Reconstructing tradition (2)

This is the 2nd part of a 3-part series on Rebecca Manring's book on Advaita Prabhu and the Advaita Parivāra, called 'Reconstructing tradition', posted to coincide with the Advent Day of Advaita Prabhu. Today 4 subjects: Songs about Advaita Prabhu, various small booklets, some more details on Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī and the Advaita Bālya Līlā Sūtra.

PADĀVALI
Padāvalī means ‘series of songs’ and is a very important and popular bhakti-experience, especially in Bengali Vaiṣṇavism. Mrs. Manring quotes a sample or two in her book, and notes that most of the songs about Advaita Prabhu were not written by His own followers, members of His lineage. There are very few songs about Advaita Prabhu’s pastimes other than those that specifically deal with Mahāprabhu’s pastimes in which Advaita might have played a role. This one (her translation) is about Advaita Prabhu’s advent, written by Ghanaśyām Dās:

On the seventh day of the bright fortnight of the month of Magh,

The ocean of great bliss burst forth.

That moon Advaita descended from Labha’s blessed womb at the auspicious moment.

(His father) Kubera Pandit was thrilled,

And gave various gifts to brahmins and the poor

He raced into the childbirth-room and sw his son’s face

And his heart rejoiced

All the people of Navagram came running, and told each other

They had never seen a child like this.

Mishra in his old age, as the result of his good deeds,

Got a jewel of a son like this.

The gods rained flowers down upon them,

There has never been anything like it

The sound ‘victory! victory!’ filled the world

Ghanasyam proclaims this great glory

MISCELLANEOUS ADVAITA-BOOKLETS

Mrs. Manring then continues in chapter 3 of her book with reviewing other booklets about Advaita Prabhu, starting with the Advaitoddeśa Dīpikā, written by Devakīnandan Das, said to be a śiṣya of Kṛṣṇa Miśra Prabhu. He claims that Advaita Prabhu is the cowherd boy Ujjvala, Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the son of Vasudev, Viśākhā (we follow him in that), Sampūrṇa Mañjarī (that was also claimed in Advaita Mangal) and Sadāśiva (we follow him in that too). This is quite a different picture from what Sādhu Bābā had given me - he said Advaita Prabhu is Madhumangal (instead of Ujjval) in sakhya rasa, Mahāviṣṇu (instead of pūrṇatara (2nd class) Kṛṣṇa in Mathura, though perhaps Devakīnandan and Haricaraṇa see them as one and the same), and Rati Mañjarī (instead of Sampūrṇa Mañjarī, which would make no sense. If Advaita Prabhu is so prominent in Gaur-līlā, how could he be a totally unknown and unmentioned mañjarī named Sampūrṇa instead of the famous and foremost Rati Mañjarī?) Mrs. Manring tries to reconcile Advaita being equated with Kṛṣṇa in Mathurā by making the point that Yogamāyā (Sītā devī) appeared along with Kṛṣṇa in Mathurā in Kaṁsa's dungeon. Interesting in any case is that Sītā and Advaita did appear historically before Mahāprabhu, as Yogamāyā always appears before the Lord Himself does. In our branch of the family Sītā and Advaita are considered one tattva and are thus both Yogamāyā. In both Advaitoddeśa Dīpikā and Advaita Mangal Sītā devī is called Kanaka Sundarī, which Mrs. Manring attempts to explain as follows: 'This Golden Beauty is not one of the mañjarīs, but she is instrumental in facilitating the love play of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa....In Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna Haridās Dās describes her simply as Rādhā's maidservant." It may be just another aspect or name of Yogamāyā. In the end of her review of the Dīpikā, Mrs. Manring reveals that Devakīnandan is actually a son of Balarām Gosāi's third wife, though he claims allegiance to both Kṛṣṇa Miśra and Balarām Miśra. Balarām became the head of a branch which claimed Advaita Himself was actually the Supreme Lord (rather than Mahāprabhu. This is called advaita-pāramya vāda), whereas Kṛṣṇa Miśra (from whom Sādhu Bābā descends) accepted Mahāprabhu as supreme. The advaita-pāramya vādīs seem to have moved to Assam, but they are now extinct.

The booklet Advaita Svarūpāmṛta, by Kānudeva Goswāmī, confirms the svarūpas that were ascribed to Advaita Prabhu in Advaita Mangal and Advaitoddeśa Dīpikā, but nonetheless, equating Sītādevī with Rādhā is clearly off the tracks, even if it is done so in three separate books by three separate authors. For starters, if Advaita would be Kṛṣṇa in Mathurā,  how would He match with Rādhā in Vraja? I wonder if there was any relation between Haricaraṇa, Devakīnandan and Kānudeva, in dīkṣā, śikṣā or genetically. Kānudeva does confirm the equation of Sītā and Paurṇamāsī, which we also maintain.

Mrs. Manring reminds us that the Sanatkumāra Saṁhitā, quoted by many a bābājī as an authoritative text, has actually only a few chapters left in existence (which makes one wonder if the remaining text ever existed), which happen to be the ones about rāgānugā bhakti and aṣṭakāliya līlā.

Advaitācārya has also not been spared by the sahajīyas - like all others in Gaura līlā, illicit sexual practises have been falsely ascribed to Him too, particularly in a booklet named Advaita Sūtra Korcā, in which they claim Mādhavendra Purīpāda personally instructed him in the sexual rites with other men's wives - too sick to elaborate on, of course. Mrs. Manring suggests, probably rightly so, that the sahajīyas hijack each associate of Mahāprabhu, projecting and ascribing their perversions on them to gain respect and credibility, a 'political ploy'. Fortunately such booklets are totally unavailable and only respectable literature on Sītānātha remains on the market.

There are two books named Advaita Vilāsa, one by Vīreśvar Prāmāṇik, a compilation from 1899, apparently compiled on Bijay Kṛṣṇa Goswami's request, and an older one by an unknown Narahari Dās, which is not considered authoritative by Haridās Dāsjī. It more or less gives the regular stories on Sītānāth. There is even a booklet about Sītānāth for children, named Advaitācārya, written by Amiya Kānti Datta from Śrī-haṭṭa (Sītānāth's birth region where he may still be popular). At the end of the book Mrs. Manring learns that Prāmāṇik might have edited the books afterwards. Advaita Acarya has also been the source of inspiration for many a padakartā (Bengali songwriter) like Balarām Dās, Locan Dās, Ghanaśyām Dās, and Mrs. Manring provides nice English translations of the songs.

VIJAY KṚṢṆA GOSWAMI
On page 111 Mrs. Manring starts discussing Advaita Prabhu's most famous descendent, Bijoy Kṛṣṇa Gosvami (see my blogs of May 23, 2007 and April 19, 2006) adding more details to his biography, for me at least. So it is described (quoting from Viṣṇu Caran Dāsa’s ‘Life of Vijay Kṛṣṇa') that when his mother Swarṇamayī Devī was pregnant with him she had wondrous dreams. She was in the backyard when the time for his birth approached. She fainted as her labor began, awakening to find the child in her arms and the placenta nearby on the ground. Later, when Vijay studied in Kolkata, his room-mate ripped him off so badly that he had to hit the streets begging for food, and later took another room with that same fellow after he (the roommate) had lost all the stolen money by gambling. It is then that he joined the Brahmo Samaj in 1866 (aged 25). Interestingly, Mrs. Manring claims (p.113): "…..if Vijay Kṛṣṇa is to be held up as a model Vaiṣṇava, then he must of course be dualistic in his religious approach. His hagiographers are all admirers if not disciples. They use this portion (of non-dualistic practise) of (his) life to demonstrate the seductiviness of monism. None directly criticizes this approach, but all are clearly more interested in their subject's return to his family's religious origins (of bhakti)." And, on the following page, "Many of Vijay's hagiographers describe his involvement with the Brahmo Samaj as a necessary step back to the devotional practises of his earlier days...."
Vijay’s seven commandments, which he preached from Gandaria Ashram in Dhākā, are listed on page 117:

1. Never indulge in self-praise
2. Never speak ill of others
3. Nonviolence is a great virtue
4. Have compassion for all
5. Place implicit reliance on the scriptures and the holy men
6. Avoid, like poison, what is incompatible with the tenets of the scriptures and the saints
7. Egoism is the worst enemy

About the time that Vijay Kṛṣṇa lived in Bāblā (his beautiful abode outside of Śāntipur) Mrs. Manring provides the following anecdotes (p.118): “Villagers would often hear beautiful devotional music at this spot but could never find the people who were singing. Vijay Kṛṣṇa said the music was echoing from Caitanya’s time.” And: “One day as he meditated here at Bāblā, Vijay Kṛṣṇa noticed a dog’s unusually persistent interest in one particular spot. Curious, Vijay began digging at the same place, and found a pair of wooden sandals and a set of brass pots used for worship. When he saw ‘Kamalākṣa’ (Advaita Prabhu’s birthname) carved on the sandals he realized they were Advaita Ācārya’s own belongings. To sanctify the place and commemorate the important discovery, he had a small temple built, elevated so that worshipers must climb a flight of stairs to enter. The artifacts have been enshrined beneath the temple images….Vijay Kṛṣṇa suggested to the dog that he now give up his body, since his life’s work was done. The next morning people found the animal’s corpse on the riverbank.” Towards the end of his life Vijay Kṛṣṇa Goswāmī instructed his disciple Gopālchandra Goswāmī to ask Vīreśvara Prāmāṇik to compose a work on the life of Advaita Ācārya, and he produced the Advaita Vilāsa, which (I haven't read it myself) appears to be a regular compilation taken from the major Advaita-biographies, with the exception that it claims that Lābhā Devi committed Satī after her husband Kuber Paṇḍit passed away.

