Gadadhara dasa (rus)

Dear Kulapavana, The Apasampradaya piece of writing is such a mess. You are so educated and broad-minded, why quote from that? Did not your Srila Prabhupada live with goswamis? And his disciple calls them bad words?

Re-establishing varnashrama in modern world? Re-establishing where? In CEE? In Western Europe? Who told varnashrama ever existed in those parts? Your ISKCON co-believers? Varnashrama is part of hindu-dharma and "re-establishing varnashrama" is a brandname as a part of one business plan. Its promotion has nothing to do with Chaitanya religion. Pushing into solitary bhajan path? That may (or may not) be another illusion and can potentially lead to a personal disaster. Think about this. If the failure in ISKCON varnashrama project was followed by the sense of upset, this means the classical chain: seeing sense objects, getting attached etc. At the end you have krodha, whose milder form is sense of upset. Then comes illusion, under which you turned to secluded lifestyle. Now you think that your path is a solitary bhajan. In case you had an error in the beggining of your calculation, how can your result be correct? Instead, why don't you become a secret yogi? Get yourself a job, live like other people do, but be devoted to God all the time. You will thus verify if your desire to do solitary bhajan path is real. As a side effect, you will make some money to go where you want to go. But eventually you may find peace inside yourself and find out that you do not need to go anywhere. You cannot be pushed to do avadhuta path. If you were adhakaravan for avadhuta path, you would flush your passport down the toilet, take a rucksack with few belongings and walk through the borders without asking any suggestions anywhere on the Internet. You don't need any babaji vesh initiation to become a sadhu.

Being in deep bhajan has nothing to do with being within or outside varnashrama. "Babaji" is similar to sannyas, but is a recent innovation in hindu-dharma: The word baba is Arabic, and means 'father', the suffix 'ji' is an Islamic suffix of respect. Muslims conquered Northern India in the early middle ages and inserted their own words into the local languages. Hindi language contains 70% Arabic/Persian words, baba being taken over from the Arabic for 'daddy'. When the Bengali Vaishnavas began to arrive in Braj in the 16th century the Brajabasis began to address them with babaji, a title which the Bengalis later, in the 18th or 19th century, formalized as the title for their sannyasis. This is from blogspot of Advaitadas.

A thief stole something in a market place. One man saw that and shouted out: "A hat is burning on a thief's head!" The thief became frightened and tore his hat off to put the fire down. That way he revealed himself. Since that time Russians say "A hat is burning on a thief's head".

With these words you give me back some faith in Bhaktivedanta Swami which I lose otherwise hearing his other disciples. Thanks.

The title of the thread was not mine (see post 10), it was somebody else's misconception (a joke, actually). I only wanted to get respected people here to speak on it for my own enlightenment. So, thanks a lot.

So Dear theist: who do you refer to by "impersonalist" and why this type cannot be of a bhagavata cult?

Yeah, great idea, thanks. I asked myself and the answer was that I do not understand this modern term "impersonalism" because this is a total concoction (Kulapavana confirmed). However, I am ok with "brahmavada" and my question to you was to verify if you have similar understanding. Then, based on what I read in available copy of Vishnu Purana and also Bhagavata Purana, Prahlada the son of Hiranyakashipu seems to be a perfect brahmavadi who actually realized aham brahmasmi. But since his story is in Bhagavata Purana, he should be a bhagavata, an uttama-bhagavata according to my inderstanding (misunderstanding?). This was my doubt in relation to your point.

To make the job of commenting easier. To please His devotees. To bewilder atheists. To put theist on the right path.

Why not and who do you refer to by "impersonalist"?

Implication was not mine and I agree that it is quite primitive. Actually I brought this from runet where discussion did not arrive at any good point. So thank you all for sharing your ideas, appreciate that. My understanding of "formless", when speaking about God, is not devoid of form, but the concept of "form" being not applicable. The same for "eternal", because this concept is born within the reality which is limited in time and so our "eternal" cannot be sustainable and applicable to God or Brahman. The same goes for the pair "personal-impersonal" - not applicable. Applicability issue is found even in material phenomena, like intellect. That it exists (at least in some people) is true, but would "form" be applicable? So, I have no problem with an uttama-bhagavata seing Bhagavan in all objects, because Bhagavan is neither personal nor impersonal in the sense of personal-impersonal perceived by material intellect. Thanks again Sambya, Kulapavana, and Raghu.

Sure. Otherwise it would not be hinduism. I wonder if there is such a advaita that speaks of simultaneous presence and absence of dvaita and advaita or bheda and abheda in God.

I recently read this Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.2.45. I cannot imagine seeing Krishna, who is person and is localized, within everything (all objects), which is something non-localized. However, to be in all-is-brahman consciousness is not so hard to imagine. Can a conclusion be drawn that an uttama-bhagavata gives up an idea of a personal God?

Dear Kulapavana, does this statement come from Siddhanta Saraswati? If it does, I would reeeally appreciate to receive the rest of guru-parampara as revealed by himself. Somehow, this happens to be important for me.

Krishna is beautiful, isn't he?