raga

 

So in other words Jagat's article is based on rumors.

 

 

If you wish to call an uncertified event "a rumor", then yes, that section is based on rumors. Most of the history of India is based on rumors. The initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta is a rumor. Some rumors appear more credible than others, and people tend to take them as factual historical events. How do we attain certainty? Hardly. For the most part, we are dealing with probabilities.

 

What is so funny is how common rumors somehow are held as historical facts by those against Bhaktisiddhanta and the Gaudiya Matha.

 

 

What did I say but "apparently"? I cannot see a claim to its being an established historical fact anywhere in my post nor in the excerpt from Jagadananda's article. The only bit of established fact is the following:

 

<font color="darkred">"I have myself seen the vitriolic literature written by Paramananda Brahmachari at around this time, accusing Vraja Mohan Dasji and his backers of all manner of licentiousness in an effort to discredit his efforts."</font color>

 

One block of sandstone doesn't prove anything. And proving the matter in a local court in Nabadwip - what does that show?

 

 

What about the historical British survey maps and all other available records? I believe they were the most substantial factor of the research.

 

 

But aside from that, the ridiculous "sandstone" story is a good example of the eagerness of Bhaktivinode Thakur's opponents to establish an alternative temple where they could be boss.

 

 

Apparently the other side, opponents of the opponents if you may, the Mayapur fraction, was equally eager to maintain theirs, indeed so much so that they resorted to violence. From Jagadananda's article:

 

<font color="darkred">"Vraja Mohan Dasji started his research in 1916. He walked all over the Dham as well as investigating the available records, including the British survey maps that had been conducted from 1757 onwards. Apparently, he was on one occasion beaten up, his sikha cut off, his mala cut and thrown naked into the Ganges by the Mayapur faction. This probably when he entered the Mayapur compound. I have myself seen the vitriolic literature written by Paramananda Brahmachari at around this time, accusing Vraja Mohan Dasji and his backers of all manner of licentiousness in an effort to discredit his efforts."</font color>

 

 

Yup, looks like you are intentionally trying to mislead people regarding Prabhupada's position. I would only suggest others actually read the writings and teachings of Prabhupada to find out what his position on advaita is rather then rely on a few quotes from Raga.

 

 

I did not take special trouble picking out the quotes I presented. As I said, there are literally hundreds of such quotes. I just keyed in "I am God" and "mayavad*", and kept getting references like that page after page.

 

Yes, watch out. I may be intentionally misleading people in regards to JNDas's opinion of Prabhupada's position. As far as I am personally concerned, I am a rather neutral observer without an emotional bond to the Swami and his lineage, and thus may not share an overly interpretative and reconciliatory attitude on all of his statements. And no, I am not on a mission to vent out surpressed anger, as some have suggested. I have merely shifted my angle of vision from that of a follower to that of an observer in regards to the Swami. Some do consider this offensive. My apologies for them. Please do understand, not everyone follows the path of your choice, and this is not necessarily evil.

 

Apparently the stone was valid evidence for the local court back then...

 

<hr>

A local court in Navadvip? Now thats a valid authority. I can buy off our village's court for very little. Navadvipa is and was no different, especially where powerful families have sway in the villages.

 

 

Let us not forget it was the Mayapur party who filed the court case. It is they who sought for the verdict of this authority.

 

JNDas writes:

 

As someone who previously was a follower of Prabhupada, you certainly know that Prabhupada did not mean the Mayavadi's literally claim to be a blue skinned God. I can only see your misrepresentation of His position as open dishonesty on your part. You seem to have some built up dislike for him and are looking for somewhere to vent your anger. Either you are purposely being dishonest, or you were really dull when you studied Prabhupada's teachings in ISKCON.

 

 

Perhaps not blue skinned, but Personal God nevertheless. It is very clear from the references above. Again, why would he have objected to "ahaM brahmAsmi" as "I am Brahman, I am of that spirit, knowing which there is no longer me or you, but mere understanding of 'I am Brahman, everything is Brahman'."? This is just the Upanishad.

 

But feel free to surf your way around it, JNDas, as the moderator of this forum, who can stop you? I will not blame you for dishonesty, disintegrity, angriness, fanaticism, dull-headedness and so forth. I think you are a very intelligent and verbally able youngster who knows how to surf his way around statements not befitting with his frame of conceptions, and when intelligent remarks do not suffice, increased rhetorics will supplement.

 

Again and again I have seen abuse levelled at Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur by persons such as Premananda, Minaketana Ramadas and Nitai. I also consider Jagat's article to be extremely offensive. Then if I say that these people are being offensive and abusive... I am dismissed as a fanatical follower who cannot look at objective facts and make objective judgements.

 

 

What do I care of what Premananda, Minaketana Ramadas and Nitai say. We are discussing this discussion, not their old discussions, and we are trying to be reasonable here and now. Which statements in Jagat's article do you consider offensive?

 

 

 

And for all you know, Madhava, the stories of Nitai may be total lies.

 

 

I told you already, I have the story from several sources independent of Nitai.

 

 

 

Look again at Jagat's story about the "large piece of red sandstone" which is supposed to prove the existence of an old temple at "Prachin Mayapur". I really did laugh when I read the story. Someone dug 700 holes in the ground and found one "large piece of red sandstone".

 

 

It is not Jagat's story. It is the outcome of his research on historical events. Apparently the stone was valid evidence for the local court back then, nevertheless, perhaps due to the very fact that the earlier temple had been built of red sandstone, which is otherwise not to be found in the Navadvipa area.

 

 

 

This assembly of Vaishnavas had decided that the evidence was conclusive on the basis of finding... one piece of red stone.

 

 

Have another read of the text I quoted. It is not merely on the basis of a stone they discovered. Read again:

 

<font color="blue">"Vraja Mohan Dasji started his research in 1916. He walked all over the Dham as well as investigating the available records, including the British survey maps that had been conducted from 1757 onwards. ... At any rate, through his research Vraja Mohan pinpointed the Ramachandra Chora land as the likeliest site of Gaur Govinda Singh's temple. He proceeded to dig more than 700 holes in the ground there before finding a large piece of red sandstone that had been a part of it. He exhibited the piece of stone to an assembly of Vaishnavas and work was begun building a new temple there."</font color>

 

 

 

I get blamed for pointing out that Lalit Prashad's disciples have no sampradaya at all.

