More on Gaurava

[Guest guest]

 

then when a devotee has learned Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya Caritamrita and gets too old to preach, then he can set down and go over the books of Bhaktivinode and read these things in the proper place, in context and suitable atmosphere.

 

I don't see that it is something to be dragged out onto the streets of internet forums and showm publicly like a billboard on the roadside.

 

Thats the whole argument that we are trying to make.

 

There is a time and a place for such things, but in public places around bystanders is NOT the place.

 

It should be received in and through the book of Bhaktivinoda - not on the internet in the midst of a debate.

 

I thought we were never too old to preach.

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote this verse and published it in

SRI SRI GITA-MALA

A garland of 80 Bengali Songs

Composed in 1893

 

The verse is hardly a deep dark secret and is found all over the internet, despite your objection. The topic under discussion is siddha pranali is it not?

Jagat has nicely summarized the salient point that the Gm and the babaji's approach the same goal by different devotional practices. As followers of SBSST we have one point of view toward how to approach raganuga bhajana and how to realize siddha pranali and the babaji's and sahajiya camp have another. If SBT saw fit to publish his svarupa and then SBVNM saw fit to repeat that information in his essay that explains such differences that is good enough for me. Sorry if you don't agree. That and the sky is blue.

[Guest guest]

sorry admn. forgot to type in Kesava das on previous post which is from me.

[Kripamoya]

 

I thought we were never too old to preach.

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote this verse and published it in

SRI SRI GITA-MALA

A garland of 80 Bengali Songs

Composed in 1893

 

The verse is hardly a deep dark secret and is found all over the internet, despite your objection. The topic under discussion is siddha pranali is it not?

Jagat has nicely summarized the salient point that the Gm and the babaji's approach the same goal by different devotional practices. As followers of SBSST we have one point of view toward how to approach raganuga bhajana and how to realize siddha pranali and the babaji's and sahajiya camp have another. If SBT saw fit to publish his svarupa and then SBVNM saw fit to repeat that information in his essay that explains such differences that is good enough for me. Sorry if you don't agree. That and the sky is blue.

Puru,

I liked you a lot more when you were preaching Sri Isopanisad classes in L.A. back in 1975.

What happened to that Puru who was a disciple of Srila Prabhupada?

 

Now, you are just some crazy manjari-bhava geek in Narayana Maharaja's sect.

 

You were glorious preaching Sri Isopanisad.

I sat though dozens of your classes.

 

Now, you have really let me down and become almost sahajiya.

Something happened somewhere on the way to Krishna.

 

You stopped in one too many temples and now you know TOO MUCH.

[Kripamoya]

Jagat says:

 

 

As to the prayojana and manjari bhava, anyone who has read _Manjari-svarupa-nirupana_ will know that it is frequently stated that the manjaris have entry into the most intimate pastimes of Srimati Radha and Krishna. They are always peeking into Radha and Krishna's most intimate pastimes through the vines and the windows of the kunja kutira.

Manjaris can peep. It's ok.

Bookworms with hairy backs and carnal desires aren't supposed to peep.

 

One thing for sure Jagat, you never cease to amaze me with the extremes you will go to in justifying your intrusions into realms that are beyond the scope of your intellect and reason.

 

You even presume to know better than Saraswati Thakur, Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta, Govinda Maharaja and all the senior disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur.

 

You have got a lot of audacity.

Beyond my wildest imagination you have got audacity.

 

I cannot fathom how you could possibly think you are more learned or more devoted than the great Vaishnavas I just mentioned.

 

I imagine that you just write it all off as the license that comes with raganuga bhakti.

 

Amazing...................simply amazing.

[shiva]

Jagat you wrote:

 

 

When Raghunath prays to be a dasi, it is because he wants to be an observer (of Radha and Krishna's union) and not a participant. But how can this possibly be? It does not make any sense.

