Siddha-pranali: Request for Info

[Guest guest]

 

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"

 

 

I have spoken with orthodox Advaitins but that was not my point, which was that orthodox Advaitins are not fond of Krishnananda's translations because they do not feel that it is an adequate translation of Sankara's bhasya.

 

 

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.

 

 

Apart from the fact that Gaudiya Vaishnavas are aiming for Golok Vrindavan and not Vaikuntha, you do know what sarupya-mukti means, don't you? It means attainment of a form like Sriman Narayana's. If you're suggesting that a form resembling Sriman Narayana's is inherent (and dormant) within the soul and "comes out" at liberation, then I'm afraid I do not know what to do with this argument. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Guest guest]

Did he know the manjari-names of Srila Prabhupada

 

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

 

It's not a guessing game, if you don't know these things Kailash, don't speculate as to the internal eternal swarup of great souls.

If you have listened very closely to Srila Sridhara Maharajs' discourses you will realize he most often advocated the rupanuga line of radhadasyam that his master came to give specificly.

Plus in the last days of Srila Prabhupad Bhaktisiddanta Saraswatis' manifest time on Earth he asked Srila Sridhara Maharaj to sing Sri Rupa Manjari . in the congregation of assembled vaisnavas, those present saw this as a divine transmission into that transcendental reality. Meaning the service arena of Srimate Rupa Manjari. Just before leaving this world himself, he told "You will find me dancing in the courtyard Sri Rupa", this is no secretlike some things devotees won't talk about, his whole life was spent serving Sri Sri Guru Gauranga Gandhavi Govinda sundarajui.

And protecting the sacred line of the rupanuga Guru varga as given by his blessed guru from misrepresentation.

Also Srila Guru Maharaj has talked about the rasa of his dear friend Srila Swami Maharaj it is recorded on tape. It is better to hear from these paramahamsas than to guess where they are serving in their nitya lila.

 

This is way beyond most of our melted down brains.

Only absolute purity will give entrance into such reality.

[Guest guest]

 

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

 

 

Perhaps you can try answering the points instead of worrying so much about my identity and making insulting remarks as a last resort?

 

Specifically, I would still like to know about the case of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and his "name giving" to Bhakti Vlas Tirtha Maharaja. If this is not siddha-pranali, then what is it and what was the purpose of telling BVT Maharaja?

[Guest guest]

bahya, antara, -- ihara dui ta' sadhana

 

'bahye' sadhaka-dehe kare sravana-kirtana

 

'mane' nija-siddha-deha kariya bhavana

 

ratri-dine kare vraje krsnera sevana

 

"External and internal, these are indeed the two sadhanas. Externally, in the sadhaka-form, one engages in hearing and chanting, and in the mind, in one’s own siddha-deha, day and night one thinks of and serves Sri Krishna in Vrindavana."

 

CC Madhya 156-157

[muralidhar_das]

Nice quote, that is given above.

 

This is suitable advice for people who have a fixed and pure understanding of the form of their siddha-deha. But if you still have anarthas and you like to enjoy lady-love, should you engage in this type of meditation when you are enjoying lady-love? Or will you do this while watching TV? Mahaprabhu says, "remember this always". Are you really engaged in continuous smarana? I'm not. For people who are not free from anarthas, this type of sadhana is not appropriate, according to Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati. Srila Sridhar Maharaj told us to focus on the sound of Krishna's name. The sound.

 

Guest said:

<blockquote>

Apart from the fact that Gaudiya Vaishnavas are aiming for Golok Vrindavan and not Vaikuntha, you do know what sarupya-mukti means, don't you? It means attainment of a form like Sriman Narayana's. If you're suggesting that a form resembling Sriman Narayana's is inherent (and dormant) within the soul and "comes out" at liberation, then I'm afraid I do not know what to do with this argument.

</blockquote>

Yes I know what sarupya is.

 

What I was thinking, when reading the Vedanta written by Vyasa, is that in the Age when he wrote the vedanta-sutra his audience would have been the sages, and that he was tying to describe a stage of realization above mere merging into the light of Brahman.

 

You asked me if I've read any of the Goswami's books. Yes, I've read this:

 

<blockquote>Brhadbagavatmrtam 2.2.141-4

According to the specific form and nature of the Supreme Lord that they worship and meditate on as their beloved, the devotees attain a form like the Lord's. In this way they manifest many different forms and opulences. They have forms like the Lord's incarnations, as humans, sages, demigods, and philosophers, and as the Lord's incarnations as Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Nrsimha, Vamana, Shiva, Brahma, Indra, Sesa, Surya, Vayu, Vahni, and many other forms. They also attain four-handed forms, and still other forms, with the specific garments and features of the Lord.

</blockquote>

Guest, as you see in these verses, not all residents of Vaikuntha will have four hand forms.

 

According to this, you get the form that is suitable for you to be an associate of your cherished Deity.

 

Oh, and if you don't tell me your name then I won't be responding to anything you say, anymore.

[raga]

 

The real issue at stake is that according to Jayakrishna das Babaji and his followers, all the "traditionalist" Gurus should tell the disciple the details of the "siddha-pranali". In the well known story of Madhusudana das Babaji, he didn't get told this by his Guru. Then when Madhusudana das Babaji couldn't find his Guru later on, after Jayakrishna das Babaji told him he needed to find out the details of the "siddha-pranali" in order to be taught raganuga-sadhana, Madhusudana das Babaji went to drown himself in Radha-kunda. He felt totally hopeless. But then the next thing happened. Srimate Radharani saved him from drowning and gave him the document he needed, a palm-leaf with the names of the siddha-gurus listed on it.

 

Previously, Raga, you said that you feel that this story shows that Srimate Radharani approved of the convention propagated by Jayakrishna das Babaji, that a person needed to have this document listing his siddha-pranali before a person was engaged in raganuga sadhana. But I believe this is just a meaning that you choose to infer from the story.

 

 

As I pointed out, that is how I choose to see it, and that is a sensible view of it in my judgement. You can infer all kinds of views from all kinds of stories, of course. However even yourself, you're now saying that there was "a palm-leaf with the names of the siddha-gurus listed on it". Doesn't that mean it is necessary, then?

 

I didn't get a satisfactory answer to my response to your point about Jagannath Das Babaji. You said he didn't practice siddha-pranali, to which I pointed out that I have even myself seen siddha-pranalikas traced through him, pranalikas that he obviously gave to his disciples. You then replied that you follow the siksha-parampara. However that doesn't change the fact that the evidence of Jagannath Das Babaji's having followed the "siddha-pranali system" is irrefutable.

 

 

 

 

Other readings of the story are also possible. And added to that is the fact that when Syamananda Prabhu found the anklet of Sri Radha, simply coming in contact with that anklet awakened manjari-bhava within him. When in fact he had been inititated by a sahkya-bhava Guru, Hridaya-Caitanya Prabhu.

 

 

If memory serves, he was at the bank of the river while meditating on his manjari-svarupa and then came across the anklet. He certainly was acquainted with his manjari-deha prior to the incident. There are several versions to the story, but I can't recall any of them differing in this respect.

[raga]

 

Anonymous:

 

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?

 

 

I hate to break the news, but this proposal is really off the wall.

 

However there is no order to perform sankirtana of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra as far as I know. That notwithstanding, since it is not in opposition to their instruction to perform harinam-sankirtan, this approach has been widely adopted.

[Guest guest]

Having read the many articles on this topic, I noticed that no one had asked the following questions:

 

If you are a dishonest person, and are given siddhi pranali, and continue to be dishonest, is is the siddhi pranali real?

 

Are all the pranalikas honest? Is there a possibity that honest non pranalikas can still attain prema?

 

I believe that there are sincere devotees in GM and non GM lines, and similary there are many rouges in both groups. No one can force bhakti to sit in their hearts.

 

I chose to follow Srila Bhaktisiddanta Prabhupada, as I believe his teachings about Bhakti are correct for me.

 

Let's remember that the Holy Name was predicted to be chanted in every town and village on this planet. Which line has made this a reality? I say this to counter the egoistic view, from the pranalikas, that Srila Bhaktisiddhnata line is bogus. That what this argument is really about, isn't it?

 

The pranalikas, go out with your devotion. If your are sincere you will be sucessful. Non pranaliksa, go with your devotion, if you are sincere you will be successful.

 

This argument about siddhi pranali is a red herring...

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have stayed in a few Gaudiya Mathas and have gotten to know some very advanced devotees over the years. I was surprised when on two occasions that some of these devotees with decades experience in bhajan reveiled in confidence their Manjari names. These devotees are explemlary devotees and they explained their learned of their ekadasi bhava from their bhajana. Their realisations, they told me were confirmed by their Guru. They spoke of it once and once only . I have no reason to disbelieve them and leave their bhajan as it should be; a private matter between them, their guru and Radha-Krishna. I gave it no futher thought until now.

 

To say that siddhi pranali is not given in the GM is rubbish. I believe that the GM don't dicuss siddhi pranali in public even in a Gaudiya only setting, because the process will be and has been abused by dishonest people.

 

I'm sure there will be some people ready to scoff at what I have just written, but I accept what I was told by those advanced devottes.

 

Like I say siddhi pranali is there in the GM....

 

 

 

[muralidhar_das]

Madhava:

<blockquote>

However even yourself, you're now saying that there was "a palm-leaf with the names of the siddha-gurus listed on it". Doesn't that mean it is necessary, then?

</blockquote>

 

No.

 

And while we are on the topic of unanswered questions, what about these:

 

When the sages saw Ram and desired to be born as ladies to enjoy his company in madhura-rasa, did any of them have any training in a siddha-pranali gurukula?

 

When Syamananada found the anklet and felt bliss through it, and his meeting with Lalita Devi, did Lalita Devi tell him anything about a siddha-pranali?

 

The siddha-pranali tradition which Jayakrishnadas Babaji represents is a different school of thought from what was taught in Vraja by the Six Goswamis and their immediated successors.

[muralidhar_das]

Madhava said:

<blockquote>

I didn't get a satisfactory answer to my response to your point about Jagannath Das Babaji. You said he didn't practice siddha-pranali, to which I pointed out that I have even myself seen siddha-pranalikas traced through him, pranalikas that he obviously gave to his disciples. You then replied that you follow the siksha-parampara. However that doesn't change the fact that the evidence of Jagannath Das Babaji's having followed the "siddha-pranali system" is irrefutable.

</blockquote>Maybe Jagannath Das Babaji did give siddha-pranali to his sisyas, in which case I was wrong to say otherwise. Maybe Bhaktivinode Thakur gave it too. But we have known for many years that Srila Saraswati Thakur didn't accept the diksa-guru of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur as a great spiritual authority. We do accept Jagannath Das Babaji as our Gurudev but we don't follow the tradition he followed in those days.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj:

<blockquote>

We have to follow the spirit; otherwise after Jahnava devi, the wife of Lord Nityananda,

up to Bipina Goswami, from whom Bhaktivinoda Thakur took initiation, there are so

many unknown lady gurus. Through them, the mantra came to Bipina Goswami, and

from him Bhaktivinoda Thakur received the mantra. We accept Bhaktivinoda Thakur, but

should we count all those ladies in our disciplic succession? What was their realization?

</blockquote>

[muralidhar_das]

Madhava:

<blockquote>

If memory serves, he was at the bank of the river while meditating on his manjari-svarupa and then came across the anklet. He certainly was acquainted with his manjari-deha prior to the incident. There are several versions to the story, but I can't recall any of them differing in this respect.

</blockquote>

 

I believe it happened in Seva Kunja. I have been shown the place. It is opposite the front gate of Radha-Syamsundar mandir, just behind Paramadvaiti Swami's bookshop.

 

And.... if you say he was "acquainted with his manjari-deha prior to the incident" then how did he become aquainted with it, because, as everyone knows, Hridaya Chaitanya was in sakhya-rasa. I have heard the story from disciples in that Syamananda lineage and they don't tell it the way you do.

 

In fact, Madhava, you may know the person who told me this story. Do you know Lala Gopala from Sweden? I haven't seen him for ten years. Do you have any knowledge of him?

[Guest guest]

 

I have stayed in a few Gaudiya Mathas and have gotten to know some very advanced devotees over the years. I was surprised when on two occasions that some of these devotees with decades experience in bhajan reveiled in confidence their Manjari names. These devotees are explemlary devotees and they explained their learned of their ekadasi bhava from their bhajana. Their realisations, they told me were confirmed by their Guru. They spoke of it once and once only . I have no reason to disbelieve them and leave their bhajan as it should be; a private matter between them, their guru and Radha-Krishna. I gave it no futher thought until now.

 

To say that siddhi pranali is not given in the GM is rubbish. I believe that the GM don't dicuss siddhi pranali in public even in a Gaudiya only setting, because the process will be and has been abused by dishonest people.

 

I'm sure there will be some people ready to scoff at what I have just written, but I accept what I was told by those advanced devottes.

 

Like I say siddhi pranali is there in the GM....

 

 

I can point out to you vaisnavas in every Gaudiya sangha who take the position of being authorities on things they have in fact never even experienced. That doesn't make those people authorities simply because they attempt to act in that position, or say they have attained that position.

 

I can point out vaisnavas who have claimed and received worship as uttama adhikaris, yet later they leave the path of bhakti. I have seen vaisnavas who have for years and years claimed to be more or less the topmost experts at these topics in this thread, but who have recently claimed that they don't even have faith in the Gita or the Bhagavata, yet funnily enough still claim to be the expert on these raganuga topics.

 

Talk is cheap. Claims of being in manjari bhava are cheap. I can read the works of the vaisnava acaryas to a parrot until it memorizes all of the tattva on any given subject, what of it? What use is there in claiming to be an authority on a topic when even a parrot can do as well as you? Should I take the parrot as an authority? Should I take anyone as an authority simply because they can repeat what they have read? Or because they have some certificate from someone or some school that says I am officially God conscious?

 

All of you who claim to be experts on raganuga, what have you to show for it? Has Radha taken you into Her confidence? If not, then the truely sincere and truely honest person, will be humble and not attempt to act above his or here true position. If you were an actual expert on raganuga, then why hasn't God given you entrance as a confidant?

 

God is always right here, always with you, waiting for you to give up the dishonest egotism which keeps you from being able to be given confidential association. The honest attitude is: God is everywhere, yet does not treat me as a confidant, as a close friend. I must be making some error, some miscalculation. Some mistaken thought process is making my association undesirable for Radha Krishna.

 

That is the honest attitude, anything less and we push Radha Krishna away. 100% honesty with ourselves, 100% faith, sraddha, that we have to be somehow causing a problem. We have to be in the understanding that God is here with me, yet I am in some way causing this separation from meeting, from rasa. I exist to bring pleasure to God, and yet God will not even directly relate with me, even though God is always with me. I must be doing something wrong.

 

Sri Caitanya purposely left only the Siksastakam. This was his message to us to let us know that everything else is secondary, everything else is dependent on humility, otherwise you are a madman. Knowledge is useless unless a person is honest with himself, which will then in turn manifest as humility.

 

What good is it to be able to quote sastra about raganuga if you cannot see and understand and act in full awareness of the most basic level and truth of our existance?

 

A parrot can learn sastra, an atheist can became a great scholar of Rupa Goswami. What is really important is coming to terms with our own miscalculations about our moment to moment perception and understanding or reality.

