Mercy Of The Vaisnavas - late night thoughts

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Just some late night thoughts: As Vaisnavas we understand that it is only by the grace of Guru and the Vaisnavas that we draw the attention of Sri Radhika. In the Caitanya-Caritamrta Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja submits his plea for the mercy of the Vaisnavas and their dear lordships:

vande ham sri-guroh sri yuta-pada-kamalam sri-gurun vaisnavams ca sri-rupam sagrajatam
saha-gana-raghunathan vitam tam sa jivam sadvaitam savadhutam parijana-sahitam
sri-krsna-caitanya-devam sri-radha-krsna-padan saha-gana-lalita-sri-visakhanvitams ca

I offer my obeisances unto the lotus feet of my Guru and to all the preceptors on the path of devotion. I offer my obeisances unto all the Vaishnavas and to Sri Rupa Goswami and his associates Raghunatha dasa, and Sri Jiva. I offer my obeisances to Advaita Acarya, Nityananda Avadhuta, Gadadhara Pundit, and to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu with all his devotees, headed by Srivasa Thakura. I then offer my obeisances to the lotus feet of Sri Radha and Sri Krishna, and all the gopis headed by Lalita and Visakha.

Recently I have been meditating on this verse. Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja makes it clear that you cannot separate the sadhikas from the Vaisnava concept of divinity. By associating with, and serving, the Vaisnavas one gets the unique opportunity to soften the heart and gain the grace of the Vaisnavas. However, this important aspect of our devotional life is also filled with danger if we do not take great caution in the devotees we associate with and the way we view those outside of our inner circle.

It is interesting to me that so many aspiring Vaisnavas do not see the very real danger in criticizing other aspiring Vaisnavas. Just a quick scan of the many Vaisnava weblogs and message boards reveals a tremendous amount of time and effort being put forth to slander, attack and discredit one another. Many times when you do find a glorification it is unfortunately made with either backhand compliments or the famous “However” clause. Why is that?

I don’t desire a fantasy world where everyone “gets along”. I do however desire a world where Vaisnavas spend more time seeing the good in one another than in seeking out and highlighting what they perceive to be the faults of the other. I do believe that there are ways to express differences and even faults, or apparent faults, but it takes a certain amount of humility, maturity and tact that we often ignore. If names are brought up of devotees or organizations in which we don’t agree why is out general response not to too either keep quiet or simply offer a kind word? Now if someone were to ask someone’s personal opinion on an individual or organization one could simply offer it while remaining complimentary of the good qualities and conservative, yet honest, about what they perceive to be their shortcomings. Isn’t this a better route for an aspiring Vaisnava to take?

Devotional life is not devoid of individuality or taste. In fact individuality, and our respective tastes, are key and undeniable traits of each individual and play a strong role in both our theological leanings and ultimately our approach and particular tastes for bhajan. It is not expected that every Vaisnava will share the same angles of vision, taste or even, to some degree, interpretation of scripture. If we study the great Vaisnava Acharyas and Mahajans we will find that this is not a new dynamic although as Vaisnavism has expanded into different cultures it has widened greatly. So in some respects we are facing challenges unique to the twenty first century. The internet has also allowed us to take the personalism out of a personal theology.

At times even the words of the great servants of Sri Radhika and Mahaprabhu seem to contradict one another, and at times, their words may even be directly pointed at one another in direct or indirect criticisms. These words and criticisms should never be seen as subject matter for loose conversation. We may take these words to be a clear indicator of who not to associate with but we should never view these words as acceptable topics for us to discuss openly and without delicate words. As much as a follower of a particular sadhika is naturally going to take on the mood and share the taste of their particular guardian it does not mean that we are free to make the same judgments and most importantly the same statements.

As aspiring sadhikas we have no choice but to take on this very danger head on in our daily lives. If we commit offenses to a Vaisnava then we become unfit to render devotional service. Even if we manage to keep up firm disciplines, seemingly strong sadhana and appear to be progressing in spiritual life the offenses to the Vaisnavas will result in Srimati Rhadarani being unmoved by our practices and offerings.

Our ability to give up sadhu-ninda should be foremost in our minds especially when discussing delicate topic and more importantly other Vaisnavas. One thing that all Acaryas do agree upon is offenses committed to the Vaishnavas removes one from the service of Srimati Radharani. As we understand that service is conducted under her direction it becomes very clear that to offend her disqualifies one from her service. This is a critical point that should be on our mind when we talk to one another and discuss differences between different groups. If the essence of our service and practices is radha-dasyam then to commits offenses to the Vaishnavas would be equivalent to spiritual suicide.

This has been a strong thought in my mind over the last few days even as I participate in this website. Since joining I have met many wonderful, caring and advanced Vaisnavas. Of all of the sites out there I would say this is the one I find most intellectually and spiritually stimulating. At the same time it seems like even here a thread pronouncing Swami A as a sahajya or Swami B as being bereft of real initiation is like the dumping a bucket of blood in the tank of hungry sharks. Such a thread would be 5 pages in length within 3 hours. The passion put into these posts would be stunning.

Why is that? Why do we love to debate other devotees character and worth? Again I don’t believe that we shouldn’t see differences or point them out when needed. When we perceive something to not be in line with the Goswami’s doctrines we can make a statement but isn’t there a more productive and Vaisnava way to approach such situations?

Why is it so hard to appreciate one another? To want to glorify someone who we may not agree with in all regards without the famous however clause? It just stuns me that we so freely throw around what we perceive to be the disqualifications, lack of sincerity or advancement of devotees that we don’t really know. Why aren't we at least as passionate to highlight others sacrifice? Sincereity?

As aspiring Vaisnavas we must not just theoretically embrace humility but force it into our heart. Mahaprabhu clearly denounces insults directed at Vaishnava devotees and the Goswami’s teachings clearly underscore the gravity of vaisnava-aparadha. In Caitanya-caritamrta, it is stated that if a devotee commits offenses to the devotees it is like a mad elephant uprooting ones creeper of devotion. This leaves our devotional practices and disciplines devoid of meaning as Srimati Radharani’s mercy comes through the Vaisnavas. In the event we do offend a Vaisnava or speak ill of someone in an indiscriminate or incorrect manner we need to beg forgiveness and admit our shortcomings. Only if that specific Vaisnava forgives us will Srimati Rhadarani accept our service again. The point of my ‘rant’ is that we shouldn’t underestimate how dangerous it can be when exchanging on such delicate topics.

Again I don’t promote that we blindly embrace one another and confront philosophical differences; just that we do it with extreme care and respect for one another. As my Mother often said but failed to practice: It isn’t always what you do but how you do it.

Anyhow just some late night thoughts. It saddens me that we seem more excited to speak about our differences than our appreciations for one another. The point of my post isn’t to preach to anyone here as most of you have a depth of knowledge and realization in our philosophy that I don’t know I will ever attain. I just wanted to offer words to encourage myself, and anyone that cares to listen, that our ability to appreciate one another will play a large role in our ability to soften our hearts and become a servant of Sri Guru, Mahaprabhu and Sri Radhika. Whereas our tendency to see fault in one another will only serve to harden our hearts.

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Your thoughts are certainly worthy of deep consideration. The best way to avoid offences is to keep silent. And there are many who keep silent, visit websites without contributing. In the end-result that may be the smart thing to do. However, in that situation one is also bereft of a growth-opportunity. I see it in such a light: Learning by doing, including learning by making mistakes. I do not see the offence-situation as an absolute thing, certainly not on our level. Madhava made a pertinent remark on some other thread, saying something like: those who take offence easiest, that offence is not really an offence. Real vaishnavas hardly notice an offence has been comitted.

Two more thoughts:
1)The nature of the Internet as a communication platform, and 2) the kind of attitude involved in offensive talk.

1) If we lived in the Holy Dham together, meaning everyone at his or her place, without Internet, without electronic means of comunication, leading just a basic life-style, somewhere apart, as we are apart now, but crossing each other's path occasionally, we would not have much opportunity to share and express views, there would be hardly any offences expressed in objective ways such as in writing. The Internet has such a lure for quick statements that one would ordinarily not write and publish in a book. Controversy seems to be the spice of life, especially also of devotional life, because for some reason everyone feels entitled to an opinion and to express that opinion as though it is of deep philosophical insight and value. It is part of the fantasy of democrazy that we carry around in our minds. I am sure many Indian bhaktas serving in Maths and at the feet of their gurudevas would not consider themselves fit to participate in such discussions. It is our idea that we are fit and entitled to it. I am not negating this entitlement here, I am just discussing it. I think it is part of the nature of the Internet, plus the individuality of our mental developments, that combines in this way that it turns out to this rather difficult situation of mis-stating our views and opinions, of creating misunderstandings, and of being misunderstood.

This is especially also there, where we see ourselves in the face of a vital, existential choice, and most of us are in such situation. We have made or are making choices about which side we are on, who we are with and who not. Krsnadas Kaviraja had it easy in this sense. I may be corrected, but at his time there was not that much division visible yet, and if it was, it was debatable. We are standing in the face of so much division, and everything more or less clearly expressed in websites and forums--- I wonder how Krsnadasji would have written his introductory glorifying verses under these circumstances.

2) My second thought is about the approach, the attitude that leads often into modes of speaking which can be seen as offensive to each other. I think it is often the spirit of exhortation which leads to confrontation. Someone is concerned by some observation and feels the need to tell others how it should be. This leads to appellative statements, pointing to faults in others, to deficiencies, lack of something. If the other would correct that, and he/she just needs to be informed about what's wrong, then everything would be fine. Unfortunately everyone thinks like that, everyone seems to know best what everyone else should be doing and what he/she should omit.

Where does this come from? We are engaged in pursuits with an ethical implication, in developing an understanding that applies to daily actions. We are not just philosophers trying to find the truth. We are actually Moralists (with a capital M), since we try to live by what we think, and we tend to think that our choice should also be most everyone else's choice. Where the insights or arguments (shastra quotations and interpretations etc) are challenged or neglected by others, we feel a need for intervention, to clarify our position.

I feel most of us entertain an over-confidence into the power of the word to convince others. The philosophical discipline called hermeneutics (and other forms of communication analysis) shows that we way overrate our verbal communication abilities. Understanding is a much more complex process, and it is especially more complex to translate understanding into instructions how to act.

Generally we assume, and I think you do that here to, dear Rasaraja dasji, that we just need to explain something and that will change someone, in that that person will act or speak differently. In reality, however, there are worlds between the two fields, understanding, and action.

In a way I am now getting into this thing myself, thinking, that if my explanations are sharp enough, I might be understood better and that might change the readers' understanding of themselves which might lead to a different way of doing things. But it is not automatically happening. Most of our action-oriented speeches remain on the understanding-misunderstanding basis. I think just to see and acknowledge that is a step ahead. As a conclusion for myself I see the need to remind myself to remain always descriptive as much as possible, and not to become appellative. By appealing to your inner moralist "please do this, don't do that", I am overstepping a limit, and that is your own understanding, your own cogitation process, that leads you to act in a certain way. On the understanding-side there is also one's choice of belief-system (guru, organisation, parivar etc) included -- or whether that is part of the action side that feeds back into understanding, that is open to debate.

It is getting complex where mere description is seen as offensive. The reader then reacts action-oriented, appellative: "you should not say this- this is an offence to XYZ".

The point this analysis leads to is that the rules of intellectual discourse (the understanding side) cannot be enforced, if we exclude the appellative, action-oriented speech, the moralist approach. The rules again can only be described, in the hope that everyone gets it and acts accordingly. I see Madhavaji doing this most of the time. And that is the special feature, quality and qualification of this website.

Jai Nitai

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Just a quick thought in between meetings...

I do agree that we are in a different situation then what many faced before in regards to both our mediums for communication and most importantly philosophical variance. This will inadvertently lead to more head butting. My main sentiment is that we balance such analysis of differences and discussion of philosophical points with a genuine appreciation for one another as aspiring sadhikas. That we change our mentality of looking for something to disagree on before looking for shared values and ideals. Again I don’t challenge the need to confront differences but just the mentality and process in which we do so. Many times it often becomes overtly critical, harsh and demeaning.

The other day I ventured over to Saraswata.Net and was amazed at the venom and lackadaisical approach to addressing one another as Vaisnavas that this particular site had fallen too. I agree in all respects that the devotees here are much more cultured and respectful of one another. At the same time I think we could and quiet frankly should do more to appreciate one another and offer true respect.

Finally as Vaisnavas our aim in discussing philosophical differences shouldn’t be to flex our muscles and show our intellectual superiority over one another. It should be done out of compassion, respect and appreciation for one another as aspiring sadhikas.

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Dear Rasarajaji and Nabadipji, may I compliment you both on the high level of your realization! I hope to be like you both one day. I had better start practicing now.

