Prakrita Rasa Sata Dusani - by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati

Audarya-lila mentioned Bhaktisiddhanta's Prakrita Rasa Sata Dusani as a work where he addresses the subject matter of raganuga-bhakti, and so forth. Instead of cluttering the other thread where this was mentioned, I figured we could have a separate thread dedicated to studying this work of his.

So, please post in the verses you feel are relevant, with the original Bengali included. You can find the original text with Dasaratha Suta's translation attached to this post, just in case you only had the translation at hand.

Up to these verses (below) PRSD reads to me as a series of definitions or qualifications based on verses such as adau sraddha. BSST is distinguishing matter and spirit and presenting a progessive path based on an entirely literal reading of Rupa Gosvami. They can be taken as edifying statements, clarifying bhakti and condemning imitation. But here is the first section that I would see as contentious and would like to see translations and interpretations from others:

anartha thAkAra kAle rasa-gAna kore nA
anartha thAkAra kAle siddhi-labdha bole nA

anartha—obstacles; thAkAra kAle—at the time of remaining; rasa-gAna—songs of the Lord’s mellows; kore nA—should not do; anartha—obstacles; thAkAra kAle—at the time of remaining; siddhi-labdha—attained perfection; bole nA—never says.

49) While still contaminated with anarthas, one should never sing songs glorifying transcendental mellows. As long as these impediments remain, one should never state that siddhi has been attained.

anartha thAkAra kAle lIlA-gAna kore nA
anartha-nivRtti-kAle nAma jaDa bole nA

anartha—obstacles; thAkAra kAle—at the time of remaining; lIlA-gAna—songs of the Lord’s pastimes; kore nA—should not do; anartha-nivRtti-kAle—at the time of vanquishing the impediments; nAma—the holy name; jaDa—mundane; bole nA—never says.

50) While still contaminated with anarthas, one should never sing songs about the Lord’s confidential pastimes. After these impediments are purified (anartha-nivRtti), one never speaks of the holy name of KRSNa as if it were a mundane sound vibration.

anartha-nivRtti-kAle rUpe jaDa dekhe nA
anartha-nivRtti-kAle guNe jaDa bujhe nA

anartha-nivRtti-kAle—at the time of removing obstacles; rUpe—the form of the Lord; jaDa—as material; dekhe nA—does not see; anartha-nivRtti-kAle—at the time of removing obstacles; guNe—the Lord’s qualities; jaDa—as material; bujhe nA—does not understand.

51) After the anarthas are removed, material attributes are no longer seen in the transcendental forms of KRSNa. When such impediments are removed, material attributes are no longer perceived in His pure qualities.


(I don't understand some of these translations, e.g. lila-gana becomes *confidential* pastimes)

This booklet is an interesting combination of truths and untruths. Of course, Saraswati wants to, out of respect for raganuga bhakti, set the threshold very high, although his standards are not always the same as Rupa's and Visvanatha's



Statement nr.1 is wrong, for how can one at all become free from anarthas without singing rasik songs? Statement nr. 2 is right.



Statement nr. 1 is wrong for the same reason, also I wonder what is the difference between rasa gana and lila gana? Statement nr. 2 is right.



Here both statements are correct.



Good point.

A potential revelation just came to mind when I went back and considered the context in which those verses appear.

anartha thAkAra kAle jaDa-lIlA bhoge nA
anartha thAkAra kAle zuddha-nAma chADe nA

anartha—obstacles; thAkAra kAle—at the time of remaining; jaDa-lIlA—mundane pastimes; bhoge nA—should not enjoy; anartha—obstacles; thAkAra kAle—at the time of remaining; zuddha-nAma—the pure holy name; chADe nA—should not be rejected.

48) While still contaminated with anarthas, one should never try to enjoy materialistic pastimes. As long as these impediments remain, one should never give up trying to purely chant the holy name of KRSNa.

Here jada-lila seems *to refer to the activities of the jiva!* (In light of all that has preceeded, it seems clear that BSST would not call Krishna's pastimes jada, unless he is using it in terms like Sankara's "philosphized Visnu") In #49 and #50, the translator has attributed rasa-gana and lila-gana to "the Lord". Could the rasa and lila be referring to the jiva? Is this actually a condemnation of worldly emotion ala his other condemnations of the artists and poets who glorify mundane rasa?

Then again, in verse 46:

jaDa-zUnya aprAkRta guNa chADA zune nA |
jaDa-zUnya aprAkRta lIlA chADA seve nA ||

"Do not hear anything but the supramundane qualities (of Krishna), which are devoid of mundane attributes. Do not serve anything but the supramundane pastimes (of Krishna), which are devoid of mundane attributes."

How will you serve nothing but those supramundane pastimes while abstaining from hearing and chanting about them as long as you have anartha, as in verses 50 and 51?

The point on anarthas in verses 47-48 is perplexing:

anartha thAkAra kAle jaDa-rUpe maje nA
anartha thAkAra kAle jaDa-guNe mize nA
anartha thAkAra kAle jaDa-lIlA bhoge nA
anartha thAkAra kAle zuddha-nAma chADe nA

"When the anarthas are present, do not be charmed by mundane forms, do not mix (whatever) with mundane qualities, do not enjoy mundane pastimes, and do not reject the pure name."

When the anarthas are no longer present, what then? Be charmed by jada-rupa, mix with jada-guna, enjoy jada-lila and reject the suddha-nama? It would well suffice to say:

kAle jaDa-rUpe maje nA jaDa-guNe mize nA
kAle jaDa-lIlA bhoge nA zuddha-nAma chADe nA

There is no indication in the entire text about the meaning of anartha, though the word is frequently used. What is the definition of anartha in this context, and on what stage are the anarthas gone? We know from Visvanatha that the last anarthas vanish when prema arrives.

This text has certainly served its purpose in making the point that anartha is very bad, but for all I can see, left people quite confused.

I am now posting some of the verses Audarya-lila posted in the other thread, along with some comments. Translations are mine.

bhAvera aGkura ho’le vidhi Ara thAke nA
rAgAnugA zraddhA mAtre jAta-rati haya nA

"When the sprout of bhava appears, vidhi does not remain.
By mere faith in raganuga, rati does not take birth."

First sentence: Though there is no need for vidhi, it is still followed for the benefit of others (viz. Bh.S. 312).

Second sentence: Obviously so. Rati means bhava-bhakti, and rati awakens as the result of engaging sadhana, which begins when one attains faith in raganuga, or in other words, lobha, a greed to pursue the goal of prema-seva in Vraja.

rAgAnugA bolile-i prApta-rasa jAne nA
vidhi-zodhya jane kabhu rAgAnugA bole nA

"Rasa is not attained by merely talking of raganuga.
Those who are to be purified by vidhi never speak of raganuga.

The first sentence: Obviously so.
The second sentence: It is unclear what exactly is meant here. The literal meaning obviously cannot be correct, since the followers of Saraswati also speak of raganuga. How can one repeat the teachings of Sri Caitanya and Rupa Gosvami if one does not mention both vaidhi and raganuga?

mUla-dhana rasa-lAbha rati-vinA haya nA
gAche nA uThite kAGdi vRkSa-mUle pAya nA

"The root-treasure of rasa cannot be attained without rati.
Without climbing to the branch of the tree, the fruits cannot be reached."

Since rati, or sthayi-bhava (foundational mood of devotion), is the foundation of rasa, rasa obviously cannot manifest without it. When sthayi-bhava joins with the other ingredients of rasa, namely vibhava, anubhava, sattvika and sancari, rasa is manifest.

nA uThiyA vRkSopari phala dhari’ TAne nA
rUpAnugA krama-patha vilopa to’ kore nA

"One cannot grab and pull the fruit from a tree without without climbing on it.
The followers of Rupa certainly do not sway from the sequential path."

Of course not. First there is sadhana, then bhava and finally prema. They are sequential stages of bhakti.

This krama-patha is mentioned in a couple of verses, but is nowhere specified. Thus anyone may freely speculate upon its meaning and accuse others of swaying off the sequential path. Now, what is this proposed sequence?

azakta komala-zraddhe rasa-kathA bole nA
anadhikArIre rase adhikAra deya nA

"Rasa-katha is not spoken to an incompetent person with weak faith.
The eligibility for rasa is not given to an unqualified person."

First sentence: Sri Suka has mentioned that narrations of rasa-lila purify those who hear them endowed with faith. If one has no such faith in the supramundane nature of lila, why should he be spoken of rasa before he comprehends the basic tenets of our theology?

Second sentence: How can eligibility for rasa be given to begin with? Eligibility for rasa arises along with the awakening of sthayi-bhava within the heart.

sAmagrIra amilane sthAyI-bhAva haya nA
sthAyi-bhAva-vyatireke rase sthiti haya nA

"Without assembling the ingredients, sthayi-bhava does not come.
Without sthayi-bhava, one cannot be established in rasa."

First sentence: The ingredients are not defined anywhere in the text, this is left up to the individual to decide upon.

Second sentence: Obviously so.

sevAya unmUkha ha’le jaDa-kathA haya nA
natuvA cin-maya kathA kabhu zruta haya nA

"For the one who is inclined for seva, there should be no mundane talks.
Otherwise, cin-maya katha (spiritual topics) should never be heard."

First sentence: Obviously so, as in the Upadesamrita and everywhere.

Second sentence: I am uncertain over its meaning. It is a well-known offence against the holy name to teach of the glory of the holy name to those who are faithless, opposed and unwilling to hear. Otherwise, if this refers to everyone not enthusiastic to serve, then what is all this world-wide preaching all about?

As you can see, these verses, which are frequently quoted to "defeat the sahajiyas" (read: us), deal with some very basic issues which are known to anyone who is even slightly well-versed in the scriptures.

It is an insult to our intelligence when a saffron-clad Shaolin martial sannyasi comes in with his danda ferociously swinging around, declaring in a roaring, lion-like voice directed towards us that bogus persons do not realize that five times five is twenty-five.

The fact that people keep citing this stuff over and over again just tells that they have no clue about our teachings. They have started an argument against an opponent whose teachings they do not know. Or otherwise, if they indeed know our views, they are extremely confused, judging by the quality of their arguments.

Could this be his self-imagined sequence of vaidhi 'up to' raganuga, viz. first vaidhi, prabhu and then raganuga?

From the analysis of the above quotations it seems the Great Leader was himself a bit confused / confusing about it. How then can his followers not be confused?

The sequence to me can only be adau sraddha ...

But did he actually do that? Could this text really just be an exposition on 5 * 5 that has taken on more significance/misuse in the hands of others?

The Shaolin martial monk mainly refers to a certain person from whose website Audarya-lila cited the verses I commented on. Let's call him the leading spokesman of the anti-party.

Here's the verse again:

nA uThiyA vRkSopari phala dhari’ TAne nA
rUpAnugA krama-patha vilopa to’ kore nA

"One cannot grab and pull the fruit from a tree without without climbing on it.
The followers of Rupa certainly do not sway from the sequential path."

If we take this to mean the sequence from sraddha to prema, how can one possibly sway from that path? This is like saying that people should not sway from the path of growing old year by year. In order to make such a statement meaningful, one must demonstrate how it is possible to sway from that path.

The stages from sraddha to prema are really not a matter of what you sequentially do, it's a matter of inner growth.

My intention in posting the verses I did was to demonstrate a very simple point - the view of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta that one should 'not try to jump ahead' to taste the fruits of bhakti. I did not intend to post them to beat you over the head with them or to try to defeat you in any way. I have no interest in that. My interest is simply in presenting as accurately as possible the views of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. BTW, I find it extremely impudent of Adwaitadasa to make the statement he has regarding the level of understanding of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta as if he knows more with his short exposure to Gaudiya theology.

In the post on the other thread where I mentioned the verses you have posted here I aslo asked a question which remains to be answered. The question is whether or not the various lineages that seem to be lumped together for the most part by many devotees on this forum as 'orthodox' have different standards with regard to giving siddha pranali diksha? Are there different standards being followed with regard to who is eligible for lila smaranam? Certainly at the very least we can all agree that a great deal of purification of mind and heart is necessary for the pratice of smaranam, or can we?

One of the problems in understanding all of this is in perhaps the usuage of terms in overlapping ways. Jagat has mentioned this in his translation of chapter 15 of HNC posted on this site. Therein he mentions that Bhaktivinoda uses the term vaidhi when he is really talking about raganuga practices in their initial stages where the impetus is scriptural and intellectual rather than based on a purified heart and genuine spiritual sentiment. This is in fact the way in which Srila Bhaktisiddhanta also spoke about this. The process of sadhana that he instituted in his mission is not strictly speaking vaidhi bhakti. If it was, then why did he inititiate disciples into the chanting of the gopal mantra which is clearly a raga marga mantra? In fact Sanatana Goswami spends half of his book, Sri Brhad Bhagavatamrita talking about how Gopa Kumara recieved this mantra and proceeded along the path, eventually finishing his journey in Goloka Vrndavana.

What he advocated for his disciples was chanting Krsna nama and Krsna mantra and engaging in wide scale kirtan. He included the printing press in his matha logo as part of raga marga and clearly it was his vision that spreading the sankirtan movement through the printing and wide scale distribution of bhakti literatures was a dymanic practice of raganuga bhakti sadhana.

If it was the source of the verses, Narasingha Maharaja's web site, that you objected to Madhava I apologize for that but it was the only place I had encountered the text. Personally I don't like the idea that anyone who is seriously trying to love and serve Sri Radha Krsna is part of an anti party. We all have much more in common than we have in difference. I also personally believe that our differences are much smaller than many people try to make them out to be.

I don't buy into Ksambuddhi's holy war nonsense. You are doing good service and following your heart. It is to everyones benefit to hear differing views and learn from each other. Besides he is the one who stepped into your forum and started the controversy. My only concern is that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and his lineage be presented as accurately as possible. Many of the devotees who are members of this forum were introduced to Krsna consciousness through his lineage and have a fairly good understanding of his tenets but then again most of you left his lineage and seem to want to justify that leaving by finding fault with it.

We are all the beneficiaries of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's extreme dedication and service and his intense desire to spread the doctrine of Mahaprabhu throughout the world.

It is said that weak faith requires and enemy. Let us not fall into that trap, but rather let us all encourage one another and build each other up. Each person obviously follows the dictates of their heart and mind and feels that what they are doing/following is correct and pure.

I was speaking to my Guru Maharaja recently about some of the issues raised here in terms of parampara and raganuga and his comment was fairly short and succinct. He said let each person follow their heart and by doing so they will make advancement accordingly. He has often and repeatedly made the point that no logical presentation of life or spiritual path will be without its flaws but that it is in the practicing and genuine dedication to spritual life that one will find real meaning. In other words reality/consciousness exists and Krsna is eternally performing his lila but that we have to go there and experience it and not merely talk about it. As soon as we try to put the experience of the unlimited transcendence into the confines and limits of verbal and written expression we will find that nothing we can say can adequately convey that experience. That is why what Sankara interprets from Vedanta Sutra as 'nothing can be said about Brahmana' we Gaudiyas interpret as 'enough can never be said'.

Enough said,

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

But I wonder who is behind this idea of prematurely doing whatever anyway. It is an ontological impossibility to reach prema before reaching rati, or reaching rati before reaching sraddha, or whatever.

Then again, as for "jumping ahead", we all need to jump ahead, lest we stagnate. We ought to always aspire for the highest and try to reach it at every step, for otherwise how shall we ever attain such a lofty goal?



What I'd like to see addressed in his words is this idea of no raganuga-sadhana before anarthas are gone. Thus far none of the quotes from PRSD have born testimony to that, but nevertheless it seems to be the idea promulgated by many.



It is not really called "diksha". At any rate, it is not a matter of various lineages, it is a matter between the guru and the disciple regardless of lineage. Certainly the standards vary. There is hardly a standard which could be clearly defined to begin with. When the guru considers the disciple eager enough to pursue the path of raganuga, siddha-pranali is given. This judgement from the part of the guru is obviously a subjective matter, and not within the jurisdiction of others.



Yes, the mind must be purified to a good extent until it may focus on smaranam properly. In the initial stages of raganuga-sadhana, one does not immediately commence with long hours of lila-smaranam. There is arcana, there is nama-japa, mantra-smaranam, there is studying the shastra and so forth to gradually prepare the mind for the realm of smaranam.

Even after receiving siddha-pranali, it is not at all uncommon that the initiate does not immediately pursue long hours of smaran. All of it is gradually assimilated and put into practice. It is not, unlike some think, that siddha-pranali means that you become siddha over night or something like that. It is the beginning of developing your true specific identity as the servant of Sri Radha and Krishna. It keeps you aware of what you pursue, gives you the true context for your devotional practices.



That's all right, we may include all sorts of angas in our sadhana, but we must never neglect the angi, the root aspects of sadhana which keep the entire thing together and give it its very meaning. Sravanam, kirtanam, smaranam. Sadhana smarana lila ihate na koro hela -- "Do not ever neglect this sadhana of lila-smarana," says Thakur Mahashaya in his Prema-bhakti-candrika. We must be always aware that all of our various activities ought to bring about remembrance of Radha and Krishna, the deeper and more detailed, the better. Sarva vidhi-nisedha syur etayor eva kinkaram.



I have no objection to his website. He is an excellent example of a person who takes the words of his gurus and hammers people over their heads with them. I used the term "leading spokesman of the anti-party" in jest, borrowing it from none other than BG Narasingha himself. I find the term rather amusing. I believe it was Premananda whom he once labeled as the leading spokesman of the anti-party on VNN. Thus far I have not had the honor of being reviewed in his Krishna-talk newsletters. I envy you, Jagat.



This indeed seems to be a challenging task. The various branches of his followers seem to have a hard time representing him accurately, judging by the various interpretations out there. Is it just the complex language he used, or what is it? I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I'd love to see someone present the exact concept of Bhaktisiddhanta in regards to the Saraswata-edition of raganuga-sadhana and the rest of the novelties that have come about. Until there is a clear conception of what he taught, we can hardly say much of his teachings really. His followers have all sorts of ideas, but I rarely see them cite Bhaktisiddhanta's own words to prove their point. Let's have Bhaktisiddhanta's own words on what he considers to be the eligibility for practicing raganuga-sadhana. Anyone?

I distinctly remember the subject of PRSD being discussed by Madhava and Audarya-lila on Namahatta forums some tiem back. There, I recall that Madhava suggested that the translations provided in this document are over-literal which may account for why the document sounds alarming when there really is not much cause for alarm.

Just as an example of this line of thought, I distinctly remember a statement from Prabhupada stating that we should try to remember the pastimes of Krishna as we do our japa, though I have never come across that statement again.

In this way, what might we consider an ideal meditation of Krishna-lila to engage in while doing japa? Dhyanacandra Gosvami answers this question in his Sri Gaura-Govindarcana-smarana paddhati:

asya dhyAnaM yathA tatraiva--

dhyAyed vRndAvane ramye
gopa-gobhir alaGkRte |
kadamba-pAdapa-cchAye
yamunA-jala-zItale || 134 ||

rAdhayA sahitaM kRSNaM
vaMzI-vAdana-tat-param |
tribhaGga-lalitaM devaM
bhaktAnugraha-kArakam || 135 ||

vizeSato dazArNo ’yaM
japa-mAtreNa siddhi-daH |

“The meditation which accompanies this maha-mantra is also found in the Sanat-kumara Samhita: Sri Krishna is sporting in the cooling waters of the Yamuna, or in the shade of a kadamba tree in the beautiful Vrindavana forest. He is ornamented (surrounded) by the cows and gopas, and is accompanied by Sri Radha. He is very skillful at playing the flute as He stands in a charming tribhanga pose, bestowing mercy and kindness upon the bhaktas.”

So therefore, I can't really understand why people tend to concentrate on the sound of their own japa. Though that was also suggested by Prabhupada as a way of focusing the mind and fulfilling "sravanam kirtanam," but then smaranam also cannot be neglected as per Srila Narottama's instructions. I can also see how such a meditation may cause alarm if spoken about in certain circles, and this seems to be a rather unfortunate result.

Phew. I thought the imagery was a little overblown for BSST and actually began to wonder if you really were one of those AK47-toting Al Kunda terrorists we've heard about.

