Quote:

Originally Posted by suchandra Thanks aditya prabhu, I pasted mat param into an online sanskrit translator at

Namaskar

Thanks for the effort. Now please search another term 'anadimat'.

anadiMatparam can be parsed as anadimat (without beginning) or as matparam.

To translate that something controls Param Brahman is actually like saying 'Prabhupada controls Param Brahman, since only Prabhupada can translate so.

Similar passage from Svet. Upanishad will throw more light.


4.4 niilaH pataN^go harito lohitaaxa\-


staDidgarbha R^itavaH samudraaH .
</PRE>

anaadimat.h tva.n vibhutvena vartase
</PRE> yato jaataani bhuvanaani vishvaa .. 4..


4.4 . Thou art the dark-blue bee, thou art the green parrot with red eyes, thou art the
thunder-cloud, the seasons, the seas. THOU ART WITHOUT BEGINNING, because thou art infinite, thou from whom all worlds are born.
----------------------------

'Param Brahman under my control' is entertainment.


Om<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

Well I beg your pardon sir, but who made you the authority on this subject? I can't help but gag and roll my eyes when someone with his own personal agenda comes here to "correct" established acharayas as if they where the very authorities acharya's report to.

Here aditya "prabhu" starts to offend and belittle Prabhupada, daring even to call him a bogus preacher and lacking common sense.
Besides commiting the grossest form of Vaishnava aparadha the awkward results of which even Lord Vishnu Himself ,Lord Brahma and Lord Shiva can't free him from, by displaying this attitude he blatantly reveals his true level of spiritual realization, and thereby his utter lack of authority on the matter.

And I wonder wherefrom people get the audacity to challenge, attempt to correct and insult the words of pure Vaishnavas instead. The exact translation and purport of any verse in the gita can only be given by Krishna or the pure devotee of Krishna. It cannot be explained by an advaitist, scholar, or whatever follower of any other path. Therefore it is rightfully labelled "as it is". Just like a fish can't operate on land, so also unless one is devoted to Krishna one will be unable to comprehend the true purport of His words. In other words, Prabhupada's translation is just perfect and "AS IT IS" and yours is the bogus one even though by any scholarly approach it may not seem to be so.
The Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavatam clearly establishes Krishna as Supreme Personality of Godhead. If anyone draws a different conclusion he must be understood to be either thoroughly illusioned or on a mission of the Lord to spread confusion in His name, like Lord Shiva did as Shankaracharya.

Now Aditya or Atanu, your posts are highly offensive and poisonous, so I would like to implore that you from this point on refrain from writing this type of commentation and beg forgivesness for your offenses from Srila Prabhupada and thereby salvage your spiritual growth. Don't be shy, Vaishnava's are very merciful and forgiving.

Thank you.

The thing is that Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is at times, hailed way too high by his followers. Something like an ultimate authority on spirituality and God on everything 'Vedic' and no other Guru from anywhere comes even near. Some say that he is the last Guru on this planet for the next 10,000 years to come!!!!!
And if there is anything that contradicts what he said, it is immediately brushed off as "offensive", "poisonous" and as "non-authoritative". The label Bhagwad Gita "as it is" may not be as it really was or as it exactly is!!

And I'll give a valid reason for it, which you can of course reject as per your understanding and preference.
Bhagwad Gita "As it is", as commented by Shri Prabhupada is translated and commented as per Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy and holds its philosophy as the central idea. But in BG Lord Krsna deeply touches the various branches of sadhna and he doesn't reject them. To understand them, one has to go through them practically. At many places the Lord says to know your higher Self! The Hare Krsna philosophy doesn't accentuate on it. It rejects many other things, what Lord Krsna preaches and explains and recommends, simply rejecting it as something meant for yogis (who are usually materialists and lower than us) or for people with lower intelligence. Only people with lower intelligence worship 'demiGods'. But the same Krsna recommends the worship of gods too!! This is not taken into consideration. Shiva is considered as a mere "DemiGod". But when Krsna worships Shiva this is never mentioned. The Anushasan parva where Krsna hails Lord Shiva and recites his sehestranama is rejected and even considered as made up!! Bhagwatam is considered as amala purana, but when Lord Brahma hails Shiva as controller of the universe in the same Bhagwatam, this is ignored. When Lord Krsna instructs Arjuna (a seasoned yogi) the right way to meditate on Him inside the lotus of Anahat chakra, Shri Prabhupada hasn't got much to say on it. If he had experienced that method, he could comment on it authoritatively too. So the commentary on this particular verse is not that of someone who has actually gone through this experience. Its a literary one in this regard.
Here it is important to note that experiential realization of the said quotes in a scripture or preaching is essential from the point of Yog and Shakt principles.
And this is made clear in the Gita. And this has not been given due regard in the 'As it is' version. The experiential part becomes clear as Arjuna - a seasoned yogi is receiving the preaching and instructions from Lord Krsna himself, the best of all Gurus, but still remains in doubt. Krsna beautifully explains to him the nature of soul, its activity, evolution and duty chapter after chapter. But Arjun still cannot get rid of doubts haunting him completely. And then Krsna gives him the experience into cosmic consciousness by opening his third eye (Agya chakra) and granting divine vision though Shaktipat. And this is Arjun's final and most thorough understanding. After this, words are not really necessary. He has understood Krishna. Divine (Krishna) Consciousness.
We go to Gita class - class after class, repeat the 'shlokas' and come back home to the same mundane existence. Was Shri Parth dvaitin? or Advaitin? A shree vaishnava or a Gaudiya Vaishnava? or was he a Shiava? He worshipped Shiva too. It won't really matter. What really mattered was his experiential realization of the Gita, of Krsna.

Similarly in another place in Gita, when Lord Krsna instructs on going to a clean and quite place for the practice of Yog, Shri Prabhupada explains it as going to a pilgrimage like Vrindavana... yogis who have gone into the depths of their souls in seclusion and experienced the sound of naad understand this differently and deeply. That it is not a dire necessity to roam in a pilgrimage to experience this. Of course the spiritual vibrations and general atmosphere in pilgrimage place support spirituality and religiousness.
And yes many highly evolved yogis have had very 'personal' experiences with the divine, even though some of their practices maybe termed as 'impersonal'.

So Shri Prabhupada ji's translation and commentary IS colored by his faith in his line of philosophy. This cannot be denied.
Bhagwad Gita "as it is" can be commented upon and fully understood by a person who stands at the level of Arjuna. One who has gained mastery in all different branches of sadhna and not one line of philosophy. One who has achieved shiddis and gone beyond them. One who has risen above the limitations of his physical body and can manipulate and understand the five elements NOT in Theory or preaching, but in practical terms.

Of course I do understand, that since your sadhna is different than the Vedic sadhna methods, you may simply not accept this view.

Needless to say that bhakti is very essential. And it is an essential part in most branches of Vedic sadhna. But you can't reject yogic, tantra and mantra sadhnas. And no this is not doing asanas in health spas or something 'new age' selling.
Bhagwat Gita can fully be understood from an in-depth practical understanding of the Vedic branches and spiritual practices. If Bhagwat Gita is understood in totality one will not reject Shakta and Shiava philosophy or Vedic sadhnas, but come to their combined understanding being able to rise above the differences. And one can rise above the difference only by a thorough understanding of the different schools in practice and understanding the underlying tattva. And God and tattva cannot be fully grasped by reading alone. This is a fact repeated by sages over the ages.

Bhaktivedanta Swami did a great service by bringing the Gita and gaudiya Vaishnavism to the west. So did his God brothers. Just as Shri Vivekananda introduced the west to Indian spiritual culture and the message of Gita more than half a century before that and Shri Yogananda brought the immortal science of Kriya yog to the west before that. The positive influence they brought into thousands of lives in the west is both revolutionary and evolutionary.
Regards.

Hare Krishna Tantrayoga,

first of all I would like to thank you for your civilized response to my critique of atanu's message, though I feel it didn't warrant such a civilized response as it was written quite harshly and in the heat of the moment. So again thank you for that. I shall now attempt to comment on your reply in an equally civilized fashion, I hope you will appreciate it:

Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, Parampara And Vaishnava Aparadha

How can disciples of Bhaktivedanta Swami ever hail him too high? For a disciple, no praise is high enough for their guru. This sort of glorification is perfectly in accordance with the Vedic injunctions.
As far as ultimate authority goes; well if you are familiar with the guru parampara system, you will understand that the knowledge Bhaktivedanta Swami has given the world was not invented by him, it was passed on to him by his guru and so on and so on until we reach the ultimate authority, first in the form of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who is Krishna Himself, and from Mahaprabhu the parampara goes back again to Krishna. So I think it's fair to say that the knowledge he has given us on spiritual life has sprouted from the ultimate authority, and is therefore the ultimate authority. But that does not mean that Bhaktivedanta Swami is the only ultimate authority. Other bonafide guru's in the Gaudiya line are equally possessed of this ultimate authority, and we will find that each complements the other in some way. When there is an apparent contradiction, it only serves to increase Bhakti to Sri Sri Radha Krishna. A bonafide disciple will understand why there may be apparent discrepancies in the various different bonafide Gaudiya acharaya's teachings. The guru parampara most definitely does not stop with Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, that much I agree with. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur Goswami Prabhupada, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's guru, had so many exceptionally qualified disciples, and their lines are continuing to give us Mahaprabhu's message to this day in an unadulterated fashion.

So in conclusion of this subject, if anyone criticizes Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada on shastric conclusions, he is ultimately criticizing Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Who is Sri Krishna Himself, Who Has come to inaugurate this divine yuga dharma of Harinam Samkirtan. Please realize in this scope how silly criticism on the Vaishnava acharya's from unauthorative sources (such as the ones in this topic) sounds.

It is not a "brushing off" when notifying a criticaster of his committing Vaishnava aparadha, but rather it is a helping hand. The Vedic scriptures give us ample examples of how dangerously destructive to ones spiritual life (and material life even) it is to commit Vaishnava aparadha, a prime example being the aparadha caused by Durvasa muni to the Vaishnava Ambarish maharaj. These examples are not given as jolly entertainment, they are grave warnings for spiritual practitioners not to commit offenses, and especially not to the Vaishnavas. So yes, such posts are indeed poisonous and offensive, and indeed they are non-authorative as thusfar the authors of these comments are simply using their own furtile imagination to come up with interpretations without properly backing it up by quoting from Vedic literature and accompanying authories on the subjects. So how to accept anything they say any other way then non-authorative? Those who are envious of Lord Krishna will never understand His position (B.G.9.1), therefore they can never give the proper purport of the Gita.

Everything Prabhupada has been teaching on Sanatana Dharma has it's origin in the established parampara. You can check and crosscheck with any Vaishnava authority coming from the line of Mahaprabhu and find there is no distortion in the teachings. At best some trivial aspects of rituals may have been adapted according to time and circumstance but that's it. There is no question about it: a nondevotee cannot translate and present the Bhagavad Gita as it is.

Please also bear in mind that the type of preaching was done according to time and circumstance. When Bhaktivedanta Swami came to the west the hippie movement was thriving. Needless to say, due to the abundant use of drugs and unrestricted sex, his target audience was in a state of gross ignorance. Strong and clear words had to be used, and by doing so he was cutting out a clear path to Krishna. If he had been even slightly ambiguous in his approach, how do you think he would have been able to convey the message of Krishna to a crowd completely unfamiliar with Vedic knowledge? Strong words were required to clear away the weeds that were obstructing the bhakti-lata-bija, or seed of the creeper of devotion, from sprouting.

Bhagavad Gita, Paths of Yoga And "Demigods"

As far as the Bhagavad gita goes, it is basically the whole Vedic knowledge contained in a nutshell, so naturally many different processes of attaining the Supreme have been addressed in this most beautiful song. In the Gita, Krishna gradually explains the various paths of yoga, and it, as you may have noticed, culminates in Bhakti yoga, the highest form of yoga. Those who follow other paths of yoga are only able to attain the Supreme by at least some use of Bhakti at a certain point in their sadhana. Bhakti is the only yoga that does not require any other path of yoga to assist it, it is self sufficient. Also, if a person is meditating on the impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord, it naturally follows that he does not go to the same destination as the person meditating on the Lord's personal feature.
Do note that nobody in the Gaudiya Vaishnava line is rejecting these other yogic paths, or is labelling them as not bonafide. The paths are absolutely bonafide but they are not the recommended path for this age of Kali. In Kali yuga, the recommended path is to perform Harinam Sankirtan as inaugurated by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as predicted by the Vedic Literature:

"Harer nama Harer nama Harer namaiva kevalam kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha"

"In this age of Kali, the only way of deliverance is by chanting the names of the Lord, chanting the names of the Lord, chanting the names of the Lord. There is no other way, no other way, no other way."
(Brhan-naradiya Purana 38.126)

So ask yourself: if an elevator is readily available to take you to the top, why would you bother taking the stairs instead? Is that not foolishness? So you can see why it is really not necessary for a devotee to first undergo all these laborious processes before he can come to Bhakti yoga. Rather, the guru has spread the bed for us and all we need to do is dive in, dive into the process of Bhakti yoga. No need to practice any other path of yoga. All will be revealed by practicing bhakti, no need to follow other branches seperately. This is why Gaudiya Vaishnavism doesn't focus on them. The mundane example may be given that the one who focusses utterly and completely on his cherished target is sooner to achieve it then the one who is focussing on a variety of subjects. Our sadhana entails one-pointed devotion towards Supreme Lord Sri Krishna. By doing so, all other processes will be fulfilled, just as by watering the root of a tree, the whole tree will be nourished. By singleminded devotion, one vastly accelerates the establishing of his relationship with his istha-deva, and this is wanted. This kind of directness only accelerates the process. I hope you understand.
Furthermore, Arjuna, Krishna's eternal close friend who plays the role of an unknowing Kshatriya in this playful pastime of Sri Krishna, is not actually a seasoned yogi as you put it and as such he complains about these paths to Krishna as follows (B.G.6.33): "O Madhu-sudana, the system of yoga which you have just described appears impractical and unendurable to me, for the mind is restless and unsteady." And in B.G. 6.34 he says that "to control the mind is more difficult than controlling the wind ."

So therefore, when Krishna recommends going to a clean place, and put some kusha grass and deerskin there for the practice of yoga, it is basically totally irrelevant to reaching one's goal, especially now that we're in the age of Kali. Where will you find this place and how much trouble will it cost you to get there, stay there and do your sadhana? The process of this age is Harinam Samkirtan, so why would Prabhupada go in depth on this subject matter? He has come to preach the recommended process of the age, which is easier, superior, and can be practiced at any time, anywhere, so why would he branch off unto these subject matters?

I understand that you, like many others have a problem with the word "demigod". It seems that it is often interpreted as a derogatory title. I have read another gita in the Gaudiya line which translates it as "celestial deity". Many try to push forward the notion that there is no such thing as a demigod, or celestial deity and that it was invented by Prabhupada to put them down. But this is a gross misunderstanding. Concerning Sivaji, Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada had nothing but the highest respect for Lord Shiva, this is evident from all his purports. How else could he? Lord Shiva is the greatest Vaishnava! Again, Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada uses the word demigod to clearly distinguish between Bhagavan Sri Krishna and all His other manifestations. This is done to first of all make people understand that Krishna, before any other manifestation, is the ultimate source of all sources. "Ete camsa-kalah pumsah Krishnas tu Bhagavan Svayam" (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28)
Furthermore, Krishna Himself confirms the existence and worship of other gods in the verse B.G. 9.23, and he deems it as follows: "Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kunti, is really meant for me alone, but it is offered without true understanding(or against the shastric injunctions)." So it is clear from this verse that Krishna does not recommend worship of the demigods, but if anyone is determined to do it, He will give them the intelligence to go to them anyway.
Moreover in Gita verse 25 of the same chapter we find that those who worship those demigods, or celestial deities as you like, will go to the planets of those demigods. And again, in Bhagavad-gita chapter 10 verse 2 we find confirmation that there is a distinction between Krishna and all other manifestations, as Krishna says: "Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and the sages." So let there be no doubt that there are indeed such beings as demigods, and that they are not equal to Krishna.

Lord Siva

Who praises who doesn't really say much. These are all simply cordial and ethical matters. Sometimes an advanced devotee may be seen to give big praise to a neophyte devotee while putting himself down. Does this mean that the neophyte has become higher than the advanced devotee? In the Bhagavatam, sometimes sages are addressed as Bhagavan. Krishna praises Siva and Siva praises Krishna, all according to Vedic etiquette. In the bhagavatam (canto 8.7), the prajapati's are praying to Lord Siva, addressing Him as the Supreme controller, Bhagavan etc. in order to please him so he will drink the poison that arose from churning the milkocean. Krishna is always more than happy to put His devotees in the spotlight, just as He had put Arjuna in the spotlight on the battlefield of Kurukshetra.
In canto 8.9 of the Bhagavatam, we find the wonderful and endearing pastime of Lord Siva getting bewildered by Lord Vishnu's manifestation of Mohini Murti. Siva's wive is Durgadevi who controls maya, so the position of Sivaji is that he will never get bewildered, and definitely not by any female shape. Yet, Vishnu, by persistence of Siva's wanting to see Mohini murti, manages to bewilder Lord Siva. The purport and sheer beauty of this pastime is found in S.B.8.12.36-44, where Lord Siva is not ashamed of being manipulated by Mohini murti, which in turn pleased Lord vishnu greatly, praising Him. In verse 43 of the chapter, Lord Shiva addresses his wife as follows:

"Lord Siva said: O Goddess, you have now seen the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the unborn master of everyone. Although I am one of the principal expansions of His Lordship, even I was illusioned by His energy. What then is to be said of others, who are fully dependent on Maya?"

Lord Siva is definitely not a "mere demigod" as we can see from this verse, but neither is He fully on par with Krishna. Sometimes He is classified as demigod though when addressing His feature as the Siva who is presiding over the guna of tama. He is certainly bhagavan. He is nondifferent from Krishna, but at the same time He is different. This is acintyabhedabheda tattva. Simultaneously one and different. Indeed the yogurt turning to curd example applies here. I could recommend the book "Siva Tattva" by HDG Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja, which briefs the reader with a clear and beautiful summary elucidation of this complex Tattva. A small quote:

"We honor Lord Siva as a great Vaishnava and as guru. We do not worship him separately. We observe Siva-ratri, Lord Siva's appearance day, and we glorify him in connection to his relationship with Sri Krishna. Srila Sanatana Goswami has written in his Hari-bhakti-vilasa that all Vaisnavas should observe Siva-caturdasi. Lord Siva, in whom all good qualities reside, should certainly be honoured by the observance of this day.

We offer obeisance to Lord Siva with prayers like this:

"O gatekeeper of Vrndavana! O Some, all glories to you! O you whose forehead is decorated with the moon, and who is worshipable by the sages headed by Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatana and Narada! O Gopisvara! Desiring that you bestow upon me the prema for the lotusfeet of Sri Sri Radha-Madhava, who perform joyous pastimes in Vraja-dhama, I offer my obeisances unto you time and again.""

Gopishvara Mahadeva Ki Jay!

Arjuna's Vision And The Ultimate Understanding

You state that Arjuna's vision of Krisnna's universal form which was granted to him by Krishna, is the final understanding. But the conclusion of the Gita is that Bhakti to Sri Krishna is the final understanding. So how can Arjuna's observing Krishna's universal form be final? Arjuna was frightened of it and begged Krishna to remove it(B.G.11.45), is this the final understanding of Krishna? If it is final, then why does Arjuna only become at peace again after Krishna restores Himself to His original two-handed form (B.G.11.51)? Krishna Himself reveals to Arjuna (B.G.10.42) before He reveals His universal form that: "But what need is there Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With but a single fragment of Me I pervade and support this entire universe." In other words pure Bhakti unto the lotusfeet of Sri Krishna is superior to all other activities. This is confirmed by Krishna in the next chapter where Krishna confirms in (B.G.12.2) that unalloyed Bhakti unto Him is better than the any other form of worship. He then wonderfully proceeds to go down step by step to give advice to those who cannot perform at such high standards of worship, because nobody is excluded. From each position one can worship Krishna, according to his capacity. The ultimate conclusion of the Gita and it's ultimate understanding is found in chapter 18.65-66 where Krishna says:

"Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.
Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."


Bhagavad-gita cannot be understood by any means other than Bhakti unto the lotusfeet of Sri Krishna. It is not that all we do is read, our process is very practical. We have a very regulated lifestyle with all sorts of practical engagements, the most important one being the chanting of the maha mantra. We can implement it into every aspect of our daily lives. Even doing the dishes becomes Bhakti because we're doing it to please Krishna. In this way we will reach the highest attainable goal Sri Sri Radha Krishna, Who cannot be attained by any other means. Realization comes through the grace of Guru and Gauranga, or in other words, realization is solely handed to you by Krishna. It cannot be attained by your own endeavours, no matter how hard you study or practice. Other than by His grace, God and His tattva can never be understood.



No Rejection

Now even I, a lowly aspiring bhakta, do not "reject" anything from the Vedic pantheon, it all serves a purpose, as there are different needs for different people, so the Lord caters to these needs. So what to speak of advanced devotees on this path? That said, I am fully convinced that the Brahma-Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya's philosophy is the ultimate conclusion to the whole Vedic knowledge. Lastly, at the end I can't help but read that you have somehow concluded that our method of sadhana is not according to Vedic injunctions. To that I can only say: rejecting the Gaudiya sampradaya as being "unvedic", means rejecting Mahaprabhu, which means rejecting Krishna, which in turn means rejecting the Vedas, which means you are rejecting the foundation of your own path. Please don't reject this.

Any mistakes in this reply are solely due to my own gross ignorance, please forgive me for that.

Sincerely yours,


Haribol!

Namaskar Nrsinghadev das!

Thanks for your detailed response. I really appreciate it. You have made a lot of nice points.
.. ugh.. I wrote a detailed reply but somehow it got deleted

In general, as per the Gaudiya perspective, I agree mostly with what you have said.
In my system, I follow a culmination of Bhakti, and ancient Vedic mantra and tantra practices that are faster as far as results are concerned. Other forms of yogas develop overall faculties of a sadhak. If concentration is not necessary in bhakti yoga, then I would disagree. Yoga prepares a sadhak to put hundred percent of all his faculties into his sadhna. If sankirtana is the only and fastest and direct most way and all Arjuna, Krsna and all other sages had longer and arduous ways of worship, then again, a part of it may not necessarily be true. But then my sadhna has more accent on being experiential than Vedantic reading.

Shiva is supreme for a Shaiva, whereas Krsna or Rama is supreme for the Vaishnava. I have no conflicts here of not accepting one side over the other. Both are devoted to each other. Shiva is a devotee of Krsna/Narayana/Rama. And Rama/Krisna/Narayan/Vishnu - devotee of Shiva. This has been explained through countless scriptures and told by the avataras and bhagwans themselves. Sampradayas put one over the other because of their attachment to one form of the Lord over the other and there is the identity thing too. Goswami Tulasidas was attached to the Rama form and when Shri Krsna appeared before him, he had to take bow and arrow in his hands and then only did Goswami Tulasidas bowed before him. So you may consider Shiva as a 'gatekeeper'.. whereas I can worship him as devadi dev shri MAHAdeva, as supreme. And this would mean no offense.

Gaudiya Vaishnavas put Bhagwatam in the center and put aside Shiv Mahapurana as "Tamasik". Where as Shiavas wouldn't give much importance to Bhagwatam, but won't reject it altogether either.
The truth is somewhere near and there is a very fine line of differentiation between the two. Shri Bhagwan is the final knower of it all. While we can argue and fight one sampradaya over the other.

