Lokanātha's Guru

March 22, 2006
Sītānāth's Dol-Saptamī. I shoot a pic of Giridhārī on the wooden Brajabāsī-swing in 'my' gośālā at Rādhākuṇḍa.

Lokanātha Goswāmī's Guru
Vilasakunja.com, March 18, 2006:
Q: This view seems to me to be quite problematic. Why should he (Lokanath) not accept a diksa-guru? And how could he then give diksa to Narottama?
Madhavananda Das: "He may have felt it was not relevant, given his relationship with Mahaprabhu since his very childhood, and the infusion of all divine essence this relationship effected."

This is a bizarre theory for someone who, on Gaudiya Discussions, vehemently preached the need for everyone to take dīkṣā in the proper line. This is an echo of the theory of Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati's followers. Mahāprabhu, Lord Rāma, Lord Kṛṣṇa- everyone gave the proper example by taking dīkṣā, and then Lokanāth Goswāmi did not need it? Advaita Prakāśa (12.97-100) clearly states that he did. Why Lokanātha Goswāmi's Guru is not mentioned in the different Guru-praṇālīs is a wonder to me too, since there are scriptural claims on him by both the Adwaita Parivāra and the Gadādhar Parivāra.

Holi/Gaur pūrnimā 2006

(Tulasis in Yadunath's garden)

March 14, 2006
2006 Colour Holi/Gaurpurnima
It's cloudy and windy, so no weather to be soaked by Holi-liquids. So I stay inside and give Giridhārī His abhiṣekh with just raw milk. In the evening there's such a rainstorm that I doubt if I will make it to Rohini's house, but I do reach it.

Rohini supports Jai-kṛṣṇa Dās Bābā's suggestion that a manjari's cloud-coloured dress can be white too, like an autumn cloud. It's not like a widow's dress, because it can have embroidery and ornaments. An apt discussion on a full-moon night, when Rādhikā goes out dressed all in white.

March 15, 2006
Stool-Holi begins early, at 7.45 a.m., when Brijabasis, with bags of powder, begin coloring each other. Rohini's place isn't much safer than the gośālā though - at 11 a.m. scary bands of Brijabasis with black hands (stool or paint?) are roaming around the house. When I cook for Rohini I warn him against my bad cooking. He wisely replies that (Mahāprabhu told Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī) we shouldn't eat nicely. I'll remember that next time I have guests! I suppose that if I didn't bother too much about nice dressing (the other prohibition of Mahāprabhu) I wouldn't be so terrified of stool-Holi anymore!

Sridhara Swami says that forgetting God in the famous 'bhayam dvitīyābhiniveśatah'-verse (11.2.37): bhagavataḥ svarūpāsphūrtis tato viparyayo dehāsmīti means "Not having a vision of God's own form. Hence one thinks: I am the body."

An alternative reading says: īśa vimukhasya tan māyayā'smṛtiḥ svarūpāsphūrtiḥ, 'Forgetfulness of God means that one does not perceive ones own svarūpa..." Nothing about falling from Goloka here....

About the famous 'ye'nye'ravindākṣa' verse (10.2.32) he says tvayi asto nirasto'ta evāsan yo bhāvas tasmāt bhakter abhāvād.... "Having no devotion to You" kṛcchrena bahu janma tapasā paraṁ padaṁ mokṣa sannihitaṁ sat-kula tapaḥ śrutādi."After many births of penance he attains the supreme abode, nearness to liberation, birth in a good family, learning..." 'sannihita' means "close, near, at hand, proximate, prepared to, ready or", so he's not really merged in brahman yet. This shows that no jīva falls down from Brahman, this verse having been the only option that would allow such a theory.

Śiva Caturdaśī, prāṇa pratiṣṭha, respect and Sevā Kuñja

Due to difference of opinion most people did Śiva Pūjā and the vigil yesterday, so today it really peaceful at Gopeśvara Mahādeva Mandir. At the gate I buy a basket with a garland, roses, Bael-leaves, incense and some other items to offer. I am out within 5 minutes.

In a private darśan I ask Satya-nārāyan Dāsjī whether Kṛṣṇa will not be there in the deity because of corrupt management of its temple or organization, due to lack of prāṇa pratiṣṭha or lack of bhakti. He says prāṇa-pratiṣṭhā is just a show conducted for social acceptance of a temple. Kṛṣṇa is anyway everywhere, so why not in a non-installed deity? Kṛṣṇa is manifest in the deity according to the bhakti of the individual who comes for His darshan.

I ask him about the dilemma of having to respect older devotees who may be deeply flawed. He says it is hazardous to criticise elders in public (internet) for one will make many enemies, but in private one should certainly speak the truth about such a senior devotee, because it is one's duty to warn innocent would-be followers against him. About Upadeśāmṛta verse 6 he says that one should not dishonor a devotee because of faulty character but also not associate with him/her, just as one would die after drinking the Yamunā-water in its current polluted state, but must certainly respect her from a distance.

During the class he confirms that one cannot just get darśan of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa by hiding oneself in Sevā-kunja. This is a myth, hearsay. All the neighbors can look in from the first floor and they don't go blind or mad. I tell him I was living in such a first-floor adjacent room and I never saw anything (and mad I was already before that anyway!)

Women and social life

My Dutch friend Vāsu Ghoṣa tells me that women cannot live without social life. Men can. I remember the līlā of the sacrifice of Dakṣa. Satī was so eager to go there and socialize that she defied the prohibition of her husband Śiva and went there anyway. It cost her her life and that of her father.... (I do know there are some women who are less socially inclined but they are exceptions)

satsanga with Satya-nārāyan Dās

Today, during his Bhāgavata-pāṭha, Satya Nārāyan Bābā discussed Viśvanātha Cakravartī's ṭīkā on Śrimad-Bhāgavata 1.9.26, where he says: kintu vairāgyaṁ cet sadaiva bhikṣavo bhaveyus tadā rāgas ced gṛhastha eva sadeti "A vairāgi should be vairāgī throughout life and a gṛhastha should be a gṛhastha throughout life if that is their true propensity." If vairāgya isn't there at age 50 one has either not properly followed gṛhastha dharma or one is simply not inclined towards vairāgya."

When I ask Satyanārāyan Bābā about the Haribhakti-vilāsa verse amārgastho sanmārgo vā gurur eva janārdanaḥ ("Whether on the path or off it, the Guru is always God"), he says that if the Guru is not on the path he cannot bestow siddhi, just as blind faith in a counterfeit medicine will not cure your disease. He reminds me of the verse I quoted earlier -

guror apy avaliptasya kāryākāryam ajānataḥ

utpatha pratipannasya parityāgo vidhīyate

"If the Guru is arrogant, does not know right from wrong and is devious he is to be fully rejected".

I ask him about the muktānām api siddhānām verse (Śrimad-Bhāgavata 6.14.5), if that means that those who merged into brahman can really proceed to bhakti. He says muktānām refers to jīvanmuktas (those liberated in this body), not to atyantika muktas, fully liberated souls. Kṛṣṇa may take a soul out of brahman, because individuality is eternal, even in brahma-līna. A drop of water remains a drop, also when it is part of an ocean.

Edited December 16, 2008

The advent of Śrī Advaita Ācārya

As Lord Sadāśiva, the transcendental deity from Vaikuṇṭha who is the fountainhead of all the forms of Śiva within the innumerable mundane universes saw the wicked age of Kali, or quarrel, destroying all godly qualities in man, He became filled with compassion. After many deliberations with goddess Yogamāyā He sat down on the shore of the Causal Ocean, where Lord Mahaviṣṇu lies in mystic slumber. That great, ever-joyful yogi sat down on a yoga-āsana and began to practice yoga there. After 700 years of penance the Universal Lord Mahāviṣṇu appeared to Him. Five-headed Śiva then offered many kinds of indescribable praises to Mahāviṣṇu, who replied: "My dear Sadāśiva! Why are You trying to please Me by performing such difficult austerities? You and I are one! We differ only in body!" Sadāśiva replied: "My dear Lord, unless You empower Me to save suffering mankind, how can I do it?" Then Mahāviṣṇu embraced Sadāśiva and thus They assumed one captivating, radiant golden form in which They would appear, roaring out 'kṛṣṇa! kṛṣṇa!'
Then a most amazing divine voice resounded in the sky, proclaiming: "Listen, O Mahāviṣṇu! First descend in the womb of Lābhā-devī in this form— later I will personally descend in Nadiya. You will then find Me in the abode of Śacī and Jagannātha. Balarāma and all the other devotees will also all take birth there to redeem the conditioned souls." Hearing this, Mahāviṣṇu became one with Siva and together they entered the womb of Lābhā-devī in Śāntipura.

2006 Sītānāth Utsava

Kṛṣṇā Di

Kīrtan in the pandal

Golok and Rākhā Dā

Thanks to Prāngovinda for the hottest photos of Sītānāth's Utsava - the annual festival to commemmorate Advaita Prabhu's birthday in Sādhu Bābā's āśram, Prāchīn Māyāpur, Navadvīp! Glory to digital photography! Sītānātha's Utsav comes (almost) live into your living-room!

Sādhu Bābā on Vedic Utopia

Returning to the discussion of meat-eating and other practices in the Vedic civilization, I have this entry in my Indian diary, early November, 1984 – "Shortly after the assassination of Indira Gandhi I ask Bābā how it is possible that such a person can rule a holy land like India for so long." Bābā pointedly replied: āge-o kaṁsa-ṭaṁsa chilo to? “In the ancient days there were demoniac rulers like Kaṁsa too, weren’t there?” This is significant in relation to the utopian ideas that many, especially western, devotees, have of the ancient Vedic civilization. Its principles were perfect, but human beings are not and never were.

This anecdote is added to the biography of Sādhu Bābā (linktab Nikunja Gopal Gosvami, page 43) at www.madangopal.com

On siddha praṇālī

On siddha pranali, Muralidhara das states today in Audarya-fellowship:

In fact there is a situation where, generation after generation, the successive gurus in various "traditional communities" of Gaudiya Vaishnavas are giving instruction about "siddha-deha" to new initiates, with the gurus telling the disciples about their own "siddha name" and "siddha form", as well as the disciple's form and name: "you are such-and-such manjari"; but in reality these so-called gurus have no real vision of either their own real spiritual form or the spiritual body of their so-called disciples. The so-called gurus haven't realized their own real "siddha form". Nor have they attained the realized the stage of Prema (pure love). But they are initiating new disciples and telling the disciple "you are a manjari and your name is such-and-such-manjari". The practices of these people are in fact a mere imitation of the practices of Gopal Guru Goswami, Dhyanacandra Goswami and other devotees of the past who had a real and direct understanding of the transcendental form of their innermost self (swarup siddha).

This is objectionable. How does Muralidhara das know whether or not these 'so-called' Gurus are self-realized and have prema or not? It is insinuating, which is dangerous in relation to Vaiṣṇavas. There lies the chance of Vaiṣṇava aparādha. Let Muralidhara come forward and tell us which 'so-called Guru' is not realized and has no prema, yet gives siddha pranali.

"In his commentary (on Bhakti Rasamrita 1.2.291), Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Prabhu points out that in this verse Sri Rupa Gosvami has clearly defined raganuga bhakti. Here, Sri Rupa Goswami states that those individuals who in their intrinsic nature feel an intense longing and firm attachment for service following in the wake of the feelings and sentiments of the residents of Vrindaban, with no thought or attraction for the majesties of the Godhead, are alone eligible for following in the way of raganuga bhakti. The person eligible for raganuga bhakti may spontaneously follow Sri Radha and other Gopis in madhura rati, Nanda-Yasoda and others in vatsalya rati, Sridama-Sudama and others in sakhya rati, or Citraka-Patraka and others in dasya rati."

Factually, however, Viśvanātha Cakravartī says nothing of the kind. He says:

prasaṅgato rāgātmikāyā lakṣaṇam uktvā prastutayā rāgānugāyā lakṣaṇam āha - rāgātmikāyā iti. rāgātmika bhaktau eka-niṣṭhaṁ yeṣāṁ teṣāṁ vrajavāsināṁ śrī kṛṣṇe yo bhāvas tat sājātīya bhāvāptaye lubdha ityarthaḥ.

"In the course of discussing rāgātmikā bhakti, rāgānugā bhakti is also defined, in this verse rāgātmikaika etc. The greed to attain the same feelings towards Śrī Kṛṣṇa that the exclusively fixed rāgātmikā vrajavāsī bhaktas have (is called rāgānugā bhakti)."

The word 'spontaneous' is not there, 'attraction for the majesties' is not there, nor is there any mentioning of Yaśodā, Sudāmā and Patraka etc.

Also, it is not that the siddha deha comes just falling out of the sky, like it's pure divine revelation and no sādhana or preliminary meditation is involved. Śrī Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāja has written in his commentary on Kṛṣṇa Karnāmṛta, verse 3, that in the unripe stage, preceding bhāva, one may meditate on one's own desired siddha deha -

rāgānugā mārge anutpanna-rati sādhaka-bhaktair api svepsita siddha dehaṁ manasi parikalpya bhagavat sevādikam kriyate. jata ratīnam tu svayam eva tad deha sphūrteḥ

"In the ripe stage of bhāva it becomes manifest by itself." This is confirmed by Narottama Dāsa Thākur in his Premabhakti Candrikā:

sādhane bhāvibo yāhā, siddha dehe pābo tāhā

 pakkāpakka mātra sei vicāra 

'What I think of in my sādhana is what I will attain in my siddhi. The only difference is ripeness or rawness." On the other hand again, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says that one does need to be pure-hearted in order to be able to meditate on anything. So the truth lies in the middle. Nor the stern approach of Bhaktisiddhānta nor the 'anything goes'- approach of some bābājīs is balanced.

Muralīdhara then continues:

Baladeva quotes the Chandogya Upanishad, which states:
"Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form, as soon as it has approached the highest light, the knowledge of Self. He, in that state, is the highest person (uttama purusha). He moves about there laughing or eating, playing, and rejoicing in his mind, be it with women, carriages, or relatives, never minding that body into which he was born. - Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.3.
In his Govinda Bhasya commentary Sri Baladev Vidyabhusan then quotes the following verse from the Padma Purana:
anur nityo vyapti-silas cid-anandatmakas tatha aham artho 'vyayah saksi bhinna-rupah sanatanah
The soul is atomic, eternal, is present by consciousness everywhere in the material body, is by nature full of spiritual bliss and knowledge, has a sense of individual identity, is unchanging, is a witness within the body, and is different from the Supreme.
Srila Baladev Vidyabhusan states that the spiritual form of bliss the liberated being attains is the original form of the soul that lay dormant within when the soul was in illusion. The Vedanta Sutra tells us that the spiritual body of the liberated being is the soul's original form. This form is a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss, as is mentioned in the verse above (cid-ananda-atma). It is not that the soul attains liberation and enters into a spiritual body or a form of existence which is an external imposition, an external state of being different from the self itsef. Not at all. The liberated soul realizes the spiritual nature of one's own inner being."

This, however, does not contradict the 'superimposition of a siddha svarūpa'. The above quotes of Narottama and Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāja make it clear that one does meditate on details of the siddha svarūpa in an unripe state. The quotes from Baladeva and the Upaniṣads simply state that the soul is unchangeable, intrinsically spiritual etc, and there is neither acceptance or rejection of meditating on the details of one's siddha-svarūpa in these quotes.

By saying It is not that the soul attains liberation and enters into a spiritual body or a form of existence which is an external imposition, an external state of being different from the self itsef. Not at all. The liberated soul realizes the spiritual nature of one's own inner being." Muralidhara contradicts himself, as in the beginning of his essay he did acknowledge the validity of the siddha praṇālī-process given by "Gopal Guru Goswami, Dhyanacandra Goswami and other devotees of the past who had a real and direct understanding of the transcendental form of their innermost self (swarup siddha)."

Hindus, Vaiṣṇavas and the eating of meat.

While reading a thread on gaudiyarepercussions.com about meat-eating in the Vedic civilization I am wondering if the participants have ever been to India or they have any experience of Vedic life outside of Iskcon at all. No Vaiṣṇava ācārya has ever claimed that the Vedic civilization on the whole is one of pure vegetarianism, nor are Vedic- and Vaiṣṇava culture totally identical or even compatible. One who has lived in India will surely know that most Hindus are not vegetarians, though they will abstain from beef. Scriptures like Harivaṁśa and books about Rāmacandra (haven't seen that myself though, so I can't confirm or deny it) and Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa (that I did read) may have described Rāma or the Brajabāsīs eating meat. One must understand here that, at least the Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa (which I can judge) is a Purāṇa in the mode of passion (rajo-guna) and that colors its subjective depiction of Kṛṣṇa līlā as well.

However, the books quoted in that thread are not quoted in the Gosvāmīs' books. nānā śāstra vicāranaika nipuṇau saddharma saṁsthāpakau (Śrīnivāsācārya's Ṣaḍ gosvāmyaṣṭakam - 2) "The Gosvāmīs were expert in scrutinizing various (not all) scriptures to establish the sad-dharma, the true religion." The outcome of their studies is that meat, fish and eggs are not served during Vaiṣṇava feasts, not in Iskcon, but also not in the Gaudiya Maṭha, with the bābājīs, Gosvāmīs or anywhere. It is also mentioned in Bhagavad Gītā (9.26) and the Bhagavat (1.17.38. śūnaḥ prāṇī-vadhah...adharma - 'killing other living beings is adharma', Viśvanātha ṭīkā) that a Vaiṣṇava is to be a vegetarian. Nobody has ever claimed that Vedic civilization itself is or has ever been vegetarian.

Mahāprabhu about respect in general

From Caitanya Caritāmṛta (Antya 4. 135-169) we learn that junior devotees should not instruct senior devotees. In this narration we see that Jagadānanda Paṇḍit advised Sanātana Gosvāmī to go to Vṛndāvana, but when Mahāprabhu heard that he was very angry, because Jagadānanda Paṇḍita was junior to Sanātana Goswāmī not just vyavahāre, materially, by being younger in age, but also paramārthe, spiritually, because Sanātana Gosvami was like his Guru (CC Antya 4.159 vyavahāre paramārthe tumi - tāra guru tulya). Mahāprabhu thus set the standard for devotees of all time to act according to maryādā, or protocol. He will be very angry when junior devotees instruct senior ones - maryādā laṅghana āmi sohite nā pāri (C.C. Antya 4.166) "I cannot tolerate breach of the protocol."

One should note, however, that if a devotee senior in age is inferior in spiritual advancement one need not heed the instructions of such a senior devotee-by-age-only. After all, Mahaprabhu said of Sanātana Gosvāmī: kāhā tumi - prāmāṇika, śāstre pravīṇa; kāhā jagā - kālikāra batuyā navīna (CC Antya 4.167) "Where are you, expert in the scriptures and a great authority, and where is Jagadānanda in comparison, a new student?" Sanātana Gosvāmī was not just superior in age.…….

This paragraph is added to the end of my essay 'Who or what is a brahmin or a Guru?' on the 'Articles'- page of www.madangopal.com

More cautions by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī said in Gopāl Campū (1.23.1) that the Rāsa-līlā is for private discussion, not public hearing: tad etad govinda vraja vijana kāntānuvacanam dadhadbhir yogyasya śravasi param arpyam na sadasi - 'This confidential Rāsa-līlā topic is to be heard by qualified people who carry Govinda in their hearts, not in a public assembly."

This cautionary note is added to the footnote on page 6 of my essay "Qualification for Raganuga Bhakti" under the linktab 'Articles' of www.madangopal.com.

Regrets

I remember that, in 1988, when the late Rohiṇīndranāth Mitra of Keśī-ghāṭ found out that I had translated Govinda Līlāmṛta into English, he told me: "Very well done. And now you please put this book away." Then he went on reminding me how Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvati did not want his followers to read Ujjvala Nīlamaṇi and the like. I remember in 1983 Sādhu Bābā told me not to read rasika books if/when I was in a non-celibate state (he also told me not to go out of our āśram as Navadvīp is full of sahajīyas). Nevertheless I continued to read, translate and distribute rasika kathā. Now self-confessed sahajīyas like Pītāmbar Dās and Jagadānanda Dās are reading and passing out these books to wholly unqualified people. I feel some burden of responsibility here; I was too liberal in the past. Now what to do? When you fired the gun you cannot call back the bullet anymore!

Of course many people also express gratitude at my translation work and some people will benefit from it, but the harmful side-effect of that past 'mission' of mine is that people who do not realise the spiritual nature of Rādhā and Madangopāl's loving pastimes are reading them and are - deliberately or otherwise - misrepresenting them. I deeply regret that....

Orthodox

Trying to place the modern western term 'orthodox' into Vedic/Indian/Vaiṣṇava perspective has proven interesting and flattering indeed. The English-Bengali dictionary translates it into naiṣṭika, which is also a Sanskrit word. bhaktir bhavati naiṣṭhikī (S.B. 1.2.18) naiṣṭhikī niṣṭhā cittaikāgryaṁ tāṁ prāptā - "naiṣṭhikī means attaining niṣṭhā or a fixed mind." (Viśvanātha Cakravartī's ṭīkā) The V.S. Apte Sanskrit dictionary translates naiṣṭhika back into English as follows - "Final, last, concluding, decided, definitive, conclusive, fixed, firm, constant, highest, perfect, completely familiar with or versed in." Next time folks call me orthodox, I will blush of shyness at the flattery....

Advaitācārya, the greatest Guru of madhura rasa

Today, as I browsed through Murāri Gupta's 'Caitanya Carita Mahākāvya', I found a beautiful verse in the introduction (1.20) which ends with this line:

śrī-yuktādvaita-varyaḥ parama-rasa-kalācāraya īśo vireje

(Syntax: śrī-yuktaḥ = resplendent; advaita-varyaḥ = the superexcellent advaita prabhu; parama = the supreme; rasa = relation with God; kalā = the arts; ācārya = teacher; īśaḥ = God; vireje = shines.

"The most glorious Advaita Ācārya is the Supreme Lord and the greatest teacher of the supreme rasa  (the divine amorous flavour in relation to Śrī Kṛṣṇa)."

This adds to the existing evidence that Advaita Ācārya is indeed the bestower of madhura rasa, despite claims to the contrary. This line has been added to page 1 of my essay 'In defense of the Advaita Vaṁśa' at the linktab 'Articles' on http://www.madangopal.com/.

Sītā Caritra and Nandinī-Jangalī

Thanks to Yadupati for sending me an essay by Rebecca J. Manring, called Sita Devi, an Early Vaishnava Guru, about Sri Sita Devi, the spouse of Advaita Prabhu. Here are some interesting paragraphs from it, explaining the origin of Nandini and Jangali, the ‘cross-dressing’ disciples of Sītā-devī, which were mentioned in Prema-vilāsa and Advaita Mangala, stories that were quoted in my book ‘The Glories of Sri Advaitacarya’:

“The author of the Advaita Mangala even describes the first feast Advaita Acharya held after his marriage, to introduce his disciples to his new wife. The texts in fact state that Sita treated these boys and young men as if they were her own sons. And so it would not have been much of a stretch for these students to take the next leap of faith, once their guru had departed, to align themselves with the person who was closest to that guru in some clearly visible ways — his widow. That is apparently exactly what happened: Her husband’s students, her foster sons, in a sense, shifted her into the position of authority recently vacated by her husband.”
……………….
“According to Lokanatha Dasa’s Sita Charitra, her problems begin when two male seekers—Yajneshvara and Nandarama—approach her for instruction, and she is obligated to refuse them on gender grounds. Their story is rich in clues to Sita’s theological identity and the ways her movement chose to accommodate and contain that identity. Nandarama is a brahman, and his friend Yajneshvara is a shudra (the fourth major caste group) from a farming family. Both are great devotees of Krishna, and have decided to seek out a suitable guru. Nandarama remembers having been given a mantra some time previously by Sita, in Shantipur, so the pair set out in search of her. Sita greets them warmly, but tells them that she can only teach other women. Nevertheless she gives them the Radha mantra and some rudimentary advice: to worship Radha and Krishna, visualizing themselves as attendants in the divine couple’s trysting place.”

(Commentary by Advaitadas: This is odd, because the Advaita Vaṁśa does not bestow initiation in Rādhā mantra. It could be Sītā-devī’s personal gift to these two devotees, a special case to accomplish the following līlā:)
……………..
“The two disappear, only to reappear a short time later dressed as gopis, the young cowherd women of Vraja who were Krishna’s close friends and lovers, complete with braided hair, anklets, bangles, skirts and bodices. They announce that the practice of repeating Radha’s mantra has effected a sex change in them. This is an amazing claim!”
……………..
“Not satisfied simply to take their word that the two men are now women, Sita examines the evidence, Lokanatha writes, and then agrees that she can now instruct them. And from this time on Nandarama and Yajneshvara are known as Nandini and Jangali, and live out the remainders of their lives as women. So great was their devotion and their desire to learn from Sita rather than from any other guru that these two were willing to relinquish their very maleness to do so.”
…………………
“The author of the Sita Charitra, writing at a time when the sakhi bhavas were coming under sectarian assault, used Sita’s hagiographical image to define the sakhi bhavas as women and then to connect their sect to a venerable branch of the greater Gaudiya Vaishnava community.”

(Commentary by Advaitadas: With sakhī bhāvas the author means sakhī bhekhīs, men who dress like gopīs. Nandinī and Jangalī are not sakhī bhekhīs, because they actually had a gender change. Sakhī-bhekhīs are physically men, though some go as far as castration, but they never mystically change gender. The author mentioned in the previous paragraph: “Sītā-devī examines the evidence”, which means that an actual gender change took place, and this must have been a mystical sex change caused by their practice of the Rādhā-mantra, because in those days no surgeon would have had the know-how or the instruments to perform such an operation on them. Concluding statement: The members of the Advaita Parivāra are not cross-dressers - the above pastime is a special Līlā performed by Sītā-devī and her disciples, it does not stand as a general rule. I just posted this story because it was new to me and sheds more light on the origins of Nandinī and Jangalī)

The author informed me that unfortunately she has no copy of Sītā Caritra herself, otherwise I would have asked her to send me a copy and much more may have been learned about Sītā Devī.

Remembering the perfect gentleman

My friend Madanmohan quoted this brilliant verse from Śrīmad Bhāgavata 4.17.20 -

praharanti na vai strīṣu kṛtāgaḥsvapi jantavah

kim uta tvad vidhā rājan karuṇā dīna vatsalaḥ

“People do not beat women, even if they have done wrong. What to speak of persons like you, O king, who are so compassionate and kind to the poor?"

(Goddess Earth to King Pṛthu)

This reminded me of an incident in Sādhu Bābā's līlā, so I added this text as a footnote to his biography, page 52. See link tab Nikunja Gopal Gosvami on www.madangopal.com

Intellect led by śraddhā

From a recent lecture by Swami Tripurāri in the USA:

“On symbolism and Kṛṣṇa līlā, Swami said this morning that it is unavoidable that we will project symbolic meanings into a world beyond intellectuality. Acaryas such as Sanatana Goswami too questioned the līlā in the same way or even more intently - these were highly intellectually inclined personalities.”

While the whole lecture of Swamiji was marvellous, I beg to place a question mark here – in what way did Sanātan Gosvāmī "question the līlā" at any point? Am I not reading the Swāmī here properly?

Swamiji continues: “But they were primarily bhaktas, and they worked their intelligence into the essence of these narrations and brought their refined understanding back to us. So intelligence is necessary but, intellect is a razor’s edge that can greatly help just as it can greatly harm……some devotees have difficulties in their spiritual lives precisely due to too great intellectual activity. He explained that intelligence is a part of ego that has to be left behind just as any other part.”

Yes, I believe that the problem with many Indian Vaiṣṇavas is under-education, which leads to racism, tribalism and blind acceptance of hearsay, and the problem with many western Vaiṣṇavas is over-education, which leads to shoreless blabla, speculation and arrogant challenging of the śāstras.

Swamiji: “From this presence of Kṛṣṇa a different kind of intelligence comes into play. Intelligence is then spiritualized, functioning under the jurisdiction of the heart, of śraddhā. “

This is corroborated in the Gita (10.10) bhajatam prīti pūrvakaṁ dadāmi buddhi yogaṁ tam.

Swamiji: “From such position one will understand śāstra progressively. In such a position one will be nipuna, brilliant in understanding, creative in presentation, a scriptural genius. Understanding of śāstra then will not be limited but expansive and comprehensible, not intellectual and reasonable only, but mystical in nature, capable of transformation and revolution. This has been shown by our acaryas. Intelligence rooted in faith may appear to some as arrogance and pride. Such misunderstanding of the devotee’s words and actions can come from intellectual activity taking precedent over faith. “

Right on. The Gosvāmīs have shown through their books that an intellectual can also have simple faith and need not be an arrogant challenger of authority.

The Wrong Road

From Jīva Gosvāmī's Bhakti Sandarbha 238 -

guror apyavaliptasya kāryākāryam ajānataḥ

utpatha pratipannasya parityāgo vidhīyate

Synonyms : guroḥ - Of the Guru; api - even; avaliptasya - of the arrogant; kārya - to be done; akāryam - not to be done; ajānataḥ - not knowing; utpatha - wrong road (deviant); pratipannasya - of the ascertainment; parityāgaḥ - wholly rejected; vidhīyate - compulsory.

"One must wholly reject the Guru who is arrogant, who does not know what is to be done and what is not to be done and who is deviant."

The word ut-patha means 'the wrong road', 'off the track', 'evil ways' or 'deviant'. Having lost the way, either deliberately or out of ignorance. So any Guru who deviated from the six Gosvāmīs and other foundational ācāryas' teachings must be rejected. This is an elaboration on Jīva Gosvāmī's own edict 'vaiṣṇava vidveṣī cet parityajya eva' - "If the Guru is a Vaiṣṇava-hater he must be fully rejected."

But there is more to it than that - with the word utpatha the parameters are widened. If he lost the way he should be wholly rejected, too.....

Mādhurya Kādambinī

The new English edition of Mādhurya Kādambinī should be on sale now, so I withdrew my translated and edited version from my book catalog as promised to Rasarāja Dās on November 9th. (A new catalog was uploaded today to www.madangopal.com). I have read about 150 pages of the book so far. Jagad and Mādhava have certainly done a good job on the editing and lay-out respectively. Unfortunately it is material perfection only, which is largely undone by the (faithless and offensive) mentality of the two. Unfortunately it is the translator's attitude to which the reader of a translation is exposed, not the attitude of the original author. It is always like that. It is the attitude that a devotional book breathes out which will win the hearts, not the perfect language or the perfect lay-out. Besides, Jagad can't help using his irreverent scholarly language, calling Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda repeatedly just 'Visvanath' as if he is his classmate or so. Also translating the word ' jñāna' as ' gnosis' is a bit too Theosophical I think.