Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Dear Madaba Mohan prabhu Sadhu! Sadhu! Please don't take seriously my offences if there are any in this letter. At least I wasn't experiencing any negative emotions while typing it, so I hope you will smile together with me at some my thoughts. > 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. Are my posting looking like that of a religious fanatic? Sorry if that is the case.. I'm trying not to discard the logic in my daily life as well as in studying the Sastra, you know it well. You have logically (wrongly) concluded that I'm abandoning the logic in this discussion BUT I'd just requested to give me the Sastric evidence. That's all. Regarding logic as the independent pramana, "the acintya matters are not subject to the logic" - you know this quote from Mahabharata better than me. At least I'd heard it from you for several times. > 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. With all my great respect for you I have a different approach to the inconceivable topic: to leave it till the time Krsna reveals it in unequivocal way, while continuing my sadhana and study. > 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 I can't agree that they are based PURELY on logic. The statement by Visvanatha Cakravarti IS HIS personal realisation. Madhva calls this SAKSHI-PRAMANA. This is NOT logic which has quite understandable limitations. The logic may turn the black into white... As for my intuition (saksi-pramana) your conclusions seem to contradict it alone with the logic (anumana-pramana). I'm not saying all you write is wrong but I feel your argument has a fault of ativyapti - overextention. Perhaps the difference of our positions is also in the degree of confidence with which we believe/accept the notions that are not not directly supported by the Sastra. > 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. The conclusion is logical but it doesn't mean it's BASED on logic. It is based on the realisation which is logically presented. Even in the materialistic science the logic is not the main drive of developing the objective knowledge. In every science first of all some kind of apple should land on one's head (Newton) before the scientist may see some axiomatic/dogmatic truth and ONLY then he develops a logical coat around the self-evident/perceived notion. > After all, SB itself accepts the importance of logic for judging even > essential philosophical conclusions: Logic is a crutch but never the basis of the "essential philosophical conclusions". The basis is bhakti... The logic in itself is never conclusive. Just an example: two devotees may argue for many days turning the Krsna-katha conference into TARKA-KATHA...with no end. Here is something about receiving the conclusive knowledge: "Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu confirmed these verses recited by Sri Ramananda Raya, saying, "This is the limit of the goal of human life. Only by your mercy have I come to understand it conclusively." (CC Madhya 8.196) > 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. "There is another wonderful feature of the emotion of the gopis. Its power is beyond the comprehension of the intelligence." (CC Adi 4.185) I'm just cautious about making an unsupported statement. You know some wise pandits say: "if you can't quote the Sastra or acarya to support what you're telling, then it's better not to say it". "As for the difference between mental speculation and philosophical speculation, we take it that everything is known by the psychological action of the mind, so that philosophical speculation is the same as mental speculation if it is merely the random or haphazard activity of the brain to understand everything and making theories, "if's" and "maybe's." But if philosophical speculation is directed by Sastra and Guru, and if the goal of such philosophical attempts is to achieve Visnu, then that philosophical speculation is not mental speculation." ======== REF. Letter to Caturbhuja 1.21.72 > 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. OHO! The literal meaning of Sastra is not OK?... I would prefer to learn SUCH "gray areas" of philosophy not from the depths of my mind but from someone like Svarupa Damodara. Sorry for concervatism.. "This conclusion of rasa is extremely deep. Only Svarupa Damodara knows much about it. Anyone else who claims to know it must have heard it from him, for he was the most intimate companion of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu." (!!!) (CC Adi 4.160-161) On another hand I don't see this area as "gray". We have most elaborate explanation of the Lord's and jiva's nature. Jiva is sat-cit-ananda qualitatively one but quantitatively always DIFFERENT from the Lord. All other notions about jiva's nature are your own perception and to consider their objectivity in absence of direct Sastric evidence we could apply the principle of upalaksana - the similarity of characteristic. Which characteristic of the eternally minute soul is similar to the characteristic of unlimited bliss exceeding even that of the Lord's? > Therefore, with your kind permission we will try to use logic here as > well. Of course! > However, next you seem to admit that Krsna's saktis enjoy more than Him. YES! Because it's said in CC. > 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. !!! Amazing logic! In this way we can equate something to anything! Why it's irrelevant, may I ask? Somebody AS POTENT as Krsna can enjoy more than Him but NOT EVERYBODY! Madana Mohan prabhu, I want to ask a question. Suppose I have ears and a donkey has ears.. Does that make me completely nondifferent from an ass? Even in the capacity to hear? > >“...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. Not exactly... Krsnadas Kaviraj speaks about ETERNAL COMPETITION of bliss between Radha and Krsna where "no one acknowledges defeat". "There is constant competition between My sweetness and the mirror of Radha’s love. They both go on increasing, but neither knows defeat." (CC Adi 4.142) "For this contradiction I see only one solution: the joy of the gopis lies in the joy of their beloved Krsna." (CC Adi 4.189) "In this way a competition takes place between them in which no one acknowledges defeat." (CCAdi 4.193) > For enjoying more than Him They have to be different from Him. Radharani and her direct expansions ARE one-and-different with KRSNA, but NOT in the way the living entity or Maya are one-and-different with the Lord. They are QUANTITATIVELY ONE with the Lord and at the same time different whereas the jiva quantitatively is always DIFFERENT. Can a living entity ever experience a MAHABHAVA? Does Maya-devi (expansion of Rama-devi) experience a mahabhava? "Sri Radha Thakurani is the embodiment of mahabhava." (CC Adi 4.49) "Only Radhika, by the strength of Her love, tastes all the nectar of My sweetness." (CC Adi 4.139) > Therefore it > proves that somebody who is not Krsna can enjoy more than Him. Again, not EVERYBODY. You're proving that which requires no proof i.e. that SOMEBODY can enjoy more than Krsna. It is already explicitly stated in CC that this SOMEBODY is Srimati Radharani and Her expansions. > You then draw a distinction between gopis and the living entities: > > 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. WRONG. I'm implying only what is said in the relevant section of CC "The gopis are the personal friends of Srimati Radharani, and are equal to Her". The living entity may be in a form of gopi in the spiritual world but because of that will she become equal to Srimati Radharani? THEREFORE the topic here is concerned of ONLY Radha and Her DIRECT expansions. Like Krsna has svamshas and vibhinamshas in a similar way Radha does have them. > >Srimati Radharani, and are equal to Her" ANY GOPI-JIVA on Goloka = Radharani? > None of these implications, however, seems to be true. The implications stated are your assumptions but not mine. > First of all, there are living entities among gopis: I have no doubts about it. > 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". Agree. > 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" OK > That's why, when taking about comparative levels of enjoyment, acaryas > make statements like this: > > CC šdi 4.43 > > nija nija bh€va sabe reìha kari’ m€ne > nija-bh€ve kare kŠa-sukha €sv€dane > > Each kind of devotee feels that his sentiment is the most excellent, and > thus in that mood he tastes great happiness with Lord KŠa. > > šdi 4.44 > > taìastha ha-iy€ mane vic€ra yadi kari > saba rasa haite ëg€re adhika m€dhurà > > 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. Subjectively and from the subjective (your personal) point of view it is true! BUT in application to Srimati Radharani and Her direct expansions it's true OBJECTIVELY, and from the OBJECTIVE (Sastric) point of view. > (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). Why?! The living entity in the spiritual world is FULL in his own happiness according to his eternal nature of a SERVANT. Not necessarily he experiences a greater happiness than God and BECAUSE OF THAT he doesn't want to become God. We know that when jiva desires become God she goes to the material world... > Not only that, but He also agrees to make His happiness subordinate to his > devotee's: The Lord wants to enjoy unlimitedly increasing the number of His servants unlimitedly but it doesn't prove that the enjoyment of a jiva is higher than that of the Lord'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. Again, Krsna ETERNALLY as Mahaprabhu relishes all devotional rasas, so there is nothing unknown to Him. > (7) > This is also proved by the fact that pure devotional service attracts > Krsna in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu: A slightly different topic: "Prema is attracting Krsna". SP explains in NOD: "To perform devotional service means to follow in the footsteps of Radharani". To the degree Radha's energy is manifested in the living entity Krsna becomes attracted to such a service. However it doesn't have bearing with jiva enjoying more than Krsna. > (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. This quote is more convincing than all previous arguments. Still there is no clear hint about the LEVEL of spiritual bliss the Lord awards the living entity. > 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. Again the topic of "Prema is attracting the Lord". > Please forgive me for such a long text. I would be very happy to be > corrected on any of the above points. Enjoyed very much reading nice quotes! Your servant Visista dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.