|
|
Post by swamibvt on Jan 24, 2013 16:43:50 GMT -5
Arguably those who are Radhasnehadhika/manjaris (who love Radha more than Krsna) experience all that Radha experiences, whereas those who are Samasnehadika/priya sakhis (love Radha and Krsna equally) do not. This is the argument for manjari-bhava: While all of Radha's priya sakhis and parama prestha sakhis (asta sakhis) experience her moods, they do not necessarily experience all of her moods. That is, they don’t experience the heights that the manjaris do.
The nitya-sakhis (Radha’s handmaidens/manjaris) experience something that even Radharani’s dearest friends like Lalita and Visakha do not. This is what Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami alludes to in his Vraja-vilasa-stava when he writes,
“I take shelter of the handmaidens (manjaris) of the Vrindavan’s Rani, who are led by Sri Rupa Manjari and who lovingly satisfy her by offering hazelnuts and other condiments, massaging her feet, bringing fragrant water and arranging trysts with her gallant and have thus become most dear to her. They are thus allowed to enter the scene
of the Divine Couple’s most intimate affairs without the slightest discomfiture a reward not given even to her dearest friends.”
Dasa Goswami is our prayojana-tattva acarya, and he has pointed to Sri Rupa as the highest ideal in sacred love. Whereas Sri Rupa has focused on abhideya-tattva, and thus we should not expect him to point this out in books like Brs and UN. Un is basically and extension of the madhurya rasa section of Brs. And what we do have on prayojana-tattva comes mostly from Raghunatha dasa Goswami.
That said, it is the Radhasnehadika gopis (prana and nitya sakhis/manjaris) whose bhava is given the special and exalted title of “bhavollasa” by Sri Rupa in Brs. Bhavollasa refers to a special exalted bhava not experienced by either the Krsnasnehadhika or Samasnehadhika gopis, only the Radhasnehadhika gopis, Radha’s handmaidens/manjaris. Their experience in mahabhava is indeed unique. It does appear that no one else can get as close to Radha’s experience as they can, and no one experiences more in mahabhava than Radha.
Given the above, the citations from UN and Jaiva Dharma you cite arguably say something other than how you are interpreting them. Above all others, Radha’s manjaris will say that priya sakhis and parama prestha sakhis like Lalita are the best, better than themselves. They are objects of worship for Radha’s manjaris. Thus manjari-bhava is considered to be an understated apex of sacred romantic love for Krsna—Radha Krsna. And this has been the dominant idea in Gaudiya Vaisnavism for centuries.
But overall, yes, one’s own bhava is subjectively and really the best. And there are a few sacred possibilities that our sampradaya has opened windows to. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not exclusively about manjari-bhava.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jan 24, 2013 18:39:46 GMT -5
Arguably those who are Radhasnehadhika/manjaris (who love Radha more than Krsna) experience all that Radha experiences, whereas those who are Samasnehadika/priya sakhis (love Radha and Krsna equally) do not. "Arguably" you say, but can it be backed up with references? I found none in Ujjvala-nilamani or elsewhere. Nothing. Therefore it has not been established as a fact as such, unless references are provided to confirm these assertions. Thus, I don't think you can make such claims. Those entering madhurya-rasa may do so as nitya-sakhis following prana-sakhis, or as priya-sakhis following asta-sakhis with sama-sneha. Both are following kamanuga-bhakti in tat-tad-bhavecatmika mode, ie: desiring Radha's bhavas. No further distinctions are made as to who will experience more or less. Not in BRS or UN or anywhere else I studied. Yes, it is an 'argument', but it is unsubstantiated and therefore cannot be assumed to be a fact. Without proof, it is speculation only. I have provided facts directly from Ujjvala-nilamani and Visvanatha that prove otherwise. There is nothing in UN to substantiate these claims. Everyone agrees that such services are the special ornaments of the manjaris, but that is their "service". In no way does it imply that they are "experiencing" a higher mood because of that. That is not the direct implication of that verse. They have "access" to those confidential moments, but nothing is stated about their experiences in doing so. I don't think you can logically extrapolate your conclusion from that. As I mentioned in my book, the other sakhis have access to equally or even more intimate and confidential experiences that the manjaris do, but I don't think it's appropriate to mention those here. It can be found in UN and the lila books. Plus, Visvanatha, in describing the 5 types of Radha's sakhis, states clearly that the priya-sakhis have more prema for Radha and Krsna than the manjaris. His direct words, and confirmed by Bhaktivinoda in JD. While Dasa gosvami is representative of that tattva, all of the acaryas provide deep insight into these affairs and not exclusively him. They have all written far more than he has on this deep subject. Rupa manjari is no doubt highly exalted, but it is not stated anywhere in UN that she is the highest ideal for everyone, exclusive of any other. For Dasa gosvami she is, and that's how he framed it, but that does not automatically apply to everyone else. UN is not only an extension of BRS, it is THE last word and most extensive treatise available on madhurya-rasa above all others. Rupa Gosvami has revealed therein all necessary and relevant details for those aspiring for madhurya-rasa. There is no deficiency there and it is far more extensive than that which was provided by Dasa gosvami. I presented the complete understanding of bhavollasa-rati in chapter 3 starting on page 79. Here is the core of what Jiva said in BRS: If that rati directed to Radha or another ideal devotee is equal or less than their rati directed to Krsna, that rati directed to Radha is called a sancari-bhava (assistant) of the rati directed to Krsna. If that rati directed to Radha is greater than the person’s rati directed to Krsna, constantly increasing with affection, it is called bhavollasa to indicate its special nature, though that rati directed to Radha is still a sancari-bhava. And here is Visvanatha's statement from UN: This is the meaning. If the rati directed to a friend is equal or less than that directed to Krsna it is a sancari-bhava. That affection for the friend nourishes the rati for Krsna. If that affection for the friend is greater than for Krsna and is nourished by affection for Him, it is called bhavollasa. It is not a sancari-bhava or a sthayi-bhava. Rupa-manjari speaks to a sakhi of Lalita. Radha wiped the perspiration from the face of Lalita. Radha has rati for Lalita. This is a sancari-bhava, nourishing Her rati for Krsna. That is all that is said by all of the acaryas about bhavollasa-rati and it does not fully support your statements. They mentioned nothing about it being super special and exalted, only that it is a unique 'sancari-bhava' only, and not even a stayi-bhava. I disagree. I have proven my case conclusively with direct references. I feel that these are unsubstantiated assertions that have no basis in sastra or the texts of the acaryas, vs every statement in my book being backed up by solid references and logic. Because of the esoteric nature of these subjects, we should avoid assumptions that may have been held for a long time, but don't have sastric backup. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by swamibvt on Jan 25, 2013 3:32:55 GMT -5
Speculation is one thing, theology is another. The latter involves reasoning about the implications of the core texts. The argument going now for centuries in the sampradaya is what I have presented. Take it or leave it, but it is what has been theologized on the basis of the core texts. And that theology has been embraced by Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati Thakura. You may read about it in Sri Guru and His Grace in the final chapter entitled, "The Line of Sri Rupa"—“(manjari-bhava) is fixed as the highest limit of our fortune in Krsna’s concern.” Saraswati Thakura's position on manjari-bhava being the apex of madhurya rasa is represented therein by Pujyapada Sridhara Deva Goswami. And I can testify from first hand experience of conversing with numerous acaryas of Gaudiya Math that across the board in GM manjari-bhava is conceived as the farthest reach and that this was the opinion/realization of its founder. And it does not stop there. It pervades the Gaudiya sampradaya. In his Gita-mala Thakura Bhaktivinode describes the shelter of Rupa manjari as the best of perfections—siddhi sara. So you choose to differ. I began my post with the word "arguably." You are not satisfied with that argument. Neither am I satisfied with yours. But you write as if yours is in black and white, literal, and irrefutable, referring to the traditional argument as "speculation." If find that questionable at best.