ADVAITA BĀLYA LĪLĀ SŪTRA
In chapter 5 of the book Mrs. Manring casts some doubts on Lauḍīya Kṛṣṇa dās’ Advaita Bālya līlā Sūtra, saying that the Sanskrit verses are sometimes out of metre and wonders why the book is never quoted elsewhere. I think the logical response to that would be, ‘Caitanya Bhāgavat and Caitanya Caritāmṛta focused on Mahāprabhu – there was simply no place there for digressions into Advaita’s personal pastimes.’ To the Sanskrit issue I would reply that perhaps Lauḍīya Kṛṣṇadas (King Divyasiṁha) was not really a Sanskrit-crack, so he might have made mistakes here and there. Later on, Mrs. Manring acknowledges that the Advaita Bālya Līlā Sūtra is mentioned in the Advaita Prakāśa (sanskṛte racilā prabhura bālya-līlā-sūtra, 3rd verse before last of the 6th chapter). Not only that, most if not all material of the Bālya līlā Sūtra has been covered by Advaita Prakāśa, which makes it the best hagiography available about Advaita Prabhu, both in quality and in quantity. After the razing of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhyā in December 1992, Muslims in Bangladesh retaliated by razing the major library in Sylhet (Śrīhaṭṭa, the birthplace of Advaita Prabhu in current Bangladesh), thereby destroying the – possibly – only leftover copies of Bālya līlā Sūtra and Sītā Caritra.

After Advaita Prabhu’s disappearance, Iśāna Nāgara returned to East Bengal, got married and had children (though he was already 70 years old). He passed away shortly afterwards, but not before making many disciples. His eldest son Puruṣottama also made many disciples. The family became known as Nāgara-Advaitas (not to be confused with Gaura Nāgarīs) and were considered part of Sītā-Advaita’s family. On page 166, while reviewing Advaita Prakāśa, Mrs. Manring tells us that Sītānātha’s original Madangopāl-deity, which he found under the bushes at Vṛndāvana’s Advaita Vat, is actually in the Madangopāl temple in Śāntipur but is locked up in storage because it is too old and worn to be worshipped.

(To be continued................)

Reconstructing tradition

Reconstructing tradition
By Rebecca Manring
Book Review

This review will coincide nicely with the annual Śītānāth Utsava, the festival commemmorating Śrī Advaita Prabhu's advent day, which commenced today in Sādhu Bābā’s āshram. When a friend offered to send me a copy of this book about Advaita Ācārya, my Pran Purush, I hesitated accepting the offer, as I had very bad experiences in the past with non-devotee intellectuals giving their regarded opinion on transcendental matters. The book was said to contain many details about the social and sectarean standing of Advaita Prabhu, though, so I could not resist. Now I'm glad that I accepted the offer because, though it is a non-devotee work, Mrs. Manring has done a more thorough reading of the Advaita-books than I was able to do.

In the introduction Mrs. Manring claims that Advaita Prakāśa was not written by Īśān Nāgar in 1568, but in the late 19th century by a descendent of Advaita Prabhu, Acyuta Caran Caudhuri Tattvanidhi. Oddly, whenever she quotes Advaita Prakāśa afterwards, she does ascribe it to Īśān Nāgar. The claim that Advaita Prakāśa is not written by Īśān is made by the mundane scholar B.B. Majumdar, though, who tried to reconcile differences between the book and the Caitanya Caritāmṛta (this has been dealt with in my essay 'In defense of the Advaita Vaṁśa' on my website). Mrs. Manring writes: 'Majumdar was operating from a historical positivist approach, that is, from the presupposition that the biographies were historical documents. This led him to believe that conflicting narrative accounts must represent deviations from truth." 

On page 125 Mrs. Manring reviews the Advaita Prakāśa and reiterates it is written by Īśān. The Bengali publisher Satishcandra Mitra, when he republished it in 1926, also vowed it was an authentic scripture, written by an eye-witness of Advaita Prabhu’s līlā for over 50 years, and it was written long before Caitanya Caritāmṛta. At the end of the book Mrs. Manring argues that the fact that Īśān Nagar’s name is not mentioned in major granthas like Caitanya Caritāmṛta may be because he was just a domestic servant and not a public figure, or a big preaching ācārya etc. Mrs. Manring notes that, though many books have been written about Advaita Prabhu, they are very rare, many of them destroyed by germs, India's heavy climate and sheer neglect. I noticed that because, apart from Advaita Prakāśa, which is widely available, I failed to get any book about Advaita Prabhu anywhere in India. Mrs. Manring suggests that the books on Advaita Prabhu were not quoted by other Vaiṣṇava ācāryas mostly because of their lack of availability.

Mrs. Manring sees Haricaraṇa's Advaita Mangal as presenting a rasa-continuum, with Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa first appearing as Sītā and Advaita and then later as Śrīman Mahāprabhu. She also sees an evolution of rasa in Gaura-līlā's historical sequence - Advaita (the first to appear) as Aiśvarya (which actually is not a rasa) Haridās Ṭhākur as Dāsya, Nityānanda as Sakhya, Sītā devī as Vātsalya and finally Mahāprabhu Himself as Mādhurya. This is interesting, but whether that was Haricaran Ṭhākur's intention or not is another question. It certainly is not explained like this by any major Gauḍīya ācārya.

Proudly I read on page 14 that, unlike other branches of the Gauḍīya Sampradāya, the Advaita Parivāra did not yield to the influence of the British Christians that made itself felt in Bengal in the 19th century (when a non devotee uses the word ‘orthodox’ my ears prick up and I get all interested, because it means something actually genuine is coming up!) Vijay Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, Sādhu Bābā's great-grand-uncle and great hero, was originally influenced by the neo-Christian Brāhma Samāj, but later returned to his Vaiṣṇava roots and settled in Śāntipur. He was a rock in the turbulent waters of colonial India.

On page 40 Mrs. Manring writes: “Nityānanda, the avadhūta, was a wild-eyed iconoclast with no respect for social convention. His devotion took a very different form than did Advaita's and he garnered, and still has, a tremendous following. Advaita was a caste-sensitive brāhmana, always careful to observe the relevant rules and restrictions.....in the first stage of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava movement the presence of an established and elderly scholar in the midst provided the group with some respectability. The loud ecstatic kīrtan processions Caitanya led through the streets of Navadvīpa....hardly seemed models of priestly decorum." Later, Mrs. Manring concedes: “However, it seems unlikely that a young Caitanya,.......lost in religious ecstasy........would have conceived the idea of of including his parents' elderly friend in his sankīrtan simply for political expedience."

Of course, at the time, including the honorable Advaita in the group might have socially benefited Mahāprabhu’s movement, whether it was done deliberately or not. Mrs. Manring's claim that only or especially Advaita Prabhu's followers are promoting orthodox brāhmanism, is inaccurate, however. In my essay 'Who is a brāhmin, Guru and Sannyāsī' I have provided ample evidence that Nityānanda Prabhu and Mahāprabhu Himself also held up the same standard.

There are quite a few inaccuracies in Mrs. Manring's book - in chapter 1 she contradicts herself by first saying that there are a disproportionate number of biographies of Advaita - compared to Nityānanda, but at the end of that chapter she says that there is so little about Advaita in Gauḍīya literature, and she opens chapter 2 by claiming that Haricaraṇa's Advaita Mangal is regarded in the Gauḍīya tradition as the authoritative biography of Advaita Ācārya, while in fact it is the least accepted of all the biographies.

ADVAITA MAṄGAL
Advaita Maṅgal describes how Vijay Puri, an elderly Godbrother of Mādhavendra Puri, and Śītānāth's maternal uncle, is sent to Navagrām by Madangopāl Himself to seek out the bhakta avatāra (Advaita) there. He appears to the newborn Advaita and tells him that Kṛṣṇa bhakti is not available anywhere, and that Madangopāl is waiting for Him in the bushes of Vṛndāvana. (Things I clearly overlooked when I studied Advaita Mangal to compose my book about Śītānāth) When Śītānāth arrives in Vṛndāvana in his youth, ten Vrajavāsī women alert Him of the whereabouts of Madangopāl one morning, and, after the unearthing of Madangopāl, Śītānāth teaches the local Vrajavāsīs of the supremacy of parakīya bhāva. He then proceeds in telling them in all detail how Paurṇamāsī initiated Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa into the kāma gāyatrī and how their pūrva rāga pastimes took place. Returning to Śāntipur, Advaita becomes a famous Guru who one day announces that Mādhavendra Purīpād appeared to Him in a dream and told Him he would come to Śāntipur the very same day if He summons him with an offering of rice balls. And events transpire just as Advaita had dreamed - Gurudeva appears in Śāntipur and gives him dīkṣā. A challenging scholar (Digvijayi) comes to town and, after being defeated by Śītānāth, is the first one to call him 'Advaita'.

I remember when I wrote the book I found the different books about Śītānāth rather hard to harmonize both in sequence and in mood - especially Advaita Mangal was hard for me to understand, but it appeals a bit more to me now. Haricharan claims to have been educated in Advaita's pastimes by Śrīnāth Ācārya, possibly Śrīnāth Cakravartī, the disciple of Śītānāth and Guru of Kavi Karṇapur.

When Advaita roared during his worship of mother Gaṅgā, performing tapasyā, the Apsarās came to disturb His penance, and eventually took Him to Swarg. When Indra there told Brahmā about Śītānātha's tapasyā, Brahmā decided to join Him in the Sankīrtan movement and took human birth there too (as Haridās Ṭhākur). Śyāmdās, who arranged and instigated Advaita Prabhu's marriage, also built Him a huge mansion with women's quarters.

Advaita Prabhu's tapasya and cries of love not only caused the descent of Śrīman Mahāprabhu, but also of all his eternal associates, like Śacī-mātā and Jagannātha Miśra, the Lord's parents.

Haricaraṇā Ṭhākur then narrates a story to show the non-difference between Śrīman Mahāprabhu and Śītānāth's eldest son Acyuta. After the two boys had gone swimming Acyuta had drunk all the milk meant for both the boys and Sītā devī slapped him for it, leaving a big mark. When the boys sit down to eat the mark is still there and Sītā devī asks Gaura who made the mark on His cheek. Gaura replies: "You did! Acyuta drank the milk and you hit him! Acyuta and I are non-different!" Mrs. Manring rounds out her description of Advaita Maṅgal by narrating how Sītā devī assumes as many forms as there are guests while serving a feast and suggesting that Śītānāth's refusal to any more accept the obeisances of young Nimāi is a part of an evolution from aiśvarya to mādhurya, which is not an uninteresting proposal actually.

