Further deliberations on the debate of Srila Prabhupadas rasa

This is a response by Syamananda prabhu to three of the many good points raised by Balabhadra Prabhu in comments to recent posts on this blog.

1. How can you expect senior devotees (diksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada who have taken shelter of Srila Narayana Maharaja) to take lessons from junior devotees (the preachers of KBM)?

2. Why would disciples of Srila Narayana Maharaja support their views by quoting Srila Tripurari Maharaja, when it is a fact that Srila Narayana Maharaja had Srimati Syamarani Didi oppose the points of Srila Tripurari Maharaja earlier on?

3. How can this statement of Srila Narayana Maharaja be explained to be a preaching strategy: “Any Acarya who is a follower of Sri Rupa is never in sakhya rasa. An Acarya who is in sakhya rasa will come in another line from Sri Nityananda Prabhu”.


 

Dandavats to my Guru and every other vaishnava, according to their position. May they all be pleased with this presentation.

Response to point 1:

To answer the first point I attempted to step into the shoes of those senior devotees by looking at myself in relation to a junior godbrother of mine, Kishore Krishna Prabhu. He joined the ashram just last year whereas I have been here for four years. He chants more japa than I do, does more service and he has corrected me a number of times, for which I have sometimes borne a grudge. Today I had the opportunity to render menial service to him, by the mercy of Sri Sri Gaura Nitai. That service gave me the blessing to be able to respond to points 2 and 3.

Response to points 2 and 3:

Shortly before passing away from the world, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura Prabhupada rested his feet on the chest of Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara-Deva Goswami as the latter sang to him the song Sri Rupa Manjari Pada. The other disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakura saw this as a sign that Srila Sridhara Maharaja had been admitted as the protector of the Rupanuga-varga. Srila Sridhara Maharaja humbly commented on this: “They say that I am the protector, but I think that I am a gatekeeper. Who will go in, he wants to see. So, I am not giving passport or visa to anyone and everyone.” After this several godbrothers, some of them senior, came to Srila Sridhara Maharaja for siksa and some of them sannyasa, reasoning that if they get the sannyasa mantra from him, it will be their entrance to Radha dasyam. Among them were Srila Bhakti Prajnana Keshava Maharaja, the diksa and sannyasa guru of Srila Bhakti Vedanta Narayana Goswami Maharaja, and sannyasa guru of Srila A. C. Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada.

After the passing of Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, some of his disciples took shelter of Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Among them were Srila Prabhupada’s diksa and sannyasa disciple, Srila Bhakti Vedanta Tripurari Maharaja. Srila Sridhara Maharaja considered Srila Tripurari Maharaja to belong to what he called the maha-mandala, meaning the followers of Srila Prabhupada that desired to be under the guidance of Srila Sridhara Maharaja but were in no need of joining his institution for stability. Srila Sridhara Maharaja instructed several of them to start their own missions, including Srila Tripurari Maharaja. Srila Sridhara Maharaja knew that Srila Tripurari Maharaja was aspiring for sakhya-rasa and encouraged that.

So there we have the very Rupanuga-varga-raksaka making an acharya out of a follower of Subala. Srila Tripurari Maharaja has among his followers devotees who aspire for madhurya-rasa, and because of his connection to Srila Sridhara Maharaja he is empowered to help them. He even helped his godbrother and co-acarya, Sripad Bhakti Gaurava Narasingha Maharaja, to compose a stotra glorifying Srila Prabhupada as a gopi, despite being aware of Srila Prabhupada’s actual rasa.

This Sripad Narasingha Maharaja attended a lecture of Srila Narayana Maharaja in the early 90’s that he afterwards transcribed and published on his own initiative. This was the first publication in english of Srila Narayana Maharaja’s hari-katha. Srila Narayana Maharaja complemented Sripad Narasingha Maharaja for having done real vaishnava seva.

