jijaji

Check it out now ..check it out..! http://www.tombofjesus.com/ ;^)>

quote: Recent evidence indicates that Sankaracarya was actually a Vaisnava. His advaita-vada is an integral component of acintya-bhedabheda doctrine. Yea and Lao Tzu was really a moonie..! ;^)>

POP...goes The weasel. Q: Who is the weasel and who is the monkey? ;^)> jijaji

round n round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel....! &)>

Eligibility for Raganuga Bhakti The siddha-deha does not just come falling out of the sky, but must be formed here and now by mental practise. Srila Narottama dasa Thakura sings: sadhane bhavibe yaha, siddha dehe pabe taha raga marge ei sei upaya "Whatever you think of during your sadhana, you will attain in your siddhi-body. Those are the ways of raga marga."(Prema-bhakti-candrika, 57) sadhane ye dhana cai, siddha dehe taha pai, pakkapakka matra se vicara "The treasure I covet during my sadhana I will receive in my siddha body. The only difference between the two is being ripe and unripe. (Prema-bhakti-candrika, 56)" This means that the difference between the struggling practitioner and the siddha is only in quantity and not in quality. That the siddha-deha does not come from out of the blue, but must be formed through constant meditation is also confirmed in Bhagavad Gita, 8.6: yam yam vapi smaran bhavam tyajanty ante kalevaram tam tam evaiti kaunteya sada tad bhavabhavitah "Whatever one contemplates throughout life is what one attains when one leaves the body." In the Srimad Bhagavata (7.1.27) it is said: kitah pesaskrtaruddhah kudyayam tam anusmaran samrambhabhayayogena vindate tatsvarupatam "The caterpillar imprisoned by a wasp in (its nest on) a wall, and constantly thinking of the latter through intense hate and fear, attains the form of the wasp." In the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.295) we find: seva sadhakarupena siddharupena catra hi tadbhavalipsuna karya vrajalokanusaratah "A person who desires loving attraction to his beloved deity Sri Krsna in Vraja must serve in allegiance to the people of Vraja, both in the current practitioner's body as well as in the spiritual, mentally conceived body, which is fit for serving the beloved deity." Mental service must be rendered in the spiritual body in allegiance to Sri Radha, Lalita and Rupa Mañjari and service in the current physical body must be rendered in allegiance to Vraja-people like Sri Rupa and Sanatana, according to the commentary thereon by Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti, as well as in his Raga-vartma-candrika. In the Caitanya-caritamrta, (Madhya, 22.154-155): bahya antara ihara dui to sadhana bahya - sadhaka dehe kore sravana kirtana mane - nija siddha deha koriya bhavana ratri dine kore vraje krsnera sevana "There are two kinds of practise - external and internal. In the external practitioner's body the nine devotional practices of hearing, chanting, praising, deity worship etc. are performed and in the mentally conceived spiritual body one renders mental service to Krsna in Vraja day and night." This siddha body should be received from the guru, according to Sri Gopalaguru Gosvami (disciple of Vakresvara Pandita, personal servant of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and first mahanta of the Gambhira Matha in Puri), Dhyanacandra Gosvami (disciple of Gopalaguru Gosvami) and Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura (last chapter of his book Harinama-cintamani), who was the father of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Sri Jiva Gosvami says in his Bhakti-sandarbha (283) on initiation: divyam jñanam hyatra srimati mantre bhagavatsvarupajñanam tena bhagavata sambandhavisesa-jñanam ca "Initiation bestows on the disciple not only the mantra, that is God's very form, but also knowledge about his specific relation with Him." In the Bhakti-sandarbha (321) Sri Jiva Gosvami says: saksadvrajajana-visesayaiva mahyam srigurucaranair madabhista-visesa-siddhyartham upadistam bhavayami "I meditate on the specific form of one of Krsna's associates in Vraja, which my Sri Guru-carana has instructed me in, so that I can attain my specifically desired siddhi." We must assume that this means a little more than the self esteem of: "I am a 20-year old book distributor for Krsna on a parking lot," however devotional this may be. Modern Gaudiya Math acaryas desperately try to escape from the above scriptural evidence by saying: "yes, but nowadays nobody is qualified for siddha-pranali anymore." To this can be said (1) that Bhaktivinoda wrote his Jaiva-dharma and Harinama-cintamani in the 20th century, not the 16th and (2) the Bhagavata (11.5.38) states: kalau khalu bhavisyanti narayana-parayanah, "throughout the age of Kali there will be Vaisnavas." 16 b) Raganuga bhakti is not only for perfected souls beyond the stage of anartha-nivrtti. In the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.5) Rupa declares that there are two kinds of sadhana (after first explaining that sadhana-bhakti means practise with the senses, by souls that are still conditioned)- vaidhi and raganuga, and nowhere it is said that raganuga bhakti is a post graduate state of vaidhi bhakti. In the Caitanya-caritamrta (Madhya 22.108) Kaviraja confirms this: ei sadhana bhakti dui to prakara eka vaidhibhakti - raganuga bhakti ara "There are two kinds of devotion in practise. One is called vaidhi bhakti and the other raganuga bhakti." There is no mention of the latter's being a culmination of the former. Krsnadasa also declares (C.c., Adi, 4.231-237) that, although raganuga bhakti is indeed a confidential topic, it must still be discussed, for otherwise no one would be able to enter into this knowledge. In the Srimad Bhagavata (10.33.36) we find that Krsna performed the Rasa-lila out of compassion for all conditioned souls and that anyone who hears it becomes a devotee. Sri Jiva Gosvami teaches us in his Vaisnava-tosani comment on this verse: ataeva tadrsabhaktaprasangena tadrsih sarvacittakarsinih krida bhajate, yah sadharanir api srutva bhaktebhyo 'nyo 'pi janas tatparo bhavet. kim uta rasalilarupam imam srutvetyarthah. vaksyate ca: vikriditam vrajavadhubhir idam ca visnoh (S.B. 10.33.39) ityadi. yad va, manusam deham asritah sarvo 'pi jivas tatparo bhavet, martyaloke sribhagavadavatarat tatha bhajane mukhyatvac ca manusyanam eva sukhena tac chravanadisiddheh "Krsna performs this all-attractive game for His devotees, but even ordinary people are attracted to this game by hearing about it. Even they thus become exclusively devoted to the Lord. There is no doubt about this, and it will be further explained in verse 10.33.39. The words manusam deham asritah also indicate that the jivas that attained a human form are able to hear of this game and thus become devotees. The Lord descends on the human planets and it is here that the worship of the Lord assumes its most important form. Hence human beings can blissfully attain perfection by hearing of this game." In the S.B. (10.33.39) one hears that the senses do not become sexually agitated by hearing or reading of the Rasa-lila, but rather that they become freed from lust: vikriditam vraja-vadhubhir idam ca visnoh sraddhanvito 'nusrnuyad atha varnayed yah bhaktim param bhagavati pratilabhya kamam hrdrogamasvapahinotyacirena dhirah "Anyone who faithfully hears and describes the pastimes of Lord Visnu (Krsna) with the ladies of Vraja (the gopis) will attain supreme devotion to God and will soon become free from the heart's disease of lust." Sri Jiva Gosvami comments as follows on this verse: sraddhaya visvasenanvita iti. tad viparitavajñarupaparadhanivrttyartham ca nairantaryartham ca. tacca phalavaisistyartham, ataeva yo 'nu nirantaram srnuyat. athanantaram svayam varnayec ca, upalaksanam caitat smarec ca. bhaktim premalaksanam param srigopikapremanusaritvat sarvottamajatiyam. pratiksanam nutanatvena labdhva; hrdrogarupam kamam iti bhagavadvisayah kamaviseso vyavacchinnah, tasya paramapremarupatvena tadvaiparityat. kamam ityupalaksanam anyesam api hrd-roganam. anyatra sruyate (srigita, 18.54): "brahmabhutaprasannatma na socati na kanksati, samah sarvesu bhutesu madbhaktim labhate param." ityatra tu hrdrogapahanat purvam eva paramabhaktipraptih. tasmat paramabalavad evedam sadhanam iti bhavah. "Sraddhanvita means hearing with faith. This word is used to avoid the offence of disbelieving or disregarding the scriptures - that is contrary to the principles of hearing and chanting. The highest devotion is that of the gopis and hearing and chanting of their devotion is so powerful that this supreme devotion appears in the heart even before the heart's disease of lust is chased out of it. This despite the verse 18.54 of the Gita, which shows an opposite sequence. This shows that hearing and chanting of the Rasa-lila is the most powerful sadhana in existence." In other words, saying: "Don't read Rasa-lila unless you are free from sex desire" is like saying "Don't take the medicine unless and until you are cured." How will you get cured without taking the medicine? Sri Prabodhananda Sarasvati says in his Vrndavana-mahimamrta (4.38): yam yam rupavatim navinatarunim lavanyalilakala- madhuryair munimohinim anuratam bhavotsavavyañjanim tam tam viksya sa thutkaroti paramam divyam api sphuritam sriradhapadakinkaripada-nakha-pranto 'pi yasyatmani "A person in whose heart even the borders of the toenails of Sri Radha's female foot-servants have arisen will spit in disgust when he sees even the most beautiful young, elegant, playful artistic girl, whose sweetness may bewilder even great sages, and who causes a festival of loving feelings." There is no guarantee at all that someone who practises vaidhi bhakti is automatically promoted to raganuga bhakti, rather Srila Rupa Gosvami says in his Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu: krsna-tadbhakta-karunya-matra-labhaika-hetuka, "only by the grace of Krsna and His devotees is this path of raganuga bhakti attained." The bhavas or feelings that come forth from the two different paths (vaidhi and raganuga) are totally different (see the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, 1.3.7-14) and so are the kinds of prema (love) (see Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, 1.4.5-8). By reading the books of the Gosvamis, the seed of raganuga bhakti can be sown. If we were not allowed to read them because we are still conditioned, then they were written for nothing, for how can you become free from conditioning without having read them? This is described in Srila Rupa Gosvami's Padyavali: krsnabhaktirasabhavita matih kriyatam yadi kuto 'pi labhyate tatra laulyam api mulyam ekalam janmakotisukrtair na labhyate "No ten million lifetimes of following regulative principles will give you taste for Krsna-bhakti. The only price is greed! Purchase it as soon as it is available anywhere!" It is on sale where the rasika bhaktas speak about Radha-Krsna. In connection with the above sloka, to use the saying "Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread" is an offense to Sri Rupa Gosvami and all his followers, calling them fools. This 'fools rush in' is a mundane saying which only applies to mundane impulsive people and their actions. Srila Visvanatha Cakravartipada teaches in his Raga-vartma-candrika (1.5): napi lobhaniyavastupraptau svasya yogyayogyatvavicarah ko 'py udbhavati, "no candidate ever considers whether he is qualified for this path of raganuga bhakti or not." One cannot learn vaidhi bhakti from the guru and then just learn raganuga bhakti from books, because one's guru did not teach one raganuga bhakti. One should take both initiation and teachings from a raganuga guru (asambhasya tadbhavagambhiracittan kuto syamasindho rasasyavagahah says Raghunatha dasa Gosvami: "How can one enter into the Syama-ocean without having conversed with a devotee whose heart is steeped in love for Radha?") 16 c) Bhaktisiddhanta's self-styled theory 'first maranam (death of the ego) and then smaranam (remembering Krsna's pastimes)" is also contrary to the teachings of the Gosvamis. Srila Narottama dasa Thakura sings in the Prema-bhakti-candrika: sadhana smarana lila, iha na koriho hela "Do not neglect the sadhana (practise, not perfection) of smarana." Again the reverse order: First smarana, then marana, not 'first get cured and then take the medicine." And not just smarana, Srila Narottama dasa Thakura even goes further to specify yugalavilasasmrtisara, "the essential smarana is of the amorous pastimes of Radha and Krsna." 16 d) The idea that "Radharani's name can only be sung on Radhastami" is refuted by Srila Prabodhananda Sarasvati in the Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi (144): radhanamaiva hy anudinamilitam sadhanadhisakotih, "millions of sadhana are fulfilled by daily singing the holy name of Radha." Srila Narottama das Thakura sings: krsna-nama radha-nama upasana rasa-dhama, "singing Krsna's name and Radha's name is the most tasty spiritual practise," jaya jaya radha-nama vrndavana jara dhama krsna-sukha-vilasera nidhi, "all glories to the holy name of Radha that has its abode in Vrndavana and forms the ocean of Krsna's blissful game," and the next couplet, ihate vimukha yei, tara kabhu siddhi nei, yeno nahi suni tara nama, "anyone who is against this will never reach perfection. Let us not even hear their names." 16 e) Some say that Krsna and the gopis only kiss and caress, but do not have actual sexual intercourse. However, the Brahma-samhita says angani yasya sakalendriya-vrttimanti, Krsna performs all sensual activities. Furthermore, Srila Sanatan Goswami writes in his commentary on Srimad Bhagavata 10.14.33 and in his Brhad Bhagavatamrta-tika (2.7.99): nanu na bhavatu pumsam upasthendriyadvara tat gopinam kila saksadeva sampadyate iti cet tarhi dharstyapariharaya, "Of course, male people of Vraja do not relish Krsna's sweetness through their genitals, but the gopis certainly have direct experience of that. Brahma, however, was too shy to mention that." In the Srimad Bhagavata (10.8.31), the elderly gopis complain: evam dharstyany usati kurute mehanadini vastau, "Krsna is so impudent to pass urine in our houses." How can He urinate without genitals? Also in the Bhagavata (10.22.17) it is said: panibhyam yonim acchadya "The gopis covered their sexual organs with their hands." In the Bhagavata at 10.55.2 we find: krsnaviryasamudbhavah "Pradyumna came forth from Krsna's semen." 17) Doing bhajana is not selfish, or acting purely for one's own liberation. To understand this, one first must understand what is the self. Srimad Bhagavata (10.14.55) says: krsnam enam avehi tvam atmanam akhilatmanam, "Krsna is the Self of the selves." The whole preceding story of Krsna's calves and cowherd boyfriends being kidnapped and His expanding Himself into them, and then the mothers and the cows loving their (the Krsna-expanded) boys and calves twice as much as their own offspring, is meant to demonstrate this. In other words, bhajana is done to please Krsna, who is our highest Self, and not to reach personal salvation. The Vedanta-sutra states: anandamayo 'bhyasat, "everyone seeks happiness." For the same reason, the aspiration to relish rasa is not a selfish one. Indeed, Srila Rupa Gosvami has stated in the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu that the goal of bhakti sadhana is to relish rasa: samagripariposena parama rasarupata (2.1.4) vibhavair anubhavais ca sattvikair vyabhicaribhih svadyatvam hrdi bhaktanam anita sravanadibhih esa krsnaratih sthayi bhavo bhaktiraso bhavet (2.1.5) praktanyadhuniki casti yasya sadbhaktivasana esa bhaktirasasvadas tasyaiva hrdi jayate (2.1.6) ... bhaktanam hrdi rajanti samskarayugalojjvala ratiranandarupaiva niyamana tu rasyatam (2.1.9) krsnadibhir vibhavadyair gatairanubhavadhvani praudhanandacamatkarakastham apadyate param (2.1.10) kimtu prema vibhavadyaih svalpair nito 'pyaniyasim vibhavanadyavastham tu sadya asvadyatam vrajet (2.1.11) "Along with these ingredients it becomes the form of highest rasa. This relishable rasa is brought to the hearts of the devotees by vibhavas, anubhavas, sattvikas and vyabhicari bhavas through the practises of hearing, chanting etc. Those who have had the aspiration for devotion in this life and in previous lives, will have the relish of bhakti rasa awakened within the heart. When these two samskaras or cultivations of devotion (from this life and the previous life) reside in the hearts of the devotees it will culminate in the experience of rasa in the form of rati ananda, with the help of vibhavas (incitements) such as Krsna. Then the summit of astonishment and ecstasy will be achieved. Although very small incitements will bring forth very meager relish, this relish will come to full fruition of relish through proper practise." Preaching is not a greater service to Krsna than contemplation. The often (mis-)quoted verse ya idam paramam guhyam madbhaktesvabhidhasyati (Gita, 18.68) contains the words madbhaktesu, proving that this verse describes Krsna-katha amongst the devotees, not disturbing of the minds of the ignorant, which is condemned earlier in the Gita (3.29, tan akrtsnavido mandan krtsnavin na vicalayet), and which is also an offence to the chanting of the holy name (asraddadhane vimukhe 'pyasrnvati yas copadesah sivanamaparadhah). Furthermore, the aforementioned Gita verse (18.68) mentions the words paramam guhyam which means the greatest secret, pearls that are not to be thrown before swine. How do the conditioned souls become devotees then? The Katha Upanisad (1.2.23)provides the answer: nayam atma pravacanena labhyo na medhaya na bahuna srutena yam evaisa vrnute tena labhyas tasyaisa atma vivrnute tanum svam "God cannot be attained by preaching lectures, nor with the intelligence, nor by hearing a lot of scripture. He is attained only by him upon whom He confers His grace. To this person He will reveal His transcendental body." Subsequently, those who think: "I am making devotees", or "He has made so many devotees" is bewildered by false ego. The Bhagavad Gita (3:27) says: ahankara vimudhatma kartaham iti manyate, "Those who are bewildered by false ego think: "I am doing things." The verses in sastra that glorify or encourage preaching and preachers are for those who are on that level of mentality and realisation. Unfortunately most preachers are after labha, puja and pratistha - money, worship and distinction. 18) The origin of the jiva is not the spiritual, but the material world: There is ample evidence in the Srimad Bhagavata (2.9.10): pravartate yatra rajas tamas tayoh sattvam ca misram na ca kalavikramah na yatra maya kim utapare harer anuvrata yatra surasurarcitah "In Vaikuntha there is no mode of passion, darkness or even mixed goodness, there is no power of time, and there is no maya (who can pull the devotee out of the spiritual world)." In the Srimad Bhagavata (4.28.52) it is mentioned that the jiva was with God, but according to Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti in his Sarartha-darsini commentary the jiva meant there only merged with Him as Mahavisnu during the universal dissolution. Sri Jiva Gosvami declares the same in his comment on Srimad Bhagavata, verses 4.28.54 and 64: svasthah pradhanikavesarahitah san tad vyabhicarena purvam isvarakhyahamsabahirmukhataya nastam tirohitam smrtim janasi api kim sakhayam mam ityapi smarasi catmanam avijñatasakham ityatra purvoktam sakhyanusandhanam punarapa iti. atra punahsabdena smrtisabdena tadvismrter nasadikhandanam vivaksitam kintu anadyavrtasyapi sakhyasya svabhavikatvad anaditvam ityeva krtahanyakrtabhyagamaprasangat. "Being svasthah means 'being free from the possession of material nature" tad vyabhicarena means 'not devoted to the swan called isvara. Because of this the memory was lost - nastam. Punar apa means 'regained the consciousness of friends' as was stated in words such as janasi kim sakhayam mam (4.28.52). Here the use of the words punah and smrtih is to indicate the disappearance or destruction of forgetfulness. But that forgetfulness is certainly beginningless although the friendship, which is also covered without beginning, is natural." In the Srimad Bhagavata (6.5.11) we find: bhuh ksetram jivasamjñam yadanadi nijabandhanam, "the earth is a field known as the jiva who has been conditioned since beginningless time," and again (11.2.37): bhayam dvitiyabhinivesatah syad isad apetasya viparyayo 'smrtih, "the apeta, or turning away from God by the jiva, is anadi, beginningless, and that also accounts for fear bhaya. Asmrti means, according to Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti, not forgetting Krsna, but one's own spiritual nature. Viparyaya means taking something for what it isn't, like identifying oneself with the body, which one is not. More evidence is provided by Srimad Bhagavata (11.11.4) ekasyaiva mamamsasya jivasyaiva mahamate bandho 'syavidyayanadir vidyaya ca tathetarah Sri Krsna tells Uddhava: 'Although I am one, O highly intelligent one, it is in relation to the jiva alone, which is a reflection of Mine, that bondage has existed from beginningless time and it is in relation to the jiva alone that the other state (liberation) is brought about through spiritual knowledge." In the Srimad Bhagavata (11.11.7) we find: yo 'vidyaya yuk sa tu nitya-baddho vidyamayo yah sa tu nitya-muktah. "The ignorant soul is eternally bound and the soul filled with knowledge is eternally free," and in the Vedanta-sutra (2.1.35): na karmavibhagad iti cen nanaditvat. "If someone says that the theory of karma cannot explain the inequality within the world, because everyone must have had the same karma in the beginning of creation, then that is not true, for karma is beginningless." In the Mandukya Upanisad (1.9) is the statement: bhogartham srstir ity anye kridartham iti capare, devasyaisa svabhavo 'yam aptakamasya ka sprha. "Some say that He created the world for His enjoyment and others say for His play. That is simply His nature. He is, after all, Self-satisfied - which desires has He left to fulfill?" and (1.16): anadimayaya supto yada jivah prabudhyate, ajam anidram asvapnam advaitam budhyate tada - "When the living entity, who is sleeping the beginningless slumber of illusion, awakens, he realises the unborn, unsleeping, undreaming non-dual truth." [Neither of these citations are in the Mandukya Upanisad. Their source is currently unknown. - Ed.] Sri Jiva Gosvami writes in his Paramatma-sandarbha (46): tadevam ananta eva jivakhyas tatasthah saktayah. tatra tasam vargadvayam. eko vargo 'nadita eva bhagavadunmukhah anyas tvanadita eva bhagavatparanmukhah. svabhavatas tadiyajñanabhavat tadiyajñanabhavac ca. "There are innumerable spirit souls and they are the marginal potency of God. There are two classes of them: one class is favorable to God from beginningless time, and the other class is turned away from God from beginningless time. The first class is naturally full of knowledge and the other is without knowledge." In the Caitanya-caritamrta, (Antya, 3,72-74): prabhu kahe sab jiva mukti yabe pabe ei to brahmanda tabe sab sunya habe haridasa bale 'tomara yavat martye sthiti tavat sthavara jangama sarva jivajati sab mukti kari tumi vaikunthe pathaibe suksma jive punah karma udbuddha karibe sei jiva habe iha sthavara jangama tahate bharibe brahmanda yena purva sama Mahaprabhu said: "If all the conditioned souls would attain liberation the world would become empty." Haridasa replied: "As long as You are in this mortal world You will liberate all the mobile and immobile creatures and send them to Vaikuntha. Then You will again engage subtle (dormant, new) living entities in further fruitive activities, and these mobile and immobile living entities will fill the world up like before" This is in line with Visnu-dharmottara Purana (1.81.12): ekaikasmin nare muktim kalpe kalpe gate dvija abhavisyajjagac chunyam kalasyader abhavatah "Because time has no beginning, the world would be empty by now if only one person per kalpa had been liberated." Markandeya answers (1.81.13-14): jivasyanyasya sargena nare muktim upagate acintyasaktir bhagavan jagat purayate sada brahmana saha mucyante brahmalokam upagatah srjyante ca mahakalpe tadvidhas capare janah "When someone is liberated, the Supreme Lord, who has inconceivable potency, creates another jiva and and thus always keeps the world full. Those who attain Brahmaloka become liberated along with Brahma. Then, in the next kalpa, the Lord creates similar beings." Sri Jiva says in the Priti-sandarbha (1): atha jivas ca tadiyo 'pi tajjñana-samsargabhava-yuktatvena tanmayaparabhutah san natmasvarupajñanalopan mayakalpitopadhyavesac canadisamsaraduhkena sambadhyate iti paramatmasandarbhadav eva nirupitam asti. paramatmavaibhavaganane ca tattatasthasaktirupanam cidekarasanam apy anadiparatattvajñanasamsargabhavamayatadvaimukhyalabdhacchidraya tanmayayavrtasvasvarupajñananam tayaiva sattvarajastamomaye jade pradhane racitatmabhavanam jivanam samsaraduhkam ca jñapitam. "Although the jiva is part of the Lord, he is without knowledge of Him and this deficiency has no beginning. Because of this he is covered by maya. Thus he is united with the beginningless material miseries because his knowledge of his svarupa is covered and he is absorbed in false designations. From beginningless time he is bereft of knowledge of the Supreme truth and thus he has attained the fault of aversion towards God, whose maya covers over his knowledge of his constitutional position and fills him with feelings created by maya, consisting of sattva, rajas, and tamas. This was explained in the Paramatma-sandarbha (47): tatparanmukhatva-dosena labdha-chidraya mayaya paribhutah, where labdha, the attainment, must be considered without time sequence, anadi as stated above. In the Bhakti-sandarbha (120) Jiva quotes from the Vasanabhasya: mukta api prapadyante punah samsaravasanam yady acintyamahasaktau bhagavaty aparadhinah "Offenders to the Lord will again get material desires, even if they are liberated souls." Here the word punah means 'again', which proves that this verse does not apply to eternally liberated souls who fall from the spiritual world. The aparadhis (offenders) mentioned here are the mayavadis that are described in Srimad Bhagavata (10.2.32): aruhya krcchrena param padam tatah patanty adho 'nadrtayusmadanghrayah. But this does not count for the bhaktas, as is described in the next verse (10.2.33): tatha na te madhava tavakah kvacid, bhrasyanti margat tvayi baddha-sauhrdah. Srila Jiva Gosvami comments (Bhakti-sandarbha, 120): yatha purve arudhaparamapadatvavasthato 'pi bhrasyanti, tatha tavaka margat sadhanavasthato 'pi na bhrasyanti, kimuta mrgyat tvatta ityarthah. Mayavadis fall down even from the stage of perfection, but even in the stage of sadhana Your devotees do not fall down, what to speak of after attaining You?" According to Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti's commentary on Srimad Bhagavata (3.7.10): tatra bhagavatah prsthasthitaya anadyavidyaya tamahsvarupaya anadivaimukhyarupabhagavatprstha-sthanam jivanam jñanam yal lupyate tasya na vastutvam karanam napi prayojanam kim apy asti. "Ignorance, which is beginningless, is situated on the Lord's back. She covers the knowledge of the jivas who are situated on the Lord's back and are non-devotees. Their non-devotion is anadi. There is no real reason or purpose for their knowledge being covered." Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti's commentary on Srimad Bhagavata (10.87.32) also shows no jivas that have fallen from the spiritual world: te ca meghopamaya avidyaya avrta baddhajiva eke anye bhaktimajjñanena tadavaranonmukta muktajivah anye kevalaya pradhanibhutaya va bhaktya tadavaranonmocitaprapitacidanandamayabhajanopayogisarirah siddhabhakta anye avidyayogarahita eva nityaparsada iti caturvidhah "There are four types of jivas: 1. baddha - those under the influence of the avidya potency. 2. mukta - those liberated from the covering of avidya through bhakti, but who have not yet attained a spiritual body. These are also called jivanmuktas or liberated while living in the material body. 3. siddha - those who have attained a siddha-deha on the strength of bhakti. These are called baddha-muktas or those liberated after being in bondage. 4. nitya-parsadas - those eternally free from contact with ignorance. They never become conditioned, and are also called nitya-siddhas or nitya-muktas." In his comment on Bhagavad-gita (13.20) Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti declares that the conditioning of the conditioned souls is beginningless: mayajivayor api macchaktitvena anaditvat tayoh samsleso 'py anadir iti bhavah. "Illusion and the conditioned souls are both My energies. They are both beginningless and they have been interconnected since beginningless time as well." The word dvesa in Bhagavad-gita (7.27) does not mean envy of Krsna, for you cannot be envious of someone you don't know. In the Brhad-bhagavatamrta Sarupa calls himself a newcomer, nutna (2.6.359): dure 'stu tavad varteyam tatra nityanivasinam, na tisthed anusandhanam nutnanam madrsam api, and later (2.6.366): tallokasya svabhavo 'yam krsnasangam vinapi yat, bhavet tatraiva tisthasa na cikirsa ca kasyacit. "Nobody desires to leave Goloka." Assuming that previously fallen jivas who return to the spiritual world are superior to those who have stayed, because they are shocked by their experience, is not just a speculation, but also an offence to the nitya-muktas. This presupposes that it is better to fall down than to stay and that the 'returners' can anyway remember their ordeal in the material world when they return. That would make devotion out of fear of punishment greater than spontaneous loving devotion, and would make the spiritual world into a concentration-camp. Regarding free will, this is gradually given up in the course of surrender. A siddha-bhakta will never misuse this free will because his surrender is irreversible. When the sadhana-siddha jiva attains the spiritual world he remembers nothing of the material world, for his subtle body has been dissolved through the transcendental process of bhakti. Regarding the fall of Jaya and Vijaya: The feeling of enmity they acquired for the Lord was not because of the Kumaras' curse, but by the will of the Lord. Even so, the Lord did not consider them His enemies. He just wanted to enjoy fighting with them. One should not think that Jaya and Vijaya chose to become the Lord's enemies so that they could finish the curse quickly, because great devotees like them do not desire even salokya mukti without bhakti. And with bhakti they are willing even to go to hell (Bhag. 3.15.48: natyantikam viganayanty ...) They wanted to please the Lord by fighting with Him, but they did not literally choose to become the Lord's enemies so that they could give pleasure to Him. Such a desire is undevotional. Srila Jiva Gosvami further says that their inimical feelings were not real but feigned (abhasa). They entered into demoniac bodies but remained untouched within. As far as Citraketu is concerned, although he offended mother Parvati, he did not fall into material life. Even in a demon's body, as Vrtrasura, he recited wonderful prayers to the Lord. In conclusion: there is no scriptural evidence for the jivas' falling from the spiritual sky. It is not supported by the acaryas, not by our acaryas, nor by those of any other sampradaya. The spiritual world would not be Vaikuntha, the fearless abode, nor would it be free from maya. 19) Loud japa is not better than mental japa. In the Haribhakti-vilasa the Narasimha Purana and Yajñavalkya are cited (17.155-159): trividho japayajñah syat tasya bhedan nibodhata vacikasca upamsusca manasasca tridha matah ... mantram uccarayed vyaktam japayajñah sa vacikah ... kiñcicchabdam svayam vidyad upamsuh sa japah smrtah ... upamsuyuktasya tasmacchataguno bhavet sahasro manasah prokto yasmad dhyanasamo hi sah "There are three kinds of japa - vocal, muttering and mental. Loud chanting of the mantra is called vocal japa, whispering is called upamsu and mental chanting is called manasika japa. Whispering is a hundred times better than loud japa and mental chanting is a thousand times better. This is equal to meditation." 20) There is no santa-rasa in Vraja; the animals and non-moving species are not in santa rasa. Mahaprabhu proclaims in Caitanya-caritamrta that He makes the three worlds dance in four rasas (cari bhava bhakti diya nacaimu bhuvana), not in five. Hantayam adrir abala haridasa varyah (Bhag. 10.21.18) confirms that mountains like Giriraja are in dasya-rasa. The cows in Vraja are in vatsalya-rasa (see the Bhagavata Canto 10, Chapter 13). The statement vamsi priyasakhi from the Brahma-samhita prove that even the flute is in madhura-rasa. 21) Regular devotees are not addressed with prabhu. eka mahaprabhu, ara prabhu dui jana (C.C.): "There is only one Mahaprabhu and there are two prabhus (Nitai and Advaita)." Of course, great acaryas or eternal associates of the Lord are sometimes called prabhu, but this title has never been used for ordinary devotees. 22) That Gopinatha stands for prayojana, Govindaji for abhidheya and Madanamohana for sambandha is a speculation of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. There is no difference between the three. From Bhajana Kutir Website.... jijaji ;^)

By Rt. Rev. Michael Robinson May 18, 1995 Introduction Peace be with you and welcome to the Essene mystery school.We will commence with a study of the Essene aspects of the historical development of what came to be known as Christianity. We live in an infinitely complex universe, filled with unimaginable potential. The amount of information we have available to us in the 20th century is incredible. Information once secret and hidden, is now in public domain. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, at the end of the 1940’s, doors have been opened to students of religion, undreamed of since the early centuries of the Christian era. And in fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls offer a look into the communities from which Christianity emerged, information never before available. Seekers of knowledge can learn (for now) without the fear that haunted for so many years, the free thinkers who wanted to Know, rather than to accept blindly the religion of others. From its inception and through its development, Christianity has meant many things to many people. Despite the attempt of various groups to solidify it into one doctrine, the story of Jesus is not likely to have been viewed exactly the same by any two people. At no point in history has the Christian faith stood as a singular form of thought, without various interpretations. There is no one religion that stands apart from the others as a repository of all truth. They all interact with each other, absorbing the wisdom of the past into the needs of the present. Despite the extensive amounts of research relating to the evolution of the Gospels, the average person is still ignorant of the difference between the historical and the mythical. This organization of Essenes is an eclectic group of Truth seekers. We study and accept the aspects of Truth within the doctrines of the various teachers and religions of the world, but we do not worship them as Gods. Our devotion is singular and directed to the Most High creator God (Yahweh Elohim) the All Parent and Divine Universe. And we express this through our reverence to the Essene/Nazirene Master Yahushua the Messiah of the Spiritual Israel, and True Teacher of the Way. To us he is the embodiment of Love, Peace and Compassion, and the world teacher of Righteousness. After he left the planet, the seed planted grew, and the spirit of his being, already endowed with the power of the Messiah, absorbed the allegorical truths embodied in the universal mysteries of the Christ. In the “Gospel of the Holy Twelve” Yahshua teaches; “ Truth, One and absolute, is in God alone, for no man, neither any body of men, knoweth, who is the All in All. To men is Truth revealed, according to their capacity to understand and receive. The One Truth hath many sides, and one seeth one side only, another another, and some see more than others, according as it is given to them... Be faithful to the light ye have, till a higher light is given to you. Seek more light, and ye shall have abundantly; rest not, till ye find. God giveth you Truth, as a ladder with many steps, for the salvation and perfection of the soul, and the truth which seemeth to-day, ye will abandon for the higher truth of the marrow. Press ye unto Perfection. Whoso keepeth the holy Law which I have given, the same shall save their souls, however differently they may see the truths which I have given...Faith without charity is dead. Love is the fulfilling of the Law.”Lec.XC As already stated, from the beginning there was never just one interpretation of the teachings of the Messiah. The Master himself often taught his disciples individually according to their capacity, and the missions for which they were being prepared. If we could look at the Gospels as literal historical fact our job would be easier. But this is not possible, the Gospels contain too many deviations from the history of the 1st century, as well as obvious signs of tampering. Understand, the Gospels contain much in the way of valuable history, but not all of what is said can be taken as fact. What the Gospels offer, is a synthesis of Spiritual Truths drawn together from the ancient world. These doctrines of evolving religious Truth were then brought to life in the person and teachings of the Messiah Yahushua. However, many facets of the historical life of the Messiah were replaced by the allegorical life of the spiritual savior, who had been evolving in the hearts of humankind. For two thousand years Christian have worked, on one hand to enlighten the world with the doctrine of Love, while the other hand sought to dominate those that followed and eradicate those who would not. With the exception of Mystic Christianity, most Christians took on a very limited and prejudiced view of the worlds religions. Determined to show that Christianity was the only true faith, they proved themselves wrong with each act of forgery, repression and censorship. No one individual or group has the monopoly on the truth, if Buddha, Krishna, Mithras, Bacchus and Osiris teach many of the same truths, and in some cases, lived remarkably similar lives to that of Jesus Christ, wouldn’t the rejection of the mysteries of one nullify the truth of the other? We offer thanks to the Almighty wherever we find truth, but we recognize that it is the Truth eternal that we revere not the package in which it is wrapped. If the world chose to concentrate on the Unity of the Truth inherent to most of the world’s religions, the walls of separation would come down. Differences of interpretation and expression should be seen as personal prerogative (within the boundaries of the True Law, such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), not as reasons to subvert the fundamental principles of those Laws (such as, harming those who will not surrender to forced indoctrination). The Sacred Names In his writings, the great Jewish historian Josephus relates that the Greeks had a penchant for changing Hebrew names into Greek format without concern as to the loss of meaning. Hebrew words are designed as mathematical constructs which set off vibrational patterns relative to the nature of the words. The Greek format, therefore, did not necessarily represent the same meaning as the replaced Hebrew words. The Messiah was born to a Hebrew culture, speaking Aramaic and being called by name in that language. It is most unlikely that the Messiah would have been called Jesus in his life, as that name developed over time. It is probable that the name Iesous (the Greek form of the name Jesus) was not used, in relationship to the Messiah until the middle of the 1st century when Paul (who had changed his name from the Hebrew Saul) began preaching the “Gospel” to the Gentiles in Greek. It is reasonable to believe that other Evangelists from the Nazirene community would have commenced (by the end of the 1st century) teaching the gospel in Greek to their fellow Hebrews of the Diaspora (the dispersion of the Hebrews from Egypt to India), but it seems unlikely that they would have changed the Saviors name.. To his people the Master was born, Yehushua Ben Yoseph (Joshua son of Joseph, in English). The name Yahushua, rendered more simply, over time as Yehshua, translated means Savior from Yahweh. Hebrew is read from right to left, the first three letters of both names are the same. (Insert Hebrew Charactures) Yahweh is the tetragramaton YHWH the fourfold name of the Most High as revealed in the Old Testament. Around the time of their captivity in Babylon (about 500 B.C.E.)the Jews determined that the tetragrammaton was to sacred to be pronounced, it is at this time that the sacrificial system gained dominance in the religion of the Jews. Since it is our belief that the sacrificial system of bloodshed is against the Law of God, it is easy for us to see why use of the Sacred Name in relation to such a cult would be blasphemy. I doubt many Jews made such a connection, but some did. Because of the aversion of the Jews to speak the Sacred Name the Master would probably have been called Yehshua or Yeshua by his people, but we believe that he is the Messiah so the correct pronunciation would be Yahushua. The Essenes felt that the Sacred Name was ineffable and spoke it only in their holiest ceremonies. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the writings identified as particularly Essene, the names El and Elohim are used most often for the name of God. EL - (God singular) Signifies God as the “First Great Cause of all, the Mighty One, the Most High”. (occurs about 250 times in the Bible) ELOAH - (God singular “Presents God as the supreme object of worship” (occurs about 56 times) ELOHIM - (God, plural of Eloah) “In the beginning Elohim created the Heavens and the Earth” “And God said, Let Us make man (plural) in Our image (singular). (occurs about 2500 times) JEHOVAH - (The Lord) Signifies “He that always was, that always is, and that ever is to come.” (occurs about 7000 times) EHYAH ASHER EHYAH - (I am that I am) Literally “I will be that I will be” “The Ever-existing One” EL SHADDAY - “God Almighty or God All Sufficient” (occurs 48 times) From the preface of “The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible” Names of the Most High replaced in the Bible ,by the appellations God or Lord In the Qabalistic table of correspondences relating to the Hebrew alphabet (from, A.Crowley, Liber 777), Yod is “the Virgin man. Secret seed of All. Secret of the Gate of initiation.” the Father, He’- “The Mother is the Daughter.” Vau- “The Sun. Redeemer. The Son is but the Son.” and the finial He’- “The Daughter is the Mother. In the Hermetic writings of A.E. Waite, “One is Being, two is Movement, three is Life - one is Mind, two is Thought, three is Word.” The four resumes the second (feminine) principle and brings about the first whole and perfect number, bringing balance and Unity to the Tetragramaton. The name then equates numerically to the four elements and the four cardinal directions. Many still feel the Name is too sacred to speak, most don’t know it at all, and a few believe that it is time to restore the true name of the Most High. As to the latter, they believe in being specific, feeling that the Sacred Name was wrongly hidden, and call into question the use of ambiguous terms like lord which could refer to any deity. Is the Tetragramaton the Sacred Name of the Most High? Should the Name be spoken? My research has only taken me far enough to say, that as the commandment teaches we should never use the Sacred Name in vain or idle conversation. By using terms like Most High, and Almighty, or as the Essenes did, El and Elohim we can indicate that we are speaking about the highest concept of the God head without using ambiguous titles, or inappropriately using the Sacred Name. Would the Almighty reveal the Sacred Name if we were not to know or use it in our worship? The answer would seem to be, to use Reverence and Respect. The Teutonic appellation of God is a generic name for deity; when capitalized it relates to the supreme being, but this is a descriptive term and not the name of the Most High. We should be clear in our hearts and minds, and in our dealings with others as to who our Heavenly Parents (plural form of a singular concept) are, and what the true name of the Savior is. The Greek name for Jesus, Iesous (Savior), shows a remarkable similarity to the masculine form of the name of the healing goddess Iaso, pronounced Ieso in Ionic Greek. There is also a strong connection with the names of the sons of Zeus (Iasus, Iasion, and Iasius). Another spelling of the name is Ihsous, the IHS became associated with Iesous as Savior of humanity, but IHS was already a title of Bacchus. The Romans further corrupted the name to Iesus, which was later altered to Jesus after the letter J was added to the English Language, about 500 years ago. The Master said “I come in my Fathers name”, in Hebrew this connection is easy to see, as shown above. If the name of the savior in Greek contains the name of the Father, what would it be? Io the healer\savior, or the name distinguished by sound sus, sous, or Zeus. Could Jesus then be the - savior from Zeus? Or is it just a name meaning savior in Greek? This may be stretching things a bit too far, but it is noteworthy. In the name Yahushua we find the first three principles of the Tetragramaton; Yod the Father, He’ the Mother, Vau the Divine child. The Shin and Ayin represent the word Shua, or Savior. Therefore the name Yahu-shua could be translated; the Divine child of the All-Parent, who is Savior and Redeemer. The Savior’s Title In Hebrew the Masters title is Mashiach (Anointed) In Aramaic it is Mesiha, the Greek transliteration is Messias which is translated as Christos. The title Christos however, was closely associated with Chreston, Chrestos, and Krista, which were already in use referring to pagan deities such as Osiris, Mithras, and Krishna. Early orthodox writers even went so far as to directly call the followers of Jesus, by the name Chrestoi. It would seem no small coincidence that the name Jesus and the title Christ both have so many similarities to the names of the pagan deities they meant to replace, or should we say assimilate. In esoteric doctrine, the Christ is the Love and Wisdom of the Most High, waiting to be unveiled in the hearts of each individual. The Christed One embodies a perfect balance of the male and female energies, and represents the compassion of the Most High for all creatures, human and animal. In recent times corrections were made, names like Eliseus, Isaias, and Helias (remarkably similar to Sun deity Helios), were restored to a form closer to the original Hebrew, Elisha, Isaiah, and Elijah. But the incorrect name and title of the savior were retained. It is reasonable to accept that both Yahushua Messiah and Jesus Christ existed in their own right. The Nazirene Yahshua, as supported by history, was a man justified by righteousness, a healer, teacher and mystic, nonviolent vegetarian communitarian revolutionary, showing humankind the Way to Life. Touched by the hand of the Most High at the Baptism, he was blessed by the indwelling Word and elevated to the office of Messiah, that he might fulfill the Law. The Jesus Christ of the 2nd century gospels, particularly Luke, while developing the evolved indwelling or Christ spirit, prepared the way for Gentile interpreters to assimilate the myths, and rituals of numerous pagan sun deities into the story of Jesus. Thus the gospel was made more acceptable to the gentile converts, leaving behind the historical Yahshua. By the beginning of the 2nd century pressures of the pagan world had not only altered the message of the True teacher but had also become hostile to the Nazirene followers of the Way, and to the Jews in general. Through folklore, forgeries and a liberal interpretation of history the doctrines of the “Great Church” were formulated, the Gentile Jesus Christ came into prominence, and the Nazirene followers of the Messiah were denounced as heretics. The Virgin Birth As we believe that all things are possible with the Most High, the birth story of the Gospels could most certainly be true. However, the direct followers of the Messiah knew nothing of this miraculous birth, and this included his family. None of the Nazirene sects believed in the Gentile version of the virgin birth, as is made clear in the writings of the early Church Fathers. To better understand a few questions should be asked. First, why would the Most High place the “Hand Maid of the Lord” in such a compromising situation? She could have easily ended up stoned to death or ostracized for conceiving out of wedlock (a serious taboo in that time and place). If Mary was the ever virgin, as told to us in the early Infancy narratives, having proved herself a virgin before her family and the Priests in Jerusalem, how is it that no one remembers this when the Master begins his ministry? Next, why would the Elohim want to work outside of an already miraculous creation? Each of us are the product of three converging lines. The genetics of the Father the genetics of the Mother join together to create a being who’s the culmination of all their ancestors, going back to the beginning (if such can be found). So each new being has a part within them, of all who came before them in their bloodline. To this being is joined the Soul which is sent by the Holy Spirit of the Most High, to continue its process of evolving. Each of us then become the product of the seed of humanity and the seed (Soul) from the Holy Spirit. It would therefore seem unnecessary for the Almighty to subvert creation, because the specially evolved Soul (Son) can be placed in the desired material form according to the Will of the Creator. If the virgin birth took place as mentioned in the Gospels, why did the early Church Fathers of the 2nd-4th centuries have to support it with forgeries? Works such as the Protevangelium of James, and Pseudo Matthew, (which probably contain a small amount of real history), were so poorly constructed that they are more useful for disproving then proving the virgin birth. The original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as well as the Gospels of Mark and John have no such birth stories. Only in the Greek Matthew (written for Hellenized diaspora Jews and reformulated at the beginning of the 2nd century) and Luke (compiled and readapted about the same time and specifically formulated for a Gentile audience) do we find such a birth. Why are the direct followers of the Messiah ignorant of this birth while 2nd century Gentile Christians uphold the concept so vehemently? It would seem that the answer related to the audience being addressed. Apart from the mistranslation of the word virgin in Isaiah (which meant young women, as opposed to a woman that has not had sexual relations), there are no virgin births in Hebrew stories or history, nor was such an event expected in that way. In fact the Hebrews showed a strong interest in generation. However, in the Gentile pagan pantheon many savior gods were born of virgins, such as Mithrus, Horus, and Bacchus. Even Zoroaster was virgin born. Since the feminine aspect was removed from the God head by the early Church Fathers, Mary was elevated to fill the position of the Goddess, particularly replacing Isis. It is Isis the Queen of Heaven, who gives us the mystery of the virgin birth, for although she gave birth to all living things, foremost being the Sun, she remained forever a virgin. The name of Isis in Hebrew is the Yod followed by the Shin and Ayin or Shua (savior). It is our contention then, that the virgin birth was adopted by the early Christians for the benefit of pagan converts. In the same way Old Testament scripture were applied to Jesus to prove his Messiahship, numerous attributes of various Sun deities were incorporated to prove that Jesus was also Sol Invictus, the Unconquerable Sun, and Christ. Taking the middle ground, in his book “The Secret Teachings of All Ages” Manly Hall writes, “It is by no means improbable that Jesus himself originally propounded as allegories the cosmic activities which were later confused with his life”. Thus Jesus became superior to both the Hebrew Messiah and all past Sun deities, by fulfilling all the prophecies as well as all the mysteries of the Sun, and being (at least in part) a real person. This is not an attempt to discount the miracle of the Messiah’s birth, but sometimes with deep reflection that which is considered ordinary contains the greatest mysteries of all. Nazir Evidence indicates Yahushua the Messiah was born in Palestine, to Mariam and Yoseph, towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great, about 7 B.C.E., to a sect of Essene’s, or followers of the Way. It cannot be clearly determined whether the appellation Nazarene was related to a sect that the Master was born into, such as the Nasaraeans, or as later history reveals, to a religious party, based on Davidic Messianic followers of the Way, or perhaps both. It should be noted, that no historian of the time mentions anything about a town of Nazareth, this includes Josephus who carefully mapped the entire area during the revolt of 64-73 A.D.. In fact no such town was known until the 8th century. Professor Szekely in his book “The Essene Origins of Christianity”, points out that “the Greek text says Nazeraios or Nazarenos,” inhabitants of a town would be called, “Nazarethanus”. (Keep in mind that the Hebrew alphabet does not use consonants so NZR and NSR are the forms being used.) The Professor goes on to say that “ecclesiastical scribes knew the origin of the word and were well aware that it was not derived from Nazareth. On the contrary, they knew very well that Nazareth was taken from the word Nazir.” Nazir-holy ones, Nasi-prince, Nasar-obedient ones, Nozrei ha-Brit the keepers of His Covenant, and Nozrim, the Hebrew terminology denoting the followers of Yahshua, all are sect names for a holy people, indicating that later scribes were trying to cover the connection between Yahshua and his Essene predecessors. The reason for this becomes apparent in the 4th century when the Catholic Church decided that Jesus as God was, therefore the source of all Christian teaching. This is blatantly false (as already shown by the pagan myths which encrusted early Christianity), and only appeared to be true after an extensive eradication program carried out by the Romans over a number of centuries. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it has become obvious that most of the teachings of Yahshua were derived from the Essenes, whose various communities had already put into practice the life style which the Master taught. There is no doubt that the Messiah brought originality to the teachings, and deviations from mainline Essene thought, but the Way underlying his message was well established. If the Nazirene title relates to the birth of Yahshua, we should investigate the Nasaraeans, the church father Epiphanies, writing early in the 4th century, in his “Panarion”, against heresies, gives us a picture of this sect. (Epiphanies actually does history a favor in many respects, in his arrogant and often hostile polemics against the branches of the Christian tree, he actually passes on some valuable historical information, which otherwise would have been lost or destroyed). The Nasaraeans were Jews by nationality, had acquired circumcision and kept the Sabbath. “They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received legislation, not this legislation, however, but some other. And so though they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, they would not offer sacrifices or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claimed that these books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers.” Also important, is that this sect was active, according to Epiphanies, prior to the Christian era. Whether the Master was born to this group or not is, of course debatable, however a continuity of thought between this group and other Essene groups can be made, and an association between them and the “Followers of the Way” very conceivable. Many scholars associate the Nasaraeans with the Mandaeans. The Mandaeans were followers of John the Baptist, who had left the Jerusalem area before the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.), most likely during the persecutions by the Saulian gestapo (About 36-37 A.D.), and began to migrate east. Over the centuries they evolved, absorbing Persian ideas and most probably coming into contact with the Elchasaites, whose book of “The Hidden Power” seems to have influenced many of the so called Jewish Christians sects. Eventually the Mandaeans ended up in Iran where they still exist in this century. The priest class of the Mandaeans are still called Nasoraeans “observants”, even to this day. Whatever the origins of the Mandaeans, we must concede a movement that considered John as a Messianic figure. A movement presenting enough of a challenge to the Christian movement to necessitate the need for the writer of John’s Gospel, at the end of the 1st century, to categorically place the Baptist into a secondary position after Jesus. If the Nasaraeans are connected to the Mandaeans and thus to Yohanan (John the Baptist) who was a cousin of Yahshua, a connection can be established to support a Nasaraean relationship to Yahshua, by virtue of his family ties with Yohanan. As already noted, the first followers in Jerusalem, under the direction of Yahshua’s brother Yacob (called James) were called Nazorenes. It could very well be that the term came into use during the ministry of Yahshua (Branch Davidians). Due to the linguistic anomalies already outlined it seems unlikely that the town of Nazareth existed as it is portrayed in the gospels. It seems more likely that the Nazirene’s community was named after the Nazir’s, rather than they being named after a town. The sight of present day Nazareth shows signs of having been occupied in one form or another from 900 B.C.E. to 600 A.D., so a community of Nazirenes could easily have lived there. And certainly after the Messiah began his teaching, Nazirene communities grew up in the areas where the disciples taught. The Immaculate Conception The birth of Yahshua, as foretold, is the mystery of the Immaculate conception. In a book on the secret sects of Syria, the Masonic writer Bernard Springett quotes from an ancient document; “But Jehovah prospered the seed of the Essenians, in holiness and love, for many generations. Then came the chief of the angels, according to the commandments of GOD, to raise up an heir to the voice of Jehovah. And in four generations more, an heir was born, and named Joshua, and he was a child of Joseph and Mara, devout worshippers of Jehovah, who stood aloof from all other people save the Essenians.” Accordingly, Essene prophets who were attuned to the will of the Almighty, by virtue of their Holy meditations and their lifestyle of Righteousness, prepared for generations, the arrival of the Messiah of Peace. Genealogies were consulted and candidates were chosen and raised to a holy life. Pure diet, free of the taint of death and blood, as well as training in the Essene mysteries, brought forth children of a Holy nature, from which new candidates were chosen. Legend tells us Mariam was raised in a Temple with a group of these chosen virgins. As the stars had foretold the coming of the Piscean age, Mariam was joined with Yoseph, a rightful heir in the line of David his father. By the selection of the Most High through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel,(perhaps speaking through an Essene priest, who worked as a channel) the human couple prepared the seed for the growth of a highly developed soul, sent to bring Light into the darkness of the world. The Star and the Magi On May 29 of the year 7 B.C.E. the first phase of a planetary conjunction took place and was visible throughout the Mediterranean. On October 3rd, the Jewish Day of Atonement, the second stage signaled the time for the holy men of Mesopotamia to prepare for a journey to the East. As the summers heat began to wane, the final calculations were verified for the time of the third and final conjunction. Preparations were made and the journey of the Wise men to Palestine, began. Who were these Chaldean Wizards? They had to have been Astrologers and Philosophers, as well as students of the Hebrew Prophecies. Perhaps the Gospels description of the Kings is the best we can do. However, I don’t believe that it would be improbable to consider that our Wise men were, or had some connection with diaspora Essenes, who saw in the stars the fulfillment of their Prophecies. We can at least expect that the Essenes of Palestine were watching the astrological events with anticipation. On December 4th 7 B.C.E. the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and Mercury came together for the third and last time in the constellation of Pisces. Since Saturn is the ruling planet of the Hebrew people (according to astrologers) and this conjunction signaled the commencement of the Piscean Age, which was the advent of the Messiah, it is quite reasonable to assume that this conjunction sets the stage for the Star of Bethlehem. There is still much debate among scholars as to the date of the birth of the Messiah. The 25th of December is a date highly suspect due to its connection with a number of saviors from mythology. Other dates have been argued, but none fit into the framework of history and science as well as the Planetary conjunction in the constellation of Pisces. The Early Years We are told little, by the Gospels, of the early years of the life of Yahshua. One of the first events is the flight to Egypt, to escape the wrath of Herod. This is the story of the “slaughter of the innocents”, although history left no record of the murder, which wiped out a generation of the male descendants of David in Bethlehem, it was certainly within the character of Herod the Great to have done such a thing. It is of great interest to us that the family of Yoseph fled to Egypt were a large community of Essenes, called Theraputae, existed. This is the only time the Gospel records take the Master out of Palestine. Evidence has arisen in the last couple of centuries to support the idea that Yahshua traveled and studied the world’s religions. In the 1880’s the Russian explorer Nicolas Notovitch uncovered a scroll in Tibet pertaining to the life of Issa. The Tibetans considered this to be an incarnation of the divine Buddha, who was born in Palestine and later traveled to India. Notovitch discovered this to be a story of the life Jesus. He made a copy to bring to the world. This was not received, however, with open arms. In the “Gospel of the Holy Twelve” the training of Jesus is described; “And Jesus, after he had finished his study of the law, went down again into Egypt that he might learn the wisdom of the Egyptians, even as Moses did. And going into the desert, he meditated and fasted and prayed, and obtained the power of the Holy Name, by which he wrought many miracles. And for seven years he conversed with God face to face, and he learned the language of birds and of beasts, and the healing power of trees, and of herbs, and of flowers, and the hidden secrets of precious stones, and he learned the motions of the Sun and the Moon and the Stars, and the powers of letters, and the mysteries of the Square and the Circle and the Transmutation of things, and of forms, and of numbers, and of signs.” This sounds like a well rounded Essene education. This Gospel goes on to say, “And after a time he went into Assyria and India and into Persia and into the land of the Chaldeans. And he visited their temples and conversed with their priests, and their wise men for many years, doing many wonderful works, healing the sick as he passed through their countries.” It is of course not necessary for Yahshua to have traveled the world, the Essenes could have provided the necessary training. By the beginning of the 1st century the Essenes of Palestine had evolved enough to know the basis of the Truth of the worlds transcendental Religion. Whether the Essenes had adopted Zoroastrian, Pythagorean elements, as Dr. Larson suggests, or whether Zoroaster and Pythagoras, learned from the tablets of Enoch, long held by the Essenes, as suggested by the translator of the “Book of Enoch”, Richard Laurence, the result is the same. The Essenes (circa, 200 B.C.E. to 70 A.D.), had become a storehouse of sacred learning. If the Master had traveled, first hand experience with other teachers and adepts of the great religions, would have been obviously beneficial. Other legends have Yahshua traveling the Mediterranean in the company of his Uncle Joseph of Arimathea, who was a wealthy tin merchant, with holdings all over the known world. The debate about the travels of Yahshua can not be solved conclusively with the information presently available to us. But we can consider as fact, that the Essenes had advanced knowledge of healing, agriculture, astrology, philosophy, and spirituality. The Essenes had grown over the centuries, absorbing the Truth wherever they found it, as well as developing the mysteries passed down to them for generations. In the finial analysis it would seem that the bulk of Yahshua’s learning came directly from the Essenes. The Ebionites, sect of the poor, were the descendants of the Jerusalem church and the Nazirenes. The Ebionite Yahshua, was the True Prophet, the new Moses bringing into fulfillment at Golgotha the covenant of Sinai, the only one to completely fulfill the law. Yahshua fulfilled the law, not as the Son of God but as Son of Man. Thus consecrated for Messiahship he was endowed with the power of God and in the “waters of baptism was called the Son of God”. Yahshua son of David after the flesh, Son of God after the indwelling of the spirit at the baptism. In the earliest versions of the baptism story, after the descending of the spirit, a voice from heaven proclaims, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, this day have I begotten thee.” The Nazirene/Ebionite communities clearly knew nothing of a supernatural birth and rejected the idea of Jesus the vicarious atoning sacrifice. The Nazirene Yahshua could not have taught these, nor would his followers have supported the pagan love for blood sacrifice and virgin born gods. They understood the true nature of the sacrifice made by the Son of Man. To Yacob and the early church, the risen Yahshua was the “apocalyptic angelic figure of the Son of man who comes down out of the clouds of heaven, the one who brings the era of salvation, will come again to judge the living and the dead.”

"Well personally I don't buy it. Many traditions speak of their civilizations that have spanned far greater time frames than the Judaic 5000 year boundary. But we live in a Western dominated world. These Christians were the bringers of civilization not the recipients of it." I don't buy it either...but keep in mind this massive world-domination campain of Christianity was the result of the original church teachings being highjacked by the ROMANS. The Church became the outlet for the Romans conquer and destroy tendency...while they repressed the original teachings. The Essenes and other mystical groups hold that Jesus(Yoshua)traveled to India. Muslims make that same claim. He also had contact with the Tibetian Buddhists. ;^) jijaji

When I see both sides start with the .. "Oh, I'm laughing..Ha Ha"..I'll be laughing all day" ... etc... It's just another way of saying **** off! I think shvu certainly has held his own in this debate with solid material that seems to rattle Satyajis cage. He certainly is more educated in advaita tenents than Satya....who is not willing to budge an inch from thinking that his camp has a monopoly on knowing the REAL INSIDE SCOOP ON ALL RELIGIONS OUTSIDE THEIR CAMP! Satya....I cannot believe your latest postings, it shows a lack of integrity on your part! You are posting unauthentic unresearched material in a haphazard manner. You are posting ANYTHING that opposes period. Don't you care? jijaji ;^(

NAGA SANNYASIS & THE KUMBHA MELA { Video } - Sannyasi initiations at Haridwar Kumbha Mela. Before time was counted, long before the appearance of man, the gods & the demons put aside their eternal battles for a moment, & collaborated in churning the ocean of milk for the nectar of immortality. When this nectar was finally produced, & before any of the demons save one could taste it, the son of the chief of the gods stole the vessel or kumbh , containing the nectar & took off in the sky chased by just about everyone. During his flight four drops fell to earth. Those places where the drops fell are still today considered among the holiest of all pilgrimage spots inIndia. Thay are Haridwar, Prayag (Allahabad), Ujjain & Trambak (Nasik). At those times of JupiterÕs reurn in the heavens to itÕs position when each drop was spilled in each locality, a Kumbh Mela is held for at least 30 days. During this period, there are several auspicious times, based on the sky, for religious bathing , ritual, & most important, initiation. This is by far the largest gathering of human beings on earth. On the most auspicious bathing day in Prayag, 1995, sixteen & a half million people gathered at the confluence of the Ganges & Yamuna Rivers for a holy bath, & over 45 million people visited the place over a 30 day period. In Haridwar,1998, over 8 million pligrims bathed in a single day. But the single greatest attraction at the Kumbha Mela, what draws the millions of Indians is not even their holy Ganga , but the sight of the Naga Sannyasis , the ancient order of naked yogis maintaining a tradition so old, that it is lost in the mist of another age. The masses are mermerized, awed, & even frightened by the august sight of tens of thousands of majestic renunciates , yogis, & shamans wearing ashes for clothes, wrapping marigolds in their long tresses of matted hair piled on top of their heads like crowns, marching in the Royal Procession to the Bath, escorting their spiritual preceptor, the three headed god, Dattatreya. They are the Nagas, meaning the Ônaked onesÕ, belonging to an order founded by Dattatreya (a naked philosopher not totally unlike the Greek Diogenes) in the Treta Age (a long long time ago), & finally organized into a sect by Adi Shankara in the 5th century BC. They see themselves (as many Indians do ), as the ultimate protectors of the Sanatana Dharma, or what we call the Hindu religion, but in fact, what they call the natural order of the universe. They are cherged with ultimately maintaining the law of nature. Going through the door of initiation into Sannyas or the state of renunciation, an ordinary person, a householder, becomes a denizen of another world, a mythic world, wher different laws are in effect, & becomes transformed into a different kind of being, an almost mythological being with mythological powers, sometimes performing miracles, certainly mythologically capable of such thingss consistent with the laws of his extraordinary world. He joins the world of gods & demons, & is a member of a family not determined by blood & genes, but by esoteric tradition, the mystical genes coming fron Dattatreya. The ÒmatingÓ, the ÒprocreationÓ, & the ÒempowermentÓ of these ÒfamiliesÓ exclusively takes place at a Kumbha Mela. I have been a member of the Naga Sannyasis for the last 30 years, the only foreigner ever to be an initiate & member of Juna Akhara , the oldest & largest grouping of the order. As such, I have taken my initiations at the Kumbha Mela, & have participated in 12 Melas. As the approach of the 21st Century has had itÕs eroding effects on the order, as it has on all traditional societies around the world, I am driven to show the world an anachronism, one of the last glorious manifestations of an age long passed, of a mythology quickly beibg replaced by Disney, & a tradition spawned from a very ancient gene. ©2000 Rampuri.

Jagatji, I find the dude shvu interesting as well..! He's got Satya Sweetrice skirtin around and around and around! (I have not forgotten Charan Das Babaji material) ;^) jijaji

Animesh says; "Again to Satyarajadas ji, You give some similarities between philosophies of Sankaracarya and those of Gautam Buddha to prove that Sankaracarya's philosophy was nothing new. As you have yourself written, "To copy right his doctrine Sankara named it kevaladvaita-vada, pure non-dualism, just to make a new market to the same old wine sold by Gautama Buddha." But at the same time you have also given many similarities between teachings of Sankaracarya and those of many Vaisnava acaryas. But you don't believe that Vaisnava acaryas have just given different names to their philosophies to "make a new market to the same old wine sold by Sankaracarya". Why? ** Checkmate! ;^) jijaji (Animesh..I have used this user name for years sorry)

why?

shvu.. Could you please give details of the Bhaja Govindam verses claimed to have come from Shankara. How it came to be attributed to Shankara etc. ;^)> jijaji

It also seems that Acarya Sankara actually could not defeat Buddhists at his time. Sri Sivanatha-siromani's Sabdartha-mañjari sheds light on Sankara Acarya's life history. There we read that Sankaracarya was eventually defeated in scriptural debate by a Tibetan Buddhist lama, who was at that time a famous jagat-guru among the Buddhists. Before commencing the debate they vowed that the loser would give up his life by falling into a vessel filled with boiling oil. Acarya Sankara finally admitted defeat, and actually gave up his life as they had agreed. In this way, Sankaracarya, an effulgent flame in this world, departed in 812 A.D. being defeated by a Buddhist. I just can't get over this post Satyaji...you honestly don't believe this yourself do you?? ;^)

satay says; "Do you know if there are ritviks mayavadis, Jijaji?" most likely.....watch out! ;^)

Satya says; "Most of your questions are showing that you do not have a proper initiation into any real Advaita-vada school, and therefore you are only a free lancer, trying to understand transcendental matters with no transcendental direction at all. They do not deserve any answer because they are ridiculous. If you want to understand Sankaracarya, at first you should take shelter at his parampara." Excuse me...Satya there are Gaudiya Vaishnavs who claim that you have no proper diksha into an authentic Sampradaya within Sri Chaitanyas school and we can argue about that until the cows come home! So try some other approach other than you are not properly initiated to understand! ha ha .. Regarding Shankara being boiled a pot...sounds like you been smokin some ;^) You are getting creamed in this debate I hope you know, regardless if you accept it or not..! ;^)

It is also important to remember that the development of both mahAyAna buddhism and vedAnta took place more or less simultaneously, and within the same larger geographical area. It would be foolhardy to expect that there would not have been some interaction between the two most powerful streams (brAhmaNa and bauddha) of Indian philosophical thought. It is clear from the history of Indian philosophical thought that both brAhmaNa and bauddha sides held steadfastly to their basic axioms, although the individual systems within each stream held diverse opinions on various philosophical issues. On the whole, it seems as if reading too much mahAyAna buddhism into the GK is jumping to conclusions. This is not a chauvinistic defense of advaita vedAnta with respect to buddhism. I only want to point out that there are many subtle points which make the two systems very different, although both systems describe Reality as being beyond name and form. It would be well to remember that the converse criticism, i.e. that mahAyAna buddhism is but vedAnta clothed in buddhist colors, has been addressed by as early a buddhist writer as bhAvaviveka (6th century CE).

quote: -- It also seems that Acarya Sankara actually could not defeat Buddhists at his time. Sri Sivanatha-siromani's Sabdartha-mañjari sheds light on Sankara Acarya's life history. There we read that Sankaracarya was eventually defeated in scriptural debate by a Tibetan Buddhist lama, who was at that time a famous jagat-guru among the Buddhists. Before commencing the debate they vowed that the loser would give up his life by falling into a vessel filled with boiling oil. Acarya Sankara finally admitted defeat, and actually gave up his life as they had agreed. In this way, Sankaracarya, an effulgent flame in this world, departed in 812 A.D. being defeated by a Buddhist. -- Satya...why you post such craziness? This makes you look like a quack! ;^) jijaji

couldn't resist..... from The Advaita Vedanta Homepage GAUDAPADA gauDapAda is the first historically known author in the advaita vedAnta tradition, whose work is still available to us. He may be said to be the pioneer of the ajAti vAda school in advaita vedAnta. gauDapAda is traditionally said to have been the guru of govinda bhagavatpAda, who was the guru of SankarAcArya. Not much is known about gauDapAda, the person. The name gauDa indicates that he was a north Indian by birth, and many places, from Kashmir to Bengal, have been postulated as his home. The sArasvata brAhmaNas of Goa and northern (coastal) Karnataka, who are said to have immigrated from north India, trace the lineage of the Kavale maTha to gauDapAda, but not through SankarAcArya. However, one branch of the sArasvata brAhmaNa community is affiliated to the citrapura maTha, the lineage of which is traced through SankarAcArya, while yet other (gauDa) sArasvata groups are followers of the dvaita school. gauDapAda composed the gauDapAdIya kArikAs (GK), which constitute an expository text on the mANDUkya upanishad. The GK is divided into four books (prakaraNas), titled Agama-prakaraNa, vaitathya-prakaraNa, advaita-prakaraNa and alAtaSAnti-prakaraNa respectively. The kArikAs of the first book are traditionally found interspersed with the prose passages of the mANDUkya upanishad, while the other three books are separated from the body of the upanishad. Other works that are attributed to gauDapAda are: sAm.khyakArikA bhAshya, uttaragItA bhAshya, nRsimhottaratApanI upanishad bhAshya, and a couple of works on SrIvidyA upAsanA - subhAgodaya and SrIvidyAratnasUtra. There is a lot of controversy in modern critical scholarship about the identity and the philosophy of the author(s) of the GK. Thus, there is one opinion that each book is probably written by a different author. And there is another opinion that all books are written by the same author. [1] One author traces connections between gauDapAda's kArikAs and the later pratyabhijnA school of Kashmir Saivism. [2] From the various vedAnta schools comes another kind of controversy. According to the advaita school, all four prakaraNas are writings of a human author named gauDapAda, and are therefore not regarded as Sruti, even though the first prakaraNa is found interspersed with the sentences of the mANDUkya upanishad. According to the dvaita school, however, 27 kArikAs of the first prakaraNa are not compositions of a human author, and are therefore as much Sruti as the prose passages of the mANDUkya upanishad. The most notorious controversy about the GK is about the influence of mahAyAna buddhism on its author. Curiously enough, even those rival vedAnta schools which criticize advaita as pracanna-bauddham (buddhism in disguise) do not quote the GK to substantiate their criticism. However, among modern scholars who are interested in studying Eastern philosophies such as advaita vedAnta and mahAyAna buddhism, this has been a hot topic for debate. [3] It is clear that the GK has been written in the context of a vedAntic dialogue with various schools of mahAyAna buddhism, more prominently the yogAcAra and madhyamaka schools. GK IV (alAtaSAnti prakaraNa) refers to the mahAyAna school of buddhism as agrAyana. Moreover, the very metaphor of the alAtacakra is a peculiarly buddhist one. The alAtacakra is a burning firebrand that is waved in a circle, creating an impression of a continuous circle of fire. It is interesting to note here that gauDapAda characteristically inverts the use of the buddhist metaphor. The buddhist uses the metaphor to insist that the impression of a continuous circle is an illusion, there being nothing more than the momentary spatial positions of the burning brand. Hence, from the buddhist prespective, it is plainly an error to see the burning circle as having any svabhAva - "own-nature". gauDapAda on the other hand points out that the burning brand is itself the substratum of its momentary spatial positions and the illusion of a burning circle caused by waving the brand. Hence, according to him, even if the burning circle is an illusion, its svabhAva is nothing other than that of the burning brand. Seen in context, the entire discussion in the GK seems to be a continuation of the age-old svabhAva vs. nihsvabhAvatA and Atman vs. nairAtmya debates between vedAntic and buddhist schools. According to Sankara's commentary on these kArikAs, gauDapAda uses buddhist metaphor and buddhist terminology to come to vedAntic conclusions regarding the ultimate existence of the Atman = brahman as the substratum (adhishThAna) of all experience. That he speaks the buddhist language does not mean that he is a buddhist in disguise. Moreover, it is not very surprising that gauDapAda, a vedAntin, is very familiar with buddhist doctrine. Tradition recounts that the famous pUrva-mImAm.saka, kumArila bhaTTa, learnt from bauddha and jaina teachers, with a view to understanding their schools before he wrote his own works on mImAm.sA. Besides, by its very nature, classical Indian philosophical writing proceeds by means of demarcating one's own position from that of another's, pointing out where they are similar and on what issues they differ. An intimate knowledge of the other's philosophical system is necessary for such refutation to take place. The contention of some modern scholars that gauDapAda's philosophy is nothing more than buddhism clothed in vedAntic colors is based on two errors, that do not do justice to either mahAyAna buddhism or to advaita vedAnta. The first and the more serious error lies in interpreting the madhyamaka concept of SUnyatA as an Absolute, equivalent to the Atman or brahman of vedAnta. A careful reading of nAgArjuna's mUlamadhyamaka-kArikAs and other works shows what pains the madhyamaka school takes to avoid the extreme of absolutism (SAsvata-vAda). While the buddhist ajAtivAda maintains, "There is no birth," gauDapAda's argument about ajAtivAda says, "There is an Unborn." Thus, gauDapAda clearly upholds the Atman as the absolute. For nAgArjuna, no view is correct, because every view ultimately entails some absolutist positon, an extreme that is avoided by the buddhist middle path. gauDapAda, on the other hand, is inclusivistic in his scope. He argues that every view entails an absolutist position, and precisely for this reason, all views are said to be non-conflicting (avirodha) with the absolutism of advaita. There are other points of contrast. For nAgArjuna, there is no need to affirm a substratum (adhishThAna) of phenomena, whereas for gauDapAda, the Atman is the substratum of all experience. The madhyamaka non-duality is in terms of the emptiness (SUnyatA) of all phenomena, while in the vedAnta view of non-duality, phenomena are possible only due to the essential reality of the Atman, which is pure consciousness. The madhyamaka school does not describe SUnyatA as an independent absolute entity, whereas the advaita vedAnta emphasizes brahman/Atman as an Absolute. In the light of these significant differences, seeing nothing but mahAyAna buddhism in gauDapAda's advaita vedAnta is impossible without seeing madhyamaka buddhism itself through vedAnta-tinted glasses. As for the other schools of buddhism such as vijnAnavAda, the madhyamaka school itself criticizes them for holding views that entail consciousness as an Absolute. gauDapAda possibly agrees with this evaluation of the vijnAnavAda school. The second error lies in ignoring the fact that advaita vedAnta no doubt developed to a substantial degree before the time of composition of GK IV. Already in the paingala upanishad of the Sukla yajurveda, which Sankara quotes in his bhAshya, there is a detailed exposition of non-duality through the method of adhyAropa-apavAda, (sublation of superimposition). With Sruti being interpreted in this way, advaita vedAnta, with all its "illusionist" conclusions, follows very naturally: the ultimate reality of only the substratum is upheld, and the superimposition is denied an independent reality. Obviously, gauDapAda hails from this vedAntic tradition, and in his kArikas, he addresses his contemporary mahAyAnists. It is also important to remember that the development of both mahAyAna buddhism and vedAnta took place more or less simultaneously, and within the same larger geographical area. It would be foolhardy to expect that there would not have been some interaction between the two most powerful streams (brAhmaNa and bauddha) of Indian philosophical thought. It is clear from the history of Indian philosophical thought that both brAhmaNa and bauddha sides held steadfastly to their basic axioms, although the individual systems within each stream held diverse opinions on various philosophical issues. On the whole, it seems as if reading too much mahAyAna buddhism into the GK is jumping to conclusions. This is not a chauvinistic defense of advaita vedAnta with respect to buddhism. I only want to point out that there are many subtle points which make the two systems very different, although both systems describe Reality as being beyond name and form. It would be well to remember that the converse criticism, i.e. that mahAyAna buddhism is but vedAnta clothed in buddhist colors, has been addressed by as early a buddhist writer as bhAvaviveka (6th century CE). #:-0>......now we's rockin!! jijaji

From The Advaita Vedanta Home Page FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Q;What is the relationship between advaita and buddhism? Is advaita a mere copy of buddhism? A;No, advaita is not a mere copy of buddhism. For a few centuries now, advaita has been criticized as being "pracanna bauddham" - buddhism in disguise. This criticism stems mainly from some of the vaishNava schools of vedAnta, but it is misplaced. Firstly, there is no one "buddhism" and for the criticism to be valid, it must be specified which school of buddhism is being referred to. SankarAcArya expends a lot of effort criticizing many of the philosophical positions taken by various schools of buddhism in his commentaries. Among modern academic scholars, advaita vedAnta is most often compared with the madhyamaka and yogAcAra schools of buddhism. This has been inspired mainly by the fact that the mANDUkya kArikAs, written by gauDapAda, Sankara's paramaguru, exhibit a great familiarity with this school of buddhism. However, if it is held that advaita vedAnta is essentially the same as madhyamaka buddhism, it must be pointed out that such a view stems from a misunderstanding of the important tenets of both advaita vedAnta and madhyamaka buddhism. There are many key details in which advaita differs from the madhyamaka school of buddhism. As for yogAcAra, the points of similarity arise from the fact that both advaita vedAnta and yogAcAra buddhism have a place for yogic practice, as do other schools of Indian philosophy. For further details, consult http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html. Q;Why is advaita sometimes referred to as mAyAvAda? A;The word mAyAvAda serves many purposes. Since advaita upholds the identity of the individual Atman with brahman, a doubt naturally arises about the origin of the variegated universe. The appearance of difference in the universe is attributed to mAyA. In popular parlance, mAyA means illusion, and a magician or a juggler is called a mAyAvI. Within advaita, mAyA has a technical significance as the creative power (Sakti) of brahman, which also serves to occlude, due to which the universe is perceived to be full of difference, and the unity of brahman is not known. Some vaishNava schools use the word mAyAvAda in a derogatory sense. However, this criticism interprets mAyA solely as illusion and criticizes advaita for dismissing the world as an illusion that is nothing more than a dream. Such a criticism neglects the philosophical subtlety of the concept of mAyA in advaita. @> ....groovey baby!

Below is some of Prabupada's own words about Mayavadis and Shankara...! Krishna Consciousness--Hindu Cult or Divine Culture? There is a misconception that the Krishna consciousness movement represents the Hindu religion. In fact, however, Krishna consciousness is in no way a faith or religion that seeks to defeat other faiths or religions. Rather, it is an essential cultural movement for the entire human society and does not consider any particular sectarian faith. This cultural movement is especially meant to educate people in how they can love God. Sometimes Indians both inside and outside of India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not. One will not find the word "Hindu" in the Bhagavad-gita. Indeed, there is no such word as Hindu in the entire Vedic literature. This word has been introduced by the Muslims from provinces next to India, such as Afghanistan, Baluchistan, and Persia. There is a river called Sindhu bordering the north western provinces of India, and since the Muslims there could not pronounce Sindhu properly, they instead called the river Hindu, and the inhabitants of this tract of land they called Hindus. In India, according to the Vedic language, the Europeans are called mlecchas or yavanas. Similarly, Hindu is a name given by the Muslims. India's actual culture is described in the Bhagavad-gita, where it is stated that according to the different qualities or modes of nature there are different types of men, who are generally classified into four social orders and four spiritual orders. This system of social and spiritual division is known as varnasrama-dharma. The four varnas, or social orders, are brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya. and sudra. The four asramas, or spiritual orders, are brahmacarya, grhastha, vanaprastha, and sannyasa. The varnasrama system is described in the Vedic scriptures known as the Puranas. The goal of this institution of Vedic culture is to educate every man for advancement in knowledge of Krishna, or God. That is the entire Vedic program. When Lord Caitanya talked with the great devotee Ramananda Raya, the Lord asked him, "What is the basic principle of human life?" Ramananda Raya answered that human civilization begins when varnasrama-dharma is accepted. Before coming to the standard of varnasrama-dharma there is no question of human civilization. Therefore, the Krishna consciousness movement is trying to establish this right system of human civilization, which is known as Krishna consciousness, or daiva-varnasrama--divine culture. In India, the varnasrama system has now been taken in a perverted way, and thus a man born in the family of a brahmana (the highest social order) claims that he should be accepted as a brahmana. But this claim is not accepted by the sastra (scripture). One's forefather may have been a brahmana according to gotra, or the family hereditary order, but real varnasrama-dharma is based on the factual quality one has attained, regardless of birth or heredity. Therefore, we are not preaching the present-day system of the Hindus, especially those who are under the influence of Sankaracarya, for Sankaracarya taught that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and thus he indirectly denied the existence of God. Sankaracarya's mission was special; he appeared to reestablish the Vedic influence after the influence of Buddhism. Because Buddhism was patronized by Emperor Asoka, twenty-six hundred years ago the Buddhist religion practically pervaded all of India. According to the Vedic literature, Buddha was an incarnation of Krishna who had a special power and who appeared for a special purpose. His system of thought, or faith, was accepted widely, but Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas. While Buddhism was spreading, the Vedic culture was stopped both in India and in other places. Therefore, since Sankaracarya's only aim was to drive away Buddha's system of philosophy, he introduced a system called Mayavada. Strictly speaking, Mayavada philosophy is atheism, for it is a process in which one imagines that there is God. This Mayavada system of philosophy has been existing since time immemorial. The present Indian system of religion or culture is based on the Mayavada philosophy of Sankaracarya, which is a compromise with Buddhist philosophy. According to Mayavada philosophy there actually is no God, or if God exists, He is impersonal and all-pervading and can therefore be imagined in any form. This conclusion is not in accord with the Vedic literature. That literature names many demigods, who are worshiped for different purposes, but in every case the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, Visnu, is accepted as the supreme controller. That is real Vedic culture. The philosophy of Krishna consciousness does not deny the existence of God and the demigods, but Mayavada philosophy denies both; it maintains that neither the demigods nor God exists. For the Mayavadis, ultimately all is zero. They say that one may imagine any authority--whether Visnu, Durga, Lord Siva, or the sun-god--because these are the demigods generally worshiped in society. But the Mayavada philosophy does not in fact accept the existence of any of them. The Mayavadis say that because one cannot concentrate one's mind on the impersonal Brahman, one may imagine any of these forms. This is a new system, called pancopasana. It was introduced by Sankaracarya, but the Bhagavad-gita does not teach any such doctrines, and therefore they are not authoritative. The Bhagavad-gita accepts the existence of the demigods. The demigods are described in the Vedas, and one cannot deny their existence, but they are not to be understood or worshiped according to the way of Sankaracarya. The worship of demigods is rejected in the Bhagavad-gita. The Gita (7.20) clearly states: kamais tais tair hrta jnanah prapadyante 'nya-devatah tam tam niyamam asthaya prakrtya niyatah svaya "Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." Furthermore, in the Bhagavad-gita (2.44), Lord Krishna states: bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam tayapahrta-cetasam vyavasayatmika buddhih samadhau na vidhiyate "In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service does not take place." Those who are pursuing the various demigods have been described as hrta jnanah, which means "those who have lost their sense." That is also further explained in the Bhagavad-gita (7.23): antavat tu phalam tesam tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam devan deva-yajo yanti mad-bhakta yanti mam api "Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees reach My supreme abode." The rewards given by the demigods are temporary, because any material facility must act in connection with the temporary body. Whatever material facilities one gets, whether by modern scientific methods or by deriving benedictions from the demigods, will be finished with the body. But spiritual advancement will never be finished. People should not think that we are preaching a sectarian religion. No. We are simply preaching how to love God. There are many theories about the existence of God. The atheist, for example, will never believe in God. Atheists like Professor Jacques Monod, who won the Nobel prize, declare that everything is chance (a theory already put forward long ago by atheistic philosophers of India such as Carvaka). Then other philosophies, such as the karma-mimamsa philosophy, accept that if one goes on doing his work nicely and honestly, automatically the result will come, without need for one to refer to God. For evidence, the proponents of such theories cite the argument that if one is diseased with an infection and takes medicine to counteract it, the disease will be neutralized. But our argument in this connection is that even if one gives a man the best medicine, he still may die. The results are not always predictable. Therefore, there is a higher authority, daiva-netrena, a supreme director. Otherwise, how is it that the son of a rich and pious man becomes a hippie in the street or that a man who works very hard and becomes rich is told by his doctor, "Now you may not eat any food, but only barley water"? The karma-mimamsa theory holds that the world is going on without the supreme direction of God. Such philosophies say that everything takes place by lust (kama-haitukam). By lust a man becomes attracted to a woman, and by chance there is sex, and the woman becomes pregnant. There is actually no plan to make the woman pregnant, but by a natural sequence when a man and a woman unite, a result is produced. The atheistic theory, which is described in the Sixteenth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita as asuric, or demoniac, is that actually everything is going on in this way, because of chance and resulting from natural attraction. This demoniac theory supports the idea that if one wants to avoid children, he may use a contraceptive method. Actually, however, there is a great plan for everything--the Vedic plan. The Vedic literature gives directions regarding how men and women should unite, how they should beget children, and what the purpose of sex life is. Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita that sex life sanctioned by the Vedic order, or sex life under the direction of the Vedic rules and regulations, is bona fide and is acceptable to Him. But chance sex life is not acceptable. If by chance one is sexually attracted and there are children, they are called varna-sankara, unwanted population. That is the way of the lower animals; it is not acceptable for humans. For humans, there is a plan. We cannot accept the theory that there is no plan for human life or that everything is born of chance and material necessity. Sankaracarya's theory that there is no God and that one can go on with his work and imagine God in any form just to keep peace and tranquillity in society is also more or less based on this idea of chance and necessity. Our way, however, which is completely different, is based on authority. It is this divine varnasrama-dharma that Krishna recommends, not the caste system as it is understood today. This modern caste system is now condemned in India also, and it should be condemned, for the classification of different types of men according to birth is not the Vedic or divine caste system. There are many classes of men in society--some men are engineers, some are medical practitioners, some are chemists, tradesmen, businessmen, and so on. These varieties of classes are not to be determined by birth, however, but by quality. No such thing as the caste-by-birth system is sanctioned by the Vedic literature, nor do we accept it. We have nothing to do with the caste system, which is also at present being rejected by the public in India. Rather, we give everyone the chance to become a brahmana and thus attain the highest status of life. Because at the present moment there is a scarcity of brahmanas, spiritual guides, and ksatriyas, administrative men, and because the entire world is being ruled by sudras, or men of the manual laborer class, there are many discrepancies in society. It is to mitigate all these discrepancies that we have taken to this Krishna consciousness movement. If the brahmana class is actually reestablished, the other orders of social well-being will automatically follow, just as when the brain is perfectly in order, the other parts of the body, such as the arms, the belly, and the legs, all act very nicely. The ultimate goal of this movement is to educate people in how to love God. Caitanya Mahaprabhu approves the conclusion that the highest perfection of human life is to learn how to love God. The Krishna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion. No Christian gentleman will be interested in changing his faith from Christian to Hindu. Similarly, no Hindu gentleman of culture will be ready to change to the Christian faith. Such changing is for men who have no particular social status. But everyone will be interested in understanding the philosophy and science of God and taking it seriously. One should clearly understand that the Krishna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion. We are giving a spiritual culture that can solve all the problems of life, and therefore it is being accepted all over the world. (His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada from Science of Self Realization.) comments...? ;^) jijaji

If Shankara is held so high in the Gaudiya Vaishnav community then why..pray tell... is it recommended that one jump into a river and bathe immediately upon seeing such an offender? Iskcon/Gaudiya Math have a dysfunctional relationship with Shankara; They use him when they can when it supports their PREACHING ... He is Shiva in disguise deceiving all the demons into false philosophy leading them away from the true Vedic tradition (Gaudiya Vaishnavism) or at least the Jehovas Witness version i.e. iskcon/gaudiya math! Funny how Shankara didn't mean anything he said? ;^) jijaji

shvu says; "It is another popular misconception that Shankara came to fight Buddhism. Shankara did not have a single arugment with the Buddhists. Most of his criticizm and debates were with the Purva Mimamsakas. In his Brahma-sutra Bhasya, he mostly critizes Purva Mimamsa and to a lesser extent, Nyaya, Sankhya and Buddhism." I will agree with shvu on this significant point! This is no hidden secret..Shankara was mainly concerned with Purva Mimamsa rather than Buddhism. He certainly did NOT make attack against Buddhism his mission as some would have you believe.... Iskconites say 'Shankara Drove the Buddhists out of India". Whenever I heard that phrase I always wondered.."What kind of vehicle did he use?" Model-t's were not even available. It seems if Shankara drove the Buddhists out of India it would have takin a large amount of petrol as well. So in conclusion it would have been a massive exodus of biblical magnitude...involving thousands of Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles etc.. Seems it would have been recorded in the Digvijaya's...LOL ;^) jijaji

;^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^) ;^)

If Shankara would have been a cabbie.... He would have cleaned up in tips for driving all those Buddhists out of India..! ;^) jijaji