 

 

I never blamed you for that. I said, "interesting".

 

raga writes: ...whereas a person with little knowledge of Advaita thinks the person declares himself as The Personal Godhead.

 

JNDas then writes:

 

One would need to have absolutely no knowledge of advaita to make such a conclusion, and I don't think anyone does.

 

<hr>

JNDas also writes:

 

You are confused as to what Srila Prabhupada "implied". You seem to think when he said "mayavadis say 'I am God'" he was refering to a saguna Brahman, such as Krishna. Please read more of what he wrote so you can understand his direct statement clearer and don't need to look for implied meanings. Brahman is the supreme source of everything, which is identified with the word God.

 

 

This understanding can be nothing but the outcome of Bhaktivedanta's numerous statements to that extent. This was "rascaldom" to him, which he felt he needed to fight against. Let me cite a couple of his statements in this regard. There are literally hundreds of them all over his works.

 

<hr>

<font color="blue">Just like the Mayavadi philosophers, they are thinking themselves that they are Krsna. "I am God."

 

Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 13.3 -- Bombay, September 26, 1973

 

</font color><hr><font color="red">

In the Isopanisad, the word isa is used to describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Isa means "controller." Do you think you are controlled or not? Is there any person anywhere within this universe who is not controlled? Can anyone say, "I am not controlled"? Nobody can say that. So if you are controlled, then why do you declare, "I am not controlled, I am independent, I am God"? Why this nonsense? Mayavadi impersonalists claim, "I am God, you are God, everyone is God." But if they are controlled, how can they be God? Does this make any sense? God is never controlled; He is the supreme controller. So if somebody is controlled, immediately we should know that he is not God.

 

The Laws of Nature: Krsna, the Controller and Owner of All

 

</font color><hr><font color="blue">

So even those who are trying for that, because that original disease is there, therefore even one who has advanced spiritually, he also says, "I am God. I am God." The same spirit, to make competition with Krsna. The maya is there. "Why you are going to worship Krsna? You are God.Oh, yes, I am God." This is the last snare of maya. Therefore they are Mayavadis. Nobody can become Krsna.

 

Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.20 -- Bombay, April 9, 1974

 

</font color><hr><font color="red">

The Mayavadi philosophers, they claim to be the whole. But Vaisnava philosophy, we do not claim that we are the whole. The Mayavadi philosophers, they claim that "I am God." But we do not claim. We claim that we are part and parcel of God. As part and parcel of God, we have got the same quality. Just like minute particle of gold is also gold, but that part gold and the whole gold they are never equal. So I have got all the qualities. Qualitatively I am one, but quantitatively I am different. That is the version of Bhagavad-gita. And actually, if we falsely claim that "I am God," then we have to show godly power. Unless we show godly power, simply claiming that "I am God," that is dambha, that is false pride.

 

Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 13.6-7 -- Montreal, October 25, 1968

 

</font color><hr><font color="blue">

The Mayavadi sannyasis address amongst themselves: namo narayana. "Namo narayana" means every one of them has become a Narayana. This is their philosophy. And from this namo narayana principle, Vivekananda Swami has manufactured the word "daridra-narayana." So Narayana has become very cheap thing for them. Everyone has become Narayana; everyone has become God. Just like the rascal God is now in the hospital. God is under operation. (laughter) A "guruji" God. So they have no shame even that "If I am God, I cannot cure my bodily pains, what kind of God I am?" But these rascals will proclaim that they are God, and there is set of rascals, they will accept, "Oh, here is God." Vivekananda also said that "Why you are finding out God? Don't you see, so many gods are loitering in the street?" So God has become a funny thing for them.

 

Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 18.5 -- London, September 5, 1973 (Radhastami)

 

</font color><hr><font color="red">

Krsna's another name is Acyuta. He never falls down from His position. And if we fall down from the position... Therefore we are not on the same level. We may have some power, and we can claim that "I am God"—that you can claim—but not that God, like Krsna. Therefore two words are there: isvara, paramesvara. In the Brahma-samhita therefore it is described that isvaras, there may be many, but not paramesvara. Paramesvara is one. Isvarah paramah krsnah [bs. 5.1]. So these Mayavadis, they forget this, that isvara, paramesvara, there are two words. Atma and paramatma, there are two words. So they are not equal. And Krsna says mattah parataram nanyat [bg. 7.7]. He is the supermost isvara. Nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam. Although both of us are nitya, eternal, and living entities, still, there is difference. He is supreme living entity, we are subordinate. Prabhu and anu. Vibhu and anu.

 

So this philosophy is perfect, and anyone who accepts this Mayavada philosophy, that God and living entity are on the same level, they have got poor fund of knowledge.

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.15 -- Vrndavana, September 13, 1976

 

</font color><hr><font color="blue">

And don't try to become imitator. But the imitation is so strong that even persons who are very much elevated in knowledge, they are also falsely presenting that "I am God." The maya's influence is so strong that at the last stage... Therefore they fall down. These people, these Mayavadis who are trying to become God... Aruhya krcchrena param padam tatah [sB 10.2.32]. To merge into the existence of the Supreme. You can merge, but you cannot be equal. That is not possible. Asamordhva. But the Mayavadis, they are thinking, "We are as good as Krsna." Therefore they do not go to the temple of Krsna. Because they think self, Narayana, Krsna. But that is a mistake. Therefore sastra says that ye 'nye 'ravindaksa vimukta-maninah. They are thinking that they have become liberated, become Narayana, Narayana, God, but that is avisuddha-buddhayah.

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.8.18 -- Mayapura, September 28, 1974

 

</font color><hr><font color="red">

So these Mayavadis, karmi, jnani, yogi, they are not krsna-bhaktas. They'll say, "Krsna is not God. I am God. I am also God. Krsna is not God. I am God. But Krsna is not God." This is their version. Therefore they're rascals. "I am God." They'll declare, "I am God. You are God." But Krsna is not God. Except Krsna, everyone is God." This is their version.

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.10.13 -- Mayapura, June 26, 1973

 

</font color><hr><font color="blue">

Then Mayavadi will say, "Then I am God. Because I am carrying the message of Krsna, therefore I am Krsna."

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.7 -- Tokyo, April 24, 1972

 

</font color><hr><font color="red">

The Mayavadi theory is like that, that "I am Krsna. I am God. Now I am overpowered by maya, and as soon as I become free from maya, again I become Krsna."

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.15 -- Bombay, December 24, 1974

 

</font color><hr><font color="blue">

People are... Sometimes a so-called incarnations are, they are declaring that "I am God." Then one should test whether actually God. That is intelligence. Simply by declaring, if somebody declares falsely that "I am God..." Just like this Ramakrishna. He declared that "I am the same Krsna and Rama." Is it not? You do not know?

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.22 -- Indore, December 13, 1970

 

</font color><hr><font color="red">

The Mayavadis, although they have undergone penances, austerities—very strictly they follow the principles of spiritual life—but because they are under maya, at the end they are thinking that "I am God, Purusa," the same disease, purusa. Purusa means bhokta. That "I am Krsna..."

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.55 -- London, August 13, 1975

 

</font color><hr><font color="blue">

Aham brahmasmi—"I am Brahman"—that is a fact, but I am not Supreme Brahman, Parabrahman. The Mayavadi, they take it: "Because I am Brahman, I am Supreme Brahman."

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.33 -- Mayapur, March 11, 1976

 

</font color><hr><font color="red">

God means Supreme Person. But these advaitavadi, Mayavadis, they have made God everyone. God means Supreme Person, that is the dictionary word. "Supreme Being." That is the dictionary meaning. God does not mean ordinary, but they have made ordinary, anyone God. "I am God, you are God, he is God."

 

Room Conversation with Professor Francois Chenique -- August 5, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm)

 

And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe.

 

 

Thanks for the emphasis, Shvu. In other words, the fourth brAhmaNa cited earlier in its entirety gives a license for thinking just like the original Purusha did in the first mantra, "ahaM brahmAsmi".

 

Who is this original Purusha of the text, by the way? The cited description of Brihad Aranyaka (mantras 2-5) actually reminds me of Prajapati Brahma at the dawn of creation rather than Vishnu prior to creation.

Fourth brAhmaNa, mantras 2-5:

 

<hr>

<font color="darkred">so.abibhet

sas abibhet

tasmAdekAkI bibheti |

tasmAd ekAkI bibheti

sa hAyamIkshAM chakre

sa ha ayam IkshAm chakre

yanmadanyannAsti

yad mad anyad na asti

kasmAnnu bibhemIti |

kasmAd nu bibhemi iti

tata evAsya bhayaM vIyAya |

tatas eva asya bhayam vIyAya

kasmAddhyabheshhyat

kasmAd dhi abheshhyat

dvitIyAdvai bhayaM bhavati || 2 ||

dvitIyAd vai bhayam bhavati

 

sa vai naiva reme

sa vai na eva reme

tasmAdekAkI na ramate |

tasmAd ekAkI na ramate

sa dvitIyamaichchhat

sa dvitIyam aichchhat

sa haitAvAnAsa yathA strIpumA{\m+}sau samparishhvaktau |

sa ha etAvAn Asa yathA strIpumA{\m+}sau samparishhvaktau

sa imamevA.a.atmAnaM dvedhA.apAtayat|

sa imam eva AtmAnam dvedhA apAtayat

tataH patishcha patnI chAbhavatAm |

tatas patis cha patnI cha abhavatAm

tasmAdidamardhabR^igalamiva sva iti ha smA.a.aha yAGYavalkyas

tasmAd idam ardhabR^igalam iva svas iti ha sma aha

yAGYavalkyaH

tasmAdayamAkAshaH striyA pUryata eva |

tasmAd ayam AkAshas striyA pUryate eva

tAsamabhavat

tAm samabhavat

tato manushhyA ajAyanta || 3 ||

tatas manushhyAs ajAyanta

 

so heyamIkshAM chakre

sA u ha iyam IkshAm chakre

kathaM nu mA.a.atmana eva janayitvA sambhavati |

katham nu mA Atmanas eva janayitvA sambhavati

hanta tiro.asAnIti |

hanta tiras asAni iti

sA gaurabhavad

sA gaus abhavat

R^ishhabha itaras

vR^ishhabhas itaraH

tAsamevAbhavat

tAm sam eva abhavat

tato gAvo.ajAyanta |

tatas gAvas ajAyanta

vaDavetarA.abhavad

vaDavA itarA abhavat

ashvavR^ishha itaro

ashvavR^ishhas itaras

gardabhItarA

gardabhI itarA

gardabha itaras

gardabhas itaraH

tAsamevAbhavat

tAm sam eva abhavat

tata ekashaphamajAyata

tata ekashapham ajAyata

ajetarA.abhavad

ajA itarA abhavat

vasta itaro

bastas itaras

.aviritarA

avis itarA

meshha itaras

meshhas itaraH

tAsamevAbhavat

tAm sam eva abhavat

tato.ajAvayo.ajAyantaivameva yadidaM kiJNcha mithunamA pipIlikAbhyas

tatas ajAvayas ajAyanta evam eva yad idam kiJNcha

mithunam A pipIlikAbhyaH

tatsarvamasR^ijata || 4 ||

tad sarvam asR^ijata

 

so.aved

sas avet

ahaM vAva sR^ishhTirasmy

aham vAva sR^ishhTis asmi

ahahIdasarvamasR^ikshIti |

aham hi idam sarvam asR^ikshi iti

tataH sR^ishhTirabhavat

tatas sR^ishhTis abhavat

sR^ishhTyAhAsyaitasyAM bhavati

sR^ishhTyAm ha asya etasyAm bhavati

ya evaM veda || 5 ||

yas evam veda</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="darkblue">2. He feared, and therefore any one who is lonely fears. He thought, 'As there is nothing but myself, why should I fear?' Thence his fear passed away. For what should he have feared? Verily fear arises from a second only.

