Yadasya anhubhedyah kradhu sthulmupatsat , muskavidasya ajato goshafe shakulaviva .28/23 yaj
Brahmin and Kshatriya exist in Ramrajya like situation only , all are SHUDRAS otherwise , specially in current state of affairs .
Yadasya anhubhedyah kradhu sthulmupatsat , muskavidasya ajato goshafe shakulaviva .28/23 yaj
Brahmin and Kshatriya exist in Ramrajya like situation only , all are SHUDRAS otherwise , specially in current state of affairs .
Namaste Sahasranama,
That's a good article.
I am not sure if this makes perfect sense but it at least signals a different approach to understanding the Bhagavata from what many of us are used to..
"The impression that a non-sectarian reader would have of the outlook of the Bhagavata on metaphysics is that it is not exclusively committed to any single system generally found in Indian philosophy. As in the Upanishads and the Gita, dualism, identity-in-difference in its various shades, realistic monism, solipsistic monism, etc. all find a place in the Text in different contexts. The Text does not show any antipathy towards any of them and feels no contradiction in giving a place to all of them. Its effort is towards the synthesis of all and not for positing opposition between the different philosophies.
The synthesising principle for the Bhagavata is Bhakti or devotion of the highest type..." ~From the General Introduction to Srimad Bhagavata The Holy Book of God by Swami Tapasyananda
Beware.
(Promotion of quarrel and dissentment amongst Vaishnava Hindus. And speaking of this lightly as though its for fun.)
What kind of a person wants others to commit blasphemy against the deity that they worship?...
thus no longer being able to take advantage of the juicy op to commit one of the "ten offenses" in the chanting of the holy name.
...
Which devotee of Lord Krishna would want others to misspeak his God's holy name?
The goal of the Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not to make brahmanas. In this connection Gopala-bhatta quotes in Hari-bhakti-vilasa (after 5.455) from Padma Purana:
pādme ca-
na śūdrā bhagavad-bhaktās te tu bhāgavatā narāḥ |
sarva-varṇeṣu te śūdrā ye na bhaktā janārdane ||
The devotees of the Lord are not śūdrā- bhaktās bhagavad na śūdrā
But the most superior personalities - te tu bhāgavatā narāḥ
(Persons of) All social classes are all of them śūdrā - sarva-varṇeṣu te śūdrā
If they are not devotees of the Lord - ye na bhaktā janārdane
There is no injunction to become a brahmana, and the verse also does not say that a devotee of the Lord becomes a brahmana (without proper samskar according varna-ashrama dharma).
̣ So what was the incentive of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati to proclamate himself a brahamana, other than the social recognition, which gave rise to a riot amidst the brahmanas of his time also by his fabrication of brahmanas.
From the very beginning Sri Caitanya rejected varna-ashrama dharma as a goal of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and although Narayana Maharaja rejected in the beginnig this too, he revised his point of view later, and took the side of Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhantas.
Let’s look more carefully at what “Prabhupada" said in the
Room conversation February 14 1977, Sri Dhama Mayapura
Satsvarüpa: Lord Caitanya, when Ramananda Raya brought this up (That the perfection of life can be achieved by following Varna-ashrama dharma)
He said it was not possible in this age to introduce this.
Prabhupäda: “Yes. Not... He did not say possible. Ihä bähya”
(He said that it is external- iha bahya, meaning that it has nothing to do with the true nature of the soul – divine love for Krishna)
Caitanya Mahaprabhu was interested only on the spiritual platform. He had no idea of material side. He rejected material side.”
Satsvarüpa: But don’t we do that also?
Prabhupäda: No. Our position is different. …
In this statement “Prabhupada” rejects this teaching of Sri Caitanya, saying that what if
Caitanya Mahaprabhu was interested only on the spiritual platform…
"Our position is different." (meaning that one should be interested also in something else than spiritual platform-
eventually practicing karma (in reality vi-karma) mishra bhakti – under the later label daivi varNashram dharma).
In response to those arguing over whether different devotees are Vaiṣṇavas in the line of Lord Caitanya or not, I request you read these two verses from Śrī Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu:
“Furthermore it should be stated that even if one has just a little taste for the topic of bhakti, he can understand it. He who tries to understand bhakti by dry logic cannot understand it, because logic is insubstantial.”
“Concerning this topic it is said by the ancient authorities: ‘A person more skillful at logic can bring about a conclusion different from what was carefully proven previously by another skillful logician.’ ” [Śrī Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.1.45-46]This is coming from Rūpa Gosvāmī who was certainly a great devotee in the line of Lord Caitanya. It is useless to try to understand this stuff through dry logic, you can waste a lot of time which would be better spent cultivating your taste for bhakti. Only that will bring you happiness. I humbly ask you to consider this.
Anyway, here are some Vaiṣṇava sites:
http://bhaktimasterclass.org/ (A site focusing on the deep study of Śrī Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu).
www.esotericteaching.org (contains a vast amount of free downloadable material for Vaiṣṇavas at all levels).
http://mukutesvara.wordpress.com/ (my blog).
I don't know if one argues about that. I personally realized that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati has
1. not even ever been initiated as he and his followers pretended and as such... the folowers may or not understand the consequences.
2. He presented a false parampara as his chain of uninterupted gurus. By that was later invented the so called shishya parampara, renamed as sad-guru parampara.
3. as proof that he was not a follower of Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition,
- he adopted sannyasa vesha
- invented brahmana initiation
- never practiced raganuga bhakti as long as he had no siddha pranali - uninterupted chain of gopis belonging to a particular group in Krishna lila reflected in the chain if siddha babas of a particular branch of Sri Caitanya tree of devotion, he may worship according mantra mayi upasana.
- preached extensively against the brahmanas of his time -
- had not the tilak svarup of a particular Gaudiya sampradaya
...
for more "understanding", of what I "say", you can read my previous posts.
Last edited by anadi; 11 March 2011 at 08:34 PM.
One who has a little taste in bhakti, will argue, using bhakti shastra, the others not. Dry logic means not using bhakti shastra in one's argumentation.
A person skilful in logic based on bhakti shastra (of his own sampradaya), has some little taste for bhakti, as practiced in his sampradaya.
Rupa Gosvami ki jaya
this stuff... meaning "arguing over whether different devotees are Vaiṣṇavas in the line of Lord Caitanya or not"
Well, after many years of study Gaudiya Vaishnava Shastras, I understood that Gaudiya Math and all its branches are based on false "things", by the way including translations.
And I needed quite some time.
Attachment to some GM or even Iskcon gurus makes usually this quite impossible. ... Bharata Maharaja was attached even to a deer.
Skilful logic, based on bhakti shastra is not to be condemned:
tatra uttamaḥ —
śāstre yuktau ca nipuṇaḥ sarvathā dṛḍha-niścayaḥ |
prauḍha-śraddho’dhikārī yaḥ sa bhaktāv uttamo mataḥ ||1.2.17||
“The uttamādhikārī is defined as follows: The person who is skillful in scripture and logic, completely firm in his belief, with deep faith, is considered qualified as uttama in vaidhī-bhakti.”
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks