Jump to content

Sonic Yogi

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sonic Yogi

  1. Let me explain something. Murder is the taking of the life of an innocent and unarmed person who has otherwise done nothing to deserve the taking of his life. When millions of soldiers assemble on the battlefield of Kuruksetra to oppose Lord Krishna's efforts to install the rightful heir to the Monarchy of Hastinapura, and belligerently choose to oppose the Supreme Lord from establishing his servant and devotee on the throne that he rightfully was supposed to inherit according to the Vedic law of the time, then the killing of them is in no way "murder" as is so erroneously insinuated by the person who started this topic. No innocents were killed at Kurukshetra. The rules of battle in Vedic culture were strictly observed. There were no women, children or non-combatants killed in the battle of Kuruksetra. The only persons who died on the battlefield of Kuruksetra were warriors who all assembled their voluntarily and without coercian. To say that the killing of a combatant on the field of battle is "murder" is a heinous and atrocious accusation that is in fact a lie. When a warrior kills an enemy combatant on the field of battle it is never "murder". It is the way of the warrior. It is not "murder" as cowardly bigots would like to say. If you want to learn about murder, then study the Holy Bible of the Christians and learn about the wanton slaughter of innocent non-combatants by the Jews who were commanded by their god to kill them all and confiscate their land in the name of religion. The most heinous and atrocious murder in the name of religion in the history of man is nicely chronicled in the Holy Bible of the Judeo-Christians. In the Hindu histories such as Mahabharata you will only find the noble deeds of Vedic warriors who would never harm a hair on an innocent civilian.
  2. This of course brings up the question that if BSST attained svarupa-siddhi or siddha-deha without ever having received any eka-dasa-bhava siksha from his guru, then is that possibly the reason behind his having eliminated this "siddha-pranali" concept from Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the form of the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya? If BSST attained svarupa-siddhi without using or needing any bhajan-pranali, that even his father Bhaktivinoda is proclaimed to have accepted from his formal diksha guru, could that in fact be the reason that he rejected the concept from his teachings? I mean, if siddha-pranali is in fact unnecessary baggage that has been imposed upon the Gaudiya cult, is there anything wrong with cutting away the slag and eliminating unnecessary baggage?
  3. Here is a nice video of Srila Sridhar Maharaja talking about Siva-tattva. http://www.scsmathnj.com/media/060608_SSM_DiscussionOfMahaVishnu.html
  4. These are just three out of many such references by Srila Prabhupada. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Lord Siva is considered a Vaishnava not Godhead.
  5. What do you expect from ISKCON devotees? Srila Prabhupada has referred to Lord Siva as a demigod probably hundreds of time in his books. Do you expect them to reject what Prabhupada said and buy into your idea that Lord Siva is equal to Krishna. Lord Siva is NOT equal to Krishna or Vishnu. Srila Prabhupada ranks him amongst the demigods because he is not Vishnu-tattva.
  6. Well, they wanted Krishna as their husband right? So, for getting a good husband, in some traditions in India that were spawned by Vedic culture, the girls prayed to Katyayani Devi. Let me ask you. Did the gopis ever get Krishna as their husband? Well, actually, they all ended-up marrying another boy and sneaking out in the middle of the night to dance with Krishna under the Moonlight on the banks of the Yamuna. So, it appears that Goddess Katyayani Devi could not fulfill the wish of the gopis to all have Krishna as their husband. Obviously, praying to Katyayani Devi failed. The best the gopis could do was to end up violating the social and moral codes of the time and sneaking out at night to dance with Krishna. So, that is why the gopis are considered so advanced in devotional service. Their praying to Katyayani failed to produce the desired results and they all ended up having to just surrender to Krishna and forget about the idea that some Goddess was going to make the impossible possible. The lesson? Praying to gods and goddesses will not help in attaining the favor of Krishna.
  7. Hold your horses there pardner. When Lord Krishna halted the Indra yagna that even his father Nanda Maharaja performed customarily, Krishna made it clear to all the residents of Vrindavan that worshiping any demigod is unnecessary. As well, the gopis were not shaktas they were bhaktas and they prayed to Katyayani Devi because it was a custom of the time. As well, they did not have some lame shakta idea that somehow Shakti-Devi is the supreme entity and supreme controller as the misguided shaktas conceive. Lord Krishna made it clear in his lifting of Govardhan Hill, that even if the Demigods are not pleased by exclusive worship of Lord Krishna, that they should not be concerned because Lord Krishna will protect them. Gaudiyas are the true shaktas as they worship Radharani. However, they worship her in full understanding of her ontological position in relationship to Lord Krishna. The misguided shaktas of today have a very misguided concept that somehow shakti is supreme and that of course goes against the Vedic siddhanta and is therefore a manufactured misconception that personally motivated priests in India promote as a means of livelyhood.
  8. Ranjeet, now you are talking like nonsense shakta. You say now that shakti controls shakti: That is nonsense. Shakti does not control shakti. Shaktiman controls shakti. Your asinine theory that somehow that Radha is some Isvara controlling Samvit and Sandhini Shakti is a concoction. Ranjeet, it sounds like you are trying to advocate the Shakta theory under the guise of being Gaudiya siddhanta. Shakti doesn't do any controlling. Shakti is always controlled by Shaktiman Isvara Krishna.
  9. Radha is the hladini-shakti of Krishna. Not Krishna complete as samvit, sandhini and hladini. Radha is Krishna only by being his Hladini-shakti. When Samvit, Sandhini and Hladini shaktis are all combined in one form that is Krishna. Hladini-shakti alone is Radha. Radha cannot be Krishna because Krishna is Samvit, Sandhini and Hladini. The oneness of Radha and Krishna is not Advaitic oneness but it is inconceivably a oneness in difference. That is the difference between Advaita Mayavada and Vaishnavism. If we remove the "difference" between Radha and Krishna then we have Mayavada.
  10. Radha is not Krishna. Krishna is the complete whole and Radha is the energy of the complete whole. The energy and the energetic are ONE in that the energy is never disconnected from the energetic. So, Radha is not the energetic Krishna, she is the energy. Radha is the energy and as such the predominated aspect of the absolute. Krishna is the predominant not the predominated. So, Radha is Krishna as being one with him as his energy. But, the energy is not the energetic and thus the Shakti Radha is not the Shaktiman Krishna. The Gaudiya siddhanta is acintya-bhedabheda-tattva. That means that Radha is ONE with Krishna, yet she is also different than Krishna as being the Shakti and not the Shaktiman. Radha is not Krishna in the form of a woman. Radha is the internal energy of Krishna personified in feminine form. To neglect the "abheda" or difference between Radha and Krishna then makes Radha to be Krishna in a feminine form. Radha is not the supreme absolute whole in feminine form, she is only the energy. The energy has an energetic source and that is Krishna. So Radha is only the hladini shakti of Krishna. Krishna has three aspects: 1. Samvit 2. Sandhini 3. Hladini So Radha is the Hladini shakti of Krishna not Krishna completely. So, the notion that Radha is Krishna in a feminine form is not correct because Radha does not contain the Samvit or Sandhini aspects of Krishna. Radha is one with Krishna yet she is not Krishna because she does not contain the Samvit and Sandhini aspects of Krishna. So, if you take the Hladini-shakti of Krishna and seperate it from Krishna then you have Radha. So, the Mayavada idea that Radha is just simply another form of Krishna is not correct because Radha is a distinct personality from Krishna as she is the personified aspect of Krishna's Hladini energy. Krishna is the combination of Samvit, Sandhini and Hladini all integrated into one Supreme Entity. So, Radha is just the Hladini shakti, so it is erroneous to say that Radha is absolutely Krishna because she is absolutely only one aspect of Krishna as his Hladini-shakti.
  11. Well, they say that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur proclaimed that Bhaktivinoda Thakur was a nitya-siddha. (as opposed to sadhana siddha), so if he was nitya-siddha, then he did not need Vipina Bihari Goswami to give him any siddha-pranali eka-dasa-bhava. If he was not a nitya-siddha then we can safely assume that Kamala Manjari is an eternal parshada of Radha and Krishna whom Bhaktivinoda identified with in his bhajan-pranali. That would correspond to Srila Rupa Goswami's stricture that the sadhaka find the parshada role model he most appreciates and then always remember that parshada and the service of that parshada. I mean really, are we to think that before the sadhaka Bhaktivinoda attained siddhi that there was previously no "Kamala Manjari" in the pastimes of Radha and Krishna? The same goes for the other examples and comparisons. Wasn't Jiva Goswami a "Vilasa Manjari" and so is Vipina Bihari Goswami? What is up with that? How many Kamala Manjaris and Vilasa Manjaris are there in the unlimited realm of Vrindavan? I would guess an innumerable number of them all co-existing simultaneously in the spiritual, unlimited, inconceivable realm of Vrindavan. Vrindavan is unlimited. There are innumerable Kamala Manjaris and Vilasa Manjaris all simultaneously existing in different forms in different transcendental perceptions of the one reality. In fact, there is a different manifestation of Vrindavan that lives in the heart of every siddha bhakta. They are all ONE, yet different in transcendental reality. Unlimited Kamala Majaris are taking part in the great unlimited lila of Krishna as simultaneously one and different forms of the Kamala Manjari tattva. All these parshadas represent a specific tattva and bhava. The soul becomes that what it emulates. (we cannot emulate God) In absorption in a particular parshada of Radha and Krishna, the sadhaka in effect becomes a reproduction of that prototype just like so many identical cars are all produced on the same assembly line. In fact, that is what raga-bhakti is -- an assembly line of siddhas.
  12. by the way, how can a sakhi be a manjari too?
  13. so, now, diksha is to be equated with svarupa-siddhi? wonders never cease... Now, the beginning (initiation) is when svarupa-siddhi is attained? That would be a whole new concept of diksha from what has traditionally been known as diksha in the Pancaratrika tradition.
  14. It also says that the spiritual master's form is "as a sakhi". So, if say, Bhaktivinoda was a manjari, then how can he manifest his form as a "sakhi" to say Lalita Prasada? Actually, the Sakhis are the gurus of the Manjaris, so, if the spiritual master is not a "sakhi" how can he manifest the form of a sakhi and perform "siddha-pranali"? Just a thought.... Was Vipina Bihari Goswami a "sakhi" who manifested his form to Bhaktivinoda when he gave him "siddha-pranali"? Not likely.
  15. Well, not actually. That is not the way that it is described in the quote from Jaiva Dharma that you posted which says; You say the spiritual master "tells us who we are". So, that is cheating. In the Jaiva Dharma it says: It says here that the form of the disciple "manifests". Your statement that he "tells us who we are" is typical of the kind of cheating sahajiyas that you have wrongly understood this whole process from. There is no "telling". It is manifested to the disciple in trance. So, this is the difference between what Bhaktivinoda is referring to and what the sahjiyas are selling.
  16. That is close to the truth, but in fact it was never called "siddha-pranali" which is a term that is not found in any of the Gaudiya foundational texts. The term "siddha-pranali" is in fact the term used by sahajiyas who have developed a cheap imitation of something that siddha-babas of days of yore practiced. This process that you are referring to in it's pure and authentic form was never referred to as "siddha-pranali" by the actual siddha babas of yore who had the qualifications to actually manifest their spiritual form to their disciples and in fact take the disciple into trance and show the disciple his own form. The term "siddha-pranali" comes from the sahajiya imitation parties. In the heyday of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, during the time of Mahaprabhu and for a few years after that, when a few rare siddha-babas had attained svarupa-siddhi and there were a few rare cases as what is described by Bhaktivinoda in his Jaiva Dharma, the practice was never referred to as "siddha-pranali". The term siddha-pranali was manufactured by and popularized by the sahajiyas sects. It never was used in the authentic lines of the Gaudiya babas. Trust me....... When Srila Prabhupada says siddha-pranali was manufactured by sahajiyas, he is referring to the term and the process as it is in the hands of sahajiyas. Srila Prabhupada was well aware of the process that is described in the Jaiva Dharma. He just didn't approve of the cheap imitation that is today practiced by the sahajiyas.
  17. Not really. Radha is not Krishna. Krishna is not Radha. Radha is Krishna's love for himself. Love of one's self is the first law of being. It is no different for Krishna. Krishna's love of himself takes the form of Radha. Radha is the manifestation of Krishna's internal power of ever increasing ecstasy. Radha is NOT Krishna. She is the personification of his internal ecstasy. To say that Radha is Krishna or that Krishna is Radha is wrong. Radha is a portion of Krishna, not Krishna. Radha is the ecstasy of Krishna's love of himself personified in form. This idea that Radha is another form of Krishna is just silly neophyte concoction. We have seen this "Radha is another form of Krishna" nonsense many times from a particular "devotee" who is actually infected with a Mayavada conception of Krishna. He says that Radha is just another form of Krishna. He is quite wrong. Radha is not Krishna. She personifies the Supreme Absolute's love of Self. She is not the Supreme Absolute.
  18. That is the issue that I am still grappling with. Is it really inherent to the degree of our spiritual body already being there in some esoteric form, or do we get develop a spiritual body based upon cultivating a particular type of attraction to Krishna? It seems that in Srila Prabhupada's books I can find support for both theories. What is your opinion Stoney? (not to insinuate that you are a stoner, but that your heart is filled with love of the stones from Govardhana) I am kind of partial to the concept that the spiritual body develops according to the spiritual cultivation of a particular attraction to Krishna in a particular mood. I don't think that the body is already there, but that the intrinsic nature of being a servant of Krishna is innate to the soul. Beyond that basic dharma of the soul to serve Krishna, I am not so convinced that our particular rasa is fixed in the constitution of the soul, but that it evolves based upon subjective influences.
  19. Well, I have to confess that I read other books. I was reading the Gaudiya Matha version of Jaiva Dharma back in 1980. I also read the Gaudiya Matha publication of Brhat Bhagavatamritam too. In fact, I still have those books. They aren't the original ones I had, but they are the same book that I managed to pick up over years from various sources. I was reading Gaudiya Matha publications since back around 1979. But, I did so thinking that Srila Prabhupada would probably not approve. I have always been somewhat of a rebel. I also like OBL Kapoor's books. But, I have my doubts about whether Srila Prabhupada would approve. So, it is not a matter of what I personally do, but what I am saying on this topic is what I think Srila Prabhupada would want. I am far from the perfect disciple. In fact, I can't even be called a disciple at all.
  20. Ok, I am convinced. Now, where is a siddha-pranali guru who can give me an imaginary spiritual body, because I have lost hope of ever getting the real thing.
  21. Prabhu, that flys in the face of documented statements that Srila Prabhupada put in his books. What is a bhakta to do? Should we accept what he put in his books or should we accept the tales and stories that old ISKCON devotees tell? I mean, really..... what should we put our faith in?
  22. Stoney, should we expect any less from a Siddhaswarupa Ananda (Swami) graduate who is now involved with Tripurari Swami? Stoney, you are many things, but an orthodox ISKCON man you are not. I did a few years in orthodox ISKCON. As much as I admire you, I cannot accept your opinion as anywhere near an orthodox ISKCON position. For that, I would have to ask Trivikrama Maharaja or Jayadvaita Swami. But, then again, I am sure you know that I am now less orthodox than you are by many large steps.
  23. I was in L.A. during that CC Marathon and I can testify that the L.A. temple was ON FIRE during that time. ISKCON does not get any better than that. I feel very fortunate to have shared in that ecstasy.
  24. Technically, you cannot "leave KC" as "KC" is eternal. If you "leave KC", then you never really had any "KC" because "KC" is an eternal, spiritual state of existence. If one says he "left KC", then that means he never had any "KC" to begin with.
  • Create New...