8.4 million species and those born of sweat

[Guruvani 0]

 

Even if that was true (and it is not, because the teachings of his diksa line can easily be seen in Bhaktivinoda's later writings), the very same can be said about the absence of Jagannatha das Babaji in Bhaktivinoda's writings. I am not aware of any such references and that is why I challenged you all to show me where exactly does Bhaktivinoda even refers once to Jagannatha das Babaji as his guru.

 

I posted Bhaktivinoda's verses praising BBG in a very elevated way. Now it is your turn to present Bhaktivinoda's verses showing JDG as his siksa guru.

 

Good luck.

 

Bhaktivinoda showed by his actions that he accepted Jagannatha das babaji as his siksha guru. He took siksha from JDB and it is a known historical fact.

 

I don't need any written evidence that Bhaktivinoda accepted JDB as his siksha gurus because his most intimate disciple and son Srila Saraswati Thakur has already confirmed that and told such to his disciples.

 

Whether or not you are convinced is not a concern of mine.

[Guest guest]

 

Bhaktivinoda showed by his actions that he accepted Jagannatha das babaji as his siksha guru. He took siksha from JDB and it is a known historical fact.

 

It is a well known fact that he loved his diksa guru and never rejected him. He took his initiation very seriously. Did he take siksa from others? Certainly. But he never minimized his diksa guru in any way.

 

As to JDB, do you even know anything about his teachings?

[Guruvani 0]

 

Even if that was true (and it is not, because the teachings of his diksa line can easily be seen in Bhaktivinoda's later writings), the very same can be said about the absence of Jagannatha das Babaji in Bhaktivinoda's writings. I am not aware of any such references and that is why I challenged you all to show me where exactly does Bhaktivinoda even refers once to Jagannatha das Babaji as his guru.

 

I posted Bhaktivinoda's verses praising BBG in a very elevated way. Now it is your turn to present Bhaktivinoda's verses showing JDG as his siksa guru.

 

Good luck.

 

Here is a pranam mantra of Bhaktivinoda's siksha guru and a short history of their relationship.

Its was for real and certainly a lot more intimate and heartfelt than was his relationship with diksha guru.

 

 

<center>Sri Jagannatha Dasa Babaji</center>

<hr size="5">

<center>gauravirbhava-bhumes tvam, nirdestha saj-jana-priyah

vaishnava-sarvabhaumah shri-jagannathaya te namah</center>

<center>"I offer my respectful obeisances to Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja, who is respected by the entire Vaishnava community and who discovered the place where Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared."</center> Sri Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaja was born in the Mayamansingh district of West Bengal. Gaudiya Vedanta-acharya Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushana had a disciple named Uddhava das. His disciple was Sri Madhusudana Dasa Babaji who lived in Suryakunda. Madhusudana Dasa Babaji's disciple was Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaja.

Jagannatha Dasa Babaji lived in Vrindavan and performed his bhajan there for quite some time. He became famous among the devotees there as one who was perfect in Krishna-bhakti. In 1880, Srimad Bhaktivinoda Thakura went to Vrindavan and saw his lotus feet for the first time. While there, he received many divine instructions on Hari-bhakti from Jagannatha Dasa. Some time later, Babaji Maharaja visited the Barddhaman district during the month of Phalgun. He stayed at a town called Amalajorha. At that time, Bhaktivinoda Thakura again had the good fortune to take darshan of his holy feet.

Seeing Bhaktivinoda Thakur's enthusiasm for preaching the holy name of Krishna, Srila Babaji Maharaja was very happy. He stayed in Amalajorha during ekadashi, and that night there was kirtan and Hari-katha. Later, at Amalajorha, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura established his Prappana-Ashram.

