The Tao of Krishna consciousness

[Guest guest]

Visalkrsnaji: I refer you to sutra 16 of the same adhikarana (vii, Pada iv) which follows the assertion of Brahman's being both material and operative cause "because of His making Himself so, and by modifying Himself into the universe". That is 'parinaamaat', self-modification, by which the one Hari becomes many, by His own sweet will, or as Talasiga eloquently puts it, by which 'He is the difference...'.

 

Satyaraj: To this Talasiga's inference of difference sruti's assertive is that when Hari becomes many He doesn't become so due fragmentation such as a piece of clay from a pot of clay. This kind of difference doesn't exist. In spite of His modification, Hari remains always absolute, not different, as nothing is different than Hari. Talasiga's srmti can also be understood as an operative way, in the sense that Hari operates making differences. This is also against sruti.

 

Visalkrsnaji: Indeed, Baladeva in his Govinda-bhasya commentary to this sutra says 'He is the operative cause through His power called the Paraa Shakti. He is the material cause through His other two Shaktis called the Aparaa Shakti and Avidyaa Shakti which work through the souls and matter.' Which Baladeva supports by reference to the Sruti: 'The one formless being, with his purposes hidden, who with various powers creates many forms...' (Svet.Up. iv.i.)

 

Satyaraj: You should observe that Baladeva's commentary is a smrti, not a sruti. It is not absolute at all, and it is only valid if it follows strictly sruti's assertive. In that case, sruti's assertive is: na ca katrttuh karanaNam - "(Hari) has no sense instruments to come in connection with any sakti."(Vedanta 2.2.43) and vipratishedhAt ca - "(The theory of saktis is untenable because) it contradicts all sacred authorities (Vedanta 2.2.46)

 

Badarayana Rsi has clearly established in Brahma-sutras that the way that Hari operates is beyond the reasoning faculty. No smrtis can be made on that sruti. Besides Baladeva no other commentator has ever made that inference that 'para-sakti is Hari's operative power' simply because it denies sruti.

 

[talasiga 0]

Satyaraj: Badarayana Rsi has clearly established in Brahma-sutras that the way that Hari operates is beyond the reasoning faculty

No amount of reasoning

May render the All

Less than Everything

 

 

[vishal krishna das 0]

Touche, Talasigaji!

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

IMPLICATION 1:

 

She welcomes the ferry

She catches the ferry

She reaches the ferry's destination

Before it reaches the shore.

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

 

Badarayana Rsi has clearly established in Brahma-sutras that the way that Hari operates is beyond the reasoning faculty. No smrtis can be made on that sruti. Besides Baladeva no other commentator has ever made that inference that 'para-sakti is Hari's operative power' simply because it denies sruti.

 

According to Gaudiya’s theology Hari’s Grace Itself is His svarupa-sakti, Sri Radha, the Power of Divine Love, Prema Bhakti.

 

But according to Vedanta Hari's grace is caused by His own absolute free will and nothing else. Now Gaudiyas had termed His free will as 'svarupa-sakti' and 'Sri Radha', and had inferred that she is the cause of prema-bhakti, the power of Divine Love.

 

But this theology is refuted by Badarayana Rsi himself in Vedanta (2.2.43 to 46), where he clear denies saktis' theory completely. There is no sruti text to support this theology besides some very imaginative inferences made by some Gaudiyas and saktas.

 

So, according to Gaudiyas reasoning Hari's free will is an energy or sakti, and it has a personal aspect and also may works according to her free will. She also deserves to be worshiped, as she is endowed which free will, and she has a personal form.

 

Entities that have personal forms and free will and are Hari's parts and parcels are called jivas, not saktis. Therefore Radha may be considered as a jiva, as Sri Madhva has done. Sri Vallabha did not placed sakhis at any particular category besides as Hari's partners in His lilas. But never as Hari's soul, or as a second Hari, or something apart from Hari. Sri Ramanuja considered Laksimi as worshipable as she is dear to Hari, but he did not infer that Laksmi is a sakti.

