Siddha-pranali

[Kulapavana]

 

There is nothing self-righteous about it.

The whole position of the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya is to hold up high and worship the path of raga bhakti while keeping oneself assigned to the lower level of vaidhi-bhakti and preaching work.

 

 

That may be your personal preference but it does not give you the right to denigrate all other Vaishnavas who happen to think differently.

 

Just because you have (or had) good intentions it does not mean that nobody has the right to criticize you for the things that CLEARLY went wrong in your mission. That principle applies to Prabhupada's mission, just like it applies to the sahajiya camp.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

That may be your personal preference but it does not give you the right to denigrate all other Vaishnavas who happen to think differently.

 

 

The opposition toward the sahajiya siddha-pranali process has nothing to do with denigrating anyone.

The people that practice such imitationism are denigrating themselves by such cheap imitation.

Srila Prabhupada was of the position that siddha-pranali was manufactured by and practiced by sahajiyas.

When unfit neophytes imitate devotees of the highest plaform with this "siddha-pranali" imitationism, they deserve to be labeled as sahajiya because a sahajiya is someone who takes raga bhakti cheaply.

That is exactly what this siddha-pranali process in the hands of these unfit people is - a cheap imitation - therefore sahajiya.

I think Srila Prabhupada was completely right in referring to these siddha-pranali fakers as sahajiyas.

 

It is just an objective observation.

It has nothing to do with name-calling or denigrating anyone.

It is just a factual assessment that these fakers are taking raga bhakti cheaply and therefore qualifying themselves as sahajiyas.

 

These people are unfit to imagine themselves as associates in the lila of Krishna. That they presume to do so is just exposing how cheap and superficial is their concept of Krishna bhakti.

Technically, that is referred to as "sahajiya" by Gaudiya acharyas.

[Kulapavana]

You are going in circles...

 

 

Srila Prabhupada was of the position that siddha-pranali was manufactured by and practiced by sahajiyas.

 

So that would mean our previous acharyas who practiced siddha pranali, like Bhaktivinoda Thakura, were all sahajiyas? I thought we covered that already.

 

You have no real argument, so you have to create one made of straw.

 

Nobody here advocates siddha pranali as a practice for immature devotees.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

You are going in circles...

 

 

 

So that would mean our previous acharyas who practiced siddha pranali, like Bhaktivinoda Thakura, were all sahajiyas? I thought we covered that already.

 

You have no real argument, so you have to create one made of straw.

 

Nobody here advocates siddha pranali as a practice for immature devotees.

 

You have no proof that Bhaktivinoda actually practiced siddha-pranali.

Bhaktivinoda realized his svarupa siddhi, he did not need any imaginary siddha-pranali process.

 

Bhaktivinoda was a liberated siddha.

He did not practice imaginary siddha-pranali meditation.

 

Even if he received such a siddha-pranali process from his guru, he did not need any imaginary process as he had attained samadhi and realized in spiritual trance his actual siddha-deha.

 

Siddha-pranali process is a sadhana for sadhakas.

Bhaktivinoda was a siddha who had attained svarupa-siddhi.

 

Because he had attained svarupa-siddhi and actually entered into the pastimes of Lord Gauranga and wrote down his realizations in Jaiva-Dharma, he did not need any siddha-pranali sadhana process.

 

Bhaktivinoda was well beyond the siddha-pranali imaginary process.

He was on the platform of svarupa-siddhi.

 

Siddha-pranali is an imaginary feature for preparing the mind to enter the transcendental plane.

After one attains svarupa-siddhi, he no longer practices any imaginary meditation as he in fact has attained the transcendental plane of consciousness.

 

Bhaktivinoda was svarupa-siddha before he ever received any so-called siiddha-pranali imaginary process from anyone.

 

In coming to Navadvip, Bhaktivinoda knew that he would not get the respect and credibility he needed in order to do his preaching work and writing, so he accepted diksha in a respected lineage there which would afford him more recognition and support his preaching mission.

 

He didn't need that formal diksha, as he has been initiated long before by some other Vaishnavas who had guided him to find the Gaudiya shastras that became the foundation for Bhaktivinoda's extreme advancement in Gaudiya siddhanta, sadhana and culture.

