NitaiS

Did you read the book? Bhaktisiddhanta's pranam mantra is mentioned therein. As is this entire subject. I think if you wish to discuss you should read those sections (preferably in the context of reading the whole thing) and raise specific doubts in relation to what was said. Prabhupada in your quote translated siddhanta as plan, but we are all familiar with the term siddhanta. Is sakhya-rasa outside of Rupa goswami's siddhanta? BRS and Ujjvala Nilamani seem to give a resounding "NO". As well as all other sastras.

I can certainly appreciate the broad appreciation of these Acharyas, but going by beggar's criteria (which was my point in that post) the three acharyas whom I cited are more senior than these, and most likely overall are more widely excepted as qualified as well. I personally do not think our survey of the evidence need be limited to these three acharyas' statements, but if we did, the result seems somewhat clear to me.

Taken as is it may seem like that, but it also seems quite incongruous with Srila Prabhupada's mood throughout his acharya-lila. What I mean is I highly doubt he told that devotee "you must consider yourself as a gopi". Until 9:50 basically two statements are made. "We must consider ourselves as the gopis so we can love Krsna that much more" and "we must consider ourselves as female". The first could easily be mispresentation of Prabhupada merely citing the gopis in a talk where he is emphasizing loving Krsna, "we must become like the gopis, they have given up everything for the service of the lord". Certainly there are numerous statements like this in Krsna book and elsewhere. This explanation would match much more with what we know of Srila Prabhupada's preaching style. For a moment the camera later scans back to the devotee originally speaking and he appears a bit like "oops" after the spirited interruption of the obviously more knowledgable devotee. Kirtananda's discussion of it taking lifetimes to become a gopi etc. still seems fairly nuetral, after all it is the core of Gaudiya Vaishnavism (which I think Babhru mentioned if I remember correctly) and thus in the course of giving the basics, some discussion of it is relevant. The second part, "to consider ourselves as female" could very well be a misunderstood reference to prakrti/purusha, a much more basic and relevant topic which kirtananda touches on moments later. The next person to speak makes it clear moments later that he basically came in for a nap, and this was his first day, yet we should note that he too joined in the discussion of the gopis, with some relative air of authority. Overall, I do not know who that devotee is, if he stayed around, or how he stayed around if so, but it would be much more convincing to me if since that video, he had continued in his sadhana, developed his understanding of KC theory and then testified that he understood from those days Prabhupada was in manjari-bhava. Maybe he has? I have not heard of any such testimonies in terms of devotees referencing those early days (though they may exist). Rather, we have heard devotees who are still practicing today (perhaps there have been ups-and downs for some between then and now) like Govinda Dasi, Malati, Jadurani, who both then and now (with the exception of Jadurani) believe Prabhupada displayed clearly this sentiment, whether they feel bold enough to declare it definitively or not. I am sure there are others as well. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that if any, the common idea back then was that Prabhupada was a cowherd boy. So it seems that current testimony from someone who was around in the original days, is worth more then a testimony then. Gurudas tells how one devotee painted the Panca-tattva with breasts because he thought they were women. These devotees certainly had sraddha and Prabhupada used them in magnificent ways, but the conception was not highly developed for the most part at that time. I am very interested to Babhru and others' thoughts. This seems much more the direction this thread was intended to go.

Here it is: Qualified senior gurus have spoken: I believe every person who has contributed to this thread considers one, two, or all three of these divine personalities as qualified gurus. I don't think there could be any more senior authority than these three (unless Bhaktisiddhanta himself said what Srila Prabhupada's sthayi-bhava is)

The two biggest plagues of the global Gaudiya community: 1.Those who think their guru and/or group is the only bonafide one 2. Those who overreact to the above sector and declare there is no longer any guru or group worthy of surrender, or gurus and groups are inherently flawed, but they lack the personal level of realization to have sadhu sanga via the granthas. By default the mind then becomes the guru. Essentially this latter group has, in the absence of guides whom they previously had faith in, succumb to the hankerings of the ego to be in charge. Having been thus freed from the oppression of all sorts of sanga (good and not-so good alike) they are free to fight for any conception that blows into their head, and are subject to no reprimand from higher authorities. Sounds like a pretty good place for a sadhaka. The link between the 2 plagues is pratistha. "I am with the best" and "I am the best".

"locked into" implies dissatisfaction. This is total mundane thinking. Yes from the objective view their is higher and lower, but not from rasa-vichara, and what you are doing is saying that the siddha at some point may snap out of rasa vichara and realize they have not got the best thing. Brahman is rasa; Krsna. Krsna is non different from his abode, form, associates etc. Thus the whole of Goloka is rasa, period. Tatastha vichara has become completely eclipsed there, unlike Dvarka, Mathura, Ayodyha, Vaikuntha... Such a thing simply never arises. this is like fallen jiva-vada thinking. At some point the perfect sakha becomes dissatisfied and envious and falls down again to the material realm/ or in your case/ decides they would like to try on a different sthayi-bhava. Sukhada defeated you already, better than I can, but you will acknowledge no such things.

