Tattva-viveka
Bhagavat Maharaja
Gopakumara Das - January 18, 2011 4:25 am
For those who haven't kept up with Facebook...GM is involved in a great discussion with Bhagavat Maharaja about sancari and stayi bhavas as taught by Srila Narayana Maharaja and Rupa Goswami. It is a discussion full of love, compassion, fire, scandal, retaliation, and siddhanta. Go to Bhagavat Maharaja's WALL or click:
I wonder if we can get GM to go discuss these or other matters with their group in Venice?!! It seems like Bhagavat Maharaja would be open to it and that temple is REALLY NICE! I have been, it is great.
Nitaisundara Das - January 18, 2011 7:04 am
Just so everyone knows, Nandini Radhe is the same previously prolific commenter from the harmonist "Bhaktikanda," Whose real name used to be Govinda and had been involved with GM and Narasingha Maharaja. I find her weak, vacuous, agressive (lack of) faith particularly disgusting. But nonetheless the discussion has been good in terms of siddhanta and the many people who have spoken up with a nice understanding of the controversy and how to understand it. I forgot to look at it since yesterday. Thanks for reminding me.
Gauravani Dasa - January 18, 2011 12:27 pm
Wow, thanks for posting that link to the discussion.
Swami - January 18, 2011 2:18 pm
I have now taken the thread back on topic. I do not think there is any getting around the points I have raised.
Babhru Das - January 18, 2011 5:12 pm
I agree. And it's clear that Bhagavat Maharaja is trying to set the proper tone, although some interlocutors seem to resist his efforts. One recent poster brought up the sannyasa mantra, which I just realized appears not to have been directly addressed in my booklet. (I was surprised at not finding it; I did write to explore this issue.
Citta Hari Dasa - January 18, 2011 5:24 pm
It seems that Santi Devi Dasi's recounting of SSM's story would be the source Bhagavata Maharaja is referring to (that BSST said it). It's clearly an explanation based on bhava rather than sastra.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 18, 2011 7:12 pm
It seems that Santi Devi Dasi's recounting of SSM's story would be the source Bhagavata Maharaja is referring to (that BSST said it). It's clearly an explanation based on bhava rather than sastra.
Yes I agree.
Even Then later I read that some jivas are born out of Baladeva's anga-jyoti, the brahmajyoti, the non-distinguishable divine effulgence. That is the source from whence some of us are born. Some have connection with Baladeva's anga-jyoti, but others originate from the halo of Radharani and Her group. is more in the sense of bhava of different jivas. Otherwise are jivas a are beginnless or anadi and they are classified according to the bhava in which they behave: some for sristi lila (who can gravitate towards a special relationship with krsna) and some who are already there in spiritual world and are constitute of the bhava of Rasharani, Yashoda, Subala and so on . Jivas are never born so there is some limitation of language here.
I had a question, are subala, yashoda and nandamaharaja still jivas or do they fall in jiva tattva? Do only those jivas who participate in the sristi lila constitute the tatastha sakti?
Shyamananda Das - January 18, 2011 8:51 pm
Maharaj,
I am very happy that you commented on Bhagavat Maharaj's post and started the discussion. I've been confused about that point for years.
Gopa, thank you for posting the link.
Nitaisundara Das - January 18, 2011 9:11 pm
I had a question, are subala, yashoda and nandamaharaja still jivas or do they fall in jiva tattva? Do only those jivas who participate in the sristi lila constitute the tatastha sakti?
They are not jivas. They are ragatmikas — their very atma is raga. As for other, "less prominent" nitya-siddhas, I would think they are similarly like Yasoda and others, but I have only heard the term ragatmika applied to those that represent their rasa, like the names you mentioned. So yes I think only those in the srsti lila are tatastha and can can be imbued (the word GM often uses) with svarupa shakti by following the ragatmikas (raganuga). That is how I understand this.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 18, 2011 9:45 pm
They are not jivas. They are ragatmikas — their very atma is raga. As for other, "less prominent" nitya-siddhas, I would think they are similarly like Yasoda and others, but I have only heard the term ragatmika applied to those that represent their rasa, like the names you mentioned. So yes I think only those in the srsti lila are tatastha and can can be imbued (the word GM often uses) with svarupa shakti by following the ragatmikas (raganuga). That is how I understand this.
So if consider BVT a nitya siddha, he is not a jiva? And if we consider SP to be nitya siddha, then is he not a jiva? One person was arguing that nitya siddhas are omniscient and SP is not a jiva, he is a nitya siddha. Therefore, he is omniscient.
Nitya siddhas can also perhaps means sadhana siddha who after his/her perfection comes down from the spiritual world to preach.
Are nitya siddhas jivas?
Swami - January 18, 2011 10:27 pm
So if consider BVT a nitya siddha, he is not a jiva? And if we consider SP to be nitya siddha, then is he not a jiva? One person was arguing that nitya siddhas are omniscient and SP is not a jiva, he is a nitya siddha. Therefore, he is omniscient.Nitya siddhas can also perhaps means sadhana siddha who after his/her perfection comes down from the spiritual world to preach.
Are nitya siddhas jivas?
I find the whole idea of nitya siddha's descending to be troublesome. Whereas the idea of sadhana siddhas is not so. Of course we do know that nitya siddhas descend with Krsna, with Mahaprabhu in their lilas. And we also consider the guru nitya siddha in the sense that Krsna is the guru, acarya mam vijaniyat. The Krsna—guru-tattva—in the Vaisnava is guru and he is eternally liberated. Otherwise, whether or not anyone else in the lineage descended from Goloka to preach, as it is often framed, is difficult to substantiate. That some gurus are extraordinary and appear in this world almost as if liberated from birth is true. However, they can also be Krsna-directed bhava-bhaktas. After all, I believe VCT states in MK that one must attain bhava and then take birth to develop prema, and then take birth in Krsna lila. Have to look that up though. Anyone have the book?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 18, 2011 10:48 pm
I find the whole idea of nitya siddha's descending to be troublesome. Whereas the idea of sadhana siddhas is not so. Of course we do know that nitya siddhas descend with Krsna, with Mahaprabhu in their lilas. And we also consider the guru nitya siddha in the sense that Krsna is the guru, acarya mam vijaniyat. The Krsna—guru-tattva—in the Vaisnava is guru and he is eternally liberated. Otherwise, whether or not anyone else in the lineage descended from Goloka to preach, as it is often framed, is difficult to substantiate. That some gurus are extraordinary and appear in this world almost as if liberated from birth is true. However, they can also be Krsna-directed bhava-bhaktas. After all, I believe VCT states in MK that one must attain bhava and then take birth to develop prema, and then take birth in Krsna lila. Have to look that up though. Anyone have the book?
I think nitai has the book. I have a pdf copy at the home computer. In the ramanuja and madhava sampradayas, most gurus are identified as sadhana siddhas and only lakshmi has a special status in the sense of being something other than the jiva tattva. It is narayana, his avatars and caturvyuha expansions(isvara), jiva and maya. Madhava does have a hierarchy of jivas but still they are jiva tattva nonethless. For the other traditions, all souls in the spiritual world apart from lakshmi have perfected themselves after being in the sristi lila for some time. In Gaudiya tradition, the spiritual world is much more complex and there are differences within the tradition as to the nature of souls in spiritual world. Nitai pointed out Yashoda, Subala etc are not jivas, so perhaps they are constituted of svarupa sakti not tatastha sakti. Tatastha is ontological not a locational term, which is used so I feel tatastha may be used for souls that can be either in the material world or the spiritual world.
Nitaisundara Das - January 18, 2011 11:32 pm
I do have the book and I'll try to look it up.
Swami - January 19, 2011 12:52 am
I do have the book and I'll try to look it up.
It may be in Ragavartmika-candrika instead. Book's on my shelf.
Nitaisundara Das - January 19, 2011 4:40 am
Unfortunately I cannot paste the relevant section because it becomes symbols. Here is a PDF version.
The relevant section is verse number 7 in the "second diffusion." The PDF is misnumbered and there are two # 7s in a row. The one we are discussing is the second, beginning on page 11.
Visvanath_Cakravarti_Thakura_Sri_Sri_Raga_Vartma_Candrika.pdf
Citta Hari Dasa - January 19, 2011 5:05 pm
Vrindaranya wrote:
"So if Radha were in the same position as Krishna in terms of being the visaya for innumerable devotees, it would completely undermine this crucial aspect of Gaudiya siddhanta and in a sense actually diminish her glory as the embodiment of the highest exclusive dedication for Krishna. Bhavollasa rati does not compromise Radharani’s position in this way. Indeed, a sancari-bhava relationship with other devotees augments the sthayi-bhava. For this reason, Rupa Goswami’s vision that Krishna is the visaya of the manjaris is actually superior to seeing Radha and Krishna as a joint visaya."
I'm not clear on exactly why Krsna alone as the visaya is superior to Radha-Krsna as a joint visaya. The love the gopis have for one another, and in particular the affection the manjaris have for Radha, augments the their sthayi-bhava for Krsna. How would that change if R & K together are the visaya?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 19, 2011 6:18 pm
I found this from Sri Kunja Vihari Das Babaji:
Yashoda, Lalita and Vishaka are all jiva, but nitya-mukta or nitya-siddha devotees, eternal residents who are already in the spiritual world. CC says, “The essential aspect of sandhini is known as pure existence, which is the abode of the Lord’s existence. Krishna’s mother, father, place, house, bed, seat and the rest are transformations of pure existence. "
Unlike the nitya-baddhas (us), these devotees have the qualitites of sac-cit-ananda. The sandhini-aspect of the eternal associates of the Lord exists as their spiritual form, the samvitaspect exists as their cognizance of a particular relationship with the Lord, and
the hladini-aspect exists as their jubilant emotions for the Lord.
“These liberated souls therefore have spiritual bodies like that of the
Lord. In the Lord’s abode, there are an unlimited number of forms, all suitable for rendering service to him. Every one of those forms is non-different from him, being expanded from his effulgence; each one is eternal, full of consciousness and bliss. They are the crowning, central jewels of the spiritual world – its very life. These unlimited spiritual bodies are the perfected forms of the liberated souls which are awarded to an individual, according to his taste, when he reaches the state of absolute liberation. This state is called attainment of the spiritual body. All these spiritual bodies are eternal for they exist even before the liberated souls enter them and will continue to exist ever afterward. However, prior to the entry of the liberated soul they are in an inactive state.
As all of the unlimited souls are servants of the Lord, each one of them
has a spiritual body in the Lord’s abode just suitable for rendering
service to the Lord. When an individual becomes qualified for direct
service to the Lord by the grace of the Goddess of Devotion, then the
Supreme Lord awards him that spiritual body.”
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there are differences among Gaudiyas about the categorization of souls like Yashoda in the spiritual world. As they are under svarupa sakti, it does not matter much. Being ragatmika does not necessarily mean that they are not jivas. It depends on the definition of jiva. Goswamis have mostly focussed on the bhava of each section of devotees and others like BVT and Babajis have expanded on that understanding and reached different understanding on this matter.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 19, 2011 7:36 pm
Being ragatmika does not necessarily mean that they are not jivas, they are not tatastha sakti jivas.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 19, 2011 8:06 pm
Being ragatmika does not necessarily mean that they are not jivas, they are not tatastha sakti jivas.
Nitai also had said that they are not tatastha sakti jivas, so I don't think there is a difference on that point
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 20, 2011 1:03 am
Vrindaranya wrote:
"So if Radha were in the same position as Krishna in terms of being the visaya for innumerable devotees, it would completely undermine this crucial aspect of Gaudiya siddhanta and in a sense actually diminish her glory as the embodiment of the highest exclusive dedication for Krishna. Bhavollasa rati does not compromise Radharani’s position in this way. Indeed, a sancari-bhava relationship with other devotees augments the sthayi-bhava. For this reason, Rupa Goswami’s vision that Krishna is the visaya of the manjaris is actually superior to seeing Radha and Krishna as a joint visaya."
I'm not clear on exactly why Krsna alone as the visaya is superior to Radha-Krsna as a joint visaya. The love the gopis have for one another, and in particular the affection the manjaris have for Radha, augments the their sthayi-bhava for Krsna. How would that change if R & K together are the visaya?
Radharani's glory is her complete self-abnegation; she embodies the highest self-giving, total dedication to Krishna. Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said that positive and negative forces attract, and Krishna represents the positive force and Radharani is the negative force. So Krishna is the perfect object of dedication because he can take unlimitedly (ye yatha mam prapadyante), but Radharani is the greatest giver, such that she has trumped Krishna ability to reciprocate. Therefore, na paraye 'ham: Krishna says, "I cannot repay you. Your good deeds are their own reward."
The position of visaya (object of devotion) is the taker. As Krishna says, "My mind, because of being connected in love with many devotees, is never fixed on one object. Therefore, your love is superior." So actually Radharani's position, the devotee's position, is in a sense higher than Krishna's position. By apparently raising Radharani up (to the joint position of visaya with Krishna), what makes her love superior is diminished: how can she exclusively fix her mind on Krishna if she is reciprocating with so many devotees who have her as the object of their worship? Why would the dynamic that Krishna speaks of in relation to himself as the visaya not apply to her if she were the joint visaya? Therefore, it struck me that from this angle, the more conservative position that Rupa and Jiva Goswamis have taken is superior in that it is more philosophically precise.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 20, 2011 1:26 am
Radharani's glory is her complete self-abnegation; she embodies the highest self-giving, total dedication to Krishna. Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said that positive and negative forces attract, and Krishna represents the positive force and Radharani is the negative force. So Krishna is the perfect object of dedication because he can take unlimitedly (ye yatha mam prapadyante), but Radharani is the greatest giver, such that she has trumped Krishna ability to reciprocate. Therefore, na paraye 'ham: Krishna says, "I cannot repay you. Your good deeds are their own reward."
The position of visaya (object of devotion) is the taker. As Krishna says, "My mind, because of being connected in love with many devotees, is never fixed on one object. Therefore, your love is superior." So actually Radharani's position, the devotee's position, is in a sense higher than Krishna's position. By apparently raising Radharani up (to the joint position of visaya with Krishna), what makes her love superior is diminished: how can she exclusively fix her mind on Krishna if she is reciprocating with so many devotees who have her as the object of their worship? Why would the dynamic that Krishna speaks of in relation to himself as the visaya not apply to her if she were the joint visaya? Therefore, it struck me that from this angle, the more conservative position that Rupa and Jiva Goswamis have taken is superior in that it is more philosophically precise.
I agree with you on the point that Radharani's exclusive dedication to Krsna is superior as her love is undivided. I had a question on this matter. Sometimes an emphasis is placed on pleading with Radharani because she makes a case for a devotee in front of Krsna, how will she avoid having to attend to those prayers? In fact, many times Radharani is addressed as the mother of all the souls and it is emphasized that she is kinder, so we should go through her. I don;t know if Sri Radha can get around the fact that some souls do pray to her instead of Krsna because that is how they were taught to approach Krsna (through Radha). Why do people say u have better chance pleading with Radharani than with Krsna? Will she not reciprocate with those prayers as those are diversions from her service to Krsna?
Citta Hari Dasa - January 20, 2011 3:03 am
Radharani's glory is her complete self-abnegation; she embodies the highest self-giving, total dedication to Krishna. Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said that positive and negative forces attract, and Krishna represents the positive force and Radharani is the negative force. So Krishna is the perfect object of dedication because he can take unlimitedly (ye yatha mam prapadyante), but Radharani is the greatest giver, such that she has trumped Krishna ability to reciprocate. Therefore, na paraye 'ham: Krishna says, "I cannot repay you. Your good deeds are their own reward."
The position of visaya (object of devotion) is the taker. As Krishna says, "My mind, because of being connected in love with many devotees, is never fixed on one object. Therefore, your love is superior." So actually Radharani's position, the devotee's position, is in a sense higher than Krishna's position. By apparently raising Radharani up (to the joint position of visaya with Krishna), what makes her love superior is diminished: how can she exclusively fix her mind on Krishna if she is reciprocating with so many devotees who have her as the object of their worship? Why would the dynamic that Krishna speaks of in relation to himself as the visaya not apply to her if she were the joint visaya? Therefore, it struck me that from this angle, the more conservative position that Rupa and Jiva Goswamis have taken is superior in that it is more philosophically precise.
Excellent answer! Thanks very much.
Syamasundara - January 27, 2011 3:50 pm
I agree with you on the point that Radharani's exclusive dedication to Krsna is superior as her love is undivided. I had a question on this matter. Sometimes an emphasis is placed on pleading with Radharani because she makes a case for a devotee in front of Krsna, how will she avoid having to attend to those prayers? In fact, many times Radharani is addressed as the mother of all the souls and it is emphasized that she is kinder, so we should go through her. I don;t know if Sri Radha can get around the fact that some souls do pray to her instead of Krsna because that is how they were taught to approach Krsna (through Radha). Why do people say u have better chance pleading with Radharani than with Krsna? Will she not reciprocate with those prayers as those are diversions from her service to Krsna?
If one prays Radha for devotion to Krsna, the flow is not interrupted or detoured, so to speak.
Madan Gopal Das - February 1, 2011 9:45 pm
The thread on FB just keeps getting juicier and juicier. My whole brain is so stimulated and its bringing my heart along with it. YUM! I highly recommend checking it out, even if you skip over the first 200 comments or so.
Nitaisundara Das - February 1, 2011 10:54 pm
agreed!
Guru-nistha Das - February 3, 2011 5:25 am
Ditto!
We'll see how Prema Prayojana is going to save his face! Guru Maharaja, that was too funny that you quoted his own lecture where he used the term!! 
Priceless.
Swami - February 3, 2011 8:32 pm
I do not know if PP will put a huge spin on the history of NM and his teaching (like, he taught that for the beginners) or be honest. The main sources for NM's most rasika insights was Anand Gopala Goswami, and that has been documented. But the present interpretation of PP is something new. And it is just that, and interpretation. The fact is that this subject lends itself to some interpretation because the Goswamis wrote so little about it. I mean very, very little and most of that in the context of reciting lila. It is mentioned with one or two words in Brs: tad bhavecchamayi and arguably bhavollasa. And they explained it minimally at best with most of that going to tad bhavecchamayi. And it is also barely mentioned in UN.
PP's interpretations has some merit, but the tikas and texts are ambiguous enough to do that credibly. So we are left with interpretation, and of course whatever support we can gather for our interpretation. The position I have taken has a lot of support. We have not seen any for his yet.
He won't accept bhavollasa bhava means bhavollasa rati because he wants rati to exclusively represent a sthayi and thus claim that bhavollasa can not be referring to the manjaris as their sthayi. So I expect him to argue that and I also expect him to trash Murali-vilasa. Again, interpretations and also pick and choose sastra pramana. But I don't really care if bhavollasa is a sthayi or a super sancari. Either way works for me with either RK as the visaya or K with R adored with bhavollasa. His argument that either of these are poblematic does not hold in my mind. I see no contradiction between JG and VCT either way. and becasue bhavollasa even as a sancari does not fade there is no "ouch" as he put it for Radha's maidens.
The idea that suhrt-rati and bhavollasa are only for nayikas is again an interpretation that seems a stretch and it bucks tradition. None of the texts or tikas he cites to support this explicitly say this and in some places the lend very well to another conclusion, leaving suhrt-rati open to every rasa. So although he wanted to get all of this out of the way to get on to the rest of his interpretation, at the moment it is still on the table.
I am not sure where he is going from here or for that matter if I care. It depends how he deals with the present resistance to the basis of his argument. Again, if he does a mystery of the ways of the rasika guru lecture, I may have to tell him that in my world we just call that spin. So we wait . . .
Madan Gopal Das - February 3, 2011 9:01 pm
Babhru prabhu, where's the super-like button? 
Without getting too verbose about my jaw-dropping enjoyment of this whole analysis you've been doing Guru Maharaj, a quick question about this:
The idea that suhrt-rati and bhavollasa are only for nayikas is again an interpretation that seems a stretch and it bucks tradition. None of the texts or tikas he cites to support this explicitly say this and in some places the lend very well to another conclusion, leaving suhrt-rati open to every rasa.
If I'm properly summarizing his interpretation, he was suggesting (or may have been getting ready to suggest) that a stayi-bhava for Radhika has potential in the manjaris because they do not have the "friendship for someone in the same rasa" (suhrt-rati) dilemma like the nayikas do that makes their relationship with Radha bhavollasa. Because the manjaris relationship with Radha is more exclusive and dasya-esque than the nayikas he is kind of weaseling into the idea that Radha could be the object of their stayi - a point which has been elaborately explained as impossible in order for rasa to manifest.
And so what you are saying in the above quote is that texts and tikas (limited in specificity on this subject) could very well be interpreted to apply a similar bhavollasa to the suhrt rati of say a gopa for Subala or Rama, or an elder gopi for Yasoda-mata?
Next question, if this is the case, does the bhavollasa of madhurya-rati exclusively have the supreme power to move the object of the stayi from Krsna to Krsna AND Radha, or would the other rasas have this power to "spread" the stayi also... fill in the blank according to the particular rasa. i.e. for a sakha the stayi being Subala-Krsna or Rama-Krsna? I know at one point you suggested that the stayi moving from Krsna to Radha-Krsna may even be a bit of a stretch, and just wondering if the "stretching" by Jiva Goswami(?) was only due to the supremacy of madhurya-rati. Hope that makes sense. This spreading of the stayi would not seem exclusive to madhurya... I would guess, feel, emoterpret© that our bhava in the vraja-lila would be overwhelming towards all residents of vraja, what to speak of who we might directly serve krsna under.... dasa dasa anudasa...lover of the lover of the lover.
Guru-nistha Das - February 4, 2011 4:08 am
Thank you for that, Guru Maharaja! As Madan suggested, that's what I was also guessing PP is trying to get at with his insistence on bhavollasa not being synonymous with manjari bhava: so that he can make a case for exclusive sthayi-bhava for Radhika.
Madan Gopal Das - February 4, 2011 5:45 pm
I know at one point you (GM) suggested that the stayi moving from Krsna to Radha-Krsna may even be a bit of a stretch...
Or if Krsna alone is the only object of the stayi, would the rasas other than madhurya have the "extraordinary" feature of bhavollasa that the sancari towards the suhrt is not "temporary"?
Swami - February 5, 2011 12:47 am
Babhru prabhu, where's the super-like button?
If I'm properly summarizing his interpretation, he was suggesting (or may have been getting ready to suggest) that a stayi-bhava for Radhika has potential in the manjaris because they do not have the "friendship for someone in the same rasa" (suhrt-rati) dilemma like the nayikas do that makes their relationship with Radha bhavollasa. Because the manjaris relationship with Radha is more exclusive and dasya-esque than the nayikas he is kind of weaseling into the idea that Radha could be the object of their stayi - a point which has been elaborately explained as impossible in order for rasa to manifest.
And so what you are saying in the above quote is that texts and tikas (limited in specificity on this subject) could very well be interpreted to apply a similar bhavollasa to the suhrt rati of say a gopa for Subala or Rama, or an elder gopi for Yasoda-mata?
Next question, if this is the case, does the bhavollasa of madhurya-rati exclusively have the supreme power to move the object of the stayi from Krsna to Krsna AND Radha, or would the other rasas have this power to "spread" the stayi also... fill in the blank according to the particular rasa. i.e. for a sakha the stayi being Subala-Krsna or Rama-Krsna? I know at one point you suggested that the stayi moving from Krsna to Radha-Krsna may even be a bit of a stretch, and just wondering if the "stretching" by Jiva Goswami(?) was only due to the supremacy of madhurya-rati. Hope that makes sense. This spreading of the stayi would not seem exclusive to madhurya... I would guess, feel, emoterpret© that our bhava in the vraja-lila would be overwhelming towards all residents of vraja, what to speak of who we might directly serve krsna under.... dasa dasa anudasa...lover of the lover of the lover.
Yes on the first question of the devotees are svajatiya (like minded/same class) No on the second in most devotee's minds but not all. Those who say no do so because they reason that only Radha has such excellence that it can take precedence of Krsna. and the tikas speak of bhaollasa only in the context of madhurya.
Madan Gopal Das - February 5, 2011 2:17 am
Thank you Guru Maharaj!
Just read PP's follow up posts... Seems like an elaborate sanskrit lesson with little to no discussion of the significant points brought to him. Then after the sanskrit lesson he says that he'll start to address the crux of the discussion - ON HIS OWN TV SHOW, in a week?!? I take it that means he won't be back on the thread. Hmm, Seems quite evasive. He's very artful at offering respect, which is nice, yet I suppose can also come off like a smokescreen. What to do. Great points made by GM and Vrndaranya.
Nitaisundara Das - February 5, 2011 4:48 am
I just read the posts, and perhaps its my cynical fault finding tendencies, but I found them to disrespectful and oozing with distracting theatrics. I don't think his respects are even a smokescreen, they are downright hypocrisy in light of the condescension he directs at GM. Did he seriously say "It escapes me how you could conclude that six is one less than eight, nevertheless, it was a step towards the immediate goal of actually discovering what the verse is supposed to be." Condescending twit.
And "We have both scutinized this verse for the best part of twenty years, but with one very important difference. I have been studying the actual verse written by Srila Rupa Gosvami whereas you have been studying a typographical error. We cannot expect both approaches to yield the same result. " As if him and GM are equals. He forgot the other important difference: GM has been selflessly serving and representing the siddhanta while not being overcome by his sense, for MORE than twenty years. If exclusive study of sastra were the means to realize its teaching, then PP might have a stronger point.
His posts read like a 16th century play: "May all the gentle vaisnavas involved in this discussion kindly accept my sastanga dandavat puspanjali. Without reservation, or consideration of who is higher or lower, I bathe your feet and sprinkle the water upon my head." Lip service.
Despite his claims to the contrary, I think he has a lot of pratistha, and it is validated by an international sanga of devotees praising and looking up to him. I don't know if I have ever seen as strong an example of the importance of jnana-sunya bhakti.
Forgive me if anyone feels my post is too strongly worded or if indeed it is. I prefer people to be directly challenging or disrespectful than to dress it up in foot bathing and other distractions.
Gauravani Dasa - February 5, 2011 12:55 pm
I agree with you 100% Nitai.
Madan Gopal Das - February 5, 2011 1:10 pm
I agree Nitai, I'm just a wimp and couldn't say it as straight as you did.
Nitaisundara Das - February 5, 2011 2:11 pm
Your replyto him was great Madan, you mentioned more substantial points. He brought out the Nandini Radhe in me, haha!
Otherwise he totally avoids the real substance of GM and Vrindas posts and postponing the discussion for 8 days and changing it to a format that gives him the upper hand, seems like desparate measures to me. And what, GM is to be a an attendee in his class? Generally people ask that you stop talking and write (like Baladeva in regard to his Govinda Bhasya), conveniently PP is going to stop writing and talk.
Citta Hari Dasa - February 5, 2011 5:22 pm
Man, PP is a piece of work. While offering effusive praises in one place in another he says Vrindaranya didn't grasp what he meant and GM can't count. Nice.
Not.
Prema-bhakti - February 5, 2011 5:24 pm
Man, PP is a piece of work. While offering effusive praises in one place in another he says Vrindaranya didn't grasp what he meant and GM can't count. Nice.
Not.
He sounds like he could make a lot of friends in ISKCON. He's pathetic.
Gauravani Dasa - February 5, 2011 5:36 pm
He sounds like he could make a lot of friends in ISKCON.He's pathetic.
Just as sad are those who think highly of him. The psychology of both baffles me! 
Prema-bhakti - February 5, 2011 5:53 pm
Just as sad are those who think highly of him. The psychology of both baffles me!
Not much sambandha jnana.
Prema-bhakti - February 5, 2011 5:53 pm
Just as sad are those who think highly of him. The psychology of both baffles me!
Not much sambandha jnana.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:47 pm
Old discussions on FB are difficult to find and follow. Therefore I thought of reposting this important thread here. It is very long so I think I will remove some posts that are not making any points.
So this is how it started:
In regard to the execution of this manjari seva, Srimati Radhika becomes the object of her maidservant'spermanent ecstatic emotion (sthayi bhava) and Sri Krsna becomes the object of the maidservant's transitory emotion that nourishes the sthayi bhava. This is then called the sancari bhava. In this service, the manjaris lovingly tend toSri Krsna because He is the love of Radha's life and gives Her Happiness. Thus,this sva-bhakti-siddhanta, sweet as nectar, is the philosophical understandingembodied in the followers of Sri Rupa Goswami, who establish raganuga-rupanuga-siddhanta.This is the essence and foundation of the ultimate expression of love.
From page 5 of The Raya RamanandSamvad
by Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayan Goswami Maharaja.
With love to all from
Your Uncle Bhagavat Swami
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:51 pm
Vaishnavi Heath : This is a bit difficult to understand .. but it itsaying that .. followers of Rupa Goswami worship Krishna because Radha likes him?
Tarun Das: So nice to hear this sort of katha. It'sbecome somewhat out of vogue for a while now. We all tried to not offend thestaunch one pointed Vaidhi bhaktas. Not that I'm a raganuga bhakta, not hardly.But it is the heart of the Gaudiya line. You can't suppress it forever, eh.
BhagavatMaharaja: @vaishnaviand Bheda, if you remember my post from the day before I pointed out that SBSSTsaid: the tendency to give pleasure to Krishna is bhakti. Then I quoted SBVTwho said: Radha's Happiness is Krishna's Sole pleasure. Therefore the tendencyto give pleasureto Krishna is really about making Radha Happy. Hence instead of the sthayibhava the permanent ecstasy being primarily in relationship to Krishna Directlyfor the manjaris their permanent ecstasy is to directly makeRadha Happy by engaging Krishna in her service. The transitory emotions areattributed to our relationship with Krishna as it nourishes our mood towardSrimati Radhika. So it is not just that we worship Krishna because Radha Likeshim but because it makes Radha Happy and that is Krishnas sole pleasure.Therefore the tendency to give pleasure to Krishna is accomplished in as SrilaNarayan Maharaja says the ultimate expression of love when we make Radha Happyby arranging for Krishna to serve her
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:52 pm
Swami Tripurari: Maharaja,
You have contradicted Rupa Goswami. In Brs.2.5.128 he writes the following:"If the rati of Radha’s associates directed to Radha is greater than thatdirected to Krsna [manjari-bhava], and is constantly increasing, though it isstill a sancari-bhava, it is called bhavollasa-rati."
Sri Jiva Goswami comments on this verse as follows: "If that rati directedto Radha is greater than the person’s rati directed to Krsna [manjari-bhava],constantly increasing with affection, it is called bhavollasa to indicate itsspecial nature, though that rati directed to Radha is still asancari-bhava."
So the manjari's love for Krsna never becomes a sancari-bhava. It remains astahyi-bhava, and their greater love for Radha remains a sancari-bhava.However, their love for Radha Krsna nonetheless has been given a specialtitle—bhavollasa rati.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:53 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja: Dandavats Tripurari Maharaja,
Well first of all it is not my quote. Secondly I need to research what you aresaying. It would not be the first time that someone has told me and/or evenshowed me quotes that contradict what Srila Narayan Maharaja has said. Afterresearch and discussion I have always found an answer. So I will do my researchand get back to you. It might take me a little longer to do the research sinceSrila Narayan Maharaja is not on this manifest plane right now. So please bearwith me.
I am just writing this response to you now as a proper show of respect andcourtesy to you who I consider an exalted Vaishnava. I do appreciate your inputas very valuable. I Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Your Servant
B.V. Bhagavat Swami
Swami Tripurari: I see. So Srila Narayana Maharaja has saidthis. If it is in one of his books, I would suggest that it is a editingmistake that needs to be corrected. He is a Rupanuga Vaisnava and would notcontradict Sri Rupa Goswami.
Swami Tripurari: Bhavollasa rati involves the unique featureof greater love for Radha than Krsna that is ever increasing (pusyamana). Thefact that it is ever increasing makes it different from a sancari-bhava that ischaracteristically transitory by nature. So it is a unique sancari-bhava thatboarders on being a stahyi-bhava due to its dominance. Thus Sri Jiva almostsays it is a new or unique sthayi-bhava in which the dominant emotion of themanjari is for Radha and Krsna with emphasis on Radha. Still he and Sri Rupahold back and refer to it as a sancari-bhava for Radha and a sthayi-bhava forKrsna.
Although some have stretched the manjari's sancari bhava for Radha into a sthayi-bhavafor Radha Krsna and tried to interpret Sri Rupa and Jiva in this way, to goeven beyond this and relegate the manjari's love for Krsna to a sancari-bhavais, it would seem, way over the top and not in conformance with the Rupanugasiddhanta.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:54 pm
Caitanya Candrodaya Dasa: It is important to understand that all ofthis is based on realization, if Jiva had a realization that there is a uniquesthAyI bhAva with focus on Radha, or it should be called Radha-Krishna, he canexpress it. Anywhere his uncle says that he is not allowed to do it? It doesnot seem to be a mistake of translation, just a different realization based onwhat Jiva have said.
There is a variety. Unlimited, one must assume from our limited perspective.There must be many different maNjarIs, how can someone conclusively say thatobject of sthAyIbhAva of some maNjarIs can not possible be RAdhA? That wouldcontradict the principle that there is a variety in the spiritual world that isever increasing.
I am not even sure if one can even call it a "siddhAnta" (anyexamples where relation of the saMcAri and sthAyI in regards of object iscalled siddhAnta? Not in Gosvami books... In fact anywhere rasa-SAstra isconsidered siddhAnta? Sure siddhas can understand it, and argue about itwithout any anta;) but it is not siddhAnta strictly speaking), it is aparticular use of the words that may be understood differently --"transitory" saMcAri which is used in many different meanings fordifferent elements of emotions, in one set. These always lead and should bebased in "permanent" sthAyI emotion. If you don't understand what itmeans in practice (I am not saying you do not exhibit those daily), no point inarguing. Whether there is a unique sthAyi (or permanent) bhava or not for RAdhA(or RAdhA state of vedya (union) when bhAvas increases) will seriously dependon your realization and yes you can be Rupanuga and have further realizationabout his book and about what he writes in his books.
Bottom line is that She is ASraya-vigraha. But if you want to see a littlefurther you can get glimpses of it in this world.
Srila Prabhupada very kindly set this matter in his very early book, TLC, in asimple English: "It is very difficult to express their dealings with Krsnabecause they have no desire to mix with Krsna or to enjoy Him personally.Rather, they are always ready to help Radharani associate with Krsna. Theiraffection for Krsna and Radharani is so pure that they are simply satisfiedwhen Radha and Krsna are together. Indeed, their transcendental pleasure is inseeing Radha and Krsna united." If you are his disciples you may share hisrealization on this topic.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:55 pm
BrajendraNandanDas Solbjoern: verynice Caitanya Prabhu, i fully agree with you...,
sahcdri sydt samdno vd krsna-ratydh suhrd-ratih \
adhikd pusyamdnd ced bhdvolldsd ratih ||2.5. 128||
Addenda:
"If the rati of the associates of Radha directed to Radha is equal to orless than their rati directed toward Krsna, the rati directed toward Radha iscalled sancdri-rati, nourishing the rati towards Krsna. If the rati of theassociates of Radha directed to Radha is greater than their rati directedtoward Krsna, and
constantly increasing, though it is still a sancdri-rati, it is calledbhdvolldsa-rati"
from
http://www.archive.org/stream/rBhakti-rasmta-sindhu/RBhakti-rasmta-sindhuPart1_djvu.txt
saJcArI syAt samAno vA kRSNa-ratyAH suhRd-ratiH |
adhikA puSyamANA ced bhAvollAsA ratiH || (brs 2.5.128)
"When the affection for Sri Krishna and a dear one are equal, the feelingis known as a transitory feeling, but when devotion to a dear one is nourishedand becomes dominant, the feeling is known as bhavollasa-rati."
from
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?showtopic=3895&hl
so this seems to be the case but maybe there is still another case in whichmanjaris have a sthayi bhava towards Radharani...as written in the quote fromRay Ramananda Samvat???
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:55 pm
Swami Tripurari: Caitanya Candrodaya,
I have cited the siddhanta of Sri Rupa and Jiva on this from Brs. It is bookslike this that we get our siddhanta from. And there is siddhanta with regard torasa. So your post is a bit confused and I am sure that Bhagavata Maharajawould agree. It is important to understand such points correctly. I bring themup in the interest of all concerned, not to be divisive. Bhagavata Maharajaseems to have appreciated the spirit of my comments, as he himself is alsotrying to teach the correct siddhanta on rasa tattva in this post.
I believe there is a right and a wrong on this issue as well as a possible inbetween, as I mentioned in my previous post. Again the correct understanding asgiven by the Goswami in Brs. is that the manjari has a sthayi-bhava for Krsnaand a very special if not contradictory (being permanent) sancari-bhava forRadha. The in between understanding is that she has a sthayi-bhava for Radhaand Krsna. The incorrect understanding is that she has a sthayi-bhava for Radhaand a sancari-bhava for Krsna.
The idea of having a sancari-bhava instead of a sthayi-bhava for Krsna isparticularly problematic in terms of rasa tattva.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:56 pm
Caitanya Candrodaya Dasa: Siddhanta is a conclusion, not intricatedetails or kavya. One can have agreement about siddhanta and yet vary inrealization of the details, obviously, otherwise we will be fundamentaliststhat do not have a realization (and we are not I hope). I actually think NMhere is clear and speaks the same conclusion as Srila Prabhupada in TLC (I amnot sure if his editor added too many sanskrit words to confuse things;) --these manjaris do not have direct relationship with Krishna and theirrelationship with Krishna increases their direct relationship with Radha or inother words "It is very difficult to express their dealings with Krsnabecause they have no desire (bhava) to mix with Krsna or to enjoy Himpersonally."
I certainly always agree with you Maharaja, not in details but out of maryada.It is only for myself I want to know what words of acaryas are called"siddhanta" or conclusion, and what words are expressions ofrealization, such as kavya etc. (obviously Rupa Manjari had some poetry that isclearly kavya and not siddhanta) and if there is a verse that clearly statesthat her, Sri Rupa Gosvami's, Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu's varied and endlessmetaphors, rhetoric, prosody, inferences, deductions of Rasas, i.e. shades oftranscendental raptures, etc., all are "siddhanta". Jiva himself saidthat in his commentary he will make clear and understandable those portionsonly which are incomprehensible (durgama), and therefore his commentary iscalled Durgama-sangamani Tika. Any other reason it is called Durgama? Why cannot we receive such obvious revelation that (at least some) manjaris do havefull shelter in Radha and have no primary bhava with Krishna? (without beingword-technical I mean)
I will agree with whatever quote you provide to support your reply Maharaja.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:57 pm
Swami Tripurari: Caitanya Candrodaya,
There is difference between kavya (poetry) and siddhanta (philsophy). However,here we are talking about the siddhanta of Bhaktirasamrita-sidhu, not thekavaya of the Goswamis.
I looked up the book that Bhagavata Maharaja's quote came form. It is availableonline for download. There you will also find that Srila Narayana Maharaja hasstated that this discussion is about siddhanta:
"Thus, this sva-bhakti-siddhanta, sweet as nectar, is the philosophicalunderstanding embodied in the followers of Sri Rupa Gosvami, who establishedthe raganuga-rapanuga-siddhanta"
His words that I have cited here directly follow the sentences from the sameparagraph that Maharaja has cited. The words"sva-bhakti-siddhanta-cayamrtani" are taken form the first verse ofthe Cc chapter 8, in which the Ramanada Samvada is found. The context in whichBhagavata Maharaja's quote is found is that Srila Narayana Maharaja iscommenting on these words, which literally mean "a collection of thenectar of the siddhanta of his (Garua's) own bhakti." Indeed, RamanadaSamvada is all about the siddhanta of the highest sadhana and sadhya.
January 15,2011 at 5:24pm · LikeUnlike · 
5
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern: thanxfor taking part in this discussion dear Svami Tripurari :-)
it is definately an enrichment, pranams!!!
Swami Tripurari: Okgood, I am glad I could be helpful on this point. Let's see what BhagavataMahajara comes up with. Interesting topic!
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:58 pm
Caitanya Candrodaya Dasa: It isall based on the interpretation of this comment on this verse ofsthāyibhāvākhyā pañcama-laharī section.
sañcārī syāt samanā vā kṛṣṇa-ratyāḥ suhṛd-ratiḥ
adhika puṣyamānā ced bhāvollāsa itīryate
cet-if; suhrd-ratih-the bhava of being a well-wisher and intimate friend of SriRadha; (which is) sancari-an infused mood; syat-may become; samana-equal;va-or; adhika-greater; krsna-ratyah-than the attachment to Sri Krsna;pusayamana-nourishes; iryate-it is said; iti-to be; bhava-ullasah-shining forthdue to innermost mood.
Here is how he translates it:
Bhavollasa-rati is the sancari-bhava of the manjari-sakhis, whose suhrd-rati(for Sri Radha and everything connected with Her) abundantly exceeds theirkrsna-rati, and constantly increases due to their full absorption in it. (Thisis also their sthayi-bhava, their permanent rati).
January 15, 2011 at 6:02pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Caitanya Candrodaya Dasa: http://www.archive.org/stream/rBhakti-rasmta-sindhu/RBhakti-rasmta-sindhuPart1_djvu.txt translation is rather different toNM's. Here the interpretation bit comes in, and as long as both interpretationsdo not contradict the siddhanta, both are siddhanta.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 4:59 pm
Swami Tripurari: Yes, this is the verse I cited along with SriJiva's commentary. But the translation you have cited adds "This is alsotheir stahyi-bhava, their permanent rati." I don't have a problem withthat but it is not in the verse.
The verse does fall in the section of the text dealing with sthayi-bhava, notsancari bhava. Which kind of gives one a license to call bhavollasa-rati astayi bhava for Radah Krsna combined, as others have done (the in betweenunderstanding I mentioned). Still Sri Jiva distances himself from this positionby stating in his commentary on this verse that
"This statement has been written here as it is remembered [by RupaGoswami] at this point, though it should be included at the end of the topic ofsancari-bhavas or vyabhicari-bhavas, since it belongs to the same topic."
Just to be clear, and as I have already pointed out, the manjari's love is asancari-bhava for Radha, not a sancari-bhava for Krsna. This is what the verseitself says and Sri Jiva's commentary makes it more clear.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:00 pm
Caitanya Candrodaya Dasa: I amnot convinced that this is the meaning of what Jiva says. I am at loss becauseI have no time to check the Sanskrit and you did not paste it, but I would benot surprised if the meaning is not "This statement has been written hereas it is remembered [by Rupa Goswami] at this point, though it should beincluded at the end of the topic of sancari-bhavas or vyabhicari-bhavas, sinceit belongs to the same topic." (He is not pointing out a mistake in SriRupa does he), rather is may mean, "Note that Rupa Goswami, is revealingthis statement here, not where it supposed to be included, (if it was about)sancari-bhavas or vyabhicari-bhavas, if it belonged to the same topic."But I may even accept both interpretations, provided they fit with the mood,not with the words. In fact that what I take to be of an essence orsuhrd-ratih.
In fact could you explain the essential difference completely ignoring thesanskrit words, as in translation? I would find no difference in two positionsin this one verse. Any other verses BTW? If it is only one verse I would notmake a huge thing out of it, since it is in this section (BBT would have movedit I think;-)
January 15,2011 at 6:32pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Swami Tripurari: Caitanya Candrodaya,
I am not sure you are grasping the essential issue here. There is no way youcan translate this verse of Sri Rupa or the commentary of Sri Jiva to say thatthe manjari's love for Krsna is a sancari-bhava. That is the contentious issuewe are discussing. Furthermore both verse and tika clearly say that bhavollasarati involves a sancari bhava for Radha.
I remain confident that the translation of Sri Jiva regarding the place thisverse appears in the text is also correct.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:01 pm
Caitanya Candrodaya Dasa: Any other verses (ever or anywhere) that aredescribing it?
Anyone else ever said that Rupa made a mistake by putting it in sthāyibhāvākhyāpañcama-laharī section?
I just quoted a translation (the one that has (This is also their sthayi-bhava,their permanent rati).) from Ch. 24 Sri Radha Dasyam (Śrī Ślokāmṛtam,"The Sublime Nectar ofŚlokas" Compiled by Dau Dayāl dāsa and others Under the guidance of ŚrīŚrīmad Bhaktivedānta Nārāyaṇa Gosvāmī Mahārāja and his senior disciples. I actually am not sure ifthey had read Jiva's comments:) but the fact that Sri Rupa puts it in thesection seems to matter. I guess the onus is on them to correct it if it iswrong.
I am just an ignorant fool. Really I have no realization of this, unlike manyother Vaisnavas here. Forgive me please, nobody answers my questions, probablythey make little sense. Nobody can even use plain English..
Here is another explanation of this verse from Brs quoted in the Sloka 7comments on Upadesamritam by Narayana Maharaja, maybe you will disagree withit:
"Generally, devotees of the same mood (samjatiya), who are enriched withsimilar desires (vasana-visista), naturally share suhrd bhava, intimatefriendship, with each other. That is why the priti and rati, love andaffection, that Lalita and the other sakhis have for Srimati Radhika is calledsuhrd-rati. When their suhrd-rati is the same as or slightly less than theirkrsna-rati (affection towards Sri Krsna), it is called sancari-bhava. In otherwords when this suhrd-rati becomes equal to the waves in the ocean of theirprominent affection for Krsna, it is a sancari bhava. However, in the case ofthe manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati (for Sri Radha and everything connectedwith Her), which abundantly exceeds their krsna-rati and which constantlyincreases by the moment due to their full absorption in it, is calledbhava-ullasa-rati, despite being a sancari-bhava. This is a special feature ofmadhura rasa. Of the five types of sakhis, only the nitya sakhis and pranasakhis, who are known as manjaris, have this bhava-ullasa-rati as theirpermanent emotion (sthayi rati). They nurture an abundance of sneha, tender affection,for Radhaji."
I think we need to actually understand it, what is your understanding of thisquote from NM's book? I think it expands and explains the one above. Icompletely accept all your conclusions in any case, when you quote verses, allof them are always accepted.
I also want to understand it for my own benefit, and I have no interest inSanskrit per se, just the meaning of it, because I am afraid I will notremember the Sanskrit at the time of death. I am quite sure I will loose it, butI want to get to the essence of it, Maharajas. I am perfectly happy with whatSrila Prabhupada wrote in Teachings of Lord Caitanya, I think if I rememberthat at the time of death I will be a very very lucky soul.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:03 pm
Nandini Radhehttp://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=473231543506
Caitanya Candrodaya Dasa: BTW nothing stops a soul to have a friendlyrelationship with Krishna (sakhya) and yet be completely fixed in the madhuryaservice to Radha in her ullAsa-rati as a manjari, fully in the madhurya mood,especially if this bhava became predominant as per this verse. And manjari doesnot have to be only female either. Any evidence to the contrary?
January 15,2011 at 10:31pm · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari: Caitanya Candrodaya
You have cited SNM's commentary on Upadesmarta, where he explains the meaningof BRS 2.5.128. This is the verse I cited to support my position that BhagavataMaharaja's citation of SNM in his Ramananda Samvada contradicts Rupa Goswami.Let me cite once again the section form SNM's Upadesamrta commentary you cited:
". . . In the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati (for Sri Radhaand everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds their krsna-ratiand which constantly increases by the moment due to their full absorption init, is called bhava-ullasa-rati, despite being a sancari-bhava. This is aspecial feature of madhura rasa."
In this section above SNM has explained that the manjari's bhava for Radha is asancari-bhava, despite the fact that it is increasing at every moment and thefact that their love for Radha exceeds their love for Krsna. This is exactlywhat Sri Rupa and Sri Jiva have said in their verse and respective commentarythat I have cited! So I agree with it, and this demonstrates that in hisUpadesamrta commentary SNM agrees with the verse and commentary translation ofBRS I cited.
However, in the section from Ramanada Samvada cited by Bhagavata Maharaja, SNMstates the opposite and then some:
"In regard to the execution of this manjari seva, Srimati Radhika becomesthe object of Her maidservant’s permanent ecstatic emotion (sthayi-bhava) andSri Krsna becomes the object of the maidservant’s transitory emotion thatnourishes the sthayi-bhava. This is then called the sancari-bhava."
In the quote above SNM writes that the manjari's love for Radha is asthayi-bhava, whereas in the previous quote you supplied he writes that themanjari's bhava for Radha is a sancari-bhava (as Sri Rupa and Sri Jiva teach).So this is the first contradiction. In one place he has followed the conclusionof the Goswamis. In another he has contradicted them.
Then in the same paragraph of his Ramananda Samvad SNM goes on to say that themanjari's bhava for Krsna becomes a sancari-bhava. This is not found anywherein the Goswami's writing. It also contradicts them because they teach that themanjari's bhava for Krsna is a sthayi-bhava, as explained in the section of Brswe are discussing. So this idea that the manjari's love for Krsna is asancari-bhava is not the raganuga/rupanuga siddhanta. Thus, as I suggestedearlier, it is perhaps an editing mistake that should be corrected.
I do not know how SNM's Ramanda Samvada came about, wether he wrote it inEnglish, in Hindi, or spoke it in Hindi and had it translated, etc., etc. Butperhaps Bhagavata Maharaja is looking into this now for us.
I understand that this is all a bit complicated and technical, but it issomething that sadhakas, especially those pursuing manjari-bhava, should takethe time and trouble to clearly understand.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:04 pm
Swami Tripurari: Nandini Radhe
I considered it very carefully beginning as early as 1995 when I discussed itwith SNM in his Mathura math before SNM began his world wide preachingcampaign. I also discussed it with Syamarani at length in 1997. And finally Idiscussed it with him on the basis of the insight published in O My Friend. Atthat time he wrote to me the following:
"Dear Sripad B.V. Tripurari Maharaja,
Please accept my heartly dandavats pranams. All glories to Sri Sri Guru andGauranga, all glories to Sri Sri Radha Vinode Bihariji.
I received your letter and became very happy to hear from you after a long,long time.
. . . Regarding the contents of your message, if you have strong belief thatyour Gurumaharaja was in sakhya mood, I have no objection. . . .
I cannot admit anything else [than my belief that he was in manjari bhava], butI appreciate your belief that he was in sakhya bhava.
Vaisnavadasanudasa,
Swami B.V. Narayan"
So I do not appreciate the insulting tactic you have stooped to herein in themidst of a philosophical discussion that seeks to make clear the Rupanugasiddhnata. I feel I am rendering a service to the mission of SNM in thisdiscussion, and apparently others on the thread do as well.
....................
Bhagavata Maharaja,
If you do not monitor this discussion better as it continues by deletinginsulting remarks like those of Nandini Radhe, I will withdraw from thediscussion.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:05 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja: DandavatsTripurari Maharaja,
I was busy the whole day and just came to the computer now to see.
I am sorry that you have had to bear these complaints against you. They arecompletely unnecessary and un-vaishnava like in their tone and behavior. I donot appreciate this kind of thing at all. I purposely used a very respectfultone in addressing you, not just for the etiquette, but so that others wouldunderstand my respect for you as a senior vaishnava sannaysi and GaudiyaVaishnava Scholar and how I expected them to behave when addressing you.
I am not so insecure in my nishtha for Srila Narayan Maharaja that I cannotlisten to some reasonable scriptural opinions from other Gaudiya Scholars aboutthe meaning of a statement or verse by SNM. Personally I was extremelyimpressed that once you had understood that it was Srila Narayan Maharajamaking the statement and not myself that you went out of your way to find areasonable means of stretching the meaning of the verse in BRS to try andinclude the conclusion SNM had given. Your tone has been respectful andgentlemanly in every way and I deeply appreciate the fact that we could havesuch a discussion like this.
I am sorry I have not been as participatory as I wanted to be as I was a littlebusy these days with some preaching programs in Bangalore with VaikhanasMaharaja (Janardan Das from RD bus days). I would request all the devotees whoare participating in this discussion that Tripurari Maharaja is not trying tocriticize SNM he is trying to better understand why he gave such conclusion.This is a scholarly debate and if you cannot engage in the debate in that moodwith respect and proper mood then you should refrain from it altogether.
In Jaiva Dharma Vrajanath and Vijaya Kumara both see their guru, Raghunath dasBabaji in different ways. One sees him as a cowherd boy and one sees him as agopi. Same Guru different moods according to the disciples Bhava. So TripurariMaharaja sees Srila Prabhupada as a cowherd boy and SNM and SGGM see him as aGopi. This is quite possible and there is not need for crass rhetoric orcriticism. SNM did not behave in that manner nor have I so what gives any ofyou the idea that you can behave badly with a senior vaishnava.
I am still working on getting some more information and I will contribute soon.In the meantime please behave your selves and act like true disciples of SrilaNarayan Maharaja by showing proper love and affection to all senior vaishnavas.Sorry again for difficulties Maharaja.
Your servant
Bhagavat Swami
January 16, 2011 at 2:11pm · LikeUnlike · 9
Bhagavat Maharaja: Tirpurari Maharaja,
The Raya Ramananda Samvad was a series of spoken lectures by SNM I think inEnglish but may be in Hindi on the verses from CC during Purushottam Masa in2004 in Jagannath Puri. They were tape recorded, transcribed, and then editedand published in this book.
Your Servant
BVBS
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:07 pm
Swami Tripurari: Bhagavata Maharaja,
Thank you for your comments. You set an excellent example by them of how tofoster cooperation between different Gaudiya sects, which is so much lackingtoday. I can only hope and pray that others will follow your example.
Please give my regards to BV Vaikhanas Maharaja.
January 16, 2011 at 2:52pm · LikeUnlike · 9
Kryszna Kirtan Das: Dear Bhagavat Maharaja
I very appreciate your way to show proper love and affection to seniorvaishnavas. It is a mood we all should always follow. BTW I see this discussionvery interesting.
your servant
Krishna Kirtan Das
January 16,2011 at 6:48pm · LikeUnlike · 2
Śrī RādhāVallabha: Dear TripurariMaharaja and Bhagavat Maharaja. Thankyou for your beautiful example of etiquette and showing how to have a properdiscussion.
I simply aspire to follow your example.
January 17, 2011 at 9:37am · LikeUnlike · 6
Śrī Rādhā Vallabha: There is only one thing I sometimes regretabout having become a devotee: once you are an "insider", many expectyou to only ask the questions of which you already know the answers.
Anything outside the box is offensive, apasiddhantic and heresy.
I very much like how Tripurari Maharaja goes beyond the "obvious" andasks about the why and how of things.
As expressed before, my similar respects to Bhagavat Maharaja's responses.
January 17,2011 at 10:35pm · LikeUnlike · 2
Bhagavat Maharaja: Maharaja I completely agree with you. I hadsaid as much earlier in this thread. That you had surrendered to your superiorsand that Srila Narayan Maharaja's words to you were not offensive. He acceptedyour realization and remained faithful to his own. I again tried to supportthis by the example from Jaiva Dharma which again makes the point that twoopposite views were held by two disciples of their Guru. You do not readanywhere in Jaiva Dharma that Vijaya and Vrajanath were arguing this point ofwho had the proper vision of their Guru. In fact in the whole of Jaiva Dharmayou do not read of such behavior between the Vaishnavas themselves. I know thatyou have respect for Srila Narayan Maharaja, I know that you were not trying tooffend him it is here in the thread. Any one can read how you thought at firstit was my statement and then how you glorified Srila Narayan Maharaja as agreat Rupanuga Vaishnava, and then how you tried to stretch the meaning of theverse to accommodate his conception. It is there for all to read what yourbehavior has been. So we have all done our best to make it clear in theappropriate manner.
Srila Gaur Govinda Maharaja told me in 1978 that he had darshan of SrilaPrabhupada in his Manjari form. That is how he and Srila Narayan Maharajaperceive him. Srila Prabhupada's God Brother Carana Dasa Babaji who gave sikshato Srila Gaur Govinda Maharaja later on in late 80's and early 90's was also ofthat vision and opinion. It is how I also feel about Srila Prabhupada. With alldue respects to others no one will dissuade any of us from our view eitheryours or mine. That is how it should be. However there is no need to argue thepoint of one thing in order to try and establish the point of something else. Ipray that Nandini Radhe will now look at the words of Srila Narayan Maharajaagain, as this is the second time you have presented them to her, and how heresponded to you and accept this as his final instruction on the matter.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:07 pm
Swami Tripurari: Evenif one says “I like Krsna only because Radha likes him,” this does not displaceKrsna as the visaya amlambana of such madhurya rasa. It simply speaks of one’sgreater affection for Radha over Krsna. But Radha embodies the highest love forKrsna. She is mahabhava svarupini. The implication of bhaollasa-rati is thatone tastes Radha’s love for Krsna vicariously, and in her love Krsna is thevisaya alambana, the object of love for her sthayi-bhava.
The idea of manjari-bhava is identification with Radha’s bhava that friendshipwith her gives rise to—tad bhaveccha-mayi—to be filled with her bhava. Andagain, in her bhava we find a sthayi-bhava for Krsna, certainly not a sancaribhava. So that which ostensibly looks like something in which Krsna isdisplaced and Radha takes the central position is more complex under scrutiny.Radha dasyam is Krsna consciousness, not Radha consciousness, even while itinvolves being fully conscious of Radha. Why? Because she is Krsnaconsciousness personified.
January 18, 2011 at 3:15pm · LikeUnlike · 7
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern: verynicely put dear Tripurari Svami, very good point!!! ♥
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:08 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Radha-dasya:
Srila BR Sridhar Maharaj: When I was in Madras, Prabhupada's Vyasa Puja tookplace at the Caitanya Math in Mayapura. Professor Sannyal had written anarticle in English for the occasion. He wrote, "I do not know Krsna, butbecause you tell me that I am to worship Krsna, I do it."
I could not understand the meaning of this statement, the internal meaning. Icould not help but wonder why he had said this. Three or four years later, anincident occurred at Radha Kunda that helped me to understand.
Paramananda Brahmacari came to Prabhupada and reported that the Diwan ofBharatpura State was circumambulating Radha Kunda by prostrating himself on theground and slowly advancing by measuring the length of each successiveprostration. Paramananda Prabhu told Prabhupada with much ardor, "Theyhave so much esteem for Radharani!"
Prabhupada then came out from his inner quarters and said, "Yes, but theirconcern for Radharani and our concern for Radharani are quite different. Theycome to Radharani because She is Krsna's favorite; but our position is theopposite. We worship Krsna because He is Radharani's favorite. Our interest isin Radharani, and Krsna is Her favorite. And only because She wants Krsna do wehave any connection with Him."
At that time I could not understand what Professor Sannyal had written. Thenlater I read that some jivas are born out of Baladeva's anga-jyoti, thebrahmajyoti, the non-distinguishable divine effulgence. That is the source fromwhence some of us are born. Some have connection with Baladeva's anga-jyoti,but others originate from the halo of Radharani and Her group.
These souls have a direct connection with Radharani. She is their Mistress andthey necessarily follow whatever She does. Prabhupada told us that we arereally saktas, worshipers of God's potency; not saktas like the worshipers ofDurga, but suddha-saktas. The real, original potency, Krsna's dedicatingMoiety, is in Vraja. Both direct and indirect connections with Krsna comethrough Her. This is Radha's position. We heard all these things fromPrabhupada.
This is also the significance of the sannyasa-mantra. In ordinary mantras, adirect connection with Krsna is established, but in the sannyasa-mantra, ourspiritual connection is shown to be with the gopis. That is Radha-dasya, theservice of Radhika. It is above Krsna-dasya. The purport, the gist of thesannyasa-mantra, is gopi-dasya.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:09 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern: and overall not to forget:
radha-krishna-pranay-vikritir...EKATMANAV api...
&
radha-cinta-niveshena yasya kantir vilopita...
etc.
:-)
January 18, 2011 at 5:46pm · LikeUnlike
Babhru Reed: I'dlike to point out to Shanti devi dasi that there are two versions of thesannyasa mantra in our line. One has the sannyasi meditating on taking shelterof gopi-bhava; the other has him meditating on taking shelter ofgopi-jana-bhava, the sentiments of the residents of Virndavan. If I did not Iaddress this directly in my booklet, "O My Friend! O My Friend!",it's out of deference to the particularly confidential nature of the mantra.However, Srila Prabhupada spoke the gopi-jana-bhava mantra publicly wheninitiating one of my godbrothers into the sannyasa ashram. Other sannyasisreceived the gopi-bhava mantra from him. Both versions were apparently given bySrila Sridhara Maharaja.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:09 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja: Well I had heard from some people that therewas a quote by Srila Saraswati Thakura that confirmed this statement of SrilaNarayan Maharaja but I could not find it. I was told it was in one of ourHarmonist magazines and so I was looking there. However now we have it andamazingly enough it is coming from Srila Sridhara Maharaja. On a number ofoccasions Srila Narayan Maharaja said that there are Jivas that come fromRadharani. So I knew that this was there. Now we see that Srila SridharaMaharaja has heard this from Srila Saraswati Thakura. But what we also hearfrom Srila Sridhara Maharaja is that Srila Saraswati Thakura is making itpretty clear here that Sri Krishna is not the center of attention for those whoworship Radharani, not even her equal.
Tripurari Maharaja wrote: "Even if one says “I like Krsna only becauseRadha likes him,” this does not displace Krsna as the visaya amlambana of suchmadhurya rasa. It simply speaks of one’s greater affection for Radha overKrsna."
However Srila Sridhara Maharaja gives us the statements of Srila SaraswatiThakura that are quite different: "Yes, but their concern for Radharaniand our concern for Radharani are quite different. They come to Radharanibecause She is Krsna's favorite; but our position is the opposite. We worshipKrsna because He is Radharani's favorite. Our interest is in Radharani, andKrsna is Her favorite. And only because She wants Krsna do we have anyconnection with Him."
And this statement: "but others originate from the halo of Radharani andHer group. These souls have a direct connection with Radharani. She is theirMistress and they necessarily follow whatever She does. Prabhupada told us thatwe are really saktas, worshipers of God's potency; not saktas like theworshipers of Durga, but suddha-saktas. The real, original potency, Krsna'sdedicating Moiety, is in Vraja. Both direct and indirect connections with Krsnacome through Her. This is Radha's position."
and: "That is Radha-dasya, the service of Radhika. It is aboveKrsna-dasya. The purport, the gist of the sannyasa-mantra, is gopi-dasya."
All of these statements make it clear that Krsna's relevance to those in RadhaDasyam is indirect or Sancari Bhava and that the direct relationship SthayiBhava is with Srimati Radhika. As Professor Sanyal stated: "I do not knowKrsna, but because you tell me that I am to worship Krsna, I do it."
It is such a beautiful thing to see how we can have an open hearted discussionabout the deepest topics of Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta in a respectful mannerand let the truth unfold by it self. I had faith from the beginning that SrilaNarayan Maharaja words were true and so I prayed and researched and now it hasbeen shown to be accurate. Certainly the points that Tripurari Maharaja madefrom BRS are good and valid points. However, as I always suspected, the realinner workings of Radha Dasyam are revealed in increments over time as theecstasies of the Acharya's. Sri Rupa Goswami gave something and later the othermanjaris add something more. Just like Srila Vishvanath Chakravarty Thakuragives extensive conversations between Krsna and the Gopis in his commentarieson Gopi Gita by extracting them from one syllable of the verse. The scripturesare living, breathing, growing, bodies of transcendental knowledge. Theinformation contained in them are the ecstasies of the devotees. In course oftime more will be added as the moods of different Acharya's manifest in higherand higher ecstasies.
I applaud Tripurari Maharaja for having the courage and devotion to raise sucha point. His inquiry has led us all down a very interesting road and has testedour patience, tolerance, and love for each other as Vaishnavas. I want to thankall of the devotees who participated in this discussion and the importantcontributions they made to help us all understand these sentiments moreclearly. I especially want to thank Shanti Dasi for coming up with the supportfor Srila Nararyan Maharajas statement. I am so happy that we had thisopportunity to have this discussion and to come to an understanding that isacceptable to everyone. I have some intuition though that this discussion isnot over yet. That there will be more to come.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:10 pm
Madan Gopal: Wonderful discussion. I'm glad to see it stayon course, avoiding distraction and aparadha (not radha). I don't feel that thereference above of Srila Sridhar Maharaj is saying something contradictory toTripurari Maharaj's latest comment. Though in manjari-bhava the devotee has"direct connection with Radharani" and they "follow whatever shedoes", this is still centered in Radha's madhurya stayi bhava for Krsna.Without Krsna as Radha's visaya-alambana, the manjaris bhavas, stayi or sancarido not exist. The manjaris may even neglect Krsna, following in the emotions oftheir mistress, but the point remains that their bhava towards her is sancari,not that Radha alone has become the object of their stayi-bhava of madhurya.The manjaris stayi-bhava is madhurya, and Radha-Krsna together are the objectof that stayi. All the spice, including the preference of and deference to thesupreme goddess Radha is supplemental to that central stayi-bhava.
I think it helps to understand the point if we consider it in relation to otherbhavas:
A gopa in sakhya rasa may feel preference for Balarama, may follow hisparticular mood, and relate to Krsna in service to Rama, but the visaya-alambanaof his sakhya stayi-bhava is still Krsna.
Same goes for vatsalya-bhava. Regardless of the measure of devotion to the"devotee", Krsna is the visaya-alambana which creates the bhavafoundation for devotion to the devotee and the subsequent sancari bhavaproduced by that.
I am a fool with no insight into rasa-tattva. If I am misunderstanding, pleaseforgive my lack of qualification to give my thoughts in this arena of angels.
From a Sanga by Tripurari Maharaj 11/24/02
"A. Bhavollasa-rati, or manjari-bhava, is as much a special kind ofsancari-bhava (transitory emotion) as it is and more so a special kind ofsthayi-bhava. When Sri Jiva Goswami says that it is a special kind ofsancari-bhava, he means that although it is an expression of love for the friendof Krsna (Radha) rather than for Krsna himself and in this sense asancari-bhava, under scrutiny it becomes apparent that it involves love of forboth Radha and Krsna, and therefore it is a special kind of sthayi-bhava.
All devotees of Vraja have sancari-bhavas for each other, whereas thesesancari-bhavas do not overpower their sthayi-bhava (permanent emotion) inrelation to Krsna. If the manjari-bhava were for Radha alone, it would truly beonly a sancari bhava, but because it is actually for Radha and Krsna combinedit is in fact a sthayi-bhava. The term 'bhavollasa' literally means 'That lovethat enlivens their [Radha Krsna's] love for one another.'"
http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2002/2002_27.php
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:11 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja: BabrhuPrabhu it is interesting that you point out that Srila Prabhupada gave out boththe Sannyas Mantras. It gives some indication of his actual position. Just likeHrdoya Caitanya, who was a cowherd boy in Lord Nityanandas group, sent DukhiKrsna to Jiva Goswami to nourish his Manjari Bhava. If Srila Prabhupada hadbeen only a cowherd boy and a Priya Narma sakha, which is what I understand thegopi jana bhava mantra is for, then he could not have given the gopi bhavamantra. He would have to send the disciple to someone else for that. Of coursewe know that Srila Prabhupada has said that the sannyas he gave is a Battlefield commission and there fore not really based on the qualifications forsannyas. Then he would have only given the gopi jana bhava mantra. Because thatis all he is qualified to give. He would have to be a sakhi to give the gopibhava mantra and have it be of any value and he would have had to receive itfrom someone who was a sakhi to have be of any value to him or others. To seeboth moods in someone the higher mood of Manjari Bhava would have to be theprominent mood which would also contain the Priya narma sakha mood. Hence twodisciples could see the same Guru in two different moods. at least that is howI understand it. What do you think?
January 18,2011 at 8:01pm · LikeUnlike
Babhru Reed: Myunderstanding is that he can give the mantra he received from hisguru-maharaja. Just how it is that he gave both versions is beyond my pay grade(that of a paccha grihastha), as is any understanding of how he might determinewhich mantra to give to a particular sannyasi. I have heard that Srila SridharaMaharaja did the same. However, although I apparently did not address thesannyasa mantra in my booklet, I did address the two different Gopala mantras.One interesting point is that Gopa-kumara discovered his sakha-svarupa bymeditating on the 10-syllable Gopala mantra, which addresses onlyGopi-jana-vallabha.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:12 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja: MadanGopal Prabhu, thank you for giving us this lecture of Tripurari Maharaja andyour understanding of the position of Sri Krsna in relationship to sthayibhava. I think the important thing to understand about your statement is thatthey may only apply to the jivas who come from the Balarama anga-jyoti. The onewho come from Radharanis Halo may operate under different parameters.
Srila Saraswati Thakuras statement: "These souls have a direct connectionwith Radharani. She is their Mistress and they necessarily follow whatever Shedoes. Prabhupada told us that we are really saktas, worshipers of God'spotency; not saktas like the worshipers of Durga, but suddha-saktas. The real,original potency, Krsna's dedicating Moiety, is in Vraja. Both direct andindirect connections with Krsna come through Her. This is Radha'sposition."
Now he is saying that both direct and indirect connections to Krsna are comingthrough her. Since there are a variety of sentiments then this opens the doorto the possibility that some have a more indirect relationship with Krsna tothe point of it being a sancari bhava since they are actually directly fromSrimati Radhika and not part of Balaram anga-jyoti. Their sthayi bhava is withSri Radha since they come from her not Balarama. Hence I feel confident thatthe sentiments that Srila Narayan Maharaja is expressing here can beaccommodated under this conception.
January 18,2011 at 8:16pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern: many of the points mentioned in thisdiscussion are so marginal...or subtle cause Shrimati Radharani is the completerepository of love for Krishna...
January 18,2011 at 8:20pm · LikeUnlike
Bhagavat Maharaja: Bheda Prabhu this is exactly the point. Thisis the secret of all secrets. The most hidden secret of Gaudiya Vasihnavism.This is why it was so revolutionary that Srila Narayan Maharaja was handing itout so liberally. Yet he said on many occasions that Bhakti Jivan JanardanMaharaja who was one of his dearest companions and gave SNM so much siksha onRadha tattva begged him before he left this world to not let the conception ofRadha Dasyam die. He asked SNM to make sure that it was taught and understoodby others before SNM left this world. Bhakti Jivan Janardan Maharaja was the onlydisciple of Srila Saraswati Thakura that was allowed to speak about RadheTattva openly by Saraswati Srila Prabhupada. So this is a special gift thatSrila Narayan Maharaja is giving us through the disciplic succession. We shouldfeel so fortunate to be recipients of this mercy.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:13 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja: Babrhu Prabhu what I was told is that theGovindaya part of the mantra addressed the sakha mood and the gopi jana partaddressed the gopi mood. Hence both moods can be attained from the same mantra.Which of course appears to contradict my point from before that a differentsannyas mantra may be used for priya narma sakha and sakhi However sannyas is adifferent initiation and so the mantra may be more specific.
January 18,2011 at 8:39pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Bhagavat Maharaja: Madan Prabhu, One more point I think that thevariety of sentiments in the mood of manjari Bhava also accommodates thebeautiful siksha Tirpurari Maharaja is giving concerning the mood of theManjaris having a sthayi bhava for Radha and Krsna combined. However I do notthink that it discounts the possibility of the the sentiments that SrilaNarayan Maharaja is expressing especially since some Jivas come from Radha directly.In my mind this is a win win situation. These are two different sentiments,correctly expression by two different individuals about two different aspectsof Manjari Bhava, both of them valid. After all it is matter of individualtaste and sentiment.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:13 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi: ... In Jaiva Dharma,Chapter 15, it is said: "All the four types of Srimati Radhika’s sakhisare nitya-siddha, and they are direct expansions (kaya-vyuha) of the cit-sakti,Srimati Radhika Herself...
.. so if they are direct expansions (kaya-vyuha) of Srimati Radhika, they havefirst relationship with Her and then with Krishna?
... and manjaris have relationship with Krishna only through Srimati Radhika,this is special group who is completely dedicated to Her...
so .... hard to understand, so high topic , but divine topic!
January 18,2011 at 9:42pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Madan Gopal: Thanksvery much for your input Maharaj. Though I can understand how Radha-Krsnatogether become the "unique" focus of stayi-bhava of the manjaris, itdoesn't make (rasa) sense to me how Radha alone can be the object of themanjaris stayi-bhava - madhurya.
Because of their prominent connection to Radha their madhurya interests are inRadha-Krsna together because of Radha-Krsna's relationship. Krsna is always theobject of the stayi-bhavas: madhurya, sakhya or vatsalya. If you take Krsna outof the picture, Radha-dasyam has no meaning. There will be no stayi-bhavafocused only on Radha because Radha does not exist without Krsna. Thereforemanjaris "special" or "unique" stayi bhava is for both. Itis a glorification of the manjaris love, that they are explained to have thisbhavollasa-rati. Such power of bhava that the object of their stayi moves fromwhat would normally be just Krsna, to Radha-Krsna together. All the way to onlyRadha does not seem to make sense.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:14 pm
Swami Tripurari: The idea that some souls originate in Radhaand Baladeva comes from Thakura Bhaktivinoda. However, it refers to parsadas ofBhagavan in Goloka constituted of svarupa-sakti, not jiva sakti. Similarlyparsadas of Narayana originate from Maha Sankarsana and are also constituted ofsvarup-sakti. It is the jiva-sakti—the nitya-baddha's of this world—who incontrast emanate from Mahavisnu.
So sadhana siddhas are not emanating from the jyoti of Radha and Ramanadasamvada is about sadhana and the sadhya sadhakas can attain. The highest sadhyathey can attain is tad bhavecchamayi. This is exactly what SNM is preaching inhis book. He is not advocating some other idea than this. Ansd SSM is sayingwhat I have already said. That some souls say “I like Krsna only because Radhalikes him.” This is Radha-snehadika or Radha bhaveccha-mayi. It does not displaceKrsna as the visaya alambana of such madhurya rasa. It simply speaks of one’sgreater affection for Radha over Krsna that characterizes manjari-bhava.
How can you construe Radha dasyam to be anything other than tad bhavaecchamayikamanuga bhakti? You can't. And I have explained the significance of this herein brief, as has SNM in his book at length. You cannot say that an indirectrelationship with Krsna in Radha dasyam turns one's relationship with Krsnainto a sancari-bhava. Indeed, for that matter in Vaisanvism indirect is themost direct.
Radha is nothing but the embodiment of the highest sthayi-bhava for Krsna. Sodedication to her is dedication to Krsna. There is no way around that. She isthe vine that attaches herself to the tree of Krsna. Whatever she experiences,so too do the flowers (manjaris) on that vine. And the point here also is thatone cannot experience this directly because it is the sole experience of Radha.Thus the strategy of attaching oneself to Radha. Very intelligent.
So I do not think that the citation of SSM supports the idea of something otherthan tad bhavaeccha-mayi. If it does, what is it called and why has SNM notwritten about it in his book, or Krsnadas Kaviaraja for that matter? SNM issaying tad bhavaeccha-mayi involves a sthayi-bhava for Radha and asancari-bhava for Krsna, but as has been pointed out, Sri Rupa and Jiva, whoare also talking abut tad bhavaechha-mayi, have taught us differently and it isthem that SNM in his book says he is representing when he asserts,
"Thus, this sva-bhakti-siddhanta, sweet as nectar, is the philosophicalunderstanding embodied in the followers of Sri Rupa Gosvami, who establishedthe raganuga-rupanuga-siddhanta." Note that this is the sentence thatfollows his idea (at least in this book, but as we have seen, not elsewhere)that tad bhavaecchamayi involves a sthayi-bhava for Radha and a sancari-bhavafor Krsna. I will go with his explanation that Caitanya Candrodaya citedearlier, SNM's explanation in his commentary on Upadesamrita, where he sayswhat Sri Rupa and Sri Jiva have taught us. I will also bet anyone 108 roundsthat SNM has said this (as Rupa and Jiva have) in other places as well and thatthe section from Ramanada-samvada is the only place he has said the reverseplus that we are discussing.
January 18,2011 at 10:01pm · LikeUnlike · 2
Swami Tripurari: Regarding the sannyas mantra and twointerpretations or two versions, it may be a stretch to interpret gopi-janabhavashraya as a reference to the Vrajabasis in general. However, if themeaning is taken to be the same as gopi bhavashraya, it applies to thepriyanarma-sakha as well as it does to manjari-bhava, depending on theintention with which it is given. The reason for this is that part of the priyanarmasakhas bhava is madhurya and involves taking shelter of a yutheshvari likeLalita-sakhi, Radha, etc. Therefore Sri Rupa has referred to the madhuryaaspect of their sakhya rati as "sakhi-bhava."
Thus I do not think Bhagavata M's idea that Prabhupada must be in manjari-bhavato give a gopi-bhava mantra holds. And Babhru's point on this is also welltaken.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:15 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi: If manjaris have sthayi-bhava for Radharani,that would mean that they experience rasa with Radharani. So all the constituentsof rasa would be in relation to Radharani not Krsna. But we do not find adescription of this. And, of course, rasa requires both the asraya and visaya,so Radharani would experience rasa in relation to many people, not exclusivelyKrsna. This idea is philosophically problematic. The proper conception istherefore tad-bhaveccha-mayi, the manjaris experience Radharani's bhava forKrsna, not their own separate bhava for her (other than an extraordinarysancari-bhava). If the manjaris experienced rasa in relation to Radharani, theywould be categorized in dasya-rasa sector. But they are not, they are inmadhurya-rasa.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:16 pm
Neel Bhandari: DearVaishnavas, PAMHO
You are all superior to me in many aspects so I will just repeat the words ofSrila Prabhupada from Bhagavad Gita Ch 18.78 purport which is the last chapterlast verse and the very last sentence of his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita,he says:
" In other words, the living entity is situated between the two energiesof the Lord, and because he belongs to the superior energy of the Lord, he hasa particle of independence. By proper use of that independence he comes underthe direct order of Kṛṣṇa. Thus he attains his normal condition in the pleasure-givingpotency."
This very last sentence: "Thus he attains his normal condition in thepleasure-giving potency." has for me has been the secret to KrishnaCounciousness of realizing our true position.
Further to this he states in his B.g class 1974-09-23 given in Calcutta onRadhastami. In the last part of the class he says: "What is Radharani?Radharani is the pleasure giving potency of Krishna, pleasure potency...."The class carries on in this way glorifying Radharani and how she is thatpotency of Krishna which gives pleasure and that we have to go throughRadharani and pray to her.
Therefore my conclusion and if you all great Vaishnavas can help me understandwith your conclusion is that as Srila Prabhupada has said:
"normal condition in the pleasure-giving potency" This means that weshould be under Radharani and that Srila Prabhupada is saying this himself thatthis is his normal position then he must be under radharani as a manjari.
Please help me to understand this,
Your Servant,
Neelmadhav das
January 18, 2011 at 11:19pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Shanti Devi Dasi: Of course that radha dasyam not exludeKrishna: secret is - without surrender to Radha we cannot get Krishna . SrilaBhaktvinoda Thakura sings:
rādhikā-caraṇa-padma, sakala śreyera sadma...
"He who has failed to carefully worship the lotus feet of Srimati Radhika,which are the abode of all auspiciousness; he who has not taken shelter in thetranscendental abode known as Vrndavana, which is decorated with the beautifullotus flower named Radha...
...he who in this life has not associated with the devotees of Radhika, who arevery wise and whose devotion for Radha is very deep - how will such a personever experience the bliss of bathing in the ocean of Lord Syama's sublimemellows? Please understand this most attentively.
Srimati Radhika is the exemplary teacher of the brilliant mellows of conjugallove. This pure love between Radha and Madhava is worthy of discussion andcontemplation.
He who has grasped hold of the lotus feet of Radha with great care obtains thelotus feet of Krsna, which are like priceless jewels.
Without taking shelter of the lotus feet of Radha, one can never personallymeet Lord Krsna. The Vedic scriptures declare that Krsna is the property of themaidservants of Sri Radha.
Abandoning wealth, followers, wife, sons, and friends, and giving upmaterialistic activities and intellectual knowledge, being absorbed in thesweetness of service to the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani - this isBhaktivinoda's conviction."
Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja said that no one can enter into Vrindavan withoutsurrender to the lotus feet of Srimati Radhika... we are in rupanuga line - inthe line of maidservants of Sri Radha, this is what our Srila Prabhupada gaveto us...
January 18,2011 at 11:21pm · LikeUnlike · 2
Tarun Das: So much has been said, but I've beenfolllowing this for some time and most of my questions have been answered.
My first question was ' does a sthayi bhava always involve some variety ofKrsna rati'. This is a crucial question. It seems that this is a rule, thoughin my research I couldn't find it specifically stated. And this rule was bent,it seems, by Sri Rupa, by putting bhavollasa rati in the sthayi bhava sectionof BRS, so it would be a sthayi bhava for both Radha and Krishna.
Rati for Krsna has to be the Sthayi bhava in all circumstances. OK. But Krsnais not just Krsna. Just like Radharani does not exist apart, neither doesKrsna. Their positons are different, but they are one, and cannot exist ontheir own. Shakti without shaktiman and viceversa. So all sthayi bhavas wouldactually be for the complete whole, the divine couple. So many in dasya, sakhyaand vatsalya rasa may not be conscious of Radha's position, because lila isdifferent than tattva, but it is nonetheless a fact. So logically all the sthayibhavas would be for Radha and Krishna, regardless if they are direct orindirect, or whether the devotee is conscious or unconscious of who is intattva their sthayi bhava. So the devotees in sakhya bhava, lets say, wouldalso have Radha and Krishna as their sthayi bhava, even though they may havemore affection for Krsna than for Radha.
This may be bending the rule a little far. But it is sort of a logicalconclusion.
Splendid discussion!! Dandavats to all concerned!!!
January 18,2011 at 11:25pm · LikeUnlike
Shanti DeviDasi: rādha-bhajane jadi mati nāhi bhelā...
If your desire for the worshipof Srimati Radharani does not come about, then your so-called worship of Krsnais completely useless.
Just as I never know the sun to be without sunlight, so I do not care to regardMadhava without Radha.
One who worships Madhava alone is imperfect in his knowledge, and one whodisrespects Radha is simply conceited and proud.
You should never associate with such a person if you at all desire within yourheart to participate in the eternal sportive pastimes of Vraja.
If one considers oneself to be a humble maidservant of Radhika, then such aperson very quickly meets the Lord of Gokula.
Lord Brahma, Lord Siva, Narada Muni, the personified Vedas, and Laksmi-devi allhonor and worship the dust of Radhika's lotus feet.
The Vedic scriptures declare that the goddesses Uma, Rama, Satya, Saci, Candra,and Rukmini are all personal expansions of Srimati Radharani.
Bhaktivinoda, whose only treasure is the service of such a Radha, humbly begs forHer lotus feet.
January 18,2011 at 11:49pm · LikeUnlike · 3
Shanti Devi Dasi: and...
"One who is qualified in madhurya-rasa worships Gauranga in the form ofRadha and Krishna. As Radha and Krishna have combined in one form as my GaurangaRaya, Their pastimes do not appear to be manifest in His form. When the worshipof Gauranga in dasya-rasa reaches full maturity in the heart of the livingentity, madhurya-rasa naturally develops in his heart. At that time one’sworship of Gaurahari qualifies him to worship Radha and Krishna inVrindavana." (Shri Navadvipa Dhaama Mahaatmya in Chapter 18. LordNityananda to Shrila Jiva Goswami)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:17 pm
Swami Tripurari: Shanti devi,
The fact that Radha is the way also means that she embodies the highestdevotion and devotion is the way. She is Bhakti-devi. And naturally alldevotees desiring Vraja-bhava will worship her relative to their particularbhava. It is not, however, that only those who pursue Radha dasyam can enterGoloka, if that is what you are trying to say. BVT's prayer you cited is ofcourse spoken in manjari-bhava.
Here is part of one of Prabhupada's written in sakhya bhava, as explained byPujyapada BR Sridhara Deva Goswami:
tomare milane bhai abar se sukha pai
gocarane ghuri din bhor kota vane chuta chuti
vane kai lutaputi se din kabe habe mor
"Once we are together, brother, I will again feel the happiness ofwandering all day long, grazing the cows. I pray for the day to come when wechase each other and wrestle throughout the forests of Vraja.”
Note that the poem this is cited from includes the idea of giving advice toKrsna about the seva of Radha and in this respect, relative to sakhya rasa(priyanarma), also includes service to the lotus feet of Radha.
For more objective information on this you can read the following:
I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say in your most recent post, butupon reading it I was struck with the sense that you would do better to followthe more balanced approach as Bhagavata M has done. Please forgive me if I havemisunderstood you.
January 18, 2011 at 11:58pm · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari: Neel,
By "normal condition" Srila Prabhupada is referring to liberated lifein Krsna consciousness and Vrindvan-bhakti where Radha is the Isvari. You makemore out of it than what is there.
But I am not sure the best course here is to digress (if you can call it that)into a discussion on Prabhupada's bhava. While I find the subject interestingand have much to say on my guru's inner life, that is another discussionaltogether.
Those interested in the subject can, however, read this:
And SNM also published a book on the subject entitled Gauravani Pracarine(could not find the link for this one)
January 19,2011 at 12:13am · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari:Tarun,
I can't bend that for with you.
January 19,2011 at 12:16am · LikeUnlike
Tarun Das: No problem Maharaja, it was a lark, sort of.
Vrindaranya:
I did find in Jaiva Dharma, that Krishna can be the Asraya and the bhakta(Radharani) can be the Visaya. So being the Visaya of Krishna does not meanhaving Rasa with everyone.
January 19,2011 at 12:21am · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari: Tarun,
That "far," excuse me.
January 19,2011 at 12:22am · LikeUnlike
Tarun Das: Maharaja, it seems that so little has beenwritten on this subject, it's almost like the origin of the Jiva. I'm wonderingwhat some of the other great commentators of our line have said, especiallyVisvanatha CT and maybe Narrotama DT. If it's a compelling subject for us, whathave they also said about it.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:19 pm
Swami Tripurari Shanti devi,
All of your recent quotes speak of following the bhava of Rupa Goswami. Hisbhava is tad bhavecchamayi, as I have been explaining.
The fact that Radha's maidservants avoid Krsna's advances, unlike other gopiswho are in sambhogeccha-mayi bhava (another form of kamanuga) speaks of theirKrsna consciousness: No one pleases Krsna more than Radha, no other gopi insambhogeccha-mayi. Thus the manjari by serving Radha and identifying with herbhava experiences her bhava and in this way tastes what those who directly seekunion with Krsna can only dream about. This is the more that SSM is talkingabout. I agree with him.
January 19,2011 at 1:40am · LikeUnlike · 1
Swami Tripurari Tarun,
VCT has not commented on Brs. 2.5.128. But it is not that a lot has not beenwritten on it. It is the centerpiece of the whole sampradaya—tadbhaveccha-mayi.
Bhavollasa rati is a sthayi-bhava for Krsna and an extraordinary sancari-bhavafor Radha. It is the same thing as tad bhaveccha-mayi when the "tad"is Radha.
January 19,2011 at 1:49am · LikeUnlike · 1
Swami Tripurari I think it should be noted that any love forKrsna’s devotee, however great, even if it exceeds one’s love for Krsna, as inthe case of the manjari’s love for Radha, is nonetheless dependent upon love ofKrsna. Thus while there is room to consider Radha the object of love, there isnot room to consider her so independent of Krsna., from whom she has noindependence (bhedabeda).
So bhavollasa rati has been called by some a “new rasa” never revealed before,one in which Radha and Krsna are the object of love. This is the import of theunnatojjvala rasa of Svarupa Damorada’s well known verse that has arguably“never been given before”—the gift of Gaura alone. Gopala Guru Goswami hascalled it sangita rasa (the rasa of the female friend), while Sri Rupa hascalled it bhavollasa rati. Both of these terms refer to bhaveccha-mayi forRadha. If there is more to be said it cannot contradict this gift. It cannotchange the gift into something else.
So talk of new, secret, etc. refer to this, not some new idea of Radha bhakti.No! We will never establish a deity of only Radha in the name of Radha dasyam.*Always Radha Krsna.
The more of Raghunatha dasa (more than Rupa) is that he went farther than Rupa.Rupa wrote about manjari bhava, but Svarupera Raghu (Raghu of Svarupa), asMahaprabhu called him, wrote about the position of Rupa himself as the leaderof manjari bhava—Rupa manjari. She is the more! But Rupa of course was shy tosay it. Rupa also write primarily about the way (abhideya), whereas Ragu wroteabout he goal (prayojana)—prema prayojana radha dasyam.
Jaya Rupa, Jaya Raghu, Jaya Radhe!
*Note this has been done by Prakasananda Saraswati in Vrindavana and SNM,myself, and everyone else in Gaudiya Vaisnavism labels his preceptsapasiddhanta.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:20 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Tarun,
Wonderful discussion! What I was trying to say was that if Radharani is thevisaya (object of love) of all the manjaris, which she would have to be if theyhave sthayi-bhava for her and sancari-bhava for Krishna, then she would notexclusively experience rasa with Krishna: so many manjaris would beexperiencing rasa with her.
What would be the problem with this? To begin with, a pivotal aspect of thegopis’ prema for Krishna is that it is completely exclusive. This is a mainreason why Krishna praises the gopis in SB 10.32.22 (na paraye ‘ham). Krishnasays that in contrast to the gopis’ exclusive devotion, “My mind, on the otherhand, because of being connected in love with many devotees, is never fixed onone object. Therefore it is by your own good deeds that you should bereciprocated with; that should be your reward” (commentary of Jiva Goswami). Inthe last chapter of Brhad Bhagavatamrita, Sanatana Goswami highlights thisidea, explaining that because Krishna has many devotees, his love is divided.The gopis, on the other hand, (with Radha as the pinnacle) have exclusive lovefor Krishna, so their love is superior to his: for this reason he comes asCaitanya Mahaprabhu to taste their love.
So if Radha were in the same position as Krishna in terms of being the visayafor innumerable devotees, it would completely undermine this crucial aspect ofGaudiya siddhanta and in a sense actually diminish her glory as the embodimentof the highest exclusive dedication for Krishna. Bhavollasa rati does notcompromise Radharani’s position in this way. Indeed, a sancari-bhavarelationship with other devotees augments the sthayi-bhava. For this reason,Rupa Goswami’s vision that Krishna is the visaya of the manjaris is actuallysuperior to seeing Radha and Krishna as a joint visaya.
As for Radha being the visaya in relation to Krishna, this is true for everydevotee (see Jaiva Dharma, ch. 26) because Krishna’s relationships with hisdevotees are reciprocal. In contrast to this visaya/asraya relationship betweenKrishna and his devotees, the Vrajabasis’ love for each other is asancari-bhava.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:21 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern just found this:
[*Endnote 1: bhava-ullasa rati – Generally, devotees of the same mood and whoare enriched with similar desires naturally share suhrd-bhava, intimatefriendship, with each other. That is why the love and affection that Lalita andthe other sakhis have for Srimati Radhika is called suhrd-rati. When theirsuhrd-rati is the same as or slightly less than their Krsna-rati (affectiontowards Sri Krsna), this is called sancari-bhava (a temporary emotion that iscompared to the waves that swell and then return to the ocean of theirpermanent emotion of the mood of Krsna's beloveds). In other words when thissuhrd-rati becomes equal to the waves in the ocean of their prominent affectionfor Krsna, it is a sancari-bhava. However, in the case of the manjari-sakhis,their suhrd-rati (for Sri Radha and everything connected with Her), whichabundantly exceeds their krsna-rati and which constantly increases by themoment due to their full absorption in it, is called bhava-ullasa-rati. This isa special feature of madhura-rasa. Of the five types of sakhis, only the nityasakhis and prana sakhis, who are known as manjaris, have this bhava-ullasa-ratias their permanent emotions (sthayi-rati). It is no longer just asancari-bhava. These manjaris nurture an abundance of sneha, tender affection,for Radhaji.
It is seen that creepers are always endeavoring to embrace trees, but theleaves, flowers and buds (manjaris) of the creepers do not even slightly try toembrace the trees directly. When a creeper embraces a tree, the joy of thoseflowers, leaves, and manjaris automatically increases. In Sri Vrndavana SrimatiRadhika stands supreme among all gopis. She is famous as the kalpa-lata (thecreeper that fulfills every desire) of love for Sri Krsna. Some of Her sakhishave the nature of leaves, some are like flowers, and some like manjaris. Thatis why they are always eager for Srimati Radhika to meet with Krsna, and arecarried away by the bliss of Their union. (Srila Narayana Maharaja's commentaryon Venu-gita, verse 7)
http://www.purebhakti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=443&Itemid=82
January 19,2011 at 9:19am · LikeUnlike · 2
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Bheda Brajendra,
In this quotation from Venu Gita, Srila Narayana Maharaja is taking the middleposition of saying that the manjaris have a sthayi-bhava for Radha-Krishna.Although both Rupa and Jiva Goswamis said that in bhava-ullasa-rati love forRadha remains a sancari-bhava, it has been explained that some devotees takethe position of seeing bhava-ullasa-rati as a sthayi-bhava for Radha-Krishnadue to the fact that Rupa Goswami’s statements are in the sthayi-bhava sectionof Brs. and the unique nature of the manjari's love for Radha exceeds theirlove for Krishna.
From the quotations on this thread, we see that Srila Narayana Maharaja has inseveral has taken this middle position. However, in the Ramananda Samvadaquotation, it says that the manjaris’ relationship with Krishna becomes asancari-bhava and that the manjaris have a sthayi-bhava only for Radha. Thisstatement appears to go too far. It contradicts Rupa Goswami as well as theposition that Narayana Maharaja himself has taken in several other books. Forthis reason, it appears to be an editing mistake.
The quotation from Srila Sridhara Maharaja that Shanti Devi kindly suppliedcould arguably be used to support seeing Radha and Krishna as a joint object ofthe manjaris’ sthayi-bhava, but it does not support the idea of therelationship with Krishna being demoted to a sancari-bhava because it says, “Weworship Krishna because He is Radharani's favorite.” In other words, it is notthat Krishna is no longer the visaya (the object of worship) and only Radha is.Although it is true that the statement, “Our interest is in Radharani, andKrsna is Her favorite. And only because She wants Krsna do we have anyconnection with Him," might sound like sancari-bhava, the Goswamis havenot taken that position, and as I noted previously, if it were the case thenthe manjaris would be categorized as being in dasya-rasa with Radharani, notmadhurya-rasa with Krishna. Problematic.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
January 19,2011 at 1:53pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern i read the above statement quite differentfrom u dear Vrindaranya didi, in essence:
Of the five types of sakhis, only the nitya sakhis and prana sakhis, who areknown as manjaris, have this bhava-ullasa-rati as their permanent emotions(sthayi-rati). It is no longer just a sancari-bhava. These manjaris nurture anabundance of sneha, tender affection, for Radhaji.
no need to say more :-)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:21 pm
Swami Tripurari Bheda Brajendra,
I do not agree with you that the section from SNM's Venu-gita commentaryrepresents a second place (Ramanada Samvad being the first) in which he statesthat the manjaris have a sthayi-bhava only for Radha and not for Krsna. Firstof all it is not SNM speaking at all. It is his editors who have footnoted his lecture.
Secondly, the editors write that the manjaris' love is "no longer just asancari-bhava." They do not say that their love is a sthayi-bhava forRadha alone. They merely say that the manjari's love is bhavollasa rati andthat bhavollasa rati is a sthayi-bhava, which everyone agrees on. Furthermorethey say that manjaris relish an abundance of tender affection for Radhaji. That'sall.
January 19,2011 at 3:01pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern Dear Svami Tripurari, please accept mypranams. The endnote is taken from a printed book of Shrila B.V. Narayan Mhj,namely Venu Gita Vers 7. I understand from this and from what i have heard frommy gurudeva that those manjaris have a sthayi bhava for Shri Radha and sancaribhava for Shri Krishna. If u read sth different from that quote...so beit...jay shri radhee :-)
January 19,2011 at 3:22pm · LikeUnlike
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern at least we are now so fine tund as to examinewether it is a sthayi bhava for Shri Radha only or one for Radha-Krishnacombined...i guess disciples of Shrila Narayan Mhj may have more of a feelingfor what he means by the quoted statements even if the negation of having asthayi for Shri Krishna is not yet given from his writings...
January 19,2011 at 3:31pm · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari I think that Vrindaranya’s question to NandiniRadhe is a fair one. I have known her over the years as Govinda dasi, since thetime she took diksa from B.G. Narasingha maharaja after leaving HridayanandaMaharaja her previous diksa guru. I think she later left Narasingha Swami andtook initiation for B.P. Puri Goswami (not sure). And for some time at leastshe had some kind of a siksa (maybe diska) relationship with Jagadananda. Nowit she seems to be initiated by B.V. Narayana Maharaja (but maybe not).
At any rate, I would like to know who her diksa guru is, and if possible, Iwould like to speak with him/her about her conduct and understanding ofGaudiya-siddanta, which I find disturbing. Needless to say I do not agree withher history of events in my spiritual life nor her assessment of my motives.Furthermore, none of the spiritual authorities mentioned above regard me as shedoes. Indeed they all teach their followers to respect me. She would do well tofollow their lead in this regard.
At any rate, her charges against me are basically that I did not “take shelterof SNM” and I differ from him concerning my guru’s spiritual sentiment. It istrue that I did not join SNM’s sect, but I also discussed this with him in 1997and he encouraged me to remain separate from his sect and to continue servingmy gurus within my own sect. It is also true that I see my guru in sakhya rasaand SNM seems him in gopi-bhava. His position is based on his realization andthe scriptural logic he has presented in Gauravani Pracarine. Mine is based onmy realization and the scriptural evidence (not mundane logic) presented in OMy Friend. I encourage others to read both and make their own decision on thematter, but if they choose the conclusions of Gauravani Pracarine instead ofthose of O My Friend, I do consider them unworthy of hearing from. As BhagavataM and I have already explained, there are different spiritual ways of lookingat such issues.
Let readers decide for themselves if I am worthy of being listed to on thetopic under discussion here.
January 19,2011 at 3:32pm · LikeUnlike · 5
Swami Tripurari Bheda,
You have neglected the fact that earlier on this thread Caitanya Candrodayacited SNM's commentary on Upadesmarta in which he stated that the manjari'slove for Radha is a sancari-bhava.
January 19,2011 at 3:35pm · LikeUnlike
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern @ Swami Bv Tripurari: i agree with u on thepoint with Nandini and therefor it would be nice if we needed not hear allthis...see also my previous comments on the subject.
i did not neglect the quote from Upadeshamrita actually it´s the same words andin the end it is said:
"Of the five types of sakhis, only the nitya sakhis and prana sakhis, whoare known as manjaris, have this bhava-ullasa-rati as their permanent emotions(st...hayi-rati)"
same thing in all three places .-)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:22 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Bheda Brajendraji,
What you have quoted is a paraphrase of Brs. 2.5.128. However, please note thatit adds a purport into the translation. A straight translation reads,
“If the rati of the associates of Radha directed to Radha is equal or less thantheir rati directed to Krsna, the rati directed to Radha is calledsancari-rati, nourishing the rati towards Krsna. If the rati of Radha’sassociates directed to Radha is greater than that directed to Krsna, and isconstantly increasing, though it is still a sancari-bhava, it is calledbhavollasa-rati.”
Sri Jiva Goswami comments on this verse, “If that rati directed to Radha isgreater than the person’s rati directed to Krsna, constantly increasing withaffection (pusyamana), it is called bhavollasa to indicate its special nature,though that rati directed to Radha is still a sancari-bhava. This statement hasbeen written here as it is remembered at this point, though it should beincluded at the end of the topic of sancari-bhavas or vyabhicari-bhavas, sinceit belongs to the same topic.”
So all that the quote you supplied does is to open the possibility thatRadha-Krishna is the object of the sthayi-bhava, not that Radharani alone is.
Furthermore, because Rupa and Jiva Goswamis say that bhavollasa-rati remains a sancari-bhava,I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that "at least we are now sofine tund as to examine wether it is a sthayi bhava for Shri Radha only or onefor Radha-Krishna combined." So again, how did you determine that weshould dismiss the standard understanding that Rupa and Jiva Goswamis gave?
Ys,
Vrindaranya
January 19,2011 at 3:52pm · LikeUnlike · 3
Swami Tripurari Bheda,
Here is the section:
However, in the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati (for Sri Radha andeverything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds their krsna-rati andwhich constantly increases by the moment due to their full absorption in it, iscalled bhava-ullasa-rati, despite being a sancari-bhava. This is a specialfeature of madhura rasa. Of the five types of sakhis, only the nitya sakhis andprana sakhis, who are known as manjaris, have this bhava-ullasa-rati as theirpermanent emotion (sthayi rati). They nurture an abundance of sneha, tenderaffection, for Radhaji."
Here SNM says that " . . . it is called bhavollasa rati, despite being asancari-bhava." In other words bhavaollasa rati itself is a sthayi-bhavabut as explained herein by SNM in concert with Sri Rupa and Sri Jiva, theirlove for Rahha remains a sancari-bhava, albeit an extraordinary one.
These paragraphs are so close to the ones you cited that it is apparent to methey have been edited and that the editing has rendered them contradictory.Here the manjari's love is a sancari-bhava, in the other it is "no longera sancari-bhava." Contradiction.
January 19,2011 at 3:57pm · LikeUnlike · 2
Madan Gopal Bheda: Yes, it "would be nice if weneeded not hear all this...", but until Bhagavat Maharaj edits NandiniRadhe's diversionary comments out, some of us cannot let her statements standwithout response.
Thank you for all you are contributing to the real discussion. I would ask thatyou just ignore anything unrelated. There is no more response necessary from meunless (Krsna forbid) she posts more of the same.
January 19,2011 at 4:48pm · LikeUnlike
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern @Madan, agree with u.
@Tripurari Svami and Vrandaranya devi:
thanx for further clarifying your point of view, i must agree i didn´t c thatsubtlty before. I´ll meditate about it and at the same time hope for some morerelated quotes to be given.
jay nitai!!!
January 19,2011 at 5:02pm · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari Correction: I wrote,
"I encourage others to read both and make their own decision on thematter, but if they choose the conclusions of Gauravani Pracarine instead ofthose of O My Friend, I do consider them unworthy of hearing from."
There is a typo in this sentence. It should read "I do not consider themunworthy of hearing from."
Sorry for that.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:23 pm
Nimai Caitanya Das all is very interesting. One thing that was abit disturbing Tripurari Maharaja, is when you said, ...."I do considerthem unworthy of hearing from", in regard to aligning with GauravaniPracarine. Seems a bit harsh to use the work unworthy in reference to therealization of a great vaisnava, even if you disagree.
January 19,2011 at 8:32pm · LikeUnlike
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern dear Nimai, did u carefully read the last postof Tripurari Mhj?
January 19,2011 at 8:37pm · LikeUnlike
Nitaisundara Dasa Nimai Caitanya prabhu, please look at the postright before yours where Maharaja explains that was a typo.
January 19,2011 at 8:37pm · LikeUnlike
Nimai Caitanya Das I did miss that for sure....i thought it musthave been a typo but did not see the correction. thanks for directing me to it!
