Guruvani

nicknames aren't common, but many times we abbreviate names because we are uncultured. Bhakta is not a nickname. Bhakta means "devotee". So, in ISKCON new devotees were most usually addressed as "bhakta" so-and-so.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam 2.7.23, Srila Prabhupada says in purport:

well, surely that is better than a personality cult around Britney Spears? everybody is in some sort of personality cult. for you, it might just be you are in your own personality cult. personalism is natural. everybody is in somebody's personality cult.

it's quite obvious that the only references they can find for their fall-from-goloka theory is from talks and discussions that Srila Prabhupada has with non-devotees and very new devotees. You can't find any of that pre-school philosophy in the books. In the books you actually get some higher information than is preached to non-devotees and very new neophytes that have obviously not read the books.

It's never too late for them stuffy Old Brits to learn a new trick. After all, she is Hare Krishna royalty!

then as a Vaishnavi, Syamarani is already a brahmana and thus on the highest level of social rank and well-deserving the title "lady". she is not some common street walker, that is for sure.

I think Srila Prabhupada's concept of subconsciousness might be different than what the common idea of subconsciousness is. Subconsciousness is the part of our being that we are totally unaware of. Dreaming is actually a part of the conscious state in my view. What is beyond dreaming, like false ego, that is more like subconsciousness. We aren't aware of the false ego like we are aware of dreams. The false ego is even more subtle than dreams. True subconsciousness is the part of being that we have a total lack of awareness of. Dreams are most often just chemical activity in the brain that mixes and mingles different bits of data stored in the brain's memory cells to produce bizarre combinations of memory cell activity. Subconsciousness is beyond the mind on the level of false ego and intuitive instincts.

He can't prove it. That theory is based on the premise that a devotee on Goloka is in illusion. We all know well from shastra that no form of maya or illusion can enter the spiritual sky and that maya or illusion can only affect a living entity in contact with material energy. there is no maya in the spiritual world. the fall from Goloka theory is based on the premise that maya is also there in the spiritual world. she is not.

It's not hard to figure that one out. The address on the invitiation is coming from England. In England they refer to respectable women as "lady" this or "lady" that. It's a cultural nuance based upon time and circumstance. ain't nothing wrong with that.

then produce the reference in context and prove it, otherwise why bother to debate? your opinion isn't worth diddly.

could this "dreaming" of the living entity be the false ego? the dreaming is that we imagine that we are the enjoyers and then we foster this false ago called ahankara. otherwise, it is established that the material world is real but temporary. this dreaming of the living entity does not establish that we are dreaming from Goloka. maybe we are dreaming from the tatastha? the dream is the false ego. it doesn't mean that we are sleeping in Goloka and thinking we are in the material world.

while you sleep, your pineal gland produces a neuro-transmitter known as DMT (dimethyltryptamine) which induces dreams which are nothing more than hallucinations. So, as long as you have a body and a brain and pineal gland you will have weird dreams that really mean nothing more than any other hallucination. so, the whole concept of subconscious mind can be a tricky subject.