Freedom from anarthas as qualification - For raganuga-bhakti?

I have ben busy lately, but I will try to respond to the call for me to explain my claims.



Let me say, in regards to this, that there are 64 principles to vaidhi-sadhana, correct? I don't have Sanskrit verses, but doesn't Rupa Goswami say that one must be fixed up in practicing the 64 principles of vaidhi-sadhana at the same time he is practicing his raganuga-bhajan?

If so, wouldn't a devotee who is strictly practicing the 64 regulative principles of sadhana be considered as free from material contamination in the life of true sadhana? Doesn't he say that one must control his senses and engage in unmixed devotional service?

Thank you for addressing this.

Yes, there are 64 aspects of vaidhi-sadhana mentioned in BRS 1.2. In the section discussing raganuga-sadhana, Rupa states (1.2.296):

zravaNotkIrtanAdIni vaidha-bhakty-uditAni tu |
yAny aGgAni ca tAny atra vijJeyAni manISibhiH || 296 ||

"Hearing, chanting and the other limbs of vaidhi-bhakti are also to be engaged in. This is what the learned ones have ascertained."

In his Raga-vartma-candika (1.12), Visvanatha explains that limbs of vaidhi-bhakti are to be engaged in as far as they are favorable for the practice. He also states that if one fails to engage in one of the angas of bhakti, it is not to be considered a fault.

bhakti mArge’smin kiJcit kiJcit aGga vaikalye ‘pi doSAbhAva zravaNAt | yad uktam – yAnAsthAya naro rAjan na pramadyeta karhicit | dhAvan nimilya vA netre na skhalen na pated iha | iti | na hyaGgopakrame dhvaMzo mad bhakter uddhavANv api | iti ca | aGgi vaikalye tv asty eva doSaH | yAn zravaNot-kIrtanAdIn bhagavad dharmAnAzritya ity ukteH |

"If, on the path of devotion, there is a slight deficiency on the part of the devotee in engaging in the various aspects of sadhana, it will not be a fault, that is known from the scriptures:
'O King! A person who takes shelter of the path of devotion will never be in danger. Even if he runs over this path with his eyes closed, he will not trip or fall!'
'O Uddhava! In this endeavour of devotion to Me there can not be even the slightest loss or destruction!'
However, there is a fault in failing to practise the angis (main limbs of devotion). The word yan in the former verse means that one must take shelter of the angis of bhagavata-dharma, such as hearing and chanting."

Thus engagement in sravana, kirtana and so forth is mandatory for everyone, but angas such as worshiping dhatri, banyan and banyan trees are not mandatory. They may be practiced, and they are certainly helpful, but they are not angi, the root practices, like sravana, kirtana and smarana are.

Thus it is not obligatory to follow all the 64 limbs of sadhana. And even if one did that, it would not guarantee that one was free from anartha, though such engagement would certainly purify him quickly.

Oh yes, and let me add that even if one followed all the 64 limbs unfailingly for many lifetimes, that would not qualify him for raganuga-bhakti if lobha would not be there.

OK. so, if a devotee is on the platform of having "lobha" for Krishna-prema, then wouldn't that be evidenced by an effort to do his level best to practice as many of the 64 principles of sadhana as possible? Would a slacker who is a part-time babaji and a part-time karmi, qualify as one who has real "lobha"? Doesn't "lobha" mean that he is obsessed with obtaining Krishna-preme and Radha-dasyam? Is a casual effort in vaidhi-bhakti the symptom of one who has "lobha"?

I have heard your explanations of the different degrees of "lobha", but isn't there a cut-off point where it can no longer be considered "lobha" and is just a watered-down desire?

It seems that "lobha" is sometimes translated as a very lukewarm aspiration, instead of the overwhelming obssession that is generally considered as "greed".

Wouldn't "lobha" have to meet at least some minimum level of obsession to qualify as actual "lobha"? Can we just call any level of desire as "lobha"?

If so, then why is vaidhi-bhakti even given as a favorable foundation for stimulating "lobha"?

Certainly that would be manifest as an effort to wholeheartedly engage in sadhana. However, particularly in a householder environment where time is often a luxury we don't have, I would personally settle for a focused effort on certain key aspects of sadhana and do them to the best of my ability, rather than trying to do everything at once.



Yes, I'm sure there's a line that can be drawn. I personally draw it to a point where a person is still obsessed enough with Vraja-bhava to always take it into consideration and have it as a guiding factor in the decisions one faces in life. Even if due to circumstances a person cannot lead a fulfilling life of bhajan at the moment, if he is intent on eventually achieving a situation where he can engage wholeheartedly in bhajan and makes preparations for the same, it must be considered that lobha is there.



Let's consider the idea of "mixture with vaidhi-bhakti" for a moment. What does it mean? Anyway, the difference between the external practices of vaidhi-bhakti and the external practices of raganuga-bhakti is merely in the motivation, give or take a few exceptions.

This mixture with vaidhi-bhakti essentially means a mixture of motivations, when lobha is not strong enough to keep one engaged in acts of devotion, one must also consider scriptural recommendations given in the writings of the acaryas and have them strengthen one's engagement in sadhana. This idea of mixture with vaidhi-bhakti is there exactly because there are varying degrees of lobha, not all of which are so strong and compelling.

