Rasa-lila Controversies - Split from "Jesus Picture"

Forgive me Kishalaya if I respond summarily. The Rasa Lila is a myth that works on numerous levels, like the Crucifixion. As Zaehner (following Jung, I believe) alluded above, the Crucifixion is a metaphor for the individual's mystical quest. The Rasa Lila also operates on that level, and my statement was meant to be interpreted in that way.

I think that a thorough understanding of the Rasa Lila as metaphor is a necessary springboard into personal devotion. Just like Jesus as Rabbi, Soterior (Salvator) are prelimaries to a specifically Christ-centered devotion.

If even the gopis had pride, then how will we ever see Him? I'm nothing but a pride-machine manufacturing pride day and night. So...

And I say to you that Krishna did not get names like karunaa sindhu, patita pavana, dayaa sindhu for nothing. He takes anyone who comes. He didn't disappear from the gopis *forever.* Just a small time. But He always returns. He is their soul! How can He stay away forever?

I know.

But Krishna is kind. He comes. He returns. He loves.

I like the "to increase your love for me" explanation better. Krishna is good with comforting words.

The pride thing makes it sound like He only has mercy unless and until you piss Him off, and then He's outta here.

I think the "pride thing" is there somewhere in the sastras so it cannot be contested. Interpretations of it is what may p** people off, and so it may be that some will try to change Krsna's nature. For some reason I suspect that such is a waist of time.

It is indeed the interpretation.

As long as we are agreed that Krishna is the Kindest and the Best-
Not some cruel omnipotent Person who laughs at others' suffering, saying
"Oh, you were too proud when I loved you, so I ditched you!"
No!

He is the best, albeit a perfect physician of the soul
Who does what is needed to make the heart love and love well
And in the least painful manner possible!

I'm sorry if I upset you by trying to make Krishna look too good. (?)
Shall we try to keep a little more cruelty in our conception of Him or what? Oy!



I sense a splitting of this thread coming up...

O, I am not upset. But I do like to keep my Jesus Christ very distinct from my Krsna. That gives me a balanced perspective of the two. The way I see it, one is salvation, the Other is perdition.

I must admit, I do not understand what you meant by

This is from the beginning of the introduction to Hardy's Viraha Bhakti.


E. M. Forster's' impressions of classical Hindustani music could without difficulty be applied to other 'unknown, unintelligible birds' found in India, for instance Hinduism. While the Western ear hunts for recognizable melodies, familiar rhythms, and harmony, it fails to penetrate into the underlying structure from which each note derives its significance and by which beauty has to be measured.


Fielding, who lacks this understanding, asks the most primal of all questions: 'What was that?' Godbole's reply avoids the musical side and turns to the literary content of the song which he can paraphrase:


Mrs Moore, sensing the tragic undercurrent in the song's sentiments, hesitates to yield to it. '"But he comes in some other song, I hope?" said Mrs Moore gently.' But no such easy way out exists.


It would have been so much easier, if Krishna came 'in some other song'. We do not know what Mrs Moore felt; perhaps she found comfort in the servants' appreciation of the song despite these sad undercurrents. As it happened, during her stay in India she did not meet anyone like Caitanya, for whom Krishna's refusal to come is a dilemma that affects his whole existence. Meeting Godbole, she came in touch with the culturally mollified surface of a phenomenon that once was an all-absorbing religious passion. Today another Mrs Smith, by simply switching on her radio, might to her great surprise hear the Shankar family sing - with heavy Indian accent but in the style of modern pop music - 'I am missing you, Krishna! Where are you?...' (or something similar). We have here vestiges of the same phenomenon, kitschified to appeal to the commercially strong Indian community in Britain.

However, let us turn to Caitanya:


The disciples of Caitanya who witnessed similar scenes almost every day during the last years of his life (he died in 1533), did not discard it as epilepsy nor did they regard it as the tragic collapse of their master's faculties. Kaviraj, the last biographer of Caitanya, states in a lapidary manner:


He tries to explain this contradictory nature by a simile:


One day Caitanya is sitting in a state of desolation, writing with his fingers in the sand and lamenting: 'Where are the banks of the Yamuna? Where is the Lord who infatuates even the god of Love himself ?' Kaviraj continues:


One is reminded by 'this series of strange physical acts and emotional symptoms of the equally baffling series of notes Godbole sang. We must, however, extend the range of our observation before we can try to speak of an underlying structure that might coordinate these mad bits and pieces. Let me quote from another author.


In these two stanzas of a song by Nammalvar, the poet imagines what happens when out there in the realm of poetic imagination a girl meets Krishna. She will be enraptured by his beauty, then haunted by it. Wherever she looks, she cannot see anything else, nowhere can she flee from it, and not even sleep is available to her as a means of escape. The impression is so strong that it transcends her understanding, paralyses her actions and goes beyond her emotional control. Her self seems to explode into Krishna - and yet that cannot happen, for Krishna is not there.

I think it is not difficult to see that this song is close to the spiritual world of Caitanya. This in itself should prevent us from too hastily discarding that mystic's behaviour as - simply - epileptic. However the affinity in spirit obscures the fact that the poet of the song lived about eight hundred years earlier and about two thousand kilometres away from Bengal, in southern India. Moreover, many further illustrations of the same religious phenomenon can be given for the whole intervening period. Thus Godbole, Caitanya and Nammalvar exemplify one component of the Hindu religious tradition.

You know what?

Even if Krishna comes you can never drink in that deep ocean!

Oh! But then sometimes there is a moment of complete and total fullness!

I really do understand all this. He can walk all over your heart with heavy boots, you will still look at Him and say "Govindam paramanandam!"

Then again He might be sweet sweet sweet for days, and you just feel like slapping His lovely face.

But I just want to say He's kind, He's the best, He loves, His heart is so beautiful! Hridayam madhuram... He is sooo sweet! Why? He just is! Ack!

I'm sorry if you find that offensive!

I haven't been in touch with Peter for a while. He would probably say, "Just slap the damn face, already. He needs to be brought into line. Actually, he is naughty because he wants some pretty girl to bring him into line."

He does like that, doesn't He?

*sigh*

GOVINDAM PARAMANANDAM GOVINDAM PARAMANANDAM GOVINDAM PARAMANANDAM!

For Vaishnavas, God is indivisible because he is not separate from his energies. Since when are we Brahmavadins? Ananda means differences because true joy exists in love, and love means two entities--inseparable but nevertheless distinct.

The Ananda of undivided unitarian consciousness is only the beginning of joy. That is why the Bhagavatam says,

AtmArAmAz ca munayo nirgranthA apy urukrame
kurvanty ahaitukIM bhaktiM itthambhUta-guNo hariH

"How glorious is Krishna, how wonderful his qualities! Even the sages who are situated in the joy of the self, who are completely free from all bonds, still engage in devotion to Him." (SB 1.7.10)

Therefore, the soul who is detached, empty or Brahman realized is really in only slightly better position than one obsessed by self-centeredness, or ego. The empty glass can be filled with milk or poison, but there is no guarantee which it shall be. That is why Vaishnavas say, kaivalyaM narakAyate.

========

No, that is Peter, Radha's unalloyed devotee.

I'm glad we have now resorted to courtesy. As I think I said before, the amritam of one, for another is deadly poison. Have we seen maliciousness where in fact there was none? I hope that is the case!

Anyway, God bless you all, dears...

Who here understands what the argument is about? Just wondering.

I'm pretty sure I do, but how about you all?

Yes, but entrance into rasa lila in what form? I think you would agree, Anand, that Raganuga/Rupanuga tradition is quite specific in its mood.

I should hope that it is not only Gurudeva (unless we mean the heavenly Guru of all Sri Krishna or His Radhika) that can allow the soul to enter the eternal leela. Otherwise, only those whose mood fits with the mood of the established Gaudiya raganuga/rupanuga tradition shall be allowed in.

I hope that you agree with this!

As to the importance of guru; if I shall find a guru whose destination and devotional goals are identical to those which I want to acheive, I would be happy to allow that person to "give... entrance in rasa-lila," but until then I simply don't believe that I'm going to get anywhere by boarding a bus that is not headed for my destination.

The wise have advised that the heart should be revealed only to those who are affectionate.



Who brought in your Guru into the talk? Did I? I was talking to you. But you felt it was necessary to bring Him in, in order to justify your stand.

Let me put it this way. I say, "The jiva and God are essentially one - 'jiva brahmanaiva na parah'. The form of God is actually the locus of the collective ignorance while the jiva is the locus of individual ignorance. The ontological status of this material world is indeterminate. At the highest level of realization, the soul realizes that it *IS* Brahman and then there remains only consciousness and nothing else. Though maya is a power of Bhagavan, still He is a product of this limiting adjunct, therefore the lilas of Bhagavan, though blissful are still within the jurisdiction of maya." My Guru who I consider as having universal (or probably great) appeal all around the globe has showered me with this "shastric nectar". I am conviced that this is the highest realization possible and I am also certain that anybody else who would want the highest realization would have to end up here. Well if you disagree with this, if you say that others may not agree that this would constitute the highest realization for *everybody* in this world, then you are planning to invade, and I warn you, leave my Guru alone.

Pagli! You're the greatest!

Satyabhama and Kishalaya,

We are officially the Rupanuga Gaudiya Discussions, so this should tell you what kind of steps we prefer when we dance.

If you are going to have any meaningful discussion, anywhere, you have to bring in Sri Guru. There is no such thing as having your own stand. Alone you don't stand. And yes, Sri Guru has universal appeal. To say otherwise is contradictory and ilogical, although Gaudiyas are not necessarily logicians.

Affection sometimes has a tough hand. Slaps you all over the lovely face...

Yes, but we are in the "Other Traditions" section.

Please find Sri Guru for me, or rather pray that Sri Guru finds me.

Till then I trust the mercy of my Lord.

I *know* which steps you prefer when you dance. But for me it's not about dancing, anymore. It's about running atop a spinning wheel and trying not to get crushed beneath it.

God bless you, you have found a Guru. I am happy for you.



"Do you think you can frighten me by telling me I am alone? France is alone, and God is alone. And what is my loneliness to the loneliness of my country and my God?"

~St. Joan of Arc (from GB Shaw's Saint Joan, I believe)

The rasa-lila is also here , so for any reader it probably means, "other thaditions than yours".

Many traditions worship Lord Krishna. Rasaleela is in bhagavatam, too. At any rate, my point still stands. As far as I can see, Gaudiyas are concerned primarily with manjari bhava, with a little bit of sakhyam here and there. And if your *natural* taste does not jive with that? Are you supposed to change your feelings (an impossibility)? Is that what you are suggesting?

Or does it make more sense to find a guru who will help you rather than try to mold your love into something it is not?

Ahem... At the highest stage, there is no separate bhakta and bhagavan, then?

Rupanuga Gaudiya tradition take on rasa-lila and bhagavatam differs somewhat from that of other traditions.

I am not suggesting anything in particular but come to think of it: Don't you think there is a larger possibility of one changing one's feelings than to attempt change the nature of God?

I ask the same of you!

And no, there is no question of the bhakta changing her feelings. No way. Uh-uh nothing doing.

It cannot be done. Those feelings are given by Krishna (or Radha-Krishna if you prefer).

Well, if they are given by Krsna they can be changed by Krsna too. That is another possibility.

My Krishna is the Krishna who faints in ecstasy on meeting His beloved friend in Brhad Bhagavatamritam.

My Krishna is the Krishna who said

patram pushpam phalam toyam yo me bhaktyaa prayachchati
tadahaM bhaktyupahritamashnaami prayataatmanaH

and

Manmanaa Bhava Madbhakto Mayaajee maam namaskuru;
Maamevaishyasi satyamte partijaane priyosi me.

and

Sarva dharmaan parityajya maamekam saranam vraja;
Aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa suchah

And my Krishna loves all of His devotees, and if He provokes a sentiment in them, it is because HE desires them to have those very feelings for Him.

