Jahnava Nitai Das

My doubt is as to whether you are a sanskrit scholar competant to identify interpolations in an ancient text, and whether you studied the Mahabharata text for this purpose. Only then would your comment as to the authenticity of mahabharata have any meaning. Or maybe you just read something on a website and thought you would look smart. Go ahead and be honest. Just reread you post: Yup, sure. Guess I better chuck out my mahabharata, cause Jijaji says most of the verses are interpolations. I hope he has actually read them and isn't just passing around a rumor. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-10-2002).]

And one other question. Where does Vedanta Deshika quote from Kamba Ramayana, and to what extent?

I seriously doubt whether you have read the Mahabharata text at all, thus to me, personally, your statement is really a waste of time.

Certainly a guru is necessary, but the question is whether one needs to undergo a ritual, and if that ritual makes one superior to those who have not undergone the ritual. No one is suggesting one does not need a guru, and that Krishna will personally come to guide us; but rather what is more important (and hence the actual substance of initiation), the surrender to the spiritual master and the planting the seed of transcendental knoweldge in the heart of the shishya, or the external ritual of whispering a mantra in the ear of the disciple (giving him a new name, a deity to worship, etc.). The pancha-samskaras of diksha are for purification and regulation. But they are not the only way to attain purification. Divinity can flow directly to anyone through anyone by any method. That flow of divinity from one devotee to another is the guru-shishya relationship. It does not depend on any external ritual, though some external rituals are purifying and regulating, and therefore beneficial to most. This thread more or less began with the conception that someone is not initiated, therefore he is inferior to me and unqualified to speak, because I am initiated (five, six, maybe a dozen times). It is a wrong conception and just a product of false ego. Then some were advised that it is better to go out and take initiation from anyone, just so you can prove that you are serious (otherwise you aren't serious). What a ridiculous conclusion. When the sat-guru comes, the disciple will know, and he will take initiation. Maybe this life, maybe the next; maybe through a ritualistic process, maybe not. The idea that everyone should be pushed to take initiation, so that they can prove their status is a terrible thing. I'm sure a number of the participants in this discussion had been pushed into taking 3, 4 or maybe even more initiations from different "gurus" all supported by the same arguments (if your serious, you must take a ritual initiation). Maybe having done it themselves they feel the need to perpetuate the same myth. Many sects seem to have this pattern. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-10-2002).]

What position does Kamba take on the "maya-sita" found in some Puranas (i.e. that Sita was never kidnapped by Ravana, but an illusory sita was manifested by Agni Deva, and that was taken)?

I think that would sum up my thoughts on the matter.

It was supposed to, mainly because it was a joke in response to Raga's obvious personal dislike for Bhaktisiddhanta.

To be honest, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's branch of the Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya has certainly accomplished the most amazing feats of all Indian religious groups in the last few hundred years. But for the sake of maintaining peace I won't point out the futility of other dried up branches of the Gaudiya sampradaya. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-09-2002).]

I thought we can start a separate thread on this topic, since it may be interesting and doesn't quite fit in with the previous thread. First, maybe Karthik can give a short historical explanation of the work. Then we will analyze to what degree it is accepted in traditional circles of vaishnavism.

Sri Chaitanya, whom most of us claim to follow, Himself did not give mantra diksha to any disciples. Yet He did have disciples. But most here will probably prefer to ignore this point as it strengthens the concept of a siksha parampara as opposed to a ritual parampara. As to whether divya-jnanam (transcendental knoweldge) actually means a ritual initiation with a mantra, thats left for people with common sense to decide. From the practical history, we see Arjuna did not receive a ritual mantra initiation, yet he became the shishya of Krishna simply by complete surrender (shishyas te 'ham shadhi mama tvam prapannam. If we do prapatti to the guru, we become his disciple, it is that simple. When the guru accepts our surrender that is initiation, and his mere blessings plant the seed of transcendental knowledge (divya jnanam) in our heart. Others may give more value to the metric distance between the guru and the disciple when he whispers in the ear of the shishya, but it is not the case in the scriptures or traditions. Ramanuja received spontaneous initiation from Yamunacharya without having even spoken to him, after his guru had left his body. There was no chance for an external ritual, nor was there any need. Mantra diksha is distinct from this, as Ramanuja later received mantra diksha from Periya Nambi. Divya-jnanam is absolutely distinct from mantra diksha, though the mantra is sometimes given to the shishya to awaken the covered divya-jnanam (through sadhana). The histories are full of stories of disciples who simply received the karuna of the guru, with out any formal mantra diksha. Personalities such as Parikshit received divya-jnanam simply by hearing Srimad Bhagavatam. there was no need for an external ritual or for mantra diksha. One may argue that in Chaitanya's line, Chaitanya has given stress to the ritual, but it is not true, for He Himself never gave mantra diksha.

Kamba Ramayana topic shifted to a new thread.

Again, this is your inference. Madhva does not speak of Radha. So whether she is rejected or accepted is a meaningless argument. Unless of course Shivu and Jijaji can show me the writings of Madhva that reject the divinity of Radha. What they can show is the writings of present followers of Madhva, but not the writings of Madhva.