Excuse me dear Audarya lila, are you losing your famous composure here? I was only asking a question about BSS's conceptions of sequence, I was not making a definite statement or claiming superiority. And, without wanting to sound like Sparky who, after 30 years, comes bouncing in here challenging everyone with nothing in his head, do you know very much about my spiritual history that you can judge my 'short exposure' to Gaudiya theology? Do you know I learned Sanskrit and Bengali over 20 years ago and studied all the Gosvamis books, the original texts, over and over again for the last 20 years without the intervention of any English translator? Do you know I was trained and instructed by a host of deeply realised Gaudiya Saints, most of them which were born in the lifetime of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati himself and were contemporaries of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami? Do you know I have been translating and distributing my own renderings of the Gosvamis books for 20 years? And even if I wasnt, have you not already understood the insignificance of material time here? You are debating with Madhava (23), who was not even born yet when we became devotees, as an equal partner, arent you? Please do not look at the material years, it is obvious if you compare young Madhava with old Sparky. Just listen with an open heart and without prejudice, because you really don't know my personal history. It appears you are blowing your cool, too. Remember that personal attacks are a sign that you lost the argument....

I can tell you that with my 'short exposure to Gaudiya theology' (having received siddha pranali myself on December 3, 1982 ) . Some Gurus are more strict than others. My Guru personally gave siddha pranali only to a select few disciples, devotees who showed genuine interest in it and who urged him to give him/her this wonderful prize. There are indeed Gurus who give it to disciples who dont even know what it is. I dont want to dismiss that with the S word, it may be that these Gurus are investing far into the future with such a seemingly unripe candidate. What you should understand with your 'long exposure to Gaudiya theology' is that siddha pranali is a part of bhakti sadhana. pranali means system. Therefore it is not something that is reserved for the pure, uttam adhikaris or so.



Like Sparky, you too seem to think that raga is a post graduate practise of vidhi bhakti and not a parallel one. Gopal Mantra is given by all Gurus, not even Gaudiya Vaishnava Gurus. It can be explained in vidhi marga as well and Visvanath Cakravarti explains that Radha Krishna can also be worshipped in aisvarya jnana. tat tat bhavadi madhurye sruti dhir yad apeksate etc etc. BRS 1.2.270-309. These 40 verses should be memorised by all the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta, with the tikas included. raganuga bhakti is greed after the feelings of the nitya siddha ragatmika brajavasis. This is so tiring.... It is so clearly written there, why is it so difficult to understand? I know this sounds arrogant, I dont claim to be equal to BVT and BSS and ACBS, but with all respect they are simply not following Rupa Gosvami. A child can see it, if only you could give up your prejudice.

This is ass backwards. We did not first leave and then find faults, first we found the faults and then we left. And now we are, after a short exposure, explaining others why.



Why 'merely' talk? Isnt sravana kirtana the main practise? This is a contradiction. One should not 'merely talk' and yet 'enough can never be said'? You want to reach Krishna with a mauna vrata?

To mix metaphors, swaying from the path in light of the earlier tree analogy would involve taking a fruit (divine lila or prema) from the tree without climbing it (such as a poet's writing about elevated topics without having engaged in bhajana-kriya). Compare this also with the honey jar analogy apparently used by BSST (you can see or know of something but may not have tasted it) and also with Mahaprabhu's strictness in only hearing from qualified sources.

Swaying from the path could also involve a sadhaka claiming a level they are not at, e.g. "I am fixed, nistha" or mistaking ruci for rati or prema and subsequently performing actions inappropriate for their actual level. (In your age analogy, faking your drivers license to get into a bar, attract a mate, etc.)

You have it topsy-turvy there, my friend.


Dasarath practically makes a commentary out of his translation to make it convey more, since a very literal translation would leave the reader puzzled about many of the ideas expressed in the text. Now, whether his interpretation is correct or not, that is another issue altogether.

Three points I raised in the thread at Namahatta which also discussed PRSD, and the "sequential path":

(1) What are those practices which are supposedly for the more developed persons? Scriptural evidence?

(2) To what extent may one still be filled with material desires and impediments to be qualified for the more developed practices? Full freedom from impediments is only attained at the stage of prema, for a sadhaka has been described (in the BRS) as the one who is not free from impediments, contrary to siddha.

(3) What are the specific practices which are prescribed for the respective stages of devotion, and where are they specifically mentioned as such in the scriptures?

I don't think anyone ever addressed this from the Saraswata perspective joint with scriptural pramana.

As far as the poet example of yours goes, some folks like Candidas did a commendable job doing it backwards.



I fail to see how the issue of "qualified sources" is related with swaying from the sequential path.

As for the honey jar, I also can't see the relevance. What's the point in saying that you can't taste the honey without opening the jar? A little kid can figure that out, we don't need a philosopher to make the statement. The same applies for bhakti, of course you need to practice before attaining perfection. It can't really get more obvious than that.

Aside that, only a fool will make public statements of his being on this or that stage in his progress on the way of attaining prema, what to speak of declaring oneself to be higher than one actually is.

This sort of reminds me of Danavir's recent tirade against Tripurari's "Vraja-gita". He picked up every buzzword you can imagine and quoted at least three kilometers of Prabhupad to demonstrate that Tripurari is practically nothing less than Satan himself, and he never bothered to point out whether his claims apply to Trip or not.

I was actually thinking of Tagore-like poets there, not those accepted by Mahaprabhu. (Although I have to say that I kinda like some of his stuff.) The poet who draws the divine into his own mundane realm. And the socio-religio-literary context of BSST's writing is important.

I wonder though whether you're viewing the text as the battering ram it has been used as rather than taking it at face value. There are imitationists, there are bogus gurus, imposters, there are people cheating the world over, so why does a text that tries to distinguish the real from the fraudulent and promote adherence to the path taught by the Goswamis need to be somehow brilliant to you who are perhaps not the intended recipient anyway? Something that is obvious to you or I, may be exactly what someone else needs to hear. I also don't see the problem if the text is a simple extrapolation or glossary of truisms that doesn't offer anything much in the way of information that we might want to hear. I don't think it needs to be seen as a summary of BSST's theology (and especially not as some kind of competition to the Goswamis.)

Now in the context of how this text has been used by others, that's something else altogether and I think you're right in feeling that it's insubstantial.

This is probably the most contentious statement that I could find:

anartha nA gele ziSye jAta-rati bole nA
anartha-viziSTa ziSye rasa-tattva bole nA

anartha—obstacles; nA gele—not going away; ziSye—to the disciple; jAta-rati—the blossoming of attachment; bole nA—never says; anartha-viziSTa—infested with impediments; ziSye—to the disciple; rasa-tattva—truths about mellows; bole nA—never says.
59) The disciple is never said to have developed deep devotional attachment (rati) as long as impediments (anarthas) are not removed. The disciple who is still contaminated with these impediments is never taught the science of intimate devotional mellows (rasa-tattva).

I don't know how strong the term viziSTa is, but if Dasarath has correctly translated it as "infested," in the word-for-word, I wonder if the statement becomes a truism? (Would anyone teach rasa-tattva to someone who is infested with anything--fleas? maggots? anarthas?)

Even if the word viziSTa doesn't have that intensity, I don't think the statement "the disciple with anarthas is never taught rasa-tattva" is necessarily an attack on raganuga, the reasoning being as follows (by way of analogy--and please remember that we are Westerners and often take a guru's instructions too literally):

Say you want to attend Yale. You get the guide, read over the requirements, fill in the application form, sit your exams, sell your sister to pay for it, etc. This is the application process, a known system. But if your name is GW Bush you just waltz in. That system is not applicable to you.

Similarly, if you have lobha, you're on another level anyway. The restrictions and admonishments are not meant for you.

I don't think PRSD and raganuga bhakti are mutually exclusive. I also don't happen to see any faults in terms of BSST contradicting what the previous acaryas have said. (But I will look over this thread and his text again. Had a little too much chocolate and it's late.)

I'm trying my level best to figure out what it is. Given that it tends to repeat some very basic ideas of rasa-tattva, such as the idea that rasa is founded on sthayi-bhava, and also stating the obvious of Krishna's pastimes not being of a mundane nature, I take it that Bhaktisiddhanta aimed it at those folks who have some idea of the Gaudiya tradition, but are more involved with Baul and other such groups influenced by the sahajiya doctrine.

It only really becomes ludicrous when people hear that the babajis are sahajiyas, and they figure that Bhaktisiddhanta wrote the text against sahajiyas, and they deduct that what Bhaktisiddhanta objects to must be our view, and then they try to hammer us through the pavement with their quotes of the text.



Visista in Monier-Williams:

- distinguished , distinct , particular , peculiar
- pre-eminent , excellent , excelling in or distinguished by

Infested is a good pick here. However, a person who has taken a keen interest in following the path of bhakti is hardly someone infested with anarthas.

What does rasa-tattva mean in this context, anyway? The last three divisions of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu? The thing is that there are gradations in how deep you may delve into rasa-tattva. You can't just make a simplistic claim about this.

However, unfortunately texts such as the one at hand are a treasure-house for people who are fond of picking a loosely defined statement and molding it into a hammer.

Obvious to you, who are aquainted with the Goswami literature. Is it obvious in a pantheistic culture? Is it obvious in a culture where Ramakrishnas and the like are so powerful?



Again, who is his audience? Ever visited a Gujurati's home and seen Murari Bapu and the orchestrated tears? Ever hear of gurus annointing themselves as Jagad-guru without having left their own village? The Bhagavata rejects kaitava-dharma and acknowledges that it exists. A (real) sahajiya won't speak of having prema?

Reminds me of being on a bus in Delhi once. I had no money so travelled public transport but once got a bit lost. One guy tried to help me out and sat down next to me. My name is "Prema" he said, putting his hand on my thigh.

Or again, I met a Sikh once who saw me and immediately started talking about Krishna and the gopis. "Yeah, he really liked the girls. So do I..." and started making gestures as to the parts of them he really liked.

Now this is what I would classify as a "sahajiya"; someone who "takes things very cheaply."

Actually it got worse as he then went on to say that Prabhupada had made a pass at one of the Beattle's girlfriends. (Was it Maharishi who was accused of that?) By that point I was so mad I called him a dog and walked out of his shop. He followed me down the street into another store, incensed. (Not to overgeneralize, but Sikhs tend to be kinda hot blooded, eh?) He stopped me and said, menacingly, "What did you say?" Somehow I had the conviction to look him in the face and say, "I said that you are a dog."

*Sigh* Those were the days.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja emphasised the point that a humble vaishnava will never feel that he is freed from anarthas to enter into the most sacred bowers of the great Goswami's most elevated and exalted topics and practices.

When one has no humility, but has a very sneeky curiosity to be a voyeur into the intimate and erotic pastimes of Radha-Govinda, he then goes to India and finds out how to get his hands on the most sacred and secret Goswami literatures like Ujjvala-nilamani etc. by purchasing them in the marketplace. Even though such unauthorized and illict acquisition of such sacred texts is a great offense to all that is sacred, there are some very dubious characters who think that buying such texts in the marketplace will give them some insight into the parakiya-rasa of Radha-Govinda.

The actual truth is that one is only allowed access to those scriptures that his personal spiritual master finds him fit and qualified for and thereby initiates the disciple into the study of. Everything we do in terms of scriptural study and access must be sanctioned and approved by the bona-fide representative of Mahaprabhu.

Purchasing and reading the most sacred and esoteric Goswami literatures from the bizarre has nothing to do with devotional service under a bona-fide agent of divinity. It is an intrusion, an invasion into the sacred realm that can only be entered upon invitation by an authorized agent of Radha and Krishna.

Those who have procured these most sacred and intimate literatures in the marketplace, who think they will get anything but ruination from reading them, are most gravely mistaken and have invoked the curse and ill-bidding of the great Goswamis who have warned the unfit and unqualified to stay away from places they are not welcome by explicit invitation of an authorized agent.

Curiousity seekers, hoping to learn things they are not qualfied to know, are all condemned and cursed if they intrude into the most intimate and erotic love affairs of Sri-Sri Radha-Govinda. They are all cursed and condemned to the most pathetic and ridiculous misconceptions of the divine couple and dispatched to the camp of the absurd.

We have seen what has happened to those who have done this. They have all become mad members of the camp of the absurd.

I think it does not really matter for whom Bhaktisiddhanta meant this booklet. We can just analyse and judge it from our own point of view. There is a lot of truth in it, too. And a lot of mysterious talks.....

Braja, I know what you're saying, I've been around Hindus for over 25 years and seen all this too, but you know, this is the typical attitude of westerners.

'Oh yes, all those bogus Hindus!'.

Just as an example of where you are exaggerating, Ramakrishna was not 'bogus'. Have you read his autobiography?

He underwent extreme sadhana. He never said what you imply. He taught to be faithful to one's path. That's why he was an inspiration to many, and has many sincere followers. He was unashamedly a Shakta and his realisations are according to that system, but his life can be an inspiration to Bhaktas too. He spoke about Mahaprabhu! Sorry I don't accept that he was a 'demon'. Vivekananda was a different story. His hostility to Bhaktas makes him a worry. He actually requested that devotees chanting 'Radhe' be flogged! (But didn't BSST say something similar?)

Part of the problem here is the distaste of an outsider for a particular culture, but we should be worried about this. Read Nabadip's recent post. The fault is often in us.

There are a lot of English customs which outsiders find distasteful.

The Sikh you describe would never be accepted as a devotee. The Gujaratis have their own ideas of what Bhakti is. You don't have to accept them, but who are we to judge?

The one instance where I would say we should be judgemental is where serious abuse is going on. This has been shown with 'Sai Baba'.

***

I have a better example:

There is a middle-aged Bengali man, dressed in saffron, who goes around Radhakunda attending kirtans, during which he will start to pretend he is experiencing moods of Mahaprabhu, as if he is possessed by Mahaprabbhu's 'spirit'. At first it looks very impressive. He appears to be in a stunned trance with his arms in the air, catatonic. He was the only person I saw in RK who was like this BTW. Even my Gurubhai was fooled for a while, 'He is doing Bhava'. But 'doing' was the operative word. After a few days of watching him I could see it was a performance. Then I spotted a girl approaching him, his daughter, to get a key. Later I again spotted him hiding while smoking a bidhi, the surreptitious look in his eye really gave the game away.

Who was this man? He was a professional beggar. Just like so many elsewhere. It is his way of making a living for himself and his daughter. Once you understand that, where is the harm? He was thinking of Krishna, he was helping us to do the same. Just like a professional actor.

Even though my Gurubhai appeared fooled for a while, I know he is not naive. There are limits to how much he would trust this man, and after seeing what I saw he would come to the same conclusions.

Was this man a 'prakrita sahajiya'? Apparently so, according to BSST. But he is not a follower of Sahajiyaism.

But what is the point of making an issue out of this? Or of any of the other things Hindus choose to do which may seem strange to us westerners (you too Vaishnava?).

There's only one person here in that category Kshamabuddhi.

Quite frankly, it is because I believe that teachings like these you describe of Sridhar Maharaj will lead to madness that I stopped following them.

Madness may be caused by trying internalise contradictions, like trying to convince yourself that the Gosvamis wrote books which no one should read.

But Sridhar Maharaj also said we should see our environment as supportive and we should not be a 'drain inspector'.

Kshamabuddhi shows by his behaviour that he has not the faintest idea of the teachings or mood of Sridhar Maharaj, who would be ashamed and embarrassed to hear that someone was harrassing strangers like a mad Baptist Bible-basher, shouting hell-fire and brimstone in Sridhar Maharaj's name. Sridhar Maharaj who abhored this western crassness and insensitivity such as kshamabuddhi in his ignorance displays.

Radhe!

dear Rasesh,
another totally unqualified post.
full of hatred and aggression.

PLEASE DONT READ SRI SRI VILAPA KUSUMANJALI!

you will get to know how wonderful and sacred and lust-freeing it is.
praying for the mercy of one of Srimati Radhikas dearest maidservants by reading his inner ecstasy.

by the way,
where did the Goswamis say that none of the beginners shall read their books?
yup, they wrote MANY books.

Srila Narayana Maharaja gave me thrice the advice of reading the following (in that order):

1) Sri Upadeshamrita
2) Mana-Siksa
3) Siksastakam

i did this for the last 3 years.
from beginning to end.
also i read the commentaries Of Srila Ananta Babaji to 2) and 3).
i realized how genuine Srila Ananta das Babajis understanding and commenting is.
there was nothing wrong with reading different commentaries.
up until they forbade me to do so....

i may be in your eyes a gay-neophyte, but i also chant 16 rounds since 14 years and i also read a good deal including for example Srila Sridhar Swamis books.

so, i found after studying the basics, one should advance naturally.
WITH FAITH. UNDER THE GUIDANCE!

i wrote Srila Ananta das Babaji several letters where he gave me very valuable instructions.

unlike my former Gurudeva (SNM), he VERY MUCH encouraged me to read the Goswami granthas.

good point from you, dear Adiyen.

i also was on the verge of becoming insane with all that contradictions.
reaching even into my daily life!
especially this blatant, eye-closing, total fanatic obedience to some leaders of some lineage (don´t read any other books than his or his or his....), justifying with "dont jump over your guru", "you are not mature enough", especially this cold-hearted adherence to strict principles brought me to the point of madness.

and i´m thankful for it, because in darkest hours the light of God (WISDOM), shines brighter.

i wish that people like Rasesh could give up their totally one-sided approach to spiritual reality.

open up
defreeze

Tarunji

So, I guess my critics in the above posts are of the opinion that anybody off the street can walk into the bizarre and purchase the most sacred and esoteric writtings of Srila Rupa Goswami and go home and enter into the love lore of the Divine Couple, without qualification, guidance and sanction from an authentic, sat-guru?

Where did you learn this? What legitimate sat-guru has ever spoken such instruction?

Only a genuine sat-guru can give authorization and sanction for the study of such literature. Without explicit personal sanction and authority from a sat-guru, no one should dare to intrude into those literatures. Those who do are only committing offense to those sacred texts and the authors of such.
Offenses such as this is what seperates the authorized devotees from the prakrita-sahajiya.

The only thing that an unauthorized reader will get from reading those literatures is prakrita-rasa. His efforts will have no connection with cit-shakti and he will only find himself confused and disturbed.

One cannot access the Gaudiya granthas without explicit permission and guidance from a Gaudiya acharya. Every aspect of Krishna-bhakti must be taught, revealed and sanctioned by an authorized agent of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The sacred texts of the Goswamis were never meant to be sold in the market place without their sanction and approval which they never gave. Such selling of these literatures in the marketplace is the work of the jati goswamis, sahajiyas and street merchants. Selling these books in the marketplace for the purpose of making a profit is a terrible offense to the Goswamis and goes against everything they taught on the matter of bhakti-bhajan.

We find it quite common nowadays that many devotees think that they can just go buy the sacred literatures of the Goswamis and go home and read them like novels, without sanction or approval of a personal sat-guru. This is indeed a serious misconception and will not help them advance at all in understanding the aprakrita nature of vraja-rasa. In fact it renders them as prakrita-sahajiyas, with no true connection to the current of divine authority in the Gaudiya parampara.

Radhe!

are you blind?

i said: under ANUGATYA (guidance!).

Srila Ananta das Babaji IS considered to be a sat-guru ( only your lineage considers otherwise, me not care!).
for me, if he advices me to read the granthas of the Goswamis beginning with the basics, then thats enough.

in this forum there is no Dick, John or Spar... uhm Harry who walks off the street into the bookstore and reads this literature.

just because SNM and other leaders boycott certain acaryas doesnt mean their advice (other than BSS, BVS or SNM) is not genuine.
i for my part follow the shiksa of Srila Ananta das Babaji that i received.
and guess what, i´m happier than ever before.

call me what you want

again your post aims at no one here and actually, we know what you say since years....
big fat news...

Tarunji

Well, I don't recall ever reading a verse of mandatory qualifications for reading mentioned in any of the Gosvami-granthas. Perhaps you could show us an example or two. Otherwise, with due respect to Sridhar Maharaja, anyone may say anything but it doesn't add up to much if there is no evidence.



So, if my guru encourages me to study all the Gosvami-granthas, there should be no problem at all. Our gurus do encourage us to study the writings of the Gosvamis to understand the subject matter of bhakti in great depth.

If you are afraid of studying BRS, BhS and RVC to find evidence to prove your 14 points in the monopoly-thread, rest assured that none of those books contain narrations of erotic lila unfit for your eyes, they are theological treatises, so you can confidently read them and come up with some evidence to back up your ideas.

Well, what about those sad-gurus who arrange to publish the Gosvami-granthas in large scale to educate the humanity? All those printing presses and so forth, what are they good for, if no-one can read before receiving a special permission from a sad-guru? Do you know which books Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers had printed and sold? Which books, then, are restricted and which books aren't? Could you please give me the names of those common books which should be restricted from people, and the names of those which can be freely distributed?

As for the divine authority, your claim for being connected with it would sound more credible if you sometimes backed up your ideas with some of the foundational authority, citing verses from the books from which that authority is derived. But then again, neither your diksa-guru nor your siksa-guru are present any longer, so you cannot approach them for a specific permission to read those books to begin with. Too bad. I guess you'll just have to insist that your words bear the authority regardless of whether you can show evidence or not.

NOTICE FROM THE ADMINISTRATORS

To uphold a decent quality of discussion in the forums, Ksamabuddhi a.k.a. Rasesh should address the 14 points he has neglected in the "Raganuga Monopoly" thread by providing adequate scriptural evidence in favor of his position before commenting on anything else. He cannot merely post his strong opinions around the forums without providing evidence, and when questioned for some, move on to the next thread to insist on his opinions without evidence.

Ksamabuddhi, please make this your top priority and abstain from commenting on anything else until you respond to the earlier points made in response to your ideas in the "Raganuga Monopoly" thread. Otherwise, the discussions where you are involved will go nowhere.

It is quite well known what books and literatures that Srila Saraswati Goswami approved for his disciples. I have heard from Sridhar Maharaja that he explicitly forbid his disciples to read Ujjvala-nilamani, but might have made an exception if a few rare cases.

Aside from that, the disciples of Swami Prabhupada should be concerned with what scriptures He gave and authorized. He mentioned in his own books which books those were: Nectar of Devotion, Sri Chaitanya Caritamrita, Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. He also mentioned once or twice that Brhat Bhagavatamritam should be read, so I accept that a genuine translation of that book could also be accepted.(He also mentioned Caitanya Bhagavat and maybe a couple more books that he seemed to approve of. he did tell his disciples that they should learn the teachings of Bhaktivinode from what he teaches them and not by trying to read the writting of Bhaktvinode themselves.)

apart from that, I think that delving into other literatures by his disciples is unsanctioned, unauthorized and improper. I also have to admit some guilt in that regard as I have also read some Gaudiya Math books like Jaiva Dharma, Brihat Bhagvatamritam etc. etc.

I consider that I did such in my immaturity without understanding the offensive nature of such study. I have also in the past acquired some books by Kusakrata das, Pundarika Vidyanidhi das etc.

I have in my more mature years realized that I actually should not have wandered outside the books given by my spiritual master. I have also accepted Srila Sridhar Maharaja as my siksha guru, according to the teachings given by my diksha guru/shastra guru/siksha guru Srila Prabhupada and I believe that I have the right and authority to read whatever has been given by Srila Sridhar Maharaja. I am not fully convinced of the authority of Narayana Maharaja, so I have my reservations about reading his books, though I have read some of his works and find them to be non-political, sincere and helpful. I am not very confident that he is siddha-svarupa, so I have some reservations about his authority to translate and publish so many Gaudiya texts.

Yes, I am also guilty and I also have to confess and admit that I have made the same mistakes and offenses as those whom I criticise. However, I have not gone so far as to delve into the very exlicit and erotic literatures of the great Goswamis. I have read some books on bhajan, sadhana, siddhanta etc., but I have not dared to enter into the most elevated erotica of the sacred Goswami literatures.

As I mature and reflect, I can see the error of past actions and understand the necessity to strictly adhere to only those authorized literatures given by my personal spiritual masters. It does not matter what other gurus of other parivars give to their disciples; it only matters what the guru that Krishna sent to me has given for me.

I include myself in the category of those devotees who should chasten themselves to their actual personal spiritual masters. I have made plenty of mistakes and continue to do so. However, my curiosity to know things that my spiritual master has not given is giving way to a desire to chasten myself to his teachings and understand that my perfection can only be had in doing so and not in nosing around into books and parivars where I don't belong.

No acharya in my lineage has ever mentioned a word about Ananta das babaji by name and made any claims or accusations against him. Srila Prabhupada never ever mentioned anything about Ananta das Babaji being bogus, sahajiya or anything else you claim he has said.

However, the followers of Ananta das babaji have mentioned by name both Srila Prabhupada and Saraswati Goswami as being bogus and illigitimate, though neither of these two have ever spoken an ill word about Ananta das Babaji.

I think that the followers of Ananta das babaji have been a lot more personal, explict and offensive to the Saraswata parivar than any acharya in the Saraswata parivar has ever been to Ananta das Babaji and his parivar.
In fact, I don't know of anything that the Saraswata parivar has ever said against the parivar of Ananta das Babaji.

Saraswati Goswami did preach against sahajiyas. If the parivar of Ananta das babaji takes that personal, then that is their problem. It was never meant as a personal attack on Ananta das Babaji, though the followers of Ananta das Babaji have made very explicit personal attacks on Saraswati Goswami and Srila Prabhupada.

Perhaps it was unfair to use him as an example, but he did undoubtedly claim levels of realization (which was the topic at hand):



Whether he was on that level or not, I cannot say, but the obvious doubt arises whether someone on any level of advancement would voice that.

And perhaps he is not to be faulted for the outlook adopted by a disciple, such as:




I did read Nabadip's post and enjoyed it immensely. However, I think it also needs to be said that our acaryas went to great lengths to distinguish the transcendent Supreme Person from God-as-a-product-of-Maya. Kaviraj Goswami refers to this as "ei bada papa." Krishna himself killed Paundraka--is he to be faulted for sectarianism?

This thread started for a couple of reasons--as a means of investigating exactly what BSST did say and why this text has been used as a club against raganuga bhaktas, and as a means of potentially uncovering areas where BSST diverges from the Goswamis. Another thread regarding whether "Hindus," in general, or Ramakrishna, in particular, diverge from the Goswamis would be interesting.

So, perhaps in addition to sticking only to the books given by your gurus, you should really also stick in the association they gave you instead of venturing headlong into the dangerous world of sahajiyaism.

You obviously don't have what it takes to establish your contradictory views from the Gosvami-granthas, so perhaps it would be better that you sticked with those of your kind and did some of your homework there. I trust you understand that little good can be attained in presenting your opinions and the opinions of your gurus in an assembly where people don't follow them, particularly so if you can't prove their views from the shastra.

This was a serious notice. We expect that Ksamabuddhi follows it if he wishes to continue posting in the forums. In his next post, we expect to start seeing him address the 14 unaddressed points with scriptural evidence to prove them, or otherwise admit that he was mistaken.

I can certainly present shastra to substantiate my statements.
I am about to get down to presenting some shastra here and expressing my views in light of those verses.

However, I am quite amazed that you would even slightly dispute the claims that our every step and every action in bhakti-bhajan must be sanctioned, guided and approved by our sat-guru. Do I really really need to quote those most fundamental and basic precepts of Gaudiya doctrine about following in the footsteps of our Gurudeva?

Are you really disputing my claim that people off the street are not authorized and sanctioned to read the most elevated and esoteric literatures of Srila rupa Goswami without the approval and guidance of a personal sat-guru who is authorized to give Krishna?

I don't see how parrot-like "copy and paste" of Vaishnava doctrine proves anything. I try to speak like a practical person with some insight gathered from 30 years of study. If "copy and paste" is going to prove anything to you, then I guess I will "copy and paste" my case here in your forums, though I don't think that "copy and paste" really proves that anybody has personally realized anything other than how to "copy and paste".

Here I think you need to follow your own advice as you are rejecting valid principles laid down by our acaryas. Take a look at Raga-Vartma-Candrika for example. Lobha is the qualification for raganuga; it may arise from previous lives, from contact with the guru or a raganugi. And Krishna himself may instruct from within the heart. In your diatribe you are wholesale rejecting your own tradition. If you want to say "I'm not sure who is qualified, who possesses lobha" that's fine, and a topic worthy of debate--using principles established by sastra. But this way you are going about butchering the teachings of our acaryas is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Ultimately you keep falling to paranoia, ad hominem attacks, the "refuge of scoundrels," and creating straw men--and they're histrionic straw men, too. I think you've voiced your opinion quite clearly, presenting your intrepretation of what you've heard or read from your gurus, but unless you are going to go further and learn (dispute?) the teachings of the Goswamis and other acaryas, there's nothing more for you to do here.

I'm at work, so only a quick note of reply to Adwaitadas -

I merely responded to your comment that Srila Bhaktisiddhata was confused and in doing so I called you impudent. I also mentioned your 'short exposure' to Gaudiya vaishnavism. I freely admit that I don't know you personally or your history - but I thank you for sharing some of your history here with all of us. I still stand by my words. You insult my revered guides by calling them 'confused' and then on top of that you state they are not followers of Rupa Goswami. This is offensive and impudent to say the least. You gave a nice list of your credentials - bravo! Srila Bhaktisiddhanta has some pretty nice credentials such as being given specific directions to preach by Bhaktivinoda Thakur, being recognized by many even outside of his own math as a siddha mahanta. He is responsible for spreading the glories of the holy name thoughout the world and if not for him you most likely would have never even heard about Gaudiya vaishnavism, much less become involved to the extent you have (I am making an assumption here and I expect you'll correct me if I am wrong - but since 99.9% of the westerners who are involved in Gaudiya vaishnavism were first brought to the path through his mission I think its a pretty fair assumption on my part). In order to spread the glories of the holy name one must be specifically empowered by Krsna. I know you won't dispute that. So I think you should show a little more caution in how you speak about such a great soul.


It is said that one should speak up when he hears a vaishnava insulted and I did so - for that I won't apologize. You have come to your own defense because you felt I was slighting you. I acknowledge your time and effort and your commitment to the path. But please think carefully before you post. It is afterall you who made it personal.

You have decided that the path you are following is correct and most beneficial for you to reach your cherished goal - that's fine with me. But please refrain from statements such as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta isn't a follower of Rupa Goswami. That is not only false it is offensive to him and to those who follow him. Is that clear?

As far as your assertion that I am debating Madhava goes - you couldn't be more wrong. I am not interested in debate. I merely posted the point I did to show what Srila Bhaktisiddhantas stance was with regard to raganuga bhakti. I know that he has different views and he is following his own faith - I'm not trying to convince him otherwise.

To Madhava -

Are you suggesting that the practices that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta instituted and the thrust of his teachings lead to vaikuntha? You said you have read A.C. Bhaktivedanta's books many times over and this is your conclusion?

The mere fact that chanting of the maha mantra and the gopal mantra can be done in the mood of awe and reverence doesn't address the facts involved. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's mission was not to spread santa rasa or worship in the mood of awe and reverence. He preached and taught vraja bhakti. The goal of all those who follow him is clear - why would you suggest otherwise? He taught Krsna bhakti - but not the type you are hinting at - he taught specifically about vraja bhakti.

He placed emphasis on chanting. First come to the stage of offenseless chanting - this is a significant accomplishment for anyone as I am sure you know. There are plenty of verses to back up his teaching and his placing of kirtan as the primary practice of raganuga bhajana. He expected his students to become fixed and steady in their practice before they ventured into trying to contemplate the confidential lila of Krsna.

You seem to have an issue of defining what is anartha nivritti and your contention is that anarthas are present in the sadhaka up to the point of attaining prema. But you must must contend with the fact that anartha nivritti is placed in the sequential stages of attainment before nistha, ruci and asakti. How about this as a working model for you - when one passes the stage of anartha nivritti and reaches the stage of nistha then the anartha that keep him/her from 'constancy without distraction' are removed although their are still obviously impediments which must be removed as he/she progresses toward attainment of genuine love of God?

Since Jiva Goswami defines nistha as aviksepena satatyam - 'constancy without distraction' and since nistha comes after anartha nivritti but prior to the attainment of prema this should be at least logically acceptable to you.

The Srimad Bhagavatam (1.2.19) gives this definition of nistha or naithiki bhakti:

"When the mind is no longer disrupted by the modes of passion and ignorance, nor by lust and greed and other qualities, it becomes fixed in the mode of goodness and feels contentment."

This is why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta insisted that actual greed is defined by the absence of mundane lust and greed and why he insisted that the sadhaka must be advanced up to the stage of nistha in order to engage in the highest esoteric practices of lila smaranam.

Most of the people in this forum don't agree with him on this point - fine. But his stance is not without scriptural backing and spritual reasoning.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Just to reiterate - I know most of you don't agree with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and that is why you went elsewhere. If your practices are helping you I am all for it. But for me and for many - we do agree with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and by following his advice and the practices that he established we are finding great inspiration and enthusiasm for engaging in Krsna's service and we are finding that our inspiration grows daily and we can practically experience our own purifiction and advancement along the path.

You may want to quote me what I said if you want me to comment on it. I don't recall saying that the Saraswatites go to Vaikuntha, or Vraja, Brahman, Honolulu or Siberia for that matter.



So, let's say for argument's sake that Bhaktisiddhanta refers to the stage of nistha as being the qualification for commencing raganuga-sadhana. Is this mentioned anywhere in the writings of Rupa, Jiva or Visvanatha? If it is, I would like to see where.



I'm not quite certain whether this "emphasis on chanting" is something very unique, or indeed even all that great an emphasis to begin with, compared to the regular one lakh to three lakhs a day of most serious bhajananandis.

Kirtan is certainly very important, but one must not neglect the fact that raganuga-sadhana is performed both in sadhaka-deha and siddha-deha. Krishnadas Kaviraja describes raganuga-sadhana as follows (Caitanya Caritamrita, 2.22.156-157):

bAhya, antara ihAra dui ta’ sAdhana |
bAhye sAdhaka-dehe kare zravaNa-kIrtana ||
mane nija-siddha-deha kariyA bhAvana |
rAtri-dine kare vraje kRSNera sevana ||

"The external and the internal, they are the two aspects of sadhana.
Externally, in sadhaka-deha one engages in sravana and kirtana.
In his mind, he meditates on his very own siddha-deha,
Serving Krishna in Vraja day and night."

I think you'll have to agree that if meditation on one's very own siddha-deha is not accomplished, raganuga-sadhana is only partially engaged in.



I would really appreciate if you always filled us in with the original Sanskrit / Bengali and saved us from the trouble of looking it up ourselves.

All of this is fine, good definitions of nistha, but I'd still like to see whether this is given anywhere as the qualification for engaging in raganuga-sadhana or not.



I don't think there has been any argument over engaging in "the highest esoteric practices of lila smaranam". Does raganuga-sadhana not mean anything but that? Do you think we are teaching that every Tom, Dick and Harry should right away start astakaliya-lila smaran and preferably focus on the nikunja-vilasa while they're at it?

About the issue of raganuga-bhakti starting at nistha, after anartha-nivritti, Visvanatha doesn't quite agree on it:

atha rAgAnugA-bhakti majjanasyAnartha-nivRtti-niSThA-rucy-Asakty-antaraM prema-bhUmikArUDhasya sAkSAt svAbhISTa-prApti-prakAraH pradarzyate || (rvc 2.7)

“Then it will be described how the one, who has progressed on the path of raganuga-bhakti through the cessation of the evils (anartha-nivritti), firmness (nistha), taste (ruci), and attachment (asakti) all the way to the attainment of ecstatic love (prema), will directly come to attain his desired object.”

Anartha-nivritti is a part of raganuga-sadhana. Even bhajana-kriya is a part of raganuga-sadhana. And in addition to being sequential, each successive stage includes the elements of the previous one, at nistha anarthas still keep vanishing, at ruci firmness is still present, at asakti engagement in bhajan goes on, at bhava faith is still there, and so forth.

After engaging in bhajana, the anarthas begin to quickly vanish. Now, what sort of bhajana would that be?

To Audarya Lila - I am not at all going to apologise; your reaction is classical and I heard it literally 1000s of times before in the last 21 years. It is a change of subject. The fact that your group of Vaishnavas preached so vigorously does not take away our right to ultimately leave them if we are convinced that they do not follow Rupa Gosvami and the Vedas. If you are honest and you read this thread carefully and sincerely, along with all the threads in the archives of raganuga.com, that should be abundantly clear to you. To give you an example: My father gave me this body with which I am doing bhajan, he worked hard for my food, shelter, clothing and education, but when I grew up I decided not to follow him in habits such as eating beef and drinking liquor. I still owe him and I am also still grateful but it does not oblige me to follow his lifestyle. Of course A.C. Swamiji is not doing the above things, but the principle is the same - the fact that he made me a devotee does not oblige me to follow practises and theories that I am wholly convinced are wrong. This does make me ungrateful; I know for myself that I am grateful. That suffices.

Kshamabuddhi must have a very low opinion of Bhaktivedanta Swami for publishing 10th Canto Bhagavatam and distributing it to 'people off the streets' and indeed to people on the very streets!

And Chaitanya Charitamrita too, with those bits at the end!

Sridhar Maharaj's followers say he also disapproved of:

- chanting Bhaktivinoda's song 'Jaya Radha Madhava' because it contains confidential part of Gopal Diksha mantra,

-Jhulan Yatra, or the observance of almost any festivals related to Krishna's pastimes, most especially Rasa-yatra. Those of his Godbrothers who decorate their temples for these festivals 'for preaching' are regarded as having devitiated from the line of Bhaktisiddhanta,

-any complete reading of Bhagavatam or Chaitanya Charitamrita which will lead to confidential contents of these books being read aloud. So there is no class on these books in Sridhar Maharaj's Math. Rather they are studied, if at all, in segments which are edited and specially chosen. Rather like the old Soviet Union!

When Sridhar Maharaja's old Godbrother Sri Krishna Das Babaji Maharaj, having spent his life absorbed in Harinam Kirtan, wanted to attend Lila-Kirtan performances in nearby Nabadip, Sridhar Maharaj was said to have banned the old Baba from his Math.

Some devotees have been told by a Math Acharya that studying Krishna-lila at all is 'Maya'. Does this mean Sridhar Maharaja is following Shankara's philosophy?

What of Bhaktivedanta Swami's western preaching, introducing Krishna-lila to those who had never heard of it? Was Swami Maharaja off-track?

But how were those ignorant westerners to understand what 'Krishna Consciousness' might be, if they were not to be told about Krishna's life and pastimes?

Yes, even 'people off the street?'

Does this make sense at all, 'I have something very nice, and I want you to take it, but I can't tell you what it is'.

Or, like the Maharishi, a Mayavadi, 'Just take this mantra and you will eventually become purified enough to understand, meanwhile just regard it as meaningless'.

So you are saying Sridhar Maharaj wants us to preach like Mayavadis?

I believe that Bhaktivedanta Swami has been seriously hampered by his involvement with the ultimately incomprehensible Gaudiya Math. I believe that by following the Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who Swami Maharaja's father also followed, I am being truer to him than those who follow his 'Godbrothers'.

When I stayed with the Vaishnavas in Radhakunda I felt closer to Swami Prabhupad than ever before!

For example they chant with harmonium just like he (and no-one in Gmath) does! They chant the full Mahamantra aloud!

For years I was led to scorn Bhaktivedanta Swami by his Godbrothers, because he had adopted so many of the practices of 'sahajiyas', as I've listed above.

Now who's really loyal to Bhaktivedanta Swami?

If Swamiji was a 'sahajiya' too (according to Sridhar Maharaj?) then I am proud to be one!

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to respond with shastra to those 14 points.



Now, let's not get side-tracked. I never challenged that. You don't need to present references unless your views are challenged and evidence is demanded. Those 14 pending points of yours are examples of instances where you need to present some shastra to back up your ideas.



Well, we don't distribute them on the streets, unlike some did with Caitanya Caritamrita.



Well, it does prove that you have some basis for your claims. With due respect to your insights, your claim for 30 years of study and insight means little if you're making points which clearly contradict with shastra and which you can't back up. Get back to those 14 points now in the other thread and copy and paste some of your evidence, will you?

I wonder whether this was your subconscious popping through, or whether it was merely a felicitous typo that allows me to raise a point?

Many of us spent decades ASSUMING that we were making progress in Vraja-bhakti, but ultimately came to practically experience that the supposed "advancement" we had made, in a culture of institutionalized aparadha and avoidance of the authentic tradition, was little more than a Puri fiction. Removed from that environment, we have practically experienced that our purification has increased by leaps and bounds. Even without knowing a siddha-pranali, more than one devotee has experienced that under the shelter of the traditional parivaras it becomes far easier to chant 64 rounds (not struggle to complete 16), and find that not only are those rounds far more joyous and transformative, but that anarthas drop away far more quickly and thoroughly than they ever did in their previous association.

The followers of Bhaktisiddhanta seem unable to substantiate their points without ultimately citing as shastra the writings of Bhaktisiddhanta. Indeed, Sridhar Maharaja admitted as much; the Gaudiya Math considers Bhaktisiddhanta to be one whose writings are equivalent to shastra. The very premise of Bhaktisiddhanta's reforms was that the existing traditions needed to be changed, and that certain Goswami-granthas needed to be 'banned' to sadhakas in favor of new writings by Bhaktisiddhanta. If a follower accepts this first premise, the remainder of the Gaudiya Math approach follows logically.

The followers of the traditional parivars, however, are able to substantiate their points even without citing their immediate gurus; they can make their case completely and directly from the writings of the immediate followers of Mahaprabhu. The only way the traditional parivars are subject to defeat is if one accepts the Bhaktisiddhanta premise that certain Goswami-granthas are off-limits as evidence, while certain Bhaktisiddhanta texts are equivalent to or supersede the Goswami-granthas.

In a way, there is a parallel with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They (the "Mormons") insist vigorously not only that they are Christians, but that they are the TRUE Christians, having restored a tradition from which the rest of Christendom has deviated. Yet in order to "prove" their case, they need to rely NOT on the same Bible that other Christians accept, but on a host of new writings and "revelations" of Joseph Smith. Yet without the writings of Joseph Smith, Mormonism collapses, just as the Gaudiya Math ideology collapses without the writings of Bhaktisiddhanta.

Madhava -

I thought that you had replied to my previous post with the comment that the gopal mantra can be chanted in the mood of awe and reverence and can also be classified as a 'vaihi' mantra. Did you edit your post? Or did I simply remember incorrectly?

In my Guru Maharaja's book 'Sri Guru Parampara - Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, Heir to the Esoteric Life of Kedaranatha Bhaktivinoda - he cites the same verse from RVC that you have from Visvanatha - he then says that "in Bhakti-sara-pradarsini, Vishvanatha tells us that in order to practice raganuga bhakti one must have attained the stage of nistha." The foot note indicates says (Bsp. 1.2.291-2) It does not give the orignal text or the translation. I don't have the book in question but if anyone here does it would be nice if you post the original and translated text.

Adwaitadasa - I didn't necessarily expect you to apologize - I was merely pointing out to you why I spoke the way I did and also showing you that I merely responded to your denigration of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Why would you expect me to respond differently as I feel quite differently about him than you do? You are entitled to your opinions and you should definitely follow the dictates of your own heart - but don't expect those sadhakas who revere Srila Bhaktisiddhanta to simply sit idly by while you cast stones at him and not respond to it. A little common sense is in order here I believe. Also a little respect for others feelings.

Vamsidas -

Quite an impassioned post - but sorry, I don't find it at all convincing. If you want to say that Sridhara Maharaja said something then post his words, otherwise I will consider it heresay. Your speculation as to why certain books were 'off limits' to GM devotees misses the mark completely. By now you should know that he forbid his students to delve into the highest topics while they were in beginning stages of sadhana. His motto was 'first deserve, then desire.' He did not place an absolute ban on any book that I am aware of - he merely taught his students to study what was appropriate for their level of attainment.

Maybe your ASSUMING that your advancing now. These issues are subjective at best. If you are happy and really feel that you are making better progress in the lineage you are in fine. I'm happy for you.

Talk is cheap, as everyone knows. It is certain that one whose heart is poisoned from the affects of sadhu ninda will not make tangible progress no matter what he/she professes. Don't think for a second that anyone is immune to the affects of vaishnava ninda. Don't think that devotees from whatever lineage can speak ill of stalwart vaishnavas and not be affected by it. If you think that then I ask you where is your faith?

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Interesting comparison but don't Mormons wear funny underwear? Oh, wait...

Not to sound too skeptical or question any individual's experience and beliefs, but in regard to the renewed interest and ability in chanting, couldn't there also be an element of relief, change/variety, perhaps even superiority at having found the "real thing" at last? Many of us came to Krishna consciousness with a similar invigoration and it did not last. As you point out, if the Vaisnava aparadhas have diminished and the environment is more suitable, that would of course support better chanting. I being this up in regard to two renewals of faith that I have witnessed (Narayana Maharaja and BS Govinda Maharaja) and in both cases, there were only a few who maintained any noticeable level of enthusiasm. (But that could of course be used as an argument that the validity was missing.)

I recall reading on Nitai's site about his reaction to receiving diksha and how the mantra was so alive and different from his ISKCON experience. But judging by some of his statements, I'm not sure that he now even accepts Krishna or Mahaprabhu in any traditional sense. (Maybe I misunderstood his point of referring to religion as fantasy.)

Time and transformation would seem to be the only external yardsticks by which to judge anyone's dedication to mantra, and transformation would be hard to guage apart from obvious avoidance of sin and mundane activity.

It will be interesting to see though how the traditional schools adapt to Westerners, should any sizable number become interested.

Audarya-lila:

Thank you for your comments. You do, however, seem to have a recurring problem in making careless assumptions about the people with whom you are corresponding. I do not hesitate to offer my heartfelt dandavat pranams to so many wonderful souls who have been associated with ISKCON, Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Matha, Gaudiya Matha, and other branches of the Saraswata-parivar. I even took a little gentle ribbing for it on another thread here:

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=815

Quite obviously, I need to do better in appreciating all those who chant harinam. Who among us does not? The difficulty I tend to have wth devotees in your lineage is that there is commonly an "all or nothing" viewpoint required.

For example: I have great appreciation for Swami Tripurari's writing, both the "popular" stuff like "Ancient Wisdom for Modern Ignorance" and the more substantive works like his bhavanuvada on Tattva-sandarbha. The English-speaking world has very few Vaishnava writers of his caliber. But I also knew him when he was surreptitiously connecting to SCSM while still in ISKCON, and I saw a side of him then that must necessarily also inform my perspective. As a result. I could never accept him as my guru, but I am grateful for his thoughtful voice as a Vaishnava writer in English, and for his ability to inspire and enthuse many devotees. Surely you will advance under his guidance, even though I would not.

For this perspective, I have been called a "demon" and a "blasphemer" and "offender" by one of your Guru Maharaja's disciples. And because I cannot in good conscience accept Bhaktivinoda as "the seventh Goswami", I have been told by a senior member of your lineage that I will be going to hell.

By contrast, I am quite confident that you are NOT going to hell, and I have every expectation that you are exactly where you need to be at the moment, receiving the appropriate guidance you need.

If you feel a need to lecture me about being an offender, and tell me I am deluded about my own inner life, in order to bolster your own faith, then that's fine with me. I've heard it before, and I'm not going to waste energy trying to portray myself as any sort of advanced devotee. But while I may not be so advanced, at least I can nowadays say that I am honest in my self-assessment, freed from the "cognitive dissonance" and the stressful attempts to reconcile seemingly bizarre contradictions that were a routine feature of my former spiritual life. There is a LOT of pretense going on in your lineage, just as in any other, and I think it would be better if some who are playing at brahmin and sannyas would instead accept a more humble position from which they could genuinely advance. I find it ironic that two of Bhaktisiddhanta's "reforms" meant to imbue humility in your lineage in India (brahma-gayatri/sacred thread, and sannyasa instead of babaji) have in the West often puffed up their recipients with false pride.

I have assumed that Nitai's "fantasy" comments were along the lines of what CS Lewis and Tolkien said about Christianity; that they considered it "the true myth." Seen that way, the apex of human "fantasy" in its purified form would inevitably correspond to the apex of the soul's attainment.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and he's really just an awful cynic and a grouch.

You are quite right, I think, about temporary enthusiasms as witnessed in several camps of devotees. I have watched a few hardy souls go through that process even four or five times, each time THINKING that they have "found it" only to be disappointed in a matter of months or years. It's something to watch out for, and it speaks not only to our need to remain humble and cautious, but also to Audarya-lila's wise point about the importance of avoiding sadhu-ninda. On that subject, I look forward to the day when Audarya-lila, while remaining loyal to his lineage, will nevertheless feel able to post heartfelt thanks to both ISKCON and orthodox parivara devotees, just as some of us have learned to appreciate the orthodox parivaras while never forgetting our debt to the Bhaktisiddhanta parivara (even if we're occasionally branded as "demons" by that parivar because our "appreciation" doesn't meet their expectations).

No, I haven't said anything even remotely resembling that.

One good thing about always quoting what you reply to is that you know what you reply to.





Bhakti-sara-pradarsini is not really a book as such, it is the name of Visvanatha's commentary on Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. I have a working file of BSP from Jagat, I am not certain whether this section is complete or not. Anyway, here's what's under Visvanatha in that file for 1.2.291-292:

tat-tad-bhAvAdi-mAdhurye zrI-bhAgavatAdi-prasiddhAvatAra-lIlA-varNana-maya-zAstra-sAmAnye zrute zravaNa-dvArA yat kiMcid anubhUte sati yac chAstraM vidhi-vAkyaM nApekSate | yuktiM ca na, kintu pravartata evety arthaH | tad eva lobhotpatter lakSaNam anumApakaM tAdRza-hetu-jJAnAd eva lobhotpattir anumIyate ity arthaH | na tv atra lakSaNaM lobhotpatteH svarUpam iti vyAhyAtuM zakyaM zAstra-yuktApekSA-bhAvasya svarUpatvAbhAvAt ||292||

At least the idea of nistha is not given here. It looks like it'd probably be in the tika on verse 291. Jagat, could you fill us in on this one please?

The word nistha in verse 291 defines the Vrajavasi-jana who are rAgAtmikA-niSTha, not the aspirant who becomes eager for the moods of those who are rAgAtmikA-niSTha.

I suspect this is merely a misinterpretation of the tika. At any rate, let's see the tika. Jagat, would you mind typng it in?



Let's try to cut short this offence talk shall we? In the end, everyone is obviously envious of everyone else and offensive to everyone else and vice versa seven times over, so let's just leave it at that and discuss the philosophical issues at hand.

Well I suppose by now [or even earlier] you must have understood that this is a rare website where BVT, BSS, ACBS et al do not enjoy the unswerving loyalty they receive in other Vaishnava websites. That is your risk to take when you surf over here.....



I will now be more careful in my language and carefully ask if your Guru knows Sanskrit or he has taken this over in good faith from Vic di Cara and Dhanurdhara Swami, who have construed something out of Bhaktirasamrita Sindhu that would not disturb the faithful followers of a particular cult.

ragatmikaika nistha ye vrajavasi janadayah tesam bhavaptaye lubdho bhaved atradhikaravan (291) Is the verse you refer to. Dr. di Cara or DD Swami have mistranslated the words eka nistha (exclusively fixed, loyal) to refer to the adhikaravan, the jiva-candidate, and have confused it for the high stage of bhakti called nistha, but it refers instead to the nitya siddha rolemodel, the vrajavasis, and means 'exclusive fixation' and not the stage of nistha that sadhakas must go through. This is what Visvanatha Cakravarti pada writes in his Bhakti Sara Pradarsini - ragatmika bhaktau eka nistham yesam tesam vrajavasinam sri krsne yo bhavas tat sajatiya bhavaptaye lubdha ityarthah. word for word translation is as follows : ragatmika bhaktau = in ragatmika bhakti (of the nitya siddha vrajavasis, described in the opening verse, 270. hopefully di Cara translated that one properly) eka nistham = exclusively fixed. yesam = of them, tesam = of exactly these same ones. vrajavasinam = of the vrajavasis. sri krsne = in sri krsna. yah = whatever. bhavah = feelings. tat = that. sajatiya = like-minded, kindred. bhava = feeling. aptaye = for the sake of attaining. lubdha = greedy. iti = thus. arthah = the meaning.

Madhava -

Good point about quoting what one is responding to - sorry about that.

I only mentioned sadhu ninda in response to Vamsidas' post of this:

"Many of us spent decades ASSUMING that we were making progress in Vraja-bhakti, but ultimately came to practically experience that the supposed "advancement" we had made, in a culture of institutionalized aparadha and avoidance of the authentic tradition, was little more than a Puri fiction."

So since he brought it up I thought it only prudent to point out that no devotee is immune to commiting offenses regardless of their affiliation. I am happy to leave it at that.

Vamsidas -

I wasn't assuming anything about you - merely responding to your post which I found to be fairly shallow. I am glad to know you and to hear about your appreciation of my Guru Maharaja.

Guess what? I already appreciate all devotees. I admire Madhavananda very much and I have long appreciated Jagat. I am not a black and white thinker and I don't believe that anyone who thinks differently than I do is a demon. My wife is Catholic - that should tell you something - although not very much - about me.

I had an exchange with Nitai at one point on a forum and I told him that someone like him has a lot to give to devotees, but I also told him that his presentation needs work and that saying one shouldn't engage in sadhu ninda on the one hand and then engaging in it in the most disrespectful and outrageous way on the other is the very height of hypocrisy.

I think many of the 'critiques' of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta that have been written by those who left and went to 'traditional parivaras' have been transparently shallow and vindictive and have not had much substance. That doesn't mean that there are some valid criticisms, there are. You can find fault everywhere if you look for it.

Anyway, enough for now - got to get home.

Gaura Hari Bol

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

How interesting. This tika just basically repeats the "rAgAtmikAika niSTha" in prose, "rAgAtmikA bhaktau eka niSTham" -- that's hardly something that merits referring to the tika instead of the original verse.

Of course it is convenient and fancy to state that this is stated in "Bhakti-sara-pradarsini", because most of the audience won't figure out what he's referring to and can't look it up either. How about, "this is stated on Visvanatha's tika on Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, 1.2.291"? Now, if you'd say that, anyone with a bit of idea about Sanskrit would figure just from the BRS verse that nistha is misinterpreted there. The "Bhakti-sara-pradarsini" sounds much more fancy, and probably much smaller a percentage of the audience will start looking it up.

Perhaps Swami would like to revise this for his next edition of the booklet. What a pity I don't have a copy of that. Sounds like an interesting little booklet, I'd be curious to review the references he's collected.

For those who do not trust my word for word translation of BSP 1.2.291, if Visvanatha meant eka nistha to apply to the aspirant, then he would contradict his own statement in Ragavartma Candrika



And he would have confirmed this nistha to apply to the aspirants in the Ragavartma Candrika instead, since RVC is largely a repetition of Bhakti Sara Pradarshini 1.2.270-309. But he did not do that anywhere in RVC....

No Braja,
this is where the westerners just don't get it.

The difference between Gaudiyas and other Hindus, is that we have our Gurus and our Acharyas, and they have theirs, bas!

Hence, most of the analysis which has gone on in Iskcon for the last 30 years or so, is off-track, because it begins with 1+1=3...

It begins by assuming that Hinduism can be analysed with Christian categories (the ones we westerners instinctively use).

A bit like saying you can understand Physics through Biology, perhaps.

You are simply reading Christian meanings into the Hindu scriptures. This only teaches you about Christianity, not Hinduism.

This is called the 'Hermeneutic circle'. Either you see it as a trap, or accept it and work with it.

The fact is that many Bengalis may be followers of Ramakrishna and pure Gaudiya Vaishnavas as well. Except when they draw closer to their Guru they may be asked to refine their beliefs, in a very personal way.

I'm not sure any type of objective analysis is even possible at this stage. I can show also that almost all of Bhaktisiddhanta's influences may have come from outside Gaudiyaism: Vivekananda, British Missionaries, his alienation through caste and wealth, the nationalist movement...

But we've had this conversation about westerners demanding concreteness elsewhere, haven't we?

One of the topics at hand was whether the theology of BSST differed from the Goswamis. Are you saying that that topic--or any discussion of differences--is Western/Christian in nature? Or does it only become Western/Christian when it stretches to non-Gaudiya schools or questions anyones personal beliefs?

Mahaprabhu's analysis of the faults of the sad-darsana, Sankara, Buddhism, etc. isn't Western/Christian. Neither is Krishna's calling people mudhas or the Bhagavatam's calling them asses. So where exactly does the Western/Christian fault arise? Obviously it cannot be in aggression or delineation. Is it when a Westerner comments on any Hindu beliefs, even when using other Hindu beliefs as the basis of those comments?

You have me very confused. Frankly, I would need to see Mahaprabhu's teachings in a radical new light in order to accept teachings that are the antithesis of that which he and his followers taught. Can you give some examples where Mahaprabhu even hinted at such a mentality? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here, compounding my lack of understanding?

If your point is to allow others to worship as their heart pleases, sure, all power to them. Everyone walks on Krishna's path and he supplies their faith. If we are talking philosophy though, that's another matter. In my Western/Christian approach, I for one cannot see how anyone who has come in contact with the brilliance of the Goswamis, Visvanatha Ch., etc. can accept someone who allowed themselves to be seen as an avatara of Krishna and Mahaprabhu. Again, as a personal belief, that is wonderful. But if we are to compare the philosophy...

India has the greatest philosophical tradition of any country--nyaya, digvijay panditas, rival schools, elaborate commentaries and refutations--so why is it suddenly sacrosanct to not challenge anything? To accept all as equal? What happened to Hinduism?



Well, that depends on what you consider the whole. If you accept a whole defined by (and as) Krishna, the parts and the trap are very different from a whole that is undefined. A non-absolute whole leaves you with the challenge of needing to make sense of disparate parts and an ever changing whole...or is that 'hole'?

3rd posting on BRS and BSP 1.2.291 - If there are still doubts about eka nistha referring to the ragatmika nitya siddha vrajavasis, then listen to the Bengali translation of this verse by Sri Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja, Caitanya Math, Mayapur (hardly a dreaded sahajiya): uhAte adhikArI - yAhAr kevala rAgAtmikA bhakti nistha vrajavAsiganer bhAva prAptir janya lobha, tAhAr-i rAgAnugA bhaktite adhikAr. "Who is qualified? He who is greedy after attaining the feelings of the Vrajavasis, who is purely fixed in ragatmika bhakti, is eligible for raganuga bhakti." Nistha is here clearly and definitely an adjective of vrajavasi and not of the adhikari. So now, with Tirtha Maharaja's confirmation, there should be no doubt at all anymore about the unfortunate mistake of Vic di Cara, Dhanurdhara Swami and Tripurari Swami in their understanding and presentation of this sloka. Rupa, Visvanatha and Tirtha Maharaja - three is a crowd.

VCT 1.2.291

prasaGgato rAgAtmikAyA lakSaNam uktvA prastutayA rAgAnugAyA lakSaNam Aha—rAgAtmikAyA iti | rAgAtmikA-bhaktau eka-niSThA yeSAM teSAM vraja-vAsinAM zrI-kRSNe yo bhAvas tat-sajAtIya-bhAvAptaye lubdha ity arthaH ||291||

Very clearly refering to the Vrajavasis.

======

VCT 1.2.292

tat-tad-bhAvAdi-mAdhurye zrI-bhAgavatAdiSu siddha-nirdeza-zAstreSu zrute zravaNa-dvArA yat kiMcid anubhUte sati yac chAstraM vidhi-vAkyaM nApekSate | yuktiM ca, kintu pravartata evety arthaH | tad eva lobhotpatter lakSaNam iti

This whole argument arises out of not wanting to accept the very simple definition of lobha given by Rupa Goswami, as glossed by Sri Jiva and Vishwanath.

"When one has got even a slight feeling for the sweet moods of Krishna and his devotees through hearing their descriptions in texts describing the ultimate spiritual goal, such as the Bhagavata, [the raganuga sadhaka] no longer waits for the injunctions of scripture or for logical reasons to do so, but simply takes up [the raganuga devotional path]. This is the characteristic of lobha."

In other words, lobha is somewhat anarchic. This is the only definition of adhikara for raganuga given by Rupa Goswami. And, by the same token, all the logical arguments or scriptural citations telling people NOT to engage in raganuga bhakti because they lack other qualifications will have no effect on someone in whom lobha has awakened.

This is why I repeat: No one can be externally qualified for raganuga bhakti. And yet, if someone is fortunate enough to have lobha, it must be understood that he or she has engaged in many lifetimes of sadhana and self-purification, or has been blessed with the mercy of Vaishnavas, otherwise such a desire could not possibly have arisen.

And this also is why I say that Saraswati Thakur may have been deliberately creating a clear boundary that needed to be crossed. Otherwise, why speak of Varnashram Dharma when Mahaprabhu said, "eho bahya"?

