I've read in Harmonist in the article The Vaishnava Sampradayas this:
"Another distinction is that though the object of worship in Nimbarka’s line is Radha-Krishna, and up to madhurya-rasa, they do not accept the play of parakiya-bhava, paramour love. Between the Nimbarka and Gaudiya sampradayas, the difference is the acceptance of parakiya."
I cannot imagine the Nimbarka's followers not knowing that Radha and Krishna were not married, but lovers. How come then that they worship them but don't accept the play of parakiya-bhava, paramour love, when all the lila goes around this love? Did they accept their love as being only platonic or some kind of alegorical? Or rejecting their love as being unmoral? But if so how could they worship them? Or just rejecting the "nocturnal part" of their love?
And one more question - what means "madhyana-lila, the noontime pastimes of Radha and Krishna"? Which are the noontime pastimes?
It is said in the article:
"Between the Nimbarka and Gaudiya sampradayas, the difference is the acceptance of parakiya, such as is shown in the madhyana-lila, the noontime pastimes of Radha and Krishna."
Does this mean that Nimbarka's followers don't accept the noontime pastimes?
How they reject something that is there in Shastra?
I've read in Harmonist in the article The Vaishnava Sampradayas this:
"Another distinction is that though the object of worship in Nimbarka’s line is Radha-Krishna, and up to madhurya-rasa, they do not accept the play of parakiya-bhava, paramour love. Between the Nimbarka and Gaudiya sampradayas, the difference is the acceptance of parakiya."
I cannot imagine the Nimbarka's followers not knowing that Radha and Krishna were not married, but lovers. How come then that they worship them but don't accept the play of parakiya-bhava, paramour love, when all the lila goes around this love? Did they accept their love as being only platonic or some kind of alegorical? Or rejecting their love as being unmoral? But if so how could they worship them? Or just rejecting the "nocturnal part" of their love?
And one more question - what means "madhyana-lila, the noontime pastimes of Radha and Krishna"? Which are the noontime pastimes?
It is said in the article:
"Between the Nimbarka and Gaudiya sampradayas, the difference is the acceptance of parakiya, such as is shown in the madhyana-lila, the noontime pastimes of Radha and Krishna."
Does this mean that Nimbarka's followers don't accept the noontime pastimes?
How they reject something that is there in Shastra?
The madhyana lila is described in our sastras, not others. They do not accept our sastras, Govinda-lilamrita, and such. Parakiya is there in the Bhagavatam, but they may relegate it to the prakata lila. But in the least they do not accept its expression in the aprakata lila. According to Gaudiya siddhanta, this leads them to Goloka, not Gokula within Goloka where the nara lila is manifest. In Goloka the deva lila is manifest. There is more overt aisvarya there and in some sections Radha Krsna's svakiya is manifest.
Thank you Maharaj for answering.
From your answer I understand this question was not for me... too high topic. I better wait till I get there to understand more.
Actually one core question which I asked some time ago but I did not get an answer was exactly what is accepted as "Shastra" and what is not? And what is the criteria for "shastra"?
Without this how could we know what part of scriptures to accept and what not? They are so broad and it's difficult to swim in these so diverse waters.
At least for me.
I would think it is not so much a matter of knowing which sastras to except and which not to, but knowing where to place them in a hierarchy. So we should not reject dharma-sastra as not being scripture, but we should know full well that any directive within dharma sastra should be rejected if it conflicts with bhakti. This rejection is not saying "This injunction is wrong," but it is saying that it is not applicable.
Perhaps there may be some sastra that is interpolated and actually is siddhantically wrong, no matter what context one tries to look at it in. Such things will be evident to learned devotees.
But I think the most important thing is understanding which sastras are most pertinent to our bhakti sadhana. Jiva Goswami devotes a fair portion of Tattva Sandarbha to establishing that the Bhagavatam is the topmost sastra, so perhaps we can just try to see all other sastra through the Bhagavatam, "accepting" and "rejecting" as necessary.
Thank you for your answer, prabhu.
I was actually asking this question also because sometimes here in TV was happening to me devotees to ask me to give shastric reference, but when I do so they remark that it is not acceptable. This is why I would like to know the frames, since if something is rejected as a shastric evidence, then obviously such frames exist.
Isn't it?
Interpolation in shastras is actually one of the most touchy questions for me. From one side of course it is possible and even probable, but from other side doubting shastra will not bring much to anybody. So... touchy question for every religion I think, not just to ours. Somehow one has to use his own feeling and intelligence in order to know what to accept and what not to accept... and what to deny. But since feelings and intelligence may not be pure, then their judgement may also not be pure... so can just use the best of his/her sincerity and pray to be properly leaded...