Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

muralidhar_das

Members
  • Content Count

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by muralidhar_das

  1. In Madhavananda's article, he states: <blockquote> The disciple is thus introduced to a manjari-svarupa specifically reserved for him and is blessed with allegiance to the siddha-pranali corresponding to the channel of his gurus. </blockquote> Here, Madhavananda is representing those people who believe that someone is awarded a spiritual body; i.e. that the spiritual body of a liberated soul is something that is superimposed upon the soul. However, in the Vedanta Sutra the final topic raised by Badarayana (Vyasa) is the question: "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?" And then Vyasa gives his conclusion, that the liberated soul does not get a spiritual body superimposed upon it. Baladeva Vidyabhusan, in his Govinda Bhasya commentary, agrees with Vyasa (who would disagree???). Baladev argues that a liberated soul manifests his own spiritual body that was lying dormant within, when he was in the non-liberated state. Baladeva quotes the verse below from Padma Purana, to substantiate this: anur nityo vyapti-silas cid-anandatmakas tatha aham artho 'vyayah saksi bhinna-rupah Sanatanh "The soul is atomic, eternal, is present by consciousness everywhere in the material body, is by nature full of spiritual bliss and knowledge, has a sense of individual identity, is unchanging, is a witness within the body, and is different from the Supreme." Madhavananda also stated: <blockquote> The guru, being the bhagavat-kåpä-svarüpa (a form of the Lord’s mercy), by dint of the empowerment received from Him, has the insight to reveal the various details of the siddha-rüpa of the disciple. </blockquote> I agree that an empowered Guru can reveal this sort of information to a disciple. But what I would challenge is the proposition that a guru who is not liberated from lust, pride, etc. would be able to envision and reveal "the various details of the siddha-rüpa of the disciple". According to the "traditionalists", the accepted traditionalist gurus can reveal the details of a person's swarup-siddhi to all their new disciples. But say for instance there is a man who is a traditionalist guru, and this man still feels attracted to ladies bodies because he has urges for sexual enjoyment. Can a man like that really claim to be able to reveal someone's "manjari swarup" to a new disciple? Well you know, there are men who are actually doing that. Gadadhar Pran... The fact of the matter is that many so-called gurus are not real gurus at all, and many of the things they teach are untrue or are taught with a mixed-in flavour of materialism.
  2. The devotees of Sri Chaitanya were known as "Hindus", 500 years ago. My aspiration is that in my next lifetime I might be born as a Hindu in some world where Sri Chaitanya displays his lila. CC A-di 17.192: ".. all the meat-eaters, hearing that there would be unrestricted congregational chanting in the city, came to submit a petition to the Kazi, the Muslim magistrate. CC A-di 17.193: "'The religion of the Hindus has increased unlimitedly. There are always vibrations of "Hari! Hari!" We do not hear anything but this.' CC A-di 17.194: "One meat-eater said, 'The Hindus say, "Krishna, Krishna," and they laugh, cry, dance, chant and fall on the ground, smearing their bodies with dirt. CC A-di 17.195: "'Vibrating "Hari, Hari," the Hindus make a tumultuous sound. If the king [pa-tasa-ha] hears it, certainly he will punish you.' CC A-di 17.196: "I then inquired from these yavanas, 'I know that these Hindus by nature chant "Hari, Hari." CC A-di 17.197: "'The Hindus chant the name Hari because that is the name of their God. But you are Muslim meat-eaters. Why do you chant the name of the Hindus' God?' CC A-di 17.198: "The meat-eater replied, 'Sometimes I joke with the Hindus. Some of them are called Krishnada-sa, and some are called Ra-mada-sa. CC A-di 17.199: "'Some of them are called Haridasa. They always chant "Hari, Hari," and thus I thought they would steal the riches from someone's house. CC A-di 17.200: "'Since that time, my tongue also always vibrates the sound "Hari, Hari." I have no desire to say it, but still my tongue says it. I do not know what to do.' CC A-di 17.201-202: "Another meat-eater said, 'Sir, please hear me. Since the day I joked with some Hindus in this way, my tongue chants the Hare Krishna hymn and cannot give it up. I do not know what mystic hymns and herbal potions these Hindus know.'
