Siddha-pranali

[sant]

edit

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Sonic Yogi, perhaps you should be a little easier on "shaktas" and not call them "nonsense". After all, when the gopis are desirous they approach Katyayani Devi. We all know this. Are they nonsense for doing so, or is it something we can learn from???

 

Hold your horses there pardner.

When Lord Krishna halted the Indra yagna that even his father Nanda Maharaja performed customarily, Krishna made it clear to all the residents of Vrindavan that worshiping any demigod is unnecessary.

 

As well, the gopis were not shaktas they were bhaktas and they prayed to Katyayani Devi because it was a custom of the time.

As well, they did not have some lame shakta idea that somehow Shakti-Devi is the supreme entity and supreme controller as the misguided shaktas conceive.

 

Lord Krishna made it clear in his lifting of Govardhan Hill, that even if the Demigods are not pleased by exclusive worship of Lord Krishna, that they should not be concerned because Lord Krishna will protect them.

 

Gaudiyas are the true shaktas as they worship Radharani.

However, they worship her in full understanding of her ontological position in relationship to Lord Krishna.

 

The misguided shaktas of today have a very misguided concept that somehow shakti is supreme and that of course goes against the Vedic siddhanta and is therefore a manufactured misconception that personally motivated priests in India promote as a means of livelyhood.

[Narasingh]

I'm sure there is another reason for praying to Katyayani Devi than it being strictly contemporary customs.

[sant]

 

I'm sure there is another reason for praying to Katyayani Devi than it being strictly contemporary customs.

 

<!-- / message -->

MAY I ASK

[Sonic Yogi]

 

I'm sure there is another reason for praying to Katyayani Devi than it being strictly contemporary customs.

 

Well, they wanted Krishna as their husband right?

So, for getting a good husband, in some traditions in India that were spawned by Vedic culture, the girls prayed to Katyayani Devi.

 

Let me ask you.

Did the gopis ever get Krishna as their husband?

Well, actually, they all ended-up marrying another boy and sneaking out in the middle of the night to dance with Krishna under the Moonlight on the banks of the Yamuna.

 

So, it appears that Goddess Katyayani Devi could not fulfill the wish of the gopis to all have Krishna as their husband.

 

Obviously, praying to Katyayani Devi failed.

 

The best the gopis could do was to end up violating the social and moral codes of the time and sneaking out at night to dance with Krishna.

 

So, that is why the gopis are considered so advanced in devotional service.

 

Their praying to Katyayani failed to produce the desired results and they all ended up having to just surrender to Krishna and forget about the idea that some Goddess was going to make the impossible possible.

 

The lesson?

Praying to gods and goddesses will not help in attaining the favor of Krishna.

[ranjeetmore]

 

Ranjeet, now you are talking like nonsense shakta.

You say now that shakti controls shakti:

 

 

That is nonsense.

Shakti does not control shakti.

Shaktiman controls shakti.

 

Your asinine theory that somehow that Radha is some Isvara controlling Samvit and Sandhini Shakti is a concoction.

 

 

 

Ranjeet, it sounds like you are trying to advocate the Shakta theory under the guise of being Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

Shakti doesn't do any controlling.

Shakti is always controlled by Shaktiman Isvara Krishna.

 

I think the sentence was,"Hladini sakti is the MAINSTAY of all the energies..."

 

 

 

 

Radha Krsna are the same Godhead.Radha emanates from the Purusha Sri Krsna Only in leela.

 

It is evident that all your nonsense speculations are not letting you see properly.

 

The Nimbraka sampradaya(it's 'authentic' according to you right ??) has crystal clear views on this.Radha and Krsna are one and the same.Sanat kumar sanghita is what the kumaras taught to Nimbarka.And might i add that the Nimbarka sampradaya has ACTUAL SHOTRIYA BRAHM NISHTAM mahatmas EVEN TODAY that head the sampradaya,thus not ending up in delusional theories like the ones which you have concocted.

 

She may be the energy But still they are the same Supreme Brahm.

[shiva]

 

The spiritual durga is diferent from material durga.

WHy are you quoting from tantra no point because it has been proved false.

