Audarya lila

Thank you Jahnava Nitai, those are very wonderful quotes. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa p.s. I have to admit that I can only read a few pages of the Brahma Samhita commentary at a time or else my brain gets very worked!

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here? Can you clarify what it is that your trying to say? Are you so sure that it was 'simply because his Guru had already written one in english'? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta also wrote a commentary on Chaitanya Charitamrita as well as other books that Srila Prabhupada wrote his own commentaries on. These were not written in english, but translation is not so difficult. Srila Prabhupada's books were translated into so many languages, so obviously it was part of his program to not simply print the words of the previous acharyas but to present his own understanding as well. Otherwise there was no need for any of his commentaries as he could have simply translated those of other Gaudiya commentators. To say that Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita was a translation of other Gaudiya commentators writing is certainly a very big stretch. He cited Baladeva Vidyabushana quite a bit and certainly he drew from all previous acharyas in his presentation. All acharyas use the previous acharyas writings and realizations in their presentation of Gaudiya literatures but their commentaries are still based on their own understanding and inspiration and are unique treasures for all of us. Why did Baladeva Vidyabushana write a commentary on the Gita when Visvanatha Cakravarti, his siksha Guru, had already done so? There is no breach of proper vaishnava ettiquette in such a presentation. It is, in fact, just the opposite. It is expected of the disciple that they will make their own contribution to the lineage when their bhakti matures. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

While it is certainly true that Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is fullfilled a need for an english edition of the Gita with a Gaudiya commentary, the question, or answer depending on how you see it, is still why did he not simply translate a bona-fide commentary that already existed within the lineage? Srila Prabhupada presented his own commentary and translation which is in keeping with the tradition as a whole. The same can be said of Tripurari Swami. A devotee is not meant to simply parrot what he has heard. He/she is meant to dive deeply within the practice in order to develop that which is talked about in the literature and then speak according to his/her realization. Krsna is unlimited and so too are his immortal words spoken in verse which we call Bhagavad-Gita. It is the devotees natural occupation to serve Krsna and part of that service is to present the words of Krsna and his representatives for his pleasure and the pleasure of his devotees. There will always be a need for devotees to comment on Bhagavad-Gita. That is what we do every day. It is what makes the life of a sadhaka sweet. It is particularly sweet when we hear the realizations of advanced practicioners. While fully admitting my bias in regards to this new edition, I am quite confident that all devotees who read this new edition will be enthused and enlivened by it. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

There is a wonderful book titled, "Prabhupada Sarasvati Thakur - The live and Precepts of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati". This book can be purchased from Mandala publishing. Their web address is: http://www.mandalapub.org You can also read some of his writings and writings about him at the web site of Narasingha Chaitanya Matha at: http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/index There is also a site hosted by a disciple of Govinda Maharaja that has some information. That can be accessed at: http://www.mandala.com.au/ Your servant, Audarya lila dasa I have some other links that I will post later

Be honest. Speak from your heart and your own personal reaization. Everyone, regardless of their particular vision, is connected to Krsna. Krsna is charming a beautiful to the extreme - as much as you are charmed by him you will be able to charm others. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Wow!!! How wonderful! Honestly, from my heart to both Jijagi and Shvu - I have tears in my eyes from reading your posts above. This is so wonderful. Please accept my respects. Your example is wonderful and I sincerely hope that we can all follow suit and appreciate each other more. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Yes, it is mentioned in the scriptures. We are to learn that we are different from God for one thing. Krsna not only had so many wifes, he also lived with each one personally. This is not humanly possible. We are also to learn that Krsna can protect everyone and be present everywhere simultaneously. Krsna is not limited like we are. We can all be part of his family - imtimately related to him. These are just a few of the lessons that one might learn from this pastime of Lord Krsna. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Quite frankly Satyaraja the reason I took so long to respond to your queries is that I don't find it useful to engage in this type of dialog with you. An intelligent person wouldn't?????? Gee, now you want to insult all the followers of Mahaprabhu as unintelligent - imagine that. First you say that Rupa Goswami has never written anything about the divinity of Mahaprabhu and when I present the actual facts you want to dismiss it. I also presented quotes by Jiva Goswami and Svarupa Damodara. Rather than admit that your thesis that Krsnadasa Kaviraja created his own theology that was/is at odds with the other prominent followers of Sri Chaitanya is wrong you want to simply continue with this foolish charade. I told you before - you don't find Gaudiya vaishnavism suits you fine - that's your choice. For myself Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the saints that have presented it to the world in the past and those that continue to do so in the present are my life and soul. You will not find any genuine follower of Mahaprabhu that will give your thesis a second thought because it is so obviously flawed and unsupported by empirical evidence. BTW, contrary to your 'belief', spiritual understanding is not dependent on intelligence. Anyone who has any hope of ever getting out of the quagmire of the mind and it's foolish attempt to capture divinity within it must cry out with all their heart for mercy. Sincerity is what matters and will be the key to unlocking the hidden secrets of the Vedas. When humility and sincerity are complete and honest the Lord reveals himself to such a sincere seeker through the agency of his representive - the Guru. One last thing Satyaraja, if you cared to go a little deeper than merely trying to find every reason to support your concocted ideas, you would find in this particular case that the verse under consideration is not only from the mangalacaran but it is specifically the verse wherein Rupa Goswami glorifies his Istadevata. The bottom line for you is that your rejection of Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami means rejection of Mahaprabhu and all his associates. There is no way around that and your attempts at trying to establish that Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami was alone in his assessment of the divinity of Mahaprabhu are nothing short of lunacy for anyone who has even a little familiarity with Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I find this 'discussion' to be disingenuous and have nothing further to say on the matter. Hare Krsna Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

If you look at my post made on 10/5 from Golden Volcano you will see that Jiva Goswami concurs with Rupa Goswami as to the divinity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Here is a verse written by Svarupa Damodara I found in the same book (I will try to find the original texts that the verse from Sri Jiva and this one from Svarupa Damodara come from as they are not cited in Golden Volcano): Introspection means to know oneself. Consciousness can know consciousness. And just as one can feel his own body, or consciousness can conceive of itself, ecstasy can also taste ecstasy. This is confirmed by Svarupa Damodara Prabhu, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's personal secretary, who is considered to be Lalita-sakhi, the nearest friend of Srimati Radharani in the pastimes of Krishna. He describes Sri Chaitanyadeva: radha krsna-pranaya-vikritir hladini-saktir asmad ekatmanav api bhuvi pura deha-bhedam gatau tau caitanyakhyam prakatam adhuna tad dvayam caikyam apam radha-bhava-dyuti-suvalitam naumi krsna-svarupam "I worship Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who is Krsna himself, enriched with the emotions and radiance of Srimati Radharani. As the predominating and predominated moities, Radha and Krishna are eternally one, with separate individual identities. Now they have again united as Sri Krsna Chaitanya. This inconceivable transformation of the Lord's internal pleasure-giving potency has arisen from the loving affairs of Radha and Krsna." Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Satyaraja, Sorry but I don't have the time or the inclination to clear all your misconceptions. Here is a verse that I cut out from Chaitanya Caritamrta that Rupa Goswami speaks when asked to by Ramananda Raya in the second meeting of Rupa and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. This is written in his Vidagda Madhava - there goes your assertion that Rupa Goswami has never written about the divinity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I will deal with your statements regarding his other intimate associates at a later time when I have more time. Antya lila chapter one: TEXT 132 TEXT anarpita-carim cirat karunayavatirnah kalau samarpayitum unnatojjvala-rasam sva-bhakti-sriyam harih purata-sundara-dyuti-kadamba-sandipitah sada hrdaya-kandare sphuratu vah saci-nandanah SYNONYMS anarpita--not bestowed; carim--having been formerly; cirat--for a long time; karunaya--by causeless mercy; avatirnah--descended; kalau--in the Age of Kali; samarpayitum--to bestow; unnata--elevated; ujjvala-rasam--the conjugal mellow; sva-bhakti--of His own service; sriyam--the treasure; harih--the Supreme Lord; purata--than gold; sundara--more beautiful; dyuti--of splendor; kadamba--with a multitude; sandipitah--illuminated; sada--always; hrdaya-kandare--in the cavity of the heart; sphuratu--let Him be manifest; vah--your; saci-nandanah--the son of mother Saci. TRANSLATION "May the Supreme Lord, who is known as the son of Srimati Sacidevi, be transcendentally situated in the innermost core of your heart. Resplendent with the radiance of molten gold, He has descended in the Age of Kali by His causeless mercy to bestow what no incarnation has ever offered before: the most elevated mellow of devotional service, the mellow of conjugal love." PURPORT This verse (Vidagdha-madhava 1.2) also appears in Adi-lila (1.4 and 3.4). In his commentary on Vidagdha-madhava, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura remarks: maha-prabhoh sphurtim vina hari-lila-rasasvadananupapatter iti bhavah. Without the mercy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, one cannot describe the pastimes of the Supreme personality of Godhead. Therefore Srila Rupa Gosvami said, vah yusmakam hrdaya-rupa-guha yam saci-nandano harih, pakse, simhah sphuratu: "May Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is exactly like a lion that kills all the elephants of desire, be awakened within everyone's heart, for by His merciful blessings one can understand the transcendental pastimes of Krsna." Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Satyaraja, Just to refresh your memory regarding your request and my original statement: Audarya-lila: Devotees of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accept his divinity based on the testimony of his intimate associates. That is enough. We also accept the fact that the Vedic revelation is not static but rather dynamic and that it is revealed by one who is a realized soul. Satyaraj: I am waiting for Audariya-lila’s help to refresh my memory! We do consider Rupa as Caitanya’s main theologian. Where did Rupa has stated that Caitanya was an avatara? Please quote the book, or the sloka, or even the stanza where Rupa clearly states that Caitanya was an avatara. I cannot recall it! So I gave you what you asked for. Of course I am familiar with the source of the sloka. Please note your request and acknowledge that I gave you exactly what you requested. That the verse was penned by Krsnadasa Kaviraja doesn't negate it's authenticity in the eyes of Mahaprabhu's devotees. Quite the opposite. Note that I said that devotees of Mahaprabhu accept his divinity based on the testimony of his intimate associates. We accept them all. At any rate, I have already told you that I don't appreciate this type of dry academic exchange and I don't feel that it helps develop the heart. I find it to be based mostly on false ego the attempt to 'prove' one's superior learning, ability to read and penetrate the sastra etc. These are not the type of discussions I care to engage in. You were not satisfied by Gaudiya Vaishnavism - fine, that's your choice. I am - that's also fine as it is my choice. No philosophical system is without it's faults. The reason that I am happy with the metanarrative given by the Gaudiya acharyas is that it speaks deeply to me and my own heart and feelings. My own take on spiritual practice and texts in general is that they are there to help those who take advantage of them develop a life, a spiritual life. I read sastra to help me further my bhajan, not to gather information and fool myself that such information gathering and then broadcasting that will be a testiment to my actual spritual achievment. My heart resonates with the message being delivered by the Goswami's in their literature and by the various acharyas who have worked tirelessly to perpetuate and expand upon this great theology of Nama dharma. They have all testified as to the divinity of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in their writings and in their words. I have faith in them and in my own spiritual preceptor. If you do not, that is alright - that's your choice. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Your OPINION is different from what the author himself has stated. Krsnadasa kaviraja says that Rupa Goswami expressed this verbally - we will take his testimony over yours any day. You say it is by Krsandasa, he says it is by Rupa Goswami. Do you think you have the spiritual credentials that Krsnadasa Kaviraja has that anyone should take your opinion over what he has directly stated? Try again..... While you're at it you might look a little more closely at Ramananda Samvada which you are so fond of. You will find that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu revealed his identity to him at the end of that famous discourse. My opinion, for whatever that is worth to you, is that you are far too hung up on trying to ascertain the truth with your mind. Truth is beyond the mind. The mind is necessary to get some idea of what to do to experience the truth. But all the sruti and smriti is pointing us all in the direction of practice which takes us beyond the limits of the mind and senses. Rupa Goswami knows full well who Lord Chaitanya is as his eternal associate, as do all of his other nitya-parsadas. Theirs is not a theoretical position, but an experiencial one. We would all do well to listen carefully and humbly to what they have to say. Otherwise we can speculate for lifetimes and theorize all we want, but we will never come to conclusive truth in that way. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Satyaraja, I appreciate Narasingha Maharaja's efforts but I am not associated in any direct way with his Matha contrary to your assertions. I am affiliated with Audarya Ashrama. Here is a quote to refresh your memory: Namo Maha vadanaya Krsna Prema pradaya te Krsnaya Krsna Chaitanya Namine Gaura tvishe namah Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Krsna can do anything. Even create minds and false egos such that they can forever keep the conditioned souls engaged in the endless mutability of maya. The first post in this thread stated quite well that Krsna is beyond the limits of the mind. Subsequent ones have only proven this to be the case. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Satyaraja, It appears that you are eating too many nuts over there in Brazil as it is apparent they are going to your head. I will choose to take the opinion of the Goswamis, Svarupa Damodara, Krsna dasa Kaviraja, and all the other vaishnava acharyas coming in their line over your imaginative/offensive interpretations. Now that you have left Gaudiya Vaishnavism you are suddenly an expert on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu? So much so that we should listen to your opinions over those of his intimate associates? Have another nut. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Odiyya, Hinduism is very broad and you will not find that broadness represented here. What is presented here, albeit differently as understood by different persons, is for the most part (there are a few exceptions) Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Trying to understand pastlives and why we are in the position we are currently in is speculative at best. What is important is that you begin to recognize that you are not that body that you inhabit and that your nature as spririt soul is to serve. To serve what and whom is the natural question. The Gaudiya Vaishnava answer is: To serve the divine couple, Radha Krishna. We can come to understand this by taking up the banner of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his followers. Ultimately who we associate with has the highest impact on our lives. The recommendation of the Vedic scripures is to find a saint and take up spiritual practices under his/her direction and supervision and associate with other souls who identify with divinity as you do so that your progress will be steady. The Bhagavad Gita informs us that as we progress our material attachments and identifications will diminish in proportion with our progress. We have all been wandering in this material world since time immemorial (it beginning can't be traced) and we all have various levels of attachments and predispositions based on genetics and circumstances. Your real focus should be on how to dissolve these attachments and for that you need to find good company. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Dear Namah, For help with the distance of the sun and moon from the planet earth I suggest you consult an asstronomy text book. The lunar landing is not a spiritual subject and understanding it won't help your standing in devotion. For a good exposition on a plausible understanding of the cosmography presented in the 5th canto you can read the books published by Sadaputa dasa on the subject. The jest of his very lengthy and scholarly presentation is that the distances referred to in the Srimad Bhagavatam are distances above the plane of Bhu-mandala in which these two heavenly bodies orbit, not their physical distances from the planet earth. The empirical data fits well with this model. As far as the moon goes, you should know that Krsna appears in the dynasty of the moon god and that his amorous pastimes are performed during the harvest moon. From that perspective the moon may certainly take precedence over the sun for devotees of Sri Krishna. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Jijagi, The quote that you seem to take exception to was used in a particular context which is now missing from this thread. Faithlessdevotee found Jayaradhe's post objectionable and posted some inapporpriate language so his message was deleted. The jest of his remarks (as I understood them) was that if this is what spiritual life is all about you guys must be crazy. Of course I am taking some liberties here, but that is the meaning of his remarks as I understood them. The thought of someone crying miserably throughout the day and night for their whole life seems certainly less than attractive and most people would want to avoid what ever it is that caused such a condition to occur. However, strange as it may seem - that is the ideal of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Looks miserable from the outside - but is pure transcendental nectar - I am sure that you have some taste of this. Material life looks so enticing. Youth, beauty, wealth, excitation of the senses - on and on and on...... where it stops? Somebody knows. That person is none other than Sri Krsna Reality the Beautiful. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding you had with regard to my post, otherwise I might suggest wearing sunglasses when you read so that the grey shades will show up better. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Satyaraja, With all due respect, your continued nonsensical posts meant to demean and discredit Gaudiya Vaishnavism only serve to demean and discredit your own good self. I had a dream with you in it last night. You might ask, 'how is that since we have never met?' Well the answer is fairly simple, you were in it in spirit and in terms of your present condition and former associations. In the dream I was visiting with a very old and good friend who happens to be a disciple of Naryana Maharaja's. I mentioned your name to him and told him that you seem to find great pleasure in trying to discridit all that you had held as true when you were a 'Gaudiya Vaishanava'. I thought he might ask me what it is your saying and speak to defeat/dismiss it, but he didn't do so. I looked at him and he had tears running down his cheeks. I understood immediately that his response was from the heart and not from the head. He truly felt sad and had nothing to say - it was all said in his tears. Other than that, I really don't have any response to your two posts since they are so far off base they don't warrant a response. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Vinay, You will have to go deeper than that. You are looking at the surface. The answer is, of course, yes it is a sin to worship any idol. But you are mistaken is you think that the acha-vigraha of Sri Krsna is an idol. I will post some words on this matter spoken by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati tonight if I get the chance. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Hi Shvu, Thanks for the question. I understand your perspective. I am not going to quote scripture to you in this regard as you are most likely familiar with it already. The real answer to your question is one of experience. One drop of real spiritual experience makes the world and all the pursuits associated with it seem meaningless and trivial at best. Because of my experience I have the perspective that I mentioned - although the exact words and method of expression are borrowed from my Gurudeva. Yes I have a wife, two children, a job, house, pets, friends, neighbors etc. They are meaningful because I see them for what and who they are - Krsna's. That's really the bottom line. Devotees are not different than anyone else in every respect except one - for them everything belongs to Krsna and everything has it's proper place employed in his service. Srila Prabhupada gave the example of a devotee sweeping the temple room and a worker sweeping the shop floor. The activity is the same, but the consciousness is vastly different. The reason I see material life as rotten to the core is because I see anything that is devoid of Krsna consciousness as rotten to the core, no matter how wonderful it may look to our conditioned senses and mind. Another simplistic analogy that Srila Prabhupada used to give which speaks to this question is, 'material life and all material paraphenalia are like so many zeros. When we put Krsna in front of them - they become valuable - otherwise not.' Anyway, I hope you understand more clearly what my perspective is. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Dear Faithlessdevotee, Pleae check your foul language at the door. These forums are for gentle behavior as is devotional service in general. Tripurari Swami has said on many occasions that the term chant and be happy is a good introduction to Krsna consciounesss, but that after sometime we will come to find that the reality is 'chant and cry', 'do or die'. One of his God Brothers told him that he thought Krsna consiousness was all about being happy, but that after some time he came to realize that it was really about crying and crying and he wasn't comfortable with that so he left. The reality is that spiritual life looks miserable on the outside but is filled with incredible, indescribable nectar on the inside. Material life is just exactly the opposite. It looks wonderful on the outside but it is rotten to the core. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

At the end of the day who are we anyway? Flag wavers, slogan sayers, ego fanners? Whatever belief system we have we should strive for progress and we should see if our actions are consistent with our stated beliefs. I wonder how many people who choose to interact on forums with sarcasm and intentional denigration of others do so in their personal dealings with others. It is so easy to be impersonal and careless when it comes to electronic media and communication. I have always really identified with the golden rule - do unto others what you would have them do unto you. This expression resonates deeply within me and calls me to try to practice this and inspect myself for those times that I fail to practice this consisely spoken wisdom. I want people to recognize my human failings and over look my faults like when I speak harshly when I am tired, or misunderstand or feel misunderstood. I want to be helped when I am in need and to have my help accepted by those that I see are in need. I want to be spoken to with kindness and compassion and be treated with respect. I want to be forgiven for things I have done or failed to do and for things that others percieve I have done even when I haven't. In short, I am human and fallible - as are all of us. I like to associate with those who help me and encourage me. I try to do the same for those around me. Here I will relate what for me were two bad experiences for me personally but seemed to be what was wanted by the other person so I accomodated them. These interactions, however, did go against my own personal nature which is why they left me with a bad feeling. Back in the early eighties when I was a painting salesman for Iskcon I sold a painting to one