  3. Theist and others, I feel I should withdraw from this discussion, and I don't want to offend anyone. Everyone has different views of God and every person's view should be respected. I personally have no faith in Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Confucius or Buddha. But others have their own insights and they are probably more deep insights than what I've had. Hare Krishna
  4. Zarathustra is a very ancient philosopher. When his philosophy found no honor in India, Zarathustra preached it in Iran. It was by the influence of Zarathustra's ideas that Satan, an equally-powerful rival to God, made his imaginary appearance first in the religion of the Jews and then in the religion based on the Koran. Then, influenced by Zarathustra's idea of two Gods, the idea of three gods, or a "Trinity" made its appearance in the religion that had come from the Jewish religion. At first they were considered three Gods, but then, when the philosophers were displeased with that idea, the Trinity became God, the Holy Ghost, and Christ. -- from the commentary to verse 21 of Tattva Viveka, by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur <hr> The "two gods" of Zoaraster are Satan and Yahweh. Moses made a bronze serpent idol that the Jews worshipped for a thousand years, and at that time the serpent energy was believed to be the "power of god". But later Jewish prophets had a different vision of things and they destroyed the snake idol made by Moses. When the Jewish people who were captives in the city of Babylon, where Zoaraster's religion was followed, they began to believe that their Lord Yahweh must appear on earth as an incarnation, or Messiah, in order to set the world in order and defeat Satan, and consequently the people began thinking there were many gods, or aspects of God. Next, an all pervading aspect of god, the holy ghost was imagined to exist, as a complement to the human incarnation or Messiah, who appears to be limited, since he is living in a human form of limited size. Hence in Christianity you have the Father, son and ghost -- and an anti-god called satan.
  5. The book is here http://www.mandala.com.au/books/tattvaviveka.RTF
  6. Guest, I can accept that Jesus may be a great person, but I think the Bible is not a genuine scripture. It is a fabrication. And Theist, concerning Vasudeva Datta... I have always been intruiged by that story in C.C. When Vasudeva Datta said he wanted to punishment for all the sins of all the people in the world, Mahaprabhu says that he need not do that. Mahaprabhu said that it is not necessary for Vasudeva Datta to accept suffering in place of other people. The implication, I feel, is that Jesus didn't suffer and become a "sacrifice" for all of humankind. Maybe his immediate associates benefited from seeing what he did, and they became more dedicated to God. But other human beings suffer or attain salvation on account of what they themselves will do, and not because of Jesus sacrifice. It is really just to weird to think that God would incarnate and punish himself by planning and enduring crucifiction.
  7. Theist, in regard to the "messiah", Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur was writing of the belief that God was born in this world as Jesus, and that he suffered because of the sins of humankind, and that by his suffering all those people (christians) who believe in him shall get to go to heaven. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected that proposition in his book Tattva Viveka. You can read the reasons for rejecting that proposition in Tattva Viveka. Indeed his reasons include the reasons that Pankaj Prabhu just mentioned. A "messiah" coming from satyaloka or whatever is certainly conceivable. The four kumara boys, or brahmaji, may be regarded as messiahs, or Narada rishi. But the idea that people are saved by bathing in the "blood of the messiah" is another matter. I find it bizarre, when people such as the Minister who lives across the street from me, tell me that Jesus died for our sins. According to them, we didn't even exist when Jesus was on earth, so how could he die for our sins if we hadn't done any sins yet? What is more, if God is the Lord of the universe then didn't he plan the events that took place at Calvary, and isn't he ultimately responsible for the events that took place? And surely God must have realized that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, so they weren't to blame for doing something wrong, either. Either God knew it would happen and planned it, or God is not omniscient, I might suggest. The Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharyas believe in free will and believe that the world is full of suffering because of the jiva's karma that is with them since time immemorial. This belief is based on the idea that the jiva is beginningless, but Christians don't believe in that - they believe God cast humankind out of Eden and that we are all suffering for the mistakes of Adam and Eve. Bizarre! To be honest, I believe the story of adam and eve, and the resulting story that a saviour needed to be born to atone for their sins, is a complete fabrication. This is the logic of Bhaktivinode Thakur in Tattva Viveka.