Ok, I can agree with that, bu Sonic's idea is one wherein sakha (for example) is not fully satisfied and thus continues on to manjari, and then to sakhi, (and for some reason stops there)

Please explain how the spiritual bliss of the cowherds and vatsalya bhaktas is static. From the point of view of tattva, some distinctions can be drawn, but it is also tattva that they are all eternally blissful and ever-fresh relationships with Krsna. But to suggest that until the dasya-siddha gets 20 more premas(the unit with which we will now measure divine love of god) he will not be qualified for sakhya. And once the sakha goes beyond ____premas, he will be forced into a higher prema-bracket on account of his accrued premas. This helps the prema police keep the spiritual world nice and orderly. What about Balarama, Nanda, Yasoda, and so many others, why has their spiritual progress been halted?

If we choose a guru that corresponds to the sentiment we want, how do we explain instances when people are initiated before even understanding the theory of Rasa, or having any specific inclination, even in an intellectual sense? Or the fact that here we are in 2009 discussing Srila Prabhupada's rasa, and you are telling me that 40 some years ago those disciples came to Prabhupada because they wanted to be manjaris (as you claim he is)? So that is to say if they had had a samskara for another bhava they would have not taken initiation from him? Come on!

' From Bengali dictionary: nija= a own (<d>নিজ গৃহ</d>). <d>নিজ নিজ</d> respective. <d>নিজ গুণে</d> adv. by virtue of one's own qualities or virtues. <d>নিজ দোষে</d> adv. by one's own fault. <d>নিজ মূর্তি ধারন করা</d> v. to assume one's real form or self. abhista=a desired, wished for, longed for, cherished; aimed at, intended. ☐ n. a desired object; an objective; an inten tion, a purpose. <d>̃পূরণ</d> n. gratification or fulfilment of one's desire; attain ment of one's objective, the accom plishment of (one's) aims. <d>̃</d> a. that which gratifies or fulfils. <d></d> n. same as The other 4 uses of samihitam in Prabhupada's books other than the one you cited are as follows: samīhitam — his purpose; samīhitam — activities, plan; samīhitam — desire; samīhitam — which has been created (by You) So we can see "nija samihitam" is not concretely "ones own choice". Note the translation of the same verse in BRS: Remembering the Våndävana form of Kåñëa and His dear associates who have inclinations for service similar to one’s own, absorbing oneself in hearing topics related to them, one should always live in Vraja. -No mention of choice there. Visvanath's commentary: "...who have the same type of desires (for serving Kåñëa) as oneself (nija-saméhitam)" This does not say you choose, it can totally be read to support what Sukhada said, we follow the ragatmikas according to bhava that arises in us by mercy, not by choosing whatever rasa appeals to our ego. <d></d>

I am sorry to hear that, and yes this is clear from your siddhanta.

Oh please do not pretend like you have had a cohesive argument this whole time, mud already posted one of the times when you directly contradicted yourself on what evidence you were looking for in this matter. Again, read the book. There are clearly examples in our history where this is not the case. Earlier you said we choose the Svarupa and that is what makes it love. No. Krsna chooses what service he wants from us, and the love is shifting from having ourselves as the object to service, to having him as the object of service, on his terms. Service is according to necessity of the served. Krsna wants each jiva to interact with him in a certain way and love is then putting aside our delusion about how we want to interact with him, and coming to him in that way. You have it backwards. Like Sridhara Maharaja said, "all risk", not "I will serve, but in X capacity". adarsanan marma hatam karotu va yatha tatha va vidadhatu lampato mat-prana-nathas tu sa eva naparah this means however he wants service, by tormenting me , hiding from me, etc. I love him and therefore I will serve in any capacity. Divine slavery, you don't choose if you till the fields or do the laundry, and that is fine because there is no higher and lower. You do not get tired of hearding cows with God.

disagreeing and insinuating tantric sahajiya are different things all together. You have clearly cultivated a logic wherein your head knows best, in order to maintain such a position in the face of more intelligent and realized arguments, you have to resort to inappropriate remarks, assumptions about others' motivations, and downright crummy logic. (Not to mention name calling, contradicting yourself, distracting jokes, shifting the ground, NOT READING THE TEXT UNDER DISCUSSION, etc.)

Ya don' say?! We call it sadhu-ninda.

If you download the PDF and view it in a pdf viewer, then the diacritics will be fine. Dont worry about copying and pasting, by now we all know Çri means Sri. Lame excuse to get out of actually addressing the contents.