In talking to a friend of mine, the subject of Srila Prabhupada's svarupa came up.I mentioned how Sridhara Maharaja felt Prabhupada could be in sakhya rasa.Since then we have been e-mailing back and forth discussing this point and its possible implications.He sent me some quotes that require further clarification.Can anyone shed some light on these topics? Here are some of the quotes of his Gurdeva,Srila Narayana Maharaja:
Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami enequivecably stated "We are disposed to accept,as our eternal function,nothing short of the ideal of service to the milkmaids of Vraja,taught and practiced by Sri Caitanya."
"It is sometimes misunderstood that Srila Swami Maharaja was only in sakhya rasa and that he cannot give Madhurya rasa.This is not a fact. He came only for spreading the same mission to the world that was brought by Srila Rupa Goswami."
"If you want santa,dasya,vatsalya or sakhya bhava, then you should leave the lineage of Rupa Goswami and go to another sampradaya."
This raises many questions;
1.Can a guru in sakhya rasa give madhurya?
2.Isn't sakhya rasa part of the Gaudiya sampradaya?
3.What sampradaya is appropriate for sakhya bhava?
4.Sridhara Maharaja didn't see it as a problem.
Etc.etc.
Seeking counsel,
Gopisvara dasa
1.Can a guru in sakhya rasa give madhurya?
Yes. Years ago I asked Guru Maharaja about this; i.e., that if the guru is in sakhya rasa and the disciple develops an inclination toward madhurya, how does that work? His reply was that in such a case some arrangement will be made and the disciple's inner necessity will be taken care of. The story of Dukhi Krsna dasa, who later became Syamananda pandita, is very instructive in this regard.
2.Isn't sakhya rasa part of the Gaudiya sampradaya?
Are Nityananda Prabhu's twelve principal associates in the Gaudiya sampradaya? Yes. What about Akincana Krsnadasa Babaji Maharaja, the disciple of BSST? In a letter to Srila Sridhara Maharaja he admitted directly that he was in sakhya rasa. Furthermore, Babaji Maharaja admitted directly to Naryana Maharaja himself that he was in sakhya rasa! I'd call that pretty compelling evidence.
With regard to Srila Prabhupada, he admitted to his disciple Subala Swami (in the presence of his Godbrother Dr. Kapoor) that he was a cowherd boy. We also have the opinions of Sridhara Maharaja and Bhakti Promode Puri Maharaja that he was in sakhya rasa based on the Jaladuta poem. Since Sridhara Maharaja was far senior to NM, as well as having known Prabhupada for many, many years and lived for six of them in Prabhupada's house, we accept his opinion on this issue as definitive.
3.What sampradaya is appropriate for sakhya bhava?
Ours! Caitanya Mahaprabhu descended to give raga-marga bhakti to the world (Cc. Adi 4.15-16). And we know that such bhakti is synonymous with Vraja bhakti, which takes four forms, as we see in Cc Adi 4.42:
dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, ara ye srngara
cari prema, catur-vidha bhakta-i adhara
Four kinds of devotees are the receptacles of the four kinds of mellows in love of God, namely servitude, friendship, parental affection, and conjugal love.
4.Sridhara Maharaja didn't see it as a problem.
Right, and neither do we. See above.
"No one in Vrindavan, male or female, who drank in the festival of the eyes that is Krishna’s beautiful face, with its playful smile and cheeks adorned with dolphin-shaped earrings was satisfied. Though they felt joy, it was mixed with anger arising from the momentary blinking of their eyes." (Srimad Bhagavatam 9.24.65)
Visvanatha Cakravati Thakura's commentary:
This verses shows how, amongst the Vrajavasis, the gopis and Krishna’s priya narma sakhas have the most intense experience of Krishna’s beauty. Of all the parts of the body, the face is the seat of greatest beauty. The face is divided into the upper and lower half, of which the lower, where the supreme sweetness of Krishna’s smile radiates, is the greater beauty. Anyone who sees the Lord’s smile, with His glowing cheeks made even more splendrous by the dolphin earrings dangling beside them, is enchanted. The effulgence emanating from His body extinguishes all the world’s miseries. The devotees’ minds are like the chakora birds that are nourished by the moon’s rays. Thus it is no surprise that His beauty stirs up carnal desires in the gopis, driving them so mad that they are ready to sacrifice their duty, their families and their lives in their impatience to be with Him. Drinking in this beauty, they are left unsated. Unable to tolerate even the interruption that comes of blinking, they become angry. This is one of the signs of the highest reaches of love, known as maha bhava, which is only found in the gopis and nowhere else except perhaps in Krishna’s most intimate companions like Subala.
nija nija bhäva sabe srestha kari’ mäne
nija-bhäve kare krsna-sukha äsvädane
"Each kind of devotee feels that his sentiment is the most excellent, and thus in that mood he tastes great happiness with Lord Krsna."
Thank you both for your replies.
So if I understand correctly,these FOUR rasas are part of our sampradaya not just madhurya and sakhya.Is there any justification for Narayana Maharaja saying what he did? Or is it just wrong? If so, how big of a problem is this for his disciples.And what about BSST's quote to the effect that we will settle for nothing less than service to the milkmaids of Vraja?
If the answer is that NM is wrong, what be be the most sensible way to respond to my friend?Is it better to pass along the facts or would that not be advisable since it could cause him to lose faith in his guru.Or is it better to know the truth and act accordingly?
Gopisvara dasa
Mahaprabhu came to teach us to aspire for one of four rasas. I think Swami's last post may be the best response: nija nija bhäva sabe srestha kari’ mäne. That's pretty much how I try to deal with it here on the Big Island, where so many of the devotees are his followers. Whenever we bring up verses from Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita with them, what becomes clear is that his mood apparently emulates that of Dasa Goswami, which sometimes expressed the sentiment Swami cites so strongly that it seems to ignore, even denigrate, the others.
When Jadurani was here a few months ago, she went into this riff by way of attempting to glorify Srila Prabhupada. Many of the NM followers and less experienced (or less thoughtful) other devotees thought it was wonderful. A couple of us, however, were incensed. Vidagdha Madhava was in the back of the room, and he just left. I was sitting more in the front, and right in front of her, so it would have beyond awkward for me to do so, especially considering my standing in our community. It would have been seen as a very loud statement, and since she was a guest of our community, I just sat there. Afterward, Vidagdha and I grumbled together and started making a plan to deal with what we felt was at least an affront to Srila Sridhar Maharaj and to Swami. The first thing the next morning, even before I left for work, Mula and Gopa called to apologize to me. And Gopa vowed (his word) that Jadurani would never speak at Godruma Gardens again. Later that day, Jadurani called and left a lengthy apology on my answering machine. Because of the differences in our schedules, I wasn't able to discuss it personally with her before she left. If she comes back, I'll definitely try to meet with her.
We shouldn't let this propaganda go by, but I'm not sure we need to cause trouble, either. A lot of this comes from their "amar guru jagat guru" mentality. One of these devotees who knows of my affinity for Guru Maharaj asked me once if I thought that he (Swami) is really a "high" devotee. I asked what she meant by that, and she said something such as, "Like Srila Gurudeva (NM)." I just responded by explaining that I'm not intersted in competition, especially in such things as this. I told her that each of us gets the guidance that is best for us, and that I found that Swami inspires me by showing me that I do have a future in Krishna consciousness, that there may be a next stage in my life. It's not universal, but too many among that group feel that NM is the only one who can help us (the Way, the Truth, and the Life), and I have found it best for me simply to not play that game with them.
So if I understand correctly,these FOUR rasas are part of our sampradaya not just madhurya and sakhya.Is there any justification for Narayana Maharaja saying what he did? Or is it just wrong? If so, how big of a problem is this for his disciples.And what about BSST's quote to the effect that we will settle for nothing less than service to the milkmaids of Vraja?
If the answer is that NM is wrong, what be be the most sensible way to respond to my friend?Is it better to pass along the facts or would that not be advisable since it could cause him to lose faith in his guru.Or is it better to know the truth and act accordingly?
Gopisvara dasa
Vallabhacaraya was a contemporary of Mahaprabhu. His sampradaya emphasizes vatsalya rasa and gopi bhava following Candavali (no emphasis on Sri Radha). Sri Rupa Goswami acknowledges Vallabha's sampradaya twice in Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu, saying that his teaching of maryada and pusti are similar to our vadhi and raganuga. I have heard from reliable sources that it is mentioned in scripture (perhaps Bhaktiratnakara) that Mahaprabhu ultimately blessed Vallabha to continue his own sampradaya—an extension of the Visnu Swami sampradaya.
My point here is that it seems that Vallabha, with the blessing of Mahaprabhu, provides a more direct channel to vatsayla prema than the Gaudiya sampradaya does, as he does for other types of gopi bhava. As for daysa bhakti, in Vraja this emotion is tinged with sakhya. At least it is much different that the dasya bhakti of Vaikuntha. Thus it is sometimes said that Vraja prema begins with sakhya.
So our sampradaya emphasizes sakhya and madhurya, and the sakhya that is tinged with madhurya (priyanarma sakha) has been emphasized over the other varieties of sakhya rati.
The statement of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura represents his own sentiment and the main line of the sampradaya—love like the hand maidens of Radha. However, anyone who reads him and Bhaktivinoda comprehensively will be clear that they have acknowledged that other sentiments also have a place in the Gaudiya sampradaya. Are these sentiments "Rupanuga?" Yes and no. All our are followers of Rupa Goswami in general, but not all follow him in terms of cultivating his own bhava as a handmaiden of Radha.
Narayana Maharaja is wrong when he says that my Gurudeva, Srila Prabhapada, follows manjari bhava. But he is not privy to all of the things that Prabhupada himself has said. He merely assumes that he follows manjari bhava becasue that is the main empahsis of the sampradaya and that is the bhava of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. This is a problem for those of his disciples who cannot sort all of this out and with objectivity, understanding that thier guru has said something based upon a lack of overwhelming information to the contrary. A sensible disciple would conclude that, if he had been fully informed, he would have adjusted his position. Furthermore, a sensible disciple who is close with him personally should have respectfully provided this information by now, rather than denying it becasue Gurudeva has said otherwise.
Thank you Guru Maharaja for an excellent,comprehensive and very satisfying answer.
Gopisvara dasa