  8. Theist, I didn't mean to annoy you. In Srila Sridhar Maharaj's book "search for sri krishna" there is a chapter, "beyond christianity", which starts out with this: <hr> Christian: Can you explain the Vaisnava viewpoint of Christianity? Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism; not fullfledged, but the basis of devotional theism. We find the principle of "Die to live" there to a certain extent, at least physically. The Christians say that the ideal shown by Jesus is self-sacrifice. In our consideration, however, that is not fullfledged theism, but only the basis.It is an unclear, vague conception of Godhead: "We are for Him." But how much? And in what shape, in what attitude? All these things are unexplained and unclear in Christianity. Everything is hazy, as if seen from far off. It does not take any proper shape. The cover is not fully removed, allowing us to come face to face with the object of our service. The conception of service to God is there, and a strong impetus to attain that, so the foundation is good, but the structure over the foundation is unclear, vague, and imperfect. <hr> As Guru Maharaj said, "Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism; not fullfledged, but the basis of devotional theism." And in regard to Guru Maharaj saying "forget it" to Bon Maharaj, that really was his instruction. I was there at the time. Also, in Tattva Viveka, Thakur Bhaktivinode quite clearly expressed that he didn't believe in the idea of the "messiah" or "satan" or several other ideas that are taught as "truth" in the bible. Plainly, he didn't believe in the words of the bible.
  9. Pankaj Prabhu, please understand that it is not correct to suggest that Srila Sridhar Maharaj ever considered that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is the "2nd coming" of Jesus Christ. And of course, Srila Prabhupada didn't give his hungry disciples fishes and loaves to eat, he gave them prashadam. Also, there is one Sannyasi devotee called Bhakti Madhurya Bon Maharaj who used to be a priest in Rome, and who later became a Vaishnava and disciple of Srila Sridhar Maharaj. After he became a Vaishnava, Srila Sridhar Maharaj told this Bon Maharaj to forget Jesus. That was Srila Sridhar Maharaj's opinion about Jesus and Christianity. Forget it. Srila Sridhar Maharaj was quite direct and determined on this point. He told Bon Maharaj, "Forget Jesus, and just worship Mahaprabhu". I was there when this happened.
  10. Jayakrishna das babaji of Vraja, who lived in the 17th century, 200 years after Mahaprabhu Sri Chaitanyadeva, was responsible for popularising the doctrine of Siddha Pranali. He was a very influential babaji in this period, after the departure from this world of Baladeva Vidyabhusana. There is some precedent for this doctrine in the writings of Dhyanachandra Goswami, a disciple of Gopala Guru Goswami, but the Siddha Pranali theory as taught by Jayakrishna das babaji introduced some added beliefs that were not enunciated previously. Srila Jagannatha das Babaji did not follow this Siddha Pranali tradition, as he received his vesha (sannyasa) from a babaji who was a follower of Madhusudana das babaji of Suryakunda. This Madhusudana das babaji did not know his "Siddha Pranali" so when he went to see this revered Jayakrishna das babaji he was rejected and told, "I cannot teach you about raganuga bhakti", but then Madhusudana das babaji personally met with Sri Radha who gave him everything he needed to understand, so he could practice fully enlightened bhajan. The details of these things are not necessary to understand, if you have not progressed to the stage of anartha-nivritti. First, give up lust, anger, deceit, etc., then the higher principles of raganuga bhakti will automatically awaken in your heart. This is the teaching of Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami and my Divine Master, Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Maharaj, who often stated "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." That is, you don't need to know about Siddha Pranali, because knowledge of the higher truths of Krishna Consciousness will reveal themselves automatially in your heart when the temple of your heart is swept clean of all anarthas (bad things) through the process of sravana-kirtana (hearing and chanting). Guest, you asked for the references. Here is the oldest reference to siddha pranali: <hr> In this meditation, before anything else, the practitioner should meditate on the manjari-forms of his guru-pranali, beginning with his guru, then parama-guru, etc. Then he shall meditate on Sri Radhika and after that Sri Nandanandana Krishna. - (Paddhati of Dhyanacandra Gosvami, 344) <hr>
  11. <blockquote>1) How do you know that what BV Swami calls "revealed knowledge" about Krishna is really true? I mean to say, historically speaking, how do you know that Krishna was even a real person and even more, that he was the supreme God? </blockquote> Revealed knowledge is the knowledge that was revealed to the seers of truth (rishis) in ancient times, which has been transmitted down to us through the channel of Guru-parampara, the preceptorial succession of spiritual masters who have realized the same truths that the rishis experienced. Thus, the revealed truth is perpetuated when a person of the next generation realizes the "revealed knowledge" that his Guru taught him. Krishna taught us the Bhagavad gita, which states that the soul reincarnates, and never dies. Thus, all the souls who are alive now were alive in the past, and Krishna himself was living in this world just 500 years ago, as Sri Chaitanya Avatara. As Sri Chaitanya, he showed people he was Krishna. This is recorded in the historical documents which describe his life. How do we know that Krishna is the supreme God? Read the Bhagavad gita, the answer is in there. <blockquote> 2) Also I was wondering why , individually some of you have chosen this path? What made you chose it over others? How much of other paths have you studied? </blockquote> Souls are evolving from one state of mind to another. Reincarnation and spiritual evolution are occurring. People choose a path because of their personal level of understanding. Some people are guided by the feelings they feel in their genitals. The urges of their bodies lead them to follow various paths in life. Life is like that.
