More on Gaurava

July 7, 2006

tad dasa dasa dasanam dasatvam dehi me prabho. Here's another example of Srila Sridhar Maharaja taking a very high, confidential verse (from Srila Raghanatha das Goswami) and using it in a practical way for our present condition. Don't think that he is really in our condition, he is taking the role as a conditioned soul for our benefit. This even makes more sense when you look at the front end of the verse which is not given here. Take the time and do the research. What is Das goswami's internal serving mood? Shhhhhh....not for all ears or eyes.

July 7, 2006

Sorry I haven't been able to continue with this. I will get to my next installments soon, I hope.

I am not sure what "easy" thing you think I am talking about, KB. The very concept of a female identity for a person in a male body is, as I was trying to say, somewhat "against nature."

There is an element of the heroic rasa in certain kinds of spirituality. In fact, if it was not a heroic endeavor, it would probably not be attractive. This is a very prominent element in the spirit of celibacy--where masculinity is expressed in the renunciation of sexuality. The macho guy who don't need "mothering." The sexual relations of such men tend to be aggressive, brief, filled with ambivalence, and in longer-term relations characterized by a kind of distance. Or, in more modern society, by competitiveness and performance anxiety.

At the same time, there are other kinds of heroism. In fact, I would say that there is heroism in seeing anything through to the end. What the Bhagavatam complains about is the kind of capitulation to facility that we give in to so easily. nAyam AtmA bala-hInena labhyaH. "This Soul is not attainable by the weak."

I can tell you with all honesty that I am not proposing anything that is facile or comes without sacrifice.

July 7, 2006

This is why I need to get my password back. I have to edit my posts. That was really sloppy.

nidrayA hriyate nakta vyavAyena ca vA vayaH

divA cArthehayA rAjan kuTumba-bharaNena vA

Our nights pass in sleep and sexual activity and our days in accumulating wealth and maintaining our wives and families.

shiva · July 7, 2006

Kshamabuddhi here expresses something that troubled me as well for a long time. I understood this a little better after studying the books of Rupa Goswami in depth. Before saying anything, though, I would like to point out to Kshamabuddhi and those who sympathize with his ideas in general, that the Gaudiya Math is in a fundamental quandary when it comes to subjects like this, because, as we have already established, the ultimate goals of the Gaudiya Math are NOT different from those of the Babajis. At least, not if they claim to be followers of Rupa and Raghunath. What we have here is a debate over what it means to follow Rupa and Raghunath, that is all. So there may be quibbles between Babajis and GM about sambandha and prayojana, but their real problem is in relation to abhidheya. What Kshamabuddhi has expressed here is a problem with the prayojana.

I hope I am keeping within the reasonable bounds of Sanskrit terminology use.

As to the prayojana and manjari bhava, anyone who has read _Manjari-svarupa-nirupana_ will know that it is frequently stated that the manjaris have entry into the most intimate pastimes of Srimati Radha and Krishna. They are always peeking into Radha and Krishna's most intimate pastimes through the vines and the windows of the kunja kutira.

<center>vidyud ghanAcikramiSAM yadopari

smArAd dadhAnA vavale'valepataH |

tadA tu jAlAni sakhI dRzAM balAj

jAlAvalIM harSa-jalaiH plutAM vyadhuH ||</center>

<blockquote>Ah what a wonder! The Divine Couple, caught up in their erotic amusements have now been so overcome with their ecstatic lovemaking that they have reversed their positions. Like a bolt of lightning desiring to attack the cloud, the beloved, possessed by the hubris of the god of love, shows her lover her power. Seeing this, the manjaris, spectators peeking through the windows of the forest cottage drenched the sills with their tears. (Krishna-bhavanamrita 20.45)</blockquote>In this verse by Raghunath Das from the Vraja-vilasa-stava (38), such a privilege is the reward the manjaris receive for their intimate service and is their defining characteristic and distinction from the sakhis:

<center>tAmbUlArpaNa-pAda-mardana-payo-dAnAdibhisArAdibhir

vRndAraNya-mahezvarIM priyatayA yAs toSayanti priyAH |

prANa-preSTha-sakhI-kulAd api kilAsaGkocitA bhUmikAH

kelI-bhUmiSu rUpa-maJjarI-mukhAs tA dAsikAH saMzraye ||</center>

<blockquote>I take shelter of the handmaidens of the Queen of Vrindavan,

led by Sri Rupa Manjari,

who by lovingly satisfying her,

by offering betelnut and other condiments,

massaging her feet, bringing fragrant water,

and arranging for trysts with her gallant,

have thus become most dear to her.

They are thus allowed permission to enter the scene

of the Divine Couple’s most intimate affairs

without the slightest discomfiture,

a reward not given even to her dearest friends.</blockquote>So the prayojana as expressed in these verses, the reward that the manjaris get for their intimate service to Srimati Radharani, is the permission to watch—to be peeping Toms.

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:

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.

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.

Admin · July 7, 2006

For Jagat: A password reminder has been sent to your email account (the one at videotron.ca). If you no longer have access to that account tell us and we will send it to your account.

July 7, 2006

Thanks for adding to the Purva-paksha, Shiva. Of course, there is a reason for it. And as soon as I can, I will try to respond fully. What goes on in these bodies and what goes on on the inner plane are two different things. God is not just Krishna, but Radha AND Krishna.

We participate in a lila, not as prime players but as accessories. This is, in fact, the proper understanding of sambandha, and is true anyway in the context of our present life, mundane reality.

Of course, sambhoga with Krishna is a possibility, even according to Rupa Goswami, but desires for it are relegated to a lower level of perfection. This is something that, as we are presenting the objections, needs to be understood. There are many out there who think sambhoga with Krishna is the goal.

Sambhoga with Radha in a male identity (as you have intimated in the past is your own mood), would be considered heresy in the extreme by everyone in this sampradaya. I think Sahajiyaism in its crudest forms would be acceptable to the acharyas of this line before a doctrine that sees this as the ultimate goal. Radha on her own cannot be Supreme. She is a Moiety, as Saraswati Thakur liked to put it. Moiety means "half." Those in manjari bhava tend to be proud of Radha's power, but that power has to be seen in the context of her relationship with Krishna.

The key is understanding what "observation" means. Rupa Goswami's theory of mystical experience is actually based on the concept of aesthetic experience, i.e., what comes of watching a film or going to the theater, or reading a good book. That is what rasa is all about.

July 7, 2006

Though, I should say, Shivaji, that there are mystical traditions where the sadhaka assumes a male persona in relation to God as the female beloved. There is a strain of Sufism that has produced a number of songs and poems in this mood. I would have to look more closely at these traditions to find out the extent to which their mood was metaphorical or substantial. As with Christianity, there is bridal mysticism, but how carnal did these brides get? No doubt the lines got blurred, but I don't believe that Christian or Muslim theology ever developed the kind of concrete conception of lila that is present in the Vaishnava tradition. I will make inquiries.

So, to you I would say: You are an intelligent person who no doubt could develop a mystical path along these lines using Vaishnava symbolism. You have charisma and could no doubt attract a following. Books and a following = a sampradaya. A tradition = legitimacy. You will always be a heretic to Gaudiyas of all stripes, of course, even if you borrow heavily from their tradition, as you seem to do.

July 7, 2006

I am not really interested in returning to our debate on this issue. I do suggest, however, that you read Priti-sandarbha 63 and following. The discussion there is "Where does God get his pleasure?" The answer is divided into two "svarUpAnanda" and "svarUpa-zakty-Ananda." The latter is again subdivided into mAnasAnanda and aizvaryAnanda. Of these, bhakti is most prominent aspect of the former.

In section 65, Jiva quotes bhaktir evainaM nayati, bhaktir evainaM darzayati bhakti-vazaH puruSo bhaktir eva bhüyasI (Bhakti reveals Him. The Supreme Person is subjugated by bhakti. Therefore bhakti is greater [even than He]!. He then asks, "What then are the characteristics of that thing (bhakti) that can intoxicate the Supreme Lord with his own joy?"

In answer, he postulates a number of possibilities--could it be Maya, as the Sankhya philosophers would suggest, for God is not affected by the external Maya and is self-satisfied. It could not be the joy emanating from the svarupa of the jiva, because this is too tiny. He concludes that it must be the hladini shakti.

The basic fallacy in your view seems to be, not that you see the Divine Complex as "the Other", but that you think that you are the only "Other" for the Divine.

Anyway, we have gone into this before. I feel that you distort the Goswami teachings terribly. I look forward to seeing what deep meanings you find in Sri Rupa's rasa theories that will make it possible for you to substantiate these views.

Let's take our time, shall we? No rush.

shiva · July 7, 2006

Though, I should say, Shivaji, that there are mystical traditions where the sadhaka assumes a male persona in relation to God as the female beloved. There is a strain of Sufism that has produced a number of songs and poems in this mood. I would have to look more closely at these traditions to find out the extent to which their mood was metaphorical or substantial. As with Christianity, there is bridal mysticism, but how carnal did these brides get? No doubt the lines got blurred, but I don't believe that Christian or Muslim theology ever developed the kind of concrete conception of lila that is present in the Vaishnava tradition. I will make inquiries.

So, to you I would say: You are an intelligent person who no doubt could develop a mystical path along these lines using Vaishnava symbolism. You have charisma and could no doubt attract a following. Books and a following = a sampradaya. A tradition = legitimacy. You will always be a heretic to Gaudiyas of all stripes, of course, even if you borrow heavily from their tradition, as you seem to do.

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:

In the Narada-pancaratra, Second Night, Third Chapter, Lord Siva explains:

"The Supreme Lord is one. Still, He is manifested in two forms."

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:

Because Sri Sri Radha Krsna are not different and because Sri Krsna is the master of all potencies, therefore Sri Radha is also the master and source of all potencies (She is Shakti and Shaktiman, as is Krishna since they are the same person). He is by nature full of sweetness and bliss, free from the three modes, and eternally manifest beyond the material nature. Because Radha is not different from Him, so is She also. It is said that within the Lord are all potencies, the modes and the material nature.

If Radha and Krishna were different entities then why are we being told that there is no difference between them?

From CC Adi Lila

radha krsna-pranaya-vikrtir hladini saktir asmad
ekatmanav api bhuvi pura deha-bhedam gatau tau

caitanyakhyam prakatam adhuna tad-dvayam caikyam aptam

radha-bhava-dyuti-suvalitam naumi krsna-svarupam

The loving affairs of Radha Krishna are transcendental manifestations of the Lord's internal pleasure-giving potency. Although Radha and Krishna are one in Their identity, They have separated Themselves eternally

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)

Krsna disguised as a demigoddess replied, "You say that You completely understand the heart of Krsna. This must be true, but still I have a doubt. Does Krsna really understand your mind at all?"

Srimati Radhika replied, "This is a very confidential subject matter. In the same way that I am restless in the association of Krsna, for some reason I am attracted to You. Therefore, although I can't speak about this subject to anyone because it is so confidential, I feel inclined to speak to You."

Krsna said, "Oh Radha, please do not cheat Me. Do not hide anything from Me. I came here just to receive these answers from You."

Srimati Radhika said, "The common conception is that I am always in the heart of Krsna and He is always in My heart, and that We have a complete meeting of minds – we completely understand each other. Don't believe this; this is not true – this is a mistake.

"Here is the real fact: in a lake there is a lotus plant, and from the root of that plant two flowers are growing – one blue and one yellow. Those two flowers are not different from each other, because they have one root. In the same way, My blue cloth signifies the colour of Krsna's body and His yellow cloth signifies the colour of My body. There is no difference between us at all. We are one soul, and for the sake of tasting our astonishing pastimes we take two forms."

Also A.C Bhaktivedanta spoke this:

There is no difference between the energy and the energetic, sakti-saktiman abhina. Therefore there is no difference between Radha and Krsna. Radha is purna-sakti and Krsna is purna-saktiman, so there is no difference, but, lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa, to relish the mellow of pastimes two bodies are there, Radha and Krsna, otherwise they are one.

"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

That Lord Hari remains one even though He expands into many forms is confirmed in the Gopala-tapane Upanisad in these words:

eko pi san bahudha yo vabhati

"Although He is one, the Supreme Lord appears in many forms."

