Shivam Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Sri Krsna Caitanya is Krishna Himself in the Mode of Radharani. Did he chant the Panca Tattva Mantra before chanting the Maha-Mantra like how the other Vaisnavas practice? Hare Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madhavachari Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Sri Krsna Caitanya is Krishna Himself in the Mode of Radharani.Did he chant the Panca Tattva Mantra before chanting the Maha-Mantra like how the other Vaisnavas practice? Hare Krsna I don´t think so, because the "pancha-tattva" conception was construed by one of Krishna Caitanya´s followers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shivam Posted June 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 I don´t think so, because the "pancha-tattva" conception was construed by one of Krishna Caitanya´s followers. Oh! How did Caitanya Mahaprabhu chant Hare Krsna maha-mantra then? He just started to chant the mantra? Also, was Caitanya Mahaprabhu aware that we chant the Panca-Tattva mantra before chanting the Maha-mantra? Is he pleased by this? Hare Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLdd Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Did SP tell us to chant Sri Krsna Caitanya prabhu...etc? yes, is everything he does pleasing to Lord Chaitanya? yes. Lord Caitanya is God, He is omniscient as well as not bound by the rules of conditioned souls. So is it relevant that he chant His own mantra or not? Although i think not. The vedabase may have more info on it. YS JLdd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madhavachari Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 Oh! How did Caitanya Mahaprabhu chant Hare Krsna maha-mantra then? He just started to chant the mantra?Also, was Caitanya Mahaprabhu aware that we chant the Panca-Tattva mantra before chanting the Maha-mantra? Is he pleased by this? Hare Krsna Well, I guess he just chanted it. But I think he chanted the verison that begins with "Hare Krishna" and not the version that is in the Kali-santarana Upanishad that begins with "Hare Rama" as far as I am aware of. And there it simply says, "Hari Om ! At the end of Dvapara-Yuga, Narada went to Brahma and addressed him thus: "O Lord, how shall I, roaming over the earth, be able to across Kali ?" To which Brahma thus replied: "Well asked. Hearken to that which all Shrutis (the Vedas) keep secret and hidden, through which one may cross the Samsara (mundane existence) of Kali. He shakes off (the evil effects of) Kali through the mere uttering of the name of the Lord Narayana, who is the primeval Purusha". Again Narada asked Brahma: "What is the name ?" To which Hiranyagarbha (Brahma) replied thus: 1. Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare 2. These sixteen names (words) are destructive of the evil effects of Kali. No better means than this is to be seen in all the Vedas. These (sixteen names) destroy the Avarana (or the centripetal force which produces the sense of individuality) of Jiva surrounded by the sixteen Kalas (rays). Then like the sphere of the sun which shines fully after the clouds (screening it) disperse, Parabrahman (alone) shines." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madhavachari Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 If he was pleased is difficult to say. I don´t think he wanted his followers to believe he was an incarnation of Krishna. It seems his followers made up all those mythical biographies and deified him more or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shivam Posted June 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 If he was pleased is difficult to say. I don´t think he wanted his followers to believe he was an incarnation of Krishna. It seems his followers made up all those mythical biographies and deified him more or less. ^^ Prabhu, you dont believe Caitanya Mahaprabhu was Krishna himself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madhavachari Posted June 6, 2006 Report Share Posted June 6, 2006 ^^ Prabhu, you dont believe Caitanya Mahaprabhu was Krishna himself? No, why should I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~servant Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 No, why should I? Because sacted texts and our acaryas say so? Take a look, please: http://www.gauranga-prema.ch/Q-A/answer_to_tripurari.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madhavachari Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 Because sacted texts and our acaryas say so? Take a look, please: http://www.gauranga-prema.ch/Q-A/answer_to_tripurari.html Specific Gaudiya texts certainly say so, but not the Vedic literature. Not even the Bhagavata Purana, which is your favourite place for finding "evidence". By the way, you got another thing wrong, there can be no avatara of Krishna, as Narayana is the source of all avataras. Krishna was a temporary manifestation of Narayana and does not exist eternally in a "Goloka". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLdd Posted June 8, 2006 Report Share Posted June 8, 2006 I doubt that He did chant the names of the Panca Tattva. One of the qualities the Mayavadis of the time respected Him for is His humility. Chanting your own glories does not fall under that category. About being in a Hare Krsna discussion and not believing Lord Chaitanya is Krsna Himself? All of Gaudiya vaisnavas and Lord Caitanya's followers believe He is Krsna. I personnally cannot put my understanding and knowledge above persons like the 6 goswamis or Krsnadas Kaviraj. That is just way too puffed up. YS JLdd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 By the way, you got another thing wrong, there can be no avatara of Krishna, as Narayana is the source of all avataras. Krishna was a temporary manifestation of Narayana and does not exist eternally in a "Goloka". Ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Wow, you certainly speak with authority, don't you, friend? If the finite jiva-soul is Sat-Chit-Ananda, why should an incarnation of Svayam Bhagavan not be? [more maniacal laughter] Gaura Hari!!! Gaura Hari!!!!! Govindam adi purusham tam aham bhajami! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 If he was pleased is difficult to say. I don´t think he wanted his followers to believe he was an incarnation of Krishna. It seems his followers made up all those mythical biographies and deified him more or less. Yes, He felt annoyed in passage of CC , when all of the people were calling his name,and Srivas and/or Gadhadhar joked with Gouranga : "...Now can the sun cover itself...?" right? After reading Chaitanya caritamrita i read Caitanya Bhagavath,and concluded,seeing how there devotees enjoyed to see Gouranga as god,that this is for another brother-kind of devotees,wich ? Can we compare them with the liberal ones, visavi conservative ones,of lovers of CC-version.. can i be inbetwen? Gouranga! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murali_Mohan_das Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Yes, He felt annoyed in passage of CC , when all of the people were calling his name,and Srivas and/or Gadhadhar joked with Gouranga :"...Now can the sun cover itself...?" right? After reading Chaitanya caritamrita i read Caitanya Bhagavath,and concluded,seeing how there devotees enjoyed to see Gouranga as god,that this is for another brother-kind of devotees,wich ? Can we compare them with the liberal ones, visavi conservative ones,of lovers of CC-version.. can i be inbetwen? Gouranga! I'm afraid, some of your meaning escapes me (well, much of it), no doubt due to my own deficiencies. From my hazy memory (not having read CC in some time and never having read Chaitanya Bhagavat at all (though the Vaishnavas will mention content from it from time to time), I seem to recall Mahaprabhu revealing His true form on a number of occasions to His intimate associates. So, it seems that calling Him an incarnation of the Lord is more than just the speculation of later adherents. Of course, the faithless can dismiss these revelations (or even Sri Krishna's revelations to Arjuna at Kurukshetra) as hallucinations, wishful thinking, etc., but that is their loss. Dayal Nitai!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.