sumedh

Hare Krishna I think guestji got it more or less right. Sri Radha is not just a concept but a Person, and is only as "symbolic" as you and myself are i.e. She is a Person just as all of us are; just illustrates the inconceivable nature of the Lord in that His sakti is a Person though non-different from Him. btw the aspect of non-difference is also said for jivas but that does not mean that all the jivas are "symbolic" or whatever. p.s. Srila Vyasadeva is considered a saktivesa avataara, i.e. an empowered jiva not visnu-tattva. Krishna presence in this physical realm was as Krishna and Radha as Radha; why is there any confusion unless you want to propagate the theory that all the stories are actually allegorical.

Somehow i find that the persons who come to many (if not all) of such (christian/muslim/...) chatrooms are more consumed in determining as to who is satan (for them nearly everyone else is!), rather than knowing God. Its kind of sad to see that their minds have actually been captured by the thoughts of "satan"; there can hardly even be any talk of sane philosophy with them because they don't have any. Its sad because as far as i can see Jesus was always talking of God.

Hare Krishna and dandavats ... then you can tell them that religion or no religion you cannot bear to eat something by killing a live animal; i mean give them an argument from simple ethics. Of course, they will give all kinds of arguments to justify eating meat but you can simply assert that whatever they may think yourself cannot continue to eat meat due to your conscience. You can say something to the effect that you do not consider eating an animal any different from eating a human; that plants on the contrary have very little suffering when killed for eating using arguments from biological science which they will believe (they do not have a nervous system etc. for sensations of pain). p.s. i live in a family who are somewhat religious, but not vaishnavism -- more of pseudo-modern advaita/yogic hodge-podge combined with some traditions. The real art, which Mahaprabhu has asked us to do, is to gradually also bring our family to bhakti.

Hare Krishna See, we do not like to play mind games. Since you are not at all conversant with the vaishnava philosophy, even though you quote Madhva, it is hard to understand it in context. Coming back to the quote by Vivekananda: I know that both yourself and Vivekananda support the advaita position, but was questioning this quote as it does not support the advaita position. A thoughtful person will know that Absolute Truth is unchangelable while relative truth on this plane does not matter. Hence, there is no question of different religions; either the religion is a true religion or it is not. On the other hand, the bodily designations are irrevelant as regards the spiritual platform.What means by following a religion? In the vaishnava philosophy it is understood in two features (plus another feature of philosophy). One is the codes of law for attainment of the objective (abhideya); the other is the intrinsic function of the soul which is the objective (prayojana). In the neophyte/intermediate stages the second feature is not visible; but when the second feature is known then the first feature is understood to be a part of it. So when we analyze a particular path both the features have to be seen. We see that the Christian and Muslim religions point to the correct prayojana, though their abhideya have errors. On the other hand the advaita/buddhist philosophies point to the wrong prayojana, and so there is no possibility of analyzing it any further. This is what Lord Chaitanya did; by a scrutinizing analysis of the paths one can determine the errors in the different features and try and correct them. He had no business making peace with Muslim kings or appeasing them; where need be He pointed the various flaws and errors in Islam (as to Chand Kazi). You compare two different things altogether. Not mentioning a personal feature is poles apart from saying that jiva is God. In Islam Allah is always talked of as a person to whom the prayers are directed. Not like advaita where there is only some kind of an undefinable super-substance. Therefore, Srila BhaktiSiddhanta asks us to be completely simple and straightforward and keep distance from those of duplicitous behaviour. Why does he call the advaitins as having a duplicitous behaviour? Because the advaitins will claim that all religions lead to the same (as in above quote) by which they actually mean that sometime or other all will actually come to the advaita platform which is the only correct position; or in other words the other paths are only preliminary steps to reach the advaita philosophy. We have nothing to do with such an attitude. So the vaishnavas will judge a path by analyzing its different features and then being straightforward about it. So Madhva's statement "Allah and Narayana are one and the same" is also correct and his rubbishing of certain features of Islam is also correct. If the others judge the vaishnavas as being sectarian, then so be it. You see, nowadays in the name of secular/liberal thought all kinds of nonsense are allowed (and encouraged), but this is not our philosophy.

Hare Krishna and dandavats You said: That's your interpretation because in the other quotes the cit-sakti is being specifically referred to, as in here: or, Here it is the cit-sakti which is being referred to. So the quote before can only mean to apply to all the saktis and that is what has been referred to i.e. to para-sakti (as all the saktis). Nowhere have the maya-sakti and jiva-sakti been separated in the description or in any of the explanations after that. The above quotes are from the explanations of the Dasa-mula(3) (in the above you probably meant only jiva-sakti and not maya-sakti else your previous statements for Durga are not correct)Of course, the last quote in my previous post answers the things completely (including your giving dictionary meanings of "identical" to show my foolishness), thats all. My only intention to continuing with this discussion was that so that the other devotees (some of whom may be very new to this) may not think that your statements represent unequivocal gaudiya siddhanta. I believe sincere devotees with humility will be guided by caitya-guru (and sad-guru) to the correct siddhanta.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Kamlesh prabhuji i would say that from the ethics point of view you are right. But from the spiritual point of view the devotee will progress to the offenceless stage at some time. He is committing an offence, which happens with most of us, but he is cognizant of it and Krsna will definitely help him get out of the situation. For an atheist, however, there is no knowing when the sukriti will be strong enough to be attracted to the transcendental message of the Lord. This is no excuse, of course, for continuing the present course of action. Krishna will only help when our determination is strong. Moreover, as you said, after being attracted to Krishna it does not show well if we do not have the determination to even refuse to eat meat. Maybe if guestji can explain why he/she is not able to assert before the family of the decision to not eat meat, then some suggestion can be provided.

Hare Krishna And so... You directly place Srila Madhva's opinion in contradiction to Sri Chaitanya and Padma Puraana. Also, in the quote before it is not mentioned that in the story Tripurasura actually obtained liberation after being killed, so what fault can be there of Muhammad. Anyway this does not matter since it would require great imaginativeness and boldness to question the opinions of Acharyas. Before you understand the difference between "everything happens with the sanction of Lord" and "carrying out the orders of the Lord" it is futile to discuss this anymore. Such thoughtless big statements without knowing the nature of free will of a jiva only create confusion. Very interesting quote; which position do you (or Vivekananda) want to support by this.

Hare Krishna and dandavats sorry i was away for a few weeks. And you think that other unequivocal statements should be rubbished in favour of an understanding that you have gained of the other statements that support your position. This is completely untrue and shows a lack of understanding of the acintya-bheda-abheda. I clearly said that in one aspect they are one and the same and in the other aspect there is a difference; and both these aspects exist simultaneously and eternally which is inconceivable in this material understanding. The bheda aspect is that Sri Radha does not have any independent desires. This is quoted in many places including here in Jaiva Dharma: You said: unfortunately you cannot seem to get past your fondness for labelling others as speculators etc. I can go on giving the quotes endlessly and you will still place these adjectives; seems like this gives you some satisfaction. The above statement is a quote from Jaiva Dharma Chapter 14, and the full quotation was given before which you care not to read Hope you spot it this time. You said: In the context of what i was saying, saktimaan refers to the possesor of potencies as Sri Krishna who is completely independent. Sri Radha is the embodiment of the svarup sakti and so without doubt has all the potencies, which are employed in accordance with Krishna's desires as quoted before. In the material world when we think of energy and energetic then it is inconceivable that there is any difference in them, or that the energy be separate from the energetic. So i had used the term that they only appear to be different from this point of view and they are one and the same; here the term appear is not remotely in the sense of illusion rather emphasis of the abheda to exaggerate it. But from another point of view the energy is different from the energetic. Because both these aspects exist simultaneously and eternally, it is inconceivable and thus the acintya-bheda-abheda. Many quotes were given before that express this. Also consider this from Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 18, which expresses this clearly. But the bheda aspect of sakti and saktimaan is very important, because otherwise the gaudiya siddhanta will turn into brahman-parinama-vada (i.e. all the creation is a transformation of Brahman) with respect to creation (jivas are not being considered in any case) -- since you say that there is only abheda in Brahman and Sakti, so any transformation of sakti will mean transformation of Brahman. This is explicitly refuted in gaudiya siddhanta such as here (Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 18): The gaudiya siddhanta is sakti-parinama-vada, which means that it draws a distinction between para-tattva and sakti and as quoted above there is a transformation of sakti but not of Brahman (in the above Brahman is used in the sense of para-tattva). It is surprising that you ignore these quotes completely in pursuance of only abheda between Krishna and His cit-sakti. In the jivas the bheda aspect is more prominent and the abheda aspect is less prominent because of their infinitesemal nature and so are vibbhinnamsa. On the other hand in the cit-sakti the abheda aspect is very strong and the bheda is not prominent at all. When any description is provided of the situation, it is only possible to discuss one aspect at one time and when the abheda aspect is expressed then para-tattva and cit-sakti are one and the same since it is the personal potency; when the other aspect is considered then they are certainly different since para-tattva has His own independent nature and desires which has been quoted before. You said: This is completely new thesis you want to present. Everywhere it has been said the Krishna is saktimaan and Radha is sakti and this addition of "called" is your own addition. You said: who do not have the quality of complete renunciation (as given by Parasara Muni) and are not worshipped as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, rather as His svarupa energy. Since you explicitly said that acintya-bheda-abheda is only applicable for Lord and jivas, i would only say that it is applicable everywhere: in Krishna/Baladeva and even in Krishna at Vraja and Krishna at Dwarka. Of course, here the bheda aspect is of a different kind. So there are bheda and abheda aspects in Krishna/Baladeva, Krishna/Radharani, Krishna/Durga, Krishna/jivas but they are of different kind in each of them. There is some misunderstanding of this principle, it seems, because the above are only one of the many manifestations of this principle. Actually this principle is manifested as (apparent) simultaneous eternal contradictions in Sri Krishna: In particular the material energy in the form of gross and subtle matter is not an expansion of para-tattva and constitutes only the separated energies of Krishna; meaning to say different chunks of matter are not entities but only energy. This situation has no comparison with Radharani and Her expansions who are entities of course, but are one with the para-tattva being the personal energy as has been expressed above and in the quotes before. The baddha-jivas are manifested from the tatastha-sakti i.e. from the boundary of spiritual and material, but are distinguished from material/spiritual creation which are a manifestation of sandhani potency, in that they are separate individuals in the form of atomic expansions of Mahavishnu as has been given in Jaiva-Dharma (Chapter 16): However, other jivas also emanate from Sri Baladeva Prabhu and Sri Sankarsana (and not from tatastha sakti) as given just before By your calculation they are all Krsna Himself, since they are not manifest from jiva sakti and thus must be svamsa ... Anyway, this is not surprising since by your calculation even chunks of matter are also visnu. You said: Why should i calculate? Actually the question of the original poster has been answered completely in Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 9: Hope you can spot the term "identical" in the above quote to mean something other (quality or inherent function) than you contemplate. (good for me as i need not rewrite gaudiya scriptures as you suggested!!!) i need not say anything more, as all the aspects are covered in this. You present a siddhanta opposed to Srila BhaktiVinode Thakur (probably in the name of "higher" understanding??), and that can be termed a calculation on your part. You have given quotes from Jaiva-Dharma to present as if it supports your conclusions by giving the abheda aspects only, but both the aspects have been made very clear from the very beginning in Jaiva-Dharma. On the other hand if i have said anything that opposes the above quotes, i will be more than happy to correct it. may i request you that before giving more quotes could you first care to explain these quotes for the benefit of those like myself who are "grasping at straws", or do you just ignore them as before.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam I would say whatever comes to you naturally, at different times at least i have different feelings. That's the greatest secret. When the feelings are actually directly connected to Krishna, then all of them are blissful!! (including feelings of separation,frustration etc.). It has to be experienced to be believed. i can safely assume that most devotees would really want to have the feelings of separation to increase and increase (for among other things it signifies that there is some semblence of love for Godhead exposing itself)

