Guru Given Siddha Pranali -

Sent to me in a PM. I will leave the author anonymous until permission is given. This letter was actually addressed to Madhava and I was CC'd.

=======================

In the book Manjari-svarupa-nirupana, Kunjabihari das Babaji says:



However, in the commentary that Sri Sanatana Goswami wrote to his own book, Brhad Bhagavatamrtam, Srila Sanatana Goswami states:



I contacted an old friend of yours about this - a Sanskrit translator - and he wrote back to me saying:



In fact, in the commentaries to Brhad Bhagavatamrtam verses 2.2. 182-210 there are several references stating that the swarup of the jiva is an eternal property of the jiva-soul. The soul does not get given a spiritual body at any time. The idea of "Guru-given siddha pranali" is a mistaken idea. For, as we have discussed previously, in Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary Govinda Bhasya he has also discussed this topic and presented his conclusion:


Also, it is not that the manifestation of the soul's original form cannot be a goal of human endeavour, because it already exists. This is so because even though the soul's original form exists it is not openly manifested. Therefore it is not useless to say that the soul may endeavour to make manifest the original form of the soul.

When I read that you are in Vraja, I thought it might be a good time to correspond with you in regard to this. For you will be able to get access not only to the original sanskrit texts but also to persons who can advise you what to make of these statements of Srila Sanatana Goswami and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

I trust all is well for you, while staying there in the celestial abode of Lord Govinda.

respectfully,

-------

Jagat, I do respect the devotees such as yourself who are following a different path from myself and my Guru Maharaj. Live and let live --- and all glories to diversity! Not to mention that I also have walked away from "Vaishnava groups" that might properly be described as dangerous cults. And if someone (like yourself) is a called a "heretic" then that isn't necessarily an insult - it may be a high form of praise.

Anyhow, I haven't received a reply to the letter I wrote to Madhavananda. But anyway, I just thought that I would write to you. Surely the issue being considered is a serious one. Indeed, Advaitadas has also come to this conclusion (independently):



Recently I've discussed this topic with Advaitadas and, well, I won't repeat what he says because it's private. But the words above that he wrote are public.

So what I mean to say, Jagat, is that if someone is following a different path from me, say for instance if they believe in "Guru-given siddha pranali", then I can happily follow the maxim "trnad api sunicena" and offer my dandavats to them. But if Saraswati Thakur says you only need to chant Harinama and that knowlege of siddha-deha will arise spontaneously from within one day (if you are sincere and serious in your behaviour), then maybe "traditionalist" people should just offer a little more respect to Saraswati Thakur when they hear he says that. Since it is now clear that Saraswati Thakur is the one who is in line with Sri Sanatana Goswami (and Baladeva), and not the followers of the Guru-given siddha pranali tradition.

I hate to think about how much time I've wasted debating this point with people on the internet. Such a big portion of my life I've wasted - bitching about things. And as I said to Advaitadas, I have no intention of getting into that bitchin mood again. I have no intention of writing any public statements about this on GDiscussions forums or elsewhere. Instead, I want to let go of all of this. Like letting go of a candle on a tiny boat you put on the river. You stand on the riverside and watch it disappear in the invisible distance.

I will check back in a day or three to see if you received this and sent a reply. And I will correspond with you if you wish to discuss anything (in fact as I said earlier I do have a high regard for people who are heretics). But then if I receive no reply, as I received no reply from Madhava, then this will be my "au revoir" message, Jagat Prabhu. Perhaps Madhavananda felt my tone was aggressive - but I didn't feel that way when I sent it. In fact I wish everyone could follow the path of "non-aggression". I'm trying.

Srila Saraswati Thakur, some might say, was aggressive - like a lion. But then if you openly say that a widely believed in doctrine such as "Guru-given siddha pranali" is inauthentic then it is only natural that people will say you are not following the "trnad api sunicena" maxim. They'll say you are aggressive. Caught between a rock and a hard place - he was. But then if he had not come into Kalkota then my Guru Maharaj wouldn't have met him. And I, where would I be? Nowhere.

I personally have no objection to this. Kunja Bihari Dasji was, I believe, basing his position on a statement in Jiva Goswami's Priti-sandarbha. As far as I am concerned, the eternal world is eternal, i.e., it has neither beginning nor end. There is no time in eternity and therefore to speak of a "beginning" or "end" to the spiritual body is meaningless. This also makes the question of "falling" from the spiritual world a kind of red herring also.

However, there are two vantage points--that of the siddha and that of the sadhaka. One who is engaged in sadhana may find that siddha pranali is helpful. But unless one's heart is purified through the chanting of the Holy Name by the desire for the siddha svarupa, it does not serve much, except perhaps in a deeply mysterious, psychological, or even "magical" way. This may also be called a blessing. So what is wrong with that?

On the whole, however, the esoteric aspects of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are still the same, regardless of whether one accepts the practices related to siddha pranali or not. The meaning of these symbols (feminine identity, a Divine Couple engaged in very erotic pastimes, etc.) are what need to be understood profoundly, in relation to this world as well as the next. One cannot avoid these questions through objections to technical matters, nor I would say, by relegating them to the sphere of "mystery."

With regards to Siddhanta Saraswati and Bhaktivedanta Swami, I have hopefully gone on the record with sufficient frequency that I need not repeat my reverence and gratitude.

Jai Radhe!

