Jagat

See Appendix to the commentary. Sri Jiva Prabhu returns to the necessity of a  śravaṇa-guru. Anuccheda 208 There is No Possibility of Knowledge Without Guru तत्र श्रवणगुरुसंसर्गेणैव शास्त्रीयविज्ञानोत्पत्तिः स्यात्, नान्यथेत्याह (भा. ११.१०.१२)— आचार्योऽरणिराद्यः स्यादन्तेवास्युत्तरारणिः। तत्सन्धानं प्रवचनं विद्या सन्धिः सुखावहः॥ Knowledge of scripture can manifest only by hearing from a śravaṇa-guru , and not otherwise, as Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa said: The ācārya is the first araṇi ; the disciple, the corresponding one; recitation, the place where they meet; and knowledge, their joy-giving combination. (SB 11.10.12) आद्योऽधरः। तत्सन्धानं तयोर्मध्यमं मन्थनकाष्ठं। प्रवचनमुपदेशः। विद्या शास्त्रोक्तज्ञानं तु सन्धौ भवोऽग्निरिव। The "first" means the lower piece of wood used for kindling fire. "The place where they meet" ( tat-sandhānam ) means “the middle churning wood”; "recitation" ( pravacanam ) means the instruction. "Knowledge...

The guru-prakaraṇa continues in this anuccheda with the discussion of the dīkṣā-guru or mantra-guru , , emphasizing his singularity. This has become something of a difficult issue. It should be noted that everyone involved in the writing and editing this translation and commentary originally took initiation from one Vaishnava guru and then made a change to another, which appears to be inappropriate in keeping with Sri Jiva Goswami's verdict in this anuccheda . Whether our reasons for doing so are valid or not may be a matter of debate, but I will attempt a brief explanation of my own (Jagat's) position here. In this anuccheda , Sri Jiva Prabhu quotes the verse as the only valid reason for giving up the mantra-guru , avaiṣṇavopadiṣṭena mantreṇa nirayaṁ vrajet punaś ca vidhinā samyag grāhyed vaiṣṇavād guroḥ One goes to hell by receiving a mantra from a guru who is not a Vaiṣṇava. Such a person should again accept a mantra from a Vaiṣṇava guru, in con...

I was accused of Vaishnava nindā for my response to an excerpt from a Narayan Maharaj conversation. For the record I am presenting that excerpt [May 23, 2009 darshan] along with which I shall make some remarks. This conversation took place around 11-08-2017. I was a little confrontational so I have mostly edited my remarks. Bear in mind that those who objected and accused me of committing offense to Narayan Maharaj paid no attention whatsoever to my remarks and simply condemned me for disagreeing with their authorities. I have spoken on that elsewhere on Facebook, but have gathered those remarks and shall post everything to my blog for reference. I have already responded to many of the things Narayana Maharaj said in a blog post addressed to Rocana Dasa a few years ago as he was saying pretty much the same stuff, but with a bit less of the combativeness that Narayan Maharaj shows here. Bhaktivinoda Thakur's meat-eating and Lalita Prasad Thakur. The numbers are annotations ...

  II. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Our second “great man,” Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, was a charismatic figure who acted as a reformer of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition and, according to some, broke with it. Though the extent of his influence on Bengali society as a whole was nowhere near that of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, he must nevertheless be included among the many Bengali reformers in the 19th and early 20th centuries who contributed to the revitalization of Hindu pride in its own traditions. His role in inspiring others to carry the Chaitanya Vaishnava message beyond Bengali society alone makes him worthy of examination. Unlike Chaitanya, Saraswati was not an ecstatic, but an ascetic and intellectual, who was driven by a vision of the potential glory of Chaitanya Vaishnavism and by the desire to overcome the restraints placed on it by contemporary conditions. He saw himself as continuing his father Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s attempts to rationalize Gaudiya Vaishnavism and bri...