muralidhar_das

Madhava, Yes I agree with your statement about the use of the word "Goswami" or "Gosai". A householder brahmin in the Gaudiya Sampraday is often called "Goswami" as his family name, and as you say that tradition goes right back to the time of Advaita Gosai. Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj (a disciple of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur) had the family name of "Goswami". Like Srila Govinda Maharaj, he was from a family of Gaudiya caste-goswamis. Then again, Totarama das Babaji declared: aula, baula, kartabhaja, neda, daravesa, sani, sahajiya, sakhibeki, smarta, jata-gosani, ativadi, cudadhari, gauranga-nagari tato kahe, ei terara sanga nahi kari The aula, baula, kartabhaja, neda, daravesa, sani, sahajiya, sakhibheki, smarta, jata-gosani, ativadi, cudadhari, gauranga-nagari - do not associate with them. In regard to Pundarika Vidyanidhi, it is a fact that he smoked a hukka. But Gadadhara Pandit realized it was an offence to see him as a conditioned soul, and he took diksa from him. But then we need to use some discrimination and we shouldn't be fooled by baul gurus who have harems and whose followers say they are just followers of the raga-marga. In regard to the disiples giving money to a guru who used it for buying material pleasures for his son. If the disciples don't disagree, this doesn't make it right. What do Rupa-Sanatana say about these things? That is our concern. Would Rupa-Sanatana agree that a man who is a professional guru can bestow "siddha-pranali" on his son, or anyone else? I really would challenge the proposition that Rupa-Sanatana would agree. <blockquote> Sri Rupa Goswami vimuktakilatar yair ya muktir api vimrgyate ya krsnenatigopy asu bhajadbhyo ‘pi na diyate sa bhukti-mukti-kamatva cchuddham bhaktim akurvatam hrdaye sambhavat yesam katham bhagavati ratih Rati, the feeling of attraction to Krishna that is sought after by souls who have sacrificed all selfish desires, the feeling of attraction which Sri Krishna withholds in great secrecy, is not easily conferred by him even to devotees who are engaged in spiritual practices. How can there be an appearance of rati in the hearts of those who do not practice unalloyed and pure bhakti because of manifold desires for elevation and salvation, or in the hearts of those who are anxious for self-destruction by way of desiring for merging in the Absolute Brahman? (Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.3.42-3) </blockquote> This whole debate just goes round and round in circles. If someone believes the caste-goswamis can award siddha-pranali, then that is OK. I believe differently.

Madhava, The point I made in regard to Tinkori das babaji was that his father lavished material things on him, paying for his tobacco and palaquin bearers and wotnot. I said that the money given to his father by his disciples (guru-daksina) should not have been spent on things like that. Accoring to Upadeshamrtama verse 1, a guru needs to be austere. Tinkori das babaji took diksa from his father, and I questioned the "tradition" that says it is ok for sons to inherit the title of "guru". That is all.

<blockquote> Thanks for the response What I was questioning was whether or not it is "rati" that one must have as a prerequisite for practicing raganuga-bhakti. Clearly, one must be purified before having rati - on this point I agree with you. But where is it said that one must have "rati" to practice raganuga? thanks, alpa-medhasaH </blockquote> According to Bhaktirasamrtasindhu, you don't need to have attained rati to engage in raganuga sadhana. Nor do you need to know what your siddha-deha is.

May I take a moment to explain the problem I have with the use of the word "greed" in this context we have been discussing. A person who is a "neophyte" is someone who is just coming out of the utter darkness of material life and is now approaching the twilight that exists before the dawn of pure realization of the Holy Name. We go from the stage of nama-aparadha (offensive chanting) to nama-abhasa (twilight), as is explained by Srila Haridas Thakur in Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta. This is the process for beginners. In this beginning stage a neophyte should meditate on the teachings of Mahaprabhu in Siksastakam, beginning with "ceto-darpana marjanam.. " and "trnad api sunicena". Through constant endeavour to attain a stage of chanting the Pure Name, a devotee can make progress quickly. However, it is to be remembered that this neophyte still only has a "hazy" (at best) understanding of Radha-Krishna. Consequently, how can he have intense "greed" for something that he doesn't properly understand? He can have some taste for understanding Krishna-lila, since even demons such as Putana are supposed to have felt some taste for Krishna's beauty when Krishna was in front of them. Taste can appear in the hearts of even very impure persons. But loving attachment or "Rati" is something pure, which can only be felt by devotees who have become pure. Only devotees who have progressed through the twilight zone and entered into the illuminated state of pure devotion can experience Rati. Having realized the pure state of devotion, a devotee will realize the meaning of other statements in Siksastakam, such as "ayi Nanda-tanuja"

