Gaurasundara

I must say that I agree. I am fast coming to the same conclusion. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Pure raganuga, no. Pure raganuga = ragatmika. Raganuga = sadhana. Rupa Gosvami say. Who is SRG? I have reading CC. This is CC say: "By executing spontaneous devotional service in Vrndavana, one attains the original Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna." - CC Madhya 24.85 "By executing regulative devotional service, one becomes an associate of Narayana and attains the Vaikunthalokas, the spiritual planets in the spiritual sky." - CC Madhya 24.87 Read up citations CC. Two CC citations I have given. Rupa = Rupa Gosvami. Anuga = follower. Hence, Rupanuga = follower of Rupa Gosvami. That all depends on which particular babaji you are talking about. As far as I can see, the genuine parivaras follow strictly in the path of Rupa Gosvami. Thus, I am not inclined to label them as "deviants" when they ar enot. So we need a "REAL" true guru higher than Rupa Gosvami? That's probably because they listen to what Rupa Gosvami says and don't follow their own ideas. ***So even with a "true guru" and a "true parampara," she still didn't have a clue what Mahaprabhu's mission was all about. I am do not know about you speking. She do sadhana? - chant holy name?

Ok, bring the citations.

Because that is my ID? /images/graemlins/wink.gif Quite a lot of people spell the words that way too. It's a system of transliteration known as "Harvard-kyoto" encoding. There's other transliteration methods too, such as ITRANS, But personally I find HK easier to type. However, in this case I have simply copied it from Madhava's website. Why should I bother to type it all out when someone else has already done it? /images/graemlins/grin.gif Only joking, Madhava! Well, it's not my website, it's Madhava's. He is a very nice devotee who I have learned a lot from. As he has already said, I like to copy and paste his stuff. Why not, as long as the point is proved?

What a reaction. I never claimed to have a clue as to their relationship since I was only going by what you said, remember. The impression you gave is that their relationship was somewhat acrimonious since Sridhara Maharaja expelled Krishnadasa Babaji at least twice and laid down some conditions for his return. Please kindly try to consider what I am saying and why I say it before responding in an emotional manner. So can I ask you again why you think he was in a bhajananandi mood, and why he did not seemingly follow the directions of his guru in the said letter?

Oh thanks for explaining. If you have this commentary, do you think you could type it out and post it here? Or if you do not wish to speak about it in public, would you prefer sending to my email?

This is exactly what I do and have been doing. I read Prabhupada's books, try to understand it, and try to practice it in my own life. I think memorizing slokas and purports are probably essential for those who wish to engage in discussions about siddhanta or preaching to people, in which case it's always good to know your stuff and have a good grasp of it.

That's very interesting, thanks for telling me. Do you know if this letter has been published on the Internet on some site, or is it only for private viewing?

Rather than a correction, isn't that a complete contradiction of what shiva said? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta favoured gosthyananda over bhajanananda (what is the origin of those two thoughts anyway?) yet Srila Gaurakisora was a bhajananandi. Whether he is "real" or "false" the fact still remains that he was a bhajananandi. What term are you using for "highest state of realization"? Prema?Also, if you carefully rea done of my earlier posts, you'll find that there are two divisions of sadhana-bhakti; one is vaidhi and the other is raganuga. Nama-sankirtana is the primary anga of both, so there is no question about attaining the "highest state of realization" as opposed to "solitary meditation" when the two go hand-in-hand as far as I know. It all depends on which path one follows. Would you propose that Sridhara Maharaja was a Vaishnava-aparadhi because of this behaviour? I ask this because Krishnadas Babaji remained a babaji until the very end of his life, therefore according to you he never returned to the Math? How would you view this about Krishnadasa Babaji? Why do you think that Babaji remained a babaji instead of a preacher?

First of all, it's important to know what a sahajiya actually is. A sahajiya is someone who engages in sexual intercourse with his wife, girlfriend, or other people's wives or girlfriends, in order to emulate the conjugal pastimes of Radha and Krishna in his own body as well as the body of his partner. Anyone who does this is a sahajiya. Anyone who does not do this, is not a sahajiya. Unfortunately, "sahajiya" is become a buzzword for anything that does not agree with the precepts taught by gurus in Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's line. I find the efforts of these quite admirable in that they try to remove any false misconceptions from the aspirant's mind; however, I do not agree with it when it is used as a tool of abuse to describe people and things that they evidently know nothing about. It is like calling someone gay when they are not gay. Like calling someone an alcoholic when they haven't touched a drop in their life. Like calling someone a criminal when that person has always been law-abiding. Unfortunately I haven't seen one correct post in this entire thread, so I wouldn't necessarily advise reading the opinions of those who clearly know very little of the subject matter. To answer your original question, genuine raganuga-bhakti as practised in Vraja is not sahajiya, in that none of those practitioners have an active sex life while imagining themselves to be Radha and Krishna. Of course they may certainly be there, in which case one should know that they are deviants. Genuine lines and sadhakas still exist. It's all a matter of choice. If you want to follow a real guru, there are real gurus there. If you want to follow a cheater, there are also plenty of those around. This is why one is urged to carefully analyse the spiritual master before taking initiation from him, and the same is true vice versa.

I don't think you will find any genuine Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus giving out knowledge of their disciples' spiritual forms "pronto." Rather, the information about one's spiritual form (ekadasa-bhava) is given either at the time of diksa or after that, as long as the guru thinks the disciple is ready.

Do you actually have evidence of this? If so, can you please post that evidence right here on this forum? Did you know that deviations have been going on since the time of Mahaprabhu? Does that mean no one had a clue as to what Mahaprabhu taught? What makes you think that siddha-pranali is only for the highest and educated bhakta? Do you even know what siddha-pranali is? If you did, then you wouldn't be making such foolish statements like "given out to people more or less without any prior practice of sadhana bhakti." Unfortunately for you, Bhaktivinoda himself nicely explained siddha-pranali in his books. You haven't read them, that is obvious. With all due respects to Jagat, I don't think he uses Bhaktivinoda as an example of the times. There may very well have been a large amount of sadhakas who did not eat meat or do anything else. Just because Bhaktivinoda ate meat, you are making him an example of the "degenerated thought and practice" of what you think was the Gaudiya situation at that time? Do you realise that you are exposing an offensive mentality towards Bhaktivinoda? The problem here is that neither you nor Narasingha Swami know what a sahajiya actually is. I hear from some disciples of Narayana Maharaja that Bhkati Prajnana Kesava Maharaja received knowledge of his svarupa from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Knowledge of svarupa is commonly referred to as "ekadasa-bhava" in the Gaudiya tradition, and this ekadasa-bhava is itself a part of siddha-pranali. So would you really say that Bhaktisiddhanta "rejected" the norm? By the way, may I ask how it first came to be known that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was actually Nayana-manjari? I've asked several people and none were able to give me an answer. Who first revealed this and how did they come to know? He certainly changed the outlook of Gaudiya thought... for his disciples. By the way, do you even know what sadhana-bhakti is? Sadhana-bhakti has two divisions: vaidhi-bhakti-sadhana and raganuga-bhakti-sadhana. So how can raganuga be practised by those who have "through the entire process of sadhana bhakti" when raganuga IS sadhana-bhakti? You presented a couple of verses from "Prakrita sata-dusani" on "the difference" thread and I carefully explained how it is correct in terms of Rupa Gosvami's definition only 2 days ago. You did not understand it then, and it is obvious that you still do not understand it. Bhaktivinoda certainly ate meat. However, he chanted harinama, wrote books, and gave lectures about siddhanta on the vyasasana to all the Vaishnavas who came to hear. He wrote one of his most famous books (Sri Krsna-samhita) while he was eating meat. He also had no less than two siksa-gurus. I still don't see how you can take his example as the standard of sadhakas at the time. That is an extremely wild generalisation, not to mention offensive to the thousands of "clean" sadhakas who received genuine siddha-pranali. By the way, why don't you ask why Bhaktivinoda ate meat while he was doing so much of sadhana and writing before he took diksa? Since you cannot give evidence of this wild generalisation, I shall not ask you to provide any. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Again I'll ask you, do you even know what siddha-pranali is? Evidently you do not, that is why you continue to make a fool of yourself by saying foolish things. For the record, siddha-pranali is not given to neophytes or "beginner" devotees, and in some cases it is not even given at the time of diksa (second initiation). This standard is not fixed, it differs from lineage to lineage, but the general idea is that it is in fact an advanced practice that is given either at the time of diksa or after when the guru feels that the prospective disciple is ready for it. First of all, the "sahajiya" schools do not have a bona-fide initiation or siddha-pranali to give, so who cares what they gave? In my view, that is a perfect example of the cheaters and the cheated. I don't think so. He practised siddha-pranali and raganuga-bhakti-sadhana exactly as it was given to him by his guru, which in turn was exactly what has been preached since the time of Mahaprabhu. Where he did attempt to turn things "upside down," as it were, is via his writings about the eligibility for raganuga and his views on varnasrama-dharma. This is what I think is right, after reading some of the relevant works. Have you read his works? Which ones? Utterly? Totally? Short of committing mass genocide of all non-Sarasvatas, I cannot see how your words are true. Following Rupa Gosvami's instructions as per the teachings of Mahaprabhu is what you call "going back in time" ? I call it "returning to the roots."