  12. In Srila Prabhupada's "Krishna book" there is a section called "Prayers of the personified Vedas". That chapter gives a substantive explanation of acintya-bheda-abeda. Ultimately, however, Mahaprabhu was telling his disciples that logic fails to give us real realization, and that only faith can lead us into the land we are seeking. Only faith can pay for our visa into the Kingdom of God.
  13. Srila Sridhar Maharaj once rejected a disciple (B.R.Acharya Swami) because that disciple was thinking he was directly getting instructions from Paramatma and was not following Guru Maharaj properly. I was present when that happened, and I had to deal with that man after he was "disconnected", and even after he was "disconnected" the man continued to "believe in himself" even though his Guru had told him he was following his mind, which is material, and not Paramatma. Prabhu, if you are a disciple of Guru Maharaj, please be careful that you do not misrepresent Guru Maharaj's teachings in a public forum like this.
  14. Nimbarka says that both difference and non-difference are real. The soul and the world are different from Brahman, as they are endowed with natures and qualities different from those of Brahman. They are not different, as they cannot exist by themselves and as they depend absolutely on Brahman. Such a relation exists between the sun and its rays. the fire and its sparks. In this way, the relation between jiva and Ishwara is considered to be understood through logic and metaphor. But Bhaktivinode Thakur wrote: According to Lord Chaitanya's doctrine, the soul's identity and difference from the Lord, and the world's difference and identity with the Lord, are both established as truth. Since this cannot be adjusted by limited human reasoning this eternal difference and non difference is called acintya or inconceivable. Though it is inconceivable, logic and reasoning are not dissatisfied, for it is reasonable that God can have inconceivable power. Whatever is established by the Lord's inconceivable power can only be understood by the Lord's mercy. The real difference between the two philosophies is that in acintya-bheda-abheda there is recognition that the lords inconceivable power and potency enables him to reconcile contradictions, for instance the contradictory fact that Krishna is in everything and that Krishna is different from everything.
  15. Acintya bheda abheda tattva The Doctrine of Distinction and Non-Distinction by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura (Sri Chaitanya Siksamrtam, chapter 5) Every thing in existence is but a transformation of the energy of the Lord. This is the teaching of Sri Chaitanya to the Advaita sanyasis of Kasi. In his Vedanta sutra, Vyasadeva has described that everything is a transformation of the Lord's energy. Shankaracharya, however, has misled the world by commenting that Vyasadeva was mistaken. Thus Shankaracharya has raised great opposition to theism throughout the entire world. According to Shankaracharya, by accepting the theory of the transformation of the energy of the Lord one falls into an illusion by indirectly proposing that the Absolute Truth itself is transformed. According to Shankarachaya, the Absolute is formless and impersonal. But it is the Lord's energy which is transformed, not the Lord himself, and the transformation of energy is a proven fact. It is the false bodily conception that the changing body is the self that is an illusion. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of potency and by his inconceivable energies he has transformed the material cosmic manifestation. Using the example of the touchstone (philosophers stone) which, which by its energy turns iron to gold and yet remains the same, Sri Chaitanya said that although the God transforms his innumerable energies and creates the world he always remains unchanged. Although touchstone produces many varieties of valuable jewels it nevertheless remains the same. It does not change its original form. When we speak of the Supreme as impersonal, we deny his spiritual potencies. Logically, if you accept half of the truth, you cannot understand the whole. To Sarvabhauma, Sri Chaitanya said: Vedanta sutra is the summary of all the Upanisads, therefore whatever direct meaning is there in the Upanisads is also recorded in the Vedanta sutra. For each verse the direct meaning must be accepted without interpretation. To the sannyasis at Varanasi, Mahaprabhu said: The Vedic sound vibration omkara(om, or aum), the principle word in the Vedic literatures, is the basis of all the hymns of the Vedas. Therefore one should accept omkara as the sound representation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the reservoir of the cosmic manifestation. It is the purpose of the Supreme Personality of Godhead to present pranava as the reservoir of all Vedic knowledge. The words "tat tvam asi" favoured by Shankaracharya are only a partial explanation of the Vedic knowledge. It is pranava that is the mahavakya (supreme statement) in the Vedas. Shankaracharya's followers disregard omkara to stress the mantra "tat tvam asi". Vedanta philosophy consists of words spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Narayana in the form of Vyasadeva. The material defects of mistakes, illusions, cheating and sensory defects do not exist in the words of Godhead. The Absolute Truth is described by the Upanisads and Vedanta sutra but one must understand the verses as they are. That is proper understanding. Sripad Shankaracharya has described all the Vedic literatures in terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is ruined. According to direct understanding, the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has all spiritual opulences. No one can be equal to or greater than him. Everything about the Supreme Personality of Godhead is spiritual, including his body, opulence and paraphernalia. Mayavada philosophy, however, covering his spiritual opulence, advocates the theory of impersonalism. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is full of spiritual potencies. Therefore his body, name, fame and entourage are all spiritual. The Mayavadi philosopher, due to ignorance, says that these things such as the body of Krishna are all merely transformations of nature in the material mode of goodness. Shankaracharya, who is an incarnation of Lord Shiva, is faultless because he is a servant carrying out the orders of the Lord, but those who follow his Mayavada philosophy are doomed. They will lose all their advancement in spiritual knowledge. Pranava or omkara is an indirect name of Krishna, the original sound of the Vedas, sabda brahma. The noun "pranava" is formed from the verb pranu (to sound), made from the prefix pra (very much) and the verb nu (to praise). Therefore pranava or omkara is the sound incarnation of the Supreme Brahman, the person worthy of our praise and worship. From omkara all the Vedas have appeared. Pranava is the seed of the Vedas, the mahavakya or principal sound. All other parts of the Vedas are particular statements of relative value. Shankaracharya, the formulator of mayavada philosophy, minimized the prominent position of omkara and proclaimed four specialized statements as mahavakya: 1. aham brahmasmi (I am brahman) 2. prajnanam brahma (brahman is knowledge) 3. tattvam asi (you are that brahman) 4. ekam eva advitiyam (there is only one existent being). Shankaracharya took other statements as the essence of the Vedas and preached exclusive monism. He taught that the conditioned jiva is simply an illusion produced by maya, that brahman is subjected to maya, and that liberation for the jiva is the absence of maya. By this philosophy the pure relation of the soul with the Absolute Being becomes hidden. The conclusion of all the Vedas has not been considered by the Mayavada philosophers. Thus, Madhvacarya took other Vedic statements and established an opposing