quote: <blockquote> If the qualification for raganuga-bhakti is wanting the feelings of attraction to Krishna, and Rati is the feeling of attraction to Krishna, then are these not two different things? That is to say: lobha = desire for rati = qualification to perform raganuga rati = the end result of performing sadhana-bhakti Perhaps I am mistaken, but as quoted that was what this seemed to be saying. Please correct me if I am wrong. alpa-medhasaH </blockquote> Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati says some helpful things here: http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/prakrta_rsd.html I feel the need to discriminate between Ruci and Rati. My understanding is that having ruci means having a "taste" for devotion, and that this taste will make us have some "lobha" or "yearning" ("greed") for Vraja-bhakti. Whereas Rati can only be felt by persons who have no desire at all for salvationism or materialism. Also, I personally feel that the use of the word "greed" is an inadequate rendering of the word "lobha" referred to in Bhaktirasamrtasindhu and other texts written by the Goswamis and their successors. English equivalent words sometimes seem inappropriate and a quite different rendering is needed which differs from the dictionary "word for word" meanings. Take a look at this statement below: <blockquote> tatra adhikari: ragatmikaika-nistha ye vraja-vasi-janadayah tesam bhavaptaye lubdho bhaved atradhikaravan Those eligible for Raganuga Bhakti: Those who have the feeling: "I want feelings of attraction for Krishna like Ragatmikaikanistha, the feelings felt by the Vrajabasis, the eternal residents of Vraja" - they are eligible to engage in Raganuga Bhakti. Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.2.291 </blockquote> This is a translation which my Bengali friend who lives at our house did, on the basis of Srila Sridhar Maharaj's edition of Bhaktirasamrtasindhu. Notice that he used the word "Ragatmikaikanistha". He couldn't find a good English rendering for this concept and instead repeated the Sanskrit.

There are some good point made in this article, but unfortunately there are some serious errors too I think it is good to mention some of the biggest errors. But I will leave it to others to carry on this discussion after this. quote: <blockquote>The constitutional spiritual identity (svarupa) and function of the soul is that it is an eternal servant of Krishna. That is the essential characteristic of the soul not the specific rasa (shanta, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, madurya). Therefore one should always cultivate devotional service to Krishna beginning from regulative vidhi-marga then one's raga-marga (5 rasas) will develope properly without any separate endeavor. Because raga-marga is on the perfectional uttama-adhikari devotional platform it should never be done presumptuously or immaturely. </blockquote> To begin with, the rasa "santa-rasa" is not a rasa that a person engaged in raga-marga (raganuga) bhakti will cultivate. Dasya rasa can be practiced in raganuga bhakti, but it will be as a servant (das or dasi) of a group leader who is in madhurya, vatsalya or sakhya rasa. In which case, the raganuga bhakta will be feeling madhurya, vatsalya or sakhya rasa and in fact they will not be in the pure mood "dasya-rasa" itself. The real place where you see dasya-rasa in full display is in Vaikuntha. But then again, then the cows in Vraja are in dasya rasa. Also, externally a raganuga bhakta practices devotional service in the same way a vaidhi-bhakta does. He engages in sravanam, kirtanam, smaranam, puja etc. Internally, the devotee has a feeling of love for a particular devotee in Vraja who is a group leader, such as Yashoda Ma, Subala, or Sri Rupa Manjari. These group leaders are eternal associates of Krishna and they are practicing "ragatmik" bhakti (not raganuga bhakti). A devotee engaged in raganuga bhakta cherishes the thought that they can serve under the guidance of their (ragatmik) group leader. In Bhaktirasamrtasindhu, Sri Rupa Goswami has given the qualification for someone who can engage in raganuga bhakti: <blockquote> tatra adhikari: ragatmikaika-nistha ye vraja-vasi-janadayah tesam bhavaptaye lubdho bhaved atradhikaravan Those eligible for Raganuga Bhakti: Those who have the feeling: "I want feelings of attraction for Krishna like Ragatmikaikanistha, the feelings felt by the Vrajabasis, the eternal residents of Vraja" - they are eligible to engage in Raganuga Bhakti. Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.2.291 </blockquote> In his commentary, Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Prabhu points out that in this verse Sri Rupa Gosvami has defined raganuga bhakti. Here, Sri Rupa Goswami states that those individuals who in their intrinsic nature feel an intense longing and firm attachment for service following in the wake of the feelings and sentiments of the residents of Vrindaban, with no thought or attraction for the majesties of the Godhead, are alone eligible for following in the way of raganuga bhakti. The person eligible for raganuga bhakti may spontaneously follow Sri Radha and other Gopis in madhura rati, Nanda-Yasoda and others in vatsalya rati, Sridama-Sudama and others in sakhya rati, or Citraka-Patraka and others in dasya rati. A person doesn't have to be an uttam-adhikari to engage in raganuga bhakti. All you need is a strong longing to render service in the way that the residents of Vraja are rendering service. All you need is love.

