Does Krishna marry the gopis in the end?

[Jagat 1]

<font color=#669999>On VNN today, I notice that in her very nicely expressed article, Shyamarani Devi has brought up the Jiva Goswami's svakiya-vada.

 

Another article by Narayan Maharaj called "Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis" is currently in circulation in which he condemns the Babajis for a number of heterodox positions including believing that Prabodhananda and Prakashananda are the same person and that Jiva Goswami was a svakiya vadi. The third major point he makes is that the Babajis are against the Madhva sampradaya connection.

 

In my own humble opinion, these are all minor controversies that hardly warrant going to war over. The most serious of them is the last, as the svakiya-parakiya debate, does seem to represent a significant difference in siddhanta, rather than being a matter of historical detail.

 

I have studied all three of these questions in some depth and have found in each case that the Gaudiya position is not as strong as it would like us all to believe. I did not set out to become a thorn in the Gaudiya Math's side. I simply tried to get to the bottom of each one of these questions and find the truth on the basis of verifiable evidence -- the texts themselves.

 

It is not for the sake of controversy that I bring these matters up. It is rather to create a spirit of tolerance for controversy. Shyamarani's article is called "How to Reconcile Apparent Contradictions." On the same page, my friend Puru Das has also written an article called "Dvesh, the enemy of bhakti." When Narayan Maharaj's disciples are trying so hard to find ways to reconcile their understanding with other Vaishnavas of the Gaudiya Math line, why are they apparently unable to tolerate minor points of difference with other members of the Gaudiya family when it comes to these other details?

 

I am troubled by this hardening of attitudes towards other members of our own spiritual family. I think we should have a friendly attitude to all creatures, what to speak of those who have dedicated their lives to serving Srimati Radharani.

 

When we don't know something, we sometimes take recourse to authority to hide the weakness of our position. We say, "My guru or my param guru said something, therefore it must be true. As a result everyone else is wrong and an anathema." I have looked at Gaudiya Math arguments dealing with the three positions mentioned in the Narayan Maharaj article named above and have found that they have not advanced since the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. There has been no attempt to encounter new evidence presented by the opposing side.

 

A further point: all three of these debates are old ones. The Gaudiya Math is not the only group that holds its positions. There are Babajis who identify with the Madhva-sampradaya, who believe that Prabodhananda was not Prakashananda (though they are becoming fewer) and that Jiva Goswami was a parakiya vadi at heart. So why are all Babajis being tarred with the same brush. Is this simply an attempt to create enmity where none is needed?

 

I detest black and white thinking. I detest this facility for condemning other groups because of some philosophical difference that is so rampant in every branch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It is a sign of spiritual immaturity and I detest it.

 

Even if we feel strongly about something, we should honor another person's arguments. We should be ready to acknowledge if someone else has a strong argument. We must be honest in debate instead of hiding behind authority and then disingenuously condemning others for being "aparadhis."

 

If I take up debates on these forums that go counter to many dearly held ideas of the Gaudiya Math, it is not because I seek the destruction of the Gaudiya Math. On the contrary, I wish for the eternal good health and prosperity of all branches of the Gaudiya Math. But as I myself am condemned to carry the burden of being an intellectual, I ask that we expand our horizons, that we tolerate the differences that exist between us as Vaishnavas, and that we continue to respect the fundamental sincerity of the jiva's "self-evident knowledge" (svataH-siddha-jnAnam) as Bhaktivinoda Thakur puts it in the Tattva-sutra (Sutra 41).

 

In furtherance of the objective that everyone broaden their understanding, I am going to serialize an article that I have previously published, entitled "Did Krishna marry the gopis in the end?"

 

 

[Gauracandra 1]

I don't want to interupt the flow of this posting, but just wanted to mention something that popped into my head when you said "Did Krsna marry the gopis?" Immediately I remembered seeing how the Manipuris dress up their deities of Radha Krsna. Radha often wears a white veil covering her face and it looks like she is Krsna's bride. Its very cute For some reason I always like looking at Manipuri deities, costuming etc... They seem so nice and colorful. Anyways, hope I didn't throw your topic flow off too much.

 

Gauracandra

[Jagat 1]

No, that's OK, Gauracandra. I would like to see discussion as we go along. I will post a little bit each day. The article is fairly long.

 

I would like to add one important thing: I do not consider myself to be a superior sadhaka to any of the great souls whose opinions on so many details of history, etc., I may call into question.

 

I am not here to win a personal following. I am making these points because I feel very strongly that this movement's integrity comes about in part from looking at historical facts squarely, without prejudice. Prabhupada told us Krishna Consciousness was not a sectarian movement. It behooves us to understand what sectarianism is and how it acts.

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Originally posted by Jagat:

On VNN today, I notice that in her very nicely expressed article, Shyamarani Devi has brought up the Jiva Goswami's svakiya-vada.

 

Another article by Narayan Maharaj called "Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis" is currently in circulation in which he condemns the Babajis for a number of heterodox positions including believing that Prabodhananda and Prakashananda are the same person and that Jiva Goswami was a svakiya vadi. The third major point he makes is that the Babajis are against the Madhva sampradaya connection.

 

In my own humble opinion, these are all minor controversies that hardly warrant going to war over.

 

You are welcome to your opinion jagat. Whether your views are humbly presented or not is apparant. The aforementioned remarks by Srila Narayan Maharaj "Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis" are directed at his disciples, and offer them some guidance from him, as to why he believes they should avoid translations of certain books outside of our guru varga. You continue to fail to appreciate the significance of our concern that our information comes through the guru parampara and seem content to take information from any source that suits you.

 

The most serious of them is the last, as the svakiya-parakiya debate, does seem to represent a significant difference in siddhanta, rather than being a matter of historical detail.

 

I have studied all three of these questions in some depth and have found in each case that the Gaudiya position is not as strong as it would like us all to believe. I did not set out to become a thorn in the Gaudiya Math's side. I simply tried to get to the bottom of each one of these questions and find the truth on the basis of verifiable evidence -- the texts themselves.

 

Since you beleive you can understand the original texts without any direction from

any guru then you would certainly believe in the validity of your premise.

 

It is not for the sake of controversy that I bring these matters up. It is rather to create a spirit of tolerance for controversy.

 

And the thief declares I am not stealing.

 

Controversey is not rejeceted. Srila Krsnadas Kaviraj Gosvami has written in Sri Cc.

 

TEXT 117

 

TEXT

 

siddhanta baliya citte na kara alasa

iha ha-ite krsne lage sudrdha manasa

 

SYNONYMS

 

siddhanta--conclusion; baliya--considering; citte--in the mind; na kara--do not be; alasa--lazy; iha--this; ha-ite--from; krsne--in Lord Krsna; lage--becomes fixed; su-drdha--very firm; manasa--the mind.

 

TRANSLATION

 

A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions, considering them controversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one's mind becomes attached to Sri Krsna.

 

PURPORT

 

There are many students who, in spite of reading the Bhagavad-gita, misunderstand Krsna because of imperfect knowledge and conclude Him to be an ordinary, historical personality. This one must not do. One should be particularly careful to understand the truth about Krsna. If because of laziness one does not come to know Krsna conclusively, one will be misguided about the cult of devotion, like those who declare themselves advanced devotees and imitate the transcendental symptoms sometimes observed in liberated souls. Although the use of thoughts and arguments is a most suitable process for inducing an uninitiated person to become a devotee, neophytes in devotional service must always alertly understand Krsna through the vision of the revealed scriptures, the bona fide devotees and the spiritual master. Unless one hears about Sri Krsna from such authorities, one cannot make advancement in devotion to Sri Krsna. The revealed scriptures mention nine means of attaining devotional service, of which the first and foremost is hearing from authority. The seed of devotion cannot sprout unless watered by the process of hearing and chanting. One should submissively receive the transcendental messages from spiritually advanced sources and chant the very same messages for one's own benefit as well as the benefit of one's audience.

When Brahma described the situation of pure devotees freed from the culture of empiric philosophy and fruitive actions, he recommended the process of hearing from persons who are on the path of devotion. Following in the footsteps of such liberated souls, who are able to vibrate real transcendental sound, can lead one to the highest stage of devotion, and thus one can become a maha-bhagavata. From the teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to Sanatana Gosvami (Cc. Madhya 22.65) we learn:

 

sastra-yuktye sunipuna, drdha-sraddha yanra

'uttama-adhikari' sei taraye samsara

 

"A person who is expert in understanding the conclusion of the revealed scriptures and who fully surrenders to the cause of the Lord is actually able to deliver others from the clutches of material existence." Srila Rupa Gosvami, in his Upadesamrta (3), advises that to make rapid advancement in the cult of devotional service one should be very active and should persevere in executing the duties specified in the revealed scriptures and confirmed by the spiritual master. Accepting the path of liberated souls and the association of pure devotees enriches such activities.

Imitation devotees, who wish to advertise themselves as elevated Vaisnavas and who therefore imitate the previous acaryas but do not follow them in principle, are condemned in the words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (2.3.24) as stone-hearted. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has commented on their stone-hearted condition as follows: bahir asru-pulakayoh sator api yad dhrdayam na vikriyeta tad asma-saram iti kanisthadhikarinam eva asru-pulakadi-mattve 'pi asma-sara-hrdayataya nindaisa. "Those who shed tears by practice but whose hearts have not changed are to be known as stone-hearted devotees of the lowest grade. Their imitation crying, induced by artificial practice, is always condemned." The desired change of heart referred to above is visible in reluctance to do anything not congenial to the devotional way. To create such a change of heart, conclusive discussion about Sri Krsna and His potencies is absolutely necessary. False devotees may think that simply shedding tears will lead one to the transcendental plane, even if one has not had a factual change in heart, but such a practice is useless if there is no transcendental realization. False devotees, lacking the conclusion of transcendental knowledge, think that artificially shedding tears will deliver them. Similarly, other false devotees think that studying books of the previous acaryas is unadvisable, like studying dry empiric philosophies. But Srila Jiva Gosvami, following the previous acaryas, has inculcated the conclusions of the scriptures in the six theses called the Sat-sandarbhas. False devotees who have very little knowledge of such conclusions fail to achieve pure devotion for want of zeal in accepting the favorable directions for devotional service given by self-realized devotees. Such false devotees are like impersonalists, who also consider devotional service no better than ordinary fruitive actions.

C. Adi lila 1.117

HDGACBSP

 

 

Shyamarani's article is called "How to Reconcile Apparent Contradictions." On the same page, my friend Puru Das has also written an article called "Dvesh, the enemy of bhakti." When Narayan Maharaj's disciples are trying so hard to find ways to reconcile their understanding with other Vaishnavas of the Gaudiya Math line, why are they apparently unable to tolerate minor points of difference with other members of the Gaudiya family when it comes to these other details?

 

What you really mean to say is that because we don't accept the babaji camp's version of the differences in how they veiw our guru varga and how our acaryas view it, how they understand the points mentioned by SNM and how we accept them through the eyes of or guru parampara that we are intolerant. You judge what you think is beneficial for your spiritual asvancement and we can accept the guidance of our siksa gurudeva. You estimtions, again, couched in polite language, completely miss the point of anugatya from self realized souls. Unless one is tattva-darsi, in complete knowledge of the Absolute Truth, one cannot describe the activities of the Personality of Godhead.

 

I am troubled by this hardening of attitudes towards other members of our own spiritual family. I think we should have a friendly attitude to all creatures, what to speak of those who have dedicated their lives to serving Srimati Radharani.

 

I am sorry you are troubled, but you should simply stop wrongly portraying the love and affection that bona fide spiritual masters have for their disciples as something it is not. Recognizing the philosophical differences between different sources is not unfriendly, only truthful.

 

When we don't know something, we sometimes take recourse to authority to hide the weakness of our position. We say, "My guru or my param guru said something, therefore it must be true. As a result everyone else is wrong and an anathema."

 

This is a typical ploy jagat. Accuse anyone who hears from GM or GVS with faith and acceptance as ignorant and hiding behind authority. Because you do not and cannot hear from SBSST, SBT, HDGACBSP and SNM with such faith does not cancel out the validity of those that trust them and do.

 

"I have looked at Gaudiya Math arguments dealing with the three positions mentioned in the Narayan Maharaj article named above and have found that they have not advanced since the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. There has been no attempt to encounter new evidence presented by the opposing side."

 

As you wish. You were not satisfied by the association of HDGACBSP,or SSM ,find fault with other gaudiya acaryas and rejected them in your life long ago. What else is new?

 

A further point: all three of these debates are old ones. The Gaudiya Math is not the only group that holds its positions. There are Babajis who identify with the Madhva-sampradaya, who believe that Prabodhananda was not Prakashananda (though they are becoming fewer) and that Jiva Goswami was a parakiya vadi at heart. So why are all Babajis being tarred with the same brush. Is this simply an attempt to create enmity where none is needed?

 

The enmity is only your narrow vision and lack of appreciation for the guidance SNM is offering to his sisyas concerning reading certain translations of certain books, and his reasons for his disciples to avoid them are sound.,regardless of how you receive or don't receive them.

 

I detest black and white thinking. I detest this facility for condemning other groups because of some philosophical difference that is so rampant in every branch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It is a sign of spiritual immaturity and I detest it.

 

Rather it is sign of kali yuga that philosophical dipute is taken personally and not appreciated for what it is. Single pointed devotion to the Supreme Lord under the guidelines and guidance of a guru parampara.

 

Even if we feel strongly about something, we should honor another person's arguments. We should be ready to acknowledge if someone else has a strong argument. We must be honest in debate instead of hiding behind authority and then disingenuously condemning others for being "aparadhis."

 

This is your constant cry, that we don't accept the validity of your scholarship over the word of our acaryas. Honestly, we aren't that interested in "debate" with your point of view becasuse we see the topic as one that cannot be approached necessarily through intellect but requires genuine realization.

 

If I take up debates on these forums that go counter to many dearly held ideas of the Gaudiya Math, it is not because I seek the destruction of the Gaudiya Math. On the contrary, I wish for the eternal good health and prosperity of all branches of the Gaudiya Math. But as I myself am condemned to carry the burden of being an intellectual, I ask that we expand our horizons, that we tolerate the differences that exist between us as Vaishnavas, and that we continue to respect the fundamental sincerity of the jiva's "self-evident knowledge" (svataH-siddha-jnAnam) as Bhaktivinoda Thakur puts it in the Tattva-sutra (Sutra 41).

