talasiga

Perhaps you might need to ask Him whether He works. Your tape recorder will not get past the Gopas......

1. Pardon my ignorance, but what language did Krishna speak in the historical Vindiraban? Pali? 2. When I studied Linguistics, BrijBhaash was accepted as a dialect of Hindi. Perhaps it is the original vernacular and other hindi dialects are perversions of it.

So, while you are listing your questions Krishna must be kept waiting?

Jijaji! If someone makes a joke Of course you may grin But must you bare your teeth? Peace Always

Of course not!Nor would you say to them, "Now is not static. It is always valid", would you?

My Dear Animesh In the future if you come to know Krishna Will you ask Him this?

you have posted a paradox The very essence of Now is beyond movement, In stillness beyond time Beyond judgement it is Incomparable, how can Shvu assess its validity or otherwise?

Yes thats right. A lot of them are hermits. Why not learn Brij Bhaas Hindi, the language of Radha and Krishna?

Re: "Peace Now" Why do keep saying this, Jijaji? What about afterwards?

They (Gaudiyas) may be construed as being not real Vaishnavas because they are seen to worship Radha as the Shakti of Krishna. The orthodox Vaishnavas only recognise Rukmini as Krishna's Shakti (cf Lakshmi and Narayan; Sita and Rama etc). Whether categorising the Gaudiyas as Shaktas is appropriate or fruitful is moot. Frankly a lot of the thesis that you present seems to be fishing in troubled waters with a load of different baits. What is the intended Catch?

"What of the impersonalists merging into the Brahman, sayujya?Are they conscious of their relationship?" Maitreya, the so-called impersonalists are said to merge into the Brahmajyoti. Now, Sanskrit is a semantically rich but very exact language in terms of word construct and there is a critical difference between the Brahman and the Brahmajyoti. One is the Supreme and the corollary state of being and the other is the effulgence of the Supreme. (It is a bit like Jesus and his halo - the halo emanates from Him, is separate to Him but is NOT independent of Him.) The impersonalist merged in the Light is not in that state of Being known as Brahman because of absence of conscious relationship noting that relationship requires distinction, and in this discussion, recognition of Self as distinct from an Other. At Chapter 3 of the Nectar of Devotion, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami (Prabhupad) says, "Without being elevated to the postion of a [jnani], or wise man, one cannot stick to the principle of worshipping the Supreme Personality of Godhead. ......a wise man who seeks [Krishna] knows perfectly well that he is spirit soul, or Brahman, and [Krishna] is the supreme spirit soul, or Parabrahman." If you posit that Brahman means merging in the Brahmajyoti, how could that impersonal merging be the necessary platform for the abiding worship of Krishna that Prabhupad is talking about? "There is a connection between Krishnaloka and Vaikuntha, they are on the absolute plane." Maitreya, yes, they are said to be both on the absolute plane but that is not a nexus that is meaningful to the Devotee of Krishna. The Devotee does not equate Vaikuntha with Krishnaloka nor consider them on an equal plane (if indeed a Devotee of Krishna ever considers Vaikuntha at all). Such equations are anaethema to them and the scholars among them consider such equations as rasabhasa. Generally speaking, the Devotee of Krishna has little interest in Vaikuntha. "Why bring Radha into this?" Maitreya, Radha is the ultimate Gopi, the ultimate Pure Devotee of Krishna. She is most relevant to any question on devotion and Krishna, as are the other Gopis. At Chapter 30 of the The Teachings of Lord Chaitanya (The Golden Avatar), Prabhupad says, "No common man can understand the ecstasy of transcendental love between [Radha and Krishna], nor can he understand the transcendental flavor of the transcendental love between [Krishna and the gopis]. Yet if one tries to follow in the footsteps of the [gopis], he may become situated in the highest stage of transcendental love." "So you are sugesting that one should not be inquisitive about the spiritual world unless he is a Vaisnava?" No Maitreya, not at all. Quite the opposite, I am suggesting that one need not be a "Vaishnava" to make spiritual enquiry into devotion to Krishna. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that in some cases Vaishnava scholasticism may be an obstruction to Krishna Bhakti and uncluttered spiritual enquiry. I say this with the qualification that we must distinguish between Vaishnavas and Vaishnava Devotees of Krishna and between scholastic epistemology and the epistemology of the Bhaktas. "Yes it is good to focus on the feet of the Vaisnava.But they are also writing volumns of books on this subject matter and I take it from that they want us to read those books and discuss them." Maitreya, what did Radhika write? What book by Lord Chaitanya? But please dont get me wrong - do read books if it heightens your devotion but dont let the books block out the Feet. (and the Feet must be of a Devotee of Krishna first and other qualifications come after). "Vaisnava refers to an awakened active soul who is cognizant of his own position in relation to the Supreme Absolute." Maitreya, I do note you have a delightfully broad definition of Vaishnava comprising these elements:- 1. awakened state of 2. a soul 3. recognising relationship with God. This is the very state of Being that is known as Brahman. Kindest Regards Thank you for your charity in discussing with me.

No, doesnt seem to be a very nice sounding name. What about "Atmashraya"?

1.1 Brahman is not a place. The soul does not begin its journey "from Brahman". The soul itself is qualitatively of Brahman - "aham brahmasmi". 1.2 There is no Brahman independent of Krishna. Brahman is a state of being in conscious relationship with Krishna (noting there are different types and levels of relationship). 2 Your question appears to be predicated on some nexus between Vaikuntha and Krishnaloka. Well, did Radha evolve from Vaikuntha or is she always in Vindiraban? Even before Krishna came to Vindiraban Radha was already there. Or is there some argument that immediately before Her association with the Lord in Vindiraban She must have been in Vaikuntha according to some heirarchical progression from Vaikuntha to Vindiraban? The concept of Radha in Vaikuntha seems most repugnant as well as the idea that Vaikuntha is a progressive stepping stone to Vindiraban. If one chooses to do so, I feel that these curious conundrums may be avoided by leaving consideration of Vaikuntha to the Vaishnavas and focussing on the feet of the Devotee of Krishna. There are many great Vaishnava devotees of Krishna AND there are also many great Devotees of Krishna who would not necessarily consider themselves Vaishnavas.

There has to be a step between arrogance and enlightenment. Is it simply effluxion of time?

Apparently it has been mentioned in an Indian TV series.....

the ignorant monkey dying of hunger locked in a cage full of ripe bananas is saved on learning that the bananas are edible but still must eat regularly even after the first saving or the redeemed monkey risks dying of hunger just as he would have in ignorance.....

Dharma, listen to this popular introductory prayer: Buddham saranam gacchami (I take refuge in the Buddha) Sangham saranam gacchami (I take refuge in spiritual company) Dhammam saranam gacchami (I take refuge in the teaching) Those who try to practise sincerely what the Buddha preached and profess taking refuge in the Buddha must be considered Buddhists. And those who profess that the Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu must accept those Buddhists as Vaishnoi..... Q.E.D.

Dear Leyh a extempore comment if I may: FAITH is accepting any connection that is felt with God and Guru. Spiritual detachment is the questioning of every other connection.

Atma if all else fails try changing your name for the soul never sleeps

We must be educated to stand and be counted for what is right to learn from the illiterate to follow the lowly to cultivate our differences with love to grieve for our neighbours' sorrows and to know how little we know (PS Dear Dasanudas, I am sorry I got your name wrong on the other thread.....)

Dear Shvu The dating of a written scripture cannot be equated with its date of origin. In any great oral tradition a revelation may be passed on for thousands of years by spoken word or song before being written. No-one may know when it was originally revealed. Logically, in such a situation, all that can be known by the evidence of the first written version is that AT LEAST it must be that old noting that AT LEAST is not the same as AT MOST. Yours in writing on 8 June 2001 (point first conceived in oral discussions in 1960's)

Dear Dasunadas thank you for the welcome It cannot be attained It comes by Grace Beyond our control Our role to be ever open to its Coming

Dear JRdd when Radha sees Krishna from a grove she does not see herself either perhaps you are gazing from a similar direction Kind Regards

yes Srila Prabhupada rings on in our hearts.....