 

It was the Sri Caitanya Caritamrita that was the powerful inspiration behind Bhaktivinoda that propelled him into a life of total dedication to the Gaudiya ideals.

He was lecturing and teaching at Jagannatha Puri long before he ever took any formal diksha upon his being transferred to Navadvip at his request.

 

The formal diksha was a preaching tool.

That's all.

Bhaktivinoda was a pure Gaudiya Vaishnava long before ever took diksha from Vipina Bihari Goswami.

 

You should do a little more study of the life of Bhaktivinoda and you will find that had already written Gaudiya commentary before he took his so-called diksha from Vipina Bihari Goswami.

 

Nothing changed when Bhaktivinoda took diksha.

He had already formed his thought, his sadhana and his realization long before he took formal diksha.

 

He was brought into Vaishnavism by other Vaishnavas and guided to the shastra that would become his foundation. It was a spiritual relationship. It was not formal and official.

Vipina Bihari Goswami's contribution to Bhaktivinoda was all formal and superficial.

Bhaktivinoda was spiritually initiated into Gaudiya Vaishnavism long before he ever heard of Vipina Bihari Goswami.

[Kulapavana]

 

You should do a little more study of the life of Bhaktivinoda and you will find that had already written Gaudiya commentary before he took his so-called diksha from Vipina Bihari Goswami.

 

 

I have twice read his autobiography, Svalikhita-jivani, where he presents the truth about his life, not the myths of his later followers. And he practiced siddha pranali as it was given to him by Bipina Bihari which is evident from both his poems to his guru and his other writings which I quoted earlier. He gave siddha pranali to a number of disciples, including his son, Lalita Prasada, which Srila Prabhupada greatly respected despite their differences.

[Kulapavana]

 

Siddha-pranali process is a sadhana for sadhakas.

Bhaktivinoda was a siddha who had attained svarupa-siddhi.

 

 

If you actually bothered to read his autobiography you would realize how absurd your claim is. Bhaktivinoda was evolving and changing until the very end, and his writings preserve the record of that gradual evolution. He was a very humble and honest person, never trying to turn himself into a myth. He is far more inspiring to people as he really was, instead of the myths created later by his followers and which you are repeating here.

[shiva]

 

Ultimately the question is: Does siddha-pranali work as a devotional practice? After all, it is a practice that has been around for a very long time.

 

Based on my research, it CAN work, but it is definitely not for neophytes or even intermediate bhaktas.

 

When a group of third-graders denounce calculus as 'bogus', or 'worthless' that is because they do not know any better. By the time they are in the 12th grade their understanding of math changes and they can properly appreciate the value of calculus.

 

Can you explain in some detail what you mean by "Based on my research, it CAN work".

[Kulapavana]

 

Can you explain in some detail what you mean by "Based on my research, it CAN work".

 

I was refering to historical accounts related to this method of bhajana, as well as its current practice. Essentially you look at people who use or used siddha-pranali and examine their devotional qualities. Are they what you can call advanced devotees with little or no material attachment, or not? Clearly there were in the past, and there still are, devotees who benefitted from this practice.

 

As I said earlier, I do not practice it, and I am nowhere near being ready for siddha pranali, but I hope the time will come before I die when I will take it up. And if some people see it a 'sahajiya' tendency, I could not care less.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

I have twice read his autobiography, Svalikhita-jivani, where he presents the truth about his life, not the myths of his later followers. And he practiced siddha pranali as it was given to him by Bipina Bihari which is evident from both his poems to his guru and his other writings which I quoted earlier. He gave siddha pranali to a number of disciples, including his son, Lalita Prasada, which Srila Prabhupada greatly respected despite their differences.

Please post the quotes then if you have so much evidence.

You always make wild claims yet refuse to post any reference quotes.

 

You are like the IKSCON gurus who say "just trust me".

 

If you weren't spouting off misrepresentations all the time you would post your evidence.

 

You say you have the books and the evidence yet you never post any of it.

I wonder why?

 

Could you in fact be telling lies?

 

Did Bhaktivinoda write in his autobiography "I gave siddha-pranali to my son Lalita Prasad"?

 

I don't think so.

You are making false claims under the pretext of having proof, though you never present any of that proof but insist that "just trust me".

 

I don't trust you.

I think you are making false claims, otherwise you would provide the proof of your claims.

 

Either way, one thing you will never know or be able to prove is if Bhaktivinoda actually practiced "siddha-pranali" or if he just put on that facade because it was the accepted custom of the time, however misguided it might have been.

 

As well, if he did give "siddha-pranali" to Lalita Prasad, you can never prove that it was something that Bhaktivinoda really believed in or if it was just a custom that he adopted because it was the in thing to do in Bengal at that time.

 

The siddha-pranali party proposes that Srila Rupa Goswami forgot to mention siddha-pranali or give any directions on the practice, inasmuch as Srila Rupa Goswami has never mentioned anything called siddha-pranali or any process referred to as siddha-pranali.

 

I don't remember anything about Gopa Kumar getting any siddha-pranali stuff from his gurus in Brihat Bhagavatamritam either.

 

So, as far as Rupa and Sanatan Goswamis are concerned, this siddha-pranali business cannot be supported in any of their writings.

[shiva]

 

(3) Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada, asked that we keep Radharani in great reverence, 'On your head, over your head-don't be bold enough to approach directly: Pujala raga-patha gaurava bhange. Try to keep Her and Her group at a respectful distance, above your head. Don't rush towards that position. It is not that cheap. That is high, very high, and from below we are to honor that.'

 

<!-- / message -->

 

 

That translation is not correct. Here is the proper one from http://207.58.181.10/translation.html

 

"The servants of Hari revel in satisfying His transcendental desires.

 

They worship the path of spontaneous devotion, whereby awe and reverence is overthrown."

[shiva]

 

I was refering to historical accounts related to this method of bhajana, as well as its current practice. Essentially you look at people who use or used siddha-pranali and examine their devotional qualities. Are they what you can call advanced devotees with little or no material attachment, or not? Clearly there were in the past, and there still are, devotees who benefitted from this practice.

 

As I said earlier, I do not practice it, and I am nowhere near being ready for siddha pranali, but I hope the time will come before I die when I will take it up. And if some people see it a 'sahajiya' tendency, I could not care less.

 

The only people I know who took siddha-pranali diksa are a handful of people I have conversed with on the Internet. I have had long conversations over many years with them on forums and blogs about all aspects of Gaudiya theology. IMHO each of them thinks they are much more advanced than they actually are.

 

In fact each one of them has what I consider to be distorted ideas about what they think they are experts on. Their theological views on rasa-tattva are seriously flawed on many different levels because they have seriously flawed conceptions about the most basic ontology of Radha Krishna tattva -- they see Radha and Krishna and the nitya sakhis as unique and different persons from each other. Even though Mahaprabhu and the previous acaryas taught that Radha and Krishna are one and the same personality, and that the nitya-sakhis are Radha's personal expansions, that is they are her (Radha is the vine they are the leaves and flowers of the vine of Radha); not a single one of those devotees are able to see how that ontological truism changes the meaning of rasa-lila from having a primarily literal to a primarily metaphoric purpose.

 

They take rasa-lila literally, therefore they base their conception of raganuga-bhakti and lila-smaranam on something that is not literally real. And it shows when I converse with them. Instead of having developed a closer relationship with Krishna; which is the purpose of raganuga and siddha-pranali; they end up being obsessed with the minutiae of lila because that is what they think lila-smaranam is supposed to be about -- when in fact lila-smaranam is meant to be taken metaphorically in raganuga sadhana.

 

Partially because of that none of them has been able to develop to the level of bhava-bhakti. I don't blame siddha-pranali for this, even without siddha-pranali the result would be the same for anyone who has basic misconceptions about Radha Krishna tattva and then tries to follow raganuga sadhana. Siddha-pranali isn't good or bad, it's neutral. A knife in the hand of surgeon can save a life, but in the hand of a fool a knife can harm you.

 

What kind of harm? Without sufficient knowledge of Bhagavat tattva and Radha Krishna tattva, rasa-lila is unable to be understood properly because the sadhaka will take metaphor literally; all they will see in those stories and poems is the erotic relationships between Krishna and the gopis. They will miss the metaphoric intent. And even worse happens when those types of people become gurus themselves and pass on their misconceptions. We end up with thousands of bhaktas and gurus who practice and teach about raganuga sadhana from a literal perspective of lila, whose misinterpretations of the writings of the 6 Goswamis and their contemporaries becomes seen as the standard for raganuga bhakti.

 

Prabhupada dismissed siddha-pranali because his guru had dismissed it. But Bhaktivinoda taught about it. Why did Bhaktisiddhanta dismiss it? Because like a knife it can be good or bad; so why keep a practice that could end up with bad results when you are trying to expand a large preaching organization? Siddha-pranali was never taught as something that was necessary, it was taught as something that could aid a sadhaka in his raganuga sadhana. But the "reality on the ground" is that few if any devotees were attaining bhava-bhakti from siddha-pranali because both the disciples and the gurus were more often than not full of misconceptions, and not nearly as advanced as they thought they were.

 

Lila-smaranam is an esoteric practice, but to people with misconceptions about lila-tattva it's just about trying to meditate on being in the rasa-lila they read about. Their conception of rasa-lila is based upon a lack of understanding lila-tattva (Radha and Krishna and the nitya-sakhis are all the same person and all that implies) and a lack of understanding Bhagavat tattva: Krishna is in constant and total control of everything you experience from moment to moment, including the mind and everything you encounter in your environment; awakening to this reality is essential for esoteric authentic lila-smaranam. What lila-smaranam is really supposed to be about is the meditation on remembering the nature of your relationship with Krishna from moment to moment; not in the sense of "I am such and such person in lila", but in the sense of Bhagavat ontology or "Krishna is controlling everything, including me and my thoughts, by constantly remembering this (smaranam) Krishna and his lila can and will be revealed to be all around and within me all of time".

[Narasingh]

 

That translation is not correct. Here is the proper one from http://207.58.181.10/translation.html

 

"The servants of Hari revel in satisfying His transcendental desires.

 

They worship the path of spontaneous devotion, whereby awe and reverence is overthrown."

The books in which B.R. Shridhara Swami is found to explain the meaning of this verse, were published during his life. He approved this published translation and whenever he explained this verse, he explained it in this way.... The link which you provided presumes that he didn't mean for this to be the case and goes on to give an "esoteric" meaning according to the speaker.

 

A more authoritative discussion is found on this...link...

 

The fact is ভঙ্গি (bhange as in gaurava bhange) essentially means fashion or posture (reference here). The word "overthrown" is drawn from a related term meaning fragile. It is also on the same reference page.

 

In this way, even though B.R. Shridhara Swami may never have emphatically stated that this is his "translation", the fact that he explained the verse in this way can be reason enough to assume that he understood the meaning is the way he explained.

 

The speaker (B.V. Madhava Maharaj) on your link begins by honoring B.R. Shridhara Swami with prefixes of appreciation and then goes on to presume that he didn't actually mean what he said.

 

Now if one were to analyze the author of this poem and his mood, you'll find B.R. Shridhara Swami's rendition to be more chaste than B.V. Madhava Swami's. The author is Siddhanta Saraswati, who is known to have disestablished siddha pranali for the Gaudiyas who follow him favoring Nama bhajan as the means to prayojana, disestablished babaji vesa in favor of sannyasa (considering babaji vesa to be sacrament not to be made a mockery of at all costs, thereby restricting himself and his followers from it in nearly all circumstances), and choosing to keep his sishyas from staying at Radha Kunda and, instead, residing at Govardhana.

 

It's amazing how one word's definition can change the whole meaning.

[Kulapavana]

 

They take rasa-lila literally, therefore they base their conception of raganuga-bhakti and lila-smaranam on something that is not literally real. And it shows when I converse with them. Instead of having developed a closer relationship with Krishna; which is the purpose of raganuga and siddha-pranali; they end up being obsessed with the minutiae of lila because that is what they think lila-smaranam is supposed to be about -- when in fact lila-smaranam is meant to be taken metaphorically in raganuga sadhana.

 

Just because some truly advanced Vaishnavas (like Sridhara Maharaja) do not think that rasa lila ever took place here on earth, and like all the other lila is only a metaphor - not a historical fact, that does not mean they are right, or that everyone must think just like them in order to 'do things right'.

 

Saraswatas did indeed depart from the GV tradition in some important but subtle ways, some more than others. They did it to facilitate preaching and to re-shape the way of thinking of the new generation of followers. Prabhupada went as far as preaching to his followers that all jivas fell from Krsnaloka, from a direct loving relationship with Krsna, because he did not want them to think that we all come from undifferentiated Brahmajyoti. Never mind that this preaching is not based on guru, sadhu, or shastra. He wanted to shape the way of thinking for his disciples, taking them as far as possible from the dreaded 'impersonalism'. However, seems like such departures are ultimately bound to fail, and their benefits are temporary at best. Stepping away from siddha pranali seems to be in that category.

[sant]

 

Prabhupada went as far as preaching to his followers that all jivas fell from Krsnaloka, from a direct loving relationship with Krsna

 

May i ask kulpavana ji isnt that written in shastras

[Kulapavana]

 

May i ask kulpavana ji isnt that written in shastras

 

I do not want to go off on another tangent. Here are links to two opposite positions on this issue where you will find all kinds of quotes:

http://oldchakra.com/articles/2001/12/06/jiva.by.dravida/index.htm

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/ashrama/links/jiva-tattva-fs.html

[sant]

thank you

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Prabhupada went as far as preaching to his followers that all jivas fell from Krsnaloka, from a direct loving relationship with Krsna,.

 

If you think so, then please post some evidence from his books.

You always makes claims but you never support your claims with any evidence.

Is that because you are telling tall tales?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

Saraswatas did indeed depart from the GV tradition in some important but subtle ways, some more than others.

 

Again, you make big claims but show no evidence.

Is that because you are in fact cheating yourself and trying to cheat others?

The Gaudiya tradition was established by Mahaprabhu.

 

What makes you so sure that the Saraswatas didn't just return the Gaudiyas back to the original concept of Mahaprabhu before the Goswamis built it up into something that the caste brahmans and other peer groups of the time could accept as scholarly and acceptable.

[Kulapavana]

 

If you think so, then please post some evidence from his books.

You always makes claims but you never support your claims with any evidence.

Is that because you are telling tall tales?

 

Too lazy to check the links I gave above?

OK... here is one:

[Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.28.54 Purport] "The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world."

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Too lazy to check the links I gave above?

OK... here is one:

[Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.28.54 Purport] "The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world."

 

That is perfectly correct.

The living entity originally comes from a position of santa-rasa which is known as brahman realization or possibly Paramatma realization.

 

So, the translation is perfectly correct.

As the jiva first issued from the glance of Lord Vishnu, before he entered the material field, he was established in santa-rasa or "peacefully" existing as an uncomtaminated spiritual spark in the brahmajyoti.

 

How can the origin of a spirit spark be anything other than the spiritual realm?

 

Mahaprabhu made it clear that the constitutional position of the jiva is santa-rasa which means "peaceful" rasa.

So, only because you have such a shallow depth of understanding do you see that this translation is in any way wrong.

 

In fact, there are statements in the Bhagavatam where Srila Prabhupada has extracted the "back home, back to Godhead" theme and I will try and track them down and help to dispell your very mistaken misconceptions.

 

In fact, there are verses in the Bhagavatam that teach in the same way and promote the concept of the soul as having fallen from the spiritual world.

 

Admittedly, it was done in metaphor, but at the same time it is found in the Bhagavatam and Srila Prabhupada did not invent the idea.

[Kulapavana]

 

What makes you so sure that the Saraswatas didn't just return the Gaudiyas back to the original concept of Mahaprabhu before the Goswamis built it up into something that the caste brahmans and other peer groups of the time could accept as scholarly and acceptable.

 

Why do you folks keep inventing such absurd theories to show that your guru was always right?

[Kulapavana]

 

That is perfectly correct.

The living entity originally comes from a position of santa-rasa which is known as brahman realization or possibly Paramatma realization.

 

So, the translation is perfectly correct.

 

Another lie.

 

THERE IS NO SERVICE IN SHANTA RASA.

 

"Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world."

 

While it can be said that living entities in undifferentiated Brahmajyoti are situated in shanta rasa, they are certainly not engaged in any service. Tatastha means they come from the dividing line between the material and spiritual realms.

 

Iskcon is still totally confused over this issue, because Prabhupada made all of these contradictory statements. At times he woud say that no one falls from Vaikuntha, and at other times he would say that we all fell from Vaikuntha. So folks like you keep inventing some bizzare theories that suppose to reconcile these contradictions, like the resent sleepervada doctrine invented by some Australian swami.

 

Anyway... we are WAY OFF the topic...

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Too lazy to check the links I gave above?

OK... here is one:

[Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.28.54 Purport] "The original home of the living entity and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the spiritual world. In the spiritual world both the Lord and the living entities live together very peacefully. Since the living entity remains engaged in the service of the Lord, they both share a blissful life in the spiritual world. However, when the living entity wants to enjoy himself, he falls down into the material world."

 

See, Kulapavana, you are so derelict.

You did not even bother to look at the verse where this purport came from and which reiterates the same theme as the verse of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.28.54

 

haḿsāv ahaḿ ca tvaḿ cārya

sakhāyau mānasāyanau

abhūtām antarā vaukaḥ

sahasra-parivatsarān

 

SYNONYMS

 

haḿsau — two swans; aham — I; ca — and; tvam — you; ca — also; ārya — O great soul; sakhāyau — friends; mānasa-ayanau — together in the Mānasa Lake; abhūtām — became; antarā — separated; vā — indeed; okaḥ — from the original home; sahasra — thousands; pari — successively; vatsarān — years.

 

TRANSLATION

 

My dear gentle friend, both you and I are exactly like two swans. We live together in the same heart, which is just like the Mānasa Lake. Although we have been living together for many thousands of years, we are still far away from our original home.

 

The previous verse of the Bhagavatam says:

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.28.53

 

api smarasi cātmānam

avijñāta-sakhaḿ sakhe

hitvā māḿ padam anvicchan

bhauma-bhoga-rato gataḥ

 

SYNONYMS

 

api smarasi — do you remember; ca — also; ātmānam — the Supersoul; avijñāta — unknown; sakham — friend; sakhe — O friend; hitvā — giving up; mām — Me; padam — position; anvicchan — desiring; bhauma — material; bhoga — enjoyment; rataḥ — attached to; gataḥ — you became.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The brāhmaṇa continued: My dear friend, even though you cannot immediately recognize Me, can't you remember that in the past you had a very intimate friend? Unfortunately, you gave up My company and accepted a position as enjoyer of this material world.

 

The Brahmana in this verse is said later by Narada Muni to be representing the Paramatma.

 

 

These are allegorical lessons in the teachings of Narada Muni to King Pracinabarhisat.

It carries the same theme as Srila Prabhupada used in his preaching work.

 

In fact, Srila Prabhupada is so much like Narada Muni in my eyes that I have postulated that Srila Prabhupada is an incarnation of Narada Muni.

 

Srila Prabhupada didn't invent anything.

He preached classic Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Only foolish siddha-pranali types who don't even study Srimad Bhagavatam accuse him of deviating or manufacturing something.

[Narasingh]

 

However, seems like such departures are ultimately bound to fail, and their benefits are temporary at best. Stepping away from siddha pranali seems to be in that category.

 

Thank you for bringing this back on topic. I found myself on a tangent for a bit.

 

Can I ask you how [stepping away from siddha pranali] would be bound to fail?

Would Hari Nama Smarana not offer the same benefits of siddha pranali?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Another lie.

 

THERE IS NO SERVICE IN SHANTA RASA.

.

 

Another of your foolish notions.

No living entity can ever escape service to the Supreme Absolute at any stage of his existence.

 

That is why SERVICE is said by Mahaprabhu to be the DHARMA of the living entity.

 

The living entity cannot ever escape service at any time or under circumstance.

 

Dharma means that it is intrinsic to the nature of the thing.

Service is intrinsic to all living entities.

 

Either the jiva serves as a spark of the Supreme Whole or as a servant to the three modes of material nature or serves Krishna out of love, but service by the jiva can never be avoided even for the spirit sparks of the brahmajyoti.

 

Service done in LOVE is the perfection of the jiva.