Female Kṛṣṇa, Fall of the jīva, is bhajan selfish?

Phone-sanga # 4:

Bhakta: "Some people say that there must be a female Kṛṣṇa, called Kṛṣṇā, who has so many gopa-lovers as Kṛṣṇa has gopī-lovers."

Advaitadas: "This idea may be coming from a women's rights movement, who want equal rights with Kṛṣṇa,  the 'male' God. Needless to say,there is no evidence for this. We cannot just tell Kṛṣṇa what its going to be like in His abode - He calls the shots. There is also no need to think that the female aspect is less than the male. We say 'Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa', 'Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa', 'Sītā-Rāma', the female is always mentioned first, and then the male. We say "I am going to Rādhākuṇḍa", not "I'm going to Śyāmakuṇḍa". We are worshippers of Rādhārāṇī before we are worshippers of Kṛṣṇa,  so we are the last place where there is need for a women's movement. One needs to beware of rasābhāsa (semblance of flavour) and viruddha siddhānta (controversial philosophies), and this speculation may well fit into both of these categories. Intrinsically all jivas are prakrti, female (predominated). prakṛtiṁ viddhi me paraṁ jīva bhūta (Bhagavad Gita 7.5)."

Bhakta: "What about Mohinī Mūrti then?"

Advaitadas: "There is no description anywhere of Her having millions of male lovers, as Kṛṣṇa has millions of girlfriends, nor is She mentioned as svayam bhagavān in any scripture, nor is there even a scripture dedicated to Her. Kṛṣṇā is of course existing, but not as a female competitor/counterpart of Kṛṣṇa.  Kṛṣṇā is a name of the Yamunā or Draupadī, that is all. rādhā-kṛṣṇa ek ātma dui deha dhari - Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa are one, but have different bodies. God is already both male and female, no need for emancipation up there. That is a place of surrender, that's all."

Fall of the jīva, part 3

Bhakta: "If we did not fall from the spiritual world and this is not a punishment then why are we suffering here?"

Advaitadas: "It is already explained in this blog (comments pages to blog "Three hours on the phone") that there is no reason for this, see Māṇḍukya Upaniṣad quoted there. We are conditioned to causal thinking, since we lie in the Causal Ocean. The first ray of light of causelessness that penetrates this causal world of ours is mercy. It means you get something you do not deserve. Most of us western devotees used to be the lowest of the lowest, and yet we got this great opportunity of pure devotion to Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, that is something we did not deserve. Slowly we will have to give up the attachment to causal thinking to transcend this causal world. Even if we had fallen from the spiritual world, there would have been no beginning to our existence there at least. In either case the concept of causelessness needs to be adopted. Compromising by preaching fall-vāda to keep it understandable for beginners only creates double work - sooner or later you have to re-educate them with the real story anyway, so why waste time and effort? Just tell them the truth right away, however abstract it is."

Bhakta: "In Śrīmad Bhagavatam 11.14.25 it is said: "Just as gold, when smelted in fire, gives up its impurities and returns to its pure brilliant state, similarly, the spirit soul, absorbed in the fire of bhakti-yoga, is purified of all contamination caused by previous fruitive activities and returns to its original position of serving Me in the spiritual world." And in the purport it is said: "According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura, this verse indicates that the devotee goes back home, back to Godhead, and there worships Lord Kṛṣṇa in his original spiritual body, which is compared to the original pure form of smelted gold."

Advaitadas: "That is not what that verse, nor what that purport says. There is no mentioning of us going back anywhere in that verse. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura has already said in his comment on SB 3.7.10 (see comments-page of blog "Three hours on the phone") that our conditioning is beginningless and without reason. This 11.14.25 comment is exactly like that, but if it were as in your version he would contradict his previous (3.7.10) comment. Also none of the 4 comments on that verse, by either Śrīdhara Swāmī, Sanātan Gosvāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī or Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Thākura speak about falling and returning and so. Satyanārāyan Dās in his book "In Vaikuṇṭha not even the leaves fall", explains that the molten gold does not refer to one's original pure form. The statement in Viṣṇu Dharmottara Purāṇa (quoted by Satyanārāyan Prabhu in his book 'In Vaikuṇṭha not even the leaves fall") and by Haridās Thākur in the Caitanya Caritamṛta (Antya 3.77-80) that if the population of the universe is liberated it is re-populated by sūkṣma jīvas, 'subtle souls' who will develop their activities, who will then become mobile and immobile beings, which means they are even lower than immobile beings, does not mean they are new creations. They are simply completely unconscious. This is quite the reverse of the theory that we not only fell from the spiritual world but then started off as Lord Brahma as our first conditioned life-form. śāstra clearly says there is no limit to the number of jīvas and they are all beginningless."

Bhakta: "How could the offering brahmins live in Vṛndāvan, since they were so indifferent towards Kṛṣṇa?"

Advaitadas: "So many demons were there too - Aghāsur, Bakāsur, they wanted to kill Kṛṣṇa, then why couldn't there be people who are not interested in Kṛṣṇa?  They may also have been placed there to show the contrast with their wives, who WERE great devotees of Kṛṣṇa,  or to show the futility of the Vedic rituals they were into, vis a vis śuddha bhakti. At the end they said:

dhig janma nas trivṛdh vidyāṁ dhig vrataṁ dhig bahu-vratam
dhik kulaṁ dhik kriya-dakṣyam vimukha ye tvadhokṣaje

'Damned is the birth, damned is the knowledge, damned are the vows, damned are the dynasty-lineages and damned is the expertise in fruitive activities of whoever turned away his face from Kṛṣṇa." (SB 10.23.39) Kṛṣṇa is in control and He decides who lives in Vṛndāvana, even if they are bahirmukhas."

Bhakta: "In Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa it is mentioned that Brahmā not only saw the calves and the boys turn into Viṣṇu mūrtis but also the birds, trees,animals - everything."

Advaitadas: "Sure, why not?"

Bhakta: "Well, Brahmā didn't steal the birds and trees."

Advaitadas: "Hahaha - Why not? Kṛṣṇa is everything. Maybe He stole the rest of the place Himself and hid them in another cave, then He Himself became the birds and the bees - who knows?"

Bhakta: "Perhaps Brahmā became an uttamādhikārī?"

Advaitadas: "Maybe he had a flash experience like that - who knows?"
(Seriously:) "Generally, though, I don't think it is very helpful to read books like Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa - it was not recommended by any of our ācāryas. It can lead to confusion or mixed conceptions. In our conception, for instance, Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa's parents are not aware of Their relationship with Each other. We offer our obeisances to all scriptures because they have all been revealed by Vyāsadeva to aid different audiences on different levels, but its not that they are all equally helpful for rūpnuga bhaktas."

Bhakta: "It is said that Purāṇas describe Kṛṣṇa līlā of different kalpas."

Advaitadas: "Yes, but I also think there are different levels of conception and revelation in the different, perhaps historically parallel līlās, described in the different Purāṇas."

Bhakta: "It is said in śāstra that brahmins are gods on earth and if you offer food to them you have already offered to Viṣṇu?"

Advaitadas: "Yes, this is called bhū-sura and bali-bhug. Bhū-sura means god on earth and is mentioned in verse 1, line 1 of the Manaḥ Śikṣā. bali-bhug means that Viṣṇu eats offerings through the brahmins. Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, however, still offer food first to Kṛṣṇa before feeding brahmins. namo brahmanya devāya go brāhmaṇa hitāya ca - Govinda is the benefactor of the cows and the brahmins."

Bhajan is selfish? part 3:

Bhakta: "It is said in Śrīmad Bhāgavata 4.12.36-37 that one cannot go to the spiritual world without performing welfare work and without being compassionate."

Advaitadas: "Absolutely, but apart from whatever that verse of the Bhāgavat says, you're not going to tell me that if you follow the Six Gosvāmīs, sit down in Vṛndāvana and meditate on Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa that you will not attain Them, because you may not engage in preaching. That is completely unacceptable. At one point Mahāprabhu gave up all welfare work and withdrew into the Gambhīrā. The Gosvāmīs have only spoken about bhajan, and Kṛṣṇa has concluded the Gītā with: man mana bhava mad bhakto mad yaji māṁ namaskuru - "Think of Me, be My devotee, worship Me and bow down to Me" - that is exactly all the items of bhajan. mam eva eṣyasi - "certainly you will come to Me", satyam - "truly" te pratijāne - "I promise you that." That is so obvious and strong, and that verse comes two times even in the Bhagavad Gītā (9.34 and 18.65). Most people who do bhajan also do some preaching as well anyway, it is rarely purely this way or the other."

Guru Purnima

Sadhu Baba on Guru Purnima July 24, 1983

Nikuñja Rahasya Stava

I added this introduction to the Nikuñja Rahasya Stava-text:

I have two major problems with this text. One is that I have growing doubts about its authorship. It is widely attributed to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī,  but is nowhere confirmed as such - it is not a part of the Stavamālā, Jīva Gosvāmī’s collection of all Rūpa Gosvāmī’s stavas and stutis, nor is it mentioned in any authorized register of Rūpa Gosvāmī’s works, nor is the style of composition really his. I strongly suspect this to be the work of a Vṛndāvana resident like Harirām Vyāsa or Hita Harivaṁśa.

Second problem I have with it is its extreme intimacy. Śrīpada Haridās Dās of Haribol Kutir cautions in his ‘Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna’:

“This text is meant for those who have lost all desires for material sense enjoyment and who are constantly absorbed in meditation on the siddha deha they have attained by the mercy of the Guru. This should never be touched by those who identify with the material senses.”

Frankly speaking, this could be the prelude of me taking this book out of circulation altogether (especially for the latter issue).

Three hours on the phone......

This morning I had a 3-hour iṣṭagoṣṭhi with two devotees by phone:

Bhaktas: "Some people say that Mahāprabhu and His associates were more compassionate than other residents of the spiritual sky because they went down to earth to preach."

Advaitadas: "All of Śrīman Mahāprabhu's associates (pārṣadas) are eternally present in the spiritual sky in their Kṛṣṇa-līlā svarūpas - Rūpa Gosvāmī and so are still there as Rūpa Mañjarī etc. Besides, they did not really leave the spiritual sky to start with, they are eternally travelling around in the Gaura interplanetary roadshow. If the purpose was to prove that preaching is higher than bhajan - they are both there in the spiritual sky and here in the material world. Again, how can anyone live in the spiritual sky while being selfish? By suggesting such a thing one risks offending the nitya siddha associates of the Lord. Where is it said in śāstra that doing bhajan is selfish? It is done for Kṛṣṇa's pleasure - the essence of Bhagavad Gītā (sarva guhyatamaṁ bhūya śṛṇu me paramaṁ vacaḥ, 18.64) is announced to be (18.65)

man mana bhava mad bhakto mad yaji māṁ namaskuru

'Think of Me, be My devotee and bow down to Me'.

Would Kṛṣṇa demand that if it were selfish, as the ultimate conclusion of the Gītā? After defining bhakti (in Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu) as anukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśilanam - "only performed to please Kṛṣṇa", Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī listed 64 items of such devotion and none of them are preaching. Not that there is anything wrong in preaching either..."

Bhaktas: "There is evidence that preaching is the most dear to the Lord in Bhagavad Gītā 18.68.

ya idaṁ paramaṁ guhyam

mad-bhakteṣv abhidhāsyati

bhaktiṁ mayi parāṁ kṛtvā

mām evaiṣyaty asaṁśayah

SYNONYMS
yah — anyone who; idaṁ — this; paramaṁ — most; guhyaṁ — confidential secret; mat — of Mine; bhakteṣu — amongst devotees; abhidhāsyati — explains; bhaktiṁ — devotional service; mayi — unto Me; parāṁ — transcendental; kṛtvā — doing; mām — unto Me; eva — certainly; eṣyati — comes; asamśayah — without doubt.

TRANSLATION
"For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me."

Advaitadas: "Consider the words paramam guhyam, 'The greatest secret', and mad bhakteṣu 'unto my devotees'.

Bhaktas: "Yes, but everyone is mad bhakta."

Advaitadas: "Not in the present situation, and Kṛṣṇa would then have said sarva bhūteṣu (to all living beings) instead of mad bhakteṣu. He had a reason for using the specific words mad bhakteṣu and that is to indicate the devotees. Also you must see the context of the verse, by looking back to the preceding verse (18.67)

idam te nātapaskāya

nābhaktāya kadācana

na cāśuśrūsave vācyam

na ca mām yo 'bhyasūyati

SYNONYMS
idaṁ — this; te — by you; na — never; atapaskāya — to one who is not austere; na — never; abhaktāya — to one who is not a devotee; kadācana — at any time; na — never; ca — also; aśuśrūsave — to one who is not engaged in devotional service; vācyam — to be spoken; na — never; ca — also; mām — toward Me; yah — anyone who; abhyasūyati — is envious.

TRANSLATION

"This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me."

If quoting verse 18.68 serves to prove that preachers are greater than 'selfish' bhajanānandīs, then this is itself very selfish as one wants to place one's own ego above that of others. Preaching is great as long as one is on that level. One should not be a miser with one's spiritual knowledge and share it with others. Mahāprabhu preached in the middle part of his līlā but later became unable to due to intense absorption in Rādhā Kṛṣṇa līlā, so he withdrew into the Gambhīrā with just two associates while others continued the preaching. Was that also selfish?"

********

Bhaktas: "Is there any connection between Rādhārāṇī kicking Tulasī Mañjarī (see Ānanda Gopāl Gosvāmī's commentaries on Vilāpa Kusumāñjali, verse 17) and Nityānanda kicking Śivānanda Sena?"

Advaitadas: "In Indian culture corporal punishment is much more accepted than in the modern western world. Śrīla Ānanda Gopāl Gosvāmī mentioned in his Vilāpa Kusumāñjali lectures that Lalitā Sakhī repeatedly slaps Tulasī Mañjarī when she makes a lapse in her services, like failing to peel the subji properly.  Rādhārāṇī's kicking of Tulasī Mañjarī can be compared with Nityānanda's kicking of Śivānanda Sena in the sense that they are āśraya tattva in Kṛṣṇa līlā and Gaura līlā resp."

Bhaktas: "That kick bestowed them prema?"

Advaitadas: "No not to Tulasī Mañjarī or Śivānanda - they are anyway nitya siddhas, but if you or me would get such a kick it would be very helpful indeed!"

Bhaktas: tripāda vibhūti (a title for the spiritual sky, the 'threefold opulence') and eka-pāda vibhūti (the material world, the 'onefold opulence') pertains to quality, not to quantity [size]?"

Advaitadas: "I'd say so - one third of infinity is infinity. The idea of the material world being limited while the spiritual sky is unlimited is in itself limited. Mahāprabhu says (CC Madhya 19.138) ei mata brahmāṇḍa bhori ananta jīva-gaṇa - "Thus the universes are filled with innumerable living entities"

Bhaktas: "It is said that some jīvas emanate from Baladeva and some from Saṅkarṣaṇa."

Advaitadas: "There is no evidence for such a theory. Besides, jīvas do not emanate from anyone. They are eternal sparks of Kṛṣṇa -mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūta sanātana (Bhagavad Gita 15.7).

Bhaktas: "Must we understand from Vilāpa Kusumāñjali verse 18 that Smt. Rādhārāṇī is actually passing stool?"

Advaitadas: "This is all taking place in mādhurya prakāśa, where all pastimes are nara līlā (human-like). Despite being saccidānanda vigraha, Kṛṣṇa is also described as passing urine on the floor of Mother Yaśodā's kitchen (SB 10.8.31, kurute mehanādini), and passing semen in the womb of Rukmini (kṛṣṇa vīrya samudbhava, 10,55.1)- this is all to create a totally sweet, human-like atmosphere.

Bhaktas: "It is sometimes claimed that there is evidence for mañjarī bhāva in Caitanya Caritāmṛta, in the 18th chapter of Antya līlā, where Mahāprabhu stays out on the shore of the Yamunā while the gopīs go in to play with Kṛṣṇa there. But the text actually says there that He stays on the shore with the sakhīs, not with any mañjarīs. (tīre rahi dekhi ami sakhīgaṇa saṅge, eka sakhī sakhīgaṇe dekhāye se raṅge)."

Advaitadas: "Yes that is so. I presume that Kṛṣṇadas Kaviraja didn't want to mention mañjarī bhāva in Caitanya Caritāmṛta because that book was meant for a larger audience. It is not that he did not preach mañjarī bhāva at all, because his Govinda Līlāmṛta mentions it repeatedly, and that was also written before Caitanya Caritāmṛta. Govinda Līlāmṛta was obviously meant for a more advanced, intimate audience."

Bhaktas: "You have learned this from so many different sources"

Advaitadas: "Yes, but we are not Paramātma worshippers - ultimately I get all this knowledge, directly or indirectly, from my own, personal Guru."

saṅga siddha and care in mādhurya

I was a bit confused about the apparent contradiction between Jīva Gosvāmī's teaching on saṅga siddha bhakti vs. Chapter 12 of Bhagavad Gītā. saṅga siddha bhakti means 'associated items of devotion', in other words the regulative principles of cleanliness, chastity, compassion, study, austerity etc. They are described in Jīva Gosvāmī's Bhakti Sandarbha (217), who quotes S.B. 11.3.23-24, verses that provide a long list of qualities:

sanga-siddhā svato bhaktitvābhāve’pi tat-parikaratayā saṁsthāpanena tatra bhāgavatān dharmān śikṣed gurvātmadaivataḥ [Bhḏ 11.3.24] ityādi-prakaraṇEṣu sarvato manaso’sangam [Bhḏ 11.3.23] 

"Sanga siddha bhakti, with all its virtuous qualities, is not intrinsically devotional in itself, but establishes devotion through association." Chapter 12 of Bhagavad Gītā gives a long list of divine qualities of which I always thought they need to be cultivated, so I thought them contradictory with Jīva Gosvāmī's teachings of saṅga siddha bhakti as not being intrinsically bhakti, since Kṛṣṇa says in that Gītā chapter that such a devotee is very dear to Him. I found the answer in Viśvanātha Cakravartī's purport of the last verse (20) of this chapter: ete bhaktyuttha...dharma na prākṛta guṇāḥ - bhaktyā tuṣyati kṛṣṇo na guṇaiḥ ityukti koṭitaḥ - "These glorious attributes arise from devotion - they are not mundane qualities, as it is said millions of times: bhaktyā tuṣyati kṛṣṇo na guṇaiḥ  'Kṛṣṇa is pleased with devotion alone, not qualities'." Kṛṣṇa also repeatedly says in that chapter: bhaktas te'tīva me priya, bhaktimān yaḥ sa me priyaḥ, yo mad bhakta sa me priyaḥ, mad bhakta sa ca me priya - "It is only because it is a devotee who has such qualities that he is dear to Me, not because of the qualities themselves."

*****

I also had this chat recently:

Bhakta: "About your blog. Is it because mādhurya relationship is more powerful or topmost because everything (the attitudes of the other 3 rasas) is in that relationship?

Advaitadas: "Yes, because it shows the ultimate care. Care increases with each rasa. Complete care is only by the spouse. "

Bhakta: "Or paramour."

Advaitadas: "Servants, friends and parents have increasing care, but full care is given by the spouse or paramour- its the same thing in this sense; the sense of love and care. Conjugal is actually not a good translation, because conjugal means married, whereas Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa aren't married.

Yaśodā's servants, Vaikuṇṭha stopover, why always mañjarī bhāva?

I had some interesting inquiries by phone recently:

Bhakta: "Some say that it is more humble to become a servant of Mother Yaśodā at a respectful distance than to be right up front as a mañjarī there with Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa."

Advaitadas: 'No one can reach the spiritual sky without being totally humble. If there is any pride left you can simply not enter into that realm, be it as a mañjarī, servant of Mother Yaśodā, associate of Lord Nārāyaṇa or what have you. This suggestion is a purely artificial, mental construction which is not at all based on rasa vicāra, lobha (devotional greed) or on any ācārya's teaching. mañjarī bhāva is superior in flavour or quality but not in quantity. In quality there are 4 kinds of flavours - dāsya, sakhya, vātsalya and mādhurya, in quantity there is but one - full surrender. mañjarī bhāva is based on sheer attraction and not on ambition or pride. mañjarīs are neither more proud nor more humble than mother Yaśodā's servants. That is not the point of mañjarī bhāva. The siddhānta of 'the more surrender, the higher the rasa" is a myth.

Bhakta: "What about Vaikuṇṭha as a stopover to Goloka? Can one get further promotion to Goloka after first attaining Vaikuṇṭha?"

Advaitadas: "Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu and Caitanya Caritāmṛta speak of two parallel paths, that have different symptoms of progress (bhāva, prema) and different final destinations - vaidhi bhakti leads to Vaikuṇṭha and rāga bhakti leads to Vraja. Gopakumāra's progressive course in Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta does not apply to regular sādhakas. He is widely regarded as a model rather than a prototype sādhaka. There are the famous verses in Śrīmad Bhāgavata, 10.16.36 and 10.47.60, which describe how Lakṣmī-devī never attained the Rāsa-dance, no matter how much penance she performed. That was because she missed the required mood (the raga mood of seeing Kṛṣṇa as equal or inferior to herself), and certainly did not miss the required purity. I cannot think of any final statement to answer that question but as far as I know there is no evidence of individuals moving on upwards after having been stationed at Vaikuṇṭha. "

Bhakta: "Why always mañjarī bhāva, why not gopa bhāva or so?"

Advaitadas: "The fact that there are elaborate systems of sādhana and entire societies built up around mañjarī bhāva, and none (that I know) around gopa bhāva (of which there is very scant scriptural description and virtually no social support on the ground) should not be seen as coincidence, but a clear sign that Mahāprabhu really wants us to practise this (mañjarī bhāva)."

The Third Nostril

Updates: Two anecdotes about Sādhu Bābā came to my mind this week:

On page 20, I myself narrated: “He also told me not to eat anywhere outside the āśram.” To this I added today: “Bābā then showed a remarkable higher vision. When I asked him: “Bābā, then how do I recognize sinful food?” He said, in English, ‘You can smell it…”

On page 46 I wrote earlier: “Although he was the highest class Brāhmin, Bābā would first go to the cleaning woman or any type of lower class person, including me, with folded hands to beg permission to take prasāda.” To this I now added between brackets: “(At the same time he strictly followed the Vedic rules by not eating after or in the presence of anyone else)”

All these anecdotes have been added to Sādhu Bābā’s hagiography (linktab ‘Nikunja Gopal Gosvami) on http://www.madangopal.com/

Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa not present in the deities?

I took part in this interesting exchange on a webforum:

Q: "Traditional Gauḍīya Gurus have said that one should not take prasādam at the Iskcon/GM temples, This does not come from just one traditional Gauḍīya Guru alone, but is a general consensus it seems. It is also said by traditional Gauḍīyas that Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa are not present in the dieties of Iskcon/GM, reason being because they do not have proper dīkṣā in those institutions, so therefore the dieties are not properly installed without that proper channel."

Advaitadas: "These are two separate points really. For the first issue, my Sādhu Bābā indeed advised me not to eat outside our āśram, though he did not aim that at Iskcon alone. For the second point, I'd like to quote my own blog of February 27, 2006:

"In a private darshan I ask Satyanarayan whether Kṛṣṇa will not be there in the deity because of corrupt management of its temple or org, due to lack of prāṇa pratiṣṭā or lack of bhakti. He says prāṇa pratiṣṭā 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 darśan."

Satya-nārāyan Bābā is initiated in an ancient line, from Gadādhara Pandit, so it is not that there is a consensus on this among traditionalists."

Q: "So let me ask you advaita dasji.... Do we really even need diksha for diksha mantras to manifest their potency...or is that just an unnecessary external ritual?"

Advaitadas: "Dīkṣā is prescribed in Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu, Bhakti Sandarbha and Haribhakti Vilāsa, so there is no doubt about its necessity. The starting theme of this thread was whether God is present in the deity according to the dīkṣā of the pūjārī. I certainly agree with Satya-nārāyan's opinion here that He is there in the eye of the beholder (devotee). Muslims consider it their sacred duty to destroy the deity because they see it as an insult to God to limit Him to a statue. That destruction is the greatest offence imaginable for us, but for them it is an act of devotion to that very same God. The point is, it is the attitude towards the deity that counts. For example, the deities in Iskcon Vṛndāvan have been installed by Rādhāraman Gosvāmīs, who received dīkṣā in Gopāl Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī's line, and worshiped by followers of Siddhānta Sarasvatī, whose lineage is in doubt (it is not even sure whether he really did not receive dīkṣā, and AC Bhaktivedānta Swāmī had a family guru at the age of 12, so he has mantra in paramparā, though we do not know in which line) - now what is it going to be? God is there in the deity or not? Is the deity like a traffic light that goes on and off according to the (initiated/non-initiated) person who worships Him? Is there any evidence for that philosophy that God is not present in the deity because one or two pūjārīs MAY not have proper dīkṣā? Please consider all this. It doesn't add up."

Meating the Goswāmīs

This is an excerpt from a thread about meat-eating that appeared on radhesyamadhama, but which is now deleted by the moderators.

Posted by: nitaidas May 28 2007, 06:21 AM
QUOTE (advaitadas @ May 28 2007, 02:28 AM)
"My 2 cents - no Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācārya ate meat, no rank and file Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ever ate meat, no Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava śāstra prescribes or endorses meat offerings, my Guru was a vegetarian from birth to the grave, and refused to give even harināma to candidates who ate even fish (very common in Bengal). I myself became a vegetarian in 1976, long before I converted to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, and it was for elevation of my consciousness, not necessarily out of compassion, that I did it. As for meat in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa - that's nothing compared to the Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa, where there are multiple descriptions of the Vrajavāsīs eating meat. However, my Guru taught me 'śāstraṁ bhāgavataṁ pramāṇam amalam' - 'The Bhāgavat Purāṇa is the spotless authority'. And there's not a fiber of meat in there...... "

Nitāi Dās responded:

"I'd like to know how Advaita Das got to be omniscient. How can he be so categorically sure of himself? "No Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava acarya ate meat." How does he know this? We know very little about the early lives of the Gosvāmins. We aren't even told that they were married or who their wives were or whether they had children. Isn't it quite likely that they were married? Because that was the common practice among brahmins those days. When they were ministers at the court of Hussein Shah it is also very likely that they were invited to dinners in which they ate meat. Moreover as typical Bengalis they probably ate fish on their own. No Bengali meal is complete without at least the flavor of fish. As for Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma they probably ate meat regularly. They were kṣatriyas after all. But even as vaiśyas living in a vaiśya community they probably ate meat. Gopāla means cow-keeper or cowherder not cow-protector. I would be completely surprised to find out that the gopas did not eat meat. What cowherding community does not eat meat today?"

Advaitadas:

"Revered Nitāi, I dont claim to be omniscient but I cannot find any account of any Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācārya eating meat DURING THEIR TENURE AS ĀCĀRYA. My Guru also told me that Rūpa and Sanātan lost their caste because of their pūrbāśrama's poor diet. We are of course speaking of their tenure as ācārya. As for Kṛṣṇa-Balarām - I am not going to copy and paste whole paragraphs from Kṛṣṇa Bhāvanāmṛta, Govinda Līlāmṛta et al to show what They were eating, surely there were no hamburgers on the menu. If there were then please quote."

(I wish to add now to the last challenge of Nitāi "What cowherding community does not eat meat today?" that Braja's cowherders are pure vegetarian now, so what to speak of in the past?)

Nitai Das:

"The fact that as Advaita Das has suggested these elements have been excluded from CV works like the Govinda Līlāmṛta or the Cc (Caitanya-caritāmṛta) should give us pause and make us wonder about the ways in which CV has changed the very tradition it claims to be upholding. I suspect that there were some major changes in the attitudes and practices of Hindus when the Muslims invaded and that Hindu codes were altered and more vigorously enforced in the society that Mahāprabhu and the Gosvāmins inherited. It is not an original suggestion. Others students of Indian history have suggested the idea before me. "

Advaitadas:

"Students of Indian history have no access to Kṛṣṇa's nitya līlā and are not entitled to speculate on the ācāryas' motives to 'falsify history', which is an absurd accusation, because it drags the ācāryas' revelation of the transcendental world to a mundane plane. Otherwise, on the social plane, these students may well be right. And has Vyāsa, like Kṛṣṇadās Kaviraja 4500 years later, also conveniently blotted out any mentioning of Kṛṣṇa eating meat in the 3,900 verses of the tenth Canto of the Bhāgavata?"

Nitai Das:

"You make a good point, Śrī Advaita Das. This idea of "during their tenure" is an interesting one. It almost sounds like they were professors at some university or college. But deciding when their tenure began is somewhat arbitrary. What if their tenure began earlier and their eating meat was very much part of it. It certainly stopped them from thinking themselves superior to others because of their high caste or the purity of their practices. As far as I can tell their attitudes were the model attitudes of Caitanya Vaiṣṇavas. Maybe would be better if we who think so highly of ourselves as CV all go out and eat a good steak. Then we would have no reason to think of ourselves as superior to others. That is IMHO the greatest blow to higher consciousness, not eating meat. I don't think we will be judged by the contents of our stomachs, but by the contents of our hearts. If our stomachs are full of puris and khir, but our hearts are full of disgust for other people because they eat meat or whatever, I don't think it would bode well for us with Kṛṣṇa.............
I sometimes wonder if on occasion, Sanātana didn't sit back against one of those trees and say to himself: I wish I had a nice chunk of beef right now like I used to back home. All I have now are these dry roti and all my Thākur does is complain that there is no salt!"

Nitāi Dās further dismissed my quotation of the Gītā's patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyam as 'incomplete', as he believed it was just a token list of items that does not necessarily exclude non-veg food. I replied that to eat meat to become humble is an absurd practise. Why not be a humble vegetarian? Is that so hard? Madanmohan Das later reacted by quoting various translations of SB 11.21.29-30 -

te me matam avijnāya paroksaṁ viṣayātmakāh

hiṁsāyāṁ yadi rāgah syād yajna eva na codinā

hiṁsā-vihārā hyālabdhaih paśubhih sva-sukhecchayā

yajante devatā yajnaih pitr-bhūta-patin khalāh

(I will just key in the Gita Press translation here, which I trust the most.) Kṛṣṇa says: "Not knowing My opinion, which is not quite apparent, and which is to the effect that if one has a passion for destruction of life, it should be restricted to sacrificial performances only, and that there is no scriptural ordinance making it obligatory on us - those wicked men indulging in destruction of life as a pastime and with their mind set on the pleasures of sense worship the gods as well as the manes and the rulers of evil spirits through sacrificial performances carried on by means of animals slaughtered with the desire of gratifying themselves."

I wish to add two more quotations:
1. SB 1.17.38, where Kali is allocated the four places of dyūtam (gambling) pāṇam (drinking liquor), striyaḥ (sex with women other than the wife) and śūna (prāṇī-vadha, according to Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda - 'killing living beings')
And 2) the story of Mṛgāri, the cruel hunter, who was converted by Nārada Muni, to the extent that he even protected ants on the path from being stepped on, which is in the center of Caitanya Caritāmṛta, showing that ahiṁsā is a central item of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. As for Nitāi's remark of Sanātan craving the beef and the ācāryas' 'conspiracy' to blot out meat-eating from śāstra, it is not the first time that the greatest experts in the Gosvāmīs books have shown such horrid contempt of these same Gosvāmīs. A number of 'scholars', Vaiṣṇava, and non-Vaiṣṇava, have preceded him in this. Fortunately not every scholar is like that, but any one is one too many.

I have backed up a large part of this thread in PDF.-format, for reference. Its too large to blog here, but it can be obtained from me by e-mail.

Paving the holy dhama

Interesting article on harekrsna.com. The damage is already done, it is too late now, but even if people would have written this earlier it couldnt have been stopped, unfortunately. Worst thing is that these houses are mostly empty, belonging to Indian daytrippers or rich westerners who bloop right after building their lot in the holy dhama. This is Kaliyuga.

alpāṁśa and sarvāṁśa

After reading Anādi Dās’ interpretation [link now expired] of the last sentence of Paragraph 338 of Jīva Gosvāmī’s Bhakti Sandarbha, I consulted my friend Kṛṣṇa Dās on it.

Dear Kṛṣṇadas,
Rādhe Rādhe
I have here two translations of Jiva Gosvami’s Bhakti Sandarbha 338’s last sentence:

rahasyatvaṁ ca tasyāḥ kvacid alpāṁśena kvacit tu sarvāṁśeneti jñeyam.

(note: Bhakti Sandarbha 338 contains the quotation of the last verse of the Rāsa līlā in the Bhāgavata, promising readers of the Rāsa-līlā they will be freed from lust. After that, however, Jīva Gosvāmī cautions that one should not study or meditate on this if one gets male transformations – puruṣa vikāra. The Sanskrit sentence quoted above follows that warning)

Translation of Kuśakratha Dās:

“In one sense, some parts of these pastimes are especially confidential. In another sense, all of these pastimes are very confidential.”

Translation of Anādi Dās, Germany:

“They misuse the meaning of the word intimate or confidential – rahasya, and they forbid any devotee which is not at least on the level of niṣṭhā from hearing any of the pastimes of the Lord with the gopis. In the quoted Bhakti Sandarbha (338) these words kvacid alpāṁśena kvacit tu sarvāṁśeneti jeyam, you didn`t translate, are also important, because they convey the meaning given by Jīva Gosvāmī to the word rahasya in connection to the gopī līlā, and they say that in this connection confidentiality refers to the fact: in which extent (complete- all, sarvāṁśeneti or less, alpāṁśena) the limbs of the hero and heroin touch. The meaning is that if līlā contains descriptions of touching of all the limbs, than it is confidential.”

I think both are wrong, especially the second one. My Gauḍīya Maṭh Bengali translation says that ‘in some places the pastimes are partially (alpāṁśa) rahasya (confidential) and in other parts completely (sarvāṁśa).” I feel that is the right one. I guess that the siddhānta here is that distinction must be made between adhikāra for hearing/reading partially intimate and fully intimate pastimes. What is your opinion?
advaitadas

Kṛṣṇadās replied:

Dear Advaita,
"I agree with you that neither Kuśakratha's or Anādi's translation are accurate. Kuśakratha evidently mistranslates the word kvacit and Anādi reads things into the sentence that aren't there. The Gauḍīya Maṭh translation makes sense to me. And it seems probable that Jīva Goswāmī wants to say, as you wrote, that a distinction must be made between adhikāra for hearing/reading partially intimate and fully intimate pastimes. The word nopāsya used in the previous sentence indicates adhikāra."
kd

Advaitadas: “What is actually the conclusion of this alpāṁśa and sarvāṁśa? That some stories can be read even with puruṣa vikāra as long as they are alpāṁśa rahasya? Seems hard to draw the line here... Any clues?

Kṛṣṇadās:
"As far as I have understood, it can happen that if people who have material nature (bhāva), ie. they consider the material body as their self and oneself as the enjoyer, and consequently do not see themselves as servants of Kṛṣṇa, if they read the descriptions of rahasya-līlā, their material bhāva gets excited. This is obviously something that should be avoided. However, it is natural for bhaktas to taste the rasa of bhakti in such descriptions. Those who have material bhāva will experience only their own material saṁskāras. They miss the whole point of the lila. Therefore, it is better if they don't read about rahasya-līlā. Sexual bhāva is dominant in man and requires very little to be stimulated. Nevertheless, nowadays, after the sexual revolution, it seems to me that the descriptions of rahasya-līlā are quite innocent in comparison to what can be found in contemporary literature (which, of course, is mostly devoid of rasa).

As we were talking back then in Vrindaban, previously, people had to learn vyākaraṇa and Sāhitya śāstra to be able to read all the wonderful books about Kṛṣṇa-līlā. At present, when there are translations it has become very easy for anybody to read them without proper training. Thus, it can also happen very easily that they become misunderstood. Therefore, proper education is very important. The problem which I see as quite important in relation to reading Kṛṣṇa-līlā is that devotees lack the understanding of the poetics that underlies the līlā-descriptions. The main purpose of those descriptions is rasa but very few know what rasa is and look for something else. They read books about Kṛṣṇa-līlā but are hardly able to read them over and over again. And even if so, they are, so to say, looking for information (details of the transcendental world or whatever) in the books and not for rasa. They are excited about them, no doubt, but I am not sure if they read them for the feeling of devotion they enable one to experience which is their purpose. The Upaniṣad teaches raso vai saḥ. The experience of rasa is for us the actual sākṣākāra of Kṛṣṇa who is beyond mind and speech. That is why, we, as Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, make such a big fuss about rasa. I hope this answers the question,

kd

Advaitadas: “Yes I agree with the general point you made there about adhikāra but it doesn't answer my particular question about the alpāṁśa and sarvāṁśa. This is what intrigues me in the last sentence of Bhakti Sandarbha 338. Problem is that Jīva and Rūpa often scribble down sūtras and leave us to realize these things for ourselves, to fluff them out so to say. And there is no ṭīkā to the Sandarbhas..... So what is your opinion on alpāṁśa and sarvāṁśa? You think that partially erotic pastimes would be allowed to persons with puruṣa vikāras and fully erotic ones wouldn't be?"

Kṛṣṇadas: "I think my general point answered the question. If one gets puruṣa-bikāra it means that one is just exciting his material bhāva. Such reading of Kṛṣṇa-līlā is not encouraged, regardless of alpāṁśa or sarvāṁśa. If sarvāṁśa (fully erotic pastimes) is too much for somebody, he should read just alpāṁśa (partially or slightly erotic pastimes). If one is so obsessed with sex that even this is too much for him, he should completely give up reading about Kṛṣṇa's erotic pastimes. The bhāva that should be excited is bhakti. If this does not happen when reading about the pastimes, something is wrong with the person. The conclusion is that there is no license for reading about Kṛṣṇa's rahasya-līlā when one has puruṣa vikāra. It goes against the general principle. The vikrīḍitam verse (the final verse of the Rāsa līlā) says that those who listen to or describe the pastimes of Viṣṇu with the gopīs will get rid of kāma. This is not possible if one is exciting one's sexual nature. It is rather likely that the opposite will happen. One can even become more lusty. The verse says that one must be śraddhānvitaḥ. Puruṣa-vikāra, exciting one's sexual bhāva, or whatever we call it, occurs because of lack of śraddhā.

Who is Vijay Krishna Goswami?

I received this query from Anurādhā from Netherlands as a comment to a previous blog, but it warrants a separate blog, so here are the questions and answers:

Anurādhā: "I came across one personality in the book "Saints of Bengal" by O.B.L. Kapoor called Śrī Vijaya Kṛṣṇa Goswami. His appearance was somewhat similar to that of your respected Guru."

Advaitadas: It is very similar indeed.

Anurādhā: "Of course that is just appearance, but I also vaguely recall that you mentioned somewhere that you studied some of his works."

Advaitadas: "No, it goes further than appearance. Their lives and attitudes were very similar too, to the extent that my Guru brother Rākhā Haridās even called Sādhu Bābā 'a reincarnation of Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī'."

Anurādhā: "Hence I think of you to pose my question.I came across the same picture in a book about Rāmakṛṣṇa and Vivekānanda that someone gave me. He was somehow affiliated according to them. Similarly with the Brahma-Samāj as mentioned in OBL Kapoor's book."

Advaitadas: Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī was secretary of the Brāhmo Samāj until Rāmakṛṣṇa talked him out of it.

Anurādhā: Who is he ?

Advaitadas: Like Sādhu Bābā, he was a direct descendent of Advaita Ācārya, in both birth and quality.

Anurādhā: "What was his purpose?"

Advaitadas: "Like Sādhu Bābā, he had an independent, living mind. He didn't take the status quo of being a Gosvāmī, privileged born Guru, for granted, but wanted to explore the truth on his own. Like Sādhu Bābā, he came to the devotional conclusion on his own strength, after lengthy exploration, and became ācārya on his own strength."

Anurādhā: What do you know about him ? His life-story as told by OBL Kapoor is very intriguing, inspiring, but also confusing.

Advaitadas: The confusion can arise when we fail to acknowledge the effect of being a direct descendant of Advaita Prabhu, who is Lord Shiva in Gaura līlā. Lord Shiva is the Lord of the yogis and that attribute appears in some of his descendants too, like Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī and Nikuñja Gopāl Gosvāmī.

Anurādhā: Can you shed some light and give some more insight on this remarkable Vaiṣṇava ?

Advaitadas: "There are many wonderful hagiographies of Vijay Krishna Gosvami on the internet. Google Vijay Krishna Goswami or Bijoy Krishna Goswami, you will find a lot there.

If, when you ask how to harmonize this, you refer to the yoga thing, let me say this: You may say "It is not pure bhakti" - perhaps so, but Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvami is singled out for mentioning in 'Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Jīvan' by Haridās Dās and in 'The Saints of Bengal' by OBL Kapoor.

Beltalāy - under the Bilva tree......

This is a picture of the Bael or Bilva-tree under which Sādhu Bābā delivered his powerful sermons in his ashram in Prāchīn Māyāpur, Navadwip, and with whose leaves and flowers he cured his followers' ailments. Lord Shiva lives under a Bilva- or Bael tree too.

The following description of Bilva is from yogamag.net:

Bilva – Lord Shiva’s Tree

Swami Vibhooti Saraswati

lakṣmyāś ca stana utpannam 

mahādeva sadā priyam,

bilva vṛkṣam prayacchāmi 

eka bilvaṁ śivārpanam

darśanaṁ bilva vṛkṣasya

sparśanaṁ pāpa-nāśanam

aghora pāpa saṁhāram 

eka bilvaṁ śivārpanam.

"Born from the breasts of Goddess Lakshmi, the Bilva tree is ever dear to Mahadeva. So I ask this tree to offer a Bilva leaf to Lord Shiva. To have darshan of the Bilva tree, and to touch it, frees one from sin. The most terrible karma is destroyed when a Bilva leaf is offered to Lord Shiva." - Śrī Bilvāṣṭakam (v. 6–7)

Indians believe that the knowledge of medicinal plants is older than history itself, that it was gifted hundreds of thousands of years ago to the original inhabitants by Brahma, the divine creator himself. Thus when the sages of the Ayurveda sought to heal human suffering, they were able to draw on knowledge that had already been evolving for millennia in the forests of India. One tree about which they had a very deep knowledge was the Bilva tree. The science of Ayurveda values the Bilva highly for the medicinal properties contained in its root, fruit and leaves. According to Swami Sivananda, it is a healing tree which cures all diseases caused by vata (wind) and gives strength to the body.

About the Bilva tree

The Bilva tree grows in almost all parts of India, irrespective of the nature of the soil, and is bitter, astringent and dry by nature. Tall and austere, with a stern aspect, gnarled trunk and sharp thorns, the Bilva is undoubtedly Lord Shiva’s tree. Shiva is always worshipped with its leaves, and it is said that this tree is much loved by him. It is to be found in all Shiva temples throughout India. The Bilva is also found in Devi temples, where it is worshipped. At midnight, on the evening before Durga and Kali pooja (worship), a tantric ritual called Bel Varan is performed with the appropriate mantras. A particular energy is taken from the tree and placed in a kalash (pot). This energy is then transferred to the statue of Durga or Kali to charge or empower it for the coming pooja. The process is called prana pratishtha, the establishing of the life force in the statue. When the pooja is over, the energy is released, a process called visarjan. The English name for Bilva is Bael, also called ‘stone apple’ as its rather large fruit is like pale yellow suns when ripe. The Hindi appellation is Bel or Bael Sripal. In Sanskrit it is also called Bilva or Sriphal. The botanical name for this tree is Aegle Marmelops, and it belongs to the Rutaceae family. In the Atharva Veda it is described as being so sacred that its wood may not be burned for fuel. It is still worshipped today as a totemic deity by the Santhal tribes in India.

Medicinal properties

The fruit has a hard wood-like rind, which is pale green when unripe, turning pale yellow to brown as it ripens. Its pale tawny flesh is sweet and astringent, containing tannin, which acts as an astringent to the bowels. It has a pleasant, agreeable and aromatic flavour, and provides an excellent dietary supplement. This fruit contains gums, vegetable acid and a very small quantity of sugar. It also contains white seeds and a tenacious transparent gel. The pulp of the dried Bilva fruit, powdered and mixed with arrowroot, is called ‘dietetic Bel’. It is both a sustaining food and a curative medicine, and is traditionally called by Indians ‘the fruit of plenty’. Puranic legend calls it ‘the breasts of the goddess of plenty’. The unripe fruit is roasted with a covering of mud, and the softened pulp mixed with water and sugar or buttermilk. It is more medicinal than the ripe fruit, particularly if dried in the sun. According to Swami Sivananda, “This is highly beneficial in sub-acute and chronic dysentery or diarrhoea, and is particularly useful in irregularity of bowels in children, because it acts as a mild stimulant to the intestinal mucus membrane and therefore stops diarrhoea, acting as a laxative when there is constipation. The unripe fruit cures excess vata and kapha, indigestion, stomach ache and dyspepsia.” A confection is made out of the pulp with amrita and honey, which stops vomiting. The half-ripe fruit is astringent, digestive and anti-diarrhoeal; it binds the bowels. The ripe fruit acts as a laxative, and is aromatic and cooling. The juice is an appetiser and blood purifier.

The leaves.

The dark trifoliate leaves symbolize the three eyes of Lord Shiva, and contain a small percentage of Shiva’s alchemical substance – mercury. These leaves have a very pleasant aroma, are used in the worship of both Shiva and Devi, and form an essential ingredient in tantric rituals. It is said that offerings of water sprinkled on these leaves at any shrine will always remain fresh. Sri Bilvāṣṭakam (v. 5) states, ‘

dāntī koṭi sahasrāni 

aśvamedhaṣṭāni ca

koṭi kanyā mahā-dānam 

eka bilvaṁ śivārpanam’, 

“Donating a thousand elephants, and horses, and giving daan (offering) of crores of kanyas (virgin girls) is equivalent to offering one Bilva leaf to Lord Shiva.”

The consumption of Bilva leaves alleviates diseases caused by excess vata and kapha (mucus). They are also useful in diabetes mellitus. For this a few leaves should be chewed daily and their fresh juice drunk. They are diaphoretic (producing more perspiration), thus reducing temperature and lowering fevers, and an aphrodisiac. A decoction of leaves is a favourite remedy for ailments that often occur during seasonal changes, such as fever, flu and fatigue. There are sadhus who sustain themselves on Bilva leaves alone. According to Swami Sivananda, “The fresh juice of the leaves is given with the addition of black pepper in cases of jaundice, and when diluted with water or honey, this is highly praised remedy in catarrh and feverishness.” The root is the most important part of the tree medicinally, after removing the outer skin. A preparation made from the root with ginger and toasted rice cures vomiting. For the treatment of piles, dysentery and diarrhoea, a preparation is made from the root mixed with the tuberous root of Padha. The oil extracted from the Bilva root, boiled with the juice of Bilva leaves and applied to the head is excellent for nasal catarrh and diseases of the ear. The confection Vilvadi Lehiam is also made from this root. The flowers cure diarrhoea, vomiting and thirst, while the gum of the inside pulp of the fruit is an aphrodisiac (kama-vardhani).

The Bilva tree in the Shiva Purana

According to the Shiva Purana the Bilva tree is the manifest form of Lord Shiva himself, while all the great tirthas (pilgrimage places) are said to reside at its base. One who worships the shivalingam while sitting under the Bilva, claims this great epic, attains the state of Shiva. Washing the head by this tree is said to be the equivalent of bathing in all the sacred rivers. One who performs Bilva pooja with flowers and incense achieves Shiva loka, the abode of pure consciousness, and has happiness and prosperity bestowed upon them. The lighting of the deepak (lamp) before this tree bestows knowledge and enables the devotee to merge in Lord Shiva. The Shiva Purana also claims that if the devotee removes the new leaves from one of the branches of that tree and worships the tree with them, they will be freed from vice, while one who feeds a devotee under the Bilva will grow in virtue.

The hunter and the Bilva tree

The Shiva Purana also relates the following story or myth. Once there was a cruel-hearted hunter by the name of Gurudruh who lived in the lonely forest. On the auspicious day of Maha Shivaratri he had to go out hunting because his family had nothing to eat. Maha Shivaratri (the great night of Shiva) is the most sacred time for fasts, prayers and offerings, when even the most involuntary acts, if pleasing to Lord Shiva, are made holy. By sunset Gurudruh had not been successful in the hunt. Coming to a lake, he climbed a tree and waited for some unsuspecting animal to come and drink. He did not notice that the tree he had climbed was the Bilva tree. Neither did he notice the shivalingam beneath it, nor the water pot hanging in the branch just above it. After some time a gentle deer came to quench her thirst, and Gurudruh prepared to shoot. As he drew his bow, he accidentally knocked the water pot hanging in the tree and some water fell down on the shivalingam beneath, along with a few Bilva leaves. Thus, unknowingly and unwittingly, Gurudruh had worshipped Shiva in the first quarter of the night. As a result his heart was a little purified by this act performed on such an auspicious night. Meanwhile the deer, startled by the movement in the tree, looked up and saw the hunter about to release his arrow. “Please do not kill me just yet,” pleaded the deer. “I must first take care of my children, and then I will return to be food for your family.” The hunter, whose heart had been softened a little by the accidental worship, on noticing the beauty of the deer, let her go on condition that she would return on the morrow to give her body as food for his family. Later that same night, the sister of the deer came looking for her. Once more the hunter took aim and once more, without his being aware, the water and the Bilva leaves fell down upon the shivalingam. Again, unknowingly, the hunter had worshipped Shiva in the second quarter of the night. The effect of this was that Gurudruh’s heart was further purified. His pranas softened a little more, and he allowed this animal to also go and tend to its young, provided it returned the next day to provide him and his family with food. In the third quarter of the night, the mate of the first deer came in search of her, and again the strange worship took place as the hunter took aim for the third time. But the hunter’s heart was beginning to melt due to the worship, and he let the deer’s mate go also for the same reason and under the same conditions. Later when the three deer met together, they discussed who should go and offer themselves for the hunter’s food. Even the children offered to give their lives. Finally the whole family decided to surrender to the hunter together, for none of them could bear to live without the others. Thus they set off towards the lake with heavy hearts. When they arrived at the Bilva tree, Gurudruh was very pleased and relieved to see them, and he immediately prepared for the kill. He took aim for the fourth time, but in the same accidental manner as before, worship in the fourth quarter of the night took place unknown to him. This final action of Gurudruh brought about a complete change of heart and, as he was about to release the first arrow, his heart overflowed with pity for the innocent deer. Tears filled his eyes at the thought of all the animals he had killed in the past, and slowly he lowered his bow. Greatly moved by the selfless action of these animals, he felt ashamed and allowed the whole family of deer to leave unharmed. Such is the purity and spiritual power of the Bilva tree that, even without his knowledge or conscious effort, the cruel-hearted hunter had been transformed into a man of compassion and understanding, and was delivered from his past bad karma by the grace of Shiva and the Bilva tree."

I do believe western Vaiṣṇavas must study these things and not reject them as 'demigod worship' since we don't really know anything yet about Hinduism, not even after 30 or 40 years of practise. It will not compromise the exclusivity of our Radha-Kṛṣṇa worship at all. It needs to be known in general, and in particular for Radha-Kṛṣṇa worship also, because so many stories about different gods are mentioned in Gaudiya Vaiṣṇava literature that we often don't know anything about due to our lack of Vedic/Hindu upbringing.

Dhaniṣṭhā's comprehensive role

Dhaniṣṭhā is much more than just a maidservant of Mother Yaśodā at Nandagrām. She brings Kṛṣṇa His meal and messages from Mother Yaśodā and Nanda Mahārāja at Govardhana late in the morning (Govinda Līlāmṛta 6.32), Kṛṣṇa sees her as His best support for meeting Rādhikā (6.35) and consults her along with others about how to meet Her (6.40-43). She goes with Him to Kusum Sarovara where Kṛṣṇa plans His milan with Rādhikā (6.48-82), She makes the beautiful comparison between Kṛṣṇa and Girirāja to Rādhikā in the pūrva-rāga (GL 8.21-37) chapter of madhyāhna līlā, She walks ahead of Rādhikā when She goes on abhisāra (journey to meet Kṛṣṇa, GL 8.40) and on the way, in loving delusion, Rādhā calls Her a cheater (GL 8.55-64). Dhaniṣṭhā is ordered to stay behind at Sūryakuṇḍa with the pūjā-ingredients (8.70), yet a little later she does take part in the Smara Yajña (Cupid's sacrifice) in chapter 10, in which she plays the star Jyeṣṭhā (10.33); Dhaniṣṭhā is once again singled out for a rebuke by Rādhikā during Her second delusion, the ecstatic prema vaicittya-delusion (GL 14.6-10) and is Her cheerleader during the jala keli (midday water pastimes at Rādhākuṇḍa, Govinda Līlāmṛta 15.53), though she is usually described as being in Kṛṣṇa's camp. She takes Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa's prasād in the padma mandir (at Rādhākuṇḍa at midday, GL 15.141) and is sent by Jaṭilā to get Kṛṣṇa for the Sūrya Pūjā (18.62-63). In the evening she is sent by Yaśodā to ask Rādhikā to cook Kṛṣṇa's supper (20.2-10). After Kṛṣṇa dined, "Dhaniṣṭhikā collected the remnants of Kṛṣṇa's meal and secretly gave it to her friend Guṇamālā to bring it to Śrī Rādhā" (20.17). Finally she sends Rādhikā that prasād through Tulasī (GL 20.57-61, as well as Vilāp Kusumāñjali verse 48).

In Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī's Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Gaṇoddeśa Dīpikā (240) and Ujjvala Nīlamaṇi (3.56-58) she is listed among the principal gopīs. She appears to be a maidservant (she is listed as such too in the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Gaṇoddeśa Dīpikā), nāyikā (heroine) and dūtikā (messenger) all rolled into one.

Śyāmā and Śyāma

Regarding the ongoing discussion on vilasakunja about the non-difference between Durgā and Kṛṣṇa, the following:

Sādhu Bābā, being a direct descendant of Advaita Prabhu (=Shiva) and having long jaṭās (matted locks) naturally occasionally attracted visitors from Prāchīn Māyāpura's Ādya Bārī (Kālī-temple), and he even brought a Kālī-deity for them from Jaypur during his last Vraja trip in 1985. Once such a group of devotees came for Bābā's darśan and Bābā turned to me personally and said, to reconcile: 'We are the greatest śāktas - rādhā pūrṇa śakti kṛṣṇa pūrṇa śaktimān (C.C.) ("Rādhā is the full śakti and Kṛṣṇa the full energetic"). Rādhā is Kālī because Kṛṣṇa is Kālā (the black boy)." He also used the following rhyme : 'śyāmār kole bose śyām-ke ḍākbi' - "Sit on the lap of Śyāmā (Kālī or māyā) and cry out for Śyām (Kṛṣṇa)." In other words, live a normal material (Śyāmā or Durga is māyā or matter) life, but in that situation cry out for Śyām (Kṛṣṇa)." He was an ekānta bhakta of Rādhā and Madangopāl, more than anyone else. He even forbade us to keep pictures of the Pañca-tattva or the Six Gosvāmīs on our altars because that would compromise our one-pointed attention to Rādhā and Madangopāl, and He always hammered on Śrīnāth Cakravartī's verse 'ārādhyo bhagavān vrajeśa tanaya' - "The worshipable God is the son of the king of Vraja."

Sarakāra's Caitanya Caritāmṛta

(This file has since been removed from Jeej's site and thus this blog has been a bit rewritten on September 13, 2007:)

Jijaji once posted a 338-page pdf file of an English Caitanya Caritāmṛta rendering by Yadunāth Sarkāra from 1913, in medieval English, hark thee. There is a whole lot missing in this book, but Gaura līlā is nectar in any sequence, language or style, I suppose. On page 10 is the above awesome - vertical - picture of Gaur visiting Sītānāth's house - with Acrobat Reader 8 it can be rotated to horizontal view. It interestingly shows that devotees kept long hair and shaved heads at about a 50/50 rate. The translation-style of 100 years ago is charming and interesting - the Guṇḍica Mandir is named Jagannātha's 'garden house' for instance. There is an interesting list of temples in South India. Sarkāra Bābu claims that many of the temples he charts were not built yet when Mahāprabhu was down south.

This is only a rough script, which starts only with Madhya līlā chapter 3. The author sometimes asks himself questions as is always done in a raw unedited script [fill in names] [ surname?] etc. The last 260 (!) verses have been truncated from Madhya līlā chapter 20, Chapters 23 and 24 seem to be merged and a large piece is truncated about Mahāprabhu teaching Sanātan Goswāmī the Haribhakti Vilāsa. The antya līlā is just summarised in the last 5 chapters, here the entire story of Raghunāth Dās Gosvāmī, the conclusion of the Choṭa Haridās story and the table of the Gosvāmīs' books are missing. Its really a pity that this text is incomplete - I think the style and quality of the translation is - at first sight - OK.

At the end Jayānanda's Caitanya Maṅgal is quoted, about Mahāprabhu's disappearance-pastime. Here it is described that He stubbed His toe at a brick on the road and deceased one evening a week later. "Celestial garlands of many-coloured flowers were thrown on Him from the unseen. Celestial singers (vidyadhar) began to dance on the highway. The gods began to cry out, "Bring the heavenly chariot !" The Master mounted into Vishnu's car with the figure of Garuda on its spire. His material body lay behind on the earth, while He went to Vaikuntha (Vishnu s heaven). Many of His servants killed themselves by serpent-bite. Meteors and thunderbolts fell on the earth. At the news Nityananda and Adwaita Acharya, Vishnupriya and Shachi swooned away Purushottam and other servitors of the Master grew speechless at His departure."

The file is no longer online, but can be attained from me on request via rapidshare.

Nectar of the holy name

Review: Nectar of the holy name
By Manindranath Guha
Original written in 1976. English translation published in 2005 by Blazing Sapphire Press.

I had the honour of meeting Maṇīndranāth Guhā or Maṇi Bābu twice, in his flat in Rādhā-raman Gherā in Vṛndāvana, in September 1982 and November 1985. A very powerful and ‘begeisterd’ gentleman who greatly stressed the chanting of the holy name.

In the introduction to this book Nitāi Dās confirms that stress and also his cautions on smaranam (cautions which I have expressed in this blog earlier, particularly my blog of June 9, 2006). Nitai writes: “In Maṇīndranātha’s view one should not on one’s own initiative take up (smaraṇam). To do so would be to diminish the importance of saṅkīrtan. Rather, remembering will grow organically out of the practise of utterance of sankirtan… when the time is right. It should not be undertaken artificially before one is ready. He uses a rather odd example …..It is like being possessed by a ghost…. In the way that without desiring a ghost, a ghost may come and possess one and having taken one over may refuse to leave, so does remembering come uninvited and possess one and once it arrives it never again departs. One need not strive separately for remembering. Instead one should devote all one’s efforts…to saṅkīrtan  when the time is ripe uninterrupted remembering of Kṛṣṇa will land on one’s shoulders like a ghost dropping from a tree and take possession of one’s heart. Like a ghost, too, once it arrives it will not easily depart…… Constant remembering of Kṛṣṇa is in fact a sign of having arrived at the highest level of religious cultivation in Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism. Someone who deeply loves Kṛṣṇa will constantly be thinking of Him and saying His name, will not forget Him for even a second. Although Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda, in his Rāga vartma Candrika, calls rāgānugā bhakti a ‘mainly mental religion’ he does add this qualifier, quoted on page 11 of this book: ‘The subservience of smaraṇa, the central practise in rāgānugā, to kīrtana must also be emphasized because kīrtana has authority in this age and because it is established by all scriptures as the most excellent among all of the various paths of bhakti.”

On page 7 an answer is given to the question whether saṅkīrtan is for one’s own pleasure or for the benefit of others. In his commentary on Haribhakti Vilasa 11.456, Sanātan Gosvāmī says saṅkīrtya samyag uccair uccāryeti sadyaḥ sva-parānanda viśeṣārtham uktam “Loud chanting is at once causing bliss to oneself and to others as well.”

After that the book effectively starts; it is built around a conversation between Goswāmī, a Guru, and Laghu, a disciple, whom Nitāi Dās claims are none other than Maṇīndranāth Guhā himself (Laghu, or ‘light’) and his Guru Kānupriya Gosvāmī (Goswāmī).

Interestingly Nitāi Dās translates the word sevonmukhe from the famous ataḥ śrī kṛṣṇa nāmādi-verse in Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu as ‘being ready for service’ and that does comply with the dictionary meaning of the word unmukha (waiting for, expecting, near to).

Chapter 2.1 explains the difference between kṛpā siddhi and sādhana siddhi, and 2.2 discusses nāmābhāsa, where Nitāi Dās disagrees with Maṇi Bābu, who writes: “It is the first unfolding of the holy name in the mind of a practitioner engaged in cultivating the holy name, like the early stages of the rising of the sun. (When the holy name is not present on the tongue, but is in the mind, it is ābhāsa of the holy name. When it is present on the tongue, too, it is the holy name itself, not a semblance). He quotes Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 3.182-185.

Nitāi Dās responds in a footnote: ‘It is not clear what Maṇīndranāth Bābu means here nor where he got his idea. If he means that the holy name begins to manifest itself as a result of the practitioner’s diminishing offences its first reflections appear in the mind of the practitioner and then later the name itself appears on the tongue of the practitioner, I am unaware of the foundation of such a belief in Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism. Certainly the passage he cites from the Caitanya Caritāmṛta immediately following says nothing of the idea”

Neither Nitāi Dās nor Maṇi Bābu quote or translate these Caitanya Caritāmṛta verses, so I will just do it myself, to make sure everyone knows the disputed text here:

haridās kohen – yaiche sūryera udoy;
udoy na hoite ārambha tamer hoy khoy
Caura preta rākṣasādi bhoy hoy nāśa;
udoy hoile dharma karma ādi parakāśa
aiche nāmodoyārambhe pāpa ādira khoy;
udoy koile kṛṣṇapade hoy premodoy

(The above first 3 verses are essential:) Haridās said to the Lord: ‘Just as the sunrise destroys the darkness and with it, fear of ghosts, demons and thieves, and shows the beginning of virtue and activity (with the beginning of a new day), similarly the rise of the holy name destroys sins and so on and causes the rise of love for the feet of Kṛṣṇa.”

Nitāi Dās continues: “If he means that the holy name chanted in the mind is merely nāmābhāsa, whereas the holy name chanted on the tongue, that is audibly, is the name itself, he is probably wrong. Numerous modern practitioners would disagree with him. It appears that one major source for this understanding that nāmābhāsa is the ‘first ray’ of the sun-like holy name which about to rise in the mind of the practitioner seems to be a verse from the Padma Purāṇa cited by Rūpa Gosvāmī in his Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu, 2.1.103: “Ocean of good qualities! With your mind illumined by faith you should worship him free from all insincerity, him who is the purifier of purifiers, the crown of those praised by the finest verse, the reflection (ābhāsa) of whose sun-like name rising in the cave of the mind destroys the flood of darkness that consists of great sin.”…. Though this does connect nāmābhāsa with the mind as does Maṇi Bābu, no commentator on the verse has suggested the rest of with Maṇīndra says here.”

In 2.3, dealing with nāmāparādha, its devastating effects are described. Viśvanātha says it causes one to see spiritual things as material and Maṇi Bābu says that due to a slight Vaiṣṇava aparādha (the first nāmāparādha) even Prahlāda changed from a lover to a hater of Viṣṇu and even rode out against Him with a demon army. Nitāi rightly wonders in a footnote what the source of the story is….

While I don’t admire each translation-invention of Nitāi’s, some are very nice and depicting, like ‘Quality-descent’ for ‘guṇāvatāra’, ‘dimness’ for rajoguṇa and ‘darkness’ (which I also used) for tamoguṇa. He translates guṇas as ‘threads’ (literally correct) that are woven criss-cross through material existence.

While discussion the ten offences to the chanting of the holy name, Maṇi Bābu quotes Jīva Gosvāmī’s ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavat 2.1.11 when he comes to the mysterious offence nr.6: hari-nāmni kalpanaṁ tan māhātmya gauṇatākaraṇāya gatyantara cintanam… ”..undertaking some other means of practise in order to trivialise the greatness of the holy name……if, however, out of mental anguish, the thought of some other means arises for the purpose of arriving at the goal faster, it is not an offense.” The second sentence comes from Maṇi Bābu, not Jīva Gosvāmī.

Chapter 3.1, called ‘wealth’ condemns wealth as being much more dangerous than many devotees think it is, and Goswāmī quotes Mahāprabhu’s criticism of Raghunātha Dās Gosvāmī’s parents, who may be Vaiṣṇavas but are nonetheless tainted by their wealth, that they even used in the service of the Brāhmins (Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 6,196). Maṇi Bābu sounds like Sādhu Bābā, uncompromising, as he says (p.32-33): “Any of the possessions that have fallen off the rotting, foul-smelling body of today’s society into the hands of holy men are not just ordinary poisons but are likely to be the very strongest and most dangerous poisons……Are these things to be thoughtlessly accepted and used in offerings to Gaura and Govinda, who are more dear to us than life itself? Didn’t they reject offerings prepared with the wealth of Raghunātha’s father and Duryodhana’s offerings of all the four different types of sumptuous food arranged beautifully on a plate of pure gold? If they reject such offerings, then whose nectar-like touch will neutralize their poisonous natures and turn them into the nature of Mādhava?"

So then at what stage can one ‘dovetail’ money in Kṛṣṇa's service? Sanātan Gosvāmī cites the Pāṇḍavas in his comment on Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta 1.4.115 – kṛṣṇa eva samyaṅ niṣkāmatvādinā’rpitāḥ – “Yudhiṣṭhira’s wealth was completely offered to Kṛṣṇa, without any desire.” So at what stage is the mind completely free from desire and attachments? Up through the stage of bhāva or rati a little attachment remains. Only on the stage of full blown love (prema) is the mind completely free of desire.

Chapter 4, named 'Saṅkīrtan in single form practise', tells us that, although Rūpa Gosvāmī teaches in Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu 1.2.264 that one can achieve perfection through one or all the items of sādhana, still that can never exclude harināma saṅkīrtan – that remains fixed. kalau nāstyeva gatir anyathā ('it is the only way in Kali yuga') – it automatically causes smaraṇa and all the rest.

On page 42, Laghu then asks the obvious question: "Narottam Dās Thākur says sādhane bhāvibe yāhā siddha dehe pābo tāhā – ‘Whatever I think of in my sādhana I will attain in my siddha deha”. Isn't that a contradiction with the teachings of Sanātan and other Gosvāmīs (mentioned in the first pages of this review)?” Goswāmī replies: “It is a contradiction merely fabricated within your mind. Listen: Śrī Rūpa in his Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu and later Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāja in the Caitanya Caritāmṛta have written: “Some practise one form, some practise many. If one becomes unwavering in practise, the wave of love will arise. By one form many devotees have reached success (Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.76-77)"…..Here two separate channels of worship (bhajan praṇāli) are mentioned, each of which has the same potency to bestow love. Śrī Narottam Dās Ṭhākur described the second channel – the form of remembering in which kīrtana of the Holy Names is dominant. This applies to the phrase ‘What one meditates on in practise one will achieve in perfection”. He has not mentioned the first channel. The first channel that he does not mention should not be brought in for comparison. If someone says that Rāma can lift five maund (410 lbs) does it lead to the conclusion that Lakṣmaṇa cannot? It doesn’t. If one wanted to convey that meaning one would have to say…..’Only Rāma can lift five mound, no one else.” Since Narottama Dās Thākur has not said that, worrying about a contradiction is useless, just a figment of the imagination.” (See my blog of July 31, 2006)

Laghu: “Is a practitioner of the single form, kīrtan… then deprived of remembering the holy sports or performing mental service to Rādhā-Govinda …..?”

Goswāmī: “No, he is not cheated out of anything. By the mercy of the holy name he will easily remember the holy sports and attain mental service and the rest – not in the form of means or method of cultivation (sādhana) but in the form of end or ultimate realisation (sādhya). (Wherever there is greed it will ultimately be fulfilled) How can one think that by planting the seed of a Langra mango one will get some other kind of mango? So let the practitioner practise remembrance or not, remembering will come and take hold of him in due time. This taking hold can take place in the stage of practise or in the stage of accomplishment – if it grips one in the stage of practise the flow of practise will be multi-formed; if it grips one in the stage of accomplishment (sādhya) practise will be single-formed…..”

Goswāmī later cautions Laghu that in the stage of anartha one should not meditate on the Lord’s erotic pastimes and quotes Jīva Gosvāmī’s rahasya līlā tu pauruṣa vikāravad indriyaih..nopāsya ("When male transformations take place in the senses this (Rāsa-lila) is not to be contemplated"), which, according to Nitāi Dās, is part of Jīva’s comment on the final verse of the Rāsa līlā, vikrīḍitaṁ vraja-vadhūbhir idaṁ ca viṣṇoh  (10.33.39).

In chapter 5, about initiation, Maṇi Bābu quotes Bhakti Sandarbha about lecturing and lecturers, warning that a materially attached lecturer may do more harm than good and assuring (in paragraph 261, quoting a ṭīkā of Śrīdhara Swami) that if a good lecturer is not available one can study śāstra privately at home. When Laghu asks Goswāmī about an unqualified Guru, Goswāmī replies: “…….The unqualified teacher is….capable of saying something incorrect, the following of which would bring death and the not following of which would also bring death. Even in this kind of difficulty one cannot reject or disregard the teacher as long as no contempt for or dislike of Viṣṇu or Vaiṣṇavas is evident in him. ….one has to pay honour to such a teacher from afar. Keeping him pleased as far as possible by service from afar, and with faith and respect relying completely on the holy name, a practitioner can still succeed in everything.” “Therefore beware! Although there is no positive worth in such a teacher – that is, he is not able to drag his students to the feet of Hari – there is a thoroughly negative side to such a teacher. By disrespecting him one can commit an offence to the holy name, that of disrespecting the teacher. Then even the practitioner’s last resort, the holy name itself, will not work.”

Chapter 6.1 quotes Srī Jīva’s commentary of Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu 1.1.35, interpreting the word anāsaṅgair there, which apparently says that bhakti is very hard to attain if practised without skilfulness, in such a way that it means jñāna karmādyanāvṛta – if it’s covered with jñāna and karma. Worried that Rūpa’s stern statement would discourage bhakti-aspirants, Śrī Jīva further quotes from Śrīmad Bhāgavat 2.8.4 and 1.5.26 to show that bhakti’s not all that hard to get, really. The full texts of his ṭīkā are both in this book and in Bhānu Swāmī’s Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu.

In chapter 7 Goswāmī explains the texts smaraṇaṁ tu śuddhāntaḥkaraṇatam apekṣate, "Smaranam depends on a pure heart”, Jīva Gosvāmī’s ṭīkā to Śrīmad Bhāgavat 7.5.25 and Bhakti Sandarbha 275 and 276) as follows: “If the texts had said ‘viśuddha’ it would mean that one would have to be completely pure to practise smaraṇa, but then it would no longer be a sādhana but a symptom of siddhi. Therefore, Jīva Gosvāmī is talking about only partial purity of the mind here – then one can commence smaraṇam. He then quotes Śrīmad Bhāgavat 11.14.26 yathā yathātmā parimṛjyate’sau, (describing a gradual process of purification – “To the degree that the mind is cleansed by hearing of and repeating my auspicious deeds one becomes able to see My forms, qualities and sports….”) also quoted in both Rāga-vartma Candrikā and Mādhurya Kādambinī. Goswāmī then quotes from Mādhurya Kādambinī that the mind becomes fully fit for smaraṇam at the stage of niṣṭhā – as in the verse tadā rajas tamo bhāva kāma lobhādayaś ca ye (Śrīmad Bhāgavat 1.2.19). Goswāmī also quotes Bhagavad Gītā 12.9, atha cittaṁ samādhātuṁ na śaknosi mayi sthiram - ‘If you cannot fix your mind on me then (patiently and repeatedly) practise (bhakti-) yoga….” At the stage of niṣṭhā one can perform the dual practise of sevā sādhaka-rūpena siddha rūpena cātra hi (both in the external and in the mentally conceived spiritual body), as prescribed in Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22 and Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu 1.2.295.” (page 69:) “…………one should not start the remembering form of bhakti when the mind is just in any condition or by merely memorising texts…..regular practise of saṅkīrtan is required to attain the qualification for smaranam – ceto darpana mārjanam.….” “…..by means of kīrtan the names, forms, qualities and sports by themselves become connected with the mind. Those things that run away when one tries to capture them come of their own accord and allow themselves to be held like snakes when they hear the flute of the snake-charmer. What wonderful magic this saṅkīrtan is….” Rūpa Gosvāmī writes in Upadeṣāmṛta: Tan nāma rūpa caritādi sukīrtanānusmṛtyoḥ kramena rasanā manasi niyojya – ‘Constantly remembering and doing nice kīrtan of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa’s names, forms and pastimes, one gradually engages the tongue and the mind..”

Interestingly Maṇi Bābu quotes a verse from Caitanya Caritāmṛta, which I cannot find in my own Bengali GM edition, nor in the BBT edition, supposedly verse 75 of Antya 3. It’s a very strong one though –

japa-kartā hoite ucca sankīrtan-kārī;
śata guṇa adhika se purāṇete dhari

“The Purāṇas say that a person who is doing loud saṅkīrtan is 100x better than someone who does japa.” Even if that verse would be an interpolation, later, on page 77, Maṇi Bābu produces further evidence to the same extent from Sanātan Gosvāmī's ṭīkā to his own Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta 2.5.218 (a bit too long to quote in this blog-review).

Laghu asks why there are so many rules and so many different types of chanting - japa, kīrtan (loud pronunciation) and saṅkīrtan (song with melody and rhythm), and Goswāmī replies with a comparison, “If your doctor prescribes you three kinds of medicine – a cream, a syrup and an injection and you speculate and take only the first two without taking the most powerful third one (saṅkīrtan) how will you get cured?”
Previously I read in Viśvanātha’s writings that a single utterance of offenseless harinām can bring one to Golok, here on page 84-5 it is quoted from Śrī Jīva, too (SB 6.2.23 ṭīkā): “…..at death one must offer worship at least once. In that case, someone who has performed, either in a previous life or in this life, worship of the Lord is certain to utter the name of the Lord, even if only once. In their case the holy name exerts its own influence and immediately such a person meets the Lord (quotes Gītā 8.6)……because there is an absence of offence, there is no need to repeat the holy name over and over again in order to destroy it……….”

A delay in that is quoted in the case of the gopīs – Kṛṣṇa abandoned them in the beginning of the Rāsa dance, but that was not due to offence but just to increase their eagerness for Him.
Jīva Gosvāmī comments on SB 6.2.20 that such a delay was there also for Ajāmila, so that he could cultivate eagerness first through harinām, since he had no history of devotion to Viṣṇu, because, as Maṇi Bābu assures, the single-track sādhakas (who practise only kīrtan without smaraṇam) will attain this remembrance and all other items of bhakti at the right time and as the need arises.

There are brief descriptions of the acaryas in the appendix of the book, of which Sanātan Gosvāmī’s one is interesting. Nitāi writes: ‘The ‘father’ of Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology. Without Sanātan Gosvāmī’s contribution Caitanya’s movement would have remained mostly sentimental fluff. He gave it direction and substance. His younger brother Rupa gave it wings and the ability to fly and his nephew Śrī Jīva gave it muscle and thought.”

Generally I must admit that Nitāi’s books are much more interesting than I expected them to be, both in content and in language. He really managed to make them interesting and attractive to both his targeted audiences – the academic and the devotees. This book is soundly based on the precepts of the Six Gosvāmīs and casts refreshing new light on them. I was fascinated throughout while reading this booklet, cover to cover…..