Siddha-pranali

[Sonic Yogi]

 

And where do you find definition of term "shiksha-parampara" in Rupa Goswami? (since you are a rupanuga).

 

 

Well, where do you find your claim of "diksha parampara"?

Tell me where Srila Rupa Goswami has defined parampara as being defined by diksha?

Parampara has always been based on the transmission of spiritual knowledge.

Paramapara has wrongly been labeled as "diksha parampara" by caste gurus who make their living as professional gurus.

 

 

<table cellspacing="3"><tbody><tr><td align="right" valign="top">1</td> <td valign="top"> parampara</td> <td valign="top">mfn. one following the other , proceeding from one to another (as from father to son) , successive , repeated MBh. Sus3r. ; (%{am}) ind. successively. uninterruptedly VPra1t. ; m. a great great-grandson or great-grandson with his descendants L. ; a species of deer L. ; %{-tas} ind. successively continually , mutually W. ; %{-bhojana} n. eating continually L.</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" valign="top">2</td> <td valign="top"> paramparA</td> <td valign="top">f. an uninterrupted row or series , order , succession , continuation , mediation , tradition (%{-rayA} ind. by tradition , indirectly) MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; lineage , progeny L. ; hurting , killing L. ; %{-prA7pta} (Bhag.) , %{--yAta} (%{-rA7y-} Var.) mfn. received by tradition [587,2] ; %{-vAhana} n. an indirect means of conveyance (e.g. the horse which draws a carriage) L. ; %{-sambandha} m. an indirect conjunction Pa1n2. 8-1 , 24 Sch.</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

Parampara is about the continued line of knowledge.

It has always been about the transmission of knowledge from guru to disciple.

Lord Krishna speaks of Parampara as an unbroken chain of knowledge.

I doubt seriously that Srila Rupa Goswami has any different idea about Parampara and went against what his Lord Krishna considered as Parampara.

In fact the term Parampara is not found at all in Srimad Bhagavatam or Sri Caitanya Caritamrita.

 

A Vedabase seach only shows ONE incidence of the word Parampara and it is in the Bhagavad-gita of Lord Krishna.

 

 

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 4.2

 

evaḿ paramparā-prāptam

imaḿ rājarṣayo viduḥ

sa kāleneha mahatā

yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa

 

SYNONYMS

 

evam — thus; paramparā — by disciplic succession; prāptam — received; imam — this science; rāja-ṛṣayaḥ — the saintly kings; viduḥ — understood; saḥ — that knowledge; kālena — in the course of time; iha — in this world; mahatā — great; yogaḥ — the science of one's relationship with the Supreme; naṣṭaḥ — scattered; parantapa — O Arjuna, subduer of the enemies.

 

TRANSLATION

 

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.

 

PURPORT

 

It is clearly stated that the Gītā was especially meant for the saintly kings because they were to execute its purpose in ruling over the citizens. Certainly Bhagavad-gītā was never meant for the demonic persons, who would dissipate its value for no one's benefit and would devise all types of interpretations according to personal whims. As soon as the original purpose was scattered by the motives of the unscrupulous commentators, there arose the need to reestablish the disciplic succession. Five thousand years ago it was detected by the Lord Himself that the disciplic succession was broken, and therefore He declared that the purpose of the Gītā appeared to be lost. In the same way, at the present moment also there are so many editions of the Gītā (especially in English), but almost all of them are not according to authorized disciplic succession. There are innumerable interpretations rendered by different mundane scholars, but almost all of them do not accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, although they make a good business on the words of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. This spirit is demonic, because demons do not believe in God but simply enjoy the property of the Supreme. Since there is a great need of an edition of the Gītā in English, as it is received by the paramparā (disciplic succession) system, an attempt is made herewith to fulfill this great want. Bhagavad-gītā — accepted as it is — is a great boon to humanity; but if it is accepted as a treatise of philosophical speculations, it is simply a waste of time.

 

In this most authoritative reference to Parampara we find that Parampara is in fact about the passing down of knowledge of spiritual science.

Krishna revived the Parampara with Arjuna.

He did so without giving Arjuna any mantra diksha.

[Kulapavana]

 

Krishna revived the Parampara with Arjuna.

He did so without giving Arjuna any mantra diksha.

