shiva

I'm not saying that what Subal wrote is totally true, this is because at the present he is trying to present himself as a new type of gaudiya guru for the masses. What he wrote in the above is part of his autobiography and I can only take it as possibly distorted history due to his current interest in promoting himself as a new savior preaching a new revelation on Krsna consciousness. Therefore he may have distorted history to suit his own current attempt to present himself as a guru. I notice he doesn't mention anything about whenthose swamis were supposedly claiming that Prabupada was God, nor does he explain why Hayagriva called them mayavadis, nor why he himself was thrown out of iskcon, he seeks to make himself look like an innocent who was lumped in with people who he was warned about. So I wouldn't take his history as totally true without corroboration from other sources.

This is what Subal Swami (now ex-swami) wrote about what happened:

I am asking you to consider if the things you have written in response to me are based on anything you truly understand fom experience, as opposed to things you think you know based upon nothing more then speculation. As for your silly response above; Aren't you guilty of what you condemn by writing anything at all? Isn't everything you write about either the result of something you have experienced or not experienced? If you have experienced what you write about don't you think that that experience gives what you have to say more potency then things you speculate about but haven't experienced, since it comes from a place of knowing what you are talking about? For example you say things that you have heard but do not understand, thinking that you have said something profound. The bit about time for example, or the above bit about subjective and supersubjective reality. It is obvious you are just repeating things that you don't understand. If you had experience or realization of what those concepts mean, then you wouldn't have written what you wrote in the nonsensical manner in which you have written them. For example you wrote That paragraph is nonsensical due to your inexperience or lack of realization of what you are talking about. You are right that God is beyond mundane time, we experience mundane time, we experience time in the singular, we each experience one existential time frame. God experiences everything that is going on, therefore God's experience of time is different then our own. But then you said that "since God is beyond mundane time there really is no"plan", but simply what *is* in the eternal present". Here you show that you have no idea what you are talking about, it is simply nonsensical, there is no philosophical connection that you make from God being beyond time to therefore God not having a plan because whatever "is" is in the eternal present. Whatever *is, is always in the eternal present, for everyone, what does that have to do with plans for the future being negated by that existential reality? Absolutely nothing, it's just gibberish. We are always in the eternal present but that doesn't negate my plan for dinner tonight. Likewise God also exists in the eternal present, but that doesn't negate God's ability to make a plan for future events. We are not more powerful then God. Then you made this nonsensical statement First off nowhere in my post did I come even close to making your point for you since your point was nonsensical. Secondly you wrote this line of gibberish That makes no sense whatsoever. Since the Lord is beyond mundane time therefore his plans are not really plans? That is gibberish. Everyone only experiences the eternal present, the difference between our experience of the eternal present and God's expereince of it is that God is experiencing many more things and dimensions then we are at the present. That doesn't mean God doesn't or can't make plans for the future. To suggest as you have is simply nonsensical, there is no causality between what you attempt to describe. And what is the point of citing some unknown point from some unknown book by a sci-fi author? Is that supposed to lend credibility to your gibberish? Yikes. Then came your next nonsensical statement where you claim that I'm not "sophisticated' enough to understand your finer points of philosophy, LOL. Then you try to use something about Mahaprabhu's reason for descent to bolster your claim that God doesn't or cannot make plans or whatever, of course it makes no sense to draw such a conclusion from that line of thought. Don't try to use something you don't understand to try and bolster something else you don't understand, just a helpful hint. Then came your next post of nonsense. I already addressed the first paragraph, in the second you say something which makes no sense as an attempt to claim that spiritual reality cannot be understood from experience. Your experience of spiritual reality is subjective, but that doesn't mean that everyone's experience of spiritual reality is like yours. What do you think the concept of self realization or God realization means? It means that spiritual reality is experienced and understood objectively. Just like I can subjectively pontificate about things I have never experienced, say a certain type of curry, or time in relation to God and God's reality, but if I eat that curry then I can speak on it from an objective plane, if I study the words of God then I can have an objective understanding of God, either because God is telling us the true reality, or we realize that reality through the study of God's word and reception of God's grace.

