The rasa of Prahlad Maharaja -

---

Prahlada is cited as an example of santa-rasa, the bhava of neutrality, in Sanatana Goswami's Brhat-bhagavatamrta. The dust of Vrndavana is sometimes considered to be in santa-rasa as well. Thus we can conclude that Haridasa Thakura was also in santa-rasa. This however does not say everything about his spiritual position. Examples of Brahma, Praladha, Haridasa, and so on are there to teach us about a particular bhava, but this does not mean that they themselves have no access to anything higher than that which they exemplify in the literature.

---

Dear Advaita Das-ji,
Thanks!

I found the above explanation in here:

I always heard that Prahlada Maharaja was an exemple of Santa-rasa. So, dispite of his personal preaching of the glories of the Supreme Lord, he is still considered to be in the Santa-rasa- bhava…. ? Did he not developed any attraction to the Lord’s Supreme features ?

But the Lord Physically appeared to him. So, what is the exactly meaning of Santa-Rasa?

Ys,

Prahlada Carita is mentioned in Brihad Bhagavatamrita, canto 1, chapter 4. I cannot find any mentioning there of Prahlada being in Shanta rasa, rather it says that he showed all kinds of ecstatic symptoms and, as you said, had a dear personal relationship with the Personality of Godhead. I know of no instance in the Gosvamis books where any item of Vraja, not even its dust, is proclaimed to be in Shanta rasa. Vrindavan is the abode of ecstasy, not of peace. Mahaprabhu proclaimed in C.C. : cari bhava diye nacaimu tribhuvana - 'I will make the three worlds dance in 4 moods'. That is, of course, dasya, vatsalya, sakhya and madhura, excluding shanta rasa. Haridas Thakura is, according to my limited understanding, in dasya rasa. No one in Krishna or Gaur lila is in shanta rasa. How can it be, if Mahaprabhu Himself proclaimed that shanta rasa is excluded? Apart from this, attraction to Sankalpa Kalpadruma, which describes the highest participation in madhura rasa, can of course never be seen as shanta rasa.

Regarding to your positive view about that, I may quote this verse as a corroboration:

As Srila Narottama dasa Thakur sings in his prayer, Sri Radha-nistha:

tara bhakta sange sada, rasa-lila prema katha,
je kore se paya ghanasyama
ihate bimukha jei, tara kabhu siddhi nai,
nahi jena suni tara nama

"A person who stays in the company of the devotees who are always discussing the sweet, nectarean pastimes of the rasa dance (rasa-lila prema katha) is sure to attain Ghanasyama, who is dark like a monsoon raincloud. A person averse to hearing these lilas will never attain perfection. I refuse to hear his name."

---

Dear Advaita Das-ji,

Radhe !

I do agree what you said but I became a little confused; I found this quotes from Srila Sridhar Maharaja, (you can read the whole article here:) where I actually first read anything regarding to Prahlada Maharaja as an example of Santa-Rasa and I do believe that was the same source of T.S.’s conclusions too:
Lord Siva said, "If you really want to experience suddha-bhakti, go to Prahlada Maharaja. There you will find pure devotional service." In this way, we have been directed to trace the development of suddha-bhakti, pure devotional service, beginning with Prahlada Maharaja, because Prahlada does not want anything in exchange for his devotional service.
In Srimad-Bhagavatam (7.10.4.) he says:

nanyatha te 'khila-guro
ghateta karunatmanah
yas ta asisa asaste
na sa bhrtyah sa vai vanik
"Whoever is doing something for the satisfaction of Narayana and wants something in return, is not a servant, but a merchant. He wants to give something to the Lord and then take some price in exchange for that." So, Prahlada Maharaja is a pure devotee, and only through a pure devotee of Narayana can one attain pure devotion.

Neutral Love of God
All these peculiar achievements in the devotional world begin with Prahlada Maharaja. The nature of his devotional service is that of santa rasa, neutrality, where there is no actual service, but only perfect adherence to Narayana under all circumstances. Whatever may be the unfavorable condition in the environment, he stands true to the faith that Narayana is all in all, and that He is our master. So, Prahlada Maharaja, and the four Kumaras, the sons of Lord Brahma, are in the position of santa rasa bhakti, or neutral love of God.

Prahlada Maharaja is Narada Muni's disciple. Still, for our benefit, Narada Muni was approaching him to measure the standard of his devotion in a comparative study of the devotional world. Approaching Prahlada Maharaja, Narada said, "I have come to see you, Prahlada, because Lord Siva also appreciates your position. You are really a devotee of Lord Krsna. You are so fortunate! I have come to see how you are."

Prahlada Maharaja told him, "Gurudeva, you are all in all. Have you come to test me? Whatever fortune I may have, I have received by your grace. I was born in a family of demons, so the demonic qualities have not exclusively left me. Don't you know that in Naimisaranya, I went to fight with Lord Visnu? I repent for that, but what can I do? He has given me such a position. I cannot have the privilege of direct service to Him, but only mentally I think of Him. I think that He is everything, but I do not have the great fortune of rendering service to Him. Hanuman is really a devotee. How fortunate he is! What grace he has received! He gave everything to Lord Ramacandra. I envy his situation, but what can I do? God's dispensation is absolute. We must accept that. Hanuman's position is really enviable. How attached to his master he is, and what a great magnitude of service he has done for Lord Rama."


I may ask you in this way now: One may say that Shanta-Rasa is a contemplative stage of the form-less aspect of God. And or Shanta-Rasa can also be a positive neutral approach to the Supreme Lord’s glories ? How many meanings does the terminology Shanta-Rasa could carry with it?


Yours

This is the only hint at Shanta rasa. From where did you quote this?

I just looked through the Shanta Rasa chapter of BRS (Third wave, chapter 1). It describes the Shanta Bhakta as free from attachments, living in solitude and having a love for yoga. The examples given here are the Four Kumaras. There is no mentioning here at all of Prahlada. So I wonder were this quotation above about Neutral love of God comes from?

Jay Sitanath!

The whole article is from Srila Sridhar Maharaja's Levels of God Realization The same link was in that page.


ys,

OK I read the article. I meant to say, "Where did SM quote it from?" Perhaps we must add this to the countless contradictions between the Gosvamis and the GM/Iskcon people. I could neither find Prahlada mentioned in Shanta Rasa in Sanatana Gosvami's Brihad Bhagavatamrita nor in Rupa Gosvami's Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu - where else shall I go and look?

Jay Sitanath Prabhuji!


In essence that is his proposal:

Prahlada = Santa-rasa
Hanuman= Dasa-rasa
Yudhisthira= Sakhya-rasa
Udhava=Sakhya+Vatsalya-rasa
Gopis=Madhurya-rasa=Srimat Radhika is the Supreme Mistress in the Art of Love of God.

And that is how he penetrates it:

In this way, Sanatana Goswami tries his best to take us through the path, by showing us the gradual development of devotion to Krsna. Prahlada Maharaja has been accepted as the basis of suddha-bhakti, the beginning of pure devotional service, because he is situated in santa rasa, or devotional service in neutrality. Above that there is dasya rasa, love of God in servitude, as shown by Hanuman, and above that there is sakhya rasa, or the mood of friendship. That is exemplified by the Pandavas. Uddhava is somewhat sakhya, connecting with vatsalya, parental love, and madhurya conjugal love. In this way we can trace the progressive development of devotion.
Our close adherence to Krsna develops in this way to Vrndavana. The acme of devotional service is found there. In the conversation between Ramananda Raya and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu we find it mentioned that Radharani's devotional service is categorically higher than that of the gopis (tebhyas tah pasu-pala-pankaja-drsas tabhyo 'pi sa radhika). The kind of serving spirit we find there is unaccountable and inconceivable.

Is him taking that conclusion from a specific translation of Sanatana Goswami’s B.B, is him quoting that by him self or that was part of his Guru’s preaching?

Besides Prahlada, the others are in accordance with scriptural evidence or that is another individual expression of the five rasas?

It is hard for me to believe that a scholar like him would make mistakes like that; Prahlada as shanta-bhakta….? Is really there nothing else than his own words and realizations that could support that?

I remember that devotees from S.C.S.M use to say “Srila Sridhar Maharaja has realized things that are not even mentioned in the scriptures and he (S.M.) talks about the existence of a ‘cosmic box in the universe’ that has all kids of information from the pass, present and future; for those that are prepared they can be illuminated by that” Well, that probably answer your question: I could neither find Prahlada mentioned in Shanta Rasa in Sanatana Gosvami's Brihad Bhagavatamrita nor in Rupa Gosvami's Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu - where else shall I go and look?