man and he requested that I frame it for him which I did. When I came back with the painting he was very upset and started yelling at me. Needless to say, I was a little bit taken back by his behavior. After listening to him for some time it dawned on me that this is a person who wants to fight and won't feel good about his purchase unless I give him satisfaction in that regard. So I started to yell back at him. After some time the conversation came back to a normal pitch and I could tell that the man was starting to feel relieved. I left his house knowing that he finally felt good about his purchase for which I was thankful even though I myself did not feel good about the method. The other story has to do with a one of my bosses in the past. One day this particular manager asked me to go into a conference room with him. We sat across the table from one another. He started in very firmly and forcefully with his message. After awhile he was yelling and pounding his fists on the table. This was the type of manager who is used to bullying people around and managing with fear. He crossed his arms and leered at me from across the table when he had finally finished with the show. I immediately took the opportunity to speak forcefully back to him slowly raising my tone and ending with a tirade that matched, and in some respects, exceeded his own. He was very surprised at my response. I knew that he was used to having others cower under his forceful jargon and demeanor. However the outcome couldn't have been better. He never again raised his voice to me and from that day he had a much higher degree of respect for me. In both of the above interactions I sensed that these individuals were looking for a certain response and I gave it to them even though, in both cases, it went against my natural tendencies. In my second story, I knew that my boss didn't respect me and I was either going to change that, quit or get fired. Regardless of the outcome I wasn't going to allow someone to abuse me in that fashion. My response was as much about reacting to his actions as it was about a rejection of his mode of operation in general. He had not pulled his antics on me prior to this, but I had seen him in action with others and knew how he operated. I took that opportunity to take a stand against him and I told him directly that I don't cower to bullhying tactics and that I don't appreciate them but when confronted with them I will stand against them. Sorry for the rambling in this post. What I am really trying to convey is that we should all strive to be honest and progressive. When we are wrong, we should admit it and correct ourselves. As my wife's religion says 'we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God'. My nephew and I were talking on the way to a dodger game several years ago and he was telling me why he wasn't involved in any organized religion. He said that he felt they were all hypocrites. He said, they don't follow what they preach. My only response to him was that for the vast majority of practicioners in any religion that is certainly the case but it is not a bad thing, in fact it is a good thing if the hypocrites are honest about it and trying to improve themselves. I asked him, 'what would be the purpose of going to the doctor if we all waited until we were no longer sick?' In the same way, I told him, most of us are trying to improve and realize our short comings and that we aren't perfect examples of our faith. Fortunately for all of us there are those who we can look to and see our prospect. These are our Guru's, those who inspire us and give us hope that through our practice and persistence we will one day come to the platform of consistency in practice and precept. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

Well Luigee, I will guess that you are one of the many alter-egos that Valaya is concerned about - but still - I will give you an answer. Your concern should be about who you are and where to place your faith and devotion. Don't be concerned about position in this world. There will always be those who appreciate you and those that don't, regardless of who you are and what your stated belief system is. Spiritual life is about changing your own heart. Do that and you won't have to ask questions like this one. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa

The answer to the first question is one who is trying to be happy here, as Satyaraja pointed out. By happiness, devotees mean devotional service. One can only be truly happy by complete surrender and service. Regarding your second question I would say that the analogy is lacking quite a bit with regards to the actual situation of people misidentifying the Lord. In your analogy the servant was mischievious, but he knew the truth. In our experience of life those who wave a particular banner of the Lord and decry another form do so without true understanding of the form they 'worship' and honestly do not see divinity in the other forms. Now here is one for you. Narayana appeared before the gopis and they recoginized him and payed obeisances to him but they were not interested in him. They went about their business of searching for Sri Krsna, reality the beautiful. Here is a type of transcendental discrimination. Some would say this is not very intelligent just like the mischievious servant in your story. What say you? Your servant, Audarya lila dasa