Sonic Yogi

Prabhupada was only saying that in ISKCON the classes are limited to those books. He didn't say that he didn't want people reading other books. It would be unprecedented for a gaudiya acharya to disallow the study of the works of the Goswamis or other previous acharyas, and in fact he didn't. He may have written that in India but he published that in America and had it distributed around the world to millions of people, if he didn't mean it he would have had it removed.

Anybody that spent any serious time in ISKCON knows that Srila Prabhupada did not approve or allow his disciples to read books other than the ones he translated.

Ask any senior disciple of Srila Prabhupada who actually spent any amount of time around Srila Prabhupada and you will find that Srila Prabhupada did not want his disciples reading any books except for the ones he produced in ISKCON.

Srila Prabhupada was about reaching out and trying to benefit as many souls as possible.

All his senior disciples know that he wanted them to stick to his books and and put their energy into trying to distribute Krishna consciousness to the fallen souls of Kali-yuga.

Any opinion other than that is coming from people who had no personal contact with Srila Prabhupada.

http://vedabase.net/sb/introduction/en

That introduction to SB by Srila Prabhupada was written in India before Srila Prabhupada came to American and before he had thousands of disciples.

However, later on, in his books, after he had acquired thousand of disciples and followers, he gave explicit instruction that in the Krishna consciousness movement he was limiting the study of Vaishnava literatures to Bhagavad-gita, Bhagavatam, NOD and CC.

These are things that experienced devotees of the Krishna consciousness movement can share with those who do not understand such detailed experience in the Krishna consciousness movement.

Only in Iskcon devotees are afraid to read books of great Vaishnavas other than their guru, because of a personality cult they invented in the sixties. This self censorship policy helps them maintain their illusions and control the new members. But their own guru said this:

 

Devotee: Srila Prabhupada, I remember once I heard a tape where you told us that we should not try to read the books of previous acaryas.

Srila Prabhupada: Hmm?

Devotee: That we should not try to read Bhaktivinoda's books or earlier books of other, all acaryas. So I was just wondering...

Srila Prabhupada: I never said that.

Devotee: You didn't say that? Oh.

Srila Prabhupada: How is that?

Devotee: I thought you said that we should not read the previous acaryas' books.

Srila Prabhupada: No, you should read.

Devotee: We should.

Srila Prabhupada: It is misunderstanding.

 

Srila Prabhupada Morning Walk, May 13, 1975, <st1:city w:st="on">Perth</st1:city>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.118

 

avaiṣṇava-sańga-tyāga, bahu-śiṣya nā kariba

 

bahu-grantha-kalābhyāsa-vyākhyāna varjiba

 

SYNONYMS

 

avaiṣṇava — of one who is not a devotee of the Lord; sańga — the association; tyāga — giving up; bahu-śiṣya — an unlimited number of disciples; nā kariba — should not accept; bahu-grantha — of many different types of scriptures; kalā-abhyāsa — studying a portion; vyākhyāna — and explanation; varjiba — we should give up.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"The twelfth item is to give up the company of nondevotees. (13) One should not accept an unlimited number of disciples. (14) One should not partially study many scriptures just to be able to give references and expand explanations.

 

PURPORT

 

Accepting an unlimited number of devotees or disciples is very risky for one who is not a preacher. According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, a preacher has to accept many disciples to expand the cult of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. This is risky because when a spiritual master accepts a disciple, he naturally accepts the disciple's sinful activities and their reactions. Unless he is very powerful, he cannot assimilate all the sinful reactions of his disciples and has to suffer the consequences. Therefore one is generally forbidden to accept many disciples.

 

One should not partially study a book just to pose oneself as a great scholar by being able to refer to scriptures. In our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement we have therefore limited our study of the Vedic literatures to the Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Caitanya-caritāmṛta and Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. These four works are sufficient for preaching purposes. They are adequate for the understanding of the philosophy and the spreading of missionary activities all over the world. If one studies a particular book, he must do so thoroughly. That is the principle. By thoroughly studying a limited number of books, one can understand the philosophy.

So, the forgery that you are posting is not as authoritative as the books.

Of course collecting money by hook or crook to build great temples with great vyasasanas is more important than developing our love for Krsna and a desire to serve Him in His lila... and after the great acharya passes on, his disciples happily fight over the inheritance money and positions... this approach is soooooooooooooooo much superior than aspiring to enter Krsna lila by practicing siddha pranali.

