|
|
Post by niscala on Sept 29, 2013 7:57:59 GMT -5
From Giridhari:
>Raganuga sadhana is raganuga bhakti in the practice stage.
I think this is the key argument you’re basing all your other ideas in. Can you provide evidence from the Srimad Bhagavatam or Lord Caitanya that there is a detailed methodology of raganuga sadhana?
>It is not presented that way by the acaryas, however. It is presented as the only way and they concur on the specific practice.
If it was the ONLY way, why is not mentioned in the Bhagavatam or directly in the teachings of Lord Caitanya. Nor sufficiently emphasized by Srila Bhaktisiddanta and Srila Prabhupada?
>It has been explained already that preaching and satisfying Srila Prabhupada does not stop or diminish when one pursues the path of raganuga as chalked out by our previous acaryas. Indeed they suggest that one externally perform all the limbs of vaidhi bhakti, which include preaching, while being absorbed thus. There is some misconception that one must retire to a solitary place to perform his bhajan but that's simply not true.
I don’t have this misconception. I was aware of this. That’s why I said it’s perfectly bonafide.
>This step is necessary, because as Uttamasloka points out, one cannot replace the powerful bodily concept with same vague or unspecific notion of being a servant.
I never said one could. I clearly stated that certain devotees are experiencing a “specific rasa, meditate on Radha and Krishna in that rasa, meditate in one’s eternal form in serving Krishna and His associates personally, etc.”
> The perfect bargain, which one must beg and beg for in great earnest, is an eternal form.
I’m fully aware of that and actually teach that in my preaching.
>This is not automatically given in the course of serving the mission , for as the previous acaryas have declared, it is only an unslakeable thirst, an intense greed for it, that qualifies one to receive it.
I’m also fully aware of this and also preach this.
>Since all the acaryas agree that it is only an intense greed, or lobha, that qualifies one for entering the raga path, how can it be automatic?
I’m using the words “automatic” and “natural” in the sense that they happen without a conscious effort. In other words, I have found, and so have many other preachers, that by seriously being engaged in preaching in a humble, sincere and surrendered mood, one will naturally develop growing desire to join Krishna in Vrindavan and one will naturally start focusing on a particular rasa, eternal form, meditate in that form serving Krishna, etc.
In other worlds, one will find oneself following the general guidelines explained in the Goswami books (laulyam, meditating on a form, living a rasa, etc), without having to study those books or follow the details outlined in them. And this, it seems to many, is what Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddanta were talking about, which is why they did not emphasize the study and practice of those intricate raganunga-sadhana books, but emphasized continued and practical preaching service instead.
The practical result is the same, though – one develops a growing attachment to serving Krisna in Vrindavan in a specific rasa and spiritual form.
From me:
>>Raganuga sadhana is raganuga bhakti in the practice stage.
>I think this is the key argument you’re basing all your other ideas in. Can you provide evidence from the Srimad Bhagavatam or Lord Caitanya that there is a detailed methodology of raganuga sadhana?
Wait a minute. I do not make any such argument what to speak of a key one here. I simply defined raganuga sadhana. Are you disagreeing with the definition?
But if this is what you think my key argument is, then let's discuss it. There are numerous references in CC about the necessity of ragaungua practice, but you are not asking about that- but specific methodology, so no point in quoting them. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu entrusted the task of laying out all these detailed theses and practical applications of His teachings in written form to Rupa Goswami after teaching him the same in person. RG has explained in great detail the process by which one attains service in the Vraja nitya lila, and many acaryas after him did the same, as is the way of the disciplic succession. Thus we have hundreds of books, all with specific detail upon which Uttamasloka rests his case- not with "it could be" or "it might be" but conclusions reached by reference to guru, sadhu and sastra, all with specific methodology and all concurring on the same point upon which he bases his thesis: One cannot enter the divine pastimes of Vraja lila except through the practice of raganuga sadhana bhakti. Occasionally it may come from kripa siddhi but this is rare and one should not depend upon it.
>>If it was the ONLY way, why is not mentioned in the Bhagavatam or directly in the teachings of Lord Caitanya
It is directly the teachings of Lord Chaitanya- through Rupa Goswami. Are you telling me that you doubt that Rupa Goswami is a bonafide representative of Lord Chaitanya- I think not. Given that he was entrusted by Sri Chaitanya to preserve and propagate all the conclusions of His teachings in written form, we can safely conclude he did it. Rupa Goswami was personally taught by Sri Chaitanya, so he is a pretty trusted authority, I think.
We are Rupanugas, not Prabhupadanugas- he did not give us that term, he called us Rupanugas. That means we are meant to follow the instructions of Rupa Goswami- but we don't know what those instructions are, because most of us have not read his books. If I purport to be someone's follower, shouldn't I know what they wrote about?
>>I’m using the words “automatic” and “natural” in the sense that they happen without a conscious effort.
But the very entrance into raganuga practice is intense desire! Lobha is variously described as intense longing, yearning, begging and desperation, but most often it is called greed. How can one be greedy and desperate and not even know it as indicated by "without a conscious effort"?
>>> In other words, I have found, and so have many other preachers, that by seriously being engaged in preaching in a humble, sincere and surrendered mood, one will naturally develop growing desire to join Krishna in Vrindavan and one will naturally start focusing on a particular rasa, eternal form, meditate in that form serving Krishna, etc.
And did that "growing desire" fructify into intense lobha, greed? So it was conscious? You can't be greedy or obsessed with it and not know it! You are so conscious of it, you can't forget it!
Lets just say you didn't mean to say they did it unconsciously, but just- without intense effort- they actually developed a desperate longing, a greed- whoever these "many other" preachers are that you refer to. That is just the beginning, however! That qualifies one to enter the ragaunuga path. And to be guided along it, wouldn't it be better to do it in the recommended way? "One who concocts his own way of doing things, neglecting the sruti and smriti is simply a disturbance..."- because that is how heresies can arise. I am not saying this is happening, but isn't it better to place oneself under the shelter and guidance of the parampara and their smriti - just to make sure this won't happen? Their blessings and association come through us in this way- via their instruction. Why ignore it? How would that please SP who again and again told us that we must follow in the footsteps of the previous acaryas- AND read their books (quote later on)?
Besides that, it makes sense that after developing a genuine intense greed, any person would be seeking whatever help he can possibly find to get his cherished goal- which has become an obsession for him. It is not some casual thing which happens "naturally" Actually, it is rare.
The help is there- in the books of the previous acaryas. Why not take advantage?
>>In other worlds, one will find oneself following the general guidelines explained in the Goswami books
One will just somehow "find oneself" doing them- without referring to them? Really? Why then did the Goswamis bother to spend all that time writing hundreds of extremely detailed books, on palm leaves presumably through bamboo tubes, if all this knowledge is going to be heaped upon us anyway, from within? I mean, its possible- there is caitya guru- but generally Krsna works through the disciplic succession. They are His mercy representatives. When their explicit and manifest instructions are being ignored, why would Krsna bless us with the same instructions exactly from within? He does not reciprocate well when his great devotees' instructions being ignored. I would suspect however, that if these devotees are performing intense raganuga bhajan within, in their siddha deha forms, meditating on taking part in pastimes with the vraja associate whose bhavas and seva they emulate, they have indeed taken a lot of help from reading the sastra- as therein lie the descriptions of those pastimes, the knowledge of the associates and so on.
Just say, for arguments sake, no- these preachers were so special, that they took no help at all from the acaryas and everything manifested to them automatically- intense lobha, then their rasa, seva, bhava, siddha deha, their ekadasa bhavas, their group leader, the bhava and seva of their group leader, how they interact with the others, everything . Everything's possible right? If I seem skeptic this is happening, its because I am, but ignore that. Just say it's true. But clearly it is not happening for everyone! So many have fallen away- even our very biggest preachers have! This is a fact of our history. That being so, one cannot conclude that such extraordinary occurrences happen to everyone. Most of us are and will continue to be, dependent on the disciplic succession for guidance. Therefore, this book "The Realization and Manifestation of Your Eternal Identity" is a necessary part of our journey. It is the help coming down from our acaryas, in summary form.
>>And this, it seems to many, is what Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddanta were talking about, which is why they did not emphasize the study and practice of those intricate raganunga-sadhana books, but emphasized continued and practical preaching service instead.
Such acaryas do not give what is beyond the adhikara of the disciples they preach to. That is their duty, their mandate. But:
Amogha: That we should not try to read Bhaktivinoda’s books or earlier books of other, all
äcäryas. So I was just wondering…
Prabhupäda: I never said that.
Amogha: I thought you said that we should not read the previous äcäryas’ books.
Prabhupäda: No, you should read.
then
Prabhupäda: No. Who said? That is wrong. We are following previous äcäryas. I never
said that.
"You should read" could not be clearer. Given that we have been defined as "Rupanugas" we must also follow. This of course is done according to our level of qualification to do so.
In one of those books, Jaiva Dharma, BVT has wrtten: There is no knowledge of the factual
vastu (spiritual reality) without sri-guru-paramparä. JD, Chapter 32, Pages 702-703
So that could not be clearer. It is the parampara that gives us knowledge of spiritual reality it does not develop "automatically" "in due course" or naturally in the course of preaching" it is via the parampara, except for very rare cases- which we should not depend on.
One could argue "by implicit faith in the guru, all the imports of the vedas are automatically revealed" But faith in the guru, means faith in his instructions and he instructed "You should read" the books of the previous acaryas, and not only that but "follow in their footsteps" Whose footsteps in particular? "We are Rupanugas, followers of Rupa goswami" So the automatic revelation happens in this way- by having faith in the guru, one has faith in the disciplic succession- as they can never be separate. Then this faith inspires one to find out what they say, right? If I have faith in you, I will want to hear what you say! Then upon receiving your instructions, my faith will necessitate that I follow. Then everything is revealed in due course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Oct 1, 2013 22:12:02 GMT -5
It’s quite apparent that we have come to the end of our discussion. We are going around in circles. So I’m going to wrap up this discussion with a summary of what has been discussed so far, and respond to your final points. I suggest that we leave it at that. I see no point in continuing the discussion after this as we have clearly reached the point of diminishing returns.
[/u]. By observing the activities of sadhus one can attain a pure intellect. On achieving one’s siddha-deha, as one continues bhajana he can easily enjoy service throughout the day and night (asta-kaliya-lila-smaranam).
One should remember Siksastaka and practice smarana and kirtana accordingly, then gradually asta-kala service will be awakened in the heart. BR, 1.10
You’re asking me to give sastra to prove your assertion is wrong instead of you supplying the sastra to prove that it is correct. The onus is on you to prove that your statements are a valid alternative, not on me to supply sastra proving that it is wrong. It doesn’t work like that. And the fact remains that you haven’t given any sastric evidence for any of your assertions. So your point does not stand - it falls. And why only quotes from Lord Caitanya and SB? We follow the teachings of all the acaryas and their statements are every bit as valid and relevant.
Serving in a mood of laulyam with the goal of reviving one’s relationship with Krsna is the foundational qualification and basis of raganuga, it is not the method or practice. I’ve already made that clear with multiple references to BRS and other books, as have others.
BVT wrote Jaiva-dharma, arguably, his magnum-opus contribution to Vaisnava tattva and siddhanta. The last 20 chapters focus on the tattvas and processes of sadhana-bhakti, and primarily raganuga-bhakti. In JD, Chapter 39, Entering Lila, BVT gives the specific details for entering Vraja lila and he does not say anything that resembles your statement of an alternative practice. And BVT does not say that the practices he presents are optional details or that there are alternatives.
Just because Srila Prabhupada did not stay with us long enough to translate JD as he said he was going to do (I gave the quote before), doesn’t mean that BVT’s teachings are not valid or relevant. SP never said that only some of BVT’s teachings (or the other acaryas for that matter) are still relevant or applicable and others are not. To think that is an offense. Here is another excerpt from JD that refers directly to specific methods:
In summary, you should render your seva according to the methods and bhavas illustrated in Sri Vilapa-kusumanjali, and maintain mutual relationship and dealings with sakhis and other vraja-vasis as explained in Sri Vraja-vilasa-stava.
Contemplate all the variegated lilas included within the asta-kaliya-lila as they are
explained in Visakhanandadi-stotram. Absorb your mind in krsna-lila according to the approach specified in Sri Manah-siksa, and maintain resolute determination for the rules and regulations of bhakti according to the bhavas presented in Sva-niyama-dasakam.
In his writings, Srila Rupa Gosvami has illustrated rasa-tattva extensively. Since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu entrusted him with this particular responsibility, he has not explained how rasa acts while one renders seva. Srila Dasa Gosvami accomplished this task in his writings, which are based on the kadaca (notes) of Srila Svarupa Damodara.
Sriman Mahaprabhu authorized and empowered His different associates respectively with different missionary responsibilities, and following His instructions, they discharged their services flawlessly. JD, Chapter 39, Entering Lila, page 847
BVT then goes on from there to discuss the ekadasa-bhavas of one’s siddha-deha, ie: explicit details related to the specific methods he mentioned in the quote above. To say that there are no specific methods or practices is wrong and ignores the teachings of one of the greatest acaryas, BVT, what to speak of other acaryas, whose statements I have also provided (see reply #22).
I’ve already clarified that the quotes I gave to validate the supremecy of raganuga-bhakti were given in the beginning of this discussion to correct the errors in your original statements. To imply that the remaining quotes I’ve given are simply more of the same is blatantly false as anyone who reads this discussion will see. You’ve only made your position weaker by making such statements.
And asking for quotes only from Mahaprabhu is another diversionary tactic. We accept the teachings of all the acaryas as being equivalent to Mahaprabhu and I have given profuse evidence.
I’m sorry but this is another mischaracterization of my statements. There was no circular reasoning in any of my statements. You tried to spin it like that, but it is not true. We’re not talking about how to ‘reach’ raganuga-bhakti, were discussing the details of raganuga-sadhana and bhajana, so your point is moot.
I gave you extensive sastric proof from Jaiva-dharma and other books (reply #12) but you refuse to acknowledge what was given and say I didn’t give any sastric proof. Everyone who reads this discussion will see that clearly. I honestly don’t understand why you’ve done this. It derails the discussion in unnecessary ways and is not productive.
As I stated in the beginning of this post, we’ve reached the end of our discussion. So I would like to close by offering more proof that there are indeed specific processes that are mandatory because they are given by our acaryas. To think that the acaryas gave these details but didn’t intend them to be implemented is a gross misunderstanding and wholly unacceptable.
Raganuga-bhakti is specifically taught in BRS in the chapter on Sadhana-bhakti (BRS, 1.2). And the whole of BRS after that is based on having attained Vraja-prema exclusively through raganuga-bhakti. Raganuga is also taught in Brhad-bhagavatamrita through the story of Gopa-kumara. These are the hard facts. These books do not merely ‘endorse’ raganuga, they teach the detailed processes.
VCT’s Raga-vartma-candrika, ie: the moonbeam (candrika) that lights up the path (vartma) of raganuga, is also based on BRS and SB, as is VCT’s Madhurya-kadambini. Exactly what path is being illuminated if there are no specific details? RVC does not simply ‘endorse’ raganuga, it delineates the details of the practice, including meditation on one’s siddha-deha, and it is far more detailed than just chanting, hearing and preaching. Thus, you are proven wrong again. Once again from RVC:
Now, when both the above-mentioned kinds of devotees become inquisitive about how to attain the mood of Krsna's eternal associates in Vraja, then we see that they are again dependent on information from the revealed scriptures and logical arguments. The way can only be shown through the rules set forth by the scriptures and their resultant logical arguments. There is no other way[/b].
Just like when one is greedy for cow’s milk, one must ask someone who knows about it how to get that milk, and one is dependent on that person’s instructions. That person will say: “You should buy a cow”, and will also instruct one how to bring the cow, how to feed it grass and how to milk it. One does not attain the required knowledge just like that, without being instructed. RVC, 1.7
BRS, 1.2.294, quoted previously, states:
Remembering the Vrndavana form of Krsna and His dear associates who have inclinations for service similar to one’s own, absorbing oneself in hearing topics related to them, one should always live in Vraja.
From Jiva Gosvami’s commentary: Now, the method of raganuga-sadhana-bhakti is described.
From Visvanatha Cakravartis’ commentary: Now starts the description of the method of raganuga-sadhana.
How can anyone possibly interpret these statements to mean there are no specific detailed methods or techniques given by our acaryas? They cannot. That fact is stated blatantly by both acaryas. They are conclusive evidence of that. And there are no statements anywhere in BRS, or any other book for that matter, that such processes are arbitrary or optional details. You have also failed to provide any sastra to prove these processes are optional. More proof that your assertions are wrong and do not stand.
RG then explains the next part of the ‘process’ in BRS, 1.2.295 (quoted previously), that raganuga is not only externally based - it also involves internal practices with one’s siddha-deha. The externals of raganuga are the same as vaidhi. The internal practices begin with understanding and implementing the processes associated with one’s siddha-deha and all things related to that, such as the ekadasa-bhavas.
BVT gives the full details in his books, especially JD (chapters 39 and 40) and HNC (chapter 15). Thus, all of the acaryas are in sync regarding these methods, techniques and processes and they are most certainly not arbitrary details.
The full details are given in my book in chapter 5 with a proliferation of incontrovertible sastric substantiation.
|
|
|
|
Post by giridhari on Oct 2, 2013 8:48:59 GMT -5
Reply from Hridayananda Maharaja:
I agree that we are coming to the end of our discussion, and I will say just a few things here:
1. As we well know, Acaryas may differ in practical details, even when speaking of intimate Krishna Lila, and not just vaidhi rules.
2. Krishna Himself clearly states in Bhagavad-gita 16.24: "Therefore Shastra is your evidence in determining what you must do or need not do. Knowing Shastra's stated injunction, you must do your duty."
3. Since Shastra is the arbiter "in determining what we must do," and since Uttamasloka Prabhu contines to cite Acaryas, but does not cite explicit Shastra ordering us to practice a particular form of Raga-sadhana, the conclusion is clear: spontaneous love for Krishna, raga-bhakti, is a basic devotional principle, but specific practices to attain raga-bhakti are variable details. Shastra is the arbiter (Gita 16.24).
In that regard, I cannot understand statements like this:
"You repeatedly asked me for sastric evidence of specific practices and I gave the precise details from BVT in my reply #12 but you simply ignored it."
Again, we need a precise, explicit, literal statement from Shastra, not only from BVT, ordering us to practice a specific form of Raga-sadhana.
Your servant,
Hridayananda Das Goswami
|
|
|
|
Post by giridhari on Oct 2, 2013 18:20:14 GMT -5
Message from Hridayananda Maharaja:
Dear Devotees,
Throughout our discussion, I assumed, but did not state, a basic principle of Vaishnava evidence. Perhaps my not clarifying this principle has caused undue frustration with my statements. So I will now bring this basic principle to the surface:
Prabhupada and previous Acaryas affirm the principle of Guru, Sadhu, and Shastra as necessary components in establishing siddhanta. If we collapse one into another, we destroy the system of "checks and balances" that distinguishes our glorious tradition from lesser traditions, as Prabhupada often taught.
To quote Rupa Goswami or BVT is to cite Sadhu, the evidence of recognized past Acaryas. To quote Gita or Bhagavatam is to quote Shastra. If we say that BVT is also Shastra, then we collapse the system. We no longer have three independent sources to confirm an assertion. Thus we become, structurally, like any other "spiritual" movement. Many so-called Gurus give "esoteric" interpretations of Shastra. When challenged, they and their followers say, "The Guru knows all. Therefore, his non-literal, indirect interpretation of Shastra is also Shastra."
Even though we know that our great Acaryas are pure devotees of Krishna, structurally we are acting like everyone else if we say that Shastra evidence should be folded into Guru and Sadhu since there is no necessity to maintain Shastra as an independent authority.
That would be a reckless and ultimately self-destructive move to make. We should preserve our true system: Guru, Sadhu, and Shastra. Thus when I call for Shastra evidence, I am not asking for a quote from Rupa Goswami or BVT, but rather a literal, explicit statement from Shastra. That is why I keep saying that no one has provided explicit, literal Shastra that REQUIRES us to practice a specific form of Raga-sadhana.
There is an easy way to refute my claim: send to this forum a Shastra verse, Sanskrit and English, that a) literally and explicitly describes; and b) literally and explicitly requires a specific form of Raga-sadhana. Please note that a verse praising Raga-bhakti does not satisfy the criteria need here for Shastra evidence. Thank you for your consideration.
With best wishes,
Hridayananda das Goswami
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Oct 3, 2013 17:12:47 GMT -5
Your conclusion is most definitely not clear as stated, nor is your statement a direct logical extrapolation or conclusion of the BG quote you provided. The BG quote is a very broad generalized statement and as an argument it does not in any way invalidate anything I presented. The acaryas’ statements are already based on their solid sastric research, so for you to ignore that fact to try to win an argument is unacceptable.
No we do not need a precise quote from sastra to prove these points. That is your attempt to avoid the acaryas’ direct and explicit teachings. The acaryas have already studied the sastra and have extracted the essence for our benefit. They have given relevant quotes when they felt is was necessary and not for every single assertion they’ve made.
Why don’t you ask BVT for the sastra to back up his statements? And Rupa Gosvami, Jiva Gosvami, Visvanatha Cakravarti, etc. That’s really what you’re asking. If they didn’t give any direct sastra for certain things related to raganuga sadhana and bhajana, why are their statements accepted as good as sastra? And once again, where is the sastra to explicitly prove your assertions? It certainly wasn’t that BG quote. Why are you exempt from providing sastra that directly confirms your assertions?
This is absolutely not true and is a rather convoluted straw-man argument. There is no collapsing going on or any other breach of the integrity of the parampara system. That is your mischaracterization of this discussion to try to enforce an unacceptable limitation on the parameters of valid evidence. And ‘we’ do not say the acaryas’ teachings are as good as sastra - Srila Prabhupada and the other acaryas have made that assertion.
We have been taught that the teachings of the acaryas are all ‘as good as sastra’, because they have gleaned their teachings from their studies and realizations of the sastras. Their teachings have already passed the “sadhu, sastra, guru’ validation test. They don’t have to be reconfirmed once more by us. Thus, your assertions are not valid.
There is no mention of Radha in SB, but the acaryas have extracted this fact for our benefit. Should we invalidate their claims because Radha is not explicity mentioned by name in SB and thus they have no direct proof as such?
You are still trying to re-frame the argument to limit the evidence to suit your position. There is no mandate that there must be a perfect triangulation on every single philosophical point. If it comes from the acaryas, it is valid, period. As I just said, their teachings have already passed the “sadhu, sastra, guru’ validation test. Ironically, your assertions have not.
You are the one who is claiming that there is folding or collapsing going on. That is a diversionary straw-man argument. Neither I nor others have done anything remotely like that. I have followed the exact protocol for Vaisnava discussions, directly according to Srila Prabhupada and the acaryas.
And you have still not given full sadhu, sastra and guru to substantiate your postion, so why are you demanding that I have to do it? You have not proven with direct sastra or even the acaryas that the details I presented from the acaryas are variable or arbitrary or dispensable. If they were, the sastra would say so, as would the acaryas when they presented them. You have claimed that they are, so the onus is on you to provide those quotes to prove your point.
And the Six Gosvamis are not just pure devotees - they are nitya-siddha Vraja-vasis acting directly on behalf of Krsna in His manifestation of Lord Caitanya. Therefore, their teachings are in fact, far beyond sastra, especially regarding such esoteric and essential subjects like raganuga-bhakti and its sadhana and bhajana.
You could apply your idea directly to the acaryas’ writings and invalidate many things they’ve said that don’t have direct quotes from SB or other sastra. That, of course, would be completely absurd and unacceptable. By your assertions you are implying that the acaryas’ teachings must be further confirmed by sastric validation or we cannot accept them fully.
You should ask RG, SG, JG, VCT and BVT for quotes from SB to validate the siddha-deha and its implementation, or following a Vraja-vasi. They gave no such quotes but are all in full agreement on those points as being part of the mandatory raganuga-sadhana. Ramananda-Raya also told these same things directly to Lord Caitanya (CC, Madhya, chapter 8) and he didn’t give quotes from SB for every single statement. BVT wrote HNC as a discussion between Haridasa Thakur and Lord Caitanya and HDT described these same exact processes to Lord Caitanya, with no indication whatsoever that they were arbitrary practices, nor did he give quotes from SB to back up his statements.
Your claim has already been refuted repeatedly and substantially. I’m sorry, but your demand is therefore unreasonable, unacceptable and inappropriate. That’s not the way Vaisnava discussions are conducted. No such restrictions apply. You cannot arbitrarily limit this discussion in the way you have attempted and then claim victory. Your blatant lack of sadhu, sastra and guru to back up your claims is still a glaring hole in your presentation.
I would like to make one last point. These acaryas, whom we worship daily and who are the foundation of Lord Caitanya’s movement, wrote their books specifically for us, to help us, to teach us these truths and the processes that lead to the goal of prema-bhakti in Vraja-lila. What is the rational or devotional basis for there being any reluctance to study these teachings? Does anyone think these teachings are irrelevant, archaic or inapplicable in any way? Srila Prabhupada never gave any such indications - quite the opposite.
Their teachings on raganuga-bhakti and its proper implementation are full of incredible and valuable details that will surely enhance any sincere practitioner’s devotion. They are full of astonishing nectar, and deep revelations will ensue in the hearts of those who sincerely study them. And they are all in sync with one another in their teachings, including Srila Prabhupada. Why ignore them? Why reject them? Why try to marginalize them in any way or to any degree? It makes no sense whatsoever. Lord Caitanya gave us these gifts and we should embrace them with open minds and hearts.
|
|
|
|
Post by urmila on Oct 3, 2013 18:47:00 GMT -5
My obeisances, Hrdayananda Maharaja. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
On a theoretical, detached platform you are correct. Only sastra is the guidebook for all times, all persons, and all places. And the guide for raga-bhakti in the Gita (12.8) and in Bhagavatam is vague and general. There is not a specific, step-by-step practice in sastra. That lack indicates that there may be (and probably is) some difference in the details of the practice at different times and places in human society.
On a real day-to-day practical level for devotees of Krishna and Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, however, the situation is not that each of us is at liberty to decide on our own practice, or that we can expect to achieve raga bhakti in Vrindavana without following the practices that Rupa Goswami and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura explain. In the Gita we learn that we must approach a guru (4.34) and the context is in a section dealing with a variety of sacrifices. Similarly Bhagavatam emphasizes the necessity of following the instructions of a guru.
Srila Prabhupada most definitely gave us a specific practice of raganuga bhakti, especially but not limited to NOI text 8 purport and SB 10.9.3. Srila Prabhupada also clearly instructed us that it is Rupa Goswami who gives the science of our practice.
So, yes, sastra is not giving the details which we find from Rupa Goswami and VCT. Our conclusion might be that the practice of raga marga might be different at different times under the direction of different gurus. Or our conclusion might be that persons such as Rupa Goswami appear periodically in the world to teach the same process.
What sastra does say, clearly, is that to know and practice the specific process of sacrifice and yoga that is most suitable for our time, place, and circumstance, one must approach a guru. We disciples and followers of Srila Prabhupada have followed sastra in accepting him as guru. In doing so, we also accepted a particular line of sadhus. As an extension of following sastra, therefore, we follow the process of these particular sadhus and guru.
Does our following our guru and our line of sadhus imply that their instructions as to attaining raga marga are the only valid instructions for anyone, ever? Some may think so, and I'm sure they could find some quotes somewhere to justify their opinion. Others may think that various gurus, and various lines of sadhus, in different places and times, might take their disciples to raga marga and Goloka Vrindavana in ways which more or less differ from Rupa Goswami's and VCT's description. And I'm sure there are quotes for that viewpoint, too. But are we at liberty, from a sastric perspective, to pick and choose what we like from this guru and that?
So, according to sastra, the way to raga marga that Prabhupada and our acaryas in our sampradaya give is the only way for US who are their followers. For those who follow other lines at different times, there may be variation in the process.
Your servant, Urmila devi dasi
|
|
|
|
Post by Ameyatma das on Oct 3, 2013 21:01:43 GMT -5
In this regard, Srila Prabhupada writes something very conclusive and profound in his Introduction to Srimad Bhagavatam;
" Many devotees of Lord Caitanya like Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura, Śrī Locana dāsa Ṭhākura, Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, Śrī Kavikarṇapūra, Śrī Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī, Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī, Śrī Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī, Śrī Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, Śrī Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī and in this latter age within two hundred years, Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣana, Śrī Śyāmānanda Gosvāmī, Śrī Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura, Śrī Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and at last Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura (our spiritual master) and many other great and renowned scholars and devotees of the Lord have prepared voluminous books and literatures on the life and precepts of the Lord. Such literatures are all based on the śāstras like the Vedas, Purāṇas, Upaniṣads, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata and other histories and authentic literatures approved by the recognized ācāryas. They are unique in composition and unrivaled in presentation, and they are full of transcendental knowledge. Unfortunately the people of the world are still ignorant of them, but when these literatures, which are mostly in Sanskrit and Bengali, come to light the world and when they are presented before thinking people, then India's glory and the message of love will overflood this morbid world, which is vainly searching after peace and prosperity by various illusory methods not approved by the ācāryas in the chain of disciplic succession."
|
|
|
|
Post by niscala on Oct 4, 2013 6:10:38 GMT -5
USP: The acaryas’ statements are already based on their solid sastric research, so for you to ignore that fact to try to win an argument is unacceptable.
Its there in the prayers to the six goswamis:
nana-sastra vicaranaika nipuno
sad dharma samstapakau
...vande rupa sanatanau raghu yugau
Sri Jiva gopalakau
.
Furthermore, in the quote posted by Ameyatma Prabhu:
SP: Such literatures are all based on the úâstras like the Vedas, Purâṇas, Upaniṣads, Râmâyaṇa, Mahâbhârata and other histories and authentic literatures approved by the recognized âcâryas
This proves Uttamasloka's point- that the writings of the acaryas mentioned here, upon whose teachings he has based his book, have already passed the litmus test of guru, sastra and sadhu. SP is saying that the writings of these past acaryas are based on the sastra- and approved by all authorties. By saying otherwise, one puts himself at odds with our founder-acarya.
That they are relevant as well, for the modern world is also crystal clear from SP's statement:
They are unique in composition and unrivaled in presentation, and they are full of transcendental knowledge. Unfortunately the people of the world are still ignorant of them, but when these literatures, which are mostly in Sanskrit and Bengali, come to light the world and when they are presented before thinking people, then India's glory and the message of love will overflood this morbid world
So, they are relevant, they are approved, they have the backing of SP, they are potent, powerful and capable of overflooding this morbid world with love, they are based soundly on sastra (and reason I might add) they are in complete accord with the opinions of the "recognized acaryas"- which clearly include Srila Prabhupada. From my own personal testimony, they act touchstones on one's consciousness. They clear away all doubt, dirt and misconception.
And the book under discussion is all these books in summary form. The fact that the acaryas completely concur on all practices of the raganuga sadhana, meant that the author could summarise- and still be in agreement with all acaryas!
USP has done a wonderful, unparallelled service to us all by bringing such powerful literatures to our attention and capability of comprehension, by taking up the monumental task of studying and internalising them, extracting their essence, anticipating opposing viewpoints, arguing the same from all angles thus making this summary study fully accurate, and doing so with the force and persuasiveness of his own convictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by shishirkatote on Oct 4, 2013 10:15:02 GMT -5
Raganuga bhakti is also mentioned in sastras though we cannot perceive it directly through our crippled brain. It is also mentioned that is practiced separately from vaidhi bhakti. But we need acaryas to see this. Just like sugar is present in the sugarcane juice in subtle form, the raganuga bhakti and everything regarding it is present in the sastras. But only acaryas like Srila Rupa Goswami know how to extract sugar out of the juice.
Here is the explanation on how the glorious work of Srila Rupa named BRS presents the sugar of raganuga bhakti in the sugarcane juice of vedas.
1. The head of Vedas are the Upanisads. They are the final conclusion of Vedas and thus are called Vedanta. In the words of followers of Vedanta, they are called sruti-prasthana (sruti texts, without author and eternal).
2. Vyasa, in order to harmonize the texts of Upanisads wrote the Vedanta-sutras. They are called nyaya-prasthana. (work involving logic to find the meanignof the Upanisads). The Mahabharata and Puranas, which he also wrote are called as smrti-prasthana (Smrti texts authored but following Vedas.)
3. Srimad-Bhagavatam is the essence of sruti, smrti and nyaya prasthanas. It is also a natural commentary on Vedanta Sutras.
4. According to Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarty (Raga-vartma-candrika: Chapter 1), Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu of Srila Rupa Goswami, describes the devotion propounded by the Srimad Bhagavatam.
So, it cannot be denied that whatever is present in BRS is not present in sastras. BRS contains the words of Lord Caitanya which are conveyed to us by Srila Rupa Goswami. As Lord Caitanya is superior to even Lord Krsna, the words of Lord Caitanya need no proof from any other source. Gaudiya Sampradaya accepts BRS as a sastra. If one is bent on finding quotes from original sastras, then why does he need a quote from SB? Can he prove it is a sastra in this way by using the logic used by HDG to deny the acceptance of words form BRS? SB is a commentary on sastras. It is composed by Srila Vyasadeva. So it is not a sastra but sadhu, if we are to go by HDG's logic. But this is not so. Gaudiyas accept CC, SB and BRS etc as sastras.
We have already quoted the verses from BRS to prove our stand. For gaudiyas BRS is the higher authority than SB. SB has 2 aspects. First is siddhanta and second is rasa. When we discuss raganuga bhakti and rasa, BRS supersedes SB in importance. Let me explain how.
1. Rupa goswami is situated on the higher level of realization than Jiva Goswami being a leading Manjari and Jiva is situated on the higher level to Vysasadeva. How?
2. We assume quite correctly when we say that the morphological position of Śrī Jīva alias Vilāsa Mañjarī in Gokūla is greater than that of Vyāsadeva. Why? Because, had it been not as such, then even the status of Vallabhācārya alias Vallabha Bhaṭṭa Dīkṣīta would have overridden the status of Jīva Gosvāmī. How? In Gaura-gaṇoḍḍeśa-dīpikā 110th verse, it is described as follows: "bhaṭṭo vallabha-nāmā 'bhūt śuko dvaipāyanātmajaḥ" - which is rendered as: "110. Sukadeva Gosvami, the son of Srila Vyasadeva, appeared during Lord Caitanya's pastimes as the devotee named Vallabha Bhatta."
3. We find in the historical sources of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya that it was Vallabhācārya who was defeated by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī on a certain topic of the śāstras. If Śuka Muni's importance has thus been lowered by the Vilāsa Mañjarī i.e. Śrīla Jīva, then it is needless to argue about Vyāsadeva's being more significant than Śrī Jīva (because Śrī Śuka is situated on comparatively higher level of realization than Vyāsadeva - vide SB 1.2.2.).
4. Also, because Vyāsadeva has no presence in the nitya-līlā of Śrī Rādhā-Govinda and whereas, Śrī Jīva has. For this reason also, Śrī Jīva's realization has more value. Had it been not so, then Lord Nārāyaṇa and His Consort Śrīmatī Lakṣmīdevī would have been able to enter the rāsa-līlā (Vyāsa is merely an empowered incarnation of that Nārāyaṇa).
5. Śrī Śuka's presence in the nitya-līlā is in the form of the pet parrot of Śrīmatī Rādhikā. But, since Śukadeva serves in a peculiar type of passive state of devotion (aiśvarya-vihīna-śānta-rasa) in the vraja-līlā and whereas, the Vilāsa Mañjarī serves in the bhāvollāsa-rati of the tad-tad-bhāvecchātmikā category of the samarthā-rati denomination of the parakīya-upapati-paroḍhā-jāra-śṛṅgāra-rasa, naturally, the morphological realization of Śrī Jīva is matchless when compared with Śrī Śuka.
6. Remember, śṛṅgāra-rasa is the topmost among all the five rasas. Now, the question arises as to why then Śrī Jīva glorifies both Vyāsa and Śuka Muni in his Tattva-Sandarbha? And why does Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī (who is Kastūrī Mañjarī in the nitya-līlā) also extol the status of Vṛṇdāvanadāsa Thākura (the Vyāsa incarnate in the Gaura-līlā) in his CC on numerous occasions?
- Because, though morphologically speaking, both Kṛṣnadāsa Kavirāja and Śrīla Jīva are situated on a quite higher platform than Śrī Vyāsa, Śrī Śuka, and Śrīla Vṛṇdāvanadāsa Thākura (as just explained now)- it is customary in any sampradāya to respect and show obligation to the previous ācāryas (this law applies even to the nitya-siddha associates of Gaura like Śrī Jīva and Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa).
- Since, Śrī Vṛndāvanadāsa Thākura was a predecessor of Kavirāja Gosvāmī esp. in the matter of composing biography of CM, Śrīla Kavirāja has shown his humility and obligation to Vṛṇdāvanadāsa Thākura.
- But, this does not underestimate the superior morphological position of Kavirāja Gosvāmī. Had it been so, the importance and peculiarity of CC would not have arose on top of the earlier existing CB (Caitanya-Bhāgavata) of Vṛndāvanadāsa Thākura.
- But, on the contrary, we see that CC has been given more importance by all the ācāryas of our sampradāya when compared to the CB. Why? Because, the most esoteric aspects of Gauḍīya Sampradāya are only depicted in CC - which we shall not find the earlier CB.
7. Even when comparing Sanātana Gosvāmī with Rūpa Gosvāmī, according to the externally seen social view based on vaiṣṇava etiquette, since Śrī Sanātana is both the elder brother of Śrī Rūpa and also his dīkṣā-guru, Śrī Sanātana is respected by Śrī Rūpa as "Prabhupāda" on numerous occasions in his various treatises like BRS etc. But, when seen morphologically making connection with the nitya-kṛṣna-līlā, the superseding significance of Śrī Rūpa is clearly established over Śrī Sanātana. How? Śrī Rūpa is the Rūpa Mañjarī (in the eternal pastimes of Rādhā and Govinda), whereas, Śrī Sanātana is the Lavaṅga Mañjarī. It is the conventional belief of our sampradāya, that only Rūpa Mañjarī is the master of all the nitya-siddha and sādhana-siddha mañjarīs found existing in the nitya-līlā.
8. There are many incidents in these Gosvāmīs lives also, which prove this point. Apart from this, all later ācāryas like Śrīla Kavirāja, Śrīla Narottama Thākura, Śrīla Raghunāthadāsa Gosvāmī, and Śrīla Viśvānātha Cakravarti - to name a few, emphatically (in a highlighting exceptional way) only paid tributes to Rūpa Gosvāmī and none other. This is also the reason why Śrī Rūpa's name is taken prior to Śrī Sanātana's name while enumerating the list of the six goswamis.
Hence, it is established without any doubt that the Sandarbhas of Śrī Jīva and this BRS Śrī Rupa which are upajīvī-grantha (dependent book) are higher in theological sense even than its upajīvya grantha (source book) i.e. SB of Vyāsadeva. Had it not been as such, than the status of the original four Vedas would have overridden the status of SB (the ripened fruit of all original Vedic scriptures like the four Vedas). Why? Because, SB (upajīvī grantha or the dependent/relying book) is merely the essence of the Vedas (Vedas are upa-jīvya-grantha or source books). But it is not so. The upajīvī-grantha SB supersedes the importance of even the four Vedas i.e. the source books. The same logic which is applied to SB, can also be applied to the Sandarbhas.
Srila Jiva Goswami also uses the same logic in his Tattva-Sandarbha.
Tattva Sandarbha- Anuccheda 15 Text 7 says:
The Vedas were revealed by Lord Brahma, and the Puranas and Histories were revealed by Vyasa. because Vyasa is superior in understanding to Brahma and all the demigods and sages as well, the literatures directly revealed by Him (the Puranas and histories) are superior to all other human literatures, including the four Vedas.
Same logic can be applied here. Rupa Manjari is always higher to Veda-Vyasa in position and thus understanding. So BRS is superior to Srimad Bhagavatam.
Is BRS a sastra? Yes. Why? shastram anushasanam hitopadesham ca; shastra is anything that leads to anushasan and presents hitopadesha. So, BRS is a shastra. Gaudiya sampradaya accepts BRS as sastra. As BRS speaks of anuśāsana (discipline), it can be considered a śāstra. Once a person enters into rāgānuga-bhakti, he can't exactly be dictated but can only be guided. But a sādhaka has to be dictated. So if literatures that guide rāgānuga-bhaktas are also to be referred to as śāstra, then yes BRS is also a śāstra, otherwise for the rāgānuga portion it will be considered as grantha. For the vaidhi portion, it is a śāstra because it teaches anuśāsana.
If we go by HDG's logic, when one asks for a cogent proof from SB, he is not asking it from sastra. Because, even SB then wont be a sastra. It is simply a natural commentary on Vedanta Sutras. But its not true. SB is the only work which is prathāna-trayi combined. It is śruti, smṛti and nyāya. All the three. There is no other work like that.
Without acaryas, we will be bewildered after coming across the statements like sva-shaktya shrishtavan vishnur yathartham sarva-vij jagat/ ity uktah satyam evaitad vairagyartham asad-vacah// This verse explains the world to be asat or unreal. But Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in his Prameya Ratnavali (3.1) that many times in Upanisads and other mula-sastras, the material world has been called "asatya" or "false". But, in reality it is not false, though it may be temporary. So, how to interpret when Upanisads declare this world as false? Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in Prameya Ratnavali that though it is not reality that the world is false, still the sastras sometimes speak as such just to invoke the strong feeling of 'vairagya' or renunciation of the conditioned jivas towards the world. So, in short Baladeva is trying to say that it is just a type of preaching tactic of the Upanisads when they declare this mundane world to be false. It is not reality. If Baladeva had not commented on this verse we may never have realized the actual import behind this verse. So the conclusion is, we must study sastras through acaryas.
With the help of acaryas we can also see that raganuga bhakti is explicitly mentioned in Gita.
Raganuga bhakti is mentioned in Bhagvadgita as well. BG 18.54 talks about "para-bhakti". What is the meaning of para bhakti?
brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā
na śocati na kāńkṣati
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu
mad-bhaktiḿ labhate parām
One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me. (BG 18.54)
Now Prabhupada states following thing in his lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam (Bombay, January 12, 1975):
Rāgānugā, rāga-bhakti is executed following the footprints of the devotees in Vṛndāvana. That is called rāga-bhakti. Kṛṣṇa's personal associates. Not to become directly Kṛṣṇa's personal associate, but following the footprints of Kṛṣṇa's eternal associates, we can come to the stage of rāga-bhakti. That is called parā-bhakti. That parā-bhakti is required.
brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā
na śocati na kāṅkṣati
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu
mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām
[Bg. 18.54]
So this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is gradually developing up to the stage of rāga-bhakti or parā-bhakti. Then life is successful.
While commenting on the same verse, Vishvanath Cakravarty Thakura says in his Sarartha-varsini tika:
The word param here is equal to kevala.
What is kevala bhakti? Prabhupada defines it:
In such an exalted status of devotional service, a devotee forgets the position of Kṛṣṇa and intensely loves the Supreme Personality of Godhead without understanding His position. This is called kevala-bhakti and is distinct from the stages of jñāna and jñānamayī bhakti.
(SB 10.3.53 : PURPORT)
The words "forgets the position of Krsna" indicate that SP is talking about raganuga bhakti. This definition also is in consonance with the technical definitions of kevala bhakti in BRS.
Thus it is proved that even the essence of Bhagavad Gita is raganuga bhakti. Vaidhi bhakti is not the goal of devotional service but raganuga bhakti.
One thing is clear from all this that if one needs proofs from sastras when BRS is lying in front of him, no proof is sufficient to convince him further. BRS supersedes any other sastra that is/was present on the earth. If one believes only in sastras, not acaryas, then I wonder if he really accepts Srimati Radharani as the source of all feminine expansions and the final object of worship! Because NOWHERE in Srimad Bhagavatam, the name RADHA is mentioned in relation to our Radharani, the counterpart of Sri Krsna.
|
|
|
|
Post by niscala on Oct 4, 2013 14:28:19 GMT -5
HM: To quote Rupa Goswami or BVT is to cite Sadhu, the evidence of recognized past Acaryas.
Rupa Goswami has written sastra- it is called rasa sastra. It is called as such because he was given the mandate by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to write, for the edification of the world and future generations of vaisnavas, in regard to the specific teachings of the Lord Himself after personally been taught by Him the same. This at least qualifies his work as smriti sastra- and it could be argued even that it is sruti sastra, since he was told to write down what Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had taught him personally. The direct words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are sruti.
You, or your disciple, have requested to give evidence from CC but how is CC any more or less than the books of Rupa Goswami? Krsnadasa Kaviraja was not personally instructed by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, yet he is considered a viable enough authority that testimony from the CC is acceptable sastric evidence for an argument, in vaisnava forums. .
HM: As we well know, Acaryas may differ in practical details, even when speaking of intimate Krishna Lila, and not just vaidhi rules.
No, they don't vary in the detail of intimate lila- they vary on how much should be presented according to the adhikara of the listener. Its not that each acarya varies in the detail of how, for example, Govardhana hill was lifted. Nor do they vary in the detail of how the intimate lila is conducted- they may just not present it, as it requires a certain spiritual maturity to understand it in the right way.
The knowledge of tattva, either in sambandha, abhideya or prayojana, is unchangeable and eternal. No acarya, at least in a given sampradaya, “varies” with any of this knowledge, although at any given time, place and circumstance, they may give only so much of the same according to the adhikara of the listener/reader.
That does not mean that the practice itself, including its details, can be changed, deleted or added to. Its just at some time, some details are appropriate and at another time, they are not.
Thus, the “details can be varied” argument is moot, because time, place and circumstance constantly change. Each and every present acarya varies in the details that he presents, for the given situation. Since time, place and circumstances are in constant flux, the details PRESENTED are in constant flux- but not the details themselves! If they did, we would see some disagreement between the acaryas on this specific procedure- but we do not.
. Therefore, variation in detail between what SP has presented, or SB for that matter, and the esoteric lila in the books of Rupa Goswami, is not any proof that the process has been changed- either in detail, or as a whole. It is simply that the authors have their eyes open as to the qualification of their readers, while writing. Thus even when writing a book, the acarya explicitly states who is qualified to read it, and who is not. SB was unarguably for a wide audience- with “thoroughly honest men” being the only requirement and no prohibitions. Prohibitions are always for intimate lila, and meditating on them as part of one's practice, at an immature stage.
Unless we are clear on this point, the potency of the disciplic succession will come to an end. SP explained that his only qualification as a representative of the parampara is that he changed nothing, but presented it exactly as he heard it from his spiritual master. If each disciplic link changes some of what he considers only details, over the course of time, the whole process no longer has the huge potency of “descending knowledge”
Actually, nothing is changed at all, nor “varied” not even in the slightest detail or sub-part. It is presented unchanged. But some parts are left out- according to the qualification of the recipient When another more qualified recipient comes along, a bit more may be given. It is the same as with learning any subject- it is taken in steps.
>>There is an easy way to refute my claim: send to this forum a Shastra verse, Sanskrit and English, that a) literally and explicitly describes; and b) literally and explicitly requires a specific form of Raga-sadhana.
Before we can do that, we need to define what you believe to be sastra, If you don't accept Rupa Goswami's books as rasa-sastra, then we have nothing in common- there will never be agreement.
If a direct associate of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, an intimate associate and a nitya siddha topmost devotee in conjugal love, personally instructed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead and asked to put the same in written form, for the benefit of future generations to come, is not considered a writer of sastra, then who is? Srila Vyasadeva was given the mandate not directly from the Lord, but from his spiritual master. There goes SB. Krsnadasa Kaviraja simply got the blessings of the devotees, externally at least. There goes CC.
What puzzles me is why would one NOT want to take advantage of Rupa Goswami's profound understanding through his books, which are now available in English? If you were given an opportunity to meet Rupa Goswami personally, wouldn't you take it? “He's in the next room. He's seeing devotees!” Wouldn't you go in? If so, then why not his books? Isn't vani more important than vapuh?
|
|
vishnudas
New Member
BRS 1.4.14 if one takes shelter of Rägänugä Sädhana one usually attains unalloyed Prema.
Posts: 33
|
Post by vishnudas on Oct 8, 2013 3:08:50 GMT -5
I'm sharing some quotes and thoughts on this debate which originally began from HDG's article about Raganuga which held such statements as: I'd just like to recap some of the counter arguments here in case some don't have time to read it all. I believe Uttamasloka prabhu has found some excellent quotes from CC and others... and Srila Prabhupada's purport is very revealing that Raga-bhakti is Vaishnava siddhanta, is a fundamental principle, and not just a detail: Is this not conclusive truth (siddhanta)? And these quotes as offered by Niscala and Ameyatma: This quote shows that Srila Prabhupada accepts the recognized acharya's literature as siddhanta - conclusive truth, and as equally important as previous sastras. And such quotes as this offered by shishirkatote: That's quite clear. IMHO that's Vaishnava siddhanta and also a funadamental principle, not a serendipitous detail. If it is the "stage" we are aspiring "up to", then it must be a "fundamental principle", a very valuable one indeed. As an aging Prabhupada disciple since 1970 I wonder how "gradual" will it be for us. How gradual did Prabhupada mean when he said "this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is gradually developing up to the stage of rāga-bhakti"? This is an important question because some think it will take many lifetimes (and it just may... for them), some think it's urgent and we better get it right in this lifetime (they would be developing lobha real quick!). Some think Prabhupada saw us as all unqualified to even read what [he himself] wrote about Krishna's intimate lilas, (which is true for many) what to speak of reading what previous acharyas have written (they lump everyone in and usually speak as if in a fanatic or myopic trance). Some go in the other direction and have stopped reading Prabhupada's books altogether, and read only other acharya's books (throwing the baby out with the bathwater, when the bathwater was never old to begin with). Some are happy with Gita and Bhagavatam and don't read further. This is a choice, but one's ruci may not be developing, or the lobha to know more about Gauranga Mahaprabhu may not be aroused due lack of the essential sravanam or 'readanam' that would help them advance further. Also there are so many possible distractions in this material world. It could be the environment or circumstances not being suitable to dive deeper into the essence of Bhakti, your peers are critical of every word you speak, every move you make, the bhakta becomes stagnate and feels something is missing, or he/she starts guru-jumping from one to the next seeking answers, not knowing that it's all there in Srila Prabhupada's books (which includes his suggestions that we read other acharya's literatures as well.) So the bewildered bhakta keeps searching just like a hornet goes from one flower to the next drinking nectar, but unlike the bee, the hornet cannot produce honey combs filled with honey. It swallows it and passes it out. Whereas the bee-like intelligent disciple will understand with spontaneous excitement the imports of his guru's teachings. Without concoction or morphing the philosophy for his/her own personal agendas one will understand that guru is himself a raga-bhakta and therefore his precious vani and literatures are saturated with raga-bhavas. Even when Prabhupada talks about "we are not these bodies" he is speaking from the height of his position in raga-bhakti, way above our own meager interpretations of what "not these bodies" mean. We are not all the same in our levels of understanding sastra, siddhanta, and the intentions of our guru, that is a fact. Raganuga bhakti is attained as a result of our personal samskaras, a continuation from previous lives, so we each differ in our spiritual evolution. One devotee cannot speak for the other. The more advanced siksha can only gently nudge the less advanced along the path. This takes a good judge of adhikara, and Srila Prabhupada knew who had it and who did not. The more research we do the more we find that Srila Prabhupada said many things not in favor and in favor of the practice of raganuga sadhana, and as a perfect judge of time, circumstance and audience he has blessed devotees with personal instructions that apply to them individually, or general statements that would apply to a larger percentage of disciples, or statements that were better suited to the general public. In this regard one size does not fit all. "What do we care for all these holy scriptures, or the wise illuminating paths described in them and followed by so many evolved pious souls! What do we need them for if there are no sweet amorous sentiments for our Krishna nor the nectar of Sri Radha's glories! I don't even care for the opulence of Vaikuntha if there is no Radhika, the Personification of Divine Love, but I will remain here in the blessed land of Vrindavana for millions of births, enlivened by the sweet hope of attaining Her passionate Divine Love." -Srila Prabhodananda SaraswatipadaWho among us can say they are on this platform? And if you are on this platform, you most likely wouldn't say....... ... but that is the attitude of our disciplic line of acharyas. That is Vaishnava siddhanta. That is Raga-bhakti. As long as the devotee hasn't gone through the stages leading to bhava, then prema, that devotee may not realize their siddha deha because the eradication of anarthas is not complete but 'almost complete' in the Bhava stage, (as seen in Uttamasloka's Anartha nivrtti diagram pg, 114 of his book), therefore it is still possible to fall down all the way from there, if you are "preaching" or not. But as long as one's internal and external environment is conducive to Krsna consciousness, i.e. sadhu-sanga, sravanam, kirtanam, smaranam, living in the dham etc. there is more chance of reaching prema. You have to ask your self, am I mature enough for advancing further after all these years of practicing bhakti marg? You only have to study more and do some soul-searching if you aren't getting more and more revelations about who you really are in your nitya swarupa. From Jaiva Dharma by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur:
Vrajanatha: Which type of raganuga-bhakti do we have the adhikara to adopt?
Babaji: My son, you should scrutinize your own svabhava,(literally means "own-being") and then you will see the corresponding type of devotion for which you are qualified. A particular ruci (transcendental taste) will awaken according to your inherent svabhava, and you should pursue the rasa that is indicated by that ruci. In order to cultivate that rasa, you should follow one of Krsna’s eternal associates who is perfect in it. To determine rasa, it is only necessary to examine your own ruci. If your ruci is towards the path of raga, then you should act according to that ruci; and as long as inclination has not awakened for the path of raga, you should simply execute the principles of vaidhi-bhakti with firm faith. The proof that Srila Prabhupada has been directing us toward raga-bhakti all along can be found even in the early years of his movement with the printing of Krsna Book and Nectar of Devotion in 1970. That was the year I joined and these books had a most powerful effect on me, as I'm sure it did on each one of us. I found that distributing books was ecstatic preaching sometimes, but occassionally you'd run into someone with questions you couldn't answer, so you reach for some quick one off the top of your head. A number of devotees told me they had this same problem in the early years. This was a result of course of being a neophyte with not having enough study to back up your statements. As we matured throughout our devotional life, these books should have taken on an ever-increasing flood of realization and conviction that would enable us to easily answer all these pointed questions. The eligibility is there because of our sincerity but is the maturity there to actually answer all questions which need to be answered in order to clear our way back to Godhead? The answers came from Srila Prabhupada who would quote from the previous acharya's literatures throughout his lectures and books one after the other, so the pieces of our nitya-svarupa puzzle started to form into the total picture. He did not abandon the previous acharyas to create something new, and by his example, nor should we. His additions or subtractions according to time, circumstance and audience are "details" whereas raga-bhakti always remained the prime fundamental principle underlying every word or action, every book or deity installation, every lecture, every intention. Yes we can go back to Godhead by preaching, and Prabhupada's vani can guide us, why not? But are we understanding all that Prabhupada has written or are we realizing what we are preaching? What area of Godhead do we intend to reach? There are many places to reside and many residents you can be there. Are you just leaving it up to Krishna to decide for you? (that is not the prescribed process) And how many levels of Bhakti are you able to preach / teach / discuss? Are you really practicing what you preach? These are personal questions that one has to ask one's self. Is your chanting pure, is the mind wandering all over the place? From bhajana kriya sadhana bhakti to Krsna prema it's the highway less trodden. In this world you would be the less than .0001%.! Raganuga bhakti is very rare! I think it's discovery would be something to feel very transcendentally fortunate about. (just like to mention that Uttamasloka's free e-book "Realization and Manifestation of Your Eternal Identity" shows us how deep "spontaneous attraction" can go and it is a glorious guidebook mapping out and revealing (with elaborate diagrams and all, never done before) that raganuga bhakti truly does have a wonderful "spontaneous" system to follow as given by our line of acharyas through the direction and mercy of Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu Himself. Thank you Uttamasloka prabhu for your years of hard work and not wanting a dime for it ! I just wish it will be in hard copy some day  uploaded at 1:08 am |
|
lal
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by lal on Oct 8, 2013 18:44:58 GMT -5
A number of gurus and GBC members have been putting forth the idea that raganuga bhakti is synonymous with "spontaneous devotion" and therefore whatever activity one does in "spontaneous devotion" is raganuga bhakti.
Another teaching we see from some ISKCON gurus has been teaching that preaching is synonymous with raganuga. Their reasoning is thus: Raganuga bhakti means following in the footsteps of the Vrajabasis. Radha is a Vrajabasi. Mahaprabhu was Krishna in the mood of Radha. Mahaprabhu preached and did sankirtan. Therefore following in the footsteps of Mahaprabhu (preaching and sankirtan) is raganuga bhakti.
And we have seen HM makes the same basic argument, although his isn't so convoluted, still he claims that raganuga bhakti is more a mindset of fixed devotion and spontaneity than a specific sadhana process delineated in shastra. In fact he insists there is no shastric demands for a raganuga sadhana process. I guess that depends on what you consider shastra. Clearly in Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 22, we see Mahaprabhu instruct Sanatana Goswami on a specific raganuga sadhana process in verses 158-160.
He tells Sanatana that the raganuga practitioner should meditate on developing within themselves as being in a bhava similar to those of the parishads in Braj lila. That is - to take on the mood of a gopi, or gopa, etc, in relation to Krishna within themselves.
What this means is that instead of seeing yourself as a fallen soul without any qualifications, which is the hallmark of vaidhi bhakti, that instead you are being asked to directly approach Krishna within (antaryami) in the mood of the Vrajabasis. Their mood is the opposite of the vaidhi mood of being a fallen unqualified soul who worships in awe and reverence - their mood is of intimate friends and lovers, and so forth.
That is really the only direct instruction we see from Mahaprabhu on the details of raganuga sadhana. And it's really all that is needed. But it is needed, and it is indeed a specific sadhana process. It's something you must work at, you are being asked by Mahaprabhu to direct your attention within (towards Krishna as antaryami) with the mood of an intimate.
To say that isn't a process isn't correct, and to say it isn't necessary seems to negate the purpose of Mahaprabhu's descent and in fact the purpose of the Gaudiya sampradaya. Otherwise why did Mahaprabhu teach it as higher and more powerful than vaidhi, and why did Krishnadas make the point of saying the purpose of Mahaprabhu's descent was to teach raganuga?
I think often I see from devotees in ISKCON there is the idea that raganuga equates some stringent sadhana process, as HM speaks of, which entails meditating on Krishna lila (asta-kaliya-lila-smarana). But that is just a detail, it isn't really what raganuga bhakti is all about. It's really just about developing the mood of the Vrajabasis; developing your relationship with Krishna in a mood of intimacy as opposed to awe and reverence. The different types of meditation are there if you need them, but the only sadhana that is required is to try to develop an internal intimate bhava with Krishna. That is the purpose of raganuga, and that is what is spoken of as much more powerful and quicker than vaidhi. It is the platform of intimacy, rather then worshipfulness.
So the question remains - is preaching raganuga? They cannot be equated because one is a physical activity directed at others, and the other is an internal activity directed at Krishna. Raganuga bhakti is the internal development of intimate bhava towards Krishna. That, and that alone is raganuga. Spontaneity is an aspect of raganuga, it isn't the full definition - that is defined by Mahaprabhu as a very specific action by the sadhaka. Without actively trying to develop an internal intimate bhava with Krishna, it doesn't matter how pure or spontaneous your devotion is, it isn't what Mahaprabhu called raganuga.
|
|
|
|
Post by niscala on Oct 9, 2013 3:04:23 GMT -5
Lal (summarizing the key points of our opponents (for want of a better word) in logical sequence thus):
>>> Raganuga bhakti means following in the footsteps of the Vrajabasis. Radha is a Vrajabasi. Mahaprabhu was Krishna in the mood of Radha. Mahaprabhu preached and did sankirtan. Therefore following in the footsteps of Mahaprabhu (preaching and sankirtan) is raganuga bhakti.
All four statements are true, but the sentence beginning with "therefore" is not a logical consequence of the former. A mood is an internal thing. Not necessarily following or imitating the external activities of great personalities is the same as following in their mood. Indeed, one can be totally in their mood and not be doing anything similar at all, on the external platform, and certainly not all preachers are experiencing the bhavas of Radharani. It could be argued "Yes, but you have to admit it is possible" But then, if they were truly in the mood of Radha, or even on the raganuga path, there would be no falldown as at the first stage, nishta, anarthas are there, but they do not pose major obstacles.
,
>>What this means is that instead of seeing yourself as a fallen soul without any qualifications, which is the hallmark of vaidhi bhakti, that instead you are being asked to directly approach Krishna within (antaryami) in the mood of the Vrajabasis. Their mood is the opposite of the vaidhi mood of being a fallen unqualified soul who worships in awe and reverence - their mood is of intimate friends and lovers, and so forth.
There may be an inbetween stage in this, where one feels unqualified (because one is, actually) , but still aspires in a kind of hope-against-hope kind of way, to follow in the mood and service of extremely exalted prema-imbued devotees. The path of raga is fuelled by attraction, not confidence in oneself. In Utkallika Vallari, Rupa Goswami writes extremely humbly, feeling himself (herself) completely fallen and disqualified but aspiring anyway for the darshan and direct service of Her Master and Mistress, begging and weeping and petitioning the inhabitants of Vrindavan to hear her heart-rending plea. That mood, it has been explained to me, is the mood of a sadhaka, not a siddha- but we are sadhakas, not perfected souls yet! So it seems that Rupa is teaching us that at least the beginning of this path does not require one to give up any sense of the reality of our hopelessly fallen condition- but one can be acutely aware of one's disqualifications- even as one is simultaneously aware of a growing attraction and desire for a particular service. Its just it seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, that to feel oneself thus (which is only a picture of reality actually) actually glorifies the compassionate and unconditional love of Radhika and Krsna. "Even so unqualified, may I be so arrogant, shameless- even comical- to beg for the service of Your feet? You can award it, because Your mercy flows to the most fallen..." Such is the very touching and sweet prayers of Rupa G/M
>>I think often I see from devotees in ISKCON there is the idea that raganuga equates some stringent sadhana process, as HM speaks of, which entails meditating on Krishna lila (asta-kaliya-lila-smarana). But that is just a detail, it isn't really what raganuga bhakti is all about. It's really just about developing the mood of the Vrajabasis; developing your relationship with Krishna in a mood of intimacy as opposed to awe and reverence. The different types of meditation are there if you need them, but the only sadhana that is required is to try to develop an internal intimate bhava with Krishna. That is the purpose of raganuga, and that is what is spoken of as much more powerful and quicker than vaidhi. It is the platform of intimacy, rather then worshipfulness.
I think the asta-kaliya-lila-smaranam may be more important than you think, but I'll leave that question open as I don't know that much about it. It seems to me quite important, because during that meditation of the various lilas, one can be taking part in them- as part of that meditation. But how important the step-by-step meditation is (first this happens, then that happens) as opposed to random meditation, I have no idea.
>>The different types of meditation are there if you need them
I think they would definitely be needed. If one is to develop a siddha-deha, the meditation is the basis for the service that one wants to render, during those lilas.
|
|
vishnudas
New Member
BRS 1.4.14 if one takes shelter of Rägänugä Sädhana one usually attains unalloyed Prema.
Posts: 33
|
Post by vishnudas on Oct 10, 2013 14:11:01 GMT -5
Perhaps this is getting off the track of responding to HDG's article. Can the moderator begin a new section by transferring these additions?? Or is the subject of asta-kaliya-lila started already in the Forum?
nicala said:
Let's see how important asta-kaliya-lila smarana is according to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati -lecture in 1932:
"Until now, we have not arranged for the public singing of lila-kirtana. The reason for this is that it is a very secret possession. However, it is the ultimate object of our practice. But lest anyone make the mistake of thinking that anartha-nivritti is the only goal and it is not necessary to enter into artha-pravritti, for this reason I have had asta-kaliya-lila-kirtana performances started.
"I know that you are not all ready to hear such kirtana, but I want you to know that such a transcendental ideal exists within the realm of devotion which is the reason that you must engage in anartha-nivritti. After anartha-nivritti comes artha-pravritti, or the real world of service to the divine spiritual couple. If we do not know that this is the goal, all our efforts may become transformed into impersonalism. Anyone who has been chanting the holy names for fifteen or twenty years should take note of this. All those who are just beginners have no need of listening to these kirtanas. They will get the wrong idea of what is being sung. These kirtanas are for those who are sevonmukha, who are eager for service, and not for everyone."
"Don't think that the asta-kaliya-lila-smarana is the exlcusive property of the sahajiyas. In fact, it belongs to us. We have to recover it from all these cheaters. My gurudeva heard all these things from Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. That is why he repeatedly told me all these things in many ways in the most confidential manner. I had the opportunity to hear one of his last instructions. He said, "If you could deliver Radha Kunda from the hands of eleven atheistic rascals, it would be pleasant to live there." Now perhaps eleven has increased to 108."
"Our days pass in trying only for anartha-nivrtti. Artha pravrtti is also necessary. Artha nivrtti is important, but anartha-nivrtti is necessary until artha-pravrtti has started. When artha-pravrtti is present then anartha-nivrtti becomes a secondary consideration, because artha-pravrtti becomes prominent. Simply becoming a scholar and instructing others is insufficient. It is necessary to go forward and become a practitioner oneself. It is also important to examine your own advancement on the path of non-duplicitous bhajana."
Actually I realize after reading this again SBG is saying something related to this part of the Forum. He puts to rest the idea that "preaching"is sufficient to attain the goal. By itself it is "insufficient" (just becoming a scholar and instructing others). One must understand artha pravrtti (the ultimate need of the soul). Preaching is a compassionate act of seva and anartha nivrtti and one of many orders of guru, but it is not in and of itself artha pravrtti, so by itself will not buy your ticket to Vraja.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Oct 10, 2013 16:35:46 GMT -5
Visnudas prabhu: I think in the context you've stated here, it could be relevant to the overall discussion. However, let's not get into a discussion specifically about asta-kaliya-lila-smarana in this thread. If someone wants to start such a discussion, it should be in the forum section 5 corresponding to chapter 5 in the book where this subject is discussed.
But just one short point: asta-kaliya-lila-smarana cannot begin in its full form until the stage of asakti, and this lila is revealed to the devotee by the mercy of Krsna via the Holy Names. Until then, we can certainly read/sravanam the lila books and gradually contemplate these pastimes as described in the five stages of smarana-dasa.
|
|
uploaded at 1:08 am