 

3. But he felt no delight. Therefore a man who is lonely feels no delight. He wished for a second. He was so large as man and wife together. He then made this his Self to fall in two (pat), and thence arose husband (pati) and wife (patni). Therefore Yagnavalkya said: 'We two are thus (each of us) like half a shell. ' Therefore the void which was there, is filled by the wife. He embraced her, and men were born.

 

4. She thought,How can he embrace me, after having produced me from himself? I shall hide myself.'

 

She then became a cow, the other became a bull and embraced her, and hence cows were born. The one became a mare, the other a stallion; the one a male ass, the other a female ass. He embraced her, and hence one-hoofed animals were born. The one became a she-goat, the other a he-goat; the one became a ewe, the other a ram. He embraced her, and hence goats and sheep were born. And thus he created everything that exists in pairs, down to the ants.

 

5. He knew, 'I indeed am this creation, for I created all this.' Hence he became the creation, and he who knows this lives in this his creation.</font color>

 

<hr>

"ahaM brahmAsmi" and "brahma vA idamagra AsId ekam eva" come from Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, first adhyAya, fourth brAhmaNa, tenth and eleventh mantras. [Translations by Max Müller.]

 

<hr>

<font color="darkred">brahma vA idamagra AsIt

brahma vai idam agre AsIt

tadAtmAnamevAved

tad AtmAnam eva avet

ahaM brahmAsmIti |

aham brahma asmi iti

tasmAttatsarvamabhavat

tasmAd tad sarvam abhavat

tadyo yo devAnAM pratyabudhyata

tad yas yas devAnAm pratyabudhyata

sa eva tadabhavat

sas eva tad abhavat

tatharshhINAm

tathA R^ishhInAm

tathA manushhyANAm |

tathA manushhyANAm

taddhaitatpashyannR^ishhirvAmadevaH pratipede

tad dha etad pashyan R^ishhis vAmadevas pratipede

.ahaM manurabhavasUryashcheti |

aham manus abhavam sUryas cha iti

tadidamapyetarhi ya evaM vedAhaM brahmAsmIti

tad idam api etarhi yas evam veda aham brahma asmi

iti

sa idasarvaM bhavati

sa idam sarvam bhavati

tasya ha na devAshchanAbhUtyA Ishata

tasya ha na devAs chana abhUtyAs Ishate

AtmA hyeshhAsa bhavaty

AtmA hi eshhAm sa bhavati

atha yo.anyAM devatAmupAste

atha yas anyAm devatAm upAste

.anyo.asaav

anyas asau

anyo.ahamasmIti

anyas aham asmi iti

na sa veda |

na sa veda

yathA pashurevasa devAnAm |

yathA pashus evam sa devAnAm

yathA ha vai bahavaH pashavo manushhyaM bhuJNjyur

yathA ha vai bahavas pashavas manushhyam bhuJNjyuH

evamekaikaH purushho devAnbhunakty

evam ekaikas purushhas devAn bhunakti

ekasminneva pashAvAdIyamAne.apriyaM bhavati

ekasmin eva pashau AdIyamAne apriyam bhavati

kimu bahushhu

kim u bahushhu

tasmAdeshhAM tanna priyaM yadetanmanushhyA vidyuH || 10 ||

 

brahma vA idamagra AsIdekameva |

brahma vai idam agre AsIt ekam eva

tadekasanna vyabhavat

tad ekam san na vyabhavat

tachchhreyo rUpamatyasR^ijata kshatram

tad shreyas rUpam atyasR^ijata kshatram

yAnyetAni devatrA kshatrANIndro varuNaH somo rudraH parjanyo yamo

mR^ityurIshAna iti |

yAni etAni devatrA kshatrANi indras varuNas somas

rudras parjanyas yamas mR^ityus IshAnas iti

tasmAtkshatrAtparaM nAsti

tasmAd kshatrAd param na asti

tasmAdbrAhmaNaH kshatriyamadhastAdupAste rAjasUye |

tasmAd brAhmaNas kshatriyam adhastAd upAste rAjasUye

kshatra eva tadyasho dadhAti

kshatre eva tad yashas dadhAti

saishhA kshatrasya yoniryadbrahma |

sA eshhA kshatrasya yonis yad brahma

tasmAdyadyapi rAjA paramatAM gachchhati

tasmAd yadi api rAjA paramatAm gachchhati

brahmaivAntata upanishrayati svAM yonim |

brahma eva antatas upanishrayati svAm yonim

ya u enahinasti

yas u enam hinasti

svAsa yonimR^ichchhati |

svAm sa yonimR^ichchhati

sa pApIyAnbhavati

sa pApIyAn bhavati

yathA shreyAsahisitvA || 11 ||</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="darkblue">10. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishivamadeva saw and understood it, singing,'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

 

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.

 

11. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, one only. That being one, was not strong enough. It created still further the most excellent Kshatra (power), viz. those Kshatras (powers) among the Devas, Indra, Varuna, Soma, Rudra, Parganya, Yama, Mrityu, Isana. Therefore there is nothing beyond the Kshatra, and therefore at the Ragasutya sacrifice the Brahmana sits down below the Kshatriya. He confers that glory on the Kshatra alone. But Brahman is (nevertheless) the birth-place of the Kshatra. Therefore though a king is exalted, he sits down at the end (of the sacrifice) below the Brahman, as his birth-place. He who injures him, injures his own birth-place. He becomes worse, because he has injured one better than himself.</font color>

 

<hr>

The beginning of the fourth brAhmaNa is interesting:

 

<hr>

<font color="darkred">Atmaivedamagra AsItpurushhavidhaH |

AtmA eva idam agre AsIt purushhavidhas

so.anuvIkshya nAnyadAtmano.apashyat

sas anuvIkshya na anyad Atmanas apashyat

so.ahamasmItyagre vyAharat

sas aham asmi iti agre vyAharat

tato.ahaMnAmAbhavat |

tatas ahaMnAma abhavat

tasmAdapyetarhyAmantrito

tasmAd api etarhi Amantritas

.ahamayamityevAgra uktvA.athAnyannAma prabrUte yadasya bhavati |

aham ayam iti eva agre uktvA atha anyad nAma prabrUte

yad asya bhavati

sa yatpUrvo.asmAtsarvasmAtsarvAnpApmana aushhat

sa yad pUrvas asmAd sarvasmAd sarvAn pApmanas

aushhat

tasmAtpurushhaH |

tasmAd purushhas

oshhati ha vai sa tam

oshhati ha vai sa tam

yo.asmAtpUrvo bubhUshhati

yas asmAd pUrvas bubhUshhati

ya evaM veda || 1 ||</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="darkblue">1. In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of a person (purusha). He looking round saw nothing but his Self. He first said, 'This is I;' therefore he became I by name. Therefore even now, if a man is asked, he first says, 'This is I,' and then pronounces the other name which he may have. And because before (purva) all this, he (the Self) burnt down (ush) all evils, therefore he was a person (pur-usha). Verily he who knows this, burns down every one who tries to be before him.</font color>

 

<hr>

Thus indeed in this case, the "ahaM brahmAsmi" was uttered by the original Purusha in identifying Himself as the source of everything, and we are encouraged to understand likewise.

 

 

"I am God" refers to Brahman, who is defined as:

 

yato va imani bhutani jayante. yena jatani jivanti. yat prayantyabhi samvishanti.

tat vijijnyasavya tat brahmeti

 

Thus these advaitins are thinking that they are the supreme source of everything, from whom everything comes, by whom everything is maintained, and into whom everything goes in dissolution.

 

All of the advaitins quoted above taught this. According to Shvu, their knowledge of advaita can be written on a pin's head.

 

 

I don't think THEY are thinking THEY are the supreme source of everything. That Brahman is the supreme source of everything. In their view, there is no YOU and THEY who is the supreme source of anything, it is Brahman alone. AsId ekam evAdvitIyam.

There is nevertheless a difference between saying "I am God" and "I am God", as when heard from the mouth of an Advaitin it simply means "ahaM brahmAsmi", whereas a person with little knowledge of Advaita thinks the person declares himself as The Personal Godhead.

Jagadananda has written an extensive series of articles addressing the question. You can read them at http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showcatpicks.php?thiscat=6 .

 

 

A friend of mine said that they did on the bank of the Jamuna, as Nanda Mahaaraj gave baby Krishna to Radharani to hold.

 

 

Given that Radha and Krishna are roughly of the same age, I believe something is mistaken in this account.

http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showarticle.php?id=14

 

<hr>

<font color="blue">Bhaktivinoda Thakur and the three books

 

Did Bhaktivinoda Thakur fabricate evidence to promote the Mayapur birthsite? I cannot answer the question where the historical and geographical evidence is concerned. However, I am seriously disturbed by the evidence that Bhaktivinoda Thakur manufactured literary evidence to support the validity of Chaitanya as avatar and the nine-islands theory of Nabadwip, which in turn is meant to promote the Mayapur birthplace.

 

In the 1890’s, the Thakur wrote a Bengali verse work, Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya, which he published under his own name. This book is a pretty typical “Sthala Mahatmya” style of text. Most Sthala-puranas introduce many puranic or Vedic personalities and ascribe to them activities and words that glorify the place in question. The events described in Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya are quite radical: Madhva and Ramanuja are not the only names that are dropped in this book – there are also demigods, Vedic rishis, and other historical figures like Jayadeva, all of whom spend time in Mahaprabhu’s Dham and have premonitions of His future appearance there.

 

Had Nabadwip-dhama-mahatmya been written in Puranic Sanskrit two or three hundred years earlier, it may have been insinuated into the Skanda Purana or Padma Purana and achieved canonical status. But as it is, the Thakur decided to publish it in Bengali and in his own name. This could only mean that he was either sufficiently confident of his own position as a “realized Vaishnava” who could claim to have mystic visions of this sort and be believed, or that he never intended for it to be taken literally as history, but as a fanciful work in glorification of Mahaprabhu. The Gaudiya Math and others who believe in the divine status of Bhaktivinoda take this work as literal “truth,” but those who do not share in the vision of a Nabadwip which has its center in Mayapur, it is a gratuitous fabrication.

 

The Vaishnavas no doubt believe that in some dimension or alternate reality these events were not only possible, but historically true, even if they were not necessarily so in our universe. In this sense, we can compare it to his other works like HarinAma-cintAmaNi, which Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote as a conversation between Haridas Thakur and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in Jagannath Puri, or Jaiva Dharma, which includes characters like Gopal Guru Goswami and Dhyana Chandra – a kind of historical fiction, as it were. There is a certain literary license that has been taken here and may be forgiven as long as we recognize the genre.

 

However, three books that the Thakur published as ancient works were almost certainly composed by him. These three -- CaitanyopaniSad (1887), Prema-vivarta (1906) and Navadvipa-satakam (n.d.) have certain common characteristics – they were all connected to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the glorification of his birthplace. The motives are fairly clear: the Thakur was trying to promote Mahaprabhu’s birthplace and he did it in a fashion time-honored in India. He simply wrote the material he needed and attributed it to someone who had historical credibility. Rather than attributing his works to Vyasa or Narottam Das Thakur as did the counterfeiters of the past, he used the names of Jagadananda Pandit and Prabodhananda Saraswati.(note 17)

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur did in fact publish many rare manuscripts of genuine Vaishnava literature, such as Sri Krishna Vijaya, many padyAvalis, etc. He was not the only one in his time who yielded to the temptation of counterfeiting. Nevertheless, I personally find it problematic that someone who contributed so much to the Vaishnava religion, who worked so hard to instill a spirit of morality and honesty into Vaishnavism, whose life was in general a monument of commitment to service to Mahaprabhu and His principles, who in his worldly life was a justice and so presumably knew a thing or two about ethics and the law, saw fit to take such a chance.

 

Furthermore, in view of his familiarity with scholarly historical method, it is hard to understand how he thought that he could get away with it. Perhaps he thought his personal probity put him above suspicion. But did he really think that a single manuscript found by chance in mysterious circumstances only to disappear again after its publication would not cause people to examine the published text more carefully? And if that text contains elements of language and content that not only point to a modern origin, but to the very person who claims to have found the manuscript, will our suspicions not be confirmed?

 

I can only say that in his enthusiasm to see Mahaprabhu’s birthplace be glorified and become a center of pilgrimage – as it has indeed become – the Thakur took a chance with his personal reputation and that of his religion. He succeeded in making Mayapur a magnet for pilgrims from around the world. His disciples, grand-disciples and great-grand- disciples have succeeded in creating an environment that is quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, one cannot help but wonder at the masi-bindu that stains his otherwise sparkling white cloth. Can we not expect people to ask the question that naturally arises: How can a religion that needs lies to spread its message make any claims to be the truth?</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="red">It does not give me pleasure to remind us, who are accustomed to thinking negatively of Bipin Bihari Goswami as someone who was rejected for his caste consciousness and bad habits like tobacco smoking, that he publicly renounced Bhaktivinoda Thakur as his disciple shortly before dying in 1919. The reason he gave for this drastic act was precisely for “preaching falsehoods” connected to the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is easy to condemn Bipin Bihari Prabhu for having some self-interest in this matter, but the doubts that have been brought up in this article tend to give justification to the Goswami.

 

I find it rather painful to bring the matter up, and I do so in the full expectation of being heartily condemned, but I would like to see those who love the Holy Name and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu face this problem head on, much in the way that Roman Catholics have decided to accept the terrible things in their history – things which are many times worse than those we have mentioned here – and still find a way to justify their faith.

 

Faith has to be honest to be genuine, and such honesty has to extend to our forefathers, even those to whom we have attributed the highest spiritual perfection. It is a shock to accept that our divinities may have had human failings, but I think this is a necessary step in facing our own failings.

 

Human psychology is such that we often compensate for our own human frailties by placing faith in someone else. We say, “I am not perfect, but my guru is. I have no personal qualifications, but this does not matter because the parampara is perfect.” This is a psychological trick and results in ego-inflation. By identifying with the guru and the parampara, we appropriate their perfection and their authority for ourselves. Unfortunately, this expands into the kind of distorted personal psychology that is not only historically present in Iskcon, but in many of the interactions between devotees who are otherwise sincere.

 

<hr></font color>

 

Perhaps we might consider whether deception and dishonesty has also been perpetrated by Lalit Prashad and his followers.

 

 

Oh yes, and offense is the best defense.

 

 

Lalit Prashad's Guru, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, was "rejected" by Bipin Bihari Goswami, and thus Lalit Prashad was cut off from the Gaudiya Sampradaya(if you believe the line that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's connection is through Bipin Bihari). Yet Lalit Prashad and his followers claim that they are a genuine diksa-parampara sampradaya, coming from Bipin Bihari Goswami to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and then to Lalit Prashad.

 

 

Now, at least you got something to rant about. Please, travel the length and bredth of the world and declare it to everyone that it was Vipin Vihari Gosvami who rejected Bhaktivinoda and not the other way around, and therefore Bhaktivinoda and all of his diksa-disciples have no proper diksa-parampara.

 

I must approach this matter from an objective "historical" standpoint. I am determined to deal with this matter.

 

Many attacks have been made against Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakur and also against the Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

I intend to make a reply to the facts of history that we know about. But I don't think I could ever change the opinions of someone involved in publishing criticizism of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur. Certainly I will never quote anything written by any offender against Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in any document I ever put together.

 

 

If someone presents a piece of history not fitting into your world, it becomes aparadha. What, then, is the meaning of the word history here? It is certainly not objective history you are capable of handling, but only points of choice you adopt to build your faith. The passion with which you comment on writings threatening your view of the world prove that you are incapable of handling anything which goes against that which you believe in. You feel a need to ridicule it and condemn it a priori to examining it, adding excessive exclamation marks to sentences. This is not very mature for public behavior.

 

 

 

Your question is based on the premise that our Gurus are liars who fabricate falsehoods.

 

 

This is yet another good example of your incapability of handling this. Please try to understand, whenever we examine an issue with two or more options, we are questioning the presentation of someone. Try to understand that almost invariably every fanatical follower will say the same of their gurus as you are presenting in your posts. But that does not facilitate dialogue with any reasonable person. I hope you can understand this.

 

If you read the entire article of Jagadananda, you will understand why there are good grounds for suspecting that indeed some evidence was fabricated. Read the section on "three books" for example.

 

Commenting on my text, somebody wrote:

 

 

Another group that doesnt have an unbroken diksa connection. You joined the wrong club.

 

 

I have no connection with Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta, Lalit Prasad or their followers, aside my knowing some of them. Whatever their status be, it has nothing to do with me.

 

Prakrta sahajiyas and those renounce material enjoyment practise so-called vairagya to satisfy their desires, but this is merely temporary, deceitful sadhana.

 

 

To the best of my understanding, prakrita sahajiyas do not exactly renounce material enjoyment and practice vairagya.

 

Why, O why, with each and every nice thing we have to mix a word of critique against someone?

 

Poor sahajiyas. Why don't you leave them alone already. Start criticizing the US government instead. That would be a timely object of critique. Even there are no orthodox sahajiya sampradayas any longer! They are a historical relic by now.

 

I think Gaudiya Math should read Prabhupad's books more to find more up-to-date objects of critique, like rascal scientists and the moon landing hoax. Challenge them to produce life from matter! And let them take pictures of the palaces of the moongod! And if they can't, their moon landing is bogus! That would be more interesting a topic to follow than this endless sahajiya rant.

 

Have you ever seen a living sahajiya?

 

I will not make any comment about this now.

 

This is a very serious statement indeed that Jagat has made.

 

 

Whenever you choose to comment on it, I suggest that instead of taking the way of attributing faults to him in his capacity of a devotee (with aparadha, as you consider it, and so), try to approach the issue perceiving him as a historian who has thoroughly examined the subject matter. Perhaps in that way we can all gain something from the discussion.

 

For the information of whoever is wondering what the controversy over Sri Caitanya's Janmasthan is all about, I am posting a relevant excerpt from Jagadananda's article.

 

 

<font color="darkslateblue">Another rather more significant and troubling claim is that Bipin Bihari Goswami rejected Bhaktivinoda because of preaching lies about the birthplace of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

Bipin Bihari was one of the first directors of the committee to oversee the worship of Sriman Mahaprabhu, newly established at the Yogapith in Mayapur by Bhaktivinoda Thakur in 1891. However, a few years later, the site of Mahaprabhu’s birthplace again became controversial when a disciple of Ram Das Babaji, an engineer, declared that the so-called Yogapith in Mayapur was false and that the real Yogapith was in Ranichora, a suburb of Nabadwip that had recently been reclaimed from the receding Ganges.(note 15)

 

After the disappearance of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur in 1914 these political controversies became quite shrill, and here were nasty exchanges going on between the followers of Saraswati Thakur and the Nabadwip adherents. This time Bipin Bihari Goswami sided with the Nabadwip Goswamis and in 1919 rejected the claims of Bhaktivinoda and his son, Saraswati Thakur in a small newspaper of his own called Gauranga-sevaka Patrika.<blockquote>Unhappy with the Miapur controversy. In order to show his commitment to the Nabadwip, he held a festival in honor of Vamsivadanananda Thakur in Kuliya. 1919. He disappeared the same year. (K. B. Goswami, 542)</blockquote>Since this rejection took place after Bhaktivinoda’s disappearance, it may well be that Saraswati and his disciples’ heavy-handed approach to the debate contributed to Bipin Bihari’s making a break of this sort. However, it is not unlikely that he became convinced that Bhaktivinoda had wilfully fabricated evidence to promote the Mayapur birthsite.</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="maroon">(Note 15) With modern methods, it should be possible to trace the history of the Ganges bed, on which both sides of this argument hinge. It seems to my layman’s eyes that the Ganges has tended to move eastward over the past several centuries, making the more westerly birthplace more likely. See Shukavak Das, p. 107-108, particularly the note on page 108. See also Chakravarti, 396.

 

Here is some more information, based on Carita-sudhA, volume 4, pp. 65-71. The original temple on Mahaprabhu's birthplace was built by Bir Hambir of Vishnupur, who ruled from approximately 1586-1621. This small shrine was claimed by the Ganges. Gaur Govinda Singh, the diwan of the East India Company temple, was an important Vaishnava. He built a second temple on the site in 1780-5, a sixty foot high building with nine pinnacles in red sandstone. This building was submerged in floods in 1876. Clearly, then, Bhaktivinoda Thakur must have been exaggerating somewhat when he said that nobody had any idea where the birthplace had been.

 

As a result, a few years after Bhaktivinoda established the Mayapur site, in 1304 Bangabda (1897), Sashibhushan Bandyopadhyaya wrote in Pallivasi Patrika the first article claiming that the Janmasthan was somewhere in Ramchandrapur. This started the Janmasthan wars. The Mayapur faction started a court case, which ultimately refused to reject the Mayapur claim, but did conclude that Gaura Govidna Singh's temple had indeed been built on the site of Mahaprabhu's birthplace and if anyone could find the ruins of that temple, that would be the deciding factor in establishing the birthsite.

 

Premananda Bharati, well-known as the first preacher of Vaishnavism in the West, took up the cause in the early 20th century, enlisting the aid of the leaders of the various Vaishnava communities both in Vrindavan and Gauda Desh. Finally, these Vaishnavas decided to find a qualified person to establish the exact site. They engaged Vraja Mohan Das Babaji, who in his householder life had been a government engineer and had recently taken responsibility for rebuilding the steps around Radha Kund and Shyam Kund.

 

Vraja Mohan Dasji started his research in 1916. He walked all over the Dham as well as investigating the available records, including the British survey maps that had been conducted from 1757 onwards. Apparently, he was on one occasion beaten up, his sikha cut off, his mala cut and thrown naked into the Ganges by the Mayapur faction. This probably when he entered the Mayapur compound. I have myself seen the vitriolic literature written by Paramananda Brahmachari at around this time, accusing Vraja Mohan Dasji and his backers of all manner of licentiousness in an effort to discredit his efforts. This evidently did not help Bhaktivinoda Thakur's cause with Bipin Bihari Goswami.

 

At any rate, through his research Vraja Mohan pinpointed the Ramachandra Chora land as the likeliest site of Gaur Govinda Singh's temple. He proceeded to dig more than 700 holes in the ground there before finding a large piece of red sandstone that had been a part of it. He exhibited the piece of stone to an assembly of Vaishnavas and work was begun building a new temple there.

 

Even so, the effort had exhausted him and he died not long after, turning the temple service over to Charan Das's sakhibhekhi disciple Radhavinodini Dasi. The area was officially named Prachin Mayapur in 1928. The temple was turned over to Ramdas Babaji in 1953.

 

Clearly, the timing of the Prachin Mayapur birthsite roughly coincides with Bipin Bihari's rejection of Bhaktivinoda, so it is not unlikely that the two are related.</font color>

 

 

Aside this, I would be curious to know of any early references about Jagannatha Das Babaji's confirming the Janmasthan founded by Bhaktivinoda. I cannot avoid the thought that this story was fabricated later on, just as many other stories have been fabricated. Haridas Dasji does not mention this incident in Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana, nor do I remember it being mentioned in O.B.L. Kapoor's "Saints of Bengal" (I don't have the book at hand right now). Perhaps Bhaktivinoda has published something about this in his Sajjana Toshani?

Where is the nArAyaNaH paro 'vyaktAd sentence in the Gita Bhasya, any idea? Could you point me to the exact reference?

Where is the nArAyaNaH paro 'vyaktAd sentence in the Gita Bhasya, any idea? Could you point me to the exact reference?

 

. if after further study if i am convinced sankara's views were different, then i will come back. the problem in indiadivine forum is that discussions are not based on granthas - er. pusthakams.

 

 

I have quoted from his Gita Bhasya. Both Shvu and Karthik have been quoting from his Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

 

What do you conclude in concluding this debate? Was Sankara an "impersonalist", one who did not believe in the eternity of sad-guna brahman, or not?

 

. if after further study if i am convinced sankara's views were different, then i will come back. the problem in indiadivine forum is that discussions are not based on granthas - er. pusthakams.

 

 

I have quoted from his Gita Bhasya. Both Shvu and Karthik have been quoting from his Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

 

What do you conclude in concluding this debate? Was Sankara an "impersonalist", one who did not believe in the eternity of sad-guna brahman, or not?

 

In regard to the fact that Bipin Bihari published an article in 1919 declaring that he had rejected Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur as his disciple, what then is the status within the Gaudiya Sampradya of Lalit Prashad?

 

 

Some thoughts from Jagadananda in this regard.

 

 

<font color="blue">Posted: Oct. 19 2002,19:42

 

 

Madhava asked me some time back, as a result of reading the article Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami, how one coming in Bhaktivinoda's line should feel as a result of the apparent break in the lineage coming from Bipin Bihari's displeasure with the Thakur's work.

 

I would like to speak to this more exhaustively later, when I have a little more time. In a sense, I have already spoken to it in a general way when I brokered the concept of "forgiving the guru." This is a rather radical point that seems to contradict all that we have learned about seeing the spiritual master as God, etc., but I think that it is essential in order to come to a human understanding of spiritual life.

 

Bipin Bihari worked together with Bhaktivinoda and the two had a mutually fruitful relationship throughout more than thirty years of preaching, etc. Their relationship is no doubt going on beyond this world and whatever imperfections existed in it are being purified there. The fact remains that the spirit of devotion, the knowledge of sambandha, etc., have come to us as a result of their living relationship.

 

I suppose that people will take sides based on the question of whether they think Bhaktivinoda or Bipin Bihari Goswami was right on the Janma Sthan issue. In my article I have clearly taken the position that I believe Bhaktivinoda did some questionable things, thus giving credit to Bipin Bihari. Evidently, wherever Bhaktivinoda Thakur is today, he has to come to terms with this issue to right himself vis à vis his guru.

 

In the meantime, we are confident that Bhaktivinoda Thakur has given us so much despite this blemish that we do not despise him for it. Nor do we believe that his guru truly despised him, but rather posthumously warned him and his followers that falsehood has no place in the spiritual endeavor. Militancy in religion is bad enough in itself; when bolstered by falsehood, it becomes doubly bad. Let us be forewarned.

 

Jagat

 

 

http://www.raganuga.com/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=292;st=0#entry2586

 

</font color>

 

 

 

Prabhupada: They are seeing... They&#8217;re tested. I don't make any compromise. All my speaking is also no compromise. Here is guru, here is Krsna, here is God, here is Vedanta. Real version they neglect, and they stick to the rascal's version, Sankara's version, Sariraka-bhasya. All over India, they are reading Sariraka-bhasya.

 

============ REF. Room Conversation -- July 1, 1976, New Vrindaban

 

<hr>

Thanks for pointing this out Raga. Now, the apolegetics in ISKCON wouldn't say any more that SP was only attacking the deviant Mayavadis, whoever they are, while he never said such things about Sankara.

 

 

I did a bit of research on what the Swami said about Sankara. He consistently presents Sankara as someone who cheated others, drawing from several verses of the Caitanya Caritamrita, quoted from Padma Purana. Aside this general line of thought, there are three prominent contexts where he spoke of Sankara:

 

1. Sankara, who in the end of his life said, "bhaja govindam...";

 

2. Sankara, who declared "nArAyaNaH paro avyaktAd";

 

3. Listing of "Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and other great acaryas".

 

As for the quote I presented above, let us note that its meaning changes drastically if we transcribe "they stick to the rascal's version, Sankara's version" as "they stick to the rascals' version, Sankara's version". In the former, "rascal's version" defines Sankara as author the rascal, in the latter "rascals' version" defines the bhasya as something written for rascals. It is virtually impossible for us to tell which one of the two is the correct reading.

 

Bhaktivedanta also consistently proposes, relying on the authority of the stanzas mentioned in (1) and (2), that the present-day Advaitins do not actually follow the conclusions of Shankara. There is also a third verse he refers to on occasion, "sa bhagavAn svayaM kRSNa devakI-nandana", to prove the theory. He also proposes that the Bhaja Govindam stanza was among the last things he wrote, as a final instruction to his followers. I wonder if there is much substance for the claim.

 

<font color="darkred">"Similarly Sankaracarya, he's also impersonalist, but he accepts Krsna the supreme authority. Sa bhagavan svayam krsna. "Krsna is that Supreme Personality of Godhead." The modern Mayavadi philosophers, they do not disclose this statement of Sankaracarya. To cheat people. But Sankaracarya's statement is there. We can give evidence."

 

(Bhagavad-gita lecture 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968)</font color>

 

And another one where he condemns the orthodox followers of Sankara as his imitators on account of their accepting his precepts:

 

<font color="darkred">"The Mayavadis try to imitate Sripad Sankaracarya. Pretending to be orthodox, they reject the truth that the jiva is part and parcel of Parabrahman, the Supreme Lord. They also deny the fact that it is only the part and parcel aspect of Parabrahman (the jiva) and not Parabrahman Himself who falls under the spell of maya. And worst of all, they deny that Parabrahman is none other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead. According to their lop-sided argument, when the jiva attains mukti (liberation) he merges into the impersonal Brahman and loses his individual identity. By this logic, when the Supreme Lord, the Parabrahman, incarnates in this material world or appears in the Deity form, He becomes an ordinary jiva. Thus the foolish Mayavadis draw a distinction between the Lord and His form, and in this way they commit great offences against Him."

 

(Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.3)</font color>