tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post6295316286671902262..comments2024-03-07T19:16:51.653+01:00Comments on madangopal: Husbands, throwing prasāda and welcome to the machineadvaitadashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-84587628446637484562022-09-09T21:42:42.664+02:002022-09-09T21:42:42.664+02:00Visvanatha's poetry in this verse is so immens...Visvanatha's poetry in this verse is so immense that it is really hard to say what the manjaris feel but intrinsically all contact with Krishna, of whatever nature, is transcentally blissful.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-69767323069994018312022-09-09T09:09:04.690+02:002022-09-09T09:09:04.690+02:00Wonderful. Probably my last clarification on this ...Wonderful. Probably my last clarification on this whole section is "does the last verse confirm that the manjaris despite their resistance and vow not to enjoy with Krishna, end up actually relishing it?" What does Sri Krishnadevji say in this regard too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-14934316235166833742022-09-09T08:57:59.401+02:002022-09-09T08:57:59.401+02:00Krishnadev Sarvabhauma, sisya of Visvanath, commen...Krishnadev Sarvabhauma, sisya of Visvanath, comments on verse 36 - kinkari apayayat - he made the kinkaris drink. It is definitely kinkaris not sakhis.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-91931568739423360212022-09-08T19:55:52.830+02:002022-09-08T19:55:52.830+02:00Regarding 2)
Verse 36 is translated as: "th...Regarding 2) <br /><br />Verse 36 is translated as: "the maidservants being protected by Krishna's drunkenness, began to softly fan him, seeing that his body, that was now without any ornaments, was studded with pearl-like sweatdrops of fatigue after his erotic battle". <br /><br />Is it these lines that confirm the prema-mayi assault or the next [verse 37]?<br /><br />Verse 37:<br /><br />"The sakhis that had not drunk the honey out of great ecstasy of giving wonderful jewels of their love to Hari, became amazed to see that the moon of wisdom of the drunken gopis was getting slightly freed from the eclipse of ecstasy that was caused by drinking the honey of sweet erotic rasa!" (When one is too drunk there is no real experience of lovemaking, but when one is just slightly intoxicated one enjoys the most, so this was the best situation for lovemaking).<br /><br />I guess both verses make it clear and that these slightly drunken sakhis are the manjaris. <br /><br />The verse seems to also insinuate that the manjaris ultimately end up enjoying Krishna's rati-rasa, would you agree given the wording here?<br /><br />Highly appreciate all this clarification. Hope it is relishable for you to discuss too as it is for me. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-37808443870867755112022-09-08T19:34:17.985+02:002022-09-08T19:34:17.985+02:001) is clearly actual honey wine
2) He did assault ...1) is clearly actual honey wine<br />2) He did assault them later, didn't He?<br />3).the word lanchita means disgrace. it is used by bengali commentator Radhikanath Goswami. rape is maybe a bit of a crude word but it does add up to that<br /><br />advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-70692659497158770442022-09-08T18:49:50.992+02:002022-09-08T18:49:50.992+02:00Jay Sri Radhe! Baba, I've just read your trans...Jay Sri Radhe! Baba, I've just read your translation of these passages now and wanted some clarification and I also have one objection if you could please consider it.<br /><br />(1) In verse 36 you translate: "Again and again Krishna drank three kinds of honey - from cane, from flowers and from ground cane and he made the kinkaris drink also" is this referring to actual honey wine from these 3 items or its referring to something amorous? <br /><br />(2) "The maidservants being protected by Krishna's drunkenness, began to softly fan him" - some may interpret it as Krishna was so drunk that he didn't then get to enjoy with them? although the latter comment of him having an erotic battle [smara-rana] as you said earlier would have to explained.<br /><br />(3) In verse 34 you translated it as "But none of the (dedicated, fanning) kinkaris came close by, (thinking: that king of impertinents is going to rape us!)" - Isn't using that word at least a little off/arasika? Can you justify the use of that word. It seems harsh and can disturb some. I know the kinkaris are not interested in his advances but still, I think you get the point. <br /><br />Thanks in advance.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-46249824715134072542022-09-05T20:45:23.358+02:002022-09-05T20:45:23.358+02:00Available from Rasbihari Lal in Vrindavan, I made ...Available from Rasbihari Lal in Vrindavan, I made a suddhi patra on my website - http://madangopal.com/kb.pdfadvaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-56329658447810024572022-09-05T19:54:36.474+02:002022-09-05T19:54:36.474+02:00Ah wow. Where to get? and what year are the latest...Ah wow. Where to get? and what year are the latest changes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-51043923144509236652022-09-05T18:27:14.808+02:002022-09-05T18:27:14.808+02:00Anon, you mean a translation of the tika of Krishn...Anon, you mean a translation of the tika of Krishnadeva? My later edition of KB has some of it included I believe.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-76696477415477381502022-09-05T15:07:05.769+02:002022-09-05T15:07:05.769+02:00Is there any translation of Krishnadeva Sarvabhaum...Is there any translation of Krishnadeva Sarvabhauma available on Krsna Bhavanamrta either in English or Hindi? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-75534021537909701662022-09-05T10:01:33.631+02:002022-09-05T10:01:33.631+02:00Anon, Sri Rupa's writings are vast. To my know...Anon, Sri Rupa's writings are vast. To my knowledge he does not write the manjaris are consummated. In fact, he rarely mentions manjaris anywhere.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-57274202578996260332022-09-05T09:53:33.654+02:002022-09-05T09:53:33.654+02:00Yes. I can accept this. There are different flavou...Yes. I can accept this. There are different flavours.<br /><br />The other commenter from 2015 [seems like Prema Prayojana to me anonymously] also says "You claim that the manjaris NEVER directly experience all the categories of sambhoga-rasa with Sri Krsna, whereas Srila Rupa Gosvami, Srila Raghunatha Das Gosvami, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura etc. clearly state that Sri Krsna occasionally enjoys meetings with the manjaris at the behest of Srimati Radhika." but I don't think Srila Rupa mentions it in his works correct?<br /><br />Is your version of Krsna Bhavanamrta available in pdf or kindle? Bhanu Swami covers up this union with the manjaris in the passages from Chapter 13 unfortunately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-1128772707559133212022-09-05T09:47:36.391+02:002022-09-05T09:47:36.391+02:00Anon, as you can see elsewhere in this comments pa...Anon, as you can see elsewhere in this comments page, I accept that there are prakashas of Krishna Lila in which the manjaris are consummated by Krishna but most Gaudiya lineages, including mine, consider the concept of non-consummation to be more cherishable. Contemplating each detail of the acaryas descriptions is not compulsory for every Gaudiya sadhaka. It is not apostasy. The Vilapa Kusumanjali verse 16 is very clear about Raghunath Das Goswami's preference.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-47983646295289619992022-09-05T09:23:40.868+02:002022-09-05T09:23:40.868+02:00Perfect explanation.
Yes any rasika or genuine r...Perfect explanation. <br /><br />Yes any rasika or genuine raganuga sadhaka would find such descriptions to be tasteless ...as it is also said that Sri Krishna is very fond of indirect speech too, then what to speak of when concerning his own private affairs!<br /><br />To clarify a little more, if you can. I know the manjaris are generally always not agreeable to Krishna's advances but it does seem that they still do meet with him directly in this manner [in Krsna Bhavanamrta] and also in Mukta Carita. In Mukta Carita, especially it seems that Ranganamala [Sri Rupa Manjari] and Tulasi [Sri Rati Manjari] did meet with Krishna a little more agreeably first, but then disagreeable to pay him "the double" for example in the case of Tulasiji. So it seems generally disagreeable but on occasion succumb to his persistent or shall we say very persistent requests and ploys! What a rasika nagara!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-41746205214204143382022-09-05T09:12:19.227+02:002022-09-05T09:12:19.227+02:00Anon, the acaryas do not give explicit description...Anon, the acaryas do not give explicit descriptions of Krishna's sex life, but the words smara rana [Cupid's battle] in 13.36 make it clear that Krishna consummated the manjaris.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-35544717761727543332022-09-05T09:01:24.356+02:002022-09-05T09:01:24.356+02:00Is there any way you could share passages 13.34-37...Is there any way you could share passages 13.34-37 from your own translation of Krishna Bhavanamrta and insights? Bhanu Swami's is okay but not so lucid I think. Does Krishna only kiss the manjaris here or there is actual rati-keli? I know most of our lineages don't support it but still. Please if possible. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-62538067390245596002022-09-05T08:17:46.693+02:002022-09-05T08:17:46.693+02:00Thanks for your quick grace! Sri RadheThanks for your quick grace! Sri RadheAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-45198211148419930582022-09-05T06:30:46.865+02:002022-09-05T06:30:46.865+02:00Krishna Bhavanamrita, ch.13 and Visvanath Cakravar...Krishna Bhavanamrita, ch.13 and Visvanath Cakravarti's Ujjvala Nilamani tika.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-46844328359341535842022-09-04T22:30:40.892+02:002022-09-04T22:30:40.892+02:00Jay Radhe! Where exactly does it mention that the ...Jay Radhe! Where exactly does it mention that the manjaris meet with Krishna? I have heard other seasoned Gaudiyas state the same. Advaita dasa, could you also share these passages since you'll also no doubt be familiar with them. Many thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-91511478830117800702015-07-17T14:50:40.596+02:002015-07-17T14:50:40.596+02:00Anon -
1. Anantadas Babaji writes in his translat...Anon -<br /><br />1. Anantadas Babaji writes in his translation <i>'bhartāra anupasthita kāle-o'</i> "Even when your husband is not present."<br /><br />As far as the meaning of bhartṛikā is concerned - this is in Sanskrit.de dictionary -<br /><br /><b>भर्तृक bhartRka f. husband</b><br /><br />You said - <i>So we have to examine why it is that you and the great Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura have a difference of opinion on this.</i> <br /><br />Somehow you still do not get my point - I never said that the great Visvanatha or any other acarya is<br /><b>WRONG</b> about this. rasa is a subjective matter, unlike siddhānta, provided there is no rasābhāsa.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-70804659321111361222015-07-17T13:42:19.432+02:002015-07-17T13:42:19.432+02:00It's simple. The manjaris prefer to experience...It's simple. The manjaris prefer to experience the rasa of Sri Radhika's meeting with Sri Krsna far more than their own meeting with Sri Krsna. We all perfectly agree on this point. The difference lies here. You claim that the manjaris NEVER directly experience all the categories of sambhoga-rasa with Sri Krsna, whereas Srila Rupa Gosvami, Srila Raghunatha Das Gosvami, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura etc. clearly state that Sri Krsna occasionally enjoys meetings with the manjaris at the behest of Srimati Radhika. <br /><br />You have offered the phrase anAgata-bhartRkAyAH from the first verse of Sri Vilapa Kusumanjali as your pramana that Sri Rupa Manjari is not married, but Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has used exactly the same line to prove that Sri Rupa Manjari IS married and that her relation with Sri Krsna is one of parodha-bhava. So we have to examine why it is that you and the great Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura have a difference of opinion on this. <br /><br />In your English translation of this verse, you have translated bhartRkAyAH as "your husband". And this is the root of the problem. The word bhartRkAyAH is a feminine singular noun in the genitive case. Thus the correct translation is "of the wife". Furthermore, when adjectives are added to bhartRkA they indicate the status of her relationship with the husband. For example mRta-bhartRkA, rather than meaning "dead-wife", it means "a wife whose husband has died" i.e. a widow. Thus, as Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura points out anAgta-bhartRkAyAH really does mean "a wife whose husband has not returned", This is the only possible conclusion since the interpretaion "a wife who does not yet have a husband" is obviously impossible.<br /><br />A further consideration is that in Vedic times the marriages were arranged in childhood long before the couple actually lived together. We find much evidence of this in Sri Gopala Campu. Whatever the case, bhartRkAyAH cannot refer to an unmarried woman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-85364158353296611372015-07-11T05:28:12.903+02:002015-07-11T05:28:12.903+02:002 july, if you are the same anonymous -
"You...2 july, if you are the same anonymous -<br /><br />"Your argument that the rasa of non-involvement with Sri Krsna is superior, which of course it is,"<br /><br />You agree that non involvement is superior, so what is the argument here? Have you ever TRIED manjari bhava or are you just a bookworm?<br /><br />As for pramāṇa,I quoted anāgata in Vilāpa Kusumānjali. an = not, āgata = has come.advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-11610979338362876372015-07-10T21:44:31.726+02:002015-07-10T21:44:31.726+02:00It seems that you are avoiding the issue. I have p...It seems that you are avoiding the issue. I have presented the pramana from several major acaryas, who are accepted universally by all Gaudiya vaisnavas, to show that the manjaris are both married and also have a parodha-bhava relationship to Sri Krsna. I am open to another possibility, but not if there is zero pramana to support it. So if you are going to write an article informing the world that the manjaris are not married, it is only reasonable to expect at least one pramana from your side.<br /><br />In regard to your last post you wrote: <br /><br />Advaitadas Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:49:00 PM GMT+2 "I did not mention that the husbands are an illusion." <br /><br />Yet earlier in this thread you wrote: <br /><br />Advaitadas Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 9:28:00 AM GMT+2 "All husbands in nitya-līlā are chāyā-rūpa anyway – shadow-forms, not real."<br /><br />Were both these statements written by the same Advaitadas or is one of them chaya-rupa?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-88735563691243296732015-07-02T13:49:04.352+02:002015-07-02T13:49:04.352+02:00Anon I have already acknowledged that I am aware a...Anon I have already acknowledged that I am aware and have always been aware of the opinions of some of our ācāryas, meaning that it is certainly one way of conceiving of manjari bhāva, though it is not our way. I did not mention that the husbands are an illusion, but it is a fact that no śāstra describes the roles of husbands even of nāyikās what to speak of kinkarīs. How is this a cop out?advaitadashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11562361400492002096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15485481.post-39506474331974890462015-07-02T09:24:59.345+02:002015-07-02T09:24:59.345+02:00Please kindly answer 3 questions:
1) If do you not...Please kindly answer 3 questions:<br />1) If do you not accept VCT's inescapably clear statement that Rupa Manjari is in parodha-bhava please share with us your translation of the words rüpa-manjary-ädayah parodhä eva jneyah from Ananda Candrika 3.13.<br />2) Explain how some gopis could remain unmarried till the age of 13 in a society where there is no feminism and girls have no choice but to accept arranged marriage in their childhood?<br />3) If dattah kanyakah does not refer to kanya-dana (marriage), then what does it mean?<br />4) If you don't accept the sastras composed by Dhyanacandra Gosvami, Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura, Srila Narottama Das Thakura, and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, which are unanimous in their conclusion that Sri Rupa Manjari and her followers are married, then where is the evidence that one should or can accept kanya-bhava to become Rupanuga? ( I mean serious pramana, not just "Sastra does not describe pastimes with the husbands so they must not exist, and if they do it's just an illusion anyway", and other cop-outs)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com