Tattva-viveka
Review of Sri Siksastakam
Bhrigu - September 6, 2006 9:29 am
I just noticed a review of Guru Maharaja's Siksastakam at Advaita Dasa's blog (http://madangopal.blogspot.com/). Considering that Advaita Dasa has no ties at all with our group or even the Bhaktivinoda parivara, and especially that he is not at all shy at critiquing anything he considers wrong, his writing "very nice" means a lot.
Shyam Gopal Das - September 6, 2006 5:52 pm
I'd be interested to hear someone comment on his remarks regarding the Gaura and Krishna translation.
Babhru Das - September 6, 2006 7:37 pm
I'd be interested to hear someone comment on his remarks regarding the Gaura and Krishna translation.
That's easy. If we read the verse Swami is citing (Cc. Adi 1.5), we'll see that Kaviraja Gosvami offers obeisances therein to Mahaprabhu. In Srila Prabhupada's translation, the antecedent for the Him (to whom the author offers his obeisance) is given at the end of the preceding sentence (Sri Krishna Chaitanya). I thin k what threw Advaita is that Swami doesn't emphasize the "Krishna-svarupam" in the verse. It's not a mistake at all, but simply a translation with a particular purpose.
I agree that Advaita's little review is mostly positive,despite his persnicketiness (well, downright snobbery, in some cases) about some issues. For example, in his first paragraph he seems to assert that the only place Swami could have gotten the ideas from Ragavartma-chandrika and Prema-bhakti Chandrika, as well as the imputed etymology of kinkara is from Advaita, either on his own Web site or other places he has gone to instruct others. That's just a silly assertion, maybe even petty.
Advaita apparently got his copy of the book indirectly from me. I sold two copies to a woman in Australia who has been corresponding with me for a couple of years, and she sent one to him. She sent me a link to his blog last night, and this morning I got an email from her suggesting that I share any disagreement with him if I don't think his review is fair. Frankly, I'm less concerned with whether it's fair than whether anyone who reads his blog might order a copy.
Swami - September 6, 2006 11:25 pm
Interesting, but a rather Advaita dasa-centric review. I did not use him or his blog or site or any other internet site as source material. Furthermore, I am not your typical Iskcon or Gaudiya Matha sannyasi, and Mahaprabhu most certainly wore saffron, as did other of his associates in the renounced order.
Regarding the issue of saranagati, ruci, and Krsna hearing the prayers of the sadhaka, I wrote this section such that I left it up to the reader to decide for herself whether or not Krsna hears the prayers of sadhakas who are not saranagatas. IThe idea is that theoretically speaking Krsna certainly could, but wheter or not he does hear them at any stage could be legitimately questioned. However, Maharabhu certainly does. There is an emphasis here for the sake of fostering serious sadhana and saranagati as well as an emphasis on Mahaprabhu seva as the route to raga and Radha dasyam, yada yada gaura padaravinde . . .
Swami - September 6, 2006 11:50 pm
and Mahaprabhu most certainly wore saffron, as did other of his associates in the renounced order.
Perhaps he meant the traditional dhoti, as opposed to a lungi. But then I really doubt that one could definitively say that no Gaudiya Vaisnava wore a saffron dhoti befopre 1918, a reference to BSST's mission.
Babhru Das - September 7, 2006 12:05 am
Interesting, but a rather Advaita dasa-centric review. I did not use him or his blog or site or any other internet site as source material. Furthermore, I am not your typical Iskcon or Gaudiya Matha sannyasi, and Mahaprabhu most certainly wore saffron, as did other of his associates in the renounced order.
Regarding the issue of saranagati, ruci, and Krsna hearing the prayers of the sadhaka, I wrote this section such that I left it up to the reader to decide for herself whether or not Krsna hears the prayers of sadhakas who are not saranagatas. IThe idea is that theoretically speaking Krsna certainly could, but wheter or not he does hear them at any stage could be legitimately questioned. However, Maharabhu certainly does. There is an emphasis here for the sake of fostering serious sadhana and saranagati as well as an emphasis on Mahaprabhu seva as the route to raga and Radha dasyam, yada yada gaura padaravinde . . .
I think Advaita das needs another, more careful reading. And one point I was thinking of making to him was that we don't really have any way of knowing for sure that there weren't devotees weariing saffron dhotis back then. So much of his sense of identity seems tied up in being more "authentic" than others that he very often comes off as terribly snobbish and arrogant.
It may be a good idea after all for me to enter a comment on his blog.
Madangopal - September 7, 2006 12:47 am
In my experience with Advaita on some discussion boards several years back, a comment from someone he would consider ISKCON/Gaudiya Matha can mean great entanglement in less than civil debate. As Bhrigu says, his giving of some credit to Guru Maharaj is commendable for his particular orientation.
His trying to say that GM's sources are from the "traditionalist" camp is yes petty, but again somewhat par for the course from what I've seen of his persona before. It is a bit of the other side of the ISKCON coin of "we're more bonafide than you are."
I was surprised to see the comment about saffron too. There are plenty of references to "red" renunciate cloth in Caitanya era sastra; right? Caitanya Mahaprabhu WAS a sannyasi and would not dress himself in the cloth of the "paramahamsa" - white cloth = babaji = above varnashram. Strange comment.
Babhru Das - September 7, 2006 1:59 am
In my experience with Advaita on some discussion boards several years back, a comment from someone he would consider ISKCON/Gaudiya Matha can mean great entanglement in less than civil debate. As Bhrigu says, his giving of some credit to Guru Maharaj is commendable for his particular orientation.
I agree, and I'm loathe to get into it with him. If I comment at all, I intend to do so gently enough that there's a chance he may read it without getting on his high "traditionalist" horse.
His trying to say that GM's sources are from the "traditionalist" camp is yes petty, but again somewhat par for the course from what I've seen of his persona before. It is a bit of the other side of the ISKCON coin of "we're more bonafide than you are."
What I found petty was his insinuation that, first, our line has no regard for anyone else, and second, that we steal their insights and not only do we not give credit, but we turn around and criticize them. If he's never seen our Swami do that, he should have either not mentioned it at all or said straight out that, as far as he knows, Swami doesn't indulge in such foolishness. I don't have a problem with Advaita expressing some reservation about one point or another, but his praise seems at moments like left-handed compliments (my apologies to any lefties among us--my father is a lefty [though not politically!] and I heard for almost 20 years how our culture discriminates against them).
I
was surprised to see the comment about saffron too. There are plenty of references to "red" renunciate cloth in Caitanya era sastra; right? Caitanya Mahaprabhu WAS a sannyasi and would not dress himself in the cloth of the "paramahamsa" - white cloth = babaji = above varnashram. Strange comment.
Didn't that whole concept evolve a little later? It seems that during Mahaprabhu's lila, those who came to the sankirtan movement did so from many sectors of Bengali and Oriya society, and that many of them would have been renunciates from groups that may have worn saffron cloth.
I think many bloggers don't think carefully enough about what they post; too often it's "here's what I'm thinking at this moment." One advantage to writing is that we can reconsider our words before we publish (whatever its form).
Bhrigu - September 7, 2006 8:54 am
The "saffron"-comment was rather lame, I think. We really know very little about the dress of Mahaprabhu's parshadas -- some may very well have worn deerskin, lion skin (as Brahmananda Bharati (?) wanted to) or even saffron dhotis as opposed to lungis. Artists will always paint an idealised version of history.
The text in bold wasn't there when I first posted the link. Advaita Dasa's problem with that context springs partly from one of the doctrines of the school he belongs to (the Advaita-parivar), where the relationship between Gaura and Krishna is seen somewhat diffferently than in the rest of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. For example, they chant the Krishna-mantra when worshipping Gaura, and do not believe in Gaura's nitya-lila. And I am surprised that Advaita didn't recognise the source of this whole discussion being the Raga-vartma-candrika.
I would probably not comment. I posted the link just to show that Guru Maharaja is appreciated at least to some extent even in circles generally very anti-Saraswata GV. I have never been in an argument with Advaita, but from what I've seen, the only person he seems to trust nowadays is Satyanarayana Dasa.
Swami - September 7, 2006 11:53 am
I have never been in an argument with Advaita, but from what I've seen, the only person he seems to trust nowadays is Satyanarayana Dasa.
I don't know how he could trust Satyanarayana dasa when Satyanarayana's group (Haridasa Sastri) is adamantly against the practice of giving siddha pranali, lila kirtana, and a number of other practices and conceptions fully embraced by Advaita dasa's parivara.
Madangopal - September 7, 2006 12:00 pm
(my apologies to any lefties among us--my father is a lefty
Hey! I was born lefty along with my whole family!
When I was a kid I had a shirt that said
"If the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, and the right side of the brain controls the left side; then LEFTY's are the only people in their right minds!" 
I did survive the discrimination of this world though... 
Bhrigu - September 7, 2006 12:19 pm
I don't know how he could trust Satyanarayana dasa when Satyanarayana's group (Haridasa Sastri) is adamantly against the practice of giving siddha pranali, lila kirtana, and a number of other practices and conceptions fully embraced by Advaita dasa's parivara.
! I also don't know how, but evidenly he does. He once withdrew a whole paper and apologised for being wrong after Satyanarayana had disapproved of it, and he has often posted excerpts from his talks. I think that Advaita has become more "conservative" re. these issues after seeing them (and indeed his own translations) being abused by sensually minded people.