Jiva Goswami gives the example that one sees the strength of an elephant when it tries to free itself from a tether. Similarly, the strength of the gopis' love for Krishna would not have been visible if they had remain in the svakiya situation. But when they were place in the parakiya position, the call of the flute forced them to overcome various obstacles, of which the most prominent was the moral law itself.

We are in a similar position to the Lutherans here, who bet all their marbles on justification by faith. We are saved by faith alone and not by any other qualification, because we are all irreparably sinners by our very presence in the material world (to combine religious languages).

Those who think that raganuga bhakti is all about "union" rather than "separation" are mixing apples with oranges. Wanting something (lobha) does not mean that you will feel satisfied, but likely the opposite. Siddha pranali is not about having something, but wanting it.

This is why, if we wish to distinguish ourselves from Saraswati Thakur's rather effective slogan "First deserve then desire" we would say the opposite. We would say, nothing makes us capable of deserving this supreme jewel of spiritual achievements. Indeed there is nothing we can do but want it and throw ourselves on the mercy of the gurus and the Hladini Shakti Herself.

Does such lobha then have no consequence in the character of the raganuga devotee? On the contrary--because his lobha is for the mood of the Vrajavasis and their counterparts in Mahaprabhu lila, i.e. Rupa Goswami, he naturally takes on their characteristics. Lobha is the transforming agent that acts on the heart.

The example given in the shastra is that of the "worm that turns into a wasp out of constant absorption [in fear]." This example is somewhat dated, because we know that the worm is placed in the wasp's nest to serve as food for the hatched larvae and not to become a wasp itself, but let us take it as it was intended. Strong emotions (like lobha) tend to transform the character more than logic or legalistic thinking. We become like that which we associate with, either externally or internally. [I suggest reading Madhusudan Saraswati's Bhakti-rasayana for a discussion of this idea.]

Is this antinomianism? Yes and no. Since transformation of the heart is more important than the specific legal injunctions (e.g. chant 64 rounds, don't engage in illicit sex), the priority is placed on positive attraction beginning with chanting the Holy Name (evidently) and going on to rupa, guna and lila. But with the attraction, a natural distaste for the "world" tends to follow.

This is hardly the end, but ity alam.

I was struggling with that one last night, Jagat. What does it mean, particularly prastutayA? I could not find a root verb or noun prastutA.....

Though this is the reading in Haridas's edition, I think that should probably be prastutAyAH, modifying rAgAnugAyAH.

In the context "prastuta" means "under discussion" or "which we have taken up for discussion." See MMW, 699.

Another look showed that this brief comment actually belongs with verse 290, though the rest of the comment goes with 291.

Madhava, I have split those verses (291-293) up in the BRS (I don't really know why I had them all together), but combined 290 with 291 rather than 289.

No, that only moves prastutA from the 3rd to the 6th case. What is prastutA then? Could you just give me a translation of this whole Sanskrit sentence? Then I can understand......
PS I have here only the Tirtha Maharaja Gaudiya Math version. I dont have Haridas's here...

This 'first deserve, then desire' slogan is one of the countless paradoxes proposed by Bhaktisiddhanta. How can one desire anything after deserving it? Why should one want to deserve anything without first desiring it?

Bhakti Promode Puri Maharaj, who often spoke on the "first deserve then desire" slogan, often asked rhetorically, how can people who have no attraction for the Holy Name think that they are attracted to higher things? E.g., "We can hardly wait to put our beads down and still we pretend to be attracted to the erotic pastimes of the Divine Couple."

Though I can appreciate this argument, I don't think that we can judge these things by externals, either of a positive or negative nature. Sparky's aspersions on householders for daring claim an attraction to Radha and Krishna is false, because all externals can be used to hide a host of evils. Hypocrisy is no one's monopoly, but the all-pervading disease of the religious life.

Well, Visvanatha does make it a little clearer by placing the word bhakti in the locative case, 'those who are exclusively fixed IN ragatmika bhakti'. That makes it easier to understand that ekanistha refers to the ragatmikas instead of to the aspirants. The root verse says rAgAtmikA-eka-nistha, the word ragatmika remaining in the first case, which could leave some slight doubts left.



Thanx a lot as always dear Jagat......

"After having described the characteristics of ragatmika bhakti to provide the context (prasaGgataH), he now turns in this verse (rAgAtmikAyA iti, v.290) to the characteristics of raganuga bhakti, which is the actual topic under discussion (prastutAyAH)."

It is likely that the error in prastutAyA (probably typographical in nature) was perpetuated through the various editions, which copied from each other.

Well, that is if one sees 'desire' as an all-consuming fire. A basic, slumbering desire is not qualification for raganuga bhakti?



I would dare adding: Especially of the monastic departments of the various religions.

Just to churn the lobha topic some more:

Could it be said that lobha is qualified by what happens subsequent to the development of lobha, i.e. one receives direction from the Lord within and/or from guru? By this, I mean to raise the question of lobha that is not sustained, that is not ongoing in transformative power but is sentiment, perhaps based on a temporary state of mind (viz. smasana vairagya--by the coming together of material elements one somehow develops a temporary desire)

If not, how can "lost lobha" be explained? If it wanes is it only due to aparadha or was it not complete to begin with? Or is it understood to be always complete but can be covered for some time?

I think that Saraswati's slogan really means, "If you claim to desire something, then prove it by trying to deserve it."

Like my son, he has talent as a pianist and has won several prizes. However, this year his enthusiasm has waned off. He says he wants to enter the competitions again, but we have told him that he has to practice at least one hour a day or we will cut off his lessons.

So I don't think that Saraswati Thakur's slogan is fundamentally wrong, it just needs to be understood properly.

The Catholic prayer is "Lord I am not worthy that You should enter my house, but simply speak the word and my soul shall be healed." The very prayer itself is a sign of desire.

If that is so, then Sarasvati should have done more to explain himself. Right now he is then being massively misquoted and misrepresented. The fruit is what matters, unfortunately, not the tree or the seed.......

I think that the parallel of "lobha" is "zraddhA"; or lobha is a subset of zraddhA, i.e., the departure point of devotion.

So I agree with Advaita here that "lobha" can be some kind of basic sentiment, a spark without being an all-consuming fire, just as faith could be measured as kanistha, madhyama or uttama. As a matter of fact, I am rather surprised that this parallel has not been drawn anywhere.

Raganuga can grow out of vaidha-bhakti, in the sense that raganuga arises out of hearing and chanting about the denizens of Vraja. At the same time, since the angas of raganuga bhakti are pretty much the same as those of vaidhi bhakti (with a few points of difference pointed out in various places, see Manjari-svarupa-nirupanam), the two are hard to distinguish externally.

As such, I see the main difference as one of self-identity. Mahaprabhu says, "nAhaM vipro," etc. "kintu... gopI-bhartur dAsAnudAsaH." This is nistha in a certain identity of the sadhaka deha. The raganuga bhakta has a similar nistha of identity in the siddha deha. This is the sine qua non of raganuga bhakti, without which everything else is inchoate.

Thus to ask whether Rupa Goswami specifically gave siddha-pranali to anyone is almost a joke. Raghunath said that until he met "Rupa Manjari" he had never aspired to Radha-dasya. So how should we interpret that? What does "siddha-dehena" mean if not that?

Of course, there are problems that arise out of the entire issue of gopi-bhava. I don't doubt that there is a deep fund of embarrassment about the overtly sexual symbolism, a great deal of confusion about the problems related to sexual identity. How many men may find it easy to say "I am not this body," but a lot harder to say with Bhaktivinoda Thakur

siddha-dehe gopI Ami zrI-rAdhA-kiGkarI
rAdhA-prasAdita vastra kaJculikA paRi
gRhe pati parihari kizorI vayase
rAdhA-pada sevi kuJje rajanI-divase

In my spiritual body, I am a gopi, the maidservant of Srimati Radharani. I wear Radha’s used cloth and blouse. Though I am still an adolescent girl, I have left my husband at home to serve Radha day and night in the forest bowers of Vrindavan.

Or in Sharanagati (24)--

choRata puruSa abhimAna
kiGkarI hailuG Aji kAna

O Krishna, I have today renounced my identity as a male and become a maidservant.

As an aspect of the fourth stage of saranagati, belief in Krishna's protection, taken here to mean the "pAlya-dAsI" feature of the eleven bhavas.

Maybe this non-scholar can explain to you what you "scholars" seem to be missing, as you interpolate false definitions of "Lobha" drawn from your imagination.

You are saying that there can be varying degrees of "lobha" and you are stupidifed as to why Rupa Goswami and the other acharyas have not demostrated the different levels of "lobha".

You have nicely concocted a theory that there are different levels of lobha, though there is nothing in the writtings of th Goswamis to support your concocted theory that there are different levels of "lobha".

Let me explain why there are no different levels of lobha.

"Lobha" means greed. Greed is not a partial absorbtion. It is not a "measurable desire". It is not a marginal curiosity.

"Lobha" is an all consumming absorbtion. It is the wholesale consummation in the desire for something. Something like "that greedy S.O.B doesn't think about anything but money".

Lobha is the wholesale consummation of aspiration to have something. There is no "little bit greedy" in the descriptions of lobha. A 'little but greedy" is not lobha. Lobha means "that is all he thinks about". He has nothing else on his mind. He is totally consummed in his desire for that thing.

This concocted theory that lobha has different levels and degrees is a good example of the way some so-called scholars like to manipulate words and meanings to support illicit proposals.

The qualification for raganuga bhakti is "lobha". Lobha is the wholesale absorbtion in the object of desire. Lobha is not a flickering condition of ups and downs. Lobha is the consummate greed for something to the exlcusion of all other desires. When a sadhaka has attained this "lobha", then he can qualify for raganuga status. Till then, he might be aspiring for raganuga, looking towards raganuga and appreciating raganuga, but not really raganuga until he has been consummed by "lobha", the consummate greed of desire.

I just have to preserve this little piece here. Because in this post Jagat shows quite nicely how he and Advaita have manipulated the word "lobha" and ascribed unauthorized definitions that are no where to be found in the Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu.

Jagat says:


Hey, good one Jagat! Maybe you caught something that Rupa Goswami forgot to mention?

Maybe the parallel was not drawn by Rupa Goswami because the explanation given by you and Advaita das is bogus?

Your defintion of lobha is bogus and designed as such to support your bogus defintions of raganuga and the qualifications for it.


Please show anywhere in the shastra a definition of lobha that conforms to your concocted notion that lobha has different degrees.

How can their be different degrees of "total absorption". If is not total absorbtion, it is not lobha.

Sorry, but your definition is just outright bogus.

Radhe!

why dont you just back-up your "theory" with some evidence from the 6 Goswamis instead of concocting something of your own?

where is it written that "lobha" means "total absorbtion"?
"thinking of nothing else"?
did you read my posting from Madhurya Kadambini?

its nowhere written that this greed only arises when all contamination is gone?

again you are on that "i will defeat you all"-trip.

up until now, your posts are nothing but big topsy-turvy -smokescreen.

admitted, some of your questions have been nice!

Tarunji

Radhe!

the only one who is bhogus is Mr. Envy.
and he visits you often,
dear Rasesh!

go play somewhere else.
why you always stick around here?

you dont really want to be here.
only finding faults.
embarassing yourself.

great job.

Tarun

I had composed a post this morning only to get booted off the internet and lose my entire text.

The first deserve, then desire slogan I think has adequately been dealt with by Jagat. I had written something very similar - the essence of it being that desire must be there, then the hard work, then the reward - so maybe a better wording would be focus on what it takes to achieve the goal and don't try to jump immediately to the goal without doing what is necessary to attain it.

Thank you to Adwaitadas and Jagat for the sanskrit and english for the BRS verse and the tika of Visvanatha. I think it is clear from what you have posted that the source of the reference must have not been accurate.

Jagat, I agree with you about lobha or greed - that when one has it, what can one do but follow it. In this sense it can be equated somewhat to ruci, or a genuine taste which one is compelled to follow. It is said that in love one knows no reason. In fact, one may give all sorts of reasons why someone should not be in love but those will only serve as udippanas for increasing the feeling.

I also liked your analogy of the puposeful wall that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta set up. I think I would differ with you in some aspects of the analogy. I don't believe that one should give up his guru in order to cross the wall, for instance. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta wanted all of his sisyas to cross that wall with his full blessings.

The issue, stated in another way for some clarity (hopefully), is what really constitutes that greed. It should be clear that it is not something based on an intellectual understanding of the philosophy - which, of course leads one to raganuga bhakti. Srila Bhaktisiddhantas criticisms should be seen for what they are and sadhakas should try their best to understand them because they are pertinent to all of us as we tread the path. He was firmly against what he called imitation - which is really a mental adjustment. Raganuga bhakti is a function of the heart, not the head. Madhava seems to feel that it is an impossibility to 'jump ahead' and he gave the analogy of the natural growth of the body through various stages. The problem is that the analogy doesn't fit with the process of advancement in spiritual life.

Heres an interesting dilemna to ponder for all of us. Sparky suggested that a sadhaka should simply desire to be engaged in service according to Krsna's will and should not have the audacity to aspire for the highest position of being a manjari. Braja countered by saying that the manjari offer the most pleasing service to Krsna because they serve Radha. (please - I'm am paraphrasing their words here - so give me some creative liscence). The dilemna is that Krsna lila includes and NEEDS everyone in various roles. Everyone can't be a manjari. So even though we intellectually understand it to be the highest service and due to our ego of wanting only the best we feel it is for us - this is not genuine lobha - it is an intellectual understanding and a mundane desire to be in the highest position.

A play has many parts and the actors must play all their parts, no matter how small, in order that the play will be of the highest aesthetic nature. Everyone may want the leading role, but not everyone will be cast in that role by the director.

Krsnadasa Kaviraja tells us that objectively speaking srngara rasa is the highest, but subjectively speaking whatever rasa one is in is the highest. The problem is when we approach from the objective plane - making the lila and object of our vision. Sridhara Maharaja said that this is just exactly backwards. Krsna is every in the supersubjective plane and we are his objects. Srila Bhaktisiddhantas policy and preaching was that the sadhaka should engage in sadhana to cleanse the heart so that the natural tendencies of the purified heart would come out. As the heart is cleansed then a genuine aquaintence with ones position in the nitya lila arises naturally. It is not forced by any intellectual adjustment or mental conjecture - it arises from a purified heart.

Anyway, enough for now - my wife just scolded me for not keeping up with the house cleaning - so off I go.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Radhe!

this is a nice point , dear Audarya lila

"Heres an interesting dilemna to ponder for all of us. Sparky suggested that a sadhaka should simply desire to be engaged in service according to Krsna's will and should not have the audacity to aspire for the highest position of being a manjari. Braja countered by saying that the manjari offer the most pleasing service to Krsna because they serve Radha. (please - I'm am paraphrasing their words here - so give me some creative liscence). The dilemna is that Krsna lila includes and NEEDS everyone in various roles. Everyone can't be a manjari. So even though we intellectually understand it to be the highest service and due to our ego of wanting only the best we feel it is for us - this is not genuine lobha - it is an intellectual understanding and a mundane desire to be in the highest position."

it was me , Tarun, who countered.
yes, i know that my approach is mostly intellectual and there is no GENUINE lobha,
but like Srila Jiva Goswami says in his tika, quoted by Advaita das in another thread on the definition of lobha,
even A SLIGHT FEELING of attraction to hear the eternal pastimes of Sri Sri Radha Syam in Vraja, even that slight attraction can cause lobha, the greed to follow in the wake of the ragatmikas.

so please pray for me that this little attraction i have may culminate in lobha.
thank you for your refreshingly nice-to-read-post and your kind attitude!

Tarunji

I am afraid this is flawed in various places, Audarya. 1. The spiritual world is unlimited and that means unlimited. There are innumerable gopas gopis deer cows etc. One cannot make material calculations that 'we need so many cowherd boys, some cows are missing'. Vai-kuntha means free from limitations. Your Guru has stressed this also in his sermons I remember. om purnam adah purnam idam purnasya purnam adaya purnam evavasisyate - It is complete and if you take something off the complete it remains complete.
2. Sparky's suggestion that one should simply do what Krishna wants is not supported by BRS at all. Greed is the cause of raganuga bhakti, not that Krishna needs a few more cowherd boys. It is not a material place, like a company or a sect or so. Greed is the great gift of Krishna and His devotee, as the last verse of the Raganuga paragraph of BRS states: krsna tad bhakta karunya matra labhaika hetuka. It is not that Jagat, Advaita or Madhava have just intellectually figured this out (I hope not at least) - the attraction has arisen, by Krishna's and His devotee's grace, and it can arise from even a slight impetus as I have shown from Jiva's tika of BRS 1.2.292. Furthermore, BRS 1.2.294 says krsnam smaram janam casya prestha nija samihitam - the raganuga sadhaka should follow the beloved associate of Krishna of his/her own choice {nija samihitam}. Thus, another GM/Iskcon myth bites the dust....

I don't suppose you paid attention to the passage of Raga-vartma-candrika I posted in earlier, in which Visvanatha states that the greed of the sadhaka increases gradually.

sa ca lobho rAga vartma vartinAM bhaktAnAM guru-padAzraya lakSaNam Arabhya svAbhISTa vastu sAkSAt prApti samayam abhivyApya “yathA yathAtma parimRjyate’sau mat puNya gAthA zravaNAbhidhAnaiH, tathA tathA pazyati vastu sUkSmaM cakSur yathaivAJjana samprayuktam | ” iti bhagavad ukter bhakti hetukAntaH karaNa zuddhi tAratamyAt prati dinam adhikAdhiko bhavati || (rvc 1.8)

“It is described that the devotees on the path of raga gradually progress from the initial surrender to the feet of Sri Guru up to the stage of directly attaining the object of their desires.
‘When the eye is smeared with medicinal ointment, its ability of perception becomes more and more refined, and accordingly it is able to perceive more and more subtle objects; similarly, according to the degree of the mind’s having become purified by hearing and chanting of My purifying pastimes, all the subtle truths of reality become manifest in the heart of the sadhaka.’
From these words of the Lord it is known that through sadhana-bhakti the consciousness of the sadhaka becomes more purified every day, and he gradually becomes more and more greedy.”

Let's stay out of personal evaluation of each other. This doesn't apply only to Rasesh, but to you too, Tarun Kishor. I'll start removing such posts from now on. Don't wonder where they disappeared.

Radhe!

good point Madhava. i accept humbly.
wrongly done by my temper.
sorry

maybe his posts about accusing me directly as gay and the likes will also be removed then?

thanks for your kind advice

sometimes the inner idiot takes over the keyboard and the mouse...

Tarunji

Imagine if there indeed were daily quotas or a certain ratio of each rasa to be filled in. Who would it be, perhaps the old Paurnamasi standing at the outskirts of Vraja, like St. Peter at the gates of heaven, keeping record of how many representatives of each rasa are coming in, placing people on the waiting list when the daily quota is filled to give Vrinda and others enough time to prepare kunjas, huts and so forth for the newcomers.

It'd be better to just immediately send me a link to any passage you feel is offensive instead of commenting on it and escalating the issue.

Advaita das prabhu:



Please forgive me for bursting the balloon of your misconceptions, but I cannot but resist.

Now, is Madhava das prabhu going to require me to quote a Sanskrit verse to explain that the desire of the pure devotee is only to please Krishna according to His desire? Do I really have to quote shastra to establish that the desire of the PURE DEVOTEE is only ONE THING and that is to PLEASE KRISHNA ACCORDING TO HIS DESIRE?

Is Advaita das prabhu trying to tell us that we should not inquire from Krishna how he wants us to serve him in what capacity? Should we just jump into devotional service and make demands that we are going to have this or that rasa with Krishna impertinent to HIS desire for us?

Are we supposed to impose our desire on Krishna or allow him to impose his desire on us?

Maybe Krishna wants us to serve him in some other capacity than Madhurya-rasa? Should we bother to inquire what he wants from us or just jump in and make demands that I am going to have this or that rasa with Krishna?

Yes, we serve Krishna in a particular rasa according to our own desire. That desire, when purified, is only to serve Krishna according to HIS DESIRE!

(another Gaudiya Math myth verified)

Madhava,
'rasesh' 's attack on our dear friend Tarun is here

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...t=60&#entry6674

at the bottom of the page.

As far as I am concerned this demon with grandiose delusions should have been chased out with lathis after that slanderous post.

Some here wanted to continue talks with him. Surely there are reasonable limits.

The point is that love cannot be directly superimposed upon anyone else. Can you demand your wife to love you in a particular way? No, she will love you in her own, particular way, and that is what makes the love so attractive, its spontaneity and unpredictable course. If the ways of love were predictable, it would lose much of its charm.

Of course Sri Krishna, being the source of all awareness, does inspire a particular mood within us, and this mood appears as our very own desire to serve him in our particular way. This is what Rupa Gosvami means with prestham nija-samihitam, a dear one of Krishna one feels most inspired by -- not a dear one of Krishna one is ordered to follow. That is a vaidhi-bhakti conception, and lacks the power to truly attract Krishna.

I can't see anything!


Ksamabuddhi is a sort of Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde figure. We don't mind having Dr. Jekyll around. It seems to me that Ksama is sincerely trying to open a dialogue, but at some point something strange happens and the reasonable Dr. Jekyll transforms into Mr. Hyde; it almost seems as if it's beyond his control. I've seen this on numerous occasions in other forums. He's done a commendable job keeping Mr. Hyde away this time. We'll do our best to make sure that the occasional ramblings of Mr. Hyde don't disturb our loving relationship with Dr. Jekyll. Certainly none of us would want that.

As I don't know this person, but in my years in Iskcon experienced that it had many psychologically unbalanced people like his 'Mr Hyde', my immediate reaction is to reach for the lathi, which is the only thing such people understand in my experience.

If you want to talk to 'Dr Jekyll' well and good. You know him better than I do.

Yes, the post appears to have disappeared suddenly, But I also put in an individudal report on it at the same time I posted that link. If it still exists, the individual 'Report this post' report will have its number.

I guess it slipped past, but it was an instance of personal villification which has not occurred on these pages before. Once that decorum was broken, for me it's time to fight fire with fire. That's what I've been trying to do.

I also want to apologise to Tarun for not speaking out on this sooner.

Not, as I'm sure Tarun will agree, that I see jesting about being 'gay' as 'slanderous' in itself, as obviosly Tarun is not gay.

Rather what was offensive is the tone, the clear intent to slander by using a common derogatory category.

You'll have to admit that we've come to cover quite a good deal of very interesting points, thanks to him.



I'm joking, I just deleted it.

Please don't hesitate to use the Report this Post feature whenver you feel like it, and when you do so, please also include a word or two to explain why you reported the post. I don't really pay so much attention to every single post to catch every single remark, I mainly skim them through for philosophical points. Now that I carefully read the post you linked me up with, I agree, it should have been removed as soon as it appeared.

But, can a conditioned soul, encumbered by lust, anger and greed, really have any qualification to love Krishna purely? Can a conditioned soul, suffering from lust, anger and greed, really understand how he will feel about Krishna when he is freed from such material contamination?
Should a materially contaminated soul be trying to understand how he can love Krishna purely, when all he really knows is lust, anger and greed?

Souldn't a soul become freed from lust, anger and greed before he can even have a clue how to love Krishna purely?



But, how can a soul who is covered by lust, anger and greed really have a pure desire to serve Krishna in any way. Shouldn't he become freed from lust before he can have a pure, clean feeling about loving Krishna in any particular way?

Are you telling me that a lusty sense enjoyer's desire to have a particular rasa with Krishna is qualified?

There is certainly no harm in longing for Krishna in a certain way even if one is in an impure state. Here are two among the very first verses of the section of BRS explaining raganuga-bhakti:

tathA hi saptame (7.1.29-30) -
kAmAd dveSAd bhayAt snehAd yathA bhaktyezvare manaH |
Avezya tad aghaM hitvA bahavas tad-gatiM gatAH || 274 ||
gopyaH kAmAd bhayAt kaMso dveSAc caidyAdayo nRpAH |
sambandhAd vRSNayaH snehAd yUyaM bhaktyA vayaM vibho || 275 || iti ||

"As in the Seventh Canto (7.1.29-30) -

By absorbing their minds in the Lord due to lust, envy, fear, affection and devotion, many gave up sin and attained their goal.

The gopis with lust, Kamsa with fear, the kings headed by Caidya (Sisupala) with envy, the Vrishnis with their relationship, you (Yudhisthira and others) with affection and we with devotion, O great one."

AnukUlya-viparyAsAd bhIti-dveSau parAhatau |
snehasya sakhya-vAcitvAd vaidha-bhakty-anuvartitA || 276 ||

"Fear and envy are contradictory, as they are unfavourable. Friendship arising from affection is said to be brought about through vaidhi-bhakti."

kiM vA premAbhidhAyitvAn nopayogo'tra sAdhane |
bhaktyA vayam iti vyaktaM vaidhI bhaktir udIritA || 277 ||

"What then to say of those who are engaged in sadhana, and whose prema has not come about yet? The words 'we with devotion' refers to vaidhi-bhakti."

By the way, I apologize for not posting the translation of verses 270-309 yet, I've been quite occupied recently, not the least with the sudden increase in the posts in the forums.

That wasn't your wife, Audaryalilaji, that was Swaminiji telling you clean the kunj!

This is perhaps a lesson for us all--we henpecked husbands are just manjaris in humble service to Radharani.

I was just thinking about AL's point about ego and manjari bhava (i.e., taking it because it is the biggest and best). It was a good and valid point. I think there is always the possibility of change, even after one has taken up a particular sadhana, to change course if one is not happy with it (e.g. Shyamananda).

In this effort there is no loss or diminution. And even if our motivation is wrong, Krishna says, "This fool has come to me for some baubles, but I shall give him my lotus feet instead."

That might work pretty good for a while Jaggy, until you want to knock-off a piece of the Misses. Then, if you are seeing her as Radharani, that makes you as about the worst kind of demon that can be imagined.

If you see you wife as RAdharani, then you had better quit sleeping with her!
that is, unless..................you...............think............you...........are.........
KRISHNA?

You got me! I could not fool you, KB!

We are back to baiting, are we?

"The desire to gratify one's own senses is kama [lust], but the desire to please the senses of Lord Krsna is prema [love]." - CC Adi 4.165

Let's try to restrict all comments on the nature of others strictly to personal correspondence. The forum should remain a place where philosophy is discussed. If personal comments are made, I reserve the right to remove them at will, so please don't wonder if such comments suddenly disappear.

Though your line of argument is legitimate, Kshamabuddhiji, I can't help but feel that you are shooting yourself in the foot. After all, your guru-varga--Siddhanta Saraswati and Bhaktivinoda Thakur--accepted the fundamental principle of gopi-bhava as the highest goal of spiritual life. If you have a problem with that, you won't make any progress by proving me to be a moral idiot, a transvestite, a homosexual, a sex-crazed Sahajiya or anything else. Anything you say about me (in that infantile tone of voice) is easily met with a "Your mother wears army boots" answer.

You seem to have a deep-seated malaise with gopi bhava itself. So rather than making me your enemy, you should be making me your friend, so that we can both try to understand it better. How is gopi bhava meaningful? What is the point of undermining our virile masculinity with such thinly-veiled homosexual fantasies? These are problems you have with Chaitanya himself, not with me.

Naw, I am back to teasing. I have found out what I wanted to know here. I came in here to badger you fellas who like to criticize Prabhupada and Sarswati goswami. In the process I came to understand you better. I understand where you are coming from and I can somewhat appreciate that.
However, I have a great appreciation for the vision and innovations of Saraswati goswami and Srila Prabhupada.
I've known about the babaji cult for a long time. I know there are "traditional" cults of siddha-pranali babajis in India. I am sure there are some true sadhus outside the Saraswata sampradaya. I don't want to badger or intimidate you anymore. If you think that the siddha-pranali camp is your ticket to Vrajadhama, then power to you. I am sticking by Prabhupada all the they way back home (his home)(that i want to make my home).

Despite your claims and accusations that Prabhupada disciples do not cultivate and perfrom raganuga bhakti, I know better. I certainly do not consider that a handful of western devotees who learned Sanskrit know better than the powerful acharya-avatar Srila Bhakatisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Thakur. I feel very much blessed to have been able to have even some small connection to his movement. I wouldn't trade it for all the babajis in India.

Best wishes to all of you in your efforts. I am sure that you will all do quite well. I am ecstatic to have the position i have under Prabhupada and I am not the least bit intimidated or deflated by all this. In fact, I feel that my faith in Prabhupada is even stronger, though my respect for you all is probably quite a bit improved.

I respect your appreciation for the "traditional" babaji camps of Krishna-crazy madmen. I appreciate them to. But, I appreciate Prabhupada even more.

I apologize for any offenses I might have committed in here to any of you. You are all an impressive bunch of Sanskrit geeks. I admire you all. Though I am not attracted to your camp. I actually am more of a Narayana Maharaja man than a babaji man, even though I am not much of a Narayana Maharaja man at all.

Krishna has been very kind to me in more ways than one. I feel very blessed.
I love Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja. They are the nectar vendors where I get my ambrosia. I personally find the academic approach to be a little dry.
I prefer to by like a dumb village girl who just loves Krishna because he is so awesomely beautiful and intoxicating. I might not be a scholar, but I know what I feel for Krishna and I dont need any mechanical process of meditation to show Krishna how I feel. I can pick up my mridanga or my japa beads and give my heart and love to him without following any laws or rules that anybody wants to measure me by.

As a matter of fact, if you guys were not so much handicapped with your offenses to Saraswati Goswami and Prabhupada, two great siddha-bhaktas, you could probably make some advancement in krishna-bhakti.

However, your explicit criticism of these two great sadhus betrays a very hollow shell in the form of a Vaishnava.

Prabhupada never once said anything negative about your spiritual masters, though you all have made many very harsh and criticisng statements about him.

You might want to think about adjusting that problem if you really want to make any advancement in siddha-pranali. Advancement is clearly one thing you have shown that you have not made by your negative remarks about certain great saints who spread Krishna consciousness all over the world.

All right then, may the force be with you.

I feel that Sparky tries to escape now without explaining his 14 odd points. If you do leave you will be the loser of this debate.....

Radhe!
thanks adiyen.

dear Madhava, he was referring to that malicious post with my picture, giving real bad names.

anyhow, i wrote him a letter and its ok now.

i´m fine and i enjoy too now .

Tarunji

You seem to think that you have understood something about us by coming here, but I don't think you have.

First of all, you have not recognized the difference between many of us as individuals: Though we share certain attitudes, we do not form a block. Madhava pointed out that we are not all initiated by the same guru; to this we must add individual differences in country of origin, level of education, etc.

Second, all of us, you included, are trying to understand life and God with our puny brains. The guru gives us an opening, a crack in the wall through which we perceive the light, but the responsibilities of understanding are our own. If we differ from them, we have to take responsibility for such differences.

These are things that most people here seem capable of understanding. There are devotees here from various Gaudiya branches who have shown themselves capable of productive discussion. Your main interest seems to be guerilla action. You give but you can't take.

I see far more appreciation of your gurus on these forums than criticism. When we cite Bhaktivinoda Thakur, however, you say, "He is not my guru." This is an odd kind of selectivity, don't you think?

Third, if Gaudiya Math devotees wish to practice raganuga without siddha-pranali, we have no objection. As usual, we will be able to continue hearing and chanting many of the same things together. Our theological goals will continue to be the same. We are not enemies unless we decide that we must be.

As I said in a private email to someone today, I see these forums becoming a place that intellectually open, theologically sophisticated and socially mature. This is about far more than just "siddha-pranali." It is about understanding this tradition and our place in it.

I wish you good luck in all your endeavors and hope to see you here again.

Your servant,

Jagadananda Das.

Yes!

Most of us spent our "formative years" in institutions that fostered intellectual laziness (or even anti-intellectualism). We were trained to scorn and even fear those with whom we differed. And when someone disagreed with our particular tradition, we treated him or her very, very badly. Even in the "orthodox" lines, there has been some temptation toward insularity, and toward "demonizing" one's opponents, over the centuries.

Perhaps it is just my naïvete, but I have great hopes that this forum can help bring about something new and wonderful among the followers of Mahaprabhu.

For example, it is clear that there are some substantial differences in theology between Advaitadas' lineage and Madhavananda's. And those who are in the Lalita Prasad lineage must reconcile the fascinating yet complicated role of Bhaktivinode (e.g. Was he a fabricator of texts, or a realized soul whose writings are all shastra? Was he partly or fully behind those Gaudiya Math reforms promulgated by his son, which most traditional parivars have opposed strenuously?).

If we wished to find grounds for screaming "Demon!" at each other, we probably have greater differences among us than do the followers of Narayana Maharaja and Govinda Maharaja within the Gaudiya Math realm. Yet where those two camps have taken to demeaning one another vigorously, I have been heartened that (for the most part) the approach here has been one of mutual respect, support, and learning.

I would like to think that this is a natural result of devotees taking seriously the Siksastakam.

If I am part of a movement that believes, "we need to gain more respect for Vaishnavas, so we'll give our men brahmin-threads, saffron cloth, and dandas", then (at least among Westerners "new" to the tradition) it's understandable that this could sometimes culture unwarranted and unwanted feelings of superiority -- which can naturally lead to competition and eventually exclusivism in word and deed.

How much better it would be, instead, if we could interact respectfully and affectionately with devotees from "different camps" -- learning to honor devotees in spite of their differences in doctrine and practice.

Certainly we shouldn't be "cafeteria Caitanyaites" -- picking and choosing ideas cobbled together from different camps. But I don't see that it is "offensive" to try to understand and even appreciate differing perspectives. Some few devotees may need to remain kanisthas for a while, and not engage their minds in discussions of the differences among camps. Certainly it would be ludicrous for me to present myself as anything more than a kanistha (if even that!) who at best aspires for something more. But Caitanya Vaishnavism is not a monolith -- and if we fail to appreciate the diversity among us, I fear that we are missing one of the most wonderful lessons available to us.

Yes, it's important that a devotee remain loyal to his lineage. "Humility" is not a synonym for "accepting anything in the name of Mahaprabhu." But neither is "humility" a synonym for "stupidity." I hope that this forum may be a continuing tool to help us engage both our hearts AND our minds in growth toward our respective ideals.

I think the debate was lost when somebody told me that you can have siddha-pranali without the siddha.
It then became sadhaka-pranali of sadhu-ninda.
(not a success formula based on theoretical knowledge)

Loser. We have addressed the siddha pranali question through and through but you have not addressed one of your 14 points yet...

The easiest way to win a debate is to plainly declare yourself the winner. Unfortunately it takes more than that if you intend others to take your victory seriously. You might have to even prove some of your points. With references from shastra, you know.

No, that's not true. He tried to start addressing the first point on Nov 14 2003, but it didn't get much beyond the beginning before he got side-tracked.

I don't know if there is a Sincerely Appreciating Raganuga.com thread anywhere but after reading these posts by Jagat and Vamsidas--and the cumulative appreciation I have for the other wise souls here and the voluminous expositions on the words of the acaryas--I have to say: sadhu! sadhu! kudos! hats off! dandavats! And in my mind, I'll spend some mental riches to bring you all together in a great sangha. Feed you hot puris and sabji reddened with that tongue-numbing kumkum favored by the sadhus. After which you may gulp at the raita for relief, not noticing its own reddish tinge. But there will be pizza too.

Rasesh,

I think you have begun emulating kailasa from another Internet forum. At least I hope that's all it is.

You are either stringing together words whose meanings you don't understand, or else you are rendering a serious (and dangerously unfavorable) judgment on devotees you don't even know.

I disagree with Madhava's apparent emphasis on Sanskrit (I'll be writing him a short note momentarily). There have been MANY devotees -- both sadhakas and siddhas -- who have known no language other than their local dialect.

What's dangerous, however, is when a devotee mistakes his ignorance for wisdom.

Watching you try to discuss with Madhava is like watching a British electrical engineer critique the work of an expert in medieval French literature. If you are convinced that your expertise in one area has given you the ability to argue intelligently in another area, then not only will you fail, but you'll make yourself look very foolish in the attempt.

"Prabhupada men" aren't supposed to make any great endeavor to learn Sanskrit. Fine. But "Prabhupada men" aren't supposed to associate with "sahajiyas" either.

If you aren't prepared to hear submissively from those who are more experienced in the "orthodox" tradition, then your "arguments" will be fruitless and silly. Better that you stick to the WHOLE sadhana that Prabhupada gave you -- which includes AVOIDING "sahajiyas." Maybe someday, when you are capable of approaching an argument with humility, acknowledging both your knowledge AND your ignorance, you will be able to debate meaningfully.

At present, however, watching you debate is a lot like watching kailasa's translation software at work mangling his good Russian into bizarre English.

Why not start a new thread about this.

True. It doesn't take Sanskrit, but a sat guru to understand things. But if you have a Guru who entangles you in myriad impossible contradictions... It just takes a little brain and sincerity, and a sat guru to get the point, but you know - its great to know some Sanskrit - you can communicate with the Gosvamis themselves!

Well, take a look at my comment below, and if you still think it deserves a new thread (I doubt it), why not go ahead and move it?

I'm not even sure that we disagree; perhaps I have simply been seeing your reaction against some of the self-contradictory comments made by Rasesh.

Certainly, one cannot debate Sanskrit without knowing Sanskrit. That much is self-evident.

But can't we debate quite a bit regarding doctrine and practice even without Sanskrit, as long as we are debating someone who recognizes our common authorities? In other words, an ISKCON devotee should understand that it's pointless to quote Bhaktivedanta Swami as an authority in a debate with a follower of Kisorikisorananda das Babaji. Similarly, the works of Ananta das Babaji will not be persuasive to a follower of Bhaktivedanta Swami.

Rasesh's fault is not that he doesn't know Sanskrit, though you have repeatedly taken him to task for that lack (thus bringing out some defensiveness and self-righteousness on his part). His fault is that he doesn't understand the protocols of debate, and that he's not able or willing to acknowledge his own limitations, and work within them.

I don't know Sanskrit any better than Rasesh does. In a debate on BRS, I would be hampered by that lack, but if I made an honest effort to engage the Haberman text (or one similar) we could have a very fruitful discussion unless you insisted that a particular word were poorly translated. In that case, the shoe would be on YOUR foot to demonstrate yourself a better Sanskritist than Haberman (which might happen once in a while, but overall would be about as unlikely as it would be for Rasesh to demonstrate himself a better Sanskritist than you).

Rasesh's problem isn't his failure to engage the Sanskrit texts -- it's his failure to engage THEIR MEANINGS, which could be reasonably well (though surely not perfectly) grasped in English translation. And it's his failure to recognize that he needs to cite appropriate authorities. If he's going to remain an exclusive "Prabhupada man" in his arguments, then he will fail -- but not because of the presence or absence of Sanskrit in his arguments.

I think I know Rasesh's mindset. He is able to justify his ignorance by writing you off as a "proud Sanskritist" who, like Nitai, puts knowledge ahead of humble bhakti. He's wrong, of course. He would be JUST as unable to answer your points if you gave them from Haberman's (or maybe Swami Bon's -- closer to his own lineage) translation, yet he would be robbed of the "proud Sanskritist" excuse, and might have to examine his own ignorance a bit more closely. So I'm concerned that you not allow "I'm a Sanskrit scholar and you're not" to become another "red herring" that will let Rasesh slink away from answering your questions.

Let me quote something from "Sri Bhajan Rahasya" by Bhaktivinode, as I have it in the edition compiled by Pundarika Vidyanidhi.

adhikara na labhiya siddhadeha bhave
viparyaya buddhi janme saktira abhave

"If one thinks of his siddha-deha without acheiving the adhkara, his intellect gets bewildered"

(I guess I kind of exposed myself here. i do read some of Bhaktivinodes books)

Could you please start a thread to cover the issues that you claim are "impossible contradictions" in the works of Prabhupada. Or, are you just making alot of claims and throwing up a smokescreen?

I did not mention your Guru's name but it seems that the shoe fits you. I think the 18-page 'Raganuga monopoly' and the 9-page 'Prakrita Rasa sata dusani' threads are nice starters, and have a look at 8 editions of nitai zine @ bhajankutir.net. There are extensive archives of this forum as well....
Am a bit short in time to rehash everything all over again.

Posted by: Ananga Nov 13 2003, 07:38 PM
I found the translation by Jagat in the link supplied on the other topic:

adhikAra na labhiyA siddha deha bhAve
viparyaya buddhi janme zaktira abhAve

"One who thinks of his siddha form without having attained the
qualifications will understand everything incorrectly because of the lack
of spiritual power."

I will take that as authoritative, given Jagat's superior command of
Bengali.


Posted by: Vaishnava-das Nov 14 2003, 02:14 AM
I also think that this is a better translation. So then this then brings
up the questions:

- What are the qualifications?
- What is the "spiritual power" that is being referred to?

Let me try to understand: the qualifications (judging by the use of
'adhikara') really refers to not having received the ekadasa-bhava
information from the guru, right? Just like I am not initiated at the
present moment, so if I think of my (completely imaginary!) siddha-deha, I
will have no spiritual power since my meditation is ineffective due to not
having received the permission or ekadasa-bhava to begin this practice,
right? Have I understood correctly?

Posted by: Madhava Nov 14 2003, 03:57 AM
Quite so, I think we can safely say that this spiritual power comes from
the sanction of the guru. One who meditates on siddha-deha without the
sanction of the guru, making it up as he goes, will be bewildered, and his
conceptions will be topsy-turvy.

Posted by: Vaishnava-das Nov 14 2003, 05:05 AM
Wonderful. So this proves that people who try to quote this verse are
really shooting themselves in the foot when they take the popular meaning.


Posted by: Madhava Nov 14 2003, 05:15 AM
I recall Bhaktivinod uses the term shakti-sanchar (infusing potency) in
connection with the guru's giving diksa to the disciple. Jagat should have
the reference at hand somewhere.

"If one thinks of siddha-deha without attaining the adhikara, in the absence of sakti, contrary conceptions will arise in his intelligence."

Bhaktivinod speaks of sakti-sanchar in connection with diksa. Sakti-sanchar means infusing with potency. At the time of diksa, the guru infuses the disciple with his potent blessings for engaging in sadhana. With such blessing, one may safely progress on the path of sadhana.

However, if one desires to independently pursue his siddha-deha, lacking the blessings of his guru and the conseqent sakti, misconceptions will arise within his intelligence. This is precisely why we approach the guru when it comes to matters such as our siddha-deha. Let us not disqualify ourselves from contemplating on siddha-deha by independently pursuing such matters.

If I play the devil's advocate, will you promise to not accuse me of slander?

I think that the predominant conception amongst the followers of Prabhupada is that when one attains "asakti", the actual position of attachment in devotional service, one will come to know his eternal relationship with Krishna, even without having recieved this "siddha-pranali" type of sadhana from the guru.

Is it the proposition of your camp that one's realationship with Krishna cannot be known by any other method than hearing about it from a siddha-pranali guru?

Are you telling me that there is no level, no platform at which a devotee can come to know that internally without receving information about it from in the form of a siddha-pranali sadhana?

I am not afraid to hear your contradictions. I can assure you I am am expert at reconciling all the so-called contradictions ascribed to Prabhupada's teachings.

Well, in theory everything is possible, but why take the hard road?

Imagine if you had to practice bhakti without ever hearing descriptions of Krishna's form, qualities and activities. Sure, you could in theory one day realize how He looks like and what He does, but it'd be a long road. The same applies for siddha-deha: The more clear your concept of the object of your aspirations is, the sooner you will come to attain it.

Yes, certainly the path of bhakti is about surrendering and throwing ourselves at the Lord's feet, trusting that He will take care of everything we need for our spiritual progress, but it doesn't mean that we should intentionally start doing things ass backwards.

No, I'm asking whether I will be called an offender if I present contradictory teachings from his books or not. If doing that will result in a tirade of offense-mongering and personal insults, I have better things to do.

Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti says in chapter 7 of Madhurya Kadambini that Krishna is first seen face to face in the stage of bhava. Won't quote Sanskrit then..... This could be added then to the contradictions, though I keep the same reservations as Madhava. Don't start name calling in the face of all this evidence!

I am just a foolish neophyte. However, it has always been my understanding that my actual siddha-deha would be something I come to know through revelation when I attain the stage of suddha-nama bhajan. I have always thought that if I can just chant the HOly Name without offense, I will attain a taste for the Holy Name and become attached to the actual ecstacy of bhava and in a trance of samadhi I will get an acquaintance with my siddha-deha.

I have never thought of my siddha-deha as something that will be described to me except in a general way, that I am a gopi or cowboy or something like that and that the actual form will be realized in samadhi.

I think that most of the devotees who read Prabhupada's books have pretty much the same idea. That is why we are a little antagnonistic to the siddha-pranali theory that one hears about it from his guru before he is really on the platform to actually realize his siddha-deha.

It seems that hearing about it, is not really the same as realizing it. Most ISKCON type devotees are seeking to REALIZE their siddha-deha more than they are to HEAR about it theoretically from the guru.

This is really the main difference between us and you. We all have the same goals and aspirations. We just have a different concept on the issue of siddha-deha. This is really the only real difference that I can see.

I won't call you an offender. But, you need to keep your issues clear and not let your emotions cause you to offend the sadhu that you find these contradictions in. I personally think that all these issues can be reconciled by a sincere an unbiased observation.

If your issues are genuine, then how can you be an offender? If someone calls you an offender that does not matter. Only if you are an offender, that is what will be your ruination.........right?

Hearing is the beginning of realising. Otherwise, as Madhava pointed out, you will be groping in the dark for a very very long time.

Are you saying that Prabhupada did not teach his disciples that they should aspire to be Rupanugas? Did he not teach them Sikshastakam? That he did not advocate gopi-bhava as the highest form of Krishna-prema?

Prabhupada most definitely licensed his devotees to pursue gopi-bhava. He did not give siddha-pranali, but he did advocate that one should think of Rupa Goswami as the prototype of aspiration.

Prabhupada taught nothing different from Rupa Goswami. He might have a different way of presenting it, but he told us all they we are supposed to be Rupanugas, that we should internally think of ourselves as maidservants of Radharani. He advocated RAdha-dasyam most explicity in all his teachings. He just didn't give siddha-pranali, but he gave everything but that.

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious - there is a bit of academic dishonesty in brushing aside the verse which speaks about the necessary adhikara for contemplation of one's siddha deha the way it has been done here.

There is nothing in the verse that speaks about an 'imagined siddha deha'. So to leap to the idea that the verse is speaking of someone who contemplates a siddha deha without having 'received one' from one's guru is simply conjecture and an attempt to twist the verse to justify a certain practice.

Does anyone know the source of this verse? I know it is quoted in Srila Bhaktivinodas Bhajana Rahasya - is it his writing? If it is then the conjecture makes even less sense since everyone knows that he recieved ekadasa bhava from his guru and taught about the practice in some of his books.

I think a more honest interpretation would be that either that the guru gave this information prematurely, ie. misjudged the level of advancement of his/her sisya - or possibly that the information was given with the expectation that smaranam would be undertaken at a later time as the sadhaka reached the appropriate level of attainment.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

One more quick comment before I log out for the day -

I don't believe any of the issues being discussed are blak/white or right/wrong issues. I also find it rather silly to speak of logical inconsistencies within a particular metanarrative when all attempts at describing the transcendent reality have them. I mean honestly - who hear actually believes that there are no logical loopholes within any theology? Only really logical outstanding thinkers will follow gaudiya theology and those that don't either aren't familiar with it or else they aren't intelligent enough to understand it?

This is foolish thinking to say the least. Logic reason and argument always fail - whether you are in GM/orthodoxy/Catholicism/Islam - whatever. So lighten up a bit and realize that it's more about practice and experience than it is about logic, reason and argument.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

The obvious? Academic dishonesty? Wow.

A plausible explanation is being offered. The other suggested translation seems to neglect the words "saktira abhave" altogether. Drawing a parallel between the sakti mentioned and the sakti-sancara of guru is not at all unreasonable.

If you feel there is something wrong with the explanation, please feel free to quote a sentence or two and point out the problem therein.



It is as good a conjecture as any. I take it that you have good alternate explanations, and that you can prove them superior to my conjecture.



Yes, it is of his writing.

Why doesn't the explanation make sense particularly because Bhaktivinod received ekadasa-bhava from his guru? Do you imply that he is writing out of his own experience, having contemplated on guru-given siddha-deha prematurely? If not, I fail to see what's your point in this.



How would this interpretation be any more honest? It would perhaps sound more convenient for the Saraswatites, but it wouldn't make it a bit more honest.

Of course we could just honestly brush it aside by frankly admitting that we do not consider the writings of Bhaktivinod to be an absolute word of authority. Most of us really only quote him in our discussions with the Saraswatites, to show that your Bhaktivinod was up to something and had many similar ideas to the rest of the tradition; ideas which are not employed in the Saraswata group.

So, I guess we are hearing from this camp that Bhaktivinode had some misconceptions about bhajan and siddha-deha and that he got his siddha-deha in the form of a description by his guru and not through realizing it in fact?
Where is the proof that Bhaktivinode got his siddha-deha via siddha-pranali instead of svarupa-shakti?

I think that such statements as this are quite false and misleading, as Saraswati Goswami has no different idea from Bhaktivinode. I think his preface of SRi Bhajan Rahasya shows that he did nothing except promote bhajan as exactly prescribed by Bhaktivinode.

This is only true if one accepts a self-contradictory definition of "no different idea."

Do Vaishnavas chant brahma-gayatri or not? Do they wear the sacred thread?

Do they accept sannyasa in saffron?

Do they reveal their guru-pranali and siddha-pranali to their disciples, or not?

Only by the most expansive definition of "no different idea" can one reconcile the two. If you're going to say that Bhaktivinode and Bhaktisiddhanta had "no different idea", isn't it just as correct to say that Kirtanananda and Bhaktivedanta had "no different idea"? In which case, what practical meaning does the term "no different idea" have? None; it's just another partisan political slogan -- little more than empty rhetoric.

Should I say "yes", the "O-word" I would hear.



I recall hearing there's a document in this regard given by Vipin Vihari Gosvami to Bhaktivinod. If someone has Shukavak's book, he could fill us in with the details.

This is based on a misunderstanding of the word "siddha." The basic meaning is "successful." In this particular case, it means "the objective, the goal." Like "sAdhya."

With reference to the "adhikAra nA labhiyA" verse, good points have been made. The adhikAra is, according to BRS, lobha.

I think that this means basically that someone who is given siddha-pranali information without having asked for it. Bhaktivinoda is specific about this in Harinama-cintamani.

The word sakti in the verse is also interesting. The proposal that this means "sakti-sancara" is interesting. That would be the second half of the engagement: First one desires (lobha), then the guru approves (sakti-sancara), simultaneously purifying the conception, etc., thus giving sakti and preventing misunderstanding (viparyaya-buddhi).

Read chapter 15 of Harinama-cintamani. I gave the link on the translations section of this forum.

Bhaktivinoda Thakur's position is that one's tendency is revealed through bhajan and that he seeks to have it confirmed and purified through the spiritual master.

The trouble with all these terms "siddha" "revealed" "guru" etc., etc., is that we have set the sights so high that we cannot conceive of these issues except as wrapped up in the nimbus of divine light. An ordinary girl came carrying milk for Rupa Goswami so he could make sweet rice, but Sanatan got angry and said, "That was Radharani and you did not recognize her and let her render service to you."

Realization, etc., often comes in the most ordinary forms, but we want our gurus to be omniscient yogic flyers, mind readers and clairvoyants rather than tellers of simple truths.

The "revelation" in this case is the simple desire, "Let what the Vrajavasis have be mine also." When that takes specific form (i.e., let me be a cowherd, etc.), then one is ready for raganuga bhajan and should consult with his guru.

Though confirmation from the guru may not always be necessary, it is recommended and is quite helpful. First of all, you find an encouraging friend who tells you you are not crazy.

You can make one up, based on a book or whatever, but that is like making up a mantra. Though there are potential benefits from even that, it is risky and strongly advised against in the sastras.

This should in fact be our base line for all polite discussion. And in any argument of this sort, both sides claim to have some kind of absolute truth or understanding. It is definitely not so. It is a question of efficaciousness in practice and the traditions of our masters. But since these are all subjective, we cannot point at anyone and say you are absolutely wrong.

In this matter, a lot of our credibility depends on our personal character. The first thing people will notice about a speaker is whether he accords respect to others. Even people on your side of the argument will tend to appreciate it when you show respect to your "opposition."

Even someone who right tends to elicit negative reactions and resistance if he is arrogant.

Ultimately everyone will decide for themselves what path to follow. As such, I would just like to repeat what I said earlier, that whatever the internal sadhana, we share enough common goals that association for hearing and chanting does not seem unreasonable.

QUOTE (Madhava@Nov 16 2003, 06:51 PM)
QUOTE (Rasesh @ Nov 16 2003, 06:37 PM)
Where is the proof that Bhaktivinode got his siddha-deha via siddha-pranali instead of svarupa-shakti?

I recall hearing there's a document in this regard given by Vipin Vihari Gosvami to Bhaktivinod. If someone has Shukavak's book, he could fill us in with the details.

p.230:
“Interestingly, Bhaktivinoda provides a letter of initiation (diksa-patra) that outlines the details of his siddha-deha. I include a reproduction of a handwritten copy of the diksa-patra in Bengali (p.202) along with its transcription and translation (p232-233) that I originally obtained from Bhaktivinoda’s maternal family home. The diksa-patra gives both the siddha- pranali and the ekadasa-bhava for Bhaktivinoda’s entire diksa line running back to Sri Jahnava Ma, the wife of Nityananda Prabhu.”

Bhaktivinoda’s siddha pranali chart (p.233) gives the following info:

Sri Guru Parampara, Sri Manjari Parampara, Age, Bodily Colour, Colour of Dress, Seva, Kunja of Residence, Group, Quality.

There then follows a list of the siddha pranali starting with Sri Jahnava Thakurani. I include the final two personalities:

“11. Sri Vipina Bihari Goswami Prabhu, Srimati Vilasa Manjari, 12/11, Tumeric, Star Cluster, Hari Candan, Ananda, Lalita’s, Vilase Krsna Priti.
12. Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srimati Kamala Manjari, 12/6/10, Lighting (sic), Star Cluster, Camphor, Svananda Sukhada, Lalita’s, Krsna Kama.”

This is in the article on my website. But I would have thought this would not be news for someone as well read as yourself, Kshamabuddhi.

As an aside, for the Harinama-cintamani translation that I did and Tripurari Maharaj is considering publishing, I included an appendix/glossary, in which I compared the Jaiva Dharma, Chaitanya-sikshamrita, and Harinama-cintamani treatments of these issues. By so doing, it was clear that the previous translators of HNC had not read these other books and this made their translations decidedly wanting.

Here are some of the verses often cited, other than the adhikAra nA labhiyA verse, by the Gaudiya Math:

zrI-nAma-mAhAtmya

How powerful is the Holy Name?

kRSNa-nAma dhare kata bala ?
viSaya vAsanAnale mora citta sadA jvale
ravi tapta maru bhUmi sama |
karNa randhra patha diyA hRdi mAjhe praveziyA
bariSaya sudhA anupama ||1||

How powerful is the Holy Name ?My mind and heart are always burning in the conflagration of material desire. It feels as though I am under the burning sun in the desert. The Holy Name enters through the windows of my ears and enters my heart, where it pours soothing nectar on it.

hRdaya haite bale jihvAra agrete cale
zabda-rUpe nAce anukSaNa |
kaNThe mora bhaGge svara aGga kAGpe thara thara
sthira haite nA pAre caraNa ||2||

The Holy Name wells up from the heart and manifests on the tip of the tongue where it constantly dances in the form of sounds. My voice breaks in my throat, my body starts to tremble helplessly, and my feet cannot remain still for long.

cakSe dhArA dehe gharma pulakita saba carma
vivarNa haila kalevara |
mUrchita haila mana pralayera Agamana
bhAve sarva deha jara jara ||3||

My eyes are filled with tears, my body begins to perspire, the hairs stand on end all over my skin, and I lose color. My mind stops functioning as I start to faint. My entire body is incapacitated by divine ecstasies.

kari eta upadrava citte barSe sudhA-drava
more Dare premera sAgare |
kichu nA bujhite dila more to bAtula kaila
mora citta vitta saba hAre ||4||

The Holy Name causes all these disruptions by pouring showers of nectar on my heart. It flings me into the ocean of love. It allows me to understand nothing, it has turned me into a madman, depriving me of all my faculties

lainu Azraya yAGra hena vyavahAra tAGra
varNite nA pAri e sakala |
kRSNa nAma icchA-maya yAhe yAhe sukhI haya
sei mora sukhera sambala ||5||

I have taken refuge of the Name, and yet it treats me this way! I cannot find the words to describe its misbehavior. Yet, Krishna’s name is completely independent and I am pleased to submit to whatever takes its fancy.

premera kalikA nAma adbhuta rasera dhAma
hena bala karaye prakAza |
ISat vikazita haJA dekhAya nija rUpa guNa
citta hari laya kRSNa pAza ||6||

The Holy Name is a sprouting flowerbud, the amazing abode of rasa. It manifests so much transcendental power. When it is even slightly revealed, it shows me its own spiritual form and attributes. It steals my mind and takes it to Krishna’s side.

pUrNa vikazita haJA vraje more yAya laJA
dekhAya mora svarUpa vilAsa |
more siddha deha diyA kRSNa pAze rAkhe giyA
e dehera kare sarva-nAza ||7||

When the Name is fully revealed, it takes me directly to Vraja, where it shows me my personal role in the eternal pastimes. It bestows on me my eternal spiritual identity and form, places me by Krishna’s side and completely destroys this material body.

kRSNa-nAma cintAmaNi akhila rasera khani
nitya mukta zuddha rasa maya |
nAmera bAlAi yata saba laye hai hata
tabe mora sukhera udaya ||8||

The Holy Name is a spiritual jewel. It is the mine of unlimited personal relations with Krishna. It is eternally liberated, it is through and through made of nectar. All these wonders of the Holy Name have confounded me, but it is still the source of all my happiness.

--o)0(o--

The other well-known verse is this one from Kalyana-kalpa-taru:

vidhi-mArga-rata jane svAdhInatA ratna dAne
rAga-mArge karAn praveza |
rAga-vazavartI haiyA pArakIya bhAvAzraye
labhe jIva kRSNa-premAveza ||4||

To the person fixed in the regulative principles, The Holy Name gives the jewel of independence, placing him on the path of spontaneous devotion. That person, overcome by spontaneous attachment to the Lord, takes shelter of the parakIyA mood and goes on to become absorbed in love for Krishna.

Does this nullify the siddha-pranali system? I don't think so. It just means that Bhaktivinoda gives precedence to Nama-bhajan (as is quite clear in HNC.) Siddha-pranali is simply part of the process that at some stage plays a part in Nama-bhajan.

When will Vilasa Manjari and Ananga Manjari [Jahnava Mata] see me and, being merciful, speak the follow essential words?

O Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Rupa Manjari, please notice me and accept me at your feet, bestowing on me the essence of all perfection?

Vilasa Manjari being Bipin Bihari's siddha name. (See http://www.jagat.wisewisdoms.com/articles/...icle.php?id=14)

Wrong! He made some very nasty remarks about our Baba when Nitai defected, even though he did not even know his identity, thinking him to be one of his godbrothers named Purushottam Das. He did, however, make amends for that and similar remarks on his deathbed when confiding in his old friend Dr. Kapoor. So, we do not hold any grudges on that account.

You see, Sparky, you have us pegged all wrong. We have little interest in character assassination of your institutional leaders. Our concern is only for the truth and accuracy about the teachings of the six Goswamins of Vrindavan.

That's a nice point. Although there are so many apparent objections from the ISKCON/GM side to topics of Krishna-lila and raganuga, there is the danger that a person will philosophically warp themselves by denying the ultra-personal ultimate reality. A section from Prabhupada's Gita comes to mind:

"And because they are too materially absorbed, the conception of retaining the personality after liberation from matter frightens them. When they are informed that spiritual life is also individual and personal, they become afraid of becoming persons again, and so they naturally prefer a kind of merging into the impersonal void....Furthermore there are many persons who cannot understand spiritual existence at all. Being embarrassed by so many theories and by contradictions of various types of philosophical speculation, they become disgusted or angry and foolishly conclude that there is no supreme cause and that everything is ultimately void. Such people are in a diseased condition of life. Some people are too materially attached and therefore do not give attention to spiritual life, some of them want to merge into the supreme spiritual cause, and some of them disbelieve in everything, being angry at all sorts of spiritual speculation out of hopelessness. This last class of men take to the shelter of some kind of intoxication, and their affective hallucinations are sometimes accepted as spiritual vision. One has to get rid of all three stages of attachment to the material world: negligence of spiritual life, fear of a spiritual personal identity, and the conception of void that arises from frustration in life."

That is because Rupa was so surrendered to RAdha that he was even willing to take service from her if that was RAdha's wish.

Besides that, Sanatan was so much overcome with love of Krishna, that he was seeing an ordinary village girl as Radharani, because he saw the "functional" representation of Radha in that ordinary village girl.

I mean, are we supposed to think that our beloved Rupa did not have the eyes to see RAdha when she came before him? OR, that he was just humble and surrendered enough to even take service from Radharani to help him make an offering to Krishna as it was Radha's desire to do so.

The Saraswata sampradaya does not follow specifically Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, rather Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami. Though most everything of Bhaktivinode Thakur is relevant to the Saraswata sampradaya, there were some modifications undertaken by Saraswati Goswami for the purpose of eliminating certain sects of prakrita-sahajiyas from the guild of genuine Vaishnavas. One of the things that Saraswati Goswami trimmed off the tree of Rupanuga bhajan was the dead or dying branch of ekadasa bhava that had come to be sorely abused by pseudo-sects of Vaishnavas called "prakrita-sahajiyas".
Knowing that svarupa-siddhi/ siddha-deha were just as effectively known through attainment of samadhi in the form of smarana-dasha after passing through the stages of shravana-dasha, varana-dasha, smaranavastha etc., Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami effectively outlawed the practice of eka-dasa bhava in the form that is most commonly known as the siddha-pranali tradition.

Though it might be the fact that Bhaktivinode Thakur was also included in the eka-dasa bhava tradition in a form very similar to the siddha-pranali of the prakrita-sahajiyas, that practice and procedure was effectively banned by Srila Saraswati Goswami from the principles of his doctrine.
In the Saraswata sampradaya one is required to attain siddha-deha through accomplishment of anusmriti, culminating in samadhi, at which time one comes to know his eternal relationship with Krishna.

Though we cannot say for certain that the ekadasa bhava process as known in the siddha-pranali system is totally lost to imitation and deception, we can take it on the authority of Srila Saraswati Goswami, that such a process was indeed severly abused in the history of the tradition and he therefore felt the need to distinguish the sampradaya from all prakrita-sahajiyas, through the effective ban of this procedure that did have it's utility in the bygone days of the tradition.

The faithful followers of Saraswati Goswami have full faith and trust that the Holy Name alone can render all benediction upon the devotee, and that the necessity of ekadasa-bhava can easily be fulfilled by the successful chanting of the Holy Name.

With ekdasa-bhava or without it, the Holy Name can render all enlightenment of siddha-deha on the sadhaka who has developed his spontaneous devotion to the level of spiritual realization. There is no indespensible necessity for the ekdasa bhava process, as it cannot be effective and successful without the pure chanting of the Holy Name.
With the pure chanting of the Holy Name, all things come to be known by the devotee and his eternal relationship with Krishna becomes revealed in the trance of samadhi upon the attainment of suddha-nama.

We therefore, wholeheartedly and with great satisfaction accept the good judgement of Saraswati Goswami and understand that in his sampradaya the attainment of siddha-deha is quite easily and effectivly acheived by following his particular system of raganuga-bhajan, to the attainement of samadhi trance of pure devotion.

And that is why we thank Lalita Prasad Thakur for having preserved Bhaktivinoda Thakur's tradition as he practiced it.

Lalita Prasada imitated Bhaktivinode more than he followed him. There is a difference between imitating and following. Lalita Prasada dropped out of Bhaktivinode's teachings before he got to the end. He ended up with a partial picture of who Bhaktivinode Thakur was and what he represented.

He preserved Bhaktivinode as a sadhaka practicing eka-dasa bhava as given by Bipin Bihari Goswami, rather than a siddha who had gone beyond sadhana to the realm of siddha under the blessings of Jagannatha das babaji.

Lalita Prasada appears to have ignored Bhaktivinode's request for a rennovation of his conception according to the parivar of Jagannatha das Babaji as differentiated from the parivar of Bipina Bihari Goswami.
Lalita Prasada rather preferred to define and distinguish Bhaktivinode as a sadhaka in the line of Bipina Bihari Goswami, rather than a siddha in the line of Jagannatha das babaji.

The Saraswata sampradaya is oriented to Bhaktivinode as a siddha in the line of Jagannatha das babaji, rather than a sadhaka practicing eka-dasa bhava sadhana under Bipina Bihari Goswami.

I think this is a practical observation of the difference between Lalita Prasad and Srila Saraswati Goswami.

It is clear that your ideas are evolving in the kind of slapdash fashion of the apologist. Every time you encounter a new idea, you invent an answer, helter-skelter. Anything, anything goes as long as it somehow makes sense to you. Doesn't have to make sense to anyone else...

Thus you have now adopted the "imagined" siddha-pranali theory. Bhaktivinoda Thakur received siddha-pranali from Bipin Bihari Goswami. He practiced siddha-pranali. He attained siddhi. But the two are not connected. Bipin Bihari Goswami has nothing to do with it because Bhaktivinoda Thakur was always perfect. Bipin Bihari Goswami was there to serve as an example of how we need to reject the guru and the teachings he gives us, because perfection has nothing to do with guru-tattva. Oh, sorry. I meant, if the guru is false...

So let me see if I understand correctly now. Bhaktivinoda got a particular "imaginary" sadhana from his guru. But he rejected his guru, only he accepted his sadhana and attained siddhi. The siddha form (Kamala Manjari) is the same as the one he got from his guru, but since he was nitya-siddha, it had nothing to do with that. This making sense to anyone?

It is interesting that he wrote of an imaginary siddha-svarupa in the Siddhi-lalasa of his Gita-mala.

First of all you have not shown any evidence that the prakrita sahajiyas even practice siddha pranali.

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that there were these so-called 'abuses' alleged by your institutional leaders, Sparky. Your authority is mere rumors that have circulated and ended up in print for you to then cut and paste here.

Finally, the ones that keep running into problems with their spiritual life are not the Goswamis and Babajis you keep slandering here indiscirimately, but rather all of those so-called sannyasis that keep biting the dust.

Reminds me of being in mainland China as a local went on about how China was the most technologically advanced country in the world...while the steam trains behind him pulled in and out of the station. Start with your conclusion first and bend eveything to fit. Kinda like this guy too:

Yes, doesn't "siddhi-lalasa" meaning "begging for pefection". That more or less portrays a conception of how to pray for perfection, more than it was a revelation of Bhaktivinode's vastu-siddhi. That prayer represents Bhaktivinode's svarupa-siddhi (idealized pefection), rather than his vastu-siddhi.(actual form)

He is showing that he perceives his parivar as functionally representing certain parshadas of RAdharani. He is showing that he does not see them as men of this world, rather as functional representations of the parshadas.

He is referring to the parshadas whom he is seeing reflected functionally in his parivar.

His own (imagined) siddha-deha was as well a functional indentification to be exactly like the parshada he is identifiying with.

It was all a part of his raganuga-sadhana to offer prayers in this way.

It was not a revelation of his actual spritual identity.

And, yes, gentlemen, the sad reality is that "siddha-pranali" is a form of impersonalism wherein one begins to think of himself as being the parshada that he is supposed to follow and remember. The actual system is to remember and contemplate the parshada that one is given descriptions of in "ekadasa bhava". To think that one has thus become that parshada is a form of impersonalism wherein one thinks he has become God or one of his eternal associates.



I'm off to work! later................

krsnam smaram janam casya prestham nija samihitam (BRS 1.2.294)
One should think of Krishna and one's favorite beloved of Krishna......

tad bhava lipsuna karya vraja lokanusaratah (ibid 295)
Desiring their feelings, one should follow in the footsteps of the people of Vraja.

This one fits the situation, too:

" And, yes, gentlemen, the sad reality is that "siddha-pranali" is a form of impersonalism wherein one begins to think of himself as being the parshada that he is supposed to follow and remember. The actual system is to remember and contemplate the parshada that one is given descriptions of in "ekadasa bhava". To think that one has thus become that parshada is a form of impersonalism wherein one thinks he has become God or one of his eternal associates"

funky.

30 of KC.
honestly, GentleMan.
who is taking this serious?
the Goswamis as impersonalists...

i´m off to fetch my new silken sari....

little girl
Tarunji

I suppose the teachings of Narottama Das Thakur have also become outdated now that we've entered the new era of not following any of the earlier acaryas.





Now, what is a "functional representation of a parshada"? Where have you discovered such a fancy, novel concept from?

Is the holy name we chant before siddhi also some sort of "functional representation of Krishna"?



So, now you're saying that one can actually imagine a siddha-deha, and that Bhaktivinod imagined a siddha-deha before he realized his actual siddha-deha.

Methinks he just makes it up as he goes along.

Where did he make any such request?

Bhaktivinod's actual writings say just the opposite of what you are claiming.

I could just as well say that I come in a long line of primates and that my great-great-grandather several thousand times removed is a chimpanzee. That argument would have just as much weight to it as a totally concocted line of disciplic succession based on supposed 'zikSa' is somehow superior to one where the line of succession is passed from teacher to student through time. In fact it is even a weightier argument, given that it actually has evidence from the fossil record to back it up. If however, I dig up a chimp fossil and proclaim that I must be related to that chimp, that is about equivalent to your zikSa-paramparA conception, which looks more like fancy footwork to dance around the challenge of demonstrating evidence for a genuine lineage than it does some framework of any philosophical merit. If Bhaktisiddhanta did receive dikSa from Gaura Kishor, then why could he not produce the guru pranali that Gaura Kishor comes in and why did he not use the tilak design from Gaura Kishor's lineage? Instead we see something else presented as a guru paramparA and some other tilak design being worn. We see sannyasis taking titles that are totally fabricated, like 'Bhaktisiddhanta' and 'Bhaktivedanta', and expecting to be addressed as 'Maharaja'. What are they king of?, I would like to know. We see plagiarism being passed off as original works and the old bait and switch routine: "Here is our guru paramparA. Then later - after the member has been around for several years - actually, it is not a guru parmparA after all, but never mind, it is something better than one of those."

I think we have it nailed down here.




This concocting things as one goes along and taking it all very easily and cheaply, thinking that one may do and say whatever one pleases, is exactly what is meant by prakrita-sahajiyaism. Shame on you, Ksamabuddhi. You are projecting your own problems upon us, calling us sahajiya.

I asked my Guru Maharaja about his reference to Visvanatha's tika on BRS and this was his answer which he asked me to post here.

Here it is:

---

My comments on Bsp. 1.2.291-292 were based on Gadadhara-prana's rendering of this section in his original books concerning raganuga sadhana. I trusted his rendering, but it appears from what others have written to you that it was not accurate. However, I did not cite Sri Visvanatha's comments in an attempt to establish that raganuga sadhana can only begin at the stage of nistha. Indeed this is an indefensible position. In this regard, I also cited Visvantha Cakravarti's statement in Ragavartma-candrika where he says " In the following section it will be shown how a raganuga bhakta goes through the stages of anartha-nivrtti, etc. . . ." (anartha-nivrti-nis . . .).


The conclusion I reached is that the position of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was that ajata ruci raganuga sadhakas should adopt the methods of raganuga sadhana that they are qualified to adopt in proportion to their development of sacred greed while following the angas of vaidhi bhakti. This follows Sri Jiva Goswami's Bhakti-sandarbha 311, ajata-tadrsa-rucina tu sad-visesa adaramatradrta raganugapi vaidhi-samvalitaivanus heya/ tatha loka-sangrahartam pratis hitena jata-tadrsa-rucina ca/ atra misratve ca tyatha-yogyam raganugayaikikrtyaiva vaidhi kartavya "One in whom this taste (ruci) has not arisen, but has come to appreciate raganuga bhakti only on account of his appreciation of a particular saint or scripture (sat), may still practice it but with an admixture of vaidhi bhakti. In the same way, for the sake of preaching (loka-sangrahartaham) one who is advanced and in whom taste has manifested, should also practice raganuga with an admixture of vaidhi. Such mixing of the two kinds of bhakti means that one practices vaidhi bhakti by uniting it with whatever raganuga practices one is capable of." (Jagadananda's translation).


In the opinion of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, such mixing of the two kinds bhakti means that one embraces the angas of vaidhi bhakti with a view to attain greater eligibility for raganuga bhakti and its sadhya by uniting them with whatever raganuga practices one is eligible for (yatah-yogyam). It appears that in his opinion this did not include an emphasis on lila smaranam for those who had not passed the stage of anartha-nivrtti, based on the reasoning that dhyana requires a pure heart whereas kirtanam does not. He reasoned, as has Sri Sanatana Goswami in Brhat-bhagavatamrta, that smaranam arises naturally out of kirtanam. He emphasized nama smaranam for beginners, stressing inoffensive chanting that would lead naturally to rupa samaranam, guna smaranam, and lila smaranam.


He was also reacting to what he perceived as a sleight of hand in the name of giving, or in some cases making a business out of and selling siddha pranali. Thus his position was that sadhakas while aspiring for Vraja bhakti should do kirtanam and that as this kirtanam qualified them they should combine it with smaranam. Furthermore he maintained that one's svarupa would be glimpsed in the stages of ruci and asakti, at which time effective and meaningful lila smaranam from the vantage point of one's svarupa could take place propelling the sadhaka into bhava bhakti.


My position is that we do not criticize those who see fit to give siddha pranali to beginners unless we know something is amiss by first hand experience. Furthermore, we should judge any approach to raganuga bhakti by the results it brings. If by any particular approach someone attains bhava, no one can argue with that. I believe that the so called orthodox approach as well as the emphasis of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati have proven themselves to be prone to great abuse, but have also produced saints venerable by all sects.

---

I mistakenly told my Guru Maharaja that the first comment I sent him was from Vamsidas - it was actually from Adwaita das - sorry about that to both of you. I also told him that Vamsidas knows him and he said he didn't recognize the name - do you have a name by which my Guru Maharaja would recognize you Vamsidas?

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Maybe Sparky should lay off the ganja for a while and get back to those expensive chanting beads he purchased for top dollar.

Some Italian devotees heard of the following pranali from Akinchan Krishnadas Baba, a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta's.


Don't ask me where the Baba got it from.

I've also heard a statement attributed to Sundarananda Vidyavinod, claiming that Gaura Kishora's diksa-guru would have been Nanda Kishor Gosvami of Advaita-parivar.

If there was indeed such a degradation, Bhaktisiddhanta would not be alone in condemning it. From all that I know, and all of the evidence, the orthodoxy are all in agreement with the above approach of concentrating on zravanam/kIrtanam in the initial stages of sAdhana. Many people have a misconception that only Bhaktivinoda condemned the apa-sampradayas, when in fact they were condemned by the orthodoxy all along.

Let's take the Catholic Church, with its recent wave of misconduct by priests scandals, as an example. Now some person might say, we are faced with corruption, so let's go out and start a whole new Church to reform the faith. Others will instead seek to root out the corruption and restore purity to the original Church. I think you get the gist of it. Ultimately wrongdoing and corruption in any religious tradition will not be tolerated by society, and there will always be pressure for the religious leaders to walk the path of righteousness.

It could be verified by anyone willing to do the research work. To date I am unaware of anyone doing so. So far only second hand eyewitness accounts have been presented regarding Bhaktisiddhanta's proposed initiation by Gaura Kishor. One version says it was done face to face and another holds that Bimal Prasad claimed to have received it in a dream. Some contend that BP was his only disciple, whereas others contend that he had a handful of disciples, but BP was not among them. Looks like some further investigation is warranted, for those who have an interest in the subject (I personally do not). At least in the case of his giving himself sannyas in front of a photo of Gaura Kishor, there were a number of people present, so that is not so dicey as far as evidence. He could have just gone out and gotten vesh from a Babaji or tridandi sannyas from another sampradaya, but he chose not to. As Ricky Ricardo (played by Desi Arnaz) used to say, "You've got some 'splainin to do, Lucy!"

Interestingly, our param-guru Sri Kunjabihari Das Babaji Maharaj, one of the prominent mahatmas of Radha Kund, was among those who strongly objected to the influence of the Baul and other apasampradayas on the Gaudiya tradition. It is ludicrous that now his followers are accused of being sahajiya. It would make just as much sense to start calling the present-day followers of Bhaktisiddhanta caste-gosvamis.

So, we all agree on Jiva's views expressed in the Bhakti-sandarbha.



I discussed the matter of lila-smaranam with Baba last time I was at Radha Kund. He told me to not worry of it, that it would eventually come, and when it would naturally come, I could commence with astakaliya-lila. Until then, I was to engage in nama-japa, diksa-mantra-smaran and Giridhari-seva, and also manasik yogapitha-seva to become better acquainted with the basic scenario and personalities in the lila, including myself.

I don't see people engaged in astakalin lila-smaran from day one. The idea that nama-kirtan is required to bring about purity of heart, which gives a solid basis for smaran, is there in Jiva's Bhakti-sandarbha, too. Smaran and kirtan supplement each other.

It is strange that both parties seem to agree with the views of Jiva Gosvami, but nevertheless some Saraswatites insist that our views are somehow inherently flawed. Fortunately Swami isn't one of them.



I wonder whether this had directly to do with siddha-pranali, or whether it was a general issue of having disciples for the sake of income. I don't think anyone was putting price-tags particularly on siddha-pranali -- that is, if there was anyone putting price-tags anywhere to begin with. I'm not saying that such things haven't occured. It's just that I'd like to hear some examples to demonstrate this.



No objection there, either -- it's just that we hear of our svarupa prior to attaining our first glimpses of it as ruci and asakti arise. This hearing provides us with incentive to yearn for the attainment, just as hearing of Krishna's qualities and pastimes gives rise to eagerness for direct darshan.

Sometimes I think about it, but it has been at almost a year since i indulged.
I more or less lost my affinity for it.

I'm such a failure that I am not even a genuine sahajiya.

I have never been one to make "love of Krishna" as a cheap thing. I guess that is why I gave up on trying to be a devotee because I had such a high estimation of Krishna-preme that I felt I could never attain it.

I am just a humble family man, trying to be a responsible parent.
I don't consider myself a real devotee.

I guess for a jackass karmi I gave you pandits a pretty good go of it?

I ain't nuttin! I ain't nobody!

And, you know whats funny?

I like it like that.

Jai Radhe.......all the way

Radhe!

Dear Rasesh,
i hope you took out something else from these discussions.

if you like your way of life, fine.

i wish that you develop more openmindedness in regards to otherminded people.
especially this "well, you took siksa outside of ISKCON and therefore you´re wrong"-business should now be buried and forgotten.

i wish that you could feel the happiness i felt when i discovered that there is MUCH MORE than ISKCON/GM.

please, dont make the goal of your life the challenging of other traditions.
nothing´s gained by that.

all good luck

PEACE

Tarunji

Last night I was reading Manjari Svarupa Nirupana and came across a quote that I don't think has been presented in this thread but seems relevant.

But first of all--what an amazing piece of literature! I found it astonishing and...don't know how to put it in words.

I think one of the most wonderful concepts in Gaudiya Vaisnavism is that of the parrot sweetening the fruit, of a great soul digesting transcendental knowledge and passing it on to others, sweetened by personal selection and relevance. Jagat's translation was also superlative, e.g.

Oh Mukunda, giver of liberation!
Who in the world is there with the courage
to pray for the gift of sacred love,
of which the slightest manifestation,
when brushing against the minds of the great sages,
makes them forget the happiness of liberation?
My prayer therefore to you is this:
that I should simply desire for such prema,
and that this desire should increase forever,
in this world, birth after birth.

Anyway, the section that was relevant to this thread:



This verse had two footnotes. Can anyone explain them? (Jiva and Visvanatha)

Found this from Madhava also, when referencing the above verse (BRS 3.5.2):



{Actually, I see now that this is also from the same text. Hadn't read that far before finding this link}

I hope Nitai is doing a good job of cleaning up these before they go to the presses. I actually think this is a pretty old version, maybe 2.0. We are up to around 4.0 now, I think.

I think that Nitai needs to .... He needs to ... Till he does, ...

[Note from Moderator: Stick to attacking the arguments and not the person, Sparky. You have already been warned about this behavior. Besides, Nitai can defend himself. If you want to confront him, you can send him a private message from here, or go over to his website, which you are obviously already familiar with, and have a conversation there. He is not a participant here, so you won't be allowed to talk about him behind his back. -MRD]

Radhe!

good point made.
thanks for reminding me.

Tarunji