Kripamoya

Really, the difference is that I quoted from the writings of Bhaktivinode and you are just making groundless accusations. Bhaktivinode says that the guru shows his form as a sakhi. Can't you read? Or, is it against your principles to read the writings of Bhaktivinode? I didn't make it up. Bhaktivinode's example in Jaiva Dharma is that the guru shows himself as a sakhi.

How? The disciple looks the spiritual master in the eyes. The spiritual master goes into samadhi trance and though the mystic power of maha-vidya takes the disciple into trance with him and shows him the vision. That is the way that true siddha gurus do it. That is the power of a genuine guru. I know my guru has this power.

It's interesting to note that, in the version of Bhaktivinode Thakur, he mentions that the form of the guru is shown to be a SAKHI and NOT a manjari. He doesn't mention that a guru in the form of a manjari reveals these things, but the guru of the SAKHI group performs this function. The leaders of the manjaris are of the sakhi groups. The guru of the manjari is a sakhi. Each sakhi has her own camp of manjaris. These camps of manjaris following different sakhis have some uniqueness to each group and they all prefer to serve in support of the sakhi leader they follow. My sakhi is the favorite sakhi of Radharani. I want to assist her in her way of service. Lalita and Visakha are the two principle sakhis of the Rupanuga camp. The guru is supposed to be a manifestation of one of these two gopis. Ultimately, the guru will reveal to be one of these two sakhis and instruct the disciple to serve in a particlur form.

In Jaiva Dharma ch. 40, Bhaktivinode writes: so, here we have an example of what REAL "siddha-pranali" is. The spiritual form of the spiritual master is actually shown to the disciple and the disciple actually gets realization of his own spiritual form. This is quite a bit different than some official giving of ekadasa-bhava by some guru who cannot manifest his spiritual form or actually reveal to the disciple his own form substantially. This miraculous version of "siddha-pranali" has become substituted with a cheap version that is found in the sahajiya group. The Saraswata parivar has nothing to do with the cheap, bogus version of "siddha pranali".

By siddha-pranali as a "practice" we refer to the occasion when "siddha-pranali" is given to the disciple. The giving of siddha-pranali IS a practice. The giving of siddha-pranali is when the guru confidentially reveals to a disciple the svarupa of both the guru and the disciple. This is THE PRACTICE of giving siddha-pranali. The actual term "siddha-pranali" is found nowhere in any of the writings of the Six Goswamis of Vrindavan. If it is then please show us where.

really? please show me in the writings of Srila Rupa Goswami where he uses the term "siddha-pranali" and explains it the way it is practiced today. I would like to learn about that.

Sometimes reading books and trying to learn philosophies does not give a direct experience that really opens your mind. If you aren't ready for Hare Krishna and are suffering from depression, then I would recommend trying to learn hatha-yoga. Breathing excercises and the postures of the yoga system might help you relieve your depression. Also, along with that you should try chanting the maha-mantra 16 rounds a day for a few days and see if that doesn't give you a sense of spiritual improvement. Yoga is a process of becoming spiritually blissful. Philosophizing with books doesn't mean much if you don't feel the bliss of the yoga system. Bhakti-yoga is the graduate level of yoga practice. Maybe you need to climb the ladder a step at a time to get there. Start with hatha-yoga. You need something more than just a faith to buy into. You need to feel scientifically the benefits of mantra-yoga and hatha-yoga. Also, the vaidhi-sadhana of Bhakti-yoga is required to actually have an existential experience that religion is not a matter of blind faith and philosophy, but is a spiritual science of becoming free from material suffering and feeling spiritual growth and bliss.

But, in some ways, I think that Narayan Maharaja is a simple soul just following his own tendencies. I am afraid that he has been contaminated, misled and unjustly dragged into ISKCON turmoil by a batch of Prabhupada disciples who began to use Narayana Maharaja as a weapon against the GBC. I feel certain that he has been fed considerable bad advice and bad information by "syamarani" and some of the other old Prabhupada disciples who have been eaten-up by hatred for the GBC and the ISKCON elite. But, then again, if I was beaten and assaulted like her I might be very bitter and vengeful myself. Nonetheless, they should not have dragged Narayana Maharaja into ISKCON conflict. Being a simple and sincere person, he allowed himself to become the point-man for the anti-GBC movement of Syamarani, Puru das and the rest of them. I fell sorry for Narayana Maharaja. He really didn't want or need all this bunk that has been imposed upon him. I don't follow him or accept him, but I do think he has been the pawn for some very irate and bitter ISKCON devotees who have used him for their own devices.

