Maharaja Rantideva

I'd like to talk a little bit about Maharaja Rantideva. I first heard about him when I was very young, and then too I heard about him through the famous Amar Chitra Katha comics! The title was "Tales of Vishnu" I believe, and I was very impressed with Maharaja Rantideva's story at that young age. I was extremely surprised to see that while his story is contained in the Srimad Bhagavatam, he is essentially a minor figure and hardly ever mentioned.

Here is his story, taken from Prabhupada's chapter summary of SB 9.21:

The son of Bharadvaja was Manyu, and Manyu's sons were Brhatkṣatra, Jaya, Mahavirya, Nara and Garga. Of these five, Nara had a son named Sankrti, who had two sons, named Guru and Rantideva. As an exalted devotee, Rantideva saw every living entity in relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and therefore he completely engaged his mind, his words and his very self in the service of the Supreme Lord and His devotees. Rantideva was so exalted that he would sometimes give away his own food in charity, and he and his family would fast.

Once, after Rantideva spent forty-eight days fasting, not even drinking water, excellent food made with ghee was brought to him, but when he was about to eat it a brahmana guest appeared. Rantideva, therefore, did not eat the food, but instead immediately offered a portion of it to the brahmana. When the brahmana left and Rantideva was just about to eat the remnants of the food, a sudra appeared. Rantideva therefore divided the remnants between the sudra and himself. Again, when he was just about to eat the remnants of the food, another guest appeared. Rantideva therefore gave the rest of the food to the new guest and was about to content himself with drinking the water to quench his thirst, but this also was precluded, for a thirsty guest came and Rantideva gave him the water.

This was all ordained by the Supreme Personality of Godhead just to glorify His devotee and show how tolerant a devotee is in rendering service to the Lord. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, being extremely pleased with Rantideva, entrusted him with very confidential service. The special power to render the most confidential service is entrusted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to a pure devotee, not to ordinary devotees.

One really should read the whole story in the text for the astounding details but it is easy to see what a great devotee Rantideva is. Who can imagine that even after a mega-vrata of 48-day fasting, Rantideva was nonchalant about sharing his well-deserved food and even sacrificed his drinking water in respect to the principle of charity. Bhagavatam mentions that the brahaman, sudra etc. were actually the devas Brahma, Shiva, and so on. And also Bhagavatam doesn't say so, the ACK version held that Rantideva was vouchsafed a vision of his beloved Lord Vishnu. The whole drama took place because Vishnu and the devas were in Vaikuntha discussing Rantideva's devotion, and the devas wanted to test his dedication to charity.

I don't really know why I enjoyed this story so much when I was young. I think, in some ways, I observe similar principles myself. There have been several incidents in my life over the years where I ended up sacrificing something or other so that other people could enjoy. I still do this to some extent, even when unnecessary. I think that the trick is to think nothing of it. Sometimes it doesn't even register in my mind. It doesn't seem to register much in the minds of other people either, but that's another story.

But anyway, I think that this is in connection with the idea that we are supposed to dedicate every thought and act to Krishna, by which we need not worry about our own upkeep too much. Maybe such things happen through the will of the Lord. Who knows how many of us could be tested like Rantideva, and would we pass or fail? Here is a nice verse from Bhagavatam that was spoken by Rantideva:

na kAmaya 'haM gatim izvarAt parAm

aStarddhi-yuktAm apunar-bhavaM vA
ArtiM prapadye 'khila-deha-bhAjAm
antaH-sthito yena bhavanty aduHkhAH

"I do not desire to attain the abode of the Supreme Lord, nor do I desire the eight yogic perfections or the cessation of birth and rebirth. I simply want to stay among the living entitities and accept all sufferings on their behalf, so that they may be freed from distress." (SB 9.21.12)

Whoa! This is big! It is impossible to describe the glories of this one Bhagavatam verse, as it expresses spiritual sentiments that are so deep that only a rare soul can plumb. This shows how Rantideva's heart was so deep that, even when he was on the point of death, his heart never moved an inch away from his principles and even went further as to say that he was willing to suffer even more on behalf of others. Learned readers will be reminded of a similar petition to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by His great devotee Vasudeva Datta, who similarly prayed that he would be willing to suffer the karma of all living entities so that they may be delivered. He did this because it broke his heart to see people suffering (CC Madhya 15.159-171). And after hearing his prayer, how did Mahaprabhu react? "When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu heard Vasudeva Datta's statement, His heart became very soft. Tears flowed from His eyes, and He began to tremble." (CC 2.15.164)

Such a prayer touched the heart of Mahaprabhu, do you know how great that is? Mahaprabhu may listen to everybody's prayers with His ears, but how many prayers touch His heart? Shouldn't we all aspire for that? Mahaprabhu Himself noted that Vasudeva Datta's prayer was relatively "unsurprising" as Datta was the reincarnation of Prahlada Maharaja. By this, He meant that Prahlada had similarly prayed for the welfare of all suffering living entitites when he was granted the darshan of Lord Nrsimhadeva. One may look at the Prahlada-stuti of Srimad Bhagavatam for further information, especially SB 7.9.41-44. So this shows that Mahaprabhu is especially touched when one is not so concerned about oneself, but desires to ease the endless sufferings of others and to see them get deliverance from the same.

This is in perfect consonance with devotional sentiments. In Sri Vilapa-Kusumunjali (6), Sri Raghunatha das Gosvamipada praised his guru, Sanatana Gosvami, by referring to him as "kripambudhi" (ocean of mercy) and "para-duhkha-duhkhi" (rough translation: conscious of the suffering of others). The heart of the Vaishnava is like that. The Vaishnava may be self-satisfied in his worship of the Lord (yayAtmA suprasIdati, SB 1.2.6) but sooner or later one's attention will be called to the sufferings of others and how they are essentially bereft of the solution to their problems. A Vaishnava's deep heart is always considering how to relieve the suffering of others and how to deliver them. This is the reason why Caitanya Mangala begins with the story of Devarishi Narada and his petition to the Lord at Dvaraka.

And, of course, the most important reason for desiring the welfare of all is that such a sentiment is immensely pleasing to the Lord.

Wow, I wanted to talk about Maharaja Rantideva and look what's happened!

Missing The Point

śabda-brahmaṇi niṣṇāto
na niṣṇāyāt pare yadi
śramas tasya śrama-phalo
hy adhenum iva rakṣataḥ

"For one who is expert in the scriptures
but does not fix his mind upon the Lord,
the fruit of his endeavour is like one who
cares for a cow that gives no milk."

(Srimad Bhagavata 11.11.18)

You'll have to forgive the raw translation but the basic elements are in place and the message should be clear enough. This is one of the verses that exemplify my own journey along the spiritual path. For years I used to admire those who were well-versed in scriptural literatures and the ease with which they presented their deep learnings of the shastras in spiritual discussions. As a matter of fact I still do admire such devotees because scriptural learning (especially those who have memorised entire scriptures) is no mean feat and not to be sneezed at. The wonder of it is how I desired to be one such "expert". Of course, I used to be one of those guys who always seemed to come up with an appropriate quote for any discussion that was going on, and as is naturally expected of such endeavours, a large amount of time was spent hunting for such quotes.

I now feel a mixture of disgust, revulsion and pity for myself when I was in that state of mind, though I can also laugh at myself as well. The reason for that is because, notwithstanding the fact that everyone is spiritually evolving according to their own pace and so will consequently arrive at their own realisations, attempting to use shastra as "weapons" in discussions/arguments is wrong, wrong, wrong! As per the above verse from the Holy Bhagavat, I believe that it is thoroughly inappropriate to be an "expert" in the scriptures only for the purposes of one-upmanship. This is a misdirection of the learning faculty and not at all in tune with Mahaprabhu's ideal of trinad api sunicena. It becomes an extension of one's ego when one acquires a queer satisfaction from presenting a "killer" quote that "wins" the discussion. "Ha ha ha! You can't find a quote to refute my quote, can you?? I've won, so take that!" This is a morbid and grotesque mentality.

