Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kulapavana

  1. <CENTER>Jaiva Dharma, Chapter Forty

    Sampatti-vichar: The Greatest Good Fortune</CENTER>Vijaya Kumar: How does one attain the perfection of the hearing stage?

    Goswami: When one realizes Lord Krishna’s pastimes’ eternal nature and feels their charm arising out of their pure transcendental character, one becomes agitated with the intense desire to enter those pastimes. The spiritual master then reveals to the disciple the eleven bhavas appropriate for his practice that we spoke about previously. When the disciple’s mental state is brought into harmony with his preferences for particular pastimes, then the stage of hearing is complete. With great enthusiasm, he moves on to the accepting stage.


    Vijaya Kumar: O master, what is the accepting stage?


    Goswami: The eagerness of the mind is given order by the eleven aspects of the spiritual identity and fixed in the divine pastimes. Weeping, the disciple falls before his spiritual master’s feet. The spiritual master’s original form as a sakhi manifests to the disciple, as well as the disciple’s form as her maidservant. The cowherd girls are all anxious to serve Krishna, and the spiritual master is one of these beautiful ladies of Vraja who has attained her highest aspiration in that service. The disciple then speaks words that follow Srila Raghunath Das Goswami’s mood in the PremAmbhoja-marandAkhya-stava-rAja (11-12):


    <CENTER>tvAM natvA yAcate dhRtvA tRNaM dantair ayaM janaH

    sva-dAsyAmRta-sekena jIvayAmuM suduHkhitam

    na muJcec charaNAyAtam api duSTaM dayAmayaH

    ato gAndharvike hA hA muJcainaM naiva tAdRzam</CENTER>

    “Please bring back to life this very unhappy person, who is bowing down before you with straw in her mouth, by sprinkling her with the nectar of your servitorship.


    “O Gandharvika! A truly compassionate person will not reject even a rascal if he surrenders to him. Please, therefore, never abandon this person, who is likewise surrendered to you.


    In other words, “O beloved friend of Radharani! I am a most miserable creature, yet I have fallen down before you with straw between my teeth to beg you to sprinkle me with the ambrosia of your service and bring me back to life. A merciful person does not abandon one who has taken shelter of him. Since I am surrendered to you, please do not abandon me, for I wish to serve the Divine Couple of Vraja under your direction.”


    This stage of acceptance takes exactly this form. Then, in his form as a sakhi, the spiritual master bestows residence in Vraja on his disciple and orders him to take shelter of Krishna’s holy name and meditate on His pastimes. The spiritual master then encourages the disciple, saying, “Soon you will attain what your heart desires.”

  2. Notes from Bhaktivinoda's Harinama Cintamani, chapter 15, verses 64-68 with Bhaktivinoda's own footnotes.


    krame varaNa dazA prApti

    rAdhA-kRSNa aSTa-kAla yei lIlA kare

    tAhAra zravaNe lobha haya ataHpare

    lobha ha-ile guru-pade jijJAsA udaya

    kemane pAiba lIlA kaha mahAzaya

    gurudeva kRpA kari karibe varNana

    lIlA-tattve ekAdaza bhAva-saGghaTana

    prasanna ha-iyA prabhu karibe Adeza

    ei bhAve lIlA-madhye karaha praveza

    zuddha rUpe siddha bhAva kariyA zravaNa

    sei bhAva svIya citte karibe varaNa

    Advancing to the stage of acceptance

    As the aspiring devotee hears about Radha and Krishna’s aSTa-kAliya-lIlA,

    he starts to feel an intense desire one to join Them in Their activities.

    Possessed by this desire, he asks the spiritual master,

    “O great soul, what must I do to attain these pastimes?”

    The spiritual master then mercifully describes to his disciple

    the eleven aspects and how they relate to the Lord’s lila.

    Pleased with his disciple, the spiritual master then orders him,

    “Now go and enter the Lord’s pastimes in this identity.”

    On hearing of his eternal spiritual identity with a pure attitude,

    the aspirant accepts it and takes it into his heart.</CENTER>

    NOTE: When on examining the disciple’s natural tendencies, the spiritual master verifies that he truly has the qualifications for serving in the sringara-rasa, he informs him of the eternal form that he should cultivate as a manjari in Lalita’s sub-group of Srimati Radharani’s group of gopis. Then the spiritual master explains the mutual relation between the eleven components of that spiritual identity necessary for the practice and the object of that practice, the pastimes the Lord enjoys throughout the eight periods of the day and night (aSTa-kAlIya-lIlA). He especially shows the disciple his spiritual name, form, qualities, and principle service.

    Furthermore, the spiritual master tells the disciple in which home in Vraja she will take birth and with which cowherd she will be married. He then goes on to explain how, as a gopi, she will reject the conventional morality of the Vedas and become a protected servant under the tutelage of one of the Lord’s prominent mistresses, a yutheshwari, whom she will serve through the daily cycle of pastimes. The aspirant then accepts this identity and enters the next stage, that of contemplation, smaraNa-dazA.

    This is the aspirant’s actual birth as a gopi in Vraja. One should here remember and follow the words of the Bhagavatam: yAH zrutvA tat-paro bhavet "When one hears these pastimes of the Lord, one becomes absorbed in them.”


    These are allegorical lessons in the teachings of Narada Muni to King Pracinabarhisat.

    It carries the same theme as Srila Prabhupada used in his preaching work.



    No, it does not. Narada Muni is talking about Krsna being with the living entity in this world, while Prabhupada is talking about Krsna being with the living entity in the spiritual world. While Narada's allegory is based on fact, Prabhupada's allegory is based on fiction. But yes, they are both allegorical tales.


    There is nothing absurd about it.

    Mahaprabhu's Sankirtan movement in South India and in fact all over India was much less orthodox and much more spontaneous than the complex system that evolved under the Goswamis who were charged with taking the cult and making it presentable to the highly sophisticated brahminical culture that was so strong in India at that time.



    You actually think Iskcon had anything to do with being spontaneous? I still remember a late 70's edition of an Iskcon manual on how to properly pass stool and urine. That thing was at least 30 pages long. And as a result, bathrooms in Iskcon temples stunk worse than public toilets in Eastern Europe.


    BTW. It was South India that had the most orthodox brahminical culture, not the North. And the claim that your guru had it right, not the Six Goswamis is probably not something your guru would endorse.


    Can I ask you how [stepping away from siddha pranali] would be bound to fail?

    Would Hari Nama Smarana not offer the same benefits of siddha pranali?


    I was primarily refering to things like introducing sannyasa and other elements of brahmanism, introducing non shastric teachings like fall from Goloka and other subtle concepts borrowed from semitic religions, such as placing great emphasis on building relious empires here on earth. Eventually people start wondering where all that came from and realize that in some cases truth and tradition were sacrificed for the sake of preaching.


    Why do i think that stepping away from siddha pranali is bound to fail?


    It is not so much about the lack of siddha pranali that is the problem, but general emphasis on building a preaching empire over lila-smaranam. Even such obviously qualified devotees like Narayana Maharaja are vilified by many Prabhupada disciples as sahajiyas. This is perhaps the karmic payback for the Saraswata camp vilifying every baba in Vrindavan as as sahajiya.


    Sooner or later many devotees actually make some progress and start leaning towards lila smaranam. But if your practical doctrine vilifies such tendencies and badmouths old and proven practices like siddha-pranali, these people start thinking about leaving the mission because they want more. In the most extreme cases (like ritviks) Prabhupada disciples think that our mission should be limited to simply distributing the early editions of Prabhupada's books for the next 10,000 years. Lila smaranam is only reading those books, because everything else is a sahajiya practice.


    No wonder so many join Narayana Maharaja's sanga. The exodus of so many mature devotees from Iskcon to that camp is for me a proof that moving away from siddha pranali was ultimately a mistake. Similar thing happened after BSST passed away when many left to practice traditional Gaudiya vaishnavism, and most GM moved in that direction anyway. I would not be one bit surprised if lets say NM started secretly imparting to his most mature disciples something similar to siddha pranali. I would see that as a good thing - coming full circle to where we came from as a group.


    That is perfectly correct.

    The living entity originally comes from a position of santa-rasa which is known as brahman realization or possibly Paramatma realization.


    So, the translation is perfectly correct.


    Another lie.




    "Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world."


    While it can be said that living entities in undifferentiated Brahmajyoti are situated in shanta rasa, they are certainly not engaged in any service. Tatastha means they come from the dividing line between the material and spiritual realms.


    Iskcon is still totally confused over this issue, because Prabhupada made all of these contradictory statements. At times he woud say that no one falls from Vaikuntha, and at other times he would say that we all fell from Vaikuntha. So folks like you keep inventing some bizzare theories that suppose to reconcile these contradictions, like the resent sleepervada doctrine invented by some Australian swami. :rolleyes:


    Anyway... we are WAY OFF the topic...


    What makes you so sure that the Saraswatas didn't just return the Gaudiyas back to the original concept of Mahaprabhu before the Goswamis built it up into something that the caste brahmans and other peer groups of the time could accept as scholarly and acceptable.


    Why do you folks keep inventing such absurd theories to show that your guru was always right?


    If you think so, then please post some evidence from his books.

    You always makes claims but you never support your claims with any evidence.

    Is that because you are telling tall tales?


    Too lazy to check the links I gave above?

    OK... here is one:

    [Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.28.54 Purport] "The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world."


    They take rasa-lila literally, therefore they base their conception of raganuga-bhakti and lila-smaranam on something that is not literally real. And it shows when I converse with them. Instead of having developed a closer relationship with Krishna; which is the purpose of raganuga and siddha-pranali; they end up being obsessed with the minutiae of lila because that is what they think lila-smaranam is supposed to be about -- when in fact lila-smaranam is meant to be taken metaphorically in raganuga sadhana.


    Just because some truly advanced Vaishnavas (like Sridhara Maharaja) do not think that rasa lila ever took place here on earth, and like all the other lila is only a metaphor - not a historical fact, that does not mean they are right, or that everyone must think just like them in order to 'do things right'.


    Saraswatas did indeed depart from the GV tradition in some important but subtle ways, some more than others. They did it to facilitate preaching and to re-shape the way of thinking of the new generation of followers. Prabhupada went as far as preaching to his followers that all jivas fell from Krsnaloka, from a direct loving relationship with Krsna, because he did not want them to think that we all come from undifferentiated Brahmajyoti. Never mind that this preaching is not based on guru, sadhu, or shastra. He wanted to shape the way of thinking for his disciples, taking them as far as possible from the dreaded 'impersonalism'. However, seems like such departures are ultimately bound to fail, and their benefits are temporary at best. Stepping away from siddha pranali seems to be in that category.


    Can you explain in some detail what you mean by "Based on my research, it CAN work".


    I was refering to historical accounts related to this method of bhajana, as well as its current practice. Essentially you look at people who use or used siddha-pranali and examine their devotional qualities. Are they what you can call advanced devotees with little or no material attachment, or not? Clearly there were in the past, and there still are, devotees who benefitted from this practice.


    As I said earlier, I do not practice it, and I am nowhere near being ready for siddha pranali, but I hope the time will come before I die when I will take it up. And if some people see it a 'sahajiya' tendency, I could not care less.


    Siddha-pranali process is a sadhana for sadhakas.

    Bhaktivinoda was a siddha who had attained svarupa-siddhi.



    If you actually bothered to read his autobiography you would realize how absurd your claim is. Bhaktivinoda was evolving and changing until the very end, and his writings preserve the record of that gradual evolution. He was a very humble and honest person, never trying to turn himself into a myth. He is far more inspiring to people as he really was, instead of the myths created later by his followers and which you are repeating here.


    You should do a little more study of the life of Bhaktivinoda and you will find that had already written Gaudiya commentary before he took his so-called diksha from Vipina Bihari Goswami.



    I have twice read his autobiography, Svalikhita-jivani, where he presents the truth about his life, not the myths of his later followers. And he practiced siddha pranali as it was given to him by Bipina Bihari which is evident from both his poems to his guru and his other writings which I quoted earlier. He gave siddha pranali to a number of disciples, including his son, Lalita Prasada, which Srila Prabhupada greatly respected despite their differences.

  13. You are going in circles...



    Srila Prabhupada was of the position that siddha-pranali was manufactured by and practiced by sahajiyas.


    So that would mean our previous acharyas who practiced siddha pranali, like Bhaktivinoda Thakura, were all sahajiyas? I thought we covered that already.


    You have no real argument, so you have to create one made of straw.


    Nobody here advocates siddha pranali as a practice for immature devotees.


    There is nothing self-righteous about it.

    The whole position of the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya is to hold up high and worship the path of raga bhakti while keeping oneself assigned to the lower level of vaidhi-bhakti and preaching work.



    That may be your personal preference but it does not give you the right to denigrate all other Vaishnavas who happen to think differently.


    Just because you have (or had) good intentions it does not mean that nobody has the right to criticize you for the things that CLEARLY went wrong in your mission. That principle applies to Prabhupada's mission, just like it applies to the sahajiya camp.


    The people we find on the internet today trying to advocate this siddha-pranali nonsense are simply instigators who are envious of Srila Prabhupada and trying to cause as much disruption to the movement as possible.



    Go back to page 1 of this thread to see how this exchange started.


    Who is advocating siddha-pranali? Who thinks they are ready for it?


    This thread was started by someone posting one sided opinions about siddha-pranali. I can see now that this devotee has a better understanding of this issue. I am quite happy for him and anybody else who can read this thread without getting his kaupin in a bunch.

  16. I gave you a very practical example of actual risks and historical problems versus theoretical risks of misuse of siddha pranali. Instead of addressing the facts, you are foaming at the mouth with hateful personal tirades.


    I do not belittle what Srila Prabhupada did for the mission of Lord Chaitanya. I deeply appreciate what he has done. It is his disciples like you who belittle the entire mission of Lord Caitanya and Vaishnavism in general with their hate filled self-righteous attitude.


    Apparently you did not learn how to respect and appreciate other Vaishnavas, especially if they come form a closely related camp. You folks praise Muslims and Christians for being 'Vaishnavas' but denigrate pretty much all other Gaudiyas as 'sahajiyas'. You are basically a sect, a personality cult, and nothing more, each year becoming less and less relevant on the world's scene of religions.


    If anybody disrupted your movement it was your own leaders and their blind followers, who gave up thinking for themselves out of fear of comitting 'aparadha'.


    Srila Prabhupada tried strenuously to prevent this siddha-pranali nonsense from infecting the Krishna consciousness movement, but these thankless rascals are now coming along and trying to infect the Krishna consciousness movement with this siddha-pranali nonsense.


    In my practical and time tested estimate, the siddha-pranali 'nonsense' is a minimal risk compared to the doctrine of "end justifies the means", giving sannyasa to neophytes and homosexuals, or taking money from criminal activities in the name of 'yukta-vairagya'.


    Especially, what was the most prominant face of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in India had been reduced down to sahajiyas and caste Goswami business until Bhaktivinoda revived it from the depths of imitationism.


    You should read something besides standard Saraswata version of GV history before you get on your high horse. Like the Saints of Vraja by OBL Kapoor, who was also one of the Srila Prabhupada's most respected Godbrothers. Incidentally he was also one of those who took siddha pranali after passing of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. He writes that in the foreword to his book.


    To say that Gaudiya Vaishnavism in India was saved by Bhaktivinoda is a huge ovestatement. GV was, and still is, doing just fine without him, Gaudiya Math, or Iskcon.


    And if you are talking about depths of imitationism and depravity in Gaudiya Vaishnavism please do not forget about certain Iskcon characters and exploits from the last 40 years.

  19. Ultimately the question is: Does siddha-pranali work as a devotional practice? After all, it is a practice that has been around for a very long time.


    Based on my research, it CAN work, but it is definitely not for neophytes or even intermediate bhaktas.


    When a group of third-graders denounce calculus as 'bogus', or 'worthless' that is because they do not know any better. By the time they are in the 12th grade their understanding of math changes and they can properly appreciate the value of calculus.


    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.


    No, it does not, but is a fact well known among the Gaudiya matha disciples. Many disciples of BSS took siddha pranali from various sadhus after disappearance of their guru. BSS was against premature siddha pranali initiation but not against it's principle. Whether he himself secretly gave siddha pranali to some of his disciples is open to debate.


    BSS claimed that Gaurakishora was a disciple of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, which is rather debatable, as it was BVT who took babaji vesa from Gaurakishora. BSS claim is based on his observations of relationship between these two great souls (Gaurakishora and Bhaktivinoda). GKDB never made such claims, just like BVT never made claims of being a disciple of Jagannatha dasa Babaji.


    I would dare to say that both BSST and Srila Prabhupada primarily attempted to create "universal Vaishnavism for the masses" or 'universal religion' and were not that concerned with following the GV tradition.

  21. If you have a real hard science, like Mathematics, there is no possibility of neo-mathematics. But when you are talking about 'soft' science, culture, or art, you can use terms like Hinduism and Neo-hinduism to denote substantial revisions of prevailing way of thinking. There is neo-evolutionism as well.

  • Create New...