Dandavat Pranama,

This is indeed a very nice post and it's something that I also think about a lot. I know that we are in Kali-Yuga and that arguing and quarreling is one of the many symptoms of this age but really, to see vaisnavas, who are supposed to be tolerant as can be, arguing with each other over what are a lot of the time small irrelevant facts does seem very wrong. And above that, it is not at all uplifting or motivating for the people that get in touch with KC. Personally, I have felt depressed about this and every time I see arguing and namecalling it drives a spear right through my heart.

servant of the servants
crimal

Well Gaursundarji, you show your realizations in practice, you have no reason to speak about it. Your contributions are so mild and well balanced, you are the one I need to learn from. On the other hand I realize, I can only work with my own tools (my gifts and wants), I cannot assume another's role. And here comes in, Rasaraj ji, what you are saying, I can appreciate you, see the positive you bring into discussion, and at the same time disagree with some subtlety in some point, for instance



these are values that we have no command over in another, we do not even have control over them in ourselves. They are flowing from practice, like concomitant factors of our actions. One certainly can practise them consciously, and I would like to invite you to share your thoughts about how you practise humility, compassion, respect, and appreciation more consciously, not just in words, but in actual deeds so that I could acquire that understanding and practise it too from moment to moment. How do you practically go about it to bring these values into your actions, without verbalizing them?

I think there is a danger in formalizing expressions of obeisances like it is done in other places, where it has become a formula of beginning any letter or public address. As an individual I can concentrate on the deeper meaning of the formula, but through habit it tends to become devaluated due to unconscious overuse.

Who was it, Sanatana Goswamiji, or all the Goswamis who where in the habit of giving dandavats to everyone and everything throughout the day? Maybe I should start to give actual dandavat-prostration (not just the word-formula) to my PC before opening a website, that would help to establish the right type of consciousness and awareness...

But again, this cannot be enforced on anyone else. It remains their own work of insight, of growth, to feel a need for it, otherwise it is just again superimposed, and becomes artificial.

I bow to Sri Nitai in you all.

Couldn't the same objection be raised against any practice that is not spontaneous or heart-felt? I agree with the objection to the "jargonizing" effect but forcing oneself to follow a certain protocol must have some value or else there wouldn't be injunctions to perform any practice.

I sometimes wonder whether I need a 12-step process to break out of my own cynical and offensive behavior--first admitting that it is a disease. One of the most wonderful Bhagavatam lectures I ever heard was at the Krishna Balarama Mandir. The previous morning a speaker had quoted a controversial person in class and a loud argument had ensued as a member of the audience objected. The following morning, Gopiparanadhana was scheduled to speak. He is not known for any sort of political bent at all. In my experience, he is a sedate and scholarly person with a humble demeanor. His entire class was on the topic of api cet su-duracaro, quoting extensively from the acaryas. The class was truly enlightening and was probably the first time I understood the degree to which a bhakta is to be respected. By chance, I read the same passages last night in Ananta Das Baba's Siksastakam.

Could you comment a little more on that? (I do not have a copy of that book - or is it readable online?)

I'm not sure if it is or not. Here's the section though, from a list of the ten offenses:

1) Sadhu-ninda (blaspheming the saint):

Blaspheming the saint is a grave offense, and is called mahad aparadha. A sadhu is a devotee of God through whose preaching the holy name has become world famous. How can the holy name tolerate the blasphemy of such a person? Many people think there is no harm in discussing the fault of some devotee who is engaged in wicked activities, because that criticism is true and justified, but Sripad Sridhara Swami writes in his commentary on Srimad Bhagavata: nindanam dosa kirtanam--"There is no question of whether the devotee who is under discussion is at fault or not, speaking bad about such a person is called blasphemy." It is natural that we wonder: "Who are these devotees, offending whom we commit an offense to the holy name?" In his book Madhurya Kadambini, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti gives the answer: "It is not proper to think that only those devotees who are merciful, nonviolent, tolerant, etc., are to be considered saints, and that those who are not endowed with such qualities are not saints, and that one can thus blaspheme them without committing an offense to the holy name. Actually, anyone who worships God, be he deceitful, ill-behaved, hypocritical and unclean, is a saint, and to blaspheme or criticise such a person is an offense to the holy name. Sri Krsna himself says in the Bhagavad-gita (9.30):

api cet suduracaro bhajate mam ananya bhak
sadhur eva sa mantavyah samyag vyavasito hi sah

"Even if one commits the most abominable activities, he is to be considered a saint when he exclusively worships me, for he is on the right path." Those who have fixed the thought in their mind, "I will be blessed by worshipping the Supreme Lord", and who do not worship demigods, but only the Supreme Lord, are saints, even if they misbehave, and to criticise even them is an offense to the holy name.

--Sri-Sri Siksatakam, Ananta das Babaji Maharaja

I appreciate this text contribution of yours. What I meant with comments was actually your personal insights about it.

But can we have a look at this text as you gave it here?



What is said is that faults of devotees engaged in wicked avtivites, when discussed are blasphemy.

According to this then less grave observations would not be blasphemic: that is when it is not about faults in wicked activities, which would apply to most of our discussions.

To my understanding, Sri Visvanath Cakravarti, just extends the scope of persons concerned by saying



If I get this right, Sri Visvanath takes the definition of blasphemy given above and applies it to everyone who is an exclusive worshiper of Sri Krsna, even if he engages in wicked activities such and such.

So this whole thing only applies to discussing faults in wicked activities named above, and not to discussing major or minor deviations or disagreements of common activities. Or does it mean: faults in wicked activities discussed are blasphemy, what to speak of minor errors in common activities?

What is your conclusion?

A conclusion? Gosh, maybe I do need to reveal more of myself here: I am a quivering mass of uncertainties. I don't know anything of conclusions. All is flux.

And to be honest, my comments were really an aside and I have to apologize for that. I tend to do that quite often, especially when it's a topic related to something that I have an interest in.



Again, I have to admit that I didn't post that in direct response to the thread. But, in any case, I take it to mean the latter--that even the most objectionable actions are not fodder for criticism, what to speak of small faults, AND what so speak of the benefit of praising and serving anyone who accepts Krsna as the goal of their life!

Now, as far as relating this all to the thread at hand: yes, it is complex--how to discuss differences, deviations, etc., without falling into the trap of sadhu ninda. First of all, I go back to your post regarding over-estimation of the power of words, and add that we often have an over-estimation of philosophy. (Didn't you just post something on this also? Hmm. No wonder I have trouble staying on topic--too many wise souls lauching interesting ideas around here.)

Not many of us are convinced by philosophy yet we use it to feel good about ourselves, beat others over the head, etc. The motivation is often wrong and it is in the motivation where the offense, or lack thereof, lies. And perhaps not just the motivation but also in the context of how and where we wield our philosophy, how others are affected by it.

I need to mull this over some more but that's my inconclusion.

(There is an interesting mp3 on madrasisbaba.org where someone asks Krsna Das Baba about Radharamana Charan Das Baba. The questioner seems to be asking about some of the heterodox teachings of RCDB but KDB seems to sidestep the differences altogether and instead starts speaking praises of RCDB. At least, that's how I remember it. I'll try and listen to it again and edit this if necessary. Or maybe the questioner is a local here? In any case, seeing sadacara in practice and hearing about it stimulates my desire to follow the sadhu marg.)

Some of it is online at http://www.krishnacaitanya.com/ .

Oh, don't worry brajaji, you think I am any more stable than you are? I am a cloud of unknowing, a bunch of energy moving, hopefully in the right direction.
But if your inconclusion is correct (who knows? Paramatma? Madhava?!) we'd better stop posting on the internet, or we're moving one step forward and two steps backward... there this little guy is sitting in the heart counting all the offences.(Does he have enough fingers to count on?). No wonder bhaktas are supposed to chant laks of names, to make a little headway... I wonder how many offences I have committed with this one posting here...

I wonder though how far we can live in a constant fear of aparadha. If we write something on the internet, perhaps we make aparadha, so it is perhaps better not to write. And then, if we are in an assembly and say something, we might make an aparadha, so it is better that we stay silent in assemblies. And then, if we discuss with a friend, we might make an aparadha, so it is better to not talk with friends either. And then, if we sit down and think, we might think in an offensive way, so it is better not to think. And if we glance, we might lead another to think that we ridicule him since perhaps we are staring at something we find amusing in his appearance, so it is better that we close our eyes. But then again, someone may be offended by the fact that we don't look at him, so this is evidently a dilemma, since we are bound to make aparadha either way. And even if we do not make aparadha, if we serve Krishna and someone notices that, they may make aparadha because they do not believe likewise, and that will not be good for them. So it is better to stay inside all the time. But then again someone may make an aparadha by blaming the devotees for never showing up among the common men, and that would not be good for them, and also not for us. So perhaps it would be better to not exist at all. Then there would be no conscious self to roam around making aparadha. And then again...

Sure, shoot down my reverie!

But really, if we had the self-control to think before acting--"to fear"--and if we were conscious of the glories of anyone who has accepted Krsna as their Lord, how could that result in anything negative?



(- Sanatana Siksa 53-54, Ananta Das Baba)

That is relief, beauty, a natural state. But yeah, it would probably reduce internet traffic somewhat.

I'm trying to come up with a motto for internet participation: "Behave like a sadhu...or a scholar...or a civilized person...failing that, at least be funny."

I'm just concerned over the potential for a "baby out with the bath-water" approach.

One peculiar phenomena I've observed in this regard is people abstaining from a certain activity to not be offensive, but all the while talking about how those who engage in a certain activity must be very offensive. As in the story of the priest and the prostitute at the time of death.

Not that I'm saying that's going on here. Pardon me my absorption in theories.

Never heard that priest story. Mind giving a quick recap?

The priest and the prostitute lived on the opposite sides of the street. The priest was always thinking how sinful the prostitute was, while the prostitute was lamenting how she is so fallen and crying for the help of Hari. Both died at the same time, and both Vishnudutas and Yamadutas descended from the sky. The priest thought, "Just see, she gets what she deserves." Not surprisingly, the Yamadutas came for the priest who had been absorbed in thoughts of the sins of others all his life, while the Vishnudutas reached out for the prostitute who had been engaged with earnest intent all the while, regardless of the faults of her work. That's the gist of it. I'm sure you've heard the story.

Don't you think there is a differentiation between A) the sadhaka in the holy Dham, doing bhajan in his kutir and following a particular strict sadhana, and B) the Intenet-savy vaishnava out in the world, confronted with many different ideas, concepts, types of behaviour, choices, demands, duties etc.?

I do not mean to say that there should be double or two types of standards, but that there is a more flexible view on this possible. If I may return to the original quotation that braja brought in, it is about criticism of faults in wicked activities that are called blasphemy. It was not really discussed by us why and how far any kind of discussion of someone's activity gains an equal status with such blasphemy. We just assume it to be so, that any sort of discussion of an activity is addressed.

Isn't it that this standard of abstinence from talk of another Vaishnava is really a most welcome attitude of anyone engaged in constant bhajan and hari-katha, because there even the smallest deviation from one's bhajan may make itself felt strongly in the heart, as an obstacle? That is certainly true for us too, as often a feeling of guilt or an uneasiness may come up in one's heart when speaking about someone in non-glorifying terms. However, we may feel the need to adjust to so many different things, that it is inevitable to confront, take a position, and address. We may not have the liberty and ability to behave like a mahatma in the holy dham at all times, and not address, not take position, but be wise and silent.

If we keep in mind and in heart that it is the ideal, and we remind each other frequently enough about it, as Rasaraj das has done here and we continue to echo as we talk about it, then, I think, we can still live in and address the issues of the complex world, and act in a mature way, which means to take the risk of imperfection in our behaviour.

I'd like to illustrate the situation with an understanding of Western humanistic Astrology. In Astrology the 12 different houses of mundane activities are divided into four quadrants. Someone who stresses the qualities and acitivities of the last, the fourth quadrant (houses 10,11,12) is said to want to be in heaven with its ideals, depolarization of duality and transcendence, away from involvement with the world, with becoming guilty and going thru the process of maturation. What I want to say is, that sadhakas in the Holy Dham are transcendentalists in the sense that they have given up the world, while we are still in the world going thru processes of finding out what is what, with adjustment, and learning by doing, by trial and error. We are also heading for the ideal, some of us too fast ahead grasping the ideal and wielding it like a weapen to threaten others with, others approaching it carefully step by step.

Shastra is often absolute, speaking of and from the ideal world. Can we see it as it is: the ideal, and still accept our involvement in the world which requires its own kind of adjustment, growth, and a learning process?

Jai Nitai to all of you, dear readers.

(OK, having gone this far out on a limb, I may as well proceed--and either hit the ground with a thud or find another limb to swing from.)

Certainly, there is a major difference. And I think you have highlighted a major issue of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the modern era--even prominent acraryas have apparently not behaved according to this "classical" or scriptural type of sadacara when they were not in a Vraja-like/bhajan-rich environment.

On an earlier thread Rasaraja also raised his discomfort with some of the worldly aspects of those acarya's teachings. And certainly many here on these forums have expressed discomfort, anger or hurt at behavior and teachings that were seen as aggressive, offensive, heterodox, and otherwise not in line with the sadhu in Vraja archetype (SIVA).