Actually I am oversimplifying things. The ego and the desire to achieve fame and praise are actually very subtle and almost imperceptible things. It is very hard to detect them unless one is very good at introspection, humble, and always attempting to measure themselves against the 'trinad api sunicena' standard. In other words, one who excessively quotes shastra (unless their contribution is truly to aid a spiritual discussion) may or may not even realise that they are presenting themselves as an "expert" and would directly or indirectly receive praise for it thereof. The next challenge then relates to how to deal with such praise, but that is another story.

Anyway I think I'm raving on a bit so let me get to the point: People who are aware of my online activities may or may not know that, these days, I do not tend to talk so much on spiritual discussion forums unlike the way I used to do before. There are multiple reasons for this, but the main one is that I realised how much I was straying far from the path in my foolish attempts to imitate devotees and their learning in much the same way as is exemplifed in the above Bhagavatam quote. Of course, learning the shastras comes naturally from reading and meditation but it is an organic process that ought to evolve by itself. That is why, these days, I prefer to post inspirational verses from my readings with perhaps a few contextual comments. This is what I continue to do on a couple of the forums I hang out at. Occasionally I stray into some discussions but I would much prefer my contact with such discussions to be minimal. The nature of the Internet is such that people can get paranoid and lose their tempers over the slightest and innocent comments, so I would much prefer to restrit my participations in such events unless I am confident that I know the other respondents well enough and that they can exhibit a satisfactory level of Vaishnava ethics and behaviour.

Or, I might be vain enough to think that I actually know something and thus I have something to contribute to discussions. Here we go again, round and round in circles. At the end of the day it's not about what you know, it's about the extent to which you have practised your preachings in your daily life. So as per Bhagavata 11.11.18, what is the use of being an expert in the shastras when you haven't learnt how to fix your mind on the Lord? This is how I try to spend my time these days; I like to read shastras such as Caitanya-bhagavata, Caitanya-caritamrita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, and all the rest of it, and if I feel that I've stumbled across something nice that I think other devotees would appreciaste, I post it on a forum so that others can experience the joy that I get out of it.

The general idea is that one must not lose one's focus on the goal. The goal must always be kept respectfully upon our heads so that we are always reminded. Krishna-katha is the life of the Vaishnavas, it is the common bond that unites all Vaishnavas irrespective of lineage and sectarian mindsets. Krishna-katha can bring peace to the world as long as there are people to speak it and people to hear it. Krishna-katha can save us from the jaws of death. Brindavan is everyone's and Govinda belongs to all; Navadvipa is everyone's and Mahaprabhu belongs to all.

Priti Sandarbha 13

Read this for background. And now finally, Priti Sandarbha gives a few more details about the attainment of the spiritual body before proceeding to describe the activities and powers of the liberated soul:

The bodies of the liberated souls are also described in these words of Chandogya Upanisad (8.13.1):

azva iva romANi vidhUya ... dhUtvA zarIram
akRtaM kRtAtmA brahmalokam abhisambhavAni

"As a horse sheds its hairs, . . .so will I shed this external material
body and go to the spiritual abode of the Supreme Lord."

Thus, by the intervention of the Supreme Lord's inconceivable potency, the devotee leaves behind his material body and attains a spiritual body like that of the Lord. This is described in the following narration of Dhruva Maharaja's activities (Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.12.29):

bibhrad rUpaM hiraNmayam

"Before getting aboard, Dhruva Maharaja worshiped the airplane, circumambulated it, and also offered obeisances to the associates of Visnu. In the meantime he became as brilliant and illuminating as molten gold. He was thus completely prepared to board the transcendental plane."

Srila Sridhara Svami comments:

"This means he attained a form brilliant and illuminating as molten gold."

Sarsti liberation is described in these words of the Supreme Lord (Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.29.34), which I have already discussed in Bhakti-sandarbha (anuccheda 309):

martyo yadA tyakta-samasta-karmA. . .

. . .mayAtma-bhUyAya ca kalpate vai

"A human being who renounces all fruitive activities, offers himself to Me, and yearns to serve Me, becomes immortal. He becomes glorious like Me."

------------

So that's pretty clear I think, is it not? Sri Jiva Gosvamipada sets down the siddhanta in his stupendous Sandarbha series and succeeding Acharyas after him have followed his example: The weight of the evidence is in support of the "given" theory. However, there does seem to be anecdotal support in favour of the inherent theory and I hear that some say that both approaches are possible. Possibly the "given" theory is the "official line" but I wouldn't be surprised if both paths were possible. There are a multiplicity of ways to attain the Lord's company and we should rejoice that they are all possible. Consider BG 4.11:

ye yathA mAM prapAdyante
tAMs tathaiva bhajAmy aham
mama vartmAnuvartante
manuSyAH pArtha sarvazaH

As all surrender unto Me, them I certainly reward.
My path is followed by all men, O son of Pritha, in all respects.

What more need be said?

Priti Sandarbha 11-12

Read here for background.

Priti Sandarbha 11 contains a little more detail about the form by which the liberated soul possesses:

Liberation is also described in these words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.6.28):

prayujyamAne mayi tAM
zuddhAM bhAgavatIM tanum
Arabdha-karma-nirvANo
nyapatat paJca-bhautikaH

"Having been awarded a transcendental body befitting an
associate of the Personality of Godhead, I quit the body made
of five material elements, and thus all acquired
fruitive results of work (karma) stopped."

It is again described in these words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.6.23):

hitvAvadyam imaM lokaM
gantA maj-janatAm asi

"By service of the Absolute Truth, even for a few days,
a devotee attains firm and fixed intelligence in Me. Consequently
he goes to become My associate in the transcendental world after
giving up the present deplorable material worlds."

Jivapada's commentary: In Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.6.28 the Supreme Personality of Godhead promises to give the devotee a spiritual form like His own. Here "tAM bhAgavatIm" means "a form that is a fragment of the spiritual effulgence of the Supreme Lord", "zuddhAm" means "untouched by matter", "tanum" means "a form given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead", and "mayi prayujyamAne" means "attained by me when the results of karma came to an end". This happened when the material body made of five elements fell away (nyapatat paJca-bhautikaH). Here it is seen that the subtle material body of mind, intelligence, and false ego is also destroyed. Because of his faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the devotee's past karma also comes to an end. In his commentary on this verse Srila Sridhara Svami explains:

"The bodies of a personal associates of the Supreme Lord are eternal, pure, and free from karma."

This verse was spoken by Sri Narada to Sri Vyasa.

----
Priti Sandarbha 12

The body of a liberated soul is also described in these words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (8.3.19):

yaM dharma-kAmArtha. . .rAty api deham avyayam

"After worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, those who are interested in the four principles of religion, economic development, sense gratification and liberation obtain from Him what they desire. What, then, is be said of other benedictions? Indeed, sometimes the Lord gives a spiritual body to such ambitious worshipers."

Srila Sridhara Svami comments:

"In this way the Supreme Lord gives the devotee an eternal spiritual body."

------

So this is very clear: After Anuccheda 10 confirms that the soul can manifest many forms and that the residents of Vaikuntha have forms alike to the Lord's, Anuccheda 11-12 confirms that such a form is bestowed. In this connection, "bestowed" and "attained" both refer to the same thing in the context of Gaudiya sadhana practice. It is not inherent in any case, scripturally speaking.

Priti Sandarbha 10

If you just stumbled here, then read this first for background. The language of the text clearly points to a translator from ISKCON (probably the late Kusakratha das). Here we go with some choice quotes from Priti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 10) of Sri Jiva Gosvamipada after he briefly describes the five kinds of liberation:

By his own will a liberated soul can manifest many different forms. This is described in these words of Chandogya Upanisad (7.26.2):

sa ekadhA bhavati, dvidhA bhavati, tridhA bhavati.

"The liberated soul may manifest one form, two forms,
three forms, or more forms than that."

