Raganuga Monopoly - Is Raganuga the same for Everybody?

It seems that there is a small minority of Vaishnavas who are following Raganuga bhakti and a huge movement of Vaishnavas who are not. Is that the message that I am getting? Is the Gaudiya Math and ISKCON type Vaishnavas practicing a form of devotion that is devoid of Raganuga? Is siddha-pranali and asta-kalika-lila bhajan the only form of Raganuga known to the bhakti cult. Is Raganuga explicitly and exclusively defined as siddha-pranali process. Is Raganuga devotion going to be defined and described as exactly the same principles and process for everyone?

I have been told that siddha-pranali was attributed to most probably Gopal Guru Goswami. Does that mean that before him, in the lines of the sad-goswamis that there was no Raganuga due to the lack of siddha-pranali?

Also, can anyone present the disciplic succession as it stems out from Gopal Guru Goswami down to Ananta das Babaji?

Since siddha-pranali has been attributed to Gopa Guru Goswami, how do other successions, apart from his, practice Raganuga bhakti?

From this I presume you are not Indian. You speak from the viewpoint of a non Indian, who is mainly acquainted with the GM or Iskcon Vaishnava communities outside of India. These organisations have had a near monopoly (speaking of monopoly) on Krishna Bhakti outside of India until recently. Within India, Raganuga bhakti is widely practised among Gaudiya Vaishnavas.



Some mass distribution of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu would be helpful in the west. Raganuga bhakti is defined there (1.2.270-306) as greed for the feelings of the nitya siddha ragatmika bhaktas of Krishna in Vraja. The practises of siddha pranali and astakaliya lila smarana have been mercifully given by the great acaryas to facilitate this practise. The inner practise which is mentioned in BRS 1.2.295 must coincide with service to the Guru. All shastras and acaryas have made it clear that serving the Guru is imperative. Unless the Guru reveals his/her siddha identity to the disciple, how can the disciple practise smarana of his/her nitya seva to Radha-Krishna as well as to the Guru? Hence there is the practise of siddha pranali.



Gopal Guru Gosvami was a contemporary of Mahaprabhu. He was His personal servant. What or who should be there before Him? We start our history with Mahaprabhu. Yes, siddha pranali was practised also by Advaita Prabhu, who was senior to Gopalguru Gosvami in age.



There are certain basic guidelines and definitions, yes, in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu 1.2.270-306, as well as in Jiva Gosvami's Bhakti Sandarbha and Visvanatha Cakravarti's Raga Vartma Candrika.



There are many lines of disciplic succession coming down from Mahaprabhu, not just one. Gopal Guru happened to have written down something about his siddha pranali practise, but that does not mean that his line is the only one that practises this. Ananta Das Ji's line is another one, mine is another one. There are so many. All of them accept siddha pranali.

The followers of Lord Chaitanya amount to millions of Bengalis in Bengal, Bangladesh, and elsewhere. Most of these millions of Bhaktas follow the traditional raganuga path set out by the 6 Gosvamis, and have done so for many generations. Perhaps a few thousand Bengalis follow Gaudiya Math. Perhaps a few thousand more follow Iskcon, though many Bengali 'Life-members' of Iskcon are actually initiated in traditional paramparas too. There are hundreds of traditional paramparas. There is no monopoly, you can choose any of them.

There are also a few thousand Hindus around the world who follow Iskcon, believing that they are following traditional Gaudiyaism.

But among the millions of Bengali Gaudiyas, the Gaudiya Math founded by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is little known, probably seen as a branch of Ramakrishna Mission which it resembled even to Bhaktivedanta Swami's father, who followed traditional Gaudiyaism, not Gaudiya Math.

You need to get your facts straight.

What you have been told is wrong.

I suggest you take a look at http://www.raganuga.org in case you didn't do it yet. That should clarify the premises of raganuga-sadhana to a considerable extent.

As for asta-kalika-bhajana, the practice of raganuga-bhakti aims at participating in the nitya-lila of Radha-Krishna in a spiritual form suitable for serving them (siddha-deha), and Radha-Krishna are eternally engaged in displaying their splendid eight-fold daily pastimes. Therefore astakala-seva and siddha-pranali are inseparable from the search for prayojana in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.



Some of them do speak of raganuga-bhakti, but they neglect to a great extent the systematic practice of raganuga-sadhana taught by the acaryas in favor of a "chant-and-be-happy" style which they call raganuga-bhakti.

Where is the principle of siddha-pranali defined by name in the writtings of Rupa Goswami? In his descriptions of raganuga bhakti where does he define raganuga as explicitly and exclusively as receiving a gopi name from a guru and hence contemplating asta-kalika-lila in bhajan according to the siddha-pranali method.

Is it possible to contemplate asta-kalika-lila in any other way than as practiced in the siddha-pranali process? Is contemplating asta-kalika-lila without the siddha-pranali (guru-given identity) process in any way a form of raganuga.

Also, is it possible that one can imagine his own identity in raganuga or is there any rule that prohibits spontaneous contemplation according to one's own personal inclinations? In other words, in lieu of receiving a gopi name from a guru, is it possible that one can imagine some identity according to his own feeling and mood and practice raganuga bhakti that way?

I believe Bhaktisiddhanta garnered followers mainly from the upper caste brahmins and intelligentsia of his era. Therefore, his exposure was somewhat limited, and the masses of rural Vaishnavas that were more poor and/or illiterate were not aware of GM.

Naturally for a Westerner whose only knowledge of Caitanyaism is through missions like GM/ISKCON, those organizations take on a larger meaning than they have in the Vaishnava community as a whole. They do not see the larger picture, in which British colonization played the major role in bringing Indian culture and religion to Europe and America, Australia, Africa, South America, etc. Don't forget the Christian missionaries and Jesuits that first learned Sanskrit and started to translate them into other languages like German and French. With that foundation, Premananda Bharati, Mahanamabrat Brahmachary, Jagadbandhu, Vivekananda, Aurobindo and Bhaktivinode were able to conceive of taking the message of Vedanta and bhakti to non-Indians.

Actually, if one studies the devotional literatures of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, he will learn about raganuga bhakti, the process of raganuga bhakti, the principles of raganuga bhakti and the qualifications for raganuga bhakti.

However, the standard for practicing raganuga bhakti according to Rupa Goswami is that the practitioner must be free of material contamination of the the three modes of material nature. In the Saraswata sampradaya the process of raganuga is defined, described and deployed according to the basic, fundamental stipulation that the practitioner must be liberated from material contamination and situated in the realized state of siddha-deha.

Siddha-deha is realized according to an innate natural propensity via a spontaneous attraction for a particular associate of Krishna and their mode of service. Siddha-deha has not been described as something imaginary or sentimental. It is a realized state of consciousness.

According to Sri Bhajan-rahasya of Bhaktivinode, one should accept siddha-deha in accordance with the sanction and instructions of Mahaprabhu in Sikshastakam. According to Bhaktivinode, siddha-deha is granted by Mahaprabhu through compliance with his instructions in Sikshastakam.

What I am trying to establish in this post is that ragamarga bhakti, as raganuga, is very much a part of the process and practice of the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya, though it is described and prescribed in terms somewhat opposed to the popular process of the siddha-pranali method of certain sects of Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Radhe!

[However, the standard for practicing raganuga bhakti according to Rupa Goswami is that the practitioner must be free of material contamination of the the three modes of material nature.]

nope,
check out the threads, dealing with that topic.

raganuga-bhakti is a sadhana. freedom of material contamination is not the qualification but an accomplishment on the way.
nowhere it is said that one must be free of material contamination.

anyway, its difficult to ascertain at which point this stage is accomplished.

the only qualification is FAITH.

Tarunji

Radhe!

by the way, please quote the statement of Srila Rupa Goswamipad where he mentions that point.
with the sanskrit, please, for our learned ones.

Tarunji

He can't because Rupa never says that anywhere.

To propose that one must do sAdhana after becoming free of material contamination is patently absurd. If one is already realized and free of such influences, then one does not need sAdhana. So, why do those people advocate this approach? Do they just misunderstand the basic principle or is it because of some political motivation? Either way, it is just not sound logic.

Radhe Radhe!

Dear Raseshji,

Please, forgive me my comparison, but it will show my point of view on the matter.
Psychically ill person can easily imagine himself Napoleon, Einstein or some other prominent person, even Sri Krsna Himself... Should the imaginary identity that he feels make him actually Napoleon or the Lord? I think, you will agree that answer is 'no'.
The situation with siddha-pranali, imho, resembles above mentioned one. If Gosvamis and other disciples of Lord Chaitanya said, that one must receive siddha-pranali from the Guru in order to attain aprakata-lila as manjari, how can it be other way?

My dandavats,
Sur

What is qualifications of the guru who can give siddha-pranali. Can a guru who is not siddha-purusha bestow siddha-pranali on a sadhaka. Does receiving siddha-pranali from a sadhaka guru equal siddha-pranali from a sadhya guru?

Dear Rasesh,

If what you say is true, then mustn't it also logically follow that it is improper to chant the Name or worship the Deity while one is still contaminated by the three modes? If not, then please explain what makes the Name and/or the Deity different? Thank you.

This particular term is not used in his writings as far as I am aware of. However, the necessity of serving in an internally conceived siddha-deha is clearly established in the second chapter of the first wave of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu.

sevA sAdhaka-rUpeNa siddha-rUpeNa cAtra hi |
tad bhAva lipsunA kAryA vrajalokAnusArataH || (brs 1.2.295)

“One should serve both in his present sadhaka-body and in his siddha-form, following in the wake of the residents of Vraja, desiring to have feelings similar to theirs.”

The commentators Jiva, Mukunda and Visvanatha explain this siddha-rupa as follows:

siddha-rUpeNa antaz-cintitAbhISTa-tat-sevopayogi-dehena ||

“In the siddha-form means in an internally thought, desired form suitable for His service.”

If this form is not yet attained, but it is something we aspire to attain, then how do we learn of it? We cannot merely speculate a form for ourselves. Siddha-deha is not a matter of mental concoction. Sri Jiva Gosvami explains:

sAkSAd vraja-jana-vizeSAyaiva mahyaM zrI-guru-caraNair mad-abhISTa-vizeSa-siddhy-artham upadiSTaM bhAvayAmi || (Bhakti-sandarbha 312)

”I meditate on the specific form of one of Krsna’s associates in Vraja, which my revered guru has instructed me in, in order to attain my specifically desired perfection.”

The same concepts are reflected in the paddhatis of Gopal Guru Gosvami and Dhyanacandra Gosvami, as follows:

tatrAdau maJjarI-rUpAn gurvAdIn tu svIyAn svIyAn praNAly-anusAreNa saMsmaret zrI-guru-parama-guru-krameNeti tataH zrI-rAdhikAM dhyAyet | tataH zrI-nandanandanam || (Paddhati of Dhyanacandra Gosvami, 344)

“In this meditation, before anything else, the practitioner should meditate on the manjari-forms of his guru-pranali, beginning with his guru, then parama-guru, etc. Then he shall meditate on Sri Radhika, and after that Sri Nandanandana (Krishna).”

This, in essence, is the basis of the reason of a guru's revealing the siddha-deha of a disciple who is eager to practice raganuga-sadhana.



The "siddha-pranali method of contemplating", as you put it, simply refers to service under the guidance of one's lineage of gurus. We do not directly jump to Radha and Krishna, stepping over the heads of our gurus. Is gurupAdAzraya not the very first of the 64 aspects of sadhana mentioned by Rupa in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu?

As for the astakaliya-lila, do you not agree that astakaliya-seva is the ultimate aspiration of all Gaudiya Vaishnavas? Please let me know if your disagreement here is primarily with the matter of siddha-pranali or whether it also extends to astakaliya-lila as the object of the sadhana.



This siddha-pranali means nothing but the siddha-identities of the personalities in your guru-parampara. I suppose I need not start making a presentation on the disciple's dependence on the mercy of the guru and the predecessor gurus for progressing on the path of sadhana. Without service to your guru, you cannot engage in astakaliya-seva.



Well, certainly everything is possible. One may do whatever he pleases. However, we prefer to follow the path we have learned from our gurus, who in turn have learned it from their gurus, and so forth. If you had a desire for astakaliya-seva, why would you not approach a guru and inquire about the nature of your eternal identity from him?

guru-pAdAzrayas tasmAt kRSNa-dIkSAdi-zikSaNam |
vizrambheNa guroH sevA sAdhu-vartmAnuvartanam || (brs 1.2.74)

“(1) Taking shelter of the feet of a guru, (2) Accepting initiation in Krishna-mantra and subsequent instructions, (3) Serving the guru with confidence, and (4) Following the path traversed by the saints.”

That's the beginning of your sadhana.

Replying exactly to the several replies I have received would become tedious. For the sake of brevity, I will post the relevant statements from The Nectar of Devotion of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami and the learned devotees in here can either refute or confirm such statements.

I will confess my scholarship is non-existent. My learning is limited to reading Devanagari script and I do not have a verse-by-verse edition of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu available. As such I will use The Nectar of Devotion as my soucebook and ellicit a response as to whether or not these statements correspond to a particular verse in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu.




Now, am I being told here by the learned devotees that this statement is not supported by any verse of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu?

Would you like to start a new thread where you put together A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's instructions about the methods of practicing raganuga-bhakti? I'd be curious to read what you have in mind. Of course, while commenting on books such as Caitanya Caritamrita, it is hard to avoid the subject matter of raganuga-bhakti on occasion, but I cannot recall ever reading specific instructions on the matter of practicing raganuga-bhakti in his books. I have read all of them several times cover to cover.



As the others have already pointed out, this is a concoction, since Rupa Gosvami has never said such a thing.

You should know from your own Bhaktivinod (viz. HNC chapter 15) that being situated in the realized state of siddha-deha (apana-dasa) comes after hearing of one's own identity (sravana-dasa), embracing it and beginning the practice of sadhana (varana-dasa), and gradually progressing in remembrance (smarana-dasa).


And no-one has ever claimed so, either. Siddha-deha is not imaginary, nor is it even a state of consciousness. It is an eternally existing reality which the sadhaka gradually discovers and becomes one with in the course of his bhajana.



Now, I'd love to see the references on this. You might want to post them in the Bhaktivinoda on Siddha Pranali thread.

Aside that, let's get one thing cleared: hearing from the guru about siddha-deha is not the same as realizing the siddha-deha, just as hearing about Krishna is not the same as meeting Krishna face to face. The former is heard of and contemplated upon, the latter is granted to us out of grace in due course of time.



May I ask, to which branch of the Saraswata tradition do you belong? I've acquainted myself to an extent with several of them, and they seem to have a great deal of disagreements over a number of issues. Knowing this would help me know where you stand with these issues.

I wouldn't say that siddha-pranali is unique to "certain sects", it is practically everywhere outside the Saraswata line.

This is exactly the case. Not only is such a statement nowhere made in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, it is also not in any of its commentaries or any other Gosvami grantha. What Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu (1.2.5) does say, though, is that raganuga and vaidhi bhakti are two parallel practises of bhakti. vaidhi raganuga ceti sa dvidha sadhanabhidha. I am afraid Swamiji put this statement you quoted above on his own account. We would like to see a quotation from Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu from you to prove us wrong.

You cannot really use a mixed summary study and commentary as the basis for a discussion among those who are not Bhaktivedanta's followers. You can download the mulamatram of Bhaktirasamritasindhu from Gaudiya Grantha Mandira: http://www.granthamandira.org/categories.php?cat_id=14

As for the quote you posted, there are no corresponding verses in Bhaktirasamritasindhu, first division, chapter two, verses 270-309, which is the section dealing with eligibility for raganuga-bhakti.

I'd recommend to read carefully the contents of http://www.raganuga.org/frame.php?raganuga=qualification. That should clear up most of the issue.

Please, read this thread about guru qualifications:
Guru's personality

'Certain sects' indeed!

When the western Iskcon devotees first went into Bangladesh, they were amazed to find that all the Hindus, mostly simple poor farmers, millions of them, were (surprise!) Gaudiya Vaishnavas!

Now why would that be? Would you think it has anything to do with the fact that 'Gaudiya Vaishnava' means 'Bengali Vaishnava'?

I have a friend who grew up in Bangladesh, as a Gaudiya Vaishnava, in a village where he says, 'everyone wore kanthimala and Gaudiya kirtan was heard everywhere all the time'. And not an Iskcon, or even a Gaudiya Math, anywhere to be seen! Hadn't these people heard that Gaudiyaism was supposed to be 'in decline' before it was 'revived' by Gaudiya Math? But there was a decline after that, when the persecution of Hindus began in the 1950s (his grandfather was hacked to death for refusing to eat a piece of beef!) the Hindus had to flee.

Read this nice account by Bhakti Vikash Swami, on his experience in Bangladesh:

http://www.hknet.org.nz/BVKS-Bengal.html

He meets thousands of followers of Lord Chaitanya, highly skilled in kirtan and Vaishnav practices, but 'they are contaminated with Sahajiyaism'. Really? All of them? Or is it perhaps that you just don't understand what they are doing, Swamiji, and what 'Sahajiyaism' actually is?

I lived in Mayapur for a couple of years, where Jayapataka Swami has attracted several thousand Bangladeshi devotees to visit annually. This is a good thing, the poor Bangladeshis are being decimated by a genocide over the last 50 years since their country became a Muslim dominated province. Putting the large resources of Iskcon behind these destitute devotees is a great service.

But when they came to Mayapur, I am sorry to say, we used to laugh at these Bangladeshi devotees for their 'sahajiya tendencies'. Which means simply that they became very emotional in Kirtan, and they would offer dandabats rolling on the ground, 'imitating ecstacy' we would sniff, in our imagined superiority. Especially since many of them were uneducated farmers. ( Certain sects actually like to think they are very superior!)

The fact is, though, that the majority of Bengali followers of Lord Chaitanya practise a dandabat pranam which involves rolling to left and right when offering obeisances. Some of the devotees visiting Mayapur would get carried away and roll all over the floor, but this is not common.

The Gaudiya Math, like the Ramkrishna Mission, sought to distance itself from these 'ignorant' Bengali Hindus by imposing a rigid conservative monastic discipline, and an imagined intellectual profundity (such as trying to find Asta-kalika-lila hidden in Mahaprabhu's 8 Verses) . Hence the joy of Bengali Vaishnavism, as described by BVikash Swami in his account above, was lost. Iskcon now finds itself caught between its GMath origins and its broad-based constituents. This is not a bad thing, as long as they are open to all and not rigid.

At some later date I might reveal my identity as someone other than the nickname Rasesh.(till then I am going to have some fun and keep you guessing. There is probably one member of this forum who will expose me as soon as he reads some of my writting.) What I will say at this time is that I was never under the impression that the Saraswata sampradaya did not advocate and promote raganuga bhakti until I cam accross some detractors in the internet. I has long conceived that I had been instructed and encouraged in ragamarga bhakti in the devotional literatures of Srila A.C. Bhaktivednta Swami. What I do find here is a somewhat different conception and standard of raganuga bhakti than is promulgated in the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya.

I feel as if I am being bombarded with a barrage of material that needs to be dealt with item by item. Specifically, I want to deal with the previous post of Madhava wherein he expounds the verses and qoutes which he presents as the foundational authority for the "siddha-pranali" process of his particular lineage. I will try to address those items one by one in a subsequent post.

Quite understandable, this takes time to digest. It took me many years!

If you have good personal reasons for remaining anonymous, then by all means, do so. However, neither I nor many others find it amusing if someone decides to play the anonymous game of "hit and go". Revealing your identity speaks for your integrity and adds to your credibility. We are not in here for a guessing game.

Your affiliation with a certain Saraswata group is quite evident from your writings. We've had other visitors from among your people before, you are not the first one around. At any rate, please feel like you were at home here.



Please, be my guest. The verses I cited do not apply to my lineage in particular, as distinct from any other lineage engaged in raganuga-sadhana.

You mentioned earlier that you are not much of a scholar, and your learning is limited to being able to read Devanagari script. May I ask, how do you propose to seriously address a matter as grave as this if you have not studied the foundational scriptures dealing with the subject matter?

At any rate, please do give it a try. We are all here to learn something new.

That answer should be quite apparent to a bright mind as yourself. My spiritual master was a scholar who was well versed in the traditional goswami literatures. He extracted the essence of that knowledge and presented it in English. What you are insinuating to me is that I should doubt his integrity and authencity and ignore his advice that I do not need to learn Sanskrit or study in the manner you are proposing.
I have faith in my guru and he has said that learning Sanskrit is not necessary. He has assured his devotees that by reading and studying his books one can attain perfection and the purpose of the original texts will be fulfilled by following his instructions.

I am a little disappointed that you would insinuate that I not have faith in my guru and his instructions and actually disobey him and his advice that his disciples need not learn Sanskrit. He never ever made an issue out of it. I have faith in him. Are you saying that my faith in my guru is ignorance?

Your faith in your guru is admirable. However, it is a mystery how it has led you to participate in discussions such as the one at hand. Did he recommend mingling with people who advocate siddha-pranali and other such ideas? I think he was quite strict in with whom he allowed his followers to spend their time with.

At any rate, although the books of your learned guru are certainly worthy summary studies and explanations for you and his other followers, I trust you understand that they do not hold the same weight in dialogues with those from outside your group, who may not share your convictions and your guru-bhakti. We therefore refer to the lowest common denominator whenever inter-branch issues need to be discussed. This common source of evidence would be the writings of the Gosvamis.

By the way, I don't think Swamiji had anything against his disciples learning Sanskrit. Of course it is not necessary for everyone, but if you intend to represent your group in dialogues such as the one at hand, you should know some.

"It was my intention in presenting the books that anyone who would read, they would learn Sanskrit."

(ACBSP Letter to Kirtiraja: -- Ahmedabad 26 September, 1975)

Well, since these "siddha-pranali" proponents are making widescale propaganda on the internet that could potentially affect or interfere with the path of aspiring devotees who have been brought into Vaishnavism by the efforts and institution of my Gurudeva, I have chosen to make some effort to learn their angle of presentation and try to find out how it either corresponds to or conflicts with the actual doctrines of the Goswamis. If the siddha-pranali process is actually part and parcel of the orthodox Gaudiya tradition, then how and why would my Gurudeva prohibit their association?




I think it would better be said that we relate in regards to the highest common denominator, that of being aspiring devotees of the One supreme Lord. I am not even sure that the denominator could even be rated as higher or lower. I don't think that such calculations really apply in regards to Vaishnava principles. From the practical consideration they are all equally important.




Surely, you can understand that Srila Gurudeva was indicating that his students would learn Sanskrit by reading his books, for reading his books, and not by rejecting them for independent study that ignores his commentary and translation. I did learn Devanagari script exclusively from his books and my grammar was developing by the same process.
I don't know if your viewpoint on this matter is exactly clarified according to the intentions of Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.

Dear Rasesh,

I have been preparing a lengthy transcription about Srila Bhaktivinoda which may answer all of your immediate questions. You can find it by clicking on my 'www' button and going to the 'Gaudiya Vaishnava' section. With the doc file, you will need to double-click on the footnote numbers to view the footnotes. I hope they answer your questions and give you a clearer idea.

Well, as far as "making propaganda" is concerned, I would not say that is entirely true. After all, we have to expect that in the wide world of Gaudiya Vaishnavism there are devotees coming from all walks of life and representing several lineages. If we speak purely of propaganda, then how many websites are dedicated to GM and ISKCON organisations, as compared with a relative handful of websites of the "siddha pranali practitioners" ? How many "siddha pranali" voices are heard as compared to the voices of those from GM and ISKCON?

Personally, I feel that if there is real concern for the advancement of aspiring devotees regardless of institution, then they should at least know of the many ways in which Sri Sri Radha-Krishna are worshipped and should be allowed to make a choice therein. I don't mean you any malice, please try to understand that.

And as far as Prabhupada saying that Sanskrit is not necessary, I'll have to respectfully disagree. I know of several incidents where he states that one should learn Sanskrit, if only from his books.

Yes indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. It is too bad that ACBSP was not better at Sanskrit translations. The Gita he published is rife with all sorts of mistakes, and I can only assume that the NOD publication is just as bad. Pradyumna Das was supposed to be going through all of that stuff as Sanskrit editor, and he is equally to blame for not catching those errors and fixing them. What is the most ridiculous about the whole thing is that they still were not fixed even after many people pointed them out. It just shows a very unprofessional approach to book publication - not a very reverent attitude, in my opinion. Given the nature of the subject matter, one would think attention to detail and accuracy should be paramount. (Do not misunderstand my intentions here. I mean no disrespect for Prabhupada, nor for Pradyumna. The point is that there is such a thing as integrity. To some of us that is a very important attribute.)

My recommendation to Rasesh and others of his following is that they get their facts straight, which should include at the top of that list laying their hands on accurate translations and commentaries that are in keeping with the tradition, before they go around attempting to officially present the teachings of Rupa, Jiva, Sanatana, Visvanatha, Bhaktivinode, etc.

I think that the arguments over editorial mistakes in the books are A.C. Bhakitvedanta Swami are a flagrant disregard for the spirit and spirituality prescribed in the Bhagavat, that the books narrating the glories of Krishna should be sung and accepted by thoroughly honest men despite any grammtical irregularities. Anyway, my point is this:

According to the Nectar of Devotion, chapter 15, Srila Rupa Goswami has defined raganuga-bhakti as:


This is the primary and principle description of raganuga bhakti according to Srila Rupa Goswami. This description is the most broad and accomodating conception of raganuga-bhakti. That raganuga-bhakti is defined explicity as a siddha-pranali process, does not seem to correspond to this basic and fundamental description of raganuga as defined by Srila Rupa Goswami.

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami most definitely encouraged and enthralled the followers of his movement to develop and define their Krishna consciousness to the raganuga level and beyond. To serve the spiritual master with a spontaneous (svabhavika) attraction to Krishna while being completely absorbed in thoughts of Him, with an intense desire of love, was the sum and substance of the teachings and mission of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.
I cannot accept or appreciate the accusations that the Saraswata sampradaya of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami did not advocate or promote raganuga-bhakti as described by Srila Rupa Goswami in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu.

Dear friend, we are not exactly speaking of grammatical irregularities when Swamiji says in his English prose version that Rupa Gosvami says that one should be free from material contamination before entering raganuga bhakti, while Rupa Gosvami said nothing of the sort in the original text. It is a total philosophical contradiction and not just a forgotten dash, dot or diacritic. I am meanwhile still waiting for a response from your good self. I asked you to quote and thus prove this point for me from the Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu proper.

It's not a matter of disregard for their spirituality, it's a matter of factual obvious mistakes being present in them. The NOD is a good example of such a text, the definitions of raganuga and ragatmika are all mixed up in it. I don't know if it's because of the editors or because of what Swamiji wrote, but they are used interchangeably -- something they are definitely not.



Please, you cannot cite a secondary source to establish the views of Rupa Gosvami. You have to cite his own words verbatim, and you should do that with Sanskrit included. Otherwise it is pointless.



Then perhaps you can prove otherwise, and demonstrate the parallels between Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.2.270-309 and the writings of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. If you cannot do that, your persistence is pointless. Perhaps this is why knowing a bit of Sanskrit might be useful. You would be better taken seriously in philosophical discussions outside your own group.

I am glad to see that you accepted my invitation to come here, Rasesh. I hope that you will not look on this discussion as mere "fun", but as one where you come to exchange ideas with devotees in a spirit of humility.

Virtually no one joined ISKCON on account of scriptural injunctions, simply because they were not aware of them to begin with. So, yes you are right - they are following rAganugA bhakti and not vaidhi bhakti. As far as how closely they follow Rupa's teachings, that is what is questionable. If you take the trouble to read Ujjvala-nilamani, then it will be much clearer to you that Rupa was presenting the same approach as Gopala Guru. After all they were contemporaries and members of Mahaprabhu's inner circle.

As Iskcon novices are rarely of Hindu origin it is natural that they have no knowledge of Shastra. However, does not Rupa Gosvami say tat tat bhavadi madhurya sruti dhir yad apeksate natra shastram na yuktinca tallobhotpatti laksanam? "The cause of raganuga bhakti is greed after the sweet feelings towards Krishna of the people of Vraja." This is hardly encouraged in Iskcon, at any stage, I would say. Rather one is threatened with hell and brimstone at every step. This seems to me to be the typical hallmark of vidhi bhakti.....

(hi Jagat. I knew you would recognize my writting. thanks for the invitation. yes, i will behave. i am actually a very easy going guy in the right company. that other forum brought out the worst in me as i became aggravated by the atrocious aparadhas that were commonplace in that hellish forum. the atmosphere is much better here, though I do feel somewhat like Draupadi in the court of the Kurus here. i think i can stand my ground and defend the Saraswata conception with reasonable logic and insight. i am not here to demean others or their spiritual lineages. i hope to advance my own insight as i confront the siddha-pranali conception head on and attempt to balance the Saraswata doctrine against the presiding conception of raganuga as promulgated by the leaders of this camp.

For the uninitiated, my name is Kshamabuddhi. (unqualified for the Dasa title). I joined ISKCON in March of 1975 and was initiated as a brahmana in 1977 a few weeks before Prabhupada passed on. My initiations were both of the "ritvik" type. I am not here to discuss ritvik. It is irrelevant here. I am here to discuss siddhanta and I don't think that my lack of Sanskrit knowledge disqualifies me totally. For the most part I can supply relevant Sanskrit or Bengali verses to support my views. The Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu is practically the only book that I don't have with the original Sanskrit. I think it is a little too conveniant that certain members in here want to use that particular book to debate over, knowing that Swami Prabhupada did not provide a verse-by-verse translation. However, I trust in Swami Prabhupada's integrity and his translations and I don't feel a need to resort to learning Sanskrit so that after 30 years of study I can check his work for errors. Learning Sanskrit will never qualify me or anyone else unless the true purport of the verses is understood from the position of sadhya. A sadhaka is not qualified to understand the Vaishnava literatures on the basis of Sanskrit knowledge. Realization through actual experience must reveal the secrets of this greatly confidential knowledge. I believe that Swami Prabhupada had that.)

Admittedly, I am getting behind on some replies and responses. There are several points of interest that I want to address. However, at this time, I would like to address the issue of raganuga-bhakti as being the foundational principle of a propaganda device that is reaching out in a way as to recruit people into the bhakti cult. In principle, should raganuga-bhakti be the initiatal concept with which to construct a preaching mission? Or, am I going to be told that raganuga.com/org is not a preaching mission? If not, then how does it qualify as a bhajananandi principle if it is being promoted and advertised on the most vast and encompassing form of media known to the technological age?

My point is that the making of raganuga the principle concept with which to base an international advertising campaign seems a bit "hasty" and "premature" in the case of new people who come in contact with the web site. Did Srila Rupa Goswami present raganuga as the topic and format of his movement? Or, was raganuga-bhakti something that was to be found somewhere deep within the framework of his theology? Swami Prabhupada sometimes referred to "sahajiyas" as those who would make madhurya-rasa as something cheap and easily accessible. Does not the making of raganuga as the introductory concept of Krishna-bhakti cheapen the process in a sort of "casting of pearls before swine" ?

Also, it seems that I am being told by the proponents of raganuga in here that there are no moral or ethical prerequisites for practicing raganuga-bhakti, that one can live comfortably enjoying sexual pleasures with his wife and still cultivate raganuga-bhakti. Did Srila Rupa Goswami advocate raganuga-bhakti for those of wordly attachments and uncontrolled senses? Was not sense control and detachment a prerequisite for making advancement in bhakti. Does practicing raganuga (defined as siddha-pranali) without sense control and renunciation bear the kind of fruit desired?

It seems that raganuga-bhakti is being advocated as open and available to the sense-enjoyers and worldy-minded. Does this not confirm the allegations of the Saraswata sampradaya that siddha-pranali is the process of prakrita-sahajiyas who take the whole process cheaply?

Radhe Radhe!

wow,
who takes the path of raganuga -bhakti cheaply here?

pretty tough stuff.

Madhavananda das:

he takes care of this wonderful site, always there to answer questions, offering unlimited time and service.
checking out RELIABLE SOURCES, not just some hearsay or blabla.
studying the original granthas, publishing them,......

Jagat:

what a warmhearted soul. his articles brought me more and more out of my hatred and frustration about my ISKCON/GM -past.

Advaita das:

you, Ksahmabuddhi, call him someone who takes raganuga-bhakti cheaply?
did you check out what he did as a service for us roaming souls?
all those wonderful granthas he put into the English language.
cheaply? thats an affront.

i could go on praising the people here.

first i also thought: "Look at them. now they think they know the truth. Very puffed up!"
but "au contaire, my friend.
they are only presenting the truth. brought to us by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu via the 6 Goswamis.
of course, no point in discussing anything if the Goswamis are not taken as ultimate authority for Mahaprabhus message.
no point in discussing things if the writings of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami value more!

writing this, again i feel hurt, which i don´t want, actually.
but i take it as a good thing.
i feel as i do belong here.

i wonder where anyone said that he is having sex like anything, where anyone here is advocating moral-free raganuga bhakti?
did you actually check out what one does as a raganuga-practitioner?

i know some people here who chant lots more than those "cheap" ( smile!) 16 rounds.

please quote someone who advocates driving through raganuga-land without a driving licence and without all driving lessons.

raganuga.com as a preaching mission?
how funny is that?
using modern technology to help such a fallen soul like me to have sadhu-sanga , thats really fantastic.
nobody wants to make a movement/preaching mission here.

freedom of religiosity!


i experienced also a heavy disaster when the castle of paper cards of my "ISKCON/GM"-dream fell apart.
with the help of this forum and some of its wonderful members i learned to look beyond the shores of my too small pond.
and you know what, i feel very very comfortable and secure.

it was hard to engage me with myself, sorting all this hard-nuts-to-swallow out.
finding myself angrier than hell. finding myself critizing Madhava or Advaita or Jagat in my mind (the inner idiot).
but i kept sorting out, dealing with issues, painful but clear.
i kept on unlearning all my mental lessons.

please, try to keep your tone lower.
there are so many forums on the net where everyone just rages at each other.

what do want to accomplish?
i do not know.

you ask question after question, real good and interesting questions.
but you do not care to even accept a humble approach to the answers.

again, what do you aim at?

shocking Advaita das or Madhavananda das?

you can shock fools like me a little, but i dont fall so easy anymore.

for me , the definition of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami is simply all -in-one about what i ever felt.
i was always attracted to the love of Srimati Radharani.
why?
because i´m a very selfish person and i admire her love and i long for that kind of selfless love.
i always felt at unease in all that vaidhi-environment where it was forbidden to sing "Jay Sri Radhe".

now i know that i can follow my heart.
the wish to develop this precious greed.
always praying for the service to the Lotus Feet of Srimati Radhika.

and thats the way i have chosen.
why people like you try to put us down?
even if , according to you, we "sahajiyas" pave our way to a "natural"-hell (smile), why dont you let us?

surely you cannot stop us living like that with posts like yours,
with so-called evidence from so and so people which are so obviously not correct!

still i wish you all the best
and an open mind

Jay Sri Radhe

Tarunji

This seems like an awfully ungracious position to hold. How can you say that non-Hindus have no knowledge of shastra? If I am not mistaken, Madhava, Jagat, Braja and almost every other member of this forum is a westerner. Are you saying that because they are non-Hindu they have no knowledge of shastra? Is the siddha-pranali camp also a racist, bigoted group that judge devotees on the basis of national origin? Maybe many of us were "Hindus" in our last life and you were a "westerner". You cannot look at one page of history in the life of a devotee and understand his inner contstruct.
It appears that you have a very prejudiced and narrow perception of shastra as being limited to particular languages and national boundaries.
If I am correct you are one of the disciples of Ananta das Babaji who translates his writtings into English. If such translation does not transmit the shastric knowledge into another language, then why do you bother? Have you just discredited and disqualified your own works with this statement?

And what is the character of one who has attained this greed for madhurya-rasa? Is he a sense enjoyer living happily with his wife and enjoying sex pleasures? Or, is he at the stage of anarta-nivrtti and living a yogic life of vaidhi-sadhana? Does Rupa Goswami say that upon attaining greed for madhurya-rasa one can neglect vaidhi-sadhana and enjoy his senses with his wife or girlfriend? Is raganuga-bhakti preclusive of vaidhi-bhakti or a subsequent practice? Can one practice raganuga-bhakti while neglecting vaidhi-sadhana? Is raganuga-bhakti independent of vaidhi-sadhana or interdepenent?

Let's keep the discussions of what Swami Prabhupada taught confined to what can be substantiated in his writtings. What the ISKCON GBC and current "guru" echelon advocate and promote cannot be taken literally as exactly cooresponding to the teachings of Swami Prabhupada.

Please illustrate your "fire and brimstone" accusation with anything from the writtings of Swami Prabhuapda. Also, let's not forget that there is plenty of "fire and brimstone" in the Fifth canto of Srimad Bhagvatam, which was the principle and favorite shastra of Gadadhara Pandit?
Does the siddha-pranali camp study the Srimad Bhagavatam as did Gadadhara Pandit and all the goswamis ? Or, do they only read Goswami literature on the subject of madhurya-rasa and erotic relationship?