 

It is my estimation that you take up debates on these forums because you are looking for followers of your own angle of vision or acceptance of your viewpoint. Your idea of "expansion of horizons" (again polite language) is actually a recommendation that we go outside of our guru varga and take information about the Gosvamis and the nature of the absolute truth from linguistic analysis and your idea of scholarship and historical perspective. Fine for you, but we reject the premise and follow other axioms, outlined by the six gosvamis of Vrndavana instead.

 

In furtherance of the objective that everyone broaden their understanding, I am going to serialize an article that I have previously published, entitled "Did Krishna marry the gopis in the end?"

 

 

So once again, jagat, you offer us something you have written in the hopes that we will accept you as an authority. You must have noted in the remarks about boycotting the babajis that SNM makes mention of those who put on babji vesa and then take to household affairs. Sorry if that remark stinged you a bit, but we simply don't accept that anyone who read sanskrit or studies history is necessarily a qualified authority in the matter of shastra, self realization or

how to progress toward developng krsna prema.

 

I am certain you find a comfortable place here in cyberspace and in the academic community and see some of us as thorns in your side, becasuse we don't accept your basic premises. Couch basic faithlessness in whatever camouflage or flowery words you will, you are as transparant as saran wrap. And we have no animosity personally toward you. Only we firmly beleive that spiritual life is best practiced under the guidance of Sri Guru,according to Krsna's outline in Bg. 4.34,and you want to make your own way avoiding, approaching self realized souls,inquiring from them submissively, rendering service to them. You won't accept that self realization will come by the association of pure suddha bhaktas, or sad gurus , and make your consitant effort to place those we see that way as fallable and

not worthy of surrender to. As you wish.

 

As you said yourself, I myself am condemned to carry the burden of being an intellectual,. . . But this burdon is one you chose to carry and has something to do with false ego and over estimation of the value of mundane intellect as well.

 

I've quoted many verse to you in the past(the texts themselves) that decry the innate value of mundane intellect as a worthy vehicle for self realization, which you always reject. SBSST said in his purport to the Sri Brahma samhita that goloka is not understood by studying the Veda, let alone studying slokas without guidance from self realized souls.

 

Simply say we are hiding behind them, will not do, as we are taking shelter of their

purified intelligence and not accepting yours which is clouded by your own false sense of self and ahankara.

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-08-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Originally posted by Jagat:

<font color=#669999>On VNN today, I notice that in her very nicely expressed article, Shyamarani Devi has brought up the Jiva Goswami's svakiya-vada.

 

Another article by Narayan Maharaj called "Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis" is currently in circulation in which he condemns the Babajis for a number of heterodox positions including believing that Prabodhananda and Prakashananda are the same person and that Jiva Goswami was a svakiya vadi. The third major point he makes is that the Babajis are against the Madhva sampradaya connection.

 

In my own humble opinion, these are all minor controversies that hardly warrant going to war over. . .

 

I would hardly call Srila Narayana Maharaj's remarks to his discples in Holland "going to war." Here they are so you can read them yourself and make your own evalution if you need to.

 

[harikatha] Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis

Sat, 07 Jul 2001 23:23:02 +0800

harikatha@

 

Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis

 

I want to explain something so that you will be very careful. I am receiving questions about the books published by the babajis of Vraja. They accept Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Sri Nityananda Prabhu, and Sri Sri Radha-Krsna Conjugal. They have not written their own books. They only take books like Stava-mala by Srila Rupa Gosvami, Stavavali and Vilapa Kusumanjali by Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami, Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi by Sri Prabhodananda Sarasvati, and other Gosvami books. They have taken our Gosvamis' explanations, which are in Sanskrit, and they are simply translating them into Bengali. Everything seems to be okay. However, you should know what are the defects of these babajis, and you should be very careful. You should carefully note down their defects in your hearts and your notebooks.

 

First of all they don't accept that the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya is one of the sakhas, branches, of the Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, although this fact has been clearly explained by Sri Kavi Karnipura, Srila Jiva Gosvami, and then by Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu. It has also been explained by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, by my Gurudeva, that is, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, and also by Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja.

 

Secondly, they think that Sri Prabhodananda Sarasvati and Prakasananda Sarasvati are the same person, although there is so much difference between them. This cannot be so. Will a person of the Ramanuja Sampradaya go down to become a Mayavadi like Prakasananda Sarasvati, and then again become Prabhodananda Sarasvati, who was so exalted that he became the guru of Srila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami? This idea is absurd. Prabhodananda Sarasvati and Prakasananda Sarasvati were contemporaries. Will the same person go back and forth, being a Vaisnava in South India, then becoming a Mayavadi, again becoming a Vaisnava in Vrndavana, and again becoming a Mayavadi? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has vividly written about this, and great historians and research scholars have also rejected the idea that they are the same person.

 

Thirdly, they don’t give proper honor to Sri Jiva Gosvami, and this is a very big blunder. This is a vital point. They say that Jiva Gosvami is of svakiya-bhava, that he never supported parakiya-bhava, and that he is against parakiya-bhava. They say that in his explanations of Srimad Bhagavatam and Brahma-samhita, in his own books like Gopala Campu, and especially in his Sri Ujjvala-nilamani tika, he has written against parakiya-bhava. This is their greatest blunder. We don’t accept their statements at all.

 

Srila Jiva Gosvami was rupanuga, a pure follower of Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sri Rupa Manjari. However, for some devotees who were not very qualified at that time, who were beginners, and who did not know what is parakiya-bhava -- and even in Vraja there are so many like this -- he seemed to favor svakiya-bhava.

For some followers, so that they would be able to come at least to vidhi-marga (worship according to the rules and regulations of Narada-pancaratra), Jiva Gosvami wrote as if he was a supporter of svakiya-rasa. He wanted that through this they should become qualified, and then they should come to the mood of parakiya. For qualified persons he has written that parakiya-bhava is in Vraja and svakiya-bhava is in Dvaraka. He has vividly written this, and he also accepted this. He can never be against the teachings of Srila Rupa Gosvami, Srila Sanatana Gosvami and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He can never be so. He was a follower of the same root idea of parakiya-bhava as Rupa Gosvami. For some unqualified persons he has written in that other way, but the babajis of Vraja cannot reconcile this. They are ignorant persons. They became opposed to Srila Jiva Gosvami and took the side of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, even though in fact there is no dispute between Jiva Gosvami and Vi

svanatha Cakravarti Thakura!

.

Whatever Jiva Gosvami wrote for the benefit of those unqualified followers is in the line of tattva-siddhanta, established philosophical truths. He wrote that, by tattva, the gopis are krsna-svakiya.

 

ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis

tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih

goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhuto

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

(Brahma Samhita)

 

["I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, who resembles His own spiritual figure and who embodies the ecstatic potency (Hladini). Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of Her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated with ever-blissful spiritual rasa."]

 

Nija-rupataya kalabhih. The gopis are Krsna's power. They cannot be parakiya in the eyes of tattva-siddhanta. They are the same as Krsna. They are the power of Krsna. They are also not the wives of any gopas, cowherd men, of Vrndavana. They are all beloved of Krsna, and they are not different from Him. Thus, by tattva, they are svakiya. (Sva means 'own' and kiya means sampatti, wealth.) This means they are of Krsna, Krsna’s own, and they are His power. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has written in the line of rasa-siddhanta or rasa-tattva. In rasa-tattva Yogamaya has arranged that both the gopis and Krsna think that the gopis are married to other gopas, and therefore they have a paramour relationship. If it were not like this, there would be no rasa at all. (Para means 'greatest', one's own greatest wealth, and it also means 'another', another's wealth. Therefore the meaning in both tattva-siddhanta and rasa-siddhanta is harmoniously reconciled.)

 

Srila Rupa Gosvami has explained all these things, especially in Ujjvala Nilamani, and also in his other books. The gopis are Krsna’s own, His power, but for rasa it is said that they are parakiya.

What is parakiya? There are two principles: atma-rasa and para-rasa, or eka-rasa and aneka-rasa. Krsna is eka-rasa or atma rasa. He is one rasa. In other words He is the complete embodiment of rasa. He is atmarama and aptakama. He is always full and satisfied in Himself. He doesn’t need anything from anyone in order to be happy. The gopis are His own power. Sakti-saktimatayor-abheda. Sakti, the energy, and saktiman, the possessor of that energy or power, are both one. They are identical. However, although Krsna has this quality, He is also para-rasa. Para-rasa means that the gopis are vaishisteya; that is, they also have a speciality that distinguishes them from Krsna. Although they are part of Krsna, although they are one with Him, their speciality is that they serve Him in the mood of rasa. Krsna is the enjoyer and they are the container or reservoir of love and affection. Krsna also wants to taste their mood. Aneka-rasa or para-rasa is the gopis' rasa, and Krsna wants to ta

ste that rasa in various wa!

ys. That rasa is in the form of parakiya rasa, and this is the meaning of parakiya rasa -- nothing else. These are a very high-class of philosophical understandings, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has explained all these truths.

 

Therefore, Jiva Gosvami is not of a different opinion than Rupa Gosvami. They have the very same opinion. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has proven that Jiva Gosvami was in parakiya-bhava, and that he accepted Srimad Bhagavatam and Ujjvala-nilamani. [in his own Ujjvala-nilamani tika, Srila Jiva Gosvami has written, "Svecchaya likitam kincit, atra kincid parecchaya. I have written some things by my own desire and some things by the desire of others. The portions which are consistent, in which svakiya and parakiya are reconciled and in the line of Rupa Gosvami, is my desire, and the portions that are not reconciled are written by the desire of others." I have written about all these topics in my book called Prabandha Pancakam, Five Essential Essays. You should try to know these things fully.

The babajis say that we are not a branch of the line of Madhvacarya. They say Madhvacarya is of a different opinion than the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. But this is quite wrong. We have so many specialties that are there in the line of Madhvacarya.

 

Also, they say that because Caitanya Mahaprabhu took sannyasa from Kesava Bharati, a Mayavadi, He, Himself, must be a Mayavadi. We don’t accept this. Mahaprabhu's actual guru was Isvara Puripada, He only took vesa, red cloth, from Kesava Bharati, and there is no harm in this. Madhvacarya also did this, and Ramanujacarya as well. [Another point is as follows. Sri Madhvacarya accepted sannyasa from Acyutapreksa, who was also a kevaladvaita-vadi. Suppose we accept the opinion of the opposing party, just for the sake of argument. In that case, if Mahaprabhu is a kevaladvaita-vadi sannyasa, then by the same logic so is Madhvacarya. Where, then, is the obstacle to Sriman Mahaprabhuji’s being in the Madhva Sampradaya, if both of them accepted the advaita-vadi Sankara’s sampradaya? There is a second point here. Sri Madhvacarya accepted eka-danda (a single staff of renunciation) according to the customs and regulations of the Sankara Sampradaya. It would be logically consistent to say that

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu fol!

lowed his ideal example, and also accepted eka danda-sannyasa from a sannyasi of the Sankara Sampradaya, namely Sri Kesava Bharati. From this it seems clear that Gaudiya Vaisnavas are in the line of Sri Madhvacarya.(from Five Essential Essays)]

Sannyasa can be taken in this way. [During the time of Lord Caitanya, the influence of Sankaracarya in society was very strong. People thought that one could accept sannyasa only in the disciplic succession of Sankaracarya. Lord Caitanya could have performed His missionary activities as a householder, but He found householder life an obstruction to His mission. Therefore He decided to accept the renounced order, sannyasa. Since His acceptance of sannyasa was also designed to attract public attention, Lord Caitanya, not wishing to disturb the social convention, took the renounced order of life from a sannyasi in the disciplic succession of Sankaracarya, although sannyasa was also sanctioned in the Vaisnava sampradaya.(Cc. Adi-lila 3.34 purp.)]

 

However, Mahaprabhu took gopal-mantra and other mantras from Isvara Puripada. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Rupa Gosvami, and Srila Jiva Gosvami have accepted this -- that Caitanya Mahaprabhu was not a Mayavadi. Madhavendra Puripada also took sannyasa from a Mayavadi, but he took diksa initiation in the line of Madhva, and Laksmipati Tirtha was his guru.

 

We are thus in one line. There is some little difference in upasana-marga, but by tattva we are both the same. Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu has written about this very vividly, and the opinion of Kavi-karnapura is also that we are in the Madhva Sampradaya. He wrote a sloka about this.

Another point is that the babajis don’t accept that Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana is in the Gaudiya Vaisnava line. They are vehemently opposed to this understanding. However, if Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu is out of our Gaudiya Sampradaya, then who is our savior? He went to Galta Gaddi in Jaipura and defeated the Sri Vaisnavas. He told them that Srimati Radhika should be on the left of Krsna. He wrote a commentary on Vedanta Sutra called Govinda-bhasya, and that commentary has been accepted as the Gaudiya-bhasya (commentary representing the Gaudiya Sampradaya).

 

[As far as we in the Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya are concerned, our acaryas accepted Srimad-Bhagavatam as the natural commentary on Brahma-sutra. The Gaudiya Sampradaya did not make any commentary on the Brahma-sutra because they accepted, and Caitanya Mahäprabhu accepted, that Srimad-Bhagavatam is the natural commentary because it was also written by Vyasadeva, the original author of Brahma-sutra. If the author has made his own commentary, there was no need of another. This is the Gaudiya-vaisnava-siddhanta. Sometime back, however, in Jaipur, there was a challenge that the Gaudiya Sampradaya has no commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura was requested to go there, because he was the most senior Vaisnava scholar. He was living in Vrndavana at that time, and because he was very advanced in age at that time, he authorized Baladeva Vidyabhusana, "You do it. There is no need, but people are demanding, 'Where is your commentary on the Vedanta-sutra?'" Therefore, by th

e dictation of Govindaji at!

Jaipur, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, wrote the commentary on Brahma-sutra called Govinda-bhasya. In this way, the Brahma-Madhva- Gaudiya Sampradaya has also got a commentary on Brahma-sutra, and that is required. (from Srila Prabhupada's lecture on Sept.30, 1973)]

 

If Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu is not in our sampradaya, then what sampradaya is He in? All his commentaries are in the line of Srila Rupa Gosvami and our Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas. If Baladeva Prabhu is out of our sampradaya, everything will be finished. This is a vital point.

Also, these babajis say that if anyone wears the saffron cloth of sannyasa, he is not in the Gaudiya Vaisnava line. They have no correct idea. It is stated in Caitanya Caritamrta:

 

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei 'guru' haya

 

["It does not matter whether a person is a vipra (learned scholar in Vedic wisdom) or is born in a lower family, or is in the renounced order of life. If he is master in the science of Krsna, he is the perfect and bona fide spiritual master." (Madhya-lila 8-128)]

 

Krsna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami has written 'kiba nyasi'. Nyasi means sannyasi. Isvara Puripada, Madhavendra Puripada, and all renunciates in their line were sannyasis in saffron cloth. There are so many associates of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who wore saffron cloth. Svarupa Damodara also wore saffron cloth. What harm was there? Saffron cloth is the sign of renunciation. It is the color of anuraga, attachment for Krsna. Because it is a color, it is worn by sadhvis. Sadhvi means a married lady, a lady who is not a widow. 'Married' means having Krsna as one's beloved. We are not widows, but those who wear white cloths are widows.

 

>From where has this word 'babaji' come in our line? From whom has it come? Isvara Puripada, Madhavendra Puripada, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Nityananda Prabhu, and after Him, Sri Rupa Gosvami, Sri Sanatana Gosvami, Srila Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami, Sri Jiva Gosvami, Sri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, and Sri Raghunatha dasa Gosvami. After them, Krsna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami and Vrndavana dasa Thakura, and then Narottama dasa Thakura, Syamananda dasa, Srinivasa Acarya, and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. Where is the word babaji? Was anyone known as Babaji? From where did this word babaji come? The babajis have no reply. These Vaisnavas were all paramahamsa, not babaji.

 

Sri Sanatana Gosvami did not wear saffron cloth because he had great honor for Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's saffron or reddish cloth. He was thinking, "I cannot be like Him, I am not so high." Therefore, out of honor and reverence he wore white cloth, and he used to worship this saffron cloth.

In Vraja, the Vrajabasis all used to call Sanatana Gosvami 'baba'. They called Sanatana Gosvami bara-baba, elder sadhu, and Rupa Gosvami chota-baba, younger sadhu. After them, others in their line took white cloth; but then, after the time of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, they deviated. Some, like Jagannatha dasa Babaji, Madhusudana dasa Babaji, and Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, took this babaji name out of humility, and everyone used to call them that. [baba means sadhu or father, and ji is a suffix meaning respectable. These mukta-mahapurusas are paramahamsas, and they are also the eternal associates of Radha and Krsna. They are far above the conception of babaji or sannyasa (which is within the varnasrama system). For them to accept the nomenclature babaji, therefore, is their humility.]

[After Sriman Mahaprabhu, His lila-parikaras (eternal pastime associates) such as the six Gosvamis, Sri Lokanatha and Bhugarbha, and later Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja, Sri Narottama Thakura, and Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura were naturally niskincana paramahamsa Vaisnavas. There was no need for them to wear sannyasa-vesa, saffron cloth. Secondly, Sriman Mahaprabhu had performed the lila of wearing sannyasa-vesa and saffron cloth. Thus considering themselves to be worthless, lowly and unqualified, these mahatmas did not wear sannyasa-vesa and saffron cloth in order to show honor and respect to the vesa of Sriman Mahaprabhu and also to maintain their own identities as servants under the shelter of His lotus feet. On the other hand, in order to express veneration for the niskincana paramahamsa-vesa of the associates of Sriman Mahaprabhu, and, under their guidance to preach His message throughout the entire world, many akincana Vaisnavas on the path of raganuga-bhajana, holding the parama

hamsa-vesa upon their heads!

, have accepted a position below their worshipable superiors by wearing the saffron cloth of the sannyasa asrama which is included within the system of varnasrama dharma. These two customs, each having their own place, are both exquisitely beautiful and also completely in accordance with siddhanta. Today suddha-hari-bhakti has been, is being, and will continue to be, preached and spread throughout the world by these mahapurusas, great perfected saints, who wear this second type of niskincana sannyasi-vesa. (from Five Essential Essays)]

 

When Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura saw that many babajis were now bogus, that they were with widow matajis and producing sons, he became very furious and said that we will again accept the same saffron cloth of others like Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Mahaprabhu, and Isvara Puripada. He then preached everywhere in the world.

At that time, those family persons who were of loose character and had no status in society honored these bogus babajis. That is why Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura re-introduced the reddish cloth and sannyasa. Presently, those who are bogus persons, but were previously in the Gaudiya Matha, have become lusty and have thus been kicked out from the Gaudiya Matha. Now they have become babajis.

 

The babajis especially criticize Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, saying that he didn’t have a guru. This is a bogus idea. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura preached the name and the glories of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya to the whole world. He wrote hundreds of books. Still, the babajis say he did not have a proper guru, and that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada also had no proper guru. [A sadhaka may receive bheka (sannyasa vesa) from some suitable guru and alternatively, when genuine vairagya (in bhava-bhakti) arises, he may accept bheka from himself. Haridasa Thakura, the Six Gosvamis, Lokanatha Gosvami, and others are examples of the practice of accepting bheka from oneself. This is also the way that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura accepted sannyasa vesa after the disappearance of Srila Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, from whom he had received the diksa mantra. We see from these examples that acceptance of bheka in this way is fully in agreeme

nt with sastra. Sri Ramanuj!

acarya also accepted tridandi-sannyasa from himself after the disappearance of his guru Srila Yamunacarya. (from Five Essential Essays)]

You should know that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was in the Bhagavata-parampara of Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja. Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was also in the line as the same Jagannatha dasa Babaji Maharaja, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and his guru, Srila Gaura Kisora Das Babaji Maharaja. They were all in the same line.

 

Those in the babaji line say that our Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, and even Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, were not in the proper disciplic line, and that they have no guru-parampara. But it is actually the babajis who are not in the guru-parampara.

 

I saw in France that so many devotees have given up Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and they have become babajis. They took babaji-vesa, dor-kaupin and so on. Then, after two years, they fell down with mataji-babajis. They accepted and lived with divorced ladies. They are bound to do this. Thus, those who are not accepting that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, our Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, and all other high-class Vaisnavas are in the Gaudiya line, are completely ignorant. If you read their books this poison may come.

 

avaisnava-mukhodgirnam putam hari-kathamrtam

sravanam naiva kartavyam sarpocchistam yatha payah

(Padma Purana)

 

["One should not hear anything about Krsna from a non-Vaisnava. Milk touched by the lips of a serpent has poisonous effects. Similarly, talks about Krsna given by a non-Vaisnava are also poisonous."]

 

Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami's Vilapa Kusumanjali, and other books like Krsna Bhavanamrta, Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi, and Stava-vali are all good books. They are amrta, nectar. However, you should not hear them from non-Vaisnavas; otherwise the bogus ideas of such non-Vaisvnavas will come, and you will be deviated. Be very careful about this.

 

Another point is regarding bhajana-pranali. Instead of giving the proper process to the appropriate persons, without giving proper training, without considering whether a person is qualified or not, these babajis give their own version of bhajana-pranali. Their so-called disciples do not know who is Krsna or what is bhajana. They don’t know any definition of bhakti, and they don’t even know how to clean themselves after passing stool. They don’t know anything. What will become of them?

 

naitat samacarej jatu

manasapi hy anisvaram

vinasyaty acaran maudhyad

yatharudro ’bdhi-jam visam

 

["One who is not a great controller should never imitate the behavior of ruling personalities, even mentally. If out of foolishness an ordinary person does imitate such behavior, he will simply destroy himself, just as a person who is not Rudra would destroy himself if he tried to drink an ocean of poison." (SB. 10.33.31)]

 

If someone is not qualified, but he wants to drink poison as Sankara did, he will die at once. First be Sankara, and then take poison. First be qualified.

First you should know Srila Rupa Gosvami’s Upadesamrta: vaco vegam manasa krodha vegam. Also read Manah Siksa. First learn tattva: maya-tattva, jiva-tattva, and krsna-tattva. Afterwards, if you have actual greed, then you can read those other books. Otherwise, if you don’t learn these principles first, you will be lusty, and you will be bound to deviate and give up bhajana and sadhana.

We should read Jaiva Dharma. There, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has explained all the ideas of Srila Rupa Gosvami. First learn trnad api sunicena taror api sahisnuna / amanina manadena kirtaniyah sada harih. "One can chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking himself lower than the straw in the street. One should be more tolerant than the tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige and ready to offer all respects to others. ln such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly."

This was advised by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

 

ye-rupe la-ile nama prema upajaya

tahara laksana suna, svarupa-rama-raya

 

["O Svarupa Damodara Gosvami and Ramananda Raya, hear from Me the symptoms of how one should chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra to awaken very easily one's dormant love for Krsna." (Antya 20.21)]

 

Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself gave us the instruction to have these qualities. Try to develop these qualities, and then you can read the other books.

There are so many devotees around the world, especially in France, who are reading all these elevated books. However, they don’t know krsna-tattva or any other tattva, and they have no nistha, steady and strong faith, in their gurudeva. Gradually they are giving up Srila Swami Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and the entire guru-parampara. They criticize this line. Therefore, although the books which have been translated by these babajis are themselves bona fide, we should boycott them. Don’t read them. If you are qualified like a hamsa, a swan, if you can separate milk from water, then you may read their translations -- otherwise not.

 

About ten years ago I went on Vraja Mandala Parikrama with Pujyapada Janardana Maharaja. We went to Radha-Kunda, and there we challenged the babajis. We had a discussion for three hours, but no one came. I have also challenged those babajis in my book, Five Essential Essays, but no one responded. After reading that book they wanted to take us to court, and I challenged them, "Yes, we will see you in court." But they never came. Their lawyers had advised them not to go to court, as they would have lost everything.

 

Don’t be attracted to these sahajiya babajis of Vraja. You should be attracted to our guru-parampara: Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Srila Jiva Gosvami, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, and all those in our Bhagavata-parampara.

I have come to tell you these things only to make you all careful. Don’t be bewildered. Try to be very strong, knowing all these points.

 

(typed by Madana Mohini dasi, edited by Syamarani dasi)

 

To read this lecture in spanish to harikatha-e@ by sending a blank email to harikatha-e-@

 

Please send all billboard queries to bvnmbillboard@

 

 

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

In all the vnn or indiadivine posts I have ever read from you jagat, I've never seen any substantial evidence from anywhere that suficiently invalidates the written words of our acaryas. Interesting to see you try to use Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura to justify your own position. You beleive in his essay he refers to your realization or that of more qualified sadhakas? I can find many other remarks by the Thakura and by his son and disciple that can bolster my point of view as well.

 

Unwillingness to accept information from you and your dubious sources is not being closed minded but discriminating. That is all. In SB we can read:

 

TEXT 26

 

TEXT

 

yasya saksad bhagavati

jnana-dipa-prade gurau

martyasad-dhih srutam tasya

sarvam kunjara-saucavat

 

SYNONYMS

 

yasya--one who; saksat--directly; bhagavati--the Supreme Personality of Godhead; jnana-dipa-prade--who enlightens with the torch of knowledge; gurau--unto the spiritual master; martya-asat-dhih--considers the spiritual master to be like an ordinary human being and maintains such an unfavorable attitude; srutam--Vedic knowledge; tasya--for him; sarvam--everything; kunjara-sauca-vat--like the bath of an elephant in a lake.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The spiritual master should be considered to be directly the Supreme Lord because he gives transcendental knowledge for enlightenment. Consequently, for one who maintains the material conception that the spiritual master is an ordinary human being, everything is frustrated. His enlightenment and his Vedic studies and knowledge are like the bathing of an elephant.

 

PURPORT

 

It is recommended that one honor the spiritual master as being on an equal status with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Saksad dharitvena samasta-sastraih. This is enjoined in every scripture. Acaryam mam vijaniyat. One should consider the acarya to be as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In spite of all these instructions, if one considers the spiritual master an ordinary human being, one is doomed. His study of the Vedas and his austerities and penances for enlightenment are all useless, like the bathing of an elephant. An elephant bathes in a lake quite thoroughly, but as soon as it comes on the shore it takes some dust from the ground and strews it over its body. Thus there is no meaning to the elephant's bath. One may argue by saying that since the spiritual master's relatives and the men of his neighborhood consider him an ordinary human being, what is the fault on the part of the disciple who considers the spiritual master an ordinary human being? This will be answered in the next verse, but the injunction is that the spiritual master should never be considered an ordinary man. One should strictly adhere to the instructions of the spiritual master, for if he is pleased, certainly the Supreme Personality of Godhead is pleased. Yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasado yasyaprasadan na gatih kuto 'pi.

 

TEXT 27

 

TEXT

 

esa vai bhagavan saksat

pradhana-purusesvarah

yogesvarair vimrgyanghrir

loko yam manyate naram

 

SYNONYMS

 

esah--this; vai--indeed; bhagavan--Supreme Personality of Godhead; saksat--directly; pradhana--the chief cause of the material nature; purusa--of all living entities or of the purusavatara, Lord Visnu; isvarah--the supreme controller; yoga-isvaraih--by great saintly persons, yogis; vimrgya-anghrih--Lord Krsna's lotus feet, which are sought; lokah--people in general; yam--Him; manyate--consider; naram--a human being.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krsna, is the master of all other living entities and of the material nature. His lotus feet are sought and worshiped by great saintly persons like Vyasa. Nonetheless, there are fools who consider Lord Krsna an ordinary human being.

 

PURPORT

 

The example of Lord Krsna's being the Supreme Personality of Godhead is appropriate in regard to understanding the spiritual master. The spiritual master is called sevaka-bhagavan, the servitor Personality of Godhead, and Krsna is called sevya-bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is to be worshiped. The spiritual master is the worshiper God, whereas the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, is the worshipable God. This is the difference between the spiritual master and the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Another point: Bhagavad-gita, which constitutes the instructions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is presented by the spiritual master as it is, without deviation. Therefore the Absolute Truth is present in the spiritual master. As clearly stated in Text 26, jnana-dipa-prade. The Supreme Personality of Godhead gives real knowledge to the entire world, and the spiritual master, as the representative of the Supreme Godhead, carries the message throughout the world. Therefore, on the absolute platform, there is no difference between the spiritual master and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If someone considers the Supreme Personality--Krsna or Lord Ramacandra--to be an ordinary human being, this does not mean that the Lord becomes an ordinary human being. Similarly, if the family members of the spiritual master, who is the bona fide representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, consider the spiritual master an ordinary human being, this does not mean that he becomes an ordinary human being. The spiritual master is as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and therefore one who is very serious about spiritual advancement must regard the spiritual master in this way. Even a slight deviation from this understanding can create disaster in the disciple's Vedic studies and austerities.

SB 7.15.26-27

HDGACBSP

 

It's neither a matter of arguement or narrow mindedness, but a matter of love and trust. We simply love and trust our guru varga and have distrust and not much love for you since you have rejected them. Krsna chose to reside with the Vidura rather than stay in Sisupala's Palace. He would not even eat the meal offered to him by Duryodhana. He could not accept the grand feast of the envious Kaurava, however opulent because in his heart he harbored ill will toward the Pandavas, who Krsna said "were his heart."

 

Similarly anything you want to present is always tainted by your rejection and lack of love and trust of our guru varga. If that is close mindedness by your estimation I am not really concerned. You relish too well, opportunities to lable sraddha something else, and I'm sure there is some audience for your internet performances, and feeble attempts at self pity and recromancy.

Saran wrap yet again.

 

I posted Srila Naryan Maharaj's remarks so they can be taken as they are without your slant on them. I am satisfied with what he has said and you are not.

 

 

[Jagat 1]

<h3>1.2 Rasa and siddhänta</h3>

 

At the beginning of GC, Jiva Goswami clearly describes the scope his work is to take:

 

<center>yan mayA kRSNa-sandarbhe

siddhantAmRtam Acitam /

tad eva rasyate kAvya﷓

kRti﷓prajña﷓rasajñayA //

 

The ambrosia﷓like conclusions

compiled by me in the Krishna﷓sandarbha

can here be savored by the palate

that is learned in the poetic art. </center>

 

KrishnaS is the fourth volume of Jiva's major theological work, in which aspects of Krishna's nature are described, primarily according to the revelation of BhP but with the support of other puranic and tantric materials. Though in the above verse Jiva refers to the siddhanta or demonstrated conclusion of the arguments presented there as being ambrosia﷓like in its own right, which as a seasoned exegete he no doubt deeply felt, he also seems to admit the inadequacy of a purely argumentative approach to the truths he held dear. Thus, not totally satisfied with his previous efforts, he sought to give expression to these conclusions in a poetic form. Indeed, in view of the impetus given to the theological understanding of rasa by Jiva's predecessor Rupa, it would seem that such an effort was essential. Jiva's theological ideas had to pass a “rasa-test,” as it were, for Rupa had indicated that his theory of divine esthetic was an objective criterion for determining the relative superiority of different forms of the supreme:

 

<blockquote>"Though according to spiritual laws Narayan and Krishna are not different in essence from one another, nevertheless Krishna is demonstrably superior by the criteria of the divine esthetic; his form is the resting place of rasa."(2)</blockquote>

 

This emphasis on rasa has its roots in BhP itself, which invites the connoisseurs of poetry (rasikas) to taste the poetic flavor of the Lord (bhAgavataM rasam).(3) Jiva also confirms the value of rasa as an independent marker of truth in his introduction to the Uttara-campu where he puts rasa and siddhanta on an equal footing in a dual compound:

 

<center>We take shelter in the goddess of sound,

who takes the form of the Bhagavata,

the essence of all the Veda.

Through her rasa <u>and</u> siddhanta

even a new work of poetry becomes authoritative.(4) </center>

 

Finally, at the very end of the Uttara-campu, two verses again stress the word rasa:

 

<center>I have humbly demonstrated the fulfillment of the rasas

by following the sequence of Krishna's activities.

According to one's own personal enthusiasm for them,

let any one of them be venerated by any devotee. </center>

 

But,

<center>Krishna, like a cook, achieves the fulfillment of rasa

for the pleasure of the rasikas

by following the proper sequence.

 

One who follows this sequence

and attains fulfillment on arriving at the end,

shows by attaining supreme success

just how clever he is.(5) </center>

 

Here, though in the first verse Jiva takes a liberal position in indicating that the devotional position one takes is dependent on taste, and that one is free to choose whichever form or pastime of the Lord suits his or her fancy, he still emphasizes in the latter verse that he has arranged the lila according to his understanding of their relative superiority, according to both rasa and siddhanta. The word for clever (vaidagdhya used here is particularly associated with the concept of rasa.

 

For all the importance placed on the word rasa in the above verses, Jiva's predilection for siddhanta, even the siddhanta of rasa, rather than rasa itself is nevertheless apparent throughout GC. In the discussion that follows, an attempt is made to delineate not only the salient conclusions of the KrishnaS that form the backbone of GC (many of which are explicitly stated in GC itself), but also those found in the works of Rupa Goswami and Jiva's commentaries upon them. Indeed the latter discussion is perhaps of greater importance, for it is in these works that Jiva has defended his vision of Krishna on the basis of Rupa's conceptions and identified his views with those of his spiritual master.

 

<hr>

(2) BRS i.2.59:

siddhAntatas tv abhedo 'pi zrIza-kRSNa-svarupayoH/

rasenotkRSyate kRSNah rUpa eSa rasa-sthitiH//

 

(3) BhP i.1.3;

nigama-kalpa-taror galitaM phalam

zuka-mukhAd amRta-drava-saMyutam/

pibata bhAgavatam rasam Alayam

muhur aho rasikA bhuvi bhAvukAH//

 

(4) GC ii.1.7;

gIr-devIm anuyAmaH sakala-zruti-sAra-bhAgavata-rUpam/

yad-rasa-siddhAntAbhyAM navam api kAvyam pramANatAM yAti//

 

(5) GC ii.37v151-2;

lIlAnAM rasa-purtir mayakAdarzi kramAd atra/

sva-sva-grahatas tAsAm kAcana kenApy upAsyantAm nAma//

Kintu,

rasika-jana-sukhArthaM sAdhayAmAsa zazvat

kramam anu rasa-pUrtiM sudavat kRSNa-candraH /

kramam anurasayan yaH pUrtim Apnoti pUrtyAM

saphalam iha param syAt tat tu vaidagdhyam asya//

<font color=#dedfdf><small>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

I ask you to decide whether I am, as he would have it, the Devil's

shepherd looking to mislead the innocent sheep who frequent these

dangerous pastures, or an individual who is simply acting according

to his nature and sharing his own discoveries with brothers and

sisters who have trod the same paths as I. jagat

 

 

By your own words jagat. Readers should most certainly make the decision to hear from you or not, as they see fit. The nature of self deception is that it is just that. I'm firmly convinced you believe you are helping somebody by your efforts. However Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura has written:

 

"Those who repeat the teachings of Thakur Bhaktivinode from memory do not necessarily understand the meaning of the words they mechanically repeat. Those who can pass an empiric examination regarding the contents of his writings are not necessarily also self-realised souls.They may not at all know the real meaning of the words they have learnt by the method of empiric study.Take for example the Name "Krishna". Every reader of Thakur Bhaktivinode's works must be aware that the Name manifests Himself on the lips of His serving devotees although He is inaccessible to ourmundane senses. It is one thing to pass the examination by reproducing this true conclusion from the writings of ThakurBhaktivinode and quite another matter to realise the Nature of the Holy Name of Krishna by the process conveyed by the words.

 

It is not empiric wisdom that is the object of quest of the devotee. Those who read the scriptures for gathering empiric

wisdom will be pursuing the wild goose chase. There are not a few dupes of their empiric Scriptural erudition. These dupes have their admiring under-dupes. But the mutual admiration society of dupes does not escape, by the mere weight of their number, the misfortunes due to the deliberate pursuit of the wrong course inaccordance with the

suggestions of our lower selves.

 

What are the Scriptures? They are nothing but the record by the pure devotees of the Divine Message appearing on the lips of the pure devotees. The Message conveyed by the devotees is the same in all ages. The words of the devotees are ever identical with the Scriptures. Any meaning of the Scriptures that belittles the function of the devotee

who is the original communicant of the Divine Message contradicts its own claim to be heard. Those who think that the

Sanskrit language in its lexicographical sense is the language of the Divinity are as deluded as those who hold that the

Divine Message is communicable through any other spoken dialects. All languages simultaneously express and hide the

Absolute. The mundane face of all languages hides the Truth. The Transcendental face of all sound expresses nothing but the Absolute. The pure devotee is the speaker of the Transcendental language. The Transcendental Sound makes His appearance on the lips of His pure devotee. This is the direct, unambiguous appearance of Divinity. On the lips of

non-devotees the Absolute always appears in His deluding aspect. To the pure devotee the Absolute reveals Himself under all circumstances. To the conditioned soul, if he is disposed to listen in a truly submissive spirit, the language of the pure devotee can alone impart the knowledge of the Absolute. The conditioned soul mistakes the deluding for the real aspect when he chooses to lend his ear to the non-devotee. This is the reason why the conditioned soul is warned

to avoid all association with non-devotees."

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura,

The Harmonist, December 1931, vol. XXIX No.6

 

Srila Raghunatha das Gosvami explains in his Manah-siksa that Pratistha (desire for prestige) fails to acknowledge itself. Forgive me for invading your space in cyber world. However sometimes your thesis begs an antithesis which anyone is certainly

capable of accepting or rejecting as they see fit. Our main point of disagreement is and shall always be it appears:

 

Any meaning of the Scriptures that belittles the function of the devotee

who is the original communicant of the Divine Message contradicts its own claim to be heard.

 

Kindly post the rest of your article without any further interference from me. If I see any salient points that I believe our acaryas take exception to I may comment at the end. Interruption is rude but the format of these forums allows no other way to make any point.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

I quite agree with most of the things that are stated in your last post, Puru. I don't think that empiric knowledge is the object of spiritual life, either.

 

My feeling is, however, that in some cases devotees themselves mistake empiric for spiritual knowledge. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

 

You take the Prabodhananda/Prakashananda question -- a matter that can be established by empirical means, i.e., through textual evidence -- and make it an issue that legitimizes someone's spiritual standing.

 

In other words, if I agree with you, I am spiritually OK, if I don't agree, I am not. This is the attitude I object to, with all my heart.

 

 

[kailasa 0]

Clear& that parakiya is higher. Babaji think at a level of the rural inhabitants. It is necessary simplly to organize excellent(different) prasada for them they Become peace and will overlook(forget) all these problems. That only does not happen when devoted does not receive enough prasada . The schoolboys respected guru just also could by it take. It is necessary to arrange with him(it) a holiday Frequently and gradually would receive Babaji GM.

 

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Originally posted by Jagat:

I quite agree with most of the things that are stated in your last post, Puru. I don't think that empiric knowledge is the object of spiritual life, either.

 

I'm glad to hear that.

 

My feeling is, however, that in some cases devotees themselves mistake empiric for spiritual knowledge. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

 

I couldn't agree more, and that is all the more reason that I personally depend on the direction of Sri Guru in such matters. How to distinguish the mind's sankalpa, vikalpa with genuine realization, as I understand, is to confirm with guru, sadhu and shastra and not depend on our own subtle body or its imperfect perceptions. SBSST when explaining the sloka in Brahma-samhita, premanjana churrita bhaktivilocanena . . .explains that the eye tinged with the salve of love is actually the mind's eye of the siddha, perfected spiritual form.

 

You take the Prabodhananda/Prakashananda question -- a matter that can be established by empirical means, i.e., through textual evidence -- and make it an issue that legitimizes someone's spiritual standing.

 

That isn't my point or Srila Naryan Maharaj's point at all. Emprical evidence of another point of view may be there, and we don't deny that (though we haven't seen it clearly presented) it may exist. Whether we want to accept it in lieu of the words of Sri Guru is another matter altogether. You give it more importance than we do. I don't see anything illogical or contradictory in both SP's purports and SNM's point that the same person is not one day a mayavada and the next a member of the Sri Sampradaya. You have some doubt about their point of view and I don't doubt their observations.

 

In other words, if I agree with you, I am spiritually OK, if I don't agree, I am not. This is the attitude I object to, with all my heart.

 

NOt with me. I am a bhadda jiva. But with Sri Guru, whose intelligence is liberated and not on the same level as ours. Though you think I am a fanatic it isn't the case. Only difference between us is that I am prepared to accept the answer to any inquiry I make from our guru parampara and you already think you know a better answer and want them to change to your point of view.

 

Listen. Everytime I read in SP's books or hear from SNM that the "sahajiya" for lack of a better word, or the babaji camp believe this or that, then you post something that simply confirms it. Your current article about Srila Jiva is proof yet again of what I already posted from SNM on this topic. When your article is fully up I'll post something from SBSST that indicates he is fully aware of the so called controversey you point out, but he doesn't think it is really a point of contention either.

 

As far as Krsna marrying the gopis, I have been told by our guru varga that the year that the cowherd boys disapperaead in the cave, put there by lord Brahma, while Krsna had taken all their places was the year the gopis were married to the gopas. So in that sense, since Krsna is their only real consort they are married to him. But the deeper aspects of parakiya and svakiya are discussed elsewhere in SBSST's Brama-samhita purports and the books of Srila Rupa Gosvami.

 

I see consitancy in the position of our acaryas on these issues, and it only confirms to me they are in line with each other. And you don't appreciate them but would rather research it yourself and come to your own empiric conclusions.

 

Interestingly enough in your last posted paragraph from your article (Which I am reading carefuly) you say:

 

"In the discussion that follows, an attempt is made to delineate not only

the salient conclusions of the KrishnaS that form the backbone of GC (many of which are

explicitly stated in GC itself), but also those found in the works of Rupa Goswami and

Jiva's commentaries upon them. Indeed the latter discussion is perhaps of greater

importance, for it is in these works that Jiva has defended his vision of Krishna on the basis of Rupa's conceptions and identified his views with those of his spiritual master."

 

which appears to agree with Srila Naryan Maharaj's ascertions that:

 

. . . They say that in his explanations of Srimad Bhagavatam and Brahma-samhita, in his own books like Gopala Campu, and especially in his Sri Ujjvala-nilamani tika, he has written against parakiya-bhava. This is their greatest blunder.

 

We don’t accept their statements at all.

 

Srila Jiva Gosvami was rupanuga, a pure follower of Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sri

Rupa Manjari. However, for some devotees who were not very qualified at that time, who were beginners, and who did not know what is parakiya-bhava -- and even in Vraja there are so many like this -- he seemed to favor svakiya-bhava. For some followers, so that they would be able to come at least to vidhi-marga (worship according to the rules and regulations of Narada-pancaratra), Jiva

Gosvami wrote as if he was a supporter of

svakiya-rasa. He wanted that through

this they should become qualified, and then they should come to the mood of parakiya. For qualified persons he has written that parakiya-bhava is in Vraja and svakiya-bhava is in Dvaraka. He has vividly written

this, and he also accepted this. He can never be against the teachings of Srila Rupa Gosvami, Srila Sanatana Gosvami and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He can never be

so. He was a follower of the same root idea of parakiya-bhava as Rupa Gosvami. For some unqualified persons he has written in that other way, but the babajis of Vraja cannot reconcile this. They are ignorant persons.

They became opposed to Srila Jiva Gosvami and

took the side of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti

Thakura, even though in fact there isno dispute between Jiva Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura!

.

Whatever Jiva Gosvami wrote for the benefit of those unqualified followers is in

the line of tattva-siddhanta, established

philosophical truths. He wrote that, by

tattva, the gopis are krsna-svakiya.

 

ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis

tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih

goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhuto

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

(Brahma Samhita)

 

["I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, who resembles His own spiritual figure

and who embodies the ecstatic potency (Hladini). Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of Her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated withever-blissful spiritual rasa."]

 

Nija-rupataya kalabhih. The gopis are Krsna's power. They cannot be parakiya in the eyes of tattva-siddhanta. They are the same as Krsna. They are the power of Krsna. They are also not the wives of any gopas, cowherd men, of Vrndavana.

They are all beloved of Krsna, and they are not different from Him. Thus, bytattva, they are svakiya. (Sva means 'own' and kiya

means sampatti, wealth.)This means they are of Krsna, Krsna’s own, and they are His power. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has written in the line ofrasa-siddhanta or rasa-tattva. In rasa-tattva Yogamaya has arranged that both the gopis and Krsna think that the gopis are married to other gopas, and therefore they have a paramour

relationship. If it were not like this, there would be no rasa at all. (Para means

'greatest', one's own greatest wealth, and it also means 'another', another's wealth. Therefore the meaning in both tattva-siddhanta and rasa-siddhanta is

armoniously reconciled.)

 

Srila Rupa Gosvami has explained all these things, especially in Ujjvala Nilamani, and also in his other books. The gopis are Krsna’s own, His power, but for rasa it is

said that they are parakiya.What is parakiya? There are two principles: atma-rasa and para-rasa, or eka-rasa and aneka-rasa. Krsna is eka-rasa or atma rasa. He is one rasa. In other words He is the complete embodiment of rasa. He is atmarama and aptakama. He is always full and satisfied in Himself. He doesn’t need anything from anyone in order to be happy. The gopis are His own power.

Sakti-saktimatayor-abheda. Sakti, the energy, and saktiman, the possessor of that energy

or power, are both one. They are identical. However, although Krsna has this quality, He is also para-rasa.

Para-rasa means that the gopis are vaishisteya; that is, they also have a

speciality that distinguishes them from Krsna. Although they are part of Krsna,

although they are one with Him, their speciality is that they serve Him in the

mood of rasa. Krsna is the enjoyer and they are the container or reservoir of love

and affection. Krsna also wants to taste their mood.Aneka-rasa or para-rasa is the gopis' rasa, and Krsna wants to taste that rasa in various ways. That rasa is in the form of parakiya rasa, and this is the meaning of parakiya rasa -- nothing else. These are a very high-class of philosophical understandings, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has explained all these truths.

 

Therefore, Jiva Gosvami is not of a different

opinion than Rupa Gosvami. They have the very same opinion. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has proven that Jiva Gosvami was in parakiya-bhava, and that he accepted Srimad Bhagavatam and Ujjvala-nilamani. [in his own Ujjvala-nilamani tika, Srila Jiva Gosvami has written,"Svecchaya likitam kincit, atra kincid parecchaya. I have written some things by my own desire and some things by the desire of others. The portions which are

consistent, in which svakiya and parakiya are

reconciled and in the line of Rupa Gosvami, is my desire, and the portions that are not

reconciled are written by the desire of others."

Srila Narayan Maharaj

 

So , now I'm mildly interested in what conclusion your article will come to and if you agree or disagree with my siska guru concerning Srila Jiva Gosvami's ultimate position on rasa, since you seem to be pointing to his other writing and not only Gopala campu.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Ananga 0]

Very fascinating, Jagat. The bantering w/Puru Das is entertaining as well. This has instantly become one of my favorite threads here.

 

I remember a thread on VNN that had started up awhile back about the svakiya v.s. parakiya question, but nobody at that time had seriously pursued the issue.

 

I find a striking parallel in this five hundred year old debate in the sexual mores of both Western and Eastern societies. Since I am more familiar w/the European & American side of things, I’ll stick to our hemisphere. On the one hand you have the religious right, who had their heyday in the Victorian period, and their position that the act of coitus is inherently tainted by sin and must be restricted as far as practicable. On the other hand you have the more liberal position that sexual behavior is entirely natural and that it is only when there is an imbalance somewhere that it degenerates into aberrant forms.

 

The institution of marriage has obviously functioned as a sort of safety valve to urge people to be monogamous via peer pressure. However, for all practical purposes, it has not been all that effective in achieving that purpose. A high percentage of people sneak around nonetheless and have various illicit affairs, irregardless of their level of religiosity.

 

In a perfect world, the ideal of monogamy might stand a chance, but then there is the reality: We do not live in a perfect world. There are dysfunctional families and incestuous relationships and patterns of abuse that propagate from one generation to the next. There are rapists and fetishists and all varieties of deviant persons running amok, and that has been true throughout recorded history.

 

So, where does that leave us?

 

My apologies for this little segue, but the old neurons started to fire and my compulsion to write overwhelmed me.

 

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Ananga,

Mundane sexuality is about as far from this discussion as we are from the sun planet.

 

"The pastimes of the Lord are generally heard and relished by liberated souls. Those who are conditioned souls are interested in reading fictional stories of the material activities of some common man. Narrations describing the transcendental activities of the Lord are found in Srimad-Bhagavatam and other Puranas. But, the conditioned souls still prefer to study ordinary narrations. They are not so interested in studying the narrations of the pastimes of the Lord, Krsna. And yet, the descriptions of the pastimes of Lord Krsna are so attractive that they are relishable for all classes of men. There are three classes of men in this world. One class consists of liberated souls, another consists of those who are trying to be liberated, and the third consists of materialistic men. Whether one is liberated or is trying to be liberated, or is even grossly materialistic, the pastimes of Lord Krsna are worth studying.

Liberated souls have no interest in materialistic activities. The impersonalist theory that after liberation one becomes inactive and needs hear nothing does not prove that a liberated person is actually inactive. A living soul cannot be inactive. He is either active in the conditioned state or in the liberated state. A diseased person, for example, is also active, but his activities are all painful. The same person, when freed from the diseased condition, is still active, but in the healthy condition the activities are full of pleasure. Similarly, the impersonalists manage to get freed from the diseased conditional activities, but they have no information of activities in the healthy condition. Those who are actually liberated and in full knowledge take to hearing the activities of Krsna; such engagement is pure spiritual activity.

It is essential for persons who are actually liberated to hear about the pastimes of Krsna. That is the supreme relishable subject matter for one in the liberated state. Also, if persons who are trying to be liberated hear such narrations as Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, then their path of liberation becomes very clear. Bhagavad-gita is the preliminary study of Srimad-Bhagavatam. By studying the Gita, one becomes fully conscious of the position of Lord Krsna; and when he is situated at the lotus feet of Krsna, he understands the narrations of Krsna as described in Srimad-Bhagavatam. Lord Caitanya has therefore advised His followers that their business is to propagate krsna-katha.

Krsna-katha means narrations about Krsna. There are two krsna-kathas: narrations spoken by Krsna and narrations spoken about Krsna. Bhagavad-gita is the narration or the philosophy or the science of God, spoken by Krsna Himself. Srimad-Bhagavatam is the narration about the activities and transcendental pastimes of Krsna. Both are krsna-katha. It is the order of Lord Caitanya that krsna-katha should be spread all over the world, because if the conditioned souls, suffering under the pangs of material existence, take to krsna-katha, then their path of liberation will be open and clear. The purpose of presenting this book is primarily to induce people to understand Krsna or krsna-katha, because thereby they can become freed from material bondage.

 

This krsna-katha will also be very much appealing to the most materialistic persons because Krsna's pastimes with the gopis (cowherd girls) are exactly like the loving affairs between young girls and boys within this material world. Actually, the sex feeling found in human society is not unnatural because this same sex feeling is there in the original Personality of Godhead. The pleasure potency is called Srimati Radharani. The attraction of loving affairs on the basis of sex feeling is the original feature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we, the conditioned souls, being part and parcel of the Supreme, have such feelings also, but they are experienced within a perverted, minute condition. Therefore, when those who are after sex life in this material world hear about Krsna's pastimes with the gopis, they will relish transcendental pleasure, although it appears to be materialistic. The advantage will be that they will gradually be elevated to the spiritual platform. In the Bhagavatam it is stated that if one hears the pastimes of Lord Krsna with the gopis, from authorities with submission, then he will be promoted to the platform of transcendental loving service to the Lord, and the material disease of lust within his heart will be completely vanquished. In other words, it will counteract the material sex life

Krsna will be thus appealing to the liberated souls and to persons who are trying to be liberated, as well as to the gross, conditioned materialist. According to the statement of Maharaja Pariksit, who heard about Krsna from Sukadeva Gosvami, krsna-katha is equally applicable to every human being, in whatever condition of life he is in. Everyone will appreciate it to the highest magnitude

. . . Thus everyone, in any condition of life, should be interested in hearing about Krsna and His activities because He is the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead. He is all-pervading; He is living within everyone's heart, and He is living as His universal form. And yet, as described in the Bhagavad-gita, He appears as He is in human society just to invite everyone to His transcendental abode, back home, back to Godhead. Everyone should be interested in knowing about Krsna."

HDGACBSP

Krsna Book

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Impurity. unwholesomeness, foreign elements, illusion, nescience, unholiness, utter inadequacy. insignificance, grossness--these appertain to the eye, intellect, mind and ego stultified by the material nature of conditioned souls; they have nothing to do with the essential nature of transcendence. The more one is free from these blots the more is one capable of realizing the unqualified Absolute. The truth who has been revealed by the scriptures, is free from dross. But the realizations of the seekers of the knowledge of these realities, are with or without flaw in accordance with the degree of their individual realization

 

. . . . The more the eye of devotion is tinged with the salve of love, the more will the transcendental concept gradually manifest itself. So there is no need of further hypothetical speculation which does not improve one's spiritual appreciation, as the substantive knowledge of Goloka is an inconceivable entity. To try to pursue the inconceivable by the conceptual process is like pounding the empty husk of grain, which is sure to have a fruitless ending. It is, therefore, one's bounden duty. by refraining from the endeavor to know, to try to gain the experience of the transcendental by the practice of pure devotion.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

Sri Brahma-samhita

purport verse 37

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Gauracandra 1]

Here is a simple question: What do we mean by "in the end"? Aren't Radha & Krsna's loving pastimes going on eternally, or do they start at one point, and end at another. Would this suggest that Radha & Krsna no longer have the loving affairs they once did? Or are you suggesting simply a multitude of levels of pastimes, one of which is the marriage of Radha and Krsna?

 

Gauracandra

[leyh 0]

I don't get it.How can whether Krishna and the gopis got married be a controversy?Is it really that important? I'm sure Krishna,the gopis and all the other friends and associates of Krishna are having a jolly good time now in the forests of Vraja.Marriage?Controversy?I think these concepts are probably the last things on their minds now as they run and frolick in the many forests of Vraja!

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Puru Das Adhikari 0]

Gaurancandra prabhu,

Your question is a simple one, but the answer is complicated. There are manifest and unmanifest pastimes. SBSST has written about the apparant differences between the manifest lilas (those that appear in this world, refered to as gokula pastimes, once every day of Brahma) and those that are eternally manifest in the eternal realm goloka. Of course Krsna's lila even in the material world is considered eternal, because the different pastimes are always manifesting somewhere. But particular aspects of his life like His birth, maturation and departure from braja for his Mathura, then Dwaraka and Kurukshetra lilas appear to have a chronology for our benefit, since we are only capable of relating to relative time in terms of beginning, middle and end. Krsna also manifests a pastime of departure as well, when he is shot by the arrow of the hunter with that last piece of the stone cursed by Durvas muni , to annihilate the Yadu dynasty. In the spiritual world the concept is there of the "eternal present." How is it possible for us to understand this conception from our conditioned way of thinking? Therefore if you read this purport (only one segment of it is reproduced here) by SBSST to sloka 37 of the Sri Brahma-samhita you may get some idea of the answer to your question. SBSST requires concentration and care to be understood. Take your time and consider his points about manifest and unmanifest lilas. Krsna and his pastimes are not a simple linear equation that we can understand from our conditioned perspective. SBSST also explains that as well in his purport.

 

TEXT 37

 

TEXT

 

ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis

tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih

goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhuto

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

SYNONYMS

 

ananda--bliss; cit--and knowledge; maya--consisting of; rasa--mellows; prati--every second; bhavitabhih--who are engrossed with; tabhih--with those; yah--who; eva--certainly; nija-rupataya--with His own form; kalabhih--who are parts of portions of His pleasure potency; goloke--in Goloka Vrndavana; eva--certainly; nivasati--resides; akhila-atma--as the soul of all; bhutah--who exists; govindam--Govinda; adi-purusam--the original personality; tam--Him; aham--I; bhajami--worship.

 

TRANSLATION

 

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, residing in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, resembling His own spiritual figure, the embodiment of the ecstatic potency possessed of the sixty-four artistic activities, in the company of Her confidantes [sakhis], embodiments of the extensions of Her bodily form, permeated and vitalized by His ever-blissful spiritual rasa.

 

PURPORT

 

 

. . . From the conclusions just stated it is clear that there is no distinction between the visible and nonvisible pastimes. The apostle Jiva Gosvami in his commentary on this sloka as well as in the gloss of Ujjvala-nilamani and in Krsna-sandarbha remarks that "the visible pastimes of Krsna are the creation of His cit (spiritual) potency. Being in conjunction with the reference to mundane function they exhibit certain features which seem to be true by the influence of the limiting potency (Maya); but these cannot exist in the transcendental reality. The destruction of demons, illicit paramourship, birth, etc., are examples of this peculiarity. The gopis are the extensions of the ecstatic energy of Krsna, and so are exceptionally His own. How can there be illicit connection in their case? The illicit mistress-ship of the gopis found in His visible pastime, is but the mundane reflection of the transcendental reality." The hidden meaning underlying the words of Sri Jiva Gosvami, when it is made explicit, will leave no doubt in the minds of the readers. Sri Jiva Gosvami is our preacher of transcendental truth. So he is always under the influence of Sri Rupa and Sanatana. Moreover in the pastimes of Krsna Sri Jiva is one of the manjaris. So he is conversant with all transcendental realities.

There are some who, being unable to understand the drift of his statements, give meanings of their own invention and indulge in useless controversies. Sri Rupa and Sanatana say that there is no real and essential distinction between the lilas visible and nonvisible, the only distinction lies in this that one is manifest in the mundane sphere whereas the other is not so. In the supermundane manifestation there is absolute purity in the seer and the seen. A particularly fortunate person when he is favored by Krsna, can shake off worldly shackles and connections, enter the transcendental region after attaining the realized taste of the varieties of rasa that is available during the period of novitiate. Only such a person can have a view and taste of the perfect and absolutely pure lila of Goloka. Such receptive natures are rarely to be found. He, who exists in the mundane sphere, can also realize the taste of cid-rasa by the grace of Krsna by being enabled to attain the realized state of service. Such a person can have a view of the pastimes of Goloka manifested in the mundane lila of Gokula. There is certainly a difference between these two classes of eligible seekers of the truth. Until one attains the perfectly transcendental stage he must be hampered by his lingering limitations, in his vision of the pastimes of Goloka. Again, the vision of the transcendental reality varies according to the degree of self-realization. The vision of Goloka must also vary accordingly.

It is only those fettered souls who are excessively addicted to worldliness that are devoid of the devotional eye. Of them some are enmeshed by the variegatedness of the deluding energy while others aspire after self-annihilation under the influence of centrifugal knowledge. Though they might have a view of the mundanely manifested pastimes of the Supreme Lord, they can have only a material conception of those visible pastimes, this conception being devoid of transcendental reality. Hence the realization of Goloka appears in proportion to eligibility due to the degree of one's self-realization. The underlying principle is this, that, though Gokula is as holy and free from dross as Goloka, still it is manifested on the mundane plane by the influence of the cit potency. Yogamaya. In visible and nonvisible matters of transcendental regions there is no impurity. contamination and imperfection inherent in the world of limitation; only there is some difference in the matter of realization in proportion to the self-realization of the seekers after the Absolute. Impurity. unwholesomeness, foreign elements, illusion, nescience, unholiness, utter inadequacy. insignificance, grossness--these appertain to the eye, intellect, mind and ego stultified by the material nature of conditioned souls; they have nothing to do with the essential nature of transcendence. The more one is free from these blots the more is one capable of realizing the unqualified Absolute. The truth who has been revealed by the scriptures, is free from dross. But the realizations of the seekers of the knowledge of these realities, are with or without flaw in accordance with the degree of their individual realization.

Those sixty-four arts that have been enumerated above, do in reality exist unstintedly only in Goloka. Unwholesomeness, insignificance, grossness are found in those arts in accordance with the degree of self-realization on the part of aspirants after the knowledge of the Absolute. According to Srila Rupa and Srila Sanatana all those pastimes, that have been visible in Gokula, exist in all purity and free from all tinge of limitation in Goloka. So transcendental autocratic paramourship also exists in Goloka in inconceivable purity, judged by the same standard and reasoning. All manifestation by the cit potency. Yogamaya, are pure. So, as the above paramourship is the creation of Yogamaya, it is necessarily free from all contamination, and appertains to the absolute reality.

Let us pause to consider what the absolute reality is in Himself. Sri Rupa Gosvami says, purvokta-... saratah. In regard to these slokas Sripada Jiva Gosvami after mature deliberation has established the transcendental paramourship as vibhrama-vilasa, something seemingly different from what it appears to be; such are the pastimes of birth, etc., accomplished by Yogamaya.

By the explanation tathapi... vraja-vanitanam, Srila Jiva Gosvami has expressed his profound implication. Joyous pastimes by the medium of seeming error, vibhrama-vilasa, as the contrivance of Yogamaya, has also been admitted in the concluding statements of Rupa and Sanatana. Still, since Sripada Jiva Gosvami has established the identity of Goloka with Gokula, it must be admitted that there is transcendental reality underlying all the pastimes of Gokula. A husband is one who binds oneself in wedlock with a girl, while a paramour is one who, in order to win another's wife's love by means of love, crosses the conventions of morality. by the impulse of the sentiment that regards her love as the be-all and end-all of existence. In Goloka there is no such function at all as that of the nuptial relationship. Hence there is no husbandhood characterized by such connection. On the other hand since the gopis, who are self-supported real entities are not tied to anybody else in wedlock, they cannot also have the state of concubinage. There can also be no separate entities in the forms of svakiya (conjugal) and parakiya (adulterous) states. In the visible pastimes on the mundane plane the function in the form of the nuptial relationship is found to exist. Krsna is beyond the scope of that function. Hence the said function of the circle of all-love is contrived by Yogamaya. Krsna tastes the transcendental rasa akin to paramourship by overstepping that function. This pastime of going beyond the pale of the apparent moral function manifested by Yogamaya, is, however, also observable only on the mundane plane by the eye that is enwrapped by the mundane covering; but there is really no such levity in the pastimes of Krsna. The rasa of paramourship is certainly the extracted essence of all the rasas. If it be said that it does not exist in Goloka, it would be highly deprecatory to Goloka. It is not the fact that there is no supremely wholesome tasting of rasa in the supremely excellent realm of Goloka. Krsna, the fountainhead of all avataras. tastes the same in a distinct form in Goloka and in another distinct form in Gokula. Therefore, in spite of the seeming appearance, to the mundane eye, of outstepping the bounds of the legitimate function by the form of paramourship, there must be present the truth of it in some form even in Goloka. Atmaramo 'py ariramat, atmany avaruddha-sauratah, reme vraja-sundaribhir yatharbhakah pratibimba-vibhramah and other texts of the scriptures go to show that self-delightedness is the essential distinctive quality of Krsna Himself. Krsna in His majestic cit realm causes the manifestation of His own cit potency as Laksmi and enjoys her as His own wedded consort. As this feeling of wedded consorthood preponderates there, rasa expands in a wholesome form only up to the state of servanthood (dasya-rasa). But in Goloka He divides up His cit potency into thousands of gopis and eternally engages in amorous pastimes with them by forgetting the sentiments of ownership. By the sentiments of ownership there cannot be the extreme inaccessibility of the rasa. So the gopis have naturally. from eternity. the innate sentiment of being others' wedded wives. Krsna too in response to that sentiment, by assuming the reciprocal sentiment of paramourship, performs the rasa and the other amorous pastimes with the aid of the flute, His favorite cher ami. Goloka is the transcendental seat of eternally self-realized rasa, beyond limited conception. Hence in Goloka there is realization of the sentimental assumption of the rasa of paramourship.

Again such is the nature of the principle of the majesty that in the realm of Vaikuntha there is no rasa of parental affection towards the source of all avataras. But in Goloka, the seat of all superexcellent deliciousness, there is no more than the original sentimental egoistic assumption of the same rasa. There Nanda and Yasoda are visibly present, but there is no occurrence of birth. For want of the occurrence of birth the assumed egoistic sentiment of parental affection of Nanda and Yasoda has no foundation in the actual existence of such entities as father and mother, but it is of the nature of sentimental assumption on their parts, cf. jayati jana-nivaso devaki-janma-vadah, etc. For the purpose of the realization of the rasa the assumed egoistic sentiment is, however, eternal. In the rasa of amorous love if the corresponding egoistic sentiments of concubinage and paramourship be mere eternal assumptions there is nothing to blame in them and it also does not go against the scriptures. When those transcendental entities of Goloka becomes manifest in Vraja then those two egoistic sentiments become somewhat more palpable to the mundane view in the phenomenal world and there comes to be this much difference only. In the rasa of parental affection the sentiments of Nanda and Yasoda that they are parents becomes manifest in the more tangible form in the pastimes of birth etc., and in the amorous rasa the corresponding sentiments of concubinage in the respective gopis become manifest in the forms of their marriages with Abhimanyu, Govardhana, etc. In reality there is no such separate entity as husbandhood of the gopis either in Goloka or in Gokula. Hence the sastras declare that there is no sexual union of the gopis with their husbands. It is also for the same reason that the authorized teacher of the principle of rasa, Sri Rupa, writes that in the transcendental amorous rasa the hero is of two different types, viz., the wedded husband and the paramour--patis copapatis ceti prabhedav iha visrutav iti. Sri Jiva, in his commentary by his words patih pura-vanitanam dvitiyo vraja-vanitanam, acknowledges the eternal paramourship of Krsna in Goloka and Gokula and the husbandhood of Krsna in Vaikuntha and Dvaraka etc. In the Lord of Goloka and the Lord of Gokula the character of paramourship is found in its complete form. Krsna's deliberate overstepping of His own quality of self-delightedness is caused by the desire of union with another's wedded wife. The state of being another's wedded wife is nothing but the corresponding assumed sentiment on the part of the gopis. In reality they have no husbands with independent and separate existence; still their very egoistic sentiment makes them have the nature of the wedded wives of others. So all the characteristics, viz., that "desire makes the paramour overstep the bounds of duty." etc., are eternally present in the seat of all "deliciousness." In Vraja that very thing reveals itself, to an extent, in a form more tangible to persons with mundane eyes.

So in Goloka there is inconceivable distinction and nondistinction between the rasas analogous to mundane concubineship and wifehood. It may be said with equal truth that there is no distinction in Goloka between the two as also that there is such distinction. The essence of paramourship is the cessation of ownership and the abeyance of ownership is the enjoyment of His own cit potency in the shape of abeyance of paramourship or enjoyment without the sanction of wedlock. The conjunction of the two exists there as one rasa accommodating both varieties. In Gokula it is really the same with the difference that it produces a different impression on observers belonging to the mundane plane. In Govinda, the hero of Goloka, there exist both husbandhood and paramourship above all piety and impiety and free from all grossness. Such is also the case with the hero of Gokula although there is a distinction in realization caused by Yogamaya. If it be urged that what is manifested by Yogamaya is the highest truth being the creation of the cit potency and that, therefore, the impression of paramourship is also really true, the reply is that there may exist an impression of analogous sentimental egoism in the tasting of rasa free from any offense because it is not without a basis in truth. But the unwholesome impression that is produced in the mundane judgment is offensive and as such cannot exist in the pure cit realm. In fact Sripada Jiva Gosvami has come to the true conclusion, and at the same time the finding of the opposing party is also inconceivably true. It is the vain empirical wranglings about wedded wifehood and concubinage which is false and full of specious verbosity. He who goes through the commentaries of Sripada Jiva Gosvami and those of the opposing party with an impartial judgment cannot maintain his attitude of protest engendered by any real doubt. What the unalloyed devotee of the Supreme Lord says is all true and is independent of any consideration of unwholesome pros and cons. There is, however, the element of mystery in their verbal controversies. Those, whose judgment is made of mundane stuff, being unable to enter into the spirit of the all-loving controversies among pure devotees, due to their own want of unalloyed devotion, are apt to impute to the devotees their own defects of partisanship and opposing views. Commenting on the sloka of Rasa-pancadhyayi, gopinam tat-patinam ca, etc., what Sripada Sanatana Gosvami has stated conclusively in his Vaisnava-tosani has been accepted with reverence by the true devotee Sripada Visvanatha Cakravarti without any protest.

Whenever any dispute arises regarding the pure cognitive pastimes, such as Goloka, etc., we would do well to remember the precious advice from the holy lips of Sriman Mahaprabhu and His associates, the Gosvamis, viz., that the Truth Absolute is ever characterized by spiritual variegatedness that transcends the variegatedness of mundane phenomena; but He is never featureless. The divine rasa is lovely with the variegatedness of the fourfold distinction of vibhava, anubhava, sattvika and vyabhicari and the rasa is ever present in Goloka and Vaikuntha. The rasa of Goloka manifests as vraja-rasa on the mundane plane for the benefit of the devotees by the power of Yogamaya. Whatever is observable in gokula-rasa should be visible in goloka-rasa, in a clearly explicit form. Hence the distinction of paramourship and concubinage, the variegatedness of the respective rasas of all different persons, the soil, water, river, hill, portico, bower, cows, etc., all the features of Gokula exist in Goloka, disposed in an appropriate manner. There is only this peculiarity that the mundane conceptions of human beings possessed of material judgment, regarding those transcendental entities, do not exist there. The conception of Goloka manifests itself differently in proportion to the degree of realization of the various pastimes of Vraja and it is very difficult to lay down any definite criterion as to which portions are mundane and which are uncontaminated. The more the eye of devotion is tinged with the salve of love, the more will the transcendental concept gradually manifest itself. So there is no need of further hypothetical speculation which does not improve one's spiritual appreciation, as the substantive knowledge of Goloka is an inconceivable entity. To try to pursue the inconceivable by the conceptual process is like pounding the empty husk of grain, which is sure to have a fruitless ending. It is, therefore, one's bounden duty. by refraining from the endeavor to know, to try to gain the experience of the transcendental by the practice of pure devotion. Any course, the adoption of which tends to produce the impression of featurelessness, must be shunned by all means. Unalloyed parakiya-rasa free from all mundane conception is a most rare attainment. It is this which has been described in the narrative of the pastimes of Gokula. Those devotees, who follow the dictate of their pure spontaneous love, should base their devotional endeavors on that narrative. They will attain to the more wholesome fundamental principle on reaching the stage of realization. The devotional activities characterized by illicit amour, as practiced by worldly-minded conditioned souls, are forbidden mundane impiety. The heart of our apostle Sripada Jiva Gosvami was very much moved by such practices and induced him to give us his conclusive statements on the subject. It is the duty of a pure Vaisnava to accept the real spirit of his statements. It is a great offense to disrespect the acarya and to seek to establish a different doctrine in opposition to him.

