Rama-carita-manasa

10-03-2005, 04:48 AM

Pranams
Does anybody have some quotes from Tulsidasa's Rama-carita-manasa that are
reflecting Mayavad? I heard some ISKCON devotees who read the book saying there
is no mayavad in it. Hm. Interesting controversy.

ARd.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

10-03-2005, 10:53 AM

--- In achintya (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, avadhuta raya
wrote:
>
> Pranams
> Does anybody have some quotes from Tulsidasa's Rama-carita-manasa
that are reflecting Mayavad? I heard some ISKCON devotees who read
the book saying there is no mayavad in it. Hm. Interesting
controversy.
>

The following was posted on soc.religion.vaishnava many years ago in
response to the "Tulasi das Ramayana is bona fide" crowd. They were
claiming that Rama-charita manasa was fully in line with Gaudiya
Vaishnava conclusions. Ask your ISKCON friends what they think of
this:

begin quoted message ------------------------------------------
I'm curious -- what is your interpretation of

soi jAnai jehi dehu janAI | jAnata tumhahi tumhahi hoi jAI |

which occurs after Ayodhya-kaaND, #126?

The literal interpretation of the second part is "one who knows you
indeed becomes you" which has to refer either to an Advaitic mukti,
or
to saayujya. The former seems to be counter-indicated by

rAma sarUpa tumhAra bachana agochara buddhipara |
abigata akatha apAra neti neti nita nigama kaha ||

which clearly shows that Tulsidas regarded the "neti, neti" reference
as referring to Raama or the saguNa-brahman, rather than to the
nirguNa. However, the fact remains that "jAnata tumhahi tumhahi hoi
jAI" is indicative of merger of some sort, and can only be saayujya
(which I, for one, have no problem with). However, the line

sagunopAsaka mochchha na lehI.n |

(Lanka-kaaND, #111+)

is very interesting -- the use of "saguNopaasaka" shows that Tulsidas
accepted the dichotomy of sagUNa- and nirguNa- upaasanaa, the
life-blood of Advaita. Rather curious, don't you think?

end quoted message---------------------------------

I for one have repeatedly mentioned these references to the Tulasi
dasa followers. In every case, they simply ignore them and continue
to assert Tulasi dasa's infallibility, citing various legends of
this author (which are only accepted by them).

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Tulasi dasa was clearly
influenced by Advaita (evidence above), which is hardly compatible
with the view that he is a pure Vaishnava whose philosophy is fully
in line with Sri Caitanaya Mahaprabhu's line of thinking.

regards,

K

10-03-2005, 09:48 PM

Pranams
Devotees may refer the following link wherein out moderator too had posted his
opinions though i dont see anything was concluded.

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/sh...Number=50658&\
page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=4&vc=1
One thing i noted was that Narayanan maharaj seems to have stressed that the
work is authentic
Thanx

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

10-03-2005, 09:54 PM

It is indeed clear that gaudiyas are not supposed to read Tulasi Das as
per injunction from their acharyas. And he is clearly an advaitin. But
I have heard from some ISKCON devotees that Srila Prabhupada in some
places stated that Tualsi Das is a pure devotee. Any comments?

> I for one have repeatedly mentioned these references to the Tulasi
> dasa followers. In every case, they simply ignore them and continue
> to assert Tulasi dasa's infallibility, citing various legends of
> this author (which are only accepted by them).

Many legends in different traditions are accepted only by the
respective followers. This includes gaudiya tradition also. It is a
case of throwing stones from a glass-house.

Recently, a book has been published by Sai Baba followers and it has
got raving reviews in the press. It is totally irrational but it does
not seem to matter to that community.

I wish that all communities face the truth about themselves rather than
get stuck in sentimental illusory faiths.

10-03-2005, 11:16 PM

--- In achintya (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "v_raja_ram"
wrote:
> It is indeed clear that gaudiyas are not supposed to read Tulasi
Das as
> per injunction from their acharyas.

Just a clarification - it's clear at least for those follow A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Prior to him, I am not aware that
any Gaudiya acharyas have taken a position on it. Though with the
apparently mayavadi influence it isn't hard to infer what their
position would be if queried about it.

And he is clearly an advaitin. But
> I have heard from some ISKCON devotees that Srila Prabhupada in
some
> places stated that Tualsi Das is a pure devotee. Any comments?

Several points:
1) I have seen statements to the effect that Tulasi das is
a "devotee," "great devotee," etc but I have never seen "pure
devotee" being used by him to describe Tulasi dasa. We should see
the evidence for this - otherwise it is hearsay.
2) Srila Prabhupada uses the term "pure devotee" in many different
contexts. Sometimes he refers to one who exclusively worships Vishnu
as a "pure devotee." Sometimes he uses it to refer to one who has
attained sad-achara stage of bhakti. The literal useage, meaning one
who has attained prema-bhakti, is not the only way in which he uses
it.
3) Even still, the question is whether or not the literature is
acceptable for Gaudiyas. Lord Shiva was a pure devotee, but that
does not make Sariraka-bhashya an acceptable reference for
Vaishnavas (for example).

> Many legends in different traditions are accepted only by the
> respective followers. This includes gaudiya tradition also. It is
a
> case of throwing stones from a glass-house.

Not at all. The case against Tulasi dasa is made based on the
content of his writings which is in conflict with views of Vaishnava
Vedantins. The case for Tulasi dasa is often made on his having
allegedly met Lord Shiva, etc, which cannot be verified.

Yes, Gaudiyas have their legends too. But no one is using local
Gaudiya legends in the Tulasi dasa debate.

K

10-04-2005, 01:34 AM

Hare Krishna,

Srila Prabhupada called Tulsidasa a "great devotee
"(letter to Harivilasa 14.06.1970)

There are two types of considerations: apparent and
real.Apara vichara and tattva vichara.

Hence the Gaudiyas do not have any problem in calling
someone a devotee, a pure devotee or a great devotee,
but that does not mean that their siddhanta is
accepted or they must be followed. As far as siddhanta
is concerned the flaws must be pointed out and
defeated. Hence, Srila Prabhupada mentions Tulsidasa
to be a pure devotee, but that does not mean the
philosophy must be accepted. Same is the case with
Mirabai. Srila Prabhupada also glorifies her in many
places. But that does not mean all that she sang is
acceptable as siddhanta.So it is with
acceptance/rejection of Sankara, Vallabha and everyone
else of other sampradayas.

Their devotion is accepted but the philosophy wherever
contrary to siddhanta is challenged and not followed.
As far as the siddhanta is concerned, only that given
by Sriman Mahaprabhu and expanded by acharyas in His
sampradaya is followed.

dasa
Narasimhan

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

10-04-2005, 10:27 AM

It would be helpful to know the source of the impersonalist statement, but
even without it one may understand the philosophy based upon writings. In
any event, it is true that sometimes Srila Prabhupada would quote Tulasi
Dasa Prabhu in lectures etc., as in the following example from Montreal
8.30.68:

"So this verse... Our, this respectable Indian lady, she will begin
Rämäyana... This Tulasé, actually it is not Rämäyaëa. It is called
Räma-carita-manasa. Rämäyaëa means Välméki Rämäyaëa, but people have taken
it as Rämäyaëa. Actually, Tulasé däsa has expressed his own feelings about
his devotion to Lord Räma, and therefore he has named it Räma-carita-manasa,
his mind full with service attitude for Lord Räma. That is the real meaning
of this book. But people have misinterpreted; they are going on just it is
Rämäyaëa. And Rämäyaëa, of course, anywhere where Räma's activities are
described, that is called Rämäyaëa. That is another sense. But real Rämäyaëa
means the Rämäyaëa composed by Välméki Rämäyaëa. Rämäyaëa composed by
Maharñi Välméki. And this is... It is a popular notion that this is
Rämäyaëa, but actually this book is called Räma-carita-manasa. So some of
the description of Räma are there, but not all the description. Rather there
are many differences from the original Välméki Rämäyaëa. Anyway this is song
of a devotee for his Lord Räma. In that sense, you can call it Rämäyaëa, but
this book is actually Räma-carita-manasa."

