shiva

There is a difference between Goloka and Krishna's pastimes in the material world (Gokula). While the pastimes are practically the same there are some differences i.e no demons in Goloka, no birth and death, etc. Clearly you know that in Goloka there is vedic religion and that they worship Lord Narayana as well as Shiva and Durga etc. So I don't know why you feign ignorance on this point. What is your objection? My point was that the devotees in Goloka do not know Krishna is God. I quoted Srila Prabhupada and the Bhagavatam to that effect. Accept or reject, I simply repeated what is written by guru and sastra. If there is some preaching in the sastra where devotees in Krishna lila preach about the existential position of Krishna as the supreme Lord then that is done for our benefit, it is not going on in Goloka, only in Gokula is the Lord recognized as the Lord i.e revealing his identity in the battlefield of Kuruksetra etc.

I suggest you read Srila Prabhupada's KRSNA book and the works by the 6 goswamis and others for an intro to the culture and religion of Krishna lila. The point I made stands. While the residents of Krishna lila do indeed follow vedic religious practices to some degree, they are not renunciates of sensual enjoyment. The renunciation of sensual enjoyment is only meant for conditioned souls so as to aid them in their purification so that they can enjoy eternal pleasure pastimes. Krishna's nitya lila is not religious in the same sense that we are advised to be. Religion for us is for the purpose of our purification and upliftment towards a higher state of consciousness. Whereas religion in Krishna lila is a cultural and psychological addition for the enhancement of pleasure pastimes.

Srila Prabhupada and the Bhagavatam state quite clearly that the jivas in Goloka do not know Krishna is God. If that is too difficult for you to accept so be it.

Please tell us your real name and your source for such a claim, otherwise I ask the admin to ban this person's ip for making false and defamatory accusations.

So what about this quote that someone provided at the start of this thread: That quote is taking from various parts of this lecture: Srila Prabhupada was talking about feeling the presence of his spiritual master through his vani, his words. Srila Prabhupada also would sometimes say things that were not really literally true but he would say them to inspire certain devotees for different reasons. 1967 June 14 : "Yes it is due to your prayers that this time my life has been saved." 1967 June 14 : "So far my health is concerned, I am improving daily, but due to my weakness sometimes I feel dizziness. Your prayer and all other boys' prayers has saved me and I hope to render some service to you all for some more years." 1967/Dec. 16: "When I left your country on the 22nd of July, I had very little hope to come back again. But Krishna informed me that I'm not going to die immediately; therefore, I have come back again to get inspiration from you all good souls. Although officially I am your Spiritual Master, I consider you all students of my Spiritual Master because your love for Krishna and service for Krishna teach me how to become a sincere Krishna Conscious person." As far as I am concerned some people sometimes need to be told things that are not really literally true due to their lack of a philosophically inclined mentality, if sentimentalism can inspire those people to engage in sadhana bhakti and to serve the spiritual master's mission then Krishna will arrange sentimentalism to inspire them. But for those who can understand philosophy they will be able to see the true situation and the reasons for it. From Srila Prabhupada letter to Mahananda dasa, 27th April 1970:

If a guru leaves this earthly plane of existence and goes to live in Goloka in nitya Krishna lila then it will be impossible for that person to "keep an eye" on his disciples. Why? The jivas in Krishna's nitya lila do not know Krishna is God, they do not know they are in God's highest heaven living with God. They are kept unaware of that fact. They see themselves as residents of Vrindavana or Dwarka or Mathura etc, they do not have knowledge of Krishna consciousness. Since the knowledge of Krishna being God and of gaudiya philosophy which is centered around the knowledge of Krishna's divinity is necessary for a person to act as a gaudiya vaisnava guru, therefore jivas in Goloka would be unable to act as a guru to a gaudiya vaisnava. Even though they are all pure souls they are kept in ignorance because Krishna wants to enjoy life with them without them being in awe and reverence of Him as God. From Srila Prabhupada 1975 lecture

Today the evolution community claims that evolution (macro evolution i.e one species into another) is achieved through mutation + natural selection. Some evolutionists (like yourself) like to claim that variation in the gene pool somehow has something to do with evolution, unfortunately for them and you they cannot prove it. That claim is like all evolutionary propaganda...nothing more then speculations built upon other speculations, turned into complex theories, and promoted by people with an agenda that blinds them to the truth presented by actual data. I don't like to debate evolution with ardent evolutionists because they are not honest. They are deluded and want to delude others in some bizarre unholy quest. Maybe I've pegged you wrong? I suggest you study some of these writings: http://www.designinference.com/ http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-10.html I will not respond to you on this topic because frankly it bores me to communicate with evolutionists, what with alll the faux science they like to pretend is real. It's just a waste of time, like arguing with a child about things they do not understand but the child is too egotistic to see the questionable motive and lack of understanding it possesses. I have better things to do with my time.