I want to withdraw from this discusssion, for this type of discussion just goes on and on forever. I do feel it has been worth discussing these things, but unfortunately different individuals have vastly different belief-systems, and when worlds collide it is not a gentle meeting of worlds. In my view, these are the main issues of contention: <ul type="square"> [*]Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur taught that any disciple of a genuine Gaudiya Acharya can realize Krishna and realize their siddha-deha (spiritual body) if they practice pure devotional service and chant Hare Krishna. [*]Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur said a devotee can realize their siddha-deha without ever being told anything about a list of predecessor diksa gurus in what is called a "siddha-pranali". [*]Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati regarded his Siksa-guru, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, as well as Jagannatha das babaji (the siksa Guru of Bhaktivinode Thakur), as vital links in the Guru-paramapara that connected him to Sri Chaitanya. [*]Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati received diksa (initiation) from Srila Gaurakishore das Babaji, but he did not regard the diksa guru of Gaurakishore das Babaji as a link in his Guru Parampara. Nor did he accept Bipin Bihari Goswami, the diksa guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, as his Guru. In regard to siddha-deha, the following can be said: In the commentaries to Vedanta-sutra 4.1.1. we see that Ramanuja, Sankara, Krishnananda (Sivanananda) and Baladeva Vidyabhusana are all agreeing on this point: The soul on liberation attains to its original nature and it does not acquire new attributes. That is, the liberated soul does not get given a spiritual body but instead it manifests its innate form and opulences. Brhadbhagavatamrtam says "According to the specific form and nature of the Supreme Lord that they worship and meditate on as their beloved, the devotees attain (manifest) a form like the Lord's." Consequently, contrary to the opinion of followers of the "siddha-pranali" school of thought, a devotee does not need to be "given" or "awarded" a spiritual body by their guru at the time when they are given their "siddha-pranali". The spiritual body is innately present within us and it will manifest in our consciousness at the appropriate time. That is, when we become pure enough to perceive it. Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur, a pure devotee of Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga Radha-Govinda, sent into this world from Goloka to preach pure devotion, was aware of his own siddha identity. And he was able to reveal the siddha identity of his disciples. He has that transcendental capacity. But not only that, Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati taught that any of his disciples (and the future generations of disciples) could realize their siddha-deha if they practice pure devotional service and chant Hare Krishna. Through sincerity, we can get everything we are seeking. Glory, glory, glory to Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur! A devotee can realize their siddha-deha without ever being told about a list of predecessor diksa gurus, in a list called "siddha-pranali". With these words, I rest my case.

Kunjada was working for the post office in Calcutta. He had a good job, and he had enough money to pay to open a temple. So he managed to get Prabhupada to come to live and preach in Calcutta, and they established the original temple of Prabhupada at Ultadanga in Calcutta. Then, when the preaching began in all seriousness the costs of organizing festivals and so forth became very great. Kunjada was managing all the finances, without consulting anyone, and he was paying all the bills. He got into financial difficulty. He ammassed large debts. But he didn't tell Prabhupada. Instead, he decided to go to Iraq (!) during the war (!) - the first world war - and to work there for the British. Working in the war zone, his salary was much greater, and he was therefore able to pay for all the expenses of Sri Gaudiya Math. Then, when Prabhupada found out that Kunjada had gone, he wrote the letter. I don't want to talk about what is in the letter. In fact, I have a tremendous regard for Kunja Babu. Sri Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaj. I really don't want to say anymore.

Gaurasundara: <blockquote> You obviously haven't read the part where Swami Krishnananda says that Sankara is at odds with every other Vedanta commentator. </blockquote> The verse we are talking about is 4.4.1 You accuse me of bringing up matters that are off-topic, or of not addressing the immediate issues. When in fact it is you who do this endlessly. When commenting on verse 4.4.1 Krishnananda doesn't talk about Sankara http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_4/bs_4-4-01.html

Shiva, The way you tell it is not right. There is a video of Srila Sridhar Maharaj talking about this. You can get it here: http://www.guardian-of-devotion.de/dvd/dvd.htm The letter is at Chaitanya Math library in Mayapura.

Bogus Rascal wrote: <blockquote> You do realise that by saying ekadasa-bhava is fit to be rejected, you are rejecting Sri Bhaktivinode? </blockquote> No I'm not. Your calculative logic is wrong, yet again. Bogus Rascal math: 0 + 0 = 1

Bogus Rascal mentioned the statement of how a distinction should be made between previous and later mahajanas. The later mahajans being the Six Goswamis. I replied that since ekadasa-bhava and siddha-pranali are not mentioned in the Six Goswamis writings, a strict follower of the Six Goswamis may choose to reject ekadasa-bhava and siddha-pranali as inauthentic. Rascal replied: <blockquote> Why should it be written in the Goswamis works when it was adequately dealt with by Gopalguru and Dhyanacandra Goswamis, Sri Narottam and Sri Vishwanath etc? </blockquote> Gopalguru and Dhyanacandra came after the six Goswamis. They came in the next generation (Gopala Guru was a child in Puri in the time of Mahaprabhu).

<blockquote> Siddha-pranali is the lineage of your guru-varga in their siddha forms, it is the same as your guru-parampara. What makes you think you don't need this? </blockquote> The fact that the sages in Dandaka forest attained gopi-bhava without knowing about any "siddha-pranali". Also, Guru-parampara and siddha-pranali are not the same thing, contrary to what you think. The siddha-pranali is supposedly a line of diksa-gurus and their disciples. Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur presented his Guru-Parampara and that Parampara contains a number of siksa-guru and disciple links. I am a servant of the Acharyas in that Parampara. Our Parampara is not a diksa-guru parampara.

