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

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.

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."

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

Go Here, second post

From Krishna in the Gita and the Bhagavatam

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.

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.

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.

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.

Though I can read what you have written,
my heart remains
illiterate ...

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.

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

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:


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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ]

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 ?

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?

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.






Ramananda Raya discussion with Mahaprabhu Cc Madhya lila

In Jaiva-Dharma, Bhaktivinoda Thakura :

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.

A careful reading of my post will show you that I am not saying you said that. Is that all right?

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? )

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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

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

The "cannot" is your prerogative. 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.

Does this apply to jIva-zakti as well?

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.

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.



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.

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

Preceding:

Then following:

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.

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:



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.

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:


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.

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.

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.

Your room mate excluded, of course.

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



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.

That was just an innocent humor. My apologies.

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

"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.