By other Gurus I had meant other Gurus outside the Gaudiya Sampradaya. There are and have been many bona-fide Gurus outside it too. They should be respected too.
I wouldn't agree with Shri Prabhupada disrespecting Shri Ramakrishna Paramahansa who was a pure devotee of maa Kali and who also worshipped Krsna as a 'fool' and 'rascal' publicly in America!! This comment wasn't worth it!! Really!!
By saying that if you criticize me then you criticize my grandfather who was head of this state, thus you are criticizing head of the state by criticizing me is not exactly the same. Of course there have been changes to the sampradaya. There are differences even after Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Thakur! His master allowed Shiva worship (in whatever form) and observance of Shivaratri at places. Prabhupada didn't in Iskcon (for whatever reason - hippies or non hippies). Now I'm hearing a scandal from Prabhupada disciples who don't want to see Shivaratri celebrated in Iskcon temple as some temples have still done that. Would Krsna ban celebrating Shivrartri?? Hell NO!! Shiva worship has always been there in Vedic Bharat. Whether it was Lord Rama's time or Lord Krishna's time. Shri Nanda ji used to worship, so did the Gopis and Krsna's wives. And so did Lord Shri Krsna. The glories of Lord Shiva is well described in detail by Lord Krsna himself to Yudhishthira maharaj in the mahabharata. So have they been described by Shri Rama in the Padma Purana's Shiva Gita Khanda.
So saying - what Prabhupada did or said cannot be challenged because its the same as challenging Krsna himself and can be as dangerously punishable as Durvasa muni example etc.. is not a fairly acceptable statement. If your sampradaya is aggressively defensive about aparadhas towards it and if all bona-fide Vedic sampradayas are equal and Sanatana, then you will have to be careful about aparadhas to them too.
Furthermore, Shri Prabhupada didn't touch upon other aspects of Sanatana Dharma or himself didn't practice yogic disciplines like kriya yog etc, not simply because there was no use of it, but he wasn't initiated into those branches of practice. Hence he didn't go deeply into them as did Lord Krsna. Kaliyug or not, a clean and quite place is still available. One can practice in privacy of one's own room. Clean it with pavitrikarana mantras. Its a lame excuse that where will you find a clean and quite place in kaliyuga. There have been numerous yogis in India who have attained perfection and God communion through practice of Kriya, kundalini, bhakti, tantra yoga.
My family Guru who lived around the same time as Shri Chaitanya was a Vaishnava Yogi and lived for 300 years. He had all the highest siddhis, was a devotee of Shri Ramachandra and shri Rama appeared to him many times.
Further, I cannot accept that all the mantras have become useless because it is 'kaliyuga' and that only Hare Krsna mantra only works. If initiated through proper siddha Guru, practiced methodically, using proper knowledge of asana, bandha, mudra, pranayama, various nyas, mantra sadhna gives immediate and effective results and Vedic mantras as effective today as they were before. In fact tantrik mantras have proven to be more effective in Kaliyuga. And there are solutions to man's problems through it too - spiritual or material. Its also true that to do proper sadhna one needs a healthy body and mind.
Only way why mantras don't work is because man has become weaker to sustain the energy generated by them. Man has become weaker and doesn't meet the standards to generate that energy either. That's why Shri Chaitanya had given a simpler method. That could be followed by all. If you call yourself one following Vedic knowledge and Sanatana Dharma, then I don't think there should be a problem accepting other parts of Sanatana Dharma too, besides the bhakti part. You may agree still that the sadhna practice during that time was different from now. That was the Vedic practice. Arjuna didn't practice sankirtana to attain Pashupatastra.

And Arjuna was indeed a seasoned yogi!! Anyone who can travel to the heavenly planets with his body cannot be an ordinary person. He was overwhelmed upon seeing Lord Krsna's universal form or Virat swaroop. So did Lord Rama express similar feelings upon seeing Lord Shiva's universal form, wherein he also say the ten avataras of Vishnu including krsna avatara and his leelas, killing of Kamsa etc. But any one who has sincerely tried and attained a small siddhi can understand what one has to go through and what it means to harness the siddhis and powers that Arjuna had through his sadhna. The sadhnas were more experiential in nature. His finally experiencing the virat swaroop of Bhagwan shri Krsna brought to his final understanding too. It will be fallible to conclude that the only result of Arjuna's experiencing Lord's unversal form was fear and no realization. Anubhutis, darshan and experience bring about transformations in consciousness in a yogi.

Just stop for a moment and contemplate deeply that Shri Krsna has appeared before you in all his glory!! In his magnificent beautiful all attractive form!! Will you feel the same as you feel upon seeing the deity at the temple? or will your experience change something in your consciousness?

I'm not trying to lower the importance of sankirtana bhakti method in anyway. Its a bonafide method given by Shri Mahaprabhu and well its possible to attain God communion through it too. Bhakta Dhruva and Prahlada attained Lord Shri Krsna through sadhna of Om Namo Bhagwate Vasudevaya maha mantra.

I hope you don't take this message as offensive in any way. That will be sad.
I will try to write more in future.
Please accept my obeisance and regards.

Hare Krishna Tantrayoga,

please accept my obeisances, I would say humble obeisances, but I am such a proud fool that by saying humble obeisances I would feel like a hypocrite. Thank kindly you for your reply, by doing so you have engaged me in writing about guru, Krishna and Vaishnavas. As a result of engaging me in writing about them, I find great happiness and satisfaction. Otherwise I may have engaged myself in useless trifles, so you see how I can't take your post as offensive.
I in turn, hope you are not offended by the way I have chosen to respond to your reply, which is by breaking it up into quotes of written pieces I thought were necessary to respond to. So here we go:

I don't know of any process that is explained in the Vedas as being faster than the chanting of the maha mantra, unless of course you are implying that the "ancient Vedic mantra" is in fact the maha mantra. Of course, Vedic mantras are eternal so in that sense what is ancient? Anyway, faster indicates superior, and shastra have defined the maha mantra as being the superior mantra. So in this way, a Vedic mantra other than the maha mantra cannot be superior to the maha mantra.

