stonehearted

Parvati is standard, according to my experience. However, there may be dialects in which the name is pronounced differently.

I'll join the chorus seconding Beggar's good advice. If you can meet these devotees and hear from them personally, that's always the best course, I think. Failing that, why not explore further by reading their books, getting recordings of some of their talks, maybe even corresponding with them, to the extent that's possible? Get to know them as well as you can, and see what happens in your heart.

Govinda dasi has been my close friend for 40 years, and the fact is that, although she planted the first Tulasis in the West, I cared for them beginning from when they got their first leaves. Srila Prabhupada wrote me, when I finally got initiated, that he was very pleased with my service and that I would make rapid advancement in Krishna consciousness by Tulasi-devi's grace. Govinda dasi has often referred to those of us with long, deep ties to Tulasi's service (including my older daughter, Krishnamayi) as manjaris, but in a looser sense, the sense that we are Tulasi's personal attendants, not in any rasika sense. In fact, based on our 40 years of friendship, I believe Govinda herself tends toward another relationship with Krishna. She would never discuss such things or encourage any speculation of this sort. She will assert strongly that she's too engrossed in material desire to have any sense of what her specific relationship might be. Sonic, I would strongly suggest that you get Tulasi seeds here. They will have developed over many generations to thrive in this climate much better than seeds from Hawaii, which are descended from almost 40 years of Tulasi's life in the Islands. Based on my long experience with Tulasi, I believe they'll do better here. If you like, maybe I can help.

Just before that, Hrishikesha asks if his relationship with Srila Prabhupada is eternal, as manjaris, Srila Prabhupada says, "Down to sakhya." And here, where you're citing, Srila Prabhupada says, "Yes, that is the highest, but in the spiritual world there is no difference." And in another comment on my Web site, Hrishikesha says, "Sripad Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada was a siddha-purusha fixed in manjari bhava. ACBSP told me that his Guru was already fixed in Nitya Lila before he started his mission. It seems that in at least two cases, e.g., Krishnadas Bababji Maharaj and Srila Prabhupada, the disciple has a different specific bhava than their Guru. . . . If Srila Prabhupada serves Krishna as a Sakha, still that is pleasing to Radha Rani, as She needs Krishna to have His friends."

Sukhada beat me to the button here. I don't have my books with me, but I also remember that Gopa Kumar only visited those Vaikuntha planets, never fit in. And, if I remember correctly, when the residents of Dvaraka pressed him to give up his gopa-vesha, he repeatedly put them off, and eventually moved on. He never found a place for himself in any of those Vaikuntha planets, not even in other regions of Goloka. And that's a big point of the story: his life is in Vraja, nowhere else. This is not a story of a jiva evolving through different moods, but of a jiva seeking his real place and not settling for anything else. And, as I point out in my booklet, I think we need to stop for a moment and note that Srila Sanatana Goswami, himself a manjari, had the hero of his book turn out to be a priyanarma sakha.

Well, no one here has hurt my feelings. And I didn't write this to create friction. I did so because the evidence that came together is so ecstatic that it was hard not to share it. My intention is that devotees whose subjective experience of Srila Prabhupada is similar to my friends' and mine might feel encouraged. Fortunately, this has been the case, and those of us involved in this effort have received many comments to this effect. I'm particularly encouraged by the sweet mood I see here in Sukhada, Beggar and Sonic. I'll follow your example and ask your pardon for any offense I have committed out of confidence. This may be a good note for us to close this thread. Thanks to all who responded to my announcement.

Some rupanugas may not be situated in raganuga bhakti proper, but the goal of their sadhana would certainly be movement in that direction. No; pusti-marga devotees may be raganugas, but they aren't rupanugas because they don't follow Srila Rupa Goswami.

If you want to find out about the priyanarma sakhas, there are hints in Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu (and, of course, in The Nectar of Devotion). Maybe something in Radha-Krishna Gannodesa-dipika. You can also find more in Ujjvala-nilamani and other books. Perhaps in Sarartha-darshini (mine is almost 3,000 miles away, so I can't check right now). But that's for those who have the greed to know, based on their own spiritual development. As I mentioned earlier, this is not a topic suitable for tourists.

I think that's a fair way to characterize part of the motivation. However, the main motivation comes from the weight of the evidence itself, much of which I see, as I've mentioned, as a trail of hints from Srila Prabhupada himself. I very much like, as does madhuvac, Srila Prabhupada's unambiguous "I am a cowherd boy." I also like the more subtle statement in Atlanta: "I very much like the cowherd boys. . . . I just want to go back to the spiritual world and eat kacauri and laddu with Krishna." I'd make that at least a close second place. And, as clearly as I want readers to see that I didn't write this to impose an idea on others, my argument implies an acceptance of that evidence as supportive at least suggestive of the conclusion that seems hard to rationalize away. (Not impossible, as we see here, but requiring real effort.) For some, this evidence goes beyond the suggestive to actually supporting what becomes apparent in the hearts of a good number of devotees, perhaps at least partly as a result of their long lives of service, surrender, and steady sadhana. (These are things that naturally open the heart, making it receptive to revelation from "above.") And good readers will have little doubt about my own conclusion. Examined in context, you may find some room for ambiguity in his remarks, and I'm not sure chronology (necessarily giving greater weight to later statements than earlier ones) is necessarily the best way to analyze them. Ultimately, the topic is more subjective, and this is only the more objective part, the external part, as I have said, of the evidence. The more substantive evidence is harder, and much less appropriate, perhaps, to argue. I suspect that we may have exhausted this thread's usefulness. I'm not sure where else we can take the discussion.

Ramananda Raya told Lord Chaitanya, kintu yanra yei rasa, sei sarvottama tata-stha hana vicarile, ache tara-tama It is true that whatever relationship a particular devotee has with the Lord is the best for him; still, when we study all the different methods from a neutral position, we can understand that there are higher and lower degrees of love.

I've spent enough time with him that I can assure you that he's clearly not. So I think you can relax on that count. Yes, I remember that you live in a nice house.

If you say so. You're clearly much sharper than anyone else here. I simply made an announcement. You-all started the discussion. Much better verse. Zing! Ouch! Oooh, I'm offended! You really got me.

Yogurt, those quotations are not on point. They address choosing a devotee to follow, based on the taste that arises as we are purified by hearing and chanting, etc., not choosing a rasa. We see this in Raghunath das babaji's questions to Vijay Kumar and Vrajanath in Jaiva Dharma. This is what we learn from our acharyas.

Beggar, thanks for helping me clarify that remark. I am very encouraged by the quotation you posted from Narayana Maharaja, and I certainly agree with that. As I said earlier, the svarupa is the soul, inherent in the soul, we are who we are, and no one gives us one bhava or another. That's what we see in Jaiva Dharma, and that's what we see in Bhaktivinoda Thakura's approach to the whole idea of the siddhasvarupa. And that's something that distinguishes our approach from other Gaudiya vaishnava lines. I have accused no one in particular of this misconception, but we have seen it in some posts here, and I have encountered it elsewhere. I'm not interested in accusations, personalities, bickering, etc. I'm interested in the principle. Once, when a devotee made such a presentation (that there's no possibility that Prabhupada or any acharya can be in any rasa except madhurya), that devotee called me the next day and left an apology that was two messages long, even though I hadn't objected the previous night. (Apparently other devotees also felt this presentation was over the top and that I and another devotee must have been annoyed by it.) So the premise that I'm accusing anyone of anything is itself a false premise based on misreading, or misunderstanding, this little essay. As far as Narayana Maharaja is concerned, he's a preacher whose company I've taken on several occasions, form whom I've heard many wonderful discussions of hari katha, and many of whose followers are dear, long-time friends of mine. And I have already received complaints from some devotees who think the last couple of paragraphs of my essay gives, or at least implies, permission for those influenced by a greed for gopi bhava to take siksa from outside ISKCON. So I'm danged if I do and danged if I don't, and that's okay. Okay?

That's a good question, but not one that can be answered by this discussion. Of course, Krishna's friends can be divided into four broad groups. One is the priyanarma sakhas, who we've discussed here, and who are discussed in the booklet. Another is the suhrit sakhas. These are the friends who are a little older, and whose friendship is tinged with a little vatsalya, in the sense that they feel protective toward Krishna. They are his well wishers, headed by Baladeva, who is instructed every morning as they head out to make sure he keeps his little brother out of trouble. As far as kama-gayatri, those mantras don't produce anything, as far as I understand. Rather, they support the revelation of our relationship with the holy names, as well as our relationship with the Lord. And that mantra, which, along with the Gopala mantra, is universal to all Chaitanya vaishnavas, central to their practice, is there in the lines of the dvadasa gopalas, as well. Krishna das babaji, who is acknowledged universally as being in sakhya-rati, also chanted that mantra. It didn't turn him into a gopi or manjari. The problem in the discussion is that some apparently want to prove that Srila Prabhupada and all our teachers can be situated only in madhurya rasa, and that we must aspire for that and nothing else. But that's not what Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu teaches. In Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita, Krishna das has Lord Krishna thinking like this as He considers coming as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu: yuga-dharma pravartaimu nama-sankirtana cari bhava-bhakti diya nacamu bhuvana "I shall personally inaugurate the religion of the age -- nama-sankirtana, the congregational chanting of the holy name. I shall make the world dance in ecstasy, realizing the four mellows of loving devotional service (ADi 3.19)." Cari bhava: He came to start the sankirtan movement and bring us to one of the four flavors of love with which the residents of Vraja please Govinda. In fact, my essay seeks to prove not that Srila Prabhupada must certainly be in sakhya rasa, although I find the evidence compelling. It seeks to demonstrate that it is at least possible that this is the case, based on guru, sadhu, and sastra.

It's not fair to say I don't want you to read the book. It's available for free in two formats: html and pdf. You can copy and paste the text, but we do have a problem with the characters with diacritical marks. The font it was set in is one even I don't have (it's not Balarama or any of the VedaBase fonts, which work well with Windows). Here's what I have to do: I paste the text I copy into Word, then I take the time to go through and replace the illegible characters. It's a little tedious, but what else can I do? I'm not going to fault the devotees who designed the site; they worked for free. Someone else even had to pay for the site. And, because several devotees have already asked me about a printed version, rest assured that when I get some money I'll get it printed up. But then I'll have to sell it for a couple of bucks. If you like, I'll get a copy in Word or rtf format, go through and strip out the diacritics, and send it to you. Just let me know.

Well,some folks make a similar point about the Gopala mantra, and I discuss that in the booklet. But there's evidence that the Gopala mantra, especially the eighteen-syllable Goplala mantra, can support a number of bhavas (which I also discuss in the booklet). Otherwise, you seem to be supporting your own conjecture with further conjecture or your own. I'm more inclined to accept Srila Sridhara Maharaja's conjecture.

Thanks for your kind words, Gary. You probably noticed that I call early on for anyone with a comparable body of evidence pointing in another direction to share it with us and generate a hurricane of Prabhupada katha. The reason there isn't much evidence here for gopi-bhava or vatsalya bhava is that I couldn't find it. I think that, as far as Brahma is concerned, Bs. 5.28 is an interesting consideration. But the conclusion sparky draws above is his own idea. I don't see him supporting it beyond his own inference about what it means. And Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam purport is pretty unequivocal. Regarding Srila Prabhupada, we don't see much in the way of external evidence that he's situated in madhurya or vatsalya rati. But, as I say repeatedly, I don't insist in the essay that it means he's not, or that some disciples cannot see him as such. But I also admit that I find that external evidence rather compelling.

I appreciate that. This is, indeed, not a topic for tourists. Nor is it suitable for cheap amusement. That's not to say I wasn't serious when I invited readers to have fun. But those who won't read it (not to hurt your feelings, sparky) will find themselves taken less seriously.

Oh, for God's sake! First it's this, and then it's that. The booklet was written to glorify Srila Prabhupada, pure and simple. I don't consider Narayana Maharaja a fool. And I never claim that it proves anything; neither do I claim to intend to prove anything. In fact, I make the opposite point more than once. If you were to read it, you would probably see that (if you're as sharp as you think you are). In fact, you might be interested to know that one of the criticisms I've received is that some perceive it as leaving too much room to take siksa from Narayana Maharaja if they feel inclined toward gopi-bhava. And it was posted on the internet because I don't have any money for pritning it. (And I have people asking me if it's available in print.) Anyway, I know you won't read it, so I'll try harder to keep my resolution not to engage with you. You have no desire for real discourse. You just like the attention. Laydahs, brah.

Did you read Jadurani's piece, or are you just cutting and pasting to cause a stink? Have you read Ujjvala-nilamani? I thought you were making a case earlier that Srila Prabhupada wants you to read his books and not other stuff. Andby the way, have you read mine? Let me know when we have something to discuss, SY.

There are different groups of cowherd boys, andy, with different moods and activities. The priyanarma sakhas' friendship is tinged with an appreciation for his romantic life the other boys don't share. They are sometimes under Krishna's direction, and sometimes under the direction of one of the leaders of the gopi groups. They assist by, among other things, carrying messages from Krishna to the girls so they can give them to Sri Radhika. Some of them also give him advice about his love life. Subala is the leader of this group of boys. I agree with you that we don't become gopis or gopas. One feature that distinguishes our line from other groups of Gaudiya vaishnavas is the understanding that we are who we are; we don't receive our siddhasvarupa from a guru, but he (or she) helps us realize that form and service. Other groups say that the guru gives you your siddha-deha, so yours must be of the same nature as the guru's. We see evidence late in Jaiva Dharma that Bhaktivinoda Thakura had a different perspective, and we members of his parivara accept that perspective. The idea that one becomes a manjari, gopi, cowboy, cow, parent, or whatever, strictly by association, and that the disciple must necessarily have the same kind of relationship with Krishna as the guru apparently comes from somewhere outside the influence of Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. Before someone jumps on me, I'm also aware that there may certainly be unusual instances where sthayi-bhava may change, but that's not the general rule. I touch on some of these things in the booklet. Anyone interested in what it actually says can read it; there's no charge!

If you ever read the book, you'll see the extent to which Srila Prabhupada expressed his sentiment explicitly. If you don't read the book, please don't expect me to engage with you. You seem to be in cranky troll mode right now, and there's no point in further discussion, except to feed your ego. Those who have read the booklet know that I never, ever claim to have proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. But you'll never know that, because reading this may be too big a challenge for you to handle. If you don't read it, it's no skin off my nose. He has clearly changed his mind, as evidenced in the note Sukhada posted earlier, and in this excerpt from a note to me: Who's making the stink here? He who smelt it . . . Check with me when you've read the booklet.

Ignorance of what the book says. You pretend to be arguing against what the book says without having read it. That's all I'm saying. The rest is just bluster. And yes, if you want to discuss the book, you need to get with the program and read it. If one of my students had come to class and argued that, for example, Neil Postman was full of it when he wrote Amusing Ourselves to Death, but he hadn't read the book, no one would have taken his argument seriously. So come back when you've read the booklet. Jeez, I thought you had turned the troll gig over to andy. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I would just like the comments to actually address the substance of the book, if you don't mind.

Thanks for being honest, at last. I implore to do read the book, and we can discuss it after you've read it carefully. There's no Big Theory for you to shoot down. There's simply an accumulation of nectar, which you may appreciate or not. But until you've read this essay carefully, it's hard to take your comments seriously. Wouldn't you agree that arguing from ignorance is a losing proposition?