Sukhada

I don't know when you joined, but in the early days it was common knowledge that Srila Prabhupada was a cowherd boy, as you yourself have said. Search the Vyasa-puja offerings. As Babhru points out in the booklet, in contrast to the numerous offerings about Srila Prabhupada being a cowherd boy, there is not even one about him being a manjari. Interest in manjari-bhava has come from siksa-gurus outside of Iskcon, as has the idea that Srila Prabhupada himself is anything other than a cowherd boy. But any number of Prabhupada's disciples might be attracted to madhurya-rasa because his campaign was widespread recruiting for the sampradaya and thus he naturally preached about its conclusions including the objective fact that madhurya-rasa is the adi-rasa.

Yeah, I'd say so. His Deities at Madhuvana are Sri Sri Rama-Chalacikana (chala=trickster, cikana=beautiful).

I wouldn't worry about that one. Other than Srila Prabhupada himself, I don't know anyone who is more attracted to sakhya-rasa than Tripurari Maharaja.

The response of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Narayana Maharaja to Srila Sridhara Maharaja's opinion about Ratha-yatra was catagorically different, so I find your contention that they should be viewed in the same light misguided. Furthermore, Narayana Maharaja is junior to Sridhara Maharaja, so it unreasonable to expect the same response as between Sridhara Maharaja than Srila Prabhupada. Anyway, I'm sure we would all prefer to not resurrect this long-debated incident, so I will gladly accede to Babhru's request.

This isn't a good argument because we simply don't have much information about Srila Prabhupada before his launching his mission. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that Srila Prabhupada would lie when a disciple directly asked him he if was in madhurya-rasa and say that he was in sakhya-rasa. Why would he ask that a poem about him being in sakhya-rasa be printed in BTG? The hidden madhurya argument becomes very weak in the face of these direct statements.

I think that your calling the letter disgraceful garbage it is mere unsubstaniated opinion. It is hardly without the slightest provocation. There is a long history, which you may not be aware of, for Narasingha Maharaja to consider Narayana Maharaja antagonistic to Sridhara Maharaja. The fact that Narasingha Maharaja thinks this does not make him a hater. Further, if he had indeed made this comment from out of the blue, it would likely indicate envy, but since that is not the case, I think he is perfectly entitled to have his opinion. I do not wish to have a debate about this, or discuss details. It does not pertain to the book.

I was forwarded Sripad Narasingha Maharaja's comments on the booklet. Here is what he had to say: Swami, Some things just can't wait. Vidagdha Madhava Prabhu wrote me to query what I thought about the article/pdf book. So I set aside some time and carefully went thru several chapters. Impressive won't suffice to describe how well put together and convincing a job you and Babhru have done. Excellent! However, I'm not sure I like the idea of a discussion on the internet — I mean, what more is there to say without getting into arguments? Devotees will either agree with you or they won't. I don't think the Narayana Maharaja followers will dare to reproach your presentation, they would have to be complete fools to try — the risk of further exposing their gurudeva as being antagonistic to Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Well done Swami — I'm a believer! I'm just not advanced enough to make more of it than that. I guess the only thing left to do now is get more cows! Gosai

I didn't appreciate the insinuations you made in the above quote but I didn't know the exact history, so I sent it to Swami B. V. Tripurari for clarification. Here is his reply. He doesn't mention it, but the year in question he was president of the sannyasis: I understood the true position of Pujyapada Sridhara Deva Goswami, as opposed to what the Iskcon GBC had told us, in 1984. At that time I contacted those who had taken shelter of him and had been rejected from Iskcon because of their affinity for him. They advised me to try to stay in Iskcon and find receptive devotees to speak with about the value of Srila Sridhara Maharaja's siksa. In those days we thought it would not be long before Iskcon realized its mistake and we would move on happily under the realized guidance of Sridhara Deva Goswami. My coming under the influence of Srila Sridhara Maharaja happened to coincide with pressure that many were putting on the GBC, including non guru GBC members, to increase the number of gurus in Iskcon thus taking some of the power out of the hands of eleven men and creating a "fair field for preaching," to use a term coined by Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja. After all, many senior devotees were preaching and awakening faith in new devotees only to have one of the eleven gurus fly in and initiate new devotees and turn them against the senior devotees who had awakened their faith. These were troubled times for Iskcon and many disciples of Srila Prabhupada felt oppressed. I was approached by Hridayananda Maharaja, who told me that I should initiate and that he realized that the leadership was stifling other senior devotees. Thus he submitted my name to the GBC as someone he thought was a qualified preacher that should initiate his own disciples. By then he and others knew that I had been influenced by Srila Sridhara Maharaja. I told Hridayananda Maharaja that I agreed with him that Iskcon was stifling but that this negative impetus to move on was not the whole story. There was considerable positive impetus in the form of the siksa of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. In other words, I told him that if Iskcon would broaden the preaching field for senior devotees, for me this was not sufficient reason to remain in Iskcon. Iskcon needed to embrace the siksa of Pujyapda Sridhara Deva Goswami. When the GBC met in 1985, they interviewed me. The only question that had for me was why I was interested in Srila Sridhara Maharaja. I told them that if I left the Iskcon I did not feel that any of them would come after me to bring me back, but that Srila Sridhara Maharaja upon learning that a senior sannyasi had left would send someone for me. Thus they did not recognize me as being qualified to initiate. With one foot out the door already and realizing more and more that Iskcon was not about to change, and with the encouragement of those under the shelter of Srila Sridhara Maharaja who had previously advised me to stay in Iskcon and try to bring reform, I set both feet outside of Iskcon. I then started in a humble way from scratch to preach independently from Iskcon under the inspiration of Srila Prabhupada, my eternal guru, and Pujyapada Sridhara Deva Goswami, my eternal siksa guru. He advised me, "Swami Maharaja has told you everything. Now go and start something yourself and I will be in the background to help you." This is what I have done by the grace of Sri Guru and the Vaisnavas with some success, at least internally. Swami

You said that SSM's opinion that SP was in sakhya-rasa "cannot be confirmed by any documented statements" and when I produce such a statement, you reject it as a "snippet." If you want the whole conversation and not an excerpt, see chapter 3 in the booklet. It is very clear there from that statement of Srila Sridhara Maharaja that his opinion was that Srila Prabhupada was in sakhya-rasa. In relation to your argument that the "total body of statements" make Srila Sridhara Maharaja's position less clear, I searched all the statements Srila Sridhara Maharaja made in relation to SP and sakhya-rasa. I found four classes: Feb. 26, 1981, August 14, 1981, Feb. 13, 1983, and Jan. 9, 1984. I don't want to post them all here because I hate when people post endlessly long quotations. Do you have access to the transcriptions of his classes? The first class (2.26.81) is the one given in the link above, where he clearly gives his opinion that SP is in sakhya-rasa. The next one, about six months later, does express madhurya as a possibility. I will excerpt the relevant part here. Please note the markedly different language he uses about the madhurya possibility--"maybe, perhaps, might." It seems obvious to me that he is harmonizing here. It is not his personal opinion: "Devotee: Maharaja, it has been clear now, in a way, that Prabhupada was in sakhya rasa. Sridhara Maharaja: At least temporarily he has showed like that. What he has expressed there in that journey, here it is almost clear that he liked that sort of lila best, but it may be, that he might have suppressed purposely [madhurya-rasa] it also cannot be denied, maybe. That is one thing. There may be such a possibility, and he has given he has told that Radharani was his gurudeva. His gurudeva was Radharani, but he himself was thinking that perhaps madhurya rasa should not be distributed in the first installment. That might have been his view. Because his preaching was mostly helped by Nityananda Prabhu, Baladev; so influenced by their tendency, mood, he might have for the time being had that posing. And another thing...there is another sign that he showed affinity towards sakhya rasa. In Vrndavana, he has installed Baladeva, Krsna Balarama, and Nitai Gaura. Sakhya rasa preference." Note also how he ends by giving another proof for sakhya-rasa (Krsna-Balarama in Vrindavana). If you compare the tone of the first and second class, I think we can agree what his personal opinion was. The third class (2.1383) is an abbreviated version of the first class. He begins by saying, "Sakhya-rasa. I do not know what he has written, but I found it such position from his... only one letter. What he wrote when he was going to America. That letter has been given to me, and I read that, and from there I could suppose that his position is satisfied with that sakhya-lila." He was able to make the assessment that Srila Prabhupada is in sakhya-rasa from one letter. How much more convinced he would be if he had heard all the evidence from the main section of Babhru's booklet? The last class (1.9.84) is extremely similar to the first class. He says, "From that it is clear to me that he is in sakhya rasa. After he finds his satisfaction there. Very earnestness it shows." So if you look honestly and objectively at the Srila Sridhara Maharaja's statements on this issue, he is clearly expressing a personal opinion. However, he is also known for being extremely accommodating, harmonizing, and this is also shown (although it is not his personal opinion).

