Beggar

Happy happies, Melvin! My friend had a dream of Prabhupada last night. Unfortunately I was visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past.

Theist, I understand that this subject has been religiously politicized and that many of us have experienced some of the harshness that goes along with it. Try to understand that I am not giving an opposing view. Sometimes it is said that the Lord manifests the jiva souls and other times it is stated that they are eternal. Both ideas are given by the acaryas and sastra. It is not a question of one or the other being true. They are both true as different aspects of the divine that are being described so that we can understand Krsna to the point of agreeing to attempt to become saranagata or surrendered souls.

What I am saying is that both viewpoints are correct from the position of bhakti jnana or knowledge in Krsna Consciousness. But this viewpoint, which is part of realization will not be there in the consciousness and substantial sentiment of a suddha bhakti praying like Mahaprabhu: Mahaprabhu is not praying, "Oh my Lord, I am not really in the material world but only dreaming, actually I am not really fallen". No, He and the pure devotees like Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his songs actually feel fallen. When a suddha Vaisnava feels fallen and prays in that separation mood, they will not consider the jnana or conception that, "we are already there but don't realize it".

Why always insist on that point of view? Srila Prabhupada did not and if we believe that he is accurately translating Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, neither did He: ayi nanda-tanuja kinkaram patitam mam vishame bhavambudhau kripaya tava pada-pankaja- sthita-dhuli-sadrisham vichintaya O son of Maharaja Nanda (Krsna), I am Your eternal servitor, yet somehow or other I have fallen into the ocean of birth and death. Please pick me up from this ocean of death and place me as one of the atoms at Your lotus feet. We have been told that Krsna is Patita Pavanana or the friend of the fallen. How will we get that mercy if we think of ourselves as perfect beings who are really in the spiritual world?

Well I was bone on the wrong side of the tracks. Ever since I snuck out of the temple to see that damn movie in 1989, my subtle body has looked exactly like Nicholson's Joker. So don't look for me on the gross plane. Just playing with you bro - Prabhu. No sane person who has any respect for Srila Prabhupada is against DVD. It's just that we should remember as Prabhupada wrote in BG that we can succeed in Krsna Consciousness as individuals even if it fails socially. We can also fail individually even if it does succeed socially. anta-kāle ca mām eva Bg 8.: And whoever, at the time of death, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt. We must face death individually, not as a group. Yet, still, groups of devotees should be organized in daiva varnasrama.

Then let me ask you: Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Hari bol, Theist. Here I meant by, the "human jivas sleeping experience" when we sleep at night. I wonder how dreaming that we are moving from body to body is actually related to our dreams when we are just dreaming at night. I'm not even sure that my statement quoted above is correct? The yogis can control what we call dream consciousness, they can will the subtle to manifest on the gross level. The bhaktas simply depend on Krsna's mercy although they control their minds. Maybe this should be a new thread?

Demigod worship is part of Vedic Culture also. What about Krsna stopping the Indra yajna in Vraja, i.e. Govardhana Hill. What is the meaning of that lila in relation to your statement?

Srila Prabhupada also uses this analogy because it has been given by all the previous acaryas. In fact if you do the research we will find that it is accepted by all acaryas including those in the impersonal branch of Vedantic thought. One may say that this "dreaming" of the jiva soul is only an analogy and that is true. But it is not that "dreaming" of the jiva soul is less powerful than the human jivas sleeping experience. It is actually much, much more powerful. The problem with the "the jivas fall from Goloka" and the "the jivas are always in Goloka" constructs is not that there is a lack of truth behind them. There is plenty of truth there, but the problem lies in the construction of the presentation. The previous acaryas simply do not present these ideas in the manner in which it is presently being given both in the mainstream Iskcon and those who follow Gaura Gopal (Sarva Gattah). If we do not consider that ALL sides of the apparent duality in this issue of the origin of the jiva soul can have logical holes poked in their aguments, then we are hiding our heads in the sand of our own provincial sectareanism of false pride. This is why there is so much contentiousness over this issue. Tarko pratisthanat, ultimately these things cannot be established by logic. Of course if we delight in going around in endless circles, so be it. The higher truth is that all these ideas such, as, 'the soul originates" or "is eternal and has no origin" which appear contradictory are harmonized in Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's conception of acintya bheda (a)bheda tattva, simultaneous oneness and difference.

Yes, I am currently writing a screen play for a sitcom pilot called, Welcome back Beggar. How did you know? As for offenses, if someone offends someone like myself they stand a 10% chance of being bitten by a mosquito. But if someone offends a great devotee, they may become a mosquito. So please be careful, you would not want to join me in mosquito land.

I understand that I am using an English translation but it brings up the question: Is it something to be obtained (we were never there) or something to be realized (we are always there)? This illustrates that the argument over the origin of the soul is only over semantics. Yet our acaryas use semantics in a particular way and we should follow. When we become egrossed in such a fight, as over the origin of the soul (what came first the tal fruit falling or the crow landing) we are like dogs chasing our own tails. That is just foolishness. But how foolish is it to engage in Vaisnava aparadha over such an un-necessary thing?

Yes, keep on chanting, that's all we can do. Over and out from the Nether Regions - Beggar.

I really don't know. Maybe they had Vaisnava brahmanas who also handled that. Anyway I don't think that the babajis of the 19th century had maths where so much formal worship took place although I'm not sure.

Srila Sanatana Goswami was born brahmana but lost that status by being in the employ of the Muslim king. Later in Vraja he had a diety and would put him in a tree and feed him a baked wheat ball without even salt. We all know the story how the diety of Krsna complained about this by talking directly to Srila Sanatana Goswamipada. This iillustrates that there is not much of a brahminical standard in raganuga bhakti diety worship. I don't know so much detail. Maybe you are correct and it applies to babaji vesa?

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur wanted to give the idea to the religious Indian public that a Vaisnava is higher than a brahmana. Thiis is why he gave the sacred thread to diksa initiates. Previously Vaisnava's who were born brahmanas would take off their thread at the time of Vaisnava diksa.

You guys are either not reading my recent posts or completely misinterpreting them.

Including the first mantra, the brahma gayatri - om bhur buvah..., seven mantras are there. The sixth one is klim krsnaya govindaya..., also referred to as the Gopal mantra. It would be that mantra.

According to Srila Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada's guru bhai, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur never rejected Vipin Vihari Prabhu, its just that duing his his later years he became more attached to Srila Jagannatha das Babaji and his conception of Krsna bhakti.

Sarvaji, Please read this post closely. Our's is a semantical argument and this is what I've been writing for the last several months. Mundane languages always have their limitations and are a clumsy way to express thoughts that are beyond the material time factor. For instance, here, "original spiritual form in Vaikuntha" means a form that exists in the "present moment". (You should be happy that we have achieved a meeting of the minds on this point.) But it doesn't mean a form which we had in the past, then lost and will regain - although we will regain a form that always exists in the "present moment". IOW there is no past in relation to the spiritual world. All this is inconceivable, and different related truths that "appear" opposite within it are actually simultaneously one, yet different from each other. To take one angle of vision on the subject, and use it against another angle is like trying to take Krsna's legs and then try to use them against His arms. The fact is that we cannot capture Krsna with our intellect, only with our love or prema like Mother Yasoda. Everyone on all sides of the issue, even those who are charged up about this issue and making mistakes with it will agree with this, even if they have to be reminded. The Hare Krsna Movement is really about developing or reviving our inherent love of God, in His most personal form as Sri Krsna. Everything else within bhakti yoga is only favorable if it is for this, and this alone.

What does it mean to have the association of real Vaisnavas, sadhu sanga? Look at the word - sadhu or the sanga or association of one or more who is sat - as in sat cit ananda. So sat would really mean one who is satswarupa. (an no, I'm not referring to you know who) Satswarupa means one who is situated in their eternal swarupa or form (identity). So if one comes across a Vaisnava who is situated in their swarupa then who would not want to take the association of such a person? And if one was not yet initiated into Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's line, what a great opportunity it would be to receive hare nama and diksa from such a Vaisnava. But then there is the relative consideration: What if that Vaisnava is at the beginning stage of the manifestation of his swarupa? Wouldn't he still be far beyond the realization of 99.999 % of "embodied" devotees? And how would we measure this since it is actually beyond our experience? Obviously we cannot, yet their must be some measuring stick. When John Lennon asked Srila Prabhupada how to determine who is a real guru, Prabhupada replied that the person who is most addicted to Krsna is a genuine guru. Srila Prabhupada: [LA TIMES INTERVIEW, excerpt from "Science of Self Realization"] Alfred Lord Tennyson: As Srila Sridhar Maharaj said, "no risk, no gain." Vaisnavas are the most optimistic people when it comes to spirituality. Again I quote Srila Sridhar Maharaj: <hr>

It is said that they were never with Krsna in full lila, but that they know Him like a child in the womb knows his father (an example given by Srila Prabhupada). But although it is said that they were never in full lila with Krsna (in swarupa) it is also said that if you chant the pure name they you will see that you are in Goloka serving Krsna in your swarupa. This is a complete paradox and this is what you are arguing against. But all arguments to the origin of the soul can be defeated by Crow and Tal Fruit Logic. You are purporting Srila Prabhupada's statement, that "we came down from Vaikuntha some millions of years ago" and thereby putting words in his mouth that were never there. And those words are, " ALL living entities originate from Vaikuntha." <o:p></o:p>

Srila Narayana Maharaja's position is that since Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur did not write that the jiva falls from Goloka or Vaikuntha then he will not write or say that. But as I have shown you several times, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur writes of the "eternal present" in Jaiva Dharma. Since, how the soul manifests or originates is just a philosophical or theological construct to illustrate certain ideas like the sacred position of Krsna's parishad devotees it is really not worth quarreling over because the jiva soul really never manifests at all since it is eternal. So actually the 'tatastha' is just an idea or really an imaginary construct for conveying higher truths. Therefore the higher truth of the "eternal present" should be our focus. Why else would Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur sing in Gaya Gaura Madhura Svare, maya jale baddha ache miche kaja lo ye, when will the covering of maya [the maya jala] be lifted so I can see Navadvipa dhama (or Vrndavana) as it really is (in the eternal present)? This all means that the debate over the origin of the jiva is a moot point and that we should not make schisms or camps over such issues. It is just Maha Maya's trick to divert us from our real business of preaching Krsna Consciousness to those who are drowning in the material morass.

By chanting namabhasa without any offenses or nama aparadhas Ajamila became sinless but that was more or less a neutral position. Then when his intelligence was spiritually reawakened by seeing the Visnuduttas and hearing their conversation with the Yamaduttas, Ajamila went to Hardwar on the bank of the Ganges and perfomed bhakti yoga sadhana. Srila Narayana Maharaja: Canto 6: Prescribed Duties for Mankind Chapter 2: Ajamila Delivered by the Visnudutas Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Srimad Bhagavatam SB 6.2.39: Because of a moment's association with devotees [the Visnudutas], Ajamila detached himself from the material conception of life with determination. Thus freed from all material attraction, he immediately started for Hardwar. SB 6.2.40: In Hardwar, Ajamila took shelter at a Visnu temple, where he executed the process of bhakti-yoga. He controlled his senses and fully applied his mind in the service of the Lord. SB 6.2.41: Ajamila fully engaged in devotional service. Thus he detached his mind from the process of sense gratification and became fully absorbed in thinking of the form of the Lord. SB 6.2.42: When his intelligence and mind were fixed upon the form of the Lord, the brahmana Ajamila once again saw before him four celestial persons. He could understand that they were those he had seen previously, and thus he offered them his obeisances by bowing down before them. SB 6.2.43: Upon seeing the Visnudutas, Ajamila gave up his material body at Hardwar on the bank of the Ganges. He regained his original spiritual body, which was a body appropriate for an associate of the Lord.

I can theoretically accept what you are writing. But I can tell you that in the context that you are writing it, none of the current non-Iskcon acaryas would ever preach it in public. (Most Iskcon gurus will say anything that pops into their heads, so they don't count). One of the things that the initiating guru tries to accomplish is to get the disciple to believe that he is linked up by the initiation. In this way there is the chance that the disciple will take the initiation in a very serious way and maintain his vowels of chanting, serving and following the Vaisnava sadacara or behavioral standard. Later on in a more mature stage of development the disciple will see through the formalities and get to the essential nature of devotional truths. As to "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person." I don't think that it is accurate to call this a "stand alone statement". I see it more in the context the full letter. We have to be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and this is what I believe that I have seen in cbrahma's general approach to these topics. Of course what you have written above is true, but again we are entering in to the region of a semantical debate. Look at these two statements by Srila Sridhar Maharaj in Sri Guru and His Grace just a paragraph apart from each other: So in Quote A Srila Sridhar Maharaj seens like a hardcore living guru advocate and in Quote B he seems like a preceptoral guru advocate (the part of B in colors) The details to substantiate the "spiritual formula" of the mantra are the siksa or instructions given by a preceptor. So one could also ask AncientMariner's question about Srila Prabhupada, about Srila Sridhar Maharaj. The answer from the evidence that I have just shown is both. Will cbrahma ever agree? I don't believe so. Because he is too bitter and angry for whatever reason, and he has an agenda which is to prove that: Because after all in his conception, all living and passed on GBC approved gurus are unqualified. And since Srila Prabhupada wrote in a letter, [paraphrasing] "none of my godbrothers were fit to be acarya", and in this context cbrahma equates acarya with initiating guru (which is clearly a misconception according to Srila Sridhar Maharaja) then therefore his godbrother's disciples are not really initiated, nor or their disciples. So here we have the lone wolves of the IRM. extremist Rtviks and cbrahma crying out like some sort of Hare Krsna Chicken Little, the diksa lineage is corrupted!!! the diksa lineage is corrupted!!! So now it becomes incumbent upon them to make a propaganda campaign against the vapuh relationship between guru and disciple, where vani is stressed so much that vapuh either becomes meaningless and nonexistent or at least a dirty word. But cbrahma takes it all to new level, at least the Rtviks give hare nama and diksa or behalf of Srila Prabhupada. Yet it appears that cbrahma is even against that process. Srila Sridhar Maharaj was according to his own words, "a form breaker, not a form maker" and all true followers of Srila Saraswati Thakurs Bhagavat or siksa guru parampara are likewise including Srila Prabhupada, as his statement, "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person" , clearly illustrates. But none of these great gurus is a nihilist or one that propogates dissembling ideas but rather just the opposite. From reading his posts I do believe that cbrahma is some kind of combination of a nihilist and a devotee although really that is a contradictory combination. Such nihilism is really symtomatic of damaged sraddha or faith and I really don't wish that on anyone. So no matter how much nonsense cbrahma writes and how many times he tries to insult me, I will try to understand that I am really a nobody anyway. And I will try to hope against hope and wish him well if it is at all possible for me to do so. Hare Krsna.

In post #109 on this thread cbrahma quotes: This shows the context of your quote of Srila Prabhupada because the discussion was not really so much about "who is one's real guru?" but about vani and vapuh. Now I have given the context of your statement [again below] in relation to the flow of this thread: Now let's look at the sentence, "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person."in the context of the paragraph in which it is embedded: So you are using the sentence "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person." in the context of idea that vani is more important than vapuh in relation to an individual's spiritual sojourn in relationship to a great acarya such as Srila Prabhpada. But in the context of the full letter and specifically the paragraph of which it is part shows that the sentence is in relation to the list of the principle acaryas coming down in the line of disciplic succession listed in the beginning of Bhagavad Gita As It Is. So I certainly accept the sentence it's proper context. Srila Sridhar Maharaj is saying the same thing in Sri Guru and His Grace: