Kishalaya

Those who try to unjustly criticise AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's works as not complying to Gaudiya philosophy and engage in nitpicking should read the following verse of Bhagavatam. It is a great offence to mimimize the work of a mahaa-bhaagavat who has put his bhagavad-bhaava in every word that he wrote. SB 1.5.11 tad-väg-visargo janatägha-viplavo yasmin prati-çlokam abaddhavaty api nämäny anantasya yaço ’ìkitäni yat çåëvanti gäyanti gåëanti sädhavaù TRANSLATION On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world’s misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest. -Kishalaya

Jaya Nitai Jaya Gour Sundar, Although I am grossly unqualified to make any statements, however I am feeling compelled to put down one line from the Shikshashtakam that I find very moving. shunyayitam jagat sarvam govinda-virahena me I have found no English translation to be proper enough. Your servant, Kishalaya

Dear Anadi Prabhu Ji, I beg for forgiveness about the nonsense that I uttered in my last post. Please consider that as the outpourings of an emotionally deranged mind. I now fully understand that things which are not meant for me, I could have simply ignored or got clarified from Sri Guru. However my envious heart chose to reply in the most lowly manner. I also understand that you were simply following your Guru Maharaja's orders and trying to find those few fortunate souls who have a natural attraction for serving The Lotus Feet of Her Lordship. That you are a great vaishnava can be understood by the fact that without thinking about yourself you wholeheartedly defended your Guru Maharaja in a gathering where none was supporting you. I also wholeheartedly accept all that you have to say without contest, knowing fully well that which I do not understand is only because of my small intelligence. In the end I put this humble request at your lotus feet to forgive me otherwise my Lord will be lost to me forever. Your most insignificant servant, Kishalaya

Dear Anadi Prabhuji, I have no problem with Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada being a gopi or gopa, but what I understand certainly is that his outlook was not narrow. You somewhere claim that he was empowered by Balarama to spread the Ujjwal rasa in western countries, which you may see, but please also understand others have their vision. To quote hamlet (this may not be very shaastric but may drive the point home)-- There are more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in your philosophy. "Sri Rupa being in the madhura rasa could understand of course all other rasas, whose moods are included in this rasa ." That being so, you must understand those in other rasas can *never* understand these aspects of the highest rasa. Kindly do mercy on these souls as things which you speak are taken in a negative sense. Just because you see Sri Sri Balarama as a gopi somewhere, which could very well be true in your vision, that does not mean that others see him like that. Next you may say that so what if Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada established Sri Sri Rukmini Dwaarkaadheesh. (I assume Prabhupada established them in LA. This is what is there in the LA temple website -- The Los Angeles Hare Krishna temple was first established in 1970 by Srila Prabhupada, the founder acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.). Sri Sri Rukmini is an expansion of Srimati Chandravali etc. Next you will comment about Sri Sri Sita Ramachandra in Iskcon Bombay and say Sri Sri Sita is an expansion of Her Lordship in some manner. Please understand that such comments are a form of egregious rasaabhaasa for some devotees situated firmly in a particular form of the Lord. Discussions about these things should not be open but in association of like minded devotees. Otherwise you would have done a great disservice of shaking the devotion of those who are trying to situate themselves firmly to a form of the Lord they feel naturally attracted to. Please forgive my offences, Your servant, Kishalaya

"Shall we think that Mahaprabhu came only to deliver those in srngara rasa? Madhurya means sweet and all rasas in Goloka are sweet." Or for that matter did He come only to deliver those in Goloka bhaava??!!! Your servant, Kishalaya

"to spread the Sri Caitanya mano bhistam (the innermost desire, the heart of Mahaprabhu which is unnattojjvala-rasam sva bhakti sriyam) in the western countries." My best wishes! Your servant, Kishalaya

"I was seeking the Formless Brahman, the Primal Cause Through forms that suited my ignorant mind best. " Poems do not change the truth or, for that matter, make the ignorant, knowledgeable!