SBSST

 

Highlighted sections also refer to SBSST's observations concerning Srila Jiva Gosvami and the other discussion going on between myself and jagat concerning his view of rasa.

One other point is that Krsna never leaves braja, but is always engaging eternaly in pstimes with Sri Radha. Our acaryas have explained that the Krsna who kills the demons, enters Mathura and kills kamsa, manifests lila in Dwarka and elsewhere are expansions of the Supreme Lord. This is also not a linear equation as Krsna is non different from his expansions, yet some distinction is still there. Information about this is available in sections of the Sri Cc. or Teachings of Lord Caitanya if you are interested.

 

In this regard my spiritual master has written:

 

When the Lord descends, the incarnation emanates from Visnu. Maha-Visnu is the original cause of material creation, and from Him Garbhodakasayi Visnu expands, and then Ksirodakasayi Visnu. Generally, all the incarnations appearing within this material universe are plenary expansions from Ksirodakasayi Visnu. Therefore, the business of minimizing the overload of sinful activities on this earth does not belong to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna Himself. But when Krsna appears, all the Visnu expansions also join with Him. Krsna's different expansions, namely Narayana, the quadruple expansion of Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, as well as the partial plenary expansion of Matsya or the incarnation of a fish, and the yuga-avataras (incarnations for the millennium), and the manvantara-avataras, the incarnations of Manus--all combine together and appear with the body of Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Krsna is the complete whole, and all plenary expansions and incarnations always live with Him.

When Krsna appeared, Lord Visnu was also with Him. Krsna actually appears to demonstrate His Vrndavana pastimes and to attract the fortunate conditioned souls and invite them back home, back to Godhead. The killing of the demons was simultaneous to His Vrndavana activities and was carried out by the Visnu portion of Krsna.

HDGACBSP

Krnsa Book

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

Rather than bothering to counter Puru Das usual arguments, I ask that people take what I say at face value.

 

Most of you are familiar with Puru's position, and I dare say you are equally familiar with mine. Some of you sympathize with Puru and detest me personally and everything I stand for. Others amongst you find my position persuasive and Puru remarkably closed-minded -- an accusation that he will no doubt take pride in.

 

There is no point in me trying to convince Puru of anything, as I could say the sky is blue and he would accuse me of having some wicked motives and blame my intellectual's ego for my perceptual distortions.

 

I ask you to decide whether I am, as he would have it, the Devil's shepherd looking to mislead the innocent sheep who frequent these dangerous pastures, or an individual who is simply acting according to his nature and sharing his own discoveries with brothers and sisters who have trod the same paths as I.

 

I repeat: I seek to convince you of nothing other than the foolhardiness of closing your mind. Puru will try to convince you that your minds must remain closed. He will not ask you to look at the evidence, but to close your eyes to it. I would not want to be tried in a court where Puru Prabhu is judge, for he would point to his cause and say that it is greater than truth. Need I say what a great danger this mentality is to humanity itself? Haven't we learned anything from history?

 

Peter Valaya pointed out a passage to me from Tattva-sUtra on the weekend. I referred to it above. I don't have Bhakti Kamal Padmanabha Maharaj's Chetla Gaudiya Math translation, but I do have the original Bengali with me. So, Peter, if you want to post that translation, I would be much beholden to you.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur says:

 

<font color=#9F5F9F>"Knowledge is like the sun, while all scriptures are only its rays. No single scripture could possibly contain all knowledge. The personal realizations (svataH siddha-jnAna) of the jivas are the basis of all scripture. These realizations should be recognized as the gifts of God Himself. The perceptive Rishis obtained this self-evident knowledge directly from the Supreme Brahman and wrote it down for the benefit of other jivas. A fractional portion of this knowledge is took form as the Veda." (page 150)

 

"A conditioned soul is advised to study the Veda with the help fo all these explanations. But even with the help of these explanations, he should still examine them in the light of his own self-evident knowledge (or personal realizations), because the authors of these explanatory literatures and commentaries are not always clear in their meaning. In some cases, commentators have confessed to having doubts about their own understanding. Therefore the Kathopanishad says:

 

<center>avidyAyAm antare vartamAnAH

svayaM dhIrAH paNDitaM manyamAnAH |

dandramyamAnAH pariyanti mUDhAH

andhenaiva nIyamAnA yathAndhAH ||</center>

 

<blockquote>Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind. (Katha Up. 2.5)</blockquote>

 

Therefore, it is necessary to cultivate knowledge in the light of one's own personal realizations. This is the rule governing scriptural study. Since knowledge born of personal realization is the root of all the scriptures, how can we expect to gain benefit by ignoring it and depending exclusively on the scriptures, which are the branches growing out of it?" (pp. 151-152)</font>

 

You will no doubt see how this liberal statement meets with my approval.

 

Well, I think we have had enough of a preamble. So now let us leave aside our preconvictions and examine the matter at hand. The question:

 

<ul>[*]Was Jiva Goswami a closet parakiya-vadi?

[Jagat 1]

<h2>Does Krishna marry the gopis in the end?</h2>

 

<h3>The svakiya-parakiya controversy according to Jiva Goswami</h3>

 

Introduction

 

One of the more controversial points of doctrine in the Gaudiya Vaishnava school is the svakiya-vada which states in essence that Krishna and the gopis, especially Radha, are eternally married and that the marital relation forms the truest expression of their transcendental love. Though he has based much of his argument on the work of his predecessor Rupa Goswami, Jiva Goswami is generally taken to be the founder of the doctrine. In the century following Jiva's death, the primary thrust of Gaudiya Vaishnava theological writing was to promote the opposing parakiya position, which holds that Radha and Krishna's loves find their ultimate expression in the unmarried state. Though the debate has flurried up from time to time in the subsequent three hundred years, it may safely be said that the parakiya﷓vada currently holds the upper hand among the followers of the school.

 

The purpose of this article is not to trace the history of the debate in anything more than a perfunctory way, nor is it to seek out its sociological or psychological aetiology, interesting and relatively unexplored an area of investigation as that may be. In other words, we shall not try to ascribe any symbolic value to this debate. Our main concern here is purely phenomenological: we want to know in as much detail as possible what exactly Rupa and Jiva Goswamis had to say on the subject and thus as far as possible

shall thus limit ourselves to their terms of debate.(1)

 

Rupa's presentation of this particular doctrinal point may be considered somewhat unsystematic and therefore ambiguous. Nevertheless, he is looked to by supporters of both sides in the debate as the ultimate authority for their positions. We shall try to look at Rupa’s statements through Jiva's interpretations of them. These are to be found in his theological works, including commentaries on Rupa's Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (Durgama-sangamani) and Ujjvala-nilamani (Locana-rocani) and, most importantly, Sri-Krishna-sandarbha.

 

Jiva not only took a theological stand in these works in favour of the svakiya position, but made a point of rewriting the myth of Krishna's life in accordance with this vision in his magnum opus, Gopala-campu (finished AD 1592), where his ideas find their most elaborate expression in a work that combines both literary and commentatorial forms.

 

For Jiva, the loves of Radha and Krishna represent the summum bonum of spiritual truth. Krishna is the supreme deity; his form is not something that is accepted by him temporarily but is identical with his self. Krishna, the supreme spiritual being, exists in a spiritual form that is his human﷓like body. Radha is the supreme expression of all of God's energies, which include everything other than himself. Since God's energies, or creation, are meant to give him pleasure, Radha, the supreme energy (sakti) brings him the purest and most intense pleasure. She is therefore called Krishna's hladini shakti.

 

None of these points are contested by any of Jiva’s theological opponents; the real point of contention lies in what constitutes the purest and most intense pleasure. For Jiva, the giving of pleasure requires union; for his opponents, the intricacies involved in the adulterous relation are considered to be a greater source of joy.

 

In Gopala-campu, Jiva describes the return of Krishna to Vraja after his long absence in Dvaraka. Once back home, he marries the gopis whose previous marriages to other cowherds are revealed by the goddess Maya herself to have been illusory. Soon after the marriage, Krishna and all the residents of the cowherd community ascend into his heaven of Goloka, where he and the gopis remain united in eternal marriage. By giving an explicit and graphic description of what had theretofore been presented as mere theory, Jiva was considered to have interfered with the sacrosanct presentation of Krishna's biography found in Bhagavata Purana, the pramanam amalam, or flawless source of knowledge, and this excited an intense reaction.

 

Since the raison-d'être for Krishna's return to Vraja was his marriage with the gopis, our effort to understand Jiva's svakiya-vada necessitates an exploration of his extensive explanations for such a return. Both the arguments for the return and the marriage have, according to Jiva, a basis in scriptural, i.e., puranic, sources as well as in the aesthetico-theological ideas of Rupa Goswami.

 

<hr>(1) A good discussion of the subject can be found in Edward Dimock's The Place of the Hidden Moon: Erotic Mysticism of the Vaishnava Sahajiya cult (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974).

 

 

[Guest guest]

Here is the answer given by the translator of Sri Ananta dasji's books on Sri B V Narayana Mj's letter published in this thread by Purudas:

 

"Dear Satyaraja, thank you for the text. It seems that by banning my translation work Narayana Maharaja tries to cover up from his disciples the fact that he is stealing the purports to Vilap Kusumanjali by Ananda Gopal Gosvami and Ananta das Babaji, which they had issued in 1954 and 1985 respectively, and which he has openly quoted in meetings with the Iskcon GBC in 1992, pulling the book of Ananta das Babaji out of his own book shelf and showing all the GBCs that he was reading this book by this 'sahajiya'. Advaitadas"

 

[Guest guest]

 

For certain Sri Jiva was more versed in sruti than Sri Rupa. If one is versed in sruti texts he would never accept that completely independence of a sakti given by parakiya-vada thesis. Svakiya-vada transforms a sakti into something like a jiva, just like the concept of Laksmi, Sita, and so on, and this is more palatable to Vaisnavas who are Vedantists. Therefore all of Jiva's smrtis are in the line of svakiya.

 

Actually all Vedantins would find a great difficulty to accept that Hari's soul (Radha) is something different than Hari Himself. This seems to deny sruti's assertive that there is not a second Hari. We cannot find

any evidence in sruti mantras that Hari's saktis may have an independent will, or any independent activities, or that they are apart form Hari at any circumstance. This position is only supported by some smrtis on

smrtis, that cannot be taken as serious. Parakiya-vada is an exalted state of this delirium of inferences on inferences out of the scope of sruti.

 

While commenting the sruti mantra that states that the sun is Hari's sakti, Sri Baladeva made a clear inference that other saktis may also exist. But not even Baladeva could any further than this in the saktis' theology, as Vedanta's IV pada, adhikarana VII clear states that Brahman is both the operative and the material cause, refuting any other theory. Even some smrti's thesis that jiva and jagat are two different saktis are not supported by sruti, as it is clearly stated in Vedanta that only Hari is the operative cause of all things and that no theological arguments should be employed to explain Hari's activities that are all beyond reasoning faculties.

 

Parakiya-vada is one of the most basic premises supported by some Gaudiya theologians, but they cannot argue that; "Oh, Sri Jiva was actually a parakiya-vadi in disguise!" merely to support their premises.

 

[Jagat 1]

<hr><font color=#2F4F2F>1. "In the end" = "at the end of the prakaTa-lIla." Read today's segment, that should make it clear.

 

2. I am not arguing for or against svakiya or parakiya. I am merely presenting Jiva Goswami's position. Those who say Jiva was a parakiya-vadi need to look at his whole argument. Unless you know Gopala Campu in its entirety, you will have difficulty explaining his position. It is a very big book, but perhaps I should just present the translation. It seems that someone, perhaps Dasarath Suta, has already done a translation. But anyway...

 

3. Why is it a controversy? Well I said I wasn't going to get into that. As with most such debates, it may very well stand for something else. So maybe all those people who say that it is a way of countering Sahajiyaism are right. On the other hand, there is not one scrap of evidence to support this contention.

 

I will get back to this a little bit at the end of the article. But be patient, it's pretty long, and I don't intend to go fast. See my remarks on the Bhagavad Gita thread.

</font><hr>

 

1.3 Presuppositions from KrishnaS: aisvarya and madhurya

 

In the first 105 paragraphs of KrishnaS, Jiva argues (on the basis of BhP i.3.28; KrishnaS 28) that the "historical" Krishna, generally considered to be an avatar of Narayan, is in fact svayaM bhagavAn, ergo, the fountainhead of the numerous different types of avatar: the lilavatar, purusavatar (which includes the vyuhas Sankarshan, Pradyumna and Aniruddha), gunavatar (i.e. Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu), manvantaravatar and yugavatars. This preliminary portion of KrishnaS has little or no relevance for the GC other than as a general theological a priori for the narration of the events of Krishna's life.

 

Krishna's divinity (his aisvarya), though undoubtedly basic to any understanding of him, is secondary to other aspects of his character as the supreme truth (i.e. his madhurya). The relation of Krishna's "god-ness" to his "sweetness" or "human-ness", to use Jiva's own example, is that of the Saraswati to the Ganges at Triveni: it cannot be seen but its currents are known to flow there outside the range of vision.(6) Put another way, Krishna's madhurya makes loving intimacy with him possible, but this great prize would have no meaning without his aisvarya, for he would then be reduced to mere humanity. Nevertheless, it is matters related to Krishna's madhurya, because of their greater potential for the emotional response or rasa, that are rather more important to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas in general, and this concern is reflected in GC.

 

Krishna's madhurya is expressed primarily in his human-like relationship to his devotees, his parents, his friends and his lovers. The various ambiguities in these relations that appear in BhP are brought into the open and clarified in the latter portion of KrishnaS. Jiva's main preoccupation there is to reconcile Krishna's supreme godhead, expressed not by a surfeit of aisvarya, but of madhurya, with his de facto treatment of his devotees as described in the authoritative scriptures, in particular BhP. To do this, he must also reconcile Krishna's activities as avatar with his eternal activities or nitya-lila in Goloka, his heaven.

 

To this end, then, once Jiva has identified Krishna as bhagavAn, the supreme form of the personal godhead, full of six glories, he goes on to establish the scriptural basis for the existence of a suitable abode for him (paras. 105-116).

 

This abode, alluded to in a BhP passage (x.28.13-8) where Krishna gives Nanda and the cowherds a vision of their "ultimate destination",(7) is further described according to verses from BrS, HV, and other puranic and tantric sources. This eternal abode has manifestations in the earthly dimension, appearing there at the time of Krishna's avatar in the same way that he does. Though Jiva accepts that Dvaraka and Mathura are eternal places of Krishna's residence, his main preoccupation is with Vrindavan where Krishna in his most human (two-armed, never four-armed) form abides. The original presentation of much of the material found in GC i.1, i.e. the nature of the realm of Goloka, including even a description of its topography,(8) is given in this portion of KrishnaS.

 

Jiva next asserts (117-45) that the residents of Vrndavana, Mathura and Dvaraka are all Krishna's companions, similarly eternally associated with him in his realm. He compares Nanda and Yasoda to Krishna's "natural" parents in Mathura, Vasudeva and Devaki, on the basis of remarks made about each of them in BhP (146-52). Nanda and Yasoda are deemed to have a greater claim to be Krishna's parents than Vasudeva and Devaki, traditionally his "real parents", even though parenthood in a real physical sense is denied in BhP (x.2.18). After all, Krishna appeared to the latter in a four-armed form at his birth, showing the extent to which they were conscious of his aisvarya, while the former only knew him in his madhurya.(9)

 

In keeping with this siddhanta, Jiva narrates a complex tale in GC that places Krishna first in the womb of Yasoda before he is magically transferred to Mathura to merge with the Vasudeva form born to Devaki. This continued separation of the Krishna of the cowherds from that of the Yadavas is the essential theological guideline Jiva follows in his conceptualization of the Krishna story, and the GC is in effect a rewriting of BhP from this point of view.

 

Throughout the book, Jiva minimizes the relations with the residents of Dvaraka, except to point out their negative side.(10) Krishna says to Uddhava that the Vrajavasis are to the Yadavas as an object to its reflections: when Krishna was with the former, he was never reminded of their counterparts in Dvaraka; whereas when with the latter, he was constantly is reminded of the loving relations he enjoyed with the Vrajavasins.(11)

 

Madhurya, though existing in certain aspects of Krishna's life in Dvaraka such as his private relations with his queens (e.g., the banter Krishna enjoys with Rukmini -- BhP x.60) are completely dropped from GC as irrelevant to the concerns of the residents of Vraja.

 

Jiva's interest in Krishna and his life ends as soon as he returns to Vraja, two months after which he once again divides himself into two forms. In his cowherd form he ascends to Goloka, while in another form he returns to Dvaraka(12) to participate in the battle of Kurukshetra and speak the Bhagavad Gita, etc. These latter activities thus have no place in GC.

 

Interestingly enough, Jiva does note that Krishna lays down his arms after killing Dantavakra and Viduratha just prior to entering Vraja, an untold event of relevance to the events of MBh.(13)

 

<hr><font color=#9F5f9F>6. PritiS 112.

 

7. This vision is described in GC i.20.36-46. The dhama is described in detail in GC i.1 and ii.37.

 

8. See Jan Brzezinski, “Goloka Vrndavana: A translation of Jiva Gosvamin's Gopala-campu (Chapter One),” Journal of Vaisnava Studies, 1,1. Fall, 1992. p.98.

 

9. These matters are discussed in GC i.3.82ff.

 

10. Cf. Krishna's criticism of Yadava marriage customs (i.33.138), the behavior of the Yadavas in the Syamantaka affair (i.33v55-6, ii.17.17 etc.) and at the time of the Krishna's going to abduct Rukmini (ii.13.26).

 

11. GC ii.10v13;

manye gokula-sambhavam pitR-mukham premAvalambaM janam

bimbam tat-pratibimbam eva pura-janam yatrAnubhUtiH pramA/

purvasminn anubhUtatAm anu gate nAntyaH kva ca smaryate

pazcad-bhAvini yatavaty anubhavam pUrvam sarIsmaryate//

 

12. PadP vi.279.15-6 states that Krishna spent two months in Vraja before sending the Nanda and the other men with their sons and wives (nandAdayaH putra-dara-sahitAH) to Vaikuntha and returning to Dvaraka. Jiva interprets the word "sons" to refer to Krishna, since Nanda is not known to have had any other children. He further says that Krishna went to Dvaraka in another form appropriate to that place (ekena prakAzena ca dvAravatIM ca jagAmeti. KrsnaS 175, p.93. Also GC ii.29.103: putra-dAra-sahitAh iti pUrva-sUcita-tat-putratocita-rUpeNAtra sthitir eva, yadupura-samucita-rupeNa tu dvAravatI-praveza iti sarvaM sa-deza-rUpam.

 

13. GC ii.30.12; itaH paraM svIyam astraM na prayunjIya kvacid apIti samcakLpe.

<small><font color=#f7f7f7>

<hr></font>

 

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-09-2001).]

[suryaz 0]

NO

[Bhaktavasya 0]

 

Puru, I just want to say here that when you post really long posts aimed at (what seems to be) trying to pick a fight with Jagat, right off the bat, it's irritating and exactly what Jagat is trying to objecting to. It's like creating smokescreens, because the long-winded 'arguments' distract from the original question worth pondering; 'Does Krishna marry the Gopis in the end?' and misses the point; 'can we have different conclusions and realizations about such matters without 'going to war' over it?' (the answer is supposed to be a resounding YES!)

 

Originally posted by Puru Das Adhikari:

Originally posted by Jagat:

I quite agree with most of the things that are stated in your last post, Puru. I don't think that empiric knowledge is the object of spiritual life, either.

 

I'm glad to hear that.

 

My feeling is, however, that in some cases devotees themselves mistake empiric for spiritual knowledge. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

 

I couldn't agree more, and that is all the more reason that I personally depend on the direction of Sri Guru in such matters. How to distinguish the mind's sankalpa, vikalpa with genuine realization, as I understand, is to confirm with guru, sadhu and shastra and not depend on our own subtle body or its imperfect perceptions. SBSST when explaining the sloka in Brahma-samhita, premanjana churrita bhaktivilocanena . . .explains that the eye tinged with the salve of love is actually the mind's eye of the siddha, perfected spiritual form.

 

You take the Prabodhananda/Prakashananda question -- a matter that can be established by empirical means, i.e., through textual evidence -- and make it an issue that legitimizes someone's spiritual standing.

 

That isn't my point or Srila Naryan Maharaj's point at all. Emprical evidence of another point of view may be there, and we don't deny that (though we haven't seen it clearly presented) it may exist. Whether we want to accept it in lieu of the words of Sri Guru is another matter altogether. You give it more importance than we do. I don't see anything illogical or contradictory in both SP's purports and SNM's point that the same person is not one day a mayavada and the next a member of the Sri Sampradaya. You have some doubt about their point of view and I don't doubt their observations.

 

In other words, if I agree with you, I am spiritually OK, if I don't agree, I am not. This is the attitude I object to, with all my heart.

 

NOt with me. I am a bhadda jiva. But with Sri Guru, whose intelligence is liberated and not on the same level as ours. Though you think I am a fanatic it isn't the case. Only difference between us is that I am prepared to accept the answer to any inquiry I make from our guru parampara and you already think you know a better answer and want them to change to your point of view.

 

Listen. Everytime I read in SP's books or hear from SNM that the "sahajiya" for lack of a better word, or the babaji camp believe this or that, then you post something that simply confirms it. Your current article about Srila Jiva is proof yet again of what I already posted from SNM on this topic. When your article is fully up I'll post something from SBSST that indicates he is fully aware of the so called controversey you point out, but he doesn't think it is really a point of contention either.

 

As far as Krsna marrying the gopis, I have been told by our guru varga that the year that the cowherd boys disapperaead in the cave, put there by lord Brahma, while Krsna had taken all their places was the year the gopis were married to the gopas. So in that sense, since Krsna is their only real consort they are married to him. But the deeper aspects of parakiya and svakiya are discussed elsewhere in SBSST's Brama-samhita purports and the books of Srila Rupa Gosvami.

 

I see consitancy in the position of our acaryas on these issues, and it only confirms to me they are in line with each other. And you don't appreciate them but would rather research it yourself and come to your own empiric conclusions.

 

Interestingly enough in your last posted paragraph from your article (Which I am reading carefuly) you say:

 

"In the discussion that follows, an attempt is made to delineate not only

the salient conclusions of the KrishnaS that form the backbone of GC (many of which are

explicitly stated in GC itself), but also those found in the works of Rupa Goswami and

Jiva's commentaries upon them. Indeed the latter discussion is perhaps of greater

importance, for it is in these works that Jiva has defended his vision of Krishna on the basis of Rupa's conceptions and identified his views with those of his spiritual master."

 

which appears to agree with Srila Naryan Maharaj's ascertions that:

 

. . . They say that in his explanations of Srimad Bhagavatam and Brahma-samhita, in his own books like Gopala Campu, and especially in his Sri Ujjvala-nilamani tika, he has written against parakiya-bhava. This is their greatest blunder.

 

We don’t accept their statements at all.

 

Srila Jiva Gosvami was rupanuga, a pure follower of Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sri

Rupa Manjari. However, for some devotees who were not very qualified at that time, who were beginners, and who did not know what is parakiya-bhava -- and even in Vraja there are so many like this -- he seemed to favor svakiya-bhava. For some followers, so that they would be able to come at least to vidhi-marga (worship according to the rules and regulations of Narada-pancaratra), Jiva

Gosvami wrote as if he was a supporter of

svakiya-rasa. He wanted that through

this they should become qualified, and then they should come to the mood of parakiya. For qualified persons he has written that parakiya-bhava is in Vraja and svakiya-bhava is in Dvaraka. He has vividly written

this, and he also accepted this. He can never be against the teachings of Srila Rupa Gosvami, Srila Sanatana Gosvami and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He can never be

so. He was a follower of the same root idea of parakiya-bhava as Rupa Gosvami. For some unqualified persons he has written in that other way, but the babajis of Vraja cannot reconcile this. They are ignorant persons.

They became opposed to Srila Jiva Gosvami and

took the side of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti

Thakura, even though in fact there isno dispute between Jiva Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura!

.

Whatever Jiva Gosvami wrote for the benefit of those unqualified followers is in

the line of tattva-siddhanta, established

philosophical truths. He wrote that, by

tattva, the gopis are krsna-svakiya.

 

ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis

tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih

goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhuto

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

(Brahma Samhita)

 

["I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, who resembles His own spiritual figure

and who embodies the ecstatic potency (Hladini). Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of Her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated withever-blissful spiritual rasa."]

 

Nija-rupataya kalabhih. The gopis are Krsna's power. They cannot be parakiya in the eyes of tattva-siddhanta. They are the same as Krsna. They are the power of Krsna. They are also not the wives of any gopas, cowherd men, of Vrndavana.

They are all beloved of Krsna, and they are not different from Him. Thus, bytattva, they are svakiya. (Sva means 'own' and kiya

means sampatti, wealth.)This means they are of Krsna, Krsna’s own, and they are His power. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has written in the line ofrasa-siddhanta or rasa-tattva. In rasa-tattva Yogamaya has arranged that both the gopis and Krsna think that the gopis are married to other gopas, and therefore they have a paramour

relationship. If it were not like this, there would be no rasa at all. (Para means

'greatest', one's own greatest wealth, and it also means 'another', another's wealth. Therefore the meaning in both tattva-siddhanta and rasa-siddhanta is

armoniously reconciled.)

 

Srila Rupa Gosvami has explained all these things, especially in Ujjvala Nilamani, and also in his other books. The gopis are Krsna’s own, His power, but for rasa it is

said that they are parakiya.What is parakiya? There are two principles: atma-rasa and para-rasa, or eka-rasa and aneka-rasa. Krsna is eka-rasa or atma rasa. He is one rasa. In other words He is the complete embodiment of rasa. He is atmarama and aptakama. He is always full and satisfied in Himself. He doesn’t need anything from anyone in order to be happy. The gopis are His own power.

Sakti-saktimatayor-abheda. Sakti, the energy, and saktiman, the possessor of that energy

or power, are both one. They are identical. However, although Krsna has this quality, He is also para-rasa.

Para-rasa means that the gopis are vaishisteya; that is, they also have a

speciality that distinguishes them from Krsna. Although they are part of Krsna,

although they are one with Him, their speciality is that they serve Him in the

mood of rasa. Krsna is the enjoyer and they are the container or reservoir of love

and affection. Krsna also wants to taste their mood.Aneka-rasa or para-rasa is the gopis' rasa, and Krsna wants to taste that rasa in various ways. That rasa is in the form of parakiya rasa, and this is the meaning of parakiya rasa -- nothing else. These are a very high-class of philosophical understandings, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has explained all these truths.

 

Therefore, Jiva Gosvami is not of a different

opinion than Rupa Gosvami. They have the very same opinion. Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has proven that Jiva Gosvami was in parakiya-bhava, and that he accepted Srimad Bhagavatam and Ujjvala-nilamani. [in his own Ujjvala-nilamani tika, Srila Jiva Gosvami has written,"Svecchaya likitam kincit, atra kincid parecchaya. I have written some things by my own desire and some things by the desire of others. The portions which are

consistent, in which svakiya and parakiya are

reconciled and in the line of Rupa Gosvami, is my desire, and the portions that are not

reconciled are written by the desire of others."

Srila Narayan Maharaj

 

So , now I'm mildly interested in what conclusion your article will come to and if you agree or disagree with my siska guru concerning Srila Jiva Gosvami's ultimate position on rasa, since you seem to be pointing to his other writing and not only Gopala campu.

 

[This message has been edited by Puru Das Adhikari (edited 07-08-2001).]

 

[Bhaktavasya 0]

 

Puru, I just want to say here that when you post really long posts aimed at (what seems to be) trying to pick a fight with Jagat, right off the bat, it's irritating and exactly what Jagat is trying to objecting to. It's like creating smokescreens, because the long-winded 'arguments' distract from the original question worth pondering; 'Does Krishna marry the Gopis in the end?' and misses the point; 'can we have different conclusions and realizations about such matters without 'going to war' over it?' (the answer is supposed to be a resounding YES!)

 

Also, I imagined you've been told this before, but you run off at the mouth (keyboard) way too much; most people have busy lives with only so much time for the pleasure pastime of hearing the nectar and expanding our knowledge and understanding of

Radha-Krishna theology. Even if you have something to say that is worth merit, the 'shove everyone else aside' method is plain rude and distasteful.

 

 

Originally posted by Puru Das Adhikari: