muralidhar_das

<blockquote> What does Sri Ananta Das Babaji Maharaja say about Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja's mission of sending Srila Prabhupada to preach in the western hemisphere? </blockquote> Ananta Das Babaji tells his disciples to be respectfult of other people, most especially people who are devotees and who are chanting the Holy Names, such as devotees within ISKCON or the Gaudiya Math.

Madhavavananda if you have faith in your guru then of course you will teach others what you have learned from him. The thing is, though, that this artificial "traditional" vs "IGM" dichotomy that you, I repeat YOU, manufactured, naturally invites people to say, "who is genuine, who is a neo-Vaishnava". And from there it goes on - yadda yadda yadda. Really I find no justification whatsoever for anyone saying that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and his descendents are anything less than authentic Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Madhavananda, Perhaps I should make it perfectly clear what I want from you. It I don't want you to repudiate your current guru and I don't want to disturb your sraddha. What I want is that you and your allies should stop trying to preach to us that you have a higher knowledge of the scriptures than what has come down to us through our Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. In other words, I am sick of the way your group act like Pandits and tell us we don't know what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is really about. Here is a short list of things you and your friends have sought to educate us about in the past. What colour clothes a Gaudiya Vaishnav will wear. What Guru-Parampara means. Siddha-Pranali, ekadasa bhava etc. Lalita Prashad's version of Bhaktivinode Thakur's teachings. What place it was, where Sri Nimai was born. The process of Diksa. One of the main reasons I've persisted with that discussion about Siddha-pranali is that I was tired of your harping on about how we descendents of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur have no parampara because we don't get given siddha-pranali. And what is the conclusion that comes out through all my research: Your spiritual body is already inside you and you don't NEED to be told about it since knowledge of it will arise naturally when you are at the appropriate stage to meditate on your spiritual body. Madhavananda if you stopped trying to collect followers by preaching against what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur taught then I would show the same regard for you that I show for Vaishnavas such as the devotees and sevait Acharyas at Radha-Damodara, Radha-Syamsundar or Radha-Raman. Stop trying to be a leech sucking on the body of the Hare Krishna movement. It is just as if your group are leeches trying to suck blood or people out of the Hare Krishna movement. I agree with Advaitadas's assessment that you have been trying to get some followers for yourself. Instead, why don't you go out on the streets with a mrdanga or kartals and try to attract people with the sound of Hare Krishna that you vibrate on your lips. If you do that then you will get respect from the disciples within the Hare Krishna movement. This movement was started by Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada when he sat down under a tree in New York city. If you go and sit under a tree in a park near your house and you loudly chant Hare Krishna then we will begin to feel that you are someone worthy of our respect.

