​प्रश्नोत्तरमाला – ८वीं (८ जिज्ञासाएँ उपशमित) / Question + Answer Series – 8th (8 queries quenched)

[Meant for electronic mass circulation in all 30+ BRVF related cyber forums on internet]

***

New questions by participants will be answered only if they fulfill following conditions —

(I) Feedback must be given after the queries have been solved/answered.
(II) Questions need to be asked with full respect, humility & specificity of the philosophical subject.

***

Various theological queries + replies + feedbacks + testimonials (in Hindi + Sanskrit + English languages) from ‘BRVF – Vedanta – 1st + 3rd + 4th’ regular groups on the WhatsApp cyber platform —

Section A — Interactions from followers —

1) [18/12, 02:02 as per PST] Engineer Mr. Rahul Kambhampati ‘Arya-vaishya’ – Hyderabad, Telangana + Pune, Maharashtra, Bharata + Tennessee, USA (+91 9849789300): 

“Thank you very much for answering my query, it clears my doubt
If a devotee wants to engage more time in bhakti, how does BRVF facilitate that bhakti engagement.
Sri Rama Krishna Gaura Hari,
My feedback to your answer is that I understood no material desires but strong attachment to devotional service to krishna, not only protects us from the binding nature of material nature but material nature acts less powerfully on us. It is such a joy to hear that the more we engage in devotional service ,the lesser we engage in modes of material nature.I also come to realization that the natural inclination of our senses is to engage in devotional service of krishna provided we don’t misuse our independence. The lesson i learnt from rupa kavishvara goswami is that even if you are ostracized from sampradaya , never lose the enthusiasm of serving krishna and through his books we not only learn he is a vaishnava scholar but also we can see his realizations are so high that we can clearly understand how to attain our divine identity through raganuga sadhana”

2) [18/12, 03:35 as per PST] Mr. Kavi / Aryan Paladin — Srilankan Tamilian lands & Singapore (‪+65 9060 3615)‬: 

“Thank you so much to Acharya Sri for answering my first question in such a detailed & comprehensive manner. Also, many thanks for answering my second question and also to prabhuji for providing that very useful link.
I notice tho that BRVF’s link to the Advaita parivara lies through the route of ACBVS & BSST! :oops:How is this possible? I thought that BSST propounded the theory of a Bhagavat Sampradaya that is not counted thru the Diksha line? This is indeed one of the main causes of separation between the BSST Sampradaya & GVs. Could you kindly elaborate further on this? Thanks.”

3) [18/12, 03:41 as per PST] Engineer Mr. Adithya Rangan ‘Ramanujiya’ – Tamilnadu & Bangalore, Karnataka, Bharata (+91 9538292290): 

“Acarya Sir, Jai Sri Krishna, the following doubt has been a very sensitive yet broad topic of discussion. Adiyen requires your good self to opine and clarify the same –
Sanyasa is said to be a spiritual planar ashrama that has the seat of guiding and preaching the nuances of Parabrahmasaram to laymen. Vedic srutis quote only Veda adhikaris to be initiated into sanyasa. How is sanyasa related to a Vaishnava, in the sense can Vaishnava irrespective of his birth take up sanyasa and head a mutt. Are mlecchas, yavanas etc. who become vaisnavas, eligible for sanyasa. Will it not be contradictory to Vedic injunctions. Please enlighten. Dandavats! Jai Sri Krishna!”

4) [18/12, 10:15 as per PST] College Student Mr. Mohit Sharma – Panipat, Kurujangala Region, Haryana, Bharata (+91 8929686619): 

“जय हो महाराज जी– अति उत्तम समाधान बताया आपने की वाल्मिकी जी का तुलसीदास रुप मे आना शास्त्रीय प्रमाण है लेकिन शुकदेव जी का नानक रुप मे आने का कोई प्रमाण नही– बहुत उत्तम समाधान- आपके चरणो मे मेरा बारंबार प्रणाम🌺🌺:)🙏
  महाराज जी आत्माएं अगर अपनी ईच्छा से माया जगत मे फंसी है तो संसार मे आत्माएं यानि जीव बढते क्यो जा रहे है???  जीवशक्ति से उत्पन्न जीव जब दुसरे जीवो को माया मे फंसा देखते होंगे तो फिर वो क्यो माया मे स्वेच्छा से फंसते है??– जितनी आत्माएं प्रभु से प्रकट होती है उन सबमे से कुछ जीव को नित्य मुक्त अवस्था मे पार्षद बन गये ओर जो माया जगत मे भोग करना चाहते थे वे माया जगत मे जाकर फंस गये लेकिन फिर भी जीव यानि आत्माओ की संख्या क्यो बढती जा रही है??–”

5) [18/12, 19:47 as per PST] Mrs. Snehalata Tiwari / Mr. Prem Lala – Fiji Islands & Sacramento + Palmsprings, CA, USA (+1 760 449 8421 / +1 760 993 7351): 

“Gyan and vairaage is self worthy!! Self realization is self worthy. The rest is illusion unless it’s self realized.  Everything is within us!!,Everything outside of us is a myth or a sapna. It’s  My perception of way of life!!”

6) [19/12, 18:40 as per PST] Ram-Kathavachak FB Thakur Kaushalendra Singh — Ayodhya, Faizabad, Awadh Region, East UP, Bhaarata (+91 9695047128 / +91 9453663909): 

“Mahraj ji pranam….🌷🙏🏻🌷 कहा जाता है कि श्रीमद्भागवत महापुराण मे 18000 श्लोक है ?क्या वर्तमान पुस्तक मे पूरेे श्लोक  है ?अगर नही तो कितने है ?

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏👆🏻Mahraj ji kripya margdarshan kren….🌹🙏🏻🌹”

7) [20/12, 08:23 as per PST] College Student Mr. Mohit Sharma – Panipat, Haryana, Bhaarata (+91 8929686619): 

“छह शास्त्र एवं रचियता ॠषि…

सांख्य (१) कपिल ॠषि

न्याय (२) गौतम ॠषि

वैंशेषिक (३) कणाद ॠषि

मीमांसा (४) जैमिनी ॠषि

योग (५) पंतजलि ॠषि

वेदांत (६) वादरायण ॠषि

महाराज जी ईन छह शास्त्रो मे किस शास्त्र मे विष्णु की महिमा ओर व्रत यज्ञ करने को कहा है????”

8) [20/12, 09:48 as per PST] Teacher Mrs. Rekha Tiwari ‘Saryuparin’ — East UP & Mumbai, Maharashtra, Bhaarata — (+91 9892461347): 

“yh batayiye ki aap yh rshiyon ke nam kis liye likhe huye hain please let me understand about it if possible kya yha sbhi gotar hain”

9) [20/12, 08:53 as per PST] Mrs. Ruchidevi Chaturvedi – Mathura, Vraja Region, UP West, Bhaarata (+91 9219615487): 

“सादर प्रणाम”

10) [19/12, 20:22 as per PST] Pt. Ghanshyam Sharma Jyotishi – Saraswati Vihar, Pritampura, New Delhi, Bhaarata (+91 9810539191 / +91 8178223066): 

“Jai Shri Krishan Maharaj ji”

********************************

Section B — Replies from Bhakti-rasa-vedanta-pithadhishvara Gurupadacharya Shri-charana Radhakrishnadeva Munindravarya Amnaya-vacaspati Svami (Ramkrishna R Swami — BRVF — City & District of Anand, GJ + Vrindavan, MTJ, West UP, IN & Maha Shakti Ashram, City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, Northern CA, USA) —

श्रीरामकृष्णगौरहरि । shree-raama-krishna-gaurahari. अथ स्वस्ति श्री । atha svasti shree.

