Sri Chaitanya in the Bhavishya Purana

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

This is a good example of how pride blocks one's spiritual path.

 

Satyaraj claimed Rupa Goswami did not state Sri Chaitanya was Krishna. It was then pointed out that he did, and it was confirmed by Krishna Das Kaviraj Goswami.

 

Rather than accept this truth with humilty, he becomes a victim of his pride and chooses to attack the credibility of the saint, Krishna Das Kaviraj Goswami. His pride does not allow him to accept defeat, much like he would refuse to accept he was wrong on countless other occassions. (Example: that "the Bhavishya Purana is not a mahapurana", that "the scriptures speak about New World vegetables like tomatoes and condemn those who eat them", "potatos are eternally pure even if covered in beef", etc.)

 

There is a lesson to be learnt here.

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

This is a good example of how pride blocks one's spiritual path.

 

........His pride does not allow him to accept defeat, much like he would refuse to accept he was wrong on countless other occassions. (Example: that "the Bhavishya Purana is not a mahapurana", that "the scriptures speak about New World vegetables like tomatoes and condemn those who eat them", "potatos are eternally pure even if covered in beef", etc.)

Your win and defeat paradigm tends to contradict

your own espoused worthy approach which you

set out

in the "Audarya Fellowship" thread at:-

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000336.html

 

Also, your citings from other threads to denounce Satyaraja, are potentially misleading

as they are taken out of context,

and particularly as you have not provided the readers with

appropriate HTML references so they can see for themselves.

 

Satyaraja's contributions on this thread,

however disagreeable his point of view,

have been generous in their chivalrous

and stimulating manner.

Often it is not PRIDE but intellectual HUMILITY

that prompts some to have the courage

to take such views for the sake of developmental discussions

without regard to the unjustified personal unpopularity

that such views might bring them.

 

The important thing is that the discussions

remain relevant

factually, philosophically or poetically)

good spirited, and free from rude coarse language

and untrue slanderous comments.

 

Such challenges from Satyaraja should be seen

as opportunities for his antagonists

to polish their discursive skills

as devotional service.

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 11-19-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Your win and defeat paradigm tends to contradict your own espoused worthy approach which you set out...

It's not a matter of win/lose, but right and wrong. But he seems to see being wrong as a defeat, and therefore tries to avoid it, even if it means saying the day is actually night. He will make absurd statements which are incorrect (as the examples cited above), and then when shown things are the opposite he will ignore it.

 

It is pride only which causes him to denounce saints, not humilty. I pray I never have such false humility, for it is the end of spiritual life.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 11-19-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Jijaji: Ramanand Samvada section of Chaitanya Charitmaram is the MOST studied and controversial section of Krishnadas's work and these very same questions I have brought have been brought up for 100's of years by many a learned Gaudiya Scholar...

 

Satyaraj: Yes, and many had pointed out Krsnadas’s countless interpolations into that dialog. Krsnadas had only a 3rd hand info on that dialog and he made most of his theology on basis on it.

 

For certain some believers would say that Krsnadas was an omniscient muka, a tri-kala-jñani and so on, but many will say otherwise and would stress some of his contemporaries testimony on his character and behavior to support their statements. One should recall the there was a big schism among great and learned Vaisnavas who were living at Vrindavana at that time due Krsnadas’ theology and practices.

 

[gHari 0]

When others rebelled, Prabhupada did not say, "I will debate them and bring them back". Instead he sent a message to all leaders: "NITAI HAS BECOME A VENOMOUS SNAKE!"

 

"Doubting the authorities leads to destruction". And this is what it looks like. The puffed-up minds can not even see that they are no longer worthy of Guru's mercy. They will actually prefer to juggle words. Nothing can be said. It is Krsna's decision.

[Guest guest]

Jndas: It's not a matter of win/lose, but right and wrong. But he seems to see being wrong as a defeat, and therefore tries to avoid it, even if it means saying the day is actually night

 

Satyaraj: Sanatana-dharma agrees with dissension. There are countless theologies, philosophies, religions and sects within sanatana-dharma and diversity is the propeller of dissension and vice-versa. It is Hari Himself who is the prompter of such diversity and dissension. He gives inspiration to those who have the desire on to glorify Him to make these theologies, philosophies, religions and sects. Deficiencies and faults, as well as merits and gloreies are characteristics of this material world.

 

Those who are discussing these topics are not subjected to win or lose, and they are not right or wrong. Rather they are glorifying Hari with their intelligence (Gita18.70). This is a very subtle form of worship and Hari Himself praises it.

