Foot-lac, inherent svarūpa, love him or leave him and the Hare-kṛṣṇa mantra.

Devotee - Śrī Rādhikā wears red lac on bottom of Her lotus feet or only on the sides and up the heels like seen among Indian ladies?

Advaitadās - yasyāṅka rañjita śiras – lākṣā-rasaḥ sa ca kadā padayor adhas te nyasto mayā (Vilāp-kusumānjali 43) – Kṛṣṇa’s head is colored by Rādhikā’s footlac when She puts Her foot / feet on His head. She does not sweep across His head with Her heels. padayor adhaḥ means ‘under both feet’. So the lac is proven to be on the footsoles.

Devotee - A proponent of the Inherent-svarūpa vāda, that the jīva’s siddha-svarūpa is inherently dormant in the heart, quoted this ṭīkā to Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.4.190 by Sanātan Gosvāmīpāda: 

nanu sarva-jñāna-kriya-śakti-pravartakaḥ hṛśīkeśo’yaṁ sarvotkṛṣṭa-tāratamya upāsanam eva sarvebhyo’pi tebhyaḥ sāmyena kiṁ na dadyat tatrāha vicitreti vicitrāṇāṁ vividhānāṁ tāsaṁ tāsāṁ rucīnāṁ bhāva-viśeṣāṇāṁ rasānāṁ vā dānaṁ tebhyo vitaraṇam. tāneti pāṭhe vistāraṇaṁ tad eva līlā tasya vibhūtim vaibhavaṁ ko janaḥ ut ucchais tarkayituṁ prabhuḥ śaktaḥ. api tu na ko’pi tatra hetuḥ samudra-koṭibhyo’pi gahano gambhīra āśayo’bhiprāyo yasya tasya. vicitra ruci vistāraṇe hetuḥ vicitra līlāyā vibhavā vaibhavāni yasya tasya anyathā vividha līlā-vaibhava-mādhurya-sampatter iti bhāvaḥ.

Advaitadās - Since no English translation was given, I will present it here –

‘If you say that Lord Hṛśīkeśa prompts all energies of action and knowledge, then why does He not give the highest type of worship to all devotees? To that it is said ‘vicitra’, there is a variety, and to different devotees He gives taste for different particular bhāvas or feelings. He distributes different rasas to them. Can anyone ascertain the prowess of the Lord’s līlā through false logic? No one can. His desires are deep (incomprehensible) like millions of oceans. Another reason for His bestowing different tastes is that the prowess of a variety of līlās is a treasure of sweetness.”

Inherent-svarūpa proponent: “Taste in a particular rasa is the action of jñāna- and kriyā-śakti of the Lord. The jñāna and kriyā-śaktis are always working on the jīva-śakti in both the conditioned and liberated states. So the śaktis responsible for the taste are already present in the jīva. They are never not present.”

Advaitadās - That’s not at all what this ṭīkā is about. It’s about why the Lord doesn’t bestow the highest rasa to everyone. It doesn’t say at all that the śaktis responsible for the taste are already present in the jīva.

Inherent-svarūpa proponent:  The Lord knows past present and future. He knows what taste will manifest at a particular point, from the relative perspective of material time. So, from the absolute perspective, the taste is fixed and the potencies responsible for it are already present. aga-jagad-okasām akhila-śakty-avabodhaka te "O Lord, you awaken all the śaktis of the living entities." (Śrīmad-bhāgavata 10.87.14) Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments that the Lord awakens the ability of the jīva to pursue the path of bhakti. Just a tip. Remember that material reason is conditioned by the concept of time, whereas transcendence is an eternal present.” 

Advaitadās - That is exactly the opposite of a svarūpa or prema being dormant in the heart. If I plan to give someone a donation next month, the receiver doesn’t own that money until next month, though I decided to donate it right now. With the same logic we can also all call ourselves liberated because it’s just a matter of time. This about Destiny, not dormancy. Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.4.190 doesn't say that prema is dormant but that it is given by the Lord. The added value is that Sanātan Goswāmī names the śaktis that bestow the mercy - big deal. It doesn't speak of inherent svarūpa at all. Viśvanātha Cakravartī comments on Bhakti Rasāmṛta-sindhu 3.2.77: pārṣadānāṁ rati-janmani tu anādi-siddha-saṁskāra eva hetuḥ. “Only nitya siddhas have an anādi-siddha-saṁskāra for bhakti rasa, while sādhana siddhas do not. The latter only attain rasa by sādhana and mercy (puraivokta, as described in verse 1.3.6).“ Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta 2.4.190 doesn’t mention some taste already being present and later being awakened by Krsna. The verse and the commentary clearly use the word "dāna" which is glossed as "vitaraṇam", distribution. It is about giving different ruci (devotional taste), vicitra-tad-ruci-dāna-līlā, that leads to different upāsanā (types of worship) and different siddhi. If this ruci is already there in the jīva then there is no question of dāna-līlā (the pastime of giving). 

Devotee – I’m curious about the grounds for rejecting a Guru. I heard that Narahari Sarakāra’s ‘Kṛṣṇa Bhajanāmṛta’ speaks about this?

Advaitadās - Regarding ‘Kṛṣṇa Bhajanāmṛta’, I am not a fan of this booklet. Those who quote it as authoritative usually oppose Gaur Nāgari bhāva, which was so loudly preached by Narahari, and should contemplate their double standards. In other words, one cannot oppose Gaur-nāgarī and at the same time slam someone on the head with Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta, written by the same Narahari, as authoritative śāstra.

Narahari advises us in Kṛṣṇa Bhajanāmṛta - kintu yadi gurur asamañjasaṁ karoti tarhi yukti-siddhaiḥ siddhāntais tasya rahasi daṇḍaḥ karaṇīyaḥ na tu tyājyaḥ - ‘But if the Guru does something inappropriate, he should be punished (rebuked) in private with the proper reasonable philosophy. He should not be rejected, though.” The 3rd offence to harinām is guror avagya, disregard of the Guru, and Śrīmad Bhāgavata 7th and 11th canto clearly condemn a human conception of Śrī Gurudeva - yasya sākṣād bhagavati jñāna dīpa prade gurau martyāsaddhiḥ śrutaṁ tasya sarvaṁ kuñjara śaucavat (Śrīmad Bhāgavata 7.15.26) “Whoever has the foolish notion that the Guru, the bestower of the lamp of divine knowledge, who is God Himself, is a mere mortal, has all his learning lost, just as an elephant throws dust all over himself after bathing.” ācāryaṁ māṁ vijānīyān nāvamānyeta karhicit na martya buddhyāsūyeta sarva devamayo guruḥ (Śrī Kṛṣṇa in Śrīmad Bhāgavata 11.17.27) "You should know the ācārya to be Me, never slight or disrespect him or find faults in him, considering him to be an ordinary mortal, for Śrī Gurudeva is the aggregate of all the Gods."  

How then can a śiṣya approach Guru and get on his case, even in private? Narahari even uses the word daṇḍya, Guru is punishable. I find that hellishly offensive. Either love Guru or leave him. Narahari later writes - loka-sva stavaiḥ kṛṣṇam anukaroti – “If the Guru praises himself to the people as Kṛṣṇa, or imitates Kṛṣṇa”. This must be judged on a case-by-case basis. If this refers to a sahajiyā who has His private Rāsa-līlās, then such a Guru can be abandoned. But in other cases it can be accepted. My Guru accepted Śiva-abhimāna, which is onthologically correct, considering his family lineage. 

Devotee – Some say the hare-kṛṣṇa mantra should be chanted, in kīrtan, completely, and not in 2 halves or so.

Advaitadās – Śrīman Mahāprabhu said in Śikṣāṣṭakam – nāmnām akāri bahudhā nija sarva-śaktis tatrārpita niyamitaḥ smaraṇe na kālaḥ - ‘You have invested all Your transcendental energies within Your holy name and there are no hard and fast rules for chanting them.’