NitaiS

Did you read the book? Bhaktisiddhanta's pranam mantra is mentioned therein. As is this entire subject. I think if you wish to discuss you should read those sections (preferably in the context of reading the whole thing) and raise specific doubts in relation to what was said. Prabhupada in your quote translated siddhanta as plan, but we are all familiar with the term siddhanta. Is sakhya-rasa outside of Rupa goswami's siddhanta? BRS and Ujjvala Nilamani seem to give a resounding "NO". As well as all other sastras.

I can certainly appreciate the broad appreciation of these Acharyas, but going by beggar's criteria (which was my point in that post) the three acharyas whom I cited are more senior than these, and most likely overall are more widely excepted as qualified as well. I personally do not think our survey of the evidence need be limited to these three acharyas' statements, but if we did, the result seems somewhat clear to me.

Taken as is it may seem like that, but it also seems quite incongruous with Srila Prabhupada's mood throughout his acharya-lila. What I mean is I highly doubt he told that devotee "you must consider yourself as a gopi". Until 9:50 basically two statements are made. "We must consider ourselves as the gopis so we can love Krsna that much more" and "we must consider ourselves as female". The first could easily be mispresentation of Prabhupada merely citing the gopis in a talk where he is emphasizing loving Krsna, "we must become like the gopis, they have given up everything for the service of the lord". Certainly there are numerous statements like this in Krsna book and elsewhere. This explanation would match much more with what we know of Srila Prabhupada's preaching style. For a moment the camera later scans back to the devotee originally speaking and he appears a bit like "oops" after the spirited interruption of the obviously more knowledgable devotee. Kirtananda's discussion of it taking lifetimes to become a gopi etc. still seems fairly nuetral, after all it is the core of Gaudiya Vaishnavism (which I think Babhru mentioned if I remember correctly) and thus in the course of giving the basics, some discussion of it is relevant. The second part, "to consider ourselves as female" could very well be a misunderstood reference to prakrti/purusha, a much more basic and relevant topic which kirtananda touches on moments later. The next person to speak makes it clear moments later that he basically came in for a nap, and this was his first day, yet we should note that he too joined in the discussion of the gopis, with some relative air of authority. Overall, I do not know who that devotee is, if he stayed around, or how he stayed around if so, but it would be much more convincing to me if since that video, he had continued in his sadhana, developed his understanding of KC theory and then testified that he understood from those days Prabhupada was in manjari-bhava. Maybe he has? I have not heard of any such testimonies in terms of devotees referencing those early days (though they may exist). Rather, we have heard devotees who are still practicing today (perhaps there have been ups-and downs for some between then and now) like Govinda Dasi, Malati, Jadurani, who both then and now (with the exception of Jadurani) believe Prabhupada displayed clearly this sentiment, whether they feel bold enough to declare it definitively or not. I am sure there are others as well. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that if any, the common idea back then was that Prabhupada was a cowherd boy. So it seems that current testimony from someone who was around in the original days, is worth more then a testimony then. Gurudas tells how one devotee painted the Panca-tattva with breasts because he thought they were women. These devotees certainly had sraddha and Prabhupada used them in magnificent ways, but the conception was not highly developed for the most part at that time. I am very interested to Babhru and others' thoughts. This seems much more the direction this thread was intended to go.

Here it is: Qualified senior gurus have spoken: I believe every person who has contributed to this thread considers one, two, or all three of these divine personalities as qualified gurus. I don't think there could be any more senior authority than these three (unless Bhaktisiddhanta himself said what Srila Prabhupada's sthayi-bhava is)

The two biggest plagues of the global Gaudiya community: 1.Those who think their guru and/or group is the only bonafide one 2. Those who overreact to the above sector and declare there is no longer any guru or group worthy of surrender, or gurus and groups are inherently flawed, but they lack the personal level of realization to have sadhu sanga via the granthas. By default the mind then becomes the guru. Essentially this latter group has, in the absence of guides whom they previously had faith in, succumb to the hankerings of the ego to be in charge. Having been thus freed from the oppression of all sorts of sanga (good and not-so good alike) they are free to fight for any conception that blows into their head, and are subject to no reprimand from higher authorities. Sounds like a pretty good place for a sadhaka. The link between the 2 plagues is pratistha. "I am with the best" and "I am the best".