I don't think that I have presented my imaginations anywhere. Rather I have provided the Gosvamis direct words and clarified them where necessary when questoned? If you wish to propose that I am speculating, then please show and explain where I have done this exactly. Rather, I have seen you come up with some really weird ideas. Devotees with male bodies cannot enter into that mode of worship? Come on! Again, I don't think so. All my comments so far have been related to the practice of sadhana and not sadhya. This is evident. If you knew anything about raganuga-sadhana, you would know this. The very fact that you have just presented an erroneous objection itself shows that you have not understood even what I am saying, let alone the Gosvamis.Needless to say, I cannot accept your interpretations of the Gosvamis words because of this fault. By the way, could you kindly do me that "favour" that I asked of all memebers, before proceeding with this discussion? Shiva, no Gaudiya acharya anywhere in the Gaudiya sampradaya has ever said that males ar eunable to serve as females in rasa, as far as I am aware. if even one acharya has said this, then please tell me who they are and present their words on this subject. The whole point of raganuga-sadhana is to serve Yugala-Kisora as female manjaris in rasa, at least if that is what you desire. The example was given of several Gosvamis and Acharyas, they were all "males" who worshipped Radha-Krishna as females. Are you saying, thus, that they were not males? By the way, see Srila Prabhupada's words in the Introduction to 'Teachings of Lord Caitanya': "However, Lord Caitanya's greatest gift was His teaching that Krsṇa can be actually treated as one's lover. In this relationship the Lord is so much attached that He expresses His inability to reciprocate. Kṛṣṇa was so obliged to the gopis, the cowherd girls of Vṛndavana, that He felt unable to return their love. "I cannot repay your love," He told them. "I have no more assets to return." Thus devotional service is performed on this excellent platform, and knowledge of the devotee's relationship to Kṛṣṇa as lover and beloved was given by Caitanya Mahāprabhu." According to you we must ignore this "greatest gift" simply because, again according to you, "Jiva goswami is speaking about males being unable to serve as females in rasa." "If we want real transcendental love, we have to transfer our love to the supreme lovable object — the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the basic principle of Kṛṣṇa consciousness." And how do we do that? Sadhana. And let me also remind you of the quote that started this whole sub-discussion: "One should also always meditate upon the affairs between Radha and Kṛṣṇa in the transcendental world. One should think of Radha and Kṛṣṇa twenty-four hours a day and eternally engage in Their service ... By following the mood of the associates and friends of Radharaniī, one can ultimately achieve the perfectional stage and be transferred to Goloka Vṛndavana, the transcendental abode of Kṛṣṇa." - TLC Chap. 31 It was certainly irrelevant to what Jiva Gosvami was speaking about, but only because you wished to present a fanciful idea that only those without male bodies may enter that mode of worship. I haven't heard of Arjuna being married to Krishna anywhere in any sastra whatsoever, have you? If raganuga-sadhana is beyond our experience, then why did all the Gosvamis urge all of us conditioned souls to practice it? And which rasa can males only have with Krishna? Those past Acharyas who practised raganuga-bhakti in manjari-bhava certainly worshipped Krishna as females. Those Acharyas such as Gauridasa Pandit and Hridaya Caitanya worshipped Krishna as "small boys" because they were aspiring to attain sakhya-bhava. You become what you worship. Does that make sense to you? They have presented their "minds" in their books, and I am simply trying to read what they have written in their books. By the way, Sri Caitanya mano 'bhistham. Rupa Gosvami certainly knew Caitanya's mind, and all over his books you find him telling people to worship in manjari-bhava. What does that tell you? It is not for you to judge whether I can understand what they write, as all I have done is present their abundantly clear words. Rather, it seems to be you who cannot understand what they say, but instead to proceed to present fanciful interpretations of their words which they never actually said. Males cannot worship in the moods of females? Arjuna had the same rasa as the Queens of Dvaraka? Corking about sthayi-bhava? And then you say I cannot understand? Well... I never said it was. Ragatmika-bhakti and raganuga-bhakti are two entirely different things, you know.

Shiva, I am aware that you have participated in several discussions along these lines before, and in each and every one of them adequate evidence was presented to show that the path of raganuga-sadhana is actually mental-sadhana as far as lila-smarana goes. I do not know why you do not accept the various scriptural quotes that back this up (never mind the actual directions of Mahaprabhu!) but please do not waste my time here.

Shiva, Jiva Gosvami is pretty clear in saying that hearing (or worship) of secret Gopi-lila is not for those who are in the moods of father, son and servant because it would be contrary to their moods. Why would it be contrary to their moods? Because, as I said, they will focus on bala-lila, or some other lila that is specific to their aspired bhava. I couldn't really care what you think he is "alluding" to, I am much more interested in reading his statement in the proper context. As I said before, the English is abundantly clear and does not need interpretation. I've addressed this before as well. Male transformations refers to experiencing lust as a result of hearing gopi-lila. This is an adverse reaction, and thus this hearer should not continue hearing gopi-lila.It was your idea that males are not eligible for worshipping Radha-Krishna in the mood of a female, I have never heard that stated anywher ein all the Gaudiya literature that I've read, have you? As far as "doing," no one has advised not to do it. I have already given clear directions from Rupa Gosvami on this. Don't make me repeat them. As far as instruction, I have never presented myself as an instructor anywhere, do you think I have done this? Funny how you are also trying to give comment and instruction when you obviously do not understand all the evidence that has been presented? As far as a waste of time, I think not: vikrIDitaM vraja-vadhUbhir idaM ca viSNoH | zraddhAnvito yaH zRNuyAd atha varNayed vA || bhaktiM parAM bhagavati parilabhya kAmaM | hRd-rogam Azv apahinoty acireNa dhIraH || (bhag. 10.33.39) “One who faithfully hears or describes the loving sports of Sri Krishna and the young maidens of Vraja will quickly drive away the heart-disease of lust, become sober, and attain supramundane devotion of the Lord.”

Dear Anadiji, I certainly agree with all that you have said. However, my point was simply in response to Kailasa's argument that the soul fell from Goloka. As far as I know, no one from any other sampradaya accepts this particular idea, and to prove this would require sastric quotes. We cannot present Prabhupada's or Bhaktisiddhanta's purports to other people and expect them to accept it as evidence. It was Shishir Kumar Ghosh, the editor of the Amrita Bazaar Patrika, I believe. Other people may agree with this praise, but I do not think a compliment of a materialist is a pointer towards Srila Bhaktivinoda's actual position. I hear that several schools hold that Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraga Gosvami was actually the Seventh Gosvami. I have no idea why they think like that, it may be true or not I don't know. Anyway how it is commonly that the Gosvamis were six and so I accept that on my head. Oh you live quite far. /images/graemlins/frown.gif I live in North London, about 20-30mins drive from Bhaktivedanta Manor.

Could I ask a favour from our learned members here? Can you kindly study the ideas, practices and precepts of raganuga-bhakti before attempting to discuss it? Thank you.

Excuse me, here was I thinking that that the nine forms of devotion are all ways in which we can worship the Lord. Sravanam, kirtana, smaranam, padasevanam, arcanam, vandanam, etc., these are not ways in which we worship Krishna? Very strange. The English is clear. We already have problems with a non-English speaker (Kailasa) so it would be nice if the English is clearly readable. Please try to read the original simple English and not impose one's own interpretations onto it. The meaning is clear. Very good. Only females are eligible to enter upon the path of raganuga-bhakti. I'm sure this will be a very popular idea with the feminist class of ISKCON. Right. And did you know that the very first lesson that Krishna preaches in Bhagavad-gita is that "you are not the body"?By the way, do you even see the illogic in your words? We have already established that the rasika pastimes of Krishna are meant to eradicate lust, so if a sadhaka does not get turned on by rasika-lila, he's quite eligible to hear and relish the sports of Krishna. Also, are you aware that a large number of Gosvamis and past acharyas for the most part were males who worshipped Radha-Krishna as females? Rupa Gosvami, Sanatana Gosvami, Raghunatha das Gosvami, Krsnadasa Kaviraja, Visvanatha, Narottama, these are all "men" who worshipped in the mood of a female. Er, well yes, that is actually what Jiva Gosvami is saying. He is saying that if one wants to enter upon the path of vatsalya or dasya-bhavas, then the rasika-pastimes are not suitable hearing. For vatsalya-upasakas they will take delight in bala-lila. Sakhya-upasakas will take delight in "cowherd" lila. This is obvious. What is sadhana, service and worship? I cannot believe I am hearing this. The points that have been established so far are about raganuga-sadhana and vaidhi-sadhana. Rupa Gosvami says "pick whichever you like" depending on what you want to achieve. Er, yes it does, because Jiva Gosvmi (and Rupa Gosvami for that matter) are describing the path of sadhana, not sadhya. You seem to have got your terms a little mixed up here. Sadhana is sadhana, and sadhya is sadhya.

It was not a very good allegory. Why is it only possible for me to date the boss of Wal-mart if I am an employee? Are you saying that only Wal-mart employees can date their bosses? /images/graemlins/wink.gif It is quite possible for me to be a Wal-mart "customer," who simply goes into the store to buy a pack of cigaretters, coincidentally meet the boss and ask her out on a date if she is impressed with my looks. OR I can coincidentally happen to meet her in a bar (without knowing she is a Wal-mart boss), pick her up and head back to my place for a night of fun. OR I can meet her simply by chance on the street (again without knowing she is a Wal- mar boss) and I can just attempt to ask her out on a date. Each of the above situations involve a "spontaneous" meeting, subsequent attractiveness and an endeavour to each a certain goal. There are countless other situations in which I can "meet" an attractive female boss of Wal-mart and make her my wife eventually. It is not the exclusive privilege of Wal-mart employees to do that. I jest with you, shiva, because this allegory really is ridiculous and makes no sense in connection with the verse you quoted at the beginning of your post. Let me explain them for you: "In the absence of the necessary constituent elements of the bhakti process (such as anartha-nivrtti, nistha, ruci, etc.) one can never become fixed up in their own eternal sthayi-bhava (one of five principle mellows). In the absence of sthayi-bhava and its necessary elements, one can never become situated in their eternal rasa (siddha-deha)." Let me assume that the translation is a correct one, in which case this is backed up by Rupa Gosvami: adau sraddha tato sadhu-sango' tha bhajana-kriya tato 'nartha-nivrttih syat tato nistha rucis tatah athasaktis tato bhavas tatah premabhyudancati sadhakanam ayam premnah pradurbhave bhavet kramah So now what is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta actually saying? Something different? No, rather, he agrees with Rupapada. In the absence of elements such as anartha-nivritti, nistha, ruci, asakti, bhava, etc., one cannot get fixed in their sthayi-bhava. Do you know what sthayi-bhava is? Here is what Srila Prabhupada has to say about it: "By regularly rendering devotional service, one gradually becomes attached to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When that attachment is intensified, it becomes love of Godhead. The basic aspects of prema, when gradually increasing to different states, are affection, abhorrence, love, attachment, further attachment, ecstasy and great ecstasy. The gradual development of prema may be compared to different states of sugar. First there is the seed of the sugarcane, then sugarcane and then the juice extracted from the cane. When this juice is boiled, it forms liquid molasses, then solid molasses, then sugar, candy, rock candy and finally lozenges. All these stages combined are called sthayibhava, or continuous love of Godhead in devotional service. In addition to these stages, there are vibhava and anubhava." - CC Madhya 19.177-180 Therefore, sthayi-bhava is what is experienced at the time of attaining prema, and there are various other tastes that arise when sthayi-bhava is attained. So sthayi-bhava is clearly at an extremely high level of attainment, yet nowhere has anyone said that sthayi-bhava is an "easy" thing to attain, have they? So I fail to see the relevance of this quote to this argument. To me, at least, it seems irrelevant.

Kailasa, I specifically told you to give me sastra quotes. You have not given. You have given SP, SBTP, AND SBT quotes. Not sufficient. Sastra quotes, please.

Kailasa, it is clear that you have not even attempted to study the works of the Six Gosvamis, but are intent on maintaining your own conclusions without much evidence. As such, I am loathe to continue this discussion when there seems to be no likely conclusion. However, I will just reply to a few important points. Kailasa, I do not have the time or resources to run around checking up "evidence" from books that you say contain evidence. If you have the evidence, please post it right here so we can all see. In any case, Rupa Gosvami insists that there are two separate paths that awaken two kinds of bhava. I fail to see how Srimad Visvanatha would contradict that. Speak for yourself, only. There are plenty of people who are able to follow the path of raganuga-bhakti. You may not agree with them, but then I doubt that they would agree with your views either. Again, sadhana-bhakti is split into two; vaidhi-bhakti-sadhana and raganuga-bhakti-sadhana. Which "sadhana-bhakti" do you want to follow, that is the question! No Kailasa, I have quoted from Rupa Gosvami and presented evidence from his writings to backup my points. On the contrary I haven't noticed the same courtesy from you. Do you think you could kindly quote verses to prove your points so that this discussion can progress, instead of accusing other people of being speculators? Rather, it seems to be you who does not seem to understand. You clearly said that "worship Vaikuntha" then people go to "forever Goloka." However, the Caitanya-caritamrta (translated by Srila Prbahupada, by the way) clearly states that each form of worship will lead to a different goal. It is not progressive. Is this what you really understand from a verse in which Krishna Himself clearly states that He is not attracted by vidhi-bhakti? Please release yourself from this dubious idea that one must first follow vaidhi-bhakti and then raganuga. It has been already shown numerous times that it is a matter of choice for the sadhaka. If you do not agree, you are not rupanuga. By the way, can you show me where Narottama das Thakura says such a thing? I am sure that you agree with Rupa Gosvami, that is why you are continually establishing deviant ideas that have been shown to be deviant when his words have been presented quite clearly for the whole world to see. By the way, you did not answer me if Rupa Gosvami is a true guru or not? Simple: Sadhana-bhakti is two types, vaidhi and raganuga. Vaidhi and raganuga both called "sadhana-bhakti." So now raganuga-bhaktas are all sahajiyas? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Kailasa, talking in BIG LETTERS does not prove that you are correct. You have no proof for your ideas and you have not shown any evidence. First find evidence, then speak. Right. Which books of the Gosvamis have you read? I forgot to mention that this girl is an initiated disciple of Sivarama Swami. So even with a "true guru" and a "true parampara," she still didn't have a clue what Mahaprabhu's mission was all about. Kailasa, how do you know if my friends are degraded aparadhis? For a start, you do not know who they are. If you did know them, then you will know that they are neither degraded nor aparadhis. Rather, you are the one who seems to be committing Vaishnava-aparadha by deliberately criticising genuine Vaishnavas who have taken their sadhana with serious committment and devotion. You are not in a position to judge other people unless you are yourself perfect. You haven't even present one argument from sastra to back up what you are saying. Please go find evidence. Yes. Oh right. You have a better understanding of sastra than Tripurari Swami, BA Paramadvaiti, BG Narasingha, and all? if yes, then why have you not shown even one small piece of evidence for your talks? I know for a fact that Rupa Gosvami has never read Srila Prabhupada's books. No. Ramananda Raya is Visakha-sakhi in Vraja-lila. He is Ramananda Raya in Gaura-lila. The point here, Kailasa, is to reach for ragatmika-like feelings one must follow the sadhana path of raganuga-bhakti. There is no other way, no other way, no other way. Nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha. Dear boy write arguments. First you hear of Krsna-lila, then you want to feel like that, so you keep hearing, then you take diksa from guru, then guru will teach you how to train to get feelings of Vrindavana residents, then you progress along this path, and attain the various goals. Then you die, and if successful sadhana has been, you go straight to Vraja. Very simple. Yet Srila Prabhupada himself left Gaudiya Matha and started ISKCON. You thought like this? You cannot be an authority in determining who is a true follower of Srila Prabhupada. Anyway, none of my business, I am only interested in productively discussing philosophy here. Are you saying that the Gosvamis are crazy? Kailaa, I'm happy to continue this discussion if you manage to bring sastric or Gosvami quotes to prove your points. I am not happy to continue if you endlessly claim to have evidence, speak rudely about other people, and contradict yourself. If I had time, I could show you each and every fault in your argument and how you are contradicting yourself, but alas, I have little time!

The English is quite simple to understand. How did you get that from what Jiva Gosvami said? Read it again: "However, these secret sports are not to be worshiped by those who experience male transformations in their senses, or by those who are in the moods of father, son and servant, for it would be contrary to their moods." In simple language, Jiva Gosvami is saying that one should not contemplate/hear/talk about the secret sports [of gopi-lila] if one gets turned on by it. Why would anyone get turned on by it? Excessive lust? Shameless projection of mundane desires onto the spiritual? Also, there are those who are not following the madhurya-rasa. There are devotees who may very well be following vatsalya-rasa or dasya-rasa (also sakhya-rasa?) and they will not take delight in hearing gopi-katha. In the case of a vatsalya-upasaka, he would take more delight in hearing about Krishna's bala-lila rather than kisora-lila. This is understandable, not to mention plain as day. If you carefully read that quote again, you'll find he says no such thing. I think this is your own interpretation. Er well, that's the whole point? Those who run the risk of falling victims to their senses should not bother following that path in the first place? This also means that for those who actually can hear krsna-lila without getting disturbed should by all means do so and partake of the sweet joy therein? Unfortunately, your quotes from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did nothing for your argument. Rather, if you had a proper understanding of raganuga-bhakti, you'll find that those quotes more or less prove my points.

The point here, shivaji, is that if Kailasa wants to prove that the souls fell from the spiritual world, he will need to provide scriptural quotes to that effect. Simply quoting from the commentaries of certain acharyas is insufficent. What would a Sri Vaishnava think of such one-sided arguments, for example?

Who in their right mind would not choose the path of raganuga-bhakti? karma, tapa, yoga, jJAna, vidhi-bhakti, japa, dhyAna | ihA haite mAdhurya durlabha || kevala ye rAga-mArge, bhaje kRSNe anurAge | tAre kRSNa-mAdhurya sulabha || (cc 2.21.119) “Sweetness is very difficult to attain through fruitive activities, austerity, yoga, intellectual speculation, vidhi-bhakti, recitation of mantras or meditation. The sweetness of Sri Krishna is easily attainable only for the one who affectionately worships Him on the path of raga.” And let's not forget what Krishna says: sakala jagate more kare vidhi-bhakti | vidhi-bhaktye vraja-bhAva pAite nAhi zakti || aizvarya-jJAnete saba jagat mizrita | aizvarya-zithila-preme nAhi mora prIta || (cc 1.3.15-16) “Everyone in this world worships Me through vidhi-bhakti. Vidhi-bhakti has no power for attaining the feelings of Vraja. The devotion of the world is mixed with knowledge of My divine prowess. I do not delight in love diluted with prowess.” It really all depends on what you would like to attain. Would you like to attain Narayana in Vaikuntha? Then by all means, follow the path of vidhi-bhakti on the authority of CC Madhya 24.87. If you would like to attain Krishna in Vraja, then the way to attain this goal is to follow raga-bhakti on the authority of CC Madhya 24.85. So yes, the aspirant is given a choice what he would like to attain, and he must use his own intelligence in this matter. No one else can make this decision for him. The point here is, how to attain that level? By following it, of course! One does not attain a BSc. in Mathematics without enrolling on the appropriate course! In this way, posting that quote from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati has defeated your own arguments. Read what he says again: "Devotees who are still on the platform of following regulated scriptural injunctions (vaidha-bhaktas) cannot yet understand anything about the exalted stage of the raganugas, practitioners of spontaneous devotional service." This is common sense. Those following the path of vaidhi-bhakti would tend to absorb themselves in Narayana-seva and aspire to enter into those Vaikuntha pastimes. It is common sense that they would not have a clue about the raganuga path, because the raganuga path is all about Krishna in Vraja. Of course, they would understand it if they follow it and learn about it.

Thank you very much for this, Anadiji. Where are you staying in England?