Sonic Yogi

What I do find peculiar though is that the only written sentiments of Srila Prabhupada that we have that seem to show a sakhya-rasa tendency were written on the eve of his launching his preaching mission in the USA. Prior to that time it doesn't appear as if there is much of anything written or expressed by Srila Prabhupada that seems to show him as being inclined very specifically towards the sakhya-rasa. So, in my mind, the link between the sakhya-rasa and the prayers of Srila Prabhupada for the help of Sri Krsna in his preaching mission could show some circumstantial influences that caused Srila Prabhupada to feel an upsurge in sakhya-rasa with Krsna. After all, it does take a rather macho mindset to strike out on a global preaching mission. It would not be so much the mindset of an internally feminine nature. Conquering the world is not the work of girls. It's takes a strong male mentality to strike out on a mission to conquer the world. So, that Srila Prabhupada identified with the male friends of Krsna as he launched his quest to conquer the world is not surprising. Sakhya-rasa is contained within madhurya-rasa. It can be tapped if the need arises.

The year in question was 1981 when I first went to San Jose to work with Sudhira Maharaja in developing the Caitanya Saraswata Mandir where I was the pujari that established regular deity service there as well as managed and set up the kitchen. So, there was a good two or three years there that I was worried if Tripurari Maharaja was going to hang around ISKCON and try to become a guru or if he would do the right thing and take guidance and shelter of Srila Sridhar Maharaja. I was acquainted with Maharaja from time at the Chicago temple when he was somewhat taking over the leadership there from Subha-vilasa the Indian grhasta temple president. One time Maharaja even told me "you are one of my favorite devotees". Isn't that a hoot? No matter what though I have always appreciated Tripurari Maharaja, though some of his ways were a little on the edge. Don't get me wrong. Tripurari Maharaja is one of my favorite devotees.

My Dad died in bed at home. At death, his body didn't go anywhere. It stayed right there in bed. The soul left and went wherever the Supersoul sent it. If the body leaves the soul, then my Dad's body would have left the bed and his soul would have still been there attached to his oxygen bottle.

I wonder if he ever follows this forum. It's a rather harsh arena at times. I don't see that much more new evidence either way will be discovered. About all there is to know about any revelations Srila Prabhupada might have written are already well-known. What is the question is the reason, the motivation, the conditions etc. etc. as to why Srila Prabhupada wrote what he wrote. I am almost positive that there is a tape somewhere where Sridhar Maharaja said that it could be that Srila Prabhupada was possibly concealing parakiya-rasa and showing some sakhya-rasa out of regards for Lord Nityananda who's mercy he needed to preach to the fallen souls of the world. So, the words are there, but the depth of why and how they were said is something that we can only guess and disagree on. In guru-tattva there are so many possibilities that all can be simultaneously true at the same time.

Swami B.G. Narasingha Maharaja http://gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/nmj_articles/sp_song_purp.html

That of course is a lie that you cannot support with shastra.

According to Sarva gattah, the soul is actually in Vaikuntha and is simply projecting his consciousness into the material world. So, if we accept his conclusions then the material body is covering the soul in the spiritual world. This is his theory. In the spiritual world there is a soul covered by a material body and then that body leaves the soul at the time of death. The problem is that there is no material energy in the spiritual world to cover the soul. The Sampradaya Sun publishes that kind of make-believe nonsense. http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/10-08/editorials3466.htm

Madhumangal

Or even Madhumangal: Kṛṣṇa had one brāhmaṇa friend whose name was Madhumańgala. This boy would joke by playing the part of a greedy brāhmaṇa. Whenever the friends ate, he would eat more than all others, especially laḍḍus, of which he was very fond. Then after eating more laḍḍus than anyone else, Madhumańgala would still not be satisfied, and he would say to Kṛṣṇa, "If You give me one more laḍḍu, then I shall be pleased to give You my blessings so that Your friend Rādhārāṇī will be very much pleased with You."

Srila Sridhar Maharaj recalls the depth in penetration of their discussions. So, here in the discussion with Srila Sridhar Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada agrees that the conclusion of the Bhagavad-gita must come to parakiya-rasa.

And after the disappearance of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj, Srila Sridhar Maharaj declared: So, Sridhar Maharaja confirms that the mood expressed in the song "Prayer at the lotus feet of Krishna", was due to the influence of the shaktyavesha nature of Srila Prabhupada. Sridhar Maharaja said Prabhupada made himself empty and invited Krishna to come down and help him with the mission.

Brother? Isn't Balarama the brother of Krishna? Nityananda the same Lord Balaram? So, if Prabhupada was shaktyavesha of Nityananda, then referring to Krishna as "brother" and telling him "you will get lucky only if Radharani is pleased upon you", seems to be a strong indicator that Sridhar Maharaja was right about him being shaktyvesha of Nityananda and this little song by Prabhupada seems to show that. Sridhar Maharaja said that shaktyavesha means that the Lord actually enters into the heart of the devotee and does his deeds. So, if Nityananda had descended as an avatar into the heart of Srila Prabhupada, then of course some sakhya-rasa sentiments would be prominent in the person of Srila Prabhupada at that time. So, Prabhupada refers to Krishna as "brother" and teases him about getting lucky only if Radharani is pleased upon him. Sounds like something only Lord Balaram could say.

We have proven on a number of occasions that Srila Sridhar Maharaja was lied to by the senior men who went to him after the passing of Srila Prabhupada on the recommendation of Srila Prabhupada. Sridhar Maharaja supported the zonal acharya fiasco because he was told by the senior disciples of Srila Prabhupada that they were appointed as zonal acharyas by Srila Prabhupada. How many times do we have to tell you that? Later, Sridhar Maharaja decided that it was not possible that Srila Prabhupada appointed them as zonal gurus and withdrew all his support for that system. On this issue you are way off. You need to get your facts straight before you go making such ignorant remarks.

As an example of how we can take one statement by the acharya and wrongly deduct some conclusion about his rasa with Krishna, we can look at the dedication at the beginning of Krsna Book. In this statement by Srila Prabhupada would could deduct that Srila Prabhupada's relationship with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was in vatsalya-rasa as Srila Prabhupada referred to him as the "eternal father". If we wanted to get carried away we could deduct that in Krsna-lila Srila Saraswati Thakur must be in vatsalya-rasa and Srila Prabhupada must be his child in Vrindavan. So, it is easy to get carried away with speculation if we look at isolated statements without considering the total body of evidence. There are no snippets that give the complete picture. We have to look at all the available indicators and possibly make a judgement based on that.

That is the same way I understood it. At least I am not alone in this world.

Don't ignore that Sridhar Maharaja said "his present position". Sridhar Maharaja was designated "Bhakti-rakshaka". So, if Srila Prabhupada was trying to conceal his madhurya-rasa and manifest some sakhya-rasa for his global preaching rasa, then Sridhar Maharaja would be the last one to interfere with that. Take note, Sridhar Maharaja said "his present position" was sakhya-rasa and not his eternal position. His "present position" at that time was as a shaktya-vesha avatar of Lord Nityananda. His eternal position in Krishna lila could be something else. Are you sure you really want to debate with me? I have been debating on these forums for several years. I might shatter some of your notions.

That is just a snippet. I am sorry, but I heard him say things that were not so definite. On this matter, I am not accepting a snippet. Please post all the statements Sridhar Maharaja made on the subject and not just a few words that support your belief. He said things that made exception to this statement. Little snippets can never be conclusive without the total body of statements.

You seem like a very nice devotee and kind person, so I will I reserve my most cutting comments. But, factually, where in the instructions of Guru and Gauranga do we get any instructions that we should try to sort out the mysterious and esoteric rasa of the acharya that he seemed to want to keep secret? If Prabhupada wanted his disciples to know his rasa and his identity as a parshada wouldn't he have just come out and revealed it? If it is so mysterious and secretive, then should we really try to sort it out and post it publicly?

What I would say is that sadly all this discussion of rasa of the acharya is sorrowfully tied into the siddha-pranali system and Srila Prabhupada avoided it, negated it and keep it a well kept secret. OK, so now let's all take up the siddha-pranali concept. Ultimately, none of it is up for debate or discussion. It is a private matter between the guru and disciple. Hence, I prefer to see Srila Prabhupada as an incarnation of Godhead and not really come to a solid conclusion about his rasa with Krsna as a parshada. I really don't know for sure and I don't think anyone knows for sure. Srila Prabhupada kept it a secret and he had his reasons i.e. the siddha-pranali aversion.

That is an opinion that cannot be confirmed by any documented statements of Srila Sridhar Maharaja. I have been pondering this question since 1975. It's not something that I just started to think about since Babhru prabhu wrote his highly controversial booklet and posted it on the forum.

I heard all these arguments for sakhya-rasa back in the early eighties. Bhakti Sudhir Maharaja was the first devotee in the movement to start talking and preaching about this subject. It was during that time I was with Sudhir Maharaja that I had my dream referred to in an earlier post on this topic. Most all these arguments for sakhya-rasa were originally made by Sudhir Maharaja back in the early 80's. I heard all the tapes and talks of Sridhar Maharaja on the topic and I know for certain he did not give a final decree on the matter of Srila Prabhupada's rasa. Personally, I don't accept the conclusion of anyone who has not read very closely all the writings of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Sridhar Maharaja did not read all the writings of Srila Prabhupada. He heard a couple of songs Srila Prabhupada wrote and noticed that he installed Krsna-Balarama on the central altar at Krsna-Balarama Mandir. Sridhar Maharaja also said that Srila Prabhupada might have installed Krsna-Balarama on the central altar out of appreciation for the power that Lord Nityananda gave him to preach to all the fallen souls of the world. Back then I was hoping and praying that Tripurari Maharaja would give up trying to become an ISKCON guru and just take shelter of Srila Sridhar Maharaja. Eventually my prayers were answered and one of my favorite Godbrothers Tripurari Maharaja gave up trying to become a voted in guru of ISKCON and took guidance from Srila Sridhar Maharaja. I was very happy about that.

Can anyone please supply a good answer to this question?