What has been termed micro-evolution is diversity within a species. Macroevolution is one species changing into a different species. Calling diversity within a species (variation) any type of "evolution" is an ideological preference (propaganda) because the essence of evolutionary theory i.e. the evolution of species from one into another, has nothing to do with variation within a species. The essential component of neo-darwinian theory is that mutation can produce new genetic information. That is how an amoeba can turn into a whale or a mango tree. New genetic information is created by mutation to the genome. The mutations that are not harmful to the species survive and the ones that are harmful die off due to natural selection. Over millions of years one non-harmful mutation mutates again and again and again, millions of times, until new functioning body parts are formed such as eyes, legs, fur, lungs, bones, wings, feathers, leaves, flowers, fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc. That is evolution and that is what happens and will happen according to so called experts. "Micro-evolution" is what they have termed the variation of genetic information with a species. Mutation can be involved here also. Genetic diseases caused by mutated genes passed on to progeny for example. Also recessive genes can make it so that certain traits of species only show up occasionally. But the essential component of neo-darwinism is missing i.e introduction of new genetic information which builds new body parts. Dogs can be breeded for millions of years and the result will always be a dog of some type. The reason they call variation within a species micro-evolution is because they are propandizing in an effort to make it seem like macro-evolution is possible. It goes like this: "Sure we can't prove evolution is true because evolution takes place over millions of years therefore we can't see it happening, but we can see micro-evolution going on all of the time which proves that evolution is possible." Calling variation within a species "micro-evolution" is an attempt to mislead people into thinking that variation within species supports the basic schema of evolutionary theory i.e neo-darwinism or the building of new body parts and new body plans by mutation. That a microbe can "evolve" through mutation + natural selection and become a tree or a human. From darwinismrefuted.com

That quote from Prabhupada was not referring to Darwinian nor Neo-Darwinian theory. He uses the word evolution in a different context which has the same meaning as progression. Here is what Prabhupada wrote about Darwinian evolution: Also the interbreeding of species does not cause evolution. although evolutionists like to call the effect seen as "micro-evolution". In reality micro-evolution is a misnomer and nothing more then a use of language for propaganda. Real evolution according to the modern synthesis (Neo-Darwinism) is caused by mutation + natural selection (survival of the fittest). Interbreeding of species is not evolution, it is variation of already present genetic information of the species, no different then if a native australian human breeds with a nordic blue eyed blond haired person and they produce a body of mixed genetic information. If a person breeds dogs to obtain specific characteristics the result is called micro-evolution, but that's just the use of the word evolution for propaganda purposes. Real evolution (Macro-Evolution) requires new information be introduced to the genome by mutation to the genome, thereby causing NEW bodily parts of some type or another i.e. a pigs grows wings.

While I did write the above response to Gaura Keshava on the dandavats.com website, I did not post it here. To whomever posted it: If you are going to post something I have written make it clear that it is not me posting it. The username for that post says "from shiva", that makes it seem like I posted that here.

Jagat we're just going to have to agree to disagree over these things. Although I find pretty much everything in your last post post to be purely speculative on your part and wrong, one thing you said though I find to be quite unusual. The jiva is always a part of the cit sakti as atomic cit but never fully the same as the cit sakti. Like a fire and a spark of that fire, or the sun and the rays of light from the sun. Tatastha sakti means that the jiva is between the Cit Sakti and the Maya Sakti because the jiva can come under the influence of either. This means the jiva can live under the auspices of yogamaya or mahamaya. Although the jiva is said to be a part of the cit sakti it is always different then cit sakti-bhedabheda, as atomic cit. The jiva will never be the same as Radha and Her expansions who are the fire or the sun and not the spark or the ray. In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of The Supreme Lord: The question is; why do you say: All jivas in whatever bhava they relate to Radha Krishna, in vaikuntha or goloka, are under the auspices of the cit sakti. You only desire manjari bhava because you think it is the highest possible level of attainment for you.

That's exactly what I have said many times. Krishna doesn't forget He is God just like the king doesn't forget he is the king. This is what I have written previously on this:

Well Jagat you can have your interpretations of the sastra. I have shown pramana showing that Cit Sakti and Radha and Her expansions are called identical to Krishna, not one and different. And you will not find anywhere in gaudiya teachings where the jiva is called anything but bhedabheda. You can make your assertion about these concepts being worded so as to contrast with mayavada philosophy, I reject that as pure speculation. As for metaphor and lila and your complaint that too much metaphor makes it meaningless I simply disagree. It is my own experience that the rasa sastra serves 2 purposes. The first is for those who only have entrance into the extoeric meaning and the second is for those who have entrance into the esoteric meaning. For the former the rasa sastra serves as an incentive to want to take part in Krishna lila thereby inspiring them to take to the process which will attain them their goal. From KRSNA book For the latter the descriptions of the rasa in Vraja contain a message only they can see. As for the speculations that Krishna can somehow fool Himself into not knowing He is God, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Theist it is a little different then that. Krishna is paramatma, Krishna is yogamaya, Krishna is Balarama, Krishna is Ramachandra, Krishna is Radha, Durga, Maha Vishnu, etc. They are all one person. What you propose is that Krishna is split into different segments which can be unaware of each other's activities. That is not how God exists. Krishna is all pervading, everything is comprised of Krishna, Krishna is conscious of everything, everywhere, always. Krishna in lila is still the same all pervading consciousness aware of everything in existence. While Balarama may take a different side in lila that doesn't mean they are different, it's just lila. you said From Krsna Book From Srimad Bhagavatam Krishna is never hungry, God doesn't need food, rest, or anything. Of course Krishna has to act like a child who is hungry, Krishna is not a child and He doesn't get hungry. He has to act. He is controlling what everyone does at every second. Sarva karana karanam-the cause of all causes. The point of Krishna lila for Krishna is not to feel like a child, it is to enjoy relationships with His devotees. The whole purpose of Goloka versus Vaikuntha is to fool the devotees into thinking He is a human, one of us, to have a relationship without people being in awe of Him/Her. In Vaikuntha Lord Narayana who is also Krishna is not hiding who He is, there people are in awe and reverence of God, they can't help it. If you know a person you live with is God then you will be in awe, you won't treat Him or Her the same as if you thought He or She was a human. Don't think that Krishna forgets who He is, that cannot happen because God exists everywhere and is fully conscious everywhere of everything, and is controlling everything that happens. Krishna is with you and me, fully conscious of everything we do, guiding us to fulfill our destiny at all times. He is pretending the entire Vraja lila to be human, He is controlling the lila, everything that goes on in the lila is going on according to plan. When he incarnates in Gokula in the material world, then he shows that He is God sometimes, like to Arjuna at Kurukshetra. No it's not. He displays mystic powers in Vraja causing the devotees to occasionally think he is an avatar, like when He shows the universe in his mouth to Yasoda devi, or when He makes the rope that she tries to bind him with never long enough even though the rope is long enough. That's like believing that your arm can independently write a book while you are asleep. Yogamaya is like Krishna's arm, the arm cannot act intelligently independently of the mind of Krishna. Nothing can act independently of Krishna's control. Everything is going on because Krishna is controlling it. From Brahma Samhita Purport from the Bhagavatam Here is Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma where he is explaining how yogamaya and mahamaya work:

There is meaning to Gaura Lila. Glorifying Radha's love is part of sadhana bhakti, it will purify you, help you develop love of God. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 1.4 anarpita-carīḿ cirāt karuṇayāvatīrṇaḥ kalau samarpayitum unnatojjvala-rasāḿ sva-bhakti-śriyam hariḥ puraṭa-sundara-dyuti-kadamba-sandīpitah sadā hṛdaya-kandare sphuratu vaḥ śacī-nandanah May the Supreme Lord who is known as the son of Śrīmatī Śacī-devī be transcendentally situated in the innermost chambers of your heart. Resplendent with the radiance of molten gold, He has appeared in the Age of Kali by His causeless mercy to bestow what no incarnation has ever offered before: the most sublime and radiant mellow of devotional service, the mellow of conjugal love. Also it is said that Krishna wanted to taste what Radha tastes, so he incarnated as Sri Caitanya in order to do that. Mahaprabhu is Krishna come to taste that which Krishna cannot taste unless he takes on the mood of Radha. That is a metaphorical message. We are told repeatedly from numerous authoritative sources that Radha and Krishna are one and the same, identical. Krishna knows what Radha experiences because He is Radha. Even if you cannot understand that Radha and Krishna are identical still you have to accept that the primary reason for Mahaprabhu's descent has to be metaphorical. Why? Because we are told Krishna is curious to taste what Radha tastes, so he incarnated as Mahaprabhu. Yet we are also told that Krishna became Radha because he wanted to taste the same thing. These are deep metaphorical messages. We are being taught that God enjoys more as a female then as a male. Mahaprabhu is teaching that on the outside God is masculine e.g All powerful Vishnu, Narayana, Purusa, Krishna. But on the inside God is feminine. Mahaprabhu is masculine on the outside and feminine within. God's most intimate identity is female. That is Mahaprabhus metaphoric message. God's inner self is feminine while the outer display is masculine. This is Mahaprabhu's message, this is the inner message of his lila. Radha is Supreme. Radha and Krishna are one and the same but Radha enjoys millions of times more then Krishna. Radha is God's innermost and most confidential identity. Jagat you wrote: The jivas are not non-different from the Lord. They are bhedabheda, one with and different. Radha and Her expansions are Cit Sakti, svamsa expansions of the Lord, they are non-different from the Lord. Why you choose to make some case for calling bhedabheda-tattva something to counter Advaita doctrine with is curious. Jivas are never non-different from the Lord. They are always one and different. Jagat you wrote: You can choose to interpret what is written as you like. You also wrote: You can claim these things but they contradict the pramana I have given. You then wrote: Interesting how you mention "The Truman Show". For those of you who have not seen it; it is a movie about a person who was raised in a gigantic dome. Inside the dome it is meant to look like you are in the real world e.g a painted on sky, huge body of water to fake an ocean or lake, a town, jobs, newspapers, television, radio, people, etc. Truman is raised there and thinks he is living in the real world. In truth everyone but him is an actor and his life is a reality t.v. show. The movie is about Truman finding out that the world he believes is real is in fact a controlled environment centered on him. In a sense that is what life is like for the jiva, in the mundane world or the spiritual world. Everything we encounter is the arrangement of the Lord. Whether we live in the mundane world or the spiritual realm the Lord will always be arranging everything for us. In Goloka the jivas do no not know they are living with God. They are not allowed to know. They think Krishna is a human. Sometimes they may think he is some type of avatar, but that thought is quickly removed and forgotten due to yogamaya. There are lot's of jivas in Goloka and there are many expansions of the Lord (male and female) there as well. There are two aspects to Krishna lila. The internal and the external. The jivas in that lila are only aware of the external. We can glimpse deeper. We are not encumbered by ignorance. Those jivas in that lila do not know that Radha and Krishna, Balarama and the nitya sakhis etc, are all the various personas of the same Supreme Lord. They see the lila externally. To them Radha and Krishna are people in love. They are totally unaware of the existential position they are in and the true inner nature of the pastime they are participating in. They are in ignorance, and in this case ignorance is in fact bliss. Knowledge of Radha and Krishna's true position would lessen the rasa that Radha Krishna desire's in that situation. Instead of a normal lifestyle sharing love amongst equals, it would turn into awe and reverence of the Supreme Lord. So this is the truth. The Gaudiya commentaries in rasa sastra are giving descriptions of the nature of that lila in Vraja, of what would appear to be going on if you were a mukta jiva living there. But there is an inner dimension to that lila as well that one needs to fully understand in order to fully appreciate the nature of God in the here and now. Jagat you wrote: I don't snicker at the acharyas. I find that people who are not yet qualified to appreciate the teachings on Radha Krishna tattva written by those acharyas are amusing when they attempt to pontificate about things beyond their experience. Manjari bhava is something which unqualified people try to portray as the goal of gaudiya practice as well as the most important aspect of gaudiya siddhanta. In reality it is misunderstood by anyone who is unable to understand basic truths of Radha Krishna tattva, nor are people able to understand the confidential lila of the Lord unless they understand the esoteric intent of those writings. If they rely on the literal then they will not understand. These topics are confidential knowledge, revealed knowledge. If you want to try and be a manjari...go ahead. I did at one time some 25 years ago. I had the same exact ideology on these topics as you do know Jagat. Then I had my views radically altered and my eyes opened to another angle of vision. I was shown that I was wrong about so many things. It all starts with understanding that Radha is Krishna and Krishna is Radha and that Radha is supreme.

Good question, you're not interrupting, this is a free for all. Yogamaya cannot delude God because that would mean Yogamaya is a separate conscious entity from God. Yogamaya is the power of God. Yogamaya is the name given to the aspect of God which controls the activities in the spiritual world, the name mahamaya is given to the aspect of God which controls the activities of the mundane world. Although they are the same thing. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.1.25 So yogamaya cannot actually cause Radha Krishna to do anything, it is not a separate conscious entity.

Jagat you wrote: I do not make the "by extension" that you make, so let's keep this debate to what I actually am saying. There is a major difference between antaranga sakti and jiva sakti. From Bhaktivinoda's The Bhagavat: From Jaiva Dharma: "Complete entities" means that they are God, independent. Only God is a complete entity, everyone else is incomplete i.e. dependent on God for everything. All Cit sakti entities are complete in the sense that they are all the same Supreme Lord in various forms and personas, therefore the Cit-sakti is called the plenary potency. Bhaktivinoda explains Antaranga or Cit Sakti in Jaiva Dharma: What is being described is that the Cit or Antaranga Sakti is like the core of a fire, the jiva's are atoms within the rays of light emanating from that fire. Radha, Krishna, Laksmi, Visnu, these are all complete Cit entities, they are all the core of the fire, they are all one and the same, or Svamsa expansions of the same Supreme Lord. They are all various forms produced by Cit Sakti. From A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami CC Adi lila purport: So my point is that the term sakti does not have the same meaning in all circumstances. So there is no need to make an "extension" beyond what I am saying. Jiva sakti is acintya-bhedabheda with the Lord whereas Antaranga [Cit] sakti is identical to the Lord. From Baladeva Vidyabhusana's Prameya Ratnavali: Jagat you wrote: Srī Caitanya Caritamṛta Adi 4.96 From a lecture by Ac. Bhaktivedanta: Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa of Srila Raghava Goswami: Jagat you believe that Krishna's shakti's are different from Krishna, but that is not supported anywhere. Krishna is identical with the Cit Sakti and Krishna is one and different from the Jiva Sakti. The jiva sakti are different conscious entities from Krishna but the Cit Sakti are all Krishna himself. In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of The Supreme Lord: So unless Radha is a jiva She is Krishna Himself. From A.C Bhaktivedanta's Caitanya Caritamrta Adi lila: Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains this point in Govinda Bhasya: "when They are together there is naturally the perfection of blissful amorous pastimes." Blissful amorous pastimes are perfected by their relationship in Vraja. In other words their relationship is manifested for the purpose of perfecting lila. They are the same person in two different bodies. From A. C Bhaktivedanta They are one person having a relationship in two forms in order to create perfect pastimes. The real rasa in the spiritual world is not between Krishna and His personal expansions who are all identical to Himself, they appear to have real relationships with each other in the lila, but that is done to create a perfect pastime for the jivas there. The real rasa is between God and the jivas. There is nobody else but God and the jivas. Jiva Goswami has written in Priti-sandarbha (10)12: The reason you balk at this is because you are using rasa shastra as your literal ontological template. That is not the purpose of those writings, they have an esoteric purpose which is revealed when you are ready. From Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma: Jiva Goswami explains the personal incarnations of the Lord to be like the sun's surface and the Lord to be like the sun's interior. What this means is that when you look at the sun you only see the surface, but underneath is the sun. So when you look at a personal expansion of the Lord they may display a great variety of forms, personas, pastimes, etc. But underneath they are the same Surpeme Lord. Jiva Goswami does not mention a third category of living entity. There is only Svamsa and Vibhinnamsa, God and Jivas. Krishna and his personal expansions, and the Jiva. In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami:

My views could only be considered heretical if they could not be backed up by pramana, which I have done. To me the basic flaw in many people's understanding of Radha Krishna tattva is in misunderstanding the identity of Radha and the meaning or function of hladini. Another flaw is in thinking that the descriptions of Radha Krishna rasa lila are all literal and therefore mean what they appear to mean to the casual reader. My contention is that rasa lila is not so easily accessible to the casual reader but is in reality written about esoterically. The major hurdle for many devotees to overcome if they want to understand rasa lila is in understanding the difference between Radha and Krishna. You state correctly that Srila Saraswati Thakura called Radha and Krishna the female moiety and male moiety. But we shouldn't let that confuse us into thinking that God is a dual entity. God is one entity with dual personas. In fact teaching that God is two and not one is antithetical to all the teachings of Vedanta. This is from Raghava Goswami's Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa: He doesn't say that the Supreme Lord is two, manifested in two forms. He says the Lord is one, and manifested in two forms. More from the Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa of Srila Raghava Goswami: If Radha and Krishna were different entities then why are we being told that there is no difference between them? From CC Adi Lila If Radha and Krishna are two different entities then that verse should say "Radha and Krishna are two identities". From Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura's Prema Samput (translation unknown but read by Srila Narayana Maharaja) Also A.C Bhaktivedanta spoke this: "Two bodies are there, otherwise they are one." The only difference is in the forms, the bodies. If that wasn't the case then Srila Prabhupada would have no reason to make that statement. From Baladeva Vidhyabhusana's Govinda Bhasya Even Durga is identical to Krishna, as told by Jiva Goswami: In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of The Supreme Lord: There is only svamsa and vibhinnamsa, God and Jiva. Svamsa is described being identical in all respects with Krishna, i.e. the same personality. From A.C Bhaktivedanta's Caitanya Caritamrta Adi lila: Hladini sakti is misunderstood by many people to mean that Krishna enjoys the hladini sakti similar to how we would enjoy a girlfriend or boyfriend. That is a misconception. The truth is that the hladini sakti is what Krishna enjoys through. He enjoys by becoming Radha. From Raghava Goswami Note that it is conjugal love which is the impetus for Krishna wanting to become a woman. From Sri Radha Sahasra Nama from the Narada Pancaratra. This is where Mahadeva Shiva explains the glories of Sri Radha: yan maya kathitam naiva tantresv api kadapi na tava snehat pravaksyami bhaktya dharyam mumuksubhih What I have never spoken in the Tantras and what they who yearn for liberation cherish, out of love for you (Parvati), I will now speak. mama prana-sama vidya bhavyate me tv ahar-nisam srnusva girije nityam pathasva ca yatha-mati Day and night this knowledge is as dear to me as life. O daughter of the mountain king, please hear and regularly chant (these thousand names) as far as you are able. yasyah prasadat krsnas tu golokesah parah prabhuh asya nama-sahasrasya rsir narada eva ca By Her kindness Krsna, the master of Goloka, is the Supreme Master. Narada is the sage of Her thousand holy names. sakalepsita-datri ca saci sadhvi arundhati pati-vrata pati-prana pati-vakya-vinodini asesa-sadhani kalpa- vasini kalpa-rupini She fulfills all desires (sakalepsita-datri). She is Saci (Wife of Indra). She is saintly (sadhvi). She is Arundhati (Wife of Vasistha) She is faithful to Her husband (pati-vrata). Her husband is Her very life (pati-prana). She delights in Her husband's words (pati-vakya-vinodini). She has the power to do anything (asesa-sadhani). All Her desires are automatically fulfilled (kalpa-vasini and kalpa-rupini). vatsala kausala kala karunarnava-rupini svarga-laksmir bhumi- laksmir draupadi pandava-priya She is affectionate (vatsala), expert (kausala), beautiful (kala), and an ocean of mercy (karunarnava-rupini). She is heavenly opulence (svarga-laksmi) and earthly opulence (bhumi-laksmi). She is Draupadi, who is dear to the Pandavas (pandava-priya). isvari sarva-vandya ca gopaniya subhankari palini sarva-bhutanam tatha kamanga-harini She is the supreme controller (isvari), worshiped by all (sarva-vandya), reclusive (gopaniya), the giver of auspiciousness (subhankari), the protectress of all living entities (palini sarva-bhutanam), and the wife of Lord Siva who destroyed Kamadeva's body (kamanga-harini). nilambara-vidhatri ca nilakantha-priya tatha bhagini bhagini bhogya krsna-bhogya bhagesvari She is dressed in blue garments (nilambara-vidhatri). She is Lord Siva's beloved (nilakantha-priya). She is beautiful (bhagini, bhagini, and bhogya), She is Lord Krsna's happiness (krsna-bhogya) anviksiki sastra-rupa sastra-siddhanta-karini nagendra naga-mata ca krida-kautuka-rupini She is the science of logic (anviksiki), the Vedas personified (sastra-rupa), the teacher of the Vedas' final conclusion (sastra-siddhanta-karini), the beloved of Lord Sesa (nagendra), the mother of the snakes (naga-mata) and playful and happy (krida-kautuka-rupini). sesa sesavati sesa- rupini jagad-ambika gopala-palika maya jayanandaprada tatha She reclines on Lord Sesa (sesa, sesavati, and sesa-rupini). She is the mother of the universe (jagad-ambika), the protectress of the cowherd people (gopala-palika), the Lord's illusory potency (maya), and she who gives the bliss of victory (jayanandaprada). gokulantara-geha ca yogananda-kari tatha venu-vadya venu-ratih venu-vadya-parayana Her home is in Gokula (gokulantara-geha). She delights Lord Krsna when She meets Him (yogananda-kari). She plays the flute (venu-vadya), enjoys playing the flute (venu-rati), and is fond of playing the flute (venu-vadya-parayana). bilva-vrksa-priya krsnam- bara bilvopama-stani bilvatmika bilva-vapur bilva-vrksa-nivasini She is fond of the bilva tree (bilva-vrksa-priya). She is Lord Krsna's garment (krsnambara). Her breasts are like bilva fruits (bilvopama-stani). Her form is like a bilva tree (bilvatmika and bilva-vapuh). She stays under a bilva tree (bilva-vrksa-nivasini). vedatita niralamba niralamba-gana-priya niralamba-janaih pujya niraloka nirasraya She is beyond the Vedas (vedatita), liberated (niralamba), dear to the liberated (niralamba-gana-priya), worshiped by the liberated (niralamba-janaih pujya), unseen by conditioned souls (niraloka), and independent (nirasraya). sulaksmana mitravinda kalindi jahnu-kanyka paripurna purnatara tatha haimavati gatih She is Sulaksmana (sulaksmana), Mitravinda (mitravinda), Kalindi (kalindi), Jahnavi (jahnu-kanyka), most perfect (paripurna and purnatara), Goddess Parvati (haimavati), and the supreme goal of life (gati). daksa-kanya deva-mata manda-lajja hares tanuh vrndaranya-priya vrnda vrndavana-vilasini She is Daksa's daughter (daksa-kanya), the demigods' mother (deva-mata), bold (manda-lajja), Lord Hari's own transcendental form (hares tanuh), fond of Vrndavana (vrndaranya-priya), goddess Vrnda (vrnda), and the girl who enjoys pastimes in Vrndavana (vrndavana-vilasini). For more details go to: The hidden face of God

It's funny to me to read stuff like this, no offense intended, I'm just amused by these conceptions. Don't you find it just a bit strange that the supposed highest position a jiva can attain to is being a spectator of other people's love affairs? But there ya go. In fact it seems to be quite common amongst various gaudiya vaisnavas that they think that the ultimate heaven God has in store for them is being little girls watching and serving God's love affair. It's really quite hilarious if you think about it. Especially so if you understand that the person God is having an affair with is himself, as a women. Even though there are those who are loath to confront the truth of Radha's identity as Krishna i.e they are the same exact person, nevertheless there is still the ontological quandry of: why would God see the highest attainable goal of life for ourselves as transforming us into pre-pubescent girls who spend our lives serving his/her love affair, and also"being peeping toms"? And why would we even desire such a life devoid of our own love affairs? Why do we think God has that in store for us if we attain to the highest possible position for ourselves? Because we are venturing into theological realms which we are not prepared to fully appreciate. Why would we even want such a life devoid of a passionate love affair of our own? Because we think that we are supposed to want that. Wouldn't it be more fulfilling to have your own passionate love affair with God, like say the sakhis or the queens in Dwaraka? Surely life would have much more to offer and be more fulfilling if we could be in a direct passionate love affair with God rather then simply being a pre-pubescent girl onlooker? I think that should be obvious. Therefore we have to re-evaluate what we think we "know" about Gaudiya theology. People will argue and say that Sri Rupa and others say this or that which disagrees with what I am saying. They will claim that even though to our vision the life of a manjari seems less then the life of a queen in Dwaraka or the life of a person like Arjuna; that it appears that way to us because we don't understand the ecstacy of the manjaris. I would tell them it is they who don't understand the esoteric intent of Sri Rupa and the other empowered authors of the rasa sastra. I would tell them that there is much more to the rasa sastra then what meets the eye. I would tell them that people who are not yet qualified to catch the true esoteric intent and meaning of the rasa sastra will simply be captivated by the pretty words yet not see the true message contained therein. These books are not ordinary books that you can study and then understand in full. The true meaning and intent is hidden from all but those who have been given entrance into their inner meaning as their destiny dictates. For everyone else those books should not be overly scrutinized and taken as a source of an absolute ontological/theological paradigm. If people do so they will simply come to all kinds of philosophical problems and devotional missteps. Jiva Goswami has written in Priti-sandarbha (10)12: That verse stands in stark contrast to the conception of "manjari bhava" as the highest possible relationship the jiva can experience. That verse is telling us that the goal of life is to enjoy a one on one relationship with the Lord, not as a spectator of God's relationship with him/her self. We should be wary of any theology which tells us that all God has in store for the most initmate relationship attainable for us is as a spectator and servant of other people's love affairs. It makes no sound sense whatsoever and is only promulgated by people with no actual direct experience with what they promote. Promoters of such conceptions need to take a close look at their actual relationship with God and see if it qualifies them to speak authoritatively before they claim to be experts on God's most intimate affairs.

It's a deep realization to come to. Even though most vedantists all teach that essential point, as well as other religious philosophers, coming to actually understanding it is a major step for people. Once understanding that and realizing that point as well as understanding that everything we encounter is one thing, then the next stage is to see everything as being completely controlled by one being at all times. In a sense our environment can then become a vehicle for that control to be shown directly to us, relating to us through that control. Although a deeper stage still is seeing that our thought process, our minds, are also part of that oneness and under the same exact control. Knowing that the controller of the mind can reveal that control as well.

Jagat you wrote: It makes perfect sense if you are able to appreciate the esoteric nature of these types of writings. For people who are unable to understand what these topics are really about, all they will see is the words and the sentences they form and they will take the direct meaning of those sentences as all in all. That may be alright if you are reading the Gita or other philosophical tracts, but that approach will not work for the rasa shastra. And it is because you don't understand the esoteric meaning hidden from you that you are advised not to waste your time trying to make it your goal in life to study these works as if they are your ticket to Godhead. It's no different then licking the outside of a jar of honey hoping to get some sweetness. If you understood who Raghunath is and what he is all about, and if you understood what the rasa shastra is really alll about, then there would be no question of it making no sense. It is esoteric knowledge. You cannot understand what it is truly about if you think that the outer meaning is the real meaning. Why is this hidden knowledge? Why can't it just be upfront and made obvious? The path of Radha dasyam is a path of love. Love cannot be coerced. It is the mature ripened stage of bhakti. Until the bhakta is able to love, the truth is kept hidden otherwise it will be a form of coercion, which deforms the true emotional stage desired. Jiva Goswami has written in Priti-sandarbha (10)12: In the spiritual world, the Supreme Lord has unlimited spiritual forms, all are expansions of Himself illuminating that world. With each one of those forms, the Lord enjoys pastimes with a single individual liberated soul.

Narayana Maharaja also teaches that siddha pranali is part of the Gaudiya Math. If people accept it as authentic, fine with me, good luck with that. Nevertheless it's not necessary for someone to receive siddha pranali in order to obtain a relationship with Sri Radha Govinda. Anyone who teaches that siddha pranali is necessary is simply ignorant and inexperienced. From my perspective siddha pranali is just another motivation to increase sravanam and kirtanam for certain people who may need that. It's not some magical rite which need be undertaken by everyone. It's just another ritual to aid in the development of one's spiritual awareness. But there are those who think it is something much more then that. They think it is some kind of magical ritual which elevates people to the highest level and that those who receive it are on a higher level then those who do not. No ritual nor any initiation can elevate someone to the position of an intimate associate of the Lord. That is only given by the Lord to the devotee, no one else can make you a self realized soul with the ability to relate directly with the Lord on an intimate level. You either experience that or you don't. I cannot see for you, I cannot think for you, in the same way no one can be self realized for you, nor can they give you your relationship with the Lord. Others may be able to give instructions on how to relate with the Lord, but no one can give you that relationship but the Lord. Someone may tell me about my father whom I have never met and who lives in china, but unless I contact my father directly, my relationship with him is only in the conceptual realm.

Raga do you have the transcripts of that book by Bhakta Vikas Swami? If so are there sources for his claims about siddha pranali given by Bhaktisiddhanta? If so can you cite those sources?

Regardless of what was meant the point that I see which is worthy is that the *true* raga marga is not something which you should or even can whimsically decide to follow. Raga marga is something which is organic to the bhakta, it is not an artificial imposition, not that one decides "Oh I think I will be a raganuga bhakta now" and then presto he becomes a true follower of the raga marga. That's not how the raga marga is introduced to the bhakta. People who don't understand the raga marga and who seek to advance themselves by their own willpower simply are deluded when they think their smaranam on asta kaliya lila is anything remotely similar to the real raga marga. The real raga marga is not something which you can enter, it is given directly to you by the Lord when you are ready, when you can see the Lord within. Anyone who considers that reading about the descriptions of rasa in books like Ujjvala-nilamani to be some kind of rite of passage or essential component of the raga marga, they are exposing themselves as being clueless when it comes to the real raga marga. There is nothing essentially bad or wrong about those types of books, nor are they particularly vastly more intimate then numerous other gaudiya writings. The reason that book and some others were pointed out as something to avoid by recent past acaryas is because they are trying to make a point. Those people who champion the faux raga marga cite those works as all important and as some kind of rite of passage or secret initiation necessary for the raga marga when in truth those writings are no such thing. What they do seem to inspire in some people is faux emotional states, false bhava, narcissism masquerading as enlightenment. So the point the acaryas made was in stating that those writings can only be misunderstood by those unqualified to read them who have a propensity for seeing themselves on a higher level of bhakti then they are really on. And as we have seen this has been playing out all over the gaudiya world.

Then why was Sri Caitanya so strict about celibacy? Look Jagat what you are saying is nothing new, people lile Rajneesh make the same arguments as do other yogis including vaisnavas who claim to follow the path of Mahapabhu. So the question is; if you and they are right then why is celibacy promoted not only in the gaudiya tradition but in many other vaisnava traditions as well? Are they all deviating from the true message of Vedanta? The teaching on celibacy isn't that one's spiritual status is equal to one's level of celibacy (even if some people consider that to be true), it's that sexuality has the power to take one's time and energy away from the higher pursuit. Just like the person who is obese is told to stay away from sweets in order to get healthy. It's not that sweets are bad and that anyone who eats sweets is going to die of diabetes. The prohibition against sex is there to make spiritual advancement swift, just like the reouncing of sweets will make weight loss swifter. For a person who is serious about quickly attaining the higher level of God consciousness it is advised to give up other pursuits. If you don't give up sex you can still advance in spiritual understanding, but that path slows down the attaining of the highest realizations. Sex is like an addictive drug in that it leaves you wanting more and more and more. So the prohibition is there for those who have yet to attain to the highest level that they should be strict in their sense control. Those on the highest level have no rules nor regulations, they don't need them. Why? Once gaining entrance into the highest realm, once attaining the goal of bhakti, then nothing can bring you down and there is nowhere higher to attain. If someone who is on a lower level thinks that celibacy or any other sacrifice of sense enjoyment is unecessary, they still may advance on the spiritual path. Sravanam and Kirtanam will still aid that person in his or her development of spiritual realization, but the fact is that sense enjoyment is addicting. The more you have the more you want. Those who give up unecessary sense enjoyment will have more time and energy to devote to spiritual pursuits. It's that simple. From the purport to Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 8.221 Then again if you believe in a philosophy which uses sex as sadhana then these words will mean nothing to you. Jagat you follow the tantric sahajiya path, or so you have claimed? Fine. There may be some people who will be attracted to that and I guess that is why you are here preaching. The mainstream gaudiya tradition rejects that path, you know this. They're not going to change because someone tells them that sex is healthy and that celibacy is unhealthy.