The Genuine Works of Sankaracarya (AdI)

[Ed]

Feb 5, 2022 16:48:37 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Feb 5, 2022 13:15:09 GMT -6 avadhutadas said:

So this would be one of the frauds purported by CV, not just IGM. What other kinds of things are like this?

Yes. Another fraud perpetrated by CV is our connection to the Madhva tradition. Everyone, both IGM and CV, seems to have bought into this one, with a few notable exceptions. Our philosophy and that of the Madhvas has verry little in common and Madhavendra Puri was a member of the Sankara Dasanami system, not a member of the Madhava tradition. This should have been obvious from the beginning. The Madhvites all are Tirthas, not Puris. And there is nothing rasik about the Madhva tradition. They regard the Gopis as little more than prostitutes. Even the so-called parampara given in Baladeva's Prameya-ratnavali doesn't match those of the Madhva tradition itself (See BNK Sharma's discussion in his History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature, Appendix V. In his Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya, p. 22, where he recognizes the influence of Madhva on the Caitanya tradition as coming primarily through Baladeva Vidyabhusana through his teacher Radhadamodara. This is a far cry from claiming Mahaprabhu himself to be a member of the Madhva tradition). In my view this was invented by Baladeva who had the onerous task of trying to defend our community's authenticity and keep the control and seva of our most beloved Thakur, Sri Govindaji, from falling into the hands of one of the other sampradayas for whom aisvarya was the rule, not madhurya. Baladeva was, of course, a member of the Madhva tradition before he was converted to CV by Radhadamodara Gosvami. Thus, he knew that tradition better than his new one, especially in terms of interpretation of the Vedanta-sutras. Our own tradition was rather hamstrung because of Sri Jiva's claiming the Bhagavata as our commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, the Bhagavata belonging to all the sampradayas, even nondualist ones.

There are two possibilities for the actual roots of our tradition. The most likely is that it was founded outright by Sri Caitanya himself. We don't really need to look any further than that. No outside authentification needed. This view is held by Sri Jiva, Sri Radhamohan Gosvamin (18th-19th cent. a major acarya from the Advaita lineage), and a Gosvamin named Gaurakisora Gosvami (I believe, I don't have my copy of Haridas Das Baba's Gaudiya Vaisnava Sahitya to check).

The other possibility is that we belong to the Sankara sampradaya itself, a branch of which developed a high respect for bhakti. To this branch Sri Radhamohan Gosvami says Sridharasvamin belonged (in his commentary on Sri Jiva's Tattva-sandarbha). Madhavendra Puri would also be in this bhakti-prizing, Krsna-loving sub-tradition of the Sankara parampara.

So my posting of the works of Sri Sankaracarya is an effort to get to know the real thought of our possible ancient founding acarya, most of which is quite consonant with our philosophy (as Acintya-BhedAbheda).

If only just to muddy the waters a bit more, here are my current thoughts about Madhavendra Puri's affiliation:

Perhaps there's a possibility that he had, like Mahaprabhu, received Vaisnava mantra in his early life before taking renunciation into Sankara's Puri order, since it is likely that he took it when he was already advanced in age. He was a Krsna-bhakta by all accounts, and as a wandering Puri sannyasin he was probably able to practice and transmit his particular form of vraja-centric bhakti with enough personal liberty in the North. I do wonder though, if he had no connection to any Vaisnava sampradaya, from where did Advaita, Pundarika Vidyanidhi, Isvara Puri and others received their Krsna-mantra? 

A.K. Majumdar says that, aside from some discrepancies, the guruparampara presented by Baladeva resembles the one from the Vyasaraya Math, one of the three Mula Mathas, at least as far as Vyasa Tirtha.

Elkman points out that a possible reason why the names of Laksmipati and Madhavendra are not found on the list is because unlike the others, they weren’t mahantas of the order. He agrees that if indeed Laksmipati had any connection with Madhavendra it must have been on the basis of mantra initiation, and not sannyasa initiation.

He lists different early references for the parampara connection:

1. The most commonly known one, from Gauraganoddesadipika by Kavikarnapura (1576 o 1544)

The parampara from this text was quoted in the Bhaktiratnakara, written probably around the time of Baladeva’s arrival in Vraja.

VC’s Gauraganatattvasvarupacandrika was based on this text, so at least we know VC accepted it as authentic.

2. Again, that same list is found in sanskrit verse in the Bhaktiratnakara, but this second time it is attributed to a work by Gopalaguru. However, that work itself is no longer available.

3. Prabhat Mukherjee (1940) mentions a parampara list found in Acyutananda’s work bhaktijñanabrahmayoga, connecting Madhavendra with Madhva, though the list itself is evidently inaccurate. Acyutananda is said to be an Orissan companion of Mahaprabhu, founder of the monastery known as the Gopala Math. Mukherjee thinks that the tradition of this connection probably predated this work, and the Orissan writers just couldn’t “follow it clearly”. If this is so, says Elkman, it is possible that Baladeva being an Orissan himself would have been familiar with it. (Gopalguru's lineage was also established in Puri). 

4. Gokulanatha’s Do Sau Bavan Vaisnava Ki Varta:

This is a work attributed to the grandson of Vallabhacarya, in which he describes Madhavendra Puri as a Sannyasin of the Madhva Sampradaya. This is a slightly later work than the CC, yet what interests Elkman is the fact that the Vallabha Sampradaya didn’t have the same pressures that the Gaudiyas had in regards to their formal affiliation. And he infers that the work can’t be the result of the close influence of the Vrindavan Goswamins, since none of them refer to this parampara connection. 

The parampara in Gbh could be just the final form of a tradition which had its beginnings in the early years of GV, one that had been neglected by the Goswamins for obvious reasons but was later picked up and formalized by Baladeva on the occasion of the Jaipur dispute.

Btw, just as a related fun fact, while recounting the different versions of the story of the Jaipur affair, Elkman notes that:

According to Ashim Kumar Roy, there’s no memory of this religious debate in Jaipur, not even in the family of the priests of the Govindadeva temple (Roy: 1978: 171)

[kirtaniya]

Feb 11, 2022 12:57:26 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Actually, the dichotomy between jJAna and bhakti is a false one. As I have said many times before, here and in other places, bhakti is a form of knowledge. The Vaisanva acaryas have defined bhakti as jJAna-vizeSa, a special form of knowledge. And even Sankara considered bhakti to be jJAna as I pointed out in my introduction to my edition of the Bhagavad-gita (12.20). উত্তমাং পরমার্থজ্ঞানলক্ষণাং ভকতিম্ uttamAM paramArthalakSaNAM bhaktim. So just like those turtles, it's knowledge all the way down! Baladeva says: Knowledge is twofold: one is the perception of the categories of tat and tvam by a kind of aggressive directness as if staring without blinking and the second, charming and wonderful as if acquired by gazing furtively through side-long glances, has the form of bhakti. (Siddhanta-ratna, para 33)

How the dichotomy - jnana and something else - makes sense? Jnana, knowledge, never makes a complete picture of the mind. There are objects of knowledge. Everything about which there is knowledge and about which there is not. The objects of knowledge are not knowledge. An apple is not knowledge, but an object of knowledge. Seeing an apple and knowing what an apple looks like are two different processes.

Ultimate reality, as it is revealed to the gaze free from craving, is the reality as it is. And this reality, in fact, is this gaze, non separate from what it is aimed at. It is a free mind that can be directed to anything, keeping calm and clarity without wavering by what is perceived. The whole mind takes place in the avoidance of (quantum) uncertainty, in the ignorance of peace without supports. Starting from the uncertainty, the mind rolls towards the familiar. Thus we can explore the formation of any worlds and destinies of existence, plots and situations.

There is a deep insight of the sage into the clarity and serenity of nirvana, but this experience is separate, and the mind is separate. The nature of the mind is not revealed. He creates a theory in which he revels in the concept of knowledge, a pure idea, a thing in itself, behind which there is nothing but reasoning.

Many people have this insight but do not use it because they do not know how to direct the united clear mind, what to direct it to, how to properly consider the arising and ceasing of all phenomena and the unborn.

Practical knowledge is valuable - directing attention to the tendencies of the mind and the factors that feed the tendencies.

[Nitaidas]

Thanks, Ed, for presenting the counter argument to my suggestion that the connection between CV and the Madhva tradition is fraudulent. It is good to get both sides. For myself, I have my doubts about the authenticity of the text by Kavikarnapura and also that of Visvanatha Cakravartin. Moreover, it would be easy to add the Madhva lineage to either of them, if they were genuine. As far as who gave Krnsa-mantra to Advaita, Pundarika Vidyanidhi, Isvara Puri and others, why must there only be one source? Who gave mantras to Rupa and Sanatana? They certainly were Vaisnavas long before they ever met Sri Caitanya. There were many sources of the mantra apart from those listed in that (spurious?) verse listing only four sampradayas (one of which, the Rudra-sampradaya, doesn't seem to have ever really existed). Since Sankara himself was a Vaisnava, his lineage may well have included initiation with Vaisnava mantras, if not the Krsna mantra itself.

More important, for me, however, is the difference between the views of the Madhva tradition and those of the Caitanya tradition, or, if one will, the difference of the views of the post-Madhavendra Puri tradition from those of the Madhva tradition. As far as I know there is no practice like sankirtan in the Madhva tradition, nor is there Hari-nama japa as a central practice. The Madhva view of Krsna is one of aisvarya and not madhurya. The love of the Gopis for Krsna has no status in the Madhva tradition. If Madhavindra Puri got mantra from some Madhva guru, did he not get instruction in sect's practice and other things? Did he not stick around to learn the views of his guru and of the tradition he was initiated into? There does not seem to me to be any reason to connect the Caitanya tradition with the Madhva tradition except to meet some challenge to CV's authenticity from other Vaisnava sects. If there were no such challenge, then nothing is gained from that connection.

[meeno8]

"The whole mind takes place in the avoidance of (quantum) uncertainty, in the ignorance of peace without supports."

Kirtaniya (your moniker here): This seems to me to be a non-sequitur given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in physics. That was about particles, and you are trying to somehow impose it upon a concept of the mind and consciousness. Please make a stronger case for this, so we can better understand what you mean.

Here is the question in other terms:
Can quantum mechanics be applied outside of the realm of sub-particles such as quarks, especially considering the non-intuitive paradoxical nature of it?  Even Einstein himself balked at it initially with his comment about God not playing dice with the universe.

As mystics (and we are in a mystical tradition we refer to as CV, or Caitanya Vaisnavism or simply Caitanyism, although I really do not like isms in general), we do recognize that we are surrounded by mysteries, and the ancient mystery schools in Egypt and Greece had secret initiations and teachings passed down through the ages.  

[meeno8]

Is the new mystical tradition quantamism? Hopefully not a new religion.

[kirtaniya]

Nothing new in this sense. Sankara used examples of clay pots, etc. when describing consciousness. Information, certainty - this is what consciousness and matter have in common. The idea of potentiality has been known for a long time, the modern expression in the form of a superposition is more visual. Based on this principle, one can understand the non-linear determinism of karma. Due to the fact that the futility of the hope for self-preservation remains largely unaccountable, theories are born about some kind of mystical consciousness - the substratum. Any mysticism is due to the lack of research.

[Ed]

Feb 12, 2022 13:44:19 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Thanks, Ed, for presenting the counter argument to my suggestion that the connection between CV and the Madhva tradition is fraudulent. It is good to get both sides. For myself, I have my doubts about the authenticity of the text by Kavikarnapura and also that of Visvanatha Cakravartin. Moreover, it would be easy to add the Madhva lineage to either of them, if they were genuine. As far as who gave Krnsa-mantra to Advaita, Pundarika Vidyanidhi, Isvara Puri and others, why must there only be one source? Who gave mantras to Rupa and Sanatana? They certainly were Vaisnavas long before they ever met Sri Caitanya. There were many sources of the mantra apart from those listed in that (spurious?) verse listing only four sampradayas (one of which, the Rudra-sampradaya, doesn't seem to have ever really existed). Since Sankara himself was a Vaisnava, his lineage may well have included initiation with Vaisnava mantras, if not the Krsna mantra itself.

More important, for me, however, is the difference between the views of the Madhva tradition and those of the Caitanya tradition, or, if one will, the difference of the views of the post-Madhavendra Puri tradition from those of the Madhva tradition. As far as I know there is no practice like sankirtan in the Madhva tradition, nor is there Hari-nama japa as a central practice. The Madhva view of Krsna is one of aisvarya and not madhurya. The love of the Gopis for Krsna has no status in the Madhva tradition. If Madhavindra Puri got mantra from some Madhva guru, did he not get instruction in sect's practice and other things? Did he not stick around to learn the views of his guru and of the tradition he was initiated into? There does not seem to me to be any reason to connect the Caitanya tradition with the Madhva tradition except to meet some challenge to CV's authenticity from other Vaisnava sects. If there were no such challenge, then nothing is gained from that connection.

I agree, I don’t see anything to be gained from such connection, but I wouldn't mind accepting it either, if there’s some actual historical evidence for it, that is. In spite of the poor job I did at presenting some of Elkman’s points from his essay on Baladeva, I think he brought up enough evidence to at least question the idea that the parampara was a fabrication by Baladeva himself. I think it’s likely that he just picked up a somewhat obscure Orissan tradition with little to no basis on truth and used it as the skeleton for his parampara, or simply based it on Kavi’s and VC’s work. Whether that connection was real to start with or not, is a different matter.

I also considered the possibility of Sankara’s lineages passing on some form of Krsna mantra, but I don’t personally know of any reference to this. We usually read they initiate with one of the Mahakavyas in the case of renunciants, which is what we also found in Mahaprabhu’s story about his initiation with Kesava Bharati. But admittedly, I know very little of their actual procedures. The reason I mentioned those people in specific is because they were all said to have been Madhavendra Puri’s direct disciples, which I assume means Vaisnava diksa since Advaita and Pundarika Vidyanidhi were householders.

The argument I’ve seen made by A.K. Majumdar, De and Elkman, is based on the example of Madhva himself, who developed his own system, even though he had been initiated into Sankara’s tradition. And the example of Baladeva, who started as a Madhvaite and later changed his views in favor of the Gaudiyas and received mantra from Radhadamodara Goswami. Madhavendra Puri could have drifted from the Madhvaites once his leanings towards Vraja-bhakti increased and their system was no longer fulfilling for him, or rather became a constrain for him. He might have changed his views after having association with someone who transmitted that type of bhakti to him, maybe some Puri sannyasin who also happened to be a bhagavata. If the story of Mahaprabhu’s sannyasa is of any reference, Madhavendra Puri could have felt that taking sannyasa and becoming a wandering sadhu would allow him the same personal liberty for practicing and preaching his own brand of bhakti, different from Madhva’s.

Anyway, it’s just a lot of ‘if’ and ‘could’ve’, but like I said, I think these things are worth considering, if only to muddy the waters a little and stir some thoughts. We definitely have some debt to Madhva as well as to other previous Vaisnava acaryas, but have been under no obligation so far to maintain any siddhantic or practical allegiance to any of them, so in this sense accepting a formal connection hasn’t denied CV’s identity and contributions as an independent Vaisnava tradition from Madhva’s, which is probably why so many don’t see it as problematic. However, I personally agree with you and others that it’s far more likely that we are a development of a type of bhakti that already existed in some of Sankara’s lineages, and I think it’s unfortunate how the Madhva affair often serves to perpetuate the divide between so called Mayavadins and the Gaudiyas, when in reality we are more related than we think.

[meeno8]

Feb 12, 2022 17:18:08 GMT -6 kirtaniya said:

Nothing new in this sense. Sankara used examples of clay pots, etc. when describing consciousness. Information, certainty - this is what consciousness and matter have in common. The idea of potentiality has been known for a long time, the modern expression in the form of a superposition is more visual. Based on this principle, one can understand the non-linear determinism of karma. Due to the fact that the futility of the hope for self-preservation remains largely unaccountable, theories are born about some kind of mystical consciousness - the substratum. Any mysticism is due to the lack of research.

OK, but what does the non-linear determinism of karma as you term it have anything to do with Heisenberg and quantum mechanics?  Are you taking into consideration any recent research from neurology and fMRI scans of people meditating, which have provided much better insights into consciousness than those ancient Buddhist concepts?  Clay pot analogies and all are there, and we as followers of a mystical tradition should be (and perhaps not all here are on the same page on this) viewing the universe as what theoretical physicists call the metaverse. 

I personally experienced the Newtonian laws of gravity suspended momentarily, which most people would say is simply delusional, but others shared in the experience, because they were physically present at the time.  When 'supernatural' events are described in the hagiographies of elevated sadhus in our tradition, some may write them off as pure fantasies, but others would tend to accept them as a matter of faith.  Given my personal life experiences, I am among the latter.  And we are not talking about blind faith here, instead true nistha predicated on solid experience, given that is inherently subjective (I mean when are matters of faith ever going to be objective in nature?).

In the song by Seal, Crazy, there is these lyrics:  
If all were there when we first took the pill

Then maybe, then maybe, then maybe, then maybe

Miracles will happen as we speak

But we're never gonna survive unless

We get a little crazy

[kirtaniya]

“This is not crazy enough. You must become completely crazy. Then you will understand."©

Quantum phenomena are simply not deployed in time and space. Look at any item. It is not unique, there are many similar items. But they are deployed in space and time, so we can observe the certainty of an individual object. Quantum uncertainty is like a separate dimension. Without observing the distribution in it, we are talking about probability. We can explore a quantum object seemingly in the same way and each time get different projections of it. But without managing exploration in this hidden dimension, we get different results. This is one of the most rigorous metaphors for the deepest essence of the characterization of conditioning, the anatman. We observe classical objects in which we do not observe the distribution of its variations and observe their interaction with other classical objects. This interaction is most often stable and familiar to us. Therefore, when we encounter the fact that classical objects suddenly behave non-classically, we are surprised.

But the ground state of objects is quantum. We cling to certain classical states, and therefore our whole world is sufficiently defined. This does not mean that there are no other states. We just don't care for them. But just as we reach the quantum limits of the study of matter, we are faced with a quantum limit in consciousness, in the cognitive function as such, in meanings.

We are fascinated by stable certainty, but we are interested in its border with uncertainty, because at the heart of everything is the search for the best certainty, the most stable, in the collision with which the rest will be destroyed. This forms the self as a new and new search for certainty (sanskara pratyaya vijnana).

Intuitive logic (common sense) errs exactly where the premises are erroneous. For example, about the objectivity of our world (although it is not objective). Intuition in the usual sense of the word (everyday, commonly used) is a sense of the familiar. That is, something happens in a habitual way, without any analysis of why it is habitual. It is recognition without knowledge of how the recognition happened, or what precisely is being recognized.

[Nitaidas]

Feb 12, 2022 3:03:09 GMT -6 kirtaniya said:

Feb 11, 2022 12:57:26 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Actually, the dichotomy between jJAna and bhakti is a false one. As I have said many times before, here and in other places, bhakti is a form of knowledge. The Vaisanva acaryas have defined bhakti as jJAna-vizeSa, a special form of knowledge. And even Sankara considered bhakti to be jJAna as I pointed out in my introduction to my edition of the Bhagavad-gita (12.20). উত্তমাং পরমার্থজ্ঞানলক্ষণাং ভকতিম্ uttamAM paramArthalakSaNAM bhaktim. So just like those turtles, it's knowledge all the way down! Baladeva says: Knowledge is twofold: one is the perception of the categories of tat and tvam by a kind of aggressive directness as if staring without blinking and the second, charming and wonderful as if acquired by gazing furtively through side-long glances, has the form of bhakti. (Siddhanta-ratna, para 33)

How the dichotomy - jnana and something else - makes sense? Jnana, knowledge, never makes a complete picture of the mind. There are objects of knowledge. Everything about which there is knowledge and about which there is not. The objects of knowledge are not knowledge. An apple is not knowledge, but an object of knowledge. Seeing an apple and knowing what an apple looks like are two different processes.

Ultimate reality, as it is revealed to the gaze free from craving, is the reality as it is. And this reality, in fact, is this gaze, non separate from what it is aimed at. It is a free mind that can be directed to anything, keeping calm and clarity without wavering by what is perceived. The whole mind takes place in the avoidance of (quantum) uncertainty, in the ignorance of peace without supports. Starting from the uncertainty, the mind rolls towards the familiar. Thus we can explore the formation of any worlds and destinies of existence, plots and situations.

There is a deep insight of the sage into the clarity and serenity of nirvana, but this experience is separate, and the mind is separate. The nature of the mind is not revealed. He creates a theory in which he revels in the concept of knowledge, a pure idea, a thing in itself, behind which there is nothing but reasoning.

Many people have this insight but do not use it because they do not know how to direct the united clear mind, what to direct it to, how to properly consider the arising and ceasing of all phenomena and the unborn.

Practical knowledge is valuable - directing attention to the tendencies of the mind and the factors that feed the tendencies.

Thanks for your comments, Kirtaniya. The dichotomy I am arguing against is not the one you are questioning. Generally jJAna and bhakti are distinguished as differing sAdhanas and jJAna is made subjective while bhakti become the object undertood as a set of feelings. One knows bhakti-feelings through jJAna. I am suggesting that bhakti and jJAna are actually the same. They are both forms of knowledge, but different ways of knowing Brahman, as Baladeva suggests in the passage I quoted from him. JJAna knows Brahman indistinctly as if from a distance. Thus it is called nirvizeSa, without distinction. Bhakti knows Brahman up close and personally and thus it is call savizeSa, with distinction. The former is generic and the latter is intimate. The former is impersonal by its very limitations and the latter is personal. Knowledge is dependent on it means. Pratyaksa produces one kind of knowledge whereas anumana produces another. Both differ from sabda and arthApati. These are the practical ways of knowing. Without means of knowing we know nothing.

