Video by Nemi Maharaja

Nemi Maharaja has made a video explaining his point on why he means Srila Prabhupada can’t be a priya-narma sakha. The video is excellently made! The sound quality is fantastic, he explains his point in a very simple way that I think all devotees will be able to follow, the surroundings are nice and he keeps his message so short that everybody will watch the video to the end and not get lost on the way.

I mean, it was just excellently made! I loved it ! Quality in the making. Truly, excellent work.

Then there’s the message. The easiest way to counter his arguments is that priya-narma sakhas have sakhi-bhava, thereby he’s disregarding Gurudevas own words in his book Bhakti rasamrta Sindhu bindu p.254:

The priyanarma-sakhas are superior in every way to the three other types of sakhas. They are engaged in extremely confidential services and are possessed of a very special bhava (sakhi-bhava). In other words they perform confidential services for the preyasis (lovers) of Sri Krishna, they assist Krishna in meeting with the preyasis and they desire to give pleasure to them. These include Subala, Arjuna, Gandharva, Vasanta, Ujjvala and Madhuma∫gala. Of these Subala and Ujjvala are the best.

 

 

 

23 thoughts on “Video by Nemi Maharaja

  1. Dandavat Pranams.
    Dear Maharaja, your statement is not enough proove. This I can clearly see. Somebody who cannot or doesn’t want to understand will always try to find something against. Shrila Gurudeva never said that Prabhupada is a Gopi or a Manjari. If you think so you have to proove.
    This little book from KB very nicely explains what only some persons with real faith and nishta can understand. It is all quoted by shastra. So, if you say that something in the spiritual world is impossible than this is simply a material concept. And you have to proove that so many other high vaishnavas told wrong about Srila Prabhupada. This you cannot do. I am very sorry, but this statement is not a real statement, it is propaganda against high class vaishnavas who can understand and tell secret truths from the spiritual world which, it seems, you cannot understand. It’s like a lesson given from a school teacher to very small children. It doesn’t proove anything. Well, maybe with some good luck you may get the chance to discuss directly with the vaishnavas who told the truth, than we will see who makes the best arguments. You know that there are different levels of confidential truths in the sastra. So, if you quote something from sastra, whatever, it is ok, but this is only one level of understanding. According to everyone’s level somebody might understand and see more. Very easy to understand.
    So, KB has written a book with many wonderful and nice statements, do you really believe that a four minute statement can vanquish the siddhanta of the vaishnavas? No. Sorry Maharaja, but if I am allowed to give my statement….FAIL!
    Dandavat Pranams. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga!

  2. Dandavat pranams to all,
    It seems this is very hard for so many devotees to digest. It is a serious subject.
    It changes everything.

    My only ask is that all sides please be respectful and compassionate to each other. Why can’t we just agree to disagree? Why instead so much apparadha is coming?

    Surely there are ways how we can all learn and grow from this for the better.

    Anyone who is interested in the book “One Drop Of Vraja Rasa”, KBM just published on this topic, please let me know and I’ll be happy to send it.

    Praying for the Golden age to keep us all together, fighting against a much bigger enemy that strives to have us all long forgotten.

    Jai Jai Sri Radhe
    jamuna devi dasi from London

  3. “The priyanarma-sakhas are superior in every way to the three other types of sakhas. They are engaged in extremely confidential services and are possessed of a very special bhava (sakhi-bhava).”

    Srila Gurudeva clarifies what that actually means in one lecture:

    “”The priya-narma sakhas can touch mahabhava, but not more than that. In Jaivadharma and Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu it is written that they can take shelter of some small aspect of sakhi bhava. They cannot be like Rupa manjari, who can even taste Srimati Radhika’s madanakya maha-bhava (the highest development of Mahabhava, which is not even found in Lalita and Visaka). They cannot serve Krsna and Radha while they are playing in the kunjas. They can never go there. Subala may sometimes bring Krsna to a kunja, but he can never go inside and serve.”

