Google
Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
Discussions on the doctrines of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Please place practical questions under the Miscellaneous forum and set this aside for the more theoretical side of it.

Anger, etc., in the Lila - Apparent anarthas in the nitya-lila/pure



dirty hari - Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:15:32 +0530
I decided to split this off from the Errata thread, as I want to keep that place oriented to corrected translations or questions about such things.

This post by Shiva is relevant to his other recent contributions about anger and whether it has any place in devotional or spiritual life.

By the way, the posts on the Errata thread were not related to that discussion, but arose out of a conversation with a friend who was making a point about Krishna's naughty behavior. -- Jagat (2004-08-06)


========

Well first about the anger thing. Lets keep the perspective here, this is a lila pastime, of course there is no anger either from Krishna or Radha, play anger, yes, real anger no. We could ask why would Radha be angry? She really is the most devoted to Krishna isn't She ?

So if a guy is trying to have his way with the girl and she keeps putting him off, he might passionately "angrily" bite her bottom lip in his lust as a last recourse to sexually excite Her, if she resorts to falling on the ground to escape his embrace. This is not real anger, but that of lust and passion being rebuffed. It is just play after all, so anger in the real sense is not present.

And anyways these descriptions have a purpose other then to just let us be voyeurs, they are meant to give us instructions about rasa.
Jagat - Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:40:16 +0530
I do feel that you are off in several respects, Shivaji. Once again, your conception of lila is a little different from mine. Since for us, Radha is a real, separate and distinct person from Krishna, you have to accept her emotions, etc., as having real meaning.

Vaishnava philosophy differs slightly from Mayavada, in that we don't say on the one hand that as soon as one realizes this is all God's play that we automatically become liberated.

Radha's anger, frustration, illusion, etc., are all real. They are governed by the Yogamaya potency, but Krishna, as we know, is more pleased by such things than he is even by the Vedic hymns. As a friend of mine so nicely puts it: Being God goes to his head, and he actually appreciates being put into line. So when Mother Yashoda comes at him with a stick, he is really frightened. When Radha threatens to withhold her love, he is thrown into anxiety. All these things become meaningless if one takes it as something that fundamentally has no meaning for Krishna himself.

mo-viSaye gopI-gaNera upapati-bhAve
yoga-mAyA karibeka Apana-prabhAve
Amiha nA jAni tAhA, nA jAne gopI-gaNa
duGhAra rUpa-guNe duGhAra nitya hare mana
dharma chARi' rAge duGhe karaye milana
kabhu mile, kabhu nA mile, daivera ghaTana
ei saba rasa-niryAsa kariba AsvAda
ei dvAre kariba saba bhaktere prasAda

The influence of Yogamaya will inspire the gopis with the sentiment that I am their paramour. Neither the gopi nor I shall notice that Yogamaya is governing our pastimes, for our minds will be completely entranced by one another's beauty and qualities. Our passionate desire will unite us even at the expense of moral and religious duties. Destiny will sometimes bring us together and sometimes keep us apart. I shall taste the essence of all these rasas, and through them I shall favor all the devotees.

As to the sadhaka, the question is a little more complex, but not altogether so. I agree with all your quotes from the Bhagavatam, etc., but I think you need to put them in perspective. We are not yogis or jnanis, but bhaktas. The whole discussion of raganuga bhakti starts with some famous verses from the Seventh Canto, which are repeated again in the Tenth Canto, at the beginning of the Rasa Lila.

kAmaM krodhaM bhayaM sneham
aikyaM sauhRdam eva ca
nityaM harau vidadhato
yAnti tan-mayatAM hi te

Those who always direct their passions, whether it is their lust, anger, fear, affection, oneness, or friendship, become fully absorbed in him. (10.29.15)

This is the difference between bhakti itself and other spiritual paths. And this is also the reason why those following in the path of the Vrajavasis offer above all things their emotions.

Karma and jnana are about perfection of work and understanding. Bhakti is about a far more complex area. Jnana is in the mode of goodness, karma in passion, and bhakti in ignorance. This is actually Vallabha's insight, though I don't know how much he appreciated it. Bhakti is best performed in total ignorance. And bhakti is indeed full of turmoil. The bhakta relishes the turmoil. He wallows in it. And he doesn't particularly care if he looks stupid while doing so.

evaM-vrataH sva-priya-nAma-kIrtyA
jAtAnurAgo druta-citta uccaiH
hasaty atho roditi rauti gAyaty
unmAda-van nRtyati loka-bAhyaH

When a person is fixed in his vow and has come to the stage of great loving attachment to Krishna as a result of chanting his favorite names, his mind and heart melt and he loudly laughs, cries, shouts and sings, even dancing like a madman without a care for what anyone thinks.
(11.2.40)

Actually, life itself requires all three--jnana, karma and bhakti, but the devotee naturally places bhakti at the head of the parade, because bhakti shapes us, motivates us, makes us who we are as real people, not as ciphers, robots, facsimiles, or cardboard cutouts of human beings.
dirty hari - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 00:29:18 +0530
QUOTE
Since for us, Radha is a real, separate and distinct person from Krishna, you have to accept her emotions, etc., as having real meaning.


First just a minor quibble. This would have been more accurately written thus:

"Since for Me, Radha is a real, seperate and distinct person from Krishna, I have to accept Her emotions, etc., as having real meaning."

Unless you are speaking with the Royal "we", or you have a reason to think you are the spokesman for some group of people who have not given you their power of attorney...or have they ? If so "we" should be qualified to let us know who has invested in you powers as such.

QUOTE
Radha's anger, frustration, illusion, etc., are all real.


This is an interesting statement because in it you assume that what you think is absolute truth without any equivocation. A perhaps more accurate statement might be thus:

"I believe Radha's anger, frustration, illusion, etc., are all real."


QUOTE
Vaishnava philosophy differs slightly from Mayavada, in that we don't say on the one hand that as soon as one realizes this is all God's play that we automatically become liberated.


Again you should rephrase that as: "My philosophy... I don't say...."

Go Here, second post

From Krishna in the Gita and the Bhagavatam

Intelligent persons who are endeavoring for liberation from old age and death take refuge in Me in devotional service. They are actually Brahman because they entirely know everything about transcendental activities.

The doors of liberation are opened wide to one who has achieved human life. But if a human being simply devotes himself to family life like the foolish bird in this story, then he is to be considered as one who has climbed to a high place only to trip and fall down.

The mind can be controlled when it is fixed on the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Having achieved a stable situation, the mind becomes free from polluted desires to execute material activities; thus as the mode of goodness increases in strength, one can completely give up the modes of passion and ignorance, and gradually one transcends even the material mode of goodness. When the mind is freed from the fuel of the modes of nature, the fire of material existence is extinguished. Then one achieves the transcendental platform of direct relationship with the object of his meditation, the Supreme Lord.



QUOTE
Radha's anger, frustration, illusion, etc., are all real. They are governed by the Yogamaya potency, but Krishna, as we know, is more pleased by such things than he is even by the Vedic hymns. As a friend of mine so nicely puts it: Being God goes to his head, and he actually appreciates being put into line. So when Mother Yashoda comes at him with a stick, he is really frightened. When Radha threatens to withhold her love, he is thrown into anxiety. All these things become meaningless if one takes it as something that fundamentally has no meaning for Krishna himself.


Again as I have said before, lila has an external reality and an internal reality. Until you understand the basics of Radha Krishna tattva i.e they are one and the same, then your version of their rasa will be limited to your interpretation of their external lila.

QUOTE
So when Mother Yashoda comes at him with a stick, he is really frightened.


I don't think so. It's just an act to; either educate you, or to entertain the jivas and enhance the rasa with them in the lila. Which is really what the rasa between Radha and Krishna is all about.
Kishalaya - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 01:34:53 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 6 2004, 09:40 PM)
Vaishnava philosophy differs slightly from Mayavada

It would be a gross understatement to say that some Vaishnavas may take exception to the above. They have dedicated their entire lives just to protect their deities from the kind of aberration that you seem to encounter now.

Not just them, but to others like me, hearing such things sends a chill down the spine. The very word "mAyAvAda" is an abomination.

I ask, what will Radha feel when She hears such things. Ok! Since you have Radha's impudent image built up, let's put it like this, what Krishna would feel if He were to be told that He and His deity (Radha) are "one". I guess, one tight kick on the butt will be the reply.
Jagat - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:58:21 +0530
Kishalaya, reread the discussion and then fight with Dirty Hari.
Jagat - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 04:29:37 +0530
Dirty Hariji,

You have also used the royal "we" on more than one occasion, and have even brazenly claimed to have direct experience of God, saying that this experience gives you some special knowledge that validates your perception of reality over and above others'.

I will allow that you may add "Jagat believes" to everything I say. But I do not think that you are any different from me in that regard. I presume that you also say what you believe, and not necessarily that which is true. There are as many ways of looking at God as there are individuals and we all realize God in our own fashion. No one here, as far as I know, has accepted you as an authority in your own right.

On the other hand, I do think that I more accurately represent the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition than you do. This way of looking at God that is taught in our tradition has a particular appeal that you seem particularly intent upon destroying.

Though you have developed a theology that is consistent with the shastras you select, and it is one that may have sympathizers in some places within the Indian tradition, you cannot say that it represents the teachings of Rupa Goswami or Krishna Das Kaviraj, for they tell us that Krishna says, "I also do not know" (Amiha nA jAni).

You seem to be rejecting some of the fundamental principles of bhakti, as understood in our tradition: namely that Krishna genuinely places himself in a position subordinate to his devotee in order to appreciate intimacy with him/her. In fact, God subordinates himself to his Supreme Shakti, Srimati Radharani, and we applaud her in the glorious victory of her love. As for Yashoda... Kunti prays,

gopy Adade tvayi kRtAgasi dAma tAvad
yA te dazAzru-kalilAJjana-sambhramAkSam
vaktraM ninIya bhaya-bhAvanayA sthitasya
sA mAM vimohayati bhIr api yad bibheti

When you committed a peccadillo, Yashoda took a rope to tie you up. Your eyes were filled with tears of fright, causing the collyrium to run down your cheeks. That situation (dazA), in which you were filled with fear, bewilders me completely, for you are the one Fear itself fears. (1.8.31)

Jiva Goswami comments,

atra bhIr api yad bibhetIty uktyA tasyA aizvarya-jJAnaM vyaktam |
tato yadi sA bhIH satyA na bhavati, tadA tasyA moho’pi na sambhaved iti gamyate

Saying “You are the one Fear itself fears” clearly indicates Kunti Devi's knowledge of Krishna’s Godhood. Thus, if Krishna’s fear were not real, then it would not be possible for it to bewilder her.

Vishwanath is even clearer:

bhaya-bhAvanayA sthitasya ity antar-bhayasya ca tayA satyatvam evAbhimatam |
anukaraNa-mAtratve jJAte tasya moho na sambhaved iti jJeyam |
ata eva tavehamAnasya nRNAM viDambanam ity Adau viDambanam anukaraNam
iti vyAkhyAntaraM parAhatam |

Kunti considers Krishna’s feeling of fear, and its existence within him, to be true and real. If it were just imitation or play-acting, then she would not have been bewildered by it. Therefore the interpretation (given by Sridhar Swami) of the word viDambanam (“misleading”) in verse 29 as meaning “imitation” (anukaraNam) is rejected.


No doubt there are lessons to be learned in Krishna lila. This is something I have been saying all along: there is more than one dimension to the lila, it's not all Neverneverland.

Thus I actually agree that there is an inner and outer aspect to the lila, but I think you have the two of them mixed up. The aisvarya , the lessons, etc., these are the externals. The real inner pastime is that of the “needy God.” “God alone does not enjoy. He needs another.” And so the one “became many.” Of course, this is eternal, because Krishna’s Shaktis are all eternal. God needs his shaktis (all three of them) because he does not exist separate from them. They are part of him.

But God is engaged in an eternal dance of Self-realization, with countless variations of Self-discovery. He is omniscient, but omniscience is no fun, or rather, it is only fun for puffed-up wannabe jivas. For him, it gets boring.

--o)0(o--


And the lesson to draw from this is that God needs us in the here and now too. He needs our service; he needs and wants our love. In our sampradaya, we go through the cosmic form of Bhakti, embodied in Srimati Radharani, in order to express that love and service. But we are each of us individually important and necessary—here, now, and always. Everything we do is meaningful, and the more sacrifice it entails, the more meaningful it is, because that increases Krishna's indebtedness. It's not a game, not condescension on his part, but genuine indebtedness. Because he is infinite, his sense of indebtedness to every devotee, every individual, is eternal and infinite.

Of course, we are minute, but Radha is great. Therefore, his indebtedness is absolute in relation to her. And we join with her to celebrate and participate in her glories.
dirty hari - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:23:40 +0530
QUOTE
Nevertheless, you are rejecting one of the fundamental principles of bhakti, that Krishna genuinely places himself in a position subordinate to his devotee in order to appreciate intimacy with him.


Where do I say different ? All I said is that I think you are wrong when you state that Krishna becomes factually frightened of Yasoda, I think that is incorrect. My belief is that he feigns fright. Just as he feigns anger or anything else that implies He is not controlling all events at all times.

You cannot be fearfull or angry when you are creating and manipulating reality to manifest as it is, at all times. When you comprise and manifest all of reality, then naturally you will not be upset or fearfull of things that occur that you are controlling.

This is what I mean when I say external and internal. What appears as real and what is factually true are two different things in any lila.

What appears as real is done by the agency of yoga maya, which means that the absolute truth is hidden from the jivas, otherwise they would be aware of the inner nature of the lila. This would mean that they would be aware that everything is being stage managed by Radha Krishna. They would not be able to function in a relationship with Radha Krishna where they see themselves as equals, where they see Radha and Krishna as regular people. If they knew the absolute truth, then the various rasa's that are experienced when you relate with Radha Krishna in lila, thinking them subject to the human condition, would not be possible. Krishna cannot really ever be in need of anything, food, water, sleep, relaxation etc. Nor does Radha need anything at anytime. When we know absolute truth in full, rasa lila becomes impossible to participate in. Would you worry about Superman ? Would you treat someone who you knew was in your mind, and can know your thoughts before you do, can you treat them like a human friend ? Tell them a secret ?

If I was in Vraja lila and knew what I know right now, then the rasa of Vraja would be impossible. I am not covered over by yoga maya, I am fully aware of who Radha and Krishna are, and how the world is being manifest and controlled. Therefore, I cannot feel fear if a demon attacks Krishna, I cannot feel sympathy for Krishna if Radha rejects Him, I cannot relate to the idea that Radha and Krishna are humans as my equals, and treat them in that light. I cannot see reality as a place where Radha and Krishna are subject to the human condition. I know who they are and how this world is run, I know the absolute truth.

This makes Vraja lila rasa impossible for me, which is why yoga maya covers over the inhabitants of lila to keep them in ignorance.

The various descriptions of lila, are just that, descriptions of the rasa in lila, they are what is experienced in the lila and seen as real. We are not in that lila, we can see that lila from the perspective of God. God is never under yoga maya, God is yoga maya, yoga maya is not something higher then God that puts God into illusion. That is impossble. Yoga maya is the spiritual form of Maha Maya.

The idea is that God never comes under illusion of any kind, that would be factually impossible, the universe is being maintained and manifested by the will of God at every second, so God can never forget or fall under illusion of any kind.

Krishna never forgets who He is, He acts like he forgets, that is Krishna lila. If He didn't act like a human, but instead acted like God, then there would be no point to the lila. If it were known to everyone in Krishna lila that he was God, and they fully understood all of the implications of that, then the lila would make no sense to them. They would not feel protective of Krishna, they would not feel the need to do anything in anyway that would assume that Krishna needed anything from them.

In truth a self realized person knows that Krishna is in fact doing everything. Krishna tells us in the Gita "the soul does nothing", "everything is done by material nature which includes the mind and intelligence, and I control both".

So in Lila this cannot be known, otherwise rasa cannot be relished in the way desired, i.e between equals.

It's not that Krishna falls under the spell of Yoga Maya, this is impossible. He controls Yoga Maya, rather He takes shelter of Yoga Maya. He utilizes Yoga Maya, the power of delusion, to keep everyone else in ignorance. Thereby H/She can enjoy rasa with the jivas. The jivas in Vraja are not allowed to become great philosophers with full knowledge of the intracacies of bhedabheda tattva. They are kept in ignorance. This is Krishna taking shelter of Yoga Maya. He and She can live lives as normal humans, albeit special and talented.

We do not live in lila. We should not try and pretend that we do. Our situation is that we can and are supposed to become fully self realized. This is how we can relate to Radha Krishna, here and now, with full knowledge of everything about everything. In fact we are advised to become self realized so that we can discover Krishna within. This takes full knowledge. This is very very different then the emotions and perceptions of those fortunate jivas in lila.

So what you like to describe as being the reality of Radha Krishna, is only the perceived reality of those jivas under Yoga Maya, who live in that lila.

We need to see the big picture. The whole story. This is the only way that Radha Krishna can relate to you in the here and now. If Krishna walked up to you tomorrow, what would you do ? Ask yourself that, what would you do ? If Radha walked up to you tomorrow, what would you do ? how would you act ? What would you say ?

Would your knowledge of how they act in lila be applicable ? Or would you need to know more ? The whole story ? How would you relate to them outside of lila ?

So, Radha and Krishna are with you at all times, within and without. They can walk up to you, within and without, at anytime. You need to be able to appreciate the truth of who and what they are in full, for that rasa to be available, in the here and now, outside of Vraja.
Talasiga - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 08:33:59 +0530
I believe there is anger here
between DH and J
and its real

laugh.gif
Talasiga - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 08:40:08 +0530
Now Dhoti Harry,
Cannot one be angry with oneself?
Then surely One can be angry with Oneself also?

Now again,
Cannot one part of oneself be angry with another part?
What to speak of the plenary parts of the One ?

For the 2nd time I ask you
to reflect on the introductory peace mantra
of the Eesha Upanishad.
dirty hari - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:31:27 +0530
No anger here ji. Jagat does as God has him do. I'm amused that you would think otherwise after all I have written.
Talasiga - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:37:17 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 7 2004, 04:01 AM)
No anger here ji. Jagat does as God has him do. I'm amused that you would think otherwise after all I have written.

Though I can read what you have written,
my heart remains
illiterate ...
dirty hari - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:51:30 +0530
QUOTE
Now Dhoti Harry,
Cannot one be angry with oneself?
Then surely One can be angry with Oneself also?

Now again,
Cannot one part of oneself be angry with another part?
What to speak of the plenary parts of the One ?

For the 2nd time I ask you
to reflect on the introductory peace mantra
of the Eesha Upanishad.


You can be angry with anything you want. If you want to assign a schizophrenic mentality to God, you can do that. It doesn't really change anything, anyone can speculate endlessly on anything.
Talasiga - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:24:55 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 7 2004, 04:21 AM)
QUOTE
Now Dhoti Harry,
Cannot one be angry with oneself?
Then surely One can be angry with Oneself also?

Now again,
Cannot one part of oneself be angry with another part?
What to speak of the plenary parts of the One ?

For the 2nd time I ask you
to reflect on the introductory peace mantra
of the Eesha Upanishad.


You can be angry with anything you want. If you want to assign a schizophrenic mentality to God, you can do that. It doesn't really change anything, anyone can speculate endlessly on anything.

Dhauti,
Schizophrenia is a division of the one
in which the one feels alienation by virtue of the divisions
whereas there is the One who feels enchantment with the infinitude
of the divisions.

The transmutation of alienation into enchantment
is incidental to the alignment of the one with the One.
In alignment with the One, the one feels the differentiated infinitude
as infinite foci for adoration of the One.

This adoration is the stuff of kirtana
and anger is but one rasa.
Kishalaya - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 14:15:25 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 7 2004, 02:58 AM)
Kishalaya, reread the discussion and then fight with Dirty Hari.

Dear Jagat ji,

Kindly excuse the tone in my language, but I would rather not feign being calm and quiet when I am not. And I apologize for that beforehand, if you feel offended. To annoy you is not my real intention.

I *am* really amazed. Some guy just breaks into your house and fiddles with your woman and there seems to be no anger. At the very minimum, a sense of indignation, at least!

Now there are various people (including me) who seem to have serious trouble understanding the heart of the Gaudiya vaishnavas. The empathy factor is simply not there. However that does not mean that there is confusion regarding your theology. It is well understood and the boundaries of its possible interpretations are also understood to be well demarcated. Nobody from the outside should be able to come in and declare from a high pedestal that he or she has a more indepth understanding of your philosophy and theology than you yourselves, who have been digging it, in and out, for years at a stretch (some, for decades), and thus you need to be educated on the "real meaning".

It is another thing to differ, but this is basic etiquette that one needs to step outside the tradition to voice such gross differences. You don't seem to have made this part clear enough to DH.

Now for my other concern, what was meant by "Vaishnava philosophy differs slightly from Mayavada?" Just as a reminder, mAyAvAda (advaita) has two precepts (both of them being in parama artha) which go against the core beliefs of *any* Vaishnava:

1. there is no difference between the jivas and God
2. The form of God is a product of mAyA

Any challenged person who has even a minute sense of love will find the first one disgusting. As for the second, the very life breath of a devotee, the *FORM* of the Lord has been put under a category whose reality or non-reality cannot be decided.

maayaavaadi bhaashya shunile hoye shorbonaash!

Does it look like a "slight difference"?

IMHO, all your problems will go away if you ascribe prominence and eternality to difference - nityaH nityAnAM cetanaH cetanAnAM. Was there any time when Radha and Krishna were not two separate distinct conscious entities? I fail to see this being made *explicitly* clear anywhere in the texts. I can't understand what is the use of precepts which go against the very fabric of one's devotional sentiments. "One becomes two". Fine, you want ascribe God's divinity to your deity (and I am not saying that only God can be one's deity), but pushing this agenda too far (beyond the context of devotional sentiments) will boomerang back like this "Dirty Hari" phenomenon.

Regards,
Kishalaya
Jagat - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 16:53:44 +0530
Kishalaya, my statement was understatement. I explicitly stated that "the One becomes many" (which is an oft-repeated Upanishadic theme) is not something that happens in time, but is simply a way of stating an eternal truth.

We don't just throw the Upanishads away. We appreciate the insight. It is not false, only terribly inadequate.

Madhava - Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:47:57 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 7 2004, 12:53 AM)
Where do I say different ? All I said is that I think you are wrong when you state that Krishna becomes factually frightened of Yasoda, I think that is incorrect. My belief is that he feigns fright. Just as he feigns anger or anything else that implies He is not controlling all events at all times.

I don't know if you actually read Jagat's post carefully. If you read it again, you will notice both Jiva and Visvanatha stating that the fear is considered real, and the idea that the fear is feigned or acted is specifically rejected. It doesn't really get much clearer than that. Basically you are disagreeing with their assessment of the situation.

Visvanatha discusses the simultaneous abhijJatA and mugdhatA (omniscience and bewilderment) of Sri Krishna in the beginning of the second chapter of his Raga-vartma-candrika:

sAkSAt zrImad uddhavoktir eva | sA ca yathA - "mantreSu mAM vA upahUya yat tvam akuNThitAkhaNDa sad Atma bodhaH | pRccheH prabho mugdha ivApramattas tan me mano mohayatIva deva||" asyArthaH – mantreSu jarAsandha-vadha rAjasUyAdy artha gamana vicArAdiSu prastuteSu mAM vai nizcitam upahUya yat pRccheH uddhava tvam atra kiM kartavyaM tad brUhi iti pRccheH apRcchaH akuNThitaH kAlAdinA akhaNDaH paripUrNaH sadA sArvadika eva Atmano bodhaH samvicchaktir yasya sa mugdha iva yathA anyo mugdho janaH pRcchati tathety arthaH tat tava yugapad eva maugdhyaM sArvajJyaM ca mohayatIva mohayatyeva | atra mugdha iva tvaM na tu mugdhaH iti | mohayatIva na tu mohayati iti vyAkhyAyAM saGgaty abhAvAt | asaGgatyeSu karmANyanIhasya bhavo 'bhavasyetyAdi vAkyeSu madhye etad vAkyasyopanyAso vyarthaH syAd ityatas tathA na vyAkhyeyam | tataz ca dvArakA-lIlAyAM satyapi sArvajJye yathA maugdhyaM tathaiva vRndAvana-lIlAyAm api satyapi maugdhye sArvajJyaM tasyAcintya-zakti siddham eva mantavyam | ataeva varNitaM zrI lIlAzuka caraNaiH "sarvajJatve ca maugdhe ca sArvabhaumam idaM maha" iti ||

Uddhava says: “O Master! O Divine One! When You considered whether or not it was proper to kill Jarasandha and to go to the Rajasuya-sacrifice, You called me to You and asked for my advice, ‘O Uddhava! What should I do in this situation?’, like a bewildered person. You bewildered me at that time, acting like an ignorant, yet omniscient man who needed advice from a counsellor, although You are not conditioned by time and space and You are full of causeless eternal knowledge that can be never deluded or lost.”

In this situation, if someone says, “You seemed bewildered, but in truth You were not, and I seemed bewildered, but in truth I was not,” it is not appropriate. The idea being, “Your activities are without endeavour and Your birth is birthless” – amidst all these unbefitting words, this argument is also worthless; therefore such words should not be said. We must accept that just as Krishna is sometimes bewildered in His Dvaraka-pastimes, although He is omniscient there, similarly by His inconceivable potency, He is sometimes omniscient in His Vrindavana-pasti­mes, although He is bewildered there. We must therefore accept the words of Sripad Lilasuka: sarvajJatve ca maugdhe ca sArvabhaumam idaM maha - “In all His pastimes the effulgent Lord is simultaneously bewildered and omniscient.”

These two aspects coexist eternally in Sri Krishna, who is always engaged in humanlike pastimes (nara-lIlA). If you wish to discuss God who is forever beyond bewilderment, then you must not refer to him as Sri Krishna. Rather, you may speak of the Great Vishnu or any other aizvarya-prakAza who is not as concerned with enjoying loving pastimes as he is with fulfilling his ontological function.
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 00:34:50 +0530
Madhava- I think the verses you quote support my position. That Krishna as Vishnu does not become fearfull or bewildered, but as Krishna He does. This to me obviously means that because he is acting as a human he acts bewildered to enhance the rasa i.e convince others that He is like them, human. Since Vishnu is an expansion of Krishna, then how could an expansion be above factual bewilderment while not the original source ?


To me this:

QUOTE
In this situation, if someone says, “You seemed bewildered, but in truth You were not, and I seemed bewildered, but in truth I was not,” it is not appropriate. The idea being, “Your activities are without endeavour and Your birth is birthless” – amidst all these unbefitting words, this argument is also worthless


Is something I agree with. Uddhava can fall under bewilderment, so the statement would be false. Krishna's birth is not birthless, he does indeed take birth, he does make an endeavor as well, Krishna is always endeavoring for various reasons. So the statement is false, and I agree with Visvanatha.


That goes along with this:

QUOTE
You bewildered me at that time, acting like an ignorant, yet omniscient man who needed advice from a counsellor, although You are not conditioned by time and space and You are full of causeless eternal knowledge that can be never deluded or lost.



QUOTE
I don't know if you actually read Jagat's post carefully. If you read it again, you will notice both Jiva and Visvanatha stating that the fear is considered real, and the idea that the fear is feigned or acted is specifically rejected.


I did read it carefully. The fear was real in the sense or context that it was exhibited in. This may sound contradictory so I will explain. You can say that Krishna is without birth, he is the origin of all, sarva karana karanam. Yet Krishna does experience birth in lila, and he grows from a baby to a young man. So He does take birth in it's context. Actual fear of Yasoda is impossible, just like actual birth is impossible because Krishna is controlling everything, including what She does, and His own birth. So it is fear and it is not fear, both are true.

The point of these pastimes and dialogues in the Bhagavatam is to establish and show how Krishna, the supreme absolute truth, Para Brahman, takes human form for pastimes sake. Not that Krishna is a product of Maya. The point is to establish Krishna as eternally God, never subject to Maya. So even though He appears in Vraja as a human and displays fear,and other human emotions that would imply that he was subject to the human condition, the entire point of the Bhagavat is to prove that in truth he is unaffected. That he never falls under Maya, as the Mayavadis insist.

Sridhar Swami agrees with me, "Jiva referred to him as bhakti eka raksaka; "Supreme Guardian of Devotion" His commentary on the Bhagavatam was accepted by Mahaprabhu Himself, in fact Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that anyone who does not recognize his 'Swami' is a prostitute. Mahaprabhu made this statement as an admonishment to Vallabha Acharya, who failed to recognize the importance of Sridhar Swami, the original commentator on Srimad Bhagavatam."
(Swami.B.A Sagar)


QUOTE
When Sridhar Swami wrote his commentary on the Bhagavat it was rejected by the Sankarites of Banaras due to the bhakti content and the acceptance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead as parabrahma. However, Sripad Sridhar Swami was vastly learned in the Vedanta etc., and thus the Sankarites could not refute his arguments. Nonetheless, because Sridhar Swami's opinion did not stride alongside that of the established institution of the advaitic school, the Sankarites would not accept it.

Lastly the Sankarites proposed what seemed to be an impossible test. They suggested that the Bhagavat commentary of Sridhar Swami be placed in the temple of Viswanatha over night and if Lord Shiva accepted the commentary, then, so would they.

Sridhar Swami was a saranagata-bhakta, a fully surrendered soul who had embraced the ashraya-tattva, i.e., the shelter of the Supreme Lord. Therefore he agreed to the test with the faith within that his destiny was in good hands.

The Bhagavat, with commentary, was placed in the temple of Lord Visvanatha for the night and when the doors of the sanctum-sanctorium were opened in the morning this verse was revealed:


aham vedmi suko vetti, vyaso vetti na vetti va
bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam, na buddhya na ca tikaya

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has accepted the first line of this sloka which says that the position of the guru is relative not absolute. The disciple may see him as absolute, that is another thing, but not others or more importantly he does not see himself as absolute.

In this regard Sriman Mahaprabhu spoke to Sanatana Goswami;

Sanatana, Krishna is going to give His kindness to you through me. I am talking to you like a madman. I feel many things are passing through me to you. But I do not know that I myself have the thing.

So the verse;


aham vedmi suko vetti, vyaso vetti na vetti va
bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam, na buddhya na ca tikaya

is accepted at least in the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya as authoritative. What has passed through Srila Vyasadeva may or may not be known to him.

(From Narasingha Swami)


So I fail to see how my agreeing with His understanding is not in line with Sri Caitanya and his acceptance of Sridhar's commentary. Maybe your interpretation and or translation of Jiva and Visvanath is faulty ?
Keshava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 01:54:14 +0530
QUOTE
If you wish to discuss God who is forever beyond bewilderment, then you must not refer to him as Sri Krishna. Rather, you may speak of the Great Vishnu or any other aizvarya-prakAza who is not as concerned with enjoying loving pastimes as he is with fulfilling his ontological function.


I remain unconvinced that any pleanary form of God is NOT "forever beyond bewilderment". By His nature God is omniscient. Only the Jiva's jnana is contracted in the "bound" state. BTW even the Jiva becomes omniscient in Moksa (when his jnana is uncontracted) according to Ramanuja.

QUOTE
Madhava- I think the verses you quote support my position. That Krishna as Vishnu does not become fearfull or bewildered, but as Krishna He does. This to me obviously means that because he is acting as a human he acts bewildered to enhance the rasa i.e convince others that He is like them, human. Since Vishnu is an expansion of Krishna, then how could an expansion be above factual bewilderment while not the original source ?


Who is an expansion of Whom has nothing to do with it. Each expansion also has the innate quaility of omniscience. One expansion might however as you say feign bewilderment for the sake of Lila. I do not find this an argument for Krsna being Visnu's expansion even though this is the opinion of Madhva and Ramanuja but not for this reason as far as I know.
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:05:22 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 7 2004, 08:24 PM)
I remain unconvinced that any pleanary form of God is NOT "forever beyond bewilderment". By His nature God is omniscient. Only the Jiva's jnana is contracted in the "bound" state. BTW even the Jiva becomes omniscient in Moksa (when his jnana is uncontracted) according to Ramanuja.

The point is that the true bewilderment is voluntary. The Lord in his humanlike form voluntarily subjugates himself under the spell of his internal illusion. If he is omnipotent, certainly he can accomplish that, too. Otherwise, his independence would be limited by his omniscience.
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:32:35 +0530
For reference, you can read Visvanatha's Raga-vartma-candrika 2.1 here in its entirety with a commentary.
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:32:42 +0530
QUOTE
The point is that the true bewilderment is voluntary.


I think this is illogical. You cannot choose to become bewildered. Bewildered means you lose sight of reality. Therefore Krishna cannot choose to do so. Bewilderment is imposed or something you are subjected to, if you control it then you are not subject to it. Rather you are the master of it. Krishna cannot become bewildered by his potency because it is not a conscious thing seperate from Himself. His potency does not have a seperate will.


From Bhaktivinoda Thakura

"The potency and the possessor of the potency are not different."

The meaning, then, is that the potency does not exist apart from its substance. The only true substance is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of potencies. The nature of the potency is either to be a quality of the Supreme Lord, or submissive to His will.

When it is said that the potency has pure consciousness, that means that because the potency and the master of potencies are not different, therefore, like the master of potencies, the potency also has a form of spiritual consciousness, has desires that are at once fulfilled, and is beyond the touch of the three modes. It is not a mistake to say these things.

Will and consciousness are qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By itself, the potency does not possess will, but rather it carries out the will of the Supreme. For example, you have power, and by Your will, your potencies act. If you say, 'the power acted', then that means that the possessor of the power was actually behind the action. To say that 'the power acted' is only to use a figure of speech.
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:36:26 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 7 2004, 09:02 PM)
QUOTE
The point is that the true bewilderment is voluntary.

I think this is illogical. You cannot choose to become bewildered. Bewildered means you lose sight of reality. Therefore Krishna cannot choose to do so.

Why can't you choose to become bewildered? Just buy a bottle of vodka and drink it up, I guarantee that you will become bewildered. It might be illogical of you to do it, but if you think it's fun you might just do it anyway.

Similarly, Sri Krishna may at any time drink the wine of prema to his heart's content, and become completely bewildered. When we say, "God cannot," I think we've lost sight of the fact that he is indeed svarAt, truly independent and omnipotent.

That quote from Bhaktivinoda appears specifically within the context of mAyA-zakti, it does not discuss the dynamics of svarUpa-zakti.
Jagat - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:40:06 +0530
I think you need to tell me once again, DH, why this is so important to you.

As to Vishwanath's disagreeing with Sridhar Swami, it might be a good idea to compile instances. There is little doubt that the Gaudiya acharyas disagreed with him in places, this being a case in point.

I think Mahaprabhu was objecting to Vallabha's manner more than anything else. You don't condemn the Wright brothers for not inventing the jet engine or the rocket. At the same time, you don't say that we have to live with 1903 technology for the rest of eternity.

The Vedic literature is a palimpsest: It is the same clay tablet, but each new layer covers the previous ones. So we pay lip service to the Veda, to the Upanishads, to the Puranas and the Bhagavata Purana in particular. But the Goswamis have placed another layer of clay over the Bhagavata and transformed the Vaishnava religion into something different. We call ourselves Vaishnavas, we chant Hare Krishna and the Krishna mantra, but we are really something else--Radhaites. So our allegiance to Sridhar Swami is like a scientist's allegiance to Isaac Newton or an aeronautical engineer's to the Wright brothers.

And I wholeheartedly disagree with you that the message is to show that Krishna is not under Maya. It is to show that he is, by his own choice, subordinate to prema.

Of course, there is an undercurrent of aisvarya. If there were none, then it would be mundane rasa. Even though, the Bhgavata is very clear that knowledge is not a factor. This is probably the main lesson that the Bhagavata draws out of the gopi story. For example:

kvemAH striyo vanacarIr vyabhicAra-duSTAH
kRSNe kva caiSa paramAtmani rUDha-bhAvAH
nanv Izvaro'nubhavato'viduSo'pi sAkSAt
chreyas tanoty agada-rAja ivopayuktaH

How great a contradiction: these girls simple forest women, moreover they are contaminated by the sin of adultery. And yet, they have this overwhelming love for Krishna, the Supreme Soul of all. Does this not go to show that the power of prema is so great that even if one is completely ignorant of who Krishna is, one still attains the ultimate benefit, just like a sick person who unconsciously takes a powerful medicine. (10.47.59)

But that is just one lesson.
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:50:14 +0530
QUOTE
then it would not have been possible for a person like Sri Uddhava, who is the very embodiment of transcendental knowledge, to become bewildered



I disagree. Yoga Maya bewilders all the residents of Vraja, they are all subject to bewilderment. All jivas regardless of their learning or realization are subject to either Maha Maya or Yoga Maya. No jiva is free from the illusory potency, not even Maha Deva, Brahma or Uddhava.

So just because you are 100% self realized and know everything about everything, you are still always subject to bewilderment at a moments notice. Maha Deva, the greatest renunciate was completely bewlidered by the lords form of Mohini Murti to make this point clear. He went from the greatest renunicate to a slobbering fool in seconds.
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:58:31 +0530
QUOTE

In the quoted verse, the words mugdha iva and mohayati iva are used. If someone thinks the words iva imply that "You were as if bewildered, but actually You were not bewildered", and "You are acting as if you are bewildering Me, but actually I am not bewildered", then that explanation cannot be accepted, because, if the Lord is just acting as if bewildered, although He is actually omniscient, and if that bewilderment is not real, then it would not have been possible for a person like Sri Uddhava, who is the very embodiment of transcendental knowledge, to become bewildered.


This makes no sense. Uddhava can only be subject to bewilderment if Krishna is ?

I do not see the logic in this. Uddhava, as stated above, is always subject to bewilderment. Krishna's non bewilderment or bewilderment, has nothing to do with it. Krishna controls, everyone else is controlled. Whether Krishna can bewilder himself or not, all jivas are always subject to some form of bewilderment.
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 02:59:29 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 7 2004, 09:20 PM)
I disagree. Yoga Maya bewilders all the residents of Vraja, they are all subject to bewilderment. All jivas regardless of their learning or realization are subject to either Maha Maya or Yoga Maya. No jiva is free from the illusory potency, not even Maha Deva, Brahma or Uddhava.

I was under the impression that you considered manifestations of svarUpa-zakti to be nondifferent from God. They could not, therefore, become bewildered, just like God cannot become bewildered.

Previously you have argued that svarUpa-zakti is in all respects equal to and nondifferent from God, and therefore people like Sri Radha and the gopIs, as well as Sri Krishna's mother, father and so forth, are equal to and nondifferent from him, and that therefore he cannot truly enjoy rasa with them. Uddhava is also a nitya-siddha associate of Sri Krishna, and I fail to see why he should be considered any different from the others mentioned.

It therefore logically follows (if truly Krishna cannot be bewildered, but just fakes it, as you say) that no manifestation of svarUpa-zakti can truly be bewildered, but they all must be aware of the ontological "inner" truths at all times, and that for example Mother Yashoda is only faking to be angry at Krishna, as Krishna is faking that he is afraid, and that Radha is only faking to be jealous although she knows that Candravali is her expansion and that they both are nondifferent from Krishna.

This effectively makes life in Vraja nothing but participating in a grand hoax.
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:07:54 +0530
QUOTE
Why can't you choose to become bewildered? Just buy a bottle of vodka and drink it up, I guarantee that you will become bewildered. It might be illogical of you to do it, but if you think it's fun you might just do it anyway.


This I disagree with. You can drink all the vodka you want, it will only be efficacious if the Lord desires. Shiva can drink an ocean of poison and not be affected, or he can see Mohin Murit bouncing a ball and lose control. It is in the hands of the lord, not any choice of ours.

Jagat- I just pointed out I take Sridhar's side, as did Mahaprabhu. You can qualify that any way you desire. That is your interpretation, it's not written in stone as official dogma. So My vision is also backed by an authoritative acarya, whose ideas were specifically pointed to as the commentary Mahaprabhu accepted as best.
Keshava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:08:46 +0530
QUOTE
The point is that the true bewilderment is voluntary. The Lord in his humanlike form voluntarily subjugates himself under the spell of his internal illusion. If he is omnipotent, certainly he can accomplish that, too. Otherwise, his independence would be limited by his omniscience.


I would say that God's independence is limited to the accomplishment of things that do not contradict His intrinsic nature. ie He is not able to make Himself NOT God. Which means His qualities of omniscience and omnipotence cannot be truely altered. (If His omniscience could be truely altered this would amount to the contraction of jnana as in the case of the jiva and He would for all intents and purposes have become a jiva.)

So my question has to be:

Can God truely forget something?

Is He able to truely be less than omniscient?

Since He is omnipotent He should have the ability to do anything.

So being omnipotent can He make Himself truely less than omnipotent?

I would have to say that your supposition still seems untenable.

Perhaps I should revise my thinking from my last post. Maybe Visnu is incapable of this because He is the Original Personality of Godhead and the expansions who display lila are capable of it.

Here I am speaking about the "Earthly" lila. Could you please explain the difference between the Gaudiya conception of the "Earthly" versus "Goloka" lila in more detail? [ Goloka and Gokula split into this topic. - Mod ]
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:13:05 +0530
QUOTE
QUOTE
]I disagree. Yoga Maya bewilders all the residents of Vraja, they are all subject to bewilderment. All jivas regardless of their learning or realization are subject to either Maha Maya or Yoga Maya. No jiva is free from the illusory potency, not even Maha Deva, Brahma or Uddhava. 
I was under the impression that you considered manifestations of svarUpa-zakti to be nondifferent from God. They could not, therefore, become bewildered, just like God cannot become bewildered.


This is an obvious distraction Madhava, clearly I refer to Jivas in lila, what has been my point all along ? The lord and his personal plenary expansions i.e Visnu tattva, cannot be truely bewildered. So unless you can point out where I have ever said that there are no jivas in Vraja, this comment must surely be facetious ?
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:14:25 +0530
DH, I added to my post to clarify it, please re-read it.
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:18:43 +0530
QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 7 2004, 09:38 PM)
I would say that God's independence is limited to the accomplishment of things that do not contradict His intrinsic nature. ie He is not able to make Himself NOT God. Which means His qualities of omniscience and omnipotence cannot be truly altered. (If His omniscience could be truly altered this would amount to the contraction of jnana as in the case of the jiva and He would for all intents and purposes have become a jiva.)

This would mean that he is not truly omnipotent in all respects. He is the omnipotent, all-pervasive and infinite Being who is limited by Himself. Does that sound plausible?

The Gaudiya position would probably be that God can inconceivably be simultaneously omnipotent and non-omnipotent. He is truly the greatest paradox. I am certain we can dig up verses from the Upanishads establishing that God is the greatest paradox, don't you think?
Jagat - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:42:39 +0530
Sorry, I was interrupted by household duties.

The point I was making is that, beginning from the lesson of the Gita--sarva-dharmAn parityAjya, we go to its illustration in the Bhagavata by the gopis, but with the added glorification of jnana-hina bhakti, for the gopis are ignorant of Krishna's svarupa. Then we go to the glorification of bhakti itself as more powerful than Krishna, which is really where the Bhagavata ends. From there we go to the worship of prema bhakti itself in the form of Radha. That is the progression that goes beyond the Bhagavatam; it is the separate stream that flows through the Alvars, Jayadeva, Nimbarka, Chaitanya and Rupa Goswami.

As to Krishna's energies being dependent and unconscious, that is again applying mundane thinking to the Supreme Lord. The jivas are also Krishna's "parts" and his "energies", yet the jiva, Krishna's minutest energy has a certain limited amount of freedom, and sufficient potential power of bhakti that Krishna admits to being subordinated by it. So how much more Radha, the sum total of all Krishna's energies, has in terms of both independence and devotional power.

Krishna energies are achintya. You might even say that shakti is somewhat of a misnomer, in the sense that one thinks of a creator/created, possessor/possessed, master/subordinate, predominator/predominated relation. These are a convenient shorthand, perhaps, but actually Radha and Krishna are an eternal correspondence. One does not talk of one half of the bean being more important or predominant over the other half. We are somewhat confused by millennia of patriarchy.

I agree with you that if Radha is a cardboard cut out, then Krishna would not experience any rasa in his relation with her. But our acharyas insist that he really does. Therefore, since he does get rasa, she must be real. And because she is real, not just a empty mirror image, we worship her.

This is why I come back to my question: What's in this for you? Why is it so important for you to establish your own independent understanding? If God has spoken to you and given you the gift of this brilliant insight, then by all means found your own sampradaya. But no Gaudiyas will give you much attention once they know how your most fundamental siddhanta goes against the principles established by Rupa and Raghunath.

Jagat - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 03:50:03 +0530
The point Gaura Keshava makes is a good one. Dirty Hari is not completely wrong, just his emphases are wrong. Krishna and even the residents of Vraja have a certain consciousness of his God-ness. It is just entirely subordinate to their consciousness of his humanity. One example is that a mother still thinks of her son with maternal affection even if he becomes president. In fact, her pride in her son's accomplishments increase her maternal love, if anything.

Similarly, if Krishna were an ordinary human being, there would really be no meaning to his lila, because, as you say, he would just be a jiva.

Another example given by Baladeva (he may not be the first) is that the Saraswati River flows in the Ganges at Triveni--but it is unseen. The aisvarya jnana is present in Vrindavan as well, but in an almost completely hidden way. The point is that when it surfaces, it disrupts the real mood created by bhakti, which is the real source of joy.





dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 04:13:11 +0530
QUOTE
Previously you have argued that svarUpa-zakti is in all respects equal to and nondifferent from God, and therefore people like Sri Radha and the gopIs, as well as Sri Krishna's mother, father and so forth, are equal to and nondifferent from him, and that therefore he cannot truly enjoy rasa with them. Uddhava is also a nitya-siddha associate of Sri Krishna, and I fail to see why he should be considered any different from the others mentioned.


Can you show where I have said such a thing ?

My position has never been that all the residents of Vraja are Visnu tattva. Some are, some are not. Radha and Krishna and their plenary portions are Visnu tattva. Baladeva, the nitya sakhis, Draupadi, etc are plenary portions and personal expansions. If you went to Goloka tomorrow you would not be one of them.

I have never said all the residents of Goloka are non different then Krishna, some are though.

From Cc Adi lila

krsnere karaya yaiche rasa asvadana
kridara sahaya yaiche, suna vivarana

Now please listen to how Lord Krsna's consorts help Him taste rasa and how they help in His pastimes.

krsna-kanta-gana dekhi tri-vidha prakara
eka laksmi-gana, pure mahisi-gana ara
vrajangana-rupa, ara kanta-gana-sara
sri-radhika haite kanta-ganera vistara

The beloved consorts of Lord Krsna are of three kinds: the goddesses of fortune, the queens, and the milkmaids of Vraja, who are the foremost of all. These consorts all proceed from Radhika.

avatari krsna yaiche kare a vatara
amsini radha haite tina ganera vistara

Just as the fountainhead, Lord Krsna, is the cause of all incarnations, so Sri Radha is the cause of all these consorts.

vaibhava-gana yena tanra anga-vibhti
bimba-pratibimba-rupa mahisira tati

The goddesses of fortune are partial manifestations of Srimati Radhika, and the queens are reflections of Her image.

laksmi-gana tanra vaibhava-vilasamsa-rupa
mahisi-gana vaibhava-prakasa-svarupa

The goddesses of fortune are Her plenary portions, and they display the forms of vaibhava-vilasa. The queens are of the nature of Her vaibhava-prakasa.

(vaibhava-vilas and prakash examples from Cc Madhya 20.170-onwards:

Sri Balarama is a vaibhava-prakasa manifestation of Krsna. He is also manifest in the original quadruple expansion of Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. These are prabhava-vilasa expansions with different emotions.

From that prabhava-vilasa, the original catur-vyuha, comes the entire pantheon of caturvyuhas which are vaibhava-vilasa features of the Lord.

These four prabhava-vilasa pastime forms of Lord Krsna reside eternally in Dvaraka and Mathura.

From the original quadruple expansions, twenty-four forms are manifest. They differ according to the placement of weapons in Their four hands. They are called vaibhava-vilasa.

If one form or feature is differently manifested according to different emotional features, it is called vaibhava-prakasa

The first manifestation of the vaibhava feature of Krsna known as vaibhava-prakasa, is Sri Balarama. Balarama and Krsna have different bodily colors, but otherwise Balarama is equal to Krsna in all respects. Another example of vaibhava-prakasa is the son of Devaki. He sometimes has two hands and sometimes has four hands)



akara svabhava-bh ede vraia-devi-gana
kaya-vyuha-rupa tanra rasera karana

The Vraja-devis have diverse bodily features. They are Her expansions and are the instruments for expanding rasa.

bahu kanta vina nahe rasera ullasa
Iilara sahaya lagi' bahuta prakasa

Without many consorts, there is not such exultation in rasa. Therefore there are many manifestations of Srimati Radharani to assist in the Lord's pastimes.





Ramananda Raya discussion with Mahaprabhu Cc Madhya lila

QUOTE
mahabhava-cintamani' radhara svarupa

lalitadi sakhi -- tanra kaya-vyuha-rupa


Srimati Radharani is the topmost spiritual gem, and the other gopis -- Lalita, Visakha and so on -- are expansions of Her spiritual body

Srimati Radharani's gopi friends are Her mental activities, which are concentrated on the pastimes of Sri Krsna. She keeps Her hand on the shoulder of a friend, who represents youth.

Actually, only the gopis have the right to appreciate these transcendental pastimes, and only from them can these pastimes be expanded.

Without the gopis, these pastimes between Radha and Krsna cannot be nourished. Only by their cooperation are such pastimes broadcast. It is their business to taste the mellows


All the gopis, the personal friends of Srimati Radharani, are equal to Her. Krsna is pleasing to the inhabitants of Vrajabhumi, just as the moon is pleasing to the lotus flower. His pleasure-giving potency is known as ahladini, of which the active principle is Srimati Radharani. She is compared to a creeper with newly grown flowers and leaves. When the nectar of Krsna's pastimes is sprinkled on Srimati Radharani, all Her friends, the gopis, immediately appreciate the pleasure a hundred times more than if they were sprinkled themselves. Actually this is not at all wonderful.


In Jaiva-Dharma, Bhaktivinoda Thakura :

QUOTE
"There are three types of jivas. Those that originate in Vraja manifest from Lord Baladeva. Those in the Vaikuntha planets manifest from Sankarsana. Those in the material world manifest from Maha-Visnu. The first two types of jivas are nitya-mukta (eternally liberated) and the third type are nitya-baddha (materially bound)."
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 04:51:05 +0530
QUOTE
I agree with you that if Radha is a cardboard cut out, then Krishna would not experience any rasa in his relation with her. But our acharyas insist that he really does. Therefore, since he does get rasa, she must be real. And because she is real, not just a empty mirror image, we worship her.


I have never seen such a statement. I have shown numerous citations to show how they are one and the same. By logic and inference this means that their rasa is possibly not what it appears to be, externally pretend love, internally one and the same, visnu tattva.

Can you show where this concept is refuted specifically ? Otherwise your statement above, where you have the acaryas insist that the external manifestation, is all there, is without basis.

What is the purpose of the descriptions of rasa ? Are they simply to entertain ?

I believe they are written to educate us on what the nature of rasa is, on the highest level. What Radha desires.

Otherwise what is the point of these writings ?

They are manuals, school books on rasa. Teaching what is desired by God, and how and what please's God.

Your arguments about the ontology of Radha Krishna tattva based on rasa sastra is unfounded. It obscures their purpose. Their purpose is not to teach about ontology, they are for teaching about rasa, the methodology or intracacies of interactions. Archetypes or displays of what the best and most sublime interactions with God are made of, and to be learned for application, within, and without. Not that we should ignore Bhagavat ontology and let the rasa lila sastra dictate that aspect, that is not it's purpose.



Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 05:35:41 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 7 2004, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE
Previously you have argued that svarUpa-zakti is in all respects equal to and nondifferent from God, and therefore people like Sri Radha and the gopIs, as well as Sri Krishna's mother, father and so forth, are equal to and nondifferent from him, and that therefore he cannot truly enjoy rasa with them. Uddhava is also a nitya-siddha associate of Sri Krishna, and I fail to see why he should be considered any different from the others mentioned.


Can you show where I have said such a thing ?

My position has never been that all the residents of Vraja are Visnu tattva. Some are, some are not. Radha and Krishna and their plenary portions are Visnu tattva. Baladeva, the nitya sakhis, Draupadi, etc are plenary portions and personal expansions. If you went to Goloka tomorrow you would not be one of them.

I have never said all the residents of Goloka are non different then Krishna, some are though.

A careful reading of my post will show you that I am not saying you said that. Is that all right?
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 05:39:20 +0530
You cannot have Krishna without rasa. Rasa is ontologically inseparable from him. He is the akhila-rasAmRta-mUrti, the very embodiment of all nectarine rasa. Therefore, whenever you consider him, whether ontologically or otherwise, the consideration of rasa must be there. You cannot have your Krishna stripped of attributes, floating in a vacuum.

There is no need to create an artificial division of ontology vs. rasa. Rasa is an ontological reality.
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 07:58:01 +0530
There is a difference between rasa theory/rasa and Bhagavat Vedantic ontology. They are different classes of knowledge. Rasa theory has to do with the relationships between people and enjoyment of life. The Bhagavat ontological philosophies are teaching the essence and nature of being, it is the metaphysical study of the nature of reality.

For instance the ontological reality of this discussion is that God is controlling and in fact manifesting every aspect of this discussion. From the creation and maintainence of the technology, to our creation and maintainence, and also our education and inspiration, God is doing it all, we are witnesses along for the ride.

The rasa involved in this discussion would be the emotions and relationships we have with each other. The experience we receive from taking part and being involved with this discussion.

They are two different aspects of the situation.

If we neglect the ontological aspect then we are dealing strictly with the rasa aspect. Which is not the whole picture. If a person was ignorant of the ontological aspect of this discussion then his view would be that the rasa aspect is the ontological aspect. He would see us in control and posting sans control of God in every aspect.

So lila is the same way. There are ontological teachings, and rasa theory.
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:14:48 +0530
Rasa is not merely a theory according to which we examine relationships. In the context of Sri Krishna and his associates, rasa is the dynamics of prema, the driving force of all divine interaction. Rasa is not a mere intellectual play. Rasa manifests when the rasa-samAgri, the five ingredients of rasa, the various bhAvas, assemble and surge in the heart of the Azraya-tattva.

When God interacts with his bhaktas, there is rasa and there is prema. That is an ontological reality. You cannot separate prema-rasa from God's activities. An ontological God without activities and interaction is undifferentiated Brahman.

Nobody is suggesting that you neglect the ontological aspect. The point is that it is an inferior aspect in God's reality, his joy and pleasure are at the forefront of his existence, the top entries on his list of priorities.

The rasas of zanta and dAsya are able to manifest in full awareness of God's prowess, and he is able to fully enjoy such love while in full awareness of his own prowess, but intimate friendship, parental affection and amorous feelings may only bloom in a mutual ontological oblivion.

Therefore the Gaudiyas call their God rasarAja, the king of rasas, and consider him to be the highest manifestation of God inasmuch as we think of love as the greatest aspect of God. In fact, this is at the core of the Gaudiyas' considering Krishna the highest and the original, and the others as his aspects, as we feel he is the fullest expression of divinity. At any rate, considerations of who came from whom are ultimately meaningless, as none of the bhagavat-svarUpas are temporary manifestations.
Talasiga - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 10:36:36 +0530
QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 8 2004, 12:09 AM)
You cannot have Krishna without rasa. Rasa is ontologically inseparable from him. He is the akhila-rasAmRta-mUrti, the very embodiment of all nectarine rasa. Therefore, whenever you consider him, whether ontologically or otherwise, the consideration of rasa must be there. You cannot have your Krishna stripped of attributes, floating in a vacuum.

There is no need to create an artificial division of ontology vs. rasa. Rasa is an ontological reality.

Your first paragraph may be fettered by your earlier thrust:
"This would mean that he is not truly omnipotent in all respects. He is the omnipotent, all-pervasive and infinite Being who is limited by Himself. Does that sound plausible? "

Your second paragraph is agreable although tautologous. (Show us something that exists that isn't within the purvey of ontology? laugh.gif )
Kishalaya - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 14:05:16 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Aug 8 2004, 03:42 AM)

but with the added glorification of jnana-hina bhakti, for the gopis are ignorant of Krishna's svarupa.


Not quite. Some, if not all, gopis were Shrutis, Gods and Goddesses, rishis etc. So its not very difficult to understand that the other nitya siddhaas and saadhanaa siddhaas have this particular knowledge of Krishna's opulence. Even in Bhagavatam (around the rasa dance chapters), the gopis do speak of Krishna as supersoul and God. The clear point, however, is that Krishna's aishvarya is not important to them, although they are quite knowledgeable about it. What is of importance is their particular relationship to Him.

QUOTE

yet the jiva, Krishna's minutest energy has a certain limited amount of freedom, and sufficient potential power of bhakti that Krishna admits to being subordinated by it


This is clearly a manifestation of Krishna's compassion and His possessing a heart full of love. This does not actually mean that the jiva can subjugate Krishna as if in a power play. This will be an infringement on His supreme independence.

QUOTE

Krishna energies are achintya. You might even say that shakti is somewhat of a misnomer, in the sense that one thinks of a creator/created, possessor/possessed, master/subordinate, predominator/predominated relation. These are a convenient shorthand, perhaps, but actually Radha and Krishna are an eternal correspondence. One does not talk of one half of the bean being more important or predominant over the other half. We are somewhat confused by millennia of patriarchy.


I don't know if this has been inspired by some modern egalitarian social ideas, but philosophy is quite clear about who is in control. The "shaktimaan" is always in contol, the master of "shakti". Krishna's independence is never compromised even in deep devotional contexts. puurnasya puurnam aadaaya puurnam evaavashishyate. Is Krishna dependent on shakti? I don't think so. Naaraayan Rishi manifested thousands of stunningly beautiful women out of His body, although needing none of them. But Krishna still maintains, cares for, even voluntarily subjugates Himself before even His minutest shakti - that is a manifestation of His compassion and love.

Statements like "Krishna cannot exist without His shaktis", some find a bit out of touch with their sensibilities. For even if all His shaktis were to turn their back on Him, He could manifest all of Them from within Himself again and again and again. The right thing would be perhaps, "Krishna does not exist without His shaktis" (because He is compassionate).
Kishalaya - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 15:03:24 +0530
QUOTE

I think you need to tell me once again, DH, why this is so important to you.


Because he feels mariginalized in the theology which he likes so much!

QUOTE

At the same time, you don't say that we have to live with 1903 technology for the rest of eternity.


(You may be wondering why I find you always to pick on biggrin.gif )

Its very convenient to think that's one's philosophy is "The jet age philosophy", especially without collecting metrics and measuring them for good. If one is entitled to think like this, then so is everybody, including Dirty Hari smile.gif
Jagat - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:30:47 +0530
I am not debating Dirty Hari's right to think in any way he likes. That is his prerogative, his right, yea, his duty. ye yathA mAM prapadyante.

And, as I have made clear earlier, I think that "cannot" is more appropriate than "does not."
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:36:28 +0530
Krishna and His sakti are inseperable, like fire and heat. There is no question of one without the other. What is meant by sakti ? Sakti is God's energy, His power. Saktiman is the consciousness controlling the power. They are not two seperable things. They cannot exist apart from each other. Krishna or the personality of godhead is the consciousness, sakti is the inherent energy that functions subordinate to his/her will to act in whatever way desired.

For example: my sakti is moving my hands while I type these words. I am the personality or id or psyche or Saktiman. Using my intellect I order my energy i.e my hands, the hands are my sakti, they respond to my desire by using my intellect. I cannot type without my hands. Similarly the lord and his/her sakti are inseperable. Sakti is the power that acts, while the lord, or the personality of godhead, is making the decision to act.

From Jiva's Bhagavat Sandharba 16.12

Heat is sometimes present in water, air, or other elements, but it is always present in the fire-element, and can never be separated from it. Just as heat is always present in fire, in the same way the inconceivable potencies of the Supreme cannot be separated from Him. They are an intrinsic part of His nature.


From Vaishnava Siddhanta Mala by Thakura Bhaktivinoda

Q. Then is Bhagavan subordinate to the shakti?

A. It is not that Bhagavan is one thing and the shakti is another; just as the burning power of the fire is inseparable from the fire, similarly Bhagavan’s shakti is inseparable from Bhagavan.


From Jaiva Dharma

The commentary on Vedanta states, sakti-saktimator abhedah:

"There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency."

This means that sakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance.

Sakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will.

You have said that sakti is the embodiment of consciousness, that it possesses will, and that it is beyond the influence of the three qualities of material nature. This is correct, but only insofar as sakti operates fully under the support of a pure conscious entity, and is thus considered identical with that powerful entity.

Desire and consciousness depend on the Supreme Being. Desire cannot exist in sakti; rather, sakti acts in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Being. You have the power to move, and when you desire to move, that power will act. To say "the power is moving" is merely a figure of speech; it actually means that the person who possesses that power is moving.




Kishalaya - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:50:06 +0530
QUOTE

I am not debating Dirty Hari's right to think in any way he likes. That is his prerogative, his right, yea, his duty. ye yathA mAM prapadyante.


My statement about Dirty Hari was just a feeble attempt at psychology. I would not touch his philosophy even with a ten foot pole!

QUOTE

And, as I have made clear earlier, I think that "cannot" is more appropriate than "does not."


The "cannot" is your prerogative. smile.gif Not necessarily acceptable to everybody! Unfortunately, this is never made *explicitly* clear. There seems to be an undercurrent of universal preaching present always. The same thing that you might accuse the Saaraswatas of. The same issue which the Gaudiya Vaishnavas may have with the Maadhvas and so on.
Madhava - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:23:21 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 8 2004, 07:06 PM)
The commentary on Vedanta states, sakti-saktimator abhedah:

"There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency."

This means that sakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance.

Sakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will.

Does this apply to jIva-zakti as well?
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:28:23 +0530
QUOTE
Not quite. Some, if not all, gopis were Shrutis, Gods and Goddesses, rishis etc.


Not in Goloka. The sakhis are plenary portions and bodily expansions of Sri Radha as cited earlier. The Nitya mukta jivas are expansions from Balarama.

There are nitya mukta jivas who are eternally in lila and were not Gods, Goddesses, rishis, etc.

In Gokula we may find as you describe.

QUOTE
So its not very difficult to understand that the other nitya siddhaas and saadhanaa siddhaas have this particular knowledge of Krishna's opulence. Even in Bhagavatam (around the rasa dance chapters), the gopis do speak of Krishna as supersoul and God.


Before Krishna was born there was the prophecy that the 8th son of Devaki might be an avatar of Vishnu.

Although this prophecy was known throughout Krishna's life, most people were not sure. In fact Yoga Maya would cause people to forget. In this way he could have intimate rasa without the awe and reverence and introspection that comes with knowledge of the truth. In Krishna's age they worshipped many demigods, Vishnu would have been seen by the common person as another deva, like Shiva. The Vrijabasis were common folk, which of course is the whole point of Krishna lila. Otherwise Krishna could have taken birth along with the Pandavas, great sages, educated people etc. Vraja is all about simple, not overly educated people. This is to keep everyone living their lives for the sake of enjoyment. Overly educated people become intellectually driven and seek the underlying truths of existence. They tend to live life on the mental plane. This is absent in Vraja. Vraja is all about enjoying earthy pleasures.

Srimad Bhagavatam


Because of intense paternal affection, the cowherd men, headed by Nanda, could not believe that Krsna could have uprooted the trees in such a wonderful way. Therefore they could not put their faith in the words of the boys. Some of the men, however, were in doubt. "Since Krsna was predicted to equal Narayana," they thought, "it might be that He could have done it."

When the cowherd men and women heard about the killing of Bakasura in the forest, they were very much astonished. Upon seeing Krsna and hearing the story, they received Krsna very eagerly, thinking that Krsna and the other boys had returned from the mouth of death. Thus they looked upon Krsna and the boys with silent eyes, not wanting to turn their eyes aside now that the boys were safe.

They thought:It is very astonishing that although this boy Krsna has many times faced many varied causes of death, it was these causes of fear that were killed, instead of Him.


And this is how Krishna lila happens. If they were aware of the truth then they would not feel fear, they would not feel protective, they wouldn't feel that Krishna needed them for anything. If they were in full knowledge all the time, they would know that their minds were controlled, that Krishna would know what they were going to do and say before they did. Full ontological Vedantic knowledge is kept from them, as is full faith that Krishna is an avatar. Sometimes they wonder, but that is quickly forgotten by the power of Yoga Maya.

Whenever the Bhagavatam goes into a philosophical discourse spoken by someone in lila, it should be kept in mind that the Bhagavatam and all sastra is meant to teach us. So the true nature of lila is not necessarily what is shown us. Just because in the middle of some pastime we find a philosophical discourse on deep ontolgical vedanta, we should bear in mind that it is for our benefit and not necessarily a part of the nitya lila. We are given a drop so we can get an idea of the ocean. We are given a view of lila with the sole purpose of educating us.
dirty hari - Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:43:52 +0530
QUOTE
QUOTE
The commentary on Vedanta states, sakti-saktimator abhedah:

"There is no difference between the potency and the possessor of potency."

This means that sakti is not a separate object. The Supreme Person who is the master of all potencies is the one truly abiding substance.

Sakti is the quality, or inherent function, that is subordinate to His will. 
Does this apply to jIva-zakti as well?


Here is the preceding context and what follows, to what I posted, it is specific to the non jiva sakti

Preceding:

QUOTE
Digambara: Look, it states in tantra- sastra that my divine mother is consciousness personified. She possesses full will and she is beyond the three qualities of material nature, yet she is the support of those three qualities. Your visnu-maya is not free from the influence of the modes of nature, so how can you equate your visnu-maya with my mother? It really irritates me that Vaisnavas are so fanatical. You Vaisnavas have blind faith.

Advaita: My brother, Digambara, please don’t be angry. You have come to see me after such a long time, and I want to satisfy you. Is it a slight to speak of visnu-maya? Bhagavan Visnu is the embodiment of supreme consciousness, and He is the one supreme controller of all. Everything that exists is His potency. Potency is not an independent object, but rather the functional power inherent within an object. To say that sakti (potency) is the root of everything is thoroughly opposed to metaphysical truth. Sakti cannot exist independent of the object from which it originates. We must first accept the existence of an object that possesses full spiritual consciousness, otherwise accepting sakti by itself is like dreaming of a flower in the sky.


Then following:

QUOTE
Bhagavan has only one sakti, which is manifest in different forms. When it functions in a spiritual capacity, it is known as cit-sakti, and when it operates in a material capacity, it is known as maya, or jada-sakti. It is stated in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.8), parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate, "The Vedas say that Sri Hari’s divine sakti is full of variety."

The sakti that supports the three modes of material nature— sattva, rajah, and tamah—is known as jada-sakti, and its functions are to create and destroy the universe. The Puranas and the Tantra refer to it as visnu-maya, mahamaya, maya, and so on. There are many allegorical descriptions of her activities. For example, it is said that she is the mother of Brahma, Visnu, and Siva, and that she slew the demoniac brothers Sumbha and Nisumbha. The living entity remains under the control of this sakti as long as he is engrossed in material enjoyment. When the jiva is endowed with pure knowledge, he becomes aware of his own svarupa, and this awareness enables him to transcend maya-sakti and attain the liberated status. He then comes under the control of cit-sakti and obtains spiritual happiness.


Although the principle is the same for the jiva. The jiva also has no independent will. Although the jiva can fall under delusion, is not all pervading, and is an adultered energy from Cit sakti, tatastha sakti. Cit sakti is all pervading, not subject to delusion, and the unadultered self same energy as Krishna.

Kishalaya - Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:48:12 +0530
DH, just because people do not respond to you does not mean that they cannot do so. It is just that they, unlike your enlightened self, don't have all the time in this world to blissfully fly around in the internet.
Kishalaya - Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:16:22 +0530
Just one more opinion. Of course, no allegiance claimed with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

It is perfectly possible to have knowledge of Krishna's opulence and Godhood and still have intimacy intact. To me, this does not look like an impossible proposition. And something not needing volumes upon volumes of explanation. What seems evident to me (like my existence) will never be negated by any scriptural statement. An illustration may make it clear (but one must be aware that analogies may not capture the entire intent). Those who have received their "siddha deha" still know at the back of their mind that Krishna and Radha are divinities, however, that does not prevent them from their particular saadhanaa where one prefers to view them as simple teenagers. (I hope I am correct unsure.gif)

IMHO, the purpose of yogamaayaa is more to reveal Krishna than to cover others' intelligence (although that may also happen -- sometimes). naaham prakaasha sarvasya yogamaayaa samaavrtaah. When yogamaayaa desires (with His concurrence), He is revealed to the devotee.

Although, the devotee may know of Krishna's aishvarya, but when yogamaayaa reveals that that is not "really" how Krishna is, or how He "really" would like to be (at least in some cases), then the significance of His Godhood takes a backseat and when the dust has settled down, things are clear, everybody can "go on with their business". Its like "Fine He is God, Oh well! He is the Brahman of the upanishads. We know that, but He'll be coming home soon and hungry. Got to prepare food quickly."
dirty hari - Mon, 09 Aug 2004 22:45:35 +0530
QUOTE
It is perfectly possible to have knowledge of Krishna's opulence and Godhood and still have intimacy intact. To me, this does not look like an impossible proposition


I agree 100%. But that is not the situation in Vraja. The point of our sadhana here in a non Vraja setting is to do exactly as you propose. We are meant to develop full and complete knowledge of Radha Krishna and relate in an intimate way without our knowledge hampering the relationship we develop. We may always be in full 100% awareness of the complete ontological reality of our situation and Radha Krishna's dominant position. But by our study of rasa we learn what is desired from us, how to relate in a non reverential manner. Although the awe of the truth will always be present to a degree, because we know too much. Still the rasa we can develop can be intimate and free from worshipfullness, and instead be based on seeing each other as family, as equals, kind of. This is Mahadeva Shiva's position. He is in full and complete knowledge, Vaisnavanam yatha sambhu, yet his consort is in fact the supreme lord:

From Jiva Goswami's commentary on Brahma Samhita

Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death.


Mahadeva is in full knowledge of this. He can relate in an intimate way, and even take a dominant role, even though he is fully aware of the control over him by his consort, and he is full of all knowledge concerning bhakti and the ontological reality of our existence.

Vraja is different. They do not spend years in ashramas, years meticulously studying and engaging in sadhana bhakti to uncover the truth of Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, and our relation with that reality. They live lives in pastoral society, they have fun and their lives are centered around enjoyment and pastimes of various types. Their concern isn't self realization. They are concerned with enjoying. The Bhagavatam reveals their ignorance of the highest truths. It takes a long time and a lot of study and meditation, to become self realized and relate to Radha Krishna as we are advised. They undergo no such austerity and sacrifice. They live their lives sometimes suspicious that Krishna is some kind of avatar, but they have insuffecient knowledge to comprehend all the ramifications of that.

Yoga Maya is the spiritual version of Maha Maya. It keeps people deluded. Just as Maha Maya presents this world as not being controlled by God, Yoga Maya does the same thing in the transcendental realm. The residents of Vraja couldn't relate to Krishna if they were fully aware of the truth, as we can. It takes years of study and sacrifice to come to that level. There is no reason for them to do so. Krishna does not engage in Vraja lila for the purpose of revealing the truth to the inhabitants. That lila is manifest for the opposite reason. It is meant to create a realm where the greatest amount of enjoyment is available, for Him/Her self.

So the revelation of the full truth of his/her existence is kept out. It serves no purpose, and in fact is counterproductive to the rasa desired. Vraja is Krishna's hometown. It's where Krishna lives as a human relating to other humans. To spice it up and add excitement there is the occasional thought that Krishna may be an avatar. But Yoga Maya wipes that from their minds, those are fleeting thoughts meant to create excitement. Otherwise the inhabitants would desire to investigate, thereby ruining the rasa desired of them.

Look what happened when Arjuna had the truth revealed to him at Kuruksetra, he was apologetic of his insolence and non worshipfull manner with Krishna. Arjuna is vastly more learned then the Vrijabasis, yet he was unable to relate without awe and reverence when he had the truth revealed to him.
Jagat - Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:15:44 +0530
You keep talking to us as though we are in illusion. So what exactly is it that we are in illusion about? And why does it make a difference?
Madhava - Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:21:41 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 9 2004, 07:15 PM)
This is Mahadeva Shiva's position. He is in full and complete knowledge, Vaisnavanam yatha sambhu, yet his consort is in fact the supreme lord:

From Jiva Goswami's commentary on Brahma Samhita

Krishna is Durga. Durga is Krishna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death.

If you intend to keep quoting this verse, I suggest you study the context in which it appears and reflect on its external and internal meaning, as well as on the point Jiva is making by quoting this verse. This is not, for the record, something Jiva writes, he quotes it from Gautamiya-kalpa.

Kusakratha's English edition seems to have omitted the preceding verse, from Brihat-gautamiya:

rAdhA durgA zivA durgA lakSmI durgA prakIrtitA |
gopAla-viSNu-pUjAyAm Ady-antA na tu madhyamA ||

So actually Mahadeva is Durga, and Durga is Laksmi, and Laksmi is Radha, and Radha is Siva, and so forth. It might do good for you to study the bheda-aspect a bit more closely.

The translation, by the way, is not very accurate, I suggest reading it parallel with the Sanskrit text. There are lots of omissions and approximate translations.
dirty hari - Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:45:31 +0530
Madhava-What is your point ? Durga is a jiva ?
Madhava - Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:56:06 +0530
My point is that you should try to be true to your sources instead of quoting just to make your points.

Which leads me to another question: Do you consider the scriptures the basis for your philosophy, or is your realization the basis for which you try to find support in the scriptures?
dirty hari - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:37:02 +0530
Should I reject all translations that are not to your liking ? If the translation I quote from is not to your liking, you can disagree with it. But to then insist that only your version should be considered authentic seems a bit...je ne sais quoi ?

What was your point besides disageeing with Kusakratha ?

In the same translation from the Brahma Samhita we get:

Durga is also described in Narada-pancaratra, in the following conversation of Sruti and Vidya:

"Durga is the supreme goddess. She is an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. She is the transcendental potency of the Lord. She is manifested from the form of Lord Maha-Visnu.

"Simply by understanding her one immediately attains the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not otherwise.

"She is identical with Gokula's queen Sri Radha, who possesses a great treasure of love for Krsna. By her grace the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all living entities, is easily understood.

In the Sammohana Tantra, Durga herself declares:

"I am Durga. I Possess all virtues. I am not different from Sri Radha, the eternal, supreme goddess of fortune."



Kusakratha translates as He does, would you care to make a list of all the translations, his and others, you feel are wrong ? In this way we can avoid any furthur discrepencies in the future.
dirty hari - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:40:43 +0530
QUOTE
Which leads me to another question: Do you consider the scriptures the basis for your philosophy, or is your realization the basis for which you try to find support in the scriptures?


Ask yourself the same question Swamiji. As for myself, I can only do as the lord directs. After all I am simply a puppet, not the puppetmaster.
Madhava - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:49:50 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 9 2004, 09:10 PM)
Ask yourself the same question Swamiji. As for myself, I can only do as the lord directs. After all I am simply a puppet, not the puppetmaster.

A straight answer would suffice.
dirty hari - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:00:01 +0530
You first biggrin.gif
Madhava - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:10:13 +0530
I believe I asked you first.
Kishalaya - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:15:08 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 9 2004, 10:45 PM)

The Bhagavatam reveals their ignorance of the highest truths.


Perhaps this is your first post I am reading in full, and you know what, I nearly fell off my chair on reading this. I tell you, nothing can beat this one.

But coming back to the point. The nitya siddha parikaras of Bhagavaan are already full of knowledge of Him from anaadi kaala. They do not need to acquire that knowledge. When they descend, they naturally display their knowledge in full, like the associates of Mahaaprabhu.

The difference between Arjuna and say Subal is that the latter is not overwhelmed by such knowledge. The knowledge of Krishna's Godhood makes no difference to his concern, intimacy and love, while for Arjuna, it does. This is not a binary zero and one. There are degrees to how much this aishvarya gyaana affects ones relationship with Bhagavaan.

Dirty Hari, this is an open challenge to you. You show me one - just one *living* Gaudiya vaishnava who can vouch for your position on Radha and Krishna as the "same" person devoid of separate individuality with no rasa between Them, and I will wholeheartedly accept your having superior realization. And if you cannot, then stop calling yourself a Gaudiya vaishnava.
Madhava - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:20:47 +0530
QUOTE (Kishalaya @ Aug 9 2004, 09:45 PM)
Dirty Hari, this is an open challenge to you. You show me one - just one *living* Gaudiya vaishnava who can vouch for your position on Radha and Krishna as the "same" person devoid of separate individuality with no rasa between Them, and I will wholeheartedly accept your having superior realization. And if you cannot, then stop calling yourself a Gaudiya vaishnava.

Your room mate excluded, of course. cool.gif
dirty hari - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:45:23 +0530



QUOTE
Perhaps this is your first post I am reading in full, and you know what, I nearly fell off my chair on reading this. I tell you, nothing can beat this one.


This seems a strange way to debate with someone. If you do not even read what I write, what is the point of then giving your opinion of what I have written. Seems like simple logic to me. If I do not read your posts fully, just a paragraph here and there, then I write that you are a bogus aparadhi without any redeeming value, what value would that opinion have ?

If you want an answer to your question, it has allready been presented. But you would know that if you had been paying atention.


here

From Kapiladeva in the Bhagavatam

atmanas ca parasyapi
yah karoty antarodaram
tasya bhinna-drso mrtyur
vidadhe bhayam ulbanam

atha mam sarva-bhutesu
bhutatmanam krtalayam
arhayed dana-manabhyam
maitryabhinnena caksusa

As the blazing fire of death, I cause great fear to whoever makes the least discrimination between himself and other living entities because of a differential outlook.

Therefore, through charitable gifts and attention, as well as through friendly behavior and by viewing all to be alike, one should propitiate Me, who abide in all creatures as their very Self.


Madhava-Your question seems a bit unusual. Maybe you could give your answer to show us what you mean. I admit to being confused as to your intent.
Madhava - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:48:19 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 9 2004, 10:15 PM)
Madhava-Your question seems a bit unusual. Maybe you could give your answer to show us what you mean. I admit to being confused as to your intent.

All right. I will open a new thread for this so as to get to the bottom of the issue and also to not clutter this one. Here you go. I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough.
Kishalaya - Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:49:54 +0530
QUOTE (dirty hari @ Aug 10 2004, 01:45 AM)
This seems a strange way to debate with someone.  If you do not even read what I write, what is the point of then giving your opinion of what I have written. Seems like simple logic to me. If I do not read your posts fully, just a paragraph here and there, then I write that you are a bogus aparadhi without any redeeming value, what value would that opinion have ?

That was just an innocent humor. My apologies.

But then what is one supposed to understand from the following:
QUOTE

Vraja is different. They do not spend years in ashramas, years meticulously studying and engaging in sadhana bhakti to uncover the truth of Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, and our relation with that reality. They live lives in pastoral society, they have fun and their lives are centered around enjoyment and pastimes of various types. Their concern isn't self realization. They are concerned with enjoying. The Bhagavatam reveals their ignorance of the highest truths. It takes a long time and a lot of study and meditation, to become self realized and relate to Radha Krishna as we are advised. They undergo no such austerity and sacrifice. They live their lives sometimes suspicious that Krishna is some kind of avatar, but they have insuffecient knowledge to comprehend all the ramifications of that.


"Their ignorance of the highest truths", "they have insuffecient knowledge to comprehend all the ramifications of that"

It seems that your version of Gaudiya saadhana involves undergoing a lot of pain to acquire knowledge only to reach a level of ignorance about the tattva of Bhagavaan - the knowledge only serving the purpose of a catalyst in this metamorphosis, ultimately to be thrown away. And those who are in this "ignorance" and in this state of "insufficient knowledge" are supposed to be the most blessed of all.

It looks more akin to Advaita vedaantic saadhanaa. Is it also like this in Gaudiya vaishnavism? From whatever little reading I have done, this does not seem to be so, but then it is upto the Gaudiya vaishnavas to clarify the same, once and for all.

Talking about aparaadha, have you ever realized if what you speak may not be acceptable to the gaudiya vaishnavas and then attributing the very same things to the gaudiya vaishnavas themselves may cause grief to them.
Jagat - Thu, 16 Dec 2004 05:26:38 +0530
More about God's helplessness.

saGketIkRta-kokilAdi-ninadaM kaMsa-dviSaH kurvato
dvAronmocana-lola-zaGkha-valaya-kvANaM muhuH zRNvataH |
keyaM keyam iti pragalbha-jaratI-vAkyena dUnAtmano
rAdhA-prAGgaNa-koNa-koli-viTapi-kroDe gatA zarvarI ||

The enemy of Kamsa imitated
the calls of the cuckoo and other birds
to signal to Radha that he was there.

She quietly rose and made her way to the door
where, opening it, her conch bangles jangled--
a sound so pleasing to Krishna’s ear.

“Who goes there? Who goes there?” cried
Radhika’s foul-tempered mother-in-law,
causing Krishna's anxious heart to sink.

And so the night went by,
Krishna curled up in a hollow tree
in the corner of Radha’s courtyard.