I cite sastra, your interpret it. You cite sastra. I interpret it. That is what is actually going on here. My interpretation follows a long standing unchallenged position woven into the fabric of the sampradaya. Yours challenges that argument but not in a convincing way to me.
Lets' look at it again. Here is the basic theology: No one experiences more in Mahabhava than Radha. Those fully identified with her in every way as her maidservants experience no other bhava than her bhava--tad-bhava. To love her is to know her. If you love someone, they tell you all their secrets. According to sastra, the manjaris love Radha more than the priya sakhis. Thus they experience all that she experiences. Jaya Radhe! Jaya Rupa!
Your argument is that this does not mean that they experience anything higher than the priya sakhis. And here you cite your best evidence: a translation of UN 8.137 tika of VCT. JG is all but silent on this verse. VCT appears to have graded the five kinds of sakhis, giving the highest grade to the parama prestha sakhis. On the basis of this you argue against any interpretation of sastra that concludes that manjari-bhava is the highest ideal as if it’s a no brainer. I don’t agree, and neither does the “everyone else” you refer to.
VCT is saying is that the names of these five types of sakhis indicate that there is a gradation in their love. Yet in other texts the manjaris are referred to by other names that indicate they are the highest. For example, Govinda-lilamrta refers to Rupa manjari as a priya-narma-sakhi (most dear pleasure companion), and in Mukta-carita manjaris are called parama-pranayi-sakhis (most loving friends”).
But moreover, the enduring argument in the sampradaya is that despite the classification of VCT, who alone speaks of it in this way, the unique blessing the manjaris experience as a result of their complete dedication to Radha results in their experiencing more in mahabhava. And some say more than Radha! In the line of Jahnava devi that Thakura Bhaktivinode’s diksa comes, the book Murali-vilasa finds Jahanava herself saying, “The manjaris experience seven times the pleasure that Rädhä does.”
And one can theologize as to why VCT says other sakhis are the best. As you yourself have said, these words are spoken by a manjari (VCT). You reason therefore that even the manjaris admit others are higher. But if you want to go down that road, we should look to the disposition of the manjaris to get a better idea of why one might say this. Manjaris serve such gopis as Lalita, while their own position is understated.
You want verses spelling it out in black and white, while scripture itself is grey. I cite Raghunatha das Goswami and his statement that the manjaris experience something that even the priya sakhis can to support my position. You say, well it does not say in black and white that the more that the manjaris experience affords them a higher experience. I disagree, obviously. They experience everything Radha experiences vicariously, and as is apparent from Das Goswami's verse, some of their experiences priya sakhis are not privy to. I am convinced. You are not. You accuse me of speculating beyond the scope of what is said or implied by Das Goswami. I strongly disagree. I think you are limiting the scope of what is being said and implied. We differ.
You also dismiss the idea that Rupa Goswami's bhavollasa says what I have understood it to say. Let’s look at it. Bhavollasa means a particularly “exalted bhava.” Sri Jiva Goswami and VCT write that it involves an interesting twist. Generally for the devotee love of Krsna exceeds his or her love of Radha, and in such cases the devotee’s love of Radha nourishes the devotee’s love of Krsna like a sancari bhava. However, in the case where love of Radha exceeds love of Krsna, as it does in manjari-bhava, the manjari’s love for Krsna serves to increase her love for Radha. In other words, her love for Krsna starts acting like a sancari bhava, nourishing her love for Radha that acts like a sthayi bhava! Given that this scenario is what takes place in manjari bhava, the verse arguably is referring to it. “Arguably” means that it is a reasonable thing to draw from the text, given the overall scriptural description of manjari bhava.
You say that the acaryas have not said anything about bhavollasa being special or exalted, but that is exactly what the word means, as I pointed out. Furthermore, the sthayi-bhava of the manjaris is full blown madhurya rasa of the tad- bhava type. The idea that bhavollasa is not a sthayi and not a sancari (VCT) makes it something special. It is a sancari that acts like a sthayi! So it’s neither, but it is rati. It is more exalted that suhrit rati and thus requires its own name, “the exalted bhava/rati.” And again, it describes the reality of the manjari: She loves Radha more than Krsna and her love for Krsna nourishes in an ongoing and ever increasing way her love for Radha. Thus to say that bhavollasa has absolutely nothing to do with manjari-bhava is a stretch. Still, there are other applications of the term bhavollasa that the verse speaks of as well. Bhavollasa can also act as a sancari for the priya sakhi in that in her experience it can come and go (sancari), favoritism for Radha can come in her and then retire in favor of Krsna. This is what VCT is referring to in his UN tika on the verse bhavollasa verse from Brs. And there is much more to be said about the implications of the verse and term. Your explanation was in my opinion superficial. Indeed, you merely cite the commentaries and say they support your opinion. Not in my opinion.
