enjoying more than the Lord?

[Guest guest]

Sri Govardhan

 

Dear Visista Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Thank you for your letter and sorry for my tardy reply -- I have had very

little time and access to the Internet in the last few days.

 

Here are a few points for your kind consideration and criticism:

 

 

(1)

 

>I'm looking for the self evident sastric statement not for the logical

>guess.

>

>I assume that from the point of view prayojana/rasa Sastra or our acaryas

>might have presented the inconceivable matters in a way as it had been

>suggested by your good self. Seems I have not read Srila Prabhupada's books

>enough and have not listened enough his lectures - but I can't remember (in

>what I listened and read) the statement that the jiva in the spiritual

>world can experience the higher bliss than the Lord. If you please could

>present some EXPLICIT statement to that effect it would immediately

>convince such samshayatma as me.

 

 

You request an explicit statement from the sastra that a living entity can

enjoy more than Krsna. You also dismiss logic as a valid pramana here.

 

Admittedly, I am not aware of a straight-forward quote from the sastra or

acaryas to substantiate the point that a living entity can enjoy more than

Krsna. There may easily be none at all.

 

However, not all the points of our philosophy have such a backing either.

Like it or not, some of them are based on purely logical conclusions from

other sastric statements.

 

To give you an example: in his Raga-vartma-candrika Visvanatha Cakravarti

Thakura made a very important theological claim that Krsna is both sarvajna

(omniscient) and mugdhata (bewildered), and that in Vrindavana He is

genuinely mugdhata, or bewildered, about His own Godhood, being covered by

prema of His pure devotees.

 

This statement appears to contradict, as VCT himself acknowledges, the

purely ontological concept of God as being always omniscient. An opponent

could expect and even demand VCT to quote some explicit sastric statement to

validate this unusual idea of a "bewildered God".

 

However, all VCT quotes is a seemingly tangential statement by Kuntidevi in

SB 1.8.31, then draws a logical conclusion from it and bases his whole

discourse on Krsna's mugdhatatva this logical conclusion.

 

After all, SB itself accepts the importance of logic for judging even

essential philosophical conclusions:

 

SB 3.7.9: "Sri Maitreya said: Certain conditioned souls put forward the

theory that the Supreme Brahman, or the Personality of Godhead, is overcome

by illusion, or maya, and at the same time they maintain that He is

unconditioned. This is against all logic [yan nayena virudhyate]"

 

 

SB 6.2.1: Sukadeva Gosvami said: My dear King, the servants of Lord Visnu

are always very expert in logic and arguments. After hearing the statements

of the Yamadutas, they replied as follows.

 

 

SB 7.6.28: Prahlada Maharaja continued: I received this knowledge from the

great saint Narada Muni, who is always engaged in devotional service. This

knowledge, which is called bhagavata-dharma, is fully scientific. It is

based on logic and philosophy and is free from all material contamination.

 

 

SB 11.7.20: An intelligent person, expert in perceiving the world around him

and in applying sound logic, can achieve real benefit through his own

intelligence. Thus sometimes one acts as one's own instructing spiritual

master.

 

 

SB 11.20.24-25: Through the various disciplinary regulations and the

purificatory procedures of the yoga system, through logic and spiritual

education or through worship and adoration of Me, one should constantly

engage his mind in remembering the Personality of Godhead, the goal of yoga.

No other means should be employed for this purpose. Thus great philosophers

have analyzed the material elements in many different ways. All of their

proposals are reasonable, since they are all presented with ample logic.

Indeed, such philosophical brilliance is expected of the truly learned.

 

 

The above seems to indicate that your request to entirely steer clear of

logic while discussing important philosophical matters cannot in itself be

validated by the sastra or acarya.

 

On the contrary, it is exactly in such "gray areas" of philosophy as the one

in question where we are supposed to enter the realm of philosophy and

logic, which serve to project clear and unequivocal statements of the sastra

beyond their literal meaning.

 

Therefore, with your kind permission we will try to use logic here as well.

 

(2)

 

In your message you stated:

 

>From the point of view sambandha-jnana the living entiyt is NEVER equal to

>the Lord or higher than Him in ANY respect. Just because that which is

>unlimitedly minute can't accomodate that which is unlimitedly great (the

>Lord's bliss).

 

Or to make this statement about Krsna's enjoyment even stronger, one may

even quote a statement by Srila Prabhupada in NOD 38, which has surprisingly

eluded you:

 

"Therefore, no one can be enjoying more than Krsna."

 

Ontologically, this is perfectly correct.

 

However, next you seem to admit that Krsna's saktis enjoy more than Him.

 

If this is what you really believe to be true, and if you accept the bheda

part of acintya-bhedabheda, then the above statement about Krsna is not

correct because there is somebody enjoying more than Krsna 10.000.000 times

(Radharani) or 100.000.000.000.000 times (gopis). Whether they are

sakti-tattvas or jiva-tattvas is irrelevant for this conclusion.

 

 

(3)

 

You are saying:

 

>It's NOT difficult to accept that Srimati Radharani and Her direct

>expansions are equal to Krsna.

>

>******

>

>“...Although Radha and Krsna are one in Their identity, They separated

>Themselves eternally....”

 

 

However, if Srimati Radharani and Her direct explanations are just equal to

Krsna, this can only explain how They could enjoy as much as Him. For

enjoying more than Him They have to be different from Him. Therefore it

proves that somebody who is not Krsna can enjoy more than Him.

 

 

(4)

 

You then draw a distinction between gopis and the living entities:

 

>Radha experiences 10 000 000 times more bliss than Krsna -> gopis (twigs,

>flowers and leaves of Radharani's creeper) experience 10 000 000 times more

>bliss when see Radha's happiness -> The mentioned sakhis are the direct

>expansions of Radharani ("The gopis are the personal friends of Srimati

>Radharani, and are equal to Her") -> the LIVING ENTITY is not equal to

>Srimati Radharani or Her expansions (my conclusion, is it crooked logic?).

 

and

 

>To the best of my knowledge the nitya-parishadas in the spiritual world

>such as asta-gopis, Nanda, Yasoda and other closest associates of the Lord

>belong to a different tattva than the jiva. Sakti-tattva. Please correct me

>if I'm wrong.

 

thus implying that living entities cannot be gopis, or that the statements

from CC about gopis enjoying more than Krsna refer only to sakti-tattva

gopis.

 

None of these implications, however, seems to be true.

 

First of all, there are living entities among gopis:

 

Jaiva-dharma 21:

 

Vrajanatha, “The scriptures tell us that the gopis of Gokula in the

spiritual sky are nitya-siddha manifesting in Vraja-dhama upon earth to

enhance the transcendental pastimes of Sri Krsna. In this be so, how may the

statement of the Padma Purana regarding the Dandakaranya sages be harmonised

with this description of the gopis of Gokula?”

 

Raghunatha dasa Babaji, “The nitya-siddha gopis manifest in the material

world to participate in the rasa-lila dance of Sri Krsna at Gokula. However,

in addition to them, there is another category of gopis, who are

sadhana-siddhas. Having attained perfection through kamarupa-sadhana bhakti,

they are elevated to the pastimes in Gokula. According to the Srimad

Bhagavatam, 10.29.8, where it is said ...ta varyamanah patibhih... ‘By

serving Sri Krsna in meditation, when hindered by their mothers, fathers,

husbands and brothers from meeting Govinda, they [the sadhana-siddha gopis]

abandoned their external material bodies and regained their original purely

spiritual forms, and in these forms they attained the association of Sri

Krsna in His rasa-lila pastime.’ Many of these sadhana-siddha gopis were

previously the Dandakaranya sages who had performed raganuga sadhana-bhakti

with the conjugal mood in their hearts towards Krsna. Thus, later, they

acquired transcendental forms as gopis in Vraja.”

 

Vrajanatha, “Babaji, who are the nitya-siddhas, and who are the

sadhana-siddhas?”

 

Raghunatha dasa Babaji, “The complete embodiment of Sri Krsna’s

svarupa-sakti is Srimati Radharani. Her immediate personal expansions are

the asta-sakhis, the eight principal gopis, who further expand as the

nitya-siddha gopis, who are thus the kaya-vyuha, bodily expansions, of

Srimati Radharani. They are all nitya-siddha, eternally perfect, and not in

the category of jiva-sakti; they are an exclusive class of their own, being

the expansions of the svarupa-sakti of Krsna, Srimati Radharani.