 

I was quoting Jiva Goswami, he wrote that as a commentary to Brahma Samhita. In Gaudiya Vaisnavism Durga, either one, is a plenary expansion of Radha. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is monotheistic, some may consider it to be polytheistic where they envision more than one person being God, but that is due to a poor understanding.

[shiva]

 

Ranjeet, now you are talking like nonsense shakta.

You say now that shakti controls shakti:

 

 

That is nonsense.

Shakti does not control shakti.

Shaktiman controls shakti.

 

Your asinine theory that somehow that Radha is some Isvara controlling Samvit and Sandhini Shakti is a concoction.

 

 

 

Ranjeet, it sounds like you are trying to advocate the Shakta theory under the guise of being Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

Shakti doesn't do any controlling.

Shakti is always controlled by Shaktiman Isvara Krishna.

 

In Jaiva Dharma Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote:

 

 

Digambara: What is this visnu-maya?

 

Advaita: In the Candi-mahatmya of the Markandeya Purana (81.40), visnu-maya is described, mahamaya hareh saktir yaya sammohitam jagat: “The potency of Bhagavan by which the entire world is bewildered is known as mahamaya.”

 

Digambara: Then who is the goddess I know as Mother Nistarini?

 

Advaita: She is Sri Hari’s external potency known as visnu-maya.

 

Digambara opened his book on tantra and said, “Look, it states in tantra-sastra that my divine mother is consciousness personified. She possesses full will and she is beyond the three qualities of material nature, yet she is the support of those three qualities. Your visnu-maya is not free from the influence of the modes of nature, so how can you equate your visnu-maya with my mother? This type of fanaticism on the part of the Vaisnavas really irritates me. You Vaisnavas have blind faith.”

 

Advaita: Brother Digambara, please don’t be angry. After so many days you have seen me again. I want to make you happy. If I say ‘the maya potency of Lord Visnu’, how have I become small-minded? Lord Visnu is the all-knowing Supreme Personality of Godhead. All that exists is His potency. The word ‘potency’ does not mean a substance. Rather it means the quality that a substance possesses. Therefore the statement that a potency is the root of all existence goes counter to the truth. A potency cannot exist apart from its substance. An original substance with a spiritual form must first be accepted. After all, the commentary on Vedanta-sutra declares:

 

“The potency and the possessor of the potency are not different.”

 

The meaning, then, is that the potency does not exist apart from its substance. The only true substance is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of potencies. The nature of the potency is either to be a quality of the Supreme Lord, or submissive to His will. When it is said that the potency has pure consciousness, that means that because the potency and the master of potencies are not different, therefore, like the master of potencies, the potency also has a form of spiritual consciousness, has desires that are at once fulfilled, and is beyond the touch of the three modes. It is not a mistake to say these things. Will and consciousness are qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By itself, the potency does not possess will, but rather it carries out the will of the Supreme. For example, you have power, and by Your will, your potencies act. If you say, ‘the power acted’, then that means that the possessor of the power was actually behind the action. To say that ‘the power acted’ is only to use a figure of speech. In truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has only one potency. When she performs spiritual actions, she is called spiritual potency, and when she performs material actions, she is called the material potency, or maya. The Vedas (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.8) explain:

 

“The potency of the Supreme is manifested in many different ways.”

 

The potency that manifests the three modes is the material potency. She creates and destroys the material universes. Those are her duties. In the Puranas and Tantras this potency is called by many names, such as Visnu-maya, Maha-maya, and Maya. Allegorically she is also called ‘the mother of Brahma, Visnu and Shiva”, ‘the killer of Sumbha and Nisumbha’, and other like names that describe her different activities. As long as he remains deeply enmeshed in material consciousness, the soul is under her power. When he attains pure spiritual knowledge, the soul can understand the nature of his original spiritual form. Then he is freed from the ropes of Maya. Then he is under the power of the spiritual potency. Then he becomes happy.

 

Digambara: Are you under the power of one of these potencies, or are you not?

 

Advaita: Yes. We are also a potency. We are ‘jiva-shakti’, individual souls. When we become free from the ropes of the maya potency, we are in the power of the spiritual potency.

 

Digambara: Then you are also a sakta, a worshipper of the potency.

 

Advaita: Yes. The Vaishnavas are naturally saktas. We are the servants of Sri Radhika, who is the spiritual potency. Under Her patronage we worship and serve Lord Krishna. Who is more of a sakta than we? I don’t see any difference between the saktas and the Vaishnavas. They who do not take shelter of the spiritual potency, but only take shelter of the material potency Maya may be saktas, but they are not Vaishnavas. They are materialists. In the Narada-pancaratra, Goddess Durga explains:

 

“O Krishna, I am Radha, who stays on Your chest during the rasa dance in Vrindavan forest.”

 

Thus from Durga-devi’s words we can understand that the Lord does not have two potencies. There is only one potency, who manifests Herself as the spiritual potency Radhika and the material potency Visnu-maya. When the potency is free from the material modes, she is called the spiritual potency, and when she is within the sphere of the material modes, she is called the material potency.

[ranjeetmore]

 

Well, they wanted Krishna as their husband right?

So, for getting a good husband, in some traditions in India that were spawned by Vedic culture, the girls prayed to Katyayani Devi.

 

Let me ask you.

Did the gopis ever get Krishna as their husband?

Well, actually, they all ended-up marrying another boy and sneaking out in the middle of the night to dance with Krishna under the Moonlight on the banks of the Yamuna.

 

So, it appears that Goddess Katyayani Devi could not fulfill the wish of the gopis to all have Krishna as their husband.

 

Obviously, praying to Katyayani Devi failed.

 

The best the gopis could do was to end up violating the social and moral codes of the time and sneaking out at night to dance with Krishna.

 

So, that is why the gopis are considered so advanced in devotional service.

 

Their praying to Katyayani failed to produce the desired results and they all ended up having to just surrender to Krishna and forget about the idea that some Goddess was going to make the impossible possible.

 

The lesson?

Praying to gods and goddesses will not help in attaining the favor of Krishna.

 

 

Durga is Yogamaya.It is only conclusive that anyone should worship Her to attain Sri Krsna.

 

Gopis did it in leela.

 

***

 

The reason why Gopis didn't attain Sri Krsna as husband is because they never really wanted Him as hunsband.

 

You must be dumb to even think that Bhagavan doesn't fulfill His devotees' wishes,and we are talking of the gopis here.

 

So Katyayani's inability to perfom the task isn't something to sneer at.Yogamaya arranges whatever is wished by Bhagavan and His bhaktas,Him being the epicentre of everything.

[ranjeetmore]

 

I was quoting Jiva Goswami, he wrote that as a commentary to Brahma Samhita. In Gaudiya Vaisnavism Durga, either one, is a plenary expansion of Radha. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is monotheistic, some may consider it to be polytheistic where they envision more than one person being God, but that is due to a poor understanding.

 

 

precisely.

 

When we say Sadashiva is a personality of God...some of them flipped...

 

Bhagavatam is saying.

Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti thakura is saying.

 

 

But no.Demigod.

 

fine.Go on doing nonsense...can't be helped.

[Xochitl]

wow, this is a really long thread.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

precisely.

 

When we say Sadashiva is a personality of God...some of them flipped...

 

Bhagavatam is saying.

Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti thakura is saying.

 

 

But no.Demigod.

 

fine.Go on doing nonsense...can't be helped.

 

What do you expect from ISKCON devotees?

Srila Prabhupada has referred to Lord Siva as a demigod probably hundreds of time in his books.

Do you expect them to reject what Prabhupada said and buy into your idea that Lord Siva is equal to Krishna.

 

Lord Siva is NOT equal to Krishna or Vishnu. Srila Prabhupada ranks him amongst the demigods because he is not Vishnu-tattva.

[stonehearted]

Devotees who think that Sadasiva is a demigod may be well served by reading Cc. Adi lila, Ch. 6, and perhaps SB 8.7.

[chandu_69]

 

Devotees who think that Sadasiva is a demigod may be well served by reading Cc. Adi lila, Ch. 6, and perhaps SB 8.7.