philosophy, dvaitavad. However, because he did not consider all the Vedic statements the full relation of the soul to the Lord was not revealed. Ramanujacarya as well, in his visistadvaita philosophy, did not show the complete relationship. Nimbarka Swami, propounder of dvaitadvaita, preached a somewhat incomplete doctrine. Visnu Swami also, in his suddhadvaita doctrine, left some ambiguity. In order to establish the eternal nature of love of God, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave pure, complete teachings about the relationship of soul with the Lord through the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda. In this way he delivered the world from the darkness of mental speculation. Mahaprabhu said that the only mahavakya is pranava. Its meaning is evident in the Upanisads. What the Upanisads teach is perfectly sanctioned by Vyasa in the Vedanta Sutras. The authentic commentary of the Vedanta sutras is the Srimad Bhagavatam. The first sutra teaches that the principle of transformation is the truth. yato va imani bhutani jayante (Taittriya Upanisad) also supports this. The Bhagavatam also establishes this truth. Fearing that with the principle of transformation the Supreme Brahman becomes changeable, Shankara established vivarta-vada, the theory of illusion. This vivarta-vada is the root of all faults. Parinama-vada, transformation through the Lord's energies, is approved by all scriptures and is the principle of pure existence. If the eternal existence of the Lord's energies is not accepted in parinama-vada, then the defects of the Lord falling under illusion and deterioration of the Lord appear. Yet it is not the Lord himself but his energies which are transformed. The Lord is simultaneously distinct from his energies and non-distinct from them, this being possible because the Lord has inconceivably powerful energy. If the eternal, natural, superior energy of the Lord is accepted, then there is no fault in the doctrine of parinama-vada, or transformation. The transformations of the Lord's energy, which give rise to the material universe, are factual, but the Lord does not change. By transformation of the Lord's energies the material world and the souls take their existence. Though gold is produced from the touchstone the touchstone remains unaffected. In this example given by Mahaprabhu, it is clear that Krishna's energies perform the creation, whereas Krishna's remains unaffected. It is all the transformation of his energies. By transformation of the cit sakti(pure consciousness and existence), the Lord's abode, name, form, qualities, pastimes and the individual souls exist. By transformation of the maya sakti (nature), the material world and the subtle and physical bodies of the living beings come into existence. This parinama-vada is found everywhere in the Vedanta Sutras and the Upanisads. The gradual evolution of mahatattva, ahankara, ether, fire, air, water and earth is also parinamavada. After all the efforts of Advaita philosophy, what is left in the mind of the philosopher is an imaginary self and an imaginary world. But in pure parinama-vada, by Krishna's will, the material world and the souls are seen as real, true, existent entities. The world is not illusion but a temporary state of transformation, since by Krishna's will it may dissolve. Although the Lord creates the world and enters into it, he remains eternally independent in his form as Krishna. He is always served by his spiritual energies. Only those who can understand this remarkable feature of the Lord are able to taste the Lord's opulence and sweetness. This is the relation of the soul to Krishna. The soul's relation with the temporary world is like that of a traveler at an inn. The proper way to deal with the world, yukta vairagya, arises from a correct understanding of the relation between the soul and the material energy. As long as the correct understanding of temporary and permanent does not arise, the deluded soul cannot perform proper activities. According to Lord Chaitanya's doctrine, the soul's identity and difference from the Lord, and the world's difference and identity with the Lord, are both established as truth. Since this cannot be adjusted by limited human reasoning this eternal difference and non difference is called acintya or inconceivable. Though it is inconceivable, logic and reasoning are not dissatisfied, for it is reasonable that God can have inconceivable power. Whatever is established by the Lord's inconceivable power can only be understood by the Lord's mercy. The ancient sages have taught that logic cannot be applied to the inconceivable, for in inconceivable matters, logic cannot be accepted as a proof. Those who cannot grasp this are most unfortunate.
  16. Srila Govinda Maharaj is a descendent of one of the associates of Sri Nityananda Prabhu. Srila Govinda Maharaj's fathers's name is Nitaipada Dasadhikari. The name "Dasadhikari" was given to the family by Nityananda Prabhu.
  17. The disciple who was imprisoned was Sadananda, a German citizen. He later took sannyasa, from Bon Maharaj I believe. Sadananda received Harinama from Bon Maharaj while in Europe, then came to India and took diksa from Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur. In prison in India during world war 2, Sadananda met Walther Eidlitz, a jewish-German author, who he converted to Vaishnavism. Eidlitz took diksa from Bon Maharaj, and was known as "Vaman das". He and Sadananda opened a temple in Sweden after world war 2. Bon Maharaj used to go and preach in Sweden in the 1950's to 1970's.