Hare Krishna and dandavats Its okay, i may be grasping at straws and i agree. Please consider how to properly conduct a discussion. First you give some quotations to support your conclusions then if someone gives quotations supporting a contrary conclusion then you just ignore those statements. When someone gives an understanding of the quotations you gave, using other quotations, then you call him/her apa-sampradaya and arrogant dull-headed fool who is bent upon changing the acharyas words which in your opinion represent some un-equivocal siddhanta. Its fine now we have some level of sanity in the discussion and we better not indulge in slander as in your previous posts. Please consider what should be the nature of discussion with others especially other devotees (or trying to be). So kindly keep your words concerning sampradaya or "you think that acharyas must be wrong" etc. away from here. You say: That is your own tattva. This is Gaudiya tattva from Jaiva Dharma: The basis of all Gaudiya tattva in Jaiva-Dharma has been explicitly told to be the Dasa-Mula of Sri Chaitanya. And the relevant portions are expressed in 2nd and 3rd Dasa-Mula and their expositions by Srila Raghunatha babaji as given in Jaiva-Dharma. I have already quoted them but consider (parts of) them again: (note in the above quote the form of Sri Krisha has also been mentioned as a work of Sakti, just to explain what you quoted about form of Krishna being a work of Cit-Sakti but still Saktimaan has His own independent nature) So it is not "my" tattva after all. Actually all subsequent statements must be understood in the light of the Dasa-mula which clearly establishes acintya-bheda-abheda of para-tattva and para-shakti. I was wanting to get to the point somewhat step-by-step so i didn't say the things so explicitly rather tried to show mutual contradictions in your stated position. You give my statements like: by which i meant that the cit-sakti is really not a separate *entity* (which i said explicitly many-a-times later) and is not an expansion of Lord (because you still consider sakti or energy to be an entity); and also about the nature of Lord Shiva who has been explicitly told to be neither svamsa nor vibhinnamsa but simultaneously one with both and different. Sakti is energy not an entity (though in spiritual realm it appears so due to the inconceivable nature of Lord). You again scorn ... Because in the spiritual realm sakti *appears* as a separate entity (Radharani and Her expansions). Why don't you rewrite gaudiya siddhanta to say that every piece of matter is directly vishnu? Before proceeding please first provide an explanation (from point of view of your siddhanta) of the statements like: Sri Bhagavan Himself says in Bhagavad-Gita that He is the Supreme Enjoyer, do you interpret it to mean that He can be the enjoyed as sakti also? Or when Sri Bhagavan says that material energies are His separated energies why you ignore it. Or when Srila BhaktiSiddhanta explicitly says that those who think of the other dieties in panchopasana (Durga/Siva/Ganesh/Surya) as bodies of Vishnu will never get liberation (and then quotes explicitly from Brahma-Samhita for each of them). Or of the above quotes from Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 14 where the Shaktimaan Krishna has been explicitly told to have His own independent nature. Or in the case of Lord Shiva: And also explicitly answer the question: is a piece of matter vishnu -- not acintya-bheda-abheda but directly 100% vishnu. (i hope you realize i am not talking about the paramatma expansion of the Lord present in very paramanu). Kindly see all this in the light of the basic principle of all Gaudiya siddhanta viz. acintya-bheda-abheda. Just to reiterate, God always refers to the Supreme Enjoyer and never to His cit-sakti who is always the enjoyed; this is what distinguishes expansions of Krishna (starting from Baladeva prabhu) from expansions of Radharani.

Hare Krishna and dandavats I am really sorry, but please do not try to project that i am giving my own sidhanta; i have repeatedly said that i am only giving my understanding and if you have a problem with it then please point it out but you have to first get a grasp of what i am trying to say. You do not understand my statements and you give such a conclusion from your side; from my point of view i could say that you are concocting a new siddhanta based on some statements but i did not say such a thing because it is not fair to expect everyone's understanding to be perfect. I made it very clear that there is no question of any dispute with these statements, but you do not care to read/understand. Then you bring in all the nonsense of disciplic succession and all that; what you mean by all this?? All that i had to say, i already put in earlier posts so i will just put in condensed form again. -- cit-sakti is an attribute of the para-tattva who has additional attributes not found in the *principle* of sakti You ignore these explicit quotes and then dare to call me giving a new siddhanta. In truth you do not understand the difference between sakti and tattva as separate principles (not entities), that sakti is an attribute of tattva and in reality can never be a separate entity and make all kinds of accusations. -- Since sakti is an attribute of the para-tattva it is not even meaningful to talk of sakti as having a separate existence; but she *appears* to be a separate entity (as in Sri Radha and expansions) which is reality is an attribute of para-tattva and thus cit-sakti is identical with the para-tattva. -- if we say cit-sakti is Godhead, it will be an error because it is not meaningful to talk of sakti as a separate entity who is always an attribute of the para-tattva; when we talk of Godhead it can only refer to the Supreme Person and not to only his attribute(s) namely sakti. This is made clear by the previous quotes -- recognise the difference between "cit-sakti is identical to para-tattva" and "cit-sakti is another name for para-tattva"; the former is correct and the latter is incorrect I never said that, only you interpreted my words to mean that because you neither understand what Jiva Goswami is saying nor what i am saying. They are saying that She is identical to visnu-tattva. Get the understanding clear in the full context (from the previous quotes) that She is an intrinsic attribute of visnu-tattva and so is identical to it; visnu-tattva has additional attributes (sva-tantrata/sva-icchamayata) which are not covered when we refer to just the sakti attribute. Sakti is not an expansion; cit-sakti is an attribute of the svamsa expansion(s). -- You give a new siddhanta and cannot give answer to the question that is a piece of matter vishnu-tattva, because you have lost all differentiation between purusha/tattva and energy. Your absurd theory leads to the conclusion that a piece of dead matter is vishnu and you dare to defend such a theory using some quotes and then claim that i am a fool/crook who is trying to twist the words of our Acharyas to give a new siddhanta. Regarding Lord Siva you have already provided the quotes of Srila Narayan Maharaja in which it is said that very rarely when Lord Sadasiva does not come as Siva then jiva can take the post of Siva. Thanks for clarifying this. But in that quote itself you can understand that jiva cannot become Sadasiva; so Sadasiva comes as Siva (and then from tattva point of view Siva is same as Sadasiva but also different) then that cannot be compared to jiva occupying the post of Siva. By this quote you contradict yourself when you said that Siva is vibhinnamsa -- only very rarely jiva may occupy the post of Siva. When Siva is as an expansion of Sadasiva he would be considered svamsa. The quotes of Srila Prabhupada regarding Siva-tattva referred to the case of Siva as an expansion of Sadasiva and not when jiva becomes Siva (just like Brahma is normally referred to as jiva-tattva but that does not cover the case when Brahma is an expansion of Visnu when there is no suitable candidate). I request you to examine your situation carefully and ask to yourself why this conclusion that a piece of matter is visnu arising out of what you are saying. (now please don't say that this is the theory of our acharyas). Please excuse me for some of my harsh words, but which i had to place due to the numerous accusations meant to demean coming from whom i think to be another devotee.

Hare Krishna That previous post was mine. This should have read -- sakti is the main principle.

Hare Krishna Can we have quotes please. In any case it is written that what Muhammad did was by the order of Lord Shiva.