    Los Angeles lecture on May 30 2000

    So they can ” take shelter of some small aspect of sakhi bhava.”

    They are still sambhandanuga, not kamanugua. Sambhandanuga are not rupanuga, i.e fully tad-tad-bhava-ichamayi:

    “”What is kamanuga? Only the Vraja-gopis have kamanuga. Kama means love, not lust; It means ‘pastimes of love.’ In this regard there are two types of kamanuga: sambhogiccamayi and tat-tad-bhaviccamayi. The desire of union or meeting is called sambhoga. The gopis who want to meet Krsna independently and directly are sambhogatmika gopis. They are yuthesvaris. There is so many yutas, groups, and the heads of all the groups have this type of friendly relationship with Krsna. The other type, tat-tad-bhaviccamayi, has the same mood as Radharani. Their only happiness is in Srimati Radika’s meeting with Krsna.”

    Hari Katha 2000 Vraj Srila Narayana Maharaja

    “The kämätmikä-bhakti of Vraja, which is exclusive to mädhurya-rasa, is of two kinds:sambhoga-icchämayé and tat-tad-bhäva-icchämayé. The mädhurya-rasa that Vraja’s yütheçvarés (group leaders) such as Rädhä, Candrävalé and Çyämalä have towards Çré Kåñëa is called sambhoga-icchämayé. Serving the Divine couple in the mood of maïjarés like Çré Rüpa and Çré Rati, whose inclination is towards Çrématé Rädhikä (rädhä-snehädhikä), is called tat-tad-bhäva-icchämayé.

    Bhajan Rahasys Chap 5 text 18 Srila Narayana Maharaja.

    In this context please see also Jaiva Dharma Chapters 21 / 32 and 35.

    Vaishnava das anudas.

    Balabhadra das.

    • Dandavats.

      Sorry for the quote referenced LA 2000, there is no sound file reference to this quote so i can be dismissed until further notice.

  4. Also that book published by KBM still has the error of quoting Srila Gurudeva saying Srila Swami Maharaja is a cowherd boy when he is actually talking about Srila Sarasvati Thakura even after it was proved as such and pointed out to them.

    Here is the lecture and the sound file and a summary of the content in question:

    “The katha in question starts at about 24 mins in. Srila Gurudeva starts speaking about what Srila Sarasvati Thakura spoke about with his godbrothers prior to his departure. (23.50) “Prabhupada knew that he would have to go to his master so he told to his associates… our guru maharaja was there (Srila Bhakti Prjnana Kesava Maharaja), Gosvami maharaja was also there, Kunja bihari prabhu,… Bhakti Vilas Tirtha maharaja and all others,”

    From this initial setting it is clear that the following passages are in relation to Srila Sarasvati Thakura.

    Srila Gurudeva then explains what Srila Sarasvati Thakura spoke at this meeting. Such as “I am unhappy that I have come for a mission to give the things that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came to give and he has ordered me to give vipralambha and all other things, gopi prema.” And “More time went in cutting jungles of mayavadis etc,,,”

    Then;

    “His mood became changed and he told that sloka… *Sloka explaining how Krshna is obedient to Srimati Radhika*.”

    Srila Gurudeva is still clearly referring to Srila Sarasvati Thakura by min 27.

    Srila Gurudeva then expands on the sloka that Srila Sarasvati Thakura quotes until past min 32. This is still in relation to Srila Sarasvati Thakura quoting the sloka.

    Srila Gurudeva then explains the different moods of the gopis. There is still no reference to Swami Maharaja.

    Srila Gurudeva explains that Srimati Radhika has svadina sakyhya bhava and in that mood she can order Krsna.

    Then Srila Sarasvati Thakura is mentiond again at 32.10:

    “So, Radhika is most prominent in all gopis. Prabhupada has also been ordered by Chainaya Mahaprabhu to carry out this order to make Srimati Radhika in all devotees. That they should know that Srimati Radhika is most powerful among all gopis.”

    Since the context has not changed we have to accept that Srila Gurudeva is still referring to Srila Sarasvati Thakura and his orders up until this point::32.39.

