Tattva-viveka
Sriya Suka
Shyamananda Das - July 15, 2010 8:49 am
Dandavats!
You may have read the latest Krishna-talk: http://gosai.com/writings/sriya-suka
I'm doubting Sripad B.G. Narasingha Maharaja's conclusion for two reasons.
One. In the song "Gaura-Arati" Bhaktivinod Thakur writes: "siva-suka-narada preme gada-gada", which is translated into "Lord Shiva, Sukadev Goswami and Narada Muni are all there, and their voices are choked with the ecstasy of transcendental love."
Two. In an article from the Gaudiya-gazette called "The fundamentals of Rasa-Tattva" Srila Tripurari Maharaj recalls a debate he had with a yogini from Rishikesh about the Srimad Bhagavatam. She challenged the position of Radharani by asking why her name is not mentioned in there. Tripurari maharaj answered that Srimati Radharani is the ista-devata of Sukadeva Goswami and if he would mention her name he would have fallen into trance and not been able to relate the Bhagavatam to Pariksit within seven days.
How to harmonize this with the quotes from Srila Sridhara Maharaj in the Krishna-talk article?
Madan Gopal Das - July 15, 2010 12:43 pm
One. In the song "Gaura-Arati" Bhaktivinod Thakur writes: "siva-suka-narada preme gada-gada", which is translated into "Lord Shiva, Sukadev Goswami and Narada Muni are all there, and their voices are choked with the ecstasy of transcendental love."
This verse from Gaura-arati is not strong evidence contradicting Sripad Narasingha Maharaj's conclusion. Rather, Thakur Bhaktivinoda is poetically describing the beauty of the arati of Mahaprabhu, that such people as Mahadeva, Suka and Narada are stunned by witnessing it. Not necessarily a literal description of who is there, that Sukadeva is a devotee of Mahaprabhu, etc.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 15, 2010 6:09 pm
This verse from Gaura-arati is not strong evidence contradicting Sripad Narasingha Maharaj's conclusion. Rather, Thakur Bhaktivinoda is poetically describing the beauty of the arati of Mahaprabhu, that such people as Mahadeva, Suka and Narada are stunned by witnessing it. Not necessarily a literal description of who is there, that Sukadeva is a devotee of Mahaprabhu, etc.
But GM says the following
Tripurari maharaj answered that Srimati Radharani is the ista-devata of Sukadeva Goswami and if he would mention her name he would have fallen into trance and not been able to relate the Bhagavatam to Pariksit within seven days.
How can Sukadeva have no position in Krsna Lila and have Radharani as ista-devata?
I am not sure these conversation with SSM .
In fact, sometime it is said that Vyasa may not or not know but Sridhar Swami knows( voice from Mahadeva). In fact, it was said there that Vyasa may not know the SB and Sukadeva may.
Maharaja is entitled to his opinion, but the way he goes about dismantling this story is kind of strange. Many of the puranas have interpolations etc and they have been written at some time also. Who will know what was a story and what was not?
Also whenever two stories contradict, we just explain it away and say it happened in another kalpa. That way all contradictions can be resolved, but are they really?
I am surprised at the absolute confidence with which Maharaja speaks right now though he spoke about the former position(Suka was a parrot) with equal absolute confidence. Anyway, I guess it is his personal style so I just respect that.
Madan Gopal Das - July 15, 2010 6:47 pm
I only sought to address the 1st point of conflict that Shyamananda brought up, thinking that if GM cares to he may comment on the other. I don't see that point #1 is necessarily a solid contradiction to Narasingha Maharaj's argument.
That's not to say that I really agree or disagree with Maharaj's attempt to discount this Sriya Suka story. I don't really know what to think; I'm more inclined to think its not a point of major consequence...
I did feel like he was aiming some of his argument at a particular segment (Narayana Maharaj?), but I don't know because I haven't heard that he is the source of this story. Again, I don't know that GVism is being terribly corrupted by this, but hey - what do I know???
To Narasingha Maharaj's credit, he definitely finds interesting topics that may have slipped by many. I appreciate the attempt to source the story and the discussion it can bring up.
Shyamananda Das - July 15, 2010 6:54 pm
Madan Gopal Prabhu,
I know that the verse from Gaura-Arati isn't strong evidence for Sukadeva having a position in Krsna-lila. It just came to my mind. Like Gaura-Vijaya Prabhu pointed out, my concern was more about the second stated reason for doubt.
Gaura-Vijaya Prabhu,
I agree. The kalpa explanation can solve some contradictions, but how does it solve that Srimati Radharani's name is not directly mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavatam of this kalpa, if this kalpa's Sukadeva was a brahmavadi "who came from nowhere and went nowhere"?
Swami - July 18, 2010 3:42 pm
Despite the agenda of the article it does raise an interesting point. If Sukadeva is Radha's parrot, this takes the punch out of one of the main points of he Bhagavatam itself: Krsna-lila is attractive to Brahman realized souls. In other words if Sukadeva is a parsada of Radha Krsna, then he is no longer an example of a Brhaman realized so becoming attracted to Hari katha. Problem.
So it is a point worth raising. Still it can be said that Radha is Sukadeva's ista when speaking the Bhagavata, since by the time he spoke it he had left aside Brahman and entered the nectar of the Bhagavata, which he is said to have understood.
Here is something from Sri Krsna Bhavanamrta:
"Although the great sages like Sanandana and Parasara do not know the sweetness of Krishna's lovely threefold bending form, the devotees that take shelter of Vraja can hear about this from the clever words of the Suka ('parrot of Vraja' also, a reference to Sukadeva Goswami, the speaker of the Bhagavata Purana). The sweet nectar of Madhava's pastimes, that are described by this suka parrot, is rarely obtained even by the demigods. Suka, the son of Vyas, described it in the Bhagavata, which is the nicest fruit for those who took shelter of the desire tree of the Vedas. Although this nectar is precious, it thus became known to the world."
But I do not think it sufficient to make the case that Sukadeva is Radha's parrot other than for NM faithful.
Devyah-pati Das SERBIA - July 19, 2010 8:36 am
Sometimes (since english is not my mother tongue) I cannot quite understand
the meaning of the sentence.
Can someone tell me, in a simplified way, what GM wanted to say with this sentence:
"But I do not think it sufficient to make the case that Sukadeva is Radha's parrot other than for NM faithful."
Babhru Das - July 19, 2010 6:41 pm
He's saying that any evidence suggested by that verse won't convince anyone who's not unquestionably submissive to Narayana Maharaja.
Shyamananda Das - July 19, 2010 6:52 pm
Devyah-Pati Prabhu,
I believe it means that the quoted part from Sri Krsna Bhavanamrta is sufficient evidence for the followers of Srila B.V. Narayan Maharaj, to believe that Sukadeva is Radharani's parrot.
Revered Swami,
Could you tell the source of this statement about Sukadeva's ista-devata? I'm wondering because I gave it as an explanation when I had a discussion with a scholar-type devotee. He proposed that her name was maybe earlier mentioned but had been removed because it was controversial.
