS
kåñëa-sphürtye—by revelation of Lord Kåñëa; täìra—his; mana—mind; haïäche—did become; nirmala—purified; ataeva—therefore; prabhura—of Lord Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu; tattva—truth; jänila—could understand; sakala—all.

TRANSLATION
The mind of the brähmaëa was purified by the revelation of Lord Kåñëa, and therefore he could understand the truth of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu in all details.

Madhya 9.106
TEXT 106

tabe mahäprabhu täìre karäila çikñaëa
ei bät kähäì nä kariha prakäçana

SYNONYMS
tabe—then; mahäprabhu—Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu; täìre—unto the brähmaëa; karäila—made; çikñaëa—instruction; ei bät—this version; kähäì—anywhere; nä—do not; kariha—do; prakäçana—revelation.

TRANSLATION
Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu then taught the brähmaëa very thoroughly and requested him not to disclose the fact that He was Lord Kåñëa Himself.

Madhya 9.107
TEXT 107

sei vipra mahäprabhura baòa bhakta haila
cäri mäsa prabhu-saìga kabhu nä chäòila

SYNONYMS
sei vipra—that brähmaëa; mahäprabhura—of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu; baòa—big; bhakta—devotee; haila—became; cäri mäsa—for four months; prabhu-saìga—association of the Lord; kabhu—at any time; nä—did not; chäòila—give up.

TRANSLATION
That brähmaëa became a great devotee of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, and for four continuous months he did not give up the Lord’s company.

Madhya 9.108
TEXT 108

ei-mata bhaööa-gåhe rahe gauracandra
nirantara bhaööa-saìge kåñëa-kathänanda

SYNONYMS
ei-mata—in this way; bhaööa-gåhe—in the house of Veìkaöa Bhaööa; rahe—remained; gauracandra—Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu; nirantara—constantly; bhaööa-saìge—with Veìkaöa Bhaööa; kåñëa-kathä-änanda—the transcendental bliss of talking about Kåñëa.

TRANSLATION
Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu remained at the house of Veìkaöa Bhaööa and constantly talked with him about Lord Kåñëa. In this way He was very happy.



Source http://www.hknet.org.nz/SriRangam.html

Sorry Madhava - I was responding to your 'I think you will agree'... regarding scriptural knowledge in your previous post.

Vamsidas - I am not aware of ACBS encouraging his disciples to take courses on 'the change up' as you have suggested.

Certainly whatever instructions he gave were not 'one size fits all' types of instructions. He is well known to have encouraged some of his disciples to continue their formal education through university systems.

I'm not sure what your point in bringing up the size of the brain information is. Did you expect that he would have perfect information on every subject? Or that he wouldn't have information that was wrong or in need of further elucidation?

There were so many problems with Isckon (and still are) and with many instructions on relative issues. I take the essence from it all personally.

I have a sister who is unable to acknowledge her own responsibility for her life and the circumstances she finds herself in. She is constantly blaming my parents or her siblings - etc. My own personal experience is and was that my parents did the best they could to raise their children (including me) and I am very grateful for their efforts. I never expected perfection from them - just love and affection and a genuine attempt to 'be the best that they could be'.

People got carried away and expected ACBS to have answers to everything and to set up 'utopia' on earth. That was a big misconception, obviously. He was a spiritual teacher and taught people how to serve Krsna and make him the center of their lives. As far as career advice, family planning, mental health, physical health, travel plans, etc. Best to look to experts in these fields if one wants meaningful advice.

At any rate, the reason I mentioned the 'universities as slaughter houses' idea was simply because our educational system suffocates people and endoctrinates them in so many ways - his point was that they teach people to be materialists and fail to give any spiritual instruction. I just went to the 40th anniversary of the Catholic high school my daughter is attending and Cardinal Mahoney pointed out the obvious - the difference in St. Bonaventure and the local high school is in the fact that religious education is given and the focus of the school overall is on developing well rounded individuals who keep things in perspective (God centered). I took a little creative license and used the quote to elucidate a different point - too much emphasis on the mind and intellect will stiffle the heart. Believe me, I am guilty of this in many ways myself - so I most definitely am not pointing fingers. Of course as complex individuals and in terms of trying to be well balanced and progressive, we certainly need to develop our hearts and our minds. But my real point is that bhakti is really about developing our hearts - it is about the land beyond the mind. The mind is the land of doubt - or acceptance and rejection. Bhakti, however is about that place we are drawn to even if reason may tell us not to go there. (Why are you wasting your time repeating three words over and over again? Why are you bowing down to, dressing and feeding dolls? etc. - most people find our most cherised practices to be less than reasonable or put it another way - logical or intellectually justifiable.)

There is an interesting story in this regard. One individual left KC altogether when they realized that it really isn't just 'chant and be happy' - he realized that it was more like 'chant and cry', 'die to live' etc. He thought - this is crazy - the goal is to become like a madman? To simply cry and cry? He couldn't accomodate such an idea. But to those who have developed some taste (isn't this the raganuga forum?) they can't help themselves - they must chant, they must cry. They are drawn like the moth to the fire - logic and reason have no place there. Even against all logic and reason they will march on because they are driven not by logic or reason, but by feeling and taste.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Actually, there WAS a "course" on the "change-up" -- complete with a film presentation.

I like your point about heart and mind. However, I would offer one small emendation. While it's surely important not to give "mind" or "intellect" a wrong prominence at the expense of "heart", I believe it is also essential to avoid "cognitive dissonance." It may be proper and desirable to "downplay" the mind or intellect as one pursues rasa. But if one's mind or intellect is CONTRADICTING one's heart, this is a sure sign of some problem that needs to be resolved. If one says, "I should ignore my mind, and follow my heart against the pull of my mind" one is likely to be deluding oneself (and repressing mental matters that will eventually surface). Better to engage the mind honestly, until one can come to the point of saying, "My heart is dragging my mind along with it." Better to have an internally consistent mental world, in full harmony with one's emotional world even if it's not the driving force in one's spiritual development.

You are saying a lot of wise words, and I appreciate what you say too, also in your points to Madhava, although not all clearly related. The Brahmana for instance who recited the Gita was not ignorant, he just did not pronounce the sanskrit so well which is why people laughed around him and he did not care but experienced his sattvika bhavas, and Sri Gauranga was impressed by that and saw his humility and approached him.

As far as I am concerned I do get your point. My point was only, this discussion leads to nothing much, as far as practice is concerned. On a theoretical level it is nice to show to the readership on this forum how senses, mind and intelligence are used in Krsna-bhakti.

The argumentation in the Sridhar-camp however, leads to a dry word-generation, discouraging actual experience by the sadhaka. And it is clear why. Sridhar Maharaja had to justify his own position against the Babajis of Radhakund and Vraja in general. For him this was an existential decision which he took in his early years when he visited there, - he was a serious seeker after all, not like someone who after the demise of a great person thinks it worthwile to decorate his ashram with a so-called shiksha guru whom he never met himself, because the type of language just fits well into one's own preaching endeavours. I think even from the Caitanya Saraswat side (Sridhar-camp) that is hardly appreciated very much.

At least you, AL das should see the connection, why all this argumentation against "capturing Krsna". In his old age SSM endeavoured much to justify that which he decided in his younger years which certainly is his good right, to defend his position against the babajis and traditional raganuga-bhakti, only he was quite offensive privately when approached by a non-GM bhakta, and always quite outspoken against the babajis who are revered by members of this forum. And his whole argumentation was aimed at this.

The final question for me is whether your actual personal sadhana allows you the experience of the love and beauty that you proclaim to be unaccessible by mind and senses.

That what you get in terms of bhakti, if any, is different from what you conceive it to be, that is quite obvious. That is even true about ice-cream; what you conceive it to be like before the actual experience will be far outdone by the actual tasting of the ice-cream.

That God is really different from what one thinks or intuits or whatever of Him/Her, is such a common place wisdom that it is hardly worth to be placated that much as is done through all this word-generation.

Medieval Christian theology had a very simple formula for this:
Deus semper major. God (is) always greater (than what you conceive of him).

I guess that is also accepted by this forum.

You can see it as cynical what I said about seva as money-collection, but that is what happened in the Sridhar camp, because there is nothing that you can dare to do in terms of actual seva anymore, once you accept this fabrication of inaccessibility of the Divine. Everything is so inaccessible, even a flower offered to the Lord must not be touched and smelled, it is so holy... do you know to what that leads?

Go and see Caitanya Saraswat Math, the declared second wave of Iskcon...

I am not sure who your guru is, but I doubt he has seen what happened there. I do not want to offend you though. Have your faith and practise what you consider seva. My intention is only to tell the community here where this argumentation comes from and what its motivations are. And why it is ultimately not satisfying. There is no joy there. Because joy is a feeling, and a feeling is misleading, and the sahajias have feelings and that is bad. How silly to fall for such argumentation. But maybe it is for you, just the right mix of words to keep you going on this path.

Personally I do appreciate SSMs stressing Gaur-lila, and his personal deep devotion to Sri Nitai that he exhibited. That is really nice and I am greatful for having heard that. If only the rest was not there...

My pranams to you. May you be happy, and not feel guilty when you feel it.

Jai Nitai.

This is behaviour I encounter again and again. Devotees join a BSS-related institution at a young age, and later in life they discover different serious flaws in attitude, theory and practise, but by then they have accumulated vested interests and are not strong or sincere enough to give them up anymore. So they doggedly defend them to the very end. Vested interests does not just mean money, food, friends and shelter but also the prestige of having to admit that you followed the wrong man for 30, 40, 50 years of your life. And even for oneself, to face the fact that one has spent, if not wasted, the best or most part of one's human life in following a flawed person or philosophy.....

I agree with your general view. The point about Einstein is a little bit off though, because he just did not get a position as assistant to the professor at the Federal Technical University of Switzerland which would have been normal. He was brilliant before that.

Personally I think it is classical education which is lacking. This pressure towards non-philosophical subjects, math and science, and now the IT sciences deprives students of a first hand view into the depth of old traditions. I still had to know Latin thoroughly to go to University. But I was deprived of the Greek wisdom, because I had the chôice to study English in stead of Classical Greek. Greek is close to Sanskrit structurally (Grammar) I hear, so I wish I had done that in my young years.

True, the anti-intellectual campaigns are not healthy and show a certain amount of suppressed inferiority feelings. they compensate them with the desire to attract intellectuals who subscribe to their books and views, or even fabricate supporting statements like Hansadutta did with the one of Einstein about the Gita.

What you mean to say with the Einstein example is correct though, and i am sure you will see a decline in creativity in science coming from the kind of brain-amputated people you describe. as Kuhn showed in his "Structure of scientific revolutions" it has always been the assimilation of experiences outside the strict confines of science which led to changes in theories and new discoveries.

The lack of acceptance of the large spectrum of human experiences of the past which was much wider than what people in general think of it to be, is also affecting what one sees in terms of the spectrum of bhakti practiced in the world of devotion. I think people, especially Americans are brainwashed by their simplified and diminished life-experiences into a one-world view, into the one dimensional entitiy forseen by Herbert Marcuse perhaps. The fact that most leading western devotees are Americans plays a role here. It may be more difficult for them to accept variety and differentiation in a tradition in someone who has no vital experience of that in his/her own life.

I do not want to offend all the American readers who are probably in the majority, I just like to say that personal life history plays a role in acceptance of views regarding our devotional traditions also.

It is most interesting to meet with people who have not gone through any formal education at all. Sometimes their amount of creativity, insight and wisdom is enormous.

Dear Nabadip -

My Guru Maharaja (Swami B.V. Tripurari) stresses nama seva. Our whole lineage stresses kirtana which is given place of preference in this age. If you think there is no taste in chanting I really don't know what to say about that - it is central to Gaudiya vaishnavism regardless of what lineage one might come in. I know you didn't exactly say that - but you did say that in Sridhara Maharaja's Matha there is nothing one can do in terms of actual seva. If there is no joy in chanting it is really due to nama aparadha. This is a struggle for anyone who takes up this path - how to be humble? how to avoid sadhu ninda? How to give all honor to others without expecting any in return? For those of you who are members of this forum who were involved in various branches of GM and it's offshoots I would say you have to be careful in your judgement of others. That's why I mentioned the fox and the 'sour grapes' analogy. It is always easy to find fault with others, the harder task is to be honest with oneself and introspective enough to recognize our own short comings and to honestly work toward improvement.

Who can put in words what they 'get out' of what they put in - in terms of seva? I can only say that I constantly feel indebted to all those who have helped me and given me instruction along the way. In terms of what I am getting - I can honestly say that my desire to serve selflessly is increasing. I am a family man with two teenagers (actually three now as I am caring for my nephew) and that keeps me very busy. I decided a long time ago that the critique given by BSS that a householder should chant more than a renunciate was only given because he didn't have the experience of living as a householder. In theory, it sounds nice and has a good basis in philosophy, but in practicality it is decidedly lacking. I find my time for meditation is much less than I would like, but it is really part of my life and I accept the sacrifices I must make for my family as part of my overall seva - at least it falls broadly into the category of self sacrifice and in that sense is definitely purifying.

I have already mentioned that my faith is firm and I have no doubt about my course and my selection of association. I appreciate much of the wisdom of the various members who post here. Many of you have been involved in practicing sadhana for many decades and have much to pass on to others. But I will be very honest with you all - my heart is heavy and I feel no joy in constantly reading so much negative rhetoric directed toward BSS and his followers. I am a very civil person and I can accomodate people from all walks of life. I have mentioned many times on various forums that my wife is a very devout Catholic and we find much joy in participating in each others spritual practices and in sharing our inner most aspirations. We have more in common than we do in difference in terms of our cherished goals in life.

We all have to live with our selves and our choices in life. I have decided as of today that I will no longer visit this forum. It is unfortunate for me because I do feel that I could benefit from each of you and your combined wisdom in so many ways - but unfortunately the pain in my own heart caused by the truely spitely and denigrating remarks toward those who I revere outweighs any potential gain. For me, it is like drinking poison - to read posts where there is so much hatred and open villification. Please refrain from justifying such behavior by pointing out various comments made by BSS or ASBS or anyone else - you have to take responsibility for your own actions. No one can cause you to do anything - it is your choice. I asked Nitai about his web site and some of his offensive articles at one point on another forum and he responded that he was only responding to what he percieved as villification of his own guide. I told him that I don't find it very convincing to speak of the evils of sadhu ninda on the one hand and then engage in it as a defensive mechanism on the other. If one is serious about their devotional life and really wants to avoid villifying others regardless of who they are (afterall Sriman Mahaprabhu has instructed us to give respect to all others) then they can choose to control what they do and say. His only response to me was that he was not a saint and therefore he was somehow absolved from the sin and that someone had to do it - so why not him. I am paraprhasing his response here, but that was the jist of it.

I wish you all the best in life and sincerely pray that you will reach your devotional goals.

Gaura Hari Bol!

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Why on earth would we want to discuss Sri Bhaktisiddhanta or his followers unless they asked us to first? They are overall a sad depressing bunch (with a few exceptions).

'Sour grapes' obviously applies most aptly to BSS himself.

The gist of Nitai's writings was that people were being lied to and were entitled to the facts. After 2 decades of misinformation, I for one was grateful for the clearer understanding Nitai's writings conveyed to me. Meanwhile those who seek shelter in denial try to suppress them.

After decades of being subjected to hearing aparadha against innocent Vaishnavas, I am grateful to Nitai for saving me from that snake-pit.

I can also verify that Nabadip's comments are accurate and simply helpful information for those who have not had his greater experience and thoughtful insights.

If we say that some Babajis in Radhakunda are not to be trusted (It's true!), will Audarya-Lila also accuse us of 'sour grapes' and villification?

It seems rather that he and others are working through an acquired fixation or conditioning, which limits their ability to be objective about certain subjects.

I believe Nabadip in his postings above has raised a profound philosophical point which we should all consider.

How remote is Krishna from us? Is he 'wholly other'?

(Read how nabadip describes the dillemma of those who propose this).

In Gaudiyism we recognise several principles which connect us to God.

One is the Guru Parampara.

Another is the Lord's incarnation on earth as Avatar, and the memory (Smarana) of his pastimes, Lila.

Just like those who assert a theory of 'Maya' illusion in this world, those who (on the basis of an extreme dualism) assert a doctrine of 'false imitation' or 'false smaranam' are simply cutting themselves off from the Lord's own gracious reaching out to his creation.

Radhe!

sad that you leave, dear Audarya-lila.
your posts have been an enrichment in these discussions.

one thing:



the only hatred and villification come from these comments by BSS or ASBS.
why dont you understand that many devotees here feel somehow hurt or offended by these remarks?

i will scan in for example the biography of Srila Ramakrishna das Babaji. then everyone can see what kind of adhikari he was.

best wishes
Tarunji

In my own experience, God mercifully appears in three tangible ways to the sadhaka :

1. As the Guru
2. As the Shastras
3. As the holy dhama.

The Lord's Lila is transcendental, the above three are tangible. Everyone can perceive them and, if lucky, appreciate them.

Jay Sitanath!


How would be called that very principle that take us to these planes of tangible reality; Intuition, mercy, adikhara, sukrit or just lucky?

mercy. And mercy is also luck.......

Let's not be so absolute. As pointed out earlier, they don't have a monopoly on this.



Don't bother, it's already posted.

Radhe!

yep, you are right Madhavaji.
me the ocean of passion.

thank you.

Tarunji

Radhe!

found a funny/sad story at vina.org.



two disciples given "manjari svarupa"?

Tarunji

Radhe!

now i also know why one should not "jump over the guru".
he (or they) might say something else....




BSS:





Tarunji

Some say eleven, some say four, some say none; go figure.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Very interesting, and beautifully written, commentary. This is a philosophical point I have always wondered about. I understand the intent of the statement "first deserve; then desire" as there is definitely something to say for the need to have at least a elementary or basic understanding of our siddhanta to be able to properly appreciate the aspects of madurya rasa especially if we hope to be able to put these lilas in a proper perspective. This is especially relevant in the social climate Srila Bhaktivedanata Swami Maharaja was preaching in.

However, in a sense I always equated the ultimate problem with "first deserve; then desire" is that it is much harder to run a race, especially with speed and a sense of urgency, if you don¡¦t know where the finish line is (sorry for my constant use of worldly analogies to make even the simplest points but it is just how my mind works ƒº). Now one could say that if you are a serious and sincere runner than you would run just as hard and with just as much determination regardless if you knew exactly where the finish line is because your sincerity and will would drive your determination. Since you have the drive then as you progress in the race you will ultimately come to a point where you see the finish line (this "first deserve; then desire"). Yes, it is best to be a dedicated runner whose exercise regiment is sincere and consistent but even for the less skilled or novice it is still most advantageous to know where the finish line is.

So my understanding was always that, yes, ultimately you need to faith a basic understanding of the divinity of madurya rasa and siddhanta will help one develop that understanding but by knowing where the ¡§finish line¡¨ is and having that desire to cross it quickly it can also be advantageous in keeping ones drive consistent and as a focus in their life. Now ultimately faith in Guru is key; Guru is the one that leads one to Radharani¡¦s mercy but it is seems to be the angle, in the more traditional Gaudiya lines, that one never ¡§deserves¡¨ as the service of Radharani is always due to the mercy of Guru, Mahaprabhu and Srimati Radhika. Is this correct? If it is then the mercy of Mahaprabhu and Srimati Radhika is in and if itself the path to bhava.

Now Madhavananda is going to want to reach through my wireless cable modem to strangle me here but that is where I tend to have a hard time reconciling this with the issue of ¡¥proper¡¦ initiation. When we were discussing the issue of proper initiation it seems to be stressed that this is a non-negotiable and is a prerequisite to attaining Mahaprabhu and Srimati Radhikas mercy. In essence this is seen as the ¡§deserve¡¨ from your angle. Is this correct?

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Jai Radhe!

I'd add the following impressive and contradictory facts to the Saraswata linage.
In the book “Sri Srimad Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami – His life and teachings” written by Srila Narayana Maharaja, fourth part, subpart - a entitled “A hint of His internal identity (siddha-svarupa) (page 280) is written:
... In those days Srila Gurudeva's dear sevaka, Sripada Narayana Dasaadhikari inquired from Him privately, “Did your Gurudeva reveal the identity of the siddha-deha of any of His own disciples or not?”
Solemnly He replied, “He has certainly done so. Srila Prabhupada has given the identity of the siddha-deha and siksa in bhajana-pranali to some of His qualified disciples; otherwise the Sri Rupanuga line would come to an end. He also mercifully gave this pranali to me.”
Sri Narayana Prabhu again asked, “Will you bestow your mercy and reveal the name of your siddha-deha”.
Srila Gurudeva replied, “Not just now; it will be disclosed at the appropriate time.”

One more interesting excerption from the same book, second part, subpart entitled “Receiving diksa and and guru-mantra” (page 32) is written:
... That year, 1919, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada gave diksa initiation to Vinodabihari at Yogapitha on Sri Gaura Purnima evening after the completion of the parikrama. After the diksa ceremony was over, Vinodabihari very humbly requested at his Guru's lotus feet that he should give him the guru-mantra. Until then Srila Prabhupada had not given the guru-mantra to anyone. When Srila Prabhupada heard Vinodabihari's earnest request he became silent and began to reflect. Seeing him silent, brahmacariji asked again with ardent desire, “Is it necessary to obtain the guru-mantra and instructions on guru-seva from some other guru?” Hearing this, Srila Prabhupada began to smile, and gave Vinodabihari the guru-mantra very affectionately. After this, Srila Prabhupada started to give the guru-mantra to others as well.”

It seems from the book, that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati has gotten siddha-pranali, otherwise how would he dare to give it to his disciples. In regards to guru-mantra, it is somewhat evident that he didn't received the guru mantra, but began to give it after being asked for it. It also mention's that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati is the only one who has received the siddha-pranali in Rupanuga line.
Could someone elaborate on this points.

Sincerely,
Jaya Baladeva

Jai Radhe!

This is the official Q & A letter by Swami B. V. Tripurari
entitled
Guru-pranali and the Current of Spirituality

Q. I went to Navadwipa with a devotee who was previously involved with ISKCON and Gaudiya Math. This devotee left those organizations because he said that they came from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, who was not qualified to be a guru because he was not connected through guru-pranali (line of gurus) to a direct associate of Sri Caitanya. He also said that one should not accept a guru based on how one perceives his radiance, spirituality, or experiences his inspiration, but rather on whether or not he is connected by guru-pranali. In his opinion, understanding the principle of guru is very simple and can be compared to electric current. He said if the line is broken or not there, then the person is not connected and therefore not qualified to give diksa (initiation) or siksa (instruction). Can you please comment on this?

A. I have written in detail on this subject and other related themes such as Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's approach to raganuga bhakti and the awakening of one's svarupa (spiritual identity) in my booklet Sri Guru-parampara: http://swami.org/sanga/Books/pages/SriGuru...uParampara.html

I am surprised that this argument regarding the diksa of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura is still being given credence. It is an old argument that involves among other things the speculation that the Thakura was not initiated.

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was initiated by Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, a universally acknowledged siddha mahatma. He was also closely associated with the Gaudiya reformer Thakura Bhaktivinoda, his father and siksa guru who asked him to begin a preaching mission.

The speculation that he was not initiated began because he did not stress his connection to the diksa guru-pranali of Gaurakisora dasa Babaji or that of Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Instead he stressed his connection to Gaurakisora dasa Babaji through diksa and Bhaktivinoda Thakura through siksa, and from there he traced his connection through the siksa of Jagannatha dasa Babaji, Thakura Bhaktivinoda's siksa guru. In this way he conceived of himself as being connected to a lineage of siddhas (siddha pranali) related to each other either through diksa or siksa extending back to Caitanya Mahaprabhu. At the time, there were a number of diksa lineages that lacked spiritual substance and made more of a trade out of initiation than imparting spirituality. Through preaching and example, Bhaktisiddhanta wanted to dissuade people from being intimidated by disciplic lines that while able to trace their connection to an associate of Mahaprabhu through diksa, had nonetheless over time become corrupt or less than spiritually vital.

Thus the first mistake made by the devotee whose advice you have asked me about is his speculation that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was not initiated. Secondly, he advises you not to be taken in by your experience of someone's apparent spirituality even when it inspires you, but to put more stress on making sure that all the dots are connected from one guru to the previous one through diksa. In saying this he asks you to conclude that someone who is clearly connected on paper but cannot inspire you and has no (spiritual) radiance is better because that person can prove that he is "connected" by guru-pranali. Your advisor has used the example of electricity and says if the wires are not connected, how can there be any (spiritual) current? Good point. However, our point in return is that if there is current, how can the wires not be connected? And if there is no current (apparent spirituality) even though the wires in every other way seem to be connected, perhaps there is another problem.

The Gaudiya Saraswata sampradaya coming through Bhaktivinoda Thakura to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura and his disciples and grand disciples has enough spiritual current to have fulfilled Mahaprabhu's prophecy that his name would be heard in every town and village. Such power of distribution is the right of those who have possession of the commodity they distribute. It requires krsna sakti: krsna sakti vina nahe tara pravartana. What is the sakti that spreads the sankirtana of Mahaprabhu? That is Sri Krsna's svarupa sakti (samvit and hladini sakti), which constitutes bhakti proper (bhava bhakti).

By distributing both the name of Krsna and realized and relevant instructions regarding the means to attain full spiritual experience of the Name, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura and members of his lineage have proven both their connection to the spiritual current descending from Mahaprabhu as well as their own spiritual substance. Still, we should not succumb to the idea that because the line of Bhaktisiddhanta has exhibited such spiritual vitality in the past that any guru in this line must be qualified because the line is qualified. This may not be the case, as Bhaktisiddhanta taught that even though a guru is in a qualified line he or she must still have substantial spiritual realization in order to give diksa and relevant siksa to support the diksa.

Questions or comments may be submitted at the Q&A Forum
http://www.swami.org/sanga/ or email sangaeditor@swami.org.



Does that all the same odd story, that only Saraswata lineage is the bonafide now and, moreover, it still doesn't have respect to all the other vaisnava lineages, especially to babajis?
What do you think it means to be really connected to guru-pranali (the question to the participants of the forum)?

Sincerely,
Jaya Baladeva

Proper initiation; if it was indeed a mere matter of ritual, you would have your contradiction there all right. However, proper initiation is not a matter of ritual. Advancement towards the realm of bhava is both a matter of mercy and a matter of diligent endevor. There is mercy, yes, and it flows down, but those who run around collecting it get the most of it. Proper initiation is concerned with making you an appropriate vessel for receiving that mercy. In other words, when the mercy comes, you'll know what to do with it. Agreed, it is a matter of causeless grace in the end, but who would not wish to do his best to prepare for it?

There is mercy, and there is sadhana. We do not dispose of either of the two, we embrace both.

Following the logic of your first sentence, "It seems from this book that Bhaktisiddhanta has gotten guru-mantra, otherwise how would he dare to give it to his disciples?" How are guru-mantra and siddha-pranali any different? He was a daring man, I'll say that for him.

The passage you cite doesn't say that he is the only one who has received siddha-pranali in rupanuga-line. It merely says that if he wouldn't reveal ekadasa-bhava to others, the rupanuga-line would come to an end. In other words, Narayan Maharaja is suggesting that Bhaktisiddhanta was the last living representative of the rupanuga-tradition. That fits his general rhetoric. I wouldn't rate such claims much beyond humbug.

As for their siddha-pranali, the only well-known version of it that I'm aware of is the one presented by B.H. Bon in his "Vaikunther Pathe", which essentially presents the siddha-pranali of Bhaktivinod, adding Bhaktisiddhanta to the end of it.

Official?



That's a bit over-simplifying the idea. I wonder whether the person asking the question is taking it a bit out of proportion. It is unlikely that people would argue that personal qualification bears absolutely no weight in guru-hood, but only a connection with a diksa-line does. Since the presentation of the question is out of a proper context, we hardly need to discuss Swami's answer.



I do not know of it being given credence, but it hasn't been properly addressed. I have not even seen a single quote from Bhaktisiddhanta where he himself would lay a claim for having received pancaratrika diksa-mantras from Gaurakisora, although I have asked for such a statement at least a dozen times from various Gaudiya Math wallas.



I don't think Swami said anything of the sort. Anyone with half a brain lobe knows that the Saraswata lineage is not the only real lineage.



What do you think being "really connected" to anything means? We'll have to sort that out first. It's obviously a subjective consideration here.

>>Solemnly He replied, “He has certainly done so. Srila Prabhupada has given the identity of the
>>siddha-deha and siksa in bhajana-pranali to some of His qualified disciples; otherwise the Sri
>>Rupanuga line would come to an end. He also mercifully gave this pranali to me.”
Kesava Maharaja states here, that one should physically be connected to guru-pranali and receive siddha-deha, i.e to be connected through diksa only. Otherwise, as he states further, the connection would be lost. So its quite evident, that the diksa is the essential to be connected to the Rupanuga lineage.

But at the same time Swami B. V. Tripurari gives the contradictory statement in this regard.
>>but to put more stress on making sure that all the dots are connected from one guru to the
>>previous one through diksa. In saying this he asks you to conclude that someone who is clearly
>>connected on paper but cannot inspire you and has no (spiritual) radiance is better because that
>>person can prove that he is "connected" by guru-pranali.

So, i think, these contradictory statements of the Swamis really prove that its a subjective consideration of the matter. Just like one could claim that, no one actually is connected to the Rupanuga lineage nowdays. Who can prove that this is a false claim?

Does anyone here is able to provide the concrete evidences from the Gosvamis granthas to substantiate the fact of to be "really connected" to the Rupanuga lineage? Or is it the matter of the subjective consideration only?

The question is what you mean with a real connection with a rupanuga lineage? Diksa-parampara and rupanuga siksa are two separate issues. From the pages of this forum it is clear that Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers deviate from Rupa's teachings as far as eligibility for raganuga bhakti, simultaneous practise in sadhaka- and siddha-deha, shanta rasa and lila smarana are concerned. Such deviants may or may not have a diksa parampara connection with Mahaprabhu's parshadas. Look at Haridas Shastri's people - they teach similar misconceptions, but do have a diksa lineage. As far as the necessity of a diksa lineage is concerned, I found this little text -

diksa kale bhakta kore atma samarpana (Caitanya Caritamrta Antya-lila Chapter 4) "At the time of initiation the devotee surrenders himself." Srila Rupa Gosvami teaches in Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu (1.2.74) that the first of the 64 means of devotion are sri guru padasraya, surrender to a bona fide guru, as well as krsna diksadi siksanam "Initiation and teaching in Krsna-bhakti." The Bhagavata (11.21.15) states 'mantrasya ca parijnanam' - the mantra is purified by the right knowledge". Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti writes in his commentary on this verse that one cannot just take mantras or their purports from books to reach the same effect. sad guru mukhat yathavat parijnanam mantra-suddhih "The mantra is really pure when it emanates from the mouth of a bona-fide guru."

guru vaktrad visnu mantro yasya kare visatyayam;
tam vaisnavam mahaputam pravadanti manisinah

(Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Krsna Janma Khanda 83,34) "The wise call those persons in whose ears the Visnu-mantra enters, as it emanated from the Guru's mouth, greatly sanctified Vaisnavas." Sri Narahari Cakravarti writes about Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's receiving diksa mantra from Sri Isvara Puri: nija diksa mantra tanre karnete kohiya; loilena mantra bhumi pori pranamiya (Bhakti Ratnakara 5, 2103) "Sri Isvara Puri spoke his own diksa mantra into the ear of Nimai, who then fell on the ground in obeisance." Furthermore, in verse 2109 of the same chapter it is said: sampradaya nivista hoile karya siddhi hoy; anyatra diksita mantra nisphala niscoy "Success is achieved after entering a sampradaya (official tradition), otherwise the mantra in which one is 'initiated' certainly won't bear fruit."

adiksitasya vamoru sarvam krtam nirarthakam
pasu yonim avapnoti diksa virahito janah

‘All activities of a person who has no diksa are a waste – an uninitiated person will take birth as an animal.”(Haribhakti Vilasa 2.4)

My subjective experience with being 'connected' with the Saraswata line is that I felt no power from the diksa mantras; nor did I receive any instructions on meditating on the holy name, form, qualiites and pastimes of the Lord; I was confused about the philosophical teachings; I was confused as to whom is my ista-deva, who to worship; I had no proper understanding of the practice of raganuga bhakti; I had lost my faith in the representatives of the Saraswata knowing that there is no raganuga bhakti in that line, although they speak about sometimes.

My possitive subjective experience in practicing bhajan in a pranali line was the incredible power in the diksa mantras; I received instructions in the methods of smaranam; my ista deva became established in my heart; I experienced a transmission of transcendental knowledge within my heart as a result of the initiation; I became firmly acquianted with the understanding and principles of raganuga bhakti according to the teachings of the Goswamis; I gained great faith in the power of advanced Vaisnava association; and I developed a wonderful relatationship with Sri Radha, and Her lake, Radha Kunda.

As a result of this I realized that I had wasted a considerable amount of time in my life with the lifeless Saraswata line of bhajan and I strongly recommend any sincere person wishing to perform authentic worship of the Lord, either in vaidhi bhakti or raganuga to not waste further time, to leave the Saraswata line because the mantras are dead, and take initiation and instructions in bhajan from a Gaudiya Vaisnava saint.

Furthermore, there is a scripture written by Bakadeva Vidyabhusana, Siddhanta Ratna, wherein he states that bhakti descends from the spiritual world into this material world through the 'pranali' or disciplic successsion of devotees, like the Ganga descending in this world like the Mandakini Ganga that circulates in the celestial world and appears as the Ganga in this world.

I actually don't say this for you Jaya Baladeva becuase you like your collegues before you will never accept and will keep arguing till you turn blue in the face despite the input of so many experienced Vaisnavas here. I say this for the really sincere seekers of truth and the ultimate goal of life who are looking for establishing a real genuine connection with the Lord in a loving mood of service in allegience to the teachings of the Goswamis.

In your service
Radhapada Das

He doesn't state anything about diksa, what to speak of diksa only.

At any rate, I don't consider Narayan Maharaja a credible historian, given his lengthy record of twisting facts.




If two people make contradictory statements, that doesn't in itself make any subject matter constitutionally subjective. It may be that one of them is right and the other wrong, or it may be that both are wrong. All it proves is that people are confused.

Besides, there was no clear contradiction between the two statements you cited.



Someone just figured out a concept of "being really connected to a rupanuga line," and now we're supposed to prove its nature from the Gosvami Granthas. Why don't you first demonstrate why this idea should be given thought to begin with. Where do the shastras speak of a rupanuga-line, and where do they speak of "being really connected"?

Before presenting arguments or asking questions, please make sure that they make sense and are well-founded.