A) Towards Engineer Mr. Rahul Kambhampati ‘Arya-vaishya’ —

“As of now, BRVF facilitates the engagement in bhakti by the performance of ‘jnaana-yajna’ (sacrifice of knowledge). In this sacrifice, intellect (buddhih/matih) purified through scriptures and tradition (shaastra + paramparaa) is the altar (yajna-vedee). The priest (purohita) is the sad-guru (divine mentor) and host performer (yajamaana) is the disciple (shishya). Bhagavaan (God), Bhaktidevee (personified Goddess of Devotion), premi-bhakta-gana (loving devotees of God) & the succession of eternally perfect classical masters (nitya-siddha aacaarya-paramparaa) are the benefactors (phala-pradaataa). While the fruit (phalam) is that of the sarva-aatyantika-pancama-purushaartha-svaroopaa premaa-bhakti (loving devotion to God known as the fifth super-ultimate divine objective obtainable), the recipient beneficiary (daaya-bhaak) is the disciple (shishya/yajamaana) himself.
Proofs — Shreemad-bhagavad-geetaa 18.70 (“adhyeshyate ca ya imam dharmyam samvaadam aavayoh / jnaana-yajnena tena aham ishtah syaam iti me matih //”) + Mahaabhaarata 1.1.244 (“yeshaam shaastra-anugaa buddhih te na muhyanti kashchana //”)
Super-imposed inclination of the senses of a marginal soul who is conditioned by maayaa/nescience (marginal potency influenced by external illusory potency) is to exploit and enjoy/lord it over the material nature. 
Natural inclination of a pure marginal soul (marginal potency not influenced by any other potency) not constrained in maayaa is to serve Bhagavaan — not because he, inherently, possesses the hlaadinee-manifest krishna-prema, but because of his ontological status as an eternally separate expansion of God (nitya-bhagavad-vibhinnaamsha) This is the true meaning of the Caitanya-caritaamrita verse – “jeevera svaroopa haya krishnera nitya-daasa….” as explained by Shreela Gopaalabhatta Gosvaamipaada in his Digdarshinee commentary to the Haribhaktivilaasah. — and not as how neo-Gaudeeyas misinterpret it to mean the constitutional identity (moola-svaroopa) of a tatastha-jeeva (marginal soul uninfluenced or influenced or super-imposed or acquired) is that it, inherently, possesses the hlaadinee-manifest krishna-prema (manifestation of the internal potency. They have misinterpreted the — “nitya-siddha krishna-prema….karaye udaya” — verse from Caitanya-caritaamrita to contravene it with the theological conclusion shown by Shreela Jeeva Gosvaamipaada in his Preeti-sandarbhah and by Shreela Baladeva Vidyaabhooshana / Ekaanti-govindadaasa Gosvaamee ‘Vairaagee’ in his Siddhaanta-ratnam alias Bhaashya-peethakam.
The acquired inclination of the senses of the saadhana-siddha and kripaa-siddha bhagavad-bhaktas (marginal potency influenced by internal self-potency) is to serve Bhagavaan because of their time-based (not from time without beginning, but in a certain timely juncture) obtainment of the hlaadinee-manifest krishna-prema. This acquirement of raaga/prema is done by them following in the footsteps if the nitya-siddha raagaatmikas, therefore, they are known as ‘raaga-anugas’.
The natural inclination of the senses of the nitya-siddha paarshadas (internal potency) is to serve Bhagavaan due to their inherently innate and integrally spontaneous hlaadinee-manifest krishna-prema of which they are the very personified embodiments — moortta-roopa — of since time without beginning and for everlasting period. That is why they are ‘raagaatmika’ or those whose identities are the very personified form of raaga/prema. Therefore, they do not possess, acquire this prema and neither super-imposed by such prema — for their very aatmaa/self is such raaga. Hence, they are ‘raaga-aatmika’.
Ostracizing from the Sampradaaya is of two types. Ostracizing done on the managerial/administrative levels by the exercising of muscle power is useless anddies not hold any spiritual value. Such managerial ostracizing can, also, be two types viz., based on administrative charges – fraudulent or genuine + based on fraudulent philosophical charges/wrong philosophical allegations super-imposed to demean the ostracized entity (Shreela Roopa Kaveeshvara Gosvaamipaada became victim of this last type of ostracizing.). Such both types of managerial ostracizing hold no spiritual value — despite holding an institutional/legal value.
However, ostracizing done on a purely philosophical basis and by those who hold spiritual power (may hold managerial powers; may not hold) and on genuinely irrefutable allegations — holds tangible spiritual worth as seen exemplified in the case of the rejections of the 3 younger sons of Advaita-aacarya (rejected by Gaudeeya Vaishnavism) + younger brother of Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja Gosvaamee (rejected by Shree Meenaketana Raamadaasa + Gosvaamee Hitaharivamsha Mahaaprabhu Jee (rejected by Gopaalabhatta Gosvaamipaada).”

B) Towards Mr. Kavi / Aryan Paladin —

“BSST’s sidelining/dismissal of the deekshaa-parampara does not translate into the absence of such deekshaa-pranaalee! Just as if a child refuses to accept his parents/grand-parents etc., it does not mean that his parents etc. loose their parental status for a child. As he took deekshaa from GKDB, the preceding deekshaa-parampara of GKDB (consisting of Shree Nandakishora Gosvaamee Prabhu – the descendant of Shree Krishna Mishra – the direct disciple and 2nd son of Shree Advaita-aacarya) doesn’t loose its existence and neither it needs an acceptance or rejection certificate from BSST. 
If neo-Gaudiya leaders like BSST etc. formed a different ideology than their conventional predecessors, their such act of heterodoxy gives their succeeding disciples an automatic prerogative to disregard their (neo-Gaudiya gurus’) authenticity to keep regarding the authenticity of their neo-Gaudiya gurus’ classical predecessors — for history repeats itself and thus, if neo-Gaudiya leaders are privileged to defy the ideology of their classical predecessors, then, the successors of such neo-Gaudiya leaders are, too, privileged to defy the ideology of their immediate neo-Gaudiya gurus and revert back to the classics — while still keep respecting the neo-Gaudiya masters for the namesake — as how an honest son who sees his father disregarding the orders of his grandfather/ancestors — takes a firm stand by disobeying the order of his immediate parents and thereby, fulfilling the commands given by his grand-ancestors — while still accepting his disobedient father in the role of a father. This is the BRVF’s course of thought and approach with its immediate neo-Gaudiya masters. 
To clarify more, BRVF has been established/founded by a Gaudeeya Vaishnava guru who, though connected with the neo-Gaudiya mentors in his preceding deeksha lineage, discarded  their (such neo-Gaudiya mentors’) ideological authenticity wherever they misalign with their predecessors’ views. Such personality, after establishing BRVF, placed us as its (this organizations’) first peethaadhipati/pontiff. Hence, BRVF is, ideologically, not connected with any neo-Gaudiya institution nor with the thinking of any neo-Gaudiya master. The philosophical image of this organization is that of a conventional classical Gaudeeya. 
Another question might arise as to what need is to keep continuing the ideologically heterodox masters even for namesake in the BRVF’s deekshaa-paramparaa? The answer is — to solely and constantly remind such neo-Gaudiya recent masters and their neo-Gaudiya recent followers of the fact that the cent-percent ideologically loyalist followers of the Six Gaudeeya Gosvaameess (the theological founders of Caitanyaite Vaishnavism) won’t become ungrateful even to their namesake masters — as opposed to how such namesake masters turned ungrateful to their actual masters (the conventional Gaudeeya gurus of Advaita-aacarya Parivaara) by putting into oblivion the names of their conventional masters. Loyalist followers of Six Gosvaamees do not work in the same style of ungratefulness as how the neo-Gaudiyas operate. 
If the incumbent master of BRVF is perceived as — a mere ‘saadhaka’ or even a pre-saadhaka who is, yet, to reach the stage of perfection — by the skeptics — and therefore, if they necessitate BRVF’s current master to undergo a new shelter (a new guru-paada-aashraya) from a conventional Gaudeeya master whose preceding deekshaa-paramparaa excludes the presence of any neo-Gaudiya master, then, let us inform them (such skeptics) that when you (the skeptical flock), on the first hand, are not accepting the ‘perfected’ status of the incumbent master of BRVF, your role of thinking about his spiritual welfare is not required as there are certain entities appointed by God to perform special tasks (officer on special duty) and they do not require a typical treatment for Shree Jeeva comments in his Durgama-Sangamanee Sanskrit commentary on Bhakti-rasa-amrita-sindhu 1.4.15-16 as –“tatra bahushv api krameshu satsu praayikam ekam kramam aaha” which denotes the existence of many exceptional options/ways in contrast to the most widely common general process. And let the rest qualification of the incumbent master of BRVF be expressed through his ideological contribution to the Gaudeeya Vaishnavism as based on the logic of — ‘result shows its cause’ – “phalena pariceeyate iti nyaayah”. 
In an alternate scenario, if the incumbent master of BRVF is perceived as a ‘siddha’ by the assessment makers, then also, such a perfected master doesn’t need to take another live shelter from some conventional Gaudeeya guru not having any neo-Gaudiya guru in his preceding lineage. Why? Because, if he is already deemed as perfect, he doesn’t need to alter his namesake immediate lineage of neo-Gaudiya masters especially, if the ultimate lineage is connected with the conventional masters of the classical era. A perfect has, already, reached the objective and doesn’t require any reformation.
Furthermore, by remaining formally (not fervently) connected with an immediate parenthood (an immediate parenthood which is disobedient to its ancestral parentage — in our case, the neo-Gaudiya masters) through deekshaa lineage and by, concurrently, promoting a vehemently inspired ever-increasing ideologically defiant irresistible backlash against such a namesake immediate parenthood, the divine jubilation which is felt by the cent-percent ideological loyalists of Six Gosvaamees — is unfathomable and would be unobtainable by altering such namesake immediate parenthood and by seeking a new conventionally Gaudeeya parentage – for the act of King Shalya (in Mahaabhaarata’s war) proved great loyalty to the camp of Paandavas + great loss to the Kaurava flock — despite having to remain on the side of the Kauravas. This Shalya’s case can be partially compared to the BRVF scenario.
Additionally, BRVF believes in the notion that preaching of bhakti is not required if such preaching is going to breach the set norms, principles, maryaadaas and conventions of Vedic samskriti and if such preaching distorts the higher theology of its own Sampradaaya. Better to perform bhakti according to scriptures and tradition — even if, by doing so, no mass preaching is possible. What is the use of preaching if it is going to dismantle the tradition and belittle the classical philosophy of scriptures? No need of such speculative preaching causing mere spiritual disturbance in the eye of loyalist orthodoxy. But, if once the rise of such ‘a-shaastreeya dharma-pracaara’ (religious preaching not in accordance with scriptures and tradition) is marked, it should be given a doubled counter-reaction by the orthodoxy with full rational aggression. In it, no mercy and no hesitation should be exhibited, in the least, for the loyal traditionalists of Sanaatana-dharma believe that ‘a revolution is not a revolution, irrespective of how much apparently charismatic it is, if it goes in contravention with the tradition and scriptures’ — for even Bhagavaan Buddha, though an incarnation of Lord Naaraayana, is respected, but not followed by the followers of the staunch Sanaatana-dharma orthodoxy — as made clearly evident both in Puraanas and in his Tattva-sandarbhah by Shreela Jeeva Gosvaamipaada.
We do not believe in any sort of blind sentimental fanaticism. Person is not important to us. Rather, ideology is. If not so, Buddha wouldn’t have been only respected by Sanaatana-dharmees, but, ideologically followed too! For us, no aacaarya (no matter how much nitya-siddha or suddha-buddha-mukta-svabhaava he is) or even bhagavad-avataara (like even Bhagavaan Dattaatreya’s instructions not in conformity with the Vedic path have been advised rejection by the strict Vedic propounders) is to be ideologically adopted if he/He contravenes the scriptures. Therefore, Bhagavaan Krishna has proclaimed His verdict as such in Shreemad-bhagavad-geetaa 16.23-24. Scriptures are the central ruling authority. Neither God nor the saints/masters (though scriptures have emanated from God and though, the saints and masters interpret such scriptures) – if they contravene the scriptural conclusions for any reason whatsoever. 
Therefore, we believe in the unquestionable and fully autonomous authority of the original and trans-human eternal (apaurusheya) Vaidika scriptures of Sanaatana-dharma. For us, original scriptures ascertain the identity of Sanaatana-dharma. And all Sampradaayas, no matter how old or influential they are + irrespective of their mutual ideological and praxis related differences, they all are required to be ideologically loyal to the Sanaatana-dharma as its concomitants and loyal to its (Sanaatana-dharma’s) original scriptures, as well. Saampradaayika-granthas can never go astray from the ideology of the moola-shaastras of Sanaatana-dharma. If they go astray, their validity is diminished on spot. Likewise, all gurus/aacaarya are required to ideologically align with their poorva-gurus and saampradaayika-granthas, if their poorva-gurus/saampradaayika-granthas ideologically aligned with the moola-shaastras of Sanaatana-dharma. So, gurus are liable to their poorva-gurus and saampradaayika-granthas; poorva-gurus and saampradaayika-granthas are liable/responsible towards the Sanaatana-dharma and its moola-shaastras. This is the ideal structure.
Remember that when the highest transcendentalists (vidhi-nishedha-ateeta nirapeksha parama-hamsa-gana — “vaishnavera kriyaa mudraa vijneha na bujhaya” — Gaudeeya texts) not worried about loka-sangraha (setting a precedent for the common mass) do not abide by any regulations of the tradition, nevertheless, they never inspire the common mass to follow their perfect stand. (If they inspire the common mass to act in contravention with the scriptures, their inspiration is to be rejected.) And in one sense, their such transcendental position is, governed, by scriptures as well, for they are the scriptures which authenticate such transcendental position of the paramahamsas who have gone beyond scriptural injunctions. If scriptures wouldn’t have authenticated their stand, such transcendentalists would have immediately taken as imposters/paakhandees. 
In the same way, those disturbance creators on bhakti path (‘ucchrinkhala-margees’) who, on the basis of scriptures propound that by taking the shelter of the Holy Name of God – all perfection is obtained and so, no need of studying scriptures anymore — such unscrupulous entities forget that they are the scriptures only which have depicted the validity of the bhagavan-naama-mahimaa. Due to the authority of scriptures, such bhagavan-naama-mahimaa is verified. Even bhagavan-naama-mahimaa is shaastra-saapeksha (dependent on scriptures). Guru-mahimaa is, too, shaastra-saapeksha. Bhagavan-mahimaa, bhakta-mahimaa, bhakti-mahimaa, dhaama-teertha-vrata-yajna-aadi-mahimaa and even shaastra-mahimaa — all are shaastra-saapeksha for proving their vapidity in the common eye because only shaaatras have eulogized the mahimaa of guru, bhagavaan, bhakta, bhakti, naama etc. 
Therefore, bhagavan-naama-mahimaa-paraka statements like — “rig-vedo ‘tha yajur-vedah saama-vedo ‘py atharvanah / adheetaas tena yenoktam harir ity aksara-dvayam //” — all are dependent on scriptures for their validity (praamaanya). And, such studies of all original scriptures (prime of which is Shreemad-bhaagavatam) is a must pre-requisite to be able to even ascend onto the platform of premaa-bhakti — only ascending which – even the one-timed utterance of the two syllables ‘Hari’ can be considered as the utterance which succeeds the past done study of the Vedic scriptures (‘adheetaah tena vedaah’ – by him, the scriptures have been studied). 
So, it is not that the one-time utterance of such shuddha-bhagavan-naama (not naama-aabhaasa + naama-aparaadha) gives the benefit equal to the studies all scriptures (rather, the studies of all scriptures gives the result of uttering shuddha-bhagavan-naama even once). 
If not so, the ‘phala-kaaranattva-dosha’ (the philosophical fault where the superior result/kaarya/effect arising from an inferior cause/kaarana turns lower than its cause by making that inferior cause as its superior result) arises. How can a shuddha-bhagavan-naama which is the result/phala/kaarya/effect of the cause/kaarana (cause is the study of scriptures as indicated by the past tense term “‘adheetaah…” or studied) loose its glory as an objective/fruit (objective of scriptural study is the obtainment of shuddha-bhagavan-naama) and make its (shuddha-bhagavan-naama’s) cause (cause is scriptural study) its fruit? 
This would mean that the cause (scriptural study) which is inferior to its result (shuddha-bhagavan-naama) in turn, becomes the result (becomes superior) of its (scriptural study’s) one time superior result (bhagavan-naama) now turned into its one time inferior cause (shuddha-bhagavan-naama which is now inferior due to scriptural study started to being considered as a result of shuddha-bhagavan-naama)! 
How can shuddha-bhagavan-naama be inferior to scriptural study! Saadhya (result) is, always, higher than its saadhana (cause). How can the inferior cause of a superior result turn into the superior result of its previous superior result which is now it’s inferior cause? 
In short, if the superior scriptural study is the result of inferior shuddha-bhagavan-naama (as it comes out when the stand of those who sideline scriptural studies is analysed – though they never intended to place scriptural study as higher than bhagavan-naama nor wanted scriptural study as a requirement to obtain shuddha-bhagavan-naama) — then, also, scriptural study stands foremost! How? Let us examine. 
By accepting such misinterpretation (interpretation of “..adheetaas tena vedaah harir ity akshara-dvayam” as “the result of scriptural study is obtained simply by uttering God’s name; so, no need to undergo scriptural study and just utter God’s name), those who wanted to sideline the value of studying scriptures by not accepting scriptural study as a pre-requisite to the obtainment of shuddha-bhagavan-naama and by rather concocting the result accrued from such scriptural study as being given/allotted/conferred/bestowed by bhagavan-naama, their intentions did not go in success as the object which they were trying to sideline (scriptural study) — turned out to be the result of bhagavan-naama for such bhagavan-naama again placed them into the platform of scriptural studies — this is if their misinterpretation of placing bhagavan-naama as a pretext to sideline the requirement of scriptural study is accepted. They unintentionally have to yield/succumb to the act of scriptural study required after obtaining shuddha-bhagavan-naama – when in the first place, they where even rejecting the requirement of scriptural study before obtaining shuddha-bhagavan-naama! How awesome!
Shuddha-bhagavan-naama is even higher than Naamee (God personified)! Therefore, to consider scriptural study as the saadhya or objective of shuddha-bhagavan-naama is an outright misinterpretation. Nevertheless, they are fooled into their own trick of sidelining the scriptural studies during saadhanaa! Now, they will have to accept the necessity to engage into scriptural studies – as a result given by shuddha-bhagavan-naama! They wanted scriptural studies during saadhanaa, now, they are compelled to accept scriptural studies as saadhya of bhagavan-naama! They are caught into their own misinterpretation unintentionally!
Even statements eulogizing guru-bhakti like – “yasya deve paraa-bhaktir….” (Upanishad) + “…etat sarvam gurau bhaktyaa purusho hy anjasaa labhet” (Shreemad-bhaagavatam) – hold validity only because scriptures authorize the mahimaa/glory of guru-bhakti etc. Likewise, the case with all other elements have to be understood, thus positioning moola-shaastras in a pre-eminent/par-excellent/super-ultimate position on top of all other factors (therefore, devotion based on scriptures — “bhaktyaa shruta-griheetayaa” — Shreemad-bhaagavatam 1.2.12).

 

Hope this elucidation suffices all doubts in connection with BRVF’s operating style.”

C) Towards Engineer Mr. Adithya Rangan ‘Ramanujiya’ —

“The varnashrama-related socio-spiritual vyavahaara/maryaadaa does not undergo any alteration despite the great spiritual achievements done by the ‘adhikaaree-aabhaasa’ flock (mlecchas/yavanas – who are neither the mukhya/primary nor gauna/secondary adhikaarees/eligibles of brahma-vidyaa and bhakti etc. and thus, who possess only a semblance of an actual adhikaara). 
This was the reason why Caitanyadeva appreciated the non-entrance of even His eternal associates like Thakkura Haridaasa (who is, certainly, not an ‘adhikaaree-aabhaasa’ — but a nitya-bhagavat-paarshada born outwardly in a yavana family by the arrangement of Yogamaayaa and not as an effect of his non-existent cum hypothetical fictional praarabdha/mundane Providence) & Shreela Sanaatana Gosvaamee (another eternal associate born outwardly into a Vedic braahmana family but who considered himself as contaminated by the service given to the mleccha cow-eater King of Bengal) into the Jagannaatha Puree temple and appreciated Sanaatana’s considering himself, thus, unfit to even embrace the body of Caitanyadeva – a Vedic braahmana sannyaasee. Refer to Caitanya-caritaamrita 3.4.128-133, 166-169 & CC 3.3.44-46. 
Furthermore, did any of Caitanyadeva’s associates and contemporaneous followers ever made any mleccha/yavana vaishnava into a braahmana by giving him upanayanam-samskaara and by giving him sannyaasa under the pretext of bhakti!
The only leniency shown in whole Caitanya-leelaa is the incidence of antyaja born nitya-siddha-paarshada Jhadu Thaakura (CC 3.16.14-38) being given respect by his foot dust being taken and his remnants being eaten by a vaishnava named Kaalidaasa (but note how Jhadu Thaakura genuinely – not dramatically — considers himself as belonging to a very low caste despite being on a highest spiritual platform and how he doesn’t claim to be respected either like a braahmana or even more than a braahmana — in thorough contravention to today’s pseudo-Gaudeeya mleccha vaishnavas who consider themselves higher than even Aaryan vaishnavas and ambitiously demand higher social treatment in comparison to the Aaryan vaishnavas) +  the incidence of yavana born Thaakura Haridaasa (nitya-siddha paarshada of Vraja-leelaa incorporated into the Navadveepa-leela) being fed the first shraaddha-paatra in the ‘pankti’/line of the shraaddha-bhojee braahmanas (Chaitanya-charitaamrita 1.10.44 + 3.3.22 + 3.11.30) This was proper because Thaakura Haridaasa is a nitya-bhagavat-paarshada and nitya-paarshadas are, almost, like Lord Mukunda for the Bhakti-rasa-amrita-sindhu explains — “….nitya-siddhaah mukunda-vat” and hence, the following verse from Garuda-puraana which allows a mleccha bhagavad-bhakta to be given alms and shraadha-pankti-bhoja only applies to the nitya-siddha paarshadas born in mleccha-kula and not to others — due to the employment of the phrase “….sa ca poojyo yathaa harih” — only a nitya-bhagavat-paarshada is like Hari/Mukunda and hence, only he can be worship on par with Hari. The verse from Garuda-puraana is — “bhaktir ashta-vidhaa hy eshaa….mlecche’pi varttate…..tasmai deyam….sa ca poojyo yathaa harih” Therefore, though not given any formal ‘aacaarya-pada’ to maintain the varna-aashrama-maryaadaa, nitya-siddha paarshada Thaakura Haridaasa was allotted an informal post of ‘naama-aacaarya’ — not dharma-aacaarya – only aacaarya for naamaashrayaa-bhakti.
Caitanyadeva, being a Vaidika braahmana sannyaasee, only consumed food cooked by the hands of braahmana born followers. Ample evidences in Caitanya-caritaamrita to prove it. Otherwise, that Caitanyadeva Who got His sannyaasa-danda broken does not need to keep following such social rules unnecessarily and in fear of the then social structure. The reason why Caitanyadeva followed such smriti-dictated norms is to uphold the Vaidika maryaadaa.
Therefore, though considering a shuddha-premee-bhakta born in caandaala or yavana/mleccha family to be, spiritually, higher than a non-devotee braahmana — nevertheless, such antyaja bhagavad-bhaktas were never given equal social status with a Vedic braahmana whether bhagavad-bhakta or not — by Caitanyadeva and His contemporaries.”

D) Towards College Student Mr. Mohit Sharma —

“शुकदेव मुनि के नानक के रूप में तथा राजर्षि अम्बरीष के नामदेव के रूप में कलियुग में अवतरण का कोई शास्त्रीय प्रमाण उपलब्ध नहीं । पर नानक व नामदेव के कलियुग में जन्म लेने की भविष्यवाणी भविष्यपुराण में महर्षि वेदव्यास के द्वारा हुई है जहाँ नानक को रुद्रदेवता के अंश स्वरूप ऋषि दुर्वासा के अंशस्थानीय सप्तम वसु ‘प्रत्यूष’ का अवतार माना गया है तथा नामदेव को स्वर्गस्थित द्वितीय वसु ‘वरुण’ का अवतार घोषित किया गया है यथा –
(क) “शिष्यो भूत्वा स्थितः काश्यां रामानन्दमते स्थितः……बाल्यात्प्रभृति स ज्ञानी रामनामपरायण: । पित्रा मात्रा यदा त्यक्तो राघवं शरणं गतः ।।…..वाल्मीकिस्तुलसीदास: कलौ देवी भविष्यति । रामचन्द्रकथां साध्वीं भाषारूपां करिष्यति ।।“ (भविष्यपुराणे)  + “त्रेता काव्य निबन्ध करि….कलि कुटिल जीव निस्तार हित वालमीकी तुलसी भयो ।।“ (नाभादास जी का ऐतिहासिक व सर्वमान्य ग्रन्थ भक्तमाल जिसपे गौडीय सम्प्रदाय के प्रियादास जी की भक्ति-रस-बोधिनी टीका भी है)
(ख) “रुद्रांशश्चैव दुर्वासा प्रत्यूष: सप्तमो वसुः..” (भविष्यपुराण ३.४.१७.८६) + “…..प्रत्यूषश्चैव पाञ्चाले वैश्यजात्यां समुद्भव: ।। मार्गपालस्य तनयो नानको नामविश्रुतः । रामानन्दं समागम्य शिष्यो भूत्त्वा स नानकः ।। स वै म्लेच्छान् वशीकृत्य सूक्ष्ममार्गमदर्शयत् ।।“ (भविष्यपुराण ३.४.१७.९१-९३)
यहाँ ‘सूक्ष्म-मार्ग’ कहने का तात्पर्य यह है कि ऐसा मार्ग जो कि वैदिक/हिन्दु/सनातनी व म्लेच्छ/ईस्लाम – दोनों विरोधी मार्गों के बीच का पतला/महीन/सूक्ष्म मार्ग हो व जिसमें दोनों विरोधी मार्गों की कुछ कुछ बातों को ग्रहण किया गया हो (जैसे कि मूर्त्तिपूजा न करना, उपनयन संस्कार न होना, वर्णाश्रम को न मानना, हिन्दु तीर्थों को न मानना आदि  – ईस्लाम की मान्यता व हिन्दु शास्त्रों में उल्लिखित राम, कृष्ण, विष्णु आदि की निराकार भक्ति को मानना व गोमाता की रक्षा को कर्त्तव्य मानना – आदि हिन्दु मान्यता) – वैसा ‘सिक्ख धर्म’ ।
(ग) “सूत उवाच – इति श्रुत्त्वा गुरोर्वाक्यं भगवान्द्वितीयो वसुः । वरुणः स्वमुखात्तेजो  जनयामास भूतले ।। …..नामदेव इति ख्यातः साङ्ख्ययोगपरायण: ।।……पुनरुज्जीवयामास शवभूतान् स योगवान् ।।“ (भविष्यपुराण ३.४.१६.५१-५८) 
घ) गोस्वामी तुलसीदास ‘वैरागी रामानन्दीय’ जी के विषय में भविष्यपुराण तथा श्रीनाभादास स्वामी जी ‘वैरागी रामानन्दीय’ के भक्तमाल में (जिसके उपर गौडीय वैष्णव संप्रदाय के स्वामी मनोहरदास जी के शिष्य श्री प्रियादास जी ‘वैरागी गौडीय’ की भक्ति-रस-बोधिनी टीका सुप्रसिद्ध है) ऐसा उल्लिखित है –
“शिष्यो भूत्वा स्थितः काश्यां रामानन्दमते स्थितः…..बाल्यात्प्रभृति स ज्ञानी रामनामपरायणः । पित्रा मात्रा यदा त्यक्तो राघवं शरणं गतः ।।…वाल्मीकिस्तुलसीदासः कलौ देवि भविष्यति । रामचन्द्रकथां साध्वीं भाषारूपां करिष्यति ।।“ + “त्रेता काव्य निबन्ध करिब…..कलि कुटिल जीव निस्तार हित बाल्मीक तुलसी भयो ।।“ (भविष्यपुराण + भक्तमाल १२९ – मूल)
जीवों के माया-बन्धन तथा ईशवैमुख्य के विषय में जो तुम्हारी जिज्ञासा है उसका समाधान निम्न प्रकार से है — 
क) जीव में स्वतःसिद्ध परब्रह्मज्ञान का अनादिकालीन अभाव है उसकी अनादिकालीना भगवद्विमुखावस्था के कारण, अतः बिना अपौरुषेयशास्त्रवचन व तदनुगतमहत्पुरुषवचन के अनुशीलन के जीव कदापि भगवद्ज्ञानाभाव व स्वस्वरूपज्ञानाभाव का निवारण नहीं कर सकता है । तभी तो वेदादि शास्त्रों का प्राकट्य हुआ है! निष्कर्ष यह है कि शास्त्रप्रमाणापेक्षिणी स्वानुभूति से तो भगवदनुभूति सम्भव है, पर शास्त्रप्रमाणानपेक्षिनी काल्पनिकानुभूति से नहीं ।

 

ख) श्रीभगवान् ने जो श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता १५.१५ में कहा है कि ‘मुझ से ही जीव को स्मृति प्राप्त होती है व मुझ से ही स्मृति का अपोहन अर्थात् विस्मृति की प्राप्ति होती है’ (“मत्तः स्मृतिर्ज्ञानमपोहनञ्च”) – यह श्रीभगवान् के द्वारा कृत ‘पूर्वप्राप्ता स्मृति का अपोहन’ जीव के पक्ष में परिदृष्टा अनादिकालीन भगवद्वैमुख्य से प्रसूत होने वाली तथा प्रागभावविरहिता – बिना प्रागभाववाली  (प्रागभाव, प्रध्वंसाभाव, अत्यन्ताभाव – तीन प्रकार के संसर्गाभाव व अन्योन्याभाव – आदि की परिभाषा नव्यन्याय दर्शन में द्रष्टव्या है) भगवद्विस्मृति (अर्थात् भगवद्विस्मृति का प्रागभाव नही था – उसके अनादिकालीना होने के कारण) के सन्दर्भ में लागू नहीं होता, क्योकि यदि वैसी भगवद्विस्मृति का प्रागभाव होता, तब तो यह बात कहने को बनती कि पूर्व में कभी जीव को भगवद्स्मृति थी, पर अब उसका अभाव है । पर यहाँ जीव के पक्ष में तो भगवद्स्मृति का ही प्रागभाव है (भगवद्विस्मृति का नही) । तो जब भगवद्स्मृति उसे कभी थी ही नही, तो उसके ‘अपोहन’ की बात कहा से प्रकटी? अपोहन (छीन लेना) क्रिया तो प्राप्त वस्तु के विषय में घटित होती है न! जीव के पक्ष में भगवद्स्मृति कहाँ पूर्वप्राप्त है?

 

ग) श्रीमद्भागवत ११.२.३७ में पाञ्च मुख्य तथ्य प्रकाशित हुए है –

 

१) सर्वसंसारबन्धनकारणभूत अनादिकालीन ईशवैमुख्य (यहा श्री.गी. ५.१५ लागू नहीं होता),

 

आ) ईशवैमुख्य से उत्पन्न व त्रिगुणात्मिका माया/अविद्या की आवरणात्मिका वृत्ति के द्वारा कृत जीव के स्वस्वरूप का आवरण अथवा ‘अस्मृतिः’/’विस्मृति:’/‘अज्ञान’, (श्री.गी. १५.१५ यहा लागू होता है)

 

२) स्वस्वरूपावरण के साथ ही माया की विक्षेपात्मिका वृत्ति के द्वारा किया गया जीव का प्राकृत/मायिक/प्रापञ्चिक/त्रिगुणात्मक पदार्थो में – यथा देह/गेहादियो में विपरीत ज्ञान/विपर्यय – उन अनात्म पदार्थो में अहंता व ममता का होना,

 

३) उस अहंता व ममता के फलस्वरूप उन पदार्थो में अभिनिवेश/आवेश/विक्षेप,

 

४) उस अभिनिवेश के परिणामस्वरूप राग, द्वेष, काम, क्रोध, लोभ, मद, मात्सर्य, आसक्ति, शोक, मोह व भय आदि रिपुओं की उत्पत्ति व पुनः पुन: संसार चक्र में आवागमन की शृङ्खला का बने रहना,

 

विश्लेषण –

 

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता ५.१५ में जिस तमोगुणप्रसूत अज्ञान (त्रिगुणात्मिका माया का ‘अविद्या’ नामक पर्व) के द्वारा ज्ञान के आवृत्त होने की बात कही गयी है (“अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः”),  वह ज्ञान कोई प्राकृत/लौकिक सत्त्वगुण से उत्पन्न ज्ञान नही है (जिस सात्त्विक ज्ञान का उल्लेख श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता १४.१७ में हुआ है – “सत्त्वात् सञ्जायते ज्ञानं..”) । क्योंकि यदि श्री.भ.गी. ५.१५. में सात्त्विक ज्ञान अभिप्रेत होता तो वैसा सात्त्विक ज्ञान तो मायातीत स्वरूप वाले जीव में कैसे रह सकता है? (मायाबद्धावस्था में भी जीव के स्वरूप में माया का प्रवेश नहीं है) अतः जिस जीवस्वरूपगत/जीवस्वरूपभूत ज्ञान के आवरण की बात काही गयी है वह सात्त्विक ज्ञान नही है । स्वरूपभूतज्ञानशाली होने के कारण जीव के ज्ञान का आवरण ‘दैवी सामर्थ्य से युक्त’ (“दैवी हि एषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया” – श्री.भ.गी. ७.१४) त्रिगुणात्मिका माया कर लेती है निज आवरणात्मिका वृत्ति के द्वारा । परन्तु जीव का यह स्वरूपभूतज्ञान ‘परतत्त्वसम्बन्धी ज्ञान’ नही है, अपितु परतत्त्वसम्बन्धी ज्ञान का अंशभूत जीव का स्वस्वरूपसम्बन्धी ज्ञान है । क्योंकि जीवात्मा के इस स्वरूपभूत व निजस्वरूपसम्बन्धी ज्ञान के माया के द्वारा आवृत्त/अपहृत होने से पूर्व ही जीव भगवद्वैमुख्य/ईशवैमुख्य की अवस्था को प्राप्त है । एवं श्रील जीव गोस्वामिपाद ने भक्तिसन्दर्भ के प्रारम्भ में व तत्त्वसन्दर्भ में भी बताया है कि अनादि काल से चले आ रहे परतत्त्व (परब्रह्म) के ज्ञान के प्रागभाव रूपी संसर्गाभाव के कारण ही तो जीव के व्यक्तित्व में छिद्र को पाकर माया उस जीव के स्वरूपभूत ज्ञान का आवरण करती है । एवं यह परतत्त्व के ज्ञान का अनादि अभाव ही तो जीव के पक्ष में ‘ईशवैमुख्य’ के रूप में स्वीकृत हुआ है जो! अतः श्रीभगवान् की जीवभूता क्षेत्रज्ञा तटस्था शक्ति के अंशभूत व्यष्टि जीवों (नित्यबद्ध जीवगण) के स्वस्वरूप का ज्ञान (उनका स्वरूपभूत ज्ञान) – परतत्त्वज्ञान से पृथक् है । माया तो केवल जीव को आत्मस्वरूप का विस्मारण करवाती है, परतत्त्वात्मक ज्ञान का तो अनादि काल से जीव में अभाव है । प्रमाण –

 

श्रीभक्तिसंदर्भस्य प्रथमः अनुच्छेद: –

 

“परमात्मवैभवगणने च तत्तटस्थशक्तिरूपाणां चिदेकरसानामप्यनादि-परतत्त्व-ज्ञान-संसर्गाभावमय-तद्वैमुख्य-लब्धच्छिद्रया तन्माययावृत-स्वस्वरूपज्ञानानां तयैव सत्त्वरजस्तमोमये जडे प्रधाने रचितात्मभावानां जीवानां संसारदुःखञ्च ज्ञापितं यथोक्तमेकादशे श्रीभगवता….”

 

इन नित्यमायाबद्धजीवों के ठीक विपरीत भगवन्नित्यपार्षदगण अनादिकालीन ईशसाम्मुख्यवान् (अनादिकालीन परतत्त्वज्ञानयुक्त) होते हैं जिसका प्रमाण स्कन्दपुराण के काशीखण्ड में प्राप्त होता है – “न च्यवन्ते हि यद्भक्ता महत्यां प्रलयापदि । अतोऽच्युतोऽखिले लोके स एकः सर्वगोऽव्ययः ।।”

 

श्रीमद्भागवत १.७.४-५ की व्याख्या करते समय पुनः अचिन्त्यभेदाभेदवादाचार्य श्रील जीव गोस्वामिपाद निजकृत तत्त्वसन्दर्भ के ३२वें अनुच्छेद में आज्ञा करते है कि –

 

“अथ प्राक्प्रतिपादस्यैवाभिधेयस्य प्रयोजनस्य च स्थापकं जीवस्य स्वरूपत एव परमेश्वराद्वैलक्षण्यमपश्यदित्याह ययेति । यया – मायया सम्मोहितो जीवः स्वयं चिद्रूपत्वेन त्रिगुणात्मकाज्जडात् परोऽप्यात्मानं त्रिगुणात्मकं जडं देहादिसङ्घातं मनुते, तन्मननाकृतमनर्थं संसारव्यसनञ्चाभिपद्यते । तदेवं जीवस्य चिद्रूपत्वेऽपि, “यया सम्मोहित” इति ‘मनुत’ इति च स्वरूपभूतज्ञानशालित्त्वं व्यनक्ति, प्रकाशैकरूपस्य तेजसः स्वपरप्रकाशनशक्तिवत्, “अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः” (श्री.भ.गी. ५.१५) इति श्रीगीताभ्यः । तदेवं ‘उपाधेरेव जीवत्वं, तन्नाशस्यैव मोक्षत्वम्’ इति मतान्तरं परिहृतवान् । अत्र “यया सम्मोहितः” (श्री.भा.म.पु. १.७.५) इत्यनेन तस्या एव तत्र कर्तृत्वं, भगवतस्तत्रोदासीनत्वं मतम् । वक्ष्यते च – “विलज्जमानया यस्य स्थातुमीक्षापथेऽमुया । विमोहिता विकत्थन्ते ममाहमिति दुर्धियः । ।” (श्री.भा.म.पु. २.५.१३) इति ।

 

अत्र ‘विलज्जमानया’ इत्यनेनेदमायाति – तस्या जीवसम्मोहनं कर्म्म श्रीभागवते न रोचते इति यद्यपि सा स्वयं जानाति, तथापि – “भयं द्वितीयाभिनिवेशतः स्यादीशादपेतस्य” (श्री.भा.म.पु. ११.२.३७) इति दिशा जीवानामनादिभगवदज्ञानमयवैमुख्यमसहमाना स्वरूपावरणमस्वरूपावेशञ्च करोति । ।”

 

घ) अब प्रश्न यह खडा होता है कि अनादिपरतत्त्वज्ञानसंसंर्गाभावमयवैमुख्य से ग्रस्त नित्यबद्धजीव (आधिभौतिक काल की दृष्टि से केवल नित्यबद्ध एवं आधिभौतिक, आध्यात्मिक व आधिदैविक – इन तीनों कालों की दृष्टि से अनादिबहिर्मुख)  का उद्गम कहाँ से होता है? गौडीयवेदान्ताचार्य श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषणपाद के वेदान्तोपरि श्रीगोविन्दभाष्यम् के अनुसार जीव कदापि ‘निर्मित’ नही होता उसका अनादिकालीन अस्तित्व रहने के कारण (तीनों कालों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में – आधिदैविक काल, आध्यात्मिक काल व आधिभौतिक काल) । अतः जब “सृज्यन्ते” शब्द का प्रयोग निम्नोद्धृत विष्णुधर्मोत्तरपुराण के वाक्य में देखा जाये, तो वहाँ उसका तात्पर्य ‘निर्माण’ न लेते जुए ‘अभिव्यक्ति’ के अर्थ में लेना है । श्री.भ.गी. के द्वितीयाध्याय के सिद्धान्तानुसार भी जीव नित्य अर्थात् अनादि व अन्त रहित सत्ता वाला है । श्रीभगवान् भी उसकी सत्ता का प्रारम्भ नहीं करते, बल्कि केवल उसके अस्तित्व को अभिव्यक्त मात्र करते है जो कि नीचे स्पष्ट है –

 

विष्णुधर्मोत्तरपुराण के श्रीवज्र व श्रीमार्कण्डेयमुनि के संवाद में –

 

“जीवस्यान्यस्य सर्गेण नरे मुक्तिमुपागते । अचिन्त्यशक्तिर्भगवान् जगत् पूर्यते सदा । । ब्रह्मणा सह मुच्यन्ते ब्रह्मलोकमुपागताः । सृज्यन्ते च महाकल्पे तद्विधाश्चापरे जनाः । ।”(प्रीतिसन्दर्भोद्धृत)

 

अर्थात् “मानव मुक्त होने पर अचिन्त्यशक्ति भगवान् अन्य (ईशविमुख) जीवों की सृष्टि करके सर्वदा मायिक जगत् को (एकपाद विभूति को) पूर्ण करते है । जो जीव ब्रह्मलोक (सत्यलोक) गमन करते हैं, वे ब्रह्मा के सहित मुक्त हो जाते हैं । महाकल्प में उस प्रकार अन्य जन समूह (नवीन ईशविमुख जीव) की सृष्टि (अभिव्यक्ति) करते हैं वें भगवान् ।”

 

निष्कर्ष यह है कि अनादिकाल से ईशवैमुख्य को प्राप्त व भगवान् श्री हरि के तनु में निद्राधीन नये नये (जो पहले कदापि मायाबद्ध न हुए हो संसृति में निपतित होकर – पर जिनका ईशवैमुख्य फिर भी अनादि हो) जीवों को संसार में प्रेषित करते रहते है भगवान् समय समय पर । यहाँ ‘ईशवैमुख्य’ व ‘मायाबद्धावस्था’ में सूक्ष्म पार्थक्य दृष्ट होता है अर्थात् मायाबद्धावस्था में ईशवैमुख्य सन्निहित (अनुस्यूत) है, पर यह आवश्यक नही कि ‘ईशवैमुख्य’ में ‘मायाबद्धावस्था’ हो, नही तो अनादीशवैमुख्यप्राप्त वें जीव जो कि भगवान् के द्वारा प्रथम बार अभिव्यक्त करवाये जाते हैं, वें तो इस संसार में आने से पूर्व कहाँ मायाबद्ध थे? पर ईश्वैमुख्य उनमें सदैव से रहा है, यहाँ तक कि उनकी अभिव्यक्ति के पूर्व उनकी सूक्ष्मावस्था में भी!

 

अतः गौडीय वैष्णव सम्प्रदाय के सभी प्रधान व प्राचीन सैद्धान्तिक ग्रन्थों में (यथा चैतन्यचरितामृत, षट्संदर्भादि) जीव को ‘अनादिबहिर्मुख’ तो कहा गया है, पर ‘अनादि-बद्ध’ नही!

 

Brahmajyoti is not marginal potency of Śrī Hari, the potent principle. Rather, brahmajyoti is one of the triple phases of the potent principle itself. Refer to Śrīmad-bhāgavatam verse ‘vadanti tat-tattva-vidas….”. In Paramātma-sandarbha of Jīva Gosvāmī, jīvas have been deemed as the expansions of the marginal potency. Brahma-jyoti is one phase of the potent principle. Whereas, taṭastha-jīvas are aṁśas of the taṭasthā–śakti. Ontological difference between the two. The current ideology (regarding the origin of the jīva-tattva) as propagated by Gauḍīya Mutt / ISKCON and other neo/pseudo-Gauḍīya organizations is not in alignment with the conventional Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava siddhānta on this issue. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī cites a verse from Viṣṇu-dharmottara-purāṇa in the 16th sub-section of Prīti-sandarbha to clarify the origin of jīva-tattva. All other ideologies in contravention with this are not ‘Gauḍīya’ ideology.

 

Also, another strong argument not in favour of the concocted theory asserting the origin of the jīvas from the brahma-jyoti is — that brahma-jyoti is considered to be non-variegated/non-specified because it lacks all types of qualifying adjectives or viśeṣanas. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmipāda has considered nirviśeṣa-brahma/brahma-jyoti to be ‘cinmātra-sattā‘ or only cognitive existential state of the Absolute and is thus, devoid of the growth of the sandhinī, samvit and hlādinī (the triple faculties of the internal potency or antaraṅgā śakti) — though the attributes of sat, cit and ānanda are present in it. Therefore, it is ‘anabhivyakta-śaktika’ or that which is not manifesting any potential growth in it. Now, how can such a brahma-jyoti be considered to be the source of the jīvas? If these jīvas are considered as sprouting from brahma-jyoti, it will mean that brahma-jyoti is no more ‘anabhivyakta-śaktika’ or ‘cinmātra-sattāmayī‘ — because reservoir of multifarious and variegated jīvas can never be considered nirviśeṣa or anabhivyakta-śaktika! Additionally, if jīvas are considered expansions of brahma-jyoti then the nirviśeṣa-brahma cannot remain ‘kūṭastha‘ or ‘immutable’ because of reproducing the jīvas and ‘kūṭasthatva‘ or ‘immutability’ has been deemed as one of the most significant aspects of the niviśeṣa-brahma. Growth and reproduction are not accepted in the nirviśeṣa-brahma. Or else, it will come on par with the saviśeṣa-brahma or the specified/variegated Absolute and the very categorical distinction existing between the two phases of Absolute will overlap!

E) Towards Mrs. Snehalata Tiwari / Mr. Prem Lala —

“Spiritual life’s perception as inculcated/concocted/speculated/imagined/opined/reckoned/assessed/framed by a conditioned (confined within maayaa) soul doesn’t hold any value. What the eternal scriptures made manifest through God’s exhalation at the very dawn of creation – their dictum is of any tangible worth. Also, a patient cannot decide his way of treatment, surgery and medicinal dise etc. Only doctor/physician can ascertain. Similarly, conditioned jeevas/souls constrained in maayaa cannot diagnose themselves. Only a sadguru abiding by scriptures can show them the way to remove their spiritually cancerous position facilitated by maayaa. Hope the point is well understood.”

F) Towards Ram-Kathavachak Thakur Kaushalendra Singh —

“वर्त्तमान उपलब्ध श्रीमद्भागवतमहापुराण की आवृत्ति में १४ हजार चौरानवे (१४०९४) श्लोक प्राप्त होते हैं कुल १२ स्कन्ध / १०० प्रकरण / ३३५ अध्यायों को मिला कर । पर ये सभी १४०९४ श्लोक अनुष्टुप् छन्द में नहीं हैं । इनमें विविध पद्यों के छन्द व पञ्चम स्कन्ध आदि तो छन्दोबद्ध न होने के कारण केवल दीर्घ दीर्घ गद्योबद्ध हैं । अतः सभी १४०९४ श्लोक जो कि विविध छन्दों में तथा गद्यों में हैं, उन १४०९४ श्लोकों के वर्णों/अक्षरों (syllables जो कि स्वर तथा व्यञ्जन से निर्मित हैं) की कुल सङ्ख्या का बत्तीस (३२) से भाग (division) करने पर १८,००० अनुष्टुप्-छन्दोबद्ध श्लोकों की संख्या निकल कर आती है क्योंकि अनुष्टुप् छन्द में केवल ३२ वर्ण/अक्षर/स्वर/व्यञ्जन होते हैं छन्दःशास्त्रानुसार ।

G) Towards College Student Mr. Mohit Sharma —

“यज्ञादि की संस्तुति जैमिनी का पूर्वमीमांसादर्शन करता है, जबकि विष्णु की परोक्ष महिमा का प्रतिपादन बादरायण कृष्णद्वैपायन वेदव्यास का वेदान्तदर्शन करता है ।”

H) Towards Teacher Mrs. Rekha Tiwari ‘Saryuparin’ —

“इन छह ऋषियों के नामों का उल्लेख इसीलिए हुआ है क्योंकि ये षड्दर्शन(6 systems of Indigenous philosophy)  के प्रणेता हैं ।”

2 thoughts on “​प्रश्नोत्तरमाला – ८वीं (८ जिज्ञासाएँ उपशमित) / Question + Answer Series – 8th (8 queries quenched)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s