 

According to Gaudiyas' theology, jivas, maya and antaranga are all saktis. But, again Badarayana Rsi explains in Vedanta that this theology is a concoction, as no one is fit to understand Hari's 'modus operandi', or the way He sports His lilas. This is beyond our reasoning faculties and therefore these inferences are but childish explanations.

 

[talasiga 0]

quote:

-----------originally posted by talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

------------

 

<u>EXPLICATION 1 (?):,</u>

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Badarayana Rsi has clearly established in Brahma-sutras that the way that Hari operates is beyond the reasoning faculty. No smrtis can be made on that sruti. Besides Baladeva no other commentator has ever made that inference that 'para-sakti is Hari's operative power' simply because it denies sruti.

 

According to Gaudiya’s theology Hari’s Grace Itself is His svarupa-sakti, Sri Radha, the Power of Divine Love, Prema Bhakti.

 

But according to Vedanta Hari's grace is caused by His own absolute free will and nothing else. Now Gaudiyas had termed His free will as 'svarupa-sakti' and 'Sri Radha', and had inferred that she is the cause of prema-bhakti, the power of Divine Love.

 

But this theology is refuted by Badarayana Rsi himself in Vedanta (2.2.43 to 46), where he clear denies saktis' theory completely. There is no sruti text to support this theology besides some very imaginative inferences made by some Gaudiyas and saktas.

 

So, according to Gaudiyas reasoning Hari's free will is an energy or sakti, and it has a personal aspect and also may works according to her free will. She also deserves to be worshiped, as she is endowed which free will, and she has a personal form.

 

Entities that have personal forms and free will and are Hari's parts and parcels are called jivas, not saktis. Therefore Radha may be considered as a jiva, as Sri Madhva has done. Sri Vallabha did not placed sakhis at any particular category besides as Hari's partners in His lilas. But never as Hari's soul, or as a second Hari, or something apart from Hari. Sri Ramanuja considered Laksimi as worshipable as she is dear to Hari, but he did not infer that Laksmi is a sakti.

 

According to Gaudiyas' theology, jivas, maya and antaranga are all saktis. But, again Badarayana Rsi explains in Vedanta that this theology is a concoction, as no one is fit to understand Hari's 'modus operandi', or the way He sports His lilas. This is beyond our reasoning faculties and therefore these inferences are but childish explanations.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 09-19-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Talasigaji

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

EXPLICATION 1 (?):,

 

Satyaraj:

 

Part of it, or a preamble above.

 

EXPLICATION 1’:

 

Now, let’s consider your smrti. Devotion is not rational, it is a kind of instinct ruled by senses and by mind, or a by-product of faith. Therefore it can find things like Radha waiting at every shore. But not Hari, who is beyond senses, mind and faith.

 

So, I actually find your smrti very truthful, as the ferry of devotion my find a Radha created by your mind and faith, but not Hari...

 

[valaya 0]

Satyaraja das:

This is beyond our reasoning faculties and therefore these inferences are but childish explanations.

 

You assume that any attempted explanations of inferences that are beyond reasoning faculties are `childish`. That, of course, puts you who rely on reason in a parental position in relation to the `children` here. Therefore you preach down to us in a patronizing way that many find offensive and even ignorant.

 

Are you saying that the Absolute Truth can be confined by your reasoning abilities? Get serious, prabhu!!! Do not Hari/Hara have the capability and divine right to reveal themselves however, wherever, whenever and to whoever they choose? Are they not able to put themselves under the `control` of whomever they wish?

 

Those sincere souls whose humble hearts have been cleansed by tears of remorseful longing and made porous through service in devotion should be considered suitable candidates for the personal mercy of Hari/Hara. Still `causeless` Divine Grace is needed even to arrive at that position. Of course, that's just my own humble opinion and experience.

 

Do you not see that beating your head against all this only toughens it? First we must surely accept that the heart alone can realize, then concentrate our efforts to disolve it's stonelike exterior, somehow accumulated over countless lifetimes. Eventually, we may give up, realizing our completely hopeless and helpless situation.

