Diffeerence in potency / rasa

[Guest guest]

-

"Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN)" <Jahnu (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

"Urmila (dd) ACBSP (ISKCON School NC - USA)" <Urmila.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>;

"Bhadra Govinda Dasa" <raganuga (AT) cyberway (DOT) com.sg>; "Gregory Jay"

<gregjay (AT) softhome (DOT) net>

Cc: "Tattvavit (das) ACBSP (BBT)" <Tattvavit.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Nrsimha

Kavaca (das) IDS" <Nrsimha.Kavaca.IDS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "India (Continental

Committee) Open (Forum)" <India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Monday, October 18, 2004 12:59 AM

Re: Diffeerence in potency / rasa

 

 

> Urmila mataji wrote:

>

>> There are plenty of statements that all names are equal in potency and

>> then statements like the above that indicate varigatedness of effects. So

>> the differences cannot be in potency; to think so is an offense against

>> the name.

>

> I am not saying you are wrong. I am just trying, if possible, to gain a

> more

> complete understanding. Where for instance is it stated that it is an

> offense to think that there is a difference in potency of the Lord's

> various

> names?

 

"The second offense is to see the holy names of the Lord in terms of worldly

distinction. The Lord is the proprietor of all the universes, and therefore

He may be known in different places by different names, but that does not in

any way qualify the fullness of the Lord. Any nomenclature which is meant

for the Supreme Lord is as holy as the others because they are all meant for

the Lord. Such holy names are as powerful as the Lord, and there is no bar

for anyone in any part of the creation to chant and glorify the Lord by the

particular name of the Lord as it is locally understood. They are all

auspicious, and one should not distinguish such names of the Lord as

material commodities." SB 2.1.11purport

 

 

 

> I accept that. I still I have this doubt, though, because it is

> undoubtedly

> in our teachings that the different names bring about different results

> and

> destinations. If we worship Vishnu we go to Vaikuntha and if we worship

> Krishna we go to Golaka Vrindavanan. It is also explained in the NOD that

> Krishna is the topmost personality of Godhead possessing 4 more qualities

> than any of His other plenary expansions. So I'll repeat the question I

> put

> to you before:

>

> If there is no difference in the potencies of Krishna's names, if all his

> names have the same potency, but if at the same time the names cannot

> equally deliver us to the highest rasa, what then is that same potency? If

> Vishnu's name cannot take us above shanta and dasya rasas, in what way is

> it as powerful as Krishna's name?

>

> Maybe the problem lies in understanding what potency means in relation to

> the Godhead. Could it be that this is a case of acintya abedha bedha

> tattva?

> - that there is a difference between the different names and at the same

> time there is no difference, because they are all the names of the

> absolute

> Personlity of Godhead.

 

You have put the question very perfectly. This morning I had some further

insight into the matter, which I hope will be helpful. So far I have

consulted with three eminent devotees, and done some further research.

Tentatively, the direction in which we are headed is useful, but until I

consult with some other devotees and look into this further, I would not

like to venture to answer this more.

 

Thanks for your mood in writing this. So refreshing!

 

SB 2.9.36 "A person who is searching after the Supreme Absolute Truth, the

Personality of Godhead, must certainly search for it up to this, in all

circumstances, in all space and time, and both directly and indirectly."

 

>

>> "As they surrender to Me, I reward them accordingly..." check out that

>> purport. :-)

>>

>> Anyway, Prabhupada says that one who understands tattva (see that CC

>> quote

>> I already sent) doesn't quibble about such things.

>

> I thought this was a philosophical discussion to enhance our understanding

> of the potencies of Krishna's names. I am just trying to understand the

> topic better. I am sorry if you think it is quibbling to question your

> personal understanding.

 

Oh, no, you are not quibbling at all. I am appreciating this very much. But

perhaps some people are quibbling and insulting. I don't know. E-mail is

funny because one cannot hear tone of voice, body language, etc.

 

Yes, this should be a philosophical discussion to enhance our understanding.

In the spirit of gita 10.9.

 

 

>

>>All names are equal.

>

> But they are also different since they don't deliver us to the same

> destination. I understand how they are different, because they bring

> different results, but you seem to stress only the point that there is no

> difference, and that is the part I don't understand. How are the names

> equal

> in potency if they bring different results?

>

>> Ramachandra is equal to Balarama he says. But the mood and destination of

>> the devotee will be varied. We cannot think "higher" in a material sense.

>

> I agree, but we can think higher in a spiritual sense, like Dvaraka is

> higher than Vaikuntha and Vrindavan is higher than Dvaraka.

 

Yes, this is exactly my understanding, as well. The varieties are in rasa,

mood, sweetness, etc. but not in tattva. Let me do some further "mining" of

these jewels...I will get back to the members of this conference on this

topic.

 

 

>

>> "Higher" in a spiritual sense does not include the concept that others

>> are

>> "lower."

>

> I understand that each and every soul is satisfied in his natural position

> whether it be in Vaikuntha or Vrindavan, and that a liberated soul is

> beyond

> the envy of thinking higher and lower, but still Krishna's queens of

> Dvaraka

> were curious about Krishna in Vrindavan to the extent that they wanted to

> taste that rasa. But they were not allowed. In Sanatana Goswami's Brihad

> Bhagavatamrita there is also the example of Gopa Kumara (representing the

> jiva, I suppose) who went through all the different rasas but could not

> find

> peace until he finally returned to Goloka Vrindavan.

>

> Your servant

> Jahnudvip das

 

Ah, that is *exactly* the example I thought of this morning. I will take

your text as further confirmation, though I still wish to check out some

specific verses and sastric statements with those more expert and advanced

than myself

 

Your servant, Urmila devi dasi