In 1893, Srila Babaji Maharaja went from Koladwip (the part of Nabadwipa where Srila Sridhara Maharaja's temple is presently located) to Surabhi-kunja in Godrumadwipa. There he took his seat. His arrival in Surabhi-kunja was a wonderful event. Sri Jagannatha Dasa Babaji revealed many lost holy places in Mayapura, including the Yogapith, Srivasa Angana and others. It is said that when he came upon the holy place of Mahaprabhu's birth he danced, although he was very old and walked with difficulty. For some time he remained in Nadia and performed his bhajan on the banks of the Ganges. His bhajan kutir and samadhi mandir are still there at present. He ordered Bhaktivinoda Thakura to build a hut so devotees could stay near his bhajan kutir, and Bhaktivinoda did so.

When Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was twelve years old, he was an expert in the Jyoti-shastras explaining Vedic astrology. Hearing this, Srila Babaji Maharaja one day called upon him to prepare the Vaishnava calendar in accordance with the proper siddhanta. He did so and Babaji Maharaja was very pleased. With this, the Nabadwipa Panjika, the Vaisnava calendar recording the dates of the appearance and disappearance of important Vaishnava saints and the celebration of important festivals, began.

Srila Babaji Maharaja always had great enthusiasm for kirtan and Vaishnava seva. Even when he was nearly 135 years old, he went on preaching the message of Sri Chaitanya throughout the world for the benefit of the fallen masses. In his old age, although he was almost paralyzed by infirmity, whenever it was time for kirtana he would still raise his arms in ecstasy.

Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaja was the vesha or Babaji guru of Bhagavat dasa Babaji Maharaja. Bhagavat dasa in turn gave the dress of a babaji Gaurakisora dasa Babaji. Jagannatha dasa Babaji's servant's name was Bihari dasa. He was extremely strong and powerful. In his old age, Babaji Maharaja could not walk. Bihari dasa used to carry him in a basket on his shoulders so that Babaji Maharaja could move from place to place.

When he went to Calcutta, Babaji Maharaja would stay at the house of Bhaktivinoda Thakura on Manikatala Street. Bhaktivinoda was always very eager to invite him to his house for prasada, but Babaji Maharaja was very renounced and would come only occasionally.

When he was in his old age, Babaji Maharaja was nearly blind. Many people would come to see him and to offer him donations for the service of Sri Krsna. His servant Bihari dasa would keep all these donations in a bag. One day, Babaji Maharaja said, ³Bihari! How many rupees have I got?²

Bihari dasa had put some rupees aside for some service he had planned to render Babaji Maharaja. When asked by Jagannatha dasa Babaji about how many rupees were on hand, Bihari placed some rupees in his hand and kept twelve Rupees aside. Even though his eyesight was failing, however, Babaji Maharaja detected the discrepancy.

³Bihari!² he said, ³Why have you kept twelve Rupees aside? Give me all the rupees!²

Smiling at this fun, Bihari surrendered the remaining coins to his guru. At that time, Babaji Maharaja made his wishes known as to how the money should be spent. The total came to two hundred rupees. Babaji Maharaja ordered Birari dasa to take the money at once and buy sweetballs, rasagolas, to feed all the cows in Nabadwipa dhama.

Once Babaji Maharaja was on the banks of the Ganges, living under a makeshift canvas tent. Nearby that place there lived a dog with five puppies. Whenever Babaji Maharaja would take prasada, the dogs would come around and lick the food from his plate. When Bihari dasa caught hold of one of the dogs to drive it off, Babaji Maharaja told him: ³Bihari! If you wish to drive these dogs off, you may take my plate away as well. I shall not eat today.²

When Bihari complained, ³But guru maharaja - these dogs are unclean!² Babaji Maharaja remarked, ³No. These dogs are residents of the holy dhama. You may not abuse them.²

Many people used to come and beg alms from Jagannatha Dasa Babaji. He did not want to give them alms, but told them to do service. One day a man named Sri Gaura Hari dasa came and asked Jagannatha Dasa Babaji Maharaja for alms, but Babaji Maharaja would give him nothing. When the man persisted for three days, fasting outside Babaji Maharaja's tent, Babaji Maharaja finally relented. He tore off a piece of his kaupina, his undergarment and gave it to Bihari dasa, his servant, with the instruction to present it to the beggar as alms, thereby informing the beggar that he must first learn to control his senses before taking up the profession of a saint.