"locked into" implies dissatisfaction. This is total mundane thinking. Yes from the objective view their is higher and lower, but not from rasa-vichara, and what you are doing is saying that the siddha at some point may snap out of rasa vichara and realize they have not got the best thing. Brahman is rasa; Krsna. Krsna is non different from his abode, form, associates etc. Thus the whole of Goloka is rasa, period. Tatastha vichara has become completely eclipsed there, unlike Dvarka, Mathura, Ayodyha, Vaikuntha... Such a thing simply never arises. this is like fallen jiva-vada thinking. At some point the perfect sakha becomes dissatisfied and envious and falls down again to the material realm/ or in your case/ decides they would like to try on a different sthayi-bhava. Sukhada defeated you already, better than I can, but you will acknowledge no such things.

Ok, I can agree with that, bu Sonic's idea is one wherein sakha (for example) is not fully satisfied and thus continues on to manjari, and then to sakhi, (and for some reason stops there)

Please explain how the spiritual bliss of the cowherds and vatsalya bhaktas is static. From the point of view of tattva, some distinctions can be drawn, but it is also tattva that they are all eternally blissful and ever-fresh relationships with Krsna. But to suggest that until the dasya-siddha gets 20 more premas(the unit with which we will now measure divine love of god) he will not be qualified for sakhya. And once the sakha goes beyond ____premas, he will be forced into a higher prema-bracket on account of his accrued premas. This helps the prema police keep the spiritual world nice and orderly. What about Balarama, Nanda, Yasoda, and so many others, why has their spiritual progress been halted?

If we choose a guru that corresponds to the sentiment we want, how do we explain instances when people are initiated before even understanding the theory of Rasa, or having any specific inclination, even in an intellectual sense? Or the fact that here we are in 2009 discussing Srila Prabhupada's rasa, and you are telling me that 40 some years ago those disciples came to Prabhupada because they wanted to be manjaris (as you claim he is)? So that is to say if they had had a samskara for another bhava they would have not taken initiation from him? Come on!

' From Bengali dictionary: nija= a own (<d>নিজ গৃহ</d>). <d>নিজ নিজ</d> respective. <d>নিজ গুণে</d> adv. by virtue of one's own qualities or virtues. <d>নিজ দোষে</d> adv. by one's own fault. <d>নিজ মূর্তি ধারন করা</d> v. to assume one's real form or self. abhista=a desired, wished for, longed for, cherished; aimed at, intended. ☐ n. a desired object; an objective; an inten tion, a purpose. <d>̃পূরণ</d> n. gratification or fulfilment of one's desire; attain ment of one's objective, the accom plishment of (one's) aims. <d>̃</d> a. that which gratifies or fulfils. <d></d> n. same as The other 4 uses of samihitam in Prabhupada's books other than the one you cited are as follows: samīhitam — his purpose; samīhitam — activities, plan; samīhitam — desire; samīhitam — which has been created (by You) So we can see "nija samihitam" is not concretely "ones own choice". Note the translation of the same verse in BRS: Remembering the Våndävana form of Kåñëa and His dear associates who have inclinations for service similar to one’s own, absorbing oneself in hearing topics related to them, one should always live in Vraja. -No mention of choice there. Visvanath's commentary: "...who have the same type of desires (for serving Kåñëa) as oneself (nija-saméhitam)" This does not say you choose, it can totally be read to support what Sukhada said, we follow the ragatmikas according to bhava that arises in us by mercy, not by choosing whatever rasa appeals to our ego. <d></d>

I am sorry to hear that, and yes this is clear from your siddhanta.

Oh please do not pretend like you have had a cohesive argument this whole time, mud already posted one of the times when you directly contradicted yourself on what evidence you were looking for in this matter. Again, read the book. There are clearly examples in our history where this is not the case. Earlier you said we choose the Svarupa and that is what makes it love. No. Krsna chooses what service he wants from us, and the love is shifting from having ourselves as the object to service, to having him as the object of service, on his terms. Service is according to necessity of the served. Krsna wants each jiva to interact with him in a certain way and love is then putting aside our delusion about how we want to interact with him, and coming to him in that way. You have it backwards. Like Sridhara Maharaja said, "all risk", not "I will serve, but in X capacity". adarsanan marma hatam karotu va yatha tatha va vidadhatu lampato mat-prana-nathas tu sa eva naparah this means however he wants service, by tormenting me , hiding from me, etc. I love him and therefore I will serve in any capacity. Divine slavery, you don't choose if you till the fields or do the laundry, and that is fine because there is no higher and lower. You do not get tired of hearding cows with God.

