Visnu or Krsna bhakti

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Isvara (das) GGS (Vrindavana - IN) wrote:

> Why prematurely making a difference between visnu-bhakti and

> krishna-bhakti. I thought we are trying to be Vaisnavas. Vaisnava means

> devotees of Visnu.

Srila Prabhupada stresses realizing the oneness of the Lord's

multiforms--as well as the profundity of that realization--while he

comments on Bhagavad-gita 4.9, where he writes:

 

"Although there are many transcendental forms of the

Lord, they are still one and the same Supreme Personality of Godhead.

One has to understand this fact with conviction, although it is

incomprehensible to mundane scholars and empiric philosophers."

 

Elaborating further, he says:

 

"'The one Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternally engaged in

many, many transcendental forms in relationships with His unalloyed

devotees.' This Vedic version is confirmed in this verse of the Gita

personally by the Lord. He who accepts this truth on the strength of the

authority of the Vedas and of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and

who does not waste time in philosophical speculations attains the

highest perfectional stage of liberation. Simply by accepting this

truth on faith, one can, without a doubt, attain liberation. The Vedic

version tat tvam asi is actually applied in this case. Anyone who

understands Lord Krsna to be the Supreme, or who says unto the Lord

"You are the same Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead," is

certainly liberated instantly, and consequently his entrance into the

transcendental association of the Lord is guaranteed."

 

To me it seems that Srila Prabhupada emphasizes this preliminary

and fundamental realization, just as he generally also emphasizes the

essential principles of our process more than the details of how our

individual advancement actually transpires. That approach is analogous

to brahma-bhuta realization, in that just as realization of the oneness of

all the Lord's forms allows one to appreciate Krsna as He often advises

(i.e., "tattvatah," in truth)--so a realization of our qualitative oneness

of all living beings allows us to similarly appreciate that all others,

including the Lord, are persons qualitatively just like us. Even though it

seems clear that Prabhupada's books generally stress the inherent dualism of

bhedabheda more than its inherent monism, I suspect the above emphasis on

"advaita" also had a lot to do with Srila Prabhupada's incomparable and

unprecedented success in awakening the dormant Krsna consciousness in so

many people.

Of course, at the end of his purport, Srila Prabhupada also only

mentions Krsna. :-)

 

Mukunda Datta dasa

[Guest guest]

Of course they are Vaishnavas, but not Vaishnavas in the Gaudiya line. That

is, not Gaudiya Vaishnavas. For their conception of upasaka-tattva (the

worshipable Deity) and their process of upasana (methods of worship) are

different.

 

The path of worship introduced by Lord Caitanya and the Gosvamis is that of

raga-marga, and raga-marga does not lead to Vaikuntha. Ramya kacid upasana

vrajavadhu-vargena ya kalpita, this is the preference of the Gaudiyas.

 

 

> >Those who seriously aspire for Vaikuntha-rasa for the sake of Vishnu's

> >prema-seva are to be honored as pure Vaishnavas, but they are simply not

> >regarded Vaishnavas in the Gaudiya line.

>

> What does the last part mean, "...but they are simply not regarded

> Vaishnavas in the Gaudiya line." The English isn't clear to me. Are you

> saying they are not given special recognition in the Gaudiya line, or that

> in the Gaudiya line they are not considered as vaishnavas?