January 19,2011 at 8:58pm · LikeUnlike
Braja Sundari Did I miss it or nobody addressedVrindaranya`s point that in case of having exclusive sthayi rati for Radhamanjaris would be excluded from being examples of madhurya relationship withKrishna? I guess it would turn bhakti rasamrta sindhu upside down...
January 19,2011 at 9:28pm · LikeUnlike
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern it is not that manjaris are in madhur rasawith Radharani, they just have their nishta in Shri Radha and abundant sneha(suhrit rati, intimate friendship) and relish madhur rasa thru Her...and as imentioned before: radha-krishna pranay vikritir hladini shaktir asmad EKATMANAVapi bhuvi deha bhedam gatau tau :-)
January 19,2011 at 11:30pm · LikeUnlike
Taruna Krsna Dasa That's great Bheda Brajendra, I'm pretty surewe agree with you on all of that. However, when you switch your sthayi-bhavawith Lord Krsna and your sancari-bhava with Sri Radharani, and make SriRadharani the object of your sthayi-bhava and Lord Krsna the object of yoursancari-bhava, you are reversing their roles, which in effect takes yourmadhurya-rasa with Lord Krsna and redirects it towards Sri Radha, which isn'tpossible, which is why Vrindaranya said that by doing all of this, you areturning your exalted madhurya-rasa with Lord Krsna into a dasya-rasarelationship with Sri Radha.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:24 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja OK I have a question at this point in theconversation. Srila Sridhara Maharaja is saying in the post given by shantidasi that some Jivas are born out of Balaramas effulgence and some jivasoriginate from the Halo of Radharani, Now Tripurari Maharaja is saying thatthis only refers to Nitya parishads not the jivas of this world. However Iremember Srila Narayan Maharaja saying that jivas emanated from SrimatiRadhika. It also appears from the language of Srila Sridhara Maharaja when hesays: "That is the source from whence some of us are born. Some haveconnection with Baladeva's anga-jyoti, but others originate from the halo ofRadharani and Her group. These souls have a direct connection with Radharani.She is their Mistress and they necessarily follow whatever She does." Thisquote would indicate that he is indeed talking about the jivas that take birthin this world not just Nitya Parishads. Other wise what you are saying is thatSrila Sridhara Maharaja is not addressing his audience he is speaking onlyabout the disciples of SBSST who were nitya parishads who took birth to preach.However the language SSM uses does not suggest that at all. Rather it suggeststhat he is including his audience which would mean Jivas in general in thisworld.
Then the quote by Srila Saraswati Thakura from that post where he says that weare suddha shaktas worshippers of gods potency. Is this supposed to mean onlythose of his disciples who were Nitaya Parishads? Then Srila Sridhara Maharajaends by saying that the gist of the sannyasa-mantra, is gopi-dasya.
This last point is exactly what is up for discussion right now!
If the sthayi bhava is for Radha then we lose the Madhuya rasa and we come intoa mood of dasya rasa with Radha. It appears from the quote of Srila SridharaMaharaja that in fact we are becoming Gopi dasya. However I do find it hard tobelieve that the manjaris are no longer in Madhurya rasa. Can the indirect moodof Madhurya by vicariously experiencing it through Radharani be a sancari Bhavain Madhurya rasa? I am asking a question to my self and others to look at whatSSM is saying and then ask your self what is the meaning of being a suddhashakta worshiper in Gopi Dasya. If the gist of the sannyas mantra is that thisthen it must mean all sannaysis not just the nitya parishads.
Just some thoughts and questions
January 20,2011 at 6:31am · LikeUnlike
Bhagavat Maharaja Dandavats to one and all. After dueconsideration all day yesterday I decided to clean the thread. I was hoping firstand foremost for a reconciliation. However it appears that Nandini Radhe couldnot stop carrying the problem in her heart even though Srila Narayan Maharajahad put this to rest long ago with his letter to Tripurari Maharaja where hestates that this is ok for you but I will never see like that.
I was a foster parent in my Grihastha days and took care of 70 abused children.I have some professional training in dealing with different psychologicalproblems. What we were dealing with here was a classic case of passiveaggressive behavior. Where one speaks in a calm and clear manner with verylogical words but with the intent all along of baiting the persons she isdealing with to come to the point of anger due to frustration. Then of coursethey smile. I have in my life faced this behavior on many occasions. Some timeago I realized that this was one of Krsnas tests for me to learn trnad apisunicena taror api sahishnuna. So I did my best to deal with this in avaishnava like manner.
I was asked by Srila Narayan Maharaja to be a mother to his disciples probablybecause he saw within my heart the qualities I was bringing with me from myfoster parenting days. On a couple of occasions I had to return some childrento the state who were impossible to parent. Nandini Radhe please forgive me formy inability to parent you properly I am sorry that I have failed you. I havetried my best. So I am asking you to please speak with Symarani didi or some ofthe other senior women in SNM sangha and discuss this with them and hopefullyyou will be able to find an answer that will satisfy your heart.
Your aspiring servant
Bhagavat Swami
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:29 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats Bhagavat Maharaja:
Srila Sridhara Maharaja spoke about nitya siddhas, some are coming fromBalarama, from Radharani comes her sakhis.
Jiva is coming from tathasta sakti:
Jaiva Dharma Chapter 15:
"The jiva is not nitya-siddha, although when he performs sadhana,he can become sadhana-siddha and enjoy transcendental happiness like the nitya-siddhas, eternally perfect beings. All the four types of Srimati Radhika's sakhis are nitya-siddha, and they are direct expansions (kaya-vyuha) of the cit-sakti, Srimati Radhika Herself. All the jivas, on the other hand, have manifested from Sri Krishna's jiva-sakti. The cit-sakti is Sri Krishna's complete sakti, whereas the jiva-sakti is His incomplete sakti. Just as the complete tattvas are all transformations of the complete potency, similarly innumerable atomic, conscious jivas are transformations of the incomplete sakti. Sri Krishna, being established in each of His saktis, manifests His svarupa according to the nature of that sakti. When He is situated in the cit-svarupa, He manifests His svarupa as Sri Krishna and also as Narayana, the Lord of Paravyoma; when He is situated in the jiva-sakti, He manifests His svarupa as His vilasa-murti of Vraja, Baladeva; and being established in the maya-sakti, He manifests the three Vishnu forms: Karanodakasayi, Kshirodakasayi and Garbhodakasayi. In His Krishna form in Vraja, He manifests all the spiritual affairs to thesuperlative degree. In His Baladeva svarupa as sesha-tattva, He manifestsnitya-mukta-parshada-jivas, eternally liberated associates, who render eighttypes of service to Krishna seshi tattva-svarupa, the origin of sesha-tattva.Again, as sesha-rupa Sankarshana in Paravyoma, He manifests eight types of servants to render eight kinds of services as eternally liberated associates of seshi-rupa Narayana.
Maha-Vishnu, who is an avatara of Sankarshana,situates Himself in the jiva-sakti,and in His Paramatma svarupa, He manifests the jivas who have the potential tobe involved in the material world. These jivas are susceptible to the influenceof maya, and unless they attain the shelter of the hladini-sakti of thecit-sakti by Bhagavan's mercy, the possibility of their being defeated by mayaremains. The countless conditioned jivas who have been conquered by maya aresubordinate to the three modes of material nature. Bearing all this in mind,the siddhanta is that it is only the jiva-sakti, and not the cit-sakti, thatmanifests the jivas."
January 20,2011 at 9:33am · LikeUnlike · 1
Bhagavat Maharaja I am familiar with all of this from JaivaDharma. However I was wondering about Srila Sridhara Maharajas wording. He seemsto be saying that we take birth, meaning all if the jivas, in that lecture fromone source or the other. I was surprised because I had read what you haveposted in Jaiva Dharma before and I have lectured on it. SO I am familiar withit. Just trying to understand the intent of the Language used by Srila SridharaMaharaja.
January 20,2011 at 9:43am · LikeUnlike · 1
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats Maharaja , I know that you arefamiliar with jiva issue, Srila Narayana Maharaja put stress on this tattva andall of his desciples know this tattava very well,
What is with this topic about Radhika's maidservants, sthayi bhava or sancaribhava?...
January 20,2011 at 9:54am · LikeUnlike
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern From what i´ve read and heard, i also don´tremember any case speaking of jivas coming from Radharani, only nitya-siddhas.
Still i don´t see the problem of loosing madhur rasa when beeing in intimatefriendhip with Radharani. while serving Her madhurya with Krishna. they are Onesoul and some certain type of manjaris just have their nishta in Radharani andserve Krishna in that way, that they arrange His meatings with Radharani etc.
And the manjaris suhrid-rati for Radharani is their promonent, persistent bhava(shtayi-bhava), nevertheless they also have love for Krishna, so madhurya rasais also there, no problem.
I want to give an example to point in the direction, pls take the essence of itand discard the limitations of it:
Like a little sister in this worls can partially experience the relation herolder sister has with her boy friend thru her narrations.
Of course the manjaris can fully experience everything that Radha experiences,to the point of experiencing transformation in their siddha-deha...even if insome case they do not see what is happening in Radha-Krishna´s meating :-) jay shriradhe
January 20,2011 at 11:15am · LikeUnlike · 1
Shanti Devi Dasi How can you loose madhura rasa if you areservant of Srimati Radhika? you cannot be servant of Radhika if you are not inthis rasa....
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern exaktly, i was referring to Tarun Krishna´scomment :-)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:30 pm
Taruna Krsna Dasa Bheda Brajendra and Shanti Devi,
Therein lies the problem. Switching the sthayi-bhava and sancari-bhava isproblematic for the lila. The comment I borrowed from Vrindaranya's post isjust showing what the logical conclusion is if you place Sri Radha in thecenter instead of Lord Krsna. The only point that we are trying to make is thatregardless of how powerful your relationship is with Sri Radha, Krsna is stillat the center of the equation since He is Sri Radha's center. Therefore thesthayi-bhava always remains with Sri Krsna. We are Krsna Conscious, not RadhaConscious, are we not?
January 20,2011 at 1:34pm · LikeUnlike
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern as u say: "regardless of how powerfulyour relationship is with Sri Radha, Krsna is still at the center of theequation since He is Sri Radha's center." so now problem at all...and as Irepeat over and over again, Radha-Krishna are Ekatma, one soul and Krishna´sdesires are fullfilled by Radha to the best, so the manjaris seva to Shri Radhais seva to Krishna at it´s best. And as we read in former comments, we arepure-saktas, are connection with Krishna is only thru Radha and we are alsoshakti. Even the jiva-shakti of Maha-Vishnu is ultimate just a partialtransformation of Svarup-shakti, Shrimati Radhika. Radha-bhajane jadi nahi Wedon´t want Krishna, we want suddha-bhakti as explaines in "anyabhilasitashunyam" verse.
January 20,2011 at 1:50pm · LikeUnlike · 
2
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern further (also mentioned b4:
i took it from the page of Bhakti Sundar Govinda Dev-Goswami Maharaj:
radhika charana padma sakala sreyera sadma
yatane ne nahi aradhila
"I did not take care to worship the lotus feet of Sri Radhika, which arethe abode of all auspiciousness." The Rupanuga Sampradaya gives somespecial, unique appreciation of Srimati Radharani. They feel that without themerciful connection of Srimati Radharani, they cannot approach towards Krishnaat all. Only if the order is coming from Her will they move towards Him. Theyare extremely fanatical about Srimati Radharani, and that is their foremostqualification. In another song Bhaktivinod Thakur says:
radha-bhajane yadi mati nahi bhela
krsna bhajana tava akararane gela
If you have no intention to serve Srimati Radharani, if your intention is onlyservice to Sri Krishna, then you are surely spoiled.
atapa rahita suraya nahi jani
radha-virahita madhava nahi mani
Just as without heat we cannot know the sun, so without Srimati Radharani thereis no Krishna; the Powerful is Powerless. Kevala Madhava pujaye so ajnani - whoworships Krishna without Radharani, their conception must be imperfect. Whoknows the glories of the Power must first worship the Power and then thePowerful. Uma, Rama, Satya, Sachi, Chandra, Rukmini, Radha Avatara sabe amnayavani - all the auspicious, powerful, divine women, such as Uma, Ramadevi,Laksmi, Satyabhama, Sati, Chandravali, etc., all are the expansions of SrimatiRadharani.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:30 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern and also:
"Within the group of Radharani's servitors, we aspire to be rupanugas,followers of Sri Rupa. And the followers of Sri Rupa will have greatearnestness to look after the order of Sri Rupa, as he does towards Lalita. Inthis way, through Rupa Goswami, our devotional service is going to the highestplane. And our highest gain is only there. Not even our connection withRadharani or Lalitadevi is the highest goal of life, but our highest aspirationis to serve in the Rupanuga Sampradaya; that means that our highest attainmentis in Sri Rupa's connection.
Radha-dasyam has been said to be the highest attainment. Why? The quality andquantity of rasa that Radharani can draw from Krsna can never be found anywhereelse. So if you are situated just behind Radharani, you'll be allowed to tastenot only the quantity, but the highest quality of rasa.
No other person can draw such high rasa from Krsna. The fullest, highest typeof quality is drawn from Krsna: He gives Himself fully and wholly and deeply.So if you are in Sri Rupa's group, then you can have a taste of that sort ofrasa."
~Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaj, Loving Search for the LostServant, Chapter Nine
January 20,2011 at 1:54pm · LikeUnlike · 2
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Bhagavata Maharaja,
I looked up the transcription of the quote of Srila Sridhara Maharaja, andespecially in light of the siddhanta in quotes like the one that Shanti dasiprovided, it appears that the second interpretation that you gave is morelikely (SSM was referring to nitya-siddhas). You will see that the transcriptprovides more room for such a reading:
“Then later on I read in Jaiva Dharma, or somewhere else that some jiva, some,they are born out of Baladeva's anga jyoti, the brahmajyoti, the unit ofnondistinguishable Divine halo, that is the foundation where we get our birth;so some have connection with Baladev's angajyoti, they are ....in general, butsome have got their birth from the halo of Radharani, and her group.” (SrilaSridhara Maharaja, 10.31.1981)
A significant point in this transcription is that Srila Sridhara Maharajareferences his source material (Jaiva Dharma), so we can go there to clarifywhat he was saying. From Jaiva Dharma we get the understanding that Shanti deviposted. Thus, the gopis and sakti tattva (queens in Dwaraka, consorts inVaikuntha, etc.) emanate from Sri Radha, and jivas, who emanate fromMaha-Visnu, can come into Radharani’s group by taking shelter of one of theeternal associates.
You asked, “Can the indirect mood of Madhurya by vicariously experiencing itthrough Radharani be a sancari Bhava in Madhurya rasa?” If you mean could oneexperience madhurya-rasa as a sancari-bhava, that would contradict Brs. in thatone must have all five constituents of rasa (sthayi-bhava, vibhava, anubhava,sancari-bhava, and sattvika-bhava) in place to experience rasa. Also, Brs.delineates the 32 sancari-bhavas and madhurya is not one of them (it is asthayi-bhava).
Ys,
Vrindaranya
January 20,2011 at 1:55pm · LikeUnlike
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Bheda Brajendra and Shanti,
If your sthayi-bhava is for Radharani alone (not Radha and Krishna), then therasa that you experience would be in relation to Radha alone, since asancari-bhava cannot produce rasa, because (1) Your relationship with Krsnawould be demoted to a sancari bhava if he is no longer the object of yoursthayi bhava. (2) All five constituents of rasa must combine to produce rasa(sancari-bhava alone does not produce rasa).
Therefore, since the manjaris are obviously experiencing madhurya-rasa(vicariously through Sri Radha), they must have either Krishna alone or Radhaand Krishna as the object of their sthayi-bhava. If Radha alone were the objectof their sthayi-bhava, how else would it be possible for them to experiencemadhurya-rasa?
Bheda, about what you quoted, radha-krishna pranay vikritir hladini shaktirasmad EKATMANAV api bhuvi deha bhedam gatau tau, if you are looking at Radhaand Krishna in terms of being one identity (ekatmanau), then where is thepossibility of Radha alone being the sthayi-bhava? From that angle of vision,Radha is Radha-Krishna.
That said, Radha and Krishna are, of course, one and different: Krishna isVisnu-tattva and Radharani is sakti-tattva. Which brings up anotherconsideration: how would it be possible to not have a sthayi-bhava forGod/Visnu-tattva? Seems philosophically flawed.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:31 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern very good points you are making dearVrindaranya didi :-)
especially about the constituents of rasa, i have to agree,
still there is the statement of our Gurudeva. And it is way beyond myrealization and so i cannot say anything further siddhantic, i guess.
I can only speculate that if the sthayi bhav is for shri radha in intimatefriendhip, manjaris experience her madhurya rasa.
We are hoping to receive some reconciliation from some of the highly advancedand learned disciples of our Shrila Gurudeva.
jay shri radhee
January 20,2011 at 2:14pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Swami Tripurari If one is in madhurya rasa it is eitherdirectly (sambhogaecchamyi) with Krsna or indirectly (tad bhavaeccha-mayi). Thelatter is the bhava of the manjari. And according to Rupa and Jiva Goswamis,this consists of a sthayi-bhava for Krsna and an extraordinary sancari bhava(bhavollasa) for Radha. If someone has a different opinion, it is their own,not Rupa Goswami's. If their opinion is that the manjari's bhava consists of astahyi bhava for Radha Krsna combined, this is a way of saying that themanjari's sancari-bhava acts more like a sthyai-bhava than a sancari bhava solet's call it a stahyi-bhava. This opinion is acceptable. If on the other handone says that bhaollasa rati is a sthayi bhava for Radha alone and asancari-bhava for Krsna, many philosophical problems arise, as we have seen onthis thread.
Now we have seen that Narayana Maharaja has said that bhavollasa consists of asthayi for Radha alone and a sancari for Krsna, but we have also seen that hehas said otherwise on the same issue elsewhere. In other lectures he has saidthat bhavollasa rati is a sthayi bhava for Radha Krsna. Again, this isacceptable to the followers of Sri Rupa. How can we expect to embrace bothcontradictory statements, especially when one completely contradicts Sri Rupaand brings up the many philosophical problems brought up here? Attempts to doso are futile.
Sometimes my esteemed Gurudeva, Om Visnupada Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupadasaid one thing and meant another. Sometimes he quoted half of one verse andhalf of another. How then could he been free from mistakes? Answer: He nevermistook maya for Krsna. Otherwise he left some service for empowered preachersexplain what he meant when he said one thing and meant another. I experiencedthe same thing with Pujyapada B.R. Sridharadeva Goswami.
So I would suggest that the simplest explanation of the issue at hand is amisstatement on the part of SNM or his editors. Such things happen. Again it isfutile to try to make this statement of his (if he made it) standphilosophically when he himself has said the opposite and in doing soaccurately represented Sri Rupa, which was his oft stated entire purpose inlife.
January 20,2011 at 2:15pm · LikeUnlike · 5
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern good point BV Tripurari, i´m sure our BhagavadSvami is already investigating into this...and i´m optimistic all will beclarified very soon...
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:32 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern one point here in the original quote is though"it becomes", so it seems that initially it was for Krishna orRadha-Krishna and then becomes more for Radha...just some thought
January 20,2011 at 2:26pm · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari Regarding SSM's statement that we are suddhasaktas, he made it clear to me personally that he meant by this that Gaudiyasin madhurya rasa give preference to Radha over Krsna in tad bhavaeccha-mayibhava. Nothing more.
We also have to understand the difference between speaking in terms oflila/bhava and speaking in terms of siddhanta. If we say, "We do not carefor Krsna. We only serve the lotus feet of our mistress Radha." This is astatement in bhava, a statement from the perspective of lila. In lila Radha'smaidservants will make statements like this and dismiss Krsna. However, theunderlying siddhanta is that the manjari is the most dear to Krsna and relishesRadha's romantic love for him herself.
Indeed from the vantage point of siddhanta manjari-bhava is a strategy toplease Krsna in the most comprehensive way possible—as Radha does. No one canbe Radha but one can taste her love for Krsna by becoming her maidservant. Butagain, when this is voiced from the standpoint of bhava it sounds like manhjari-bhavais not about serving Krsna!
So we should not always take statements expressing bhava as statements thatexpress siddhanta. Bhava is not contradictory to siddhanta, but it is adifferent way of expressing the same thing that will be properly understood byone who knows the siddhanta. Without proper understandign of siddhanta, suchstatements can be misunderstood and then we make up our own siddhanta tosupport our misunderstanding that is really only apasiddhanta. This can beavoided by good association.
January 20, 2011 at 2:33pm · LikeUnlike · 4
Swami Tripurari No Bheda. "It becomes" simply meansthat in this instance it becomes (according the SNM) a sthayi-bhava for Radha,as opposed to other cases.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:33 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi It occurred to me that some may be gettinghung up on the terminology “sthayi-bhava for Krishna alone” or “Krishna aloneas the visaya.” With the general translation of visaya as “object of worship,”then it sounds like these phrases mean a devotee only worships Krishna, hencethe many quotes denouncing this idea.
As even the dust in Vrindavana is worshipable, it is impossible that RupaGoswami meant that all the Vrajabasis worship only Krishna. Rupa Goswamidoesn’t worship Radharani? Impossible.
Therefore, we must understand the technical implications of sthayi-bhava.Sthayi-bhava means “permanent emotion.” By implication, we can draw out thatthe person with whom we experience rasa is the object of our sthayi-bhava. Thenwe must understand that Vrajabasis can experience extremely intense bhavas inrelation to each other that are nonetheless not rasa because all fiveconstituents of rasa must combine to produce rasa. In other words, having asthayi-bhava for Krishna alone doesn’t mean that one doesn’t have intense lovefor other residents of Vrindavana.
Another issue that arises: the definition of sthayi, “fixed.” If one has asthayi-bhava for Krishna alone, does this mean that the Vrajabasis’ feelingsfor each other are somehow transitory, coming and going? That they don’t havefixed affection for each other? No, this is not the implication. It means thatthe basis of their experience of rasa is love for Krishna.
Thus one must analyze the rasa in order to understand the sthayi-bhava. Whatexactly is the rasa? For example, the manjaris vicariously experienceRadharani’s emotions. What are her emotions? Maha-bhava, the height ofmadhurya-rasa with Krishna.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
January 20,2011 at 2:56pm · UnlikeLike · 5
Vrindaranya Dasi The following quote of Srila Sridhara Maharajathat Bheda Brajendra posted is excellent for understanding Radha-dasyam andwhat rasa the manjaris are experiencing:
"Radha-dasyam has been said to be the highest attainment. Why? The qualityand quantity of rasa that Radharani can draw from Krsna can never be foundanywhere else. So if you are situated just behind Radharani, you'll be allowedto taste not only the quantity, but the highest quality of rasa.
"No other person can draw such high rasa from Krsna. The fullest, highesttype of quality is drawn from Krsna: He gives Himself fully and wholly anddeeply. So if you are in Sri Rupa's group, then you can have a taste of thatsort of rasa." (Srila Sridhara Maharaja)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:34 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi " ...If their opinion is that the manjari's bhava consists of astahyi bhava for RadhaKrsna combined, this is a way of saying that the manjari's sancari-bhava actsmore like a sthyai-bhava than a sancari bhava so let's call it a stahyi-bhava.This opinion is acceptable.
Now we have seen that Narayana Maharaja has said that bhavollasa consists of asthayi for Radha alone and a sancari for Krsna, but we have also seen that hehas said otherwise on the same issue elsewhere. In other lectures he has saidthat bhavollasa rati is a sthayi bhava for Radha Krsna. Again, this isacceptable to the followers of Sri Rupa. "
I think this is the case here...
... we cannot separate Radha from Krishna.... no one said this...
some devotees mentioned only that for manjaris Radha is all in all, and throughHer they serve Krisha also...
This seva is described in Jaiva Dharma ch 39:
Gosvami: "You are Radha's maidservant, and without Her permission youcannot serve Krishna. You are not independent. Although you love Radha andKrishna both, your love and service to Radha is more important to you than yourlove and service to Krishna. That is the explanation of the word 'seva'. Yourservice is to serve Sri Radha throughout the eight periods of the day.Following the descriptions in Srila Svarupa Damodara's Kadaca (notebook), SrilaRaghunatha dasa Gosvami describes these services in his poemVilapa-kusumanjali...."
... I agree, this is so high topic, this love for Radha is not something tolearn, to read or to discuss, this will manifest in heart by the mercy ofdevotee who is very intimate servant of Sri Radhika... we can read about this,we can write about this, but without to surrender to the feet of Gaura priyajana, dear devotee of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Krishna, we cannot understandthis...
Thank you Tripurari Maharaja for your enlightened words...
January 20, 2011 at 3:16pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Shanti dasi,
In response to the statement:
“Now we have seen that Narayana Maharaja has said that bhavollasa consists of asthayi for Radha alone and a sancari for Krsna, but we have also seen that hehas said otherwise on the same issue elsewhere. In other lectures he has saidthat bhavollasa rati is a sthayi bhava for Radha Krsna. Again, this isacceptable to the followers of Sri Rupa. "
You replied:
“I think this is the case here...
... we cannot separate Radha from Krishna.... no one said this...
some devotees mentioned only that for manjaris Radha is all in all, and throughHer they serve Krisha also...
I’m surprised by what you wrote here. Perhaps I have misunderstood you. As Iunderstand it, this whole discussion has been about whether manjaris have asthayi-bhava for Krishna, Radha-Krishna, or Radha, and the fact that SrilaNarayana Maharaja has said in one place that manjaris have sthayi-bhava forRadha and Krishna and in another place that they have sthayi-bhava for Radhaalone and sancari-bhava for Krishna.
When you say, “we cannot separate Radha from Krishna…no one said this,” are yousaying that no one said that manjaris have a sthayi-bhava for Radha alone? Ifso, you seem to have missed the topic of this discussion.
You also say, “some devotees mentioned only that for manjaris Radha is all inall, and through Her they serve Krishna also.” This seems to indicate that theonly thing devotees have said is that manjaris have a sthayi-bhava for Radhaand Krishna. But this is not the case. As I mentioned, the genesis of thediscussion is that Srila Narayana Maharaja has said in one place that manjarishave sthayi-bhava for Radha and Krishna and in another place that they havesthayi-bhava for Radha alone and sancari-bhava for Krishna.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. I just wanted to make sure we were allon the same page on what the discussion is about, as it is confusing if we arediscussing different things.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
January 20,2011 at 4:57pm · LikeUnlike · 2
Shanti Devi Dasi ...sorry Vrindarayana, I do not speak english well, so I cant expressmyself nicely..
Shanti Devi Dasi ...sorry Vrindarayana, I do not speak english well, so I cant expressmyself nicely..
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:35 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern it might be useful to know some basics of rasato avoid rasa-abhasa or conflicting moods in ones sadhana, but ultimately withShanti Devi:
"this love for Radha is not something to learn, to read or to discuss,this will manifest in heart by the mercy of devotee who is very intimateservant of Sri Radhika... we can read about this, we can write about this, butwithout to surrender to the feet of Gaura priya jana, dear devotee of CaitanyaMahaprabhu and Krishna, we cannot understand this..."
i´m not even surrendered to Guru & Gauranga
i only participate in this discussion for my own purification
not because i´m qualified...please bless
jay shrila Gurudeva!!!
January 20,2011 at 5:09pm · LikeUnlike · 2
Vrindaranya Dasi You have contributed some key quotations,Shanti. I was just worried that we weren't in agreement about the main topic ofdiscussion.
January 20,2011 at 5:20pm · LikeUnlike
Shanti Devi Dasi Sorry devotees, I am limited by language...
January 20,2011 at 5:53pm · LikeUnlike
Vrindaranya Dasi Aho Bheda and Shanti! You guys have beenserving your Guru Maharaja by meditating on the meaning of his words and makingsuch nice spiritual points, so your participation is kathayantam ca mam nityamtusyanti ca ramanti ca:
“Those surrendered devotees take Me as their life and soul, and go ondiscussing My ambrosial narrations among one another, exchanging the ecstasiesof devotion unto Me. They constantly relish the nectar of their realized divinerelationships with Me in their respective internal natures of servitor ship,friendship, parenthood, or consorthood.” (Translation by Srila SridharaMaharaja)
There is a story I like: someone asked Srila Sridhara Maharaja for some serviceand he replied, "Change your angle of vision." So trying to broadenour vision, see different angles, and see more clearly, this also is service toour Gurudeva.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:36 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja Vrndaranya yes but if the Sthayi Bhava waswith the with Radha who is receiving the Madhurya from Krsna and you are tastingthrough her then you have all 5. I was assuming people understood what I meantwhen I said this. So the real question is can the Madhurya rasa be experiencedin that way while have the sthayi bhava for Radha.
However I am only framing the question. I am looking at the other Things thatSrila Narayan Maharaja has said and I am starting to wonder if he were here nowif he would say something like this:
"What I meant is that it is a sthayi Bhava for Radha and Krsna but thereis just so much more focus on Radha so I termed it in that way but what Ireally meant was the former." At this point in the discussion I am gettingthe impression he might say something like that. I may be wrong but I am stillwaiting for a response from some other devotees as well.
January 20,2011 at 8:08pm · LikeUnlike
Vrindaranya Dasi Maybe Srila Narayana Maharaja's statement wasan expression of bhava, like the gopis advising not to love Krsna, when,according to the angle of tattva, they have the highest love for Krsna.
January 20,2011 at 9:14pm · LikeUnlike
Bhagavat Maharaja Yes this sounds like a possibility as well. Hewas in ecstasy. But who knows. I think it may be a bit of both.
January 20,2011 at 9:25pm · LikeUnlike
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern looks like we need rectification from one whohas realization of Shrila Gurudeva´s inner heart :-)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:36 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats Tipurari Maharaja, I foud youranswer on the question on manjari bhava:
"Bhavollasa-rati is peculiar in that it involves love for Radha in adominant mood (sthayibhava). In Vraja all of the devotees have a dominant moodof love for Krsna. He is the object of their devotion in moods of servitude,friendship, paternal, and conjugal love. Devotees of Vraja also have love forone another, yet these sentiments of love are not dominant moods but representa particular type of sancari, or transitory, bhava. This sancari-bhava neveroverpowers the devotee's dominant love for Krsna, but serves to increase it. Inthe case of bhavollasa-rati, however, the manjaris' love directed towards Radhadoes take precedence over their feelings of love for Krsna on an ongoing basis.Thus it is not a sancari-bhava, yet because it is directed towards Radha ratherthan Krsna one would not expect it to be classified as a stayibhava either! Theresolution of this dilemma is that the manjaris' love, while more intense forRadha than Krsna, is nonetheless for Krsna as well. The manjaris love bothRadha-Krsna combined with emphasis on Radha, and thus they are in a uniqueposition in which Radha-Krsna combined become the object of their romanticlove. Representing bhavollasa-rati Narottama dasa sings jivane marane gati,radha-krsna prana pati, “In life or death my ideal is Radha-Krsna.” Prana patimeans “Lord of my life” and refers to one's lover. Here the “lover” isRadha-Krsna."(http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2001/2001_41.php)
I am little confused,with the first line....
January 20,2011 at 11:36pm · LikeUnlike · 1
Swami Tripurari Shanti-devi,
Yes, I realize your fist language is not English, as you have stated. Hopefullythat is the only cause of your confusion. But as with all languages, English isno different The first line is connected to the rest of the paragraph (!),which explains that the sthayi-bhava for Radha that the manjaris have is onefor Radha AND Krsna. This is the middle or in between position I havereferenced repeatedly throughout this thread. I believe this position involvesvalid theology and is thus not a contradiction of Sri Rupa. Indeed, we findthis theologizing in Sri Narottama das, who surely knows Sri Rupa's heart.
Note that in the verse of Sri Narottama I cited, the word prana-pati (“lord ofmy life”) that is generally used to refer to one’s lover, is referring to theconjugal unit of both Radha and Krsna. THEY are Narottama's ista. The manjari'slove Radha Krsna and desire the furthering of their romantic life and taste itthemselves thereby.
I hope this is clear.
January 21,2011 at 12:36am · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari Bheda,
My position all along has been that your Gurudeva's heart cannot be differentfrom Sri Rupa's. I am arguing this point.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:37 pm
Tarun Das 16
pädäbjayos tava vinä vara–däsyam eva
of the two lotus feet Your without most exalted service only
nänyat kadäpi samaye kila devi yäce
not anything else at any time certainly O Devi, I pray
sakhyäya te mama namo ’stu namo ’stu nityaà
unto friendship Your my obeisances let there be obeisances let it be forever
däsyäya te mama raso ’stu raso ’stu satyam
unto service Your my spiritual let there be taste let it be truly
flavour
O Devi! I am not praying for anything except that most exalted, direct service toYour lotus feet! Time and again I
offer praëäma to Your sakhétva, a position as Your sakhé, but I swear that myunwavering devotion will always be
only for Your däsétva, a position as Your servant!
Vilapa-Kusumanjali
It seems on the question of rasa tattva, there is ample evidence to concludethat Tripurari Swami is right about Bhallvolasa Rati being a Sthayi bhava forboth Radha and Krishna.
But it looks like there is something more at stake here than tattva, as somehave pointed out and more than defending the good name of Srila NarayanaMaharaja. As TripurarI Maharaja said, both his gurus have made mistakes likethis in the past, whether intentionally or not, we don’t know.
I’ve heard that when Radha and Krishna are having some sort of contest, andKrishna, by some fluke wins, the manjaris, headed by Rupa, frown mightily. Theydon’t cheer Krishna on at all. And if their Swamini wins they applauduproariously. Their one-sided bias is in favour of the apparently predominatingmoiety, Sri Radha. There is a lot of literature where the manjaris arefavorable to both Radha and Krishna, but if there is a question of who issupreme, there is no question whose side they are on.
This is not tattva. It’s the place where knowledge has to retire, and the heartleads the way. Before BRS, and before Bharata Muni, there was bhava bhakti. Ithappened in the heart. When those who are extremely favorable and biased towardSri Radha, hear that their love for her is merely a sancari bhava, or at best aSthayi bhava for Radha and Krishna combined, they get disturbed. It’s notreally about tattva it’s about love, and love is incredibly biased.
This thread has brought this idea out for me, and if it did not happen, I wouldnot be thinking of such things. I can see how having different parties canbring out the inherent moods of the devotees as well as so many tattvas. We’llsee what revelations the future holds. Excuse me if I have said somethinginnapropriate. Jai Sri Radhe!
January 21,2011 at 2:05am · LikeUnlike · 3
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Tarun,
I really liked your post, but since the glory of partiality has been broughtout on this thread, please allow me to display my own partiality by mentioningthat Swami B. V. Tripurari actually brought out both the tattva and the bhavaof the manjaris from the beginning of his posts. For example, in regard to thepoint you made about manjaris having more affection for Radha than Krsna hesaid:
"Bhavollasa rati involves the unique feature of greater love for Radhathan Krsna that is ever increasing (pusyamana). The fact that it is everincreasing makes it different from a sancari-bhava that is characteristicallytransitory by nature."
Sorry if it is over the top for me to make this point, but when you said thefollowing--"It seems on the question of rasa tattva, there is ampleevidence to conclude that Tripurari Swami is right about Bhallvolasa Rati beinga Sthayi bhava for both Radha and Krishna. But it looks like there is somethingmore at stake here than tattva."--I wasn't sure if you were saying that hedidn't express the bhava side as well.
On the topic of tattva/bhava, here are some other good points he made:
"We also have to understand the difference between speaking in terms oflila/bhava and speaking in terms of siddhanta. If we say, "We do not carefor Krsna. We only serve the lotus feet of our mistress Radha." This is astatement in bhava, a statement from the perspective of lila. In lila Radha'smaidservants will make statements like this and dismiss Krsna. However, theunderlying siddhanta is that the manjari is the most dear to Krsna and relishesRadha's romantic love for him herself.
So we should not always take statements expressing bhava as statements thatexpress siddhanta. Bhava is not contradictory to siddhanta, but it is adifferent way of expressing the same thing that will be properly understood byone who knows the siddhanta. Without proper understandign of siddhanta, suchstatements can be misunderstood and then we make up our own siddhanta tosupport our misunderstanding that is really only apasiddhanta. This can beavoided by good association."
Although I felt compelled to make this point, I very much appreciated the ideasyou raised.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:38 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Thank you Tripurari Maharaja, I understandwhat you want to say...
January 21,2011 at 9:33am · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari Tarun,
You wrote,
" When those who are extremely favorable and biased toward Sri Radha, hearthat their love for her is merely a sancari bhava, or at best a Sthayi bhavafor Radha and Krishna combined, they get disturbed."
I do appreciate the spirit of what you are trying to say. In lila such debatesdo not take place. But I think we need to be careful when thinking like this.After all, it was Rupa-manjari (Rupa Goswami) and Tulasi-manjari (Jiva Goswami)in their sadhaka dehas who told us that their affection for Radha, whilegreater than their affection for Krsna, is nonetheless a sancari-bhava forRadhaji or a shtayi-bhava for Radha and Krsna. Tattva is the canvass on whichbhava is manifest. The Goswamis have taught us tattva that we might join themin bhava.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:38 pm
Prem PrayojanSri Sri Guru Gaurangau jayatah. Sarva vaisnavebhyo namo namah.
According to Sri Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika, Srila Jiva Gosvami is Vilasa Manjariin Vraja-lila.
Tulsi Manjari of one ofseveral names, such as Rati, Rasa and Bhanumati, associated with SrilaRaghunatha Das Gosvami.
Is there some pramana that Srila Jiva Gosvami is known as Tulasi Manjari inVraja-lila?
Swami Tripurari No, thank you for the correction on thatdetail. Slip of my tongue. It happens to the best of us . Earlier I alsoattributed the unnatojjvala rasa sloka (the asirvada sloka of Cc) to SvarupaDamodara. I meant to say Rupa Goswami.
Tarun Das Tripurari Swami;
I guess we can assume that the tattva doesn't interfere with, or minimize thebhava, then. It would seem that having priti for both Radha and Krishna wouldgo well with priya narma sakha bhava. The manjaris seem to tend to be morefanatic. But what the heck do I really know.
I remember on Srila B R Shridhar Maharaja's appearance day during kartik inIndia a few years ago, a lady who had had personal association with Maharaja,told us he had said that his attraction was for Mahaprabhu and Radharanibecause they are giving to the fullest extent. They are donating and Krishna isabsorbing. But lately, he said, only just lately, he has had begun having someattraction for Krishna also. What an amazing thing to say.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:41 pm
Swami Tripurari The priyanarma sakha tastes mahabhava, but notthe measure of the manjari's mahabhava. VCT writes
“Some friends are considered very confidential and some fortunate friendsperform confidential services. Subala, Ujjvala, and some splendid others, whoare as good as the gopis, are rich with the sight of Krsna's splendid conjugalpastimes.” (Sri Vraja-riti-cintamani 52)
Many devotees in sakhya rati of the priyanarma class feel that when in eternityRadha wants to taste sakhya rasa Subala is manifest. This they feel is theimplication of "subala nyasta sarupya" from Radha sahasra nama. Andthe two, Radha and Subala, are lookalikes. The priyanarma-sakha's stahyi-bhavais for Krsna and he has a sancari-bhava for Radha.
Madan Gopal "The priyanarma-sakha's stahyi-bhava is for Krsna and he has asancari-bhava forRadha."
So the priyanarma-sakha bhava closely resembles that of the manjari's, with theexception that the stayi-bhava of sakhya is directed towards krsna alone whilethe manjari's stayi-bhava of madhurya is directed towards radha-krsna. Bothhave a sancari-bhava for Radha... Very sweet!
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:42 pm
Nitaisundara Dasa Tarun, regarding the quote from Srila SridharaMaharaja:
It is certainly a wonderful thing to say and the kind of characteristicstatement of his that endears any reasonable listener, but here it is a bit outof context.
SSM used to say that prior to joining the Gaudiya Math that he could not feelmuch attraction for Krishna because he was a playboy. But Mahaprabhu and Radha,being self-sacrificing, were attractive to him. So I think the statement youcite is more along the lines of saying (in his humility) that he has just begunto develop some feeling for Krishna, as opposed to having surpassed that in hisintense Radha-dasyam and now beginning to "balance out" or somethingalong those lines. He is presenting himself as having little, not as havingsthayi bhava for Radharani.
Tarun Das Nitaisundara!!
I didn't get that at all. The statement was made in the eighties. And I leftsomething out that I remembered later last evening. He said when I think ofRadharani, I lose myself. Doesn't sound like the talk of someone posing as aneophyte. Out of deep humility I'm sure, but also out of a deep honesty. Thisis not a little thing. It seems he was very satisfied with his Radha Dasyam andGaura Prema, but interestingly, just lately, Krishna had started to become,what, a friend maybe. I understand this to be the statement of a high soul,someone whose sancari bhava for Radha permanently towers over their sthayi bhavafor Krishna, and not as someone who is speaking on behalf of the neophytes.
Yes, I'm using that term, sancari bhava. It came to me, the implications of it.What was Rupa Goswami saying? I cannot conceive of him making a mistake.Placing it in the Sthayi bhava section of BRS, and calling it a sancari bhava.Sancari bhavas are thirty three internal emotions which emerge from thenectarean ocean of sthäyébhäva, cause it to swell, and then merge back intothat ocean. But this sancari bhava is not temporary like the others. It ispermanent. So it is not by defintion a sancari bhava. But like a sancari bhavait towers over the sthayi bhava, not temporarily, always. So it's not a sthayibhava, for that is only for Krsna rati, (thems the rules) but it is somethingeven more magnificent. Something that doesn't fit the normal rules of RasaVicara. So it was not put in the section of it's category, and was put where itdidn't belong. A category of it's own. I picture it as a wave that is as highas a satellite, and Krsna is the ocean so very far below, powerful, huge, anddistant.
I was also thinking that we don't worship an independent Goddess. If She werelike Devi, with no consort in sight, then exclusive worship of Radha would beappropriate. But we cannot conceive of Her without Krsna; we wouldn't want towhen it comes down to it. That would change everything.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:43 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja Dandavats to one and all,
I would like to tell you a story. I remember being at Kartik 2009 in Vraja withSrila Narayan Maharaja. He would give class every morning and evening. Onemorning while giving class the Pujari from Seva Kunja came in. He told us howon the prior evening just before darkness fell he placed the Bhoga offering andgarlands out as usual for Sri Sri Radha Kunja Bihari before he left to go home.He then closed and locked the gate to Seva Kunja, went home, had his meal andwent to bed. During the night he told us he had a dream. In that Dream SrimatiRadhika herself came to see the Pujari. She told him please take themahaprasadam and garlands tomorrow morning and give it to my dear sakhi who isknown in this world as Narayan Maharaja. So the Pujari came as ordered the nextmorning with the Mahaprasadam and the garlands from Seva Kunja for SrilaNarayan Maharaja. After Srila Narayan Maharaja took a bite out of a sweetVaikhanasa Maharaja and I took the plate to distribute it. Of course weconsumed the rest of the piece Srila Narayan Maharaja had bitten out of first.I do not know of anyone else in recent history that has a pastime of thismagnitude in his Curriculum Vitae.
I am very fallen. I do not know very much. But I know when I looked at thetranscendental body of Srila Narayan Maharaja in Navadwip totally effulgentmore than 24 hours after his departure, His transcendental form was completelyundisturbed by any symptom of material contamination. No gang green, no seepageof blood from the veins, no foul odor only a sweet fragrance, no stiffening ofthe joints, every limb and joint completely flexible, I saw that his cin mayasarira was completely spiritual in every way. I had noticed things like thisbefore about him, but it was now very pronounced. I owe him so much. Withouthim I am not sitting in the position I am sitting in now. Srila Prabhupadamanifested to me in him and saved me once again from the clutches of Maya.
Srila Narayan Maharaja is very bold. He has said on a number of occasionsseveral things that would not tally with the previous Acharyas position aboutSrimati Radhika and Sri Krsna. He once said without Radha, Krsna is likeNirvisesa Brahma. This directly contradicts the teachings of Srila BhaktivinodeThakura. One of the sannyasis asked him about this after class and he gave alengthy definition of what he was talking about. Then he told the sannyasi"You will have two understand my mood." That really does not botherme, but it may be a problem for others as is this present post from RayaRamanad Samvad.
The most important thing I have learned in Srila Narayan Maharaja’s associationis that mood transgresses all rules and regulations and shastric injunctions,Mood takes precedence over everything. Mood allows an adult Lord Nityananda tosit in full grown womans lap and drink her breast milk like a baby. Mood allowsMahaprabhu to dance as Lakshmi and manifest a giant breast and give the milk ofBhakti to all at Srivas anga. Mood allows Vamsi das Babji to scold his deitiesand refer to Mahaprabhu as a Mayavadi Sannaysi and Lord Nityananda as the ringleader of a band of dacoits while he feeds them Chai. Mood allows Ramanada Rayato bathe the naked bodies of young girls with his own hands and be completelyundisturbed by it. Mood, Bhava is sometimes contradictory to siddhanta and theinjunctions of sahastra. It sometimes displays behavior that is not wellunderstood within the parameters of the logic of scriptural siddhanta, evenwhen the siddhanta is defining the principles of Bhava itself.
I understand that the caveat emptor here is that in this statement SrilaNarayan Maharaja is defining this as Sri Rupa’s mood. Now on the basis ofscripture I can say that there may be some question about that. I could indeedmake an argument for that as has been made here by so many persons. However whenall is said and done I know only one thing for certain, that of all of thepersons who are discussing this topic here some of us may or may not beassociating with Sri Rupa Manjari in the spiritual world. However I can saywith full confidence that the person who made the original quote above fromRaya Ramanand Samvada, Srila Narayan Maharaja is, in Srimati Radharanis ownwords, her dear sakhi and is therefore associating with Sri Rupa Manjari in thespiritual world as well as their mistress Srimati Radhika. Therefore in myopinion Srila Narayan Maharaja is the only one who knows what Sri Rupa Manjarismood really is. Even if it does not tally with other associates understandingof Sri Rupa Manjaris mood as expressed in their writings or even as she has expressedit herself. Although I have an intuition that the fact that she put it in thesthayi bhava section of BRS may actually be a hint that there may be somethingto all of this that we cannot fathom. Therefore I am not willing to oppose itor dismiss it. Specifically because I am not in any way shape or form qualifiedto make such a conclusion. Being a conditioned soul it would only be based onmy limited logical mind and the constraints of scripture which can only give usa drop of the ocean of rasa that is actually being tasted and experienced bythose who are directly in the association of Sri Rupa Manjari and SrimatiRadhika in the spiritual world.
I deeply appreciate Tripurari Maharaja's sincerity in saying: "My positionall along has been that your Gurudeva's heart cannot be different from SriRupa's. I am arguing this point." My position is that if Srila NarayanMaharaja calls it a rope then it is a rope if he calls it a snake it is asnake. Now I do not say, as some of my associates in this sangha say, that youmust accept my position on this because of who Srila Narayan Maharaja is. Nothat is up to the individual. But this is my position. This is my Guru Nistha.
Therefore I may not be able to realize the conception myself or completelyconfirm it by scripture and other acharyas writings or even the writings of SriRupa herself. However, I will stand by Srila Narayan Maharaja’s quote simplybecause it is coming from someone who I am fully confident knows what I maynever know in all eternity about the real mood of Sri Rupa Manajari.
Your most worthless servant
Swami B.V. Bhagavat
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:45 pm
Tarun Das Tripurari Swami:
So wonderful and inconcievable to hear of Subal saka, and the glories of the PriyaNarma Sakhas.
I was wondering, also, does Balarama-ji have a female form if he wishes toparticipate in Krsna's madhurya lila?
Bhagavat Maharaja Balarama expands as Ananga Manjari, SrimatiRadhikas younger sister. She is the only manjari who has both the moods in tattat bhavicchamayi, to associate with Krsna directly for his pleasure only andthe desire to not associate with Krsna directly but to arrange for SrimatiRadhika to associate with Krsna.
Bhagavat Maharaja Of course some people would say that toassociate with Sri Krsna directly is sambhoga icchamayi and that has also beensaid by SNM. However he has also characterized sambhoga icchamayi as being themood of Kubja and the Queens of Dwarka. However within tat tat bahvicchamayithe mood of direct union is based on Sri Krsnas desire as in the Rasa dancediscussions and Purports by VCT where it states that they have only come tosatisfy Sri Krsnas desire not their own desires. The Queens of Dwarka and Kubjado not have this mood in their desire to have direct union with Sri Krsna.
Nitaisundara Dasa Tarun, forgive me, I have not been followingthe thread as closely as I would like. I read your citation of SSM as trying toestablish the presence of a sthayi bhava for Radharani alone, but I see nowthat was not your point. I think you are spot on in saying that the tattva doesnot interfere with the bhava. In that case I think the SSM quote could goeither way. Below is the quote that made me lean in the direction I did before.This is spoken by SSM and published in Centenary Anthology and perhapselsewhere.
"My attraction to Krsna first came through Bhagavad-Gita, and then throughMahaprabhu. I liked Ramchandra for His magnanimity. I was mainly attracted bythe self-giving ideal. So I liked Radharani very much, I liked Mahaprabhu verymuch, but my attraction to Krsna was less. My attraction to Krsna came throughMahaprabhu and through Radharani-from Their side. "
Thank you everyone for the enlightening discussion!
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:46 pm
Tarun Das Nitai Sundara;
Forgive me, I am saying something like a sthayi bhava for Radha alone.Something like that anyway. This sancari bhava the manjaris relish for Radha,acts like it's a sthayi bhava. It dominates the other bhavas and becomes Queenover all. And the sthayi bhava for Krsna, acts like a, well, geez, not like asthayi bhava. So then......
PrzemekPremananda Pawelczak In citation Śrila Narayana Maharaja tells abouttwo: sva-bhakti-siddhanta and raganuga-rupanuga-siddhanta of Śrila Rupa Gosvami.
Swami Tripurari Tarun,
No, the manjari's sthayi-bhava for Krnsa is very strong. It is not at alltransitory like a sancari-bhava. In transcendental comparison it exceeds thesthayi's of santa, dasya, sakhya, and vatsalya and ascends to mahabhava. And itis not that they have one sthayi-bhava for Krsna and another for Radha. Theyhave one sthayi-bhava for Radha Krsna or one for Krsna and an extraordinarysancari-bhava for Radha. When we say that their affection (sneha) for Radhikaexceeds their affection for Krsna this does not mean they have two differentsthayi-bhavas. It means that within the context of their priti for Radha Krsnathey have more affection for Radha.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:47 pm
Swami Tripurari Bhagavata Maharaja,
When we fail in our ability to discuss based on scriptural conclusion andinstead resort to the logic that my Guru is right because he is the greatestdevotee, I think to the objective reader it appears as intimidation that seeksto end an otherwise reasonable, non-offensive discussion on an unreasonablenote. It implies that those who think other than you on the matter areimpertinent. I know you do not personally feel that way (thank you), but youhave shared with us the fact that others in your sanga do. Indeed, we have seenthis on the thread itself. This pains me, as I hoped discussions like this onewere leading us down a more progressive path that fosters unity.
Your reasoning reminds me of the logic that others have used in relation to SrilaPrabhupada to support the idea that the jiva falls from Goloka Vrindavana. AsSrila Prabhupada said different things on the jiva issue, so Srila NarayanaMaharaja said different things in relation to whether our relationship withKrsna is a sthayi or sancari bhava. Therefore what is the need to alignyourself with a conclusion that contradicts Rupa Goswami?