Bogus Rascal said: <blockquote> Your "further insights" just happen to be against what was taught by Gopalaguru and Dhyanacandra Goswamis as penned in their paddhatis, as well as the views of Sri Narottama, Sri Vishwanatha, etc. </blockquote> What rubbish. I stated that the further insight one might have is that a person can attain gopi-bhava without knowing about any "siddha-pranali". You yourself had admitted this is a reasonable conclusion. You said, "Fair enough". But now you are unable or unwilling to see the further implications that flow from this. You don't want to seriously consider the implications. They are unsettling, perhaps. Additionally, Gopalaguru, Dhyanacandra, Narottama and his descendent Sri Vishwanatha were all initiated by siddha-mahatmas and your conclusions about how they preached "ekadasa-bhava" are out of context. In the tradition we are talking about, which arose after their lifetime, we see a tradition wherein persons who are not siddha-mahatmas are giving their students "siddha-pranali" and "ekadasa-bhava" in an imitative, ritualist tradition. People who are not pure and who have not attained Rati are unable to give Rati or information about "siddha-deha" to their students. The simple fact is, it is all an imitation of the real spirituality taught by Gopalaguru, Dhyanacandra, Narottama and Sri Vishwanatha <blockquote> Sri Rupa Goswami: vimuktakilatar yair ya muktir api vimrgyate ya krsnenatigopy asu bhajadbhyo ‘pi na diyate sa bhukti-mukti-kamatva cchuddham bhaktim akurvatam hrdaye sambhavat yesam katham bhagavati ratih Rati, the feeling of attraction to Krishna that is sought after by souls who have sacrificed all selfish desires, the feeling of attraction which Sri Krishna withholds in great secrecy, is not easily conferred by him even to devotees who are engaged in spiritual practices. How can there be an appearance of rati in the hearts of those who do not practice unalloyed and pure bhakti because of manifold desires for elevation and salvation, or in the hearts of those who are anxious for self-destruction by way of desiring for merging in the Absolute Brahman? (Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.3.42-3) </blockquote> Only a pure devotee can give a disciple the true understanding of siddha-deha.

Bogus Gaurasundar das wrote: <blockquote> Muralidhar, what does sarupya-mukti mean? </blockquote> I'm not sure if it means that a person get a four hand form like Vishnu. Or whether sarupya includes those liberated souls who attain forms suitable for worship of one of the forms of the Lord such as Narasingha, Matsya, etc., as mentioned in this verse below. <blockquote> Brhadbagavatmrtam 2.2.141-4 According to the specific form and nature of the Supreme Lord that they worship and meditate on as their beloved, the devotees attain a form like the Lord's. In this way they manifest many different forms and opulences. They have forms like the Lord's incarnations, as humans, sages, demigods, and philosophers, and as the Lord's incarnations as Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Nrsimha, Vamana, Shiva, Brahma, Indra, Sesa, Surya, Vayu, Vahni, and many other forms. They also attain four-handed forms, and still other forms, with the specific garments and features of the Lord. </blockquote> This is something I plan to ask my Guru about sometime. And by the way, as I told you long ago, gaurasundara, the BRS edition of Bon Maharaj that I gave to you has errors in it. I do have the Sanskrit for Brhadbagavatmrtam but I feel no desire to give it to you. Check Gopiparanadha's traslation, which you told me you have.

Bogus Rascal said: <blockquote> I originally asked these questions to the Guest aho calls himself Alpa-medhasa, which he has not yet replied to, and I would like to ask you them as well: How did Sri Bhaktisiddhanta know his identity? How would you know if he is sure of it, if he didn't get it from his guru? How did he know the identity of Bhakti Vilas Tirtha? Was Sri Bhaktisiddhanta's identity or the identity of Bhakti Vilas Tirtha revealed to Sri Bhaktisiddhanta from "within" or so? If the siddha-deha is innate and manifests through due chanting of nama-japa, then by all rights Bhakti Vilas Tirtha would have known his own details in due course of time through the virtue of his japa. Why did Sri Bhaktisiddhanta "give" the name information to BV Tirtha? Also, why only the name? What about the other 10 details or so as practiced by Sri Bhaktivinode? Why through letter and not face-to-face? Why did Sri Bhaktisiddhanta give this information to Bhakti Vilas Tirtha and not to other disciples including BP Puri Maharaja, BR Sridhara Maharaja (your own guru), Srila Prabhupada, etc? Does it imply that these disciples were less deserving in some way? If Sri Bhakti Vilas Tirtha is so fortunate in this way, then why did Srila Prabhupada make several harsh statements on record against him? When Sri Bhaktivinoda follows the traditionalist path along with siddha-pranali and astakaliya-lila smaran etc, why is it that the standards (such as innate form etc) suddenly change within one generation? I would genuinely like to know the answers to these questions ever since you told us the story of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta and Sri Bhakti Vilas Tirtha as I am interested in the process of siddha-realisation as practised in the Gaudiya Matha, so I would appreciate the answers, thanks. </blockquote> In Gaudiya Math, these are not topics that people talk about openly. And what we have heard or read in Gaudiya Math, we don't necessarily have to reveal to outsiders. Don't expect me to talk about any of this here. But the fact is, the letter from Srila Sarawati Thakur to Kunja Babu exists. Moreover, the weird spin you put in, with your statement about some persons being "less deserving in some way" is based on misconceived premises that are simply the product of your own thought processes. Srila Sridhar Maharaj said we should not try to measure everything with our "puppy brain". A dog's brain cannot understand the pure siddhanta of the Acharya of the Sri Gaudiya Math, Prabhupada Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

