Siddha Pranali

[Gauracandra]

I figured a more general discussion of Siddha Pranali might be interesting. Perhaps someone can fill in the details, but my basic understanding is that the guru reveals certain aspects like one's eternal name, form, service, bodily features etc.... I might be mistaken, but I think then one is supposed to meditate on the pastimes of Radha and Krsna as they occur in 8 points of time during the day, and [i think] one slowly introduces oneself into these pastimes. My understanding, from what I've read, is that this form of meditation was introduced a bit after (a 100 or more years) Mahaprabhu left. Basically it was a form of going "underground" since the Muslim rulers would stamp out the chanting of the Maha-mantra, the Gaudiyas developed a method where they could meditate on Radha & Krsna, and the Muslim rulers could not know one way or the other. This is somewhat separate from Siddha Pranali, but adjacent. I could be wrong on this, so any corrections or details would be interesting to me.

[Yashoda_dd]

"There are thousands and thousands of such so-called devotees. Although they are not mature in their bhakti, they artificially think, 'I have now achieved my siddha-deha; I am Lalita or Visakha, and I am a better sakhi than Rupa Manjari...' As a result of this offensive thinking such persons must go to hell in a very short time...

 

In his book Jaiva-dharma, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has described all the practices of bhakti, up to the attainment of one's siddha-deha.

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was, in his time, the first person to preach the factual philosophy of Sri Caitanya Mahaparabhu to this learned society.

 

The process is not that one in the beginning stage goes to his guru and is told, 'OH, you are a very beautiful gopi, and your name is Lalita.' Although this is called siddha-pranali, we do not know who began this type of siddha-pranali."

 

"Gaudiya Vaisnavism versus Sahajiyaism" by Srila Narayana Maharaja

[Jagat]

This is a gross misrepresentation of what is meant by siddha pranali. I find it a rather tiresome to correct all the misconceptions that are rife in this little bit of rhetoric, which has as its only goal to put dust in the eyes of anyone who has actually studied the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition and knows what Gopala Guru Goswami, Narottam Das Thakur, Vishwanath Thakur, Jagannath Das Babaji and Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself all accepted as a legitimate practice of raganuga sadhana bhakti. I suggest that you read Chaitanya Shikshamrita, Jaiva Dharma, Harinama Chintamani and Bhajana Rahasya carefully and see exactly what Bhaktivinoda Thakur has had to say on the subject.

 

If Bhaktivinoda were against the process, why did he follow it, identifying himself as Kamala Manjari according to the instructions he had received from his spiritual master? And why, in a song in Giti Mala, did he pray to his spiritual master, Vilasa Manjari, in the following way:

 

When will Vilasa Manjari and Ananga Manjari [Jahnava Mata] see me and, being merciful, speak the follow all-important instructions? ...

 

O Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Rupa Manjari, please notice me and accept me at your feet, bestowing on me the essence of all perfection?

These simple verses shine forth clearly and anyone who relishes them will understand the process of raganuga bhajan and siddha pranali and never be misled.

 

I have a great deal of respect for Narayan Maharaj and I bow down at his feet and take their dust. Yet he should also show respect for the Vaishnavas who follow the traditional raganuga sadhana, for were it not for them, the rasika tradition in Gaudiya Vaishnavism would be practically dead and he also would be the poorer for it. An honest man gives credit where credit is due.

 

On the other thread, I mentioned the problems related to speculation about siddha svarupa. This is the story as I have heard about how Keshava Maharaj's disciples came to "know" his siddha identity:

 

One day in Navadwipa, as the Devananda Gaudiya Matha was under construction, Keshava Maharaj instructed Narayan Maharaj that the three steps of the altar should be painted blue, golden, and aruna. The first two were to represent Krishna and Radha. When asked about the third step and color, Keshava replied that it represented the color of a sakhi who "creates varieties of delightful

fun (vinode)" for the Divine Couple. According to Narayan Maharaj, at that time Keshava Maharaj became choked up.

 

After Keshava Maharaj left the world, his leading disciples "realized" the meaning of his "hint": he is Vinode Manjari of aruna complexion.

I assume that this is also the way that Narayan Maharaj has ascertained Bhaktivedanta Swami's manjari identity. Is this more honest than the siddha pranali system, whereby one traditionally gives the means to a disciple to facilitate meditating on his service to the Divine Couple in a suitable form, a sevopayukta-deha?

 

We are not talking SIDDHI here, we are talking SADHANA. Siddha pranali is a SADHANA. It is NOT an artificial giving of SIDDHI.

 

You may look at my comments on the "Who is Prabhupada?" thread.

<hr>

 

Gaurachandraji has also made some strange speculative comments about the siddha-pranali system being introduced to thwart Muslim persecution. I have never heard this before. There is a general tendency to overstate Muslim persecution of Hindus in India. It is not that there never was any such persecution, but it could never be continuous in nature as it was just impractical. But even if it were the case, I don't know this practice would have helped escape persecution. There is no indication that Vaishnavas ever dissimulated themselves by not wearing tilak, kanthi, or japa beads in public out of fear of persecution, nor that they ever stopped Harinam sankirtan out of such fear.

