Jump to content

Gadadhara dasa (rus)

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gadadhara dasa (rus)

  1. Dear Kulapavana, The Apasampradaya piece of writing is such a mess. You are so educated and broad-minded, why quote from that? Did not your Srila Prabhupada live with goswamis? And his disciple calls them bad words?
  2. Re-establishing varnashrama in modern world? Re-establishing where? In CEE? In Western Europe? Who told varnashrama ever existed in those parts? Your ISKCON co-believers? Varnashrama is part of hindu-dharma and "re-establishing varnashrama" is a brandname as a part of one business plan. Its promotion has nothing to do with Chaitanya religion. Pushing into solitary bhajan path? That may (or may not) be another illusion and can potentially lead to a personal disaster. Think about this. If the failure in ISKCON varnashrama project was followed by the sense of upset, this means the classical chain: seeing sense objects, getting attached etc. At the end you have krodha, whose milder form is sense of upset. Then comes illusion, under which you turned to secluded lifestyle. Now you think that your path is a solitary bhajan. In case you had an error in the beggining of your calculation, how can your result be correct? Instead, why don't you become a secret yogi? Get yourself a job, live like other people do, but be devoted to God all the time. You will thus verify if your desire to do solitary bhajan path is real. As a side effect, you will make some money to go where you want to go. But eventually you may find peace inside yourself and find out that you do not need to go anywhere. You cannot be pushed to do avadhuta path. If you were adhakaravan for avadhuta path, you would flush your passport down the toilet, take a rucksack with few belongings and walk through the borders without asking any suggestions anywhere on the Internet. You don't need any babaji vesh initiation to become a sadhu.
  3. Being in deep bhajan has nothing to do with being within or outside varnashrama. "Babaji" is similar to sannyas, but is a recent innovation in hindu-dharma: The word baba is Arabic, and means 'father', the suffix 'ji' is an Islamic suffix of respect. Muslims conquered Northern India in the early middle ages and inserted their own words into the local languages. Hindi language contains 70% Arabic/Persian words, baba being taken over from the Arabic for 'daddy'. When the Bengali Vaishnavas began to arrive in Braj in the 16th century the Brajabasis began to address them with babaji, a title which the Bengalis later, in the 18th or 19th century, formalized as the title for their sannyasis. This is from blogspot of Advaitadas.
  4. A thief stole something in a market place. One man saw that and shouted out: "A hat is burning on a thief's head!" The thief became frightened and tore his hat off to put the fire down. That way he revealed himself. Since that time Russians say "A hat is burning on a thief's head".
  5. With these words you give me back some faith in Bhaktivedanta Swami which I lose otherwise hearing his other disciples. Thanks.
  6. The title of the thread was not mine (see post 10), it was somebody else's misconception (a joke, actually). I only wanted to get respected people here to speak on it for my own enlightenment. So, thanks a lot.
  7. So Dear theist: who do you refer to by "impersonalist" and why this type cannot be of a bhagavata cult?
  8. Yeah, great idea, thanks. I asked myself and the answer was that I do not understand this modern term "impersonalism" because this is a total concoction (Kulapavana confirmed). However, I am ok with "brahmavada" and my question to you was to verify if you have similar understanding. Then, based on what I read in available copy of Vishnu Purana and also Bhagavata Purana, Prahlada the son of Hiranyakashipu seems to be a perfect brahmavadi who actually realized aham brahmasmi. But since his story is in Bhagavata Purana, he should be a bhagavata, an uttama-bhagavata according to my inderstanding (misunderstanding?). This was my doubt in relation to your point.
  9. To make the job of commenting easier. To please His devotees. To bewilder atheists. To put theist on the right path.
  10. Implication was not mine and I agree that it is quite primitive. Actually I brought this from runet where discussion did not arrive at any good point. So thank you all for sharing your ideas, appreciate that. My understanding of "formless", when speaking about God, is not devoid of form, but the concept of "form" being not applicable. The same for "eternal", because this concept is born within the reality which is limited in time and so our "eternal" cannot be sustainable and applicable to God or Brahman. The same goes for the pair "personal-impersonal" - not applicable. Applicability issue is found even in material phenomena, like intellect. That it exists (at least in some people) is true, but would "form" be applicable? So, I have no problem with an uttama-bhagavata seing Bhagavan in all objects, because Bhagavan is neither personal nor impersonal in the sense of personal-impersonal perceived by material intellect. Thanks again Sambya, Kulapavana, and Raghu.
  11. Sure. Otherwise it would not be hinduism. I wonder if there is such a advaita that speaks of simultaneous presence and absence of dvaita and advaita or bheda and abheda in God.
  12. I recently read this Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.2.45. I cannot imagine seeing Krishna, who is person and is localized, within everything (all objects), which is something non-localized. However, to be in all-is-brahman consciousness is not so hard to imagine. Can a conclusion be drawn that an uttama-bhagavata gives up an idea of a personal God?
  13. Dear Kulapavana, does this statement come from Siddhanta Saraswati? If it does, I would reeeally appreciate to receive the rest of guru-parampara as revealed by himself. Somehow, this happens to be important for me.
  14. Dear respected Sonic Yogi, a have a deja-vu again because I had to speak to a certain Russian Kailasa. Russians say "he behaves like a grass snake on a frying pan". You require answers, but you dare not to provide same kind of weighted answers. Yes, sure it's called lila-smaranam when you read Krishna Book. So what? Lila-smaranam as a meditation process is a fairly well known process. As for the supposed guru of BSST, no one knows for certain his guru-parampara. He never revealed that although this has been a regular practice for orthodox Gaudias. So what you are left with is speculing about who might or might not be his Guru. Forget about what his Guru might or might nor have practiced. Siddha-pranali is not about REVEALING your siddha-rupa. It is about defining your siddha-deha so that you practice your bhajan. This is how Kedaranattha Datta perceive it. (I get another deja-vu. Someone told similar thing right in this thread). I might say with the same success that someone along the way invented bhagavat-shiksha parampara crap. You do not read what people write for you. People spend their time to provide their opinions, but you are not interested. I refuse to perceive term "sahajiya" in any context other that "vaishnava-sahajiya sect". Who exactly are you calling sahajiyas? Can you give names? No, please do not do that. I do not want (the rest of?) your (and my) sukriti evaporate. Offensive attitude will hurt some day. Please read Dhanurdhara Swamiji. I will pray to Jisus that he saves your eternal soul. God bless you. How old are you Yogiji? ACBSP was a great vaishnava, wasn't he?
  15. I once got bad flue in a travelling book distribution in the middle of Siberia and was to miss celebration of birhday of Lord Nityananda. I started to pray to Bhagavan Dhanvantari by repeating this verse from Bh.P. I was fine in 2 days and could join celebration of Sri Nityananda. He cures VERY QUICKLY the EVER diseased beings. If you run out of aspirin or have to save money in an economical crisis, use this shloka as a medicine! It works!
  16. This is an excellent point. Siddhanta Saraswati saw risks related to Lila Smaranam and therefore he discontinued siddha-pranali. Not because he considered it bogus. Nama-sankirtan does not have those risks, hense his emphasis on nama-sankirtan. There exist suggestions that BSST did give siddha-pranali on more than one occasion.
  17. Yogiji, don’t give up so easily! The burden of proof was yours and you shifted it onto me. This means you gave up in advance and will accept my explanation. -) I cannot prove it to you, but I’ll offer my understanding. You do not necessarily find in Goswamis “parampara is …”. They could not foresee all future misconceptions and did not bother to prepare comprehensive explanatory dictionaries. I hope you do not have problems with that. Let’s think practically. Shiksha vs Diksha parampara was never a topic of discussion until Siddhanta Saraswati. It is in his time that the idea of Shiksha-parampara first appeared. Before that “parampara” was not a problem to understand because it was common sense – an uninterrupted chain where one member is given diksha by the previous member. Think about this chain of reasoning: to become a vaishnava you need Guru-ashraya. This is done by means of diksha. Diksha is a ritual, in our case a pancaratric ritual. In this way you come up with pancaratrika-diksha parampara. I know no instance when ritual or idea of bhagavat-shiksha diksha/parampara is mentioned in acceptable Gaudia treatise. Diksha is designed to transmit both siddhanta and upasana. So even for shiksha you depend on diksha. The task of establishing proper ritual and conduct was not with Sri Rupa. It was with his brother. Sanatan Goswami went as far as to establish proper way to pass urine and stool, what to speak about diksha. He starts his Hari Bhakti Vilasa with the topic of Guru-upasatti. In a series of shlokas from 28 through 55 you will find excellent explanation by quoting smriti and shruti. Text 55 is especially relevant: gRhIta-viSnu-dIkSAko viSNu-pUjA-paro haraH | vaiSNavo’bhihito’bhijNair itaro’smAd avaiSNavaH ||55|| A person [who has] accepted Vishnu-diksha, intent upon Vishnu-puja, is called a vaishnava. Other than him is avaishnava. Read dvitIyo vilAsaH. It starts with discussion of diksha. Sorry, can’t provide English translation, but the meaning is so basic that you will understand as is: atha dIkSA-vidhiH dIkSA-vidhir likhyate’trAnusRtya krama-dIpikAm | vinA dIkSAM hi pUjAyAM nAdhikAro’sti karhicit ||2|| Something like “What is to be written about rules that relate to diksha is in Krama-dipika. Without diksha there is no right or suitability for doing puja”. He repeats this idea by quoting from seven sources in a series of shlokas from 2 through 12. Apparently, this idea was important for him. What follows then is a description of diksha ritual, a pancaratrika diksha ritual. Where does he have place for definition of parampara? He speaks on Guru-ashraya, he says that a vaishnava is one who is Vishnu-dikshita, he says that without diksha activities are fruitless and there is no adhikar for worship, and then he concludes with description of pancaratrika diksha ritual. Tell me, which kind of parampara is supposed to come up if this were to be followed?
  18. Please excuse this post, I can't reply in a private message yet. Dear Chandra Sekhar (chandu_69), thanks, but I am not a geniune spiritual person. I like reading books sometimes (economical crisis is the best time for that because you have a lot of spare time). Do not take this for spirituality. Divya jnana and intellect are not the same.
  19. Yes, this is profound because it comes from Sri Rupa Goswami in his treatise on bhakti rasa. This is none of my ideas. Yogiji, you seem to belong to Gaudia culture, you really need to read Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu one day... I can give you by your first request quotes from the chief theologian of the sampradaya to show that yours is a very vague and incorrect understanding. The maturity of bhakti is measured on a scale sadhana-bhava-prema. Whereas types of sadhana are vaidhi and raganuga, the main difference being motivation. There are statements (in Sri Jiva, for instance) that there is NO way in which vaidhi will AUTOMATICALLY become raganuga-bhakti. Vaidhi can proceed to ultimate perfection. To become a raganuga-bhakta you need to catch emotional attitude of a raga-bhakta. At that point you become greedy "I want this, I want to have the same raga as him". This feeleing ranges from initial attraction to overwhelming greed. The reason for meeting a raganuga-bhakta is not known to Sri Rupa, he is simply saying "This happens by mercy".
  20. This is similar to asking "Do you like mango or eating fruits?" Bhakti is a way. If you choose it, you want to practice it. It is called sadhana-bhakti. When feelings grow and mature, they do not need to be "practiced" anymore, so sadhana is not there anymore.
  21. Oh, pleeease! You have to find another head, you can't crap on mine. Why did "Brahma-Gaudia" sampradaya change siddhanta and upasana of the parental line? It did not seem to be shiksha-parampara from the beggining. And where do you find definition of term "shiksha-parampara" in Rupa Goswami? (since you are a rupanuga). Perhaps, Mahaprabhu respected the existing diksha? The brahmin already had his diksha in a hereditary line, why would Mahaprabhu be so ridiculous as to make him reject his previous Guru? This is rated as scandal in orthodox Gaudia vaishnava context. Rejecting Guru is scandal and a personal tragedy for a sadhaka. Have you heard of "do not accept too many disciples"? He gave a practical example of how this should be followed. What does Krishna have to do with this? Krishna was not a vaishnava. Krishna was a pashupata. This is a matter of whose authority in which matters I accept. I love Krishna, but with regards to Gaudia-siddhanta I accept authority of Sri Rupa Goswamipada and other 5 Goswamis of Vrindavana, Krishnadas Kaviraja, Narottam das Thakurji, Gopal Guru Goswami and several other vaishnavas. As for Krishna, He is not my acharya, but Ishta-devata. Proper Shiksha and proper Diksha should both be present. You simply cannot speak in "diksha vs shiksha" terms. You cannot oppose one another. This is not acceptable. This is not found in Rupa Goswami.
  22. Oh, am I really? Yogiji you are basically wrong. How would you follow Bhaktivinod? Take siddha-pranali diksha from him? But he is not available for that. Take initiation in a dream? A dream initiation is not fit for further distribution. Go outside? But you have to find a vaishnava-sadacar compliant way to have two Gurus - out of question for the time being. And your diksha Guru gave you specific instructions about that. To claim that I suggest any of these options is quite insulting, is another way of saying that I am stupid. You argue that siddha-pranali is not found in Rupa Goswami - simply a claim to be purist follower of the father of sampradaya (IMO quite a poor trick, don't use it). But there are many things in Rupa Goswami that are not present in Siddhanta Saraswati's line. On the other hand, there exist things that are not mentioned in Rupa Goswami. I do not know how you explain that, but my explanation is that Siddhanta Saraswati is a founder of his own sampradaya. You had that shape of faith which allowed you to accept him and your Guru as acharyas. Fine! Whatever acharya says is satya for the one who accepted him as acharya. So rather than discredit siddha-pranali by making ridiculous statements that it's not in Rupa Goswami, you should be saying that siddha-pranali is not maintained in your line because the acharya chose to set it like this. I suggest you read (sorry for that Dad) Dhanurdhara Svami's "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and raganuga-sadhana-bhakti". An overal good draft to find reconciliation with the tradition (though I disagree with the Swamiji on his many statements in this article). You should give up the offensive attitude to "the rest" of the tradition. As Kulapavana has rightly pointed out, it hurts the spiritual life.
  • Create New...