  18. I am just wondering what exactly it is, that makes Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada superior or different from his Godbrothers who also preached and initiated many disciples. How many disciples did Srila Gaurakishore dasa Babaji have? Does he get a place in this list of Sampradaya Acaryas made by Rocana dasa? Srila Gaurakishore dasa Babaji didn't preach as widely as, for example, Bon Maharaj. We know that Srila Sridhar Maharaj, Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami and others were very much opposed to Bon Maharaj, but it is also a fact that Bon Maharaj has many disciples and that he opened many temples. Again, what then can be said of Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj, who preached in London in the 1930's, and who was instructed by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur that if he met anyone in England who wanted to take diksa, that Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami could give that person diksa. And not as a ritvik or representative of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur; rather, at Howra station and in front of many witnesses Srila Saraswati Thakur told everyone that Goswami Maharaj was to become a diksa guru and initiate anyone who wanted diksa. And in fact, Goswami Maharaj did initated one man, an Australian, and bring him to India to meet with Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur in 1936. How can it be said that Goswami Maharaj is not a "Sampradaya Acharya" when he was specifically told to give diksa to newcomers by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur. It is sometimes said that Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur never authorised anyone to become a Guru after his passing; however it is a fact that Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami became a Guru before Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur passed away - and with the full blessings of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur. What is more, in the book Prabhupada Lilamrtam, which Rocana despises, it states that for one year Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj was the temple president of one of the temples of Srila Bhakti Saranga Goswami Maharaj, and that the devotees at the temple were not happy with his management style, and that it was suggested that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj should leave that job of temple president. He did leave that job, and then he went to Keshava Maharaj and took sannyasa from him. To say this is not to minimise the greatness of Srila Prabhupada. It is merely a telling of the actual events which have happened in the Gaudiya Math... it is history. Mushrooms grow in the dark and feed on compost and dung. Sometimes I think that people like Rocana are mushroom farmers and that the people he cultivates are like mushrooms.
  19. There has been an ongoing debate for years and years between the people who are behind "gaudiya" discussions, and other people who have faith in Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. But in fact, nobody really needs to read the nonsense they talk about at "gaudiya" discussions anyway. "gaudiya" discussions is a place where "scholars" spend time criticizing not just Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, but even Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj and Baladeva Vidyabhusana. They are not real gaudiyas at all, at "gaudiya" discussions. They have no faith in the real Gaudiya Acharyas.
  20. These are some of the points of debate that the opponents of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami make when criticising him. These ideas are all raised because of misunderstandings about the real philosophy of Sri Chaitanya and his immediate disciples. <blockquote> Like for instance the introduction of Sannyas that Sriman Mahaprabu himself spoke against in the age of Kali...? </blockquote> Many of Mahaprabhu's direct and most intimate associates were sannyasis, and indeed he himself took sannyasa. Sannyasa, monk status, is not forbidden for Gaudiya Vaishnavas, only we are advised not to take sannyasa for the purpose of false renunciation. Indeed even the so-called "babajis" of Vraja and Nabadwip practice a kind of sannyasa, in which they accept the kaupina as their "vesha", and take on a new name. And it is a fact that this practice only came into existence 150 years after Mahaprabhu left this world. So the so-called babaji's cannot claim that their form of "sannyasa" is a tradition started by Mahaprabhu. And don't we all know it for a fact: Madhavendra Puri, Ishwara Puri, etc.. were sannyasis. <blockquote> Or not to accept red cloth that is spoken about by the Gosvamis...? </blockquote> The statement against accepting red cloth is in Hari Bhakti Vilasa. It is in regard to wearing the ochre red cloth of the Mayavadis. However, it is a fact that Sriman Mahaprabhu, Swarup Damodar Goswami, Gadadhara Pandit, Prabhodananda Saraswati and others wore red cloth. What is more, it is a fact that Hari Bhakti Vilasa is a book compiled to detail the viddhi marga rules, as a kind of guidebook about what the "orthodox" practices of worship are, but this book is not altogether relevant for the followers of Mahaprabhu. For example, there is no mention at all of the name of Sri Radha in the whole of Hari Bhakti Vilasa. Nor is there any mention of the worship of Radha Krishna anywhere in Hari Bhakti Vilasa. Rather, this book describes Vishnu worship. This book Hari Bhakti Vilasa is intended to be used for guidelines about processes of Archana, but it is not meant to be strictly followed in every detail, as regards to the daily practices prescribed for Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Indeed it's author, Sri Sanatan Goswami, (or Sri Gopala Bhatta Goswami, according to other sources), prescribed different daily practices of sadhana bhakti in his other writings. <blockquote> Or to teach a doctrine of parampara that totally deviates from all other Gaudiya Vaisnava Gurus back to the time of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu...? </blockquote> This is not true. Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami followed the teachings of Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, in regards to the what constitues a "Parampara". A parampara is not merely a list of initiating gurus and their disciples. It is a list of significant Acharyas who are like lighthouses, illuminating the world, in different epochs or periods of time. This point is clear in the writings of Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, and again, in the writings of Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami. It is a fact that Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami did not regard the spurious and concocted notion of "Siddha Pranali" and "Guru Pranali" followed by some sects of psuedo Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be a proper Guru Parampara. According to these sects, Guru Parampara is the list of initiating gurus going back to the time of Mahaprabhu. But in Chaitanya Charitamrta this method of listing parampara is not followed. Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj lists Srila Ragunath das Goswami as the successor of Sri Swarup Damodara Goswami and not as a follower of his diksa guru, Sri Yadunandana Acharya. mahaprabhura priya bhrtya - raghunatha-dasa sarva tyaji' kaila prabhura -tale vasa prabhu samarpila tanre svarupera hate prabhura gupta-seva kaila svarupera sathe Srila Raghunatha das Gosvami, the forty-sixth branch of the tree, was one of the most dear servants of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He left all his material possessions to surrender completely unto the Lord and live at His lotus feet. When Raghunatha das Gosvami approached Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu at Jagannatha Puri, the Lord entrusted him to the care of Svarupa Damodara, His secretary. Thus they both engaged in the confidential service of the Lord. - (Chaitanya Charitamrta Adi.11.91-92) Indeed, Srila Saraswati Thakur's way of presenting his spiritual lineage, a siksa-guru parampara, was not an innovation that he concocted. Baladev Vidyabusana also presented the Parampara of Sri Chaitanya's lineage in the same way: sri krsna brahma devarsi, badarayana samjnakan, sri madhva sri padmanabha, sriman nrhari madhavan aksobhya jaya-tirtha, sri jnanasindhu dayanidhi, sri vidyanidhi rajendra, jayadharma kramadvayam purusottama brahmanya, vyasa-tirthams ca samstumah, tato laksmipatim sriman, madhavendran ca bhaktitah tac-chisyan srisvaradvaita, nityanandan-jagat-gurun devam-isvara-sisyam-sri, caitanyan ca bhajamahe Sri Krishna's disciple was Brahma, whose disciple was the sage of the demigods, Narada. His disciple was Badarayana (Vyasa) whose disciple was Madhva. His disciple was Padmanabha, whose disciple was Nrihari. His disciple was Madhva whose disciple was Aksobhya, whose disciple was Jaya Tirtha. His disciple was Jnanasindhu, whose disciple was Dayanidhi. His disciple was Vidyanidhi whose disciple was Jayadharma. His disciple was Purusottama and his disciple was Brahmanya whose disciple was Vyasa Tirtha. His disciple was Laksmipati and his disciple was Madhavendra whose disciples were Isvara, Advaita and Nityananda the guru of the whole world. Another of his disciples was Sri Chaitanya who we offer our respects to. - (from Prameya Ratnavali, by Baladev Vidyabhushana) The fact is Padmanabha Tirtha, Nrihari Tirtha, Madhava Tirtha and Aksobhya Tirtha were all direct diksha (initiated) disciples of Madhva. They were not successive links in the diksha chain. Yet Baladev Vidyabhushana states they were disciples of each other. These are all indisputable siksha links; Padmanabha gave siksa (instruction) to Nrihari, Nrihari instucted Madhava, etc. So, Krsna, you wrote "Yes what would happen my dear Prabhus ?". What would happen? The answer is simple. The Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition would be renewed by a visionary, a seer of Truth, who opens our eyes with the torch of knowledge and dissipates the darkness of psuedo-religion and misunderstanding. How fortunate we are, that Srila Saraswati Thakur has appeared in the world! Jaya Srila Saraswati Thakur! Jaya Srila Saraswati Thakur! Jaya Srila Saraswati Thakur!
×
×
  • Create New...