Jahnava Nitai Das

If he is a great sadhu then follow his teachings. Otherwise your talk is all sentimental nonsense. "Oh, Gour Govinda Maharaja is a great sadhu, but he is actually a fool for following a bogus sampradaya full of anomalies where no one has actually received proper diksha." Isn't that what you actually mean? You think he is a sadhu only because he is no longer present. If he was living you would be criticizing him just like you criticize others in the Gaudiya Matha and ISKCON. Why would you criticize him while living? Because while living he would call you a rascal to your face for suggesting that the Sarasvata line was not properly initiated. What do you know about Gour Govinda Maharaj that makes you think he is a saint? Did you see some glowing jyothi coming out of his aura, or is it that from his teachings and conduct we know he is saintly? Yet you reject his teachings and laugh at them as childish. Yes, GHari is right when he says such people that do this are poseurs. They pretend to respect a saint in name only, but laugh at their teachings. If you think he is a realized saint then respect his teachings and realize he knows more than you - this is called humility, the first step in advancing in spiritual life. Through humility you will come to the point of jnanam, not through your attempt to read many books. What? Your upset that this topic started when you started it? Some people are interested in gossip and rumor rather than hari-katha. For such people these types of discussions are really enjoyable. Here is your quote where you state you were following Sai Baba up till 2001: "This took place around December 1990, and I can clearly (and happily!) remember the end date: 5th July 2001." In July of 2001 you finally gave up your belief in Sai Baba. Anyone who follows the path of Srila Prabhupada knows Sai Baba is a fraud from day one. You want us to believe you were a seriously practicing devotee, studying the teachings of Srila Prabhupada for 27 years, yet you didn't have a clue when it came to following a cheater like Sai Baba. And for someone who just came to the actual teachings of Srila Prabhupada two years ago, you want to ridicule saintly people such as Sridhar Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja because they couldn't convince you about their parampara, and their teachings didn't make any sense. You need to wake up and stop pretending your something your not. Just because your family was life members and you had a Krishna art book on your coffee table doesn't mean anything. Following Krishna consciousness is about sacrifice and dedication to the instructions of the spiritual master, not about visiting the local Hare Krishna temple for the Sunday feast because your a Hindu. All of that is fine, but when you want to ridicule people like Bhaktisiddhanta, Sridhar Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja based on this standing, then its time for a reality check. Because you post things that display a complete lack of knowledge of the subject you are speaking. For example, you wrote: "By the way, are you aware that no Vaishnava school anywhere has a siksa-parampara? No Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Vallabha, no Nimabarki, no nothing." You just don't have a clue about other sampradayas, nor our own - yet you want to pose yourself as someone who has studied these things in depth. This is why GHari calls you a poseur. You may think such statements as yours cited above make your presentation "authoritative", but to those who have studied, it highlights your foolishness and lack of knowledge on the matter. As the famous saying goes, "you know a fool when he opens his mouth".

With your solid two years of practicing Krishna consciousness you seem to think a lot of yourself and little of others. Simply because something doesn't make sense to you does not mean it is illogical or incorrect. Trigonometry doesn't make sense to a child in the first grade. Continue studying with humility and everything will become clear. You are carrying too many misconceptions and you assume you know more than you actually do. Don't study like a grasshopper, jumping from one book to the next. Undertake a systematic study of the Gita and Bhagavatam, preferably under a sadhu, and things will become clear.

Here is my post from the Urmila thread to Gaurasundar: This argument again. You should go educate yourself and come back when your done. The siksha parampara did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta, and is a timeless Vedic tradition begining with Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna via divya-jnanam. Arjuna never received diksha mantras from Krishna on the battlefield of kurukshetra, but was initiated as his disciple via siksha. Sukadeva Goswami also initiated Maharaja Parikshit via siksha, and Parikshit attained the highest abode of Vaikuntha through this initiation into divya-jnanam. In more recent times, Ramanuja was initiated by Yamunacharya despite never having spoken to him or seen him prior to his leaving his body. Diksha mantras were later given to Ramanuja by one of Ramanuja's God brothers, thereby showing that it is not the diksha mantras that make one the disciple, otherwise Ramanuja would not be the disciple of Yamunacharya but of Goshthi Purna. Baladeva Vidyabhushana himself accepts a Sikhsa parampara that includes Madhvacharya in our line, something most of the caste Goswami lines and so-called "traditional paramparas" do not do. Madhva did not received diksha mantras from Vyasa, he only received Siksha and this is elaborately explained in the authoritative biographies of Madhva. Madhvacharya received diksha mantras from Achyutapreksha, who was actually his own siksha disciple. Bhaktivinoda Thakur accepted the Siksha parampara listed by Baladeva Vidyabhushana as fact, not fabrication: "The Brahma disciplic line is the path recognized by all the followers of Lord Caitanya. This information has been obtained in accordance with the evidence of the book 'Gaura Ganodesa Dipika' of Srila Kavikarnapura, written in proper sequence and has been verified by Srila Vidyabhusana. One who does not accept this succession is definitely the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites." Elsewhere he writes: "Very soon, only one authorized disciplic chain will remain by the name 'Sri Brahma-Sampradaya'. All the others will merge under this banner. The 'Sri Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya lineage of pure spiritual masters or guru parampara is defined in this fashion. As before Lord Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa-Madhva down the line to Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu." There are plenty of other examples of Paramparas that were not based on diksha mantras. But judging by your fanatical writing style I see it as a complete waste of time to discuss this matter with you. We should also remember that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never initiated anyone with diksha mantras. Diksha mantras are not important compared to siksha, for it is by divine knowledge that one actually attains diksha. Again, educate yourself and come back when your done. Simply your adding a dozen "no"s and "nothing"s does not make your statement true. It tells us nothing other than that the process of bhakti is so powerful that even following an unauthorized process brings one transcendental results and detachement. And since Vipin Vihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, the diksha connection with Lalit Prasad is bogus as are any initiations Lalit Prasad gave to his disciples. Such people have no link to any parampara, neither diksha nor siksha. Gaudiya saints such as Jagannatha das Babaji have accepted Mayapur as the birth place of Mahaprabhu and Bhaktivinoda Thakur valued their judgement more than his so-called "diksha-guru" and other residents of Navadvipa. This should tell us something about who the real guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur was. In Bhaktivinoda's own words, he accepts the Siksha guru as more important: "The initiating spiritual master (diksha-guru) shows his cause-less mercy by giving his disciples instructions in chanting the mantra. By so doing, he points the disciples in the direction of the truths pertaining to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. I consider the numerous instructing spiritual masters (siksha-gurus) to be more important, for they show more mercy by training the sadhakas in all the essential aspects of sadhana-bhakti." - Kalyana-kalpataru Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction. The fact that the Sarasvata school of Gaudiya Vaishnavism has spread Mahaprabhu's holy name to every corner of the world, including to your house and my house, is enough proof for me that their parampara is certainly blessed and empowered. Go back and do some more Gauranga Nityanada Mantra Rajas and cool your head. Maybe ask Swami Gaurangapada what he thinks of your nonsensical statements.

I had gone to see Bhakta Das around a month ago. He is a very nice devotee who sepnds all his time chanting and worshiping his dieties while in confinement. Everyone knows he is innocent, but the government politics are so heavy there that they just drag it on and on hoping to extort money from him. Most people would not be able to handle such a situation, being locked up for three years in such a place, but he has handled it with unbelievable strength and his sadhana has increased with every attack these demons make. He is blessed with the association of Srila Puri Maharaja from time to time, so this certainly has given him all strength and confidence. Bhakta Das accepts everything that has happened as his own bad karma from previous lives and uses this situation as an opportunity to increase his Krishna consciousness. We should all learn from his example how to act in Krishna consciousness when faced with uncontrollable unpleasant circumstances.

