Who coined the phrase Krishna Consciousness?

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

That does not mean he considered Vipina Vihari a sahajiya. He did not like VV ever since he placed his foot on Bhaktivinoda's head during the time of initiation.

 

Siddha pranali was a standard Gaudiya Vaishnava practice at least since the times of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami - that is not a reason to call all these people sahajiyas.

 

Right on. It is evident that a number of Sarasvata Vaishnavas label those not in the line of Prabhupada Srila Sarasvati Thakura as "sahajiyas" without beginning to understand what that loaded word really means. I find it hopelessly pathetic that people can be so ignorant of a tradition which they profess to follow. Whether ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha devotees like it or not, they belong to an unorthodox branch of the Gaudiya tree which explains why they are so markedly at variance with the older, more traditional Parivaras. A truly balanced and nuanced view of Chaitanya Vaishnavism cannot be had unless one is broad-minded enough to study all those different streams of the movement of Mahaprabhu. As for the notorious Sahajiyas, they are of another world altogether, in many respects alien to both traditionalists and Sarasvatas.

[tackleberry]

 

Right on. It is evident that a number of Sarasvata Vaishnavas label those not in the line of Prabhupada Srila Sarasvati Thakura as "sahajiyas" without beginning to understand what that loaded word really means. I find it hopelessly pathetic that people can be so ignorant of a tradition which they profess to follow. Whether ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha devotees like it or not, they belong to an unorthodox branch of the Gaudiya tree which explains why they are so markedly at variance with the older, more traditional Parivaras. A truly balanced and nuanced view of Chaitanya Vaishnavism cannot be had unless one is broad-minded enough to study all those different streams of the movement of Mahaprabhu. As for the notorious Sahajiyas, they are of another world altogether, in many respects alien to both traditionalists and Sarasvatas.

 

Is that your avatar?

[Beggar]

 

Right on. It is evident that a number of Sarasvata Vaishnavas label those not in the line of Prabhupada Srila Sarasvati Thakura as "sahajiyas" without beginning to understand what that loaded word really means. I find it hopelessly pathetic that people can be so ignorant of a tradition which they profess to follow. Whether ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha devotees like it or not, they belong to an unorthodox branch of the Gaudiya tree which explains why they are so markedly at variance with the older, more traditional Parivaras. A truly balanced and nuanced view of Chaitanya Vaishnavism cannot be had unless one is broad-minded enough to study all those different streams of the movement of Mahaprabhu. As for the notorious Sahajiyas, they are of another world altogether, in many respects alien to both traditionalists and Sarasvatas.

Srila Saraswati Thakur called "traditional Vaisnavas" sahajiyas because he wanted to make to make some revolutionary changes in the way Mahaprabhu's movement was being presented. He perceived that the siddha pranali system had become superficially applied and therefore made the decision to abandon it in his attempt to make Krsna Consciousness available to the Western educated class of India. The concept of sahajiyaism was now broadened to include all forms of "imitationism".

[Kulapavana]

 

Srila Saraswati Thakur called "traditional Vaisnavas" sahajiyas because he wanted to make to make some revolutionary changes in the way Mahaprabhu's movement was being presented. He perceived that the siddha pranali system had become superficially applied and therefore made the decision to abandon it in his attempt to make Krsna Consciousness available to the Western educated class of India. The concept of sahajiyaism was now broadened to include all forms of "imitationism".

 

These "revolutionary changes" and the thought process justifying them has ultimately led to even more imitationism and departures from tradition. The name calling among Vaishnavas is now an established practice. Anybody we dont like we label a "sahajiya" or an "impersonalist" - not because they actually are these things, but because we want to knock them down and belittle their practices or beliefs.

 

The monster of "the end justifies the means" replaced truthfulness (satyam) and in many cases the word jugglery replaced logic and reason. Devotees are now eager to change the siddhanta and shastric knowledge just to show that their guru is always right. They will construct entire artificial universes to prove their point.

 

And have we succeeded in convincing educated people of the world about the glories of Mahaprabhu's movement? Hardly. We are still just a religious fringe and our theology rarely appeals to the educated section of society. Part of the reason for this lack of appeal is our willingness to bend the facts to our theories, and the lack of intellectual honesty in our presentations.

 

These charges apply primarily to Iskcon, but their roots are deeper. Separating ourselves from the rest of Vaishnavism and our "holier than thau" attitude had some unwelcome consequences.

[tackleberry]

 

That does not mean he considered Vipina Vihari a sahajiya. He did not like VV ever since he placed his foot on Bhaktivinoda's head during the time of initiation.

 

Siddha pranali was a standard Gaudiya Vaishnava practice at least since the times of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami - that is not a reason to call all these people sahajiyas.

 

Is this for real? I mean someone placing their feet on B? Can't believe it!

[Beggar]

 

These "revolutionary changes" and the thought process justifying them has ultimately led to even more imitationism and departures from tradition. The name calling among Vaishnavas is now an established practice. Anybody we dont like we label a "sahajiya" or an "impersonalist" - not because they actually are these things, but because we want to knock them down and belittle their practices or beliefs.

 

The monster of "the end justifies the means" replaced truthfulness (satyam) and in many cases the word jugglery replaced logic and reason. Devotees are now eager to change the siddhanta and shastric knowledge just to show that their guru is always right. They will construct entire artificial universes to prove their point.

 

And have we succeeded in convincing educated people of the world about the glories of Mahaprabhu's movement? Hardly. We are still just a religious fringe and our theology rarely appeals to the educated section of society. Part of the reason for this lack of appeal is our willingness to bend the facts to our theories, and the lack of intellectual honesty in our presentations.

 

These charges apply primarily to Iskcon, but their roots are deeper. Separating ourselves from the rest of Vaishnavism and our "holier than thau" attitude had some unwelcome consequences.

Yes, just because Srila Saraswati Thakur said that the car of Krsna Conciousness was in danger of falling off the left side of the road and then gave the instruction to "turn to the right" doesn't mean that eighty-five years later the car is not now about to plunge off the right side. His changes were for time, place and circumstance. Did we over-correct? Are we where we are supposed to be?

[Kulapavana]

 

Is this for real? I mean someone placing their feet on B? Can't believe it!

 

Believe it or not, it was often part of initiation in those days (guru placing his foot on a disciple's head during initiation)

[Kulapavana]

 

Yes, just because Srila Saraswati Thakur say that the car of Krsna Conciousness was in danger of falling off the left side of the road and then gave the instruction to "turn to the right" doesn't mean that eighty-five years later the car is not now about to plunge off the right side. His changes were for time, place and circumstance. Did we over-correct? Are where we are supposed to be?

 

Boy, did we ever over-correct...

 

Good point.

 

It should also be noted, that the other side (traditional parivars) was not asleep at the wheel all these years either. Today in general they are very, very respectable Vaishnavas from whom we could learn a thing or two...

 

Maintaining these largely meaningless old conflicts only damages Vaishnavism.

[davidbrucehughes]

Regarding Yogananda's Jyotish chart, Parasara says:

 

"One will attain full enlightenment if Ketu is in the 12th [from Karakāṁśā] identical with Meṣa or Dhanuḥ and receives a Dṛṣṭi from a benefic. If Ketu is in the 12th from Karakāṁśā, receiving a Dṛṣṭi from a malefic, or is there yuti with a malefic, one will not attain full enlightenment." [bPHS 33.63-74]

 

Unfortunately I could not post Yogananda's chart here because of some limitation imposed by the site software. It can be viewed at

 

esotericteaching.org/moodle/file.php/1/chart_paramahansa_yogananda.jpg

 

In Yogananda's charts, the Atma-karaka of the Rasi chart, Sukra, becomes the Karakamsa of the Navamsa chart. Ketu is indeed in the 12th from the Karakamsa, but is in Makara, not Mesa or Dhanuh, and also receives Drsti from Sani and Mangal, both malefic. So according to Parasara, he does not get full enlightenment.

 

In his autobiography as well as his series on 'second coming of Christ', he himself stated that after this life he would join his guru Sri Yukteshvar who was in the 'astral realms' and would not yet be fully liberated in the way that even he defined 'liberation'.

 

Moreover, we know that, during the expansion of his movement here in America, he admittedly made compromises with Ramakrishna mission, a politically motivated impersonalist Hindu mission that was already established in the West, and stopped criticizing things that were a feature of their god-guru's persona and teaching. Maybe that was necessary at that time, but it creates confusion in the minds of students. Srila Prabhupada didn't care to compromise even for huge political gain in terms of media image or number of followers.

 

love,

Baba

[tackleberry]

 

Regarding Yogananda's Jyotish chart, Parasara says:

 

"One will attain full enlightenment if Ketu is in the 12th [from Karakāṁśā] identical with Meṣa or Dhanuḥ and receives a Dṛṣṭi from a benefic. If Ketu is in the 12th from Karakāṁśā, receiving a Dṛṣṭi from a malefic, or is there yuti with a malefic, one will not attain full enlightenment." [bPHS 33.63-74]

 

 

 

Wow, David, that was interesting. Just curious...if by ketu, you mean south node, I have it in 12th from K conjunct with Jupiter, but it's in Scorpio. Does this have any value from an astro perspective?

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

These "revolutionary changes" and the thought process justifying them has ultimately led to even more imitationism and departures from tradition. The name calling among Vaishnavas is now an established practice. Anybody we dont like we label a "sahajiya" or an "impersonalist" - not because they actually are these things, but because we want to knock them down and belittle their practices or beliefs.

 

The monster of "the end justifies the means" replaced truthfulness (satyam) and in many cases the word jugglery replaced logic and reason. Devotees are now eager to change the siddhanta and shastric knowledge just to show that their guru is always right. They will construct entire artificial universes to prove their point.

 

And have we succeeded in convincing educated people of the world about the glories of Mahaprabhu's movement? Hardly. We are still just a religious fringe and our theology rarely appeals to the educated section of society. Part of the reason for this lack of appeal is our willingness to bend the facts to our theories, and the lack of intellectual honesty in our presentations.

 

These charges apply primarily to Iskcon, but their roots are deeper. Separating ourselves from the rest of Vaishnavism and our "holier than thau" attitude had some unwelcome consequences.

 

 

Boy, did we ever over-correct...

 

Good point.

 

It should also be noted, that the other side (traditional parivars) was not asleep at the wheel all these years either. Today in general they are very, very respectable Vaishnavas from whom we could learn a thing or two...

 

Maintaining these largely meaningless old conflicts only damages Vaishnavism.

 

Haribol Kulapavana Prabhu,

 

Your posts exactly echo my own sentiments on the issue under discussion here. As for most people outside India, my initial introduction to Gaudiya Vaishnavism occurred as a result of the preaching activities of ISKCON, and the writings of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Being basically fair-minded and essentially ecumenical in my approach to religion and spirituality, overtime I felt increasingly asphyxiated by the narrow-mindedness, sectarianism, fundamentalism and outright demagoguery that is so prevalent within that organisation, even whilst being an external patron of it. This led me to enquire about the Matha and later traditional Bengali Vaishnavism, and both have appealed to me as being infinitely superior options to ISKCON. That doesn't signify that all is peachy over there either. Bigotry unfortunately does tend to rear its ugly head every now and then everywhere, and I oppose such unreasonable stances wherever and whenever I encounter them, whether within ISKCON, the Gaudiya Matha or the traditional branches. Of course, there are many times more zealots, fanatics and bigots alike in ISKCON than in both the GM and Parivaras put together.

 

What people do not seem to comprehend is that homogeneity has NEVER been the norm in this sampradaya. Anyone who takes a quick dekko at the Nityananda, Advaita, Gadadhara, Shyamananda or any other orthodox lineages can easily confirm this for themselves. The practices and sadhana observed at Radha-kunda are different from what holds sway in rural Bangladesh, Bihar or Orissa. To me, this indicates the richness and amazing diversity that Chaitanya Vaishnavism represents and is capable of encompassing. This can only be a strength, not a fault.

 

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura had his reasons for acting the way he did. To a person who takes the time to ponder over his preaching carefully, however, this cannot and should not entail an indiscriminate, unreflective, blanket rejection of the tradition for the rest of eternity. Gaudiya Matha comes from that very root, and to deny that source the validity and respectability that it rightfully merits would mean nothing less than positing a similar branding of illegitimacy with regard to its offshoots.

 

I also to your view about the many wonderful Vaishnavas outside of the Sarasvata family. Sri Ananta dasa Babaji Maharaja, the mahanta of Radha-kunda and current occupier of the gaddi of Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami, is one such rasika devotee. I equally have tremendous admiration for Westerners such as Madhavananda das and Advaita das, who are doing so much to bring forth and present traditional raganuga-bhakti to the entire world. In similar vein, I recognise and bow down to the highly advanced and learned representatives of the Sarasvata parampara (B. V. Narayana Maharaja, B. B. Tirtha Maharaja, B. K. Santa Maharaja, B. V. Sadhu Maharaja and B. V. Tripurari Maharaja to name a few). Likewise, B. A. Paramadvaiti Maharaja is deserving of a special mention because of his extremely commendable efforts to unite the Vishnu-worshippers of this planet, not only Gaudiyas but Sri Vaishnavas, Nimbarkis and others as well.

 

Your servant,

Vikram Ramsundar

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

Is that your avatar?

 

My avatar is the late Radha-Govinda dasa Babaji Maharaja of Radha-kunda, a traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhu. From what I know, he was the first to state that Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was specially empowered by Nityananda Prabhu to preach widely and extensively. Later, Prabhupada's Godbrothers B. V. Yayavara Maharaja and B. R. Sridhara Maharaja also made near-identical pronouncements.

[Kulapavana]

 

Bigotry unfortunately does tend to rear its ugly head every now and then everywhere, and I oppose such unreasonable stances wherever and whenever I encounter them, whether within ISKCON, the Gaudiya Matha or the traditional branches. Of course, there are many times more zealots, fanatics and bigots alike in ISKCON than in both the GM and Parivaras put together.

 

I agree with you there. The only reason I am still working within Iskcon is that I feel this is where Krsna wants me to work, in order to make some much needed changes in attitude and direction.

[gHari]

 

From "Steps Toward the Universal Christ Consciousness"

by Paramahamsa Yogananda, February 17, 1935

 

"The Indian name for this universal Christ Consciousness is Kutastha Chaitanya. In India we might also call it Krishna Consciousness..."

One might ask "What is this universal Christ consciousness that Yogananda calls Krsna consciousness".

[gHari]

From original Macmillan 1972 Bhagavad-gita 2.20p

[...] Qualitatively, the small atomic fragmental part of the Supreme Spirit is one with the Supreme. He undergoes no changes like the body. Sometimes the soul is called the steady, or kUTastha. The body is subject to six kinds of transformations. It takes its birth in the womb of the mother's body, remains for some time, grows, produces some effects, gradually dwindles, and at last vanishes into oblivion. The soul, however, does not go through such changes. The soul is not born, but, because he takes on a material body, the body takes its birth. The soul does not take birth there, and the soul does not die. Anything which has birth also has death. And because the soul has no birth, he therefore has no past, present or future. He is eternal, ever-existing, and primeval--that is, there is no trace in history of his coming into being. [...]

 

 

From Back to Godhead 1956 'Shri Krishna - the Supreme Vedantist'

[...] In order to clear the matter more distinctly the Supreme Vedantist Shri Krishna says that 'Sarbani Bhutani' i.e., all the living common entities beginning from 'Brahma,' the original grandfather of the living being, down to the insignificant ant all are fallible creatures whereas the Supreme Brahman is 'Kutastha' or one who never changes his place or position. In the "Amarkosha" the word "Kutastha" is explained as follows: "That which remains in perfect order for all the time is called 'Kutastha.'" So the Kutastha Purusha or the "Akshara Purusha" or the Vishnu Tatwa is different from the Kshara Purusha or the ordinary living being subjected to the conditions of material nature. This distinction between the ordinary living being and the Supreme Lord is explained in the Bhagwat (11.16.11) [...]

 

 

[...] So the ordinary 'yogins' in the state of trance do experience the presence of localized aspect of 'Paramatma.' This Paramatma is Iswara or the Supreme Lord but not the 'Jivas' or the controlled being. 'Paramatma' is the Super Soul. The thesis that 'Paramatma' and 'Atma' is equal and the same is a wrong theory. Had it been so then there was no need of adding the word 'Param' or the superior to the word 'Atma.' That makes the difference more clear. Paramatma is Abyaya i.e., Akshara or Kutastha without any change. He does not become subjected to the conditions of material nature. This is the truth in all Upanishad. The Paramatma and the Atma both have been compared with two birds sitting on the tree of this material body. But one is observing the activities of the other as witness and not taking part in the action. The neutral observer is therefore Paramatma and the stage actor is the Atma. When the Atma stops his material activities in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi, he is called a perfect yogi. So this 'yogi' is better spiritualist than Jnanin who will after many births of speculation become a Mahatma to observe the lotus feet of Vasudeva. [...]

[gHari]

From a lecture about the Teachings of Lord Caitanya

[...] The word caitanya means living force. As living entities, we can move, but a table cannot because it does not possess living force. Movement and activity may be considered to be signs or symptoms of the living force. Indeed, it may be said that there can be no activity without the living force. Although the living force is present in the material condition, it is not amrta, immortal. The words caitanya caritamrta, then, may be translated as "the character of the living force in immortality." [...]