    Then Srila Gurudeva, still referring to Srila Sarasvati Thakuras orders says:

    “And to be the dasi of Radhika we will have to be Rupanuga.”

    Thus begins the above quote used as evidence for Srila Swami Maharajas priya-narma-sakha svarupa when it is 100% clear that, since the context has not changed, the quote is about srila Sarasvati Thakura.”

    Here is the sound file:

    http://sbnmcd.org/all_mp3/1982-1995/19931212_13%20%20SB10_31_15_16%20CONT%20%20SBSSP%20DISP%20DAY%20%20WITH%20SDG%20%20TAPE%207%20%20SIDE%20A.mp3

    And here is the lecture transcribed and presented on Purbhakti.com:

    http://www.purebhakti.com/teachers/bhakti-discourses-mainmenu-61/18-discourses-1990s/122-srila-bhaktisiddhanta-sarasvati-thakura.html

    Here is the part quoted in the book according to the website:

    “Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was ordered by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to help all devotees understand that Srimati Radhika is the most powerful among all the gopis, and that in order to become Her dasi (maidservant), we will have to become rupanuga. Without being rupanuga – without the guidance of Sri Rupa-manjari – we cannot serve Radhika.

    Sri Krsna’s priya-narma sakhas (His most intimate of cowherd friends) like Subala and Sridama are inclined towards Srimati Radhika. They are pleased when Radhika and Krsna meet. There are also some priya-narma-sakhas who facilitate Candravali’s relationship with Krsna, but Prabhupada Sarasvati Thakura was greatly inclined to Srimati Radhika, in favor of rupanuga. He was rupanuga. He wanted to distribute this idea of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu: we want to be the servant of Sri Rupa-manjari, so that we can serve Sri Sri Radha and Krsna, not Candravali and others.

    Srila Sarasvati Thakura’s idea was to preach rupanuga-bhakti. Actually it was not to preach it, for rupanuga is not preached. His idea was to inspire devotees for this service to Srimati Radhika.”

    Ys.

    Balabhadra das.

  5. Here is the quote from the KBM book:

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

    “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 quote Yamuna from her first post.

    FAIL!. 😉

    Vaishnava das anudas.

    Balabhadra das.

  6. To clarify:

    The priya-narma-sakhas, according to Jaiva Dharma and Srila Gurudeva, are sambhand-rupa ragatmika and the manjaris are kamatmika tad-tad-bhava-ichamayi ragatmika.

    Anyone following sambhanda-rupa ragatmaka jana are sambhandanuga sadhakas. Thus is Srila Prabhpdada was a cowherd bow he could give sambhanda-rupa bhakti ragatmika, not tad-tad-bhava-ichamayi kamatmika ragatmika bhakti because “The kämätmikä-bhakti of Vraja, … is exclusive to mädhurya-rasa.” and “Only the Vraja-gopis have kamanuga.”

    Anyone following tad-tad-bhava-ichamayi kamatmika ragatmika jana such as Rupa manjari are rupanuga. Thus if Srila Prabhupada was performing the pastime of being such a rupanuga, but is actually a kamatmika tad-tad-bhava-ichamai manjari,. then he can give rupanuga bhakti. Otherwise he cannot give the the fullest extent off the gift of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu because priya-narma-sakhas “…cannot be like Rupa manjari, who can even taste Srimati Radhika’s madanakya maha-bhava.” This mood is the real treasure of unutojjvala rasa sva bhakti sriyam. Srila Prabhupada came to give this and nothing less this is Gaura-vani-pracharine. If he was a cowherd boy then the mood mentioned above is not within his power to give as they cannot taste that bhava.

    śrī-caitanya-mano-‘bhīṣṭaṁ sthāpitaṁ yena bhū-tale
    svayaṁ rūpaḥ kadā mahyaṁ dadāti sva-padāntikam

    “When will Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prabhupāda, who has established within this material world the mission to fulfill the desire of Lord Caitanya, give me shelter under his lotus feet?”

    Vaishnava das anudas.

    Balabhadra das.

  7. Quote of the day:

    “Priya narma-sakhas …… cannot be like Rupa manjari.”

    Bas.

    Vaishnava das anudas.

    Balabhadra das.

  8. Dandavat pranams, Balabhadra prabhu.

    I’m happy to see your making a great effort at a siddhantic discussion again. I’m soon to leave for india, so I don’t know when I will have the possibility to respond. Hopefully, may be Syamananda Prabhu will make an effort?

    Haridasi

  9. Dandavat pranams,

    For starters: KBM has said from the beginning that madhurya-rasa is the anga-rasa of the priya-narma-sakhas, not that their sthayi-bhava is madhurya-rati. So the video does not apply to them, but thanks for the preyo-bhakti-katha!

    Now consider this:

    Sripad Damodara Maharaja at one point quoted Sri-Sri-Radha-Krishna-Ganoddesa-Dipika, saying that Subala-sakha is madhuro-bhava bhavita, “absorbed in madhurya-bhava”. Sripad Nemi Maharaja replied in his September 9 article that this is an incorrect translation and should read madhuro bhava-bhavita, “sweet, charming and absorbed in bhava”. This may be correct according to basic sanskrit grammar. But the interesting thing is that Srila Narayana Maharaja translates it in his own hindi edition the way Damodara Maharaja followed. So it appears that Srila Rupa Goswami hid a gold nugget for Srila Narayana Maharaja to discover.

    In the same way Srila Narayana Maharaja hid a gold nugget in his lecture about Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, that of confirming Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami’s priya-narma-sakha-svarupa, to be discovered later on.

    Gaura-bhakta-vrnda ki jaya

    • “In the same way Srila Narayana Maharaja hid a gold nugget in his lecture about Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, that of confirming Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami’s priya-narma-sakha-svarupa, to be discovered later on.”

      How is that since the quote used as evidence of Srila Swami Maharaja being a priya-narma-sakha is speaking about Srila Sarasvati Thakura?

      • Which, by the way, you yourself admitted in an earlier post Syamanada prabhu.

        Present your philosophy any way you like, but please stick to proper sidhanta and the words of Sri Guru as they are, not with unnecessary interpolated meanings. The quote in reference is NOT about Srila Swami Maharaja and therefore NOT evidence of any kind of rupanuga priya narma sakha by my gurudeva Srila Narayana Maharaja.

      • I’m the one who has seen the “as is” reference by KBM as a mistake from their side. I don’t think Syamananda Prabhu has said anything otherwise.

        I would like to point out something Gurudeva wrote to me in 2005: “Please do not be worried that you have made an offense. In service sometimes due to lack of experience small mistakes are there. This is not an offense.”

        It has taken me almost ten years to understand this lesson, but because of it one of my mottos is that there is room for a lot of mistakes, my own and of others.

        I have internalized this instruction so much that I now look at mistakes by vaishnavas as something that may be revealed to me when the time is right or that the appearance of a fault is temporary.

        I have also stated that I consider this to be a small mistake that doesn’t really have such a huge impact that it seems you are interpreting it. Which implies to me that you see this as proof that they are not maha-bhagavats and therefore can dismiss all of the siddhanta. I understand this is an important point for you and I have tried to acknowledged it, but that doesn’t mean everybody will agree with you.

  10. Syamananda dasa on August 5, 2015 at 15:14 said:

    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”?

    – See more at: http://devotionalconfluence.klungvik.com/2015/08/05/conversation-continues-rasa-of-srila-prabhupada/#sthash.l8Z7FaJi.dpuf

    Also Hadidasi didi.

    It is fine to make a mistake, but to publish it in a book as a representation of the “Real teachings” of Srila Narayana Maharaja’s tattva sidhanta with the same mistake present in the book AFTER it was pointed out to them, is not OK.

    Ys.

    Balabhadra das.

    • What I am pointing out has no refrence as to who is or is not a Maha Bhagavata, that is just your interpretation of how I am presenting this point.

      As a matter of fact, if anyone has affection for Srila Gurudeva or the elevated vaishnavas of KBM then they would surely appreciate a mistake being pointed out to them in order to be rectified. Srila Gurudeva often said that himself about his own books.

      As such if it is presented the way it is now, with the error present, it is a disservice and misrepresentation of both Srila Gurudeva AND the vaishanvas of KBM.

      We are in the line of Srila Sarasvati Thakura “apasidhanta dvanta harine.”

      Ys.

      Balabhadra das.

  11. Yes, Balabhadra Prabhu, I agree that he ‘seems’ to be talking about Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta according to the context. But I am not satisfied with your explanation that the mention of the priya-narma-sakhas was to explain that SBSST is not a priya-narma-sakha. It don’t see why he would make that point. Therefore I believe that he embedded a statement about Srila Swami Maharaja there.

    Below is a quote from Srila B. P. Kesava Maharaja that illustrates this principle. He is referring to Krishna’s speaking the Bhagavad-gita. Don’t take it to mean that I’m implying KBM is extraordinarily dear while others are not. Sri Guru can relate to many individuals at once, like Krishna entering the wrestling arena.

    “An intelligent lover, who is the object of love for everyone, will speak to common people in a general way about affectionate service to him. If his beloved is also present among the general people, then, in midst of his general topics, he will hint to his beloved in a hidden manner about how to please him in a special way. Although ordinary people will be unable to understand such hints, those who are extraordinarily dear to him will certainly be able to comprehend them.”

    • Dandavats.

      I will never speak with you about this again.

      Quite frankly it seems you have lost all good sense.

      What a preposterous interpolation of my gurudevas words. Even KBM are not presenting it as such, just that the “Prabhupada mentioned” is Srila Swami Maharaja, which is a mistake as he is not even mentioned or refereed to until the en of the lecture. If your understanding is correct (which it is not) then we can insert anything we like wherever we like to fit whatever philosophy we want to any words of any mahabhagavata. So insanely chaotic and not even close to the descending process of sad anga saranagati and gurudevatatma.

      How much wrangling and interpolation is required to prove the priya-narma-sakha theory? It is really incredible the lengths people go to to defend a position once a mistake has been pointed out. During that lecture you can also be sure that NONE of the devotees from KBM that you are indicating were present so how is you second word juggling interpolation even relevant? But you know who WAS there? Srimati Syamarani didi and Sripad Madhava Maharaja.

      It is just so much simpler for me to accept the words or my gurudeva under the guidance of much senior vaishnavas and leave it at that, else I will be second guessing him all the time.

      • Mine was an attempt at an apologetic for KBM’s using the quote. If I have misrepresented them, my attempt was useless. Perhaps you can help me understand where my understanding differ from theirs.

        Suddhadvaiti Maharaja wrote:

        “To the best of my remembrance, it was a lecture on the day of Srila Sarasvati Thakura, but this passage is about our Srila Prabhupada”

        and

        “But, if the conversation is about Srila Sarasvati Thakura it would mean he is a priyanarma-sakha!? It doesn’t add up.”

        And in one of their papers, they wrote (perhaps not about the specific lecture in question, but anyway):

        “Srila Gurudeva also knew that we understood what he was doing. Many times we were present while he preached like this to Srila Swami Maharaja’s disciples, and at those times he would look to us and smile.”

        This also squares with your Gurudeva chastising Lilasuka Prabhu after a hari-katha for having talked about Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s understanding of Srila Prabhupada:

        “Mercy is independent from whatever the truth might be”

        Lilasuka reflected on this: “After having his lotus hand upon my head and hearing him directly impart these words from his lotus mouth into my heart, I was never concerned about whether Srila Gurudeva was speaking the truth or not. I am not even disturbed if others say he has not spoken the truth. His heart is pure. He has so much love for me and all others. What ever he speaks is mercy and what I need to hear.”

Leave a Reply

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