 

Krsnadas has done his theology, that is incomplete and full of faults like any other theology like any other theology within sanatana-dharma. It is also full of merit and glories. We are discussing a capital point in his theology: “Caitanya’s divinity.”

 

Even your Prabhupada has stated many times that avataras should be mentioned in srutis. Gaudiyas had done this, but all of their quotes on Caitanya avatara were non-plausible. Even the smrti texts that they offered as evidence were all inconclusive.

 

Now they are trying to proof Caitanya’s divinity by the statements by his associates.

 

I had challenged Audarya-lila to offer a quote were Rupa stated that Caitanya was an avatara. He has done by providing a verse by Krsnadas attributed to Rupa and other verse from a mangalacarana.

 

Any intelligent person is aware that a mangalacarana praises guru as being as good as God. That is the principle. No one would credit a verse from a mangalacarana as an evidence for Caitanya’s divinity. Only some fanatics and idiots.

 

If you are taken this discussion in terms of win/lose or right/wrong, for certain Caitanya’s divinity wasn’t proved through that verse by his disciple.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 11-20-2001).]

[Guest guest]

gHari: "Doubting the authorities leads to destruction".

 

Satyaraj: That is a very curious remark indeed. If one takes it seriously it may cause a stop in one’s evolution. Many of us were following the Christian doctrine. It is an authoritative doctrine for certain. Others were following some other darsanas and had changed their viewpoint, practices of sadhana, philosophies, and so on.

 

We cannot state that we were destroyed due our change and obviously at the time of our change we had to doubt the authorities of our past path.

 

Perhaps blind faith may cause a more destructive effect than sincere doubt.

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by gHari:

Instead he sent a message to all leaders: "NITAI HAS BECOME A VENOMOUS SNAKE!"

B]

How come when there are any questions regarding siddhanta, this guy always brings up this "Nitai is a snake" .. ?

 

I'm not even sure that Nitai is that concerned with the Ramananda Samvada controversey in Chaitanya Charitamrtam.

 

His leaving Iskcon was based more on the Sampradaya issue. He was re-initiated into Gaudiya Vaishnavism and continues his faith, although different from the missionary offshoots of Gaudiya Math/Iskcon.

 

To yell out "Nitais is a snake" every time someone disagrees is not only an incorrect response to the Ramanad Samvada issue, but shows some real lack of knowledge of the historical issues within the Gaudiya Vaishnava religion that have existed for hundreds of years.

 

Now some say we have no right to question these issues, but why?

 

These questions regarding Chaitanya Charitamrta have been questioned by Gaudiyas for hundreds of years and just because some western followers are unaware of these issues within their religion doesn't mean that we who are aware should not inquire.

 

To those unaware of these issues and others who prefer to not question anything about the faith...to you I say ..Good Luck!

 

We are all not so inclined to accept without questioning and investigating for ourselves..thank you very much!

 

Pretty much every religion allows and encourages investigative inquiry into the history of it's origins.

Why that is so condemmed here is a puzzle...?

 

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-20-2001).]

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

One should recall the there was a big schism among great and learned Vaisnavas who were living at Vrindavana at that time due Krsnadas’ theology and practices.

 

Satyaji,

 

Could you give some details as to what occured during this schism?

Who was involved and what was said?

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-20-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Satyaji,

Could you give some details as to what occured during this schism?

Who was involved and what was said? (Jijaji)

 

Well, this subject matter is a big topic, and the details are sometimes macabre! It was like any other schism, like the one between Catholics and Protestants in Europe for example. Violence, ignorance, intolerance, and so on among Vaisnava’s sects in Vrindavana during the Medieval age. Vallabha’s, Hita Harivamsa’s, Gaudiyas’ and other parties were involved.

 

The theologies raided at that time use to vary too much, as well as sadhana, philosophies, and so on. Vallabha for example has rejected all Pañcaratrika-vidya in his sect and has adopted only the Vedic doctrine. Gaudiyas had accepted mainly Pañcaratrika-vidya. The historic events narrated by Krsnadas in Caitanya-caritramrta are quite different than the same episodes narrated by Vallabha’s followers and other sectarian groups.

 

We may open a new thread to discuss this topic and we should also invite Jagatji to participate. He is thousands of times more learned than me in that subject matter.

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

 

We may open a new thread to discuss this topic and we should also invite Jagatji to participate. He is thousands of times more learned than me in that subject matter.

Indeed...if only he would comment! He is very busy these days it seems!

 

But please Satya start a new thread....

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-20-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Jijaji: But please Satya start a new thread....

 

Satyaraj: OK, can you invite Jagatji? Send him an e-mail. Without his participation we cannot learn too much...

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Jijaji: But please Satya start a new thread....

 

Satyaraj: OK, can you invite Jagatji? Send him an e-mail. Without his participation we cannot learn too much...

I will email him.....it's up to him if he wants to jump in.

me thinks he is too busy these days.

 

 

 

[suryaz 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Jijaji: But please Satya start a new thread....

 

Satyaraj: OK, can you invite Jagatji? Send him an e-mail. Without his participation we cannot learn too much...

 

Humm Yeah - I too miss Jagat's input here

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Satyaji,

Could you give some details as to what occured during this schism?

Who was involved and what was said? (Jijaji)

 

Well, this subject matter is a big topic, and the details are sometimes macabre! It was like any other schism, like the one between Catholics and Protestants in Europe for example. Violence, ignorance, intolerance, and so on among Vaisnava’s sects in Vrindavana during the Medieval age. Vallabha’s, Hita Harivamsa’s, Gaudiyas’ and other parties were involved.

 

The theologies raided at that time use to vary too much, as well as sadhana, philosophies, and so on. Vallabha for example has rejected all Pañcaratrika-vidya in his sect and has adopted only the Vedic doctrine. Gaudiyas had accepted mainly Pañcaratrika-vidya. The historic events narrated by Krsnadas in Caitanya-caritramrta are quite different than the same episodes narrated by Vallabha’s followers and other sectarian groups.

 

We may open a new thread to discuss this topic and we should also invite Jagatji to participate. He is thousands of times more learned than me in that subject matter.

Satya...

what happened to the new thread....

surely you don't need Jagat to comment on this subject matter..

his contribution of course is always looked forward to, but whatcha gonna do?

 

 

 

------------------

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

[bhaktashab 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Satyaraj: I am waiting for Audariya-lila’s help to refresh my memory! We do consider Rupa as Caitanya’s main theologian. Where did Rupa has stated that Caitanya was an avatara? Please quote the book, or the sloka, or even the stanza where Rupa clearly states that Caitanya was an avatara. I cannot recall it!

I am familiar with this verse:

 

namo maha-vadayaya

krsna-prema-pradaya te

krsnaya krsna-caitanya-namne

gaura-tvise namah

 

"O most munificent incarnation! You are Krsna Himself appearing as Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu. You have assumed the golden color of Srimati Radharani, and You are widely distributing pure love of Krsna. We offer our respectful obeisances unto You."

 

As far as I know this is a verse written by Rupa Goswami. Perhaps someone more scholarly can give a reference to this verse from the works of Srila Rupa Prabhupada.

[bhaktashab 0]

Sorry, I'm just getting used to this forum.

I didn't realise there was more than one page.

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by bhaktashab:

I am familiar with this verse:

 

namo maha-vadayaya

krsna-prema-pradaya te

krsnaya krsna-caitanya-namne

gaura-tvise namah

 

"O most munificent incarnation! You are Krsna Himself appearing as Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu. You have assumed the golden color of Srimati Radharani, and You are widely distributing pure love of Krsna. We offer our respectful obeisances unto You."

 

As far as I know this is a verse written by Rupa Goswami. Perhaps someone more scholarly can give a reference to this verse from the works of Srila Rupa Prabhupada.

 

Perhaps someone can point out where this verse comes from...?

 

[Guest guest]

This verse is part of a mangalacana (Vidagdha-madhava 1.2), and not actually part o the work itself. As you might be aware, in magalacarana the author use to praise his guru and guru-varga with statements like that, meaning only the guru is as good as Hari Himself.

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

This verse is part of a mangalacana (Vidagdha-madhava 1.2), and not actually part o the work itself. As you might be aware, in magalacarana the author use to praise his guru and guru-varga with statements like that, meaning only the guru is as good as Hari Himself.

 

 

Stone: This is getting really weird. Once again, Satya asks Audarya to show where Rupa has "state that Caitanya was an avatar," and once again he is shown where, but he ignores it because it's only part of a mangalacarana. Anyone who still thinks such a discussion can ever be resolved should think again.

 

Satya, as is his right, has openly rejected the Gaudiya line of devotion because he finds the rationalism of sruti more attractive. That's fine. Our attitide is more in line with Krishna das, who responds to Satyaraja's inquiry as to how we can accept someone as a worshipable Deity without logic and argument in this way: "If you are indeed interested in logic and argument, kindly apply it to the mercy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. If you do so, you Swill find it to be strikingly wonderful. f one is infested with the ten offenses in the chanting of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra, despite his endeavor to chant the holy name for many births, he will not get the love of Godhead that is the ultimate goal of this chanting."

 

Satyaraja prefers another line of thought. That's fine for him, but it should be clear that no one here is likely to overpower him and convert him back.

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

 

Babhru das: Our attitide is more in line with Krishna das, who responds to Satyaraja's inquiry as to how we can accept someone as a worshipable Deity without logic and argument ...

 

Satyaraj: Many Gaudiyas in the past had tried to give the evidences from sruti texts on Caitanya avatara. Even your Prabhupada has stated many times that avataras should be mentioned by srutis.

 

Gaudiyas had done this, but every time they had presented their quotes on Caitanya avatara all of them were non-plausible. Even the smrti texts that they offered as evidence were all inconclusive.

 

Now they are trying to proof Caitanya’s divinity by the statements by his associates. That would be considered as ridiculous by any other school of thought, as it is a basic rule in debates among sanatana-dharma darsanas that sectarian point of views, statements by sectarian acaryas and sectarian scriptures are never allowed to be offered as an evidence to sustain any conflicting thesis.

 

I had challenged Audarya-lila to offer a quote were Rupa stated that Caitanya was an avatara. He has done by providing a verse by Krsnadas attributed to Rupa and other verse from a mangalacarana.

 

Any intelligent person is aware that a mangalacarana praises guru as being as good as God. That is a common principle to all sanatana-dharma’s schools of thought. No one would credit a verse from a mangalacarana as an evidence for Caitanya’s divinity. Only some fanatics and idiots.

 

If one is to accept a verse like that as a proof of Caitanya’s divinity he also might accept a similar verse from the Radha-vallabha sampradaya stating that Harivamsa is an avatara and he is the combined form of Hari and His flute; one should also accept a similar verse from the Vallabha-sampradaya that states that Vallabhacarya is an avatara and he is the incarnation of Krsna’s mouth. There are countless statements like these in many mangalacaranas of countless sects and creeds within Hinduism.

 

Ramakrishna was also considered an avatara of Visnu, as well as Satya Sai Baba is considered as Krsna Himself. Their associates will ‘proof’ that through mangacaranas like that made by Rupa. But where are the evidences from sruti made before their advent and easily available nowadays?

 

Would you worship a jiva or a mukta like Hari Himself? This is not considered auspicious.

 

[Guest guest]

Stone: This is getting really weird. Once again, Satya asks Audarya to show where Rupa has "state that Caitanya was an avatar," and once again he is shown where, but he ignores it because it's only part of a mangalacarana.

 

Satyaraj: I did not ignore it, rather I did accept it as a cabal proof of Audahya’s deep ignorance and fanatic approach on this topic.

 

[jijaji 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

If one is to accept a verse like that as a proof of Caitanya’s divinity he also might accept a similar verse from the Radha-vallabha sampradaya stating that Harivamsa is an avatara and he is the combined form of Hari and His flute; one should also accept a similar verse from the Vallabha-sampradaya that states that Vallabhacarya is an avatara and he is the incarnation of Krsna’s mouth. There are countless statements like these in many mangalacaranas of countless sects and creeds within Hinduism.

 

Indeed Ol Chap.....well put!

 

It seems in India unless your saint is an avatar of some God or the Godhead itself no one is gonna pay attention to him. So the schools that get built up around these different saints have no hesitency to identify their saints with this God or that God or the God of Gods Himself..etc.

 

It's all very ego competitive if ya ask me!

 

¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 11-28-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Jijaji: It seems in India unless your saint is an avatar of some God or the Godhead itself no one is gonna pay attention to him.

 

Satyaraj: Yes, and one should be aware that in India Devil’s Advocates are not welcomed by any sect. They will be threatened by countless curses, demonized as ‘aparadhis,’ rascals, atheists, demons, and so on. This may provide an easy way to make an industry of avataras, saints, muktas, incarnations of Gods, and so on, now for export. It can give some good profits like any other business.

 

No one can deny Vraja’s and Navadvipa’s economical renascence after Western’s arrival due this kind of ‘export.’

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Tat Sat.

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 11-28-2001).]