With respect,

Was there any greater scholar than Bhaktisiddhanta? Yet so many pages are filled with discussions on all the contradictions he preached....
Instead of scholarship we need allegiance, in our case allegiance to the six Gosvamis. The symptoms of Prahlada's bhakti are not in line with the symptoms of Shanta Rasa given in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu - love for solitude, love for Yoga, love for the Brahman and Paramatma aspects etc. nor is his name, as far as I can see, mentioned by the Gosvamis as Shanta bhakta. Prahlada was an ecstatic bhakta of the Personality of Godhead Narasingha.



The other ones are well placed.



I have seen the Sanskrit, Bengali translation plus the Tikas of BB 1.4.1-36, the Prahlada carita, and cannot fathom how Prahlada could be mentioned there. For 'translation' you would have to fill in 'interpolation' then, as far as this part of the grantha goes. If anyone saw me overlook something, perhaps in another part of this vast book, then please join this discussion and correct me.....



I don't know whether you are joking or not, but if the Guru teaches anything outside of the Gosvamis' teachings that is no problem to me, as long as it makes sense. To me, Prahlada does not fit in the definition of the hallmarks of Shanta Rasa given by Rupa Gosvami. What else can I say?

ananya-mamatA viSNau
mamatA prema-saNgatA
bhaktir ity ucyate bhISma-
prahlAdoddhava-nAradaiH

“‘When one develops an unflinching sense of ownership or possessiveness in relation to Lord Vishnu, or, in other words, when one thinks Vishnu and no one else to be the only object of love, such an awakening is called bhakti [devotion] by exalted persons like Bhishma, Prahlada, Uddhava and Narada." (BRS 1.4.2)

If Prahlada is such an expert in prema, how could he be in Shanta Rasa?

In hope you do not misunderstood my position about Prahlada Maharaja. That was a doubt that I had and now finally I had the opportunity to ask and get the right views about it. The very first time that I read it about Prahlada I was shocked but again, at that time I use take his instructions as Siksa. I always had hard time to believe that Prahlada was not on amorous relations with his Lord. Besides all, Sri Caitanya Himself heard more than hundred times about the sweet pastimes of Druva Maharaj and Prahlada Maharaja.

Thanks for the investigation, insights and your precious time.

Ys,
Hari Saran

Tuning into X-Box for answers is all right, but that just can't really be used as evidence for anyone else than those who have faith in your realization, because since time immemorial people of various religions have been tuning into this X-Box and receiving all sorts of mutually exclusive and often strange answers, each according to his eligibility.

I do agree 100% about Prahlada Maharaja being accepted as genuine bhakta in the line of devotion. Actually, I always thought that.

Advaita Das-ji has presented this beautiful verse:

ananya-mamatA viSNau
mamatA prema-saNgatA
bhaktir ity ucyate bhISma-
prahlAdoddhava-nAradaiH

“‘When one develops an unflinching sense of ownership or possessiveness in relation to Lord Vishnu, or, in other words, when one thinks Vishnu and no one else to be the only object of love, such an awakening is called bhakti [devotion] by exalted persons like Bhishma, Prahlada, Uddhava and Narada." (BRS 1.4.2)

Thanks!


But here is probably where we have to stop and think: “what on heaven would take someone that has been born and grow up in that particular culture and environment to come about with such statement of someone so famous in his country like Prahlada Maharaja?”. If SM's statement was an insight by his own realizations (and of course influenced others in GM too),what could be the external factor to make that happen?

Was SM making a comparative analyze and used Prahlada as a sort of analogy?

As Advaita Das said: “The other ones are well placed.” So, why does he mistakenly presented Prahlada Maharaja ?

Here is where (I presume) he gets some sort of support, ( I do not know where he takes that from):

Prahlada Maharaja is Narada Muni's disciple. Still, for our benefit, Narada Muni was approaching him to measure the standard of his devotion in a comparative study of the devotional world. Approaching Prahlada Maharaja, Narada said, "I have come to see you, Prahlada, because Lord Siva also appreciates your position. You are really a devotee of Lord Krsna. You are so fortunate! I have come to see how you are."

Prahlada Maharaja told him, "Gurudeva, you are all in all. Have you come to test me? Whatever fortune I may have, I have received by your grace. I was born in a family of demons, so the demonic qualities have not exclusively left me. Don't you know that in Naimisaranya, I went to fight with Lord Visnu? I repent for that, but what can I do? He has given me such a position. I cannot have the privilege of direct service to Him, but only mentally I think of Him. I think that He is everything, but I do not have the great fortune of rendering service to Him. Hanuman is really a devotee. How fortunate he is! What grace he has received! He gave everything to Lord Ramacandra. I envy his situation, but what can I do? God's dispensation is absolute. We must accept that. Hanuman's position is really enviable. How attached to his master he is, and what a great magnitude of service he has done for Lord Rama."

Or probably I have to ask: from what prisma is him looking at P.M.'s devotion ?

I hope you got my point.

ys,

Jaya Radhe!

If Prahlada Maharaja is not in Shanta Rasa? With all you respect, Could you tell me where do you place him in the realm of Rasa, advaita?

Moreover,

Do you think there is not love in Shanta Rasa.? Do you believe Shanta Rasa is outside the parameters of Bhakti?

I don't get this one! Your position on this issue surprise me.

Jaya Radhe!

Please study my previous postings on this, the Prahlada paragraph in Brihad Bhagavatamrita, and the Shanta Rasa chapter in BRS. AFAIK Prahlada is in dasya rasa.

From Swamiji's CC Madhya 19. 218

shantera svabhava——krishne mamata-gandha-hina
‘param-brahma’-‘paramatmä’-jnana pravina

TRANSLATION
“It is the nature of shanta-rasa that not even the smallest intimacy exists. Rather, knowledge of impersonal Brahman and localized Paramatma is prominent."

PURPORT
Because of an impersonal impression of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a devotee in the shanta-rasa relationship worships the impersonal Brahman or localized aspect of the Absolute Truth (Paramatma). He does not develop a personal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna."

Does this sound like Prahlad ji to you? Study his carita in the Bhagavata, 7th Skandha! Then you can see the ecstatic symptoms he displayed.

I think a part of the confusion arises from a mistaken perception that Prahlad in his current status is a nitya-svarupa, like Daruka or Hanuman. Perhaps it is confusing for some that the end of Prahlad's life and his attainment of siddhi is not narrated in the Bhagavata. Obviously Prahlad is, however, enacting in the role of a sadhaka, albeit a very accomplished one, and what we can observe in Prahlad-caritra is the activities of his sadhaka-deha, not of his siddha-deha, from which we could deduct more of his particular rasa. That being said, I don't find his activities of sadhana particularly bent on santa-rasa either, preaching nava-vidha bhakti and all of that.

Oh yes, and some say that the cows and calves of Vraja are also in santa-rasa, despite the fact that the calves behave with Krishna as friends would, and the cows behave as mothers would.

Some have even suggested that Giri Govardhana (hari-dAsa-varya) and Radha-kunda (Sri Radha's prema-svarupa) are in santa-rasa.

Oh yes, and the flute, that dreaded piece of bamboo claiming exclusive rights for Syama's kisses, he (or should I say "she") is in santa-rasa, too.

This seems to be one of these "form vs. substance" issues.

Despite the fact that Brahma Samhita says 'vamsi priya sakhi' - The flute is Krishna's priya sakhi, sweetheart, girlfriend.

And behold the motherly love of Vraja's cows in the vatsa harana lila! (Bhagavata, Canto 10, chapter 13)

Now I had to browse and dig in shastra about Prahlad being in shanta rasa or not. The Vraja issue brought up here by Madhava ji is another thing altogether. It is open and clear. Listen to the CC Adi 3.11-12:

dasya, sakhya, vatsalya sringar - cari rasa;
cari bhaver bhakta joto krishna tar bash
dasa-sakha-pita-mata-preyasi gana loiya;
vraje krida kore krishna premavishta hoiya

"There are 4 rasas in Vraja - servant, friend, parent and lover - whose devotees subdue Krishna with their love. In Vraja Krishna plays in loving absorption with his servants, friends, parents and sweethearts."

A bit further Mahaprabhu proclaims:

cari bhava bhakti diya nacaimu tribhuvan (verse 19)

"I will make the three worlds dance in four rasas".
These four rasas have already been listed a few verses earlier, with the clear exception of shanta rasa.

From Swamiji's CC Madhya 19. 218

shantera svabhava——krishne mamata-gandha-hina
‘param-brahma’-‘paramatmä’-jnana pravina

TRANSLATION
“It is the nature of shanta-rasa that not even the smallest intimacy exists. Rather, knowledge of impersonal Brahman and localized Paramatma is prominent."

PURPORT
Because of an impersonal impression of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a devotee in the shanta-rasa relationship worships the impersonal Brahman or localized aspect of the Absolute Truth (Paramatma). He does not develop a personal relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna."

---

Good enough; but could someone please tell me where S.M. probably took this passage that lightly gives a hint of Prahlada Maharaja being in a neutral mood towards Lord Vishnu; because that is exactly how the preaching is going on:

Prahlada is cited as an example of santa-rasa, the bhava of neutrality, in Sanatana Goswami's Brhat-bhagavatamrta. The dust of Vrndavana is sometimes considered to be in santa-rasa as well. Thus we can conclude that Haridasa Thakura was also in santa-rasa. This however does not say everything about his spiritual position. Examples of Brahma, Praladha, Haridasa, and so on are there to teach us about a particular bhava, but this does not mean that they themselves have no access to anything higher than that which they exemplify in the literature.

read the whole article here

By S.S.M.:

"Approaching Prahlada Maharaja, Narada said, "I have come to see you, Prahlada, because Lord Siva also appreciates your position. You are really a devotee of Lord Krsna. You are so fortunate! I have come to see how you are."

Prahlada Maharaja told him, "Gurudeva, you are all in all. Have you come to test me? Whatever fortune I may have, I have received by your grace. I was born in a family of demons, so the demonic qualities have not exclusively left me. Don't you know that in Naimisaranya, I went to fight with Lord Visnu? I repent for that, but what can I do? He has given me such a position. I cannot have the privilege of direct service to Him, but only mentally I think of Him. I think that He is everything, but I do not have the great fortune of rendering service to Him. Hanuman is really a devotee. How fortunate he is! What grace he has received! He gave everything to Lord Ramacandra. I envy his situation, but what can I do? God's dispensation is absolute. We must accept that. Hanuman's position is really enviable. How attached to his master he is, and what a great magnitude of service he has done for Lord Rama."


ys,

I could only find your quotation of Sridhar Maharaja, this is from the paragraph I investigated in BB Canto 1, chapter 4. There is no mentioning there of Prahlada being in shanta rasa at all, however. Which part of Brihad Bhagavatamrita Tripurari Swami is quoting is not clear to me. Perhaps you better ask him personally where he has it from. The evidence I supplied on Shanta Rasa and Prahlada, and how different they are, is pretty strong I should say. Why should Sridhara Maharaja and Tripurari Swami necessarily be right in the face of all these indications?

Based on what has been presented so far, I think the only way to come to the position of saying that Prahlada is shanta rasa would be based on taking his humble words in BrBh. literally:



and from that transposing distance, indirectness and quality of service as indicators of shanta (and direct, active and personal service with the four other rasas).

Hmm. Seems this idea is quite widespread:



And here:




BTW, what of the fact of Nrsimha being naimittica lila? Does that affect the "available" rasa at all? (Of course, Prahlada's devotion is to Visnu, I guess.)

As a friendly tip to Tripurari Maharaja, I would encourage him to always look up whatever references he hears of against the original texts. As we just recently saw, he misrepresented the position of Visvanath on account of taking on someone else's authority that Visvanath had said something. I suspect that the matter at hand may be another such incident, hearing from someone that something is stated in BBhag and "quoting" BBhag on those grounds, without having seen the original text oneself.

Gaudiya Grantha Mandir has a decent selection of original texts available, and we are constantly adding more. Additionally, there are lots of resourceful people out there with good libraries who will gladly look up necessary passages from our canon. Looking up all passages one intends to cite pays off in the long run, especially if one's words are documented and printed.

From Bhagavatamrita-kana of Visvanatha:

atha bhAgavatAs te--

mArkaNDeyo'mbarISaz ca vasur vyAso vibhISaNaH |
puNDarIko baliH zambhuH prahlAdo viduro dhruvaH ||
dAlbhyaH parAzaro bhISmo nAradAdyAz ca vaiSNavaiH |
sevyA hariM niSevyAmI no ced AgaH paraM bhavet ||

Then, the bhagavatas (devotees) --

"Markandeya, Ambarisa, Vasu, Vyasa, Vibhisana, Pundarika, Bali, Sambhu, Prahlada, Vidura, Dhruva, Dalbhya, Parasara, Bhisma, Narada and others are servants of Vishnu. I serve them as I serve Hari, for otherwise the greatest offence is committed."

eSAM madhye prahlAdaH zreSThaH | tato'pi pANDavAH zreSThAH | tebhyo'pi kecid yAdavAs, tebhyo'pi uddhavaH | tasmAd api vraja-devyaH | tAbhyopi zrImad-rAdheti ||15||

Among them, Prahlada is foremost. Greater than him are the Pandavas. Greater than them are the Yadavas, among whom Uddhava is greater. Greater than them are the Vraja-devis, and still greater is the beautiful Radha.

Now, if Prahlad outranks all the bhagavats of verse 14, it must logically follow that his relationship with Bhagavan is greater than theirs. Still santa-rasa?

Moreover, in BBhag 1.3.75, Siva praises Prahlad as being dearer to Krishna than himself, Garuda or Laksmi, and a greater recipient of His mercy.

No, this is all topsy-turvy.

In BBhag, Prahlad's devotion is called jnana-mishra. However, this jnana-mishra does not refer to bhakti mixed with a desire for mukti, Prahlad's position on that is clarified everywhere in the scriptures. Jnana-mishra in this context means aisvarya-jnana-mishra, which characterizes both santa and dasya of Vaikuntha.

Thanks Advaita Das-ji, Madhavananda-ji and all the great others.

It is always an enlightening expirience and a pleasant time; Jay Goura-bhakta-vrinda!

ys,

Might their be some difference in the way that Vyasadeva saw Prahlada and the way that a great Gaudiya acharya would show him as seen through the eyes of one whose eyes are smeared with the ointment of Krishna-prema?

Couldn't both viewpoints be correct? One viewpoint from the shaktyavesha-avatar of Narayana and one viewpoint from a Krishna-bhakta who is steeped in madhurya rasa.

Do we have to make one viewpoint to be wrong and one right, when they are both right as viewed from different vantage points?

Don't the pure devotees whose eyes are smeared with the salve of prema see with the colored lenses of that emotional condition?

In a comment on BBhag 1.4.51, Gopiparandhana states:



My question would be whether the original speaks of "dasyam" only or if it specifically mentions "dasya rasa", i.e. whether the topic is really about the difference between smaranam and dasyam, as two of the nine processes, or if it actually states Hanuman's mood as dasya-rasa and then that is taken as an implication that Prahlada is shanta.


Also, I thought it was interesting that Narada became ecstatic remembering Narayana's statement that He was conquered by Prahlada (1.4.12) and he begins shouting, "Conquered by us!" Seemed to tie in with Advaitaji's earlier quote from Cc:



wherein Krishna is conquered by the "active" rasas.

No, of course not -- but where does Vyasa say something that contradicts Sanatana in this regard?

As I said, the form of Prahlad is not a siddha-svarupa, it is a sadhaka-deha. Therefore one cannot judge his rasa merely by the way he acts in his sadhaka-deha. If that were so, we would have to consider most smarananandi-mahatmas to be in santa-rasa, too. That would of course be absurd. If only we knew what was going on in Prahlad's smarana, we could say much more.

That being said, when Narasimha appeared, the relationship between Him and Prahlad didn't seem to be too much of a neutral one, if that is any indication of his eternal mood. It resembles the gaurava-prita-rasa (gaurava-dasyam) which is found in the sons of Krishna in Dvaraka.

As well, should we think that Prahlada was not progressing in his evolution from the lower levels of God consciousness to the higher levels? Must we see him as stuck in dasya-rasa forever? Is there no chance that he could not advance and progress through the rasa's to the highest level enventually?

Didn't Prahlada have some identity in Gaura-lila? Where Prahlada was at millions of years ago, should not be the same platform he is on today.
Surely, he made some advancement in several millions years? Or, should we think that we can go from ugra-karma in tama-guna to madhurya-rasa, in one lifetime, and Prahlada is stuck in dasya-rasa forever?

Radhe!

pardon me , if this is a stupid comment, but
i actually never heard of anyone "transmigrating through their rasas".

i thought that the rasa of every jiva is fixed and can not change.

can someone in dasya-rasa "evolve" into madhurya-rasa?

can someone swing the sastra-club?

please , someone clarify this point.

Radhe!

Tarunji

When one is established in a siddha-rupa, that's where you are. Otherwise, during our sadhana, we are subject to the influence of our association.

Observation: Devarsi Narada Muni is supposed to be Prahlada's guru. Interesting how Visvanatha Cakravatipada says that Prahlada is the 'foremost' of the devotees mentioned, including Narada Muni. That sure says something about Prahlada's "advancement" when he is listed as being "greater" than his own guru.

Can a disciple not rise beyond the level of his guru in terms of rasa? (viz. Hridaya Caitanya and Syamananda)

Yes, certainly. (BTW I edited my previous post)

I have heard that it is commonly perceived that Syamananda Pandit was an exception to the rule since he was initiated by Lalita-sakhi Herself. Would you say that Prahlada is also an exception to the rule?

Radhe!

hmm, i´m a bit confused right now.

i thought that actually the eternal form and its rasa are eternally fixed.

sometimes i heard slogans like "all should BECOME a manjari".
is this possible?
can ALL jivas "become" manjaris?

isnt it so that the svarupa is given by Krishna and is eternally the same?
sure, i may not know my eternal svarupa, but the point is: can the svarupa change?

i would say, since it is eternal. what may change is our perception as a sadhaka due to the association...

oh, please help!

Tarunji

I was also curious about this all the time.
If there're no time in transcendental realm, our eternal svarupas are there already?...
So, there is no "back way" from there?... Even for those (like advaitins) who reaches impersonal Brahman?...

The svarupas are eternal and exist forever in the realm of Goloka. Through the practice of sadhana, the individua jiva connects himself with one specific parsada-deha reserved for him, and as his sadhana becomes mature, he eventually takes birth in prakata-lila and completely embodies this parsada-form. Its full potential is realized when the prakata-lila is completed and the jivatma, now a parsada, has mastered the intricacies of prema through association with full-fledged nitya-parsadas. Then (s)he moves on to aprakata-lila.

= = =

There are no svarupas in the advaita-brahman.

= = =

As for whether a certain svarupa is predestined to us and is what we will unfailingly attain, there is no way for us to know this with certainty. It may be that the Lord has desired since beginningless time to meet us in a certain svarupa, and then again it may be that the Lord suddenly begins to desire to see us in a certain svarupa after observing our sweet inclination towards a particular mood. Both options are possible. It is not a mechanistic issue, it is a matter of the Lord's desire. It doesn't really make any difference from our perspective.

= = =

In a worst-case scenario, where a sad-guru has informed a disciple of his svarupa, and where later on the disciple due to aparadha loses his affinity for that mood, Bhagavan no longer desires to see him in that form and makes alternative arrangements. There are infinite parsada-forms in a vast variety of realms.

Thanks, Madhavaji, it's very interesting.



Madhava, can you cite some gaudiya acaryas on fore-qouted matter?
IMHO, this can't be so. Thakurji never changes His desire for us.

praapya puNyakR^itaa.n lokaanushhitvaa shaashvatiiH samaaH .
shuchiinaa.n shriimataa.n gehe yogabhrashhTo.abhijaayate .. 6-41..

The unsuccessful yogi, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.

athavaa yoginaameva kule bhavati dhiimataam.h .
etaddhi durlabhataraM loke janma yadiidR^isham.h .. 6-42..

Or he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Verily, such a birth is rare in this world.

tatra taM buddhisa.nyogaM labhate paurvadehikam.h .
yatate cha tato bhuuyaH sa.nsiddhau kurunandana .. 6-43..

On taking such a birth, he again revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, son of Kuru.

If He 'suddenly' begins, then there is some analog of 'time' on Vaikuntha? Maybe, an analog of 'karma'?
Is there transcendent realm at all? Don't you think, that idea of "sudden desire" is incompatible with idea of eternity?

The basic premise for what I said is given in the third chapter of the first division of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu:

bhAvo 'py abhAvam AyAti kRSNa-preSThAparAdhataH |
AbhAsatAM ca zanakair nyUna-jAtIyatAm api || BRS 1.3.54 ||

"By offending those who are dear to Krishna, bhava can vanish, transform into a semblance of bhava or gradually diminish."

I remember hearing once how a disciple of Baba had left to take shelter of Nimbarka-sampradaya. Baba said that that is where Krishna wanted to see him serve.



Why not? The verses you cited give no support to this premise.

yad-yad-dhiyA ta urugAya vibhAvayanti |
tat-tad-vapuH praNayase sad-anugrahAya || Bhag. 3.9.11 ||

"In whatever of His glorified manifestations the devotee meditates upon Him, in that very form He manifests unto them."

If the conception of the devotee degrades because of his ill deeds, for example his yearning for Vraja-bhava diminishes because of a disrespectful attitude for manjari-bhava, and he becomes attracted to Laksmipati in Vaikuntha, then Bhagavan will reciprocate with this.

Now, Bhagavan is restricted from having sudden inspirations because of His living in an eternal abode? Poor man. Ain't easy being God all day long.

It is not static like that.

Are you sure about his being a sAdhaka? Wasn't his bhakti supposed to be fully developed from the time of his birth? That would mean that it was not necessary for him to perform any sAdhana.

What I meant by "attaining siddhi" was concretely attaining a body suitable for his eternal position in relation with the Lord. Just like we have the examples of Dhruva and Ajamila, flying up to Vaikuntha in vimanas and all of that. Yes, Prahlada is counted among the siddha, but I don't think the form of Prahlad is his nitya-svarupa.

In the fifth canto of the Bhagavata (chapter 18), we find the residents of Jambudvipa offering prayers to the Lord, and Prahlad prays on behalf of the residents of Hari-varsa. Hari-varsa is a place where he worships the Lord in the form of Narahari. Judging by the prayers in that chapter, it would indeed seem that his istadeva is Narasimha, which would indicate a relationship in the realm of Vaikuntha.

Prahlad was indeed coronated as the heir for his father's kingdom (Bhag. 7.10.23-33), but there is no indication of the duration of his rule, nor is there any indication of when the events described took place for that matter. Yes, for all we know, he could still be around. After all, it is only 500 years since an aspect of Prahlad appeared in the form of Haridas with the Caitanya-avatara.

So in other words you are differentiating his form as Prahlada in the Narasimha lila from his four-armed form in Vaikuntha. Is not that Prahlada form still a parshada svarupa in the lila, as opposed to the ordinary sAdhaka that is not a parshada in any lila (e.g. Bhakta Bob from Pittsburg), just as the Hiranyakashipu form is a role in the lila, although His nitya svarupa is as a four-armed gatekeeper of Vaikuntha?

A narration by Prahlada Maharaj.

So where are they all now? Stored in some giant warehouse or something?

Where did you get all this info from, by the way? Is this from Manjari-svarupa-nirupana or some other earlier sources?

In Gopiparanadhana's edition this is the verse:

Atma-tattvopadezeSu
duSpANDitya-mayAsuraiH
saGgan nAdyApi me zuSka-
jJAnAMzo 'pagato 'dhamaH
The demons, in their teachings, are always inclined to bad scholarship about the truth of the self. Because of my association with such demons, even today my understanding is not free from the degraded element of dry speculation. - BB 1.4.30

Doesn't seem to have any hint of aizvarya-jJAna-mizra to me. Or perhaps this translation is incorrect?

Kunjabihari Das Babaji calls them "the shadows of the spiritual world". They are in a dormant stage, waiting for the individual jiva to animate them.

In a dimension rather different in depth from ours, you can't really give a location like that, that they are in the cookie box of grandma on the top shelf of the kitchen or something like that.

Yes, it's from MSN, the author derives the idea from the Sandarbhas.

Well, this is Prahlad's prayer. You can't use that to estimate his level. Look at the songs of Narottama Das. Can you take his prayers and declare him a person who wasted his life without thinking of Radha and Krishna?

We know that Prahlad is a siddha-bhakta. One who is siddha is a premi-bhakta, and a premi-bhakta has no mixture of karma or jnana in his bhakti. Is this not the very basic definition of uttama-bhakti, karma-jnanady-anavritam? We can't reasonably declare that Prahlad, despite being declared the topmost among devotees, is not on the level of uttama-bhakti.

He is certainly in a special position. Do you know the story of his past life? A very interesting narration, I believe it is in the Sandarbhas.

The pastime of Narasimha is a naimittika-lila. I do not recall ever reading a statement on whether the pastime takes place with Prahlad each day of Brahma, or whether Narasimha appears in different ways during different days of Brahma.

Now that you drew the parallel between Hiranyakasipu / Jaya (or was it Vijaya?) and Prahlad / ( ? ), it serves well to illustrate that a person's rasa cannot be measured merely according to his appearance in the naimittika-lila of the Lord.

Sorry, no I did not mean to quote that verse to estimate his position as that would be a very grievous offence indeed. My point was that according to the BB verse, it does not seem that Prahlada is speaking of the aisvarya-jnana that you spoke of, but indeed seems to be referring to plain jnana. Of course this is a humble position on the part of Prahlada, but I would like to know what sources you have used to establish that "Jnana-mishra in this context means aisvarya-jnana-mishra, which characterizes both santa and dasya of Vaikuntha"?

I am referring to the five-fold division of bhaktas in BB 2.1.16.