Conversation continues: Rasa of Srila Prabhupada

bhaktisiddhantaThis conversation continues as Nemi Maharaja points out a flaw in KBMs answer on question 3 to Gurudevas sanga where the quote is from a lecture on the disappearance day of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. Thereby KBM is stating that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura is a priya narma sakha, which we know for certain isn’t correct.

The quote is following:

“We ́ll have to be rupanuga. Without rupanuga, without Rupa-manjari, cannot serve to Radhika. There are also… you know that Subala, Sudan, they are priya narma sakhas. They are inclined to Srimati Radhika and they are pleased if Radhika and Krishna meet. But there are also some cowherds, priya narma sakhas for Candravali. They also ple… But Prabhupada was very much inclined to Srimati Radhika in favor of rupanuga. He was rupanuga.”

Srila Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati Thakur is the diksa guru of Srila Prabhupada. So I listened to the lecture, and found myself confused.
What I wonder in this lecture is this: What is the normal title for Gurudeva to use for Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura? Narayana Maharaja is called Gurudeva. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Maharaja was called Srila Prabhupada. Whenever I hear Srila Prabhupada, I only think of A.C Bhaktivedanta Maharaja, and no one else.
What was the loving nickname of BSST?
This is what Nemi Maharaja is saying:
Further, we might have noticed that Srila Gurudeva says “Prabhupada” in the recording, but he rarely referred to my Guru Maharaja as “Prabhupada”. Indeed, at the end of this talk he calls him “Swami-ji” and “Swami-ji Maharaja”
Furthermore, why would Gurudeva start speaking about priya-narma sakhas here, if he were speaking about BSST?
This is certainly interesting 😀

Sidenote: The audio lecture is from 1993, while the written account is credited with 1991. Either the same quote has been emphasized twice, or there’s an incorrect date.

41 thoughts on “Conversation continues: Rasa of Srila Prabhupada

  1. Dandavats.

    Please listen to the lecture again didi.

    At the beginning of the tape Srila Gurudeva speaks about how Srila Sarasvati Thakura calls his “associates” such as:

    “Our Guru-Maharaja was there, as were Gosvami Maharaja (a prominent disciple), Kunja Bihari prabhu, Bhakti Vilasa Tirtha Maharaja and others”

    Later Srila Gurudeva explains the famous comment in his own words as to how people will see Srila Sarasvati Thakura as an enemy but he was actually their friend:

    “”For this I have given great suffering to so many persons. I have snatched their educated and very qualified boys and girls, and brought them in this line. Therefore they became furious with me. Also, a certain group (samaja) in Navadvipa and Vrndavana made a movement against me. They could not understand my ideas, and they became opposed to me. The day will come, however, when they will realize that I have done something good, for society and for the individuals in society. I have done something good for everyone’s welfare. Later they will regret that they opposed me. They will repent for this.”

    This is immediatly after the quoted section in regards to Rupanuga.

    Later Srila Gurudeva explains:

    “At that time our Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, was present. Bhakti-vilasa Tirtha Maharaja was also present there, and at that time he had not yet taken sannyasa.”

    So clearly “At that time” refers to the time of Srila Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati Thakura as Srila Bhakti Vilas Tirtha Maharaja had not taken sanyassa.

    Srila Gurudeva then expresses Srila Bhakti Prjnan Keseva Gosvami Maharajas fury over the samadhi arrangements for his Guru Maharaja, Srila Sarasvathi Thakura, note Srila Gurudeva says “Guru Maharaja”:

    “When those who had the idea that Srila Prabhupada’s transcendental body should be cremated opposed again, Guru Maharaja became furious. Standing by his divine body, He very boldly said, “You cannot take him to Karatala. I will personally stop whoever is doing so.”

    Then finally Srila Gurudeva explains how Srila Sarasati Thakura sent others to the west to preach:

    Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura preached the teachings of Lord Caitanya throughout India in no time. He also sent Bon Maharaja, Tirtha Maharaja and Gosvami Maharaja to the Western countries. Preaching did not advance as he wanted, however. He called for Bon Maharaja to return from England and told him, “We do not want to take anything from the Western countries. We have no need to take anything from them. Simply give them what I have told to you – we only want to give the same bhakti-bhava that Caitanya Mahaprabhu has given. Do not follow the habits of the Western civilization of eat, drink and be merry, as Vivekananda did.”

