Sandipani Muni - Shaiva

In Gopala Champu Uttara 8.16, Balaram and Krishna choose Sandipani Muni as their guru. They say, "Even though there are many worthy sages like Vyasadeva available to us, they will recognize us, and thinking that we are omniscient will be reluctant to teach us. This is because they are Vaishnavas and therefore know the truth of things related to Vishnu. However, we absolutely must engage in our studies, because to not do so would be a transgression and that would set a bad example leading to inauspiciousness. Therefore, we should approach a guru who is fully knowledgeable in the scriptures (zabde brahmaNi niSNAtam) but is a Shaiva. There is one such sage, Sandipani Muni, who was born in Kashi and comes to Prabhasa Kshetra from time to time. He is living happily in Avanti now, near his beloved Shiva. Let us go there...

would that validate shaiva vada coz sandipani was 'fully knowledgeable in the scriptures (zabde brahmaNi niSNAtam)'

Ew. Apart from the landscape, I've never liked that picture. Did Krsna really "shave up," wear saffron and sit in an unnatural position while learning (albeit, in idyllic surroundings)? Maybe it was an orienteering class and they were marking a point? He looks so sad like that.

I read somewhere (perhaps in NM Gita commentary) that They approached a Shaiva guru because a Vaishnav guru would immediately recognize Them and the pastime of learning could not have taken place.

I believe that's what the first sentence of what Jagat quoted says.

Is that all in all about this pastime? Mahaprabhu took sannyasa from an impersonalist, Krishna and Balarama were in Gurukula under the teachings of an impersonalist. Both Kesava Bharati and Sandipani Muni are exalted souls, however, they teachings are about Brahman…. Is there nothing else to be learned, besides "apparent reasons"? What else could be underneath of that Supreme Desire?

Go there, find out, come back and present your contribution.

If something is "undeneath" of a Supreme Desire, is there a chance that it would get crushed?

Excuse me, but you are perfectly misrepresenting my question. Sorry.

Besides, the question was not directed to you.

With respect,

Are you certain they both were advocates of advaitavAda?

The morale of the story:

- In extraordinary circumstances, you may need to look for solutions that would customarily not be appropriate

We should write a gauDIya edition of paJcatantra.

What is the paJcatantra?

Sorry, mine was directed to you.

I did not know you had preferences as to who will answer your questions.

http://www.panchatantra.org/

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=908

I guess, in this case, the Supreme Desire will remain underneath…

His supreme desire was to enjoy pastimes with His beloved devotees.

Madhava, may I compliment you on yet another great answer.

As a devotee, one might say that. However, what Sandipani Muni, Kesava Bharati, and others would say about that Supreme Desire? I’m not saying they are not devotees, but impersonalists.

I have an opponent friend here, who are not properly following my thoughts...

Anyhow, I guess no body understands no one. Why should, anyway...

I'm quite proud of it. Simple is beautiful.

Yes, why should we strive for understanding when we can be so engaged in disagreeing?

Sandipani has no need for theological considerations!

He considers Sri Krishna an ordinary child from the village, who needs to learn his lessons to grow up into a fine young man. From his point of view, the supreme desire of Sri Krishna is to learn some of the fine arts of life and culture.

Keshava Bharati is not exactly in the same category, since he was aware of Caitanya's identity at that point in time. Some think of him as an incarnation of Sandipani, while others of Navadvipa consider him as cruel as Akrura himself!

Well, now looks a have two friends who are not understanding anything. Who else?


Ps; I'm leaving now to LA, It is a beautiful day out there….

Radhe Radhe!

Perhaps if you do understand, you will be kind enough to provide the answers, or at least to paraphrase the questions a bit more clearly...

Instead of a thought that was a vision, a feeling, or just an imagination of some sort, which I wanted to share, understand and perhaps see again. Now, it appears to be solid like an iceberg. In order to flow, It will have melt; before I ever drink that same vision again.

Thanks you both, for the kindly answers...

Radhe Radhe!

Hari,

In your tropical heart ice should melt easily.

Once NM nentioned that in a lecture in Bager. Can you provide or back-up an opposite information on that?

How about first having some information to back up the original assertion? Sandipani is a nitya-siddha companion of Krishna. Rupa Goswami (BRS 3.4.8-11) classifies him among those in a parental mood (vatsalya-rasa), among the guravaH, or elders whom Krishna respects.

That more or less what NM mentioned and it clear that he, Sandipani Muni, was a Impersonalit.

May I ask you what is your doubt about the Muni beeing an Impersonalist?

I like that "ner his beloved Shiva"

Well, it isn't clearly stated anywhere. That's why I have a doubt about it.

Does not the book Gopala Champu making that clear for you?

Sandipani is not a Vaishnava (as stated by GC) and then here you quoted:



Sri Rupa classifies him as an eternal servant, however in the Lila he came as impersonalist and that is what was revealed. His ontological position can be whatever, but we are talking about Krishna taking initiation from an impersonalist. And that is what Krishna needed a that moment:

“This is because they are Vaishnavas and therefore know the truth of things related to Vishnu. However, we absolutely must engage in our studies, because to not do so would be a transgression and that would set a bad example leading to inauspiciousness”
GC

Kesava Bharati was an impersonalist and Caitanya took Sannyasa from him basically for the same reason; respect; education’ reputation.

Actually it is interesting to find out how both of Them had the same concerns (Lilas), which led to a close connection with impersonalism.
However, of course that would not make Sri Krishna or Sri Caitanya to be impersonalists. It is just interesting to find out how much imminence in both paths.

Never mind the Tilaka-Vaishnava over Sandipani Muni’s body that is just a courtesy from BBT:

http://www.avatara.org/balarama/141.html

I do not get the reluctance in accept that, Madhava?