Have the Neo-Gaudiya Vaishnavas Thrown away 'Sikshashtaka'?

[sha]

 

real vaishnavas are not always humble

 

 

 

Sri Caitanya in His 'Sikshashtaka', gives the cardinal VIRTUES of a REAL VAISHNAVA thus:

 

"Humbler than the grass,

more tolerant than the tree,

GIVING UP ALL EGOTISM and

PAYING RESPECTS to ALL,

a devotee SHOULD SING OF LORD HARI." (3)

 

This is the IDEAL which STILL RULES all the REAL Vaishnavas and which they still TRY TO MAINTAIN even through UNFAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I moved this to give you your own thread to discuss this on.

[sha]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

 

bAhire se AlA bholA antare hRdaya galA

mukhe sadA kRSNa bolA cokhe azru mAlA

dInatAya se mATir mAnuS niSThAte acalA

kRSNa dite kRSNa nite dhare zakti sob

alaukika lokavat gauDIya vaiSNob

 

He looks artless, guileless

but inside his heart is melting;

the name of Krishna is always on his tongue

a garland of tears in his eyes.

 

In humility though forebearing,

his faith unswerving as a mountain.

 

To give or take Krishna,

is the power in his hands.

He looks like anyone,

but he is beyond the world.

That is a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

 

sabAra nIce paRe thAke sabAike se sevya dekhe

sabAra iSTa miSTa bhAkhe kRSNa tattva jñAne

sabAi debA sabAr sevA kRSNa adhiSThAne

nikhila bheda samanvayera mUrti savaibhava

tomAra preme goRA se gauDIya vaiSNava

 

He humbly takes the lowest place,

sees everyone as someone to serve;

to all he speaks what is pleasing and sweet,

connected to the truth of Krishna;

he knows that Krishna dwells in every soul

and so he gives to all and serves all.

 

All differences are resolved in him,

this is the glory he incarnates.

Formed through and through by Your love--

that is a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

 

sarvottama sadainya vinaya nirahaM suzAnti nilaya

nitAi graha grasta hRdaya sadaya vizva jIve

tomAra icchAya cale bale tomAra icchAya seve

tomAra gaNa sange se pAya prema rasArNava

tomAra sRSTa hRSTa iSTa gauDIya vaiSNava

 

He is the best of all, yet he makes no claims.

He is without ego, the house of blissful peace.

He is under the astral influence of Nitai,

and so merciful to all souls in the universe.

He walks and talks according to Your desire,

according to Your desire, he serves.

 

When in the company of those who are Yours,

he finds an ocean of relish.

Your personal creation, Your own ecstatic object of worship --

that is a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

 

(Sri Gopinatha Basak-contributed by Jagat)

 

 

[stonehearted]

Although I certainly agree with you and am mystified by the remark that "real vaishnavas are not always humble," and I'm grateful for the poem by Gopinath Basak, I don't have a context for this. There was no link to the posting to which you were responding. Can anyone help?

 

[Guest guest]

My guess is that a few of them may be running out of patience with fools, terrorists and aparadhis, but that does not mean they have thrown away Sikshatakam. Many will follow in the mood of Hari das Thakur while others might roar like a well known lion. Whatever the way the vaisnavas mercy comes we should take it on our heads as a invaluable blessing, that's the attitude of a humble devotee.

[stonehearted]

Our dear Guest wrote: My guess is that a few of them may be running out of patience with fools, terrorists and aparadhis, but that does not mean they have thrown away Sikshatakam. Many will follow in the mood of Hari das Thakur while others might roar like a well known lion.

 

Stone: Thanks, but I had made the same guess. What I'm asking for, though, is direction to the thread to which sha was responding. That would make it easier to respond ourselves in a meaningful way. And, by the way, this isn't just Haridas' mood; it's Mahaprabhu's instruction and should be part of a sadhaka's constant meditation. Those of us who try to imitate lions without the requisite realization may simply be indulging false ego and risking the consequences of vaishnava aparadha. This is why I asked for help with the context.

 

[Guest guest]

 

it's Mahaprabhu's instruction and should be part of a sadhaka's constant meditation. Those of us who try to imitate lions without the requisite realization may simply be indulging false ego and risking the consequences of vaishnava aparadha.

 

 

You have understood it right.

You can find the context on another thread-

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=29887&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=5"

 

from which this topic is started.

[stonehearted]

Our Guest wrote: You have understood it right.

 

stone: That's very kind of you. After all these years, I'm starting to get it.

 

So sha's text at the head of this thread was written as part of that thread? The remark sha responded to was "real vaishnavas are not always humble." I can't find that in the thread you sent me to. Can anyone else help?

[theist]

..specific post the sha was responding to.I was posting a response to shvu who I quoted.So sha is accusing His Divine Grace of showing a lack of humility by using the word 'rascal'.It was off topic so jndas moved it.It is also a reason I ignore jaysriradhe's..er I mean sha's post's, as colorful as they may be.

 

_____

 

shvu:"What do you think Shankara means when he refers to Krishna's form as maayaa ruupam?"

