Rama-carita-manasa

[Guest guest]

Pranams

Does anybody have some quotes from Tulsidasa's Rama-carita-manasa that are

reflecting Mayavad? I heard some ISKCON devotees who read the book saying there

is no mayavad in it. Hm. Interesting controversy.

 

ARd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, avadhuta raya <avadhutaraya>

wrote:

>

> Pranams

> Does anybody have some quotes from Tulsidasa's Rama-carita-manasa

that are reflecting Mayavad? I heard some ISKCON devotees who read

the book saying there is no mayavad in it. Hm. Interesting

controversy.

>

 

The following was posted on soc.religion.vaishnava many years ago in

response to the "Tulasi das Ramayana is bona fide" crowd. They were

claiming that Rama-charita manasa was fully in line with Gaudiya

Vaishnava conclusions. Ask your ISKCON friends what they think of

this:

 

begin quoted message ---------

I'm curious -- what is your interpretation of

 

soi jAnai jehi dehu janAI | jAnata tumhahi tumhahi hoi jAI |

 

which occurs after Ayodhya-kaaND, #126?

 

The literal interpretation of the second part is "one who knows you

indeed becomes you" which has to refer either to an Advaitic mukti,

or

to saayujya. The former seems to be counter-indicated by

 

rAma sarUpa tumhAra bachana agochara buddhipara |

abigata akatha apAra neti neti nita nigama kaha ||

 

which clearly shows that Tulsidas regarded the "neti, neti" reference

as referring to Raama or the saguNa-brahman, rather than to the

nirguNa. However, the fact remains that "jAnata tumhahi tumhahi hoi

jAI" is indicative of merger of some sort, and can only be saayujya

(which I, for one, have no problem with). However, the line

 

sagunopAsaka mochchha na lehI.n |

 

(Lanka-kaaND, #111+)

 

is very interesting -- the use of "saguNopaasaka" shows that Tulsidas

accepted the dichotomy of sagUNa- and nirguNa- upaasanaa, the

life-blood of Advaita. Rather curious, don't you think?

 

end quoted message

 

I for one have repeatedly mentioned these references to the Tulasi

dasa followers. In every case, they simply ignore them and continue

to assert Tulasi dasa's infallibility, citing various legends of

this author (which are only accepted by them).

 

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Tulasi dasa was clearly

influenced by Advaita (evidence above), which is hardly compatible

with the view that he is a pure Vaishnava whose philosophy is fully

in line with Sri Caitanaya Mahaprabhu's line of thinking.

 

regards,

 

K

[Guest guest]

Pranams

Devotees may refer the following link wherein out moderator too had posted his

opinions though i dont see anything was concluded.

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=50658&\

page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=4&vc=1

One thing i noted was that Narayanan maharaj seems to have stressed that the

work is authentic

Thanx

 

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

 

 

[Guest guest]

It is indeed clear that gaudiyas are not supposed to read Tulasi Das as

per injunction from their acharyas. And he is clearly an advaitin. But

I have heard from some ISKCON devotees that Srila Prabhupada in some

places stated that Tualsi Das is a pure devotee. Any comments?

 

 

> I for one have repeatedly mentioned these references to the Tulasi

> dasa followers. In every case, they simply ignore them and continue

> to assert Tulasi dasa's infallibility, citing various legends of

> this author (which are only accepted by them).

 

Many legends in different traditions are accepted only by the

respective followers. This includes gaudiya tradition also. It is a

case of throwing stones from a glass-house.

 

Recently, a book has been published by Sai Baba followers and it has

got raving reviews in the press. It is totally irrational but it does

not seem to matter to that community.

 

I wish that all communities face the truth about themselves rather than

get stuck in sentimental illusory faiths.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram>

wrote:

> It is indeed clear that gaudiyas are not supposed to read Tulasi

Das as

> per injunction from their acharyas.

 

Just a clarification - it's clear at least for those follow A.C.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Prior to him, I am not aware that

any Gaudiya acharyas have taken a position on it. Though with the

apparently mayavadi influence it isn't hard to infer what their

position would be if queried about it.

 

And he is clearly an advaitin. But

> I have heard from some ISKCON devotees that Srila Prabhupada in

some

> places stated that Tualsi Das is a pure devotee. Any comments?

 

Several points:

1) I have seen statements to the effect that Tulasi das is

a "devotee,great devotee," etc but I have never seen "pure

devotee" being used by him to describe Tulasi dasa. We should see

the evidence for this - otherwise it is hearsay.

