2Nama-sankirtana preached by Maha Visnu or Lord Caitanya Himself?

[Guest guest]

> The problem seems to involve semantics. The term "hari-nama-sankirtana" as

> used conventially in ISKCON implies a process leading directly to

> raga-marga in Goloka Vrndavan.

 

This is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's philosophy. He relished the raga-marga by

hari-nama-sankirtan. And ISKCON & Prabhupada are propogating the same thing

not some adopted philosophy from the sahajiya cult which this statement

seems to be.

 

> However, if we

> take the term broadly to mean the process leading at least to prema bhakti

> in Vaikuntha, then it is true. This can apply even in this Kali yuga.

 

This statement cannot apply in any Yuga, it is simply an attempt to

extrapolate from what KKG has said in Cc leading to a subtle speculation &

deviation. It is not that hari-nama-sankirtan is there for going to

Vaikuntha and raga-marga is there for going to Goloka. The real

understanding we get from the acaryas about Lord Caitanya's pastimes is that

by offenseless hari-nama-sankirtan we enter raga-marga and then Vaikuntha or

Goloka as per our position. Both Vaikuntha & Goloka are there in hari-nama

sankirtana and they are revealed as per the constitutional position of the

chanter. But the point that we are trying to refute is that Lord Caitanya

did not Himself propogate hari-nama-sankirtana but Maha Visnu in Lord

Caitanya did it. There were many Vaikunthavasis who appeared as associates

of Lord Caitanya who worshipped the Lord with spontaneous love.

 

Of course in other Kali Yugas one may worship the yuga avatar by

hari-nama-sankirtan and maybe it is only possible to go to Vaikuntha by

doing that because the yuga avatar is only a partial manifestation of Lord

Caitanya but still the point remains is that the yuga avatara is Himself

partial expansion, so how can he have Maha Visnu, Narayana or Nrsimha in

Him. So the statement has been made about this Kali Yuga when the original

Lord appeared and in such a case it is highly erroneous because He Himself

preached nama-sankirtan as the only means to achieve raga-marga and Goloka

or Vaikuntha by showing by His example. I can't believe that when Lord

Caitanya was dancing in hari-nama-sankirtan, actually it was Maha Visnu who

was dancing in Him. This statement leads to such absurd conclusions.

 

> Srila

> Prabhupada did not come only to save those rasika souls who "fell" from

> Goloka. He also came to save other souls who "fell" from Vaikuntha.

> Therefore, the latter group of souls arelearning the standard Kali yuga

> dharma from ISKCON and going to Vaikuntha by Vishnu's mercy.

 

Why do you assume that raga-marga is not for Vaikunthavasis? I think this

idea comes from some type sahajiya school. Raga-marga includes the five

kinds of relationship with Krsna. In Vaikuntha planets dasya rasa is there.

One can have a spontaneous relationship with awe and reverence.

 

> It is a subtle criticism of

> ISKCON and the Gaudiya sampradaya to say that they are only here to rescue

> the Goloka-bound rasika souls and to not teach the standard Kaliyuga

> dharma--hari nama sankirtana (broad sense)--for the benefit of the

> Vaikuntha-bound souls.

 

Subtle & DEADLY & POISONOUS.

 

> It is of course a gross offensive criticism to say that the powerhouse of

> Srila Prabhupada or his ISKCON are limited to lighting the bulbs of

> standard Kali yuga dharma.

 

My guess is that this statement has originated just to indulge in a GROSS,

OFFENSIVE CRITICISM of Prabhupada & ISKCON.

 

Your servant,

Nayana-ranjana Dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/20/99 1:37:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Nayana-ranjana (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

> My guess is that this statement has originated just to indulge in a GROSS,

> OFFENSIVE CRITICISM of Prabhupada & ISKCON.

 

I would guess so too. Yet still I think there is some salvagable truth in the

statement, which may or (more likely) may not have been the intent of the

author.

 

>The real

> understanding we get from the acaryas about Lord Caitanya's pastimes is that

> by offenseless hari-nama-sankirtan we enter raga-marga and then Vaikuntha or

> Goloka as per our position.

>Why do you assume that raga-marga is not for Vaikunthavasis? I think this

> idea comes from some type sahajiya school. Raga-marga includes the five

> kinds of relationship with Krsna. In Vaikuntha planets dasya rasa is there.

> One can have a spontaneous relationship with awe and reverence.

 

Are there variant definitions of ragamarga? My understanding is that

ragamarga refers to the practice of raganuga-sadhana bhakti and the resulting

perfect experience of ragatmika bhakti in Vrindavan. Both words are defined

in terms of the love of Krishna's associates of Vrindavan.(CC Madhya

22.152-153 and Bhakti rasamrta sindhu 1.2.270-2). Is it stated that

Vaikuntha-bound souls practice raganuga-sadhana bhakti here or experience

ragatmika bhakti there?

 

>There were many Vaikunthavasis who appeared as associates

of Lord Caitanya who worshipped the Lord with spontaneous love.

 

Yes but i thought they experienced ragamarga in their Navadvipa/Goloka siddha

dehas and not in their Vaikuntha siddha dehas. The reason they descend or

manifest in Lord Chaitanya's lila is to experience (or manifest their

experience of) that ragamarga on this plane for the Lord's pleasure. How

isn't this correct?

 

> I can't believe that when Lord

Caitanya was dancing in hari-nama-sankirtan, actually it was Maha Visnu who

was dancing in Him. This statement leads to such absurd conclusions.

 

I see the fact that the author is referring to this Kali yuga. However,

assuming the dark avatara dances in kirtan, Lord Chaitanya's chanting and

dancing certainly includes that dancing as well. Therefore to say the lila of

the dark avatara (chanting etc.) or any other avatara is present within Lord

Chaitanya's lila is not wrong. However, the real truth of His dancing is that

it is non different from Krishna's dancing and it is therefore far superior

to the chanting or dancing of any Vishnu form.

 

> But the point that we are trying to refute is that Lord Caitanya

did not Himself propogate hari-nama-sankirtana but Maha Visnu in Lord

Caitanya did it.

 

Certainly Gaudiya harinama sankirtana leading to ragamarga is taught by Lord

Chaitanya alone. But what is wrong with the idea of the dark Vishnu subtly

teaching regular Vishnu-kirtana (non-raganuga type) from within Lord

Chaitanya's form to some souls? If this is the case, then the souls who would

have otherwise taken advantage of the dark avatara in another kaliyuga get

the very same benefit of non-raganuga chanting and non-raganuga dancing and

resultant Vaikuntha-liberation in this Kali yuga, albeit through Lord

Chaitanya.

 

Lord Chaitanya's greatness is that He gives everyone a chance for liberation

which is to get back to their own constitutional position, not that He forces

everyone on to the raganuga-ragatmika track. If He were to lead everyone onto

that track, that would imply only those souls who, so to speak, "fell" from

Vrindavan are the ones who get liberated by Lord Chaitanya and His movement

(liberation being the revelation of one's own form/rasa according to the

Bhagavatam, not the acquisition of a new form/rasa). If all are to go on that

raga-track, then this would be a valid criticism of Lord Chaitanya and His

entire mission, what to speak of ISKCON.

 

ys

Gerald Surya