Babhru Das - July 19, 2010 8:31 pm
I believe it means that the quoted part from Sri Krsna Bhavanamrta is sufficient evidence for the followers of Srila B.V. Narayan Maharaj, to believe that Sukadeva is Radharani's parrot.
Yes, but that it is not sufficient evidence for those who are not his followers.
Swami - July 20, 2010 4:51 pm
Revered Swami,
Could you tell the source of this statement about Sukadeva's ista-devata? I'm wondering because I gave it as an explanation when I had a discussion with a scholar-type devotee. He proposed that her name was maybe earlier mentioned but had been removed because it was controversial.
I think I may be the source. It is a philosophical conjecture and thus relative. There are numerous conjectures (rooted in bhava and/or based on tattva) such as this one that have been put forward by our acaryas as to why Radha's name is not mentioned in the Bhagavata. It may also have been influenced by NM's article, which has now proven to be controversial.
Here is more on this controversy:
http://gosai.com/writings/heresy-inquisiti...the-hare-krsnas
The pertinent section comes after a long introduction about religious fanaticism.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 21, 2010 12:32 am
Guru Maharaja,
In Rasa-tattva Fundamentals you wrote:
"I explained further that Sri Radha was the 'ista-devata' of Sukadeva, as mentioned in Sanatana Goswami's 'Brhad Bhagavatamrta'. There, Sanatana Goswami explains that when Sukadeva mentioned the name of Radha he became 'avista citta,' spiritually excited within, but externally inert. Brahma Vaivarta Purana further mentions that if Sukadeva had mentioned Radha directly, he would have lost consciousness for up to six months. Because Pariksit Maharaja had only seven days to live and listen to the pertinent advice of Sukadeva, Sukadeva avoided saying anything that would have rendered him incapable of helping his disciple."
Here is the relevant section from Brhad Bhagavatamrta:
"Just one person, almost as dear to Me as the devotees of Vraja, will be able to describe those topics—Sukadeva, the son of Badarayana Vyasa. By the power of his great love in the mood of the Vraja-vasis, he will speak something of those matters to his excellent disciple who resembles him in spiritual qualities and whom I once brought back to life." (1.7.117)
From Sanatana Goswami's commentary: "Sukadeva Gosvami is intimately attuned to the mood of the gopis, and therefore he is vulnerable to the danger of becoming too ecstatic. In the helpless state of viraha-bhava, he might sometimes become incoherent in chanting the glories of the Lord, the devotional practice that is his own specialty and the only support of his vital force. If Sukadeva utters any of the gopis’ names, his heart is at once filled with remembrance of the gopis, and the scorching flames of viraha-bhava make him unable to concentrate on his service. Therefore while reciting Srimad-Bhagavatam to Maharaja Pariksit he avoided mentioning the gopis by name."
Madan Gopal Das - July 21, 2010 1:41 am
Bravo for the research Vrindaranya! Excellent conclusions GM!
Swami - July 21, 2010 5:13 am
Guru Maharaja,
In Rasa-tattva Fundamentals you wrote:
"I explained further that Sri Radha was the 'ista-devata' of Sukadeva, as mentioned in Sanatana Goswami's 'Brhad Bhagavatamrta'. There, Sanatana Goswami explains that when Sukadeva mentioned the name of Radha he became 'avista citta,' spiritually excited within, but externally inert. Brahma Vaivarta Purana further mentions that if Sukadeva had mentioned Radha directly, he would have lost consciousness for up to six months. Because Pariksit Maharaja had only seven days to live and listen to the pertinent advice of Sukadeva, Sukadeva avoided saying anything that would have rendered him incapable of helping his disciple."
Here is the relevant section from Brhad Bhagavatamrta:
"Just one person, almost as dear to Me as the devotees of Vraja, will be able to describe those topics—Sukadeva, the son of Badarayana Vyasa. By the power of his great love in the mood of the Vraja-vasis, he will speak something of those matters to his excellent disciple who resembles him in spiritual qualities and whom I once brought back to life." (1.7.117)
From Sanatana Goswami's commentary: "Sukadeva Gosvami is intimately attuned to the mood of the gopis, and therefore he is vulnerable to the danger of becoming too ecstatic. In the helpless state of viraha-bhava, he might sometimes become incoherent in chanting the glories of the Lord, the devotional practice that is his own specialty and the only support of his vital force. If Sukadeva utters any of the gopis’ names, his heart is at once filled with remembrance of the gopis, and the scorching flames of viraha-bhava make him unable to concentrate on his service. Therefore while reciting Srimad-Bhagavatam to Maharaja Pariksit he avoided mentioning the gopis by name."
Thank you for reminding me of that reference and my citation of it! So Sukadeva is seen here to be almost as dear as he Vrajavais because of his following in their footsteps, having been drawn there (from Brahman) by the force of the Bhagavatam.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 21, 2010 9:35 am
Here is a quote from Bhaktivinode Thakur in Amnaya-sutra that confirms that Sukadeva became a devotee of Krsna: "Although Sukadeva Gosvami and the four Kumaras were always absorbed in the thought of impersonal Brahman and were thus Brahmavadis, they were nonetheless attracted by the transcendental pastimes and qualities of Krsna. Therefore they later became devotees of Krsna."
And a quote that indicates that the idea that Sukadeva was previously in Krsna-lila did not originate with Narayana Maharaja: "Although he was quite big, he came out of his mother without causing her any pain and immediately like a parrot he began praising and eulogizing the glories of the Supreme Lord, thus he was called Suka which means parrot and indeed previously during Krsna lila in Vrindavan he was a parrot. ln "Sri Ananda Vrndavan Campu'' this is confirmed by Srila Kavi Karnapur." (Vaisnava Vijaya by Kesava Maharaja). Note: I do not have access to Ananda Vrindavan Campu here to check this reference, but this is what Narasingha Maharaja said in his article: "Part two of the story, wherein the pet parrot of Radharani flew to Nandagrama and entered the kunja where Krsna was seated, is cited in the eighth stavaka of Ananda Vrndavana Campu by Sri Kavi Karnapura – a very sweet and charming narration."
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 21, 2010 6:24 pm
Although I think that Narasingha Maharaja had a valid point in questioning whether Sukadeva was previously Radharani's parrot, I must say that I think it may have lacked foresight to post that room conversation of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. It is rather extreme and difficult to support philosophically, as will invariably be necessary now that it has been used in such a controversial way. The low blows to Narayana Maharaja also didn't help the article, whether provoked or not.
Madan Gopal Das - July 21, 2010 6:38 pm
Great observations, I agree completely. It could be really touchy, but maybe a Harmonist release with GM's points harmonizing the issue??
Babhru Das - July 21, 2010 7:30 pm
I also agree with Vrindaranya's comments. I've thought about whether some edited version of Srila Sridhara Maharaja's remarks may be more useful, but I haven't come up with how I would edit them. Narasimha Maharaja's tone is undoubtedly confrontational. We see this whenever he takes on misconceptions from ISKCON or this other sanga. His diction--choosing words such as pigheaded and gatecrashers--seems designed to put some readers off. I had the same feeling when I read his parampara book. I found it an interesting read, maybe even a valuable resource for some circumstances, but I found the tone often unnecessarily heavy. I much preferred our Swami's take on the issue, which is why I reviewed it (focusing on what I found an exemplary tone) and both sold and gave away a number of copies. On the other hand, I borrowed a copy of Narasimha Maharaja's book to read but never bought a copy of my own.
In this piece I also found myself a little troubled by his citation from Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, especially coupled with Srila Sridhara Maharaja's remarks. The effect seems to be to denigrate the devotion of Sukadeva and Prahlada. But I don't think Mahaprabhu castigated Srivasa Thakura in that way to denigrate their character or devotional standing as much as to demonstrate the singular position of Sri Advaita Acarya.
Braja-sundari Dasi - July 21, 2010 9:59 pm
In this piece I also found myself a little troubled by his citation from Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, especially coupled with Srila Sridhara Maharaja's remarks. The effect seems to be to denigrate the devotion of Sukadeva and Prahlada. But I don't think Mahaprabhu castigated Srivasa Thakura in that way to denigrate their character or devotional standing as much as to demonstrate the singular position of Sri Advaita Acarya.
I wrote a letter to Narasiga Maharaja with questions about his article, the point above among them. I see it rather as Mahaprabhu saying- "do not compare mere jiva to Mahavisnu".
No reply yet, I wonder whether Maharaja got it. I have to send it via facebook because I don`t have Maharaja`s current e-mail address
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 22, 2010 12:17 am
Although I think that Narasingha Maharaja had a valid point in questioning whether Sukadeva was previously Radharani's parrot, I must say that I think it may have lacked foresight to post that room conversation of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. It is rather extreme and difficult to support philosophically, as will invariably be necessary now that it has been used in such a controversial way. The low blows to Narayana Maharaja also didn't help the article, whether provoked or not.
I agree with your conclusions. Thanks for the research. I had mentioned BVT quote to GM also in an email.
I find Maharaja's tone distasteful.
Shyamananda Das - July 22, 2010 1:18 pm
Great observations, I agree completely. It could be really touchy, but maybe a Harmonist release with GM's points harmonizing the issue??
I wish for that! 
Braja-sundari Dasi - July 22, 2010 2:54 pm
Great observations, I agree completely. It could be really touchy, but maybe a Harmonist release with GM's points harmonizing the issue??
I`m not sure about it... We already had a problem when Maharaja got offended when comments to his article were not what he expected them to be
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 22, 2010 4:20 pm
I`m not sure about it... We already had a problem when Maharaja got offended when comments to his article were not what he expected them to be
Yes I was the culprit then, unfortunately. It is better for me to be branded as a timid person rather than offensive one. I promise not to comment there, then everything will be ok!
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 22, 2010 5:21 pm
Yes I was the culprit then, unfortunately. It is better for me to be branded as a timid person rather than offensive one. I promise not to comment there, then everything will be ok!
I think he also was offended by the side discussion on homosexuality.
Devyah-pati Das SERBIA - July 23, 2010 10:38 am
Just few words on Narasingha Maharaja's style of preaching...
I had an opportunity to live for 5 months in Narasingha Maharaja's
ashram (Govindaji gardens) in south India. There in his personal
association I could get some feeling and understanding of his style
of preaching.
Babhru Prabhu made good description of NM preaching tone as
"often unnecessarily heavy". It realy sounds like this sometimes.
But, didn't Srila Prabhupad used words "fools and rascals" 
also .
What I want to say is that Narasingha Maharaj is realy sometimes
in, so to say, "Narasingha" mood, so much so that I was sometimes
afraid of him.
Still, he is very simple and charming person. I consider him to be,
besides our GM, one of the greatest devotees SP disciples walking
presently on this planet.
Firstly I wanted to chose NM as my guru, but then I concluded that
I cannot have guru that I am afraid of (generaly in zone of Harikesa
swami this was the idea - one should be afraid of ones guru, or at
least devotees made such vibration to take place in our zone).
Babhru Prabhu said - " I much preferred our Swami's take
on the issue, which is why I reviewed it (focusing on what I found an
exemplary tone) and both sold and gave away a number of copies."
That is also why when hearing our GM preaching I became charmed
- I could hear all these wonderful things regarding SSM etc, but I felt
that GM so mercifully made for us access to himself very simple and direct,
and that I do not need to be afraid to ask any (sometimes even
foolish question). The difference I felt like - that our GM will if you make
some foolish thing, he will throw on you a rose to warn you, while NM will
throw on you tiny thunderbolt to warn you .
So, the style of GM atracted me and I chose him.
All this I wrote to make a point that, although NM can sometimes sound
harsh, he is exalted devotee and one should think of him with utmost
respect.
Braja-sundari Dasi - July 23, 2010 7:45 pm
I`ve got reply from Narasigha Maharaja:
My first question:
I don`t quite understand what it means that Sukadeva was just a loudspeaker of Bhagavatam. Obviously there was much more than just repeating some verses (like perpaps happens sometimes during Bhagavata saptahas nowadays). Maharaj Pariksit was asking questions and Sukadeva was answering- that needs much more then just mere repeating, that needs understanding the topic. And also what means that Bhagavata is coloured by brahma-jnana of Sukadeva?
Narasingha Maharaja:
Vyasa is speaking and the message is passing thru him to Sukadeva. Sukadeva is receiving the message attentively and he is understanding whereas Vyasadeva is the speaker and he is in trance. At that point the message is passing thru Vyasa and he may know or not know what is passing thru him to Sukadeva.
Again [later] Sukadeva is speaking to Parikit Maharaja and the message is passing thru him [like a machine/empowered], at which point he may know or not know what that is. After speaking he vanished into the unknown quarter. Bhagavatam has never been just one thing although originally just 4 verses. With each speaking, especially from Sukadeva onwards it has increased.
The speaker [the real qualified speaker of the Bhagavatam] is always a 'machine'. Our Srila Prabhupada also marveled over what he had written in his books. When referring to his Bhagavatam commentary, Srila Prabhupada said, "I have not written these books, Krishna has written." Prabhupada marveled over what he had written means that it was passing thru him and when reading it later he was amazed. Similarly, Vyasadeva went to listen to Sukadeva speak to Parikit because he wanted to observe what it was that passed thru him to Sukadeva. That is the mystic way of Srimad Bhagavatam.
Sukadeva was speaking, yes, but more importantly, Krishna was speaking thru Sukadeva... that is the way of an empowered speaker. Colored by the brahma-jnana of Sukadeva means that he was situated in Brahman and because of this the Rsis seated along with Parikit Maharaja, who were mostly jnanis and yogis, were able to appreciate what Sukadeva spoke as the last word in the Absolute Truth. Because Sukadeva was situated in Brahman they accepted his words knowing that he had no attraction for anything mundane and thus the lila of Krishna must be above transcendence.
Braja-sundari Dasi - July 23, 2010 7:54 pm
My second question:
Another thing I do not quite understand is when you give the example of Mahaprabhu giving a slap to Srivasa for comparing Advaita Acarya to Sukadeva, as a proof that Sukadeva is not so great. But was it not rather because Srivasa compared Visnu tattva to mere jiva?
Narasingha Maharaja:
"Mahaprabhu would not like to hear that Advaita Achary was Visnu tattva. Mahaprabhu only wanted to hear about Advaita's devotional qualities and when compared to Sukadeva and Prahlad, then Mahaprabhu gave a slap because Advaita has intimate connection to Mahaprabhu whereas Sukadeva does not. Gaura-lila is very special and Sukadeva was not directly connected to Gaura-lila whereas Advaita was."
I will have follow up question to this explanation, because although nobody mentions Sukadeva in Gaura lila, sometimes it is said that Haridas Thakur was Prahlad
Braja-sundari Dasi - July 23, 2010 7:57 pm
My third question:
I never heard before that Sukadeva was Radharani`s parrot, although I heard some version of this story. But is not possible that after attaining perfection he got position in lila as a parrot? And another possibility- that he is both- nitya and sadhana siddha, like Narada Muni is?
Narasingha Maharaja:
All things are possible about Sukadeva but the central theme is that he came from the unknown and after he spoke Bhagavatam to Parikit he again vanished into the unknown. No one knows the history of Sukadeva before he appeared or after he disappeared. He came by Krishna's arrangement and then vanished. Even his guru was there he did not care to meet him or to show respect... he simply walked into the forrest and was never heard of or from again. Vanished!!!
No acharya has ever speculated on what Sukadeva's position was other than to say he had no permanent position in Krishna-lila. I modern times Narayana Maharaja and some sahajiyas in Vrindavana say that Sukadeva was the pet parrot of Radha. But this is only speculation and not supported by sastra or previous acharyas. That kind of hari-katha was not supported by Srila Sridhar Maharaja and certainly Srila Prabhupada would not appreciate it either.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 23, 2010 10:39 pm
I`ve got reply from Narasigha Maharaja:
My first question:
I don`t quite understand what it means that Sukadeva was just a loudspeaker of Bhagavatam. Obviously there was much more than just repeating some verses (like perpaps happens sometimes during Bhagavata saptahas nowadays). Maharaj Pariksit was asking questions and Sukadeva was answering- that needs much more then just mere repeating, that needs understanding the topic. And also what means that Bhagavata is coloured by brahma-jnana of Sukadeva?
Narasingha Maharaja:
Vyasa is speaking and the message is passing thru him to Sukadeva. Sukadeva is receiving the message attentively and he is understanding whereas Vyasadeva is the speaker and he is in trance. At that point the message is passing thru Vyasa and he may know or not know what is passing thru him to Sukadeva.
Again [later] Sukadeva is speaking to Parikit Maharaja and the message is passing thru him [like a machine/empowered], at which point he may know or not know what that is. After speaking he vanished into the unknown quarter. Bhagavatam has never been just one thing although originally just 4 verses. With each speaking, especially from Sukadeva onwards it has increased.
The speaker [the real qualified speaker of the Bhagavatam] is always a 'machine'. Our Srila Prabhupada also marveled over what he had written in his books. When referring to his Bhagavatam commentary, Srila Prabhupada said, "I have not written these books, Krishna has written." Prabhupada marveled over what he had written means that it was passing thru him and when reading it later he was amazed. Similarly, Vyasadeva went to listen to Sukadeva speak to Parikit because he wanted to observe what it was that passed thru him to Sukadeva. That is the mystic way of Srimad Bhagavatam.
Sukadeva was speaking, yes, but more importantly, Krishna was speaking thru Sukadeva... that is the way of an empowered speaker. Colored by the brahma-jnana of Sukadeva means that he was situated in Brahman and because of this the Rsis seated along with Parikit Maharaja, who were mostly jnanis and yogis, were able to appreciate what Sukadeva spoke as the last word in the Absolute Truth. Because Sukadeva was situated in Brahman they accepted his words knowing that he had no attraction for anything mundane and thus the lila of Krishna must be above transcendence.
Actually the verse said (in C.C) that Vyasa may or may not know but Sridhar Swami knows (Siva says that). Connecting it to Sukadeva and establishing that he may not know does not prove anything. Secondly the text S.B speaks about the fact that Sukadeva was more advanced than Vyasa in some ways ( the women covered themselves when they saw Vyasa). Sometimes it is said that Sukadeva speaks and makes S.B even more sweet. Suka gosvami has been instructed by Sukadeva goswami. So Sukadeva Goswami did not disappear, but did pass on the instructions to Suka Goswami. SP in his commentary ( i have to check) in fact glorifies Sukadeva Goswami as most qualified to deliver the S.B and the fact that all other senior sages including Vyasa bowed to him because of his advancement. Certainly SSM has a different take on Sukadeva, but promoting a room conversation as Absolute truth is strange. Also Sukadeva is revered highly by Nimbarkas ( who considered Kumaras and Sukadeva to know the intricate science of Radha and Krsna) and I don't think the are sahijayas.
Anyway like I said I am surprised at the absolute faith Maharaja has on the slim evidence he presents. Also talking about position of Suka is not a philosophical deviation. Many acaryas have revealed different identities of people appearing in Gaura Lila and Krsna Lila according to their bhava and his idea is more of a NM bashing. Also he had put down Prakashanda Saraswati ( I don't know if I am correct) as inferior in one article as he was in Mayavada conception before. I find his analysis distasteful there also. In Sri Vaisnavism, Ramanuja converted Jains, Advaitins etc to his sect, but their potential is not hindered by the fact that they were in a different conception( Jain,Brahmavadi or Mayavadi) before. I don't know why Maharaja has do that. Anyway he can do what he likes.
Braja-sundari Dasi - July 23, 2010 10:53 pm
And my last question and the answer, clarifying completly who Sukadeva Goswami was:
But I have one more doubt about Sukadeva and Prahlada- while nobody mentioned Sukadeva in Gaura lila (I don`t know if it can be considered the ultimate proof he was not there, since there were probably many glorious personalities not mentioned by name), some sources say that Haridas Thakur was Prahlad Maharaj. If that was the case what was improper in comparing his devotion with Advaita Acarya?
Narasingha Maharaja:
Because the comparison is like saying an elementary school child is the same as a highly learned professor. That would be improper. We value the opinion of great acharyas and no acharya ever said that Sukadeva had an intimate connection in Gaura-lila. Even if one is a pure devotee of Krishna it does not mean that one automatically has connection to Gaura-lila. And a remote connection and an intimate connection are also two different things. Advaita is an intimate associate of Sri Chaitanya but superior to Advaita is Gadadhar. Gadadhar is even more intimately connected to Mahaprabhu than Sri Nityananda. When comparing rasa, Prahlad, Advaita and even Sri Nityananda are of an inferior position compared to Gadadhar.
So, no doubt... these things are not easy to understand and very easily our mind may not be able grasp such things and that is why the opinion of recognized great acharyas is so important. Follow the opinions of previous acharyas and we are safe — speculate and we are lost.
In the book Gaura Ganodesh-dipika by Kavi Karnapur it is said: Verse 110. "Sukadeva Gosvami, the son of Srila Vyasadeva, appeared during Lord Caitanya's pastimes as the devotee named Vallabha Bhatta."
Vallabha Bhatta was a very learned commentator of Bhagavatam but his commentary was rejected by Mahaprabhu and Vallabha Batta could not get the mercy of Mahaprabhu or his associates. Eventually Vallabha Batta forced Gadadhar Pandit to give him initiation and when Gadadhar gave Vallabha mantr-diksa, Gadadhar lost the potency of his mantras. Later Mahaprabhu told Gadadhar that he had lost the potency of his mantras because he had initiated an unqualified person!!! So this would then in effect be another evidence to confirm that Sukadeva was not the pet parrot of Radha otherwise Gadadhar would not have lost the potency of his mantras.
Braja-sundari Dasi - July 23, 2010 11:03 pm
Vallabha Bhatta sampradaya favoures mood of Candravali
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 23, 2010 11:52 pm
And my last question and the answer, clarifying completly who Sukadeva Goswami was:
But I have one more doubt about Sukadeva and Prahlada- while nobody mentioned Sukadeva in Gaura lila (I don`t know if it can be considered the ultimate proof he was not there, since there were probably many glorious personalities not mentioned by name), some sources say that Haridas Thakur was Prahlad Maharaj. If that was the case what was improper in comparing his devotion with Advaita Acarya?
Narasingha Maharaja:
Because the comparison is like saying an elementary school child is the same as a highly learned professor. That would be improper. We value the opinion of great acharyas and no acharya ever said that Sukadeva had an intimate connection in Gaura-lila. Even if one is a pure devotee of Krishna it does not mean that one automatically has connection to Gaura-lila. And a remote connection and an intimate connection are also two different things. Advaita is an intimate associate of Sri Chaitanya but superior to Advaita is Gadadhar. Gadadhar is even more intimately connected to Mahaprabhu than Sri Nityananda. When comparing rasa, Prahlad, Advaita and even Sri Nityananda are of an inferior position compared to Gadadhar.
So, no doubt... these things are not easy to understand and very easily our mind may not be able grasp such things and that is why the opinion of recognized great acharyas is so important. Follow the opinions of previous acharyas and we are safe — speculate and we are lost.
In the book Gaura Ganodesh-dipika by Kavi Karnapur it is said: Verse 110. "Sukadeva Gosvami, the son of Srila Vyasadeva, appeared during Lord Caitanya's pastimes as the devotee named Vallabha Bhatta."
Vallabha Bhatta was a very learned commentator of Bhagavatam but his commentary was rejected by Mahaprabhu and Vallabha Batta could not get the mercy of Mahaprabhu or his associates. Eventually Vallabha Batta forced Gadadhar Pandit to give him initiation and when Gadadhar gave Vallabha mantr-diksa, Gadadhar lost the potency of his mantras. Later Mahaprabhu told Gadadhar that he had lost the potency of his mantras because he had initiated an unqualified person!!! So this would then in effect be another evidence to confirm that Sukadeva was not the pet parrot of Radha otherwise Gadadhar would not have lost the potency of his mantras.
When acaryas themselves differ on the identities of many personalities, how do you establish something like this? NM is also an acarya an acarya Maharaja does not approve of!!
One more point Ramujas and Madhavas have Brahmas, Prahlads and many other personalities appearing in the pastimes of their sect, so do we fight no he has come in Gaura Lila as someone not in Ramuja lila.
In spite of what Maharaja said the Goswamis were very cordial with the Vallabhas. In fact, Jiva Goswami even praised the Muslim king Akhbar in spite of the fact that he ate meat!! Similarly Nanda Maharaja offers respect to the yogis and jnanis when they come there. So Vrajavasis are not even aware of their greatness. It is indeed charming to show that madhurya rasa offers the highest intimacy in rasa, but at the same time there is accommodation of all other rasas and Vaikuntha also. So the bheda side of the philosophy is emphasized so much that abheda is forgotten nowadays. In the name of fighting with Candravali camp, we can justify aggression, but are most practitioners in GV prepared for a transcendental fight of that level yet? We are still struggling to find our feet to progress to nistha and if Maharaj and NM exchange blows what will happen to the neophyte disciples? They will just fight in the name of the guru and think it is a transcendental fight.
Alas, dhira-adhira jana priyau, the Goswamis have to see this now!! When even Krsna is generous to yogis like Vishwamitra to whom the Gayatri was revealed and to a Saivite like Sandipani Muni, is there any harm in being generous to Candravali atleast for the moment when we are not in bhava?
Braja-sundari Dasi - July 24, 2010 2:00 am
When even Krsna is generous to yogis like Vishwamitra to whom the Gayatri was revealed and to a Saivite like Sandipani Muni, is there any harm in being generous to Candravali atleast for the moment when we are not in bhava?
But I don`t think acknowledging great devotees means to prove that they are something they are not. If Sukadeva goswami is closer to Candravali then to Radharani in Gaura lila, how could he possibly be Radha`s favourite parrot in Krsna lila?
Swami - July 24, 2010 3:54 am
In Radhasahasranama we find two names of Radha connected with Sukadeva:
sukadeva-gunatita (Her qualities are beyond Sukadeva's capacity to describe)
sukadeva-priya (She is dear to Sukadeva)
As for Gaurgonodesa-dipika, we find the following:
Vallabha Bhatta = Sukadeva Gosvami
Vallabhacarya = Maharaja Janaka (King of Mithila) or Maharaja Bhismaka (Father of Rukmini).
So it appears that Sukadeva is not identified with the acarya Vallabha, although Prabhupada may have made such identification in his books at times. As noted above. Kavi Karnapura gives two opinions about Vallabhacarya, and the second opinion identifies him with Rukmini's father. Rukmini is Candravali in the Dvaraka-lila and Vallabhacaraya accepted diksa from Gadadhara Pandita when the pandit was in Rukmini-bhava in Puri (Dvaraka). Thus Vallabhacarya's connection with Candravalli. His son, Vithil, is considered an incarnation of Candravali by the Vallabha sect.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 24, 2010 4:08 am
In Radhasahasranama we find two names of Radha connected with Sukadeva:
sukadeva-gunatita (Her qualities are beyond Sukadeva's capacity to describe)
sukadeva-priya (She is dear to Sukadeva)
As for Gaurgonodesa-dipika, we find the following:
Vallabha Bhatta = Sukadeva Gosvami
Vallabhacarya = Maharaja Janaka (King of Mithila) or Maharaja Bhismaka (Father of Rukmini).
So it appears that Sukadeva is not identified with the acarya Vallabha, although Prabhupada my have made such identification in his books at times. As noted above. Kavi Karnapura gives two opinions about Vallabhacarya, and the second opinion identifies him with Rukmini's father. Rukmini is Candravali in the Dvaraka-lila and Vallabhacaraya accepted diksa from Gadadhara Pandita when the pandit was in Rukmini-bhava in Puri (Dvaraka). Thus Vallabhacarya's connection with Candravalli. His son, Vithil, is considered an incarnation of Candravali by the Vallabha sect.
So this brings the question, what mistakes can be made by a spiritual master on spiritual topics like Prabhupada making the mistake above.? This was related to a question Gopakumara asked on Swami Call. I think these mistakes are more mistakes in information gathering than philosophy itself and perhaps the knowing the details of each person in the lila accurately is not a serious mistake.
Swami - July 24, 2010 5:17 am
So this brings the question, what mistakes can be made by a spiritual master on spiritual topics like Prabhupada making the mistake above.? This was related to a question Gopakumara asked on Swami Call. I think these mistakes are more mistakes in information gathering than philosophy itself and perhaps the knowing the details of each person in the lila accurately is not a serious mistake.
Regarding NM on this topic, as per the research of Vrindaranya posted on this thread, he merely repeated what he learned from his guru, Kesava Maharaja, on this topic.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 24, 2010 5:34 am
Regarding NM on this topic, as per the research of Vrindaranya posted on this thread, he merely repeated what he learned from his guru, Kesava Maharaja, on this topic.
I was not talking about NM but about any guru in general. They may have an error in recalling details of so many personalities and their identities like the difference between Vallaba Bhatta and Vallabhacarya.
Anyway I don't object to narsingha maharaja's right to express his opinion, but to state that his opinion is Absolute and the other opinion is a rasaabhasa (and all other strong statements he uses) is objectionable to me.
Swami - July 24, 2010 5:43 am
Here SM identifies Sukadeva with Krsnadasa Kaviraja (kind of)!
Aksayananda Swami: Maharaja, in caitanya lila, who is Sukadeva Gosvami, in Caitanya lila?
Sridhara Maharaja: The essence of the ________have said Kaviraj Gosvami, but he is of another type, just as Arjuna, is ramananda, is combined of Arjuna and Vishaka sakhi, so Kaviraja Gosvami is Kasturi manjari there and also Sukadevas work. Sukadeva specialty was the rasa and philosophy, ontology and poetry, talk of spiritual, combined. And in Kaviraj Gosvami we find those two, ontology tattva vidya philosophy as well as poetry, the alonka, the kabha, rasa, caritamrita.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 24, 2010 11:30 am
Gaura-vijaya, it seems like your main focus is proving that Narasingha Maharaja was wrong, and I don't think that is a good platform for getting to the bottom of the philosophical issue. The style of delivery has already been noted. To Narasingha Maharaja's defense, his style is not that uncommon, although a softer, more nuanced style of delivery is becoming appreciated in modern times (a balance of male and female approaches). Narayana Maharaja has similarly taken a bold, confrontational stance in the past, not only with Narasingha Maharaja but Sridhara Maharaja as well.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 24, 2010 11:44 am
Gaura-vijaya, it seems like your main focus is proving that Narasingha Maharaja was wrong, and I don't think that is a good platform for getting to the bottom of the philosophical issue. The style of delivery has already been noted. To Narasingha Maharaja's defense, his style is not that uncommon, although a softer, more nuanced style of delivery is becoming appreciated in modern times (a balance of male and female approaches). Narayana Maharaja has similarly taken a bold, confrontational stance in the past, not only with Narasingha Maharaja but Sridhara Maharaja as well.
You are correct. I don't think that the main focus I had was to prove his wrong. But he made a mountain out of a mole. That is what I meant. This style is not just a problem of modern times. This style of delivery whether taken by Maharaja or NM can wreck havoc when they leave and their disciples fight out in the name of the Gurus. I personally don't think the style is a minor issue limited to Political Correctness of the time. History has proved how such styles have led the masses to be mad.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 24, 2010 2:54 pm
As for the style wrecking havoc when the Gurus leave and their disciples fight out in the name of the Gurus, what can be done? Not only is it Kali-yuga, but the majority will always lack the brahminical qualities that allow them to appreciate more subtle arguments. Their thinking gravitates towards the two extremes, so grey will turn to black in their minds and thus they will not appreciate subtle arguments and will go elsewhere to the presentation that better suits their disposition.
So whether it is a major or minor issue aside, it is a dynamic that will likely only continue to deteriorate as Kali-yuga progresses. I don't think you can avoid this dynamic in any group, so the best you can do is gravitate toward those of a like mind. If something is unlikely to change, you have to tolerate it to a certain extent [not that I don't need to hear this as well].
As for Narasingha Maharaja making a mountain out of a molehill, I still haven't seen any strong evidence that Sukadeva was Radharani's parrot, so I think he brought up a valid and interesting topic of discussion.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 24, 2010 2:59 pm
As for the style wrecking havoc when the Gurus leave and their disciples fight out in the name of the Gurus, what can be done? Not only is it Kali-yuga, but the majority will always lack the brahminical qualities that allow them to appreciate more subtle arguments. Their thinking gravitates towards the two extremes, so grey will turn to black in their minds and thus they will not appreciate subtle arguments and will go elsewhere to the presentation that better suits their disposition.
So whether it is a major or minor issue aside, it is a dynamic that will likely only continue to deteriorate as Kali-yuga progresses. I don't think you can avoid this dynamic in any group, so the best you can do is gravitate toward those of a like mind. If something is unlikely to change, you have to tolerate it to a certain extent [not that I don't need to hear this as well].
As for Narasingha Maharaja making a mountain out of a molehill, I still haven't seen any strong evidence that Sukadeva was Radharani's parrot, so I think he brought up a valid and interesting topic of discussion.
Thanks for reminding me. I will try to tolerate it. Yes he brought up a good discussion, but in doing so also made a room conversation of SSM as his evidence of absolute truth, thereby weakening his case. Anyway I won't bother. Let people mudsling each other. I will just enjoy the party
I just used to get disturbed by the way GV is functioning, but that is perhaps just my ego. I have to let go. I will follow your advice and remain peaceful.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 24, 2010 3:02 pm
One other point: As much as some people go to an extreme in terms of presenting an absolute position, the other extreme is to present a position that is so relative that you can't know or say anything.
Tolerating mudslinging will eventually bring you to participating in dye-throwing (Holi): tat te 'nukampam...
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 24, 2010 3:10 pm
One other point: As much as some people go to an extreme in terms of presenting an absolute position, the other extreme is to present a position that is so relative that you can't know or say anything.
Tolerating mudslinging will eventually bring you to participating in dye-throwing (Holi): tat te 'nukampam...
Obviously antithesis will follow a thesis. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis, this order continues for ever. So if one party goes to one extreme, some people in the tradition have to go to other extreme to balance things out. Let me be ridiculed for staying timid and stay quiet. ( though we will see how long it can last 
)
Some excerpts from SSM's book Golden Volcano I was contemplating on : Coming into real connection with the infinite, one feels helpless. He thinks, "There is no limit to progress, Rather as much as I come in intimate connection with infinite, I feel hopeless. The more we advance, the more we find it unlimited and finding it unlimited we become hopeless and we can't turn back."
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 24, 2010 3:49 pm
As for being timid and quiet: no need to swing to the other extreme--go for those shades of grey!
Better to embody the synthesis (grey) than the antithesis (white)!
Swami - July 24, 2010 3:51 pm
we can't turn back
Swami - July 24, 2010 3:52 pm
Better to embody the synthesis than the antithesis!
My thoughts exactly!
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 24, 2010 3:57 pm
As for being timid and quiet: no need to swing to the other extreme--go for those shades of grey!
Better to embody the synthesis (grey) than the antithesis (white)!
I will first need to study the synthesis and observe you more closely before moving to it. Better to be white (sattva) than black (tamas) till then. Atleast by staying quiet you allow the people who embody the synthesis to function. The black does not allow the synthesis to function.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 24, 2010 4:19 pm
Guru Maharaja embodies the synthesis. We are all trying to follow in his footsteps.
Syama/bhakti is the synthesis (gray raincloud) that takes us beyond the black and white gunas.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 24, 2010 5:21 pm
Guru Maharaja embodies the synthesis. We are all trying to follow in his footsteps.
Syama/bhakti is the synthesis (gray raincloud) that takes us beyond the black and white gunas.
Sometimes silence is more powerful than reason than dealing with rigid people. Rigid people are frustrated if you don't argue with them, and they feel elated if you reason with them. The downside is that if you don;t speak up then you may be guilty of condoning vaisnava aparadha. So I will try to keep association with very few people so that does not happen.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 24, 2010 5:49 pm
But this is an internal discussion, so whether you are silent or not won't have an effect on those whose approach you are objecting to.
Otherwise, it sounds like you are saying that you are trapped between two extremes, so again: go with the gray. You can say something but there is no need to become a one-track record playing to the choir.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 25, 2010 2:43 am
In Radhasahasranama we find two names of Radha connected with Sukadeva:
sukadeva-gunatita (Her qualities are beyond Sukadeva's capacity to describe)
sukadeva-priya (She is dear to Sukadeva)
As for Gaurgonodesa-dipika, we find the following:
Vallabha Bhatta = Sukadeva Gosvami
Vallabhacarya = Maharaja Janaka (King of Mithila) or Maharaja Bhismaka (Father of Rukmini).
So it appears that Sukadeva is not identified with the acarya Vallabha, although Prabhupada may have made such identification in his books at times. As noted above. Kavi Karnapura gives two opinions about Vallabhacarya, and the second opinion identifies him with Rukmini's father. Rukmini is Candravali in the Dvaraka-lila and Vallabhacaraya accepted diksa from Gadadhara Pandita when the pandit was in Rukmini-bhava in Puri (Dvaraka). Thus Vallabhacarya's connection with Candravalli. His son, Vithil, is considered an incarnation of Candravali by the Vallabha sect.
So the Vallabha Bhatta mentioned in GGP isn't Vallabhacarya although he also goes by that name? Is there any more information about him?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 25, 2010 2:55 am
So the Vallabha Bhatta mentioned in GGP isn't Vallabhacarya although he also goes by that name? Is there any more information about him?
In the link I find that Vallabha Bhatta is grand father of Vallabhacharya. I will try to get more information on this issue.
http://chintanmehta.wetpaint.com/page/Vallabhacharya
But certainly it will be better to see if Vallabha Bhatta is a different person appearing in Gaura Lila. Sometimes people do call Vallabhacarya Vallabh Bhatt in their tradition, but I need to probe this detail because sometimes people just answer without enough knowledge and research and I can't trust them.
Swami - July 25, 2010 2:59 am
So the Vallabha Bhatta mentioned in GGP isn't Vallabhacarya although he also goes by that name? Is there any more information about him?
A Vallabha Bhatta and a Vallabhacaraya are both mentioned in the book as to different individuals. One was the father of Laxmipriya the other presumably the acarya of the Vallabha sampradaya, but this is not clear from the text itself. There was also another Vallabha who was the author of Krsnamangala.
But now as I think about more on this it seems that the Vallabha who is identified with Janaka and Bismaka must be the one who was the father of Laxmipriya. That makes spiritual sense. So if the other Vallabha mentioned is the acarya, then the text does identify him with Sukadeva. Incidentally, I have read that the Vallabha sampradaya considers Vallabha an incarnation of Krsna's mouth!
Swami - July 25, 2010 3:07 am
Kavi Karnapura:
44. The same person who was Maharaja Janaka, the king of Mithila, appeared during Lord Caitanya's pastimes as Vallabhacarya. Some people differ from this view, and say that Vallabhacarya was an incarnation of Maharaja Bhismaka.
45. The same person who formerly appeared as Janaki-devi and Rukmini-devi appeared during Lord Caitanya's pastimes as Srimati Laksmipriya, the daughter of Vallabhacarya.
46. Vallbhacarya's daughter, Srimati Laksmipriya, was an incarnation of Srimati Laksmi-devi, the goddess of fortune. One day, as she was walking with her friends towards the bank of the Ganges to bathe, she entered the path of Lord Caitanya's vision. In this way the Lord saw Laksmipriya for the first time.
110. Sukadeva Gosvami, the son of Srila Vyasadeva, appeared during Lord Caitanya's pastimes as the devotee named Vallabha Bhatta.
It's a bit curious that he says no more to further identify who exactly Vallabha Bhatta is, but SP clearly identified him with the acarya. Note that the list in Kavi Karnapura's book is for the most part a list of eternal associates of Mahaprabhu, while Valalbhacarya is not exactly one of them. He is from another sampradaya, etc.
Swami - July 25, 2010 3:22 am
Here is something more from Cc:
dasya-bhave anandita parisada-gana
vidhi, bhava, narada ara suka, sanatana
Here the author identifies Sukadeva with dasya bhava, in apparent contradiction to Sanatana Goswami in Bb cited earlier. But from the context it is clear that he is merely saying that all these persons--Brahma, Siva, Narada, Suka, Sanatana--take pleasure in being servants (dasya) of Krsna, without identifying what kind of servants (dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, madhurya) they are. The section can also be said to be giving a dasya perspective from the vantage point of Visnu seva, as it is about Mahavisnu/Advaita Acarya. The following verse identifies Nityananda Prabhu as being in dasya as well, which of course is only part (one third) of his sentiment and not his primary one (sakhya mixed with vatsalya and dasya).
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 25, 2010 3:32 am
Here is something more from Cc:
dasya-bhave anandita parisada-gana
vidhi, bhava, narada ara suka, sanatana
Here the author identifies Sukadeva with dasya bhava.
Is Narada also is dasya bhava and is that sanatana kumara ( not sanatana goswami) ?
Surprising as Nimbarkas don't identify the kumaras with dasya rasa as the nimbarka received the secret of devotion to radha and krsna from them.
Perhaps it is dasya to radha and krsna.
Swami - July 25, 2010 12:27 pm
Is Narada also is dasya bhava and is that sanatana kumara ( not sanatana goswami) ?Surprising as Nimbarkas don't identify the kumaras with dasya rasa as the nimbarka received the secret of devotion to radha and krsna from them.
Perhaps it is dasya to radha and krsna.
It's Sanata Kumara. But you need to read my explanation better to understand the statement in context. Again, it does not necessarily say they are in dasya rasa. It is basically saying "ekala isvara krsna ara saba bhritya," "Krsna is the only master, everyone else is his servant."
Swami - July 25, 2010 12:41 pm
Here SM identifies Sukadeva with Krsnadasa Kaviraja (kind of)!
Aksayananda Swami: Maharaja, in caitanya lila, who is Sukadeva Gosvami, in Caitanya lila?
Sridhara Maharaja: The essence of the ________have said Kaviraj Gosvami, but he is of another type, just as Arjuna, is ramananda, is combined of Arjuna and Vishaka sakhi, so Kaviraja Gosvami is Kasturi manjari there and also Sukadevas work. Sukadeva specialty was the rasa and philosophy, ontology and poetry, talk of spiritual, combined. And in Kaviraj Gosvami we find those two, ontology tattva vidya philosophy as well as poetry, the alonka, the kabha, rasa, caritamrita.
The above that I cited earlier is an example of what Kavi Karnapura has done throughout his book GGD. Some of this he has done on his own and some he has taken from other devotees. SSM identifies KDK with Kasturi manjari and then Sukadeva by way of tracing similarities in his contribution. In some instances the identities are more literal whereas in others they are more abstract but justifiable and yet leave room for other opinions.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 25, 2010 2:00 pm
It's Sanata Kumara. But you need to read my explanation better to understand the statement in context. Again, it does not necessarily say they are in dasya rasa. It is basically saying "ekala isvara krsna ara saba bhritya," "Krsna is the only master, everyone else is his servant."
I mistook dasya bhava to dasya rasa.
Babhru Das - July 26, 2010 1:42 am
Technically, I believe you had it right. Bhava is used in more than one sense. One sense is the stage preceding prema, characterized as the dawning rays of the sun of prema. Another is to designate the sthayi bhavas of devotees who have realized their eternal relationships with Krishna. In this sense bhava and rati are synonymous. (And the phrase daysa rasa, used colloquially by many ISKCON devotees, is not technically correct. Rasa is the result of the interaction among the vibhava, anubhavas, sattvika bhavas, sthayi bhavas, and vyabhicari bhavas. This is how I remember it, anyway. I'm certainly open to correction.
This is all available in Nectar of Devotion. I don't think we got that far in our online discussion.
Swami - July 26, 2010 3:58 am
The point I raised is that in this section of Cc the fact that everyone is a servant (a generic dasa--jivera svarupa hay nitya krsna dasa) in relation to Krsna is stressed, even Mahavisnu. So it is not really focusing on what type of servant they are.
Babhru Das - July 26, 2010 8:34 am
Thank you. That's the third sense of bhava I meant to mention, the general sense of servitorship, but I got carried away remembering the bhavas that serve as elements of rasa.
Bijaya Kumara Das - July 28, 2010 5:47 am
Guru Maharaja embodies the synthesis. We are all trying to follow in his footsteps.
Syama/bhakti is the synthesis (gray raincloud) that takes us beyond the black and white gunas.
nice analogy
the spiritual world is full of dualities synthesized acynta beda abeda
Swami - August 9, 2010 11:20 pm
During our morning reading of the Bhagavata Sukadeva passed out in the midst of the Brahma-vimohana lila! I do not recall him doing so elsewhere. Later in this lila he will glorify sakhya rasa in a manner that exceeds any glorification on his part of any other rasa:
ittham satam brahma-sukhanubhutya
dasyam gatanam para-daivatena
mayasritenam nara-darakena
sakam vijahruh krta-punya-punjah
"In this way, all the cowherd boys used to play with Krsna, who is the source of the Brahman effulgence for jnanis desiring to merge into that effulgence, who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead for devotees who have accepted eternal servitorship, and who for ordinary persons is but another ordinary child. The cowherd boys, having accumulated the results of pious activities for many lives, were able to associate in this way with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. How can one explain their great fortune?
Sanatana Goswami has identified madhurya as his sentiment, but rather than parrot him here an argument could be made for sakhya rasa or sakhya rasa mixd with madhurya.
Braja-sundari Dasi - August 10, 2010 1:18 am
One more in our group?
Guru Maharaj, we`ve just read your old sanga about Radharani and you mentioned there that Brahma Vaivarta Purana says that Sukadeva`s ista devata is Radha.
Swami - August 10, 2010 3:57 am
One more in our group?
Guru Maharaj, we`ve just read your old sanga about Radharani and you mentioned there that Brahma Vaivarta Purana says that Sukadeva`s ista devata is Radha.
Yes, that was cited earlier on this thread. 
Braja-sundari Dasi - August 13, 2010 1:27 am
Yes, that was cited earlier on this thread.
I`m sorry Guru Maharaj, I missed that point in Vrindaranya`s post.
Madan Gopal Das - August 13, 2010 12:24 pm
During our morning reading of the Bhagavata Sukadeva passed out in the midst of the Brahma-vimohana lila!
Where is that described Guru Maharaj?
Swami - August 13, 2010 3:10 pm
Where is that described Guru Maharaj?
End of chapter 12
Madan Gopal Das - August 13, 2010 3:20 pm
Awesome!
SB 10.12.41: Mahārāja Parīkṣit inquired: O great sage, how could things done in the past have been described as being done at the present? Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa performed this pastime of killing Aghāsura during His kaumāra age. How then, during His paugaṇḍa age, could the boys have described this incident as having happened recently?
SB 10.12.42: O greatest yogī, my spiritual master, kindly describe why this happened. I am very much curious to know about it. I think that it was nothing but another illusion due to Kṛṣṇa.
SB 10.12.43: O my lord, my spiritual master, although we are the lowest of kṣatriyas, we are glorified and benefited because we have the opportunity of always hearing from you the nectar of the pious activities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
SB 10.12.44: Sūta Gosvāmī said: O Śaunaka, greatest of saints and devotees, when Mahārāja Parīkṣit inquired from Śukadeva Gosvāmī in this way, Śukadeva Gosvāmī, immediately remembering subject matters about Kṛṣṇa within the core of his heart, externally lost contact with the actions of his senses. Thereafter, with great difficulty, he revived his external sensory perception and began to speak to Mahārāja Parīkṣit about kṛṣṇa-kathā.