Point by point: <h2>1)</h2><blockquote> Just because they admit that an unrealized soul can be a guru, doesn´t meant they are saying their guru parampara has any members that didn´t/don´t have true realization. </blockquote> response: But if some of the people in the parampara were telling their successors an "imaginary manjari name and form" then they were giving false and misleading instructions. But anyway, Srila Gaurakishore das Babaji received diksa either from someone in the Advaita vamsa or in the line of Nityanananda Prabhu. Then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur saw that Srila Gaurakishore das Babaji was an uttama-adhikari Vaishnava and accepted him as Guru, and never bothered telling his disciples anything much about the disksa line of Srila Gaurakishore das Babaji. Why would he? It doesn't matter. Just as in the Bhagavatam where we see that so many souls accept an uttama-adhikari Vaishnava as Guru and then never ask him "what is your lineage". <blockquote>Srila Sridhar Maharaj: Suppose a scientist researches some truth. After a few generations, another scientist comes and takes up that thread and continues his research. Then after a few more generations, another comes and takes up that thread and goes on. If we are to understand the real channel through which the particular research is progressing, we will have to study the important thinkers who helped bring it out. We see that Copernicus has contributed something before Galileo began, then Newton came. Then there may be a gap for some time, and from Newton, we find that Einstein took it up. In this way, there may be a gap, but still that thread is continued. An intelligent man will see that it began with a particular person, and then it came to another, and then came here. That will be the proper line of research. So, in the spiritual line this also holds true. </blockquote> <h2>2)</h2><blockquote> You seem to have misunderstood what siddha pranali is altogether. In Bhaktivinode explanation of it, the siddha deha comes to one´s awareness through hearing and chanting the Lord´s qualities, names, forms and pastimes. When the desire to attain a position in those lilas appears in the heart, and one wants to follow in the footsteps of a ragatmika bhakta, then one begins raganuga bhakti sadhana. And it is a part of sadhana bhakti, not siddha bhakti! </blockquote> response: Yes I fully agree that when a soul desires to render service in Vraja under the guidance of a ragatmika bhakta then one begins raganuga sadhana. This of course is what I stated in my first post on this thread, quoting Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.2.291. If one feels attracted to a particular rasa and meditates upon the feelings that your "favourite" ragatmika Vrajabasi is experiencing, then your own inner feelings and a realization of your own spiritual body will awaken within you at the appropriate time. Further to this, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada wrote: <blockquote> Srimad Bhagavatam 10.9.3 TRANSLATION Dressed in a saffron-yellow sari, with a belt tied about her full hips, mother Yasoda- pulled on the churning rope, laboring considerably, her bangles and earrings moving and vibrating and her whole body shaking. Because of her intense love for her child, her breasts were wet with milk. Her face, with its very beautiful eyebrows, was wet with perspiration, and malati flowers were falling from her hair. PURPORT Anyone who desires to be Krsna conscious in motherly affection or parental affection should contemplate the bodily features of mother Yasoda. It is not that one should desire to become like Yasoda-, for this is Mayavada. Either in parental affection or conjugal love, friendship or servitorship — in any way — we must follow in the footsteps of the inhabitants of Vr?nda-vana, not try to become like them. Therefore this description is provided here. Advanced devotees must cherish this description, always thinking of mother Yasoda's features — how she was dressed, how she was working and perspiring, how beautifully the flowers were arranged in her hair, and so on. One should take advantage of the full description provided here by thinking of mother Yasoda in maternal affection for Krsna. </blockquote> <h2>3)</h2><blockquote> This sadhana includes meditating on the particular spiritual identity that one aspires for. And the guru shold be able to help the disciple in this regard, and himself having realized his spiritual identity and service, etc. </blockquote> Yes the Guru should be able to help the disciple. If he has realized his spiritual identity and service, etc. Like I said earlier, I agree that a siddha-Vaishnava can tell his disciple about the disciple's eternal spiritual body. (I disagree with Kunjabihari das babaji of course, since he says that you get GIVEN a spiritual body by your guru.) But there is also this to consider, too. In Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Bhajana-rahasya he said the following: <blockquote> adhikara na labhiya siddhadeha bhave viparyaya buddhi janme saktira abhave "If one thinks of their siddha-deha without achieving the adhikara (necessary realization), their intelligence gets bewildered." </blockquote> This is especially the case for men who still from time to time imagine themself as "masculine" and who desire to enjoy sex with women. How can a man who still lusts for woman appreciate the real feelings felt by the gopis? What people get, when they meditate on these things in an immature stage, is merely a shadow or a semblence of madhura rasa. And since the possibility for commiting offences in that sacred arena is there this type of meditation is dangerous. Jagat and Tinkori das babaji's disciple Nitai have both delved into this "erotic" stuff and both of them ended up studying and commending sahajiya sex practices as methods of spiritual practice. Need we look any further than them, when considering if this type of meditation is useful for neophytes? Gadadhar Pran also enjoys illicit relations with his ladies, and calls himself a guru, and gives people "siddha-pranali". Is that Bhakti? I don't believe it is! Consider this, also: <blockquote> Sripad Bhakti Promod Puri Maharaj: Srila Prabhupada called our disciplic succession the Bhagavata-parampara. Why did he give it this name? Normally, people give a list of Gosvamis' names—all those who belonged to that particular family of gurus. Sometimes these include women. Was every one of these people a perfected soul or siddha? What do we mean by siddha? There are sadhakas or aspirants for perfection and siddhas, or those who have attained perfection. The name is there, siddha-pranali, but it is not enough just to have a name. Have they all attained perfection on the path of devotion? Devotion begins with practices that we call sadhana. But when one becomes perfected in these practices, he is called siddha. The characteristics of someone who is on the platform of perfection are described in the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. Amongst other things, the siddha is omniscient. avijnatakhila-klesah sada krsnasrita-kriyah siddhah syuh santata-prema-saukhyasvada-parayanah 'The siddhas have no awareness of any material suffering. All their actions are consecrated to Krsna and they are only engaged in constantly relishing the joys of love for Krsna.' (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 2.1.280) </blockquote> <h2>4)</h2><blockquote> And you, Muralidhar das, are not in a position to determine who has realization or not. Especially not when you have a holier than thou attitude towards all others. I know how you members of SCSM are and it is the worst of all Gaudiya Maths when it comes to sectarianism. </blockquote> Hare Krishna

Chapter 18. Conclusion--The Perfection of Renunciation TEXT 13-14 pancaitani maha-baho karanani nibodha me sankhye krtante proktani siddhaye sarva-karmanam adhisthanam tatha karta karanam ca prthag-vidham vividhas ca prthak cesta daivam caivatra pancamam SYNONYMS panca--five; etani--all these; maha-baho--O mighty-armed one; karanani--cause; nibodha--just understand; me--from Me; sankhye--in the Vedas; krta-ante--after performance; proktani--said; siddhaye--perfection; sarva--all; karmanam--actuated. adhisthanam--place; tatha--also; karta--worker; karanam ca--and instruments; prthak-vidham--different kinds; vividhah ca--varieties; prthak--separately; cestah--endeavor; daivam--the Supreme; ca--also; eva--certainly; atra--here; pancamam--five. TRANSLATION O mighty-armed Arjuna, learn from Me of the five factors which bring about the accomplishment of all action. These are declared in sankhya philosophy to be the place of action, the performer, the senses, the endeavor, and ultimately the Supersoul.

The answer to your question is simple, Sundarananda. Ananta das babaji and the people in his group make a distinction between "siddha" Vaishnavas and non-liberated Vaishnavas. Actually it is in the scriptures, so they are right in this. They also say that a non-siddha devotee can become a Guru. They are right again, because a madhyam adhikari Guru can fulfil the service of a Guru. However when a person is given "siddha-pranali" the guru will tell them their gopi name, and only a siddha will really know this, not a madhyam or kanistha. So since they also admit that most of the gurus they accept are not siddhas, then they are accepting people as gurus who give "imaginary names and forms".

Kunjabihari das babaji, Ananta das babaji, Madrasi Krishndas babaji And yes, I've read Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's books.

A siddha or "perfected" devotee can give information to a disciple about swarup siddhi but they don't GIVE SIDDHA-DEHA. That is impossible because the siddha-deha of a jiva is eternally part of the jiva. Read Brhadbhagavatamrtam and Vedanta Sutra - it is stated there very clearly. As I said previously, a devotee who has attained realzation of "swarup siddhi" will be able tell someone else about their spiritual name and form. They know it - they can describe and explain it. We accept that Srila Saraswati Thakur knew his swarup siddhi and that he could tell a disciple, such as Kunjada, "You are Bimala Manjari". So the proposition that a Guru can give instruction of this type is not in and of itself wrong. What is VERY WRONG is that a junior (madhyam or kanistha) Vaishnava who is not a siddha and who has become a guru will go and tell a disciple "you are such-and-such manjari", when in fact that (madhyam or kanistha) Vaishnava acting as a Guru has no REAL PERCEPTION of his disciple's siddha-deha. This sort of inauthentic "tradition" has been going on for three hundred years now; however it is a fact that it is not real Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Om ajnana timirandasya... Saraswati is the giver of light. Babajis who have deviated from the teachings of Srila Sanatan Goswami are the perpetuators of darkness.