Uh, no. To all of it. You may want to reconsider i.e. there is reality, then there is your version of reality, the two are different. Before you give us some more of your version of reality, stop and consider if what you are saying is based upon anything you have ever experienced. "Let me tell you a little story about a man named Sh! Sh! even before you start. That was a pre-emptive "sh!" Now, I have a whole bag of "sh!" with your name on it." - Dr. Evil

People may "like" to conceive of reality in so many ways, but reality is one, regardless of the many divergent views on what is reality, wouldn't you agree? What is reality according to Krishna? That is relevant since Krishna is in control of reality. So lets see what Krishna has to say. "All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha" "O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows." So here we see Krishna's version of reality. He knows everything that is going to happen, why? Because everything and everyone "follows" his path. Krishna knows the future because he has it planned out. If God was spontaneous in everything that goes on in this world then it would be impossible to know the future. In order for God to know the future it has to be planned out, if the future was going to occur on the spontaneous whim of God then by the definition of spontaneous, God would not know the future. But in fact Krishna says He does know the future. Why? Because everyone is following the path he plans out for them i.e. their karmic destiny. In the Bhagavatam Krishna says "All results of fruitive work have been arranged within this world by Me, the supreme creator acting as the force of time. Thus one sometimes rises up toward the surface of this mighty river of the modes of nature and sometimes again submerges.' Everything going on in this world is planned out very meticulously in order that everyone's destiny, according to their karma, is experienced. And in the Bhagavtam Krishna tells us "The material body certainly moves under the control of supreme destiny and therefore must continue to live along with the senses and vital air as long as one's karma is in effect. A self-realized soul, however, who is awakened to the absolute reality and who is thus highly situated in the perfect stage of yoga, will never again surrender to the material body and its manifold manifestations, knowing it to be just like a body visualized in a dream." Someone who understands this transcendental knowledge can see Krishna everywhere. Because Krishna is in control of everything and everyone, and has everything planned out, therefore a person who understands this knows that everything he experiences is really a manifestation of Krishna. Not in just some abstract understanding, but factually everything is a direct manifestation of Krishna. Knowing this and knowing when His devotee will come to this realization, Krishna can plan out in advance, that what His devotee will experience, once he becomes self realized, will be orchestrated to directly communicate with the devotee. Therefore in the Bhagavatam Krishna says "My dear Uddhava, the Supreme Lord gives life to every living being and is situated within the heart along with the life air and primal sound vibration. The Lord can be perceived in His subtle form within the heart by one's mind, since the Lord controls the minds of everyone, even great demigods like Lord Siva. The Supreme Lord also assumes a gross form as the various sounds of the Vedas, composed of short and long vowels and consonants of different intonations." "Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts." Not only is everything in your external environment which you experience a manifestation of Krishna, and experienced due to the plan of Krishna, but also whatever your mind perceives is also of that nature e.g. the mind perceives thoughts, which are controlled by God. Conditioned souls think that they control the mind and they identify with the mind because of that. But in reality that is not the case. The person is not the mind, the person is pure consciousness, the thoughts (the mind) of a person are in reality part of a person's karmic destiny, and as Krishna says in the above, nothing but Him. Therefore Kapiladev tell us "The mind of the living entity is known by the name of Lord Aniruddha, the supreme ruler of the senses. He possesses a bluish-black form resembling a lotus flower growing in the autumn. He is found slowly by the yogis." "When the mind is thus completely freed from all material contamination and detached from material objectives, it is just like the flame of a lamp. At that time the mind is actually dovetailed with that of the Supreme Lord and is experienced as one with Him because it is freed from the interactive flow of the material qualities." "Thus situated in the highest transcendental stage, the mind ceases from all material reaction and becomes situated in its own glory, transcendental to all material conceptions of happiness and distress. At that time the yogi realizes the truth of his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He discovers that pleasure and pain as well as their interactions, which he attributed to his own self, are actually due to the false ego, which is a product of ignorance." "A liberated soul realizes the Absolute Personality of Godhead, who is transcendental and who is manifest as a reflection even in the false ego. He is the support of the material cause and He enters into everything. He is absolute, one without a second, and He is the eyes of the illusory energy. The presence of the Supreme Lord can be realized just as the sun is realized first as a reflection on water, and again as a second reflection on the wall of a room, although the sun itself is situated in the sky." "Thus the yogi can be in the self-realized position after conquering the insurmountable spell of maya, who presents herself as both the cause and effect of this material manifestation and is therefore very difficult to understand." "As the chariot of air carries an aroma from its source and immediately catches the sense of smell, similarly, one who constantly engages in devotional service, in Krsna consciousness, can catch the Supreme Soul, who is equally present everywhere"