This argument again. You should go educate yourself and come back when your done. The siksha parampara did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta, and is a timeless Vedic tradition begining with Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna via divya-jnanam. Arjuna never received diksha mantras from Krishna on the battlefield of kurukshetra, but was initiated as his disciple via siksha. Sukadeva Goswami also initiated Maharaja Parikshit via siksha, and Parikshit attained the highest abode of Vaikuntha through this initiation into divya-jnanam. In more recent times, Ramanuja was initiated by Yamunacharya despite never having spoken to him or seen him prior to his leaving his body. Diksha mantras were later given to Ramanuja by one of Ramanuja's God brothers, thereby showing that it is not the diksha mantras that make one the disciple, otherwise Ramanuja would not be the disciple of Yamunacharya but of Goshthi Purna. Baladeva Vidyabhushana himself accepts a Sikhsa parampara that includes Madhvacharya in our line, something most of the caste Goswami lines and so-called "traditional paramparas" do not do. Madhva did not received diksha mantras from Vyasa, he only received Siksha and this is elaborately explained in the authoritative biographies of Madhva. Madhvacharya received diksha mantras from Achyutapreksha, who was actually his own siksha disciple. Bhaktivinoda Thakur accepted the Siksha parampara listed by Baladeva Vidyabhushana as fact, not fabrication: "The Brahma disciplic line is the path recognized by all the followers of Lord Caitanya. This information has been obtained in accordance with the evidence of the book 'Gaura Ganodesa Dipika' of Srila Kavikarnapura, written in proper sequence and has been verified by Srila Vidyabhusana. One who does not accept this succession is definitely the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites." Elsewhere he writes: "Very soon, only one authorized disciplic chain will remain by the name 'Sri Brahma-Sampradaya'. All the others will merge under this banner. The 'Sri Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya lineage of pure spiritual masters or guru parampara is defined in this fashion. As before Lord Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa-Madhva down the line to Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu." There are plenty of other examples of Paramparas that were not based on diksha mantras. But judging by your fanatical writing style I see it as a complete waste of time to discuss this matter with you. We should also remember that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never initiated anyone with diksha mantras. Diksha mantras are not important compared to siksha, for it is by divine knowledge that one actually attains diksha. Again, educate yourself and come back when your done. Simply your adding a dozen "no"s and "nothing"s does not make your statement true. It tells us nothing other than that the process of bhakti is so powerful that even following an unauthorized process brings one transcendental results and detachement. And since Vipin Vihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, the diksha connection with Lalit Prasad is bogus as are any initiations Lalit Prasad gave to his disciples. Such people have no link to any parampara, neither diksha nor siksha. Gaudiya saints such as Jagannatha das Babaji have accepted Mayapur as the birth place of Mahaprabhu and Bhaktivinoda Thakur valued their judgement more than his so-called "diksha-guru" and other residents of Navadvipa. This should tell us something about who the real guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur was. In Bhaktivinoda's own words, he accepts the Siksha guru as more important: "The initiating spiritual master (diksha-guru) shows his cause-less mercy by giving his disciples instructions in chanting the mantra. By so doing, he points the disciples in the direction of the truths pertaining to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. I consider the numerous instructing spiritual masters (siksha-gurus) to be more important, for they show more mercy by training the sadhakas in all the essential aspects of sadhana-bhakti." - Kalyana-kalpataru Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction. The fact that the Sarasvata school of Gaudiya Vaishnavism has spread Mahaprabhu's holy name to every corner of the world, including to your house and my house, is enough proof for me that their parampara is certainly blessed and empowered. Go back and do some more Gauranga Nityanada Mantra Rajas and cool your head. Maybe ask Swami Gaurangapada what he thinks of your nonsensical statements.

This argument again. You should go educate yourself and come back when your done. The siksha parampara did not originate with Bhaktisiddhanta, and is a timeless Vedic tradition begining with Lord Krishna instructing Arjuna via divya-jnanam. Arjuna never received diksha mantras from Krishna on the battlefield of kurukshetra, but was initiated as his disciple via siksha. Sukadeva Goswami also initiated Maharaja Parikshit via siksha, and Parikshit attained the highest abode of Vaikuntha through this initiation into divya-jnanam. In more recent times, Ramanuja was initiated by Yamunacharya despite never having spoken to him or seen him prior to his leaving his body. Diksha mantras were later given to Ramanuja by one of Ramanuja's God brothers, thereby showing that it is not the diksha mantras that make one the disciple, otherwise Ramanuja would not be the disciple of Yamunacharya but of Goshthi Purna. Baladeva Vidyabhushana himself accepts a Sikhsa parampara that includes Madhvacharya in our line, something most of the caste Goswami lines and so-called "traditional paramparas" do not do. Madhva did not received diksha mantras from Vyasa, he only received Siksha and this is elaborately explained in the authoritative biographies of Madhva. Madhvacharya received diksha mantras from Achyutapreksha, who was actually his own siksha disciple. Bhaktivinoda Thakur accepted the Siksha parampara listed by Baladeva Vidyabhushana as fact, not fabrication: "The Brahma disciplic line is the path recognized by all the followers of Lord Caitanya. This information has been obtained in accordance with the evidence of the book 'Gaura Ganodesa Dipika' of Srila Kavikarnapura, written in proper sequence and has been verified by Srila Vidyabhusana. One who does not accept this succession is definitely the foremost enemy of the Gaudiya Vaishnavites." Elsewhere he writes: "Very soon, only one authorized disciplic chain will remain by the name 'Sri Brahma-Sampradaya'. All the others will merge under this banner. The 'Sri Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya lineage of pure spiritual masters or guru parampara is defined in this fashion. As before Lord Krishna-Brahma-Narada-Vyasa-Madhva down the line to Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu." There are plenty of other examples of Paramparas that were not based on diksha mantras. But judging by your fanatical writing style I see it as a complete waste of time to discuss this matter with you. We should also remember that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu never initiated anyone with diksha mantras. Diksha mantras are not important compared to siksha, for it is by divine knowledge that one actually attains diksha. Again, educate yourself and come back when your done. Simply your adding a dozen "no"s and "nothing"s does not make your statement true. It tells us nothing other than that the process of bhakti is so powerful that even following an unauthorized process brings one transcendental results and detachement. And since Vipin Vihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda as his disciple, the diksha connection with Lalit Prasad is bogus as are any initiations Lalit Prasad gave to his disciples. Such people have no link to any parampara, neither diksha nor siksha. Gaudiya saints such as Jagannatha das Babaji have accepted Mayapur as the birth place of Mahaprabhu and Bhaktivinoda Thakur valued their judgement more than his so-called "diksha-guru" and other residents of Navadvipa. This should tell us something about who the real guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakur was. In Bhaktivinoda's own words, he accepts the Siksha guru as more important: "The initiating spiritual master (diksha-guru) shows his cause-less mercy by giving his disciples instructions in chanting the mantra. By so doing, he points the disciples in the direction of the truths pertaining to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. I consider the numerous instructing spiritual masters (siksha-gurus) to be more important, for they show more mercy by training the sadhakas in all the essential aspects of sadhana-bhakti." - Kalyana-kalpataru Please provide the sanskrit verses of this injunction. The fact that the Sarasvata school of Gaudiya Vaishnavism has spread Mahaprabhu's holy name to every corner of the world, including to your house and my house, is enough proof for me that their parampara is certainly blessed and empowered. Go back and do some more Gauranga Nityanada Mantra Rajas and cool your head. Maybe ask Swami Gaurangapada what he thinks of your nonsensical statements.

This is a nonsensical statement. A wife's obedience to her husband in Vedic culture has nothing to do with him being a pure devotee. Wives were even obedient and faithful to rascals such as Ugratapas. This does not mean I think it should be the same in the present. It is simply the state of things as they were in the past. Rascal wrote: I agree with this 100% (and I am an American by the way). In India people are cultured enough to respect Sadhus, even those that are not 100% authentic. Even Prabhupada's father used to buy ganja for Sadhus that would visit his house. The system is a sadhu must be respected reagrdless of whether one accepts his teachings or not. In such a cultural setting, you will never find a respectable person like Bhaktivinoda Thakur writing offensive and critical remarks about someone who was previously his guru.

This is a nonsensical statement. A wife's obedience to her husband in Vedic culture has nothing to do with him being a pure devotee. Wives were even obedient and faithful to rascals such as Ugratapas. This does not mean I think it should be the same in the present. It is simply the state of things as they were in the past. Rascal wrote: I agree with this 100% (and I am an American by the way). In India people are cultured enough to respect Sadhus, even those that are not 100% authentic. Even Prabhupada's father used to buy ganja for Sadhus that would visit his house. The system is a sadhu must be respected reagrdless of whether one accepts his teachings or not. In such a cultural setting, you will never find a respectable person like Bhaktivinoda Thakur writing offensive and critical remarks about someone who was previously his guru.

You have simply provided an english paraphrased translation of an alleged statement (without reference) wherein Visvanatha Chakravarti ridicules the prayascita procedures of the dharma-shastras.

It is actually inline with Manu's statement that women must not be left unprotected. Since the women were independent and under no one's protection the brahmacarini ashram provided them protection and guidance under temple authorities. This was a more suitable situation then having them living independently without protection. It should be noted that this "brahmacarini ashram" till this day does not exist within ISKCON in India, for the obvious reason that Vedic culture is still somewhat followed in India thereby removing the necessity for this innovation. A secondary point is that none of my statements are refering to Tripurari Swami, as I don't believe he has made any concrete statement regarding actually giving sannyasa to women. For some reason this thread is named "Tripurari Maharaja" but I am simply replying to the concepts of creating innovations without reference to scripture such as giving sannyasa to women, and the concept that common devotees are completely exempt from following scriptural regulations found in dharma shastras. Another point is that we need not be overly concerned with separately following the dharma-shastras, as strictly following the bhakti-marga automatically includes the rules of dharma shastra. (In other words we are following the dharma-shastras without even knowing it.) It is only when concocting new innovations that the chance of contradicting the dharma-shastra's regulations becomes very possible.

Do you accept Skanda Purana as an authoritative reference, or are you selectively quoting verses that are convenient to your belief system? If I provide verses from Skanda Purana, will you then say that Vaishnava's don't need to follow Skanda Purana as it is a karma kanda book? There really is no way to logically discuss with someone who does not have a fixed pramana to measure statements against. The whole concept that teachings must be in line with the scriptures is just a big joke then, because we selectively choose to quote only that which we are comfortable with. Anything that disagrees with our conclusion can be labeled as karma-kanda and not relevant for "devotees". And regarding proper conduct, we can say that "All the scriptural regulations are for materialists following varnashrama dharma. Since we are bhaktas and 'above' varnashrama there is no scriptural standard of conduct that we must follow." If someone quotes the Gita, then we just reply that Krishna speaks many paths in the Gita, but ultimately the only important verse is sarva dharman parityajya. We can ignore the rest of the verses and context. Back to the question, will you accept all references to Skanda Purana? If not, then you should withdraw your use of Skanda Purana as an evidence.

sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhim vina. Any system we accept, it must be supported by the evidences of sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki. Aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayai... Anything which is not supported by sruti-smriti... Just like Manu-smriti. This is Smriti. And Vedas are sruti. sruti-smriti-puranadi pancaratriki-vi... aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate. Which is not evidence, which is not true by these pramanas, then it is disturbance. - Srila Prabhupada Why would he feel it is being misused? Because throughout Srila Prabhupada's teachings (when not taken out of context) he speaks differently about the dharma shastras such as Manu-samhita and about their author, Manu, who is a pure devotee of the Lord. In addition to this the idea that dharma-shastras are irrelevant to devotees is not supported in the Gita, where Krishna specifically says those who do not follow the regulative principles of scripture attain no success. Add to this the fact that Rupa Goswami condemns false devotional practices not performed according to scriptures such as the dharma-shastras, and Prabhupada's statement in his Gita purport: This view is strikingly different to what is being proposed here, namely that devotees need not give any thought to the dharma-shastras for such regulations don't apply to bhaktas. Simply because devotees are exempted from the prayascitta (attonement) ceremonies found in the dharma-shastras does not mean they are also exempted from the regulations and injunctions of the dharma-shastra. Why are devotees exempted from the prayascita ceremonies? Because worship of Vishnu automatically fulfills the purpose of such ceremonies. As "Rascal_Number_One" had pointed out earlier, devotees already worship the devas because the devas are limbs of the Lord's virat-purusha. By worshiping Vishnu worship of the devas is automatically fulfilled. Thus devotees become free from lower dharmas by accepting a higher dharma, and this is where exemption from rituals comes in. Injunctions within the dharma-shastra governing sinful conduct is a completely different matter. One does not become exempt to these regulations simply because one is a devotee. We were first offered the evidence that Madhavendra Puri states he no longer performs sandhya-vandana, no longer takes bath, and no longer worships the devas, therefore common devotees don't do these things either. Of course it was pointed out that this is not a true statement. Devotees do perform sandhya-vandana and they do take bath daily as is enjoined in hari-bhakti vilasa. Madhavendra Puri's statement was against even the Gaudiya vaishnava's smriti shastra and thus cannot be taken as an example for rank and file bhaktas. It is indeed only the personal prayer of a very advanced devotee in raganuga bhakti. Next Rascal_Number_One was criticized for saying he would perform the shraddha ceremony for his parents when they pass away, and it was stated that Vaishnavas don't perform this ceremony. I guess the anonymous poster then found out that Gaudiya Vaishnavas do perform shraddha ceremonies as well as the dasha-samskaras enjoined in manu-samhita, so he suddenly changed his stance and said that Hari-bhakti-vilasa has special instructions to perform the shraddha ceremony for vaishnavas. Next we were told how Rascal_Number_One was just flouting his stupidity. This thread began mainly focused on the concepts of sannyasa for women and homosexual marriages. So let us look at these points again. Srila Prabhupada himself cites many times the same verse from Manu Samhita that Rascal_Number_One quoted forbidding women from being independent. Yet when Rascal_Number_One quotes it, he is told that such a verse is irrelevant because devotees don't need to follow dharma-shastras. Why would a Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharya quote such a verse if it was meaningless and not meant to be followed. Why would Srila Prabhupada turn to Manu-samhita to validate his statements (i.e. to provide scriptural backing) if the entire book was not meant to be followed anyway. There is a fundamental flaw in the logic that our position must be established from shastra, but it can be done so with selective quoting. In other words, we accept one or two verses from Manu-samhita when they agree with our conclusions, but reject the rest of the book because we don't find it palatable or in line with our views. It is this very line of thinking that gives life to the hodge-podge that is Hinduism. Selective quoting allows one to establish any belief as authentic, by rejecting all verses that disagree with it as irrelevant. This is not an honest system of analysis. Believe it or not, there is harmony in our scriptures, and when they are analysed systematically, everything will clearly and harmoniously establish worship of Vishnu as the ultimate goal of life. When asked specifically if women can be given sannyasa, Srila Prabhupada replied: He did not say that devotees do not need to follow dharma-shastras, so they can manufacture speculative processes without worry. Elsewhere in his Bhagavatam purports he states the following, paraphrasing the verse from Manu-samhita: This injunction of Manu is described by Prabhupada as "truth". It is a fact of reality, not an opinion to be accepted or rejected: Some may say, "but today women are so qualified, educated and advanced..." to which Prabhupada states (again citing Manu) How about another example of devotees disobeying the dharma-shastras of Manu under the false guise of bhakti? In a Bhagavatam purport Prabhupade cites from Manu that divorce is not allowed: This injunction is relevant to all people. It is not that devotees are exempted from this injunction of dharma simply because they have taken to bhakti. But countless devotees choose to ignore these injunctions, following the same faulty line of thinking as presented in this thread, that devotees are exempted from such "mundane social regulations" as found in dharma-shastra. What is the relevance of the Manu-samhita and dharma shastras? Srila Prabhupada's view is as follows: The anonymous poster claimed that shastra-vidhi mentioned in the Gita does not refer to the dharma-shastras, but Srila Prabhupada's conclusion is the opposite. Shastra-vidhi of the Gita does refer to the dharma-shastras: Krishna says one who does not follow this shastra-vidhi does not attain success: yah shastra-vidhim utsrijya vartate kama-karatah na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim "But he who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." In the purport to this verse Srila Prabhupada states: Regarding the sruti-smriti-puranadi verse, Srila Prabhupada has stated on several occasions that it refers to dharma-shastras: And elsewhere: Regarding Manu's laws, Srila Prabhupada states: The anonymous poster claimed Dharma-shastras were all karma-kanda, but the real purpose of Manu-samhita is not karma-kanda but devotional service: It had been claimed that I had distorted the phrase "dharman tu sakshad bhagavat pranitam" by claiming it also refers to dharma-shastras. But Prabhupada also holds this view: Srila Prabhupada's view on the Manu samhita is as follows, quite distinct from the selective quoting used by the anonymous guest: Bhagavad Gita 7.15p (Those who do not follow Manu-smriti are the Naradhamas, the lowest of mankind): Bhagavad Gita (16.7p) regarding the exact verse quoted by "Rascal_Number_One" in reference to women not taking sannyasa: Bhagavatam (1.16.1p), the Manu Samhita is applicable to all times and ages: Thus it is clear the view that dharma-shastras are irrelevant to devotees is incorrect according to Srila Prabhupada's opnion. And for those who say the scripture is out-dated, oddly enough, it is Vivekananda who holds the popular opinion that Manu-samhita is not relevant to us today, not Srila Prabhupada. Of course I, like Rascal_Number_One, am just flouting my stupidity. After all, the anonymous poster already rested his case so I should just accept it on his word.

Actually you have yet to establish this conclusion with reference to scripture. The fact that you say something and believe it does not make it a proven point. It has been shown from the Gita that your conclusion is incorrect, and Gaudiya Acharya's such as Srila Prabhupada specifically reject your view. What's there left to do? I guess you could attack someone's character. Yup, there it is: I don't see much point in continuing this line of discussion.

Verse 3.31 becomes even more explicit where it refers directly to the nitya-karmas of Manu dharma-shastra, though this is only clear from the Sanskrit: ye me matam idam nityam anutishthanti manavah shraddhavanto ’nasuyanto mucyante te ’pi karmabhih "One who executes his duties according to My injunctions and who follows this teaching faithfully, without envy, becomes free from the bondage of fruitive actions."

Prabhupada's purport to next verse: And the next verse tells us how devotees should perform thier duties: saktah karmany avidvamso yatha kurvanti bharata kuryad vidvams tathasaktas cikirshur loka-sangraham "As the ignorant perform their duties with attachment to results, similarly the learned may also act, but without attachment, for the sake of leading people on the right path." Following this Lord Krishna gives his instruction to Arjuna as to what he should do: mayi sarvani karmani sannyasyadhyatma-cetasa nirasir nirmamo bhutva yudhyasva vigata-jvarah "Therefore, O Arjuna, surrendering all your works unto Me, with mind intent on Me, and without desire for gain and free from egoism and lethargy, fight." With reference to the preceding 10 verse, Krishna's use of the word karmani and karma is specifically indicating prescribed duties, not simply "action". For Krishna says, "Though I am not bound to do anything, still I perform karma to guide others." If this karma referred simply to "action" then the statement becomes meaningless as simple action does not give guidance to anyone. Thus the correct understanding of this context as shown by Srila Prabhupada is that "karma" and "karmani" here refer to prescribed duties as mentioned in the dharma-shastras (i.e. Manu-samhita and others). In light of this context "sarva karmani" in regards to Arjuna refers specifically to Arjuna's occupational duties, and not simply to "all action". This order to Arjuna to perform his prescribed duty as a kshatriya for Lord Krishna while remaining detached is made clear when Krishna adds yudhyasva vigata-jvarah, "Get up and fight without hesitation."

We should also take note of two important verse fromthe Gita: yad yad acarati sreshthas tat tad evetaro janah sa yat pramanam kurute lokas tad anuvartate "Whatever action is performed by a great man, common men follow in his footsteps. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues." Prabhupada's purport considers this to refer to following dharma-shastras such as Manu-samhita: "Caitanya said that a teacher should behave properly even before he begins teaching. One who teaches in that way is called äcärya, or the ideal teacher. Therefore, a teacher must follow the principles of shastra (scripture) to reach the common man. The teacher cannot manufacture rules against the principles of revealed scriptures. The revealed scriptures, like Manu-samhita and similar others, are considered the standard books to be followed by human society. Thus the leader’s teaching should be based on the principles of the standard rules as they are practiced by the great teachers." And the following verse: na me parthasti kartavyam trishu lokeshu kincana nanavaptam avaptavyam varta eva ca karmani "O son of Pritha, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I need to obtain anything—and yet I am engaged in work." Even Lord Krishna is performing his duty according to the dharma-shastras to set an example for others. What then of devotees? In Prabhupada's purport to this verse he concludes by stating "Although He [Krishna] is above all the regulations of the revealed scriptures, He does not do anything that violates the revealed scriptures." Yet some people want to propose that those on the bhakti-marga are not required to act according to the scriptures regulatory codes since the act of chanting the names of the Lord delivers one from any sin. This is commiting sinful activity on the strength of chanting the holy name. It is far better to set a good example for all to follow by performing one's bhakti in line with scriptural regulations.

A relevant quote from Srila Prabhupada:

Yet devotees in the Gaudiya line do perform Sandhya Vandanam, they do take bath, etc. If you are truly on this level, then let me see you go without your bathing and without performing your Sandhya Vandanam while claiming you are constantly remembering Krishna. Basically this is just a hippy mentality. We will pick and choose to reject whatever is difficult to follow (i.e. what requires dedication and austerity), while not having attained the prerequisite for karma-tyagam. Add to this a disdain for scriptural study (i.e. the evil "jnana-marga"), and we have a perfect apasampradaya. Why is Madhavendra Puri unable to perform his nitya-karmas? Because he is constantly thinking of Krishna, the enemy of Kamsa. What are we thinking of 24 hours a day? Are we constantly thinking of Krishna throughout the day, or are we thinking of sense gratification? Thus it is necessary to seperate the paths of Raganuga bhakti and Vaidi bhakti clearly so we don't come to this hippy conclusion of rejecting our religious duties while not having attained absorption on the Lord's pastimes.

This is not true. It is because of this incorrect and immature understanding of what is Karma-kanda and what is dharma that devotees end up rejecting regulative principles of bhakti. Karma-kanda is the worship of devatas for material results. The dharma-shastras are injunctions for civilized human life - a prerequisite for spiritual inquiry. Dharma-shastras, as with other Vedic scriptures, deal with the three modes and how to transcend them through a gradual process. Though there will be some aspects of karma-kanda, jnana-kanda and upasana-kanda found within them, the ultimate goal of all scriptures is to know Krishna (vedais ca sarvaih aham eve vedyah), and thus it is not wise to reject them without a solid reasoning. What is dharma? Dharma is the direct injunctions of Bhagavan: dharman tu sakshad bhagavat pranitam Prahlad Maharaja instructs us to take to this dharma from the youngest age: kaumara acaret prajno dharman bhagavatan iha "From the age of five one must learn the Dharma of Bhagavan." Lord Krishna tells us of the effects of practicing even a little dharma in the Gita: svalpam apy asya dharmasya trayate mahato bhayat Thus that dharma directed to Bhagavan (i.e. bhagavata-dharma) is essential for advancing spiritually and perfecting our lives. And those shastras that espouse this dharma to Bhagavan must be followed by sincere sadhakas. As shown before, Rupa Goswami has condemned false bhakti which is not performed according to the smriti, which includes the dharma-shastras. The idea that those who follow bhakti-marga are somehow exempted from performing their bhakti in line with scriptural injunctions is a sahajiya tendency. Raganuga sentiments spoken by elevated devotees do not set the standard for the rest of society to follow. Even Lord Krishna acts according to the dharma-shastras to set the proper example for others to follow.

Remember that the GBC who is approving this person is the same GBC that was going to vote to "suspend" Gour Govinda Maharaja from being a Guru. In such matters their vote is irrelevant in my opinion.

Remember that the GBC who is approving this person is the same GBC that was going to vote to "suspend" Gour Govinda Maharaja from being a Guru. In such matters their vote is irrelevant in my opinion.

In the second chapter of Gita Lord Krishna tells to Arjuna that the soul's individuality is eternal: na tv evaham jatu nasham na tvam neme janadhipah na caiva na bhavishyamah sarve vayam atah param "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." Elsewhere in the Gita Lord Krishna reaffirms this fact as follows: mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah "The living entities in this conditioned world are eternally My fragmental parts (jiva-bhuta)." Great saints such as Madhva, Ramanuja, Raghavendra, Tukaram, Nimbarka, Vallabha and Chaitanya all taught that the soul's individuality is eternal and that the eternal function of the soul is to render devotional service (bhakti) to the Supreme Lord. Mukti is defined in the Bhagavatam as attaining one's constitutional position, free from the false identification with matter (muktir hitvanyatha rupam svarupena vyavasthitih). That constitutional position of the soul is to render loving service to the Supreme Lord. Those who follow the monistic path become free from the false identification with matter (hitvanyatha rupam) but do not become situated in their constitutional position of service (svarupena vyavasthitih), thus their goal is incomplete. After many, many births, such elevated souls come to the realization that Vasudeva is everything and render devotional service to Him: bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam prapadyate vasudevah sarvam iti sa mahatma su-durlabhah "After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare." (Gita 7.19)

Dharma (religiousity for gain), artha (acquiring wealth), kama (sense enjoyment) and moksha (liberation from suffering) are lower aims to bhakti or prema. The true goal of life is to attain prema of the Lord, not to desire material sense gratification or other mundane things. The Vedas provide complete knowledge for all people. Those who desire sense enjoyment can also receive guidance from the Vedas and Puranas, but such instructions are not of much interest to true bhaktas. In the Gita Lord Krishna warns Arjuna about this: trai-gunya-vishaya veda nistraigunyo bhavarjuna nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho niryoga-kshema atmavan "The Vedas mainly deal with the subject of the three modes of material nature. Rise above these modes, O Arjuna. Be transcendental to all of them. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the Self." Vedic scriptures deal primarily with mundane matters, but the essence of all such scriptures is transcendental service to the Lord. Those scriptures which speak directly of this service are given more importance than those scriptures which deal with mundane things as well. For example, the numerous stories in the Mahabharata about kings and apsaras, etc., are not focussed on bhagavad-bhakti. They are directed to people whose aim is lower.

Ramayana is respected by all Gaudiya vaishnavas, but their primary scriptures for meditation are the Gita and the Bhagavatam. The Bhagavad Gita is considered the essence of all Vedic knowledge (Gitopanishad) and Shankara describes it as the milk of the Upanishads. Madhva has stated the Gita to be the cream of the Mahabharata, etc. Thus Gaudiya Vaishnava's give primary importance to the Gita over other Vedic literatures. This is not because the other texts are not great. The Vedas are like an ocean of nectar, but our mouth is small and can only drink so much. The Vedas and Puranas also deal with mundane topics such as dharma, artha, kama and moksha, which the Vaishnavas are generally not interested in. Those scriptures which do not focus on these lower aims and which were spoken for the rasika bhaktas are considered the topmost. Such literatures do not focus on anything other than bhagavad-bhakti. The Gita and Bhagavatam fall in this category, and are therefore given precedence over all other scriptures.

Each Upanishad belongs to one branch of the Vedas and are themselves shruti. The Kali Santarana Upanishad belongs to the Krishna Yajur Veda. Actually it doesn't say this. It simply provides the mantra as is without commentary, only mentioning that it contains the names of the Purusha (enjoyer). We receive mantras from gurus, not from books. It is irrelevant which book a mantra came in. One must chant the mantra that has been given to one by the guru, only then will one receive full benefit. We must also know the purpose for chanting this mantra, and that is fully explained in the Bhagavad Gita by Lord Krishna. Thus it is more relevant for the present times to study the Bhagavad Gita.