If I mentioned that concentration is not necessary in performing bhakti than that is my mistake, for it certainly is necessary. By concentration on Krishna's pastimes and chanting the maha mantra innumerable sins are washed away in a flash, whereas chanting without concentration is rightfully considered nama aparadha by the acharyas. Obviously, one does not need an acharya to figure out that chanting for one's Ista Deva while being preoccupied in other matters is offensive. However, in the case of the maha mantra, even if the names are chanted absent-mindedly, they will still have the promised effect, the name is that merciful. This is mentioned in the second verse you will find quoted below.
As far as sankirtana being the fastest method, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I shall stick to what guru and shastra have stated on this matter. For example in Srimad Bhagavatam (12.3.52) it is stated:

krte yad-dhyayato visnum
tretayam yajato makhaih
dvapare paricaryayam
kalau tad dhari-kirtanat

"The result which is attained in Satya-yuga by meditating on Sri Bhagavan(Dhyana), in Treta-yuga by performing opulent Yajnas, and in Dvapara-yuga by performing arcana, is easily available in Kali-yuga by performing harinama-sankirtana"

And in Hari-bhakti vilasa 11.234 we find a quote from Skanda-purana:

"Sri Krishna nama is the sweetest of the sweet and the most auspicious of all that is auspicious. It is the flourishing creeper, the eternal ripened fruit of the Bhagavata, and the embodiment of knowledge, cit-sakti. O best of the Bhrgu-dynasty! Even if someone chants the holy name only once, with faith or indifference, he is immediately delivered from this ocean of birth and death!"

In the Radha-Hridaya-Khanda of the Brahmanda Purana, Srila Vedavyasa Muni responds as follows to a prayer by Romaharshana Suta:

"O my son, I will certainly instruct you in that maha-mantra, the acceptance of which a person in the bodily conception of life can be liberated and even a drunkard can quickyl become purified and attain all perfection. I will instruct you because you are a maha-bhagavata and a suitable candidate. Just see! The sixteen word maha-mantra, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare, can destroy the sins of the three worlds. The four Vedas do not mention a method for achieving liberation from material bondage superior to the chanting of this mantra."

So what it means is that all other processes described in the Vedas are certainly longer and more arduous, this is thus verified by shastra. It is also not surprising that the practices at the time when all these divine pastimes we find in the Vedas, were manifested, were longer and more arduous, since man lived much much longer in those previous yugas and were much more pious, whereas in Kali-yuga our lifetime in comparison to theirs resembles that of a fruitfly, so we are much more pressed for time in this age. This is one of the reasons why Harinama Sankirtan is the Yuga Dharma.

I read one reply on this messageboard by a prabhu who said that he thoroughly enjoyed the battle for supremacy between Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna, because both parties would be pushing hard to establish their Ista Deva as most glorious. The result would then be that the glorifications of both kept increasing which would bring him joy. I can certainly find myself in this idea, but only if done respectfully rather than insulting each other's Ista Deva. I cannot tolerate any offenses against either Shiva or Krishna, since Krishna is my worshipable deity, and Shiva is His dearmost devotee.

Bhaktivedanta Swami simply called him fool on the strength of shastra. He explained it once something as follows, "I do not call him fool, Krishna says he is a fool, therefore I say fool". I do not think he was very wrong when it came to Ramakrishna, since the notion of whimsical worship is not entertained by the Vedas. Ramakrishna may have worshiped Krishna and Mahaprabhu for some time, but ultimately he wasn't fixed in his worship of them. His worshipable deity was Kali, but where do we find the reference in scriptures that a worshiper of Kali should practice the Christian and Muslim path?
Furthermore, when we for example compare Mahaprabhu and Ramakrishna, we find that Mahaprabhu's teachings, as opposed to Ramakrishna's, were firmly rooted in Vedic Siddhanta and they thoroughly oppose the type of whimsical worship as engaged in by Ramakrishna. In Chaitanya Charitamrta madhya-lila 22.5 we find Mahaprabhu saying: ""A human being's activities should be centered only on devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa. That is the verdict of all Vedic literatures, and all saintly people have firmly concluded this."

