raga

Shiva,

You are indeed right in your ontological ponderings in the posting above.

Indeed, what is reality for one is a speculation for the other, and vice versa. It is a matter of our faith. Even what we experience as realization is a matter of our faith. Therefore I asked the question whether you follow the precepts of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. I assumed you do, since you commented on discussions which had to do with Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta.

However, if you readily admit that you differ in view from many of the Gaudiya acaryas, remaining firm in your own realizations, then I must wish you all success in your innovative endeavor to discover the sweet reality you long for.

Discussions on Gaudiya siddhanta must be based on the epistemic foundation of Gaudiya Granthas and Gaudiya Acaryas. If we wish to discuss other matters, then we have to establish another foundation for our discourse.

Generally siksha is sufficient, but diksha confers legitimacy. Therefore those who are not initiated generally do not act as diksha gurus.

 

Do you know of historical examples from within the Gaudiya tradition of persons who would have initiated others without receiving diksa themselves?

And in order to solve the problem, ie. looking into the water, shall we start regulating the movements of the water (body and mind), or shall we influence the idea of the one who is the obsessed observer (the cognitive function of the atma)?

I would like to submit the following notes:

1. Despite not having accepted the shelter of the lotus feet of a sad-guru and hearing from his lotus mouth, nevertheless one considers his understanding to be the highest, or perhaps the only realized one, and that of the others as superficial at best, if not entirely incorrect.

2. A person who places his realization above the actual writings and practices of the recognized acaryas, all the while without having proper guidance himself, not placing himself in the position of an inquirer but rather that of a teacher, feeling his insight is superior to that of all others, is babbling mere humbug a hundred times over.

3. A person who speaks without reference to scriptures, and without allegiance to the mahajanas, all the while demanding that his understanding be accepted as the supreme, is a bogus rascal according to the definition of Swami AC Bhaktivedanta.

Sincerely yours,

The observer.

The following statements are found in the Gaura Ganoddesa Dipika in regards to Prahlad Maharaja in Gaura Lila:

93. Rcika Muni's son Brahma Mahatapah, and Prahlada Maharaja combined to appear as Haridasa Thakur in Lord Caitanya's pastimes.

172. The vraja-brahmani Nandimukhi-devi appeared as Saranga Thakura. Some people think that Saranga Thakura was the incarnation of Prahlada Maharaja. My father (Sivananda Sena) did not agree with them.

I was actually surprised to find the words "Rcika Muni's son Brahma Mahatapah" there. Is this the same as Brahmaji the creator?

Does anyone have the original text at hand?

Krishnadas: Jagat recently made reference to differences of opinion and practice among Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, by which I believe he is referring to Gaudiiya Math/ISKCON Vaishnavas vs Baabaajiis of Vrindaavana. That being the case, it seems more than likely that we are hearing this story retold through the eyes of the Baabaajii party, whom I'm sure are putting a very different emphasis on it. This is all ASSUMING that something like this ever happened.

For the record, Pandit Ramakrishna Das Baba was one of the most prominent Gaudiya acaryas of the time, revered by everyone including Bhaktisiddhanta (viz. OBL Kapoor's Vraja Ke Bhakta). Even members of other sampradayas would come and ask questions from him.

One can go on ad infinitum arguing that this or that person's statements are rejected because he was unfavourable towards Bhaktisiddhanta. We can divide the whole world into the favorable and the unfavorable, but the fact of the matter is that most are neutral, and not much concerned about it at all. Sometimes we label as "inimical" everyone who does not agree with every detail of any particular teacher. A dangerous view in my opinion.

As far as revealing himself to be Gaurakishora's disciple, it is clearly understood from the fact that Bhaktisiddhaanta gives his own name next in the song. But let's assume that somehow it wasn't obvious, and that, as you have said, Bhaktisiddhaanta never revealed his connection with Gaurakishora to anyone.

No no, this is not the point at all. If you read attentively, you'll see what I said: Bhaktisiddhanta did not reveal the guru-parampara of Gaura Kisora Das Babaji. He had a diksa-guru parampara in Advaita-parivara, as we have learned from sources outside the Gaudiya Matha. It is the custom for the guru to reveal to the disciple his guru-parampara through which he worships Their Lorships. This is called guru-pranali.

Shrii Madhvaachaarya's diiksha guru was Achyuta Preksha, an Advaitin. Would you have us believe that Madhva should list his paramparaa through Achyuta Preksha?

The Madhvites indeed do list their parampara through Achyuta Preksha. The Madhvites list their parampara as follows:

Hamsavatara - Brahma - Catursana - Durvasa - Jnanasindhu Tirtha - Garudavahana Tirtha - Kaivalya Tirtha - Jnanisa Tirtha - Para Tirtha - Satya Prajna Tirtha - Prajna Tirtha - Acyuta Preksa - Madhva, etc.

The Madhvite parampara has been listed like this since the days of Narayana Panditacarya, the biographer of Madhva, a disciple and associate of his.

If you hold that diiksha is always more important than shiksha, then how you do you explain Madhva accepting Vyaasa as his guru?

I suggest you browse through the "Diksa" - thread, since most of the diksa-siksa issue has already been dealt with there at length with adequate evidence from the writings of the six Gosvamis, who laid the foundation for orthodox Gaudiya practices, including the diksa-issue.

Why didn't Maadhavendra Puri reveal his diiksha guru? Certainly in the guru-paramparaa found in Govinda-bhaashya, we find no record of a diiksha guru for Maadhavendra Puri - only his shiksha guru Lakshmiipati Tiirtha.

On what grounds do you conclude Laksmipati Tirtha to not be the diksa-guru of Madhavendra Puri? This is the first time I've ever heard such a proposal.

How did you derive "consequently the recognized parivaras.... have their specific tilaka-svarupa" from "at the time of diksa the guru bestows the specific sectarian signs he carries unto the disciple"?

If the disciple must have the same kind of tilaka as the guru, then the logical conclusion of this is that all Gaudiiya Vaishnavas must have the same tilaka. For different sections to have different tilakas implies that somewhere, someone has deviated from his guru in this regard. Why then focus on the alleged difference between Bhaktisiddhaanta's and Gaurakishora's tilaka?

 

Several prominent associates of Mahaprabhu started their own diksa-lineage with its particular tilaka. Hence the tilaka of Nityananda-parivara has a neem-leaf on it, the tilaka of Advaita-parivara a banyan-leaf, the parivara of Narottama a tulasi-leaf connected with the upper lines with a short line, the parivara of Vakresvara and Gopal Guru a big open tilaka widening to the sides, the parivara of Gadadhara a traditional Vishnu-tilaka, the parivara of Syamananda a traditional Vishnu-tilaka with a dot in the middle from the anklebell from Radharani, etc.

What evidence have you to suggest that Bhaktisiddhaanta's followers have adopted a different tilaka than that of Gaurakishora? If there is such evidence, then the question is valid and deserves discussion. If there is no such evidence, then we are better off not wasting time discussing a non-issue.

Since Gaura Kishora was initiated in the Advaita-parivara, he had a tilak with a wide banyan leaf on the nose.

I think Jagat may know more about the specific tilaks of different parivars.

Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii did not practice these institutions of varnaashrama because he was a paramahamsa, not because he his alleged birth in a vaishya family was a disqualification.

Gaura Kisora was born in a vaishya-family in the district of Pharidapura, in the village of Vagyana. In his youth he was married, and for twenty-nine years he worked as a grain broker, being thus engaged in the occupational duties of a vaishya. After the death of his wife, he approached Bhagavat Das Babaji for receiving babaji-vesa.

Both Gaura Kishora and Bhaktisiddhaanta were already on the level of braahmanas. Hence, there was no need of Bhaktisiddhaanta getting a separate guru to give him initiation into sacred thread. This was not even in practice before Bhaktisiddhaanta, so to whom should he have gone to get this?

In varnashrama-culture, a young brahmin boy receives the sacred thread and the brahma-gayatri from the family priest.

No sensible person should follow a "Gaudiiya Vaishnava" who faithfully follows Hari-bhakti-vilaasa rituals, but yet disagrees with the Gosvaamiis on such essential topics as varnaashrama, the qualification of a saadhaka to practice raagaanuga bhakti, or the authority of shaastra.

Has there been any disagreement over the three topics you mention above? If so, where?

I don't believe there is any question that Gaura Kishora daasa Baabaajii's shiksha guru was Bhaktivinoda Thaakura. He was known to also be a disciple of Bhaagavata daasa Baabaajii, who was a disciple of Jagannatha daasa Baabaajii. Who is the Advaita-parivara guru of Gaura Kishora? If it was Bhaagavata daasa, then why do you say that Bhaktisiddhanta did not recognize this connection as bona fide?

I would be curious to see on what basis Bhaktivinoda is considered to be THE diksa-guru of Gaura Kisora. Interestingly, Bhaktivinoda received babaji-vesa from Gaura Kishora.

Bhagavata Das Babaji was the vesa-guru of Gaura Kisora, not the diksa-guru. Gaura Kisora received diksa from Nanda Kishora Gosvami of Shantipura.

quote:

Bhaktivinoda Thakura had given him a Nrsimha mantra for worshiping the Deity, yet Sarasvati Thakura was giving a Radha-Krsna mantra for this purpose. Wherefrom did he derive this mantra, and on whose authority did he distribute it?

Which mantra are you referring to? Everyone knows the shaastric basis for the hare kR^iShNa mahaa-mantra. I am not aware of Bhaktisiddhaanta distributing any other mantra, except perhaps those which he gave during braahmana initiation.

I am referring to the following mantras:

1. Brahma Gayatri

2. Guru Mantra

3. Guru Gayatri

4. Gaura Mantra

5. Gaura Gayatri

6. Gopal Mantra

7. Kama Gayatri

8. Gopi Bhava Mantra (sannyasa mantra)

The abovementioned mantras are given in the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. The first seven are given at the time of diksa, the eight at the time of giving sannyasa.

You must understand that, if it comes down to a question of Lalita Prasaada's character versus that of Bhaktisiddhaanta, I am simply not going to be convinced to just accept Lalita Prasaada's version of the events. I require objective evidence, which I have thus far not seen.

Lalita Prasada Thakur received diksa and siddha-pranali from his father Bhaktivinoda Thakur. He chanted the holy name from three to five lakhs on a daily basis. I would not just sweep him aside as another ordinary fellow whose words weigh next to nothing.

Wearing of saffron is the standard for sannyaasis in all sampradaayas.

To the best of my understanding, for instance the Nimbarka sampradaya renunciates only dress in white, not saffron.

<hr>

Please excuse me for not commenting on all of your points. That would certainly have made my posting twice the length of yours. Instead, I have only contributed on points for which I had substantial facts to contribute.

There would be more to contribute siksa-diksa wise, but much of it has been already done in the past threads.

<small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-24-2002).]

Who's higher: ZrI AdvaitAcarya or ZrIla Sarasvati ThAkur?

Think clearly before u answer.

Who really initiated ZrI NityAnanda RAma?

Sri Advaitacarya. Srila Sarasvati Thakur is his fragmental part and parcel.

If you mean, "Srila Sarasvati Thakur is a manjari, therefore he is higher in rasa than Sadashiva-Mahavisnu", then consider these two points:

1. The associates of Mahaprabhu tasted manjari-bhava, the gift He came to give; consequently, for instance several sakhas also have a manjari-identity.

2. In Advaita-parivara, Prabhu Sitanath is worshiped in His multiple divine identities, including those of a prominent sakhi, a prominent manjari etc. I will not go into detail here, since details on such information are not meant for publishing on www.

JNDas: Just a note on this point, which has already been posted in this thread somewhere. This story of the dream initiation statement has no supportive evidence other than a third person account from an acquiantance of the Babaji, who was not very favourable to Bhaktisiddhanta. Thus it is not at all valid as evidence.

And on the other hand, someone who is favourable to Bhaktisiddhanta, his words can't be accepted as valid evidence at all by the other side according to this logic, particularly if the information is second-hand.

Therefore we would be in need of facts, first hand evidence.

But I find the proposal of Jagat on Pancaratrika-diksa and Bhagavati-diksa acceptable, and consequently see no need to debate on this. After all, the claim is that he did not receive pancaratrika mantra-diksa, and if this is true, and he received another kind of initiation instead, all well.

Further more, if Bhaktisiddhanta was not regarded as the disciple of Gaura Kishora Dasa Babaji, then certainly there would have been objections to Bhaktisiddhanta performing the samadhi rituals for Gaura Kishora Dasa Babaji.

 

Certainly he was a disciple of the Baba. I think no-one will contest their having a guru-disciple relationship.

Perhaps there were objections. For all we know, people actually used to have quite a few objections around that time, which nevertheless did not stop the Gaudiya Math from its course.

Late Jaya Nitai Das Baba was around building the samadhi when Gaura Kisora Baba passed away (JNDB was in Gaudiya Math back then). According to him, Bhaktisiddhanta was not there when Gaura Kisora Baba passed away, hinting that the entire history of his protecting the body of GKB with a stick in his hand etc. is a fabrication. I did not meet Jaya Nitai Das Baba in person, but I have spoken with several persons who heard it from him.

Now that you brought it up, JNDas, I would also like to see evidence to the fact that Gaura Kisora Baba was laid in samadhi by Bhaktisiddhanta.

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-23-2002).]

Please excuse me the ?'s in the text. This board converts all characters it does not recognize into ?'s, including many of the "s and 's in the text.

A few short notes on what you wrote:

>>>> One Gaudiya Vaisnava acarya who may be an avadhuta may wear burlap, but he did not tell his thousands of disciples to do so. He told them all to wear white cotton. <<<<

 

Exactly. And one Gaudiiya Vaishnava aachaarya might take sannyaasa in front of a picture of his departed guru because of special circumstances. But it does not mean that he intended thousands of his disciples to do so. Obviously, you have no problem understanding the concept of exceptional spiritual leaders making temporary compromises with certain prescriptions. Why is it suddenly a problem now?

I would like to note that Bhaktisiddhanta indeed made a rule of this exception, and intended to change the practice of the tradition, since he clearly advised his disciples to do the same. Therefore the argument you offer is not sound, since the exception was not an one-time case or even temporary.

If one is not going to accept Shriila Bhaktisiddhaanta Sarasvatii's qualification on faith (which is certainly your right), then why not also question the authority of the Gosvaamiis?

Because it is documented (for instance in the Caitanya Caritamrta) that Caitanya Mahaprabhu authorized and empowered the six Gosvamis to establish the precepts of the path He brought to this world. On these grounds, it is easy to place one's faith in the Gosvamis.

It may not be equally easy to place one's faith in a reformer who appears four hundred years later. After all, with all due respect to the achievements of Bhaktisiddhanta, there have been many great souls who established something different from the current tradition. We may ask, "Why not have faith in them all? And if not, why have faith in the Gosvamis?" But this is not a sound proposal.

I also find it interesting that you have not provided the source for your quote "suklavaso bhaven nityah." Are we supposed to accept it on the basis that it is Sanskrit? Whose injunction is this, and to what audience is it intended? You are generalizing this commandment to all people regardless of station. By your logic even Sri Vaishnava and Maadhva sannyaasis must also be at fault, since they do wear saffron.

 

"shukla vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva vivarjayet" -- this is from Hari Bhakti Vilasa, from a section describing appropriate clothing for Gaudiya Vaishnavas. If you look at the original article, ( http://bhajankutir.net/nitai-zine-vol-7/node5.html ), you'll note that reference is given -- Hari-bhakti-vilasa, 4.152.

This injunction is not meant for everyone. It is well known that Hari Bhakti Vilasa was written to establish the codes of sadacara for Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu -- not for others, like Madhvites or Sri Vaishnavas.

And what about obedience to shaastra? I have provided adequate pramaanas proving that varnaashrama dharma must be followed, even by the bhaktas. If it is your contention that sannyaasi dharma and wearing of sacred thread is not to be followed (which are unquestionably Vedic practices), then what is your justification for rejecting shaastra? Your arguments are rather inconsistent.

Wearing a sacred thread is for brahmanas only. Traditional sannyasa in the Gaudiya Sampradaya means renouncing one's family ties, and accepting a simple white cloth of a sadhu instead of a danda and a saffron cloth. This is evident from all predecessor examples.

To state that not following the reforms of Bhaktisiddhanta is disobedience of shastra equals blaming for the entire Gaudiya tradition preceeding him for disobedience of shastra, since these practices were only instituted by him -- a historical fact.

Please note that many of the comments I have offered are not directed towards offering a conclusion on the issues themselves, but rather on the soundness of your logic in responding to the arguments.

I am curious to read the rest of your review, particularly on the sections concerning raganuga bhakti. I suggest having references from the Gosvami Granthas and Visvanatha if you intend to refute any of them. Perhaps you would also like to post this on the acintya-list?

Let me make it very clear that I am not interested in an intense back-and-forth knee-jerk stubborn quarrel over anything mentioned in the thread topic title. I am also not trying to convert anyone to anything, just in case somebody was going to say that. I am interested in the historical facts surrounding the initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta. I trust our intelligent audience can understand this.

Here are my notes on the subject matter of the initiation of Bhaktisiddhanta.<blockquote><font color=brown><center>

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS EXPRESSED</center>

a) Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was in the habit of visiting Ramakrishna Dasa Pandita Babaji during his visits to Vrindavana since he was without a doubt one of the most respected of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas of the 1920s and 1930s. On one occasion Sarasvati was highly praising Gaura Kishora Babaji in Pandita Baba's presence. Pandita Baba asked him if he had re-ceived initiation from him. Sarasvati said he had received it in a dream. Pandita Babaji said that that was fine, but he should receive it in the flesh since that is the only type of initiation accepted in the Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would and ended the visit.

Years later Sarasvati returned to Vrindavana as the acarya of the Gaudiya Matha, a famous man. He visited Pandita Babaji and was asked again if he had gotten initiation from Gaura Kishora Dasa Baba. His answer was the same, at which point Pandita Baba got extremely angry with him for making disciples without proper initiation. This incident was witnessed by Sri Kisori Mohana Gosvami, Sri Kisori Dasa Babaji and Advaita Dasa Babaji of Govardhan.

b) There is no indication of Sarasvati's being initiated by Babaji Maharaja in any of his objective biographies, objective meaning compiled by anyone who would not be bound out of prejudice to accept the statement of Sarasvati, being a follower of his. The brother of Sarasvati, Lalita Prasada Thakura, denies Sarasvati's receiving diksa from Babaji Maharaja. The pujari and other residents of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji's bhajana kutira knew of only four disciples of Babaji, but Sarasvati was not among them.

c) Sarasvati did not reveal the parampara of Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji to his followers. In fact, even the name of Babaji Maharaja?s diksa-guru is was not revealed by Sarasvati. Now, why would a disciple not reveal the diksa-parampara of his guru? It is a common practice that at the time of diksa the guru reveals his guru-pranali, or the succession of gurus back to the time of Sriman Mahaprabhu and His associates.

d) According to Hari Bhakti Vilasa (2.8.5), at the time of diksa the guru bestows the specific sectarian signs he carries unto the disciple:

sampradayika mudradi bhusitam tam krtanjalim

In his commentary on this verse, Sri Sanatana Gosvami explains: sampra-dayikam guru-paramparasiddham, "This sampradayika refers to the guru-parampara," and mudra tilaka maladi, "And mudra refers to tilaka and strings of beads." Consequently the recognized parivaras, like Nityananda-parivara, Advaita-parivara, Narottama-parivara and Syamananda-parivara, have their specific tilaka-svarupa. If Sarasvati received diksa, why is it that he and his followers have adopted a tilaka which was not worn by his diksa-guru, who must have at the time of diksa given a specific tilaka-svarupa to Sarasvati?

e) Wherefrom did Sarasvati receive the sacred thread and the brahma-gayatri, which he passed on to his disciples? Certainly not from Gaura Kisora Dasa Babaji, who was a vaisya by birth, and did not chant the brahma-gayatri, nor wear a sacred thread.

f) What is the origin of the specific set of mantras given in the line of Sarasvati? Hari Bhakti Vilasa mentions Gopala Mantra and Kama-gayatri as diksa-mantras. The paddhatis of Gopala Guru and Dhyanacandra give an elaborate list of mantras for raganuga-sadhana, but the guru-mantra and guru-gayatri given by Sarasvati are different from the ones given in these paddhatis.</font></blockquote>

Then let us turn to some of the source material I have at hand. I find the following statement of Bhakti Vikash Swami of ISKCON, who is compiling a biography on Bhaktisiddhanta, very interesting:<blockquote><font color=brown>In 1932 Visvambharananda dasa Babaji, on behalf of many babajis and caste Goswamis in Vrndavana, published a book opposing Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his Mission, citing extensively from sastra to support his arguments. He challenged that the line of parampara traced from Jagannatha dasa Babaji through Bhaktivinoda Thakura to Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji and then to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was unauthorized. Visvambharananda claimed that although Sarasvati Thakura was supposed to be the disciple of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, he was disqualified in several ways. First, Sarasvati Thakura did not accept as bona fide the recognized lineage of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, whose guru was in the Advaita-parivara. Furthermore, since Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji had never used a japa-mala, and had not given one to Sarasvati Thakura at the time of initiation but had simply placed some Navadvipa dust into his hand, Visvambharananda argued that such an initiation was not bona fide. The implication was that Sarasvati Thakura had not actually received pancaratrika-diksa from Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, so how could he confer it upon others? Nor had Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji worn a brahmana thread, so on what authority did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati wear one?

Moreover, Visvambharananda argued, Sarasvati Thakura claimed to be a follower of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who was initiated by the caste Goswami Bipina Bihari. Why then did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati not accept guru-parampara by seminal descent? Bhaktivinoda Thakura had given him a Nrsimha mantra for worshiping the Deity, yet Sarasvati Thakura was giving a Radha-Krsna mantra for this purpose. Wherefrom did he derive this mantra, and on whose authority did he distribute it? Visvambharananda further objected that since Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was a sannyasi without a sannyasa guru, how could he give sannyasa to others?

Sarasvati Thakura responded by explaining the concept of bhagavata-parampara, or siksa-parampara. He maintained that the essence of parampara lies in the transmission of transcendental knowledge, not merely in a list of contiguous names. The life of the parampara is maintained by the maha-bhagavatas, who embody the essence of scriptural knowledge. Therefore, to trace the parampara through such maha-bhagavatas truly represents parampara.

He said, "Bhaktivinoda Thakura is Kamala Manjari, a personal associate of Radharani. He ordered me to establish daiva-varnasrama. I must obey his order. The acarya is not under the sastra. The acarya can make sastra. Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the acarya, has inspired me in various ways. By his mercy and that of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja and the previous acaryas we are going on, not caring for the precise technicalities of smartas.

"Although this concept of bhagavata-parampara appears to be new, it is based on the essential understanding of the scriptures. Something new given by an acarya but based on sastra is called vaisistya (a special characteristic). Acaryas Ramanuja and Madhva both apparently introduced something new, but because their teachings were based on sastra they came to be accepted. Phalena pariciyate: 'An action should be understood by its result.' My commitment to devotional service and my preaching activities speak for themselves. Owl-like persons cannot see this, but those who are honest will accept it."</font></blockquote>

Bhakti Vikash Maharaj relates, "It [the quote from BSST] is almost certainly not verbatim, especially as it was originally spoken or written in Bengali. It is as told to me by the late Jati Shekhar Prabhu, a disciple of SBST."

I find it significant that even an insider will admit that a traditional pancaratrika-diksa most likely never took place, although a kind of initiation was there, which they experience as sufficient.

The following statement is given in a biography, compiled by Bhakti Kusum Sraman Maharaja:

"With the permission of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, Srila Sarasvati Thakura accepted Bhagavati initiation from Srila Babaji Maharaja in the month of Magha (January-February) 1900 A.D."

It is unknown to me what the "Bhagavati initiation" means. Perhaps it means a kind of informal initiation, in the spirit of "Bhagavata parampara".

The BBT printing of Brahma Samhita states: "In 1905, following the advice of his father, Siddhanta Saraswati accepted spiritual initiation from Gaurakisora dasa Babaji." It is obvious that the authority of this statement is questionable, given the five-year error in the date compared to the Gaudiya Matha edition, which I recall draws the time from Bhaktisiddhanta's own writings in "The Harmonist".

Then I have some accounts related by Nitai Das on record, from the time when he began to study the issue:<blockquote><font color=brown> The eyewitnesses I know of and from whom I heard were eyewitness to Bhaktisiddhanta's admission before Pandita Ramakrsna Das Baba that he had not received initiation from Gaura Kishora Das Babaji. Bhaktisiddhanta was in the habit of visiting Pandita Babaji during his visits to Vrindaban since he was without a doubt the most respected of the Caitanya Vaishnavas of the 1920s and 1930s. On one occasion Bhaktisiddhanta was highly praising Gaura Kishora Das in Pandita Baba's presence. Pandita Baba asked him if he had received initiation from him. Bhaktisiddhanta said he had received it in a dream. Pandita Babaji said that that was fine, but he should receive it in the flesh since that is the only type of initiation accepted in the Caitanya tradition. Bhaktisiddhanta said he would and ended the visit.

A few years later Siddhanta returned to Vrindaban, now the acharya of the Gaudiya Math, a famous man. He visited Pandita Babaji and was asked again if he had gotten initiation from Gaura Kishora Das Baba. His answer was the same, at which point Pandita Baba got extremely angry with him for making disciples without proper initiation. Pandita Babaji threw him out of the ashrama and Bhaktisiddhanta, fearing damage to his reputation, began his calumny of the Vrindaban babas and forbade his disciples from associating with them. This account was given to me by Advaita Das Baba (I'm unsure if this is the correct name of this baba after all these years) in Govardhan who said he was witness to the admission.

. . . . . . . . . .

In addition, I did a little research on my own. During one of my visits to Nabadwip I visited the bhajana kutir/mandira of Gaura Kishora Das Babaji and spoke with the pujari there. I asked him if he knew whether Gaura Kishora Das Babaji had any initiated disciples. His answer, after consulting with some of the other elders of the compound, was that, as far as he knew, there were only four, a married couple of modest means and two others, agriculturalists, none of whom were Bhaktisiddhanta. How he knew this and how reliable his testimony is, I don't know. </font></blockquote>

The diksa-connection between Bhaktisiddhanta and Gaura Kishor Dasa Babaji was also denied by Sri Lalita Prasad Thakur, his brother, who certainly was around and well informed of the incidents surrounding Bhaktisiddhanta. He also expressed how Bhaktivinoda was dissatisfied with Bhaktisiddhanta's attitude towards Vipin Vihari Gosvami and several other senior Vaishnavas, and therefore refused to personally initiate Bhaktisiddhanta, despite bestowing pancaratrika-diksa and siddha-pranali to Lalita Prasad and some other disciples of his.

The following statement was given by a western sannyasi of the Gaudiya Matha:

"There were witnesses to the initiation. Because there was a witness to the initiation of Saraswati Thakura, even after 100 years the opposition has not been able to make much of that rumor. Now of course the witness is also dead, but one of his relatives still lives in Vrindavana and knows something of the event."

I would tend to conclude based on the considerations above that Bhaktisiddhanta did not receive pancaratrika-diksa as it appears in the Hari Bhakti Vilasa, though there certainly was a kind of guru-disciple relationship between him and Gaura Kisora Babaji, and some kind of event of acceptance of disciplehood may have taken place. The crucial question at hand is whether diksa-mantras were given.

Would anyone have further details on record in this regard?

Vidura asks from Maitreya Rishi a relevant question in the Bhagavata (3.7.5). I am posting in the verse, word-for-word and translation of ACBS, to avoid re-translating, but to nevertheless facilitate the understanding of a literal meaning:

<blockquote>dezataH kAlato yo ?sAv

avasthAtaH svato ?nyataH

aviluptAvabodhAtmA

sa yujyetAjayA katham

SYNONYMS

dezataH?circumstantial; kAlataH?by the influence of time; yaH?one who; asau?the living entity; avasthAtaH?by situation; svataH?by dream; anyataH?by others; avilupta?extinct; avabodha?consciousness; AtmA?pure self; saH?he; yujyeta?engaged; ajayA?with nescience; katham?how is it so.

TRANSLATION

The pure soul is pure consciousness and is never out of consciousness, either due to circumstances, time, situations, dreams or other causes. How then does he become engaged in nescience?</blockquote>

Maitreya Rishi answers the query (3.7.10-12):

<blockquote>yad arthena vinAmuSya

puMsa Atma-viparyayaH

pratIyata upadraSTuH

sva-ziraz chedanAdikaH

SYNONYMS

yat?thus; arthena?a purpose or meaning; vinA?without; amuSya?of such a one; puMsaH?of the living entity; Atma-viparyayaH?upset about self-identification; pratIyate?so appear; upadraSTuH?of the superficial onlooker; sva-ziraH?own head; chedana-AdikaH?cutting off.

TRANSLATION

The living entity is in distress regarding his self-identity. He has no factual background, like a man who dreams that he sees his head cut off.

yathA jale candramasaH

kampAdis tat-kRto guNaH

dRzyate ?sann api draSTur

Atmano ?nAtmano guNaH

SYNONYMS

yathA?as; jale?in the water; candramasaH?of the moon; kampa-AdiH?quivering, etc.; tat-kRtaH?done by the water; guNaH?quality; dRzyate?it is so seen; asan api?without existence; draSTuH?of the seer; AtmanaH?of the self; anAtmanaH?of other than the self; guNaH?quality.

TRANSLATION

As the moon reflected on water appears to the seer to tremble due to being associated with the quality of the water, so the self associated with matter appears to be qualified as matter.

sa vai nivRtti-dharmeNa

vAsudevAnukampayA

bhagavad-bhakti-yogena

tirodhatte zanair iha

SYNONYMS

saH?that; vai?also; nivRtti?detachment; dharmeNa?by engagement; vAsudeva?the Supreme Personality of Godhead; anukampayA?by the mercy of; bhagavat?in relation with the Personality of Godhead; bhakti-yogena?by linking up; tirodhatte?diminishes; zanaiH?gradually; iha?in this existence.

TRANSLATION

But that misconception of self-identity can be diminished gradually by the mercy of the Personality of Godhead, VAsudeva, through the process of devotional service to the Lord in the mode of detachment.</blockquote>

From this I get the impression that the cognitive function of the atma is indeed entangled with matter. After all, if it wasn't, why would we be here?

Perhaps I should rephrase the concept "influences the atma" as "influences the cognitive function of the atma". I have taken the two to be more or less synonymous in my earlier postings. The cognitive function of the atma is not exactly the atma, but nor is it the body, mind, intelligence or the ego, since none of them originate in the atma, whereas its cognitive feature, presently focused on matter, certainly does.

Comments, Sages and Vedantists out there?

Originally posted by gHari:

Is it not the consciousness that is screwed up, not the atma?

Is it not the atma that is the source of consciousness? Gita 2.17 and 13.2 explain the atma as the one who pervades the entire being, as the knower of the field of activities. Consciousness is the cognitive function of the atma as far as I understood, essentially of the same nature as the atma.

Originally posted by Shashi:

Are you being morning or evening raga?

 

 

I am following in the wake of early morning clusters.

Originally posted by Jagat:

For that matter, are you being atmika or anuga raga? I know the answer...

Who told you? This is super confidential!<font color=#dedfdf><small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-22-2002).]

Bhakti is the eternal function of the soul. The soul, being unchangeable, never ceases to possess this eternal function. Thus there is nothing that influences the soul by which it receives bhakti. The concept of the soul becoming purified is impossible to accept, as the soul never has and never will be contaminated. You will not find a description of the atma in the Upanishads as that which is impure, on the contrary the soul is always described as pure.

 

Would you explain, if there is no deficiency in the atma, and nothing in the atma needs to change, then what is the reason of its experiencing the mundane world, and its being averse to the Lord?

JNDas, is the soul presently filled with bhakti? If so, what is the evidence for the same? How is it evident? The soul does not function in the capacity of favorably serving Bhagavan, which would be the case if he was filled with bhakti.

Would you also comment on Gita 18.54: mad-bhaktiM labhate parAm ? What is the meaning of attaining bhakti?

As well as Bhagavata 5.6.18: muktiM dadAti karhicit sma na bhakti-yogam .

Also explain "bhakti-lata-bija".

<small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-22-2002).]

Do you know why Lord Brahma has four arms? No, it's not because he's embracing someone. He has a lot of brainwork to do with his four heads, and he needs four hands to be able to scratch them all simultaneously when he's creating the universe again. Would you agree, Shiva?

The following are the questions that you have not answered in my opinion :

Thank you for clearly presenting the questions. It makes the answering easier.

1. What do you mean by the term niyamas when you say that there are niyamas for different levels of devotion?

I mean in a very general sense, "vows, practices".

2. What is the sastric evidence that there are niyamas for the soul ? Or that niyamas directly influence (change ?) the soul as opposed to purifying the gross-subtle body.

Taking my general definition above, "vows, practices", I have the following examples at hand.

The sages of Naimisaranya glorify the satisfying influence of hearing spiritual discussions on the soul in Srimad Bhagavata, 1.1.11:

bhUrINi bhUri-karmANi

zrotavyAni vibhAgazaH

ataH sAdho 'tra yat sAraM

samuddhRtya manISayA

brUhi bhadrAya bhUtAnAM

yenAtmA suprasIdati

"There are various duties of different divisions to be learned [in the scriptures]. Therefore, I saint, please, to the best of your understanding, select the essence of all this, and tell us that which is for the ultimate good of the living entities, and that by which the soul becomes completely satisfied."

In Bhagavata 1.2.5, Suta Gosvami confirms that such discussions satisfy the self, yenAtma suprasIdati. In the next verse, he carries on with the theme:

sa vai puMsAM paro dharmo

yato bhaktir adhokSaje

ahaituky apratihatA

yayAtmA suprasIdati

"For the mankind, that is certainly the supreme dharma in which there is devotion for Lord Adhoksaja. Such dharma is causeless [unmotivated] and uninterrupted, and by this, the soul is completely satisfied."

A few verses later (1.2.22), the same conclusion is presented again:

ato vai kavayo nityaM

bhaktiM paramayA mudA

vAsudeve bhagavati

kurvanty Atma-prasAdanIm

"Therefore, certainly all poets since time immemorial have been engaged in supreme devotion in delight unto Bhagavan Vasudeva, and by such acts, the soul becomes pure."

Would this be good to show that there is something which directly influences the soul?

The essence of the idea is that bhakti is a function of the soul. Do you agree with this?

like i said earlier, does aquiring a 4 armed form really mean you will have 2 arms growing from each shoulder? Or is the hidden meaning meant to convey an embrace by 2 people?

This is a fanciful idea, but lacks support from anywhere. When Vishnu is described as holding conch, lotus, club and chakra, one in each of His four hands, does he actually hold lotus and club in one hand, and chakra and conch in the other hand? Please consider the following:

_<LI>In the Gita, when Sri Krishna showed His universal form, Arjuna begged Him to show His four-armed form on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, and then finally resumed his two-armed form, which is called mAnuSaM rUpam, "humanlike form". Evidently the four-armed form was not a human-like form with two arms, since the embrace of two persons would have been very human-like.

_<LI>When Krishna appeared as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva in a four-armed Vishnu-form, Vasudeva and Devaki requested Him to kindly assume a human-like two-armed form. They did not tell Him to stop embracing.

_<LI>When the Vishnudutas (residents of Vaikuntha) came to deliver Ajamila (SB 6.1.35), they all had a four-armed form, carrying conch, lotus, club and chakra in their hands, according to the description of the Yamadutas. Certainly the Yamadutas would have mentioned if the Vishnudutas had come in pairs of two, embracing each other, and each having lots of stuff in their hands.

_

Now, of course in Vaikuntha they also put down the club, lotus, conch and chakra on their leisure time, but on duty they keep them along in their four arms.

_<LI> When Dhruva Maharaja was brought to Vaikuntha by the Vishnudutas, the Vishnudutas who came with the divine airplane had four arms (SB 4.12.20). If Dhruva saw them all embracing each other in pairs of two, this makes us reason that the vimana was perhaps on auto-pilot. Well, everything is possible.

_<LI>And Mahaprabhu in his six-armed feature, is it that there were two persons embracing him at the same time when he revealed this form of His? Wow.

_<LI>In the tenth canto of Srimad Bhagavatam (10.89.55), Maha-Vishnu is described as having eight arms. Must be a lot of people embracing him at once.

In all fairness, I must say that for your own good, Shiva, for your healthy spiritual progress, I suggest you find a living person-guru under whose guidance you practice your spiritual life, and with whom you check the validity of your realizations before assuming they are the ultimate spiritual insight. Would this be an absurd proposal?

<small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-22-2002).]

I would like to quote from the Harinama Cintamani of Thakur Bhaktivinoda in this regard.

<blockquote><font face="Georgia" color=brown>Verses 59-60

bhAva sAdhane paJca-dazA

Five stages of attaining bhava

ei ekAdaza bhAva sampUrNa sAdhane

paJca dazA lakSya haya sAdhaka jIvane

zravaNa varaNa Ara smaraNa Apana

sampatti e paJca-vidha dazAya gaNana

The complete realization of these eleven aspects of identity

develops through five stages experienced in the life of the practitioner.

These five stages are the following: (1) hearing, (2) acceptance,

(3) remembering, (4) attainment and (5) full possession. (31)

[Footnote by Bhaktivinoda Thakura:] (31) As one progresses in the cultivation of one's spiritual identity, five stages are progressively crossed. These are shravana-dasha "the state of hearing", varaNa-dasha "the state of accepting", smaraNa-dasha "the state of remembering", Apana-dasha "the state of adoption", sampatti-dasha "the state of full possession".

sei gopI-bhAvAmRte jAnra lobha haya |

veda-dharma-loka tyaji se kRSNe bhajaya ||

vraja-lokera kona bhAva layA yei bhaje |

bhAva-yogya deha pAiA kRSNa pAya vraje ||

"One who has a strong desire to taste the nectar of the gopis' loving mood abandons all consideration of the religious principles of the Vedas. He cares not for public opinion, but simply worships Krishna... Whoever worships Krishna in any one of the moods of the residents of Vraja will attain a suitable spiritual body to serve Him there." (CC 2.8.219, 221)

With these words, Ramananda Raya taught that any practitioner who wishes to cultivate the ujjvala-rasa absolutely must take a gopi body. When one hears these pastimes of Lord Krishna and becomes attracted to this particular mood, one must approach a genuine spiritual master to learn these eleven aspects of his spiritual identity. Hearing the spiritual master delineate this identity in theory is called shravana-dasha (the stage of hearing). When the disciple eagerly accepts this identification, that is called varana-dasha (the stage of accepting). When she cultivates this mood and identity by meditating on rasa, in all its aspects, then she is situated on the stage of remembering (smarana-dasha). When she has fully assimilated that identity, which has now been made fully clear, she has reached the state called apana-dasha or prapti-dasha (the stage of attainment). Finally, when she becomes entirely separated from this earthly existence and becomes eternally fixed in her longed-for spiritual form, she has attained the sampatti-dasha (the stage of full possession).

........

Verses 64-68:

rAdhA-kRSNa aSTa-kAla yei lIlA kare

tAhAra zravaNe lobha haya ataHpare

lobha ha-ile guru-pade jijJAsA udaya

kemane pAiba lIlA kaha mahAzaya

gurudeva kRpA kari karibe varNana

lIlA-tattve ekAdaza bhAva-saGghaTana

prasanna ha-iyA prabhu karibe Adeza

ei bhAve lIlA-madhye karaha praveza

zuddha rUpe siddha bhAva kariyA zravaNa

sei bhAva svIya citte karibe varaNa

As the aspiring devotee hears about Radha and Krishna's aSTa-kAliya-lIlA,

he starts to feel an intense desire one to join Them in Their activities.

Possessed by this desire, he asks the spiritual master,

"O great soul, what must I do to attain these pastimes?"

The spiritual master then mercifully describes to his disciple

the eleven aspects and how they relate to the Lord's lila.

Pleased with his disciple, the spiritual master then orders him,

"Now go and enter the Lord's pastimes in this identity."

On hearing of his eternal spiritual identity with a pure attitude,

the aspirant accepts it and takes it into his heart.</blockquote></font>

In fact, attraction to and aspiration for the emotions of Sri Krishna's eternal associates and related pastimes is a fundamental principle for raganuga bhakti, as is evident from the verse sevA sAdhaka-rUpena etc. You know this verse, Shiva?

I recommend reading the Q/A section I recently compiled on Raganuga Bhakti at www.raganuga.com/qa to get a clear grasp of the basics of the Gosvamis' conceptions.

<font color=#fefefe><small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-22-2002).]

Originally posted by shiva:

If you think that your diksa guru is sporting with Krsna in vraja and can bring you into that lila,.. first you need to understand what that means.

It's not that your guru is living in a dreamlike state in Vrndavan acting as a gopi, or manjari or whatever,..while here on earth.

That is a misconception,due to a lack of realization of sastra.

If any guru tells you he knows your position as such and such manjari, he is lying.

Srila Prabhupada never ,ever, did such,and criticized those who did,.. as sahajiyas.

 

Shiva, have you ever heard of Bhaktivinoda Thakur? Have you read his works?

Bhaktivinoda gave siddha-pranali to many of his followers, revealing their manjari-identity. He also contemplates on himself in his manjari-identity during his presence in this world, as follows (Gitamala, Siddhi-lalasa, Song 8):

<blockquote><font face="Georgia" color=blue>

(1)

barane tarit, basa tarabali,

kamala manjari nama

sare bara barsa, bayasa satata,

swananda-sukhada-dhama

"This maidservant has a complexion just like lightning, and she is wearing a sari which has star like decorations all over it. My name is Kamala Manjari. Eternally appearing to be only twelve-and-a-half years of age, I always live within the abode of Svananda-sukhada-kunja."

(2)

karpura seba, lalitar gana,

radha juthesvari hana

mamesvari-natha, sri nanda-nandana,

amar parana dhana

I render the service of preparing the camphor within the assembly of Lalita Sakhi, of whom Sri Radha is the leader and the center of all their activities. And the Lord of my mistress Radha is the delightful Son of Nanda Maharaja, Who is also the treasure of my life.

(3)

sri rupa manjari, prabhrtir sama,

jugala sebaya asa

abasya se-rupa, seba pabo ami,

parakasta su-biswasa

I always desire to execute conjugal service similar to that which is rendered by Sri Rupa Manjari and her associates. Thus I will certainly get utmost conviction and faith.

(4)

kabe ba e dasi, samsiddhi labhibe,

radha-kunde basa kori'

radha-kunda-seba, satata koribe,

purba smrti parihari'

When will this maidservant thus attain such complete spiritual perfection, living by the banks of Sri Radha-kunda? I will eternally serve Radha and Krsna, and all of my previous memories will be automatically forgotten.</blockquote></font>

Do you accept the authority of Bhaktivinoda Thakur in this regard, or is he also living in a dream world of hallucinations? I can present more of his teachings in this regard if you wish.

Visvanatha Cakravarti tells very clearly in his Gurvastakam, prayers to Sri Guru, how Sri Guru is here, and also in the Divine realm serving Radha-Krishna Yugala:<blockquote><font face="Georgia" color=red>zrI-rAdhikA-mAdhavayor apAra-

mAdhurya-lIlA guNa-rUpa-nAmnAm

prati-kSaNAsvAdana-lolupasya

vande guroH zrI-caraNAravindam

"The spiritual master is always eager to hear and chant about the unlimited conjugal pastimes of RAdhikA and MAdhava, and Their qualities, names, and forms. The spiritual master aspires to relish these at every moment. I offer my respectful obeisances unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master."

nikuJja-yUno rati-keli-siddhyai

yA yAlibhir yuktir apekSaNIyA

tatrAti-dAkSyAd ati-vallabhasya

vande guroH zrI-caraNAravindam

"The spiritual master is very dear, because he is expert in assisting the gopIs, who at different times make different tasteful arrangements for the perfection of RAdhA and KRSNa?s conjugal loving affairs within the groves of VRndAvana. I offer my most humble obeisances unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master."</font></blockquote>

Do you accept the authority of Visvanatha Cakravarti?

Don't say it sounds good but we do not understand what it means. All of this is learned through the disciplic succession from the lotus mouth of a guru. If you do not accept such a process of learning in your personal life, how do you expect to understand such things, what to speak of being qualified to teach their real meaning to others who have accepted the sampradayika method of learning?

raga, what are you saying?

you say, that what I say is both legitimate,and bogus.

how can this be?

Very easily it can be. I already quoted from the Shiva-samhita (3.122):

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

What you're saying is a fully legitimate view for you, and you are entitled to view everything as you desire and best understand.

However, it is not the Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta. It is not what I've heard from any guru in ISKCON, it is not what I've heard from any guru in Gaudiya Math, it is not what I've heard from any guru among the traditional Gaudiyas, and I have never read it in the scriptures.

If you wish to learn the Gaudiya siddhanta on guru-tattva, you must go and submit yourself to the lotus feet of a genuine guru and hear the teachings from his lotus mouth.

Therefore I have concluded:

"I suggest it is simultaneously either or both, depending on our eligibility."

Is that all right with you?

Dear Audarya Lila Ji,

I noticed from the style it was certainly coming from him, even if not verbatim.

I appreciate much his broad-minded vision, which extends to honor the entire Gaudiya tradition. I was, I must admit, surprised when he spoke with great regard of Radha Raman Caran Das Babaji (nitai-gaura radhe shyam). If people would recognize and honor the religious variety within the Gaudiya tradition, understanding the plural needs in a world of individuals, I think a good number of problems resulting from aparadha would be uprooted from the society of vaishnavas.

Yours,

Madhavanandadas

Some months back their entire links-section was upside down. I offered to help them and check it out. At the same time I sent them my ad for www.raganuga.com , which got posted on VINA.

The person-in-charge (Purandar das) gave me their FTP login, and I indeed figured out the problem (without going into detail) with their scripts and informed them of the same.

I never heard back from him. At one point the Raganuga announcement disappeared from the site, and now the entire site has disappeared. Strange. I have no idea what happened.