 

The following is an excerpt from an article I wrote recently, which briefly summarizes how and when "siddha pranali" came about. The footnoted comments are relevant. My excuses for the lengthy post:

 

Perhaps predicably, the early period of the fledgling Vaishnava movement in post-Chaitanya times was not without a certain amount of turmoil, particularly in its homeland of Gauda. The principal reasons for this conflict were the conflicting visions of who Chaitanya himself was and the nature of his teaching, as well as a certain amount of jostling for supremacy among the followers of his leading associates, particularly Advaita and Nityananda.

 

It was only when the influence of the Vrindavan school, carried east by Narottam, Shyamananda and Srinivas Acharya, was brought to bear in the last third of the sixteenth century, that the Gaudiya Vaishnava world was consolidated and took on the characteristics that held it in good stead for several hundred years. The writing of the Chaitanya Charitamrita by Krishna Das in 1612, which reproduced the principal ideas of the Vrindavan school in the Bengali language, may be said to mark the completion of the consolidation process, but the festival at Kheturi in the early 1570s was its defining moment.

 

Along with the theology of Radha and Krishna as the supreme form of the Godhead, the Vrindavan doctrine emphasized the idea that Chaitanya was something more than a yuga avatar—he was the combined form of Radha and Krishna. What this did was to strengthen the basis for the legitimacy of the entire movement by adding layers of meaning to the Chaitanya symbol; the need for him to be legitimized by any external agent became even less important. Thus though certain passages in the scriptures were reinterpreted—and others invented—to support Chaitanya’s claims to being an incarnation of Krishna, these played a secondary role in creating faith in his followers and inspiring new converts to the movement.

 

Expanded liturgical norms were also established at Kheturi, in particular that of lila kirtan. In particular, the songs of Jnana Das and Govinda Das, who were both more profoundly influenced by the poetic writings of Rupa Goswami than by the Bhagavata itself, the avowed ultimate scriptural authority of the school, had a tremendous impact on the Bengali popular culture of the time.

 

Besides firmly establishing the Vrindavan theology, which presented a clear hierarchical understanding of religious experience culminating in service to Radha and Krishna in the madhura-rasa, the principal doctrine with practical effects for subsequent developments established at Kheturi was that of the Pancha Tattva.(1) This doctrine confirmed the status of Nityananda and Advaita as incarnations of the Deity in their own right, gave specific prominence to Gadadhar as the incarnation of Krishna’s shakti, i.e. Radha, and identified all of Chaitanya’s other associates as descents of Krishna’s eternal companions in the spiritual world.(2) This had the effect of confirming the descendants of these now deceased members of the movement’s first generation as participants in their charisma. It is notable that the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika even identifies Nityananda’s wife Jahnava, as Radha’s sister Ananga Manjari, and Virabhadra, his son, as a form of Vishnu, even though neither of them ever met Chaitanya.

 

It also seems likely that the particular esoteric practices of identifying as a participant in Krishna’s pastimes became a part of the Gaudiya Vaishnava culture of raganuga bhakti at this time (siddha-pranali).(3) This concept first appeared textually in the writings of Gopal Guru and Dhyana Chandra Goswami, the monks responsible for the prestigious Radha Kanta Math, which stood on the grounds of the Chaitanya residence in Puri. Jahnava, an important organizer of the Kheturi festival, was a major force in sixteenth century who changed the orientation of the Nityananda group from the mood of friendship to that of madhura-rasa.

 

<hr>NOTES:

 

(1) Both the doctrine of Chaitanya as the combined form of Radha and Krishna and that of the Pancha Tattva are credited to Svarupa Damodar, a close associate of Chaitanya in Puri. Though the Pancha Tattva idea seems to have come to Kheturi without passing through Vrindavan, the other doctrine certainly received is potent force through the theological efforts of the Vrindavan school.

 

(2) This doctrine was put to paper in the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika by Kavi Karnapur in 1572, around the same time as the Kheturi festival, where he was present.

 

(3) The principle of siddha pranali was that the <u>possibility</u> of attaining the ultimate goal of spiritual life, a role in the eternal pastimes of Radha and Krishna, came through establishing a connection with Chaitanya’s original companions through disciplic succession.

 

 

[Gauracandra]

I apologize if I was speculating. That was not my goal. I was just curious about the historical development of this form of meditation. Somewhere I got the idea that this form of meditation was in part a reaction to Islamic oppression. I’ve searched through a number of books that I have but could only come up with the following:

 

From Vaisnavism: Contemporary Scholars Discuss the Gaudiya Tradition by Steven Rosen. I’ll have to edit it down because its quite long.

