Bhava dasa

 

What is the source of Rupa Goswami's description of Shrimati Radharani's footprint and toes? He surely didn't physically see and study them himself? Where does this information come from? The existence of those signs is a possibility, but still, is there a recognized and reliable source of their existence?

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

 

Here is an analysis of the Bhagavata verse by a Dvaita scholar:

It is standard practice when quoting a scholar, that you at least mention his name.

 

 

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-...nfo/2005-June/000865.html

This link doesn't work.

 

You expect correct answers, based on the scriptures. But as I have already said, I am not a pandit and I don´t have the answers to everything and neither do you.

 

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.

 

Originally Posted by madhavachari

I already have disproved several of the misconceptions of Gaudiyas.

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?

 

Yes they do, but it is not Vedic.

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

I am not on a mission to disprove Gaudiya Vaishnavism...

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

 

Only Gaudiyas accept this text.

Identify yourself please.

 

Traditional Gaudiyas teach that the jiva descends from a marginal plane, between the eternal spiritual world and the material universe.

 

I believe ISKCON teaches (or use to) that the jiva fell from Vaikuntha. This is of course a very troublesome teaching, since if the jiva fell from Vaikuntha, that could mean liberated ones could fall once again. So you see why traditional Gaudiyas do not accept this. .

 

See this article for this discussion:

vnn.org/world/WD0204/WD09-7259.html

Can you identify yourself please?

 

As far as I know there is no definite answer to the question you are asking. But if you find out, let me know.

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

 

2: No fall.

 

So where do the jivas come from?

 

 

3: Theoretically, the jiva can stay forever in samsara, considering the free will. But I think that all jivas will go to the spiritual world, sooner or later, because the jiva can never feel true happiness here and this place is not its eternal home.

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

 

No, why are you asking?

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

 

As I said, there is no vedic support for a Radha. They are all later texts or the evidence is allegedly in older texts, but they aren´t.

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

 

Since there is not even any vedic pramana for Radha, it would be ludicrous to make statements such as, "Radha is the source of all goddesses, even Lakshmi"!

Lord Brahma, the original distributor of Vedic knowledge, states:

 

 

 

 

 

"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:

 

 

 

 

 

"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):

 

 

 

 

 

"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):

 

 

 

 

 

"The goddesses of fortune are partial manifestations of Srimati Radhika, and the queens are reflections of Her image."

 

Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi-lila: 4.90):

 

 

 

 

 

"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.

 

does this mean Radha is the Supreme Personality of Goddess Lakshmi?

Yes.

 

I am not a member of any religious organisation.

Then whose authority do you accept?

 

To Bhava dasa regarding your post #37.

 

In your post (#21) you asked him (Maha_kala) if he was a member of Iskcon.

 

 

Possibly he (Maha_kala) does not know how to insert your quote into his post (#35), in which he was replying to you, that HE "was not a member of any spiritual orginization", and as such it looks as if his reply ( "I am not a member of any spiritual organization") was part you your original post.

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

 

According to the opinion of some, he was an incarnation of Kärttikeya, the son of Lord Siva, and according to others he was formerly the gopé named Acyutä. The Gaura-gaëoddeça-dépikä (88) supports both these opinions. - Srila Prabhupada's purport to CC Adi 12.17

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.

 

Hare Krsna mahakala,

 

Before I reply to your questions above, it would be helpful to know if you are a member of ISKCON, or another branch of the Gaudiya tree? It is question regarding the authority of guru and his statements.

 

As for myself, I am a member of ISKCON.

 

I am not a member of any religious organisation.

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.

 

 

 

 

"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?

 

Lord Brahma does not discontinue to be creator and resident of Brahmaloka whiole living as Haridas Thakur. The perfected demigods can expaqND THEMSELVES, i THINK pRABHUPADA MENTIONS, UP TO EIGHT TIMES.

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?

 

A Tulasi Mala, the Counter Beads? What about a Rudraksha Mala? Should any small pictures be carried? If so, which pictures?

 

Hare Krsna

Q: "What Items Should a Krsna Devotee Carry Inside the Bead-Bag?"

 

A: Your right hand and your japa beads (preferably in your hand).

 

There are many multiple personality incarnations and multiple empowerments, thus A doesn't always equal C.

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?