One day, Sri Babaji Maharaja remarked about the professional readers of Srimad-Bhagavatam, ³This kind of professional Bhagavata kirtana is simply prostitution. Those who make their living by reading Srimad-Bhagavatam are offenders to the holy name of Krsna. No one should listen to the kirtana and Bhagavatam readings that they produce. And one who listens to such offensive readings and thus commits offenses against the holy name of Krsna certainly go to hell. Those who are involved in this professional reading should immediately give it up. Such a person should worship the residents of Vrndavan with great care and attention, considering himself most fallen, and thus pray for forgiveness.²

Srimad Bhaktivinoda Thakura remarked of Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja that he was the topmost general among Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Here is a pranam mantra of Bhaktivinoda's siksha guru

 

As far as I know this mantra was written by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

[Guruvani 0]

 

As far as I know this mantra was written by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

 

prove it!

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

The theory that leela never happend physically here on earth is nothing new - it was not invented by Bhaktivinoda but has been around for many, many centuries. For centuries many Mayavadis preached for example that Battle of Kurukshetra never actually took place, that it is simply a metaphor, etc. ALL four Vaishnava sampradayas held an opposing view and these debates are well documented in the writings of Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, and Vishnusvami, thus any concept that denies leela actually happened in our physical world is completely bogus and constitutes an apasiddhanta. Prabhupada spoke about it more than once or twice.

Professor Sanyal goes to great pain to explain in detail the difference between Leela and history.

 

I started typing out some sections but it will take me hours and I don't have the time. By the way, this is from Volume 2 of Sri Krishna Chaitanya (I have Volume 1 as a text file).

 

Professor Sanyal raised the issue that when Mahaprabhu publicly revealed he is Visnu the first manifestation he displayed was as Varahadeva. This avatara, Sanyal explains, is considered with disdain by brahmins and their disregard for a "pig" because of their own "pure" status makes them unable to realize that God is not just "transcendence" but that he is, indeed, every thing.

 

Sanyal:

 

Hiranyaksa means literally 'one whose eyes are made of gold'. He sees everything through the medium of gold.

 

A person possessed by a mentality like this will naturally hate a creature like a pig.

 

Why should any material resources, exclaims the economist, be wasted in the superstitious performance of the sacrifice which brings no sensuous gratification to man? Why should anything be offered to Godhead in the sense in which it should certainly be offered to man? Gold is very useful for man. Why should wealth of gold be offered to the sacrificial fire (yagneswara, visnu) to be senselessly destroyed? All wealth is intended by Providence for the use of man. Even the lower animals (pigs etc) are only objects of enjoyment of man.

...

 

Hiranyaksa could not refrain from contemptuous laughter when he was told that Visnu had appeared in the form of a Boar. He accosted the Divine Boar, when he at last had the supreme good fortune of meeting Him in mortal combat as 'the despised pig'. He thought that the vile form of their object of worship was in keeping with the unnatural folly of the performers of Vedic sacrifices, viz... the Brahmanas, Rishis, etc. He accordingly rejoiced in having the chance of disproving the ridiculous errors of the Vedic seers by making short work of the Despised Animal Whom they held to be superior to himself.

 

 

Hiranyaksa then is a person who tries to promote the philosophy of utilitarianism - everything in the world exists for man. Hiranyaksa felt he was doing humankind a favour by destroying superstious cult worship of Visnu and the process of Yajna.

 

Professor Sanyal goes on to say that this problem that Varaha faced was again faced by Sri Nimai Sundara. He also had to deal with the same "utilitarianism" and skepticism of "intellectuals" whose eyes see things from the viewpoint of "gold". I was an academic, a University lecturer, at one time. I believe most academics are primarily interested in the golden lifestyle they enjoy and that the matters they study are in most cases trivial pursuits in comparison to the main pursuit of their life - the experience of ENJOYMENT.

 

When Gaurasundara appeared on Earth all the avataras were within him, and in his pastimes the Varaha-leela was also manifest. But people can only appreciate that Varaha Leela was manifest again on earth 500 years ago if they have been given the eyes to see things properly.

 

Leela is not History.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

Based on his own autobiography, Bhaktivinoda's first direct contact with Vaishnavism was through a Karta-bhaja guru

 

Hmm... is that reference to the Karta-bhaja in that biography that was "edited" by Lalita Prashad?

[Guruvani 0]

 

 

Leela is not History.

But, Mahabharata has always been classified as Itihasa which is most usually translated as "history" and which literally means "that which happened".

 

So, now we are supposed to believe that Mahabharata is not history but an allegorical fable?

 

this allegorical insanity is for the birds.

 

Mahabharata is a history, not mythology.

 

Somebody needs to get all his marbles in one bag.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

I posted Bhaktivinoda's verses praising BBG in a very elevated way. Now it is your turn to present Bhaktivinoda's verses showing JDG as his siksa guru.

 

Good luck.

 

Hmmm...

 

Here is one verse that has come from Jagannatha das Babaji to Bhaktivinode to Saraswati Thakura to us.

 

It is Jagannatha das Babaji's own "mahamantra"

 

 

sri krishna chaitanya prabhu nityananda

sri advaita gadadhara sribasadi gaura bhakta brnda.

 

[muralidhar_das 0]

An interesting section in the Jivani (life story of Bhaktivinode Thakura)

 

 

When I published Krsna Samhita the people of this country had many opinions about it. Some said that this book was a new point of view. Others said it was good. The younger, educated people said the book was good. But no one could understand the essence of the book. The purpose of this book was to show that Krsna-tattva was transcendental. Some people thought that the entire matter of the book was psychological, but they were altogether wrong.

There is a subtle difference between aprakrita [transcendental] and adhyatmika [psychological] that generally no one can grasp. Aprakrita has as its basis the absence of speculative knowledge. Kalyana Kalpataru was mostly received with affection and its many verses were sung.

While I was living in Narail I took diksha along with my wife. I had been searching for a suitable guru for a long time but I did not find one. I was very unhappy on that account. I had done much anxious thinking, and in a dream Prabhu diminished my unhappiness.

In the dream I got a hint. That day I became happy. One or two days later Gurudeva wrote to me saying, "I will come quickly and give you diksha." Gurudeva came and diksha was given. My mind was satisfied. From that very day the sinful reaction from meat eating went from my heart and mercy arose in me towards the jivas.

 

 

The problem with this jivani is that it is edited by Lalita Prasad and maybe other people living in that house.

 

I'm very skeptical of anything coming from Lalita Prasad. Very skeptical. The man is a proven liar - not white lies, but big black ones.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

But, Mahabharata has always been classified as Itihasa which is most usually translated as "history" and which literally means "that which happened".

 

So, now we are supposed to believe that Mahabharata is not history but an allegorical fable?

 

this allegorical insanity is for the birds.

 

Mahabharata is a history, not mythology.

 

Somebody needs to get all his marbles in one bag.

 

In the introduction to Sri Krishna Samhita:

 

 

The people of India and other countries can be divided into two categories—the asslike and the swanlike. Among these two, the asslike are in the majority. The swanlike are in the minority. Swanlike people abstract the purport of the scriptures for their own advancement and thus benefit themselves. That is why the real purport of Shrimad Bhagavatam has not yet been clearly revealed. I had a great desire to translate Shrimad Bhagavatam in this proper swanlike way, but I have no time to translate this huge work. For this reason I am now extracting the main purport of this great literature and presenting it in the form of this Shri Krishna-samhita. As I was not satisfied after writing the verses of this book, I translated them into Bengali. I hope learned people will always scrutinizingly discuss this book in order to ascertain the spiritual subject matters.

[Guruvani 0]

 

An interesting section in the Jivani (life story of Bhaktivinode Thakura)

 

 

 

 

The problem with this jivani is that it is edited by Lalita Prasad and maybe other people living in that house.

 

I'm very skeptical of anything coming from Lalita Prasad. Very skeptical. The man is a proven liar - not white lies, but big black ones.

 

Exactly.

I wrote off that auto-biography years ago when I heard about it's connection with Lalita Prasad.

 

Personally, I question the whole possibility of the auto-biography because Srila Prabhupada was known for criticizing Yoganananda's "autobiography of a Yogi" as being self-centered and self-serving.

 

If Bhaktivinoda did write an auto-biography I am sure that it was only for Lalita Prasada and for no one else.

 

It can never be used as any kind of praman when trying to study the teachings of Bhaktivinoda.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

As to JDB, do you even know anything about his teachings?

Oh a quiz!

 

This will be fun!

 

 

ya draupadi paritrane, ya gajendrasya moksane

mayy arte karuna-murte, sa tvara kva gate hare

Jagannathasya

 

The devotee who needs immediate protection has full faith that the Lord will come to his aid -

"O compassion incarnate, now I am in danger. O Lord Hari, where is that urgency You showed in delivering Draupadi and liberating Gajendra?"

Jagannatha

 

 

Sri Krishna Chaitanya Prabhu Nityananda

Sri Advaita Gadadhara Sribasadi Gaurabhakta Brnda

 

And as far as his teachings go, it is a fact that in his later years he did not worship the Lord as "Krishna" but as Gaura.

 

He only chanted this Gauranga Mahamantra - Sri Krishna Chaitanya Prabhu Nityananda Sri Advaita Gadadhara Sribasadi Gaurabhakta Brnda

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Muralidhar Prabhu.

 

Thanks for clarifying something for me. In Prapanna Jivanamritam, I saw that quote attributed to "Jagannatha" and wondered just which Jagannatha was being quoted.

 

That's amazing about JDB chanting only the pancha-tattva mantra. In a rare moment of (relative) humility, I recently mused that, whereas I have seen chanting pancha tattva as a chore to get through before chanting mahamantra, really, I ought to chant that mantra exclusively for lifetimes in hopes of eventually chanting Hare Krishna Mahamantra without offense.

 

I see there is some precedent!!

[Guruvani 0]

Srila Prabhupada:

 

 

Considering the position of the people of this age, however, the chanting of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's name is more essential than the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra because Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the most magnanimous incarnation and His mercy is very easily achieved. Therefore one must first take shelter of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu by chanting śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya prabhu-nityānanda śrī-advaita gadādhara śrīvāsādi-gaura-bhakta-vṛnda.

[theist 1]

 

Somebody needs to get all his marbles in one bag.

 

Yeah and guess who that somebody is. The many faces and mouths of guruvani who contradicts himself with such regularity that I swear there is at least 3 of them on-line at any one time.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Yeah and guess who that somebody is. The many faces and mouths of guruvani who contradicts himself with such regularity that I swear there is at least 3 of them on-line at any one time.

 

It's easy to make ad-hominem remarks.

 

Please show some examples of my contradictions or please don't make such claims.

 

Is it that I am contradictory or that you just prefer to read your own misunderstanding into what I say?

 

It's possible that it's just denial on your part and blunt refusal to give me enough credit to try and understand what I am saying before you pass judgement and dismiss my point of view.

 

I don't contradict myself.

I have many ways to think about things depending on who says what and why they say it.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

Haribol mitras (excluding childish little Guruvani (the pet peeve of most intelligent people on these forums - ha ha ha) who is of course definitely not my mitra, LAUGHING A LOT!),

 

Time to get back on track here. This thread is supposed to be about whether we should take the truth claims presented in sastra seriously. Well, if science manages to prove that there in fact are 8.4 million species, I'll for sure alter my position on this. But for now, I shall simply carry on discarding this kind of scriptural statement. Previously, I also mentioned the preposterous figures mentioned in some places in the Bhagavatam. The sheer logistical impossibilities that a sterile ISKCON-type literalism would necessitate should be in and of itself the answer as to whether these numbers are factual or not.

 

Regarding Krishna-lila, I believe that, in our present condition, it is just not plausible to insist on the historical truth of the events described in the Puranas and Itihasas. It is also unsafe to be obstinate about a strictly Sri Krsna Samhita kind of metaphorical interpretation. I spoke favourably about that work earlier on, and I still recommend it to any aspirant Vaishnava, but as some accurately guessed (thank you Theist), I was not stating that that was the complete picture. The best practice, in my opinion, is to latch on to anything which is conducive to one's advancement in sadhana-bhakti, and let others do likewise. Each individual practitioner has a specific psyche, and each ought to act accordingly without however being dogmatic about one's views. For the ones amongst us with slightly higher IQs, it is a totally comprehensible standpoint to want to evaluate certain sastric data in light of modern scholarly consensus. And notwithstanding bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa and karanapatava, I, for one, respect the authority of the prevailing paradigms of mainstream academia, not blindly of course, but I consider that an unreflective rejection of science and contemporary scholarship is intellectually disreputable. I think that most/all would agree with me on this.

 

I suppose it was my bringing Srila Bhaktivinoda into the picture here that got all this discussion going about Lalita Prasada and non-Sarasvata followers of the Thakura (of which there are many tens of thousands in Bengal, for the record). I am saddened and disturbed when I see perfectly fine and gentlemanly Vaishnavas letting themselves slide into abject partisanship and adopt the same old routine Us Versus Them attitude. I consider myself to be the great-grand disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati but I would never dare say one bad word about Srila Lalita Prasada. Whatever difference he had with his brother is between them, and NOBODY here is qualified to step in and take sides. I am not advocating that everyone follows my own example, i.e. having a foot in each camp, but we are all babies compared to the sons of Bhaktivinoda, and conventional wisdom would dictate that we let bygones be bygones. As far as Bipin Bihari Goswami is concerned, it is an ineluctable fact that Bhaktivinoda Thakura held him in high regard and wrote appreciatively of him, and that as well way after they had their so-called falling-out.

 

I think it is time that even whilst remaining committed and loyal to our respective Gaudiya sources, we ALL start thinking outside the box a little bit, and develop a more balanced and nuanced view of the history of this sampradaya. A closer analysis of all the available evidence would suggest that the indoctrination that each one here has had experience of is seriously erroneous and wrong in many instances. I myself cannot understand why devotees must fight with one another over whether one guru is better than another, who represents Mahaprabhu more faithfully, and so forth. This smacks of nothing more than a lower-than-kanistha state of mind. There is both good and bad in traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism, there is both good and bad in Gaudiya Matha and there is both good and bad in ISKCON. This is the actual truth, and I shall continue to oppose and confront the ugly head of society-consciousness wherever it rears itself for as long as I live.

 

This thread is not appropriate for this debate, but I will start another one soon with a very interesting essay by Finn Madsen on the break-up of the Gaudiya Matha in the aftermath of Bhaktisiddhanta's death and its subsequent evolution into the tens of various missions we see today. Mark my words, quite a few bubbles will be burst by that excellent academic write-up. So stay put.

 

Regards

[muralidhar_das 0]

Vikram Ramsundar, I've read the information you've given about yourself. I cannot help but think you are somebody other than who you say you are. The internet enables us to assume false identities very easily doesn't it?

 

Fact is, I went through years of disturbance and unhappiness, feeling great anguish because of the lies being broadcast on the internet about Sarawati Thakura that were spoken by Lalita Prashad.

 

Lalita Prashad's lies were told with the cunning intention of trying to seduce people like Gadadhara Prana, Subala and Jagat to come and follow LP.

 

Look at the fruit of Lalita Prashad's parampara:

 

Subala meditates on his "manjari" form and also eats beef steak. He likes sex with boys too.

 

Jagat openly states that he is a sahajiya, not a regular Gaudiya Vaishnava.

 

Gadadhara Prana seeks sex with young girls, and his wife won't allow him to be with the daughter.

 

...

 

On another topic, I saw Finn Madsen's "history of the Gaudiya Math" a few years ago and it is a seriouly flawed document full of historical errors and unsubstantiated assertions. His research was badly flawed; if I were marking his work I would have strongly critiqued what he wrote.

 

I haven't marked any essays for many years. But if you want to post his dissertation I will be happy to cut his work to pieces and expose all the rotten bits to everyone.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

 

Vikram Ramsundar, I've read the information you've given about yourself. I cannot help but think you are somebody other than who you say you are. The internet enables us to assume false identities very easily doesn't it?

 

Exactly what makes you think that I am not who I say I am? I am beginning to find all this extremely enthralling, Muralidhar Prabhu. I am not here to destroy anyone's faith, far from it. I just wish for more camaraderie and cooperation between Vaisnavas from different branches of the Gaudiya parampara, and even with devotees of the various other sampradayas. Is that so hard to understand? Are sectarianism and fanaticism preferable to harmonious relations?

 

As soon as I get the time, I shall post Madsen's essay. I sure invite you to deconstruct it like I am confident you will. This will enlighten me as well on the errors which are contained therein.

 

Haribol

[Guest guest]

 

Professor Sanyal goes to great pain to explain in detail the difference between Leela and history.

 

I started typing out some sections but it will take me hours and I don't have the time. By the way, this is from Volume 2 of Sri Krishna Chaitanya (I have Volume 1 as a text file).

 

Professor Sanyal raised the issue that when Mahaprabhu publicly revealed he is Visnu the first manifestation he displayed was as Varahadeva. This avatara, Sanyal explains, is considered with disdain by brahmins and their disregard for a "pig" because of their own "pure" status makes them unable to realize that God is not just "transcendence" but that he is, indeed, every thing.

 

 

This is very rich

 

First, some people reject the historical aspect of the Krsna leela as "too unbelievable to be happening here on earth" and then they introduce just about the same "unbelievable quality" leela as factual with respect to Lord Caitanya.

 

Second, to claim that such theories are somehow in line with the teachings of the previous acharyas in our sampradaya is a total joke. Whatever happened to the "unbroken knowledge passed down through time"? Do you find such teachings in the works of the Six Goswamis?

[Guest guest]

 

Exactly.

I wrote off that auto-biography years ago when I heard about it's connection with Lalita Prasad.

 

Even staunch Saraswatas use that autobiography. The style is unmistakeably Bhaktivinoda's and none of the impartial scholars questions it's authenticity. It is funny how some people filter out facts that do not fit their pet theories.

[Guest guest]

 

I myself cannot understand why devotees must fight with one another over whether one guru is better than another, who represents Mahaprabhu more faithfully, and so forth. This smacks of nothing more than a lower-than-kanistha state of mind.

 

The guru-centrism adopted by many branches of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas has it's very serious drawbacks, especially when coupled with the western mentality of "My Superman can beat your Superman with one hand tied behind his back". Looks like the Karta-bhajas have reincarnated and are back on earth. Some of the partisanship displayed by the disciples clearly comes from their gurus.

[Guest guest]

 

Hmm... is that reference to the Karta-bhaja in that biography that was "edited" by Lalita Prashad?

 

why would LP edit that part? you think he was partial to Karta-bhajas? by the time LP was born Karta-bhajas were completely disgraced and rejected by most if not all standard sampradayas.

 

You can very easily claim selective editing on the Saraswata side, as BST was promoting an image of Bhaktivinoda that runs contrary to a lot of Bhaktivinoda's own writings. For the sake of preaching he was creating a legend.

[Vikram Ramsundar 0]

 

The guru-centrism adopted by many branches of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas has it's very serious drawbacks, especially when coupled with the western mentality of "My Superman can beat your Superman with one hand tied behind his back". Looks like the Karta-bhajas have reincarnated and are back on earth. Some of the partisanship displayed by the disciples clearly comes from their gurus.

 

Brilliantly said, Lowborn. I'm disagreeing with you on the Vaivasvata Manu thread, but on this one, you are certainly my mitra.

 

Cheers