So I guess you are under the illusion that these siddha-pranali sahajiyas have a better record than the Saraswata Gaudiya preaching mission?

You are obviously very misinformed and in denial about how pathetic a condition Gaudiya Vaishnavism was in before Siddhanta Saraswata rescued it from the sahajiya imitators.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a global community now because of the preaching work of the Saraswata Gaudiya mission.

Your siddha-pranali sahajiyas were too busy trying to scratch up some chapattis and dahl to go around the world and teach Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

And who is talking about that?

Why am I not surprised that you are unable to admit to being wrong?

 

Bhaktivinoda is clearly delineating a siddha pranali process as it was always practiced, and as he was initiated into by Bipin Bihari.

 

Bhaktivinoda knew the spiritual identity of his guru, Bipin Bihari, because BB revealed it to him. In his poetry, Bhaktivinoda refers to his guru as Vilasa Manjari.

 

The two texts from his Giti-mala are particularly interesting, as they indicate the siddha name of Bipin Bihari, which is Vilasa Manjari.

 

 

"When will Vilasa Manjari and Ananga Manjari [Jahnava Mata] see me and, being merciful, speak the follow essential words?"

 

 

"O Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Rupa Manjari, please notice me and accept me at your feet, bestowing on me the essence of all perfection".

 

In both of these songs, Bhaktivinoda follows the classical tradition established by Narottam Das of praying to his spiritual master in his siddha form as a Manjari. It is thus clear that Bhaktivinoda had not only taken initiation, but had also received siddha-pranali from his guru.

And who is your guru that authorized you to read such books.

If you are so astute at the writings of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, you would understand that neophyte devotees who have accepted no proper guru cannot just willy-nilly jump into readying any books that he gets a notion to read.

The acharya will prescribe the appropriate books for the disciple to study.

So, who is your guru that authorized these books for your reading.

Oh, I just remembered, you don't have any guru now except the fallen ISKCON guru who you have rejected.

So, I guess you are your own guru now and prescribing to yourself the books that you are qualified to study?

I really do not care a whole lot about orthodoxy. I simply like things that actually work.

If the Maha-mantra can't get the job done, then nothing else is going to work any better.

What works is the Maha-mantra.

Hearing some imaginative description of some imaginative spiritual form is not going to help if your Nama bhajan isn't producing amazing results.

Krishna is not looking for meditative powers and imaginative ability.

He is looking for sincerity that is most easy practiced in service to his pure devotee -- the Acharya (Srila Prabhupada)

Krishna wants to see us serving the mission of the nitya-siddhas that he sends here on his behalf to distribute knowledge and devotion to the fallen souls.

Krishna is not impressed with our siddha-pranali meditation that is practiced in neglect of the missionary work that the acharyas come to do.

I take no pleasure in proving you wrong.

 

 

None of those quotes supports the imitation siddha-pranali process of imaginative siddha-deha.

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

This is not imaginative siddha-pranali imitation.

This is a mystic revelation of the guru's siddha-deha and a mystic revelation of the disciple's siddha-deha.

Why do try and compare sahajiya imitation with mystic revelation?

A true siddha bhakta has all mystic power at his disposal.

He can manifest his spiritual form before a disciple and as well show the sadhaka his own spiritual form.

Bhaktivinoda is not talking about the sahajiya imitative process.

He is writing about the classic siddha babas who had all mystic powers.

It's obvious from the writings of Bhaktivinoda that unless the guru can manifest his own spiritual form before the disciple and as well take the disciple into trance and show him his spiritual form, that such a guru should not be practicing any siddha-pranali process and cheating the disciple with only the imitative portion of the mystic revelations mentioned in these writings of Bhaktivinoda.

In the example given by Bhaktivinoda, the guru manifests his spiritual form to the disciple.

He doesn't do a cheap imitation with some false description of some imaginary from that his sahajiya guru gave him.

If the guru cannot take the disciple into trance via mystic power and reveal to the disciple his own spiritual form, then such a guru should not be practicing a cheap imitation of the process described by Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

I have had some personal experience something similar to that.

I had a dream once that I was setting in front of my spiritual master, who looked to me in the dream like Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarswati Thakur, and I was weeping and weeping in ecstacy as I heard him speak.

Then, as I looked into his eyes, his eyes rolled back into his head and he went into samadhi trance and in so doing caused me to also go into trance at which time I entered into a very beautiful courtyard where I saw a party of devotees performing Sankirtan in a crowd around the Mahaprabhu

It was just a dream, but it was very beautiful dream that I will never forget.

So, these cheap gurus who cannot actually take you into mystic trance and show you the spiritual world, then they are cheaters and should not be practicing the imitative siddha-pranali process.

No, I have not tried it because I am not ready for it, but the previous acharyas did and considered it useful.

Can you quote one as saying that?

I didn't think so.

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

There is nothing absurd about it.

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

In bringing that Sankirtan movement to the western world, much of that orthodox process can be left in India and a more natural and suitable form of Gaudiya Vaishnavism can be given to the western world.

It is not an absurd theory.

It has been explained similarly by Srila Prabhupada.

If you think you qualify for the orthodox process meant for high class brahmins in India, then you are only fooling yourself.

Another lie.

 

THERE IS NO SERVICE IN SHANTA RASA.

.

Another of your foolish notions.

No living entity can ever escape service to the Supreme Absolute at any stage of his existence.

That is why SERVICE is said by Mahaprabhu to be the DHARMA of the living entity.

The living entity cannot ever escape service at any time or under circumstance.

Dharma means that it is intrinsic to the nature of the thing.

Service is intrinsic to all living entities.

Either the jiva serves as a spark of the Supreme Whole or as a servant to the three modes of material nature or serves Krishna out of love, but service by the jiva can never be avoided even for the spirit sparks of the brahmajyoti.

Service done in LOVE is the perfection of the jiva.

Too lazy to check the links I gave above?

OK... here is one:

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

See, Kulapavana, you are so derelict.

You did not even bother to look at the verse where this purport came from and which reiterates the same theme as the verse of Srimad Bhagavatam.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.28.54

 

haḿsāv ahaḿ ca tvaḿ cārya

sakhāyau mānasāyanau

abhūtām antarā vaukaḥ

sahasra-parivatsarān

 

SYNONYMS

 

haḿsau — two swans; aham — I; ca — and; tvam — you; ca — also; ārya — O great soul; sakhāyau — friends; mānasa-ayanau — together in the Mānasa Lake; abhūtām — became; antarā — separated; vā — indeed; okaḥ — from the original home; sahasra — thousands; pari — successively; vatsarān — years.

 

TRANSLATION

 

My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Mānasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home.

The previous verse of the Bhagavatam says:

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.28.53

 

api smarasi cātmānam

avijñāta-sakhaḿ sakhe

hitvā māḿ padam anvicchan

bhauma-bhoga-rato gataḥ

 

SYNONYMS

 

api smarasi — do you remember; ca — also; ātmānam — the Supersoul; avijñāta — unknown; sakham — friend; sakhe — O friend; hitvā — giving up; mām — Me; padam — position; anvicchan — desiring; bhauma — material; bhoga — enjoyment; rataḥ — attached to; gataḥ — you became.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The brāhmaṇa continued: My dear friend, even though you cannot immediately recognize Me, can't you remember that in the past you had a very intimate friend? Unfortunately, you gave up My company and accepted a position as enjoyer of this material world.

The Brahmana in this verse is said later by Narada Muni to be representing the Paramatma.

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

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

In fact, Srila Prabhupada is so much like Narada Muni in my eyes that I have postulated that Srila Prabhupada is an incarnation of Narada Muni.

Srila Prabhupada didn't invent anything.

He preached classic Srimad Bhagavatam.

Only foolish siddha-pranali types who don't even study Srimad Bhagavatam accuse him of deviating or manufacturing something.

Too lazy to check the links I gave above?

OK... here is one:

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

That is perfectly correct.

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

So, the translation is perfectly correct.

As the jiva first issued from the glance of Lord Vishnu, before he entered the material field, he was established in santa-rasa or "peacefully" existing as an uncomtaminated spiritual spark in the brahmajyoti.

How can the origin of a spirit spark be anything other than the spiritual realm?

Mahaprabhu made it clear that the constitutional position of the jiva is santa-rasa which means "peaceful" rasa.

So, only because you have such a shallow depth of understanding do you see that this translation is in any way wrong.

In fact, there are statements in the Bhagavatam where Srila Prabhupada has extracted the "back home, back to Godhead" theme and I will try and track them down and help to dispell your very mistaken misconceptions.

In fact, there are verses in the Bhagavatam that teach in the same way and promote the concept of the soul as having fallen from the spiritual world.

Admittedly, it was done in metaphor, but at the same time it is found in the Bhagavatam and Srila Prabhupada did not invent the idea.