Radhe Radhe!

thank you, dear Rasesh, for ignoring me.
i expected that.

stop hammering around that "sex"-fantasy.

"And what is the character of one who has attained this greed for madhurya-rasa? Is he a sense enjoyer living happily with his wife and enjoying sex pleasures? Or, is he at the stage of anarta-nivrtti and living a yogic life of vaidhi-sadhana? Does Rupa Goswami say that upon attaining greed for madhurya-rasa one can neglect vaidhi-sadhana and enjoy his senses with his wife or girlfriend?"

name the ones you know who practice raganuga-bhajan and have sex with their wifes and girlfriends.

man, this becomes too much.

another sex-life hater.
thats just the opposit side of the coin.

Tarunji

Let us make one thing clear, speaking in the capacity of the administrator of this website:

In these forums, we do NOT engage in ad hominem arguments to discredit others.

We also do NOT defend issues, we discuss issues and amend our views if the facts prompt us to do so. We do NOT stubbornly cling to certain positions despite compelling evidence. If there is ever an instance where a person finds that the facts brought about in the course of any given topic severely contradict his/her personal faith, we recommend that the participant drop out of that thread instead of launching a so-called defense campaign to protect his/her fragile faith.

In addition, we have certain rules to be followed in the forums to keep our exchanges constructive.

Some of the members in these forums have expressed concern over Ksamabuddhi's presence, given his rather colourful history in some other internet forums. We are not willing to block anyone from participating in the forums on account of their past activities elsewhere, but we do expect that everyone remains civil and respectful towards others, and additionally respects the rules of the forums.

Thanks to our audience for considering this.

I appreciate your desire to defend the Saraswata conception. However, I trust you understand that to convincingly argue for the validity of the Saraswata approach, you'll have to accomplish two tasks:

1. You have to clearly present the Saraswata approach from the writings of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, not his followers. There is way too much confusion among them.

2. You have to clearly show the parallels between the ideas of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and the relevant writings of the Gosvamis, such as Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu and Ujjvala-nilamani of Rupa Gosvamin and Bhakti-sandarbha of Jiva Gosvamin.

To help you out with the second task, I'll post in the Sanskrit and translations for verses 270 to 309 from the second wave of the first division of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. We can also look into the commentaries of Jiva, Mukunda and Visvanatha when there is disagreement over the meaning of any given verse.



It certainly does not disqualify you altogether, as long as you are able to refer to some books to prove your case. I trust you understand that you cannot establish a strong case without referring to the writings of the Gosvamis.



The original Sanskrit (transliterated) of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu in its entirety is available from the Gaudiya Grantha Mandira: http://www.granthamandira.org/categories.php?cat_id=14 . The reason why BRS is particularly relevant is the fact that the second wave of the first division is called "sadhana-bhakti", and forms the foundation of our entire concept of sadhana.



However that may be, the fact is that NOD is not a translation, it is a summary study mixed with commentary.



Fortunately the commentators of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu have been rather thorough, leaving a few words unexplained. Relying on their words, even the unrealized can easily understand the meanings of its verses.

Thanks, Madhavaji!

This will help all, who is interested, to make clear the issue.

I hate to rain on the raganuga parade in here, but I would like to propose something which might shed a whole new light on the controversy of \"raganuga vs. saraswata\".

First of all, we will all have to admit that raganuga-bhakti is a form of sadhana? We will also have to admit that bhava-bhakti is not attained by any method of sadhana? We will also have to admit that bhava-bhakti is beyond the level of raganuga sadhana? We will also have to admit that bhava-bhakti is only attained through continuous sravana and kirtana?
We will also have to admit that ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math were formatted on the principles of 24 hour sravanam-kirtanam? We must therefore conclude that ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math did not put the most emphasis on either vaidhi-sadhana or raganuga sadhana, rather on sravanam and kirtanam and the subsequent result of bhava-bhakti.
Therefore, the perception that ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math advocated any kind of sadhana above bhava-bhakti is a misperception. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur advocated the process of bhava-bhakti above and beyond all forms of sadhana, both vaidhi and raganuga, through his movement based upon the preimminence of sravanam/kirtanam.

The conclusion is that ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math are not inferior to the raganuga sadhana camps which promote sadhana above sravanam/kirtanam. In fact, ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math promote the most efficient and effective form of bhakti (bhava-bhakti), through the primary emphasis on sravanam/kirtanam which has been explained by Srila Rupa Goswami as superior to the principles of vaidhi and raganuga sadhana.

I suppose this is a question for me, since I am maintaining the websites.

Raganuga.Com is not an introductory website. From the front page of the site: "This website is a resource dedicated to all students and practitioners of the raganuga-bhakti tradition. We expect that you, the visitor, are already acquainted with the basics of the tradition. Should raganuga-bhakti be an entirely new topic for you, be sure to first study our introductory website."

The introductory website, Raganuga.Org, is directed for those who desire to understand the concept of bhakti in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. It does not delve deep into narrations of madhurya-rasa, it is a theological presentation.

For those who are altogether new to the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, we have Gaudiya.Com. Although most of the pages of the website are online, there is still much I need to write as time permits. I am also working on another website, which will be more of a simple introduction to bhakti and Vaishnavism. Let's call that the rock bottom introductory website.

Not starting with the most super introductory sites is due to a great demand for a website, which those who are already acquainted with the subject matter of bhakti would find helpful for their spiritual lives. That aspiration has been to some extent successful with the Raganuga.Com/Org websites, particularly with the forums here.




We rarely go out of our way to make advertising campaigns. Have you seen someone going around advertising the website? Yes, it is in the search engines for those who look for information on the subject matter.



According to Krishna Das Kaviraja:

prema-rasa niryAsa korite asvAdana |
rAga-marga bhakti loke korite pracarana ||
rasika-zekhara kRSNa parama-karuna |
ei dui hetu hoite icchara udgama || CC 1.4.15-16 ||

"To taste the essence of prema-rasa, and to preach raga-marga bhakti to the world -- due to these two reasons, the desire of Sri Krishna, the king of relishers and the most merciful one, to descend to this world arose."

Of course we do not shove raganuga-bhakti down the throats of everyone we meet, but we do not hide it either. It is, after all, the unique gift of Mahaprabhu, which He desired to share with the entire world.



Perhaps you are mixing up "easily accessible" and "easily attainable"? There is no need to unnecessarily hide it and make it difficult to access. After all, anyone can also read about it in the Caitanya Caritamrita, which Bhaktivedanta Swami had distributed on the streets to every Tom, Dick and Harry.



It is not that we encourage people to live like dogs and hogs. Nevertheless, everyone grows over their bad habits in due course of time, being purified by the practice of bhakti -- not the other way around.

Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, first division, second wave:

jJAna-vairAgyayor-bhakti-pravezAyopayogitA |
ISat prathamam eveti nAGgatvam ucitaM tayoH || 248 ||

yad ubhe citta-kAThinya-hetU prAyaH satAM mate |
sukumAra-svabhAveyaM bhaktis tad-hetur IritA || 249 ||

"Jnana and vairagya may be employed while initially coming in contact with bhakti, but they certainly cannot be said to be angas of bhakti. In the opinion of the saints, they are a cause of the hardening of the heart, while bhakti is said to be a cause of the heart's becoming very tender in nature."



Now, learning about raganuga-bhakti is not exactly the same as receiving information of siddha-pranali. It is not that any freak or junkie is given diksa or pranali. That is for people who are serious and committed.

These are interesting questions. Would you like to provide the answers, please? All of them are answered in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu and the Sandarbhas.

Let me remind that opinions are many, but the scriptures are one (for the most part, anyway). Therefore, let us not turn this into an opinon parade.



I've been recently working on a translation of Bhagavatamrita-kana, which is hardly a text containing narrations of madhurya-rasa and erotic pastimes. Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu-bindu is the next one in line. I am also preparing a small e-book dealing mainly with the second and thirteenth chapters of Bhagavad-gita with some select passages from other sections.

The upcoming publications of Sri Krishna Caitanya Sastra Mandira include Madhurya Kadambini of Visvanatha, which is a very philosophical work centered around the "adau sraddhah" verse, and Prema-bhakti-candrika of Narottama, which is an excellent overview of the entire scale of Gaudiya Siddhanta. That, too, is by no means a book of lila-katha, though in some verses the subject matter of raganuga-bhakti and allegiance to the gopis is discussed. Bhakti-tattva-vijnana, an overview of scriptural references on the theology of bhakti, is a work in progress. You can review some of the earlier publications from our website. Baba wants us to gradually publish his writings from the basics upwards, saving texts like Vilapa-kusumanjali and Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi for later.

Did the gopis practice raganuga bhakti? Or, did the gopis practice sravanam/kirtanam? What does it mean to follow the mood of the gopis? Is following the mood of the gopis a process of raganuga-sadhana or a process of ceaseless sravanam/kirtanam? Did the gopis meditate on the pastimes of Krishna or engage in sravanam/kirtanam about the pastimes and qualities of Krishna?

It seems that practicing the constant sravanam/kirtanam of hari-katha is more in line with the mood and mentality of the gopis than is a mechanical process of raganuga-sadhana.

The issue is not whether or not raganuga-sadhana was explained and prescribed by Srila Rupa Goswami, but whether or not he advocated that any form of sadhana, vaidhi or raganuga, was the highest and best form of bhakti above and beyond the bhava-bhakti attained through ceaseless sravanam/kirtanam.

I think this is the bottom line to the whole issue of raganuga vs. saraswata in the context of the present day Krishna consciousness movement.

Yes, indeed.


The attainment of bhava is the very meaning of sadhana. As in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu:

kRti-sAdhyA bhavet sAdhya-bhAvA sA sAdhanAbhidhA |
nitya-siddhasya bhAvasya prAkaTyaM hRdi sAdhyatA || (brs 1.2.2)

"That, which is accomplished through the functions of the senses, and through which a loving devotional feeling (bhava) is attained, is called devotion in practice (sadhana-bhakti). The appearance of an eternally perfected feeling within the heart is called the stage of the attainment of perfection."

vaidhI-rAgAnugA-mArga-bhedena parikIrtitaH |
dvividhaH khalu bhAvo’tra sAdhanAbhinivezajaH || (brs 1.3.7)

"The paths of vaidhi and raganuga are known to be separate from each other. Engagements in these two forms of sadhana certainly awaken two distinct varieties of bhava."



Yes. This is commonly agreed upon.

sA bhaktiH sAdhanaM bhAvaH premA ceti tridhoditA || (brs 1.2.1)

"This devotion is said to be of three kinds, namely practice (sadhana), feeling (bhava) and love (prema)."



No, not only sravana and kirtana. There are many methods of sadhana recommended in the scriptures. Sravana, kirtana, smarana, vandana, arcana and so forth.



I have never seen a document concicely stating the core principles of the Gaudiya Math. The third paragraph of ISKCON's Constitution of Association defines the objectives for which the society is established. They are (summarized):

(A) To educate humanity in the values of spiritual life as the basis for a balanced psycho-physical development and thus attain peace and unity in the world, (B) To propagate a sense of Godhead as taught in the scriptures, © To bring together individuals in a society in order to develop nearness of God, (D) To encourage the teachings of Sri Caitanya, who taught about sankirtan, (E) To prove by active work and preaching that Sri Krishna is the enjoyer of everything, (F) To assist whenever and wherever possible in the building of a social structure on the real foundation of spiritual progress etc., (G) To attempt to save men individually from the chain of victimization the ongoing trend in modern civilization operates by, so that Man may again be a free soul, (H) To further toward realization this highest truth as revealed by Lord Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the six Goswamins, (I) To have for its objectives amongst the others four principles which the Goswamins had in view, (J) To introduce to the members of the Society and humanity-at-large a simpler and more natural purpose in life, (K) To organize educational programs, such as classes and lecture tours, etc., (L) To publish periodicals, books and/or pamphlets in all important languages, (M) To invoke the quality of goodness particularly in every member of the Society through diksa, (N) And as secondary objectives, (n1) To revive the scientific system of social orders of classification, (n2) To defeat the system of supremacy of one man over another by false prestige of birthright or vested interests, (n3) To popularize the vegetable-grain diet, and (n4) To discourage intoxicating or addicting habits of all descriptions and dimensions.

There is no mention of 24 hour sravana-kirtana there.



Are you proposing that sravanam and kirtanam are neither vaidhi-sadhana nor raganuga-sadhana? Well, I hate to break the news, but they are enlisted under both headings in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu.



No-one has ever claimed so, either. One cannot advocate any kind of sadhana above bhava-bhakti, just one cannot advocate bhava-bhakti over prema-bhakti. They are merely sequential stages of bhakti.



Bhava-bhakti is not a process. It is a state of joyful self-awareness in a particular loving relationship with Krishna.



We promote the sadhana of sravanam, kirtanam and smaranam.



But prema-bhakti is above bhava-bhakti, so why not promote prema-bhakti.

Indeed, the siddha-pranali camp promotes madanakhya-mahabhava, which is the pinnacle of all forms of bhakti and the zenith of prema. However, we do not claim (unlike some sahajiyas do) that one can attain bhava-bhakti or prema-bhakti without practicing sadhana.

sAdhya-vastu sAdhana vinu keho nahi pay || CC 2.8.197 ||

"No-one can attain the perfectional goal without sadhana."

So, now you're saying we should imitate the gopis? I have news for you: The gopis are nitya-siddha, we are sadhakas. Therefore we follow the path of sadhana. Otherwise, let's put that sari on and dance. Can I borrow your lipstick please?




Who ever said that it was mechanical?



Well, nobody said that sadhana-bhakti was the perfection of bhakti to begin with. Sadhana-bhakti is the first stage of bhakti, bhava-bhakti is the next stage, and prema is the ripe stage.

sAdhane bhAvibe yAhA, siddha dehe pAbe tAhA |
rAga mArge ei sei upAya || (Prema-bhakti-candrika 57)

“Whatever you think of during your sadhana, you will attain in your siddha-body. Such is the means on the path of raga.”

sAdhane ye dhana cAi, siddha dehe tAhA pAi |
pakkApakka mAtra se vicAra || (ibid. 58)

“The treasure I covet during my sadhana, I will attain in my siddha-body. It is merely a matter of its being ripe or raw.”



That's a very interesting bottom line you have there. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with Rupa Gosvami's theology of Bhakti.

You can find some sections of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu translated by Vic Dicara on his website: http://www.dicara.com/Members/vic/BRS/ Unfortunately it seems he's dropped the project. The translation is reasonably accurate. I suggest taking a close look particularly at the first division, waves one and two.

That's either mayavada or a work in progress!

What does 2.8.197 mean? Isn't CC divided by Adi/Madhya/Antya lila?

Would it be too much to ask if you could please show which of the above sections you are referring too? does the 2 mean Madhya-lila?

Also, is there not the Vaishnava concept of kripa-siddha and does this concept not contradict the proposal that sadhana is the only way to siddha?

Lets see if this works!

Yes. Adi = division 1, Madhya = division 2, Antya = division 3. I prefer using numbers in references. Otherwise, I'd also have to say BRS Purva 2.270 or BRS Uttara 1.3, and so forth.



Yes, the division of sadhana-siddha and kripa-siddha is indeed there in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. However, the kripa-siddha, those who engage practically in no acts of sadhana, yet still attain siddhi, are said to be very rare. We can't plan to build a house with those million dollars we plan to win from lottery, we have to work our way through. The same principle applies here. Of course, in a sense, it is mercy all the way, as we've discussed in an earlier thread which I can't seem to locate right now.

Spare yourself the trouble and grab it from the Grantha Mandir: http://www.granthamandira.org/details.php?image_id=7 .

I think we should be wary of a "us" vs. "them" kind of debate. We are all in this together. And since Saraswati Thakur is directly or indirectly responsible for bringing us to the point of wanting to be Rupanugas, we are all indebted to him, and by extension, to his way of visualizing the devotional process.

As such, I agree that gopi-bhava may be a difficult first point of entry to the bhakti path. It is easier in India, where exposure to Krishna as the Deity is (or at least was) deeply ingrained in the culture.

As far as kripa siddhi is concerned, this is the point: We are ALL entirely dependent on kripa, no matter what our spiritual practice. Saraswati Thakur himself suggested that sadhana meant "trying to be seen" rather than "seeing." This is the meaning of the kriti-sAdhya verse as well. There is nothing we can do to attain suddha-bhakti. It is entirely in Radharani's hands.

Raganuga bhakti is about clearly formulating what it is that we want from Radharani. If you are doing sravana-kirtana 24 hours a day, but desiring labh, puja or pratishtha, or one of the five types of mukti, then you are somewhere in the vaidhi bhakti process. If you are doing sravana-kirtan for one minute a day, but praying to be Radharani's dasi (or any step that leads to such), you are a raganuga bhakta. This is the case whether or not you have siddha-pranali.

Siddha-pranali comes when the sadhaka has clearly formulated his desire to be Radha's dasi (or some other direct relationship following the residents of Vraja) and has concretized this desire through his spiritual master.

My experience is that if you go to your spiritual master in Iskcon or the Gaudiya Math, you will be told to stop being a prematurely ripe pumpkin (akAla-kuSmANDa), even if you have been chanting for half your lifetime.

Is it possible to continue in the raganuga path without external confirmation from the guru? I suggest you read the fifteenth chapter of Harinama-cintamani and see what you think then. I humbly suggest reading the translation offered on this site: http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=153

Please excuse me if I am not really in a position to participate fully in this discussion. I am really extremely busy with external obligations. But I look forward to an amicable exchange.

Your servant,

Jagadananda Das.

That's really cool Jagat. Nice vision.

I am short on time and long on distractions, but there is a point I would like to make in defense of the "non-siddha-pranali/asta-kaliya-lila smaran raganuga sadhana" sampradaya of Srila Saraswati Goswami. I guess the gosthyanandi Vaishnavas have a diffferent approach to sadhana than the bhajananandi babas. Isn't this the real issue that divides the babaji camps from the Saraswata sampradaya? Did Mahaprabhu advocate setting down for bhajan and giving up the civil-disobediance movement of Harinama Sankirtan? Was his lila not very much depicting the free distribution of love of Godhead by a wholesale plundering of the storehouse to be given to the needy and destitute souls of this age?

I am not going to condemn the babaji camp wholesale, as their method of reclusive lila smarana bhajan has it's merits in the principles enunciated in the texts of the Goswamis. But, can we not give a little credit to the preachers and sannyasis who have traversed the world performing Sankirtan through the bhagavat-marga ? Is it really expected that sannyasis who travel and preach are supposed to perform asta-kaliya-lila bhajan in raganuga-sadhana?

Mahaprabhu was a sannyasi. He inaugurated the Sankirtan movement. Is setting down for bhajan at Radha-kunda more pleasing to him than taking up his mission of delivering the fallen souls of this age through the Sankirtan movement?

Maybe the siddha-pranali process became identified as the orthodoxy of goswami doctrine during the dormant stage of Mahaprabhu's movement when the momentum had practically come to a standstill, but all that had to be left by the wayside when Saraswati Goswami was burdened with the task of spreading the Sankirtan movement all over the world. I don't see why that is so much condemned and frowned upon by those reclusive babajis in India who have no concern to propogate the Sankirtan movement all over the world. The babaji principles and practices have nothing to do with delivering the world from nescience. It is all about "me" and "my ecstacy" and "my liberation" in the face of Mahaprabhu's mission to benefit suffering mankind.

Siddha-pranali and their version of raganuga-sadhana no doubt has it's impetus in the goswami literatures, but there is also plenty of sanction and support for the bhagavat-marga of the travelling preachers promulgating Sankirtan all over the world. I don't think it should be seen as a deviation or defect that the preaching missions of Mahaprabhu's movement have left aside the principles and practices that go by description of "siddha-pranali" and "raganuga-sadhana" for the exclusive process of sravanam/kirtanam incorperated with vaidhi-sadhana and the express train of Sankirtan to the stations of bhava and prema-bhakti.

Radhe!

"In religious matters, faultfinding in the practice of others means to be dissatisfied with and insecure about one´s own."

i found this very helpful for my cope with this subject matter.

by the way, dear Rasesh, i have a copy left of "Bhaktirasamrita sindhu" , original edition from Swami Bon Maharaja, GM.
if you like you can buy it.

best regards

Tarunji

I haven't read of any multiple paths of sadhana for Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhakas in the writings of the Gosvamis. Aside that, this division of gosthyanandi and bhajananandi is for the most part an artificial imposition. You rarely find that a person runs all around gostha, or wherever, and does no bhajan, and you rarely find that a person just sits down and does bhajan and doesn't instruct anyone on the subject matter of bhakti. Most people are a blend of both.

Look at me, what am I doing? Am I just sitting down? What is my guru doing, writing all those volumes of books, sometimes giving two classes a day, receiving people and instructing them all day long? That is not preaching? He just doesn't go around. People come to him.



Most people in fact follow the path He took to a significant extent, taking His entire life as an example, instead of only a certain part of His life. Take Sri Ananta Das Babaji for example. In his younger years, he first preached for a decade in his village, and then lectured in various places around Vraja-mandala, finally settling down at Radha Kunda to spend more of his time in solitary bhajan. How is this any different in principle from Mahaprabhu who first preached in Navadvipa for 24 years, then traveled around both to preach and to seek His inner treasure (viz. Ramananda-samvada), finally withdrawing in Gambhira for eighteen years if intense rapture of prema?




Oh yes, of course we like to give some credit to everyone. However, it is not that some people can avoid lila-smarana and think that they can get away with it. It is necessary if you wish to attain perfection on raga-marga. As said by Thakur Mahasaya (PBC 14): sAdhana smaraNa lIlA, ihAte nA koro helA kAya mane koriyA susAra -- "Do not neglect the sadhana of lila-smarana, for it is the very essence of the mind!" Now, he was an example indeed of a person steeped in bhajan and engaged in preaching.



Let's look at it from another angle: Is directly serving Radha and Krishna within one's heart more pleasing to Them than preaching their message? Well. Can you really separate the two? You've got to have the goods if you're going to deliver them. As simple as that. What good will preaching without inner insight do?



So, it came to a standstill when the Six Gosvamis sat down in Vraja and was revived when Saraswati Goswami started preaching? I don't think so. Did this standstill turn millions of people into followers of Mahaprabhu? I don't think so. Perhaps it wasn't a standstill after all.


Such as a babaji called __________ ? Feel free to tell us whom you're talking about. I fear it is quite possible that you may be talking about a transcendental being called No Body Baba here.



May I ask, what are the babaji principles and practices? Sadhu-sanga, nama-kirtan, bhagavat-sravan, vraja-vasa and sri-murti-seva are those principles, and they are declared as the most potent by Mahaprabhu Himself. Is that not good enough?



Now, is this No Body Baba you're talking about, again? This is some sort of freaky stereotype which fior all you know may not even exist.



I wonder where the term bhagavat-marga comes from, particularly when used as meaning "traveling and preaching". Any clues to its origin?



Sravanam and kirtanam, along with the other aspects of vaidhi-sadhana are to be adopted by raganuga-sadhakas (BRS 1.2.296), that's a standard thing and there's absolutely nothing innovative about that. Also, whoever is it who said that there is something wrong with traveling around the world and preaching? I don't think even No Body Baba said that.

However, the aspect of smarana must not be neglected. All the acharyas agree on that. According ot Jiva (BhaktiS.), kirtana nourishes smarana, and smarana nourishes kirtana. If after kirtana there is no smarana in the mind, it means there is something wrong with the way kirtana is being done. We don't just chant sounds, we chant Krishna's names, qualities and pastimes, and they should arise within our minds as we chant about them. If they do not, there is a problem with the quality of the kirtana.

If our kirtan is really effective, then there should be no problem in sitting down in our spare moments for an hour or two of smarana. After all, is it not said, smartavyaH satataM viSNor vismartavyo na jAtUcit | sarve vidhi niSedhAH syur etayor eva kiGkarAH ||? If this smarana is missing despite our all kinds of activities, then we are missing the point.

One more thought, that I thought I would toss out into cyberspace.

It is probably well known that Swami Prabhupada made some references to siddha-pranali in his Nectar of Devotion, and referred to it as practiced by a pseudo-sect of so-called Vaishnavas commonly referred to as sahajiyas.

I have examined those words and statements carefully and contemplated the meaning for quite some time and have come up with my own interpretation of exactly what he was trying to convey with those thoughts.

(I break my thoughts up into unecessary paragraphs because I don't like long paragraphs for some reason)(I guess I like my thoughts to me more like sutras than commentaries)

In a gesture of goodwill and brotherhood, I will explain how his apparently critical and scathing remarks should not be taken as an offense or assault on the genuine followers of the siddha-pranali process - like Ananta das babaji and his camp.

Prabhupada wrote:

QUOTE

In this connection, we should be careful about the so-called siddha-pranali.  The siddha-pranali process is followed by a class of men who are not very authorized and who have manufactured their own way of devotional service. They imagine that they have become associates of the Lord simply by thinking of themselves like that. This external behavior is not at all according to the regulative principles. The so-called siddha-pranali process if followed by the prakrita-sahajiya, a pseudosect of so-called Vaishnavas. In the opinion of Rupa Goswami, such activities are simply  disturbances to the standard way of devotional service.

Now, before all you siddha-pranali gals get your panties in a bunch, let me explain the inner meaning of these statements in a way that should cool your anger and soothe your hearts.

First of all Prabhuapda we should "be careful" about the so-called siddha-pranali. Then he goes on to say that the prakrita-sahajiyas have adopted the process of siddha-pranali. What is important to understand here is that Prabhupada is not wholesale condemning the siddha-pranali process - just as it is practiced by the prakrita-sahajiyas. Now, a prakrita-sahajiya is a freaky guy who dresses up like a gopi and pretends to be consorting with Krishna in his material body.(He thinks Krishna likes transvestites) We know that Prabhupada is referring to the sahajiyas in particular because he says "this EXTERNAL behavior is not at all according to the regulative principles". Siddha-pranali as practiced by the authentic lineages is not about any kind of EXTERNAL behavior. It is an internal process of contemplating one's siddha-deha and performing internal functions.

The siddha-pranali process is not mentioned by name explicitly as such in the Goswami literatures, though it is referred to in terms of principles and practices. There is no doubt that the internal process that is commonly referred to as siddha-pranali is described and prescribed for certain sadhakas under certain conditions in the Goswami writtings.

Therefore, we must be careful to understand that Prabhupada was only condemning siddha-pranali as it is practiced by the prakrita-sahajiyas who like to dress up like gopis and pretend they are something they are not.

As well, Srila Saraswati Goswami saw that the prakrita-sahajiyas ( as differentiated from the true sahajiyas not of the prakrita variety) had adopted the siddha-pranali process and that the process had become identified as being part of their tradition and was thereby stigmatized as an irreligious principle. In his efforts to bring dignity and respect back to the Gaudiya culture, he opted to reject the siddha-pranali process and establish the Gaudiya Math on the Bhagavat marga of sravanam/kirtanam and Sankirtanam. Aside from the siddha-pranali process being principly applicable to non-sannyasi/non-preacher class devotess, it had also become identified as a feature of the prakrita-sahajiya sects. To create a clear definition between the sahajiyas and the Gaudiya Math, Saraswati Goswami rejected the so-called orthodox siddha-pranali process for the doctrine of Bhagavat-marga and his Bhagavat-sampradaya.

In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that siddha-pranali is not exclusively a practice of the prakrita-sahajiyas, but is also a traditional raganuga sadhana of many of the antique lines of Gaudiya Vaishnavas with integrity and authenticity. The Saraswata sampradaya does not follow the siddha-pranali process for the reasons mentioned, but emphasizes sravanam/kirtanam above all other limbs of bhakti, though incorperating all nine in some fashion or the other.

Smaranam is not exclusively related to asta-kalika-lila, but also pertains to any sort or rememberance and contemplation on the qualities and pastimes of Krishna, even if not in the sequential aspect of asta-kalika-lila.

Thus ends the need for unecessary bitterness and strife between the Gaudiya Math and the saintly babas following the old school tradition.
Only the sahajiyas should be discredited for their unauthorized behavior, not the sincere Vaishnvas following the siddha-pranali process.

[quote=Madhava,Nov 11 2003, 05:00 AM] [quote=Rasesh,Nov 11 2003, 03:05 AM]I am short on time and long on distractions, but there is a point I would like to make in defense of the "non-siddha-pranali/asta-kaliya-lila smaran raganuga sadhana" sampradaya of Srila Saraswati Goswami. I guess the gosthyanandi Vaishnavas have a diffferent approach to sadhana than the bhajananandi babas. Isn't this the real issue that divides the babaji camps from the Saraswata sampradaya?[/quote]
I haven't read of any multiple paths of sadhana for Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhakas in the writings of the Gosvamis. Aside that, this division of gosthyanandi and bhajananandi is for the most part an artificial imposition. You rarely find that a person runs all around gostha, or wherever, and does no bhajan, and you rarely find that a person just sits down and does bhajan and doesn't instruct anyone on the subject matter of bhakti. Most people are a blend of both.

Look at me, what am I doing? Am I just sitting down? What is my guru doing, writing all those volumes of books, sometimes giving two classes a day, receiving people and instructing them all day long? That is not preaching? He just doesn't go around. People come to him.


[quote]Did Mahaprabhu advocate setting down for bhajan and giving up the civil-disobediance movement of Harinama Sankirtan? Was his lila not very much depicting the free distribution of love of Godhead by a wholesale plundering of the storehouse to be given to the needy and destitute souls of this age? [/quote]
Most people in fact follow the path He took to a significant extent, taking His entire life as an example, instead of only a certain part of His life. Take Sri Ananta Das Babaji for example. In his younger years, he first preached for a decade in his village, and then lectured in various places around Vraja-mandala, finally settling down at Radha Kunda to spend more of his time in solitary bhajan. How is this any different in principle from Mahaprabhu who first preached in Navadvipa for 24 years, then traveled around both to preach and to seek His inner treasure (viz. Ramananda-samvada), finally withdrawing in Gambhira for eighteen years if intense rapture of prema?



[quote]I am not going to condemn the babaji camp wholesale, as their method of reclusive lila smarana bhajan has it's merits in the principles enunciated in the texts of the Goswamis. But, can we not give a little credit to the preachers and sannyasis who have traversed the world performing Sankirtan through the bhagavat-marga ? Is it really expected that sannyasis who travel and preach are supposed to perform asta-kaliya-lila bhajan in raganuga-sadhana?[/quote]
Oh yes, of course we like to give some credit to everyone. However, it is not that some people can avoid lila-smarana and think that they can get away with it. It is necessary if you wish to attain perfection on raga-marga. As said by Thakur Mahasaya (PBC 14): sAdhana smaraNa lIlA, ihAte nA koro helA kAya mane koriyA susAra -- "Do not neglect the sadhana of lila-smarana, for it is the very essence of the mind!" Now, he was an example indeed of a person steeped in bhajan and engaged in preaching.


[quote]Mahaprabhu was a sannyasi. He inaugurated the Sankirtan movement. Is setting down for bhajan at Radha-kunda more pleasing to him than taking up his mission of delivering the fallen souls of this age through the Sankirtan movement?[/quote]
Let's look at it from another angle: Is directly serving Radha and Krishna within one's heart more pleasing to Them than preaching their message? Well. Can you really separate the two? You've got to have the goods if you're going to deliver them. As simple as that. What good will preaching without inner insight do?


[quote]Maybe the siddha-pranali process became identified as the orthodoxy of goswami doctrine during the dormant stage of Mahaprabhu's movement when the momentum had practically come to a standstill, but all that had to be left by the wayside when Saraswati Goswami was burdened with the task of spreading the Sankirtan movement all over the world.[/quote]
So, it came to a standstill when the Six Gosvamis sat down in Vraja and was revived when Saraswati Goswami started preaching? I don't think so. Did this standstill turn millions of people into followers of Mahaprabhu? I don't think so. Perhaps it wasn't a standstill after all.

[quote]I don't see why that is so much condemned and frowned upon by those reclusive babajis in India who have no concern to propogate the Sankirtan movement all over the world.[/quote]
Such as a babaji called __________ ? Feel free to tell us whom you're talking about. I fear it is quite possible that you may be talking about a transcendental being called No Body Baba here.


[quote]The babaji principles and practices have nothing to do with delivering the world from nescience.[/quote]
May I ask, what are the babaji principles and practices? Sadhu-sanga, nama-kirtan, bhagavat-sravan, vraja-vasa and sri-murti-seva are those principles, and they are declared as the most potent by Mahaprabhu Himself. Is that not good enough?


[quote]It is all about "me" and "my ecstacy" and "my liberation" in the face of Mahaprabhu's mission to benefit suffering mankind.[/quote]
Now, is this No Body Baba you're talking about, again? This is some sort of freaky stereotype which fior all you know may not even exist.


[quote]Siddha-pranali and their version of raganuga-sadhana no doubt has it's impetus in the goswami literatures, but there is also plenty of sanction and support for the bhagavat-marga of the travelling preachers promulgating Sankirtan all over the world.[/quote]
I wonder where the term bhagavat-marga comes from, particularly when used as meaning "traveling and preaching". Any clues to its origin?


[quote]I don't think it should be seen as a deviation or defect that the preaching missions of Mahaprabhu's movement have left aside the principles and practices that go by description of "siddha-pranali" and "raganuga-sadhana" for the exclusive process of sravanam/kirtanam incorperated with vaidhi-sadhana and the express train of Sankirtan to the stations of bhava and prema-bhakti.[/quote]
Sravanam and kirtanam, along with the other aspects of vaidhi-sadhana are to be adopted by raganuga-sadhakas (BRS 1.2.296), that's a standard thing and there's absolutely nothing innovative about that. Also, whoever is it who said that there is something wrong with traveling around the world and preaching? I don't think even No Body Baba said that.

However, the aspect of smarana must not be neglected. All the acharyas agree on that. According ot Jiva (BhaktiS.), kirtana nourishes smarana, and smarana nourishes kirtana. If after kirtana there is no smarana in the mind, it means there is something wrong with the way kirtana is being done. We don't just chant sounds, we chant Krishna's names, qualities and pastimes, and they should arise within our minds as we chant about them. If they do not, there is a problem with the quality of the kirtana.

If our kirtan is really effective, then there should be no problem in sitting down in our spare moments for an hour or two of smarana. After all, is it not said, smartavyaH satataM viSNor vismartavyo na jAtUcit | sarve vidhi niSedhAH syur etayor eva kiGkarAH ||? If this smarana is missing despite our all kinds of activities, then we are missing the point. [/quote]
As far as I know, Srila Prabhupada did not practice your siddha-pranali or your asta-kaliya-lila bhajan, as he was too busy translating books and preaching all over the world.

According to your remarks and criticisms, you therefore consider him as not following the Goswamis and teaching his disciples the same.

See, this is the rift. You and your kind have no respect for Srila Prabhupada and accuse him of these shortcomings and misconcpetions. In essence you are saying that his whole movement is therefore bogus and not in line with the teachings of Rupa Goswami.

this is your disease. this is the poison that nullifies all your study and bhajan. it the this self-rightous attitude that is the exact opposite of Vaishnava humility as you criticise and condemn the person whose efforts also brought you into Vaishnavism.

Canakya Pandit said something that if one does not respect a guru who he has learned even one thing from, then he will take birth as a dog-eater for a thousands births.

this would be a good thing to keep in mind as you attempt to disqualify and discredit the person who spread Krishna consciousness over the whole Earth and who therefore made a devotee out of you in the process.

I guess there is no reason for me to be around this forum anymore, as I see that the moderator has a very low opinion of my spiritual master. Your company is therefore very undesirable.

Farewell. I would rather walk into a swamp of alligators than be in the company of people who have a very low opinion of Srila Prabhupada.

I'm outta here.

See now I was hoping that this would turn out to be a highly-productive discussion..

Radhe!

what a response?

where is Madhava attacking AC Bhaktivedanta Swami?

ranting, offending, ranting,...

i´m glad its over.

excellent work , Madhava.

i can see that all Rasesh´s efforts culminated in offending the people here.
see his last sentences with the alligators...

man, i also was impressed with his cool questions...
but i doubted his motives...

again , motivations....

all the best to you, Rasesh.

cool down.
breathe.

follow Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami, who is admired by many of the people here (including myself).
good luck

Tarunji

Anybody noticed he could not respond to even a single refutation that Madhava made of his speculations and hearsay? Farewell, Sparky.....

Well at least it was short and fairly painless. Thank you Madhava. Birds of a feather (or should I say "alligators of a scale") will stick together. To each his own.

It has always been my understanding that siddha-mahatmas can simultaneously act in this world and exist in the realm of eight-fold daily lila steeped in loving service. I cannot say of Bhaktivedanta myself, since I do not have the eyes to see, but I expected that you would regard him as such.




I haven't said that his whole movement is bogus through and through. There is much merit to it. I just don't agree with everything, because I can't see it jive with the writings of the Gosvamis. Now, if you have a friend who knows the Gosvami-granthas and who can fill us in with the necessary references, I'd love to have a chat with him.