A liberated soul is someone who understands and sees reality for what it really is. Those who are not liberated see reality differently then liberated people. For example when a liberated person reads these words he hears God speaking, not just the words of a human. This is because he understands that everyone and everything is under complete control at all times by God, and therefore because he sees everything in his environment as a manifestation under control by God, God can use everything in his environment to communicate with him e.g. through what he hears in his head (thoughts) to what he hears with his ears, what he sees with his eyes, what he feels with his body etc. Because this type of person understands that God is in control of everything, including himself, that everything is following a pre-arranged plan, he knows that whatever will happen in the future will also happen under the control and supervision of God. Knowing this as factual reality he knows that whatever are the results of his actions or of others, are due to the plan and control of God. Therefore he knows not to be attached to any hoped for result of any action because everything is beyond his control, he knows everything will happen according to the plan of God.

I wrote a message in the sand at the beach this morning, you can see it on the webcam I mention below ( http://www.mauicondowebcam.com/ ) Gain control of the cam and then point down close to the start of the beach. AF is in large letters written in the sand. I don't know how long it will be there.

From the intro to KRSNA by A.C. Bhaktivedanta So yes there is sex in the spiritual world, but it is different then mundane sex i.e. it is done by people who are free from materialistic consciousness. There are books by the acaryas where sex topics in goloka are discussed, that is one of the reasons that Bhaktisiddhanta didn't want his disciples to read certain books, because of the fear of inspiring imitation (sahajiya). But nevertheless it is there. From a logical point of view if there really was no sex in the spiritual world then we would have to ask: why are there male and female forms in the spiritual world? If there is no sex then why is there sex organs? So, yes there is sex, but it is free from gross materialistic consciousness.

If you click on my name, then click on "Find all posts by shiva", then click on "last" at the right where it says "page 1 of 5", you can see that since March 25 2006 I have made 121 posts here. So there's another "wrong" I have detected by you suchandra, if that is your real name.

Where have I read that before? Oh yeah... From http://mauivarnashrama.byethost12.com/ http://maui-varnashrama.110mb.com/ http://mauivarnashrama.247ihost.com/ http://mauivarnashrama.joolo.com/ http://maui-varnashrama.3000mb.com

What Bhaktisiddhanta is talking about has to be understood in the context of santa rasa (in this usage of the term) being cognate with the teaching that the jiva originates from Brahman. In this conception the jiva is born from Brahman where that relationship with the Lord is neutral (unconscious) and therefore can be categrized in the lowest level of rasa with the Lord (santa rasa). Santa rasa covers more ground then just that though, for example, when a yogi or jnani understands the true nature of the relationship between God and the soul, but has not begun to furthur develop a relationship with the Lord, then his relationship with the Lord is also considered to be in santa rasa. I think you are going too far with the claim that the "constitutional" position of the nitya-baddha jiva is in santa rasa. There is a difference between original and constitutional. Constitutional means inherent and essential within or part of a thing. Therefore whatever is constitutional to a thing cannot be separated from that thing. Since the jivas do not stay in that original santa rasa position therefore it is not the constitutional position of the jiva. Mahaprabhu therefore tells us: Madhya 20.108-109 jivera 'svarupa' haya -- krishnera 'nitya-dasa' krishnera 'tatastha-sakti' 'bhedabheda-prakasa' suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya svabhavika krishnera tina-prakara 'sakti' haya It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krishna because he is the marginal energy of Krishna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krishna has three varieties of energy. What Mahaprabhu is saying is the constitutional position is something which will always be with the jiva i.e. being tatastha and being a servant. In the conditioned soul the prema is adulterated. But the soul does not start off as conditioned, so the prema is not adulterated until that occurs. I wouldn't say that the "prema that is innately in the heart of the conditioned soul is a form of adulterated prema", because innately implies something intrinsic or inherent or original (as in born with), when in fact the adulterated prema is a temporary affliction, pure prema is innate but becomes covered over: nitya-siddha kṛṣṇa-prema 'sādhya' kabhu naya śravaṇādi-śuddha-citte karaye udaya Pure love for Kṛṣṇa is eternally established in the hearts of the living entities. It is not something to be gained from another source. When the heart is purified by hearing and chanting, this love naturally awakens. What is being explained in other terms can be expressed as: the jiva's loving bliss seeking propensity when perverted by selfishness becomes conditioned and is directed at trying to exploit selfishly the energy of the Lord. When the jiva is the recipient of the Lord's mercy then the Lord bestows His Hladini sakti (Sri Radha) upon the jiva. Then by and through Her mercy the devotee becomes a pure lover of God. This is more esoteric then one might think at first glance.

Oh, the shark, babe, has such teeth, dear, And he shows them pearly white. Just a jack knife has old MacHeath, babe, And he keeps it … ah … out of sight. Ya know when that shark bites, with his teeth, babe, Scarlet billows...start to spread. Fancy gloves, though, wears old MacHeath, babe, So there’s nevah, nevah a trace of red. Now on the sidewalk … uuh, huh … whoo … sunny mornin’ … uuh, huh, Lies a body just oozin' life … eeek! And someone’s sneakin' ‘round the corner, Could that someone be Mack the Knife?

The ridiculousness from you guys just doesn't stop. Look at the dumb statements you are making. You claim the jiva is the marginal energy, but then claim that the jiva is not tatastha sakti. GAAAAWWDD. Look guys, "marginal energy" is how Prabhupada translated "tatastha sakti" into english, jeez. Marginal means "on the margin or border". That is what Tatastha means as well. taṭasthā — the marginal potency; CC Madhya 6.160 taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — marginal characteristics; CC Madhya 18.126 taṭasthā — marginal; CC Madhya 20.108-109 taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — the marginal characteristics; CC Madhya 20.356 taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — the marginal symptoms; CC Madhya 20.357 taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — marginal characteristics; CC Madhya 20.362 taṭastha-lakṣaṇe — marginal symptoms; CC Madhya 22.106 taṭastha-lakṣaṇa — the marginal symptom; CC Madhya 22.151 taṭastha — marginal; CC Madhya 23.6 From Srila Prabhupada Nectar of Instruction Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 20.108-109 jivera 'svarupa' haya -- krsnera 'nitya-dasa' krsnera 'tatastha-sakti' 'bhedabheda-prakasa' jivera -- of the living entity; svarupa -- the constitutional position; haya -- is; krsnera -- of Lord Krsna; nitya-dasa -- eternal servant; krsnera -- of Lord Krsna; tatastha -- marginal; sakti -- potency; bheda-abheda -- one and different; prakasa -- manifestation; These are the words of Lord Caitanya: The jiva's constitutional or inherent position is that of servant of Krsna because he is tatastha sakti, the marginal potency, a manifestation one with and different from Krsna. Get it? Got it? Good!

I do know what you have been saying, but you are wrong. Your conception of something called "tatastha consciousness" or that tatastha is another word for the brahmajyoti is a concoction. I don't know if you invented that or heard it from someone else, but it is wrong, you will not find such ideas in any of the writings of sastra or the acaryas. Gaudiya siddhanta is very clear and very explicit on what is tatastha sakti. For you to keep claiming that your concoction is the real truth even though you have been presented with many things written in sastra and from the acaryas which teach that tatastha sakti is the jiva, well, what gives? What proof have you shown? You have not shown and in fact cannot show any statement from any authorized source which makes the same claim as you about tatastha sakti. All your quotes are irrelevant, they are not claiming what you think they claim.

I have one more thing to say. Previously Guruvani had posted this quote from Narayana Maharaja A little later I posted this It just came to me that there is one person in Krishna lila besides Balarama that I can remember being described as a personal expansion of Krishna, that is Krishna's grandson Aniruddha, the son of Pradyumna who was the son of Krishna and Rukmini. After I remembered that I wondered if Pradyumna also was a personal expansion so I looked it up in the Bhagavatam and in Krsna Book and in Jiva Goswami's Krsna Sandarbha. What I got was contradictory statements This is from Krsna Book I looked that up in Krsna Sandarbha, and that is pretty much what it says there, although a bit more in detail and a bit confusing, maybe due to a poor translation. Here is that section Then I checked the Bhagavatam and Prabhupada contradicts what he said in Krsna book, maybe it was bad editing, or not, this is what Prabhupada says in the Bhagavatam So these seem to be contradictory accounts. So back to the quote from Narayana Maharaja Here he says that Nanda, Subal, and his friends are not jivas. I have never seen any direct statements which confirm that. There are many direct statements about the gopis, the queens of Dwaraka, and the goddesses of fortune not being jivas, but rather as personal expansions of Radha. There are also many statements about gopis who are jivas, who became gopis, as this from Bhaktivinoda And no Guruvani, Bhaktivinoda didn't make that up, it's in Jiva Goswami's Krsna Sandarbha also. But the interesting thing is that I have never seen a direct statement about whether any of the gopas are not jivas but rather personal expansions of Krishna. There are many statements which I have seen where the gopas are described as very similar to Krishna in almost every sense, but none which say that some gopas are not jivas. Guruvani quoted this to prove that the gopas are not jivas That verse doesn't specify gopas, it simply says there are personal associates who are personal expansions. Also that verse follows a bunch of verses which talk about Krishna expanding into numerous husbands for his queens, it talks about his expansions of Baladeva, Narayana, Vasudeva, Sankarsan, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, and then it talks about the gopis, the queens and lakshmis. But no one else, actually in the entire chapter gopas are not mentioned. These are the verses preceding the above verse I'm not saying that there are no gopas who are personal expansions of Krishna, but I cannot find any direct statement which states that directly. There are some statements that may be taken as indirect evidence that I have seen if you wanted to you could take as evidence of some gopas not being jivas, but none of them directly state that the way it is stated about the gopis, queens, and lakshmis. So I was wondering where Narayana Maharaja came up with the information for that quote. If there are any of his followers here I would be interested to know if he has a source which directly states that some gopas are not jivas. I have seen where a devotee on Madhavanandas old forum tries too use the following statement by Bhaktivinoda to claim that some gopas are not jivas, but the statement only mentions gopis. So if any of you people know Narayana Maharaja or knows someone who knows him, try and see if you can find out if he is basing his opinion on direct statements or indirect extrapolations.

I spoke to soon

The question is not whether or not hladini sakti is involved in devotional service, I said that hladini sakti is not cognate or analoguous with devotional service. You don't say "Hey prabhu, I'm going to the temple to do some hladini sakti" or "I just want to engage in hladini sakti so that I can please Krishna". Guruvani translated hladini sakti as devotional service. That is incorrect. Hladini sakti is involved with devotional service, but so are we, we are not devotional service and neither is hladini sakti. From Srila Prabhupada Devotional service isn't hladini sakti, it is an exhibition of hladini sakti. One is the cause and the other is the effect. When the pleasure potency (Sri Radha) bestows pure love of God or Krishna Prema on a devotee, that reciprocation between the devotee and God is a manifestation of Sri Radha or the hladini sakti. But if some person gives some money to a a guru or washes some pots for the temple that is devotional service, you don't say that person is doing hladini sakti. He may derive some bliss from that service, he may have been directed to do that service ultimately by Sri Radha, but that service is not Sri Radha, it is not hladini sakti, it is bhakti, Sri Radha is Hladini Sakti.

You forgot Jiva Goswami, Bhaktisiddhanta, etc. There are no contradictory statements other then the ones coming from you. The quote you reference is translated by Prabhupada as fallen living entities because that is the context of the verse i.e. you cannot save living entities who are not fallen. Guruvani you quoted this verse below but completely misunderstood it even though Prabhupada makes it very clear Notice the word kaya-vyuha, in the translation Prabhupada says "personal associates" who are "identical to him", in the purport he makes it clear what kaya-vyuha means: "personal expansions", they "are nondifferent in potential power" with Krishna. We are not personal or kaya-vyuha expansions, we are not nondifferent in potential power with Krishna, we are not "identical" to Krishna. I find it really weird that you would claim that this verse and Prabhupada's purport is talking about anything but Krishna and his personal expansions. If you think that we will ever be identical to Krishna and nondifferent in potential power with Krishna, well, what can I say. You then quote this verse to back up your claim A couple verses later Srila Prabhupada explains in the purport what that verse means Those verses are talking about the personal expansions of Radha, not ourselves. Prabhupada says "All these womanly forms of Krsna are expansions corresponding to His plenary expansions of Visnu forms. These expansions have been compared to reflected forms of the original form. There is no difference between the original form and the reflected forms. The female reflections of Krsna's pleasure potency are as good as Krsna Himself." "Such expansions from Srimati Radharani are all Her plenary portions" We cannot become them, they are all "womanly forms of Krishna", "plenary portions", "corresponding to Krishna's plenary expansions of Visnu forms" "Krsna expands Himself in multi-incarnations and plenary portions like the purusas. Similarly, Srimati Radharani expands Herself in multiforms as the goddesses of fortune, the queens and the damsels of Vraja. Such expansions from Srimati Radharani are all Her plenary portions." They are all Radha just like Krishna's incarnations like the purusas are all Krishna. I think we have reached an impasse on this topic, so I am finished with it.

