raga

Dear BVI,

In regards to your statement:

The siddha pranali advocates try to artificially trick the intelligence into identify with a new spiritual identity through imaginative raganuga sadhana types of seva, prior to the stage of bhava when it really happens. This is not enough of an impression to purify the intellgence and false ego to control the mind. The natural path is to serve and please the Lord and reach the stage of Bhava by the causeless mercy of Guru and Krishna. That is the process advocated by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada, and the one that works.

May I inquire about the sources of your understanding the precepts of "the siddha-pranali advocates", their practices and their theology? It appears from your writing that you label the method as insufficient or imperfect in other ways. You may want to note that the "siddha-pranali" method was followed and taught by several revered teachers in your line, for instance Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Jagannath Das Baba. I would rather depend on their discretion in this regard.

Ram, you kindly provide us with the correct Vedantic Srutic way of understanding how the Atma is connected with this world, and if it is entirely disconnected, please explain why it is experiencing its existence here and not in Brahman (or wherever else).

Originally posted by shiva:

evidently jijaji had some question..I cannot find it, was it edited out?

Looks like it was deleted.

At any rate, he was asking if you could explain the existence of Goloka based on shastra.

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, if you accept Srila Prabhupada as an infallible authority and discuss, then his translations can be accepted as such. Otherwise, I would like to question the veracity of the translation that you presented. How is the word, vimUdhAtmA, translated to mean the spirit soul, bewildered by false ego ? There are acharyas who have translated this as "foolish mind" (vimUdha + Atma) which is so due to ahankarA (false ego). I am not opposed to accept the translation of Srila Prabhupada as representative of Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta. But before you and JNdas go deep in to Gaudiya Vaishnava literature and commentaries of pUrvAchAryas, I would like to ask you if both of you agree with the authority of Srila Prabhupada and hence his translation.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-26-2002).]

You may have noted from the other threads that I am personally not in a disciplic line coming from Prabhupada, and I do not view him as my purvacarya. Nevertheless, given the extensive body of his literature I have at my disposal, I refer to it now and then, taking his translations.

But the translation at hand is not a translation by Prabhupada.

Let us say it is the cognitive function of the atma which is bewildered by a sense of false identification. Is that OK?

Given the fact that the atma is here and not elsewhere, through some medium it has attained a false sense of identity, a conception of its belonging to this world. This medium is its awareness, tainted with ahankara.

Here you go, I just found them all: http://www.hknet.org.nz/ekadasi-1.htm

Unfortunately I don't have anything at hand (rather on file).

Recently a friend of mine (Bhrigumunidas) compiled an exellent work on Ekadasi, mainly drawing from the Hari Bhakti Vilasa.

You can find more about it here: http://www.absolutetruthpress.com/ekadasi.html .

Highly recommended for all Ekadasi-enthusiasts.

The Puranas are filled with various histories. Often they are understood as allegorical, and sometimes as historical facts. In the Puranas, we also find exaggerated statements meant to make a strong point, and sometimes we find astonishing statements which are actual facts.

I would be eager to hear a word or two from our Pandits, particularly the views propounded by the Puranas themselves, as well as the recognized teachers in various lineages.

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, good point. But the only problem I see in what you say is

 

1. How do we attribute any defect(ive cognition) to brahman ?

 

( I made my previous post concise)

 

 

I would rather say Bhagavan attributes defective cognition to atma, the fragmental particle of spirit, as in the Gita (3.27):

prakRteH kriyamANAni

guNaiH karmANi sarvazaH

ahaGkAra-vimUDhAtmA

kartAham iti manyate

"The atma, bewildered by the false ego, considers himself to be the doer, whereas the various activities being done are in fact carried out by the modes of material nature."

Sri Bhagavan goes on to call them "fallible" in Gita 15.16:

dvAv imau puruSau loke

kSaraz cAkSara eva ca

kSaraH sarvANi bhUtAni

kUTa-stho 'kSara ucyate

"In this world, two kinds of enjoyers are known: the fallible and the infallible. All the living entities are called fallible, and the one established in His exellency is the infallible."

The jivAtma-class of beings are ksara, and only brahman (brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAn iti zabdyate) is aksara -- akSaraM brahma paramam. Being ksara in nature, the cognitive feature of the jivAtma is subject to confusion.

nasato vidyate bhavo

nabhavo vidyate satah

ubhayor api drishto 'ntas

tv anavos tattva-darshibhih

 

"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that for the material body there is no endurance (i.e. it constantly under goes changes), and for the soul there is no change (it eternally remains the same). This they have concluded by studying the nature of both."

I am curious to hear more evidence on the absolute unchangeability of the soul. Given its context, Gita 2.16 can easily be understood to mean that the soul is not subject to changes imposed by the material nature.

I am pointing this out particularly with the idea atma/svarupa in mind. The atma is described as being as effulgent as thousands of suns etc. but no individual personal characteristics are attributed to it to the best of my understanding. From the descriptions of Gita, "atma" appears to be a spiritual principle of life in contrast to matter, an embodied spiritual spark in this world. Little is known of the atma beyond its existence in this world.

In this context, I would like to submit (Bhagavata 4.12.29) a description of Dhruva's attaining his svarupa:

parItyAbhyarcya dhiSNyAgryaM

pArSadAv abhivandya ca

iyeSa tad adhiSThAtuM

bibhrad rUpaM hiraNmayam

"Having circumambulated and worshiped the divine airplane, having offered obeisances to the two associates of the Lord, he boarded the plane in an illuminated golden form."

[Note: Dhruva was transformed while circumambulating the plane.]

Ajamila's story is similar in the sixth skandha.

Sorry for side-tracking the discussion with this. I am eager to get the point clarified.

You said "only brahman is akshara". I wouldn't agree with this. Many other acharya's have established akshara (kuta-sthah) to refer to either the liberated living entities or to pradhana (the second view is established in the Bhagavatam [3.26.19] as well).

Well, I really do not hold an opinion on this. To tell you the truth, I just glanced over the two commentaries at my disposal, and that's what it said there. I am certain there are multiple interpretations which all offer a valid angle to consider.

It [the meaning of kuta-sthah in the 6th chapter] certainly does have significance, as Krishna is speaking leading one point to the next. When interpreting Krishna's statements we should see his past usage of concepts, more than we should take an external definition for a word.

In principle, I agree. But the usage of kuta-sthah in the sixth chapter refers to the yogi who has controlled his senses, not to the living entities in the spiritual world. They are certainly not the same, since the yogi is making his way out of an undisciplined condition, whereas the residents of the spiritual world are aksara by constitution.

In addition, in the 12th chapter of the Gita (12.3), Bhagavan describes the impersonal, infallible Brahman as "kuta-sthah" --

ye tv akSaram anirdezyam

avyaktaM paryupAsate

sarvatra-gam acintyaM ca

kUTa-stham acalaM dhruvam

Nevertheless, I agree that the word aksara can also be validly used for the residents of the spiritual world.

So, it looks like we have the premises to drift back towards the first diversion from the original conversation:

Is there such a yama-niyama which influences the cognitive function of the soul?

And when we have that one clear, we can drift back to the original discussion, yama-niyama in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

Ram, do we agree on these premises?

The soul remains eternally pure; only the soul's consciousness may be influenced by the material nature.

OK, so we have our agreement here I believe.

The cognitive function (consciousness) of the soul is subject to influence, while the soul itself (the source of cognizence) is beyond influence. Do we agree on this?

Ram, is this conclusion OK with you?

[i would like to continue the theme, JNDas, though, by asking how the two can be discussed separately from each other as having different constitutions in relation to being subject to contamination? Both are spirit by nature, right? If so, then how can one be subject to change and the other not?]

The Lord is neither fallible nor infallible, but beyond all measurement of fallibility and infallibility.

 

I wonder why we keep calling him "Acyuta" then.

Originally posted by jndas:

Yet you miss the obvious fact that Krishna says, "Besides these two, there is another. The Purushottama is situated beyond both of these."

 

yasmat ksharam atito 'ham

aksharad api cottamah

 

"Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible (kshara) and the infallible (kshara)..."

I didn't really miss it. I thought of it too, but decided to stick to the commentaries of the acaryas at my disposal.

Both Visvanatha and Bhaktivinoda seem to actually equate the first aksara-purusa with Brahman. Visvanatha on verse 17: "After explaining brahma, the worshippable deity of the jnanis, in this sloka beginning with the word uttamah, Sri Bhagavan explains Paramatma, the worshipable object of the yogis."

Bhaktivinoda says, "The second aksara purusa, Paramatma, is superior to the first aksara-purusa, brahma."

In verse 18, Bhagavan states how He is beyond ksara and aksara. Visvanatha comments, "After explaining Paramatma, the worshipable object of the yogis, Sri Bhagavan describes bhagavat-tattva, the worshipable deity of the bhaktas."

On the basis of these commentaries, we discover the following succession of threefold para-tattva in these verses:

Verse 16 -- Aksara -- Brahman -- jnanis

Verse 17 -- Anya Uttama Purusa -- Paramatma -- yogis

Verse 18 -- Purusottama -- Bhagavan -- bhaktas

And in Gita 6.8 Krishna already established that kuta-sthah refered to the liberated yogi:

The fact that the term kuta-sthah has been used in the sixth chapter for the yogi does not mean much definite for the usage in the sixteenth chapter.

Visvanatha comments: "However, the second purusa is aksara, and is kuta-stha, that is, in His same infallible svarupa, He is all-pervasive. According to the Amara-kosa dictionary, kuta-stha means one who is all-pervading, who does not change His eternal svarupa and who remains in one form."

Would you have Baladeva's commentary at hand? I would be curious to see what he says in this regard.

<small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-26-2002).]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Just two quick points:

 

(1) What is more important: the here and now or the next world? Both or neither?

 

(2) Krishna adjusts himself to the individual desires of his devotees. I imagine that if a horse devotee wanted Krishna to appear as Pushpadanta, he would.

1. We are now here and then there, right? If we got it together, we are here and at the same time there. Definitely we are going there, but whatever is the location of our going, that is here. Does that answer the quiz?

2. Do different rasas exist for horse devotees? If yes, why? If not, why not?

Originally posted by jijaji:

Raga,

 

You misunderstand me, I appreciate all the quotes you came up with, my intention in asking about Goloka was not to belittle any quotes anyone might come up with at all.

 

 

My question was directed towards Shiva...I wanted to see his responce as master of the shastras.

 

You can put your guns down sonny, you look for battle where there is none.!

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 05-26-2002).]

Sorry, I spoiled your teasing Shiva. But I impersonated him by quoting Shiva Sutra, the assumed gist of his insight, since I knew you wanted to hear what he says.

I just got excited over the idea, since I really never thought about this before, and took up a quick research on the matter.

Throw in another question for Shiva, and I'll promise to hold myself back. At least until his reply. OK?

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-26-2002).]

Bhagavan is not infallible (akshara) - He is "beyond", as akshara refers to the liberated souls in the spiritual realm. This is Krishna's statement in the Gita:

 

dvav imau purushau loke

ksharas cakshara eva ca

ksharah sarvani bhutani

kuta-stho 'kshara ucyate

 

"There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every entity is called infallible."

 

The word "loke" refers specifically to the Puranas and subsidiary Vedic texts.

 

According to Bhaktivinoda, aksara-purusa refers to svamsa-tattva, and ksara-purusa refers to vibhinnamsa-tattva. Additionally, Bhaktivinoda offers the threefold division of kuta-stha in his commentary on this verse.

Visvanatha agrees, stating that aksara and kuta-stha refer to the One Infallible.

Originally posted by suryaz:

When was Shiva samhita written?

The Shiva Samhita I have quoted is different from the classical astanga yoga text "Shiva Samhita".

This Shiva samhita is also known by the name "Shiva Sutra". It is a collection of concice truths deducted from the writings of Shiva. The sages are still working on it.

Another famous sutra was presented on page five, quoted from the Shiva Sutra (3.122):

"Hey, you either get it , or you don't."

Please note the proper location of the comma, which is quintessential in understanding the secret meaning of the sutra, which is actually very different from its literal meaning.

We cordially invite all Vaishnavas to relish the pastimes of the Lord in the following address:

http://raganuga.com/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=8

We try our level best to compile the pastimes of the Lord related with any specific dates given in the Vaishnava calendar.

But please you go on and on about Goloka now...please inform all the new people listening the History of that Goloka you talk about so much....

The final answer about the primeval supreme nature of Goloka is provided in Shiva-samhita (4.623):

"Been there, seen that, realized."

Wow I was already missing you Ji.

I guess the ancient scripture from the beginning of creation, Brahma Samhita, would not fit into what you view as "evidence"... Not? Well, here's something I grasped together over the last half fifteen minutes.

Srimad Bhagavata 11.31.8, 24 attributes an eternal nature to Dvaraka:

devAdayo brahma-mukhyA

na vizantaM sva-dhAmani

avijJAta-gatiM kRSNaM

dadRzuz cAti-vismitAH

"The demigods and others headed by Brahma could not see Him enter His own abode, since his movements are unknown. Those who saw him were very amazed."

nityaM sannihitas tatra

bhagavAn madhusUdanaH

smRtyAzeSAzubha-haraM

sarva-maGgala-maGgalam

"Bhagavan Madhusudana is eternally present there [Dvaraka, viz. 23]. By remembering this, all inauspiciousness is removed, and the most auspicious of all auspiciousness is obtained."

Srimad Bhagavata, 10.1.28, also gives Mathura the same eternal status:

rAjadhAnI tataH sAbhUt

sarva-yAdava-bhUbhujAm

mathurA bhagavAn yatra

nityaM sannihito hariH

"At that time, Mathura was the capital of the kings in the Yadu dynasty. There Bhagavan Hari dwells eternally."

It is a fact, though, that the Bhagavata does not specifically describe a planet called "Goloka". It describes the manifest pastimes of the Lord in this world.

In the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, canto four (Sri Krishna Janma Khanda), we find the fourth chapter entitled "Goloka-varnana", "description of Goloka". In this section, Vaikuntha is described, as well as Goloka Vrindavana, which is presented as the ultimate peak of reality.

In the same scripture, we also find Goloka mentioned in the famous story of the appearance of Tulasi.

The Patala Khanda of Padma Purana (chapter 83) relates the eternal eight-fold daily pastimes of Sri Krishna in Vrindavana.

The ninth skandha of Devi Bhagavata speaks of two eternal realms, namely Vaikuntha and Goloka.

According to Mahabharata, "Pandits say that Goloka is the upper lip, Brahmaloka, the lower lip, of Mahavisnu. (M.B. Santi Parva, Chapter 347, Sloka 52)"

Brahma said to her:-`Surabhi I .have made you a goddess. You are now above the three worlds-Heaven Earth and Hell. Your world, "Goloka" will become famous. All people will worship you and the cows who are your off spring."

In the 61st chapter of Brahmanda Purana, sage Jamadagni went to Goloka, the planet of Mother Surabhi.

Now, you may kindly spare me from pointing out how dubious the references above are, and how they were probably interpolated in the 16th century or later, if the scriptures themselves even existed prior to that. Frankly speaking, even if Goloka was "invented" on the 16th century, I would not mind. It does not remove the attraction which has arisen within me towards this divine realm and the eight-fold daily pastimes therein. Additionally, the existence of Goloka makes perfect sense. If you like, I can submit a sound logical presentation of why Goloka exists. The conception of Goloka is a theological masterpiece.

<small><font color=#fdfefe>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-26-2002).]

Originally posted by shiva:

I amsk what i am ,olivsk

Nice to meet you, qvuptsykok I am also equally too. ,comma yes.

What is your basis for judging what is superficial and what is deep and real? Would you allow others to have realizations which are different from yours? If so, would their realizations be less than yours?

Originally posted by theist:

truth is = to truth is = to truth etc. despite which school it manifests from.

True. Nevertheless, each tradition has its particular precepts, particularly when it comes to certain practices, which are true for this very tradition, and not for others.

Originally posted by theist:

Hmmmm.....?

 

So who is going to harmonize this?

It wouldn't be the first dual or plural incarnation in the tradition. The following information is mainly drawn from the Gaura Ganoddesa Dipika of Kavi Karnapura.

Caitanya -- Krishna & Radha's bhava and Radha's complexion + all other avataras

Advaita -- Mahavishnu & Sadashiva + one cowherd boy

Gadadhara -- Radha & Lalita

Jahnava Devi -- Revati & Ananga Manjari

Vasudha Devi -- Varuni & Ananga Manjari

Ramananda Raya -- Visakha Devi & Arjuna (Pandava) & Arjuna (cowherd-boy) (& Lalita according to GGD)

Vakresvara Pandit -- Aniruddha & Tungavidya

Vrindavan Das Thakura -- Vyasa & Kusumapida (cowherd-boy)

Gadadhara Das -- Candrakanti-devi & Purnananda-gopi

Damodara Pandit -- Saibya-gopi & Goddess Sarasvati

Sivananda Sena -- Vira-devi & Duti-devi

Sanatana Gosvami -- Labanga Manjari & Sanatana Kumara

My point is that faith is not enough.

It certainly is not everything. As related by Rupa, after faith (the beginning) comes sadhu-sanga, then absorption in acts of bhajana, then cessation of unwanted elements, and so forth.

But would you mind addressing this one question of mine, Shiva, just to get a fruitful platform for our dialogue -- do you follow the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, or have you chosen to pick select parts of it to be joint with an outlook of your own design?