Also, in the Smriti-sastra it is said:

ekaneka-svarupaya

"Although He is one, the Supreme Lord appears in many forms."

[...]

In this way it is said that although the Lord's forms present a very wonderful variety, still They are all one in essence. Although this truth was also described in sutra 3.2.14, the merciful teacher of Vedanta repeats the same teaching so this very difficult topic may be clearly understood.

The Supreme Lord is identical with each of His forms. They are all Him. That a certain form of the Lord is His original form, or an expansion of that form, or an expansion of the expansion is determined only by how much of His powers the Lord chooses to display when He manifests that form. Only in that way are some forms of the Lord considered higher and others less high. The great devotees of the Lord declare:

"The Lord's forms are considered greater or lesser on the basis of how much of His transcendental power the Lord chooses to manifest when He reveals them."

Because she is not different from the Supreme Lord, Goddess Laksmi is also all pervading. In the Smriti-sastra it is said:

"Goddess Laksmi is the mother of the worlds. She is the constant companion of Lord Visnu. As Lord Visnu is all pervading, so is she."

To think that Goddess Laksmi is different from Lord Visnu, but still all-pervading, is a false, a heretical idea. In this way the idea that Goddess Laksmi is an individual spirit soul, like the many millions of other individual spirit souls is refuted. As Lord Visnu has limitless transcendental qualities, so does Goddess Laksmi.

Even Durga is identical to Krishna, as told by Jiva Goswami:

Durga is also described in Narada-pancaratra, in the following conversation of Sruti and Vidya:

Durga is the supreme goddess. She is an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. She is the transcendental potency of the Lord. She is manifested from the form of Lord Maha-Vishnu.

Simply by understanding her one immediately attains the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not otherwise.

Durga is the personal potency of Lord Krishna, and therefore she is Lord Krishna Himself. For this reason Durga should not be considered manifested from a portion of the Lord's illusory potency Maya. This fact is confirmed by the following statement of the Nirukti:

Even is one continually worships her, Durga is still difficult to understand.

In the Sammohana Tantra, Durga herself declares:

"I am Durga. I possess all virtues. I am not different from Sri Radha, the eternal, supreme goddess of fortune."

She is identical with Gokula's queen Sri Radha, who possesses a great treasure of love for Krishna. By her grace the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all living entities, is easily understood.

Sometimes Goddess Durga is also described as the supreme controller. This is also correct because there is no difference between the potencies and Lord Krishna, the master of all potencies. This is confirmed by the following words of the Gautamiya Tantra:

"Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death."

In Krsna Sandarbha Jiva Goswami says there are two types of expansions of The Supreme Lord:

This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:

The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them.

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:

tara madhye vraie nana bhava-rasa-bhede
krsnake karaya rasadika-lilasvade

TRANSLATION

Among them are various groups of consorts in Vraja who have varieties of sentiments and mellows. They help Lord Krsna taste all the sweetness of the rasa dance and other pastimes.

PURPORT

As already explained, Krsna and Radha are one in two. They are identical. Krsna expands Himself in multi-incarnations and plenary portions like the purusas. Similarly, Srimati Radharani expands Herself in multi-forms as the goddesses of fortune, the queens and the damsels of Vraja. Such expansions from Srimati Radharani are all Her plenary (completely identical) portions. 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 and reflected forms. The female refelctions of Krsna's pleasure potency are as good as Krsna Himself.

The plenary expansions of Krsna's personality are called vaibhava-vilasa and vaibhava-prakasa, and Radha's expansions are similarly described. The goddesses of fortune are vaibhava-vilasa, and the queens are vaibhava-prakasa of Radharani. The personal associates of Radharani, the damsels of Vraja, are direct expansions of Her body. As expansions of Her personai form and transcendental disposition, they are agents of different reciprocations of love in the pastimes of Lord Krsna, under the supreme direction of Srimati Radharani.

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.

From the intro to Teachings of Lord Caitanya by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami:

Radha and Krsna are one, and when Krsna desires to enjoy pleasure, He manifests Himself as Radharani.

The truth is that the hladini sakti is what Krishna enjoys through. He enjoys by becoming Radha.

From Raghava Goswami

O Balarama, please listen and I will tell You something. One day, taking My flute, My heart full of bliss and My form bending in three places, I went under a kadamba tree and, seeing My own form reflected in a splendid golden platform studded with jewels, I became enchanted. At that moment My heart became filled with the sweet happiness known as conjugal love, which charms the entire world. My heart now desires to become a woman. I yearn to enjoy Myself as a woman.

As the Lord thought in this way, His heart approached itself. From the sweetness of His heart came bliss and from the bliss came Himself, manifested in a second form, a female form of transcendental bliss that could experience the direct perception of Himself.

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

July 8, 2006

I am still looking forward to your "esoteric interpretation" of lila and rasa shastra. I also think that these things need to be interpreted. As I have probably made clear: there is a symbolic/psychological interpretation that is applicable to "this world." I call this the pratibimba. At the same time, there is a level of literal acceptance, which I call the bimba. When we are old and dying and the pratibimba fades into meaninglessness, then the bimba will gradually take all the psychic territory over leading to a joyful death. "All creatures are born from bliss. They survive in bliss. And when they die, they merge into bliss."

My main objection to your ontology is that you do not accept the separation of consciousness in the Shakti. You call this polytheism. It is not.

Our first statement: God is One.

Our second statement: There is plurality of phenomena. Why?

The Upanishads: "God was alone, and alone he felt no joy. So he divided himself in two and became as a man locked in embrace with a woman."

God"s first division is thus as Shakti and Shaktiman. Male and female supreme truth. Krishna's shaktis are subdivided, but the principle shakti is, as the Upanishad indicates, his hladini shakti. To think this shakti and by extension Krishna's other shaktis do not have separate consciousness and identity from him flies in the face of a carefully developed ontology. This is why I previously quoted Bhagavata 10.33.16 (17 in some editions) where it is said, as you like to repeat, that Krishna played with the gopis as a child playing with his reflection in the mirror. The commentaries to this verse showed that no one interpreted it as you do.

God's second division: as supreme consciousness and infinitesmal consciousness. This is also an act of pleasure for the Supreme Person.

The third division is into consciousness and unconsciousness. The internal and external energies.

As the quotes from Priti-sandarbha I already posted indicate: God's real pleasure comes from the Hladini Shakti only. Bhakti is the essence of this shakti. The jiva only brings pleasure to God inasmuch as he is identified with the Hladini Shakti. The jiva's svarupa is also sat chit and ananda, but because he is infinitesmal, what power has he to bring God joy?

This is why we quoted earlier in these discussions Krishnadas Kaviraja's verse

<center>vibhur api sukha-rUpaH sva-prakAzo'pi bhAvaH

kSaNam api nahi rAdhA-kRSNayor yA Rte svAH |

pravahati rasa-puSTià cid-vibhUtir ivezaH

zrayati na padam AsAM kaH sakhINAM rasajJaH ||</center>

<blockquote>Though (from the point of view of siddhanta) Radha and Krishna's love for one another is vibhu, all-pervading (it needs no help to grow and expand), full of delight by nature (Radha and Krishna need only each other to experience complete joy) and self-luminous (it needs no help from any other quarter to be revealed), it still cannot for even a moment attain the fullness of flavor (rasa-puSTi) without the participation of the sakhis (and manjaris), any more than God Himself can realize his fullness without the manifestation of his spiritual energies. So what sensitive person would not take shelter of the sakhis' lotus feet? (GLA 10.17</blockquote>In other words, the particular vision of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas is that every single one of the infinite number of jivas has a necessary role to play in increasing the joy of the Lord, but that role is an accessory one.

To think that this is just voyeurism is a complete misunderstanding. This is why I emphasis the idea of "pallava, pushpa, pata." The sakhis and manjaris are not passive observers, but extensions of Srimati Radharani. By participating in the lila of the Divine Couple, they enjoy as fully as Radha does.

July 8, 2006

Love when greater for Radharani than for even Krishna is more competent in conquering the Lord’s own affections. For example, in the Ujjvala-nilamani, it is said that one day Mani Manjari advised a new girlfriend,

<center>vayam idam anubhUya zikSayAma

kuru cature saha rAdhayaiva sakhyam |

priya-sahacari yatra bADham antar

bhavati hari-praNaya-pramoda-lakSmIH ||</center><blockquote>Listen: if you're clever, I’ll tell you a secret

that all of us have discovered:

Make friends with Radharani.

[if you think, “Why should I waste my time

abandoning my efforts to conquer Krishna

to win her over?” then listen]:

If you just make friendship with Radha,

then the joyous wealth of love for Krishna

will come automatically and offer itself to you.</blockquote>Srila Jiva Gosvamin comments that the wealth of happiness that exists in loving Krishna is existentially an integral part of friendship with Radha. Visvanatha also paraphrases Mani Manjari‘s instruction to the new arrival: "When you become Radharani‘s confidential friend then he will know you as his beloved’s sakhi and will show spontaneous affection for you, even more so than if you became his mistress independently. So by becoming friends with Radha, intimacy with Krishna will follow automatically. If you become Radha’s friend, then in certain situations when she is angry with him or when it is hard for him to meet her because her mother-in-law or others keep her entangled in household affairs or locked in her room, then he will have to come to you for help. Without your having to do anything, he will come to you to make friends. There will be no need for you to make any independent effort to gain his affectionate attention.”

July 8, 2006

That was from Manjari-svarupa-nirupana, section 3.6. The quote is Ujjvala-nilamani 8.133.

shiva · July 8, 2006

Jagat you wrote:

To think this shakti and by extension Krishna's other shaktis do not have separate consciousness and identity from him flies in the face of a carefully developed ontology.

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:

Antaranga-shakti:

Antaranga is that which pertains to the proper Entity of the Absolute Person. It is also called Swarupa-shakti for this reason. The literal meaning of the word antaranga is "that which belongs to the inner body." Shakti is rendered as "power."

From Jaiva Dharma:

The cit-potency [antaranga sakti] is Krishna's plenary potency; Whatever she produces is eternally accomplished; the jiva is not so eternally accomplished; when he becomes accomplished by practices (sadhana-siddha), he enjoys bliss like those eternally accomplished entities.

The four kinds of confidantes of Sri Radha (to be described hereafter) are eternally accomplished; their bodies are about the same, with slight variations, with that of Sri Radhika who is essentially the cit-shakti. The jivas have grown out of the jiva-shakti of Sri Krishna. Cit-shakti is Sri Krishna's full (plenary) shakti, whereas the jiva-shakti is the incomplete shakti. From the Cit-shakti are produced complete entities, but from the incomplete potency have grown the jivas as atomic Cit. Krishna manifests entities of different types in accordance with the kind of the shakti He applies.

When established in His essential cit-shakti He reveals His essential Nature as Sri Krishna Himself on the one hand and on the other as Sri Narayana, the Lord of Vaikuntha.

"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:

Krsna is self-effulgent, like a blazing fire or the sun. Krsna is like a blazing fire. In the centre of the fire is the cit-sakti, it is present in fullness. In addition to the centre there is also a great expanse illuminated by the fire. The same way the Krsna-sun illumines a great area with sunlight. The rays of sunlight are particles of His internal potency. Those atomic particles that constitute those rays of sunlight are the individual spirit souls. The internal potency (cit sakti) manifests the Krsna-sun planet itself. The sunlight emanating from that planet is manifested by the cit-sakti and the individual particles of light are manifested by the jiva-sakti. Therefore the individual spirit souls are manifested by the jiva-sakti.

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:

Radha and Sri Krsna are identical. The sandhini portion of Sri Krsna's internal potency [Cit Sakti] has manifested the all-attractive form of Sri Krsna, and the same internal potency, in the hladini feature, has presented Srimati Radharani

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:

vishnoh syuh saktayastisristasu ya kirtita para |
saiva sristadabhinneti praha sishyan prabhurmahan || 12 ||

12. Visnu has three energies (Cit, Jiva, Bahiranga). The one among them who is proclaimed as the highest is Sri (Laksmi, Radha, Sita etc), who is not different from him. So taught the great master to his disciples.

paraiva vishnvabhinna srirityuktam tatraiva (vi. pu., 1.9.44-45):

kalakashthanimeshadikalasutrasya gocare |

yasya saktirna suddhasya prasidatu sa no harih ||

procyate parameso yah yah suddhoâ pyupacaratah |

prasidatu sa no vishnuratma yah sarvadehinam || (gha) ||

That the higher [power] is Sri who is non-different from Visnu is stated there [in the Visnu Purana (1.9.44-45)] as well:

May Hari be pleased with us, the pure one whose power is not under the control of time which is made up of units like kala, kastha, nimesa, and so forth. He, though pure, is said metaphorically to be the Lord of Sri (parama); may that Visnu, who is the Self of all embodied beings, be pleased with us.

Jagat you wrote:

God"s first division is thus as Shakti and Shaktiman. Male and female supreme truth.

Srī Caitanya Caritamṛta Adi 4.96

rādhā — pūrṇa-śakti, kṛṣṇa — pūrṇa-śaktimān
dui vastu bheda nāi, śāstra-paramāṇa

Śrī Rādhā is the full power, and Lord Kṛṣṇa is the possessor of full power. The two are not different, as evidenced by the revealed scriptures.

From a lecture by Ac. Bhaktivedanta:

There is no difference between the energy and the energetic, sakti-saktiman abhina. Therefore there is no difference between Radha and Krsna.

Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa of Srila Raghava Goswami:

Because Sri Sri Radha Krsna are not different and because Sri Krsna is the master of all potencies, therefore Sri Radha is also the master and source of all potencies (She is Shakti and Shaktiman, as is Krishna since they are identical). He is by nature full of sweetness and bliss, free from the three modes, and eternally manifest beyond the material nature. Because Radha is not different from Him, so is She also. It is said that within the Lord are all potencies, the modes and the material nature.

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:

This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:

The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them.

So unless Radha is a jiva She is Krishna Himself.

From A.C Bhaktivedanta's Caitanya Caritamrta Adi lila:

tara madhye vraie nana bhava-rasa-bhede
krsnake karaya rasadika-lilasvade

Among them are various groups of consorts in Vraja who have varieties of sentiments and mellows. They help Lord Krsna taste all the sweetness of the rasa dance and other pastimes.

PURPORT

As already explained, Krsna and Radha are one in two. They are identical. Krsna expands Himself in multi-incarnations and plenary portions like the purusas. Similarly, Srimati Radharani expands Herself in multi-forms as the goddesses of fortune, the queens and the damsels of Vraja. Such expansions from Srimati Radharani are all Her plenary (completely identical) portions. 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 and reflected forms. The female refelctions of Krsna's pleasure potency are as good as Krsna Himself.

The plenary expansions of Krsna's personality are called vaibhava-vilasa and vaibhava-prakasa, and Radha's expansions are similarly described. The goddesses of fortune are vaibhava-vilasa, and the queens are vaibhava-prakasa of Radharani. The personal associates of Radharani, the damsels of Vraja, are direct expansions of Her body. As expansions of Her personai form and transcendental disposition, they are agents of different reciprocations of love in the pastimes of Lord Krsna, under the supreme direction of Srimati Radharani.

Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains this point in Govinda Bhasya:

Is it not true that amorous love is possible only when there are two: the lover and the beloved ? If there is no difference between the lover and the beloved, then love is not possible between them.

Although the Lord and His para sakti [Radha] are not different, still, for enjoying different pastimes, They are manifested as different. In this way the Lord's desires are perfectly and completely fulfilled.

Even though the Lord's potency and the Lord Himself, the shelter of that potency, are one, still, because the Lord is the best of males and His potency is the jewel of young girls, when They are together there is naturally the perfection of blissful amorous pastimes.

"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

Therefore there is no difference between Radha and Krsna. Radha is purna-sakti and Krsna is purna-saktiman, so there is no difference, but, lila-rasa asvadite dhare dui-rupa, to relish the mellow of pastimes two bodies are there, Radha and Krsna, otherwise they are one.

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:

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.

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:

Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:

"The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (His incarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy). These four features are like: 1. the interior of the sun planet, 2. the sun's surface, 3. the sunlight, and 4. the reflection of the sun."

This example of course, explains only a small part of the Lord's nature. His svarupa (original form) is His form of eternity, knowledge and bliss. His svarupa-vaibhava (manifestations of His form) are His spiritual abode, name, associates and paraphernalia. The jiva-sakti is the abode of the numberless eternally liberated and conditioned individual souls, who are tiny particles of spirit.

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:

This is confirmed in the Varaha Purana:

The two kinds of expansions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead are : 1. svamsa (personal expansions) and 2. vibhinnamsa (separate persons). The svamsa expansions are unlimitedly powerful. Their form and personality are the same as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

There is not the slightest difference between the svamsa expansions and the Original Personality of Godhead. The vibhinnamsa expansions are very weak in comparison to Them.

theist · July 8, 2006

Wish this wasn't so far above my head but it is. I was wondering if yogamaya had any influence on Radha/Krsna as They relate to each other similar to the separated expansions mention above? Anyway never mind I don't mean to interuppt.

shiva · July 8, 2006

Wish this wasn't so far above my head but it is. I was wondering if yogamaya had any influence on Radha/Krsna as They relate to each other similar to the separated expansions mention above? Anyway never mind I don't mean to interuppt.

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

viṣṇor māyā bhagavatī
yayā sammohitaḿ jagat

ādiṣṭā prabhuṇāḿśena

kāryārthe sambhaviṣyati

The potency of the Lord, known as viṣṇu-māyā, who is as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, will also appear with Lord Kṛṣṇa. This potency, acting in different capacities, captivates all the worlds, both material and spiritual. At the request of her master, she will appear with her different potencies in order to execute the work of the Lord.