Not all gopis are jivas, many are plenary expansions of Sri Radha, they are Radha in different forms. From Jaiva Dharma...again And again... And again... As far as cowherd boys, I have never seen anything which states that there are kaya-vyuha expansions of Krishna other then Balarama in Vraja lila. As far as Krishna lila outside of Vraja I can't think of anywhere where it is mentioned that any men other then Balarama are kaya-vyuha expansions of Krishna. Maybe there are, but either they are not mentioned anywhere or they are mentioned and I can't remember.

Guruvani you wrote: In one sense that is correct because Sri Radha is hladini sakti personified and it is through her grace that devotees become liberated. Hladini sakti is not "devotional service". Devotional service is bhakti. Hladini sakti is the bliss giving potency, Radha is the personified hladini sakti. But hladini sakti is not cognate with devotional service. Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 4.62 Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 4.60 The part in bold is maybe what you misunderstood. The "reciprocation" between God and his pure devotee is an "exhibition" of hladini sakti. That means that the rasa between the Lord and his pure devotee, or the Krsna prema bestowed upon a jiva, is manifested by hladini sakti i.e Sri Radha. Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 4.59 radhika hayena krsnera pranaya-vikara svarupa-sakti -- 'hladini' nama yanhara Srimati Radhika is the transformation of Krsna's love. She is His internal energy called hladini. -------------------------- As for your other quotes, there are only jivas and God. The residents of the spiritual world are either God or jivas. There is no 3rd category of living entity. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 22.10 sei vibhinnāḿśa jīva — dui ta' prakāra eka — 'nitya-mukta', eka — 'nitya-saḿsāra' The living entities [jīvas] are divided into two categories. Some are eternally liberated, and others are eternally conditioned. I imagine that by these following statements of yours you mean to claim that the jiva becomes something other then a jiva when he lives in the spiritual world: But no matter how much you make these unusual claims you cannot back it up with anything. As already cited: jivas are always jivas. If you want to believe that jivas become something else, fine with me. You quoted Narayana Maharaja The jiva is not by nature feminine in terms of gender. Gender is sexual indentity. But he is otherwise correct that in terms of tattva, saktiman or purusa is masculine, and sakti or prakriti is feminine, although these are metaphorical usages of these words. What they mean is that saktiman is aggresive or active and sakti is passive or acted upon. Saktiman is masculine in that sense and sakti is feminine in that sense. You also quoted Sridhara Maharaja That is a metaphor. The guru is guru-tattva to his disciples but not to his equals. The jiva is always a jiva. Since the highest level guru is a transparent-via-medium of the lord and is a liberated soul free from maya, therefore we are told to see the guru as God, but he doesn't become God. Guru Tattva doesn't mean he stops being a jiva, that is pure concoction. Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi 1.46

Very amusing! In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of The Supreme Lord: What is vibhinnamsa? Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 22.8-10 All jivas are saktis, therefore all jivas can be called sakti tattva. Sakti tattva is an expression that is used in different ways at different times, it can refer to Radha and her expansions, or it can refer to the jivas, but Radha is also Isvara tattva, so the phrase can have different meanings. As Jiva Goswami points out and as Krishnadas Kaviraj points out in the above quotes, there are only two types of entities, jiva and God. From Srila Prabhupada on sakti-tattva:

Sandhini manifests all forms in the spiritual world, including Radha and Krishna, their expansions, and the jiva's forms. Hladini manifests bliss, Samvit manifests knowledge. "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, who resembles His own spiritual figure and who embodies the ecstatic potency (hladini). Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated with ever-blissful spiritual rasa." The various expansions of Radha are explained here by Srila Prabhupada

