Sonic Yogi

I found the quote from Srila Prabhupada about lila-smaranam.

Saraswata Gaudiyas most certainly practice lila-smaranam, but it is Krishna's lila that is remembered as opposed to the sahajiya concept of remembering one's own supposed lila with Krishna as described by the sahajiya guru.

Since Krsna had departed from Vrndavana to Mathura, the inhabitants of Vrndavana, especially mother Yasoda, Nanda Maharaja, Srimati Radharani, the gopis and the cowherd boys, were simply thinking of Krsna at every step. They were thinking, "Krsna was playing in this way. Krsna was blowing His flute. Krsna was joking with us, and Krsna was embracing us." This is called lila-smarana, and it is the process of association with Krsna most recommended by great devotees; even Lord Caitanya enjoyed lila-smarana association with Krsna when He was at Puri. Those who are in the most exalted position of devotional service and ecstasy can live with Krsna always by remembering His pastimes. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has given us a transcendental literature entitled Krsna-bhavanamrta, which is full with Krsna's pastimes. Devotees can remain absorbed in Krsna-thought by reading such books. Any book of krsna-lila, even this book, Krsna, and our Teachings of Lord Caitanya, is actually solace for devotees who are feeling the separation of Krsna

Here is the standard way of raganuga bhakti as taught by Mahaprabhu:

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.160

 

kṛṣṇaḿ smaran janaḿ cāsya

 

preṣṭhaḿ nija-samīhitam

 

tat-tat-kathā-rataś cāsau

 

kuryād vāsaḿ vraje sadā

 

SYNONYMS

 

kṛṣṇam — Lord Kṛṣṇa; smaran — thinking of; janam — a devotee; ca — and; asya — of His; preṣṭham — very dear; nija-samīhitam — chosen by oneself; tat-tat-kathā — to those respective topics; rataḥ — attached; ca — and; asau — that; kuryāt — should do; vāsam — living; vraje — in Vṛndāvana; sadā — always.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"'The devotee should always think of Kṛṣṇa within himself and should choose a very dear devotee who is a servitor of Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana. One should constantly engage in topics about that servitor and his loving relationship with Kṛṣṇa, and one should live in Vṛndāvana. If one is physically unable to go to Vṛndāvana, he should mentally live there.'

 

PURPORT

 

This verse is also found in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.294).

This is it.

This is what Lord Chaitanya taught as the standard process of raganuga bhakti.

Somewhere along the way somebody manufactured the siddha-pranali term and practice based upon something mentioned by Gopal Guru Goswami in his writings.

However, there is a big difference between the case of a liberated, self-realized siddha bhakta who can understand the siddha-deha of a disciple and revealing it to the disciple and the case of some sahajiya making his living at Radha-kunda passing out siddha-deha to neophyte sahajiyas who make a nice donation to their meal ticket.

Sure, a siddha bhakta can understand through his spiritual powers the svarupa of a disciple and reveal that to him.

However, that should not be equated with the dimestore siddha-dehas that sahajiyas at Radha-kunda are passing out to completly unfit people who a few months later leave Vaishnavism and the siddha-deha he bought from his sahajiya guru.

Siddhanta Saraswati saw risks related to Lila Smaranam and therefore he discontinued siddha-pranali.

Actually, siddha-pranali was not practiced by his diksha-guru.

So, there is no such thing as BST "discontinuing" something that in fact his diksha-guru was against.

Gaura-kishora das Babaji in fact remarked (about siddha-pranali):

"The imitator is like a woman who enters the maternity ward and simply by producing the sounds of labor thinks that she can produce a child. Many things are required before that."

This is an excellent point. Siddhanta Saraswati saw risks related to Lila Smaranam and therefore he discontinued siddha-pranali. Not because he considered it bogus. Nama-sankirtan does not have those risks, hense his emphasis on nama-sankirtan.

 

There exist suggestions that BSST did give siddha-pranali on more than one occasion.

Not really.

Saraswata Gaudiyas do not at all neglect lila-smaranam.

Whoever says they do is wrong.

The problem is that some foolish devotees have equated siddha-pranali process with lila-smaranam.

It is patently wrong to say that Saraswata Gaudiyas do not practice "lila smaranam".

Lila-smaranam means "remembering the pastimes of Krishna".

In Krsna Book, Srila Prabhupada states that reading Krsna Book is "lila-smaranam".

This was not my question. The question is why do iskcon/gaudiyas automatically assume that a person who is born a brahmana is not a brahmana? Even if that person is raised as a Vaishnava and was born into a brahman family, automatically you assert that he belongs to a corrupt tradition and is unqualified. I have repeatedly seen you people making these assertions on this forum, and I wonder why?

