Sri Guru Tattva Vijnana and Sri Bhakta Tattva Vijnana -

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Last night I read Sri Guru Tattva Vijnana and Sri Bhakta Tattva Vijnana... incredible book to say the least. Afterwards I read bits and pieces of several books and I can definetley understand why devotees claim that Narayan Maharaja borrows quite a bit from Sri Ananta das Baba's books.

At one point I read a paragraph that I remembered from a paper by BR Sridhar Maharaja's people to show the differences between NM and BR Sridhar Maharaja. The quote they gave from one of NM's books was almost word for word what I read in Baba's books. Interesting to say the least.

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Radhe!

check out SNM collected lectures about Sri Vilapa Kusumanjali....



Tarunji

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

How do I say this without it coming off bad... I met him on a few occasions and he was always incredibly sweet to me. I hosted him once and then visited him for a private meeting on another occasion but… his followers… are a bit much for me (to say the least) and I just prefer to stay away from that whole situation.

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

It is also quite a good book to read. I'd like to discuss some issues arising in that text as soon as my computer is up and running.

I have problems understanding the above paragraph.


What does this mean precisely and how can I easily understand it? Also, wouldn't this sentence be seen to contradict BG 7.21 and 15.15?


How can this be so if "He who teaches as the antaryAmi is not perceivable"?

I understand how BilvamaGgala would be considered greater than HanumAn on account of the worshipable object, but I fail to understand how he could be greater than PuNDarIka when he is a noted worshipper of ZrI ViTThala. ViTThala is the deity of the Pandharpura shrine and is none other than Krishna. Thus, what is the real difference between BilvamaGgala and PuNDarIka when they both worship ZrI kRSNa?

It's quite possible that since ViTThala is worshipped as the consort of Rukmini (and the legend confirms this), it can be said that worship of ViTThala kRSNa is "inferior" in that it is aizvarya-bhAva and not the mAdhurya-bhAva that is associated with ZyAmasundara kRSNA.
Perhaps this then brings up the question of BilvamaGgala's rasa; what is it and how can we tell?

As in Brahma-samhita, hRdayeSu ... zyAmazundaram ... In tattva there is no difference, and hence no contradiction with the Gita. The iSTadeva is always in the heart of the bhakta, and as zyAmazundara is the avatArin, the functions of the various aGga are fulfilled without separate endeavor.

If there is anything else unclear, please specify it.



Not perceivable, as in "not seen through sensory perception, unlike the guru who is physically present among us".

I still don't get it, sorry. Could you just kindly run through the whole para of Ananta das Pandit's text with explanations for thickos like me?

I just noticed this portion of Madhava's translation of Visvanatha Cakravarti's Bhagavatamrita-kana:

atha bhAgavatAs te--

mArkaNDeyo'mbarISaz ca vasur vyAso vibhISaNaH |
puNDarIko baliH zambhuH prahlAdo viduro dhruvaH ||
dAlbhyaH parAzaro bhISmo nAradAdyAz ca vaiSNavaiH |
sevyA hariM niSevyAmI no ced AgaH paraM bhavet || (laghu-bhAg. 2.2 / padma-purAna)

Then, the bhagavatas (devotees) --

"Markandeya, Ambarisa, Vasu, Vyasa, Vibhisana, Pundarika, Bali, Sambhu, Prahlada, Vidura, Dhruva, Dalbhya, Parasara, Bhisma, Narada and others are servants of Vishnu. I serve them as I serve Hari, for otherwise the greatest offence is committed."

It seems that the PuNDarIka mentioned here might be the same PuNDarIka referred to by Ananta das Pandit? His inclusion amongst all those ancient figures suggests that this PuNDarIka is also ancient and thus may not be the famous devotee of ViTThala; if so, then with more information about him and his "rasa" I might be able to understand Ananta das Pandit's point better.

That's certainly the same ancient Pundarika. Pundarika is also mentioned along with Iksvaku and Srutadeva in BRS 3.2.29 as an example of sevA-niSTha. The chapter discusses prIti-bhakti-rasa, or dAsya-rasa as we like to call it.

In his tIka on Bhag. 2.9.16, Bhaktivedanta Swami mentions the following individuals as gatekeepers of Vaikuntha: Kumuda, KumudAkSa, PuNDarIka, VAmana, zaGkukarNa, Sarvanetra, Sumukha. He refers to Padma-purana, Uttara-khanda, but gives no specific verses. Look that up if you will.

There is also a cowherd boy with the name Pundarika, but I doubt the texts refer to him, particularly BRS 3.2.29.

Let's give it a try. I'm commenting on the Bengali text for your convenience. You can then see the original terminology used.

= = = = =

zikSAguruke ta jAni kRSNera svarUpa |
antaryAmI bhaktazreSTha ei dui rUpa || caiH caH 1.1.47 ||

I know the instructing guru to be the svarUpa of kRSNa. His two forms are antaryAmI (the indwelling Lord) and bhakta-zreSTha (the great devotee).

eivAkye jAnA yAya, antaryAmI o bhaktazreSTha ei dui prakAra zikSAgurura madhye yini antaryAmirUpe zikSA dena, tini pratyakSa hana nA ; tAMke caityaguru balA haya |

From these words of the Caitanya Caritamrita, we know that both antaryAmI and bhakta-zreSTha teach people. However, as we know from the 58th verse of the same chapter (jIve zAkSAt nahe tate guru caitya rUpa), the antaryAmI, or the caitya-guru, is not within the range of the jIva's direct sensory perception.

yini paramAtmArUpe bhaktera hRdayera niyAmaka nana | sutarAM tini bhaktera caityagururUpe zikSA pradAna karena nA |

He, who appears in the form of paramAtma as the regulator of the ways of all living beings in this world, does not reside in the heart of the devotee as the caitya-guru to instruct him. After all, how would a plenary aspect (aMzAmza) of viSNu instruct one in the ways of vraja-bhAva? Also, would the loving bhakta be content in perceiving any other form of Bhagavan than his beloved iSTadeva?

ye bhagavatsvarUpa ye bhaktera iSTadevarUpe pUjita hana, sei bhagavatsvarUpai sei bhaktera antaryAmI, zikSAgururUpe citte AvirbhUta haye nija viSayaka bhAvavizeSera rItinItira preraNAdvAre zikSA diye thAkena |

Therefore that particular form of Bhagavan, which the loving bhakta worships as his iSTadeva (the heart's chosen deity), appears as the bhakta's antaryAmI, and acts as the inner instructor and through revelation instructs the devotee in the know-how of bhajana in accordance with the bhakta's specific bhAva. After all, who would be better suitable in inspiring the bhakta in the ways of bhajana than his very own iSTadeva?

AbAra bhaktazreSTharUpe bAire yini pratyakSabhAve ziSyake bhajanazikSA diye thAkena, tinio svarUpataH zrIkRSNai |

That bhaktazreSTha, the great devotee, who appears to the practicing devotee as a guru he can concretely perceive, and who instructs his disciple in the ways of bhajana, is also a svarUpa of zrI kRSNa. More specifically, we must take that guru to be a manifestation of that particular bhagavat-svarUpa whom the disciple has accepted within his heart as his iSTadeva, since such a guru paves the way for us to attain our particular cherished spiritual aspirations. We must accept such a guru as a special manifestation of our iSTadeva for our deliverance and enlightenment.

= = = = =

I hope that clarifies the matter somewhat. If there is still something unclear, please specify what is unclear.

As for how it can be zrI-gopIjanavallabha instead of paramAtma instructing in the heart, you can think of a professor dropping in to give a class at the junior level. If there is a class of juniors keenly reading up on quantum physics, and the professor, who normally spends his time in the archives of the university enjoying his life, has a bit of spare time, he can come in and tutor the kids to better grasp such lofty concepts. The junior grade teacher and the professor are both manifestations of the system of education (guru-tattva), so there is no contradiction in terms there, although customarily professors don't teach at the junior grade.

I'm out for the weekend and will be back in office on Monday, so if there's something unclear you'll have to survive until then.

These are great answers, thanks. If PuNDarIka is a gatekeeper of ViSNu then it automatically follows that he will be in dAsya-rasa as a ViSNu-worshipper. So now I can understand Panditji's point in the comparison betwen PuNDarIka and BilvamaGgala; the latter is "higher" than the former because the latter worships KRSNa the aMzI whereas the former worships ViSNu the aMzA.


This is exactly the same question that cropped up in my mind after reading your second post! I can only ask if there is a zAstric statement or precedent of some sort that can backup this idea of a change in antaryAmIs?

Guess I'll have to wait until Monday.

Precedents are everywhere. Just peek in and see who's lurking there.

I don't have the time to dig up references right now, but you shouldn't have a hard time finding statements where someone declares how Gaura or Krishna are their prANanAtha, how They are in their heart of hearts, and all of that.

Consider this: You are in a dilemma. Do you pray, "O paramAtma, you indwelling witness, the guide of our ways in this material world, please guide me through these difficult times, show me the way," or "O kRSNa, O rAdhArANI, please illuminate the path to the shelter of your lotus feet, guide me through these difficult times and bestow your sevA untto me"? Which one shall it be? And if you pray like this, who will reply? Of course the one to whom you are praying. As you approach, so He will respond.

If I have to throw in a zloka to be cool, I guess this one will do:

tvaM bhakti-yoga-paribhAvita-hRt-saroja
Asse zrutekSita-patho nanu nAtha puMsAm |
yad-yad-dhiyA ta urugAya vibhAvayanti
tat-tad-vapuH praNayase sad-anugrahAya || Bhag. 3.9.11 ||

"O Master, those who are fully absorbed bhakti-yoga see You through their ears (by hearing about you), and You reside on the lotus of their heart. On whichever of your glorious forms they meditate on, in that very same form You manifest Yourself to them, showing your kindness."

Is that all right?

Now, over and out.

Just fantastic!

the difference is between impersonal paramatma guiding and giving karma,
to that function changing for the realized soul,
at the realized stage the impersonal guide and karmic distributor is replaced
by the personal one on one rasa with the form of Bhagavan that is appropriate,
Same God closer relationship.
As He states,




when madhava said



instead of junior grade teacher and professor,the difference is only in the manifestation of closeness,
same professor,same class,just takes off his tie and gets chummy,
in that sense it's a different person/same person,paramatma
reveals another level ,paramatma is an amsa only in the sense
that he/she is a partial manifestation,the same person as gopijanavallabha
but not acting in that capacity,a lesser display of the same person,
so in that sense paramatma is an amsa, and the devotee when realized then
paramatma reveals the full personality.