 

Saraswatas did indeed depart from the GV tradition in some important but subtle ways, some more than others.

Again, you make big claims but show no evidence.

Is that because you are in fact cheating yourself and trying to cheat others?

The Gaudiya tradition was established by Mahaprabhu.

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

Prabhupada went as far as preaching to his followers that all jivas fell from Krsnaloka, from a direct loving relationship with Krsna,.

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

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

Is that because you are telling tall tales?

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

Please post the quotes then if you have so much evidence.

You always make wild claims yet refuse to post any reference quotes.

You are like the IKSCON gurus who say "just trust me".

If you weren't spouting off misrepresentations all the time you would post your evidence.

You say you have the books and the evidence yet you never post any of it.

I wonder why?

Could you in fact be telling lies?

Did Bhaktivinoda write in his autobiography "I gave siddha-pranali to my son Lalita Prasad"?

I don't think so.

You are making false claims under the pretext of having proof, though you never present any of that proof but insist that "just trust me".

I don't trust you.

I think you are making false claims, otherwise you would provide the proof of your claims.

Either way, one thing you will never know or be able to prove is if Bhaktivinoda actually practiced "siddha-pranali" or if he just put on that facade because it was the accepted custom of the time, however misguided it might have been.

As well, if he did give "siddha-pranali" to Lalita Prasad, you can never prove that it was something that Bhaktivinoda really believed in or if it was just a custom that he adopted because it was the in thing to do in Bengal at that time.

The siddha-pranali party proposes that Srila Rupa Goswami forgot to mention siddha-pranali or give any directions on the practice, inasmuch as Srila Rupa Goswami has never mentioned anything called siddha-pranali or any process referred to as siddha-pranali.

I don't remember anything about Gopa Kumar getting any siddha-pranali stuff from his gurus in Brihat Bhagavatamritam either.

So, as far as Rupa and Sanatan Goswamis are concerned, this siddha-pranali business cannot be supported in any of their writings.

You are going in circles...

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

You have no proof that Bhaktivinoda actually practiced siddha-pranali.

Bhaktivinoda realized his svarupa siddhi, he did not need any imaginary siddha-pranali process.

Bhaktivinoda was a liberated siddha.

He did not practice imaginary siddha-pranali meditation.

Even if he received such a siddha-pranali process from his guru, he did not need any imaginary process as he had attained samadhi and realized in spiritual trance his actual siddha-deha.

Siddha-pranali process is a sadhana for sadhakas.

Bhaktivinoda was a siddha who had attained svarupa-siddhi.

Because he had attained svarupa-siddhi and actually entered into the pastimes of Lord Gauranga and wrote down his realizations in Jaiva-Dharma, he did not need any siddha-pranali sadhana process.

Bhaktivinoda was well beyond the siddha-pranali imaginary process.

He was on the platform of svarupa-siddhi.

Siddha-pranali is an imaginary feature for preparing the mind to enter the transcendental plane.

After one attains svarupa-siddhi, he no longer practices any imaginary meditation as he in fact has attained the transcendental plane of consciousness.

Bhaktivinoda was svarupa-siddha before he ever received any so-called siiddha-pranali imaginary process from anyone.

In coming to Navadvip, Bhaktivinoda knew that he would not get the respect and credibility he needed in order to do his preaching work and writing, so he accepted diksha in a respected lineage there which would afford him more recognition and support his preaching mission.

He didn't need that formal diksha, as he has been initiated long before by some other Vaishnavas who had guided him to find the Gaudiya shastras that became the foundation for Bhaktivinoda's extreme advancement in Gaudiya siddhanta, sadhana and culture.

It was the Sri Caitanya Caritamrita that was the powerful inspiration behind Bhaktivinoda that propelled him into a life of total dedication to the Gaudiya ideals.

He was lecturing and teaching at Jagannatha Puri long before he ever took any formal diksha upon his being transferred to Navadvip at his request.

The formal diksha was a preaching tool.

That's all.

Bhaktivinoda was a pure Gaudiya Vaishnava long before ever took diksha from Vipina Bihari Goswami.

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

Nothing changed when Bhaktivinoda took diksha.

He had already formed his thought, his sadhana and his realization long before he took formal diksha.

He was brought into Vaishnavism by other Vaishnavas and guided to the shastra that would become his foundation. It was a spiritual relationship. It was not formal and official.

Vipina Bihari Goswami's contribution to Bhaktivinoda was all formal and superficial.

Bhaktivinoda was spiritually initiated into Gaudiya Vaishnavism long before he ever heard of Vipina Bihari Goswami.

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

 

The opposition toward the sahajiya siddha-pranali process has nothing to do with denigrating anyone.

The people that practice such imitationism are denigrating themselves by such cheap imitation.

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

When unfit neophytes imitate devotees of the highest plaform with this "siddha-pranali" imitationism, they deserve to be labeled as sahajiya because a sahajiya is someone who takes raga bhakti cheaply.

That is exactly what this siddha-pranali process in the hands of these unfit people is - a cheap imitation - therefore sahajiya.

I think Srila Prabhupada was completely right in referring to these siddha-pranali fakers as sahajiyas.

It is just an objective observation.

It has nothing to do with name-calling or denigrating anyone.

It is just a factual assessment that these fakers are taking raga bhakti cheaply and therefore qualifying themselves as sahajiyas.

These people are unfit to imagine themselves as associates in the lila of Krishna. That they presume to do so is just exposing how cheap and superficial is their concept of Krishna bhakti.

Technically, that is referred to as "sahajiya" by Gaudiya acharyas.

It is his disciples like you who belittle the entire mission of Lord Caitanya and Vaishnavism in general with their hate filled self-righteous attitude.

.

There is nothing self-righteous about it.

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

To disregard those who prefer to drag down the path of raga bhakti to the lowest level and make it a cheap imitation is not self-righteous.

It is just rational and reasonable for those who prefer to be a practitioner and not an imitator.

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

Srila Prabhupada had the right to do whatever he did because he in fact was the acharya who established the global Krishna consciousness movement.

So, now people like you want to come along and pollute the Krishna consciousness movement with siddha-pranali nonsense that you learned from thankless upstarts who considered themselves to be superior to all the thousands of other devotees around the world.

Now, most of your siddha-pranali people have left Krishna bhakti to become atheists or tantric sahajiyas.

Your poisonous attitude of now attacking Srila Prabhupada directly because he gave sannyasa to some men that couldn't keep up the standard is a very telling sign of just how polluted you have become by listening to these siddha-pranali advocates.

This Krishna consciousness movement is not yours to tamper with.

The founder acharya who is responsible for the international movement of Krishna consciousness did not allow or condone this siddha-pranali nonsense.

So, really, you should not be tampering with something that you did not build.

If you want to paint your own house black that is your choice, but you should refrain from trying to paint a house that is not yours to paint.

I would imagine that even if siddha-pranali was a legitimate process the gurus of the siddha-pranali party would not want their followers out all over the world trying to cram siddha-pranali down the throat of another acharya's followers who were told by their guru to neglect the siddha-pranali process.

Even if I were a follower of the siddha-pranali process, that last thing I would do is go on the internet trying to make a stink about it and convince ISKCON that siddha-pranali is "the tradition".

Siddha-pranali would be something that I wouldn't even broadcast openly.

It would be a very confidential aspect of my bhajan that I would keep private.

These braggards coming on internet forums and challenging Srila Prabhupada with their siddha-pranali campaign are all rascals who aren't even fit for practicing the bhajan lifestyle where meditating upon the antascintita deha or imagined spiritual form is even practical.

They live worldy lives and are all caught up so many external affairs, yet they want to come on the internet and boast about some form of devotional contemplation that is way beyond their level or ability.

Srila Prabhupada designed the global Krishna consciouness movement as a preaching movement to benedict as many souls in the world as possible.

He did not want these siddha-pranali meditators polluting his preaching mission with this siddha-pranali nonsense.

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

I guess if you lick a bottle of honey long enough and don't get any sweet taste you will start to curse the honey bottle and accuse it of having no value.

I think there were 3 prominent disciples of BSST who took siddha pranali. Ananta Das Babaji (Ananta Vasudeva), OBL Kapoor, and one other who escapes me at this time.

OBL Kapoor obviously got too close to the locals of Vrindavan and got taken in by their apparent sincerity, even though he ended up stepping over the line drawn in the sand by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

The locals of Braja really have no business infecting the global Krishna consciousness movement with their siddha-pranali nonsense in defiance of the Saraswata Gaudiya acharyas.

As Srila Prabhupada says:

S,B, 3.20.4 purport:

Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, a great ācārya of the Vaiṣṇava sect, has, for the present, forbidden us to go to such places of pilgrimage because in this age, the times having so changed, a sincere person may have a different impression on seeing the behavior of the present residents of the pilgrimage sites. He has recommended that instead of taking the trouble to travel to such places, one should concentrate his mind on Govinda, and that will help him.

Narottama das thought it prudent that devotees should avoid Radha-kunda and Vrindavan for the express purpose of avoiding the so-called dhama-vasis who were otherwise infected with some serious misconceptions that were in fact passed off as "the tradition".

OBL Kapoor was sadly unable to understand this and got infected by the pervasive atmosphere of Vrindavan at that time.

He was sincere, but he did cross the line of the Saraswata Gaudiya sect.

That doesn't mean that he faces eternal damnation, it just means that he is not strictly in the line of the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya which is the responsible for the global success of the Sankirtan movement of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

The global Vaishnava community should respect and honor the Saraswata Gaudiya acharyas who are responsible for the global outreach of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

This latest fad of assorted individuals from around the world trying to make claims of the authenticity of siddha-pranali is nothing less than a blatant case of a dog biting the hand that feeds it.

The bottom line for me is that the acharya who spread Krishna consciousness and Gaudiya Vaishnavism all over the world did not approve of the siddha-pranali process. He rejected it.

So, for upstart devotees from all over the world to come along and trample on his directives, even though they would otherwise have no knowledge of Krishna or Gaudiya Vaishnavism without the sacrifice and dedication of Srila Prabhupada, is just a thankless insult and offense to the great soul who in fact is responsible for their great fortune of Krishna bhakti.

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

Such is the degraded foolishness of the western mleccas and Yavanas who have bitten the devotional hand that saved them from Aeons in Hell.

Despite Srila Prabhupada's best efforts to defend the Krishna consciousness movement from this infection, these rascals are trying mightily to introduce this siddha-pranali nonsense into the global movement that Srila Prabhupada alone inaugurated.

They will get no respect or honor from me.

They have stepped on the head of Srila Prabhupada to become siddha-pranali rascals and in so doing accuse others of passing stool on their head.

Obviously, they are thankless rascals that presume to know better than Srila Prabhuapada.

I don't believe that they they do.

Maybe we could manufacture a term "Neo-Americanism" or "Neo-Muslim" or maybe "Neo-Rastafarianism".

At what point does something become "neo" as opposed to traditional?

If a custom follows the same idea as the tradition, then how can we call it "neo"?

Maybe "pseudo" is the word he was looking for instead of "neo".

If it is not "pseudo" and follows the same tradition, then there is no reason to label it as "neo".

I guess the next generation of old people could be called "neo-old people"?

So are you saying that you are not a good representative of the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya? Because up until now your aggressive tone would lead us to think that you believe otherwise.

 

 

 

When people profess to be Vaishnavas and yet make bigoted remarks about "caste-brahmins" in India, including "caste-brahmins" in Vaishnava sampradayas, it does make one wonder. Am I to assume then, that you are not a Gaudiya Vaishnava?

 

 

 

 

So in other words, are you now basically telling me to ignore you, Kyros, and others who have been speaking like this?

 

Can I quote you on this?

yes

OBL Kapoor, who was also one of the Srila Prabhupada's most respected Godbrothers. Incidentally he was also one of those who took siddha pranali after passing of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. He writes that in the foreword to his book.

 

Can you please post the quote instead of just asking everyone to "trust me" on the issue?

I have one of his books that I have had for over 25 years and I don't see anything about siddha-pranali in it.

Please post your references when you make claims, otherwise we just assume you are spouting off bogus info that you were fed by the sahajiyas of the siddha-pranali party.

No, it does not, but is a fact well known among the Gaudiya matha disciples. Many disciples of BSS took siddha pranali from various sadhus after disappearance of their guru.

That is a patent lie.

You really should not spout off blatant lies about these things and pass them off as legitimate.

Name some of the disciples of Saraswati Goswami who took siddha-pranali after his passing.

How is it that Srila Sridhar Maharaja, who was unanimously respected as the most learned and advanced disciple of Srila Saraswati Thakur, was fiercly against this siddha-pranali process if it was so much revered and respected by Saraswati Goswami?

You have been fed a lot of lies and distortions by these siddha-pranali types and you are surely suffering from many misconceptions.

Until the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Gaudiya Vaishnavism had almost wholesale been sunk into sahajiyaism and caste Goswami business.

So, that "many lines practiced siddha-pranali" is not a big surprise considering Gaudiya Vaishnavism was practically wholesale contaminated before the time of Bhaktivinoda.

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