Siddha-pranali: Request for Info

[Guest guest]

 

I am the original Guest who asked the question, and Muralidhar's response was very helpful.

 

 

Perhaps you are relatively new to these sorts of discussions, that is why. I might tell you that these discussions have been taking place every once in a while over the course of several years on various forums. In almost all of them we see precisely the same arguments being repeated ad nauseum, so perhaps you may forgive us if we are not to impressed by, for example, Muralidhar's story regarding Jayakrsna das Babaji, which we have heard and dealt with many many times before. Of course this is not your fault if you didn't know, but perhaps it might explain why we (or I) am addressing things that answer the original question or have the possibility of learning something new, as many many aspect of this discussion have been dealt with before. It would be much more sensible to discuss these things who know about them and practice them. People like Murlidhar and Shiva have openly admitted that they do not agree with these tradtionalist understandings nor need to follow it as per their chosen path, so therefore with all respects they should not be talking about things they know nothing about. No hard feelings here.

 

 

As per my understanding of Muralidhar's and Raga's replies, "siddha-pranali" is not mentioned as a concept until Dhyanacandra Gosvami. Prior to this, there is only mention of "siddha-deha" (in BRS) by which one should do service.

 

 

As far as I can see, the main problem arises because these things were not very well documented. I can see from the style of your posts that you have an ISKCON background and that is OK, but it makes it a little more difficult to know how to speak. With regards to the origin of siddha-pranali, the level of documentation that we have suggests that the idea evolved (at least in literary form) from Rupa Gosvami, (Svarupa Damodara) Vakresvara Pandit, Gopal Guru Gosvami and Dhyanacandra Gosvami (the latter two wrote paddhatis). Of course, later acaryas such as Sri Visvanatha Cakravartipada, Sri Narottam das Thakur and Sri Bhaktivinoda etc, all followed this path and have made much reference to it in their writings. In fact, I suppose you can see hints of it in just about all of the Acaryas' writings. As for why this is not described adequately in writing, I'm afraid that I can only speculate that perhaps this was such an understood and common norm among the past generations of Vaisnavas that nobody actualy bothered to write something about it save for those who wrote paddhatis. References that point to the concept are to be found almost everywhere though.

 

 

Recall that my rationale for asking the question was to determine if those who do not have a "siddha-pranali" are automatically by the very fact not legitimate Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I have heard many condescending references to the parampara of Bhaktisiddhanata Saraswati and his followers because "they don't even know their siddha-pranali" or some such thing, and I wanted to investigate how far such attitudes are justified.

 

 

In this question, I would say that it boils down to a matter of history. The important thing to remember is that all Vaishnavas from the time of Mahaprabhu onwards have followed this "siddha pranali" process, until the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers who do not follow this in the same way. If like some people here are saying that this siddha-pranali process is not necessary or a concoction or whatever, this would be tantamount to saying that all the millions of Gaudiya Vaishnavas since the time of Mahaprabhu were deeply ignorant or were misled. I am sure that you would agree that this is a ridiculous proposal.

Regarding Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's process, I would liek to deal with that a bit later if you don't mind. But in any case, I share your concerns about how Sri Bhaktisiddhanta's parampara is sometimes attacked with rude remarks. I do not think that this is proper Vaishnava behavior and I don't like it either. I suppose the best thing to do in cases of disagreement is to disagree politely.

 

 

Muralidhar did make the point that present-day siddha-pranali is different from the type written of by Dhyanacandra Gosvami. I would like to know more about these alleged differences in detail.

 

 

We should ask Muralidhar to elaborate more on this "present-day siddhapranali", for as far as I was are it is not practised in any way in Gaudiya Math and ISKCON.

 

 

I am less convinced of (a) its necessity to be called a Gaudiya Vaishnava, and (b) its absolute necessity to attain one's siddha-deha. For example, Shiva quoted this statement from Raga Vartma Candrika to that effect:

 

 

Regarding point a, again it is a matter of history. Vaishnavas since the time of Mahaprabhu have followed this tried and tested method, are they all wrong? Regarding point b, how else are going to serve Radha-Krishna if you do not have a spiritual body? Your answers may be predictable at this point, which is why I would like to again bring this issue up a bit later.