 

Our faith in ourselves as being authorities on God, even though we are forcibly separated from the realm of the siddhas, forcibly separated from God's rasa association, is due to a lack of honesty with ourselves. True humility is nothing more then accepting and understanding reality with 100% honesty and clarity.

 

Do you really think God in all His glory and power and mercy cannot at any time simply walk right up to you? And then reveal Himself and enter your life as your closest personal friend? Do you really think that reality is dependent on anything other then your own ability to be non repulsive to God?

 

Do you really think God demands you to be anything other then what you are, minus the egotism, dishonesty, and self delusion?

 

No one needs to do anything to be with Radha Krishna. That life is the natural gift of God to all of us. What keeps us apart is ourselves. Not a lack of some kind of initiation, nor some kind of mantra, nor some kind of study. What keeps us apart is our own attempt to be God, instead of trying to make ourselves attractive to God.

 

God is in control. No amount of mantras, study, initiations, meditations, pilgrimages, nor anything else we do can force God to elevate us. We cannot control our destiny nor the destiny of anyone else. We cannot change anything in our environment, we have no real will power, no power to act, no power to do anything. We are puppets with the delusion of trying to be the puppetmaster, trying to be God.

 

There is only one controller, everyone else is controlled. This is absolute 100% honest truth. Starting from that point, always keeping that understanding in front of us, always seeing reality with full understanding of what is actually going on all around you, within even your own mind, always being in a state of 100% surrender to that absolute truism, always being in the mindset of 100% acceptance of God's absolute and complete control and direction over everything, at all times, at that stage of full and complete clarity, then Krishna will appear to you. Everywhere. Always. Through everyone, through everything, and most especially, through your own mind.

 

Krishna tells us when speaking to Uddhava:

 

 

My dear Uddhava, the Supreme Lord gives life to every living being and is situated within the heart along with the life air and primal sound vibration. The Lord can be perceived in His subtle form within the heart by one's mind, since the Lord controls the minds of everyone, even great demigods like Lord Siva. The Supreme Lord also assumes a gross form as the various sounds of the Vedas, composed of short and long vowels and consonants of different intonations.

 

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

 

According to My instructions, one should fix the mind on Me alone. If, however, one continues to see many different values and goals in life rather than seeing everything within Me, then although apparently awake, one is actually dreaming due to incomplete knowledge, just as one may dream that one has wakened from a dream.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

 

--------------------------

I can point out to you vaisnavas in every Gaudiya sangha who take the position of being authorities on things they have in fact never even experienced. That doesn't make those people authorities simply because they attempt to act in that position, or say they have attained that position.

--------------------------

 

 

I agree there are bogus and cheating people in all vaisnava circles, but are you also saying that real advanced devotees cannot privately share their experiences with others they choose? If so then alot of sastra wouldn't have been written. BTW, the one of the devotees who shared his experiences with me knew me for years before he told me, very little, about his ekadasi bhavas. The same devotee doesn't see himself as advanced rather he describes himself as a "vegetable cutter". He cuts vegetables at the math. The same devotee has refused to accept sannyasa even though it has been offered, many times because he believes his is unqualified. Although at the same math western devotees are lining up to become sannyasis. Strange that...

 

 

In reply to:

--------------------------

All of you who claim to be experts on raganuga, what have you to show for it? Has Radha taken you into Her confidence? If not, then the truely sincere and truely honest person, will be humble and not attempt to act above his or here true position. If you were an actual expert on raganuga, then why hasn't God given you entrance as a confidant?

--------------------------

 

No real vaisnava is going to put their devotion on public desplay. As I said earlier, it's a private matter between devotee, their guru and the Divine Couple. There are advanced devotees who do experience the Divine.

 

I don't claim to an expert on raganuga or any type of bhakti. Although I do have faith in the Lord's devotees.

 

 

In reply to:

--------------------------

Do you really think God in all His glory and power and mercy cannot at any time simply walk right up to you? And then reveal Himself and enter your life as your closest personal friend? Do you really think that reality is dependent on anything other then your own ability to be non repulsive to God?

--------------------------

 

I don't think there's anyone on this thread who would answer no to the first two questions.

 

The phrase "non replusive to God?" that's very Christian in thought. Krsna doesn't find Jiva's replusive. Please read Brhad Bhagavatamrta where Gopa Kumara meets Narayana for the first time in Vaikuntha.

 

 

IN reply to:

------------------------

No one needs to do anything to be with Radha Krishna. That life is the natural gift of God to all of us. What keeps us apart is ourselves. Not a lack of some kind of initiation, nor some kind of mantra, nor some kind of study. What keeps us apart is our own attempt to be God, instead of trying to make ourselves attractive to God.

-------------------------

 

This goes against all our teachings. Read the Gita. Are you saying that if you just sit down and do nothing then Krishna will reveal himself. No bhajans? No parikramas, No ekadasis? No Gurus? NO mantras? Mmmm.....

 

 

 

[krsna]

Are you trying to put Madhava and the rest of the gang at GD in their proper place as show-bottle raga margis?

 

Or maybe you've already done so with your above exhortation?

[Guest guest]

 

 

Perhaps you are relatively new to these sorts of discussions, that is why.

 

 

 

 

I found Murali's response helpful because he gave me a clear and concise answer to my exact question (one of them, anyway).

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

My interest was in determining where in the writings of the Gosvamis it is found. Apparently, it is not in the writings of the six-Gosvamis, but rather a concept developed later on based on some of the Gosvami's ideas. I don't have a problem with that, I just wanted to know one way or another. I also have other interests as I will mention below.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

So I should only get the opinion on this from people whose opinion I might doubt in the first place? That hardly seems sensible.

 

I think the more sensible thing would be to look for the facts in the scriptures and the writings of the pUrvAchAryas, and based on this follow the guru who is actually following them.

 

 

People like Murlidhar and Shiva have openly admitted that they do not agree with these tradtionalist understandings

 

 

 

Where did they say this? All I saw them say was that one should not be forced into a particular bhAva-siddhi. They gave ample evidence for that position.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps I do not know them as well as you, but I think that whatever hard feelings you have for them, you should not misrepresent them for the sake of argument.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Thank you for your approval of my alleged ISKCON background. I feel honored to be speaking with you, sir.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

It's easy to make vague and sweeping references. The specific references provided by Murali and Raga were more helpful than this. However, as I said before (twice already), I am not disputing the authenticity of the "siddha-pranali" concept. Rather, I am questioning the view that those who do not have "siddha-pranali" are automatically not real Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

 

 

 

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,

 

 

 

From my readings of the biographies, I did not see any specific reference to Mahaprabhu either giving or receiving "siddha-pranali." In fact, I do not recall him even giving an official initiation for Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis, even though both of them are considered his disciples.

 

Unless you can correct me, I would therefore have to disagree with your statement that "all Vaishanvas from the time of Mahaprabhu onwards have followed this...." even assuming you are referring to Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

 

 

 

until the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and his followers who do not follow this in the same way.

 

 

 

As of this writing, Muralidhar did post an example of Bhaktisiddhanta revealing siddha-deha for one disciple. What about this do you find to be "not... in the same way?"

 

 

 

If like some people here are saying that this siddha-pranali process is not necessary or a concoction or whatever,

 

 

 

No one here said it was a "concoction." Obviously it is not, since there are references to it in Dyanacandra Gosvami's writings.

 

As far as it being unnecessary, there was already the quote from VCT's RVC. He mentioned three possibilities, one of which was caitya guru, from which one could get this sacred knowledge. What more can I say? I think VCT knew what he was talking about.

 

 

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 don't see how this follows. If it is not strictly necessary, then why are those who practice it ipso facto ignorant? Something may not be strictly necessary, but it can still be helpful and useful. I just don't find your statement very sensible.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the netter who had the following to say about Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati on earlier threads of Audarya?

 

"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. Not even the "mayavadi" Sankara. All their paramparas are based on diksa. So Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment is not just against the whole Gaudiya tradition, it is against the whole of the Vedic ones too."

 

and

 

"Nobody is disputing that. In fact, you have just hit on the very crux of the matter. As I explained to you at least twice before, the Gaudiya tradition traces its parampara via diksa and not siksa. IT IS ONLY SRILA BHAKTISIDDHANTA'S PARAMPARA THAT PRESENTS A FABRICATED SIKSA-PARAMPARA. This in itself shows that the opinion of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is not relevant to what we are talking about. Unless of course you choose to accept what he says which you obviously are." (emphasis mine)

 

These don't seem like very nice things to say. Would you not agree?

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

As mentioned previously, Mahaprabhu did not follow this, AFAIK. Nor am I saying they are "wrong," because again AFAIK, none of them ever said "you must have siddha-pranali or you are not a follower of Sri Caitanya."

 

Also, the idea that because many or most Gaudiyas have historically done this, therefore all Gaudiyas must continue to do this, is certainly begging the question. This logic can be used in any number of unsettling ways:

 

All Gaudiyas prior to Bhaktivinod have historically preached/spoken only in Bengali, Hindi, and Sanskrit. So therefore all Gaudiyas should do this, and those who preach/write in English are deviants.

 

All Gaudiyas prior to Bhaktivedanta have historically lived in the Holy Dham. Therefore, all true Gaudiyas must only live in the Holy Dham and those who do not (Amerika? Europe?) are deviants.

 

I'm sure I can come up with others - the point is that the logic is not agreeable. In the absence of specific statement of "follower of Caitanya Mahaprabhu = always has siddha pranali," I do not see how one can assume this must always be the case forever for all Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Especially when you consider that not all Caitanyaites are going to be raganuga bhaktas, and not all raganuga bhaktas are destined for manjari bhAva. So what do non-manjari bhAva entities do? And what do those who are not practicing raganuga do? Is there no place for them in Sri Caitanya's teachings?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Please understand what I have written properly. I did not say that one should not strive to have a spiritual body, or that meditation on a spiritual identity is not necessary for raganuga sadhana. What I questioned was the premise that one must have this type of sadhana/initiation or else he is not a Gaudiya vaishnava. I have also questioned the idea that one must always have a siddha-pranali in order to get this knowledge of siddha-deha.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I agree that it is better to study the work in its entirety. However, I do not see how your translation of the disputed statement changes the fact that VCT believes that some sadhakas, purified by their practice of bhakti, will get the knowledge by means other than a traditional raganuga guru. It appears to be the same thing that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati taught.

 

Again, if you don't want to discuss it with me, then that is fine. But I assume you were trying to convince me, and so I'm trying to understand how it does not say what it is saying, according to you.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

As per your own translation, it does not seem to differ at all from VCT. Even if it did, I can't help but notice that you pick your adjectives carefully, i.e. "so drastically," and so forth. Clearly you have your conclusions, and are not about to entertain any other possibility.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

This of course begs another question. If a sadhaka approaches a Gaudiya raganuga guru, and the guru detects that the student is destined for some other rasa, will he refuse to give siddha-pranali, since he can only give manjari siddha pranali?

 

Are you aware of any gurus refusing to give manjari siddha pranali on these grounds? Because if this is not the case, then either (1) everyone who appraoches a raganuga guru for initiation just happens to be a manjari in the spiritual world (doubtful), or (2) they all get manjari initiation regardless of their actual svarupa because that is all that is available.

 

This then gets back to the very legitimate concern about forcing people into a specific bhava-siddhi.

 

Why should we not go into the details of Syamananda's "shift?" After all, if Bhaktisiddhanta can be criticized for his differences of practice, then why not also Syamananda?

 

 

People who are attracted to different bhavas should go elsewhere as they do, to the Vallabhites, Nimbarkis and so on.

 

 

 

But these traditions are not Gaudiya traditions, and they will not follow Gaudiya standards of raganuga bhakti. So the question still stands, that when much information is given on non-madhurya rasas, then where do Gaudiyas destined for these rasas take initiation from if they have the lobha to practice raganuga bhakti?

 

It seems ironic to me that on one hand, so much energy and time will be spent trying to paint Bhaktisiddhanta as a non-Gaudiya, but on the other hand sadhakas with a bona fide non-manjari svarup will be referred to totally different sampradayas. Assuming of course that this actually happens.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Please post the relevant verses. If I have misunderstood "anartha-nivritti" then I would like to correct that. But my point remains about whether or not qualification for raganuga-bhakti is mutually exclusive with gross anarthas.

 

For example, in Vaidika culture, as I am sure you are aware, chastity is observed with body, mind, and words. There are no casual relationships between men and women outside of marriage, and those looking to get married have them done in the traditional way with involvement of elders. For one to have a relationship outside of marriage is considered very improper. So, for example, if one had a girlfriend, can he still have the lobha to practice raganuga-bhakti?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

So you are saying that one can have this lobha (and hence qualification for raganuga bhakti and siddha-pranali) even though he has these anarthas?

 

This is what I want to understand clearly - is it possible to have lobha in spite of gross anarthas. I would prefer to see explicit description of this state rather than inferences based on the current practice.

 

thanks,

 

alpa

[Guest guest]

Shiva, while I agree with many points you have brought up to date, don't you think this is starting to get a little harsh? I started this thread for the sake of fact-finding, not fault-finding. If you do not mind, I would like to restate my original questions and doubts just to keep this focused:

 

1) Is there historical precedent for siddha-pranali in the Gaudiya writings? (Raga and Muralidhar gave very satisfactory responses to this question)

2) Is siddha-pranali a necessity for one practicing raganuga-bhakti? (Raga also answered this question, although it appears there are some exceptional cases, generally one should have siddha-pranali)

3) What is the qualification to have siddha-pranali? (Raga's response is that it is the same as the qualification to practice raganuga - I guess that is logical).

4) What is the qualification to practice raganuga bhakti (here I must admit that I am still not convinced that we have a clear answer - yes one must have the lobha, but what does that mean practically? Can a devotee with lobha eat karmi food in restaurants, live outside the holy dham, have girlfriends, etc? The view of Bhaktivinod, Bhaktisiddhanta et. al. that one should become first purified by vaidhi-bhakti still seems more sensible.)

5) If one must practice raganuga bhakti but is not destined for manjari-svarupa, then where does he go?

6) If one does not practice siddha-pranali, and/or does not practice raganuga bhakti, is he automatically on the very fact not a Gaudiya Vaishnava? (So far, I am not convinced that these criticisms of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati are fair or logical.)

 

Also, one guest mentioned that two GM devotees did have a siddha-pranali. Are you suggesting that it cannot be so? If so, why? I am not aware of either Bhaktisiddhanta or Bhaktivedanta disputing siddha-pranali (though I recall that Bhaktivedanta criticized a mechanical "so-called siddha-pranali" in Nectar of Devotion - obviously he too believes it is sacred and intended for people with certain qualification).

 

Anyway, let's keep the discussion cool and focused.

 

Thanks,

 

alpa

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

However there is no order to perform sankirtana of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra as far as I know. That notwithstanding, since it is not in opposition to their instruction to perform harinam-sankirtan, this approach has been widely adopted.

 

 

I believe this mantra is explicitly mentioned in Sri Caitanya Bhagavata with reference to public chanting.

 

alpa

[krsna]

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/nmj_articles/siddha-deha/siddha-deha.html

[Guest guest]

So funny to see people support Shiva here. Why don't you ask him what he believes and then compare that to the beliefs of *any* Gaudiya from any group. Anyone think that having a conjugal relationship with Radha is what it's all about? Shiva does.

[Guest guest]

 

IN reply to:

------------------------

No one needs to do anything to be with Radha Krishna. That life is the natural gift of God to all of us. What keeps us apart is ourselves. Not a lack of some kind of initiation, nor some kind of mantra, nor some kind of study. What keeps us apart is our own attempt to be God, instead of trying to make ourselves attractive to God.

-------------------------

 

This goes against all our teachings. Read the Gita. Are you saying that if you just sit down and do nothing then Krishna will reveal himself. No bhajans? No parikramas, No ekadasis? No Gurus? NO mantras? Mmmm.....

 

 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough for you, I apologize. You don't need to do anything to be with Radha Krishna, you are always and will always be with Radha Krishna.

 

The problem is that you don't have the eyes to see what is everywhere, what is in you, what is manifesting your thoughts, your life, your friends, your everything. As Krishna said in the quote I provided, "It's all Me and nothing but Me".

 

That is the point I was trying to make. God is everywhere, all the time, your own consciousness is made up of two people yet you only perceive one. We live with God and everything we do is done with God, by God. But in our ignorant state we see duality, we see various causes and then blame the effects on those causes. You may read this and think I am writing this down, that I am creating this post. You may see the world as a place where everyone is acting out according to their will. That is ignorance.

 

In the Gita Krishna tells us:

 

 

The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature

 

 

And what does that mean, what is nature?

 

 

This material nature is working under My direction, O son of Kunti, and it is producing all moving and unmoving beings. By its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.

 

 

God is doing everything. God is actually in control of everything you think, see, hear, smell and feel. All you experience, from listening to the mind, to reading this post, to anything else, everything is going on by God's will and direction. When we understand and try to see reality in this way, then we are liberated from Maya, from illusion.

 

Krishna says:

 

 

The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency.

 

 

Kapiladeva tells us:

 

 

When the mind is thus completely freed from all material contamination and detached from material objectives, it is just like the flame of a lamp. At that time the mind is actually dovetailed with that of the Supreme Lord and is experienced as one with Him because it is freed from the interactive flow of the material qualities.

 

Thus situated in the highest transcendental stage, the mind ceases from all material reaction and becomes situated in its own glory, transcendental to all material conceptions of happiness and distress. At that time the yogi realizes the truth of his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He discovers that pleasure and pain as well as their interactions, which he attributed to his own self, are actually due to the false ego, which is a product of ignorance.

 

 

 

[kailasa]

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.

 

Hare Krisna Prabhu. I am listen - "not print SBT". Now i am do not memory where. I am try memory and write for you about this. May be i am listen, may be i am read.

 

I am listen (or read) another thing - "all what needs i am write in Me books"

 

Anyway Srila Prabhupada do not theach sambhoga vada in highe contecst. He is speak - "no sambhoga". SBT writes about sambhoga.

[muralidhar_das]

alpa said:

<blockquote>

1) Is there historical precedent for siddha-pranali in the Gaudiya writings? (Raga and Muralidhar gave very satisfactory responses to this question)

2) Is siddha-pranali a necessity for one practicing raganuga-bhakti? (Raga also answered this question, although it appears there are some exceptional cases, generally one should have siddha-pranali)

3) What is the qualification to have siddha-pranali? (Raga's response is that it is the same as the qualification to practice raganuga - I guess that is logical).

4) What is the qualification to practice raganuga bhakti (here I must admit that I am still not convinced that we have a clear answer - yes one must have the lobha, but what does that mean practically? Can a devotee with lobha eat karmi food in restaurants, live outside the holy dham, have girlfriends, etc? The view of Bhaktivinod, Bhaktisiddhanta et. al. that one should become first purified by vaidhi-bhakti still seems more sensible.)

5) If one must practice raganuga bhakti but is not destined for manjari-svarupa, then where does he go?

6) If one does not practice siddha-pranali, and/or does not practice raganuga bhakti, is he automatically on the very fact not a Gaudiya Vaishnava? (So far, I am not convinced that these criticisms of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati are fair or logical.)

</blockquote>

 

I think another point needs to be raised here. A point that Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Thakur raised.

 

<blockquote>

7) What standard of realization need a Guru have before he can GIVE siddha-pranali.

</blockquote>

 

Speaking of siddha-pranali, the Guest attacking me said <font color="0000FF">"Vaishnavas since the time of Mahaprabhu have followed this tried and tested method, are they all wrong?"</font>

 

a) It isn't true that all the (Gaudiya) Vaishnavas since the time of Mahaprabhu have followed this method. For instance, the boy who came to Jayakrishna das babaji from Bengal didn't get siddha-pranali from his Guru. Nor did Madhusudana das Babaji get siddha-pranali from his Guru. In fact I can quote numerous others. But since these examples are key examples since the era when they occurred was a time when a shift in procedures was happening, in regard to WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU GET DIKSA - for that reason these examples can be given.

 

b) Guest said, "are they all wrong". Rhetorically, I will ask, "are they all right". That is, if we examine all these persons who are giving siddha-pranali, are they ALL qualified to give siddha-pranali?

 

And on this point, let us consider the story of Tinkori das Babaji.

 

Jagat wrote:

<blockquote>

http://vnn.org/world/WD9905/WD05-3797.html

<font color="0000FF">Sri Tinkadi Gosvami (Sri Kisori-Kisorananda Baba) was born in 1906 in Manoharapur, a village in district Medinipur of West Bengal. His father was Sri Harimohana Gosvami and mother Srimati Suradhuni Devi. The family had a large number of ancestral disciples. The number of Harimohana Gosvami's own disciples also was not small. The income from donations made by disciples was plentiful. Therefore Tinkadi Gosvami was brought up in luxury. He he did not have much interest in studies. So his father stopped his education and began to introduce him to his disciples so that he might adopt gurugiri (the profession of guru) as his profession. He also married him to a girl named Sitalasundari, from whom he had a son.

 

Sri Tinkadi Gosvami lived luxuriously. He wore spotlessly white clothes made of the finest linen and smoked hukka. The long tube of the hukka with a silver mouth-piece was always attached to his mouth. The smoke of the sweet-scented tobacco, specially got from Visnupur, was seen curling round him. He went to the homes of the disciples on palanquin. The hukka and a Brahman cook went with him. The cook followed the palanquin on foot.

 

...

his wife died. then:

...

 

After pilgrimage, instead of returning home, he again went to Manohara Dasa Baba in Govardhana and asked permission to live in Vrndavana. Baba again said, "Gosain! Even now the time has not come for your living in Vrndavana. Go home and marry. You still have much karma to do. When the time comes, Radharani will herself draw you to Vrndavana. You need not worry."</font>

</blockquote>

 

So from this we can see something of the lifestyle of the "traditionalist Gurus" of the early 20th century. And of the thinking of the babajis such as Manohara Dasa Baba in Govardhana who supported the "traditionalist family Gurus".

 

Tinkori's father gave his son siddha-pranli. As you see in the story above, he also paid for his son's tobacco and palaquin bearers with money given as guru-daksina.

 

To avoid offending people, I won't express what I am thinking about Gurus such as this "traditionalist Guru". I think everyone can understand what I would say if I were to say anything more. Tinkori became renounced later on, as his supporters will surely point out now. Indeed, on Forums when this matter has been raised previously, the caste-Goswami supporters always begin to talk about this gentleman's vairagya in his later life.

 

But the bottom line is that this whole "traditionalist community" allows for situations where the sons of "traditionalist family Gurus" live like princes and inherit great wealth and servants. Then when they are grown up the son will "<font color="0000FF">adopt gurugiri (the profession of guru) as his profession</font>" (to use Jagat's words)

 

Is this sort of "tradition" the REAL and PROPER tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism? That is, is this sort of behavior of the caste-Goswamis in accordance with the teachings of Sri Rupa and Sanatana.

 

<blockquote>

vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam jivha-vegam udaropastha-vegam

etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah sarvam apinam prthivim sa sisyat

A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

Sri Upadesamrta, verse 1

</blockquote>

A person needs to be austere if he is to be Guru.

 

And if a gentleman gets A lot of money through following the "profession of guru", then he uses this money to buy tobacco for his son, (this son is the next manjari in line in the family's siddha-pranali), then is this PROPER? Is this the same as what Sri Rupa and Sri Sanatan Goswami taught?

 

I leave it to readers to make your own conclusions about that.

 

[kailasa]

It's not a guessing game, if you don't know these things Kailash, don't speculate as to the internal eternal swarup of great souls.

 

I am know.

 

If you have listened very closely to Srila Sridhara Maharajs' discourses you will realize he most often advocated the rupanuga line of radhadasyam that his master came to give specificly.

 

Temple SP it is Krisna balaram mandir it is sakhya. SP speak some devotees "I am in sakhya." Sridhara Svami not has so qualifications. Then in CSM they preach blind sraddha.

 

Plus in the last days of Srila Prabhupad Bhaktisiddanta Saraswatis' manifest time on Earth he asked Srila Sridhara Maharaj to sing Sri Rupa Manjari .

 

And what? If Narayana Prabhu make samadhi SP then hi is acarya? It is arguments for fools. Sridhara Svami destroy all GM.

 

in the congregation of assembled vaisnavas, those present saw this as a divine transmission into that transcendental reality.

 

It is speculation. Guru preach in logic and arguments. Guru do not make any "mistikelectric" powres. SP write about this. Srila Prabhupada write - "Sridhara Svami not has good qualifikation" I am has this citations.

 

Meaning the service arena of Srimate Rupa Manjari. Just before leaving this world himself, he told "You will find me dancing in the courtyard Sri Rupa",

 

Who? SBST?

 

And protecting the sacred line of the rupanuga Guru varga as given by his blessed guru from misrepresentation.

Also Srila Guru Maharaj has talked about the rasa of his dear friend Srila Swami Maharaj it is recorded on tape. It is better to hear from these paramahamsas than to guess where they are serving in their nitya lila.

 

Yes Srila Prabhupada very clear instruct disciples.

 

This is way beyond most of our melted down brains.

 

Lord Iesus speak - "all heart all reason" It is uttama adhikari. Kanistha adhikario theach blind sraddha. You read Rupa Gosvami about uttama? Open, read, do not follow kanistha guru.

[kailasa]

Raga you able answer? Raga do not able answer?