 

It makes perfect sense if you are able to appreciate the esoteric nature of these types of writings. For people who are unable to understand what these topics are really about, all they will see is the words and the sentences they form and they will take the direct meaning of those sentences as all in all. That may be alright if you are reading the Gita or other philosophical tracts, but that approach will not work for the rasa shastra. And it is because you don't understand the esoteric meaning hidden from you that you are advised not to waste your time trying to make it your goal in life to study these works as if they are your ticket to Godhead. It's no different then licking the outside of a jar of honey hoping to get some sweetness.

 

If you understood who Raghunath is and what he is all about, and if you understood what the rasa shastra is really alll about, then there would be no question of it making no sense. It is esoteric knowledge. You cannot understand what it is truly about if you think that the outer meaning is the real meaning. Why is this hidden knowledge? Why can't it just be upfront and made obvious? The path of Radha dasyam is a path of love. Love cannot be coerced. It is the mature ripened stage of bhakti. Until the bhakta is able to love, the truth is kept hidden otherwise it will be a form of coercion, which deforms the true emotional stage desired.

 

Jiva Goswami has written in Priti-sandarbha (10)12:

 

In the spiritual world, the Supreme Lord has unlimited spiritual forms, all are expansions of Himself illuminating that world. With each one of those forms, the Lord enjoys pastimes with a single individual liberated soul.

[muralidhar_das]

 

As I stated on the other thread, the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu states that madhura rasa is inappropriate for those who are in the renounced order of life.

 

 

"One of his (Jayadeva's) famous books is Gita-Govinda, which is full of transcendental mellow feelings of separation from Krishna. ...

"Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura comments in this connection that such feelings of separation as Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu enjoyed from the books of Vidyapati, Chandidasa and Jayadeva are especially reserved for persons like Sri Ramananda Raya and Svarupa Damodara, who were paramahamsas, men of the topmost perfection, because of their advanced spiritual consciousness. Such topics are not to be discussed by ordinary persons imitating the activities of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu."

— Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj Prabhupada

(Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita purport. CC Adi 13.42)

Jagat,

Please stop saying you know Saraswati Thakur's thinking better than Srila Sridhar Maharaj, who knew him, lived with him, and dedicated his life to him.

Your statements along those lines are absurd.

While in response to your statements about Freud, rasa and wotnot, I really find it odd that you are quoting Freud

Freud is of little importance these days in the academia I am familiar with. At least in my country. (My wife teaches literary theory and postmodernism for a job, by the way). I wrote a Thesis on Lacan when studying for my degree (fifteen years ago). My degree is in Media-Communications and I studied psych because if you understand Psych you understand much better how Media-communications has an impact on society and individuals. I did a critique of Freud and Jung in my thesis, arguing from Lacan's perspective (Lacan considered himself to be a Freudian but he de-emphasised the sex issue in favour of LACK and that was really a very deep shift from Freud). In what I wrote, I was going with the flow of my contemporaries -- Freud was wrong in his analysis about the basic drives that motivate people. Jung, also, was basing his premises on unprovable and unscientific hypotheses. Lacan talks about hunger, lack, and need. Well, I still have some sympathy for Lacan's ideas. But Freud? Honestly, mate. Why hang on to his sex philosophy? There are many more important things in the struggle of life than sex.

 

I came back because I believe we ought to finish our conversation. If you are finished talking to me, please say so. I will be glad to finish this.

I would wish that the statement below is my final statement to you here. So let me say goodbye with this, Jagat:

[Kripamoya]

Jagat says:

 

Kshamabuddhi's problem could be expressed in the language of Freudian psychology, which as you all no doubt know, says that the idea of God in general is a projection of subconscious contents and represents (principally) a father figure.

 

While we are in the psychoanalysis mode, I would have to say that you siddha-pranali types always accuse me of being wild, radical and trouble-maker, I would have to say that you guys who think you know better than Saraswati Thakur, Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada etc. etc are the real wildmen and the most radical, audacious troublemakers of all.

 

I am a choir boy compared to you guys.

[Guest guest]

I expected that someone would say that Freud is out of date, etc. From that point of view Freud has been out of date since he appeared. I am sorry that I am out of date. I deal with the issues that concern me. But as far as Freud is concerned, I believe that Prabhupada himself approved of his theory that sex was a basic motivation. Freud could have said love or need instead of sex, or he could have just said "life." The issue is ultimately not what Freud said, but what Rupa Goswami said. And that is that madhura rasa is sarva-rasa-sara. All these footnotes to Freud have basically changed nothing.

 

I will get to all of this by and by.

 

Look, I don't claim to know ANYTHING better than Sridhar Maharaj, except perhaps the contents of Ujjvala-nilamani--but then maybe he was just being coy. I am 56 years old, my friend. I have been studying Krishna consciousness, chanting the Holy Names and so on for 36 years. No one is going to tell me that I cannot disagree with anyone, including Sridhar Maharaj, about anything. Sridhar Maharaj was to me a guru figure and I still have a deep and abiding affection for him. I have said this many times. But of course he was displeased with me when I went to Lalita Prasad Thakur. I can understand and appreciate his feelings. It's like that song 'they can't take that away from me"--what I received from Sridhara Maharaj I have not lost and what I appreciated about him I continue to appreciate. I am not kritaghna.

 

But my attitude towards gurus is not quite the same as that of the general orthodoxy. I believe that you can push on. My example was that of the gopis refusing to obey Krishna himself. The guru is Krishna and Krishna is the guru, but Krishna is a tricky dude who keeps taking different forms. Ultimately, we engage in sravana, manana, nididhyasana because are obliged by our nature to search for understanding. And our understanding will always be our own.

 

But our understanding all comes back to our "need" for prema. Prema is the prayojana. Prema is the prayojana. Prema is the prayojana.

[muralidhar_das]

OK

 

But Jagat, really it is absurd or a bit heavy handed to say you know someone better than a person who was intimately connected to them. This is a similar problem as I am facing elsewhere. Someone who never associated with my Guru Maharaj says they are his "siksa-disciple" and that they know him better than the people who were my Guru Maharaj's constant associates. You must see how it irks me. If I were to say that I know someone, for example, Kesava Maharaj, better than one of his disciples who lived with him, then people would say I am being stupid. But this sort of nonsense is going on.

 

Anyhow, I guess that is it, isn't it?

 

I notice from the statistics that I have posted 199 posts on this forum. I would like to make my exit now and never post a comment number 200.

 

Bye

[Guest guest]

Shivaji, I will get back to your earlier post as soon as I can. I am preparing a response. The question, "How can this be?" was rhetorical, of course. But your answers are welcome.

 

In fact, I believe I owe you some debt of gratitude that I wanted to come clean about before going on. Although I still continue to have deep disagreements with you in connection to our unfinished debate on GD, there was one point that I ultimately do concede. Perhaps I will paraphrase you incorrectly, but certainly after our discussion, I came to change somewhat my entire ontology.

 

To whit: We as conscious individuals are only aware of ourselves and the "other." No matter how complex we perceive the Other being, it is ultimately One. Krishna, his Dhama, his internal potency, Radha, the gopis, etc., all that represents one thing. If we want to make a division in that, it is the internal and external energies, between which we lie.

 

I suppose that may sound pretty standard, but there was a "click" that took place and made me see things slightly differently.

 

Anyway, I said I would answer you eventually, but as keeps happening to me, the Other has its/his say. Pursuing these things is a luxury that I don't seem to get permission for. It seems that many more births will be necessary for me.

 

Jai Radhe.

[Guest guest]

 

OK

 

Is that it?

 

Perhaps on your specific issues. I have a lot more to say on other subjects that were brought up on this thread, but they may not be a concern for you.

[Guest guest]

 

OK

 

But Jagat, really it is absurd or a bit heavy handed to say you know someone better than a person who was intimately connected to them. This is a similar problem as I am facing elsewhere. Someone who never associated with my Guru Maharaj says they are his "siksa-disciple" and that they know him better than the people who were my Guru Maharaj's constant associates. You must see how it irks me. If I were to say that I know someone, for example, Kesava Maharaj, better than one of his disciples who lived with him, then people would say I am being stupid. But this sort of nonsense is going on.

 

Anyhow, I guess that is it, isn't it?

 

I notice from the statistics that I have posted 199 posts on this forum. I would like to make my exit now and never post a comment number 200.

 

Bye

 

The way I see this, its possible to know someone by his will. As with Krsna, the devotee reveals himself at will. Srila Sridhara Maharaja is not limited by time and circumstances. He may have said things in the past to some, but his will and grace are not limited to history. He still acts on those who take his siksa. How can a few people claim monopoly of the heart of the sadhu? If I feel Srila Sridhara maharaja is speaking to me in my heart, how can you take this from me? It is not impossible that you will come to know Kesava Maharaja better than those who lived with him. If you open your heart to his siksa, such thing is possible.

[Guest guest]

So we can think it is possible Sudhir Goswami or Narasingha Maharaja may really know Kesava Maharaja better than say, hmm what's his name?

[Guest guest]

 

So we can think it is possible Sudhir Goswami or Narasingha Maharaja may really know Kesava Maharaja better than say, hmm what's his name?

 

They may, when they accept Maharaja's siksha. But that hasn't been the case yet, has it?

[Guest guest]

How do you know <b>Who is following Whom?</b>

 

I think Narasingha Maharaja is following Kesava Maharaja more properly than Narayana Maharaja. What proof can you present to prove otherwise?

[Guest guest]

Maybe St. Paul knew Jesus better than the apostles who lived with Jesus.

 

Maybe the Ritviks who never met Srila Prabhupada understand Srila Prabhupada better than any of the people who lived with Srila Prabhupada and listened to his every word - even words that were not tape recorded for one reason or another.

 

What do you think?

[theist]

 

The way I see this, its possible to know someone by his will. As with Krsna, the devotee reveals himself at will. Srila Sridhara Maharaja is not limited by time and circumstances. He may have said things in the past to some, but his will and grace are not limited to history. He still acts on those who take his siksa. How can a few people claim monopoly of the heart of the sadhu? If I feel Srila Sridhara maharaja is speaking to me in my heart, how can you take this from me? It is not impossible that you will come to know Kesava Maharaja better than those who lived with him. If you open your heart to his siksa, such thing is possible.

 

Transcendental knowledge and relationships take place on the plane beyond time and space. Closeness to guru is not measured by how much time your body was in the same room as his. Haven't we all seen this fact painfully played out before us in recent years?

 

When looking to see who is closest to his guru all that needs to be considered is whose will is aligned with guru's will as guest has pointed out above.

 

It is that simple but unfortunately for those of us on the outside that is not really easy to see, so by default we may think in terms of bodily closeness etc. but this is not really adequate.

[Guest guest]

Srila Sridhara Maharaja spoke about the meaning of the verse "matala harijana kirtana range pujala ragapatha gaurava bhange" quite literally hundreds of times with his direct disciples. They even made this verse the "motto of the Matha".

 

Yet Narayana Maharaja's disciple Madhava Maharaja has this to say about Srila Sridhara Maharaja's explanation of this verse:

 

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja did not intend his statement to be the translation of the verse.

 

Madhava Maharja is speaking about the explanation Srila Sridhara Maharaja gave again and again and which can be heard on quite literally dozens of tape recorded discussions of Srila Sridhara Maharaja talking with disciples.

 

In the end it comes down to this decision: We can either accept what Madhava Maharja says "with his own mouth" or accept what Srila Sridhara Maharaja said "with his own mouth".

[Guest guest]

 

How do you know <b>Who is following Whom?</b>

 

I think Narasingha Maharaja is following Kesava Maharaja more properly than Narayana Maharaja. What proof can you present to prove otherwise?

If he is following, its accidental, which is nice too. Siksa is very deep. Even the siksa of Srila Sridhara Maharaja (they claim they take) could be questioned in instances. I mean, why the differences are milked on and on (is that the meaning of surabhi?)? There is clearly a double standard there. Srila Sridhara Maharaja disagreed with the ratha-yatra "on principle", granted, but he added also that those who brought this for public discussion were not "with him". Why is this aspect of the situation ignored by the milkmen? So yes, by all means lets start adding "how" to the question of following and then perhaps we get honest answers from both sides.

[Kripamoya]

Can't you guys come up with some regular nik to go by instead of posting as "guest" over and over.

We would like to know which post goes with which guest on a regular basis.

 

You can keep you true identity secret, but can't you at least think of a nik you could use regularly?

[shiva]

 

Shivaji, I will get back to your earlier post as soon as I can. I am preparing a response. The question, "How can this be?" was rhetorical, of course. But your answers are welcome.

 

In fact, I believe I owe you some debt of gratitude that I wanted to come clean about before going on. Although I still continue to have deep disagreements with you in connection to our unfinished debate on GD, there was one point that I ultimately do concede. Perhaps I will paraphrase you incorrectly, but certainly after our discussion, I came to change somewhat my entire ontology.

 

To whit: We as conscious individuals are only aware of ourselves and the "other." No matter how complex we perceive the Other being, it is ultimately One. Krishna, his Dhama, his internal potency, Radha, the gopis, etc., all that represents one thing. If we want to make a division in that, it is the internal and external energies, between which we lie.

 

I suppose that may sound pretty standard, but there was a "click" that took place and made me see things slightly differently.

 

Anyway, I said I would answer you eventually, but as keeps happening to me, the Other has its/his say. Pursuing these things is a luxury that I don't seem to get permission for. It seems that many more births will be necessary for me.

 

Jai Radhe.

 

It's a deep realization to come to. Even though most vedantists all teach that essential point, as well as other religious philosophers, coming to actually understanding it is a major step for people. Once understanding that and realizing that point as well as understanding that everything we encounter is one thing, then the next stage is to see everything as being completely controlled by one being at all times. In a sense our environment can then become a vehicle for that control to be shown directly to us, relating to us through that control.

 

Although a deeper stage still is seeing that our thought process, our minds, are also part of that oneness and under the same exact control. Knowing that the controller of the mind can reveal that control as well.

[Guest guest]

 

If he is following, its accidental, which is nice too. Siksa is very deep. Even the siksa of Srila Sridhara Maharaja (they claim they take) could be questioned in instances. I mean, why the differences are milked on and on (is that the meaning of surabhi?)? There is clearly a double standard there. Srila Sridhara Maharaja disagreed with the ratha-yatra "on principle", granted, but he added also that those who brought this for public discussion were not "with him". Why is this aspect of the situation ignored by the milkmen? So yes, by all means lets start adding "how" to the question of following and then perhaps we get honest answers from both sides.

 

 

The reason it is necessary to point out the differences is simple. Disciples of Srila Sridhara Maharaja reject the ideas Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja teaches since what he says is in many serious ways the total opposite to what Srila Sridhara Maharaja taught.

 

To claim "they are one in siddhanta" is deceptive.

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja directly stated "they are doing wrong" (they being Narayana Maharaja, Vamana Maharaja etc). This is a direct statement of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. He said it. Why insist that what he said in this regard doesn't matter? It mattered to Srila Sridhara Maharaja. We know that, because he came right out and said it: "they are doing wrong" and "I avoided Kesava Maharaja, Madhava Maharaja and so many others. I came to live alone".

 

Not totally alone, however. His disciples in Guru-Parampara were living with him.

[Guest guest]

 

The reason it is necessary to point out the differences is simple. Disciples of Srila Sridhara Maharaja reject the ideas Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja teaches since what he says is in many serious ways the total opposite to what Srila Sridhara Maharaja taught.

 

To claim "they are one in siddhanta" is deceptive.

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja directly stated "they are doing wrong" (they being Narayana Maharaja, Vamana Maharaja etc). This is a direct statement of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. He said it. Why insist that what he said in this regard doesn't matter? It mattered to Srila Sridhara Maharaja. We know that, because he came right out and said it: "they are doing wrong" and "I avoided Kesava Maharaja, Madhava Maharaja and so many others. I came to live alone".

 

Not totally alone, however. His disciples in Guru-Parampara were living with him.

 

He said "they are doing wrong", but he also said "do not bring this up in public". Lets say a boy is arrested because of some misbehaviour. The father is angry with his son but still he advices the rest of the family, "Don't bring this up for public deliberation." He prefers that things will be resolved without further and unecessary aggravation. If SSM saw it fit to use the opportunity to instruct the whole world, he would have not said the words, "make this a public dispute and you are not with me". He was in essence a harmonist. One in sidhanta means seeking harmony. This is what must be followed.

[Guest guest]

He said "they are doing wrong", but he also said "do not bring this up in public". Lets say a boy is arrested because of some misbehaviour. The father is angry with his son but still he advices the rest of the family, "Don't bring this up for public deliberation." He prefers that things will be resolved without further and unecessary aggravation. If SSM saw it fit to use the opportunity to instruct the whole world, he would have not said the words, "make this a public dispute and you are not with me". He was in essence a harmonist. One in sidhanta means seeking harmony. This is what must be followed.

[Kripamoya]

 

I expected that someone would say that Freud is out of date, etc. From that point of view Freud has been out of date since he appeared. I am sorry that I am out of date. I deal with the issues that concern me. But as far as Freud is concerned, I believe that Prabhupada himself approved of his theory that sex was a basic motivation. Freud could have said love or need instead of sex, or he could have just said "life." The issue is ultimately not what Freud said, but what Rupa Goswami said. And that is that madhura rasa is sarva-rasa-sara. All these footnotes to Freud have basically changed nothing.

 

I will get to all of this by and by.

 

Look, I don't claim to know ANYTHING better than Sridhar Maharaj, except perhaps the contents of Ujjvala-nilamani--but then maybe he was just being coy. I am 56 years old, my friend. I have been studying Krishna consciousness, chanting the Holy Names and so on for 36 years. No one is going to tell me that I cannot disagree with anyone, including Sridhar Maharaj, about anything. Sridhar Maharaj was to me a guru figure and I still have a deep and abiding affection for him. I have said this many times. But of course he was displeased with me when I went to Lalita Prasad Thakur. I can understand and appreciate his feelings. It's like that song 'they can't take that away from me"--what I received from Sridhara Maharaj I have not lost and what I appreciated about him I continue to appreciate. I am not kritaghna.

 

But my attitude towards gurus is not quite the same as that of the general orthodoxy. I believe that you can push on. My example was that of the gopis refusing to obey Krishna himself. The guru is Krishna and Krishna is the guru, but Krishna is a tricky dude who keeps taking different forms. Ultimately, we engage in sravana, manana, nididhyasana because are obliged by our nature to search for understanding. And our understanding will always be our own.

 

But our understanding all comes back to our "need" for prema. Prema is the prayojana. Prema is the prayojana. Prema is the prayojana.

 

I understand a little of where you are coming from.

 

I am sure there is a market for the kind of message you preach.

 

In some ways, I think it would be really cool if surrendering to Krishna was as painless and congenial as your vision.

 

But, in the final analysis, I don't think that acheiving prema can be accomplished whilst maintaining the kind of attached process you invision.

 

I think if you examine the teachings of Mahaprabhu that you will find that it is not all sugar and spice.

 

There are sacrifices to be made. Attachments to be given up and there is a bitter pill that must be swallowed to make us better.

 

Medicine does not always come in a palatable and pleasant form.

 

Most of us have no conception of sacrifice.

All we know is taking and using of others.

 

The degree of sacrifice we must attain to is very great.