Moderator Please do not delete that abusive posting addressed to Shiva that is above. Leave it there for everyone to see, so devotees everywhere will see just what sort of people we are dealing with, when we deal with these "orthodox" or "traditional" men.

Madhava, I had an attitude of live and let live towards you and your friends for a long time and I even encouraged you to re-make your forums after an earlier meltdown you had - your forums had become a cesspool and like now you decided to close it down. I said that I believe in free speech and that your group should have a forum; my desire however was that on your forums you people should not attack "IGM" Acharyas (IGM being YOUR jargon for "ISKCON/Gaudiya Math"). Over time I had developed some familiarity with you and you invited me to join your forums (more than once you suggested it). So for the purpose of trying to bring about some peace with people who were spreading very heavy AND UNTRUE stories about my Gurus, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Saraswati Thakur, I entered those forums for a while. But after a period of involvement I left that behind -- quite a long time ago. You say to me now that the sort of issues I brought up in my email to you two months ago were not "devotionally uplifting". I wrote private emails to Jagat and you asking you to carefully check what Srila Sanatan Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana say in certain places in the scriptures, and to contrast that with your guru's ideas about 'guru-given-siddha-deha'. What happened then? You didn't answer for a long time. In fact you only answered after Jagat (without asking me) published my private email to him on your site. In fact Jagat (the scholar) said that the scriptural conclusions I presented did seem to be right (with the implication being that the Radhakunda babaji pandits are wrong). And what did you do then? You remember what happened, don't you? I remember it. It was the way you acted then that made me agree with Advaitadas, in my opinion of you.

Like Advaitadas, I also received this apology in my email inbox yesterday. Like Shiva, I feel this apology by Madhavananda has little value since he didn't apologize to the senior Vaishnavas who he and his friends have abused the most on his internet forums: Srila Bhaktivionde Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. Indeed I read Madhavananda's apology just as Shiva reads it - he is trumpeting the greatness of his so-called "orthodoxy" who he thinks are bonafide while completely ignoring our predecessor Gurus, Srila Bhaktivionde Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, who he has spent so many years of his short lifetime abusing. Shiva, I feel your assessment of his apology was perfectly right. Like Advaitadas, I have personal experience of Madhavananda's dishonesty. Madhavananda actually spends a lot of time in his "apology" putting down the person who he says was misleading him (Jagat). But in my dealings with them I have found Jagat to be more honest, honourable and truthful than Madhavananda. At least Jagat is honest. Jagat openly says he appreciates sahajiya sex practices. A man who is truthful is more advanced in spiritual life than a dishonest man who hides and obfuscates things. Two months ago I wrote to Madhavananda das with some serious questions in regard to the (Siddha-pranali) philsophy his current Guru teaches (Ananta das Babaji). I pointed out to him that this "guru-given-siddha-deha" or "siddha-pranali" doctrine being preached by his Guru at Radha-kunda is contrary to the teachings of Sri Sanatana Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana . Yesterday, I received that apology in my email box, but that apology letter isn't what I want from him. I want him to tell me what explanation the Radha-kunda babajis have to give in response to the fact that their philosophy of "guru-given-siddha-deha" is contrary to the teachings of Sri Sanatana Goswami and Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

Ask Jayatirtha Charan das at http://www.salagram.net/ for info about this that will be a more appropriate forum to talk about things like this.

Books will only take you to a particular point... beyond that, you will need direct realization Of all the books you can find, Chaitanya Charitamrta is the highest. Antya lila. The pastimes of Mahaprabhu at the Gambhira in Puri. There is nothing higher than what is spoken about there. In regard to "Rasika" literature, Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaj said: <blockquote> Even we are not allowed, by our master, to read the books where they are described: Govinda-lilamrtam, Stava-Mala, Vilapa-kusumañjali, Ujjvala-nilamani, he did not allow to study and discuss. Rather he would have been very much disturbed if he heard that someone is interfering with the higher lila in those books. He did not like it. Dusta phala koribe arjan, Bhaktivinode Thakur is giving warning that we will get only bad results, if we venture to cross the line, a bad effect will come to you — aparadha. From the lower position, anartha, the steps are shown: sraddha, sadhu sangha, sravan, kirtan, then anartha nivrttih, undesirable things will vanish altogether, then nistha, then ruci, then asakti, then bhava bhakti, the sprout of real devotion, then prema bhakti, and sneha, mana, pranaya raga, anuraga, bhava, mahabhava. By such steps are we to approach there. </blockquote> http://www.dailydarshan.com/ (PS, there were a couple of errors in the quote I gave initially, so I removed this posting and went and found the original quote of Srila Sridhar Maharaj talking about Ujjvala Nilamani etc, which you can find in the lead article on the Daily Darshan site)

Post deleted by muralidhar_das

You make some good points that devotees might like to discuss. But perhaps it will be best to discuss these topics on another thread. You and I both know that these forum discussions often turn into a babel and a mess. If you don't mind, let's keep this thread for discussions about Siddha-pranali and the false belief that you get "given a spiritual body" by your guru.

Pankaj, the quote you are thinking of is here in the chapter "nama guru and mantra guru" http://www.guardian-of-devotion.de/books/GURUAND.PDF

Yes, what Kulapavana has said is perfectly right. This is the conclusion given by the previous Acharyas and given in the scriptures. One thing though, the mantra with the names "krishna govinda gopijanaballabha" in it is not Kamagayatri. This "krishna govinda" mantra is called the Bijamantra. Kamagayatri is "kamadevaya vidmahe" etc. The mantra "krishna govinda gopijanaballabha" is the mantra Sri Chaitanyadeva received from his Guru, Sri Ishwara Puri. Receiving this mantra is called "diksa". Receiving the Hare Krishna Mantra is called receiving Harinama. You are only supposed to have one diksa Guru - that is, you should only get the mantra "krishna govinda gopijanaballabha" from one Guru. Technically speaking, a person who has received the Harinama mantra has not received diksa. In regard to diksa, see what Mahaprabhu said: http://www.caitanyacaritamrta.com/madhya/15/108/en

In the commentary of Sri Madvacharya (1238-1317) to verse 4.4.5 of the Vedanta Sutra he states: <blockquote> The sage Jaimini believes that a liberated person does not have a body of his own. Rather, he enjoys experiences through the body of the all-pervading Absolute Godhead known as Vishnu. It is stated in the Sruti scriptures (Veda) that a liberated soul sees through the eyes of the Lord, hears through His ears etc. The same is also stated in the Smriti scriptures. However the sage Audulomi holds the view that a liberated soul enjoys through a spiritual body of his own, which is essentially made up of divine knowledge (jnana). The form or body of a liberated soul is always defined as being the embodiment of divine knowledge (jnana). A spiritual body made of pure knowledge can never be the cause of worldly attachment or misery (samsara). It is a "bliss-body" that is appropriate for a soul in the state of liberation (mukti). The sage Badarayana Vyasa sees no conflict between the views of Jaimini and Audulomi. He reconciles both of them and sees both as authentic. The scriptures state that a liberated soul does not possess a material body like the body of a person in illusion, hence Jaimini's view that a liberated soul does not have a body is authentic. The Sruti scriptures also state that after relinquishing the material body a liberated soul is an embodiment of spiritual knowledge. Thus Audulomi's view is also authentic. The reconciliation is achieved by arguing that a liberated soul has his knowledge-bliss body and he enjoys pleasure through the instrumentality of the limbs of God's transcendental (aprakrita) body. </blockquote> This is the view of Sri Madvacharya and the Tattva-vada school in regard to whether or not a liberated soul has a spiritual body. A different view is presented by Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusan: <blockquote> The individual soul who, by means of devotional service accompanied with knowledge and renunciation, attains the effulgent Supreme, becomes free from the bondage of karma and attains a body endowed with eight virtues. This body is said to be the soul's original form. Why is that? The sutra explains, "svena-sabdat" (because of the word "svena"). The word "svena" here means, "in his own original form". For this reason it cannot be said that this passage means, "the soul arrives there and then accepts a form which is an external imposition". In that way it is proved that the form here is the original form of the soul. This is not contradicted by the use of the word "ninpadyate" in the verse being discussed from Chandogya Upaniñad, for that word is also used to mean, "is manifested". Also, it is not that the manifestation of the soul's original form cannot be a goal of human endeavour because the original form already exists. This is so because even though the soul's original form exists it is not openly manifested. Therefore it is not useless to say that the soul may endeavour to make manifest the original form of the soul. </blockquote> In his commentary to verse 2.2186 of Sri Brhadbhagavatamrtam, Srila Sanatan Gosvami quotes this verse by Shankaracarya: <blockquote>mukta api lilaya vigraham kritva bhagavantam bhajanta "Even the liberated assume a form and worship the Lord in his pastimes". </blockquote> Srila Sanatan Gosvami quotes Srimad Bhagavatam 6.14.5 <blockquote> muktanam api siddhanam narayana parayana "The liberated and perfected souls are engaged in Narayan's service." </blockquote> Srila Sanatan Goswami then asks himself: 'If liberated souls didn't have forms then how could they engage in the Lord's service? The answer: <blockquote>Bhagavati layam praptasyapi nri dehasya mahamuneh punar narayana rupena pradurbhavah. "Even those who have merged into the Lord have dormant human forms." </blockquote> Srila Sanatan Goswami's statement is conclusive. Souls have dormant human-like forms that exist even when the soul is not or has not ever engaged in bhakti. A disciple of the late Madrasi Krishnadas Babaji of Radhakunda was quoted earlier, mistranslating a verse in CC (Madhya lila, 22:156-157), saying that the spiritual "manjari form" is an "orally guru-given spiritual body". And similarly Kunjabihari das Babaji states "When an individual becomes qualified for direct service to the Lord by the grace of the Goddess of Devotion, then the Supreme Lord awards him that spiritual body." -- This is the opinion they professed; it is the belief they have in their "traditionalist Gaudiya Vaishnava" school of thought. Clearly, these Babajis have a different opinion from Srila Sanatan Goswami. <h2>LET ME PRESENT MY FINAL CONCLUSION HERE:</h2> Have the "traditionalist Gaudiya Vaishnavas" ever found any quotes in any of the writings of the Six Goswamis that say a jiva gets given or awarded a spiritual body? NO. Indeed these so-called traditionalists are not followers of the genuine Gaudiya Vaishnava spiritual tradition. From now on, I have decided, I will henceforth never refer to them as "traditionalist Gaudiya Vaishnavas" but rather as imitationist Gaudiya Vaishnavas. This in fact is the term my Guru Maharaj used when he spoke of these Radha-kunda babajis and like minded people. In his teachings, Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur presented the same view that Srila Sanatan Goswami presented in Sri Brhadbhagavatamrtam. Souls have dormant human-like forms that exist even when the soul is not or has not ever engaged in bhakti. Sri Sanatana Goswami wrote in his commentary to Brhad Bhagatamrtam, verse 2.2.207: "When a liberated soul gains the favor of the Supreme Lord's personal energy, his spiritual body and senses are reawakened for hearing and chanting the glories of Lord Hari and acting in other ways for the Lord's pleasure." In his Govinda Bhasya commentary to Vedanta Sutra 4.4.12, the verse "Dvadasahavadubhayavidham baadarayano'tah", Baladeva Vidyabhusana states: <blockquote> the liberated soul, by his own wish, may either have a body or not have a body </blockquote> The same opinion is presented by the followers of Sri Adi Shankaracharya. For example we read the same thing in Sivananda Swami's commentary to this verse: <blockquote> a liberated soul who has attained Brahmaloka can exist both ways, with or without a body, according to his liking </blockquote> Thus it is, the sages tell us, that a liberated soul can be formless or manifesting a form. The spiritual form of the self of a siddha being can manifest transformations (parinamavada). Transformations of the liberated form of the self are described in Brhad Bhagatamrtam 2.4.35-41 where we read about people who are attaining siddha-deha and entering into Vaikuntha: <blockquote> Some came with associates, some with paraphernalia, and some with both associates and paraphernalia. Some merged their associates and paraphernalia in their own selves and became like penniless solitary sages plunged in the nectar of meditation. Some moment by moment manifested different wonderful and charming forms, each opulent with different and wonderful ornaments, features and pastimes. Some were humans, some monkeys, some demigods, some demons, and some sages. Others carried the marks of being initiated in the orders of varna and ashrama. Some were like Indra, Chandra or the other demigods. Some had three eyes, some four heads, and some four arms, some eight arms, and some a thousand faces. I will tell you the reason for this great wonder: How can they who taste the nectar of devotion to Lord Krishna not be handsome? The glories of Vaikuntha's residents, who are all beyond the material world of five elements, the glories of Vaikunthaloka and of Vaikuntha's hero, Narayana, cannot be described with the examples drawn from the world of five elements. </blockquote> The jiva does not get given a spiritual body by a Guru. The jiva soul will self-manifest a form that he will assume according to his desire, when he/she enters the sprititual world. This is the conclusion clearly presented in Vedanta Sutra by the sage Vyasa and in the Govinda Bhasya commentary of Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana. The same thing is presented by Sri Sanatan Goswami in Brhad Bhagatamrtam, and by Adi Shankaracharya: mukta api lilaya vigraham kritva bhagavantam bhajanta: "Even the liberated assume a form and worship the Lord in his pastimes."

Madhavananda was logged in as Raga. Just read the posts by Raga if you want to know what he thinks. Gaurasundara dasa is an admirer of Raga.

Receiving the mantra is "diksa". Receiving instruction (divya jnana) is "siksa". When you get initiation you also get some instruction. But initiation itself is when Sri Guru speaks the mantra to you. Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati gave initiation to one gentleman who was dying in Dacca by speaking the mantra to him via telephone. He also allowed Bon Maharaj to give ritvik initiation to Sadananda in Europe. In both cases, the disciple is considered to be a direct disciple of Srila Saraswati Thakur. The main thing, according to Srila B.S. Govinda Maharaj, is the WILL of the Guru. If his will is that the disciple is accepted, then the physical circumstances of the ritual are unimportant. If the circumstances are such that the connection is through the medium of a telephone line, or if the disciple is right beside the Guru and he speaks the mantra in your ear, it is all the same.

If you want to know what Madhavananda and co. really think about ISKCON, the Gaudiya Math and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, take a look at this old thread on this Audarya forum. Start with JNDas's summary at the end of the page.

Shiva, I believe the translation Kusakratha Prabhu did was done very quickly. He is an exalted devotee, but in those translations of his I have seen some glaring errors. In regard to Madhavananda, below is a memorable quote of Madhavananda dasa, the moderator of the now defunct Gaudiya Discussions web site. ========================= Gaudiya Discussions Our Principles and Guidelines > Gaudiya Discussions > OTHER DISCUSSIONS > COMMUNITY, MODERATION AND FEEDBACK > What is a traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava?, Clarification of the term Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic Madhava post Feb 20 2005, 04:54 AM Post #1 Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas are defined as the main target audience of Gaudiya Discussions. There is a need to clarify the exact meaning of the term in the context of this website to avoid misunderstandings. Traditional in the definition of the target audience of of Gaudiya Discussions refers to devotees who have received diksha and are engaged in the sadhana-practices taught in one of the many unbroken diksha-paramparas (disciplic successions traced through mantra-initiation) traced back to the companions of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, such as Nityananda Prabhu, Advaita Prabhu, Gadadhar Pandit, Lokanath Goswami, Gopala Bhatta Goswami and Gopala Guru Goswami. A traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava may or may not cook traditional Indian food, play traditional Indian instruments or adopt traditional Indian gender roles. Social traditions are beyond the scope of the definition here. The word traditional has been selected in favor of other alternatives, such as orthodox or classical, for lack of a better term. The word orthodox is misleading as (1) it implies that there is a particular, single orthodoxy that is followed, which is by no means the case in the vast plurality of our tradition, and (2) among traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas, there is also much disagreement over what exactly constitutes an orthodox view on some issues. The word classical, while being a good alternative, is not as inclusive a word as traditional. The division into traditional and non-traditional is made in particular with ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha in mind. We do not regard them as being a part of traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism, given the fact that Gaudiya Matha's founder, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, was very explicit in his desire to break off from most of the existing traditions, for all practical purposes forming a new kind of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. While we respect his reform and innovations, we may disagree on several of its aspects, and therefore feel it as being essentially outside the scope of this forum. This post is really only an announcement, not an attempt to start a discussion on the topic. It is therefore not open to replies. ========================= ============ ============ ============ this link here is another classic quote from Madhavananda: Madhava said: Bhaktivinoda is a controversial teacher in many respects. He is definitely not in the mainstream tradition.

Didn't Jayakrishna Das baba live in the 1600s? -------------------- He lived after Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura (eighteenth-century)

In regard to sectarianism, my friend Govinda, it may come as something of a shock to you but it is a fact that many of these "Traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas" do not even accept that devotees of ISKCON or the Gaudiya Math are actually Gaudiya Vaishnavas. You also mentioned Srila Narottama das Thakur. This also may shock you, my friend, but there are some "paribars" where devotees maintain the belief that only a person born in a family of "traditional" brahmins should become a Guru. Since Srila Narottama das Thakur was not born in a brahmin family and he became a guru with brahmanas as his disciples ... I leave it to you to finish the sentence above. But what I will say is this. Syamananda Thakur was from a sudra family... and Mahaprabhu said: kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya, yei krishna tattva vetta sei guru haya (Anyone, regardless of caste, may become a guru if he knows Krishna in truth.) Anyway, we of course know that not all "traditionalists" behave in the same way towards Srila Saraswati Thakur and his descendents. My siksa-guru, Srila B.S. Govinda Maharaj has very intimate relationships with numerous "traditionalist" gurus and devotees in Orissa, Bengal and Vraja. The Vrajabasi sevaks and Acharyas at Radha Damodara, Radha Syamasundara and other temples are his intimate friends. Indeed, Krishna Ballabha Vrajabasi (living at Radha Syamasundara compound) arranged for Srila Govinda Maharaj to purchase the old (dilapidated) temple of Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj which adjoins Radha-Syamsundara Mandir, and that temple has now been renovated and opened up as new branch temple of SCSMath. Without having an excellent relationship with these Vrajavasi Vaishnavas, Srila Govinda Maharaj could not have got that temple. So I think this shows that some "traditionalists" have excellent relations with some followers of Srila Saraswati Thakur Prabhupada. Also, it is a bit extreme to say that someone is making this "siddha pranali" issue a club to beat people on the head with. The simple points I wanted to make are that the evidence clearly shows 1) nobody ever gets given a spiritual body 2) you don't need to know about siddha-pranali in order to engage in raganuga bhakti 2) you don't need to be told about your siddha-deha, since it will arise from within when you develop the proper mood of devotion.