Siddha-pranali: Request for Info

[Guest guest]

 

Nice to see her performing arati rather than watching the idiot box. ;-)

 

You've criticized the activities of a Vaisnava who later rejected those activities something we are advised not to do. I'd like to ask in this regard about smoking in your group. I've met more *dope* smokers in the Caitanya Saraswata Math than in any other group. I've known people who were stoned on the day they took initiation! They never changed their habits. Didn't Sridhar Maharaja have a liberal attitude to that? "It is not such serious thing" or so? Just another example of the hypocrisy you have shown in giving such a slanted picture of Tinkudi Goswami.

 

 

Gaurasundar, I really am not trying to make you mad. Please understand this. But when you are prepared to speak so boldly against gurus who watch the news to familiarize themselves with other countries....

 

then why don't you also shed your hypocrisy by taking initiation from a guru and giving up your girlfriend?

 

A person who criticizes Vaishnavas (by accusing them of fabricating their siksa paramparas), while at the same time maintaining a girlfriend and speaking so much philosophy without a diksa guru of his own, is certainly not very honest.

 

Perhaps your words (and those of many other critics of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati), would have more weight if they were backed up a brahminical standard of piety. Please note that this is meant as constructive criticism only.

 

regards,

 

alpa

[Guest guest]

 

However I've heard some explain that the smoking of hukka in the case of some Goswamis is a matter of upholding a certain profile, that they are expected to be doing that by the people. In other words, it's a part of a guru-image and thus serves a particular purpose.

 

 

Raga, this logic is a very poor excuse. I really am surprised that you would even mention it.

 

 

As I pointed out earlier, if the disciples don't find something objectionable and in fact expect something, and thus give donations, I don't see it as particularly wrong.

 

 

Foolish gurus can only attract foolish disciples. The resulting lineages will have links made of fools. That sounds harsh, I know, and please believe me when I say it was not my intention to inflame Gaurasundar again, but let us consider the point - if we are asked to accept these lineages as "traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas," then should they not live up the real standards of Rupa and Sanatana Gosvami, instead of whatever standards the uneducated masses would hold them to?

 

alpa

[stonehearted 0]

alpa-medhasah:

I'm also aware of the examples of Nityananda and Pundarik, but are we always going to cite their examples to apologize for every example of corruption in the sampradaya?

 

 

I only cited Pundarik's example to caution against easy judgment based on some temporary behavior, not as an apology for Tinkori Baba's (or anyone else's) behavior. I think that's the lesson we may learn from his example, not that it's okay for you or me to smoke Marlboros and pass ourselves off as his followers.

 

I would not recommend that anyone I know seek guidance or initiation from someone whose behavior is contrary to what we have been given by our guru varga, unless I knew that prospective guide well enough to be certain that his or her consciousness were pure and that their guidance would be perfectly reliable. And since I'm not particularly well qualified to make such judgments about those I've never met, I have little else to say. We should seek the best refuge possible and take complete shelter there, with no consideration for conventional or institutional considerations.

[muralidhar_das 0]

I don't smoke or take any other type of intoxication. None of the devotees in senior, responsible positions in SCSMath smoke. Some disciples smoke. But Srila Sridhar Maharaj and Srila Govinda Maharaj wish they wouldn't do that.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj's advice in regard to smoking:

<blockquote>

Student: I have a problem. For ten years I've tried to take up this process. For

ten years, I have kept from eating meat, fish, and eggs. I avoid material things - I

have no attraction for them. I have left all this behind. But there is one thing I

want to give up and also I don't want to give up. This is ganja (marijuana).

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: That is a small thing. There are three real

difficulties: the first is women, the second is money, and the third, good name

and fame. These three are our enemies. Marijuana intoxication is a small thing.

Anyone can give it up easily. But these three things are the fundamental

aspiration of every animal, tree, bird, man, or god. These three are everywhere.

But intoxication and other fleeting habits are very negligible things and can be

conquered very easily.

As we have gradually come into the habit of intoxication, we have to come out;

gradually, and not suddenly. Just after World War Two, we read in the

newspaper that Goering, Hitler's air general, was habituated to taking much

intoxication. But when he was put into jail, no intoxication was supplied to him.

He became sick, but treatment went on and he was cured. His disease was cured

by the medicine. We also have seen so many opium-eaters who came here,

joined the temple, and gradually left their habit.

Many so-called "sadhus" smoke marijuana. It helps concentration, but that is the

material mind. It disturbs faith. It is an enemy to faith. No material intoxication,

but only faith can take us to our desired goal. The misguided souls think that

marijuana, hashish, and so many other things can help us in our meditation. It

may do something, but that is mundane and that will frustrate us in our time of

need. These things cannot help us rise up very high.

Srimad Bhagavatam (1.17.38) advises that these five things should be rejected:

dyutam: gambling, or diplomacy; panam: intoxication, including tea, coffee,

betel, and everything else; striyah: unlawful, illegal womanlove; suna:

butchering, and the transaction of gold. Trade in gold makes one very apathetic

towards progress in the line of faith. These five are very tempting.

What to speak of the mania that intoxication will help us in our meditation upon

the transcendental, Devarsi Narada says, yamadibir yoga-pathaih kama- lobha

hato muhuh: even what we acquire by meditation is temporary and has no

permanent effect. Only real faith in the line of pure devotion can help us.

</blockquote>

 

If some people smoke then they will suffer the consequences. Cancer.

 

Bob Marley died from cancer. He was like a sadhu but he couldn't consume poison without suffering from it. Poisons such as ganga kill people.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Pundarika Vidyanidhi is King Vrsibhanu [srimati Radhika] Father in Vraj-lila. Bye.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

Gaurasundara asked me not to "interact" with him on this forum. But Gaurasundara then comes out and makes all sorts of snide comments against my Gurus, which he justifies by the logic that I criticized the tradition of the "traditional guru" named Tinkori babaji. Did I abuse Tinkori, or Kunjabihari das Babaji? If you read what I have said about them here you will see that I made no personal attacks at all against them.

 

I just happen to feel that they are preaching a bad religion.

 

OBL Kapoor:

<blockquote>Tinkadi Gosvami then tried to take vesa from some other saint. But no one gave him vesa, because he was an acarya. Therefore, one day he took vesa of a renounciant Babji by putting on an old kaupina of Baba Manohara Dasa and taking a vow never to return home. He did not need initiation, because he was already initiated by his father.

</blockquote>

This is a bad religion. Look at the ignorance and injustice it promotes. Professional gurus. And Babaji's who give authority and power to high caste gurus who cheat the ignorant people and take their money.

 

It was necessary for Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Saraswati Thakur to reform the Gaudiya Vaishnava religion.

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur wrote:

<blockquote>

What sort of a thing is the Bhagavata, asks the European gentlemen newly

arrived in India. His companion tells him with a serene look, that the Bhagavata

is a book, which his Oriya bearer daily reads in the evening to a number of

hearers. It contains a jargon of unintelligible and savage literature of those men

who paint their noses with some sort of earth or sandal, and wear beads all over

their bodies in order to procure salvation for themselves. Another of his

companions, who has traveled a little in the interior, would immediately

contradict him and say that the Bhagavata is a Sanskrit work claimed by a sect

of men, the Goswamis, who give mantras, like the Pope of Italy, to the common

people of Bengal, and pardon their sins on payment of gold enough to defray

their social expenses. A third gentlemen will repeat a third explanation. Young

Bengal, chained up in English thoughts and ideas, and wholly ignorant of the

Pre-Mohammed history of his own country, will add one more explanation by

saying that the Bhagavata is a book, containing an account of the life of Krishna,

who was an ambitious and an immoral man! This is all that he could gather

from his grandmother while yet he did not go to school! Thus the Great

Bhagavata ever remains unknown to the foreigners like the elephant of the six

blind who caught hold of the several parts of the body of the beast!

</blockquote>

[Guest guest]

"The European gentlemen" may see it like that. A European-educated Indian may also see it like that.

 

I'm not Gaurasundar by the way. I'm merely showing that what goes around comes around and that the best means is therefore to be willing to offer respects to others and see the best in their efforts even if they are from a different group than your own and even if some of their activities are not of the highest standard.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Gaurasundar, I really am not trying to make you mad. Please understand this. But when you are prepared to speak so boldly against gurus who watch the news to familiarize themselves with other countries....

 

then why don't you also shed your hypocrisy by taking initiation from a guru and giving up your girlfriend?

 

 

Alpaji, (I know who you are) I understand that it would be easy to mistake me for another since there are so many anonymous guests around. I sign off as "Bogus Rascal" by the way, just to let everyone know that one person is talking.

 

I appreciate that you are not trying to make me "mad", but it was not me who made the comments that you are responding to. I withdrew from this discussion several days ago since I could see that this discussion is going nowhere. As for why I am here now, I just checked in to see how it is going. I would really appreciate it if everyone could stop dropping my name here and there in a discussion which I am not participating in any more. Regarding the comments, I really do have better things to do than worry about the television habits of certain gurus.

 

Bogus Rascal

 

P.S. Yes it is true I have no guru at the present time. Perhaps that is because I am looking for one? And what makes you think I have a girlfriend? What this has to do with siddha-pranali (or whatever this discussion is about) I don't know. Can I ask who is your guru, please?

[Guest guest]

 

Let me outline these objections. I am doing this for the sake of discussion; I do not want to stir up bad feelings

 

 

Alpaji, while I am here, I think you have brought up some good points. However, I don't think that it ultimately matters, because corruption is there in all sects and groups. Would I need to point out the scandals that have befallen the reformist school to belabour the point? As far as I can see the issue here rests with the father of Tinkadi Gosvami. Doesn't anyone seem to care about (Tinkadi) Gosvami himself, and how he achieved prema-siddhi?

I believe that this is the point that Raga was making; quoting select parts of his hagiography is not a very good move. I see that the examples of Nityananda Prabhu and Pundarika Vidyanidhi have been mentioned. May I also cite Sri Haridas Thakur as an example? Should we dismiss Sri Haridas Thakur and his great realisations simply because he was not born in a "Hindu" family at all, but a Muslim one?

 

Did Haridas Thakur's parents eat meat? Was he brought up as a Muslim, with the five-prayers-a-day etc? I don't know, but being Muslims it may have been likely? But when we speak of Sri Haridas Thaur and his realisations, and his great relationship with Prabhu Caitanya, no one really cares about his "Muslim" birth and previous activities. We care about how he acted in his later life. We care about the intense grief that Sri Caitanya showed upon the Thakur's passing. We weep with the unworthy ambition of placing his lotus-footdust upon our unworthy heads.

 

Tinkadi Goswami became a siddha. Yes, through the diksa-mantra and siddha-pranali that he received from his apparently corrupt father-guru. How do we explain that? To me, his achievements is something to be admired and stands more effulgent than the corrupt activities of his father. Without mentioning what became of him, I personally find it dishonest to focus too much on his past. It is like dismissing Sri Haridas Thakur after peering into his "Muslim" background. Just my opinions.

 

By the way, Tinkadi Goswami? Is that all? What about all the other Goswamis past and present? Why focus on just one?

 

Bogus Rascal

[Guest guest]

I didn't notice this part of Alpaji's post. Please allow me to respond to it.

 

 

A person who criticizes Vaishnavas (by accusing them of fabricating their siksa paramparas), while at the same time maintaining a girlfriend and speaking so much philosophy without a diksa guru of his own, is certainly not very honest.

 

 

Alpaji, since I know who you are, I know that you also do not have a diksa-guru but you have been speaking philosophy for so many years? Since we haven't corresponded in a while I could be wrong of course, in which case I am curious to know who your guru is if you don't mind sharing? Again, where did you get the quaint idea that I have a girlfriend? I would humbly suggest that you approach me for facts about me if you wish to know rather than listen to every bit of malicious gossip that is flung about here, though what it has to do with the discussion at hand is beyond me.

As for fabricating a siksa-parampara, I made that comment over a year ago. Isn't it rather childish to bring that up in a discussion where that subject is not relevant? I thought you were here to discuss siddha-pranali, not paramparas? Speaking of which, have all your questions on that subject been answered, or do you still have more doubts?

 

 

Perhaps your words (and those of many other critics of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati), would have more weight if they were backed up a brahminical standard of piety. Please note that this is meant as constructive criticism only.

 

 

Thank you for that constructive criticism. Since all you know about me has come from malicious comments and you have no actual knowledge of my standard of "brahminical piety", I'll let it go. I would also like to let you know that I have all respects for Sri Bhaktisiddhanta et al. He was definitely a great Vaishnava. Just because I choose to disagree with some of his methods and practices does not mean that I am full of hatred for him. I would greatly appreciate if anything I say was regarded as unique to me and my views and that I was not compared to other, more vocal, critics. Also please bear in mind that comments made over a year ago may not necessarily reflect my present position.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bogus Rascal

[Guest guest]

 

I'm not Gaurasundar by the way. I'm merely showing that what goes around comes around and that the best means is therefore to be willing to offer respects to others and see the best in their efforts even if they are from a different group than your own and even if some of their activities are not of the highest standard.

 

 

 

Again, you say this now, but in the past you were happy to tell us that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati fabricated a "bogus siksha parampara." On one hand you cry for respect, but really you don't feel obligated to show any.

 

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati is to be criticized because he is not "orthodox" by your standards. On the other hand, when it comes to hukka-smoking "traditional" guru-pranalis, you are noticeably silent.

 

 

 

Alpaji, (I know who you are) I understand that it would be easy to mistake me for another since there are so many anonymous guests around. I sign off as "Bogus Rascal" by the way, just to let everyone know that one person is talking.

 

 

 

If you really insist on posting anonymously, we can always ask the moderator to tell us what IP you are posting from. But anyway, I figured out it was you because of that same tendency you have to respond to things even when it is obvious that you have not understood what is said, your tendency to pretend you know certain things even when you do not, your tendency to harshly attack anyone who disagrees with you, your refusal to admit when you are wrong, etc.

 

Apparently, Muralidhar figured it out too, presumably for the same reason. There just aren't that many people who behave that way.

 

 

Yes it is true I have no guru at the present time. Perhaps that is because I am looking for one?

 

 

 

I have no problem with you looking for a guru. I simply note the hypocrisy in you not having a guru, yet insisting that everyone else should have a guru via diksa, and then criticizing Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati because his guru-parampara does not include diksa.

 

 

 

And what makes you think I have a girlfriend?

 

 

 

I'm well aware of the fact that you have a girlfriend. Are you denying it?

 

 

 

What this has to do with siddha-pranali (or whatever this discussion is about) I don't know.

 

 

 

That is why I am skeptical of your claims that you know what traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism is.

 

It's precisely because you engage in impious behavior that you take a soft stance on impiety within traditional guru-pranalis. And since impiety within traditional guru-pranalis does not bother you, you cannot appreciate why Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati would distance himself from them.

 

The relevance is quite clear.

 

 

 

Can I ask who is your guru, please?

 

 

 

You can ask. I very much doubt you would recognize the name anyway. But I am sure he would never have stood for his disciples having girlfriends.

 

You make the point that Haridas Thakura probably ate meat before he began devotional life. Probably this is so, however, this is not relevant here because we are not criticizing sins committed *before* initiation but rather the tolerance of sinful activity *after* initiation, especially by those claiming to be in a "traditional" guru-pranali. You recall that the story said Tinkodi Gosvami needed no other initiation because he was already initiated by his father. Yet this initiation was given by a man who used guru-dakshina on useless luxuries, and who allowed his "disciple" to smoke.

 

You repeatedly tell us that one must be initiated in traditional guru-pranalis, and you scoff at Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati because he did not have such an initiation. Yet we see from this example that one can get such initiations even if he indulges in intoxicants. Certainly, you have not suggested that there is anything wrong with a hukka-smoker taking diksa and still smoking (Raga even suggested that it was ok to do this if society/disciples expected it). Nor do you seem disturbed by the implication that Harimohana encouraged his son to take to the guru business because he could not make it in school.

 

All of this raises the question of your concept of "orthodoxy" when it comes to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. You endorse ritual over actual qualification, in contrast to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati whom you criticize.

 

 

 

Tinkadi Goswami became a siddha. Yes, through the diksa-mantra and siddha-pranali that he received from his apparently corrupt father-guru. How do we explain that?

 

 

 

We can explain that as someone's opinion, and then point out the differences between facts and opinions.

 

I very much doubt you would accept the idea that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati attained perfection, even though his followers are of this opinion. And if you did, then you must explain to us how this is possible for someone who came to us via (your own words) a "bogus siksa parampara."

 

 

By the way, Tinkadi Goswami? Is that all? What about all the other Goswamis past and present? Why focus on just one?

 

 

 

Mostly because you cannot accept that the hukka-smoking, materialistic, "become guru if you must drop out of school" attitude is wrong, traditionally speaking. If you could, then there would be no issue, and we could move on.

 

This question was raised because I asked about the qualification to give and receive siddha-pranali. Apparently in your view, one need not even have basic brahminical standard of restraint to get siddha-pranali.

 

 

 

Alpaji, since I know who you are, I know that you also do not have a diksa-guru but

 

 

 

You are mistaken. I do have a diksa-guru, and I can say with certainty that he comes in a long line of Vaishnavas who don't smoke hukkas.

 

 

 

I would humbly suggest that you approach me for facts about me if you wish to know

 

 

 

You want me to "approach" you for facts, even though you post anonymously? Isn't that just a bit humorous?

 

 

 

As for fabricating a siksa-parampara, I made that comment over a year ago. Isn't it rather childish to bring that up in a discussion where that subject is not relevant? I thought you were here to discuss siddha-pranali, not paramparas? Speaking of which, have all your questions on that subject been answered, or do you still have more doubts?

 

 

 

Isn't it rather childish to make such remarks, defend them to the proverbial death, and now ask that everyone forget you said it even though you never recanted them?

 

It was obviously a very stupid thing for you to say. Have you come to terms with that, or are you just expecting us to overlook it? Because what this shows us it that you have no problem saying things which are obviously wrong, which raises the question of whether you would self-correct even today.

 

 

 

Also please bear in mind that comments made over a year ago may not necessarily reflect my present position.

 

 

 

 

Indeed. We know that you might change your philosophy again next year, and perhaps the year after that. But the one thing which won't change is the your conclusion that Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara and teachings are "bogus." Last year you tried to rationalize this by saying that that there was no such thing as a siksa parampara. Having had that view refuted, it seems that this year your position is that it is bogus because of not having come from a "traditional guru pranali." Now having seen what goes on in some "traditional guru pranalis," perhaps next year your argument will be something else.

 

Let us summarize:

 

You believe Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's parampara is "bogus" (by Gaudiya standards). Yet you have no problem believing that a parampara linked by a guru who allowed hukka smoking, who spent donations on luxuries, and who believes the guru profession is a reasonable course of action for a high school dropout, is perfectly legitimate.

 

You do not object to impious behavior in religious circles, especially as you yourself engage in impious behavior. Yet you have no problem criticizing Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati despite his exemplary character. Your concept of "orthodoxy" has nothing to do with qualification.

 

Consequently, you are not very objective in determining who is and is not qualified for siddha-pranali.

 

Please note that I am not saying that all guru-pranalis are like that of Harimohana Gosvami, or that none of them are qualified, etc. I am merely questioning your understanding of qualification as well as noting your hypocrisy in overlooking obviously unqualified individuals in "traditional" pranalis.

 

regards,

 

alpa-medhasaH

 

p.s. Please give my regards to your girlfriend also.

[Guest guest]

Whatever is the qualification to give siddha-pranali, surely one must at least be qualified to become guru. What is shrI rUpa gosvAmI's view on this?

 

vAcho vegaM manasaH krodha-vegaM jihvA-vegaM udaropastha-vegaM |

etAn vegAn yo viShaheta dhIraH sarvAM apImAM pR^ithivIM sa shiShyAT ||

 

"A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world." (shrI upadeshAmR^ita - 1)

 

Based on this principle, someone who smokes (thus not tolerating the mind's demand for intoxicants) is certainly not qualified to become a guru. Of course, it is not said here exactly that one who does not have these things is necessarily unqualified, but clearly we are meant to think this.

 

It may be argued that one should accept a guru because he has descended in a family lineage of one of Sri Caitanya's principal associates. However, there is no directive in the literatures of the Gosvamis to accept a guru based solely on family lineage. All brahmanas have a family lineage going back to an ancestral rishi (like Vasishta, Kashyapa, etc), but simply having such a lineage does not guarantee qualification.

 

It may be argued that some very exalted devotees like Pundarik Vidyanidhi smoked, and therefore one should not consider such "faults" when evaluating pure devotees - therefore Harimohan Gosvami and Tinkadi Gosvami were pure devotees. Yet, the Caitanya-bhagavat explains that Pundarik Vidyanidhi experienced the highest symptoms of devotion ecstasy when the Bhagavatam was recited, in spite of his outward appearance as a materialist. According to the popular story about Tinkadi Gosvami, he did not have such bhAva at the time of initiation - it came much later only. There is no directive to excuse materialistic indulgement in sadhakas who have not attained the highest perfection.

 

It is disappointing that some would hold that, lacking even basic qualifications to become guru, he can nevertheless be qualified to award siddha-pranali. Perhaps it is precisely this sort of corruption which Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati wanted to distance himself from, and for which certain armchair Gaudiya Vaishnavas are accusing him of having a "bogus siksa parampara."

 

alpa-medhasaH