[edited]

Dr. Stewart: At least it is not put in those terms I think one of the reasons for this is that when Caitanya was first believed to be God, and was written about in those terms – shortly after his death – you had many people with the hope that he would lead them to an overthrow of the increasingly dominant Muslim community. This political dimension is most certainly present.

 

[edited, discussions of power shifts, the march on the Kazi by Caitanya etc…]

 

In the early biographies, there was a much greater emphasis on his early life, his life prior to renunciation. In the later biographies, the tendency is to emphasize his later life, the ascetic side. With that you get the shift in practices from an external kirtana-based practice, to one that increasingly turned to internal modes of realization

 

Steven Rosen: Like manjari sadhana.

 

Dr. Stewart: Ultimately resulting in something like manjari sadhana. I think that is where it leads. There is evidence that they were heading in that direction by the time Caitanya died. There is no evidence per se to suggest that Caitanya practiced that exactly. Manjari sadhana seems to be an indirect response, again, to a different need, a need that would give you a style of worship that would enable you to locate your real and true personality in the realm of Krsna. “Caitanya is not here anymore, so we want to go where Krsna is.” And that then is the interior landscape where the devotee works his way to heaven.

 

Conveniently – and I say this because there appeared to be some real pressure on these people – this kind of activity does not require a public performance. Manjari sadhana relies on an interior mode of realization. You do not have to go out onto the streets beating drums or anything like that – something that might upset the local rulers. It is done privately, behind closed doors. So you get a shift, then, from public practices to more and more private practices.

 

Steven Rosen: Yet congregational chanting – out in the streets – was emphasized by Caitanya, and no less by his later followers, who became absorbed in manjari sadhana as well.

 

Dr. Stewart: Yes, it was. He proposed nagara sankirtana, too, but what I am saying is that the practices themselves, and the emphasis that is placed in the biographies, seem to shift. What Caitanya does increasingly in his later years really does not seem to be quite the same as what he was doing when he first had his experience at Gaya, and when he was living in Navadvipa.

 

All I am suggesting is that the changing political climate probably helped devotees determine some of the forms that this new practice would take. On the other hand, the forms themselves seemed to change very logically and very much in accord with the theological position. So it is not as if they are forced into it at all, but rather we can see a very complex accommodation-process, where the form of ritual, the form of practice, adapts itself to a changing environment.

 

When Caitanya was physically present, it is clear that Vaisnavas were allowed to do things publicly that fifty or seventy-five years later they probably were not allowed to do quite so freely. It is with this kind of change in political climate that you get the changes in practices, and these are depicted somewhat in a shift from the early biographies, which emphasized his majesty, to the later biographies, which emphasized madhurya.

[gauraprema]

Jagat prabhu,

 

Dandavats. Your article that you've quoted at length in your posting seems to be very interesting, and I could probably use it as a reference in my Honours thesis, do you think it would be possible for me to obtain a copy from you?

 

Thanks for your help,

 

Your servant

Sudevi dasi

email: thenefus@iinet.net.au

[jijaji]

I read 'Vaisnavism:Contemporary Scholars Discuss the Gaudiya Tradition' by Steven Rosen years ago when it 1st came out. I read it several times in fact. Although there was a good amount of material on interesting subjects within Gaudiya Vaishnavism I felt Rosen was always trying to keep his reins of control in those conversations. Meaning he didn't put too much credence upon words that didn't meet the status quo that he had learned from his affiliated group. I even felt he was condesending in his interviews at times.

I believe he was a diciple of Tamal Krishna, Anyways my post is not to offend but to point out that his research was somewhat non-objective due to his having preconceived conclusions about the subjects he was discussing in that book.

 

jijaji

[Gauracandra]

Jijaji, to be honest, I felt the same way. Often times the interviewees were going in one direction, and I would notice he would bring the conversation back to his own views (by questions or further explanation).

[jijaji]

Indeed....

 

Officialism never moves like water!

 

jijaji

[Rati]

The question one is impelled to ask regarding those allegations that some gurus have given out siddha pranali cheaply and without consideration of any qualifications on the part of the disciple: Is there any foundation to such rumors? If so, has anyone actually shown proof or documentation of such activity, or is it just some kind of political mud-slinging in an effort to establish the supremacy of one group (those who eschew the practice) over others?

[jijaji]

When Hindu teachings 1st came west in the late 1800's - early 1900's it seems various schools left out more esoteric practices. In the Kriya community today there is much controversy over Yogananda not teaching to his western audience 'complete Kriya', he is alleged to have left out the 'Kechari Mudra' which more orthodox Kriya schools in India claim is essential to the authentic practice of Kriya Yoga. Also Vivekananda stressed more of a 'Vedanta for the West' teaching... a bit packaged for his audience as well, certainly in contrast to Ramakrishna's extreme 'Kali Bhakti' with ecstatic devotional eruptions similar to Sri Chaitanyas divine madness.

