Who is The Soul of Radha?

[Guest guest]

Who is The Soul of Radha?

 

Originally posted by shvu: Who is the soul of Radha? I have long since wondered about this.

 

A friend of mine who is an inveterate Gaudiya-vaisnava has sent us this answer:

 

 

"ye yaM rAdhA yas ca kRSNo rasAbdhiH

ddehazcaikaH krIdanArthaM dvidA bhUt"

(RadhikA tapaniyopanishad)

 

The Divine couple, Radha and Krishna constitute the unfathomable ocean of ultimate Divine Bliss.

 

They have assumed Two Personalities only to engage in the playful pastimes of Divine Love.

 

"rAdhA kRSNAtmikA nityaM

kRSNo rAdhAtmiko dhRvam"

(Brahmanda Purana)

 

Sri Radha is the Soul of Lord Krishna.

Krishnaji alone is the Soul of Sri Radhika.

This is the eternal Truth.

 

"zrI kRSNa prArthane sAnA....

nandanandana lAlitA

kRSN ArAdhyA bhakti sAdhyA

kRSNa dehArdha dhAriNI"

(Radha-Krishna yugala sahasra nama)

 

Always being loved and adored by Lord Krishna, Radhaji assumes the worshippable form, to whom all heavenly gods and goddesses pay their reverence and respect. She alone is the bestower of powers to them to create, to maintain and to destroy the universes.

 

"cida cillakshaNaM sarvaM

rAdhA kRSNa mayaM jagat"

 

In the entire creation, every thing moving and non-moving is all pervaded by Sri Radha and Krishna.

 

"kRSNa prANAdhi devI

sAta dadhIno vibhurya taH

rAsezvarI tasya nityaM

tadhA hI nona tiSTathi"

 

Sri Radha is the life-breath of Sri Krishna and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is always under Her control.

 

Radhaji being the Raseshvari, Goddess of Divine Love, She eternally associates with Lord Krishna, as He cannot exist without His Soul, Radha.

 

"rAdhnoti sakalAn kAmAM

stasmAd dh rAdheti kIrtitA"

 

(Devi Bhagavatam)

 

Being the ultimate Divine Power Who is able to fulfill all the desires of the three worlds including the Lord, She is known as Radha.

 

"satyaM satyaM punaH satyaM

satyameva punaH punaH

rAdhA nAmnA vinA loke

mat prasAdo na vidyate"

 

(Narada Panca Ratram)

 

"AtmA rAmasya kRSNasya

dhrivamAtmAsti rAdhikA"

 

(Skanda Purana)

 

Sri Krishna is Known as 'AtmArAma", as He is eternally enjoying His Soul Radha.

 

Sri Krishna declares to Narada muni, "I am telling this truth again and again. Without lovingly remembering the Names of My Beloved Radha Rani, devotees can never achieve My Grace." (N.P.R.)

 

" 'rA' sabdoccAraNAd bhakto

bhaktim muktim ca rAti saH

'dhA'sabdoccAraNe naiva

dhAvaty eva hareH padam"

 

(Narada Pancha Ratram)

 

For 'ra' represents receiving unswerving devotion and service to Krishna's Lotus Feet and 'dha' represents dwelling together with Krishna for eternity. Sri Krishna also says, "Greater is My delight in hearing the Name of 'Radha', and dearer to Me than those who offer the sixteen kinds of worship, O Radha, is he who utters 'rAdhA'"(B.V.P)

 

"Worship that Radha, the bestower of Prema. Quickly you shall go to Goloka, through Her favor and service."

 

Bhaktas by serving Lord Krishna, (Who is unattainable by impersonal meditation), in a long time, after many, many births go to Goloka.

 

But by sincerely serving Radhaji, Who is full of Compassion and Grace, devotees go there in a short time.