He has stated that Tulasi Dasa is a devotee of Rama, however, in some
instance, he has also indicated that we do not accept Tulasi Dasa without
consideration as in this incompletely transcribed room conversatioin (for
some reason Hindi is not translated) New Delhi 11.11.71:

"Prabhupäda: There is no need.
Guest: But if he goes after demigods...
Prabhupäda: If he wants some material profit. (Hindi conversation) So kämais
tais tair håta-jïänäù prapadyante anya-devatäù [Bg. 7.20]. (Hindi)
Guest: (Hindi)
Prabhupäda: Tulasé Däsa is different; therefore we don't take Tulasé Däsa as
authority.
Guest: Not? Then, sir, there is Räma and there is Kåñëa. You have Hare Räma
Hare Kåñëa. So Räma is Hari. Kåñëa is considered Hari. So when you...
Prabhupäda: So Räma... Bhagavän has different forms: rämädi-mürtiñu
kalä-niyamena tiñöhan [Bs. 5.39]. Bhagavän (Hindi).
Guest: That's good. So that explains..."

ys, shanti parayana dasa

10-04-2005, 01:00 PM

Pranam

Look at this

nava-dvare pure dehi hamso lelayate bahih
vasi sarvasya lokasya sthavarasya carasya ca

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is living within the body of a living
entity, is the controller of all living entities all over the universe. The body
consists of nine gates: two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, one mouth, the anus
and the genital. The living entity in his conditioned stage identifies himself
with the body, but when he identifies himself with the Lord within himself, he
becomes just as free as the Lord, even while in the body." (Svet. 3.18)

The last sentence sounds like mayavad but Srila Prabuhpada comments:

Therefore, a Krsna conscious person is free from both the outer and inner
activities of the material body.

So, is identifying oneself with the Lord always mayavad?

Maybe the appropriate explanation for this is what Bhakti Vikas Swami quoted

Krsna consciousness is the development of love of Krsna -- a position
transcendental even to material liberation. At this stage of Krsna
consciousness, beyond self-realization, the devotee becomes one with Krsna in
the sense that Krsna becomes everything for the devotee and the devotee becomes
full in loving Krsna.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 6.30

Any comments?

ARd

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

10-04-2005, 10:04 PM

Pranams

It is quite difficult to judge by seeig the divinity of the personality
involved.

If we accept tulasi das had the darsan of Lord Ramachandra and hanuman,then why
not follow his process.

I remember tulasi das stayed in vraja and there is a nice story behind.

Thanx

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

10-05-2005, 05:06 PM

--- In achintya (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, RAJGOPAL wrote:
>
> Pranams
>
> It is quite difficult to judge by seeig the divinity of the
personality involved.
>
> If we accept tulasi das had the darsan of Lord Ramachandra and
hanuman,then why not follow his process.
>
> I remember tulasi das stayed in vraja and there is a nice story
behind.
>

I would have thought that obvious. Acceptance of such stories is an
act of faith. You have no way of knowing if he did indeed have such
a darshan. Even if he did, that also does not prove that what he
wrote is 100% correct.

We aren't sentimentalists. For Vaishnavas, truth must ultimately
measure up with valid pramaanas. There is pratyaksha-pramaana,
anumaana-pramaana, and shabda-pramaana. There is no "but he had
darshan of the Lord" pramaana. How do I know that he did in fact
have such a darshan? I did not witness this, nor can I infer that
with absolute certainty. Besides, there are instances throughout
history where mixed devotees or even demons have had such darshans.
Lord Shiva is the pure devotee of Vishnu - do we accept Advaita as
correct because he has had darshan of Vishnu? I think not.

K

10-06-2005, 04:52 AM

> If we accept tulasi das had the darsan of Lord Ramachandra and
hanuman,then why not follow his process.
>
Devotees across traditions and outside all of them had had darshan of
the lord. Just because some one is great, every one need agree to his
worldview.

> I remember tulasi das stayed in vraja and there is a nice story
behind.

What is that? Any authentic work on life of Tulasi das?

guliaditya · 04-23-2008, 03:35 AM

What a great thread?
Full stress have been given to prove Goswami Tulsidas was a mayavadi.
Full stress have been given to find faults in his writings.
Whether the persons who have previously blasted Tulsidasji(in this thread) can claim themselves as a devotee of Krishna???
I dont think this is what is called bhakti.A pure bhakta sees Krishna everywhere & everything in Krishna then where is the time to find faults.

Can anyone give any pramaan from any scripture that a person has a right to find fault in the writings of a Bhakta???

Why all this apradhs peoples are doing??? After reading Gita, Bhagavata etc peoples are doing this type of deeds. Vary sad.

Pranaam

Amlesh · 04-23-2008, 04:47 AM

I've read the Ram Charitramanas and yes he spoke about Brahman and he equated Ram with it. Interestingly, when he described Sri Ram, it reminded me of Srimad Bhagvatam.

No one in this world is wise enough to judge Tulsidasji. No one is able to realise their own self but commenting on such great soul without any deep thought is done so easily, that's the sad part.