Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Sonic Yogi

Members
  • Content Count

    1,093
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sonic Yogi


  1.  

    <table class="contentpaneopen"><tbody><tr><td class="contentheading" width="100%">Three Considerations - for Siva Ratri </td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%"> pdf_button.png </td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%"> printButton.png </td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%"> emailButton.png </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="contentpaneopen"><tbody><tr> <td class="createdate" valign="top"> Sunday, 22 February 2009 </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja

    [Dear Hari-katha Readers,

    Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga.

    February 23, 2009 is Siva-ratri (in India). In observance of this auspicious day, we are sending the following lecture:]

    Lord_Siva.jpgThere are three considerations (vicaras) from which to understand the relationship between Lord Krsna and Lord Siva. One is called tattva-gata-vicara - the consideration of their relationship by established philosophical truth. Another is called aisvarya-gata-vicara - the consideration of their relationship in the Supreme Lord's pastimes of majesty, and the third is naravat-gata-vicara - the consideration of their relationship in the Supreme Lord's sweet, human-like pastimes.

    According to philosophical truth (tattva), Sri Krsna's plenary portion is Sadasiva, and Sadasiva's partial manifestation is Lord Siva. From the perspective of Lord Krsna's pastimes in opulence and majesty (aisvarya), Lord Krsna is Siva's worshipful Deity, who is always loved, honored and respected by him. However, in naravat-gata-vicara, Krsna plays another role - that of an ordinary human being. He performs pastimes as a very young, small child who cannot do anything independently. His mother, Srimati Yasoda devi, feeds Him and tends to all His needs. During these human-like pastimes, Lord Siva might come and give Him benedictions. In the scriptures called the Puranas it is stated that when Krsna resided in Dvaraka, He worshiped Siva to beget a child from the womb of His wife Jambavati. Although Siva is worshiped by Krsna in those pastimes, he never thinks himself superior. He is always conscious that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that he is Krsna's eternal servant.

    It is essential to have a clear understanding of these truths. One who knows these three perspectives or considerations can understand the relationship between Lord Siva and his Lord.

    Established Truth

    According to the principle of philosophical truth, Lord Siva is a partial manifestation of Sri Krsna's plenary expansion, Sadasiva. When Krsna desires to create, He expands Himself as Maha-Sankarsana, and possessing this creative desire, Sankarsana expands as Maha-Visnu (Karanodakasayi Visnu). Maha-Visnu then desires to create, and His desire takes the form of a light that emanates from between His eyebrows. The semblance or dim twilight reflection of that light is called Sambhu-linga (Siva). Many people worship Lord Siva in the form of Sambhu-linga. The light itself is eternal and is not Sambhu-linga; Sambhu-linga is its semblance or shadow.

    There is another semblance called Yoni, and this is the shadow of Rama-devi. Rama-devi is the spiritual potency of Maha-Visnu, and in Vaikuntha She is Lord Narayana's beloved consort Laksmi-devi. This is Her original transcendental form, and Her shadow is the limited conceiving potency - Yoni.

    Maha-Visnu has two types of potency with which He creates the material worlds. One type of potency is called nimitta - the instrumental cause of creation, and the other is called upadana - the ingredient cause. Instrumental and ingredient causes can be explained in this way: Suppose I say, "I killed a snake with a stick." The person who desired and performed the activity is the instrumental cause (nimitta), and the stick is the ingredient cause (upadana). In another example, a potter makes a pot. The desire or will of the potter to make the pot is the instrumental cause. The sum total of all the instruments used to create it, like the wheel, clay, mud and water, is the ingredient cause.

    Maha-Visnu's eternal instrumental potency takes its reflected form as Yoni, the limited shadow potency, and the ingredient cause assumes the reflection-form of Sambhu-linga. Creation then takes place by the union of Sambhu-linga and his female consort Yoni. Sambhu is called the linga of the Supreme Lord, which means that he is the manifest symbol of the Lord's male generative capacity, and he appears for the purpose of preparing the cosmic manifestation. That potency which gives birth to the material creation is the energy called Maya, and her intrinsic form is Yoni.

    Actually, the original instrumental and ingredient cause is not Yoni and Sambhu; it is Maha-Visnu. Material nature, as Yoni, desires to create by dint of the kama-bija (desire seed) impregnated in her, and she is therefore the secondary instrumental cause. The desire-seed gave her the urge to create, and because she then wanted to create, she is called the instrumental cause. Sambhu supplies the materials of creation, and he is therefore called the ingredient cause. Sambhu, the dim reflection of the Supreme Lord's own divine desire-filled glance, consummates his union with Yoni. However, he can do nothing independent of the desire of Maha-Visnu.

    Maha-Visnu is the Supreme personified Will, and it is He who brings about the union of the two - Yoni and Sambhu. He is the divine dominating person, the plenary portion of Lord Krsna and the creator of the mundane world. In order for creation to take place, there must be the desire of the Supreme Doer. He must be present. The instrumental cause and ingredient cause must be mixed with the desire or glance of Maha-Visnu.

    The initial form of the creation is mahat-tattva, the sum-total twenty-four elements. [*See Endnote 1] This mahat-tattva is the reflection of the kama-bija, the original desire-seed in Goloka Vrndavana. The seed of amorous creative desire in Goloka is the embodiment of pure cognition. It is a prototype of the sex desire in this mundane world, though it is located far from it. The seed of the mundane sex desire is thus the perverted reflection of the seed of the original creative desire in Goloka Vrndavana.

    </td></tr></tbody></table>


  2. 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.


  3.  

    going back to the main topic...

     

    One interesting quote from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada, letter: "Those who have achieved the perfection of being fixed in their spiritual identity (svarupa-siddhi) have attained such a realization through internal revelation and the spiritual master's only involvement in these matters is to help the further advancement of a disciple. As a practitioner progresses toward spiritual perfection, all these things are revealed naturally within the heart that sincerely seeks service."

     

    Any idea which letter it comes from, and who translated it into English?

     

    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?


  4.  

    Devotees who think that Sadasiva is a demigod may be well served by reading Cc. Adi lila, Ch. 6, and perhaps SB 8.7.

     

     

    "As for the benedictions given by demigods like Lord Siva, there is the following historical incident cited by great sages. Once, Lord Siva, after giving a benediction to a demon named Vrkasura, the son of Sakuni, was himself entrapped in a very dangerous position."

    Krishna Book ch.88

     

    "One may be able to see the universal form of Krsna by adding a little tinge of devotional service to various activities like penance, Vedic study and philosophical speculation, etc. It may be possible, but without a tinge of bhakti, one cannot see; that has already been explained. Still, beyond that universal form, the form of Krsna as a two-handed man is still more difficult to see, even for demigods like Brahma and Lord Siva".

    B.G.11.52 purport

     

     

    "Lord Visnu is always worshiped and surrounded by different demigods like Lord Siva, Lord Brahma, Indra, Candra, and others".

    Krishna Book ch.35

     

    These are just three out of many such references by Srila Prabhupada.

     

    In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Lord Siva is considered a Vaishnava not Godhead.


  5.  

    precisely.

     

    When we say Sadashiva is a personality of God...some of them flipped...

     

    Bhagavatam is saying.

    Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti thakura is saying.

     

     

    But no.Demigod.

     

    fine.Go on doing nonsense...can't be helped.

     

    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.  

    I'm sure there is another reason for praying to Katyayani Devi than it being strictly contemporary customs.

     

    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.  

    Sonic Yogi, perhaps you should be a little easier on "shaktas" and not call them "nonsense". After all, when the gopis are desirous they approach Katyayani Devi. We all know this. Are they nonsense for doing so, or is it something we can learn from???

     

    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.  

    sonic yogi...your nonsense speculations are only leading to nama apradha.