I can't recall condemning Bhaktivedanta Swami anywhere. As for criticism, there are issues with some passages in his books. I just recently came across the following:

"Yet there is the vipralambha-sakhya, the higher fraternal worship of the Lord especially enjoyed by the cowherd boys. Although there is friendship between Kåñëa and the cowherd boys, this friendship is different from the aiçvarya friendship between Kåñëa and Arjuna." (SB 4.24.45, SB 4.24.46, SB 4.24.45-46)

It should be visrambha-sakhya. There is gaurava-sakhya and visrambha-sakhya. I had it forwarded to the BBT editors.

Just see, I care for the well-being of his mission.



Wouldn't you agree that there are degrees of respect, all of which may not include full self-surrender and absolute obedience? That I cannot give to him like you do. This is something you must try to understand and reconcile, otherwise you will never be able to create lasting good relationships with Vaishnavas outside of Bhaktivedanta's followers.



You still have a few of them on your backyard swamp, if memory serves. Please convey my Haribol to them.

It was a pleasure having you here as long as it lasted. You provided us with a very interesting dialogue, of which I am certain that many learned valuable points.

I knew of the saying 'a duck among swans'...... But a crocodile among swans?

Radhe!

thats what always hammers me down.

always "hearsay" and selling it as the absolute truth.

Madhava, you RULE!

i was flabbergasted and i just smiled.

the false-ego-shooting-back-wish-you-to-hell answer speaks for itself!

also i now realize why i bought into that "hearsay -as-truth-propaganda". simple.
i was the same like him. "...flock together..."
quite right.

now,
on to the new horizons

Jay Sri Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Syam!

Tarunji

The exact text of this verse says :

ekaksara-pradataram
yo gurum nabhivandate |
svana-yoni-satam bhuktva
candalesv abhijayate ||

Here the word ekaksara means OM. "He who does not praise (abhivandate=praising, not distributing his books and adhering to wrong philosophies and practises life-long) the Guru who has given the one-syllable OM, takes 100 births (not 1000) as a dog-eater etc."
The word 'even' (api in Sanskrit) is not here, nor is A.C. Swamiji a giver of the single-syllable OM mantra. Slightly mistranslated verse.

About gratitude: I got this human body, which is the ship to cross over the ocean of material existence, from my father. My father worked hard to feed, dress, shelter and educate me. But still, I cannot eat beef and drink liquor and pursue all kinds of material goods like him, because I believe that that is wrong. That doesn't make me ungrateful to my father - I am grateful. Similarly, we received so many wonderful things from Swamiji, but many things he taught are simply wrong and should not be said, thought or done. That does not make us ungrateful. In my opinion, any sincere Iskcon-graduate should say thanks wholeheartedly to Swamiji....

Radhe!

i´m also grateful, dear Advaita das, but the problem is:

they couldnt care less.
they will never accept our gratefulness since they cannot admit the things you mentioned.

like i said before, the only motivation of that gentleman was to disturb and to rant.
aimed at slandering around.

no way that he would ever accept gratefulness and thankfulness from a person who shatters his dreams, lying on a cushion-sofa made of very nice "hearsay-far-out-transmission"-cotton.

its not easy to admit these serious shortcomings in their philosophy.
but the only way to become cured from it.

by the way,
did anyone say anything evil against the person AC Bhaktivedanta Swami?

most of the discussions run on the level of "subject" not on the level of "person".
but you decide with which ear you hear!

its always easy to hear with the ear of the "person"-level.
everything said will be put to the "person"-level, taken totally personally, although we talk on the "subject"-level or at best on the "meta"-level.

anyone interested in playing "raganuga-monopoly"?
go straight to the nikunja, do not cash in the 2000$ after passing through start....

Tarunji

That may unfortunately be true, but Krishna is not blind or deaf. He will see and hear and notice it.

Is this the kind of humility that represents your camp? You are all the swans and we the alligator?
It seems that humility is in short supply in your camp. Is that what a little scholarship does to you?


At any rate, in face of accusations that I have been defeated and retreating from the discussion without addressing the arguments and issues presented by Madhava, I will stay around and try to deal with his points and explain my insight and viewpoints on these matters.

I can show the error in his perceptions and explain why his viewpoint are not as precise as he thinks.

I love a good debate. I think I can defend myself here. Either I will defend my case or admit defeat. At this point I have not done either and I don't feel right about turning my back on this discussion. These are issues that are not going to go away and I want to understand exactly how to confront them and deal with them according to the Saraswata conception.

Despite much flap that I have come here and been defeated, I feel that I have developed some seed ideas that can be developed into a more effective presentation with shastric principles.

I think that making an issue out of a few editorial errors in the books of Prabhupada, like in the above reference that Madhava made about the difference between vipralambha and vishrambha, is a very pathetic effort to show how the books of Prabhupada are misleading devotees and misrepresenting Vaishnavism.

Let me make it clear. I am not afraid to confront any and all of you in a discussion of the Saraswata siddhanta.

Madhava just exactly said something in a recent post which actually defeated his own argument. I will inflate the issue in upcoming posts and show how he has exposed himself inadvertently and defeated his own arguments.

I am not going to cut and run. I am going to make all you guys look really silly when I expose the flaws in your thinking.

Radhe!

who is interested to discuss anything with you if you want to make us look silly.
actually, i look silly.
i´m Colonel Clink.
so , please slow down!

Tarunji

Out of translational curiosity: why would ekaksara here mean Om, rather than "one syllable"?

Kshamabuddhi, why bother? You have done nothing but shift the goal posts in the debate (viz. bhava bhakti rather than sadhana), try to snipe at random excerpts of other's replies, and now this? Why not take a break and meditate upon the name given you by your guru? It is full of meaning.

But hey, I understand how your experience with ISKCON and Harikesha might have left you very disenchanted and disenfranchised with Prabhupada's society. I can't say that I blame you. Nobody wants to give themselves to their most cherished ideal to then be abused by a corrupt bureaucracy. ISKCON is a quagmire. It is every man for himself now. If you find some sanctuary in some other camp of devotees like Ananta das Babaji, then that is your right and priveledge.

You were not a Prabhupada era devotee. You owe no allegiance to ISKCON or Prabhupada. I have major differences with ISKCON. I don't endorse or support it at all anymore. I have my perception of Srila Prabhupada which is independent of any GBC or institution.

All bets are off. ISKCON fell like a lead balloon. I think that Prabhupada actually wanted to dismantle the society and neutralize the authority of the GBC after his departure. His actions in the last few weeks and months portray an attempt to set ISKCON up for a major breakup. I think he saw that the GBC was not going to succeed and that he needed to set into motion a situation which would splinter the movement into hundreds of branches.

I still have faith in Prabhupada. I get my reward from Sri Harinama - the Maha-mantra. I get what I want and need from Sri Harinama. I keep my mridanga right next to me and I chant bhajans all the time. I might not be a scholar but I play mridanga and sing bhajans just like a Bengali. For me, bhajan is much more impornt and fullfilling than learning Sanskrit and scrutinizing the books of my spiritual master. The real nectar is in nama-bhajan, not in scholarship and skepticism. Just leave all doubts aside and take shleter of Harinama. He will make everything alright. That is my attitude.

KB, before this degenerates... Please try to understand that when you come here and insist that we are offensive to your spiritual master because of some disagreements about details of interpretation, that we will consider this unfair.

Your last (but one) post, however, shows a rather malicious attitude towards the very institution of raganuga bhakti. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati "wanted to be" a manjari--Nayanamani Manjari, I believe. Bhaktivinoda Thakur identified himself as Kamala Manjari. This was their goal, and as followers of Rupa Manjari and preachers of the bhakti of Gauranga Mahaprabhu, it is what they wished for their disciples also. I assume therefore that they would have wanted gopi bhava for you also.

If you mock the ambitions of others to attain gopi bhava, then you are in effect attacking the very edifice of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, because it is clearly stated "ramyA kAcid upAsanA vraja-vadhU-vargeNa yA kalpitA." We may be hideous in these material bodies, blood, pus and stool wrapped in hairy skin, but our inner ambition is to participate in Vraja lila. This is an impossible desire, but we still hope for Radharani's mercy. Do you not wish us to have this? Are you for or against Mahaprabhu?

THE FOLLOWING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

You have stated openly that you consider Tarunji gay because he desires to become a manjari. This is extremely relevant for this discussion. But the problem extends far beyond sastra and sampradaya. Indeed, you are objecting to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Saraswati Thakur and even Bhaktivedanta Swami (though there is still an unresolved debate about whether he was in the sakhya mood).

Your comment is filled with nastiness and seems to overstep the limits of civility meant for this forum, but I will ask Madhava to refrain from kicking you off just yet.

Just answer this one question honestly : Is your discomfort with the practice of raganuga bhakti a result of your dislike of the idea that men should seek a feminine identity ? Because if that's the case, you should not bother with all these other arguments and try to solve this problem in yourself. We are on the receiving end of your unhappiness, but the cause of that unhappiness is in Mahaprabhu, Rupa Goswami and Bhaktivinoda Thakur, not in us.

Ys, Jagat

Hey Braja! I remember you from L.A. in 1975. You were a dark-complexioned fellow.........

I do chant. I chant bhajans between my posts on this forum. I play mridanga like a Bengali. I have also developed some really sweet melodies that are unique to my own style. I don't like westernized style melodies like some of the old Vishnujana stuff. I have developed very moody melodic bhajans that are supposed to evoke a mood of seperation and intense love. I think bhajans should express the mood of sincere longing and seperation. I don't think bhajan should be a party of pleasure-seeking. It should be a form of deep prayer and intense emotional feeling. I try to do my nama-bhajan in that mood. I don' t really like crowds of neophyte devotees flailing in spastic perturbations of feighned ecstacy. I prefer small groups of select devotees cultivating the deeper meaning of the nama-bhajan. Most of the time I actually prefer solitary bhajan in my room as I do my internet sangha with a few others.

I am not going to cut and run from here so that I can be declared defeated and dispatched. In dealing with the matters of this forum, I will be able to develop important thoughts and principles to defend my spiritual master from the criticism that is coming from this group.

I am not some kid that you can just punish and send to his room. I am 50 years old and I have been a student of Krishna consciousness for almost 30 years. I don't think that my experience and realizations are inferior to a few Sanskrit students who think they know better that Saraswati Goswami and Srila Prabhupada. I am quite convinced that they are way superior these Sanksrit students and I am determined to find out exactly how and why the Saraswata sampradaya can withstand the accusations being made by the people like Madhava and Advaita das.

om ity ekaksaram brahma (Bhagavad Gita 8.13) Visvanatha's tika: om ity ekam evam brahma svarupam. eka= one and aksara = syllable. If sparky was right in his translation the word api would have to be in the sloka for it to mean "A person who has given even one syllable". But it wasnt. ekaksaram is traditionally a synonym for OM.

Lighten up Jagat. You know that I am also a wannabe gopi of Krishna. The point I am making here is that there is something to the concept that one should not manifest himself even after he has attained perfection. I just read something yesterday from BRSBindhu that raganuga-bhakti is something that must be kept secret and not revealed to someone without qualification. I will inflate this issue in the course of the discussion. This will also be part of my message here - that raganuga bhakti should not be advertised to the public. It is a very confidential subject between a personal spiritual master and his disciple. Making raganuga-bhakti a public display goes against the teachings of Rupa Goswami and is an offense to everything that is sacred. I will present relevant scriptural evidence as I get time to work on it.

I don't mean to discredit madhurya-rasa. I was just teasing Taruni. He was joking about being Colonel Klink and I was teasing him about making a public disclosure about his internal aspirations in madhurya-rasa as Colonel Klink.

I am on the side of privacy and confidentiality when it comes to raganuga-bhakti. It think it should always be a private and intimate subject between a realised guru and his disciple. I don't know how making it the topic of public forums and web sites conforms to the stipulations placed on it by the great Goswamis.

I hope that the moderators here are sure enough of their positions to allow me to make my presentation on the subject of raganuga-bhakti and the protections placed on it by the propounders of the doctrine.

If seeing errors in thinking and acting is something that the moderators are not willing to face then they might just very well censure me and proceed with the "ignorance is bliss" mentality.

I see errors in myself and I see errors in others. I hope that the others are as willing to admit their own faults as I am willing to admit mine.

Now that does not sound lower than a blade of grass to me. Time is material and has no influence in spirit. If time was all, then Jagat would automatically know it better than you. He is 53 and joined in 1970, you are 50 and joined in 1975. And all those GBCs that you abhor are also a decade older than you, so they also automatically know it better than you. Actually you were squarely defeated by a boy of just 23 (Madhava) who was not even born before you joined. Ever heard of Dhruva and Prahlada?

Victory is far from in the hands of anyone yet. We have just touched the tip of the iceberg here as far as discussion goes. Victory cannot be declared until their is a loser, and I am still in the debate.

The references he has made so far have more than one interpretation. I will show a different interpretation and explain how his conception has a prakrita element to it. Scripture cannot always be interpreted with a dictionary. It must be interpreted from the plane of suddha-sattva, a plane he is not on yet.

Radhe Radhe!

wow, what to say.

thank you Jagat for your nice concern.

me gay? nope. me a grizzly german fellow. yep.

hmm, kind of funny humor you have, Rasesh.
i didnt say that in madhurya rasa i´m Colonel Clink. that was just A JOKE!

ok, so you tried to hurt me.
you cannot, because actually you dont see me! in reality i´m very beautiful, like all of us.
no offense taken.
i know that my outside hard-nature, my grizzly statue, my black beard, ...i know that this is the karma i have to carry on my shoulders.
but that doesnt hinder my aspiration to become a maidservant of the Lady in the blue sari, not becoming only Krishnas girlfriend.

it may be ridiculous to you, Rasesh, or gay or whatever, but actually i thought that this is an open forum where one can open up ones heart
and feel good.
up till now, it went fine.

i´m sorry if my outer appearance caused disturbance to you, together with my inner aspiration.
but i read just now, that Sri Krishna and His Beloved Radhika even accept offerings from poor people, from people with zero knowledge, with no
brains,etc...

so i hope and deep inside i know that They also accept my longing and my deepest aspiration, although i may be ugly or grizzly in this rather temporary "heavy" costume.

dear Rasesh, i wish that you can find balance with your masculine and feminine nature.
my girlfriend tought me a lot about becoming balanced on the feminine side.

yeah, your ears might hear now:
"See, there we have it. random sex affairs."
nope, my friend. failure.

my humble sadhana consists of getting up at 3.30 a.m, chanting japa until 6.30 , shower, dress, go to school as a teacher, work with wonderful children, home, cooking, reading.
and yes, i care also a lot about my soulmate, Moni. and i´m happy to be in her association. and yes, we also embrace each other.
very strict, huh?

so, think what you want.
but i´m not your enemy-target.

i know that you are Krishnas servant
please pray for me to become a servant of the servant of the servant

without the mercy of the devotees:
ZERO

all the best

Tarunji

PS:
stop playing with the feelings of other members or visitors

It is not clear whom you are referring to (perhaps Madhava?) but whoever it is, how do you know who is on suddha sattva plane or not? And indeed, how can we know that you or any of your pals ARE on suddha sattva plane so that you can give a better explanation of shastra?

Radhe!

this is getting nowhere.

you got it, Advaita das.

if he would be on the suddha sattva plane, i guess we would read quite different postings.
enlightening.

do we waste our time here in this discussion?

Tarunji

You don't even know what the words mean.

Are you trying to be funny?

You are giving us older devotees a bad name. This is embarrassing.

Please take heed of the warning Madhava gave in the Forum Rules and take your illogical propaganda somewhere else.

And please look up the word 'solipsism' in the dictionary.

While you're there, look up 'narcissism'.

I just came in from work, opened my pc and read a couple of pages full of funky opinions and insights. References, I want to see references. Evidence.

Here are some ideas derived from the writings of Ksamabuddhi in this thread I've disagreed on, and for which I want to see references, if he has any:

1. According to Rupa Gosvamin, one must be free from material contamination before engaging in raganuga-sadhana. Where does Rupa say this?

2. According to the acaryas, one may follow raga-marga without being concerned with astakaliya-lila and nevertheless attain the nitya-lila of Radha-Krishna (which means astakaliya-lila).

3. I would like to see Bhaktivedanta Swami's precise teachings on the method of raganuga-sadhana, and particularly on the meaning of service in siddha-rupa, which is mentioned in BRS 1.2.295 and CC 2.22.157.

4. According to the acaryas, one must have realized his siddha-deha before practicing raganuga-bhakti.

5. Sravana and kirtana are something distinct from both vaidhi- and raganuga-sadhana, they are included in bhava-bhakti.

6. One can preach bhava-bhakti without bothering with the lower stage of sadhana.

7. I would like to see Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's precise teachings on the matter of raganuga-sadhana, and review them parallel to the teachings of Rupa and Jiva Gosvamin to ascertain whether they are the same.

8. According to the acaryas, one must not reveal the subject matter of raganuga-bhakti unto others, discussing it only among a small circle of practicing devotees.

9. According to the acaryas, bhava-bhakti is not attained by any form of sadhana.

10. According to the acaryas, bhava-bhakti is only attained through sravana and kirtana.

11. According to the acaryas, we should follow the gopis and sing about the pastimes and qualities of Krishna instead of practicing sadhana-bhakti.

12. According to the acaryas, there are two different paths of bhakti, the gosthyanandi path and the bhajananandi path, and the gosthyanandis can neglect the practice of lila-smaranam because they are so busy.

13. According to the acaryas, there is something called bhagavat-marga which is different from traditional raganuga-sadhana. Where is this bhagavat-marga described?

14. According to the acaryas, some siddha-mahatmas cannot be absorbed in astakaliya-lila because they are too busy preaching and traveling around here and there.

These are some of the points Ksamabuddhi made and to which I responded, and got no adequate from him in return. These points should be proven beyond "my opinion against your opinion". Ksamabuddhi, you must follow up on points you make and provide evidence to back up your statements, otherwise this discussion will get nowhere.

If some of the points I attributed to Ksama are not in fact what he meant, I apologize for that and expect to see evidence to back up the rest of his points (instead of being hammered down for making strawmen).

I think Sparkibuddhi does not realize that he is fighting a battle he can't win. Even if he could come up with some cogent arguments backed up by the evidence we have requested from him, it would not matter, since those of us that have taken to the path of raganuga bhakti under the guidance of our respective gurus would never be swayed by his brand of propaganda.

As someone already suggested, his time would be better spent in those activities of zravanam/kIrtanam that he so vehemently espouses as the only two forms of worship that he thinks are worthwhile.

As far as his 'interpretation' of Prabhupada's stance on siddha pranali, that is actually quite amusing. Maybe he should take his act out on the standup comedy circuit. It is interesting that he is doing a complete about face from his original position (as seen on other forums) that the practice is totally bogus - to it only being bogus for those 'sahajiyas'. That in itself is a tacit admission of defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Just another soldier fighting the 'good fight' (or so he believes) I guess. What is so ironic is that these people pay so much lip service to 'hearing submissively', while at the same time they are so very quick to pontificate with the little bit of knowledge that they have been spoonfed. As long as they think they have all of the answers, they block themselves off from learning anything new, and in the end only cheat themselves.

Messiah complex.

Really belongs in Jerusalem, where the Israeli authorities see lots of these cases and know how to deal with them.

Discussions of raganuga bhakti are never a waste of time. They only become a waste of time for those that set out to instruct everyone else about the subject before they have learned about it themselves. There are really only two choices: To either learn about the tradition in its original form or to get it through some filtering process (which is really no different from any other type of censorship). You can watch the NC-17 rated nitya-lila movie or its PG-13 or G versions, but definitely stay away from the XXX rated sahajiya version!

"Let all the sparks enlighten."

- Mao Tse Jung

Sparky.......Sparky.......Are you still there?

He went to see the oracle.

Or to Kushakratha Prabhu to take a crash-course in Sanskrit?

Dear Kshamabuddhiji,

I was also remembering something that you wrote on Istagosthi where you said that you prefered a more "masculine" role.

Anyhow, I agree with everyone that you should try to answer Madhava point by point rather than picking out only the things that you feel you can answer.

I suggest that you take your time. Investigate each point one by one. Don't feel the need to answer everything all at once. The nice thing about the Raganuga forums is that they are quite "meaty" in their content, and future readers will find much meaningful content that will ultimately help them understand the issues.

So think out your answers rather than attempting to treat this as a thrust and parry kind of duel. Seek out others who share your faith and come back with your response to each point.

==========

I would like to say this: A certain amount of purity must be assumed in the person who desires to become a participant in Radha and Krishna lila. Even someone who is just faking an interest is, by very definition, demonstrating a desire to associate with people who enjoy hearing and chanting about Krishna. This may not be the best publicity for Radha bhakti (i.e. to have rascals participating in a facsimile of raganuga bhakti) but even so they cannot be entirely dismissed. For how many people is hearing, chanting and thinking about Radha and Krishna even an option of any kind?

If someone desires to hear and chant about Krishna, even if he is lacking purity, is still "samyag vyavasitaH".

==========

As far as secrecy is concerned, I think Madhava made it clear that he has conceived of his websites in a progressive manner. These forums are not meant for everyone. From what I can see, there are certain devotees who come here, but who feel somewhat uncomfortable and do not participate because they are unable to share the same mood.

I think that this kind of auto-censorship is a natural thing. I was not being altogether facetious when I said that birds of a feather stick together. Raganuga bhakti is pretty specialized, so those who do not share the same kind of tendencies will not be attracted to it.

On the other hand, I think that the devotees who do feel an attraction for Radha-seva tend not to be the aggressive types. They recognize that this is the kind of mercy that is inconceivable. I rather doubt that there are many people here who think that logic arguments are a way to attract anyone to raganuga bhakti (the very idea is an absurdity!).

They may rely on shastra (i.e. Rupa Goswami) to defend themselves, their beliefs and their practices, but their real motivation lies outside the logical, and they know that this will be true of everyone who takes to the path. If someone were to take the path because he figures "this is the sastric injunction," he would be practicing only a hollow facsimile of raganuga bhakti.

Sometimes I think that the Gaudiya Math deliberately set up this kind of situation to force raganuga bhaktas to leave it. Raganuga bhakti works best in opposition to obstacles, like the gopis answering the flute and rejecting the threats and repudiations of their husbands and families.

Jai Radhe.

Jagat

Can I just say a few things? When this thread started, I was filled with feelings of trepidation which were quickly consumed by feelings of enthusiasm when I discovered that there was a finally a thread where we could hammer out these topics once and for all. I was especially impressed with how the questionings seemed to be in a spirit of genuine inquiry to understand the practice and precepts of raganuga-bhakti. Somewhere along the line, this morphed into a discussion of "Sarasvata vs. Babaji," which in itself is not a bad thing but certainly is a potential gunpowder-keg.
Unfortunately it seems that the keg blasted off indeed, quite interesting considering that despite Bonfire Night being celebrated on November 5th, some people are still interested in continuing the joyous celebrations. (I hear fireworks exploding every night here in the UK) I was rather hoping that someone like Rasesh who has obviously studied Prabhupada's works deeply would be able to adequately present that siddhanta with due references in the manner of discussing them. In the course of a discussion, these points may call for a clearer interpretation or may be otherwise challenged, in which no participant should take it personally as that would spoil the entire discussion.

I would like to ask Rasesh that if he is seriously considering making a presentation in future, could he please continue with the sincere and inquiring attitude that he previously had, free of all snidey remarks and sarcasm? They were not nice to read and were in conflict with the general mood of this forum. Please Rasesh, try to understand that we are happy to have an interesting discussion about anything, even Sarasvata-Babaji politics, just as long as no one takes anything personally and the subjects are discussed as impartially as possible with due references from Gaudiya Vaishnava authorities such as Rupa-Sanatana, Visvanatha, Narottama, etc. Is that not a reasonable proposal?

P.S. It would also be nice for participants on both sides to discuss calmly as well. I don't believe Rasesh is entirely responsible for the degradation of this otherwise interesting thread.

Sparky came in here brazenly like a plough but is silently going out the back door like a needle when Madhava asks him to clarify no less than 14 points. Jagat, Vaishnava das, we were just joking because we are getting bored of the long wait for his reply. He is boasting of 30 years in KC but it takes him a long time to present his realisations of these 30 long years.

It is also evident that there are plenty of myths floating around about raganuga-bhakti and "babajis" that are factually untrue. Examples of these myths include the ideas that proponents of raganuga-bhakti are solely concerned with their own bhajan and are not interested in preaching, (san)kirtana is higher than and more meritorious than lila-smarana, vaidhi vs. raganuga, etc.

Madhava made some progress by asking questions that would challenge these myths and force the believers of such to question their own understanding of these myths. He also clarified certain details. It is unfortunate that the discussion subsequently degraded under the disguise of "guru-loyalty" and so on, when the opposite effect was desired viz., to never be afraid of questioning and challenging one's own beliefs no matter how deeply they are, and have been, held.

As always, I speak with no malice. Just interested in some absorbing discussions. I'll say it again: this discussion could have great potential considering the subjects involved. At the very least it will result in the death of several misconceptions about raganuga-bhakti.

I disagree with Vaishnav Dasji, Jagat, and perhaps Ananga, because I think there are people who are not worth talking to. They are the ones who are trying to set themselves up as Messiahs. Cult leaders. Ego-trippers after power and position, puja pratistha labha.

They hitch a ride on whatever train is going past, hoping to use it to their own ends.

You know them because they are not interested in dialogue, although they may pretend to be, just till they get your attention, and then they have you where they want you.

All religions have these characters. Even in Radhakunda there is one western devotee, who was supposed to be my Godbrother. He has set up an Ashram and is trying to gain fame and fortune by claiming to represent the Nityananda Parivar - which Parivar I'm told has now officially disowned him, at least in his claim to publically speak for them. He is very manipulative and tended to spoil my stay in Radhakunda, as well as upsetting other devotees who allowed him into their lives.

No, there are some people who are just not worth talking to, and who should be avoided.

As the C.I.A. would say, they are sons-of-bitches, but they are still our sons-of-bitches.

Radhe!

he should not be allowed to become personal.

no attacks on persons anymore.

otherwise i may inform Colonel Clink and he would very much like to investigate.



Tarunji

I respect your right to disagree with my opinion, as well as the opinions of Jagat and Ananga. However, I shall continue to stand by what I have said.

Wouldn't it have been nice to disagree in a manner like this, instead of screaming and making a big hue and cry.

I'm back. I don't know about the others in here, but I do have to work for a living.
Let me start by offering my respectful pranams to all the Vaishnavas. I am in your house here and having chosen to enter of my own accord, I should be respectful, even as I sometimes question or challenge your views and beliefs.

There are several posts directed at me that I need to reply to. Especially Jagat, who wrote me a very sincere message with lots of good advice and recommendations.

Let me start by responding to Jagat's points about my having mentioned on some other forum that I prefer sakhya-rasa over madhurya-rasa. I just want to clear this up and set the record straight on this issue. This might take a paragraph or two.

Let me start my saying that I do not think it is proper or genuine for myself or any devotee to make a claim of having an affinity for any particular relationship with Krishna. Any statements of that nature I have made on this forum or any other forum were more-or-less made in jest, for the purpose of elliciting a response from others. As far as my preference or inner necessity in regards to a particular rasa with Krishna, I would have to honestly say that my intelligence tells me that madhurya-rasa is the topmost, though I don't feel that i am pure enough to know what my svarupa-siddhi would be if I could have any one I wanted tomorrow. I guess if it came down to it and I was offered svarupa-siddhi, I would probably say "yes, turn me into a maidservant of Radharani under the guidance of Rupa and Raghunatha das Goswami". However, that would just be my intelligence working and not an expression of any real conjugal love that I presently feel for Krishna. I don't presently feel a conjugal attraction to Krishna. I have more or less a generic appreciation of his beauty and sweetness and unfortunately, his greatness.
It is my intelligence alone that aspires for madhurya-rasa and not really my heart or my mind. My heart is still infected with material desires. I am attached to air (oxygen), Earth, water, heat, the sky, my false ego, mind and intelligence. I can't stand the thought of being unembodied and not breathing air and feeling the warmth of the Sun and having eyes, ears, nose, tongue and genitals. I am a prime candidate for reincarnation in this world, unless and until I get my first breath of spiritual air and feel the warmth of the spiritual Sun and possess spiritual senses with which to experience the variegatedness of life.

So, Jagat, let me say that my intelligence says "madhurya-rasa is the best -you should cultivate and pray for that". But other than that, I have no feelings of conjugal love for Krishna. I don't feel like I know Radharani at all.
I don't even think about her. My link to Radha-Krishna is my Gurudeva. I think about him. He is my God, my reality and my shelter. If he reveals Radha-Krishna to me, then I can see them and know them. I have no conception of a relationship with Radha-Krishna apart from what my Gurudeva reveals to me. I look only to him. I don't try to see Radha-Krishna anywhere else and in any other way, other than in him and through him. He is my portal to the absolute. He is my internet service to reality. Through him and by him alone can I approach the divine absolute spirit of Supreme Love - Sri-Sri Radha-Krishna.

One last point that I want to mention in regards to the issue of love of Krishna and personal realtionship with Him.

A long time ago (over twenty years), Bhakti Sudhir Maharaja made a good point to me that has always stuck in my head, as I think it was a very thoughtful perception. He told me that, in the material world, everybody wants to be better than the other guy, to have the best stuff and enjoy the greatest pleasures. He said that when we come to Krishna consciousness we tend to drag that same kind of selfish, self-centered, egotistical mentality along with us and deceive ourselves into thinking we want madhurya-rasa because "it is the topmost", "it is the best", "it's the highest ecstacy", "the gopis are the topmost devotees" etc. etc. He explained that the so-called aspiration for madhurya-rasa for Krishna can many times amount to no more than our false ego and our greed wanting something that we haven't really understood or qualified for. He said that there is a difference between a selfish lust "to have the best" and "be the greatest devotee" and actually having feelings of conjugal love and attraction for Krishna.

This is my position. My intelligence and my mind says "seek the greatest", "go for the highest", "ENJOY the supreme mellows of madhurya-rasa", but my heart says "I want a woman to snuggle up to at night", "I love my kids", "I love sexual intimacy with women", "I am unfit to think of conjugal love for Krishna". "I am a dirtbag", "how dare you meddle in thoughts of conjugal love of Krishna".

In this way, it is really hard for me to say in what way I think I love Krishna.
In fact, I actually have no love for Krishna at all. I do have some serious attraction and appreciation and faith in Him. But LOVE? I don't have a single atom of real love for Krishna in my heart or I would not be able to live another moment without him. Divine love is so great that even one speck of it on the heart will cause the loss of material existence.

Conjugal rasa? Madhurya-rasa? any rasa at all? I don't have a clue. I just think that Krishna is Supreme. Krishna is the Absolute Truth. i have some faith in Krishna, but love for Krishna is a very elusive and unknown experience in my heart. When Krishna reveals how I am to serve him according to wishes, then I will know. Until then, it will remain the greatest of all mysteries and a wonderful occasion that I am not even sure will ever come.

Dear Prabhus: (Madhava and Jagat especially)

I do have some responses that I am working on in reply to your requests for such. I hope you will excuse me if it takes me some time to get a serious presentation together. I am a working class, single parent raising three children alone as i have been doing for the last 8 years. As you can imagine I don't have unlimited time to devote to these discussions and my study and research on these issues. My time is actually very limited as I have to divide my time between taking Rasika to dancing lessons, taking Kamala to soccer practice, girl scouts, etc. etc. and on and on. I have two teen-age kids and one 10 year old and they all require a lot of time and attention. I am night manager at a Florida Citrus Center. We sell lots of fruit, candy, souvinirs and Ice Cream. It's a fun job but I am not getting rich, that's for sure. Luckily for me my parents were fairly well-off and they bought me a nice little country home where me and my kids live a very happy life enjoying the spings, beaches and natural wonders of Florida where I am very happy to be living.

I have some thoughts and ideas I want to share with your group on the quality and character of my spiritual master. I have some scriptural material I want to present as well. It may not be the kind of "war of the pandits" that you might be seeking, as I am no pundit at all.

What I do hope to show to this group is something more than shastric rules and regulations and the mechanical processes of sadhana-bhakti. The thrust of my presenation will deal with conceptions such as "mercy above justice",
"perfection through mercy", "compassion for the suffering humanity", "liquidity of spirituality", "substance over form", "mechanical love",
"proper adjustment", "fullness of Hari-nama", "Yuga-dharma" and many, many other important concepts that dwarf the potential of sadhana-bhakti.(including raganuga-sadhana).

As I have said before in this thread, I am not here to demean the paths or preceptors of anyone here, and i don't think that I have yet. In fact I tried to defend the siddha-pranali process with my logical commentary on the statements about it in the Nectar of Devotion. What I would hope to accomplish here is to nourish my own appreciation for my spiritual master by exloring his particular character and qualities and explaining his system of divine dispensation.

I will address the points and issues that Madhava feels I have deserted and neglected. Please understand that I very much enjoy this kind of sanga and I am not running from this debate or discussion. I have every intention of fullfilling my responsibilities here.

It is 2:15 a.m. here and I have to get up at 6:00 a.m. to get my daughters up for school. I hope you can all appreciate that I have stayed up late to try and reply to your posts. I cannot stay up any longer. I will try to find some time tomorrow morning to begin addressing the points that Madhava wants me to defend. My best time for writting is on my two days off, which will be Friday and Saturday (I hope). I was off Sunday and Monday so that its why I was very active here for them two days. Other than that, I guess I will just have to live with the stigma of being a blowhard who cannot back up his words. I will do my best. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

best to you all,
Ksamabuddhi

It is hard to not appreciate your position and attitude, Kshamabuddhi. Certainly, ego is a danger everywhere in spiritual life and, as Adiyen pointed out, not even the raganuga domain is free of people with dubious credentials. So, the idea that we need to protect this domain from rascals is no doubt a noble one. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and his followers constantly remind us of the sacred nature of our path and this no doubt does us all a great deal of good.

If he and his followers also remind us that we are not worthy, this is also salutary, no doubt. For we are unworthy, we can never be worthy. But for whatever reason we decided that we wish to become Radharani's dasi, we are stuck with this desire.

On the other hand, the desire to be superior is everywhere. Did Srila Prabhupada not tell us always that "the most intelligent" took to the chanting of the Holy Name? And is Sudhir's argument itself not a statement that the Gaudiya Math has a "superior" way of looking at things.

Spiritual life has numerous facets and motivations. If something is the best and the highest, why not aim for it? Certainly, we only know guru and not Radharani, but the guru is a "via media"; his goal in being guru is not himself, but a way to perfection, which in this case is (or is supposed to be) Vraja bhakti.

Anyhow, I am a working stiff too these days. So I am off to the diamond mines...

Please do take your time. I don't have three kids to take care of, but I have to make a living as well, and on top of that I have twice that load of other things to take care of. Nobody is in a rush here. Whenver you have something to contribute, that will be the best time. I am just so happy if I don't have to try to reply to posts six times per day.



And certainly such a reconciliatory attitude is welcome. Overall, this thread has been a pleasant surprise after some of the istagosthi shows related with topics like this.

Radhe!

nice change of attitude, dear Rasesh.

take your precious time.

maybe it will catch again that nice fragrance from the beginning of the discussion.

hope is there.

a gentle smile to you (though not a gay one )
Tarunji

I've been doing some study this morning. My emotions and intentions regarding my goals and purposes for participating in this forum are evolving and being refined as I try to penetrate into exactly what are the issues here that I want to deal with.

Basically, I guess the thing that is eating at me the most is the accusations from this camp that the asta-kaliya-lila smaranam process as practiced through the siddha-pranali concept, is indespensible and mandatory according to the teachings of the Goswamis. My firm belief is that the performance of the asta-kaliya-lila smaranam via a siddha-pranali concept is not mandatory and indespensible in the attainment of bhava-bhakti and prema-bhakti.

It's quite well known that Srila Prabhupada did not enforce or even encourage this kind of raganuga-sadhana. Naturally, I need to understand how and why he established his movement on the absence of this practice.
I am not attempting to discredit the practice as advocated by other branches of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am simply attempting to present Gaudiya doctrine that will defend and support his branch of the movement. I have firm faith that it can be done. I have already found some doctrinal references from the Goswami granthas that support and defend his approach. I will try to organize and assemble these doctrines for presentation in the near future.


Basically, I want to defeat the accusations of Madhava that Srila Prabhupada promulgated a pseudo-neo Vaishnava doctrine. I am going to show how Srila Prabhupada's Krishna consciousness movement is wholly and solely a legitimate branch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism that is solidly founded on the principles and precepts of Srila Rupa Goswami and the college of Gaudiya acharyas.

Of course, when we get down to the unfortunate issue that Madhva and his parivar do not even acknowledge that Saraswati Goswami had spiritual initiation into the guru parampara, it almost seems futile to even attempt a discourse and discussion about the spiritual character of the Saraswata sampradaya.

Unless and until he acknolwedges that Saraswati Goswami was spiritually initiated into the Gaudiya parampara, I don't see why I should even attempt to defend the Saraswata branch and it's particular brand of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. How can I defend the Saraswata doctrine when Saraswati Goswami is not even acknowledged as a legitimate member if the Gaudiya parampara?

Madhava tries to defend his parivar as being a sinless, gracious and benevolent camp that doesn't have an offensive bone in it's body, when in fact his whole parivar does not even recognize Saraswati Goswami as a legitimate Vaishnava or acharya.

Madhava is quick to claim that nobody in his camp speaks ill of Prabhupada or Saraswati Goswami, when in fact it appears that they speak the most unspeakable and unforgivable claim that Saraswati Goswami was never even spiritually initiated into the Gaudiya parampara.

I think, before we go on to discuss siddhanta and Chaitanya epistemology, we need to establish whether or not Madhava and his parivar even acknowledge that Saraswati Goswami was a legitimate acharya of the Gaudiya bhakti sect.

If Madhava and his parivar cannot even acknowledge that Saraswati Goswami was a genuine Gaudiya acharya, I cannot see how anything I present here will be accepted or appreciated as a legitimate Gaudiya doctrine.

From what I have heard in the past, Madhava and his guru parivar do not even respect or accept Saraswati Goswami as a legitimate preceptor in the Gaudiya parampara. It seems like I would be beating a dead horse to try and defend his doctrines and methodology if he is not even respected as genuine Gaudiya acharya.

I think everyone would have to admit that the Saraswata acharyas did have a superior way of thinking how to spread Krishna consciosness all over the world. I am not sure that there is any claim being attributed to the Saraswata community apart from that.
The results speak for themselves. The Saraswata community of Vaishnavas are indeed the most proliferous community of Vaishnavas in the world. I think this should be respected as a very glorious attribute, in light of Mahaprabhu's mission to deliver all the the fallen souls of this age.

The viewpoint of many Vaishnavas is that the school of thought that is the most successful and compassionate in benedicting the most fallen souls with Krishna-bhakti is the best.

It's hard to imagine that there is anything more pleasing to Mahaprabhu than the global proliferation of Sri Krishna Sankirtan. Of course the quality will always be the first victim of such widespread proliferation, but it seems like a price worth paying when you consider the eternal benefit that all the preachers and audiences recieve from the Rays of the Benediction Moon of the Sankirtan Movement.

There is lot to be said for the school of thought that says that "something for everybody" over "everything for me".

I'm also heartened by Ksamabuddhi's change in tone. I have occasionally had fun, fruitful discussions with him, even on issues where we don't see eye to eye, but I have often withdrawn from discussions that take on an "istagosthi.org" tone. (I also want to remind him that he promised to eventually follow up on a private request from some months back.)

Here, too, although he and I come form the same branch, my expectations differ from his. He has averred that little produstive discussion is possible unless Madhavananda admits that Siddhanta Sarasvati was initiated by Gaura-kishora and, at least in chanting Nama, by Bhaktivinoda. I'd be somewhat satisfied if Mahdava admitted the possiblility. Those of us from the Sarasvata branch who participate here seem willing to grant that to reject all Radha-kunda babajis as sense gratifiers is painting with too broad (and perhaps too old) a brush. I'd like to see some similar movement from the other side. The question has been raised regarding who started the disputes we see here. I think it may be more productive to explore the philosphical bases than argue over who hit whom first (sounds like my sister and me trying to keep out of trouble with mom--about 45 or 50 years ago).

I've suggested that much of what is often taken as traditional was introduced at particular times in history, that is, that Mahaprabhu's movement is a living, growing entity. I haven't yet been able to follow up on requests to develop my argument because I'm also a working slob. My work is very demanding of time and mental energy. Moreover, I'm catching up after having recently written a 7,500-word article showing how even Srila Prabhupada gave hints that Bhagavad-gita points us to Vraja bhakti.

I have also been slow to respond partly because I'm still getting a sense of the ongoing conversations in this parlor. Kenneth Burke pointed out that, as we listen in on a conversation at a party to get a sense of its flow and tenor before joining in, we do something similar in academic discourse (and, by extension, such discourse as we find here).

This grew to be longer than I intended, and I, too, must head off to the mine.

Aloha

Babhru raised an important point. I think that no sane GM or Iskcon devotee would claim that ALL Radha-kund babajis are womanizers or chapati-hunters. There must have been deviators, but this happens in every spiritual community. So nobody denies that there are very advanced devotees between Radha-kund babajis, while many of the followers of Ananta Das Babaji make statements that suggest that the whole Gaudiya Math, including acharyas like Bhaktivinod Thakur, Bhaktisddhanta Saraswati, Srila Sridhar Maharaj and Srila Prabhupad are nothing but a bunch of misled kanistha-adhikaris, and to top it all, they did not even know Sanskrit properly. Of course, noone has ever said this so clearly, but I could cite several negative statements in this connection. It is interesting to note, however, that not even the most fanatic GM/Iskcon follower has ever posted anything against your Guru, Ananta Das Babaji. Nobody has ever checked his translations for mistakes (yes, perhaps his translations are spotless, I don't know). Nobody has ever called him a sahajiya. So I humbly request all of you to try to show a similar attitude towards those Acharyas, who are just as close to some members' hearts as Ananta Das Babaji to your hearts. Before you say anything about Prabhupada etc., please imagine that the same thing is said about your Guru, and consider how it feels to hear that.

There is no objection agains philosophical debate, but we should debate over philosophical questions, not about why this guru is bad and that babaji is good. This is not philosophy in my opinion. We are not on the stage of being able to measure other Vaishnavas, so the best attitude is to offer respect to anyone (something similar is said in Siksastaka, if my memory does not fail), and if we do not like some particular Vaishnava's books or teachings, we simply avoid that, without starting a campaign against the person.

I hope my post was moderate and sane, and most importantly free from offenses. At least that was my true intention. If I still offended anyone's feelings, it is due to my ignorance.

The legitimacy has just as much to do with teachings as it has with initiation. If we would think that there was no difference between the teachings of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and those of the Goswamis, there would be nothing to discuss to begin with.

The whole issue is that you should prove that Saraswati's teachings on the matter of raganuga-bhakti conform to those of the earlier acaryas. Then let us talk about his legitimacy.

Some, such as the followers of BG Narasingha (in their document "Who is Following Whom?"), insist that the followers of Saraswati practice a different kind of sadhana from that of Visvanatha's times. Now the teachings of Saraswati have come to prevail over those of Visvanatha.

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's writings must be seen in the context of the time, place and circumstances that he was living in. The genuine followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami do not practice the same sadhana that was practiced in the sixteenth century."

In regards to your dilemma on how anything you say could be regarded as a legitimate Gaudiya doctrine, the answer is really quite simple and straight forward: You have to cite the writings of those who originally wrote down the legitimate Gaudiya doctrines.

I can't recall ever making an outright denial of his initiation from Gaura Kisora. Sure, I admit the possibility. We do not have sufficient facts to prove the matter one way or the other. In my opinion, it is very doubtful that Gaura Kisora ever initiated Bhaktisiddhanta as a member of the parampara Bhaktisiddhanta came to claim as his line of predecessors. Whether Gaura Kisora gave him some sort of mantra or not, that I do not know.



What sort of act of good will would you wish to see? We agree that they have done valuable work in the realm of preaching and publishing books, we agree that they are very dedicated devotees, despite the fact that we do not agree on some of their doctrines. Sometimes it seems that nothing less than 100% approval is taken as a gesture of appreciation and good will, and moreover, that anything less than 100% approval is disrespectful and even outright offensive.



Yes, evidently so. The roots of many "traditional" practices are back in the times of Caitanya and His contemporaries, but they have become more popular over time. Would you like to open a new thread for this interesting topic?

This spreading all over the world is certainly a good thing, but it surprises me to see how it apparently clouds over all those millions of followers of Sri Caitanya who have sprung up in the land of Bharat as the outcome of the efforts of the tradition outside GM / ISKCON.



Well, if the numbers count, this isn't quite the fact. The Saraswata tradition forms roughly 5% of the entire population of Gaudiya Vaishnavas, if even that. They certainly are one of the more preaching oriented Gaudiya groups.



I really can't see the point of "more fallen is much better". Any soul in bondage is worth being liberated, regardless of how low or high.

Besides, at least in my opinion, the present culture of India is often very degraded, and I mean very with a capital V. Talk about moral standards, respect for others, level of education, level of hygiene, and so forth.

Let me reiterate that I have no objection to this preaching around the world, it is to be encouraged.

Would you care to name one or two followers of Ananta Das Babaji who speak like this?



Please, be my guest and cite some.

I wonder if it's clear to everyone, but not all that many among the regular contributors here are disciples of Ananta Das Babaji. For the record, here's the list of our most frequent recent contributors and their initiating gurus:

Madhava - Ananta Das Babaji Maharaj
Ananga - Tinkudi Goswami
Jagat - Lalita Prasad Thakur
Adiyen - Prana Krishna Das Babaji Maharaj
Radhapada - Ananta Das Babaji Maharaj
Vaishnava-das - N/A
Jiva - N/A
Advaitadas - Nikunja Gopal Goswami
Harisaran Das - Bhakti Promod Puri Maharaj
Tarun Kishor Das - N/A
Tamal Baran Das - Ananta Das Babaji Maharaj
Sur das - N/A



Well, he doesn't translate into English. Trust me, there are mistakes in our English editions. If someone spots any mistakes in the original Bengali texts, please feel free to note them down and forward to me. Generally Vaishnavapada Das Baba edits ADB's texts, and I have a gut feeling he doesn't leave many stones unturned, but nevertheless feel free to bring up any issues you wish.



There have been pointless, non-constructive name-calling sahajiya posts and so forth which have been promptly removed for obvious reasons.

If someone has any issues in regards to Baba's teachings, please do not hesitate to bring them up. That's what the forums are here for, to discuss any issues we may face.

Would you consider it appropriate if I politely pointed out that there are several mistakes in the works of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, or should I not mention it out of respect for his followers? Should I not do that even when his followers try to cite such statements to establish siddhanta?

I have already pointed out that such issues may surface in these forums, and if someone doesn't feel comfortable with it, then perhaps this is not the place of choice for them.



Well, anyone who has been around the forums for a while knows that issues with some particular Vaishnava's books or teachings only arise when someone begins quoting from them as evidence. As far as I see, I have four options. (1) To delete such posts before anyone replies; (2) To agree with unacceptable views for the sake of being polite; (3) To neglect such posts altogether; (4) To disagree and state my reasons for the same. Which one would you have me choose?

I don't think our discussions are much concerned over who is good or bad. If someone feels that way, they can freely refer me to a specific incident where ad hominem prevails over philosophy, and I will gladly look into it.

Okay, I can accept that you've never denied the possibility. That's good enough for me. I agree that I'm no more able to prove that he was initiated than you would be to prove that he wasn't, if you were so inclined. I can accept this as your opinion, and opinions don't need to be proven. And you've already shared the basis for that opinion.



Your statement above is enough for me. I'm not on any campaign to beat anyone into submission here. Even when there has been a little contention and my evil twin has been called out, I've found the participants here to demonstrate the good character and good will I would expect in any Gaudiya vaishnava. Even when I felt put down by Radhapada recently, I found his explanation of his intention clear and his apology more than gracious. I hope that the character of the followers will go far to make any case we might want to assert. (Yikes! Maybe we're in real trouble now.)



I'll grant you that. That's not my approach, I hope, especially while I'm a guest in your parlor.

Radhe Radhe!

well, of course there has been blaspheming of Srila Ananta das Babaji from the Saraswata -lineage.
i personally received an e-mail from Srila Narayana Maharaja where either he personally or one of his servants heavily blasphemed him.

also, i again feel a tight change in the approach of Rasesh.
why is he switching so much from "nice humble attitude" to "i will defeat....."?
me not getting it.

anyway,
i know now why he attacked me.
thats the karma i reap for having been a very hypocrate and very fanatical person.
i take it like that.

to the issue:

i think even if Srila Bhaktisiddhanta received initiation, still its necessary to discuss in a sane way the changes in his approach of living and spreading Krishna consciousness.
for me personally, if he got initiation, then its even more surprising why he did change the traditional way, did change so many things as a disciple of his Gurudeva Srila Gaura Kisora das Babaji.
why for example he didnt follow him strictly?

yep, question after question...

hoping for a nice turn-out in the discussion

Tarunji

dear Madhava , i officially distanced myself from being seen as a disciple of Srila Narayana Maharaja in my living environment here.
i cant follow him in the midst of all that negative things i experienced under his guidance, especially in regards to Srila Ananta das Babaji.
i´m still very thankful to him for nourishing my believe in raganuga-bhakti.

so me, another guru-tyagi.
well

new horizons
i feel good about
no more hatred

Jay Sri Radhe!
Dandavats to the reading Vaishnavas!

Tarunji

I meant to address this, too. I don't remember whether I've noticed any of us coming here to do so, but I've seen harsh criticism of Babaji, especially from some of Narayan Maharaja's followers (and I think Jagat has elsewhere pointed out some irony in this). Although I haven't read Narasingha Maharja's entire book on the Sarasvata community, I'd guess Ananta das Babaji may be included in the 'anti party" Maharaja criticizes. There's a lot I like about Narasingha Maharaja's work, and I like him personally, but I admit to having some reservations about this thread of his preaching--or at least about its tone.

All right, I switched you to the N/A group.

Babhru, the sentiments here are very nice but unfortunately this glosses over the problems.

Which are that, although there is a form of diksha practiced in the Gaudiya Vaishnav tradition which includes a list of names of predecessors in each of the numerous lines going back to an associate of Lord Chaitanya (and so is unlikely to have been 'faked' on such a big scale), Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, if he received this form of initiation, did not pass it on to his disciples. And those of us who have taken 'diksha' in both, or all three (Iskcon, GMath, Traditional), know this from these experiences.

I am not trying one-upmanship here. I wish it was not so. I wish that that day in 1979 when I took 'diksha' in Iskcon that I was being admitted to Mahaprabhu's (traditional) Sampradaya, or at least on that day in the 1980's when I received Sridhar Maharaj's 'diksha' mantras through a cassette tape. Who wants to go through all that 3 times? All that buildup and anticipation followed by 2 disappointments? This has not been pleasant, it is not capricious fun. And I for one do not take these decisions lightly.

On the other hand, if the followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur want to claim that he had a revolutionary idea of diksha, something completely new, perhaps based on emphasising Harinam over diksha mantras, and you who want to maintain your loyalty to this Sarasvat Parivar accept the newness and originality of his teachings, aimed at rediscovering the original spirit of Mahaprabhu's mission. I say fine - with one reservation:

You should have told me that in 1979!

You should have told me that this idea of Parampara is, for you, not simply a succession of Gurus and their disciples, but an ethereal lineage of ideas, of 'siksha' (a term no-one then even used!).

J'accuse all you Prabhupad men! You are making this up as you are going along! You are playing a game of shifting goal-posts! That is why I ceased to follow your advice years ago!

I am making this passionate outburst in the interest of furthering discussion, as well as perhaps exorcising a few personal demons.

Feel free to respond as you like. But this is serious stuff.

Here's an example, Babhru you mentioned Siddha Swarup, Chris Butler. I was talking to Ramdas Lamb last year, who you must know, and he mentioned that a friend had comitted suicide after dedicating her entire life to Siddha. That's what happens when you play with people's faith. Sorry if this is painful, but our actions, our 'preaching' has such consequences, and you know it. Those are the stakes here for some of us.

It doesn't address the problems you are concerned with, but I don't think it fair (or accurate) to say it glosses them over. I'm aware of them and the need to discuss them. The entire purpose of that post was to concede Madhavananda's good-will gestures and accept them in the spirit in which they were offered.

Let's be more accurate about what's actually in contention (or maybe, let me be clar about what I think is actually in contention). I believe the accounts that support Siddhanta Sarasvati's diksha connection with Gaura-Kishora. So from my perspective, his innovation was not in the conception of diksha but in his conception of paramapara, which I think may account for not emphasizing the traditional guru-pranali. I understand many of the concerns expressed here about that innovation; in fact, I've written about what I (and many others among us) see as the revolutionary contributions made by Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta and their followers.

I don't think that my faith in that strain necessarily means ignoring or vilifying more traditional lines. In fact, among those lines, there are many sub-groups, including the jati-gosais, who, from my limited understanding, constituted one strain of "traditional" paramapara against whom Bhaktisiddanta's innovations were aimed. But that doesn't mean they're all necessarily problematic. Even some of those recognize what has been added to the tradition by BVT and BSST and their followers. I'm thinking in particular of the Radha-Ramana folks. I've met Vishwambhar Goswami and Padmanabha Goswami, both of whom have over the years shown friendship with Srila Prabhupada and kindness to his followers.

You're pee'ed off because we should have told you all this in 1979. Look, ISKCON was a mess in 1979. We were all suffering because of so many anomalies. Yes, many of us mistakenly encouraged folks like you to take inititiation from our unqualified brothers. I'll never be able to apologize enough for my small part in that. You rail that we keep making things up as we go along and keep moving the goal posts. In fact, it's probably more accurate to say we've been figuring it out as we go along, and we are culpable for not being more honest about that. My understanding of our parampara has grown enormously since those days. Because of my experience with Srila Prabhupada, with Tulasi-devi (I'm instrumental in her introduction to the West since I took care of the first Tulasi plants since they had two real leaves in February or March of 1970) and with my own sadhana, the faith I have in my guru-varga is stronger than it was then. I accept full responsibility for the anarthas and offenses which have slowed my progress.

I know there have been problems over the years and that many devotees have suffered terribly in their efforts for spiritual progress. I've known several devotees who have been through several gurus, and yes, I knew Biharilal, long-time follower of Siddhasvarupananda. From what I've heard, whatever problems he had with Siddha at the time of his death were simply part of the mix of troubles he was dealing with--yep, I'll say maybe the last straw. At the same time, I'm sure that we could find psychological and social problems among followers of traditional lines, too. I'm not saying this to minimize our problems or our culpability, but only for perspective.

Feel free to vent your exasperation. I've been a teacher for a long time, and a parent for longer, so I can usually take it. (When I snap, it's always fun, I guess to see me crawling at your feet later in apology.)

Please know this, adiyen (wait--that's not your name; is it Braja Mohan?): I'm not here to attack or convert. I'm willing to exchange our understandings of how things are and perhaps should be, in the interest of growing our understanding from all sides. I may become defensive of my line when I feel the tone gets weird. And please believe that when the tone of those from this side gets weird, I get uncomfortable, and when my tone gets weird, I'm embarrassed. If I'm out of line, just smack me real good upside the head. I may be arrogant and ignorant, but I think I am at least honest.

If I had to estimate how much of my concern Saraswati's initiation or non-initiation merits in the overall picture, I'd say a pretty small fragment of it. The theology is much more relevant an issue. If there was a person whose initiation would be uncertain and who'd give initiation himself, instructing his students in the traditional way, I'm quite confident the tradition would come to eventually accommodate him. On the other hand, if there was a person who certainly received initiation, but who taught differently from the tradition, he wouldn't be well accommodated.

When it comes to Bhaktivinod, I believe innovation is a good word to use for some of his new ideas. Innovation in the sense of introducing something new, additional. However, when it comes to Bhaktisiddhanta, I'd perhaps rather use the word change, to swap the old ways with the new ways. I can't quite find the exact words, but I think you get the point here. In revolution we dump the old and bring in the new, in innovation we build up the existing structure in novel ways.

Babhru, I'm more than happy with your response and you're very welcome to continue. Actually I was lumping you in with Kshamabuddhi here, and all Prabhupad men, who I guess I have some unresolved issues with. Discussions like this help me to get this clearer.

What I am trying to highlight is Kshamabuddi's, and many old devotee's, claim to authority. Siddha certainly is in that category.

What I am really trying to say to all these is 'What do you know?'

But beyond that, my realisation is, What did/do any of us westerners know?

We were discussing elsewhere how Vishnujan Swami asked Prabhupad if a Sannyasi who feels sex-desire should commit suicide like Chota Haridas, and Prabhupad said, 'Yes' (I've forgotten the details). Then when sincere Vishnujan went and did just that, Prabhupad was upset, 'That's not what I meant'.

Does anyone really know what Prabhupad meant?
About other things as well.

I don't think so. I think there is no one who can make that claim from what I've seen, yet over the years I 've met so many of his disciples who do claim to be following him, and demanding my allegiance on that basis, too. I mean people who are claiming to have 'the Truth'.

For me the way out of this dilemma is to go to the roots and the source.

'Prabhupad's books', says Kshamabuddhi. Hmmm.
Sorry I've been reading those long enough, and seen all the ways they have been used to justify abusive authoritarianism, that I'm not interested in that road any more.

But that's just me.

I'm not trying to condem all. I think Swami Tripurari is making a fine contribution to resolving these dilemmas, for example.

Fair enough, and well said. I was responding to the concerns adiyen expressed.



That may be a useful distinction (with BSST, it may be replacing some of the old with the apparently older). Certainly the institutional structure, apparently patterned after other missions, the introduction of upavitam and a (supra)brahmana status at diksa could be seen as revolutionary, and, although he had philosophical bases for these, I think we would admit that the apparent results have not been uniformly salutary. From another perspective, those apparent changes may be seen as extensions of the innovations of Bhaktivinoda. I think that was Bhaktisiddhanta's intention. I'm still in the process of working this out, partly rationally, partly non-rationally, so (because of that and the fact that I need to get a handout ready for my next class) I don't think I'm able to explain this to anyone's satisfaction yet.

I suspect that most everyone involved in this dialog is familiar with most of the issues and we stand where we stand on them. I am not sure how much will be accomplished by hashing over issues that have been discussed over and over again on various forums on the internet.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati took issue with some of the practices that were prevalent within the gaudiya 'orthodoxy'. Specifically he took issue with those who were on the level of practice rather than realization, or attainment, giving siddha pranali diksha. It was his opinion that this was only imaginary. Much like Madhavananda opined that one must have something in order to distribute it - this was the spiritual thinking of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. The other aspect of siddha pranali diksha that he took exception to was the giving of it to those who are not qualified.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was very clear on his position that perfection is attained by going through the various stages consecutively. First Shraddha, then sadhu sanga, bhajana kriya etc.

I don't know how many of you have read his Prakrta-Rasa Sata-Dusini, but he makes his stance very clear in that document.

His teaching was that raganuga bhakti proper begins after considerable attainment.

Here are a few of the verses (english only) from Prakrta-Rasa Sata-Dusini that are particularly relevant to this discussion as they convey his teaching on the subject quite well.

"When bhava, the ecstatic mood of divine love actually sprouts, then the need for following scriptural rules (vidhi) does not remain. Mere faith in spontaneous devotional service, however, does not produce the actual awakening of transcendental loving attachment (rati)."

"Divine rasa can never be factually attained merely by talking of spontaneous devotion. A beginning student who should still be further purified by following the scriptural injunctions is never said to be on the level of performing spontaneous loving service unto the Lord."

"Without first developing pure attachment (rati), the attainment of devotional mellow (the greatest wealth) can never be possible. Without first climbing the branch of a tree, the fruits can never be reached."

Here an intersting one for Madhavananda since he claims that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta started something 'new'. (it's apparent that he doesn't agree with that assessment)

"The followers of Rupa Goswami never leave the path of the great devotees and run to pursue a 'new' path. One who commits offenses can never realize the holy name of Krsna at any time."

Another one along the same line:

"There can never be any difference between the explanations of the bonafide spiritual master and the teachings of the great devotees. The pure spiritual master never puts thorn-like deterrents on the path of one's execution of practical devotional service."

"One should never climb into a tree, grasp the unripe fruits and forcibly pull them off. Similarly, the followers of Srila Rupa Goswami never abolish the initial systematic process of devotional service."

"A devotee should never speak on the topics of devotional mellow to one who has weak, pliable faith. A devotee should never attempt to bestow the qualification for rasa upon one who is unqualified to receive it."

"In the absence of the necessary constituent elements of the bhakti process (such as anartha-nivritti, nistha, ruci, etc.), one can never become fixed up in their own eternal sthayi-bhava. In the absence of sthayi-bhava and its necessary elements, one can never become situalted in their eternal rasa."

That's enough for now. I think everyone can get the overall picture - Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was adamantly opposed to anyone trying to jump ahead to the fruits of bhakti. We live in a world where people like to buy beyond their means - the so-called credit card mentality, but in spiritual life that doesn't work. Of course there are many examples in mundane material life that show it doesn't work there either, such as practicing medicine requires that one first become qualified by getting a medical degree.

The disagreement betweeen those who follow Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and others boils down to the definition of qualification. We all agree that it is greed - afterall that is what Rupa Goswami said - but what constitutes actually having that greed as opposed to thinking one has it is another thing altogether.

Here is one more verse that speaks to this point:

"When one is enthusiastic for constantly rendering unalloyed devotional service, there is never any possibility for becoming detracted by idle talks related to the mundane world. Otherwise, if one is not enthusiastic, then confidential topics about the all-conscious spiritual world should never be heard."

So it all boils down to eligibility according to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. His assessment was that many were unqualified to give siddha pranali diksha and that most were unqualified to recieve it.

Since there are devotees on this board who have spiritual masters from different lines maybe you can either confirm this or show me that is is incorrect - but I have heard that even amongst the 'orthodox' lineages there are differences with regard to considerations of eligibility and the giving of siddha pranali diksha.

His stance is something like this - someone may want to be a doctor - that's good - but they must be prepared to do all that is required before actually becoming a doctor. So we may all want Vraja Bhakti - I hope we all do! - but, at least according to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, that is the highest goal and requires that we carefully follow the process laid out by Mahaprabhu in order to obtain it.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Sorry, I've read Bhaktisiddhanta too, and I find him a mass of contradictions. And anyone who claims to explain what he is saying, without qualifying it with 'perhaps he meant' or 'I believe', is just being pretentious.

I repeat, What to do you, or anyone, know of Bhaktisiddhanta?

For example, Sridhar Maharaj had very clear ideas about what the teachings of Bhaktisiddhanta were, yet these contradicted Narayan Maharaj's views so completely that there is a perpetual feud between the two camps, what to speak of differences with Bhaktivedanta Prabhupad, and even with living Gaudiya Math acharyas who followers of Sridhar Maharaj believe are all deviant from Bhaktisiddhanta's teachings. If all these 'great stalwarts' disagree, then how can you be so certain, Audarya-Lilaji?

I think even Swami Tripurari would not be so presumptuous as to try to speak for Bhaktisiddhanta.

Let me add that I personally concede nothing, least of all that the 'Caste Gosvamis' ever were or are anything other than the finest representatives and preachers of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, of the last century at least.

It was the 'Caste Gosvamis' who created and maintained the Gaudiya Vaishnava culture of Bangladesh, amounting to millions of devotees, and who are credited with changing Dhakha into a Vaishnava city. That political changes are impacting on these achievements does not detract from them.

That one group of preachers, the Caste Gosvamis, focussed on some of the world's poorest people, who are thus insignificant globally, while another group of preachers focussed first on the rich urban middle classes, and then on the western 'Boomer' generation (who like to think the world revolves around them!), should not lead us to ignore or deprecate the Gosvami's achievements, even if we are unfamiliar with them and information is difficult to obtain due to cultural and political differences (which differences are nonetheless central to that Gaudiya Vaishnavism which we westerners often claim to be experts on!).

Adiyen:

It's a fact that Bhaktisiddhanta's prose is very dense and nuanced. It's not meant for the casual reader, and the translations from Bengali (I'm no longer sure what was written originally in English and what was translated later from Bengali) make it even harder for even experienced devotees to deal with. In any case, I think it's good practice to qualify most claims we make, especially if we honestly assess the level of our actual attainment. This is all understood by grace; it's suprarational.

I think Audarya-lila makes a good point about Bhaktisiddhanta's definition of eligibility. He taught his students not to disregard the raga-marg, but to respect it as something very dear, not cheap, and to honestly aspire for it. He advised his disciples to advance step by step, as described by Srila Rupa: adau sraddha, ah sadhu sangah, etc. As a flower opens gradually, so our love develops gradually, step by step. This seems to be an important consideration for him and his followers.

By pointing this out, I don't mean to imply that this attitude is exclusive to us, but that it is very important to him.

adiyen:

Oh, I don't think that's just you! I've been around since 1969, and we ran into the same nonsense--using the guru's instruction as a sort of club with which to assert our own authority--back then. So don't feel like the Lone Ranger there, pardner! But I doubt that this problem is limited to the Sarasvata branch.



I think that most of us would be happy to concede that the great majority were exemplary devotees. Would you decline to concede that some may have been less than exemplary? That there may have been some whose realization may not have been very well developed but who used their lineage, learning and personal charisma to make a living from teaching Krishna consciousness? I'd sure concede that about some of our folks. Such an absolute, blanket statement is much harder to defend than one which is qualified.

Later: Actually, I see that you actually did qualify this with "of the last century at least."

i'm learning lots here. thankyou all. keep on keepin on.

I must say that I agree with Adiyen's sentiments here. A few members here are more than familiar with my ongoing situation in respect to my own personal development, and I can also say that I feel a certain sense of deep betrayal based on Adiyen's statements exactly. I would not word my feelings in exactly the same way, but the sentiment is basically the same.

When he says that people should have informed him in 1979, I can easily apply that to myself as well. A recent effort to exorcise some of my own demons on another forum in the hopes of generating a constructive discussion resulted in a mass thumbs-down for the concerns that I raised, and I ended up being demonized. Even now, when I try to discuss some issues about Gaudiya siddhanta in that same forum, it seems that my views are not "legitimate" due to my not having been initiated. What sort of logic is that, and how can such learned Vaishnavas speak such stupidity? Actually I don't consider such persons to be learned at all.

In any case, my position is the same as Adiyen's sentiments. This is not some sort of spiritual football game where some innocent jiva is the football that is being kicked all over the field. A presentation of philosophy must be carefully constructed so that no misunderstandings occur. Yet when such football-like jivas finally wake up to what's going on and hear so many different opinions about what one should do in respects to initiation, sadhana, etc., it is enough for one to throw their arms in the air in despair and scream endlessly from the bottomless depths of a crying heart. "Why, oh why, can't things just be simple?"

Some kind people give me the advice that I have to move on. But when you are betrayed so deeply, you turn up at a crossroads with the option of several life-changing decisions to make. How to move on when I have no clue where to go?

Wow, what a thread. This is great stuff. I thought quite a bit about this today and would like to throw in my pennies' worth and hopefully not sabotage the flow. If Raganuga Monopoly was like the board game, I'd be living in Old Kent Road (for those of you familiar with the British version).

When I lived in Vrindaban I came across some disparaging attitudes from followers of orthodox Gaudiya groups. These ranged from nit-picky, strange objections ("beadbags are a concoction") to criticisms of specific elements of Deity worship right up to the claims of the lack of validity ("ISKCON/GM does not have the Holy Name"). I don't know how to view those attacks: perhaps as a battle of kanisthas, as a fulfillment of the age in which we live, as human failing, as a reaction to the similar aggressive charges that ISKCON/GM has presented (goes around, comes around!) In many ways I found those attacks "more elevated" than those going the other, as they had the benefit of tradition and often sastra, or rather sastric interpretation, to back them up.

The problem I have with orthodoxy is essentially the same problem I have with ISKCON/GM...indeed, maybe it is the same problem I have with God. For, as much as I relish philosophy, I am not religious. My thoughts seldom manifest in action. That said, I have to explain the inkling of emotion or spirit that sustains my hope.

I think of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and am humbled and hopeful. He is patita-pavana and on that basis alone I have a claim. I think of Srila Prabhupada in 26 2nd Ave and know the God is merciful. I think of Prabhupada's statement how a drunk can think raso'ham apsu and be benefitted. I think of him speaking of Srimati Radharani and how she notices the devotee and introduces them to Krishna. Compassion. Love.

...but this sentiment, this ideal that is all I have, seems juxtaposed against Gaudiya Vaisnavism, in its various forms, representatives, institutions and doctrines. I know I cannot lose that essence but I don't think it is supported by rules or lineages, despite scriptural or logical arguments to the contrary.

I guess that all sounds quite pompous. It wasn't meant to.

From what I've read of Hari Sauri's diary, Prabhupada said a lot more about "suicide" and Chota Haridas which Vishnujana Swami unfortunately did not hear. He asked Prabhupada a question, heard what he wanted to hear and walked off somewhere as far as I know. It is unfortunate that he did not stick around to hear Prabhupada's clarification of "yes." If you like, I'll tell you about it in private.
Or if everyone here wants to know, shall I tell it here?

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is facing a dilemma today and this dilemma is only going to fester and fume even more in the future if something is not done to remedy it. That dilemma is something even more than ISKCON infigthing or Gaudiya Math infighting with ISKCON etc. etc. That dilemma is something more malignant than such fratiricidal controversies between ISKCON and it's mother movement - The Gaudiya Math. The dilemma is the growing menace of spiritual hate crimes of inter-sect rivalry.

Let me cut to the chase. What we are looking at here is a potential cult-war between a growing and evolving babaji sect of western adherents and the ISKCON/Gaudiya Math family. ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math have their share of differences, though these conflicts seem to be resolving themselves as ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math find more in common than in difference.

The real caldron of vitriol that is brewing within the parameters of what is referred to as Gaudiya Vaishnavism is the pathology of sadhu-ninda - the character assasination of the Saraswata sampradaya by the siddha-pranali parivars of Bharata-varsha.

The defrocking of the Saraswata sampradaya by the siddha-pranali parivars of Bharata-varsha is perhaps the most volatile and explosive controversy brewing within the greater context of what is broadly referred to as Gaudiya Vaishnavism today.

No doubt, if stalwart adherents like Madhava stay the course and promulgate and proliferate the babaji creed to large dimensions as he seems to be attempting, there will be an ugly inter-religious conflict between the babaji cult and the Saraswata community if this attempt to defrock the Saraswata sampradaya by the siddha-pranali parivars of Bharata-varsha is not rectified and remedied.

I just wonder if Madhava really knows what he is prescribing for the future of Gaudiya Vaishnavism worldwide if he persists to maintain and promulgate the defrocking of Saraswati Goswami and his entire international society of Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Does he really think this approach is going to inflate the glory and greatness of Ananta das Babaji? Does he really think that discrediting and defrocking the largest international community of Gaudiya Vaishnavas on Earth is going to speak well of him and his guru parivar?
Does this defrocking of Saraswati Goswami have anything to do with anything holy and sacred? Is the defrocking of millions of Vaishnavas all over the world,who hold the Saraswata sampradaya as sacred, a real success formula for promoting his creed?

Is Madhava das really ready to conduct this HOLY WAR, against the legitimacy of Saraswati Goswami, to the bitter end? Does he really think that defrocking the entire Krishna consciousness movement, with his apathy to the Saraswata sampradaya is going to secure him a place in the clergy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism?

Does Madhava das really think that Srila Rupa Goswami is impressed with his campaign against the legitimacy of the Krishna conciousness movement?

I think Madhava das has alot of questions to ask himself and answer before he takes his campaign to the whole world and spreads his faith/lack of faith on a large scale to innocent seekers of truth.

Is HOLY WAR what Madhava das wants to leave as his legacy on the fabric of Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Is this defrocking of Saraswati Goswami and his vast international movement the page that Madhava das wants to write in the records of time?

I think Madhava das should think long and hard about what he is saying and doing with his humdrum opinions and attitude towards the Saraswata sampradaya. He is seeking something very great and advocating something very questionable. If he is wrong about Saraswati Goswami, then he has compromised his whole effort in the cause and undone anything he thought to accomplish. It seems like a very great risk to take when giving the benefit of the doubt in a spirit of graciousness and magnanimity would be the high road and the safe route to his destination.

His rationale is baffling. His motives quite dubious. He is gambling his whole reputation and well-being on a very risky proposition, when there is such an easy and open path out of his current calamity.

Madhva says Saraswati Goswami might have been initiated into the guru parampara, though he is not sure. He sees no evidence to indicate that Saraswati Goswami was a great apostle of Caitanya Vaisnavism. He thinks Saraswati Goswami's
credentials are questionable and incertain.

Madhava das is the one who is very questionable and uncertain and he is constructing a Holy War for the future of Vaishnavism. Does he really think that his beloved Radharani will be impressed with his Holy War against the Saraswata sampradaya?

Raganuga-bhakti was never meant to be a weapon for beating Vaishnnavas over the head with in a battle for superiority. It is a sacred and
confidential art of internal worship. It is not a doctrinal law of divine love. It is one of many forms of devotional service and is not a yardstick with which to measure the magnitude of another Vaishnava. It is a form of worship that had it's utility for certain sadhakas at certain stages and places in history. It is not the be-all and end-all of bhakti.