PURPORT

Parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8). In the Vedas it is said that the potencies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are called by different names, such as yogamāyā and mahāmāyā. Ultimately, however, the Lord's potency is one, exactly as electric potency is one although it can act both to cool and to heat. The Lord's potency acts in both the spiritual and material worlds. In the spiritual world the Lord's potency works as yogamāyā, and in the material world the same potency works as mahāmāyā, exactly as electricity works in both a heater and a cooler. In the material world, this potency, working as mahāmāyā, acts upon the conditioned souls to deprive them more and more of devotional service. It is said, yayā sammohito jīva ātmānaḿ tri-guṇātmakam. In the material world the conditioned soul thinks of himself as a product of tri-guṇa, the three modes of material nature. This is the bodily conception of life. Because of associating with the three guṇas of the material potency, everyone identifies himself with his body. Someone is thinking he is a brāhmaṇa, someone a kṣatriya, and someone a vaiśya or śūdra. Actually, however, one is neither a brāhmaṇa, a kṣatriya, a vaiśya nor a śūdra; one is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord (mamaivāḿśaḥ), but because of being covered by the material energy, mahāmāyā, one identifies himself in these different ways. When the conditioned soul becomes liberated, however, he thinks himself an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. Jīvera 'svarūpa' haya — kṛṣṇera 'nitya-dāsa.' [Cc. Madhya 20.108]. When he comes to that position, the same potency, acting as yogamāyā, increasingly helps him become purified and devote his energy to the service of the Lord.

In either case, whether the soul is conditioned or liberated, the Lord is supreme. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (9.10), mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram: it is by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that the material energy, mahāmāyā, works upon the conditioned soul.

prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni

guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśah

ahańkāra-vimūḍhātmā

kartāham iti manyate

"The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities which are in actuality carried out by nature." (Bg. 3.27) Within conditioned life, no one has freedom, but because one is bewildered, being subject to the rule of mahāmāyā, one foolishly thinks himself independent (ahańkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate [bg. 3.27]). But when the conditioned soul becomes liberated by executing devotional service, he is given a greater and greater chance to relish a relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in different transcendental statuses, such as dāsya-rasa, sakhya-rasa, vātsalya-rasa and mādhurya-rasa.

Thus the Lord's potency, viṣṇu-māyā, has two features — āvaraṇikā and unmukha. When the Lord appeared, His potency came with Him and acted in different ways. She acted as yogamāyā with Yaśodā, Devakī and other intimate relations of the Lord, and she acted in a different way with Kaḿsa, Śālva and other asuras. By the order of Lord Kṛṣṇa, His potency yogamāyā came with Him and exhibited different activities according to the time and circumstances. Kāryārthe sambhaviṣyati. Yogamāyā acted differently to execute different purposes desired by the Lord. As confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (9.13), mahātmānas tu māḿ pārtha daivīḿ prakṛtim āśritāḥ. The mahātmās, who fully surrender to the lotus feet of the Lord, are directed by yogamāyā, whereas the durātmās, those who are devoid of devotional service, are directed by mahāmāyā.

So yogamaya cannot actually cause Radha Krishna to do anything, it is not a separate conscious entity.

Kripamoya · July 8, 2006

Krishna is Yogesvara......

Master of Mysticism!

Radha is the internal pleasure ecstacy of the Supreme Mystic Krishna. :eek2:

July 8, 2006

If Radha is not a separate conscious entity from Krishna, then there is no meaning to Chaitanya lila or anything else, for that matter. Why bother glorifying Radha's love if her love is a cardboard cutout?

The nature of the jivas is certainly different from the other shaktis, but that does not mean that these shaktis are not functioning as separate individuals. The vibhinnamsas jivas are also non-different from God. The emphasis on their difference is due to the effort to distinguish our doctrines from Mayavada.

The emphasis on the oneness of Krishna with his shaktis is to emphasize the opposite--that there is no pluralism in the Supreme, i.e., in order to maintain the unicity of God. Again, this is playing a role in the debate with other Vedantists. This should not be a source of confusion, but that often happens when there is overcompensation.

God differentiates himself as shakti and shaktiman, just as he differentiates himself into infinite jivas. The jivas are also minute reflections of himself, and yet they have separate consciousness.

In reference to the I/other dichotomy. In this world I am surrounded by other conscious entities. I still believe that these are real people, not cardboard cutouts. If I did not, my actions and interactions would have no meaning. If there is a nitya-lila peopled by residents of Vrindavan, etc., it will be completely meaningless if they are all cardboard cutouts in a kind of "Truman show" put on exclusively for my purpose, no matter how clever the Maya.

Since we are once again reduced to repeating ourselves, I think that rather than throw a lot more "shakti and shaktiman are one" quotes at me, you had better explain what you think they mean in concrete terms. In particular, explain what all these acharyas meant by manjari bhava, which makes you snicker at their, or at least our, foolishness.

Kripamoya · July 8, 2006

Let's face it fellows, we are dealing with achintya-shakti.

We are on an eternal quest (nitya-baddha jiva) to make the inconceivable fit within our tiny minds and brains.

It's a hopeless adventure into absurdity.

As soon as we think we have got it figured out, we have totally disqualified ourselves from any further enlightenment. :cool:

shiva · July 9, 2006

If Radha is not a separate conscious entity from Krishna, then there is no meaning to Chaitanya lila or anything else, for that matter. Why bother glorifying Radha's love if her love is a cardboard cutout?

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.

CC Adi 4.133: "I taste the bliss to which the object of love is entitled. But the pleasure of Radha, the abode of that love, is ten million times greater.

CC Adi 4.134: "My mind races to taste the pleasure experienced by the abode, but I cannot taste it, even by My best efforts. How may I taste it?

CC Adi 4.135: "If sometime I can be the abode of that love, only then may I taste its joy."

CC Adi 4.136: Thinking in this way, Lord Krishna was curious to taste that love. His eager desire for that love increasingly blazed in His heart.

CC Ādi 4.230: Desiring to understand the glory of Rādhārāṇī's love, the wonderful qualities in Him that She alone relishes through Her love, and the happiness She feels when She realizes the sweetness of His love, the Supreme Lord Hari, richly endowed with Her emotions, appeared from the womb of Śrīmatī Śacī-devī, as the moon appeared from the ocean.

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.

O Balarama, please listen and I will tell You something. One day, taking My flute, My heart full of bliss and My form bending in three places, I went under a kadamba tree and, seeing My own form reflected in a splendid golden platform studded with jewels, I became enchanted. At that moment My heart became filled with the sweet happiness known as conjugal love, which charms the entire world. My heart now desires to become a woman. I yearn to enjoy Myself as a woman.

As the Lord thought in this way, His heart approached itself. From the sweetness of His heart came bliss and from the bliss came Himself, manifested in a second form, a female form of transcendental bliss that could experience the direct perception of Himself.

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.

radha-krsna pranaya-vikrtir hladini saktir asmad
ekatmanau api bhuvipura deha-bhedam gatau tau

caitanyakhyam prakatam adhuna tad-dvayam caikyam aptam

radha-bhava-dyuti-suvalitam naumi krsna-svarupam

The loving affairs of Radha Krishna are transcendental manifestations of the Lord's internal pleasure-giving potency {They are Radha's doing}. Although Radha and Krishna are one in Their identity, They have separated Themselves eternally. Now these two transcendental identities have again united in the form of Sri Krishna Caitanya. I bow down to Him, who has manifested Himself with the sentiment and complexion of Srimati Radharani although He is Krishna Himself.

Jagat you wrote:

The nature of the jivas is certainly different from the other shaktis, but that does not mean that these shaktis are not functioning as separate individuals. The vibhinnamsas jivas are also non-different from God. The emphasis on their difference is due to the effort to distinguish our doctrines from Mayavada.

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:

The emphasis on the oneness of Krishna with his shaktis is to emphasize the opposite--that there is no pluralism in the Supreme, i.e., in order to maintain the unicity of God. Again, this is playing a role in the debate with other Vedantists. This should not be a source of confusion, but that often happens when there is overcompensation.

You can choose to interpret what is written as you like.

You also wrote:

God differentiates himself as shakti and shaktiman, just as he differentiates himself into infinite jivas. The jivas are also minute reflections of himself, and yet they have separate consciousness.

You can claim these things but they contradict the pramana I have given.

You then wrote:

In reference to the I/other dichotomy. In this world I am surrounded by other conscious entities. I still believe that these are real people, not cardboard cutouts. If I did not, my actions and interactions would have no meaning. If there is a nitya-lila peopled by residents of Vrindavan, etc., it will be completely meaningless if they are all cardboard cutouts in a kind of "Truman show" put on exclusively for my purpose, no matter how clever the Maya.

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:

Since we are once again reduced to repeating ourselves, I think that rather than throw a lot more "shakti and shaktiman are one" quotes at me, you had better explain what you think they mean in concrete terms. In particular, explain what all these acharyas meant by manjari bhava, which makes you snicker at their, or at least our, foolishness.

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.

theist · July 9, 2006

So yogamaya cannot actually cause Radha Krishna to do anything, it is not a separate conscious entity.

Yes shiva, I appreciate that. I have ths impression rightly or wrongly of each expansion of Krsna being fully absorbed in expressing some unique aspect of Krsna which may give "Them" the appearance of two separate beings. Like Krsna and Paramatma for example. Same Person but yet Paramatma is fulling the function of guiding the soul's on our sojourn through the material realms while Krsna plays in Vrndavan. Completely distict from each other although the same being.

Or Krsna and Balarama. Krsna drove Arjuna's chariot and urged him to fight while I believe Balarama opposed the war and went on pilgramage instead. I think that is correct. For all intent and purposes two individual beings though both Krsna. When They spoke or played were They always aware They of being the same being? Or were They so absorbed in Their present lila that such thoughts never came up. When baby Krsna was hungry and He cried for the breast of Mother Yasoda was He thinking, "well it's time for me to fool Mother Yasoda into thinking I need her milk once again." Or was He also fully immersed in being a dependant child in need of His mother?

Everyone in Vrndavan gets to relate to Krsna as Someone more attractive than God even. This intimacy is why Vrndaban is spoken of as being that land of sweetest relationships with the Lord. Is Krsna not also allowed to recriprocate in kind the pure love His devotees offer to Him and relish it? For Him to be always reflecting on "I am God, I am the biggest and richest" etc. sounds like such an interference of mood.

Krsna is unlimited in His aspects. So how can we deny Him the right to also be the most attractive little baby boy and to fully relish the expressions of a mother's love?

He knows full well He is God....in Vaikuntha. But in Vraja it's another play.

So my question is why can Krsna not place Himself fully under yoga-maya and be totally immersed in that play. And as Radha also.

yoga =union with God and maya = that which is not. So the way I understand it, or think I do, is that illusion also exists in the spiritual world but in it's pure form.

That is all I think I know about it and anything further will depend on my someday being allowed to enter in, not as a jnani but as a devotee, and taste it for myself.

shiva · July 9, 2006

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

When baby Krsna was hungry and He cried for the breast of Mother Yasoda was He thinking, "well it's time for me to fool Mother Yasoda into thinking I need her milk once again." Or was He also fully immersed in being a dependant child in need of His mother?

From Krsna Book

When Lord Krsna saw that Vasudeva and Devaki were remaining standing in a reverential attitude, He immediately expanded His influence of yogamaya so that they could treat Him and Balarama as children.

From Srimad Bhagavatam

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.45.1

sri-suka uvaca

pitarav upalabdharthau

viditva purushottamah

ma bhud iti nijam mayam

tatana jana-mohinim

Sukadeva Gosvami said: Understanding that His parents were becoming aware of His transcendental opulences, the Supreme Personality of Godhead thought that this should not be allowed to happen. Thus He expanded His Yogamaya, which bewilders His devotees.

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.

He knows full well He is God....in Vaikuntha. But in Vraja it's another play.

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.

So my question is why can Krsna not place Himself fully under yoga-maya and be totally immersed in that play. And as Radha also.

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

eko 'py asau racayitum jagad-anda-kotim
yac-chaktir asti jagad-anda-caya yad-antah

andantara-stha-paramanu-cayantara-stham-

govindam adi-purusham tam aham bhajami

He is an undifferentiated entity as there is no distinction between potency and the possessor thereof. In His work of creation of millions of worlds, His potency remains inseparable. All the universes exist in Him and He is present in His fullness in every one of the atoms that are scattered throughout the universe, at one and the same time. Such is the primeval Lord whom I adore.

PURPORT

Krishna is the highest of all entities. In Him is an entity which is termed cit (spiritual) which is distinct from the principle of limitation. By His inconceivable power, He can at will create numberless universes. All the mundane universes owe their origin to the transformation of His external potency. Again His abode is beyond human conception; since all worlds, limited and spiritual (cit) exist in Him and He resides simultaneously in His fullness and entirety in all the atoms in all the worlds. All-pervasiveness is only a localized aspect of the majesty of Krishna, the Lord of all. Though He is all-pervasive yet in His existence everywhere in a medium shape consists His spiritual Lordship beyond human conception. This argument favors the doctrine of simultaneous inconceivable distinction and nondistinction, and knocks down the contaminating Mayavada and other allied doctrines.

Purport from the Bhagavatam

It is described in this connection that the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead, is the master of both pradhana and purusha. Pradhana means subtle matter, such as ether. purusha means the spiritual spark living entities who are entangled in that subtle material existence. These may also be described as para prakriti and apara prakriti, as stated in Bhagavad-gita. Krishna, being the controller of both the prakritis, is thus the master of pradhana and purusha. In the Vedic hymns also the Supreme Brahman is described as antah-pravishtah sasta. This indicates that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is controlling everything and entering into everything. The Brahma-samhita (5.35) further confirms this. Andantara-stha-paramanu-cayantara-stham: He has entered not only the universes, but even the atom. In Bhagavad-gita (10.42) Krishna also says, vishtabhyaham idam kritsnam. The Supreme Personality of Godhead controls everything by entering into everything.

Here is Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma where he is explaining how yogamaya and mahamaya work:

The commentary on Vedanta-sutra declares:

"The potency and the possessor of the potency are not different."

The meaning, then, is that the potency does not exist apart from its substance. The only true substance is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of potencies. The nature of the potency is either to be a quality of the Supreme Lord, or submissive to His will.

When it is said that the potency has pure consciousness, that means that because the potency and the master of potencies are not different, therefore, like the master of potencies, the potency also has a form of spiritual consciousness, has desires that are at once fulfilled, and is beyond the touch of the three modes. It is not a mistake to say these things.

Will and consciousness are qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By itself, the potency does not possess will, but rather it carries out the will of the Supreme. For example, you have power, and by Your will, your potencies act. If you say, 'the power acted', then that means that the possessor of the power was actually behind the action. To say that 'the power acted' is only to use a figure of speech.

In truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead has only one potency. When she performs spiritual actions, she is called spiritual potency [yogamaya], and when she performs material actions, she is called the material potency, or maya.

July 9, 2006

Achintya-bhedabheda is certainly the name of the game. I have avoided using the term because that is a last resort. Nevertheless, it certainly is achintya.

Look, Shiva, the jiva is in a different category. Nevertheless, the jiva is a shakti, bhedabheda-prakasa. Similarly, shaktis like Lakshmi etc., are also bhedabheda. In the one case, Vaishnavas have chosen to emphasize either bheda or abheda, according to the case, for specific reasons.

This is why you have the Upanishads saying, "ekaki na ramate. sa dvitiyam aicchat" etc., on the one hand, and "eko'ham bahu syam" on the other. There is no existence of any shaktis, including the jiva, separate from Krishna.

The Mayavadis want to emphasize the oneness of the jiva and Brahman without maintaining the eternal distinction. Therefore the difference is emphasized. The dualists want to stress, as you put it, a "polytheistic" ontology. In order to counter this, the oneness of the energies with God is emphasized. But in both cases, the operative function is achintya-bhedabheda.

I agree that a metaphorical interpretation of lila is necessary for any religion to function in this world. However, that does not solve the problem of the nitya lila. At best, the metaphorical interpretations can only expand our sadhana.

In a sense, I agree, that in the immediate they are more important than the ontology, as our immediate necessity is to deepen our sadhana. But speaking ontologically, why would Krishna need to taste Radha's mood if he was already her?

July 9, 2006

Of course, independence in this context is a thorny problem. The jivas are shaktis with limited independence, or none at all, depending on how you look at it.

The Vaishnava concept of lila is such that it accepts Krishna's voluntary compartmentalization, including one that is deliberately covered and does not possess omniscience. The metaphorical implications are clear--when it comes to love, one needs to prioritize one's humanity and not one's extraordinary gifts. That is indeed more important than the question of how the omniscient can become ignorant for the sake of love.

This, however, is precisely the spot where rasa is created.

July 9, 2006

I agree that a metaphorical interpretation of lila is necessary for any religion to function in this world. However, that does not solve the problem of the nitya lila. At best, the metaphorical interpretations can only expand our sadhana.

And to help us deepen our understanding of the nitya-lila. There is a relationship between the metaphorical and the lila, as pratibimba and bimba.

I was suspicious that your concept would lead to an emphasis on the metaphorical to the exclusion of the lila. In a God-centered system, the metaphor has to be looked at as a door into the lila, and not vice versa. Sure, the metaphorical aspect of the lila makes it possible to understand its meaning, but an overemphasis on metaphor makes the symbol system itself ultimately superfluous. Like the car you can leave in the garage when you have arrived at your destination.

Achintya-bhedabheda means accepting that this world is real. Since it is a reflection of the spiritual world, the visions of the sages in understanding that world are helpful in spiritualizing our vison of this one.

I personally don't laugh manjari bhava off, but try to understand it in this way--as a sadhana that transforms our experience of this world, as well as a doorway into the highest realms of the transcendental abode.

And, as a fundamental reminder on this entire issue, as I just posted on another thread:

om purnam adah purnam idam

purnat purnam udacyate

purnasya purnam adaya

purnam evavasisyate

Are you not placing certain restrictions on what Krishna can or cannot do? Even if what he does is place restrictions on himself--such as his omnipotence or omniscience?

theist · July 9, 2006

Of course, independence in this context is a thorny problem. The jivas are shaktis with limited independence, or none at all, depending on how you look at it.

The Vaishnava concept of lila is such that it accepts Krishna's voluntary compartmentalization, including one that is deliberately covered and does not possess omniscience. The metaphorical implications are clear--when it comes to love, one needs to prioritize one's humanity and not one's extraordinary gifts. That is indeed more important than the question of how the omniscient can become ignorant for the sake of love.

This, however, is precisely the spot where rasa is created.

Bold was mine.

Sign In

More on Gaurava

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites