mud

First of all, thanks for actually starting the book Sonic. I know that you have a tendency to find fault and so this might be a good opportunity to check that tendency and step back and listen to what the author has to say. Think about it AFTER you read it, not during every word, every sentence. Your orientation towards critical, nitpicking, picking apart, etc. takes you way beyond being an analytical thinker to the point where you manifest a kind of bizarre "grumpy old man" quality, with the stubborness of the greatest of donkeys. It only demonstrates that you have reached a conclusion before you started and therefore the font even bothers you! Just give it a try... Read the whole thing, let some in, play around with it in your head for a while and then come visit after a few days of contemplation.

 

If my suspicion that you will not do that is justified, I want to thank you for not degrading the dialog into wild speculation and rumors of what you think about sastra or people who speak on sastra... At least for this one post .

This statement needs to be clarified.

What is meant in this statement by Srila Prabhupada is that Lord Brahma in his relative position as Lord Brahma is in sakhya-rasa with Krsna.

Okay, I know you've been going with this "relative" rasa idea for quite a while. Maybe this idea merits some discussion. In this instance you are clarifying the definite words of Prabhupada because you find contradiction between guru and param-guru. Generally in such cases we try to clarify our understanding, rather than the guru's words. So, in that spirit:

Brahma is directly shaking hands with Krsna, so I don't know if this could be called an "external" or "relative" relationship. True, it is in relation to his duty in the material world (creating it!), but I think it is significant that Brahma is directly relating with Krsna here. Also, Brahma's relationship during Krsna's vraja pastimes is in relation to the sakha's.

 

 

So, the Gaudiya parampara is about the internal, eternal rasa of the spiritual master, not about his rasa involving his external functions in relation with the material energy.

While it is true that the activities of the siddha's are difficult to understand, I think your introduction of some concept of "external" rasa is a major stretch. The acarya's don't have a rasa with the material energy! If anything, some of their internal spirit MAY on very rare occasions, come out. But to generalize the whole of their "material" personality as being differen from the internal rasa gives us absolutely no evidence that we can base things on.

 

 

This is a good example of the situation of Srila Prabhupada as well.

Externally, to do his preaching work he was in the sakhya-rasa much like Lord Brahma is.

The external activities cannot change the internal bhava. It sounds like you are saying everything to do with the material world has some sort of masculine "rasa" to it. If so, is BSST manifesting the external bhava of a Nrsimha bhakta because he was fierce in his preaching? And if so, what external rasa designates one's internal rasa? If you do "masculine" work in the material world are you automatically feminine in Goloka? I ask these crazy questions because you have given no solid evidence to tell us why Prabhupada's internal rasa is that of madhurya despite what you call his deference towards sakhya in "material" preaching work.

 

He did not manifest his internal heart of hearts but showed the mood in which he carried out his preaching work in the material world in a male body.

???????????????????????

 

Regarding Prabhupada and BSST seeing Brahma differently, this could be an instance like has been described in Babhru's book and suggested by Tripurari Swami of two disciples seeing the guru (in this case the head of the sampradaya) as manifesting their personal ideal. What cha think? That's a nice little harmonizing thought eh?

DUDE! (I'm sorry, Pra-dude)

Now I know that you are just trying to drive me crazy.

 

 

We don't need signs to figure out his place of bhajan.

We have written and spoken words to confirm that.

 

now check this out:

 

 

I am not looking for words from Srila Prabhupada but for signs.

Read the signs and there is no need for the words.

 

 

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone who knows the glories of madhurya-rasa would settle for anything less.

But this is a statement of bhava (some kind).

 

Otherwise "less" is a mundane understanding. Every perfected soul will think their relationship with Krsna is perfect, because it IS perfect FOR THEM.

 

Radha kunda is at the foot of Govardhan.

What is your point? Prabhupada did not request at the end of his life to pass from the world at Radha-kunda, the "holiest" of holy's and the place of madhurya, etc. that you are suggesting he was internally cultivating. Why? For that internal pursuit he could have attained the ideal by leaving at Radha-kunda. Externally (for preaching) he could have made a major statement, something like taking it out of the "grip of immoral men". Imagine, a samadhi of Prabhupada at Radha-kunda and the dent that would have made by Sarasvati Thakur's lineage. But what do we have? Prabhupada's samadhi in Raman-reti, and the great Krsna-Balaram mandir which has successfully popularized that part of Vraja.

 

He was teaching by example that those who are in pursuit of madhurya-rasa will go bathe in Radha kunda.

 

Did you know you were in pursuit of madhurya-rasa when (if) you bathed there? I didn't! I knew that bhakti was hard, Sri Radha was most merciful, and hopefully I would get a drop of prema by taking a dip in her holy kunda. I wasn't advanced enough to consider my rasa. I think he was teaching to iskcon that "you need all the help you can get, go on pilgrimage". After all, it is the holiest of places.

 

If one is thus constantly engaged during his lifetime, after giving up the body he will return back to Godhead to serve Śrī Rādhā in the same way as he contemplated during his life on the banks of Rādhā-kuṇḍa.

Besides the multitude of other signs (and words), here is another.

 

Note that Prabhupada spent his final days in Raman-reti where the cowherds play eternally, and that he desired to go to Govardhan where the priyanarma sakhas and the sakhi's attend to Radha and Krsna. He could have requested to go to Radha-kunda, no?

 

See guys, Radha kunda is a magical, mystical, wonderful pool that has a unique power of transforming anyone who bathes in those waters into a gopi.

 

Anyone who bathes in that pool is surely in pursuit of gopi bhava or otherwise they wouldn't dare bathe in those sacred waters.

I agree with you entirely that Radha kunda is a wonderful, powerful, spiritual place of pilgrimage. I don't think you have a good argument here though. Prabhupada is doing as any acarya would do by glorifying the holy place of pilgrimage, and also pointing to the apex of spiritual rasa. But as a sadhaka and acarya it appears more to me that he is setting example, demonstrating the processes of bhakti, etc. That is kind of like saying that he published and commented on Bhagavad Gita, and therefore it is his favorite book. We don't know his internal preferences (bhava) from his speaking about tattva.

 

And I think it is safe to argue that this is how the instructions in Upadesamrta have come across. Everybody I know, including myself have bathed in Radha kunda because it was described as the holiest of holy places and that one would certainly attain prema by bathing there. As a sadhaka, I want that! As a sadhaka-acarya, Prabhupada is teaching that.

 

You have bathed in Radha-kunda, right? Did you immediately poof into a gopi? I went there with the hope that I would immediately poof into a prema-bhakta. Krsna makes us work a little harder than that.

 

But, in the nitya-lila side, yes - a cowherd would not bath in Radha's kunda. In fact, the asta-sakhas have their own kunda's surrounding Syama-kunda, just as the asta-sakhis have their's surrounding Radha-kunda.

 

Sorry, I just don't think you are finding the zinger that you are looking for. Give me a zinger like "I am a gopi" and I'll start to put that on the scale and weigh it as counter-evidence.

 

what was he supposed to say?

 

Someone asks Prabhupada directly if he is a cowherd boy... He could have said anything! He could have said NO! He could have said "that is a stupid question that you are not advanced enough to ask!" He could have said "no, I am a Rupanuga, which means all manjari's". I think you deserve the C'MON! Like mine is an unreasonable irrational reading of the conversation!? The fact that he answered the way he did is actually quite interesting AND in my estimation another indication of his "liking" of cowherd boys.

To me, this

Prabhupada answered, "I don't know who I am but I like cowherd boys.

carries more weight than this

 

At that time, I was looking right in his eyes. The way he said it and the way he looked, made me think, "He really knows."

One is another suggestion of Prabhupada towards sakhya, while exhibiting some humility and avoiding elaboration amongst diciples. The other is disciples making a claim and that suggestion being reinforced by sentiment. Nothing wrong with sentiment towards advanced sadhus, but I find Prabhupada's own suggestion more compelling.

 

Beyond that, we know that he also wrote in his prayers to the lotus feet of Krsna that Radharani was his guru.

 

I guess you just can't imagine that to be any sort of madhurya-rasa sentiment?

I actually see it as a priyanarma sakha sentiment because this commentary on Prabhupada's prayer from Tripurari Swami makes so much sense to me:

 

Here Prabhupåda implies his connection

with Rådhå’s group and Lalitå-sakhî, in whose

service Nayana-mani mañjarî is situated. In effect

he says to Krsna, “My Gurudeva, who represents

Srî Rådhå, has now appeared as a great preacher in

Mahåprabhu’s sankîrtana movement.” Prabhupåda

tells Krsna that “Nayana-mani mañjarî has given me

an order that I must fulfill. However, I cannot do it

without your help. As I have pointed out earlier, it

will be good for you if you please Rådhå. This is my

advice to you. Therefore, if you give me the sakti to

fulfill her order, she will be pleased and you will attain

piety.”

It is included in the booklet we're discussing. You are reading the book???

 

This pre-occupation with his personal rasa is for someone with too much time on his hands.

I thought the best use of time was in cultivating bhakti? Exploring the rasa of an acarya just seems like the best use of too much time. You're right, I should get back to all my mundane concerns...

 

But if you think that this is speculation or the business of neophytes, I trust you'll take your advice and not participate anymore? Or, you could join the gopa bhava club -

 

No, seriously. Prabhupada's warnings of jumping ahead of ourselves are hopefully a time limited instruction; I say hopefully because I think he expected us to advance to a point where we could one day discuss such things in the company of advanced sadhaka's for our spiritual enrichment.

 

But that aside, you most definitely are a monkey's uncle and I think Prabupada would be proud of you for disproving Darwins theory--kind of.

 

Now I am not related to any monkeys, either backwards, forwards, or sideways in my family line, so I acknowledge that we could be speaking different languages.

NICE!!!! I tried, but this joke you just NAILED!

Hey, is Madhuvac like some kind of honey nectar vacuum?

 

Well, I was in ISKCON for several years.

If that isn't a revelation of madhurya-rasa, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

 

You have "Prabhupada said".

I thought that evolution worked in the opposite way, that we came from the monkeys... I guess your descendents are proving the current theory wrong!

 

That is nowhere near a revelation of madhurya rasa. As others have suggested several times, as the book suggests, all gaudiya vaishnava's in our sampradaya are followers of Rupa. This does not necessitate madhurya rasa. The evidence we have of Prabhupada's relationship with Rupa Goswami while living at Radha-Damodara was in relation to preaching (Prabhupada spoke about getting encouragement by Sri Rupa in dreams to carry out his preaching mission.) Bhajan to Rupa Goswami does not mean madhurya rati and your evidence does not support your specific claim. On the other hand, "Prabhupada said" A LOT and was very specific about sakhya.

 

So let's grow up, out of this monkey's uncle business and start using our finer human intelligence.

 

In the conversation where Sridhar Maharaja gave the explanation of veiled madhurya-rasa I didn't hear any coercion or extortion going on.

 

In fact, the very insinuation that that Sridhar Maharaja succumbed to pressure and coughed-up another explanation to satisfy disgruntled followers of Srila Prabhupada is just quite laughable as far as I am concerned.

 

I would be glad to look at the evidence.

I haven't seen any.

Just claims.

 

Sonic Yogi, do you read what people post?

 

 

This supposition is mischievous, and those that will make this mischief out of my statement regarding the delegation of Nityananda entering him will diminish faith.

 

 

Sakhya-rasa is a very small thing? What is this?

 

Look at the evidence. Sridhar Maharaj is frustrated because people have some complaint about his opinion. He is preaching against their idiocy. Succumbing to pressure is your reading, and if you have experience of Sridhar Maharaj you should know that he is a harmonizer, not someone who could be controlled by neophytes, but rather a well-wisher. He gives another way that people could consider Prabhupada's rasa because they had mundane vision of the thing, that it is lower, etc. Despite his own clear opinion expressed several times he says "well, here is another way you could think about it". What a wonderful sadhu, teacher, guru. If you are not satisfied he uses his divine wisdom to help you see it another way.

 

The paradox that I was speaking of was not that Srila Prabhupada does not want to serve under his Guru, but that if he truly wants to serve closely, then how is it that he is in a separate camp (yes, even priya-narma sakhas are one step distinguished from manjaris)?

In this discussion it seems like we are coming up with a pretty consistent contention of the idea that sakhya and madhurya don't mix, that there is a large enough distinction between the two that Prabhupada would not be in the "same camp" with his guru, etc.

 

What we do seem to be agreeing on is that Prabhupada expressed his affinity for sakhya bhava enough that it was almost "a given" to many young, inexperienced devotees. We agree that it was "a given" to very experienced sadhus, like Sridhar Maharaj who much more often than not and with much more emphasis than not gave his sakhya opinion of Prabhuapada. So, why don't we consider how sakhya could be harmonized with madhurya?

 

I personally feel that the priyanarma sakha bhava harmonizes many of these arguments about the conflict (not the right word) of two sentiments, sakhya and madhurya. If you haven't read the book, please do, because this is discussed there.

 

Regarding the "same camp as one's guru" idea, I don't see the distance in two of Krsna's devotees participating in the same lila, serving under the same yuthesvari though being in different forms; sakha and sakhi. At some point, this consideration of distance starts to become mundane thinking.

 

Regarding Prabhupada's ecstasy in singing Jaya Radha Madhava; a priyanarma sakha is also arranging for the union of Radha and Madhava, knows Krsna as the gopijana-vallabha, attends Krsna at Govardhan, sees Krsna (and himself) as yasoda-nandana, etc. just like any gopi would. This is not exclusively a madhurya song and can be seen with appreciation from any of the primary braja sentiments.

 

I don't see the conflict.

 

Here is the paradox.

 

Is it feasible to consider that Srila Prabhupada doesn't really want to serve Srila Bhaktisiddhanta in the spiritual world so he is a sakha instead? (I think not).

No, it is not feasible that Srila Prabhupada would not be a servant of his guru in Goloka. And no also, this is not a paradox. As Rupa Goswami explains, there are sakhas with a mix of madhurya sentiment. There are sakha's who are involved in Krsna's love life, just as there are manjari's who are involved from the other side with Radha. These sakha's have relationship, friendship and service to gopi's in assistance to the union of Radha and Krsna.

 

The BBT translation of the "Prayer to the Lotus Feet of Krsna" just does not do it justice, and so I would argue that Sridhar Maharaj's rendering is much more indicative of the true spirit where BBT's is a manipulation which creates different meaning altogether. Bhai is singular, and Prabhupada is talking to Krsna; not to any brothers - as in conditioned souls. If Prabhupada is talking to his "brother", saying that Radha will be pleased with Him if He assists in the service desired by Radha's servant (BSST), it really implies where Prabhupada's bhava is at and where BSST's is at and they work together wonderfully.

 

Then when you add the "playing in the fields of vraja with You, herding cows", is there any doubt? This prayer is personal, and before his preaching campaign started. This is not "preaching" in any way, because he didn't have anyone to preach to yet. He is by himself, utterly dependent, and expressing his feelings to his only support. It's like we are sitting in on a conversation we weren't really supposed to hear and he is telling secrets.

 

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 we want to serve guru in the world beyond this, we better try to figure out where he is! We are not going to the spiritual world to serve Krsna first hand, we are das das anudas. So where is that das that I have come to love and serve in this world, who pointed me to that world? That is what I want to find out, so I know where I'm going after I get tired of serving false masters here.

 

He didn't come right out and reveal it, because in the same spirit of his guru he did not want to cheapen these thing. What is that quote of his when someone asked him who he was in the spiritual world? "If I told you, you wouldn't believe me."

 

To talk about this publicly is a glorification of him. Look at how he is talked about all over the internet right now... Ritvik, Sampradaya Acarya, Prominent Link. I personally think it's nice to hear some more inspirational discussion of Prabhupada than this stuff that has been boring me for so many years...

 

Srila Prabhupada kept it a secret and he had his reasons i.e. the siddha-pranali aversion.

 

BSST was much more outspoken than Srila Prabhupada about siddha-pranali, and yet his disciples have contemplated and put forth an opinion on his svarupa. The importance of the disciples considering the svarupa of their guru is also spoken of in the booklet. Give it a read! I have, and it gives a lot to think about.

 

Siddha-pranali is criticized by our recent acarya's because they preferred the path of revelation through nama-sankirtana over the process of siddha-pranali diksa which could potentially degrade into a cheap process without substantial result.

 

Regarding reading all of Prabhupada's books, Sridhar Maharaj did not have to; he knew the spirit of his godbrother and certainly knew the philosophy contained in his books. Plenty of Prabhupada's disciples who have read all of his books still hold the same feelings about Prabhupada's svarupa.

 

To me, Srila Prabhupada is an incarnation of Godhead - shaktya-vesha avatara.

But, for the sake of discussion I will consider him a parshada instead.

I'm uncomfortable with the way you are speaking about this, and I fear that some confusion here could lead to further misrepresentation of tattva, especially since we are trying to sort out finer elements of tattva. In the booklet, Sridhar Maharaj explains his opinion of Srila Prabhupada being saktyavesa, specifically Nityanandavesa. Your consideration of Prabhupada as parsada "for the sake of discussion" seems strange to me. If not for the sake of discussion, who would you be advocating Prabhupada to be, God?

 

I know Prabhupada gave sannyasa to several Indian born disciples very quickly

Lokanath Swami - 1976

 

In the PL model, it would be seen as most healthy if they were to see, experience, and relate to Srila Prabhupada as their primary link to the parampara, and their main point of surrender. Since the PL model is open to the experiences of Vaisnavas, one espousing that model wouldn't say that those who self-identify as followers of Gour Govinda Swami are in maya. Still, it would be seen as preferable, by those who espouse the PL model, for those who see themselves as primarily followers of Gour Govinda Swami to come to a PL understanding.

This is where PL falls short. No, this is not just falling short, this is just bad philosophy, which puts PL squarely in the apasiddhanta category along with ritvik and Iskcon rubber stamping guru. Thank you for such a clear example.

Prominent Link is just another version of legislating faith. Sraddha is the essence of the relationship with guru; siksa or diksa. You know there is something wrong when ritvik people come on a mission to mold your faith, to bend your faith, to convince you to share their faith - that Srila Prabhupada is the only diksa guru from 1977 on. There is also something wrong with an ecclesiastical body "authorizing" someone to be guru or denying someone of the ability to be guru. Similarly, there is something profoundly wrong with Dhira Govinda or anybody else intruding on a person's sacred faith and either subtley (by saying it is preferable) or grossly (mandating) that Srila Prabhupada is and should be their primary guru. Open to the experience of vaishnavas?? Bull! Open to the experience of vaishnavas means open to their heart, their faith, the faith that moves them. Openness to that faith manifests as an open heart, willing to hear, respect and be moved, maybe even influenced(!) by the beautiful way that svarupa shakti has manifested in their lives. How nice. Just leave it alone, and honor it!

 

It appears BALAVIDYA DASA does not fully comprehend what this actually means

It appears this way to you in your dream.

 

When you wake up from your dream of thinking you have understood this philosophy, you will wake up to the eternal reality that you are conditioned in this material world and have been here anadi. Unfortunately the rest of us are here imprisoned in this particular jail cell with you, and this dreamy philosophy makes me oh so tired. Won't you give a guy a break? Get some sleep pal. yawn. zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz

In GM harinama is not considered diksa (initiation), brahmin is, and therefore # of rounds and reg's are not stressed as much as ISKCON. It could be argued that ISKCON should or Prabhupada did teach that too, but it is not a well developed idea in ISKCON. My opinion is that Prabhupada required the 4 regs at giving of harinama because he wanted westerners to become civilized before receiving diksa - 2nd - brahmin initiation.

Isn't it quite apparent that in most of those quotes Prabhupada is referring to the war between U.S. and Russia? Sorry prabhus, that war is over without any nukes. Sure there may be nukes somewhere/sometime going off but I wouldn't get too caught up in trying to see Prabhupada as a mystic who predicts the future. He has a much more important message.

you can learn best by cooking with an expert. I happen to know one such expert who lives in the s. east. If you have time available he is very enthusiastic to teach. Let me know if you are interested and I could probably hook you up with a good arrangement for learning.