 

In this case Krsna revived a very specific knowledge meant for the kings, and a very specific parampara (disciplic line) of saintly kings. This line actually was hereditary to a large extent, as it was given from father to son. There was no diksa involved in that line as diksa was always received from brahmanas only. So it was strictly a siksa line.

 

Arjuna received diksa (upanayana) from Dhaumya, the family guru of Pandavas. Another disciplic line Arjuna was a part of was the line coming from Dronacharya.

 

BTW. Arjuna's line of parampara became extinct as well.

[kaisersose]

 

In this most authoritative reference to Parampara we find that Parampara is in fact about the passing down of knowledge of spiritual science. Krishna revived the Parampara with Arjuna.

He did so without giving Arjuna any mantra diksha.

 

1) Only Sruti requires Diksha as it requires certain qualifications as prerequisites. Smriti like the Gita, does not require Diksha.

 

2) Know the difference betwen printing and pre-printing eras. Today anyone can get the Rig-veda and read it in full. This was not the case before printing was invented. You had to go to specific sources and procedures were in place.

 

If "Sampradaya" authors of today want to stick on to the old way of doing things, they should not be printing books. They cannot have it both ways.

 

3) If today, I can read the work of a 2000 year old author, then obviously it means there is an unbroken chain between him and me or else I would not have access to his work. That is all there is to it.

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

BTW. Arjuna's line of parampara became extinct as well.

 

You keep missing the point.

Anyone who can understand Bhagavad-gita can become a direct disciple of Lord Krishna just as Arjuna did.

That is why Srila Prabhupada gave us Bhagavad-gita As It Is, so that anyone who reads the book can become a direct disciple of Krishna and a disciple of Srila Prabhupada both by reading the verses and the purports.

 

 

BG intro -

 

Here the Lord clearly tells Arjuna that He is making him the first receiver of a new paramparā (disciplic succession) because the old succession was broken. It was the Lord's wish, therefore, to establish another paramparā in the same line of thought that was coming down from the sun-god to others, and it was His wish that His teaching be distributed anew by Arjuna. He wanted Arjuna to become the authority in understanding the Bhagavad-gītā. So we see that Bhagavad-gītā is instructed to Arjuna especially because Arjuna was a devotee of the Lord, a direct student of Kṛṣṇa, and His intimate friend. Therefore Bhagavad-gītā is best understood by a person who has qualities similar to Arjuna's. That is to say he must be a devotee in a direct relationship with the Lord. As soon as one becomes a devotee of the Lord, he also has a direct relationship with the Lord.

 

BG intro -

 

 

Just what is the Bhagavad-gītā? The purpose of Bhagavad-gītā is to deliver mankind from the nescience of material existence. Every man is in difficulty in so many ways, as Arjuna also was in difficulty in having to fight the Battle of Kurukṣetra. Arjuna surrendered unto Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and consequently this Bhagavad-gītā was spoken. Not only Arjuna, but every one of us is full of anxieties because of this material existence.

 

 

B.G. 4.16 purport -

 

 

The system of Kṛṣṇa consciousness was first narrated to the sun-god, the sun-god explained it to his son Manu, Manu explained it to his son Ikṣvāku, and the system is current on this earth from that very remote time. Therefore, one has to follow in the footsteps of previous authorities in the line of disciplic succession. Otherwise even the most intelligent men will be bewildered regarding the standard actions of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. For this reason, the Lord decided to instruct Arjuna in Kṛṣṇa consciousness directly. Because of the direct instruction of the Lord to Arjuna, anyone who follows in the footsteps of Arjuna is certainly not bewildered.

[Kulapavana]

 

Anyone who can understand Bhagavad-gita can become a direct disciple of Lord Krishna just as Arjuna did.

That is why Srila Prabhupada gave us Bhagavad-gita As It Is, so that anyone who reads the book can become a direct disciple of Krishna and a disciple of Srila Prabhupada both by reading the verses and the purports.

 

 

If I can be a direct disciple of Lord Krsna, what do I need Prabhupada for?

[Kulapavana]

 

 

3) If today, I can read the work of a 2000 year old author, then obviously it means there is an unbroken chain between him and me or else I would not have access to his work. That is all there is to it.

 

 

Books often need explanation, and the guru is not merely a source of knowledge. His much more important function is inspiration and direct guidance given to a disciple.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

If I can be a direct disciple of Lord Krsna, what do I need Prabhupada for?

