Kishalaya
-
Content Count
68 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 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
"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!
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:
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
AC Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada works are divine!
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
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