Sukhada

 

 

I personally see these parshada descriptions as posts and positions.

 

I don't believe that ONE Rupa Manjari is appearing in millions of universes at the same time and yet remains in Goloka at the same time.

 

I believe that millions of souls have the position of Rupa Manjari in the millions of universes where the pastimes of Mahaprabhu are adventing.

 

I don't believe that one soul other than the Vishnu and Shakti tattva can manifest millions forms at the same time.

 

Uddhava is a post, a generic rasa with Krsna.

Many living beings attain to and pass beyond the position of an Uddhava.

 

After advancing beyond the Uddhava platform the living being will enter into vatsalya-rasa and then madhurya-rasa and get a position as a gopi at the summit of perfection.

 

But, there will always be a living being coming up and fit for the Uddhava post to play the role in the pastimes of Krsna.

 

OK, I know my ideas are a bit radical.

But, that is my thinking.

 

This is just disgraceful for a disciple of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Where is there sastric support for this? I can only hope that you don't really believe it, but if this is the case, I don't know why you are wasting our time with these ideas.

 

Jiva Goswami says in his commentary to Brs. 1.2.306 the following:

 

"There are two types of identification: thinking oneself different

from those persons, but in a similar role such as a parent; and

thinking oneself to be Nanda or Subala. The second type is not

suitable: one should not think of oneself as Nanda or Subala. Just

as worshipping the Lord thinking that one is identical to Him is

not proper, similarly, worshipping His associates while thinking

that one is identical to them is not proper, since it will be later

explained that those forms are eternal like the Lord’s form. One

will commit offense to those associates through thinking of occupying

their identities."

 

NOD ch. 42

 

 

 

So, the statement "may develop into conjugal love" seems to be referring to the person and not the different kinds of rasa.

 

If it was not in reference to the devotee, then it would most certainly develop into conjugal love as far as the different kinds of rasa and their stages of intensity are concerned.

 

"It may develop into conjugal love."

 

Since when is a person referred to as "it"?

 

It is quite clear from shastra that Narada was a conditioned jiva in a previous life.

So, if in fact he is classified as svarupa-shakti, then he attained that position from the ranks of the conditioned souls.

In CC Srivas Pandit (the incarnation of Narada) is said as representing the jiva tattva.

So, I don't think I can agree fully with your point.

 

As well, as far as I know, Radharani is the only gopi that can fully control Krsna.

So, Naradi Gopi not having full control of Krsna is no issue with me.

Certainly, he is not on the level of Radha, but who is?

 

I don't really want to control Krsna.

I am quite fine in letting him control me.

 

I am not out to compete with Radharani just yet.

Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says that Narada is both sadhana and nitya-siddha. Therefore, in one incarnation he has shown the way of vaidhi sadhana over two lives, but he himself in a nitya-siddha.

 

As for Srivasa Thakura, he presides over tatastha-sakti. That doesn't mean he is tatatsha-sakti.

 

As for Radharani being the only one to control Krsna, Narayana Maharaja mentions that as the manjaris are representatives of Radharani, they also control Krsna.

 

Otherwise, this is cute and all, but its really forced. I'd rather take the natural conclusion.

 

So, this pretty much solves the dilemma.

I have often thought that Srila Prabhupada was an incarnation of Narada Muni.

If he is, that is why he can simultaneously be in sakhya-rasa and madhurya-rasa both in different aspects of his personality.

 

 

I think Prabhupada is either an incarnation of Narada Muni or of the type of devotee as Narada Muni.

 

Like Narada, he flys all over the world preaching love of Krsna.

 

Wow, for sure, this is the greatest ideal of a devotee that would be so wonderful to emulate.

 

I guess great preachers like Narada and Prabhupada get the option of tasting all the best rasa?

 

This is the ultimate.

Now, I know that Narada Muni is my role model.

Of course, for some reason I have long thought that anyway.

There can be nothing better than that.

 

I take the dust of the lotus feet of Narayan Maharaja on my head.

I owe him big time for supplying such marvelous nectar for my scorching soul.

A couple of points to consider here:

 

1. Narada Muni is not jiva-sakti but a manifestation of svarupa-sakti. Although some manifestations of svarupa-sakti have different forms with different rasas, this is not the case with jiva-sakti.

 

2. It is important to note that these different forms (Narada, Madhumangala, etc.) are themselves eternal, so the sthayi-bhava that each has does not change. It is not that Narada transforms into something different and the original form is lost. There is no change since these forms are eternally existing.

 

3. Srila Narayana Maharaja mentions that Naradi gopi cannot control Krsna. She is not a manjari or rupanuga, so from what you've said previously, other reasons aside, I don't think you would find it satisying to think that Srila Prabhupada is Narada Muni/Madhumangala/Naradi gopi.

 

Okay Sukhada, that explains the definition of svarup siddhi, but it sort of dances around the question. How does it explain the fact that, although Gopa Kumar attained a place in the Eternal Realm (Vaikuntha) served with the Narayan Bhaktas (of which there are surely an unlimited number of eternal Narayan parshads) in the form suitable to do so (an eternal form which never needs to see birth, death, old age, or disease), he still moved on to Goloka to another form? That is assuming his four armed form from Vaikuntha changes to a two armed form of a cowherd boy.

Gopa Kumar refused to accept a form like the inhabitants of Vaikuntha although they tried to give him one, reassuring him again and again and "putting forth hundreds of arguments." He kept his body "born in Govardhana."

 

It is clear throughout the story that his sthayi-bhava (although undeveloped until the end of the story) is sakhya-rasa. Here is what Gopa Kumar says before fainting and going to Vaikuntha:

 

"O Sri Krsna, Gopala, Hari, Mukunda! Govinda! O Nanda-kisora! Krsna! O darling son of Sri Yasoda, please show me Our favor! O life of the divine cowherd girls, O Lord of Radhika!"

 

As you can see from this quote, Gopa Kumar is a priya-narma.

 

Remember that rasa is the combination of the sthayi-bhava with all the other constituents of bhava. So until this happens, there is no transcendental rasa.

All glories to his divine service!

I was posting a reply to Narasingh on the O My Friend thread, only to discover that it has been closed. So I thought I'd start a new thread here.

 

What about the story of Gopa-Kumar.

I find it fascinating that contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnavism almost never counts Vaikuntha, Narayan's abode as having much bearing. However, the fact that there are eternal parshads in Vaikuntha coupled with the fact that Gopa-Kumar passed through Vaikuntha on his way to sakhya bhava lila with Krsna, should indicate that svarupa is potentially mutable. Also that there are kundas in Vrndavan dham capabaple of bestowing gopi svarup...

 

It would be better to say that while a svarup may be right for one, another may be changed if it supports Lila.

But think what the svarupa is: one's constitutional position. Thus can you say that Gopa-Kumar attained his svarupa before attaining Goloka Vrindavana? No. Before that point, he was in a perfected sadhaka deha (Gopa Kumar). When he finally attained svarupa-siddhi, he got his eternal name (Sarupa). So as his sthayi-bhava was perfected and he attained prema, he entered Goloka Vrindavana. Furthermore, the story of Gopa Kumar is meant to illustrate the different planes of experience. It is not the general course of sadhakas.

 

So I maintain that the idea that the sthayi-bhava (one of the five primary rasas) changes (is mutable) is not correct (while of course remaining open to compelling sastric evidence to the contrary ).

Thank you, Sonic Yogi. It is nice to see that side of you.

 

My apologies as well to anyone I may I offended.

 

May we all redouble our efforts to engage in sastra-yukti!

In the previous quotes Andy gave from Caitanya-caritamrta, this section of Caitanya-caritamrta is giving an overview of Brs. It is analyzing the development of rasa, not the development of a particular jiva. He quoted:

 

"In that part there is a description of devotional service in neutrality, further development in love and affection (called servitude), further development in fraternity, further development in parenthood, or parental love, and finally conjugal love between Kṛṣṇa and His devotees."

 

The fact that this is not the development that a particular jiva goes through is apparent from this quote (as well the previous quote, which Andy decided was simply elementary teachings):

 

"The next development from santa-rasa is dasya-rasa, which means voluntary offering of some service. Next development is Sakhya rasa, or service in spirit of friendship and well-wisher. The next development is Vatsalya rasa, service as well wisher and affection. The next development is Madhura rasa, service, friendship, affection and conjugal love. So in the Madhura rasa, everything is complete; there is Santa rasa, Dasya rasa, Sakhya rasa, Vatsalya rasa, and Madhura rasa. But each and every one of the rasas is complete in itself. A person in Santa rasa or Sakhya rasa is as good as one in Madhura rasa because in the spiritual world everything is absolute."

 

Simple logic also makes it obvious that this isn't a development that everyone goes through. Given that Yasoda-mayi has eternally been in Goloka Vrindavana, why is she not a manjari by now? Do all jivas develop to manjari-bhava given an unlimited amount of time? If not, why?

 

Beggar's quote of Srila Narayana Maharaja also indicates that rasa doesn't change: "The soul’s relation with Krsna, its name, qualities and all specialities, are already present within.... No type of association can change what is already in the soul."

 

As for the quotes from Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, having a svarupa in Gaura-lila and Krsna-lila is not a change of rasas. Differing opinions of the svarupas in Krsna-lila of devotees in Gaura-lila also does not indicate that these devotees are changing rasas.

Raga bhakti is centered on following in the wake of the bhava of a devotee of Vraja. If that devotee is Prabhupada, one will have to become familiar with his svarupa. One will search for him in earnest in one's bhajana, not though speculation or some artificial process but through sincerity of sadhana and heartfelt chanting of the holy name. And in time Prabhupada's position in the lila will be revealed. At that time, the disciple will also realize his own svarupa and enter the lila as an eternal servant of Prabhupada as he appears in his svarupa. If before all of this a disciple who pays close attention finds external hints inevitably left by the guru (since despite his efforts his bhava will be difficult to entirely conceal), all the better. We know the direction to look. All of this is just basic Gaudiya Vaisnavism as taught by Prabhupada himself, and this is all that Tripurari Maharaja is saying in the foreword. You are making something out of nothing.

 

The external rasa of Brahama idea is kooky to say the least. According to Brihat-bhagavatamrta, the entire darsana that Krsna gave Brahma was internal, not external. He experienced Krsna shaking his hand within his heart.

 

Prabhupada's opinion on Brahma's rasa differs from that of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura because his opinion arises from his bhava. It is not the only point on which Srila Prabhupada differed from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, but such differences are not based on anarthas.

Here is Swami B. V. Tripurari's reply to the article of Jadurani dasi.

 

Q. Jadurani dasi recently wrote an article for VNN entitled “Is Srila Prabhupada in the Highest Rasa?” in which she attempts to refute your article “Prabhupada, Subala, and Sakhya-Rasa.” Have you read it?

 

A. Yes, I just read her article with interest. While Jadurani devi informs us that we are not to conjecture as to Srila Prabhupada's relationship with Krsna, but rather hear from disciplic succession and sastra, she proceeds to conjecture about this very thing herself (while marshaling some sastra in support of her conjecture and citing the opinion of Pujyapada B.V. Narayana Maharaja). She is not to be faulted for this (as she has faulted me) because the use of reason in conjunction with scripture and the words of saints is not what is rejected in the sutra of Vyasa that she cited (tarko 'pratisthanat). The spirit of this sutra is that reason when not supported by sastra is inconclusive.

 

My statement in the article “Prabhupada, Subala, and Sakhya-Rasa” that it is reasonable to conjecture that Prabhupada may be situated in sakhya-rasa (like Subala) is supportable by sadhu and sastra, and it does not involve belittling him in any way whatsoever, as one might think after reading Srimati Jadurani's article. This was the opinion of Om Visnupada Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja. Indeed, I have merely paraphrased his own words, which are full of spiritual reasoning.

 

Scripture says nothing to us that would rule out the possibility that Prabhupada may be situated in sakhya-rasa. Furthermore, a careful reading of my words reveal that I have also said, repeating what I have heard from my siksa-guru, that it is possible that Prabhupada is situated in srngara-rasa, yet owing to his empowerment by Nityananda prabhu and out of deference to him, he veiled his madhurya sentiments, and this empowerment explains why we find expressions of sakhya-bhava in his words and character here and there. Thus I tried to offer a balanced, neutral reply to the inquiry that gave rise to my article.

 

It should be noted that it is possible that one disciple may experience his Gurudeva as a representative of srngara-rasa, while another will experience him as representing Subala in sakhya-rasa. This is discussed in Jaiva Dharma. So, if some of Prabhupada's disciples experience the influence of sakhya-bhava in Srila Prabhupada and are inspired by this, there is no harm. Let their ruci be their guide.

 

It is important in a discussion like this that we do not denigrate something so wonderful as sakhya-rasa. If Prabhupada is so situated, it is not a bad thing. One should be so lucky as to find this kind of guru in our times, a prema-bhakta. If we have taken initiation from a guru situated in sakhya-rasa and we are destined for gopi-bhava, our gurudeva will make all necessary arrangements for us when necessary. Some disciples may be in his group, while others may be recruited by him for the sampradaya in general, and as a dutiful servant he will place them where they need to be to make progress in due course.

 

I am well aware of the opinion of Pujyapada Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja on this issue, and I thank Srimati Jadurani for sharing it in print. It no doubt has merit and is evidence of strong spiritual feeling on his part. This is what we are all after—strong feelings on matters of this nature. However, one of the hallmarks of our tradition is that it accommodates a variety of such feelings.

 

I do not care to debate this issue further, either in private or public. In conclusion, I assure you that if a disciple of Srila Prabhupada is drawn to sakhya-rasa with the sentiment of a priya-narma-sakha, he or she would have no difficulty providing considerable evidence in support of the experience that Srila Prabhupada represents this bhava. The reason for this is that in spiritual life reason and scriptural interpretation ultimately follow feeling (ruci/bhava).

 

Swami B.V. Tripurari

 

Additional notes on Jadurani dasi's article:

 

Srimati Jadurani has said, “Pujyapada Tripurari Maharaja has given a poem about Subala-sakha serving in the forest bowers (kunjas), though he did not give a sastric reference for that poem. A cowherd boy would not sing this song.”

 

Note: This is a verse from Rupa Goswami's Ujjvala-nilamani chapter two, verse 14. In this chapter the extent to which Krsna's friends are involved in madhurya-rasa is explained. Subala's friendly love for Krsna is very much involved in this, to the extent that Rupa Goswami has called it “sakhi-bhava” in his Radha-Krsna Gonnodesa dipika.

 

Jadurani devi: “We do not know of a single instance where an acarya in our Rupanuga line has a different svarupa and service from that of his guru, in whose footsteps he follows.”

 

Note: Prabhupada says in SB 2.9.30 that “Lord Brahma is definitely situated in the humor of friendship with the Lord...It is clearly exhibited herein that Lord Brahma is related to the Personality of Godhead in the transcendental humor of friendship.”

 

We also find that devotees such as Akincana Krsandasa Babaji Maharaja, a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura whom I have been told accepted one disciple before leaving the world, was situated in sakhya-rasa, although his Gurudeva was in manjari-bhava. Sripada Narayana Maharaja personally confirmed this to me when I discussed it with him. He told me that Babaji Maharaja personally told this to him. So there are exceptions to the norm, as in all cases.

 

Jadurani devi said that the gopala-mantra and kama-gayatri are not for any other mood than madhurya rasa. However, Gopa Kumara of Sanatana Goswami's seminal Brhat Bhagavatamrta chanted the Gopala mantra (the gayatri that corresponds with this is kama-gayatri) and attained sakhya-rasa. Sripada Narayana Maharaja himself has explained the possibility of chanting the Gopala-mantra and attaining sakhya-rasa by placing emphasis on the name govinda over gopi-jana-vallabha.

 

Jadurani devi has quoted me thus: “Pujyapada Tripurari Maharaja writes: 'Thus it is reasonable to conjecture that Om Visnupada

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada, who established the worship of Radha Krsna, Gaura Nitai, and Krsna Balarama so widely, was himself influenced by the bhava of a priya-narma-sakha, either directly or indirectly, owing to the influence of his empowerment by Nityananda Prabhu. In the case of the latter possibility, his affinity for madhurya would have been veiled to some extent.' “

 

It is clear from her explanation/refutation of this statement that Jadurani devi has not understood my comments. I have explained them above in paragraphs two and three.

 

Jadurani devi cites Prabhupada's poem aboard the Jaladuta, wherein he appears to aspire to enter Krsna-lila in sakhya-rasa. She says that this need not be construed to indicate that Prabhupada is in sakhya-rasa, because Radharani may also sometimes desire to love Krsna in the mood of a friend. However, although it is true that Sri Radha may feel like this at times, it would in the very least be odd for one aspiring to enter Krsna lila in manjari-bhava to pray like this.

 

Srimati Jadurani's citation of Prabhupada's own explanation of why he established the Krsna-Balarama temple in Vrndavana is telling to the discerning reader. It is less than supportive of her premise. Overall she has done a fair job of explaining the difference between manjari-bhava and the bhava of a priya-narma-sakha. Other than that, the basic thrust of her article as I read it is, “Because Prabhupada must be in manjari-bhava, he can not be in sakhya-bhava, which is different.” She has also given some justification, arguments I am familiar with (although inconclusive in my opinion and that of my siksa-guru), as to why Prabhupada must be situated in manjari-bhava.

 

My humble pranams to her grace Srimati Jadurani devi.

 

It was not based on a mundane calculation, as I proved by the purports in my post.

In my opinion, the only thing your purports proved is that you couldn't understand what they were saying. May I humbly suggest that you take your purports to a guru you trust and ask him if they are proving what you think they are? What is there to lose? While you're at it, ask him what he thinks of your idea that Srila Prabhupada might have previously been a cowherd boy and has evolved into a manjari.

 

You said earlier, "He only touched upon the changing of rasas in rare instances, which I provided." I'm curious why, if you think those quotes are supporting the changing of rasas, you think that they support such only in rare instances. The quotations say nothing about only applying to rare instances.

 

As to the story about the cursing of Tulasi, this is not a story which is accepted by the Goswamis. Furthermore, it doesn't prove your point. Where is the changing of rasas? The examples about Jaya/Vijaya and Uddhava also don't prove your point, as they didn't change their rasa either. There is also a verse attributed to Radharani in which she desires to have the closeness that the cowherds have with Krsna in the daytime. And, of course, she didn't change her sthayi-bhava either. So could you please try again at coming up with an example of a devotee changing svarupas (and limit yourself to Gaudiya grantha, please)? Expansions within Visnu and sakti tattvas don't count, by the way.

 

 

Your mundane mind projected and put words in my mouth. I never mentioned that I thought Srila Prabhupada was dissatisfied.

Nice attempt to turn my words against me, unfortunately with less substance. If you are completely satisfied, why change? If one has "The first glimmers of appreciation for a richer deeper mood," how could one not be dissatisfied with one's own less rich, more shallow mood?

 

 

You have a hard time understanding Simultaneous oneness and difference, and how there are exceptions to every rule.

Please enlighten me then, how simultaneous oneness and difference have anything to do with this topic, because I openly admit that I see no connection.

 

As for exceptions to this rule, I'm still waiting for your pramana.

 

 

In that conversation with Hamsadutta, Srila Prabhupada was doing what every good father would do and stick with the general rule so as not to disturb his growing childs mind and keep him fixed on the basics.

Do you have any proof for this, or are we just to take your word for it?

 

Funny he would do so, if he were really in the midst of changing rasas as you suggested. What would be so hard for him to say that the general rule is X, but there are rare exceptions? What would be the big risk?

 

 

And what if Vallabha had become enamored with Krsna? His brothers honored his decision, and would have done so EITHER WAY. Or are you prepared to chide Laxmi Devi for being "fickle"?

If Vallabha had become enamored, all it would have proved is that he hadn't attained prema. Ironically, although Laxsmi desired to have the company of Krsna, the reason why she couldn't is because she couldn't give up the abhiman of being Laksmi. Sorry, no change of rasa there either.

 

 

We are presumably discussing beyond that level now, yet you continue to take a stance as if you are the father and I am the child by only citing one side of the story in order to fulfill your need to be "right".

Which side of the story am I not citing in my need to be right? The side that proves that occassionally devotees change rasas? Apparently my need to look down on people and fulfill my unquenchable need to be right has completely blinded me in this situation, because for the life of me I just am not seeing that other side of the story. Eagerly waiting for you to show it to me.

 

 

How boring. What a bore you are being.

By god, you've really hit a deep fear in me there. I think I had better start using my imagination more creatively in relation to the lila.

 

Have you ever thought about how Goloka Vrndavana accomodates the INFINITE NUMBER OF JIVAS IN THE INFINITE NUMBER OF EARTHS who are uncovering their siddha swarupa? Start there.

I'm really sorry, Andy, but again you're wrong. To be in Goloka Vrindavana, your svarupa must already be uncovered. And that fact that you've used infinite twice does nothing to increase the chance that sometimes people change rasas.

 

 

Then think of how Krsna can expand himself and duplicate any scenario in an ever fresh way to accomodate the UNLIMITED TYPES OF TRANSCENDENTAL DESIRES HIS DEVOTEES HAVE in terms of how they wish to please him.

Yes, I have. But one more "unlimited," has still done nothing to increase the likelihood of changing rasas.

 

 

Add that to all the evidence that alludes to the "other side of the coin" beyond the pablum appropriately fed to neophytes.

I'm really hoping you didn't mean that or don't know what pablum means.

 

 

Then step down from your self-imagined Siksa Guru status, and maybe we have a discussion going.

I'm sorry Sukhada, I don't see this as a valid address, unless the devotee to whom Prabhupada said that to is a liberated, eternally situated devotee. The underlying flow tho this whole conversation is that, as Grace descends, a devotee finds themselves enraptured by a particular bhava and rasa and it is not up to them what "party" they serve with, but that they are accepted into lila and view their position as being their element. They are fully satisfied with the position they have, whether a tree, a flower, an elder, a friend, or a damsel.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you think isn't a valid address. Is it that Srila Prabhupada wouldn't respond subjectively according to different people's interest (to the point of determining what rasa he would say he was in)? If so, I don't think he would either, I was just following Beggar's logic for the sake of argument (to show the flaw in it).

 

Yes, of course and those like the late Gour Govinda Maharaja will not want to appreciate the preaching putting forth sakhya rasa, finding that to be oppressive or maybe the word would be 'repressive'. In other words to hear such a thing would be 'repressive' to the natural flow of their devotional sentiments.

Perhaps, but if he would feel oppressed/repressed it would not be on the same basis as those who see Srila Prabhupada in sakhya-rasa. The preaching that I was speaking about says that it is invalid, a flaw, to think of Srila Prabhupada as a sakha, and that it is not possible according to Gaudiya siddhanta. No one has hammered this on those interested in manjari-bhava. It is not only wrong, it contradicts what Srila Prabhupada himself said.

 

Otherwise, in examples such as Krsnadasa Babaji, Shyamananda Prabhu, and Vrajanatha, they did not feel oppressed to know that their guru had a different sthayi-bhava. Again, I think it is too easy to think of these exalted topics in a mundane way.

 

 

Since I slightly favor madhurya over sakhya, but only on the intellectual plane (being a slave of my senses), that makes it easy for me to retreat to the neutral position. So from that position I very much appreciate the above paragraph. But I know that those who are have some affinity towards manjari bhava will find it somewhat disturbing to think that those in Srila Prabhupada's group are priyanarma sakhas.

The real point is not whether or not it is disturbing, but whether it is true. If it is true, then those who are disturbed are tinged with mundane consciousness.

 

<quote=beggar>I have just read half the essay or booklet. It all seems true to me and the evidence is very strong. But what evidence? Some would say, "the evidence that Srila Prabhupada is a cowherd boy, sakhya rasa." But that would be to objectify Krsna and his pure devotees.</quote=beggar>

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that there is no objective reality, that Srila Prabhupada said that he was in sakhya-rasa because the disciples who he said that to were destined to be cowherd boys? The problem with that theory is that one of the devotees to whom Srila Prabhupada said he was a cowherd boy was not interested in sakhya-rasa then or now. If Srila Prabhupada was responding according to the subjective vision of the disciple, he would have said he was a manjari.

 

This brings up another problem I see with the idea that Srila Prabhupada concealed madhurya-rasa and showed sakhya-rasa in order to supposedly protect the highest thing from abuse. If he showed sakhya-rasa, what would happen to those who were genuinely interested in madhurya-rasa? Wouldn’t this strategy backfire?

 

So what Babhru is doing in the book is actually tatastha vicara, or objectively examining the evidence. Rupa and Sanataana Goswamis found evidence, scriptural and otherwise, to objectively conclude that Nimai Pandita is Radha-Krsna. Is there something wrong with what they did?

 

 

<quote=beggar>I believe that the evidence shows that Srila Prabhupada showed himself externally (or internally if he desired) as a cowherd boy to many of his disciples. Yet I firmly believe that he appeared internally in his swarupa as a very young gopi (manjari) before Sripad Gour Govinda Maharaja. Both are correct. When Sripad Gour Govinda Maharaja said, "Prabhupada is not a cowherd boy! Prabhupada is a gopi!", he was expressing his inner experience and mood. He could not admit that Prabhupada could be a cowherd boy, because for him that would break his mood; it would just be too painful.</quote=beggar>

Yes, that would seem to conform to the subjective vision that Jaiva Dharma speaks about. But it is clear from Jaiva Dharma that the diverse vision of Sri Guru spoken about in that section is a vision prior to attaining bhava. So it represents a general vision in which, because the guru represents Krsna and all rasas are found in Rasaraja Krsna, the disciple sees his guru as representing a particular sentiment that corresponds with the disciple’s developing taste. It does not speak about the personal inner reality of the guru. Furthermore, in this book the student who attained manjari-bhava did so under the direction of a siksa guru in Puri.

 

It is interesting to note that Sripad Gour Govinda Maharaja had a siksa-guru in Puri that he felt Srila Prabhupada had sent to him. I have no doubt that he had a general interest in madhurya-rasa before he met his siksa-guru, but it is not until after his association with Caran dasa Babaji of Orissa that he began giving rasika classes about manjari-bhava. This guru had a big impact on him and he had the utmost respect for him. It is natural and wonderful that Srila Prabhupada would send a siksa-guru to help Sripad Gour Govinda Maharaja in his highest aspiration. This whole "chastity" thing that so many devotees fret about is just an unnecessary mundane conception pressed onto transcendence that betrays a lack of understanding of guru-tattva.

 

 

I remember somewhere Srila Prabhupada spoke or wrote, "the entire Krsna phenomena appears within the spiritual master". So in that way a high guru is like Krsna because for the disciple the entire Krsna phenomena appears within him. So just like the different persons at the Kamsa's sacrificial arena saw Krsna in so many different ways, that is how different persons and devotees saw Srila Prabhupada. Very advanced disciples will begin to get some real indication of their actual sthayi bhava and move in that direction. For us, from the section of ordinary disciples does it really matter exactly how we see guru (how he shows himself) while we are still attached to the mood of the purusa bhava or enjoyer of the material world? It is certainly nothing to quarrel over for that would be an aparadha and only become a road block on the path of Krsna realization. And if there is one thing that Srila Sridhar Maharaja would object to, I am sure it would be that, for he would see it as an example of "creating a disturbance within the higher quarter."

Yes, not only is a “high guru” like Krsna, all gurus are like that. When Krsna says, acarya mam vijaniyan, “Know me to be the acarya,” he was speaking about the kula-guru (family guru), not even the sat-guru. So, as we know from Gurvastakam, the guru has two sides: Krsna and friend of Krsna. As Krsna, the guru can represent all rasas; as friend of Krsna, the guru has a particular eternal svarupa in Krsna-lila. It is this side that Babhru is discussing in the book.

 

One reason why this book is important is that there has been very aggressive preaching for many years that states that it is impossible that Srila Prabhupada could be “only” a cowherd boy. It is not true according to sastra that Srila Prabhupada could not be a cowherd boy, it does not conform with the overwhelming evidence, and it is oppressive to those who have a natural inclination for sakhya-rasa. The time is long overdue for this assertion to be challenged.

 

I think it is also important to stress that Prabhupada’s campaign was very broad. He was recruiting for the sampradaya and thus many devotes of differing potential sentiments came under his shelter. Some are destined to be in his group as priyanarma sakhas while others may be destined to enter other groups as different types of sakhas or manjaris, for example. But it is Prabhupada who will make the arrangement to help those who are not in his group to attain the group they belong in. Thus they too are eternally connected with him, as was Hridaya Caitanya with Syamananda. There is nothing wrong with this. Indeed, we find Narottama dasa Thakura praying for his guru, Lokanatha Goswami, to please deliver him to the group of Sri Rupa, and Srila Sridhara Maharaja liked to cite this example to illustrate this point. There is no need to force Prabhupada into something other than what he himself tells us is his affinity in order to feel connected to him. There is a strong tendency to look at these issues with a mundane eye. It’s really one happy family in Goloka, where priyanarma sakhas like Prabhupada, who take shelter of Subala, have a gopi group leader like Lalita-sakhi as their group leader in terms of their madhurya sentiment. Incidentally, Radha sahasranama tells us that when Radha wants to taste sakhya rasa, she appears as Subala. No wonder they look alike!

 

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-right: 3ex; padding-left: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0">Originally Posted by andy108

What about the possibility that as a cowherd boy in Goloka, he could appreciate from a distance, the mood and sentiments of those more directly and initmately involved in Madhurya seva arrangements. The first glimmers of appreciation for a richer deeper mood.

 

Then on Earth he is exposed to the large variety of confidential descriptions and confessions of the Gopis, sakhis, manjaris, in their writings, keeps their personal company(His Guru), sings their songs, and begins to be highly influenced and desirous of developing that mood, and by virtue he actually IS developing that mood, while engaged in his Iskcon preaching seva.

 

 

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Well excuse me for living, but I have seen worse speculation, and as far as being "absolutely" not in concert with Guru...

 

I understand that it is said that every devotee is happy with their swarupa-siddhi and that there is no difference spiritually.

 

But simultaneously, there is some difference and progression.

 

I still may be wrong, but not unreasonably speculating by a long shot.

 

Krnsa is capable of expanding himself, his dhama, his energies, to accomodate any possibility last I checked.

You were speculating how Srila Prabhupada might have thought, based on nothing but a mundane calculation that because madhurya-rasa is the highest Srila Prabhupada must have been dissatisfied with his rasa and wanted to change rasas. There are two points of apasiddhanta in this speculation: 1) that someone who is situated in their sthayi-bhava would become dissatisfied with it and 2) that the sthayi-bhava can change. Thus you were saying that Srila Prabhupada would think apasiddhanta.

 

By your logic, the whole of Goloka Vrindavana should be filled up with nothing but manjaris by now.

 

The quotations that you posted are an objective analysis of rasa from the standpoint of tattva. They are not outlining the development of a jiva. One does not first attain santa, then dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and finally madhurya. Once the sthayi-bhava is attained, it is sthayi (fixed). Srila Prabhupada addresses this in a conversation with Hamsaduta:

 

Hamsaduta: Suppose someone is situated as Visnuduta. He may change his taste.

Prabhupada: Why he shall change it?

Hamsaduta: He may get a taste for associating with Krsna.

Prabhupada: The change is taking place in this material world. There all tastes are fixed up, rasa, eternal, eternal rasa. Every one of us has a different taste of associating with Krsna, and that will be realized when one is liberated.

Hamsaduta: So that's fixed already.

Prabhupada: Yes. When you are liberated, you will understand in which way you are related with Krsna. That is called svarupa-siddhi. But that is attained when you are actually perfect in devotional service. Just like in our family, we enjoy different rasas. We have got one kind of relationship with wife, one kind of relationship with sons and daughters, one kind of relation with friends, one kind of relationship with servants, one kind of relationship with property. So similarly, Krsna... The whole creation is His family, and He has got relationship in that way. So why the son will change his relationship into husband and wife?

Hamsaduta: I see.

Prabhupada: Yes. Because every relationship is very palatable. The gentleman, the head of the family, his relationship with wife and his relationship with servant is as much palatable. Maybe some degradation, but it is palatable. There is no question of changing. Not that "I am tasting this rasa at the present moment. Then I will get better rasas." No, that is not. Everyone thinks, "My rasa is the best." Although there is comparative gradation, but everyone thinks. These things are explained in Caitanya-caritamrta. Why don't you see?

Hamsaduta: And Nectar of Devotion.

Prabhupada: Yes. Everyone thinks, "My relationship with Krsna is the best."

Hamsaduta: So it's not a matter of aspiring to some...

Prabhupada: No, there is no question of aspiring, because he is already situated in the best of relationship with Krsna. Even the trees in Vrndavana, they want to serve Krsna silently in that way, supplying fruits and flowers. That is their ananda, everyone enjoying the supreme bliss. When Krsna comes, takes a flower or fruit, that is their enjoyment: "Oh..."

 

 

In the Caitanya-caritamrta, Rupa and Sanatana try to convert their brother Vallabha to Krsna-bhakti from Rama-bhakti. He agreed to be initiated into the Krsna mantra, but later that night he stayed up crying at the thought of giving up Rama. He went to Rupa and Sanatana in the morning and submitted a plea to remain in the service of Rama. They become very happy and embraced him, praising him as a saintly devotee whose determination was fixed. When Sanatana told Mahaprabhu about this incident, Mahaprabhu said that he had a similar experience with Murari Gupta. After examining him, he said, “Glorious is that devotee who does not give up the shelter of his Lord, and glorious is that Lord who does not abandon His servant.”

 

We must be careful not to muddy the waters of rasananda with mundane logic. Before one is able to conjecture in line with siddhanta (i.e. before thinking), one must learn to think. For this, one requires a guru to help one understand not only what the scripture says, but what it means.

 

It has been mentioned before, in this thread, that Srila Shridhara Maharaj gives room for possibilities. And as you put it this can be harmonized by the disciples inherent bhava acting as a lens.

 

I have mentioned before that I believe that even if certain members of the greater Vaishnava community may have a difficult time accepting this notion, it may serve a greater purpose to publicly accept it. That purpose being, we must recognize that we cant manipulate our position in the service of the Divine Couple. As Prabhupada is sakha and Saraswati Thakura is manjari, we have to understand that a position will be bestowed upon us (when and if we can be so deserving) depending only upon the sweet will of the Divine Couple, not that by becoming initiated by a Guru of a certain camp in sadhana, one is automatically and mathematically bestowed entrance into the direct siddha svarup camp of the Guru.

 

Divine Grace must be held above all in our quest for the true nourishment of our soul.

Good point.

 

What is so hidden about statements like, "we are Rupanugas?"

Babhru has addressed the contention that one must be in manjari-bhava to be a Rupanuga in the book.

 

Yet it is hidden. It is hidden from the view of those who do not have the sraddha to approach it or those who actually are in a different rasa. Many Iskcon devotees have read Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 1, many times, yet they still have no idea of what is the internal reasons for Mahaprabhu's appearance although it is in black and white directly before them. Srila Sridhar Maharaja explained that not all the followers of 'Swami Maharaja' are Gaudiya Vaisnavas. Is it not reasonable that he would want to keep the most confidential understanding of Rupanuga far away from those who would misunderstand and perhaps abuse it?

I do not think that Srila Prabhupada kept the confidential understanding of Rupanuga from people. I've already said that I think that is a weak argument in light of the fact that the essential understanding of Rupanuga is there in his books. Some details may not be filled in, but that is appropriate given the circumstances. So what is really being kept confidential and avoiding abuse by saying to some of his disciples that he is in sakhya-rasa? Do you really think that this was his motivation behind telling those disciples that? Don't you see how flimsy that contention is? It does nothing to "protect" madhurya-rasa to pose to be in another rasa. If he really wanted to keep madhurya-rasa confidential, why wouldn't he just not talk about it at all?

And then simultaneously he is reflecting the sakhya mood of Sri Nityananda Prabhu, who is Baladeva Prabhu, all the while in his heart of hearts, a Rupanuga in Radha dasyam which is generally hidden from view, except when he becomes stunned in ecstacy while singing, Jaya Radha Madhava.

If you want to hear about Srila Prabhupada being stunned in ecstasy, read the story of Srutakrti in the book.

 

Well, I am not so sure that the situation unfolded exactly as this.

Which isn't surprising since you already said you were in California at the time.

 

 

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

Maybe you should get your hearing checked. He refers to it, and it is confirmed by Narasingha Maharaja, as well as Tripurari Maharaja.

 

 

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.

It's not that he succumbed to pressure. It is that he had a very harmonizing nature and was expert at giving different angles of vision that conform to siddhanta.

 

 

I have just not seen any evdidence to substantiate this theory.

I would be glad to look at the evidence.

I haven't seen any.

Just claims.

Unfortunately you don't seem to accept any evidence except that which arises in your own head.

 

It is not that they don't mix. For me this has never been a question. Mixing is different than being. Sugar and Milk make wonderful things, but Sugar is not Milk. This is the "paradox". Perhaps what we have just witnessed recently (being materially manifest in the line of Mahaprabhu, Shri Rupa, and Siddhanta Saraswati) is just that... the mixing of Sugar and Milk.

Yes. It's not that uncommon though for the guru and disciple to have different sentiments. Think of how Bhaktivinode Thakura even made a point to illustrate it in Jaiva Dharma--Vrajanatha was attracted to sakhya-rasa, although his guru was in madhurya-rasa. It is interesting to note that he saw his guru as being an embodiment of Subala sakha though. Nonetheless, although a disciple may see the guru through the lens of bhava, the guru does have one svarupa in Krsna-lila, and this svarupa doesn't change (and I mention this only due to insinuations by someone else on the thread).

 

And despite claims that Sridhar Maharaja was more or less pressured into saying this, I don't buy it because in the course of this discussion I have not found anyone complaining about Prabhupada being in sakhya-rasa or pressuring Sridhar Maharaja to contradict his previous statements on the matter of Prabhupada expressing sakhya-rasa sentiments.

 

In addition to the answer I gave above, I would like to add that in the excerpt of Narasingha Maharaja that you yourself posted, he confirms that some Iskcon devotees took exception to Srila Sridhara Maharaja's original opinion:

 

Such a statement by Srila Sridhara Maharaja is not to be taken lightly. A short time later there was some objection to Srila Sridhara Maharaja's referring to our Guru Maharaja as being in sakhya-rasa. Some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples for some reason took objection to Srila Sridhara Maharaja's statement. Srila Sridhara Maharaja was shocked by the immaturity of those disciples who objected. The consideration of rasa was obviously not a topic that those disciples were familiar with. Indeed their harshness in dealing with Srila Sridhara Maharaja reflected their extremely neophyte state of Krsna consciousness.

At that time Srila Sridhara Maharaja made reference to the effect that because of the special empowerment of Sri Nityananda Prabhu that our Guru Maharaja might have couched his madhurya tendencies in deference to Lord Nityananda.

 

I don't think any of them have a "need" to feel that Srila Prabhupada veiled his rasa with Krsna.

 

We didn't extort that conclusion out of Sridhar Maharaja.

That was his conclusion he arrived at upon deep contemplation of prior statements and for ANYONE to just write if off as inconsequential is just missing the whole point behind why Sridhar Maharaja made the statement.

 

To use Sridhar Maharaja as the proof of Prabhupada being in sakhya-rasa is in fact a deception, because in reality Sridhar Maharaja left the door open for alternative possibilities.

 

It seems that you have a need to prove that someone else has a need to establish Srila Prabhupada in any particular rasa, when in fact an unbiased observer taking in all the statements of Sridhar Maharaja would have to avoid coming to any concrete conclusions unless he just wants to ignore the total body of his statements on the matter and pick and choose the one that suits his need to prove something one way or the other.

 

 

I don't have a NEED to cater to any camp or Matha.

I have a need to look at ALL the evidence and make MY OWN judgement.

The argument that Srila Prabhupada was empowered by Nitai and thus showed deference to sakhya while veiling his madhurya sentiments is important to consider because it came to us from Srila Sridhara Maharaja. However, it came as an alternative, only in the face of criticism from Iskcon devotees who complained that Sridhara Maharaja was seeking to demean Prabhupada by stating that he was only in sakhya-rasa. He was even criticized for calling Prabhupada saktyavesa because they thought he was saying that Prabhupada himself was nothing but that he had sakti only because of his empowerment. Let me cite a reference here from the book that shows that Srila Sridhara Maharaja was dealing with criticism (although it does not say from Iskcon devotees, this is not only obvious but can be confirmed by anyone who was there at the time). Srila Sridhara Maharaja says:

 

“I took it that Nityananda Prabhu must have awakened some special dedication in him in his last days which helped him to inundate with such an inconceivable magnitude, the whole of the world. But that does not mean that he was nothing before such delegated power came in him. That delegation may only come in a proper place, just as in other saktyavesa-avataras, the sakti accepts a particular place and that is not an ordinary thing. One must be a proper receptacle to receive that. Saktysvesa. Does it mean that when the delegation comes it will enter some bad thing? 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. They will prepare the field for becoming atheists. This is suicidal, to propagate in that line.

 

“And the sakhya-rasa is also not to be neglected. Dasa Goswami, who is thought to hold the highest position of madhurya-rasa, our prayojana acarya himself says, sakhayam me namasta nityam. What does it mean? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Is it an intellectual field that we can pass resolutions, pass remarks in any way we like in our fashion? No. Dasa Goswami, who is posted in the highest position of the prayojana-tattva, the acarya of prayojana in madhurya-rasa of Radha dasyam, he says that I will try to show my reverence to sakhya. It is not a play thing. This is very rarely to be found. We must go to that plane and then we should deal with these things. Sakhya-rasa is a very small thing? What is this? From a distance I want to show my respect to sakhya-rasa. That should be the tendency of a real devotee, and not to disregard all these things.”

 

So this excerpt shows that Srila Sridhara Maharaja was dealing with complaints. This can also be inferred from the fact that the veiled madhurya option came after his original opinion, as well as by the highly qualified language he used in the second option. So we have two opinions of Srila Sridhara Maharaja to consider, one which he himself preferred and another that he suggested in the face of criticism or concern by Iskcon devotees.

 

Furthermore, in light of considerable information presented in the book, including direct statements from Prabhupada to his disciples declaring himself to be a cowherd boy, which Srila Sridhara Maharaja was not privy to, Sridhara Mahajara’s personal opinion becomes all the more likely. Indeed, the fact is that even when presenting a second alternative, Srila Sridhara Maharaja himself ends up supporting his own personal opinion! Moreover, the examples Srila Sridhara Maharaja gave of deference to Nityananda Prabhu are limited to installing Gaura-Nitai Deities and Krsna-Balarama Deities.

 

As far as veiling madhurya-rasa, Prabhupada did not really do that. He preached strongly that madhurya-rasa was objectively the highest ideal of the sampradaya and labored hard to help others understand the difference between madhurya-prema and kama. He also established Deites of Radha-Krsna everywhere.

 

Deference to Nityananda is one thing, saying “I am a cowherd boy” is another, as is Srila Prabhupada desiring to enter the gosthi-lila of Krsna as Prabhupada did in his poem. Note that in the conversation in which Srila Sridhara Maharaja discusses Srila Prabhupada’s deference to Nityananda he makes no reference to Prabhupada’s poem as an example of such deference. Instead he returns to the prayer in the course of suggesting this possible alternative and in doing so goes on to support his own personal opinion with it!

 

There have been many great devotees empowered by Nityananda in his parivara who have shown deference to him, but in doing so they never expressed interest in sakhya-rasa nor did they hide their madhurya sentiments. Virabhadra Goswami is a prime example.

 

In conclusion, is it possible that Srila Prabhupada veiled a madhurya sentiment, going so far as to say that he was a cowherd boy? Yes. But is it likely? No.

 

Maybe some guys do that, but can you show any shastric reference of a cowherd boy aside from Balaram referring to Krsna as "brother".

 

You argument in support of your opinion is very weak on this matter unless you can show some proof from authentic shastra that Subal or Madhumangal etc. ever referred to Krishna as brother.

 

Unless you can, your position is not very strong on this point.

 

Whazup bra?

The evidence is later in the same poem!

 

tomara milane bhai abar se sukha pai

gocarane ghuri din bhor

kata bane chutachuti bane khai lutaputi

sei din kabe habe mor

 

O dear friend, in Your company I will experience great joy once again. In the early morning I will wander about the cowherd pastures and fields. Running and frolicking in the many forests of Vraja, I will roll on the ground in spiritual ecstasy. Oh when will that day be mine?

 

Otherwise, here is another reference from a Gaudiya Vaisnava bhajana. I don't have them here, but in the Gaudiya lila-granthas there are also many such references.

 

Ore Vrndavaner Nanda Dulala

 

 

sridama sudam bhai balaram

dakche ai kanai

chorai dhenu bajai venu

ai re o bhai ai

 

sridam sudam—Sridama and Sudama; bhai balaram—Your brother Balarama; dakche—are calling; ai kanai—come, Kanai!; chorai dhenu—tending the calves; bajai venu—playing on their flutes; ai—please come; re—Oh!; o bhai—O brother!; ai—please come home!

 

"Sridama, Sudama, and Your brother Balarama are calling, "O Kanai! Please come back!" While tending the calves and playing on their flutes they entreat, "O brother! Please come home!"

 

But I think it is important to point out that what you are saying is, "Sridhara Maharaja, although Bengali is your native tongue and you are a highly realized Gaudiya Vaisnava and dear friend of Srila Prabhupada, I have some doubts about how you have translated the word bhai in Prabhupada's song, even though I don’t speak Bengali and have very little realization.”

 

What about the possibility that as a cowherd boy in Goloka, he could appreciate from a distance, the mood and sentiments of those more directly and initmately involved in Madhurya seva arrangements. The first glimmers of appreciation for a richer deeper mood.

 

Then on Earth he is exposed to the large variety of confidential descriptions and confessions of the Gopis, sakhis, manjaris, in their writings, keeps their personal company(His Guru), sings their songs, and begins to be highly influenced and desirous of developing that mood, and by virtue he actually IS developing that mood, while engaged in his Iskcon preaching seva.

This is speculation of the worst sort, absolutely not in concert with guru, sadhu, and sastra.

I think that the real reason why some feel the need to see Srila Prabhupada as having a veiled madhurya sentiment in the face of so many indications of sakhya-rasa is because of the heavy preaching that has gone on for the last fifteen or so years that says that Srila Prabhupada has to be in madhurya-rasa, that our sampradaya is only for madhurya-rasa. This position is one that is not held by Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada, Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, or Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, as the following quotations substantiate:

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura: "If the disciple is not attracted to srngara-rasa, the disciple may be suited for dasya-rasa or sakhya-rasa. Then the spiritual master will explain the disciple's identity in terms of one of those rasas. These rasas are not bad or unworthy. "

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur: "The pathetic condition of a person who tries to consider the superiority and inferiority of the rasas without understanding the difference between matter and spirit is the same as the pathetic condition of a person who tries to learn geometry without understanding the difference between an axiom and a postulate. "

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: "Sakhya-rasa is a very small thing? What is this? From a distance I want to show my respect to sakhya-rasa. That should be the tendency of a real devotee, and not to disregard all these things."

 

Hrsikesanada dasa: So that means that my relationship with you is eternal, that it will continue in nitya-lila?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes.

hd: As manjaris?

acbsp: Down to sakhya.

hd: But for Rupanugas isn’t it always manjari-rasa?

acbsp: That is the highest; but in the spiritual world there is no such distinction.

 

Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaja: “If your guru is situated in sakhya-rasa, you don't have a problem. But if anyone thinks they have a problem because their guru is in sakhya-rasa rather than madhurya-rasa, then they have a problem!”