 

[Guest guest]

Comment

 

In spite of his great erudition and great devotion, we cannot take his thesis as serious. The only sruti text that he has mentioned is an obscure Upanisad named Radhika tapaniyopanishad. Can he please give some more references from that Upanisad? Its sources and who has discovered it and when?

 

The whole text is based on statements of smrtis and Pañcaratras such as Brahmanda Purana, Devi Bhagavatam, Skanda Purana and Narada Pañcaratra.

 

It causes me special surprise that he is quoting Devi Bhagavatam, as Gaudiyas use to strongly decry it.

 

Our thesis is that Radha-Krsna is a mukta’s satya-sankalpa expression and it cannot be the cause of any serious theology or philosophy as it has no sruti support.

 

[shvu]

 

Our thesis is that Radha-Krsna is a mukta’s satya-sankalpa expression and it cannot be the cause of any serious theology or philosophy as it has no sruti support.

The main sources, for the life story of Krishna are the Mahabharata [plus Harivamsha], Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavatam. All these sources were existent by 1000 AD. Every other source is dubious, especially when it talks about events/people who are not to be found in any of the 3 old sources.

 

Radha [the soul of Krishna] is not mentioned in any of these three sources, which clearly shows there was no person named Radha in the life of Krishna. She is the figment of someone's imagination. But interestingly, the fact that she is not mentioned once, in any of these sources, is not important to some people!

 

However, to see Radha as the potency of Krishna, etc is fine. That is representation [uma, shakti, kali, etc]and different people wish to see the Supreme in different ways.

 

btw, to the best of my knowledge, the brahma-vaivarta Purana is the only Purana out of the main 18, which talks about Radha. The authenticity of any verse from any other Purana, which talks about Radha, is dubious.

 

Cheers

 

[valaya]

The topic of this thread is not being addressed, "Who is the Soul of Radha?"

 

Kripalu Maharaja will not discuss manjari bhava, therefore all that Jayasriradhe can quote refers to Krsna's soul as Radha.

 

As previously stated by me on another thread, the soul of Sri Radha is Her girlfriends, especially Radha-dasi manjaris who are exclusively devoted to Her alone.

 

The pastimes of Radha and Krsna are actually created by these same manjaris. Indeed, the whole purpose behind acintya-bhedabheda-tattva is to provide pleasure to the devotees, specifically the gopis.

 

Krsna repeatedly states that He cannot repay their devotion, thus he is continually attempting to do so. That's what keeps the nectar flowing!

 

Lord Caitanya's appearance in the mood of Sri Radha allows us the rare opportunity to engage directly in Her service by assisting Him in His sankirtan movement.

 

Those who insist on relating to Mahaprabhu as Krsna, or are unable to distinguish the individual personality and supreme position of Srimati Radharani as distinct from Sri Krsna, are simply missing the point entirely.

 

Our connection is not through Radha, it is to Radha! That is why all the gurus in our parampara are manjaris. Although everything has been written by the six goswamis of Vrndavana under the direct guidance of Lord Caitanya Himself, still this previously unavailable knowledge remains hidden to most.

 

Why anyone would continue to regurgitate all the same old stuff and keep reaching for some personal/impersonal relationship with Krsna is quite beyond me.

 

As part and parcels of the internal potency, Radhika is immediately available to us all. Krsna Himself tells us how he prefers to see His devotee glorified!

 

As you always say, Satyaraja prabhu, what to do?

 

valaya RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-05-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Who is The Soul of Radha?

 

 

There is a shorter,

simpler and more basic,

question in this.

 

Why not ask that first ?

 

 

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Valaya: The pastimes of Radha and Krsna are actually created by these same manjaris.

 

Satyaraj: Yes, this is Vedanta’s thesis: Muktas create their worlds in the samvyoma of their hears to relish pastimes with Hari. Hari’s pastimes are countless, actually infinite, how can we fathom them?

 

But Vedanta’s thesis is also that no theologies can be done to explain how Hari sports His lilas. No theories of saktis, and the service to these saktis can be raised, as Hari’s sports cannot be described by these arguments. This is the philosophical process.

 

On the other hand we have Pañcaratra’s thesis: “In Kali-yuga Vedas (Vedanta) are somewhat eclipsed.” People in general are too much fallen and they need to employ their minds in Hari’s worshiping. Mukta’s satya-sankalpa can be taught to people in general and they will employ it to always engage their minds in Hari’s pastimes. This is the religious process.

 

Valaya: As you always say, Satyaraja prabhu, what to do?

 

Satyaraj: We should always glorify Hari! Rather discussing the philosophical process, or adopting the religious process. That’s my humble opinion, what else can be done?

 

[valaya]

Valaya: As you always say, Satyaraja prabhu, what to do?

 

Satyaraj: We should always glorify Hari! Rather discussing the philosophical process, or adopting the religious process. That’s my humble opinion, what else can be done?

I think you are saying "rather than", in other words stressing the supremacy of simply glorifying Sri Hari without any philosophical or religious `process`.

 

To this I wholeheartedly agree! My own humble opinion is that Hari as Krsna wishes His devotees to be glorified as greater than Himself, due to His inability to repay their unlimited pure devotion, and by far the greatest devotee is Srimati Radharani.

 

In fact, She alone is considered one and equal with Sri Krsna. Glorification is best done completely and continuously with body, mind and soul. In other words, one's whole life and being should be totally devoted exclusively to Hari.

 

This is most easily achieved in the personal association of His pure devotees and it is impossible without His Divine Grace. Fully realizing that we are not the doers engaged in any `process`, we thus give all glories to His Divine Grace!

 

My own conclusions, confirmed through personal experience and studies, is that Sri Radha alone must be considered as the very source of that same Divine Grace. She is also defined as Hladini, the essence of Krsna's internal potency, which is the basis/foundation of all other potencies.

 

Our connection with the Absolute and each other, in fact with everyone and everything, is only through Her. How we acknowledge this fact depends on to what degree we individually desire personal intimacy.

 

Our bond with Her is on all levels simultaneously, however it is the emotional relationship we feel, in the deepest depth of our hearts, that is the way in which we can perceive Her most closely.

 

As we identity with Radhika, realizing that it is only She to whom we belong, and that Krsna is Her's alone; we find ourselves naturally falling into place, the part complimenting the whole. The spiritual master Sri Guru is here to assist in that by engaging us in `devotional service`. While it may appear we are serving Krsna directly, on closer examination we can see that is not the case.

 

It is most important to understand/accept that we can only assist Radha in Her relationship/service to Krsna and even then, we are NOT the doers. Krsna wants ONLY Radha! Our roles must never attempt to usurp Her's, or His' either, for that matter.

 

There is absolutely no reason for a manjari to envy anyone for she is always able to enjoy the activities between Radha and Krsna moreso than anyone else, including the Divine Couple themselves!

 

This is the unique GIFT available to all of us from Lord Caitanya. No qualifications required on our parts! Whether we can appreciate and therefore take advantage of this rare opportunity remains up to us.

 

Strangely, we cannot enjoy the `Higher Taste` for very long ourselves unless we learn how to share with others. That is the nature of Divine Love as that is the nature of Srimati Radharani Herself, and therefore Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. That, not proselytizing, is His Sankirtan Movement.

 

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-08-2001).]

[valaya]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Valaya: I think you are saying "rather than", in other words stressing the supremacy of simply glorifying Sri Hari without any philosophical or religious `process`. To this I wholeheartedly agree!

 

Satyaraj: You say that you agree, and thereafter you present a complete compendium of Gaudiyas’ theology that can be understood as a religious process!

 

Now it should be my turn to stress why Radha’s conception is unacceptable according to the philosophical viewpoint!

 

Can’t we seek after the Tao, or the proper equilibrium between both processes?

 

I must admit to having some difficulty in following what you're expressing at times, Satyaraja prabhu, nor can I understand your previous post.

 

Concerning equilibrium though, according to my own limited understanding and painful/pleasureable personal experiences, there simply is no `balance` in LOVE. Neither can personal relationships be considered a `process`, at least not in the highest/deepest sense, although religions most certainly can.

 

Spontaneity must come directly from the heart. Love is an overpowering force. For one reason or another, some reluctance is there in all of us to just leap into it all at once. Still, we do occasionally fall in love, don't we, in spite of ourselves?

 

Nor can any number of calculated manipulations keep the loving relationship going, if that original spark is completely lost. Once the fire of Divine Love has been ignited in us by His Divine Grace, is it not our personal responsibility to nurture it within each other using all possible care?

 

Does any of this make any sense to anyone? If so, can we try to discuss what it might mean to actually love one another, beyond all these technicalities?

 

This thread is entitled `Who is the Soul of Radha?` and that, prabhus, is the only answer I have. Sorry if my own obvious shortcomings weaken or destroy it's impact.

 

valaya RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-08-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by valaya:

.........

Does any of this make any sense to anyone? ..........

..................

This thread is entitled `Who is the Soul of Radha?` RR

 

 

For me,

most of what you write makes sense.

Sometimes I may not agree with you

and at times your sentiments may burst

the holding capacity of the thread,

but generally your comments come across

to me as thoughtful, sincere and written with care.

 

On the question: "who is the soul of Radha ?"

I would have thought that, before we venture with that,

a more fundamental question, which must first be answered,

is, "Who (or, What) is the soul ?"

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 10-08-2001).]

[valaya]

Thank you, Talasiga. My definition of soul would be: The inner eternally concious essence that gives life to the outer body. I see reality as the most personal inner potency enclosed with various levels of the more impersonal external potency. Of course you already know that I consider Sri Radhika as the all-in-all.

 

Perhaps you could start a new thread on the `soul`, though I'd probably end up bursting that, too... I do believe that pure emotion, that is `spiritual sentiment`, is at the very root of life itself. Krsna-consciousness without feeling loses it's vitality, while attachments based on a deeply personal bonding seem more potent and tangible, at least to me.

 

Guru, sadhu and shastra are provided to confirm what is already in our heart-of-hearts, are they not? Surely there must be some affinity other than philosophical, at least on the path of devotion. Of course that's only my own personal opinion and feelings, based on my life experiences...after all is said and done, what else do any of us have to offer other than ourselves?

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-08-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Valaya: I think you are saying "rather than", in other words stressing the supremacy of simply glorifying Sri Hari without any philosophical or religious `process`. To this I wholeheartedly agree!

 

Satyaraj: You say that you agree, and thereafter you present a complete compendium of Gaudiyas’ theology that can be understood as a religious process!

 

Now it should be my turn to stress why Radha’s conception is unacceptable according to the philosophical viewpoint!

 

Can’t we seek after the Tao, or the proper equilibrium between both processes?

 

[Guest guest]

Valaya: I think you are saying "rather than", in other words stressing the supremacy of simply glorifying Sri Hari without any philosophical or religious `process`. To this I wholeheartedly agree!

 

Satyaraj: You say that you agree, and thereafter you present a complete compendium of Gaudiyas’ theology that can be understood as a religious process!

 

Now it should be my turn to stress why Radha’s conception is unacceptable according to the philosophical viewpoint!

 

Can’t we seek after the Tao, or the proper equilibrium between both processes?

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by valaya:

My definition of soul would be: The inner eternally concious essence that gives life to the outer body.

You have given a definition of the soul

as eternally conscious lifegiving

essence but giving definitions can be seen

to be simply skirting the issue.

 

For instance, if this definition is acceptable

then the question, Who is the soul of Radha ?

must become

What/Who is the eternally conscious

lifegiving essence of Radha ?

 

Now we are back again at the more fundamental

threshold question,

What is the eternally conscious

lifegiving essence ?

- are you going to answer circuituously

that "it is the soul" ?

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 10-09-2001).]

[suryaz]

My definition of soul would be: The inner eternally concious essence that gives life to the outer body. (valaya )RR

 

>>>> confused

Apart from the act of believing – can anybody really prove that there is such thing as “eternally conscious life giving essence”? Certainly in our own existence we can prove there is “life giving essence”. But the notion of “eternally conscious life giving essence” is not the same thing.

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-09-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Valaya: I must admit to having some difficulty in following what you're expressing at times, Satyaraja prabhu, nor can I understand your previous post.

 

Satyaraj: So, let’s try to express it better according to my own limited possibilities.

Valaya: Concerning equilibrium though, according to my own limited understanding and painful/pleasureable personal experiences, there simply is no `balance` in LOVE.

 

Satyaraj: Now we are trying to describe a kind of experience that sruti classifies as ‘ananda.’ One may translate it as ‘bliss’ and that kind of ‘love’ that you are referring to is actually a limb of that bliss that may be also called ‘prema’ by Gaudiyas.

 

Concerning the equilibrium, that ananda is also part of the Ultimate Reality among with sat and cit. So, existence, knowledge and bliss are the components of that Ultimate Reality, that I prefer to call Hari, that are always in an Absolute equilibrium.

 

I am postulating that Hari is not balanced only by ananda, or only by ‘love.’ He requires His other components to remain at His Absolute equilibrium as He absolutely is.

 

We are stating that Hari is not limited by His ananda (or ‘love’). Therefore, sruti teaches neti, neti. Na + iti = neti, or end. Neti means ‘this is not the end,” as there is not limit to Hari.

 

According to the religious thesis presented by you, Hari is limited by part of His ananda as He is controlled by it. This part of His ananda is called Hladhini, it is an energy, a sakti, and it is also named Radha and it is Hari’s soul.

 

By following the philosophical process of neti, neti , however, one is instigated to ask: “Who is Radha’s soul?” For Hari is much more than this, as He is the True of the true that the philosophical process is seeking after.

 

So, one should ask "Who (or, What) is the soul ?"

 

If one give the answer: “ the soul is the eternally conscious lifegiving essence. “ He is also rejecting the idea of ananda, and therefore the idea of a Radha, since this conception only accepts the soul as something made of sat (eternity) and cit (conscience) and not by ananda (bliss).

 

So, according to your own definition Radha cannot be a soul as she is in the category of ananda. Therefore she cannot be Hari’s soul.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 10-09-2001).]

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

 

 

So, according to your own definition Radha cannot be a soul as she is in the category of ananda. Therefore she cannot be Hari’s soul. (Satyaraja dasa )B]

Not so Satyaraja - "life giving" means ananda. The "eternity" (sat) bit - that you will not prove

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

The "eternity" ......bit - that you will not prove

 

Can Suryaz prove otherwise ?

 

 

 

[talasiga]

Valaya:

Concerning equilibrium though, according to my own limited

understanding and painful/pleasureable personal experiences,

there simply is no `balance` in LOVE.

 

Satyaraj:

Now we are trying to describe a kind of experience that

sruti classifies as ‘ananda.’ One may translate

it as ‘bliss’ and that kind of ‘love’ that you are

referring to is actually a limb of that bliss

that may be also called ‘prema’ by Gaudiyas.

 

Concerning the equilibrium, that ananda is also part

of the Ultimate Reality among with sat and cit.

So, existence, knowledge and bliss are the components

of that Ultimate Reality, that I prefer to call Hari,

that are always in an Absolute equilibrium.

 

Talasiga:

When Valaya speaks of a Love which has no balance,

which is beyond equilibrium, surely it insinuates

a wholeness beyond which nothing exists:

that is, if nothing can exist outside it,

nothing can balance it or unbalance it,

for all is within it. It is not relative,

but Absolute.

 

That Love is beyond description - therefore the "neti neti"

not this, not this) of Vedaanta. However the experience

of It by humanity can be described as "sat-chid-aanand"

- "being consciousness bliss" or "existence knowing bliss"

and the most comprehensive experience of that Love

obtains the description "sat-chid-aanand-vigraha"

or "existence knowing bliss with form"

(IE existence knowing bliss in differentiation).

Therefore one may discern that Love is not just

a characteristic of some Absolute. It is the very

nature of the Absolute. Love is not an aspect

of bliss (aanand) but its raison d'etre itself.

Bliss is the result of the existential consciousness

of Love.

 

[valaya]

What/Who is the eternally conscious

lifegiving essence of Radha ?

Now we are back again at the more fundamental

threshold question,

What is the eternally conscious

lifegiving essence ?

- are you going to answer circuituously

that "it is the soul" ?

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

Dear Talasiga, I don't want to become any more contentious on this thread than forced to, usually by Satyaraja. Thank you for looking deeper into my posts than most others tend to.

 

There really is nothing and no one more personal than Sri Radhika, nor is anything more intimate than the relationships She has with Her girlfriends.

 

As you must know, this subject matter is considered highly confidential and all scriptures/gurus advise against sharing such `realizations` openly, especially on public internet forums.

 

Since I am not an initiated devotee and for the most part at my wit's end, I dare to go where no fool has gone before. At some point, I expect all this to simply stop, because it does not seem to be having any positive effect on others and possibly a strongly negative one.

 

I find it quite impossible to define this subject objectively, which to me means `impersonally`. I would like nothing better than to share reciprocally with others of like mind/heart, but I appear to be way out on the far edge of nowhere, flying on a wing and a prayer.

 

As I am really so alone and at least somewhat desperate all of the time, my path is of necessity different than most. I do feel some kinship with you and hope that you will cut me a lot of slack by not taking what is said the wrong way.

 

Anyway, referring to your above quote: the answer previously given at the start of this thread was that the soul of Radha is Her girlfriends' devotion to Her. That is my own intuitive belief and my closest scriptural reference is `Sri Gita-mala` (page 73), by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura.

 

The entire book is available online for free from the Bhaktivedanta Memorial Library, set up and maintained by our very own randOM axis (Buta-bhavana das) while he is not engaged in defending the Free World from terrorist threats, etc. If you need the address, I can post it, but I don't know how to make it work automatically when you click on it.

 

Although so much emphasis seems to be placed on our service to God, there is another way of seeing Him/Her. As the greatest, God is also the greatest servant, particularly where the surrendered devotees are concerned. In fact, the whole of creation with all it's unlimited variegatedness is ultimately created for our pleasure.

 

Although Krsna can be seen as the Supreme Enjoyer, it is a very limited way of defining Him and definitely not the way He prefers to be identified. He much prefers to be addressed as Radha-Govinda, Radha-Damodara, Radha-Gopinatha and so on, since these names identify Him as the beloved servant of His devotee.

 

Radha's relationship with Her girlfriends is especially precious and `The Book of Radha` by Sri Srila Prabodhananda Saraswati Goswami contains so many beautiful poetic descriptions in this regard. It is available from Dasaratha Suta dasa who translates and distributes this, Sri Gita-mala and much more nectar through `Nectar Books`, Georgia, USA. I know him personally and would be happy to put you two together. Jai Jai Sri Radhe!

 

valaya RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-10-2001).]

[valaya]

Originally posted by suryaz:

 

 

Dear Suryaz prabhu, I'm sorry that I'm unable to prove anything to anyone and this is simply my own `definition` squeezed out of me by Satyaraja. Perhaps in my next lifetime I will be in a better postion by His Divine Grace. For now, I really have no more to offer.

 

Mostly I'm inspired by the devotees here though, so if others were to attempt a more personal sharing in a similar vein, and if the usual negative feedback was somehow magically diminished, we might all be able to communicate together on a whole other level.

 

valaya RR

 

 

[Guest guest]

Valaya: As you must know, this subject matter is considered highly confidential and all scriptures/gurus advise against sharing such `realizations` openly, especially on public internet forums. Since I am not an initiated devotee and for the most part at my wit's end, I dare to go where no fool has gone before. At some point, I expect all this to simply stop, because it does not seem to be having any positive effect on others and posibly a strongly negative one.

 

Satyaraj: Very wise words indeed. Congratulations!

 

Known that the equilibrium between the religious practices and the philosophical tenants pointed out by Vedanta concerning Radha & Krsna dealings are magnificently exposed by Raghunata das in his “Mukta Carita.” Mukta can have two meanings ‘pearls’ and ‘liberation’. For religious and simpleton people it means only pearls, to philosophical Vedantits it means liberation. All the text narrating Radha & Krsna’s sportive relationships may have two meanings meant for two kind of people. He found the Tao!

 

Actually it is a master piece of devotional/philosophical literature and I strongly recommend it for you.

 

Sorry if I caused you any suffering due my heartless commentaries.

 

[mahak]

She who is always in the hands of Srimati Radharani and simultaneously at the feet of Lord Govinda is the soul of both, and represents the essence of Bhakti Yoga. All glories to Srimati Tulasi devi. Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[talasiga]

Originally posted by valaya:

I don't want to become any more contentious on this thread

than forced to, ...............At some point,

I expect all this to simply stop, because it does not seem

to be having any positive effect on others and possibly

a strongly negative one

.............I would like nothing better than to share

reciprocally with others of like mind/heart, ......I do feel

some kinship with you and hope that you will cut me a lot

of slack by not taking what is said the wrong way......

There appears to be a touch of despondency

in some of

your postings about the nature of thread discussions.

Your admission of some vulnerability is courageous.

May I share with you one approach I have on this issue.

Please see my 10-10-2001 6:32PM recent posting

on the the thread called "Audarya Fellowship" as follows:

 

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000336.html

 

 

[Guest guest]

She who is always in the hands of Srimati Radharani and simultaneously at the feet of Lord Govinda is the soul of both, and represents the essence of Bhakti Yoga. All glories to Srimati Tulasi devi. (Mahak)

 

It seems that now we got a 3rd Hari. Sruti states that Hari is one without a second, and by violating this premise one may have countless Haris. But again, who (or what) is the soul of this Tulasi? Is it something different than Hari? Is it made of any other substance than sat-sit-ananda?

 

Can you proof this statement of yours with sruti’s references?

 

 

[valaya]

She who is always in the hands of Srimati Radharani and simultaneously at the feet of Lord Govinda is the soul of both, and represents the essence of Bhakti Yoga. All glories to Srimati Tulasi devi. (Mahak)

Satyaraja:

It seems that now we got a 3rd Hari. Sruti states that Hari is one without a second, and by violating this premise one may have countless Haris. But again, who (or what) is the soul of this Tulasi? Is it something different than Hari? Is it made of any other substance than sat-sit-ananda?

Can you proof this statement of yours with sruti’s references?

Don't expect references for `Mahaksaisms`, prabhu, in fact how dare you even ask...?!

 

Certainly Hari is one, but there are various ways of explaining and relating to Him. The best so far is acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, in my humble opinion. It cannot be understood philosophically beyond a certain point as personal realization is required. Then everything becomes subjective and to some even `sectarean`. What to do? You pays your money and takes your choice, as the saying goes.

 

Sometimes the mother bird must push her babies out of the nest so they can learn to fly...that time will surely come for all of us when we have no choice and further discussion/study is no longer an option. Meanwhile, there are always reasons to believe this or disbelieve that, even though none of it has any effect on the Absolute Reality. In the end we are so completely insignificant, are we not, what to speak of our changing opinions? Still, whatever turns you on...

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 10-12-2001).]