Like I said, the few changes in the parampara that have been there, were merely superficial and regarding customs and rituals. The underlying principle, the core of the teachings has remained untouched and pure. Therefore the criticism is indeed similar to criticizing the original propounder.
To take Ramakrishna as an example again: If you follow Ramakrisna, you follow Ramakrishna only, for he invented his own path, so you are following him only. But if you follow any bonafide guru in the Gaudiya Sampradaya, you follow Mahaprabhu, who is Krishna Himself. We can verify scriptures dating back to Mahaprabhu and beyond and find the same conclusions are there.
So who's teachings would you consider to be the bonafide one? The apasiddhantic teachings of Ramakrishna, or the Siddhantic teachings of Sri Bhagavan Himself? Simply "not buying" the parampara notion is not a valid argument against it's authority.
As far as Shiva Ratri is concerned, I have never heard of Shivaratri being banned anywhere in Gaudiya Sampradaya, and if it happens this is certainly not instigated by Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj, and is not condoned by any acharya. In fact, observing Shiva Ratri is manditory in Gaudiya sampradaya.
Concerning aparadhas, I have read of no other type of aparadha that is more condemnable than Vaishnava aparadha. Nevertheless, Mahaprabhu clearly teaches us in Shloka 3 of His divine Sikshastakam:

trnad api sunicana taror iva sahisnuna
amanina manadena kirtaniyah sada Hari

"Being more humble than a blade of grass, more tolerant and forebearing than a tree, giving due respect to all others according to their respective positions and expecting notinhg in return, one should continuously chant the holy names of Hari"

We are to give due respect to everyone. So how can we reconcile this with Swami Maharaja's statements on Ramakrishna. The first I have already explained earlier on, but another explanation is that we sometimes cannot comprehend the mood and behaviour of eternally liberated souls, such as Swami Maharaj. They can be hard as a thunderbolt and soft as a feather at the same time. We are not to imitate them, but simply follow the instructions, which are clear. Whatever Swami Maharaja has said or did at some point, served it's purpose, some of them clear, others may not be clear to us. In the end he is to be embraced for his terrific effort on broadcasting the teachings of Mahaprabhu on a global scale, not to be chastised for a few harsh words said here and there. It is commonly understood how bold and lionlike Swami Maharaja was in his preaching, and this was the needed and effective way of preaching.

All nice and well, but it remains an undeniable fact that all other yogic practices are unnecessary if one engages in Bhakti to Sri Krishna. I can quote up scores of shastric references to this fact but I doubt it will be appreciated so I will abstain from doing so. Therefore, swamiji didn't need to be iniated into any of these branches because the are automatically included by doing Bhakti to Sri Krishna. Besides, a Krishnabhakta doesn't care a single bit for all these siddhis and other yogic perfections. Krishna bhakti is the perfection of all yoga, so what use does he have for other paths? All the bhakta cares about it to please Krishna.
When I mean clean and quiet place, I do not simply imply quiet as in no sound. In our day and age, the ether is bombarded with all sorts of garbage, in the form of radio, mobile phone networks, sattelite etc. etc. These "quiet" frequencies can certainly be counted as unclean and noisy, as they do get picked up by the subtle mind and cause a disturbance. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the quiet-clean place-silent-meditation option is a troublesome one. There can be lots of yogi's who still attain their respective perfections, but never effortless, and ever more troublesome as time progresses. With ever increasing population and the ever expanding capitalist movement, which exploits every nook and cranny of this earth, where in the foreseeable future will you still find your quiet place? In contrast, the performance of harinama sankirtana cancels out all distracting phenomenom, and enables even a complete layman to within a second completely lose himself in the Name regardless of the surroundings.

I don't think I said that other mantras are useless, I simply said that the chanting of the maha mantra is the Yuga Dharma, and that it is the shastric conclusion that it is this maha mantra which is the most effective, quickest way to achieve liberation. So the other mantras will still work, but they are simply not as effective as the maha mantra. Even though we are after Krishna and not liberation, it is said that those who chant this maha mantra, for them liberation personified is waiting with folded hands.
It is said that even if your agenda is personal (material) gain, you should still worship Krishna by chanting the maha mantra. It is no doubt that the ultimate sollution to all problems we experience here, is to exit this material world by becoming fixed in one's worship of his or her's Ishta Deva. But the faithful sadhaka does not care even if he is hurled down to hell, as long as he can remember Krishna he is satisfied. Arjuna simply didn't practice sankirtana because his pastime was in Dvapara Yuga, where the yuga dharma wasn't sankirtana but arcanam, and the Yuga dharma of sankirtana only got introduced recently by Mahaprabhu, so yes I agree that the sadhana of that time was different.

Yes Arjuna was a topmost Bhakti yogi, otherwise how can he be Krishna's dear and close friend? But I said he played his part, and his part in the pastime of Mahabharata war was not the part of a yogi who goes out to the forest to meditate. He was a kshatriya king with different duties, and a different position in Varnashrama Dharma. Before he penetrated the shell of this universe he did not meditate for hundreds of years to gain this perfection, so we can understand that he went through the shell of the universe because he went alongside Krishna.

I hope I have not tired or offended you with this longwinded post, and hope that some issues may have been resolved by it. Again any error in this piece is on my part only and I beg forgiveness for it beforehand. Anything I have said that is true, is only due to the mercy of Sri Guru and Krishna. Wishing you all the best,

Hare Krishna

mybe brahm samhita might answer the question but pease read if realyy interested in reaching krisna and if you aim for self realisation