 

Indeed,they should read it.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Devotees who think that Sadasiva is a demigod may be well served by reading Cc. Adi lila, Ch. 6, and perhaps SB 8.7.

 

 

"As for the benedictions given by demigods like Lord Siva, there is the following historical incident cited by great sages. Once, Lord Siva, after giving a benediction to a demon named Vrkasura, the son of Sakuni, was himself entrapped in a very dangerous position."

Krishna Book ch.88

 

"One may be able to see the universal form of Krsna by adding a little tinge of devotional service to various activities like penance, Vedic study and philosophical speculation, etc. It may be possible, but without a tinge of bhakti, one cannot see; that has already been explained. Still, beyond that universal form, the form of Krsna as a two-handed man is still more difficult to see, even for demigods like Brahma and Lord Siva".

B.G.11.52 purport

 

 

"Lord Visnu is always worshiped and surrounded by different demigods like Lord Siva, Lord Brahma, Indra, Candra, and others".

Krishna Book ch.35

 

These are just three out of many such references by Srila Prabhupada.

 

In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Lord Siva is considered a Vaishnava not Godhead.

[Sonic Yogi]

Here is a nice video of Srila Sridhar Maharaja talking about Siva-tattva.

 

http://www.scsmathnj.com/media/060608_SSM_DiscussionOfMahaVishnu.html

[Kulapavana]

 

These are just three out of many such references by Srila Prabhupada.

 

In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Lord Siva is considered a Vaishnava not Godhead.

 

Since nobody can become Shiva, he is not a demigod. Sada-shiva is Godhead, Maha Vishnu, from whom individual Rudras emanate, but they are all purnam, or complete, manifestations. Shiva is not Godhead contaminated by ignorance, just like Vishnu is not Godhead contaminated by goodness.

 

Prabhupada considered believers in the Old Testament god to be Vaishnavas, but he was calling believers of Lord Shiva: 'demigod worshippers'. For me, that makes very little sense and does not represent the rest of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

[sambya]

original gaudiya acharyas clearly showed the krishna-tattwa and its relation with other gods with utmost respect and care . they glorified krishna without demeaning anyone directly .

 

prabhupada coined these terms such as 'demigod' to make the novice westerners get accustomed to vaishnav philosophy and in order to help them stick to their ishta instead of falling back to the other gods and ruining the essence of this movement .

 

but in lon run this has ruined the very charcter of gaudiya philosophy . for these westerners have understood of the other dieties as menial servants of their 'dictator' krishna and go on abusing and devaluing them . the result is spontaneous . not only has it become a seperate 'religion' very different from both mainstream hinduism and vaishnavism , but also is riddled with numeous internal deficiencies and problems that is growing in size day by day !

[Narasingh]

Prabhupada's statements must be reconciled. There are many which are contradictory.

For instance, he emphatically stated that books such as Brahma Samhita, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, and Caitanya Caritamrta are essential. In these books you can find the ontological positions of Shiva, Devi, as being aspects of Divinity.

In C.C. and Brahma Samhita you can find specifics as to the nature of who Shiva is.

Prabhupada also stated that Shiva and Devi are Demigods.

 

Sonic, you must reconcile these. If you don't, you run the risk of taking half of what he said to be true, thus hearing half-truth. The most authoritative way you can do so is by asking Prabhupada in person, why there is apparent contradiction.

 

I'm sure he'd appreciate this question. The problem is, you are unable to ask him personally, and either must rely on his writings and transcribed discussions (which has already been suggested as possibly being altered) or you must trust in other representatives. As Prabhupada acknowledged, "There is only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others."

Katyayani Devi is Yoga Maya. She is part of the lila in Goloka. She is arranging for so many things to happen there. The Gopis prayed to her to accomodate their desires, and she accomodated them. You may say that the Gopis did not marry Krsna, but you'll find that Sri Jiva Goswami is in disagreement with you. He is very clear on their position with Krsna.

 

A shakta of Devi is admirable and respectable. If the Gopis pray at Devi mandirs (wheter it be custom or not) it would classify them as shaktas. Of course their "alterior motives" were for Krsna who is Bhagavan so in the end, everything is harmonized. Perhaps we can pray to Devi for Krsna.