Radhe!

i found this very interesting:

Radha -Rasa-Sudhanidhi , commentary on verse 171 by Srila Ananta das Babaji:

(about the relish of manjari-bhava)

The sadhaka should get this relish while awakening his svarupa. The scriptures say about the deity-worship of the Lord: nadevo devam arcayet, and devo bhutva devam yajet "Without becoming a god (attaining a spiritual identification) one should not worship God.", and "First one must become a god himself before worshipping God." Hence the scriptures have prescribed bhuta suddhi (assumption of a spiritual identification). About this Srimat Jiva Gosvami has written: tatra bhuta-suddhir nijabhilasita bhagavat sevaupayika tat parsada deha bhavana-paryantaiva tat sevaika purusarthibhih karya nijanuklyat (Bhakti Sandarbha 286) "Those for whom the service of the Lord is the supreme goal of life should think of themselves in the form of an associate of the Lord, having a spiritual body which is suitable for the Lord's service. This will be most favorable for that service, and this is their bhuta suddhi." This is also the siddhanta of Srimad Bhagavata (3.9.11): yad yad dhiya ta urugaya vibhavayanti tat tad vapuh pranayase sad anugrahaya, and is confirmed by Srila Visvanatha Cakravartipada in his Sarartha Darsini-commentary on this verse: te sadhaka-bhaktah sva sva bhavanurupam yad yad dhiya bhavayanti tat tad eva vapus tesam siddha deham pranayase prakarsena tan prapayasi aho te sva bhakta paravasyam iti bhavah "Whatever the sadhaka bhaktas meditate on, according to their own feelings, the Lord will make them a siddha deha accordingly, which they will attain. Aho! This is how the Lord is subdued by His devotees!"

also, i thought it nice as a scriptural backup!
(Jiva Goswamipad, Vishvanath Cakravartipad)


by the way, dear Rasesh,
nobody needs your WAR- writings.
calm down.
your tone is too much.

Tarunji

Just a few thoughts about people feeling angry towards their ex-gurus: actually who is to blame? I heard a very nice lecture about this. Nowadays, especially in the West it became very popular to "accept" gurus without any previous consideration, without knowing anything about the particular person. People accepted their gurus in Iskcon after seeing them twice on the vyasasan on the basis of sentiments. I am asking: was anybody holding a gun to your head, saying 'If you don't ask for initiation I will kill you?'. Should we blame the gurus for our own stupidity, for our being blind and fanatic? I have had the same experience, by the way. I accepted a Guru without getting to know him, on the basis of emotions. One year later I clearly saw that I was wrong. Not him, me. I was wrong when I jumped into a very sacred and meaningful relationship without first giving time to both of us to examine each other. It was my fault. What he did was fulfilling my request. I asked him for initiation and he gave that to me. Nobody forced me into it, not even with verbal manipulation. So who is to blame?

It has been made clear elsewhere on these pages that the followers of Siddhanta Saraswati within the context of the Gaudiya religion amount up to about 5 % of the whole. You are unaware of that because you have perhaps never been in Manipur, Assam, Bengal (east and west), Orissa and Vraja. There are about 20x more traditional Vaishnavas than there are followers of all branches of Saraswati followers combined. My Guru was a relative small timer and he already had about as many disciples as A.C. B Swamiji had.



This is ass-backwards. Madhava is trying to establish the legitimacy of Rupa Gosvami's movement as opposed to the contradictory inventions of Sarasvati and his followers.



When you throw out a boomerang you can expect it to fly back in your face. Is the wholescale defamation and slander of innocent Vaishnavas as sahajiyas and smartas by Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta anything else but a holy war, which has been waged on us for about 80 years now? What is so sacred about that? I find it odd that you are now, after all these assaults, playing the pathetic victim....

All in all you are playing a very emotional card now, but you have still not answered Madhava's 14 questions about the contradictions between your theories and those of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu. We are still waiting.....

I'd like to know the answer to this also. It is very bewildering. Could it be that this ongoing dispute is divine of origin and meant for a purpose? Would anyone like to comment on that theory?

Dear KB,

I really don't know what you are getting at. This kind of post is really the kind of inflammatory thing you yourself are talking about. We have discussed it before on this forum and elsewhere, with you. I don't think anyone here is engaged in any vendetta. That does not mean we won't defend our viewpoint when we disagree with those in the GM camp, etc.

I was going to post the following yesterday, but my computer crashed and when I came back Adiyen had made a post that covered many of my points. But I think it is relevant to this question. So here it is:

========

As to the Gaur Kishor Das Babaji initiation, let us say this: Whatever transpired between Gaur Kishor and Siddhanta Saraswati, Saraswati Thakur himself decided to treat it in a fashion that differed from the tradition as it had existed up until then. This decision was deliberate.

I have seen Bhakti Promode Puri Maharaj use the expression "Bhagavati Diksha" to refer to this initiation and Puri Maharaj's successor frequently refers to Saraswati Thakur as the founder of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Saraswata sampradaya, or just Gaudiya-Saraswata sampradaya. I think that though perhaps this understanding is not universal throughout the Gaudiya Math, it is sufficiently widespread to recognize that much of our discourse is based on a false premise: Saraswati Thakur himself wanted to create something distinct and new. He did this on his own charismatic authority.

I don't think we can contest that Saraswati had immense respect for Gaur Kishor Das Babaji, and the Babaji was, I am also quite sure, of a somewhat different stripe than many of the others living in Nabadwip at the time. Nevertheless, we do not know exactly the nature of Gaur Kishor's attitude to Saraswati Thakur, but it is clear that he often went to Mayapur and met with Saraswati, so there was a fond relation between the two. But whether their relationship resembled the customary type of diksha prevalent in the Gaudiya Vaishnava world, or that instituted in the Gaudiya Math world subsequently, is another matter that is largely irrelevant in view of the point made in the first two paragraphs.

Saraswati Thakur thus established a new sampradaya. Now, as is often the case in such kinds of schisms, the schismatic group claims to genuinely represent the "true" origins of the teaching, in this case that of Rupa Goswami. In the matter of Daiva Varnashram, we see some truly original thinking of significance from Saraswati Thakur.

Traditional Vaishnavas, as is usual in such cases, have a hard time accepting Saraswati Thakur's charismatic authority. This was certainly the case with Lalita Prasad Thakur, but is also the same with most of those who follow in the traditional lines. Schisms rarely happen without emotion or pain, so we should not be surprised that this happened in the past.

What then is the situation today? It seems to me that provided there is an attempt to remain gentlemanly and civil, there is a possibility for association, though I expect that the various groups will evolve in their own ways, guarding their own particularities, much in the way that the various branches of the Gaudiya Math seem to be developing individual cultures that permit a certain sense of familial unity while simultaneously developing in individual ways around the personalities of their leaders and their evolving traditions. The key is to recognize and respect the differences.

===========

As far as the relative strengths of the GM vs. "traditional" GV, one should not underestimate the influence of Iskcon and the GM. I don't think numbers are the only criterion. Wealth and visibility are also important.

I haven't really seen a good treatment of the raganuga-issue, though the parampara issue has been chewed on more than enough.

Would you do me a favor please? Go and edit that post of yours with references from PRSD, and fill in verse numbers and the original Bengali. The translations are sometimes so confusing that it's hard to make heads or tails out of what Bhaktisiddhanta meant.

Some of those attitudes are way too strange for me. They are not coherent. Anyone may nitpick on others and make blanket claims. Most people who make this silly critique are not even well acquainted with the object of their critique, they speak based on hear-say. What's more, they don't excercise the same level of criticism for similar issues when it comes to other Gaudiya groups, or even their own.

Some groups, such as the followers of Haridas Shastri, seem to have a problem with everyone. ISKCON/GM are confused heretics, Bhaktisiddhanta is bad, Babajis are sahajiyas, and so forth. I don't know of their opinion on Jati Gosais, but I assume it is not all that high either, given that they seem to consider their own group the only true form of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Now that's a good deal of orthodoxy there.

Bead bags a concoction? That was a new one.

Last time I checked, there were very negatively loaded statements preached around about the sahajiyas to the Westerners even before the siddha-pranali wallas ever set foot in the West, and it has been going on ever since. Most GM/ISKCON gurus seem to feel obliged to warn everyone about the dangers of sahajiyaism.

Now, if we come and do some preaching work in the West, do you expect that people would not inquire about this? Should we not openly state that we disagree with this?

I believe this is just one of those "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" issues. Really, what do you expect? Decades of preaching against so-called sahajiyas who are even not around to "threaten" anyone, painting them black and blue, and then finally as we siddha-pranali wallas come around and state that we disagree with this strange propaganda, we are to be blamed.



I doubt that the issue would much surface if some of these ISKCON/GM wallas would bother to just shut up and not blame and find fault in us at the first mention of our name. Believe me, we have much better topics to discuss in our spare time when we don't receive a truck-load of sahajiya-calling at our front door.

The last I checked, it is not only that the disciple should examine the guru, but the guru should also examine the disciple. What kind of irresponsible guru will initiate a person who has not made a mature choice? Does the guru just think that it's "nice" to have another sheep in his flock, never mind how carefully he considered the choice, or does he consider the maturity of the initiate's decision and his ultimate spiritual welfare?

Think of the relationship between a parent and a small child. Would a responsible parent allow the child to do whatever he pleases if the child wishes to do so? No, the parent must see that the child is still in an immature stage of development, and oversee his activities to make sure that he doesn't end up doing something catastrophic. There's a good weight of responsibility on the shoulders of the guru.

Aside that, many people, upon joining any given society of devotees, are under social pressure from other members of the society to accept initiation from their guru in order to become a real member of the society.

Certainly the individual's free will plays a role in this, but not as great a role as you would lead us to think in your post.

Radhe!

man, i´m bewildered.

many points are brilliantly made by several nice devotees here.

facts are:

* Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did change a lot
* Nobody can really prove the initiation-issue
* GM/ISKCON -people sometimes tend to make a VERY BROAD "attack" on otherminded spiritualists

anyhow, the Lord gave us all free will.
those who want to follow the Saraswati-lineage should do their best at it.
those who want to follow the traditional way should go their way.
but none of each has the right to blaspheme the other!

if it comes to theological or philosophical discussions, i think its not the point of "who defeats who".
what i can see until now is, that our challenger has still not answered the 14 points of Madhavaji.
and his posts are as angry as before.

and i also think its very bad to announce war on Madhavaji (and some of us).
Madhavajis replies have been , at least for me, in a very friendly but nevertheless "to-the-point"-style.
he is not "shooting" back. he is just replying as it fits the matters: theological, philosophical, ...

no point in accusing him. from his replies, i learnt SO MUCH!
also from other very nice replies by other people ( especially the friendly exchange of Adiyen and Babhru).

i´m really not inspired to read again such a "yo, i will now defeat Madhava the stalwart...blabla..."
i´m on the other hand openminded to a NICE , fruitive exchange where all of us can benefit.

but like i said,
the points are already made.

lets see says the blind


Tarunji

Just a quick note as I have to get my kids going off to school.

Adiyen - I am certainly not pompous enough to suggest that I am the voice of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. I posted his words so that it would be clear enough. My only real point with the post was to try to clarify for those in this discussion what his stance was with regards to siddha pranali diksha. Some of what I said is a paraphrase of my Guru Maharaja from his book 'Sri Guru Parampara - Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, Heir to the Esoteric Life of Kedaranatha Bhaktivinoda. Again, just to reiterate, the point of contention really seems to be eligibility - of the sadhaka - and the qualification of the spiritual master.

Madhava - I copied the english text from Narasingha Maharaja's web site. I can go and copy the texts I wrote out with the bengali if it would help. In the article on his web page there is no verse numbering.

Jagat - just a comment about one of your statements - I obviously don't agree with you assessment that the GM/Iskcon are set up to force out those who wish to advance to the highest realms of bhakti. If one assumes that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was not a realized sat guru or that none of his followers are or were either then your premise may have some merit - but, of course, those of us who follow in his lineage obviously have a much different opinion as to his spiritual attainment and the heritage he left to us.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

Well, that was quite a few words to wade through since early yesterday when I checked in on this topic! Must be a quite a few thousand posted.

I only have one comment at this point: There is a distorted view of reality on the part of some. This is due to a perception that those millions of traditional Caitanyaites (we should not really use the term Gaudiya Vaishnava, because it is too provincial - the movement is not meant to be a strictly Bengali one) are even aware of GM and ISKCON and the differences. The plain simple fact is that for the most part they are not. It is actually an infinitesimally small number of people that are acquainted with both versions of the tradition, and a fair percentage of those are the few we see discussing the topic on this and other websites. I think everyone here should keep in mind that this exclusive group has a very unique perspective as a result of this 'knowledge of good and evil'. At some point the serpent induced them to bite into that proverbial apple, and now there is no turning back. Even more importantly, to keep a level head and not become inimical towards your fellow refugees from Eden is the wise path to tread. You can't return to that blissful state of ignorance, but that does not mean you should continue with foolishness. At some point you have to give up the crutch of relying on the words of your guru and the edicts of shastra and sort things out in your own mind and adhere to conscience. The holy war rages, but it is one that must be fought within one's own heart.

Finally, to reiterate something our esteemed moderator stated several weeks ago: It is best to thoroughly deliberate before posting, otherwise what tends to come out is an emotionally laden barrage which is nothing short of a tirade devoid of either brevity or profundity. Life is short, people, and every moment is precious. We should use our time prudently and productively.

Thank you for these words, Tarunji, they just point to the essence.

I was initially attempting to present some viewpoints which could demonstrate the foundations of Swami Prabhupad's principles and precepts which could support his particular version of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu and deal with the issue of the siddha-pranali type raganuga-sadhana.

Currently, there is a sect of devotees following Ananta das Babaji, who are using the doctrine of raganuga-sadhana as a blunt instrument in a battle to defrock Srila Prabhupada and his entire Krishna consciosness movement.

Despite my appeal to civility and reconciliation, it appears that the followers of Ananta das Babaji have absolutely no intentions of ever relenting on their campaign against the authenticity of the Saraswata sampradaya.
Be that as it may.
I have cautioned that a Holy War is brewing.
There is no concern to derail or deflate the situation on the part of Ananta das Babajis followers, so maybe we should then take our case to the Babaji and see if he supports and endorses this Holy War that his followers are waging against the Saraswata community. Is the defrocking of Saraswati Goswami something that Ananta das Babaji supports and endorses? Or, is this campaign an illicit, unsanctioned tirade that he will reject along with those who perpetuate it?
Time will tell.
The Babaji needs to speak his own position in this issue.
Before his name gets attached to a global conflict bewtween Vaishnavas, maybe he should have something to say about the matter?

Still waiting for your responses to Madhava's 14 questions......

I really do want to address those points when I have time to do the referencing and research. Since, these are all serious doctrinal issues that require shastric support, I cannot just jump in here and throw it together on a whim. My time is very short. Maybe I will take my two off of work to satisfy your demands.

However, Advaita prabhu, I think your position on the statistics on global Vaishnavism are sorely lacking and self-deceiving. You keep saying that the Saraswata sampradaya makes up a mere 5% of the total Vaishnava community by referring to the numbers of Hindu-vaishnavas in Assam, Manipur, Bangaldesh and whatnot. That is a very cunning abuse of the statistics in such a way as to try and deny the fact that, outside of India, the Saraswata sampradaya constitutes a vast, overwhelming majority of the total Vaishnava population.

When I talk about a global Holy War between the siddha-pranali parivars and the Saraswata sampradaya outside of India, your numbers are so small that they don't even make the chart. There are possibly a handful of your type in North America? None in Australia. None in South America. None in Africa. Maybe a handful in all of Europe. Maybe a couple throughout all of the orient and west Asia.

Do you really think that anybody buys your propaganda that the Saraswata sampradaya is a mere 5% of the global Vaishnava community? You have got nobody but yourself deceived.

I have been to India. I have seen that apart from what the Saraswata sampradaya has done, most all the holy temples and dhams have fallen into disrepair, neglect and destruction.

Before the Saraswata community began the restoration and reconstruction of the holy temples and shrines, most all the holy temples were run-down and negelcted. Where was all of your millions and millions of Vaishnavas then? Why is it that even now the Saraswata sampradaya devotees are leading the way in cleaning up Vrindavan and Radha-kunda and planting trees and installing toilets etc. etc.?

What has the babaji followers done about the squat and squaller of Radha-kunda, even as the stools of the babajis get's mixed with Radha-kunda after a heavy rain? Where are all your millions of Vaishnavas when it comes to dhama-seva ? Are the babajis too busy oiling and cleaning their automatic weapons to organize a clean up of the dhama?

When I refer to the Saraswata sampradaya as the majority party internationally, I think that can hardly be refuted by anyone except some juggler of statistics who wants to use Assam, Manipur and Bengal to neutralize the fact that globally the Saraswata sampradaya is dominant without question and a majority in vast measure.

Hindus in India cannot be used as a measure to minimize the international dominance of the Saraswata sampradaya. Maybe you have got yourself fooled, but I for one am not buying.

Radhe!

Dear Rasesh, please listen.

you are the only one with this point of view.
so many here in this forum are NOT disciples of Srila Ananta das Babaji (including me).

you are the one whose posts are sometimes far beyond acceptable.

now, you see no sense in presenting your "victory over the stalwart Madhava".
guess what, many of us here neither!

there is no sense in defeating and proving.
why should two DIFFERENT APPROACHES to the way of raganuga-bhakti fight till death?

Ananga made a wonderful post.

"Life is short, people, and every moment is precious. We should use our time prudently and productively. "

adhere to your holy principles laid down by your Gurudeva.
follow him with your heart.
why are you so MUCH concerned about what other people think?

IT IS NOT WRONG, NOR IS IT BLASPHEMY TO DISAGREE WITH AC BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI!

no one here blasphemed him. if you think, than QUOTE!

i´m just a very young foolish neophyte, but you said you have more than 30 years of spiritual life in your heart.
after some of your posts, thats hard to believe.

i felt so happy to see your nice post when you talked about your life (kids, job, ....).
now and again you are on the crusade again.

maybe, if you cannot accept
1) different approaches to a spiritual path than your own
2) disagreement with certain points in your tradition
than stay away from the people who cause you trouble!

you started the issue here.
where has been a topic started by a disciple of Srila Ananta das Babaji condemnig, attacking, or even blaspheming other traditions?
again, if you find anything, QUOTE!

see it like that:
you own a house and someone comes in and challenges your complete life situation in an aggressive and hurting way.
so you will certainly venture into a discussion, standing to your way of life.

so this here is a forum for raganuga-bhakti. what do you expect?
plus here are many experienced Vaishnavas from TOTALLY different traditions.

look at the approach of Audarya-lila. how nice and reasonable is he participating!

actually, i think i waste my time more and more, replying to your aggressive posts.
just decide something.

answer the famous 14 points or find peace and happiness in other virtual sadhu-sangas.

all the best

Tarunji

Dear forum friends!

in my opinion,
Rasesh now went TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO far!

QUOTE:

"What has the babaji followers done about the squat and squaller of Radha-kunda, even as the stools of the babajis get's mixed with Radha-kunda after a heavy rain? Where are all your millions of Vaishnavas when it comes to dhama-seva ? Are the babajis too busy oiling and cleaning their automatic weapons to organize a clean up of the dhama?"

how malicious and nasty is this generalization?
hearsay , hearsay, hearsay!

someone should really stop this raging!

Tarunji

You think the whole world is the USA? Globally means all over the world. India does not belong to the world?



Which ones?



You are boasting 30 years in KC. Me thinks you had more than enough time to make your homework. More than all of us together.

Sparky Photon is now being downright ludicrous. I have to admit though, I did have a good laugh about his 'oiling and cleaning their automatic weapons' imagery. Maybe they need those on account of being fired upon by some ex-Iskcon Ritviks.

I have one recommendation: Deal with each other as individuals, rather than as representatives of some faction. Yes, we do belong to our own Caitanyaite sub-cultures (there should be no need to state the obvious), but there is no need to drag the names of Pandit Ananta Das Babaji or Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada into the discussion. We are all adults here and should be able to debate as our own men (women? - they seem to be conspicuous by their absence here, although I assume some of them are browsing through this stuff and thinking to themselves how much those egotistical males are up to their usual posturing), and not rely upon our teachers as authority figures. After all, for the most part everyone here is just stating their opinions, whether they are backed up by evidence or not (those 14 points, Ksamabuddhi? - take your time, maybe you'll have the stuff ready by next spring or summer).

I say we give Spakyananda some leeway (he's not such a bad chap once you get used to him), as long as he is kept on a short leash.

Thanks to Sparky this has become the longest and most amusing thread in raganuga.com's history!

Ananga:

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.



I agree with this suggestion. Someone apologized to me earlier for liumping me with Sparkibuddhi. He's my Godbrother, and I'd guess we'd find much in each other to like if we met each other (we both like surfing, are proud of our kids, and more). When he gets sparky, though, I do wonder what his purpose is, and I appreciate being treated as Babhru. Tarunji expressed appreciation for Audarya-lila's contributions, which I think is appropriate because Audarya stands his ground, doesn't compromise, but remains respectful. I think this conversation could continue to enlighten and amuse without name calling and hyperbole. And I'd like to see us neither be in a rush nor too eager to "win." I'd prefer to engage in conversation than debate.

I have an insane day, so I may not be able to commit any offenses today. However, I'd guess I'm in for a surprise when I check in tomorrow.

Radhe!

yeah, me too serious!

actually, i just leant back and enjoyed a big smile.

thanks Ananga, thanks Advaita.
i don´t know this Sparkyananda that long .

well, i think he now gathers "not-available"-schastrick- references.
to defeat Viking Madhava, stalwart of Finland!

true, thats an awesome thread!

Jay Sri Radhe!

There is no particular campaign, what to speak of a holy war, waged by the followers of Ananta Das Babaji or anyone else for that matter. Nevertheless it seems that you are quite enthusiastic to declare such a war merely because we do not agree on everything your gurus have taught to you.

This has nothing to do with Ananta Das Babaji in particular. I have already pointed out that most folks in the forums are not his disciples anyway. There are people from various walks of our tradition in the forums here. Do some field research, go and present the Saraswata ideas of parampara and raganuga-sadhana to anyone outside Gaudiya Math and come back to us with the statistics, tell us how small a percentage agreed on the ideas you presented. My educated guess would be ca. 0.65 %.

So if it's a war you are waging, you are badly outmanned and outgunned. I suggest you seek peace instead.

Since the doctrinal issues are what started this discussion to begin with, I suggest you go and do your homework with shastra and get back to us when you have something solid to present. This tirade of yours is getting very tiresome, many members are complaining about your recent posts.

You would do good if you spent all that time in your research you've been using with these tiresome war-mongering posts. Judging by the time you have for that, and what you've had for similar tirades at istagosthi, it does not seem to me that time is the real issue. Perhaps you are just out of ideas and have no clue where to look for in the shastra to gain support for your ideas.

My personal suspicion is that you're trying to obfuscate the actual issue at hand, the addressing of which would require some knowledge of shastra, and you are hoping to provoke the audience here to get you banned so you could escape from addressing the points you've thus far tactfully avoided. Please do prove me wrong.



There's roughly 200 to 300 devotees initiated in the traditional parivars outside India. In India, several millions. Global means "in the whole world", and India is counted in the total of the whole world.



You have been to India, seriously? I suppose you haven't been much outside the ISKCON Mayapur guest house, then.

A semi-automatic uzi comes in handy when the Gaudiya Math wallas fire their bazookas from their math on the outskirts of Radha Kund and then try to invade the Das Gosvami area and claim it as the property of the the True International pReachers Army. But the babajis don't oil their uzis all that often. The Israeli Model B doesn't need all that much maintenance.

Are you actually saying that you have no clue where to find references to back up your position to begin with? You are trying to defend a position, and you do not know whether it is even sanctioned by shastra. If you had some idea where to find those references of yours, it wouldn't take long to pick them up and post them in.

To make your life easier, here are some well-known books in which the subject matter of raganuga-sadhana is discussed: Rupa Gosvami's Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu with commentaries, Jiva Gosvami's Bhakti-sandarbha, Visvanatha Cakravarti's Raga-vartma-candrika. That should be enough for a good start. Of course you could also look into Caitanya Caritamrita, particularly chapter 4 of Adi-lila and chapters 8, 19, 22 and 23 of Madhya-lila. Do keep in mind when posting that Bhaktivedanta often includes a part of his comment in the translation, so look for the word-for-word too to be certain whether it is actually Krishnadas who is making a point, or whether it's the translator.

These cyber-confrontations are really a very recent phenomenon. Until just a few years ago, people left the fold of ISKCON and kept their distance, no matter what their new affiliation or non-affiliation might have been. Based on Sparky's overly imaginative and fantasy-based characterization, one would think that there were frequent attacks on the ISKCON temple compounds by gun wielding ex-members that had joined the 'Babjai camp' (as he likes to refer to it). What seems to escape the notice of people like him is that those he sees as enemies of his 'guru-varga' really have no interest in assailing its proposed integrity and spiritual superiority. Any criticism is seen by them as malicious and destructive, without considering that there might be some other motivation present (such as benevolent guidance based on genuine compassion). Nitai, who writes the most scathing reviews of ISKCON/GM, has always taken the approach of only posting articles on his own website, and rarely posts anything elsewhere. People get all up in arms over his writings, yet it was their own choice to surf to his site and read the material there. Certainly most of them already know that he was vilified by ISKCON leadership and declared a rogue to be off limits to members when he left the institution, so what were they expecting?

I recall many heated exchanges between the notorious Puru Das Adhikary and our fiend Jagat on the old VNN forums. These always ended up with Jagat patiently and politely refuting his opponent, and Puru ending up getting completely flustered and resorting to name calling and other nastiness, interspersed with voluminous cut and paste quotations from Prabhupada, Bhaktisiddhanta and other GM leaders.

Until the internet matured and opened up new avenues, I had not even conceived of any dialog with representatives of ISKCON and the various branches of GM. There have been various outcomes of these discussions. The most positive, in my own opinion, is many persons coming away with a new understanding, and many of them seeking out the guidance of Caitanyaite leaders such as Pandit Ananta Das Baba. Although there have been some much more negative results, the usual situation is a standoff with neither side swaying the other. Jagat has been the consummate diplomat in these exchanges, exemplifying the principle of swanlike behavior. I have to admit that I am not so magnanimous, although I am not extremely cynical like Nitai Das and certainly not as jaded as Pada. I guess it depends a lot upon what our personal experiences have been in past encounters with the groups in question. Admittedly, not all those who went to Radhakund came away inspired. I think it is not for everyone. It tends to separate the dedicated from the casual minded. It requires the power to see beyond the conditions one is presented with via the five senses, to discover the hidden inner magic.

Why spill the beans, Madhava? Our revered Sparky should know this himself. He has been ardently studying the shastra for 30 years!



Since Sparky has first hand experience with Uzi-toting Babajis he might like to give us the names of the culprits? He saw them with his own eyes, after all..... What are their names, Sparky, and where do they live?

I am a seeker of truth always, and if Ksama in his compassion desires to show me the truth, then I owe him a favor, and this favor I offer in telling him where to find the truth he wishes to show me.

I shaved off my beard after Kartik, so much for the Viking.

I am utterly exhausted.

Then take the easy way.

If anyone is interested, our old friend Muralidhar das is in the business of posting a series of articles about the sannyasa initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. This may have a direct bearing on Rasesh's points about renunciation of Vraja-babajis not being effective while the tridandi-sannyasa of Sarasvati Thakura has been effective in spreading Gauranga's creed.

What does everyone else think? We can discuss it later when the current issues are out of the way.

You aren't too tired to perform your asta-kaliya-lila smaranam bhajan are you?

Radhe!

Dear Madhavaji, i was only joking with the "Viking",
heavily "inspired" by the "Holy WAR" -tirades of Sparky.

Tarunji,
still not gay

If your Mom and Dad knew you wanted to be an adolescent girl having erotic love for Krishna, they would probably think you were gay. Lots of people would. The matter of your rasa and relationship with Krishna is a very confidential, personal and intimate subject that should be between you and your sat-guru. It is not something that you get on the internet and tell the whole world "HEY WORLD, I WANNA BE AN ADOLESCENT GIRL HAVING EROTIC LOVE AFFAIRS WIH THE CUPID-GOD KRISHNA!

I am not saying you are gay if that is your true spiritual nature. I am not sure if you are really on the level of realization to even speculate about what is your spiritual relationship with Krishna. A conditioned soul might have some mental desire to relish the highest type of rasa with Krishna, but that is far from realizing what his actual rasa-svarupa is. A desire to enjoy the highest ecstacy with Krishna is far from the purity of suddha-bhakti - to serve Krishna according to his wishes. In the ultimate issue, it is more important to find out what Krishna wants from us more than what we want from Krishna.
Does Krishna want you to serve him in madhurya-rasa? Or, maybe he wants you to serve him in vatsalya-rasa? Pure bhakti is finding out what Krishna wants from me and serving him according to his wishes. It is not about our selfish lust to enjoy what we perceive to the the highest ecstacy in madhurya-rasa. That lust to ENJOY Krishna must eventually give way to a willingness (saranagati) to serve him according to HIS DESIRE! That is PURE BHAKTI! We are not supposed to approach Krishna with the attitude that "I want THIS" or "I want THAT". We are supposed to humbly submit ourselves at his Lotus Feet and inquire what he wants from us.

Whatever that is, it is not something that we are supposed to brag about and advertise to the whole world with so much arrogance and pride. It is something that we keep in the very secret treasure chest of our heart, to be known only by those on the same platform.

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.

Radhe!

nothing wrong with aspiring for the maidservice of Srimati Radhika.
Lord Caitanya came to give manjari-bhava.
i follow him, not you!

"We are not supposed to approach Krishna with the attitude that "I want THIS" or "I want THAT". We are supposed to humbly submit ourselves at his Lotus Feet and inquire what he wants from us."

so, as a manjari we can give Krishna the highest pleasure. i dont want anything.
i´m just wholeheartedly attracted to the service to the Lotus Feet of Srimati Radhika.
and by wholeheartedly serving her, a jiva soul can reach the highest platform.
nothing about "i want this .. i want that".
by serving in manjari-bhava we actually satisfy the Lord to the utmost.

and it is also considered a higher thing to have the feeling "he is mine!" instead of "i am his".
but never did i say anything on that!

yes, you are right, i´m not on any of those high levels.
but that doesnt exclude me from desiring to be at one point. maybe after many lifetimes.

what you meditate on will become your goal.

you call me arrogant and proud?
after slapping in my face more than once?

just let me be a "sahajiya" and follow your own way.
i´m happy , you are aggressive and frustrated.

still i wish you the blessings of Srimati Radhika

Tarunji

Radhe!

what we got here is serious mixture of emotions.
do we have different Rasesh´s speaking?


1) challenging

"Also, it seems that I am being told by the proponents of raganuga in here that there are no moral or ethical prerequisites for practicing raganuga-bhakti, that one can live comfortably enjoying sexual pleasures with his wife and still cultivate raganuga-bhakti. Did Srila Rupa Goswami advocate raganuga-bhakti for those of wordly attachments and uncontrolled senses? Was not sense control and detachment a prerequisite for making advancement in bhakti. Does practicing raganuga (defined as siddha-pranali) without sense control and renunciation bear the kind of fruit desired?"

2) attacking and hurting

"I am going to make all you guys look really silly when I expose the flaws in your thinking.

Well, what is funny to me is that a burly macho looking guy like you with a thick black beard wants to be a girlfriend of Krishna. Talk about silly.
Just picture this................ a portrait of you....

3) VERY NICE!

"Let me start by offering my respectful pranams to all the Vaishnavas. I am in your house here and having chosen to enter of my own accord, I should be respectful, even as I sometimes question or challenge your views and beliefs.


This is my position. My intelligence and my mind says "seek the greatest", "go for the highest", "ENJOY the supreme mellows of madhurya-rasa", but my heart says "I want a woman to snuggle up to at night", "I love my kids", "I love sexual intimacy with women", "I am unfit to think of conjugal love for Krishna". "I am a dirtbag", "how dare you meddle in thoughts of conjugal love of Krishna".

In this way, it is really hard for me to say in what way I think I love Krishna.
In fact, I actually have no love for Krishna at all. I do have some serious attraction and appreciation and faith in Him. But LOVE? I don't have a single atom of real love for Krishna in my heart or I would not be able to live another moment without him. Divine love is so great that even one speck of it on the heart will cause the loss of material existence."

4) not humble

" I think everyone would have to admit that the Saraswata acharyas did have a superior way of thinking how to spread Krishna consciosness all over the world.

Is HOLY WAR what Madhava das wants to leave as his legacy on the fabric of Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Is this defrocking of Saraswati Goswami and his vast international movement the page that Madhava das wants to write in the records of time?"

please dear Rasesh, return to your nice persona!

Tarunji

The narrative makes many unsubstantiated claims, so it is basically worthless as evidence to support any position taken by that group he represents. It does, however, demonstrate that Gaudiya Math is indeed guilty of casting the first stone in the ongoing confrontations we have been witness to on this and other forums on the net, and those that have been maligned by the various allegations are merely coming to their own defense.

I guess we should begin the discussion of raganuga-bhakti with Srila Rupa Goswamis explanation of the word "raga":

iste sva-rasiki raga paramavistata bhavet
tan-mayi ya bhavaed bhakti satra ragatmikodita

(Bhakti-rasämrita-sindhu (1.2.272)
Räga is the unquenchable loving thirst (prema-mayé trsna) for
the object of one’s affection, which gives rise to spontaneous
and intense absorption (svärasiké paramävistata) in that object.
Rägamayi bhakti is the performance of sevä, such as
stringing garlands, with such intense räga.

Räga is the absolute (parama) and undivided (svärasiké) absorption
(äviñöatä) in one’s own particular object of worship.


In the description of raga as given by Srila Rupa Goswami, he says that raga is the "parama" (absolute) and "svarasiki" (undivided) absorbtion in the object of worship and love.

Considering this, how is it that a neophyte devotee struggling with anarthas and clear and visible material attachments claim to be following the raganuga path when it is quite obvious that his bhajan is not undivided and uniterrupted by the mundane pursuits of kanak, kamini and prastishta?

According to the descriptions of Srila Rupa Goswami, raga is an absolute, undivided absorbtion in the object of worship. This is hardly the stage of a devotee who is still bound in his worldy pursuits of sense gratification via a wife, a job and all the wordly distractions of modern society.

Can a devotee watch a movie on television and then go to his room for raganuga bhajan? Raganuga bhajan is an undivided discipline that cannot be practiced as a hobby for modern devotees who are still dabbling in the worldy pleasures and wordly distractions.

Is raganuga bhajan a part-time job or a full-time, unbroken commitment to undivided bhajan?

Does the practitioners of raganuga-sadhana as affiliated with this forum claim to be "absolute" and "undivided" in their bhajan? If so, then, yes, maybe they are qualified for raganuga-sadhana. If not, then maybe they should just resign themselves to vaidhi-sadhana, hearing, chanting and remembering as much as possible until they actually reach the stage of "LOBHA" where they have this "undivided" one pointed focus on hari-bhajan devoid of wordly distractions and pursuits?

Raganuga is a sadhana. As you say, "a path." If one is already at the end of the path, there is no question of needing to get there. Are you saying that Visvanatha and other acaryas have concocted something that is also contradictory?

I am saying that the qualification of "Lobha" (greed for ragatmika bhakti) is symptomized by the lack of "greed" for anything of the material world.
"Lobha" is not a mundane "greed" for ragatmika bhakti. It is a pure, spiritual greed that causes one to loose all interest in any form of material pleasure.
Real "lobha" is so powerful and purifying that one looses his affinity for material sense pleasure and develops "raga", the "absolute" and "undivided" fixation on the pursuit of the goal without a moments distraction or interruption.

Where does Vishvanatha Chakravarti describe raganuga as anything less than following the path of "absolute" and "undivided" devotion in hari-bhajan?

Though one may not be absolutely on the absolute platform in raganuga, he is practicing the discipline of absolute and undivided bhajan as we are supposed to find in the babaji discipline.

Can neophytes practicing karma-misra bhakti qualify for raganuga-sadhana according to the standards of "absolute" and "undivided" bhajan?

Good. I'd like to see a definition and the qualifications for lobha also. That is a much better approach than taking a definition of "raga" and misapplying it. You yourself say:



I don't know where you found this information but it is interesting that you said "one looses". This seems to contradict your earlier assertion that one has to have lost affinity for matter before one can have lobha.



He doesn't. He accepts that it is a practice with the goal being absolute absorption.

Can neophytes practicing karma-misra bhakti qualify for vaidhi-sadhana according to the standards of "absolute" and "undivided" bhajan?

Yes prabhu, you are correct, but, is not "lobha" said to be the qualification for practicing raganuga-bhajan? Did Srila Rupa Goswami say that raga leads to lobha or that the qualification for raganuga is "lobha". From what i can see, he is saying that when one acquires lobha, he is then fit for raganuga-sadhana.
Where does he say that raganuga-sadhana produces lobha? Does not lobha qualify one for raganuga-sadhana, instead of vice-versa?

Where does it say that one must have "raga" (undivided and absolute absorbtion) to practice any of the limbs of vaidhi-bhakti?

too tired actually to post with clarity. message deleted.

What is the goal of vaidhi-sadhana? Undivided and absolute absorption.

You have argued that in the case of raganuga there is no path, only a goal. I'm merely pointing out the obvious contradiction in this by removing the word raganuga, which somehow seems to act as a red flag before the bull. (Actually, it may have been a cow, but bull is kinda cute)

Lobha is the qualification for practicing raganuga: agreed.

Can raganuga-sadhana generate lobha? Given that someone has lobha and practices raganuga, Yes, it must. Or else it wouldn't further them on the path. That lobha grows exponentially and is nourished by the practices.

Would it in the case where one doesn't have lobha to start with but practices anyway? Well, if one of the causes of lobha is association with someone who has lobha and associating with advanced souls like is part of the sadhana, then yes, that chance is there. Same also with hearing Krishna's pastimes, mantra, etc. The chance is there. It's all based on mercy and consciousness.

At least, that's my take on the matter. I'd like to hear the more learned opinions of others though.

I don't suppose it is clear in the translation, but this verse defines rAgAtmikA, and rAgAnugA means that which follows rAgAtmikA. They are two different, sequential things, just like sAdhana and prema. Look at the context:

atha rAgAnugA -

Then raganuga -

virAjantIm abhivyaktAM vraja-vAsI janAdiSu |
rAgAtmikAm anusRtA yA sA rAgAnugocyate || 270 ||

"The devotion which is clearly present in the associates of the Lord in Vraja is called devotion filled with loving attachment (ragatmika-bhakti), and devotion following in the wake of this ragatmika-bhakti is called raganuga-bhakti."

rAgAnugA-vivekArtham Adau rAgAtmikocyate || 271 ||

"To discern the meaning of raganuga, ragatmika is first described."

iSTe svArasikI rAgaH paramAviSTatA bhavet |
tan-mayI yA bhaved bhaktiH sAtra rAgAtmikoditA || 272 ||

"That devotion in which one is filled with abundant natural love for the Chosen One is known ragatmika."

You missed the point here altogether, you confused rAgAtmikA with rAgAnugA, just like it is confused in the Nectar of Devotion. The cowherd boys are not engaged in rAgAnugA, and the practicing devotees are not rAgAtmikA, but vice-versa.

By the way, where are you copying your translations from? The style looks quite Narayan Maharaj'ish, is it from some of their books by chance?

For the record (not that it's relevant for the point discussed here), "svArasikI" does not mean "undivided". According to Jiva and Visvanatha, svArasikI means svAbhAvikI, meaning spontaneous, natural, arising from the self, and so forth. Mukunda also employs the synonym svabhAvajA, born of one's own nature.

Well, you got those terms from a verse which didn't describe raganuga.

At any rate, to answer your question, in his Raga-vartma-candrika, Visvanatha explains that lobha is not a black-and-white matter, that it is either absolute and complete, or there is none.

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.”

Visvanatha also explains that anartha-nivritti is a part of the path of raganuga, not that raganuga-bhakti begins after anartha-nivritti:

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.”

If you bothered to carefully read the pages of http://www.raganuga.org where I collected all these references at, I wouldn't have to bother copying and pasting all of them here for you.

tat tad bhAvAdi mAdhurye zrute dhIr yad apekSate |
nAtra zAstraM na yuktiM ca tal lobhotpatti lakSaNam || (brs. 1.2.292)

“When one hears about the sweetness of their (the rAgAtmikA) feelings and so forth, and a desire for attaining the same awakens in the consciousness without dependence on scripture and logic, this is a symptom of the awakening of greed (lobha).”

That's a very clear definition as it stands. The commentators don't much elaborate on lobha. The synonym "abhilASa" appears in the tika of Mukunda Das Gosvami.

tat-tad-bhAvAdi-mAdhuryAbhilASaNaM lobhotpatter lakSaNam ity arthaH |

"A desire for the sweetness of their feelings and so forth, this is the meaning of the awakening of lobha.

Jiva and Visvanatha don't say much at all about the meaning of lobha. I suppose the direct meaning of the word is clear enough for them. Should it mean something more esoteric, a very high level of inner purity and so forth, one would expect that the commentators would state so. They don't.

Given that all you have explained is true, I would just like to know where and how you can validate the giving of siddha-pranali to devotees who then leave Vaishnavism altogether and even become inimical to the cult.

The only real objection that I am trying to raise is that siddha-pranali has been given to many so-called devotees who later left the practice, the cult and the faith. Doesn't that somewhat shed a lot of dubious distinction on the gurus who engage in such practices?

It is not the siddha-pranali process that I am challenging here. It is the cheapening of the process and giving it to unfit persons that really seems to disqualify modern practice of it.

Modern day babas give it out to so-called disciples they don't train or personally discipline. Should a babaji really be giving siddha-pranali out to Americans and Europeans who come to the Radha-kunda with some money and who then go back to their lavish lifestyles in western countries and engage in all sorts of karma and vikarma? Shouldn't the baba be convinced that the person is going to totally dedicate himself to the process before he just gives some gopi name to any Tom, dick or Harry that bops into the kunda with some rupees to blow?

I mean, how well does Ananta das babaji really train and teach a disciple before he get's his gopi name and siddha-pranali.

How long did you have to stay at his ashram and prove yourself before he was convinced that you were qualified for siddha-pranali?

It took me two years of strict sadhana and 16 rounds a day with full time service in ISKCON to get brahminical initiation. There are dudes running around with gopis names that have never even come close to that kind of service and discipline and yet we are supposed to accept that they know what their nama, rupa and rasa with Krishna are?

Thats a little hard to digest.

I am going to start working on my replies. I will take them one point at a time and one post at a time.

First of all, let me explain that I am referring to "raganuga-sadhana" in terms of what your "siddha-pranali" interpreation of it is in regards to the siddha-deha and the asta-kaliya-lila smaranam and having qualified to know one's nama, guna, rupa and rasa as revealed by a siddha-purusha guru who has the power to reveal such things.

I have already explained in the beginning of this thread that I have a different concept of raganuga-bhakti than the exclusively "siddha-pranali" process that your parivar is limiting raganuga-sadhana to.

I know well that raganuga bhakti is not out of reach for devotees on less that the platform of perfect anartha-nivrtti. When I used the term "raganuga-sadhana" in this context I was referring to it as you are presenting it as a "siddha-pranali" process of receving nama, guna and rasa diksha from a siddha guru.

Before I go any further, I want to know if you understand this?

Well, we do know that a person may fall even from the stage of bhava, is it not? The last remaining anartha at the stage of bhava is aparadhottha-anartha, and if one permits anarthas to grow in the heart again, he may well fall from the path.




I take it that you know quite a few people who have received siddha-pranali to make such a statement.



Now, what do you know about this? What are your "sources"? Baba has patiently taught myself and my wife whenever we are at Radha Kund.



Now, household life by definition includes being involved with a certain degree of karma. But vikarma, how would you define that?

At any rate, I wonder how you've come to such conclusions. Most initiated folks I know don't know you from anywhere but some internet forums.



Westerners tend to have a "I want it all, I want it now" outlook of life. A disciple must immediately completely surrender and leave everything else behind, shave up, dress in kaupin and eat three dry rotis per day. No, for most people, the progress is gradual, and hearing of siddha-pranali marks the beginning of the true growth of our inner identity, which will eventually come to blossom. You cannot expect to plant a seed and have a flower the next day. Growth takes time.

Which dudes?

Name one!

This is a bogus claim!

Bhaktivedanta Swami gave Krishna-lila to people on the street!

He sent his men out on the street with the titilating story of Krishna stealing the Gopi's clothes! To give to bums passing by!

That is the mercy of the Vaishnava!

That is how it should be! Not locked up in Sannyasi Maharaja's almira, to read just before death (or what?)

How well? On what scale "how well"? He teaches all they need to know, I'd say that is quite sufficient.



We kept in touch through letters and studied his writings since six months or so before meeting him for the first time. Then we stayed for three months at Radha Kund, at the end of which he initiated us in chanting harinam. Next year we traveled to Radha Kund again for three months, and soon he gave us diksa, and later on, after a month or two, siddha-pranali.



May I ask, how much of that time did you spend being trained up by Prabhupad himself? How much time did you spend in his personal association, asking him questions and serving him?

When we are at Radha Kund, we can consult Baba practically at any time if we have questions in bhajan or philosophy. He is very freely available. Indeed, we usually go for his darshan daily when we stay in Vraja, and he is always happy to receive us, as he is to receive other students of his.

There is really no "siddha-pranali interpretation" there. It is the standard concept of raganuga-sadhana of Rupa Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravarti. You may consider siddha-pranali as an aspect of the siksa given by the guru, as in "kRSNa-dIkSAdi-zIkSAnAm".



I take it that your main concern is not with practicing raganuga-sadhana itself, lila-smaran included, but it is rather with the guru's revealing the eternal spiritual identity ("siddha-deha") of the disciple to him? If that is so, may I ask if there are any restrictions in this regard in the writings of the Gosvamis?

= = =

At any rate, in regards to #1 quoted at the top of this post, can you present a verse where Rupa, Jiva or Visvanatha would present any qualification besides lobha for raganuga-sadhana, whether the siddha-pranali edition or otherwise?

The only real objection that I am trying to raise is that sannyasa and babaji-vesa has been given to many so-called devotees who later left the practice, the cult and the faith. Doesn't that somewhat shed a lot of dubious distinction on the guru who engages in such practices?

It is not the sannyasa or babaji-vesa that I am challenging here. It is the cheapening of the process and giving it to unfit persons that really seems to disqualify modern practice of it.

Modern day sannyasis give it out to so-called disciples they don't train or personally discipline. Should a sannyasi really be giving sannyasa and babaji-vesa out to Americans and Europeans who come to his institution with some money and who then go back to their lavish lifestyles in western countries and engage in all sorts of karma and vikarma? Shouldn't the sannyasi be convinced that the person is going to totally dedicate himself to the process before he just gives some Sanskrit name to any Tom, dick or Harry that bops into the ashram with some rupees to blow?

Unless you give the name, year and location of the incident right now, I'm going to start deleting posts like this at will. Then don't come complaining that the moderator deletes posts. Unnecessary and baseless provoking is not welcome here.

You sound like our young chap Audarya Lila here (bit ignorant of the person you speak to). Do you know Braja mohan (aka Adiyen) is a grey 50-year old?

Sure, I was at Radha-kunda in 1979. I met a guy there who was at one time an intiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada, but who left Prabhupada and took re-initiation from some babaji who gave him babaji intiation and siddha-pranali. He was a handsome young man in the prime of his life. Later on, back in Vrindavan I was told that the guy had a reputation for womanizing right there at the kunda.

I think he said his name was Purushottama das babaji.

Western or Indian? I'm sure our good audience here would recognize any such fellow. Advaitadas, I recall you mentioned there's been only one Western baba to begin with. What was the name he got from Prabhupad?

I wouldn't count much on the "insider information" of the iskcon folks in Vrindavan. After all, if their inside news would add up to much, the late Madrasi Baba would be a sahajiya and what not, which he obviously wasn't.

Now, I'm not saying there are no problems there. In every group and movement, there are the good, the bad and the ugly. That doesn't justify labeling groups as such.

Hmm. There were only two babajis ever, from western soil, in 1979 neither of them had taken bhekh yet. madhusudan das (nadia das in iskcon) took bhekh there in early 1980 and was following his vow until after he left india in 1983. The other babaji took bhekh in 1982 in vrindavan and never spent more than a week at Radhakund (that was with our Ramdas/Ananga, in December 1982). Both gentlemen kept their vows while living in the dhama. Now there was indeed a babaji from Iskcon named Purushottam das, but he lived at RK from 1985 to 1988, not in 1979, and yes, he was an Indian from Delhi. He used to be a disciple of Hansaduta in Iskcon Delhi. He was indeed not following any vow and was therefore expelled from the babaji clan sometime in 1988 or so.

Madhava said:



Well, you seem to keep referring to "the writings" of Srila Rupa Goswami, but would I be too unfair to mention something about the "precedent" or "example" shown by Rupa Goswami. I mean, how many disciples did he intiate into siddha-pranali? How about Vishvanatha Chakravarti, Sanatan Goswami, RAghunatha Das Goswami ? How many disciples did they initiate into siddha-pranali?
After all, we are not "Gopal guru Goswami-anugas" ! We are Rupanugas! We follow the way of Rupa Goswami not "Gopal Guru Goswami"!

To get a more functional perception of the Goswami doctrine, we must also examine their example as well as their writings. Did Rupa Goswami give siddha-pranali to neophyte devotees who had a little attraction for lila-katha?
If Rupa Goswami did not practice what he preached, then maybe he had a reason for that?

It is often touted that Bhaktivinode accepted siddha-pranali, though I am not sure who gave it to him unless it was Bipina Bihari Goswami.
However, how many devotees did Bhaktivinode give siddha-pranali to?

I am not just concerned with what Rupa Goswami wrote in his books as theoretical doctrine. I am also interested as to what he showed by example.
Name one disciple of Rupa Goswami that received siddha-pranali from him!

Since when did Gopalguru Goswami become the leader of the Rupanugas?

He was Indian as far as I could tell, though he was very light skinned for an Indian. I know I have my dates correct in 1979 or maybe 80. He told me directly that he had previosly taken initiation from Prabhupada but that he "left ISKCON" and took babaji at Radha-kunda.
When I met him, I was setting in a little shack at the kunda waiting for the rikshawalla to get his flat tire fixed. He came up and introduced himself and we talked for a few minutes. He at first thougt I was a sannyasi because I was wearing saffron dhoti. He seemed like a nice enough young man. I couldn't quite figure how a handsome young man like that was trying to be a babaji. I was telling myself "he is not going to make it". He was too clean cut and wearing nice cloth. He looked more like a playboy than a babaji and he had some nice hair. I was shaved clean.

Exactly, how do you propose that this verse inaugurates, illustrates or establishes any authenticity of the siddha-pranali proccess? This verse seems to be clearly referring to the stage of svarupa-siddhi where one has actually entered vraja-dhama in his siddha-deha to begin his nitya-seva following in the wake of the parshadas.

How can one follow in the wake of the vrajabasis if he is not in the association of the vrajabasis to feel their mood and imbibe their emotions?
A wake is a wave created when a vessel crosses a body of water. To follow in the wake of the residents of Vraja would seem to require that one actually be in the presence of them to "ride the waves" of their emotional conditions as they are sailing through the ocean of nectar on the boat of bhakti in the winds of prema?(my little analogy)

I just don't see how one can follow in the wake of the residents of Vraja until he actually enters Vraja in his siddha-deha for nitya-seva.

Are we supposed to think that this siddha-deha is some imagery that one creates in the mind?

Dear Rasesh,

It goes without saying how Srila Rupa Gosvami is respected as the senior model of seva which is why followers of his tradition are commonly referred to as 'Rupanugas.' I believe that this has something to do with him being the "first" to receive the mercy of Mahaprabhu. Anyway, Gopal Guru Gosvami was the disciple of Vakresvara Pandita. As you would know, Vakresvara Pandita was a direct associate of Mahaprabhu, and so was Gopal Guru Gosvami for that matter, as Mahaprabhu certainly blessed the little Gopal. That certainly gives him some authority.

Gopal Guru Gosvami is also sometimes credited with being one of the first to systematize the theology and practice of lila-smarana. He did this by composing an instruction manual for sadhakas, called a paddhati. His disciple, Dhyanacandra Gosvami, also wrote a paddhati in which I believe that he added details of Gaura-lila-smarana in addition to Krishna-smarana. Along with these two with the paddhati composed by Siddha Krsnadasa Babaji of Govardhana, these are collectively referred to as the paddhati-traya. It would also go without saying that both Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra Gosvamis initiated many sadhakas into the siddha-pranali practice. Indeed, Bhaktivinoda relates in his Jaiva-dharma that after receiving the details of their ekadasa-bhavas from Raghunatha das Babaji (?), Vijaya Kumara and Vrajanatha met Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra Gosvamis to gain further instruction. Of course Jaiva-dharma is a novel, but their authority is respected even in novels nonetheless.

By the way, I should mention something here that should have been understood already. "Siddha-pranali" is nothing like what you think it may be. The term refers to a guru-parampara in their siddha forms. What is your guru-parampara? And what is your guru-parampara in their siddha forms? That is siddha-pranali. Parampara and pranali both mean basically the same thing. The "siddha-pranali" that you keep referring to is actually called ekadasa-bhava. This ekadasa-bhava is the information that is given to the disciple by the guru as to the disciple's gopi name, form, service, and so on, eleven items in all that make up the model of your siddha-rupa. It's important to know our terms here, lest there be confusion in the discussion.


It was Rupa Gosvami himself who outlined the basics of "siddha-pranali" theology in seed form in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. Kindly consider this verse:

sevA sAdhaka rUpeNa siddha rUpeNa cAtra hi |
tad bhAva lipsunA kAryA vrajalokAnusArataH || (brs 1.2.295)

“One should serve both in his present sadhaka-body and in his siddha-form, following in the wake of the residents of Vraja, desiring to have feelings similar to theirs.”

So we can confidently say that Rupa Gosvami, himself writing about "siddha-pranali" and how we should should serve in the siddha-rupa, would naturally have practised it himself and given it to others. However, some of our learned members can comment more on this about paramparas descending directly from him, etc.


Bhaktivinoda certainly received it from Bipin Bihari Gosvami. He would most probably have given it to every disciple whom he proceeded to initiate. One example of this is how he gave it to his son Lalita Prasada Thakura, who in turn gave it to our Jagat. There is also a Sauri Prapannashrama that was founded by a certain Bhaktitirtha Thakura. He is also a Bhaktivinoda disciple who received the ekadasa-bhava and siddha-pranali from Bhaktivinoda.

Here we can again clarify our terms. Diksa means initiation, and the knowledge of siddha-pranali/ekadasa-bhava is given by the guru to the disciple either at the time of diksa or afterwards. It is the guru's prerogative to give it and it can also be matched by the disciple's ardent longing to receive it. There are several examples of disciple who have diksa but do not have the knowledge of siddha-pranali/ekadasa-bhava. It is the diksa that is the important thing. The "siddha-pranali" is a practice, not a requirement for anything.


He is not the leader of the Rupanugas as such, but he is indeed one of the first to systematize the theology and practice of it. This in itself is a most valuable contribution.

The answer is given in the preceding verse - kuryad vasam vraje sada. One must constantly live in Vraja.

'wake' is a translation of the word anusaratah, which means following. synopsis of Visvanatha Cakravarti's tika on this verse: "In the sadhaka deha one follows Rupa and Sanatan Gosvamis, in the mental service one conceives of one's siddha deha following Radha Lalita etc." (siddha rupena antascintitabhista tat sevopayogi dehena - The siddha rupa is mentally conceived within oneself)



tatra bhuta suddhir nijabhilasita bhagavat sevaupayika tat parsada deha bhavana paryantaiva tat sevaika purusarthibhih karya nijanukulyat (Jiva Goswami, Bhakti Sandarbha 286)

"Bhuta suddhi means that one meditates on one's own favorite spiritual body which is an associate of the Lord and which is fit for His service."

A C Swamiji translated this verse in a sequential way - first sadhaka deha, then siddha deha, but the words catra [ca = and and atra = here] clearly indicate that the two practises are simultaneous.

Madhava wrote this as support for the siddha-pranali process:



I sure don't see how you get siddha-pranali out of this. It clearly says that one meditates on the form of one of Krishna's associates in Vraja and desires to have that same perfection.
Internally thought doesn't mean siddha-pranali necessarily. It just means that one imagines himself as having a form like the particular associate of Krishna that one. He thinks about being like that. He aspires and hankers to be like that starts to think of himself as being like one of Krishna's associates.
He fancies himself as such in his mind and starts to conceive of himself as being like that.

Note here, Rasesh [and Audarya], that what you are saying here directly contradicts ACBS's theory in NOD that one should not imagine oneself to be in any relationship with Krishna.

Please read my previous post to understand the difference between "siddha-pranali" and "ekadasa-bhava." This verse shows how one should act on the path of raganuga-sadhana; that externally one should be chanting and hearing, etc., and internally one should meditate on performing his service to Radha-Krishna in Vrindavan. The ekadasa-bhava will be the active component in such internal service, not the "siddha-pranali" as such. As mentioned before, the siddha-pranali is really the guru-parampara in their siddha forms. I understand that before one begins his meditation, one should pay homage to the entire guru-parampara as it is because of their mercy that the sadhaka has received the knowledge in the first place as well as the fact that one may also enter lila proper by their mercy.


Not really, because Visvanatha Cakravarti clarifies the verse as follows:

"'With the sadhaka-form' means in the present body, 'with the siddha-form' means with one’s own desired, internally conceived body suitable for the direct service of Sri Krsna, 'desiring to attain their feelings' means to take shelter of one’s most cherished associate of Sri Krsna and one’s desired Sri Radha, the beloved of Sri Krsna, being anxiously desirous to attain the passionate feelings they have.

"'Service,' how is it done? It is described as being performed with either items collected mentally or items collected with the physical body. The nature of this service is described as 'following the people of Vraja.' Following the residents of Vraja means to serve according to the model of Sri Rupa Gosvami and other residents of Vraja in the sadhaka-form and to serve according to the model of Sri Rupa Manjari and other residents of Vraja in the siddha-form."

So, according to Visvanatha at least, the verse clearly refers to performing services "mentally" while in the stage of sadhaka.

By the way, may I ask when exactly does the "stage of svarupa-siddhi where one has actually entered vraja-dhama in his siddha-deha to begin his nitya-seva following in the wake of the parshadas"? Rasesh has asked a good question here in which I would like to know the answer. Is it at the stage of attaining prema, or before that?


Description of the moods and emotions of the Vrajavasis are contained in the scriptures relating to the same. Other than that, one is instructed by one's guru as to how to proceed in lila-smarana to attain the desired goal.


Yes. Consider what is written in Caitanya-caritamrta:

bAhya, antara, ihAra dui ta sAdhana |
bAhye sAdhaka-dehe kare zravaNa-kIrtana ||
mane nija-siddha-deha kariyA bhAvana |
rAtri-dine kare vraje kRSNera sevana || (CC Madhya 22.156-157)

"External and internal, these are indeed the two sadhanas. Externally, in the sadhaka-form, one engages in hearing and chanting, and in the mind, in one’s own siddha-form, day and night one thinks of and serves Sri Krishna in Vrindavana."

siddha-rUpeNa antaz-cintitAbhISTa-tat-sevopayogi-dehena ||

"In the siddha-form means in an internally thought, desired form suitable for His service." - Jiva Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti and Mukunda das Gosvami back this up.

sAdhane bhAvibe yAhA, siddha dehe pAbe tAhA |
rAga mArge ei sei upAya || (Prema-bhakti-candrika 57)

“Whatever you think of during your sadhana, you will attain in your siddha-body. Such is the means on the path of raga.”

sAdhane ye dhana cAi, siddha dehe tAhA pAi |
pakkApakka mAtra se vicAra || (ibid. 58)

“The treasure I covet during my sadhana, I will attain in my siddha-body. It is merely a matter of its being ripe or raw.”

As you would know, Prema-bhakti-candrika was written by none other than Srila Narottama das Thakura Mahasaya. All of these quotes and more are available at: http://www.raganuga.org/frame.php?raganuga=practice
In fact, one should start at http://www.raganuga.org to get a good understanding of raganuga-bhakti from the basics. Note here your point of the siddha-deha being created in the mind; the siddha-deha is not an imaginary body that one creates in the mind. It is the ekadasa-bhava, that was previously spoken of, which is the model for your siddha-rupa. This ekadasa-bhava is given by the guru at the time of diksa or afterwards. So it is not a "concoction" of any sort.

I notice that Rasesh has edited his post while I was replying to it. Still, I guess the points that I made are somewhat useful nevertheless.

Then you must not have read his Nectar of Instruction, because in that book, especially in the purports to text 8, he clearly issues these instructions.
Maybe it is not so explicit in the Nectar of Devotion, but in the NOI is is quite clear that Prabhupada also gave this raganuga-sadhana, though maybe more generically, without issuing specific names like the siddha-pranali process as we know it most commonly referred to.

He also says in the beggining of the book that it is the book for beginners in Krishna consciousness. Even in this book for beginners he is teaching raganuga-sadhana of contemplating oneself to be in the same mood as the vrajavasis and thinking of oneself as like one of Krishna's associates.

Prabhupada definitely taught raganuga-sadhana from the very beginning. He just didn't pass out gopi names to every tom, dick and harry that took initiation.

I have heard from some though, that our intitiated names are something like the siddha-pranali process of giving names. someone once told me that our siddha-deha nama was in a seed form within our diksha names.

I could be Ksama Manjari or Ksama sakha or something like that. I guess that is for me to know and you to find out.

Nitai told me about him, formerly a Gaudiya Math devotee, disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta. He was the one Prabhupada referred to when he said that he thought that Nitai had been corrupted by his godbrother.

I'm getting lazy. But, Dear madhavji, could you please present to us the first verse of Bhakti RasAmrita Sindhu and explain what this verse means as an introduction to the platform of uttama-bhakti and how it is that uttama-bhakti is what Rupa Goswami starts the book with? Why do you think uttama-bhakti is the subject of the first verse of BRS? And, do you think that maybe Rupa Goswami in any way connected uttama-bhakti with sadhana/sadhaka and adhikar?

then could you please expound to us what is the definition of sadhaka, what is the qualification to be a true sadhaka and does one need to be sadhaka to qualify for raganuga-sadhana?

please enlighten this morbid creature with your illustrious exposition!

these questions are burning my mind O youthful prince of raganuga-siddhanta!

Let's try to analyse Prabhupada's NOI:

"Living entities who are eager to return home to the transcendental kingdom of God, Goloka Vrndavana by means of attaining their spiritual bodies (siddha-deha) should live at Radha-kunda, take shelter of the confidential serving maids of Sri Radha ; and under their direction engage constantly in Her service. This is the most exalted method for those engaged in devotional service under the protection of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu." - http://nectarofinstruction.com/11

Yes, but did you consider the previous sentence?

"Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes in this connection that Sri Radha-kunda is the most select place for those interested in advancing their devotional service in the wake of the lady friends (sakhis) and confidential serving maids (manjaris) of Srimati Radharani."

This sounds to me that it refers to those who may have received diksa already, and should live at Radha-kunda with the purpose of advancing their devotional service. After all, if one has received the ekadasa-bhava then how can one not progress by being stimulated by the Radha-kunda environment? And by the way, how exactly is one supposed to serve under the direction of the maidservants if one cannot see them? Obviously some sort of perfection needs to be attained before one can see the manjaris and take instruction from them. Yes, even today there may be some advanced devotees living in Vraja who are able to see Radha and Krishna in Vraja. All glories to them!

"If, by great fortune, one gets an opportunity to come to Radha-kunda and bathe even once, he can develop his transcendental love for Krsna, exactly as the gopis did."

How exactly did the gopis develop their transcendental love? They are supposed to be nitya-siddhas, their bhava is completely fixed. They have no development to undergo, they simply participate within the lila. Unless of course, Prabhupada is referring to the sadhana-siddha gopis. Sadhana-siddha gopis certainly have progress to make in terms of attaining the feelings like sneha, mana, pranaya raga, anuraga and so on. The distinction between nitya-siddhas and sadhana-siddhas is not clear, however.

"If one is thus constantly engaged during his lifetime, after giving up the body he will return back to Godhead to serve Sri Radha in the same way as he contemplated during his life on the banks of Radha-kunda.. By serving Radha-kunda, one can get an opportunity to become an assistant of Srimati Radharani under the eternal guidance of the gopis."

Yes well, please note the words "in the same way as he contemplated during his life." This is clearly referring to sadhana and reflects the points that Madhava was making, as well as Narottama das Thakura. "Whatever one thinks of in his sadhana, he will achieve that." I don't really see any problem here. Prabhupada is clearly talking about raganuga-sadhana. However:


Yes, but how is anyone supposed to practise raganuga-sadhana without the ekadasa-bhava information? The ekadasa-bhava is needed as a model to facilitate one's own meditation while living on the banks of Radha-kunda, else how can one serve Radharani and Her manjaris? Speaking of which, did Prabhupada ever authorize anyone to stay permanently at Radha-kunda as he suggests in NOI?


An interesting idea, but "Dhira-Krishna manjari" (for example) may sound like a weird name once one attains svarupa-siddhi and starts associating with the gopis. They will say, "Huh? Your name is what?" The name must be female if one is to attain a female manjari form.


With all due respect, I don't think it's quite that simple. An interesting pivot of this discussion is the revelation of 'svarupa.' For some reason, followers of the Sarasvata-parivara think that their innate svarupas will be "revealed" when enough anarthas have been removed, etc. Please feel free to quote some references on this as I don't think I have any.

The difference with the view in the traditional parivaras is that the svarupa is attained. This should be obvious from the language of most of the quotes already posted. "Whatever one thinks in his sadhana, he will attain" and so on. In terms of diksa and raganuga-sadhana, this really means that you have to go to a specific guru to attain that rasa. That is why hearing of lila is very important as it will give rise to the resultant lobha. If hearing of Krishna's dealings with the sakhas cause lobha to attain the same arises within you, it means that you have a lobha to attain sakha-bhava and you should approach a guru in a sakha-bhava line. If hearing of Krishna's dealings with the gopis causes lobha to attain the same arises within you, it means that you have a lobha to attain madhurya-bhava and you should approach a guru in madhurya-bhava.

This seems the logical way, as attaining a goal usually requires good planning. And this planning is otherwise known as 'sadhana' by those who have tried to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master, inquiring submissively from him and serving him. It naturally follows that such a self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto such disciples because he has seen the truth.

Kshamabuddhi imagines that he is the only old person here. The only old Iskcon devotee, the only one who has followed Sridhar Maharaj. The only one who has been considering these issues for 30 years.

Well I guess he has to feel superior somehow, as he has failed to show that he knows much shastra, anything at all about Gaudiya Vaishnavism (go back to kindergarten on that one), he doesn't know the teachings of Sridhar Maharaj (I'll blow you out of the water on those, having studied them for 15 years - if years is what matters to you), or even does he really understand Prabhupad or his books (now that is just pathetic, considering he has dedicated his life to constructing his sense of superiority out of them).

Kshamabuddhi, I'm the same age as you, and I really pity you.
As I said already, you are embarrassing us older devotees, by displaying your incredible ignorance against all these rising young stars of the future here. Someone with dignity would just admit defeat.

Do you have any dignity?

Or like most of us aging boomers, are you going to go out 'raging against the dying of the light' making a fool of yourself in the process. So sad.

OK, you beat me to Radhakunda by 1 year.

I was there in 1980 with Harikesh, who gave a lecture to the devotees at the Sangha begining with 'Dharma-projita-kaitavo'tra...'

Who had the last laugh? Eh?

This must be a different person. The Purushottam I described here was a young man at the time, who was a Hamsaduta disciple, not older than 25 at the time.

If years matters. I still got you beat as I was one of the first devotees to leave ISKCON for Sridhar Maharaja back in 1980, so I guess I have your beat with my almost 23 years of studying Sridhar Maharaja.

Now, all of the sudden I am supposed to believe that Prabhupada and Saraswati Goswami didn't know waht they were doing and that the babajis of Radha-kunda have all the answers?

I never claimed to be an expert at what the babajis of Radha-kunda teach.
I don't see how I have been defeated here yet with the particular interpretation that the babajis have on certain writtings of the Goswamis.

I am still waiting to hear about any disciple that Rupa Goswami initiated into siddha-pranali.

Sounds like Adiyen has got a fairly large attitude problem which seems to go along with certain misconceptions that are popular in this forum.

Dear Rasesh,

please enlighten such mudha as I am, at what age did Sri Sukadeva attain perfection in all Vedas and fill his heart with Srimad Bhagavata?:-)

The first verse of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu reads as follows:

akhila-rasAmRta-mUrtiH
prasRmara-ruci-ruddha-tArakA-pAliH |
kalita-zyAmA-lalito
rAdhA-preyAn vidhur jayati || 1.1.1 ||

"The complete form of ambrosial rasa,
Whose streams of splendour subjugate Taraka and Pali,
Who impels Syamaa and Lalita,
Glory to this moon, the beloved of Radha!"

I don't suppose you refer to verse 12 instead, the classical definition of uttama-bhakti?



The first chapter of the purva-vibhaga discusses samanya-bhakti, or the characteristics of bhakti in general. The second chapter discusses sadhana-bhakti, the practice of bhakti. No, I can't see Rupa making a clear connection between the two in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. If he indeed does do so, perhaps you can cite the relevant verses so we can look up what's in the commentaries.



The definitions of a sadhaka-bhakta and a siddha-bhakta are given in the first chapter of the daksina-vibhaga.

tatra sAdhakAH –
utpanna-ratayaH samyaG nairvighnyam anupAgatAH |
kRSNa-sAkSAt-kRtau yogyAH sAdhakAH parikIrtitAH ||276||

“One in whose heart rati (bhAva) toward zrI KRSNa has already manifested, who has become qualified to perceive the direct manifestation of the Lord, but who has not yet obtained complete freedom from all obstacles, is called a sAdhaka-bhakta.”

This is a somewhat extraordinary definition of a sadhaka, given that previously the threefold division of bhakti into sadhana, bhava and prema was given. Here Rupa Gosvami seems to suggest that a sadhaka is someone in whom bhava has awakened. I take it that this verse describes the accomplished sadhaka who has reached the end of the path of sadhana and thus proven that he truly has been a sadhaka. Rupa cites Bhagavata 11.2.46 (the famous description of a madhyama-bhakta) as an example of a sadhaka, and then mentions that people like Bilvamangala (famous as a bhava-bhakta) are known as the sadhakas.

By the way, this is not particularly a description of a raganuga-sadhaka, it is a description of a sadhaka, and applies equally to vaidhi-sadhakas and raganuga-sadhakas.

Looking at the context of the verse, it seems as if Rupa divides those who have bhava into two categories, the sadhaka and the siddha. Here's what comes before the verse quoted above:

atha kRSNa-bhaktAH –
tad-bhAva-bhAvita-svAntAH kRSNa-bhaktA itIritAH ||273||
...
te sAdhakAz ca siddhAz ca dvi-vidhAH parikIrtitAH ||275||

"Those, whose hearts are filled with bhava, are called Krishna-bhaktas.

They are known to be of two kinds, the sadhaka and the siddha."

Thus it seems that this definition of a sadhaka defines a person who has attained bhava and aspires for prema, in contrast to a person who is practicing to attain bhava. Other than that, I can't think of a definition of a sadhaka at the moment. Obviously he who is engaged in sadhana (whether vaidhi or raganuga) is a sadhaka.

Perhaps someone would like to shed further light on this from the tikas on 2.1.276, if you have them at hand.

Well, the concern of Rupa Gosvami was not initiating disciples. As you know, at the time, the brahmin orthodoxy was prominent in the society, and in general the atmosphere was one of strict social rules. The desire of Mahaprabhu was not to unnecessarily shake the social structure of the society, as demonstrated by the incidents of His followers not entering the Jagannath Mandir in Puri. Since both Rupa and Sanatana, though born as brahmin, had been engaged in the service of a Muslim ruler, many considered that they had therefore lost their brahmin-caste. It is probably for this reason that ultimately the name of Gopal Bhatta Gosvami came to be known as the author of Hari-bhakti-vilasa, the book of various rules and regulations.

To keep up the image of the tradition, for the same reasons it was Gopal Bhatta Gosvami and Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami, both from renown South-Indian brahmin dynasties, who took up the task of initiating disciples in Vraja. I do not know much about the followers of Raghunatha Bhatta, but the followers of Gopal Bhatta are renown throughout the tradition, Srinivas Acarya not being the least of them. There are numerous branches of the Gaudiya tradition who trace both their guru-pranali and siddha-pranali back to Gopal Bhatta (Sri Guna Manjari), and some to him through Srinivas Acarya (Sri Mani Manjari).

Now that I come to think of it, I can't recall hearing of any other initiated disciple of Rupa's aside Jiva. I am not aware of any disciplic lineages descending from Jiva, though I've heard some claim to belong to a line descending from him.

As for Visvanatha, he enlists his siddha-pranali in his Sankalpa-kalpadruma.



Yes, and we follow Rupa Gosvami, not Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati! And not Bhaktivinod Thakur! And not Visvanath Cakravarti! I suppose we follow everyone who follows Rupa Gosvami. Gopal Guru has made a fine, systematic presentation of raganuga-sadhana based on the doctrines of Rupa. Your Bhaktivinod was very fond of his ideas, as you can read in the later chapters of Jaiva Dharma. So, let us follow Gopal Guru, too.



Are you suggesting that he wrote one thing and did another thing? Now, why would he have taken such a confusing course of action?

I'm still waiting for you to provide shastric evidence for the 14 strange points you've made in this thread. Though I responded to this point in the post above, it'd be desirable if you addressed the pending points before moving on to new topics. Otherwise, I may have to come up with a list of 24 pending points when we reach page 20 of this thread.

He told Richard Mende to go live there permanently to do bhajan rather than move into an ISKCON temple. Well, with all due respects to Richard, who is a long time friend of mine, he failed to take advantage of the avenue of initiation by a guru and the practice of smaranam. Eventually, he went back to America, although he managed to stay at Radhakund for many years (at least ten or fifteen - I don't know the exact number).

Richard claimed that Tinkuri Baba offered him initiation but he declined. Tinkuri Baba's disciples have the reverse story - Richard asked TK baba for diksa but he was turned down. He stayed at Radhakunda for 6 years, from 1973 to 1979. But I had no idea that ACBS had told him to go and live at Radhakund. He never told me that. Funny.....

First of all, the babajis at Radhakund do not have any monopoly on the teachings of rAgAnugA bhakti. Most Vaishnavas in India are householders (scholars included), after all. As far as this idea that people are coming up with their own 'interpretations' of Rupa Goswami, that is a nonsensical allegation, except perhaps in the case of GM and ISKCON members (and in their case it is more a case of not having direct access to the original texts on account of lack of Sanskrit knowledge). Explanations are not the same as interpretations. Distortions and filtering are the norm with so many 'purports' that some people rely upon for their 'version of the truth', what to speak of the many confusing contradictions that are ubiquitous in such writings.

The doctrines and practices that we are discussing can be traced back all way to Mahaprabhu's direct followers, and there is ample hard evidence of a historical nature to sustantiate the continuity involved. The schismatic factions (GM/ISKCON) are the ones that bear the burden of proof to demonstrate any continuity, which is going to be impossible for them, since there were so many breaks with tradition on their part. The best they can do is postulate that Bhaktisiddhanta was qualified as an acharya to reinvent the movement as he saw fit (the old time and circumstances argument), but that is going to require more than just the opinions of his followers to be persuasive, in the absence of any other evidence to present. To date they have not provided any proof of any kind, including quotes from Rupa, Jiva, Sanatana, Visvanatha, etc. to back up their position. As far as this whole idea of 'preaching according to time and circumstances', they have not show that the six Goswamis taught that principle anywhere. It sounds more like a license to print money than a genuine doctrine.

He was definitely there later than 1979, because he was still there in 1980, and if memory serves me, in 1983 as well. I first saw him back here in America in 1989. At that time I questioned him as to his reasons for not getting intiated by either Baba or any other qualified guru, and his reply was that he did not think it was a necessary step for him. So, perhaps he was not being entirely forthcoming with me.

I don't think he was there in 1983, which is when we saw each other at Radha Kund during Karttik, along with Radha Raman. You took a photo I believe on the roof of Tin Kori Prabhu's ashram. Still have that?

No he was long gone in 1983. When I first came to Radhakunda in January 1981 he was gone. I know him only because he managed to slip into India in Kartik of 1984, and I spoke with him at Manasa Pavan Ghat. Jagat, the Kartik of '82 was with Ramdas and Radharaman, the Kartik of '83 was with GPD and this wretch here. Ramdas, there is no contradiction between what I said and Richard told you. He told me that TKB offered him diksa but he showed no interest.

It's nice how you like to try and tie me up in an elaboration on those so-called 14 points you have mentioned and seemingly thereby avoid the all the other erroneous accuations that are being made, like the claim that there can be no raganuga-bhakti without siddha-pranali. This is indeed a very preposterous claim which I guess you want to prevent me from defeating by sidetracking me on these so-called 14 points, most of which I have already supported with some shastric references already.
Most all those 14 points have already been supported with shastric principles that I have presented.

I think the effort to bind my hands in a technical exposition on those 14 points is a nice smokescreen to keep my from dealing with the accusations that have been thrown at me since then.

In the whole of the Vaishnava body of texts there are a couple of verses out of thousands and thousands of verses that deal with your so-called siddha-pranali principles, yet you want to make it out as if the whole of the Vaishnava doctrine should be reduced down to these three of four verses that describe (not necessarily prescribe) this particular aspect of raganuga bhakti. I think it is quite amusing how your concept of being a Rupanuga is limited to the principles of siddha-pranali and how you think that such a process is all that Rupa Goswami was about.

I have never argued about the actual process of smaranam that your camp calls "siddha-pranali" as I learned about that from reading the Jaiva Dharma some 23 years ago. Do you think that this form of smaranam is something that none of the disciples of Prabhupada have ever heard about? Do you think that we are all just ignorant blind followers of Prabhupada without any knowledge that this form of smaranam was inculcated in the writtings of Rupa Goswami? Do you think that you are telling us about something we didn't know about before you were even born?

Well, I have news for you. Most all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada know well about this form of smaranam and siddha-deha practice. The difference is, we also know that it is not mandatory and exclusively the only form of raganuga sadhana known to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

I guess your idea is that following the teachings of Rupa Goswami can be reduced down to siddha-pranali bhajan? Do you really think that siddha-pranali bhajan is all that Rupa Goswami was trying to teach? In all of the Bhakti Rasmrita Sindhu there are a couple of verses that deal with this concept of smaranam, yet you want us to think that these couple of verses is what the whole book should be reduced down to?

Are we supposed to believe that Rupa Goswami advocated the bequeathing of gopi names on every person initatiated into hari-nama bhajan?

I think it is very conveniant that nobody from your camp has presented a translation of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu that supports your interpretation of raganuga bhakti. We hear all these claims that it is there in the original text, yet nobody from your camp has presented the a translation in total with a complete elaboration and exposition on the siddha-pranali version of the book.

I guess it is very conveniant to make all these claims that Prabhuapda misinterpreted the book and concocted his own translation while no alternative translation has neen presented by your camp.

I guess the version of your camp is that learning Sanskrit makes a devotee superior in faith and devotion? I guess you are saying that sraddha and ruci are calculated in terms of Sanskrit learning?



How very conveneniant that the only book you like to argue about and require Sanskrit verses for is the one book that is not available in a word for word translation. How very conveniant that you want to reduce the whole of Gaudiya Vaishnavism down to the practice of siddha-pranali as the only measure of bhakti. I don't think that Rupa Goswami reduced Krishna bhakti down to the siddha-pranali doctrine as the measure of a devotee. I think his concept of a devotee was not limited to siddha-pranali as the measure of devotion.

I also don't think that the practice of siddha-pranali defines one devotee as being more advanced in gopi-bhava than a devotee who does not practice siddha-pranali.

Are you telling me that until and unless one gets siddha-pranali that he cannot possess gopi-bhava? Are you saying that devotees of Sri Caitanya who have not received siddha-pranali have no disposition towards favoring madhurya-rasa?

I guess you will prefer to avoid answering this with your diversion back to these so-called 14 points that you think are so-important. I have already supported most of those points with shastric evidence.

I did not come in here to discredit the siddha-pranali process as you call it. I have known about that principle since before you were born. The difference is, I can see the value and virtue of the Saraswata sampradaya and don't use two or three verses out of Bhakti Rasmrita Sindhu to discredit and disavow the utility of the Saraswata sampradaya.

I don't judge devotees and their internal aspirations by some measure of asta-kalika-lila smaranam, as they are busy delivering the world from Godlessness and materialism.

In the whole of the Chaitanya Caritamrita do we find a big issue made out of asta-kaliya-lila smaranam? Is hearing and chanting about the pastimes of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu going to be undermined by some mechanical smarana sadhana process?

Is the yuga-dharma going to now be defined as asta-kaliya-lila smaranam?

What ever happened to "harer nama harer nama, harer nama eva kevalam"?

There is no other way than hari-nama Sankirtan. Asta-kaliya-lila smaranam is a sadhana. No devotee is every going to become perfect through sadhana. It is the mercy of a pure devotee that makes one perfect, not the mechanical process of meditating on Krishna's pastimes.

One get's gopi-bhava through kripa-siddha, not sadhana.

Mercy is much more desirable than sadhana. If one can please the pure devotee, his blessings can take one far beyond anything that any form of sadhana can take him. This is the real teachings of Rupa Goswami. Not some mechanical sadhana that one does as a routine.

It's easy to give somebody a gopi name. It is not so easy to give him gopi-bhava.

"
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.
"
Dear friends,
why is nothing done about the postings of Rasesh?
Dear Madhava , you wrote "abstain from commenting on anything else".
he´s ranting on, now proclaiming that he answered all your points and now accuses you of keeping his hands tied blablabla...

hmmm, he´s not obstaining.
only shooting hot smoke.

Tarunji

Radhe!

i have a better idea:

lets just bow down our head to Sri Rasesh, the greatest scholar on this planet.
he knows everything.
free from faults, always blissful.

Dandavat pranams.

Tarunji

Dont deprive us, Tarun. We are having the fun of our lives!

Radhe!

oh, alright!

good point of view.
maybe i should also join the party.

actually, he is funny, isnt he?

i guess this German -Nazi-Macho-grizzly takes Swami Rasesh too serious.

ok, i will join your party.

hmm, i will get a nice cup of green tea to celebrate.

Radhe Syam!

Tarunji
getting AT EASE!

[quote=Rasesh,Nov 15 2003, 08:11 PM]It's nice how you like to try and tie me up in an elaboration on those so-called 14 points you have mentioned and seemingly thereby avoid the all the other erroneous accuations that are being made, like the claim that there can be no raganuga-bhakti without siddha-pranali. This is indeed a very preposterous claim which I guess you want to prevent me from defeating by sidetracking me on these so-called 14 points, most of which I have already supported with some shastric references already.[/quote]
Hey, I am side-tracking you by insisting that you prove your points with which you tried to prove that siddha-pranali was not the way of choice, and instead preaching bhava-bhakti without sadhana was better? Well, that's not exactly side-tracking there!


[quote]Most all those 14 points have already been supported with shastric principles that I have presented.[/quote]
Thsu far you've quoted one verse, which you misinterpreted. I'd like to see the rest.


[quote]I think the effort to bind my hands in a technical exposition on those 14 points is a nice smokescreen to keep my from dealing with the accusations that have been thrown at me since then. [/quote]
Did I not tell you to respond to those 14 before proceeding further? Yes I did, but you didn't much care for the tip. It is pointless if you just keep proceeding to present further ideas without proving the earlier you throw in.


[quote]In the whole of the Vaishnava body of texts there are a couple of verses out of thousands and thousands of verses that deal with your so-called siddha-pranali principles, yet you want to make it out as if the whole of the Vaishnava doctrine should be reduced down to these three of four verses that describe (not necessarily prescribe) this particular aspect of raganuga bhakti.[/quote]
Well, how many verses do you need? Why don't you show me how many verses in the writings of Rupa Gosvami and Jiva Gosvami encourage the congregational chanting of Hare Krishna mantra? Can you show me one even?

It's not that one has to repeat the point all over the place. In one place Rupa Gosvami wrote about the principle of raganuga-sadhana, and there he told us what it includes, and that's it. Anyway, I suppose mentioning it all over the place would have been a good idea after all, to help some folks pay a bit more attention to it.



[quote]I think it is quite amusing how your concept of being a Rupanuga is limited to the principles of siddha-pranali and how you think that such a process is all that Rupa Goswami was about.[/quote]
Well, he was talking about developing our eternal identity as a servant of Radha and Krishna, was it not? If you hear of it in detail from your guru, that's your siddha-pranali right there.

What is this "process of siddha-pranali" you talk about anyway? What do you think is included in such a "process"? You speak of it as if it was some sort of very elaborate issue, some entirely separate practice of some sort.



[quote]I have never argued about the actual process of smaranam that your camp calls "siddha-pranali" as I learned about that from reading the Jaiva Dharma some 23 years ago. Do you think that this form of smaranam is something that none of the disciples of Prabhupada have ever heard about? Do you think that we are all just ignorant blind followers of Prabhupada without any knowledge that this form of smaranam was inculcated in the writtings of Rupa Goswami? Do you think that you are telling us about something we didn't know about before you were even born?[/quote]
No, did I ever claim so? I am just reminding you that you need to put in practice what you knew even before I was born. Remember, this is not a path of armchair philosophers. You cannot attain rasa merely by theorizing of it!


[quote]Well, I have news for you. Most all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada know well about this form of smaranam and siddha-deha practice. The difference is, we also know that it is not mandatory and exclusively the only form of raganuga sadhana known to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.[/quote]
Well, I'm glad you know it is not mandatory. Folks in ISKCON know so many things, but that doesn't prove they are right. The jivas fall down from the sky, and what not.


[quote]I guess your idea is that following the teachings of Rupa Goswami can be reduced down to siddha-pranali bhajan? Do you really think that siddha-pranali bhajan is all that Rupa Goswami was trying to teach? In all of the Bhakti Rasmrita Sindhu there are a couple of verses that deal with this concept of smaranam, yet you want us to think that these couple of verses is what the whole book should be reduced down to?[/quote]
It's obvious you have no idea of what's in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. Let me give you an overview.

Purva-vibhaga -- The divisions of bhakti :: 1. Samanya-bhakti -- The general principles of bhakti. 2. Sadhana-bhakti -- the various aspects of bhakti-sadhana; verses 270 onwards, particularly raganuga-bhakti, including the injunction to serve in siddha-deha. 3. Bhava-bhakti. 4. Prema-bhakti.

Daksina-vibhaga -- The general principles of bhakti-rasa :: 1. Vibhava -- Stimuli. 2. Anubhava -- Subsequent emotions. 3. Sattvika -- Ecstatic manifestations. 4. Vyabhicari -- Surging emotions. 5. Sthayi-bhava -- Foundational emotions.

Pascima-vibhaga -- The primary bhakti-rasa :: 1. Santa-bhakti-rasa -- The tranquil rasa. 2. Priti-bhakti-rasa -- The rasa of servitude. 3. Preyo-bhakti-rasa -- The fraternal rasa. 4. Vatsala-bhakti-rasa -- The parental rasa. 5. Madhura-bhakti-rasa -- The amorous rasa.

Uttara-vibhaga -- The secondary bhakti-rasa :: 1. Hasya-bhakti-rasa -- The rasa of amusement. 2. Adbhuta-bhakti-rasa -- The rasa of astonishment. 3. Vira-bhakti-rasa -- The heroic rasa. 4. Karuna-bhakti-rasa -- The rasa of compassion. 5. Raudra-bhakti-rasa -- The rasa of anger. 6. Bhayanaka-bhakti-rasa -- The rasa of fear. 7. Vibhatsa-bhakti-rasa -- The rasa of disgust. 8. Rasanam maitri-vara-sthiti -- The compatibility and incompatibility of rasas. 9. Rasabhasa -- The semblances of rasa.

First Rupa Gosvami gives you an overview of bhakti (1.1), then he explains the practice along with siddha-rupa seva (1.2), then he tells you of bhava and prema you will attain, and the rest of the book is dedicated to describing the dynamics of the inner world you will come to explore in siddha-deha.



[quote]Are we supposed to believe that Rupa Goswami advocated the bequeathing of gopi names on every person initatiated into hari-nama bhajan?[/quote]
Whoever advocates such a thing, I do not know.


[quote]I think it is very conveniant that nobody from your camp has presented a translation of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu that supports your interpretation of raganuga bhakti. We hear all these claims that it is there in the original text, yet nobody from your camp has presented the a translation in total with a complete elaboration and exposition on the siddha-pranali version of the book.[/quote]
Well, it is very convenient that Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu is quite a voluminous title, and would take quite a bit of time to translate. There's a fine edition by D. Haberman, an accurate translation. We don't need to skew interpretative meanings out of the verses, the direct meanings anyone can derive from them are well sufficient.


[quote]I guess it is very conveniant to make all these claims that Prabhuapda misinterpreted the book and concocted his own translation while no alternative translation has neen presented by your camp.[/quote]
Prabhupada never presented a translation. He presented a summary study.


[quote]I guess the version of your camp is that learning Sanskrit makes a devotee superior in faith and devotion? I guess you are saying that sraddha and ruci are calculated in terms of Sanskrit learning?[/quote]
I hope you are not suffering of an inferiority complex on account of your inadequate Sanskrit skills. Knowing Sanskrit doesn't make us more devoted, but it admittedly does give us an edge in philosophical discussions. Wouldn't you agree?


[quote]How very conveneniant that the only book you like to argue about and require Sanskrit verses for is the one book that is not available in a word for word translation.[/quote]
How very convenient that none of your ISKCON pandits produced one despite their vast resources.

We never really had an acute need for producing word-for-word translations since we can cope with the original quite well, but now that you bring up the issue, perhaps we should start working on one to help you get an idea of what's in that book, too. Thanks for the tip.

In fact, let me promise you something: In the spring time I'll visit Vraja, and I'll grab along a stack of manuscripts, and after I return (sometime in May), I'll start nibbling in the text bit by bit at Open Source Scriptures for you.


[quote]How very conveniant that you want to reduce the whole of Gaudiya Vaishnavism down to the practice of siddha-pranali as the only measure of bhakti. I don't think that Rupa Goswami reduced Krishna bhakti down to the siddha-pranali doctrine as the measure of a devotee. I think his concept of a devotee was not limited to siddha-pranali as the measure of devotion.[/quote]
And who ever said that siddha-pranali is a measure of devotion?


[quote]I also don't think that the practice of siddha-pranali defines one devotee as being more advanced in gopi-bhava than a devotee who does not practice siddha-pranali.[/quote]
Let me break the news: Siddha-pranali is really not something you practice in the sense of doing three circles with the incense and dropping a bit of water over your head. It is information, information to give a basis to your practice, just like you get information about the form and qualities of Radha and Krishna. Entire books, such as Radha-Krishna Ganoddesa-dipika, have been written for this sole purpose -- to give you a detailed conception of the realm you will serve in in your siddha-deha. Obviously Rupa Gosvami couldn't write down the names and qualities of every single individual to join our sampradaya, and therefore we hear of the specifics of our own disciplic line from our gurus.



[quote]Are you telling me that until and unless one gets siddha-pranali that he cannot possess gopi-bhava? Are you saying that devotees of Sri Caitanya who have not received siddha-pranali have no disposition towards favoring madhurya-rasa?[/quote]
They may have disposition. However, they'll be a bit stuck in their inner seva if they have no clue who they are or who their guru is, what their service is and so forth. You can't just make it up as you move along.


[quote]I guess you will prefer to avoid answering this with your diversion back to these so-called 14 points that you think are so-important. I have already supported most of those points with shastric evidence.[/quote]
As I said, thus far you've quoted one verse which you completely misinterpreted. Now I've responded to each paragraph in your good post, perhaps it's about time you got back to those 14 pending strange points of yours.


[quote]In the whole of the Chaitanya Caritamrita do we find a big issue made out of asta-kaliya-lila smaranam? Is hearing and chanting about the pastimes of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu going to be undermined by some mechanical smarana sadhana process?[/quote]
Well, Krishnadas Kaviraj does describe Mahaprabhu prescribing this practice of serving in siddha-deha in Vraja to Raghunath Das Gosvami:

amAnI mAnada haJA kRSNa-nAma sadA labe |
vraje rAdhA-kRSNa-sevA mAnase karibe || CC 3.6.237 ||

"Do not expect any respect from others and offer all respect to them, always taking the name of Krishna and in your mind serving Radha and Krishna in Vraja."

He also taught the same to Sanatana:

mane nija-siddha-deha kariyA bhAvana |
rAtri-dine kare vraje kRSNera sevana || CC 2.22.157)

"in the mind, meditate on your very own siddha-deha and serve Radha and Krishna in Vraja day and night."

To further elaborate on this, based on Rupa Gosvami's Smarana Mangala Stotram, Kaviraj Gosvami wrote the entire Govinda Lilamritam for all the followers of Rupa Gosvami who are eager to immerse themselves in the eight-fold daily service of Radha and Krishna. Visvanatha later on elaborated on this in his Krishna Bhavanamritam. This is indeed the best method of association with Krishna recommended by great devotees:

This is called lila-smarana, and it is the process of association with Krishna most recommended by great devotees; even Lord Caitanya, when He was at Puri, enjoyed lila-smarana association with Krishna. Those in the most exalted position of devotional service and ecstasy can live with Krishna always by remembering His pastimes. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has given us a transcendental literary work entitled Krishna-bhavanamrta, which is full with Krishna’s pastimes. Exalted devotees can remain absorbed in Krishna-thought by reading such books.

(Krishna-book, chapter 46: Uddhava Visits Vrndavana)


[quote]Is the yuga-dharma going to now be defined as asta-kaliya-lila smaranam?

What ever happened to "harer nama harer nama, harer nama eva kevalam"?

There is no other way than hari-nama Sankirtan. Asta-kaliya-lila smaranam is a sadhana. No devotee is every going to become perfect through sadhana. It is the mercy of a pure devotee that makes one perfect, not the mechanical process of meditating on Krishna's pastimes.[/quote]
Yes, and it is also not the mechanical chanting of the holy names, but the mercy of a pure devotee that makes you perfect. And as the mercy begins to flow through the channel of Bhagavat-bhaktas, the relish of nama-kirtanam and lila-smaranam increases evermore.


[quote]One get's gopi-bhava through kripa-siddha, not sadhana.[/quote]
Prove this by quoting from the shastra.


[quote]Mercy is much more desirable than sadhana. If one can please the pure devotee, his blessings can take one far beyond anything that any form of sadhana can take him.  This is the real teachings of Rupa Goswami. Not some mechanical sadhana that one does as a routine.[/quote]
The last time I checked, "vishrambhena guror seva" was one of the first aspects of sadhana mentioned by Rupa Gosvami in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu:

guru-pAdAzrayas tasmAt kRSNa-dIkSAdi-zikSaNam |
vizrambheNa guroH sevA sAdhu-vartmAnuvartanam || (brs 1.2.74)

“(1) Taking shelter of the feet of a guru, (2) Accepting initiation in Krishna-mantra and subsequent instructions, (3) Serving the guru with confidence, and (4) Following the path traversed by the saints.”

Why are you so eager to do away with sadhana and hope for kripa? Would it not be better to engage in sadhana while longing for kripa? The kripa of sadhana is a great kripa indeed, for through that kripa most people come to attain Bhagavan.


[quote]It's easy to give somebody a gopi name. It is not so easy to give him gopi-bhava.[/quote]
It's easy to give somebody Krishna-nama. It is not so easy to give him Krishna-prema.

= = =

Wow. My apologies for the volume of this post. I suppose I got carried away by Ksama's fascinating arguments.

I suppose the administrators haven't been paying attention to this thread. I'll have to send them a note, and perhaps they'll look into this on Monday.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying this thread.

Sparky, please don't go!

Radhe!

i was just dressing myself up as a girl to go into the forest when i saw your post, Madhavaji.

i was innerly near to tears caused by laughing my false long girl-hair off ( i had to laugh within myself, since i´m at my sisters house and the kiddos sleep already).

EXCELLENT WORK!

i feel blessed to be allowed to learn from your cool answers.

right, Habermans book is very accurate. i have the version of Bon Maharaja as a comparison, which is OK too.

Tarunji
starting to enjoy too

Then the real question arises as to the qualification of one who gives siddha-deha.
If the person is not siddha himself, then his siddha-pranali is nothing more than imitation.

If some claims to be on the level of Gopal guru Goswami and the parshadas of Mahaprabhu, I think I would just try to stay far away from them.
Imitating the nitya-siddhas is the real issue we are talking about. It is not siddha-deha that is in question. It is the imitating of siddhas that is the real issue.

A sadhaka guru cannot give real siddha-deha. All he can give is an imitation.
This is the problem we have with the current situation in the world.

It is interesting to observe how the "real question" you perceive seems to be in a constant state of flux. So, all these 16 pages you have been pursuing something which is not the real question after all?

You say that the problem is that people who are not siddha are giving siddha-pranali. May I ask, how many gurus have you met who are giving siddha-pranali, and by which means have you verified their devotional status, whether they are siddha or not?

= = =

When we speak of guru-tattva, there is no question of sadhaka or siddha. Guru is guru, guru is a manifestation of Bhagavan's mercy embodied before us in the form of a bhagavat-bhakta. Certainly you must be aware of the theology of samasti-guru and vyasti-guru. Whatever is revealed through the guru is coming from Krishna. Of course this won't apply to imposters who are not properly engaged in bhakti to begin with, but it certainly applies to those who are firmly engaged in devotional thoughts and activities.

At any rate, why do you think that Krishna cannot reveal anything through a person who is a sadhaka? He says in the Gita, after all, dadAmi buddhi-yogam taM yena mAm upayAnti te, that He bestows from within the intelligence through which one can come to him. He does not say that he bestows inner insight only for those who have already reached Him, like the siddha-bhaktas.

Bears repeating:

When we speak of guru-tattva, there is no question of sadhaka or siddha. Guru is guru, guru is a manifestation of Bhagavan's mercy embodied before us in the form of a bhagavat-bhakta. Certainly you must be aware of the theology of samasti-guru and vyasti-guru. Whatever is revealed through the guru is coming from Krishna. Of course this won't apply to imposters who are not properly engaged in bhakti to begin with, but it certainly applies to those who are firmly engaged in devotional thoughts and activities.

then you must have some precedent from shastra to establish that sadhakas have the capacity and authority to bestow siddha-deha on another sadhaka?

Does Krishna (or Radharani) really give sadhakas the authority to bestow siddha-deha?
Please show me in shastra where it says that sadhakas have the power to bestow siddha-deha.

Please show me any example in shastra of non-siddhas giving siddha-deha to disciples. Please show me in shastra where any non-siddha was ever a diksha guru. I am not talking about the sadhaka gurus of the last century. Please show me in shastra where Rupa Goswami authorized sadhakas to be guru and give siddha-deha to their followers?


Even if there is maybe one siddha-guru living at Radha-kunda today, his lineage is destined to come to an end soon, after he is gone and there are no more siddhas around to give siddha-pranali. Then raganuga bhakti is dead and gone forever. That is unless a handful of neophytes intend to carry on the siddha-pranali tradition.

No one "bestows a siddha deha." One bestows a sadhana.

I guess this only applies to the siddha-pranali gurus and the bhagavat gurus aren't included in this. I guess when a guru doesn't promote siddha-pranali that he is disqualified as guru-tattva and cannot bestow bhakti upon anyone?

I guess if a guru finds that the siddha-pranali tradition is being faked and abused and moves away from the practice to establish a precedent, he is not guru-tattva being inspired by Krishna to do so for good reason?

If I start giving examples of people who were not siddha, you will start screaming "offence". This "siddha" business is a subjective thing, just like the topic of guru-tattva. That much you should have learned from Sridhar Maharaja.



So, you're proposing that there can be no more siddhas ever, and no disciple of any babaji can be siddha, or even advanced sadhaka, but they are all neophytes? Well, that's not very generous of you. How do you think the method survived over the centuries, then? Or is the present generation somehow radically different?

Now, that's an interesting division. Siddha-pranali gurus and bhagavat gurus. From which tree did you pluck these definitions from?

What about the name, ornaments and vesha given as siddha-pranali. Is that a "sadhana". Is it just an imagined name and form that one uses till he realized his real name and form?

I thought the siddha-deha one get's as siddha-pranali is supposed to be the true name and eternal features of the devotee. Are you saying that the name and form given at siddha-pranali (ekadasa bhava) is not the eternal name and form of the devotee - just something to practice with until the real thing comes along?

Page 6: Hello, page 17.
Page 17: Well hello page 6, what's up?
Page 6: I've been waiting for Ksamabuddhi to clarify some of the more funky premises he has presented for his ideas, could you tell him to get back to me at his early convenience?
Page 17: Sure, hold on.
Page 6: Thank you very much!
Page 17: My pleasure.

Of course it's the true eternal name, characteristics and so forth of the devotee. They form the basis of your sadhana and your specific aspirations for service, just as hearing of the qualities of Krishna forms the basis of your longing for him, qualities which you will one day come to realize. Hearing of them and meditating on them is sadhana. The guru bestows this sadhana to the disciple to help him attain the desired siddhi.

So, now we are learning that the siddha-pranali tradition is also licensing siddha-pranali to sadhakas who aren't even liberated souls.

What next? Riskshawallas giving siddha-pranli?

Actually, the only person I've heard proposing that the siddha-characteristics the disciple hears of is a sort of working model, which one can adjust later on to match his preference, is Bhaktivinod, as related in the 15th chapter of his Harinam Cintamani.

What if I came to my babaji and told him that I wanted to be a gopi and he gave me a name and some clothes, then I came back next week and said I wanted to be a cowboy or a bird or a dolphin in the Yamuna?

After all, maybe being a dolphin in the Yamuna would be better than all that emotional tear-jerking and whining that comes along with being a gopi?

Can one change his mind or maye change forms for a little change of pace?
Can one have the form of a gopi and the form of dolphin at the same time.
I bet there are some really cool things to explore in the Yamuna of Vrajadham.

How could a sadhaka guru bestow anything but these kinds of instruments to sadhana?

Drive-and-go siddha-pranali, now that'd be something.

The point you're missing is that for the disciple, the guru is not an ordinary human being, he is a manifestation of Bhagavan, and therefore there is no question of siddha or non-siddha. There are always people who will have varying perspectives of a devotee engaged in bhajan, some think of him as siddha and some don't. Who's to decide what he is? It is the faith of the disciple which determines it.

If the disciple considers the guru an ordinary mortal, not the embodiment of Bhagavan's grace for him, then certainly he will receive the same he would receive from an ordinary mortal being, but if the disciple understands the guru to be a manifestation of Bhagavan's grace for him, then he will interact with the kripa-svarupa of Bhagavan and receive everything he needs.

This is the idea of samasti-guru and vyasti-guru, it is not merely the individual qualification of the bhakta acting as guru that matters, the interaction of the faith of the disciple and the localized mercy of Bhagavan play an essential role in the dynamics of guru-tattva.

A sadhaka-guru bestows unto you narrations of Krishna. Are they descriptions of reality, or mere "instruments of sadhana"?

So, do you agree, after all, that according to Bhaktivinod, one can just get a working model of a siddha deha from the guru, which can be changed if necessary?

Probably your babaji wouldn't waste the time of the day on you, if that was your inner state. You don't get siddha-pranali just like that.

Whew! Thanks for finally showing me that you have some major misconceptions about guru-tattva. I was starting to think that you were infallible................like some kind of Superman or Wonderboy!

Now I see what is at the bottom of your siddha-pranali structure. I see the foundation of the actual model apart from the shastric theories.

I like you more now that i know you are wrong. When I thought you were right, I was really envious of you.

Thanks for relieving my stress. I didn't think I was ever going to win this argument, but you finally defeated yourself. I guess you are so smart that the only person than can defeat you is yourself.

I hope you can someday come to appreciate the value of a siddha-guru and his authorized system of Krishna conciousness.

Well, that's a fancy statement you're making there, but you ought to prove it if you wanted to be taken seriously. You could even just state which points exactly you consider flawed. From the shastra, you know.

You could look this up in Bhakti-sandarbha for starters. Or even skim through Sridhar Maharaja's Sri Guru and His Grace. You can't use that for proving your views, but just for your own insight.

Say, even if I was wrong on one point, you'd hardly "win an argument" with those 14 something, or probably thirty something by now if I bothered to put them together, pending confused points.

Sorry, Madhavaji, I shouldn't have been so arrogant.
You are a very bright young man. I am very impressed with you.
I think you are probably somebody very exceptional. You must be taking up in this life where you left off in your last life, struggling for perfection through sadhana.

Myself, mercy is my only hope. I hope that Krishna will remember all the service I tried to do for his movement and maybe have a little mercy on me.

You a very impressive Madhava. However, I think that there is a difference between book knowledge and actual realization of the essence of devotional service.

I think that Saraswati Goswami felt the need for Gaudiya Vaishnavism to be streamlined into a world religion instead of keeping all the baggage that was keeping it as a HIndu cult of spiritual transvestites.

Your little babaji cult of old men telling other old men that they were actually little girls in heaven, was not a forumula for making Krishna consciousness adaptable to a predominantly Judeo-christian world outside of India.
In the process of making Krishna conciousness and Sankirtan a world religion, the practice of telling everybody that they were little girls in heaven had to be scrapped.

I prefer the streamlined version myself, though that does not say anything about my internal aspirations. I think the whole world should be allowed to embrace Sankirtan without having to think that they are going to be turned into little girlfriends of Krishna. I think the Nectar of Devotion also deals with other relationships with Krishna besides erotic adolescent sexuality.

Your babaji version of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is standing as the critic and the naysayer of the Sankirtan movement, even as you try to present is as "The RAganuga-sadhana MOvement of Erotic adolescent Sexual intercourse with God"

I really think you might want to be a little careful in criticizing and condemning a movement that was directly and explicity inaugurated by Lord Caitanya. It might be hazardous to your spiritual health.

Yes. Just as the Holy Name we chant cannot be perceived by the material senses, but is manifest on the tongue, etc., of someone who desires to serve it, similarly with the siddha-deha.

We just like being little girls in heaven, and there's no stopping us, and if we gather around others who like to be little girls in heaven too, then all the better.

Obviously, when we meet those who can't quite grasp the idea of being a little girl in heaven, we cheat them into chanting the holy names and studying the theology, and we won't tell them a word about our plan for actually transforming them into little girls in heaven in the end.

So please, you go on preaching in your own way, and if by chance you meet someone who'd like to be a little girl in heaven, send him to our direction and we'll help him out.

I really like the sound of it, little girls in heaven.

"So what's the point of this Hare Krishna thing, then?"
"Everybody should be a little girl in heaven, that's what we're in for."

"Four kinds of devotees are the receptacles of the four kinds of mellows in love of God, namely servitude, friendship, parental affection and conjugal love. Each kind of devotee feels that his sentiment is the most excellent, and thus in that mood he tastes great happiness with Lord Krsna. But if we compare the sentiments in an impartial mood, we find that the conjugal sentiment is superior to all in sweetness. 'Increasing love is experienced in various tastes, one above another. But that love which has the highest taste in the gradual succession of desire manifests itself in the form of conjugal love.' Therefore I call it madhura-rasa. It has two further divisions, namely wedded and unwedded love. There is a great increase of mellow in the unwedded conjugal mood. Such love is found nowhere but in Vraja. This mood is unbounded in the damsels of Vraja, but among them it finds its perfection in Sri Radha." - CC Adi 4.42-48

And this is from Prabhupada's edition of CC, by the way.

Dear Rasesh,

judging from Madhava's language, I am guessing that he is thinking of the article of Shukavak das that I described earlier in this thread. Did you read it?
It is a nice article that describes in reasonable detail the type of sadhana that Bhaktivinoda himself practised, as well as what Bhaktivinoda had to say about vaidhi and raganuga-bhakti, ekadasa-bhava, siddha-pranali, asta-kaliya-lila smaranam and so on. It is a good article that will introduce you to the basics of raganuga-sadhana, albeit from Bhaktivinoda's perspective. If you clearly understand that article, you'll be able to clearly understand what has been said all along in this thread and a couple of others too, as well as understanding a little further.

Madhava, when you grow up and mature a little someday, you might come to appreciate Prabhupada's way of recruiting little girls in heaven. He doesn't tell them them that till they are ready for it.

In modern society you kinda, sorta, have-ta make Gaudiya Vaishnavism look like a holy religion and keep the "having sex with God" part a little more confidential.

It tickles me to see how you want to accuse those who keep confidential knowledge confidential of not keeping the faith. Just because Prabhupada men don't go around asking people if they want to be adolescent girls having erotic interludes with Krishna, that does not mean they don't personally cultivate parakiya-bhava.

First, Prabhupada teaches them Bhagavad-gita. Then he teaches then Srimad Bhagavatam and then he teaches them Caitanya Caritamrita. He just doesn't pull dopers and carnivores off the street and give them gopi names.
It is a process to take someone from kali-yuga to Vrajadham. it takes a little finesse.

I know plenty of devotees of Prabhupada who want to be little girls in heaven. You pretend to have a monopoly on that, but that is a sad commentary on your ego problems and arrogance. You might want to work on that problem as well.

Just because a devotee does not get on the internet and claim to be a gopi, that does not mean that those who do are really the chosen ones.

I really have no concern about what Bhaktivinode wrote or practiced. Bhaktivinode was not my guru. I get my instructions from Prabhupada.
If you were really honest with yourself, you would also have to admit that the writtings of Bhaktivinode are way over your head and that you are not fit to study or follow his writtings.

A few months ago you were studying Mayavada philosophy and now you want to come in here and talk like an expert on bhakti. I'm sorry. That just don't click with me.

Whatever I have to learn from Bhaktivinode, I will learn through Prabhupada's books.
Do you read Prabhupada's books? You oughta try it sometime.

Fine, but I must say that I find that conception pretty strange. Aren't we supposed to do 'mahajano yena gatah sa panthah'? For one thing, the above-mentioned article shows that, at least from Sarasvati Thakur onwards, the successive followers have not followed in Bhaktivinoda's footsteps as far as raganuga-sadhana or preaching is concerned. Or on the other hand if you are refraining from viewing that article due to a slightly tangible feeling of fear of stepping into the "unknown," then I'll understand your viewpoint.

Speaking of which, this is a great sound-bite that I will hope to make use of later when I attempt to present my comparative theory of the Sarasvata school and the traditionalist school.


Why do you say that Bhaktivinoda's writings are way over my head? Are you aware that most of Bhaktivinoda's works, or at least the earlier ones, were meant for public consumption? At least the works mentioned in Shukavak's article were meant for public consumption, seeing as every math or other is coming out with their own versions of Jaiva-dharma or Harinama-cintamani.
Even so, if Bhaktivinoda's works for not meant for public consumption then why did he bother to write them all in the first place? Usually people write books so that they can be read by people. This is simple logic?


I don't claim to be an expert on bhakti and nor do I recall ever claiming to be one. However, where did you learn that I was studying Mayavada philosophy a few months ago? This is untrue, for the record.


I do read Prabhupada's books. However, this does not mean that I should accept everything blindly. As you should know, Prabhupada himself has made numerous claims to the effect that he is presenting the message of Mahaprabhu, the Gosvamis, his guru, and so on. It behooves me to do some simple research to see if this is true. Would you agree with that, or would you suggest that I accept everything blindly under the plea of being "non-offensive"?

And even if I was studying Mayavada, so what? Certain individuals in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya have levelled some very heavy criticism against Sankaracharya and Advaita-vada philosophy, so I might be interested in knowing exactly why this is so.

Recently a storm-in-a-teacup debate arose on one of the COM forums which I witnessed. One individual who has read Prabhupada's books has also studied Sankara's philosophy and didn't agree with the classic criticisms of Prabhupada against it, which he managed to show by way of quoting Sankara. In response, the ISKCON followers weakly responded by repeating the classic criticisms of "Oh, well Sankara is really the incarnation of Siva you see, that's why he did like that," and so on. It's admirable that they are simply quoting their Acharya, but I did not think that their response was terribly intelligent in terms of participating in a theological/philosophical debate. It's one thing to faithfully read the books of one's guru, but it's quite another to know the historical, philosophical and theological basis of the guru's conclusions. One cannot win any arguments by simply saying "because my guru says so!"

I'm also happy to study some basic ideas of Dvaita philosophy (Madhvacharya) and Vishistadvaita (Ramanujacharya), although the latter is more difficult to study in my opinion because of the proliferation of Tamil terms.

After all, if you believe in the samadhi-realizations of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, one would be bound to accept that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is the essence of the four Vaishnava philosophies, remember? At least from this point of view, it may help to have an idea of the other Vaishnava philosophies to better understand one's own Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy.

In regards to this particular discussion, you seem to be discussing Gaudiya siddhanta with fellow Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The trouble is, that these Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not follow your guru-varga or follow the same philosophy except the common factors. In this case, it would be helpful for you to learn the basics (history) of Gaudiya siddhanta, it's theology and practice since the days of Mahaprabhu, before you attempt to discuss or debate. The simple fact that you do not appear to know these things despite being given ample chances to do so itself seems to disqualify you. Indeed, "my guru says so!" has no effect here because the guru's authority is subjective from the disciple's point of view. An understanding of sastra is very necessary, as well as precedent.

Vaishnava das, Open Mind, let us not give Sparky opportunities to side-track. He still has not explained his 14 odd siddhantas yet. Let us get to this first. Other topics may be discussed in new threads.

I can just imagine it. The sannyasi who has been very strict, never looked at a woman, never talked or listened to a woman, never had anything to do with women and having practically no concept of what being a girl means.

Then, he leaves his body and by some mystic event find himself in a girl body, sari, bangles, and all that. And he is surrounded by millions of the most beautiful girls in existence, and they are all chatting, and actually being annoying like young girls are. They would maybe help this new girl with the clothes, to put on make-up and try to hug their new friend and chat with her.

He would scream out of pure fear, just as he would do if such a thing would have happened in the material world.

Then Krishna would come and give him a hug. Not his material body, but HIM.

He would scream even more.

And be directly propelled to the material world again. If he really desired to be a girl, he would take birth as a girl on earth, where he can learn what it means to be a girl, beyond the philosophical concept of girlness.

Do we shout it off the rooftops?

You are consistently projecting ideas of what we do, which have little semblance with reality. We give siddha-pranali to every meat-eating freak who comes in the door, and we tell erotic pastimes in introductory lectures on Krishna consciousness. Sure we do.



You may have not heard about the difference between sambhogeccatmika and tat-bhavecchatmika. If you'd bothered reading raganuga.org, the issue should be clear to you.



I suppose you are thinking that we don't teach the basics of Bhagavad-gita and Bhagavata before we move on to other topics?

It is tiresome to keep commenting on these ideas you have about what we are doing, which seem to be based on no practical experience of what we're doing, and probably it's not even based on hearsay. You're just pulling this stuff out of your hat of happy ideas, aren't you?

Well, that sums it up more or less. You have no interest in the original texts, and the only proof you can offer is passages from Prabhupada's books. That explains why you haven't addressed those 14 odd points you made with shastric evidence. Your conscience prevents you from studying Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, Bhakti-sandarbha and the rest.

You could just be honest and admit that you are unable to study those books, and therefore you cannot make your case based on them, and therefore you are not qualified to respond and participate in a discussion like the one at hand.

Yes, I believe I do still have it. Your memory of details of events from so long ago amazes me, Jagat.

I'm running out of time today. I do have to go to my job soon. But, I think my raganuga discussion somehow got entangled in another thread. I want to get back to this thread for the discussion.

In the "Sri Bhajan Rahasya" that i have from the BBT by my old associate Pundarika Vidyanidhi, it says:

"Srila Bhaktivinode thus scientifically shows the steps from sraddha to prema. Only at the stage of asakti when the sadhaka is freed from anarthas can he meditate on his eternal from. If before reaching this stage however a sadhaka imitates the behaviour of advanced devotees he will then be bewilderd". (introduction)

I think I remember hearing in here that this is not necessarily true, that one does not have to be fully free of anarthas in order think about his siddha-deha. I think it is points like this that we don't agree on.

That's correct, Kshamabuddhi. We do not buy into the notion that one takes the medicine after one is already cured, but rather that one needs that medicine in order to become cured.

Since you are so dedicated to your gurus, then why are you even coming here to discuss these subjects when you know full well that they would never approve of your doing so? Aren't you supposed to steer clear of this stuff according to them?

You have not entered here in any spirit of dialogue, but rather with one of conquest by brute force. That is so obvious by the nature of your onslaught, that people here are finding you very amusing. If you want to regain a shred of dignity, perhaps you might rethink your approach. That is my suggestion offered out of friendship, nothing up my sleeve, no ulterior motives.

A quote from Bhakti Sudhir Goswami, whom Ksamabuddhi has described as one of his siksa-gurus:

http://www.dailydarshan.com/arc/2003/030101.html

I submit to the established guidelines and boundaries of Srila Sridhar Maharaja and his Swarup Damodar, Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Dev Goswami. In his day, the discussion of rasa siksha, bhavollasa rati,mañjari bhava, in his name, by an initiate, would have led to japa mala being recalled, name withdrawn, and being forbidden to enter the compound of Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math. If it were a sannyasi, his sannyas would be revoked.

Also ( http://www.dailydarshan.com/arc/2002/021217.html ) :

Pour water on the root of the Krishna conception of divinity and the fruit will automatically appear (pujala raga patha gaurava bhange). Devotion and chastity to the lotus feet of Sri Guru will deliver everything (etat sarvam gurau bhaktya purusho hy añjasa jayet). You will not be neglected under the ever watchful eye of Yogamaya.

By coming here to discuss these topics, Ksamabuddhi demonstrates that he is not a chaste follower of Sridhar Maharaja.

Ksamabuddhi likes to talk of the Gaudiya Math notion that siddha-deha and other such high topics will be "automatically revealed" to the sincere devotee after some time of purification and advancement.

Well, even if this might be theoretically true in some cases, Ksamabuddhi has a problem, as we can see from the quotes above. According to Sridhar Maharaja's own standard, these topics will never be "automatically revealed" to Ksamabuddhi, since he has abandoned the instruction of his gurus. His only hope for having these topics revealed is if he listens attentively to what the devotees here are telling him, and proceeds accordingly. So I pray that he will try to listen with humility.

Whether or not one agrees with Sridhar Maharaja's entire approach, he was a humble, gentle and kindly soul, of the utmost integrity and dedication. There is much to be respected in what he said and did during his lifetime of practicing and teaching Krishna Consciousness. Sadly, it appears that Ksamabuddhi has imbibed little of the mood OR the teachings of his putative siksa-guru.

No matter what the controversies are, the genie is out of the bottle. Those that are attracted to the idea of practicing smaranam are going to seek out a teacher (or wing it on their own by using an English translation of one of the standard texts on the subject). Tripurari Maharaj and others have already conceded that siddha praNAli and aSTakAlIya lIlA are genuine components of our tradition, so based on that there is nothing precluding a devotee from getting instruction on those from a zikSa guru when their initiating guru is not giving out such teachings. This has all been prophesized by the late Kanupriya Goswami, who foretold that people would emerge from ISKCON and take up the traditional pracitices of rAgAnugA sAdhana. So far everything he has said has proven to come true. Hopefully there will not be a cheapening of the tradition along the way, including people doing their bhajan half-heartedly. The gurus in India are very selective in giving those instructions, but Westerners taking on the role of teacher may not be so judicious.

If you have such high regard for him , then why are you in here with these "sahajiyas"? I thought they were supposed to be "traditional" parivars and not "sahajiyas". Which one are they?

Ramdasji, interesting! Are those statements available anywhere (e.g. the two books in Nitai's bookstore)?

And as for the initiating guru/siksha guru comment: would that be the prevalent concept--that someone's prior initiation would still be respected, or at least accepted? The "renaming factor" has so far proven to be a huge issue in the ISKCON/GM arena.

(Actually, I'm kinda hesitant to ask anything on these particular threads anymore, especially with that tornado roaring in from Florida)

I don't know if they were ever published in writing. Renaming is usually only done when someone has been given a Sanskrit name that does not make sense for a Caitanyaite. That resulted from Pradyumna and Nitai picking names, since Prabhupada did not usually have the time and therefore delegated that task to his Sanskrit editors. Fortunately some of us were named appropriately by choosing the names of devotees from CC, so no renaming was required.

Hey Ksamabuddhi, imagine if this Ksama Sakha or Ksama Manjari hidden in your name was in fact chosen for you by our Nitai das! Now that's what I call a siddha giving an encrypted siddha-name!

I don't know which one picked my name. I hope it was Pradyumna, because if it was Nitai I think I want to be re-initiated. I should have gotten re-initiated by Sridhar Maharaja when I had the chance. Jayatirtha chanted on my beads for hari-nama diksha and performed both my yagnas - my brahminical initiation as well.
Sometimes, I feel a little dis-satisfied that Prabhupada didn't personally initiate all the devotees that were initiated in ISKCON when he was here.

If you can find out that Nitai picked my name, then let me know. Maybe I will just join up with you sahajiyas and take re-initiation from you.
Whatta ya think? Got a good gopi name in mind you can give me?

I don't know. It is sometimes a little disheartening to me to think that Jayatirtha chanted on my beads and I heard the gayatri mantras on a tape player. None of this stuff is really mentioned in Prabhupada's books. Didn't he see that all this non-traditional stuff would come to confuse a lot of devotees?

I did get darshan of Prabhupada and heard the maha-mantra from his lips, though it was not at initiation but before the ceremony. I had prasad from his hands and off his plate and drank the footwash. I heard him lecture on Bhagavatam and lead kirtan. If it wasn't for that. I might be having a lot more trouble with this ritvik stuff.

Hey Madhava, how about this?
When I first joined the movement and was a brahamcary in L.A., I heard Krishna playing his flute all night long as I was sleeping. Do you think that accounts for anything?
I am not joking here. I heard the most enchanting flute music in my sleep almost all night long. It was like they say; he never plays the same refrain twice. It was a very mystical flow of notes that just seemed to endlessly weave an ever changing tapestry of hypnotic sounds.

I have also had dreams that my guru was speaking to me hari-katha and I was weeping pathetically. Then, as I looked him in the eyes, his eyes rolled back in his head and he took me into a trance where I saw the spiritual world and there were some devotees singing and dancing in a crowd around the Lord.
I have had several spiritual dreams of experiencing bhava and weeping pathetically.

I have seen Prabhupada in dreams and he has given me messages. It is things like this that really keep me from having doubts about my connection with Prabhupada and Sridhar Maharaja.

when I reflect and remember these things, all my doubts go away.

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.

Isn't this all just a cover-up for the fact that Sarasvati had no diksa, and therefore also no siddha pranali, and he came with that 'reform' story just to cover it up?

Vamsi brought up a good point.

Do people realise that Sridhar Maharaja used to withdraw initiation from people who displeased him?

I have already said that I never received any kind of initiation from Sridhar Maharaja. He did not give me my japa beads or sannyasa or anything. I bought my japa beads from vedicresources.com. If somebody wants to take them away from me I think that would be stealing. I paid top dollar for a set of those whopper tulasi beads.

I was initiated by Jayatirtha das. He also turned out to be a sahajiya. Maybe that is why I am now in here discussing siddhanta with sahajiyas?
Maybe I am sahajiya. Actually, I am a sahajiya and I admit it.

The only thing I ever got out the Hare Krishna movement was initiation by Jayatirtha. I don't owe Sridhar Maharaja anything. I am a free agent. I do as I damn well please. That is because I am an avadhuta. I don't play by anybody's rules. I have been a follower of raganuga bhakti from day one. I don't have any rulebook that I explicitly play by.

I was a sahajiya before Madhava das was even born. If he thinks he has some monopoly on being a sahajiya..............I have news for him!

This is the propaganda of this sect and this is also the foundation for the HOLY WAR that I have referred to in previous posts. Accusations such as this is what will make your camp, your parivar, the object in the sights of the Saraswatas as they proceed with this HOLY WAR that your camp is insisting on with these kind of slanderous accusations against Saraswati Goswami.

I am not sure If you really understand the destiny, the stigma, the misfortune you are evoking on your parivar with this sadhu-ninda of a nitya-siddha acharya. It does not bode well for the future of your camp.

Even as you make disclaimers that the Goswamis did not institute "Sankirtan", you are gathering together here in a forum founded on the the very same concept. (you might want to check out Jiva Goswami on the "Sankirtan" issue)

If you don't believe in Sankirtan, then why are you broadcasting "raganuga bhakti" to the whole world via the most "mass" media that has come out of the technological age? Why are you canvassing for people to become "raganuga bhaktas" ? Isn't your line about "bhajan" and not "Sankirtan". Why are you imitating the Saraswatas in the use of modern techonology for the sake of mass propaganda?

Is this kinda like a group of babajis who are getting together for some street Sankirtan and and denying that it is such?

Sankirtan is the congregational thing. Is this not a congregation? Where is the bhajan in all this?

Rasesh:

"paste copy, paste copy,
copy copy, paste paste,

paste hearsay, paste hearsay,
hearsay hearsay, paste paste"

what a nice parivar.
how much rupees, good price?
i will buy mantra!
make me cheap price, sadhu!

Radhe!

Tarunji

Who ever said that Gosvamis did not encourage sankirtan, that I do not know.



mac-cittA mad-gata-prANA bodhayantaH parasparam |
kathayantaz ca mAM nityaM tuSyanti ca ramanti ca ||9||

vizvanAthaH : mAM mahA-madhura-rUpa-guNa-lIlA-mahodadhiM kathayanto mad-rUpAdi-vyAkhyAnenot-kIrtanAdikaM kurvanta ity evaM sarva-bhaktiSv atizraiSThyAt smaraNa-zravaNa-kIrtanAny uktAni | tuSyanti ca ramanti ceti bhaktyaiva santoSaz ca ramaNaM ceti rahasyam | yad vA sAdhana-dazAyAm api bhAgya-vazAt bhajane nirvighne sampadyamAne sati tuSyanti |

Saraswati himself was totally clean on sadhu-ninda, calling every single Vaishnava other than him, his dad and his followers, sahajiyas? What are the consequences of this, may I ask?



Saraswati Thakur invented the internet? When? In 1918, when he invented 'qualified' brahmins and red cloth for Gaudiya Vaishnavas?

These things happen, and they strengthen our faith. What makes it all very interesting from a philosophical point of view is that they, unlike some might think, do not happen only with people of a certain faith, but such events occur both among the very traditional forms of Gaudiya Vaishnavism as well as among others, even those that your gurus would have shunned without a second thought.

Actually, I don't think that the actual "prakrita-sahajiyas" have anything to do with giving ekadasa-bhava.

Swami Prabhupada has identified "siddha-pranali" as the practice of the "prakrita-sahajiyas". Taking "siddha-pranali" to be the popular term to define "ekadasa bhava", though it might not be technically the proper terminology, I have therefore used the terms interchangibly.

If your parivar is not part of the "sahajiya" tradition, then you might want to make a point of trying to distinguish your lineage as such by rejecting the "siddha-pranali" label and demonstrating that the "ekadasa-bhava" given in your parivar is a Goswami heritage and not a sahajiya practice.

I would be quite happy to see your camp acknowledged as orthodox rather than sahajiya. If I could become convinced of that, I must just jump in the pile myself. I am thoroughly disgusted with ISKCON and all that it has become. I am quite disenchanted with all the so-called stalwarts and heros of ISKCON who turned out to be jackasses and buffoons.

I really think labeling your group as "sahajiya" would be a terrible injustice if indeed you are not "sahajiyas" rather orthodox tradition.

I am not exactly sure if the accusation of sahajiya is limited to the cross-dressers and transvestites. I think that being a sahajiya can be much more subtle than that and can even take on the appearance of "traditional" parivars.

Waht do you think?

Then Bhaktivinoda Thakur was a Prakrita Sahajiya. So was Vishwanath, etc.

Jaggy, come on! Are you really gonna get on the internet and call Bhaktivinode and Vishvanatha as sahajiyas?
A sahajiya is one who imitates the process of eka-dasa bhava, not one who realizes it.

When the process of eka-dasa bhava became cheapened and imitated by unfit and unqualified men pretending to be siddha-purusha, Srila Rupa Goswami inspired Saraswati Goswami to lead the parampara away from that.
It was the desire of Srimati Radharani that the giving of eka-dasa bhava would now stop, as it was being abused and associated with men of dubious character who were using "siddha-pranali" as a means of livelyhood.
The attainment of siddha-deha will come automatically when smarana-dasha culimates in anusmrita at the level of samadhi. Therefore, the sadhana of ekadasa-bhava was found to be a device that could be eliminated at the sadhaka stage and reserved for the siddha stage of samadhi.

Bhaktivinode realized his svarupa in samadhi. He was not some theoretical siddha pondering an imagined ekadasa-bhava. His apparent participation in the siddha-pranali tradition served purposes that are beyond our scope of understanding. Bhaktivinode was a siddha-bhakta in truth and not merely in theory. His perfection was the result of his perfecting smarana-dasha in the culmination of anusrmiti to the attainment of samadhi. It was not the result of some sahajiya practice known as siddha-pranali.

Bhaktivinode's connection to Jagannatha das Babaji caused a major transformation in his conception of siddha-pranali and rupanuga bhajan.
Much of what is attributed to Bhaktivinode before his connection to Jagannatha das Babaji has to be re-evaluated in terms of what we define and attribute to his lineage.

In the final analysis, Bhaktivinode became much more identified with the parivar of Jagannatha das Babaji than the siddha-pranali of Bipin Bihari Goswami. Bhaktivinode's evolution and progession in rupanuga bhajan eventually became consummated at the pinnacle of Jagannatha das babaji and not the ekadasa-bhava given him by Bipin Bihari Goswami.

Madhva das himself has said that Bhaktivinode alluded to eka-dasa bhava as a device used in sadhana and not necessarily an eternallly fixed siddha-deha, rather the "imagined" siddha-deha that one practices as a sadhana.

What has been presented as Bhaktivinode's "siddha-pranali" is no more than an "imagined" siddha-deha that was given to him by Bipin Bihari Goswami as a sadhana. It is not the actual siddha-svarupa of Bhaktivinode Thakur.

Bhaktivinode did not publish a statement of his actual siddha-svarupa. What was published as his "siddha-pranali" (ekadasa-bhava) was the "imagined" siddha-deha that he was given by Bipina Bihari Goswami as a sadhana. Bhaktivinode did not publish, for the whole world to see, the actual revelation of his siddha-deha. What is published in regards to siddha-pranali was a generic "siddha-deha" that he was given by Bipina Bihari Goswami for use in sadhana. It was not the actual nitya-svarupa of Bhaktivinode.

You can thank me later for clearing up this misconception you and many others have.

You just get weirder every day, Sparky.

Since when are you such an expert on the sahajiya traditions? Perhaps you are secretly one of them? If so, you would not be so ignorant of the differences between them and the orthodoxy.

Where does Bhaktivinod say that his manjari svarup mentioned in his books is some 'generic siddha deha' only for use in sAdhana (like some disposable razor)? Where is the evidence that Jagannath Das Babaji supplanted his relationship w/his diksa guru Bipin Bihari Goswami? In fact there is none. It is just more absurd propaganda that you are parroting. So far that has been your only strategy - cut and paste from all of the unsubstantiated dogma you can lay your hands on, without regard for any of the teachings of the Goswamins. It would behoove you to exercise some of your own intellectual ability instead of acting as a one dimensional billboard for the KC propaganda machine.

I'll have to compliment Ksamabuddhi for his imaginative faculty. His concepts are in a constant state of flux.

Who said we were seeking acknowledgment by the Saraswatas in the first place? All we said was stop with the slanderous remarks, or support your allegations with some proof.

Sankirtan we have no problem with. Shortchanging people in airports - well that is something else.

Exactly what are you referring to as 'canvassing'? Have you seen us going door to door distributing books on smaranam? People are not surfing over here in response to some spam that came into their email inboxes. Ananta Das Baba is not passing out flyers at Krishna Balaram Mandir to get people to come to his lectures at Radhakund.

And besides, what do you have against broadcasting KC to the whole world? Haven't you alleged that we 'sahajiyas posing as orthodoxy' don't do enough of that?

Are you going to allege now that we are infringing on your trademark - the internet? Is Al Gore your cousin by any chance?

Accept no imitations - our snake oil is the real thing. Don't buy any from those imposters over there! (See - I can get up on a soap box and peddle my wares, too - Sparky).

Sankirtan can be performed by like-minded individuals. Mahaprabhu did not let any outsiders into Srivasa Angan, but it was still sankirtan.

I suggested at least twice that you read the 15th chapter of Harinama-chintamani. Please do so. You will see that your bandying about of terms like smarana-dasa, etc., is completely misplaced.

This is the 300th post on this topic, and my last.

I am extending this post to suggest the following. I think the fruitfulness of this discussion has run its course. Perhaps everyone who has been involved can write a one or two paragraph summary of what he has learned, of what he has gained or not from this discussion. That way everyone can more or less get a final word and then we can lock this thread.

Of course the subject will come up again, but let's everyone summarize what they take away from it, the salient points, so to speak, and put a temporary close to it.

I welcome everyone who has perhaps only been lurking to come out and say a word or two -- to give an opinion on what has transpired. If there is enough life in these opinions to provoke new discussion, we can open a new thread. What do you think, Madhava?

Agreed. This discussion doesn't seem to produce much of anything relevant any longer.

After this post, everyone is restricted to making a single post in this thread; after all the main participants have posted their last posts, the thread will be closed. So, please think carefully before you say your last words in this thread.

My two paisa (as a newcomer to these forums):

1. I recommend that anyone coming to raganuga.com should read over a lot of the old threads also as SO MANY things have been covered. (And I say that having asked and wanted to ask questions that are already covered). Most of the verses, ideas, and opposing ideas have been covered so the only effective arguments--should you need to argue --will likely be something entirely new or something that acknowledges and systematically addresses the points already enunciated.

2. I don't know if there is a weasel-and-rabbit-nyaya but I've heard that the weasel can do an incredible dance--twisting, turning, jumping--astonishing the gentle rabbit, who watches the weird act in amazement, wondering what kind of insanity has taken over the weasel. The weasel, of course, then kills the rabbit. This technique is not likely to succeed here.

Throughout this discussion, I have learned one very important thing:

Those who follow the Gaudiya Vaishnava theology as set forth by Siddhanta Sarasvati are to be commended for their faithfulness to his precepts. However, there is something genuinely lacking when one makes startling claims about concepts and ideas that one knows little or nothing about. There are also several myths floating around and it is sad to see that these myths are somewhat philosophical in their nature, which usually results in gross misunderstandings of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta as was described by illustrious Acharyas such as Vrndavaner Chaya Gosvami, Srimad Narottama das Thakura Mahasaya and Srimad Visvanatha Cakravartipada.

As Jagat and others have noted, these types of topics will continue to arise again and again. For an attempt at bringing some sort of coherence to these types of discussions, I have decided that I will begin composing a large document in which I hope to lay out every point and misconception about raganuga-sadhana in detail, and answer such points by way of revealing the actual knowledge about it.
For example, if someone says "raganuga bhakti is only to be practised when one reaches that level," the answer will be "No, raganuga-bhakti is a sadhana and not a sadhya" with adequate references from the Acharyas. I have been trying to formulate the outlay of this paper in my mind for several days now and I think that several points that have been made in this thread will serve as a good inspiration. We may also need to address some specific points of specific camps such as Narayana Maharaja and Sridhara Maharaja.

An ambitious project indeed! It's about time these myths were destroyed, as they are myths after all and have no basis in reality! Let us hope that it meets with great success. I do not intend to be recognised as the author of such a paper; rather, I was hoping that everyone here can make their individual contribution to it so that it becomes a group effort. Ultimately, who knows, this could be anything from an extensive FAQ that can be added to the proverbial 'Information Section' of Raganuga.Com, to an extensive 'position paper' the like of which are so popular these days.

I am rather busy now with some projects so I will be able to make a start around mid-December. I will form a 'skeletal structure' and offer that up for viewing/discussion. Anyone who wishes to correct something, add an argument of their own, suggestions, etc., will be able to do so, so that the whole document will be able to cover every issue. Of course even the completed document can be updated as and when necessary. I was not going to mention very much about this idea of mine but since this is supposed to be our last posts in this thread I thought that something good and fruitful should eventually come out of this incredibly misunderstood (by some) discussion.

Radhe!

good idea.

i learned a lot.

1) there is no use in discussion ANYTHING with people who dont want to be openminded.

2) the arguments of those people who attack the traditional parivars are full of coloured smoke, nothing else. such malicious arguments (on both sides of a discussion!) will only end in hot-tempered name-shooting.

3) everyone should follow the path chosen with an open heart, humble friendly to other minded people, always ready to learn from others to strengthen their own bhajan

4) spiritual life is not about WINNING or LOSING, BE BETTER , BE COOLER, blabla. its a vast ocean of giving and taking in an assembly of LIKE-MINDED people ( i realized that this is VERY IMPORTANT, to be with like-minded people)

5) i learned more in this thread than in my 10 years ISKCON

thank you all

on to new horizons.

Dandavats
Tarunji

Well, I guess that I get one more go at it here, before the door gets locked on this room. There are a few things I want to say before the curtains go down on this thread.

First, I want to thank Madhava prabhu for his patience and tolerance to allow me to join your discussion, make some contribution and take something away from it as well.

I have learned alot in this discussion. Maybe not in the form of lessons learned, but in the form of ideas developed and defined.

I don't doubt that all the devotees in the "siddha-pranali" parivars are enthusiatically seeking something that has been the ideal of Gaudiya Vaishnavism since it's beginnings. I truly wish I was as "greedy" for Radha-dasyam as you all seem to be. The only thing that has to evaluated in the hearts of us all is the purity of our desire as a bhava and not an exercise in false ego and arrogance to want the highest and the greatest as a form of spiritual sense gratification.


The bottom line of what I think I am taking away from this discussion is a better understanding of the ekadasa-bhava aspect of sadhana.

I have never really given it much study or thought before, because Srila Prabhupada never really made an issue out of it. I came in here a foolish novice, grasping at straws and looking for answers, some of which came from within my heart, some coming from the learned members of this forum.

The gist of what I have come to believe about siddha-deha, asta-kalika-lila smaranam etc., by reading the Jaiva Dharma, Sri Bhajan-rahasya etc., is that there is a difference between the way the sahajiyas think about siddha-deha and the way that proper rupanugas do. The sahajiyas think that the eka-dasa bhava is their own personal identity rather than a parshada of Radha-Krishna . The proper Rupanugas conceive that the siddha-deha they contemplate is a parshada of RAdha-Krishna that they aspire to be like.

For example, Kamala Manjari is an eternal maidservant of Srimati RAdharani that Bhaktivinode identified with wholely and solely as his prototype of devotion as assigned to him by Bipina Bihari Goswami. To think that Bhaktivinode was the original Kamala Manjari of Vrjajadham, would be a mistake. When this misconception exists in the mind of the confused sahajiya, it is like a form of ahangrahopasana - the self-conceit of bing God or an eternal associate of RAdha-Krishna.

Raganuga-sadhana is the process of identifying with one of the eternal associates of Radha-Krishna as a way of vicariously living in the asta-kaliya-lila. It is not the audacious attempt to become that particular parshada.
The ekadasa-bhava of the traditional Gaudiya heritage is the aspiration to emulate one such parshadas, not to think that one has become such a parshada.

The siddha-pranali tradition practices ekadasa-bhava as one's own siddha-deha, whereas the traditional Gaudiyas practice ekadasa bhava as a vicarious experience through an actual parshada of the Lord. I think this is the main difference, even though their is a vast difference in these two types of conceptions.

In the Jaiva Dharma, Bhaktivinode explains that one assumes the same name as one of the Manjaris and then vicariously lives in asta-kaliya-lila though that pariticular gopi:

Chapter Thirty-nine
Lila-pravesa-vicara
Gosvami: You naturally become the follower of a maidservant-friend of Sri Radha. That friend's name is your name. Examining your nature, your spiritual master gives you a name. Please know that is your name eternally. The beautiful girls of Vraja will delight in addressing you by that name.

I think this is the doctrinal difference between the traditional parivars and the sahajiya parivars. The sahajiyas are confused to think that because they have been given the name of a Manjari that they have become a parshada in asta-kaliya-lila. They fail to understand that though their name is the same name as the parshada, they are still following this parshada and entering the lila vicariously and not directly, until they attain vastu-siddhi by taking birth in Vraja, in the womb of a gopi.

The sahajiya tradition fails to keep a good seperation between the vicarious quality of one's siddha-deha and the misconception that one is supplanting the parshada and assuming that position.

This is the defect in the sahajiya way of thinking about ekadasa-bhava. It is not the original intent of Srila Rupa Goswami or the actual authorized process of raganuga bhakti.

This is the conclusion I have reached through this discussion. It is the same concept of siddha-deha that I have had since I first read The Nectar of Devotion, the first time, almost 30 years ago. Not much has really changed since then. I still believe the same thing. Only now it has been reinforced with the lessons of Jaiva Dharma.

I think the idea I am presenting here is the idea that was promoted by Srila Prabhupada and my faith in him is implicit.

I appreciate the chance to have this discussion.

Gaurahari,Gaurahari, Gaurahari

---

So, I guess the conclusion is that since there are no gurus in the Saraswata sampradaya passing out gopi names and eka-dasa bhava, that we must therefore accept the claims and accusations of you "siddha-pranalis" that we have never been given right to anything more than "vaidhi bhakti", that our spiritual master cheated us out of parakiya-rasa by restricting us to"vaidhi bhakti' and that raganuga bhakti is explicitly the monopoly of the "siddha-pranali" camp.

I will end my comments on this topic with words of Srila Prabhupada that instilled in me the concept some 29 years ago.

Nectar of Devotion ch.16 (Eligibility for devotional service) pg.126


This is the form of raganuga-sadhana that has been given in the Saraswata sampradaya. I am happy with this particular interpretation of raganuga-sadhana and I have no plans to accepting any other interpretation of the subject. I have tried to discuss this subject from this perspective.

Thanks for your patience and kindness. I actually admire all of you, though I am going to stick with Prabhupada's instructions on raganuga-sadhana.
I think Sri Bhajan-rahasya is the ideal model of bhajan for devotees in the Saraswata sampradaya. It fully supports and fulfills the kind of raganuga-bhajan described in the Saraswata sampradaya.

We all want the same thing. We just have a slightly different approach.

My final contribution: Things do get very lively, interesting and instructive if an outsider comes and challenges. This was a super long and super dynamic thread!

I come away from this discusssion with a little clearer understanding of the traditional parivars' perspective. I think I initially expected to participate more than I did, but one voice seemed to so clearly dominate that I found no real openings. One thing I can take away is the fact that there is no monolithic "Radhakunda-babaji" community. I thought that before, but now there's evidence.

My faith in my gurus is just as strong as it was before. I have long been convinced that they want us to develop the lobha that is the real qualification for raganuga bhakti. I read it in Nectar of Devotion in 1970, when the book first came out. In Chapter 9, under "Submission," Srila Prabhupada writes,


This so struck my wife and me that we named our younger daughter Laulyam-lalasamayi as a way of reminding us what our aspiration should be. (We named the older one Krishnamayi to help us remember the ultimate goal.)

So I'm not so sure that the two parts of Mahaprabhu's community under discussion here are necessarily mutually exclusive. I understand that much has been said over the last 80 or so years that has caused confusion among Vaishnavas. I don't pretend to understand any of it; it may be one of Krishna's inconceivable energies at work. I have no doubt that the current in the traditional parivars is live, at least in some branches. I also have no doubt that it's alive in ours. I felt it when Srila Prabhupada gave me diksha. From the first time I chanted the mantras after leaving his room, I felt that current, especially in the Gopal and Kama-gayatri mantras. That's why I persist in my sadhana, and its progress is sure because I've been touched by Nityananda Prabhu's mercy. It's slow, unfortunately, because I maintain nasty corners in my heart. Sure, I admit there have been anomalies galore in our community, but I'd bet (and I ain't a gambler) that we have no monopoly on that.

What a ride!

Perhaps I underestimated Kshamabuddhi's ability to invent new solutions to this "problem." I may say that these sections of Jaiva Dharma and Chaitanya Sikshamrita have been inadequately translated in the English editions. The main reason for this is, I think, the lack of a raganuga culture in the Western circles of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. This will unfortunately perpetuate the problem, and speculations like those of Kshamabuddhi will burgeon in those circles.

I was going to make my last comment something more global, but it looks that I'll have to save that for my deathbed...

Warning from Moderators Group:

Only 1 post allowed, Your Sparkiness.

[I posted this one up above with your first entry. - Minaketan Ramdas]

I wasn't going to post anything else here, but since the thread is waiting to be closed:

Back in 1979, when I first defected from ISKCON and joined up with the mainstream of our tradition, I did not even bother looking at the arguments about smaranam and the so-called 'Bhagavata Siksa Parampara' from the Saraswata line. It was kind of obvious that they were just a bunch of schismatics and had policies not only hostile towards the mainstream Caitanyaites, but towards anyone who chose to associate with outsiders. It made everything quite simple for me. No need to deliberate over which direction to head in. I originally thought that I would have to continue some relationship and dialogue with ISKCON/GM people, but that was taken care of automatically when word leaked out about my defection and everyone behind the institutional walls was afraid to have anything to do with me. I was all of a sudden one of the 'demonized'. This was at first a little disconcerting and I felt that I was a victim of an injustice, but within a few days that sentiment passed and I actually felt liberated. Looking back in hindsight, I have to say that it was the best thing that could have happened. I was spared all of the monstrous incidents that occured in the ensuing years. I was not even aware of all of the problems until Rolling Stone magazine published an article about Sulocana's murder and word reached me about Jayatirtha's beheading. Those atrocities might have otherwise been shocking, but they were not really, since I had come to view that institution and its parent organization (GM) as apasampradaya bureaucracies that spiraled out of control. That may seem to many to be an overly harsh assessment on my part, but despicable behavior on the other hand is difficult to rationalize and justify. Wherever the blame is to be placed, it was a case of two historical failures, and accountability must be shared by all involved, even if many of the members were not connected directly to the scandals.

I digress here, because there is not much point to rekindling the flames of past misfortune. We need to take what there was of value from our experiences along the way, and discard that which is no longer useful. For each person, that is going to be two unique sets. We can share those with each other by way of discussion, and in some cases by inspiring something on the experiential side as well.

I guess we can all take encouragement from the growing number of moderates at GM/ISKCON. Hopefully they will soon outnumber the hard liners (who with any luck will eventually vanish entirely).

I wish I could thank Ksamabuddhi for his contributions, but unfortunately he overstepped the bounds of civility too often. So, I say to him thank you, but no thank you. I know I have jabbed him with the blade of my irony, but I pray that he sees it as all in the spirit of good fun. If he seeks revenge by counter-satirization against me, then I will understand.

My compliments to everyone participating in this thread. We got it past the 300th post, the official record of Raganuga Discussions, and removed only a single post. The tone of the discussion was exceptionally civil, at least in contrast to many similar discussions, and the flow of the dialogue was fairly uncluttered. I am also happy over the fact that this topic was closed because we basically exhausted all that is to be discussed, rather than because it got out of hands. Perhaps we had a home field advantage here.

From the traditional side, I believe myself, Advaitadas and others did a fairly good job in providing the textual basis for the "traditional" approach for raganuga-bhakti, and I trust that these references along with their respective explanations will provide ample food for thought for everyone who is researching the depths of our tradition.

From the other side of the fence, Audarya-lila and Babhru provided valuable comments on the Saraswata point of view in a gracefully amicable and reconciliatory way. Last but not least, I must thank our guest star Rasesh (Ksamabuddhi), who vividly demonstrated how the Saraswata tradition has a great ability to adjust their preaching to to the circumstances, whether it be the current socio-political situation or an apparently insurmountable wall of theological oxymorons they are faced with.

May Sri Radha shower Her kindness upon us all.

Thus end the Bhaktivedanta purports on the subject matter of Raganuga Monopoly. The thread is hereby closed. If new ideas spark off from the concluding words of the participants, please feel free to start new threads to explore them; however, please do not unnecessarily chew the chewed. If someone missed the chance to say their final words, they may PM them to me, and the post will be added to the end of this thread.