Prabhupada gave you that direct connection to Krishna by the translation and purports.

It sure wasn't your official ISKCON guru who did that with some mantra-diksha.

Can you read Sanskrit?

Are you self-realized.

Can you understand Bhagavad-gita without help from the self-realized devotee who does know the language and the meaning of Bhagavad-gita?

 

After all, Prabhupada did name his organization the "Krishna" consciousness movement didn't he?

He did not style it as the "Prabhupada" consciousness movement.

Prabhupada teaches how to connect to Krishna.

He did not want anything for himself.

He just wanted to connect you to Krishna.

 

If you were a self-realized soul who could read Sanskrit then maybe you would not need Prabhupada.

[raghu]

This is not my tradition obviously, but I have a question.

 

Why do iskcon/gaudiya-saraswata devotees associate "heredity" with corruption? As in, if one is born into a brahmin family, raised as a brahmin, and takes up the duties of a brahmin, then just by the very fact of his hereditary brahmana status he is somehow illegitimate and not qualified to be a guru? I find this attitude very strange.

 

I would rather have a qualified guru who was raised as a brahmin from birth, rather than a guru who spent his whole life eating meat and chasing women, and then just in the past 2 years suddenly found his calling and "became" a brahmin. Sure he may seem "qualified" to you, but who knows what will happen in another year or so? His old tastes and bad habits may resume, and then what becomes of his "guru" status?

 

It's very strange that on one hand, iskcon people emphasize that a guru must be very qualified, and yet on the other hand they criticize the one tradition that historically created very qualified gurus in the past, namely the varnasharma culture (which was very much related to birth). And that's not to say that there are not corrupt brahmins today - clearly there are - but they are also easy to identify in most cases. How easy is it to identify a "qualified" guru from the reformed and inexperienced mlecchas that join iskcon? And how many times has someone thought, "oh, this is a pure devotee guru" only to have to look for another guru years later because his pure guru left the standard?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

This is not my tradition obviously, but I have a question.

 

Why do iskcon/gaudiya-saraswata devotees associate "heredity" with corruption? As in, if one is born into a brahmin family, raised as a brahmin, and takes up the duties of a brahmin, then just by the very fact of his hereditary brahmana status he is somehow illegitimate and not qualified to be a guru? I find this attitude very strange.

 

I would rather have a qualified guru who was raised as a brahmin from birth, rather than a guru who spent his whole life eating meat and chasing women, and then just in the past 2 years suddenly found his calling and "became" a brahmin. Sure he may seem "qualified" to you, but who knows what will happen in another year or so? His old tastes and bad habits may resume, and then what becomes of his "guru" status?

 

It's very strange that on one hand, iskcon people emphasize that a guru must be very qualified, and yet on the other hand they criticize the one tradition that historically created very qualified gurus in the past, namely the varnasharma culture (which was very much related to birth). And that's not to say that there are not corrupt brahmins today - clearly there are - but they are also easy to identify in most cases. How easy is it to identify a "qualified" guru from the reformed and inexperienced mlecchas that join iskcon? And how many times has someone thought, "oh, this is a pure devotee guru" only to have to look for another guru years later because his pure guru left the standard?

The Gaudiyas don't have Vaidika Brahmans.

The Gaudiyas have Pancaratrika Brahmans specifically trained in worship of Krishna.

So, a Vaidika Brahmana who is not a devotee of Vishnu or Krishna is not accepted by the Gaudiyas as "guru".

 

Vaidika Brahmans worship an assortment of gods and godesses.

Pancaratrika Brahmans only worship Vishnu or Krishna.

 

So, the Gaudiyas do not consider Vaidika Brahmans as Gaudiya gurus because the Gaudiya rule is that one must be a devotee of Krishna in order to be a guru in the Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

There are Shakta Brahmans as well, but Gaudiyas do not accept them as gurus in the Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

There were some Shakta Brahmans who became Krishna devotees in the Gaudiya sampradaya and in so doing they received the Gaudiya mantra-diksha and abandoned the mantra diksha of their heriditary tradition.

 

That is the Gaudiya tradition.

If a Shakta Brahman becomes a Krishna bhakta, then he takes again mantra diksha from the Gaudiya acharya and then become as Gaudiya Brahman of the Pancaratrika system that was instructed by the great sage Narada Muni.

[raghu]

 

The Gaudiyas don't have Vaidika Brahmans.

The Gaudiyas have Pancaratrika Brahmans specifically trained in worship of Krishna.

So, a Vaidika Brahmana who is not a devotee of Vishnu or Krishna is not accepted by the Gaudiyas as "guru".

 

Vaidika Brahmans worship an assortment of gods and godesses.

Pancaratrika Brahmans only worship Vishnu or Krishna.

 

So, the Gaudiyas do not consider Vaidika Brahmans as Gaudiya gurus because the Gaudiya rule is that one must be a devotee of Krishna in order to be a guru in the Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

There are Shakta Brahmans as well, but Gaudiyas do not accept them as gurus in the Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

There were some Shakta Brahmans who became Krishna devotees in the Gaudiya sampradaya and in so doing they received the Gaudiya mantra-diksha and abandoned the mantra diksha of their heriditary tradition.

 

That is the Gaudiya tradition.

If a Shakta Brahman becomes a Krishna bhakta, then he takes again mantra diksha from the Gaudiya acharya and then become as Gaudiya Brahman of the Pancaratrika system that was instructed by the great sage Narada Muni.

 

This was not my question. The question is why do iskcon/gaudiyas automatically assume that a person who is born a brahmana is not a brahmana? Even if that person is raised as a Vaishnava and was born into a brahman family, automatically you assert that he belongs to a corrupt tradition and is unqualified. I have repeatedly seen you people making these assertions on this forum, and I wonder why?

 

Being born a brahmana gives one the best chance to learn to become a brahman. But to you this is despicable, and that really does not make much sense.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

This was not my question. The question is why do iskcon/gaudiyas automatically assume that a person who is born a brahmana is not a brahmana? Even if that person is raised as a Vaishnava and was born into a brahman family, automatically you assert that he belongs to a corrupt tradition and is unqualified. I have repeatedly seen you people making these assertions on this forum, and I wonder why?

 

Being born a brahmana gives one the best chance to learn to become a brahman. But to you this is despicable, and that really does not make much sense.

 

Obviously, you don't know enough about the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya.

Do you think that some lay devotees on this forum represent properly the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya?

 

Why don't you research the history of the Gaudiyas a little before you go judging the whole sampradaya on something you read by strangers on an internet forum.

 

The Gaudiya history and tradition are very complicated and well documented.

If you want to know something about the actual Gaudiya tradition you need to consult the proper authorities instead of just accepting everything you read on the internet forum.

[sambya]

 

Why don't you research the history of the Gaudiyas a little before you go judging the whole sampradaya on something you read by strangers on an internet forum.

 

the same advice i would give to you !!

 

traditional gaudiya texts like chaitanya charitamrita fully acknowledge hereditary brahmins . in many cases you shall see clear reference using the words " brahmins and vaishnavas " . now in those days there was no system of so called brahmin initiation , you know ! so these guys have to be caste brahmins .

[Narasingh]

 

Giving sannyasa to completely unqualified young men is every bit as 'sahajiya' as giving siddha-pranali to unprepared and unqualified disciples.

This is unsubstantiated. I'd love to go into this particularly some more. BSST considered that the Lila, Guna, Rupa, and Nama of the Lord are all vested with the same potency (albeit Nama having the quality of audarya not able to be influenced by the mind's entrapments). Lila Smaranam may be subject to the mind's entrapments where our mind may add or subtract elements according to its desire which can substantiate hell rather than heaven. Our mind is constantly bombarding us with what it deems desirable and when we alter lila to suit the mind we are not close to lila at all. It becomes our imagination. Nama, however, can bestow glipse of lila out of audarya.

 

Sannyasa is an ashram not a bhajan

 

It has nothing to do with what is sahajiya.

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

 

Well, where do you find your claim of "diksha parampara"?

Tell me where Srila Rupa Goswami has defined parampara as being defined by diksha?

Yogiji, don’t give up so easily! The burden of proof was yours and you shifted it onto me. This means you gave up in advance and will accept my explanation. -)

I cannot prove it to you, but I’ll offer my understanding. You do not necessarily find in Goswamis “parampara is …”. They could not foresee all future misconceptions and did not bother to prepare comprehensive explanatory dictionaries. I hope you do not have problems with that.

 

Let’s think practically. Shiksha vs Diksha parampara was never a topic of discussion until Siddhanta Saraswati. It is in his time that the idea of Shiksha-parampara first appeared. Before that “parampara” was not a problem to understand because it was common sense – an uninterrupted chain where one member is given diksha by the previous member. Think about this chain of reasoning: to become a vaishnava you need Guru-ashraya. This is done by means of diksha. Diksha is a ritual, in our case a pancaratric ritual. In this way you come up with pancaratrika-diksha parampara. I know no instance when ritual or idea of bhagavat-shiksha diksha/parampara is mentioned in acceptable Gaudia treatise.

Diksha is designed to transmit both siddhanta and upasana. So even for shiksha you depend on diksha.

 

The task of establishing proper ritual and conduct was not with Sri Rupa. It was with his brother. Sanatan Goswami went as far as to establish proper way to pass urine and stool, what to speak about diksha. He starts his Hari Bhakti Vilasa with the topic of Guru-upasatti. In a series of shlokas from 28 through 55 you will find excellent explanation by quoting smriti and shruti. Text 55 is especially relevant:

 

gRhIta-viSnu-dIkSAko viSNu-pUjA-paro haraH |

vaiSNavo’bhihito’bhijNair itaro’smAd avaiSNavaH ||55||

A person [who has] accepted Vishnu-diksha, intent upon Vishnu-puja, is called a vaishnava. Other than him is avaishnava.

 

Read dvitIyo vilAsaH. It starts with discussion of diksha. Sorry, can’t provide English translation, but the meaning is so basic that you will understand as is:

 

atha dIkSA-vidhiH

dIkSA-vidhir likhyate’trAnusRtya krama-dIpikAm |

vinA dIkSAM hi pUjAyAM nAdhikAro’sti karhicit ||2||

 

Something like “What is to be written about rules that relate to diksha is in Krama-dipika. Without diksha there is no right or suitability for doing puja”. He repeats this idea by quoting from seven sources in a series of shlokas from 2 through 12. Apparently, this idea was important for him. What follows then is a description of diksha ritual, a pancaratrika diksha ritual.

 

Where does he have place for definition of parampara? He speaks on Guru-ashraya, he says that a vaishnava is one who is Vishnu-dikshita, he says that without diksha activities are fruitless and there is no adhikar for worship, and then he concludes with description of pancaratrika diksha ritual. Tell me, which kind of parampara is supposed to come up if this were to be followed?

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

 

BSST considered that the Lila, Guna, Rupa, and Nama of the Lord are all vested with the same potency (albeit Nama having the quality of audarya not able to be influenced by the mind's entrapments). Lila Smaranam may be subject to the mind's entrapments where our mind may add or subtract elements according to its desire which can substantiate hell rather than heaven. Our mind is constantly bombarding us with what it deems desirable and when we alter lila to suit the mind we are not close to lila at all. It becomes our imagination. Nama, however, can bestow glipse of lila out of audarya.

This is an excellent point. Siddhanta Saraswati saw risks related to Lila Smaranam and therefore he discontinued siddha-pranali. Not because he considered it bogus. Nama-sankirtan does not have those risks, hense his emphasis on nama-sankirtan.

 

There exist suggestions that BSST did give siddha-pranali on more than one occasion.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

This is an excellent point. Siddhanta Saraswati saw risks related to Lila Smaranam and therefore he discontinued siddha-pranali. Not because he considered it bogus. Nama-sankirtan does not have those risks, hense his emphasis on nama-sankirtan.

 

There exist suggestions that BSST did give siddha-pranali on more than one occasion.

 

Not really.

Saraswata Gaudiyas do not at all neglect lila-smaranam.

Whoever says they do is wrong.

The problem is that some foolish devotees have equated siddha-pranali process with lila-smaranam.

It is patently wrong to say that Saraswata Gaudiyas do not practice "lila smaranam".

Lila-smaranam means "remembering the pastimes of Krishna".

 

In Krsna Book, Srila Prabhupada states that reading Krsna Book is "lila-smaranam".

[Kulapavana]

 

Our mind is constantly bombarding us with what it deems desirable and when we alter lila to suit the mind we are not close to lila at all. It becomes our imagination. Nama, however, can bestow glipse of lila out of audarya.

 

Sannyasa is an ashram not a bhajan

 

It has nothing to do with what is sahajiya.

 

If uttering of the holy name cannot be corrupted by the conditioning of the mind why is chanting of the nondevotees to be avoided? Why can it be 'poisoned milk touched by the lips of a serpent'?

 

Sahaja means taking the easy road. Giving sannyasa to unqualified bhaktas is taking the easy road - which mostly led to their fall down and damage to our reputation. You can be a dasya rasa sahajiya as well - this designation is not limited to madhurya rasa.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Siddhanta Saraswati saw risks related to Lila Smaranam and therefore he discontinued siddha-pranali.

 

Actually, siddha-pranali was not practiced by his diksha-guru.

So, there is no such thing as BST "discontinuing" something that in fact his diksha-guru was against.

 

Gaura-kishora das Babaji in fact remarked (about siddha-pranali):

"The imitator is like a woman who enters the maternity ward and simply by producing the sounds of labor thinks that she can produce a child. Many things are required before that."

[Sonic Yogi]

Here is the standard way of raganuga bhakti as taught by Mahaprabhu:

 

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.160

 

kṛṣṇaḿ smaran janaḿ cāsya

 

preṣṭhaḿ nija-samīhitam

 

tat-tat-kathā-rataś cāsau

 

kuryād vāsaḿ vraje sadā

 

SYNONYMS

 

kṛṣṇam — Lord Kṛṣṇa; smaran — thinking of; janam — a devotee; ca — and; asya — of His; preṣṭham — very dear; nija-samīhitam — chosen by oneself; tat-tat-kathā — to those respective topics; rataḥ — attached; ca — and; asau — that; kuryāt — should do; vāsam — living; vraje — in Vṛndāvana; sadā — always.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"'The devotee should always think of Kṛṣṇa within himself and should choose a very dear devotee who is a servitor of Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana. One should constantly engage in topics about that servitor and his loving relationship with Kṛṣṇa, and one should live in Vṛndāvana. If one is physically unable to go to Vṛndāvana, he should mentally live there.'

 

PURPORT

 

This verse is also found in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.294).

 

This is it.

This is what Lord Chaitanya taught as the standard process of raganuga bhakti.

Somewhere along the way somebody manufactured the siddha-pranali term and practice based upon something mentioned by Gopal Guru Goswami in his writings.

However, there is a big difference between the case of a liberated, self-realized siddha bhakta who can understand the siddha-deha of a disciple and revealing it to the disciple and the case of some sahajiya making his living at Radha-kunda passing out siddha-deha to neophyte sahajiyas who make a nice donation to their meal ticket.

 

Sure, a siddha bhakta can understand through his spiritual powers the svarupa of a disciple and reveal that to him.

However, that should not be equated with the dimestore siddha-dehas that sahajiyas at Radha-kunda are passing out to completly unfit people who a few months later leave Vaishnavism and the siddha-deha he bought from his sahajiya guru.

[Sonic Yogi]

I found the quote from Srila Prabhupada about lila-smaranam.

Saraswata Gaudiyas most certainly practice lila-smaranam, but it is Krishna's lila that is remembered as opposed to the sahajiya concept of remembering one's own supposed lila with Krishna as described by the sahajiya guru.

 

 

Since Krsna had departed from Vrndavana to Mathura, the inhabitants of Vrndavana, especially mother Yasoda, Nanda Maharaja, Srimati Radharani, the gopis and the cowherd boys, were simply thinking of Krsna at every step. They were thinking, "Krsna was playing in this way. Krsna was blowing His flute. Krsna was joking with us, and Krsna was embracing us." This is called lila-smarana, and it is the process of association with Krsna most recommended by great devotees; even Lord Caitanya enjoyed lila-smarana association with Krsna when He was at Puri. Those who are in the most exalted position of devotional service and ecstasy can live with Krsna always by remembering His pastimes. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has given us a transcendental literature entitled Krsna-bhavanamrta, which is full with Krsna's pastimes. Devotees can remain absorbed in Krsna-thought by reading such books. Any book of krsna-lila, even this book, Krsna, and our Teachings of Lord Caitanya, is actually solace for devotees who are feeling the separation of Krsna

[Kulapavana]

 

Actually, siddha-pranali was not practiced by his diksha-guru.

So, there is no such thing as BST "discontinuing" something that in fact his diksha-guru was against.

 

Gaura-kishora das Babaji in fact remarked (about siddha-pranali):

"The imitator is like a woman who enters the maternity ward and simply by producing the sounds of labor thinks that she can produce a child. Many things are required before that."

 

GKDB was a disciple of Bhagavata dasa babaji, one of the foremost disciples of Jagannatha dasa babaji and siddha pranali was definitely practiced in that line.

 

Read about it here: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/980412-1741/index.html

 

GKDB was not against siddha pranali. He was against siddha pranali practiced by unqualified devotees. Just because someone can fake pregnancy, does not mean that all pregnancies are fake.

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

Dear respected Sonic Yogi, a have a deja-vu again because I had to speak to a certain Russian Kailasa. Russians say "he behaves like a grass snake on a frying pan". You require answers, but you dare not to provide same kind of weighted answers.

 

 

In Krsna Book, Srila Prabhupada states that reading Krsna Book is "lila-smaranam".

Yes, sure it's called lila-smaranam when you read Krishna Book. So what? Lila-smaranam as a meditation process is a fairly well known process.

 

As for the supposed guru of BSST, no one knows for certain his guru-parampara. He never revealed that although this has been a regular practice for orthodox Gaudias. So what you are left with is speculing about who might or might not be his Guru. Forget about what his Guru might or might nor have practiced.

 

 

Sure, a siddha bhakta can understand through his spiritual powers the svarupa of a disciple and reveal that to him.

 

Siddha-pranali is not about REVEALING your siddha-rupa. It is about defining your siddha-deha so that you practice your bhajan. This is how Kedaranattha Datta perceive it. (I get another deja-vu. Someone told similar thing right in this thread).

 

 

Somewhere along the way somebody manufactured the siddha-pranali term and practice based upon something mentioned by Gopal Guru Goswami in his writings.

 

 

I might say with the same success that someone along the way invented bhagavat-shiksha parampara crap. You do not read what people write for you. People spend their time to provide their opinions, but you are not interested.

 

 

and the case of some sahajiya making his living at Radha-kunda passing out siddha-deha to neophyte sahajiyas who make a nice donation to their meal ticket.

I refuse to perceive term "sahajiya" in any context other that "vaishnava-sahajiya sect". Who exactly are you calling sahajiyas? Can you give names? No, please do not do that. I do not want (the rest of?) your (and my) sukriti evaporate.

 

Offensive attitude will hurt some day.

 

Please read Dhanurdhara Swamiji.

 

I will pray to Jisus that he saves your eternal soul. God bless you.

 

How old are you Yogiji?

 

ACBSP was a great vaishnava, wasn't he?

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

Krishna is beautiful, isn't he?

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

GKDB was a disciple of Bhagavata dasa babaji, one of the foremost disciples of Jagannatha dasa babaji and siddha pranali was definitely practiced in that line.

Dear Kulapavana, does this statement come from Siddhanta Saraswati? If it does, I would reeeally appreciate to receive the rest of guru-parampara as revealed by himself. Somehow, this happens to be important for me.

[Kulapavana]

 

Dear Kulapavana, does this statement come from Siddhanta Saraswati? If it does, I would reeeally appreciate to receive the rest of guru-parampara as revealed by himself. Somehow, this happens to be important for me.

 

No, it does not, but is a fact well known among the Gaudiya matha disciples. Many disciples of BSS took siddha pranali from various sadhus after disappearance of their guru. BSS was against premature siddha pranali initiation but not against it's principle. Whether he himself secretly gave siddha pranali to some of his disciples is open to debate.

 

BSS claimed that Gaurakishora was a disciple of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, which is rather debatable, as it was BVT who took babaji vesa from Gaurakishora. BSS claim is based on his observations of relationship between these two great souls (Gaurakishora and Bhaktivinoda). GKDB never made such claims, just like BVT never made claims of being a disciple of Jagannatha dasa Babaji.

 

I would dare to say that both BSST and Srila Prabhupada primarily attempted to create "universal Vaishnavism for the masses" or 'universal religion' and were not that concerned with following the GV tradition.