In regard to BRS, I have Bon Maharaj's translation. But I also have Srila Sridhar Maharaj's edition of Bhaktirasamrtasindu in Bengali. As I said earlier, I have a Bengali devotee living with me and he speaks and reads Sanskrit. We study Bhaktirasamrtasindu sometimes. In fact, in a discussion with Madhava I had last year, we discussed errors in Bon Maharaj's edition. You quoted the statements below <blockquote> "With great affection I will follow the path of the Mahajanas, differentiating between the previous and the later. Never neglect the sadhana of lila-smarana, for it is the very essence of the mind." and "The sages of the Dandakaranya-forest, the Srutis mentioned in Brihad Vamanokta, Candrakanti, Jayadeva, Vidyapati, Candi Das, Bilvamangala and others are previous mahajanas. The six Gosvamis are later mahajanas." </blockquote> Yes we shall follow the teaching of the six Goswamis as our life and soul. Where is there a description of ekadasa-bhava and siddha-pranali in any of the writings of the Six Goswamis? Since these things are not mentioned, a strict follower of the Six Goswamis may choose to reject ekadasa-bhava and siddha-pranali as inauthentic. Furthermore, in regard to not following the example of the sages of Dandaka forest who are "previous mahajans", as I have stated many times before when this topic was raised, I am not suggesting that anyone should act in the way that the sages of Dandaka forest acted. My point is to simply point this out: "Those sages did attain gopi-bhava and they didn't know anything about any siddha-pranali concept." To which you youself have now replied. "Fair enough". Indeed. Your attempt to avoid a proper discussion about the matter of whether a liberated soul gets "given" a spiritual body shows YOUR weakness. A fact that is also borne out by the fact that you refuse to reveal your name to us. So be it. But in fact we have Ramanuja, Sankara, Krishnananda and Baladeva Vidyabhusana all agreeing on this point: The soul on liberation attains to its original nature and it does not acquire new attributes. That is, the liberated soul does not get given a spiritual body but instead it manifests its innate form and opulences. In Vedanta Sutra we read how Vyasa has considered this topic and that Vyasa has made this statement as his answer: <blockquote> Sütra 4.4.1 sampadyävirbhävaù svena-çabdät sampadya—of he who has attained; ävirbhävaù—manifestation; svena—svena; çabdät—by the word. </blockquote> That is, the soul who attains liberation becomes "self-manifest". Ramanuja, Sankara, Krishnananda and Baladeva Vidyabhusana are all only expanding on what Vyasa said. Each does this according to their own understanding. But every one of them says the soul manifests his own nature. None of them say the soul enters into a new body or form or new nature. Finally, in regard to my saying "Adieu", I said that if anyone had anything to discuss with me now then please do so, because I will not be responding on this thread after Sunday. Today is Sunday in Australia.

Earlier I quoted this verse: <blockquote> <font color="#0000FF"> Brhadbagavatmrtam 2.2.141-4 According to the specific form and nature of the Supreme Lord that they worship and meditate on as their beloved, the devotees attain a form like the Lord's. In this way they manifest many different forms and opulences. They have forms like the Lord's incarnations, as humans, sages, demigods, and philosophers, and as the Lord's incarnations as Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Nrsimha, Vamana, Shiva, Brahma, Indra, Sesa, Surya, Vayu, Vahni, and many other forms. They also attain four-handed forms, and still other forms, with the specific garments and features of the Lord.</font> </blockquote> And made the comment that not all residents of Vaikuntha will have four hand forms. To which "Bogus Rascal" replied: <blockquote><font color="#0000FF"> Thank you for providing the quote. It defeats your own arguments. The quote according to your translation clearly shows that devotees who meditate on their beloved Lord in whichever form they prefer will attain forms of the same like along the likes of sarupya-mukti. This contradicts what you were saying earlier about the "siddha-deha" being inherent etc. </font> </blockquote> This is totally absurd. Brhadbagavatmrtam says of the devotees, "... they manifest many different forms and opulences. " The meaning is clear - the devotees exhibit opulences. In the line before, it says "the devotees attain a form like the Lord's". Contrary to what "Bogus Rascal" seems to believe, this doesn't mean that they are given a spiritual body. "Bogus Rascal" is giving an improper meaning to the word "attain". This topic in fact had been discussed earlier, on Page 3 of this thread, where I had written. <blockquote><font color="#0000FF"> Your interpretation of the word "attained" is wrong my friend. Indeed, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusan specifically deals with this point in his Govinda Bhasya commentary. <blockquote> Vedanta Sütra 4.4.1 sampadyävirbhävaù svena-çabdät sampadya—of he who has attained; ävirbhävaù—manifestation; svena—svena; çabdät—by the word. Because of the word "svena" it is the manifestation of he who has gone. Commentary by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa 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 sütra explains, "svena-çabdät" (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 "niñpadyate" in the verse of Chändogya Upaniñad, for that word is also used to mean, "is manifested". An example of that usage is seen in the following words found elsewhere the Çruti-çästra: idam ekaà su-niñpannam "He is manifested." Also, it is not that the manifestation of the soul's original form cannot be a goal of human endeavour, because it 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></font> http://www.mandala.com.au/books/vedanta.RTF </blockquote> I also gave links to two online translations of Vedanta, both of which confirmed that the topic in this verse (4.1.1.) was indeed whether a liberated soul assumes a spiritual body after liberation, or whether he "manifests his innate form of bliss". Ramanuja http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48552.htm Krishnananda (disciple of Sivananda) http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_4/bs_4-4-01.html "Bogus Rascal" then went on to say this: <blockquote><font color="#0000FF"> I do not think that they support the proposition that you are presenting. Is that the only reason why you rely on them by any chance, because they support your position? By the way, even though I personall have no problem with Krishnananda's translation, it is not acceptable to orthodox Advaitins with whom I have had discussions with on this very subject. In any case, the sutras contained in the Fourth Adhyaya do not, in my opinion, validate a description that you to.</font> </blockquote> It is hard to work out exactly what you mean here, Bogus Rascal. In the first line you say the translations I gave didn't support my conclusions. In the second sentence you say the reason I rely on them is that they support my conclusions. So please tell me, do these translations support my conclusions, or do they not? Your writing is incoherent. In fact anyone who reads these translations of the verse in question (4.1.1.) will see they do support the proposition I presented. The soul does not get given a spiritual body when he attains liberation. Further to this, "Bogus Rascal" said: <blockquote><font color="#0000FF"> I have spoken with orthodox Advaitins but that was not my point, which was that orthodox Advaitins are not fond of Krishnananda's translations because they do not feel that it is an adequate translation of Sankara's bhasya.</font> </blockquote> Here then, is Sankara's translation to . 4.1.1, translated by George Thibaut: <blockquote><font color="#0000FF"> PÂDA IV. Adhik. I (1-3) returns, according to--Sankara, to the owner of the parâ vidyâ, and teaches that, when on his death his soul obtains final release, it does not acquire any new characteristics, but merely manifests itself in its true nature.--The explanation given by Râmânuga is essentially the same, but of course refers to that vidvân whose going to Brahman had been described in the preceding pâda.</font> http://www.astrojyoti.com/brahmasutras5.htm </blockquote> Indeed, we have Ramanuja, Sankara, Krishnananda and Baladeva Vidyabhusana all agreeing on this point: The soul on liberation attains to its original nature and it does not acquire new attributes. That is, the liberated soul does not get given a spiritual body but instead it manifests its innate form and opulences. Brhadbhagavatamrtam says "According to the specific form and nature of the Supreme Lord that they worship and meditate on as their beloved, the devotees attain (manifest) a form like the Lord's." Consequently, contrary to the opinion of followers of the "siddha-pranali" school of thought, a devotee does not need to be "given" or "awarded" a spiritual body by their guru. The spiritual body is innately present within us and it will manifest in our consciousness at the appropriate time. That is, when we become pure enough to perceive it. Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur, a pure devotee of Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga Radha-Govinda, sent into this world from Goloka to preach pure devotion, was aware of his own siddha identity. And he was able to reveal the siddha identity of his disciples - he has that transcendental capacity. Glory, glory, glory to Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur! A devotee can realize their siddha-deha without ever being told about a list of predecessor diksa gurus, in a list called "siddha-pranali". With these words, I rest my case.

I am glad that you have given us a name to call you by now, Bogus Rascal. you wrote: <blockquote><font color="blue"> I'll expect that it is clear now that Rupa Goswami is just using the example of the Dandakaranya Rishis to show how it is possible for males to attain the bhava and form of a female. To cherry-pick this verse as an example of how "siddha-pranali" is not necessary especially when the Goswami has specifically stated elsewhere in BRS that service in the sadhaka-deha and siddha -deha is necessary (seva sadhaka-rupena siddha-rup catra hi, etc), is something that I find to be an incredibly intellectually dishonest reading of the text. While we're on the subject, Murlidhar das has brought up this same point several times here and on other forums and has received replies like the one above almost every time. I trust that this is now resolved once and for all. But as is human nature, I guess it won't be. </blockquote> </font color> I am not going to respond to all your rant, which is so full of distorted logic that I really can't be bothered. Certainly, as you say, human nature is such that people don't change from the course they are committed to. So lets take a look at this issue of the Dandakaranya sages. You say that Srila Rupa Goswami mentioned this topic in relation to whether males to attain the bhava and form of a female. Yes, you are right here. I said, that in the age when those sages were living, siddha-pranali as we know it today was not practiced. I also stated that in the case of those sages we see that people can attain realization of a madhurya-rasa attraction to Bhagavan without knowing about any "siddha-pranali". Surely this statement is borne out by the facts. Those saged did attain gopi-bhava and they didn't know anything about any siddha-pranali concept. I believe the point was made clearly enough before, when I stated it before. You made your response to what I wrote and you presumed you had "defeated my arguments". But I regarded your arguments as spurious. Sri Rupa Goswami happened to have been discussing the Dandakranya sages in relation to whether males can attain the bhava and form of a female. But the fact that he was discussing one topic does not preclude us from having further insights based on the implications of what he says. Often we find that when we read a scripture we have never read before it causes us to reconsider our previous beliefs and understanding. Our previous understanding developed through reading the scriptures, but when we read a new book we may realize we have to reconsider the things we believed in, in the light of the new knowlege we have just discovered. Let me give a further example. Baladeva discusses the topic below in his Govdinda Bhasya: <blockquote><font color="blue"> "When a soul attains liberation does the soul attain a body that is different from himself, as the bodies of demigods are different from their inner self, or does the soul manifest his original identity which is not different from himself?" </font color> </blockquote> Baladev states that the soul manifests its own original form. The soul doesn't get a new "spiritual" body when he is liberated. In this example, we see that Baladev is making a statement about a particular topic. When we read this information we learn about from Baladeva, this knowledge leads us to reconsider some things we have heard from other sources. For example, Kunjabihari das Babaji wrote: <blockquote><font color="blue"> In the Lord’s abode, there are an unlimited number of forms, all suitable for rendering service to him. Every one of those forms is non-different from him, being expanded from his effulgence; each one is eternal, full of consciousness and bliss. They are the crowning, central jewels of the spiritual world — its very life. These unlimited spiritual bodies are the perfected forms of the liberated souls which are awarded to an individual, according to his taste, when he reaches the state of absolute liberation. This state is called attainment of the spiritual body. All these spiritual bodies are eternal for they exist even before the liberated souls enter them and will continue to exist ever afterward. However, prior to the entry of the liberated soul they are in an inactive state. As all of the unlimited souls are servants of the Lord, each one of them has a spiritual body in the Lord’s abode just suitable for rendering service to the Lord. 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. </font color> </blockquote> Here we have someone presenting the total opposite point of view to Baladeva. Naturally, a person will wonder who is right and who is wrong. Who is right and who is wrong? Furthermore, at the conclusion of your rant about the Dandakaranya sages, you said: <blockquote><font color="blue"> I trust that this is now resolved once and for all. But as is human nature, I guess it won't be. </font color> </blockquote> You feel so certain that the things you have said are scripturally sound and perfect in their logical presentation. You feel you have "defeated" me and my (Gurus) ideas here today, just as you and your friends "defeated" me in the past. In fact, I leave it to readers to decide who has defeated whom. Indeed, implicit in the mode of speech you employ is a shouting, attacking, patronising, insulting style of writing. Since Muralidhar doesn't agree with your conclusions, he must be "ignorant" or "dishonest". I leave it to readers to form their own decisions about everthing that has been discussed.