And who can forget The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi with his 'don't tell anyone' keep em silent 'Bija Mantras' coming to introduce his newly interpreted version of Shankaras teachings (complete without Mahavakyas and all!!)

Many of these missionary movements were spurred by the 'Hindu Reinassance' which was a rivialistic mood that swept India in the 1800's. Many of them were severly stricken with hyper-maslucline disorder and had primitive attitudes towards women as many of their ancestors in the "MIDDLE AGES" did.

So it does not suprise me at all that 'Certain Gaudiyas' chose not to mention the fact that their esoteric Meditation praction consisted of imagining oneself as a 'FEMALE' wearing a 'SARI' with nice hair etc etc. They left that out because all the other 'Sanyassins' from the other 'Missionary Schools' were all Male-Dominated.

Part of the reason me thinks...

 

jijaji

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-01-2002).]

[jijaji]

sorry....

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-01-2002).]

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Rati:

The question one is impelled to ask regarding those allegations that some gurus have given out siddha pranali cheaply and without consideration of any qualifications on the part of the disciple: Is there any foundation to such rumors? If so, has anyone actually shown proof or documentation of such activity, or is it just some kind of political mud-slinging in an effort to establish the supremacy of one group (those who eschew the practice) over others?

 

Good points...

 

Being objective is important!

 

jijaji

[jijaji]

Originally posted by jijaji:

When Hindu teachings 1st came west in the late 1800's - early 1900's it seems various schools left out more esoteric practices. In the Kriya community today there is much controversy over Yogananda not teaching to his western audience 'complete Kriya', he is alleged to have left out the 'Kechari Mudra' which more orthodox Kriya schools in India claim is essential to the authentic practice of Kriya Yoga. Also Vivekananda stressed more of a 'Vedanta for the West' teaching... a bit packaged for his audience as well, certainly in contrast to Ramakrishna's extreme 'Kali Bhakti' with ecstatic devotional eruptions similar to Sri Chaitanyas divine madness.

And who can forget The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi with his 'don't tell anyone' keep em silent 'Bija Mantras' coming to introduce his newly interpreted version of Shankaras teachings (complete without Mahavakyas and all!!)

Many of these missionary movements were spurred by the 'Hindu Reinassance' which was a rivialistic mood that swept India in the 1800's. Many of them were severly stricken with hyper-maslucline disorder and had primitive attitudes towards women as many of their ancestors in the "MIDDLE AGES" did.

So it does not suprise me at all that 'Certain Gaudiyas' chose not to mention the fact that their esoteric Meditation praction consisted of imagining oneself as a 'FEMALE' wearing a 'SARI' with nice hair etc etc. They left that out because all the other 'Sanyassins' from the other 'Missionary Schools' were all Male-Dominated.

Part of the reason me thinks...

 

jijaji

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-01-2002).]

 

[Rati]

Whatever the motivations, there were misconceptions propagated. This whole notion of having to attain the stage of anartha nivrtti before beginning lila smarana is not backed up by Rupa's or Visvanatha's writings. In fact they take the opposite position: that the practice will help one attain that stage and higher ones, as a purifying ritual process. What has followed is a barrage of word jugglery and double talk to defend that misguided position of opposing the practice until one is extremely advanced in bhakti whenever its inconsistencies have been pointed out. If those protaganists would stop and think about it for a minute, they might realize that they are not going to suffer in any way by giving in to the orthodoxy that s to lila smarana with siddha pranali in accordance with the guru pranalis that have been handed down in the lineages from Sri Nityananda, Sri Advaitacarya, Sri Gadadhara, Sri Narottama Thakur and Sri Gopala Bhatta Goswami. They would simply be adding back in a very sublime component that they carelessly discarded. I doubt that many of them are going to be so self-reflective, whether it be due to pride or close-mindedness. Indeed I expect to be attacked by some of them here for my bold statements on the matter. I don't mind. It is their right to free speech to spout whatever they want, although it may not be in line with the teachings of the Six Goswamis and other recognized acaryas. The one thing they are not going to really have an answer for is why Bhaktivinode Thakur supported siddha pranali and advocated it, if it is not to be followed.

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-07-2002).]

[jijaji]

Indeed...

 

[Citta Hari]

Quote:

"The one thing they are not going to really have an answer for is why Bhaktivinode Thakur supported siddha pranali and advocated it, if it is not to be followed."

 

There is nothing wrong with siddha-pranali per se; as Rati mentioned, Bhaktivinoda did follow it. But BSST placed emphasis on the acintya-sakti of harinama (kirtana) to reveal one's svarupa as opposed to telling neophytes who were still predominantly under the influence of the gunas and thus who could not sit and meditate to sit and do lila smaranam. The validity of the practice of siddha-pranali-diksa is not in question, rather the adhikara of those receiving is the central issue, which is why Bhaktivinoda taught:

 

adhikara na labhiya siddhadeha bhave/

viparyaya buddhi janme saktira abhave//

 

"The intelligence of one who thinks of his siddha-deha without first acheiving elegibiltiy becomes bewildered."

 

And we find in his Bhajana-rahasya that he advises acquaintance with the siddha-deha at asakti, drawing attention to the words ayi nandatanuja kinkaram, where Mahaprabhu first speaks of a spiritual identity.

 

But Visvanatha seems to give liscence for raganuga bhakti in Raga-vartma-candrika wherein he mentions that "In the following section it will be shown how a raganuga bhakta goes through the stages of anartha-nivrtti, etc., after which he arrives at the stage of prema, whereupon he achieves direct attainment of his desired object."

 

However, in Bhakti-sara-pradarsini (1.2.291-2), Visvanatha mentions that to practice raganuga bhakti one must have attained the stage of nistha.

 

The resolution of this apparent conflict lies with Sri Jiva, who explained that ajata-rati raganuga bhakti can be performed in conjunction with vaidhi-bhakti by adding those elements of raganuga sadhana to one's practice that one is capable of engaging in (Bs 311). This has been elaborated upon by Swami BV Tripurari thus:

 

"Although sadhakas may take up raganuga bhakti before passing through anartha-nivrtti, it is only their capability to practice such, which is measured by eagerness, that qualifies them for acquaintance with their siddha-deha. It should be understood that genuine eagerness for such will in most cases be considerably lacking in those who have not passed beyond anartha-nivrtti, and thus BSST's dismissal of siddha-pranali-diksa for those who have not yet passed this stage.

 

In the approach to raganuga bhakti of Bhaktisiddhanta, esoteric practices of raganuga sadhana are not dismissed, nor are they imitated. As ruci and asakti stages are reached, these internal practices are incorporated into the sadhaka's practice. Before reaching these stages, sadhakas may also consider themselves raganuga practitioners proportionate to their eagerness for attaining Vraja bhakti. They are not, however, to entertain artificial internal practices, projecting their material conceptions into transcendence.Their interest in a particular spiritual identity must come through a purified heart in nama bhajana, not from the force of their imagination."

 

 

[Rati]

Again a bunch of word jugglery. Gaudiya Math did in fact attack the raganuga practitioners indiscriminately and unjustly and labeled most of them as sahajiyas, although they have claimed that they were only deriding the 'bad apples'. The only adhikara is greed, and that has been emphatically stated by all of the authorities. That greed is not going to be present in the unqualified and they are not going to be able to artificially assume it (they are not going to even have an interest in the practice in the first place). Bhaktivinode's quote has been taken out of context. He was recommending the raganuga sadhana for all initiated devotees. Of course he was not advocating it for the uninitiated, but then again neither was anyone else. If a qualified guru has ascertained that a disciple is ready for initiation into gayatri mantras and the practice of chanting japa of the maha-mantra along with lila smarana, then that is in accordance with the tradition. Of course that does not mean that all of the Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus are having all of the disciples take up lila smarana. In fact you will find that they are generally giving them the mantras and not offering the siddha pranali at first until the disciple expresses the sincere desire to receive that, and even then they may make them wait until they are ready, which may be a prolonged period of time of their doing daily rounds and listening to readings of Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata Purana and Caitanya Caritamrta and other texts, and attending kirtan and arotik and doing parikrama in the holy Dham. Those are the facts, Jack.

 

Furthermore, if the process of sravana kirtana works at all, we have to assume that a fair percentage of practitioners are going to be ready to take up lila smarana within a reasonable period of time. Whatever is reasonable is again not for us to decide, but up to the qualified guru.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-08-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-08-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-09-2002).]

[Citta Hari]

Rati:

 

First off, my name is not Jack. Spare us the crass language.

 

Most of what you have written in your last post we agree with, but clearly our interpretations of lobha differ. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was conservative in regard to lila smaranam, not raganuga sadhana. We are all engaged in raganuga sadhana to some extent. There is no need for 'adding back in' such practices because he never, as you erroneously asserted earlier, 'carelessly discarded' them. He downplayed them, no doubt, putting stress on Harinama and on the foundational step in any genuine spiritual culture: ceto darpana-marjanam.

 

Quote:

"The only adhikara is greed, and that has been emphatically stated by all of the authorities.That greed is not going to be present in the unqualified and they are not going to be able to artificially assume it (they are not going to even have an interest in the practice in the first place). Bhaktivinode's quote has been taken out of context. He was recommending the raganuga sadhana for all initiated devotees. "

 

We never said that greed isn't the adhikara. Above you imply that interest in the practice constitutes lobha. That's not what Bhaktivinoda said, however. In fact his quote says the opposite: that there are those who think of their siddha-deha without the eligibility to do so. They are obviously interested, otherwise they wouldn't think of their siddha-deha, but clearly according to Bhaktivinoda's statement mere interest in the practice does not constitute genuine lobha.

 

Quote:

"Gaudiya Math did in fact attack the raganuga practitioners indiscriminately and unjustly and labeled most of them as sahajiyas, although they have claimed that they were only deriding the 'bad apples'. "

 

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura's criticisms were neither indiscriminate nor unjust. He accepted those in whom he saw genuine spirituality and good character, such as Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, Vamsi dasa Babaji, Jagannatha dasa Babaji and others, while the practice of raganuga bhakti by those whose character was questionable he did in fact criticize. It is apparent that you like to characterize the state of Gauiya Vaisnavism at the time of Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta as having nothing wrong with it and that Bhaktisiddhanta's criticisms were uncalled for. If that is the case, then why did Bhaktivinoda himself refer to the jati Gosai lineages as apasampradayika? And why did Gaurakisora tell Bhaktisiddhanta that "Living in Radha-kunda would be pleasant if you can deliver it from the hands of eleven immoral men." Obviously distortions existed and reform was required. His usage of the term 'sahajiya' was in the general sense of 'taking it cheaply,' which clearly many people were doing.

 

[Rati]

First of all you can never prove that Gaurakishor Das Babaji ever made such a comment. Secondly, Bhaktivinode hardly derided the caste Goswamins, since his own diksa guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, that he repeatedly pays homage to, was Nityananda Vamsa. Your name may not be Jack, but you need to cut us some slack. (What is crass about that particular slang, I would like to know? It was done in a joking mood, no doubt, but is hardly sleazy as you have so characterized it). What you present as facts are just rumors, that's all. If you think you can somehow prove them, you are welcome to try. Bhaktivinode was not referring to any Gaudiya Vaishnava groups when he listed apasampradayas, just those that actually came in Sahajiya or Baul lines. To state otherwise is simply untrue and even worse Vaishnava aparadha. Gaura Kishor Das Babaji was initiated in the Advaita Vamsa line (Jati Gosai). Are you saying that his lineage was tainted?

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-10-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-11-2002).]

[Rati]

I never implied or stated that mere interest is actual lobha. If you took it that way, that is your fault, not mine. I was saying to examine Bhaktivinode's statements in the context of the opinions of Rupa Goswami and Visvanatha Chakravarty, who he himself was following in accordance with. If, as you claim, that guru pranali and siddha pranali were not actually discarded by Gaudiya Math, then I have to ask you where are the documents for them? Have you seen them? Has anyone ever seen them? I am not condemning anyone that does sravanam kirtanam without lila smaranam, so do not accuse me of that. Your attempt to pigeonhole me in that way appears to have some ulterior motive, one has to think.

 

It is not really a question of what Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada may or may not have done once upon a time, and the past does not really concern us here in the present day (at least it shouldn't). There is currently an indiscriminate campaign of defamation of character being carried out by his disciples, and that is what I am referring to.

 

I have no issues whatsoever with the preaching campaigns of GM and ISKCON, and nothing but the greatest respect for kirtan and prasadam distrubution being carried out. Neither do I have any objection to calling a spade a spade when it comes to traditions that take their own path apart from that of Suddha Bhakti, like Buddhists and Mayavadis and Bauls. What I do take issue with is the attacks on the rest of the Gaudiya community in India, especially slander against the Babajis of RadhaKund. Granted they are not all going to be on the same level of asceticism and highly advanced in bhakti, but one must still offer due respects. After all it is hardly a comfortable lifestyle, to say the least. One has to admire anyone that can live so austerely and in that climate in the summer.

 

I also take issue with the self-aggrandizing stance towards preaching and making disciples. Why should the numerous disciples initiated by Srivatsa Goswami of the Gopala Bhatta Goswamin line be any less in stature than ISKCON devotees and why should his preaching efforts be somehow inferior just because the sheer numbers are much lower? Why are persons such as him not given the same respect at the two Prabhupadas by your group? It seems to be rather discriminatory, to say the least, just like the discrimination against women (my understanding is that there is only one token female member of the GBC).

 

If we want to advance, that is a continual process of trying to better ourselves in every respect (not just doing more sadhana). If we can be kinder to our fellow human beings and less self centered (which I think we have to agree we all need some work on), that is also progress in the right direction. The two Prabhupadas, even though they criticized certain factions, nonetheless always behaved as perfect gentleman in any conversation. I personally witnessed this even with some obnoxious born again Christians that SP had to deal with, and he was nothing but gracious even while reprimanding them. That is a case of setting an example to be followed. Hopefully we can somehow fill those shoes ourselves someday.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-10-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-11-2002).]