“The general sakhis of Vraja had attained perfection through their intense

engagement in raganuga sadhana-bhakti and were later elevated to associate

with the nitya-siddha expansions of Srimati Radhika; they are perfect

examples of sadhana-siddha jivas. By being imbued with the hladini-sakti by

the mercy of Srimati Radhika, they have attained salokya to serve with the

nitya-siddha vraja-gopis.

 

 

Secondly, Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja does not say in CC that it is only

nitya-siddha gopis that enjoy more than Srimati Radharani. This may indicate

that even sadhana-siddha gopis, " imbued with hladini-sakti" are enjoying

the same intensity of enjoyment as the nitya-siddha gopis. Why should not

they?

 

 

(5)

 

However, we can also look at the question at hand from a different

perspective.

 

You write:

 

>Of course in the purport to 1.13.42 Srila Prabhupada speaks about enjoying

>a higher or equal FREEDOM and not about the general enjoyment.

 

>I assume that from the point of view prayojana/rasa Sastra or our acaryas

>might have presented the inconceivable matters in a way as it had been

>suggested by your good self.

 

Here we should keep in mind the difference between objective and subjective

judgments.

 

When talking about having freedom more than the Lord's, we are discussing an

objective category, because the very fact that Mother Yasoda orders Krsna

and He does what she says means that Her freedom is objectively greater,

regardless of the actual reasons for this -- i.e., Krsna's own will to make

her have more freedom than Him. It's what we may call "tattva-vicar", or

"objective judgment".

 

However, when we are talking of enjoying more than the Lord, we are dealing

with a subjective reality, which cannot be objectively compared.

 

Like if both of us perceive the same red apple, there is just no way to say

if the redness I perceive is any "redder" then the one you do, unless you

become me and remain yourself at the same time. This is what we may call

"rasa-vicar", or "aesthetical judgment"

 

That's why, when taking about comparative levels of enjoyment, acaryas make

statements like this:

 

CC Adi 4.43

 

nija nija bhava sabe srestha kari’ mane

nija-bhave kare krsna-sukha asvadane

 

Each kind of devotee feels that his sentiment is the most excellent, and

thus in that mood he tastes great happiness with Lord Krsna.

 

Adi 4.44

 

tatastha ha-iya mane vicara yadi kari

saba rasa haite srngare adhika madhuri

 

But if we compare the sentiments in an impartial mood, we find that the

conjugal sentiment is superior to all others in sweetness.

 

PURPORT: No one is higher or lower than anyone else in transcendental

relationships with the Lord, for in the absolute realm everything is equal.

But although these relationships are absolute, there are also transcendental

differences between them. Thus the transcendental relationship of conjugal

love is considered the highest perfection.

 

Thus spiritual world is a realm of subjective judgment, which each happiness

is greater than everybody else's.

 

 

(6)

 

However, there is still a way to compare the level of happiness enjoyed by

two persons.

 

If someone wants to envoy the happiness of the other, you could say that the

latter's happiness is SUBJECTIVELY greater than the former's. In other

words, if I want your enjoyment, by this very fact I admit that I enjoy

less. And if I do not have a desire to enjoy the same pleasure as someone

else's, I have plenty myself and my happiness is greater than the one I am

exposed to.

 

In the material world, this is called envy. In the siritual world this is

called, I believe, transcendental greed.

 

A well-known fact, however, is that Krsna wants to enjoy the happiness of

serving Him, or the happiness enjoyed by the devotee. That is why He comes

as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

But, on the other hand, a devotee never desires to enjoy the happiness of

Krsna, even though Krsna's happiness is far greater quantitatively.

 

This proves that when a living entity engages in pure devotional service to

Krsna, the happiness he experiences is greater that Krsna's qualitatively

(rasa-vicar), while being less quantitatively (tattva-vicar).

 

Not only that, but He also agrees to make His happiness subordinate to his

devotee's:

 

SB 1.4.31 purp.: The dissatisfaction which was being felt by Srila Vyasadeva

is expressed herein in his own words. This was felt for the normal condition

of the living being in the devotional service of the Lord. ****Unless one is

fixed in the normal condition of service, neither the Lord nor the living

being can become fully satisfied.****

 

 

As Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja said in The Embankment of Separation, the

Krsna in the heart of a pure devotee is not pratibimba, or reflection, but

bimba, the object proper. Adorned with devotee's pure love, Krsna in His

heart is much more beautiful than "ontological Krsna" -- so much that Krsna

becomes attracted by devotee's happiness and wants to taste it too.

 

This is the only pleasure unknown to Krsna, and this facts alone puts

devotee's happiness above even Krsna's own.

 

 

 

(7)

 

This is also proved by the fact that pure devotional service attracts Krsna

in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu:

 

Text 41:

 

sri-krsnakarsini –

krtva harim premabhajam priya varga samanvitam |

bhaktir vasi karotiti sri-krsnakarsini mata ||41||

 

Translation: The Power of Drawing Krsna to oneself: Prema-Bhakti is called

Krsna-Akarsini, i.e., possessing the power of attracting Lord Krsna because

such Bhakti charms Krsna into complete submission through endearing love and

affection for Krsna with His Entourage. –41-

 

Commentary: The commentator Sri Jiva Gosvami points out that in the text

Sri-Krsna-Akarsini, the prefix Sri refers to the Entourage of the Lord, so

that it is not only the Lord alone but the Lord with all His Entourage that

becomes charmed into submission by Prema-Bhakti. Sri Mukundadasa points out

that in Prema-Bhakti which binds ever Lord Krsna, the object of the Bhakti

is not merely Lord Krsna Himself, but Krsna with His Entourage.

....

 

Translator’s Note: It may be noted here that while Lord Krsna as the

All-Inclusive Reality, is absolutely free in all respects not being subject

to any kind of bondage, yet there is one exception. He is the Self-Elected

slave of a real selfless devotee of His, who had attained Prema-Bhakti.

 

 

 

Srila Jiva Goswami seems to indicate here that even the Lord's eternal

associates, nitya-siddhas, become attracted by the pure service of a living

entity. This is also supported by Srila Sanatana Goswami in

Brhad-bhagavatamrita, where Prahlada Maharaja's devotional service is ranked

even higher than that of Laxmi:

 

 

BB 1.3.84 commentary

 

Reason dictates that a newcomer to devotional service like Prahlada could

not surpass the goddess Laksmi, who eternally resides on the chest of Lord

Narayana, yet still Prahlada received special mercy from the Lord to put him

in that unlikely standing. ... Thus, by the Lord's sweet will, Prahlada

became the greatest Vaisnava, which would otherwise have been impossible.

 

 

 

(8)

 

The last statement seems to reconcile all apparent contradictions -- the

Lord loves His devotees so much, that He enjoys giving them more enjoyment

in the form of pure devotional service than He Himself enjoys, and after

giving it to them, He becomes subservient to them to get it back:

 

SB 2.6.18 purp.: The Supreme Lord, who is the leader of all living entities,

can award all the qualities of His personality unto His devotees, including

immortality and spiritual bliss.

 

 

SB 6.16.34: Citraketu said: O unconquerable Lord, although You cannot be

conquered by anyone, You are certainly conquered by devotees who have

control of the mind and senses. They can keep You under their control

because You are causelessly merciful to devotees who desire no material

profit from You. Indeed, You give Yourself to them, and because of this You

also have full control over Your devotees.

 

 

SB 9.4.64: O best of the brahmanas, without saintly persons for whom I am

the only destination, I do not desire to enjoy My transcendental bliss and

My supreme opulences.

 

 

SB 11.14.16: With the dust of My devotees' lotus feet I desire to purify the

material worlds, which are situated within Me. Thus, I always follow the

footsteps of My pure devotees, who are free from all personal desire, rapt

in thought of My pastimes, peaceful, without any feelings of enmity, and of

equal disposition everywhere.

 

 

 

Please forgive me for such a long text. I would be very happy to be

corrected on any of the above points.

 

Begging to remain

 

your servant,

Madana-mohana das