I find I've been spending way too much time here lately. So if anyone has any specific issues they want to raise with me, could you most kindly raise them with me today. Otherwise I will leave the discussion of this topic to you devotees.

In reply to: <blockquote> 4) What is the qualification to practice raganuga bhakti (here I must admit that I am still not convinced that we have a clear answer - yes one must have the lobha, but what does that mean practically? Can a devotee with lobha eat karmi food in restaurants, live outside the holy dham, have girlfriends, etc? The view of Bhaktivinod, Bhaktisiddhanta et. al. that one should become first purified by vaidhi-bhakti still seems more sensible.) </blockquote> The actual qualification is given in Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.2.291 where Srila Rupa Goswami says: <blockquote> tatra adhikari: ragatmikaika-nistha ye vraja-vasi-janadayah tesam bhavaptaye lubdho bhaved atradhikaravan Those eligible for Raganuga Bhakti: Those who have the feeling: "I want feelings of attraction for Krishna like Ragatmikaikanistha, the feelings felt by the Vrajabasis, the eternal residents of Vraja" - they are eligible to engage in Raganuga Bhakti. </blockquote> Also, there is this to consider too: <blockquote> vimuktakilatar yair ya muktir api vimrgyate ya krsnenatigopy asu bhajadbhyo ‘pi na diyate sa bhukti-mukti-kamatva cchuddham bhaktim akurvatam hrdaye sambhavat yesam katham bhagavati ratih Rati, the feeling of attraction to Krishna that is sought after by souls who have sacrificed all selfish desires, the feeling of attraction which Sri Krishna withholds in great secrecy, is not easily conferred by him even to devotees who are engaged in spiritual practices. How can there be an appearance of rati in the hearts of those who do not practice unalloyed and pure bhakti because of manifold desires for elevation and salvation, or in the hearts of those who are anxious for self-destruction by way of desiring for merging in the Absolute Brahman? (Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.3.42-3) </blockquote> There has been quite a lot of talk about "lobha" but in fact Rati is what the soul really needs. And in order to get Rati you must become pure.

In regard to Srila Govinda Maharaj watching television, yes he does watch it. Quite a lot. I've sat with him and watched TV several times. For a while I was staying in the room next to him. He used to wake at 2.30 am every day, chant on his beads, and then speak with the devotees who come to see him from 4.30 onwards. It was my job to watch the door until 4.30. Sometimes Srila Govinda Maharaj would watch TV but mostly the news, not sport. Then again, Srila Govinda Maharaj also attended the inaugural "Australia against the World" soccer match we played, one year. Australia lost. And sometimes I would sit with Srila Govinda Maharaj and watch SBS television, an Australian TV channel that has news in foreign languages. He would watch all the news from different countries. Srila Govinda Maharaj is very interested in China and Russia. I remember sitting for a couple of hours with him watching news from China, spoken in Chinese, and news from Russia and Ukraine, spoken in Russian. We couldn't undestand the words they said but the pictures were "telling a thousand words". Srila Sridhar Maharaj used to have the radio playing all day long, right next to where he was sitting. But TV provides more a informative coverage of things than radio. That is what I find. By the way, Srila Govinda Maharaj received "siddha-pranali" from his father, Sri Nitaipada Dasadhikari, a Guru in the "Nityananda Vamsa". (Srila Govinda Maharaj's family name "Dasadhikari" was given to the family by Sri Nityananda Prabhu). So it is not altogether inappropriate to mention these things here on this thread. The picture below is of Mahaprabhu and our Guru Parampara, and the Radha-Gopinath Deities that have been worshipped by Srila Govinda Maharaj's family since the time when worship was inaugurated by Sri Nityananda Prabhu. So to the Guest who made hints of criticism of Srila Govinda Maharaj, I would suggest that in your tradition you are supposed to offer honour to the caste-Goswamis, and that you should therefore be careful not to criticise Srila Govinda Maharaj since he is born in the family of caste-goswamis. this discussion just goes on and on and on....

Kailasa, some things you are saying here should not be discussed on this thread which is about "siddha-pranali". Maybe, if you want, you can write to me personally in regard to some issues you are talking about. Write to me here: mark.anson{@}sydneyNSW.com.au

My own personal opinion is that the real guru-parampara died hundreds of years ago in most of these family guru lineages. Many of these "traditions" or lineages are mere imitations of a real guru-parampara.

alpa said: <blockquote> 1) Is there historical precedent for siddha-pranali in the Gaudiya writings? (Raga and Muralidhar gave very satisfactory responses to this question) 2) Is siddha-pranali a necessity for one practicing raganuga-bhakti? (Raga also answered this question, although it appears there are some exceptional cases, generally one should have siddha-pranali) 3) What is the qualification to have siddha-pranali? (Raga's response is that it is the same as the qualification to practice raganuga - I guess that is logical). 4) What is the qualification to practice raganuga bhakti (here I must admit that I am still not convinced that we have a clear answer - yes one must have the lobha, but what does that mean practically? Can a devotee with lobha eat karmi food in restaurants, live outside the holy dham, have girlfriends, etc? The view of Bhaktivinod, Bhaktisiddhanta et. al. that one should become first purified by vaidhi-bhakti still seems more sensible.) 5) If one must practice raganuga bhakti but is not destined for manjari-svarupa, then where does he go? 6) If one does not practice siddha-pranali, and/or does not practice raganuga bhakti, is he automatically on the very fact not a Gaudiya Vaishnava? (So far, I am not convinced that these criticisms of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati are fair or logical.) </blockquote> I think another point needs to be raised here. A point that Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur raised. <blockquote> 7) What standard of realization need a Guru have before he can GIVE siddha-pranali. </blockquote> Speaking of siddha-pranali, the Guest attacking me said <font color="0000FF">"Vaishnavas since the time of Mahaprabhu have followed this tried and tested method, are they all wrong?"</font> a) It isn't true that all the (Gaudiya) Vaishnavas since the time of Mahaprabhu have followed this method. For instance, the boy who came to Jayakrishna das babaji from Bengal didn't get siddha-pranali from his Guru. Nor did Madhusudana das Babaji get siddha-pranali from his Guru. In fact I can quote numerous others. But since these examples are key examples since the era when they occurred was a time when a shift in procedures was happening, in regard to WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU GET DIKSA - for that reason these examples can be given. b) Guest said, "are they all wrong". Rhetorically, I will ask, "are they all right". That is, if we examine all these persons who are giving siddha-pranali, are they ALL qualified to give siddha-pranali? And on this point, let us consider the story of Tinkori das Babaji. Jagat wrote: <blockquote> http://vnn.org/world/WD9905/WD05-3797.html <font color="0000FF">Sri Tinkadi Gosvami (Sri Kisori-Kisorananda Baba) was born in 1906 in Manoharapur, a village in district Medinipur of West Bengal. His father was Sri Harimohana Gosvami and mother Srimati Suradhuni Devi. The family had a large number of ancestral disciples. The number of Harimohana Gosvami's own disciples also was not small. The income from donations made by disciples was plentiful. Therefore Tinkadi Gosvami was brought up in luxury. He he did not have much interest in studies. So his father stopped his education and began to introduce him to his disciples so that he might adopt gurugiri (the profession of guru) as his profession. He also married him to a girl named Sitalasundari, from whom he had a son. Sri Tinkadi Gosvami lived luxuriously. He wore spotlessly white clothes made of the finest linen and smoked hukka. The long tube of the hukka with a silver mouth-piece was always attached to his mouth. The smoke of the sweet-scented tobacco, specially got from Visnupur, was seen curling round him. He went to the homes of the disciples on palanquin. The hukka and a Brahman cook went with him. The cook followed the palanquin on foot. ... his wife died. then: ... After pilgrimage, instead of returning home, he again went to Manohara Dasa Baba in Govardhana and asked permission to live in Vrndavana. Baba again said, "Gosain! Even now the time has not come for your living in Vrndavana. Go home and marry. You still have much karma to do. When the time comes, Radharani will herself draw you to Vrndavana. You need not worry."</font> </blockquote> So from this we can see something of the lifestyle of the "traditionalist Gurus" of the early 20th century. And of the thinking of the babajis such as Manohara Dasa Baba in Govardhana who supported the "traditionalist family Gurus". Tinkori's father gave his son siddha-pranli. As you see in the story above, he also paid for his son's tobacco and palaquin bearers with money given as guru-daksina. To avoid offending people, I won't express what I am thinking about Gurus such as this "traditionalist Guru". I think everyone can understand what I would say if I were to say anything more. Tinkori became renounced later on, as his supporters will surely point out now. Indeed, on Forums when this matter has been raised previously, the caste-Goswami supporters always begin to talk about this gentleman's vairagya in his later life. But the bottom line is that this whole "traditionalist community" allows for situations where the sons of "traditionalist family Gurus" live like princes and inherit great wealth and servants. Then when they are grown up the son will "<font color="0000FF">adopt gurugiri (the profession of guru) as his profession</font>" (to use Jagat's words) Is this sort of "tradition" the REAL and PROPER tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism? That is, is this sort of behavior of the caste-Goswamis in accordance with the teachings of Sri Rupa and Sanatana. <blockquote> vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam jivha-vegam udaropastha-vegam etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah sarvam apinam prthivim sa sisyat A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world. Sri Upadesamrta, verse 1 </blockquote> A person needs to be austere if he is to be Guru. And if a gentleman gets A lot of money through following the "profession of guru", then he uses this money to buy tobacco for his son, (this son is the next manjari in line in the family's siddha-pranali), then is this PROPER? Is this the same as what Sri Rupa and Sri Sanatan Goswami taught? I leave it to readers to make your own conclusions about that.