[Rati]

Certainly differences of opinion have been there all along between Gaudiya Math and the traditionalists. However, attacks have been completely one-sided. One does not find any books published by authors such as Kunjabihari Das Baba or Ananta Das Baba that criticize GM or ISKCON or related organizations. Dr. Kapoor does refer to them (in a positive light), but that is only because of being once affiliated with GM before switching his affiliation to the line from Radha Raman Charan Das. When I first met him in 1980, he had already long made that switch, but in 1995 came out with his "The Saints of Bengal" with a chapter praising Sri Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

If one sees critics with articles on websites, they are always former members of ISKCON or Gaudiya Math that became disillusioned. Those that never had such affiliation seem to be little aware of what those organizations are up to or that they might have been the object of their criticism.

[Rati]

With regard to the question of siddha pranali (the topic of this thread), we really do not have the input of the Babajis at this point with respect to Gaudiya Math's position on it. It could well be that they would thoroughly agree on the basis of the overwhelming majority of practitioners of bhakti in the current age perhaps being unable to follow the process properly, and that for them merely hearing and chanting should be the complete focus for this lifetime. Since we do not really have such input, we should not speculate about what their position actually is. What we can observe, however, is that their handing out of the guru pranali and siddha pranali and instructions for smarana appears to be extremely limited. I know this from first hand experience. When I was given a printed copy of a Gutika (book that contains descriptions of the lilas), because it was such a rare book, I was approached by many that wanted just to see it or borrow it.

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-11-2002).]

[Citta Hari]

Quote:

"First of all you can never prove that Gaurakishor Das Babaji ever made such a comment."

 

Yes, and neither can it be proven that he did not. But by questioning this statement, you question the character of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, although he was widely known for his strict moral standards and spotless character.This we object to.

 

Quote:

"Secondly, Bhaktivinode hardly derided the caste Goswamins, since his own diksa guru, Bipin Bihari Goswami, that he repeatedly pays homage to, was Nityananda Vamsa. . .Gaura Kishor Das Babaji was initiated in the Advaita Vamsa line (Jati Gosai). Are you saying that his lineage was tainted?

 

Perhaps Babaji Maharaja's lineage was tainted, perhaps not. Do you honestly think that all the jati gosani lineages were pure? If they were, then why did Bhaktivinoda fight with them over Mahaprabhu's birthplace? And while we see that he gave respect to Bipin Goswami, there is evidence that Bhaktivinoda was dismissed (in 1919, after Bhaktivinoda's departure) by Bipin Goswami because he had preached that Mahaprabhu's birthsite was in Mayapura and not Navadvipa. Do you not acknowledge that many jati gosai lineages made a living off of so-called places of Krsna and Gaura-lila, collecting money from pilgrims for their own purposes while keeping the 'lila sites' in perpetual disrepair? Furthermore, the jati-gosai lineage is mentioned by Bhaktivinoda as one of the twelve apasampradayas: Aul, Baul, Sakhibheki, Karttabhaja, Neda, Daravesa, Sani, Sahajiya, Smarta, Jata-gosani, Ativadi, Cudadhari and Gauranga-nagari. Thus it is clear that many (not all) of those in jati gosani lineages were (and are still today—just take an objective look around) considerably less than qualified and worthy of Bhaktivinoda's critique.

 

Quote:

"Bhaktivinode was not referring to any Gaudiya Vaishnava groups when he listed apasampradayas, just those that actually came in Sahajiya or Baul lines."

 

Not exactly. See above.

 

Quote:

"I was saying to examine Bhaktivinode's statements in the context of the opinions of Rupa Goswami and Visvanatha Chakravarty, who he himself was following in accordance with. "

 

Indeed Bhaktivinoda followed Sri Rupa and Visvanatha Cakravarti. But you have failed to show how Bhaktivinoda's statement that I quoted should be understood in the context of Rupa and Visvanatha's writings. We consider that Bhaktivinoda was explaining what they meant. Thus there is reason to be conservative with regard to lila smaranam as per the opinion of Bhaktivinoda.

 

Quote:

"If, as you claim, that guru pranali and siddha pranali were not actually discarded by Gaudiya Math, then I have to ask you where are the documents for them? Have you seen them? Has anyone ever seen them? I am not condemning anyone that does sravanam kirtanam without lila smaranam, so do not accuse me of that. Your attempt to pigeonhole me in that way appears to have some ulterior motive, one has to think.

 

My only motive is to make it clear that not everyone in our group is an uninformed, fanatical, siddha-pranali/Babaji basher.From your tone and content you have apparently had experience with such people. If you took it that I was accusing you in some way then I am sorry. That was not my intent.

 

However, the fact is that those in our group who are capable do lila-smaranam, but the siddha-pranali in the form you mention it with a certificate and such does not take place. That does not mean, though, that the concept has been done away with or that gurus never give instruction on lila smaranam and the nature of one's svarupa/bhava.

 

Quote:

"It is not really a question of what Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada may or may not have done once upon a time, and the past does not really concern us here in the present day (at least it shouldn't). There is currently an indiscriminate campaign of defamation of character being carried out by his disciples, and that is what I am referring to."

