listening to the holy name from the lips of mayavadis

[bija]

 

 

 

I have been reflecting while reading during the day, about my recent conversation with Theist -

click here, and the subject of mayavadis. It is Srila Bhaktivinoda's disappearance day tommorrow, in one hour from now, so I felt it would release me from some offence, to glorify the truth from his mouth and his followers mouth.

 

 

 

 

 

I realized that Theist is correct, in that the Pure Name is what the Vaisnava wishes to give the fallen soul. I am imperfect, and not so knowledgeable with scripture. So I feel it is best to post here something I aspire for, but do not have as yet.

 

 

 

 

 

Please forgive me for my offences due to lack of association and humility.

 

 

 

 

 

Bhaktivinoda Vani Vaibhava - Impure Vaisnavas

 

1.Are offenders to the holy name pure Vaisnavas?

Persons who commit offense against the holy name are never pure Vaisnavas; thus, Srlman Mahaprabhu has distinguished them by saying that they are not pure Vaisnavas but are like Vaisnavas. (Sajjana-tosani 8/9)

3.If external transformations of love of God are found in a Mayavadi, can he be called a Vaisnava?

The Mayavadis are pseudo namabhasis; therefore, they are offenders. It is very difficult for them to become pure Vaisnavas. They can never be called Vaisnavas—no matter how much reflection of love of God they manifest. (Sajjana-tosani 5/12)

 

Sri Bhajan-rahasya by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Vritti by Srila BV Narayana. Chapter One Text 10

 

When the holy name is chanted without any desire other than that for bhakti, when it is not covered by jnana, karma and so forth, and when it is chanted in a favorable mood with a sense of one's relationship with Krsna, it is called suddha-nama, pure name. If it is not suddha-nama, it is called nama-abhasa, a semblance of the holy name. When one's chanting of the holy name is asuddha, covered with ignorance, or in other words when it has the defects of bhrama (the tendency to commit mistakes) and pramada (the tendency to be illusioned), it is called nama-abhasa. Nama-abhasa also refers to the chanting of the name when one is absorbed in matters unrelated to Krsna. And when asuddha-nama is chanted with desires for liberation and enjoyment, due to the influence of mayavadi (impersonalism) and so on, it is called nama-aparadha...

[Dark Warrior]

In my opinion, a sincere 'mayavadi' > Theist. One should think, Theist misinterprets things more than the average advaitin.

 

One needs to understand the difference between mordern day Neovedantins and true Advaitins. A true advaitin would be one who believes that the world is unreal, that the Self is Brahman, etc. Now, technically, Nirguna Brahman is devoid of names, attributes, and anything else, but according to Sankaracharya (who translates 'Akshara' in Gita as Nirguna Brahman), in order to attain Moksha, one should first surrender to Saguna Brahman, who is technically unreal as well, but as real as the illusory state goes anyway (correct me if I am wrong). So, Sankara advocates surrender to Narayana ALONE (and no Devas).

 

Vishnu is the highest Saguna Brahman, and surrendering to Him in bhakti would cleanse a person of his false ego and ignorance and help him to attain the Ikyapathi Moksha (ie, identity).

 

Hence, at the Vyavaharika level, a follower of Sankaracharya is a Vaishnava. Just like there are Shaiva Dvaitins or Vishishtadvaitins, there are Vaishnava Advaitins.

 

So, a true advaitin, would agree that Vishnu is Supreme as far as the Vyavaharika level is concerned, and he would genuinely believe that Self alone exists, WITHOUT EGO. He would be humble, sincere and full of renunciation despite considering himself as Brahman. Therefore, while this path is totally wrong and the philosophy totally unattractive, the individual isn't 'sinful' or 'deadly'. Sure, the advaitin would be considered to have tamo guna, as the philosophy is wrong, but he will be humble, and generally devoid of ego.

 

It is the mordern advaitins who have completely veered off the path and become bloated with ego, thinking themselves as Brahman, and posing as intellectuals. An Advaitic Vedantin is, by the very term, a Vedantin. He simply disagrees with other Vedantins on the nature of Moksha. He may also not obtain moksha due to false knowledge of identity, but he should be given respect. He does NOT get egotistical. In summary,

 

True advaita - Self being Brahman is a natural thing, so no ego is ever nurtured. Nothing to be proud about.

 

Neovedanta - We are Brahman, so let us just act supercilious and make a big fuss about how spiritual we are. Oh, and say that every religion is true, but at the end, only advaita is correct. Courtesy of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc.

