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

[Guest guest]

Thanks for accepting that at least this statement is not true for this age

when Lord Caitanya personally inaugurated the sankirtan movement. But it is

not for other kali yugas also because it talks about Lord Caitanya, the

original avatari who includes all Visnu tattvas in Him, and who came only in

this kali yuga 500 years ago. The author of this statement is referring to

this kali yuga and in such a case he is highly mistaken.

 

> And to accept it does not diminish

> the greatness of Srila Prabhupada or of the holy names of Svayam Bhagavan.

> Any thoughts on this?

 

To diminish the greatness of the preacher acaryas is corollary derived by

some but the main point is that this statement is not true for this age when

Lord Caitanya has relished the mood of Radharani by nama-sankirtan so He

Himself has to perform nama-sankirtan not other Visnu tattvas and Prabhupada

confirms this.

 

> This statement, imho, is not unreasonable

 

It is a surely unreasonable concoction because as you said in normal Kali

Yugas, a black incarnation comes to propogate the Yuga Dharma. So obviously

the statement cannot be for other yugas because Lord Caitanya does not come

in other yugas (only once in a day of Brahma).

 

> So the above statement is consistent with the idea the general Kali-yuga

> dharma.

 

No, this statement is not pointing to other kali yuga but this very Kali

yuga. Because this statement is talking about Lord Caitanya, the original

Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is having Maha Visnu, Narayana, Nrsimha

included in Him. This is only possible for the avatari who came only in this

Kali Yuga. In other Kali Yugas, the blackish incarnation is a yuga avatara

and Maha Visnu, Narayana, Nrsimha are not included in Him. So this statement

is about this Yuga and therefore it is incorrect, misderived and leads to

offensive conclusions.

 

> And to accept it does not diminish

> the greatness of Srila Prabhupada

 

Why should we accept it when it is fictitious & not true? Why should we

accept it when it is not deliniated by our acaryas? We can't accept

anybody's personal speculation in such deep spiritual conclusions. It may

even lead to sahajiyaism saying that all acaryas who practiced

nama-sankirtan are lower than the people who directly practice & preach

raganuga bhakti. The 'so called' raganuga preachers are the real servants of

Lord Caitanya and the preachers of nama-sankirtan are servants only of Maha

Visnu, Narayana or Nrsimhadeva. Such mistaken conclusions have already been

derived about Prabhupada.

 

There are offensive conclusions which have been derived from this fallacious

statement in an attempt to diminish the position of Prabhupada and I think

it was Jasomatinandan Prabhu who wrote a paper to defeat this argument. I

don't know whether those were derived by the same person who made this

statement but I think it is most probably so.

 

Your servant,

Nayana-ranjana Dasa