Sukhada

This is just disgraceful for a disciple of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Where is there sastric support for this? I can only hope that you don't really believe it, but if this is the case, I don't know why you are wasting our time with these ideas. Jiva Goswami says in his commentary to Brs. 1.2.306 the following: "There are two types of identification: thinking oneself different from those persons, but in a similar role such as a parent; and thinking oneself to be Nanda or Subala. The second type is not suitable: one should not think of oneself as Nanda or Subala. Just as worshipping the Lord thinking that one is identical to Him is not proper, similarly, worshipping His associates while thinking that one is identical to them is not proper, since it will be later explained that those forms are eternal like the Lord’s form. One will commit offense to those associates through thinking of occupying their identities."

"It may develop into conjugal love." Since when is a person referred to as "it"?

Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says that Narada is both sadhana and nitya-siddha. Therefore, in one incarnation he has shown the way of vaidhi sadhana over two lives, but he himself in a nitya-siddha. As for Srivasa Thakura, he presides over tatastha-sakti. That doesn't mean he is tatatsha-sakti. As for Radharani being the only one to control Krsna, Narayana Maharaja mentions that as the manjaris are representatives of Radharani, they also control Krsna. Otherwise, this is cute and all, but its really forced. I'd rather take the natural conclusion.

A couple of points to consider here: 1. Narada Muni is not jiva-sakti but a manifestation of svarupa-sakti. Although some manifestations of svarupa-sakti have different forms with different rasas, this is not the case with jiva-sakti. 2. It is important to note that these different forms (Narada, Madhumangala, etc.) are themselves eternal, so the sthayi-bhava that each has does not change. It is not that Narada transforms into something different and the original form is lost. There is no change since these forms are eternally existing. 3. Srila Narayana Maharaja mentions that Naradi gopi cannot control Krsna. She is not a manjari or rupanuga, so from what you've said previously, other reasons aside, I don't think you would find it satisying to think that Srila Prabhupada is Narada Muni/Madhumangala/Naradi gopi.

Gopa Kumar refused to accept a form like the inhabitants of Vaikuntha although they tried to give him one, reassuring him again and again and "putting forth hundreds of arguments." He kept his body "born in Govardhana." It is clear throughout the story that his sthayi-bhava (although undeveloped until the end of the story) is sakhya-rasa. Here is what Gopa Kumar says before fainting and going to Vaikuntha: "O Sri Krsna, Gopala, Hari, Mukunda! Govinda! O Nanda-kisora! Krsna! O darling son of Sri Yasoda, please show me Our favor! O life of the divine cowherd girls, O Lord of Radhika!" As you can see from this quote, Gopa Kumar is a priya-narma. Remember that rasa is the combination of the sthayi-bhava with all the other constituents of bhava. So until this happens, there is no transcendental rasa.

All glories to his divine service!

I was posting a reply to Narasingh on the O My Friend thread, only to discover that it has been closed. So I thought I'd start a new thread here. But think what the svarupa is: one's constitutional position. Thus can you say that Gopa-Kumar attained his svarupa before attaining Goloka Vrindavana? No. Before that point, he was in a perfected sadhaka deha (Gopa Kumar). When he finally attained svarupa-siddhi, he got his eternal name (Sarupa). So as his sthayi-bhava was perfected and he attained prema, he entered Goloka Vrindavana. Furthermore, the story of Gopa Kumar is meant to illustrate the different planes of experience. It is not the general course of sadhakas. So I maintain that the idea that the sthayi-bhava (one of the five primary rasas) changes (is mutable) is not correct (while of course remaining open to compelling sastric evidence to the contrary ).

Thank you, Sonic Yogi. It is nice to see that side of you. My apologies as well to anyone I may I offended. May we all redouble our efforts to engage in sastra-yukti!

In the previous quotes Andy gave from Caitanya-caritamrta, this section of Caitanya-caritamrta is giving an overview of Brs. It is analyzing the development of rasa, not the development of a particular jiva. He quoted: "In that part there is a description of devotional service in neutrality, further development in love and affection (called servitude), further development in fraternity, further development in parenthood, or parental love, and finally conjugal love between Kṛṣṇa and His devotees." The fact that this is not the development that a particular jiva goes through is apparent from this quote (as well the previous quote, which Andy decided was simply elementary teachings): "The next development from santa-rasa is dasya-rasa, which means voluntary offering of some service. Next development is Sakhya rasa, or service in spirit of friendship and well-wisher. The next development is Vatsalya rasa, service as well wisher and affection. The next development is Madhura rasa, service, friendship, affection and conjugal love. So in the Madhura rasa, everything is complete; there is Santa rasa, Dasya rasa, Sakhya rasa, Vatsalya rasa, and Madhura rasa. But each and every one of the rasas is complete in itself. A person in Santa rasa or Sakhya rasa is as good as one in Madhura rasa because in the spiritual world everything is absolute." Simple logic also makes it obvious that this isn't a development that everyone goes through. Given that Yasoda-mayi has eternally been in Goloka Vrindavana, why is she not a manjari by now? Do all jivas develop to manjari-bhava given an unlimited amount of time? If not, why? Beggar's quote of Srila Narayana Maharaja also indicates that rasa doesn't change: "The soul’s relation with Krsna, its name, qualities and all specialities, are already present within.... No type of association can change what is already in the soul." As for the quotes from Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, having a svarupa in Gaura-lila and Krsna-lila is not a change of rasas. Differing opinions of the svarupas in Krsna-lila of devotees in Gaura-lila also does not indicate that these devotees are changing rasas.

Raga bhakti is centered on following in the wake of the bhava of a devotee of Vraja. If that devotee is Prabhupada, one will have to become familiar with his svarupa. One will search for him in earnest in one's bhajana, not though speculation or some artificial process but through sincerity of sadhana and heartfelt chanting of the holy name. And in time Prabhupada's position in the lila will be revealed. At that time, the disciple will also realize his own svarupa and enter the lila as an eternal servant of Prabhupada as he appears in his svarupa. If before all of this a disciple who pays close attention finds external hints inevitably left by the guru (since despite his efforts his bhava will be difficult to entirely conceal), all the better. We know the direction to look. All of this is just basic Gaudiya Vaisnavism as taught by Prabhupada himself, and this is all that Tripurari Maharaja is saying in the foreword. You are making something out of nothing. The external rasa of Brahama idea is kooky to say the least. According to Brihat-bhagavatamrta, the entire darsana that Krsna gave Brahma was internal, not external. He experienced Krsna shaking his hand within his heart. Prabhupada's opinion on Brahma's rasa differs from that of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura because his opinion arises from his bhava. It is not the only point on which Srila Prabhupada differed from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, but such differences are not based on anarthas.

Here is Swami B. V. Tripurari's reply to the article of Jadurani dasi. Q. Jadurani dasi recently wrote an article for VNN entitled “Is Srila Prabhupada in the Highest Rasa?” in which she attempts to refute your article “Prabhupada, Subala, and Sakhya-Rasa.” Have you read it? A. Yes, I just read her article with interest. While Jadurani devi informs us that we are not to conjecture as to Srila Prabhupada's relationship with Krsna, but rather hear from disciplic succession and sastra, she proceeds to conjecture about this very thing herself (while marshaling some sastra in support of her conjecture and citing the opinion of Pujyapada B.V. Narayana Maharaja). She is not to be faulted for this (as she has faulted me) because the use of reason in conjunction with scripture and the words of saints is not what is rejected in the sutra of Vyasa that she cited (tarko 'pratisthanat). The spirit of this sutra is that reason when not supported by sastra is inconclusive. My statement in the article “Prabhupada, Subala, and Sakhya-Rasa” that it is reasonable to conjecture that Prabhupada may be situated in sakhya-rasa (like Subala) is supportable by sadhu and sastra, and it does not involve belittling him in any way whatsoever, as one might think after reading Srimati Jadurani's article. This was the opinion of Om Visnupada Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja. Indeed, I have merely paraphrased his own words, which are full of spiritual reasoning. Scripture says nothing to us that would rule out the possibility that Prabhupada may be situated in sakhya-rasa. Furthermore, a careful reading of my words reveal that I have also said, repeating what I have heard from my siksa-guru, that it is possible that Prabhupada is situated in srngara-rasa, yet owing to his empowerment by Nityananda prabhu and out of deference to him, he veiled his madhurya sentiments, and this empowerment explains why we find expressions of sakhya-bhava in his words and character here and there. Thus I tried to offer a balanced, neutral reply to the inquiry that gave rise to my article. It should be noted that it is possible that one disciple may experience his Gurudeva as a representative of srngara-rasa, while another will experience him as representing Subala in sakhya-rasa. This is discussed in Jaiva Dharma. So, if some of Prabhupada's disciples experience the influence of sakhya-bhava in Srila Prabhupada and are inspired by this, there is no harm. Let their ruci be their guide. It is important in a discussion like this that we do not denigrate something so wonderful as sakhya-rasa. If Prabhupada is so situated, it is not a bad thing. One should be so lucky as to find this kind of guru in our times, a prema-bhakta. If we have taken initiation from a guru situated in sakhya-rasa and we are destined for gopi-bhava, our gurudeva will make all necessary arrangements for us when necessary. Some disciples may be in his group, while others may be recruited by him for the sampradaya in general, and as a dutiful servant he will place them where they need to be to make progress in due course. I am well aware of the opinion of Pujyapada Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja on this issue, and I thank Srimati Jadurani for sharing it in print. It no doubt has merit and is evidence of strong spiritual feeling on his part. This is what we are all after—strong feelings on matters of this nature. However, one of the hallmarks of our tradition is that it accommodates a variety of such feelings. I do not care to debate this issue further, either in private or public. In conclusion, I assure you that if a disciple of Srila Prabhupada is drawn to sakhya-rasa with the sentiment of a priya-narma-sakha, he or she would have no difficulty providing considerable evidence in support of the experience that Srila Prabhupada represents this bhava. The reason for this is that in spiritual life reason and scriptural interpretation ultimately follow feeling (ruci/bhava). Swami B.V. Tripurari Additional notes on Jadurani dasi's article: Srimati Jadurani has said, “Pujyapada Tripurari Maharaja has given a poem about Subala-sakha serving in the forest bowers (kunjas), though he did not give a sastric reference for that poem. A cowherd boy would not sing this song.” Note: This is a verse from Rupa Goswami's Ujjvala-nilamani chapter two, verse 14. In this chapter the extent to which Krsna's friends are involved in madhurya-rasa is explained. Subala's friendly love for Krsna is very much involved in this, to the extent that Rupa Goswami has called it “sakhi-bhava” in his Radha-Krsna Gonnodesa dipika. Jadurani devi: “We do not know of a single instance where an acarya in our Rupanuga line has a different svarupa and service from that of his guru, in whose footsteps he follows.” Note: Prabhupada says in SB 2.9.30 that “Lord Brahma is definitely situated in the humor of friendship with the Lord...It is clearly exhibited herein that Lord Brahma is related to the Personality of Godhead in the transcendental humor of friendship.” We also find that devotees such as Akincana Krsandasa Babaji Maharaja, a disciple of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura whom I have been told accepted one disciple before leaving the world, was situated in sakhya-rasa, although his Gurudeva was in manjari-bhava. Sripada Narayana Maharaja personally confirmed this to me when I discussed it with him. He told me that Babaji Maharaja personally told this to him. So there are exceptions to the norm, as in all cases. Jadurani devi said that the gopala-mantra and kama-gayatri are not for any other mood than madhurya rasa. However, Gopa Kumara of Sanatana Goswami's seminal Brhat Bhagavatamrta chanted the Gopala mantra (the gayatri that corresponds with this is kama-gayatri) and attained sakhya-rasa. Sripada Narayana Maharaja himself has explained the possibility of chanting the Gopala-mantra and attaining sakhya-rasa by placing emphasis on the name govinda over gopi-jana-vallabha. Jadurani devi has quoted me thus: “Pujyapada Tripurari Maharaja writes: 'Thus it is reasonable to conjecture that Om Visnupada A.C. Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada, who established the worship of Radha Krsna, Gaura Nitai, and Krsna Balarama so widely, was himself influenced by the bhava of a priya-narma-sakha, either directly or indirectly, owing to the influence of his empowerment by Nityananda Prabhu. In the case of the latter possibility, his affinity for madhurya would have been veiled to some extent.' “ It is clear from her explanation/refutation of this statement that Jadurani devi has not understood my comments. I have explained them above in paragraphs two and three. Jadurani devi cites Prabhupada's poem aboard the Jaladuta, wherein he appears to aspire to enter Krsna-lila in sakhya-rasa. She says that this need not be construed to indicate that Prabhupada is in sakhya-rasa, because Radharani may also sometimes desire to love Krsna in the mood of a friend. However, although it is true that Sri Radha may feel like this at times, it would in the very least be odd for one aspiring to enter Krsna lila in manjari-bhava to pray like this. Srimati Jadurani's citation of Prabhupada's own explanation of why he established the Krsna-Balarama temple in Vrndavana is telling to the discerning reader. It is less than supportive of her premise. Overall she has done a fair job of explaining the difference between manjari-bhava and the bhava of a priya-narma-sakha. Other than that, the basic thrust of her article as I read it is, “Because Prabhupada must be in manjari-bhava, he can not be in sakhya-bhava, which is different.” She has also given some justification, arguments I am familiar with (although inconclusive in my opinion and that of my siksa-guru), as to why Prabhupada must be situated in manjari-bhava. My humble pranams to her grace Srimati Jadurani devi.

In my opinion, the only thing your purports proved is that you couldn't understand what they were saying. May I humbly suggest that you take your purports to a guru you trust and ask him if they are proving what you think they are? What is there to lose? While you're at it, ask him what he thinks of your idea that Srila Prabhupada might have previously been a cowherd boy and has evolved into a manjari. You said earlier, "He only touched upon the changing of rasas in rare instances, which I provided." I'm curious why, if you think those quotes are supporting the changing of rasas, you think that they support such only in rare instances. The quotations say nothing about only applying to rare instances. As to the story about the cursing of Tulasi, this is not a story which is accepted by the Goswamis. Furthermore, it doesn't prove your point. Where is the changing of rasas? The examples about Jaya/Vijaya and Uddhava also don't prove your point, as they didn't change their rasa either. There is also a verse attributed to Radharani in which she desires to have the closeness that the cowherds have with Krsna in the daytime. And, of course, she didn't change her sthayi-bhava either. So could you please try again at coming up with an example of a devotee changing svarupas (and limit yourself to Gaudiya grantha, please)? Expansions within Visnu and sakti tattvas don't count, by the way. Nice attempt to turn my words against me, unfortunately with less substance. If you are completely satisfied, why change? If one has "The first glimmers of appreciation for a richer deeper mood," how could one not be dissatisfied with one's own less rich, more shallow mood? Please enlighten me then, how simultaneous oneness and difference have anything to do with this topic, because I openly admit that I see no connection. As for exceptions to this rule, I'm still waiting for your pramana. Do you have any proof for this, or are we just to take your word for it? Funny he would do so, if he were really in the midst of changing rasas as you suggested. What would be so hard for him to say that the general rule is X, but there are rare exceptions? What would be the big risk? If Vallabha had become enamored, all it would have proved is that he hadn't attained prema. Ironically, although Laxsmi desired to have the company of Krsna, the reason why she couldn't is because she couldn't give up the abhiman of being Laksmi. Sorry, no change of rasa there either. Which side of the story am I not citing in my need to be right? The side that proves that occassionally devotees change rasas? Apparently my need to look down on people and fulfill my unquenchable need to be right has completely blinded me in this situation, because for the life of me I just am not seeing that other side of the story. Eagerly waiting for you to show it to me. By god, you've really hit a deep fear in me there. I think I had better start using my imagination more creatively in relation to the lila. I'm really sorry, Andy, but again you're wrong. To be in Goloka Vrindavana, your svarupa must already be uncovered. And that fact that you've used infinite twice does nothing to increase the chance that sometimes people change rasas. Yes, I have. But one more "unlimited," has still done nothing to increase the likelihood of changing rasas. I'm really hoping you didn't mean that or don't know what pablum means.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you think isn't a valid address. Is it that Srila Prabhupada wouldn't respond subjectively according to different people's interest (to the point of determining what rasa he would say he was in)? If so, I don't think he would either, I was just following Beggar's logic for the sake of argument (to show the flaw in it).

Perhaps, but if he would feel oppressed/repressed it would not be on the same basis as those who see Srila Prabhupada in sakhya-rasa. The preaching that I was speaking about says that it is invalid, a flaw, to think of Srila Prabhupada as a sakha, and that it is not possible according to Gaudiya siddhanta. No one has hammered this on those interested in manjari-bhava. It is not only wrong, it contradicts what Srila Prabhupada himself said. Otherwise, in examples such as Krsnadasa Babaji, Shyamananda Prabhu, and Vrajanatha, they did not feel oppressed to know that their guru had a different sthayi-bhava. Again, I think it is too easy to think of these exalted topics in a mundane way. The real point is not whether or not it is disturbing, but whether it is true. If it is true, then those who are disturbed are tinged with mundane consciousness.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that there is no objective reality, that Srila Prabhupada said that he was in sakhya-rasa because the disciples who he said that to were destined to be cowherd boys? The problem with that theory is that one of the devotees to whom Srila Prabhupada said he was a cowherd boy was not interested in sakhya-rasa then or now. If Srila Prabhupada was responding according to the subjective vision of the disciple, he would have said he was a manjari. This brings up another problem I see with the idea that Srila Prabhupada concealed madhurya-rasa and showed sakhya-rasa in order to supposedly protect the highest thing from abuse. If he showed sakhya-rasa, what would happen to those who were genuinely interested in madhurya-rasa? Wouldn’t this strategy backfire? So what Babhru is doing in the book is actually tatastha vicara, or objectively examining the evidence. Rupa and Sanataana Goswamis found evidence, scriptural and otherwise, to objectively conclude that Nimai Pandita is Radha-Krsna. Is there something wrong with what they did? Yes, that would seem to conform to the subjective vision that Jaiva Dharma speaks about. But it is clear from Jaiva Dharma that the diverse vision of Sri Guru spoken about in that section is a vision prior to attaining bhava. So it represents a general vision in which, because the guru represents Krsna and all rasas are found in Rasaraja Krsna, the disciple sees his guru as representing a particular sentiment that corresponds with the disciple’s developing taste. It does not speak about the personal inner reality of the guru. Furthermore, in this book the student who attained manjari-bhava did so under the direction of a siksa guru in Puri. It is interesting to note that Sripad Gour Govinda Maharaja had a siksa-guru in Puri that he felt Srila Prabhupada had sent to him. I have no doubt that he had a general interest in madhurya-rasa before he met his siksa-guru, but it is not until after his association with Caran dasa Babaji of Orissa that he began giving rasika classes about manjari-bhava. This guru had a big impact on him and he had the utmost respect for him. It is natural and wonderful that Srila Prabhupada would send a siksa-guru to help Sripad Gour Govinda Maharaja in his highest aspiration. This whole "chastity" thing that so many devotees fret about is just an unnecessary mundane conception pressed onto transcendence that betrays a lack of understanding of guru-tattva. Yes, not only is a “high guru” like Krsna, all gurus are like that. When Krsna says, acarya mam vijaniyan, “Know me to be the acarya,” he was speaking about the kula-guru (family guru), not even the sat-guru. So, as we know from Gurvastakam, the guru has two sides: Krsna and friend of Krsna. As Krsna, the guru can represent all rasas; as friend of Krsna, the guru has a particular eternal svarupa in Krsna-lila. It is this side that Babhru is discussing in the book. One reason why this book is important is that there has been very aggressive preaching for many years that states that it is impossible that Srila Prabhupada could be “only” a cowherd boy. It is not true according to sastra that Srila Prabhupada could not be a cowherd boy, it does not conform with the overwhelming evidence, and it is oppressive to those who have a natural inclination for sakhya-rasa. The time is long overdue for this assertion to be challenged. I think it is also important to stress that Prabhupada’s campaign was very broad. He was recruiting for the sampradaya and thus many devotes of differing potential sentiments came under his shelter. Some are destined to be in his group as priyanarma sakhas while others may be destined to enter other groups as different types of sakhas or manjaris, for example. But it is Prabhupada who will make the arrangement to help those who are not in his group to attain the group they belong in. Thus they too are eternally connected with him, as was Hridaya Caitanya with Syamananda. There is nothing wrong with this. Indeed, we find Narottama dasa Thakura praying for his guru, Lokanatha Goswami, to please deliver him to the group of Sri Rupa, and Srila Sridhara Maharaja liked to cite this example to illustrate this point. There is no need to force Prabhupada into something other than what he himself tells us is his affinity in order to feel connected to him. There is a strong tendency to look at these issues with a mundane eye. It’s really one happy family in Goloka, where priyanarma sakhas like Prabhupada, who take shelter of Subala, have a gopi group leader like Lalita-sakhi as their group leader in terms of their madhurya sentiment. Incidentally, Radha sahasranama tells us that when Radha wants to taste sakhya rasa, she appears as Subala. No wonder they look alike!