 

Bhaja Govindam and Govindashtakam by Sri Adi Sankaracharya are classics. His philosophy is another matter, but on the whole, I certainly have no problem listening to nama sankirtanam by sincere advaitins. Adi Sankara was most definitely a Vaishnava.

[bija]

 

It is the mordern advaitins who have completely veered off the path and become bloated with ego, thinking themselves as Brahman, and posing as intellectuals. An Advaitic Vedantin is, by the very term, a Vedantin. He simply disagrees with other Vedantins on the nature of Moksha. He may also not obtain moksha due to false knowledge of identity, but he should be given respect. He does NOT get egotistical. In summary,

 

True advaita - Self being Brahman is a natural thing, so no ego is ever nurtured. Nothing to be proud about.

 

Neovedanta - We are Brahman, so let us just act supercilious and make a big fuss about how spiritual we are. Oh, and say that every religion is true, but at the end, only advaita is correct. Courtesy of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc. by dark

 

My soul is wrestling with these things at the moment Dark. I just can't disrespect people like Amma (I saw God in her). But my tradition demands total surrender it seems. It is most difficult presently.

 

Your knowledge is good. A very interesting post.

 

I was reading today somewhere in my library, and it referred to Sankaracarya as Vaisnava.

 

What are the main distinguishing factors, say between Sankaracarya as a Vaisnava and a Sri Vaisnava?

 

Bhaja Govindam and Govindashtakam Verses by Sankaracarya - click here

 

[Kulapavana]

 

My soul is wrestling with these things at the moment Dark. I just can't disrespect people like Amma (I saw God in her). But my tradition demands total surrender it seems. It is most difficult presently.

[url="http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Shankaracharya.htm"]

 

Just because you see God in someone, that is not equivalent to God's full endorsement of that person. God has a certain mission and He uses many different people as His tools. This is how He acts in this world. Be more focused on God and His mission, than on tools He uses. Read the description of Universal Form in the 11th Chapter of Gita. God's manifestations are unlimited, and some can be outright frightening.

[cbrahma]

 

a. Part and Whole Bhedābhedavādins understand the relation between Brahman and the individual souls to be a relation between a whole and its parts. They frequently employ stock examples to illustrate this relation. Some of the most common are a fire and its sparks, the sun and its rays, a father and his son, and the ocean and its waves. Each of these is an example of a part-whole relation, which is also a variety of difference and non-difference (Bhedābheda). So, to take one example, the sparks that come off of a fire are both the same as that fire and different from it. They are the same insofar as they came from the fire, and are constituted by the same substance as fire. But they are also distinguishable from the original fire, as occupying a separate point in space. Although these four examples each seem to illustrate a different relation (and it may seem to make no sense at all to understand a son as a “part” of his father), Bhedābhedavādins cite these familiar examples from the physical world in order to shed light on the true metaphysical relation between Brahman and the individual selves. While each might capture some aspect of that relation, inevitably they are mere approximations, requiring further commentary and philosophical analysis.

Advaita Vedāntins object to the characterization of the individual self as a part, and characterize Brahman as partless. All schools of Vedānta understand the Veda as the ultimate epistemic authority, and arguments from scripture play a large part in intra-Vedāntic disputes. Advaitins point out that both the Upaniṣads and the Brahma Sūtras say that Brahman is partless (niravayava, niṣkala). Furthermore, the assertion that Brahman has parts seems to defy logic. It is inconceivable that Brahman could be made up of parts, for things that are made up of parts are dependent on those parts, and impermanent. Advaitins offer their own stock examples to show that Brahman cannot be divided up, and that any such division is purely an artificial limitation on an indivisible entity. For example, Advaitins commonly liken Brahman to the element called “space” (ākāśa). According to traditional science in India, space is an element that is omnipresent in the world, just as all Vedāntins agree that Brahman is omnipresent. Although we can talk about space as being delimited (the space inside a room, the space inside a pot), such limitations of space are purely accidental, not essential to the element itself. It may appear to an observer that the space inside a pot and the space outside the pot are two different entities, but this is a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of space.

