Guruvani

Mahaprabhu clearly instructed Sanatan Goswami that: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 19.139 keśāgra-śateka-bhāga punaḥ śatāḿśa kari tāra sama sūkṣma jīvera 'svarūpa' vicāri Mahaprabhu says that the svarupa of the jiva is as a spiritual spark 1/10,000 the size of the tip of a hair. If the svarupa of the jiva was a spiritual body in Goloka, then I am sure Mahaprabhu would have made that known to Sanatan Goswami. The term svarupa is used differently in different contexts. In the verse below Srila Prabhupada translates svarupa as "constitutional position".(not spiritual body or siddha deha) I guess figuring out what "constitutional position" actually means is important to understanding the translation. My idea is that "constitutional position" means what we are by nature constituted to be. We are all nitya Krishna das, even as we serve maya, the external energy of Krishna. Either favorably or unfavorably all living beings are serving Krishna with love or in denial. So, we are by constitution a servant of Krishna. Problem is that we have been serving Krishna unfavorably, in denial since time eternal. Anyway, svarupa means what we were originally meant for. We are meant to serve Krishna. That is our svarupa. We have all been serving Krishna either with love or in denial since time eternal. We have to learn to serve Krishna in love and not in denial. The svarupa of the jiva is to serve Krishna. There is no avoiding serving Krishna. Liberation means that we agree to serve Krishna favorably with love and devotion. We are already in our svarupa, as we are serving the external energy of Krishna. We must make that service favorable and then we can go back to Srila Prabhupada's home - back to Godhead. (after we figure out in what way we want to exchange loving affairs with Krishna)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.19.24 purport, Probably if you just keep the deity as a "statue" as Srila Prabhupada has referred to in this purport it will probably be alright. But, if you officially and formally install the deity per the ritual codes, then the deity should have a proper altar. Main thing is that the deity is kept behind the closed door when you are not doing the puja. So, if the deity is not formally installed, then it should be ok. Srila Prabhupada says they "carry it with them everywhere". So, everywhere would also include the sleeping quarters if necessity dictates. Krishna understands.

Please excuse me for quoting shastra, but this is why I prefer shastra over personal viewpoints, as Srila Prabhupada says in this purport that the cows of Vrajabhumi are in shanta rasa. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 8.294 purport, So, I am kinda partial to authoritative reference when we discuss spiritual topics. It's a bit of a rasabhasa to say that the cows are in vatsalya rasa.

Srila Prabhupada gives his opinion about the destination of the Buddhist. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 8.257 purport. So, according to Srila Prabhupada, it is better to be a sense enjoyer rather than a Buddhist.

Without developing a particular attachment to Krishna by following in the footsteps of one's Vrindavan icon, then there is no chance of going to Goloka Vrindavan. Raganuga bhakti is a necessary practice for entering Goloka.

The Srutis mentioned in the above quote never received any ekadasa bhava assignment from a siddha-pranali guru. They attained forms as gopis by following in the footsteps of the gopis according to the conjugal attachment to Krishna.

Here in this important purport, Srila Prabhupada describes how a devotee attains a spiritual body according to the ecstacy and spiritual attachment. The concept of "reawakening" a spiritual body or "reviving" a spiritual body that is sometimes described as such is conspicuous by it's absence in this purport as the concept of ATTAINING a spiritual body in accordance with the particular attachment one has for Krishna. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 8.223 purport, Again, we see the concept of "prapti" or "attaining" spiritual bodies in accordance with the attachment and particular desire of the devotee. There is a difference between reviving and attaining a spiritual body. The idea of attaining a spiritual body is certainly different than the concept of reviving a spiritual body. If we already have a spiritual body that we have forgotten about then it would be reviving the spiritual body and not attaining a spiritual body. If we already have a spiritual body then it would have to be in a dormant condition in the spritual world. The idea of dormant spiritual bodies laying around all over the spiritual world is a ridiculous concept.

Sure, when we are just chit-chatting then there is no need to quote shastra. But, I personally get bored with chit-chat quite quickly. I kinda fell into this style over at the gaudiya discussions forum where there is a crowd of geeks and nerds who will chew you up and spit you out if you can't support your views with exacting verse from shastra. I actually came to appreciate their standard and have imbibed that into my own approach to discussing philosophy on forums. I tend to debate and argue over philsophical issues that divide the movement into a number of sects. So, for me, I can't get anywhere trying to support my beliefs with opinion or point of view without establishing my points with shastric reference. I can be as long winded and spontaneous as anybody. I could set here day in and day out writing my own opinions. But, I found out in my journey around the web that there are some mighty formidable characters out there that will make you look like a germ if you can't support your views with shastra. The topics I like are the deeply technical aspects of the philosophy. There really is no way to deal with such issues without shastric foundation. Now, if you want to talk about my favorite UFC fighter, or my favorite beach in Florida I have plenty to say that doesn't need shastric support. But, when we get into contentious issues of philosophy and ISKCON myths, there is no way to make my points apart from citing shastric evidence.

Most any of us could set here all day talking off the top of our heads. But, really, nobody gives any serious credibility. Personally, I like to tackle major issues of siddhanta and philosophy that are contentious points facing devotees all over the world. So, concerning the issues I like to discuss, there really is no way to debate, discuss or come to any solid conclusions without establishing our views on the basis of shastra. There are many topics where opinions and personal views come into play. But, the topics that really interest me can only be dealt with in terms of exacting shastric evidence. The lectures of Srila Prabhupada are literally full of shastric quotes. I don't see how discussions among devotees can really have any substantial meaning if we aren't discussing the conclusions of the shastra. It's not all about parroting and quoting. It's about supporting our position with shastric reference. If we can't support our position with shastra, then really we have no position at all. There is a member Ghari who practically posts quotes exclusively. I don't see that as a fault. I see that when he wants to make a point he wants to make it authoritatively, not just as the offering of an opinion or a personal point of view.

There is not one person that has any such power or potency. The only hope for ISKCON is if there is mass awakening of the majority of the leadership. Needless to say, it would be easier to thread a Camel through the eye of an needle than to get the ISKCON leadership to recover their sanity.

My position is that any serious philosophical discussion that doesn't have shastric support is more or less useless. We are not authorities in spiritual science. If we preach without shastric support, then we are placing ourselves as authorities. Even Srila Prabhupada with all the respect and authority that he had in ISKCON quoted verse after verse in his lectures. That was the trademark of Srila Prabhupada that he quoted shastra in all his lectures. So, if we think we don't have to quote shastra and have some authority on our own to preach by paraphrase, then really nobody will pay any attention to what we say. I think it is quite obvious that discussions based on shastric reference are millions of times more relevant than discussions based on watered down paraphrasing recalled from our aging and decrepid brains.

In the above statement that I am not sure who wrote because there is not a name attached to it, I find something said that I am not sure I agree with. The person says: Since when is the zonal GBC representative like a "monarch"? He says it is something like a "constitutional monarchy", but is that really the fact? Should the local GBC run his zone like a monarch? Do Vaishnavas elect a monarch to govern them with an iron fist? I am starting to despise this whole concept of a GBC, as in classic Vaishnavism there was no such thing as an institution of Vaishnavas electing a "monarch" to rule over them politically. The Vedic system of monarchy is not a constitutional monarchy. It is a despotic monarchy of rule by power, not by vote. The Vedic monarchs ruled because they controlled the militaries that enforced the law of the culture. This whimsicial idea that temple presidents elect a despot to rule over zones is a development that has not worked, has failed miserably and should be abandoned to the garbage heap in exchange for something that actually belongs in the demoncratic cultures of the modern world.

Even though devotees distributed Bhagavatam and even CC on the streets of the USA and other countries, those books are really for devotees. In principle, a person should first study, understand and accept the basic KC philosophy of Bhagavad Gita before he goes to read or study such elevated literatures as Bhagavatam and CC. If a person can accept and appreciate the Bhagavad Gita of Sri Krishna, then he can go on to more advanced studies. If a person has not studied and accepted the conclusions of Bhagavad Gita, then he really should not be delving into Srimad Bhagavatam. This was the system that Srila Prabhupada expressed in his books, even though in ISKCON these elevated books were being sold on the streets and in airports to common people who many times just dropped the book in the nearest trash can. We can't always consider the ISKCON of the ambitious disciples of Srila Prabhupada as the actual ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada wanted. The mistakes of the past cannot be used as standard for all time. Eventually, the neophyte, novice, ambitious ISKCON has to get past these stages and move forward to what is proper for the present time.

To me the purport quoted is saying that without service and submission to the guru the mysteries of the Bhagavatam cannot be understood by an academic approach. But, of course, reading the books of Srila Prabhupada is part of the service of hearing from the pure devotee. But, the hearing must be done with submission and reverence or the reader will simply find it to be myth and fable without spiritual substance. If there is no submission and surrender to the reading of the books, the reader will not understand. There has to be an element of bhakti there or the reading will not produce fruit.

Well, the "Rupanuga" sampradaya isn't called "Rupanuga" for nothing!

I didn't say he was screwball. I said that he dealt with some lofty concepts without making reference to shastra. He also left out the principle practice of raganuga bhakti which causes the awakening of bhava - the finding of a role model in Vrindavan and always thinking of that role model and the role model's service to Krishna. He seemed to present that the attainment of siddha-deha can be accomplished without this practice of raganuga sadhana. Srila Rupa Goswami has clearly instructed that the aspiring devotee must find a role model in Vrindavan to be one's icon of aspiration. I already quoted that reference in the beginning of this topic. If one cannot refine his aspirations to the point of having a role model in Vrindavan, then how can he ever attain siddha-deha? You can't get to Vrindavan until you feel some kind of attraction to Krishna in a particular relationship.

We disagree on some things for sure, but I do appreciate your devotional side and see some very deep and serious spritual tendencies in you. You have shown some very profound insights on many occasions and I haven't overlooked that.

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.131 The "mysterious objective" of Srimad Bhagavatam can NEVER be appreciated by an academic. (unless the academic has some spiritual tendency) The ISKCON lawyer Mrgindra das was a homeless person eating out of garbage cans when he first met devotees and joined the temple. Krishna consciousness elevated him up to the point to where he became fit to pass law school and eventually become a lawyer for ISKCON.

Well, I dabbled in the gaudiyadiscussions forum for a while and had to contend with some brainiacs, the Sanskrit nerds who defected from ISKCON to follow the "traditional school". In that experience I found out that these guys pose some serious challenges to the Saraswata school and you can't bluff these guys. You can't even begin to debate or discuss with that bunch unless you can substantiate everything you say with shastra. They all know shastra much better than most any of us. They do have a tendency to interpret things differently than the Saraswata acharyas. Interpretation is a very tricky game. Anyway, to make a long story short, I discovered in that experience that in debating on internet forums you can't talk paraphrase or from memory if at all you want to attempt to defend the Saraswata school from outside attack. Since then, I have realized that you can't defend youself on the internet unless you can substantiate all your points with shastra. I think it is a good policy. Devotees like ISKCON preachers and ex-ISKCON Swamis like T Swami have the luxury of preaching in paraphrase or from memory, but they wouldn't last 5 minutes in a serious debate on internet forums where the "scholars, geeks and nerds" would chew them up and spit them out with shastric verse.

This state of suspended animation is the condition that all the conditioned jivas enter at the total dissolution of the universe. They go to sleep in the Pradhan. Someone mentioned on a different thread that at the time of the total dissolution of the cosmos the conditioned jivas merge into brahman, but that is not the case.(mukti, but they don't attain mukti at that time) They enter into suspension in the Pradhan until they are again let loose at the next cosmic creation.

Like I said already, when preaching to the flock you can get away will kinds of things. When preaching on the internet, you need to have all your marbles in one bag. I just don't care much for the guru mentality of keeping oneself as unaccountable to shastra, keeping the flock stupid to shastra and posing as Mr. Answer man. I debate on the internet. I don't have the luxury of pontificating from an ivory tower of prestige and position. I have to prove my points with shastra. The people I debate aren't shastra challenged, so debating as an authority unto myself doesn't amount to a fig in today's internet discussions. The saffron elite have a tendency to get a little full of themselves.

You will see that it very much describes the void or Pradhan and has very similar verse to the sloka I quoted about from Srimad Bhagavatam.

This topic is for shastrically supported concepts, not concocted speculations and manufactured theories. If you can't support your statements with sound shastric evidence, then go haunt another topic.

So, when the jiva is situated in the Pradhana there is no sense of existence. The soul is sleeping and not in the liberated state of brahman or the manifest state of sense perception in contact with material manifest elements. As such, the Sunyavadi Buddhists aspire to attain this void condition of suspension in the Pradhana which is sometimes referred to as the near shore of the Viraja River.