     

     

    The Hladini Sakti is the controlling energy of all the Other energies.Prema Bhakti,which stays in Bhagavan's pocket,is the saar bhoot tattva of Hladini Sakti.

     

    This Prema Bhakti Herself Subdues Sri Krsna and thus Sri Krsna is always under the control of Radharani(a way of seeing it.)

     

     

    When you say that Radha is just energy ...What energy ?? She's formless awat ???

     

    Nonsense...

     

    She is a form of God..the only Form of God,Who Experiences the highest form of bliss of Maadan bhava.

     

    you should stop this nonsense...your causing others' falldown too by this ..

     

    Ranjeet, now you are talking like nonsense shakta.

    You say now that shakti controls shakti:

     

    The Hladini Sakti is the controlling energy of all the Other energies.

     

    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.

     

     

    Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.6.32

     

    sṛjāmi tan-niyukto 'haḿ

    haro harati tad-vaśaḥ

    viśvaḿ puruṣa-rūpeṇa

    paripāti tri-śakti-dhṛk

     

    SYNONYMS

     

    sṛjāmi — do create; tat — by His; niyuktaḥ — appointment; aham — I; haraḥ — Lord Śiva; harati — destroys; tat-vaśaḥ — under His subordination; viśvam — the whole universe; puruṣa — the Personality of Godhead; rūpeṇa — by His eternal form; paripāti — maintains; tri-śakti-dhṛk — the controller of three energies.

     

    TRANSLATION

     

    By His will, I create, Lord Śiva destroys, and He Himself, in His eternal form as the Personality of Godhead, maintains everything. He is the powerful controller of these three energies.

     

    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.

     

     

    Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4.59

     

    rādhikā hayena kṛṣṇera praṇaya-vikāra

    svarūpa-śakti — 'hlādinī' nāma yāńhāra

     

    SYNONYMS

     

    rādhikā — Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī; hayena — is; kṛṣṇera — of Lord Kṛṣṇa; praṇaya-vikāra — transformation of love; svarūpa-śakti — personal energy; hlādinī — hlādinī; nāma — name; yāńhāra — whose.

     

    TRANSLATION

     

    Śrīmatī Rādhikā is the transformation of Kṛṣṇa's love. She is His internal energy called hlādinī.

     

    Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4.60

     

    hlādinī karāya kṛṣṇe ānandāsvādana

    hlādinīra dvārā kare bhaktera poṣaṇa

     

    SYNONYMS

     

    hlādinī — the hlādinī energy; karāya — causes to do; kṛṣṇe — in Lord Kṛṣṇa; ānanda-āsvādana — the tasting of bliss; hlādinīra dvārā — by the pleasure potency; kare — does; bhaktera — of the devotee; poṣaṇa — nourishing.

     

    TRANSLATION

     

    That hlādinī energy gives Kṛṣṇa pleasure and nourishes His devotees.

     

    PURPORT

     

    Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has elaborately discussed the hlādinī potency in his Prīti-sandarbha. He says that the Vedas clearly state, "Only devotional service can lead one to the Personality of Godhead. Only devotional service can help a devotee meet the Supreme Lord face to face. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is attracted by devotional service, and as such the ultimate supremacy of Vedic knowledge rests in knowing the science of devotional service."

     

    What is the particular attraction that makes the Supreme Lord enthusiastic to accept devotional service, and what is the nature of such service? The Vedic scriptures inform us that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, is self-sufficient, and that māyā, nescience, can never influence Him at all. Therefore the potency that overcomes the Supreme must be purely spiritual. Such a potency cannot be anything of the material manifestation. The bliss enjoyed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be of material composition, like the impersonalist conception of the bliss of Brahman. Devotional service is reciprocation between two, and therefore it cannot be located simply within one's self. Therefore the bliss of self-realization, brahmānanda, cannot be equated with devotional service.

     

    The Supreme Personality of Godhead has three kinds of internal potency, namely the hlādinī-śakti, or pleasure potency, the sandhinī-śakti, or existential potency, and the samvit-śakti, or cognitive potency. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (1.12.69) the Lord is addressed as follows: "O Lord, You are the support of everything. The three attributes hlādinī, sandhinī and samvit exist in You as one spiritual energy. But the material modes, which cause happiness, misery and mixtures of the two, do not exist in You, for You have no material qualities."

     

    Hlādinī is the personal manifestation of the blissfulness of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by which He enjoys pleasure. Because the pleasure potency is perpetually present in the Supreme Lord, the theory of the impersonalist that the Lord appears in the material mode of goodness cannot be accepted. The impersonalist conclusion is against the Vedic version that the Lord possesses a transcendental pleasure potency. When the pleasure potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is exhibited by His grace in the person of a devotee, that manifestation is called love of God. "Love of God" is an epithet for the pleasure potency of the Lord. Therefore devotional service reciprocated between the Lord and His devotee is an exhibition of the transcendental pleasure potency of the Lord.

     

    The potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that always enriches Him with transcendental bliss is not material, but the Śańkarites have accepted it as such because they are ignorant of the identity of the Supreme Lord and His pleasure potency. Those ignorant persons cannot understand the distinction between impersonal spiritual bliss and the variegatedness of the spiritual pleasure potency. The hlādinī potency gives the Lord all transcendental pleasure, and the Lord bestows such a potency upon His pure devotee.

     

    Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4.62

     

    ānandāḿśe hlādinī, sad-aḿśe sandhinī

    cid-aḿśe samvit — yāre jñāna kari' māni

     

    SYNONYMS

     

    ānanda-aḿśe — in the bliss portion; hlādinī — the pleasure energy; sat-aḿśe — in the eternal portion; sandhinī — the existence-expanding energy; cit-aḿśe — in the cognizant portion; samvit — the full energy of knowledge; yāre — which; jñāna kari' — as knowledge; māni — I accept.

     

    TRANSLATION

     

    Hlādinī is His aspect of bliss; sandhinī, of eternal existence; and samvit, of cognizance, which is also accepted as knowledge.

     

    PURPORT

     

    In his thesis Bhagavat-sandarbha (103), Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains the potencies of the Lord as follows: The transcendental potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead by which He maintains His existence is called sandhinī. The transcendental potency by which He knows Himself and causes others to know Him is called samvit. The transcendental potency by which He possesses transcendental bliss and causes His devotees to have bliss is called hlādinī

    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.

     

     

     

    Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4.63

     

    hlādinī sandhinī samvit

    tvayy ekā sarva-saḿsthitau

    hlāda-tāpa-karī miśrā

    tvayi no guṇa-varjite

     

    SYNONYMS

     

    hlādinī — pleasure potency; sandhinī — existence potency; samvit — knowledge potency; tvayi — in You; ekā — one; sarva-saḿsthitau — who are the basis of all things; hlāda — pleasure; tāpa — and misery; karī — causing; miśrā — a mixture of the two; tvayi — in You; na u — not; guṇa-varjite — who are without the three modes of material nature.

     

    TRANSLATION

     

    "O Lord, You are the support of everything. The three attributes hlādinī, sandhinī and samvit exist in You as one spiritual energy. But the material modes, which cause happiness, misery and mixtures of the two, do not exist in You, for You have no material qualities."

     

     

    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.  

    I never said they were related. What I was getting at was the possibility of the coincidental occurrence of the two. Just a speculation but the fact is, Bhaktivinode Thakur prayed the way he did, and he also received initiation.

     

    Now, there isn't a person here who can deny the possibility of Kamala Manjari meeting Vilasa Manjari at the same time Bhaktivinode Thakur met Bipin Bihari. There are plenty who can deny that taking diksha is tantamount to receiving one's siddha deha, and I will be among them.

     

    As Prabhupada wrote, and also met with concurrence across the board...Guru is One but appears before us in a varied way.

    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.  

