This is a response to a comment from raghavendu on the Slave Driver post.
He said that I:
…insist that it was B.V. Swami Prabhupada who broke with what the Babajis call “traditional Gaudiya Vaisnavism” over how to present raganuga bhakti.The Babajis trace the differences to B.S. Saraswati Prabhupada and they made quite and uproar over this in the 1920s’ and 30s’.
I never said I fully agree with “the babajis”, whomever they are, in fact just the opposite. You would know that if you read the links I provided you earlier:
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/we-used-to-play-for-silver-now-we-play-for-life/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/the-great-goddess/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/sadomasochistic-religion/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/iskcon-girls-make-me-sing-and-shout/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/where-its-at/
I agree with Bhaktisiddhanta’s criticism of them, you are mistaken to think that Bhaktisiddhanta was criticizing raganuga-bhakti. He was criticizing people who he believed were presenting an erroneous version of raganuga-bhakti, mostly by their practice of giving siddha-pranali to neophytes.
None of these Babjis have continued the conflict with GM and Iskcon as they seem to have a “live and let live” policy as most Vaisnavas are not social activists.
If I criticize someone’s teachings as being inconsistent with authentic Gaudiya Vaishnavism, then according to you I am some type of offensive “social activist”, whereas if you criticize someone’s teachings (mine) as being inconsistent with authentic Gaudiya Vaishnavism — it is perfectly alright? Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
On the other hand you seem to be very much a social activist, but one who is willing to bend historical facts and truths to achieve some kind of effect. Your approach seems more like that of a Maoist than a form of Vaisnavism and interestingly mirrors the approach of your opposites such as PADA.
I try to aid people who have been and will be harmed — spiritually, emotionally, and physically by Prabhupada’s distortions and teachings — by pointing out those distortions. I don’t spend my time in Ad hominem extremist rhetoric in defense of a guru and ritvikism, so how am I like Puranjana? I am not the one who “bends historical facts and truths to achieve some kind of effect”, look in the mirror to see the truth of that statement. I mean really, you think you are presenting yourself as a “sane moderate voice” against my “extremist insane” views? I can’t tell if you believe that inversion of reality, or if you’re just using a clumsy childish ad hominem rhetorical device to put my views down as extremist? You’re deluded enough for either, maybe it’s both. Okay, probably both.
This is from Bhakti Charu Swami, one of ISKCON’s leading gurus, to see real distortion:
From http://www.dandavats.com/?p=5389
This is his theology about raganuga and Prabhupada, and ISKCON. It’s only a small part of a longer example of distortion and disinformation which comprises the lecture’s typical ISKCON boilerplate, e.g. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is supposed to be all about: chanting, varnashrama or “Vedic culture”, 4 regulative principles and most importantly — preaching.
Sometimes we see that people are introducing raganuga bhakti and claiming that Srila Prabhupada did not give raganuga bhakti and that’s why the ISKCON devotees must leave ISKCON and go to them to cultivate raganuga bhakti and go to them and so on and so forth.
Let us consider what is raganuga bhakti. The definition of raganuga bhakti is to follow the ragatmika bhaktas of Vrindavan, those who are completely absorbed in the loving attachment to Krsna, the residents of Vrindavan. The associates of Krsna in Vraja are the ragatmika bhaktas. And raganuga, following their footsteps, anu means to follow, when one practices devotional service following their footsteps, that is called raganuga. So in simple words, to follow an associate of Krsna of Vraja is raganuga bhakti.
Now who is the most exalted associate of Krsna in Vraja? Srimati Radharani. And who is Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Caitanya Mahaprabhu is Krsna in the mood of Srimati Radharani. So Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s activities are the activities of Radharani. Those who are following in the footsteps of Srimati Radharani, what kind of devotees are those? Raganuga-bhaktas. And what is Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s teaching?
yare dekha, tare kaha `krsna’-upadesa
amara ajnaya guru hana tara’ ei desaWhoever you see preach to him the process of Krsna consciousness, teach him about Krsna and the teachings of Krsna. So preaching is the teaching of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the mood of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He himself did that traveling all over India distributing Krsna consciousness. So following the footsteps of Caitanya Mahaprabhu is raganuga bhakti.
That is a complete distortion. Raganuga bhakti is supposed to be based upon using the mood of the Vrajavasis as a template for how you can and should relate with Radha Krishna, from within, and trying to develop that bhava and rasa. Mahaprabhu gives this definition of raganuga:
Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 22.149
ragatmika-bhakti — ‘mukhya’ vraja-vasi-jane
tara anugata bhaktira ‘raganuga’-nameSYNONYMS
ragatmika-bhakti — spontaneous devotional service; mukhya — preeminent; vraja-vasi-jane — in the inhabitants of Vraja, or Vrndavana; tara — that; anugata — following; bhaktira — of devotional service; raganuga-name — named raganuga or following after spontaneous devotional service.
TRANSLATION
The original inhabitants of Vrndavana are attached to Krsna spontaneously in devotional service. Nothing can compare to such spontaneous devotional service, which is called ragatmika bhakti. When a devotee follows in the footsteps of the devotees of Vrndavana, his devotional service is called raganuga bhakti.
That is Prabhupada’s translation, it isn’t very accurate, but get’s the point across, kind of. It’s actually much simpler and straightforward:
That bhakti following after the super excellent ragatmika-bhakti of the people of Vraja is called raganuga.
In the purport Prabhupada distorts Jiva Goswami’s teachings, he writes:
In his Bhakti-sandarbha, Jiva Gosvami states:
tad evam tat-tad-abhimana-laksana-bhava-visesena svabhavika-ragasya vaisistye sati tat-tad-raga-prayukta sravana-kirtana-smarana-pada-sevana-vandanatma-nivedana-praya bhaktis tesam ragatmika bhaktir ity ucyate. . . . tatas tadiyam ragam rucyanugacchanti sa raganuga.
When a pure devotee follows the footsteps of a devotee in Vrndavana, he develops raganuga bhakti.
We see this consistent distortion from Prabhupada — he teaches that raganuga is only for the most advanced devotees, whereas the authentic teaching is that raganuga is for anyone who is interested in developing the same bhava as the Vrajavasis. Here is the same section from Bhakti Sandarbha that Prabhupada used:
yasya pUrvoktaM rAga-vizeSe rucir eva jAtAsti na tu rAga-vizeSa eva svayaM, tasya tAdRza-rAga-sudhAkara-karAbhAsa-samullasita-hRdaya-sphaTika-maNeH zAstrAdi-zrutAsu tAdRzyA rAgAtmikAyA bhakteH paripATISv api rucir jAyate | tatas tadIyaM rAgaM rucy-anugacchantI sA rAgAnugA tasyaiva pravartate || (Bhakti-sandarbha 310)
“When the splendour of the moonrays of raga shines upon the crystal-like heart of a person in whom a taste for the aforementioned specific raga has awakened, but who himself does not possess distinct raga, his heart rejoices. He then hears from the scriptures about such ragatmika-bhakti and consequently develops a ruci for the same. Following his ruci for such raga, he engages in raganuga-bhakti.”
Bhakti Charu Swami twists that basic teaching on the definition of raganuga into something completely different in order to exploit people. Instead of “following after” meaning “trying to develop the same bhava and rasa in relation to Radha Krishna as the Vrajavasis”, he purposefully dis-informs, using clumsy sophistry, by saying: since Sri Chaitanya is in the bhava of Sri Radha, and since Radha is a Vrajavasi, therefore raganuga means following Chaitanya Mahaprabhu — and since he asked that people speak about Krishna, therefore preaching is raganuga!
That is his actual defense of Prabhupada! But he makes things even worse by making up even more completely bogus siddhanta — because he doesn’t care about the truth. His concern is about expanding the power, influence, importance and wealth of ISKCON and himself. So he has to make clumsy excuses for why Prabhupada misrepresented Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The result? People are taught that real raganuga is either sahajiyaism, demonic, or only for very old very advanced bhaktas. And anyways, really, preaching or serving ISKCON is the real raganuga anyways!
Raganuga is about one thing — developing an intimate bhava with Radha Krishna. It isn’t about anything else. It’s also the sole purpose of bhakti-yoga. But people educated by Prabhupada will tell you that working for a guru or for a guru’s organization — be it washing pots, or selling merchandise, or building temples, preaching, etc, is part of raganuga-bhakti, and is the purpose of bhakti-yoga. To them the purpose of bhakti-yoga is no longer even about yoga (personal communion with God), what to speak of the process to attain that (raganuga sadhana).
In ISKCON you are taught that the purpose of bhakti-yoga is to preach. Everything is about spreading the teachings of Prabhupada, that is the central focal point of their version of bhakti-yoga. Actual yoga (personal communion with God) is actively excluded. Mahaprabhu is to be imitated as an example of the life of a bhakti-yogi (but only the part of his life when he preached) but his teachings on the actual purpose and process of bhakti-yoga, is purposefully distorted and even ridiculed or ignored.
For some reason you believe that Prabhupada’s and ISKCON’s disinformation campaign shouldn’t be criticized, even though their teachings have harmed so many and caused so much dislike, anger, confusion and disappointment towards, and with Gaudiya Vaishnavism all around the world. Sure, his organization brought the name of Krishna all over the world, but the result is that now most people think of “crazy cult” when they think of Krishna, or they think of abuse of women, abuse of children, con-artists, etc. But you don’t seem to care about that. You do seem to care about saying fatuous things about me though. Maybe you need to reconsider your priorities?
Vrajabhumi:
“For some reason you believe that Prabhupada’s and ISKCON’s disinformation campaign shouldn’t be criticized, even though their teachings have harmed so many and caused so much dislike, anger, confusion and disappointment towards, and with Gaudiya Vaishnavism all around the world.”
Certainly Srila Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhar Maharaja had a much different presentation that Srila B.V. Prabhupada. He even said that he was more conservative in his approach than Srila Saraswati Thakur. He also said that he was “not one with Swami Maharaja “(B.V. Prabhupada), but he certainly did not take your approach on his differences with B.V. Prabhupada, nor would he agree with it.
Also Srila Narayana Maharaja is much more open about rupanuga bhajan than many Gaudiya Saraswats, yet he always seeks to harmonize his approach with that of Srila B.V. Prabhupada.
Srila Sridhar Maharaja also told Prabhupada’s disciples that in Gaudiya Math during Srila Saraswati Thakur’s time, that everything took a backseat to preaching. He relays the story of how Srila Saraswati Thakur personally fed some brahmacaris halva on Ekadasi so they would have the energy to go out an do a preaching program.
Again these points are clear evidence that what you are criticizing Srila B.V. Prabhupada for innovating went on in his guru’s institution thirty and forty years earlier. Perhaps you would be more accurate if you alleged that Srila B.V. Prabhupada enhanced this mood or perhaps that such a preaching mood was bound to become distorted in a different cultural atmosphere. In many ways it is an historical fact that B.V. Prabhupada viewed many aspects of his Iskcon as an “experiment”. If anyone wishes to take the time they can find letters in which, for instance, he refers to the gurukulas as an experiment, or also New Vrndavana as an experiment. Another point is that he knew by 1976 that much of his sannyasa experiment had gone awry. Experiments are attempts where definite success is certainly not a consideration and failure becomes a possibility.
Perhaps if the old Anti-Cult proponents were also scholars of Indian religions they would be your allies but I don’t see that even the University scholars who study Vaisnavism in an objective approach would agree with your basic tenets
because they deny the commonly accepted historical facts.
Neither the Babajis or such groups as Kripalu’s who also accept Mahaprabhu and his Goswamis take such a position on Srila B.V. Prabhupada either, yet they would completely agree with your position on Raganuga bhakti. This would indicate that what you consider to be a deviation by emphasizing preaching is something that took place earlier during the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and that is a commonly accepted fact amongst everyone but you.
raghavendu
First off those gurus from the Gaudiya Math are not well read on Prabhupada’s books and teachings. They don’t read his books even if they claim otherwise. Secondly they do and did criticize Prabhupada, not as much me because they don’t want to alienate his followers from becoming their followers.
Narayana Maharaj and Sridhar Maharaj used to criticize Prabhupada for teaching that the jiva can fall from Vaikuntha, so do other gurus. They also criticize Prabhupada for his views on women and black people, or gays. Narayana Maharaj has especially been consistent with his teaching that Prabhupada didn’t teach the full Gaudiya conception, that “now he is doing that for Prabhupada’s followers.” That’s a pretty strong criticism even though he tries to make it sound like Prabhupada was teaching an audience that wasn’t ready for the deeper parts of Gaudiya theology and now they are. I don’t buy that, but I understand he has to soft sell his approach when it comes to explaining why his presentation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is different from Prabhupadas.
You also said:
I never said there was anything wrong with emphasizing preaching, nor do you seem to understand the difference between emphasizing preaching and perverting and changing Gaudiya theology for the sake of exploiting people to aid in expanding the influence of an organization.
Bhaktisiddhanta didn’t change Gaudiya theology, he did reject and criticize some of the commonly accepted ideas and practices of the Gaudiya community of his time. I agree with those criticisms. But he didn’t wholesale change the basic teachings of Sri Chaitanya, he just criticized some practices and ideas that took root after Mahaprabhu was gone and which eventually became perverted by many people who were giving out siddha-dehas like catholic priests who gave out indulgences for a fee. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#History_of_indulgences )
What Prabhupada did was very different, he wholesale changed the basic teachings of Mahaprabu and the 6 Goswamis. That was why he was very criticial of his godbrothers and told his followers not to associate with them. He knew they would see and hear a different type of teaching from them. He didn’t want his followers to realize how much Gaudiya theology is focused on raganuga, i.e. the internal development of intimacy with Radha Krishna, because he wanted them totally focused on expanding his influence.
I changed my post above. I had quoted from a translation of Bhaktivinoda’s Amnaya Sutra where he quotes Bhakti Sandarbha 310:
I removed that and added another better translation of the part Prabhupada was quoting. If you want to check the english translation of the Bhakti Sandarbha available on the web, there are some problems with Kusakratha’s translation. For example in the verses preceding the above one he writes:
In 6 he says “but when one’s love is not yet natural or spontaneous, his devotional service is called ragatmika bhakti”. That is an obvious mistake, ragatmika-bhakti is the highest level of bhakti. It should read something like this from Jayatirtha Caran das:
“The intimate devotees of Lord Sri Krsna in Vraja, Vrndavan are all ragatmika bhaktas, nothing can compare to such spontaneous devotional attachment and service out of love. Those pure devotees who follow such great and intimate lovers of Krsna serving Him through the nine fold process of hearing, chanting etc., are called raganuga bhaktas”
In 7 he describes ragatmika instead of raganuga, this is because raganuga bhakti is meant for those who are trying to attain something they don’t have — a personal relationship with Radha Krishna. Ragatmika bhaktas are the ones who aren’t seeking to attain something from bhakti because they are in a personal relationship with Radha Krishna..
The story that I heard is that Rayarama who did not know Sanskrit became confused with what he thought was raga this and raga that, and decided that ragatmika and raganuga were the same thing; so he decided to use ‘raganuga’ wherever he saw ‘ragatmika’. One has to remember that Iskcon was in its infancy at that time and the devotees had no background in Indian culture, religion or languages. The editors of that time, over forty years ago made numerous mistakes but this one is the worst.
The Bhakti Sandarbha available online is from Kusakratha I was told, it’s not a BBT book. He was a sanskrit scholar, but not a very good one — or maybe he was just doing his translating in a rush and made a lot of mistakes because of the high volume of work he was attempting.
[Question:] I have a specific example. It is a common thought in ISKCON, which the ISKCON devotees say was emphasized by Srila Prabhupada: we should do our vaidhi-sadhana and especially preach. Because of the importance of these activities, even if we are not cultivating raganuga-bhajana, or even if we don’t have the association of a rasika-vaisnava, still, by his krpa or mercy, Prabhupada will give us that Vraja-bhakti.
[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] You will have to do what he has told you. He has told you to chant krsna-nama and preach. But what will be the effect of doing that?
sakala-sadhana-srestha ei panca anga
krsna-prema janmaya ei pancera alpa sanga
[“These five limbs of devotional service (associating with pure devotees, living in a holy place where Krsna performed His pastimes, hearing Srimad-Bhagavatam from pure devotees, chanting the holy names, and serving the Deity in the temple with faith) are the best of all. Even a slight performance of these five awakens love for Krsna.” (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madya-lila, 22.129)]
Do you understand? Automatically prema will come. If you plant a seed in the earth, what will be the effect?
He has not given the fruit to any of you. He has given only the seed, and he has told you, “Keep the seed in the earth and pour water on it. You need only do this.” What will be the effect? It will grow, and it will blossom, after that the fruits will appear and become ripe, and then we will see those beautiful, tasteful fruit. So he has given the seed, and those who are sincerely following will automatically get the result – but with time. Our Gurudeva, Srila Bhakti-prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, has also not vividly and directly told all the details regarding what would happen next in our bhakti. Still, by practicing what he told us, all the stages have come automatically.
raghavendu
Like I said already, Narayana Maharaj is not well versed in what Prabhupada taught, the very first blog post on this blog shows that. Maybe he doesn’t know that Prabhupada spoke against taking up raganuga-bhakti unless you are self-realized, maybe he doesn’t know that Prabhupada distorted Mahaprabhu’s teachings in Chaitanya Charitamrita and other books. The fact is that Prabhupada did translate and comment on books which teach about raganuga bhakti, but he distorted what they actually teach. Of course a person doesn’t have to take up raganuga bhakti to advance in self-realization, but that doesn’t mean that we should ignore or distort the teaching that raganuga-bhakti is a much more powerful form of sadhana than vaidhi-bhakti for the development of self-realization.
It’s not that Prabhupada didn’t know that, he did teach that on a few rare occasions, but what he also did was claim that raganuga was only for very advanced devotees, and that anyone else who thought they could take up raganuga was a sahajiya. That was a manipulative deception because who is going to say they are very advanced and qualified for raganuga when they are constantly being told they should cultivate the attitude of a very fallen sinner begging for service in the mood of a menial servant — and being told the more you have that belief and mood — that that is a sign of advancement? That actively goes against what Gaudiya Vaishnava theology teaches about vaidhi and raganuga bhakti — they adamantly exhort us to take up the raganuga mood and path rather than the vaidhi mood and path, while Prabhupada taught the exact opposite.
Also NM doesn’t want to alienate Prabhupada’s followers by criticizing him. The original teachings of Mahaprabu and the 6 Goswamis are there for us to see, they are the unquestionable authorities on Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine. I’m not saying other people cannot be authorities, but if a person is claiming to be an authority but teaches contradictory philosophy to that of the founders of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, then they are obviously not authorities on Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
Vrajabhumi:
“It’s not that Prabhupada didn’t know that, he did teach that on a few rare occasions, but what he also did was claim that raganuga was only for very advanced devotees, and that anyone else who thought they could take up raganuga was a sahajiya.”
From: Prakrta-rasa-sata-dusani
(A Hundred Warnings Against Mundane Mellows)
by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada
anartha thakara kale rasa gana kore na
anartha thakara kale siddhi labdha bole na
“While still contaminated with anarthas, one should never sing songs about the Lord’s confidential pastimes. After these impediments are purified (anartha-nivritti), one never speaks of the holy name of Krishna as if it were a mundane sound vibration.”
From: The Eligibility for Hearing Rasa-lila Katha
[The Introduction to "Venu-gita"]
by Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja
“…Some persons believe that unqualified sadhakas are ineligible to hear, chant or remember the topics of Sri Venu-gita, Sri Rasa-pancadhyaya, Yugala-gita, Brahmara-gita and so on, as described in the Tenth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. This consideration is fully legitimate. But according to their conception, only a sadhaka who has conquered the six urges (kama, krodha, etc.), who is free from all anarthas and fully purified from the heart disease of lust, is eligible to hear such topics, while all others have no right…
…*For this reason, the opinion that Bhakti-devi enters the heart only after all anarthas, aparadhas, lust, and other diseases of the heart have been eradicated, is not appropriate. On the contrary, by the mercy of the Supreme Lord or the devotees, or by faithfully executing sadhana and bhajana, this rare bhakti enters the heart first, and then all anarthas are automatically dissipated-this condition is thoroughly agreeable.
Therefore, only faithful sadhakas with firm belief in the statements of sastra, guru and Vaisnavas are eligible to hear the lila-katha of Srimad-Bhagavatam which are saturated with rasa. And conversely, those who believe that only sadhakas who are completely free from all anarthas are eligible to hear the above-mentioned pastimes, will neither become free from anarthas nor obtain eligibility to hear-even after millions of births…”
^These statements were made after the author showed how in their commentaries Srila Jiva Goswami and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur were pointing in the same direction. The full text is at:
http://www.bvml.org/SBSST/prsd.html
I’m sure you have read it before but it is certainly worth a reread.
raghavendu
You are making a few common mistaken assumptions about raganuga-bhakti. You need to read my posts and the comments on them in the links above and below. Many people think raganuga-bhakti is only all about reading the types of books mentioned by Bhaktisiddhanta in your comment, and then attempting to meditate on mentally imitating what they believe to be the bhava and rasa of the authors of those books, e.g. lila-smaranam on asta-kaliya-lila.
You need to understand the purpose of his writing the Prakrta-rasa-sata-dusani. At the time he was trying to continue his fathers mission to clean up the reputation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The public perception had grown to see the sect as comprised of sentimentalists and varieties of sahajiyas. Bhaktisiddhanta started a campaign against many of the babajis in Braj mandal and Nabadvip and also the caste goswamis because he felt they were contributing to a bad public perception of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
Siddha-pranali and sahajiyaism was widespread and accepted as representative of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Gurus were giving siddha-pranali and lila-smaranam on asta-kaliya-lila to all comers, i.e. neophytes would be told that they are such and such manjari, they look like this or that, their seva is this or that, their group leader is this or that, etc. That even continues today. As I have written (in the links above and below and in the comments) in detail — those practices are not what raganuga-sadhana is supposed to be about for beginner raganuga-bhaktas. They are esoteric teachings that cannot be understood by neophytes because they can only see the literal exoteric meaning of the writings on rasa-lila — the true value and meaning is obscured by allegory, which the neophyte will not be able to comprehend.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Sri Caitanya Siksamrta, Chapter 6, Part 5
So Bhaktisiddhanta started preaching that lila-smaranam on asta-kaliya-lila was not for neophytes, he was really just continuing the same teachings that are found in the books of his father. Bhaktivinoda taught the same thing in his books, but Bhaktisiddhanta spoke publicly about it and made many enemies of the people who were making a livelihood from giving diksha into siddha-pranali to all comers.
Mahaprabhu and the 6 Goswamis advocated raganuga-bhakti as a superior form of bhakti, they also taught us the qualifications for taking up raganuga-bhakti. The only qualification is: wanting to be in a close relationship with Radha Krishna.
Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta were not preaching against that conception, they were preaching against what they saw as a perversion of raganuga-sadhana.
What happened over time is that people who were not very qualified began teaching different bogus ideas of what raganuga-sadhana should be all about. That is what Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta preached against — the perversion of the teachings on raganuga-sadhana whereby neophytes were being inspired to neglect the process of sravanam, kirtanam, etc, which they needed in order to develop self-realization, and which without — real raganuga-bhakti would remain beyond their reach.
This continues today, i.e. many devotees who do not have a solid understanding of the philosophy of the Bhagavatam and the Gita, are misled into thinking that their sadhana should be focused on lila-smaranam. They spend their time reading rasa lila writings of the previous acharyas while trying to cultivate the bhava and rasa of the manjaris in those writings. Because those writings are very esoteric, and they are unqualified to appreciate the esoteric intent because of a lack of self-realization, they tend to become sentimentalists who think they are advanced because they are trying to imitate and cultivate an imaginary bhava and rasa — instead of actually becoming advanced and entering into a real bhava and rasa from within, due to their knowledge of the teachings on self-realization.
Prabhupada (and Sridhar Maharaj btw) preached against practicing raganuga unless you were so advanced that you were practically beyond needing to do it, and now their followers preach the same bogus message. They distorted the actual teachings of Mahaprabu and the 6 goswamis on the qualification and emphatic imperative for taking up raganuga. Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta were not attacking or distorting the original teachings, they preached against a perversion of the original teachings.
I have written more on these topics in detail in these links and comments:
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/we-used-to-play-for-silver-now-we-play-for-life/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/sadomasochistic-religion/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/the-great-goddess/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/iskcon-girls-make-me-sing-and-shout/
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/where-its-at/
I find it hard to believe that Gaudiya Vaishnavism in West Bengal during the early and mid part of the 20th century had any worse of a repuation than it does now.
IGM
I haven’t spent time around the people of Bengal so I have to go by what I hear, what kind of reputation do you think Gaudiya Vaishnavism has in Bengal today?
The tantric sects like the bauls and sahajiyas, and others who linked themselves as followers of Sri Chaitanya, who are referred to as apasampradayas by the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta, had a larger following and were much more prominent than today, and the orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavas were much less prominent than today. Since most Hindus are very conservative and Victorian when it comes to sexuality, especially 100-150 years ago, tantric or sexually ambiguous and or open behavior is usually seen by the majority of them as low class. Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta wanted to reform the image of Chaitanya from being associated with tantric cults, and sentimentalists like sakhi-bekhis, into being respected as an orthodox Vedic tradition.
Vrajabhumi:
“Prabhupada (and Sridhar Maharaj btw) preached against practicing raganuga unless you were so advanced that you were practically beyond needing to do it, and now their followers preach the same bogus message. They distorted the actual teachings of Mahaprabu and the 6 goswamis on the qualification and emphatic imperative for taking up raganuga. Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta were not attacking or distorting the original teachings, they preached against a perversion of the original teachings.”
Did you ever listen to the audio recordings of Srila Sridhar Maharaja? In his unique manner, his presentation was very deep and rasik, yet some or much of it can be lost in the printed word. IMHO if he is not spiritually ecstatic then such a thing must not exist!
There is the famous time that Srila B.V. Prabhupada became stunned when singing Jaya Radha Madhava; But there were other classes were I was personally present where he began to choke up, tears welled up in his eyes and his voice seemed like it was about to crack, yet he was able to check his ecstatic mood from manifesting. So if these saints have a perverted conception of the deeper levels of bhakti, then how is this?
Sridhar Maharaja was according to his own testimony an ardent follower of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as well as Nityananda Prabhu. His focus was more on Mahaprabhu’s lila, which of course simultaneously contains Krsna lila. He took shelter in Navadvipa dhama and never traveled from there or even his Math for many years towards the end of his life. At the end of each talk he would chant, Nitai Gaura Hari bol over and over and Dayal Nitai, Dayal Nitai.
He was always swimming in the ocean of the nectar of Gaura lila and had a very deep understanding of the teachings and mood of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.
He would frequently admonish those who heard from him to be careful and cautious about, “disturbing the higher quarter”. IOW, his idea was that if one even thinks of the divine couple or Vraja Dhama yet maintains an enjoying mood then because of the non-dual nature of Krsna and his parisads, such a thing actually will disturb those divine beings. Or at least this is how he felt that the sadhaka must think. So his approach was certainly cautious, yet it must have been some kind of manifestation of his inner mood of bhajan. Sometimes he would quote, “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” That seems like sound advice on all levels of reality.
“I haven’t spent time around the people of Bengal so I have to go by what I hear, what kind of reputation do you think Gaudiya Vaishnavism has in Bengal today?”
I was thinking more in terms of it’s global reputation right now, which would naturally include it’s reputation amongst native Bengalis since the religion went global.
“IOW, his idea was that if one even thinks of the divine couple or Vraja Dhama yet maintains an enjoying mood then because of the non-dual nature of Krsna and his parisads, such a thing actually will disturb those divine beings. ”
You mean to say that if I think about Radha and Krishna in my conditioned state I will disturb them? Are you serious?
It sounds like; “chant Hare Krishna but don’t THINK about Hare Krishna, think about something else while chanting Hare Krishna”.
raghavendu
I’ve seen new bhaktas shed tears of ecstasy when hearing about Krishna or Gaura lila, I’ve seen common householder devotees show ecstatic symptoms in kirtan. Ecstatic symptoms are a display of emotion, they are not indicative of how self-realized or how close a person is to Radha Krishna — they display how that person feels at that moment, not what they know or have experienced or how advanced in self-realization they are. I’ve seen Christians go into some pretty extraordinary displays of emotion, but I wouldn’t take that as a sign of their high level of self-realization and God consciousness.
Sridhar Maharaja’s conception of “the higher quarter shouldn’t be disturbed” is an unusual conception to me. It’s not seen in any of the teachings of Mahaprabhu or the previous acharyas. Maybe it was his lack of ability to speak english very well, or maybe something is lost when transcribed, but I doubt it changes very much because his followers say the same thing.
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread” when it comes to developing intimacy with Radha Krishna is certainly not the teaching of Mahaprabhu, the opposite is closer to the truth. We don’t find such types of warnings from him or the previous acharyas about thinking we shouldn’t try to relate with Radha Krishna intimately unless we are very very advanced. Radha Krishna is in fact our soul mate, she/he is within us and guiding us and manifesting and controlling everything we perceive and experience or will ever perceive and experience from moment to moment all day every day of our lives, forever. We are much closer with Radha Krishna than any relationship we will ever have with anyone else, you just aren’t aware of it due to ignorance of the true nature of yourself and reality. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is meant to to awaken our perception of Radha Krishna’s presence and control within and all around us. The idea that Radha Krishna is “in another quarter which we cannot approach and shouldn’t disturb” is not only the opposite of Mahaprabhu’s teachings and Vedanta in general, it is utterly absurd in light of absolute reality.
Srila Narayana Maharaja: Srila Rupa Gosvami, who established and fulfilled the inner heart’s desire of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, composed Sri Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, Sri Ujjvala-nilamani and other sacred texts. Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami composed Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. While writing, they were deeply concerned that these confidential texts on rasa should not fall into the hands of unqualified persons. If this should occur, it may present a great disturbance to the world. A glimpse of this topic is found in Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (Cc. Adi 4.231-237), as stated by Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami:
CC Ādi 4.231: All these conclusions are unfit to disclose in public. But if they are not disclosed, no one will understand them.
CC Ādi 4.232: Therefore I shall mention them, revealing only their essence, so that loving devotees will understand them but fools will not.
CC Ādi 4.233: Anyone who has captured Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Lord Nityānanda Prabhu in his heart will become blissful by hearing all these transcendental conclusions.
CC Ādi 4.234: All these conclusions are like the newly grown twigs of a mango tree; they are always pleasing to the devotees, who in this way resemble cuckoo birds.
CC Ādi 4.235: The camellike nondevotees cannot enter into these topics. Therefore there is special jubilation in my heart.
CC Ādi 4.236: For fear of them I do not wish to speak, but if they do not understand, then what can be happier in all the three worlds?
CC Ādi 4.237: Therefore after offering obeisances to the devotees, for their satisfaction I shall speak without hesitating.
CC Ādi 4.231: All these conclusions are unfit to disclose in public. But if they are not disclosed, no one will understand them.
Here we see both the opposite concepts together and then harmonized by Kaviraja Goswami.
CC Ādi 4.232: Therefore I shall mention them, revealing only their essence, so that loving devotees will understand them but fools will not.
CC Ādi 4.233: Anyone who has captured Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Lord Nityānanda Prabhu in his heart will become blissful by hearing all these transcendental conclusions.
He is saying that although he is reluctant to reveal these intimate topics, that the topics themselves will hide and protect their inner jewels. And then he is recommending that in a indirect way that one should first try to capture Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Lord Nityananda Prabhu in their hearts in order to “become blissful by hearing all these transcendental conclusions.”
So by leading neophytes to first take shelter of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Lord Nityānanda Prabhu before approaching the higher levels of Radha Krsna lila
both Srila Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada, Srila Narayana Maharaja and all real Gaudiya acaryas are following in the footsteps of Srila Krsna das Kaviraja.
raghavendu
Mahaprabhu is saying not to teach “fools and camellike non-devotees” about rasa and bhava. Narayana Maharaj teaches about rasa and bhava in lectures open to the general public, yet he says that previous acharyas were very concerned that their writings should “not fall into the hands of unqualified people”. Obviously he isn’t worried about the people who attend his lectures, he must mean people who wouldn’t be interested in going to a lecture from an orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnava guru.
I can’t see how it has anything to do with what I have been discussing. I am not advocating that raganuga-bhakti be taught to just anyone off the street, it’s only for devotees who want to develop an intimate relationship with Radha Krishna. Really, they are the only ones who would even be interested anyways, and all it’s really about is trying to be intimate rather then being in a mood of menial reverence.
Although some sects have used Mahaprabhu to push unorthodox practices and teachings, they didn’t become so due to hearing about bhava and rasa from Gaudiya gurus, they were already tantrics who incorporated aspects of Mahaprabhu’s teachings into other traditions.
Those warnings are not meant for people who want to be close to Radha Krishna, they are meant for people who want something other then closeness with Radha Krishna from their bhakti practice, e.g. mystic powers, moksha, etc.
raghavendu
You said:
That’s what I have said as well, the writings on rasa and bhava are esoteric and cannot be understand very well by unqualified people.
Yes, first someone has to take up the process recommended by Mahaprabhu, i.e.
harer nama harer nama
harer namaiva kevalam
kalau nasty eva nasty eva
nasty eva gatir anyatha
Uh, no. Prabhupada and to a lesser degree Sridhar Maharaj, both claimed to be teaching everything about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. “Everything is in my books” is what Prabhupada said. But in those books he distorts the teachings on raganuga, and other aspects of Gaudiya theology as well.
So does Sridhar Maharaj, but not nearly as much. He doesn’t just say neophytes shouldn’t take up raganuga, he says that everyone should keep raganuga and intimacy with Radha Krishna above them, worshiped from afar as something we aspire for, but not actually to be attempted lest we “disturb” Radha Krishna. That is a concoction.
I don’t believe that Narayana Maharaj is as advanced as he claims to be for various reasons based upon how he teaches about raganuga and rasa lila. He preaches in a very literalistic style, I don’t see an understanding of the esoteric hidden intent. Maybe he does understand, but from the way he teaches that everything Mahaprabhu taught leads to manjari bhava, it doesn’t appear to me that he is actually in a real relationship with Radha Krishna. But, he doesn’t take the unprecedented approach of ignoring or distorting the qualifications and central importance of raganuga taught by Mahaprabhu and the 6 goswamis.
Vrajabhumi:
“Yes, first someone has to take up the process recommended by Mahaprabhu, i.e.
harer nama harer nama
harer namaiva kevalam
kalau nasty eva nasty eva
nasty eva gatir anyatha”
Not exactly, more like this:
Srila Sridhar Maharaja, From The Golden Volcano of Dvine Love
[...Of course, Navadwipa, the abode of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, is no less valuable than Vrndavana, the abode of Krsna. The same rasa which is found in Vrndavana is present in another feature in Navadwipa. Some devotees have a special attraction for vrndavana-lila,, others have a special attraction for navadwipa-lila, and a third group represents both camps, but Navadwipa is the most generous. In Vrndavana, the pastimes of Krsna are confined to a confidential circle, but in Navadwipa, those pastimes are distributed. Gaura-lila is more generous than krsna-lila.
In the Caitanya-caritamrta (Mad. 25.271), Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami explains his conception of the difference between gaura-lila and krsna-lila:
krsna-lila amrta-sara, tam sata sata dhara,
dasa-dike vahe yaha haite
se caitanya-lila haya, sarovcira aksaya,
mano-hamsa caraha' tahate
He says, "There is no doubt that we find the highest nectarine taste of rasa in krsna-lila. But what is gaura-lila? In gaura-lila, the nectar of krsna-lila is not confined to a limited circle, but is being distributed on all sides. It is just as if from all ten sides of the nectarine lake of krsna-lila hundreds of streams are flowing."
Our highest aspiration is to achieve the service of Srimati Radharani, but in the beginning, we must approach Sri Nityananda Prabhu through His manifest representation, the guru. Nityananda Prabhu consolidates the foundation which helps us progress further in devotion. Quick progress without a good foundation invites a negative reaction, so the mercy of Nityananda Prabhu is our primary necessity. This approach culminates in the service of Srimati Radharani (nitaiyer-karuna habe braje radha-krsnapabe).
To be reinstated as a servant of the servant to the extreme degree is the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Our goal is not to become one with Krsna—to receive service—we want to render service. The predominated moiety of the Absolute Truth is negative potency—the energy that serves—and the predominating moiety receives that service. Our best interest will be reached when, according to our constitutional nature, we attain our position in the line of servitors in the negative, predominated moiety; not by considering ourselves one with the positive, predominating moiety.
By the grace of Nityananda Prabhu, we develop our attraction for Sri Gauranga. If we receive the grace of Sri Gauranga, we receive everything in the highest degree. And that is the safest way to approach Radha-Govinda. If we try to achieve Radha-Govinda in some other way, our attempt will naturally be artificial and defective; if we approach Radha-Govinda directly, avoiding Sri Gauranga, there will be great difficulty.
An Investment in Navadwipa
Therefore, we should invest all our energy in the service of Sri Gaurahga. Then, we shall automatically find ourselves being lifted towards the highest level. Prabhodananda Saraswati Thakura prays:
yatha yatha gaura padaravinde
vindeta bhaktim krta punya rasih
tatha tathot sarpati hrdy akasmat
radha padambhoja sudhambhurasih
As much as we devote ourselves to the lotus feet of Sri Gauranga, we will automatically achieve the nectarine service of Srimati Radharani in Vrndavana. An investment in Navadwipa Dhama will automatically take one to Vrndavana. How one has been carried there will be unknown to him. But those who have good fortune invest everything in the service of Gauranga. If they do that, they will find that everything has automatically been offered to the divine feet of Srimati Radharani. She will accept them in Her confidential service and give them engagement, saying, "Oh, you have a good recommendation from Navadwipa; I immediately appoint you to this service." Srimati Radharani is introduced in the form of Gauranga with the added element of magnanimity. No selfish sensualism can enter our consideration of the pastimes of Sri Gauranga, for there He appears as a sannyasi and a devotee.
Of course, if we are to analyze Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, we shall find Krsna in the garb of Radharani. According to the impersonal philosophers, when negative and positive combine, they become non-differentiated oneness, but Vaisnava philosophy says that when both positive and negative aspects of Godhead are com-bined, personality is not lost. Rather, in the garb of the negative, the positive is converted and begins searching for Himself in the mood of the highest searcher. According to Vaisnavism, when positive and negative combine, they do not create equilibrium; rather, their dynamic character is always maintained. The combination of Radha and Govinda is Sri Gauranga, and by the grace of Nityananda Prabhu, we may be attracted to Sri Gauranga.]
Vrajabhumi.
As an ex-haribol with possible links to the hippie generation, you might want to contribute to this convo.
See post and subsequent comments.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005725.html#more
raghavendu
Like I already said, Sridhar Maharaj also distorts Gaudiya theology in order to inspire people to think that what they really need to do in order to become self-realized and Krishna conscious is to serve a guru and his organization.
His ideas are not supported by the founding acharyas nor by Mahaprabhu. The idea that:
…is misinterpreted by Sridhar Maharaj to mean:
This is what Sridhar Maharaj is doing — he is trying to distort the idea of what is “devotion to Mahaprabhu” and how that “brings us to Radha”. It is supposed to mean:
“By devoting yourself to learning and following Mahaprabhus teachings you will develop the ability to enter into a relationship with Radha”
Whereas Sridhar Maharaj distorts that basic Gaudiya conception to mean:
“By seva to the guru and the preaching mission you will be rewarded a relationship with Radha in some mysterious way”
The teachings by Sridhar Maharaj where he stresses ideas such as:
“To be reinstated as a servant of the servant to the extreme degree is the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaisnavism”
And his teaching that:
“we should not disturb the higher quarter by trying to directly approach Radha Krishna”
…is exploitative nonsense, it’s not supported by Mahaprabhu, sastra, or the previous acharyas.
Extreme humility is called for, submission is called for — in the teachings of Mahaprabhu — but towards what? To his instructions. We are supposed to humble ourselves and submit to what he taught about how to develop our relationship of prema bhakti towards Radha Krishna.
Whereas Sridhar Maharaj wants us to develop an extremely humble and “negative” or submissive “extreme service attitude” as our personal mood towards Radha Krishna.
That is certainly not “the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaisnavism”, that is his own distorted version. It has nothing to do with authentic Gaudiya Vaishnavism which exhorts us towards the intimacy of close friendship and romance as the mood we should take in the development of our personal relationship with Radha Krishna.
Mahaprabhu wants us to go in the direction of the mood of the Vrajavasis — like the camaraderie and romance of the cowherd boy and girls. Sridhar Maharaj wants us to go in the direction of the mood of an extremely submissive menial servant.
He is trying to steer people into thinking they have to develop a mood of slave like submission to the guru and his organization in order to “be saved” because he is the representative of Radha — so he will pass on “your service” to Radha — and you will be rewarded. It has nothing to do with the Bhagavatam’s teachings. It has nothing to do with self-realization. It’s a complete perversion of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It’s sole purpose is to exploit people.
Vrajabhumi, Due to the intense politics in the Gaudiya Math, Srila Sridhar Maharaja left his guru’s institution in the late 30s’. No one knew his where-abouts, yet he was in the jungle at Kolerganj in Nabadwip doing solitary bhajan. Within a few years some godbrothers found him and built a thatched hut for his bhajan kutir. Later his brother purchased that land for him so that he could stay. Then gradually some of his godbrothers and others came to hear his Hari katha. Even when the Westerners came to his Math en mass in 1981 there were only twelve persons living there and the Math was very poor. Before the Gaudiya Math elected Vasudeva Prabhu acarya, the principle leaders had offered that post to Srila Sridhar Maharaja but he declined thinking that it would be unfavorable for his practicing life. When criticized by the Iskcon GBC for not going out preaching, Prabhupada style, Srila Sridhar Maharaja laughed and called himself a , “backward pushing man”. He would say, “I am a form breaker not a form maker”, and this statement terrified the Iskcon GBC. Srila Sridhar Maharaja’s siddhanta and Hari katha was the same during the time of Srila Saraswati Prabhupada, when he lived in the thatched hut and when the Westerners came. The cowherd boy and girls may have “camaraderie and romance” with Krsna but the basis of that is their service attitude.
You may not like this transliteration and translation [but]:
jīvera ’svarūpa’ haya — kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’
kṛṣṇera ‘taṭasthā-śakti’ ‘bhedābheda-prakāśa’
sūryāḿśa-kiraṇa, yaiche agni-jvālā-caya
svābhāvika kṛṣṇera tina-prakāra ‘śakti’ haya
SYNONYMS
jīvera — of the living entity; svarūpa — the constitutional position; haya — is; kṛṣṇera — of Lord Kṛṣṇa; nitya-dāsa — eternal servant; kṛṣṇera — of Lord Kṛṣṇa; taṭasthā — marginal; śakti — potency; bheda-abheda — one and different; prakāśa — manifestation; sūrya-aḿśa — part and parcel of the sun; kiraṇa — a ray of sunshine; yaiche — as; agni-jvālā-caya — molecular particle of fire; svābhāvika — naturally; kṛṣṇera — of Lord Kṛṣṇa; tina-prakāra — three varieties; śakti — energies; haya — there are.
TRANSLATION
“It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa because he is the marginal energy of Kṛṣṇa and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Kṛṣṇa has three varieties of energy.
But can you argue that Srila Krsna das Kaviraja did not write, “krsnera nitya dasa” some 500 years ago? Can you argue that dasa does not mean servant (actually more literally, slave)? Can you argue that all the four higher rasas, sakhya, vatsalya and madhurya do not contain dasya? Can you argue that the intense devotional renunciation of the Goswamis such as sleeping under a different tree every night and begging madhukari door to door was not an act of self-sacrifice or “self-abnegation to the extreme. Or what about the devotional renunciation of Srila Raghunatha das Goswami when he would only take the prasada that the cows would not eat, and Kaviraja Goswami explains how pleased Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was with him? Or what about the prayer composed by Sarvabhauma Battacarya after Mahaprabhu had revealed his Sad Bhuja form?
vairagya-vidya-nija-bhakti-yoga-
siksartham ekah purusah puranah
sri-krsna-caitanya-sarira-dhari
krpambudhir yas tam aham prapadye
“I surrender unto the lotus feet of Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is an ocean of mercy. He is the Original Personality of Godhead, Krsna, and has descended to teach us the real meaning of knowledge, renunciation, and devotion to Him.” [The Golden Volcano]
Is not vairagya or devotional renunciation and effort to sacrifice one very self for the pleasure of the Lord?
Obviously exploitation in the name of devotion has occurred but your attempt at explaining the root cause does not really fly because you are trying to say that the concept of Krsna dasa or service to Krsna is some new invention by modern gurus to exploit people. Even the faithless religious historian will immediately see how this theory contradicts the historical facts and the very philosophy Caityanya Caritamrta.
raghavendu
You wrote:
Maybe he was asked to be the acharya of the Gaudiya Math, Maybe it is just mythology. I don’t care about the history of the Gaudiya Math. Here is Sridhar Maharaja’s bio of when he left the Gaudiya Math until he started his own organization, in his own words:
If he was such a great renunciate than why did he demand to have sole control and ownership over the temple when it was proposed to be run by a board? He didn’t raise the money for the temple.
You also wrote:
I think you got that wrong. Sridhar Maharaj claimed Prabhupada asked him to be president of ISKCON and take a role in preaching to his followers, but that Sridhar Maharaj declined by saying he’s a “backward pushing man”. And the “I am a form breaker not a form maker” thing didn’t “terrify” the GBC. At first they went to Sridhar Maharaj for help after Prabupada died, he told them that the guys who were going to be gurus should be autocratic and have no authority above them, that they should each have their own little world to rule over, that they should accept worship, etc. That was how the zonal acharya system was implemented.
After a few years Sridhar Maharaj was getting popular in ISKCON, the zonal acharyas had learned to love their new lives of absolute power and worship and wealth, so they turned against Sridhar because they realized that their new lives of being worshiped by willing slaves as the highest level paramahamsas might be in jeopardy if they were compared with Sridhar or other older gurus. So, they decided then and there to establish that no gurus outside of ISKCON will be allowed into ISKCON. They weren’t afraid of Sridhar Maharaj “breaking ISKCON” or their rule, he had aided them in gaining their power and worship — they were afraid that they would look bad in comparison to older gurus from India and would therefore lose potential disciples.
You wrote:
That quote from Mahaprabhu is not about bhava and rasa, as you imply. Mahaprabhu says that the jiva is inherently a servant of Krishna because we are tatastha-shakti. That is about the ontological nature of the jiva, i.e. because we are a shakti of Krishna we have no real power or indepedence to do anything outside of Krishna’s control. We serve Krishna’s desires because we have no power to do anything independently. Just like a puppet is inherently the servant of the puppeteer. As I already explained: service is part of every bhava because any type of loving relationship between people involves service of some type or another, i.e. a friend or parent or lover serves their friends, lovers and children, but that doesn’t mean that the dominant mood in their relationships is that of servant to master. Krishna is serving us by creating and maintaining everything in existence, does that mean that his bhava and rasa (personal relationship) towards us is that of our servant?
You said:
How could the Goswamis have written their books, which quoted so many scriptures, unless they had a lot of books at their disposal? There is no proof they “slept under a different tree every night”. There is proof that they had bhajan-kutirs and other accomodations. There is a renunciate tradition within Gaudiya Vaishnavism for various reasons mostly having to do with public perception, but it certainly isn’t some type of barometer of a person’s level of self-realization, e.g. Ramananda Raya, Pundarika Vidyanidhi, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, etc. Nor is extreme renunciation necessary to become self-realized. Anyways that isn’t what Sridhar Maharaj meant when he spoke about “self-abnegation to the extreme”, it wasn’t about renunciation per se. He was speaking about the gopis giving up everything to serve Krishna as an example of how we should give up everything to serve Krishna. But the gopis are part of the pleasure pastimes of Radha Krishna, they aren’t sacrificing anything, they are simply enjoying life.
Krishna teaches us that we should try to become self-realized so that we can enjoy a more enjoyable permanent lifestyle. We need only give up things which are serious impediments towards attaining that goal, e.g. anything which makes you give up sadhana, especially sravanam and kirtanam. You seem to have this idea that Krishna wants us to renounce enjoyment because he wants us to be his menial servants in some type of sadomasochist bhava and rasa. This is because you have been educated by people looking to exploit your ignorance.
you wrote:
No, that is a sadomasochistic conception. Vairagya serves one purpose — to aid you in becoming self-realized so you can enter into relationship of friendsip and love — centered around enjoyment — with Radha Krishna. Bogus gurus teach the conception that Radha Krishna are looking for menial servile slave like submission in a relationship, those gurus are either ignorant or looking to exploit you.
you said
The teachings of Mahaprabhu are that we should follow after the mood of the Vrajavasis. What is their mood? What is the mood of the sakhis and sakhas or the parental figures in Krishna lila? Have you read Krishna lila? Have you read Rupa Goswami’s plays? It is not about servants and masters, it is about equals enjoying each other’s company. Krishna lila’s purpose is to serve as a template for how we should approach Radha Krishna in the development of our personal relationship. It’s really quite simple and easy to understand. Even though what I say is clear and obviously the truth, you have come under the mind control of bogus gurus with agendas to exploit you, and therefore your understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is all messed up and you seek to convince others to join you in your madness. Try to be a bit more on the listening and learning instead of the teaching and ignoring, as it stands you don’t seem able to see the forest for the trees.
why are there so many bad sanskrit translations, it is difficult? exists good translations? it seems that the only way is to learn sanskrit [working on it]
[...] is a response to a comment from ccc on the Gimme Shelter post. why are there so many bad sanskrit translations, it is [...]