The answer to this one is in Chapter 1: Introduction. A good a place as any for you to begin.

"When he departed from this consciousness of worldly preaching propaganda, then he is there. It is clearly expressed in these sayings there in the Atlantic. He discovered the unmanifest (aprakata) pastimes in Vrndavana, and in Vrndavana he established Krsna-Balarama and Gaura-Nitai. That is indicative of sakhya-rasa. From this we can conclude that he is in sakhya-rasa, and he has entered into those pastimes. This is my understanding about his present position." (Srila Sridhara Maharaja) The opinion of Srila Sridhara Maharaja is clear for the unbiased. But it is far from all that you will have to contend with, not the least of which is Srila Prabhupada's own words.

If you think you have heard all the arguments back in the 80s and therefore you don't have to read the book, you're missing out. There is a lot of evidence that Srila Sridhara Maharaja didn't have access to but which only confirms his insight. As Lao-tzu said, "To see things in the seed, that is genius." Don't think that the book is about pushing some agenda, imposing something on Srila Prabhupada. This is exactly what is so refreshing about the book. There is no forced agenda. It lets Srila Prabhupada speak for himself. There has been a lot of propaganda that Srila Prabhupada is in madhurya-rasa. This book is a contrast to that.

I should have said that according to bhava, there is no higher or lower.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja's own opinion on the matter was that Srila Prabhupada was in sakhya-rasa. However, due to the complaints of some and his harmonizing nature, he gave an alternative way of thinking about it. As for your question, "How can a parshada in sakhya-rasa be preaching that madhurya-rasa is the highest," the answer is very simple: tattva is one thing and bhava is another. According to tattva, one mood is higher, but according to bhava, everyone thinks their bhava is the highest. For preaching/siddhanta, one has to take the neutral standpoint, as Rupa Goswami did in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (as opposed to Ujjvala-nilamani, which is a book about bhajana). Srila Prabhupada also answers your question very nicely in the booklet (hint, hint). May I humbly suggest we all read the booklet first and discuss from there.

I don't think that it is correct to say that Srila Prabhupada was away from his bhajana and inner mood since 1965. It is more accurate to say that his bhajana overflowed into preaching. Furthermore, he was preaching while he was at Radha-Damodara. He was a gosthyanandi from beginning to end.

The idea that Srila Prabhupada concealed a sentiment for madhurya for preaching is really questionable due to the fact that he didn't conceal the concept of madhurya-rasa. It's in all of his books. So if he preached widely that madhurya rasa is the highest, why make a show to express another sentiment? The logic of that seems very weak. Concealing one's own sentiment is, of course, common, but why express another sentiment? It is one thing to show deference to Nityananda Prabhu by establishing temples of Gaura-Nitai and Krsna-Balarama Mandir, but quite another for Srila Prabhupada to directly say on more than one occasion that he is a cowherd boy. So I'm a little confused why you have found so much significance in that quote from Nectar of Devotion. Why search for obscure clues when Srila Prabhupada has spoken directly? Especially in light of all the evidence that Babhru presents in his booklet. Did you read it yet?

"When an individual endeavors to lift himself above his fellows, he is dragged down by the mass, either by means of ridicule or of calumny. No one shall be more virtuous or more intellectually gifted than others. Whoever, by the irresistible force of genius, rises above the common herd is certain to be ostracized by society, which will pursue him with such merciless derision and detraction that at last he will be compelled to retreat into the solitude of his thoughts." Heinrich Heine (poet)