 

Only then can we become fully eligible to receive that which alone will suffice. From there some inkling of understanding may dawn in our receptive hearts concerning the relationship between Sri Hari and His saktis, which is so beautifully illuminated in the pastimes of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna, available through the six goswamis of Vrndavan.

 

When we find ourselves actually entering into those divine activities emotionally on the side of Sri Radhika, by His Divine Grace, our progress is assured under the personal guidance and protection of the Internal Potency.

 

JAI NITAI-GAURANGA! JAI SRI GURUDEVA! JAI JAI SRI RADHA! RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 09-19-2001).]

[valaya 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

When we find ourselves actually entering into those divine activities emotionally on the side of Sri Radhika, by His Divine Grace, our progress is assured under the personal guidance and protection of the Internal Potency. (Valaya)

 

Dear Valaya. In this thread we are trying to have some nice discussions on basis on sruti texts. There are no intentions to have any discussions on basis on a dualistic conception of God such as a religion’s God. Please see the begging of the thread.

 

I personally hope you may have a nice trip to those divine activities emotionally on the side of Sri Radhika, by His Divine Grace, and so on. But this is not my personal option and I also hope you may respect it without unnecessary offences.

 

If you want to support any thesis, please do it employing sruti as the only reference.

 

Satyaraja dasa

Member

 

posted 09-19-2001 05:16 AM    

       

Badarayana Rsi has clearly established in Brahma-sutras that the way that Hari operates is beyond the reasoning faculty.

 

valaya:

 

Satyaraja dasa, I really can't comprehend why you continue your persistent attempts at reasoning with us in light of your staement above. I can only put it down to thickheadedness probably caused by excessive intellectual stimulation due to your unceasing attempts to fit the unlimited Absolute into your obviously very limited mind, in spite of so many good-hearted souls trying to help you.

 

So far as the content of this thread is concerned, I took your suggestion to reread what Jagat had posted at the start. BTW I also visited him personally at his home in Montreal where we had the opportunity to share our views in a most productive way. Isn't it interesting how Bhakti-devi has a life of her own? Certainly, she cannot be taken simply as another religion; more like the basis of all religion!

 

I noticed that your input on this subject occurs about halfway into the discussion. As usual, you believe it is you that is defining the topic and direction according to your own confused agenda, much like you seem to think you can control the Absolute Truth personified by your own methodology. Fat chance of either, prabhu!!!

 

Should you wish to communicate in a more personal manner by telephone, in hopes of actually reaching some conclusive concensus, please let me know. I have a Portugese friend (non-devotee) who can act as interpreter if need be. Perhaps further discussions on these forums can be facilitated and improved, for the benefit of all concerned. RR

 

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

 

 

IMPLICATION 2:

 

Such is Her obsession

She asks after Him

from every pilgrim

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

When we find ourselves actually entering into those divine activities emotionally on the side of Sri Radhika, by His Divine Grace, our progress is assured under the personal guidance and protection of the Internal Potency. (Valaya)

 

Dear Valaya. In this thread we are trying to have some nice discussions on basis on sruti texts. There are no intentions to have any discussions on basis on a dualistic conception of God such as a religion’s God. Please see the begging of the thread.

 

I personally hope you may have a nice trip to those divine activities emotionally on the side of Sri Radhika, by His Divine Grace, and so on. But this is not my personal option and I also hope you may respect it without unnecessary offences.

 

If you want to support any thesis, please do it employing sruti as the only reference.

 

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

 

 

IMPLICATION 3

 

Who could it be now

Always on that ferry ?

 

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

 

IMPLICATION 4:

 

The Ferryman plies His vessel

from Devotion to Devotion

The traveller need have no goal

but to relish present Company.

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 10-01-2001).]

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa

<u>on 19 Sept 2001 at 10:05AM</u>:

So, I actually find your smrti very truthful,

as the ferry of devotion my find a Radha

created by your mind and faith,

but not Hari...

 

 

Dear Satyaraja

 

I am delighted to see you exloring in this way !

Please apply this approach to your own earlier statements:

 

" Yes, those experiences and realizations will ferry us

to another shore. Will my Hari be there?

My heart is longing to meet Him face to face!!!"

(<u>Satyaraja posting 7 July 4:24Am</u>)

 

So, I actually find your statements very truthful,

as the ferry of your "experiences and realizations"

(as you say) may find an uncertainty about Hari

(as you ask, "Will my Hari be there?")

created by your mind and intellect,

but not Hari...

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 10-02-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Talasiga:

 

So, I actually find your statements very truthful,

as the ferry of your "experiences and realizations"

(as you say) may find an uncertainty about Hari

(as you ask, "Will my Hari be there?")

created by your mind and intellect,

but not Hari...

 

Satyaraj: Yes, I may create a Hari with my mind and intellect: A religion’s god, dual and temporary. Not the real Hari, the non-dual and eternal, who is beyond the scope of my mind and intelligence. This Hari is not attained by the efforts of my mind and intelligence, but due His own free will, that we may call His Grace. Is this your Radha?

 

[Guest guest]

 

Here we might have another point: “As there is nothing different than Hari, a religion’s god, who is dual and temporary should also be Hari.”

 

But if we agree with that premise, jivas like me and you are also Hari and should be worshiped as Hari, as they also should have all of Hari’s attributes. Would you follow this doctrine?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Here we might have another point: “As there is nothing different than Hari, a religion’s god, who is dual and temporary should also be Hari.”

 

But if we agree with that premise, jivas like me and you are also Hari and should be worshiped as Hari, as they also should have all of Hari’s attributes. Would you follow this doctrine?

A father pointed to his chest and told his toddler,"This is dad". Then he asked, "Where is dad ?". The toddler said,"This" and pointed to her own chest. The father corrects her and says "This is father" and points to his own chest. The child gets it. The next day, the father asks, "Where is father ?". As he was behind his table, the child could not see his chest. So, she walks up to the table and searches for the chest and says,"This". Then the father corrects the child again and says that "This is father" and makes a waving motion across the body. Then the child understands. The difficulty is understanding the whole part relationship. The father is the whole and none of the parts are independantly the father.

 

When we say every thing is brahman. Stool is also brahman. I am also brahman. Am I stool ?

 

Similarly, when we say everything is Hari. Am I also Hari ?

 

OBVIOUSLY NO. We are parts and parcels of the whole.

 

 

[valaya 0]

Yes, `my` Radha is His Divine Grace and we are all part and parcel of Her. She is also known as the `internal potency` which is the basis of all other potencies, including Brahman.

 

In other words, while God has both personal and impersonal aspects, the most intimate relationship is a personal one. Religion, on the other hand, tends towards the impersonal.

 

RR

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by valaya:

Yes, `my` Radha is His Divine Grace and we are all part and parcel of Her. She is also known as the `internal potency` which is the basis of all other potencies, including Brahman.

 

In other words, while God has both personal and impersonal aspects, the most intimate relationship is a personal one. Religion, on the other hand, tends towards the impersonal.

 

RR

'my' what ? I hope I heard it wrong.

[Bhaktavasya 0]

Originally posted by ram:

'my' what ? I hope I heard it wrong.

Yea, really, Valaya. It's about time someone began to put you in your place. How is it that whenever someone begins to speak of having a relationship with Krishna, you 'correct' him/her and say "Krishna belongs to Radharani alone" (without fully appreciating the deeper esoteric meaning of that statement, in that all of the hundreds and thousands of gopis are expansions of Radha). Now you have been indicating that Radha belongs to you alone, instead of Krishna. You even have the nerve to use Her initials by your name; instead if Radha-Krishna it's Valaya-Radharani.

Sorry, but it has to be said.

 

 

 

[valaya 0]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

Yea, really, Valaya. It's about time someone began to put you in your place. How is it that whenever someone begins to speak of having a relationship with Krishna, you 'correct' him/her and say "Krishna belongs to Radharani alone" (without fully appreciating the deeper esoteric meaning of that statement, in that all of the hundreds and thousands of gopis are expansions of Radha). Now you have been indicating that Radha belongs to you alone, instead of Krishna. You even have the nerve to use Her initials by your name; instead if Radha-Krishna it's Valaya-Radharani.

Sorry, but it has to be said.

 

 

Note the difference between `my` (in response to Satyaraja's previous question, using the words your Radha, and my. It is Krsna who does not belong to us, however, not Radha. She belongs to Her girlfriends.

 

As usual, you remain not only confused, but also jumping to wrong conclusions. Only Jayasriradhey has some idea of what RR indicates, so you might want/care to ask her. Unfortunately, she believes herself to actually be Srimati Radharani as do you and so many others due to the desire of enjoying Krsna independently from Her.

 

Actually, there is only one ROMANCE and it is between Radhika and Krsna. Our position is either to attempt to imitate that as part of our relationships with each other within the perverted reflection of this world, or to enter into transcendental Goloka Vrndavan and assist the Divine Couple in their relationship, as a manjari. Thanks for reminding me of my place, Bhaktavasya prabhu.

 

valaya RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-03-2001).]

[talasiga 0]

Satyaraj: This Hari is not attained by the efforts

of my mind and intelligence, but due His own free will,

that we may call His Grace.

Is this your Radha?

 

Talasiga: Accepted in the right mood,

what a haunting question ! Thank you.

In return, I offer the following for your consideration .................

 

 

Originally posted by talasiga:

 

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

IMPLICATION 5:

 

After the crossing over the water

Will the Waitress quench our thirst ?

Or will she greet our safest passage

By drowning us all with her tears ?

 

.

.

.

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

But if we agree with that premise, jivas like me and you are also Hari and should be worshiped as Hari, as they also should have all of Hari’s attributes. Would you follow this doctrine?

Hari is not obliged

to do anything

or not to do anything

 

 

[Guest guest]

Valaya: Yes, `my` Radha is His Divine Grace and we are all part and parcel of Her. She is also known as the `internal potency` which is the basis of all other potencies, including Brahman.

 

Satyaraj: That is a very interesting theology indeed. Let us consider some aspects of it. As you termed Radha as ‘internal potency’ we will simplify by terming it ‘E’. According to your theology Brahman is also a potency, and we may call it ‘B’.

 

So, E = B, and therefore your Radha is equal to Brahman. Nothing new, as nothing is different than Brahman.

 

As we are at a material world we also should consider Prakrti, matter or mass. Let’s term it ‘P’. We know from physics that E = m.c2

 

As Prakrti is nothing than mass, let’s consider:

 

E = P. c2 or c2 = E / P

 

Now you may have a nice definition of Brahman, that is: “Brahman is product of Prakrti and the square of the velocity of the light.”

 

So, Brahman is made of light and matter! Great!

 

And that formula also explains that Radha is the cause of Prakrti, as energy is the cause of mass

 

But there is a constant to be observed, termed c2 Without that constant nothing works. Let’s term that constant ‘Hari’s free will’.

 

We consider free will and Hari’s Grace as the same, and that constant is obviously different than Radha, that is an energy.

 

Therefore Radha cannot be Hari’s free will and at the same time an energy. This is elementary algebra.

 

So, your theology have no support at all.

 

That is nothing new. Badarayna Rsi insistently had stated that the theory of saktis (energies) cannot be employed to describe how Hari’s lilas work. Please consult Vedanta (2.2.42 to 45) and check it out by yourself: "Hari has no sensitive organs to enter in conection with any energy."

[Guest guest]

 

Some use to argue that Radha is Hari’s soul, or the atma of His body.

 

But this is the utmost absurd, as if Hari’s body were separate from His soul, then His soul being a subordinate member, the devotion towards it would also be of a subordinate kind end not a primary bhakti. But this is not the case, for devotion is always drawn up towards the primary object.

 

Sruti states that Hari’s body consists of the very essence of His soul, and they are never two separated things (Vedanta 3.2.16), and there is no possibility of two different bhaktis (one for His body and other for His soul).