I agree. But, I would really like to see "Raga" change his monicker to "Vaidhi". Concealing one's higher attainments has been encouraged by Srila Rupa Goswami in Bhaktirasamrita sindhu. Let's all be Rupanugas and pretend to be neophytes.

In the real world, only a person who writes something or says something can really explain what he meant to say in his words or writings. For example, I could say "I love that Jagat". But, a close associate of mine could know that I was being sarcastic and was actually saying "I have some serious difference with Jagat". What a statement denotes and what it connotes can be quite different. So, literal, denotative, academic understandings of anything in life can be very deceptive. Ultimately, only the person who says something really knows what he was actually trying to convey. If he reveals the true meaning of his words to somone else, then that person can know also. Anyone that thinks that the Gaudiya shastra can be understood from an academic approach is suffering from massive misconception. Jagat is my favorite scholar. (only I know what I was really saying here) If I tell someone else, then they can know also. trying to understand without consulting me can be very misleading.

Here is a text book academic attempt at translating a verse of Srila Saraswati Goswami: Notice the academic notes and the intention to translate this verse of Saraswati Goswami without ever having known him, served him or taken direct personal siksha from him on this very verse. This is exactly the disease that has infected a number of upstart devotees who have rejected Saraswati Thakur to accept some official initiation from the siddha-pranali school, though devoid of genuine humility and service, while endeavoring with some academic skills to penetrate the esoteric realm of the Gaudiya acharyas.

Shakti-fan said: I hate to spoil the party, but the connotative meaning IS NOT the secondary meaning amongst those who are really savvy with the term in it's practical usage in context. The connotative meaning is the genuine meaning based upon actual knowledge and experience. The denotation of a term is an empty shell when the connotation is neglected.

You just posted on the forum. so, I guess you just made a liar out of yourself.

Really? I think Raga just lost about a hundred points with his childish, envious nonsense. When all else fails........................... just show troll images and ride out on your high horse.

I understand. But, it is all subjective and relative to the status and nature of the person. The connotative meaning to one person might be very different from the connotative meaning to another person, because it is subjective based upon one's particular status and particular objectives. Srila Prabhupada's translations were FAR from academic and solely founded on connotative understanding and his position as a nitya-siddha who came from Goloka to do his service to Mahaprabhu. Srila Prabhupada's explanations and Sridhar Maharaja's explanations might carry different connotative meanings, due to their subjective positions and the objective they were seeking to acheive. On the other hand, there are upstart neophytes who are not siddha, yet are trying to translate shastra from an academic approach.

Sure, let's go there. Shakti-fan says: First, let's examine the meanings of "connotation" and "denotation". Let's make it simple for us less intelligent folks. Denotation is simply the literal meaning of a term. Connotation is the associated concept that has really nothing to do with the literal meaning. A connotative meaning of a term can most often neglect the associated literal, academic meaning of a term. For example, we could use the term 4th of July. A literal understanding simply denotes the 4th day of the month of July. A connotative understanding of the term invokes thoughts of Fireworks, celebration and American Independence from the British and the birth of democracy. So, do you see the difference between what a term denotes and what it connotes? In the same way, the entire canon of the Gaudiya's has a denotation and connotative meaning. A scholarly approach to the Gaudiya canon produces a denotative interpretation of the Gaudiya philosophy. A realized approach by an advanced devotee offers a connotative explanation that goes beyond anything an academic approach can produce. As such, what the verse of Srila Saraswati Goswami denotes and what it connotes to one who had extensive association and personal guidance by Srila Saraswati Goswami can be very much different. There has always been a very secret connotative meaning to the Gaudiya siddhanta that scholarship of Sanskrit or Bengali simply cannot comprehend. In order to understand the connotative meaning of the teachings of great self-realized souls, one must himself be of that order - or receiving guidance from one who is. Therefore, only an intimate associate of Srila Saraswati Thakur can truly understand the connotative meaning of his verses, which have been securely conceiled from those who would try to enter there from the academic platform.

I guess there is no limit to how pompous and arrogant the gopi-wanna-be club can get in their defense of their pseudo-raganuga cult. Some sahajiyas dress their bodies like gopis and some dress their minds like gopis, but ultimately there is really no difference. To dress the material mind like a manjari or dressing the material body like a gopi is the same thing. Ultimately, it is only the soul that can attain to madhurya-rasa. Playing dress-up gopi with the mind is just a more subtle form of sahajiyaism. How can those who are still identifying with the mind and senses pretend to identify with madhurya-rasa? They don't even know the first stage of liberation, yet they pretend to have attained siddhi. Scholarship is a pile of dog stool. Have sex with the wife and then practice asta-kaliya-lila smaranam. sure................. we buy that.

I hardly think that any so-called scholar that has rejected the Saraswata parivar to accept initiation into a parivar that opposes the Saraswata school is hardly in any position to be so audacious as to presume to have any right to attempt to translate the words of Srila Saraswati Goswami in a way which challenges the interpretation of Srila Sridhar Maharaja. It is actually quite an insult and a sham for Jagat to attempt to interpet the words of Srila Saraswati Thakur in a way which contradicts what has been explained by Sridhar Maharaja. It is a very serious offense to jump into an interpretation based upon some knowledge of Sanskrit and attempt to discredit an explanation given by a true follower of Srila Saraswati Thakur. It's hard to imagine any greater intrusion into the inner workings of the Saraswata school than for some follower of the siddha-pranali parivars to jump in and give some false interpretation that actually insults the very author of a verse.

As such, this article by Bhakti Sudhira Maharaja presents the genuine definition of what is the Saraswata parivar and what distinguishes them from the self-proclaimed followers of "traditional" Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Sahajiyaism IS NOT the tradition of the Gaudiyas. What a large section of devotees don't understand nowadays is that rejecting the standards as given in this article by Sudhira Maharaja, is NOT an option for anyone who claims to be of the Saraswata parivar. This article esablishes the measure with which to know who is a genuine Saraswata and who is hoaxer presenting a false version of the Saraswata parivar. Bhakti Sudhira Maharaja ki-jaya!

By the way, this claim to being "traditional gaudiya" by the followers of the siddha-pranali group is still very much a contentious issue by the Saraswata group. The "siddha-pranali" system is also a very favorite concept with the genuine sahajiyas as well as the so-called traditionalists.

Indian? been there - done that. Many Indians took birth in the USA to serve Srila Prabhupada in establishing his movement.

I remember reading once a letter from Srila Prabhupada to a disciple where he says that most of his disciples were Indians in their previous life. Does anyone with a full Vedabase or letter archive know of this letter from Srila Prabhupada and can they post it on the forum? I definitely feel that I was an Indian in my last life and even have had some flashes of being a poor beggar man in India in a previous life. I dreamed once that I was a poor beggar man on the side of the the road in India and Srila Prabhupada, as a householder, tossed a coin in my begging bowl. I figured I had to come back in this life and pay him back with interest. Lucky me.

But, don't get me wrong. I am just speaking on principle. My dream is to get away from the modern culture and retire in a village life in a tropical country and life very simply. Actually, I hate American style, culture, dress and materialism. I love the Hindu dress, style and culture. Asia is much more attractive to me.

Funny, but I have read the entire Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya Caritamrita and Nectar of Devotion (plus other books) and I never read anywhere in any of those books anything about the necessity of changing one's style of clothes or shaving his head bald. Please show me anywhere in Prabhupada's books where he mentions the necessity of changing one's style of clothes, or mentions it as being helpful to developing Krishna consciousness. Playing Hindu or "Vedic" dress-up has NOTHING to do with Krishna consciousness.

Anybody that can read the Bible can see that the God of the Old Testament was a "jealous god" who was prone to lose control of his anger and exact all kinds of horrible penalties on the Jews. The religion of the Old Testament was FEAR OF GOD. God was not to be loved - but feared. the Jesus concept teaches love of God, which is a big improvement over the fear of God in the Old Testament. If Jesus was real, then I think his God was different from the god of the Old Testament. Of course, jesus would never have admitted that. There is no way that the world could love the vengeful, jealous god that all humanity lived in fear of in the days of the Old Testament. The god of the Old Testament gave the Jews license to destroy entire cities and every living creature there, so they could claim the land of Israel for the Jews. Tell Hell with that god. I have no use for a god that allows the Jews to kills thousands of children, women and old men so the jews can lord it over a piece of land because they are THE CHOSEN CHILDREN OF GOD.