Regarding RVC, I would like to know exactly which part of RVS that quote comes from? Whatever game that Shiva is playing, I don't like it as he cut'n'pasted that quote from another forum. The verse in question is Visvanatha Cakravartipada's quotation of SB 11.14.26, but Shiva This is how Srila Prabhupada translates it: "When a diseased eye is treated with medicinal ointment it gradually recovers its power to see. Similarly, as a conscious living entity cleanses himself of material contamination by hearing and chanting the pious narrations of My glories, he regains his ability to see Me, the Absolute Truth, in My subtle spiritual form."

However, given the context of RVC 1.8, Visvanatha is clear: iti bhagavd ukter bhakti hetukAntaH karaNa zuddhi tAratamyAt prati dinam adhikAdhiko bhavati; From these words of the Lord it is known that through sAdhana-bhakti the consciousness of the sAdhaka becomes more purified every day, and he gradually becomes more and more greedy. The next verse (according to Shiva) is RVC 1.9, and an extremely bad translation at that. udbhUte tAdzSe lobhe zAstra darziteSu tat tad bhAva prApty upAyeSu AcArya caitya vapuSA svagatiM vyanaktItyuddhavokteH keSucid gurumukhAt keSucid abhijJa mahodayAnu-rAgi bhakta mukhat abhijJAteSu keSucid bhakti mRSTa cittavRttiSu svata eva sphuriteSu sollAsam evAtizayena pravRttiH syAt. yathA kAmArthinAM kAmopAyeSu - When the aforementioned greed awakens, "Sri Bhagavan illuminates the desired goal, externally instructing as guru and internally inspiring as Antaryami." Thus, according to the words of Srila Uddhava Mahasaya, some receive instructions from the mouth of Sri Gurudeva, some attain all knowledge through hearing from the mouth of an anuragi-bhakta who is conversant with the feelings to be followerd, and in some, whose consciousness has become purified through the practice of devotion, the knowledge manifests by itself. At this time, one will be seen very joyfully endeavoring to attain his desired feelings, just as a person desirous of sense gratification will try to attain his desired object by all means.

This may make you very happy, but perhaps the whole of Visvanatha Cakravartipada's RVC should be read and studied very carefully so as to see these verses in their proper context in stead of jumping to conclusions as some are prone to do. When such study is undertaken, the interpretation that you seem to be following will be shown to be invalid. Following Shiva's logic as displayed earlier in this thread, one needs to read the entirety of works instead of cherry-picking statements from here and there to support a concoction. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

 

Correct me if I am mistaken (and I do not believe I saw a response to this), but this would seem to confirm Bhaktisiddhanta's opinion (as stated by Muralidhar) that a devotee can have the knowledge revealed to him independent of a siddha-pranali.

 

 

Precisely. Bhaktisiddhanta's opinion. Why it differs so drastically from the opinion of those who have been historically following the process as practised since the time of Mahaprabhu is really an issue for them as shown above.

 

 

Yet, only manjari siddha-pranalis exist - why is this? If you want to practice raganuga-bhakti, you can only become a manjari? Somehow this just does not seem consistent.

 

 

Sakhya-bhava pranalis have existed in the past. The parampara of Gauridasa Pandit - Hrdaya Caitanya (Syamananda) was a sakhya-rasa parampara. We do not need to get into the details of Syamananda's "shift" here, but the point is that such paramparas did exist. As to why only manjari-bhava pranalis seem to exist now, one may only conclude that since this is the gift that Mahaprabhu came to give then this is the one that is most prominent. People who are attracted to different bhavas should go elsewhere as they do, to the Vallabhites, Nimbarkis and so on.

 

 

Beyond the dictionary definition, I naturally wanted to know what having this lobha involves. Can someone have this lobha even if he has not attained the stage of anartha-nivritti, for example?

 

 

To understand anartha-nivritti properly, you will need to undertake a careful study of Visvanatha Cakravarti's Madhurya-kadambini. There you will find that anartha-nivritti is not a clear-cut stage that the sadhaka has to pass through before coming to the "next" stage, as per Rupa Goswami's famous 'adau sraddha' verse. Anartha-nivritti is carried out right up to the stage of bhava where anarthas are extremely miniscule. Complete eradicaton of anarthas enables prema to be bestowed. The fact that anarthas may be present in miniscule form even upto the stage of bhava shows that anartha-nivritti is not a clear-cut stage as I mentioned just now.

 

 

Can he have it, if for example, he is impious in his behavior (like having girlfriend, eating eggs, and so on)? I would like to know definitively how one acts and speaks when one has this "lobha." It's obviously not a trivial question.

 

 

I think you're making too much of lobha. Lobha in this context means the "sacred greed" that has arisen when hearing of the Lord's pastimes. Greed for what exactly? Greed to enter into these pastimes and associate with the Lord in the same way as His associates do. This greed is the "inspiration" that makes a potential sadhaka enquire as to where he can find a guru and so on to wholeheartedly dedicate himself to attaining this goal. It is not that you have to perform sadhana to attain this greed, it is the other way around; it is the greed that will inspire you to perform the sadhana.

It is certainly not a trivial question that you ask. Obviously it is up to the sadhaka's conscience if they wish to pursue immoral activities while doing this sadhana and it is obviously wrong. This is the point that Visvanatha was making in RVC 1.8-9; the feeling of this greed will inspire a sadhaka to engage in the sadhana which in turn will increase his greed to attain the desired goal even more. Such a person will definitely lose the attraction for eating eggs etc.

 

 

This is a good discussion. I hope we can keep it from becoming heated.

 

 

I think so too. In fact I am surprised that this discussion has reached four pages without too much argument. I think it just shows what comes when Vaishnavas discuss these issues in a civil manner and know where to agree and disagree politely. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kailasa]

SP speak - "do not print Jaiva dharma in ISKCON". Jaiva dharma write about sambhoga Krisna lila. We do not follow artifical metods meditation. If you be follow SP then yours relations show. All sambhoga for neopfits and for who do not has spiritual reason. SBT begin preach and He is preach for neophits. It is obviously.

 

SP give all needs from SBT, all most highe.

 

In Jaiva Dharama SBT write - "soul fall from spiritual world".

[kailasa]

I am first who really reading Jaiva Dharma. Another way what so many gurus do not know - soul fall? Nobody from GM do not read Jaiva Dharma carefully. In Jaiva dharma SBT write - "really spiritual pain is most higher hapinees". You read Jaiva dharma? /images/graemlins/smile.gif)) You needs citation?

 

Materialists do not able understand vipralambha, then SBT preach them.

[kailasa]

***, then SBT preach them.

 

then SBT preach them sambhoga. Sambhoga (direct relations) it some step in spiritual life.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

And the reason I posted the links to Sivananda Swami's edition of Brahma Sutra and Sri Ramanuja's edition is that both these editions do support the proposition I'm presenting. Which is, that the soul does not get given a new form or new body when he is liberated. Rather, you awaken in full awareness of your own inner wealth.

 

 

I do not think that they support the proposition that you are presenting. Is that the only reason why you rely on them by any chance, because they support your position? By the way, even though I personall have no problem with Krishnananda's translation, it is not acceptable to orthodox Advaitins with whom I have had discussions with on this very subject. In any case, the sutras contained in the Fourth Adhyaya do not, in my opinion, validate a description that you to.

 

 

In discussions I had some time ago with people at Madhava's website, other people there looked up their editions of Govinda Bhasya and confirmed that the section I have presented is indeed present in their edition of Govinda Bhasya.

 

 

Um, well naturally, because the "section" you are presenting is the Fourth Adhyaya. Of course the Fourth Adhyaya is present in people's edition of Govinda Bhasya. Have you seen an edition of Govinda bhasya without the Fourth Adhyaya?

Joking aside, I do not think that the section itself is under debate. I think we are discussing the accuracy of the translation. And yes, sorry about using the wrong word earlier "inauthentic", I meant 'inaccurate translation.'

 

 

Specifically this verse from the Padma Purana quoted by Baladeva:

 

 

Thise verse spoke nothing about the "siddha-deha" being inherent within the soul or some such whatever you are presenting. It simply said that the soul's nature is blissful and that the soul is a witness in the body. This doesn't say anything about a siddha-deha being inherent. Your second verse also didn't prove anything along these lines.

 

 

We know that Prabhupad Srila Saraswati Thakur told Kunja Babu about his swarup-siddhi. There is a letter from Prabhupad Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur to Kunja Babu in which he says, "I am Nayananandana Manjari and you are Bimala Manjari". So none of our Gaudiya Math Acharyas are going to say that no Guru can tell a disciple what the disciple's siddha-swarup is.

 

 

The questions I woul like to ask are; how did Sri Bhaktisiddhanta know what his svarup-siddhi was? It was revealed to him? How? And how did he know the manjari-name of Kunja babu (Bhakti Vilas Tirtha Maharaja)? Did he know the manjari-names of Srila Prabhupada or Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and Srila Bhakti Pramod Puri Maharaja? If he did, why didn't he reveal it to them? Please don't take offense, I am genuinely curious.

 

 

I can't see that in this story we find he was "giving" siddha-deha to Shrinivas. We might just as easily say that Gopal Bhatta Goswami was giving him knowledge so he could awaken from the sleep of mundane existence and realize his innate, awakened self.

 

 

Well you can interpret it however you want, I suppose. I would imagine that the text of Prema-vilasa would be clear. Also, not that Steven Rosen (Satyaraj das?) is any authority, but this same story is told in his book about the three main acaryas, Srinivasa Acarya, Narottama das Thakur and Syamananda Pandit.

[kailasa]

Hey Krisna, you good preacer, all site flow in your great entusiasm. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

 

SP speak - "do not print Jaiva dharma in ISKCON".

 

 

I believe this is incorrect, and that Srila Prabhupada wanted the JD to be printed. I do not have the quote at hand though, perhaps someone else can provide it?

 

 

In Jaiva Dharama SBT write - "soul fall from spiritual world".

 

 

No he didn't.

[kailasa]

Soul is eternal, relations eternal. It is so difficult for understanding? Eternal - no begining no end. E-TE-RNA-L. So difficult?

 

Soul - sat cit ananda. Cit it is your siddha deha. Krisna is too Cit He is supreme Cit, sourse all. And ananda it is YOURS relations. Supreme ananda FOR KRISNA it is Hara, Srimati Radharani.

 

Soul SAT -------- CIT!!! -------- ANANDA!!!! E-TE-RNA-L

 

It is so dificult? They is mayavadis? Soul only sat? But ananda no? It is foolisnes.

[kailasa]

I believe this is incorrect, and that Srila Prabhupada wanted the JD to be printed.

 

No he is speak - "I am take all for you needs from SBT."

 

From Jaiva dharma -

 

It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one and different from the Lord.

 

Forgetting Krsna, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore the illusory energy (maya) gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence.

 

Spirit, which is conscious and pure, and matter, which is inanimate, are opposites. Therefore it is not really possible for the conscious spirit soul to have a relationship with unconscious and inanimate matter.

 

The individual soul is a small particle of spirit. Nevertheless, one of the Supreme Lord's potencies makes some individual souls somehow have a relationship with matter. The potency that does this is called tatastha sakti.

 

The individual soul is spiritual. Nevertheless the spiritual soul may be placed under the control of inanimate matter.

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of the illusory potency maya. Maya is under His control. On the other hand, the individual spirit soul may in some circumstances find himself under the control of maya. Therefore the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the individual spirit souls and the illusory potency maya are three distinct entities eternally.

 

The individual soul may sometimes find himself under the control of the illusory potency maya, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead is always the controller of maya. In this way the individual spirit soul and the Supreme Personality of Godhead are different eternally.

 

The eternal nature and duty of the individual soul is service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If he forgets this duty, the individual souls comes under maya's control. Then the soul stays away from Lord Krsna. That staying away from Lord Krsna means that the soul enters the material world.

 

It is not possible to give an historical account describing when, in time, the soul first fell into the material world. That is why it is said 'anadi-bahirmukha' (the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial). This staying away from Krsna and the time of entering maya's world are both different from the soul's eternal nature. They are perversions of it.

 

Lord Krsna is the totality of spiritual existence. He is like a sun from which many spiritual universes have come. The individual spirit souls are rays of light from that Krsna-sun. There are many individual spirit souls.

 

Forgetting Krsna, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore the illusory energy (maya) gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence.

 

To this I reply, You cannot speak in that way. If my opponent then protests, 'Why not?' then I reply: From Lord Krsna limitless individual souls are manifested as His parts and parcels. Still, Lord Krsna is not diminished even slightly because of that.

 

In all the Vedas it is said that the individual souls are like sparks emanating from the blazing fire of Lord Krsna. However none of these comparisons give a completely accurate picture of the real truth. The examples of the great fire and the spark, the sun and the rays of light, and the alchemists stone and gold do not describe the entire situation. Therefore, rejecting these material analogies, one should look inside his heart and there he will understand the truth of the soul's nature.

 

Lord Krsna is the great spiritual being and the individual soul is the infinitesimal spiritual being. Lord Krsna and the individual soul are one in the sense that they are both spiritual. However, Lord Krsna is the complete whole and the individual souls are only parts of the whole. That is the difference between them.

 

Lord Krsna is the supreme attractive, and the individual spirit soul is attracted to Him. Lord Krsna is the supreme controller, and the individual spirit soul is controlled by Him. Lord Krsna sees all, and the individual spirit soul is observed by Him. Lord Krsna is perfect, and the individual spirit soul is poor and lowly. Lord Krsna is all-powerful, and the individual soul is powerless. Therefore the eternal nature or religion of the individual soul is to be a faithful servant of Lord Krsna eternally.

 

But when the individual soul is in contact with the illusory potency maya, the soul's pure state is not manifested

 

When he forgets the service of Lord Krsna, the soul finds himself situated in the material world of repeated birth and death.

 

However, when he comes into contact with the illusory potency maya, the soul becomes impure.

 

When he is in contact with the illusory potency maya, the individual soul is covered by a body of gross and subtle material elements.

 

First, the soul identifies himself with the subtle material body. Second, he identifies himself with the gross material body. Third, he identifies himself as the subtle and gross bodies mixed together. In this way the soul's conception of his identity becomes changed. In his pure state the individual soul is an unalloyed devotee of Lord Krsna.

 

When the soul thus has a false conception of his identity, his original nature becomes perverted.

 

That pure love is seen in the gross material body in an even more perverted way as material eating, drinking, and a host of other so-called pleasures derived from contact with inanimate matter.

 

---

 

GM do not follow for SBT you follow for babajis and kanistha guru then so little realisation. It is SIMPLE things Prabhu /images/graemlins/smile.gif I am first reader Jaiva Dharma yours guru do not read jaiva dharma never /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[kailasa]

If you foloow for blind you make also blind himself. Open now Jaiva Dharma. Wrong preaching make blaind you.

[muralidhar_das]

quote

<blockquote>

We should ask Muralidhar to elaborate more on this "present-day siddhapranali", for as far as I was are it is not practised in any way in Gaudiya Math and ISKCON.

</blockquote>

If you are referring to my mention of the fact that Srila Saraswati Thakur told Kunja Babu (Srila B.V.Tirtha Maharaj) "you are Bimala Manjari", I am simply repeating what is written in that letter. The letter is well known. There is a reference to it at the start of Yati Maharaj's edition of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

But I don't think this "name giving" is the same thing as "siddha-pranali".

 

And anonymous... sometimes, since Jagat and Madhava are so close, it is hard to tell if you are reading Jagat and Madhava. Telltale words you use such as "ad nauseaum" remind me of Madhava.

[Guest guest]

 

If you are referring to my mention of the fact that Srila Saraswati Thakur told Kunja Babu (Srila B.V.Tirtha Maharaj) "you are Bimala Manjari", I am simply repeating what is written in that letter.

 

 

I was referring to your statements prior to that made by the original Guest (alpa medhasa), but since you have brought this letter up I may well ask what it means? You say you do not think that this name-giving was the same as siddha-pranali. Then what is it supposed to be?

 

 

And anonymous... sometimes, since Jagat and Madhava are so close, it is hard to tell if you are reading Jagat and Madhava. Telltale words you use such as "ad nauseaum" remind me of Madhava.

 

 

"Ad nauseum" is a Latin term. I sometimes use other Latin terms such as 'ad infinitum.' And no, I am neither Jagat nor Madhava. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kailasa]

What speak Muralidhar Prabhu? Kailasa is bad? /images/graemlins/smile.gif You most educated person in CSM who I am know. Needs follow SP do not need blind sraddha. Needs knowlege only "kripa" it is not true standart. Real guru gives direct understanding it is uttama. Sraddha it is begining spiritual life. Yes?

[muralidhar_das]

<blockquote>

The questions I woul like to ask are; how did Sri Bhaktisiddhanta know what his svarup-siddhi was? It was revealed to him? How? And how did he know the manjari-name of Kunja babu (Bhakti Vilas Tirtha Maharaja)? Did he know the manjari-names of Srila Prabhupada or Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and Srila Bhakti Pramod Puri Maharaja? If he did, why didn't he reveal it to them? Please don't take offense, I am genuinely curious.</blockquote>

 

I don't know how he know what his swarup siddhi is.

 

I only know that he wrote these things in that letter. History.

 

[Guest guest]

There is a good book circulating in ISKCON called "A Hindu Encounter With Modernity," and it is all about Srila Bhaktivinoda and his way of devotion. To understand Sri Bhaktivinoda's viewpoints on the matter of siddha-pranali, I strongly recommend that interested readers read Chapter 8 of that book. I seem to remember that someone put it online a while back but can't remember where.

 

Kailasa, considering that your English is not good even after posting at several forums for several years, and considering that numerous people at different times have told you to improve your English, and also considering that you use an obviously unreliable English-Russian Russian-English translator, it is extremely different to understand what you say.

[kailasa]

Siddha pranali emanate from love - bhava, another way some external atributes do not has any value. If you know own name, clotes, what value? It is not bring for you nothing.

[kailasa]

Russian-English translator, it is extremely different to understand what you say.

 

Siddha pranali emanate from love

 

some external atributes do not has any value

 

Understable? Yours gyana and English do not hope you. Baja Srila Prabhupada mudha mate. You see Lord Siva boy?

 

Oh they see Krisna /images/graemlins/smile.gif)))

[muralidhar_das]

<blockquote>

I do not think that they support the proposition that you are presenting. Is that the only reason why you rely on them by any chance, because they support your position? By the way, even though I personall have no problem with Krishnananda's translation, it is not acceptable to orthodox Advaitins with whom I have had discussions with on this very subject. In any case, the sutras contained in the Fourth Adhyaya do not, in my opinion, validate a description that you to.

</blockquote>

 

My my, do I only quote these things because they support my argument?

 

No.

 

And while I don't know which advatins you have spoken to about this, I would suggest that the orthodox Advaitin position is "aham brahmasmi" and that the soul in illusion has forgotten this fact of "aham brahmasmi", but when the soul becomes liberated he is supposed to realize, according to all the Advaitins I have met, that "I am non-different from Brahman, the Oneness of Brahman".

 

And in fact in the following section of Brahma sutra the issue that is discussed is that when a jiva becomes liberated he has the powers of Brahman, except the capacity to create a universe, and suchlike.

 

My understanding of what Badarayana is giving here, in this Adhyaya, is his description of the attainment of sarupya mukti. Badarayana, Vyasa, would have had this Vaikuntha understanding. I believe he did understand that the soul manifests its full form and glory and then enters the gateway of Vaikuntha, as the four Kumaras did. You may feel that your eighteenth-nineteenth century predecessors who imagined that the soul is given a spiritual body are speaking from REALIZATION, but I think Badarayana, Vyasa, dealt with this long ago and that his realization is superior.

 

 

[kailasa]

I am write hand. I am STRICTLY follow Jagat Prabhu. /images/graemlins/smile.gif))) Jagat it is you? /images/graemlins/smile.gif))

[kailasa]

Did he know the manjari-names of Srila Prabhupada

 

Prabhuapada is sakya. Sridhara Svami preach mood Rukmini devi. It is more mood right wings.

[muralidhar_das]

I presented this verse from Padma Purana quoted by Baladeva:

<blockquote>

anur nityo vyapti-silas cid-anandatmakas tatha

aham artho 'vyayah saksi bhinna-rupah sanatanah

"The soul is atomic, eternal, is present by consciousness everywhere in the material body,

is by nature full of spiritual bliss and knowledge, has a sense of individual identity, is

unchanging, is a witness within the body, and is different from the Supreme."

</blockquote>

and this verse from Brahma samhita:

<blockquote>

yad-bhava-bhavita-dhiyo manujas tathaiva

samprapya rupa-mahimasana-yana-bhusah

suktair yam eva nigama-prathitaih stuvanti

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

I adore the same Govinda, the primeval Lord, in whose praise men, who are imbued with devotion, sing the mantra-suktas told by the Vedas, by gaining their appropriate beauty, greatness, thrones, conveyances and ornaments.

</blockquote>

 

To which Mr.Anonymous replied:

<blockquote>

Thise verse spoke nothing about the "siddha-deha" being inherent within the soul or some such whatever you are presenting. It simply said that the soul's nature is blissful and that the soul is a witness in the body. This doesn't say anything about a siddha-deha being inherent. Your second verse also didn't prove anything along these lines.

</blockquote>

 

I tried to say that these verses sum up what I understand about this topic.

 

Let me make a few points, based on the direct statement of these verses:

 

1) the soul is sat-chit-ananda. Nothing less. And for readers who haven't been told this before, it is a belief of many "Vrindaban Babajis" that the jiva soul is not imbued with innate bliss (ananda). And in regard to the form of the baddha-jiva, I really don't know what they say. But according to this verse, the baddha-jiva has a form. A form that is sat-chit-ananda.

2) The soul attains his transcendental realization through chanting mantra-suktas told by the Vedas. Chanting gives us everything. Naturally and spontaneously, true realization will arise in the heart.

3) ...samprapya rupa-mahimasana-yana-bhusah - in Brahma samhita

Mr.Anonymous, could you please translate the meaning of the word "rupa" in this verse?

<blockquote>

There is one more verse I'd like to add here:

ceto-darpana-marjanam bhava-maha-dava nirvapanam

sreyah kairava candrika-vitaranam vidya-vadhu-jivanam

anandambudh ivardhanam prati-padam purnamrtasvadanam

sarvatma-snapanam param vijayate sri-krsna-sankirtanam

The holy name of Krishna cleanses the mirror of the heart and extinguishes the fire of misery in the forest of birth and death. As the evening lotus blooms in the moon's cooling rays, the heart begins to blossom in the nectar of the name. And at last the soul awakens to its real inner treasure a life of love with Krishna. Again and again tasting nectar, the soul dives and surfaces in the ever-increasing ocean of ecstatic joy. All phases of the self of which we may conceive are fully satisfied and purified, and at last conquered by the all-auspicious influence of the holy name of Krishna.

</blockquote>

ceto-darpana-marjanam: cleansing the mirror of the heart. First cleanse the heart so when you reflect on things, inwardly, your pure consciousness and pure self will arise. This is what the Great Master, Himself, taught. This is Gaudiya Siddhanta.

 

Aside from this, Mr.Anonymous again and again says that this process of "siddha-pranali" has been followed by all the Gaudiya Vaishnavas up until the time of Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakura. But that is not true. Indeed, even in the lifetime of Jayakrishna das Babaji there were people who were not following this, and Jayakrishna das Babaji in fact told one Bengali youth who came to him for instruction to return to his Guru in Bengal and find out his "siddha-pranali" before the youth could begin to practice raganuga-bhakti. The boy told him, "I don't know anything about siddha-pranali. My Guru never told me anything about it."

 

What is more, there is no mention of a need for knowing siddha pranali in the books of the Goswamis (as I have said before, ad nauseum). And as I've also said before, ad nauseum, the sages who saw Ram and wanted to become ladies never had any siddha-pranali. They only had "om bhu bhuvah svah tat savitur varenyam".

 

Yes there was an orthodox tradition that preached you must know your "siddha-pranli". But sometimes traditions need to be reformed. The idea that you need to know the "siddha-pranali" before you can practice raganuga bhakti is wrong.

 

[muralidhar_das]

In this article by Jagat:

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9906/ET10-4071.html

<blockquote>

The young Babaji said, 'I don't know what a guru-pranali is. I never asked my guru anything about it.'Jaya Krishna Das explained to him, 'The guru on the path of raganuga devotion always gives the guru-pranali to his disciple. The entire line of disciplic succesion is found on it - the names of the guru, parama-guru, paratpara-guru and so on. With the disciplic succession, the guru also gives the siddha-pranali. In the siddha-pranali, the guru gives the identities of the disciple and all the line of gurus' spiritual bodies - their colour, age, ornamentation, favoured type of service, etc.

 

Serving Radha and Krishna in the siddha manjari body given by the mercy of the perfected guru under his guidance, is called raganuga worship. This kind of worship is the only means by which one can attain to the loving service of Radha and Krishna. I want to teach you this. You will have to return home to get this information about your disciplic succession from your guru.'

</blockquote>

 

We read this statement:

"Serving Radha and Krishna in the siddha manjari body given by the mercy of the perfected guru under his guidance, is called raganuga worship."

 

However, Bhaktirasamrtasindhu 1.2.291 states:

 

tatra adhikari:

ragatmikaika-nistha ye vraja-vasi-janadayah

tesam bhavaptaye lubdho bhaved atradhikaravan

Those eligible for Raganuga Bhakti:

Those who have the feeling: "I want feelings of attraction for Krishna like

Ragatmikaikanistha, the feelings felt by the Vrajabasis, the eternal residents of Vraja"

- they are eligible to engage in Raganuga Bhakti.

 

In his commentary, Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Prabhu points out that in this verse Sri

Rupa Gosvami has defined raganuga bhakti. Here, Sri Rupa Goswami states that those

individuals who in their intrinsic nature feel an intense longing and firm attachment for

service following in the wake of the feelings and sentiments of the residents of Vrindaban,

with no thought or attraction for the majesties of the Godhead, are alone eligible for

following in the way of raganuga bhakti. The person eligible for raganuga bhakti may

spontaneously follow Sri Radha and other Gopis in madhura rati, Nanda-Yasoda and others

in vatsalya rati, Sridama-Sudama and others in sakhya rati, or Citraka-Patraka and others in

dasya rati.

 

Srila Rupa Goswami never spoke of the need of meditation on a siddha-pranali in Bhaktirasamrtasindhu. Neither did Sanatan Goswami mention it in Brhadbhagavatamrtam where he carefully describes the whole process sadhana bhakti. I choose to follow the teachings of Sanatan Goswami, who described in Brhadbhagavatamrtam how a soul can attain his perfection in Goloka. That soul who entered Vaikuntha, Gopakumar, didn't know his "guru-pranali" or "siddha-pranali" and still he attained Goloka. The boy who went to Jaya Krishna Das was in a similar situation. But we may suggest that since Gopakumar never ever learned his Guru Pranali, he would have been rejected if he came to Jaya Krishna Das for guidance about raganuga bhakti. As Madhusudan Das Babaji was rejected.

 

But even with rejection, such as the rejection and abuse that Srila Saraswati Thakur was given by the false babajis, in view of the fact that Gaurkishore das Babaji never gave him a "certificate" to prove he was a disciple, even in view of this, our Guru Parampara is continuing. Wonderfully. All over the world.

[stonehearted]

Kalilasa:

SP speak - "do not print Jaiva dharma in ISKCON".

 

 

You need to show me where Srila Prabhupada ever said any such thing. What's your evidence for making such an assertion? I know differently. In the early '70s he authorized his disciple Goursundar das to translate Jaiva Dharma. I know that Goursundar was working on it, along with my friend Tarun Kanti, in 1972. And I was in the room when Srila Prabhupada discussed it later with Tarun Kanti. Prabhupada knew about it and approved it. He even pointed out that it would have been easy for him to get Goursundar a copy of the book in Bengali.

[Guest guest]

 

I tried to say that these verses sum up what I understand about this topic. Let me make a few points, based on the direct statement of these verses:

 

 

Thanks for confirming that your points are what you understand about the topic. It is not what I understand about the topic. /images/graemlins/wink.gif As for your next statements, I think they are deviating the conversation off course. Let us stick to discussing siddha-pranali please.

 

 

Aside from this, Mr.Anonymous again and again says that this process of "siddha-pranali" has been followed by all the Gaudiya Vaishnavas up until the time of Prabhupada Srila Saraswati Thakura. But that is not true. Indeed, even in the lifetime of Jayakrishna das Babaji there were people who were not following this,

 

 

Muralidhar das, again and again you keep repeating this story about Jayakrsna das Babaji. You were even a member of you-know-where and told this same story there and everyone told you that your interpretation of the story was not correct, and that there were indeed sound examples of people practicing this tradition. As I mentioned earlier, the Acaryas have dropped hints about it all over their works. Besides that, paramparas still exist today that confirm the membership of those particular gurus. Yet you stubbornly stick to your interpretation of this story and repeat it every time that this subject comes up.

Besides that, thank you very much for confirming that you got this story from one of Jagat's articles. As per your personal views and your past comments, you are on record in various places as declaring Jagat and his companions to be "sahajiyas". Given that you do not actually know what a real sahajiya is, you have to admit that it is rather amusing that you read articles by "sahajiyas" and include "sahajiya" information in your book. Why is it that you cherry-pick whatever you like from the "sahajiyas" and reject that which you don't agree with? This doesn't strike me as a honest way to go about things, no offence. Besides that, since you have earlier confirmed that the path you have chosen does not need siddha-pranali, why are you speaking endlessly about something you do not need or understand? Just curious to know your reasons, no offence.

 

 

What is more, there is no mention of a need for knowing siddha pranali in the books of the Goswamis (as I have said before, ad nauseum).

 

 

There is no order in the Gosvamis' books to perform harinama-sankirtana either. Have you read the books of the Gosvamis? If so, which ones may I ask?

 

 

And as I've also said before, ad nauseum, the sages who saw Ram and wanted to become ladies never had any siddha-pranali. They only had "om bhu bhuvah svah tat savitur varenyam".

 

 

Fallacious argument. You have to view those verses in the cpontext of Rupa Gosvami's argument. In BRS, Rupa Gosvami quotes this event as an example of sadhana, implying that one must engage in the sadhana of meditation of these lilas in order to attain the same. This is obvious from the succeeding verses, and is not meant to be a stand-alone argument as you are taking it. You have been cherry-picking again.

[muralidhar_das]

Guest critic, why don't you tell us your name? Are you feeling a little SPINELESS today?