Kishalaya

Philosophy is not just about repeating shaastra, but some inferences come about inevitably. To really go about whether something can be proven by "logic" or not, one has to undergo traditional study -- which can be quite a long time. Even then we see that the tradition of Advaita and its conclusions have not died and a variety of sub-schools have sprung up. The situation is not so simple as to be discarded in two sentences. The concept may "feel" absurd, but that doesn't count.

The problem with Vishisthaadvaita is not about postulating difference, but one-ess. Achintya bhedaabheda is simply resorting to Sruti, not some concept like aprthak siddhi, and says "I don't know how, but that's what shaastra says". While Advaita and Dvaita do not have much work except for rejecting or making gross re-interpretation of significant parts of Sruti, respectively. In this light, aprthak siddhi, seems to be a compromise towards achintya. This refers to the Lord and His energies working in ways which cannot be fathomed by logic - paraasya shaktir vividhaiva sruyate, svabhaaviki gyaana bala kriyaa ca. This is their inherent nature. These analogies are not necessarily built up for debate. Achintya bhedaabheda concept of abheda is far stronger. There is "material" abheda between jiva, prakriti and Brahman. That is a straightforward corollary of saravam khalu idam brahma. The jiva is made up of the Lord (loosely translated as the material of the Lord -- however this is still a compromise), however they are not qualitatively the same -- figure that out! om puuranam adah puurnam idam puurnaat puuram udacyate puurnasya puuranam aadaaya puuranam evaavashisyate. The fact that achintya bhedaabheda does not have volumes upon volumes of philosophical works (commentary on a commentary on a commentary) speaks for its elegance. Now, you can prove anything with logic, but how far is that concept in congruence with shaastra. The point is minimal interpretation of the whole body of shaastra, otherwise every school declares allegiance with sruti. Yes the one-ness is "Everything is the Lord" - sarvam khalu idam brahma. Loosely understood as everything is the material of the Lord. Because such a relationship is not amenable to logic, and doing so requires some posturing -- either postulating things like aprthak siddhi, rejecting sruti vaakyas or reinterpreting sruti vaakyas, which are opposed to the philosophy, to bring out the exactly opposite meaning, than what a simple reading would convey.

That depends on what the adhikarana is talking about. Baladeva seems to be refuting vaishesika here! BTW, it is not the difference in a thing and its qualities that is the problem with aprthak siddhi, but the oneness (i.e. the aprithak part). Dvaita has no problem at all by such an interpretation of aprithak whereby one thing is an (eternal) appendage to another. Descriptions like "sharira-shariri" bring this out more clearly. However achintya bhedaabheda tries to be verbally true to the situation. There is nothing as "achintya shakti" -- some kind of glue that holds everything together. The relationship itself between Brahman, prakriti and jiva is not amenable to logical description. Any attempt will require quite some distortion of the whole of sruti, not just some parts of it. This is not something new, Brahma suutra builds up its philosophy by taking recourse to shaastra alone where logical interpretation opposes sruti vaakya (BS 2.1.27) - srutestu shabdamuulatvaat Anirvachaniiya is a quality of "something" which is sad-asad vilakshana (neither existing nor non-existing) whereas achintya has nothing to do with asat. For example, om puurnam adah puurnam idam ... tells us the relation between Brahman and prakriti where further explanation is futile (notwithstanding aprithak siddhi :-) Indeed that prakriti can be materially Brahman without its imperfections projecting on Brahman -- a mundane example follows -- as Oxygen and Hydrogen mix to form a third substance which is qualitatively different from either of the two material causes -- so Brahman being material cause of prakriti should not cause alarm in Vedaantists -- because puurnam evaavashishyate (thus difference) where sarvam khalu idam brahma still holds (thus oneness). If our dear friends find achintya and anirvachaniiya to be synonyms, then perhaps they need to do some more research into both schools of thought. That seems to be Dvaita in compromise and not achintya bhedaabheda (whatever the source). Achintya Bhedaabheda's fidelity to "abheda" part (advaita part) is straightforward, simple, elegant and without any unnecessary posturing. I would surely not go to Akshara-Dhaama for Vishishtaadvaita philosophy. quite true! Since the above is not refuted by shaastra (sruti), the logic applies. Points 4, 5, 6 and 7 have absolutely nothing to do with achintya bhedaabheda.

Note: Before you read the following. I am not saying every aspiring devotee has devotion equal to the siddha mentioned below. However those who are unbiased will be able to understand. CC Madhya 15: 137: Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu then embraced Murari Gupta and began to speak about his firm faith in devotional service. This was heard by all the devotees. 138: Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "Previously I induced Murari Gupta again and again to be allured by Lord Krishna. I said to him, 'My dear Gupta, Lord Sri Krishna, Vrajendra-kumara, is the supreme sweetness. 139: "'Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the origin of all incarnations and the source of everything. He is pure transcendental love itself, and He is the reservoir of all pleasure. 140: "'Krishna is the reservoir of all transcendental qualities. He is like a mine of gems. He is expert at everything, very intelligent and sober, and He is the summit of all transcendental humors. 141: "'His character is very sweet, and His pastimes are melodious. He is expert in intelligence, and thus He enjoys all His pastimes and mellows.' 142: "I then requested Murari Gupta, 'Worship Krishna and take shelter of Him. But for His service, nothing appeals to the mind.' 143: "In this way, he heard from Me again and again. By My influence, his mind was a little converted. 144: "Murari Gupta then replied, 'I am Your servant and Your order-carrier. I have no independent existence.' 145: "After this, Murari Gupta went home and spent the whole night thinking how he would have to give up the association of Raghunatha, Lord Ramacandra. Thus he was overwhelmed. 146: "Murari Gupta then began to pray at the lotus feet of Lord Ramacandra. He prayed that death would come that night because it was not possible for him to give up the service of the lotus feet of Raghunatha. 147: "Thus Murari Gupta cried the entire night. There was no rest for his mind; therefore he could not sleep but stayed awake the entire night. 148: "In the morning Murari Gupta came to see Me. Catching hold of My feet and crying, he submitted an appeal. 149: "Murari Gupta said, 'I have sold my head unto the lotus feet of Raghunatha. I cannot withdraw my head, for that would give me too much pain. 150: "'It is not possible for me to give up the service of Raghunatha's lotus feet. At the same time, if I do not do so I shall break Your order. What can I do?' 151: "In this way Murari Gupta appealed to Me, saying, 'You are all-merciful, so kindly grant me this mercy: Let me die before You so that all my doubts will be finished.' 152: "Hearing this, I became very happy. I then raised Murari Gupta and embraced him. 153: "I said to him, 'All glories to you, Murari Gupta! Your method of worship is very firmly fixed-so much so that even upon My request your mind did not turn. 154: "'The servitor must have love and affection for the lotus feet of the Lord exactly like this. Even if the Lord wants separation, a devotee cannot abandon the shelter of His lotus feet. PURPORT The word prabhu, or master, indicates that the Lord is to be continuously served by His devotee. The original prabhu is the Lord, Sri Krishna. Nonetheless, there are many devotees attached to Lord Ramacandra, and Murari Gupta is a vivid example of such unalloyed devotion. He never agreed to give up Lord Ramacandra's worship, not even upon Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's request. Such is the chastity of devotional service, as stated in the Antya-lila of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (4.46-47): sei bhakta dhanya, ye na chade prabhura carana sei prabhu dhanya, ye na chade nija-jana durdaive sevaka yadi yaya anya sthane sei thakura dhanya tare cule dhari' ane In a firm relationship with the Lord, the devotee does not give up the Lord's service under any circumstance. As far as the Lord Himself is concerned, if the devotee chooses to leave, the Lord brings him back again, dragging him by the hair. 155: "'Just to test your firm faith in your Lord, I requested you again and again to change your worship from Lord Ramacandra to Krishna.' 156: "In this way, I congratulated Murari Gupta, saying, 'Indeed, you are the incarnation of Hanuman. Consequently you are the eternal servant of Lord Ramacandra. Why should you give up the worship of Lord Ramacandra and His lotus feet?'" 157: Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued, "I accept this Murari Gupta as My life and soul. When I hear of his humility, it perturbs My very life." Kishalaya

What is the quote saying "ISKCON presaches not the mission of Chaitanya" and then "The beautiful ones with the beautiful, the ugly ones with the ugly, that is harmony". Now if ISKCON does not preach the mission of Chaitanya, then those who are in ISKCON are ugly. Now from what you have said (or tried to infer from the saying of another) that those who left ISKCON are ugly because they had bad association -- like babaji, if the word babaji is not qualified, it takes on the meaning - all (the then present) babajis. Why would all (such) babajis be bad association? Both these positions are fundamentalist bigotry. Kishalaya

My sincere apologies. I fully know I am at fault for not following the protocol. The quote can be found in the previous post and is perhaps by "anonymous". Kishalaya

Thank you for that. In addition, some people will never become qualified because they LIKE something else which in traditional raagaanugaa terms is "awe and reverence". (Unless Sri Hari forcibly changes somebody's heart, but that is highly suspect -- Why couldn't Sri Gauraanga change Muraari Guptaa's heart? ). These people who like what is traditionally assumed to be "awe and reverence" have been treated like garbage by some who falsely claim to be Sri Gauraanga's only true followers. This mentality will NOT help the spread of the inner desires of Sri Gauraanga i.e. manjari bhaava. Feelings of antagonism towards those who do not view the world through one's own glasses is counter-productive. People quiety but surely shy away. However look at the ISKCON temples in South. They have deities like Baalaaji, Narshingha Deva, Satyabhaamaa-Rukmini-Dvaarkaadheesha in addition to traditional Gaudiya deities. Let the devotee choose. What is wrong with that? If he associates with raagaanugaa bhaktas and gets this "lobha", all glories to him, but if he does not, why call him "ugly ones associate with ugly ones". Does a devotee not even have this freedom to worship the deity in whose lotus feet he finds solace? Kishalaya

I knew it. I always knew it. Iskcon preaches not the mission of Sri Caitanya, who came to give ragAnuga marga. and specially came to give manjari bhava samrpaitum unantojjvala rasa(m) sva bhakti Sriyam You know Goya? The painter? He said: The beautiful ones with the beautiful ones and the ugly ones with the ugly ones so that there is harmony ! And what about the coyotes and shiva-coyote. And what about the mercy? Come on! Do you think Mahaaprabhu will kick those who do not understand manjari bhaava? Is He the sole property of the gopis? What a devotee of Narsingha Deva has no right to have feelings of devotion towards Mahaaprabhu? In this whole earth, till date, in my search, ISKCON is the only Gaudiya vaishnava organization with a liberal heart towards all devotees of Sri Hari. Srila Prabhupaada knew this very well -- and that is why He preached a very secular form of Vaishnavism, but that was all destroyed by the bogus form of raagaanugaas that came into fashon after Srila Prabhupaada -- shoving a guilt feeling down the throats of those devotees who are not interested in becoming gopis (i.e. interested in other lilaas of Sri Hari). I found genuine raagaanugaas (some of whom I have wrongly criticised because of my earlier impression of the bogus raagaanugaas), not only spread the inner desire of Sri Gauraanga i.e. manjari bhaava, but also appreciate all devotees of Sri Hari and one does not feel awkward in speaking with them because they are free from jealousy, envy, -- can genuinely empathise with an aspiring devotee's heart, since they are also aspiring devotees. Kishalaya

Saayujya mukti may mean different things to different sampradaayas. In any case, mostly saayujya mukti seems to be same/similar to brahma kaivalya - Shankara's concept of mukti -- "a deep sleep like non experiential non differentiated singular existence". Here there remains no difference between the jiva and Brahman. Madhva surprisingly is categorical that mukti is saayujya mukti. However he qualifies that even in saayujya mukti, the mukta does not become Brahman, but maintains its atomic nature. He also says that the mukta then "partakes in the eternal sport of Hari". Now what that "sport" is, I have not yet found any reference to that. Baladeva has a more detailed account of mukti (here I have to depend on an English translation of the Govinda Bhaashya as I do not have the original sanskrit text), He says that in mukti, there is "union" of the mukta with Brahman of three kinds. The first -- when it is said that the jiva on attining mukti "enters" Brahman, it means he enters into the abode of Brahman. The abode of Sri Hari is Sri Hari Himself and non-different from Him. Even the Brahma Suutra says, The Lord resides in His own Glory. The second -- Sri Hari resides within the mukta. The above two kinds of union are constant and non-fluctuating. The third "union" is with an "external" form just as two people meet with each other. Feelings of separation (vipralambha) occur in the muktas when they are away from this "external" form -- even though they are in constant union with Sri Hari in the first two ways viz. Mukta is inside Brahman -- inside the abode of Sri Hari and Sri Hari residing inside the mukta. Kishalaya

That picture of a woman worshipping the lila of "Gauraanga hugging Krishna" seems to be in a Bengali backdrop. Most probably, She is Srimati Vishnupriyaa Devi, the second wife of Sri Gauraanga (an educated guess). As for traditional disdain of Miraa in Gaudiya tradition, as per the recent information I have gathered (much more browsed), there are primarily two reasons. (Please note, I am not speaking here as a Gaudiya vaishnava representative, I am only trying to present things which I opine to be statements of fact). The lesser reason is that some quarters believe that her goal of spirituality was saayujya mukti, which again is sometimes grossly translated as "merging into Brahman" thus "trying to become one with Brahman" etc. As per Gaudiya tenets, aspirations for such mukti lead to total destruction (sarva-naash). Now how far it is true that Miraa wanted to "merge into Krishna", is an apt question. Personally, I have heard some songs attributed to Miraa which are dangerously close to "becoming one". However I do not know if she would sing in Sanskrit etc., so I find it difficult to attribute authorship of such poems to Miraa. Considering from the other side, it is a well known fact that a bhakta will never want to remove the distinction of mastership of His Lord and his position of being servant. As Hanumaana is traditionally assumed to say to Sri Raama, that He does not want such mukti where he is not His Lord's servant. When Sri Hari himself declares "tesaam satata yuktaanaam, bhajataam priti purvakam, dadami buddhi yogam tam yena maam upayanti te" - to an ekaantika devotee, The Lord Himself gives proper intelligence, I find it a bit difficult to accept that Miraa would indeed prefer kaivalya mukti above the sweetness of bhakti. Second, and the primary reason. The most devout followers of Sri Gauraanga are in a mood of the manjaris - The hand maids of Her Lordship, Srimati Gaandharvikaa. The extent of their devotion towards Her Lordship goes to the extremity of even excluding the agenda of Sri Krishna. The only goal of their existence is the pleasure of Her Lordship. I would not be wrong, if I were to say that their devotion to Sri Krishna exists only because He is THE object of love of their Lady. They have no direct relationship with Sri Krishna, and such a thought amounts to blasphemy. In this light, there are rumors that Miraa identified herself with Her Lordship -- this is sacrilege, maayaavaada -- arrogating the position of Brahman (Her Lordship) to a jiva (Miraa). Again, how far this is true of Miraa's own sentiments, needs to be found out and also if it was true initially (neophite stage), whether it remained true later? (Will Srimati Gaandharvikaa leave Vrindaavana and reside in Dvaarkaa???) My likely guess is that Miraa's utterings about being Vraja gopi were expressions of emotions which were somewhat similar in nature to those of the gopis (not those of the manjaris i.e. tad-bhaava-icchaa-mayi, but of the sambhog-icchaa-mayi category). It is also noteworthy that after meeting with Srila Jiva Gosvami, she finally decided to reside in Dvaarkaa. Miraa strictly considered Sri Krishna to be her Husband, about which Srila Rupa Gosvaami writes that people with such sentiments, on achieving siddhi, go on to associate with the Mahiishis - the queens of Krishna in Dvaarkaa. However such a goal is considered by Srila Ruupa Gosvaami to be outside the purview of raagaanugaa bhakti and needs vaidhi saadhanaa. It is interesting to speculate that Miraa received the saadhanaa padhati from Srila Jiva Gosvaami and spent the rest of her life in a dhaama conducive to her mood of devotion. Kishalaya

That picture of a woman worshipping the lila of "Gauraanga hugging Krishna" seems to be in a Bengali backdrop. Most probably, She is Srimati Vishnupriyaa Devi, the second wife of Sri Gauraanga (an educated guess). As for traditional disdain of Miraa in Gaudiya tradition, as per the recent information I have gathered (much more browsed), there are primarily two reasons. (Please note, I am not speaking here as a Gaudiya vaishnava representative, I am only trying to present things which I opine to be statements of fact). The lesser reason is that some quarters believe that her goal of spirituality was saayujya mukti, which again is sometimes grossly translated as "merging into Brahman" thus "trying to become one with Brahman" etc. As per Gaudiya tenets, aspirations for such mukti lead to total destruction (sarva-naash). Now how far it is true that Miraa wanted to "merge into Krishna", is an apt question. Personally, I have heard some songs attributed to Miraa which are dangerously close to "becoming one". However I do not know if she would sing in Sanskrit etc., so I find it difficult to attribute authorship of such poems to Miraa. Considering from the other side, it is a well known fact that a bhakta will never want to remove the distinction of mastership of His Lord and his position of being servant. As Hanumaana is traditionally assumed to say to Sri Raama, that He does not want such mukti where he is not His Lord's servant. When Sri Hari himself declares "tesaam satata yuktaanaam, bhajataam priti purvakam, dadami buddhi yogam tam yena maam upayanti te" - to an ekaantika devotee, The Lord Himself gives proper intelligence, I find it a bit difficult to accept that Miraa would indeed prefer kaivalya mukti above the sweetness of bhakti. Second, and the primary reason. The most devout followers of Sri Gauraanga are in a mood of the manjaris - The hand maids of Her Lordship, Srimati Gaandharvikaa. The extent of their devotion towards Her Lordship goes to the extremity of even excluding the agenda of Sri Krishna. The only goal of their existence is the pleasure of Her Lordship. I would not be wrong, if I were to say that their devotion to Sri Krishna exists only because He is THE object of love of their Lady. They have no direct relationship with Sri Krishna, and such a thought amounts to blasphemy. In this light, there are rumors that Miraa identified herself with Her Lordship -- this is sacrilege, maayaavaada -- arrogating the position of Brahman (Her Lordship) to a jiva (Miraa). Again, how far this is true of Miraa's own sentiments, needs to be found out and also if it was true initially (neophite stage), whether it remained true later? (Will Srimati Gaandharvikaa leave Vrindaavana and reside in Dvaarkaa???) My likely guess is that Miraa's utterings about being Vraja gopi were expressions of emotions which were somewhat similar in nature to those of the gopis (not those of the manjaris i.e. tad-bhaava-icchaa-mayi, but of the sambhog-icchaa-mayi category). It is also noteworthy that after meeting with Srila Jiva Gosvami, she finally decided to reside in Dvaarkaa. Miraa strictly considered Sri Krishna to be her Husband, about which Srila Rupa Gosvaami writes that people with such sentiments, on achieving siddhi, go on to associate with the Mahiishis - the queens of Krishna in Dvaarkaa. However such a goal is considered by Srila Ruupa Gosvaami to be outside the purview of raagaanugaa bhakti and needs vaidhi saadhanaa. It is interesting to speculate that Miraa received the saadhanaa padhati from Srila Jiva Gosvaami and spent the rest of her life in a dhaama conducive to her mood of devotion. Kishalaya

Just my 2 cents worth! Let us face it. Without money, no organizations, no temples, no preaching and no charity is possible. Hard fact of life. Vivekananda and therefore Prabhupada, went all the way to America only because that was the best place to start in terms of acquiring resources. There were several countries on the way they could have chosen for preaching, but that would have been bad strategy. No matter how much spiritual one is, if he wishes to propogate his ideas, he needs money - plain and simple. Hence the rush for Indian godmen to go to America and not to kazhakstan or Namibia. The need for money is correct. But what is the intent behind them. Accumulation of arms are by themselves neither good or bad, but for what purpose and how much, that is the question. Yesterday I was disturbed on account of some lack of spiritual understanding, but when I opened Prabhupada's Bhagavatam 1st canto, I was relieved. Without money would that have been possible in today's world. In olden times a brahmana's request was taken as life and soul by the king who would open his treasury if the former just once asked for funds in matters of dharma. You are kidding, I am sure. India with it's vast religious literature has nothing to contribute to the world. Spiritual knowledge is just spiritual knowledge and is in no way "the essence of all learning". Every technology and modern comfort [such as your computer for instance] you use has nothing to with spiritual knowledge. These computers and other things which we are so proud of today, are workarounds (sometimes even excuses) for our own laziness. These things have become necessary because we have created a need for them. How much happiness does the world have today in comparison to a hundred, a thousand or a million years ago? happiness that is, not abundance of sophisticated toys! I am fully convinced, a person situated in a higher taste has absolutely no hankering for these toys. Bhagavatam mentiones that material progress and accumulation should be done only to live a peaceful life in which the major portion of the time is spent in God realization. However just look at the pathetic state of today's "progressive" world where just to earn one's bread and butter takes nearly the whole of one's time. Is there any more proof needed for kaliyug! As far as I am concerned, killing a cow is no worse than killing any other animal; I simply cannot impose an artifical criterion that killing a cow is somehow a more serious offense because some joker said so many centuries past. Animal killing has been going on in India from time immemorial and is not something that was learnt from the west. Progress is when people begin to live better lives and have a pragmatic view towards life, compared to the original closed, rigid outlook of the Indian way of life. All killing is bad, but this is the material world that one is accruing sins even by existing "jivah jivasya jivanam". Of course, you may find scriptures as writings of "jokers", however if they turn out to be not, you may have a problem later. Therefore some people like myself take a more cautious approach and do try to follow them, because we do not consider our fathers and forefathers to have had a less critical bent of mind than those inhabiting the world today. And about the "animal killing" in scriptures, some great authorities who are conversant exactly, what the flow of each text is, find these quotations to be interpolations most probably by the imperial British to undermine the culture of the sanaatan dharma. About your "pragmatic view of life", if you have studied the philosophy of ethics, you may have found that western philosophy with all its theories is still not able to justify a paricular ethical system. Each society creates its own pragmatic ethical system which is why the world today is in a such a deplorable state. It is a shame that humans being accidentally endowed with superior intelligence use the pretext of "pragmatic ethics" where the wilful killing of humans is termed "murder" and the wilful killing of animals is termed as "economy". When speaking of a country, material progress is all there is. Spiritual progress is purely a personal thing and it makes no sense to extend it to a whole country. Let us talk reality. Spiritual literature is written by a tiny fraction of the population and it is incorrect to think India was spiritual because vast amounts of literature was churned out from that area. If you want the correct picture, look at what the majority of the people did/do. Majority of the Indians today ape the west and that too all the bad things. Nobody will copy the traffic discipline of the west but boozing whoring are all on par. Therefore the Indians by nature are not suited for material advancement. However an illeterate rickshaw puller here knows he is not the body! In any case, it will be too simplistic to judge the character of a land based solely on the character of its current popluation. Spiritual progress may be a personal thing, however great thinkers (who you would probably like to call jokers) considered it to be a necessary one too and out of compassion took pains to spread spiritual message far and wide for the sake of humanity at large. -Kishalaya

"but are you trying to say that these rasas are differentiated in the view of lord krishna or in the view of the bhakthas..." neither, they are differentiated from a "third party", "neutral" (whatever that means) viewpoint. kintu yanra yei rasa, sei sarvottama tata-stha hana vicarile, ache tara-tama Let me reverse (as I view it) This "tatastha hana vicaarile", considering from a position of "neutrality" (tatastha - situated on the border), there is gradation (taaratamya). BUT (kintu) whoever is situated in whatever rasa (yanra yei rasa), that one is the BEST for that person (sei sarvottama). Mark the word sarva-uttama - best among all others.

Of course at our platform, we can only speculate. We won't know what is what, and such understanding is not necessary for Krishna consciousness. The main problem I see with "traditionalists", is that the influence such a paradigm has on the mundane sphere. The conception of "lower" rasa and "higher" rasa is often so much highlighted to a point of distortion. Things like vaikuntha-vaasis are "lower", Gods in Goloka "kick out" people doing vaidhi bhakti etc. (Well, in my case, such Gods do not inspire devotion :-). Maayaa baddha jeevas often forget that the "lowest" in Vaikuntha is maayaateeta -- absolutely beyond maayaa. Simply by their desire, in a snap, they can liberate the whole universe, e.g. Vaasudeva Datta. Kishalaya

"This subject is way past me though of course we are all curious. The natural question for the "traditionalist" would be why did that jiva come into contact with particular realized soul." Their answer is that previous (or recent) samskaar -- i.e. personality traits developed in previous (recent) lives, attracts a soul to a particular taste. This samskaar is due to engagement with maayaa. Of course, samskaar can also lead one into maayaa away from God, however due to past "sukriti", -- service (somehow knowingly or otherwise) rendered that is favourable towards developing bhakti, the soul is attracted to God. Kishalaya