[kirtaniya]

Nitai das ji,

I am not questioning another dichotomy. I am arguing that the "jnana + something" dichotomy could be the answer to incomplete insight of Advaita-Vedanta (including in history). In case this “something” is bhakti, bhakti serves to reveal the essential qualities of consciousness, how consciousness is dynamic, is a process, and it is not a static entity.

Jnana which supposed to know this imaginary entity and to be it is just a fetish. Based on the assumption that there is something independent perceptual. Although the idea of non-duality of perception and percepted is correct. In this, there is a vision of contact as arising under the condition of the six pillars, but there is no seeing the mutual emergence of the six pillars, their spheres and contact.

Also in the place of this “something” can be the stream of urine from Nimai to the plate of Murari Gupta. Who of us ever thought of that stream as non-different from bhakti? Or non-different from jnana? Anyway, it makes another example of dichotomy (as opposing to the lonely jnana). An example of revelation. Our Gaura and Nitai are not Vedantists. Is it too radical? They just take some prominent views in the society and correct them.

With the cessation of conditioning, there is no need for discrimination (discriminating consciousness), there is no need to discover anything, there is no need to specify anything. It is right. But there is also no need to avoid discrimination, to avoid acquiring new knowledge, to avoid being special about anything. This side of attachment - clinging to objectlessness, to non-direction, sort of indifference - is often kicked hard in the Gaura-lila.

The attempt to reduce everything to consciousness, or to jnana as the essence of consciousness, is quite natural. Clarity is present in all perception and non-perception and even in the cessation of perception. Everything that is somehow defined is the quality of the mind, the content of consciousness. Including rupa, and vedana, and samjna, and sanskara. All this is the content of consciousness. Consciousness is also the content of consciousness. Therefore consciousness is in consciousness.

The problem here in the idea of the content to be illusion. The sage has insight in the phenomenon of non-phenomena, the phenomenon which is not conditioned, and produces metaphysics out of this. In fact, clinging is what makes an illusion that leads to birth in a limited realm. Otherwise illusory and real is not distinguished. Then the mind takes support in the unborn, the same content is seen as it is and is not illusory. And then all phenomena is real. Both conditioned and unconditioned. In Paramatma-sandarbha similar idea can be seen throughout the text, no matter how flimsy is reasoning there.

[avadhutadas]

I remembered this pastime this morning while thinking about this thread.

"Kindly listen with undivided attention to this confidential incident. Devotional service to Lord Krishna is perfected by sincerely hearing this story. Sitting on the pile of contaminated pots as if it was a royal throne, Sri Gaurasundara glanced around with a smile playing on His lips. His golden complexion was spotted by the black soot from the contaminated pots. He looked like a golden doll smeared by dark sweet-smelling sandalwood and aguru paste. Several friends went to Mother Saci and informed her, "Nimai is sitting on top of the contaminated pots." Mother Saci was shocked when she saw Him. "My dear child, this is not a proper place to sit," she scolded. "Can you not judge between clean and unclean things after all these years? Don't you know that one must bathe after touching unclean pots?" Lord Nimai retorted, "You do not allow me to study, how do you expect me to know the differences between clean and unclean? I am just an illiterate brahmin. "I am an uneducated fool with no idea of what is clean or unclean. I see oneness in everything; my vision is non- dual."

After His speech Nimai smiled from atop His seat of unclean pots. At that moment He manifested the mood of Lord Dattatreya, Krishna's incarnation as the son of Atri. His mother replied, "Now that you have sat in a dirty place, how are you going to clean yourself?" But Lord Visvambhara replied, "Mother, you have an extremely childlike mentality. I am never situated in a contaminated place. "Wherever I am, that place becomes most sanctified. Ganga devi and all other places of pilgrimage naturally reside there. "Clean and unclean are imaginary. It is a conditioned way of thinking. What can be the fault of the creator or His creation? "Let us assume something is contaminated according to social etiquettes and Vedic ritualistic opinions. If I, the Supreme Absolute purity, touch it, then what contamination can remain?"In reality, these pots are not in the least contaminated because you have cooked for Lord Vishnu in them. Lord Vishnu's cooking utensils can never be contaminated. On the contrary they can purify everything and every place simply by their touch. Similarly, I do not reside in a degraded place nor on a materialistic plane; everyone is purified by My contact." After speaking the absolute non-dual truth just as a child would speak on ordinary topics, Nimai smiled. By the influence of His illusory potency, no one could fathom his words.

[Nitaidas]

Feb 14, 2022 0:46:08 GMT -6 kirtaniya said:

Nitai das ji,

I am not questioning another dichotomy. I am arguing that the "jnana + something" dichotomy could be the answer to incomplete insight of Advaita-Vedanta (including in history). In case this “something” is bhakti, bhakti serves to reveal the essential qualities of consciousness, how consciousness is dynamic, is a process, and it is not a static entity.

Jnana which supposed to know this imaginary entity and to be it is just a fetish. Based on the assumption that there is something independent perceptual. Although the idea of non-duality of perception and percepted is correct. In this, there is a vision of contact as arising under the condition of the six pillars, but there is no seeing the mutual emergence of the six pillars, their spheres and contact.

Also in the place of this “something” can be the stream of urine from Nimai to the plate of Murari Gupta. Who of us ever thought of that stream as non-different from bhakti? Or non-different from jnana? Anyway, it makes another example of dichotomy (as opposing to the lonely jnana). An example of revelation. Our Gaura and Nitai are not Vedantists. Is it too radical? They just take some prominent views in the society and correct them.

With the cessation of conditioning, there is no need for discrimination (discriminating consciousness), there is no need to discover anything, there is no need to specify anything. It is right. But there is also no need to avoid discrimination, to avoid acquiring new knowledge, to avoid being special about anything. This side of attachment - clinging to objectlessness, to non-direction, sort of indifference - is often kicked hard in the Gaura-lila.

The attempt to reduce everything to consciousness, or to jnana as the essence of consciousness, is quite natural. Clarity is present in all perception and non-perception and even in the cessation of perception. Everything that is somehow defined is the quality of the mind, the content of consciousness. Including rupa, and vedana, and samjna, and sanskara. All this is the content of consciousness. Consciousness is also the content of consciousness. Therefore consciousness is in consciousness.

The problem here in the idea of the content to be illusion. The sage has insight in the phenomenon of non-phenomena, the phenomenon which is not conditioned, and produces metaphysics out of this. In fact, clinging is what makes an illusion that leads to birth in a limited realm. Otherwise illusory and real is not distinguished. Then the mind takes support in the unborn, the same content is seen as it is and is not illusory. And then all phenomena is real. Both conditioned and unconditioned. In Paramatma-sandarbha similar idea can be seen throughout the text, no matter how flimsy is reasoning there.

Sorry I misunderstood you, Kirtaniya. Your first paragraph says almost exactly the same thing Sri Baladeva says in his definition of bhakti: hlAdasamvidoH samavetayoH sAro bhaktiriti sidhyati (para 40, Siddhanta-ratna) "The core or essence of HlAda (pleasure) and samvit (knowledge) inseparably joined is bhakti." This is completion of knowledge (jnAna) as conceived by the Advaitins and there is possibly a historical component to this evolution of jnAna into jnAna inseparably combined with bhakti in Sankara's own comments and in the later developments of the tradition that followed him (Sridharasvamin, Madhavendrapuri, Madhusudhana Sarasvati, etc). Baladeva's a development of Sri Jiva's definition of bhakti as: paramasArabhUtAyA api svarUpazakteH sArabhUtA hlAdinI nAma yA vRttistasyA sArabhUto vRttivizeSo bhaktiH sA ca ratyaparaparyAyA (ParamAtma-sandarbha, para. 92). Here Sri Jiva defines bhakti as a function of the essence of the essence of the Svarupa-zakti of Sri Krsna which itself is the essence of the highest power. It is another name for Krsna-rati. Here Sri Jiva recognizes the HladinI aspect of Baladeva's definition, but not the samvit aspect. Baladeva was a Vedantin and thus saw the importance of stressing knowledge or awareness in the bhakti experience. For Jiva it was probably implied.

Anyway, I have at various points in my life noticed instances of what I call cognitive bliss, the bliss that comes from understanding something clearly and deeply. It doesn't happen to me very often, but it is a thrilling experience. I am not saying that this is bhakti, but only that there is sometimes a connection between knowledge and bliss. One can imagine how much greater that would be when the knowledge involves Krsna.

That urine was certainly real and bore a wealth of meaning (and eventually bliss) for Murarigupta, as did that beating Mahaprabhu gave to Advaitacarya for promoting Advaita-jnAna. Knowledge and bliss hand-in-hand.

[kirtaniya]

One can imagine how much greater that would be when the knowledge involves Krsna.

Nitaidas ji!

This way of thinking is only befitting a Candravali camp. In our kunja we know exactly what to expect from the boy. <smile of angel>

All these fancy technical names of sakti ultimately don't make any practical sense other than to create an air of grandeur. Yes, they point to phenomena and principles that we can observe here and now, but they are too vague and approximate. And so they lead to vain dream of another experience, feed that dream. When you open your eyes, this is the first thing you see. When you close your eyes, it doesn't go away. But as soon as you try to understand it by thinking, it is very far away.

Philosophy, or rather the collection of thoughts of Sri Jiva and Sri Baladeva, is a curious collection of many possible ways of comprehending former wanderings in the darkness of the Vedantic tradition. This is a set of good questions. This is a bonus to the sadhana technique. If we cannot surrender to a long kirtana with a crystal clear mind or do not find pleasure in constantly immersing oneself in the world of Asta-kaliya, then we are faced with philosophical questions. And we are provoked to study Sankara, his critics and his predecessors carefully, otherwise we will simply drown in these questions. Sri Jiva has seen the dualistic nature of Sankara's Advaita, but without a vision of at least a scent of the eternalistic and nihilistic extremes, the reader of Sri Jiva cannot understand him. At best, a person will point to some specific verses of Sandarbhas, reveling in the fact that he knows where and what is being discussed.



The mind may need some food, and plenty is provided. For example, Sri Rupa Gosvami gives food for understanding in Bhaktirasamritasindhu. Only in order to skillfully persuade the practitioner to the main thing - immersion in the topic of nama, rupa, guna and lila. Only externally Sri Rupa's method is unique, like a hacker breakthrough. But internally it is the same dhyana of the Buddha's teachings.


If we take jnana as a rational, conceptual understanding, we are mistaken. Sri Jiva directly uses the epithet "deceit" to Advaita philosophy. But this is him. The task of a Gaudiya Vaishnava whose thinking is a distraction, is to realize for himself what that deception really is. Now when I open the book and read commentaries of Sankara to Brhad Aranyaka from the very beginning I immediately able to recognize his eternalistic inclination. And of Upanisada too. Still it is a superior stuff in all Vedantic tradition, every other food for mind is complementary.



People who are unconsciously attached to thinking, to reasoning, need irrational objects of attentive concentration. Breath, sound, mandala, whatever. But for this you need to understand that the conceptual understanding is the enemy of direct momentary knowledge, a thief hiding a jewel behind his back, pretending that he has nothing to hide.



Nitaidas ji, the experience you speak of is common to all people. Though often too fleeting, like a blade of grass invisible from the window of a fast train. Insights have been studied in detail. There are nyanas and also factors of dhyanas. Sometimes a person, like Sankara, can see that the whole certainty of namarupa without exception is right here. That the whole jagat is embraced by yourself. The abode of unlimited space unfolds free from roughness of senses. That's fine but then Sankara becomes occupied with the misleading idea of the ultimate self. Yes, it is very ecstatic when there is a big amount of tension to release to serenity. Appeasement tendency don't always have such strong side effects.

Mahaprabhu once jumped on the shoulders of Sivaite and claimed he is Siva. And many and many practitioners have been madly dancing like him in their chambers. A similar experience is by Abhinavagupta and co, but it is associated with a feeling of unlimited power. In the circle of Zen it is on 270°, "freedom in magic". There is a feeling of the great meaning of everything that happens (meaning is a strong and desirable trap) because everything becomes possible. And that's why Abhinavagupta objects to Sankara: “what kind of nonsense are you talking about the world’s illusion? After all, everything is real!” And then he proudly claimed, “all the vaisnavas and other prominent groupes are not able to recognize the power of true Saktipat.” Abraham Abulafia once experienced a similar state and with a sense of boundless self-confidence set off to convert the Pope to Judaism and gain a better fate for his fellow tribesmen. His theory and method conveys very deep philosophy of meanings in signs. These are true masters to create an air of grandeur I mentioned above.

[avadhutadas]

youtu.be/hN9KpDg9X0g

I came across this lecture of an Advaitin claiming that Mahaprabhu was an Advaitin. He claims that the use of the word ‘mirror’ in the Sikshastakam proves that Mahaprabhu was telling people to worship Krishna within. After all, one uses a mirror to see their self. He also claims that iskcon is a movement to divide India