Jai Nityaananda, Jai Gouraachandra! Hari Bol! Thinking back on what has been said from both sides, I feel a little disturbed by the fact that I have used harsh words where the point could have been made in a more mild manner. Especially saying: "This fellow has *absolutely no* shraddha in his own Lord" was not appropriate, since the person concerned does seem to be a follower of Lord Hari. In the heat of the moment such words came out and since accusation was made publicly, I think I should also post this apology in public. Only by chanting the names of "Nityaananda" and "Gouraanga" has this thought come into my mind. I guess the Lords have prompted me to forsake my argumentative mentality that I have brought forth from the last decade. It is in the mood of Sri Gour Hari's movement that I plead that whatever one may like to think about the divinity of Sri Gouraanga, one cannot take away from Him what He has done for the whole world. Even if one does not want to accept that, one may sincerely pray to and chant the names of one's own Lord in place of getting into arguments that lead to nowhere. Your servant, Kishalaya

Jay Nityaananda, Jay Gaurachandra! Since I have not yet even scratched the surface of bhakti, my saying anything would be inappropriate. However in my insignificant opinion there are multifarious bhaavas in which a particular bhakta can be situated. It is true that Gourachandra gave the highest conception of bhakti which the gosvamis profusely propagated, however we should also know that one of the associates of Gouranga Himself, Murari Gupta, was tortured by the fact that Gouranga asked him to worship Krishna. The fact was that Murari Gupta's ishta deva was Sri Ramachandra. He fell at Gouranga's feet to declare his inability to forsake Sri Ramachandra. Gouranga congratulated Murari Gupta and said that He was only testing his attachment to his ishta deva. Thus we must accept that there may be persons who are situated in other bhaavas. They feel extremely agitated if they get a feeling that how they worship the Lord is not correct swinging between spiritual order and spiritual attachment. I have (casually) read one writing by Bhakti Vinod Thakur which says that when a Guru gives a siddha deha to a disciple, then if the siddha deha does not match the ruchi of the saadhak then chaos can follow. The saadhak may fall back again to a life of anarthas. Of course, I have no spiritual understanding. So if I am wrong in any manner, I stand to be corrected. Jaya Nitai, Jaya Gour Hari, Your servant, Kishalaya

Jai Jai Nityaananda, Jai Jai Gouraachandra! By the unsurpassed kindness of Sri Vaasudeva Datta (Prahlaad Maharaaj), this universe is going to get Krishna Prema Chaitanya Charitaamrita Madhya 15.171 tomära icchä-mätre habe brahmäëòa-mocana sarva mukta karite kåñëera nähi kichu çrama Because of your honest desire, all living entities within the universe will be delivered, for Krishna does not have to do anything to deliver all the living entities of the universe. Jai Nitai, Jai Gour Hari! Your servant, Kishalaya

"However the research should not be done with a view for seeking the truth." remove the *not* However the research should be done with a view for seeking the truth .

There are 2 points here: 1. Not falling in trap of the unknown 2. Not criticising the unknown Both require through research. However the research should not be done with a view for seeking the truth. Those with ulterior motives will be destoryed by Krishna. Your servant, Kishalaya

"and compare our arguments vis-a-vis others." I seek apology from anybody from any sampradaya if they have been offended by the above statement. It was meant only to focus on the debate that we further for Gouranga's divinity. Your servant, Kishalaya

Hari Bol Prabhus! Those who have problem regarding our preaching Gouranga to be avatar of Sri Hari may have a look into a more scholarly work at: http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vaisnava_sampradayas_fs.html and compare our arguments vis-a-vis others. Your servant, Kishalaya

"ISKCON and Hare Krishna devotees are originally of the Madhva sampraday. There is no Brahma sampraday. Brahma incarnated as Madhva and thus started the Madhvacharya sampraday." As per my little knowledge, the tattvavadis regard Madhva as the incarnation of Mukhya Praana (Bhima, Hanumaan, Vaayu) Your servant, Kishalaya

