raga

That's quite true, Pete, now you're speaking.

"Perhaps"? Of course it is okay. Do you propose that in your tradition, when having scriptural discussions, you always have to quote verses in a numerical order? In my view, the "vimUDhAtma" refers to citta-vRtti of the Atma which is focused on matter through the medium of ahamkAra, experiencing the changes in this world and thinking of himself as the doer. It cannot refer to any of the subtle elements individually, since they a are part of the prakrti (which is declared the doer), and do not possess individual cognitive power. In the following verse, Bhagavan refers to "tattva-vit" who is "guna-karma-vibhAgayoH". In the thirteenth chapter, the jIvAtma has been established as the kSetra-jñA. Based on this, I understand the word "vimUdhAtma".

Here is the first point to which I want to have an answer from you: 1. Do you agree that Mahaprabhu requested and empowered the six Gosvamis to establish the proper codes of conduct for His followers? Second point: 2. What is the shastric evidence you have provided to establish the legitimacy of a siksha-parampara? Point three: 3. Have you seen any Gaudiya Vaishnava shave away his sikha and take initiation in ekadanda-sannyasa in the Shankara-lineage? That would certainly bring credibility to our preachers as being very Vedantic men. Point four: 4. In a tradition in which pancaratra is an essential part of practice, the ritual part of it certainly does form a concrete part of the sampradaya's characteristics. Would you address my response to siksa-parampara and pancaratrika-traditions? Point five: 5. Please present the relevant excerpt from the Gosvamis' literature based on which you draw the conclusion above. Rather than assuming the Gosvamis' intentions in accordance with our nature, we need to review their writings. Please be kind and respond to these five points. Whenever you comment on any one of them, please indicate so by placing the relevant point number in front of your reply. You complain about our not addressing your points, but I see you neglecting up to 80% the points I have been making in my earlier letters.

Exactly. We can't impose dissatisfaction into the spiritual realm. Therefore there is no change of rasa. In the Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi 4.43) it is stated: nija nija bhAva sabe zreSTha kari’ mAne nija-bhAve kare kRSNa-sukha AsvAdane "Everyone considers his very own mood the be the greatest of all, and accepting this, in his own mood he tastes great happiness with Krishna." Each and every devotee considers his own mood to be the very best way in which he pleases Krishna. Therefore, why would he want to change it? Besides, we have to understand the humanlike nature of the pastimes of Vraja. People don't just change around. Mama does not become pal, and sweetie doesn't become papa. Just like we have it in this world. [Now, please don't start giving examples to the contrary please -- I don't want to hear about girls becoming boys and mothers becoming sweeties.] It would be a disruption in the natural relationships of Vraja. We may speculate, "But what if someone wants..." The answer is, "No, he does not want." As simple as that.

I couldn't see you define the word. Please repost the relevant portion in which you define "vimUdhAtma". Did you mean this sentence? "The fault that the Lord points out here is that the part thinks it is doer where as the whole is the doer." Then I say: If one of the three aspects of linga-sharira is the vimUdhAtma, or the totality of these three aspects is the vimUdhAtma, then I say: Without the presence of the citta-vRtti of the Atma, these three elements have no life or individuality, and therefore they cannot be called the self. Therefore the citta-vRtti of the Atma must be counted within the definition of vimUdhAtma. I have objected to definitions "mind", "intelligence", "ahankara". You have objected to "citta-vRtti of Atma projected through the medium of ahankara towards matter, forming the conception of self". What are we left with? <small> [This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-04-2002).]

Ram, you asked in another thread about the legitimacy of siddha pranali in the view of shruti shastra. You may now wish to view what I posted into the Siddha Pranali-thread: http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001200-9.html . I hope it sheds some light on the matter.

Ram, you asked in another thread about the legitimacy of siddha pranali in the view of shruti shastra. You may now wish to view what I posted into the Siddha Pranali-thread: http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001200-9.html . I hope it sheds some light on the matter.

<hr><hr>Recently Ram asked in another thread about the basis in shruti for the giving of siddha-pranali and related practices. I am presently reading the Gopala Tapani Upanishad, and have discovered some interesting details there. I’ll open with a line describing how the sadhaka should view himself in the course of upasana. Sri Gopala Tapani states: <blockquote><center>yo gopan jivan vai atmatvenasrsti-paryantam alati sa gopalo bhavati om tat sat so ’ham param brahma krsnatmako nityanandaika-rupah so’ham om // 2.50 //</center> “Because since the beginning of creation He lovingly protects the conditioned souls, He is known as Gopala. Om tat sat. That I am, identical in quality with Sri Krishna, the supreme spirit, having a spiritual form eternally full of bliss, that I am. Om.” </blockquote>This verse establishes the legitimacy of meditating on one's eternally blissful form. The verses after this one describe the details of meditation on Gopala, finally concluding with a phala-stuti: <blockquote><center>dhyayaen mama priyo nityam sa moksam adhigacchati sa mukto bhavati tasmai atmanam ca dadami vai //2.91//</center> "He who meditates in this way is eternally dear to me. He attains liberation. He becomes liberated. I give Myself to him." </blockquote>It is clear from this that the meditation recommended therein is a means for attaining liberation, instead of something which only takes place on the liberated platform. The first chapter of the Gopala Tapani Upanisad also describes something which is a root-form of the mental yogapitha-seva practiced by the Gaudiya mystics of the present day. Sri Brahmaji describes the upasana of Gopala:<blockquote><center>tan uvaca - yat tasya pitham hairanyasta-palasam ambujam tad antaralikana-asra-yugam tad-antarady-arnakhila-bijam krsnaya nama iti bijadhyam sa brahmanam adhaya ananga-gayatrim yathavad vyalikhya bhu-mandalam sula-vestitam krtvanga vasudevadi rukminyadi sva-saktindradi vasudevadi parthadi nidhyadi-vitam yajet //1.18//</center> Brahma said: “On that seat, there should be a golden lotus with eight petals. Within that flower, one should place two triangles [a hexagonal figure], properly drawing the bija with krsnaya etc. along with bija and ananga-gayatri there. Then one should worship Vasudeva and others, Rukmini and others, His energies headed by Indra, Vasudeva andothers, Arjuna and others, and His treasures and so on.” </blockquote>[Kusakratha translates bhu-mandalam sula-vestitam krtvanga as “Then anga should be offered with the sula-mantra (astraya phat).” I have left it untranslated. Perhaps our pandits can help in clarifying the import of these words.] The “krsnaya” here refers to the astadasaksara Gopala-mantra explained later in the Gopala Tapani Upanisad. Vasudeva and others -- other features of the Lord; Rukmini and others -- other consorts of the Lord (madhurya-rasa); His energies headed by Indra -- other devotees in a service mood (dasya-rasa); Vasudeva and others -- other devotees with parental affection (vatsalya-rasa); Arjuna and others -- other devotees with fraternal affection (sakhya-rasa); His treasures and so on -- all paraphernalia and so on in santa-rasa. Here we see a description of the worship of the Lord conducted together with His associates in Dvaraka. In the same way, the Gaudiya mystics worship the Lord in Vrindavana, surrounded by His associates, such as Sri Radha and the eight principal sakhis. There is certainly no objection to worshiping the Deity in the mind, for the Bhagavata (11.27.12) proclaims:<blockquote><center>saili daru-mayi lauhi lepya lekhya ca saikati mano-mayi mani-mayi pratimasta-vidha smrta</center> “The Deity forms of the Lord are known to appear in eight different ways – in stone, in wood, in metal, in earth, in paint, in sand, in mind or in jewels.”</blockquote>There is no gradation offered for eligibility in worshiping the Sri Vigraha in its different manifestations here. Therefore, why should mental service be reserved for the liberated persons only, leaving other varieties of arcana for the conditioned souls? It is a form of sadhana meant for the benefit of all sadhakas, as declared in the Bhagavata (7.5.23): sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam. The spiritual master may offer a suitable form for the meditation of the sadhaka to facilitate his mental service to his internally conceived Deities, Sri Radha and Krishna. Since service of the Lord is to be done under the guidance of Sri Guru, the guru may also reveal a similar eternally blissful form of his in which he meditates on himself at the time of upasana. There is certainly no fault in this. In this way, we have presented references for the legitimacy of traditional Gaudiya raganuga upasana from the shruti-shastra. <hr><hr>

Once you're there, there will be no change. During the stage of practice, one's inclinations may change due to various reasons (I'll have to look that one up, in BRS it is explained), but at the time of perfection there will no longer be changes. Imagine if one day Krishna and the boys came to his friend's house to take him along to herd the cows, and the friend would inform Krishna of his decision to shift over to gopi bhava because he wasn't satisfied with his friendship. However, the bliss there is ever increasing, and ever-new ways of serving come up. In this sense rasa becomes higher and higher, but it stays within the limits of the devotee's sthayi-bhava (permanent emotion).

What do you suggest for defining "vimUdhAtma"?

prakrter - of nature [prakRti -- the great doer!]; anyatha - other; bhava - become; na - not; kathancid - somehow; bhavisyati - shall become. "Nature shall not anyhow become something else." Your translation is not too verbatim, huh? This is the first time I hear the word prakRti used in describing the jIvAtma's eternal nature. In the Gita (3.33) we see the word prakRti used as one's nature acquired from the three modes of material nature, which constantly compete with each other, causing changes in one's acquired nature. What is the context of this verse?

"Out of order" was out of order. OK, let's go on with the discussion. How do you view my conception of "vimUdhAtma"?

My wife often uses a so-called "gopi dress" (whatever you call it), which has a separate bottom part and an upper garment, which goes around the bosom just like a sari (as in the picture). At any rate, the one in the picture not a part of either sari or the gopidress, but a separate garment she holds. It should be obvious enough from the picture above.

My wife often uses a so-called "gopi dress" (whatever you call it), which has a separate bottom part and an upper garment, which goes around the bosom just like a sari (as in the picture). At any rate, the one in the picture not a part of either sari or the gopidress, but a separate garment she holds. It should be obvious enough from the picture above.

<center>At any rate, Srimati has now complied with your wishes to help you avoid misunderstandings. She changed the red upper garment to a blue one. <a href="http://www.raganuga.com" target="_blank"> </a>

<center>At any rate, Srimati has now complied with your wishes to help you avoid misunderstandings. She changed the red upper garment to a blue one. <a href="http://www.raganuga.com" target="_blank"> </a>

<center> Can you explain this? If it was Her frock, it would mean that when She puts it down, it lags half a meter behind Her when She walks around, and She will constantly stumble on account of Her stepping on top of it. [This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-03-2002).]

<center> Can you explain this? If it was Her frock, it would mean that when She puts it down, it lags half a meter behind Her when She walks around, and She will constantly stumble on account of Her stepping on top of it. [This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-03-2002).]

I just had a look at another picture on the same theme. In that one, Srimati also holds a separate garment there. It may be that "veil" is a mistake in translation -- I'd have to see the original text, which is not available to me at present. It probably speaks about a separate upper garment.

I just had a look at another picture on the same theme. In that one, Srimati also holds a separate garment there. It may be that "veil" is a mistake in translation -- I'd have to see the original text, which is not available to me at present. It probably speaks about a separate upper garment.

OK. So, I suggest that instead of contributing miscellaneous points here and there, as your next posting you post a well-prepared presentation of the points you wish to make, along with adequate evidence. For the sake of clarity in presentation, be sure to present the various points clearly separate from each other, so a reply can be easily compiled, and reference to the original can be easily made. I suggest using a format similar to a document you can see at http://www.geocities.com/mad0147 . Thanks.

Is there any other basis for accepting the Pancaratras than the words of your predecessors? We demand shruti.

Is there any other basis for accepting the Pancaratras than the words of your predecessors? We demand shruti.

In other words, this assertation can't be backed up with shruti? As we heard it from Hari Krishna Das in the other thread: "If members of the LP party eschew the significance of shruti in establishing truth, then they cannot be called Vedaantists in any reasonable sense of the word. All Vedaantists accept the apaurusheya nature of the Vedas as an axiom. It is never acceptable to quote one's gurus' words as stand-alone evidence." So... So, returning to the original precepts put forth by Ram: Any theology that claims to be based on the Vedas should: 1. be based on available smrti 2. be consistent with Vedanta Sutras which are available in full 3. not contradict the available shruti In this case, the first is certainly true, but as for the two others, could you explain: a) Is the acceptance of a personal dual deity consistent with the Vedanta Sutras? b) Does it contradict the available shruti? I guess based on one's choice of interpretation, both yes and no could be established. As for the proposals' being based on smriti, given the vast choice of smriti-shastra at our disposal, we have many things which could in theory be legitimately established. But Ram, what about various details of arcana, as we see them nowadays in practice in the various sampradayas? Not found in shruti, nor in Puranas / Mahabharata. Do you include the pancaratrika body of literature within the category of "shastra", which is acceptable evidence?

In other words, this assertation can't be backed up with shruti? As we heard it from Hari Krishna Das in the other thread: "If members of the LP party eschew the significance of shruti in establishing truth, then they cannot be called Vedaantists in any reasonable sense of the word. All Vedaantists accept the apaurusheya nature of the Vedas as an axiom. It is never acceptable to quote one's gurus' words as stand-alone evidence." So... So, returning to the original precepts put forth by Ram: Any theology that claims to be based on the Vedas should: 1. be based on available smrti 2. be consistent with Vedanta Sutras which are available in full 3. not contradict the available shruti In this case, the first is certainly true, but as for the two others, could you explain: a) Is the acceptance of a personal dual deity consistent with the Vedanta Sutras? b) Does it contradict the available shruti? I guess based on one's choice of interpretation, both yes and no could be established. As for the proposals' being based on smriti, given the vast choice of smriti-shastra at our disposal, we have many things which could in theory be legitimately established. But Ram, what about various details of arcana, as we see them nowadays in practice in the various sampradayas? Not found in shruti, nor in Puranas / Mahabharata. Do you include the pancaratrika body of literature within the category of "shastra", which is acceptable evidence?