 

Being born a brahmana gives one the best chance to learn to become a brahman. But to you this is despicable, and that really does not make much sense.

Obviously, you don't know enough about the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya.

Do you think that some lay devotees on this forum represent properly the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya?

Why don't you research the history of the Gaudiyas a little before you go judging the whole sampradaya on something you read by strangers on an internet forum.

The Gaudiya history and tradition are very complicated and well documented.

If you want to know something about the actual Gaudiya tradition you need to consult the proper authorities instead of just accepting everything you read on the internet forum.

This is not my tradition obviously, but I have a question.

 

Why do iskcon/gaudiya-saraswata devotees associate "heredity" with corruption? As in, if one is born into a brahmin family, raised as a brahmin, and takes up the duties of a brahmin, then just by the very fact of his hereditary brahmana status he is somehow illegitimate and not qualified to be a guru? I find this attitude very strange.

 

I would rather have a qualified guru who was raised as a brahmin from birth, rather than a guru who spent his whole life eating meat and chasing women, and then just in the past 2 years suddenly found his calling and "became" a brahmin. Sure he may seem "qualified" to you, but who knows what will happen in another year or so? His old tastes and bad habits may resume, and then what becomes of his "guru" status?

 

It's very strange that on one hand, iskcon people emphasize that a guru must be very qualified, and yet on the other hand they criticize the one tradition that historically created very qualified gurus in the past, namely the varnasharma culture (which was very much related to birth). And that's not to say that there are not corrupt brahmins today - clearly there are - but they are also easy to identify in most cases. How easy is it to identify a "qualified" guru from the reformed and inexperienced mlecchas that join iskcon? And how many times has someone thought, "oh, this is a pure devotee guru" only to have to look for another guru years later because his pure guru left the standard?

The Gaudiyas don't have Vaidika Brahmans.

The Gaudiyas have Pancaratrika Brahmans specifically trained in worship of Krishna.

So, a Vaidika Brahmana who is not a devotee of Vishnu or Krishna is not accepted by the Gaudiyas as "guru".

Vaidika Brahmans worship an assortment of gods and godesses.

Pancaratrika Brahmans only worship Vishnu or Krishna.

So, the Gaudiyas do not consider Vaidika Brahmans as Gaudiya gurus because the Gaudiya rule is that one must be a devotee of Krishna in order to be a guru in the Gaudiya sampradaya.

There are Shakta Brahmans as well, but Gaudiyas do not accept them as gurus in the Gaudiya sampradaya.

There were some Shakta Brahmans who became Krishna devotees in the Gaudiya sampradaya and in so doing they received the Gaudiya mantra-diksha and abandoned the mantra diksha of their heriditary tradition.

That is the Gaudiya tradition.

If a Shakta Brahman becomes a Krishna bhakta, then he takes again mantra diksha from the Gaudiya acharya and then become as Gaudiya Brahman of the Pancaratrika system that was instructed by the great sage Narada Muni.

If I can be a direct disciple of Lord Krsna, what do I need Prabhupada for?

Prabhupada gave you that direct connection to Krishna by the translation and purports.

It sure wasn't your official ISKCON guru who did that with some mantra-diksha.

Can you read Sanskrit?

Are you self-realized.

Can you understand Bhagavad-gita without help from the self-realized devotee who does know the language and the meaning of Bhagavad-gita?

After all, Prabhupada did name his organization the "Krishna" consciousness movement didn't he?

He did not style it as the "Prabhupada" consciousness movement.

Prabhupada teaches how to connect to Krishna.

He did not want anything for himself.

He just wanted to connect you to Krishna.

If you were a self-realized soul who could read Sanskrit then maybe you would not need Prabhupada.

"Neo-Hinduism" is a concocted term that is not found in any teachings of the acharyas or the shastras.

It is a newly manufactured term that someone invented to garner personal prestige and attention.

There is no such thing as "neo-Hinduism".

In fact, there is no such thing as Hinduism since the term was manufactured by the Persians in their attempts to lump all the Bharatiyas of India, who follow different scriptures of India, into one nice group of those that must be killed and exterminated.

Profound .

Not really.

Sadhana is like when Vaishnava parents raise a child in religious practices.

In the beginning the child does it because the parents make him.

Then, if the child actually gets to the point where he does it willingly out of attraction and interest in Krishna, then that become raga bhakti.

 

BTW. Arjuna's line of parampara became extinct as well.

You keep missing the point.

Anyone who can understand Bhagavad-gita can become a direct disciple of Lord Krishna just as Arjuna did.

That is why Srila Prabhupada gave us Bhagavad-gita As It Is, so that anyone who reads the book can become a direct disciple of Krishna and a disciple of Srila Prabhupada both by reading the verses and the purports.