Guruvani ou wrote Here is what I posted already from Bhaktivinoda, please read it carefully: As he explains the sandhini manifests the forms of the jiva in the spiritual and material world. The jiva IS tatastha sakti, sandhini "acts on the jiva sakti". The jiva is not sandhini sakti, sandhini sakti is one aspect of cit sakti, the other two aspects being samvit and hladini, and they each appear in a minute quantity in the jiva. The samvit acts upon the jiva by manifesting knowledge, hladini acts upon the jiva by manifesting bliss or pleasure, and sandhini acts upon the jiva by manifesting his spiritual and material forms. The jiva is neither sandhini, nor samvit, nor hladini, but he possesses each in minute quantities whether he is in the material or spiritual world. More from Bhaktivinoda The jiva is influenced by sandhini, and samvit, and hladini, they each play their part in manifesting the jiva, but the jiva is none of them, the jiva is tatastha sakti wherever he is, that is his constitutional nature: The swarupa sakti manifests the tatastha sakti (the jiva) through it's 3 component part i.e. sandhini, samvit, and hladini. They are each present in the jiva and aid in manifesting the jiva. But the jiva is tatastha sakti, that is simply what a jiva is, all that tatastha means is that the jiva is not Cit Sakti and not Maya Sakti. For you to keep claiming that the jiva in the spiritual world is not tatastha is in direct contradiction to what the acaryas I have quoted have said on this topic. You keep quoting this from Prabhupada as if it negates everything else said on this topic by Srila Prabhupada and the acaryas All he is saying is what the other acaryas have said, sandhini manifests the forms of the people, places, and things of the spritual world. It also does that in the material world as well, as Bhaktivinoda mentioned

Well you can argue, but this is what Bhaktivinoda says as quoted above Tathastha does not refer to a place, it does not possess a locatice meaning in the sense of being in a particular spot. Tatastha has an ontological meaning. The jiva is a sakti of the Lord, it exists as neither Cit Sakti nor as Maya Sakti, we exist in between these two categories of saktis, therefore we are called Tatastha Sakti. The place where water, as in a river an ocean or lake, where it meets the land, that is called tata. The Cit Sakti is represented by the water and the Maya Sakti us represented by the land. Since we are neither the Maya Sakti nor the Cit Sakti, neither the water or the land, we are called tatastha, or inbetween the water and the land. The tide can cause us to be submerged in water or the tide can retreat and we can become left on the land. The jiva can be influenced and come under the dominion of the Cit Sakti or of the Maya Sakti. Either way the constitutional position of the jiva is tatastha sakti, the marginal potency, on the margin or border between 2 other potencies. Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 20.108-109 You guys are not arguing with "my interpretation" you are arguing against direct unequivocal statements by the acaryas.

Sandhini is the aspect of the cit sakti which manifests and maintains forms and eternal existence. It acts upon the jiva, it manifests the forms of the jiva, and it is present in a minute way within the jiva, but it is not the jiva. As mentioned already by various acaryas all jivas belong to tatastha sakti which is divided into 2 parts, those jivas in the material world and those in the spiritual world. Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 20.108-109 jivera 'svarupa' haya -- krsnera 'nitya-dasa' krsnera 'tatastha-sakti' 'bhedabheda-prakasa' suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya svabhavika krsnera tina-prakara 'sakti' haya SYNONYMS jivera -- of the living entity; svarupa -- the constitutional position; haya -- is; krsnera -- of Lord Krsna; nitya-dasa -- eternal servant; krsnera -- of Lord Krsna; tatastha -- marginal; sakti -- potency; bheda-abheda -- one and different; prakasa -- manifestation; surya-amsa -- part and parcel of the sun; kirana -- a ray of sunshine; yaiche -- as; agni-jvala-caya -- molecular particle of fire; svabhavika -- naturally; krsnera -- of Lord Krsna; tina-prakara -- three varieties; sakti -- energies; haya -- there are. TRANSLATION It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy From Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma From Mahaprabhura Siksa: The Teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by Bhaktivinoda Thakura From Mahaprabhura Siksa: The Teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by Bhaktivinoda Thakura From Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma From Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma