Rai Ramananda Samvad - Rai Ramananda Samvad

Hare Krishna
Any comments on the way this has been interpreted below?
Seems to be the opposite of any explanation I've heard or read so far.....

QUOTE

Srila Prabhupada answers a doubt about BG 18.66 :

"The doubt may be expressed thusly. Why, if Bg 18.66 is an essential verse of the Bhagavad-gita, did Lord Caitanya say "This is only external" when this verse was quoted by Sri Ramananda Raya during Ramananda's explanation of the ultimate goal of life?

sarva-dharman parityajya
mam ekam saranam vraja
aham tvam sarva-papebhyo
moksayisyami ma sucah

So as I told you, Ramananda Raya, the discussion between Ramananda Raya and Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Ramananda Raya proposed different steps of spiritual advancement, and Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "Yes, this is good, but this is external. It is not very effective." Even sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja, that also Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "It is also not effect." It is not effective for these go-kharas. Otherwise it is effective. But in the beginning, they cannot. Otherwise in the Bhagavad-gita it is plainly said, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam. Who is taking it? Nobody is taking it. Therefore it is not effective for the go-kharas. It is effective for one who is actually human being, but they are not human being. They are all rascals, go-kharas. Therefore it is not effective. If you instruct a dog, "My dear dog, please surrender to Krsna," will he do that? So similarly, human being who does not surrender, he is no better than the dog. What is the difference between dog and this human being, go-kharas? The cats, the dogs, they cannot do it. And if you human beings, they cannot do also, then what is the difference? Ahara-nidra-bhaya-maithunam ca samanyam etad pasubhir naranam. Simply eating, sleeping, sex life and defending. These are common things of the cats and dogs and the human beings. The human being is specially benefited when he surrenders to Krsna. Otherwise he is cat and dog. So Caitanya Mahaprabhu knew that these cats and dogs, they are so degraded, they cannot understand what is the meaning of surrendering to Krsna. They cannot understand. Therefore He said, eho bahya, age kaha ara: "This is external. Please speak more, something effective."

I like the logic of the answer very much. Yes, saranagati is not very effective for hogs and dogs, and therefore Ramananda should explain something more suitable, such as gopi-bhava.

QUOTE(betal_nut @ Feb 5 2004, 04:30 PM)

So Caitanya Mahaprabhu knew that these cats and dogs, they are so degraded, they cannot understand what is the meaning of surrendering to Krsna. They cannot understand. Therefore He said, eho bahya, age kaha ara: "This is external. Please speak more, something effective."

The above quote can be harmonized nicely with the idea of Mahaprabhu as patita-pavana. One who barely even deserves the lowest may be given access to the highest, by contact with the most munificent Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

However, one sometimes hears arguments like the following from those who criticize the orthodox Caitanyaite lineages:

"The cow-eaters are so degraded that they are not even up to the standard of human beings. Until they deserve gopi-bhava, they should not think of desiring it. They should become perfected on the lower platform, and absorb themselves in 'daivi-varnashram' and vaidhi-bhakti practices before aspiring to the higher platform. To jump ahead to the esoteric teachings of Ramananda Raya is 'sahajiya' for one who has not advanced beyond the 'lower' or 'external' stages."

I find it interesting that in the above quote, the speaker seems to be refuting this common argument. He seems to be saying that the "lower" teachings of the Bhagavad-gita do not purify the sub-human beings, so Ramananda Raya gave a (higher, deeper, more esoteric, less external) teaching that would be effective in releasing these sub-humans from their degraded condition. What an amazing outpouring of mercy!

Keeping the above quote in mind, therefore, I suspect that we must come to one of three conclusions:

1) The speaker was actually a sahajiya by his own standards.
2) The speaker's attitude toward gopi-bhava was not at all what many of his present-day followers claim it to have been.
3) The speaker was badly misquoted/mistranscribed by one of his followers.

What is the source of that quote, by the way? The source of the quote might give us some insight into which of the above three conclusions is the most plausible.

I copied the above qoute from www.saraswata.net today.
It is there.

QUOTE(betal_nut @ Feb 5 2004, 08:44 PM)

I copied the above qoute from www.saraswata.net today.
It is there.

No, you don't seem to understand. By asking for the "source" I am asking NOT about where you copied it from, but about where it was spoken/written/heard, and by whom.

I notice that the quote is attributed to "Srila Prabhupada" -- but this could be a reference either to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati or Bhaktivedanta Swami.

And unless we can find a page reference showing where it has been published, or a date on which it was spoken if it was from an audiotape, we won't have much hope of determining whether the alleged quote is an accurate rendering of what was originally said or written.