Before Mahaprabhu -

QUOTE(dasanudas @ Oct 3 2005, 04:43 PM)

Prema was not known to anybody; forget about attaining that prior to Sriman Mahaprabu's advent ... it is only because of his causeless mercy he decided to distribute.

This has been an issue at the back of my mind for quite some time. We all know of the various verses out there that state the speciality of the prem that Mahaprabhu came to give. Perhaps someone might like to include them here for reference. Here is one:

cirAd adattaM nija-gupta-vittaM
sva-prema-nAmAmRtam aty-udaraH
A-pAmaraM 'yo vitatAra gauraH
kRSNo janebhyas tam ahaM prapadye

Not giving His own secret treasury of love of Himself
and the nectarean, greatly munificent, holy name for
a long time, that Gaura, Krsna Himself, distributed it
to the people and the lowest of men. Unto Him I surrender.
(CC 2.23.1)

What I'd like to explore is the familiar question of the state of jivas BM, Before Mahaprabhu. I say familiar because it is a long-standing criticism of Christianity that only souls born after the birth of Christ are eligible for his saving grace and subsequent salvation, whereas those born Before Christ are somehow "losers". I wonder if we Gaudiya Vaishnavas will face the same problem when we emphasise something that is indeed a unique feature of our theology and doctrine; the speciality of Mahaprabhu's prema. It also happens to be one of the main features that distinguishes us from other sampradayas.

What is the Gaudiya Vaishnava opinion, and the opinions of our respectable members here, about the fate of souls born Before Mahaprabhu?

It would be easy to simplify the concept and state that Krishna has always been there, so the "materials" have been around anyway. But even with Krishna we can see that a multiplicity of paths (and goals) have been set up since His advent 5000 years ago.

It would also be easy to take advantage of a concept that we have - reincarnation - and state that the unfortunate (!) souls who missed out will be born again and again in these times until they at least receive the opportunity to partake of Mahaprabhu's saving grace. Fair enough, but what about all of the saintly souls who have achieved perfection in their respective bhavas and are enjoying the relish thereof; what can we say of such souls who never had the opportunity to aspire for and relish the prema of Mahaprabhu?

Before Mahaprabhu, there was nothing; After Mahaprabhu, there is everything. Would it be honest to say this?

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Oct 3 2005, 12:23 PM)

it is a long-standing criticism of Christianity that only souls born after the birth of Christ are eligible for his saving grace and subsequent salvation, whereas those born Before Christ are somehow "losers"

This is indeed an interesting topic. However, I should caution you that it is based upon a faulty premise. There are plenty of strands of Christian philosophy -- ranging from Roman Catholicism with more than a billion adherents, to a variety of smaller sects with their own slants on the question -- that have come up with scenarios in which those born before Christ are nevertheless exposed to his saving grace. So, while this topic is certainly interesting to ponder from the perspective of a follower of Mahaprabhu, I suggest that you not present it this way to a committed Christian, as you may come across as foolish or uninformed.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what exactly the question is. Was there manjari-bhava worship available prior to Mahaprabhu in the way we know it? No, there wasn't -- this was said to be Mahaprabhu's unprecedented gift. Had it never been available before? Yes, in the previous kalpa after the descent of Mahaprabhu.

What is the fate of the souls born before Mahaprabhu? Well, unlike in the Christian tradition where there is but one saving grace, the Hindu landscape hosts a number of Vaishnava-traditions we regard as worthy paths of worship and attainment of God. They may have taken shelter of any of those paths, they may continue to do so hereafter as well, and indeed that is what we see happening.

Excluding a certain conclusion I'm coming to momentarily, in principle the souls who preceded Mahaprabhu and who didn't commit themselves to any given path may have taken birth time and again, coming across Mahaprabhu's tradition in due course of time.

And now, the conclusion...

While we often hear how Mahaprabhu liberated the entire universe, rarely do we pause to consider how literally it is intended. Read the following dialogue between Haridas and Mahaprabhu (CC 3.3.74ff):

vAsudeva jIva lAgi kaila nivedana |
tabe aGgIkAra kailA jIvera mocana ||
jagat nistArite ei tomAra avatAra |
bhakta-bhAva Age tAte kailA aGgIkAra ||
ucca saGkIrtana tAte karilA pracAra |
sthira-cara jIvera saba khaNDAilA saMsAra ||

[Haridas said]
"Vasudev Datta submitted his plead for the deliverance of the jivas,
And at that time you adopted the task of liberating the jivas.
"Having accepted the mood of a devotee,
You have descended to deliver the universe.
"Thus you have popularized loud sankirtan,
Terminating the samsara of the jivas, both moving and immobile."

prabhu kahe, “saba jIva mukti yabe pAbe |
ei ta brahmANDa tabe jIva-zUnya habe!” ||
haridAsa bale, “tomAra yAvat martye sthiti |
tAvat sthAvara-jaGgama, sarva jIva-jAti ||
saba mukta kari tumi vaikuNThe pAThAibA |
sUkSma-jIve punaH karme udbuddha karibA ||
sei jIva habe ihAG sthAvara-jaGgama |
tAhAte bharibe brahmANDa yena pUrva-sama ||

Prabhu said, "If all jivas were to attain mukti,
Then the universe would be without jivas!"
Haridas said, "As long as you are in this mortal world,
So long the jivas from all walks of life, moving and immobile
will all be liberated by you, and sent to Vaikuntha,
and then you'll again awaken sukshma-jivas to their karmas.
"These jivas will then be the moving and immobile beings of the world,
And the universe will be filled just as it was before."

pUrve yena raghunAtha saba ayodhyA laJA |
vaikuNThake gelA, anya-jIve ayodhyA bharAJA ||
pUrve yena vraje kRSNa kari avatAra |
sakala brahmANDa-jIvera khaNDAilA saMsAra ||
na caivaM vismayaH kAryo bhavatA bhagavaty aje |
yogezvarezvare kRSNe yata etad vimucyate ||
taiche tumi navadvIpe kari avatAra |
sakala-brahmANDa-jIvera karilA nistAra ||

"Previously, at the time of Raghunath [Ramachandra], he took all of Ayodhya
and went to Vaikuntha, filling Ayodhya with other jivas.
"Previously, when Krishna descended into Vraja,
He delivered all the jivas of the universe from samsara."
"It isn't very astonishing for you, the unborn Bhagavan, Krishna,
the master of all masters of yoga, that you liberated all living entities." [BhP 10.29.16]
"Similarly you, descending into Navadvip,
Delivered all the jivas of the universe."

Aho!

Thank you very much for your suggestion, Vamsidasji. That is why I placed the word 'losers' within speech marks as I didn't know how to employ a more diplomatic angle on what I was trying to say. I'd be interested in hearing some of the reasonings for those "Before Christ" scenarios, but that seems to be another story.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Oct 3 2005, 09:08 PM)

Had it never been available before? Yes, in the previous kalpa after the descent of Mahaprabhu.

I noticed how the BBT edition of CC translates the above-mentioned verse as "never given to the people at any time before," even though the word-for-word definition of cirAt is stated to mean "for a long time".

QUOTE

What is the fate of the souls born before Mahaprabhu? Well, unlike in the Christian tradition where there is but one saving grace, the Hindu landscape hosts a number of Vaishnava-traditions we regard as worthy paths of worship and attainment of God. They may have taken shelter of any of those paths, they may continue to do so hereafter as well, and indeed that is what we see happening.

Yes exactly, and this is what I was getting at. (As far as this kalpa is concerned,) Mahaprabhu's brand of prema has not been on offer until His merciful advent. Consequently, because it was never on offer before, souls never had the opportunity to aspire for it and relish it. I understand that, at least within our Gaudiya tradition, we regard our manjari-bhava as the topmost of all, the cream of the cream, and so on. It seems a little unfair that no one else was able to partake of it too. This is what I'm agonising about; while every soul has the freedom to aspire for whichever goal they want, it seems unfair that this "creamy" Gaudiya brand was not on offer until 1486.

How would we explain this to prospective applicants without falling into the same trap as some types of Christians?

QUOTE

And now, the conclusion...

Thanks very much for posting that!

This dialogue is also the subject of other questions that I have, but for now I'll apply it within this framework. I remember Srimat Kanupriya Gosvami discussing this dialogue between Mahaprabhu and Haridas in his own work 'The Dawn of the Age of Love' in order to explain just how Mahaprabhu saved the entire world just like you have done, but I don't remember if he discussed the fate of souls BM. I'll have to read it again and familiarise myself with his line of thought.
In the meantime, it seems that this passage deals with what occurs in regards to automatic mukti for all jivas who happen to be in the universe at the same time as Krishna or Mahaprabhu. I'm having trouble seeing how this explains the fate of souls BM? Nonetheless, it is very exciting to read and contemplate.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Oct 3 2005, 05:23 PM)

What is the Gaudiya Vaishnava opinion, and the opinions of our respectable members here, about the fate of souls born Before Mahaprabhu?

In other words, have any of our acharyas dealt with this issue in any of their works? Even to mention something about it in ecstatic glorification and not necessarily a point of doctrine?

QUOTE

The word cirAt literally means "since a long time".

QUOTE

Yes exactly, and this is what I was getting at. (As far as this kalpa is concerned,) Mahaprabhu's brand of prema has not been on offer until His merciful advent. Consequently, because it was never on offer before, souls never had the opportunity to aspire for it and relish it. I understand that, at least within our Gaudiya tradition, we regard our manjari-bhava as the topmost of all, the cream of the cream, and so on. It seems a little unfair that no one else was able to partake of it too.

Well, all things just can't be available at all times. I don't think that's particularly unfair. There are a whole lot of other things someone else considered best that aren't currently available. It isn't that those who don't come in touch with manjari-bhava are somehow left unfulfilled in their relationship with Bhagavan. A garden needs flowers of all shapes and varieties.

The next grand blockbuster movie, coming to movie theathers in January. But why not now -- how unfair!

And there wasn't even a very concrete announcement of Mahaprabhu's descent available prior to his birth. Bhaktivinod did describe some trailers being handed out in his Navadvipa-mahatmyam, but that was a limited preview, not for the wide public. People, then, didn't know what they were possibly missing and therefore weren't morose over it.

But alas I have far too much work to tend to, I'll have to forcibly withdraw from the discussions now.

While we can wait for Madhava to continue when he gets back, I'd like to invite everyone else to share their views on this topic.

I thought a bit further about this issue. Just for the sake of argument I would like to keep things simplified; if it is orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine that only souls born after the advent of Jesus are eligible for his saving grace, it follows that souls born before are not eligible and this is one of the troubles they face in some of the most oft-quoted criticism of it that I have heard. According to Vamsidas' earlier point, it seems that some sects have interpreted their text so as to work out a way where souls before Jesus can be saved too. How they wangled that interpretation out is something I'll never know.

I got thinking about what if the same thing were to happen to Gaudiya Vaishnavism? It has been established so far that only souls born after Mahaprabhu's advent are eligible for His saving grace. This is logical. What if someone were to screw out an interpretation from our texts that allowed souls before Mahaprabhu to also be eligible for His grace? Wouldn't that constitute a marked deviation and an apa-sampradaya in itself?

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Oct 6 2005, 09:53 PM)

if it is orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine that only souls born after the advent of Jesus are eligible for his saving grace, it follows that souls born before are not eligible and this is one of the troubles they face in some of the most oft-quoted criticism of it that I have heard.

There's the fallacy. Your assumption is not "orthodox Roman Catholic doctrine." The Roman Catholic dogma (a point also shared by many of the groups that have broken away from Roman Catholicism) is that "outside the Church there is no salvation." However, they extend the reach of "the Church" farther than you seem to realize.

The common Roman Catholic teaching is that after Jesus died, he descended into the limbus patrum (the "limbo of the fathers"), and made salvation available to the righteous dead who had preceded him on Earth. Note Ephesians 4:9 and 1 Peter 3:18-20 on this point. For more detailed documentation, see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

The more interesting question seems to be, "What happens to those born after Jesus, but who never heard his message?" Are they given the same "deal" as those born before him, or is it the obligation of the Church to reach them with his message, lest they be lost forever? Since orthodox Christians nowadays don't accept reincarnation, they are stuck with the conclusion that if Jesus doesn't save all those who "would have" accepted his message if they heard it, this means that God does not give everyone an "equal chance" at salvation, but rather "stacks the deck against" those souls who were born after Jesus, but who don't hear his message.

Regarding Gaudiya Vaishnavism, I am not sure I understand your question or objection; you almost seem to be imposing a misconception about Christian doctrine onto the doctrine of Mahaprabhu.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism already contains the understanding that your final birth, before entering Krishna's eternal pastimes, will occur in a universe where Krishna's pastimes are occurring, so that you can receive your final training before entering the eternal lila. From your perspective today, that would be like taking a birth "thousands of years ago" or "millions of years in the future." So "chronology" is no obstacle to receiving Krishna's mercy. You don't have to wait for millions of years to enter into Krishna's pastimes; you enter into the appropriate universe when you are ready.

As a result, an interesting question might be: can you take other "non-chronological" births, either in this universe or in others? I know of one IGM teacher who suggests that if a devotee advances in this lifetime without becoming completely purified, he will be reborn "backwards in time" -- closer to Mahaprabhu and his associates. I do not know whether this is a common teaching, but it would certainly be one way to answer your question.

Does this help? Am I making sense of your question?

QUOTE(vamsidas @ Oct 7 2005, 11:59 AM)

The common Roman Catholic teaching is that after Jesus died, he descended into the limbus patrum (the "limbo of the fathers"), and made salvation available to the righteous dead who had preceded him on Earth. Note Ephesians 4:9 and 1 Peter 3:18-20 on this point. For more detailed documentation, see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

This is really quite interesting, thanks very much for those links. I must admit to knowing next-to-nothing of Catholic doctrine, as I only attended a Protestant church in my home town to worship there for about three years. While in the association of the Christians there, I was constantly told that salvation would be immediately available to me and all I had to do was accept Christ as my saviour. Hmm, now that I'm checking out their website, it seems that they define themselves as evangelical Anglicans. In any case I just checked out the Catholic position on salvation and it seems to be more or less the same things I heard at church, the main points being that to be eligible for salvation you need to be "born again" and accept Christ as saviour. As well as the ancillary issues arising thereof, I guess that this more or less implies that salvation of Christ is available after his presence in the world.

QUOTE

Regarding Gaudiya Vaishnavism, I am not sure I understand your question or objection; you almost seem to be imposing a misconception about Christian doctrine onto the doctrine of Mahaprabhu ... Does this help? Am I making sense of your question?

It is certainly very helpful, but the main point that I am trying to understand is whether Mahaprabhu's grace/salvation/prema is available for all those who took birth before His appearance. Reincarnation caters for the jivas who are reborn endlessly and such jivas may get an opportunity to come into contact with Mahaprabhu's ovment now. Those who became siddha-saints in other traditions never had Mahaprabhu's option as a choice until 1486, so this is what I'm feeling a little despondent over.

Now that you've kindly pointed out my misconception with official Catholic doctrine and that salvation is available for those who were born before the advent of Jesus, it now appears that Gaudiya Vaishnavism holds no comparison (?) regarding the idea of pre-descent salvation? For example, I mentioned earlier the work of Srimat Kanupriya Gosvami wherein he mentions these things. Here are a couple of select passages that illustrate what I am getting at:

The good fortune is available to anyone born in this age starting from the full moon day in 1486 when Mahaprabhu appeared until the end of the age, the reason being that the Supreme Lord is the institutor of the religious process for the age or yuga dharma.

and

Due to the direct appearance of the omnipotent Supreme Person in this world, even after His disappearance, such an indescribably great good fortune has manifested for the living beings that could not possibly happen in any other yuga in this kalpa. Just as the coming of the rainy season immediately cools the scorched and dusty wind and sky, similarly the coming of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu immediately set the working of an inconceivably great energy into motion, which even after His disappearance will continue to dissipate the dust of the amount of the tamoguna (ignorance) and the scorching heat of the rajoguna (the quality of passion) and then, by raining the refreshing waters of prema will keep the entire world cool and fresh for the remainder of the Kali yuga.

Whereas the writings of Sri Kanupriya Gosvami are not on a par with shastra, he makes many arguments within that essay that are all shastrically correct. They are his personal realisations, and the whole theme of his presentation (how the fruits of Mahaprabhu's appearance will develop) is a great read!

QUOTE(Madhava @ Oct 3 2005, 08:08 PM)

Manjari-bhava was the bhava of Rupa Goswami - and was developed by him as a GV position

Kamarupa-bhava -more exactly- Radhika-bhava, was the bhava Caitanya.

Caitany did not engage in manjari bhava

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 9 2005, 02:37 AM)

Caitany did not engage in manjari bhava

No he did not!

Caitanya's bhava was of Radhika bhava and not of a manjari bhava of Radhika

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 9 2005, 05:00 AM)

No he did not!

Caitanya's bhava was of Radhika bhava and not of a manjari bhava of Radhika

Unfortunately, He did. Nobody is saying that He didn't experience Radha-bhava, but that He experienced manjari-bhava after that. You need to read CC 3 a little more, specifically from Chapter 14 onwards.

And anyway, isn't this a tad off-topic?

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Dec 9 2005, 06:43 PM)

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 9 2005, 05:00 AM)

No he did not!
Caitanya's bhava was of Radhika bhava and not of a manjari bhava of Radhika

Ok Gaurasundar Ji...as you well know, we all must provide the appropriate quotes...

I think you are trying to withhold some amrita...are you referring to sakhi-gaNa kahe more phula uThAite? That comes from one of my favorite chapters of CC.

QUOTE(Sakhicharan @ Dec 10 2005, 12:59 AM)

Ok Gaurasundar Ji...as you well know, we all must provide the appropriate quotes...

I think you are trying to withhold some amrita...are you referring to sakhi-gaNa kahe more phula uThAite? That comes from one of my favorite chapters of CC.

Right!

I don't know that verse so I'll have to find it, but in the meantime here's a section of CC 3.14 that points to this concept. The subject of Mahaprabhu's tasting of mañjari-bhava is not discussed very much!

eka-dina mahAprabhu kariyAchena zayana
kRSNa rAsa-lIlA kare - dekhilA svapana

One day, as Mahaprabhu was sleeping,
He dreamt of Krishna engaging in the rasa-lila.

tribhaGga-sundara-deha, muralI-vadana
pItAmbara, vana-mAlA, madana mohana

Krishna's beautiful form was curved in three places as He held a flute to His mouth. He wore yellow
garments and was adorned with a garland of forest flowers, enchanting even the mind of Madana!

maNDalI-bandhe gopI-gaNa karena nartana
madhye rAdhA-saha nAce vrajendra-nandana

In a circle the gopis danced, while the son of
the King of Vraja danced with Radha in the middle.

dekhi' prabhu sei rase AviSTa hailA
'vRndAvane kRSNa pAinu' - ei jñAna kailA

Seeing this, Prabhu was overcome with that rasa, and
He contemplated, 'I have gotten Krishna in Vrndavana!'

While we're on the subject, here's another one!

I also found Sakhiji's verse!

'vaiSNava' dehiyA prabhura ardha-bAhya haila
svarUpa-gosAñire kichu kahita lAgila

Observing the Vaishnavas, Prabhu, with partial
awareness, spoke to Svarupa [Damodara] Gosvami.

govardhana haite more ke ihAG Anila?
pAñA kRSNera lIlA dekhite nA pAila

Said He: "Who has brought Me here from Govardhana?
I was watching Krishna's lila, but now I cannot see them!

ihAG haite Aji mui genu govardhane
dekhoñ - yadi kRSNa karena godhana-cAraNe

"Today I went from here to Govardhana, just
to see if Krishna was there and tending His cows.

govardhane caDi' kRSNa bAjAilA veNu
govardhanera caudika care saba dhenu

"[I saw] Krishna climbing up Govardhana and
playing His flute,surrounded on all sides by grazing cows.

veNu-nAda zuni' AilA rAdhA-ThAkurANI
saba sakhI-gaNa-saGge kariyA sAjani

"Hearing the sound of His flute, Radha Thakurani came
there with all Her sakhis, who were beautifully adorned.

rAdhA lañA kRSNa pravezilA kandarAte
sakhI-gaNa kahe more phula uThAite

"Taking Radha with Him, Krishna entered into a cave while
the company of sakhis asked Me to pick some flowers.

hena-kAle-tumi-saba kolAhala kailA
tAhAG haite dhari' more laña AilA

"And then all of you made a great noise,
which has carried Me from there to this place!

kene vA AnilA more vRthA duHkha dite
pAñA kRSNera lIlA, nA pAinu dekhite

"Why have you all unnecessarily brought Me here, making Me
miserable? I was seeing Krishna's lilas, and now I cannot see them!"

eta bali' mahAprabhu karena krandana
tAGra dazA dekhi' vaiSNava karena rodana

Having spoken thus, Mahaprabhu wept loudly. Seeing this, the Vaishnavas also wept.

Gaurasundara,

picking flowers for the gopis does not change his innate bhava

It says nothing here about him as being in manjari-bhava

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Dec 10 2005, 12:43 AM)

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 9 2005, 05:00 AM)

No he did not!

Caitanya's bhava was of Radhika bhava and not of a manjari bhava of Radhika

Mäïjari-bhäva falls under the heading of sambandharüpa (relational)
Caitanya engaged in kämarüpa-bhava (amorous desire)

kämarüpa and sambandharüpa are distinct
The manjaris serve as sympathisers of Radha and do not have armouries desire for Krsna They have no conjugal interest in Krsna as their lover

They are younger than those of kämarüpa-bhava

suryaz ji, I was just about to thank Gaurasundar for presenting such relishable verses and your reaction is quite the opposite. He simply presented the words of Kaviraj Gosvami. I don't understand what upset you.

QUOTE(Sakhicharan @ Dec 11 2005, 03:36 AM)

No

I am not upset. MY computer is getting old or its a bit slow something - hence the many posts.

I just want to elucidate the view that manjari bhava in GV was promoted by Rupa in BRS. Rupa’s bhava was of manjari and he is accredited for the promotion of that bhakti-typology-

Caitanya was not.

He was in the mood of Radha. Radha was not her manjari.

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 10 2005, 08:54 PM)

Madhva I do not know how this happened

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 10 2005, 08:57 PM)

or this

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 10 2005, 08:58 PM)

or this

All these posts were different and surely not due to connectivity issues. I read them all. You said this was rasabhasa, and made other comments that were incorrect. Gaurasundar has provided us all with some very sweet verses to consider.What is the issue?

Gaurasundar, I hope you provide more verses like these.

QUOTE(Sakhicharan @ Dec 11 2005, 04:06 AM)

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 10 2005, 08:54 PM)

Madhva I do not know how this happened

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 10 2005, 08:57 PM)

or this

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 10 2005, 08:58 PM)

or this

Yes I did change them -

But I understood I was re-editing the same post - and then my computer collapsed. And when I rebooted - there they were.

The final piece is what I wanted to end up with

Then I used an empty post [just to fill it in] to answer Gaurasundara's last post

Sorry about the confusion…

hummmmmmmmm - I do not believe it is incorrect to say, it is rasabhasa to identify Caitanya as a manjari.

The other comment you identified was simply a re-edit of the rasabhasa one. It said noting more.

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 11 2005, 02:58 AM)

Gaurasundara, picking flowers for the gopis does not change his innate bhava
It says nothing here about him as being in manjari-bhava

Well unfortunately, Suryaz, I suspect that you'll have a hard time trying to refute the words of Sri Kavirajapada. Besides the examples already posted, there are several others.

Funnily enough, engaging in certain activities under the orders of seniors (sakhis) is exactly what mañjari-sadhana is all about. There is no other explanation for why Mahaprabhu views Radha as a separate figure in His meditations, when, according to you, He IS Radha and should then by rights see/experience Himself (Herself) having relations with Krishna.

Sakhiji, sure I'll post them as soon as I find them.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Dec 11 2005, 04:49 AM)

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 11 2005, 02:58 AM)

Gaurasundara, picking flowers for the gopis does not change his innate bhava
It says nothing here about him as being in manjari-bhava

Well unfortunaely, Suryaz, I suspect that you'll have a hard time trying to refute the words of Sri Kavirajapada. Besides the examples already posted, there are several other. There is no other explanation for why Mahaprabhu views Radha as a separate figure in His meditations, when, according to you, He IS Radha and should then by rights see/experience Himself (Herself) having relations with Krishna.

Sakhiji, sure I'll post them as soon as I find them.

Humm - I saw myself in a dream and it did not change my bhava about myself or about the people I know.

Well come on were does kdk say Caitanya's bhava is of a manjari of Radhai?

It is simple - in kdk, Caitany is identified in three ways as Krsna, as Radha and as Radha-Krsna combined.

In each case Caitanya is of kamarupa-bhava and not of sambandarupa

Manjaris are of sambandarups-bhava

suryaz ji, I know you are well-meaning with your presentations, however you have misunderstood the discussions taking place. Please take some time to review and see if things fall into the correct perspective...if not, ask questions...

It seems you both have a point, I wonder where the contradiction is. Svarupa Damodara says that Mahaprabhu is Krishna who comes to find out about Radha's feelings for Him, and that is of course not the definition of manjari bhava. In this way Suryaz is right. However, Sakhi is right by pointing out the subordinate role Mahaprabhu takes while picking flowers or observing the jala keli. That does resemble manjari bhava, though it contradicts His mission and is also not mentioned as manjari bhava as such.

Did'nt Sri Krsna as Gauranga purpose to taste many varieties of bhavas, sometimes even assuming the identity of Hanumanji, as depicted in CC in celebration of Dusera?

QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Dec 11 2005, 03:07 AM)

It seems you both have a point, I wonder where the contradiction is.

suryaz has reworded her post(s) so many times that this discussion is now a bit harder to follow.

QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Dec 11 2005, 03:07 AM)

That does resemble manjari bhava, though it contradicts His mission and is also not mentioned as manjari bhava as such.

Dear Advaitadas Ji, I don't see how it would contradict His mission. The mUla kAraNa for Mahaprabhu's appearance:

prema rasa niryAsa karite AsvAdana
rAga mArga bhakti loke karite pracAraNa |
rasika zekhara kRSNa parama karuNa
ei dui hetu haite icchAra udgama || CC 1.4.16

To taste the essence of prema-rasa and inaugurate the preaching of rAga mArga bhakti. Because Krishna is rasika zekhara and parama-karuNa, He came as Gauranga to fulfil these two desires.

If He is rasika-zekhara then it would be hard for me to understand Him not experiencing the relish of manjari bhava. It seems quite sensible that He would want to taste that as well.

Not to mention offering it to us also!

Jaya Gauranga!

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 11 2005, 04:59 AM)

It is simple - in kdk, Caitany is identified in three ways as Krsna, as Radha and as Radha-Krsna combined.

This merits further discussion. While Mahaprabhu may be identified in three different ways according to His mood, there is no escaping the truth about his actual position, namely Krishna with the lustre, complexion and bhava of Radharani. See 'The Essential Nature of Sri Caitanyadeva' for more details.

QUOTE(Sakhicharan @ Dec 11 2005, 06:54 PM)

QUOTE(Advaitadas @ Dec 11 2005, 03:07 AM)

That does resemble manjari bhava, though it contradicts His mission and is also not mentioned as manjari bhava as such.

Dear Advaitadas Ji, I don't see how it would contradict His mission. The mUla kAraNa for Mahaprabhu's appearance:

prema rasa niryAsa karite AsvAdana
rAga mArga bhakti loke karite pracAraNa |
rasika zekhara kRSNa parama karuNa
ei dui hetu haite icchAra udgama || CC 1.4.16

To taste the essence of prema-rasa and inaugurate the preaching of rAga mArga bhakti. Because Krishna is rasika zekhara and parama-karuNa, He came as Gauranga to fulfil these two desires.

If He is rasika-zekhara then it would be hard for me to understand Him not experiencing the relish of manjari bhava. It seems quite sensible that He would want to taste that as well.

It is very very simple. Svarupa Damodar has spelled it out in the very first verses of Caitanya Caritamrita, the ultimate book about Mahaprabhu:

sri radhayah pranaya mahima kidrso vanayaivasvadyo yenadbhuta madhurima kidrso va madiya. saukhyam casya mad anubhavatah kidrsam veti lobhat tad bhavadhyah samajani saci garbha sindhau harinduh

"How glorious is Radha's love for Me? How is the sweetness of Mine that She alone relishes? And what type of happiness She derives from that? Having these three types of greed arising in His heart, Lord Hari rose like the moon from the ocean of mother Saci's womb."

That's not manjari bhava, or bhavollasa, is it? Granted, Madanmohan made a point that Mahaprabhu even relishes Shiva Bhava and Narasingha bhava, but the main cause for His descent is given above in this seminal verse of Caitanya Caritamrita.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Dec 12 2005, 02:06 AM)

QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 11 2005, 04:59 AM)

It is simple - in kdk, Caitany is identified in three ways as Krsna, as Radha and as Radha-Krsna combined.

Yes Caitanya's bhava is Radhika bhava

I also agree with Advaita - his post is right

In addition to the above, yesterday another devotee sent the following to me

“Just like Madhurya rasa (Radhika bhava of Chaitanya) includes other Rasas like dasya and sakhya Rasa (as in Manjari bhava) but unfortunately 'manjaris' have' no adhikara' for 'Radha's or Gopi sakhi's 'kameccha' Divine feelings of Conjugal mood. That is why they belong to a different class and do not participate in Maha-Rasa of Radha Krishna.

Saints of higher class occasionally come down to lower mellows just to teach that class of sadhakas or even to enjoy similar experience for a variety of Rasa exchanges and mood-swings as sanchari bhava some times.

$ 100 bill contains $ 20, $10, $5 as well as $1 but not vice versa.”

I agree with the above mostly.

What I do not agree with is that the essential bhava changes when activities resembling a different bhave are expressed. To promote such is to promte rasabhasa. Why is it rasabhasa? It is rasabhasa because in the bhakti archetype of raga-marga, one’s bhava (one’s innate emotions) is the springboard of ones love, devotion.

With regard to the view that Caitanya engaged in diverse bhakti typologies. Yes that may be so. We have all, at one time or anotehr, in our life, acted in a play but that does not mean we changed our innate emotional feeling for our beloved, (whether on stage or off stage), even when that acting constitutes the acting out of different emotions. Our real bhava, our real emotion does not change.