Not long after this, Srila Narayana Maharaja attracted a greater following and set out for his first world tour. His life airs were charged with instructions from two of his siksa gurus: Srila Swami Maharaja Prabhupada and Srila Bhakti Jivana Janardana Maharaja. The instruction from Srila Prabhupada was to help his disciples and the instruction from Srila Janardana Maharaja was to boldly declare the supremacy of manjari bhava. In the United States, many temple authorities were unsettled by this revolutionary force, and not being ready to embrace it, they banned him from their temples. Only one temple showed vaishnava hospitality, and that was the temple of Srila Tripurari Maharaja in Eugene, Oregon.

During his days there the two Maharajas had private discussions. In one of them Srila Tripurari Maharaja acknowledged the main emphasis on madhurya-rasa in our lineage, but stated that there is also sakhya-rasa. Srila Narayana Maharaja agreed and said that Srila Akincana Krishna Dasa Babaji had personally told him of his affinity for sakhya-rasa. He then added that he does not emphasize sakhya-rasa. Another day they were walking along the river near the temple and Srila Narayana Maharaja started telling the pastime of Balarama killing Dhenukasura. At one point he stopped, looked at Srila Tripurari Maharaja and said: “What happened next, Maharaja?” Srila Tripurari Maharaja then told the rest of the pastime, delighted at Srila Narayana Maharaja’s encouragement of his sakhya-rati.

After this, in Vrindavana, Srila Tripurari and Narasingha Maharajas were approached by devotees who felt unhappy behind the wall of an institution that had banned Srila Narayana Maharaja from their temples. They asked the two Maharajas to come and try to convince the authorities. The two Maharajas did go, but were not allowed to present their case. Another time Srila Narayana Maharaja called Srila Tripurari Maharaja to his temple. When Srila Tripurari Maharaja arrived, Srila Narayana Maharaja expressed a concern that some of the western devotees had problems with his presentation that sambhoga and vipralambha are equally important. Srila Tripurari Maharaja replied that he did not see any controversy.

After the debate between Srimati Syamarani didi and Srila Tripurari Maharaja regarding the rasa of Srila Prabhupada, Srila Narayana Maharaja expressed to Srila Tripurari Maharaja that although he maintains his own view, he was satisfied with Srila Tripurari Maharaja’s conviction.

Some months after Srila Narayana Maharaja had passed away, Sripad Bhagavata Maharaja posted a quote about manjari bhava on facebook without citing the author or source. Srila Tripurari Maharaja, who is friends with Sripad Bhagavata Maharaja pointed out that the siddhanta in the quote contradicted the siddhanta of Srila Rupa Goswami. Sripad Bhagavata Maharaja then revealed that Srila Narayana Maharaja had written it and edited his post, adding author and source. Srila Tripurari Maharaja then said that it must be an editing mistake, because Srila Narayana Maharaja, being a Rupanuga vaishnava, would never contradict Srila Rupa Goswami. Sripad Bhagavata Maharaja appreciated the discussion which became to 408 comments. One of the main debaters were Sriman Prem Prayojan Prabhu.

Four years later Sriman Prem Prayojan Prabhu admitted that Srila Tripurari Maharaja was right. Having thus sharpened his understanding of Srila Rupa Goswami’s siddhanta he soon after took part in the discussion between KBM and the rest of Srila Narayana Maharaja’s sanga, by presenting two articles about the relationship between priya-narma-sakhas and madhurya-rasa. In those articles, he made the point that the sthayi-rati of a priya-narma-sakha is not a sankula of sakhya and madhurya. Srila Tripurari Maharaja acknowledged that that was a good point.

So, Srila Tripurari Maharaja and Sriman Prem Prayojan Prabhu both learned from each other about their own rasas. This is what the Bhagavad-gita calls bodhayantas parasparam kathayantas ca mam nityam. Krishna says that his devotees always talk about him and enlighten one another about him. Let’s continue that.

With joy,
Syamananda dasa, Audarya monastery.

Reference: The above mentioned FB thread of Sripad Bhagavata Maharaja 

27 thoughts on “Further deliberations on the debate of Srila Prabhupadas rasa

  1. Point one is misrepresented:

    1. How can you expect senior devotees (diksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada who have taken shelter of Srila Narayana Maharaja) to take lessons from junior devotees (the preachers of KBM)?

    My point was that said senior devotees are not only senior to the preachers of KBM, but are also presently under the shelter of siksha guru’s such as Srila Bharati Maharaja and Srila Bhakti Ballabha Tirtha Maharaja. Also my point was that said senior devotees do not have faith in the preachers of KBM for reasons they consider valid. Thus how can they accept their siddhantic conclusions as superior to the conclusions of their guru who they DO have full faith in. It is also misrepresented in that said senior disiples do not only have to accept the teaching of the KBM mandir, but that they have to accept he absolute position of its leaders, which, again, for many of their own reasons, they will not do. So its not just about “accepting instructions from juniors” it is far more complex than that. Thus point one has not been addressed as it is not actually the point I was making.

    Point two and three are not answered in your presentation satisfactorily in relation to Srila Gurudeva disciples quoting Sripad Tripurari Swami on this subject:

    “Dear Sripad B.V. Tripurari Maharaja,
    Please accept my heartly dandavats pranams. All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga, all glories to Sri Sri Radha Vinode Bihariji.
    I received your letter and became very happy to hear from you after a long, long time.
    Regarding the contents of your message, if you have strong belief that your Gurumaharaja was in sakhya mood, I have no objection. I do not desire to enter into debate – argument and counter argument.
    You should understand that I know Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja from beginning, since 1946. He is my siksa guru, also he is my bosom friend; many times we were laughing and joking together.
    So, I know him and I have a strong belief that he is in gopi bhava, following the mood of Sri Rupa Manjari. You will not be able to change my conviction and I request that you will not try to do this. I am satisfied that you have a strong faith that your Gurumaharaja is in sakhya bhava. But I want to inform you that Rupanuga means that he follows Srila Rupa Gosvami and Sri Rupa Manjari.
    I also know that he was familiar with this sloka:
    ‘aradhyo bhagavan vrajesa tanayas tad dhama vrndavanam / ramya kacid upasana vraja vadhu vargena ya kalpita / srimad bhagavatam pramanam amalam prema pum-artho mahan / sri caitanya mahaprobhor matam idam tatradaro nah parah’
    He has also read Sri Bhaktirasamrta Sindhu and Sri Ujjvala Nilamani; thus he was able to select the best method of worship.
    Also he was familiar with:
    ‘anarpita-carim cirat karunayavatirna kalau samarpayitum unnatojjvala rasam sva bhakti sriyam
    Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has come to give raganuga marg and especially within this raganuga marg the mood of Sri Rupa Manjari.
    Thus I cannot admit anything else, but I appreciate your belief that he was in sakhya bhava.
    Vaisnavadasanudasa, Swami B.V. Narayan”

    “From: Swami B.V. Narayan
    Date: Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:58 PM
    Subject: Re: a few more considerations
    To: swami bv tripurari
    Both Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, they have told them selves what is their siddha svarupa – Sri Kamala Manjari and Sri Nayana Manjari. Our all Rupanuga Acarayas are manjaris.
    Most important thing is that at the time of diksa a bona fide Gurudeva in our parampara gives Gopal mantra and Kama gayatri. In these two mantras he gives the transcendental relationship of the disciple with Sri Krsna, which is the same as the transcendental relationship that the gopis have with Sri Krsna.
    Secondly, the bona fide sannyasa guru, at the time of sannyasa initiation, according Samskara Dipika, he is giving gopibhava and the disciple admits this. This point makes it even more clear.
    Still, I appreciate your belief that he was in sakhya bhava.”

    Srila Gurudeva says, in the same way he says “no harm” about the sanyassi in this quote:

    http://sbnmcd.org/all_mp3/2008/20080530_HOUSTON_AM_ENGHINDI_MORNINGWALK.mp3

    “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.”

    But we can see that although Srila Narayana Maharaja greatly honored Sripad Tripurari swami he certainly did not agree on his view of sakhya-rasa for Swami Prabhupada.

    Thus as a disciple of Srila Gurudeva it still makes no sense to quote Sripad Tripurari Swami in defense of sakhya-rasa as he was not consulted with, or agreed with by our guru on this stance, at the time of his manifest pastimes.

    A disciple who has faith in his as Sri Guru is entitled, and encouraged, to glorify him as such. But as disciples of Srila Gurudeva we accept his conception of Srila Gurudeva in manjari svarupa as absolute and the highest as that was his stance during his whole sojourn on this planet and it never wavered, not even once.

    Srla Gurudeva:

    “So, I know him and I have a strong belief that he is in gopi bhava, following the mood of Sri Rupa Manjari. You will not be able to change my conviction and I request that you will not try to do this.”

    “Thus I cannot admit anything else.”

    So why are Srila Gurudevas disciples now trying to change the conviction of other Srila Gurudeva disciples using the words of the sanyassi that Srila Gurudeva made this statement this to? Why should Srila Gurudeva disciples admit anything else? In fact you can see in the letter that even though Srila Gurudeva said “You will not be able to change my conviction” and that “I do not wish to enter into argument and counter argument” he felt strongly enough about the matter that he then tried to give siddhanta to Sripad Tripurari Swami in order for him to understand his (Srila Gurudevas) conception of the meaning of Rupanuga in its highest essence. Further in the email we have another quote by Srila Gurudeva on Rupanuga:

    Srila Gurudeva:

    “Our all Rupanuga Acarayas are manjaris.”

    I am only using direct quotes of Srila Gurudeva as evidence.

    If you can find anywhere recorded this statement:

    “In one of them Srila Tripurari Maharaja acknowledged the main emphasis on madhurya-rasa in our lineage, but stated that there is also sakhya-rasa. Srila Narayana Maharaja agreed and said that Srila Akincana Krishna Dasa Babaji had personally told him of his affinity for sakhya-rasa. He then added that he does not emphasize sakhya-rasa”

    Then Srila Gurudevas senior disciples may accept and consider this statement.

    Ys.

    Balabhadra das.

    • One way to look at it is that Srila Narayana Maharaja did not have a direct vision of Srila Prabhupada’s siddha-deha, but had a strong belief that he was in gopi-bhava, as he himself expressed it. This does not minimize his position in any way at all. Personalities in Gaura-lila had different opinions regarding other personalities in Gaura-lila. Yoga-maya. A high-level vaishnava is interested in his own siddha-deha and that of his main guru.

      Srila Narayana Maharaja wanted his disciples to see Srila Prabhupada as a manjari to help them get a samskara for manjari bhava. That still applies for any one who wishes to.

      • A siksa-guru deepens your relationship to guru-tattva, not necessarily the siddha-deha of your specific diksa-guru.

        Srila Narayana Maharaja’s instructions on how to see Srila Prabhupada as a palyadasi were general, the likes of which you can find in the smarana-paddhatis of our sampradaya. Totally appropriate.

      • This explained the letter from Gururdeva to Tripurari Swami to me. I’ve always found his phrasing strange: “I have a strong belief …. Thus I cannot admit anything else…”

        It was because he didn’t have direct vision of SPs siddha-deha. Now I understand.

      • Dandavats didi.

        Are you trying to say that you, a Srila Gurudeva disciple believes that Srila Gurudeva did not have direct darshan of Srila Prabhupadas siddha-deha?

        Please tell me that’s not true :/.

      • Dandavats,

        I have no doubt that Gurudeva is an uttama maha-bhagavat, but I have looked into the siddhanta and Gurudevas statements and I favor the side who believes SP is priya-nama sakha.

        For me the statement in Gurudevas letter goes within this statement:
        “Sripad Madhava Maharaja: Srila Jiva Gosvami says that Krsna empowers His pure devotee with His own qualities. Krsna has so many qualities, and one of His best qualities is that He empowers His pure devotees with sarvajnata and mugdata: omniscience and bewilderment or lack of knowledge.”
        http://www.purebhakti.com/teachers/bhakti-discourses-mainmenu-61/19-discourses-2000/192-did-srila-prabhupada-know-srila-bv-narayana-maharaja.html

      • That’s different to saying that “Srila Gurudeva did not have darshan of Srila Prabhupdas svarupa.”

        And why are you quoting Sripad Madhava Maharaja when he fully accepts that Srila Prabhupada is a manjari and disagrees with the KBM preaching?

        If you use his siddhanta here but reject other parts then why quote him at all?

        Sripad Madhava Maharaja has signed the Purebhakti sanga letter against the sakhya rasa preaching by KBM.

        If you do not believe that Srila Gurudeva had darshan of Srila Prabhupadas svarupa but claim you think he is a Maha Bhagavata then you have not understood Srila Gurudevas relationship with Srila Prabhupada.

      • Quote:

        Hari dasi:

        “It was because he (Srila Gurudeva) didn’t have direct vision of SPs siddha-deha. Now I understand.”

        End quote.

        This is incorrect thinking for a disciple of Sri Guru. I can gaurantee you that Syamanada prabhu has no doubt that his Guru had direct darshan of Srila Prabhupadas sidha-deha. It shows that, actually, that you have not understood.

        Syamananda prabhu, why inspire doubt in the heart of the disciple of another Guru in this respect by stating:

        Quote:

        Syamananda prabhu:

        “One way to look at it is that Srila Narayana Maharaja did not have a direct vision of Srila Prabhupada’s siddha-deha.”

        End quote:

        No, this is NOT one way to look at if from a disciples point of view. I don’t even think that KBM would appreciate this way of “looking at it”.

        This was a highly offensive statement that led to the doubts of one of my godsisters in regards to the relationship of my Srila Gurudeva with Swami Prabhupada and his realizations in that aspect.

        Quote:

        Syamananda Prabhu:

        “I did not say definitively that your Gurudeva did not have direct darshan of Srila Prabhupada’s siddha-deha. I said it’s a possibility, and a possibility that would not diminish your Gurudeva’s position.”

        Oh but you are quite wrong there. I dare you to make such a statement to any of Srila Gurudevas senior vaishnavas. They would NOT see this as “not diminishing his position.” Try speaking this to Sripad Madhava Maharaja or Srimati Syamarani didi. Even speak this to Sripad Madhusudana Maharaja. For these Vaishnavas, who you have the audacity to quote here, it is certainly not and never will be a “possibility” that Srila Gurudeva did not have darshan of Srila Swami Maharajas siddha-deha. This undermines our understanding of Srila Gurudevas relationship with Swami Prabhupada in so many ways that you cannot imagine……..

        The line had been crossed.

        Hari dasi, be careful where you associate if it will cause these kinds of thoughts to come into your understanding of Sri Guru.

        Goodbye.

        Ys

        Balabhadra das.

      • Balabhadra Prabhu,

        Did your Gurudeva ever say that he had a direct vision of Srila Prabhupada’s siddha-deha, and saw that he was a manjari? If so, I am ready to accept Sripad Nemi Maharaja’s theory that several personalities resided in Srila Prabhupada.

        Regarding the suhrd-rati point, to bring out the razor sharp siddhanta only glorifies your Gurudeva’s bhava, if he did indeed write about it the way he appears to in the books you quote.

      • Though I always get excited to see what direction Syamananda’s inputs go, my opinions cannot be laid on his feet. They are mine, and mine alone. The reason I changed my opinion from your understanding unto KBM was especially their last post “Now All That Remains Is To Pray for Grace”. Still, I use my intelligence in all spiritual dealings.

        The understanding that our spiritual progress will be ruined for having a different view I consider to be nonsense.

        A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions, considering them controversial, for such discussions strengthen the mind. Thus one’s mind becomes attached to Śrī Kṛṣṇa.
        Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 2.117

      • “And why are you quoting Sripad Madhava Maharaja when he fully accepts that Srila Prabhupada is a manjari and disagrees with the KBM preaching?

        If you use his siddhanta here but reject other parts then why quote him at all?”

        I can have a different understanding on a limited subject without the need to distance myself from them. I really appreciate when I get my understanding challenged, so why would I ever shy away from it? I embrace my ability to have “two different ideas in my head at the same time”. So why shouldn’t I quote Madhava Maharaja who have done such an enormous amount of service and who revealed Gurudevas name , appearance and service in The Supreme Treasure 2?

        I see Gurudeva not only as my beloved Gurudeva, but as a historic figure who entered a certain situation when he accepted SPs order, who wanted to distribute the supremity of manjari bhava. I can see things from many points of view, including the absolute understanding. I can even quote and listen to lectures on topics like this one and appreciate that it can be understood from many aspects. I don’t need to limit myself to only those I agree with. On the contrary, let’s hope I never will limit myself to only those who agrees with me. That would be dreadfully boring.

      • So, there are three theories: cover, inclusion, and multiplicity.

        The saktyavesa-cover-theory actually comes from Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and Mukunda Prabhu is not the first devotee to build on it. That theory was what enabled Sripad Narasingha Maharaja to compose the stotra that I mentioned.

        The cover-theory was not Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s natural opinion, but something he suggested after being criticized for saying that Srila Prabhupada was in sakhya-rasa. He thus gave an alternative way to think about it for those who wanted to see Srila Prabhupada in madhurya-rasa.

        Now, Mukunda Prabhu is trying to say that the cover-theory was Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s actual opinion. The sakhya-rati-side replies that Srila Prabhupada expressed sakhya-rati in the Jaladuta prayer, which was his prayer for empowerment. In other words: The sakhya-rati was there before the empowerment.

        —-

        Your Gurudeva presented the inclusion-theory. That says Srila Prabhupada could express sakhya-rati because all five sthayi-ratis are included in madhurya-rati.

        CC Madha 19.232 says: “On the platform of conjugal love, the devotee offers his body in the service of the Lord. Thus on this platform the transcendental qualities of all five rasas are present.”

        To this the sakhya-rati-side replies that the inclusion of the quality of fraternity in madhurya-rati does not mean that a manjari would want to be a cowherd boy and play with Krishna all day. It means that there is friendship in romantic love.

        —-

        The multiplicity theory is presented by Sripad Nemi Maharaja. He reasons that just as we see in Gaura-lila that several people were present in the body of for example Sri Ramananda Raya, the same might be true for Srila Prabhupada. A manjari inside Srila Prabhupada may then have related with your Gurudeva, whereas a cowherd boy within him wrote the Jaladuta prayer and all the other things.

        To this the sakhya-rati-side reply that Srila Prabhupada has revealed to more than one person that his birth-name Abhaya Carana corresponds with his siddha-name.

        I enjoy the creativity of all these theories. If I were to come up with one, it would be that since the order of Srila Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati was his (Srila Prabhupada’s) life and soul, the bhava of Bhaktisiddhanta was reflected in him and touched people around him, along with his own bhava.

      • Syamananda prabhu: A bit late, but I thought it was Mukunda dasa with the saktyavesa theory who thought several personalities resided within SP?

        Have I missed out on something again?

      • The multiplicity theory is in the “Guru Is One, Guru Is Absolute” statement by S. Nemi Maharaja.

  2. Also, point 3 is a partial point.

    My questions is not:

    “3. How can this statement of Srila Narayana Maharaja be explained to be a preaching strategy: “Any Acarya who is a follower of Sri Rupa is never in sakhya rasa. An Acarya who is in sakhya rasa will come in another line from Sri Nityananda Prabhu”

    My question is that how can we accept, based on the multitude of statements and evidence given by Srila Gurudeva, that the subject matter at had is ALL a preaching tactic. Not just this one little point mentioned here. If you read and hear Srila Gurudevas lectures this matter is presented as a whole siddhantic conclusion. It was a conclusion Srila Gurudeva spent a huge ammount of effort trying to establish it, and he was ridiculed by so many other Gaudiya Maths because of it. Despite this he continued presenting it as siddhanta and did not compromise.

    Furthermore the secondary point was Srila Gurudeva would use said preaching tactic in a private letter to Tripurari Swami, who Gurudeva knew would not be swayed. Where is the value in that for increasing manjari-bhava mood for his disciples?

    My conclusion, according to sadhu, guru, shastra, is that Srila Gurudeva said Srila Swami Prabhupada is a maidservant of Srimati Radhilka who has manjari bhava. Anyone else can think as they like and be satisfied with that, but as Hari dasi didi said, my sankalpa is to be loyal to Srila Gurudeva. For me that loyalty means understanding his words as they are, through senior vaishnavas, without interpretation. I do not want any argument or counter argument, but like Srila Gurudeva said:

    ““Our all Rupanuga Acarayas are manjaris.”

    “All who are under the guidance of Sri Rupa Manjari are her manjari sakhis.”

    ““Any Acarya who is a follower of Sri Rupa is never in sakhya rasa. An Acarya who is in sakhya rasa will come in another line from Sri Nityananda Prabhu”

    ……he (Srila Swami Maharaja) is in gopi bhava, following the mood of Sri Rupa Manjari. You will not be able to change my conviction and I request that you will not try to do this.”

    “I do not desire to enter into debate – argument and counter argument.”

    “Thus I cannot admit anything else.”

    Based on the understanding and mood of my Srila Gurudeva this is my final posting on the matter as my Gurdevas position is quite clear to me.

    Ys.

    Balabhadra das.

    • You are avoiding the point that your Gurudeva’s param-sannyasa-guru, who is recognized as the Rupanuga-varga-raksaka of our parivara instructed a Subalanuga disciple to become an acarya.

      • That quote is a misquote from here:

        “Generally, devotees of the same mood, who are enriched with similar desires, naturally share suhåd-bhäva, intimate friendship, with each other. That is why the love and affection (préti and rati) that Lalitä and the other sakhés have for Çrématé Rädhikä is called suhåd-rati. When their suhåd-rati increases from its normal condition to become the same as or just slightly less than their kåñëa-rati (affection for Çré Kåñëa), it is called saïcäré-bhäva. It is like a wave in their kåñëa-rati, which is their permanent mood. In other words this suhåd-rati becomes a saïcäré-bhäva when the sakhés’ affection for Çrématé Rädhikä rises up and becomes equal to the waves in the ocean of their prominent affection for Kåñëa. But there are some gopés whose tender affection (sneha) for Rädhäjé is so prodigious that it vastly exceeds their kåñëa-rati and continuously increases by the moment due to their full absorption in it. In this case suhåd-rati, no longer a saïcäré-bhäva, is called bhäva-ulläsa-rati, a special feature of madhura-rasa. Of the five types of sakhés, only the nitya-sakhés and präëa-sakhés, who are known as maïjarés, have this bhäva-ulläsa-rati, and for them it is the permanent emotion (sthäyé-rati).”

        Venu Gita. Verse Seven.

        Srila Narayana Maharaja.

        Srila Narayana Maharaja.

        I you hold your Gurudevas conclusions on tattva siddhanta in higher regard than Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja then that is your perogative. However it is not my stance to see things in such a way. For me my Gurudevas opinion is the truth, not preaching tactics. This is my entitlement. Srila Gurudeva did not waver in this siddhanta, neither do the majority of his senior disciples. So neither shall I. You are entitled to your belief but it will not change my view.

        Ys.

        Balabhadra das.

      • P.S

        This was supposed to be presented to the point below.

        Also:

        “You are avoiding the point that your Gurudeva’s param-sannyasa-guru, who is recognized as the Rupanuga-varga-raksaka of our parivara instructed a Subalanuga disciple to become an acarya.”

        Can we have some evidence. and context of this statement please?

        Context is very important.

        But realy, if my godister Hari dasi is refering to my Gurudeva in this quote:

        “This explained the letter from Gururdeva to Tripurari Swami to me. I’ve always found his phrasing strange: “I have a strong belief …. Thus I cannot admit anything else…”

        It was because he didn’t have direct vision of SPs siddha-deha. Now I understand.”

        And you are also of the same opinion then this is not a place where I wish to associate.

        Ys.

        Bala das.

      • “And you are also of the same opinion then this is not a place where I wish to associate. “

        I have appreciated this discussion of siddhanta and I will never consider siddhanta to be something negative even when there’s a disagreement. Though if I am wrong in this, I will give Gurudeva all the time in the world to set the record straight with me. I have deep respect for your view and decisions, so I’m sorry if we see you go as this has been interesting.

      • I did not say definitively that your Gurudeva did not have direct darshan of Srila Prabhupada’s siddha-deha. I said it’s a possibility, and a possibility that would not diminish your Gurudeva’s position.

        And if he did, I’m personally satisfied with KBM’s statement:

        “It was clear to us then that Srila Gurudeva was revealing Srila Swami Maharaja is a priya-narma-sakha, but in a hiding way because he wanted to preach manjari-bhava and that is what the
        situation required. We didn’t want to disturb Srila Gurudeva. When Mohini Bhagavan was distributing nectar to the Devas, Rahu came among them in disguise. Bhagavan knows everything, but the Sun and Moon tried to indicate, “You don’t know who this person
        is?” and for that offense they are still afflicted up to today by eclipse. We knew Srila Gurudeva knows everything, and we did not want to do this type of aparadha.”

      • As for evidence of SSM knowingly instructing a sakhya-rasa disciple (my Gurudeva) to start a mission, I have the legal documents of the founding of that mission, called “Gaudiya Vaishnava Society”. This mission ran for years in SSM’s manifest presence on earth. This is getting ridiculous.

  3. In regards to another topic of sidhhanta presented in this post:

    FB thread of Sripad Bhagavata Maharaja

    Srila Gurudeva has mentioned this point on more than one occasion:

    “Generally, devotees of the same mood, who are enriched with similar desires, naturally share suhåd-bhäva, intimate friendship, with each other. That is why the love and affection (préti and rati) that Lalitä and the other sakhés have for Çrématé Rädhikä is called suhåd-rati. When their suhåd-rati increases from its normal condition to become the same as or just slightly less than their kåñëa-rati (affection for Çré Kåñëa), it is called saïcäré-bhäva. It is like a wave in their kåñëa-rati, which is their permanent mood. In other words this suhåd-rati becomes a saïcäré-bhäva when the sakhés’ affection for Çrématé Rädhikä rises up and becomes equal to the waves in the ocean of their prominent affection for Kåñëa. But there are some gopés whose tender affection (sneha) for Rädhäjé is so prodigious that it vastly exceeds their kåñëa-rati and continuously increases by the moment due to their full absorption in it. In this case suhåd-rati, no longer a saïcäré-bhäva, is called bhäva-ulläsa-rati, a special feature of madhura-rasa. Of the five types of sakhés, only the nitya-sakhés and präëa-sakhés, who are known as maïjarés, have this bhäva-ulläsa-rati, and for them it is the permanent emotion (sthäyé-rati).”

    Venu Gita. Verse Seven.

    Srila Narayana Maharaja.

    “In regard to the execution of this maïjaré sevä, Çrématé Rädhikä becomes the object of Her maidservant’s permanent ecstatic emotion (sthäyi-bhäva) and Çré Kåñëa becomes the object of the maidservant’s transitory emotion that nourishes the sthäyi-bhäva. This is then called the saïcäré-bhäva. In this service, the maïjarés lovingly tend to Çré Kåñëa because He is the love of Rädhä’s life and gives Her happiness. Thus, this sva-bhakti-siddhänta, sweet as nectar, is the philosophical understanding embodied in the followers of Çré Rüpa Gosvämé, who established the rägänuga-rüpänuga-siddhänta-2. This is the essence and the foundation of the ultimate expression of love.”

    Sri Raya Ramanand Samvada. Mungalacharan 8.1 Vivritti.

    Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja.

    “Only Caitanya Mahaprabhu could have brought this understanding to the world. Before Him there was no bhakti-rasa (raganuga-bhakti and rupanuga-bhakti). Bhakti was there, but it was vaidhi-bhakti, not bhakti-rasa. Mahaprabhu especially ordered Sri Svarupa Damodara and Sri Raya Ramananda to sprinkle their mercy upon Srila Rupa Gosvami, so that he could be qualified to realize the Lord’s mood and establish it in the world – and Rupa Gosvami did establish it. The stayi-bhava (permanent transcendental emotion or relationship) discussed herein is of the manjaris, and it is called bhava-ullasa-rati *. It is not directly in relation to Sri Krsna. The manjaris have more inclination towards Srimati Radhika.”

    http://www.purebhakti.com/teachers/bhakti-discourses-mainmenu-61/24-discourses-2005/445-manjari-bhava-you-are-all-fortunate.html

    So in this regard I very much doubt Prem Prayojana Prabhu has changed his stance on this siddhanta.

    You can ask him if you like to make sure before making such a statement, showing him where Srila Gurudeva stated this siddhanta.

    Ys.

    Balabhadra das.

Leave a Reply

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