Hare Krishna, Have a check on your language, sir. That's what Lord Chaitanya revealed to be the true message. Anyway, bandagi or servitorship to the Lord is taught. The impersonalist philosophy of jiva being God is much more dangerous and worse. But you hardly get the point. The question is not present day followers, but Muhammad. If you know a little of history, you should know that before Sri Chaitanya the other vaishnava sampradayas (esp. madhvacharya) used to criticize Shankaracharya very heavily; similiarly they would really be very hateful of Shaivites and would never enter the temple of Lord Shiva. Lord Chaitanya said that Shankaracharya was Lord Shiva who did what was necessary by the order of Krishna (using explicit quotes from Padma Purana); and Lord Shiva as the foremost vaishnava. At least in the gaudiya sampradaya Shankaracharya should never be criticized and is an offense to do so, just as Lord Buddha who is known to be Sri Bhagavan cannot be criticized for philosophy of Buddhism. So we criticize the practises of present day followers (and you can find that in abundance on this forum, if criticism is what satisfies you), but should not criticize Paigambar Muhammad.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam The quote: This statement seems irreconcilable. But its actual meaning is as given before in the 3rd of Dasa-mula as given by Sri Chaitanyadeva. The import is that "when we say vishnu-tattva then the spiritual energy (including jiva-sakti) is included alongwith it". I think in this light the quote is very clear, otherwise we will always be confused and provide different interpretations of it.This point is very important as it distinguishes our principle from the advaita siddhanta. They talk of brahman as a separate entity from maya-sakti, which is not correct as brahman is never separate from sakti; but they are separate principles no doubt (please consider the difference between entity and principle). This is explained very nicely in Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 14.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Continuing from previous post, i will try to give my understanding now, which in my opinion is the same as given by Srila Prabhupada and Dasa-mula as explained in Jaiva-Dharma. I was reluctant to put my understanding completely fearing that you would find unlimited faults in it using different quotations. But i will proceed anyway, since i feel that the discussion has reached the point where you would probably think it worthy of consideration. This was my understanding before and reading Jaiva-Dharma (by your grace) really enhanced and cleared up the whole thing. Please consider it carefully. You said that achintya-bheda-abheda is only applicable for jivas and God; i beg to differ -- it applies in all realms of the Absolute Truth. It is the basic nature of Absolute realm, just like bheda seems to be the basic principle in material realm (but in reality it is also acintya-bheda-abheda). -------------------------- First, what means by tattva. It is the aspect of philosophical Truth, as opposed to sakti which is the aspect of the active element. In the material world when we say "I and my energy" or "Sun and its energy", then the energy is just an attribute of the possesor of energy -- it is not a separate thing and so it is not meaningful to even talk of tattva of energy (as the two refer to separate principles with latter being an attribute of former). But in the spiritual realm, due to the inconceivable potency of the Supreme Lord the Truth and energy *appear* in separate identities. In reality they are one and the same, and so talking of sakti without saktimaan makes no sense. So what is the answer of the tattva of para-sakti? The answer would be to first consider the svamsa and vibhinnamsa distinction i.e. the vibhinnamsa are separated parts which possess the quality of para-tattva to only a minute degree (compared to rays of sun); so in addition to the sakti aspect of the para-tattva, they also have the freedom/free will aspects of para-tattva to minute degree. What is the tattva of the vibhinnamsa parts? Broadly speaking it is jiva-tattva. What is the tattva of cit-sakti? The answer would be that the question is not meaningful in the true sense of the word for sakti is an attribute of tattva aspect; but since they *appear* to be separate the answer would be to just say that it is identical to para-tattva. If the question is: is cit-sakti para-tattva? Then the answer would be: no, they are separate philosophical principles and cit-sakti is an attribute of the para-tattva. Only para-tattva is designated as Godhead since the sakti is included in the concept of possessor of energy, but not the other way round. Properly speaking though, we worship both of them together with the understanding that Krishna is the possessor of cit-sakti as Radha; but the separate worship also has a special significance of rasa which you know. Does svamsa mean cit-sakti? Not really, cit-sakti is the energy aspect of svamsas. This is the distinction between the expansions of Krishna, as opposed to expansions of Radharani. -------------------------- So when sometimes cit-sakti is categorized as a separate tattva (sakti-tattva) it is also not wrong, but with the understanding of its identity with vishnu-tattva. Thus my objection to the statement that Durga is God. No, Durga is identical to God, being a transformation of cit-sakti, but God refers to para-tattva or vishnu-tattva which is a separate principle (though inseparable with its internal energy in identity).

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Just one more thing, if you can listen patiently without being angry /images/graemlins/smile.gif I did not pay great attention to the quotes, and there is a very basic point i missed. Actually we have quite a situation here. You quoted: Can you give the exact quote. Because if we take the direct meaning then it makes no sense. Para-sakti means the whole spiritual energy including cit-sakti, jiva-sakti, maya-sakti and then it will mean that jiva-sakti is also visnu-tattva!! You have interpreted it to mean cit-sakti/svarup-sakti but that will be just be an interpretation and not the direct meaning since the jiva-sakti is also always included in the para-sakti (apara-sakti only refers to maya-sakti which is also part of para-sakti in reality). I am not even remotely saying this is wrong, but will provide my understanding of this quote in a later post when i have discussed my position thoroughly. My request is to please try to understand the whole situation harmoniously and try and understand my viewpoint. So i will start by discussing the tattva as given in Dasa-mula of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. The second of the Dasa-mula gives the definition of param-tattva as Sri Bhagavan Krishna. I think this point is of no confusion and i am not quoting it in full or else this post will becomes boringly too long. The third of the Dasa-mula gives the position of para-sakti (from Jaiva-Dharma 14). Please read chapter 14 of Jaiva-Dharma completely for further details.As you can see the distinction between para-tattva (Supreme Absolute Truth or vishnu-tattva) and para-sakti is clearly made, and the whole chapter is labelled as sakti-tattva for this reason. Please see my next post where i try to put my position in brief and also discuss the apparent contradiction in the quote you gave above.

Hare Krishna and dandavats "evil, negativ energy?" Actually there is nothing as negative energy as a separate entity. It only means "forgetfulness of God" or the concept of negation of God which leads to the false identification with gross and subtle bodies. Thus, when the the jiva wants to lord over the material world he/she commits sin due to forgetting the eternal position as subserviant to God. Of course, on its own the jiva cannot exist what to say act, and the Lord helps fulfil the desires of the jiva. This is a very important point: The desire of a jiva is its own and not of Krishna. The source of the capacity to have independent desire comes from Krishna, but desires are independent to those of Krishna as long as the jiva is in material world. When the jiva surrenders completely and becomes a pure devotee and attains svarupa-siddhi, then of course the desires are one with the Krishna and that is the constitutional position of the jiva. If the jiva has no freedom (sva-tantrata) and free will (sva-icchamayata), then it will be like dead matter!! Being infinitisemal particles of Krishna, these qualities are there in jiva just like they are in Krishna but improper use of these leads to falling in the material world and thus "evil".

Hare Krishna and dandavats May i add one thing; of the six opulences of God as mentioned by Parasara Muni the opulence of full renunciation cannot be claimed to exist in Sri Radha since she has no independent desire. prabhuji take it easy.

Hare Krishna Please don't be sick. We make our judgements on the basis of the judgements of our Spiritual Masters and both Sri Chaitanyadeva and Srila Prabhupada consider Paigambar Muhammad as bona-fide. I don't know enough Persian to know whether they have been interpreted incorrectly, or whether or not they have been interpolated, or they mean something different; but i would not be as indiscreet and imprudent so as to challenge the opinion of our acharyas (and Bhavishya-puraana) and accuse the character/sanity of Paigambar Muhammad.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Shiva prabhuji, due to your grace i ended up reading Jaiva-Dharma (sambandha and abhideya) where these points are nicely explained. Why do you talk like this?? and what are you angry about. Earlier also you dismissed a statement of worship as incorrect without trying to understand what i was trying to imply. We are just discussing, and tattva discussion is most beneficial; winning arguments is not our aim -- is it? I specifically posted the statement about shiva-tattva in which there are *apparent* mutually contradictory statements in the translation and the purport, but probably you did not notice. One may dismiss the purport as an unintentional mistake on Srila Prabhupada's part, but that is unimaginable. The purport would indicate that Lord Shiva is svamsa, but the verse/translation would imply that Lord Shiva is vibhinnamsa. The correct conclusion is the one as presented in the purport itself, as neither of the two in the strict sense of the word and so is qualified as a separate tattva. Similiar thing is implied by the milk-yogurt statement of Brahma-Samhita. I remember an explicit statement of Srila Prabhupada saying that conditioned jiva souls cannot become Shiva though they can become Brahma (will try to find it ...) Since you have categorized all as either vishnu-tattva or jiva-tattva i have the following questions. Please consider carefully (there is no quarrel going on here): 1) Does it mean that all nitya-paarshada expansions (which have been described as atomic expansions) of the cit-shakti including expansions of Sri Radharani/Baladeva/Sankarsana are vishnu. 2) Does it mean that a piece of matter, which is expansion of Durga, is vishnu-tattva; if not then is it jiva-tattva; if neither then what? 3) The Lord has been described as having three shaktis -- antaranga-shakti, bahiranga-shakti (which is identical to antaranga-shakti as per you said) and tatastha-shakti. Does it mean that Lord Shiva is coming from tatastha-shakti? If that is the case then it clearly given in Jaiva-Dharma tatastha means from the boundary of material and spiritual; but the origin of Lord Shiva is given to be different (as a transformation of Lord Krishna for dealing with maya-shakti) The main objection was the establishment of Durga as God, which is same as the theory of Shaktas, who is never independent. The important point is the Shaktimaan, who though identical to His shakti, has some characteristics *not* found in shakti which have been given in Jaiva Dharma Chapter 14 and also here If you read the whole chapter of Jaiva Dharma then it will be clear that the Shaktimaan (who is always alongwith Shakti) is designated Godhead and depicted in Male forms. This is the main difference between His expansions as Sri Baladeva Prabhu/other Vishnu expansions, and Sri Radharani; the former are the same as Krishna (apart from the differentiation from the rasa point of view -- bheda-abheda again) while the latter is Shakti. As you quoted, svarupa-shakti is vishnu-tattva but there is still a difference (which cannot compare to that of Lord Shiva) as given above. Thus achintya-bheda-abheda is also evident here. So Shakti is not the sole principle as was being implied by your posts and that was my main point. My request is to see this whole thing in this light: sometimes jiva-tattva is used to mean those from the tatastha energy; at other times it is used to mean all atomic particles of conciousness including the nitya-paarshada (which are from cit-sakti). I also agree that in places the acharyas may have used vishnu-tattva to denote all svamsha expansions; but that cannot mean Godhead in all cases. Actually, we have very little difference in all this -- but due to bheda-abheda our opinions appear different /images/graemlins/smile.gif It was definitely my mistake not to have elaborated on my understanding of cit-sakti vis-a-vis vishnu-tattva before, instead of just saying they are not the same. But what is the need of sounding like that of some kind of a fight; besides devotees are not supposed to fight among themselves? I am just placing my understanding, and placing them again using more elaborations because i believe you have not understood my viewpoint. If you consider carefully there is no dispute with the quotes of the acharyas as you presented and so please do not draw Mahaprabhu, Prabhupada as if on your side against my arguments.

Hare Krishna and dandavats Islam is in problems due to mis-interpretation of its scriptures or due to no one being able to properly know its essence. The true essence of the Quran has been revealed to be vaishnava-dharma (though not in so many words as in vedic/vaishnava sastras) by none other than Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Just read the following from Jaiva-dharma (Chapter 5) before making such harsh statements. Sri Gaurangadeva would not care to explain Quran this way if it was non-bonafide. Also we have direct statements of Srila Prabhupada saying that Paigambar Sahib is Guru-tattva. In addition in Bhavishya-Puraana it is stated that Lord Shiva sent him. Please see it in the light that Muhammad Sahib in essence preached the vaishnava dharma (servitorship to Lord) to the kind of people that were in that place/time and turned them somewhat to Lord, you would appreciate the "tolerance" of HKs. No not tolerance (even enemies can be tolerant of one another), we should give utmost respect to Paigambar Muhammad but of course not to present day muslims who are hateful/envious of true vaishnavas.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam There are a number of direct statements in sashtras that for all devotees (and all persons in general), even acharyas and pure devotees, ekadashi vrata must be followed. Please consider the big difference in other vratas and ekadashi/janmashtami/... vratas; the former have no advantage to the sadhakas spiritually (only temporary material benefits) while those directly connected with Sri Bhagavan aid to arouse bhakti. The vrata of ekadashi is considered important in all vaishnavas, especially gaudiyas, so much so that Lord Gauranga even asked His mother (who is nitya-siddha) to observe it to demonstrate its importance to the devotees. Grains are the most important item that is not allowed. Please see this thread for the details of what can be consumed and what not: http://www.hare-krishna.org/showflat/cat/HareKrishnaNews/4156/0/collapsed/5/o/1 In my opinion if one does not want to do full abstinence from food, fruits and milk are best.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam There can be no disagreement with the statements of the One Identity of Sri Radha-Krishna, as She is the svarup shakti. Sri Radha and Krishna are identical but She is not considered Vishnu-tattva. The Supreme Lord as the enjoyer is thus depicted as Purusha (Lord Balarama, Maha-Vishnu) as opposed to the enjoyed as Shakti as female (Sri Radha, Lakshmi). The God for the material world are the three Purusha avataars, and the energy is Durga. This is the point of contention. It is known in the nyaya logic (or any other systems) that when a specific principle seems contradictory to a general principle then the conclusions of the specific principle are applicable as extensions to the general principle. So when Srila Jiva Goswami gives the broad categorization of Lord's expansions as svamsa and vibhinnamsa then it does not necessarily mean that all entities only belong to one of the two categories; this statement is to contrast the difference between jiva and the Supreme Lord.This principle has been used by our acharyas to explain many apparent contradictions in the scriptures numerous times. If you can give a direct statement that Lord Shiva is jiva-tattva, then your conclusions can be accepted. On the other hand there are numerous statements stating otherwise; so when we have direct statements that he is not jiva-tattva and he is also not vishnu-tattva the only conclusion can be what is presented by Srila Prabhupada. So what do you make of this: SB 4.1.15 or Brahad-bhagavatamrta 1.2.97 or CC Madhya 20.308 If your argument were to be accepted, don't you find it strange that when in all the expansions of the Lord are described in such great detail by Lord Chaitanya to Srila Sanatana Goswami from Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 20.165 onwards, there is no mention of His svarupa shakti and expansions which are given elsewhere. The only conclusion is that svarupa shakti (and expansions) are categorized separately. There is no meaning to the svarup shakti without Krishna, and vice-versa as stated many times, but the distinction is still maintained for the exchange of rasa. This is illustrated further by Lord Chaitanya's pastimes, where He appears in the pancha-tattva feature. Only Lord Chaitanya, Nityananda and Advaita Acharya are considered Godhead; while Gadadhara (who is identical with Sri Radha) and Srivasa thakura are considered their servitors. If Durga is vishnu-tattva then what objection could be there to the worship as in shakta-sampradayas which has been condemned as incorrect by vaishnavas; in effect what you are saying is that shakta-sampradaya is vaishnava!! It is because Durga is not an independent Godhead but energy of Krishna who is the only independent Godhead, and so saying Durga as vishnu-tattva would be incorrect. Also, worshipping Durga with Vishnu is not proper, only the spiritual aspect of the energy with the Supreme Spirit should be worshipped. In particular the mantras of Durga are *not considered* to be the chanting of the Holy Name, and don't have the potency of the Holy Names. This is incorrect as well. One's worship goes to vaisnava's, Guru, and any form of Visnu tattva desired, all are considered worshipable. This is what i also said in the parentheses that we worship Sri Radha, Guru to become their servitors -- the ultimate object being to serve Krishna through their medium; what is the incorrect part in this?? The main point here was that there is no provision for worshipping or considering the material energy as the Supreme Lord in the vaishnava philosophy. As our acharyas have said that these topics of nature of Lord Shiva, Sri Radha and Guru are very difficult to understand and such discussion is very nice to clear up a lot of things and in my opinion the answers are not as simple as "Lord Shiva is empowered jiva" or "Durga is vishnu tattva".

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Hope you are still with us. I think you may be wondering why no one reponded here. Maybe you assumed they were stumped and did not know what to say!! From your post i safely assume that you are from india, which i am also. Our problem is that we know so little and make Absolute claims based on mental feelings; do we know who are our accepted acharyas and their philosophies; are we taught who is jiva and God (or our various philosophies) and their relation; do we know what means by spiritual and what means by material -- in short do we know our own philosophy. All we come to know is from heresay or traditions in our own families or recently from all the tv serials where they show something in one serial and contradictory things in another (do we question as to why they show their own opinions as the Supreme Truth, or has some accepted acharya given them the authority). You supposedly quoted from brahmanda puraana; do we know which texts are Vedic texts which are considered authentic, which translations and commentries are to be considered authentic or will any do, how does knowledge from the transcendental realm come here; have we even read the Vedic texts or their conclusions and if we do read do we follow them completely; what are our disciplic successions and how a sampradaya should be considered authentic; what are the conclusions of our jagat acharyas viz. Shankaracharya, Madhvacharya, Ramanujacharya, Nimbarakacharya and Vishnujana Swami and would one think they have no "punya"; why would one hold own beliefs (usually coming from ad-hoc sources) to be superior to those of the acharyas; are we even following all the rules and regulations that have been prescribed and what are the authorized sadhanas (wrt the ultimate aim we may consider) in the first place. You said that Lalitadevi is Para Shakti, do we know what is the meaning of Para shakti and apara shakti, what is the nature of God, what is the meaning of going to live with Her and what then is life like, what is the nature of mantras and the Holy Name, of Deity worship; how should our actions be; what is good/bad, is it subjective or objective; and the nature of the trinity, how are they similiar/different from the other dieties like indra/agni/... and still others like Ganesh/Skanda/... or from one another; what are jivas doing here in the first place; what means by Truth and illusion; and what is the meaning of religion and what is its objective. I would have been supposed to know to some degree, having read books by some famous "gurus", having even taken indian philosophy course during my undergrad. But i know that it was not a drop (which also was wrong) compared to what Srila Prabhupada gave to the devotees in the western and other countries. Please do not imagine that "western" (or other) devotees here are not well-versed, they know more of our philosophy and religion than almost all indians, more than you can presently imagine. You may disagree with what we say, but you will have to first read the philosophy and then with evidence and logic show why you think something is wrong or lacking. As Srila Prabhupada would say "Religion without philosophy is sentimentalism, and philosophy without religion is mental speculation", so better first speak of philosophy and then probably we may be fit to discuss who is Supreme Lord and who is not. Since you have come to this forum, my request would be to first read some of the material (and then place questions/objections as you feel); in my opinion a good start would be small books such as http://www.hare-krishna.org/books/perfectanswers.zip http://www.hare-krishna.org/books/science.zip and then http://www.hare-krishna.org/books/bhagavadgita.zip Other books are available here: http://www.hare-krishna.org/srila-prabhupada-books.htm or here: http://www.vedabase.net The posts in the "letters to the editor" section of this site are also nice to answer other common quesions.