 

Fair enough. We acknowledge that character defamations do go on by some members of the Sarasvata lineage, and we do not agree with or support such campaigns. Our Guru Maharaja teaches us to look at people on an individual basis and determine their spirituality or lack thereof accordingly.

 

Quote:

"What I do take issue with is the attacks on the rest of the Gaudiya community in India, especially slander against the Babajis of RadhaKund. Granted they are not all going to be on the same level of asceticism and highly advanced in bhakti, but one must still offer due respects."

 

We respect the Babajis of Radha-kunda who really behave as such, the same as we respect a practitioner in our line if their character is good. No problem. All we take exception to is when those who are not advanced in bhakti give siddha-pranali, and the fact is there are a number of them doing so. This is mentioned in greater detail below.

 

Quote:

"I also take issue with the self-aggrandizing stance towards preaching and making disciples. Why should the numerous disciples initiated by Srivatsa Goswami of the Gopala Bhatta Goswamin line be any less in stature than ISKCON devotees and why should his preaching efforts be somehow inferior just because the sheer numbers are much lower? Why are persons such as him not given the same respect at the two Prabhupadas by your group?"

 

We also take issue with self-aggrandizement. The reason Srivatsa Goswami is not given the same respect as the two Prabhupadas has nothing to do with how many disciples he has, it has to do with spiritual substance. My Guru Maharaja respects Srivatsa Goswami and has sat with him many times, still, he did not find the same depth of spiritual substance in him as in his gurus (Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja). I doubt that the disciples of Srivatsa Goswami respect Prabupada as much as they do their Guru, especially when he openly canvasses Srila Prabhupada’s disciples for reinitiation into a “bonafide lineage.” Why do the disciples of Haridasa Sastri not take Srivatsa Goswami as equal to their Gurudeva, and way do they not accept the Radha Kunda babajis? Maybe it is a subjective reality, and maybe their is also some objectivity to it.

 

Quote:

"Certainly differences of opinion have been there all along between Gaudiya Math and the traditionalists. However, attacks have been completely one-sided."

 

This is not entirely accurate. The very fact that many of the traditionaltists don't honor the diksa of our sampradaya by reinitiating people is evidence that it's not one-sided. Why not just give siksa to those who are already initiated who are interested in lila samranam? There is precedent for this in Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva-dharma, where Vijaya-kumara took siddha-pranali from a siksa guru, not his diksa guru. And in some circles, this is what happens; for example, you brought up Dr. Kapoor. Gauranga dasa Babaji honored the diksa given to him by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and only gave him siksa regarding bhajana.

 

Quote:

"With regard to the question of siddha pranali (the topic of this thread), we really do not have the input of the Babajis at this point with respect to Gaudiya Math's position on it. It could well be that they would thoroughly agree on the basis of the overwhelming majority of practitioners of bhakti in the current age perhaps being unable to follow the process properly, and that for them merely hearing and chanting should be the complete focus for this lifetime. Since we do not really have such input, we should not speculate about what their position actually is. What we can observe, however, is that their handing out of the guru pranali and siddha pranali and instructions for smarana appears to be extremely limited. "

 

Here's the opinion of Gadadhara-prana dasa, who, although not a Babaji is a guru in the 'orthodoxy' of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, on the position of our group with regard to siddha-pranali as he perceives it:

 

"If a person desiring to perform raganuga sadhana has previously recieved initiation from a sampradaya in which the system of siddha-pranali is not available, and if he is reluctant to perfom the diksa-samskara, another alternative may feasibly be adopted. Such persons may meditate on their nitya-svarupa according to the atma-dhyana in sastra. Placing faith on the acintya-sakti of harinama, astakaliya manasi seva may be performed with the following atma-dhyana:" (Sanat-kumara-samhita cited).

 

This we consider to be safer than the so-called siddha-pranali given out by unqualified people, particularly when we know that the siddha-deha given in most cases is a prototype only, the particulars of which are to be filled in through practice.

 

Gadadhara-prana dasa has also admitted that he is an ajata-rati raganuga sadhaka and that he gives siddha-pranali. So it is clear that there are those who are not siddhas giving out siddha-pranali. This was one of the main criticisms of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura in his time, and we agree with him now because it is still going on. We also acknowledge that there are those in our group who are not qualified to initate and are doing so. We have no problem with qualified Babas who give siddha-pranali-diksa to qualified persons, just as we have no objection to qualified gurus giving initiation to qualified persons in our group.

 

[Rati]

I have to accept your word about your guru and his neutrality and qualifications. As far as the alleged controversy over the site of Mayapur, it does not seem to be a very credible account, and from what I have heard there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

Anyways, you seem to have quite strong opinions about who is qualified and who is not. So be it.

 

If anyone achieves prema, what does it matter what their affiliation is or exactly what sadhana they have followed?

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-11-2002).]

[gHari]

http://www.vina.org/articles/suddhanamas.html