I’ve been so busy for the last couple of weeks, that it wasn’t until now I realized that part two of Nemi Maharajas posts on Priya narma sakhas had already been published. I had seen the post, but mistakenly thought it was the first post. So joy! There was something new for me to relish.
I found part 1 to be a bit of a rehash of old argument,where Nemi Maharana continues with that priya narma sakhas is in sakhya rasa. Nobody disagrees with this, so I don’t understand the need to argue this point. But still – it’s siddhanta and all good. As mentioned previously, the first posting have a very interesting development. It was the first time we see that the madhurya-rati side aknowledges that Gurudeva have never specifically stated SP is a manjari, but instead uses describing words like gopi-bhava etc. This is a progression of understanding as the madhurya-rati side now moves away from the idea that Gurudeva lied to us and that he was duplicitous. Instead, there’s an understanding that there is room for interpretation of Gurudevas words. Of course, the madhurya-rati side claims there is nothing there to interpret.
The second part of Nemi Maharajas postings is where it gets interesting for me. Previously in this debate, I found the madhurya-rati sides arguments to be weak and not really understanding or even approaching the claims made by the sakhya-rati side. At times I even wondered whether they had even read any of KBMs statements, the public statement suggest they didn’t.
This changes with the current postings by Nemi Maharaja where in the second posting he goes into the following question: Can priya-narma-sakhas enter into madhurya-rasa so deeply that terms such as “madhurya-rasa”, “gopi-bhava” and “maidservant” can legitimately be applied to them?
This goes into the heart of the matter and requires a deep understanding of the function and moods of Priya narma sakhas.
Nemi Maharaja begins by entering this statement by KBM and Damodar Maharaja:
Srila Swami Maharaja is in the mood of a sakhi, he feels internally that he is a sakhi, but for the sake of lila he has the body of a male. For example, sometimes Subala dresses as a sakhi and behaves like a sakhi. This is’ sakhi rupena’, and in this way he likes to give happiness to Radha Rani. BV Damdar Maharaja: SAKHI RUPENA BUT NOT SAKHI
When priya-narma-sakhas become absorbed in tadatmika-bhava with Srimati Radhika, they enter in madhurya-rasa because She is madhurya-rasa-siromani. They taste something of Her mahabhava. At that time, they have gopi-bhava. They completely lose their sakha mood and male identity, and experience tadatmya with Radhika like manjaris. This is tat-tad-bhava-icchamayi, nothing like a sambhogamayi relation with Sri Krsna
bhaty eva na tu Uriah syad esa sancari-gaunavat ||4.8.48|| “However, the primary rasa for a particular devotee, which manifests in his heart by the power of innumerable previous experiences, does not disappear, as the vyahhicdrT-hhdvas or secondary rasas do.”
ahgi mukhyah svam atrahgair bhavais fair abhivardhayan sajatiyair vijatiyaih svatantrah san virdjate ||4.8.49|| “In a combination of rasas, the primary rasa that is the main ahgi-rasa remains independent by nourishing itself through supportive bhdvas, which may be of the same variety or different, but not enemies.”
yasya mukhyasya yo bhakto bhaven nitya-nijdsrayah ahgisa eva tatra sydn mukhyo ‘py anyo ‘hgatdm vrajet ||4.8.50|| “The primary rasa that is revealed as one’s own, for which a particular devotee is the constant dsraya, remains predominant in that particular devotee (ahgt), and other primary rasas become ahgas”
kirn ca — dsvddodreka-hetutvam ahgasydhgatvam ahgini tadvind tasya sampdto vaiphalydyaiva kalpate ||4.8.51|| “However, the other rasas assume the role ofahga only to increase the taste. Their appearance except for this purpose would be useless.”
So, the interesting part here is that there seem to be an inconsistency between the statement by KBM and Bhakti Rasamrita sindhu. The statement by KBM is found in one of these books:
Furthermore, priya-narma-sakhas **cannot** have madhurya-rasa **as part of their permanent relationship** (sthayi-bhava), because the sakhya-rasa of the priya-narma-sakhas is not mixed with any other rasa (BRS 3.3.36-37). Srila Gurudeva relates to our Nemi Maharaja: Srila Prabhupada as a manjari in madhurya-rasa
The priya-narma-sakhas’ sthayi-bhava is angi-rasa. And madhurya-rasa is anga. When anga-rasa is mixed with angi, that anga-rasa should increase the taste of rasa. Otherwise, that anga-rasa (madhurya-rasa) becomes useless.
So, how to understand this (because I don’t)? Again, this is a point that need to be further clarified by the sakhya-rati side.
Next Nemi Maharaja goes into the claim that pns assist in the intimate amorous pastimes (what is Rkgd?) The lovely thing is that now we really have to reference the verses that are being used. This goes into the the claims that pns are not manjaris. The sakhya-rati side does not claim that pns are manjaris, but there is still a piece missing from the puzzle: what is the difference in service between pns and manjaris when pns can get a shadow of mahabhava? KBM have statement that only touches upon the subject, but doesn’t really dive into it.
What I’m also wondering about is if there are divisions within the priya-narma sakhas, because KBM specifically states that SP is a follower of senior pns. What of pns who follow not senior pns?
Our Srila Swami Prabhupada is a follower of the senior priya-narma-sakhas like Subala and Madhumangala. Because of this he has gopi mood like them, and because he is of her level, he also has Rupa-manjari’s mood. KBM: Open the door for dhira-samira
Syamananda prabhu points out that KBM have answered these points in their statement PRIYA NARMA SAKHA SUBALA IS NOT SAMBHOGA-ICCHA-MAYI (IN SAMBHOGА-RASA)
Syamananda prabhu pointed out to me that Nemi Maharaja argues against Damodar Maharaja in this post and not KBM. This is a very good way of circumventing any vaishnava aparadha one might make when one has a differing opinion from high class devotees like Krishna priya didi and Madhusudhana Maharaja. Nemi Maharaja argues siddhanta with an equal instead. If I ever go into a disagreement with my seniors, I hope I will use his example.