That is my Krishna. I'm not changing the nature of God. He is there already. If you prefer a different Krishna, that is ok. But this is how I love to see Him.- No... MUST see Him.

Has any gopi fallen in love with that rogue Krishna, and then successfully and completely renounced Him?

Has any girl, having once become inebriated from the wine of His two deep, dark eyes, ever recovered from that?

I never heard anyone call Krishna the un-enchanter of hearts.

Ay, Ay, only Guruji can answer such questions...

Don't strain yourself too much trying to find the answer. It's fairly evident.

kaNNan ennum karum deyvam kAtcip pazhagik kiDappEnaip
puNNil puLi peydARpOlap puRa ninRu azhagu pESAdE
peNNin varuttam aRiyAda perumAn araiyil pIdaka
vaNNa ADai koNDu ennai vATTam taNiya vISIrE

YOU HAVE THE ANSWER THEN, you silly girl!

But I can't read it. Could someone translate, please?

Never heard of any of it happening. However, I have heard that Lakshmi Devi wishes to enter rasa-lila but can't. Is that correct?

Well, that rumour is there, but I would suggest a different interpretation for that verse.

One need only look at Krishna's shining vakshasthalam to see Sri is there even in rasaleela.

If Sri is in rasa-lila, She is there before expanding from Radha.

The quote I posted was not meant to answer my question. I do have a quote somewhere on my computer which does answer the question, however I am searching for it at present.

The quote which I posted means:

I am deeply involved with the dark-hued, divine Kannan (Krishna), and am used to visualizing the scenes of my prior association with Him. When you keep advising me that my behavior is not right and that I should direct my mind towards things other than Kannan, it is like pouring sour tamarind on a hurting wound. Even though Kannan is very hard-hearted and does not know what a woman goes through in pining for Him, please do bring the beautiful pItAmbaram that He has worn on His sacred waist and use it to blow some air over me. Even the contact with the air that has association with His pitAmbaram will remove my viraha tApam or the torture of separation from Him.

You can find it in the Nacchiyar Thirumoli quotes in my "verses of the alwars" postings.

What?

All of Krishna's shaktis come from within Himself. At any rate, Sridevi is permanently residing on His chest, and His chest derives great spendor from Her touch.

Anyway, all the other gopis are there too... they must have *expanded* and then come on their own, I suppose.

And one more question! Tell me, who was it who said...

krsna-rupamrta-sindhu, tahara taranga-bindu,
eka-bindu jagat dubaya
trijagate yata nari, tara citta-ucca-giri,
taha dubai age uthi' dhaya

No need to suppose if you have a guru to sort things out...

I told you I belong to this tradition:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/

Please read brahmasutra bhashya of the vedanta acharya of this tradition. He has made some wonderful interpretations of the sutras and, of course, you can find that the only justification he gives for such interpretation is that all this has come from his Guru.

Quite right. Any other interpretation of the highest truth, and I declare that it would be an attack on my Guru.

Actually Anand ji, you are so right about the "universal appeal" thingy. I have a friend X (name withheld for I fear he will be lynched) and has an illustrious Guru Y, in a "bonafide" tradition. It does not matter to us that we have a bit different leanings. Afterall, we both have Gurus. The rest of the world can go to hell. Anyway, since you have been "Guru-ed", I will let you into a nectar extracted out of shastra by his tradition that he has shared with me:

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml#4.2



You know what, a few years ago a guy who didn't yet have a Guru dared to challenge this. How wrong. He should have first taken a Guru. Because a Guru is to be taken, like governance. Some Guru is still better than no Guru like Democracy is the best of bad bargains. Of course this guy was a bit perturbed that all his "Guru-ed" friends did not utter a single word to contest the "nectar". But I guess he was just so much ignorant that Sri Gurudeva's universal appeal cannot be challenged by anyone, least of all by one who does not yet have the shelter of a Guru.

Hey, did you hear a slap somewhere? Oh, never mind, it was just an affectionate gesture by a Guru who used his universal appeal to set things straight. After all there is "No need to suppose if you have a guru to sort things out..."