Hari Bol Gouranga bhakta prabhus! Kindly refer to the thread "Swaminarayan- Krshna incarnation?" One supposed follower of a particular sampradaya begins his denunciation post by: All Glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga ! only to try to prove his point about Gouranga's non-contribution to bhakti and sankeertan by: "Bhakti is the gift of the Dravida saints" and various other arguments! At least we have to accept that the tattvavadis had some sense of propriety of not glorifying that whom they were trying to denounce. Deception, cheating are in which material mode, one does not have to think hard about it. This fellow has *absolutely no* shraddha in his own Lord, for one in shraddha is hungry for spiritual development, not in finding ways to belittle those who do not conform to his view of the world. Kindly note, that the person has specifically forked out topics for discussion which are sampradaya particulars such as mode of worship and claim of avatarhood. Vedantins of yore knew that such things do not fall in the purview of vedanta discussions and hence never asked the gaudiya sampradaya to *prove* Gouranga. Even when ramamanandis challenged the gaudiyas, it was on the topic of Vedaanta -- a topic that revolves around the relashionship between Brahman, Prakriti and Jiva. Since our sampradaya considered Bhaagavatam to be a natural commentary to for achintya bhedaabheda, we did not write a bhaashya. However, Sripad Baladeva Vidyabhushana, nontheless, wrote a commentary of the nyaya prasthan to satisfy the vedantins. Notice that the concerned person has never remarked about Govinda Bhaashya while he is trying to prove himself as a philosopher and his opponent as a sectarian theologist. While he takes help of his tattvavadi friends, he never seems to have questioned their archana padhati of decorating Sri Krishna as "Bharat Mata" and what else. While we surely do not approve of the above in our sampradaya, we do not start calling tattva-vada a philosophy of "sentimental bangladeshis". I am sure if the pancharatriki details are dug to sufficient depth, everybody can raise finger on everybody. It is surprising that his very official sampradaya web site regards Jiva Gosvami as "the celebrated vedantin of the Chaitanya school" while he goes on to decry us with words like "sentimental bangladeshi". Definitely during Jiva Gosvami's time there was no bhaashya on BrahmaSutras. At least, by this, we can conclude his sampradaaya has some level headed persons. Please see Topic # 4 "The Sequel" at http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/ramanuja/sribhashya.html His next trick is to force internal inconsistencies in our sampradaya by two premises: 1. gaudiyas say they are madhva saampradaya 2. gaudiyas by saying Krishna is the Supreme form of Vishnu are contradicting their own preceptor Madhva, who said there is no difference between various forms of the Lord. Of course, he is not very happy with the way we have resolved the apparant (forced) contradiction. He insists that Madhva's *no difference* means *no difference*. He is not able to answer why even the Lord looks different in different avatars, if *no difference* means *no difference*. However he is ever ready to interpret our meaning of "Supreme Vishnu" to mean gradation in the sense he wants. Lastly, his intentions regarding Gouranga's bhakti and his sankeertan movement. In his all out attempt to deny any credit to Gouranga and His Associates for the sankeertan movement, he quotes "Kabir" out of all the references for sankeertan movement found in libraries throughout the world. The laughable matter is that this very "Kabir" denounces his favourite "prasthan trayam" as useless without prema for God. Of course, it may not be very evident to you as to why he chose the following statement to denounce Gouranga. "Bhakti is the gift of the Dravida saints" Notice carefully that he uses existence of a quality in one (Dravid saints) to say that the quality was less, or more probably, non existent in another (Gouranga and His Associates). By the way, one more point, there is no mention of sankeertan - mass congregation. The third point to note is that, if we go by the above statement, we will have to discount the presence of bhaktas before the Dravid saints came into existence. The person however was not aware of the fact, and presently may not be very happy to know, that we are very pleased because the Dravid saints were such exalted devotees. We can only aspire to put the dust of the feet of the servants of the servants of these devotees. Prabhujis, you may be thinking why am I also indulging in dirt squirming. Please be assured that I do not feel any joy in doing such thing. We were not the aggressors here. Attack was made on us, however for neophites like me, there is always a chance to lose faith based on superficial argument as we have seen so many in the past. To establish faith, one simply needs to reason like this. The six Gosvaamis of Vrindaavan, were no beggars by birth. However they left everything and lived in Vrindaavan for the rest of their lives. The only possessions they had to call theirs was their kaupin and their japa mala. These persons had already occupied posts in life which required the use of one's intelligence. They surely must have got something very precious, and which was subjected to critical examination by them, that they could readily renounce everything and spend the rest of their life in bhajan. The character of the Guru is the greatest pramaan -- tattva darshi. Your insignificant servant, Kishalaya

Madhva sampradaya = Brahmaa sampradaya

Hari Bol prabhus! 1. "Gaudiya vaishnavism is the Brahmaa Sampradaya. Period." Gaudiya Vaishnavs have a history of *their* lineage which makes them an *integral* part of Brahmaa sampradya. Denunciation by neo-tattvadis notwithstanding! 2. About Sridhar Swami. Since Gouranga said he was a bhaagavat, we accept him as a bhaagavat. The apparant advaiti adherence has to be given sangati. Hence the earlier explanation, that he did not reveal his true bhaagavat form due to heavy influence of mayavada in his time and place. And whenever dualistic imports cannot be found in his commentary, those cannot be supported by gaudiya siddhantas. 3. "If however it is accepted that Bhagavatam is authored by Vyasa, why should we accept somebody else's concoctions to be true explanations of Sruti and BrahmaSutras other than Vyasa's writings themselves. (However considering that this is kaliyuga it is no surprise that people consider themselves superior to Vyasa :-)" We accept Madhva as preceptor of the Brahmaa sampradaya, however we reject the neo-tattvavadi precept that he revealed everything whatever was supposed to be revealed to us. Our assertion is that he revealed whatever was necessary at his time. Hence later aachaaryaas of the Brahmaa sampradaya have elucidated on both Vyaasa and Madhva. Thus the above statement should not be construed as rejection of one (Madhva) over another (Vyaasa). It is actually a sangati of both. All forms of the Lord are equal however Krishna is superior in terms of manifestation of qualities. In such a manner all apparant contradictions are to be resolved. 4. "The text refers to the colours/forms of the Lord worshipped in the 4 yugas. It has nothing to do with the descent of an avatara on earth." That is purely an interpretation. As per our siddhanta, and for sangati with other scriptures, this verse refers to Gouranga. If somebody does not accept that, then it is their wish, however that does not mean we will stop presenting our case to the neutral third party. The argument against other scriptural quotations is mainly interpolation, however we know that aachaaryas like Madhva have quoted from scriptures which do not exist today. If the argument is used that during Madhvas time, nobody objected to Sripad Madhva's quoting such scriptures, which indicate that everybody accepted the validity of the scriptures, then it is to be known that when Sri Krishna Das Kaviraja wrote that Gouranga is revealed in Sruti, Smriti, Pancharatra etc. nobody objected, hence the argument. If it be said that Madhva's writings were known far and wide, then it can be said that Krishna Das Kaviraja's writing was at least known in Navadveep etc. which were the centres of shaastric learning. If the argument be made Madhva's conclusion stands even if his quotations from unknown scriptures are dropped, however this does not change the fact that he did quote from presently unknown scriptures, so the interpolation argument does not stand. 5. "Their teaching on bhakti, saranagati etc was in harmony with the upanishads, Gita etc." The teachings of Gouranga are in harmony with Upanishads, Gita etc. If one is a seeker, one would have politely asked what "something different" meant, however to jump to name calling is not even mundane civility. The final conclusion is that all such contradictions are to be given sangati under gaudiya siddhanta. Since Srila Rupa Gosvami wrote sruti-smrti-puranadi- pancaratra-vidhim vina aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate Without sruti smriti puran etc panchatarta vidhi, Hari Bhakti is simply utpaat (annoyance). Therefore it cannot be concluded without thorough study of gaudiya vaishnism that gaudiya vaishnavism is "sectarian theology". Bhaja Nitai Gouranga, Your humble servant, Kishalaya

"Advaita will denounce both of you to be weak hearted people who cannot accept the Infinite Truth. Both these apa-sampadrayas twist and turn the direct meaning of shaastra like "aham brahmaasmi" and "tat tvam asi" to such lengths that even a moron will burst out with laughter." Dear Prabhujis, My humble obeisances! The purpose of the above quotation was that the other sampradayas are not free from slander that they think they are. And instead of making friends and fighting the real enemy, mayavada -- that which leads away from the Lord, they are fighting those who they should have approached as friends, and on grounds which are inconsequential. You have asked why we accept Gouranga as Krishna, we have valid proof of it, however if that is not acceptable to you, leave it at that and carry forward with business which is similar. But no they have to slander with words like "sentimental bangladeshi...." just to feed ego in the name of prevailing the truth. But if they want to fight, please fight amongst yourselves. We have better things to do. Your servant, Kishalaya

"Its the Gaudiyas who claim this verse refers to Chaitanya, so one has the right to question or challenge this claim. Substantiate this claim and not point fingers at other sampradayams. " Conclusion A ------------ Opponent: How is it that you conclude A? Proponent: These are my reasons Opponent: These reasons for conclusion establishment are not standard Proponent: How so? Opponent: I have these friends of mine Opp2, Opp3 who agree with me as to the methods of conclusion establishment. Proponent: However, each one of us has something different that is why we are different paramparas. Like I, You and Opp2 believe about the reality of Oneness in the Absolute Truth while I, You and Opp3 believe in the existence of Difference. Opponent: Your argument is faulty because I, Opp2, and Opp3 have no difference regards the methods of conclusion establishment. Proponent: That cannot be, since the the propositions you start from are the same (prasthana traya), there has to be difference in your methods of inference deduction to result in different conclusions. Opponent: Opp2 and Opp3 are using faulty methods of inference. I am the only one right because (A=>B, B=>C...) Opp2: Opponent and Opp3 are using faulty methods of inference. I am the only one right because (D=>E, E=>F...) Opp3: Opponent and Opp2 are using faulty methods of inference. I am the only one right because (G=>H, H=>I...) Opponent: However we at least agree as regards the propositions. Proponent: What makes you think that agreement has to be sought only on the propositions and other disagreements do not matter. Opponent: Then we do not have a debate Proponent: I cannot enter into a debate with you since in my consideration the propositions are not complete. And hence this is my difference with you all. Opp2: The propositions are correct because (J=>K, K=>L...) Proponent: The propositions are incomplete because (M=>N, N=>O...) Opp2: (same as last except with different capital alphabets) Proponent: same as last except with different capital alphabets) ..... ..... long time ..... ..... Suddenly! Opponent, Opp2, Opp3 (Loudly): You sentimental bangladeshi. ....... and more ............. Your servant, Kishalaya

"I am a member of the Dvaita list. There is no ongoing debate about this there, In fact, nothing is being spoken there on this issue at this present moment. Speaking of which. Madhva swamis themselves acknowledge Gaudiyas as a branch of Tattvavada, albeit with differences in philosophy. Please refer to" Dear Prabhu ji, There is no necessity of aligning with vitandis in whatever list. They have denounced their own Swamis who have acknowledged the gaudiyas. This question about sampradaya etc. has been there from Baladeva Vidyabhushana's time. It was there in 1995-1996 in alt.religion.vaishnav and soc.religion.vaishnava All of which were answered. Let us not deviate from our goal to go back to Krishna. It seems that it has become the saadhana padhati of some to squirm for dirt in the neighbour's house instead of looking at the AnandaMurti Sri Hari situated in one's own house. Your humble servant, Kishalaya

Dear Prabhuji, My humble obeisances! "a) Where is the mention in the Padma Purana of a 5th sampradayam - Brahma Gaudiya based on achintya bhedabheda doctrine ? " Gaudiya vaishnavism is the Brahmaa Sampradaya. Period. "b) Padma Purana compares advaita commentary to milk touched by a serpent's lips. Then how can Sridhara swami's Bhagavata commentary ( who held Sankara's advaita doctrine as the ultimate highest authority ) be accepted in preference to Madhava's ?" This was discussed earlier. However I have also *heard* that Jiva Gosvami rejected whatever parts of the commentary from which no dualistic imports cannot be made out. Please refer this question to "Jiva" in http://www.raganuga.com/d "Philosophical and Theological Discussions" "Tattvavada has an essential doctrine that *ALL* the `svarUpAmsha'-s of the Lord, such as Matsya, Kurma, etc., and the Original (Moola) form are identical in all respects." "The Shrutis such as `neha nAnAsti kiJNchana' and the Brahma Sutra `na sthAnato.api parasya ubhayaliN^gaM sarvatra hi' state clearly that there can not be any difference or gradation in all the forms of the Lord." "i. The two handed from of the Lord Krishna is superior to all other forms of the lord such as Narayana, Vishnu etc." "This is based on a statement in Bhagavata -- "Krishnasthu bhagavaan svayam". According to Jiva Goswami this shloka indicates the primal position of Sri Krishna and all other statements which indicate otherwise should be interpreted to sustain this position." "The other text used by ISKCON is `ahaM sarvasya prabhavo', where `sarva' is interpreted to include other forms of God like Narayana. Though it is admitted that the forms are identical in terms of `tattva' (essence), they differ in `rasa' or more complete manifestation of the capabilities." But The Lord is free to manifest some qualities in one form and not manifest it in others. Non-manifestation does not make one form higher or lower as far as His Lordship is concerned. But some manifestations do produce some execessive and extra feelings in the bhakta which are not presentation towards other forms. To say that there cannot be *any* difference, you will have to reject Bhagavatam or have to re-interpret the verse. And you will have your logic for that interpretation or rejection, which will go back to say that Smriti should not be opposed to Shruti. The argument of authorship by "anonnymous" cannot be accepted. There cannot be everybody who accepts that Bhagavatam is authored by "anonymous", just as there cannot be everybody who accepts that Shruti is authored. If however it is accepted that Bhagavatam is authored by Vyasa, why should we accept somebody else's concoctions to be true explanations of Sruti and BrahmaSutras other than Vyasa's writings themselves. (However considering that this is kaliyuga it is no surprise that people consider themselves superior to Vyasa :-) Therefore the true explanation of 'neha nAnAsti kiJNchana' and the Brahma Sutra `na sthAnato.api parasya ubhayaliN^gaM sarvatra hi' is that All forms of Vishnu are equal in tattva however Krishna is Raseshvara to explain the meaning of "krishnas tu bhagavan svayam" "All these concepts are not only totally against Tattvavada," Gaudiya vaishnavism is Brahmaa Sampradaya, not tattvavada as is known today. "but are classified as major sins (`nava-vidha dveshha' -- indicating the nine forms of hatred of the Supreme Being, by denying His unique greatness and freedom from all defects and limitations) which lead to eternal hell". Non-manifestation does not mean non-existent. We cannot take away the freedom from the Lord in which way He wants to manifest His qualities. To do so itself is a form of hatred towards Sri Hari. Is it not? "The text refers to the colours/forms of the Lord worshipped in the 4 yugas. It has nothing to do with the descent of an avatara on earth." It is very presumptious to say that. On what authority do you make a statement that "it has nothing to do...." If you do not accept, your wish. However in the whole verse krishna varnam tvishaa krishnam sa anga upanga astra parshadam yagyaih sankeertanah praayair yajanti hi sumedhasah I do not see anybody other than the Lord being with angas upanagas astras and paarshads "Its text clearly states that the colour of the Lord worshipped in Kaliyuga will be shining Black." That is your interpretation. "a) How is non-black = Golden , why not Pink etc ?" Why not Golden? "b) How can non-black color give a shining lustre ?" In the same way Sri Daamodar can put the whole universe in His mouth :-) Please refer to the web site given in a previous post about revelation of Gouranga in Srutis *other than* Chaitanya Upanishad. Interpolation and other arguments are not accepted as many works of other aachaaryas quote works which are non-existent today. "4 ) My reply to comment - " For that matter what is the need for the other prasthans?? Let us just dump Shruti and BrahmaSutras and yes, there was absolutely no need for Sri Ramanuja to write The Gita Bhaashya". This was a response to Shivadasa Prabhuji's remark Chaitanya gave "something different" Did the Sri Vaisnava acaryas/Alvars teach or add anything new or different to the shrutis, or Gita ? Their teaching on bhakti, saranagati etc was in harmony with the upanishads, Gita etc. These acaryas wrote commentaries to challenge the advaita school within the perimeters of the shastra. You are confusing philosophy (darsana - advaita, visistadvaita) with sectarian theology (claims to avatarhood, mode of worship etc)." You seem to know the deep and exquisite difference between philosophy and sectarian theology and are willing to go to such extent as to denounce the one who worships your own Lord. fine! Let the Lord decide. Inspite of evidence from shaastra, if somebody is unwilling to accept just because something doesn't fit one's preconceived notion of shaastra and see "something different" with Gouranga. fine! Gaudiyas denounce such because they are filled with envy towards Krishna. No doubt you will also know that Tattvavada will denounce you because you did not put all effort to kick mayavada and caved in to circumstances to put forth a compromised philosophy of Vishishtaadvaita. How can a bhakta's bhakti be harmonious which says prakriti is a part of Sri Hari, however much linuistic gymnastics be used to say that prakriti is not a part still a part of Sri Hari. How can such a thoughts arise. Such thoughts are one of the nine forms of hatred towards The Lord. Such kind of bhakti is to be rejected as weak which compromises the true and pristine pure Lordship of Sri Hari. Such weak sentimentalism cannot be accepted. Advaita will denounce both of you to be weak hearted people who cannot accept the Infinite Truth. Both these apa-sampadrayas twist and turn the direct meaning of shaastra like "aham brahmaasmi" and "tat tvam asi" to such lengths that even a moron will burst out with laughter. " "I quote Kabir das (saint from Varanasi - North India) "Bhakti is the gift of the Dravida saints" " Isn't it very convenient to quote shaastra at one end and somebody who did not recognise the relevance of pouring pages upon pages of meaning less words just to substantiate ones argument from place to place. The following is also Kabir: Pothi padhi padhi jag mua bhaya na Pandit koi Dhaai Akshar prem ka padhe so Pandit hoi "The whole world is pouring pages upon pages of shastra, but none of these are pandits, one who has read the two and a half letters of prema, he is verily a pandit." Your servant, Kishalaya

One should not grind one's own axe taking cue of just one teaching and neglecting others. If Gouranga said "trinaad api sunichena", He also said "maayaavadi bhaashya shunile hoye shorbonaash" As for the Gaudiya siddhanta: sivasya sri-visnor ya iha guna-namadi-sakalam dhiya bhinnam pasyet sa khalu hari-namahita-karah It is an aparadh to separate the Name, Form, Qualities, Lila etc. of the Lord from Himself. The FILTHIEST of the conclusions of mayavada is that the saguna brahman is the product of maya and at the paramaathik (ultimate) level there is no form. Your servant, Kishalaya

My humble obeisances! http://www.akshayapatra.org ISKCON Bangalore's prasadam program is audited by an independent authority. Personally I can say that I served there for 2 months as a totally unqualified bramachari. Their discipline is nothing less than spartan. Your servant, Kishalaya

Dear Prabhu Ji, My humble obeisances to you again! 1. About validity of sampradaya, it has been discussed in my last post, so no need to repeat it again. Suffice it to say that the debate that you say "ongoing" in the dvaita list has been there for the last 8 years of so. 2. It is also a precept of the Madhva school (or whatever it is being propagated nowadays by a few neo-internet-savvy Madhavites) that the *ONLY* valid Sampradaya is that of Madhva. There is *NO* sampradaya like Sri, Rudra or Kumar Sampradaya. You will be hard put to prove the validity of your own sampradaya in the dvaita list simply on the basis of the Padma Purana quotation. ante siddhastu siddhAnto madhvasyAgama eva hi <-- This is what is there in the dvaita homepage. What this means is that one need not accept a dogma simply because it is a hard held belief. Similarly, nothing other than prasthana traya is authority reeks of advaitic concept of arthavada. We have sufficient proof of Srimad Bhagavad's superiority as pramaan, and no the logic is not sva skandha aarohan. It is build from Sruti itself. "The failure to accept the prastana trayam". I fail to see the failure. Gita, Shruti are accepted as authority and there is a bhaashya on BrahmaSutras. However there is no need to confine oneself! 3. I hope that one is not so naive to think that scripture has one meaning. Even if they do as Madhva sampradaya insists, other schools are unlikely to accept. The meaning of "tat tvam asi" of saam veda is being debated for the last 800 years. To say that someone's interpretation is wholesale wrong is to stretch the line too thin. krsna-varnam is "of a black color." But tvisakrsnam means "His luster is not black." For more information on Gouranga and how He is revealed in *all* of shastra: http://gauranga.blogspot.com 4. Please as you wish. However that is not teaching of Gouranga. His mood is "You give me 100 lashes, but I beg you kindly chant Hare Krishna." So PrabhuJi, I beg you please chant "hare Krishna". a. Kindly see the above link. b. Ahem! c. Sri Gouranga and His Paarshads, were no pioneer in Hari Naam Keertan. Ah! All the biographies cry out that! and the final one: "d) Lord Krsna's teaching in the Gita is final and complete. There is no need for another avatar to appear and teach "something different" For that matter what is the need for the other prasthans?? Let us just dump Shruti and BrahmaSutras and yes, there was absolutely no need for Sri Ramanuja to write The Gita Bhaashya. ;-) Bhaja Nitai Gouranga, Your servant, Kishalaya