2) Srila Prabhupada uses the term "pure devotee" in many different

contexts. Sometimes he refers to one who exclusively worships Vishnu

as a "pure devotee." Sometimes he uses it to refer to one who has

attained sad-achara stage of bhakti. The literal useage, meaning one

who has attained prema-bhakti, is not the only way in which he uses

it.

3) Even still, the question is whether or not the literature is

acceptable for Gaudiyas. Lord Shiva was a pure devotee, but that

does not make Sariraka-bhashya an acceptable reference for

Vaishnavas (for example).

 

 

> Many legends in different traditions are accepted only by the

> respective followers. This includes gaudiya tradition also. It is

a

> case of throwing stones from a glass-house.

 

Not at all. The case against Tulasi dasa is made based on the

content of his writings which is in conflict with views of Vaishnava

Vedantins. The case for Tulasi dasa is often made on his having

allegedly met Lord Shiva, etc, which cannot be verified.

 

Yes, Gaudiyas have their legends too. But no one is using local

Gaudiya legends in the Tulasi dasa debate.

 

K

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

Srila Prabhupada called Tulsidasa a "great devotee

"(letter to Harivilasa 14.06.1970)

 

There are two types of considerations: apparent and

real.Apara vichara and tattva vichara.

 

Hence the Gaudiyas do not have any problem in calling

someone a devotee, a pure devotee or a great devotee,

but that does not mean that their siddhanta is

accepted or they must be followed. As far as siddhanta

is concerned the flaws must be pointed out and

defeated. Hence, Srila Prabhupada mentions Tulsidasa

to be a pure devotee, but that does not mean the

philosophy must be accepted. Same is the case with

Mirabai. Srila Prabhupada also glorifies her in many

places. But that does not mean all that she sang is

acceptable as siddhanta.So it is with

acceptance/rejection of Sankara, Vallabha and everyone

else of other sampradayas.

 

Their devotion is accepted but the philosophy wherever

contrary to siddhanta is challenged and not followed.

As far as the siddhanta is concerned, only that given

by Sriman Mahaprabhu and expanded by acharyas in His

sampradaya is followed.

 

dasa

Narasimhan

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

It would be helpful to know the source of the impersonalist statement, but

even without it one may understand the philosophy based upon writings. In

any event, it is true that sometimes Srila Prabhupada would quote Tulasi

Dasa Prabhu in lectures etc., as in the following example from Montreal

8.30.68:

 

"So this verse... Our, this respectable Indian lady, she will begin

Rämäyana... This Tulasé, actually it is not Rämäyaëa. It is called

Räma-carita-manasa. Rämäyaëa means Välméki Rämäyaëa, but people have taken

it as Rämäyaëa. Actually, Tulasé däsa has expressed his own feelings about

his devotion to Lord Räma, and therefore he has named it Räma-carita-manasa,

his mind full with service attitude for Lord Räma. That is the real meaning

of this book. But people have misinterpreted; they are going on just it is

Rämäyaëa. And Rämäyaëa, of course, anywhere where Räma's activities are

described, that is called Rämäyaëa. That is another sense. But real Rämäyaëa

means the Rämäyaëa composed by Välméki Rämäyaëa. Rämäyaëa composed by

Maharñi Välméki. And this is... It is a popular notion that this is

Rämäyaëa, but actually this book is called Räma-carita-manasa. So some of

the description of Räma are there, but not all the description. Rather there

are many differences from the original Välméki Rämäyaëa. Anyway this is song

of a devotee for his Lord Räma. In that sense, you can call it Rämäyaëa, but

this book is actually Räma-carita-manasa."

 

He has stated that Tulasi Dasa is a devotee of Rama, however, in some

instance, he has also indicated that we do not accept Tulasi Dasa without

consideration as in this incompletely transcribed room conversatioin (for

some reason Hindi is not translated) New Delhi 11.11.71:

 

"Prabhupäda: There is no need.

Guest: But if he goes after demigods...

Prabhupäda: If he wants some material profit. (Hindi conversation) So kämais

tais tair håta-jïänäù prapadyante anya-devatäù [bg. 7.20]. (Hindi)

Guest: (Hindi)

Prabhupäda: Tulasé Däsa is different; therefore we don't take Tulasé Däsa as

authority.