For my own benefit, I would just like to briefly expand on the statement: "The meaning of these symbols (feminine identity, a Divine Couple engaged in very erotic pastimes, etc.) are what need to be understood profoundly, in relation to this world as well as the next."

This springs not only from my academic experience, but from my earlier experiences as an orthodox bhajananandi. Someone recently hinted that my search for psychological answers indicated some kind of strange and unnecessary obsession, so this will also be an answer to that.

I have been reading Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, so that has given me a little impetus also. In that book, John Gray talks about the "cave" psychology of men. Men when troubled "retreat to the cave." Though such solitude serves a function, ultimately they come out of the cave "when they feel needed." What makes them feel needed is woman.

Time being short, I have simplified Gray's version of an eternal verity that can be seen as applicable philosophically, or being played out in the world of religion. This is generally the duality of "this-worldy" and "other-worldly" religion. Psychologists and other scientists tell us that there is only "this-worldly" religion because, as scientists, they only have this world to use as empirical data. Therefore, there is a certain pragmatical bias : Religion has to work in this world to be accepted as authentic.

In Iskcon's early days, we made use of this bias when we said things like "It gets kids off drugs." Etc. Prabhupada's idea about Varnashram Dharma was to get Krishna consciousness to work in this world. A purely other-worldly doctrine plays to many dangers, most of which we see currently and which have been strongly condemned in general by various other more this-worldly religions. Otherworldliness leads to misogyny, for one, and misogyny is one of the great handicaps to social dynamism.

It also leads to a false sense of entitlement (which, I just read in another book The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, is associated with misogyny. Those who give primacy to their beliefs in another world tend to think they are entitled to act unethically in this one--either as gurus who hid behind the mask of godliness to exploit others, or as mystics who can avoid doing honest labor for a living, etc.

There is an important place for "other-worldliness" in religion--it is the North Star that guides all "this-worldly" activity. There is also a place for genuine religious professionals who can "market" faith, a very useful commodity indeed. But the other world is only part of the picture. It cannot cripple us in this world or in society, but should orient and empower us.

In this optic, we have to ask ourselves whether our understanding of Radha and Krishna is in need of reinterpretation or not.

And that is all I have time for I am afraid.

Let me put the record straight here, to avoid any misunderstandings: I am not opposed to Guru Given siddha pranali per se, if this is what my former correspondent insinuates. As stated by me above, I only pointed out that I will not ride a high horse preaching siddha pranali based on the verifications by Dhyanacandra, Bhaktivinoda and Vrindavan Cakravarti, who are, indeed, hardly the major foundational acaryas. I dont think that siddha pranali should be preached to the wider public. The text recently posted by Madhava from Bhakti Ratnakara about Gopal Bhatta Gosvami giving siddha pranali to Srinivasa Acarya does not really justify babajis given this to every Tom Dick and Harry, because who can compare with nitya siddha Gopal Bhatta (as the donor) and Srinivasacarya (as the recipient)? I hope people will be able to discern that I am neither following the 'siddha deha falling out of the sky' super-sternness of Bhaktisiddhanta nor the 'giving siddha pranali to every fly and every mouse that comes into the room' liberalism of some babajis. I agree with Jagat that siddha pranali can be a useful tool and it can and should be given to those who are qualified. After all, my next statement was:



I would appreciate it if my former correspondent did not tie me in front of Bhaktisiddhanta's cart or made me appear like his stooge. I hope I made my point of view clear to devotees from both parties......

I did reply, although with a substantial delay -- as to a good many other letters that weren't urgent. As our correspondent, I have also had my attention turned somewhat off the internet.

Could someone key in the relevant Sanskrit and Bengali passages for the texts cited in the opening text? If someone already has the texts in his library, that would be a substantial help.

I am reproducing my belated reply to the inquiry below:

This is taken totally out of context. This is neither an endorsement nor a rejection of siddha pranali, this verse and its tika describes how even a liberated soul who attempts to merge with the Supreme retains a form of sorts.

I am sad to see that our anonymous is regardless posting along the lines of the last two posts of this thread. He has not reviewed the original texts but relies on translations. How can one form definitive, or otherwise strong opinions -- to the point of judgement -- without first meticulously examining the sources? Though I did not read the mood of his letter as agressive, I now note that such is there on the background, and have second thoughts on whether I should have replied at all.

At any rate, this issue deserves to be studied carefully. I should also ask Sri Ananta Das Babaji Maharaj to look into this. I need to, however, nail down the original references first to have something solid for Babaji Maharaj to look into. I'm not sure that is something I'll accomplish during this visit. I'll have to write a letter in Bengali and have Baba reply in Bengali, too, to ensure the case is properly dealt with. Please, gurubhais out there, don't try to clarify this by asking a simple question in English and without bringing the relevant sources to Baba's direct attention.

I'd like to remind everyone that the outcome of this discussion whatever the siddhanta is, has little bearing on the legitimacy or lack thereof of guru-given siddha-pranali, as the thread is entitled. Sri Kunjabihari Das Babaji writes:


This then reduces the question to a mere debate on whether a specific eternally existing siddha-svarupa is assigned or whether it is pre-destined on account of an eternal connection. This has little bearing on whether the guru should or should not describe the siddha-svarupa of the disciple. The evidence pointing towards the legitimacy of such description is abundant, as I have pointed out in my essay on the matter.