[Note: due to some last-minute computer issues for Damodara Prabhu, I'm sending this on his behalf. Ys, KKdas]
Respected Maharajas and Prabhus,
Please accept my humble obeisances,
Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah.
My apologies for not being able to reply since 12th March. I have had a difficult train travel from Kolkata back to my base, the farm project and gurukula at Gujarat; I had to travel in sickness and thus could not reply till today. Now, I am back to my base and original service in our varnasrama project. As we do not use electricity and phones in our community, you can expect some delays in my replies. Besides this, I have resumed my daily prescribed duties in service of Srila Prabhupada’s varnasrama mission and thus I may not be able to dedicate sufficient time to swiftly reply. Thank you in advance for your tolerance.
### MMD ####
First of all, as we have already seen, while your translations of Bharadvaja-samhita may be well and good, your interpretations of them are anything but “real and simple”. In fact, they are often imaginary and convoluted, built on the faulty premise of your earnest misreading of BS 1.44. . . .
- selects a few verses or statements of his choosing on the topic of diksa;
- misinterprets one word out of them to suit his views;
- accordingly reinterprets the rest of the verses and statements in a way that may potentially affect millions of devotees for hundreds of spiritual generations;
### DD ###
Dear Madana Mohana Prabhu,
I thoroughly read your reply. As I mentioned in my previously reply, you have again repeated the same trick – you have re-iterated the same question fourth time which I have already answered (three times), without pointing out what is wrong in my answer. You are going on as if I have not answered your question at all. You have re-iterated “BS 1.44 mandates that all categories disqualified for being diksa-gurus in 1.42-43 become ‘pratyaksitatma-nathas’, not just women,” the answer to which is already supplied in this email thread itself and also in another email thread where you specifically asked it. However, at all these places you have not been able to refute anything from the answer and have just re-iterated your false claim that we say according to Bharadvaja-samhita majority ISKCON gurus are not bona fide. You just go on changing your words claiming the same thing and then you try to defeat it.
You may go on repeating your voice as loudly as possible and that will make you win the argument because it is said in SB 12.2.6, satyatve dharstyam eva hi – “In kaliyuga, one who is audacious will be accepted as truthful.”
However, according to the rules of proper discussion (from nyaya-sutra), this trick of yours in and of itself declares that you are defeated; that you have no answer to my reply and thus you are just repeating your point. So, I would not like to go on repeating my point and waste the important time of everyone here. I will answer this email in full and expect that you will go on repeating your points without considering that I am even replying to them. Still, I will go on replying as it is my duty, however, I do not expect any successful discussion with you.
Please see my answers below in red. I have also included answers from another email thread about uniqueness of our translations in order to keep the number of emails as less as possible for the readers.
Thankyou,
Hari Guru Vaisnava das,
damodara das
****** Summary of my answers ******
Read on for detailed explanation.
Your contentions basically depend on two points:
[MMD] 1. According to BS 1.42-43 sudras etc are also prohibited from becoming guru unless they are pratyaksitatma-natha
[DD] Yes, absolutely. But sudras etc are to be judged by symptoms and thus ISKCON gurus who are born in sudra etc family are bona fide if they have brahminical qualities. SP supports in SB 4.31.10, purport that BS takes brahmana etc by symptoms.
However, women, even if we try to judge by symptoms, then the judging symptoms are physical only as gender is judged based on physical symptoms. Thus, when BS and SB 4.12.32, purport prohibit women, they prohibit female gender. Even sattvic women in Krishna’s vedic culture were wives of brahmanas and not diksa-gurus.
[MMD] 2. Your alternate explanation to pratyaksitatma-natha, which you claim is the direct meaning, and which involves those devotees who are not on the platform of bhava. Your claim is that if they strictly follow spiritual master then they are as good as directly seeing (or perceiving) the Lord. Thus, you claim that our translation and explanation of pratyaksitatma-natha is a construed one and not supported by guru-sadhu-sastra
[DD] Direct meaning of Pratyaksitatma-natha is “of those who are directly perceiving the Lord of the souls.” Pratyaksita atmanah nathah yaih tesam. As it is in past participle it describes those who have completed the process of devotional service.
Regarding SB 4.28.51, purport, if one is not directly perceiving Lord, then he must strictly follow instructions of guru-sadhu-sastra. This applies to BS 1.37-43 and not BS 1.44. So women cannot become diksa-gurus as per instructions of guru SB 4.12.32, purport, sastra – BS 1.42-43, and sadhu – examples of even nitya-siddha women not becoming diksa-gurus.
***************************
[DD] My detailed answers start:
-------------------------------------
Point no. 1: BS 1.42-43 prohibit Sudra etc all categories and not just women
-------------------------------------
[DD] Yes. Absolutely correct.
However, we accept that Brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya, sudra, etc are to be judged based on symptoms not birth. Do you accept it? (YES or NO)
If your answer is NO – brahmana, sudra, etc are judged based on birth – then you may need to re-consider your being initiated in to the Brahma-madhva-gaudiya-sarasvata sampradaya as you are directly opposing their very basic teaching that they have thoroughly established based on guru-sadhu-sastras. If you want to debate on this issue, we can start a separate thread on how it is based on symptoms and not birth although the words like jati are used for them in all sastras including Bhagavatam. This is field of my experience, as I am on the practical grounds of identifying and training children, according to their nature, in different prescribed duties at our gurukula and farm. However, I know you do not subscribe to such thinking.
If your answer is YES, then you have answered yourself – one who is sudra, antyaja, etc. by symptoms, is prohibited unless they are pratyaksitatma-nathas. ISKCON gurus are not supposed to be sudra etc. by symptoms. “According to such caste gurus, birth and family ties are considered foremost. However, the hereditary consideration is not acceptable to Vaisnavas. . .This does not mean that people should take to His teachings and remain sudras or candalas (CC Madhya 8.128, purport).”
Also, Srila Prabhupada supports this explanation in SB 4.31.10 purport saying that Bharadvaja-samhita identifies brahmana etc according to symptoms and not birth:
### QUOTE ###
It is not a fact that because one is born in a brahmana family he is automatically a brahmana. He has a better chance to become a brahmana, but unless he meets all the brahminical qualifications, he cannot be accepted as such. On the other hand, if the brahminical qualifications are found in the person of a sudra, he should immediately be accepted as a brahmana. To substantiate this there are many quotations from Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Bharadvaja-samhita and the pancaratra, as well as many other scriptures.
### Un-QUOTE ###
There are places in SB where the word similar to “jati” appears (janma-karma-avadatanam SB 7.11.13, etc). However, Srila Prabhupada does clarify it again and again that one’s varna does not depend upon one’s birth (yasya yal laksanam proktam…) and hence, we, as his followers, should understand the word “jati” or “hina-jati” in this context throughout SB. The same holds true for BS while discussing varnasrama texts or context. Do you agree? (Yes/No)
We take meaning of the word “jati” what has been explained by Srila Prabhupada in his commentaries (not whimsically). If you think, you can better explain the word “jati” (or “hina-jati”) than the founder Acarya, then go ahead with your understanding.
Now, gender is judged or decided solely based on physical symptoms. Thus, when it is said that women are prohibited, even if we take by symptoms, it means anyone with the physical symptoms of women are prohibited. This means women as gender are prohibited from becoming diksa-guru. Whereas Srila Prabhupada mentioned that by training, even a low born person can be elevated to the position of a “dvija” however, we don’t find in Srila Prabhupada’s whole literature that he ever stated that by training, a female body will turn into a male body.
However, this doesn’t mean that women cannot be sattvic. Women, as men, can be in all modes of nature including sattva-guna. However, sattvic women were the wives of a brahmana and never became diksa-gurus but did become guru-patnis, equally adorable as their husband gurus. Even after getting Krishna-prema, the wives of yajnik brahmanas in Krishna-lila did not aspire, demand, or become diksa-gurus or even to be as good as their husbands and execute their duties; they just followed their normal prescribed duties for women.
Duties for males and females are allocated differently in varnasrama society. And it’s the Lord who has given these roles (not anti-fdgs). It’s not a question of eligibility, but the will of the Lord, who, as an expert garland maker, puts different flowers into different positions (not all flowers, though equally qualified, take the central position) to make it look a beautiful garland !
---------------------------
Point no.2: Direct meaning of Pratyaksitatma-natha and its application to those on the levels below bhava-bhakti
-------------------------------
No matter how much you try to construe out some indirect meaning of the word pratyaksitatma-natha, its direct meaning remains shining like the sun.
Pratyaksita atmanah nathah yaih tesam ==> pratyaksitatma-nathanam
“Of those who directly perceive the Lord of souls.”
Pratyaksita is past-participle verb form of the word ‘pratyaksa’ which means to directly perceive. This meaning is derived not only from vyutpatti (etymology and sanskrit dictionary) but is used as such by acharyas including Srila Prabhupada.
Pratyaksita (pratyaksa krtavan asti) means that he has already reached the platform of directly perceiving the Lord and not that he will reach that platform in future.
So, I don’t know for what reason you want to infer a separate indirect meaning to this word. When direct meaning is clear and not conflicting with any other instructions of guru-sadhu-sastras, one must not resort to laksana (interpretation).
It seems, you are trying to construe out some indirect meaning saying that this verse (BS 1.44) applies to those who do not directly perceive the Lord of the souls, or those who will perceive Him in future. This is similar to Dr. Radha Krishnan’s saying that “it is not unto person Krishna that you have to surrender but unto the impersonal inside Krishna.” You are free to construe out such strange meanings, however, they are not liable to be true just because you have ascribed such meanings. How this meaning is not even fit for a viable indirect interpretation, I have proved later in this email.
Now, taking the direct meaning as perceiving God face to face, the question will arise at what stage this happens? To know this, we resort to guru-sadhu-sastras. It is established by our acharyas (starting from Rupa Gosvami till Prabhupada) that at the stage of Bhava-bhakti one starts getting direct perception of the Lord (Brahma-samhita 5.38, purport), however, it is not complete and constant due to some residual contamination (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.1, 2.1.276). References given in brackets are just a few, there are volumes of references for this.
=====================================
Thus, in explaining when the stage of pratyaksitatma-natha is reached, we have not resorted to any interpretation but strictly followed guru-sadhu-sastra.
=====================================
Now, you may argue that Srila Prabhupada says in 4.28.51 purport that “When one becomes serious to follow the mission of the spiritual master, his resolution is tantamount to seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As explained before, this means meeting the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the instruction of the spiritual master. This is technically called vani-seva.” Should this not be applicable to BS 1.44?
**************************************
This is not applicable to BS 1.44 but to BS 1.37-43.
There are two levels of devotees discused in BS: Pratyaksitatma-nathas (BS 1.44) and non-pratyaksitatma-nathas (BS 1.37-43). For BS 1.44 no rules of sastra etc are given while for BS 1.37-44 rules from guru-sadhu-sastras are given. This is in accordance to Srila Prabhupada’s statement that it means meeting Supreme Personality of Godhead IN THE INSTRUCTIONS OF SPIRITUAL MASTER.
Thus, if one is not directly perceiving the Lord but perceiving him in the instructions of guru-sadhu-sastra, then he is to follow BS 1.37-43. This two-fold standard, specifically for being guru, is also confirmed by Srila Prabhupada in his letter to Janardana, 26 Apr 1968: “A person who is liberated acharya and guru cannot commit any mistake, but there are persons who are less qualified or not liberated, but still can act as guru and acharya by strictly following the disciplic succession.”
Thus, if one is not directly perceiving the Lord, then one is mandated to strictly follow guru-sadhu-sastra. Such a person is subjected to BS 1.37-43, not BS 1.44.
One who has not reached the level of siddha bhakti has to meet “the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the instruction of the spiritual master (SB 4.28.51, purport).”
Spiritual master, guru, says SB 4.12.32, purport: “Suniti, being woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa-guru.”
Sastras say that women cannot become diksa-guru.
Sadhu evidence – there is no established norm of non-siddha women becoming diksa-gurus. Even nitya-siddha women like Kunti, Devahuti, etc. did not become diksa-gurus.
Thus, one who is not a siddha should abide by the above instructions of guru-sadhu-sastra.
[NOTE: One of the repeated instruction of Srila Prabhupada is to always check based on Guru, sadhu and sastra (Cc Madhya 20.352, purport). Thus, this means that one must follow the instructions of guru-sadhu-sastra to understand and follow.]
So advocating that women can and should become diksa-gurus, you are certainly not seeing Krishna through the eyes of the instructions of guru, sadhu, and sastra. You are seeing something else.
******************
However, you may say that SP says it is as good as (tantamount to) seeing God face to face, then why do we make a difference in both?
ANS: Because there is a condition given there for this to be true, that one must strictly follow instructions of guru-sadhu-sastra, then it is as good as seeing God.
Now, if we take your meaning that there is no difference at all, then it is like arguing that the Sastras say there is no difference between guru and Krishna (Hari), so guru is Krishna and one can have rasa-dance with guru.
Now, if you still somehow want to maintain that BS 1.44 is applicable to initiated devotees who are not yet on the platform of bhava-bhakti, then you run in to following troubles:
1. You are saying that one who is below the stage of bhava-bhakti is directly seeing (perceiving) the Lord, which is against what guru-sadhu-sastra has established. This is sahajiyaism.
Do you accept that there is a difference between sadhana-bhakti, bhava-bhakti and siddha-bhakti (or prema-bhakti)? (YES or NO)
2. Your understanding clashes with the immediate statements of BS itself. BS 1.42-43 prohibits women from becoming guru while your understanding of BS 1.44 allows women from becoming guru. How is that? If you say women BS 1.42-43 are not initiated devotees then your understanding of BS 1.42-43 clashes with BS 1.37 which says that only an initiated vaisnava can become guru and thus sets the context of gurus’ being described in BS 1.38-44 as initiated vaisnavas.
Thus, your understanding of BS 1.44 is challenged by the immediate verses themselves. Technically it fails at the first or pada-sangati (harmonization) level itself [sangati has many levels]. Thus, it is not even a viable option for an indirect interpretation.
For more details about the rules of sangati and technical explanation with a few case studies, readers can read at the end of this email. This will enable them to see how dangerous is the approach that Madana Mohana Prabhu has taken and, most probably, many of us unknowingly take to, in ISKCON (I included, until I came across Vedic Hermeneutics principles and found them of extreme help). Ritviks exactly take this approach; their doctrine also fails at the pada-sangati itself.
[FYI: If we go through this process of sangati, we find that Srila Prabhuapda’s explanation of the word Buddhi-yoga as Bhakti-yoga (in BG 2.39) passes all the levels of sangati and the score that it gains is that of the best possible explanation of this word. You will also find it very astonishing that all his purports to BG are direct meanings of verses and not indirect meanings].
Srila Prabhupada also uses such Vedic logic in his purports to defeat mayavada. For instance:
### QUOTE ###
The Mayavadi argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Krsna to place a conventional proposition on the body again? (BG 2.12 purport)
[NOTE: in the quote below, Mayavadis stress on SU 3.10 giving it a meaning of impersonalism but neglect the previous two verses SU 3.8-9; thus they fail to have pada-sangati and that is exposed by Srila Prabhupada. This is similar to Madana Mohana Prabhu’s proposed explanation of BS 1.44.]
The impersonalist, however, argues on the strength of the Vedic version given in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (3.10): tato yad uttarataram tad arupam anamayam/ ya etad vidur amrtas te bhavanti athetare duhkham evapiyanti. "In the material world Brahma, the primeval living entity within the universe, is understood to be the supreme amongst the demigods, human beings and lower animals. But beyond Brahma there is the Transcendence, who has no material form and is free from all material contaminations. Anyone who can know Him also becomes transcendental, but those who do not know Him suffer the miseries of the material world."
The impersonalist puts more stress on the word arupam. But this arupam is not impersonal. It indicates the transcendental form of eternity, bliss and knowledge as described in the Brahma-samhita quoted above. Other verses in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (3.8-9) substantiate this as follows:
vedaham etam purusam mahantam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat |
tam eva viditvati mrtyum eti nanyah pantha vidyate 'yanaya ||
yasmat param naparam asti kincid yasman naniyo no jyayo 'sti kincit |
vrksa iva stabdho divi tisthaty ekas tenedam purnam purusena sarvam ||
"I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than this knowledge of that Supreme Person.
"There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person, because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies."
(BG 7.7, purport)
### Un-QUOTE ####
**************************************
Now regarding Narada-muni’s being a sadhaka in his previous life and still seeing Lord as an example of pratyaksitatma-natha on level below bhava-bhakti:
**************************
You said that pratyaksitatma-natha can belong to murchita-kasaya stage which is below bhava-bhakti; I established that it is bhava-bhakti stage. However, you said that it is not bhava-bhakti stage because the example of Narada-muni in his previous life is given and that he was not on bhava-bhakti stage but on vaidhi sadhana bhakti stage.
This is understanding is faulty. Please see Srila Prabhupada on this (upper case for my emphasis):
### QUOTE ####
dhyayatas caranambhojam bhava-nirjita-cetasa |
autkanthyasru-kalaksasya hrdy asin me sanair harih ||
Purport: The word bhava is significant here. This bhava stage is attained after one has transcendental affection for the Lord. The first initial stage is called sraddha, or a liking for the Supreme Lord, and in order to increase that liking one has to associate with pure devotees of the Lord. The third stage is to practice the prescribed rules and regulations of devotional service. This will dissipate all sorts of misgivings and remove all personal deficiencies that hamper progress in devotional service.
When all misgivings and personal deficiencies are removed, there is a standard faith in transcendental matter, and the taste for it increases in greater proportion. This stage leads to attraction, and after this there is bhava, or the prior stage of unalloyed love for God. All the above different stages are but different stages of development of transcendental love. Being so surcharged with transcendental love, there comes a strong feeling of separation which leads to eight different kinds of ecstasies. Tears from the eyes of a devotee is an automatic reaction, and because SRI NARADA MUNI IN HIS PREVIOUS BIRTH ATTAINED THAT STAGE VERY QUICKLY AFTER HIS DEPARTURE FROM HOME, IT WAS QUITE POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PERCEIVE THE ACTUAL PRESENCE OF THE LORD, WHICH HE TANGIBLY EXPERIENCED BY HIS DEVELOPED SPIRITUAL SENSES WITHOUT MATERIAL TINGE.
>> SB 1.6.16, purport
### Un-QUOTE ####
Actually Narada-muni passed through all the stages from sraddha to bhava in previous life. Now, murcchita kasaya stage as mentioned in Bhakti-sandarbha 187, clearly states in the same place (you quoted) that murcchita-kasaya is one of the three stages of siddha-bhakti. However, you just ignored the word siddha-bhakta and went on to establish your doctrine and thus failed. I will elaborate of what I already answered:
Bhakti-sandarbha 187:
==========================
atra bhakta-siddhaas trividhaah | praapta-bhagavat-paarshada-dehaa nirdhoota-kashaayaa moorcchita-kashaayaash ca | yathaa shree-naaradaadayah shree-shukaadayah praag-janma-gata-naaradaadayah |. . .
“Here, the siddha bhaktas are mentioned of three levels: 1. One who has achieved the body or form of Lord’s eternal associate, 2. Nirdhuta-kasaya, 3. murcchita-kasaya. Respective examples of them are: Narada Muni, Sukadeva Gosvami, and Narada-muni in his previous birth.” . . .
shree-naaradasya poorva-janmani sthita-kashaayasya prema varnitam svayam eva |
“The love of Narada-muni (for Lord) in his previous birth, when he was situated in murcchita kasaya stage, is described by him only as follows:”
premaatibhara-nirbhinna- pulakaango 'tinirvritah |
aananda-samplave leeno naapashyam ubhayam mune || [BhP 1.6.17] ity aadau |
“O Vyasadeva, at that time, being exceedingly overpowered by feelings of happiness, every part of my body became separately enlivened. Being absorbed in an ocean of ecstasy, I could not see both myself and the Lord.”
“...in this series of verses.”
=============================
Just a verse before this, SB 1.6.16, it mentions that Narada-muni was on the stage of Bhava-bhakti, as quoted above. Thus, according to Jiva Gosvami, Murchita Kasaya is a part of bhava-bhakti stage.
You may say what about Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s commentaries to SB 1.6.20-22 where he mentions Narada Muni as a sadhaka and not siddha?
Please have a look at those commentaries once again. His commentary to SB 1.6.21 says that it actually doesn’t apply to Narada-muni:
### QUOTE ####
tubhyam tu darshanam dattam eva iti tvam kuyoginam na bhavasi iti bhaavah (Sanskrit of the CAPS in translation)
1.6.21: What did He say? Oh! (hanta) This is an address made out of affection. In this birth, having the body of a practitioner [sadhaka-dehe], you cannot see Me. I am invisible (durdarsah) to those faulty practitioners of yoga (kuyoginam) whose contaminations such as lust have not been burned up. THE INTENTION HERE IS TO SAY "BUT I SHOWED MYSELF TO YOU. THEREFORE YOU ARE NOT A FAULTY PRACTITIONER." (translation by Bhanu Swami)
### Un-QUOTE ####
Moreover, Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.1 commentary by VCT) establishes that bhava-bhakti stage is neither strictly included in sadhana stage nor can at all be included in the siddha stage. He quotes BRS 2.1.276 for bhava-bhakti which uses the word sadhana-bhakti for it and says that in this stage, although one starts seeing the Lord (being eligible) one’s vision is not uninterrupted and constant. This is due to little residual contamination which becomes washed by the tears of separation that arises by once seeing the Lord. This exactly is the position of Narada-muni in his previous life. Also, we thus can understand why VCT uses the word sadhaka-deha in his commentary to SB 1.6.20-22. Sadhana-bhakti is sadhana for bhava-bhakti (BRS 1.2.1 VCT) while bhava-bhakti is sadhana for prema-bhakti. Current Narada-muni is on the level of prema with siddha-deha.
For more on how BRS 2.1.276 uses the word sadhaka for bhava-bhakti, see . . .
Thus, your research adds to the supports to our conclusions. Thankyou. When one has the truth, evidences automatically support.
*************************************
======= SYNOPSIS OF THE PROCESS OF SANGATI =====
According to the rules of arriving at the understanding of sastric statements, sangati (harmonization) is a very important process that one needs to pass through. Otherwise one can give as many imaginary meanings as possible that clashes with other parts of sastras. In mimamsa and vedanta it is exemplified that there are five stages—1. visaya (subject under discussion), 2. Samsaya (doubt raised), 3. Purva-paksa (prima-facie in support of the doubt), 4. Siddhanta (answer to the prima-facie arriving at an understanding), 5. Sangati (checking this understanding with other parts of guru-sadhu-sastras). Usually 3-4-5 goes on and on till siddhanta is reached that solves the doubt and passes all the levels of sangati.
If 5th step (that of sangati) is missed then one can construe and establish whatever doctrine one likes.
5th step should be executed in the following sequence—
a. Pada-sangati: Checking the arrived understanding against other statements in the same context
If passed from a then,
b. Adhyaya-sangati: Checking the arrived understanding against other statements from same chapter
If passed from b, then
c. Sastra-sangati: Checking the arrived understanding against statements from all the chapters of the same sastra
If passed from c, then
d. Sastrantara-sangati: Checking the arrived understanding against statements from overall understanding of guru-sadhu-sastra
[NOTE: Reference, Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Govinda Bhasya with Sukshma tika; Sanskrit names are not exactly technically mentioned and may subject to change, but the concept remains the same. I request you to be sara-grahi]
Case #1: Analyzing Madana Mohana Prabhu’s Understanding of BS 1.44
***************************************
BS 1.44 ==> MM’s understanding ===> it applies to initiated women, who can thus become guru
Clashes with
BS 1.42-43 ==> Prohibits initiated devotee women from becoming guru
***** Thus, it lacks pada-sangati. ******
MM may say,
BS 1.42-43 ==> only applies to non-initiated women
But, how anyone Non-initiated can become guru. Does MM think it is possible?
Also, it clashes with
BS 1.37 ===> which sets the context that only a vaisnava guru is being talked about here in the following verses 1.38-44
Thus, this understanding fails at the first level of pada-sangati itself.
******************************
Case #2: BG 6.17 says one should not chant more, not chant less
An example of how strange MM’s approach could be:
****************************************
One devotee explained to me:
Bg 6.17, yuktahara-viharasya. Bhaktivinoda Thakura says at one place that for devotees ahara (or food) is harinam. Connecting this, this devotee arrived at an explanation: BG 6.17 says that one should not chant more, nor less; one’s chanting should be in balance.
What is wrong in his interpretation? He has quoted acharya, Bhaktivinoda Thakura?
He lacks pada-sangati. It clashes with the previous verse, Bg 6.16: naty-asnatas 'tu yogo 'sti na caikantam anasnatah – “if one eats too much or eats too little.”
One cannot just bring meaning of some word from some other place in sastras and apply it without checking the continuity of meaning in the immediate context, then in the context of the chapter, then in the context of the whole scripture, and then in the context of the full body of scriptures. In current situation the devotee did not know that there are such rules and thus took the liberty to use meaning mentioned elsewhere.
May be, we also unknowingly do such things.
==============================
Dear Damodara Prabhu,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you for your patience.
********************************
SUMMARY:
1. Your explanations of Bharadvaja-samhita occasionally disregard the direct meaning of both the verses and commentary on them.
- BS 1.44 mandates that all categories disqualified for being diksa-gurus in 1.42-43 become ‘pratyaksitatma-nathas’, not just women
- ‘Pratyaksitatma-natha’ can refer to the level of sadhana-bhakti.
- Srila Prabhupada in SB 4.28.51 purp. offers his followers a practical way to become ‘pratyaksitatma-nathas’ and gives assurance of its result — seeing the Lord.
********************************
Here I will comment on just one albeit essential of your many contentions — that pratyaksitatma-natha[nam] in BS 1.44 necessarily refers to the level of bhava-bhakti and therefore women must be on the level of bhava to initiate.
Here is the verse in question:
kim apy atrabhijayante yoginah sarva-yonisu
pratyaksitatma-nathanam naisam cintyam kuladikam (44)
Your translation: “But, because perfect yogis (or nitya-siddha devotees) who are on the stage of yoga-pratyakṣa (i.e. are self- realized – seeing God face-to-face), pratyaksitatma-nathanam, may take birth in any family tradition, in such cases no consideration of kula, gender, etc. as mentioned earlier apply (they can become acaryas).”
A few points:
1. a minor yet quite telling fact— neither the verse itself, nor the commentary on it by a Sarayu-prasada Misra (which you cite only as it fits your paradigm — more on this later) say anything about “nitya-siddha devotees”. Both speak of yogis. “Nitya-siddha devotees” is your own commentary (tika) on the verse.
You will now most likely spend the next email arguing that yogis here means devotees. But whether you are correct or not, the fact remains — you are writing your own tika on Bharadvaja-samhita, a Vaisnava scripture. Of course, you have every right to do so, but it’s not for me to decide if you meet the qualification enjoined for such a responsible task:
“Unless one is fully qualified in Vaisnava behavior and authorized by superior authority (the Supreme Personality of Godhead), one cannot write Vaisnava literatures or purports and commentaries on Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad-gita”. (Madhya 24.326 purp.)
“So unless one is self-realized, there is practically no use writing about Krsna. This transcendental writing does not depend on material education; it depends on the spiritual realization”. (Lecture on SB 7.5.23–24 -- March 31, 1976, Vrndavana)
But more on this later.
2. verse SB 1.44 is an exception (apavada) to the immediately preceding verses BS 1.42-43 which forbid women, sudras, outcastes, criminals, fallen and lusty to act as diksa-gurus. The commentary on verse BS 1.42 terms their collective disqualification as ‘hina-jati’, literally, “lower birth” and proceeds to explain how each of these categories cannot act as diksa-gurus due to this liability.
These disqualifications are again referred to in BS 1.44 as “kuladikam” — literally, “family lineage etc.” and glossed by Sarayu-prasada Misra as ‘hina-kula-jatah’, literally “[those] born in lower families”.
Then the disqualifications for these groups from BS 1.42-43 to become diksa-gurus are negated in BS 1.44 for ‘pratyaksitatma-nathas’, or “those who directly see the Lord of the soul”.
Again, noteworthy is the fact that neither the verse itself nor the commentary on it mention gender separately. Who does? You in your translation and tika.
Now, two significant conclusions that you have either avoided or overlooked:
a. BS 1.44 mandates the level of ’pratyaksitatma-natha’ to overcome ALL of the disqualifications listed here collectively as ‘kuladikam’ and explained as “birth in lower families”, and not just gender, which is not even mentioned separately. In other words, one described in BS 1.42-43 must be ‘pratyaksitatma-natha’ to purge ANY kind of one’s own “lower birth” to become a diksa-guru — and not just one’s feminine gender. Verse BS 1.44, taken literally, simply doesn’t live room for any other interpretation.
b. and now, if you continue to insist that ’pratyaksitatma-natha’ necessarily means “being on the level of bhava-bhakta” or “seeing the Lord face to face”, then, being consistent, you must accept that one necessarily needs to be on the level of bhava-bhakti to overcome ANY and all of one’s disqualifying conditioning of ‘kuladikam’, or “lower birth” — not just gender. I am sure you understand the grave ramifications of this inevitable conclusion, the gravest being that it flies in the face of literally everything Srila Prabhupada has taught on the topic of birth as a prerequisite for being a Vaisnava and guru:
“... Sometimes they say that unless the body is changed, how a candala can become purified? Yes, body is changing. ... Krsna says in the Bhagavad-gita, tatha dehantara-praptih. ... Suppose in my childhood I am born in a candala family, but if by initiation, by taking shelter of a pure devotee, I become initiated, so dehantara is there, going on. So if I take initiation seriously, so in the next dehantara... Suppose yesterday I was a candala. Now by this time there is dehantara, and if I am purified by initiation... So this argument... Not that somebody was European or... We take Europeans as mlecchas, yavanas. Yes, he was yesterday mleccha and yavanas, but he has changed his body, and after changing, if he's initiated, then dehantara. Sudhyanti, he's purified. Sudhyanti. So how this is possible, if we cannot understand... Because Lord Visnu's energy is inconceivable. Inconceivable, acintya.” (Lecture on SB 1.7.12 -- September 11, 1976, Vrndavana)
And as much as you try to separate women from sudras, outcastes, criminals, fallen and lusty and make us believe that BS 1.44 requires only women to be on the level of pratyaksitatma-natha to initiate, the only basis for such interpretation is ‘sva-kapola-kalpitatvam’ (Jiva Goswami) — your own well-meaning imagination.
- And finally, you wrote:
You somehow tried to establish that “murcchita kasaya” devotee is a sadhaka. However, it seems you did not look into the same statement of Bhakti sandarbha 187, where it says that this is for siddha who has a little residual material contamination. Such a siddha is called bhava-bhakta in Bhakti-rasamrta sindhu (1.2.1). Thus, in trying to construe out some meaning from Bhakti-sandarbha you ended up proving that Bhakti-sandarbha supports our point from Bharadvaja-samhita. (Thank you :-)
1. Thanks for accepting ‘murcchita-kasaya’ (a realized devotee, bhakta-siddha, whose material desires are inactive) as a legitimate gloss of ‘pratyaksitatma-natha’.
2. Thank you also for agreeing with Jiva Goswami that Narada in his previous birth is one example of ‘murcchita-kasaya’, due to his attachment to the mode of goodness.
3. Now, you attempt to prove that Narada in his previous life was also a bhava-bhakta by citing a tangential verse from BRS 1.2.1. However, you might have overlooked Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s commentaries on SB 1.6.20-22, in which he directly and repeatedly says that Narada in his previous life was a sadhaka, because of which the Lord appeared to him only once.
Let me cite it in its entirety (translation by Bhanu Swami):
1.6.20: The Lord is beyond the description of words (giram agocarah) as stated by the sruti: yato vaco nivartante: the Lord, from whom words return without attaining him. (Taittiriya Upanisad 2.4.1) The Lord who cannot be approached by words spoke to me. I had an experience of His sweet sounding words by my ears. Because Narada had bhakti arising from vaidhi-sadhana [vaidha-bhaktimattvad], he had realization of the sweetness of the Lord's fragrance, beauty and speech in his present body [sadhaka-dehe]. The complete experience with all other types of sweetness (touch, taste etc.), would be experienced in the future in his spiritual body (siddha-deha). By this (His sweet words), the Lord removed all types of lamentation and suffering which had arisen by not seeing Him. The word iva (somewhat) is used because his love in longing, caused by separation, had not been fully satisfied.
1.6.21: What did He say? Oh! (hanta) This is an address made out of affection. In this birth, having the body of a practitioner [sadhaka-dehe], you cannot see Me. I am invisible (durdarsah) to those faulty practitioners of yoga (kuyoginam) whose contaminations such as lust have not been burned up. The intention here is to say "But I showed Myself to you. Therefore you are not a faulty practitioner."
1.6.22: ”But just show Yourself once more to me!" Seeing Me only once, not many times, is enough to produce desire for Me (kamaya). By only slight increase in longing, prema will not develop to the state of youthfulness in a person having somewhat weak prema. My rule is that I show Myself one time only to a person practicing in his present body (in his sadhaka-deha) who has developed prema. The infant state of prema in the sadhaka's body matures to a youthful state in the siddha-deha by an increase of prema arising from longing in separation. That youthful prema allows the devotee to see Me constantly and serve Me directly. I alone, and not My devotee, know the process of fulfilling the desires of My devotee. You, who simply desire Me (mat-kamah), even without having seen Me, will become free from all desires for material enjoyment (hrccayan). This statement does not actually apply to Narada since he did not have any material desires, being at the level of prema already. But saying this, the Lord shows the nature of devotion. Additionally by saying this, the Lord increases the humility of Narada.
Please note that Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura repeatedly states that Narada was in the body of a sadhaka (sadhaka-dehe), in which he nurtured infant prema. This was an advanced stage of sadhana-bhakti, but sadhana nevertheless, as the Lord confirms by staying that “My rule is that I show Myself only once to a person practicing in his present body (in his sadhaka-deha) who has developed prema.”
Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura explains the connection between sadhana and prema more elaborately in his commentary on SB 1.2.6 (translation by Bhanu Swami):
“Dharma consisting of hearing and chanting about the Lord is called sadhana-bhakti, and in the mature state it is called prema. Both are called bhakti, for it is said bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya bibhraty utpulakam tanum: the devotee possesses a body with ecstatic symptoms by prema developed through sadhana-bhakti. (SB 11.3.31) In the verse being discussed, the former bhakti (paro dharmo) is the cause of the later type of bhakti (yato bhaktir adhoksaje), just as an unripe mango is the cause of a ripe mango. Considering one the cause of the other because of the difference in taste is simply a conception for understanding the different strengths of bhakti, though sadhana-bhakti and prema are not actually different things. The various states of infancy, youth and adulthood in one person are actually not conditions of cause and results of that cause (since the person remains).”
Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Jiva Goswami slightly disagree on the exact nature of Narada’s disqualification. However, they don’t disagree that, as a sadhaka, he was able to see the Lord once to increase his longing.
To conclude, one can qualify as a ‘pratyaksitatma-natha’ of BS 1.44 on the level of sadhana-bhakti by seeing the Lord once even while having some residual inactive material desires, like Narada.
You’re quite welcome! :-)
(4) And — if you are in the mood of accepting all of Srila Prabhupada’s statements literally, and not just those that fit your paradigm — his purport on SB 4.28.51 that you disregarded in my earlier message on the topic gives us assurance that the Lord accepts our serious efforts in serving the spiritual master’s order and mission as tantamount to seeing Him directly (‘pratyaksitatma-natha’).
Please don’t mind me reproducing it again, hoping that this time it will earn a more serious attention from your side as a prescriptive rather than descriptive statement that can help qualify you, too, as a ‘pratyaksiuatma-natha’:
"When one becomes serious to follow the mission of the spiritual master, his resolution is tantamount to seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As explained before, this means meeting the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the instruction of the spiritual master. This is technically called vani-seva. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura states in his Bhagavad-gita commentary on the verse vyavasayatmika buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana (Bg. 2.41) that one should serve the words of the spiritual master. The disciple must stick to whatever the spiritual master orders. Simply by following on that line, one sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
"In conclusion, if a disciple is very serious to execute the mission of the spiritual master, he immediately associates with the Supreme Personality of Godhead by vani or vapu. This is the only secret of success in seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Instead of being eager to see the Lord in some bush of Vrndavana while at the same time engaging in sense gratification, if one instead sticks to the principle of following the words of the spiritual master, he will see the Supreme Lord without difficulty. (...) If one is very highly advanced in devotional service, he will have no difficulty in seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If one engages in the service of the spiritual master, he not only sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead but attains liberation.” (SB 4.28.51 purp.)
Please note again that throughout his purport Srila Prabhupada equates “very highly advanced” with “very seriously ... engaged in the service/mission of the spiritual master” as synonymous prerequisites for seeing the Lord.
In my next text I will address the unique and arbitrary nature of your Bharadvaja-samhita-tika, Krsna willing.
Thank you for your attention.
your servant,
Madana-mohan das
No comments:
Post a Comment