In this regard, I find that to frame this discussion as one of bhava vs.siddhanta is inaccurate. Furthermore, to say that bhava contradicts siddhantais misleading and dangerous. Bhava does not transgress siddhanta, especiallynot rasa tattva/siddhanta, and the examples you cited do not establish that itdoes. What they establish is that bhava transgresses decorum.
Svarupa Damodara did not allow any so-called expressions of bhava that werecontradictory to siddhanta to be offered to Mahaprabhu. Bhava is distinguishedfrom mere sentiment because it arises within the parameters of Gaudiyasiddhanta and not otherwise. Let me give you a prominent example of so-calledbhava transgressing siddhanta.
According to the followers of Radha Raman Carana dasa Babaji, he had anincredible track record of miracles and mystic darsanas. In one of them he wasengaged in kirtana of the Hare Krsna mantra when some cowherds told him, nitaigaura radhe syama japa hare krsna hare rama. On the basis of his"bhava," he and his sect teach that it is wrong to chant Hare Krsnain kirtana. They have tried unconvincingly to support this apasiddhanta. His"bhava" and corresponding siddhanta constitutes apasiddhanta in themind of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura(rupanuga-viruddhapasiddhanta-dhvanta-harine) .
So I see some comments here leading in a dangerous direction, that offanaticism or religious sentiment that is not based in philosophy: sentimentwithout philosophy is fanaticism. I don't think we, as members of theBhaktivinoda parivara, should go there. Nor do we have to when we have otheralternatives that in my mind cast our acaryas in a sweeter, human-like lightthat is more compelling in a world suspicious of religious authority.
We can accept that great souls sometimes say one thing and mean another, thatgreat souls don’t need to be perfect in every way to be great. In this thread Ihave cited examples of my own gurus in this regard. I strongly feel that only abrand of Gaudiya Vaisnavism that acknowledges this fact is going to carry theday for Mahaprabhu in terms of the world embracing his precepts. I also clearlysee the seeds of this understanding in the writing of our visionary leader SriThakura Bhaktivinoda. Srila Sridhara Deva Goswami has also spoken at length ofhe absolute and relative sides of Sri Guru.
Thus I would urge you to reconsider your position. At some point, all disciplesface the task of reconciling contradictions or ambiguities in regard to theirgurus’ message. Notice how in our Prabhupada’s mission those who alwaysinsisted on a literal understanding missed the boat, even while trying to bechaste.
And one final point concerning bhava and siddhanta: the very strong emphasis ofBSST on book publishing was to circulate the siddhanta widely so as to dismissso-called siddhas in bhava whose words and example contradicted the scripturalconclusions. Gaudiya Matha and Iskcon sought to downplay miracles and ecstasyand emphasize siddhanta—the actual teachings.
Note that I do not meant to imply that SNM is comparable to pseudo sadhus orthose rejected by BSST. I merely seek to emphasize what I believe was theemphasis of SNM himself.
Swami Tripurari Przemek,
He is saying that that sva-bhakti-siddhanta (His—Guara's— own siddhanta)mentioned in the first verse of Sri Krsnadas' Ramanada Samvad (Cc 2.8.10) is"the philosophical
understanding embodied in the followers of Sri Rupa Goswami, who establishedthe raganuga rupanuga-siddhanta." In other words, the two, Gaura'ssiddhanta and Sri Rupa's siddhanta, are one. Be sure of that!
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:48 pm
Babhru Reed I agree with Tripurari Maharaja that we shouldbe able to objectively examine what our gurus say without fear that it'soffensive. If we're honest, we would acknowledge that even Srila Prabhupadamade mistakes in speaking. How many times have you heard him transpose wordsand/or phrases when citing Bhagavad-gita verses he know very well? The firsttime I heard him in person was when he came through Honolulu in August of 1970.He gave a really nice talk about what we mean by the Supreme Personality ofGodhead to an overflowing temple room. And he gave familiar examples, such asthe sun god and the president of the US. But he stumbled over the president'sname; he started to say "President Johnson," but he stammered amoment and corrected himself to say "President Nixon." I found itcharming on two counts. First, how consequential are these guys, anyway?Second, I thought, "Cool! He's a real person!"
Bhagavat Maharaja I have not tried to undermine the value ofthis conversation as an exercise in fostering Unity in the Gaudiya sanghas. IfI wanted to do that I would not have cleaned the thread of the negativecomments. I also could have cut the thread out altogether as it is on my page.However I have found the entire discussion brilliant, thoughtful, wellreasoned, shastric, and valuable as an exercise in fostering unity among theGaudiya sanghas. I have never felt personally threatened at any time. Answersto your points are going to be posted soon. For the time being I wanted only toexpress my personal faith and my heart as I have since the beginning. I willnot ask to be excused for doing so since it is the right of the disciple to doso as long as he does not force others to accept his vision which is how I haveconducted my self here. However do I thank Tripurari Maharaja for his valuablecomments.
Your Fallen servant
Bhagavat Swami
Babhru Reed Maharaja, I agree that this has been animportant, productive thread. And I think we all appreciate both yourguru-nistha and the tone you've worked hard to set in this thread. One of mylong-time concerns, something I've felt as almost im...portant as gettingsiddhanta right, has been the *way* devotees discuss contentious issues amongthemselves, especially in public. That's probably partly due to my academicbackground in rhetoric, but also because of the kinds of exchanges we seeamongdevotees in Sri Caitanya-caritamrita.
And I look forward to your further contributions.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:50 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern why am i not informed anymore by facebookabout new comments?
Dear Bhagavad Mhj, have we received any confirmation about the correctness ofthe translation of the original quote?
Shanti Devi Dasi Srila Narayana Maharaja: "Only CaitanyaMahaprabhu could have brought this understanding to the world. Before Him therewas no bhakti-rasa (raganuga-bhakti and rupanuga-bhakti). Bhakti was there, butit was vaidhi-bhakti, not bhakti-rasa. Mahaprabhu especially ordered SriSvarupa Damodara and Sri Raya Ramananda to sprinkle their mercy upon Srila RupaGosvami, so that he could be qualified to realize the Lord’s mood and establishit in the world – and Rupa Gosvami did establish it. The stayi-bhava (permanenttranscendental emotion or relationship) discussed herein is of the manjaris,and it is called bhava-ullasa-rati *[see endnote 4]. It is not directly inrelation to Sri Krsna. The manjaris have more inclination towards SrimatiRadhika.
radhika-dasi yadi haya abhimana
sigrai milai taba gokula-kana
[“If you develop pride in being Srimati Radhika's exclusive maidservant, thenyou will very quickly meet Gokula Kana (Sri Krsna).” (Sri Radha-Bhajana Mahima,Glorification of Worship to Sri Radha by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, verse 5)]
If Srimati Radhika is unhappy, in a mood of lamenting and crying, Sri RupaManjari will also be crying. At that time Lalita and Visakha can consoleRadhika, but Rupa Manjari cannot. The same moods relished by Srimati Radhikawill manifest in the heart of Rupa Manjari. Seeing her master, she will weeplike her master, so how can she console Her? Rupa Manjari, Rati Manjari andLavanga Manjari cannot console Her. Their moods are very exalted.
*Endnote 4: bhava-ullasa rati – Generally, devotees of the same mood and whoare enriched with similar desires naturally share suhrd-bhava, intimatefriendship, with each other. That is why the love and affection that Lalita andthe other sakhis have for Srimati Radhika is called suhrd-rati. When their suhrd-ratiis the same as or slightly less than their Krsna-rati (affection towards SriKrsna), this is called sancari-bhava (a temporary emotion that is compared tothe waves that swell and then return to the ocean of their permanent emotion ofthe mood of Krsna's beloveds). In other words when this suhrd-rati becomesequal to the waves in the ocean of their prominent affection for Krsna, it is asancari-bhava. However, in the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati(for Sri Radha and everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceedstheir krsna-rati and which constantly increases by the moment due to their fullabsorption in it, is called bhava-ullasa-rati. This is a special feature ofmadhura-rasa. Of the five types of sakhis, only the nitya sakhis and pranasakhis, who are known as manjaris, have this bhava-ullasa-rati as theirpermanent emotions (sthayi-rati). It is no longer just a sancari-bhava. Thesemanjaris nurture an abundance of sneha, tender affection, for Radhaji.
It is seen that creepers are always endeavoring to embrace trees, but theleaves, flowers and buds (manjaris) of the creepers do not even slightly try toembrace the trees directly. When a creeper embraces a tree, the joy of thoseflowers, leaves, and manjaris automatically increases. In Sri Vrndavana SrimatiRadhika stands supreme among all gopis. She is famous as the kalpa-lata (thecreeper that fulfills every desire) of love for Sri Krsna. Some of Her sakhishave the nature of leaves, some are like flowers, and some like manjaris. Thatis why they are always eager for Srimati Radhika to meet with Krsna, and arecarried away by the bliss of Their union. (Srila Narayana Maharaja's commentaryon Venu-gita, verse 7)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:51 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi My reading of this quotation from Venu-gita isthat it does contradict what SNM said in Raya Ramananda Samvada: it is onlysaying that the manjaris' relationship with Radharani is not a sancari bhava;it is not saying that their relationship with Krsna is a sancari-bhava (as theRaya Ramananda Samvada says).
But before giving my reasons for my reading of this excerpt, it is worth notingthat even if the excerpt from Venu-gita doesn't contradict Raya RamanandaSamvad, it still contradicts Brs. 2.5.128 (Jiva Goswami's purport, "Ifthat rati directed to Radha is greater than the person’s rati directed toKrsna, constantly increasing with affection (pusyamana), it is calledbhavollasa to indicate its special nature, though that rati directed to Radhais still a sancari-bhava."
But whether or not the relationship with Radharani is a sancari-bhava is notour key point of disagreement. In essence, the discussion on this thread can beboiled down to whether or not the manjaris' relationship with Krsna is asancari-bhava. This is the essential discrepancy. So we must focus on themanjaris' relationship with Krsna and answer whether that relationship is asthayi-bhava or sancari-bhava. We should not get distracted by the fact thatthe manjaris have greater suhrd-rati for Radharani than Krsna, as that point isnot in dispute.
Since the manjaris' relationship with Krsna is the real issue, let's look atthe Venu-gita quote to see if it says that the manjaris' relationship withKrsna is a sancari-bhava. The only place you could pull out this meaning iswhere SNM says that the sthayi-bhava "is not directly in relation to SriKrsna." However, if SNM had meant that the manjaris' sthayi-bhava is notin relation to Krsna (i.e. they have a sancari-bhava for Krsna), why would hequalify his statement with the word "directly" ("is not directlyin relation to Krsna")? It seems more likely that he is saying that themanjaris' sthayi-bhava is indirectly in relation to Sri Krsna. Thisunderstanding is substantiated by something he says later in the excerpt:"Some of Her sakhis have the nature of leaves, some are like flowers, andsome like manjaris. That is why they are always eager for Srimati Radhika tomeet with Krsna, and are carried away by the bliss of Their union."
Srila Sridhara Maharaja said it this way, "Radha-dasyam has been said tobe the highest attainment. Why? The quality and quantity of rasa that Radharanican draw from Krsna can never be found anywhere else. So if you are situatedjust behind Radharani, you'll be allowed to taste not only the quantity, butthe highest quality of rasa. No other person can draw such high rasa fromKrsna. The fullest, highest type of quality is drawn from Krsna: He givesHimself fully and wholly and deeply. So if you are in Sri Rupa's group, thenyou can have a taste of that sort of rasa."
In other words, the manjaris are tasting Radharani's rasa with Krsna. As SrilaSridhara Maharaja says, the manjaris are tasting a rasa that has been drawn"from Krsna." Because they are tasting the rasa through Radharani, itis indirect: they are indirectly experiencing rasa with Krsna. This appears tobe SNM's point. This simply means, as Brs explains, that the manjaris are notdirectly related to Krsna in sambogeccha-mayi (with a desire for direct unionwith him), but rather indirectly in tad bhavecchamayi kamanuga bhakti (with adesire to taste the bhava Radha experiences in relation to Krsna).
There is further evidence in support of this reading of the text. SNM followshis statement that the sthayi-bhava of the manjaris is not directly in relationto Sri Krsna with this verse of BVT: “If you develop pride in being SrimatiRadhika's exclusive maidservant, then you will very quickly meet Gokula Kana(Sri Krsna).” How do the manjaris meet Sri Krsna? Through Radharani. Notdirectly in sambhoga (romantic union) with Krsna, but through Radha's sambhogawith Krsna by attaching themselves to her bhava.
On the other hand, if the manjaris' relationship with Krsna is a sancari-bhava,how are we to understand that the rasa "from Krsna" manifests? Sincea sancari-bhava cannot rise to the point of rasa, only a sthayi-bhava can, howare the manjaris indirectly experiencing rasa with Krsna other than if theyhave him as an object of their sthayi-bhava? It does not seem to me thatbecause the rasa is experienced through Radharani that it could be considered arasa exclusively with her. Thus I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation of how themanjaris' relationship with Krsna can be a sancari-bhava, because I don't wehave heard any convincing evidence how this understanding can be reconciledwith Brs.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:52 pm
Shanti Devi DasiDandavats
This verse came to my mind:
tarko 'pratishthah srutayo vibhinna
nasav rishir yasya matam na bhinnam
dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam
mahajano yena gatah sa panthah
CC Mad. 17.186
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued, "'Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opiniondoes not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studyingthe Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by whichreligious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles ishidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, asthe sastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahajanasadvocate.'"
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Shanti,
Tarka is dry argumentation when you put forth your own logic instead of thelogic of the mahajanas. Sastra-yukti, on the other hand, is logical argument onthe basis of the revealed scripture. I assume your intention was to say that mypost was mere tarka. If you look again at my post, however, you will see that Ibased my argument on the words of scripture and mahajanas.
The fruit of sitting at the feet of mahajanas is that you can engage insastra-yukti. Sastra-yukti involves more than selecting the words of themahajanas and pressing copy and paste. You may think that the meaning you aredrawing from your quotations is self-evident. It is not. You need to explainwhat you are drawing from the quotation, and how it applies to the argument youare supporting.
You and Bheda agreed that the two quotations from SNM were equivalent. I saidthat I didn't agree with your assessment and took the time to point to severalreasons why I thought your interpretation was faulty, based on siddhanta and aclose reading of SNM's words.
I think that a more considerate response from you would be to point out, withevidence to support your opinion, how my understanding of the excerpt is wrong.That would be more productive than merely insulting me by implying that I amengaging in dry argument.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 5:58 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern i don´t say at all that u are engaging in dryargument, the point is I see no need to argue about it any further. your pointis valid and u can see it like this, it´s completely ok with me, yet still, iunderstand my guru mahraj in this simple way and especially in my low adhikarthat´s enough for me on the subject, one day i may enter those bhavas and studymore of it. pls accept my pranams. radhe♥&*~~~~~~~~~~
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern the paragraph to be considered is the last ofyour comment, but i cannot answer it, which nevertheless doesn´t mean i have toaccept your conclusion. it is just not so relevant for me at this point. ifsome senior vaisnava will reconcile, jay ho! if not i will leave it open untilthe time comes...it´s not realy my level of sadhana.
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern i know our shrila gurudeva is in Radharani´sgroup and under Rupa Manjari, and i aspire to serve Radha and Krishna in herfootsteps,...following her and HER orders and not Krishna´s that´s enough forme right now :-) jay shri Radha-Raman!!!
Vrindaranya Dasi Bheda,
If you see no need to discuss further points, you might consider not posting aquestion ("and it's confirming the quote of Ramananda Samvada,right?").
Otherwise, I have no desire to pull you into a discussion that you don't wantto participate in and wish you the best.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Bhagavat Maharaja I want to make a humble request here to thedisciples of Srila Narayan Maharaja. If you do not agree with this discussionplease either participate by offering some information of evidence or ignorethe thread. Please do not badger the participants of this discussion withthreatening or annoying messages to them. Srila Gurudeva never discourageddiscussion and debate as long as it was within the framework of Vaishnavaetiquette, which this discussion is. SO please refrain from fanatical less thenneophyte behavior. Thank You.
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats Vrindaranya; it was bigmisunderstanding, I didnt put this qoute to offended you, I put this qoutebecause it reminds me that sadhus sometimes have different opinions... I amsorry if you felt like this, you put nice arguments and this is so inspiring,thank you, ys Shanti dd
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern dear Vrindaranya didi, i asked the question toknow Shanti didi´d understanding of the quote. And as mentioned before, i´mperfectly ok with your view or approach :-)
jay shri shri radha-raman
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:00 pm
Bhagavat Maharaja Sorry Bheda and Shanti to not be more clear.You have conducted yourselves properly. It was brought to my attention thatsome devotees of SNM were writing some offensive personal messages to some ofthe participants in the personal message box facility given by Face Book. notthe posts on this thread. Your posts are fine. Sorry for the confusion.
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Shanti,
That seems like a very odd verse to use to establish that sadhus sometimes havedifferent opinions, but I guess it underscores the value of stating what we aretrying to establish with a particular verse and how the verse does so. Anyway,glad to hear it was a misunderstanding.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:00 pm
Swami Tripurari Madhavananda Das,
I appreciate your interest in this subject matter. It is in many respects thevery heart of Gaudiya Vedanta. And it is evident from your post that you havestudied the subject.
However, in your post you have merely stated what has already been stated manytimes on this thread:
Manjaris have more affection for Radha than for Krsna and their relationshipwith Krsna is indirect or through Radha. No one contests this. All agree.
The contentious issue is that in his Ramananda Samvad book SNM has said thatthe manjari's love for Radha is their sthayi-bhava and their indirect love forKrsna is a sancari-bhava. Whereas mahajanas Sri Rupa and Sri Jiva teach thatthe manjari's love for Krsna is their sthayi-bhava and their love for Radha,although extraordinary, is nonetheless a sancari-bhava. Problem for all of us.
However, we find that in SNM's Upadesamrta commentary he has said exactly whatSri Rupa and Sri Jiva have said:
". . . In the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati (for Sri Radhaand everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds their krsna-ratiand which constantly increases by the moment due to their full absorption init, is called bhava-ullasa-rati, despite being a sancari-bhava. This is aspecial feature of madhura rasa."
So in Ramanada Samvad SNM contradicts the mahajanas but in his Upadesamritacommentary he concurs with them. Both cannot be correct. I have suggested weconsider his contradictory statement in Ramanada Samvad an editing mistake andembrace the siddhanta of Sri Rupa as represented in SNM's Upadesamritacommentary.
Incidentally I just received this history from a Godbrother on the making ofthe Ramanada Samvad book:
"The booklet Ramanand Samvad was transcribed and
edited by Vaikhanas Maharaja before he took sannyasa. He said that he gave histranscription to (in his words) the ‘siddhanta police,’ a committee assigned bySNM to check the societies publications to make sure the siddhanta is
correct. In that conversation—which was about Jayadvaita’s editing of SPbooks—Vaikhanas Maharaja admitted that SNM depended on that committee andtherefore did not
always read the finished product in its entirety before it was published. Hespecifically admitted that it was unlikely that SNM would read Ramanand Samvadacover to cover before it went to press."
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:01 pm
Brajendra NandanDas Solbjoern Respected Tripurari Svami,
we seem to have some major points here in the discussion:
a)
the translation (editing) issue:
if there is a mistake in this statement it could therefor have differentsources
1) some accidental mix up of words in the original spoken katha
2) translation or editing error
this should be checked first.
the quotes of Shri Jiva and Rupa Gosvamis
- translation or editing error might be considered here as well?
c)
in the multitude of possibilities of rasa
maybe Shrila Narayan Mhj´s expression is just another possibility
Swami Tripurari Bheda,
The translation of Sri Rupa and Jiva Goswamis is correct and in his Upadesamritacommentary SNM gives the same translation as well.
There are many possibilities in the world of rasananda, but there are alsoparameters in which rasa arises and outside of which it does not. Thisdiscussion is about rasa tattva and what the Rupanuga conclusion is concerningbhavollasa rati. This conclusion is not two contradictory things.
Furthermore the idea that Vraja-bhava involves a sancari-bhava for Krsna ratherthan a sthayi-bhava in any instance is philosophically problematic in the manyways already pointed out on this thread. The teaching of the Goswamis is thatKrsna alone is the sthayi-bhava for all rasas. See Brs. 2.1.5,6. Sri Jivacomments, "The object which inspires rati is called the visaya. Thatis Krsna alone."
Swami Tripurari I should add that the learned devotees in ourline have theologized Radha Krsna combined into the visaya of the stayi-bhavaof the manjaris owing to the extraordinary nature of the majari's sancari-bhavafor Radha. Again, I think that is a slight stretching of what Sri Rupa has saidbut acceptable nonetheless for reasons discussed above. It does not contradictRupa Goswami by making the manjari's love for Krsna a sancari-bhava or makingRadha alone the visaya, but rather reasons interestingly about the implicationsof his teaching on bhavollasa rati.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:02 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Although some may extend Rupa and Jiva'sconception to include Radha and Krsna together as the visaya, as far as I knowBhaktivinode Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura did not. They wrotethat Krsna alone is the visaya. This is significant because it disproves theidea that the sampradaya has an ever-evolving understanding of bhavollasa-rati,since it shows that BVT and BSST took a more conservative stance than some whocame before them.
In his commentary to Sri Brahma-samhita 5.37, Bhaktisiddhanta says thatalthough Radha and Krsna are one, Krsna is still the visaya:
“Although the Lord Absolute and His potency are one and the self-sameexistence, still They exist eternally as separate entities, as Radha and Krsna.In both the ecstatic energy and the transcendental Lord Krsna, there existssrngara-rasa (amorous love) whose quality is inconceivable…Asraya signifiesRadhika Herself and the extensions of Her own form and visaya means KrsnaHimself. Krsna is Govinda, Lord of Goloka. The gopis are the facsimile asrayaof that rasa. With them Krsna indulges in eternal pastimes in Goloka.” (SriBrahma-samhita 5.37, purport)
Note that BSST indicates both Radhika Herself and her extensions (including themanjaris) as asraya, and that he clarifies that “The gopis are the facsimileasraya of that rasa.” In other words, Sri Radha and all her extensions have thesame visaya, Sri Krsna.
The following are quotes from Bhaktivinode Thakura’s books.
From Dasa-mula-tattva:
“Sakhya-rasa (fraternal), vatsalya-rasa (parental), and madhurya-rasa(conjugal) do not accept anyone other than Sri Krsna as their visaya.”
“The sole visaya, object of love, in transcendental rasa is Sri Krsna”
From Hari-nama-cintamani:
The devotee of Lord Krsna is the asraya, and Lord Krsna Himself is the visaya.
From Sri Sri Gita Mala:
“The madhura rasa is also known as the most brilliant mellow (ujjvala rasa),and its visaya is Sri Krsna, the Son of the King of Vraja.” [Note: Ujjvala rasagenerally refers to the love of the manjaris--unnatojjvala-rasam]
From Jaiva Dharma:
“The heart of the Krsna devotee embraces rati, hence the devotee is the asraya,and as Krsna is the object of the devotee's love, so He is the visaya."
“Sri Krsna is the visaya-alambana of this rasa. He is the nagara, epitome ofunparalleled beauty, charm and amorous pastimes. The gopis of Vraja are theasraya-alambana in madhurya or srngara-rasa. Amongst all the gopis, SrimatiRadhika is the crest jewel.
In madhurya-rasa, Sri Krsna is the visaya, object, His beloved gopis are theasraya, shelter, and together they become the alambana, foundation, of thisrasa."
Krsna, so fond of playing upon His divine vamsi has today appeared in my heart,as the singular visaya of madhurya-rasa.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:03 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Although I appreciate the vision that bothRadha and Krsna are the object of the manjaris' sthayi-bhava, I must say that Ifind Rupa and Jiva Goswami's vision that love of Krsna is the sthayi-bhava andlove of Radha is a sancari-bhava more compelling.
I know a lot of people don't like the idea of the manjaris' love for Radha beinga sancari-bhava because sancari-bhavas come and go, and we all know that themanjaris have more affection for Radhika than Krsna. However, sincebhavollasa-rati is a sancari that is ever-increasing, this aspect of sancaribhavas doesn't apply to the manjaris' love for Radha. Thus if you go beyond thefact that sancaris are usually temporary, you can consider other aspects ofsancari-bhavas, namely that they intensify the sthayi-bhava.
When you consider the manjari's love for Radha in bhavollasa-rati as a sancari,it takes on a special quality: it eternally intensifies the manjarissthayi-bhava! Thus what overflowing gratitude the manjaris have for Radharani,who is forever intensifying their bhava, by whose mercy they can taste thehighest limit of mahabhava.
[Note: A synonym for sancari is vyabhicari. Sri Jiva comments that vi standsfor visesa (distinction or intensification), abhi stands for abhimukhya(inclination towards) and cara stands for caranti (moves). Thus vyabhicaris arethose bhavas that move (caranti) into the sthayi-bhava while nourishing it in aspecial way (visesena abhimukhyena). In other words, an emotion that movesdistinctively in the direction of the sthayi-bhava and that serves to intensifyit is called a vyabhicari-bhava, and this vyabhicari-bhava is also called asancari-bhava because it sets the course of the sthayi-bhava.]
This understanding that the manjaris' relationship with Radharani increases themanjaris' sthayi-bhava—but not that the manjaris' experience madhurya rasa withher—also best describes how the scriptures describe the manjaris' experience.The manjaris identify with Sri Radha and therefore taste her bhava, not Krsna'sbhava, and Radharani's sthayi-bhava is for Krsna. Thus the manjaris'sthayi-bhava must also be for Krsna.
Radharani experiences the highest bliss and because the manjaris taste herbhava, they also experience that bhava vicariously. If they tried to enjoy withKrsna directly, they would not experience as much bliss. In other words, theirlove for Radharani is intensifying their sthayi-bhava, just as Rupa Goswami'sway of conceiving of these terms indicate.
If Radharani alone is the object of the manjaris' sthayi-bhava, then why didRupa Goswami not analyze the components of a rasa with Radha? For example,where are descriptions of the gauna-ratis in relation to Radha? Andfurthermore, what would be the meaning of Krsna's being akhila-rasamrta-murti?
For these reasons, I find the explanation of Rupa and Jiva Goswamis that lovefor Sri Radha is a special sancari most compelling.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:05 pm
Candra Mukhi there are not differences beetween Sri Radhaand Sri Krishna , not difference at all , but for madhurya plays They seemslike two and different
Normally Krishna is visaya and Sri Radhe is asraya bhagavan but in manjaribhava the devotees in ... that mood act like if Sri Radhe is the visaya becauseShe is their Ishta dev
Sri Krishna as the original visaya receive more pleasure from this indirect wayof love than the direct one , that ´s why dasya bhava is higher that the othersones rasas
All our previous acaryas are in this mode which is the mode of Sri CaitanyaMahaprabhu , ideed He is Krishna Him self accepting the mode of dasya bhavaacting under the mode of Sri Isvari Radhika
Babhru Reed Although we may find ways to accommodatecomplications such as extraordinary sancari bhavas, it appears thatMadhavananda's texts above agree that, as far as he has been able to establish,Srila Narayana Maharaja's published works are in line with the rasa tattvaestablished by Rupa and Jiva Goswamis, with the sole exception of the quotationthat began this thread. Am i right, Madhavananda? And so far we have seen noother evidence, aside from the suggestion of some conversations Prema Prayojanamay have had with SNM, that he preached something contrary to the tattva givenby the Goswamis. Just checking.
Swami Tripurari Candra Mukhi,
According to the Goswamis, manjari-bava is madhurya rasa that is tastedvicariously through attaching oneself to Radha. It is not dasya rasa. Dasyarasa does not reach up to mabhabava. This is what Mahaprabhu came to taste, andthe secret of his teaching is that it can be tasted in bhavollasa-rati/tadbhavaecchamayi kamanuga bhakti. This is madhurya rasa, not dasya rasa. Nor isRadha described as the visaya alambana of dasya rasa in any of the Goswami's works.
Candra Mukhi sorry maharaja , yes , I wanted to say radhadasyam , was my mistake
Candra Mukhi Radha dasyam is the highest part of MadhuryaRasa because the devotees in that mood even loose the desire of enjoy Krishnaas their beloved , they see Him as the solely beloved of Sri Radhika so whyKrishna doesn t acts like the visaya for them
Swami Tripurari I should also say that bavollasa-rati has anoutward appearance of dasya rati and may even be referred to at times as Radhadasyam. But nonetheless it is madhurya rasa in its highest expression throughand through. Radha dasyam is madhurya rasa. It is not romantic love for Radhaon the part of her handmaidens, but Radha's romantic love for Krsna is tastedin bhavollasa-rati by her handmaidens.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:07 pm
Candra Mukhi nobody is speaking about romantic love forRadha, is a dasya/friendship mode ,like Gauranga ´s devotees look Him
Candra Mukhi so why its name is Radha dasyam
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats to all devotees,
I hope that some day some realisation will come by the mercy of rasika guru andonly then we will be able to understand such high topics,
while chanting the pure holy name.
Maybe I will not say nothing new in this topic, but such inspiration came tome.
I found something very beautiful from Srila BR Sridhara Maharaja:
asabharair-amrta-sindhu-mayaih kathancit
kalo mayatigamitah kila sampratam hi
tvam cet krpamayi vidhasyasi naiva kim me
pranair vrajema ca varoru bakarinapi?
This sloka is a direct prayer to Radharani. It expresses a particular type ofhope which is so sweet and reassuring that it is compared with an unlimitedocean of nectar. He says, "With that hope I am somehow passing my days,flagging my days, dragging my life through these tedious times only for thathope. That hope is sustaining me, the nectarine ocean of hope is attracting meand sustaining me. Somehow I am dragging my days to my only safety.
"Otherwise, I have lost the direct association of Mahaprabhu, SvarupaDamodara and so many other great souls, and still I am living. Why? I have aparticular ray of hope. And the prospect and quality of my hope is very greatand high. But my patience has reached its end. I can't endure it any longer. Ican't wait. I am finished, I can't wait any more. At this moment if you do notshow your grace to me, I am finished. I shall lose the chance forever. I shallhave no desire to continue my life. It will all be useless.
"Without Your grace, I can't stand to live another moment. And Vrndavana,which is even dearer to me than my life itself - I am disgusted with it. It ispainful; it is always pinching me. What to speak of anything else, I am evendisgusted with Krsna. It is shameful to utter such words, but I can have nolove even for Krsna, until and unless you take me up within your confidentialcamp of service. Such a charm I have come for. I have seen the clue of such acharm within the service of your camp. Without that, everything is tasteless tome. And I can't maintain my existence even in Vrndavana. And even Krsna, whatto speak of others, has no charm for me." This is the prayer of RaghunathaDasa Goswami.
http://bvml.org/SBRSM/SGaHG.html#14
...our prayojana Guru revealed what is the highest aspiration for rupanugadevotee - rupanuga devotee is completely under Radhika, but this is deep in hisheart, it can not be learned, it can not be teached, it can not beunderstood... only those who are in this mood can relish it... this is the lineof our acaryas who are all Srimati Radhika's intimate servants. I readsomewhere that for manjaris Radhika (who is asraya,) is visaya ( I have to findthis),
nikunja-juno rati-keli-siddhyai
ya yalibhir yuktir apeksaniya
tatrati-daksyad ati-vallabhasya
vande guroh sri-caranaravindam
“Sri Sri Radha-nikunja-bhihari’s Jugala-milan (meeting of the divine Couple) andrati keli (pastimes of divine love) are only possible due to the cleverarrangement and seva expertise employed by the sakhis and manjaris. Among theseGopis my Gurudevi is highly accomplished, and therefore very dear toJugal-kishora. Thus, with care and attention I offer my obeisance unto hercaran-padma.”
(or The spiritual master is very dear, because he is expert in assisting thegopis, who at different times make different tasteful arrangements for theperfection of Radha and Krsna's conjugal loving affairs within the groves ofVrndavana. I offer my most humble obeisances unto the lotus feet of such aspiritual master.)
...we are depending of the mercy of such Guru who is 24 hours in thosepastimes....
This thread is so great - it establish supremacy of Srimati Radhika! JayJay Sri Radhe!!
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:08 pm
Swami Tripurari Candra Mukhi,
You ask why the manjari's love is sometimes referred to as Radha dasyam. I havealready addressed that. It is because of its outward appearance. Outwardly theyserve Radha like handmaidens serving her in every way. Nonetheless theirexperience in doing this is madanakhya mahabhava, which is the highestexpression of madhurya rasa. Manjari-bhava is ujjvala rasa, not dasya rasa.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:10 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Follower of Mahaprabhu in sadhana deha are indasya rasa (they want to become servant of the servant of theservant....gopi-bhartuh pada-kamalayor dasa-dasanudasah), internally, in sidhadeha, they are in ujjvala rasa...
thank you, Tripurari Maharaja, forclarification... Dandavats...
Candra Mukhi dear Tripurari Maharaja , I dont want to beoffensive, I didn t ask you anything , perhaps you think so for my horriblehandle of English
Radha Dasyam is not an outward appearance , is a kind of special mood , yes,the devotees in that mood are in Madhurya bhava and experiment madanakhyamahavabha but this experience come from their absortion in their servanthood/friendshipwith Sri Radhe , She is not different from Krishna ideed She, Herself isGodhead also, so why Srla Bhaktissidhanta Saraswati thakur spoke about us like"suddha - shaktas"
dandavats pranams
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:12 pm
Swami Tripurari Madhavananda Das,
I found you last post very confusing. I am not sure what you are trying to say,but in no instance does the manjari's sthayi-bhava for Krsna become asancari-bhava. Proper acquaintance with these terms should make that clear.
Shanti devi,
These discussions are useful and conclusive when discussed by those wellacquainted with rasa theology. There is a clear conclusion—a siddhanta on whatbhavollasa-rati constitutes. Indeed, it has been repeatedly cited on thisthread with scriptural support. What we are discussing is that one isolatedstatement of SNM or his editors contradicts that siddhanta. I do not think thatis to hard to understand.
January 30,2011 at 10:27pm · LikeUnlike
Swami Tripurari "Outward appearance" in this context means that outwardly theyengage as servants of Radha as if they were in dasya rasa with her, while theirinner experience is the madhurya rasa of Radha.
Candra Mukhi anyway I foud this expresion"outwardappearance" confusing, it s correct that the inner experience in manjaribhava is madhurya rasa but that experience is feeling because the strongaffection that they feel for Sri Radhe wich is superior than the affection thanthey feel for Krishna Himself
Swami Tripurari Candra mukhi said:
"It s correct that the inner experience in manjari bhava is madhurya rasabut that experience is feeling because the strong affection that they feel forSri Radhe wich is superior than the affection than they feel for KrishnaHimself."
Yes, it is correct and it has been stated dozens of times on this threadalready. I realize that it is a long thread but in the interest of notextending it unnecessarily I strongly suggest that new contributors to thethread read it over carefully before commenting.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:14 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats Tripurari Maharaja, I agree that siddhantamust be clear... so we are waiting for the answers...
Swami Tripurari I assume that you mean that you are waiting tounderstand the words of SNM in his Ramanada Samvada that contradict RupaGoswami—whether they are an editing mistake or not. But yes, we are waiting forthat information/clarification. However, at this point it appears that thisinformation/clarification is not forthcoming from his students. So perhaps wehave reached and end, a loose one that is, in this respect.
Candra Mukhi well, at least we understand that Radha dasyais not an outward mood which is a more important point of the siddhantavaisnava than the other
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:14 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Candra Mukhi,
Swami Tripurari did not say that Radha dasya is an "outward mood." In thecontext of correcting your blatant misunderstanding of siddhanta in which yousaid that dasya bhava is higher that the others ones rasas," he said, "Ishould also say that bhavollasa-rati has an outward appearance of dasya rati andmay even be referred to at times as Radha dasyam. But nonetheless it ismadhurya rasa in its highest expression through and through. Radha dasyam ismadhurya rasa." A "mood" is an inner experience, and Maharaja was clearlyexplaining to you that the manjaris' inner mood is madhurya-rasa.Radha-dasyam's "outward appearance" is dasya-rati, but internally it isRadharani's maha-bhava.
You then illogically assert that although the manjaris taste madhurya-rasa,Krsna doesn't act like the visaya for them, and then try to clarify yourselfwith an example that serves to further confuse the issue: "nobody is speakingabout romantic love for Radha, is a dasya/friendship mode ,like Gauranga ´sdevotees look Him." Although the manjaris' relationship with Radharani issimilar to how Gauranga's devotees worship him, there is an importantdifference: Mahaprabhu's devotees actually experience dasya-rasa withMahaprabhu, because he is the visaya-alambana (Krsna). Devotees who experienceany of the five rasas with Krsna worship Mahaprabhu in dasya. However, thosewho have the adhikara for Radha-dasyam (through worshipping Gaura indasya-bhakti) do not experience dasya-rasa with Radha, even though they serveher as handmaidens. The reason for this is because she is not the visaya-alambanaof any rasa. That is Krsna's position. She is the asraya-alambana ofmaha-bhava—maha-bhava-svarupini. Thus her handmaidens experience her maha-bhavafor Krsna because they are completely identified with the maha-bhava that shepersonifies.
So although you display a shaky hold on siddhanta, you falsely accuse Maharajaof not understanding Radha-dasyam. Furthermore, you don't seem to understandthe gravity and implications of the assertion that the manjaris' have asancari-bhava for Krsna (despite the fact that you have breezily reconciled thematter to your own satisfaction). Are you aware that no other acarya has madethis assertion? Do you realize that it means that the manjaris would not be inmadhurya-rasa because a sancari can never ascend to rasa? Maybe you should bemore cautious before you rush in. Frankly, in suggesting that the statementthat the manjaris have a sancari-bhava for Krsna is an editing mistake, SwamiTripurari has done a much better job at defending SNM's good name than you have(because of your lack of clarity on the topic). However, I acknowledge thatEnglish is not your first language, and that this language barrier may be partof the problem.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Vrindaranya Dasi Clarification: Radharani is thevisaya-alambana when Krsna experiences rasa in relation to her.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:15 pm
Swami Tripurari As Bhagavata Maharaja mentioned earlier therehave been some brilliant insights and deep siddhanta shared on the thread. Inthis regard there is one issue that has come up that I am rethinking. This isthe idea that bhavollasa-rati can be seen as either a sthayi-bhava for RadhaKrsna or as an extraordinary sancari-bhava for Radha. After looking into thisissue more closely, I am now more compelled to take a more cautious approach tothis and explain bhavollasa-rati as an extraordinary sancari-bhava, as Sri Rupaand Sri Jiva have. Indeed, Sri Jiva seems to take a very strong position onthis, going so far as to say that the subject of bhavollasa-rati should havebeen placed in the sancari-bhava section of Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu! Furthermorenone of our sastra gurus (Sri Rupa, Sanatana, Jiva, Visvanatha, etc) that I amaware of have described it as a sthayi-bhava for Radha Krsna.
Although I was led to believe that Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura hadreasoned that bhavollasa-rati could be thought of as a sthayi-bhava for RadhaKrsna combined, after reading his comments on it in his Ujjvala-nilamani tika Isee that he has only gone so far as to say that bhavollasa-rati acts neither asancari nor a sthayi-bhava [due to the fact that it is neither transient (as asancari characteristically is) or centered on Krsna the visaya alambana of allrasa (as a sthayi-bhava characteristically is).]
Bhavollasa-rati is centered on Radha as Krsna’s friend and it constitutes moreaffection for Radha than for Krsna. However, even if it is thought to involvelove of Krsna that nourishes the manjari’s love for Radha, VCT is unwilling tocall it a sthayi-bhava for Radha Krsna combined and thereby elevate Radha tothe position of the visaya alamabana along with Sri Krsna. Sri Rupa says thatKrsna alone is the visaya alambana of rasa, and Radha is the asraya alambana ofujjvala rasa.
Bhavollasa-rati is obviously a unique gem in the ocean of bhakti rasa. It isbhava “ullasa,” the most exalted bhava of all and the highest gift of Gaura tothe world. In bhavollasa-rati devotees taste Radha’s madanakhya mahabhava, thehighest love for Krsna. Because it constitutes love for Krsna, he is definitelythe visaya almabana of this love, and this love therefore also constitutes asthayi-bhava for him, not a sancari-bhava. It is directed towards Radha andcontains more affection for Radha than Krsna. However, the manjari’s love forRadha is not a sthayi-bhava for her alone. The idea that it is a sthayi-bhavafor Radha along with Krsna is a stretch that lacks overt support from theGoswami’s, even while some later Gaudiyas have made that stretch to their ownsatisfaction. The Goswamis position varies only in that VCT has reasoned thatthe implied meaning of Sri Rupa is that bhavollasa-rati acts neither a sancarior sthayi for Radha and thus deserves its own name.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:16 pm
Prem PrayojanSri Sri Guru Gaurangau jayatah!
My deepest heartfelt pranamato all the illustrious vaisnavas, and servants of such vaisnavas, who areenriching the world with their fascination for the gift of the darling son ofSacimata.
Personally, I am struck with awe seeing the vaisnavata of the participants inthis discussion. Rational, dispassionate dialogue, the life blood of academia,was never the forte of our fledgling faith communities. How far we have come!
What a joy to witness everything from the tentative first steps of the youngerdevotees towards a preliminary understanding of rasa-tattva, to the refreshinghonesty of our senior gurujana, such as Pujyapada BV Bhagavat Maharaja andPujyapada BV Tripurari Maharaja, as they reassess their previously held notionsand thereby demonstrate, by performative instruction, the essence of SriCaitanya Mahaprabhu's motto "..age kaho ara?"
Many devotees wrote and requested me to make some sort of contribution to thediscussion, so on their insistence, kindly allow me, if you will, to firstsummarize this charming discussion.
There are ostensibly three positions in regard to the bhava of SrimatiRadhika's palya-dasis:
1) Sri Krsna is the visaya of their sthayi-bhava,
2) Sri Radha-Krsna are both the visaya of their sthayi-bhava,
and
3) Sri Radha is the visaya, whereas Krsna-rati becomes a sancari-bhava.
Some opine that the writings of our Gosvamis seem to support only the firstposition.
The writings of Srila Kunja-bihari das Babaji Maharaja (namely Manjari SvarupaNirupana) strongly support the second position.
Statements to the effect of all three positions can be found in the writings ofmy paramaradhyatama gurupadapadma Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana GosvamiMaharaja.
We are left with two choices. Either to reconcile all three positions, or topolitely relegate the last two positions to personal opinions, at variance withthe original sources, or errors in editing respectively.
I favour the first approach. Firstly, since I was personally involved as atranslator for Srila Narayana Maharaja, I am aware of the details of how eachof his books came to be. As soon as he wrote the statement in question here(from his commentary on Raya Ramananda Samvada), I was astonished. I had thefortune to read it in the manuscript stage, even before the Hindi version wasprinted, five years before the English version arrived. Since I was currentlyengaged in the production of Sri Ujjvala-nilamani with the commentaries of bothSrila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura, I had ampleopportunity to discuss this subject with Srila Narayana Maharaja with referenceto all the original sources. Some of the conversations were also recorded. So Ican testify without a doubt that his opinion is accurately expressed in hiscommentary on Ramananda Samvada, and that there is no editing mistake in thisregard.
Secondly, Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja is one of the giants ofrasa-tattva of this century, involved in the divine ongoing revelation of SrilaRupa Gosvami's unique contribution. His words cannot be brushed off lightly.
Just as there is higher and lower mathematics, there is higher and lowerrasa-tattva. The conclusions of Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja belong tothe higher order of rasa-tattva. Thus they are not intelligible to students ofthe lower order. However, his krpa-kataksha is imbued with the power to bestowrealizations that far surpass the fruit of thousands of years of scripturalstudy.
The subject is very subtle. One of the main obstacles to understanding is thenotion that we have correctly understood the foundational principles. With thisin mind, I suggest that it might be profitable to retrace our steps in order toreconcile the present conundrum. From reading the thread it is apparent thatthere are many misconceptions and inaccurate uses of terminology that have ledthe discussion into a cul-de-sac.
Now, rather than stating the conclusion outright, which might lead tomisunderstanding, allow me to take a heuristic approach, which will be bothmore in order and also infinitely more attractive.
So let's start with the verse that started it all.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:16 pm
Prem Prayojan So let's start with the verse that started itall.
sancari syat samona va
krsna ratyah suhrdratih
adhikam pusyamana ced
bhavollasa itiryate
(BRS 2.5.128)
1) Where does this original verse mention manjaris, nitya-sakhis, or any othersynonym for the dasis of Srimati Radhika?
The verse strictly deals with the sancari bhava for a friend, which is equal toor less than love for Sri Krsna. Thus the manjaris are precluded from theoutset as the subjects of this verse. It is inconsistent to the suddenly changethe subject of the verse from the aforementioned sancari bhava which is equalor less, to a completely different kind of suhrd-rati, alledgedly that of themanjaris, which is permanently higher than their krsna-rati.
Devotees commonly attempt to separate this verse into a description ofdifferent asrayas of the sancari-bhava, as if the first two lines refer toparama-prestha sakhis, but somehow the second two lines refer to the manjaris.This is a terribly tortured interpretation, which does not in any way correlatewith any original sources. The verse refers to one asraya whose sancari bhavaof suhrd-rati oscillates in accordance with the lila between being in itsregular state and a state of hyper-sensitivity called bhavollasa.
ie. "When the rati of a friend (according to Srila Jiva Gosvami, such asLalita) for a friend (according to SJG, such as Radha) is equal or less thanrati for Sri Krsna, it will be a sancari bhava, but IF THAT (SAME) SUHRD-RATIBECOMES MORE (than krsna-rati) while being nourished, it is calledbhavollasa."
2) The commentaries on this verse (BRS 2.5.128) mention paradigmaticalindividuals such as Sri Radha and Lalita Sakhi. It is a grave error toprematurely introduce manjaris into the discussion at this point when nocommentator has done so.
We have to go back to the sources’ explanation of suhrd-rati. In rasa-tattva,friends who are endowed with a similar mood generally act as asraya-alambana.That is why suhrd-rati is not listed among the 33 sancari bhavas in BRS. Thisis a very important point that must be assimilated before we can go anyfurther: One of the many specialities of madhura-rasa is that only inmadhura-rasa does love for a friend attain the status of a sancari-bhava. Onlyin madhura-rasa is the desire to meet with Krsna so intense, so risky and sodifficult to fulfil, that a friend who can help one in this matter becomes thevisaya of a new sancari-bhava called suhrd-rati, which also on occasion extendsin nature beyond the limits of all prior definitions for sancari bhavas.
sakhy-adisu nija-premapy atra sancaritam vrajet
UN 13.1.2
Furthermore VCT comments here (UN13.1.2) that this phenomenon occurs only inKrsna-vallabhas, the direct beloveds of Sri Krsna, in the form of theirfriendship for their sakhis and dutis [messengers – which incidentally includesthe priya-narma sakhas 
according to the commentary of Visnudasa.]
So suhrd-rati is a sancari bhava of a nayika (heroine) for her sakhis anddutis. Since manjaris by definition never desire to be nayikas, this versecannot refer to them. That is what it means to be a nitya-sakhi.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:17 pm
Prem Prayojan 9) Will someone out there please present one pramana that the word“bhavollasa” has ever even been used in a compound with the word “rati” to makethe compound word “bhavollasa-rati” in the writings or commentaries of anyauthentic acarya in our sampradaya from the time of Srila Rupa Gosvami up to the time of SrilaPrabhupada. (and before you ask…. no, Murali Vilasa doesn’t count!)
Devotees have become so conditioned to associating the words bhavollasa andrati that few even notice that the original bhavollasa verse refers to thisspecial phenomena of a hyper-sensitive sancari-bhava as “bhavollasa” not“bhavollasa-rati” For example, most devotees rely on the only available Englishtranslation of Bhaktirasamrta Sindhu with the commentaries of Srila Jiva Gosvamiand Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura , published by HH Bhanu Swami Maharaja.Did you ever notice that the last line of the bhavollasa verse reads:
adhika pusyamana ced BHAVOLLASA RATIH (!!!)
whereas Srila Rupa Gosvami wrote
adhika pusyamana ced bhavollasa itiryate ?
The obsession with the phrase “bhavollasa rati” has now even progressed to theextent of changing the original words of Srila Rupa Gosvami!
The point I am trying to make (albeit poorly – kindly excuse my EnglishEnglish) is that it might be worthwhile to re-examine the historicity of theidea that manjari-bhava is equated with bhavollasa in our sampradaya. To myknowledge, there is no evidence at all that anyone at any time harboured such anotion.
Dear uncles, brothers and sisters, please consider some of the implications. Ifyou accept that the manjaris’ sthayi-bhava is to Sri Krsna and that their lovefor Srimati Radhika is a sancari-bhava then you will have the dreadfulimpermissibility of manjaris sometimes forgetting Sri Radha when thesancari-bhava disappears, as all sancari-bhavas do, like a wave into the oceanof their love for Krsna (ouch! That was so hard to write).
Alternatively, if we say that their sthayi bhava is love for Sri Radha-KrsnaYugala, and that they have bhavollasa, then effectively the suhrd-rati, whichis a sancari-bhava, would have to be, by definition, for another friend, sincethe love for Radhika is already part of the sthayi bhava. Then the suhrd-ratifor that friend (other than Radhika) would have to become greater than theirsthayi-bhava (love for Radha-Krsna) in order to meet the requirements ofbhavollasa. Do you see the problem with this? And that is essentially why everyacarya in our sampradaya has avoided using the phrase bhavollasa in referenceto manjari-bhava. My Gurudeva generally avoided this term also, as is evidentfrom his commentaries on Ramananda Samvada, Sri Bhajana Rahasya, etc, whereinhe has explained manjari-bhava in detail without reference to the supposedlyperfect definition embodied in the bhavollasa verse.
Only in his commentary on Venu Gita do we find the verse quoted. Why? Whilehaving refuted the common (mis)understandings surrounding this verse, the versecan still be said to be valuable for communicating certain esoteric realities.This we will explain in the next posting.
Thus ends my prologue to the discussion at hand. It was necessary to get thatpart over with before addressing the real issues of manjari-bhava in detail.Thank you for bearing with me.
Now all that remains is to explain how all three of the positions outlined atthe beginning of this presentation are perfectly correct and reconcilable onthe basis of the original sources. It was necessary to cut some jungle first.The road to this conclusion is somewhat long and unless we are on the same pageat each step of the way, the siddhanta will remain elusive.
…..to be continued
I pray that the vaisnavas may forgive my innumerable offenses and kindly blessme with their service,
sri hari guru vasnava krpa lesha prarthi,
Prem Prayojan das.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:18 pm
Prem Prayojan Hopefully, I have communicated the valid pointthat it is an anachronism to make comments such as "Sri Rupa Gosvami, SriJiva Gosvami, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, etc said the manjaris' moodis called bhavollasa-rati" since there is no evidence to substantiate it.
Srila Kunja Bihari Das Babaji Maharaja, the author of Manjari Svarupa Nirupanaseems to be the origin of this idea which has spread everywhere and become soinfluential that even many learned devotees mistakenly acknowledge withoutquestion that Srila Rupa Gosvami is the source.
However, the only real evidence Srila Kunja Bihari Das Babaji Maharaja has tosupport his thesis is one line from Murali Vilasa by Raja Vallabha Gosvami.
Here's a little background on that text from our old friend Jagadananda Prabhu:
Towards the end of the sixteenth century, a powerful Vaishnava center evolvedin the bush-covered and desolate Baghnapara are of Kalna subdivision. Thecenter developed a distinct theology which was linked with the ideas of theVrindavan Goswamis, but which yet sound at least partly deviant with a TantrikaSahajiya undertone. The Baghnapara Vaishnavas claimed a special relation withthe Vaishnavas of the Nityananda branch. In fact, Ramachandra, the foundingfather of the Baghnapara center, was a foster child of Jahnava Devi.
The legends and theology of the Baghnapara Vaishnavas are given in two worksentitled respectively Murali Vilasa (MV) and Vamsi Siksha (VS). These workswere published toward the end of the 19th century. MV was written byRajavallabha Goswami, possibly toward the beginning of the 17th century.Premadas Misra wrote the Vs in Saka 1638 (AD 1716). He was indebted to MV forhis biographical materials. According to Sukumar Sen, the printed MV is notauthentic. Biman Bihari Majumdar rejects these works as forgeries. According toMajumdar, they are so full of anachronisms and Sahajiya theories that no soberhistorian of Gaudiya Vaishnavism should regard them as authentic.
But the only thing that may not be apocryphal in these works is the expositionof theological and ritualistic concepts. The acceptance or rejection of suchworks should not be conditioned by their apparent conformity to or deviationfrom what is considered the orthodox and correct interpretation of GaudiyaVaishnavism. There is at least one recorded instance of the recognition of theSahajiyas and Bauls as Gaudiya Vaishnavas on the ground of their deepveneration for Chaitanya.
You can read the rest of Jagadananda prabhu's article here:
http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/topic_1930.html
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:18 pm
Swami Tripurari Prema-prayojana das,
Welcome to the heart of the discussion! I hope you can harmonize the threeviews we are discussing. However, as a quick response to your main point thusfar let me submit the following for your consideration.
1. SNM uses the term bhavollasa-rati as another name for manjari-bhava inseveral places. Here is an example where he is speaking on Ramanada Samvad.
“Mahaprabhu especially ordered Sri Svarupa Damodara and Sri Raya Ramananda tosprinkle their mercy upon Srila Rupa Gosvami, so that he could be qualified torealize the Lord’s mood and establish it in the world – and Rupa Gosvami didestablish it. The stayi-bhava (permanent transcendental emotion orrelationship) discussed herein is of the manjaris, and it is calledbhava-ullasa-rati *[see endnote 4]. It is not directly in relation to SriKrsna. The manjaris have more inclination towards Srimati Radhika.”
The endnote supports this further by paraphrasing Brs 2.5.128, the verse of SriRupa in which the term bhavollasa appears.
2. I do not know what manuscript of Brs. you are reading from, but the HaridasDas's edition. (Nabadwip : Haribol Kutir, 462 Gauräbda = 1946, third edition495 Gaurabda1979 as found in the Gaudiya Grantha Mandir scores 2.5.128 asending in the word ratih.
Haridas das himself comments on the verse thus:
“This bhavollasa is here to be understood as the sthayi bhava of thesakhi-snehadhika sakhis. Therefore, the words suhrd-ratih in the verse’s firstline refers to Radharani’s affection for her own girlfriends, in which case itis clearly a sanchari bhava, whereas when it is the girlfriends who are feelinglove for Radharani, it is bhavollasa.”
Sri Jiva says "even though it has the quality of a sancari(sancaritve'pi), because of its special characteristics, it is called a bhavawith the name bhavollasa." Here Sri Jiva appears to be using the wordbhava as a synonym for rati. In other words, a bhava of the name bhavollasa =bhaollasa-rati.
Sri Vishwanath adds that this bhavollasa is "superior to all other moods(sarva-bhavapeksaya paramotkarsat)." The suhrd-rati of Lalita for Radha,even if it at times shows more affection for Radha, is not superior to allother moods, whereas manjari bhava is.
3. Your rendering of 2.5.128 contradicts the translation of SNM. Here is hisrendering:
“Generally, devotees of the same mood and who are enriched with similar desiresnaturally share suhrd-bhava, intimate friendship, with each other. That is whythe love and affection that Lalita and the other sakhis have for SrimatiRadhika is called suhrd-rati. When their suhrd-rati is the same as or slightlyless than their Krsna-rati (affection towards Sri Krsna), this is calledsancari-bhava (a temporary emotion that is compared to the waves that swell andthen return to the ocean of their permanent emotion of the mood of Krsna'sbeloveds). In other words when this suhrd-rati becomes equal to the waves inthe ocean of their prominent affection for Krsna, it is a sancari-bhava.However, in the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati (for Sri Radha andeverything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds their krsna-rati andwhich constantly increases by the moment due to their full absorption in it, iscalled bhava-ullasa-rati.”
Note that all of the things you say one should not read into this verse are inthis rendering of SNM.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:19 pm
Swami Tripurari Prema-prayojana,
Just to demonstrate that the words of SNM I cited from one of his lectures onRamananda Samvada in which he refers to manjari-bhava as bhavollasa rati is notan isolated case, here are two more citations. In the first he is explainingthe meaning of the asirvada sloka of Cc and in the second he is discussing thesiddhanta of Ragavartma-candrika.
1.“May the Supreme Lord who is known as the son of Srimati Saci-devi betranscendentally situated in the innermost chambers of your heart. Resplendentwith the radiance of molten gold, He has appeared in the Age of Kali by Hiscauseless mercy to bestow what no incarnation has ever offered before: the mostsublime and radiant mellow of devotional service, loving services to SrimatiRadhika and Sri Krsna in parakiya (paramour) mood, manjari-bhava (bhava-ullasarati).”
2. "In fact, the manjari tastes something special, which even the flowerdoes not taste, in the sense that the flower does not tremble as the manjaridoes. Similarly the maidservants of Srimati Radhika experience a pleasure inbeing Her maidservant, which She Herself dos not experience, and that pleasureis called bhava-ullasa rati."
Here also is a citation from a lecture that you gave on the holy occasion ofthe appearance of Srila Gaura Govinda Maharaja, where you state that SNMexplained to SGG that the aim and object of Rupanuga’s is bhavollasa rati . . .
“The next question was what is the aim and object of rupanuga Gaudiyas. SrilaGurudeva described tat tad bhava icchamayi and in this bhava-ullasa-rati, thesthayi-bhava of the manjaris. This is the aim of the rupanugas—exclusiveservice to the lotus feet of Srimati Radhika.”
You asked for some references to acaryas identifying Bhavollasa with manjari-bhavaand instances of them calling bhavollasa a rati . . .
Incidentally you trace the genesis of the notion that the term bhavollasa issynonymous with manjari bhava to Kunjabihari das’ MSN, where he makes thisidentification of the two terms in the context of citing Brs 2.5.128. However,in his commentary on Vilapa Kusumanjali verse 16 that predates Kunjabihari das’MSN, Ananda Gopal Gosvami explained Brs 2.5.128 in the same way.
As an aside, it is also widely considered with supporting evidence that SNMborrowed heavily from this commentary in his lectures on VK. So it seems hefamiliarized himself with the text and perhaps imbibed the idea thatmanjari-bhava and bhavollasa are identical from it, only to later teach this ashe has in the citations I have referenced.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:20 pm
Babhru Reed Madhavananda, I like the mood you have shown,but I found your characterization of this thread as a debat a little jarring. Iprefer to think of it as a discussion, the kind of discussion, in fact, forwhich human life is actually meant: kathayanatas ca mam nityam/ tusyanti caramanti ca. Moreover, I'd like to opine that this may just be the most usefulthread I have seen on Fb. I'm grateful to all the participants for churning theocean of the nectar of devotion as they have. And I look forward to more.
I was struck by one point brought up by Prem Prayojan that I'd like to seeresolved. He suggested that Bhanu Swami's translation of Brs. 1.5.128 changesSrila Rupa Goswami's words from "adhika pusyamana ced bhavollasairiyate" to "bhavollasa ratih." On the other hand, TripurariMaharaja shows another edition giving the verse as "bhavollasaratih." What concerns me is that the meter for "bhavollasairiyate" scans properly, whereas the meter for "bhavollasaratih" seems not to scan so well. This may not be much of an issue, butSri Rupa's poetic skill is so refined that I found the line ending with ratih alittle jarring (yes, that may be my word of the day). So I would like to seesome exploration of the different mss. of Brs. available.
Babhru Reed At the same time, I look forward with morethan a little curioisty to seeing how Prem Prayojan responds to the otherpoints raised by Tripurari Maharaja.
Swami Tripurari Babhru,
Yes, ending the verse with ratih instead of itiryate leaves the last linemissing a syllable. Bhavollasa itiryate means "is called bhavollasa."Although I did cite a manuscript in which the verse ends with ratih, itiryateseems more correct.
However, others have argued that because the last word "bhAvollAsA"is feminine it is an adjective describing the rati in the verse. Hence no needto say "bhavollasa-ratih" because it is already being said! "Ifit (rati) is nourished excessively (for the friend of Krsna), then it is calledbhAvollAsA."
And as I have pointed out, we have several Gaudiya acaryas including SrilaNarayana Maharaja and Srila Gaura Govinda Maharaja in our Bhaktivinoda parivaraembracing the term bhavollasa-rati and understanding it to be synonymous withmanjari-bhava.
But there is much more to be said as well.
Babhru Reed Thank you, Swami. That makes sense to me, andI think your answer helps harmonize this small point. But, as you say, much isleft to be said, and I llok forward to that.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:22 pm
Candra Mukhi In my humble opinion:
- Is something related to the common sense that if the devotees in manjaribhava have more affection for Srimati Radharani than for Krishna therelationship that these devotees feel for Radha is stronger than therelationship that they feel for Krishna
- So, this relationship with Srimati Radhika is in the mood ofservanthood/friendship and is the predominant mood in manjari bhava
- That relationship is the cause that they realize bhavollasa (rati or not)which means that they realize indirectly the same that Radharani experiments inHer relationship with Krishna
- Radha acts like the visaya in this friendship and the asraya of Madhurya andSri Krishna is the Visaya of Madhurya but in a indirect way
- Vrindaranya Dasi:Although Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is Krishna Himself His moodis the mood of Sri Radha ,so why NOT ANY Sri Gauranga´s devotee feel any traceof Madhurya rasa with Him and the mood that they feel is similar of the moodthat they experiment with Sri Radhe and serve Sri Caitanya in a similar moodlike they serve Sri Radhe in Krishna pastimes (chanting mantras in Madhuryarasa to Him,etc) so the mood that the devotees in Madhurya rasa feel for SriCaitanya isn t a normal dasya(which is an inferior rasa), is Radha Dasyam!!wichis a special mood of Madhurya .So why the Goswamis are Manjaris in Krishnapastimes
sorry for my English
ys cm
Shanti Devi Dasi Madhavanada prabhu, when someone is humble inhis approach, this is his best ornament ,no problem if he is not most learnedin the whole universe, because trinad api sunicena is something what can pleaseMahaprabhu and by his mercy:
sri-caitanya-prasadena
tad-rupasya vinirnayam
balo 'pi kurute sastram
drishtva vraja-vilasinah
Cc Adi 4.1
"By the mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, even a foolish child can fullydescribe the real nature of Lord Krishna, the enjoyer of the pastimes of Vraja,according to the vision of the revealed scriptures."
So thank you and all devotees here who are in such mood...
Babhru Reed Madhavananda, I didn't see your choice of"debate" as a big problem, ccertainly not something you need toapologize for. I just prefer to see this as a discussion instead.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 6:23 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Madhavananda,
You asked for comments on your post. You wrote, "In such circumstance, thepermanent mood of the manjaris of always siding Radhikarani in Her moods, andassisting Her (in this instance called their ´sthayi-bhava´), is given up forHer own seva, so that the ujjvala-rasamayi lila will attain its paramountpinnacles."
When you say the permanent mood/sthayi-bhava is "given up" it is misleadingbecause by definition the sthayi-bhava doesn't change. When Radharani is angrywith Krsna, she may outwardly appear to give up her affection for Krsna, butnonetheless her sthayi-bhava does not waver for a second. The same goes for themanjaris.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Candra Mukhi,
We need to be careful we don't go in the direction of Gaura-nagara-bhava.Madhurya with Mahaprabhu is Gaura-nagari-bhava, which Bhaktivinode Thakura saidis apasiddhanta. Worship in Navadwipa, live in Vrindavana. So the devotees areworshipping Mahaprabhu in dasya tinged with sakhya and through this they getentrance into Vrindavana. In their perfected sadhaka-dehas, the devoteesworship Gaura and worship with Gaura, and internally they experience theBraja-lila in their siddha-dehas.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Babhru Reed Well said, Vrindaranya. Thank you. Thesentiments suggested bu Chandra Mukhi have been rejected by the acharyas in ourguru-varga. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura put the adherents of Gaura-nagara-bhavaamong the sahajiya apasampradayas.
The process of sadhana bhakti given by Sriman Mahaprabhu begins with takingshelter of the spiritual master, taking instruction and initiation from theguru, serving him with trust and affection, and following in the footsteps ofthe sadhus. As sadhakas we do well to hew closely to the path given by ouracharyas.
Our real need is progress in saranagati. For most of us, talk of manjari-bhavaand such things is theoretical at best. For some of us it may even be adistraction from our real business at hand. In the proper company and underproper guidance, of course, it can be salutary. In the meantime, we will allbenefit from sad-anga saranagati.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:18 pm
Candra Mukhi Dears , I know that my handle of English isnot the best , but I think that this part is clear enough: "so why NOT ANYSri Gauranga´s devotee feel ANY TRACE of Madhurya rasa with Him " sorry ,but ..this sound like Gaura nagara bhava?? , perhaps my English is worst that Ithink ...
About the rest of your reflexion dear Babhru prabhu I agree with you in eachword, I m a simple kanishta adhikari( or trying to be one) and this kind ofdiscussion are only for my purification like all the topics in relate of theLord and His devotees
Candra Mukhi Dears , I know that my handle of English isnot the best , but I think that this part is clear enough: "so why NOT ANYSri Gauranga´s devotee feel ANY TRACE of Madhurya rasa with Him " sorry ,but ..this sound like Gaura nagara bhava?? , perhaps my English is worst that Ithink ...
About the rest of your reflexion dear Babhru prabhu I agree with you in eachword, I m a simple kanishta adhikari( or trying to be one) and this kind ofdiscussion are only for my purification like all the topics in relate of theLord and His devotees
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Madhavananda,
I really don't see how Babhru's comments about saranagati can be taken asimmature fanaticism or as arising from an inordinate instructing mood. Hisreflections on the process of sadhana-bhakti were very balanced.
We should take it on our heads as mercy if he does see fit to instruct us. Hehas been a disciple of Srila Prabhupada for over forty years and is a sannyasacandidate.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:19 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Madhavananda,
You wrote:
“Since their siding with krishna (or in other words, the loving endeavor oftheir self would be for the satisfaction of Sri Krishna´s desires instead ofthose of Sri Radha´s) is ionly done in special circumstances, arising fromwithin the ocean of their loving one-pointed service to Sri Radhikaji, thenthat could be considered a sancari-bhava”
I’m not clear what you are suggesting here. You mention that the manjaris sidewith Krsna in special circumstances. Are you suggesting that the manjaris haveRadha as the object of their sthayi-bhava, not Krsna, and that only in certaincircumstances (when they side with Krsna) their relationship with Krsna becomea sancari-bhava?
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats Vrindaranya Didi, I think (and I hope)that Madhavananda pr. didnt want to make any offence, When we post somethingits better to post in the mood like Prem Prayojana prabhu did, his attitude isreally very very exemplary...
We always want to teach someone, but teaching we can recieve only if it isgiven in mood of love ... when sadhu chastises us we can accept, because hechastises us out of love, otherwise its very hard to accept.. Uselly we want tocorrect others out of our ego...
Vrindaranya Dasi Dandavats Shanti,
I agree that Madhvananda didn't want to make offense. I said that if Babhruwanted to instruct us, we should take it has mercy, but I don't think that hispost was coming from a mood of instructing others (taking a one-up position).It was in the discussion mood: someone makes a point, another person givestheir perspective, you say what you see as the weakness of the position, etc.So I found it inaccurate for Madhavananda to characterize the post asattempting to instruct others. It was also ironic that Madhavananda was makinga big deal about instructing others when he was instructing Babhru.
I also felt that protesting about what Babhru said about saranagati wasoverblown. He said that for most of us these topics are over our heads and ourreal focus should be saranagati. Who in the line of Bhaktisiddhanta SaraswatiThakura could disagree?
Anyway, nice that we can discuss process on this thread and come to a more toclarity and effectiveness in our communication.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:22 pm
Babhru Reed Chandra Mukhi: Kindly allow me to approachyour suggestion again perhaps more carefully. Of course there are those amongMahaprabhu's devotees (at least in a broad, generous sense) who have at leastsome trace of inclination toward a conjugal relationship (which is what Iassume you mean by madhurya rasa--please correct me if I'm wrong) with LordCaitanya. They are called Gauranga-nagaris. The assumption, as I understand it,is that Gaura can also be something of a playboy. I understand from theacharyas in my guru-varga that this is a disruption to Mahaprabhu's mood. Oneof my old friends has adopted this mood, and I'd be interested to hear what hisprevious gurus would have to say about that. We don't follow them.
Please pardon me if I seemed to miss something you wrote.
Vrindaranya Dasi As far as I understand, the Gaura-nagaris wanta full-blown conjugal relationship with Mahaprabhu.
Vrindaranya Dasi As far as I understand, the Gaura-nagaris wanta full-blown conjugal relationship with Mahaprabhu.
Babhru Reed Okay, now I'm in danger of becoming adistraction, and for that I do apologize. I hope you didn't reconsider your remarks,Madhavananda, just because Vrindaranya said I'm old and homeless. Please knowthat I took no offense, especially because I didn't think you intended any. Iwas, however, a little surprised. Let's move on in the discussion.
Vrindaranya Dasi thanks for your exemplary mood, Madhavananda
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:23 pm
Prem PrayojanSri Sri Guru Gaurangau jayatah!
Vaisnavebhyo namo namah!
Pardon my tardiness in responding. Most of you probably guessed that I havebeen engaged in the Sri Vyasa Puja celebrations for the Divine appearance of myHoly Master for the last three days. I will try to get back in discussiontomorrow. Thanks for your patience.
Babhru Reed Chandra Mukhi, I'm starting to wonder if Ihaven't simply misread your earlier post about Mahaprabhu's devotees havingmadhurya rasa with him. It is probably, as you and Vrinaranya have suggested,because English isn't your first language. If this is the case, I no doubt oweyou an apology. Could you try restating the point you were trying to make,please?
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats,
I found something interesting. In the book "Sri Caitanya and Raganugabhakti" by Srila Adikesava prabhu (Lal Kapoor), chapter VI its written:
"Sri Caitanya's special contribution is raganuga bhakti of a special type,called manjari-bhava or bhavollasa-rati. This is the highest type of bhakti. Manjari-bhavais the bhava of a sakhi, who is devoted almost exclusively to Radha rather thenKrishna.
There are three kinds of sakhis, those called samasneha, who are equallydevoted to Krishna and Radha, those called Krishna-snehadhika, who are devoted toKrishna more then Radha, and those called Radha-snehadhika, who are devoteed toRadha more then Krishna.
The devotion of this last group is called manjari-bhava or Radha-dasya.
They are directly and primarily devoted to Radha and secondarily to Krishna,because he is loved by Radha. Their bhava towards Radha is sthayi (dominant orpermanent), while their bhava towards Krishna is sancari (subsidiary andtransient).
Their bhava towards Radha is like the sea, in which the waves of their bhavatowards Krishna rise and fall or appear and disappear.
The bhava of the manjari is absolutely pure. It is tatsukhi, which means thatshe always seeks the pleasure of Radha and Krisna, not her own. If pleasurecomes to her without her seeking, while she is engaged in Their loving serviceand she is overwhelmed by it that it proves a hindrance in service, she cursesit. ...
...On account of her bhava-tadatmya (identity in bhava) with Radha a manjarialso experiences the highest stage of prema, called prema-vilasa-vivarta, inwhich the bliss is so sweet and intense that it obliterates the subject-objectconsciousness, only the bliss consciousness remains, as the bliss experiencesitself, and in which anuraga melts the minds of Radha and Krishna to such anextent that they virtualy become one and the perception of difference is notpossible.
According to Sri Caitanya the state of prema-vilasa-vivarta is the highest end(sadhya), which a sadhaka can achieve (Cc Madya 8. 192-195).
But to realize this state the sadhaka of Caitanya sampradaya does not have toimitate Radha and adopt kanta-bhava (bhava as of a wife towards her husband orbeloved towards her lover). Nor can the state be realized through kanta-bhava,because the sakhi does not have madhanakhya-mahabhava, which is specialcharacteristic of Radha's prema and without which the highest state of premacannot be reached. A manjari realized it automathically because of herbhava-tadatmya with Radha...
... a manjari has the conceit of being the dasi of Radha. Not that she isinferior to any of the other sakhis in beauty, wisdom, wit, art and craft. Shiis capable in every respect of becoming a yuthesvari or leader of a group ofsakhis like Lalita and Visakha. Still she prefers to be dasi of Radha(Krishna-bhavanamrita, 2).
But her dasya is not ordinary dasya, which is lower then sakhya. It is specialkind of dasya, which is based on madhura-bhava. Madhura-bhava is her dominantor premanent (sthayi) bhava.
Dasya, sakhya, and vatsalya bhavas are included in it. She serves Radha freelyin whichever bhava her service is needed. She cannot for a moment remainwithout service of Radha. Therefore she lives always in Her proximity. Shecannot leave Her even for a moment. Radha also loves her so much that shecannot remain without her (Vrindavana-mahimarita, 8.22-23)."...
.... The upasana of manjari-bhava is the special contribution of Sri CaitanyaMahaprabhu and His parikaras. We find sufficient proof of the upasana ofmadhura-bhava in the writings of Jayadeva, Candidasa and Vidyapati. But no onemade any mention of the upasana of manjari-bhava before Mahaprabhu and Hisparikaras.
Rupa Goswami for the first time used the word manjari and gave a list of themanjaris in his Radha-Krishna-ganoddesa-dipika.
Kavikarnapurna, Narottama Thakura and Dhynanacandra Gosvami have written thatRupa Gosvami, Santana Gosvami and other principal Gosvamis of Vrindavana arethemselves incarnation of the manjaris of Vraja-lila....( Kavikarnapura in hisGaura-ganoddesa-dipika mention this.)..."
I dont know what is the source for his writings, but first part is identicalwith this what Srila Narayan Maharaja has said (manjaris have sthayi bhavatoward Radha).
interesting for discussion...
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:24 pm
Swami Tripurari Prema Prayojana,
Regarding the history of equating bhavollasa with manjari-sadhana I questionyour out of hand dismissal of Murali-vilasa. I have not read the book, howeverit does have some things going for it, as is evident from the article byRamakanta Chakravarti you cited. Like a number of other books in our samparadayaits historical accuracy is questionable at best. Ours is not a lineage focusedon detailed historical accuracy. The legendary Vyasa is our lineage’s mostprolific author, and as the line becomes increasingly Guadiya, authorship andhistorical accuracy often fade and serve only as a background on which tohighlight essential teachings. For that matter, our own Prema Vivarta, etc.have received similar scholarly reviews questioning their legitimacy from ahistorical point of view, while other persons have drawn and imaginary nagaribhava out of the writing of Thakura Bhaktivinoda.
This excerpt from Chakravarti’s article is noteworthy:
“The teachings of Jahnava Devi, summed up in MV, lack originality. She seems tohave been deeply influenced by the works of Rupa Goswami and Krishna DasKaviraj. The theology ascribed in MV to Jahnava Devi has no Sahajiya concept.It may, therefore, be safely assumed that Dimock committed a blunder when heregarded her as a Sahajiya leader. Ramachandra too strictly adhered to theorthodox faith.”
Historicaly we do know that the MV is 400 some years old. It was authored byacarya Sri Rajavallabha Gosvami in the diksa lineage of Thakura Bhaktivinodastemming from Jahnava devi. It is not listed among the books that BhkatisidhantaSaraswati Thakura rejected and it has been cited by Sri Vallabha TirthaMaharaja of our Bhaktivinoda parivara in his writing inspired by Srila BaktiPromode Puri Goswami.
But however one wants to think about the above, even if one chooses to believethat is contains apasiddhanta, the book in the least demonstrates the fact thatfor at least the last 400 years Brs. 2.5.128 has been interpreted to bespeaking of manjari bhava and in doing so terms it bhavollasa-rati. In the lastfour centuries we find no literary effort to my knowledge within our prolificlineage to dismiss what MV says about bhavollasa-rati being synonymous withmanjari-bhava. At the same time we find a tradition of agreement with MV inthis regard and some silence on the issue.
Indeed, in our times it would not be an overstatement to point out (and most ofhis students would consider it a compliment) that SNM has done more than anyrecent acarya to make the term bhavollasa a household word, defining it asmanjari-bhava and pointing to Brs 2.5.128 as scriptural support. He expresslytaught this everywhere. Here is a brief history of his teaching this from theearly 1990’s through 2010.
In the early 1990’s he read from and commented to Iskcon leaders on Sri AnandaGopala Goswami’s insights from 1954 on Das Goswami’s Vilapa Kusumanjali, andexplained to them, as Goswami had written, that manjari-bhava isbhavollasa-rati. Like Murali-vilasa and 400 years of tradition, SNM referred tobhavollasa as a rati. In 1994 he taught this to Iskcon leaders in the contextof teaching them the siddhanta of Ragavatma-candrika. In 2003 in SNM’s presenceyou spoke to hundreds of devotees about the history of how SNM inspired SrilaGaura Govinda Maharaja with the idea that manjari-bhava is bhavollasa-rati tothe extent that upon hearing this SGGM exhibited sattvika-bhavas. In 2005during a lecture series on Ramanada Samvada SNM taught this to hundreds ofdevotees, twice referring to the manjari’s love as bhavollasa with an endnoteto the lecture referencing Brs 2.5.128 for and explanation of bhavollasa-rati.As late as 2010 earlier lectures of SNM in which he identifies bhavollasa-ratiwith the love of Sri Radha’s handmaidens have been published on the internetwith the same SNM approved endnote.
Now in early 2011 you have told us that the above twenty years (and probablymany more before that) of SNM’s teaching that bhavollasa-rati and manjari-bhavaare synonymous and Brs. 2.5.128 explains manjari-bhava, along with 400 years ofsimilar teaching in our lineage, is a “grave error” and a “tourtuous” renderingof Brs. 2.5.128. My hairs are not standing on end. You have brought yourcredibility into question. Although I have already addressed this anomaly inbrief, I thought a more detailed dramatic presentation might have a bettereffect.
Furthermore you have attempted to demonstrate grammatically how 2.5.128 doesnot say what SNM, etc. say it does. Your effort was not convincing. You havesimply interpreted it differently, not demonstrated the grammatical incorrectnessof SNM and others’ translations. Furthermore the verse does refer to bhavollasaas a rati, as does Sri Jiva’s tika, bhavollasakhyo bhava iryate—one morepramana to add to the list that, depending on the extent of one’s sectarianism,could be quite long. You claimed the verse does not refer to bhavollasa as arati and asked for someone to provide at least one pramana to substantiate thatit does. There you have it.
From there you have put together a creative, alternate explanation of theverse, citing UN, etc. Let us deal with that in another post and merely notehere before proceeding that your alternate explanation/interpretation appearsto be your own. At least you leave us with that impression, despite yourearlier comments that your explanation would faithfully represent the teachingof SNM. You have provided no evidence that it comes from SNM and considerableevidence to the contrary has surfaced in the meantime. Furthermore you haveprovided no references from previous or present acaryas supporting yourparticular interpretation of verses and commentaries, which does take some ofthe life out of it.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:25 pm
Candra Mukhi Dear Bhabru prabhu , I try to explain againthe points please be patient with me
1) Manjari Bhava is not a common Madhurya relationship
2)the main relationship is servanthood/friendship with Sri Radha
3) Sri Radha is the visaya of this servanthood /friendship and the asraya ofMadhurya in the top most grade call mahabhava
4)Sri Krishna is the ONLY VISAYA OF MADHURYA
5)In manjari bhava this relationship is indirect , that mean that the manjarisdon t want to be His girlfriends like the sakhis want , they only want themeeting of Sri Sri Radha Krishna , but they experiment the same sensation thanRadha feel
6) in the Adi Lila 4.135 Srila Prabhupada explain :
The transcendental consciousness of the Lord tells Him,"I am Kṛṣṇa, and I experience pleasure as theviṣaya. Thepleasure enjoyed by Rādhārāṇī, the āśraya, is many times greater than the pleasure I feel."Therefore, to feel the pleasure of the āśraya category, Lord Kṛṣṇa appeared as Śrī CaitanyaMahāprabhu.
7)Although to be Krishna Himself He asume the mood of Srimati Radhika
8) So why the devotees in Madhurya rasa serve the Lord (in His later pastimes)AS THEY SERVE SRI RADHIKA IN KRISHNA PASTIMES
9)So Sri Caitanya is the visaya of servanthood/friendship and the asraya ofMadhurya bhava(as Sri Radha) in the top most grade possible that is why SriCaitanya is call Mahavadanyaya
As the asraya of this special and sweet mood of prema He is most merciful thanKrishna
I am clear?
Sorry if not , the lenguaje is a big frontier!!
please accept my dandavats pranams
ys cm
Babhru Reed Chandra Mukhi: Thanks for clarifying yourearlier remarks. It does appear I misread them and that you were not suggestinganything like Gaura-nagara-bhava, so I apologize for making that assumption.
The language problem does complicate things, but your English is much betterthan my Spanish. ;-)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:25 pm
Swami Tripurari Shanti-devi,
That was one of your more interesting posts! I knew Dr. Kapoor personally. Hewas an colorful devotee. However, I personally witnessed SNM teaching hisdisciples in extremely strong words never to associate with him or read hisbooks. Indeed, he was livid! The basic reason for this is that after thedeparture of BSST Dr. Kapoor became intimately affiliated with the sect ofCarana das babaji that BSST considered deviant in a number of ways. This sectembraces some ideas that they consider siddhanta that no other Gaudiya sectagrees with: nitai gaura radhey syama japa hare krsna hare rama, etc.
However, most of what Dr. Kapoor wrote in the piece you posted concurs withwhat has been the standard understanding on this topic for centuries—with whatSNM has taught everywhere from what I can tell except in the Ramanada samvadabook. The only non standard thing he wrote is that bhavollasa rati involves asancari-bhava for Krsna and a sthayi-bhava for Radha, just as SNM has writtenin RS alone.
Again, I have never encountered this idea and it is not supported by the verseof Rupa Goswami Dr. Kapoor and everyone else cites concerning bhavollasa-rati.This makes me wonder if this is also the siddhnata of Carana dasa babaji’s sectand that Dr. Kapoor got it from there.
Lastly, much of what Dr. Kapoor has written in your post contradicts PremaPrayojan’s position.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:26 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Madhavananda,
You wrote:
"Certainly their sthayi-bhava, in whichever way the visaya-alambaa wouldbe defined, has sakhi-snehadhika as permanent (sthayi) mood (bhava)."
Yes, but not if you accept the argument of Sriman Prema-prayojana.
"And their siding with Krishna in despite of Radhika´s opposite mood iscertainly, if it happens, to be considered a transitory (sancari)emotion(bhava)."
Again, according to SPP, suhrt-rati is only for the nayikas.
But if you don't go with his interpretation, you still meet a brick wallbecause which of the 33 sancari-bhavas is it?
It can't be the 34th (suhrt-rati) because suhrt-rati is based on a sthayi-bhavafor Krsna and love for a friend of Krsna at the same time. Furthermore, havingKrsna as the object of the suhrt-rati doesn't fit with the definition ofsuhrt-rati because 2.5.128 compares the love of Krsna with the love of the friend.If the friend is Krsna, then this makes for an illogical comparison:
sancari syat samona va krsna ratyah suhrdratih adhikam pusyamana ced bhavollasaitiryate
"Love for a friend (suhrt-rati) will be called a sancari if it is the sameor less than love for Krsna, but if it is nourished in a greater way then it[this rati for a friend] is called bhavollasa."
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:28 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Interesting, Srila Prabhupada published someof his articles (Dr. Kapoor) in his Back to Godhead magazine in seventies...
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats
Recapitulation: ...so main "problem" remains. Srila Narayana Maharajasaid that Sri Radha is object of manjari's sthayi bhava, Dr. Kapoor said the same,Prem prayojana prabhu confirmed what Srila Narayana Maharaja said.
Tripurari Maharaja gaves proofs from BRS (2.5.128).in which it is saidopposite.
Prem Prayojana prabhu said that this verse from BRS doesn't speaks aboutmanjaris, that "the verse strictly deals with the sancari bhava for afriend, which is equal to or less than love for Sri Krsna".
So, from where comes this conception about manjari's sthayi bhava? Is this somesecrets from rasika devotees which is dislosed only to those who have adhikarato hear it?
Mistery remains... )
Babhru Reed Shanti Devi Dasi: Regarding the publication ofDr. Kapoor's articles in Back to Godhead, this is certainly not news. SrilaPrabhupada and Dr. Kapoor (Adikeshava prabhu) were old friends from Allahabad(I think). Tripurari Maharaja's assertion of his association outside ourparivar is correct, which is also not news. Srila Prabhupada apparently wantedto see if he could bring his friend back more closely into our circle, so heassociated with him in Vrindavan and had his articles published in BTG. Afterall, Dr. Kapoor's PhD dissertation became a well-known and generally highlyregarded book, "The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Chaitanya." SrilaPrabhupada showed us how to associate with him carefully. Perhaps TripurariMaharaja can explain the relationship more clearly, since he knew AKPpersonally.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:29 pm
Swami Tripurari Pema Prayojana,
Let me add the following to my last post. You also stated that SNM was verycareful not to use the term bhavollasa-rati in his edition of Bhajana-rahasya,where he was explaining manjari sadhana extensively. Your argument being thatSNM does not teach that bhavollasa is a rati (by with you mean a sthayi). Ihave shown that practically everywhere he talks about manjari bhava he doesequate it with bhavollasa and calls it bhavolasa-rati. Now with regard toBhajana-rahasya we find SNM teaches the same thing.:
"There,the manjari-sakhis, being endowed with ullasa-rati (much strongeraffection for Radha than for Krsna), are topmost. (P.206)
Please don’t try to say that ullasa-rati is not a reference tobhava-ullasa—bhavollasa-rati!
Furthermore your imagined problem with the idea that Radha Krsna are the visayaalambana of the manjaris sthayi is laid to rest by SNM in the same book. Youropinion is that if Radha and Krsna combined are the visyaya alamabana we haveto find another devotee whom the manjari’s will love more by the verydefinition of bhavollasa. You clearly have your own idea of what bhavollasa isHowever, it is love for Radha Krsan in which the love for Radha is greater thanthe love for Krsna, as explained by SNM in his Bhajana-rahasya commentary:
“The object (visayalambana) of the manjaris’ love and affection
is Sri Yugala-kisora.” (P. 224)
Here he has explained that the manjari’s sthayi-bhava is for Radha Krsnacombined. This of course is different from what he has written in Ramanada-samvad,the only place he has said otherwise.
Regarding the other problem you perceive when Krsna is seen as thevisayalambana of the manjaris and Radha is the object of an extraordinarysancari called bhavollasa, I do not agree with your understanding. There is no“ouch” as you put it because the extraordinary feature of this sancari is thatit involves continuous absorption. The word pusyamana in the Brs 2.5.128 means“nourished,” but in the tika of Jiva he explains the meaning as "beingincreased by constant absorption.” And VCT takes it even further, dittoing SriJiva and then calling it the supreme bhava/rati. It does not recede back intothe ocean of the manjari’s shtayi, which in this way of looking at it has Krsnaas the visaya alambana.
Lastly I think it is forced to insist that word bhava in the tikas describingbhavollasa does not mean that the tikas are referring to bhavollasa as a ratiis forced. It could go either way, as i have commented all along. Although Iexplained bhavollasa in the verse as an adjective describing rati, it may bemore correct to say that ullAsa is a noun (splendor, light) in apposition tothe rati that it modifies,or explains but as an appositional noun. Basicallyleaving us with the same conclusion. In this understanding the verse itselfdefines bhavollasa as a rati. So this supports SNM's use of the termbhavollasa-rati with the meaning that it is a sthayi-bhava for Radha Krsna.
More to come, but at the moment I am at Madhuvan in the jungle of CentralAmaerica and our micro-hydro source of power has just broken down. So I willhave limited ability to keep up on the discussion for a bit. Hopefully we canrepair it soon. Life in the jungle . . .
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:29 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi The first part of my post didn't go up becauseit was too long. I am re-posting in three parts. Sorry for the confusion.
Part One:
Dear Prema-prayojana,
Dandavat pranams. It's nice to have your participation on the thread. You bringa very learned and unexpected angle, and I look forward to seeing where thediscussions go.
In this post, I will address the first three of your points. I will make thefollowing arguments: (1) suhrd-rati is not unique to madhurya-rati, (2)understanding bhavollasa to refer only to nayikas is not supported by ouracaryas, and (3) bhavollasa is not a temporary enrichment but rather acontinuous absorption (satatäbhiniveçena).
In your first point, you write:
“Devotees commonly attempt to separate this verse into a description ofdifferent asrayas of the sancari-bhava, as if the first two lines refer toparama-prestha sakhis, but somehow the second two lines refer to the manjaris.This is a terribly tortured interpretation, which does not in any way correlatewith any original sources.”
Brs. 2.5.128 says, “Suhrd-rati (love for a friend) will be called a sancari ifit is the same or less than Krsna-rati (love for Krsna), but if it is nourishedin a greater way then it is called bhavollasa.”
Although your argument that “the verse refers to one asraya whose sancari bhavaof suhrd-rati oscillates in accordance with the lila between being in itsregular state and a state of hyper-sensitivity called bhavollasa” is aplausible interpretation, it is inaccurate to say that it is “terriblytortured” to say that it could refer to different asrayas of the suhrd-rati.The verse allows for either interpretation. However, it is clear from readingSri Rupa and Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s commentaries that Sri Rupa is referringto different asrayas of the suhrd-rati, not one.
Sri Jiva says that if the suhrd-rati is the same or less than that for Krsna,it is a sancari because it is rooted in it and nourishes it. He gives Radharaniand Lalita as an example. He then says, “However, if at any time in the rasacalled madhura, the love for the friend supersedes the rati for Krsna, and isnourished by continuous absorption, in that case it is the bhava calledbhavollasa, with regard to its excelling even the nature of a sancari.” HereSri Jiva delineates two possibilities: one situation in which a sancari isrooted in the sthayi-bhava and nourishes it, and another situation in which thesuhrd-rati supersedes the Krsna-rati and is nourished by continuous absorption.
Because this suhrd-rati is nourished by continuous absorption (puñyamäëäsatatäbhiniveçena), it is not possible that Sri Rupa is talking about only oneasraya. If the suhrd-rati is continuously greater than the Krsna-rati, then itis not possible for it to be less than Krsna-rati at another time. Thus theconclusion is that this verse is speaking about two asrayas, one that has thesame or less suhrd-rati than Krsna-rati and a special case in which thesuhrd-rati is continuously greater than the Krsna-rati. Furthermore, the factthat Sri Jiva distinguishes that the second situation occurs only inmadhurya-rati indicates that the first situation does not refer only todevotees in madhurya-rati. In other words, other like-minded devotees can havesuhrd-rati.
Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura expands on what Sri Jiva said: “And also”[which introduces verse 2.5.128] means that the present subject [sthayi-bhava]is finished, but that there is something more to say. Now, since rati amongsajatiya-bhaktas, always filled by the highest, mutual priti between onedevotee and another devotee, is nourished by the rati for Krishna, the authorhas settled it among the vyabhicari-bhavas. That is why he writes, “let it be asancari.” Here we see that VCT is saying that suhrd-rati is “between onedevotee and another devotee.” Thus VCT, like Sri Jiva and Sri Rupa, have notlimited the asraya of suhrd-rati to nayikas.
VCT then concludes in the same way that Sri Jiva except that he adds thatbhavollasa is the highest of all bhavas: “However, if in the rasa calledmadhura, the love for the friend supersedes the rati for Krsna, it is the bhavacalled bhavollasa, with regard to its excelling even the nature of a sancari.It is the highest of all bhavas.” Although bhavollasa is similar to a sancari,unlike a sancari it continues incessantly with faith and love. VCT’s statementthat it is the highest of all bhavas is a clear reference to manjari-bhava.Your understanding is that this verse refers to only one asraya, with theexample given being Radha’s love for Lalita. Obviously, Radha’s love for Lalitais not the “highest of all moods” (sarva-bhavapeksaya paramotkarsat).Therefore, again we see that this verse refers to two different asrayas.
VCT also explains Brs. 2.5.128 in his commentary on Ujjvala-nilamani: “This isthe meaning: when the suhrd-rati is the same or less as Krsna-rati, then it isa sancari. The implied meaning is that this is so since the love for a dear oneis rooted in the love for Sri Krsna and since it nourishes this love for Krsna.But if it is greater than the love for Krsna and is being nourished by it, thenit is called bhavollasa. The implied meaning is that it does not have thenature of a sancari or a sthayi bhava.” Therefore, again we have two cases: thefirst in which suhrd-rati is a sancari and a second in which it does not havethe nature of a sancari (because it is nourished by the sthayi-bhava) or thenature of a sthayi-bhava. Why does it not have the nature of a sthayi-bhava?Because it has a devotee as the visaya, not Krsna. Brs. 2.1.5 establishes thatKrsna-rati is the sthayi-bhava and Brs. 2.1.16 establishes that Krsna is thevisaya. Sri Jiva comments, “The object which inspires rati is called theviñaya. That is Krsna alone in this context.”
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:30 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Part 2
Although Sri Jiva said that bhavollasa is still a sancari and VCT here saysthat it has neither the nature of a sancari or a sthayi, there is no realcontradiction. Sri Jiva said that bhavollasa is a continuous absorption.Sancaris rise and fall. Thus it is a sancari and is not a sancari. Accordingly,different devotees have viewed bhavollasa either as an extraordinary sancari oras a sthayi-bhava with Sri Sri Radha-Krsna as the visaya.
It is important that we understand the importance of Brs. 2.5.128. Jagadanandadasa has explained the hypothetical question that Rupa Goswami answers in Brs.2.5.128:
"Love or rati in the material world is not, by your standards, true love.Love can only be for God. But devotees are non-different from God and so onemight love a devotee. Is that the same in terms of your rasa theory?"
Rupa answers, "Look, Krsna is the only visaya, so if you love a devotee,that can only be in relationship to Krsna. So in that optic, love for thedevotee is a wave in the ocean of the sthayi related to Krsna."
Objection: "Well, isn't it possible that someone could love a devotee MOREthan they love Krsna?"
"Yes, that may be possible, theoretically. But in practical terms, wheredoes this happen? Are those devoted to Hanuman really MORE devoted to him thanto Rama? But let us say that this was possible, then we should give it a name,so let us call it bhavollasa-rati.”
Objection: “Surely this does not exist anywhere but in theory alone? Is it notpossible that it exists in fact somewhere?”
“Indeed. If we look carefully, we will see that it is only possible in theservants of Radharani, where the manjaris and sakhis are divided intoRadha-snehadhika, Krishna-snehadhika, and sama-sneha.”
The spirit of Sri Rupa’s verse depicted above explains the broader significanceof suhrd-rati. In contrast to the notion that all like-minded devotees can haveintense love for one another (suhrd-rati), the interpretation that only thenayikas experience suhrd-rati leaves us with the unsatisfying conclusion thatonly nayikas have intense love for each other, and that other like-mindeddevotees’ love never attains the status of a sancari-bhava.
To support the understanding that Brs. 2.5.128 refers only to nayikas, you citeVCT’s commentary on Ujjvala-nilamani 13.2 and 13.104. The first important pointin this regard is that Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu is a book that describes allrasas with Krsna. Although Sri Jiva's commentary on 2.3.128 mentions Sri Radhaand Lalita, they are examples of his point, not the only category of devotee towhich the phenomenon applies.
In contrast to Brs, Ujjvala-nilamani is a book about only madhurya-rasa. Itelaborates on Brs. from the lens of madhurya-rasa. By saying that we mustunderstand Brs. 3.5.128 from how suhrd-rati is used in UN, you are implyingthat we must view Brs. 3.5.128 from this same lens of madhurya-rasa. In thisyou are trying to impose a specific category (nayika-suhrd-rati) onto a generalcategory (suhrd-rati) and say that love of a friend here means the love of anayika. However, because there is no compelling reason for imposing a specificcategory on a general one (because an apple is a piece of fruit but a piece offruit is not necessarily an apple), this argument needs further support.
Although it is true that the second part of the verse refers to madhurya-rati,it is still too narrow to say that it refers only to nayikas. You are makingmuch of VCT’s use of the word “nayika” in his commentary. A morestraightforward understanding is that VCT is merely describing the example thatRupa Goswami used in the verse and showing how Brs. 2.5.128 applies to it, notdefining how Brs. should be understood. The numerous references of SNM tobhavollasa-rati referring to manjaris should be evidence enough in this regard.
VCT does not explicitly say that Brs. 2.5.128 refers only to nayikas, and Ibelieve that no other acarya has done so either. Therefore, to support yourcase I think you need more evidence, an acarya who substantiates yourinterpretation. Do you have anything written by any present or previous acarya(SNM included) to support your particular interpretation that Brs. 2.5.128 istalking about only nayikas? Why would Rupa Goswami leave this verse so wideopen to misinterpretation? As you have admitted, devotees usually understandthis verse differently.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:30 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Part 3
So whereas you suggest that VCT’s commentary on UN 13.104 is defining what SriRupa meant in Brs. 2.5.128, I find a more plausible explanation to be that heis only explaining the particular example Sri Rupa gives. Frankly, yourargument that the hidden meaning of what Rupa Goswami actually meant in Brs.2.5.128 is defined in the commentary of another devotee that is made in anotherbook is a stretch. If Rupa Goswami had meant to limit the meaning of the verseto only the nayikas, he would have done so clearly in the verse in question.The only reason I can see for the rather convoluted explanation you give isthat for some reason you want to say that bhavollasa in Brs. 2.5.128 cannotrefer to the manjaris. In this interpretation you distance yourself from therest of the sampradaya, and as Srila Tripurari Maharaja has demonstrated, thewritten statements of Srila Narayana Maharaja himself.
In conclusion, although I think you have a very interesting angle, I can’t helpbut get the impression that your interpretation of Brs. 2.5.128 isunnecessarily complex and that this complexity arises out of the thesis youattempt to prove. In other words, rather than taking the more naturalunderstanding of Brs., the standard understanding for hundreds of years, youhave presented a complex and complicated argument to try to make it fit yourconclusion. You assure us that the contradictory statements of SNM were notediting mistakes and all can be harmonized. But as STM has shown, yourexplanation so far blatantly contradicts what SNM himself has said.Furthermore, as far as I can see, your interpretation of Brs. 2.5.128 alsocontradicts the way many acaryas have understood the verse (including SNM).Thus it regrettably seems to me that your interpretation creates more problemsthan it solves.
Thank you again for your thoughtful and provocative post. Please forgive me ifI have misunderstood any of your points.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:31 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Thanks, Madhavananda. You bring up aninteresting point about nayikas. I was actually just going with SrimanPrema-prayojana's statement, "Since manjaris by definition never desire tobe nayikas, this verse cannot refer to them."
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:31 pm
Prem Prayojan Pranama, Vrndaranya didi
I was delighted to read your thoughtful points. You still have not fullygrasped what I am saying but by the effort to become intimately familiar withthe commentaries you are getting closer by the minute.
There are yet further interpretive possibilities which no one has even touchedso far. Once understood, then all contradictions between my Gurudeva, previousacaryas, and even me, will be resolved.
I will post my next installment in a few minutes for your consideration.
Pranama, Madhavananda Prabhu. Please accept my warm embrace, old friend!
This is also for Vrndaranya didi since she seems to entertain the possibilitythat your statement about manjaris being nayikas could be correct. If you donot clearly understand this, there is no possibility of attaining a clearconception of manjari-bhava or even madhurya-rasa in general.
You are correct in stating that manjaris are in the category ofatyantika-laghu.
In fact, they may be atyantika laghu, sama-laghu, or a subdivision ofapeksika-laghu prakhara, apeksika-laghu-madhya and apekshika-laghu mrdvi.
Now although SOME nayikas are also categorized as atyantika-adhika etc. etc.please note that Srila Rupa Gosvami presents two similar taxonomies forunderstanding two dissimilar categories.
In other words, all Yuthesvaris are necessarily nayikas. Yuthesvaris aredivided into atyantika-adhika etc etc. in reference to their relative standingamongst the Yuthesvaris of OTHER groups.
This is explained in UN chapter 6 Yuthesvari-bheda prakaranam.
All the sakhis are also divided into atyantika-adhika etc. which analyzes theirrelative standing amongst the sakhis within the SAME group of one Yuthesvari.
This is explained in UN chapter 8 Sakhi-prakaranam.
Therefore, an atyantika-laghu nayika and an atyantika-laghu sakhi are twocompletely different types of gopi. The only similarity being the phrase"atyantika-laghu".
For example 5kg of milk and 5kg of sand are both 5kg. But this is where theresemblance ends.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:32 pm
Prem Prayojan Sri Sri GuruGaurangau jayatah!
Vaisnavebhyonamo namah.
May all the gentle vaisnavas involved in this discussion kindly accept mysastanga dandavat puspanjali. Without reservation, or consideration of who ishigher or lower, I bathe your feet and sprinkle the water upon my head.
A special thanks to Pujyapada BV Tripurari Maharaja for his thoughtfulcontribution, (in his own words, “a detailed, dramatic presentation” no less.)Maharaja is undoubtedly deserved of our utmost reverence in view of his longhistory of dedicated service to our sampradaya.
Personally, I have always respected him as a scholar, a visionary, and mostimportantly, a vaisnava of no mean stature. Anyone who takes the time to reviewhis ground-breaking contribution to contemporary vaisnava literature cannotfail to be moved by his eloquence and considerable depth of realization.
As it was Maharaja who graciously ventured to comment in detail upon myprevious comments, I would like to address the next part of this posting to HisHoliness.
Dear Maharaja, it seems that you have misconstrued the gist of what I havetried to express, since you see glaring discrepancies between what I havepresented, what my Paramaradhyatama Srila Gurudeva has presented, and thewritings of our sastra-acaryas. You even propose that I am drastically atvariance with my own recorded words from years gone by. I assure you that Ihave written nothing that does not resonate harmoniously with all thesesources, although that may not be apparent as yet.
I humbly confess my guilt at this point, and admit that I deliberately provokedthis situation because I am totally in agreement with you that the genuine pedagogyof rasa-tattva is itself dramatic in nature, full of wonder, with highs andlows, only to culminate in an unexpected and profoundly satisfying resolution.Indeed, is that not the inner meaning of the phrase satam prasangan mama viryasamvidah? (Bhag 3.25.25) i.e. The discussions about Sri Krsna among vaisnavasare themselves a manifestation of His astonishing potency.
In this particular discussion, there is one key concept, which, onceunderstood, opens the door to the entire subject. If you have this key and thenreread everything I have written, an entirely different picture will emerge.Then there will be no need for me to respond to each of your objectionsindividually, because they will simply all disappear like a dream.
The reason for this being that when we construct a refutation of a statementbased on a misreading of the statement, the misreading is known as “the strawman”. When the straw man is correctly identified, the refutation constructedaround him is rightly identified as non sequitur.
I will present this key concept in good time. But for now, I feel that theoriginal bhAvollAsa verse requires a little attention.
Dear Maharaja, you wrote:
“I do not know what manuscript of Brs. you are reading from, but the HaridasDas's edition. (Nabadwip : Haribol Kutir, 462 Gauräbda = 1946, third edition495 Gaurabda1979 as found in the Gaudiya Grantha Mandir scores 2.5.128 asending in the word ratih.”
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:32 pm
Prem Prayojan Response:
This question arose due to my mentioning that Srila Rupa Gosvami scores thelast line of the bhavollasa verse - bhAvollAsa itIryate ……..whereas, until justa few days ago, you were labouring under the false impression that it was ……bhAvollAsA ratiH. This documented fact demonstrates a crucial point about ourrespective understandings of the verse. We have both scutinized this verse forthe best part of twenty years, but with one very important difference. I havebeen studying the actual verse written by Srila Rupa Gosvami whereas you havebeen studying a typographical error. We cannot expect both approaches to yieldthe same result.
In regard to my sources, I am reading from several manuscripts. Most notably,in terms of accuracy, the BRS with translation by Dr. David L. Habermanpublished by the Indira Gandhi National Center for the Arts (2003). For thisacademic research project the author meticulously compared most of the bestexisting published editions along with the world’s oldest existing unpublishedmanuscripts of Sri Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu housed in the Vrndavan ResearchInstitute, to complete what is widely regarded as the critical edition. I amalso using Shamadas Hakim’s Sanskrit and Hindi edition published by HarinamaPress, Vrndavan (1981). Furthermore, the verdict of the aforementioned sourcesconcurs with the rendering of the full verse found within Srila VisvanathaCakravarti Thakura’s Ananda Candrika commentary on Sri Ujjvala-nilamani(13.108). So it’s reasonable to assume that I am at least reading the versethat was written by Srila Rupa Gosvami.
There are 6 other vitally important reasons why the edition upon which you havebased your understanding is incorrect. Let’s examine them one by one andexplore their implications.
1) The verse in question is composed in the poetic meter called anustup, whichconsists of four lines of eight syllables each. bhAvollAsa itIryate is eightsyllables, whereas bhAvollAsA ratiH is only six. The probability of thegreatest poet in history bungling up a verse to the tune of two syllables isexactly 0.00%.
It was not until after I brought this point to your attention that youcommented (in your post addressed to Babhru Prabhu):
“Yes, ending the verse with ratih instead of itiryate leaves the last linemissing a syllable.”
It escapes me how you could conclude that six is one less than eight,nevertheless, it was a step towards the immediate goal of actually discoveringwhat the verse is supposed to be.
I say a step towards the goal because you have failed to recognize that theword ratiH was not the only typo in your version. There are more.
2) Once you discovered that the line bhAvollAsa-ratiH doesn’t exist, youshifted your stance to, “OK it’s not there, but it is implied.” To convince usof this you proceeded to enlighten us with some Sanskrit grammar. You wrote:
“However, others have argued that because the last word "bhAvollAsA"is feminine it is an adjective describing the rati in the verse. Hence no needto say "bhavollasa-ratih" because it is already being said! "Ifit (rati) is nourished excessively (for the friend of Krsna), then it is calledbhAvollAsA."
Here you have attempted to show that the word bhAvollAsa ends with a long“a”syllable, thereby making it the adjective qualifying an implied femininenoun, namely “ratiH”
Maharaja, is that really true, or is it just another typo?
If the word bhAvollAsa (Srila Rupa Gosvami’s version ending in a shortsyllable) were indeed bhAvollAsA (ending in a long syllable), then that lastsyllable would have to combine with the next syllable of the word “iti”according to the grammatical rule:
“a-dvayam-i-dvaye e” (Sutra 41. Sri Harinamamrta Vyakarana, Srila JivaGosvami).
Thus just as mahA+Isvara = mahesvara
now bhAvollAsA+itIryate must = bhAvollAsetIryate.
But your rendering of the verse is bhAvollASA itIryate without the externalsandhi (phonetic combination). This is grammatically impossible. Either you arecorrect and Srila Rupa Gosvami made a pre-kindergarten Sanskrit error, or wehave to face the fact that you are still not looking at the actual verse.
It’s pointless to discuss the meaning of a verse until we make sure that we areboth talking about the same verse. I am trying to explain a verse written bySrila Rupa Gosvami, whereas you are explaining something else.
This current situation brings to mind the humorous anecdote concerning thepeople who were at the back of the huge crowd that had assembled to hear theSermon on the Mount. Being far away they could not hear clearly. One asked,“What did he say?” One replied, “I think he said, ‘Blessed are thecheesemakers.’” Another asked, “What’s so special about the cheesemakers?” Noone could understand until a scholar who was standing nearby enlightened themwith his commentary, “Of course ‘cheesemakers’ is obviously synecdoche for allthe manufacturers of dairy produce.”
The moral of the tale being, “It’s not important how smart you are if yoursources are unreliable to begin with.”
Of course you must have realized by now that the word bhAvollAsa (correctspelling) is not a feminine adjective but a masculine noun. Therefore, the wordbhAvollASa-ratiH is not only NOT in this line of the verse, it is not evengrammatically implied.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:33 pm
Prem Prayojan 3) Dear Maharaja, although your feminine adjective proposal makes theline eight syllableslong, which is correct, the necessity of external sandhi (phonetic combination)would bring the line back down to seven syllables – another impossibility fromthe perspective of prosody.
4) According to the rules of Sanskrit prosody, the fifth syllable of the lastline should be laghu (light), the sixth syllable guru (heavy), and the seventhlaghu (light). The other syllables are free to be laghu or guru.
So the actually line reads (1st)bhA-guru (2nd)vo-guru (3rd)llA-guru(4th)sa-laghu
(5th) it-laghu (6th)Ir-guru (7th)ya-laghu (8th)te-laghu
It is clear that the perfect poet has composed perfect poetry.
On the other hand, if we accept your proposal that bhAvollAsa should be thefeminine adjective bhAvollASA (with long A), then (due to point2. above) wewill have a fifth syllable(Ir) which is guru, and therefore, a siddhanta whichis laghu.
5) Here’s the dictionary definition of ullAsa:
ullAsa - masculine noun. light , splendour L. ; the coming forth , becomingvisible , appearing; joy , happiness , merriness ; increase , growth BhP. vii ,1 , 7 ;
(in rhetoric.) giving prominence to any object by comparison or opposition
Kuval. ; chapter , section , division of a book (e.g. of the Kavya-prakasa).
I trust you will not dispute the Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary. So it isclear we have a masculine noun as the base word. The base word’s transition tofeminine adjective is precluded by the fact that Iryate is derived from Irdhatu, the verbal root Ir (to utter, pronounce, proclaim) in karmani prayoga(the transitive passive voice). The object of a passive verb takes prathamavibhakti (nominative) and the agent takes tritiya vibhakti (instrumental).
The word bhAvollAsa in prathama vibhakti is spelt bhAvollAsaH. Since the nextword begins with the letter “i” , the visnu-sarga (H) is dropped in accordancewith the rule:
a-dvaya-bho-bhago-aghobhyo lopyah sarvesvare (Sutra 83. Sri HarinamamrtaVyakarana, Srila Jiva Gosvami).
Thus the correct phrase becomes bhavollAsa itIryate
– Literally “…it is called bhAvollAsa.” NOT bhavollAsa-rati.
6) Are you convinced yet? Perhaps not quite. If the verse does not overtly saywhat we want it to say, then we could always try to glean some support from thecommentary as you did here:
“Sri Jiva says "even though it has the quality of a sancari(sancaritve'pi), because of its special characteristics, it is called a bhavawith the name bhavollasa." Here Sri Jiva appears to be using the wordbhava as a synonym for rati. In other words, a bhava of the name bhavollasa =bhavollasa-rati.”
And also here:
“Furthermore the verse does refer to bhavollasa as a rati, as does Sri Jiva’stika, bhavollasakhyo bhava iryate”
Let’s examine the exact words of the commentary to determine the veracity ofyour conjecture:
bhAvollAsa = bhavollasa
AkhyaH = with the name
bhAva = a mood (specifically sancari-bhava)
Iryate = it is called
iti= thus
So we have, “Thus it is called a (sancari) bhava with the name bhAvollAsa.”
Can it get much clearer than that? But you say,“Here Sri Jiva appears to beusing the word bhava as a synonym for rati.” This is exactly what I mean by thephrase “tortured interpretation”. The sooner we refrain from forcing the word“rati” where it simply refuses to go, the sooner we can move on the what SrilaRupa Gosvami really said.
If Srila Jiva Gosvami had wanted to say “bhAvollAsa-rati” is it not more likelythat the commentary would look like this: bhAvollAsa-ratyAkhyo bhAva Iryateiti. “Thus it is called a bhava with the name bhAvollAsa-rati.”
Don’t take my word for it. Just ask any independent Sanskrit scholar whosejudgment has not been clouded by years of reading the wrong verse.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:33 pm
Prem Prayojan Essentially what we have here is a kind ofclassic taxonomic confusion of species for genus. The species in this case issuhrd-ratih. The genus is the category of sancari-bhavas. However, whensuhrd-ratih becomes more than Krsna-rati, the definition of the genus is injeopardy, not the definition of the species (suhrd-ratih). For this reason itis necessary to declare an extra-special category of the genus calledbhAvollAsa. Thus the overall AkAnkSa (grammatical demand for a sense ofcompletion) and upapatti (interpretive symptom of appropriateness) becomefulfilled.
Dear Maharaja, on a personal note, I have always vigorously defended your goodname in the past whenever I came across any unfortunate person who lacked appreciationfor your courageous efforts to spread Mahaprabhu’s prema-dharma or your uniquestyle of presentation which is exactly attuned to the requirements of thepost-modern world. I revere your Holiness as a self-effulgent star in thefirmament of the Gaudiya sky. If I have in any way incurred your displeasure inthe course of this discussion, I humbly beg for forgiveness and emphaticallydeclare that I am not fit to touch your shadow. Thank you Maharaja forcondescending (in the thoroughly affirmative theological sense) to give me yourattention.
Now a cautionary word for the younger devotees who may not have had the goodfortune of much association with highly advanced devotees. The discussionsbetween vaisnavas in no way resemble the competitive one-upmanship, based onthe false ego and desires for pratistha, of the conditioned souls. Sri Krsnauses the devotees who are helplessly surrendered to Him to make vocal, throughpoint and counterpoint discussion, the endless nuances of His transcendental glories.
This is why Prabhupada Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati commented to the effectthat the non-devotee is wrong even when he perfectly quotes the verse, page,and number, whereas the words of the devotee are always correct, even if hemisquotes the verse, in the sense that his words are full of love and love isthe only subject of hari-katha. This discussion is worthless if it does nothingto promote our devotion and loving dealings with each other. Everything shouldbe reconciled with generosity in the spirit of Srila Vrndavan Das Thakura,
nitya suddha jnanavanta vaisnava sakala
tabe ye kalaha dekha, saba kutuhala
(Sri Caitanya Bhagavata Adi 9.227)
“All the vaisnavas are endowed with eternal, pure knowledge. If you witness anycontention amongst them, accept it as a divine ruse to incite a wondrousspiritual curiosity!”
(Sri Caitanya Bhagavata Adi 9.227)
In my next posting, I will tentatively present for your consideration what Iopine to be the key to the whole discussion along with an analysis of eachsyllable of the relevant verses and commentaries. A clear understanding of thesubject is not possible without seeing how the theory is applied in action, soI propose to illustrate each concept as it arises with examples from thepastimes of Sri Sri Yugala-Kisora. When all these factors are in place we willbe in good shape to easily harmonize the three apparently contradictorypositions that form the basis of this discussion.
Did I forget anything?
Oh yes, the nature of my next posting will be somewhat different. It will be alive video webcast with the facility for Q&A at the end of the lecturethrough the accompanying live chat pop-up.
Those of you who are interested are cordially invited to watch and evenparticipate at 8.00am – 10.30am (Pacific Standard Time) on Saturday 12 thFebruary on the webTV channel of my website www.krsnakatha.com or on Ustream. Here are the links:
http://www.krsnakatha.com/live-broadcast
or
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/krsna-katha
If you would like to receive e-updates containing information about the weeklybroadcasts of KrsnaKathaTV’s Worldwide Virtual Nama Hatta study groups, you arewelcome to contact me at prem108@gmail.com
In the meantime, I will leave you with a clue to solving the conundrum inquestion:
There is a categorical distinction between bhavollasa and bhavollasa-rati.
You have eight days to think about it before the broadcast. I apologize inadvance for my absence online between now and then. Kindly permit me todisconnect and mourn the recent passing of my most worshipful Holy Masternitya-lila pravista om visnupada astottarasata Sri srimad rupanugacaryavaryaBhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja.
sri hari guru vaisnava krpa lesha prarthi.
dina, hina,
akincana,
Prem Prayojan das.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:34 pm
Madan Gopal Prem Prayojan prabhu,
I appreciate your elaborate explanation of the Sanskrit construction of the BRSverse, but through all of that you have hardly touched any of Sripad TripurariMaharaj's or Vrndaranya prabhu's several challenges to your originalpresentation. I don't have the feeling that the essence of this"conundrum" hinges on sanskrit grammar, but am interested to hear thegist of your argument and we still have not received that from you. By the endof your last post here we are left to wonder if you will respond at all on thisthread, or only on KrsnaKatha TV. It seems that there is a lot left unanswered,and then if you are indeed changing the venue it would appear that direct"point and counterpoint discussion" is being avoided.
daso 'smi,
madan gopal das
Nitaisundara Dasa Prema Prayojana, Prabhu, I am not sure why youhave decided to delay the discussion for a week, but I would like to suggestthat you not move it to another venue.
Ustream is somewhat interactive, but it certainly slants the discussion infavor of the broadcaster, who has prepared ahead of time and is speaking,whereas the viewer who wishes to discuss the issue is limited to a primitivechat box. Additionally, with an issue of such a subtle nature, having allpoints in writing seems most appropriate. Speaking is malleable because it iseasily misunderstood and remembered inaccurately. It is for this reason thatBaladeva had to put his Vedanta Sutra commentary into writing.
Overall, this discussion is much better suited for a written venue that doesnot favor one participant over another.
In service
Nitaisundara dasa
Nitaisundara Dasa I also think it is somewhat inappropriate to say thatSrila Tripurari Maharaja has to tune in as an attendee to your class on yourschedule or else not be a part of the climax of this discussion, of which hewas the catalyst and has invested much thought along the way. But this isessentially what you are doing by changing the venue at your own discretion.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:37 pm
Babhru Reed I'm less than impressed by Prem Prayojana'sunilateral decision to hijack this discussion hosted by Bhagavat Maharaja anddriven largely by issues raised by Tripurari Maharaja, reducing it to apromotional device for his TV channel. So, if, and only if we're willing totune in, he promises to at last (timpani roll, please) reveal the secret he hasbeen touting with what seem progressively like longwinded posts. I'm sorry tobe so blunt, but I keep hearing the Bengali proverb Srila Krishna das KavirajaGoswami shares in Sri Caitanyacharitamrita: mitam ca saram ca vaco hi vagmitah"True eloquence means to speak essential truth concisely.I also find myselfwondering, as Gertrude Stein might, if there's any there there.
Syamasundara Dasa My obeisances to all the participants. Thishas been a very enlivening discussion. I have learned much more than I wouldhave expected. Yet, after so many days, no one has been able to address thevery gist of the discussion, i.e. that Krsna cannot be the object of a sañcaribhava, or anyway prove that he can.
And just a very concise note to my friend and goduncle Babhru Prabhu: thatverse is Sanskrit, not Bengali, but I agree with the meaning of itfull-heartedly and regardless!
Nitaisundara Dasa Pranams Madhavananda,
Skype video conferencing is limited to 5 participants. Some other servicesallow more but frankly I think they are buggy. Additionally I imagine thatthere are hundreds of people possibly watching this thread develop and it wouldbe impossible to include them all elsewhere. Lastly, like I said, there issomething to be said for written communication in such a circumstance as itforces contributors to solidify their thoughts more and enables the audience toknow more concretely what a person thinks. As we can see, language is fluidenough in the written form, how much moreso in speaking!
In service
Nitaisundara dasa
Syamasundara Dasa Dear Madhavananda dasa, a skype videoconference would be great for a Q&A, where someone would answer questionsand everybody would benefit.
However, the discussion in course here has a controversial point at its base,and it's vital that everything remains written: verba volant, scripta manent(words fly, writings remain).
Already now, despite its written format, I've seen one party stating that Krsnacannot be the object of a sañcari bhava according to rasa-tattva, and the otherparty pasting quotes after quotes about the glories of Radha and mañjari bhava,as if it was an answer or in opposition to the other party's statement.
Then there has been a detour based on a misunderstanding on gaura-nagara bhava.
Then a whole dissertation on grammar which, as much as the linguist in merelished it, was really not relevant to establishing whether or not there canbe sañcari bhava for Krsna.
So, as you can see it's important to leave everything in written.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:37 pm
Swami Tripurari My position all along has been that I have noproblem with those who understand bhavollasa as a rati (sthayi) or with thosewho prefer to see it as an extraordinary sancari. I have tried to lend supportto the former because I think I have demonstrated well that this is theposition of SNM and many, many other senior Vaisnavas.
I presented very strong evidence showing that SNM not only used the termbhavollasa-rati but used it in relation to manjari-bhava and explained that themanjaris experience suhrt-rati and in their case it is called bhavollasa-rati.This is about as clear of a reference to Brs.2.5.128 as you can get, althoughin the books of SNM it gets even closer: SNM translates the verse itself in theway you are objecting to. Your own stated position is that this verse is notabout manjari-bhava and manjari's do not experience suhrt-rati. However, youignore this contradiction I have raised.
Furthermore, Vrindaranya went to great length to sort though all of yourtechnical points and answer them one by one. Nonetheless, you summarily dismissedall the strong points that were put to you and instead focused almostexclusively on a point of Sanskrit grammar that I mentioned to Babhru prabhu.The way that you side-stepped all the points put to you and instead made anoverblown grammatical argument on a minor point was disappointing and made itseem like you were trying to distract attention from the more importantquestions: to begin with, why SNM himself would use the term if it were sopatently wrong.
With regard to the grammar of the verse, which is all that your recent postsaddressed, you missed the following statement of mine that makes the case for agrammatically correct bhavollasa-rati:
"It may be more correct to say that ullAsa is a noun (splendor, light) inapposition to the rati that it modifies or explains but as an appositionalnoun."
I believe that there is grammatical support to the idea that the verse speaksof bhavollasa as a rati. However, as I have said all along it may be a astretch but one I do not disagree with. Why? Because the sancari bhavollasa forall intents and purposes acts like a sthayi . . . Indeed, VCT has said it isnot a sancari, while at the same time not giving it the status of a sthayieither, although many senior to myself have done so for hundreds of years. Thuswe have a long standing tradition of this usage. Note that Haberman, whosetranslation you agree with has also understood it in this way and stated so inhis "Acting as a Way of Salvation," concurring with Kunjabihari dasa.
Thus, again, your focus on the grammatical incorrectness of bhavollasa-rati inthe translation and commentaries seemed overblown and, moreover it missed themore important points that were raised. Again, I have admitted from the startthat the position of bhavollasa as a sancari or sthayi is debatable. Yourposition is that it is not. We differ, even while I prefer at the moment tothink of bhavollasa as an extraordinary sancari that is not one that comes andgoes as supported by the tikas. Note that the word kvacit is not fond in VCT’stika and I believe you have understood it incorrectly where it appears in SriJiva’s. It does not mean that only “for some time” one experiences bhavollasaand thus one loves the friend more then while at other times not. It means that“in certain cases” within madhurya we find this phenomenon—greater affectionfor Radha than for Krsna that constitutes continuous absorption, etc.
Furthermore because you overlooked what I actually said about the grammar ofthe verse and instead refuted what I mentioned “Others have argued,” (takingbhavollasa as a feminine adjective), much of YOUR post constitutes a straw manargument. You have argued against a position that is not my own (although Imentioned it) at great length and ignored my actual position on the grammar ofthe verse.
You also argued at length against the idea that the verse ends in ratih insteadof itiryate, as if this was one of my points to you, when I merely mentionedthat the manuscript I had in front of me read this way. Babhru pointed out thatsuch a reading lacked syllables and I agreed that it appeared to be an error inthe manuscript for this very reason. So, again, you have argued against a pointthat I did not stand behind.
Ironically you did this in the context of accusing me of making a straw manargument against you without explaining how I and others have argued against aposition that you have not taken—the definition of straw man argument. Then yougo on to say that you will soon reveal the key that will dismiss all argumentslike magic. However, previously you told us that we needed to understand yourbasic arguments before we could understand the rest of them—the higher ones.And then after we labor to refute your basic arguments, you ignore ourrefutation. So why have you wasted our time in making basic arguments that didnot need to be made? Enough with the theatrics. Please give us the key tounderstanding your position in plain English.
My position here has been to support SNM on all of his explanations of howbhavollasa-rati is synonymous with manjari-bhava and all of his explanations ofBrs 2.5.128 that identify this verse with manjari-bhava, as well as to supporthis explanation that the visaya alamabana of the manjaris is Radha-Krsna. Ihave only questioned his one statement in which he appears to contradicthimself by saying that Radha alone is the visaya alamabana of manjari bhava andthat the manjari’s love for Krsna is a sancari-bhava. You have not resolvedthat, so I cannot respond to your position on it.
At any rate this thread has been an interesting if not a lengthy discussionover all. However, I'm starting to grow weary with it as I have yet to hear anycompelling arguments as to why I should change my position. Unfortunately, yourpoints have failed to fan the flames of my interest further, especiallyinasmuch as I have addressed them in some detail and you have not responded tothem herein.
You have shifted the discussion to another format that I am not interested infollowing. Basically it changes the format from a discussion to a one-man showthat does not provide anyone the opportunity to respond to any of your pointsin detail. Still I wish you well and good luck in your video broadcast and inyour effort to resolve the numerous contradictions in your position I haveraised. That's it.
Otherwise I know that you are a serious devotee of Mahaprabhu with previouslife's experience in bhakti. You were born in the West for good reason. As Imentioned to you when we first met, under your Gurudeva's guidance, you were ina good position to help others and especially the educated West understand thesignificance of Mahaprabhu's precepts. Now your illustrious Guru Maharaja hasleft the world and the bar is raised. I am your well wisher in all respects. Iwould like nothing more than to see you fully represent your Gurudeva in theyears to come and infuse others with the life blood of genuine spirituality. Wesee in discussions like this one how readily participants fall along partisanlines without even understanding the points raised. I am happy to see that youhave made an effort to educate them and try to lead them beyond beyond partylines.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:38 pm
Tarun Das I found some words from Jaiva Dharma, that sitwith me well, especially in the light of the partisanism that Maharaja hasbrought up. It was never very far in the background. This is from the 28thChapter. Sorry about the funny wording. That's how it copied.
"In fact, these bhävas, as part of rati, are by their very nature theviläsa of mahä-bhakti, and they have the quality of distinct, inconceivablesvarüpa (acintya-svarüpa-viçiñöa). Shästras such as Mahäbhärata describe themas beyond reasoning, and have also established that it is improper to argueabout the host of bhävas (bhäva-samüha) that are beyond rational contemplation.The tattvas that are beyond prakåti (the modes of material nature) areacintya-tattvas."
This apräkåta-cinmaya-rasa, as the playful pastime manifestation (viläsa-rüpa)of the hlädiné mahä-çakti, has attained tadätmya (oneness) with the supremebliss (paramänanda). In other words, paramänanda is itself rasa. This is beyondthe realm of logic and argument because it is acintya.
Vrajanätha: What is the meaning of the word bhäva in the context ofcinmaya-rasa?
Gosvämé: In rasa-tantra, the word bhäva indicates the sentiment that isawakened by deep spiritual impressions (gäòha-saàskäras) of the subject ofmeditation in the heart of the learned, whose intelligence is exclusivelyapplied to spiritual subject matter. I have mentioned earlier that there aretwo types of bhäva: cintya (conceivable) and acintya (inconceivable). One canapply logic to the subject of cintya-bhävas, because all such bhävas that arisein the conditioned mind of the baddha-jéva are born of the inert materialnature. This means that one can think about their subject matter. Similarly,any mundane thoughts about Éçvara are also cintya-bhäva.
Actually, bhävas related to Éçvara are not cintya because éçvaratattva isbeyond the mundane substance. However, it is a mistake to think, “Éçvara-tattvais beyond the inert material energy, and consequently there is no conceivablebhäva in Him. Therefore, there is no bhäva at all in éçvara-tattva.” Actually,all the bhävas exist in relation to Éçvara, but they are acintya because theyare beyond the thinking capacity of the material mind. Bring thoseinconceivable bhävas into the heart and go on cultivating them with undividedattention. You should know that one of those bhävas is permanent (sthäyé), andyou should accept the other acintya-bhävas as the ingredients (sämagré) ofrasa. When you do so, the eternally perfect (nitya-siddha) rasa, which is fulland uninterrupted (akhaëòa), will arise within you.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:39 pm
Molly Carano who can explain the words of our BelovedSpiritual Master? only someone who knows His Heart! ♥
there must be a very beautiful significance behind what Srila Gurudeva has saidin this matter...perhaps it is supposed to remain a great mystery to us now, wemay not be advanced enough to grasp it, or a very learned, generous hearteddevotee can elucidate on it, from scholarship and knowing Srila Gurudeva'sinnermost moods...He is, after all, so dear to Srimati Radhika, always engagedin serving Her, under the guidance of Srimati Rupa Manjari! there must be aconclusion, please don't give up!!
Vaishnava Thakura ki jaya!
'The words emanating from the Lotus Mouth of Sri Gurudeva should be embracedwithin the heart. No aspiration beyond His words should enter because Hisinstructions bring one to the highest goal- rati, or attachment to His LotusFeet. By His Grace all of our desires for spiritual perfection are fulfilled.'
Praying for the grace of Srila Gurudeva, and our entire Guru Parampara, withoutwhom discussions like these would not likely be taking place with so muchfervor in our lifetime!
Please accept my humble obeisances and forgive my simplicity and lack ofscholarship! but grace me with a drop of your mercy! please be kind ♥
Malati dasi
Vrindaranya Dasi Hearing from the lips of a sadhu is the bestway to understand the imports of the scripture, but our ability to understandwhat we have heard is not perfect, and thus disagreements inevitably arise overthe true meanings and intentions, and furthermore acaryas occasionally appearto differ on some points. I’m really seeing the value of tattva-viveka, inquiryinto the truth, in a spirit of humility and genuine desire to get to thecorrect siddhanta for one’s own benefit as well as for the fidelity of thesampradaya to its core teachings.
The average devotee cannot be expected to have a desire to understand complextechnical arguments or subtle points of Sanskrit grammar. Nor is such knowledgenecessary for progress in bhakti. Devotees need only grasp the essentialphilosophical points that are being made. But when these essentialphilosophical points come into question, there is a need for some devotees toconsider all the implications of the differing points of view and distill thosetechnical considerations into layperson’s terms.
The origin of the jiva is one such issue, as is the whether the jiva can fallfrom Vaikuntha. To distill our present discussion (whether Krsna-rati is asancari) into layperson’s terms, we are basically discussing whether for somepure devotees, love for Krsna can come and go.
I am optimistic that by sincere and methodical discussion we can at the leastincrease our understanding of what the essential points are, if not come to anagreement on the proper conception (although I fully understand that somedevotees have neither the time nor need for such discussion). The key here willbe how much we can put our desire for truth above our desire to be right, aswell as our willingness to face difficult questions and not brush them underthe carpet.
In this mood, I would like to come to a consensus on whether Prema-prayojana’sargument that it is grammatically problematic for bhavollasa to refer tobhavollasa-rati in Brs. 2.5.128 is valid, and if so, what the implications ofthis actually are (I will post some questions and observations in this regardin a later post). And from there, we still have not gotten to the main point:whether Krsna-rati can be a sancari-bhava. I agree with those who feel that thevideo class format is not an ideal for reaching a conclusion on this issue. Atthe same time, I acknowledge that Prema-prayojana may not have the time ordesire to discuss these issues in the slow, methodical manner that is likelyrequired to reach a consensus on this thread. If that is the case, perhapsothers can understand his argument fully and represent it here. Or if thereisn’t a mutual desire to try to reach consensus, I for one would like tounderstand the full explanation behind how one can argue that Krsna-rati can bea sancari.
I think that a strong case has already been made that this idea contradictsRupa Goswami, and as of yet we have not heard a compelling argument that itdoes not contradict Rupa Goswami’s teachings. I’m not saying that a validargument can’t be made, only that I have not heard it yet (sorry, Madhavananda,you still need to answer the incongruities I put forth before I can consideryour argument valid in terms of Sri Rupa’s framework). So I hope thatPrema-prayojana will still post his arguments here on the thread or thatsomeone will do so for him.
If there is a desire to methodically examine this issue and reach a consensus,I would request that as much as possible we strive to address one point at atime. Raising more than one point at a time takes too long to answer anddiminishes the possibility of progressing systematically. Furthermore, I thinkit is essential when we post an argument to answer the counter-arguments oradmit that we don't have a compelling answer. Otherwise we go nowhere.
Dandavat pranams to all.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:40 pm
Babhru Reed In case my earlier remarks seem harsh, I wantmake clear that I also like and respect Prem Prayojana prabhu. I've alwaysfound him a very intelligent, dedicated devotee. I spent a little time with himin Hilo, I think in 2007, and I saw the beginnings of what I considered ratherprogressive preaching ideas. However, like Tripurari Maharaja, Vrindaranya,Syamasundara, and others, I've noted that there has been little progress in thethread toward directly addressing the core issues raised. And some of PremPrayojana prabhu's comments seem to have muddied the discussion more to theyhave clarified it.
Nevertheless, I've found this thread, as I mentioned earlier, this has been avery enlivening thread, and I'm grateful to all who have participated.
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats; I agree with you, Vrindaranya Didi,we all are waiting for sastric conclusions regarding this subject - whetherKrsna-rati can be a sancari. If Srila Narayana Maharaja said that it can be, wehave to go further in understanding how it can be... So still we are waitingfor answers.
Babhru Reed I'm also with Vrindaranaya. As I go throughPrem Prayojana's points, it appears to me that he's trying to construct anedifice of evidence that supports the thesis he has advanced, but it would besimpler to build a thesis based on the preponderance of evidence, includingwhat his own spiritual master has said and written quite often.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:41 pm
Tarun Das I have also enjoyed some of what went on here,though I can say that the subject matter is a tad bit beyond my 'pay grade'too. Bringing attention to one point at a time would be helpful. Often when Icheck in I see that some good points were made some time ago and the discussionhas moved on. So I don't pursue. Also the patisan spirit gets a little tiring,and is more in the debate mode than discussion.
I've been thinking all along how the two parties are fundamentally different asregards to personality type. Tripurari Maharaja and followers are very logical.Powerfully logical. I realize that argueing with good logic is a respected partof our tradition. But I also realize that I'm not so inclined that way. Notthat I'd reject it out of hand, but I see it as only providing part of theanswer. Intuition, on the other hand, is something I trust more, and that is adifferent personality type. I think a lot of SNM's followers fall into thefeeling as opposed to thinking type, and maybe intuitive over sensate. I'mreferring to the Myers Briggs personality analysis, based on Carl Jung's typology.I've seen this before, where groups of devotees split based on personalitytypes. In a perfect world, the different types work together, with thedifferent groups offering their particular skills, and benefiting from thestrengths of the other parties. Varnashrama. Often times, though, they go outof communication, and call each other bad names, like Sahajiya, or Smarta.Understanding that my way is not 'the' only bonafide way, makes for smootherrelations between the sects. But that's easier said than done.
With regards to the points at hand, I'm not sure that understanding it one wayor the other, will make much of a difference, to me. Knowledge and realizedknowledge are not the same, and like I said, I depend more on it falling fromthe heavens, than from deep analysis of grammer or the such. Not that I don'tenjoy that kind of thing, done in the right spirit. Sometimes it seems moreabout being right than about getting to the Truth.
An interesting point, for me, though, is something Einstein said, aboutintuition. After puzzling over an equation, for some time, and not getting theanswer, he would take a break, and poof, the answer would come to him, out ofthe blue. But it was the intense energy he put into solving it, that createdthe space for the intuition to come. So this conversation is something likethat. A lot of intensity put into understanding something that requires somegrace to really get. But the desire is surely there. And I have had moments ofgrace too, coming out of this conversation, thank you.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:43 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Interesting analysis, Tarun. I actually findmy Guru Maharaja to be both intuitive and logical. He is definitely moreintuitive than I am, but I lean pretty extreme in logical/analytical direction.The disciples of my Guru Maharaja have a discussion forum and it is easy to seethe intuitive/logical split.
Although I see what you mean about most the disciples of SNM on this threadleaning in the intuitive direction, it seems to me that SNM himself leans inthe logical direction, as does Prema-prayojana obviously. :-)
Babhru Reed I agree with Vrindaranya: I find TripurariMaharaj a good balance between thinking and feeling. I'm an INFP, but, as Iremember, the feeling isn't way over on the scale, but is fairly close to thecenter.
Vrindaranya Dasi Achha, INFP: Idealist Healer. That makessense. I'm INTJ, which is why I basically never stop thinking and loveorganizing systems.
It occurred to me that intuitive philosophical would better characterize myGuru Maharaja. Highly philosophical like Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Similartemperament but some of the fieriness of Srila Prabhupada too.
Babhru Reed Yup--the Scientist. No big shock there.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:43 pm
Jagadananda Das Prema Prayojan has something interesting tosay. Certainly there are points that I had not considered before. And themisreading of 2.5.128 comes from GGM, so I am a little ashamed and embarrassedthat I have been the ultimate source of an erroneous reading of the verse. I havebeen asked by several people to look a little more closely at the discussion.But it is a long one, so it may be a while. Radhe Radhe.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:45 pm
Nitaisundara Dasa I appreciate your points, Tarun. When I wasfirst shown the Meyers Briggs analysis I was very impressed by its accuracy. Ithink the anecdote about Einstein is very apt in conveying the necessity ofintense longing (in this case for sastric understanding, but ultimately for thedarshana and seva of Krishna) that also gets nowhere without grace. Thankyou.
Jagadananda Das It seems as though my mistaken reading haspervaded all my texts. I am very sorry for that. That is the danger of the"cut and paste" mentality.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:45 pm
Tarun Das Vindaranya, I was thinking that SNM'sdisciples are feeling dominant, mostly. And that's the great attraction to him.He's very feelling oriented, with a strong thinking function also. That's myamateur analysis. As far as his disciples go with intuitive versus sensate, somebut less. Sensate is strong in the Bhakti traditions because of it's sensualnature. And concerning percieving versus judging, it could go either way.I seesectarianism as coming from a strong judging tendency. Just thinking thatwhatever I have been led to believe is the truth, is it, and all I have to donow is make sure the rest of the world believes it too. Any other version is ofthe devil or heterodoxy.
I actually don't know that much about it all, but a friend analysed the splitin New V.in the nineties between the interfaith crowd and the return to Iskcongroup, and found it fell along personality lines. Especially percieving andjudging. There were a few of us at the core of the interfaith group that wereENFP's or INFP"s like myself. I think the attraction of Sridhar Maharajfor me has to do with his intuitive, percieving, and maybe feeling nature. Hereare some quotes that I love.
" The transcendental world is something quite new to us. It is verydifficult to get out of this superstition of so-called "truth" here.But still it is necessary that we accept that anything and everything ispossible with God. He is the master of impossibilities.
So krsna-lila moves in a crooked way (aher iva gatih premna. . .) Thisfundamental point, the foundation of our understanding about krsna-lila hasbeen given by Rupa Goswami in this verse. He says, "Don't be eager to findreason everywhere in the pastimes of divinity. They are naturally crooked....We can't try to apply our reason or our standard of measurement to themovements of the infinite. And whatever gain we have made by connecting withthat flow of lila will be lost in our attempts to measure it; that will be theonly consequence of our analysis. So we should try to have a taste of lila witha submissive attitude. Sometimes reason, logic, and analysis are necessary, butonly to preach to the people in general who have a lower understanding. Onlyfor the purpose of preaching to people addicted to reason do we have to takethe help of reason. But when devotion becomes automatic, anuraga, then bothreason and scripture are left in the subterranean position. There is no placefor scriptural arguments there. To a certain extent, reason is necessary forour development up to vaidhi-bhakti, the elementary stages of devotion. Butabove that, it has no use. Anuraga-bhajana is automatic; that is the nature oflila: aher iva gatih premna. Everything there moves by His sweet will. Sweetwill means that it is not a fixed program. It moves in such a way that we can'tsay, "It will pass by this road."
So Krsna's divine movements are kept in reserve by His sweet will: "AllRights Reserved." We want to search for some law above His sweet will, butthis is inconsistent. It is self-contradictory. On the one side we say thatKrsna moves by His own sweet will, but on another side we try to find some lawgoverning His movement. This is a contradiction. Lila moves by sweet will. Whenwe say it is lila, then we can't give any shape to that. We can say that it wasshown in a particular place in a particular way. But we cannot be sure whethertoday the same course will be taken.
It is said, srutibhir vimrgyam: The authentic books about the revealed truthare only showing the way. They say: "Go in this direction. Where? We donot exactly know, but you may go in this direction." They are only showingthe direction. All the srutis, the guidance given by the scholars of revealedtruth, give some direction: "Go this way, in this direction, and perhapsyou may find it."
Attraction is the most fundamental element everywhere. All else can beeliminated and forgotten if we come in touch with attraction and love.Everything can be ignored if we are in connection with love. The fulfillment ofour existence, of all existence, of everything, is in love. Love is theprinciple in the center which is the only fulfillment of all existence. Thevery gist of existence is there; it can't be ignored or challenged by any otherforms or aspects of our substantial existence. It is unchallengeable and absolute.
Whatever we may experience, the most central need for fulfillment remains:love. The absolute king of everything is love. Nothing can stand in comparisonwith it. Coming in clash with the principle of love, all will have to acceptdefeat. Mahaprabhu pointed out that this is the most substantial thing in thisworld."
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:46 pm
Tarun Das So I have a question that I've been pondering.Is BRS a recipe book or an attempt to scientifically analyse lila? Is it acanvas of tattva that we paint our bhava onto, or is it a tracing over thelila, an attempt to put down into words what is an actual living, breathing,moving, happening. Maybe both, eh. But if it is words attempting to describeexperience, necessarily it will be only a partial view. And mistaking thefinger for the moon is typical, and that's what religions fight over, whichfinger is right. One description of reality versus another. Both are attemptsto explain reality in a systematic way. But they all have their limitations asfar as describing what is not fully describable, and they are themselves notreality. They are attempts, using some system or other, to explain theunexplainable. Krishna Lila moves in a crooked way, so how is a fixed systemgoing to describe it? That's why I like the ambiguity that occurs when a newidea enters the arena. And we're once again in the realm of Acintya. Everythingwe know comes into question and we are open once again to what the universemight have to say. And if two apparently contradictory ideas can somehow beresolved, then we enter the higher synthesis. I'm hoping for something likethat out of this. Madhvananda has already proposed some good ideas, and PremaPrayojana is threatening to. ;-)
I hope I didn't ruffle too may feathers with all this. The quotes from SridharaMaharaja had a purpose. I think framing the 'discussion' is important, so weknow what we each want out of it. Jai Sri Radhe!!
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Tarun,
You ask, "Krishna Lila moves in a crooked way, so how is a fixed systemgoing to describe it?"
No book can perfectly describe Krsna-lila, but Brs. doesn't try to describeKrsna-lila in its entirety. It is a broad conceptual framework. Although Krsnais unlimited, he chooses to act within the framework of rasa-tattva.
Sastra gives us a conceptual framework or orientation. Although the lower endof sambandha-jnana is theoretical, the higher end is realized knowledge thatinforms bhava-bhakti. This realized knowledge arises out of proper conceptualorientation. Bhaktivinode Thakura says that without a proper conceptualorientation, diksa or chanting will not bear much fruit.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:46 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Damodar Priya Devi Dasi,
Candramukhi expressed the vision that Radha is the visaya of the manjarisservanthood/friendship and that Krsna is the only visaya of madhurya. Brs. doesteach that manjari-bhava is a type of madhurya-rasa (which has Krsn...a as thevisaya), but it does not explicitly state that Radha is the visaya-alambana ofthe manjaris for any sthayi-bhava, either madhurya or dasya. The acaryas whosay that Radha-Krsna is the visaya of the manjaris do not say that the manjarishave one rasa with Radha and a different one for Krsna. So Candramukhi stillneeds to support her position.
At the moment, we're waiting to hear from Prema-prayojana. He is going to tryto support all three conceptions of the object of manjari's sthayi-bhava atonce (sthayi-bhava for Krsna, Radha-Krsna, and Radha).
Brs. makes clear statements that Krsna is the object of all sthayi-bhavas, butmany have taken Brs. 2.5.128, which is about suhrt-rati (love of a friend) toestablish that Radha-Krsna can be the object of the manjari's sthayi-bhava.Prema-prayojana has taken the surprising step of arguing that the bhavollasamentioned in this verse is only a sancari-bhava and that the verse does notrefer to the manjaris. Jagadananda, a Sanskrit scholar, is reading overPrema-prayojana's argument and we are waiting for his comments.
If Prema-prayojana establishes that bhavollasa is only a sancari, then he willneed to establish from Brs. how Radha can be a joint visaya with Krsna and howshe can be a sole visaya, as well as how the manjaris can have only asancari-bhava for Krsna. He will also need to show how his theory doesn'tcontradict SNM's interpretation of Brs. 2.5.128, in which SNM refers to themanjari's suhrd-rati as bhava-ullasa-rati.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:47 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dandavat pranams,
I know that a lot of devotees don't have access to Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, so Ithought I would post the relevant verses to our discussion. I will postseparately Brs. 2.5.128 along with two translations of the commentaries of SriJiva and one translation of the commentary of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. Iwill make a third post with the verses of Ujjvala-nilamani that pertain tosuhrt-rati.
Note: translation of the following verses is from Bhanu Swami's edition ofBhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, which is available here:
2.1.5
This rati for Krsna, called the sthayi-bhava, takes on a pleasurable nature inthe hearts of the devotees by the vibhavas, anubhavas, sattvika-bhavas andvyabhicari-bhavas, through activities such as hearing, and then becomesbhaktirasa.
2.1.10
This rati, strengthened by past and present life impressions of bhakti, thenattains a state of relish by realizing vibhava, anubhava, sattvika-bhava andvyabhicari-bhava in relation to Krsna, and finally attains the highest,astonishing peak of profound bliss.
2.1.16
Älambanas are described as follows: The wise consider the alambanas to beKrsna, as the object of love experienced in rati, and His devotees, as theexperiencer (subject) of rati (the five major and seven secondarysthayibhavas).
from Sri Jiva's commentary: This verse distinguished the alambana as Krsna andHis devotees. The object which inspires rati is called the visaya. That isKrsna alone in this context.
2.1.17
Now Krsna as the object of rati is discussed: Krsna, Svayam Bhagavan, is thecrest jewel of heroes, in whom all great qualities shine eternally. He isconsidered the alambana or support for rati (visaya) through His svarupa andthrough other forms that He may assume.
2.1.18
The “other forms” are now explained as follows:
“How is it that I have developed rati for the calves and the cowherd boyssimilar to my rati for Krsna?” In this way Balarama with indecision remainedstruck with wonder.
[Note: the "other forms" are when Krsna expanded into the form of thecows and cowherd boys in the Brahma-vimohana-lila.
2.4.3
All the vyabhicari-bhavas, rising and falling like waves in the sweet ocean ofthe sthayi-bhava, increase the sthayi-bhava and then merge into thesthayi-bhava.
[Note: Another name for vyabhicari-bhava is sancari-bhava.]
2.4.6
The vyabhicari-bhavas are as follows: self-disgust (nirveda), remorse (visada),thinking oneself unqualified (dainyam or dinata), debility (glani or mlani),fatigue (srama), rapture (mada), pride (garva), apprehension (sanka), suddenfear (trasa), confusion of the mind (avega), insanity (unmada), epilepsy(apasmrti), sickness (vyadhi), loss of internal awareness (moha), death-likesymptoms (mrti), sloth (alasyam), indecision (jadyam), shame (vrida),concealment (avahittha), remembrance (smrti), conjecture (vitarka), pondering(cinta), finding meaning through scriptural reference (mati), steadiness(dhrti), joy (harsa), impatience (autsukyam), ferocity (augrya), indignation(amarsa), fault-finding (asuyaRN), insolence (capalya), sleep (nidra), dreaming(supti), and enlightenment (bodha).
2.5.1
That bhava which, controlling other favorable bhavas such as hasya andcontradictory bhavas such as krodha, presides in the manner of an efficientruler, is called the sthayibhava.
2.5.2
In this context, the rati directed towards Krsna is called the sthayi-bhava.Those knowledgeable of rasa say that there are two types of sthayi-bhava: mukhya(primary) and gauna (secondary).
2.5.3
Mukhya-rati (Primary rati)
A rati which is suddha-sattva-visesatma (composed of the hladini and samvitsaktis) is called a primary rati. Though this is the primary rati, it takes twoforms: svartha and parartha.
2.5.6
A primary rati in these two forms has five varieties: suddha, priti (or dasya),sakhya, vatsala (or vatsalya) and priyata (or madhura).
2.5.29
Gauna-rati (Secondary Rati):
When a different emotional state arising from the excellence of the alambana (vibhava)manifests while the primary rati subdues itself, it is called a secondary rati.
2.5.42
Though these seven bhavas are different from the primary svartha-ratis composedof suddha-sattva-visesa (mukhya-svartha-ratis), when these seven emotions are conjoinedwith a primary rati which takes a secondary role as parartha, the word rati isused to describe the condition of these seven.
2.5.48
Because all the thirty-three vyabhicari-bhavas starting with nirveda, thoughnot contaminated with hostile emotions, disappear on their own after some timein the devotees, they are not classed as sthayi-bhavas.
2.5.49
Though some persons would like to consider mati, garva and othervyabhicari-bhavas to be sthayi-bhavas, they are not classed as such. BharataMuni and others are the authority
for this statement.
2.5.50
The seven secondary emotions, being nourished greatly by vibhavas, anubhavas,sattvika-bhavas and vyabhicaribhavas, take up the status of sthayi-bhavas inthe devotees and produce a taste in the devotees.
2.5.51
Therefore it is said:
In a devotee, one of the five primary sthayi-bhavas and the seven secondarybhavas, together making eight bhavas, produce lasting impressions (even thoughthey may externally disappear for some time). Since the impressions of thevyabhicari-bhavas disappear after they are covered by these eight, thevyabhicaribhavas are not considered to be sthayi-bhavas.
1.2.299
Sambhogeccha-mayi-bhakti is characterized by enjoying conjugally with Krsna.Tad-bhavecchatmika-bhakti is characterized by desiring the sweet mood of loveof the kamarupa-siddha devotees.
Jiva Gosvami’s Commentary:
Sambhogeccha-mayi means following those who are kamaprayas—having a prominenceof desire of giving direct conjugal enjoyment to Krsna. Tad-bhavecchatmikameans that type of bhakti whose very life (atma) is the desire for theparticular rati of a cherished women of Vraja. This should be understood to bethe main type of kamanuga-bhakti. This is illustrated in the Bhagavatam:
striya uragendra-bhoga-bhuja-danda-visakta-dhiyo
vayam api te samah sama-drso ’nghri-saroja-sudhah
The women of Vraja were attracted to the arms of Krsna resembling the lord ofthe serpents and attained the nectar of His lotus feet. We (srutis) also withsimilar mood, attaining similar bodies, attained His feet. SB 10.87.23 Sambhogameans conjugal enjoyment. Keli means the same thing. Sambhogeccha-mayi has theaim of conjugal enjoyment with Krsna (keli-tatparyavati).Tad-tad-bhava-icchatmika-bhakti has a desire for the sweetness of the love ofthe women of Vraja (tasam bhava-madhurya-kamita).
Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s Commentary: Sambhogeccha-mayi means bhakticonsisting of the two types of activities (mental and physical), inspired bythe desire for a direct experience of giving conjugal enjoyment to Krsnaindependently, like a leader of a group of gopis. An example of a leader of agroup, according to scriptures, is Candravali. Tat-tad-bhavecchatmika meansbhakti whose inspiration (atma) is the desire to taste the special bhava inrelation to Krsna possessed by a particular woman of Vraja, whom one holdsdear. This should be understood to be superior to the previous type. It is thechief type of kamanuga-bhakti. In this verse, sambhogah means conjugal union,and keli means the same thing. Action whose goal is keli with Krsna is calledsambhogeccha-mayi-kamanuga-bhakti. That bhakti which has the desire to tastethe sweetness of the gopis’ love in relation to Krsna is calledtat-tad-bhavecchatmika-bhakti.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:47 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Here is a translation and commentaries on thebhavollasa verse, followed by a excerpt by Srila Narayana Maharaja that followsthese commentaries.
Brs. 2.5.128
sancari syat samona va krsna-ratyah suhrd-ratih
adhika pusyamana ced bhavollasa itiryate
sancari
syat: will be called
samona : (sama) same (una) less
va: or
krsna ratyah: rati for Krsna (sthayi-bhava)
suhrdratih: rati of friend
adhikam: great
pusyamana: nourishment
ced: if
bhavollasa
itiryate (iti) thus (iryate) is called
Suhrd-rati (love for a friend) will be called a sancari if it is the same orless than Krsna-rati (love for Krsna), but if it is nourished in a greater waythen it is called bhavollasa. (translation by BSS)
Sri Jiva commentary (translation by Bhanu Swami): Api ca indicates that thechapter is finished, but now some additional information will be given. Themeaning of the verse is as follows. Suhrd-ratih (rati directed to one’sfriends) indicates, for instance, the rati of principal associates of Radhasuch as Lalita, who have similar emotional sentiments as Radha, directed tothat particular devotee who is the shelter of one’s cherished rasa with Krsna,in this case Radha. If that rati directed to Radha or another ideal devotee isequal or less than their rati directed to Krsna, that rati directed to Radha iscalled a sancari-bhava (assistant) of the rati directed to Krsna. If that ratidirected to Radha is greater than the person’s rati directed to Krsna,constantly increasing with affection (pusyamana), it is called bhavollasa toindicate its special nature, though that rati directed to Radha is still asancari-bhava. This statement has been written here as it is remembered at thispoint, though it should be included at the end of the topic of sancari-bhavasor vyabhicari-bhavas, since it belongs to the same topic.
sri-jivah : sancari syad ity asyayam arthah—suhrdam nijabhista-rasasrayebhakta-visese sri-radhikadau visaye sajatiya-bhava-bhaktanam parasparam ratyavisayasraya-rupanam lalitadinam sakhi-mukhyanam ekatarasraya ya ratih, sa yadikrsna-visayaya ratyah sama syad una va syat tada krsna-visayaya ratehsancaryakhya eva bhavah syat | tan-mulatvat tat-posanac ca | evam madhurakhyerase tu sa yadi kvacit krsna-visayaya api ratya adhika , tatrapi pusyamanasantatabhinivesena samvardhyamana syat tada sancaritve’pi visistyapeksayabhavollasakhyo bhava iryate iti | tad idam tv atranusmrtya likhitam apisancarinam ante yojaniyam, tatraiva sajatiyatvat ||128||
Sri Jiva Commentary (translation by Brighupada): "Let it be aSancari." This is the meaning of this statement: that rati for a dearmostashraya of the Suhrdas, a special devotee such as Shri Radha, which only hasits shelter in the best of the Sakhis, such as Lalita, that are both vishayasand ashrayas for mutual love and sajatiya bhava bhaktas ‒ if that rati is the sameas that for Krishna or less, then let it be called a Sancari bhava of the ratifor Krishna. Since it is rooted in it and nourishes it.
