Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Do you realise that you are exposing an offensive mentality towards Bhaktivinoda? As offensive as, for example, the person who said the following? "I'll even tell you why the relationship has been downplayed: BECAUSE THE SARASVATA-PARAMPARA IS A FABRICATION." (from a posting dated 9/13/03 entitled "Re: Quietly accepted a new one?") I for one am getting really tired of the stupid hypocrites who frequent this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 you take what i was saying to mean one thing,when in fact it means something else. The practice of siddha pranali and raganuga bhakti is not what you think it is about,it's really about purifying the heart(desire). this is from Narayana Maharaja After Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyabhusana, a dark age began in Sriman Maha-prabhu’s Gaudiya Sampradaya, during which the current of sri rupanuga-bhakti became somewhat impaired. Various kinds of speculative malpractices and opinions opposed to suddha-bhakti became mixed in with the true conception. At that time the situation was so dire that the educated and cultured section of society began to hate even the name of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, having witnessed the misbehaviour of its followers. In this way the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya became distanced from the intelligentsia and respected society. At that time the Seventh Gosvami Saccidananda Bhakti-vinoda Thakura and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati appeared. These two personalities brought about a re-volutionary transformation in the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya and restored its lost dignity. To these two maha-purusas and their followers goes the entire credit for whatever diffusion of Sriman Mahaprabhu’s nama-sankirtana and suddha-bhakti has taken place among the learned and respectable sector of society, not only in India but also throughout the world. They have established the Gaudiya Matha preaching centres of suddha-bhakti everywhere; they have published the literatures of suddha-bhakti along with magazines and journals in all of the major languages of the world; and thus in a very short time they have revolutionized the Gaudiya Vaisnava society ------------------------- What is the meaning of ekadasa-bhava and siddha-pranali? The system of spiritual practices followed by the Gaudiya Vaisnava school call for the practitioner to receive siddha-pranali from his spiritual master. From this siddha-pranali, the disciple becomes aware of the nature of his spiritual body. Dhyana-candra Gosvamin writes in his Paddhati that the siddha-pranali has eleven aspects (ekadasa-bhava). These consist of the devotee's (manjari's): name, her bodily colour, dress, age, relation, the particular group to which she belongs, orders, service, highest attainment, situation as a protected handmaid, and finally residence. No one should think that this is nothing more than imagination; the spiritual body is eternal and true. The spiritual master knows his disciple's transcendental identification through the power of his meditation and then reveals it to him as the form in which he will be accepted by the Lord. When the disciple meditates on the transcendental activities of the Lord through a sense of identification with that spiritual body, mentally serving the Holy Couple in that body, then gradually, his absorption in identification with the material body is correspondingly reduced. Until the disciple comes to the point of prema, he does not actually attain this siddha-deha, but has to take repeated births in the material world. Visvanatha Cakravartin explains in his commentary on the Ujjvala-nIlamani, "Those persons who are practicing raganuga-bhakti at the present time are on various stages of advancement such as nistha, ruci, asakti, etc. If they should at any future lifetime attain to pure love (prema) then they will become fully qualified to serve the Lord. It is only then that they will receive a body appropriate for rendering such service and will become actual associates of the Lord." (MSN 11.1) ----------------------- If you want to believe that the literal meaning of these topics is all in all,then go ahead,pretend you are a gopi, see where it gets you. the reality is completely different, the eternal siddha deha in actual relation with the etrnal rasa is something that is revealed to you,directly,you can imagine you are a gopi or manjari,this doesn't actually mean anything, what is the real treasure of Radha Dasyam ? Is that available by your mental imaginings ? no,it is a concret reality,only understood when you are on the level of freedom from misconceptions and misunderstandings of just what is Radha Krsna rasa lila, is it what the literal words describe,or is it something that is only represented in symbolism ? Vyasa may or may not know, the words are hiding an inner truth, that truth is the inner or actual reality, which is different then the external or literal descriptions, the realized Guru can indeed give you entracne into the eternal lila, but you must be qualified,your previous ideas based on the literal are an impediment to the transcendental realization of the actual reality. Radha and Krsna are one person in two forms,Radha is the internal nature of Krsna,the internal energy,that which is His inner life,understanding this truth is the first step to realization of rasa lila,without understanding this fact,Radha Dasyam is impossible to understand, Radha and the gopis are all one and the same person, their service is the highest level of rasa there is, Their desire is required to be understood in order to enter the eternal, if you simply desire position, then you can imagine yourself as a manjari,that may purify your heart, the desire for giving is a higher thing then the desire for position, when your desire is purified then Radha Dasyam opens up,then your real siddha deha is revealed in madhurya rasa,for the pleasure of Radha and the gopis, not for our exploitative desire for position as the topmost,but as servant to their inner needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 gaurasundara sayeth Unfortunately, "sahajiya" is become a buzzword for anything that does not agree with the precepts taught by gurus in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's line. I find the efforts of these quite admirable in that they try to remove any false misconceptions from the aspirant's mind; however, I do not agree with it when it is used as a tool of abuse to describe people and things that they evidently know nothing about. thats a bit of a strech,anything that doesn't agree with the precepts of Bhaktisiddhanta ? So if one wants to deviate from any of his precepts he is called a sahajiya ? not so, sahajiya not only refers to those who pretend they are gopis ,it also can refer to those who consider themselves at the highest levels when they haven't entered into that, those who try and present their views and position as being on the topmost platform without actually having experienced that. an example is when you convince yourself that because you read something about rasa lila,then think you understand what the meaning is,then think yourself as being on that level because you think you understand what you have read. We are told that what is written is not the whole story, that there is another hidden dimension there, the sahjiya type of mentality is to consider him/her self to be on the topmost level without actually understanding the inner truth,the hidden dimension, the revealed conception not available by simply reading and thinking that the literal import is all in all. self delsuion is the hall mark of the sahajiya, not realizing ones position in relation to the highest level, thinking oneself to be on that level or understanding what it is, without any actual experience or realization of that level, simply relying on the literal words he has read. that is the other meaning when sahajiya is used,it's not simply being deviant in some way or another from the precepts of Bhaktisiddhanta, it is all about not knowing your true position and the delusion of attainment,when that is not the fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Bhaktivedanta Swami Caitanya Caritamrta In his liberated stage the devotee is attracted by one of the five rasas in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. As he continues to serve the Lord in that transcendental mood, he attains a spiritual body to serve Krsna in Goloka Vrndavana. Those saintly persons who represent the Upanisads are vivid examples of this. By worshiping the Lord on the path of spontaneous love, they attained the lotus feet of Vrajendra-nandana, the son of Nanda Maharaja. the key here is when he says liberated stage, what is that ? at that stage one can engage in spontaneous(raganuga) bhakti. How does one know if he is on the liberated stage ? what does spontaneous mean ? What are the qualifications for being considered liberated ? If you have not come to the stage of seeing everything in Krsna and Krsna in everything, samadhi,the non stop awareness of the divine presence,being in constant communion(dialogue) with the supersoul, then you are not liberated,you are still under the illusory influence. What is spontaneous bhakti ? that done for the enhancement of rasa,the relationship between you and god. That is not the same as following a proscribed path of sadhana bhakti,it is direct rasa between the devotee and the all present lord. that is real raganuga bhakti,not raganuga tinged with Vaidhi,raganuga sadhana. it is only for those who have actual connection and reciprocation with the supreme soul,otherwise it is not real raganuga, the path of the raganuga is not based or dependent on any kind of sadhana,it is the goal,not the path. that reality is not about pretending to be this or that person in Vraja lila, it is about constant rasa in the here and now with the ever present all knowing supreme soul,that is not about pretending or imitating a manjari or whoever, it is only about you and God,here and now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Why do you login as Gaurasundara? It's very clear to me who you are. for anyone interested, do a search at http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/search.php?Cat= for the words "Vipina Vihari Gosvami" and see who spells the words this way and your translation of this verse you published on IndiaDivine: vikrIDitaM vraja-vadhUbhir idaM ca viSNoH | zraddhAnvito yaH zRNuyAd atha varNayed vA || bhaktiM parAM bhagavati parilabhya kAmaM | hRd-rogam Azv apahinoty acireNa dhIraH || (bhag. 10.33.39) ?One who faithfully hears or describes the loving sports of Sri Krishna and the young maidens of Vraja will quickly drive away the heart-disease of lust, become sober, and attain supramundane devotion of the Lord.? is also published on your website: http://www.raganuga.org/frame.php?raganuga=qualification That's my translation, and I maintain the website. Gaurasundara just likes to copy and paste from there. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Welcome to the world of paranoia! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Why do you login as Gaurasundara? Because that is my ID? /images/graemlins/wink.gif It's very clear to me who you are. for anyone interested, .. and see who spells the words this way Quite a lot of people spell the words that way too. It's a system of transliteration known as "Harvard-kyoto" encoding. There's other transliteration methods too, such as ITRANS, But personally I find HK easier to type. However, in this case I have simply copied it from Madhava's website. Why should I bother to type it all out when someone else has already done it? /images/graemlins/grin.gif Only joking, Madhava! and your translation of this verse you published on IndiaDivine.. is also published on your website: Well, it's not my website, it's Madhava's. He is a very nice devotee who I have learned a lot from. As he has already said, I like to copy and paste his stuff. Why not, as long as the point is proved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 I for one am getting really tired of the stupid hypocrites who frequent this forum. I, for one, am getting tired of the pseudo-intellectuals who speak in this forum about things they know absolutely nothing about. Neither is it civlized to drag up old topics that have no relevance to this topic. Excuse me, I thought this topic was all about the "evolution of Gaudiya thought," and thus I expected something of an intelligent discussion. Unfortunately I find the same old hate-campaigns directed against all non-Sarasvata Vaishnavas with that equally same old label of "sahajiyas." How sad. And when I attempt to point out all the errors, it recoils. How nice. Personally I am loathe to argue with anyone who cannot even be bothered to login under their own names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 In my last post, I explained how I expected this discussion to be an intelligent one about the evolution of Gaudiya thought. Contrary to such expectations, it is a belligerent cornucopia of hatred, belittling, error, with a little bit of rage thrown in. Since it is obvious that nobody in this discussion actually knows what a sahajiya is, it leads me to think that this is a pointless exercise to fight an "invisible enemy." Can anyone explain how victory can be gained in fighting such a foe? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 you take what i was saying to mean one thing,when in fact it means something else. The practice of siddha pranali and raganuga bhakti is not what you think it is about,it's really about purifying the heart(desire). With all due respects, I do not think that you are in a position to tell me that I do not know about siddha-pranali or raganuga-bhakti. I am just now putting the finishing touches to a complete transcription of an essay on the subject. You would do well to read it yourself when I put it online as it may clear up some of your misconceptions. It is all based on Srila Bhaktivinoda's teachings, by the way. this is from Narayana Maharaja After Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyabhusana, a dark age began in Sriman Maha-prabhu’s Gaudiya Sampradaya, during which the current of sri rupanuga-bhakti became somewhat impaired. With all due respects to Narayana Maharaja, I do not agree with his opinion. This is a popular legend that has been passed down since the times of Srila Sarasvati Thakura. There is no proof that it is true as several great Vaishnavas (whom I guess you have never even heard of) have always been present since the time of Baladeva Vidyabhusana. No one should think that this is nothing more than imagination; the spiritual body is eternal and true. The spiritual master knows his disciple's transcendental identification through the power of his meditation and then reveals it to him as the form in which he will be accepted by the Lord. Are you even aware that there are two schools of thought about the attainment of siddha-deha? Here is an excerpt from my upcoming transcription: "[One is] the 'inherent theory' and the other the 'assigned theory.' According to the 'inherent theory' every jiva already has an existing eternal siddha-deha. During initiation, the guru 'sees' the initiate’s eternal identity in lila by meditation and reveals this true identity to the sadhaka, who then begins the practice of raganuga-bhakti and eventually discovers for himself the reality of his eternal identity. According to the 'assigned theory' the guru assigns the appropriate siddha-deha to the initiate. The siddha-dehas are like 'shiny new cars,' as Haberman quotes one modern commentator, that are assigned to the appropriate candidate according to the design of God through the mystic perception of the guru. In both theories, numerous inspiring stories abound to prove and illustrate how the sadhaka receives