The Bhedābhedavādins can themselves appeal to textual authority for the idea that the relation between Brahman and the individual self is a relation between a whole and its parts. In Brahma Sūtra 2.3.43, The individual self is referred to as a “part” (aṁśa), and Bhedābhedavādins cite this passage whenever they require a textual support for their views. However, Advaitins take this description of the relation as a figurative, and not literal description of the status of the individual self. Otherwise, this passage will conflict with Brahma Sūtra 2.1.26, which says that Brahman is “partless” (niravayava). For Advaita, the world appears as if to be made of parts. But when it is understood correctly, all of the many entities in the world are seen to be false, and only one entity, a single, partless Brahman remains. Bhedābhedavādins, in their assertion of the world’s phenomenal reality, insist that multiplicity is real. Brahman is simultaneously one and many, depending on the perspective from which it is viewed, just as the ocean can be described as one or many, depending on the perspective from which it is described. Bhedābhedavādins maintain that Brahman’s being made up of parts in no way diminishes the perfection of Brahman, just as the existence of waves in the ocean in no way diminishes the amount of water therein.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/bhed-ved.htm

 

 

 

 

[theist]

 

My soul is wrestling with these things at the moment Dark. I just can't disrespect people like Amma (I saw God in her). But my tradition demands total surrender it seems. It is most difficult presently.

 

 

No need to wrestle over the basic vaisnava conception. God is in everyone and everyone is part of God and so everyone is worthy of respect including Amma. You don't have to disrespect someone to keep a safe distance. The example is God is in the Tiger but one should not try to embrace the Tiger.

 

We give all respects to Lord Buddha accepting Him as an avatar of krishna but at the same time we avoid like the plauge His teachings of voidism. But on a personal level it is impossible not to feel some attraction for Lord Buddha, he is afterall an avatar. We have to keep His mission in mind. He did not come to teach Vaisnavism but His mission is ultimately to draw people to Krishna but for some people it is necessary to approach them in a round about way as Buddha did.

 

Amma is not like Buddha because she is convinced of her no individual self philosophy.

 

Thanks for the opening post with the words of Bhaktivinode Thakur.

[shvu]

Well - Boo hoo.

 

Much as you may not like it, the "Holy Name" belongs as much to the Mayavadins as much as to anyone else. If it will not work for them, then it is not gonna work for the Hare Krishnas either. So there really is no difference.

 

If you cannot get beyond such narrow issues, then it is highly doubtful that you will get anywhere close to the textbook definition of a devotee. Definitely not in the next dozen lifetimes.

 

Cheers

[bija]

 

Just because you see God in someone, that is not equivalent to God's full endorsement of that person. God has a certain mission and He uses many different people as His tools. This is how He acts in this world. Be more focused on God and His mission, than on tools He uses. Read the description of Universal Form in the 11th Chapter of Gita. God's manifestations are unlimited, and some can be outright frightening.

Thank you Kulapavana.

 

 

Thanks for the opening post with the words of Bhaktivinode Thakur. by thiest

 

Your welcome Theist. It's nice to open my inner self here. We could leave this planet at any time...might as well leave a footprint and make some friends lol.

[bija]

 

it is highly doubtful that you will get anywhere close to the textbook definition of a devotee. Definitely not in the next dozen lifetimes.

 

Cheers by shvu

 

Good morning shvu. boo!!! Highly likely...infact I wish to come back. Have you seen how beautiful this place is. If it is so beautiful....like a painting....just imagine the big picture.

 

hey...cheers

[Baobabtree]

 

In my opinion, a sincere 'mayavadi' > Theist. One should think, Theist misinterprets things more than the average advaitin.

 

One needs to understand the difference between mordern day Neovedantins and true Advaitins. A true advaitin would be one who believes that the world is unreal, that the Self is Brahman, etc. Now, technically, Nirguna Brahman is devoid of names, attributes, and anything else, but according to Sankaracharya (who translates 'Akshara' in Gita as Nirguna Brahman), in order to attain Moksha, one should first surrender to Saguna Brahman, who is technically unreal as well, but as real as the illusory state goes anyway (correct me if I am wrong). So, Sankara advocates surrender to Narayana ALONE (and no Devas).

 

Vishnu is the highest Saguna Brahman, and surrendering to Him in bhakti would cleanse a person of his false ego and ignorance and help him to attain the Ikyapathi Moksha (ie, identity).

 

Hence, at the Vyavaharika level, a follower of Sankaracharya is a Vaishnava. Just like there are Shaiva Dvaitins or Vishishtadvaitins, there are Vaishnava Advaitins.

 

So, a true advaitin, would agree that Vishnu is Supreme as far as the Vyavaharika level is concerned, and he would genuinely believe that Self alone exists, WITHOUT EGO. He would be humble, sincere and full of renunciation despite considering himself as Brahman. Therefore, while this path is totally wrong and the philosophy totally unattractive, the individual isn't 'sinful' or 'deadly'. Sure, the advaitin would be considered to have tamo guna, as the philosophy is wrong, but he will be humble, and generally devoid of ego.

 

It is the mordern advaitins who have completely veered off the path and become bloated with ego, thinking themselves as Brahman, and posing as intellectuals. An Advaitic Vedantin is, by the very term, a Vedantin. He simply disagrees with other Vedantins on the nature of Moksha. He may also not obtain moksha due to false knowledge of identity, but he should be given respect. He does NOT get egotistical. In summary,

 

True advaita - Self being Brahman is a natural thing, so no ego is ever nurtured. Nothing to be proud about.

 

Neovedanta - We are Brahman, so let us just act supercilious and make a big fuss about how spiritual we are. Oh, and say that every religion is true, but at the end, only advaita is correct. Courtesy of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc.

 

Bhaja Govindam and Govindashtakam by Sri Adi Sankaracharya are classics. His philosophy is another matter, but on the whole, I certainly have no problem listening to nama sankirtanam by sincere advaitins. Adi Sankara was most definitely a Vaishnava.

What is with this term Neo-Advaita? Even if you are correct and Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava, his followers have been worshiping Shiva and Devi for years. This isn't a new development.

[theist]

So it appears from the quote above that someone considers "true advaitins" as something other than advaitins, apparantly even vaisnavas. Advaitin means they don't accept a Supreme personal God with Spiritual form as do the Dvaitins. Hence the name Advaitin. We supposedly have them confused with Neo-Advaitins. Makes no sense to me.

[bija]

Personally Baobabtree, I think it is incorrect to demean worshippers of Maa Devi and Shiva. I have no knowledge of scripture to back up how I feel, so some would accuse me of sentimentalism. The sensible Vaisnava should at least have room in her heart for the immensity of God. Even though the the devotee may have no attraction except toward Sri Sri Radha-Krsna, she can see the diversity within the inconceivable truth....which also contains the reality of Maa and Shiva. It would be odd wouldn't it, if Maa and Shiva did not have their own devotees....considering the Vaisnava is a personalist, and understands the necessity for relations.

 

Infact this is a far stretch from impersonalism which has no personality.

 

Mayavadi is a label often used by people, with insufficient realization, or some extreme opinion that their truth is the only truth. Truth in a sense is inconveivable for the jiva. So instead of condemning the moods of various devotees, one should be grateful for the appearance of God in her own life.

 

The devotee has experienced bhakti, and knows of its truth. To share that truth, and co-exist in multiplicity in this material universe, is something which many religionists have failed to achieve. Maybe until such people learn to adore their granted realization and live in harmony, they will not be granted the full reality, which is diversity in perfect harmony.

 

For me this inner stretching, is essential for peace and goodwill. And essential for humility, to chant the Holy Name.

 

For the bhakta sayuja mukti, or merging is hellish, as Theist said. The philosophy of the Vaisnava also says that those who attain sayuja mukti will not find full satisfaction. The devotee who pursues sayuja merging does not think it is hellish, but finds satisfaction presently...surely we should allow room for such a soul to experience...God allows us.

 

And in final beautitude philosophy will not be revelant to divide...because knowledge will be revealed, as is the nature of Sat Cit Ananda (Vigraha).

[theist]

 

For the bhakta sayuja mukti, or merging is hellish, as Theist said. The philosophy of the Vaisnava also says that those who attain sayuja mukti will not find full satisfaction. The devotee who pursues sayuja merging does not think it is hellish, but finds satisfaction presently...surely we should allow room for such a soul to experience...God allows us.

 

No one claims to be able to prevent someone from merging if they want to or is even trying to.

 

It's odd that the mayavadi can proclaim to tens of thousands that ultimately there is no Supreme God above anyone else and that is hailed here as liberal thinking. But when someone stands up in support of what ALL the vaisnava acaryas teach which is opposed to the impersonalist view as much as the impersonalist view is opposed to the Vaisnava view then those persons are labeled intolerant or lacking in universal vision. And this coming from others who claim vaisnavism as their path.

 

Strange days are upon us.

[bija]

 

And this coming from others who claim vaisnavism as their path.

 

Strange days are upon us.

post by theist

Well actually philosophical debate has been a treasure in many traditions stemming from the sub-continent. And these traditions train the monks to be very skillful in this. Including Gaudiya monks.

 

That is a good thing. And very relishable to see...especially when they live in harmony.

 

If we use the tradition and acarayas as our support, we must represent them well with no self-conceit, and not use them for ulterior motive (ego - I am right you are wrong). That is why I rarely use the acarayas when I am taking a liberal view of things, and speaking of my own accord. I am honest about that. The tradition is a personal affair and internal...I will never sell books or be a street preacher. And if by grace I was aksed to speak in a Gaudiya temple...I definately would not discuss christianity, islam, shaivism, or other philosophy (it turns me off when preachers do this poorly)...I would simply speak of Bhakti and Naam. In accord with scripture and the audiences feeling.

 

I am not a perfect traditionalist by a long shot. I am not a monk. I am simply living at home on my own chanting Naam. With very little interest in the preaching field (maybe to my own misfortune or lack of compassion).

 

Iskcon demands its members to preach if they are sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada. I have never been given that instruction, and when I have been over enthusiastic to preach he simply asks me to chant, and make videos for his website. And my Guru only asks three things of me when I represent him directly....be humble...and tell all I meet about Nityananda and Gauranga. This is the only two instructions he has given me about dealing with other people. Ofcourse he is a great orthodox teacher and guide....nothing like me. Thirdly he asked me in the onset of our relationship, if I am his disciple I am never to offend or criticize a vaisnava (I have failed in that instruction).

 

My mundane personality still exists. There is two facets to me, and presently I find balance spiritually with that (for now). And I do not feel compelled to live up to a stereo-type of what a good vaisnava should be. Or be perfect when the perfect has not yet appeared. And I am definately not representing a stereo-type (so there is nothing to envy).

 

Some honest thoughts (of my life).

 

What do you think a responsible vaisnava should be?

[bija]

I think it is healthy to point the differences out between the two traditions. With right intent and motive.

 

I will never be an impersonalist...as I have said previously Theistji...personalism has been my realization since five years old. You can imagine the joy in finding books with Krsna lila. I will most likely leave the kind debate between these two philosophies to others (not my mood internally).

 

If my liberalism in life misguides others, God will hold me accountable. Even if it misguides young ones on the net as you said yesterday, I have deep faith that Krsna will show them my shadow side. (I chose to be here online for friendship and hearing others points of view - not for preaching).

 

I dont want to be a preacher...that should not exclude me as an aspirant for love of God.

[Dark Warrior]

 

So it appears from the quote above that someone considers "true advaitins" as something other than advaitins, apparantly even vaisnavas. Advaitin means they don't accept a Supreme personal God with Spiritual form as do the Dvaitins. Hence the name Advaitin. We supposedly have them confused with Neo-Advaitins. Makes no sense to me

 

What this person knows about Vaishnavism can fit into the surface area of a pinhead. Christianity, which is not even close to Vedanta, is Vaishnavism, but a classical Vedantic tradition is apparently 'Demonic' to him.

 

First Theist needs to learn what Advaita really is. At the Vyavaharika Level, Isvara possesses all attributes, and Sankara considered this Isvara to be Vishnu.

 

Neovedanta is not classical advaita. It is a free-thinking establishment that simply borrows from Advaita. Unfortunately, majority of advaitins today are of the neovedantic frame of mind.

 

 

What is with this term Neo-Advaita? Even if you are correct and Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava, his followers have been worshiping Shiva and Devi for years. This isn't a new development.

 

Wrong-o. Only after the 16th century did demigod worship creep into Advaita. Read Sankara's bhashya. According to him, Vasudeva is the Saguna Brahman, and hence, only worship of Vishnu will be effective for meditation. He condemns meditation on deities like Rudra, Agni, etc. Perhaps, it can be said at best, that Adi Sankara revered Saraswati, due to her knowledge, but he never compromised on Vishnu Sarvottama.

 

The early Advaitins were all Vaishnavas. Later on, due to some reasons, Advaita aligned with Shaivism. Even the rituals of the samrta Brahmins begin with Narayana Smaranam. Sankaracharya organised NO rituals for his followers that included worship of Shiva or Devi.

 

In fact, the great Sri Vaishnava, Sri PB Annangrachariar, placed all these facts before Chandrasekhar Saraswati of Kanchi Mutt, and pretty much defeated him. This person was earlier claiming that Vishnu was not the supreme god.

 

ISKCON needs to learn more about 'mayavada'. In case anyone wishes to learn, please contact Sri Krishna Premi. He is a renowned Smarta (advaitin) Vaishnava, who has delivered excellent discourses on Ramayana, Gita, etc. Needless to say, he knows what his tradition really is.

[bija]

 

Wrong-o. Only after the 16th century did demigod worship creep into Advaita. Read Sankara's bhashya. According to him, Vasudeva is the Saguna Brahman, and hence, only worship of Vishnu will be effective for meditation. He condemns meditation on deities like Rudra, Agni, etc. Perhaps, it can be said at best, that Adi Sankara revered Saraswati, due to her knowledge, but he never compromised on Vishnu Sarvottama. by dark

 

I would like to read about this...very interesting. Is it possible that the demigod worship existed more in tribal culture. The animist people, and as they were influenced by Vedanta, adapted Vedic demigod names for their animist deities?

 

This must have been prevalent in the time of the Gita.

[cbrahma]

 

What this person knows about Vaishnavism can fit into the surface area of a pinhead. Christianity, which is not even close to Vedanta, is Vaishnavism, but a classical Vedantic tradition is apparently 'Demonic' to him.

 

 

 

He was very taken by Christian theology, and regarding it more interesting, and less offensive than Hindu monism, 'advaita-Vedanta of Sankaracarya'. He would spend many hours comparing the writings of Channing, Theodore Parker, Emerson and Newman. At the British-Indian Society he gave a lecture on the evolution of matter through the material mode of goodness.

 

Srila Sac-Cid Ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura Prabhupada.

Chronology of His life:

Appearance Day lecture by HDG Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad:

 

The 'pinhead' is in good company.

[Dark Warrior]

Thakura also said Chaitanya appeared in Sri Ramanuja's dream and told him to preach 'dasya rasa', so I don't feel inclined to take the words of a 19th century guru over my acharyas.

[cbrahma]

 

Thakura also said Chaitanya appeared in Sri Ramanuja's dream and told him to preach 'dasya rasa', so I don't feel inclined to take the words of a 19th century guru over my acharyas.

And who are these illustrious acaryas?

[Amlesh]

Ramanuja Acharya and Vedanta Deshikar, am I right Dark?

[Dark Warrior]

There are more than those two. Sri Parasara Bhattar, Sri Pillai Lokacharya, Sri Manavala Mamunigal, etc.

 

For that matter, I highly respect Sri Madhva as well. His works are certainly superior to Bhaktivinoda's anyday.

 

Oh wait, Chaitanya came in Madhva's dream as well, right?

 

Don't think I am disrespecting Bhaktivinoda. Since you say he was a great devotee, I have taken your word for it(I don't know, really) and haven't said anything offensive. I am merely saying though, that he may have been a devotee who strayed off the beaten path.

[cbrahma]

 

There are more than those two. Sri Parasara Bhattar, Sri Pillai Lokacharya, Sri Manavala Mamunigal, etc.

 

For that matter, I highly respect Sri Madhva as well. His works are certainly superior to Bhaktivinoda's anyday.

 

Oh wait, Chaitanya came in Madhva's dream as well, right?

 

Don't think I am disrespecting Bhaktivinoda. Since you say he was a great devotee, I have taken your word for it(I don't know, really) and haven't said anything offensive. I am merely saying though, that he may have been a devotee who strayed off the beaten path.

Beaten by what? Traditional religiosity?

[Dark Warrior]

 

Beaten by what? Traditional religiosity?

 

So tell me, do you still think Vishnu is different from Krishna, or that Lakshmi was not in the Rasa Lila?

 

Pathetic.

[cbrahma]

 

So tell me, do you still think Vishnu is different from Krishna, or that Lakshmi was not in the Rasa Lila?

 

Pathetic.

Where do you get the idea that I thought Vishnu is different from Krsna?

It is not I who claims Lakshmi did not participate in Rasa Lila.

 

 

prabhu kahe,----dosa nahi, iha ami jani

rasa na paila laksmi, sastre iha suni

SYNONYMS

prabhu kahe--the Lord replied; dosa nahi--there is no fault; iha ami jani--this I know; rasa na paila laksmi--Laksmi, the goddess of fortune, could not join the rasa dance; sastre iha suni--we get this information from revealed scriptures.

TRANSLATION

Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied, "I know that there is no fault on the part of the goddess of fortune, but still she could not enter into the rasa dance. We hear this from revealed scriptures.

 

 

 

Madhya Lila

 

<CENTER>Chapter 9 </CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER class=MsoPlainText>Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's Travels to the Holy Places</CENTER></SPAN>