disagreeing and insinuating tantric sahajiya are different things all together. You have clearly cultivated a logic wherein your head knows best, in order to maintain such a position in the face of more intelligent and realized arguments, you have to resort to inappropriate remarks, assumptions about others' motivations, and downright crummy logic. (Not to mention name calling, contradicting yourself, distracting jokes, shifting the ground, NOT READING THE TEXT UNDER DISCUSSION, etc.)

Ya don' say?! We call it sadhu-ninda.

If you download the PDF and view it in a pdf viewer, then the diacritics will be fine. Dont worry about copying and pasting, by now we all know Çri means Sri. Lame excuse to get out of actually addressing the contents.

Sonic your idea of progressing through rasas is the name of them being dynamic is completely backwards. Yes prema is dynamic, but that does not mean one has to perpetually abandon "lower" prema. By saying such you are essentially saying that all but Radha's prema is measurable, and thus when a gopa (for example) desires to serve Krsna more he has developed X amount of prema and thus qualified for the next stage. Of course you have arbitrarily decided the process culminates in sakhi-bhava, whereas I would think the speculation would be more attractive if you offered us the prospect to become a Radharani. Maya means to measure. It is NOT just simple math, it is bhava:smash:. You are also saying that one cannot eternally relish a specific lila. This is off as well. The gopa does not think that because he had Krsna's laddu yesterday, hopefully today he can transform into a gopi to serve him in that way. Siddhas are not fickle like your logic is.

You keep making this absurd connection between male bodyies or what are socially regarded as male qualities and the eternal spiritual form of acharyas. It is so silly. Guess who else had male bodies in the material world: Bhaktisiddhanta, Bhaktivinoda, Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Gaura-Kishora dasa Babaji, Jagganath Das Babaji, YOU(having acknowledged your attraction for madhurya rasa earlier in this thread), shall I continue? As sukhada pointed out, the difference about Brahma was the bhava of the commentator, much like in Jaiva Dharma how the two disciples saw their guru differently.

Haribol! an objective reader (as opposed to a fault-seeking non-reader). I concur that the same effort should be put into the other two booklets you proposed, but I admit, I think such an effort would in the end only reinforce the direction of this booklet (not that you are hoping otherwise). I think for the critics (and non-readers) to be satisfied though, the other two books would have to be done by different sadhus and scholars, lest these sadhus and scholars be accused of predisposition. There are certainly sadhus and scholars invested in the conjugal angle who we could rely on to go full throttle at their task (dare I say, maybe they have already, and fallen short?), but it may be hard to find many devotees of Laddu Gopal to take up their end. But really I do think their has been considerable (considerably more?) effort put into the "Prabhupada is a manjari" thesis by sadhus and intellectuals fully qualified to search the Vedabase and the Sridhara Maharaja Folio (which is largely what this book is in terms of pramana). I'm thinking the reason your proposing it be done again is because you are equating the relatively weak findings with a lack of initial effort. Rather I would propose the findings are weak because the thesis is incorrect..simple. Many raise questions about the pre-ISKCON days and how that may give us the conclusive insight. But, time travel aside, we have what we have, and every angle has access to it all. So, working with what we have, it seems Babhru, Tripurari Maharaja, and the evidence contributors referenced in the foreword, have surpassed any other attempts to date. Perhaps it was possible because it is true. Questioning the authenticity of a certain evidence is of course one method to counter opposing signals, but discrediting everything not in the Vedabase or bound in a spine that says "BBT" is absurd. (note I am not directing this at you, as you have not done these things.)

Where do you get your ideas Sonic Yogi? The quote about Uddhava in no way said he wanted to become a gopi (which I think is what you were trying to establish). You can't revere and want the mercy of someone without aspiring to be the same as them? Do you think Krishna Das Babaji did not want the 'foot dust of the gopis"? Its like your Radha-Kunda idea...speculation based on a quote that says nothing of the sort.

Sonic Yogi, taking Narasingh's question further, why not just millions of Radharani's, she is Mahabhava Svarupini, who needs these other "lower" gopis?

This paragraph reveals layers of appasiddhanta and mundane assessment of a spiritual topic: "Many souls will not be able to come to that level in one life"?! This is madness. No-one is getting to Vraja in one life even if they are a blade of grass.(yes there is the kripa-siddha, but thats a special case, if not hypothetical) AND "not able to go up to that high a platform"?! What is with the mundane measurement, others have addressed this. Is it like gopas are at 150,000 feet above sea level and gopis at 182,000? "So as not to drive away beginners" because again, Sakhya is a lower rasa that does not constitute "unconditional love". With how you present it, why does Krsna even have anyone but gopis, he is the supremem enjoyer, should he not only have the "best". You are tap dancing pitifully, contradicting yourself, shifting the ground, and from time to time, pointing out how good you are at debating:rofl:. Give it up. With all the time you have wasted presenting your bad arguments you could have read the book(let) times over. BUT, as the booklet points out, since you claim to be cultivating manjari-bhava, I suppose it is reaonable that you see Prabhupada as a manjari. Just be sure your interest is more than intellectual.

what about "kintu prabhor ya priya eva tasya"? This vision you keep pushing seems kind of irrelevant. They are different categories. In his acharya-lila the guru is seen as you have mentioned, but in the Vraja-lila he or she may be simply young boy imitating frogs on the bank of the Yamuna, or young girl cursing Krsna for his behavior... (And still one could easily argue how they could still be seen as manifestations of Baladeva and/or associates of Radha) Babhru's book is about the second category and how some knowledge of that can help motivate us to get there (i.e. serve the manifestation of Nitai/associate of Radha in their acharya lila). It seems very tastefully done, but I suppose one has to read it before they can agree... We should see Krsna as svayam bhagavan, but if we want enter his Vraja lila, that will have to be eclipsed at some point. Should we not talk about that aspect of sambandha jnana until some high stage? That is the very heart of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

Your sole pramana is an obscure statement that is vaguely relevant (at best!), AND you did not even read the book under discussion. Granted, I am new here, but twice I ahve seen you profess your intellectual prowess in defeating opposing logic and nonce(that is 0) I have seen you do such. Stubbornness is not victory. Functional like how you use a tool to accomplish a job and then put the tool down, and thus the specifics of the tool are irellevant, since it is just a stepping stone (to your direct seva to Radha-Krishna?)?

This seems a little off. What about Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta? His external demeanor was far from that of a girl's, and he certainly nourished the desire of Bhaktivinoda(another manjari) to "conquer the world". My point being I don't think you can insinuate such things merely from the external demeanor. While Babhru has done that some in his book, the difference is that it is in consonace with so much other evidence, whereas Bhaktisiddhanta's "macho mindset" is not. Proclaiming to embrace madhurya-rasa is one thing, actually aspiring for it is another. Such aspiration really begins at asakti in a specific way, and even in a general sense, I would think nistha would have to preface any such aspiration . I have my doubts that "thousands" of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have moved through anartha-nivrtti, it is not a cheap thing. Additionally, are all those "rough-and-tumble/course and crude" men you referred to still steadily engaged in bhakti, and furthermore, cultivating some of the higher levels? Some may be, but my sneaking suspicion is many are not, and therefore to use them as evidence is a faulty tactic. Could it be that so many are "aspiring" for madhurya because it is sometimes asserted rather loudly that it is the "best/only" way? In such a case, a devotee's affinity for madhurya is more just an affinity for pratishta (to be in the "highest" sector). All in all it seems like one can certainly poke (pin)holes in Babhru Prabhu's book, but where is a book of the same caliber establishing anything else? I have yet to see one (although I would be interested). I have my doubts there would be enough evidence to compile a book that points in any other direction. As far as the ability of a sakhya-rasa guru to accomplish what Srila Prabhupada did (assuming there are thousands of budding bhava-bhaktas as you indicated) Babhru has quite nicely dealt with that. Srila Prabhupada brought us all in contact with all other Gaudiyas as well, so any attainment there is still a testament to his glory, not to say he is not capable of personally guiding disciples of varying sentiments.