raga

Greetings J - - the best analysis of that age-old stanza I've heard thus far, thank you very much.

Hari-bhakti-vilasa gives a good outline of nitya-karma to be observed, and I have a good bunch of related notes, too.

Much of it is, however, only relevant after diksha from a sat-guru.

There are some foods specifically forbidden in the scriptures on account of their being tainted with rajas and tamas. The following notes, a work in progress, may be of interest:

http://wiki.gaudiyakutir.com/Forbidden_foods

Here are some notes that may prove useful, though it's still a work in progress:

http://wiki.gaudiyakutir.com/Ekadasi-vrata

Why has everyone started spelling his name "Goswami Maharaja"?

Oh - wow. You have your direction there, then!

Srabana (zravaNa) means "hearing", generally hearing of God in a religious context; this is the first of the nine famous practices of bhakti. Shrna (zaraNa) means "surrender", assuming I guessed the original word correctly.

Haven't had the time to compile yet - I'll start a new thread whenever I get around to that.

Gaudiyas see "Rama" as referring to Radha-Ramana Krishna. Therefore, there is no flaw in associating Hare with Rama.

Both hari and harā become hare in the vocative case. Regardless of the original meaning of hare, I do not see why the Gaudiya interpretation of harā would not be justified.

A lot of the time this talk you hear is something someone heard from someone, and again from someone, and god only knows how distorted the "facts" get in the end.

The person you mention must be Pitambara Das. He is doing a wild one-man show and is undoubtedly shunned by any and all other Gaudiyas who come to hear of his ideas and practices, every babaji included.

Where most devotees objections arise is when some unscrupulous person, (not Narayana Prabhu as far as I know in this regard), gives the 11 fold items of Siddha Pranali identity and the instructions for the practise of that highest rasa to devtoees of any level like it is candy.

Do you know any such unscrupulous rascals?

Srila Prabhupada, on the authority of Jiva Goswami flatly condemns the "siddha pranali process" as he states below.

Can you please quote what Jiva Gosvami says on siddha-pranali? I didn't notice him mentioned anywhere.

Sridhar Maharaja doesn't seem to say anything about siddha-pranali there.

The basic concept of siddha-pranali is discussed for example in Bhaktivinoda Thakur's Harinama-cintamani, chapter 15 entitled "bhajan-pranali", dealing with the guru's describing the disciple's svarupa among other themes.

Thank you for the benefit of doubt, I appreciate it. Oh whiz, your post sounded like a commercial!

I did post a public apology last February for whatever wrongs I may have done in the years past, you can read it here.

Sishir - give me a day or two, I'll pull my notes together.

--

A few months ago you were one of the biggest supporters of people like Jagat, Advaita, and Nitai. Now you try to pretend you are a different person and have grown over that.

You must have been rather badly out of the loop the last couple of years to say something like that.

It's not just Hari-bhakti-vilasa as far as diksa is concerned. Bhakti-sandarbha, if anything, is a definitive work on the practice of bhakti, and the commentaries of our acaryas on the Bhagavata echo the same, and so forth.

So are those paramparas of the mahabhagavatas in south india who were empowered by Mahaprabhu not part of "the tradition"?

To quote myself from the previous post:

I would be interested to hear something specific on those traditions, how did they evolve and where they are today.

I would need to know that before I can say anything educated on this.

"The tradition" as I use it largely means "tradition that follows the Gosvamis". The famous Kheturi meeting, attended by the prominent Gaudiya branches in Navadvipa, was pivotal in establishing the doctrines established in the writings of the Gosvamis as the theological back-bone of the tradition. I don't know if there were any followers of Mahaprabhu from South India attending, it isn't mentioned in any narrations describing the event.

raga do you think Mahaprabhu gave diksa to the people who he met in south india who became mahabhagavatas?

I'm quite sure he didn't, but he told the Gosvamis to write books that would describe how the tradition would go on after him -- you can read about that in Caitanya-caritamrita towards the end of Madhya-lila.

http://www.stevebohlert.com/

A Prabhupada-disciple who got siddha-pranali from Lalita Prasad Thakur.

"First of all they don't accept that the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya is one of the sakhas, branches, of the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, although this fact has been clearly explained by Sri Kavi Karnipura, Srila Jiva Gosvami, and then by Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu. It has also been explained by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, by my Gurudeva, that is, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, and also by Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja.

 

Secondly, they think that Sri Prabhodananda Sarasvati and Prakasananda Sarasvati are the same person, although there is so much difference between them. This cannot be so. Will a person of the Ramanuja Sampradaya go down to become a Mayavadi like Prakasananda Sarasvati, and then again become Prabhodananda Sarasvati, who was so exalted that he became the guru of Srila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami? This idea is absurd. Prabhodananda Sarasvati and Prakasananda Sarasvati were contemporaries. Will the same person go back and forth, being a Vaisnava in South India, then becoming a Mayavadi, again becoming a Vaisnava in Vrndavana, and again becoming a Mayavadi? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has vividly written about this, and great historians and research scholars have also rejected the idea that they are the same person.

 

Thirdly, they don’t give proper honor to Sri Jiva Gosvami, and this is a very big blunder. This is a vital point. They say that Jiva Gosvami is of svakiya-bhava, that he never supported parakiya-bhava, and that he is against parakiya-bhava. They say that in his explanations of Srimad Bhagavatam and Brahma-samhita, in his own books like Gopala Campu, and especially in his Sri Ujjvala-nilamani tika, he has written against parakiya-bhava. This is their greatest blunder. We don’t accept their statements at all."

 

an excerpt from the beginning of the article

Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis

Read the entire thing and then your question is answered.

Puru and I exchanged some PMs over this, and he didn't feel inclined to discuss this much further in a public forum. While I am also not too inclined to enter into extended debates over these three points, I do feel that it is in the best interest of everyone if the object of this boycott is identified.

Puru did not have names at hand, though he said he'd get back to me if he got around to clarifying this with Srila Narayana Maharaja.

In the meantime, I'll want to at least clear the innocent and note that those whom I know do not to two of those three points, and the one is not their own view, but a view centuries old. I am adapting from what I wrote to him in a private message.

--

As you know, I am rather familiar with the scenario at Radha-kunda and the ideas people have. You may also know that there is no unified school called "Radha-kunda babajis" as such, and that there is a good diversity of views among the people there.

The three points you have presented are:

1. Gaudiya Vaisnavas are not connected with the Madhva-sampradaya.

2. Prabodhananda and Prakasananda are the same person.

3. Jiva Gosvami is a svakiya-vadi.

Commenting on those:

1. Many guru-pranali documents, including mine, feature the verses from Baladeva's Prameya-ratnavali that delineate the succession from Madhva downwards.

2. This is presented in Sri Ananta Das Babaji's preface to his edition of Radha-rasa-sudha-nidhi. The idea itself is not exclusive to Radha-kunda babajis -- it dates to at least as early as the early 1700's and Anandi's commentary on Prabodhananda's Caitanya-candramrita.

3. I doubt that you will find a single pandit at Radha-kunda who will agree on this.

As for the idea being specific to Radha-kunda and not Govardhana, I am also somewhat familiar with the tradition of babajis at Govardhana, and I can assure you that the differences between the views of the two are rather minimal, and indeed the "prominent" disagreements over the last half a century or so seem to have been over the specifics of calendar calculations.

--

I hope this clears the situation at least as far as Ananta Das Babaji, who is the only author from Radha-kunda whose works have been published in English in any substantial scale, is concerned.

Raga asked if I have any knowledge or familiarity with the philosophy of Jagabandhu. Yes I do. Through my relatives I know what his ideas are. They say he is Mahaprabhu reborn and that you do not have to get diksa initiation from a authentic Guru in parampara. So for us they are like Swaminarayana or Sathya Sai Baba who are also supposed to be an incarnations and teach the Nirakara Brahma has been born as an incarnation. They are mayavadis.

Thank you for responding to this.

There are two passages in Caitanya-bhagavata that speak of Mahaprabhu's descending again to this world, or that may be read to mean that. (hena-mate Ara Ache dui avatAra - 2.26.11 / Aro dui janma ei saGkIrtanArambhe - 2.26.46). Of that, there are diverging interpretations.

There is also precedent for this. Prema-vilasa of Nityananda Das, Jahnava's disciple, notes that Srinivasa, Narottama and Syamananda were the new comings of Caitanya, Nityananda and Advaita respectively. Advaita-prakasa speaks of Raghunandana Gosvami, grand-son of Advaita Prabhu, as a new descent of Caitanya's - this is said to be Mahaprabhu's own benediction to Advaita.

Then, regardless of how much we may disagree on the view of Jagadbandhu's followers over his being an avatara of Gauranga, it is not justified to call them mayavadis on account of that. They do not, to the best of my understanding, present any monistic conclusions or present Jagadbandhu as an avatar of nirakara-brahma.

This talk about so called traditional gaudiya vaisnavas leaves me a bit puzzled. I am wondering what constitutes a traditional gaudiya vaisnava in your view. My family are from Chittagong in Bangladesh.

Did you read the page I referred everyone to?

In Sri Caitanya Caritamrta (Madhya Lila Chapter 7) Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami describes Sri Caitanya's tour of south india. It clearly says there that when Mahaprabhu was in south india he empowered many acaryas who became mahabhagavatas and who later accepted disciples themselves and that those disciples had their second and subsequent generations of their guru parampara. Their guru parampara came from Mahaprabhu directly. In their guru parampara they received the Harinama mantra and then they gave the Harinama mantra and Krsna Consciousness -- worship of Krsna and not Narayana - to their followers and disciples.

I would be interested to hear something specific on those traditions, how did they evolve and where they are today.

They did not get given the diksa mantras which old devotees in Bengal have given to their disciples. In East Bengal there are also many devotees who receive the Hare Krsna mantra when they become initiated into the sampraday. From Caitanya Caritamrta we can see that receiving Harinama mahamantra was practiced in the time of Mahaprabhu but we find in Bengal some high caste individuals make many claims about how we need to get the diksa mantras from some high caste guru who is in the family of Nityananda. But in our ISKCON we also think of Harinama as initiatino and that idea is supported in Caitanya Caritamrta. So what do you have to say to that?

I am not that familiar with rural traditions in Bangladesh. There are a great many traditions out there, and not all of them are necessarily very orthodox in their praxis.

Regardless of from whom diksa is to be received, the undisputable conclusion of Hari-bhakti-vilasa and Bhakti-sandarbha is that diksa-mantras must be received, and as much is said (and quoted) in Swami Bhaktivedanta's works. Harinama is certainly also an initiation, but let us be clear over the fact that the term "diksa" indicates the reception of an actual diksa-mantra, characterized by mantra-bija, a name of god in the dative case and the end-incantation. If you wish, I'll be happy to present to you the actual passages from the writings of the Gosvamis where all of this is explained.

Similar with so-called traditonalists. Overt and covert criticism of Srila Prabhupada and his mission is intolerable to anyone that can even glimpse a fragment of his contribution in the service of the Lord.

The critique sometimes heard is an unfortunate by-product of doctrinal differences. What's seen online in this regard is largely the outcome of people who once were associated with ISKCON and ended up having a bad experience. Sadly, many of them just can't let go of this past "trauma" and keep ruining both their own spiritual lives as well as those of the others by obsessing over critique of others.

I like to think I have largely grown over that. I sincerely hope that I have, anyway.

Likewise anyone who has taken to that babaji lifestyle who criticize great and merciful devotees for taking Krsna to the most fallen souls should rethink their's also. IMO they both should be avoided by anyone trying to cultivate bhakti.

I heartily agree with you here. Anyone who thinks that Swami Bhaktivedanta's contribution for Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cause was anything short of wonderful surely has a circuit missing.

I cannot claim to know what each and every trad. Gaudiya in India, those who don't share a history with IGM, think, but what I know from my experiences with some of them is that while there is certainly awareness of differences, it has not stopped them from thinking fondly of what Swamiji accomplished.

And I would also like to see the same fondness extended to Baba Premananda Bharati, who by all counts probably has just as many differences with the mainstream Gaudiya lineages of Vraja that I follow as Swami Bhaktivedanta does.

Ok - I understand you there.

I'm sure Rasbihari Lal & Sons carry it. Braja Gopal's LoiBazaar.Com is, however, a site that has nothing to do with them.

The orginal question: Have "traditional" Gaudiya Acaryas preached in the West? has not be properly answered.

The opening question was, "Why haven't they preached in the West?" I answered that in my first post in this thread.

On your question above: Off the top of my head, at least the following have visited West in recent decades: Prema-gopala Gosvami, Purusottama Gosvami, Srivatsa Gosvami, Venu-gopala Gosvami, Madrasi Krishna Das Babaji, Sri Krishna Das Gosvami, Satya-narayana Das Babaji.

I'm not quite sure I follow your idea on intellectualism and snobbery. Could you please explain what you mean and what that's based on, and also give an idea on what's your exposure to TGV and what's your idea of "the process" that is very technical?

Whoops Saints of Bengal. I assumed Saints of Vraja. Never heard of Saints of Bengal. But if it's like his Saints of Vraja maybe Krsna will grace me with a copy someday.

Let me just ask questions. The first one being, "who are the babajis who are saying the things that have been quoted." If that is not clarified, one runs the risk of attacking mirages. There is enough negative feeling in this world even without imagining more, even if some might justify that as a matter of generating chivalrous team spirit among his group of devotees. That generally just leads to aparadha.

 

 

Myrla says: With due respect, my friend, With that Babaji talk, the import of the talk was the Sahajiya concept, not about any Babaji Guru. Do you think that when he talks about a particular Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy for ex., which could be construed as in opposition to another faith (not Gaudiya Vaishnava), do you see the need for him to identify the pope or the cleric for example. Also he may not even know the names of the people specifically. (BTW, about paypal, it could be because of my new bank a/c added to paypal, which takes about 2 days for security reasons to be in operation. I have not forgotten., ok)

Myrla, that's all fine - but please see how this speech from Srila Narayana Maharaja is being employed. Regardless of original intent, this very speech has often been employed to bash a particular Babaji Guru (most notably, Sri Ananta Das Babaji). Therefore I asked Puru for clarification on whom the points he mentions refer to. One's guru's comments on a sensitive issue need to be cited responsibly and with a clear understanding of their intent.