Thus far there hasn't been any clear evidence to establish the premise of Point 1.

As has been discussed in a good number of other threads, the acaryas have presented various qualifications as the basis for the adhikara for engaging in sadhana, and they have not mentioned freedom from anarthas as one of them anywhere. Rather, sadhana -- whether vaidhi or raganuga -- has been offered as a means of relieving oneself from anarthas and eventually attaining the treasure of prema.

I think I have explained somewhere in here already, that when I referred to raganuga-sadhana, I was referring to the stage where the guru finds the disciple fit for ekadasa-bhava siksha and the advanced discipline of asta-kalika-lila smaranam.

I have already expressed that I do not consider raganuga-sadhana to be exclusively defined as asta-kailiya-lila smaranam, but since that seems to be the majority opinion in here (actually, I think jagat took issue with that notion), I have used the term in the way that Madhavaji seems to define it.

Madhavaji seems to be bent on twisting and bending the discussion away from the actual course of the discussion and not affording me the position that I have already outlined here.

I know well that raganuga-bhakti pertains to even neophytes on the most elementary stages. In fact, vaidhi-bhakti has almost nothing to do with the platform that any devotee in the movement came to Krishna consciousness on.

Tell me? Who came to this movement out of obediance to shastra? I don't know of a single devotee who joined this movement for any reason other than "lobha" for Krishna-prema and Radha-dasyam.

I don't see anything but "lobha" as the whole principle that this movement is spreading on. Who really takes to sadhana-bhakti out of obediance to shastra? Is somebody trying to tell me that there are actually people in this age of kali who are obediant to the Vedic principles out of anything but "greed" for a position in service to Krishna?

I really don't see vaidhi-sadhana having much relevance at all except in the case of children who are being raised in strict devotee families and who are being forced to practice sadhana-bhakti by their parents.

Adults don't come to Krishna consciousness because somebody is forcing them to practice sadhana-bhakti. They come because hearing and chanting about Krishna quickly instilled in them a greed for Krishna-prema.

Nobody has to tell me that raganuga-bhakti can be practiced by a person with anarthas. I have known that from the beginning. What I meant by that remark, was that to qualify for siddha-pranali (ekadasa-bhava) one should be free from at least the gross anarthas that are forbidden in the regulative principles of devotional service. And through purification of nama-bhajan be freed from material contamination

Did the Bhakti-rasacharya advocate that ekadasa bhava should be given to disciples who are struggling with grossly apparent anarthas? Isn't there some standard that the guru wants to see in the disciple before he gives him ekadasa-bhava?
Isn't there some qualifcation of nistha or ruci or something that one should have before he is given his ekadasa-bhava?

Raganuga bhakti is devotional service rendered voluntarily out of a feeling of love and devotion. I don't know of devotee in the movement who is not a raganuga. I certainly recoginize that all of the nice devotees in here are ragunagas. I also recognize that all the disciples in the Saraswata parivar are also ragunagas, without a vaidhi-bhakta hardly to be found on the planet except in some devotee families forcing it on their children or in some Maths or gurukula where young kids are being forced to practice sadhana.

Madhavaji keeps trying to say that raganuga-bhakti begins when one receives ekadasa-bhava from a rasika-guru, and that before that everything is vaidhi-sadhana. I don't buy that proposal for one minute, and from what I have read from Jagat he does not agree with it either.

Then why don't you prove that one needs to be free from anarthas to learn of ekadasa-bhava siksa and advanced discipline (whatever that means) of astakaliya-lila smarana, if that's what you're taking objection to.



I can't recall giving such a definition anywhere. Raganuga-sadhana encompasses all of its states from the initial greed for Vraja-bhava and the initial practices of hearing, chanting and so forth to the advanced stages of lila-smaranam. To begin this, one does not need to be pure of anartha, and as one proceeds, he will gradually become free of anartha, and in proportion to the diminshment of anartha, positive realization will manifest and his practice will advance.



Now please don't try to get an upper hand in the debate by beginning to accuse me of something incredible you just figured out to distract the discussion. Just prove your point, show the evidence that freedom from material desires is a necessary qualification for any stage of raganuga-sadhana, or for whatever else you please for that matter.



Then prove that one needs such qualification for hearing of ekadasa-bhava.



There's no restriction that I'm aware of. That being said, has anyone proposed that siddha-pranali should be given to a person who is struggling with grossly apparent anarthas (such as what?)? You're debating shadows, I'm afraid.



You figure that out and prove it. You seem to have strong opinions about it.



Quote me. Where do I say that, even once?

But before you go on about whatever I may or may not have said, or whatever my opinion is on whatever, please prove your point that freedom from anartha is a necessary qualification for any stage of raganuga-sadhana.

If this isn't plain common sense, then I don't know what is!

Double thumbs up!

Wouldn't this particular issue be something that would be left to the discretion of the rasika-guru? Is there any rule that says that gurus have to pass out ekadasa-bhava on demand like a bidi merchant in the bazaar?

Wouldn't a realized guru who has the position to give out eka-dasa bhava, also have the right to use his own personal discretion on the matter? Also, could not different gurus and acharyas have different standards that they have for when and how they give ekadasa-bhava? If one guru felt he wanted to maintain a higher standard than another, wouldn't he have the right to exercise that discretion? Would that be his call to make? If a guru felt that he did not want to give it out at all would that make him bogus?
If one felt that he wanted to give it out liberally, that might be his right to do so, but could not the liberal dispensing of the siddha-pranali to so many also not come back to create blemish and stigma upon the "tradition"

Would not giving it out to those who bring a bad stigma upon it not be offensive the tradition and all the predecessor acharyas?