    He became somewhat apprehensive. Then he sent Gosvami Maharaja, and after that he ordered Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja to do it. Srila Swami Maharaja then performed a miracle. Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was so pleased to know that he has performed this task, and all of you are completing his task.”

    He we see in the conclusion that Srila Gurudeva calls Srila Sarasvati Thakura “Prabhupada” and Srila A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja as “Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja”

    You can check the audio for clarity but it is 100% clear that the quoted reference that is used to promote Srila A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as a priya-nama-sakha is actually referring to Srila Sarasvati Thakura.

    • In the cotext of previous and following paragraphs, he does indeed seem to be talking about Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura.

      But why then did he bring up the priya-narma-sakhas? Why not just say: “Candravali also has manjaris, but Prabhupada was inclined towards Radha”?

  2. Quote:

    “Furthermore, why would Gurudeva start speaking about priya-narma sakhas here, if he were speaking about BSST?”

    Because Srila Guryudeva is trying to establish what Srila Sarasvati Thakura is not, and what Srila Sarasvati Thakura is.

    A Rupanuga dasi in favour of Srimati Radhika, not a priya-nama-sakha of any kind. Neither Chandravali nor Srimati Radhika.

    How ironic then, that this statement is used as evidence to prove Srila. A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is a pria-nama-sakha.

    It is very simple and not confusing at all if it is read as it was meant without interpretation.

    Ys.

    Bala das.

    • Well, if he wanted to establish what SBSST is not, then why not state that he wasn’t a manjari of Chandravali? Wouldn’t that be more accurate?

      • Srila Gurudeva is clarifying the meaning of Rupanuga.

        Means to be a dasi of Srimati Radhika.

        This is from the audio file:

        “To be the dasi of Radhika we´ll have to be rupanuga. Without rupanuga, without Rupamanjari, cannot serve to Radhika. There are also… you know that Subala, Sudan, they are priya narma sakhas. They are inclined to Srimati Radhika and they are pleased if Radhika and Krishna meet. But there are also some cowherds, priya narma sakhas for Candravali. They also ple… But Prabhupada was very much inclined to Srimati Radhika in favor of rupanuga. He was rupanuga.”

        “To be the dasi of Radhika” Was removed from the KBM quote.

        After this Srila Gurudeva continues:

        “” So He wanted to fulfill this idea of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu that we want to be the dasi of Rupa Manjari so that we can serve Radha and Krishna, not Chandravali and others.”

        ……

        “So his idea was to preach, not preach but inspire the devotees for this Radhika service. But he told that I could not do this so I am unhappy”

        ……

        “So you should come under the shelter of Asraya tattva and serve Radha Krishna Yugala under the guidance of Rupa Manjari”

        …..

        “He told that for this I have given so much suffering to so many persons. I have snatched their educated and very qualified boys and girls, and brought them in this line. Therefore they became furious with me. Also, a certain group (samaja) in Navadvipa and Vrndavana made a movement against me. They could not understand my ideas, and they became opposed to me. The day will come, however, when they will realize that I have done something good, for society and for the individuals in society. I have done something good for everyone’s welfare. Later they will regret that they opposed me. They will repent for this.”

        This is the flow of the conversation. Srila Gurudeva is continually quoting the words of Srila Sarasvati Thakura. He does not jump to speaking about Srila A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in the middle of his lecture. The final quote posted here is the famous quote by Srila Sarasvati Thakura paraphrased by Srila Gurudeva.

        However you look at it, this part of the tape is in reference to Srila Sarasvati Thakura. “Srila Swami Maharaja” is not mentioned until the end of the class. The whole lecture is about Srila Sarasvati Thakura on his divine disappearance day. Listen to the flow and context of the audio and you will see clearly that this quote is in regards to Srila Sarasvati Thakura.

        One person on Facebook from the KBM group is also clear on this:

        “Ram-Chandra Das:
        Dear BV Nemi Maharaj, Dandavat Pranam. All glories to Srila Gurudeva. I was surprised to read your baseless comment! KBM does not give any comment about SBSST Prabhupada. For your understanding please you can refer again to the original tape. I have listened it many times Srila Gurudeva has spoken that BSST is very near to Radhika.This is nothing to do with Swami Maharaj This is just Srila Gurudeva’s quote KBM included there.why do you? and many others in your thread are speculating that KBM refers it to Swami Maharaj ”

        So it is only confusing if we regard this quote as evidence for the “Prabhupada” mentioned as being a priya-nama-sakha. Otherwise it is totally clear. The “Prabhupada” mentioned is Srila Sarasvati Thakura, who is being glorified on his disappearance day as a Rupanuga dasi of Srimati Radhika. Srila Gurudeva explains that there may be cowheard boys who are favorable to both groups, even towards Srimati Radhika, but as a Rupanuga we do not want to be one of them as we want to be a dasi of Sri Rupa Manjari.

        Very clear and simple.

        Just to explain, I was considering the siddhanta of KBM as being valid until I noticed this inconsistency.

        Ys.

        Bala das.

      • I also have come to the conclusion that the quote referenced in the blog post is about SBSST, so it will be interesting to see what KBMs response is to this.

  3. http://bvml.org/SBRSM/srm.htm

    Sri Rupa Manjari Pada

    by Srila Narottama Thakur

    Commentary by Srila Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhara Maharaja :

    “Sri-rupa-manjari-pada, sei mora sampada, sei mor bhajana-pujana- my everything is Sri Rupa Goswami’s holy feet. We are to discuss so many classifications and positions of rasa: santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, madhura. And in madhura-rasa Radharani’s camp is special. Then again there are so many gradations of sakhis. Then there is the class of the manjaris, the younger girls, and they have more freedom to approach: when Radha and Govinda are in union in a private environment, the manjaris can still approach. They have such freedom to visit Them. If any materials of service are necessary, the sakhis send the manjaris to that place. The sakhis do not approach there. In that way the manjaris enjoy the best confidence. The most secret service of both can be supplied through the manjaris. In the highest position they have free entrance, and their leader is Rupa Manjari. She is understood to be the leader of the whole group of younger girls, the manjaris, therefore in madhura-bhajan she is all-in-all. This has been taught to us by Narottama Thakur. For us – and the younger batch – she is our highest resort.”

    This is not the service of a priya-nama-sakha following Sri Rupa Manjari.

      • Fair enough.

        Srila Gurudeva sang Sri Rupa Manjari pada on Srila Prabhupadas request at his samahdi ceremony.

        This song is expressing exclusively a desire for the mood that Srila Sridhara Maharaja states here.

        To me it does not seem likely for a priya-nama-sakha to request this song, which presents a desire for this mood, upon entering into samadhi.

      • Oh, and he also had Srila Gurudeva sing it to him just before he left.

      • From Syamarani’s article “Is Srila Prabhupada In the Highest Rasa?”:

        “Just before Srila Prabhupada departed from this world in November 1977, Paramapujyapada Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja visited him, accompanied by Pujapada Sesasayi brahmacari. At that time, Srila Prabhupada listened to Sripada Sesasayi as he sang Sri Rupa manjari-pada.”

      • Sorry, yes, not Srila Gurudeva himself but Pujapada Sesasayi brahmacari.

        Thank you Syamananda prabhu,

      • Srila B. P. Puri Maharaja also sang it to him around the same time, requested by Srila Prabhuada in remembrance of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s passing.

        Anyone who takes shelter of Srila Rupa Manjari will go where they are meant to go.

        Sometimes Srila Rupa Manjari inspires devotion for Subala in others:

        “rupa manjaryah subala visayaka bhakti janika sva sakhim pratyuktih”

        -Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti, from his Ananda-candrika commentary to UN 2.14.

        Both Rupa Manjari and Subala are direct manifestations of Srimati Radharani’s beauty. They are practically twins, and their only appearance in the vaishnava calendar is together.

      • I didn’t know that. Thank you 🙂

        KBM argues that priya-narma sakhas have a shadow of madhurya-rasa, which is how he can state such things.

        My mood here is not to convince you of any other position, but to understand all sides to the issue which is what I try to do and to seriously consider and accept good arguments when they come. So far I see that you only argue one side of the issue.

        You have really understood an issue when you can argue the opposing view.

      • Oh trust me, I could argue the opposing view. I did with some of my godbrothers in order to promote some objectivity.

        However when there is a discrepancy like this in said “opposing view” then arguing that view becomes invalid as the argument itself is based on incorrect evidence.

        Why support a view that uses faulty evidence to present a point?

        “Here is our evidence that Srila Gurudeva said that priya-nama-sakhas are Rupanuga and in Madhurya rasa.”

        But wait! The statement is about Srila Sarasvati Thakura!

        Sorry. It does not weigh up to me as a view that deserves supporting any more.

      • Oh, and in case you ask.

        Yes I have tried to talk with them.

        I have a friend in KBM called Tamal Krishna bramachari who it the first person I mailed about this incident, before even contacting Sripad Nemi Maharaja. He has not responded as of yet.

        Ys.

        Bala das.

      • Great to hear that you discuss this and opposing views with your godbrothers! And that you have contacted them 🙂 I really appreciate your comments here.

        Yes, for now it certainly looks as this argument is invalid, which is why I’m really looking forward to the response of KBM on this.

        Let’s say they do admit making a mistake in this – for me this is not such a big deal. I consider the ability to admit a mistake as divine. Secondly, I don’t see that the sanga opposing Gurudeva KBM is able to find a statement where Gurudeva specifically say that SP is a manjari (without using the word mood), what his name and service is. For me it would only mean that all the statements of Gurudeva goes back to being circumstantial.

        This whole debate for me is an experience where things reveal itself in time. There seem to be some new points that have always been there, but somehow reveals itself to me when I’m ready (like new blog post where the line of Madhusudan Maharaja is questioned).

      • “The sanga opposing Gurudeva”

        What do you mean by that?

        “For me it would only mean that all the statements of Gurudeva goes back to being circumstantial.”

        So that means to accept KMB’s conception we have to adjust Srila Gurudevas own words to fit.

        “Srila Gurudeva said this but he actually meant that.”

        “Srila Gurudeva said certainly a maidservant of Srimati Radhika and NOT a priya-nama-sakha, but this his circumstantial preaching tactic. He actually meant he is NOT a maidservant of Srimati Radhika and he IS a priya-nama-sakha.”

        .

      • Yes, those opposing KBM, mishap writing by me.

        Definition of circumstantial: law : based on information which suggests that something is true but does not prove that it is true.

        In other words, it’s not about changing Gurudevas words, but that his words are open for interpretation.

  4. These comments are based on my personal observations while residing at KBM over the past years:

    To be sure, at no time has KBM ever said that Jagat Guru Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was anything but Nayam Manjari. Daily during mangalarati singing, KBM worships among other deities, Bhaktisiddhanta’s Thakurji, Sri Sri Radha Nayam Bihariji. At no time has KBM forwarded any idea that Jagat Guru Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was a priya narma sakha.

    The tape in question, by title, indicates it was recorded over two days, Dec 12 and Dec 13, 1993. Upon careful listening to the tape in question, I believe there are at least 4 breaks/sounds in the tape that indicate that the recorder was shut off or on (at 22:45, 22:47, 23:45 and 33:43), where there is a break in the flow of Srila Gurudeva’s katha.
    One of these breaks occurs during the quote in question, at 33:43, where upon close listening I could hear a click that the recorder seemed to be shut off, beginning where the word is cut off, “ple. . “. As such, there is something missing in Srila Gurudeva’s flow at that point. How long the tape recorder was shut off and what was said is a mystery.

    I agree that it is curious why Srila Gurudeva was discussing priya narma sakhas at all. One should note that the place of Srila Gurudeva’s katha on these dates in question, Dec 12 and Dec 13, 1993 appears to be Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj’s temple in Bombay, based on the on the tape titles for the preceding several days of hari katha.

    This is my personal observation.

    • See here for where Srila Gurudeva indicates Srila Swami Prabhupadas eternal position withourt mentioning the word “mood”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkpP8S9wfDQ&feature=youtu.be

      (From 3.30)

      “And he is nitya-siddha, not sadhana-siddha and he is certainly the maidservant of Srimati Radhika.”

      Preaching tactic. He really meant butler right. He is certainly the butler of Srimati Radhika.

      Or… He is certainly the maidservant of Srimati Radhika in male form as a cowheard boy.

      Or perhaps…. simply

      “He is certainly the maidservant of Srimati Radhika.”

      See here for Srila Gurudeva saying that Srila Swami Maharaja is not a priya-nama-sakha:

      http://sbnmcd.org/all_mp3/index.php?folder=MjAwOA==

      (From 10.55)

      “Sripad Bhagavat Maharaja: This Sanyassi is saying that Srila Prabhupada my Swami Maharaja in in Sakhya rasa, he is a priya-nama-sakha. That is his conclusion. His idea.

      Srila Gurudeva: Oh, he is quitely wrong. Wrong and wrong and wrong.

      ……….

      (After the “no harm” that is used to defend the Sakhya rasa position and Brajanath prabhu explaining sidhanta from Jaiva Dharma)

      Srila Gurudeva: Anyone can be like that, no harm, but actually for Swami ji he was not in this.

    • You are hearing things.

      There is no break in the recording. Simply the shuffling of someone moving. I slowed the recording to 50% speed and turned it right up.

      There is no break.

      Please do not spread implied conspiracies as part of an argument.

  5. Hare Krsna, conspiracy????? I believe something is missing in the flow of Srila Gurudeva’s hari katha, and I could be wrong, people can hear for themselves, but conspiracy?????? I never even thought that. This is two days of hari-katha recorded in 1993.

    I have a correction. Sri Radha Nayam Bihariji is the Thakurji of Bhakti Jivana Janardana Maharaja, whose gurudeva is Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. Sripad Madhusudan Maharaja is the disciple of Bhakti Jivana Janardana Maharaja. Sri Radha Nayam Bihariji was installed by our Param Gurudeva, Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja at Bhakti Jivana Janardana Maharaja’s Kharagpur temple, in the presence of our Srila Gurudeva. Sri Radha Nayam Bihariji ki jaya!

    • Dandavats.

      I apologies if I misinterpreted the intent here in regards to the “conspiracy” quote and apologies for the “hearing things” comment.

      Tamal Krishna prabhu, if that is you, please accept my heartfelt greetings.

      Personally, after slowing down the tape at speeds between 20% and 100% and checking the places where a break is mentioned I personally have not noticed any sound I consider to be the recorder being shut off. So I guess this is left as debatable until we find a sound engineer who can properly examine the file.

      And to clarify:

      “To be sure, at no time has KBM ever said that Jagat Guru Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur was anything but Nayana Manjari.”

      Of course. Nothing else was implied, certainly not by me.

      However the audio quote in question, which is speaking about Srila Sarasvati Thakura, is being used by Sripad Damorad Maharaja and Sripad Sudhadvaiti Maharaja as proof that Srila Swami Prabhupada is a priya-nama-sakha. Or at the very least that this quote is used as evidence that priya-nama-sakhas are Rupanuga and in Madhurya rasa.

      Just as a reference here are the links again:

      https://www.facebook.com/notes/bv-damodara/priya-narma-sakhas-are-in-madhurya-rasa-and-rupanuga-from-krishna-balaram-mandir/1043414955672032

      http://devotionalconfluence.klungvik.com/files/2015/07/040115-KBM.pdf (Local Version)

      “From Krishna-Balaram Mandir

      Priya-narma-sakhas are in Madhurya-rasa and are Rupanuga

      from Srila Gurudeva’s actual words, with tape references:

      1. 19931212_13 SB10_31_15_16 CONT SBSSP DISP WITH SDG TAPE 7 (from 33:00)

      “…without Rupa-manjari we cannot serve Radhika. There are also – you know that Subala, Sridama, they are priya-narma-sakha – Ujjvala. They are inclined to Srimati Radhika and they are pleased if Radhika and Krsna meets. But there are some also cowherds, priya-narma-sakha for Candravali. Those who plea- But Prabhupada was very, very much inclined to Srimati Radhika in favor of rupanuga. He was rupanuga.””

      http://devotionalconfluence.klungvik.com/files/2015/07/They-are-Unable-to-Touch-Srila-Gurudevas-Heart.pdf

      3. Where is there any un-interpreted (as-it-is) statement from Srila Gurudeva declaring our Srila Prabhupada to be a Sakha of any kind?

      ” (To be the dasi of Radhika ) We´ll have to be rupanuga. Without rupanuga, without Rupamanjari, cannot serve to Radhika. There are also… you know that Subala, Sudan, they are priya narma sakhas. They are inclined to Srimati Radhika and they are pleased if Radhika and Krishna meet. But there are also some cowherds, priya narma sakhas for Candravali. They also ple… But Prabhupada was very much inclined to Srimati Radhika in favor of rupanuga. He was rupanuga.” (19931212_13 SB 10_31_15_16 CONT SB SSP DIS DAY WITH SDG Tape A)

      Bv Suddhadvaiti Swami Just read! He says clearly that there are also priyanarma-sakhas of Candravali sakhi but that our Prabhupada is a priyanarma sakha not on her side but on Sri Radha’s side.
      April 1 at 12:47pm

      https://www.facebook.com/notes/bv-damodara/priya-narma-sakhas-are-in-madhurya-rasa-and-rupanuga-from-krishna-balaram-mandir/1043414955672032

      Here Sripad Sudhadvati Swami is referring to the quote used as if it is speaking about “his” Prabhupada.

      Regardless of whether there is a break in the audio, the section quoted is still about Srila Sarasvati Thakura and to use it as evidence of Srila A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as being a priya-nama-sakha is not proper siddhanta.

      If there IS a break in the audio then the first half of the quote has no correlation to the second part about the Prabhupada mentioned as being Rupanuga. So again this is not conclusive evidence from Srila Gurudeva that Srila Swami Prabhupada is a priya-nama-sakha.

      Ys.

      Bala das.

      • The confusion stems from people not understanding that Sripad Nemi Maharaja was joking when he wrote: “KBM: “Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura is a priya-narma-sakha”, which of course was not what KBM intended. They thought it was about ACBSP. I thought so too when I first read it, which was before KBM posted it.

      • Yes, that was very toung in cheek by Sripad Nemi Maharaja.

        But the logic goes:

        If this statement is used to prove the “Prabhupada” mentioned is a Rupanuga priya-nama-sakha then as the “Prabhupada” mentioned is Srila Sarasvati Thakura then this quote can be used to present Srila Sarasvati Thakura as a pryia-nama-sakha.

        Clearly this is not correct so the statement by KBM expressing that this quote as an:

        “un-interpreted (as-it-is) statement from Srila Gurudeva declaring our Srila Prabhupada to be a Sakha of any kind”

        Need to be retracted. Since it damages their position to present this as sidhanta.

        They have so many strong arguments in their siddhantic presentation and it is a shame to have it weakened by such a glaring mistake.

        To then not make any statement of reconciliation about said mistake further weakens their position.

        Ys.

        Bala das.

      • I expect them to make a statement on this in time. They have so far followed up every argument and conception presented to them, so it would be strange if they didn’t this time.

  6. In order to reconcile this complex topic, we must try to – by all means – remain sober in our emotions and judgment, strongly situated in our best and objective self.
    It is pointless to argue under the influence of our emotions and it is pointless to apply rude mannerism within the discussion.

    Listening closely to the tape it is more than clear that there is a break in recording at 33:43- exactly as Malati Dasi pointed out.
    Srila Gurudeva is talking and stops mid word out of the sudden, followed by moments of silence and continuation of Srila Gurudeva talking, but without finishing the sentence where it breaks at 33:43.

  7. Dandavats.

    Do you have the English of this current file.

    It seems that KBM is still using this as evidence for Swami Prabhupada when it is actually refering to Srila Sarasvati Thakura:

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/933182336742905/?pnref=story

    “”Subala, Sridama – they priya-sakhi-narma – they are prone to Radhika … Prabhupada was very, very inclined to Srimati Radhika IN FAVOR rupanuga. He was rupanuga “(12/12/1993).
     
    First, we see here a specific context – Srila Gurudeva says priya-sakhi-narma. Secondly, if Prabhupada was Manjari, why use the word “very, very inclined to Srimati Radhika,” and “in favor rupanuga”? After Manjari and so obviously not something that is “very apt” to Srimati Radhika, and she their life and soul. Also obtained meaningless words “in favor rupanuga.” If Srila Prabhupada was manjaris led Sri Rupa Manjari, Srila Gurudeva would be so directly and said.”

    (From Google Translate)

    • They use it in the spanish version as well. Perhaps it is a tactic to get the other side out of their silence so that we can continue? 😀 Sripad Nemi Maharaja removed his post, perhaps to honor his signature.

      “At any rate, these two groups—gopas and gopis—argue even in Goloka. Although I would score this one for the gopas if that is what is behind all of this.”

      -Swami B. V. Tripurari

      “One of the essential qualities of gopas is that they like to argue just for fun, or for arguing sake alone, or for what others would say ‘for no real reason at all’. This is exactly what is shown here.

      Very much similar to Srila Prabhupada’s own approach, which — if I may add — may find many people unprepared and often off guard. Gopas usually use that moment of astonishment in others to step into an assertive advance, so from a distance it seems they win the argument. However in reality, they simply showcase their boot kicking nature in the art of communication, toward a conclusion that was already set and inherently understood — but not obtained in their own way 🙂

      In every courtroom they’d be excused for wasting judge’s precious time, but in the playroom of divine lila they’re rather charming fellows no one can live without.”

      -Luke Matthewson

      ( comments from this article: http://harmonist.us/2009/07/four-dear-friends/ )

      • Love this story! It makes me feel like the residents of Vrindavin is using this material world and the devotees as their playground and expertly manipulate them in this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *