Discussion with Keshav-ji [Guru, Sampradaaya, Surrender] - Split from "Madhva and Eternal Hell"

I see a design of God here. The mAyAvAdIs had devised such wild theories to support their stand, there was a dire need for an "equal and opposing force". As I see it, these Maadhvas have been invested by Krishna Himself with His own power to debate endlessly. Its a God given gift. They are born to think like that. It is not without reason that they are called "pracchanna tarkika" i.e. disguised logicians (as a pejorative like pracchnna bauddha - disguised buddhists for the mAyAvAdIs)

That is fine but our views are not just for leading this life peacefully but about reaching God. If that very aspiration cannot be fulfilled, then what is the use of aligning oneself of this sampradaaya or that one. Frankly I am not much interested if there are really three kinds of jivas or not or this or that, myth, history, or reality or evolution etc. I just want to reach God *somehow*. But I want to reach *my* God, not just any God. This is where the sampradaayas start exerting themselves to a very uncomfortable level.

BTW, my having been trained in a non-speculative discipline, renders me somewhat incapable of understanding fields of study relying heavily on circumstantial evidence. That is why I do not really care what Krishna would have been like five thousand years ago, (thinking, thinking, thinking) when people are finding it difficult to collect records of events even five hundred years ago. Some people say, there's no evidence, so there's no reason to believe. However, I prefer to grant myself enough liberty to give the itihaasas and puraanas a literal reading especially where it fits my hunch. Unless, of course, I encounter things like this quote from Vishnu Yaamala. So as far as the 30 trillion guards are concerned, I prefer to have faith in it because, in my opinion, there is not enough circumstantial evidence to convict the undertrail. (Ya, I need a good proof) And also, I prefer to stick to it because the very fact that Krishna can pull off such a trick is very meaningful to me.

Me too, however, now they don't. I realized Krishna speaks according to time and place. Just my opinion. I can understand people generally need interpretation from great devotees to get some reassurance, so the sampradaayas are born.

Why are some in beginningless misery and some in beginningless bliss? And if it was not done by Him, why does He not take corrective action immediately? People have had their faith broken just on the origin of the jiva issue.

Is taking diikshaa, just a matter of hearing the mantra in the right ear, and then saying "Bye bye Guruji, see you in Goloka!" If the thinking is so very divergent, then how will the relationship survive. Look at how the Gaudiyas think that even a "formal" connection is better than none. Well if somebody is just wanting some spiritual experience, that may be it is Ok. But if somebody is focused like a laser, then such "formal" connections spell disaster. In such cases, a person is simply not willing to give up his God. It has to be the right Guru, or no Guru at all. There can be no compromise on the God. I have met persons who could be my Gurus, but they are themselves not affiliated to any sampradaaya. I have a friend who seems like sent by Krishna to be my Guru, but who has no diikshaa. and thinks exactly like me.

This doesn't work after sometime. We are here for God, not for being saved from being born in animal species. If I don't get *my* God, whether I am born as a human or an animal is meaningless to me.

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jul98/0166.html

I think this is from varaaha puraana:

sthithE manasi susvasthE sarIrE sathi yO nara:
dhAthusAmyE sthithE smarthA visvarUpam cha maamajam (1)

tathastham mriyamANam thu kAshtA paashaNa sannibham
aham smarAmi madh bhaktham nayAmi paramAm gathim (2)

(Meaning ): Oh Bhumi Devi ! The entire universe is my body (sarIram ). I do not have births or deaths. When my bhakthAs with mahA visvAsam surrender to me, while they are still in a state of tranquil mind and healthy body and reflect about Me as SarvAdharan ( root cause of all ), NiyanthA ( one who commands from within ) sarva sEshi ( the ultimate ), aasrayaNeeyan ( one who is fit to be worshipped ), Sarva VyApthan (all-pervasive ) and Nithya sannihithan ( One who is always near ), THEN I think of them at their last moments, when they are totally unconscious like a log or a stone and lead them by archirAdhi maargam to My parama padham and bless them to have nithya kaimkarya bhAgyam to Me there.

Anyway, many people have a very negative attitude towards the book distributors and the money collectors of ISKCON accusing them of excesses. But I have done it so I know how painful and mentally harrowing these are. To go on tolerating insults from strangers in the middle of the road and wherever you go. If after a lifetime of service to Krishna and Guru, if one opines that they have done all this in vain, then I think Krishna is being ungrateful. Even today, I see this former Chartered Accountant, sitting in a corner in the temple and roaming the whole day trying to collect money for Krishna. I don't suppose he has anything for himself personally. Perhaps he is thinking money all day long after his morning prayers. But I suppose he is doing something for Krishna. The BIG temple was built with that money only, if it can give peace and solace to me, I suppose it surely does to the millions others who visit it. So if he has not meditated the whole day long on Krishna, and may be due to lack of such practice, he is not able to think about Him in his deathbed, should Krishna just say, "Oh well! he did not remember me, so why should he come to me!" Frankly, if this is the way God is, then I don't want Him. But fortunately it seems that Krishna takes care even if the devotee is incapacitated.

And this is my major grouse with the sampradaayas. I don't surrender just for nothing. I want *my* God. If you can give me *my* God, I'll surrender to you.

Those two are completely different kinds of mediation. A friend of mine has sent me a poem by Sri Vedaanta Desika which would perhaps be "blasphemy" in Gaudiya sampradaaya.

Mukhya Praana (Madhva himself) is the mediator there.

God looks more beautiful with devotees surrounding Him, and that way He is more worshippable and more approachable, and the worship of his devotees is as blissful as His worship. But this is so very different than the Gaudiya concept.

One reason is that Maadhvas do not agree that once somebody is liberated, one can come back to the material world - anaavrttih sahbdaat anaavrttih sahbdaat.

No, I believe that the part which is most important is the saranagati or prapatti or surrender of the individual. This amongst the five parts of panca samskara is called yaga or sacrifice.

tapa pundra tato nama mantro yagas ca pancamah

Of these five tapa or branding with the symbols of Visnu is only done by the Madhvas and Sri Vaisnavas these days. (And Madhvas do it on Sayana Dvadasi not at diksha because they don't really have a diksha.), nama or being given a Vaisnava name happens also at birth within Vaisnava families and at diksha for others but surely these along with the third pundra or tilaka are all purificatory prerequisites to receiving the mantra number four. And yet it seems to me that all this and even the mantra giving itself is to no avail without yaga or actual surrender. And if surrender is there without the rest surely the Lord in His mercy will carry what is lacking. The attitude of surrender would already be there assumably and is not just manifest at the time of the ritual.

Unfortunately "my way or the highway" attitude does not work here. Now you may say that you think it meaninless but in an animal body you will not be even able to recognize whether it is meaningless or not.

This attitude doesn't sound real surrendered to me! Contrast this with the last sloka of Siksastakam.

Please do post some Gaudiya blasphemy by Vedanta Desika. Or at least tell me which of his works you are referring to.

Right and in all the sampradayas the guru plays the role of mediator, but my point was that beyond that there is no Consort of the type (Visnu/Shakti tattva) like the Vadakalais or Gaudiyas percieve. Madhva is considered Jivottama as is Laksmi by the Tengalais. In this sense those two sects are similar and in the first sense the other two are similar.

Perhaps you could elaborate some more on this point and clarify exactly your differences with the Gaudiyas.

Yes, I agree with this point. However how does this change anything? Mukhyaprana (Vayu, Hanuman, Bhima, Madhva) also is liberated and yet he comes here to preach. Why should the Gopikas not be able to come?

Frankly Keshav-ji what you are suggesting is that unless one gets an "A" in surrender, there's no hope. Actually I would declare that I don't have that capacity for surrender. I would, at the very minimum, need the freedom to conceive about God as I do and, in a similar vein, offer like worship. But even if that is supposed to be "surrendered", if that is needed even to move towards God, then I should rethink my decision about whether this whole God business is worth it or not.

One finds it difficult to surrender to persons like spouse, parents etc. and here we are talking about a stranger who is supposed to lead us to some sort of transcendence. If even the tastes are not agreeable then how will it stay even one day.

I am sorry Keshav-ji, such a "surrender" comes from the heart. Injunctions can barely move somebody. If God being situated in my heart cannot gauge my anxiety, but insists on "selfless surrender", a near impossible task, then should I really be anxious about reaching such a God? The baddha jivas who are already loaded with tons of misery being in this material world, is it proper to load them with one more worry?

I don't know why you do not trust me when I say, that the fear of being turned into an animal has no bearing on my attitude. I would rather read rense.com.

I think you took the literal meaning of "blasphemy" to your heart. I apologize. I had therefore put it in double quotes. All I was saying is that the Gaudiyas may feel uncomfortable. I can PM the poem to you.

Acyually Mukhya Praana is supposed to be the second in command and therefore, as I understand, his approval/disapporval matters. This is similar to (but not same as) the role the consort may play in Sri Vaishnavism.

However, I still say, the conception of the consort in Sri Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism are different - not in the ontological sense (the sense which matters to me the least), but in the relationship between God, His consort and devotee.

That is a matter of a private message, that is, if you like to know.

I sincerely don't know. But this is what they declare. So the gopis, Nanda Maharaj, Yasoda etc. are all baddha jivas. And I even don't know if they consider the jiva - Mukhya Praana as liberated so as to come back.

This forum is entitled ECLECTIC / LIBERAL / ACADEMIC / CONTROVERSIAL, subtitled: Eclectic, liberal, academic, controversial. Encounters with the modern world. May contain discussion on views that a practitioner may find objectionable.

Therefore, feel free to, as long as it's nothing totally outrageous. The more sensitive among us should anyway be keeping out of the entire section, that's why the disclaimer is there in place.

The next logical step is to say, that God Himself never would be able to descend to earth... Don't you think, that their approach is sometimes extremely mechanistic (i.e. without any dialectics)?

Well, when it comes to proving one's position, all schools engage in such nitpicking, more or less. But you will find it hard to take a shot at their logic (if you understand it in the first place. ).

The thing is, did Baladeva actually want to adopt the philosophy of Madhva or just utilize his sampradaya for legitimizing the Gaudiya line? To me, it was the latter. Sure any obvious similarities could be spoken about and a few slight differences also (nothing too radically different though, otherwise the opposition would reject the link idea).

Even today my experience is that people from these different sampradayas have little to no real understanding of the other groups positions. I have a book by a Sri Vaisnava that totally misrepresents the Madhva position and it is worse when you ask North Indians about what goes on in the South and vice a versa. Just imagine what it was like in those days without mass communication and rapid travel.

Actually I'm not suggesting that. There are certainly different degrees of surrender and in Sri Vaisnavism this is recognized. Basically it just comes down to the desire to surrender. One may be and in fact actually is completely unqualified and unable to completely surrender in a totally selfless manner. It all comes down to a simple mental attitude which needs to be adopted at least once (if it can be perpetual so much the better, but like you say this seems utopian). If and when one feels that one has no other resort but to (at least mentally) take refuge of the Lord, then this is what the Lord is looking, for like an excuse to shower His mercy upon one. In fact though it is not this act of surrender that ensures one liberation. It is the Lord Himself, He is the only means or upaya. So only His causeless mercy is the way. All I am suggesting is that one needs to be receptive and open to receiving that mercy. The sun shines on everyone, but if you stand in the shade, you won't get a tan.

I enjoyed the pm poem immensely. I do not see why the members here would not love it. Desika is appreciating the body of the Lord in the mood of a nayaki (female). This seems very appropriate for this forum to me.

OK, I can see your point here.

Well I don't see any reason not to so here it is.

http://swamydesika.tripod.com/ESD/esd62.html

SrI:
Shrimate Shri Lakshmi Nrusimha Parabrahmane Namaha:
Shrimate Shri Seetha Ramachandra Parabrahmane Namaha:
Shrimate Shri Ramanujaya Namaha:
Shrimate Nigamantha Maha Desikaya Namaha:
Shrimate Shrivan Satagopa Shri Narayana Yateendra Mahadesikaya Namaha:

"SrimAn VenaktanAthArya: kavithArkika kEsarI!
VedAnthAchArya varyO mE sannidhatthAM sadhA hrudhi"!

This is an extension of yesterday's posting where we
saw Swami's poetic and Summarising skills. We can see
the same skills being exhibited in the tenth Sloka of
Bhagavat-DhyAna-sOpAnam, also.

In the dasAvatAra Sloka that we saw yesterday, there
was an adjective used for each of the avatars indicating
the characteristics of the respective avatAra. Here,
the several angas of our Lord are enjoyed in individual
Slokas and are finally summarised with a verb each.
Swami uses such verb[s] in connection with each anga
to draw our attention to the corresponding enjoyment.

"pAdAmbhOjam sprushati bhajatE ranganAthasya janghAm
voorudwandvE vilagati shanairurdvamabhyEti nAbhim !
vakshasyAstE valati bhujayOrmAmikEyam manIshA
vaktrAbhikhyAm pibati vahatE vAsanAm maulibandE !"

-- Bhagavat-DhyAna-sOpAnam

Swami Desika completely enjoyed Lord RanganAtha and
reached the peak of his anubavam. Swami has shared
this great experience with us so that by learning
from his anubavam we will experience atleast a
small percentage of it.

This stage in Bhagavat-Dhayana-Sopanam can be
equated to tirupAnALvar's AmalanAdibirAn:

'neelamEni AiyyO! niraikoNdadu yen nenjinaiyE'.

Swami Desika takes the role of a 'nAyaki' here.
It is absorbing to see the nAyakI's reaction
to each of the angas which is described using just
one appropriate word.

Here, the nAyaki (Swami Desika) enjoys the Lord
from the Thiruvadi to the Thirumudi - pAdAdi KEsam!

Initially our Lord's Thiruvadi attracts her. So, she
touches it. Swami has used the word 'sprushati'
suggesting love and reverence. Now, our 'nAyaki'
also caress and fondles the feet of our Lord, like
SrI devi and Bhoo devi.

The nAyaki's mind then remembers the greatness of the
shanks viz. liberation from births and rebirths and
so, gratefully worships the Shanks. Swami has used the
word 'bhajatE', which can mean both attain and worship.

Now our 'nAyaki's focus comes to the thighs. Her eyes
get rooted to it. The thighs of our Lord bear the marks
of the sambhogam of SrI devi, Bhoo devi and Neela Devi.
Our nAyaki is not able to move her mind from it.

The mind of our nAyaki was now like that of a drunken
bee. It could not move its attention from the Lords thighs,
but somehow freed itself and slowly moved upwards. Here,
in the midst of our divine anubavam, our Swami's poetic
genius also needs a mention. Swami uses words like
'shanairurdvamapyEti'. The mind of the nAyaki moved
Slowly and almost reluctantly upwards and reached
the navel!

Now, it is the turn of the navel to give a treat to the
mind. After this, the nAyaki reaches the chest next and
takes a firm seat there - 'AstE'!

In the chest of the Lord, our nAyaki sees another lady
being seated - alar mEl mangai who welcomes this new
nAyaki with both hands as if she were part of her-self.
Our nAyaki enjoys the warmth of Lakshmi's grace. She
forgets herself for a long time being immersed in the
peace, comfort and beauty of that region.

Accidentally she happens to have a glance on the arms.
She was so excited by this that she actively went round
the arms. From shoulder to elbow, and then elbow to wrist
and thence to the soft palms, and again upwards, and
again from one arm to another her mind roamed as in a
merry-go-round.

Face was her next attraction. Like a bee attracted by a
blossoming lotus, the mind (manIsha) feels drawn to the
vadanAravindam and sucks the honey available there in
plenty. It drinks the 'mukakANti'.

Finally, the nAyaki's mind looses itself completely in the
fragrance of the krEdam (crown). Our Lord is 'nAtratuyAi
mudi nArAyaNAN'. Having got so intimate with the Lord, the
nAyaki herself acquires this fragrance and enjoys it.

We saw this in our posting on NammALvar - Alvar
contemplates on Perumal and gets intimate with the Lord.
So, the fragrance of Alvars Bakula flowers spread to the
Lord, and our Alvar smells of Lords Thiru Thulai fragrance!
Now, Swami Desika's mind as a nAyaki bears the vAsanai
of His krEdam.

Adiyal read and enjoyed these anubhavams of our Swami
in the book written by Shri D Ramaswamy Ayyangar.

"Kavi Taarkika Simhaaya Kalyaana guna SaalinE!
SrimatE VenkateshAya VedAnta Gurave nama !"

...To be continued!

dEsikan tiruvaDigaLE SaraNam

Praveena nAmni Ramanuja das

There is a tendency to declare onself as the "greatest and the best" and relegating all others to the bottom in one's theology. Like I heard Baladeva did not want to convert the Ramanandis after defeating them in Galta because they were suppsoed to be affiliated to Sri Sampradaya - a great daasya rasa sampradaaya. I tell you, the non-samparadaaya saadhus say Gaudiya sampradaaya is a daasya rasa sampradaaya.

Thank you for your reply Keshav ji,

However, I have some questions. Where is diikshaa and Guru here? What is the attitude of the Guru towards a disciple's spiritual aspirations? What if the disciple is devoted to a non recognized avataar of Vishnu? Granted that your answer will be heavily influenced by your study of Sri Vaishnavism, but let's have that perspective as well.

Diksa and Guru are there (in practically every case, with some important exceptions like Nam Alvar). I don't really understand your question. The Guru's attitude is that he appeals to the Lord on behalf of the prapanna (refugee). In most cases of prapatti this sets the stage for the Lord to bestow His mercy on the prapanna. There is also another form of prapatti called acarya bhakti or acarya prapatti where the prapanna is totally unable or unqualified to do regular prapatti to the Lord. This form of prapatti is where the prapanna simply resorts to the Guru and feels totally unable to approach the Lord even with the help of the acarya. Desika compares this to a flee on the back of a lion. The lion jumps from one place to another and since the flea is on his back he is taken along with him. (Analogy from Rahasya Traya Sara).

As for being attached to a non recognized avatar of Visnu? I can only guess you mean Caitanya Mahaprabhu. If so I know quite a few Sri Vaisnavas who adore him. Some may even accept him as an avatar. Of course one can be an (saktyavesa) avatar and still be a jiva and great saint. You may not find many Sri Vaisnavas who accept Caitanya as a svamsa (purna) avatar of Visnu. But does this really matter? In Sri Sampradaya the worship of a bhagavata (devotee) is exalted even over that of the Lord as it sometimes is in Gaudiya Sampradaya (aradhananam sarvesam etc).

In Sri Sampradaya you are free to worship the form or forms of the Lord that you choose. Some people are ekanta Vaisnavas who prefer one form to all others (you sound like you have some pretty exacting qualities that you want to see in Your Lord), and some others are sadharana Vaisnavas who will worship all the Lord's forms equally. (If you are not talking about Caitanya Mahaprabhu then please let me know who you are talking about.)

Anyway the teachings of Caitanya about chanting Harinama are accepted in general by all Vaisnavas. Specifically chanting only Hare Krsna mantra to the exclusion of all other sadhanas is acceptable for those who are ekanta Krsna bhaktas but since this is not compulsory in Sri Sampradaya there is no conflict. The only conflict would come if someone tried to insist on this sadhana as the only method of bhakti or as a integral part of prapatti (because actually Sri Vaisnavas these days don't accept that they follow the path of bhakti but all perform prapatti only. Of course bhakti has a slightly different meaning in this system, and is not open to non dvijas or women). (Sorry if this last part seems disjointed)

I mean, the Guru himself is a practitioner and he is also advancing towards God, thus, he would have his own preferences. Taking diikshaa, seems to be like accepting a relationship. It might be that you get unwillingly involved in the "Guru's project". For example, why I feel so hesitant in accepting diikshaa in Gaudiya circles is that they have a very focused conception of transcendence, most of which I don't feel too comfortable with. Somebody there may, out of compassion, be willing to give diikshaa, but how much of the association will benifit the disciple? If His Guru goes on giving Bhaagavatam lectures that "Dvarka is lesser than Vrindavana", and the disciple does not feel comfortable, how long will he be able to continue paying obeisances?

Yes.

It does matter, because I do not see Caitanya as a bhakta but as Krishna Himself (svamasha avatara). Now I don't care too much about proofs in scriptures. Whatever proofs that have been advanced, IMHO, fall quite short of proving Him God. However, Bhagavatam says there are infinite avatars of Hari and that Krishna appears in the form, the bhakta wants to see. Then, I have seen saadhus who have had their faith lifelong (not a trivial thing that can be overlooked) and have read their literature, which is no less devotional than other literature worshipping the "traditional" forms of God. Add to that, I have a "feeling" that Caitanya is God, and I can give you no reason as to why I feel like that. Therefore my worship to Caitanya would be like worship to Vishnu tattva.

So my question would be - what effect will it have on the Guru disciple relationship, if the disciple accepts Caitanya as Bhagavaan Himself?

Actually, AFAIK, ekaantika, in its usual sense, would mean - exclusive devotion to one form of God. I am not really like that. I prefer these forms - Krishna - in Vrindavana, Mathura and Dvarka, Tirupati Balaji, Ranganaatha, Varaha and of course Caitanya. So may be I am not an ekaantika in the typical meaning of the term. But on the other hand, if becoming an ekaantika means forsaking any one of them, then sorry, I don't want to become an ekaantika. I don't want to forsake even one of them. I see my *same* God in all of them. And I want to see all of them in Vaikuntha/Goloka (if I ever reach there).

As far as wanting to see some pretty exacting qualities in God, I would think, since He is God, these qualities would naturally be within Him - qualities which one would fail to see in people ordinarily. I prefer to see God as "perfect" in a manner which makes sense to me. Before anything else - rasa, opulence, sweetness , blah, blah, blah, it is bhagavat karunaa (compassion), that makes Him God for me. Unless this quality is present as an undercurrent in the rest of His qualities and activities, the importance of God in life takes on a lesser significance, threats of being turned into an animal, notwithstanding.

Let me make my position a bit more clear. I represent here, not just myself, but others also.

Then there is this different kinds of approach to God. Some approaches are higher, some are lower; some are more "selfless" than others. Well, whatever the final answer may be, I found out, (after a lot of torture) it is better to stick with the approach one is destined for rather than trying to be the "most selfless". Of course, I don't believe in all this - higher and lower hogwash (pardon the word, but that is exactly how I feel). For people like myself, the Queens of Dvarka are as "selfless" (and "competent" in giving Krishna pleasure) as the Gopis of Vrindavana. We find no sense in the fight between Radha and Chandravali, and why one should be avoided and the other should be worshipped. Why can't both be worshipped? Typical answer to such questions is that we are destined for a place where rasa is "subdued" - some peripheral parts of Goloka with maadhurya reduced. Sorry guys (er! I mean gals), you just have no idea, I mean NO with a capital N, what we are talking about. Personally, I think some people will have their job description (importance) cut down drastically if Radha declares truce with Chandravali. In a similar vein, this statement about Lakshmi not being awarded the fortune of being in rasa dance. I find it very difficult to accept that one who has eternally resigned herself to massaging Sri Hari's feet and who has an exclusive seat in His heart, would be denied this pleasure by the most compassionate Hari. In fact I would consider this verse in Bhagavatam be an appropriate place where such "literary and poetic devices" of interpretation can be applied. And finally, of course, for me, all svaamsha avataars of Hari are all equal. It is another thing that different devotees have preferences to different forms of the Lord.

In spite of all this, I do not say that those who believe to the contrary are not advancing towards God. However, I will say, they are advancing to *their* God. yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktah shraddhayaarcitum icchati tasya yasyaacalaam shraddhaam taam eva vidadhaamy aham. If they want to see gopis in fierce competition, they will get it - ye yathaa maam prapadyante. In fact in one correspondence with Gadhadhara Pran Das ji, (following an altercation with devotees adhering to a conflicting view) I asked him about what happens to all those who follow different conflicting ideas about the same deity. He simply replied they go to their own "Goloka".

But I don't agree that that is necessarily superior. The whole comparison of rasa business is purely subjective. Just because five people say yes and two people say no does not make it any more valid. We have street goondaas here elected into the parliament on a majority vote. For me such discussions are useless.

If you are saying that, then surely you do not need such assurances, because you would already know that those who follow something else would have their reasons.

Frankly, I personally see no reason to convince myself that I am following the "best rasa". I wouldn't be unhappy if my rasa is not the highest or even if it is the lowest. Infact all my earlier problems started with this "higher" and "lower" rasa business (and that I needed to follow the "highest" rasa).

That is not what I was talking about. Actually I see no objectivity (and redeeming value) in this comparison of rasa business (except for convincing children). This appeal to the "rasa shaastras" has landed the Gaudiyas themselves in an internal conflict (Jiva vs. Vishvanaatha).

I am quite sure, in the Maadhva sampradaaya, it would be.

That does not automatically follow. If Uddhava is a highly accomplished disciple of Sri Krishna, would you still care to follow him with a cheerful heart? God appears to different devotees in different moods. So the Gaudiyas are not the only "followers" of Caitanya. There are others too, and I do have sympathy, nay empathy, for their "siddhaantas".

Hmm... sheer curiosity, to whom might you be referring? Followers of Caitanya who are not Gaudiyas? Are we talking about some well-known groups, or rather individuals scattered here and there?

Whoever, they are, scattered or otherwise, are "followers", to me (and many others also). There is more to it than just numbers, but it will take a heart to see it.

Yes, I was just wondering if you had something in specific in mind that would have given me a better context for what you said.

That, by my answer, you should have gauged that I do not want to disclose. To the intelligent, an indication is enough. However, if it be said that it matters on a public board, it would not bother me the least if I had to retract my statements, since the state of affairs is all quite evident, like the sun, to everybody. I am not here on a propaganda mission.

Sorry, if my answer does not seem that much welcoming, but I have to reply weighing all the previous precedents.

I am certainly not on a campaign. And if I were to engage, I would find better ways than to post in the manjari forum. What I have said is what I feel sincerely and was, in my opinion, warranted in the context my discussion with Keshava ji.

In my opinion, nobody outside of the strict Rupanugas should be labelled as Gaudiyas. I think that answer should suffice.

Oh, I see. I personally see it as a broader definition, Rupanuga being a sub-classification albeit a prominent one. Where is Gaudiya first defined, anyway? If ever, anywhere?

huh?!

Basically, I am a "follower" of Mother Saci, Srimati Vishnupriya and Srimati Lakshmipriya and through them, I "follow" Caitanya. I do not have any separate connection with Caitanya.

Well I can't help it if some of the things that I believe in also find acceptance among the Gaudiya vaishnavas. By the way, we mostly know about Caitanya through the hagiographies authored by his followers who also extoll Him as svayam bhagavaan even though He Himself may have been shy to decare it in His preaching and sannyaasa years.

Barring the general teachings of Harinaama etc., the more specific teachings of the Lord are given according to the adhikaara and interests of the disciple. While Uddhava could perfectly understand Sri Krishna's teachings in the eleventh canto and then perhaps go on to Badrikaasharama for meditation and other like saadhanaa, the same kinds of teaching when Sri Krishna tried to give to the gopis through Uddhava, it was refused point blank.

I have absolutely no interest in what the Rupaanugaas call as the "internal reason" of His descent. I am more interested in saving His household.

I don't exactly understand why you say this but I am prepared to take it at face value. It does seem to me though that your connection to these people (ie Mother Saci, Srimati Vishnupriya and Srimati Lakshmipriya) is only because of their relationship to Caitanya Mahaprabhu and not independently. Therefore it would seem that your relationship with them is through Sri Caitanya and not the other way around. But if you want to declare it like this, OK.

Is it not a fact that it is ONLY a doctrine of the followers of Sri Caitanya that he is a svamsa avatara of Sri Krsna? Therefore it is only through this doctirine of Caitanya's followers that one becomes aquainted with this idea and from no other source. Therefore accepting this doctrine means accepting a basic tenet of the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya, not just accepting Caitanya himself.

So are you saying that basically you accept only the doctrine of harinama as a means to reach Krsna prema (or moksha or whatever you consider to be the goal of human life)? And that the rest of the embellishments of the Gaudiya Vaisnava system you find unneccessary?

I want to point out that the doctrine of harinama as a sadhana or means to the goal of life is not unique to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. And there is no reason that the acceptance of this presupposes an acceptance of Sri Caitanya as a svamsa avatara of Sri Krsna. They are mutually independent doctrines. However I understand that you accept both.

I understand.

Sorry I don't understand this last statement. Could you rephrase it or elaborate, please.

I accept the ones which my heart, and my head following its lead, can make sense. The teachings in Ruupaanugaa biographies are for the Ruupaanugaas. Kindly be merciful to me. I cannot follow them, although I can appreciate intellectually the devotion, but empathy I cannot generate, because they are in direct contradiction to the status (and interest) of those who I worship and adore.

I would have had nothing to do with Caitanya, had it not been for the wails of Thaakuraani that stopped me in my return path.

In my view, and as much as others may want to argue, Ruupaanugaas are not the only "followers" of Caitanya.

I will tell you this. I was all set and ready to forsake the whole motley baggage of Bengal Vaishnavism when I came to know that there was somebody called Vishnupriya who was Caitanya's second wife. It seems she really had a bad deal thrown at her when her husband left her, at the age of fourteen, to a life of miserable existence of virtual widowhood. So I just feel like she should be with her husband and that her husband should just throw off his "bhakti" sham and concentrate on her. So, for this, I find no reason that I should inculcate the Ruupaanugaa ideals. Infact, they make me angry.

Caitanya is God to me, and so is Krishna in Vrindaavana, Mathura and Dvaaraka, also Balaji, Varaha, Ranganaatha. They are God to me *equally*. I do not see any difference between Them, in rasa or whatever. Infact I see no difference between any Vishnu tattva. My whole being militates against such a thought. How can I accept the Rupaanugaa ideals? Furthermore I do not see Satyabhaamaa and Rukmini to be any less than Radha and Chandraavali and so on.

You may ask, why I come to this discussion board at all. That is for keeping my "General Knowledge" up to date and sometimes I am fortunate that I get a chance to engage in discussions like this.

Keshava ji, if you have some detailed information about Krishna Premi ji, about whom you had mentioned in an earlier post, would you be kind enough to post it?

As I already pointed out earlier, apparently to your amazement, this is not the case.

You mentioned this earlier in a different topic, I agree, this is also taught in the rupanuga camp. Baladeva Vidyabhusana goes into detail on this. What I am interested in is your conception of Visnupriya. In the rupanuga camp she is Visnu tattva, Iv'e heard Her described as Bhu Devi. Since Mahaprabhu accepts that Laksmi Devi and her various manifestations are all Visnu tattva, how do you see Her in this context ?

Where is this to be sought...Sri Chaitanya Research of Calcutta..? He founded that of course.

I remember when Jaya came back from India in like 78 after he and his wife took diksha from Sri Tinkadi Gosvami (Sri Kisori-Kisorananda Baba), he showed me some photos and one was of a son of Sundarananda or nephew, a relative, that Jaganatha das had met with and spoke with about Sundarananda and his take on what happened in Gaudiya Math and what Sundarananda thought, something like that..! I don't know the details of that conversation.

I do know that Sundarananda did not follow Ananta Vasudev to Radha Kunda and take authentic diksha.

I heard somewhere some time back that he came to the conclusion that Sri Chaitanya was an emotional Samkarite similar to the Advaitin Sridhar Svamin who wrote the famous commentary on Srimad Bhagvatam that was so adored by Sri Chaitanya.

Can anyone give the real inside skinny on this please..?

Radhe Radhe,

So I don't clutter this topic, this is for Jagat Laksmi and Visnu Tattva


Thank you for your thoughtfulness--Jagat.

DH, I do not agree with you that the Rupaanugaas see Lakshmi Devi and others as Vishnu tattva. Otherwise Tulasi would have been applied to the feet of Radha and other consorts. This very fact is a good proof that they distinguish between Vishnu and His consorts. But even if They had ontological parity, your conception is a bit hard to swallow (to put it very mildly), because you deny individuality to the Lord's very near and dear ones, something I find very distasteful.

Yes I have heard Vishnupriyaa being described as Bhu-Devi and Satyabhaamaa. (And true, Satyabhaamaa is also described as Bhu-Devi). Now what is Her exact position in the hierarchy, I can't quite figure out, however that is not something that has any bearing on how I approach Caitanya and Vishnupriyaa. One thing is for sure though. Caitanya and Vishnupriyaa (and His other devotees), as far as I am concerned, are *DISTINCT* individuals with *REAL* love and rasa between Them.

Dear DH,

Baladeva does not deny the reality of the feelings between Vishnu and Lakshmi. Does he?

In any case, I have already stated in quite a number of posts that the Gaudiya position of "identity" is something that will eventually become their achilles' heel, and you have just proved it.

Really DH, however considering that not even one Gaudiya Vaishnava agrees with you and you can just twist and turn the quotes of those who are not here to reply to your ingenious interpretations, I guess you are just plain bored.

But thanks anyway! I am in no way interested in what you have to say. I would be pretty relieved if you stay away from Vishnupriyaa.

BTW, you and others can think of whatever ways to carry on with your dissections and start philosophizing about categories. I prefer to preserve the sanctity of love between God and His devotees. That is *THE* concern.

But he does this "deconstruction"in a very grotesque manner. In my understanding, people basically get insecure about their relationship with transcendence and in pathological cases simply go on to deny anything that overrides this relationship. But I can sympathize with them. I would have thought that I was just hypothesizing if I had not seen more cases like DH (but not as acute). This is a knee jerk reaction to the kind of intense "preaching" approach the Gaudiyas take. "God should be viewed like this.", "This is the best - most selfless thing that can be offered" and so on. Like O. B. L. Kapoor and your friend Peter Valaya "Radha is recruiting jivas for her purpose to get close to Krishna", not mentioning the fact that this is meant for the particular person having the taste. That the taste, the inclination - that is the adhikaara. Couple this with the sense of alienation (silence) that the Gaudiyas characteristically display towards others who do not share such views. For instance - "Meera, how dare she love Krishna?" "sympathy for Chandraavali, better keep away" "Queens - oh no! vaidhi assault". No words of appreciation for at least the value of devotion that may be there in such cases. Jagat ji, you yourself have to repeat so many times here about the need to appreciate the devotion in some different tradition or individuals following other paths like your friend Gadadhara Prana Dasa ji. And given the fact that most of what people hear about Vaishnavism in the west is through ISKCON and Gaudiya sampradaaya, they tend to conclude that this is the *only* way, helped the notions of sampradaaya and paramparaa that have been taken to a level of brainwashing. Therefore when these individuals want to express themselves, they cannot tear themselves away, on one hand, because of the fear of being left without "mercy", however their deep seated need, which anyway has to express itself, rears its head in a very ugly form.

Ok that is your take on the whole bhakti issue.

I prefer to see God - Krishna as supremely independent - svaraat. Then when He loves - that love - that is actually unconditional, because He has nothing at all to gain or lose and nothing can be done if He wishes not to love. Not that He won't love anytime. He loves because it is His very nature to love, not because He is controlled. I really find this "control" game by bhakti somewhat unnerving. Can God be made to do evil under such a control? Then if Krishna were to be controlled, what value will His compassion and love have? Complete love implies complete freedom not to love. This is the essential characteristic of God that binds a devotee to Him (other things like His beauty and opulence being embellishments and facilitators of lila). That is *the* distinguishing factor between Him and everyone else. So when it is said that He is "controlled" by bhakti, it is actually a praise for His compassion - that although He is self sufficient in all respects, He still manages to have *real* love even for the minutest of us. And that sets the stage for lila - when the individual realizes the actual worth of what she has obtained. So there is a progression of "causeless love" from the jiva to God. I don't believe that the jiva has the power for "causeless love". It is only Krishna's prerogative. We are bound to be attracted to Him for one reason or another (even things like - inexplicable attraction), but He is not bound. We can only revel in that grace.

This is not to say that Krishna puts on a "stage show". In His mercy, He *actually* engages in *real* love - and that gives Him pleasure - that exchange of love - but it is not at all a "control" thing. That is purely voluntary.

I also do not prefer much use of impersonal words like "shakti" etc. These lead to symbolisms beyond my comfort level. It is the *INDIVIDUAL* who is important. Rasa etc. are meant to serve the individuals concerned, not the other way round. In this regard, I consider Radha, Chandravali and other gopis, the queens etc. and other devotees as individuals, in their own right, loving God. Not shaktis, or "expansions". Their expressions of love towards the most compassionate Hari may vary, but in no way, one is less than the other. The Gaudiya symbolisms are there because of their need to view everything under Radha's control, but in my world view Radha is another individual (irrespective of Her ontological status) who is deeply in love with Hari and so are other individuals (including the manjaris) who have their own unique expression of love towards Krishna.

And lastly, I am not against hierarchy per se. I mean every bhakta considers himself to be the lowest and there is this Guru lineage and like in lila, some relationships may be deemed "closer" to God, but that must not take on an ontological excuse. That somebody's love is *actually* lesser than another's. That is an abuse, an insult of love itself. Again hierarchy should not be used as an excuse (guilt trips included) for keeping the bhakta away from God - that should be entirely voluntary.

To RECOGNIZE that there can be a reciprocal love between any individual and Krishna, the Lord Himself, is vital in my opinion. Love can flow directly from God to the soul, from the soul to God, and so on. Directly.

And as for the "control" issue, yes this is one that has bothered me. I may have to be very clear here, which I do not wish to do, but...

For example, remember when mother Yashoda tied baby Krishna? Her ropes were too short. I tell you, they were not sufficient of themselves, but only when Krishna desired to be tied by His mother, were Yashoda's efforts successful. Not because Yashoda had really strong ropes!

I hope you understand my meaning.

I have more to say on these points, but I don't have the heart to do so at the moment. I will try again after I have had some time to clear my thoughts.

And greater still the glory of that God who made Himself a child for the sole purpose of falling and being comforted... Every mother comforts a child who has fallen but when your child is Krishna, the bonds of maya are broken...

Oh how great is this God, Govinda! He makes you love Him, and then praises you for loving... His kindness overflows...

Every individual is an universe.

That is Ok! But what I was trying to point out was that there is something further beyond his "bhakta-bhaktimaan". That is His grace. For us, we are bound to be devoted because Krishna is all attractive. Not so for Krishna because He is described as svaraat - supremely independent. Recognition of this causeless compassion of Krishna is very important for individuals like myself.

The Gaudiya theology has this slant that it is Krishna's aahlaadini that is somehow infused into the jivas that "makes" them attractive to Krishna. Actually I do not much prefer such an explanation because it seems to rob the jiva of her individuality and her capacity to offer love however minute. Krishna in my view, in His infinite mercy, agrees to engage in love with the infinitesimal jiva and get pleasure out of it. Therefore the purpose of the jiva being "infinitesimal" is also fulfilled as it clearly displays His infinite mercy.

Srimati Vinupriya is Gaura's hladini sakti , and Bhakti devi Herself . Many Vaisnavas view Her to be like Radharani , for indeed , She is Radha's visese abhirbhava ( special extended feature ) .

with respect,

Vishnupriyaa is Gaura Praana Priyaa

and

Gauraanga is Vishnupriyaa Praana Vallabha

Just like all the lowest of the low creatures, serpents, ghosts, spirits who have no shelter elsewhere, so it is only the extremely merciful Neelakantha Maheshvara who agrees to take care of them.

In a similar manner, persons who are unable to take to bhakti, who are full of pride, who are unable to submit and who are infact the lowest of the low - these are the recepients of the special mercy of Thaakuraani Priyaa-ji. Gauraanga is the Karunaa Avataara, but Vishnupriyaa is actually His Karunaa. That which even Gaura is unwilling to give, She will willingly throw towards even the most unworthy of souls. For the sake of changing the hearts of the mean minded kali tortured jivas, she willingly accepted lifelong separation from her very life and soul, Gauraanga. May we always hanker to keep Her two lotus feet in our hearts.