    Perhaps Bhaktivinode's relationship with that sakhi, Vilasa Manjari, occured when he received diksha.

     

    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.


  13.  

    The spiritual master’s original form as a sakhi manifests to the disciple, as well as the disciple’s form as her maidservant.

    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.


  14.  

    When we are ready, he tells us who he is in Krsna lila, and who we are. The relationship thus formed will continue eternally - thus it is the siddha pranali guru that we have an eternal connection with. We may have several other gurus, but the relationship with them may or may not be eternal.

     

    Well, not actually.

    That is not the way that it is described in the quote from Jaiva Dharma that you posted which says;

     

     

    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.

     

     

    You say the spiritual master "tells us who we are".

    So, that is cheating.

    In the Jaiva Dharma it says:

     

     

    The spiritual master’s original form as a sakhi manifests to the disciple, as well as the disciple’s form as her maidservant.

     

    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.


  15.  

    No, there is nothing imaginary about siddha pranali.

    After you spend quite some time serving a fully realized sadhu, our guru gets to know us and he reveals to us our spiritual identity. This identity has been growing in us for a very long time - when it is fully grown, a proper siddha can recognize it's form and function. When we are ready, he tells us who he is in Krsna lila, and who we are. The relationship thus formed will continue eternally - thus it is the siddha pranali guru that we have an eternal connection with. We may have several other gurus, but the relationship with them may or may not be eternal.

     

    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.


  16.  

    Sri Radhika Herself is Sri Krsna and vice versa.But there ARE TWO FORMS FOR LEELA"S SAKE.

    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.


  17.  

    our inherent identity.

     

    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.


  18.  

    Let's not forget that those books were edited, adjusted, and published by these "old ISKCON devotees" Sonic Ji. Have we ever stopped to wonder how much has changed from the words of Prabhupada to the pages of your book?

     

    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.


  19.  

    You should repose your faith in the process of sad-anga saranagati, the life of all the devotees. Whether you believe anything I say, or anything Srila Prabhupada says, certainly has nothing to do with me.

     

    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.


  20.  

    This is simply overstating the case. I have spent enough serious time in ISKCON to take seriously Srila Prabhupada's statement quoted above, that we should read the Goswamis' and other acharyas' books. And that takes into account my being in the LA temple room in 1973 when he said we couldn't understand the previous acharyas' books except through him.

     

    I also know for a fact that he approved--perhaps even instructed--Goursundar's project of translating Jaiva Dharma. I was in his room in LA in a private meeting, also in 1973 (no secretary, no GBC guy--he kicked them all out and asked them to close the door), when he expressed surprise that Goursundar went to London to get a Bengali edition from the Gaudiya Math there. Srila Prabhupada said, "If he had asked me, I could have gotten him one very easily."

    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?


  21.  

    This is simply overstating the case. I have spent enough serious time in ISKCON to take seriously Srila Prabhupada's statement quoted above, that we should read the Goswamis' and other acharyas' books. And that takes into account my being in the LA temple room in 1973 when he said we couldn't understand the previous acharyas' books except through him.

     

    I also know for a fact that he approved--perhaps even instructed--Goursundar's project of translating Jaiva Dharma. I was in his room in LA in a private meeting, also in 1973 (no secretary, no GBC guy--he kicked them all out and asked them to close the door), when he expressed surprise that Goursundar went to London to get a Bengali edition from the Gaudiya Math there. Srila Prabhupada said, "If he had asked me, I could have gotten him one very easily."

    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.


  22.  

    Really, there was a huge amount of spontaneity in Iskcon, but it started to dwindle before Prabhupada left. You'd have to at least been there by the time of the CC publishing marathon. After that, since Prabhupada could only do so much about Tamal, things began to stink.

     

    And who was he explaining siddha-pranali to? A bunch of sannyasis who knew all about it? Of course not, they never even heard the term before and would 'fall right in line'. But to try to affect the minds of those who 'know all about it', that is a complete waste.

     

    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.


  23. 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...