Radhe!

dear Radhapada,
thank you for your nectarean advice.
very helpful.





i felt the same.
after i took initiation from SNM i felt still not connected at all.

like many in here, i too left the lineage and came into personal contact with Srila Ananta das Babaji via several letter-exchanges.
he very kindly instructed me in different matters and i honestly have to say that i feel so much strength and mercy flowing towards my heart.
maybe 4 months ago, i put down the Guru-picture of SNM from my altar and replaced it with the picture of Srila Ananta das Babaji ( Babaji Mahasaya said nothing against doing this).
from letter to letter i feel more and more connected to him by his instructions.

as a regular working man i still have the taste and the energy to rise very early and chant sometimes now even up to 20 rounds before leaving to my school where i teach.
this is only by the mercy of Srila Ananta das Babaji. i am not realizing much, but this i know for sure.
since taking shelter at his lotus feet, my bhajan drastically improved ( i can compare 14 years of ISKCON/GM-time). especially in the realm of "what to meditate on", "which granthas to read". Babaji Mahasaya clearly adviced me.
i feel very much connected to Srimati Radhika and especially to her beautiful lake. i know deep in my heart that this is my way.

i am hoping so much to be able to meet Srila Ananta das in person next year.
please bless me that this dream will come true.

thank you all
Tarunji

I would like to echo all the above statements from Radhapada, it's nice to here this from a Guru bhai as it increases my faith to here such accounts. My experience of chanting the diksa mantras after I recieved them in Radha Kunda, was of a power that was certainly not felt in those received from my ISKCON diksa.

Radhe Radhe!
Dear Vaisnavas!

I'm very sorry for you have seen me through my several posts as an orthodoxy and unhopeful devotee.
Moreover, I'm very astonished to see the personal and unreserved biodata and opinions of yours, and this is what actually attracts me to these forums.
In truth, i'm of the same history. For the last 9 years, I've been in ISCKON, Sri Caitanya Saraswat Math, Gaudia Vedanta Samiti as initiated member, but barely could feel any progress, harmony and taste for the spiritual life. To my great luck, being in India for this kartic month, by the of Radharni's mercy, i've gotten association with Srila Ananta das Babaji Maharaj and his dear servitors for two last days only. This association has changed my life as nothing else in this world. I've gotten the highest, long cherished taste to the chanting of the holy name, loving servitude mood to RadhaKrsna and do smarana bhajan under the rasika vaisnava guidance. I can't explain this more expertly as you did just before this post. Only i want is to confirm that all the described in your cases feelings has been experienced by myself in exactly the same way.
I beg your forgiveness for my postings of the ISKCON/GM opinions for “real connection” to the rupanuga linage, which supported only confusion to the practice of the spiritual life, as it was experienced in my case and yours.
All i want now is to get the mercy of Srila Ananta das Babaji Maharaja and His dear servitors. So i want your blessing to attain that mercy.

Thank you for all of these straight and open-minded talks with me and others here.

Sincerely,
Jaya Baladeva das

Radhe!

i am happy for you!

how fortunate you are.

i kind of envy you !
tell something of your meeting with Babaji Mahasaya!

Tarunji

Yes, that feeling of connection is so important, Tarunji. It is about who or what we belong to that forms a major part of our identity. Who are we? The answer to that question is the main thing we get from guru, at least in terms of defining the limits of that identity.

Now that you belong to Radha and Radha Kund, all your other identities are secondary.

Radhe!

thanks, dear Jagat.
i really feel like that.

you always find comforting words.

Jay Sri Radhe!

ys
Tarunji

PS:
still chanting "manasic japa" with great bliss...body straight, lotus asana...

Jaya Radhe, dear friends, I ve been given some thought about this subject matter. you know, evaluate all sides of the diamond.
at first sight, the impression is that swarupa jiva is only a question of interpretation or (mis) .
But, might be also some consequences.
If there is no need of rasika association to wake up the ( dormant) love. then, I guess, the logical conclusion is that we dont need to read rasika granthas. (ring a bell here)
If not, even in the beggining of the process we have to open gosvamis litterature otherwise they will not be able to understand. (and may be they can be averse after sometime)
please, any comments here ?
phulla

Radhe Radhe!

well in short, i really didn't expect to meet Babaji Maharaja for it was beyond my power to get His direct darsan, that was arranged by the mercy of Srimati Radhika, so some how or other one devotee very secretly managed my meeting with Him at Radhakund, for it is somewhat forbidden to meet Him in GM. Actually, that mature devotee also has been touched to the core of his heart by the divine association with Babaji Maharaja, that soon will get diksa from Him. I talked with Srila Ananta das Babaji Maharaja about how to perfect my bhajan and develop manjari bhav properly and He replied on these questions in the most expert and perfect way, as a result the clouds of doubts and misunderstandings has dissipated from my heart. Moreover through His books i couldn't measure the level of expertise in Goswami Granthas, so reading them is like the sweet direct and personal association with Him. Actually these feelings quite hard to explain in words, but i think that any sincere devotee can feel that by getting His most purifying association.

Sincerely,
Jaya Baladeva das