Siddha Pranali

[sha]

Theist,

 

I copied this from another board, you may like this too:

 

jAnAti kiJcid api sA hRdi me vibhAti

rAdhA vazIkaraNa-mantram avazyam eva |

no cet kathaM sura-munIndra-nutaM zaraNyaM

dAsAbhimAnam anayad vraja-mugdha-candram ||1||

 

A realization has entered my heart

that Radha must know some kind of special bewitching spell.

Otherwise, how could she turn the enchanting moon of Vraja,

to whom the gods and great sages bow down

and of whom they take shelter,

into someone proud to claim he is her servant.

 

(Sri Narahari Thakur's Radhastakam, verse 1.)

 

rAdhA prayAti vipinaM vipinaM prayAti

rAdhA nikuJja-sadane sa ca tatra nityam |

rAdhA-sukhe sukham upetya duHkhe ca duHkhI

kRSNaM kadApi khalu tiSThati na svatantraH ||4||

 

Radha goes into the woods; Krishna goes into the woods.

When Radha goes into the forest bower, Krishna is always there with her.

When Radha is happy, he becomes happy.

When she is sad, he is also sad.

Krishna is never, ever independent in any way.

 

(Sri Narahari Tahakur's Radhikastakam, verse 4.)

 

bhaktiM na kRSNa-caraNe na karomi cArtiM

rAdhA-padAmbuja-rajaH-kaNa-sAhasena |

tasyA dRg-aJcala-nipAta-vizeSa-vettA

daivAd ayaM mayi kariSyati dAsa-buddhim ||6||

 

I do not engage in devotion to Krishna, nor am I troubled by it,

for I have been made bold through the few drops of dust

of Radha's lotus feet that have fallen on my head.

 

Yet Krishna knows the special power of Radha's sidelong glances,

will one day suddenly take an attitude of service to me.

 

(Sri Narahari Thakur's Radhikastakam, verse 6.)

 

(posted by Jagadananda dasa on another board)<font color="fefefe">

 

 

[This message has been edited by sha (edited 05-09-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by sha:

Maitreya

MaitreyaJi?

 

Originally posted by theist:

No. Mudha.

Why are you having spelt "Madhu" wrongly as "Mudha"?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-08-2002).]

[Rati]

Could it be that this thread has finally run out of steam? That might not be so bad, considering that the conversation constantly wanders away from the topic. What would be helpful for those who really want to follow the topic itself is if JNDas would kindly delete all of the irrelevant posts or move them to another topic (something like "Off Topic Items").

 

It was introduced as:

 

"I figured a more general discussion of Siddha Pranali might be interesting. Perhaps someone can fill in the details"

 

That is quite a bit different from a discussion of the pros and cons of the institution and its use in sAdhana. There have already been plenty of forum threads devoted to that discussion, which always go around in circles. It was apparent that the initiator of the thread was really just interested in what siddha praNAli is all about. Perhaps that was expecting too much, given the volatile nature of the topic.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-09-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Raga, I did not see you posting answers to my question on the niyamas of bhakti yoga. I thought of reminding you.

[makhanmisri]

 

Originally posted by Jagat:

Jai Radhe! Here is my version of that last verse by Ramananda--

 

nAnopacAra-kRta-pUjanam Arta-bandhoH

premNaiva bhakta-hRdayaM sukha-vidrutaM syAt

yAvat kSud asti jaThare jaraThA pipAsA

tAvat sukhAya bhavato nanu bhakSya-peye ||

 

"You may elaborately

worship the friend of the suffering

with all the richest paraphernalia,

but your heart will only melt with joy

when you have love for him.

For only as long as hunger and thirst are there in your belly

do the delicacies of food and drink bring you pleasure."

 

Nice translation. O.B.L. Kapur seems to interpret it more like this:

 

"As much as the devotee whose heart has melted in the bliss of unalloyed love intensely desires to please the Lord of the distressed with all varieties of worship--to that exact degree, the Lord’s hunger and thirst for whatever is offered intensifies."

 

He reads the last line as "tAvat sukhAya bhavati na nu bhakSyate yat."

 

Any comments?

 

MDd

[Jagat]

The verse appears in CCMK 13.42; CC 2.8.69 and Padyavali 13. The reading I have is the only one I see.

[raga]

<hr><hr>Recently Ram asked in another thread about the basis in shruti for the giving of siddha-pranali and related practices. I am presently reading the Gopala Tapani Upanishad, and have discovered some interesting details there.

 

I’ll open with a line describing how the sadhaka should view himself in the course of upasana. Sri Gopala Tapani states: <blockquote><center>yo gopan jivan vai atmatvenasrsti-paryantam alati sa gopalo bhavati om tat sat so ’ham param brahma krsnatmako nityanandaika-rupah so’ham om // 2.50 //</center>

“Because since the beginning of creation He lovingly protects the conditioned souls, He is known as Gopala. Om tat sat. That I am, identical in quality with Sri Krishna, the supreme spirit, having a spiritual form eternally full of bliss, that I am. Om.” </blockquote>This verse establishes the legitimacy of meditating on one's eternally blissful form. The verses after this one describe the details of meditation on Gopala, finally concluding with a phala-stuti: <blockquote><center>dhyayaen mama priyo nityam

sa moksam adhigacchati

sa mukto bhavati tasmai

atmanam ca dadami vai //2.91//</center>

"He who meditates in this way is eternally dear to me. He attains liberation. He becomes liberated. I give Myself to him." </blockquote>It is clear from this that the meditation recommended therein is a means for attaining liberation, instead of something which only takes place on the liberated platform.

 

The first chapter of the Gopala Tapani Upanisad also describes something which is a root-form of the mental yogapitha-seva practiced by the Gaudiya mystics of the present day. Sri Brahmaji describes the upasana of Gopala:<blockquote><center>tan uvaca -

yat tasya pitham hairanyasta-palasam ambujam tad antaralikana-asra-yugam tad-antarady-arnakhila-bijam krsnaya nama iti bijadhyam sa brahmanam adhaya ananga-gayatrim yathavad vyalikhya bhu-mandalam sula-vestitam krtvanga vasudevadi rukminyadi sva-saktindradi vasudevadi parthadi nidhyadi-vitam yajet //1.18//</center>

Brahma said: “On that seat, there should be a golden lotus with eight petals. Within that flower, one should place two triangles [a hexagonal figure], properly drawing the bija with krsnaya etc. along with bija and ananga-gayatri there. Then one should worship Vasudeva and others, Rukmini and others, His energies headed by Indra, Vasudeva andothers, Arjuna and others, and His treasures and so on.” </blockquote>[Kusakratha translates bhu-mandalam sula-vestitam krtvanga as “Then anga should be offered with the sula-mantra (astraya phat).” I have left it untranslated. Perhaps our pandits can help in clarifying the import of these words.]

 

The “krsnaya” here refers to the astadasaksara Gopala-mantra explained later in the Gopala Tapani Upanisad. Vasudeva and others -- other features of the Lord; Rukmini and others -- other consorts of the Lord (madhurya-rasa); His energies headed by Indra -- other devotees in a service mood (dasya-rasa); Vasudeva and others -- other devotees with parental affection (vatsalya-rasa); Arjuna and others -- other devotees with fraternal affection (sakhya-rasa); His treasures and so on -- all paraphernalia and so on in santa-rasa.

 

Here we see a description of the worship of the Lord conducted together with His associates in Dvaraka. In the same way, the Gaudiya mystics worship the Lord in Vrindavana, surrounded by His associates, such as Sri Radha and the eight principal sakhis.

 

There is certainly no objection to worshiping the Deity in the mind, for the Bhagavata (11.27.12) proclaims:<blockquote><center>saili daru-mayi lauhi lepya lekhya ca saikati

mano-mayi mani-mayi pratimasta-vidha smrta</center>

 

“The Deity forms of the Lord are known to appear in eight different ways – in stone, in wood, in metal, in earth, in paint, in sand, in mind or in jewels.”</blockquote>There is no gradation offered for eligibility in worshiping the Sri Vigraha in its different manifestations here. Therefore, why should mental service be reserved for the liberated persons only, leaving other varieties of arcana for the conditioned souls? It is a form of sadhana meant for the benefit of all sadhakas, as declared in the Bhagavata (7.5.23): sravanam kirtanam visnoh smaranam.

 

The spiritual master may offer a suitable form for the meditation of the sadhaka to facilitate his mental service to his internally conceived Deities, Sri Radha and Krishna. Since service of the Lord is to be done under the guidance of Sri Guru, the guru may also reveal a similar eternally blissful form of his in which he meditates on himself at the time of upasana. There is certainly no fault in this.

 

In this way, we have presented references for the legitimacy of traditional Gaudiya raganuga upasana from the shruti-shastra.

<hr><hr>

[Guest guest]

No one objects to mAnasa pujA or worshipping with the mind. It is non-different from serving the vigraha. There is also no problem in saying that the worship of the Lord is spiritual. The problem comes when we say that some forms of worship have special influence on the soul. As we are discussing in the "niyamas of bhakti yoga" thread, while it may seem easy to say that it is indeed very difficult to establish through the sastras.

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

No one objects to mAnasa pujA or worshipping with the mind. It is non-different from serving the vigraha. There is also no problem in saying that the worship of the Lord is spiritual. The problem comes when we say that some forms of worship have special influence on the soul. As we are discussing in the "niyamas of bhakti yoga" thread, while it may seem easy to say that it is indeed very difficult to establish through the sastras.

I only responded to your question as repeated below:

 

ram

Member posted 05-29-2002 11:56 AM

--

Raga, On the basis of what sastras do Bhakti Vinod Thakur and Jagannath Dasa Babaji teach Siddha Pranali ?

You asked a shastric basis for siddha pranali etc. and I offered some. This has nothing to do with the other thread about soul. Please don't mix them up.

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, come on. I asked this question in another thread. So it is you who started the mixing up of threads by bringing that question here. So I am pointing to another related thread "niyamas of bhakti yoga". Atkeast that is a related thread in the sense that it was an offshoot of this thread.

 

BTW, the evidence that you presented is an evidence for mAnasa pUjA and no one denied that in the first place. My point is that to prove that siddha pranAli is based on sAstrAs, we have to establish the basics of that. The first step is to establish that it has direct effect on the soul. There are many more steps. And we are definitely having a tough time establishing the first step itself as it fundamentally contradicts with shruti and smrti.

[raga]

Raga, come on. I asked this question in another thread. So it is you who started the mixing up of threads by bringing that question here. So I am pointing to another related thread "niyamas of bhakti yoga". Atkeast that is a related thread in the sense that it was an offshoot of this thread.

How do you want me to `"come on"?

 

You asked this question in another thread. This other thread is now closed by the administrator, so I could not post it there -- therefore I posted it in the thread "siddha pranali".

 

BTW, the evidence that you presented is an evidence for mAnasa pUjA and no one denied that in the first place. My point is that to prove that siddha pranAli is based on sAstrAs, we have to establish the basics of that. The first step is to establish that it has direct effect on the soul. There are many more steps. And we are definitely having a tough time establishing the first step itself as it fundamentally contradicts with shruti and smrti.

1. I never said that "siddha pranali" is categorized within the niyamas of bhakti yoga.

 

2. I never said anything about its influence or non-influence on the soul.

 

Is that all right with you?

[Guest guest]

OK. It was my misunderstanding that you are lifting questions from one thread and answering in another. Apologies for that.

 

BTW, does siddha pranali have direct influence on the soul or not ?

 

 

[Rati]

I am surprised that you are being so pedantic on this subject, Ram.

 

 

Is it not enough that recognized Gaudiya acharyas instituted and propagated the practice of siddha pranali?

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Rati:

I am surprised that you are being so pedantic on this subject, Ram.

 

Is it not enough that recognized Gaudiya acharyas instituted and propagated the practice of siddha pranali?

Rati, if we are following sanatana dharma, we have to depend on the timeless sastras and not only the acharyas. If mere reliance on the acharyas is enough, what would be wrong in blindly accepting Sankara, for instance ? If by using sAstras none other than Sankara's thesis is questioned, what to speak of others ? If we were to blindly accept why not accept Ramanuja ? OR Madhwa ? OR PrabhupAda ? OR Jesus ? OR Mohammed ?

We may say, it is a matter choice. But absolute truth is not a matter of personal choice.

 

So many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have gone beyond what he taught in his books. This is because he did not teach every thing the pUrvAcharyAs taught. And at some point, his teachings are found insufficient by them. What is wrong in me applying the same logic to the pUrvAchAryAs ?

[raga]

So many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have gone beyond what he taught in his books. This is because he did not teach every thing the pUrvAcharyAs taught. And at some point, his teachings are found insufficient by them. What is wrong in me applying the same logic to the pUrvAchAryAs ?

And what is wrong if I apply the same to the scripture? After all, shruti does not teach all the details of worship and so forth. Just asking.

 

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

OK. It was my misunderstanding that you are lifting questions from one thread and answering in another. Apologies for that.

 

BTW, does siddha pranali have direct influence on the soul or not ?

 

 

Let us first clarify the subject matter of whether anything can influence the soul or its citta-vRtti in the other thread. Otherwise answering this question is pointless.

[Rati]

Ram: I understand your point. There is much that can be problematic when considering the sankirtan movement and that which came before. Should we be concerned about continuity as all important? If our faith is that Rupa, etc. were manifesting some new revelations, then we may not feel the need to corroborate those with scriptural pramana. Just some thoughts to ponder.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Let us first clarify the subject matter of whether anything can influence the soul or its citta-vRtti in the other thread. Otherwise answering this question is pointless.

Valid. Let us be patient.

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

And what is wrong if I apply the same to the scripture? After all, shruti does not teach all the details of worship and so forth. Just asking.

Definitely. Forcing people or ourselves to blindly accept will at best create komala sraddha. One has to deliberate and accept. Shruti is accepted on the grounds that it is apoureshya and anadi,eternally presents eternal truth. When the Macauleyan scholars "proved" that shruti is not anadi nor apoureshya, the onus was on the proponents of vedic dharma to establish the truth. They did that by proving that the methods of analysis were wrong. All scriptures in the world incl. the Bible, Koran etc. have multiple recensions. Even the smrti sastras have multiple recensions due to interpolations. But on the other hand, there is no difference in the versions of vedanta sUtrAs or the chanted hymns of the Vedas. There are a class of priests called kanabadigals who even pass on the accentuation and tempo. So none of it is lost. In fact, even the *lost* portions are not *lost*. As sabda brahman every thing is still present. Just like the Lord is not perceived even though He is omnipresent, this sabda brahman is present every where though not perceived.

 

Just because shruti is an authoritative pramana, way of gaining knowledge, there is no need to discount others. Smrti sastras are also eternal but there were some interpolations especially during the muslim invasion. It is an historical fact that under persecution, many sastras were tampered with. We can't be blind to that. The mistakes in the smrti sastras, if any, do not belong there but they were introduced due to vested interests. That is why smrti is tested against smrti to verify its contents. The same applies to anumana, pratyaksha and other pramanas.

 

Definitely acharyas will have revelations and those revelations have to be accepted as equivalent to sastras as a true acharya is self-realized. When there is a contradiction in their revelations, how does one resolve ? Sastras.