He then explains that Vaikuntha is free from maya and that one who reaches there never comes back. And then at the end of Anuccheda 10, he says:

In final liberation the devotees attain a spiritual nature and form like those of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. This is described in the following words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.15.14):

vasanti yatra puruSAH
sarve vaikuNTha-mUrtayaH
ye 'nimitta-nimittena
dharmeNArAdhayan harim

"In the Vaikuntha planets all the residents are similar in form to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They all engage in devotional service ot the Lord without desires for sense gratification."

Here "nimitta" means "result", and "animitta" means "without cause". These two words together mean, "without the desire for material sense gratification". "Dharmena" means "by devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead". Here the word "vaikuntha" means "the Supreme Personality of Godhead". "Vaikuntha-murtayah" means numberless forms of the individual souls who reside in Vaikuntha and who are manifest from tiny fragments of the effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many liberated souls, each with his own form, and there is one Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has His own form. Still, the liberated souls have forms that are like the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This verse was spoken by the demigod Brahma to the demigods.

----

So after first describing that it is within the capacity of the jiva to manifest one, two, or more forms, Sri Jivapada says that in Vaikuntha all the souls there have a form of their own that is similar to that of the Lord's.

More evidence of Siddha-deha

I'm not so keen on philosophical egghead discussions these days and would much prefer to do Krishna-katha, but of course it is necessary to have a strong philosophical grounding. Either way I would prefer not to argue too much about it. Back in August '06 I ordered some books via the Net including the famed Govinda-bhashya Vedanta commentary by Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushan, and David Haberman's "Acting As A Way To Salvation". I spotted some interesting tidbits that helped to make sense of a long-running controversy about the siddha-deha (spiritual body): Is it bestowed by the guru or is it inherent within?

Of course this is a bone of contention between those who adhere to those respective views as well, with much acrimony and bitterness being expressed in defending those views. Like I said I'm not interested in arguing but would prefer discussing this as a matter of shastra, a spiritual discussion that is elevating. So you can go ahead and see what I wrote about it back then, check out the comments too. The discussion went further on Advaita dasji's blog. The general view is that the majority of scriptural evidence (and also real history) argues for the "bestowed" view; that the siddha-deha is bestowed upon the aspirant by the guru, and that the siddha-deha is realized and perfected through appropriate spiritual practice. The other view - that the siddha-deha is inherent and automatically manifests upon reaching a certain level of purity - seems to be a minority view and has very little actual scriptural backing. How can we say this?

Sri Rupa Gosvami, Sri Sanatan Gosvami, Sri Jiva Gosvami - three of the famous Six Gosvamis - subscribe to the "given" theory. So does Sri Baladev Vidyabhushan, the great Acharya who provided a commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. In fact you would be hard-pressed to find a prominent Gaudiya-acharya who does not back the "given" theory as, to cut a long story short, makes more sense in the whole context of Gaudiya siddhanta in the long run. But since Sri Baladeva's Vedanta commentary was being used to promote the "inherent" view, I took it upon myself to transcribe the relevant sections from the Govinda-bhashya. You can find it here. I was also surprised to find Sripada Madhvacharya backing the "given" theory.

So I wanted to tie up some loose ends now that I've found more evidence for the "given" theory by Sri Jiva Gosvami. Sri Jiva's Priti-sandarbha was briefly quoted in the original post which was what I had, and I did not have the original and whole text to see the quotes in their proper context.

Well, now I do! :-)

So roll on the next post.

--

Follow-ups:

Priti Sandarbha 10
Priti Sandarbha 11-12
Priti Sandarbha 13

How Far Can We Speculate?

We oftern hear that it's not good to speculate in spiritual matters, and that it is best to accept the considered opinion of guru-sadhu-shastra. Of course there is such a thing as philosophical debate, but how much can we speculate?

I was looking through Gita yesterday and I think I've found the answer from Krishna Himself:

mayy arpita-mano-buddhir
mAm evaiSyasy asaMzayaH

"Surrendering your mind and intelligence to Me,
you will surely attain Me without a doubt." BG 8.7

The activities of the mind and the intelligence have to be offered to Krishna in His seva, by which we can think and ruminate on whatever spiritual issues we may be contemplating. It is not that we just willy-nilly speculate about this and that, it is important to consider how much we have surrendered our mind/intelligence in the discussion.

Actually, you know what? When I read this yesterday I had a whole different take on it because I was reading it in the context of BG 8.5-6 but it's all gone now. All I can think about right now is how some devotees tend to get involved and argue their cases in debates with some sort of agenda or other. Whatever that agenda may be; to prove their point or to push forward the views of their guru on that matter, I am growing convinced that it is always a bad idea to argue a case with some personal investment involved. If the debate is about a philosophical matter and a point of siddhanta, then it would be most beneficial to put all agendas aside and listen to the truth. Listening to the "truth" means accepting it even if it breaks your dearly-held ideas. This also requires an open mind, instead of a closed mind that is bent on pushing an agenda. There are so many implications for this; once one gets locked into pushing an agenda, it is very difficult to make further progress in understanding and knowledge.

So surrendering our minds and intelligences to Krishna in the context of debates and discussions entail that we keep an open mind about any issues and also be prepared to be wrong and have your ideas smashed. Of course if one is gentle-hearted and humble in the first place, admitting your errors won't be too much of a problem. And that's another reason why agendas are bad; there's an awful lot of ego involved. And when one Vaishnava ego clashes with another, a horrendous amount of aparadha occurs which withers the bhakti-lata of both of them. Entirely avoidable. Simply when we engage our thinking and critical faculties in spiritual topics and conundrums, the best thing to do is follow Krishna's advice: simply by surrendering our minds and intelligences we can attain Him.

"I Am Yours"

My friend Madhava recently posted this amazing quote from Mahaprabhu on Vilasa Kunja, I have slightly modified it:

kṛṣṇa, tomāra haṅa, yadi bale-eka-bāra |
māyā-bandha haite kṛṣṇa tāre kare pāra ||

"'Krishna! I have become yours!' — if one says a single time,
Krishna will have that person cross beyond the bonds of illusion."
(CC 2.22.33)

This is totally amazing! It started me thinking about how "easy" it is to surrender to the Lord by just stating it once with sincerity that you are His. But is it really that easy? Are you His, say, when you are talking about Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother on the phone to your friends? Are you His, when your mouth is salivating at the thought of some juicy treats? Are you His, when you gladly pay money for some rubbish CD that you will probably never listen to?

Now this probably sounds like the typical "yoof" rant that I was spoon-fed for so many years and which I spoon-fed in turn to so many others. But it's not, it's really more a question of heightening awareness over so-called surrender. The problem is the same everywhere; some critics or disillusioned followers of Christianity have often mused over how ridiculous it is to confess and repent one's sins on a Sunday and then proceed to sin through the rest of the week. I would be more concerned about trying to maintain an attitude of constant awareness of surrender at each moment. A prick of the conscience at the very least should occur if one is engaged in activities that are not pleasing to Mahaprabhu, much less an outright disgust and a cause to spit.

But there's me getting all judgemental and superiority-complexed again. Whatever happened to trinad api sunicena? The basic point is this: to stand in front of Krishna and declare to Him that you are His is no small feat. It most definitely involves the most heartfelt surrender with an implicit commitment to follow His direction, as well as a certain amount of self-consciousness that acknowledges one's lowly position, what is the point of such half-hearted surrender otherwise? And above all, love. To stand in front of Krishna with a heart brimming over with pure love and a pure-hearted surrender to Him, just once with full humility and sincereity, and maya is destroyed forever.

Such a beautiful thing to hear directly from the beautiful lips of Sriman Mahaprabhu. And the weight of His promise!

Dear reader, am I trying to convince you or myself? I think that the honest answer is 'both'.

Parallel Gaura and Krishna lilas

I'm working on Caitanya Mahaprabhu at the moment so I'm looking through Caitanya Bhagavata for some brief notes to be included in that article.

I couldn't help noticing the strange parallel in Gaura-lila and other types of Avatara-lila; as irreligion increases on the earth and troubles afflict the devoted populace, they or the demigods register their complaints to the Lord (Vishnu) who then descends to relieve said afflictions. In the same way the devotees of Navadvipa were being oppressed by the nondevotee populace and regularly harassed for their worship, so they register their complaints to Advaita Acharya (combined avatar of MahaVishnu and Sadashiva). Interesting isn't it?

That's where the parallel ends. We all know that Advaita Acharya (as a Mahavishnu aspect) could probably have carried out a mission on his own will, but he prayed intensely for the appearance of Mahaprabhu, svayam-bhagavan, to come and do it.

This is one of the deep mysteries that must be contemplated upon in the hope of finding a pleasing answer.

---------------------

I'm also working on Tilaka. By the way, GKW has opened to the public. Read this, this and feel free to join! Because GKW (gkWiki) is still so small and many people may be unfamiliar with the specialised Wiki markup language, I would personally advise/recommend joining Wikipedia first and getting some practice by editing some pages there. At least that's what I did and I learnt some of the basic tricks so that my beginnings on gkWiki have been very smooth more or less. Madhava has tweaked a couple of things around to suit a localised Wiki and I would personally favour the use of Shortcuts for some of the important pages, but never mind all this technical stuff, just jump in if you want to!

CB deeper thoughts

I haven't progressed with CB in the last two days due to taking care of my father and so on, and there may have been an element of laziness in there somewhere too. But tonight my memory went back to a verse about the dismal situation (of Kali-yuga) around the time of Mahaprabhu's imminent appearance. In verse 63 of Chapter 2, Sri VDT says:

kRSNa-rAma-bhakti-zUnya sakala saMsAra
prathama-kalite haila bhaviSya-AcAra

"The whole creation was devoid of devotion for Krsna and Balaram, and the future symptoms of Kali-yuga were manifest in the beginning of the age."

But the particular characteristic that made me wonder was Verse 71:

ati-vaDa sukRti snAnera samaya
'govinda' 'puNDarIkAkSa'-nAma uccAraya

"Only the most pious people would recite the names of 'Govinda' and 'Pundarikaksa' at the time of taing bath."

I was puzzled. I had heard that talking at the time of taking bath makes the bather lose the spiritual potency or energy that is gained from bathing, what to speak of the popular habit of singing in the shower that is widely prevalent in the West! On some occasions when I was showering, Sri Harinama danced around in my mind and I indulged it but I don't ever recall chanting it or singing it in the shower. For some reason my crazy mind stuck to that notion that to talk or sing during a shower would dissipate spiritual potency, hmmmm I think that qualifies as an offence to Sri Harinam Itself, eh?

Well, it surprised me when I read Text 71. It seems that while describing the pitiful situation of dharma in Kali-yuga, the author mentions that 'only' the most pious would chant the Names at the time of taking bath. The way it sounds as if this was one of the few good qualities of Kali-yuga at the time of Mahaprabhu's appearance. Well at least as far as this text is concerned, it seems to be a rather good activity to chant the Names at bath-time after all. What was I thinking all of this time?! Chanting the names at bath-time can only increase whatever potency you're getting from the bath. Man, do I need to get some queer ideas out of my head or what. I guess I know who I should blame, but let's not play that game here.

'prathama-kalite haila bhaviSya-AcAra' from Text 63 is also an interesting consideration. For a fuller explanation of this line, Srimat Kanupriya Gosvami has written an excellent treatise entitled 'The Dawn of The Age of Love' in which he mentions the reasons why the symptoms of Kali-yuga are so prominent in this Kali-yuga than it is in previous or future Kali-yugas. I have copied this text and uploaded this file somewhere on GD. I think I should update it and 'modernise' it with proper diacritics and all, as I just copied the original text in order to retain the flavour of the Bengali English. That's a project I can get along with. If only I could remember where I kept my copy of the original text....