Post by Uttamasloka on May 25, 2013 16:31:26 GMT -5
Satya Narayana dasa babaji recently commented on my book on the blog on his website, jiva.org. Here is the link...
www.jiva.org/gradations-of-prema/
I was informed by Malati Manjari of jiva.org that his posting was intended to be a private reply and not meant for public posting.
I have posted my responses here for everyone's edification.
I invite other forum members to join in this discussion.
Responses to Satya Narayana’s comments, which are within the quotes.
To be specific, VCT states in UN that the sadhana-siddha sakhis, either nitya-sakhis or priya-sakhis are eternally in a slightly lesser status than the nitya-siddha sakhis they follow.
This is incorrect. Nowhere does Rupa Gosvami, VCT, Jiva Gosvami or BVT say that the priya-sakhis are also supreme like the parama-prestha-sakhis, ie: the asta-sakhis. VCT states that they are hierarchically below the asta-sakhis, but above the three other groups, ie: prana-sakhis, nitya-sakhis and sakhis. BVT confirms this in JD. Both quotes are in my book.
First of all, none of the acaryas have stated that ‘manjari-bhava is the fullest measure of unnatojjvala-rasa’. No such statement is found anywhere in BRS, UN, Bhakti-sandarbha or any writings of VCT or BVT. Neither is that stated in CC. Please provide multiple direct references to substantiate that claim.
You have stated, “I think… it means” Does this mean you are “speculating” about these matters, ie: “I think…”? There is no room for speculation on these matters. I have not speculated, rather I have given direct proof from the commentary of VCT, and it is confirmed by BVT in Jaiva-dharma, as I have also quoted. There is a hierarchy among Radha’s sakhis in terms of their prema for both Radha and Krsna, and the priya-sakhis are higher than the nitya-sakhis. And both are following tat-tad-bhaveccatmika-bhakti. These are the sastric facts - not speculation.
Plus, VCT states clearly in his UN commentary that there are two entry points for sadhakas into madhurya-rasa - as a nitya-sakhi manjari following a prana-sakhi principle manjari with asama-sneha, or as a priya-sakhi following an asta-sakhi with sama-sneha. Since the priya-sakhis have more prema for both Radha and Krsna than the nitya-sakhis, this is therefore the highest measure of unnatojjvala-rasa a jiva can attain. How difficult is it to understand these facts? They are straight-forward, clear and unambiguous. Will some ‘living’ guru explain VCT’s statements in a way that cancels that obvious truth?
The branch and manjari analogy does not change or cancel the direct truths stated by VCT in UN as quoted in my book. For you to say that being a manjari is the highest a jiva can attain is in direct contradiction to VCT’s statements. Jivas can attain the postion of a priya-sakhi, which is a higher level than a nitya-sakhi. Why do you not accept the direct, clear, straight-forward words of VCT? What additional explanation is needed?
Where do the acaryas say that one cannot study these literatures privately at any time? And what is it about the tattva regarding divine mercy and guidance from one’s guru, from one’s siksa gurus, the Gosvamis and other acaryas, what to speak of Krsna Himself from within one’s heart, that you do not accept or understand? Does this not play a significant part in one’s realizations? CC, Madhya 8.265:
Ramananda Raya continued, “The Supersoul within everyone’s heart speaks not externally but from within. He instructs the devotees in all respects, and that is His way of instruction.”
SU:
"Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed."
Even if one has a ‘living’ guru, is that a guarantee that one will realize anything correctly? Is a ‘living’ guru one’s only adhikara or can one obtain divine guidance from within from these sources? I studied and served for years under my living guru. Why is my guru, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, not qualified to bless me now with having a clear concept of these subjects? Is it because he is not currently ‘living’ among us?
Rupa Gosvami wrote BRS and UN. His disciple, Jiva Gosvami gave commentaries to further explain it for our benefit. Then we have Visvanatha Cakravarti’s commentaries for even more understanding, followed by Bhaktivinode Thakur’s summary studies in Jaiva-dharma, what to speak of my guru’s commentaries. Why do you not consider this hearing from living gurus? Are they trying to help us or confuse us? Everything I’ve presented is perfectly aligned with their commentaries.
You say that you don’t want to create controversy, yet you direcly state that I don’t have a clear concept and that my book is “full of misconceptions”. You say, “What is the point of pointing out mistakes now?” The point is that you have made these accusations but have given no proof, so you’ve already created a controversy by making such incendiary statements and now you want to back away. That’s called bluffing and it shows a lack of integrity and Vaisnava etiquette.
Please kindly point out several examples of these misconceptions so that we may be enlightened and I can correct my mistakes. I’ve read a number of your articles on raganuga and there is nothing in my book that is contradictory to anything you’ve written, including your translation of Bhakti-sandarbha.
I have given multiple quotes from mutliple acaryas - sometimes up to ten for the same point - just to show the consistency of their teachings and to validate any assertions I have made. That is the Vaisnava process - to back up one’s statements with sastra and the acaryas. I have given more than enough references from many acaryas to prove what has been stated. You’ve already made the statement so now please back it up with some substantial examples for everyone’s benefit.
I have assumed no such thing. I have backed up every assertion I made with direct quotes. It appears you are conveniently ignoring that fact. Every acarya states that it is the choice of the sadhaka which Vraja-vasi they will follow - from Ramananda Raya to RG, JG, VCT, BVT, Srila Prabhupada, etc. Please prove otherwise with multiple references.
Your example of descriptive statements versus recommendations is not at all applicable in this situation. It is a weak diversion and does not directly address the question asked. The statements I provided regarding the question being asked are direct statements of fact and not merely “descriptive”. Thus your reasoning on this point is invalid.
They certainly do all recommend following whichever Vraja-vasi you are attracted to due to their possessing the type of bhava and seva you aspire for. I have given many direct quotes in my book to support that fact. The acaryas never say one’s guru will tell you whom to follow. The guru might suggest it in the beginning if the disciple is unclear, but it is not a mandatory thing. BVT suggests a collaborative approach.
In Jaiva-dharma, Vrajanatha and Vijaya Kumara both stated who they wanted to follow based on their own personal natural attractions - Lalita and Subala - and Gopala Guru simply confirmed it for them. The acaryas recommend that you should follow which ever Vraja-vasi represents the ideal model of your desired bhava, whether it is dasya, sakhya, vatsalya or madhurya.
There is not one single statement in CC or UN that one should only aspire to be a manjari. And the fact is that no acarya recommends that one should follow a specific rasa at all. They all say to follow the natural, spontaneous awakening in your heart, whatever that may be, including Jiva Gosvami in Bhakti-sandarbha. Please prove otherwise.
This whole idea that Gaudiya Vaisnavas are all supposed to aspire to be manjaris is not directly supported by sastra or the acaryas in their books. Please show me several references that one chooses one’s rasa based on someone else’s recommendation or the recommendation of tradtion or one’s guru or lineage. Ones eternal rasa is one’s svarupa - it is intrinsic to one’s eternal nature and identity and is awakened by sadhana-bhakt.
So now the followers decide what the eternal identity of these nitya-siddhas are? That’s a new one. Nityananda is directly Balarama and that is His primary position in Gaura lila. Yes He has a manjari expansion, but Nityananda directly and primarily represents Balarama. Gaura Nitai does not represent Krsna with Balarama’s manjari manifestation. And Adwaita acarya is an incarnation of Maha-visnu and that is the position He represents in the Panca-tattva, not as a manjari.
You have distorted what I have written about following parama-prestha-sakhis per UN. Please read that section again for more clarity and an accurate understanding. I have stated that, according to VCT, either path can be followed based on one’s desires for a specific relationship in madhurya-rasa, either as a manjari or priya-sakhi.
I have made no such assertions and I find it very strange that you have chosen to make such offensive statements by implying such things. I have made a humble attempt to present the acaryas’ teachings clearly and completely - all of them. Everything I’ve said is backed up by the acaryas. You have backed up none of your statements so far and you have made several erroneous statements.
So are you now implying that we can only understand these books if we are Sanskrit scholars? Are you saying that no one can learn anything from the available translations? Certainly there may be faults in some of the translations I used, and I made that clear in the Introduction. However, bhakti is not a matter of Sanskrit scholarship. Certainly no acaryas have indicated that.
Please show me where I used a bad translation that substantially changes the meaning from the accepted tattva and siddhanta of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Certainly it wouldn’t be anything from Bhakti-sandarbha, because I used your translation, so I suppose we can assume that one is perfect. Nothing I presented from other translations was contradicted by your translation of Bhakti-sandarbha. That is a fact.
And here are some more very important and relevant facts. BVT wrote Jaiva-dharma and Harinama-cintamani in Bengali, his native language - not cryptic Sanskrit to confuse anyone or that would require expert Sanskrit scholarship to comprehend. It was written for his Bengali contemporaries. The translation I used was originally the work of Srila Narayana Maharaja, who is accepted as an expert translator, and was then translated into English by his qualified disciples, including Prema Prayojana, whose work is of a very high standard, as you well know. So your translation issues are moot in that particular case.
Furthermore, in the second half of JD, BVT gives a summary study of both BRS and UN, and everything I’ve quoted from the translations of BRS and UN, as translated by my Godbrother, Bhanu Swami, is perfectly in sync with JD, with no discrepencies. Where are the flaws you allude to that contradict core Vaisnava tattva and siddhanta? Please prove your assertions.
In addition, I purposely provided quotes from multiple acaryas from multiple books to show that they concurred with one another on all of the points I presented. This compensates to a large degree for any minor translation deficiencies there may have been, as well as for my own lack of translation skills, and thus nullifies your allegations.
Yes, “It is to be checked”. Yet, although you have done no such checking whatsoever, you have nonetheless implied by your critical statements, that I have not undergone these processes in a satisfactory way so as to have attained the blessings of my guru and the acaryas and Krsna. Why is that? Do you know the full extent of my history in service to my guru and the mission of Lord Caitanya?
If you make such assumptions from reading my book but refuse to give proof of your claim of “many misconceptions” and so on, then why make such unfounded offensive statements and then say you don’t want to create controversy? Such behavior is very disingenuous and it transgresses Vaisnava etiquette.
You say that you don’t argue or correct anyone, yet you blatantly distort and misrepresent my statements, criticize me by saying I have no qualifications (although you know nothing about me), assume that I have just made an academic study of these subjects without any spiritual guidance or qualifications, claim that there are many misconceptions and faulty translations, but you give no examples or proof of any of this whatsoever. You haven’t even proven anything you’ve stated with sastra, just a reference to unsubstantiated “tradition” and “I think...”.
And then you insinuate that I am the one in a weak position and I am the one whose methods and approach are faulty? Very strange and revealing indeed.
www.jiva.org/gradations-of-prema/
I was informed by Malati Manjari of jiva.org that his posting was intended to be a private reply and not meant for public posting.
I have posted my responses here for everyone's edification.
I invite other forum members to join in this discussion.
Responses to Satya Narayana’s comments, which are within the quotes.
Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur himself writes in the commentary to this verse that the ‘follower’ gopis are lesser than those they follow; and without following there is no raganuga bhakti. This is one consideration.
To be specific, VCT states in UN that the sadhana-siddha sakhis, either nitya-sakhis or priya-sakhis are eternally in a slightly lesser status than the nitya-siddha sakhis they follow.
The other consideration is that the parama-preshta sakhis are the kaya-vyuhas of Srimati Radhika. Sri Radhika expands to give pleasure to Sri Rasaraja in different moods. Thus they are supreme. No one can take their place. They are followed priya-sakhis which make the latter also supreme.
This is incorrect. Nowhere does Rupa Gosvami, VCT, Jiva Gosvami or BVT say that the priya-sakhis are also supreme like the parama-prestha-sakhis, ie: the asta-sakhis. VCT states that they are hierarchically below the asta-sakhis, but above the three other groups, ie: prana-sakhis, nitya-sakhis and sakhis. BVT confirms this in JD. Both quotes are in my book.
I think when it is said that ‘manjari-bhava is the fullest measure of unnatojjvala rasa’ it means that this is the highest a jiva can attain, not that it is highest in the absolute sense. Highest manifestation of this rasa is in Sri Radhika. No one would argue against that. Next come the parama-presthas who are expansions of Sri Radhika, and then their followers, the priya-sakhis.
First of all, none of the acaryas have stated that ‘manjari-bhava is the fullest measure of unnatojjvala-rasa’. No such statement is found anywhere in BRS, UN, Bhakti-sandarbha or any writings of VCT or BVT. Neither is that stated in CC. Please provide multiple direct references to substantiate that claim.
You have stated, “I think… it means” Does this mean you are “speculating” about these matters, ie: “I think…”? There is no room for speculation on these matters. I have not speculated, rather I have given direct proof from the commentary of VCT, and it is confirmed by BVT in Jaiva-dharma, as I have also quoted. There is a hierarchy among Radha’s sakhis in terms of their prema for both Radha and Krsna, and the priya-sakhis are higher than the nitya-sakhis. And both are following tat-tad-bhaveccatmika-bhakti. These are the sastric facts - not speculation.
Plus, VCT states clearly in his UN commentary that there are two entry points for sadhakas into madhurya-rasa - as a nitya-sakhi manjari following a prana-sakhi principle manjari with asama-sneha, or as a priya-sakhi following an asta-sakhi with sama-sneha. Since the priya-sakhis have more prema for both Radha and Krsna than the nitya-sakhis, this is therefore the highest measure of unnatojjvala-rasa a jiva can attain. How difficult is it to understand these facts? They are straight-forward, clear and unambiguous. Will some ‘living’ guru explain VCT’s statements in a way that cancels that obvious truth?
There are different aspects to compare. A manjari is on top of the plant, so it is the highest. But it cannot subsist without the branch below it, and in that aspect, the branch is superior, being the support of the manjari above it.
The branch and manjari analogy does not change or cancel the direct truths stated by VCT in UN as quoted in my book. For you to say that being a manjari is the highest a jiva can attain is in direct contradiction to VCT’s statements. Jivas can attain the postion of a priya-sakhi, which is a higher level than a nitya-sakhi. Why do you not accept the direct, clear, straight-forward words of VCT? What additional explanation is needed?
The fact is that people write books on these topics without having a clear concept themselves. It is not a matter of reading books and commentaries by oneself. Books are an aid in studying under a qualified teacher. Recently an e-book was also sent to me. The author has worked diligently with profuse quotes from scriptures. But unfortunately it is full of misconceptions which are being supported by quotes and are meant to remove misconceptions.
Where do the acaryas say that one cannot study these literatures privately at any time? And what is it about the tattva regarding divine mercy and guidance from one’s guru, from one’s siksa gurus, the Gosvamis and other acaryas, what to speak of Krsna Himself from within one’s heart, that you do not accept or understand? Does this not play a significant part in one’s realizations? CC, Madhya 8.265:
Ramananda Raya continued, “The Supersoul within everyone’s heart speaks not externally but from within. He instructs the devotees in all respects, and that is His way of instruction.”
SU:
"Only unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed."
Even if one has a ‘living’ guru, is that a guarantee that one will realize anything correctly? Is a ‘living’ guru one’s only adhikara or can one obtain divine guidance from within from these sources? I studied and served for years under my living guru. Why is my guru, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, not qualified to bless me now with having a clear concept of these subjects? Is it because he is not currently ‘living’ among us?
Rupa Gosvami wrote BRS and UN. His disciple, Jiva Gosvami gave commentaries to further explain it for our benefit. Then we have Visvanatha Cakravarti’s commentaries for even more understanding, followed by Bhaktivinode Thakur’s summary studies in Jaiva-dharma, what to speak of my guru’s commentaries. Why do you not consider this hearing from living gurus? Are they trying to help us or confuse us? Everything I’ve presented is perfectly aligned with their commentaries.
You say that you don’t want to create controversy, yet you direcly state that I don’t have a clear concept and that my book is “full of misconceptions”. You say, “What is the point of pointing out mistakes now?” The point is that you have made these accusations but have given no proof, so you’ve already created a controversy by making such incendiary statements and now you want to back away. That’s called bluffing and it shows a lack of integrity and Vaisnava etiquette.
Please kindly point out several examples of these misconceptions so that we may be enlightened and I can correct my mistakes. I’ve read a number of your articles on raganuga and there is nothing in my book that is contradictory to anything you’ve written, including your translation of Bhakti-sandarbha.
I have given multiple quotes from mutliple acaryas - sometimes up to ten for the same point - just to show the consistency of their teachings and to validate any assertions I have made. That is the Vaisnava process - to back up one’s statements with sastra and the acaryas. I have given more than enough references from many acaryas to prove what has been stated. You’ve already made the statement so now please back it up with some substantial examples for everyone’s benefit.
Coming to your specific question. The flaw with this argument is that the author assumes that it is up to the sadhaka to choose whom to follow.
I have assumed no such thing. I have backed up every assertion I made with direct quotes. It appears you are conveniently ignoring that fact. Every acarya states that it is the choice of the sadhaka which Vraja-vasi they will follow - from Ramananda Raya to RG, JG, VCT, BVT, Srila Prabhupada, etc. Please prove otherwise with multiple references.
Just because something is written in Ujjvala Nilamani or Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu or Caitanya Caritamrita does not mean that it is the recommendation of the author. To make this more clear: There are various types of statements in shastra i.e. descriptive, injunctive etc. Descriptive statements are not recommendations to follow.
For example, there are statements such as if you chant the name of the Lord jokingly, indicatively, as a refrain, or even with disrespect, you become free of all sins. (SB 6.2.14). This is not a recommendation to chant like this but a description of the power of the name. But someone can take this statement as authority and chant in the described way and also recommend so to others. In fact this goes on.
For example, there are statements such as if you chant the name of the Lord jokingly, indicatively, as a refrain, or even with disrespect, you become free of all sins. (SB 6.2.14). This is not a recommendation to chant like this but a description of the power of the name. But someone can take this statement as authority and chant in the described way and also recommend so to others. In fact this goes on.
Your example of descriptive statements versus recommendations is not at all applicable in this situation. It is a weak diversion and does not directly address the question asked. The statements I provided regarding the question being asked are direct statements of fact and not merely “descriptive”. Thus your reasoning on this point is invalid.
So we have to see what is recommended by Mahaprabhu, and Gosvamis. Do they recommend following paramaprestha-sakhis or this sakhi or sakha?
They certainly do all recommend following whichever Vraja-vasi you are attracted to due to their possessing the type of bhava and seva you aspire for. I have given many direct quotes in my book to support that fact. The acaryas never say one’s guru will tell you whom to follow. The guru might suggest it in the beginning if the disciple is unclear, but it is not a mandatory thing. BVT suggests a collaborative approach.
In Jaiva-dharma, Vrajanatha and Vijaya Kumara both stated who they wanted to follow based on their own personal natural attractions - Lalita and Subala - and Gopala Guru simply confirmed it for them. The acaryas recommend that you should follow which ever Vraja-vasi represents the ideal model of your desired bhava, whether it is dasya, sakhya, vatsalya or madhurya.
There is not one single statement in CC or UN that one should only aspire to be a manjari. And the fact is that no acarya recommends that one should follow a specific rasa at all. They all say to follow the natural, spontaneous awakening in your heart, whatever that may be, including Jiva Gosvami in Bhakti-sandarbha. Please prove otherwise.
This whole idea that Gaudiya Vaisnavas are all supposed to aspire to be manjaris is not directly supported by sastra or the acaryas in their books. Please show me several references that one chooses one’s rasa based on someone else’s recommendation or the recommendation of tradtion or one’s guru or lineage. Ones eternal rasa is one’s svarupa - it is intrinsic to one’s eternal nature and identity and is awakened by sadhana-bhakt.
The author himself writes that Rupa, Visvanatha, Gopal Guru, Dhyanacandra, Bhaktivinoda etc are all Manjaris. Even Advaita Acharya and Nityananda are Manjaris, as per their followers, yet he says that UN etc recommend to follow parama-prestha sakhis.
So now the followers decide what the eternal identity of these nitya-siddhas are? That’s a new one. Nityananda is directly Balarama and that is His primary position in Gaura lila. Yes He has a manjari expansion, but Nityananda directly and primarily represents Balarama. Gaura Nitai does not represent Krsna with Balarama’s manjari manifestation. And Adwaita acarya is an incarnation of Maha-visnu and that is the position He represents in the Panca-tattva, not as a manjari.
You have distorted what I have written about following parama-prestha-sakhis per UN. Please read that section again for more clarity and an accurate understanding. I have stated that, according to VCT, either path can be followed based on one’s desires for a specific relationship in madhurya-rasa, either as a manjari or priya-sakhi.
It means that author is smarter than every one else who preceded him up to Rupa Gosvami. This is a new discovery. A new siddhanta appears.
I have made no such assertions and I find it very strange that you have chosen to make such offensive statements by implying such things. I have made a humble attempt to present the acaryas’ teachings clearly and completely - all of them. Everything I’ve said is backed up by the acaryas. You have backed up none of your statements so far and you have made several erroneous statements.
People are making siddhantas not even reading the books in their original language. Simply based on translations. These books are difficult to understand even when you study them in original under a teacher. What to speak of doing self-study using translations which may be even faulty.
So are you now implying that we can only understand these books if we are Sanskrit scholars? Are you saying that no one can learn anything from the available translations? Certainly there may be faults in some of the translations I used, and I made that clear in the Introduction. However, bhakti is not a matter of Sanskrit scholarship. Certainly no acaryas have indicated that.
Please show me where I used a bad translation that substantially changes the meaning from the accepted tattva and siddhanta of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Certainly it wouldn’t be anything from Bhakti-sandarbha, because I used your translation, so I suppose we can assume that one is perfect. Nothing I presented from other translations was contradicted by your translation of Bhakti-sandarbha. That is a fact.
And here are some more very important and relevant facts. BVT wrote Jaiva-dharma and Harinama-cintamani in Bengali, his native language - not cryptic Sanskrit to confuse anyone or that would require expert Sanskrit scholarship to comprehend. It was written for his Bengali contemporaries. The translation I used was originally the work of Srila Narayana Maharaja, who is accepted as an expert translator, and was then translated into English by his qualified disciples, including Prema Prayojana, whose work is of a very high standard, as you well know. So your translation issues are moot in that particular case.
Furthermore, in the second half of JD, BVT gives a summary study of both BRS and UN, and everything I’ve quoted from the translations of BRS and UN, as translated by my Godbrother, Bhanu Swami, is perfectly in sync with JD, with no discrepencies. Where are the flaws you allude to that contradict core Vaisnava tattva and siddhanta? Please prove your assertions.
In addition, I purposely provided quotes from multiple acaryas from multiple books to show that they concurred with one another on all of the points I presented. This compensates to a large degree for any minor translation deficiencies there may have been, as well as for my own lack of translation skills, and thus nullifies your allegations.
We understand according to our samskaras. Bhakti is not in our samskaras, otherwise we would not be here. That is why Krishna recommends, pranipata, pariprasna, and seva to know the truth (Gita 4.34) The meaning of this is to surrender mind, body, speech and ego, which means dump one’s samskaras and just listen. It is to be checked if the particular author has gone thru this process.
Yes, “It is to be checked”. Yet, although you have done no such checking whatsoever, you have nonetheless implied by your critical statements, that I have not undergone these processes in a satisfactory way so as to have attained the blessings of my guru and the acaryas and Krsna. Why is that? Do you know the full extent of my history in service to my guru and the mission of Lord Caitanya?
If you make such assumptions from reading my book but refuse to give proof of your claim of “many misconceptions” and so on, then why make such unfounded offensive statements and then say you don’t want to create controversy? Such behavior is very disingenuous and it transgresses Vaisnava etiquette.
I do not argue against anyone because it is none of my business who believes in what. It is not my capacity to correct anyone, and why should I expect anyone to take my answer. I write this because you have raised the question and I needed to go the root cause of the misconception.
You say that you don’t argue or correct anyone, yet you blatantly distort and misrepresent my statements, criticize me by saying I have no qualifications (although you know nothing about me), assume that I have just made an academic study of these subjects without any spiritual guidance or qualifications, claim that there are many misconceptions and faulty translations, but you give no examples or proof of any of this whatsoever. You haven’t even proven anything you’ve stated with sastra, just a reference to unsubstantiated “tradition” and “I think...”.
And then you insinuate that I am the one in a weak position and I am the one whose methods and approach are faulty? Very strange and revealing indeed.