So what happens to sadacara and siddhanta when they meet the modern world, when they move out of the traditional and sacred realms?

When I joined ISKCON at the age of 17, I looked up to the sannyasi who could make a woman cry (after asking a silly question in class) as some kind of an icon. He represented intellectual, (repressed) sexual, and "spiritual" power. That was an abomination. And we all know numerous examples of that. It's what can happen when the SIVA principle is missing.

Is there really any justification for creating *any* kind of new model apart from that of the sadhu-in-Vraja? That model is not lacking in variety either--there are numerous examples of rich/poor,married/unmarried, etc.,--but the basics of what constitutes Vaisnava behavior is very clear. We can't quote Dasa Goswami and then behave like a jackass or a shoot-from-the-hip "knower" of siddhanta. We can't follow Mahaprabhu and think that stringing trnad api around our necks was advised simply to allow Ramdas Bisbas, the Tulasi walla, a great necklace to sell.

When stepping below that exalted level of behavior--or, more likely--failing to rise to it, I guess the appropriate mood is that expressed in the Bhagavatam in regard to sense enjoyment: jata-sraddho mat-kathasu - "...disgusted with all material activities, knowing that all sense enjoyment leads to misery, but still unable to renounce it, My devotees should remain happy and worship Me ... and ... sincerely repent all such activities."

And when not trying to follow the SIVA, it seems the appropriate realm would not be in a public and recordable media, and not with Vaisnavas who you don't know and who do not know you.



Yes, I have presented that assumption and it is admittedly weak.



I was once going to visit Dr Triguna, the famous kaviraj in Delhi, and heard an interesting point about the possible effects of others thoughts/envy from Mahanidhi Swami. Dr Triguna has two waiting rooms, generally packed with a hundred or two hundred people, but he allows Westerners to go ahead of the "general mass". Mahanidhi Swami commented that it was not a good idea to get this preferential treatment as it invited the envy of those in the line and that this would affect ones ability to do bhajan.

So, yes, the subtle effects of behavior may themselves be the "punishment" rather than a lightning bolt from above. Or another anecdote (trying to stay on topic but sometimes the urge to speak overcomes me, and that itself is part of the problem at hand!): I was once staying in Puri for a few weeks and visited the sabji bazaar by the mandir every day. After a while, some of the pandas got to know me and would often harass me for donations. I mentioned this to a devotee who had been in Puri with AC Bhaktivedanta Swami and he recounted something really interesting. He said that ACBSP had said that the pandas were punished for their attitude toward the Western devotees by not getting their association. Leaving aside the possible historical and cynical analysis of that statement, it is an interesting idea--punishment being an inability to see or appreciate what is available to you.

Well, I have to run but will revisit this. I really appreciate your stimulating input (and am kind of amazed to see myself take such a literalist approach!)

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

“Don't you think there is a differentiation between A) the sadhaka in the holy Dham, doing bhajan in his kutir and following a particular strict sadhana, and B) the Intenet-savy vaishnava out in the world, confronted with many different ideas, concepts, types of behaviour, choices, demands, duties etc.?”

Obviously most aspiring sadhakas would consider it an advantage to live ones life in the Holy Dham, doing bhajan in his/her kutir and simply following their particular strict sadhana but this does not equate to spiritual success. There are different circumstances and environments which may lend to our ability to do bhajan but ultimately our desires, humility, faith in Sri Guru and ones growing determination to further cultivate these aspects of ones life will ultimately determine ones advancement. Subsequently one can be an aspiring sadhaka in the midst of family life in the hectic streets of NYC with the stress of one’s work and be better positioned to not only practice their sadhana but be successful in their practices beyond one that is externally situated in the above stated ideal situation. It is a matter of the consciousness and heart verse the external environment in which we find ourselves.

Ultimately we want to cultivate our desires not our external situation. Braja’s point that we can't quote Dasa Goswami and then behave like a jackass or a shoot-from-the-hip "knower" of siddhanta is excellent.

In regards to modernization I believe that this is mostly an evolution in externals (i.e. discussions in a village verse on the internet) but this doesn’t have to dictate the spirit and mood in which we approach our spiritual lives verse how one approached it 500 years ago. Ultimately I believe we need to focus on how we cultivate our mood, humility and desires.

To this point I would think that we could take Sri Ananta dasa Babji from Radhakunda to 42 Street, the heart of NYC, and we would find that although the externals are extremely different we would also discover that although you can take the sadhu out of Radhakunda you can’t take Radhakunda out of the sadhu! Residing in the dham in one heart is the goal. Our Guardians are always within the Dham and in the company of their beloved.

I am sure we could come up with unlimited reasons and perceived barriers as to why we can’t take the same mood as our Acaryas in confronting Vaisnavism as it is today verse yesteryear but I still think we can’t excuse our inability or reluctance to approach their mood as the example as to how we go about cultivating our own spiritual life. I don’t think anyone here is saying that but I do think that sometimes we fall into that trap.

I want to cultivate the mood that I truly appreciate all that aspire to Serve Sri Radhika. This doesn't entail that I see no difference in practice or philosophical understanding but that I appreciate irregardless of these differences even if from afar. Personally I think this would drastically enhance my ability to practice my sadhana but cultivate my desire to serve Sri Guru.

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

Well, personally for me there is a difference, a huge difference. I keep forgetting to physically bow down when I meet someone on the net, read someone's posting. When you get a personal letter (handwritten), you might take it to your head, bow to it... there is a definite difference to everything, even to the feeling of joy and appreciation, and it has also to do with the external reality of the simplicity of the life-style, it is not just internal attitude. There is a reason why a sadhu should not keep many things, and so on.

I agree with the general drift of your posting though. Of course, I cannot disagree with the idealism of all of you great vaishnavas, but it is just that, idealism and it does not really address the reality of our lives, at least not my life. An ideal leaves one always with an agenda of a zillion "shoulds" that one has a hard time to adjust to, that in fact make one fail. I think this topic would be nice to be discussed on a seperate thread, about humility, the ideal of it, and the constant put-down experienced in the face of its lacking in one's own attitudes. The ideal of humility that Sri Gauranga gave in trinad api sunicena is so high, so absolute...

I wonder whether these ideals are not just general guidelines and in practical life just never completely fulfillable. They might be more like traffic-laws... Think yourself driving a car. How often do you transgress the speed-limit just by one or two mph, and thus by definition become a breaker of the law?




I am not sure it really is an example. I see it more as their specific interpretation of their understanding of the ideal. It is my job to follow them by taking that same ideal
and apply it to my circumstances. That creates my "mood", whatever that is. I cannot walk in anyone elses shoes. I can walk, well actually not even in their steps, but on the path they are going. you get the picture? We can only walk in the general direction given, within the limits of that which makes up the path. To walk in their actualy steps would make walking, following into a Circus-act.

as to :

yes, but Ananta das Babaji did not become A.d.B. in New York City. It is obvious and no great feat of his to remain who he is now. What would be interesting here is to see how he became AdB and practiced in his life before Radhakund. We are in that situation, not in the Dham situation. You know, it is most interesting to read e.g. in Kapoorjis Saints of Vraja how these saints have lived and gone thru the motions of their daily life before going to Vraja. What and how they have lived there, before Vraja or Nadia, that is the example to follow for us. And it would probably show their specific "mood" much more drastically than it does in the Dham circumstances.




What I am looking for is: keys to translate the understanding of the ideal into my personal daily actions! Just the ideal itself and the many "shoulds" following from it, they do not really help. They are nice, thank you, but I still have to do the actual assimilation work! so yes, brajaji:

we need that model, or at least I do.


Braja, how would you apply your previous quote of seeing disturbing people in a positive light, regarding the Puri pandas? How to create positive impressions in yourself, and not reactions to the "leave me alone" expression? Pandas are great viashnavas, having taken birth to serve Jagannath---imagine that. So, how everyone!, are you acting in this situation?

Well how about fifteen steps more drastic: The pandas of Goverdhan, at Manasi Ganga...

Or 1008 steps more drastic: The pandas at Gokula!

Is this why the SIVAs dress poorly? They do not get harrassed, do they?

One thing that has been bothering me over the past few days is one's culpability in other people's aparadha. If someone reveals any information and that person goes on to use that information in order to make aparadha, isn't the first person indirectly culpable? Of course I have no sastric reference for this, but isn't this common sense? At least on the basis of this, it might be worth noting that one must take great care in one's own actions lest some bad results occur inadvertently.

Something I spotted in another forum, written our Madhavaji:

Jiva documents six kinds of degrading activity in his Bhakti-sandarbha (265), quoting from Skanda Purana.

satAM nindA ity anena hiMsAdInAM vacanAgocaratvaM darzitam | nindAdayas tu yathA skAnde zrI-mArkaNDeya-bhagIratha-saMvAde –

nindAM kurvanti ye mUDhA vaiSNavAnAM mahAtmanAm |
patanti pitRbhiH sArdhaM mahAraurava-saMjJite ||
hanti nindanti vai dveSTi vaiSNavAn nAbhinandati |
krudhyate yAti no harSaM darzane patanAni SaT || iti |

“Defamation of the saints, as violence and so forth, as well as verbal, is now presented. Blasphemy and so forth are presented in the Skanda in the discourse of Sri Markandeya and Bhagiratha:

‘The fools who defame saints fall into a place known as Maharaurava along with their ancestors. The six degrading acts against Vaishnava are (1) killing him, (2) blaspheming him, (3) being envious of, or hating him, (4) not glorifying him, (5) being angry at him, and (6) not being happy upon seeing him.’”

Well, it depends on the nature of the information revealed and the circumstances in which it is revealed.

If I tell you that in India there is much pollution, and you then go around ranting, "India, the country of backward barbarians who do not care for nature," I would not consider myself responsible, as the information was something that would have been available without me.

If I tell you that I spotted Mr. Dude Das peeking through the keyhole of the local brahmacarini ashram, and you went around declaring what a bogus rascal he was, then I would be responsible.

If I reveal information that could be easily available in a situation where it is likely to cause an inflammatory reaction, such as discussing Saraswata vs. others -related controversies in an ISKCON congregational meeting, I would be responsible.

If I tell the local police officer that I spotted Mr. Bozo Das stealing a car and shooting around with a shotgun, and the issue would eventually end up in the local newspaper, I would be responsible, but that would be to my credit.

I'm afraid I haven't quite followed the discussion as far as the "ideal", or "mood of the acaryas" that is under review is concerned. Could someone give me the "ideal" that we are evaluating in two or three brief sentences, please?

I also posted it here once. In fact, we had a similar thread going on a bit over a year ago.

Here's the six-fold verse brought down to a practical level:

It is idealist versus realist.
The ideal is total avoidance of any possibility of aparadh, by following shastra to the very word. It is lived by out-standing mahatmas doing bhajan in the holy Dham. We however, live in a complex world with many demands, duties, outlooks, with Internet etc. We communicate all the time. The question arises: Are we to follow the example of the Sadhu in Vraja Archetype (SIVA, coined by braja), or can we develop a more flexible approach, taking shastra and sadhu as guideline, but not as absolute demand? Example: traffic laws, speed limit --as general guideline with a tolerance quota, where we technically break the law each time we drive 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit.

The latter approach is of course mine, every one else seems to opt for the absolutist view. An example the idealists (Rasaraj d.) give is Sri Ananta das B. in New York, that he would stay the same there too. My answer to that: Yes, but he did not become AdB in New York. The relevant example, if any, for us would be his practice while living his pre-Dham life. In the absolute view we are - and we see others as- often failing. In the realist view we are approaching the ideal in a learning-process, admitting the complexity of the reality we live in, and praying for mercy at all times.

More than 2-3 brief sentences, sorry...

Jai Nitai

If this is the basic premise for SIVA, I find it a problematic concept to begin with. Does following the shastra to the very word negate the possibility of any aparadha? Which shastra are we to follow to the very word, to begin with? I take it that this means the shastra dealing with sadachara and the like, such as Hari-bhakti-vilasa, since I fail to see what following philosophical treatises to the very word would practically mean. Here's the interesting bit of news: nobody, and I mean not one single person anywhere, follows Hari-bhakti-vilasa to the letter.

Before we accept the SIVA-ideal, at least as you define it, we need to sort ot what exactly the "following shastra to the very word" includes.



Could you give some examples of where sAdhu and zAstra would be rather as a guideline, but not a strict demand? I would like to see some statements, along with your interpretation on its practical implications, should the absolutist standard be applied.



I suppose it is time for the iconoclast to rise his head. If we consider his situation to be an example of SIVA, which implies an environment with minimal opportunity for aparAdha due to the environment, I hate to say it but that is dead wrong.

Baba lives in a community in which, being a senior devotee, people are watching him all the time. He is the mahAnta, and has to participate in all sorts of meetings in which people engage in quarrels over all sorts of trivial matters. Baba sits and chants, and eventually tells them to please quarrel elsewhere. Baba has to make decisions between two opposing parties, and as the outcome, one will be happy and the other will be sad. There are people who are supposed to live sAdhu-life, but who miserably fail. There is every opportunity to talk about their bad character. People approach him all day long with all sorts of questions, sometimes trivial or outright foolish, and some come to push through their own agenda and try to squeeze an approval out of him, which they will then cite to others.

In fact, in such a situation, I would say that the possibilities for aparAdha are much greater than in the situation in which most of us are living. Baba does a most commendable job in coping with the situation, I admire his tolerance and aloofness from the surroundings. That cannot be said of everyone living in Vraja, though. I know both Westerners and Indians who live there, and who spend a good deal of their time gossiping about the politics of the village community of devotees, and who know exactly the shortcomings of each individual, and do not hesitate to bring it up every so often.

I dare to propose that here in the West, in the situation most of us are in, the possibilities for aparAdha, at least as far as vaiSNava-aparAdha is concerned, are in fact less. Granted, the amount of devotional impetus is less as well.

If we wish to forge a SIV-archetype, it needs to be a sAdhu who leads the life of a recluse, roaming around the forests of Vraja with his mala, with no dependence on anyone and with no fixed surroundings. That is the ideal situation.

Such an archetype is obviously not something we may adopt in the West, nor is it a standard most people (99.8%) could adopt even if in Vraja. Householders have a certain way of life, while the renunciates have it different. If you read the older thread I linked you up with, there were some interesting angles of view in the text from Bhaktivinoda, I believe from an article he once wrote on the prajalpa-aspect mentioned in Upadesamrita.

In this vein, there is also merit in the statement, "An idle mind is the devil's workshop". Most of us, still conditioned by our natures, need to have ways of positive expression of our natural inclinations, our conditioned nature if you will. "Everyone is forced to act according to their nature, O scion of Bharata." If we put ourselves in an environment in which there is little scope for the expression of our nature, we run the risk of creating havoc in our lives, and in the lives of those around us. This, again, translates as aparAdha.

The SIV-archetype was based solely on the idea of humility and abstinence from aparadha, not the Hari Bhakti Vilas-type sadacara. Nadadip questioned whether such a mentality is possible outside of Vraja and I think you have given a great argument for why residing in Vraja does not affect the need to avoid sadhu-ninda despite the circumstances. IMO, there is no external situation that changes this need: for kirtaniya sada hari there must be trnda api.

No doubt the two factors--I wouldn't call them yama and niyama as they are essentially both positive--of bhajan and behavior will unfold at different rates, as explained by the analogy of the unfurling leaves of the bhakti-lata-bija, but I don't think an argument can be made for minimizing the emphasis on the need for humility.

I was writing something on this earlier in response to Nadadip's question regarding my interaction with the pandas, but I'll put it here instead:

Although I used the word "harassed," the pandas didn't disturb me. It was quite fun actually but the devotee I spoke to was expressing a sense of concern and defending me and was also not a witness to any of the exchanges. (Ah, Puri! I've never felt Mahaprabhu's presence more strongly than there, and at that time. I still keep the picture of the bearded Haridas Thakura, peaking thru the trees at the Jagannatha chakra in the distance. Being an outcaste had never felt so good.)

But I think this highlights an area where we see that the greatest propensity for aparadha arises--where different "camps" or understandings meet. In the above scenario, a follower of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami was seeking to protect or instruct me from what he might have thought was a negative or hurtful situation brought about by the Puri pandas. This protective mentality can be positive and it is inevitable for someone who has taken on a role as guru or who has affection for someone on the path of bhakti. In the case of the pandas, the situation is somewhat simple--we know that they are Krsna's people and are to be respected--but the situation is much more complex when one camp interacts with another and each doubts the motivation, advancement or orthodoxy of the other. So far it seems the response has often been wholesale aparadha--the gloves are off.

I'm reading Brghu's excellent book "As Good as God" at the moment and the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism seems full of fraticidal battles: from the 50+ Gauidya Mathas, the adhikarans, intra-familial disputes of succession in Goswami families, etc. It seems difficult for anyone to initiate, lead, preach, manage or own temple property without walking on a razor's edge, both in terms of being more susceptible to committing offense and in terms of leaving a legacy where your followers witnessed how you responded to that pressured situation.

It seems rather evident that a person who is by nature non-offensive will remain as such regardless of the surroundings, as the SIVA exported to NY would remain, while the AVIS (Agressive, Vehemently Irritated Son-of-god) would continue finding fault and gossip regardless of the environment.

It is indeed a matter of aspiring for the ideal rather than artificially living the ideal. That does not, of course, justify rationalizing a sub-ideal condition as the be-all and end-all of spirituality.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

From my perspective I believe that the “mood of the Acaryas” is simply stated as being generous in praising both the Vaisnava’s and aspiring Vaisnavas and extremely conservative, if not entirely silent, in critiquing the Vaisnava’s and/or aspiring Vaisnavas.

Now obviously both the modernization and/or evolution of our siddhanta as well as the popularity of these various aspects of our siddhanta has changed dramatically since the days of the Six Goswami’s or Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja which in turn changes the need to “speak out” about concerns over practice or philosophical understanding.

I do not advocate that we are silent or that we superficially try to adopt the words of our Gaurdians. What I advocate is that we do our best to adopt their mood of being generous in praising the Vaisnava’s/aspiring Vaisnavas and extremely conservative and catious in our critiquing of the Vaisnava’s/aspiring Vaisnavas that we don’t agree with. Again simply focusing on how we articulate a criticism would be a tremendous step in improving both our spiritual lives and hearts as well as opening up others to exploring aspects of our siddhanta outside of their current understanding.

I appreciate this site because it has offered me an alternate viewpoint of Vaisnavism that previously I was not exposed to. This has enhanced my intellectual understanding of our siddhanta and most importantly jump started my personal commitment to sadhana, study and serving the Vaisnavas.

I simply wanted to encourage us to all first appreciate one another as aspiring Vaisnavas, regardless of affiliation and/or philosophical understanding, and encourage then when we do need to confront differences that we give one another both the benefit of the doubt as well as take the approach of one attempting the help enhance and strengthen anothers spiritual life as opposed to “give’em the sauce”.

Again it isn't just what you say but why you say it. I would dare to state that if we are urged to speak to simply flex our intellectual muscles or defeat an "opponent" then we are best served to simply shut our mouths. However if we are urged to speak out of compassion than we should simply do so with consideration to the dignity and sincereity of those we speak to.

To me this is the mood I see with our Acarya’s and it is a mood and mindset that will greatly enhance and further our personal spiritual life as well as our desire to spread the loving service of Sri Radhika and Sri Guru.

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

NO.

The second one is to your credit, but the first one, in which you exposed a visual rapist would not be?

I think you get the point, anyway.

I've known some vaishnavas, a few western, a few Indian, who found living in Braj very hard to cultivate the qualities of humility, softness, etc, due to the "harshness" of the atmosphere there in terms of physical austerity (intense weather, etc), the attitudes of the locals, and the stress of being in a "foreign" environment. These hold true for both the men and the women but the women say they had even more of a problem there due to the sexist culture and the sexual harrasement that takes place there almost on a daily basis, or so they told me.

Yep. Sometimes it shocks me how on certain areas there is such a blatant lack of civilized behavior. Especially if you are a Western lady, you have know Kung Fu to feel safe riding a rickshaw alone.

Visual rapist?

Madhava asks:


I say:
The example of an ideal stated by braja was

braja:

I answered to that


I subsume the shastra diction under: not to speak negatively of a vaishnava but to glorify him/her. Madrasi Babaji does that here. We however would most likely discuss the question, thereby using shastra and sadhu as guideline, avoid negativity and also not glorify, but try to state observatios. and thereby run the risk of some offence.

We generally confront, rather than avoid. Eventually that is the key. If I was really humble, I would not see any need to discuss like this. I would do japa or kirtan and not hang out on the Internet. But- I do have a need for virtual sadhu-sanga, and so I do this... Please, readers and non-readers alike, I beg you to forgive me my offences. Problem is, I'll continue to write and run the risk of offence, on the strength of the mercy of the vaishnavas, readers and non-readers alike. perhaps I am even getting deeper into mud due to that continuation. But it seems to me the only way to go, unless I stop any involvement at all, and just do bhajan and then do as Krsnadas Babaji showed it: the ideal way.

Jai Nitai

I've always appreciated a dialectic model that I've seen supported in Bhaktivinode Thakur and M Scott Peck:

komala sraddha -> madhyama -> uttama
religionist -> questioner/challenger/agnostic -> mystic

I'll have to look up the Peck's terms but that is the basic progression. Both models present that a higher stage of development is to challenge and doubt and that this is a natural stage.

(Peck also has similar dialectic constructs for community development:
psuedo community -> emptiness -> chaos -> community which have parallel stages for individuals:
co-dependence -> independence -> interdependence)

I think that many of us reach such a stage of question and doubt but we sometimes approach it with all the social graces of a teenager--testosterone surging, attached to cliques, unsure of our own identity, and hypersensitive to the external, social environment. In an effort to find solidity and an absolute, we attack easy targets, such as a person or movement's philosophical or behavioral weaknesses, idiosyncracies or outright faults, and feel better about ourselves as a result. By this approach though, progress is bhajan is not possible as it is offense-laden (even psychologically it is stunted) as it is so externalized.

In light of the quoted words below and other similar words on this thread, how then would one deal practically with a "vaishnava" or person who is exclusively worhipping Krishna as their Istadeva, and is also found to be engaging in wicked activity like the abuse of children? From what I have heard, such crimes were swept underneath the carpet by people using the exact same logic.

In light of the qoutes posted above, as well as the one below, I personally don't know what to make of this, or it's relevance in days where both "vaishnavas" and "brahmanas" are abusing people. Should that abuse be allowed to continue, simply because of their positions?
Also, I don't understand why Krishna would have issues with Indra for ridding the world of an evil demon. If this demon were not a brahmana then would Krishna be "ok" with that? I just don't get it.

That is a great analysis of yours, or let's say, diagnosis of symptoms, brajaji, my reverence to you and your insights. I liked Peck too, when I read him, do not recall the details though.

What is interesting is what you are saying, or quoting, has been stated also by Ernst Bloch, a great German philosopher, originally a Marxist, in that typical contrast of Marxian dialectics: he said that only a good atheist could be a good Christian, meaning believer in God, and a real Christian a true atheist.

Astrologically, Saturn is the keeper of the threshold to wisdom, transcendence, he keeps also a tight seal for those not mature enough to face their own weaknesses. Saturn is the strictness of the reality-principle which in immature people is crossed over as they go for cheap and easy transcendence. Typically Saturn works with repression, when the process remains unconscious, or with increasingly more consciously experienced suffering.

Thus an offence, especially vaishnava-aparadh, can be seen as a premature grabbing for transcendence, crossing the threshold before one's own weaknesses are confronted, and the subsequent suffering as an awakening process to those weaknesses and blind spots.


When I met Sri Krsnadas Madrasibaba at Radhakund, we talked a little, he told me a little bit of his life, then I asked him how he related to his previous connection with Sri Bhaktisiddhanta and his attitude towards the traditional Gaudiya vaishnavas. He said (what else do you expect?): "Better not to talk about it!" I still need to achieve this level! And this exchange here helps. I appreciate you all, and bow to you and your realizations.
Jai Nitai

Verses such as the api cet sudurAcaro along with the next verse, speak of a person who is engaged in ananya-bhakti, "bhajate mAm ananya-bhak", and who errs due to past saMskAra but becomes swiftly righteous, "kSIpraM bhavati dharmAtma". If this does not occur, I do not think we would be obliged to tolerate the misdeeds of a perpetual sinner, who does not feel an obligation of bhakti, what to speak of one-pointed engagement, and who feels little necessity to rectify himself.

In his tika on Madhurya-kadambini, Pandit Sri Ananta Das Babaji. having commented on those two verses (gItA 9.30-31), states:

"Persons not considering the link between these two verses misunderstand their essence. They deliberately commit sinful acts on the strength of the verse api cet sudurAcAro, with no repentance for their acts. They cannot be considered sAdhus at all; rather, they are guilty of the grave offense of committing sinful activities on the strength of chanting the holy name. One should know that if one in a state of repentance, giving up all sinful activities, is constantly engaged in nAma-saGkIrtana, then gradually the holy name becomes pleased and he again attains the stage of a sAdhu, otherwise not."

In his treatment of the matter, we also often find statements to the effect that a devotee never sins intentionally. It naturally follows through reverse logic that a person who perpetually and intentionally sins is not much of a devotee.

Where are you citing that bit of text of yours from, by the way? Always include a reference, and a link, if possible. Otherwise, we'll have no clue of the context.

Madrasi Baba had been a member of Gaudiya Matha? I didn't know that. Oh well, live and learn something every day ..

I don't think he was really a member as such.