But no, I have not read your entire book. I read the section I am commenting on, which is a section of the 5th chapter, that and your paragraphs on bhavollasa. I will take a look at more of it. I am sure it has a lot to offer. Indeed, this may be my only point of contention.
I stated that UN is an extension of the chapter on madhurya rasa found in Brs. You disagree. But that is exactly what it is. Brs is written from a neutral position, tatastha vicara. And thus all the rasas are discussed. Among them madhurya rasa is given the least treatment. After writing Brs., Sri Rupa penned UN, wherein he writes extensively on madhurya rasa but not from a neutral position. Madhurya rasa is his rasa. You call it the final word and then draw your conclusions from one commentary to one verse of it. There is nothing more to be said?
Again, I would like to stress that I don’t think this chapter of yours does justice to the fact that the sampradaya has so broadly embraced manjari-bhava, with the overwhelming majority of our acaryas identified with it. I agree that some members of the lineage have done so to an inappropriate extreme, insisting that any bhava other than manjari-bhava is not Gaudiya Vaisnavism. On that we agree. But I do not think that the citations from UN stating that the priya and parama prestha sakhis are the best trumps the scripturally well reasoned and widely accepted for centuries sense that manjari bhava is the fullest measure of unnatojjvalla rasa.
And I am personally not interested in manjari-bhava. You, on the other hand, are championing the bhava of your own choice. Nothing wrong with that, but objectivity is required in such discussions. I realize that you have attempted to bring that to this chapter. I just don’t find what you have presented on this topic conclusive or convincing. But others may agree with you. And also I think that presenting the core arguments in support of the idea that manjari bhava is the zenith of rasa for the jiva, as I have in brief here, does make sense in terms of questioning your conclusion and commenting on this point. I hope you can see that. ☺
Thanks for the opportunity to consider all these points.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaurakeshava on Jan 25, 2013 12:00:24 GMT -5
I find Swamis position to be more compelling. As I also feel from my limited knowledge of this subject in the history of Gaudiya sampradaya that this is the most widely held and orthodox opinion. However I also feel that statements like his quote from Murali Vilasa quoting Jahnava Thakurani who states that the manjaris experience 7 times the pleasure of Sri Radha are simply typical hyperbole which we often come across in sastric mahatmyams and not to be taken literally. Such statements simply emphasize the greatness of the manjaris feelings without meaning to actually quantify them as being greater than Sri Radhikas. But indeed these can be taken as some small measure of proof that the manjaris experience is almost as high if not equal to Sri Radhas. I have to apologize for making this premature posting as I have not read yet the section of the book dealing with this topic. Therefore I do so with some reservation. I have commented simply because it seemed to be one of the first topics to be taken up on the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jan 25, 2013 13:06:23 GMT -5
Gaurakeshava prabhu... To be fair, please do jump ahead and read that section in my book for a balanced outlook, so you know exactly what I presented. Then let us know your thoughts.
I will respond to swami's post later today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jan 26, 2013 3:40:23 GMT -5
I'm well aware of the predominance of manjari-bhava in GM. Tradition is one thing and sastra and direct evidence from the major acaryas is another, and is accepted as the standard, is it not?
I am honestly not championing the bhava of my choice. I am bringing to light the fact that there are two access points to madhurya-rasa: nitya-sakhi manjaris, and priya-sakhis. No one has mentioned that before to my knowledge. I have shown via VCT's commentaries that being a manjari is not the only option for entry into Radha's group.
Those desiring to be priya-sakhis also follow tat-tad-bhavecatmika-bhakti and so they will also experience ALL of Radha's bhavas as do the manjaris. There is not one single statement from any of the acaryas I referenced that the manjaris experience more.
All statements refer directly to sakhis and not specifically to manjaris. To argue otherwise has no solid sastric or acarya basis, regardless of what the 'tradition' may be. Tradition does not trump sastra or the major acaryas, IMO.
If tradition is the interpretation then I guess I'm going against tradition and I'm perfectly fine with that because I am in sync with the acaryas' teachings. That is a solid position to take, IMO. There is no mandate to follow tradition and ignore direct sastric evidence from the acaryas. If it's a matter of interpretation, then I beg to differ on rock solid ground. Some may disagree, and that's fine, but I don't think you can assert that my position is not valid as such, simply because it defies tradition.
VCT said it repeatedly and conclusively and BVT agrees with him in JD as I quoted. It wasn't a casual off hand statement in passing. VCT spent several pages explaining these details explicitly, as I quoted in full in my book. Each of the 5 types of sakhis have progressively greater prema for Radha and Krsna. Why is that not significant? Why should that be ignored because of tradition? It appears that the traditionalists have a bias, as you have acknowledged. In choosing not to ignore the facts, I may be in opposition to tradition, but I am certainly not in a weak position, though I may stand alone.
Looking at the books of the acaryas we see that they do not in fact emphasize manjaris above all others. Why should we ignore that fact as if it is irrelevant? I think it's time to change the traditional viewpoint and discuss things as they have been directly presented by the acaryas, which is what I've done. Is that not acceptable? Are the acaryas not part of the "tradition"? They started the tradition, so why haven't they stated such things clearly?
There is no specific focus on manjaris in the texts I used, that would directly lead to the "traditional" view point. Thus, the conclusions you state could be taken as personal opinions and not incontrovertible facts. No one disagrees with the special attention and exalted praise given to Rupa manjari, but that could easily be seen as a personal bias, which is fine with me. Everyone promotes their own camp. The lila books show a broader picture without such singular isolation.
Those names are not used in the same context as VCT explained in UN, which is THE definitive book on madhurya-rasa. UN is specifically an analytical work, Govinda-lilamrita is not. VCT's analysis is made in that context and BVT fully supports it. VCT is bringing deeper insight into Rupa's presentation. That has significant weight that cannot be minimized.
Other than Jahnava's statement, is there corroborating evidence from the major acarya's I've used? It's not in any of the 20 major books I used for reference. Does that not strike you as odd? How does a 'tradition' evolve from such lack of direct evidence? That's my question. I accept the acaryas fully, but I question tradition if it's not in sync with them.
Everyone always cites Raghunatha's verse about witnessing intimacy as being the overriding factor that establishes the manjaris superiority over all other sakhis, as if all other sakhis have no similar unique opportunities. It is unique and wonderful, but I don't accept that as a logical basis for establishing their superiority. I say that is a personally biased interpretation and extrapolation. Other sakhis (not manjaris) are sometimes invited to join Radha and Krsna in Their private kunja as stated in UN.
Regarding bhavollasa-rati, I have presented the entire texts from BRS and UN on that subject. I never said it has nothing to do with manjaris. I acknowledged that. It is not a stayi-bhava according to JG and VCT. It is an exalted feature of their bhava, but it is absolutely not overriding proof of the manjaris superiority above all. It's just another unique and wonderful aspect of their bhava. Clearly it has been taken beyond its initial intention, regardless of the semantics pointed out.
Regarding UN being an extension of BRS, I think that's not a big issue for us to dispute. We agree that it is the quintessential book on madhurya-rasa.
I read it twice and studied it carefully. That one verse and commentary (actually I used 2 commentaries) is the only one directly relevant to what I was presenting and it is significant IMO. VCT spent ample time making his point, so that's significant for me. There are no other verses or commentaries that contradict his statements, and BVT concurs. On this specific point there is nothing more to be found in the books I used. And everyone uses only one verse from Raghunatha das gosvami, so that isn't any different.
It seems to me that is a major factor that has skewed things more than most would admit.
I feel they do, and I stand by my presentation and analysis. You have presented very compelling arguments. They are certainly representative of 'tradition', but I challenge that tradition on the basis of the direct evidence I've presented.
I appreciate being able to discuss this publicly with you and I respect your presentation even though I don't agree. I hope others will benefit from hearing both sides.
I look forward to hearing your impressions on the rest of my book. Thanks for participating.
|
|
|
|
Post by urmila on Jan 26, 2013 6:54:48 GMT -5
There is spiritual subjectivity in individuality and so a person in a particular bhava feels that his or her bhava is the highest--otherwise why would they be in that bhava? On the other hand, one should be able to see that objectively a particular bhava is higher even if that is not one's personal bhava.
|
|
|
|
Post by swamibvt on Jan 26, 2013 18:41:39 GMT -5
Uttamaslokaji,
Thanks for your reply. Let me try to clarify a couple of points.
By the word "tradition" I mean sasta-yukti. Sri Jiva has cited Purusottama-tantra in his Sarvasamvadhini tika to Sat-sandarbha to emphasize its importance. The tantra states sastrartha-yukto 'nubhavah pramanam uttamam matam, "sastra-yukti is the ultimate pramana." Jiva Goswami has explained further in his Brs tika to the last verse of the book's first chapter that in order to engage in sastra-yukti in the full sense of the term ruci is required—svalpapi rucir eva syad bhakti-tattvavabodhika. Sastra-yukti is reasoning about the implications of sastra. This is what gives rise to a tradition such as ours—Gaudiaya Vaisnavism—and defines it in an ongoing manner. So tradition is this sense is not separate or by any means inferior to sastra. It is more conclusive.
So let's look at our tradition, at how our acaryas have reasoned about sastra and then written our own Gaudiya sastra. Mahaprabhu came to taste and bless the world with the limits of madhurya rasa. No one else could do this. Why? Because he is svayam bhavan and only he has prema madhurya, not any other avatara. What is the blessing that he gave that no one else has ever given (anarpita)? What is the unique bhava of the Gaudiya sampradaya not found anywhere else? Not found means not pointed out and not existing in the lineage. Sakhi-bhava is found in the Nimbarka sampradaya. Vatsalya bhava is found in the Vallabha sampradaya. Sakhya and dasya are also mentioned in these raga marg lineages. But manjari bhava is found only in the Gaudiya sampradaya. No one else knows anything about it. They could not find it in Srimad Bhagavatam. Thus manjari-bhava is the unique gift of Mahaprabhu. Without him, no one would know about it.
And it is the full measure of madhurya rasa. Krsna wanted to taste Radha bhava, and he also wanted to distribute it. Thus he appeared as Sri Caitanya. He experienced her position by absorbing himself completely in her bhava. For all intents and purposes he "became" Radha, followed by her remaining shadow in the form of Gadadhara Pandita. He stole Radha's bhava and corresponding dyuti. But how did he distribute it to others? We can't become Radha. If we want to taste the full measure of what he offers, how will we do that? Mahaprabhu taught Rupa Goswami how to do it and asked him to show the way. The way is manjari bhava.
Thus Sri Rupa has glorified him in verse along these lines—anarpita carim cirat karunayavtirna kalau . . . unnatojjvala rasa . . . And Kaviraja Goswami has taken Sri Rupa's verse and employed it as his asirvada (blessing) sloka to Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. What was not given before by anyone else is not sakhi bhava. It is manjari-bhava. And that which was not given before by anyone else Sri Rupa labeled "unnatojjvala rasa" in his verse. Ultimately unnatojjvala rasa is manjari bhava—kinkari-bhava, Radha dasyam. How can it in any way be less than sakhi-bhava?
In his Krsna-bhavanamrta, Visvanatha Cakravarti has written each manjari is qualified to be a group leader or parama prestha sakhi. However, because they have tasted the service of Radha, they have no interest in being a param prestha gopi. Who would be interested in less when they already have more?
Bhaktivinoda Thakura's rendering of Vraja-vilasa stava 38 in his Jaiva Dharma clearly states that Rupa Manjari and the other maidservants are more dear to Sri Radha than even the parama-prestha sakhis because they can serve Radha and Krsna in their most intimate lilas. What does this mean? This means that the most intimate exchange of Radha Krsna described by Ramanada in his conversation with Mahaprabhu that caused Gaura to cover Ram Roya's mouth is what is fully accessible only to the manjaris. This is a particular measure of Radha's mahabhava, the melting union of the minds of Radha and Krsna into one that contains all bhavas. Lalita sakhi in her Gaura-lila deha as Ramanada Roy is with some hesitation teaching this to Mahaprabhu, who upon hearing his poem about it covered his mouth and asked about the sadhana required to attain it.
Ramananda is teaching Gaura about the limits of mahabhava and manjari-bhava, which as Lalita-sakhi he/she knows something about. He/She is praising the approach of Rupa manjari, who serves under Lalita-sakhi because Rupa manjari knows all about this. Why? She and her kind are not outsiders in any sense of the term, and this prema vivarta can only be understood by insiders. The word "vivarta" implies a level of prema that "cannot be known by outsiders." And here Ramananda taught Mahaprabhu that this lila of prema vivarta is only accessible to the sakhis and only they can distribute it. He told him that these sakhis feel that it is higher to engage in uniting Radha with Krsna than it is to unite with him oneself. Taken to its fullest application, this is manjari bhava. More explicitly he told Mahaprabhu, sakhira svabhava eka akathya-kathana krsna-saha nija-lilaya nahi sakhira mana, "There is an inexplicable fact about the natural inclinations of the sakhis. These sakhis never want to enjoy themselves with Krsna personally. " The only sakhis who feel this way are Radha's nitya and prana sakhis, her manjaris. The never want to have direct romantic union with Krsna.
The sakhi-bhava discussed in this section of Cc is that of a prana-sakhi/nitya-sakhi—manjari-bhava. And we should note that the seva of the manjaris corresponds with their experience. Therefore Das Goswami has shown in his first verse of Vilap Kusamanjali that Rupa manjari experiences Krsna's bitting of Radha's lips on her own lips. She never allows Krsna to kiss her, but she is so absorbed in Radha that when he bites Radha's lips the marks show up on Rupa manjari's lips. No sakhi can experience this. They can experience Krsna's kiss directly on their lips but they cannot experience Krsna's kiss of his most beloved Radha's lips. Time to faint . . .
And all of this is confidential. Thus Mahaprabhu clasped the mouth of Roy Ram. This confidentiality is also central to Gaudiya Vaisnavism, where indirect speech—paroksa vada—is given precedence. As Krsna himself stated in the Bhagavata, paroksam mama ca priyam. Therefore we should not expect to find verses explicitly stating "manjari-bhava is the highest." Nityam bhagavata sevaya, one has to pay very close attention to sastra under good guidance—two Bhagavatas.
Having stated the above, let me also note that Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja has commented on his asirvada sloka that Mahaprabhu came to give four bhavas, cari bhava-bhakti diya nacamu bhuvana. These four bhavas are dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and madhurya of Gokul. They are all raga bhakti, either sambandha rupa (dasya, sakhya, vatsalya) or kama rupa (madhurya). The Gaudiyas have revealed much more about about sakhya and madhurya rasa than any other sampradaya. And moreover the traditions speaks to us about these four bhavas in Gokula with regard for parakiya bhava. Indeed, in his Gita commentary Pujyapda Sridhara Maharaja has even tied a sense of parakiya to all four of these Vraja bhavas:
"The acme of theism is parakiya-rasa. Parakiya means 'another's.' In every divine relationship (rasa) the Lord captures all. In the whole of Vrndavana, where everyone follows the path of love (raga-marga), this parakiya-rasa is infused. The friends of Krsna sometimes say, "Some people say that Krsna is a resident of Mathura. They say He's the son of Vasudeva, and He will soon go to Mathura. They say He is not our friend! Will we really lose His company? Then how will we be able to live in this jungle and drive the cows?" They experience this apprehension - "We may lose Him at any time." This intensifies their friendly service to Him . . . Therefore, the parakiya-rasa stresses the rarity of Krsna's relationship, because the possibility of losing His company is always in the background."
All of this is unique to our sampradaya—the extended gift of Mahaprabhu. But in madhurya rasa it reaches its zenith. And it does so in manjari-bhava. This bhava constitutes being filled (mayi) with the desire (iccha) to follow the bhava (tad-bhava) of Radha to the extreme—tad-bhavecchamayi—because among other things it contains no desire to have direct romantic union with Krsna. By contrast to be filled (mayi) with the desire (iccha) to experience direct romantic union (sambhoga) with Krsna—sambhogecchamayi—is considered less desirable, according to Brs. One could argue that the priya sakhi falls in between into a softer form of tad-bhavecchamayi, because despite her desire to see Radha unite with Krsna she has some desire to unite directly with Krsna, of course in a manner that is acceptable, glorious, and desired by Radha. But again, the manjaris don't desire this at all. But amazingly they experience it nonetheless when Radha experiences it, and for the most part, as Radha does.
What an extraordinary sampradaya we find ourselves in! May the Vaisnavas bless me with the humility required to properly honor its gifts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jan 26, 2013 22:23:43 GMT -5
Swamiji...
All of your points are clearly understood and well taken. I don't disagree in principle, but I feel that upon examining UN with VCT's commentary, something heretofore unknown or not mentioned for whatever reasons, has been revealed for everyone's benefit. And that is, entrance into madhurya-rasa as a priya-sakhi.
I can logically and sastrically take almost every assertion you've made and without having to spin anything, apply it equally to the priya-sakhis. In doing so, I am in no way attempting to minimize or diminish the exalted stature of the manjaris, whom I worship daily and love beyond measure because they have been guiding me through this adventure in their manifest forms as our acaryas.
I understand the principle of sastra-yukti as well, but I also see how much aberration can and has taken place throughout Gaudiya Vaisnava history. I certainly don't mean to apply that harshly or wholly to what you've stated, but it is a factor of life nonetheless.
Looking objectively at all of your assertions, the actual sastra/acaryas always refer to sakhis and not manjaris specifically, although you assert that this is a covert tactic. Knowing now, that one can aspire to be a priya-sakhi following tat-tad-bhavecatmkia-bhakti, it is not unreasonable to assume an equal status in that regard. Ramananda Raya, who by the way is Visakha, and Svarupa Damodara is Lalita, even used the word sakhi and not specifically manjari, so why should we exclude the priya-sakhis? If Lord Caitanya's acaryas are revealing what has never been revealed before then why should they obscure anything now? It makes no sense.
All of Radha's sakhis experience Her bhavas. Those are the statements in every single case. I am simply expanding things to include the priya-sakhis, who are among Radha's deeply intimate peer girlfriends, albeit a different relational type of intimacy than the manjaris, but that's just part of the lila. Peer girlfriends have their unique intimacy as well.
VCT has made his point with clarity and detailed explanations and not just a casual passing mention, and he stated that there is a hierarchy in Radha's 5 types of sakhis. Why is that not significant or relevant? Why should we just ignore that simply based on sastra-yukti, which may or may not be free from unnecessary bias and other unwanted influences? I for one, cannot. Each of Radha's sakhis has greater prema for both Radha and Krsna and a greater level of equality with Her in the social context of the lila. To me that is a major revelation of incredible significance. BVT agrees with this hierarchy in JD, his magnum opus.
Therefore, it opens up madhurya-rasa to even more possibilities for aspiring sadhakas. Many devotees may aspire to madhurya but do not feel inclined to be a pre-adolescent maidservant who eschews conjugal contact with the greatest conjugal lover in existence! Conjugal affairs are Krsna's topmost desires, so how can one be part of that AND part of Radha's group? Priya-sakhis are that access point, and before my book I have never seen anyone present that option as revealed by VCT.
In CC, Ramananda tells Lord Caitanya that Radha experiences many times greater pleasure from arranging meetings between Krsna and Her girlfriends as you know. Well, She doesn't get that increased pleasure from the manjaris does She? Only from Her other sakhis including the priya-sakhis. And these arrangements are made by Her every single day and night in Goloka in the asta-kaliya-lila, eternally. That says something extremely powerful IMO, that cannot be ignored or minimized, sastra-yukti notwithstanding.
In reference to the unnatojjvala rasa verse, the full measure should include everything and not just manjari-bhava. Priya-sakhis following tat-tad-bhava, experience the full measure of Radha's bhavas too. You have not provided anything to prove otherwise other than everyone says so. The full measure is to assist in Radha's meetings with Krsna, to experience Her bhavas, AND to give direct pleasure to Krsna is it not? All of Radha's sakhis except the manjaris provide this. Thus it represents the complete meaning of unnatojjvala rasa, whereas manjari-bhava is a unique astonishing subset of that. Sastra and the acaryas back up my assertions even if sastra-yukti appears not too.
All of the Vraja gopis, and especially Radha's sakhis, are fully immersed in samartha-rati, maddened constantly for conjugal relations with Krsna. Only the manjaris differ slightly from that common status quo. So I feel it is wrong to argue that the priya-sakhis are somehow in a lesser/softer position, when the actual fact is they have greater prema for Radha and Krsna! So says VCT and BVT contrary to your statement. It's not so cut and dried as you well know.
And sastra-yukti is not necessarily a matter of democratic considerations. There is always room for, and the possibility of, expanding prior conceptions. The sastra-yukti you mention is not supported in the books of VCT or BVT or Rupa or Jiva, so it's a 'tradition' of all the followers since and around them so to speak. I acknowledge that, but I don't have to blindly accept it either, in the face of evidence from VCT - a major rasika acarya - and BVT, who is of the same status. I choose to differ on rock solid grounds and I don't care if I stand alone.
Please don't think for a minute that my assertions are merely a vain attempt to wrangle sastra to suit some fanciful mental conception I am whimsically attached to. I have meditated and prayed to my Deities and the manjaris and acaryas at great length for confirmation and certainty in my understanding and presentation of this matter, and I feel very confident that I'm on solid ground.
Everyone has ignored, or more accurately, has been unaware of the position of the priya-sakhis as an alternative access point to madhurya-rasa, and my presenting that is an expansion of the conception of madhurya, which Mahaprabhu wanted Rupa to delineate. I can't see how it can be argued otherwise logically. I am not diminishing the manjaris, I am presenting an expansion of the possibilities, which is fully in line with Mahaprabhu and Rupa.
I am very grateful for this opportunity to exchange with you in such a mature, stimulating and evolved manner. I hope it is an example to other Vaisnavas and I hope our exchanges add value to the Vaisnava community. I can't wait to hear your impressions on the rest of my book, as this is merely one section among 50+ sections within the chapters!
|
|
|
|
Post by urmila on Jan 26, 2013 22:52:09 GMT -5
Obeisances. I am not addressing which bhava is highest in this post, but just Uttamasloka Prabhu's assertation that before the publication of his book, no one knew that in our Gaudiya tradition there are two points of entry into madhurya rasa. He says that before his book everyone thought that only manjari-bhava is acceptable for a Gaudiya who wants madhurya-bhava. The following quote, from the purport to Nectar of Instruction text 8, shows very clearly, at the end, that both Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and Srila Prabhupada gave both those entry points.
Your servant, Urmila
here is the quote:
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura has commented as follows upon this verse: "One who has not yet developed interest in Kṛṣṇa consciousness should give up all material motives and train his mind by following the progressive regulative principles, namely chanting and remembering Kṛṣṇa and His name, form, quality, pastimes and so forth. In this way, after developing a taste for such things, one should try to live in Vṛndāvana and pass his time constantly remembering Kṛṣṇa's name, fame, pastimes and qualities under the direction and protection of an expert devotee. This is the sum and substance of all instruction regarding the cultivation of devotional service.
"In the neophyte stage one should always engage in hearing kṛṣṇa-kathā. This is called śravaṇa-daśā, the stage of hearing. By constantly hearing the transcendental holy name of Kṛṣṇa and hearing of His transcendental form, qualities and pastimes, one can attain to the stage of acceptance called varaṇa-daśā. When one attains this stage, he becomes attached to the hearing of kṛṣṇa-kathā. When one is able to chant in ecstasy, he attains the stage of smaraṇāvasthā, the stage of remembering. Recollection, absorption, meditation, constant remembrance and trance are the five items of progressive kṛṣṇa-smaraṇa. At first, remembrance of Kṛṣṇa may be interrupted at intervals, but later remembrance proceeds uninterrupted. When remembrance is uninterrupted, it becomes concentrated and is called meditation. When meditation expands and becomes constant, it is called anusmṛti. By uninterrupted and unceasing anusmṛti one enters the stage of samādhi, or spiritual trance. After smaraṇa-daśā or samādhi has fully developed, the soul comes to understand his original constitutional position. At that time he can perfectly and clearly understand his eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa. That is called sampatti-daśā, the perfection of life.
"Caitanya-caritāmṛta advises those who are neophytes to give up all kinds of motivated desires and simply engage in the regulative devotional service of the Lord according to the directions of scripture. In this way a neophyte can gradually develop attachment for Kṛṣṇa's name, fame, form, qualities and so forth. When one has developed such attachment, he can spontaneously serve the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa even without following the regulative principles. This stage is called rāga-bhakti, or devotional service in spontaneous love. At that stage the devotee can follow in the footsteps of one of the eternal associates of Kṛṣṇa in Vṛndāvana. This is called rāgānuga-bhakti. Rāgānuga-bhakti, or spontaneous devotional service, can be executed in the śānta-rasa when one aspires to be like Kṛṣṇa's cows or the stick or flute in the hand of Kṛṣṇa, or the flowers around Kṛṣṇa's neck. In the dāsya-rasa one follows in the footsteps of servants like Citraka, Patraka or Raktaka. In the friendly sakhya-rasa one can become a friend like Baladeva, Śrīdāmā or Sudāmā. In the vātsalya-rasa, characterized by parental affection, one can become like Nanda Mahārāja and Yaśodā, and in the mādhurya-rasa, characterized by conjugal love, one can become like Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī or Her lady friends such as Lalitā and Her serving maids (mañjarīs) like Rūpa and Rati. This is the essence of all instruction in the matter of devotional service."
NoI: verse 8 purport
|
|
|
|
Post by swamibvt on Jan 27, 2013 4:45:27 GMT -5
Regarding Ramananda's statement that Radha likes to see her sakhis meet with Krsna, this also applies to manjaris. And they do get his embrace and kisses as a result at times with Radha's insistence as brought out in the lila granthas of the Goswamis. But again, they get Radha's experience that others do not. The fact that they experience what Radha does, which no other sakhi does, is the main point.
But priya-sakhis are not excluded in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. They just do not experience as much of what Radha experiences as the manjaris do. The idea that the priya sakhis and parama prestha sakhis are higher is part of the structure of the lila and thus the disposition of a manjari, who will for example only take prasadam after they have in the lila's pecking order. Such manjaris are the best example of dasa dasa anudasa. It's very Zen: the lowest is the real highest.
And as far as madhurya rasa goes, the overwhelming majority, if not all of our acaryas, are in manjari-bhava. That is very significant. It does not speak to us only of a numerical majority rules, but rather that under careful consideration of the highest ideal they have selected manjari-bhava. I seriously doubt that they were unaware of VCT's tika you have made your foundation on, even while many of them came before him and made no such statement. My point is that in light of the points I have raised that represent the heartbeat of the sampradaya, that particular tika should be understood in light of that heart beat. The one point you emphasize therein is not intended to suggest heart surgery is required.
I don't agree that the books of Sri Rupa do not take the position that manjari-bhava is the highest reach of madhurya rasa. They do, and Krsnadasa Kaviraja is about as faithful to him as anyone. It is Rupa's position on this issue—his heart and his understanding of Mahaprabhu— that he has brought out. His Cc is ultimately about manjari-bhava, while it also includes sakhi-bhava. That is not excluded. It is there to be experienced. Go for it. What to speak of sakhi-bhava, sakhya is also there to be pursued.
I think it would have been prudent for you to have merely emphasized the point that sakhi bhava is a possibility for sadhakas and very extraordinary itself, without insisting that it trumps manjar-bhava. I tried to caution you about that as you were writing your book. So I have not changed my position. And neither have you changed yours. As you stated earlier, there is no need to repeat ourselves further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jan 27, 2013 12:09:23 GMT -5
@ Urmila: Thanks for contributing that bit of information. However, it's only one sentence in SP's book, although he may have said it in other books too. My point was that there is a total focus on manjaris by everyone else, to the exclusion of the the other possibility that I have introduced.
And I'm not trying to say so much that priya-sakhis are higher, but rather that manjaris are not the only and not necessarily the highest, as revealed in the texts I presented.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uttamasloka on Jan 27, 2013 13:14:50 GMT -5
Swamiji... A few more points.
When you mentioned that Lord Caitanya covered Ramananda's mouth, you implied that this was because he was going to talk about the manjaris. I don't follow that logic. There is nothing in the lila books that indicates that the manjaris are serving in ways that should not be mentioned. They certainly serve under the most confidential circumstances, but those services are clearly mentioned in the lila books without hesitation.
On the other hand, Radha and Krsna's very confidential encounters are such that it would certainly cause Sri Caitanya to stop Ramananda from revealing them openly. That's my take on it and it makes more sense, all things considered, does it not?
Also, I would like to say that my assertions regarding the full measure of madhurya being revealed need to be repeated for emphasis and clarity.
Krsna in Goloka is dhira-lalita nayaka, the carefree lover. His desires are preeminent in Vraja. More than anything He desires conjugal relations with Radha and all of the Vraja gopis, including of course, Radha's sakhis. Every single day and night He fulfills those desires unlimitedly to His heart's content as revealed in the lila books. He does so with all of the Vraja gopis who live only to be personally and wholly engaged in such affairs, being fully absorbed in the highest samartha-rati.
The manjaris are the only ones who do not participate in this to the fullest extent, due to their bhavollasa-rati for Radha, which is a unique and wonderful ornament of their positions. They prefer to avoid direct conjugal relations with Krsna, although as both of us have mentioned, it does happen sometimes. As such, how do they represent the zenith of madhurya-rasa as many insist?
Radha's other sakhis, including the priya-sakhis, fulfill Radha's desires and personal pleasure to constantly connect Her sakhis with Krsna to fulfill His desires. Such is the astonishing circle of desires nourishing madhurya-rasa. She is more pleased, Krsna is additionally pleased, the sakhis are pleased, including the manjaris, and thus the circle is complete and fully manifest.
Radha's other sakhis thus give Her additional pleasure and satisfaction, along with Krsna. How is that not considered the full measure of madhurya and somehow less than the manjaris' involvement? It cannot be. It represents the whole package, which is precisely what Sri Caitanya came to deliver through His primary acaryas. All of it - not just one esoteric aspect.
And again, if He came to deliver the complete picture, why should anything be further hidden from view, ie: the manjaris unique connection to Radha? Why should that be obscured? It is nowhere near as intimate and confidential as Radha and Krsna's direct conjugal pastimes, which are clearly delineated. I don't get it?
I'm not trying to minimize the manjaris in any way. I'm trying to portray the full scope of madhurya as presented by our acaryas. What possible reason could they have for not mentioning the manjaris in the ways that others in our line have emphasized? Why didn't Rupa emphasize them in UN where so many incredible details are revealed far and above the details of the manjaris service? Why go to all that trouble and in such detail, yet leave out what some consider to be the most important thing? It defies reason, IMO.
And the idea that choosing to be a manjari is the "highest ideal" is directly contrary to the siddhanta that one's rasa is not based on an arbitrary selection, but rather, it is based on following one's natural inclinations developed from lifetimes of samskaras. That is confirmed unanimously by the acaryas, as I presented in my book. None of them has said to "choose" your rasa based on the highest ideal. It is based on one's svarupa and the awakening of this inclination due to sadhana.
I respect your knowledge and realizations and took your cautionary advice under serious consideration, but, inspired by higher insistence, I metaphorically placed that caution into the sweet Malayan breezes blowing constantly in Vraja! Thanks again for all of your input.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaurakeshava on Jan 27, 2013 13:15:41 GMT -5
radha lana krishna pravesila kandarate
sakhi-gana kahe more phula uthaite
TRANSLATION
When Krishna and Srimati Radharani entered a cave together, the other gopis asked Me to pick some flowers. CC Anty 14.109
An example of Mahaprabhu exhibiting manjari bhava Himself. Krsna comes as Mahaprabhu to experience the height of love for Himself and here in order to do so He chooses manjari bhava.
|
|
|
|
Post by swamibvt on Jan 27, 2013 15:57:59 GMT -5
Gaurakesava,
Yes, Mahaprabhus is serving the sakhis. Those who serve the sakhis are kinkaris (servants). They are also sakhis but nitya and prana sakhis or manjaris. Otherwise priya sakhis are not referred to as kinkaris or servants of the sakhis, as Mahaprabhu sees himself in this famous sphurti. He is showing the way of bhajana here in Antya-lila. He chose to show manjari-bhava.
Uttmasloka,
You asked,
"The manjaris are the only ones who do not participate in this (direct relaltionship with krsna) to the fullest extent, due to their bhavollasa-rati for Radha, which is a unique and wonderful ornament of their positions. They prefer to avoid direct conjugal relations with Krsna, although as both of us have mentioned, it does happen sometimes. As such, how do they represent the zenith of madhurya-rasa as many insist?"
First of all it is important to consider who the many who so insist are. I would include everyone in this list, even VCT and BVT, despite the one citation you have raised to dispute that.
Second and more directly answering your question, we do not find that the priya sakhis experience Krsna's bitting of Radha's lips, etc., etc, on their own lips. This happens to the manjaris. They don't experience their own personal direct union with Krsna, but because they are one with Radha they experience her union with him. And no other union with Krsna is higher than hers. Her union is their union. So what can a manjari miss out on? The trist of Krsna with other sakhis that is less complete than his trist with Radha? They are willing to forego that. So if you want to experience Radha's experience because it is the most complete, manjari sadhana is the best course to take. And that's why all of our acaryas have taken that route and pointed to it. They have been inspired to follow this ideal of self abnegation that ends is the highest fulfillment. Prema vivarta also means "inverse prema."
I did not mean to imply that Mahaprabhu did not want Ramanada to talk about manjari sadhana and I don't think I did. He stopped him as he spoke about the mahabhava of Radha Krsna that the manjaris experience. Then he asked how to experience it and Ramanada spoke about manjari bhava. I think that is very clear from the text overall and from the verse I cited in particular that speaks about the manjaris unwillingness to unite with Krsna. And this is how it has been consistently interpreted. I know of know no one who has interpreted it to indicate priya sakhi-bhava. So the interpretation I gave is one that is natural to the text itself and supported by everyone else. Another interpretation would be more forced and unsupported by previous precedent. That said, surely even what Ramanada spoke can be talked about and it is, but the point is that it is confidential nonetheless and thus not the common fare. For that matter it is written an a manner in Cc that very few can understand its implications.
As for the Goswamis writing about manjari bhava, they have. It is all over in their lila granthas. The complete picture is given. Priya sakhis are there too. But in doing so they are writing about themselves. A bit awkward.
As for choosing one's rasa or being chosen as a result of association, if we emphasize the latter the question arises as to where the association that fosters priya sakhi bhava comes in. The sampradaya is saturated with the influence of manjari bhava, and Prabhupada and a few significant others have introduced waves of sakhya rasa. Both of these are there from the start in the Goswamis and Gaura, and Nitai respectfully. But sakhi bhava is there somewhere to be sure . . . I don't object to that if one finds inspiration in it perhaps from some distant past association . . . So the "selection" of manjari bhava on the part of so many is based on association, as you say. But Mahaprabhu selected it as the way for the jivas to best experience what he came to experience. And he taught it by his example, as cited by Garuakesava, and through the Goswamis.
You seem to be thinking that the Goswamis did not emphasize manjari bhava and later others did resulting in a skewed understanding. But I would say that is true only to the extent that others have insisted that only manjari bhava to be had in our line. And again, I do not think the Goswamis were mum about manjaris.
|
|
