Hare Krsna!
I was reading something on Siva Ratri recently by Srila Narayana Maharaja about when Narada Muni was speaking with Lord Siva. Maharaja was saying that Lord Siva is also Gopisvara and an eternal servant of Krsna in this way. Lord Siva was being very humble and saying that Sri Prahlada Maharaja was dearer to Krsna than he was. Later in the lecture it came up that Prahlada actually isn't eternally serving Krsna in Goloka Vrindavan? I thought that he was? Is it b/c his mood towards Lord Nrisimhadeva was awe and reverence that he doesn't engage in that topmost lila with Krsna?
Confused.
Ys,
Jason
Is it b/c his mood towards Lord Nrisimhadeva was awe and reverence
Right. Prahlada Maharaja is a paradigmatic representation of vaidhi-bhakti, not raga-bhakti. Although his ista-devata is Krsna he worships him with awe and reverence, not raga like the Vraja bhaktas.
When Lord Siva said Prahlada is dearer to Krsna than he is he was speaking from the perspective of a jnana-misra bhakta, which Siva is generally identified as. Prahlada represents the beginning of pure bhakti, which is of course higher than jnana-misra bhakti. This is why none of the demigods could calm Lord Nrsingha after he killed Hiranyakasipu. They all offered prayers--including Brahma and Siva--and were unsuccessful in their attempt to appease the Lord. They then pushed the innocent young Prahlada forward to offer prayers, and when he did, the Lord purred like a kitten.
Does this mean that any great devotee who was engaged in some pastimes with other guna-avataras is also a representation of Vaidhi bhakti. For instance, what about Lord Ramacandra and Hanuman (maybe not the best example b/c isn't Hanuman a partial incarnation of Lord Siva)?
Thanks for your answer.
YS,
Jason
Does this mean that any great devotee who was engaged in some pastimes with other guna-avataras is also a representation of Vaidhi bhakti.
All bhakti outside of Vraja is vaidhi-bhakti; any relationship with a lilavatara is vaidhi-bhakti because raga-bhakti exists only in relation to svayam-bhagavan Sri Krsna in Vraja.
For instance, what about Lord Ramacandra and Hanuman (maybe not the best example b/c isn't Hanuman a partial incarnation of Lord Siva)?
I think you must mean lilavataras, not gunavataras. There are three gunas, thus three gunavataras: Brahma, Visnu, and Siva. Ramacandra is not a gunavatara, he is a lilavatara. Hanuman is an incarnation of Vayu.
All bhakti outside of Vraja is vaidhi-bhakti; any relationship with a lilavatara is vaidhi-bhakti because raga-bhakti exists only in relation to svayam-bhagavan Sri Krsna in Vraja.
But isn't vaidhi-bhakti defined as bhakti arising from rules and regulations? Hanuman's bhakti for Rama doesn't seem to be based on that, but on a more "natural" love for his master.
All bhakti outside of Vraja is vaidhi-bhakti; any relationship with a lilavatara is vaidhi-bhakti because raga-bhakti exists only in relation to svayam-bhagavan Sri Krsna in Vraja.
But isn't vaidhi-bhakti defined as bhakti arising from rules and regulations? Hanuman's bhakti for Rama doesn't seem to be based on that, but on a more "natural" love for his master.
Ayodhya is a special place in Vaikuntha, slightly above the rest, yet below (in therm of rasa) Goloka. In Ayodhya God has a mother and father filled with vatsayka bhava, whereas Narayan does not. Still Hanuman and the rest in Ayodya know that Rama is God and thier love is thus in consideration of this.
All the inhabitant of Vaikuntha will have natrural love for God, rather than forced, but this does not make it raga bhakti. Vaidhi bhakti has a bhava and prema of its own that is, while natural and comsuming, different from the bhava and prema of Vraja, which causes the Vrajabasis to forget that Krsna is God and causes Krsna to forget it as well.
Vaikuntha (vaidhi) bhaktas have natural love for their worshipable Deity, but it is based on the knowledge of his Godhood both on the part of the devotee and on the part of Narayana (or Rama, etc.). In Vaikuntha there are rules of how to worship God, and so the love of the devotees is constrained by those rules, whereas the Vraja bhaktas have no conception at all of Krsna's Godhood--and neither does Krsna know that he is God in relation to them. Their bhakti is totally devoid of any sense of aisvarya; they love Krsna because he is their son, lover, etc., not because he is God and should be worshipped according to a set of rules.
The contrast between vaidhi-bhakti and raga-bhakti is illustrated nicely in Brhat-bhagavatamrta when Gopa-kumara is in Vaikuntha. He wants to worship Narayana in a spontaneous way, without consideration for rules and so forth, but he is told basically that "You can't do that here--this is God we're dealing with!" Gopa-kumara then had to move on from there to seek the expression of his heart's spontaneous love elsewhere.
Thank you for the explanations, Guru Maharaja and Cittahari!
What about Nabadwipa, is audarya-lila considered vaidhi or raga marga?
Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura puts both the lila of Nabadwip and that of Sri Vrndavana in the same category of madhurya, but then specifys them futher, in cosideration of wich aspect, madhurya or audarya, is predominating.
I have often wondered wether Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates are always aware that He is God. Considering the nature of His lila, it seems that it would be natural for Him to want to forget His Godhood in the same way that Krsna forgets His in Vrndavana.
We find many descriptions of how Navadvipa and Vrndavana are the same, and that to think otherwise is offensive. In fact you answered your own question with this:
Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura puts both the lila of Nabadwip and that of Sri Vrndavana in the same category of madhurya, but then specifys them futher, in cosideration of wich aspect, madhurya or audarya, is predominating.
In Vrndavana madhurya predominates while audarya takes a secondary position; in Navadvipa this situation is reversed. Also, Caitanya Mahaprabhu is svayam-bhagavan Vrajendranandana Krsna combined with Sri Radha, who of course enjoy madhurya rasa. Gaura-lila is sweet, but there all the devotees serve him in the mood of dasya.
I have often wondered wether Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates are always aware that He is God.
My understanding is that in the nitya-lila they do not.
I know I've hardly done justice to this topic; hopefully Guru Maharaja will fill it out a bit.
Hanuman is an incarnation of Vayu.
I've always thought that Hanuman is an incarnation of Rudra and son of Vayu.
I heard (although I cant remember exactly where) that Hunumanji was born when Lord Siva and his wife had taken the form of monkeys to enjoy pastimes with other monkeys that lived on a special mountain. After they had enjoyed theyre pastimes, and they resumed theyre human like forms they found that while they were playing they had begotten one powerfull monkey child! After this I remember even less, but I think Lord Siva knowing that any child of his would be fully competent to fend for himself left Hanuman and went on his way. Hanuman was quite powerful and naturally being a young monkey, a little mischevious. So when he thought the sun to be an orange he lept into the sky and the demigods were interested to find out who this personality was. Again parts of the pastime are missing from my memory but eventually he was cursed to forget his powers until he would need them again and he was then raised/adopted by Vayu.
If any one else has heard this story could they tell if it is bonafide or not. I think when I was in a Ramayana play once, someone told this story during the practice.
Regarding Navadwipa, in our line we are taught to think of Gaura Krsna in dasya bhakti, even in the nitya lila. However, this dasya bhakti is special, and according to BVT it involves the spirit of engaging in kirtana with Nimai Pandita in Srivasa Thakura's courtyard. There is no aisvarya in the name Nimai Pandita.
Hanuman is the son of Vayu and often considered to be an incarnation of Siva.