Don't be disturbed by my argument Kishalaya ji, I am sure you have encoutred it before. It is based on the principle that one may not receive the fullness of God if disregarding His devotees. Even mayavadins will require a guru to do away with Ananda.

"disregarding His devotees" - very presumptuous indeed.

A famous story of guru-disciple conflict and what kind of difficulty it can bring to both...

http://www.hssworld.org/homepage/html/boud...a/ramanuja.html

Sri Ramanuja Acarya appeared around 1017 A.D in a pious brahmana family. He became the formost Acarya in the Sri Sampradaya and was reputed to be the incarnation of Laksmana, the younger brother of Lord Ramacandra.

He was a boy of extraordinary intelligence and placed himself under the charge of Yadavacarya, a renown Sankarite scholar. His guru was struck with his marvellous intellect and became very uncomfortable on account of his firm faith in Bhakti. One day while taking a massage, Yadavacarya was explaining to ramanuja a sutra "tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikamevamaksini" (Chandogya 1.6.7), saying that according to Sankara, the two eyes of Pundariksa are like two lotuses which are red like the nates of a monkey. On hearing this interpretation with the unbecoming and low simile, Ramanuja's soft heart, tender by nature and softened by devotion, melted and as he was massaging, tears rolled down from the corners of his eyes like flames of fire and fell on the thigh of Yadava. Looking up at the touch of the hot tears, Yadava understood that something troubled his disciple. Ramanuja explained his dismay at hearing such an unbecoming explaination from his guru. He thought it sinful to compare with the posterior of a monkey the eyes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead - who is endowed with all gracious qualities and who is the repository of all the beauty of the
universe. Yadava was angry at the boys audacity and told him to explain the verse if he could. Ramanuja ana lysed the word kapyasam to mean `blossomed by the sun' and the verse to mean "The eyes of that Golden Purusa are as lovely as lotuses blossomed by the rays of the sun."

After a few more such incidents when Ramanuja corrected his guru, Yadavacarya thought him to be a threat to the Sankarite line and plotted to kill him. Later it came to pass that Yadavacarya was to become the disciple of Ramanuja.

Yamunacarya the formost exponant of Vaisnava philosophy of the time, knowing of his extraordinary ability and purity, called for Ramanuja with the intent of placing him in charge of the mission after his disappearance. Ramanuja was on his way to see Yamu nacarya when he received the news of Yamunacarya's departure from the world. Arriving at Srirangam, Ramanuja went to have his last darshana of that great soul. There he noticed three of Yamunacaryas fingers were clenched. Ramanuja then made three vows:- he would make the people surrender to God and initiate them by the pancasamskara.- he would write a commentary on the Vedantasutra which was later called Sri Bhashya.- He would also write what is like an encyclopedia on the Puranas and would name one grea tly learned Vaisnava after Parasara Muni who wrote the gem among the Puranas, the Visnu Purana.

Later Ramanuja took sannyasa and travelled throughout India vigorously defeating atheists and impersonalists by preaching the Visistadvaita doctrine. He never failed to win over a rival in spiritual disputations...

Now you've got it! This is *exactly* my point! We are to take everything the guru says as truth. The guru "sorts things out" for us and sets us straight on the path to "rasalila" or wherever we are going.

So how can one submit to a guru who most certainly does not want to take us to our destination? If there were only Advaitist gurus, and there was no such tradition as Raganuga sadhana, yet having read the leela of Krishna in bhagavatam you had a burning desire to be the maidservant of His Beloved... what then?

If people encouraged you, "Well, take a guru! Such and such a guru can get you merged in brahman- don't you want that Ananda?"

What would you say to that? Probably, "Thanks, but no thanks. If my Radhika is not in it, there is no paramanandam for me. Sorry!"

I don't know who your "mayavadins" are but I don't know of any vedantists including Advaitins who seek to overcome ananda. Ananda is part and parcel of a person's experience of Brahman.

In fact ananda is the raison d'etre of the Being Knowing. Most of us are mostly Being Knowing pain. This is our temporal condition. When we are immersed in Being (Sat) Knowing (Chid) Bliss (Ananda) and it is boundless and eternal - this is called as Brahman. You see, the nature of the Braj Gopis is Brahman. Even in the depths of darkest separation they are knowing bliss.

I would have to agree with you on that.

This would be YAdavaprakAza, who was possibly a follower of ZaGkara, but more likely a follower of the bhedAbheda school of vedAnta. His Yatidharmasamuccaya, a vaiSNava treatise on renunciation, has been edited by Patrick Olivelle (see here).

Elpis, you are so good at finding all my inaccuracies! You're an awesome editor!

You're hired!

You are all going about it in a backwards way. Yes, ananda is there in Brahman but there is no question of sustained Brahman without ananda. So ananda comes first.

The taste you may have for a particular aspect of the Lord comes to you by grace of Guru and Krsna.

*Disregard* may sound too strong a word, but then consider *regard*. In relating to devotees of the Lord, regard means getting involved as servant, not just social involvement.

But now you are insulting Kishalaya's so-called "guru" hee hee



First? Before what?

Nobody here is willing to give up the form of the personal God. Neither are you, right?



I will refrain from commenting on this at the moment.

Pitty. That will be our loss.

Sorry, I'm just in too good of a mood!

Who wouldn't want to serve the wonderful devotees of the Lord? It is my purpose to serve those who do not seem to fit in anywhere, and who are feeling lost as I used to.

My question is, don't you agree that your Guru should ideally share your mood, or at the very least not be *hostile* to your mood?

Oh yes, I guess I should start getting involved as a servant to my friend X, under the tutelage of his Guru Y. They sure seem to have a lot of discerning capacity regarding what constitutes bogus deities. After all they are vaishnavas from a "bonafide" tradition. Of course another advantage I have is that their vidyapeetha is just half a mile away from both my residence and work. Sustained Brahman without "bogus" ananda - what nectar

Discerning is serving.

If you feel "served" by Guru Y's conclusion that Radha is a "bogus" deity, and do not, at the very least, feel like saying something to the contrary upon hearing such a conclusion, then congrats...

But I would recommend that you at least choose not to make Guru Y "your guru," or "surrender" to his lotus feet, etc. It might cause you some problems in the future, considering your affection for Radha.

There is a simultaneity in the characteristic experience of the nature of Krishna (which is called Brahman). Thus there is no question of higher or lower, backwards or forwards.

Is it possible to have ananda (bliss) without sat (existence or being)? It would be meaningless, surely? If there is Ananda, then it exists.

And what of existence (being) in bliss but without the knowing of it, without the consciousness (chit or chaitanya)? How absurd? - to be in bliss and not to know it!

And then, to be conscious (sat and chit) but without anand - how painful! Such is the mundane human condition.

It is not so that ananda sustains Brahman, just as our experience of the warmth of the sunlight does not sustain the sunshine. The continuum of ananda is sustained by bhava: the nature of God is experienced eternally by a Brahman realised person in relationship with the Person of God. Such a state of being does not denigrate or reject Brahman just as the worshipper of the Sun does not reject the warmth of the sunlight experienced by those who do not worship the Sun.

I would just like to say here, that no matter whether you prefer a kind Krishna or a cruel Krishna, you always have Radha with you.

How about if I write a nice story about a kinkari of Radha that upon gaining entrance to rasalila (by guru's grace of course) is informed by one of the head manjaris that Radha is not interested in accepting her service, and to be frank would be quite saddened by her fanning techniques as they are so poor, and it would only remind Her of Her favorite manjari anyway, and quite possibly make Her cry? Would that attract you to me or my hypothetical guru? Not likely.

Would you not also wonder why in the heck somebody would want to write a story like that? If there may have been some kind of agenda behind it?

Anyway, the heart, after plunging to the dark and murky depths, usually bobs back up to the surface. Usually.

You do not *have* to accept my point of view on Krishna. Likewise I do NOT *have* to accept yours or anyone else's, just like you don't have to accept Adi Shankaracharya's (even though his guru said it was correct) or Guru Y's (even though his guru said it was correct).

We have so much common ground! Let us stick to that, shall we? And let us also not make blanket statements. "Metaphors" about Krishna disappearing and women being unable to enter the leela should not be interpreted lightly.

Yes Talasiga, sat, cit, ananda are all simultaneous but ananda is slightly stronger opiniated.

If I remember correctly opinions and garlic are not had by Vaishnavas.

Come on Anand, admit that you have run out of ideas that now you don't mind cutting off your own nose to win a stupid argument. There is a specific word for this mode of nature.

I am sure, however, that you are not so dense as not to know where I am coming from, and you basically want to target that because somehow your Guru varga is (or may be you yourself are) not so comfortable with that idea. Somehow you tried to hijack the argument by using guilt tripping and other standard programming techniques about "non-service to devotees and its consequent fallout on Krishna's mercy." Of course the only justification you could provide was that "my Guru said so it is amritvani". I have known and suffered a lot from these for a good part of my life, and this may not please you, but now I don't buy into all this stuff. You further assume that those not agreeing to how you think it should be, have deliberately disregarded the devotees. You are sorely mistaken and and as far as I am concerned you have a lot of ground to cover.

For you it should be sufficient to know that I am willing to wait any number of lifetimes and an indefinite amount of time to get my Guru (in the manner in which it is thought traditionally), and I really don't mind being an animal in between or so if that is the price I have to pay for such a prized possession. But your universe, I am sad to say, looks to me like the Borg collective. The Guruborgs searching and systematically assimilating the rest of the world - "resistance is futile". Yuck!

For me a standby Guru has no meaning. Not for nothing shastra says - shabde pare ca nishnatam, gyaninah tattva darshinah, shrotriyam brahmanishtam. Sorry but the "best of bad bargains" is not for me, may be even a dangerous deal as you might have realized by now. If you have found your Guru who can give you brahmasiddhi, congratulations! but I am not going to swallow your version of brahma darshan eyes closed even if it comes from your Guru. And also I do not find it necessary that a Guru has to specically meet your standards and ritual to be called Guru. If you think that blocks the flow of mercy, please think all the way to your dreams that the likes of us are not getting Krishna's mercy, but it isn't changing anything with us. Krishna's mercy is shown by the devotee association He provides, and I have no scarcity of that.

A heroic manifesto, Kishalaya!

Only the Paranoid Survive! Ref

I am glad to hear that you have it. So then will you give?





You remember incorrectly, it appears.

dharma projjita-kaitavo'tra paramo nirmatsaranam satam

If you have had any experience with cooking with opinions, you will know that when you chop one it stings the eyes. Those who take them raw like them dressed with lemon or lime juice. Sourness and opinions go together.

Can someone translate this, please?

This is BhAgavatapurANa 1.1.2, first pAda. I am sure you will know the meaning now that you have the reference.

It's from Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.2 ... you can Google it or if you want to wait for awhile I can "Google it" for you.

ANY translation is ok?

Here are a couple translations of the first line of Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.2:

dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāḿ satāḿ

http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/contents.html

"In this book that completely rejects materially motivated religiosity, one will find the highest, understandable to the devotees pure of heart."

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/1/en

"Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhāgavata Purāṇa propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are fully pure in heart."

That's what I found when I Googled.
(Elpis seems to be the resident Sanskrit expert. Does the translation satisfy?)

Anand, just copy and paste the text in the google search engine. So simple! Or you can google yourself over to the library!

That is ok Satyabhama, thank you, I have a translator or choice.

Well I think the Gaudiya vaishnavas have every right to walk as they like on their home turf. One can just disagree as to why one would not want to walk like that (or there at all).

It's eight pages now...

Is there a certain particular idea running across in this thread around which the discussion revolves? If so, could someone summarize it for me please?

Absolutely nothing. And I am really tired playing all these games with no frag limit.

Shall we just close this one, then?

There used to be a time when I read every single post that appeared in Gaudiya Discussions.

I think the explosion is over now. Yeah, close it Madhava!

And here, our esteemed audience, we have a good candidate for moving to the "Retired Threads" section in a while.