Gaurasundara

That's exactly what I was thinking. It was the disagreements on certain translations that gave birth to the whole "origin of the soul" controversy in ISKCON, and since then it has been put on the shelf.

 

I have heard that it may be coming out soon from Bhakti Vikasa Swami. I suppose he is more in the loop than I am.

 

But Srila Jiva Gosvämi, following the previous äcäryas, has inculcated the conclusions of the scriptures in the six theses called the Sat-sandarbhas.

 

 

I have heard that ISKCON is soon going to be printing an edition of the Sat-sandarbhas. Personally I would beware of it, for I have heard that there has been much editing going on. Do you know if this is true?

I don't like those articles, for obvious reasons.

 

Haribol prabhu, but I am scared of all these difficult controversies. I must protect my fragile bhakti-lata, else I might commit the Mad Elephant offense and then the whole thing will be finished. Offences are bad, bad, bad. Hare Krishna!

Very well, Shiva. You have the supreme understanding of Srila Prabhupada's books and siddhanta.

 

Haribol prabhu, but now I must take a heavy book bag and go sell them on the street. Hare Krishna!

 

ajata ruci raganuga is what you can follow. how will you do so?

 

 

ajAta-tAdRza-rucinA tu sad-vizeSAdara-mAtrAdRtA rAgAnugApi vaidhI-saMvalitaivAnuSTheyA | tathA loka-saMgrahArthaM pratiSThitena jAta-tAdRza-rucinA ca | atra mizratve ca yathA-yogyaM rAgAnugayaikI kRtyaiva vaidhI kartavyA || (Bhakti-sandarbha 312)

 

"Those in whom such taste (ruci) has not awakened, but who have a special interest for it, should engage in a mixture of raganuga and vaidhi. For the sake of establishing an example for the people of the world, the one in whom such ruci has awakened will do the same. Therefore, as appropriate, raganuga should be performed together with vaidhi."

 

Therefore I have no choice. Since I am uninitiated, all I can do is chant, perform service and read scriptures. Only when I get initiated by a guru can I begin my process of bhajan. It hardly matters for me anyway, ajata and jata, for those in whom ruci have awakened follow the external formalities (64 angas of bhakti) to set an example to people.

Are you thinking along the lines of the 'Matrix' movies? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

but i do not have enough motivation. Motivate me!!

 

 

NO PAIN, NO GAIN!

 

You will get Krishna in the end !!!!!

 

Is that enough motivation? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

what hate campaign ?

 

 

Oh come on. Your initial post consisted of cut'n'paste portions of BG Narasingha's articles about "sahajiyas" and "apasampradayas." The fact is that such articles spread misconceptions, the same misconceptions that you seem to avidly believe in. Of course you are always free to believe what you want, but if you feel that you want to present your understanding as some sort of history essay, then you must understand that you are offering your theories up for constructive criticism.

 

First of all, your whole idea of the "evolution of Gaudiya thought" is untenable since you are talking about the legend of evolution in the Sarasvata line. There has not been just one line, there have been many. Your idea that the degraded practices of the "sahajiyas" were the "norm" really have no substantial evidence to back it up. Certainly degradation has been present just as it is now, but that does not meant that all has been degraded. This was your original statement:

 

"By the time of Bhaktivinode gaudiya thought and practice had degenerated from the time of the 6 goswamis,"

 

That's certainly one heck of a blanket statement! If that was true then how did he feel that Jagannatha das Babaji was a genuine Vaishnava to take siksa from? After all, everyone from the time of the Six Gosvamis was degenerated? Did you realise that you are including everyone, including Visvanatha and Baladeva, in this statement? Shiva, you have to be very careful when you present an idea by using the correct language. Rather, it would be better to say something like "From the time of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Gaudiya thought and practice had degenerated." Even though this is still incorrect, it would be more believable.

 

 

you say that the many

older vaisnavas like Bhaktivedanta or Sridhar or Narayana

Maharajas are wrong about the change within Mahaprabhus

school over time ,that is your right,

 

 

I don't recall saying anything like that. I said: "The problem here is that neither you nor Narasingha Swami know what a sahajiya actually is." I made that comment in response to your cut'n'paste of BG Narasingha's article. I also said I disagreed with Narayana Maharaja's version. As far as disagreeing with "changes" in Mahaprabhu's movement is concerned, I'll say it again: Certainly degradation has been present just as it is now, but that does not meant that all has been degraded.

 

 

don't take the statements meant to show a progressive

gaudiya school to be an attempt to denigrate those who

believe in some other idea, it's not about hating those who believe in another way,it's about presenting

what my own thoughts are.

 

 

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 

 

I don't hate sahajiyas or those who i may believe

are foolishly believing in their own hype and self

indulgent practices, i see them as inexperienced

and delusional but i have no antipathy or anger

or ill will towards them, they do as god directs them

on their journey to the highest level .

 

 

OK, but I notice that you didn't reply when I asked you to name an individual or a group of sahajiyas who practice all or most of the "deviations" that you speak of. Were you able to do that? I'm not sure, but I have a name for you: Atal Bihari das.

I have heard from several people that ABD is a practising sahajiya. He is a full-fledged card-carrying member of the Sahajiya apasampradaya which advocates the sexual union of male and female sadhakas to reflect that of the transcendental lilas of Radha and Krishna within their own material bodies. ABD has been practising it for 40 years, and has apparently boasted that the best "rasa" is exprienced when practising with the wives of others. Does that sound like pure Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta to you? So certainly this is a degradation, and people like ABD and Hari das Chakrabarthi are people who regularly practise it. This is what sahajiyas are all about.

 

Your definition of sahajiya as being someone who is "natural,so really it can used however the person wants to use it," and proceeding to argue about different connotations and change of meaning over time is fine, but the simple fact is that before Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's time, everyone knew what a sahajiya was. This "new" definition of a sahajiya as being one in a sort of "cheaply enjoying" state of mind is, in my opinion, quite fragile. As degradation can take place at any time, any place and anywhere, this does not mean that there are genuine practising Gaudiya Vaishnavas out there, who genuinely practice pure raganuga-sadhana, who have received knowledge from qualified gurus, and are themselves quite qualified disciples. Therefore this whole idea of the Gaudiya sampradaya being "deluged" by pretenders and cheap enjoyers is not very specific, if not correct altogether.

 

Try to understand what I am saying, Shiva, instead of being an upturned pot. I am fully aware that this discussion has the potential to progress nowhere. The only reason why I am discussing this subject with you is that people may believe your wild generalizations and accept them as absolute truth. I'll also romise to fully agree with you so long as you have the required evidence to back up your claims. That shouldn't be too hard, should it?

Personally I can understand Srila Prabhupada's points especially when considering time, place and circumstance.

 

What was the time and place like in 1960s America? There was sense-enjoyment everywhere, "Free Love" was a popular slogan, and people were quite accustomed to living together in a fre-for-all relationships, etc. In such a hedonistic enovironment, it's pretty obvious that a philosophy all about God as a "womaniser" would not go down too well with the derelicts. Actually, it probably would have gone down well with them, since I am sure that such hippies would appreciate worshipping a God by perceiving their behaviour in His. That, I feel, is one of the reasons why Srila Prabhupada introduced the philosophy gradually. This is why he was always emphatic that the lilas of Krishna are in no way similar to the "lilas" of human beings. That is the sort of warning you will find everywhere.

 

Attracting them with the Holy Name, delicious prasadam, harinama-kirtanas outdoors, building temples, and so on. Slowly slowly making them qualified. But he always made it clear that according to this viewpoint, the platform of raganuga-sadhana is certainly to be applied as and when it will be necessary. To say otherwise, like Shiva and others do, would be extremely foolish. For this is the supreme never-before-given gift of Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

--

 

That may be so, but that does not mean that Arjuna is in madhurya-rasa. He himself remains in sakhya-rasa. Even a child can tell you which rasa Arjuna is in.

 

 

--

 

 

 

what is madhurya rasa ?

conjugal love.

He had a conjugal rasa with Draupadi.

He had a sakhya rasa with Krsna.

Draupadi and Krsna are one and the same.

What is the difficulty ?

 

 

Wow. Very good realisation. Did you work that one out all by yourself or did Ronald McDonald himself reveal this confidential truth to you? By the way:

 

"Devotees in the third stage, the stage of friendship, are Sridama in Vrndavana and Bhima and Arjuna in Dvaraka and on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra. There are many others also. As far as those relating to Krsna in paternal love, they include devotees like Yasoda; and Maharaja Nanda — that is, Krsna's mother, father, uncle and similar relatives. In conjugal love there are the damsels of Vraja, Vrndavana, and the queens and goddesses of fortune in Dvaraka. No one can count the vast number of devotees in this rasa." - TLC Chapter 1.

 

Sorry. Srila Prabhupada clearly denotes Arjuna as being in sakhya-rasa. This idea of Arjuna being in madhurya-rasa via his marriage to Draupadi who is non-different from Krishna, is an unusual idea, but is against Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

Certainly, no one can count the vast number of devotees in madhurya-rasa. However, it is plainly obvious which rasa Arjuna belongs to. Arjuna in sakhya-rasa with Krishna, and madhurya-rasa with Krishna via Draupadi, this is rasabhasa. Please don't pretend to be something of an authority on rasa when you clearly are not.

 

 

mentally contemplate,perform,or imitate ,hmmmm,

seems to me he is making a point about siddha pranali

and sahajiyaism, he doen't say that you shouldn't think about Radha Krsna,he is very specific,

rasa lila shouldn't be the focus of your study

and meditation if you are not qualified.

 

that is different then thinking about Radha or Krsna,

the path of siddha pranali and raganuga sadhana

centered around rasa lila is what he is refering to,

why accept one thing he says,then say the other is wrong,

he is making two different points.

 

 

You're certainly free to continue absorbing yourself in extensive speculation and rationalising, by saying that he makes points about siddha-pranali when there is no such reference in the quotes, but one fact is clear. The comment you provided directly contradicted the comment I provided. The only qualification according to the Gosvamis (and thus, Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta) is simply the desire to faithfully hear them. Period. You'll never be able to scoot around this.

 

No,the point was that sahajiyas had become popular, the raganuga sadhana that would later be rejected was being taught commonly, possibly this was done to attract those who had been exposed to sahajiya philosophy and when coming in contact with the more traditional school were looking for a more external form of supposed intimacy in their sadhana

 

 

How do you know that sahajiyas were popular? How do you know that raganuga sadhana was rejected? Rejected by who? Was it really taught commonly? Who says that people looking "for more" were really looking for "more sex"? How do you know any of this?

 

 

Therefore raganuga sadhana and siddha pranali may have been given out where as later by Bhaktivedantas time it wasn't.

 

 

What is raganuga sadhana? What is siddha pranali? Do you know what they are and what they involve? How do you know it wasn't given out by and during the time of Srila Prabhupada?

 

It is still given out by qualified gurus unto qualified disciples.

 

 

this was because siddha pranali and the raganuga sadhana is a lower path then the sankirtan seva,

 

 

How do you know that raganuga-sadhana is a lower path than sankirtana seva? Did you know that sankirtana (the yuga-dharma) can be given out in any Kali yuga, but it is only in a very rare Kali yuga that Mahaprabhu Himself comes to give the supreme path of manjari-bhava sadhana? On this count alone, I'd say that raganuga-sadhana/manjari-bhava sadhana is really greater than sankirtana yuga-dharma.

 

But alas! I digress! They are really two sides of the same coin where Mahaprabhu's mission is concerned. Please consider the following:

 

"The Lord's desire to appear was born from two reasons: He wanted to taste the sweet essence of the mellows of love of God, and He wanted to propagate devotional service in the world on the platform of spontaneous attraction. Thus He is known as supremely jubilant and as the most merciful of all." - CC Adi 4.15-16

 

I think that's a clear reference to raganuga-bhakti (known as spontaneous attraction in ISKCON) by Srila Prabhupada himself. But wait! I digress again! Earlier in CC, we find:

 

"I shall personally inaugurate the religion of the age--nama-sankirtana, the congregational chanting of the holy name. I shall make the world dance in ecstasy, realizing the four mellows of loving devotional service." - CC Adi 3.19

 

One highly-respected ISKCON Acharya explained this apparent difference by explaining that the introduction of the yuga-dharma was the external cause (bahiranga-karana) of Mahaprabhu's descent, while the enjoyment of rasa and the propagation of it was the internal cause (antaranga-karana). I agree with this view, that is why I say Mahaprabhu's mission was two-fold in this context.

 

"Thus with two intentions the Lord appeared with His devotees and tasted the nectar of prema with the congregational chanting of the holy name." - CC Adi 4.39

 

They're inextricably connected with each other. It is not that one is "higher" and the other is "lower" - they go hand-in-hand.

 

 

the lila of Mahaprabhus mission,direct involvement

in Mahaprabhus continuing lila as opposed to

meditation on a non active lila,meditation or

active involvement, this was the difference

between the world that Bhaktivinode entered

and the world when he left.

 

 

Yet Bhaktivinoda himself practised deep raganuga-sadhana with the knowledge of his own ekadasa-bhava, he wrote profusely about his own participation in the "unimportant lower non active lila" and he also was absorbed in such "low" activities twenty-four hours a day during his last days. What a pity, he wasted so much time when he should have simply chanted the Holy Name, according to you.

 

Having just read G's last spiteful posting, I realize that sometimes it is better to walk away from a fight than to engage in fighting.

 

 

Dear Muralidhar, perhaps you were that anonymous guest who decided to drag up old topics? I did not know, and if it was you then I am indeed surprised to see that it was you.

Anyhow, who is fighting? I am not fighting, certainly not. I'm just objecting to unnecessary criticism of a group of Vaishnavas as "sahajiyas" without first understanding what sahajiyas really are as well as wondering if they really are sahajiyas. I don't see how you can see anything spiteful in my post. Words fail me, you cannot see the spitefulness in the hate campaign against "sahajiyas" and neither can you see any offensiveness in referring to Srila Bhaktivinoda as a fallen meat-eater who took initiation from an unsuitable guru, etc., but it's quite alright for you to drive the topic away from it's point by reposting several barbs against me, if it was you after all.

 

Sorry, I thought you were more enlightened than that.

No, forget it. I don't think I'll bother. I think I'll just upload it and offer it for discussion when it's finished. It practically is finished, I just have to fill in about 30 citations of original Bengali footnotes (!!) and it's all done.

 

Nitpicking is not the way,the meaning

should be understood in the context it used.

 

 

Fine. Let's forget for a moment that the word 'sahajiya' has had a clear meaning for several centuries and has only recently come to mean what you think. Let's put all of your comments into context, as you are asking me to do. Basically, you started this thread to discuss the deviancy of the "sahajiyas" as part of the "norm." Then you said that Srila Bhaktivinoda followed this "norm," and tried to depict him as a "typical" person who eats meat and so on, is not intelligent enough to select a suitable guru and thus took his initiation from another "sahajiya," who himself belonged to a line of "degraded sahajiyas" since this is the time of terror and darkness that had befallen Mahaprabhu's movement. Is that a correct summary of your views?

 

The main question I am asking you is: Who exactly are these sahajiyas you are speaking of? Names, details, etc.

 

you leave out the purport to the quote from Prabhupada,

 

which is

 

The purport of this is that one who is not an isvara truly qualified by being endowed with divine potency should never even mentally contemplate, perform or imitate the Lord's rasa-lila.

 

 

Very good. Now check this out:

 

"In Caitanya-caritamrta it is clearly said that one should accept the emotional activities and not imitate the dress of the associates of Krsna. One should also always meditate upon the affairs between Radha and Krsna in the transcendental world. One should think of Radha and Krsna twenty-four hours a day and eternally engage in Their service. One need not externally change his dress. By following the mood of the associates and friends of Radharani, one can ultimately achieve the perfectional stage and be transferred to Goloka Vrndavana, the transcendental abode of Krsna." - TLC Chap. 31.

 

Arjuna is married to Draupadi,who is a goddess of fortune, as Prabhupada said and i quoted,All Goddess's of fortune are Krsna's womanly forms,and are non different then Him.

 

 

That may be so, but that does not mean that Arjuna is in madhurya-rasa. He himself remains in sakhya-rasa. Even a child can tell you which rasa Arjuna is in.

Dear Shiva,

 

there is no point in discussing these topics with you, as you clearly have your own ideas about raganuga-bhakti and the eligibility for the same, which ignores the direct instructions of the Gosvamis and Acharyas by the way. I also know that you have been shown to be wrong on these points on many occasions previously, and yet you still present all these same points without having understood anything that anybody has ever said to you. Good luck!

 

If you ask me, this division of inherent/assigned siddha-deha is a clueless division missing a good number of points.

 

 

Yes, I think I might be about to restart a discussion about it on Raganuga. I believe I'ev got some material from Bhaktivinoda that might be relevant. Perhaps then we can discuss there all the good points you speak of?

 

Of course, I didn't say anything about non-Sarasvata Vaishnavas, but then that is besides the point. When Gaurasundara can't have his way, Gaurasundara chooses to cry like a little boy whose lollipop has been taken away.

 

 

Dear anonymous guest, it's pretty obvious that you have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion or forum, especiall about the evolution of Gaudiya thought, or rather, the definition of sahajiyaism. Perhaps that is why you suddenly feel the need to drag up all sorts of muck from past threads in a silly attempt to discredit me. Not only is this guest interested in discrediting me, but is also interested in being insulting. This is a perfect example:

 

"you continue to hang out in ISKCON temples, hoping that maybe you are going to meet some brahmacarini or some congregational member's daughter who will hopefully know so little of your internet escapades that she will agree to marry you."

 

I only wonder why this anonymous guest is developing such an unhealthy obsession, so much so that he seeks to disturb this thread by bringing in issues that are completely irrelevant to the subject. Have I criticised anyone's parampara in this thread? This anonymous guest hasn't addressed even one comment of mine about "sahajiyas," but instead wishes to engage in a hate campaign against me. And no, I am not whining about this. Rather, I am much amused. Speaking of which, I'll state for the record: I am not following any guru or any parampara. I have never been initiated by any guru. I am trying to study Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy as dispassionately as possible, therefore I believe I am in a position to critically analyse the position/doctrine of any teacher, whether inside or outside the Sarasvata-parampara. I do believe that I have been doing this quite impartially on some other threads, like for example, the question about eligibility for raganuga-bhakti, etc. Certainly I am interested in following Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, but that can only begin when I fortunately find a suitable guru.

 

 

Really, Gaura, are you aware of just how many times you contradict yourself, or are you just this dense that you actually think you are smarter than everyone else?

 

 

Note how you seem to be satisfied in your assumptions about my "smartness." I have no problem with that, you can stick to your own ideas. I can fully explain my position on "parampara" to you if you like, but that may result in another 14-pager of a topic, something which I have no time for. As an alternative, I'll be happy to discuss my views with you in private email and explain perfectly well why I think like I do. However, I would not be very keen on associating with you because you are obviously in an extremely hateful and inimical state of mind, therefore I do not want your association. Now do you think you can go away somewhere and not disturb topics with your irrelevant obsessions?

 

 

I just can't help but feel that the moderators are being extremely patient, allowing someone like this Gaurasundara to argue when it is obvious that he seems more interested in reading what he writes (and probably hearing his own voice) than in actual logical argument.

 

 

For all you know, we are having a discussion about the evolution of Gaudiya thought, which is really a sort of hate-campaign against an ambiguous group collectively labelled as "sahajiyas." Have you made any points that are relevant to this topic? Certainly not. You seem to be far too busy digging for unsavoury news in a strange quest to insult me.

 

Do yourself a favour, get used to the fact that there are plenty of Gaudiya Vaishnavas around who do not hold allegiance to the Sarasvata parampara. I suspect this is the underlying cause of your blind hatred, the simple fact that opinions are being propounded on this forum that do not fit in with the Sarasvata ideology. Personally, I did not like it either, but I'd say that I am of an open mind enough to hear what other people have to say. You might also do yourself another favour and realise that non-Sarasvatas have been present in this forum for several years now. On the other hand, if you don't like what I write, then don't read it. Simple? Or at least, if you have to respond then respond with some relevant argument instead of dragging up old muck.

 

the key here is when he says liberated stage,

what is that ?

 

 

Srila Prabhupada has different definitions of liberation than you might have. Check out this passage, for example:

 

"When one is liberated, he theoretically understands that the living entity is not composed of material elements but is spirit soul, distinct from matter. Simply by theoretically understanding this doctrine, one can be called liberated, but actually a mukta, or liberated soul, is he who understands his constitutional position as an eternal servant of the Lord. Such liberated souls engage with faith and devotion in the service of the Lord, and they are called krsna--bhaktas, or Krsna-conscious persons." - Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chap. 1.

 

thats a bit of a strech,anything that doesn't agree with the precepts of Bhaktisiddhanta ? So if one wants to deviate from any of his precepts he is called a sahajiya ?

 

 

That has more or less been the practice since the days of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, so I hear. Why else would you explain how ISKCON has labelled Narayana Maharaja's as a sahajiya, simply because he does not agree with their perception of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta? And the same for Sridhara Maharaja? So it really seems, that not only the "outsiders" are labelled as sahajiyas and whatnot, but also the differing camps within the Sarasvata-samaj. How interesting.

 

 

not so, sahajiya not only refers to those who pretend they are gopis ,it also can refer to those who

consider themselves at the highest levels when

they haven't entered into that, those who try and present

their views and position as being on the topmost platform

without actually having experienced that.

 

 

A sahajiya is one who views himself and his partner as Krishna and Radha respectively, and attempts to engage in sexual relations with said partner with a view to emulate the love of Radha and Krishna in their own bodies. This is a sick blasphemy. There is nothing more to a sahajiya other than this definition. Such sahajiyas can be found even today in Bengal. Go and see for yourself.

And that is also why I said that an improper accusation of other Vaishnava lines as "sahajiya" without understanding what a sahajiya actually is or how they fit that definition, is insulting inasmuch as labelling teetotallers as alcoholics is insulting.

 

 

We are told that what is written is not the whole story, that there is another hidden dimension there, the sahjiya type of mentality is to consider him/her self to be on the topmost level without actually understanding the inner truth,the hidden dimension,

 

 

This is precisely the "buzzword" definition that I spoke of earlier. Since Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's days, sahajiya has come to mean this. Before that, everyone was quite clear what a sahajiya actually was.

 

Speaking of which, I hear that in some European temples they are giving lectures telling that anyone who chants the Holy Name all day is a sahajiya. Go figure if this is correct. I certainly disagree.

 

you take what i was saying to mean one thing,when in fact it means something else.

 

The practice of siddha pranali and raganuga bhakti

is not what you think it is about,it's really

about purifying the heart(desire).

 

 

With all due respects, I do not think that you are in a position to tell me that I do not know about siddha-pranali or raganuga-bhakti. I am just now putting the finishing touches to a complete transcription of an essay on the subject. You would do well to read it yourself when I put it online as it may clear up some of your misconceptions. It is all based on Srila Bhaktivinoda's teachings, by the way.

 

 

this is from Narayana Maharaja

 

After Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyabhusana, a dark age began in Sriman Maha-prabhu’s Gaudiya Sampradaya, during which the current of sri rupanuga-bhakti became somewhat impaired.

 

 

With all due respects to Narayana Maharaja, I do not agree with his opinion. This is a popular legend that has been passed down since the times of Srila Sarasvati Thakura. There is no proof that it is true as several great Vaishnavas (whom I guess you have never even heard of) have always been present since the time of Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

 

 

No one should think that this is nothing more than imagination; the spiritual body is eternal and true. The spiritual master knows his disciple's transcendental identification through the power of his meditation and then reveals it to him as the form in which he will be accepted by the Lord.

 

 

Are you even aware that there are two schools of thought about the attainment of siddha-deha? Here is an excerpt from my upcoming transcription:

 

"[One is] the 'inherent theory' and the other the 'assigned theory.' According to the 'inherent theory' every jiva already has an existing eternal siddha-deha. During initiation, the guru 'sees' the initiate’s eternal identity in lila by meditation and reveals this true identity to the sadhaka, who then begins the practice of raganuga-bhakti and eventually discovers for himself the reality of his eternal identity. According to the 'assigned theory' the guru assigns the appropriate siddha-deha to the initiate. The siddha-dehas are like 'shiny new cars,' as Haberman quotes one modern commentator, that are assigned to the appropriate candidate according to the design of God through the mystic perception of the guru. In both theories, numerous inspiring stories abound to prove and illustrate how the sadhaka receives his actual inner form."

 

So there you go. Narayana Maharaja (and I suspect, the rest of the Sarasvata sampradaya) is obviously a believer in the inherent theory, while the rest of the sampradaya believes in the assigned theory. In any case, the assigned theory is the one that has been tried-and-tested since the days of Mahaprabhu.

 

 

If you want to believe that the literal meaning of these topics is all in all,then go ahead,pretend you are a gopi, see where it gets you.

 

 

See, this is the problem with you. You make assumptions about people and then you go ahead and assume that these self-created assumptions are absolutely true. Now can you show me anywhere where I have said that I am pretending to be a gopi?

 

 

the reality is completely different, the eternal siddha deha in actual relation with the etrnal rasa is something that is revealed to you,directly,you can imagine you are a gopi or manjari,this doesn't actually mean anything, what is the real treasure of Radha Dasyam ? Is that available by your mental imaginings ?

 

 

Certainly it is, if you follow the dictates of Rupa Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti, Narottama das Thakura, Gopalaguru Gosvami, Dhyanacandra Gosvami, etc etc etc. They all quite clearly stated that one must meditate on the pastimes of Radha-Krishna, as well as on one's role in those pastimes.

 

 

Their desire is required to be understood in order

to enter the eternal, if you simply desire position,

then you can imagine yourself as a manjari,that may purify

your heart, the desire for giving is a higher thing then the

desire for position, when your desire is purified then

Radha Dasyam opens up,then your real siddha deha

is revealed in madhurya rasa,for the pleasure of Radha

and the gopis, not for our exploitative desire for position

as the topmost,but as servant to their inner needs.

 

 

That's more or less the essence of raganuga-bhakti-sadhana! Finally you get the right idea! Congratulations!

 

you interpret what jiva goswami says,then insist

that that is what he means,then when i interpret what he says,you say do not interpret ?

 

 

These are some of the wacky ideas you have come up with so far:

 

1 - Males cannot worship in the mode of a female.

2 - Arjuna's bhava was the same as the Queens of Dvaraka.

3 - Wal-mart employees are guaranteed to marry their employers (if they behave).

 

Did I miss anything else?

 

 

from A.C. Bhaktivedanta

 

"One who is not a great controller should never imitate the behavior of ruling personalities, even mentally. If out of foolishness an ordinary person does imitate such behavior, he will simply destroy himself, just as a person who is not Rudra would destroy himself if he tried to drink an ocean of poison."

 

 

Nice quote, though no reference. If you bothered to read it properly before hurriedly posting it in public, you would have understood that Srila Prabhupada here warns against imitation. There is a significant difference between imitation and following in the footsteps of the gopis.

 

"Lord Caitanya exhibited the mode of Srimati Radharani when She was contacted from Dvaraka by Sri Kṛṣṇa. Such transcendental love is not possible for any common man; therefore one should not imitate the highest perfectional stage exhibited by Caitanya Mahaprabhu. If, however, one desires to be in that association, he may follow in the footsteps of the gopis." - Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chap. 30.

 

By the way, ever heard of mahajana-yena-gatah-sa-panthah?

 

 

is that so,funny you ignore the warnings ,specifically to not consider your version of raganuga to be correct unless you are on that level,then give your teaching on the subject.

 

 

The point here, Cartman, is that raganuga is the means to attain the goal of "that level," which is known as ragatmika.

 

 

and give your import

 

"The whole point of raganuga-sadhana is to serve Yugala-Kisora as female manjaris in rasa, at least if that is what you desire. The example was given of several Gosvamis and Acharyas, they were all "males" who worshipped Radha-Krishna as females. Are you saying, thus, that they were not males?"

 

your own interpretation based on the literal words you read, ignoring the warnings about symbolism and your inability to appreciate the inner meaning unless situated on that level.

 

 

What symbolism, Cartman? I was commenting on Srila Prabhupada's words. Speaking of which:

 

"Ramananda Raya then began to relate the confidential and transcendental activities of Radha and Kṛṣṇa. These activities cannot be understood in the emotional relationship with the Supreme Lord as master and servant, friend and friend or parent and son. This confidential subject matter can be understood only in the association of the damsels of Vraja, for the confidential activities have arisen from the feelings and emotions of those damsels. Without the association of the damsels of Vraja, one cannot nourish or cherish such transcendental understanding. In other words, these confidential pastimes of Radha and Kṛṣṇa have expanded through the mercy of the damsels. Without their mercy, they cannot be understood. One has to follow in the footsteps of the damsels of Vraja in order to understand." - Teachings of Lord Caitanya Chap. 31.

 

 

I haven't heard of Arjuna being married to Krishna anywhere in any sastra whatsoever, have you?

 

-------------------------

 

Arjuna was married to Draupadi,the goddess of fortune,

 

 

So? What does that prove? This doesn't put him in madhurya-rasa along with the Queens of Dvaraka like you aid. He remains in the sakhhya-rasa position. If you claim that Arjuna (for some weird reason) is in the same bhava as the mahisis, then you are guilty of rasabhasa.

 

 

before you claim authenticity as the rasaika acharya,

you need to actauly experience that level,

simply thinking becasue you have read something that you

are now the expert,can only lead you down the path of

self delusion.

 

 

*Sigh*

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Show me one place where I have claimed to be a bigshot "rasika acharya" who tries to teach people about rasa-lila. Just one place. Even in this final statement you are incorrect as always.

 

you interpret what jiva goswami says,then insist that that is what he means,then when i interpret what he says,you say do not interpret ?

 

 

Shiva, if you kindly take the time to read the relevant section of Bhakti-sandarbha, you will find that Jiva Gosvami is clearly writing in the context of SB 10.33.39 . I have an unreliable translation of Bhakti-Sandarbha right here on my computer and I'm reading it right now. Since I know the translations are unreliable (and make no sense) therefore I have consulted with others who translate it properly. Jiva Gosvami's comment is quite in line with the tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta.

 

I'll explain it to you for the final time. After this, no more.

 

If I want to attain a bhava similar to that of Yashoda Maiya or Nanda Maharaja, I will need to find a guru who will teach me to attain this goal. This philosophy is of vatsalya-bhava, because the goal is for me to attain a vatsalya-bhava. To enrich my feelings, I will make Krishna's bala-lila the focus of my study. I will take great pleasure in hearing how Krishna was born, how He played as a toddler, harassed the gopis by stealing their butter, etc.

 

If I want to attain a bhava similar to that of Subala-sakha or Sridhama-sakha, I will need to find a guru who will teach me to attain this goal. This philosophy is of sakhya-bhava. To enrich my feelings, I will make Krishna's gopa-lila the focus of my study. I will take great pleasure in hearing how Krishna went out in the fields to herd cows, how He lifted Govardhana, how He shared His food with His friends, etc.

 

If I want to attain a bhava similar to that of the young girls of Vraja, I will need to find a guru who will teach me to attain this goal. This philosophy is of madhurya-bhava. To enrich my feelings, I will take great pleasure in hearing about Krishna's dealings with Radha, His dealings with the sakhis, and His dealings with the manjaris, etc.

 

Now, Srimad Bhagavatam [10.33.39] clearly states that one who faithfully hears or describe the the loving sports of Sri Krishna and the young maidens of Vraja will quickly drive away the heart-disease of lust, become sober, and attain supramundane devotion of the Lord. Right? You agree with this, yes or no?

 

Then what does Jiva Gosvami say? He says that these secret sports are not to be worshiped by those who experience male transformations in their senses. By this he is referring to people who experience sexual arousal when hearing of the secret sports. It is nothing to do with females OR males, as both may feel sexual arousal, and so therefore one should not hear of these sports. Jiva Gosvami also says that hearing of the gopi's sports with Krishna would be contrary to the moods of those who are in the other bhavas such as vatsalya, sakhya, and so on. This is obvious, because they will take greater delight in hearing of pastimes that focus on those specific bhavas. Does that make sense to you, yes or no?

 

The problem with your interpretation is this: "he says these secret sports are not to be worshipped until you are in the proper rasa." That is what you said first. I have no objection with this, because this perfectly fits in with what I am saying. Jiva Gosvami says that these secret sports are not to be worshipped until you are in the proper rasa, which is madhurya-bhava. They are not to be worshipped by those who are in the other rasas. We agree.

 

Then you say: "he is not saying if one is attracted by lust one is not qualified to hear or contemplate,again that is your take." Huh? This is precisely what Jiva Gosvami is saying. Why would anyone be attracted to lust? It is possible to ascribe lusty notions onto the transcendental pastimes of Radha and Krishna, that is well known, which is exactly why Jiva Gosvami is saying these lilas are not meant to be contemplated, hear about, described, worshipped, whatever, by those who are likely to experience sexual arousal as a result of such hearing, describing, contemplation, worship, whatever. We agree.

 

"as far as the male thing, if it was lust in general he was talking about, he would have said lust,he makes a point of specifying the male 'transformation', does this mean if females are lusty they are qualified to hear,but not males ?" This is a silly question. Obviously the standards apply to lusty females also.

 

"he is saying that if you have a male body,you cannot enter into that mode of worship." Here, we do not agree. This is a completely silly proposal. The example of past acharyas, Gosvamis and gurus have all been given. At least in the madhurya lines, each and every guru in that line has "entered into that mode of worship" even though they were in male bodies.

 

"if you have male transformations,or male reactions, as all males do naturally,then you cannot worship Radha Krsna as a female. that is obvious." No it is not obvious, otherwise how is it that so many gurus and acharyas have successfully worshipped Radha-Krishna in the mood of a female and preached that this is the highest goal? But to answer your question, here is what Rupa Gosvami says:

 

sevA sAdhaka rUpeNa siddha rUpeNa cAtra hi |

tad bhAva lipsunA kAryA vrajalokAnusArataH || (brs 1.2.295)

 

“One should serve both in his present sadhaka-body and in his siddha-form, following in the wake of the residents of Vraja, desiring to have feelings similar to theirs.”

 

And guess what? This is explained in CC as follows:

 

bAhya, antara, ihAra dui ta sAdhana |

bAhye sAdhaka-dehe kare zravaNa-kIrtana ||

mane nija-siddha-deha kariyA bhAvana |

rAtri-dine kare vraje kRSNera sevana || (cc 2.22.156-157)

 

“External and internal, these are indeed the two sadhanas. Externally, in the sadhaka-form, one engages in hearing and chanting, and in the mind, in one’s own siddha-form, day and night one thinks of and serves Sri Krishna in Vrindavana.”

 

Get it? So the path of sadhana is both external and internal. Since most Gaudiya Vaishnavas take Rupa-Sanatana as their models, this usually means that in the sadhaka-deha one should live in Vraja and perform sravana-kirtana, be renounced as possible, etc. In the siddha-deha (which is given by the guru at the time of diksa, by the way) one meditates on Krishna's Vraja pastimes.

 

Thus there is no evidence to suggest that males are disbarred from worshipping Krishna in the footsteps of the gopis. That is a most ridiculous idea.

 

Then you said: "it has nothing whatsover to do with sadhana of any kind, if it did he would say so,it has to do with "worship" or service,not sadhana. It has nothing to do with the path of sadhana bhakti." Now why should Jiva Gosvami waste time in stating the obvious? It is obvious because Rupa Gosvami has already written about it! And Rupa Gosvami clearly states that this relates to sadhana, because raganuga-bhakti itself is a sadhana, not a perfection as some unfortunate people tend to think. Srila Narottama das Thakura backs this up in Prema-bhakti-candrika:

 

sAdhana bhAvibo yAhA, siddha-dehe pAbo tAhA

rAga pathera ei se upAya (55)

 

"Whatever I think of during my sadhana I will attain in my siddha deha when I reach perfection. This is the means of rAga bhakti."

 

sAdhane ye dhana cAi, siddha dehe tAhA pAi,

pakkApakka mAtra se vicAra

apakke sAdhana rIti, pAkile se prema-bhakti,

bhakati lakSaNa tattva sAra (56)

 

"The treasure I desire as a sadhaka I will get when I attain my spiritual body; it's just a question of being ripe or unripe. The ripe stage is the stage of pure loving devotion and the unripe stage is the stage of sadhana. That is the essential truth about devotional principles."

 

So yes, according to Rupa, Sanatana, Jiva, Visvanatha, Narottama, and practically every Gaudiya guru who followed madhurya-bhava, this relates to sadhana.

 

Then you say: "you left out the other part." No I did not leave out anything. If you carefully read my words, you'll find that I have addressed that specific point.

 

 

for you to insist that "oh i have read these things,rupa says this and that,Jiva says that and this, what is the difficulty ?It is all this way and that way,just as the books describe,therefore since i understand these written things, i must be on the higest level,because only those on the highest level can understand them".

 

 

I have never said anything of the sort. Show me anyplace where I have written that I myself am on the highest level therefore I can understand high things? It would be a good idea if you could pay more attention to what I am saying rather than speculating about what you think I am saying.

 

 

this is the path of delusion, we are warned repeatedly that what is nectar to one can be like poison to another,

 

 

That was the whole point of Jiva Gosvami's comment. Those who are likely to experience sexual arousal from hearing of Krishna's confidential pastimes will be "poisoned." This does not necessarily mean that all people will experience this. Unless, of course, you are prepared to declare that everyone is a horny toad. Yet this is the path of Caitanya that was outlined by the Gosvamis, backed by Srimad-bhagavatam which says that hearing of the sports of Radha and Krishna will actually drive away the lust from the hearts of those who hear them faithfully. Is this not "nectar"? It is more than nectar!

 

 

the rasa shastra ,when the inner hidden meaning is revealed, is like nectar to the devotee, to the unqualified who reads and thinks he understands the literal words as all in all, misess entirely the inner confidential import,

 

 

We are not exactly talking about rasa-sastras here. You are missing the point of this entire discussion. We are not discussing rasa-sastras here, we are discussing the path of raganuga-bhakti-sadhana. The Gosvamis have thus clearly outlined how to go about this path in their books, such as Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, and Srimad Visvanatha has explained it further in his Raga-vartma-candrika. Have you read these books? I strongly suggest that you read them, they will clear up a lot of your misconceptions. Needless to say, they have perfectly explained that hearing of the confidential sports of Krishna with faith and aspiring to attain similar feelings to the associates of Krishna is itself the qualification to engage on the path of raganuga-bhakti-sadhana. No other qualification.

 

 

then because of this thinks himself as a highest stage performer of bhakti,then gives up Vaidhi prematurely,

is surely living in a fools paradise and these writings are like poison to him.

 

 

Who told you that vaidhi-bhakti was to be given up prematurely? Didn't I already explain to you that in the sadhaka-rupa one should follow Rupa-Sanatana? How do we do that? Well..

 

zruti-smRti-purANAdi- paJcarAtra-vidhiM vinA |

aikAntikI harer bhaktir utpAtAyaiva kalpate || (brs 1.2.101)

 

“Exclusive devotion to Lord Hari which does not follow the rules and regulations prescribed by the Srutis, Smritis, Puranas, or the Narada Pancaratra, is only causing disturbance.”

 

Thus..

 

zravaNotkIrtanAdIni vaidha bhaktyuditAni tu |

yAnyaGgAni ca tAnyatra vijJeyAni manISibhiH || (brs 1.2.296)

 

“Hearing, chanting and all the other limbs of vaidhi-bhakti are also to be engaged in. This is what the learned ones have ascertained.”

 

More precisely, the 64 angas of Bhakti which Rupa Gosvami describes are meant to be followed by the raganuga-sadhaka, especially the most important five:

 

zraddhA vizeSataH prItiH zrI-mUrter aGghri-sevane ||

zrImad-bhAgavatArthAnAm AsvAdo rasikaiH saha |

sajAtIyAzaye snigdhe sAdhau saGgaH svato vare ||

nAma-saGkIrtanaM zrIman-mathurA-maNDale sthitiH ||

aGgAnAM paJcakasyAsya pUrva-vilikhitasya ca |

nikhila-zraiSThya-bodhAya punar apy atra kIrtanam || (brs 1.2.90-92)

 

“(1) Serving the lotus feet of the Deity with faith and particular loving disposition;

(2) Relishing the taste of the meanings of the Bhagavata with those who are expert in tasting the moods of loving rapture;

(3) Associating with saints who have similar inclinations, who are soft-hearted and affectionately disposed towards oneself, and who are more advanced than is;

(4) Engaging in congregational chanting of the holy names, and

(5) Residing in the area of Mathura-mandala (the land of Vraja).

These aforementioned five limbs are understood as the essence of everything, and therefore they are glorified again.”

 

Thus there is no basis for genuine raganuga-sadhaka to give up the limbs of vaidhi-bhakti. They are observed with a difference in desire as per the specific attainment vis-a-vis Sriman Narayana in Vaikuntha or Sri Krishna in Vraja.

 

Does that calm your heart, Shiva?

 

 

The raganuga stage is not what is written down in the shastra,if it was then we would not be told repeatedly

that only the highest level devotee can understand.

 

 

As far as I know, this is only told by what you think the acharyas in the Sarasvata line say. It is upto you if you wish to follow them, but it is not what Rupa Gosvami, Visvanatha, Narottama, et al. preach.

 

The problem with you is that you do not know what rAgAnugA-bhakti is all about, but you are pretending to preach about the same. I am speaking about rAgAnugA, and you are speaking of rAgAtmikA. But instead of knowing that you are speaking of rAgAtmikA, you think you are talking of rAgAnugA and that is why you cannot understand how your posts make no sense at all.

 

First, do everyone a favour and study the difference between rAgAnugA and rAgAtmikA, and read some works of the Gosvamis, Visvanatha, Narottama, et al., before elying almost entirely on the works of Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta Swami.

In my last post, I explained how I expected this discussion to be an intelligent one about the evolution of Gaudiya thought. Contrary to such expectations, it is a belligerent cornucopia of hatred, belittling, error, with a little bit of rage thrown in.

 

Since it is obvious that nobody in this discussion actually knows what a sahajiya is, it leads me to think that this is a pointless exercise to fight an "invisible enemy."

 

Can anyone explain how victory can be gained in fighting such a foe? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

I for one am getting really tired of the stupid hypocrites who frequent this forum.

 

 

I, for one, am getting tired of the pseudo-intellectuals who speak in this forum about things they know absolutely nothing about.

 

Neither is it civlized to drag up old topics that have no relevance to this topic. Excuse me, I thought this topic was all about the "evolution of Gaudiya thought," and thus I expected something of an intelligent discussion. Unfortunately I find the same old hate-campaigns directed against all non-Sarasvata Vaishnavas with that equally same old label of "sahajiyas." How sad. And when I attempt to point out all the errors, it recoils. How nice.

 

Personally I am loathe to argue with anyone who cannot even be bothered to login under their own names.