However, if in the rasa called Madhura, it sometimes supersedes the rati evenfor Krishna, and then also nourishes and strengthens it by a continuousadherence to it, in that case it is the bhava called Bhavollasa, with regard toits excelling even the nature of a Sancari. Having recollected this fact it hasbeen stated here and will be brought up at the end of the Sancaris also, sinceit has a homologous nature with them.
VC: api ceti | tad etat samaptam, kincid apy ucyate ity arthah | athasajatiya-bhaktanam paraspara-parama-prityapannanam madhye ekasmin bhakteanya-bhaktasya va ratih sa krsna-visayinya rateh posakatvatvyabhicari-bhava-madhye eva nivista ity aha—sancari syad iti | asyayamarthah—sajatiya-bhava-bhakti-visistanam paraspara-rater visayasraya-rupanamekatarasraya ya ratih, sa yadi krsna-visayaya ratyah sama va syat, tato nyunava syat tada krsna-visayaya rateh sancaryakhya eva bhavah syat | evammadhurakhye rase tu sa yadi krsna-visayaya api rater adhika tatrapi pusyamanasatatabhinivesena samvardhyamana syat tada sancaritve’pi sarva-bhavapeksayaparamotkarsat bhavollasakhyo bhava iryate iti | tad idam tv atranusmrtyalikhitam | atas trayastrimsat-sancarinam ante idam api yojaniyam
Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura commentary (translation by Brighupada): “Andalso” [which introduces verse 2.5.128] means that the present subject[sthayi-bhava] is finished, but that there is something more to say. Now, sincerati among Sajatiya-bhaktas, always filled by the highest, mutual priti, forone devotee or of another devotee, is nourished by the rati for Krishna, theauthor has settled it among the Vyabhicari-bhavas. That is why he writes “letit be a Sancari.”
This is the meaning of this statement: that rati which only has its shelter inthose that are both vishayas and ashrayas for mutual love and sajatiya bhavabhaktas ‒ if that rati isthe same as that for Krishna or less, then let it be called a Sancari bhava ofthe rati for Krishna. However, if in the rasa called Madhura, it sometimessupersedes the rati even for Krishna, and then also nourishes and strengthensit by a continuous adherence to it, in that case it is the bhava calledBhavollasa, with regard to its excelling even the nature of a Sancari. Havingrecollected this fact it has been stated her. It will be brought up at the endof the 33 Sancaris also.
Srila Narayana Maharaja's commentary on Venu-gita, verse 7:
bhava-ullasa rati: Generally, devotees of the same mood and who are enrichedwith similar desires naturally share suhrd-bhava, intimate friendship, witheach other. That is why the love and affection that Lalita and the other sakhishave for Srimati Radhika is called suhrd-rati. When their suhrd-rati is thesame as or slightly less than their Krsna-rati (affection towards Sri Krsna),this is called sancari-bhava (a temporary emotion that is compared to the wavesthat swell and then return to the ocean of their permanent emotion of the moodof Krsna's beloveds). In other words when this suhrd-rati becomes equal to thewaves in the ocean of their prominent affection for Krsna, it is asancari-bhava. However, in the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati(for Sri Radha and everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceedstheir krsna-rati and which constantly increases by the moment due to their fullabsorption in it, is called bhava-ullasa-rati. This is a special feature ofmadhura-rasa. Of the five types of sakhis, only the nitya sakhis and pranasakhis, who are known as manjaris, have this bhava-ullasa-rati as theirpermanent emotions (sthayi-rati). It is no longer just a sancari-bhava. These manjarisnurture an abundance of sneha, tender affection, for Radhaji.
It is seen that creepers are always endeavoring to embrace trees, but theleaves, flowers and buds (manjaris) of the creepers do not even slightly try toembrace the trees directly. When a creeper embraces a tree, the joy of thoseflowers, leaves, and manjaris automatically increases. In Sri Vrndavana SrimatiRadhika stands supreme among all gopis. She is famous as the kalpa-lata (thecreeper that fulfills every desire) of love for Sri Krsna. Some of Her sakhishave the nature of leaves, some are like flowers, and some like manjaris. Thatis why they are always eager for Srimati Radhika to meet with Krsna, and arecarried away by the bliss of Their union. (Srila Narayana Maharaja's commentaryon Venu-gita, verse 7)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:48 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Here are the verses on suhrt-rati inUjjvala-nilamani, chapter 13 (vyabhicari/sancari).
UN 13.2 (translation by Brighupada)
sakhy-adisu nija-premapy atra sancaritam vrajet
“Also one’s own prema towards the sakhis, etc, takes here the nature of aSancari”
VCT’s commentary reads,
“Sakhy-adisu” (in UN 13.1) refers to that the love of those dear to Krishnathat is directed towards their sakhis and so on. “Etc” (adi) means also towardsDutis, those mutually joined to each other. And also towards others."
UN 13.104 (translation by Brighupada):
sakhyam sva-sneho, yatha—One’s attachment directed towards the Sakhis. Forexample:
saila-murdhni harina viharantiroma-kudmala-karambita-murtih |radhika salalitamlalitayahpasya marsti lulitalakam asyam ||
Look! Enjoying with Hari on the top of the hill,
Her body decorated with buds of bristling hair,
Radhika makes Lalita’s face break out in sweat
And tosses about her curly hair.
visvanathah : sakhyam sva-sneha iti | sakhi-visayako’pi nayikayah sneha ekovyabhicari bhavatity arthah | yad uktam bhakti-rasamrta-sindhav eva—
sancari syat samano va krsna-ratyah suhrd-ratih |adhika pusyamana ced bhavollasaitirvate || [bha.ra.si. 2.5.128] iti |
tasyarthah—suhrd-ratih suhrd-visaya ratih krsna-ratyah sakasat sama va una vayadi va syat tada sancari syat | suhrd-rateh sri-krsna-rati-mulakatvattat-posanac ceti bhavah | yadi kvacit sri-krsna-rateh sakasad apy adhika syattaya pusyamana ca syat tada bhavollasa itiryate | na tasyah sancaritvam napitasyah sthayitvam iti bhavah | rupa-manjari lalitayah sakhim kancid aha—saileti| lalitaya asyam marsti viharajam prasvedam apanayatiti lalita-visaya sri-radha-ratiratra sancari bhavo bhavan sri-krsna-ratim pusnati ||104|
Vishvanatha: “One’s attachment directed towards the Sakhis” means “theattachment of a heroine having a Sakhi for its object becomes a vyabhicari.”This is explained in the BRS (2.5.128): “If the love for a dear one is equal tothe love of Krishna, that is a Sancari, but when it is being nourished andgrows stronger, that is called Bhavollasa.”
This is the meaning: when the love for a dear one is the same or less as thelove for Krishna, then it is a Sancari. The implied meaning is that this is sosince the love for a dear one is rooted in the love for Shri Krishna and sinceit nourishes this love for Krishna. But if it is greater than the love forKrishna and is being nourished by it, then it is called Bhavollasa rati. Theimplied meaning is that it does not have the nature of a Sancari or a SthayiBhava.
The verse exemplifying this is spoken by Rupa Manjari to some friend ofLalita’s. […] The love of Radha towards Lalita here becomes a Sancari thatnourishes her love towards Shri Krishna.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:48 pm
Prem Prayojan Dear Vrndaranya didi,
No wonder there is so much confusion. The best thing you can do is to stopreading these appalling translations.
For example:
You cite SVCT on UN13.1 (never mind that it is UN13.2)
“Etc” (adi) means also towards Dutis, those mutually joined to each other. Andalso towards others."
The sanskrit is as follows:
Adi-sabdAt dUtIsvapi parasparAyogesu, anyesvapi ca
Note that paraspara ends with a short "a", therefore (withoutsandhi-phonetic combination) the phrase is paraspara ayogesu -"among theunsuitable candidates" not paraspara yogesu -"mutually joined".
So the first mistake involved reading "yogesu" for"ayogesu", and the next mistake involved the creation of a sentencewhich is not simply the exact opposite of SVCT's intention, but something muchfurther afield.
The actual sense is, "The word sakhyadisu means that the love of SriKrsna's vallabhAs (nAyikAs) has as its object their friends. Adi indicates thatSri Krsna's vallabhAs' may also have dutis (messengers) and others (such aspriya-narma sakhas) as the objects of their love, due to the UNSUITABILITY ofsuch mutual love occurring BETWEEN the aforementioned assistants of thevallabhA."
This is just one example of the many, many major blunders in the translationsyou have recently posted to "help" the devotees understand theissues.
Dear Vrndaranya didi, you are endowed with truly exceptional spiritualintelligence, so there is no doubt that you would immediately comprehend thissubject were you not disadvantaged by depending on such misleadingtranslations.
with respect,
dina hina akincana,
Prem Prayojan das.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:49 pm
Boris Werth Dandavat pranams to all the wonderful devoteesparticipating in this discussion. Although I am unqualified and insignificant Iam trying to grasp and contemplate what has been said. I am eager to watchSriman Prem Prayojan´s video lecture on the subject, especially on the questionhow to understand Srila Narayana Maharaja´s seemingly conflictingpresentations. After re-reading Venu Gita I suppose the key lies in thespeciality of manjaris whose sthayi-bhava on one hand falls into the categoryof madhura-rati (with Krishna as the visaya) and on the other hand isexceptional since they are atyantiki laghu and have no interest at all to benayikas. Srila Narayana Maharaja writes „Of the five types of sakhis, only thenitya sakhis and prana sakhis, who are known as manjaris, have thisbhavollasa-rati as their sthayi bhava.“ It sounds like Srila Narayana Maharajais comparing the sancari-bhava of the sakhis mentioned in BRS 2.5.128 with thewondrous and inconceivable mood of the manjaris. By using the (new) termbhavollasa-rati he is illuminating the speciality of that mood and isglorifying the manjaris by comparing their sthayi bhava with a sancari bhava ofgopis they regard as higher.
Vamsi Vadana Dasa
Madan Gopal Prem Prayojan prabhu,
Can you please summarize what understanding of the object of the manjari'sstayi we would get if we were unencumbered by these "misleading"translations? Also helpful would be a brief analysis of why these translationsand their subsequent interpretations have survived and been utilized throughoutthe years by acaryas including SNM...
I know there is a point you want to make AFTER your translation frustrations.Can you give us that?
daso 'smi
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:50 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Prema-prayojana,
I greatly appreciate Madhavananda's comments and I would like to add a few ofmy own.
Although I look forward the latest Sanskrit translation dispute being addressedand the proper conception established, until I have time to write a morecomprehensive reply I would like to mention that I don’t appreciate yourcondescending tone towards other translators (“appalling… just one example ofthe many, many major blunders”).
First of all, since you are arguing that bhavollasa (of those whose suhrt-ratiis greater than their Krsna-rati) does not refer to the manjaris and is not arati, Srila Narayana Maharaja’s translation of Brs. 2.5.128 in which he says,“However, in the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati (for Sri Radhaand everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds their krsna-ratiand which constantly increases by the moment due to their full absorption init, is called bhava-ullasa-rati” is as misleading, if not more so, than theother translations you have mocked. His translation of this verse is the onlytranslation of this verse we have in print from him and it is cited numeroustimes in his published material. Indeed, it is the definitive translation ofthis verse from his sect, one that follows a long list of others who havetranslated it exactly the same way. So if it is as bad as you say it is whenothers translate it this way, then arguably the whole problem here is amistranslation from SNM.
Otherwise, although there may be an error in the UN translation, I found thatKunjabihari dasa Babaji (translation by Jagadananda dasa) has the same sense asBrighupada’s translation:
“Along with friends are messengers and any other objects or persons that serveas go betweens for the lover and beloved, including also Krsna’s malefriends."
So you may be right that both Brighupada (who by the way whipped off thetranslation overnight) and Kunjabihari dasa Babaji have mistranslated VCT, butas everyone knows, in Sanskrit multiple contradictory meanings can often bedrawn from the same sentence. Thus I imagine the matter will have to beinvestigated and debated in more depth.
I would also like to point out that if you had translated the relevant materialin the first place to support your argument, it would go a long way towardsenabling people to actually understand what you are trying to say. Instead, Icannot help but think that you almost purposefully make your arguments obtuse.I have no doubt that most people just give up on understanding, especially whenyou are so quick to jump on people for being dim-witted. In such an atmosphere,who wants to put forth a question? So I would request that you please try to bea little more charitable towards others, keeping in mind that a haughtyattitude does little for a congenial discussion.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:50 pm
Prem Prayojan My dear friend Madhavananda Prabhu,
Dandavat pranama. Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau jayatah!
This discussion requires minute attention to detail. You wrote:
"You have made so many statements, starting from the one that no Acarya inour line has ever used the term bhavollasa-rat in their writings, and proofswere given that our Guru Maharaj has himself done so."
If you look carefully, although many devotees think I said this, it is simplynot true. Here's what I said:
"Will someone out there please present one pramana that the word“bhavollasa” has ever even been used in a compound with the word “rati” to makethe compound word “bhavollasa-rati” in the writings or commentaries of anyauthentic acarya in our sampradaya from the time of Srila Rupa Gosvami up tothe time of Srila Prabhupada."
So I did not question the appearance of the word bhavollasa but rather its usein conjunction with the word rati. I am also aware that our Gurudeva used theterm because I have discussed the topic with him many times. My questionclearly refers to the time period between the late 1400's and the 1930's in anattempt to deliberate on the historicity and antiquity of the term.
So my request for pramana has not been honoured. Instead there have beenresponses, like yours, that demonstrate your inattention to the details.
Dear brother, this is the first internet discussion I have ever participatedin. So please excuse me if I am not in pace with the etiquette. For me torespond twice in a week is already too much, due to my irrational aversion toall things "internet." Whatever web presence I have is managed byothers.
Nevertheless, in response to the request of Madan Gopal Prabhu, I will post aconcise summary of my position today as a prologue to the seminar broadcastthis coming Saturday.
Kindly forgive me for trying your patience,
sri hari guru vaisnava krpa lesha prarthi,
Prem Prayojan das.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:51 pm
Nitaisundara Dasa Prema Prayojana,
Regarding to the importance of minute details, your reference to SrilaPrabhupada as marking the end of your time frame for pramanas could easily beconstrued to be referring to Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and nothis Gurudeva. Therefore Swami Tripurari provided four instances of acaryasusing the term bhavollasa-rati that fell within the time frame you arguablyreferred to. If you choose to not consider them bonafide, that is a subjectivecall on your part. Although you rejected Murali-vilasa out of hand, Maharajaquestioned that for the reasons stated. So I think that pramanas have beensupplied and that inthe least it has been demonstrated that there is a historyof many Gaudiya Vaisnava sadhus and acaryas using the term bhavollasa-rati overthe centuries. It is not, as you suggested, a term invented by Kunjabihari dasababaji. Your sense of the history of the term’s use does not hold up.Furthermore the use of the term has not been contested in any book orcommentary or even orally to the pubic by anyone but yourself.
Exactly what sadhus mean by the term is another question. While it may be astretch to use the term as a sthayi-bhava for the manjaris on the basis of Brs.2.5.128 (as many have done including SNM), it may not be a stretch to use theterm as a short form for the “suhrt-rati called bhavollasa"—bhavollasa-rati/bhavollasa-bhava.
Nitaisundara Dasa Incidentally, the position of the Gadadharaparivara per the devotee and Sanskrit scholar Satyanarayana das on Brs. 2.5.128is that it does not speak exclusively about nayikas. JG’s commentary uses themonly as an example because examples in such books are drawn from things thatare more common knowledge. The same holds true for Visvanatha CakravartiThakura’s comments in UN.
This branch of the Gadadhara parivara has for centuries understood the termbhavollasa to be a special sancari-bhava for Radha or even other devotees thatcan be called bhavollasa-rati, or the suhrt-rati called bhavollasa. After allwe do find instances of devotees loving Nitai more than Gaura (Vrindavana dasThakura), or instances where guru bhakti is framed as the angi (body) andKrsna-bhakti the anga (limb) of guru-bhakti. In this example the devotee lovesthe guru more than Krsna. The prime example of bhavollasa, however, is themanjari’s love for Radha.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:51 pm
Babhru Reed Prem Prayojan, your insistence on strictattention to detail moves me to point out a couple of details you appear tohave missed.
You wrote to Madhavananda,
“Here's what I said:
"Will someone out there please present one pramana that the word“bhavollasa” has ever even been used in a compound with the word “rati” to makethe compound word “bhavollasa-rati” in the writings or commentaries of anyauthentic acarya in our sampradaya from the time of Srila Rupa Gosvami up tothe time of Srila Prabhupada."
So I did not question the appearance of the word bhavollasa but rather its usein conjunction with the word rati. I am also aware that our Gurudeva used theterm because I have discussed the topic with him many times. My questionclearly refers to the time period between the late 1400's and the 1930's in anattempt to deliberate on the historicity and antiquity of the term.”
One detail that seems to have escaped your attention is that your call for apramana for the use of term “bhavollasa-rati” is an interrogative sentence, aquestion, but it doesn’t end in a question mark. This is an error even myformer developmental-writing students (those preparing for first-year collegecomposition) would not have gotten away with. Yes, it’s picky, but wait—there’smore.
Another detail I think you missed—just who your audience is (an importantconsideration for any writer)—calls into question the way you’ve characterizedthat “unhonoured” request for evidence. You wrote that asking for evidence that“any authentic acarya in our sampradaya from the time of Srila Rupa Goswami upto the time of Srila Prabhupada . . . clearly refers to the time period betweenthe late 1400's and the 1930's in an attempt to deliberate on the historicityand antiquity of the term.” In fact, the time period is not so clearly defined,at least if you take into account that your audience includes at least a fewdisciples of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (and some of theirdisciples), whom we have referred to as Srila Prabhupada since the late 1960s.
Moreover, your brushing off Tripurari Maharaja’s pointing out that not onlyyour Guru Maharaja, but you yourself, can be shown to have used this term makesyour implication that it has no legitimate history, at least in our line, allthe more curious. Who, then, is responsible for bringing this term into ourlexicon? Is it Srila Narayana Maharaja? If his talks and writing are the originof this term among the followers of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, do you mean tosuggest that following his example is an error?
I realize that I have not addressed the larger issue here. Frankly, though,like Vrindaranya, I find the haughty, pedantic tone of your posts a littletiresome.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:52 pm
Prem PrayojanDear Vrndaranya didi,
dandavat pranama. Sri Sri GuruGaurangau jayatah!
I stand corrected and humbly beg forgiveness for suggesting that thetranslations posted by you were substandard.
May you find it in your heart to consider a few mitigating circumstances.
You wrote:
"First of all, since you are arguing that bhavollasa (of those whosesuhrt-rati is greater than their Krsna-rati) does not refer to the manjaris andis not a rati, Srila Narayana Maharaja’s translation of Brs. 2.5.128 in whichhe says, “However, in the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati (for SriRadha and everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds theirkrsna-rati and which constantly increases by the moment due to their fullabsorption in it, is called bhava-ullasa-rati” is as misleading, if not moreso, than the other translations."
I absolutely agree with you. I have known all along that this translation iswrong. Srila Narayana Maharaja never wrote anything in English.
This is a translation of his Hindi edition of Sri Venu Gita in which the abovephrase "in the case of the manjari-sakhis" simply does not exist. Itwas added by the translators. Please find a copy of the book and see foryourself. I am not making this up.
X dasi, a Hindi speaking Indian housewife from Delhi with no knowledge ofSanskrit, and Y dasi, an american devotee with a minimal proficiency in Hindi,had the well-intentioned idea to team up and translate a book. You are readingthe result and attributing it to Srila Narayana Maharaja.
Jagadananda Prabhu pointed out the danger of the cut and paste mentality. Thisincorrect translation was later pasted in many places.There are other seriouserrors in the same book in regard to mantra-mayi upasana and svarasiki-upasana.
For your information, the next book translated and printed by Y dasi wasrecalled and distribution forbidden due to an abundance of errors.
Sanskrit phrases may be pregnant with various meanings, but that does not meanthat every guess at the meaning of a sentence is equally correct.
Please note that pointing out the grammatical impossibility of a sentence in noway implies an insult to the well-meaning translator as I do not recognize aninvariable concomitance between dull-wittedness and the lack of proficiency inthe scholastic dialect of asian medieval literature.
sri hari guru vaisnava dasanudasa,
Prem Prayojan das
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:53 pm
Penny Parker I can see that this thread has decended into acyber gang stalking attack , destroying the beautifull tone and subject matter.
Dont think just because these people say so many sastric things they are notabove this tactic of Gangstalking. Beware any innocent vaisnavas on this thread.
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Prema-prayojana,
I appreciate your apology. Thank you.
About the excerpt from Venu-gita, I am having difficulty with your explanation.I don’t doubt your integrity, but let me voice my doubts. I copied theVenu-gita excerpt from a footnote in an article on the Pure Bhakti website,“Manjari Bhava – You are All Fortunate.” The text in the article that wasfootnoted reads, “Kamatmika-bhakti (madhurya-rasa) has two divisions. Onedivision is called ullasa-mayi-rati, and that is the mood of the manjari, amaidservant of Sri Radha.”
There are of course two divisions of kamatmika-bhakti, sambhogeccha-mayi andtat-tad-bhavecchatma. SNM defines the tat-tad-bhavecchatma division as“ullasa-mayi-rati,” “the mood of the manjari.” This is clearly a reference tobhavollasa-rati, hence the footnote defining Brs. 2.5.128.
This article mentions Pujyapada Madhava Maharaja and Sripada Brajanatha dasa aseditorial advisors and Syamarani dasi as the editor. Thus all three of thesedevotees would have to had missed what you are calling a mistake, not just thedevotees you mentioned. Furthermore, this same footnote occurs in the article“How to Enter Raganuga Bhakti.” SNM there says, “In fact, the manjari tastessomething special, which even the flower does not taste, in the sense that theflower does not tremble as the manjari does. Similarly the maidservants ofSrimati Radhika experience a pleasure in being Her maidservant, which SheHerself does not experience, and that pleasure is called bhava-ullasa rati.”
Moreover, the addition of “in the case of the manjaris” to the Venu-gita quoteis not all that indicates that SNM was talking about the manjaris in regard tobhavollasa-rati. Here is the original excerpt along with several sentences thatfollow it:
“However, in the case of the manjari-sakhis, their suhrd-rati (for Sri Radhaand everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds their krsna-ratiand which constantly increases by the moment due to their full absorption init, is called bhava-ullasa-rati. This is a special feature of madhura-rasa. Ofthe five types of sakhis, only the nitya sakhis and prana sakhis, who are knownas manjaris, have this bhava-ullasa-rati as their permanent emotions(sthayi-rati). It is no longer just a sancari-bhava. These manjaris nurture anabundance of sneha, tender affection, for Radhaji.”
Does the Hindu edition have the final three sentences? Could you please providea translation of this section in the Hindi version?
Additionally, are you arguing that bhavollasa refers to Brs. 2.5.128 butbhavollasa-rati refers to the manjaris? On what basis are you establishing thisnew rati if not 2.5.128? Leaving aside for the moment the argument aboutwhether 2.5.128 can refer to manjaris (I plan to get to that argument soon),how else are you going to establish that the manjaris have bhavollasa-rati forSri Radha? In other words, which verse in Brs. will you use to establish thatthe manjaris have Radha as visaya of their sthayi-bhava? If you can establishthat the visaya of the manjaris’ sthayi-bhava is Radha/Krsna then you would beable to go somewhere with Brs. 4.8.44, but not as far as you have set out toprove (taking into account Sri Jiva’s commentary).
I agree that Brs. 2.5.128 doesn’t give you the support you need to make yourargument, after all Sri Jiva says that bhavollasa remains a sancari and VCTsays it has neither the nature of a sancari nor a sthayi-bhava. Thus it seemslike a stretch to say that the manjaris’ have a sthayi-bhava for Radharanibased on 2.5.128. But at least some argument could be made in relation to that verse(VCT says that the Krsna-rati nourishes the suhrt-rati). What other verse canyou use? Thus I don't even see why you are trying to prove that the excerptcontains a mistake: better shaky ground than no ground.
Finally, if you were aware of this mistake, it is reasonable that it could noteasily be changed in a book (at least in the first edition), but why was itnever fixed on the websites or the pdf versions of the books?
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Penny,
These discussions can get a little heated, but I think it is an exaggeration tocall it a "gang stalking attack."
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:54 pm
Nitaisundara Dasa Madhavananda Prabhu, I am not sure you haveclearly read the issue surrounding the use of "Srila Prabhupada." Foryou to say that there is no fault in referring to Bhaktisiddhanta as SrilaPrabhupada implies that someone here said that there was indeed a fault, whichis not the case. The issue was the ambiguity of the term in our presentcontext.
To my knowledge, no one participating here is ignorant of the fact that BSSTwas called Prabhupada and if you go to a branch of the Gaudiya math they arelikely to refer to AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as Swami Maharaja. No problem.The issue was that in this context, dealing with disciples and grand-disciplesof Bhaktivedanta Swami who everyone knows refer to him as Prabhupada, PremPrayojana's statement was ambiguous. He then accused the readers of beinginattentive when I think a more realistic understanding would be that it wasslightly inattentive to not consider this potential misreading and be moreclear. I am not familiar with how SNM would deal with this in general, butSrila Sridhara Maharaja often said "our Prabhupada" or "yourPrabhupada" when he did not just say Swami Maharaja.
So to recap, nobody is even remotely finding issue with the general use of"Prabhupada," only with it specific use here. I for one would hatethat someone thinks I have this ignorant opinion in relation to SrilaBhaktisiddhanta.
Why the pramana stops with Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta is unclear to me, butthat is another issue.
Thank you
Nitaisundara
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:54 pm
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Prema-prayojana,
I have now taken the time to look closely at Srila Narayana Maharaja’sVenu-gita, third edition, and I am even more puzzled as to why you maintainthat SNM didn’t equate Brs. 2.5.128 with manjari-bhava and use the termbhavollasa-rati to refer to it. You said that the widely circulated excerptthat I quoted contained an editing/translation error that consists of addingthe phrase "in the case of the manjari-sakhis" that does not exist inthe Hindi edition. As it turns out, this phrase seems to have only been addedto articles that footnote the Venu-gita; it is not in the English edition ofthe Venu-gita either. But the same idea is woven throughout the text, whichappears to be why it was added to the excerpt.
About the 3rd edition, the preface notes, “[srila Narayana Maharaja] was sopleased with the Hindi rendition that he ordered it to be translated intoEnglish and published as soon as possible. The second English version,published in September, 1999, flowed much more smoothly than the original andconvincingly captured the very charming sentiments stimulated in the hearts ofthe cowherd damsels of Vraja when they hear the sweetly alluring song of SriSyamasundara’s flute. And now the third edition attempts to refine the languageand open up the meanings of the many Sanskrit terms that define the bhaktiexperience.”
Are you maintaining that all the following references to the manjaris and theextended translation of Brs. 2.5.128 are not in the Hindi edition:
“Sri Radhika’s maidservants, however, like Sri Rupa Manjari, are not eager tomeet with Sri Krishna themselves, but rather they only desire to arrange forHer to meet with Him. The pleasure Her followers taste is millions and millionsof times greater than it would be if they were meeting personally with Krishna.This particular kind of gopi-bhava, called ullasa-rati, is especially sweet andhas been brilliantly analyzed in Priti-sandarbha and in the commentaries onUjjvala-nilamani:
sancari syat samona va krishna-ratyah suhrid-ratih
adhika pushyamana ced bhavollasa itiryate
Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu (2.5.128)
“Generally, devotees of the same mood, who are enriched with similar desires,naturally share suhrid-bhava, intimate friendship, with each other. That is whythe love and affection (priti and rati) that Lalita and the other sakhis havefor Srimati Radhika is called suhrid-rati. When their suhrid-rati increasesfrom its normal condition to become the same as or just slightly less thantheir krishna-rati (affection for Sri Krishna), it is called sancari-bhava. Itis like a wave in their krishna-rati, which is their permanent mood. In otherwords this suhrid-rati becomes a sancari-bhava when the sakhis’ affection forSrimati Radhika rises up and becomes equal to the waves in the ocean of theirprominent affection for Krishna. But there are some gopis whose tenderaffection (sneha) for Radhaji is so prodigious that it vastly exceeds theirkrishna-rati and continuously increases by the moment due to their fullabsorption in it. In this case suhrid-rati, no longer a sancari-bhava, iscalled bhava-ullasa-rati, a special feature of madhura-rasa. Of the five typesof sakhis, only the nitya-sakhis and prana-sakhis, who are known as manjaris,have this bhava-ullasa-rati, and for them it is the permanent emotion(sthayi-rati).”
From the glossary of Venu-gita:
“bhava-ullasa-rati—affection for Radha that is characterized by anexceptionally great joy. It is the sthayi-rati, permanent emotion, of thenitya-sakis and prana-sakhis, who are known as manjaris. Their suhrd-rati forSri Radha and everything connected with Her vastly exceeds their krsna-rati andkeeps on increasing by the moment due to their full absorption in it. This is aspecial feature of madhura-rasa.”
As you can see, the correlation between the manjaris, bhavollasa-rati, and Brs,2.5.128 is woven throughout the text. It is hardly an editorial aside. Again,are you saying that none of this is in the Hindi edition and that the additionmade it past all the editors? I could not find the Hindi edition online.However the 3rd and final definitive edition cited above was printed in 2009,and was overseen by “a large cooperative effort” of the Gaudiya VedantaPublishing Trust. It is not merely the work of “X dasi, a Hindi speaking Indianhousewife from Delhi with no knowledge of Sanskrit, and Y dasi, an Americandevotee with a minimal proficiency in Hindi.” Perhaps what you say was true forthe second edition (the first translation into English), but it is clear thatat least the third edition was overseen by senior devotees who are very wellacquainted with Gaudiya siddhanta and the teachings of SNM.
Furthermore, the same idea can be found in a book named Slokamrtam, acompilation of verses deemed important by SNM, which was compiled “under theguidance of Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami Maharaja and his seniordisciples,” which according to the acknowledgments involved six sannyasis andSyamarani didi.
An Editorial Note says, “Many other sloka books are available, notably SriGaudiya Kanthahara and ‘Srila Prabhupada’s Slokas’. The question may be raisedas to what is the need for another verse book. What is the speciality of thisone? We are extremely fortunate to directly hear high-class hari-katha from ahigh-class Vaishnava. Quite a few of the slokas we so often hear cannot befound in the other sloka books. Therefore, a need has arisen for a compilationthat would include the particular set of slokas used by Srila NarayanaMaharaja.”
Here is Slokamrta’s two different translations of Brs 2.5.128:
Bhavollasa-rati is the sancari-bhava of the manjari-sakhis, whose suhrid-rati(for Sri Radha and everything connected with Her) abundantly exceeds theirkrishnarati, and constantly increases due to their full absorption in it. (Thisis also their sthayi-bhava, their permanent rati).
[an alternative translation:] If the sancari-bhava of being the friend andwellwisher of Sri Radha becomes equal to or greater than the attachment to SriKrishna, and continues to increase through being nourished by full absorptionin Her, then in consideration of these unique characteristics it is calledbhavollasa-rati.
It is important to note that this verse appears in chapter 24 of Sri Slokamrtamentitled Radha-dasyam and that the chapter deals exclusively withmanjari-bhava.
In Slokamrtam, SNM’s teachings from Venu-gita appear to have been confirmed andhis understanding of Brs. 2.5.128 has been put in a format for the devotees tomemorize. If you understood the errors in the second version of Venu-gita, whydidn’t you say anything for the 3rd edition, the Slokamrta, the websites, andanywhere else this translation went?
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:55 pm
Babhru Reed It appears that Madhavananda took his commentdown, but I'll respond to it anyway, begging everyone's indulgence, becauseothers may have misunderstood my remarks about the presence of Srila A. C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's disciples on the thread. I also realize thatthere’s some danger of continuing to distract from the actual topic.
My intention was not, as Madhavananda put it, to bullshit around withseniority. I frankly have little patience with such games, and I apologize forany misunderstanding. Instead, the issue I intended to address was PremPrayojan’s assertion of the clarity of his “unhonoured” request. I simply meantto point out, as Nitaisundara points out above, that his use of "the timeof Srila Prabhupada" was not the precise reference Prem Prayojana seemedto think it was. His later remarks showed that he presumed that everyone wouldnaturally assume that he was referring to Srila Srasvati Thakura. Of course Iknow he is also referred to as Srila Prabhupada (I'm not *that* ignorant!), andof course I find no fault in this, unlike a good number of his disciples andtheir disciples who objected vociferously to our calling our spiritual masterby the same title.
My problem with Prem Prayojan's apparent ignorance of his audience also extendsto an apparent lack of awareness that his interoluctors are probably not thefolks he’s accustomed to addressing and take everything he says at face valuebecause he’s smart and charming. My last personal encounter with PP was onethat left a much better impression than most former encounters, and I’minclined to say that I like him and respect his dedication and learning. But heneeds, like any of the rest of us, to actually write clearly and support hisassertions with evidence. It’s also helpful if the tone is not such that hecomes across as arrogant. That was my point.
I (perhaps too often) tend to play rhetoric cop. When I come off as heavyhanded in doing so, I hope my interlocutors will call me on it as Madhavanandadid. In the meantime, I apologize again for any misunderstanding and for thedistraction.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:56 pm
Nitaisundara Dasa Madhavananda Prabhu, I assume the removal ofyour comment is due to realizing that it was based on a misreading of previouscomments, but I think a far more appropriate approach would be to simply put a newpost acknowledging the misunderstanding. You have shown your good example thatyou are willing to do so previously in this discussion. My only gripe is thatdeleting comments completely puzzles readers who come later on and in moreextreme cases can make the people who respond to missing comments seeminordinately aggressive or out of line.
In service
Nitaisundara dasa
Nitaisundara Dasa Penny, to call this a gang stalking is for youto have decided that the participants have ulterior and malicious motives and thatthose motives take precedence. I am more inclined to think that if you trulyappreciated the "beautiful subject matter" you would recognize andappreciate the extremely nuanced and relatively unexplored nature of thesubject. The points being raised are legitimate ones and do not indicatemalice. For the most part, neither does anyone's tone.
This whole thread has been a great display of truly brahminical, respectfuldebate, with few exceptions. Given the norm, it is actually quite a feat!
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:56 pm
Prem Prayojan Sri Sri GuruGaurangau jayatah!
Mayall the broad-hearted vaisnavas and vaisnavis graciously accept my pranama.
The precious jewels of siddhanta are never easily attained. Visaya (thesis),samsaya (doubt), purva-paksa (antithesis), siddhanta (conclusion) and sangati(reconciliation of the scriptural basis of both the thesis and the antithesis)comprise the five progressive stages of deliberation favoured by the acaryas ofour tradition. As I mentioned in my very first posting:
“Rather than stating the conclusion outright, allow me to take a heuristic*approach.”
(*heuristic [hyooˈristik] -adjective: enabling a person to discover orlearn something for themselves.)
By pointing out the grammatical impossibility of certain interpretations, andalso by indicating the identity of the asrayas of suhrd-ratih, I hoped thateventually someone would reconcile the contradictions in question. However,since a conclusion is not forthcoming, without further ado, I will present foryour consideration a brief synopsis of what I consider to be a satisfyingresolution of all apparent contradictions.
There are ostensibly three positions in regard to the bhava of SrimatiRadhika's palya-dasis (manjaris):
1) Sri Krsna is the visaya of their sthayi-bhava,
2) Sri Radha-Krsna are both the visaya of their sthayi-bhava,
and
3) Sri Radha is the visaya, whereas Krsna becomes the visaya of asancari-bhava.
Let’s examine each position one by one.
1) Srila Rupa Gosvami has defined the sthayi-bhava thus:
sthayi-bhavo’tra sa proktah
sri-krsna-visaya-ratih
“In this context, rati directed towards Krsna is called the sthayi-bhava”
(BRS 2.5.2)
As far as I am aware, there is no point of contention here. It represents themost fundamental and ubiquitous principle of rasa-tattva, so we can safelyassume that Krsna must be the visaya of the sthayi bhava of the palya-dasis ofSrimati Radhika.
2) Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja has stated that the visayaalambana of the manjaris is Sri Yugala-kisora (Bhajana Rahasya Vrtti pg.224).Although he has not openly expressed it in writing, the obvious implication isthat the manjaris have a dual sthayi-bhava to Sri Yugala Kisora, SriRadha-Krsna together.
This conception is not so readily supported by BRS. I propose that there is agood reason for this, as expressed here by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
“Absorb your mind in krsna-lila according to the approach specified in SriManah-siksa, and maintain resolute determination for the rules and regulationsof bhakti according to the bhavas presented in Sva-niyama-dasakam.
“In his writings, Srila Rupa Gosvami has illustrated rasa-tattva extensively.Since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu entrusted him with this particularresponsibility, he has NOT EXPLAINED how rasa acts while one renders seva.
“Srila Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami accomplished this task in his writings, which arebased on the kadaca (notes) of Srila Svarupa Damodara. Sriman Mahaprabhuauthorized and empowered His different associates respectively with differentmissionary responsibilities, and following His instructions, they dischargedtheir services flawlessly.” (Jaiva Dharma ch.39 Entering Lila)
Essentially, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura is saying that Srila Rupa Gosvami isour acarya of abhidheya-tattva, whereas Srila Raghunatha Das Gosvami is ouracarya of prayojana-tattva. So it is to him we must turn to discover themysteries of our prayojana. Since the great Thakura recommends we meditateaccording to Sri Manah Siksa, let’s start there.
In Sri Manah Siksa verse four we find an interesting line:
vraje radha-krsnau sva-rati-mani-dau tvam bhaja manah
“Dear mind, you should live in Vraja and serve Sri Sri Radha-Krsna, who bestowupon devotees the precious jewel of love for Themselves.
Note how the dual case (au) is used twice to indicate that Radha-Krsna Yugalaare the dual bestowers of a dual rati for themselves as a unit comprised o
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:57 pm
Prem Prayojan As Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura mentions, thisidea is in keeping with the kadaca of Srila Svarupa Damodara “ekatmanau” – “Radha-Krsnaare one soul” (Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 1.5)
Contemplation focused upon Sri Radha-Krsna Yugala, the divine couple, is thesource of all joy for Rupanuga Gaudiya Vaisnavas. It is for this confidentialreason, namely, the attainment of a dual (yugala) sthayi-bhava, that SriCaitanya Mahaprabhu distributed the gift of manjari-bhava through the medium ofa mantra that consists entirely of eight Yugala-namas.
This all sounds quite reasonable, yet I feel that it is imperative not to strayeven an inch from the original framework of rasa-tattva presented by Srila RupaGosvami in BRS. Otherwise someone might claim that his definitions are subjectto avyapti-dosa (the defect of underextension of a definition) in that theymight exclude possibilities that should be allowed. Is there room within SrilaRupa Gosvami’s grammar of rasa for a dual sthayi-bhava?
Let’s have another look at the definition:
sthayi-bhavo’tra sa proktah
sri-krsna-visaya-ratih
“In this context, rati directed towards Sri Krsna is called the sthayi-bhava”
(BRS 2.5.2)
Note that the word Krsna is prefixed with “Sri”, a word universally recognizedby Gaudiya Vaisnavas as a synonym for Radha. Thus the original definitioncontains the possibility of a sthayi-bhava having Sri (Radha) Krsna as itsvisaya (object). Grammatically there is no need for a dual construction heresince sri-krsna is part of a samasa compound (sri-krsna-visaya) in which thegrammatical case termination is used only on the last word of the compound,while the grammatical relationships between the other words remain fluid andversatile.
So far, so good. The first two positions have been accommodated within theframework of Srila Rupa Gosvami’s original theory. Now let’s move on to numberthree.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:57 pm
Prem Prayojan 3) As one of his final contributions to Gaudiya literature, SrilaBhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja wrote an original groundbreakingcommentary on Sri Raya-Ramananda Samvada. In his commentary on the very firstverse we find the sentence that ignited this entire discussion:
“In this manjari seva, Srimati Radhika is the object of Her maidservant’ssthayi-bhava, whereas Sri Krsna is the object of the maidservant’ssancari-bhava.”
At first many devotees thought this must be an editing mistake on the groundsthat it contradicts the basic tenets of Srila Rupa Gosvami’s rasa theology. Iguarantee that this sentence faithfully represents the siddhanta of SrilaBhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja because I have discussed this subjectwith him in detail on several occasions.
Objections on the grounds that this conclusion is at variance with Srila RupaGosvami’s Sri Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu are unfounded. I mentioned before that justas there is higher and lower math, there is also higher and lower conceptionsof rasa-tattva. The realizations of Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana GosvamiMaharaja belong to the higher order of direct experience within the lila of SriSri Radha-Krsna. Taking his footdust upon my head with the utmost reverence,now I will attempt to lay out the premises that lead to this profound andwonderful siddhanta.
The nature of a sthayi-bhava is that it has the potential to take on the formof bhakti-rasa through the nourishment of the other four rasa-samagri(ingredients), namely, vibhava, anubhava, sattvika-bhava, and sancari bhava.
Now, since the manjaris’ sthayi-bhava is to Sri Radha-Krsna Yugala, it mustbecome bhakti-rasa. However, since the manjaris have a relationship with Krsnathat is very different to their relationship with Sri Radha, there is noquestion of this experience of rasa being homogeneous. In other words, when themanjaris are upset by the activities of Sri Krsna, they are not necessarilyupset with Srimati Radhika. Thus the manjaris become the asrayas of two rasassimultaneously.
No one will dispute the fact that Sri Krsna is rasa-sindhu, the ocean of rasa;but what about Srimati Radhika?
Srila Prabodhananda Sarasvati has written many verses to substantiate thatSrimati Radhika is also an ocean of rasa in his Sri Radha-Rasa-Sudha-Nidhi.
tasyah kada rasa nidher vrsabhanu jayas
tat keli kunja bhavanagana marjani syam
(Sri Radha-Rasa-Sudha-Nidhi verse.8)
“Maharaja Vrsabhanu’s daughter is an ocean of rasa. When will I become a broomfor sweeping the terrace of the cottage in her pleasure grove?”
Thus it is clear that the manjaris experience Sri Krsna as an ocean of rasa andSrimati Radhika as an ocean of rasa. The question is, “How do these two rasasinteract with each other?”
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:58 pm
Prem Prayojan In the final portion of SriBhaktirasamrta-sindhu, Srila Rupa Gosvamipada addresses the issue of therelationship between multiple rasas occurring simultaneously in one asraya:
eka eva bhavet sthayi raso mukhyatamo hi yah
rasas tad-anuyayitvad anye syur vyabhicarinah
“The acaryas of drama say that the predominating rasa acts as the sthayi-bhava.All other rasas will become vyabhicari (sancari) in nature since they followthe predominating rasa.”(4.8.43)
Furthermore in Visnu Dharmottara:
rasanam samavetanam yasya rupam bhaved bahu
sa mantavyo rasah sthayi sesah sancarino matah
“In a combination of rasas, that whose form is the most prominent is consideredto be the sthayi-bhava, and the rest should be considered to have the nature ofsancari-bhavas.
Srila Jiva Gosvami comments on this verse thus:
“Though the rest should be considered to be sancari-bhavas, those bhavas whichnever separate from their respective asrayas, such as madhura-rasa, should beconsidered only to act as if they were sancari-bhavas, though actually they arenot. In distinguishing other rasas from the prominent rasa by the namesancari-bhava, the intention is to point out the CO-OPERATIVE NATURE of therasa as it assumes the role of nourishing the prominent rasa just assancari-bhavas assist the main sthayi-bhava.”
My divine master once told me, “If a person wants to make sherbet, he will needjuices, water, sugar, black pepper, etc. But if he does not know the correctproportions in which to combine them, his drink will not be flavourful.Similarly, as the acarya of abhidheya tattva, Srila Rupa Gosvami has given usall the ingredients of rasa, but only Srila Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami, as theacarya of prayojana-tattva, has shown us in what proportion to mix theingredients to manifest the perfectly flavourful rasamayi-seva to Sri SriGandharvika-Giridhari.
In Sri Vilapa Kusumanjali (102) Srila Raghunatha dasa Goswami has prayed,
asa-bharair amrta-sindhu-mayaih kathancit
kalo mayati-gamitah kila sampratam hi
tvam cet krpam mayi vidhasyasi naiva kim me
pranair vrajena ca varoru bakarinapi
“O Varoru (Radhika), I am passing my time with the sole hope of being able toserve You. If You withhold Your mercy, what value to me is this life? Whatvalue to me is the land of Vraja? And what value to me is Sri Krsna the enemyof Baka?”
It is clear that, for the manjaris, love for Srimati Radhika is thesthayi-bhava, whereas love for Sri Krsna is a sancari-bhava.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 7:58 pm
Prem Prayojan If one objects that love for Krsna cannot be asancari-bhava because sancari-bhavas are temporary Srila Jiva Gosvami pointsout in Durgama Sangamani (4.8.48):
“If a mukhya-rasa behaves like a sancari-bhava, the comparison is used only todifferentiate between the predominating rasa and the others. Thoughsancari-bhavas disappear, a mukhya rasa acting as a sancari-bhava does not.”
Thus, we have demonstrated that all three of the apparently contradictorypositions can be seamlessly harmonized while remaining within the perfectframework of Srila Rupa Gosvami’s rasa theology.
This rasa-siddhanta was achieved without making reference to the bhavollasaverse (BRS 2.5.128). The reason this question could not be answered by analysisof the bhavollasa verse or the commentaries upon it is that neither the versenor the commentaries directly deal with manjari-bhava. All the commentariesdiscuss the relationship between nayikas and their sakhis who are potentialnayikas. Since manjaris never desire to be nayikas, the verse and thecommentaries do not refer to them at all.
So how and why did this verse come to be so intimately related with the notionof manjari-bhava?
Praying for the blessings of Sri Guru and Gauranga, I will attempt to presentthe denouement of this discussion at 8:00 am PST (11:00 am EST) Saturday 12thFebruary here:
http://www.krsnakatha.com/live-broadcast
or
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/krsna-katha
If you would like to receive e-updates containing information about the weeklybroadcasts of KrsnaKathaTV’s Worldwide Virtual Nama Hatta study groups, you arewelcome to contact me at prem108@gmail.com
Sri Hari Guru Vaisnava krpa lesha prarthi,
dina hina akincana,
Prem Prayojan das
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:02 pm
Swami Tripurari I appreciate the fact that Prema Prayojanadasa has returned to the thread and made his attempt to explain howmanjari-bhava constitutes a sancari-bhava for Krsna, etc. However, I stronglydisagree with his presentation and especially his understanding of Brs. 4.4.48and Sri Jiva Goswami's tika.
I will return to the the thread shortly and reply in detail, and In doing so Iwill offer my own thoughts on how to harmonize the SNM's statement inRamananda-samvada with Rupa Goswami's siddhanta. Since it seems clear that thisstatement was not an editing mistake, I will take a different course for thepleasure of all the devotees. Jaya Radhe! Jaya Krsna!
Babhru Reed I'm also happy to see Prem Prayojan's returnto the thread, and even happier to finally see his sytematic laying out of hiscase. Now, I think, we have something to talk about. Having read through hisposts, I don't yet find myself convinced, though. One thing I've been wonderingis whether the manjari's bhava for Krishna can be considered a sancari-bhava*in a manner of speaking*. But at least I can see the logic of his idea. I dolook forward to Tripurari Maharaja's response, as well as those of otherthoughtful participants.
Prem PrayojanSri Sri Guru Gaurangau jayatah!
Video of the KrsnaKathaTVVirtual Nama Hatta Study Group seminar on Bhavollasa can be viewed here:
http://www.krsnakatha.com/krsnakathatv/manjari-bhava-pt1
@Vrin , do you know what gang stalking is ?
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Penny,
Here is the definition of gang stalking from the Urban Dictionary:
"Gang Stalking is stalking by more than one person to a victim, usuallyinvolving community harassment, or the "mob", using people from allbackgrounds and vocations to harass, tracking 24/7, sometimes organizing lethalvehicle accidents, poisonings, electronic harassment, home invasions/propertydestruction, corrupt or ignorant doctor diagnosis given to stamp the victim asbogus mentally ill with delusions, paranoia, or schizophrenia, etc. Everythingis done covertly, and with a sophisticated real time dispatching system toorganize the criminals' harassments and attacks, often in the hundreds tothousands of criminals participating as a coordinated mob at any given timewhile the criminals due their normal routines of work, shopping, commuting toand from work, leisure, etc., using the method of moving foot and vehicularsurveillance techniques, and computers, cell phones, verbal and visual cues,and every other conceivable type of communication."
What you were protesting was two people on the thread taking exception tosomething PP said. It seems that you are blowing the situation way out ofproportion by using emotionally charged language in a very imprecise way.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Bhagavat Maharaja Penny Page, I am sorry but I feel thatVrndaranya is correct. I was the one who invited Prem Prayojan to this threadand I know him extremely well. He approached the subject matter in such anunusual way that, to be quite honest, it was not even clear to me where he wasgoing or what he was doing. Since I have seen him do this before i watched andwaited. I am pleased and surprised at the result. I am now waiting in greatanticipation of Sripad Tripurari Maharajas response which I am sure will besomething to reckon with.
However, getting back to your use of the word gang stalking, specifically asyou define it in your last post, I find it completely inaccurate. First of allbecause the persons whom you accuse of doing this have been involved with thethread from its earliest stages and have made enormous contributions to thedevelopment of the various concepts surrounding the original statement by SrilaNarayan Maharaja. Secondly because the general usage of the term is quiteinflammatory in its nature. You might have simply said you felt they wereganging up on him which would have had a much less vitriolic attitude attachedto it. Even then I do not feel that they were really ganging up on him either.They were all trying to answer and respond to his clever pronouncements. I alsofeel that the intensity of the responses were equal in measure to the what wasperceived by the respondents as a bit of haughtiness on Prem Prayojana Prabhu'spart. this is because some may not know him very well and they are not used tohis style.
He is like a walking library and so he does have a tendency to come off as ifhe is the Oracle of Delphi. But those who know him like my self understand thatit is his style and do not pay it much mind. Also those who know him know he iscompletely non-plussed by such a large group descending on him at once. He knewwhat he was getting himself into and he knew what he was going to have to facewhen he entered this thread. He is no stranger to debate. So personally I feelthe criticism by you of the very learned and accomplished devotees on thisthread as gang stalkers is not just over the top but insulting to those whowere participating in this thread with a relish and enthusiasm for the subjectthat as far as I know is unseen on face book. The fact that Srila NarayanMaharaja's statement has generated this much enthusiasm for such a high topicis in and of itself a testament to his legacy as one of the great acharyas whoinspired in others the desire to know more and more about the mysteries ofGaudiya Vaishanava siddhanta. So I would humbly ask that you please refrainfrom using such inflammatory language in the future so that we can all enjoythis thread and make it a big success.
Your Uncle
Bhagavat Swami
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:08 pm
Toongi Tungi The reason why Srila B.V.Narayana Maharaja, Pundit Ananta Das Babajiand several other recent Vaishnavas refer to the manjaris' bhav as"bhavollas rati" is because it acts (for the manjaris at least) likea mukhya rati. VCT states that bhavollas is neither a sthayi nor a sancharibhav. It cannot be stated to be a sanchari bhav because as it manifests in themanjaris, it is not temporary. On the other hand it is not listed amongst themukhya ratis which are 5. There is not a 6th "bhavollas rati" or"bhavollas rasa" listed after madhurya rasa.
The conclusion then is that bhavollas is "asraya dependent".Depending on the asraya it manifests in, it will act as either a sanchari or asthayi bhav. In the manjaris it acts as a sthayi bhav, in the other sakhis itacts as a sanchari bhav. As it is a sthayi bhav for the manjaris, their krishnaprem then becomes a sanchari bhav. As the 46th quality of Krishna is "narigana mano hari" - stealer of the minds of women - we know that themanjaris are not excluded from being enchanted with him, however, that issecondary and fleeting and manifests only on the order of their Swamini, suchas when she orders a manjari to personally unite with Krishna. At that time themanjari's sanchari bhav towards Krishna, her erotic attraction, will manifest.Otherwise not. Just as the manjaris are in a unique position:
A)qualified to be a Nayika YET at the same time not acting as a Nayika, and,
having no desire to unite with Krishna YET at the same time uniting with himon the order of Sri Kishoriji, SIMILARLY "bhavollas" is in a uniqueposition as well - being neither a sthayi bhav NOR a sanchari bhav, YET actingas BOTH - depending on the asraya.
Toongi Tungi Now, regarding the English version of Venu Gita, I spoke with MonicaBhatia/Manjulali Didi, the translator of Srila B.V. Narayan Maharaja's HindiVenu Gita into English, a vaishnava whom Prem Prayojana referred to as "XDasi, an Indian housewife from New Delhi who doesn't know Sanskrit", thusseeking to discredit her translations skills (isn't Prem himself an"Anglo-American househusband"?), and she confirmed that she has indeedtaken Sanskrit courses in both high school and college in India. Nonetheless,she is going to look at the Hindi book and compare it to the English version onthe page in question and see if it misses the mark, as Prem Prayojan asserts.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:08 pm
Swami Tripurari Prema-prayojana began his explanation bysaying, “Just as there is higher and lower mathematics, there is higher andlower rasa-tattva. The conclusions of Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharajabelong to the higher order of rasa-tattva. Thus they are not intelligible tostudents of the lower order.”
Before we rush headlong into this higher rasa-tattva, not wanting to be leftbehind in the lower studies, we would do well to proceed with caution. Is therereally a higher and lower rasa-tattva, is what Rupa Goswami presented in theBhakti-rasamrita-sindhu the lower rasa-tattva, and is the conception thatPrema-prayojana presents actually a higher rasa-tattva or even in line withSrila Narayana Maharaja himself for that matter? All these questions need to becarefully considered, lest we go in the direction of the apasampradayas, who nodoubt justify their deviations with similar logic.
In this post I will show how Prema Prayojana, in the name of defending SrilaNarayana Maharaja, is actually undermining SNM’s core teachings with regard tobhavollasa with an idea that is not found in any of the written teachings ofSNM and indeed blatantly contradicts them. Anyone who embraces PremaPrayojana’s attempt to defend SNM should be clear that doing so carries with itthis troublesome burden. You cannot take half of his argument and leave therest behind, as he himself has clearly pointed out and my response will alsomake clear. So embracing Prema Prayojana’s position actually puts one ingreater difficulty than not doing so because it puts one squarely at odds withwhat SNM clearly and repeatedly teaches in all of his publications on thesubject of manjari-bhava. Those who have not understood this need to thinkagain.
Admittedly, my approach to resolving the issue presented herein leaves one withthe need to add a footnote to what SNM has said in his Ramananda Samvadcommentary. However, it does not contradict anything he has expressly taught onmanjari-bhava in any of the books, nor does it leave SNM making a mistake ormake him out to be anything less than a Rupanuga rasika.
In contrast, if the students of SNM adopt Prema Prayojana’s argument, they willhave to edit substantial portions of SNM’s books and published talks, as wellas embrace convoluted arguments that contradict SNM and are not expresslysupported by previous acaryas. Moreover, in the name of "higher rasatattva," they will be accepting dangerously unconventional and speculativeideas over simple, straightforward arguments supported by SNM and many otherGaudiya sadhus. Let the readers choose for themselves.
…………
Prema Prayojana began his arguments by emphasizing that Brs. 2.5.128 is notabout manjari-bhava. This he said was crucial to his overall argument. He saidthat to understand this verse to be speaking of manjari-bhava is a terriblytortured interpretation and a grave error. He also tried to establish thatunderstanding this verse to be speaking of manjari-bhava has no valid precedentin the Gaudiya sampradaya.
I did not find these arguments convincing, and I demonstrated that there is a400-year Gaudiya tradition of referring to manjari-bhava as bhavollasa-rati. Ihave also shown that SNM used this verse repeatedly in exactly the same waythat it has been used by others in regard to manjari-bhava. Prema Prayojana impliedthat two women with no knowledge of Sanskrit were responsible for inserting theidea that Brs. 2.5.128 refers to the manjaris’ suhrt-rati into SNM’s books andthat this idea was not present in the Hindi edition of the book, which waswritten by SNM himself. I was able to find the Hindi edition of Venu-gitaonline. The pertinent section is found in the commentary on verse 7. There, SNMcites 2.5.128 as a reference to manjari-bhava and further refers to it asbhavollasa-rati. He says the same thing in Hindi that the 3rd definitiveedition of the book says in English.
This situation unfortunately highlights a recurring debating technique of PremaPrayojana: he makes statements that are essentially half-truths and seems tothink that others will not call his bluff. We see this throughout hispresentation. In this instance he said that the phrase “the suhrt-rati of themanjaris” is not found in the Hindi edition of SNM and SNM did not writeanything in English. This leaves the reader to assume that the English editionof the Venu-gita misrepresents SNM’s own Hindi handwriting. Such tactics maywork when speaking to the choir, but when speaking to a more critical-thinkingaudience, they often come back to haunt the one who makes them. This is whathas happened in this instance. There is essentially no difference between whatSNM writes in his Hindi edition of Venu-gita and the final English edition ofthe book. In other words, SNM explains that the second half of the verse speaksabout a special kind of suhrt-rati in which the love for the friend is greaterthan love for Krsna and is thus called bhavollasa-rati.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that SNM’s Hindi edition has a minor mistakethat was corrected in the English 3rd edition. The Hindi edition says thatRadha has eight kinds of sakhis, whereas the corrected English edition statesthat there are five, thus bringing the manuscript in line withUjjvala-nilamani. Surely this policy of making minor corrections is a betteridea than trying to posit that there is some higher esoteric point that SNM ismaking when he writes in Hindi that there are eight kinds of sakhis incontradiction to what he consistently teaches elsewhere.
………………..
Manjari-bhava is referred to as tad bhaveccha in Brs. 1.2.299. There is itdescribed as a particular type of madhurya rasa that is preferable and involvespursuing the love of one who loves Krsna (Radha’s bhava) rather than pursuing adirect relationship with Krsna, which is another type of madhurya rasa calledsambhogeccha. The implication of this is that tad bhaveccha actually enablesone to experience more intimacy with Krsna than pursing a direct relationshipwith Krsna.
Madhurya rasa is further described later in Brs. in terms of its visaya andasraya. As with other rasas, only Krsna is identified as the visaya. Indeed, in2.1.16 Sri Jiva Goswami emphasizes this point in his tika: “Krsna alone is thevisyayalambana.” This, of course, is much of what the entire book is about, asBrs. begins by describing Krsna as “akhila rasamrta murti.” He alone is thevisaya, and his devotees who taste rasa in relation to him are the asrayas. Soit is clear that Krsna is the visayalamabana of tad bhaveccha kamanuga bhakti.The shelter, or asraya, of that love is those paradigmatic devotees who embodythis tad bhaveccha, or the desire to experience the bhava of Radha. In thisway, they experience the greatest intimacy with Krsna, the ocean of rasahimself.
However, because the handmaidens of Radha focus their attention on her ratherthan directly on Krsna, this brings up a quandary. What is Radha’s position inrelation to this type of madhurya rasa? Without resorting to convolutedexplanations (of Prema Prayojana) of how the word “Sri” in “Sri Krsna” found inBrs. 2.5.2 is a secret reference to Radha only for tad bhaveccha madhurya rasa,we find that Brs. 2.5.128 gives a simple and straightforward answer to thequandary, one that has the support of centuries and that of SNM in particular. (contiued)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:08 pm
Swami Tripurari What does Brs. 2.5.128 say according to SNM?It says there are those who have rati for Krsna (a sthayi-bhava for him) who atthe same time have love for another devotee (Radha) that is quiteextraordinary. This love for her increases at every moment and, instead ofnourishing the devotee’s sthayi-bhava for Krsna, the devotee’s sthayi-bhava forKrsna nourishes it! Thus there are two kinds of suhrt-rati. In the first kindof suhrt-rati, a devotee has a sthayi-bhava for Krsna and an equal or lesserdegree of love for Radha. This suhrt-rati is a sancari-bhava in which Radha isthe visaya of that sancari-bhava that nourishes the devotee’s sthayi-bhava forKrsna in the way that sancari-bhavas normally do. Others (manjaris), who loveRadha more than Krsna, experience a sancari-bhava that is more than an ordinarysancari bhava in two ways. Their suhrt-rati is ever increasing in love for itsobject (Radha) and it itself is nourished by their sthayi-bhava for Krsna. Thusthis suhrt-rati deserves its own name: “bhavollasa bhava,” referred to by SNMas “bhavolasa-rati.”
Thus the simple and straightforward answer to the quandary is answered withinthe confines of Brs, as one would expect. Tad bhaveccha madhurya rasa involvesa sthayi-bhava for Krsna and bhavollasa for Radha. Krsna is the visayalambanaof the manjaris’ tad bhaveccha madhurya rasa and Radha is the visaya of theirbhavollasa. However, because this bhavollasa acts in two ways like asthayi-bhava—it never disappears into the ocean of one’s sthayi-bhava for Krsnaand rather than nourishing the manjari’s sthayi-bhava for Krsna, it isnourished by it—in these respects it functions like a sthayi-bhava. The onlydifference between it and a sthayi-bhava is that its object is not Krsna.Nonetheless, many devotees, including SNM, have traditionally preferred torefer to bhavollasa as a sthayi-bhava for Radha and Krsna—thus elevating Radhain this instance to the visayalambana along with Krsna. There is no question ofdethroning Krsna from his position as the visayalamabana, but there is reasonto elevate Radha to join him in this rasa as the object of love as a divinecouple. And because we see this in the bhajana of great devotees such asNarottama Thakura, who for example refers to this divine couple as the singularobject of his love (prana pati), devotees feel justified in making thisextraordinary claim.
………………..
But does this elevation of Radha to the position of the visaya along with Krsnanot contradict Brs.? Some would clearly say “Yes” and take a more conservativeapproach, granting that Radha is only the visaya of the manjari’s bhavollasa—aspecial sancari. After all, neither Jiva Goswami nor Visvanatha CakravartiThakura have said that the bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava, much less one centeredon Radha alone. But theology is something that is always in the making, whileat the same time remaining faithful to all that has come before it. PremaPrayojana’s attempt to support the idea that Radha is the visaya of manjari-bhavaby referencing the word Sri in Brs. 2.5.2 is theologizing that I do not findconvincing, yet it is an effort that I nonetheless appreciate. There are manyreasons it is not convincing, not the least of which is that elsewhere in manyplaces “Krsna” and not “Sri Krsna” is described as the visaya of bhakti rasa,not to mention that it is more likely that the word Sri was added to Brs 2.5.2to give the correct number of syllables to the line it is found in.
Furthermore, there are much better ways based on Brs. to theologize Radha-Krsnainto the combined visaya of the manjaris’ love. Indeed, the term tad-bhavecchaitself can be understood to imply that Radha and Krsna are the object ofmanjari-bhava. The manjaris’ ideal is tad bhava, “their love,” and not Krsnaseparated from Radha as in sambhogeccha madhurya rasa nor Radah se[parated fromKrsna (heaven forbid).The Godhead in its fullest sense is rasa (raso vai sah),and the manjaris’ love is for this expression of the Godhead. Their object oflove is rasa, or the mahabhava that involves Radha-Krsna becoming one in love.After all, there is no meaning to Rasaraja Krsna without Mahabhava-svarupiniRadha. And while there is also no meaning to mahabhava without rasaraja,mahabhava is arguably the more important of the two. Krsna is Rasaraja becauseof Radha’s mahabhava, for in Sri Rupa’s theology God is what his devotees makehim. He is their love more than he is anything else.
Thus I refer back to my consistent position throughout the thread. To elevateRadha to the position of the joint visayalambana of manjari-bhava along withKrsna is a theological stretch that I do not disagree with. Call itbhavollasa-rati—a sthayi-bhava for Krsna that includes even more intense lovefor Radha—love for Radha-Krsna with the desire to unite them in mahabhava. Notethat SNM has chosen to see Radha-Krsna combined as the object of the manjari’slove in his commentary on Bhajana-rahasya.
………………….
Now, if we can credibly say that the manjaris’ sthayi-bhava is either for Krsnaor Radha-Krsna combined, can we go on to say that it can also be called asthayi-bhava for Radha alone and a sancari-bhava for Krsna? We have alreadytheologically stretched the boundaries of Brs. to make Radha-Krsna combined themanjaris’ visayalambana. Can we go further and call Brs. classical physics andreal life rasa quantum physics? In essence, Prema Prayojana makes thisargument. In quantum physics waves become particles and particles become wavesand both are waves and particles at the same time. Similarly, in real-life rasaspoken from the nikunja, sancaris become sthayis and sthayis become sancarisand visayas become asrayas and asrayas become visayas, all in the name of myguru knows the higher math of rasa while others’ understanding is confined tobooks. This is what Prema Prayojana has more or less said, and to support thisidea he turns to Brs. 4.4 and Sri Rupa’s discussion of gauna-ratis. Iconsidered this chapter earlier (without writing about it) and Vrindaranyacited it in one of her posts. Unfortunately, her conclusion as well as mine isthat it falls short of giving support to the idea that the manjari’s love forKrsna is a sancari-bhava and it does not address the problems of seeing Radhaalone as the visayalambana of manjari-bhava.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:09 pm
Swami Tripurari This section of Brs. basically explains howgauna-ratis can become the dominant emotion. They act in this way when all ofthe other ingredients of rasa are assembled. There are seven gauna-ratis. Theyare nourished by the mukhya sthayi-bhava, which recedes temporarily to thebackground when they predominate. This sounds much like what happens to themanjaris’ sthayi-bhava for Krsna in their bhavollasa for Radha, with the exceptionthat their love for Radha is not temporary. It does not recede.
Rupa Goswami explains in this section that when a gauna-rati such as hasya-rasamanifests, the sakhya rasa of a cowherd acts like a sancari-bhava, a necessaryingredient of rasa. It does so by nourishing the gauna-rati temporarily. Fromthis it may seem that we can say that since the manjaris’ sthayi-bhava forKrsna always nourishes their love for Radha and this love could be considered asthayi-bhava, the manjaris’ love for Krsna is a sancari and their love forRadha is their sthayi. Although we may be tempted by this logic, there aresignificant differences between the instance where a gauna-rati predominatesover a mukhya-rati and the dynamics of the manjaris’ sthayi-bhava for Krsna andtheir bhavollasa for Radha. Let me list these differences.
1. Gauna-ratis, like mukhya-ratis, are centered on Krsna, whereas bhavollasa iscentered on Radha.
2. Bhavollasa does not predominate over the manjaris’ Krsna rati in the sameway a gauna-rati predominates over a mukhya rati.
3. Gauna-ratis give one direct experience of Krsna-rati, whereas tad bhavecchamadhurya rasa gives one indirect experience of Krsna rati.
The first difference is significant because the chapter of Brs that discussesgauna-ratis is speaking about ratis centered on Krsna, of which Brs. teachesthere are twelve. The instance in which a mukhya-rati temporarily acts in someways like a sancari is one in which another Krsna rati takes precedence, not asancari or even an extraordinary one centered on Radha. This occurs only whenone of seven gauna ratis predominates, not another mukhya-rati. While thegeneral principle that the predominating sentiment is the sthayi is cited inthe chapter, this is stated in the context of discussing sthayi-bhavas. Inother words, when two sthayi-bhavas compete and one predominates, thepredominating one is considered the sthayi-bhava in that particularcircumstance. In this instance the predominated sthayi-bhava acts in onesingular way as a sancari. It temporarily nourishes the dominant sentiment. Toattempt to apply this principle to bhavollasa that is centered on Radha is notsomething Rupa Goswami has done.
The second difference is about the way in which the gauna-rati predominatesover a mukhya rati in comparison to how the manjaris’ love appears to dominateover their Krsna-rati. When the gauna-rati predominates over a mukhya rati, itdoes so temporarily. It does not turn the mukhya-rati into a sancari-bhava inall respects. The mukhya-rati recedes but never disappears as ordinary sancarisdo. Cowherds are still situated in sakhya rati during the period whenhasya-rati takes precedence, and when the gauna-rati recedes, demonstrating itssancari-like nature at this time, the mukhya rati again takes precedence as thesthayi-bhava. When the manjaris’ love for Radha is nourished by theirKrsna-rati, on the other hand, this in turn fosters their Krsna rati. In otherwords their Krsna-rati never even recedes to the background, much lessdisappears, even though it nourishes like a sancari the manjaris’ love forRadha. Krsna rati nourishes the manjaris’ love for Radha, and their love forRadha indirectly gives them the experience of Radha’s Krsna-rati.
This brings us to the third difference. Gauna-ratis directly give one Krsnarati, whereas the manjaris’ tad bhaveccha madhurya bhakti involves indirectlyexperiencing madhurya Krsna-rati. Here I write not about the manjaris’ overtplatonic relationship with Krsna in the lila, but about the erotic element oftheir rati for him that is so celebrated and makes their Krsna-rati kama-rupa.Overtly they do not covet this, but internally they relish it along with Radha.The manjaris’ madhurya Krsna-rati is ultimately Radha’s Krsna-rati experiencedby way of attaching themselves to Radha in every respect. This is not asancari-bhava. It is a sthayi-bhava to the extreme, even as it is experiencedby the manjaris and nourishes their love for Radha. In this regard the factthat Radha’s manjaris sometimes express displeasure with Krsna does notindicate that their love for him oscillates any more than Radha’s mana (jealousanger) indicates that her love for him diminishes during her mana. Manjaristaste the full measure of Radha’s madhurya Krsna rati that, although full, isever increasing.
But before I conclude this section it must be emphasized that in Brs 4.4 JivaGoswami stresses that although mukhya-ratis do act like sancari-bhavas whengauna-ratis predominate, they are not actually sancari-bhavas. They act AS IFthey were sancaris, when in fact they are not. Indeed, in many respects they donot even act like sancaris. They only act as sancaris inasmuch as they serve totemporarily nourish the gauna-rati, enabling it to have the additionalingredient necessary for the gauna-rati to ascend to rasa. Sri Rupa says itlike this in Brs. 4.4.48: “However, the primary rasa for a particular devotee,which manifests in the heart of a devotee by the power of beginninglessprevious experiences, does not disappear, as the vyabhicari-bhavas or secondaryrasas do.” And Jiva Goswami comments in this connection, “The mukhya-rati isnot like the vyabhicari-bhavas or secondary rasas. . . .Though thevyabhicari-bhavas and secondary rasas disappear, the main primary rasa doesnot.”
Thus, even if one insists upon calling the manjaris’ love for Krsna asancari-bhava on the basis of Sri Rupa’s chapter on gauna-ratis, it must beadmitted that in reality their love for Krsna remains a sthayi-bhava even whenacting in some respects like a sancari-bhava. This conclusion isunavoidable.
(continued)
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:09 pm
Swami Tripurari Thus my overall conclusion is reached in amanner that it does not contradict the Brs., nor the writings of RaghunathaDasa Goswami, our prayojana-tattva acarya. When he prays to the divine coupleto attain love (rati) for them, he is praying to them jointly no doubt, but notfor a sthayi bhava for Radha and a sancari bhava for Krsna. He is perhapspraying for a sthayi-bhava for Radha-Krsna combined, given the similaritybetween bhavollasa and a sthayi-bhava and all that has been said about thisacceptable stretch. But we have no example of Das Goswami or anyone elsepraying for a sthayi-bhava for Radha and a sancari-bhava for Krsna. All we haveis SNM writing in one book that the manjaris’ love constitutes a sthayi-bhavafor Radha and a sancari-bhava for Krsna, in contradiction to what he haswritten elsewhere and in contrast to the natural conclusion of Bs. 2.5.128 thathe himself so clearly articulates.
So how then are we to understand this statement? Well, as has already beenmentioned, in some ways the manjaris’ love for Krsna does act as asancari-bhava. Unlike other forms of Krsna rati, it nourishes the manjaris’love for Radha instead of being nourished by it. So if in a moment ofbhavollasa, a manjari upasana bhakta says in his bhava that Radha is the objectof love and Krsna’s love only nourishes this love, this may have its place. Howso? Given the manjari upasana bhakta’s extraordinary status, we can perhapsimagine Sri Rupa being pleased with such a transcendental bias for Radha in thesame way that Mahaprabhu was pleased with Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya’s bias forbhakti. Sarvabhauma was a man of siddhanta and sastra, but after his conversionto bhakti, his bhava caused him to change the word mukti in a Bhagavata verseto bhakti—bhakti pade instead of mukti pade. While Gaurasundara appreciated themeasure of Sarvabhauma’s conversion evidenced by his bias, he told the learnedBhattacarya that nonetheless one cannot change a word in the Bhagavatam.
Perhaps a moment of SNM’s ecstasy in his Ramananda Samvada commentary can befootnoted along these lines to explain the apparent contradiction. “SNM hasspoken this in the extreme ecstasy of manjari-bhava and explained the love ofthe manjaris in one manner here, although elsewhere he explains the love of themanjaris to have Radha-Krsna as a joint visaya. However, there is truth to hisstatement in that the manjaris’ Krsna rati nourishes their bhavollasa in amanner similar to the way a sancari-bhava normally nourishes one’s Krsna-rati.And such can be said at times by one who is actually experiencingmanjari-bhava, although it should be tempered by the siddhanta that he haslabored to present everywhere else.” This I suggest is a much simpler, chaste,and non-speculative manner to deal with the issue.
The alternative given by Prema Prayojana dismisses all that SNM has said aboutBrs. 2.5.128 and labels it as dangerous and tortuous. To accept PremaPrayojana’s explanation on this subject is to accept an idea that is notexplicitly backed by any previous or present acarya, all in the name of “myguru does higher math . . .” Personally I don’t see any higher math here.
……………
In conclusion, the idea that manjari-bhava involves a sthayi-bhava for Krsnaand bhavollasa for Radha is fully supported in the book that definitivelyspeaks about the issue of asraya and visaya alambanas of various rasas. Notethat this particular topic is not addressed in any other text other thanVisvnatha Cakravarti Thakura’s Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu-bindu and KrsnadasaKaviraja’s Caitanya-caritamrta which both faithfully follow Brs. Brs. is thebook we are to turn to when trying to understand who is the visaya and who isthe asraya of any particular rasa. While other details concerning madhurya rasaare found elsewhere, this particular topic is fully addressed in Brs., as itshould be. If one wants to call manjari bhava a sthayi-bhava for Radha-Krsna, Ihave no objection, and I have done so myself elsewhere. I continue to find theidea that the manjari’s love for Krsna is a sancari-bhava troublesome asdetailed above, and I also continue to find the idea that Radha alone is thevisaya of manjari-bhava troublesome. That is another important argument thatshould be made lest manjari-bhava is left without an erotic element and itsstatus as the preferred type of kamanuga bhakti brought into question.
Others are free to think differently on this issue if they so choose. I suspectthat, as we have for the most part seen all along, devotees will chose how tolook at this issue along partisan lines. Thus I see no reason to continue thediscussion. SNM’s sect has its own unique characteristics: Sukadeva becomesRadha’s parrot; Giriraja becomes Girirani; Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta SwamiPrabhupada is seen as a manjari, and so on. If the group wants to add the ideathat the manjari’s love for Krsna is a sancari-bhava and that Radha alone isthe visaya of their kamanuga-bhakti so be it. Others have done the math andcome up with different answers. Hopefully all can agree to disagree.
Furthermore, it would be easier to continue via Prema Prayojana’s preferredformat, as comprehensive replies are now requiring thousands of written wordsand Prema Proyojana may have made points on his TV station that were notcovered in his written word here on the thread. I suppose I could arrange myown computer TV station and go from there, but I have no interest in continuingto participate in the discussion. Prema Prayojana has informed us that he willbe talking about this issue on a later broadcast, so I am sure he will addresssome of my points raised here at that time, especially those concerning theimplications of Brs. 2.5.128.
Thank you, Bhagavata Maharaja for providing the forum. May Sriman Mahaprabhubless all the participants with prema.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:11 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Dandavats Tripurari Maharaja, you said"SNM’s sect has its own unique characteristics: Sukadeva becomes Radha’sparrot; Giriraja becomes Girirani; Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupadais seen as a manjari, and so on."
But Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja said the same, that Sukadeva is Radha's parrotand that Srila Prabhupada is a manjari...
Babhru Reed After looking over Prem Prayojan's five posts thatpresent his argument and listening to a little over an hour of his Webcast(I'll have to watch the rest another time), I find I can put my finger on a fewof the reasons I remain unconvinced by his argument. I don’t intend this as acomprehensive reply; it’s simply a response to a couple of things in his postsand in the part of the Webcast I’ve been able to watch, that I think mayaccount for some devotees remaining unconvinced by his argument.
As I mentioned earlier, I was happy to see him lay out his case systematically. At first reading I found that it at least had a consistent internal logic; Iwas finally able to see where he was coming from. As I go over it again, someweaknesses in his argument become more apparent to me. By pointing them out, Iintend no personal slight to Prem Prayojan. I have no trouble admitting hisintelligence, learning, and dedication. Moreover, I read his presentation,which I find creative and rather interesting in places, as an expression of hisfaith in his spiritual master, as much as anything else. I believe no one herewould fault him for that faith, which is certainly well placed. There aresimply a couple of places where he fell short of convincing me, and where Ithink he may do well to reconsider or strengthen his argument.
One point I thought he relied too much on was the "sri krsna" in Brs.2.5.2 as covert reference to Radha and Krishna together. I don't have a problemwith the position with which he supports this suggestion. And I don'tnecessarily object to the idea itself, but his presentation seems convenientlyto ignore the fact that "Sri Krishna" and "Sri Radha" arecommonly used to indicate the members of the divine couple, either together orindividually. In fact, Prem Prayojan does just that in his video presentationquite a number of times. I noticed just before and after the one-hour mark thathe mentioned Sri Krishna over and over again when recounting some pastimesaround Radha-kunda. That seemed to undermine the point that he had just madeabout "sri krsna" in that Brs. verse referring to the divine coupletogether.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:11 pm
Babhru Reed Another aspect of his presentation that fellshort for me was his apparently ignoring the fact that he took a good deal offigurative language as if it were literal. More than a few times in thepodcast, and quite noticeably in the fourth post, we see him relying onexpressions such as "acts as the sthayi-bhava" and "acts as ifthey were sancari-bhavas." This is overtly figurative language, the figureof speech being simile. Moreover, in the second example I cite, we see the useof the subjunctive mood, which indicates something contrary to literal fact.And even more to the point, in that same passage Srila Jiva Goswami makes thepoint that when a gauna -rati temporarily overshadows a mukhya-rati (and thecontext here is a discussion of mukhya and gauna ratis, which aresthayi-bhavas, and does not include actual vyabhicari or sancari bhavas atall), we should only think of the temporarily prominent gauna ratis as if theywere acating as sthayi bhavas, "although actually they are not."Nevertheless, what Prem Prayojan seems to take away from this is that a sancaribhava can actually become a sthayi bhava, and vice versa, when understandhigher realms of rasa tattva, just the opposite of Sri Jiva’s assertion.
This strikes me as quite a stretch. And it seems to me as though the process bywhich Prem Prayojan arrives at his conclusion is starting with his thesis,which is what he heard from SNM in discussing the Raya Ramananda Samvad book,and cherry picking evidence to support it. The process by which he builds hiscase is what 20th-century literary critic and rhetorician Kenneth Burke calls"casuistic stretching." Casuistry is defined, among other things, asan over-subtle reasoning, essentially a kind of sophistry. In his book"Attitudes Toward History," in which he coins the term, Burkedescribes casuistic stretching as "introducing new principles whiletheoretically remaining faithful to old principles." This seems to me todescribe, at least to some degree, what Prem Prayojan does in his presentation.While appearing to try hard to hew to the guidelines laid down by Srila RupaGoswami in Bhrs., he stretches the frame established there for understandingrasa tattva with an eye to establishing SNM's assertion that the manjaris havea sthayi-bhava for Radha and a sancari-bhava for Krishna, even though the basicpremise of Brs. Is that Krishna is the visaya of all sthayi-bhavas.
Now, casuistic stretching is not inherently a bad thing, and Burke points outseveral places where he does so in "Attitudes Toward History."However, it seems to me that our guru-varga would advise great caution in doingso with something as sensitive as rasa tattva. If you stretch a frame too much,it may become bent out of shape. After all, that's the same kind of thinkingthat yielded Gaura-nagara-bhava and other apasiddhantas. And it's this thatkeeps Prem Prayojan's argument from ultimately moving me.
I would suggest that the easiest way to honor the vision SNM shared in"Raya Ramananda Samvada" is to accept it as an utterance of bhava,not try to turn it into a novel siddhanta. I recently shared a verse from theNaradiya Purana, in which Krishna addresses Narada Muni:
sakhya bhava param bhavo mama pritikarah sada
sakhyat parataram nanyat tasmat sakhyena mam yaja
"The mood of sakhya-bhava is supreme among all ecstatic emotions. it isthe cause of my incessant pleasure. There is no higher consciousness than thatof the cowherd boys. Therefore, worship me as a friend in the mood ofsakhya."
I would imagine that devotees inclined to sakhya-bhava find such a verse veryinspiring. However, I don't think they're going to try to build a novelsiddhanta around it. I suggest that we may best honor SNM's vision byexercising similar caution.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:11 pm
Markus Ananda Ode What an eminently long and well-referenceddiscussion. Some friends requested me to have a quick look at the talks here.The doctrinal angles, it appears, have been quite exhaustively probed. Allow meto try and make a complex topic a bit more simple for those who might seek toimbibe the self-conceit and emotive essence of the manjaris in more practicalterms.
1. Sri Krishna is the ultimate attractor of Vrindavan; therefore, it followsthat he must be the ultimate vishaya of rasa.
2. The manjaris serve the lila in a state of bhAvollAsa, where their rati forRadha is nourished beyond their rati for Krishna.
3. Sri Radha is the embodiment of attraction for Sri Krishna; therefore, sherepresents the penultimate service and love in Vrindavan.
4. The manjaris serve in the mood of tad-bhAvecchAtmikA, where bhAva-tadAtmya(emotive unity) with Sri Radha is the core of their aspiration.
5. Krishna is the ultimate vishaya (object) and Radha the ultimate ashraya(reservoir); and emotive unity with Radha is unity with her perception.
6. Then, the manjaris perceive Krishna as the ultimate vishaya via the mediumof their bhAvollAsa for Radha (suhrid-rati).
Then, the three ostensible positions brought forward by Prem Prayojanji are allessentially valid:
1) Sri Krsna is the visaya of their sthayi-bhava,
2) Sri Radha-Krsna are both the visaya of their sthayi-bhava,
3) Sri Radha is the visaya, whereas Krsna-rati becomes a sancari-bhava.
Because:
1) Sri Krishna is the ultimate vishaya; this is where all of rasa-tattvastreams (rasarAja-svarUpa; kRSNa-rati). [+]
2) Sri Radha is the ultimate ashraya; the reflector and conveyor of all lovefor Krishna. (pranaya-vikRti hlAdini-zaktir asmAt) [±]
3) Sri Radha is the hub of the palya-dasis emotions and attention; the manjarisare partial to her (mahabhAva-svarUpa; suhRd-rati). [-]
These are simply three perspectives; they each describe a functional facet ofthe triune equation of manjari-bhava. In #1, we talk about "technicalsiddhanta". In #2, we talk about "conveyance of reflectiveexperience". In #3, we talk about "practical emotiveorientation". Take one away, and the whole operation falls apart. 3 leadsto 2 leads to 1.
Now, the fact is that we can debate over semantics until the cows come home,but I personally feel it'd be eminently helpful if we first tuned into theexperience of bhAvollAsa. If we don't step into "manjari shoes" tohave a look at the emotive landscape and the practical dynamics of theirsevAbhilAsa, we risk only escalating the confusion and the lack of bhajanresulting from "prayojanic" uncertainties. Prema is a reality manyyojanas removed from siddhantic debate, and the "pra" or practicalreality of emotive connection with Sri Radha is the heart of resolution,realization and harmonization.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:13 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi Now, the fact is that we can debate oversemantics until the cows come home, but I personally feel it'd be eminentlyhelpful if we first tuned into the experience of bhAvollAsa. If we don't stepinto "manjari shoes" to have a look at the emotive landscape and thepractical dynamics of their sevAbhilAsa, we risk only escalating the confusionand the lack of bhajan resulting from "prayojanic" uncertainties.Prema is a reality many yojanas removed from siddhantic debate, and the"pra" or practical reality of emotive connection with Sri Radha isthe heart of resolution, realization and harmonization."
Nitaisundara Dasa It pains me to think that the highest love ofKrsna in all the worlds has in the minds of some devotees become merely aflickering sancari-bhava. Better to be situated in dasya-bhakti and at leastexperience a sthayi-bhava for Krsna and the actual bhakti rasa derived fromsuch undying love. Shame, what would Radha say? Somehow i don't think SNMwanted to say this.
The problem with Marcus's post in relation to the entire subject is that SNMwrites in his RS tika that he is speaking about the technical siddhanta of themanjari's bhava when he says it constitutes a sthayi-bhava for Radha and asancari-bhava for Krsna. So in terms of your analysis he is speaking aboutnumber 1 but applying number 3. Furthermore, it has been pointed out thatnumber 3 needs to be clarified, in that the manjari's sthayi-bhava for Krsna isnot really a sancari-bhava at all (if number 3 is even valid way to speak aboutit at all)
I am afraid much of the attempt to accommodate SNM's statement is honestly justa stretch and the subject is just much better addressed when we speak about itin terms of your numbers 1 and 2. Number three caaues too much confusion and inthe very least needs a lot of clarification, none of which is found in the RStika we are discussing.
Nitaisundara Dasa A manjari's practical emotive perspective:"I love Krnsa more than anything and I love Radha more than that."There is no sancari-bhava here. And if we are to talk about it in a book, thatis much different from being absorbed in the "practical emotiveperspective." That is "talking about a practical emotiveperspective." For this we have to use the technical language supplied byRupa Goswami. Again, sancari-bhava does not fit.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:13 pm
Markus Ananda Ode Here are the full tikas on the bhAvollAsaverse for quick reference.
|| Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu: 2.5.128 ||
api ca—
sañcārī syāt samāno vā kṛṣṇa-ratyāḥ suhṛd-ratiḥ |
adhikā puṣyamāṇā ced bhāvollāsā ratiḥ ||
śrī-jīvaḥ : sañcārī syād ity asyāyam arthaḥ—suhṛdāṁ nijābhīṣṭa-rasāśraye bhakta-viśeṣe śrī-rādhikādau viṣaye sajātīya-bhāva-bhaktānāṁ parasparaṁ ratyā viṣayāśraya-rūpāṇāṁ lalitādīnāṁ sakhī-mukhyānām ekatarāśrayā yāratiḥ, sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā ratyāḥ samā syād ūnā vā syāt tadā kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā rateḥ sañcaryākhya eva bhāvaḥ syāt | tan-mūlatvāt tat-poṣaṇāc ca | evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacitkṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā , tatrāpi puṣyamāṇā santatābhiniveśena saṁvardhyamānā syāt tadā sañcāritve’piviśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate iti| tad idaṁ tv atrānusmṛtya likhitam api sañcāriṇām ante yojanīyam, tatraiva sajātīyatvāt ||128||
mukundaḥ : api ceti | evaṁ rasaḥ samyag ukto’nyad api tat-poṣakam ucyate ity arthaḥ ||128||
viśvanāthaḥ : api ceti | tad etat samāptaṁ, kiñcid apy ucyate ity arthaḥ | atha sajātīya-bhaktānāṁ paraspara-parama-prītyāpannānāṁ madhye ekasmin bhakteanya-bhaktasya vā ratiḥ sā kṛṣṇa-viṣayiṇyā rateḥ poṣakatvāt vyabhicāri-bhāva-madhye eva niviṣṭā ity āha—sañcārī syād iti | asyāyamarthaḥ—sajātīya-bhāva-bhakti-viśiṣṭānāṁ paraspara-rater viṣayāśraya-rūpāṇām ekatarāśrayā yā ratiḥ, sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā ratyāḥ samā vā syāt, tato nyūnā vā syāttadā kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā rateḥ sañcaryākhya eva bhāvaḥ syāt | evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api rater adhikā tatrāpi puṣyamāṇā satatābhiniveśena saṁvardhyamānā syāt tadā sañcāritve’pisarva-bhāvāpekṣayā paramotkarṣāt bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate iti | tad idaṁ tv atrānusmṛtya likhitam | atas trayastriṁśat-sañcāriṇām ante idam api yojanīyam ||128||
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:14 pm
Markus Ananda Ode A few more thoughts on this.
"saJcArI syAt samAno vA kRSNa-ratyAH suhRd-ratiH" -- "WhenKrishna-rati and Suhrid-rati are equal, it is a sanchari;"
"adhikA puSyamANA ced bhAvollAsa itIryate" -- "When nourished inexcess to the other, it is called bhAvollAsa."
When the two are equal, then it is called saJcArI in BRS 2.5.128. WhenSuhrid-rati exceeds, it is called bhAvollAsa.
The context of these statements is the sthayI-bhAva-laharI, the wave ofestablished emotions. Now, look at the context. 122: raseSugahanAsvAdana-vizeSAH; "In the rasas, there is an inexplicableparticularity of relish." Then Rupa Goswami goes on (123-127) toillustrate, with the example of gauNa-rasa of karuNA or "compassion",how all the rasas are full of Ananda.
Then, these surging emotions (such as karuNA-rati), when equal between Krishnaand Suhrit as their object (vizaya), are considered as saJcArI. However, whenthe balance is tossed in favor of a special devotee (Radha etc.), it is calledbhAvollAsa, a splendid manifestation of bhAva.
The manjaris, to the best of my understanding, do not give up this state ofbhAvollAsa, as one would return to the "base sthayI" from a regularsaJcArI (vizeSeNAbhimukhyena caranti sthAyinaM prati; 2.4.1), due to theirintegral role in providing support for the Radha-ashraya, which helps the fullrange of madhura-rasa come into being to begin with.
Rupa Goswami has chosen to call this "bhAvollAsa". Since it's aheightened saJcArI modifying the sthayI of tad-bhAvecchAtmika madhura-rati, Idon't know if you want to call it "virtual sthayI" or whatever; butthe fact remains that the "spirits stay high forever" for themanjaris, whatever anyone may choose to call it. In any case, they remainpartial to Radha (rAdhA-snehAdhika) in their affection (sneha).
If B.V. Narayana Maharaja, or anyone else for that matter, chooses to speak of"bhAvollAsa-rati" in general, or refer to maJjarI-bhAva as a"sthayI-bhAva", surely they do not mean to say that it would removethe base of madhura-rati in terms of the prime categories of the rasa-theory.The bhAvollAsa of the maJjarIs is for all practical purposes a sthayI-subsetunder the umbrella of madhura-sthayI-bhAva; much like you have several subsetsor "established flavors" for sakhya-rasa.
I am frankly a bit lost as to what the central and essential point ofcontention here is; I have read through the contributions by the main movershere, and I wonder if we disagree on anything else but semantics. Anyone careto help me see where the heart of the problem is?
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:14 pm
Prem Prayojan Pranama Markus my old friend.
It seems that you overlooked my initial postings on this thread.
You have posted:
api ca—
...sañcārī syāt samāno vā kṛṣṇa-ratyāḥ suhṛd-ratiḥ |
adhikā puṣyamāṇā ced bhāvollāsā ratiḥ ||
You might go back and check the post in which I pointed out six reasons whythis version of the verse is both incorrect and impossible - something aboutwhich all the participating devotees now agree.
Tarun Das There are sancaris acting like sthayis, andsthayis like sancaris. It does seem like word games, when what we're talkingabout is a bhava, a feeling; and the great need to categorize it I guess. Forme what was on the line, I think you pointed out in your earlier comment.Practical emotive orientation. It was getting swamped by a lot of confusingtalk about siddhanta, when what I was tending to look for were self effulgentjewels of siddhanta that established Radha Dasyam as supreme, and full supportto the supreme position of Radharani, and the right of her dasis to give theirfull love and attention to Her. I can't see anyone using BRS like a cookbookanyway. Doesn't it all happen a little more naturally than that? It sounds somental, the way it's talked about, when the real thing is our practical emotiveorientation. It all may end up with Krsna as visaya. That may be the case. Butthat is somewhere down the road, and talking like that now may just be adisturbance to doing the needful. Thank you Ananda for your comments. Itbrought it all home for me. And thanks to Prema Prayojana for his TV broadcast.There are some jewels there. And thank you Tripurari Maharaja for your lastcomments.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:15 pm
Markus Ananda Ode Pranams to you too; long time no see, hope youare well. Yes I agree (and am aware) that the reading is incorrect; the breakin the meter makes me cringe every time I read it. I did read through all yourposts in the thread; they were in fact the first thing I was looking for.
This is the reading in the GGM text; I simply converted the diacritics andcopy-pasted it in for reference. It looks like Jagat used Haridas Dasji'sedition (3rd ed. 1979) for the sole source; I don't know if he ever got hold ofthe Puridas prints that were in the air a few years back. http://www.granthamandira.com/index.php?show=entry&e_no=86
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:15 pm
VrindaranyaDasi Dear Markus,
Sri Nityananda Rama ki jaya!
Really nice to have you on thethread. The more people versed in Gaudiya siddhanta in the discussion themerrier.
You said that you are a bit lost about the essential point of contention. Ithas basically been whether from the point of view of siddhanta("sva-bhakti-siddhanta" as SNM put it), "Sri Krsna becomes theobject of the maidservant's transitory emotion that nourishes the sthayibhava."
As for reconciling the statement from the perspective of "practicalemotive orientation," I already did that very early in the thread: "Maybe Srila Narayana Maharaja's statement was an expression of bhava, like thegopis advising not to love Krsna, when, according to the angle of tattva, theyhave the highest love for Krsna." Therefore, if all we were trying to dowas that, then there would indeed have been no need for further discussion. ButI was under the impression that Prema Prayojana was going to try to reconcileall three positions from the angle of siddhanta. [Note: I didn't mean that as asting towards PP. Basically I thought that all three would be reconciled not asdifferent perspectives but from the same perspective. Otherwise, the first twopositions (that Sri Krsna is the visaya and that Radha/Krsna are the jointvisaya) were accommodated from the beginning of the thread, and as I mentionedI also gave a "practical emotive" explanation early on. I alsomentioned later on that I didn't think the section from 4.8 about gauna-ratiswas sufficient proof to establish the third position as siddhanta, particularlyif you argue, as PP has, that Brs. 2.5.128 doesn't refer to the manjaris.]
As I see it, this practical emotive orientation does not change the manjaris'sthayi-bhava: just as when the manjaris apparently denounce Krsna they have notin fact denounced Krsna. Therefore, I don't see how the practical emotiveorientation has supported the siddhanta that Krsna-rati becomes a sancari-bhava.
Your way of harmonizing the statement is that "Sri Radha is the hub of thepalya-dasis emotions and attention; the manjaris are partial to her." Thisis true, but Sri Rupa states these practical emotive realities without comingto the conclusion that Sri Krsna becomes the object of a transitory emotion.Basically, the very act of analyzing the "practical emotiveorientation" and applying terms like "sancari-bhava" takes usinto the realm of "technical siddhanta." Therefore, I think it isfalse to think that we can separate the three positions into the three discreteperspectives you have outlined. As I see it, the second two perspectives aremerely aspects that Rupa Goswami has taken into consideration in outlining thesiddhanta (the first perspective).
Furthermore, if we want to take the manjaris' practical emotive orientationinto consideration, the way that has been most highlighted and celebrated bythe acaryas is that they experience Srimati Radhika's mahabhava. From thispractical emotive orientation, Krsna can hardly be considered the object of asancari-bhava.
You suggest stepping into " 'manjari shoes' to have a look at the emotivelandscape and practical dynamics." Having all of us try to imagine how themanjaris feel strikes me as a particularly unhelpful way of getting clarify onthis issue. Our ability to accomplish the task you suggest will only besuccessful to the extent that we have the proper conceptual orientation, andthat, it would seem, is what we are trying to come to consensus about. We needsastra-caksu (eyes of scripture) to view reality. And this reality isn't onething in the adhideya-tattva and another in the prayojana: the prayojanacorresponds with the abhideya, as Narottama dasa Thakura teaches: "How oneworships corresponds with what one attains." Rupa Goswami has taught ushow to worship in Brs. To say that siddhanta is yojanas from prema is extremelymisleading. Have we really come to the point of trying to reconcile SNM'sstatement by saying, "It isn't siddhanta; it is better thansiddhanta?" I think it is better to show how bhava arises out of andconforms with siddhanta, despite apparent appearances to the contrary. Whateverhappened to rupanuga viruddhapa siddhanta dvanta harine?
In addition to our original point of contention, there are several other pointsof contention that have arisen in the course of the discussion. Particularlyglaring is the question of whether Brs. 2.5.128 refers to the manjaris. PremaPrayojana predicted that all doubts would be cleared when he presented the keyto unlock the secrets of this issue. Although I greatly appreciate hiscontribution to the thread, I don't feel that his final posts cleared thedoubts I presented in my response to his first installments and the second installmentactually gave rise in me to further points of contention, which I plan to voicein a future post.
In service,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:16 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi I think that Ananda prabhu wants to tell this:
Srila Gour Govinda Swami:
bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam
na buddhya na ca tikaya
Srimad Bhagavatam can only be understood by bhakti, not by dint of one'sintelligence or by reading commentaries. (Cc.24.313)
You cannot understand Bhagavata by taking help of the tikas, commentaries. Somany commentaries are there. One may think, "Yes, I am a scholar. It isall written in Sanskrit. I know the language so I can read and understandit." No! You can only understand Srimad Bhagavatam by bhakti. You cannotunderstand Bhagavata by dint of your material scholarship, learning, intelligence,or by taking the help of the commentaries. No, no. Hear from acarya and thenyou can develop bhakti. Unless you hear, how can you understand just byreading? You cannot understand. Grantha-avatara will never manifest to you. Youwill only see paper, and black and white. Nothing else."
Bhakti is that what is needed and sastra must be backgroud - who will explainus this Bhagavatam? Only rasika devotees who realized this knowledge, who are24 hours in contact with Krishna and who are intimate devotee of SrimatiRadhika.
We just depend on their mercy. As long as there is even a little materialcontamination in our heart we cannot explain sastra perfectly. We have to hearit from a realized sadhu and surrender to him completely.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:18 pm
Madan Gopal Shanti,
The acarya always works in conjunction with the sastra. Sastra is never thebackground. The acarya may have absorbed, live, and personify the sastra, butwe even understand the qualifications of such an acarya from sastra!
This quote of SGGM only emphasizes the limits of scholarship in penetrating theimplications of bhakti-siddhanta. Bhakti is a descending process... But one ofthe major tributaries of this descent is sastra-pramana. If the acarya sayssomething that contradicts sastra we should be extremely cautious in how thatis harmonized. Harmonization of one of SNM's statements, which contradicts hisother statements and the statements of our sastra guru Sri Rupa has been thoroughlyattempted on this thread.
It is most dangerous to succumb to sentimentality in a situation like this. Ifwe cannot harmonize the acarya's statements with those of our sastra guru'slike Sri Rupa, then we simply must find someone who can. We cannot give up andsimply conclude that the acarya is a rasika vaisnava and therefore he/she cansay anything they like. If such a case arises, we must thoughtfully considerwhy the contradiction.
Shanti Devi Dasi background - I mean to cooperate with sastra,of course, but main point is that only selfrealized devotee can explain sastra
Shanti Devi Dasi ...and here is no sentimentality, prabhu, as many devotees quoted sastraon this thread...
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Shanti,
If we can't understand by taking help from commentaries, does that mean that weshouldn't read the commentaries of Srila Gour Govinda Swami and Srila NarayanaMaharaja anymore? What exactly is your point?
In service,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:18 pm
Nitaisundara Dasa Very nice points, Vrindaranya. This is adiscussion of sambandha and abhideya, albeit pertaining directly to prayojana.
The theory on tad-bhaveccha kamanuga bhakti is:
If by the grace of bhakti-devi prema awakens in my heart, I will experience asthayi-bhava for Krsna in madhurya rasa via the bhava of Radha (by way ofserving her). This is the preferred form of madhurya rasa.
Here is the proposed new addition to the theory: In my perfection I will thinkthat the sthayi-bhava for Krsna I am experiencing is a sancari-bhava.
Unfortunately this is all that has been said in defense of the idea thatmanjari-bhava constitutes a sancari-bhava for Krsna — all in the name of highermath.
More on the actual theory:
Mukhya ratis function in two ways, for themselves (svartha) or for others (parartha).When they act for the sake of others they recede (sankucita). This is how theyfunction to allow gauna ratis to predominate. So they do not really becomesancari-bhavas at all. They merely function in one of the ways that they havethe capacity to function. So the fact that the manjaris' mukhya madhurya ratifor Krsna recedes and nourishes the manjari's bhavollasa is really only aparticular function of a mukhya rati that it is inherently endowed with. Tocall it a sancari-bhava, especially in the case of the manjaris, is really amisnomer.
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:20 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi and yes, my dear Vrindaranya, to understandcomentaries of Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja you have to go to other selfrealizeddevotee, by the way... because only selfrealized devotee can explain what otherpure devotee said, with our anarthas we can only be on the surface...
Babhru Reed Shastra is the basis (not in the background.Everything else is built on that foundation. As the abhideya-tattva acharya,Srila Rupa Goswami gives us the framework, or outline of how rasa works. SrilaDas Goswami's work develops what Sri Rupa gives; it does not supplant it.
If we are engaged in visrambhena guroh seva, affectionate, unreserved serviceto sri guru, that service brings the words of the sastra and commentaries tolife. By such service they become living, dynamic spiritual sound thattransforms our lives. They no longer remain just ink on paper, black and white.Just as we get water from a well by digging, so we get knowledge from sri guruby service.
Without such service, our singing all the verses and tikas in the world remainsjust pretty sounds.
Madan Gopal so how to understand who is pure devotee? youreplied to me that sastra and acarya "cooperate", but what you wrotebefore that and what you write here implies one singular all encompassing pramana- the pure devotee. If that is the final pramana then we are nowhere, andanyone can say what they want. See the problem? Pure devotee does notovershadow the sastra.
With respect Shanti, you want us to understand what you are trying to say, butthat is the problem. I think we disagree with what you actually are saying.
Vrindaranya Dasi Dear Shanti,
Wonderful. Then to understand this issue, I can highly recommend my own Guru,who as far as I'm concerned has explained the siddhanta in regard to this issuefrom the very beginning.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Braja-sundari Dasi - September 2, 2012 8:22 pm
Shanti Devi Dasi .. every devotee who is in process for some years knows that guru, sadhuand sastra goes together... I think also here everyone is familiar with that,
Radhakanta Das Ramprasad Srila Sridhar Maharaj has said Vaisnava ishigher than sastra - please check the book follow the angels