Guest: Not? Then, sir, there is Räma and there is Kåñëa. You have Hare Räma

Hare Kåñëa. So Räma is Hari. Kåñëa is considered Hari. So when you...

Prabhupäda: So Räma... Bhagavän has different forms: rämädi-mürtiñu

kalä-niyamena tiñöhan [bs. 5.39]. Bhagavän (Hindi).

Guest: That's good. So that explains..."

 

ys, shanti parayana dasa

[Guest guest]

Pranam

 

 

 

Look at this

 

 

 

nava-dvare pure dehi hamso lelayate bahih

vasi sarvasya lokasya sthavarasya carasya ca

 

 

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is living within the body of a living

entity, is the controller of all living entities all over the universe. The body

consists of nine gates: two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, one mouth, the anus

and the genital. The living entity in his conditioned stage identifies himself

with the body, but when he identifies himself with the Lord within himself, he

becomes just as free as the Lord, even while in the body." (Svet. 3.18)

 

 

The last sentence sounds like mayavad but Srila Prabuhpada comments:

 

 

 

Therefore, a Krsna conscious person is free from both the outer and inner

activities of the material body.

 

 

 

So, is identifying oneself with the Lord always mayavad?

 

 

 

Maybe the appropriate explanation for this is what Bhakti Vikas Swami quoted

 

 

 

Krsna consciousness is the development of love of Krsna -- a position

transcendental even to material liberation. At this stage of Krsna

consciousness, beyond self-realization, the devotee becomes one with Krsna in

the sense that Krsna becomes everything for the devotee and the devotee becomes

full in loving Krsna.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 6.30

 

Any comments?

 

 

 

ARd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams

 

It is quite difficult to judge by seeig the divinity of the personality

involved.

 

If we accept tulasi das had the darsan of Lord Ramachandra and hanuman,then why

not follow his process.

 

I remember tulasi das stayed in vraja and there is a nice story behind.

 

Thanx

 

 

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote:

>

> Pranams

>

> It is quite difficult to judge by seeig the divinity of the

personality involved.

>

> If we accept tulasi das had the darsan of Lord Ramachandra and

hanuman,then why not follow his process.

>

> I remember tulasi das stayed in vraja and there is a nice story

behind.

>

 

I would have thought that obvious. Acceptance of such stories is an

act of faith. You have no way of knowing if he did indeed have such

a darshan. Even if he did, that also does not prove that what he

wrote is 100% correct.

 

We aren't sentimentalists. For Vaishnavas, truth must ultimately

measure up with valid pramaanas. There is pratyaksha-pramaana,

anumaana-pramaana, and shabda-pramaana. There is no "but he had

darshan of the Lord" pramaana. How do I know that he did in fact

have such a darshan? I did not witness this, nor can I infer that

with absolute certainty. Besides, there are instances throughout

history where mixed devotees or even demons have had such darshans.

Lord Shiva is the pure devotee of Vishnu - do we accept Advaita as

correct because he has had darshan of Vishnu? I think not.

 

K

[Guest guest]

> If we accept tulasi das had the darsan of Lord Ramachandra and

hanuman,then why not follow his process.

>

Devotees across traditions and outside all of them had had darshan of

the lord. Just because some one is great, every one need agree to his

worldview.

 

> I remember tulasi das stayed in vraja and there is a nice story

behind.

 

What is that? Any authentic work on life of Tulasi das?

[guliaditya]

What a great thread?

Full stress have been given to prove Goswami Tulsidas was a mayavadi.

Full stress have been given to find faults in his writings.

Whether the persons who have previously blasted Tulsidasji(in this thread) can claim themselves as a devotee of Krishna???

I dont think this is what is called bhakti.A pure bhakta sees Krishna everywhere & everything in Krishna then where is the time to find faults.

 

Can anyone give any pramaan from any scripture that a person has a right to find fault in the writings of a Bhakta???

 

Why all this apradhs peoples are doing??? After reading Gita, Bhagavata etc peoples are doing this type of deeds. Vary sad.

 

Pranaam

[Amlesh]

I've read the Ram Charitramanas and yes he spoke about Brahman and he equated Ram with it. Interestingly, when he described Sri Ram, it reminded me of Srimad Bhagvatam.

 

No one in this world is wise enough to judge Tulsidasji. No one is able to realise their own self but commenting on such great soul without any deep thought is done so easily, that's the sad part.