 

To be fair, can we truly say we are the counter part of our expectations for shaktas in our faith toward Vishnu and Krsna???

[ranjeetmore]

Visvanatha chakravarti thakura is very clear on this point.

 

He states that Sadashiva and Lord Vishnu 'embody the same Supreme consciousness.'

 

further,In Srimad Bhagavatam,it is stated clearly,in lord Brahma's praise,that Sadashiva is Brahm beyond the material manifestation.

Further,Lord Brahma ACCEPTS that 'You are NEVER BEWILDERED BY THE SUPREME LORD's MAYA.'

 

Thus it is established that Sadashiva is Parama Vaishnava...But it is Govinda in fact Who appears as Sadashiva to serve Himself.

 

Those are ignorant fools who think that God can become less.He manifests the required potency according to His(Sri Krsna's) desires.

 

In the end,it is all the divine couple's desire that is being carried out...whether Sri Krsna becomes sadashiva to Serve Himself.

 

 

The four kumaras..when they met Nimbaditya...the four of Them became one personality-Gauranga.

How is it possible that Saktyavesa avtaras became Bhagavan ???

 

It is possible..becoz it is the same Godhead Sri KRsna Who comes as avataras...according to time,place,He reveals required amount of potency.

 

I remember you had belittled Mohini avatara in a similar way...

[Kulapavana]

going back to the main topic...

 

One interesting quote from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada, letter: "Those who have achieved the perfection of being fixed in their spiritual identity (svarupa-siddhi) have attained such a realization through internal revelation and the spiritual master's only involvement in these matters is to help the further advancement of a disciple. As a practitioner progresses toward spiritual perfection, all these things are revealed naturally within the heart that sincerely seeks service."

 

Any idea which letter it comes from, and who translated it into English?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

going back to the main topic...

 

One interesting quote from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada, letter: "Those who have achieved the perfection of being fixed in their spiritual identity (svarupa-siddhi) have attained such a realization through internal revelation and the spiritual master's only involvement in these matters is to help the further advancement of a disciple. As a practitioner progresses toward spiritual perfection, all these things are revealed naturally within the heart that sincerely seeks service."

 

Any idea which letter it comes from, and who translated it into English?

 

This of course brings up the question that if BSST attained svarupa-siddhi or siddha-deha without ever having received any eka-dasa-bhava siksha from his guru, then is that possibly the reason behind his having eliminated this "siddha-pranali" concept from Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the form of the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya?

 

If BSST attained svarupa-siddhi without using or needing any bhajan-pranali, that even his father Bhaktivinoda is proclaimed to have accepted from his formal diksha guru, could that in fact be the reason that he rejected the concept from his teachings?

 

I mean, if siddha-pranali is in fact unnecessary baggage that has been imposed upon the Gaudiya cult, is there anything wrong with cutting away the slag and eliminating unnecessary baggage?

[Kulapavana]

 

This of course brings up the question that if BSST attained svarupa-siddhi or siddha-deha without ever having received any eka-dasa-bhava siksha from his guru, then is that possibly the reason behind his having eliminated this "siddha-pranali" concept from Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the form of the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya?

 

 

I do not doubt that it is possible to attain siddha deha without formal siddha pranali. However, that does not make siddha pranali any less important.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta challenged many accepted Gaudiya practices, and developed his own brand of 'reformed' G.vaishnavism. Srila Prabhupada took this reformatory process even further. As long as the reforms produce good results and do not change the essential teachings and practices there is nothing wrong with this approach. Christians have done it for centuries, splintering into hundreds if not thousands of separate denominations.

[AncientMariner]

 

The bottom line for me is that the acharya who spread Krishna consciousness and Gaudiya Vaishnavism all over the world did not approve of the siddha-pranali process. He rejected it.

So, for upstart devotees from all over the world to come along and trample on his directives, even though they would otherwise have no knowledge of Krishna or Gaudiya Vaishnavism without the sacrifice and dedication of Srila Prabhupada, is just a thankless insult and offense to the great soul who in fact is responsible for their great fortune of Krishna bhakti.

 

Srila Prabhupada tried strenuously to prevent this siddha-pranali nonsense from infecting the Krishna consciousness movement, but these thankless rascals are now coming along and trying to infect the Krishna consciousness movement with this siddha-pranali nonsense.

 

Such is the degraded foolishness of the western mleccas and Yavanas who have bitten the devotional hand that saved them from Aeons in Hell.

 

Despite Srila Prabhupada's best efforts to defend the Krishna consciousness movement from this infection, these rascals are trying mightily to introduce this siddha-pranali nonsense into the global movement that Srila Prabhupada alone inaugurated.

 

They will get no respect or honor from me.

They have stepped on the head of Srila Prabhupada to become siddha-pranali rascals and in so doing accuse others of passing stool on their head.

 

Obviously, they are thankless rascals that presume to know better than Srila Prabhuapada.

I don't believe that they they do.

 

 

I am not familiar with the intricacies of this debate but this is exactly why I am rarely spiritually inspired by the Kulapavanas and the Beggars of the world despite their extensive knowledge on Vaisnavism. All the while despite all the failings of Iskcon I am still inspired by Prabhupada even though he didn't treat his own diabetes . The Kulapavanas and Beggars of the world pose themselves as now being qualified to steer and make coarse corrections on the ship that Prabhuapda built without seemingly realizing that if it were not for Prabhupada they most likely would never in their life ended up hearing anything about Krishna. It is about respect and it almost like not offering the proper respect to your father but wanting to become the master of his house. If they went out and built their own house they would command more respect from me but leave Prabhupadas house to Prabhupada and those that love him and don't feel a need to point out a laundry list of Prabhupdas supposed failings.

 

Of course for offering my viewpoint on this they will probably call me an apadhi or something, hopefully I am wrong in this presumption.

[AncientMariner]

 

I gave you a very practical example of actual risks and historical problems versus theoretical risks of misuse of siddha pranali. Instead of addressing the facts, you are foaming at the mouth with hateful personal tirades.

 

I do not belittle what Srila Prabhupada did for the mission of Lord Chaitanya. I deeply appreciate what he has done. It is his disciples like you who belittle the entire mission of Lord Caitanya and Vaishnavism in general with their hate filled self-righteous attitude.

 

Apparently you did not learn how to respect and appreciate other Vaishnavas, especially if they come form a closely related camp. You folks praise Muslims and Christians for being 'Vaishnavas' but denigrate pretty much all other Gaudiyas as 'sahajiyas'. You are basically a sect, a personality cult, and nothing more, each year becoming less and less relevant on the world's scene of religions.

 

If anybody disrupted your movement it was your own leaders and their blind followers, who gave up thinking for themselves out of fear of comitting 'aparadha'.

 

 

 

It is nice to see that you have at least made some progress on this issue. When I first came to these forums you were one of many Iskcon members crying "aparadha" whenever anyone dared scrutinize the actions of Iskcon "gurus". You have even said that your own guru who stole millions from Iskcon and ran off with a massage therapist was acting as a pure guru before all this happened and thus even though you were initiated by a guru who ended up stealing millions and enjoying the Iskcon massage therapist you are still "officially" and exclusively connected to the parampara through diksha. So it is nice to see that you yourself have graduated from the level of blind follower at least on that front I will give you some credit but your endless laundry lists of criticisms of Prabhupada get nauseating in my opinion.

 

 

Now that you have graduated past the level of blind Iskcon follower overlooking the looting of millions of Prabhupadas property and have now run to take shelter of various other factions of GV I am happy that you are advancing in spiritual life but please realize there are people that still love Prabhupada and don't hold him personally responsible for the laundry list of failings you attribute to him and recognize that Prabhupada made a good faith effort in an almost intolerable and grotesque country and environment. If you have a better way of steering and directing the coarse of Krsna Consciousness in the future then go for it but politely please do not use the property or assets of Prabhupda in your endeavor and it would be a nice gesture if you could try to convince your guru to return the millions back to Prabhupdada. I am rooting for you.