In Advaita Maṅgal Advaita Prabhu shows a four-armed form to the Digvijayī, Haridās, Śyāmdās and twice to Gaurī dās. It becomes a lot more understandable now why Sādhu Bābā also gave me this book to translate when he first asked me to preach Śītānāth's glories in the west. It still does contain a lot of controversies, so I suppose Bābā expected me to select the interesting and credible parts from it only. I hope I did. Haricaraṇa’s equating Śītānāth with Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself remains, of course, far-fetched; perhaps something just to read over and turn a blind eye to; it could be seen as an extreme glorification perhaps.

(To be continued......)

Garga Saṁhitā and personal desires

I recently had these two interesting exchanges with Śrīpād Satya-nārāyan Dāsji

January 10, 2009
Revered Prabhuji
Please accept my Rādhe Rādhe
Hope this message reaches you in blissful Vṛndāvan Vāsa.
What is your opinion on the Garga Saṁhitā? It has some controversial passages about all the Kaurava demons coming from the heavens (5.30-31) and about Shiva getting a place in the Rāsa-dance (25.8), whereas Shiva is like a yogi who qualifies at best for aiśvarya bhakti. The book is never quoted by the Gosvāmīs in their books and is not mentioned either in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Abhidhāna. Should we take this book seriously?
Thanks in advance
Advaitadas

Dear Advaita Prabhuji
Jai Sri Rādhe Shyāma
I think this book is good to tell stories to people in general. It is not for siddhānta. So do not take it seriously.
SND

Kṛṣṇadasji had this to add on the Garga Samhitā -
Dear Advaitaji,

I have not read the book but I think that it is a later work since the ācāryas do not mention it. However, it is difficult to know for sure only on the basis of absence of quotations. It does not seem to me to offer anything theologically because it does not feature in anyway in any serious piece of writing I have read.
KD

Then I asked Śrīpād Satya-nārāyan Dāsji the following :

20 january 2009
Revered Prabhuji
Please accept my Rādhe Śyām
In Ujjvala Nīlamaṇi, ch.14, it is said that consorts with samañjasā and sādhāraṇī rati have a certain amount of personal desires. But how is that possible? Can they live in the spiritual world with personal desires, while I have always thought that one cannot enter the spiritual world without giving up all personal desires? I have checked the ṭīkās of Śrī Jīva and Viśvanātha and they just confirm the meaning of the original verses of Śrī Rūpa Goswāmī. Can you explain this mystery please?
Advaitadas

Dear Advaita Prabhuji
Jai Śrī Rādhe Shyāma
A living being has the natural tendency to seek pleasure. The difference between spiritual and material life is on the basis of the desire to enjoy. In material life a person wants to enjoy independently from Kṛṣṇa, and in spiritual life with Śrī Kṛṣṇa. In spiritual life the enjoyment can come in two ways- either by seeking pleasure for oneself with Śrī Kṛṣṇa,  or by getting pleasure through giving pleasure (in other words, by not thinking of one's own pleasure at all, which is Vraja-bhakti or uttamā bhakti). Both of these are called 'not having personal desires' from the material point of view because there is no desire to enjoy independently at all.
There are various grades of devotees in Vaikuṇṭha, and their level is known by how much percentage of either of these two one has. śānta bhaktas are at the bottom because they are not interested in doing personal service and Gopīs are the topmost on the ladder because they even hate to sit and just meditate- they render only favorable service for the pleasure of Kṛṣṇa. Then there are devotees in between.
A sādhāraṇī-devotee has interest in having pleasure for oneself from Kṛṣṇa, not independently. Samañjasā is a khichari and samartha is pure love.
SND

Gaura is Kṛṣṇa, but is not a copy of Kṛṣṇa.

Bhakta: "Can one have svakīya or parakīya relations with Mahāprabhu? In Navadvīp He has one wife, who dies, then He has another wife.... Can He have more wives? Of course He is maryādā puruṣottama..."

Advaitadas: The fact that Mahāprabhu is Kṛṣṇa does not mean He is a copy of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is black, Gaura is golden, Kṛṣṇa is vaiśya, Gaura is brahmin, Kṛṣṇa lives in Braja, Gaura lives in Nadīya, Kṛṣṇa is a cowherd and Gaur is a teacher. Where are the cows in Navadvīp? Where is Mahāprabhu tending any cows? Mahāprabhu has only prakat līlā and this is repeated endlessly, with the two consecutive wives. Their svarūpas are mentioned in Gaura Gaṇoddeśa Dīpikā 45-47. They appear very briefly in Gaura-līlā yet they are eternally His spouses."

Bhakta: "What if someone is really attracted to Gaura-līlā and wants to participate in it eternally?"

Advaitadas: "When you are with God you are with God. You won't notice the difference between prakat līlā and nitya līlā when you're in the middle of it. prakat līlā is like an embassy of the spiritual world. When you enter the Indian Embassy in London you are officially on Indian soil, but still you are in the middle of the United Kingdom too. At any rate, we see Gaura-līlā as the academy of pure devotion rather than the goal in itself and it has been presented as such by the ācāryas too."

Bhakta: "Some say that all the Vaiṣṇava- temples in the material world are embassies of the spiritual world."

Advaitadas: "Only to an extent. The prakat līlā I mentioned before is for those devotees who have attained the first prema siddha, before moving on to rāga, anurāga, bhāva and mahābhāva, while the temples in the material world are filled with mostly neophyte devotees that are still largely under the spell of the material energy. They cannot fully represent the spiritual world as ambassadors."

Bhakta: 'I know someone who claims to have a married relationship with Gaura, like a svakīya Gaur Nāgarī bhāva."

Advaitadas: "Where does it end? Gaur Nāgarī bhāva is already at the other end of the imagination the way it is (parakīya) - now there is even svakīya Gaur Nāgarī bhāva as well! There is also a party that claims that Mahāprabhu's wives assist Him in His pastimes with other men's wives - too much! And none of this is rasābhāsa? As I said just earlier, Gaur is not an integral copy of Kṛṣṇa - Gaura has the attitude of a bhakta (āśray tattva), not of an enjoyer like Kṛṣṇa (biṣoy tattva). Next they will imagine themselves to be one of 16,108 wives of Mahāprabhu too, like Kṛṣṇa in Dwārakā. rasābhās hoy yadi siddhānta virodh, sohite na pāre prabhu mone hoy krodh (CC Antya līlā) - If there is rasābhāsa or bogus philosophy Mahāprabhu will not tolerate it but get angry instead." Besides, Mahāprabhu is the head of our sampradāya - depicting Him as a Nāgara would bring great disgrace upon our sampradāya. Mahāprabhu was so strict, following all the rules of a brāhmin and a sannyāsī, all the way to the end, when His pastimes became wildly ecstatic.

Bhakta: "You say Gaura is not a copy of Kṛṣṇa but I heard that all the places of Kṛṣṇa's pastimes are also in Navadvīp, such as Keśī Ghāt."

Advaitadas: "I have already shown in the beginning of this conversation that Gaura and Kṛṣṇa līlā are different in all respects. Now look at their abodes - does Braja consist of nine islands (like Navadvīp)? Does Navadvīp consist of 84 Krośa?"

Bhakta: "Couldn't there be an internal vision of Keśī Ghāt being in Navadvīp?"

Advaitadas: "If that were so, then where is the description of Mahāprabhu killing Keśī? Or Ariṣṭāsura, or Kaṁsa? Where are the cows in Navadvip, etc. etc.? "

Bhakta: "Mahāprabhu chanted Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa hey' so He seemed to be focused on Kṛṣṇa, but then He also chanted Rāma Rāghava Rāma Rāghava."

Advaitadas: "You need to see this in context. There are different levels of Mahāprabhu-līlā - a more conventional one and a more esoteric one. Roughly speaking, Navadvip līlā and the South India trip (during which Mahāprabhu chanted this) are the more conventional ones and Puri līlā the more esoteric one. Then also, in Caitanya Bhāgavata Mahāprabhu is Lord Nārāyaṇa and in Caitanya Caritāmṛta He is Kṛṣṇa in the mood of Rādhā. Not all of Mahāprabhu līlā is about rāgānugā bhakti and mañjarī bhāva. Returning to the differences between Gaura and Kṛṣṇa-līlās: Kṛṣṇa-līlā starts with the mādhurya (Vraja līlā) and turns into aiśvarya (Mathurā- and Dwārakā līlā), with Gaur the sequence is reverse - the earlier Navadvīp līlā is not showing the intensity and esoterics of the later Puri līlā (as far as the līlās are comparible at all). At the end Mahāprabhu would not even invite His devotees anymore to visit Him for the caturmāsya but would just relish Kṛṣṇa's madhura līlā with Rāma Rāy and Svarūp Dāmodar. There is no Rūpa Goswāmī and Svarūp Dāmodar in Navadvīp. They appear in Purī..."

Bhakta: "We discussed before about emanations and expansions. In Jaiva Dharma the verse Oṁ Pūrṇam adaḥ Pūrṇam idaṁ pūrṇāt purnam udacyate  from the Iśopaniṣad is translated as 'Even if the complete is subtracted from the complete it is still complete.' Who's crawling out here? I thought they were all eternal."

Advaitadas: "There is a deficiency in western languages, that were not made for such concepts of eternality and beginninglessness. For instance, the word avatārī can best be translated in English as 'origin of the descents', but that would at once create the impression that the avatāras emanated from the avatārīs, in historical sequence, but that is of course not the fact. All the forms of God, as well as all the jīvas, are eternal. kṛṣṇa bhūli sei jīva anādi bahirmukh (CC) - we forgot Kṛṣṇa, but not historically so, beginninglessly so. You need to scrap the time-factor in such philosophical statements. The pūrṇāt in pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate is indeed in the 5th case, which means 'From the full, the full is coming". This creates the illusion that there was some origin, some historical sequence."

Bhakta: "There seems to be some subtraction going on in this verse, like one thing comes from the other."

Advaitadas: "No. It looks like that but it is purely a philosophical statement. Just like the other Vedic statement 'eko'haṁ bahu syām' 'I was one, I became many'. That is not an historical event, but a philosophical statement only. Bhagavad Gītā's very first lesson shows us that the soul is beginningless and therefore never originally emanated from God - na tvevāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ neme narādhipaḥ (Bhagavad Gītā 2.12). "Never was there a time when I (God) did not exist, nor you (the jīva) etc. " To those who may argue that the soul may have always been there, but originally was an integral part of Kṛṣṇa, I wish to quote another line in the Bhagavad Gītā (15.7) mamaivāṁśo jīvaloke jīva bhūta sanātanaḥ - the word sanātana indicates the soul is eternally a particle of Kṛṣṇa  Also, the Bhāgavata says time and again that the conditioning of the soul (and thus its separation from Kṛṣṇa) is beginningless. The point of the Īśopaniṣad verse is not that things emanate from God but that God is complete, eternally so. He can never be depleted."

Bhakta: There seems to be a book named Sanatkumār Saṁhitā, in which Sadāśiva explains the Aṣṭakāliya Līlā to Nārada Muni or Vṛndā devī. Is this a genuine scripture?"

Advaitadas: "One verse of it is quoted by Narottam Dās Thākur in his Prem Bhakti Candrikā, so at least that must be right. As for the entire book, I find it a bit hard to believe that this is an ancient scripture because if it was, the Gosvāmīs, who were always so eager to prove their points with scriptural quotations, would certainly have quoted it to prove the validity of Aṣṭakālīya līlā, but they didn't. This text would have been a dream come true for them. So I have my doubts about it. The same with so many verses from different Purāṇas and Upaniṣads, that are supposed to prove the Godhead of Mahāprabhu - if they were genuine, the Gosvāmīs would have gratefully used them to prove their point, but they didn't. "

Bhakta: "In chapter 39 of Jaiva Dharma, Bhaktivinode says that '...in your spiritual form your age begins at ten and, as you make advancement in service, increases up to the age of sixteen."

Advaitadas: "Hmm. He might speak about the prakat-līlā here. Rūpa Gosvāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī say that before you are elevated to Goloka you are first trained in the prakat-līlā of Kṛṣṇa and you take a regular birth there as a gopī in the womb of a gopī and grow up there, with parents etc., just like any other girl. It could not apply to the spiritual sky because the forms should be eternal there."

Bhakta: "Then, a little later, he says: You will be the follower of a certain sakhī. Her cottage at Rādhākuṇḍa will be your residence also."

Advaitadas: "That is the way I received it from Sādhu Bābā too. Some Vaiṣṇavas give a personal abode (kuñja) to each mañjarī sādhaka, to entertain Kṛṣṇa there but we don't do that because the mañjarī is not after her own personal enjoyment with Kṛṣṇa.  We serve in the cottage of Viśākhā-sakhī only, without our private space. Even ancient European queens' ladies-in-waiting did not have their private spaces - they slept in the queen's quarters only."

Bhakta: "So the service of the mañjarīs is ultimately service to Kṛṣṇa too?"

Advaitadas: "Yes, that is how Sādhu Bābā explained the verse jīvera svarūpa hoy kṛṣṇer nitya dās in the context of manjari bhava. Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa have no separate interests from each other, so serving one is serving the other - śakti śaktimator abhedaḥ - there is no difference between the energy and the energetic. rādhā snehādhika bhāva is, however, the highest relish in rasa. In Utkalika Vallari and Vilāpa Kusumāñjali there are descriptions that the mañjarīs kick Kṛṣṇa out of the kuñja and He can only come back with the goodwill of the mañjarīs themselves. All this seems like mistreatment of the Supreme Person but in fact it gives the highest relish to both Him and to us. Kṛṣṇa's active aggressive masculine nature gets challenged and that gives Him great relish."

Bhakta: "Does Candrāvalī have some awe and reverence? If so, then how is she in Vṛndāvana?"

Advaitadas: 'She has more awe for Kṛṣṇa than Rādhikā, but not that she thinks He is God or so. Her awe is called ghṛta sneha ('ghee-affection') in contrast to Rādhikā's madhu-sneha ('honey-affection') which causes Rādhikā to act more freely towards Kṛṣṇa. But in Vraja no one considers Kṛṣṇa to be God."

Bhakta: "Then, later, Bhaktivinode quotes Vraja Vilāsa Stava verse 29, to prove he/she serves under Lalitā."

Advaitadas: "That is correct. He was initiated by Bipin Bihāri Goswāmī, who was in Nityānanda Prabhu's family. They serve under Lalitā, while we in Advaita Prabhu's family serve under Viśākhā, like Raghunāth Dās Gosvāmī, who was a grand-disciple of Advaita Prabhu. In his Vilāpa Kusumāñjali (99) he offers a prayer only to Viśākhā, not to Lalitā. He offered prayers to both of them in Vraja Vilāsa Stava because that is a very generic stava, which offers praises to all of Kṛṣṇa's associates in Vraja, regardless of any personal relationship he/she may have with them."

aṣṭakāla arcanā and tri-sandhyā vs āhnika.

Phone sanga.

Bhakta: "Just as we chant Hare Kṛṣṇa for Rādhārāṇī's pleasure both when She is separated from Kṛṣṇa and when She is together with Him, do we perform deity worship similarly?"

Advaitadas: "In the mood, yes, in the mind, yes, but not that we separate the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa deities in the times of the day when Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are separated, ha ha ha. Deity worship is more formal and has its own rules. I do remember there was a doctor living close to Banki Bihāri temple (in Vṛndāvan), I used to visit him in 1988, he had deities in his chamber and not only that, he had an entire pavilion for the deities with all the items of Their aṣṭakāl līlā enjoyments in it - wine glasses (without real wine), a swimming pool (like Rādhākuṇḍa), swings, a table with the dice game, beds etc. etc. Of course he was so busy with his profession that he could not possibly move the deities from place to place in the pavilion, or to separate them in the proper time."

Bhakta: "But the devotee's chanting will be different according to times of separation and union, huh?"

Advaitadas: "Yes but that would require a very advanced and very absorbed devotee. In times of union the chanting becomes like accompanying music, music that accompanies the intimate pastimes, while in times of separation it is meant as support for the suffering Rādhārāṇī. Many sādhakas get the mañjarī-service of singing and in Stavāvali, Raghunāth Dās Goswāmī also prays to Viśākhā-devi that she can teach him/her how to sing."

Bhakta: "Gāyatrī is to be said three times a day. You practise that?"

Advaitadas: "As you may know, the inclusion of Brāhma Gāyatrī into Vaiṣṇava diksa is a recent development. Originally Vaiṣṇava dīkṣā means just the Kṛṣṇa dīkṣā-mantras. These mantras are practised once a day, hence the practise is called āhnika (daily), not tri-sandhyā, which means 'three times a day' and which is a Vedic brahminical practise, not a Vaiṣṇava practise. The principle is that one practises these mantras after showering, putting on clean clothes and practising ācamana. I have not seen that practised in places where this tri-sandhyā is being practised here in the west. They pull their brahmin threads out of their pants on the airport or on the parking lot, or at best in a bench in the park, without showering, changing clothes or doing ācamana. Also chanting Gāyatrī behind the steering wheel is popular in the west, like nāma japa. So tri-sandhyā is really very impractical, even if it were endorsed by scriptures at all for non-brahmins."

Prabhu Sītānātha's festival 2009

Thanks to modern technology I got even my annual invitation to Sītānāth's utsava by e-mail this year. (Special thanks to Subrata Adhikary, who visited Sādhu Bābā's āshram with his family)

My Guru sister Mālatī thought it a good idea to post it on the blog along with an English translation. The location of the utsava is Prācīn Māyāpur, just before the Bhajan Āshram, northern Navadvīp, at a stone's throw of the (Nitāi-Gaura Rādhe Śyām administered) Janmasthān Mandir. Here is the English translation of the Nimantran Patra -

Śrī-Śrī Rādhā Madan Gopālaḥ Śaraṇam

JAY PRABHU SĪTĀNĀTH

rādhā madana gopālādvaita prāṇaballabham

sītānāthaṁca tad bhṛtyaṁ vande gaurāvatārakam

sei navadvīpe boise vaiṣṇavāgragaṇya

advaitācārya nāma sarva loke dhanya

(Caitanya Bhāgavat ādi 2)

"In that Navadvīpa lived the foremost of Vaiṣṇavas, named Advaita Ācārya, who was blessed in all the worlds."

śrī-śrīman mahāprabhu pravarttita premabhakti patha pathikeṣu

To all those who tread the path of Prema Bhakti promulgated by Śrīman Mahāprabhu -

As in previous years, this year on Monday February 2, 2009,the auspicious advent day of the most merciful Prabhu Sitanath is celebrated on Makara Saptami day, so in front of Śrī-Śrī Rādhā Madan Gopāla, the beloved deity of Śrī-Śrī Sādhu Bābā, in Śrī Navadvīp Dhām's Rāmacandrapur district a great 5-day devotional festival will be held for His satisfaction, starting on Thursday January 29th. Items will include Pārāyan, discussions on devotional scripture and Kīrtan.

Please bless us by attending this festival. This is not an invitation, it is an anxious cry by Prabhu Sītānātha's servants to have their sensually polluted consciousness lifted into absorption into bhakti rasa. Petitioner -

Crown jewel of merciful Prabhu Sītānātha's family, engaged in nitya līlā -

PRABHUPĀDA ŚRĪ NIKUÑJA GOPĀL GOSWĀMĪ

On behalf of the fallen servants and maidservants of his lotus-feet,

Namitā Sāhā and Tulasī Sāhā

PROGRAMME -

Thursday 29 January 2009 in the evening Maṅgal Ghaṭ Sthāpan and Ādhivās

Friday 30 January and Saturday 31 January 2009, main program -

5-6 a.m. Nagar Saṅkīrtan

7-9 a.m. Bhakti Grantha Pārāyan

9-11 a.m. Śrī-Śrī Rādhā Madan Gopāla's Śṛṅgār Ārati

12-1 p.m. Śrī-Śrī Rādhā Madan Gopāla's Bhoga Rāga

3-5 p.m. Śrī Līlā Kīrtan

5-7 p.m. Discussion on Bhakti Granthas and glorification of Sītānāth.

7-8 p.m.Sandhyā Ārati Kīrtan

8-11 p.m Śrī-Śrī Līlā Kīrtan

Sunday 1 February 2009 24-hour Tārak Brahma Nāma (Hare kṛṣṇa) Kīrtan

Monday 2 February 2009 In the morning Śrī Nagar Saṅkīrtan, Prabhu Sītānāth's Abhiṣekha

Kīrtan of His birth pastimes and Prasād.

PS According to necessity the program may be altered.

Kīrtan Groups:

Servants and students of Śrī-Śrī Sādhu Bābā -

Śrī Śacīnandan Karmakār (Pākur, Bihār) and others.

Rādhākuṇḍa, Week 52, 2008

More satsanga at Rādhākuṇḍa:

Bhakta:
"Some sādhus in Navadvīp told me that when the Guru gives mantra to a śiṣya the mantra becomes nirjīva (lifeless) and needs to be recharged through puraścarana (an austere ritual in which one chants the mantra many times)."

Advaitadas:
"pūrṇa śuddho nitya mukto 'bhinnatvan nāma nāmino (Padma Purāṇa) " The holy name is fully pure and eternally liberated due to being non different from the named." That is because the name is God Himself. God needs no recharging. He is not a cellphone. On the contrary, it is the practitioner who constantly needs to recharge his/her own spiritual batteries, by practising this mantra."

Bhakta:
"Should I just sit here, chant and wait for the Guru to come to me or should I go out searching for one?"

Advaitadas:
tad vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad) "To know and realize that one must approach a Guru". The word abhigacchet is in imperative case - one must approach a Guru, so you should go to him."

********

Some reflections.....

The Gosvāmīs represented the renunciants' wing of the Sampradāya, which every sampradāya should have. There will always be those with a naturally renounced tendency. For them the 6 Gosvāmīs are the perfect example. There is a certain rasa to vairāgya as well - vairāgya yug-bhakti rasaṁ prayatnair apāyayan mām (Vilāpa Kusumāñjali - 6) "Sanātan Gosvāmī made me drink the rasa of bhakti endowed with vairāgya".

********

If there was one reason why I was sick for so long in Vṛndāvan and spent just 33 of these 117 days at Rādhākund it must have been to help remind me how precious the days are at this rasamaya aprākṛta dhāma, this divine rasa-laden abode.

********

And finally -

Two more prominent Rādhākuṇḍa-residents passed away - in November Sādhu Bābā's tīrtha guru Radhacharan Desla (75) and in July Madanmohan Das Babaji (85). The former, like Gopal Ghosh, told me much about Sādhu Bābā's ambrosial pastimes, and the latter I have often consulted on bhajan-matters somewhere between 1982 and 2002.

Rādhākuṇḍa saṅga

Recently I had the following discussions with devotees around Rādhākuṇḍa:

Bhakta: " What about the Vrajavāsīs? Some are even Buddhists, offering Coca Cola and snacks to the tiles in their homes, saying God does not exist."

Advaitadas: " Actually a landslide majority of Vrajabāsīs is Hindu and Vaiṣṇava. Mahāprabhu told Jagadānanda Paṇḍit: mathurār svāmīr saṅga nā loibā  "Don't take the company of the people of Mathurā (Vraja)." He then said  sanātanera saṅga na chāḍibe ek-kṣaṇa ' Never leave the company of Sanātan Gosvāmī', which nowadays means the followers of Sanātan Gosvāmī, the pure Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas. Vṛndāvana Mahimāmṛta and other scriptures glorifies the Vrajabāsīs in connection with Kṛṣṇa in great superlatives, because they are living in His abode only. Sādhu Bābā offered feasts and other gifts to the Vrajabāsīs, but because they took advantage he would not stay in Vraja too long, lest he would not get too disappointed with them. He never stopped loving the Vrajabāsīs, though. "

Bhakta: " Your preaching of rāgānugā bhakti being available before anartha nivṛtti may have been the cause of some of the current Sahajiya movements starting in the west."

Advaitadas: " Perhaps, but it is the same in Bengal - āul, bāul etc. are caused by misinterpreting the ācāryas. What can be done? There will always be some abusers. Doing rāgānugā bhakti before anartha nivṛtti doesn't mean one should deliberately break the principles - anarthas means subtle attachments which we should remedy through sādhana while following the principles."

Bhakta: Some say meditation on the mañjarī svarūpa in an unripe stage causes one to take birth as a mundane Indian woman in the next life."

Advaitadas:
1. There must be a sense of belonging to Smt. Rādhārāṇī, not that you just identify with some Vrajavāsī women you see on the street. Reading and meditating on Vilāpa Kusumāñjali, Utkalikā Vallarī and Rādhā-rasa Sudhānidhi is helpful as well as associating with like-minded devotees and residing at Rādhākund."
2. You have to start somewhere, even while anarthas are there, there must be basic aspiration.
3. It is an internal meditation on a transcendental form, which will be revealed in truth at the bhāva bhakti stage.
4. Those preachers of caution need not worry too much - only a happy few take interest in rāgānugā bhakti anyway."

Bhakta: But Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes in his Kṛṣṇa Karṇāmṛta ṭīkā (3) that one can meditate on the siddha deha before bhāva bhakti too."

Advaitadas: "That may still mean on the stage of āsakti, niṣṭhā or ruci."

Bhakta: " It is said that only bābājīs / sannyāsīs attain the spiritual world."

Advaitadas: " You cannot make a reservation, nor is it only through celibacy that one can attain the spiritual world. Such a reservation is certainly not there for bābājīs or sannyāsīs that just wear their uniform but do not follow the rules of their ashram, as some foolishly believe. There needs to be prema and the stages beyond - rāga, anurāga, bhāva mahābhāva etc., as is explained in Mādhurya Kādambinī.

Bhakta: "Where did you learn such nice Bengali?"

Advaitadas: "Association. You don't learn a language from a book. You learned your mother tongue before you even entered kindergarten just from association with your relatives. Association is everything."

Bhakta: "Is the Guru supposed to be siddha?"

Advaitadas: "That's a bit much to ask nowadays, huh? Still one should take initiation..."

Bhakta: "What about 'brahmaṇyupaśamāśrayaḥ' (qualifications of the Guru given in SB 11.3.21, saying he should be in spiritual consciousness and in control of himself)?"

Advaitadas: "According to Jīva Gosvāmī in Bhakti Sandarbha (206), this applies to śravaṇa- or śikṣā-guru, not to dīkṣā-guru. For that he quotes another verse, 11.3.48.Surely a Guru must be qualified but it is objectively speaking, not easy to know who is siddha, or to find one. Subjectively speaking, for the śiṣya, the Guru is none other than Bhagavān. Hence I object against talk of 'uttama', 'madhyama' and 'kaniṣṭha' Gurus. That is pulling the Absolute into the realm of the relative. No śāstra speaks of uttama, madhyama and kaniṣṭha Gurus. Rather, the Bhāgavata (7.15.26) says:

yasya sākṣād bhagavati jñāna dīpe prade gurau
martyāsad-dhi śrutaṁ tasya sarvaṁ kuñjara śaucavat

'The fool who sees the Guru, who is God Himself and who is the giver of the light of divine knowledge, as a mortal person, sees all his learning go in vain."

Bhakta: "Some prominent Vaiṣṇavas claim the word brahmacārī and the āshram with that name was not especially marked by celibacy. It just means 'student'."

Advaitadas: Yajñavalkya Muni says:


karmaṇā manasā vācā sarvāvasthāsu sarvadā
sarvatra maithuna-tyāgo brāhmacaryaṁ pracakṣate

"To always give up sex, everywhere, in action, mind and words, is called brāhmacarya."

Bhakta: "The Bhagavat says ajāta śatrava śānta sādhava sādhu bhūṣaṇam - 'The devotee's enemy is never born".

Advaitadas: "You may have to see this as a glorification of the sādhus. Sanātan Goswāmī was jailed and almost killed by a robber. Raghunāth dās Gosvāmī was jailed, Yudhiṣṭhir Mahārāja had many ferocious enemies, too. Haridās Thākura was nearly beaten to death by the Muslims. Everyone naturally gets friends and enemies in life. No one is without enemies."

Sūryakuṇḍa tragedy

Yesterday I could not blog this because the Rādhākuṇḍa cyber-joint was closed due to this disaster - The annual Sūryakund-festival in honour of Siddha Madhusūdan Dās Bābājī brutally ended when the roof of the Mandir collapsed and bābājīs both on and under the roof were either killed or got wounded. Last night I heard that 3 Vaiṣṇavas from Rādhākuṇḍa were killed, but since overnight 7 more were killed the death toll from Rādhākuṇḍa may have risen. Total death toll, according to Dainik Jagaran, is 12. Some 60 were wounded. As there were no ambulances in the small remote village, the victims were taken to hospitals in Agra and Mathurā by private car. Care there seems to be below standard, perhaps because the hospitals were flooded with casualties.

Everyone, many thanks for the worried e-mails - I am perfectly safe. I could not attend the Utsava due to my leg problems. I haven't attended since 1988, actually.

Four kinds of pious men

Modern comment on Bhagavad Gītā 7.16 :

catur-vidhā bhajante māṁ janāḥ sukṛtino'rjunaḥ

ārta jijñāsur arthārtī jñānī ca bharatarṣabhaḥ

"Four types of pious persons come to Me - the distressed, the poor, the wise and the inquisitive."

The distressed and inquisitive are mostly westerners, Indians are mostly arthārthī, after money. When the Indian brahmacārī joined an organisation with many western members and found his western bride and concomitant US green card he will serve the deities in Milwaukee temple for a few weeks and then start his business and send greenbacks to his extended family in India. Alternatively, the arthārthī may remain in India, don Rūpa Goswāmī's dress and start a lucrative business with kīrtana, disciples etc. Being a saffron-clad ' bonafide prabhu' is usually more lucrative though. Another type of arthārthī gives Bhāgavat Saptāha in a huge pompous circus announced by huge billboards, for huge rewards from the audience but without instilling any bhakti in them.

The inquisitive is usually an ignorant westerner with a big brain, who learns lots of śāstra, but when his intellectual curiosity is satisfied and he is about to mount a vyāsāsana, he turns Buddhist, punk-rocker, hippie or a combination of them. The Gauḍīya-Discussions elite was typical of such jijñāsus (inquisitive). Mañjarī bhāva and siddha praṇālī are usual objects of curiosity, so they take initiation into that, but drop the pactise when their curiosity is satisfied and it turns out one needs to be pure for it (smaraṇaṁ tu śuddhāntaḥkaraṇataḥ sāpekṣā).

The ārta, or distressed, is usually a westerner who had too much sex and/or drugs, or who is too ugly, or too shy, or impotent, homo-, bi- pedo- or a-sexual and tries to flee from such a problem into a celibate order, which will ultimately fail if there is no real bhakti to give a higher taste. The ārta is usually very eager to get 'liberated in this lifetime' and thus puts some extra ice cubes into his early morning bathing water to detach him from his body as soon as possible. In a sense, the ārta is higher than the arthārthī, because bhakti for purification is in the mode of goodness and bhakti for the money is in the mode of passion (SB 3.29.7-12). In either case, bhukti mukti spṛhā yāvat piśācī hṛdi vartate (BRS) ' How can prema arise when the witches of the desires for enjoyment (the arthārthī) and liberation (the ārta) are still in the heart?'

The jñānī, or wise, is one who understands and knows the teachings of śāstra and Guru applies them too - this can be either westerner or an Indian. This is the real bhakta (teṣāṁ jñānī nitya yuktam, 7.17), but is very rare too (sa mahātmā sudurlabha 7.19). Of course the poor, curious and distressed may have real bhakti too, through which they can transcend their motivations and become pure devotees. And in any case, Kṛṣṇa says udāra sarva evaite (7.18) "they are all glorious", just for coming to the right place.

Written in Vrindavan, October 2008

Self-evident?

We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

On a Vaiṣṇava forum I recently debated a secular issue and to support his point a devotee quoted this sentence from the US constitution. Actually, this is not an authoritative statement in principle because those who drafted this constitution are of course conditioned souls, who are prone to mistakes, inattentiveness, deceit and imperfect senses (bhrama pramāda vipralipsā karaṇāpaṭava). Comparing this statement with the verdicts of śāstra was amusing, because it turned out to be not-so self-evident at all.

'All men are created equal' has two flaws in it -

1. No one was ever created. na tvevāhaṁ jātu nāsam na tvaṁ neme narādhipāḥ (Bhagavad Gītā 2.12) "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you nor all these kings." The jīva is beginningless and thus never created.
2. No one is equal, created or otherwise. In his commentary on the Vedanta Sūtra 2.1.35, Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa argues that God may be blamed for being partial, since some souls suffer and some souls enjoy, but the Vedanta Sūtra text denies that by saying: na karma vibhāgād iti cen nānāditvāt 'If there is a division (inequality) of karma (then that is unfair), but no, for it (karma) is anādi (beginningless).' Baladeva then continues to quote a verse from the Smṛti:

puṇya pāpādikaṁ viṣṇuḥ kārayet pūrva karmanā
anāditvāt karmanas ca na virodhaḥ kathancanaḥ

"Viṣṇu engages (the conditioned souls) in sin or virtue according to (their) previous karma, but there is no controversy (injustice) in that since karma is beginningless.'

Regarding equality on the material level, no Barack Obama is going to turn each homeless bum in Harlem into a Beverly Hillbilly. Inequality is intrinsic. Even communism failed to bring equality to even a single nation.
Then what about ' unalienable rights' like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'? Can any US government provide it?

Life - what about the lives that were lost in all the US interventionalist wars, and that are lost now since abortionwas legalized? Can the US government insure or protect Life? Hardly. jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyuḥ (Bhagavad Gītā 2.27) "For those who are born, death is sure."
Liberty - Freedom is an illusion. In this world we serve our families (by having to maintain them), governments (by paying taxes) and our senses. In the spiritual world we serve Krishna, but there is no freedom anyway anywhere.
Pursuit of Happiness -

ye hi saṁsparśaja bhogaḥ duḥka yonaya eva te

ādyantavanta kaunteya na teṣu ramate budhaḥ

(Bhagavad Gītā 5.22)

"Any enjoyment which arises from the touches of the senses are just sources of misery. They have a beginning and an end and thus a wise men does not rejoice in them." duḥkālayam aśaśvatam (Bhagavad Gītā 8.15) ' This world is miserable and temporary.' As the Christian founders of the American state must have known from the Bible, this is the valley of the tears..

Ruci means chanting, not womanizing

Yesterday one commentator to my 'Advaita's rebuttal to Advaita's reversal'- blog of November 4 quoted this verse from Bhakti Sandarbha (312), from Gautamiya Tantra:


prītir atra tādṛśa-ruciḥ ....
na japo nārcanaṁ naiva dhyānaṁ nāpi vidhi-kramaḥ
kevalaṁ santataṁ kṛṣṇa-caraṇāmbhoja-bhāvinām

"There is no japa, no deity worship, no meditation and no succession of rules. There is only feelings for Kṛṣṇa's lotus-feet."

It is important that this verse is not misunderstood to mean rāgānugā bhakti consists of idleness, dirtiness, carelessness, much less debauchery. This verse is quoted in the context of the ruci stage of rāgānugā bhakti. It means that the rāgānuga bhakta has no quota or duty of japa, deity worship or meditation, but he will do it (nāma gāne sadā ruci, he always has taste for nāma) naturally. Otherwise what would be the meaning of rāga (passion) and ruci (taste), if he would not chant or meditate? This would make no sense. As for dhyāna, rāgānugā bhakti has been called 'mano-dharma' (mental religion) by Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda (Rāga Vartma Candrikā), and then the rāgānuga bhakta will not meditate? The Gosvāmīs' books are sūtras (aphorisms) and can be easily misinterpreted by unscrupulous people who want to twist them to their advantage.

Advaita's rebuttal of Advaita's reversal

On October 31 Jagadānanda Dās posted a blog in a reaction to my blog of October 5. His mundane intellectual superimpositions on transcendental śāstra have been dealt with many times by yours truly and others, but as he continues to try to defy the ācāryas and śāstra by denying that sex is for procreation, here’s an updated and extended catalog of what the ācāryas and śāstras have to say on it:

"As one in his list of definitions of what a Vaiṣṇava is, Jīva Gosvāmī in his Bhakti-sandarbha (202) cites the Skanda-purāṇa's instructions of Mārkaṇḍeya to Bhagīratha:

yathā skānde mārkaṇḍeya-bhagīratha-saṁvāde -
dharmārthaṁ jīvitaṁ yeṣāṁ santānārthaṁ ca maithunam 
pacanaṁ vipramukhyārthaṁ jneyās te vaiṣṇavā narāḥ 
atra śrī-viṣṇor ājnā-buddhyaiva tat tat kriyata iti vaiṣṇava-padena gamyate

"Those people for whom the purpose of life is religion, for whom the purpose of sexual intercourse are children, and for whom the purpose of cooking is to serve the brāhmaṇas, go by the name of 'Vaiṣṇava'."

Thus those, who act in awareness of the orders of Viṣṇu, are understood as Vaiṣṇavas. The essence of the thought here is that a Vaiṣṇava would not do something that wouldn't be pleasing to Viṣṇu, and since sexual intercourse for mere enjoyment isn't something that can be offered, a Vaiṣṇava would not unnecessarily engage in it. Then, the Bhāgavata-purāṇa repeats the concept in three locations, describing the suitable period for sexual union:

gṛhasthasya ṛtu-gāminaḥ 

"The householder have sexual intercourse only in the fertile season."  S.B. 7.12.11

gṛhasthasyāpy ṛtau gantuḥ

"However [though brāhmacarya was described], the householder may approach his wife for intercourse in the fertile season."  S.B. 11.18.43

evaṁ vyavāyaḥ prajayā na ratyā imaṁ viśuddhaṁ na viduḥ sva-dharmam 

"In the same way [as with other injunctions giving room for sensual indulgence], sexual intercourse should not be for the sake of lust, but for the sake of progeny. Regardless, people do not understand such pure sva-dharmas."  S.B. 11.5.13

The theme is brought up in Bhagavad-gita (7.11):

dharmāviruddho bhūteṣu kāmo'smi bharatarṣabha

"I am that lust, O greatest of the Bharatas, that is not contrary to dharma."

The commentaries prominent in the Gauḍīya line of thought, namely those by Śrīdhara Svāmī, Viśvanātha Cakravartī and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, read as follows:

śrīdharaḥ -- dharmeṇāviruddhaḥ sva-dāreṣu putrotpādana-mātropayogī kāmo’ham iti 
viśvanāthaḥ -- dharmāviruddhaḥ sva-bhāryāyāṁ putrotpatti-mātropayogī
baladevaḥ -- dharmāviruddhaḥ svapatnyāṁ putrotpatti-mātra-hetuḥ

Śrīdhara: "I am lust that is not contrary to dharma, suitable only for bestowal of progeny in one's wife."
Viśvanātha: "Not contrary to dharma means suitable only for the birth of progeny in one's wife."
Baladeva: "Not contrary to dharma means for the sole cause of the birth of progeny in one's wife."

Hence, begetting children with one's duly wedded wife is the desired application for sexual desire.

Further, in Bhagavad Gītā 10.28, Kṛṣṇa says prajanaś cāsmi kandarpaḥ “Of progenitors I am Cupid.”
Śrīdhara Swāmī comments:

prajanaḥ prajotpatti-hetu kandarpaḥ kāmo’smi na kevalaṁ sambhoga-mātra-pradhānaḥ kāmo mad-vibhūtir aśāstrīyatvāt

“I am the desire that is only for making children, the desire for sex for just pleasure is not scriptural.”
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī comments :

kāmānāṁ madhye prajanaḥ prajanayitā putrotpatty-artho yaḥ kandarpaḥ kāmaḥ so’ham asmi ca-kāras tv artho rati-mātra-hetu-kāma-vyāvṛtty-arthaḥ

“Of desires I am the desire for making children only. ca means it excludes sex just for pleasures.”
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa comments :

prajanaḥ santānotpādakah kandarpaḥ kāmo’ham rati-sukha-mātra-hetuh sa nāham iti ca-śabdāt

“I am the desire for just making children, but I am not the desire for mere sexual pleasures.”

Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, citing Padma-purāṇa (5.9.44-47), praises a householder's abstinence except for the sake of begetting progeny as the equivalent of brāhmacarya:

ṛtu-kālābhigāmī yaḥ sva-dāra-nirataś ca yaḥ 
sarvadā brahmacārīha vijneyaḥ sa gṛhāśramī 

"One who is devoted to his own wife and approaches her for intercourse in the period suitable for fertilization is known always as a brahmacārī even though he may be in the householder-āśrama." (HBV 11.156)

iti matvā sva-dāreṣu ṛtumatsu budho vrajet 
yathokta-doṣa-hīneṣu sakāmeṣv anṛtāv api 

"Thinking this way, even if his wife is willing during unseasonable times, the intelligent person will approach her only in her fertile period. when she is free of detrimental effect, as has been explained before." 11.173

This is just śāstra. Now comes yukti (common sense): If sex were not for procreation, then why do women get pregnant of it each time? And why does one apply artificial tricks to avoid that, items of contraception that do not grow on the trees?

As for our professor's argument that sex is LOVE, the following from the śāstras and ācāryas (this is really kid stuff, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to understand):

ātmendriya prīti vānchā tār boli kāma;
kṛṣṇendriya prīti dhare tār prem nāma

Caitanya Caritāmṛta: “ The desire to satisfy one’s own senses is called kāma (lust) and the desire to please Kṛṣṇa’s senses is called prema (love)."

ātaeva kāma-prema bahu antara;
kāma andhatama prema nirmala bhāskar (CC)

“Therefore there is a big difference between lust and love – lust is deep darkness and love is clear light.”

Let then not our friend, who was twice initiated into the sannyāsa-order of life, come with self-styled ahangropāsana theories like ‘our sex is love for Kṛṣṇa’ or ‘ it’s the same as Kṛṣṇa’s’, because the first quote I made from Caitanya Caritāmṛta is also confirmed at the end of the Bhāgavat’s Rāsa-līlā: naitat samācarejjātu manasāpi hyanīśvara ‘ Not even in one’s mind should one imitate the intimate pastimes of the Lord’ vināśatyaciran mauḍhyāt ‘ You quickly perish from such foolishness’ yathā rudro’bdhijaṁ viṣam ‘ As you can also not imitate lord Shiva’s drinking poison from the ocean’. It’s only that he knows it. In Holland we say – a warned man counts for two.’

As for svarūpa-siddha bhakti, Brajabhūṣaṇa dāsji patiently explained (in my blog of August 22, 2008), quoting from Viśvanātha's ṭīkā of Bhagavad Gītā 9.27, that as soon as overall surrender has taken place, everything is done for Kṛṣṇa’s sake. If the progeny does not show interest in bhakti, that is between Kṛṣṇa and the child – the parent can only have the best – devotional – intentions.

The 1960s' western sexual revolution-generation is turning 60 and frankly, I think it's pathetic to see a 60-year old, who has known Vaiṣṇava siddhanta for 40 years, speak of lust as love like this.

By the way, I don't agree that undue loss of seed is mass murder, as no doctor or scientist can perceive the soul in any of the millions of sperm cells released during an ejaculation. Many times a woman does not get pregnant even if approached on a fertile day.

Anyway, my final comment to Jagat and his faith-fellows is this: If illicit sex would lead to enlightenment, the whole world would have been enlightened from day 1.

Cyberjoint sanga

Despite all my physical woes, Vṛndāvana is of course a place where you meet many Vaiṣṇavas. This is the gist of one such meetings, in a cyberjoint -

Bhakta: "Some say that the jīva never falls from Goloka but does fall from Vaikuṇṭha."

Advaitadas: "na yatra māyā (Śrīmad Bhāgavata 2.9.10) - Brahmā said there is no māyā, when he had a vision of Vaikuntha. He did see Vaikuṇṭha, not Goloka, and: no māyā, no fall. Can you show me anywhere in śāstra that we don’t fall from Goloka but do fall from Vaikuṇṭha?”

Bhakta: ‘Is it true that one can attain bhāva bhakti only through the personal association of a mahā bhāgavata?”

Advaitadas: ‘Such association is of course welcome but is not imperative. At least I cannot find statements in śāstra that personal saṅga is the only way to bhāva bhakti."

Bhakta: ‘Some give the example of Raghunāth dās Goswāmī, who was placed under Swarūp Dāmodar’s care by Śrīman Mahāprabhu and later he took shelter of Rūpa Goswāmī. He was never without superior guidance and empowerment.”

Adwaitadas:
"1. Raghunāth dās Goswāmī was a nitya-siddha and needed no bhāva-bhakti from anyone.
2. Even if that were so, whose personal association did he get after Rūpa Goswāmī passed away? Raghunāth dās Goswāmī outlived Rūpa Goswāmī for about 27 years. So I find no practical or scriptural evidence for this personal-saṅga philosophy."

Bhakta: “It is said that taṭastha śakti means that we came from Mahāviṣṇu and then we made a choice between the spiritual and material world.”

Adwaitadas:
1. ‘There is an avalanche of evidence from śāstra, beginning with the Bhāgavata, that our ignorance is beginningless, while your theory implies there was a beginning. This is contradictory. Bhagavad Gītā’s first lesson (2.12-30) is that the soul is unborn. Where was it then before this ‘beginning-scene’ which you depict here?
2. There is no evidence for the historical event you suggest here, in any śāstra whatsoever, be it the Bhāgavata, or any of the Goswāmīs’ writings.
3. It sounds like we rubbed our eyes when we came out, had a brief thought “Where shall I go now?” and then, without any reason, chose for eternal bliss with Kṛṣṇa or eternal suffering in the material world. What about the śāstras’ repeated statements that our ignorance is beginningless (anādyavidyā)?”

Bhakta: “It is also said that due to contacting material nature, our natural love for Kṛṣṇa is turned into lust.”

Advaitadas: ‘nitya siddha kṛṣṇa prema’ (CC) “Kṛṣṇa Prem is eternally perfect”, which means that once it is attained it is never lost. These are two entirely different things, though they appear to be similar. ataeva kāma-prema bahut antar, kāma andhatama prema nirmala bhāskara (CC) ‘Lust and prema are very different from each other – lust is deep darkness while prema is clear light.”

"Engaging all senses" - blogs deleted and "Work and Family" blogs revised

I have deleted my blog of December 8, 2007 and the last paragraph of the following blog ("Week 49") because I read the Haribhakti Vilāsa text pāyūpasthayoś ca tatra sākṣād ayogyatvāt, which says one cannot use the genitals and the anus in Kṛṣṇa's service, out of context. tatra means 'here', 'in this context', the context being Haribhakti Vilāsa 11.627-9, describing several ways in which the active- and knowledge-senses engage directly in Kṛṣṇa's service, like the head in bowing down, the nose in smelling offered incense and Tulasī, etc. sākṣād means ' directly'. Sanātan Goswāmī states in the quoted ṭīkā that in this context the anus and genitals can not be directly engaged. My friend Brajabhūṣan personally wrote me last August:

"Now, regarding your quote from HBV: my understanding is that the tika-kari says that 'when describing sādhana bhakti, various activities related to our senses were mentioned, but those related to anus and genitals were not included as they are not directly (sākṣād) suitable for the service.'That's clear, you will not offer to Kṛṣṇa such direct 'service' as passing stool in front of Him, nobody would like it, not even a person dearest to you (like your mother, let's say) would like it. Nevertheless, she would like it if you emptied your bowels regularly (in the toilet, of course) as only this way you could maintain your health. I believe Kṛṣṇa reasons in the same way."

My friend Boris quoted this verse from Haribhakti Vilāsa (8.410), which also mention the genitals (śiśna) as instrument of devotional service:

itaḥ pūrvaṁ prāṇa-buddhi-dharmādhikārato jāgrat-svapna-suṣupty-avasthāsu manasā vācā karmaṇā hastābhyāṁ padbhyām udareṇa śiśnā yat smṛtaṁ yad uktaṁ yat kṛtaṁ tat sarvaṁ śrī-kṛṣṇārpaṇaṁ bhavatu svāhā māṁ madīyaṁ ca sakalaṁ haraye samarpayāmīti oṁ tat sat 410

Gaur Nāgarī, public Abhiṣekh, brahmacāriṇīs and dhṛti

Bhakta: “A prominent bhakta is saying that there is really a line of Gaura Nāgarī bhāva, coming from Mahāprabhu's associate, (forgot his name ..) that has practised and is still practicing it.”

Advaitadas: “These associates are Locandās and Narahari Sarakāra. The point is, Murāri Gupta worshipped Rām and Nṛsiṁhānanda Brahmacārī worshipped Nṛsiṁha and these are also associates of Mahāprabhu. But these are exceptions. We are to follow the authorized ācāryas ourselves - the 6 Gosvāmīs, and they have not prescribed any of all of this. The ācāryas, both then and now, are giving mañjarī bhāva.”

Bhakta: “In the abhiṣek in India everybody can take part?”

Advaitadas: “No, I have never seen this anywhere in India. It is done by the pūjārīs. You see, in Iskcon everyone can take part - menstruating women, people who passed stool in cotton clothes, who wore the same clothes for a week or more, or people who did not shower at all. If I ever have a public abhiṣek I would never allow anyone to shower Giridhārī. In Sādhu Bābā’s āshram its also done just by the pūjārīs.”

Bhakta: “Yes, after seeing your arguments I agree, though at that time I saw it as a mercy.”

Advaitadas: “Mercy comes in the form of harinām; everyone can take part in kīrtan. Not in arcanā. What is the use of vetting pūjārīs on sadācāra and 'brahminical qualifications' then if you allow all dirty bums to shower Kṛṣṇa with (contaminated by) stool and menstrual blood on His own birthday even?”

Bhakta: “You say the mañjarīs have no intimate relationship with Kṛṣṇa but we do find statements in Kṛṣṇa Bhāvanāmṛta, Govinda Līlāmṛta and Muktā Carita that hint at it or even openly describe it.”

Advaitadas: “rasika līlā-matters are subjective, tattva is objective. In other words, if your Guru teaches that the mañjarī is not married and is an all-round brahmacārinī, also not enjoying with Kṛṣṇa, then that is your svarūpa. If other ācāryas say you are married and/or enjoy with Kṛṣṇa, then that is your svarūpa. But tattva is objective. Its not that one Guru’s teaching that the living entities fall down from the spiritual world is true and another Guru’s teaching that we were always here is also true.”

Bhakta: “Nāndīmukhī is called brahmacārinī in the Muktā Caritra (428), but she asks Kṛṣṇa about amorous details. How is that?”

Advaitadas: “That’s nothing. mañjarīs are eternal brahmacārinīs and they have the most intimate access to Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes. Speaking of brahmacārinīs,  for long I wondered whether this term was actually Vedic. I only accepted it as such when I first read this verse. I was under the impression that it is not Vedic for a girl to remain single and that they should all be married in time for their own protection, but when I took dīkṣā from my Guru I found that he encouraged his female disciples also to remain single and take jobs as teachers, nurses etc.”

Bhakta: “In the Bhāgavata (10.45.60) Rukmiṇī seems to preach to women not to accept a man whose body is filled with puss, stool, urine and covered with hair everywhere as a husband but simply to worship Kṛṣṇa. That is preaching to girls to remain brahmacārinīs.”

Advaitadas: ‘bālasya neha śaraṇaṁ pitarau nṛsiṁha (SB 7.9.19) – The parents cannot protect their child, tvad upekṣitānām – if it is neglected by You.” Similarly a woman cannot really be protected by her husband, if God decides otherwise.

Bhakta: “Previously (blog of June 2, 2008) you objected against compulsory Nṛsiṁha worship because Nṛsimha is such an aiśvarya deity, but Nanda Mahārāja loved the Nārāyan-deity too.”

Advaitadas: “Nanda Mahārāj only loves Kṛṣṇa. People in Vraja are formally worshipping Sūryadeva (Rādhā’s family) Durgā (Candrāvalī’s family) or Nārāyan (Kṛṣṇa’s family) but that is only a backdrop for the greatest love for Kṛṣṇa that the Vrajavāsīs posses. Who of them cares for Nārāyan?”

Bhakta: “If they don’t care for Nārāyan why they worship Him at all?”

Advaitadas: “Kṛṣṇa wont want to live in a paradise full of atheists. And He can also not live in a paradise where He Himself is God – so the solution is that devatās are worshipped in His environment. Everybody in Vraja has their kuladeva, their traditional family-deity.”

Bhakta: “So they worship Nārāyan to go to the abode of Nārāyan in the next life. They think like that?”

Advaitadas: “Most Indian families are not really hankering for this to be their last birth in the material world. They are mostly interested in their relatives and their family deity is another thing. Nanda Mahārāja is like that too, in the līlā of course. Once Nārada Muni approached Nanda Mahārāja and told him: “Why don’t you renounce household life – it is all māyā.” Nanda Mahārāja replied: “Oh sādhu, I am totally happy in this household life – I have Kṛṣṇa as my son. What more would I want?” This is called dhṛti, contentness.”

*

This will be the last blog from Holland for now, I am flying to Delhi tomorrow, though I am suffering from complications of ear infections. Everyone keep their fingers crossed – I will take painkillers for the take-off and landing (ear-pressure).

Balarām Bhakti (2), Astrology, the Rāsa līlā’s aiśvarya and Kaustubha.

Bhakta: “In some places (in the west) an Ekadaśī-feast is taken on Balarāma’s birthday.”

Advaitadas: “Actually Balrāmji is not at all a Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava upāsya (worshipable deity). This vrata or utsava for Balarāmji’s birthday is not observed by any Vaiṣṇava group I know of (apart perhaps from villagers in Dauji village or the bhaktas of Gaura Dauji in Vṛndāvana, neither of whom are Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas), nor is it mentioned in any śāstra like Haribhakti Vilāsa or Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu. As I said in my blog of August 7, we are devotees of Kṛṣṇa, not of Balarāma. No fast is required or prescribed for it.”

Bhakta: ”But Nṛsiṁhānanda Brahmacārī worshipped Nṛsiṁha and Murāri Gupta worshipped Rāma.”

Advaitadas: “Yes but these are exceptions, not the rule. It is not that the entire community is to be forced by its leaders to worhip Nṛsiṁha, Rāma or Balarāma. The rules are clearly and elaborately laid out in the Gosvāmīs' books. Instead the Śrāvaṇa Pūrṇimā is famous for its celebration of Raksa Bandhan, which is not some mundane Hindu-bindu festival, since it is celebrated by Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa in Vilāpa Kusumāñjali (88), and of course Jhulan Purṇimā.”

Bhakta: “Then it is said that Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma perform pastimes in Raman Reti in Vṛndāvana.”

Advaitadas: “I have never read that in any of the Gosvāmīs books. Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma go with the cows from Nandagrām (58 km from Vṛndāvana) in the morning to tend Their cows in Govardhana (30 km from Vṛndāvana) and then return to Nandagrām again in the afternoon. That is the pattern of Their eternal pastimes in the Gosvāmīs’ books. Kṛṣṇa Himself comes to Vṛndāvana, without Balarāma, only at night to dance the Rāsa.”

Bhakta: “Can astrology tell us something about our spiritual lives?”

Advaitadas: “The Gosvāmīs have not mentioned astrology anywhere in their books, so it seems that the stars have no influence on those whose lives are surrendered to the Lord, the Controller and the Creator of the stars…”

Bhakta: “In the Rāsa līlā in the Bhāgavata, the gopīs often address Kṛṣṇa as the All-powerful one, the all-pervading one, the Lord of Lakṣmī etc. That is heavy aiśvarya.”

Advaitadas: “There are two answers to this – the first is that Śukadeva showed the mādhurya in different places in the Bhāgavata –

mādhurya bhagavattā sāra,        braje koilo paracāra,
tāhe śuka vyāsera nandan,
sthāne sthāne bhāgavate,          varṇiyāche nānā mate (CC)

“Sweetness is the essence of Godhead, and Śuka, the son of Vyāsa, has revealed this at different places in the Bhāgavat, in different ways.” In different places, but not everywhere. The tenth canto is a patchwork of mādhurya and aiśvarya, even the Rāsa-līlā narrations. In the Gopī Gīta (SB 10.31), the gopīs first call Kṛṣṇa the Supersoul (akhila dehinām antarātma dhṛk, verse 4) and later on (verse 16) they call Him a cheat for leaving innocent girls in the dead of night (kitava yoṣita kas tyajen niśi).

The second answer is that expert rasik ācāryas, particularly Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda, have given rasika explanations to all these supposedly aiśvarya-names and attributes of Kṛṣṇa in their commentaries. Many of these reverend addresses of Kṛṣṇa are explained to be sarcasm of the gopīs. Kṛṣṇa’s rejection of the gopīs is turned into a plaintive plea (by Kṛṣṇa) and the gopīs’ plaintive plea to Kṛṣṇa turns into a proud rejection instead. The ācāryas have thus explained the verses in such a way that all rāgānugā bhaktas can enjoy a flow of uninterrupted mādhurya when they read the Bhāgavata.”

Bhakta: “What is the color of Kaustubha maṇi? We argued among our bhaktas, but no one knows for sure. I only remember on place in Ānanda Vṛndāvana Campū when pearls on Kṛṣṇa’s chest become red because of the light of Kaustubha. Can you kindly help me?”

Advaitadas: “Indeed, this is there in Ānanda Vṛndāvana Campu (kaustubha raśmi-pūra-śoṇāyamāna-vara-mauktika, AVC 22.25) and is also confirmed in Kṛṣṇa Bhāvanāmṛta (12.65): uditendu sūrya śata nindi kaustubhācchalato yato jagad avāpa raktatāṁ “The Kaustubha defeats the rising sun and moon and pervades the universe with redness.” Elsewhere in Kṛsṇa Bhāvanāmṛta, however, the Kaustubha is compared with Kṛṣṇa Himself, when Rādhikā wears it on Her chest after winning it in the dice game in ch.15), which would indicate it is Kṛṣṇa's colour. However, that can be read as the Kaustubha just being a representative of Kṛṣṇa on Rādhikā's chest because it is normally an inseparable apparel of Kṛṣṇa.”

Bhakta: “But in Ānanda Gopāl Gosvāmī’s purport of Vilāpa Kusumāñjali, verse 34, it is said: "O Sumukhi! The Kaustubha-gem and Your Syamantaka-jewel are embracing Each other (when You embrace Kṛṣṇa), like a black moon (Kaustubha) playing with a lotus flower (Syamantaka)!” Here the Kaustubha gem is said to be black.”

Advaitadas: “I may have erred there. The Bengali text says: ubhayera maṇite kolākoli. kāla-cāṅd kamalera saṅge kheliche. tomāra mukha-kamala vigalita madhu āsvādana korite dekhilām etc. I might have drawn a conclusion there that was not originally meant so. The translation, instead of the one you quoted from me, should have been: “The gems of both of Them (Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa) are in an embrace. The black moon plays with the lotus. I saw Him relishing the honey that trickles from that lotus.” I believe now that that black moon is Kṛṣṇa Himself, not the Kaustubha gem.”