Everyone is free to have their own opinion. I may not agree with it, but that's not so relevant. What I found amusing was the statement about learning from the "authorized disciplic succession". Except of course if it is a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada, who is just a recent teacher (refer "instead of plucking out references from the letters of a recent teacher...") I would disagree. Especially when seen in connection with this statement: As far as Raga's multitude of quotes from Srila Prabhupada, yes, they tell us to approach a spiritual master, but do not say anything about undergoing an external ritual. Initiation is much more than the ritual. I have nothing against rituals and initiations, but just for discussion I am making these points. Now whether Mr. XYZ is "initiated" or not, and whether he was initiated in 1976 or 1975 really is meaningless. We should be able to address his statements directly and, if he is completely crazy, show the fallacies of his statements. The, "who is your guru" argument is really a childish answer, one that certainly won't carry any value outside of ritualist circles. What is an initiation ritual and what is its weight? Just by having been initiated ritually, does that make us disciples of Swami ABC? Hypothetically, what if we change our minds later? Does the ritual override our state of mind? Or is it our conscious surrender to the guru that makes us disciples?

Again, the examples cited of Ramanuja and Arjuna. What mantras did they receive? Yet they were both initiated by the guru in a spontaneous manner. Did their gurus follow the procedures mentioned in Hari-bhakti-vilasa (Whisperingi n the ear, etc.)? Of course the answer is no. Some people can only see what is written in the text, but it does not always tally with reality. The text is written as a general guideline, but who can limit the flow of divinity? Krishna can initiate one into His mantra by playing His flute. He can do the same through his nimita-matras if He desires. There is no limitation you can put on divinity. Sometimes those who "have" the ritual want to specialize themselves from others. Thus they like to stress the importance of their ritual, or rather themselves.

It's not a matter of thinking ourselves as fallen, but realizing we are factually fallen (atma-nikshepa karpanye). As long as we continue thinking that we need to imagine that we are fallen, we just won't get it. It's not an excercise of the mind, it is simply opening our eyes to the reality of our existences. Because of not having this mentality, all problems came. Courts and other such things are really quite irrelevant. Our need is a personal one. We must be very selfish in our spiritual pursuits to ensure our success in advancement. Once having attained success, we can become daya-sagara. As for criminals, they should be dealt with by the law. It is not necessary to revere other sadhakas, but simply to understand factually our own fallen position. The reality we are seeing actually is not the reality. But the coverings are so thick, that we accept them as truth without question. Thus it appears very simple to judge others. Sannyasa is simply an order of life. The discipline that is attempted is tyaga. Tyaga may be attempted in any ashrama, but are we willing to attempt it? They have declared war against maya, and they have lost. They have died on the battlefield. For that they will attain the heavens. There is no infamy, for they have fallen after flying. We on the other hand are remaining on the ground, slithering like snakes, scoffing at them, "Ha, see they couldn't fly, could they?" Because it is not your duty. Nor will it change the prarabdha karmas that are functioning. Those who see ISKCON as a few fallen sannyasis, instead of as the millions of sincere devotees naturally have a defect in their vision. We should spend more time associating with sadhus rather than reading the newspapers for our information. Those who follow Vedanta philosophy understand that material enjoyment is evil, and that is Krishna's direct statement in the Gita. Bhoga and aisvarya are two blocks on the path of self-realization that lead one to further bondage. Lust, anger and greed are three paths that lead to hell. Those who are interested in actually attaining Krishna should set their goals in life based on this knowledge and regulate their life accordingly. Some truths are so fundamentally obvious that they require no sermons. The vaishnava acharya's of every path have explained the fundamental principle of material existence and bondage (i.e. material attachment and enjoyment). Do you think that simply by being married, your sex desire has now become spiritual? It creates the exact same karma-vasana regardless of marriage. The purpose of marriage is to regulate our activities. The fact that regulation is involved is an admission that it is not beneficial for us. On the otherhand which Vaishnava acharya has quoted from Kama-sutra? Which vaishnava acharya has instructed to engage in unrestricted sex? Kamba Ramayana is not accepted by Vaishnavas as authentic. Thus I will not try to justify its statements.

A Ritvik is one of four priests partaking in a ritualistic homa. It's humorous how a completely new concept has been created around this word. Srila Prabhupada didn't need to particularly identify a successor as the tradition already establishes the precedent. The guru-shishya relationship is spontaneous and natural. It does not require sanction from any material authority.

It is... That's what guru-padashraya is. The external ritual of initiation is just a symbol. The actual diksha is the planting of divya-jnanam in the heart of the disciple. What is jnanam? It is the instructions of the parampara, both personal and universal. The ritual has its relevance, but to confuse the ritual for the actual substance is going too far. And to dismiss one's arguments (regardless of how crazy they may or may not be) on the grounds that one didn't get the "ritual" is kind of cheap, and too common as well.

I think the only disagreement that could exist is what constitutes surrender to the spiritual master and "initiation". Is it a mere ritual, or is it the implanting of divya-jnanam in the heart of the shishya? Arjuna is a disciple of Lord Krishna because he surrendered to the Lord and he received divya-jnanam. It was not a ritual. The same was the case with Ramanuja. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-08-2002).]

It is your own opinion that there is no scriptural reference for Radha. If anyone shows you a reference, you will dismiss it as recent. On what grounds? Because according to you the concept of Radha is only X years old, therefore it must be recent. Your circular logic keeps recircling on this topic from time to time. Sri, Bhu and Nila are the three divine manifestations of Lakshmi. Rukmini, Satyabhama and Jambavati are the same divinities in Krishna's Dwaraka lila. In Vrindavana lila, they manifest as gopis. One can say it the other way around as well (i.e. from Krishna's vrindavan pastime they manifest into Dwaraka, and then Vaikuntha). [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-08-2002).]

I assume you actually mean through your authorized disciplic succession, as there are countless successions which will have varying definitions. And of course one such authorized disciplic succession which was quoted was the one of Srila Prabhupada's, but that didn't seem to satisfy you. Thus it seems to reaffirm my conclusion above (i.e. your authorized disciplic succession...).

Sorry for the late replies, the cable lines got cut down by the telephone department so the internet was not working. Shashi: Yes you can send it to the address in Bhadrak, but it should be sent by registered post if at all possible. The Indian postal system is not all that reliable. JayaRadhe: Everything sent to our Los Angeles address gets sent to our ashram here. The only difference is it is tax deductable in U.S., and we will maintain separate accounts for it to report to the IRS. Personally I feel safer with things being sent there, as there is no doubt about the postal system. I'm really not sure why your credit card was rejected. Maybe it will be easiest to just mail it. Avinash: Usually we are able to feed one child for 8 rupees (around 16 cents U.S.). This includes rice, dahl, subji and chutney (mango chutney, not South Indian chutney) with each child eating two full plates. Right now the distribution is done four times a month (on Sundays), but we have plans to make it a daily distribution within one or two months. The main limiting problem is the amount of work the volunteers have to do to setup in the villages. They have to transport all of the pots, grains, etc., 10 to 15 km by bicycle push cart, then stand in the hot sun next to a huge wood fire to cook the food (prasadam). Then after serving, in the evening, they have to clean up the entire area (without any lights, since these villages have no electricity), and finally bring all pots back, 10 to 15 km by bicycle push-cart. The entire procedure is very difficult and tiring for them, making it impossible for them to do it except on Sundays (most of them work 6 days a week in regular jobs as well). This month we are trying to buy a small used van, which will remove around 70% of the difficulty involved, and subsequently enable us to conduct the distribution daily instead of just on Sundays. We will cook all of the food at our ashram (instead of at the village), transport it by van, distribute it, and return by van. The clean up can then be done at our ashram by other volunteers. Since the work involved will be much less, it will be possible to conduct it daily.

...and Narada was a maidservant's son who lost his mother to a snake bite, and Prahlada was a sinful king who accidentally fasted on Nrisimha Chaturdashi. The Purana's are full of such stories to show the potency of devotional service. The eternally liberated devotees choose to manifest in Lord Krishna's pastimes through an indirect route, sometimes taking prior births. The Pandavas were Indras in previous lives. This does not contradict anything taught by Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas. This is not correct. Madhva does not speak about Radha, he neither acknowledges nor rejects her existence.

The obvious proof is that the numbers of verses in particular branches of the Vedas are mentioned in various texts such as Puranas, and we don't find even 5% of the number in existence today. The same is the case of the Puranas, Upapuranas and Upakhyanas, which should number 18 x 18 x 18, of which we have 30 or 40 in existence today. The Ayurveda, dhanurveda, etc., are an identical case, where the millions of verses that are supposed to exist just don't.

Please keep the copy and paste to a minimum. These forums are primarily for discussion, not posting 101 websites. [Note: Copied articles deleted to keep the thread readable. If you want to post articles, put them in World Review, which is also not the right place, but better than here.] [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-08-2002).]

The moment we see ourselves as the most fallen (and not others around us), that is when sex desire will begin to diminish automatically. It is actually the most difficult process of sadhana (humility), but it is the fundamental point of sharanagati. We will point our fingers at those who have fallen from renunciation, while we ourselves have never even attempted renunciation. There is a saying, the snake cannot fall, for it cannot fly. It is quite appropriate in this matter. As long as the criticizing nature remains in our heart (which is a great anartha), it will be impossible to regulate our material desires. On the contrary, they will increase despite the sadhana we are performing. Again you are confusing regulated human life within the grihastha ashram with sannyasa. It is not renunciation, but regulation. If someone is smoking cigarettes, and dying of cancer. We can tell them to continue smoking, which they will gladly do. We could also tell them to give it up altogether, which they cannot do. What we should do is help them to regulate it gradually with the conception of eventual renunciation. Actually, if we are attracted to material enjoyment it is because of our unnatural state of entanglement within material existence. Our natural state is one of freedom.