 

 

 

Prabhupada:"So the Mäyävädi rascals theory is that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and when He comes to be present before us as person, He accepts a material body. This is their theory, mäyä, Mäyäväda, that Krsna's body is also bone and skin. That is their theory. They accept, Yes, Krsna is God, but He has accepted a body of flesh and bone. This is Mäyäväda theory..."SB lec 1.3.28

 

...take the essence...SP letter to Krsnadasa 1972

 

 

 

 

[stonehearted]

I now see the context. So the criticism was aimed at Srila Prabhupada?Following his spiritual master's lead, he was very concerned about the influence of neo-advaitins on modern society. He and Siddhanta Sarasvati certainly did criticize the mayavadins' negation of Krishna's ultimate personality, sometimes saying that this mentality is paramount to trying to dismember the Lord. I don't feel that this necessarily shows a lack of humility. We saw such boldness also in Bhaktivinoda Thakur as well, as well as in earlier Gaudiya acharyas. One I have in mind is Visvanath's rejection of the idea that manjari-bhava includes dressing externally as women. I'm at work, in the middle of grading papers, and cannot remember the name of the devotee he criticized for this. Maybe Madhava or Murali can help. But as I remember, Visvanath was unsparing in his criticism.

[raga]

Rupa Kaviraja.

 

Visvanatha did establish the orthodox siddhanta strongly, but I do not recall reading any personal critique of Rupa Kaviraja. Narahari does relate the sad history of Rupa Kaviraja in brief, but also he does not want to get into it, as he clearly expresses himself. He has no desire to delve deep into unfortunate historical events.

[stonehearted]

Madhava wrote: Rupa Kaviraja.

 

Visvanatha did establish the orthodox siddhanta strongly, but I do not recall reading any personal critique of Rupa Kaviraja. Narahari does relate the sad history of Rupa Kaviraja in brief, but also he does not want to get into it, as he clearly expresses himself. He has no desire to delve deep into unfortunate historical events.

 

stone: Yep, that's who I was thinking of. Thank you, sir. Of course, Visvanatha and Narahari would be loathe to engage in sadhu-ninda. Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami's example was to abjure hearing any criticism of any vaishnava, even in cases where there was something worthy of criticism. Rather, he preferred to hear what service they had done for Krishna. Still, as you point out, Visvanatha did argue strongly, as you point out, to establish the proper siddhanta. Bhaktivinoda Thakura also argued strongly against many misunderstandings in Christian and "Hindu" thought, and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati followed his lead in that regard. We have heard from our gurudeva that even many of his disciples sometimes found his "cutting technique" disturbing.

 

Kaviraja Krishnadasa exhorts his readers to string the "trinad api shunichena" verse on the thread of the Holy Name and wear it around their necks for constant remembrance. (If I got this wrong, please correct me; it's been a long day at work, and I'm headed home to my books.)

[theist]

I get the most benefit from lectures that really expose my false conceptions of reality and at the same time reveal a higher level of truth.I'm sure this is because I am still firmly attached to material thought processes.I need to hear nescience put down side by side with hearing the glories of spiritual life.

 

Go along to get along types strike me as being very weak and needy.Not the measure of a world teacher IMO.

[raga]

 

stone: Yep, that's who I was thinking of. Thank you, sir. Of course, Visvanatha and Narahari would be loathe to engage in sadhu-ninda. Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami's example was to abjure hearing any criticism of any vaishnava, even in cases where there was something worthy of criticism. Rather, he preferred to hear what service they had done for Krishna. Still, as you point out, Visvanatha did argue strongly, as you point out, to establish the proper siddhanta. Bhaktivinoda Thakura also argued strongly against many misunderstandings in Christian and "Hindu" thought, and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati followed his lead in that regard. We have heard from our gurudeva that even many of his disciples sometimes found his "cutting technique" disturbing.

 

 

I find it hard to equate the philosophical critique of Visvanatha, which mainly focused on establishing a positive conclusion, to dvelving extensively into the bad of others, either philosophically, or worse even, of their character, a practice which is often employed in contemporary Gaudiya circles -- to the extent of name-calling (sahajiya) and leveling often imaginary accusations (such as against babajis and caste gosvamis) with the sole goal of discrediting others.

[stonehearted]

Madhava wrote: I find it hard to equate the philosophical critique of Visvanatha, which mainly focused on establishing a positive conclusion, to dvelving extensively into the bad of others, either philosophically, or worse even, of their character, a practice which is often employed in contemporary Gaudiya circles -- to the extent of name-calling (sahajiya) and leveling often imaginary accusations (such as against babajis and caste gosvamis) with the sole goal of discrediting others.

 

stone: I also favor a less confrontational process of exploring the differences among groups. It sometimes seems it's easier for us to build bridges to Madhvas, pusti-marg and other non-Gaudiya groups than to other branches of our own family. I think there could be great benefit to all if we could do so. Just as it seems strange to perpetuate the old stories from both sides that keep Vallabha's followers and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's followers from cooperating more closely, perhaps we could revisit the rifts among the Sarasvat Gaudiyas and the other branches of the family. It wouldn't be easy and would require determination and great humility from all sides, and it may not succeed, but I wonder if it wouldn't be worth the try.

 

I sometimes see useful dialog here on this forum, although I also see immaturity and rudeness.

 

I know preachers from our side who I greatly respect who would probably not approve (no need for names). There are others whose approach is less confrontational who inspire me, such as Swami B. V. Tripurari. Perhaps this is something we can work toward. And perhaps I'm just naive.

[stonehearted]

We may find a model of argument in Mahaprabhu's discussions with Sarvabhauma and Prakashananda. The strength of his case was enhanced, not undermined, by the gentleness and humility of His approach.