Bhava dasa

In eternal rasa, Sri Rupa Goswami has a very intimate relationship with Srimati Radharani. He knows these things very well, and the Acaryas have confirmed it. However, I am not willing to discuss those higher tattvas in an open forum like this. Hare Krsna

It is standard practice when quoting a scholar, that you at least mention his name. This link doesn't work.

If you continue to take the position of attacking Gaudiya siddhanta, then you should be prepared to provide sastric proof. And reversely if sastric proof, whether it be the srutis, smrtis, puranas, pancaratricis, tantrikas, etc. is provided to you, you should be humble enough to accept it. Let us discuss on those grounds. Then there may be some possibility of a meeting of the minds. Otherwise, the discussions will simply go around and around like a dog chasing its tail.

With all due respect madhavachari, you haven't disproved a thing. The Gaudiya Vaisnavas accept the conclusions of the great mahajanas, such as Brahma, Narada, and Siva, etc. It is their opinion that Mahaprabhu is Krsna. It is also their opinion that counters the other conclusions you have made regarding Krsna and Visnu, and Srimati Radharani and Laksmi-devi. We have firm faith in their conclusions. You obviously do not. So be it. Why continue to the point of "argumentum ad baculum?" You are not making any progress against Gaudiya siddhanta, so why continue?

It's very much Vedic, and is supported by various Vedic literatures.

It's not possible for you to disprove Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

Identify yourself please.

Can you identify yourself please?

The answers to these questions are found in Gaudiya literature, but you don't accept them. So, you may never know.

So where do the jivas come from? You use the terms, "theoretically, and "I think". So all this is simply your opinion? It's not coming from scripture?

The Brahma-samhita is a smrti-sastra, and yet you're disregarding it. Why?

Then it is fair to say that you are dismissing the smrti-sastras?

Lord Brahma, the original distributor of Vedic knowledge, states: ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhuto govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami "I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, residing in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, resembling His own spiritual figure, the embodiment of the ecstatic potency possessed of the sixty-four artistic activities, in the company of Her confidantes [sakhis], embodiments of the extensions of Her bodily form, permeated and vitalized by His ever-blissful spiritual rasa." (Brahma Samhita 5.37) There are other references as well. Below are a few... Brhad-gautamiya-tantra: devi krsna-mayi prokta radhika para-devata sarva-laksmi-mayi sarva kantih sammohini para "The transcendental goddess Srimati Radharani is the direct counterpart of Lord Sri Krsna. She is the central figure for all the goddesses of fortune. She possesses all attractiveness to attract the all-attractive Personality of Godhead. She is the primeval internal potency of the Lord." Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi-lila: 4.74-75): krsna-kanta-gana dekhi tri-vidha prakara eka laksmi-gana, pure mahisi-gana ara vrajangana-rupa, ara kanta-gana-sara sri-radhika haite kanta-ganera vistara "The beloved consorts of Lord Krsna are of three kinds: the goddesses of fortune, the queens, and the milkmaids of Vraja, who are the foremost of all. These consorts all proceed from Radhika." Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi-lila: 4.77): vaibhava-gana yena tanra anga-vibhuti bimba-pratibimba-rupa mahisira tati "The goddesses of fortune are partial manifestations of Srimati Radhika, and the queens are reflections of Her image." Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi-lila: 4.90): ‘sarva-laksmi'-sabda purve kariyachi vyakhyana sarva-laksmi-ganera tinho hana adhisthana "I have already explained the meaning of "sarva-laksmi." Radha is the original source of all the goddesses of fortune." Radhe jaya jaya madhava-dayite! Hare Krsna.

Yes.

Then whose authority do you accept?

I can accept that. Thank you for taking the time.

These aren't necessarily two different personalities in one body. Arjuna and Vishaka (or Lilita) were present on the planet at the same time. It appears that he wasn't one of them. However Ramananda Ray (who appeared later) is both Arjuna and Vishaka (or Lalita ). Therefore he is a multiple personality, or somehow combined. So, while A=B, and A=C, B (doesn't necessarily)=C -- in spiritual reality.

Someone has signed in as mahakala ("Maha_kala"), and has misquoted me, by adding the last sentence, "I am not a member of any religious organisation". I find this offensive to ISKCON, and have reported it the board Admin.

prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani sarvasah ahankara-vimudhatma kartaham iti manyate "The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature." [bg 3.27] ...So the question arises, "If I am not the 'doer,' why do I get the karma?"

Local Discussion: Who is less intelligent? Women who put much effort in beautifying themselves to attract men, or the men who chase after such women?

Quote or reference from Vedic literature?

There is a discussion taking place on the matter of following Caturmasya. Some say it is obligatory, while others say it is not. On one side they are quoting a verse from Hari-bhakti-vilasa (16.19): "He, who lives through the periods of Karttika and Chaturmasya without vows is indeed the killer of a brahmin and the lowest of his dynasty." ...And others say that the goal of such observances is to become qualified to drink Soma-rasa and achieve immortality, etc. Adding, that we do not need to follow these Vedic rituals. Any quotes from Gaudiya Vaisnavas literature?

Q: "What Items Should a Krsna Devotee Carry Inside the Bead-Bag?" A: Your right hand and your japa beads (preferably in your hand).

Any examples?

It is stated in the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika (120–24), that Ramananda Raya was formerly Arjuna. In addition, some say that he is an incarnation of Vishaka (while others say Lalita). Logically speaking, one would assume that this being the case, Arjuna must also be an incarnation of Vishaka (or Lalita). In other words, if A equals B, and A equals C, then B and C must equal each other. However, there is argument that this type of logic does not necessarily apply in spiritual reality. Any thoughts?