BG intro -

Here the Lord clearly tells Arjuna that He is making him the first receiver of a new paramparā (disciplic succession) because the old succession was broken. It was the Lord's wish, therefore, to establish another paramparā in the same line of thought that was coming down from the sun-god to others, and it was His wish that His teaching be distributed anew by Arjuna. He wanted Arjuna to become the authority in understanding the Bhagavad-gītā. So we see that Bhagavad-gītā is instructed to Arjuna especially because Arjuna was a devotee of the Lord, a direct student of Kṛṣṇa, and His intimate friend. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā is best understood by a person who has qualities similar to Arjuna's. That is to say he must be a devotee in a direct relationship with the Lord. As soon as one becomes a devotee of the Lord, he also has a direct relationship with the Lord.

BG intro -

Just what is the Bhagavad-gītā? The purpose of Bhagavad-gītā is to deliver mankind from the nescience of material existence. Every man is in difficulty in so many ways, as Arjuna also was in difficulty in having to fight the Battle of Kurukṣetra. Arjuna surrendered unto Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and consequently this Bhagavad-gītā was spoken. Not only Arjuna, but every one of us is full of anxieties because of this material existence.

B.G. 4.16 purport -

The system of Kṛṣṇa consciousness was first narrated to the sun-god, the sun-god explained it to his son Manu, Manu explained it to his son Ikṣvāku, and the system is current on this earth from that very remote time. Therefore, one has to follow in the footsteps of previous authorities in the line of disciplic succession. Otherwise even the most intelligent men will be bewildered regarding the standard actions of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. For this reason, the Lord decided to instruct Arjuna in Kṛṣṇa consciousness directly. Because of the direct instruction of the Lord to Arjuna, anyone who follows in the footsteps of Arjuna is certainly not bewildered.

And where do you find definition of term "shiksha-parampara" in Rupa Goswami? (since you are a rupanuga).

 

Well, where do you find your claim of "diksha parampara"?

Tell me where Srila Rupa Goswami has defined parampara as being defined by diksha?

Parampara has always been based on the transmission of spiritual knowledge.

Paramapara has wrongly been labeled as "diksha parampara" by caste gurus who make their living as professional gurus.

<table cellspacing="3"><tbody><tr><td align="right" valign="top">1</td> <td valign="top"> parampara</td> <td valign="top">mfn. one following the other , proceeding from one to another (as from father to son) , successive , repeated MBh. Sus3r. ; (%{am}) ind. successively. uninterruptedly VPra1t. ; m. a great great-grandson or great-grandson with his descendants L. ; a species of deer L. ; %{-tas} ind. successively continually , mutually W. ; %{-bhojana} n. eating continually L.</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" valign="top">2</td> <td valign="top"> paramparA</td> <td valign="top">f. an uninterrupted row or series , order , succession , continuation , mediation , tradition (%{-rayA} ind. by tradition , indirectly) MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; lineage , progeny L. ; hurting , killing L. ; %{-prA7pta} (Bhag.) , %{--yAta} (%{-rA7y-} Var.) mfn. received by tradition [587,2] ; %{-vAhana} n. an indirect means of conveyance (e.g. the horse which draws a carriage) L. ; %{-sambandha} m. an indirect conjunction Pa1n2. 8-1 , 24 Sch.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Parampara is about the continued line of knowledge.

It has always been about the transmission of knowledge from guru to disciple.

Lord Krishna speaks of Parampara as an unbroken chain of knowledge.

I doubt seriously that Srila Rupa Goswami has any different idea about Parampara and went against what his Lord Krishna considered as Parampara.

In fact the term Parampara is not found at all in Srimad Bhagavatam or Sri Caitanya Caritamrita.

A Vedabase seach only shows ONE incidence of the word Parampara and it is in the Bhagavad-gita of Lord Krishna.

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 4.2

 

evaḿ paramparā-prāptam

imaḿ rājarṣayo viduḥ

sa kāleneha mahatā

yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa

 

SYNONYMS

 

evam — thus; paramparā — by disciplic succession; prāptam — received; imam — this science; rāja-ṛṣayaḥ — the saintly kings; viduḥ — understood; saḥ — that knowledge; kālena — in the course of time; iha — in this world; mahatā — great; yogaḥ — the science of one's relationship with the Supreme; naṣṭaḥ — scattered; parantapa — O Arjuna, subduer of the enemies.

 

TRANSLATION

 

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

 

PURPORT

 

It is clearly stated that the Gītā was especially meant for the saintly kings because they were to execute its purpose in ruling over the citizens. Certainly Bhagavad-gītā was never meant for the demonic persons, who would dissipate its value for no one's benefit and would devise all types of interpretations according to personal whims. As soon as the original purpose was scattered by the motives of the unscrupulous commentators, there arose the need to reestablish the disciplic succession. Five thousand years ago it was detected by the Lord Himself that the disciplic succession was broken, and therefore He declared that the purpose of the Gītā appeared to be lost. In the same way, at the present moment also there are so many editions of the Gītā (especially in English), but almost all of them are not according to authorized disciplic succession. There are innumerable interpretations rendered by different mundane scholars, but almost all of them do not accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, although they make a good business on the words of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. This spirit is demonic, because demons do not believe in God but simply enjoy the property of the Supreme. Since there is a great need of an edition of the Gītā in English, as it is received by the paramparā (disciplic succession) system, an attempt is made herewith to fulfill this great want. Bhagavad-gītā — accepted as it is — is a great boon to humanity; but if it is accepted as a treatise of philosophical speculations, it is simply a waste of time.

In this most authoritative reference to Parampara we find that Parampara is in fact about the passing down of knowledge of spiritual science.

Krishna revived the Parampara with Arjuna.

He did so without giving Arjuna any mantra diksha.

 

Giving sannyasa to completely unqualified young men is every bit as 'sahajiya' as giving siddha-pranali to unprepared and unqualified disciples.

Well at least we know where you stand now.

You say that Srila Prabhupada is a sahajiya because he tried to create some preachers and gave sannyasa to some men that let him down.

I would have to disagree, because Srila Prabhuapda's tactics did get Krishna consciousness spread all over the world and most of the sannyasis that fell down did a lot of good work before they jumped ship.

Siddha-pranali as a term or a process is not found in any of the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami.

Wherever it came from, one thing we know is that it cannot claim to be Rupanuga.

Maybe we could call it Gopal Guru Goswaminuga?

Gopal Guru Swami was a sakhi not a manjari.

In the Rupanuga sampradaya the the leader of the group is a Manjari.

 

 

What a nice illustration of the mentality of parampara of spiritual rejecters.

So, basically what you are saying is that we should jump over the head of our Guru Maharaja and his Guru Maharaja and follow the father of the spiritual master's spiritual master.

Never mind what our immediate Guru has given for us, let us all jump back about three gurus and try to follow instructions that were never meant for us.

That makes a lot of sense.

Well, actually, it does not and is quite ridiculous.

The Gaudiya parampara has always been a siksha based parampara.

Mahaprabhu spread his Sankirtan movement all over South India and in fact had more success there than anywhere in India.

He didn't go around giving everyone formal diksha.

He conducted his Sankirtan and gave instructions as in the example of Kurma the brahmana who in turn went back to his village and spread the movement through Sankirtan and siksha.

It is said in Caitanya Caritamrita that the Sankirtan movement overflooded South India and many thousands of people took to the movement of Mahaprabhu. All these people were liberated and attained eternal life.

There is no descriptions of Mahaprabhu holding large initiation ceremonies.

There is no description of him giving formal diksha to anyone there.

Yet it is said that Mahaprabhu had the greatest success with his Sankirtan movement in South India.

The claim that the Sankirtan movement of Mahaprabhu is based on formal initiations as opposed to Harinama Sankirtan is just wrong.

If formal diksha is the measure of success or the platform for Mahaprabhu's Sankirtan movement, then Krishnadas Kaviraja Goswami was certainly wrong to say that Mahaprabhu was most successful in his movement in South India.

Krishna told Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita that he was starting a new parampara with Arjuna as the previous parampara coming down through the Sun god had been broken.

Did he give Arjuna formal diksha or Gayatri mantra on the battlefield of Kurukshetra?

No, because Lord Krishna's idea of parampara is siksha based and that is why he gave Arjuna siksha on the battlefield of Kurukshetra instead of initiating him into some mantra.

If you accept Lord Krishna's instructions in Bhagavad-gita, then you must accept that his idea of parampara is siksha based.

Being a rejecter is not the problem.

The problem is when neophytes try to jump over the head of their immediate spiritual master and disobey him on the pretext of following some predecessor acharya.

Srila Prabhupada says here "In this connection, we should be careful about the so-called siddha-praṇālī." Again he is talking about the so-called process of siddha-pranali. .

Look again.

Srila Prabhupada says:

The siddha-praṇālī process is followed by a class of men who are not very authorized and who have manufactured their own way of devotional service.

He doesn't say "so-called" in this sentence.

He says "the siddha-pranali process".

There is no so-called in this statement.

It is clear that he is referring to siddha-pranali.

There is no so-called process of siddha-pranali and any authentic process of siddha-pranali.

The siddha-pranali process is wholesale from it's inception an unauthorized process that cannot be traced to any instructions of Srila Rupa Goswami.

Siddha-pranali is a perversion of some very intimate and exclusive dealings between Gopal Guru Goswami and some of his most intimate disciples.

Since then it has been transformed into a cheap dimestore imitation of something that a few rare discples of a nitya-siddha parshada of Mahaprabhu had with their siddha guru.

A few rare occurences of Gopal Guru Goswami revealing to some of his disciples their svarupa with Krishna has become a cheap, merchantile exchange between professional babajis and their foolsih followers.

What they call siddha-pranali today is a perverted and cheap imitation of something that a parshada of Mahaprabhu gave to a few rare disciples.

Now, it has become something you can purchase with a substantial monetary contribution to some babaji at Radha-kunda who needs chapatti and dahl money.

Madhavananda das bought himself a siddha-deha from Ananta das Babaji with a nice donation to the cause, but after a couple of years of lila-smaranam he was still miserable and clueless.

Now, he has rejected Gaudiya Vaishnavism and is living in Europe with a female companion doing his Krishna imitation.

We have a good example of how siddha-pranali is a dead-end street.

Just ask Madhavananda das if there is any magic in siddha-pranali and I am sure he will tell you quite definitively that there is NOT.

In this connection, we should be careful about the so-called siddha-praṇālī. The siddha-praṇālī process is followed by a class of men who are not very authorized and who have manufactured their own way of devotional service. They imagine that they have become associates of the Lord simply by thinking of themselves like that. This external behavior is not at all according to the regulative principles. The so-called siddha-praṇālī process is followed by the prākṛta-sahajiyā, a pseudosect of so-called Vaiṣṇavas. In the opinion of Rūpa Gosvāmī, such activities are simply disturbances to the standard way of devotional service.

In the above quote from NOD, Srila Prabhupada says clearly that the siddha-pranali process was "manufactured" by unauthorized men.

He also says that the siddha-pranali process is followed by "prakrita-sahajiyas".

He doesn't say that any authorized sect of Gaudiya Vaishnavas practice it.

He finishes his comment on siddha-pranali by saying that Srila Rupa Goswami considered such practice as a disturbance to the standard way of devotional service.

It appears from this that the siddha-pranali process was extant during the time Srilla Rupa Goswami wrote the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, as Srila Prabhupada states that Srila Rupa Goswami considered such practices as a disturbance to the standard ways of devotional service.

We see as well, that in the Saraswata Gaudiya sect the siddha-pranali process has distracted several ISKCON type devotees who have more or less created a disturbance on the internet especially with their preaching of the need for siddha-pranali for aspiring devotees.

Srila Prabhupada's position is clear.

He considered siddha-pranali a practice of the sahajiyas, he considered it to be something manufactured by unauthorized men and he considered it a disturbance to the standard way of devotional service.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja maintained the same opinion.

Narayan Maharaja seems to have some tendency towards siddha-pranali.

It must be something he picked-up during his stint with the babajis at Radha-kunda at which time some of the senior devotees in the Matha of Kesava Maharaja came to Radha-kunda and insisted that Narayana Maharaja return to the Matha of his Guru Maharaja.

Apparently, you can take the Swami away from the babajis but you can't take the babajis away from the Swami.

Sadhana is a Sanskrit word that means "common property".

Sadhana is the form of bhakti that everyone is entitled to practice.

Raga bhakti is a higher form of bhakti that is practiced by those who have developed a spontaneous attraction to Krishna - the Supreme Lord.

Sadhana is routine religious practices of the Vaishnava sect.

If and when that routine religious practice leads to a true love and attraction for Krishna then it becomes Raga Bhakti.

Bhakti has two basic aspects; sadhana bhakti and raga bhakti.

They both have the same goal to attain prema or love of God.

Sadhana bhakti is obligatory practices such as archana, japa, and following of the moral principles of spiritual life.

Raga bhakti is the spontaneous devotion done out of love rather than duty.

Sadhana is part of bhakti.

It is not a separate practice.

I am always amazed how a mundane criticism of something that millions of seekers hold as sacred is allowed to be passed off as a spiritual topic on the forum.

Isn't there a little corner of this forum somewhere for atheists and blasphemers to vent their negative energy instead of allowing them to intrude into "spiritual discussions"?

Why don't these atheists go find a forum for skeptics and atheists and leave the faithful alone to their own space?

The mind and the intelligence are separated energies created by Lord Krishna.

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 7.4

 

bhūmir āpo 'nalo vāyuḥ

khaḿ mano buddhir eva ca

ahańkāra itīyaḿ me

bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā

 

SYNONYMS

 

bhūmiḥ — earth; āpaḥ — water; analaḥ — fire; vāyuḥ — air; kham — ether; manaḥ — mind; buddhiḥ — intelligence; eva — certainly; ca — and; ahańkāraḥ — false ego; iti — thus; iyam — all these; me — My; bhinnā — separated; prakṛtiḥ — energies; aṣṭadhā — eightfold.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego — all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.

 

PURPORT

 

The science of God analyzes the constitutional position of God and His diverse energies. Material nature is called prakṛti, or the energy of the Lord in His different puruṣa incarnations (expansions) as described in the Sātvata-tantra:

 

viṣṇos tu trīṇi rūpāṇi

puruṣākhyāny atho viduḥ

ekaḿ tu mahataḥ sraṣṭṛ

dvitīyaḿ tv aṇḍa-saḿsthitam

 

tṛtīyaḿ sarva-bhūta-sthaḿ

tāni jñātvā vimucyate

 

"For material creation, Lord Kṛṣṇa's plenary expansion assumes three Viṣṇus. The first one, Mahā-Viṣṇu, creates the total material energy, known as the mahat-tattva. The second, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, enters into all the universes to create diversities in each of them. The third, Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, is diffused as the all-pervading Supersoul in all the universes and is known as Paramātmā. He is present even within the atoms. Anyone who knows these three Viṣṇus can be liberated from material entanglement."

 

This material world is a temporary manifestation of one of the energies of the Lord. All the activities of the material world are directed by these three Viṣṇu expansions of Lord Kṛṣṇa. These puruṣas are called incarnations. Generally one who does not know the science of God (Kṛṣṇa) assumes that this material world is for the enjoyment of the living entities and that the living entities are the puruṣas — the causes, controllers and enjoyers of the material energy. According to Bhagavad-gītā this atheistic conclusion is false. In the verse under discussion it is stated that Kṛṣṇa is the original cause of the material manifestation. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also confirms this. The ingredients of the material manifestation are separated energies of the Lord. Even the brahmajyoti, which is the ultimate goal of the impersonalists, is a spiritual energy manifested in the spiritual sky. There are no spiritual diversities in the brahmajyoti as there are in the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, and the impersonalist accepts this brahmajyoti as the ultimate eternal goal. The Paramātmā manifestation is also a temporary all-pervasive aspect of the Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. The Paramātmā manifestation is not eternal in the spiritual world. Therefore the factual Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa. He is the complete energetic person, and He possesses different separated and internal energies.

 

In the material energy, the principal manifestations are eight, as above mentioned. Out of these, the first five manifestations, namely earth, water, fire, air and sky, are called the five gigantic creations or the gross creations, within which the five sense objects are included. They are the manifestations of physical sound, touch, form, taste and smell. Material science comprises these ten items and nothing more. But the other three items, namely mind, intelligence and false ego, are neglected by the materialists. Philosophers who deal with mental activities are also not perfect in knowledge because they do not know the ultimate source, Kṛṣṇa. The false ego — "I am," and "It is mine, which constitute the basic principle of material existence — includes ten sense organs for material activities. Intelligence refers to the total material creation, called the mahat-tattva. Therefore from the eight separated energies of the Lord are manifest the twenty-four elements of the material world, which are the subject matter of Sāńkhya atheistic philosophy; they are originally offshoots from Kṛṣṇa's energies and are separated from Him, but atheistic Sāńkhya philosophers with a poor fund of knowledge do not know Kṛṣṇa as the cause of all causes. The subject matter for discussion in the Sāńkhya philosophy is only the manifestation of the external energy of Kṛṣṇa, as it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā.

So, the mind is a material covering of the soul as is the intelligence.

The soul in illusion identifies with these coverings as if these coverings are the self.

So, the mind covers the soul but is not the soul proper.

Intelligence is a covering of the soul but is not the soul proper.

As far as what is "ours" not even our own soul is really ours as the soul is a separated energy of Krishna and is therefore technically his.

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 7.5

 

apareyam itas tv anyāḿ

 

prakṛtiḿ viddhi me parām

 

jīva-bhūtāḿ mahā-bāho

 

yayedaḿ dhāryate jagat

 

SYNONYMS

 

aparā — inferior; iyam — this; itaḥ — besides this; tu — but; anyām — another; prakṛtim — energy; viddhi — just try to understand; me — My; parām — superior; jīva-bhūtām — comprising the living entities; mahā-bāho — O mighty-armed one; yayā — by whom; idam — this; dhāryate — is utilized or exploited; jagat — the material world.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

 

PURPORT

 

Here it is clearly mentioned that living entities belong to the superior nature (or energy) of the Supreme Lord. The inferior energy is matter manifested in different elements, namely earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego. Both forms of material nature, namely gross (earth, etc.) and subtle (mind, etc.), are products of the inferior energy. The living entities, who are exploiting these inferior energies for different purposes, are the superior energy of the Supreme Lord, and it is due to this energy that the entire material world functions. The cosmic manifestation has no power to act unless it is moved by the superior energy, the living entity. Energies are always controlled by the energetic, and therefore the living entities are always controlled by the Lord — they have no independent existence. They are never equally powerful, as unintelligent men think. The distinction between the living entities and the Lord is described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.87.30) as follows:

 

aparimitā dhruvās tanu-bhṛto yadi sarva-gatās

tarhi na śāsyateti niyamo dhruva netarathā

ajani ca yan-mayaḿ tad avimucya niyantṛ bhavet

samam anujānatāḿ yad amataḿ mata-duṣṭatayā

 

"O Supreme Eternal! If the embodied living entities were eternal and all-pervading like You, then they would not be under Your control. But if the living entities are accepted as minute energies of Your Lordship, then they are at once subject to Your supreme control. Therefore real liberation entails surrender by the living entities to Your control, and that surrender will make them happy. In that constitutional position only can they be controllers. Therefore, men with limited knowledge who advocate the monistic theory that God and the living entities are equal in all respects are actually guided by a faulty and polluted opinion."

 

The Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, is the only controller, and all living entities are controlled by Him. These living entities are His superior energy because the quality of their existence is one and the same with the Supreme, but they are never equal to the Lord in quantity of power. While exploiting the gross and subtle inferior energy (matter), the superior energy (the living entity) forgets his real spiritual mind and intelligence. This forgetfulness is due to the influence of matter upon the living entity. But when the living entity becomes free from the influence of the illusory material energy, he attains the stage called mukti, or liberation. The false ego, under the influence of material illusion, thinks, "I am matter, and material acquisitions are mine." His actual position is realized when he is liberated from all material ideas, including the conception of his becoming one in all respects with God. Therefore one may conclude that the Gītā confirms the living entity to be only one of the multi-energies of Kṛṣṇa; and when this energy is freed from material contamination, it becomes fully Kṛṣṇa conscious, or liberated.

http://vedabase.net/bg/en

Srila Prabhupada makes it simple without a lot of complicated references to this and to that.

It is said by Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī, "When one is actually liberated from material contamination, he can always remember an eternal devotee in Vṛndāvana in order to love Kṛṣṇa in the same capacity. And developing such an aptitude, one will always live in Vṛndāvana, even within his mind." The purport is that if it is possible one should go and physically be present at Vrajabhūmi, Vṛndāvana, and be engaged always in the service of the Lord, following the devotees in Vraja-dhāma, the spiritual realm of Vraja. If it is not possible, however, to be physically present at Vṛndāvana, one can meditate anywhere upon living in that situation. Wherever he may be, one must always think about life in Vraja-dhāma and about following in the footsteps of a particular devotee in the service of the Lord.

 

A devotee who is actually advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, who is constantly engaged in devotional service, should not manifest himself, even though he has attained perfection. The idea is that he should always continue to act as a neophyte devotee as long as his material body is there. Activities in devotional service under regulative principles must be followed even by the pure devotee. But when he realizes his actual position in relationship with the Lord, he can, along with the discharging of regulative service, think within himself of the Lord, under the guidance of a particular associate of the Lord, and develop his transcendental sentiments in following that associate.

 

In this connection, we should be careful about the so-called siddha-praṇālī. The siddha-praṇālī process is followed by a class of men who are not very authorized and who have manufactured their own way of devotional service. They imagine that they have become associates of the Lord simply by thinking of themselves like that. This external behavior is not at all according to the regulative principles. The so-called siddha-praṇālī process is followed by the prākṛta-sahajiyā, a pseudosect of so-called Vaiṣṇavas. In the opinion of Rūpa Gosvāmī, such activities are simply disturbances to the standard way of devotional service.

This is the long and the short of it.

We hear about Krishna lila from the proper shastric sources and find a parshada that becomes our role model.

We always think about that role model and the role model's service in the lila of Krishna.

The siddha pranali process teaches one to think of himself as a particular eternal associate of Krishna rather than thinking of the parshada role model one has chosen out of his own inclination.

That is the difference.

In siddha pranali you are imaging yourself to be an associate of Krishna.

In the actual Rupanuga sampradaya one thinks of the parshada that one has the most affinity for and cherishes a desire to serve in that way.

Then, at the time of death the devotee is transferred to a universe where the pastimes of Krishna are being manifested and takes a birth that enables one to follow in the footsteps of the parshada that he always remembered and thought about.

There are people religion who doesn’t believe in past life.

Then they are not ready for higher knowledge and are therefore very unfortunate and cannot have higher knowledge and learn how to attain salvation from material suffering.

Maybe after many more lifetimes of suffering they will accept the truth of reincarnation.

Ignorant people cannot be helped if they are not willing to accept the teaching of Lord Krishna in Bhagavad-gita.

Another bogus saraswata myth. Read the autobiograpy of Bhaktivinoda Thakura to find out for yourself.

 

The documented historical truth is that Bipina Bihari rejected Bhaktivinoda Thakura several years after Thakura's death for fabricating evidence to support his claims of the exact place of Mahaprabhu's birth. Bipina Bihari felt cheated by his favourite disciple because it was that fabricated evidence that made BB support BVT cause. He was hurt by such deception.

who cares......

Siddha pranali is not allowed in the Saraswata Gaudiya sect.

I am quite fine with that.

I don't need or want any bogus siddha pranali from some bogus neophyte who hasn't even perfected his own "siddha deha".

I don't care what Bhaktivinoda did.

It is none of my concern.

I know that siddha pranali is not practiced or allowed in the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya and that is quite fine with me.

I am happy without this cheap siddha pranali siddha deha.

I don't need it and I don't want it and that is the way that the majority of devotees in the KC movement feel.

The devotees who follow the siddha pranali process are just a small sect of the KC movement.

Most followers of Srila Prabhupada know well that Srila Prabhupada was against the practice of siddha pranali.

That is good enough for me.

Many Vaishnavas in our movement who practiced sincerely for the last 30-40 years are quite ready for siddha pranali.

Ready for siddha pranali?

No Saraswata Gaudiya will ever be ready for siddha pranali because it is outlawed in the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya.

Siddha deha is an internal realization. It is not something that your guru has to tell you about.

One's siddha deha will be realized upon perfection of Nama bhajan and cannot be artificially assigned to an unfit neophyte.

Siddha-deha is an attainment of spiritual trance.

It is not something that can be given to a neophyte through some cheap siddha pranali process.

The perfect soul takes birth in Vraja-lila where Krishna is performing his pastimes in some universe. He doesn't need prior information about it.

Krishna knows his inner heart and will give him the right birth in Vraja lila according to the inner necessity of the devotee.

The process of receiving siddha pranali has just become a cheap imitiation of some sort.

It is not at all necessary in order to take birth in Krishna lila and naturally develop through a gradual sequence one's rasa with Krishna.

That is what Vraja lila provides; a chance for souls coming up to take birth in Vrindavan and realize fully their own love for Krishna.

Siddha pranali is mostly just an excuse for not following the instructions of Lord Chaitanya and preaching Harinama all over the world.

Siddha pranali is a business for many sahajiyas and therefore the process has been discredited and disgraced.

Who needs it?

Nobody.

That is a total lie. Nowhere in his writings does Bhaktivinoda indicate that he considered anyone but Bipin Bihari as his guru and he continues to praise his guru as a nitya-siddha manjari untill his last days.

 

Unfortunately Saraswatas produced many false stories to prove that their 'innovations' had the backing of Bhaktivinoda.

What you think you know about Bhaktivinoda is not approved by Srila Saraswati Goswami.

It is well known fact that Srila Bhaktivinoda rejected Vipina Bihari Goswami.

It is well documented that a rift caused Bhaktivinoda to reject Vipina Bihari Goswami.

Insiders of the time have documented it and it is no secret except to outsiders from the siddha pranali section who like to try and validate their bogus siddha pranali by citing Bhaktivinoda as evidence.

Bhaktivinoda also wrote Sri Krishna Samhita before he ever met Vipina Bihari Goswami, so he was obviously a realized siddha before he ever met Vipina Bihari Goswami.

That is what the siddha pranali imitators won't admit is that Bhaktivinoda was a siddha before he ever knew Vipina Bihari Goswami.

You should read about Vaishnava Saints from OBL Kapoor books to see how wrong that statement is.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura received siddha pranali from his guru, Bipina Bihari and passed it onto Lalita Prasada and several other disciples.

Bhaktivinoda rejected the guru who gave him siddha pranali, so that is a poor argument.

What Bhaktivinoda might have done and his reasons for doing it are really a mystery.

What we do know is that Srila Saraswati Thakur rejected the process and the process is not accepted or even respected by the Saraswata Gaudiyas.

Bhaktivinoda was not a Saraswata Gaudiya. The Saraswata Gaudiyas are the followers of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur whom did not approve of the siddha pranali process.

ISKCON in all it's faults has at least managed to prevent this siddha pranali influence from taking hold in ISKCON.

None of the disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur accepted or practiced the siddha pranali process.

Siddha pranali is only practiced by some non-Saraswata Gaudiyas.

The Saraswata acharyas all were strongly opposed to the practice.

If someone chooses to go against their wishes that siddha pranali be purged from the sampradaya they can certainly do that, but such a person should certainly not consider himself a follower of Srila Prabhupada if he does so.