Yes, it is certainly as you say, it is left up to the individual guru. It is not left under the legislation of third parties who may wish to declare a global standard of minimum qualification of freedom from anarthas until one may receive siddha-pranali.

The standards have been more or less the same over the centuries -- left up to the individual guru and disciple to work out -- and it seems to have worked out just fine. Has there been blemish or stigma for the tradition? The only blemish I can think of is something attributed by those who wish to declare this "freedom from anarthas" dogma. Otherwise, if there are clear instances of misapplication and consequent damage to the tradition, I'd like to learn about it; preferably receiving some specific information. Not a "might possibly occur" - scenario. Anything might happen at any time, but that doesn't mean it's very probable.

= = =

In another thread, you quoted a verse of the Panca-tattva liberally distributing the treasure of prema to one and all, without considering who is a befitting recipient and who is not. How is it that distributing the treasure of Vraja-prema to anyone and everyone is not an issue, but offering some people specific advise on certain aspects of sthayi-bhava (that's what ekadasa-bhava is; certain aspects of your sthayi-bhava to be attained) may prove to be so detrimental for the tradition?

Remember I quoted Prabhupada's purport to Upadesamrta 11 for you lately, which was all about how we should go and live on the banks of Radha-kunda and meditate on being a manjari of Radharani?

Well, guess what? Some devotee has just quoted the entire text of that verse and the purport onto a COM conference. Beats me why he did this, maybe he just read something beautiful and wanted to share it with fellow devotees. But alas! What does the ISKCON sannyasi say in reply?

"Rupa Goswami in Text 1 of Nectar of Instruction is explaining the significance of sense control, which is probably more relevant to the present level of Krishna consciousness of most members of this conference."

Oops!

Do you think that there might be possibly more than one way to attain this sthayi-bhava? Is sthayi bhava something that one gets by hearing of it theoretically from his guru, or something he realizes internally when anusmriti reaches to the stage of samadhi?

Is there only one possible way to get sthayi-bhava besides in the form of hearing it from his guru.

We all agree that one gets siddha-deha by the grace of his guru. But, how that grace is received is not always in a franchise of siddha-pranali. The guru is also a transcendental operator. He can also appear to us in samadhi and instruct us from within.
In fact the guru is the one who takes us to samadhi. In samadhi he reveals all things to us.

There might be, and then again maybe not. That is not, however, the issue here. The issue is whether one must be free from anartha before hearing of ekadasa-bhava or engaging in some certain stage of lila-smaranam. I'd really be happy if we could settle this question now instead of beating around the bush all the time.

= = =

As for the rest of what you wrote, we've been through this in a number of other threads, and on, hearing of ekadasa-bhava doesn't mean instant realization, it means learning of what you will come to attain, just as hearing of Krishna's form, qualities and activities gives you an impetus to attain Him. Ekadasa-bhava and all of that is realized when the heart is illuminated by suddha-sattva and bhava-bhakti arises. We all agree on that.

I think the answer has already been resolved. If one guru feels at liberty to give ekadasa-bhava to a disciple who has not yet attained nistha or ruci, then that is his discretion. If another acharya or guru requires his disciple to be on the level of nistha or ruci, then that should be his discretion and he should not be declared bogus because his standard is higher, or that he has a policy not to give it out at all. If a guru has many disciples, some will be more advanced than others. If he gives some this ekadasa bhava and not others, it might create confusion. Therefore, he might just make a policy to not give it to anybody inorder to preserve an equilibrium amongst his disciples.
After all:

na hy a∫gopakrame dhvaµso
mad-dharmasyoddhavå√v api
mayå vyavasita˙ samya∫
nirgu√atvåd anåçißa˙
Çrîmad-Bhågavatam(11.29.20)
O Uddhava, once the practice of bhakti-dharma consisting of
sravana and kîrtana related to Me has begun, no harm whatsoever
can be done to the root of bhakti, even though there may be
diminution of certain a∫gas. This is because bhakti-dharma is
beyond the jurisdiction of the material modes of nature. There is no
possibility of its being destroyed by any means because I have
ensured this dharma in this way for My unalloyed devotees.

So, in conclusion, it is not necessary to be free from anarthas to engage in raganuga-sadhana, nor is it necessary to be free from anarthas to receive siddha-pranali.

Do we all agree?

I agree that some parivars and some gurus might practice the standard you are endorsing, and that they might very well have the option to do so.
I don't agree that Swami Prabhupda would ever agree with that proposal as he has written explictly in his books that such things come after freedom from material contamination.

He, of course, was interested in promoting a preaching mission and not a camp of babajis. His standards and practices should not be required to conform to the babaji tradition.

Or, do you not see any value to the preaching mission that Saraswati Goswami started and Swami Prabhupada expanded all over the world?

Whatever, but just answer the question: Do you agree that there is nothing in the writings of the Gosvamis and their immediate followers restricting one from legitimately engaging in raganuga-sadhana and receiving information of their spiritual identities even without being free of anartha? If that is so, then just say yes, so it is, and admit you weren't able to prove your objection. I'm really getting tired of this beating around the bush. Let's just keep this discussion straight to the point and clarify the point we are here to clarify. Right or wrong, yes or no? We need some clear statements, not a constant stream of metamorphic doctrines, unfounded objections and besides-the-point appeals to this and that.

Swami Prabhupada has said several times in NOD and NOI that the raganuga devotee does not very strictly follow the regulative principles.
I have never really fully understood exactly what he meant by that. I am not sure if I do now. At least, superficically, that seems to confirm what you are saying about the behaviour and lifestyle of a raganuga devotee.

However, as I have said before, I think that there are many things implied in the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami that seem to support the Saraswata standard on rasa-siksha (ekadasa bhava).

For example, though it does seem that your version of the "tradition" has some support in the canon of Srila Rupa Goswami, there are also some rather stern standards that could just as easily disqualify it.

For example:

In the Upadeshamrita, Srila Rupa Goswami has described many things which will spoil all our attempts at devotional service. So, even though he does not explicitly make absolute strictures on practicing raganuga-bhakti, he does describe certain lifestyles and habits that can spoil all our efforts in raganuga-bhakti.


So, according to this verse by Srila Rupa Goswami, devotional service becomes spoiled by these anarthas. One may have a gopi name and the rest of his eka-dasa bhava and practicing his lila smaranam, but if he is entangled in any of the above misgivings his devotional service will be spoiled and the result will not be there.

So, even though we might think there are loopholes in the raganuga path, indeed there is no cheap or easy way to raganuga bhakti.

As well, we find:


In this verse, Srila Rupa Goswami says we must follow in the footsteps of the previous acharyas, who were all great ascetics and austere devotees.
We cannot manufacture a "new" profile of the devotee. We must follow the example of the previous acharyas, who were all highly renounced as Goswamis or babajis.

So, in theory, I would have to say that yes, you have some case for your version of the tradition, yet, at the same time, we can understand that without abiding by the principles Srila Rupa Goswami has given in these verses of his Upadeshamrita, all our attempts at lila smaranam in ekadasa bhava will not bear the fruit we are seeking.

Well, that makes two of us, then. It seems to me that this is just another case of swapping raganuga and ragatmika in the NOD, or otherwise a swapping of the concepts of bhava and raganuga-sadhana.



I'd love to see exactly in which teachings of Rupa Gosvami such things are implied in even a remotely direct way.



I don't think anyone has proposed that we should neglect the instructions of Upadesamritam. The only thing we object to is the "free from anarthas" argument. "Taking measures to overcome anarthas" is not exactly the same thing as "free from anarthas".



In spirit, we seek to imbibe the example of all previous acaryas. In practical life, householders follow the example of the great householder acaryas, and renunciates follow the example of the great renunciate acaryas. You may remember Bhaktivinod's comments on sato vRtteH in his Piyusa-varsini. He draws a clear distinction between the householders and the renunciates.

ṣaḍbhir bhaktir vinaśyati



It's quite clear here that any of these six anarthas will "pranasyati"(destroy) our devotional service. So, in theory, it might be conceivable that a guru will bestow ekadasa bhava on his disciples and engage him in lila smaranam before one has attained freedom from anarthas, we can see from the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami that his lila-smaranam will be destroyed by these anarthas.
If these anarthas "destroy" bhakti, then there is very little necessity in practicing lila smaranam in ekadasa bhava unless and until one comes to the stage of anartha-nivrtti. After all, Sankirtan has been described as the yuga-dharma that will bring us to the platform of anartha-nivrtti, wherein it will be efficacious for us to practice lila-smaranam. First, we take hari-nama bhajan to the stage of anartha-nivrtti. Then we can get the result we want out of lila-smaranam, otherwise not.

Prasidhyati means they perfect bhakti. Pranasyati means they destroy bhakti. The items of the third verse, such as utsaha, niscaya and so forth, certainly do not destroy bhakti.



Well, I really can't see this as particularly a lila-smaranam issue. His bhakti will vanish if he does not abide by the warnings of the second verse of Upadesamritam. This goes for all sadhakas, vaidhi and raganuga alike. It has nothing to do with lila-smaranam or ekadasa-bhava in particular. Lila-smaranam, just as any other form of sadhana, will help you become free from anartha.

Besides, the second verse of Upadesamritam is certainly not a "clear these and you are free of all anartha" verse.



This point of nama-kirtana purifying the consciousness to prepare it for lila-smaranam has been made by Jiva Gosvami in the 275th anuccheda of his Bhakti-sandarbha. It is frequently cited in the writings of Ananta Das Babaji. Here is a relevant passage from his upcoming commentary on Prema-bhakti-candrika:

Smarana— Fixing one's mind on the Lord's holy names, attributes and pastimes is called smarana. The remembrance of Sri Hari is the very life force of all spiritual practice, but in the devotional practice of smarana it is absolutely necessary to fix one's mind. When the mind is not pure it is not possible to concentrate. In other words, unless the dirt of other topics is removed the heart is not said to be purified and the practice of recollection will not be possible for anyone.

Hence Sri Jiva Gosvamipada has written: atha zaraNApattyAdibhiH zuddhAntaH karaNaz cet ... nAma saGkIrtanAparityAgena smaraNaM kuryAt – "When the mind is purified by the process of surrender, one should practise the devotional item of recollection along with the chanting of the holy name."

The purport of this is that as the heart of the practitioner gets purified by practising devotional items like faith, surrender, rendering service to Sri Guru and the Vaisnavas and hearing and chanting, the devotional item of recollection must become blissful to practise accordingly. The practitioner who is engaged in the item of recollection will gradually be able to advance through different stages, if he ardently endeavours, and arrive in the kingdom of bhava siddhi.

Srila Jiva Gosvami has mentioned these stages: tad idaM smaraNaM paJca vidhaM yat kiJcid anusandhAnaM smaraNam. sarvataz cittam AkRSya sAmAnyAkAreNa mano dhAraNaM dhAraNA. vizeSato rUpAdi cintanaM dhyAnam. amRta dhArAvad avichinnaM tat dhruvAnusmRtiH. dhyeya mAtra sphuraNaM samAdhir iti (Bhakti-sandarbha, anuccheda 278) – The aforementioned item of recollection knows five stages. A slight seeking of Sri Hari's names and forms is called smarana, withdrawing the heart from all the sense objects and holding Sri Hari's forms, attributes etc. within it, is called dharana (holding), specific meditations on the Lord's form and so is called dhyana, uninterrupted recollection, which flows like a stream of nectar, is called dhruvanusmrti and pure contemplation in meditation is called samadhi. As a result of susevana (nice practice) of the item of recollection the practitioner will gradually be blessed with bhava samadhi (pure loving contemplation).

Thus purity of heart is certainly a prerequisite for successful lila-smaranam. However, purity of heart does not mean freedom from all anartha, because freedom from all anartha is only attained when prema-bhakti arrives, and lila-smaranam culminates in bhava-samadhi before prema arrives.

This lila-smaranam progresses in stages, as demonstrated above, and the revelation of the lila comes in proportion to the purity of the heart. It, as everything else, is a systematic process. It's not an all-or-nothing matter.

As for hearing of ekadasa-bhava, that takes place before systematic lila-smaranam commences, and helps the aspirant to gradually obtain an appropriate identity to contemplate on during the services rendered in lila. Therefore one generally hears of his ekadasa-bhava before commencing the systematic practice of lila-smaranam.

I believe we call this the science of Krishna consciousness.

Thanks for the Sanskrit lesson. I copied and pasted the the wrong verse, but you caught the error.

Nonetheless, would you not agree that it is only ceaseless chanting of the Holy Name that will bring us to the platform or pure lila-smaranam?

Do we now have to get into a debate as to whether or not one has to practice smaranam to get to anartha-nivrtti?

Please don't tell me that one cannot get to the the stage of anartha-nivrtti without smaranam.

Yes, I agree that only ceaseless chanting will bring us to the platform of lila-smaranam. Would I disagree with Jiva and Sanatana?

I don't think we need to debate whether one needs to practice smaranam or not to become purified of anarthas. Let's just settle the topic at hand for now. We can open a separate thread for that if someone has an urge to explore the issue.

"Generally" one is given ekadasa bhava before commencing lila-smaranam?
Are you saying that it is not "absolute" that one has to get eka-dasa bhava first before commencing lila-smaranam? After all it is the "lila" that we are smaranam right? What part does our ekadasa bhava play in "lila-smaranam"?
It is just an image of ourself that we are supposed to conceive. But, where in the "lila smaranam" do we enter the lila? Are we not just thinking about the lila? There is really nothing in the lila that conforms to our own particular part is there?

If one is thinking about the lila with the aim of imbibing the mood of the gopis, is that not some form of raganuga-sadhana? Is there not different stages and levels of lila-smaranam?

There may be exceptions, but that is the general idea. For proper lila-smaranam, you need to be present in a proper mood. It is not that we are going for a Radha-Krishna movie night to observe the lila. Such observation is not as useful in cultivating a specific mode of service as longing to participate, and eventually participating, in rendering particular services is.



Oh yes there is! There are many manuals written for the aspirant's role to play in lila-smaranam. The Gutika of Siddha Krishnadas of Govardhan is a very famous one. You can read an excerpt from the Naimittika-lila - section of the Gutika to get an idea. You can also read Dhyanacandra's Paddhati to get an idea.



Yes, that is certainly a kind of raganuga-sadhana, but it should lead to participating in the lila in your antas-cintita siddha-deha.

Can one participate in lila via the antas-cintitia siddha-deha if his mind is contaminated with anarthas and the dirt of such ?

Isn't hearing and chanting about the pastimes of Krishna just as relevant before acheiving ACSD? Where is the prohibition against lila-smaranam without ACSD?

Who are you then? What is your role and service within the lila? Is that not the whole setup of booklets like Sankalpa Kalpadruma, Utkalika Vallari and Vilapa Kusmanjali? You will just stand by and watch? Got no service to do? By what name should Radha Krishna call you to do your service?

I am Sri Rupa Manjari.(not the original) I perform the same service as her. I will have the same exact eka-dasa bhava as her. My gurudeva told me to think like that.

There are gradations of contamination. The less contamination, the more lucid the perception of the lila, the more vivid the participation.



That'd depend on how you define "relevant".

Is there prohibition against lila-smaranam without siddha-deha? No, I suppose not, but there are clear recommendations that it be done in siddha-deha. They've been posted in a good number of times. Why would we wish to act contrary to the recommendations of the acaryas? Sato vritteh, remember.

There is following, anugamana, and there is imitation, anukarana. The first is recommended, the second is banned.

If only Bhaktisiddhanta had taken diksa from someone, then you wouldn't be struggling now so much. This anti-siddha pranali, so-called 'cautious, conservative' preaching is just a cover up for not having a diksa line. Any normal initiated devotee has this siddha pranali. Anyway, it is never too late......

Why don't you just send him a good one by e-mail.

Ksa ... Ksa ... Kusuma Manjari!
Dress is blue like the midnight sky.
Mood is certainly vAma-prakharA.
Service is vitaNDa-sevA.

Why don't you grab that as a prototype and work it out later with some good siksa-guru.

The word 'kSamA' is female gender anyway, so kSamA manjari......
Perhaps that is what Nitai Das had in mind when he gave him that name.....

I am quite sure that Saraswati Goswami had diksha. He revealed in some place that his nitya-svarupa is Sri Nayana(Nayantara)Manjari.

Personally, I have more attraction to the babaji in a shack than I do for all the grandiose opulence of ISKCON. I get more inspiration from the babaji in the shack than I do for big, big temples like the ISKCON temple in Bangalore.

I am not that far from taking the plunge into the "raganuga" camp. Honestly, I can appreciate this "old school" camp more than modern day ISKCON.
After all, I have the right to accept as many siksha gurus as I want. My gurudeva taught me that. In raganuga-bhakti I have to make my own choices and follow my heart.

To tell the truth..................... I really dig this raganuga camp! I want more than the elementary school that ISKCON has become.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja once said that we are minors, but we should aspire to become majors (adults) and be willing to receive that inheritance that our gurudeva has left for us.

I was never really the preacher type anyway. I am definitly more of the reclusive type. There are plenty of preachers around to do the job. ISKCON is training up plenty of preachers. I am more interested in bhajan than prachar. I have a natural aversion to being a preacher and being the center of attention.


Where should I start? Where do I begin the transition from disenchanted ISKCON reject, to a "traditionalist"?

I admit that I am not really all that satisfied with this "ritvik" initiation I got in ISKCON. I really wish that I could have had a personal contact with Prabhupada, so that I could have had some sense of discipleship in the traditional sense.

I am really turned off by ISKCON and not very hot about what happened to the camp of Sridhar Maharaja.

ISKCON has it's purpose. I don't belong there though.

I really like the way that the pundits in here present the cult and culture of Krishna-bhakti with strictly shastric support and not all the hype and commentary that you would hear in a typical ISKCON lecture.

It's hard to argue with all this. It's hard (really hard) for me to think about drifting away from Prabhupada. But really, I don't find that this is taking me away from Prabhupada, rather helping me to understand in a much deeper way what he was actually trying to teach.

Sridhar Maharaja explained some verse from Rupa Goswami where he said that divine love moves like a snake, that it goes from this side to that side in order to make forward movement. Wherever Krishna appears to us, we have to run in that direction. It is not a strictly linear approach. He taught us to see guru everywhere and to go in whichever direction we are pulled.

I know that Saraswati Goswami once called Radha-kunda "naraka-kunda", but I am afraid that such a precedent could lead to terrible offenses in his parivar if that concept gets too much play and taken too far.

I am about to give up this arguing game that i have played on the internet for along time, as a form of entertainment.

I do appreciate the traditional approach. I do not like the least of offensive attitudes towards the Saraswata parivar.

You prabhus have got a lot going for you here. Don't detract from that with petty fault-finding and party-spirit. Take the high road and you will easily demonstrate that you are very serious and sincere Vaishnavas who know what they are talking about.

This is getting to freaky!
I was just driving down the road thinking about all this and I thougt "Maybe I am Kusum Manjari"

This is getting a little ......

Bizarre...........real bizarre!

Maybe I am going to be the first person in the movement to get siddha-pranali over the internet?

You can't take it back now! Considering that the same name just came to me in my mind a few minutes before I actually read your post, I have to take it as something more than a joke.

Do tears in my eyes mean anything?

Every tear counts.

Just don't take up that vitanda-seva!

There it is, the O word again.

In principle I agree 100% with what you are saying. That sword cuts both ways, however. It has always been your faction that has initiated those types of discussions here and not ours. Is following a tactic of bull-baiting taking the high road?

It is Nitai that you seem to have the problem with, yet he is not a participant here. He has posted occasionally in the past, but currently he is not visiting these forums. You could always invite him here, if it is really your desire to confront him with your concerns. Would that not be the direct and honest approach, as opposed to sniping at him behind his back?

I don't even know what it means. It would be difficult to take it up, since i don't know Sanskrit or the meaning of the word.

I am a little somber at the moment. I am actually quite shy. I feel something substantially spiritual has happened to me in here. I need to compose myself for a while and check back in later. I can't just keep setting here weeping over my keyboard. It is making me tired.

I offer my dandavats to all the Vaishnavas.

I offer my dandavats to Sri Madhavananda das.

Please forgive my offenses.

I really don't think Nitai is the only person in the world who needs to be reminded to not engage in unnecessary critique and distasteful statements. There is nothing in Ksamabuddhi's post particularly about Nitai. I think he means it as a general tip for everyone, and I think people, myself included, should pay attention to the tip.

Of course everything cuts both ways, let's just try to remember it cuts our way too.

Entry vitaNDa

Meaning m. (prob. connected with prec.) a sort of lock or bolt with three divisions or wards W. ; an elephant ib. ; (%{A}) f. cavil , captious objection , fallacious controversy , perverse or frivolous argument (esp. in Nya1ya , `" idly carping at the arguments or assertions of another without attempting to prove the opposite side of the question "'

Monier-Williams'

Radhe!

Dear Rasesh,
if you are serious, and not playing your game,
i would be VERY happy for you.
honestly.

this sounded again like the nice guy inside of you.
like this one nice "family man-post".

my best wishes to you

ys
Tarunji

thank you, dear Madhava.
i like to be corrected from someone who knows how to debate.

i will stick to your very good advice.

Radhe!

Tarunji

Yes, excellent and sage advice.

That particular post may not have been aimed at Nitai specifically, but other posts by KB were extremely anti-Nitai in tone. That is the reason I brought it up. It is not fair for anyone to indict an entire group based on what one individual does independently of that group. I personally voiced my opinion to Nitai that I did not see any point in making any references to Gaudiya Math and ISKCON. He disagrees on the basis of it being instructive to those trying to understand the differences between those groups and other Caitanyaite branches, which is something he took up fairly recently (only within the last couple of years). Prior to that he kept silent on the subject. He chose to break that silence after two decades. Many people are reacting to that by misconstruing his intentions and by falsely perceiving that he has some axe to grind. Of course that is not really surprising, considering his extremely harsh tone in his written critiques. My mother once asked him what his honest assessment of Prabhupada was, and he replied that he thought that Prabhupada was one of the few gurus that actually practiced what he preached, based on his personal observation of him over a period of years. That is hardly an offensive or disrespectful attitude. We often discuss the old days and he will recount some episode from Prabhupada lila. These are always spoken with affection, even when it may have involved some personal disagreement between the two. There is never a trace of bitterness. Those stories are deeply inspiring, and they paint the picture of a powerful missionary of the holy name who had tremendous depth of character, complete with a mood of dedication along with frustation with the usual daily snafus like some devotee misbehaving or going off to start his own new religion under the ISKCON banner.

Pardon me for even being here. I am not so sure that this thread is on topic anymore, and it really don't matter to me because I am tired of arguing off- the-cuff statements I made coming in here for the sake of argument.
These so-called "14 points of ksamabuddhi" are derived from statements I made that I knew would rub you all the wrong way and instigate an argument.
Why did I want to start a fight? Because I have heard criticisms of Srila Prabhupada from some of the members here in other forums. I wanted to come in here and ruffle your feathers and get your dander up, because I was peeved by some of the criticisms of Srila Prabhupada that I have heard coming from this camp.

Srila Prabhupada wanted to make Krishna consciousness a world religion. In the process of doing so, he made some tricky little adjustments to the philosophy that would allow for Krishna consciousness to become a main-stream religion on an international scale. He knew that gopi-bhava was not the format for making Krishna consciousness a main-stream religion. However, it is from this "religion" of Krishna consciosness that many will advance on to higher and deeper levels of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.(I know, you all have been telling me this all along).

It is really great that some devotees have been able to take to this rupanugianity (how do you like the word I coined?) and embrace the full-fledged form of rupanuga bhakti. However, it is a very sad occasion when any devotee who has been produced out of the efforts of Srila Prabhupada, will then turn on his movement and seek to dishonor or discredit Srila Prabhupada or his teachings.

I think it is important to understand this very critical point; that any discrepancies , inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the precepts of Srila Prabhuapda that one will measure in contrast to the "tradition" are actually very calculated and strategic adjustments or innovations that he introduced for the purpose of constructing a large preaching mission that would not be cowed down by the intellectual or reclusive tendency of the tradition. Srila Prabhupada wanted to create a monolithic preaching organization that could transform Gaudiya Vaishnavism from an obscure HIndu cult to an international phenonema. In order to accomplish that, there had to be a few changes, a few compromises, a few little tricks and gimmicks. It was a masterful acheivement. A marvelous work, nothing short of miraculous.

It is a very sad case when the learned devotees who take up the cult in all it's fullness, then turn and accuse Srila Prabhupada of not understanding the philosophy and preaching "concoction" and "apasiddhanta", as if he didn't know the tradition himself. Srila Prabhupada knew well the "tradition". However, he didn't find it prudent to try and institute all the most esoteric aspects of the bhakti cult into what he was trying to form as a preaching mission. He felt that he needed to make some adjustments and innovations that could streamline the tradition into something that was capable of becoming a world religion.

I think it was a work of genius! A masterpiece! A masterpiece that has served it's purpose and created the need for new and innovative ways to deal with the many old and advanced devotees who have been produced out of the 40 years that this movement has been spreading around the world like a plague.

As the trend for embracing the "traditional" form of Krishna consciousness grows, it will be important to carefully avoid any "biting of the hand that feeds you", in the form of criticising or ridiculing the movement of Swami Prabhupada.

We just need to keep in mind that the inconsistencies or so-called innacuracies in the works of SRila Prabhupada that we might find are no reflection on his own understanding, but a stop-gap measure that he formulated as a means for creating a preaching force that would not be inhibited by the inertia that is so easily the outcome of the emphasis on bhajan.

The wise should not disrupt the minds of the young and restless who need the ISKCON format to get them from neophyte to madhyama. From that point they might be able to go further, maybe not.

We should praise and admire the work of Srila Prabhuapada, understanding his "Innovations" or "discrepancies" to be necessary evils that he deemed proper for the purpose and mission in this world.

He inherited all that from Srila Saraswati Goswami and the same applies to him.

Are you sure that the posts you saw on other forums were generated by people posting here?

Please refer to the topic titled Deductive Logic 101.

We do not accept your premise that inertia is so easily the outcome of the emphasis on bhajan. Where is the emphasis supposed to be, if not on bhajan? Collecting donations? What is the outcome of that type of emphasis? I think we all know the answer to that question.

For your information there already is a topic here about ISKCON, where everyone has made their acknowledgement of Prabhupada's contributions. How many times do we have to do that to make you happy?

Please excuse me if I don't feel the love

Dear Kshamabuddhiji,

We are all rather tired of having to "prove" our respect or appreciation for Srila Prabhupada. We go through this business with Prabhupada's disciples over and over again. We even have a thread on this forum that recognizes our appreciation for both your Prabhupadas. The position of most devotees on this forum seems to me to be fairly clear--we appreciate very much the efforts made by Srila Prabhupada and recognize that we have a debt to him.

Those who continue to maintain membership in Iskcon or the Gaudiya Math for the most part will nevertheless continue to treat us as guru tyagis. Any statement we make that can be interpreted as unfriendly will be highlighted and magnified and our positive statements ignored.

There is nothing that we can do about this than to continue to express our sincere appreciation for Srila Prabhupada and yet follow our chosen path. We are sorry that so many people take an unfriendly attitude towards us, but we are confident that we are following Srila Prabhupada's instructions to take up the teachings of Rupa Goswami.

If we have become offenders to anyone in so doing, we apologize with all the humility at our command, but we cannot go back now. Once yogurt, never again milk.

Yours sincerely,

Jagadananda Das.

I think none of us are bound to agree with others upon demand. It would be wonderful if more followers of Prabhupada would come to understand that spiritual life is a subjective matter; your guru is the manifestation of Bhagavan for you, and my guru is the same for me. One cannot start enforcing such private matters in public, demanding us to accept Prabhupada in the same way they do. There are levels of respect, it is not a black and white matter. If we are no good with our style respect and would have to entertain aa messianic praise - approach instead, it's sad.

We are quite happy to have ISKCON folks around as long as the Prabhupada Enforcement Agency is on a permanent vacation. In fact, we wish them all success in their preaching. Heck, I just coded together a congregational meeting database for the local folks here who wanted to coordinate their weekly meetings a bit better.

If the Hare Krishna people indeed become one of the mainstream religions of the world, nothing will make me happier. Or maybe some things would, but anyways, it'd be a great thing. An easy-to-digest version of Gaudiya Vaishnavism for the masses, of whom the select few desire to delve to the bottom of the matter, whom we can in our turn help out. Unfortunately, as it stands, it seems that Prabhupada's movement has quite a bit of work to do before attaining that status, and quite a few adjustments to make both in their public profile and their internal dynamics. Let's see.

Ksamabuddhi,

What kind of rude creep deliberately enters another man's home and accepts the homeowner's hospitality, with the deliberate intent of abusing that hospitality and causing a fight? Madhavananda has treated you with tremendous kindness and patience, yet you have had no qualms about abusing that kindness. Either you are a psychologically disturbed narcissist, or you're plainly and simply a JERK.

Leaving aside the question of Vaishnava etiquette, your admission reveals that you are gravely deficient in even the most basic human etiquette. Conversation with you cannot possibly be productive, given the way you present yourself. I'm done.

I am grateful, at least, that you are finally admitting openly your unpleasant motivations. But now that I have had my suspicions confirmed, I will no longer post in any threads in which I see that you have posted. Don't worry, though; you won't even miss me!

I really like this point of Madhava-ji. It some ways it may sound obvious or an excuse to define our own eclectic reality, but I don't take it (or him) like that.

In my own response, I thought of those Upanisad verses--it is for the love of the self that he loves the body; for the love of the self, he loves the wife, etc. Inherent in them is perhaps a paradox, a lesson in misidentification or a call to Spirit, depending upon how you read them. And so it is with guru and religion. Is it for the love of Self that we love them? If so--which Self? Are they an extension of ahankara or are they our liberators? If we have not misidentified our conditioned Self with them, how can there be anything other than a greater awareness and a greater seeking of them in all conditions? If guru-nistha is there, surely sad-acara is the manifestation of it, not the gnashing of teeth and flailing of arms.

In placing our beliefs into the world, or even into our own lives, we run a risk--

"But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams."

--but the reactions to our beliefs are an unavoidable part of our beliefs, they are a challenge, a call to progress. And if we didn't voice them well, maybe we didn't know them well.

Thus Spake Zarathustra

He even gave you a siddha deha, at no extra cost!

It would have to be me.

First I get brahmana initiation from a tape player, and now siddha-pranali on the internet.

I feel so special!