his actual inner form." So there you go. Narayana Maharaja (and I suspect, the rest of the Sarasvata sampradaya) is obviously a believer in the inherent theory, while the rest of the sampradaya believes in the assigned theory. In any case, the assigned theory is the one that has been tried-and-tested since the days of Mahaprabhu. If you want to believe that the literal meaning of these topics is all in all,then go ahead,pretend you are a gopi, see where it gets you. See, this is the problem with you. You make assumptions about people and then you go ahead and assume that these self-created assumptions are absolutely true. Now can you show me anywhere where I have said that I am pretending to be a gopi? the reality is completely different, the eternal siddha deha in actual relation with the etrnal rasa is something that is revealed to you,directly,you can imagine you are a gopi or manjari,this doesn't actually mean anything, what is the real treasure of Radha Dasyam ? Is that available by your mental imaginings ? Certainly it is, if you follow the dictates of Rupa Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti, Narottama das Thakura, Gopalaguru Gosvami, Dhyanacandra Gosvami, etc etc etc. They all quite clearly stated that one must meditate on the pastimes of Radha-Krishna, as well as on one's role in those pastimes. Their desire is required to be understood in order to enter the eternal, if you simply desire position, then you can imagine yourself as a manjari,that may purify your heart, the desire for giving is a higher thing then the desire for position, when your desire is purified then Radha Dasyam opens up,then your real siddha deha is revealed in madhurya rasa,for the pleasure of Radha and the gopis, not for our exploitative desire for position as the topmost,but as servant to their inner needs. That's more or less the essence of raganuga-bhakti-sadhana! Finally you get the right idea! Congratulations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 thats a bit of a strech,anything that doesn't agree with the precepts of Bhaktisiddhanta ? So if one wants to deviate from any of his precepts he is called a sahajiya ? That has more or less been the practice since the days of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, so I hear. Why else would you explain how ISKCON has labelled Narayana Maharaja's as a sahajiya, simply because he does not agree with their perception of Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta? And the same for Sridhara Maharaja? So it really seems, that not only the "outsiders" are labelled as sahajiyas and whatnot, but also the differing camps within the Sarasvata-samaj. How interesting. not so, sahajiya not only refers to those who pretend they are gopis ,it also can refer to those who consider themselves at the highest levels when they haven't entered into that, those who try and present their views and position as being on the topmost platform without actually having experienced that. A sahajiya is one who views himself and his partner as Krishna and Radha respectively, and attempts to engage in sexual relations with said partner with a view to emulate the love of Radha and Krishna in their own bodies. This is a sick blasphemy. There is nothing more to a sahajiya other than this definition. Such sahajiyas can be found even today in Bengal. Go and see for yourself.And that is also why I said that an improper accusation of other Vaishnava lines as "sahajiya" without understanding what a sahajiya actually is or how they fit that definition, is insulting inasmuch as labelling teetotallers as alcoholics is insulting. We are told that what is written is not the whole story, that there is another hidden dimension there, the sahjiya type of mentality is to consider him/her self to be on the topmost level without actually understanding the inner truth,the hidden dimension, This is precisely the "buzzword" definition that I spoke of earlier. Since Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's days, sahajiya has come to mean this. Before that, everyone was quite clear what a sahajiya actually was. Speaking of which, I hear that in some European temples they are giving lectures telling that anyone who chants the Holy Name all day is a sahajiya. Go figure if this is correct. I certainly disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 the key here is when he says liberated stage, what is that ? Srila Prabhupada has different definitions of liberation than you might have. Check out this passage, for example: "When one is liberated, he theoretically understands that the living entity is not composed of material elements but is spirit soul, distinct from matter. Simply by theoretically understanding this doctrine, one can be called liberated, but actually a mukta, or liberated soul, is he who understands his constitutional position as an eternal servant of the Lord. Such liberated souls engage with faith and devotion in the service of the Lord, and they are called krsna--bhaktas, or Krsna-conscious persons." - Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chap. 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 I, for one, am getting tired of the pseudo-intellectuals who speak in this forum about things they know absolutely nothing about. Right, like this pseudo-intellectual who opined that (posting dated 9/13/03 entitled "Re: Quietly accepted a new one?"): "That's too bad. Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaishnava dharma-sastras clearly enjoin the disciple to reject the guru in public if something "iffy" is perceived. " ... only to be corrected later that *no* such statement is found in Hari-bhakti Vilasa. Or the same pseudo-intellectual who declared it boldly (same posting) that: "I'll even tell you why the relationship has been downplayed: BECAUSE THE SARASVATA-PARAMPARA IS A FABRICATION." ... while simultaneously whining that anyone who disagrees with him is "Offensive." Or how about the same pseudo-intellectual who wrote that: "By the way, are you aware that no Vaishnava school anywhere has a siksa-parampara? No Madhva, no Ramanuja, no Vallabha, no Nimabarki, no nothing." ... only to be corrected later that just about each one of the paramparas mentioned above has shiksha connections in one or more links? "Stupid hypocrite." It isn't an insult. It's a truth. "Stupid" because you are too dense to realize when someone has pulled the rug out from under you. I mean really... you astound me at how you repeatedly fail to grasp the point, only to think that what you say seems somehow intelligent and profound. Rather like many Sai Babas I meet, actually. "Hypocrite" because you whine that everyone else is offensive even though you yourself have no problem flinging accusations against their paramparas. Here is a perfect example: "I'll even tell you why the relationship has been downplayed: BECAUSE THE SARASVATA-PARAMPARA IS A FABRICATION." And here is another: Excuse me, I thought this topic was all about the "evolution of Gaudiya thought," and thus I expected something of an intelligent discussion. Unfortunately I find the same old hate-campaigns directed against all non-Sarasvata Vaishnavas with that equally same old label of "sahajiyas." Of course, I didn't say anything about non-Sarasvata Vaishnavas, but then that is besides the point. When Gaurasundara can't have his way, Gaurasundara chooses to cry like a little boy whose lollipop has been taken away. This is also very similar to Sai Baba cultists and their moronic behavior. You can ask them a question like, "where is the proof for your belief?" and they will respond with something like "oh, you are so hateful and bigoted, racist and prejudiced" etc etc etc. "Stupid," because you declare it boldly that A.C. Bhaktvedanta's Parampara is a fabrication, yet you claim to follow him anyway (so, you "know" the parampara is fake, yet you follow.... now that's brilliant). "Hypocrite," because in spite of being convinced of the false nature of the Bhaktivedanta parampara and Bhaktivedanta's own inability to list his parampara correctly, you continue to hang out in ISKCON temples, hoping that maybe you are going to meet some brahmacarini or some congregational member's daughter who will hopefully know so little of your internet escapades that she will agree to marry you. "Stupid" because you can't seem to grasp when you inadvertently agree with your opponent's refutation of your poor use of logic: You really should read all of Bhaktivinoda's writings on Christianity as just one example. He may have written positive things but he also penned rather harsh criticisms of it. (the point above was that because Bhaktivinod's early writings indicated a bias towards Christianity, taking this out of the greater context cannot be used to prove he was finally a Christian. Similarly, because Bhaktivinod's early writings praised Bipin Bihari Gosvami, one cannot ignore other, later writings of his praising Jagannatha dasa Babaji and say that Bipin Bihari was the most significant guru of Bhaktivinod. Needless to say, Gaurasundara's subsequent comments only served to prove that point, but he just didn't get it.) "Hypocrite," because you claim (posting dated 9/19/03 entitled "Re: thanks") that one should accept a parampara as the guru has given it: "Maybe I got it wrong, but I was under the impression that we had to accept the parampara as the guru gives it." ... even though you don't accept A.C. Bhaktvedanta's parampara the way he has given it, though you read his books and talk about how he makes tears come from your eyes. "Stupid" because you are too dense to realize when the only other people who might have agreed with you (Raga, Jagat) have backed away from the battlefield because of all the damage your behavior has done to the credibility of their respective arguments (a posting from Raga in reply to Gaurasundara dated 10/3/03 entitled "spare"): Feel free to articulate it. However, do run a reality check on yourself before you do it. I think it may be a while since your last deep introspection, judging by this discussion, at least. For all I can see, while you have presented noteworthy evidence, you have also presented numerous claims you would never be able to substantiate, and resorted to a number of logical fallacies, very rarely admitting that you were actually wrong. Spare me from collecting them together for you, I have more pressing matters to take care of. "The world is a mirror." Think about that. "Hypocrite" because you talk about the importance of mantra-diksa, yet you don't accept the parampara prior to Caitanya et. al. because it's concept of "diksa" does not mirror your own. So that's not a part of the "Gaudiya" parampara, it seems. And as an extension of the above, "Stupid" because you have painted yourself into a corner with your completely arbitrary arguments, and seem hopelessly oblivious to this... You have sought to disavow any Gaudiya significance of the non-diksa line linking your parampara to Brahma, yet you will not admit that by that same logic your parampara's mantras are all to be considered useless. Your own acharyas (no one else's, only your own, mind you), teach that their mantras come in a disciplic succession from Brahma, and that this is necessary for the mantras to bear fruit. So, on one hand, the parampara prior to Caitanya is not important for establishing what is and is not precedent in initiating a disciple. But it is important for validating that the Gaudiyas are in fact linked to Brahma and can give proper mantras. Sounds pretty mixed up to me. Really, Gaura, are you aware of just how many times you contradict yourself, or are you just this dense that you actually think you are smarter than everyone else? Sorry about my strong language, everyone. I just can't help but feel that the moderators are being extremely patient, allowing someone like this Gaurasundara to argue when it is obvious that he seems more interested in reading what he writes (and probably hearing his own voice) than in actual logical argument. You know what, never mind about the "sorry" sentence above. Something evil just came over me, but I think it now has passed. I guess I can't help but call a spade a spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 If you ask me, this division of inherent/assigned siddha-deha is a clueless division missing a good number of points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Sahajiya means natural,so really it can used however the person wants to use it,if you want to say that those who follow the imitative path of pretending are sahjiyas and no one else ,fine. But the word itself means natural, is what they do, natural ? Of course not, so are they really sahajiyas? no,not literaly. similarly the word sahajiya must be understood by it's conotation,since even the so called "real" sahajiyas you mention are not strictly speaking natural or sahajiya, they are in fact the opposite or completly artificial, therefore conotation is everything when using the word sahajiya. If the word is also used with the conotation of one who oversteps his real realization,one who thinks himself more realized,more advanced, closer to God then he really is, then that can also be acceptable, sahajiya can be used to conotate the pretenders and imitators, it can also be used for other meanings, it all depends on context, word meanings change with the times. so when those who use the word to mean those who think of themselves in a higher position then they actually are in, that should be accepted . Otherwise the sahajiyas who dress up and imitate rasa lila should not be called sahajiya,since the word has the opposite meaning. Nitpicking is not the way,the meaning should be understood in the context it used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 as for the word liberated ,the context is that of Moksa, liberated from the material concept of life, and more specifically liberated from the influence of the illusory energy. First the bonds ,the stranglehold of MahaMaya must be removed to appreciate the higher world, in order for you to relate to God on God's level,the necessity is that you come to Gods level, free from ignorance and illusion. That is liberation, freedom from Bondage,bondage of the material illusory conception, seeing reality as it really is, completely controlled at all times, in every way,from the innermost mind to the outermost world,all and everything and everyone is following the will of God,at all times. your mind, and everyone else's, everything is God's vehicle, identifying yourself as controlling the mind or body ,is an illusion,the liberated soul sees Krsna in all things, The uttama Adhikari cannot preach because of this vision, therefore to be able to preach he must see things on the lower level, he must see "this is right,this is wrong", even though he knows that everything is controlled and the will of God, in order to teach he must ignore that highest reality,otherwise he sees nothing wrong with anything. that is the liberated stage,at that time spontaneous devotional service is performed, the goal is that reality, once you are there,then another path opens ,the path of rasa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Madhava, I want to apologize for suggesting that you are Gaurasundara. It was because he expressed a number of ideas that I have only ever heard you expressing, such as your conception of the beginninglessness of the soul. -- Murali Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 I want to apologize for suggesting that you are Gaurasundara. It was because he expressed a number of ideas that I have only ever heard you expressing, such as your conception of the beginninglessness of the soul. I recall another fellow saying something along those lines, that the soul is beginningless. It must have been one of those two guys in the Bhagavad gita. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Of course, I didn't say anything about non-Sarasvata Vaishnavas, but then that is besides the point. When Gaurasundara can't have his way, Gaurasundara chooses to cry like a little boy whose lollipop has been taken away. Dear anonymous guest, it's pretty obvious that you have nothing positive to contribute to this discussion or forum, especiall about the evolution of Gaudiya thought, or rather, the definition of sahajiyaism. Perhaps that is why you suddenly feel the need to drag up all sorts of muck from past threads in a silly attempt to discredit me. Not only is this guest interested in discrediting me, but is also interested in being insulting. This is a perfect example: "you continue to hang out in ISKCON temples, hoping that maybe you are going to meet some brahmacarini or some congregational member's daughter who will hopefully know so little of your internet escapades that she will agree to marry you." I only wonder why this anonymous guest is developing such an unhealthy obsession, so much so that he seeks to disturb this thread by bringing in issues that are completely irrelevant to the subject. Have I criticised anyone's parampara in this thread? This anonymous guest hasn't addressed even one comment of mine about "sahajiyas," but instead wishes to engage in a hate campaign against me. And no, I am not whining about this. Rather, I am much amused. Speaking of which, I'll state for the record: I am not following any guru or any parampara. I have never been initiated by any guru. I am trying to study Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy as dispassionately as possible, therefore I believe I am in a position to critically analyse the position/doctrine of any teacher, whether inside or outside the Sarasvata-parampara. I do believe that I have been doing this quite impartially on some other threads, like for example, the question about eligibility for raganuga-bhakti, etc. Certainly I am interested in following Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, but that can only begin when I fortunately find a suitable guru. Really, Gaura, are you aware of just how many times you contradict yourself, or are you just this dense that you actually think you are smarter than everyone else? Note how you seem to be satisfied in your assumptions about my "smartness." I have no problem with that, you can stick to your own ideas. I can fully explain my position on "parampara" to you if you like, but that may result in another 14-pager of a topic, something which I have no time for. As an alternative, I'll be happy to discuss my views with you in private email and explain perfectly well why I think like I do. However, I would not be very keen on associating with you because you are obviously in an extremely hateful and inimical state of mind, therefore I do not want your association. Now do you think you can go away somewhere and not disturb topics with your irrelevant obsessions? I just can't help but feel that the moderators are being extremely patient, allowing someone like this Gaurasundara to argue when it is obvious that he seems more interested in reading what he writes (and probably hearing his own voice) than in actual logical argument. For all you know, we are having a discussion about the evolution of Gaudiya thought, which is really a sort of hate-campaign against an ambiguous group collectively labelled as "sahajiyas." Have you made any points that are relevant to this topic? Certainly not. You seem to be far too busy digging for unsavoury news in a strange quest to insult me. Do yourself a favour, get used to the fact that there are plenty of Gaudiya Vaishnavas around who do not hold allegiance to the Sarasvata parampara. I suspect this is the underlying cause of your blind hatred, the simple fact that opinions are being propounded on this forum that do not fit in with the Sarasvata ideology. Personally, I did not like it either, but I'd say that I am of an open mind enough to hear what other people have to say. You might also do yourself another favour and realise that non-Sarasvatas have been present in this forum for several years now. On the other hand, if you don't like what I write, then don't read it. Simple? Or at least, if you have to respond then respond with some relevant argument instead of dragging up old muck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 If you ask me, this division of inherent/assigned siddha-deha is a clueless division missing a good number of points. Yes, I think I might be about to restart a discussion about it on Raganuga. I believe I'ev got some material from Bhaktivinoda that might be relevant. Perhaps then we can discuss there all the good points you speak of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Nitpicking is not the way,the meaning should be understood in the context it used. Fine. Let's forget for a moment that the word 'sahajiya' has had a clear meaning for several centuries and has only recently come to mean what you think. Let's put all of your comments into context, as you are asking me to do. Basically, you started this thread to discuss the deviancy of the "sahajiyas" as part of the "norm." Then you said that Srila Bhaktivinoda followed this "norm," and tried to depict him as a "typical" person who eats meat and so on, is not intelligent enough to select a suitable guru and thus took his initiation from another "sahajiya," who himself belonged to a line of "degraded sahajiyas" since this is the time of terror and darkness that had befallen Mahaprabhu's movement. Is that a correct summary of your views? The main question I am asking you is: Who exactly are these sahajiyas you are speaking of? Names, details, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Having just read G's last spiteful posting, I realize that sometimes it is better to walk away from a fight than to engage in fighting. I usually prefer the mood of Bhimasena to the mood of Yudhisthira. Perhaps because that mood is in my blood since men in my family have military men for 250 years; and my Guru says my son Nitai Sharan is a kshatriya, while his brother Giriraj Sharan spends his spare time practicing karate. But Krishna turned his back on Kalayavana, the European barbarian, and ran away. And if Uddhava had been at Kurukshetra in place of Arjuna then Uddava would have walked away from the warfield instead of fighting - thus spake Bhaktivinode. For me, in regards to G, it is the way of Uddhava that I will follow from now on. -Muralidhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 No, forget it. I don't think I'll bother. I think I'll just upload it and offer it for discussion when it's finished. It practically is finished, I just have to fill in about 30 citations of original Bengali footnotes (!!) and it's all done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurasundara Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Having just read G's last spiteful posting, I realize that sometimes it is better to walk away from a fight than to engage in fighting. Dear Muralidhar, perhaps you were that anonymous guest who decided to drag up old topics? I did not know, and if it was you then I am indeed surprised to see that it was you.Anyhow, who is fighting? I am not fighting, certainly not. I'm just objecting to unnecessary criticism of a group of Vaishnavas as "sahajiyas" without first understanding what sahajiyas really are as well as wondering if they really are sahajiyas. I don't see how you can see anything spiteful in my post. Words fail me, you cannot see the spitefulness in the hate campaign against "sahajiyas" and neither can you see any offensiveness in referring to Srila Bhaktivinoda as a fallen meat-eater who took initiation from an unsuitable guru, etc., but it's quite alright for you to drive the topic away from it's point by reposting several barbs against me, if it was you after all. Sorry, I thought you were more enlightened than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 I want to apologize for suggesting that you are Gaurasundara. It was because he expressed a number of ideas that I have only ever heard you expressing, such as your conception of the beginninglessness of the soul. -- Murali Murali, the soul is beginningless. What leads you to believe otherwise? On this point all Vedanta schools are in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 <blockquote> In reply to: -- I want to apologize for suggesting that you are Gaurasundara. It was because he expressed a number of ideas that I have only ever heard you expressing, such as your conception of the beginninglessness of the soul. -- Murali -- Murali, the soul is beginningless. What leads you to believe otherwise? On this point all Vedanta schools are in agreement. </blockquote> I wrote: Madhava, I want to apologize for suggesting that you are Gaurasundara. It was because he expressed a number of ideas that I have only ever heard you expressing, such as your conception of the beginninglessness of the soul. <hr> The soul is beginningless, most definately. But Madhava and I have different views about the origin of the beginningless soul. Hence, I wrote to him saying "your conception". After Madhava replied, I didn't bother debating the point he raised, for he was playfully construing my words in such a way as to say I believe the soul is not beginningless. Madhava knows that I am a believer in the doctrine that the soul is eternal and that it originates from the eternal light of Brahman. He was having fun with me by juggling my words, and as I had just written him an apology I was not about to start a debate with him about his remark. I'm sure he meant to joke with me. In the Gita, Vedanta etc.. it states that the soul is beginningless. Moreover, I have heard from my Gurumaharaj that the soul is an atom of sat-chit-ananda, but I have heard from Madhava that he thinks the jiva-atma soul is not cit or ananda. I have the following quotes to back up my view: <blockquote> Katha 2.2.13 nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam "The Lord is the eternal 'nityo' among the many eternal beings 'nityanam', the super-conscious 'cetanas' among the many conscious cetanas (cetanam)." Thus, according to the Katha Upanishad, the individual jivas are eternal, and consciousness (sat-chit) Mandukya Upanishad: Ayam Atma Brahma - the Self is Brahman Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: Aham Brahmasmi - I am Brahman Vedanta-sutra 1.1.1: athAto brahma-vij~nAsA - consequently, the discussion about Brahman 1.1.2 janmAdy asya yataH - Brahman is the source of everything 1.1.11 zrutatvAc ca - Brahman is known through sruti 1.1.12: Ananda-mayo 'bhyAsAt - Brahman has the potency of bliss </blockquote> - Muralidhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.