Post by Uttamasloka on Dec 10, 2014 14:13:41 GMT -5
This discussion took place on Facebook on 12.7.14, in a forum named: Rare and Esoteric Vedic Literature. Some of the contributors are Sanskrit scholars and thus, the discussion gets a bit technical at times, but it is the most exhaustive discussion about bhavollasa-rati that I have read and I felt it was worth preserving here on my forum due to the valuable knowledge revealed in the discussion. If it continues on FB I will post the additional comments.
All of the individual posts start with the name of the poster. Unfortunately, in cutting and pasting from FB there are no colons after each poster's name, so be mindful when reading that the actual post starts after the name.
Murali Vilasa:Bhavollasa.pdf
Prem Prayojan uploaded a file.
December 7 at 9:30am
Please accept my humble obeisances.
My first question for our revered community of vaisnava scholars is does anyone know the date of the first published edition of Murali Vilasa by Raja Vallabha Gosvami?
It contains perhaps the earliest reference to "bhavollasa-rati". This reference is quoted by Sri Ananta Das Pandita in his commentary on Vilapa-Kusimanjali verse 16, wherein Sri Rupa Manjari and Sri Rati Manjari are specifically mentioned as examples of sakhis with bhavollasa-rati.
However, in a copy of Murali Vilasa printed in 1961 the same verse mentions Ananga Manjari instead of Rati Manjari, which is problematic for the popular "bhavollasa-rati=manjari bhava" theory since according to Srila Rupa Gosvami's Sri Radha-krsna Gannodesa Dipika Ananga Manjari is not listed amongst the manjaris, but rather, amongst the vara-sakhis. Indeed, if one reads the whole passage, it clearly describes Raja Vallabha Gosvami's opinion that bhavollasa-rati applies to all the sakhis and concludes that bhavollasa is simply a feature of suddha-parakya bhava in general.
If anyone has other editions of Murali Vilasa, please let me know if they mention Rati Manjari or Ananga Manjari in regard to bhavollasa-rati. It would be helpful to establish what Raja Vallabha Gosvami originally wrote and which version has been changed for whatever reason. Find the relevant pages are attached here.
Murali Vilasa:Bhavollasa.pdf · version 1
Portable Document FormatDownloadPreview
Like ·
Prisni Dasi Karolina Lindqvist, Angelo Pugliese, Kalki Enrique Farje and 2 others like this.
Jonathan Edelmann What are the dates of Raja Vallabha Gosvami?
December 7 at 10:49am · Like
Gaurabhāvana Dāsa Suniti Kumar Chatterji says ”Rāja-vallabha, early 17th century” in _Languages and literatures of modern India_, p. 170.
December 7 at 3:31pm · Like · 1
Madhavananda N Krishnakund The earliest reference I am aware of to bhāvollāsa-rati is from Srila Rupa Goswami. He gives the following definition in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.128:
sañcārī syāt samāno vā kṛṣṇa-ratyāḥ suhṛd-ratiḥ
adhikā puṣyamāṇā ced bhāvollāsā ratiḥ
"If the rati of the associates of Radha directed to Radha is
equal or less than their rati directed to Krishna, the rati directed to Radha is called sañcāri-rati, nourishing the rati towards Krishna. If the rati of Radha’s associates directed to Radha is greater than that directed to Krishna, and is constantly increasing, though it is still a sañcāri-bhāva, it is called bhāvollāsa-rati."
December 8 at 1:41am · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Notice the last line quoted by Madhavananda Prabhu "bhāvollāsā ratiḥ" is two syllables short. This version is a typo that has spread and gets quoted everywhere. It is not Srila Rupa Gosvami's version. The original is "bhavollasa itiryate" (8 syllables) with ullasah being masculine to qualify the implied (sancari) bhava. UllasA (ending in long "A" (feminine to qualify 'rati') is a form used in Murali Vilasa but not found anywhere in the Gosvami granthas or their main commentaries.
December 8 at 3:37am · Edited · Like · 2
Prem Prayojan The translation - "If the rati of Radha’s associates directed to Radha is greater than that directed to Krishna, and is constantly increasing"- is also misleading firstly because the verse is not necessarily about Sri Radha and secondly because "pusyamana" is a passive participle. Thus suhrd-rati is not 'constantly increasing', rather the meaning is "while being nourished (by Krsna rati)." I'm still looking for the date of the first publication of Murali Vilasa. It was supposed to be written in the seventeenth century, but it seems the manuscript was never actually published until the late nineteenth century. Thus many scholars are of the opinion that Murali Vilasa, at least in its current form, is a forgery. Still, the date of publication in the late 1800's, the name of the publisher, also the availability of any old manuscripts would contribute to our understanding of the evolution of the "bhavollasa-rati" theory. Any clues?
December 8 at 2:17am · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das samāno should also be samonā. I am afraid that I may be responsible for both these typos, for which I am deeply and gravely sorry.
December 8 at 3:45am · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das So what is the sthayi bhava of the manjaris? Is a separate name necessary at all?
December 8 at 3:46am · Edited · Like
Advaita Das Look at the title of the chapter 2.5 itself - it is called sthayi bhava.
December 8 at 3:57am · Like
Jagadananda Das Chapter 2.5 of what?
December 8 at 4:08am · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Anyway, Prem Prayojan, you have been on this kick for years now. What exactly is it that you are trying to prove and why?
December 8 at 4:27am · Like · 3
Madhavananda N Krishnakund I think that Advaita must be referring to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu.
December 8 at 4:29am · Like
Jagadananda Das Of course. Temporary confusion.
December 8 at 4:30am · Like
Jagadananda Das I don't have any objection to deepening the interpretation of the bhavollasa verse. Somewhere and somehow the idea caught on. So it no doubt is fair game. I cannot speak for Murali-vilasa for the time being, but I would check with Kanana Bihari Goswami, the historian of the Baghna Para Goswamis. He might be able to provide a manuscript history, which would be helpful.
Rajavallabh is the nephew of Ramachandra Goswami, Ramai Thakur, who is the founder of the line. So he lived in the 17th century. Someone else could have written the book and ascribed it to him, or the verses in question could be interpolated. Nevertheless, someone thought it worthwhile to express the idea at some time.
Now new ideas are always coming along and if found valid can be accepted [by some], like, for example, saffron cloth and sannyasi names for Vaishnava sannyasis. With the passage of time, the bhajananandi Gaudiya Vaishnavas came to accept the concept of Manjari Bhava as their goal, even though it may be argued that Rupa Goswami was not very explicit about.
Furthermore, that conviction was concretized in the giving of siddha pranali. Whether it happened in the very beginning or not is not really the issue. An idea that is accepted by the tradition becomes part of the tradition, i.e., sampradaya. So therefore by the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakur it clearly was a part of the ethos of the Chaitanya sampradaya.
yad-avadhi mama kācin mañjarī rūpa-pūrvā
vraja-bhuvi bata netra-dvandva-dīptiṁ cakāra |
tad-avadhi tava vṛndāraṇya-rājñi prakāmaṁ
caraṇa-kamala-lākṣā-sandidṛkṣā mamābhūt ||14||
December 8 at 4:48am · Like · 2
Madhavananda N Krishnakund Prem Prayojan Prabhu, I'm confused and trying to understand your point. Are you saying that the understanding given above of BRS 2.5.128 is incorrect, and that bhāvollāsa-rati is a later concept not spoken about by our Goswamis?
I'm not a scholar, nor do I have anything to prove on this subject. I'm just trying to understand your point.
I've checked several editions of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. The Bengali script edition published under Srila B. R. Sridhar Maharaja, the Bangla script edition of Sri Haridas Das, as well as the Devanagari with English gloss by David Haberman all give the same reading you mention above, ie: "itīryate".
I won't bother to paste them here, as I imagine you must be aware of the comments that Jiva Goswami gives in his tika on BRS 2.5128, and also Visvanath in his commentary on UJ 13.104 (wherein he quotes BRS 2.5.128). Both of which seem to support the concept of bhāvollāsa-rati. Similarly, amongst contemporary vaiṣṇavas, you must be aware that Srila B. V. Narayan Maharaja several times referred to bhāvollāsa-rati and cited BRS 2.5.128 as a pramana for it.
David Haberman, in his translation and footnote on BRS supports the same concept. His gloss and note:
TEXT 2.5.128: "If the love for a friend (with similar devotional feelings) is the same as or less than the love for Krishna, then it is a transitory emotion; but if this love grows to the point where it exceeds the love for Krishna, then it is called, "emotional rapture" (bhāvollāsa).
FROM HIS FOOTNOTE (number 69:) "Bhāvollāsa, which also could be translated as "the brilliance of another's emotion" is a technical term of great importance for the later tradition, for it opens the way for the love of Radha, which is the foundation of the important meditative path of mañjarī sādhana. Whereas in much of Rupa's theory Radha is an āśraya, or 'vessel' of devotion, in mañjarī sādhana, Radha becomes the viṣaya, or 'object' of devotion. Therefore, the love of Radha experienced by her close girlfriends, in effect, amounts to another type of foundational emotion for devotion."
Again, I'm not trying to champion anything. I'm just confused. Do you not accept the above translations, or the comments of Srila Narayan Maharaja? If you could explain your point I would be grateful and happy to learn something.
My pranams.
December 8 at 5:38am · Edited · Unlike · 6
Swami Bhakti Abhaya Ashram I like the churning going on here, and I'm commenting mostly so I'll get notification of further activity in the thread.
December 8 at 5:30am · Unlike · 1
Jagadananda Das My personal response to the question is based on a pragmatic approach. I want to know what manjari bhava is GOOD for. And why then would it be better than something else, sakhya-bhava lets say, or dasya-bhava.
Since the manjaris are only dasis of Radha, they cannot be said to have madhura-bhava, or can they? Bhavollasa rati was adopted to fill that empty space.
But what is this special attitude and why is it particularly conducive to the attainment of prema, the fifth and highest goal of spiritual life? And why is that ONLY in this specific madhura prema, i.e., in the mood of the manjaris, and not in that of the sakhis or of the competing nayikas or of sayujya into the form of Radha, that the highest gift of Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu is manifest?
In other words, the pragmatic approach asks: Show me (at least philosophically, but more practically through experience) what manjari bhava is good for in relation to the goal, which is prema, here and now in this world.
December 8 at 5:34am · Like · 2
Gaurabhāvana Dāsa Here is a reference to a printed edition from the late 1800’s:
Rājavallabha Gosvāmī. Muralī-vilāsa. Edited by Nīlakaṇṭha Gosvāmī and Binodabihārī Gosvāmī. Baghnapara: Surendranath Bandyopadhyay, 409 Gaurābda (1895). (Bengali)
(- found in: Shukavak Das. Hindu Encounter with Modernity, p. 321.)
December 8 at 9:23am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Thank you Gaurabhavana Prabhu for that important finding. I suspect the edition you mentioned may be the first ever publication. One indication would be the writings of Siddha Krsnadas Babaji. He was writing in the early 19th century. He specialized in writing on the topic of manjari-bhava, but I am yet to find a single mention of the bhavollasa-rati theory anywhere in his writing. You must admit that is rather strange. Admittedly I do not have all his works available to me at the moment, so I am depending on the mercy of this team of vaisnava investigators to inform me of any known pramanas. Thank you.
December 8 at 9:47am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan In response to my dear Madhavanda Prabhu, let me clarify my point ofview. I am not denying bhavollasa the
sancari-bhava. But the mula-granthas of our tradition reveal that bhavollasa is
not a sthayi-bhava, nor has it been described as the exclusive property of the
manjaris, an idea often promoted in many contemporary vaisnava circles. The reasons for my doubts in this regard are
presented in brief below. All Gaudiyas have a responsibility to be vigilant in
regard to philosophical innovations. I will be happy to present my thoughts
before this learned assembly to receive their honest appraisals of this
important topic.
December 8 at 9:47am · Like · 3
Prem Prayojan It is my personal opinion that the currently popular bhavollasa-rati
theory probably stems from Sri Hari Das Das’ commentary on the bhavollasa verse in his 1946 edition of Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu (Haribol Kutir). Haridas Das neatly explains the bhavollasa verse by saying that since the prana-sakhis and nitya-sakhis are Radha-snehadhika, that is, they permanently have more love for Radhika than for
Krsna, this verse describing greater love for a friend must be about them. Thus bhavollasa is the sthayi-bhava of the manjaris. This comment is so simple, sweet and succinct that it makes you wonder why Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura did not just explain the verse in one neat sentence instead of giving their vague and convoluted explanation?
The obvious answer is that if the verse could be explained so easily then the acaryas would have done so, since their presentations are extremelyterse. Thus, there must be somethingamiss. Especially when you notice that Srila Visvanath Cakravarti cites the bhavollasa verse in his Ujjvala-nilamani commentary in relation to the nayika’s friendship with her sakhis, where citing the verse would be optional. Then in the place where one would think citing the verse would be compusory, namely, in the sections defining the nitya-sakhis and
prana-sakhis, the bhavollasa verse is conspicuously absent. These are serious considerations enough to set off the alarm bells of any genuinely impartial academic. Under the current
interpretation we have the implausible scenario where Srila Rupa Gosvami alledgedly explains more about manjari bhava in his general thesis, Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu, than he does in his elabourate thesis dedicated exclusively to madhura-rasa.
December 8 at 9:51am · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan The next step after identifying the problem is to investigate why do
Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura, and every other
acarya until 1946, not acknowledge this apparently obvious equivalence between
bhavollasa and manjari bhava? The current
equation goes “bhavollasa means more love for Radhika” and “the
prana-sakhis/nitya-sakhis permanently have more love for Radhika” therefore
“bhavollasa = the sthayi bhava of manjaris”. All seems good except for one thing. The definition of bhavollasa includes two
criteria, not just “adhika” more love for the friend. It is this second
criterion that has been overlooked. Everything hinges on this. If there were only one criterion, permanently
more love for a friend, then I would gladly sign off on the theory. But there are two criteria, and if they are
not both present than it cannot be called bhavollasa.
The second criterion indicated by the word “pusyamana” is invariably
mistranslated as we have already witnessed earlier in this thread.
Here is David Haberman’s translation: “if this love grows to the point
where it exceeds the love for Krishna”
Bhanu Svami’s transation: “and is constantly increasing”
Another recent translation from Tarun Govinda Prabhu (with credits to
Advaita Prabhu and Hari Parsada Prabhu (??): “it nourishes the attraction to
Krsna by investing one’s consciousness in him”
As I mentioned before, all
these translations incorrectly make pusyamana an active participle and thereby
completely misconstrue the actual meaning by switching the subject and object
of the verb.
Pusyamana is defined thus
in the commentaries :
pusyamänä saMtatäbhinivesena samvardhyamänä
– While (love for the friend is)being
increased by (Krsna rati’s) pervasive entering into it.
A sancari-bhava usually nourishes the sthayi-bhava, but in the case of
bhavollasa the sancari-bhava is nourished by the sthayi bhava. That is why it
is necessary to give it its own nomenclature. All the commenatators insist that it still remains a sancari bhava. How can anyone look Srila Jiva Gosvami
and Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura in the face and say, well actually it’s
a sthayi bhava?
December 8 at 9:52am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan One reason the misunderstanding that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava has arisen, despite all acarya saying otherwise, can be traced to the word saMtata, which
has been almost invariably translated as “continuously”. So if the love for a friend is more than love
for Sri Krnsa and it is also continuously increasing, then it will remain more
forever. So bhavollasa must be permanent. If it is permanent, how can it be a
sancari-bhava? I appreciate the logic and it makes sense to everyone.
However, the reason bhavollasa exceeds the general definition of a
sancari-bhava is not because it is permanent, but because, as demonstrated
earlier, it is nourished by the sthayi-bhava, instead of acting to nourish the
sthayi-bhava. It is true that “saMtata” can mean continuously, but when it is
used to qualify a noun in the instrumental case, as it does in Srila Jiva
Gosvami’s commentary on pusyamana, it means saM – completely tata – extending. In other words,
pusyamänä saMtatäbhinivesena samvardhyamänä
Pusyamana – While (love for the friend is)being increased by (Krsna rati’s)
pervasive entering into it.
The implication is that just because the nitya sakhis’ love for Radhika is,
in the words of Srila Visvanath Cakravarti - kincid adhika – slightly more, their
love does not qualify as bhavollasa unless and until circumstances arise wherein
the second criterion of bhavollasa is present, namely, that their Krsna rati
nourishes their love for Radhika by fully entering into it, thereby, reversing
the general nature of the sthayi-bhava’s being nourished by the sancari-bhava.
This happens at the time of the sakhis and manjaris witnessing the meeting of
Radha and Krsna. At that time they experience bhavollasa, and when the lila is
over, the bhavollasa subsides. The manjaris’ love for Radhika always remains
kincid adhika, slightly more, and acts as a sancari bhava to nourish their
Krsna-rati until the next ecstatic opportunity of Sri Yugala milana occurs.
This explanation is consistent with the explanation given in Murali Vilasa
that bhavollasa takes place at the time of Yugala-milan. Srila Krsnadas Kaviraja
Gosvami also describes ”jatollasa”, that the ullasa-bhava of the sakhis and
manjaris arises under certain circumstances in this verse of Govinda-lilamrta,
also quoted in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta.
jātollāsāḥ sva-sekāc chata-guṇam adhikaṁ santi yat tan na citram (GL10.16, CC
2.8.209)
December 8 at 9:57am · Edited · Like · 3
Prem Prayojan If one does not accept this interpretation several faults arise. Firstly, the acaryas have said that
bhavollasa is a special feature of madhura-rasa. If it is only a feature of the
manjaris then the acaryas are guilty of ati-vyapti dosa – the fault of
over-extension of the definition. Secondly, if it is accepted that bhavollasa is permanent, then when Sri
Krsna meets with vipaksa yuthesvaris (Radhika’s rivals) and Radhika and her
sakhis are quite upset with his behavior, then we will have to admit that the
manjaris are still in a state of ullasa (joy or merriness) over Sri Krsna’s
behavior, which is obviously rasabhasa dosa.
Some suggest that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava because it comes at the
end of the chapter of Sri Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu describing the
sthayi-bhava. This argument is weak
because Srila Jiva Gosvami goes out of his way to tell us that this verse is
only tagged on to the end of this chapter because that is when Srila Rupa
Gosvami remembered about it. You have to
appreciate that itis not so easy to cut and paste paragraphs when you are
scratching the verses onto a palm-leaf with an iron pen.
Before writing the bhavollasa verse, Srila Rupa Gosvami writes “api ca”,
which Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura explains to mean - api ceti | tad etat
samäptam
“The chapter on sthayi-bhava is now finished” Thus bhavollasa is not a sthayi-bhava. Srila Jiva Gosvami comments - tad idam tv
atränusmrtya likhitam api sancärinäm ante yojaniyam, tatraiva sajätiyatvät : ”This
statement (about bhavollasa) has been written here because Srila Rupa Gosvami
remembered it at this point. Yet it should be included at the end of the topic
of sancari-bhavas since it belongs to that topic.”
December 8 at 9:52am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Since both acaryas insist bhavollasa is still a sancari-bhava, albeit an
extraordinary one, and that bhavollasa should not be accepted in the section dealing with sthayi-bhava, anyone who still insists that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava is directly contradicting the clear statements of the prominent acaryas.
Thank you for patiently considering these points.
December 8 at 9:53am · Like
Kalki Enrique Farje excellent post and comment from all the sadhus
December 8 at 10:10am · Like
Jagadananda Das Thank you for doing that research, Prem Prayojanji. It is certainly very useful knowledge.
Indeed we should guard against innovations. But even then, we can certainly innovate. Almost impossible not to. So if an insight comes from an advanced scholar and sadhaka like Haridas Das, there is no reason to think that it is not true. If it can be shown to be relevant and meaningful and not against the basic siddhantas of the parampara. So is Haridas Das's interpretation of bhavollasa meaningful or not?
And that requires answering the questions I posited above.
Thank God the greats leave us their ucchistha so that there will be some seva for us. Jai Sri Radhe.
December 8 at 10:39am · Edited · Like · 3
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu, the one person who put bhāvollāsa in the sthāyī-bhāva category is Sri Rupa Kaviraja. Here is an extract from his Rāgānugā-vivṛti:
śrī-rūpa-mañjaryādyāḥ sadā bhāvollāsānvayāḥ. mad-īśā-nāthatve vraja-vipina-candraṁ vraja-vaneśvarīṁ tan-nāthatve iti vacanāt.
Translation: "Sri Rupa Manjari etc. are eternally possessed of bhāvollāsa. The proof? The statement from manaḥ-śikṣā — "mad-īśa-nāthatve vraja-vipina-candraṁ vraja-vaneśvarīṁ tan-nāthatve" (End of Translation).
December 8 at 9:12pm · Like · 1
Hari Pārṣada Dās I would like to say here that it was Radhakrishna Das Brahmachari "Āmnāya-vācaspatī" ji who was also trying recently to defend Sri Rupa Kaviraja by posting a translation of his works on his personal blog. However, ever since I informed him that Sri Rupa Kaviraja places bhāvollāsa in the sthāyī category, the translations have stopped coming out for some reason...
I should also say that scholars in Vrindavan like Sri Haridas Shastriji have published the books of Sri Rupa Kaviraja without any criticism of him.
December 8 at 9:18pm · Edited · Like · 1
Advaita Das Does everything Rupa Kaviraja says have to be wrong just because it is Rupa Kaviraja?
December 8 at 9:20pm · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās not necessarily. However, if he says something which doesn't suit our pūrvācāryas, we do have the liberty to say "this is not in my sampradāya".
December 8 at 9:39pm · Like · 1
Advaita Das Of course but the Manah Siksa quote fits our concept of bhavollasa perfectly.
December 8 at 9:41pm · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Does Rupa Kaviraj mention bhavollasa in any of his works? That would be an earlier citation for Prem Prayojan to consider.
December 8 at 9:42pm · Like
Advaita Das Jagat, Hari Parsada just quoted that - śrī-rūpa-mañjaryādyāḥ sadā bhāvollāsānvayāḥ. mad-īśā-nāthatve vraja-vipina-candraṁ vraja-vaneśvarīṁ
December 8 at 9:43pm · Like
Jagadananda Das Sorry, I am reading too quickly.
December 8 at 9:44pm · Like
Jagadananda Das Sorry, yes. So Rupa Kaviraj, who is mid-17th century has identified bhavollasa as Rupa's mood. So if Haridas Das later follows, then he has not invented it. Rupa Kaviraj is also contemporary to Rajvallabh Goswami, nota bene.
December 8 at 10:57pm · Edited · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās yes, and somehow in the published book as well as in the Gaudiya Grantha Mandira transcription, the term 'śrī-rūpa-mañjaryāyāḥ' is found. I did not find this term grammatically suitable, so i have changed it to 'śrī-rūpa-mañjaryādyāḥ'.
December 8 at 9:54pm · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das And I would say that Haridas Das is a fairly responsible commentator.
December 8 at 9:54pm · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Thanks for that observation, Hari. I agree.
December 8 at 10:02pm · Edited · Like
Jagadananda Das Just looking at Rupa Kaviraj. Two quick observations.
First, since I probably cut and paste the verse (2.5.128) the mistakes that were pointed out above by PP and myself are both present and need to be corrected. Once again, my mistakes were unwittingly perpetuated and I am most sorry for that. The samona for samano is probably the more significant of the two errors, but neither are forgivable. So I hope that this error will be corrected throughout wherever this verse appears.
Second, Haridas Shastri produced the edition of Raganuga-vivritti in the early 50's, and he was most certainly privy to Haridas Das's work and discoveries, as this was the period of ferment when Puridas gathered the best of the Vaishnava scholarly community together to work on the immortal Gaudiya Gaurava Grantha Gutika series. I believe that Kusum Sarovarwala Krishnadas was the publisher, so maybe Rupa Kaviraj was considered too controversial to be included in that series.
Since the timeline appears to be fairly close, I am fairly sure that HDD was party to the discovery of the Vivritti (though I cannot say for absolute certain). Which would make it likely that this discovery of the use of bhavollasa in this text contributed to his interpretation as noted by PP above.
December 8 at 10:40pm · Edited · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Also, that vritti to the verse also appears loaded with errors. Maybe I should talk to Premdas Shastri about it.
December 8 at 10:42pm · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās Rāgānugā-vivṛti was published in Samvat 2026 (~ 1970 A.D.)
December 8 at 10:47pm · Like
Jagadananda Das Hm. I remembered it being earlier. OK. My failing memory. I don't know whether that affects my speculations though. Obviously this was an early text I transcribed and I did not put the source publication details, as I started to do later. Of course it was probably on the introductory page on GGM.
December 8 at 10:58pm · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das "... anyone who still insists that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava is directly contradicting the clear statements of the prominent acaryas. "
So, my beloved Gurudeva and my beloved Param Gurudeva are directly contradicting the prominent acaryas?
" Some suggest that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava because it comes at the end of the chapter of Sri Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu describing the
sthayi-bhava. This argument is weak because Srila Jiva Gosvami goes out of his way to tell us that this verse is
only tagged on to the end of this chapter because that is when Srila Rupa Gosvami remembered about it."
This argument is WEAK, but this is STRONG:
" You have to appreciate that itis not so easy to cut and paste paragraphs when you are scratching the verses onto a palm-leaf with an iron pen."
Ok....
" This statement (about bhavollasa) has been written here because Srila Rupa Gosvami remembered it at this point. Yet it should be included at the end of the topic of sancari-bhavas since it belongs to that topic.”
NOT if it is in the category of "madhurya-rasa", where the love is solely directed to Srimati Radhika.
" evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā... In this way, in madhura rasa however..."
Do you HONESTLY believe Sripad Rupa Goswami "forgot" something? Are you sure that there was no space left on the last palm leaf for the chapter "sancari bhava"?
Dear Prem Prayojan, I much rather believe what my beloved Gurudeva teaches, who has LIVED and studied the granthas of the Goswamis for his whole life, deeply absorbed in bhajan at Sri Radhakunda.
Yesterday at 8:01am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das My Param Gurudeva, Sri Srimat Kunjabihari das Babaji writes in his "Manjari Svarupa Nirupana":
3.5 Why has bhavollasa-rati earned the name of a separate sthayi-bhava rather than being known as a sancari-bhava?
In the commentary on the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu verse that defines bhavollasa, it is said that this particular devotional mood was added by Rupa Gosvamin as an afterthought and should actually be thought of as belonging to the sancari-bhavas.
The affection of the dearest girlfriends of Srimati Radharani such as Lalita is also included in the sancaris for madhura-rati. There are thrity-three of these sancaris described in the appropriate section of the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu; of these, all but two (augrya “nastiness” and alasya “laziness”) are considered to be suitable to the erotic mood of sacred rapture. Along with these thirty-one sancaris comes this additional feeling: “Love for friends of a similar temperament of feeling for Krishna are also known as sancaris.”
Along with friends are messengers and any other objects or persons that serve as go-betweens for the lover and beloved, including also Krishna’s male friends.
An example of Radha’s affection for a friend is given in Ujjvala-nilamani:
One day on Govardhana hill, Sri Rupa Manjari observed Radharani displaying extreme affection to Lalita during the course of her dalliances with Krishna. She said to one of Lalita’s friends in praise of her great fortune: “O friend, just see how Radharani is cleaning the perspiration and rearranging the hair from Lalita’s face even though she is simultaneously sporting with Krishna.”
The idea is that Radha’s strong show of affection to Lalita by wiping the perspiration arising in the course of their activities with the Lord does not take precedence over her feelings to Krishna, but serves to feed the fire of that love even more. Therefore, it is not a sthayi-bhava or dominant mood, but a sancari or transitory feeling.
On the other hand, in his Tika to the above verse, Srila Visvanatha Cakravartipada cites Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 2.5.128 and concludes that bhavollasa, the feelings that Mani Manjari and the other nitya- sakhis have for Radharani, feelings that are stronger than those they harbour for Krishna, are of a different type.
Because the predominating feelings or sthayi-bhavas have been defined as exclusively those which deal directly with Krishna, the Supreme Lord and one object of all the different types of devotion, it can hardly be called a sthayi-bhava as its predominant object is Srimati Radharani.
But as these feelings are not temporary, fleeting moods, they cannot be called sancari-bhavas either.
In view of this paradox, Rupa Gosvamin has explained Radha’s feelings toward the sakhis as a new sancari-bhava and the feelings of the manjaris to Radha as a new type of sthayi-bhava as a subdivision of madhura-rati.
(Here my Param Gurudeva EXACTLY follows what Srila Rupa Goswami wrote and what Srila Jiva Goswami explained - evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā. ..)
Sri Sri Radha and Krishna,
In either birth or death, my only goal,
Lord and lady of my life and soul.
Here the word prana-pati (“lord of my life”) is generally used to refer to one’s lover, but in the above line by Narottam Das, it is referring to the conjugal unit of both Radha and Krishna.
It is definitely something novel and has no precedent in Vaishnava theology.
Such an attitude cannot function other than towards Radha. The greatest of the tasters of sacred rapture, Srila Rupa Gosvamin has thus made another lasting contribution to the science of sacred rapture by coining the term bhavollasa.
Yesterday at 7:28am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das Manjari-bhava
Sri Rupa Manjari, Sri Rati Manjari, Sri Lavanga Manjari etc are adhik-snehadhika or Radha- snehadhika. They love Srimati Radharani more. We call them ‘manjaris’. In all situations they relish immeasurable and inexpressible ever-new pleasure of seva. Although they do not expect any pleasure – all they desire is seva – yet it is the nature of manjari-bhava and Sri Sri Radha- Krishna’s very confidential seva that they feel happy on their own. Their bhava is so immense that even when they are close to Sri Krishna Who is Madan-Mohan; they retain their individual freedom and yet submerge Him
in the ocean of joy simply by doing seva. Their rati is the only one of its kind; it reaches the height of wonder and becomes ‘bhavollasa rati’.
“When the rati of sakhis (for Srimati Radharani) such as Lalita is equal or less than the passion for Sri Krishna, then we call their rati for Srimati Radharani as the ‘passing rati’, and that rati also nourishes their passion for Sri Krishna. However when the rati for Srimati Radharani is more than the passion for Sri Krishna, and keeps on increasing due to constant absorption in that rati, we call that passion as ‘bhavollasa’.”
– (B.R.S.)
This bhavollasa-rati is the permanent bhava of the manjaris such as Sri Rupamanjari. When we determinedly follow in the footsteps of the manjaris in this bhava and perform seva then our bhava is called ‘manjari-bhava’.
This manjari-bhava alone is the ‘hitherto unoffered’ gift of compassionate Sriman-Mahaprabhu; Sri Rupa and
Sanatana have practiced and preached this bhava only.
Srila Narottama das Thakur Mahashaya has written in his Prema-Bhakti-Chandrika –
“Do not follow the sakhis who are in the mood of sama-sneha and vishama-sneha; I shall discuss only the adhik-sneha sakhis. They remain constantly with Srimati Radharani and indulge in charming talks about Sri Krishna – they are the narma-sakhis. Sri
Rupa-manjari is their leader while Sri Rati Manjari, Lavanga Manjari,
Manjulali, Sri Rasa Manjari and Kasturika are the chief manjaris.
They serve with love, joy and enthusiasm. I shall follow them and ask them to engage me in the loving service of the Divine Couple.
I shall understand what seva I should do by a mere hint from them.
Bouncing with beauty and talents I shall follow them with deep love and stay amidst the sakhis. When the Divine Couple will sit surrounded by the sakhis, I will serve them at the right time. When the sakhi gestures I will fan Them with the fly-whisk and offer betel-leaf at Their sweet lips.
I will meditate constantly on the lotus feet of the divine Couple with deep love. Whatever I meditate upon during my sadhana I shall get in my siddha-deha – this is the only process in the path of eternal love.”– (P.B.C.)
A raganuga devotee should take the shelter of the
eternal associates such as Sri Rupa Manjari and surrender unto them; in this manner we should worship in manjari-bhava (given to
us by our Spiritual Master). We should be more enthusiastic about
serving Srimati Radharani than serving Sri Krishna and think of
ourselves as Srimati Radharani’s very near and dear person. We may ask – ‘All the scriptures proclaim Sri Krishna-prema as the topmost achievable goal, then why should we love Srimati Radharani more than SriKrishna?” The reply is that – Sri Krishna is controlled by Srimati Radharani. When we love Her, we will attain Sri Krishna-prema much more and this will happen automatically.
Srila Rupa Goswamipad has written –
“vayam-idam-anubhuya shikshayama, kuru chature ! saha radhayaiva sakhyam, priya-sahachari ! yatra vadhamantar-bhavati hari-pranaya-pramoda-lakshmih.”
- (U.N.)
Srila Vishwanath Chakravartipad has explained this verse as follows in his Ananda-Chandrika purport –
Sri Mani Manjari instructed a new manjari –“My dear clever girl, I am telling you from my own experience, it is better you make friends with Srimati Radha. You may ask – why should I form a
loving relation with Srimati Radha? Rather, is it not better to
establish a loving relation with Sri Krishna? No, it is not. I’ll tell
you why – please listen carefully. No doubt it is highly pleasurable to
get Sri Hari’s love; but if you love Srimati Radharani deeply then that
precious pleasure will present itself to you on its own. This is because love for Sri Krishna is included within your love for Srimati Radha. Hence if you make friends with Her – it is needless to say that – a loving relation with Sri Krishna will form naturally.
When you become Srimati Radharani’s firm sakhi, then
Sri Krishna will consider you as His beloved’s dear friend and so He will love you all the more. He will not love you so much if you make friends with Him directly, however He will love you more if you love Her. So I am telling you if you can prove your love for Srimati
Radharani then Sri Krishna will love you even if you do not try for it.
Sri Krishna is happier when our love for Srimati Radharani is more than our love for Him. Also when Srimati Radharani does man or if
the elders shut Her up in the house, then Sri Krishna will need you
desperately to help Him meet Her. Then He will, on His own, run behind you to make friends with you. You see, you don’t have to work hard to make friends with Him.”
to be continued
Yesterday at 7:44am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das Especially if we wish to relish the sweet rasa of Sri Krishna then worshiping the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani becomes
inevitable. Srila Raghunath das Goswamipad has written –
“The one who has not worshiped the dust of Srimati
Radharani’s lotus feet, has not taken shelter of Sri Vrindavana that is decorated with Her footprints, has not conversed with the great devotees who are deeply immersed in Srimati Radharani’s servitude, how will such a person ever relish the most mysterious fathomless ocean of rasa that is Sri Krishna?” – (Stavavali)
This is the sole reason why Sripad Raghunatha das Goswamicharan has rejected the position of Srimati Radharani’s sakhi and has begged Her to exclusively make him Her maidservant –
“O Devi Radhike, to become a servant of Your lotus feet
is the highest position; leaving this I do not desire anything else
(such as the position of Your sakhi). I pay obeisance to Your sakhi-hood eternally, however please let me always remain rooted in the position of Your maidservant – this is my pledge.” – (V.K.)
Srimati Radharani’s servitude is not a mean thing – it
is the highest position or the most blessed status. Srimati Radharani’s maidservant is a servant in spite of being a sakhi. She has the right to the entire sweet rasa. First she relishes sweet rasa and then she performs seva. Therefore Srimati Radharani’s servitude is overflowing with rasa.
Sometimes, by Srimati Radharani’s wish sakhis such
as Lalita do unite with Sri Krishna, yet the manjaris never have a
conjugal relation with Him. They are so much averse to it that even if
Sri Krishna begs them for it and even if their group leader orders them to do so – the manjaris never ever have the slightest wish to
make love to Sri Krishna in spite of such an activity being extremely
joyous.
Sri Vrindavana-Mahimamritam says –
“The manjari is exclusively immersed in relishing the rasa of
serving the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani, and she never accepts
love-dalliance with Sri Krishna even in her dreams (definitely not when awake). When Sri Krishna forcibly tears her bodice and makes an advance towards her, then the manjari tearfully protests and laments – and beholding this scene – Srimati Radharani, the Beloved of my life laughs.’
Even sakhis such as Lalita do not get the pleasure of serving the Divine couple in a manner that the manjaris can serve. We are fortunate to get such seva when we are completely surrender at Srimati Radharani’s lotus feet.
“I seek the refuge of Srimati Radharani’s maidservants
headed by Sri Rupa Manjari – who can move freely and unhesitatingly in the sports ground of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna’s love-making – that even the pran-preshtha sakhis such as Lalita cannot – and they constantly please Srimati Radharani, Who is the controller of Sri Vrindavana, with their sweet seva, such as offering tambul, massaging feet, offering water and helping in abhisar.”
– (Vraja-Vilasa-Stava)
We, the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who wish to become Srimati Radharani’s maidservants, pray from the bottom of our hearts –
“When will I get the association of my sakhi and
sew flower-garlands for both of Them? O when will I stand in front of
them fanning Them with the fly-whisk? And anoint Them with aguru and chandan? When, on the command of the sakhi, will I offer tambul? And adorn Their foreheads with sindur and tilak?
When will I behold their charming and loving pastimes with my eyes? And gaze at Their moon like faces after seating Them on the throne? I wish to relish that sweetness with all my heart – when will Narottama das get
such mercy?”
– (Prarthana)
- Srila Ananta das Babaji (Raganuga-tattva-vijnana)
Yesterday at 7:46am · Like
Tarun Govinda Das These devotees of Krishna who share a common genus of love for the Lord naturally feel a mutual empathy and think of each other as friends. The best of the devotees in each of the four categories of loving relationship, such as Raktaka and Patraka amongst Krishna’s servants at Nanda Grama, Subala and Sridhaman amongst the friends, Krishna’s parentsNanda and Yasoda, and Srimati Radharani and Candravali amongst his
mistresses, are usually loved by their friends to a degree slightly less than their level of feeling that friend has for Krishna himself. On
occasion it may equal, but certainly not exceed it. In such cases, the
sthayi bhava or dominating mood is the love the devotee has for Krishna,and the feeling of friendship for the more advanced or superior devotee is a subordinate feeling or sancari-bhava—a wave in the ocean of that love.
Yet we see that in the case of madhura-rasa there is a unique
situation in which some of the friends of Radharani feel more affection for her than they do for even Krishna and this affection is always increasing due to the intense desire they have to please her. This feeling is a special type of sthayi-bhava known as bhavollasa rati.Other than Srimati Radharani in the madhura-rasa, such a thing is unheard of in relation to any devotee of any other rasa. Nowhere has it been said anywhere that a devotee is hundreds of times greater than even Krishna, except in the case of Radha. Krishna says in the Caitanya-caritamrita:
“The three worlds have me alone as the source of their pleasure—who is there who will give pleasure to me? That person who is hundreds of times more qualified myself is the one who will be able to gladden my mind; yet how is it possible that anyone in the universe can be more qualified than I?
I can only see such virtues in Radha. The whole world becomes happy at seeing the beauty of my form, yet my eyes become fulfilled only by seeing her. The sound of my flute fills the whole world with bliss, yet my ears are stolen away by the sound of her voice. The entire universe is fragrant due to my bodily odour, yet her fragrance steals my life and soul. The world is filled with flavour due my rasa, yet the taste of her lips completely overthrows me. Even though the touch of my body is cooling to all, I myself can become cooled only by touching her. In these ways am I the source of the world’s joy, yet the form and qualities of Radharani are my life and soul."
It is for this reason that only in madhura-rasa is it possible for
the manjaris to feel even more strongly about Radharani than they do
about Krishna. In no other circumstance could it possible for someone to
feel an affection of comparable strength for any other devotee;
bhavollasa rati is only possible in the case of Srimati Radharani
Devotees relish the nectar of Krishna’s sweetness according to their own particular dominant mood of love. The cause of relishing is thirst (trishna) and thus, according to the genus and degree of thirst or desire, it is possible to guage the relative values of the tasting of sacred rapture. The manjaris are very clever; they think that their degree of desire to serve the Lord is very little and that therefore it is best not to try to enjoy Krishna directly; they choose rather to remain constantly absorbed in the mood of Srimati Radharani, the embodiment of the ocean of desire for Krishna’s service, the epitome of the highest devotional affection of maha-bhava in its ultimate, maddening stage known as madana. They thus show more devotion to her than to him, convinced that by so doing they will be able, not just to attain a higher level of pleasure themselves, but will also be able to please him more.
Previously it was stated that madhura-rasa is only possible if the lover and beloved share a mutual desire for romantic love.
From this a question about the specific mood of the manjaris arises. One who is devoid of such erotic desire for Krishna may feel servitude, friendship or even parental affection for Radharani, but there is no possiblity of madhura- rasa. The relationship between two women of the type under discussion cannot be called romantic love. The dominant affection of the manjaris is toward the Divine Couple in a romantic way; they are attached to and absorbed in them as a unit. Thus, Caitanya Mahaprabhu was indicating this spirit of the manjaris when he asked Ramananda Raya to
“to hear of the loving dalliance of Radha and Krishna” after having
heard from him “the truths of the love that exists between them.
- Srila Kunjabihari das Babaji (Manjari Svarupa Nirupana)
Yesterday at 7:58am · Like
Prem Prayojan Yes Tarun Govinda Prabhuji. I think everyone here has already read Manjari Svarupa Nirupana in the original language so it's hardly necessary to post the whole book in this thread in installments.
Yesterday at 8:21am · Like
Prem Prayojan Srila Rupa Gosvami has defined the sthayi-bhava as krsna-visaya-rati consistently throughout the entire corpus of his works without exception. Srila Jiva Gosvami has also followed suit, along with Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura. The point is that rati is the essence of samvit and hladini. Hladini is Sri Krsna's pleasure potency, so its service is to give pleasure to Sri Krsna. The pleasure of the devotee is incidental. Since the sthayi-bhava is a manifestation of the hladini potency that has Krsna as its sole visaya, it is ontologically impossible for it to have another visaya. I am ready to be persuaded otherwise if, rather than 100's of words everyone is already familiar with, someone could just provide one quote from Sri Rupa to the contrary. (Rupa Gosvami that is, not Rupa Kaviraja.)
Yesterday at 8:54am · Edited · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan From the discussion you may have noticed that it has emerged that the earliest reference to bhavollasa being a sthayi-bhava to Radhika is actually from Rupa Kaviraja, whom Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura vehemently opposed. There was a huge legal case over the heresy of Rupa Kaviraja. Finally in 1727, Jaisingh II, the king of Jaipura (Amer) confiscated all his ashrams, property, and land and criminalized his followers. Ironically, in more recent times, the attempt has been made to pass off the philosophy of Rupa Kaviraja without mentioning his name, while invoking the authority of his nemesis, Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura.
Yesterday at 8:58am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan I have already demonstrated earlier in this thread that the translations of the bhavollasa verse presented by Tarun Govinda Prabhu to date are grammatically incorrect, with a completely reversed interpretation of the subject/object and active/passive sense of adhika pusyamana cet. I humbly request the vaisnava sanskrit scholars in this community to confirm or deny the veracity of my claim. The purpose of this forum is to engage in a dispassionate and accurate analysis of what our acaryas have actually written, not to sling the mud of uninformed opinion. Thank you.
Yesterday at 9:13am · Edited · Like · 2
Tarun Govinda Das [Bhāva-ullāsa rati – an excerpt from Veṇu-gīta, Verse 7, purport by Śrīla Bhaƙtivedānta Nārāyaṇa Gosvāmī Mahārāja:]
Generally, devotees of the same mood and who are enriched with similar desires naturally share suhṛd-bhāva, intimate friendship, with each other. That is why the love and affection that Lalitā and the other sakhīs have for Śrīmatī Rādhikā is called suhṛd-rati. When their suhṛd-rati is the same as or slightly less than their kṛsna-rati (affection towards Śrī Ƙṛsṇa), this is called sancārī-bhāva, a temporary emotion that is compared to the waves that rise and then fall in the ocean of their permanent emotion of the mood of Ƙṛnṇa´s beloved.
In other words when this suhṛd-rati becomes equal to the waves in the ocean of their prominent affection for Ƙṛsṇa, it is a sancārī-bhāva.
However, in the case of the manjarī-sakhīs, their suhṛd-rati (for Śrī Rādhā and everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds their kṛsṇa-rati and which constantly increases by the moment due to their full absorption in it, is called bhāva-ullāsa-rati.
This is a special feature of madhura- rasa. Of the five types of sakhīs, only the nitya-sakhīs and prāṇa- sakhīs, who are known as manjarīs, have this bhāva-ullāsa-rati as their permanent emotion (sthāyi-rati).
It is no longer just a sancārī-bhāva.
These manjarīs nurture an abundance of sneha, tender affection, for Rādhājī.
It is seen that creepers are always endeavoring to embrace trees, but the leaves, flowers, and buds (manjarīs) of the creepers do not even slightly try to embrace the trees directly. When a creeper embraces a tree, the joy of those flowers, leaves, and manjarīs automatically increases. In Śrī Vṛndāvana, Śrīmatī Rādhikā stands supreme among all gopīs. She is famous as the kalpa-latā (the creeper that fulfills every desire) of love for Śrī Ƙṛsṇa. Some of Her sakhīs have the nature of leaves, some are like flowers, and some like manjarīs. That is why they are always eager for Śrīmatī Rādhikā to meet with Ƙṛsṇa, and are carried away by the bliss of Their union.
Yesterday at 10:00am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das Now, of course Prem Prayojan will say that this is "not correctly translated"...wrong edition....wrong this/wrong that...
VERSE 7 - purport
www.purebhakti.com/.../english/43-venu-gita/file.html
And by golly, I wonder how my Gurudeva could reach such a high stage of bhakti by following "bhavollasa rati" completely in the wrong way...
Yesterday at 10:01am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das "slinging the mud of uninformed opinion"...
Jay Sri Radhe.
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like
Prem Prayojan It will be helpful if we can grasp the concept of examining the original texts and responding to the grammatical and historical questions being raised. Perhaps that is too much to ask for on Facebook.
Yesterday at 10:16am · Like · 2
Tarun Govinda Das I rather follow YOUR Gurudeva.
Yesterday at 10:18am · Like
Tarun Govinda Das Isn't anugatya more important than examining historical and grammatical questions?
I always thought so...
Yesterday at 10:21am · Like
Kalki Enrique Farje "When contradictory statements are made, one has to determine which one follows the siddhanta of the founding acaryas—our bhakti sastra gurus who composed our lineage's core texts— and which one does not. The one that does is then embraced as the siddhanta. The other one was spoken/written with something else in mind, something provisional or perhaps something not fully developed with all of its implications played out such that it is shown not to contradict the siddhanta." (commentary of Tripurari Swami on a different subject that can be applied to this case).
What I see is that PremPrayojan Pabhu is inviting to have a discussion based on historical evidence and not an emotional debate. Sarcasm does not allow proper discussion, neither feeling emotionally affected if historical statements or references are different from what our Gurudev taught us.
Yesterday at 10:34am · Unlike · 3
Advaita Das In this way you can talk your way out of anything............
Yesterday at 11:26am · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Quite honestly, I wasn't sarcastic at all and I don't think that Srila Narayana Maharaja taught "something different".
Yesterday at 1:03pm · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu, here is how I translated it:
sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā ratyāḥ samā syād ūnā vā syāt tadā kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā rateḥ sañcaryākhya eva bhāvaḥ syāt (if that attraction is on the same scale as the attraction to Krishna or is on an inferior scale then it is known as sañcārī-bhāva)
tan-mūlatvāt tat-poṣaṇāc ca (because sañcārī-bhāva arises from the sthāyī-bhāva and nourishes it)
evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā , tatrāpi puṣyamāṇā santatābhiniveśena saṁvardhyamānā syāt tadā sañcāritve’pi viśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate iti (In this way, in madhura rasa however if that attraction "SOMETIMES" is greater in scale even than the attraction to Krishna and yet it nourishes the attraction to Krishna by investing one's consciousness in Him, then even though it is sāñcārī-bhāva yet due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva) (End of Translation)
The only improvement I see in this translation is that i should have highlighted the word 'santata' in my translation. However, i thought that writing the present perfect progressive tense in the word "investing" would be sufficient.
23 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das I gave Hari Parsada Das credit in my blog, because I used his translation.
This is what I used:
____
Let us EXAMINE what Srila Jiva Goswami writes:
sañcārī syād ity asyāyam arthaḥ -
The meaning of the verse ‘sañcārī syād’ is as follows
suhṛdāṁ nijābhīṣṭa-rasāśraye bhakta-viśeṣe śrī-rādhikādau viṣaye sajātīya-bhāva-bhaktānāṁ -
In relation to the special devotees of one’s desired mood viz. Sri Radhika etc. who are close to oneself and are belonging to the same mood
parasparaṁ ratyā viṣayāśraya-rūpāṇāṁ lalitādīnāṁ sakhī-mukhyānām ekatarāśrayā yā ratiḥ -
The attraction in the form of viṣaya and āśraya caused due to exclusive mutual affection towards main sakhīs like lalitā etc…
sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā ratyāḥ samā syād ūnā vā syāt tadā kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā rateḥ sañcaryākhya eva bhāvaḥ syāt -
If that attraction is on the same scale as the attraction to Krishna or is on an inferior scale then it is known as sañcārī-bhāva
tan-mūlatvāt tat-poṣaṇāc ca -
Because sañcārī-bhāva arises from the sthāyī-bhāva and nourishes it
THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā , tatrāpi puṣyamāṇā santatābhiniveśena saṁvardhyamānā syāt tadā sañcāritve’pi viśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate iti -
In this way, in madhura rasa however, if that attraction “SOMETIMES” is greater in scale even than the attraction to Krishna and yet it nourishes the attraction to Krishna by investing one’s consciousness in Him, then even though it is sāñcārī-bhāva yet due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva
tad idaṁ tv atrānusmṛtya likhitam api sañcāriṇām ante yojanīyam, tatraiva sajātīyatvāt -
This statement regarding bhāvollāsa although mentioned here by the author Sri Rūpa Goswami should actually be written at the end of the section named sañcārī-bhāva, for it belongs to that category
____
It was from another post here in this group.
23 hrs · Edited · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās According to what I have read, there are a few basic ground rules to the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ:
1) sthāyī-bhāva is only for Krishna. This is specified in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ (2.1.5) — eṣā kṛṣṇa-ratiḥ sthāyī-bhāvo bhakti-raso bhavet
So if someone develops a sthāyī-bhāva in someone other than Krishna, then you will have to define another deity which is "akhila-rasāmṛta-mūrtiḥ". From what I can see, you will have to create your own definitions, and maybe nothing short of creating your own bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ
2) According to Sri Jiva Goswami, bhāvollāsa does have some trace of being sañcārī. He says clearly in the purport to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ (2.5.128) — tadā sañcāritve’pi viśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate
Translation: (When such attraction is greater for someone else besides Krishna), then such a bhāva EVEN THOUGH having sañcārī-ness, is regarded as bhāvollāsa due to its speciality.
PLEASE NOTE: The tern 'sañcāritve' is nimitta-saptamī (cause based locative).
A question here is that if bhāvollāsa has sañcārī-ness, is it a sañcārī-bhāva? If yes, why is it not listed in the list of 33 sañcārī-bhāvas given in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ 2.4.4 - 6??
The answer is given by Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakura in his commentary on Ujjvala-nīlamaṇī (13.104). He says there in crystal clear words — na tasyāḥ sañcāritvaṁ nāpi tasyāḥ sthāyitvam iti bhāvaḥ — "Bhāvollāsa is neither completely belonging to sañcārī nor completely belonging to sthāyī"
At the same time, we should know that bhāvollāsa is MORE sañcārī than sthāyī. Why do i say so? Because Sri Jiva Goswami says in his purport to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ (2.5.128) that — tatraiva sajātiyatvāt — (Due to bhāvollāsa being sajātīya to sañcārī-bhāva). So its not 50% sañcārī and 50% sthāyī. The exact formula maybe only Krishna knows.
22 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās So when Sri Rupa Kaviraja says — "atra bhāvollāsaḥ sthāyī-viśeṣaḥ" (In the case of the mañjarīs, bhāvollāsa is a special sthāyī-bhāva), it directly goes against what Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti says in his commentary to Ujjvala-nīlamaṇī (13.104) —
na tasyāḥ sañcāritvaṁ nāpi tasyāḥ sthāyitvam iti bhāvaḥ — "Bhāvollāsa is neither completely belonging to sañcārī nor completely belonging to sthāyī"
22 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Dear Hari Pārṣada Dās Prabhu, pranamas and thank you for you sober contribution. I feel that the key to understanding this verse is the interpretation of pusyamana. You have translated : "if that attraction "SOMETIMES" is greater in scale even than the attraction to Krishna and yet it nourishes the attraction to Krishna." The point I have repeatedly tried to make, without success so far, is that pusyamana does not mean suhrd-rati nourishes krsna-rati, as everyone including your good self have translated, but rather, krsna-rati nourishes suhrd-rati. Perhaps it is more clear in VCT expanation of the verse in his tika to UN 13.104 |
suhåd-rateù çré-kåñëa-rati-mülakatvät tat-poñaëäc ceti bhävaù | yadi kvacit çré-kåñëa-rateù sakäçäd apy adhikä syät tayä puñyamäëä ca syät tadä bhävolläsa itéryate
16 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan taya pusyamana ca syat - suhrd-rati is nourished by that (krsna-rati). So this is the special quality that makes this type of sancari-bhava unique. Another fascinating point to note is that VCT gives two reasons why suhrd-rati is a sancari-bhava. 1) mulakatvat - it has as its foundation krsna-rati and 2) it nourishes (posana) krsna-rati. Now, under special circumstances, when suhrd-rati becomes more and it is nourished (pusya) by (taya) krsna-rati (rather than nourishing (posana) krsna-rati) it is called bhavollasa. So we see the difference between an ordinary sancari-bhava and this special sacari-bhava is simply the switch in direction of the act of nourishing. The essential thing to note is that even though VCT says that point 2) the direction of nourishment is reversed, he does not say that point 1) mulakatvat is reversed. In other words, in bhavollasa the suhrd-rati remains sri-krsna-rati-mulakatvat "based on krsna-rati". And that is why it can never be a sthayi-bhava. And fortunately, as you have pointed out, we do not have to rewrite the entire Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu.
16 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan As far as calculating the percentages of sancari-ness and sthayi-ness is concerned, I suggest we compare two statements of VCT on this same subject from different places. First BRS tadä saïcäritve’pi sarva-bhäväpekñayä paramotkarñät bhävolläsäkhyo bhäva éryate iti - Here VCT says directly bhavollasa is a sancari bhava. Then in UN he says na tasyäù saïcäritvaà näpi tasyäù sthäyitvam iti bhävaù - He cannot contradict himself. Here he says "iti bhavah" the mood or the sense of the verse is that this bhavollasa "tasyah sancaritvam" - "is not possessed of the (precise) qualities of a sancari-bhava. Note that in the first example bhavollasa is directly called a sancari-bhava, and in the second tasyah (genitive) is used to denote "not possessed of all the qualities required to fulfill the general definition." The extra quality simply being the reversal of the direction of the act of nourishing.
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Thank you very much PP. You are quite correct, it is the suhrid-rati which is nourished by the krishna-rati. Which is what makes it special. Therefore it is an ullasa in the madhura-sthayi-bhava. It is neither a sanchari nor a sthayi per se, but a special situation within madhura-bhava.
Therefore it is unusual and, as Kunjabihari Dasji says, really only possible in relation to Radha, because where else does such a possibility arise? I.e., of krishna-rati nourishing suhrid-rati rather than the other way around?
So we must conclude and confirm that this verse is indeed meant to show that the Radha-snehadhika manjaris have a special sthayi, in the sense that even though they have madhura-rati, it is of a type that is particular to them and cannot be considered exactly the same as that of a nayika, but at the same time it is neither dasya nor sakhya as described in the sections on those moods.
So now, what is the problem? Is it simply a tightening up of the translation that is necessary? Is there anything else that is problematic?
16 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das By which I meant that though it is technically not a sanchari or a sthayi, it is not altogether wrong to classify it as a sthayi, because in a sense, it is, as it is the fundamental attitude of the manjaris, not a sanchari in their love for Krishna.
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das And thank you Hari Pārṣada Dās. As usual, your research and insights are most appropriate and helpful.
15 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Isn't it also "more sthayi bhava" because the mood of the manjaris is permanent?
When Raghunatha das Goswami says that we love Krishna only because He is Radhika's dear most, isn't it clear that this is a permanent mood and will not change?
Will he say under some circumstances that he now loves Krishna more?
15 hrs · Like
Tarun Govinda Das "Therefore it is unusual and, as Kunjabihari Dasji says, really only possible in relation to Radha, because where else does such a possibility arise? I.e., of krishna-rati nourishing suhrid-rati rather than the other way around?"
Thank you, dear Jagadananda Das.
I posted the parts of MSN not to create boredom for those who are able to read the original version but for those who want to understand my Param Gurudeva's approach which is perfectly in line with the acaryas.
15 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das I would like to make one more observation, on the basis of HP's notes above and discussion of the problem of akhila-rasamrita -murti. Radha or any other suhrit would have to be that murti if the sthayi was directed to them. Nicely stated, and clearly this exactly is the _other_ problem that is being dealt with here. The Gaudiyas have always stressed that Krishna is the parama-tattva and Radha is the shakti, in essence subordinate to him. That is the way the Sandarbhas and the Rasamrita are structured. Krishna is the "known", Radha is the "unknown."
So in a sense, the Goswamis are bound by their ontology to phrase things in this way.
If we adjust the ontology on the basis of the findings of the Goswamis and readjust our ishta or the Parama Tattva to include Radha, so that shakti and shaktiman are one entity, then the Manjaris are indeed in a class of their own. And then to call bhavollasa a sthayi is quite correct.
15 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan I have outlined above grammatically why it is not correct to say that it is technically not one or the other by reconciling VCT's two apparently contradictory statements. Perhaps you missed it Jagatji. Your comments on that particular comment would be appreciated.
15 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das I am sorry, I will have to go back. It appears that I skipped a few. Later then.
15 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das But off the top of my head, it seems to me that I have answered that. A special name has been given because technically it cannot be called either, _in the context_ of our Krishna centered ontology.
But in a Radha-Krishna centered ontology, we can accept it as a sthayi and not as a sanchari.
The supporting point of history here is this: the Goswamis were dealing with a scriptural tradition that placed a male God in the center. Their contribution, or their goal, was to shift that emphasis away from the patriarchal masculine image of the Deity as enjoyer or vishaya, and reimagine the Deity as the Dual form of the Yugal.
The Gaudiya sampradaya tends to get a little stuck in the preliminaries of argumentation because of this being on the cusp of a transformation or transition in the object of worship. This is the cause of the break, it may be said, with the Radha-vallabhis or other Vrindavan rasikas.
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Jagatji has hit the nail on the head with his comment about readjusting the Parama Tattva to include Radhika. If Srila Rupa Gosvami, as you say, has structured the whole Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu around the ontology of Sri Krsna being the Parama-tattva, why would he be so inconsistent as to write the bhavollasa verse in accordance with a different ontology?
15 hrs · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Because he is in the process of changing it. You have to start from where you are. And in certain environments, it is best not to go too far all at once.
15 hrs · Like · 2
Tarun Govinda Das And this is why he put it in the section of STHAYI BHAVA...because it is something permanent but not directed to Krishna but to Radhika
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Prem Prayojan If changing ontology was the intention of the Gaudiya acaryas then why would they break with the Radha-vallabhis?
15 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan I think that the Gaudiya siddhanta is that there are two perspectives -
15 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan In tattva Krsna is God --- in bhava Krsna is not God. He is the son of Nanda and Yasoda. Similarly, in tattva Krsna is the exclusive object of rati. Since the whole BRS is written from the point of view of tattva we cannot try to introduce a subjective "bhava" perspective into the text and say Srila Rupa Gosvami said...... As you mentioned, that is why the Gaudiyas broke with the Radha-vallabhis.
15 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan The word "kvacit" in the tikas means sometimes. Then are we to assume that suhrd-rati is "sometimes" a sancari-bhava and "sometimes" a sthayi-bhava?
15 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das To just add a footnote to my last comment. The Gaudiya acharyas first had to establish Krishna (over Narayan, etc.) as the Parama-tattva. Only from that basis could Radha's place be established.
15 hrs · Like
Uttamasloka Dasa Dandavats and much gratitude to everyone for an enlightening and beneficial discussion and elucidation of these esoteric details.
15 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan I'm not sure I can subscribe to the idea that the Gosvamis have a plan to introduce different tattvas in incremental steps. The point of view of tattva belongs to the sadhaka-rupa and the point of bhava to the siddha-rupa. And that really is the problem between VCT and Rupa Kaviraja. VCT, like Rupa Gosvami and Jiva Gosvami before him, always insisted on keeping the two perspectives separate, whereas Rupa Kaviraja tried to mix them. We all know where that leads.
14 hrs · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das Generally this is the argument given about Jiva Goswami and the parakiya bhava.
14 hrs · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu thanks for pointing it out that suhṛd-rati is nourished by kṛṣṇa-rati. I should have looked at Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi before doing the BRS translation.
Now, sthāyī-bhāva is like an "ocean" and sañcārī-bhāvas are the "occasional waves that rise and fall in the ocean but nourish the flow of the ocean".
In the case of bhāvollāsa, even though it has sañcārī-ness, it gets nourised by kṛṣṇa-rati (which is the sthāyī-bhāva). So what's is going on here is that in an exceptional situation, the sañcārī starts getting nourished by a sthāyī-bhāva. So now bhāvollāsa is the "ocean" and kṛṣṇa-rati are the "nourishing waves"?
This makes kṛṣṇa-rati an assistant to bhāvollāsa, and as I said, if this is allowed, then in this case the bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ will turn into a śākta-grantha and not a vaiṣṇava-grantha. This cannot be, and we must "in tattva" remain vaiṣṇavas. Not like the tāntrikas who say "internally a śākta and externally a vaiṣṇava".
Now in the case of the mañjarīs, there is considerable evidence to establish that they consider the service (dāsya) of Sri Radha to be the topmost goal of life. So does it mean that Krishna is no longer their rasāmṛta-mūrtiḥ and instead Sri Radha has taken that position?
I do not think so. The more we try to establish Sri Radha as the center, the more she will put Krishna in the center.
yadi āmā'-prati sneha thāke sabākāra
tabe kṛṣṇa-vyatirikta nā gāibe āra
If you have any affection for Me, then don't speak about any topics other than Kṛṣṇa. (Caitanya-bhāgavata Madhya 28.027)
Therefore, all our mantras, holy names etc. are "Krishna prominent", not "Radha prominent".
In the end, Sri Radha has to turn out to be the "best servant of Krishna" and not the other way. This is what we all want to see. This is what all the Goswamis want to see. They do not want to see Krishna winning in his service to Radha, because if that happens, it will be a great disservice to Sri Radha.
If bhāvollāsa permanently takes over kṛṣṇa-rati, then Sri Radha has taken over the position of "akhila-rasāmṛta-mūrtī" and then you are no longer a vaiṣṇava-sampradāya.
Therefore, although bhāvollāsa means more attraction to Sri Radha, it acts like a boomerang and produces even more attraction for Krishna. Therefore Sri Jiva Goswami says that bhāvollāsa is "MORE Sajātīya" to sañcārī-bhāva.
We love Sri Radha and we desire her "PERSONAL" service, but the more we try to render it, the more she redirects us to Krishna. Yes Krishna has won, he became the akhila-rasāmṛta-mūrtī and our aspiration to serve Sri Radha more than Krishna remains forever out of reach. No matter how hard we try, she keeps putting us back in Krishna's service. Thus, rādhā-dāsyam remains a goal which we eternally try to achieve.
14 hrs · Like · 6
Jagadananda Das Siddhanta and bhava are of course connected. How can they not be? According to your siddhanta your bhava will be different. What is shanta rasa, for example, but a different perception of the parama tattva. As a matter of fact, siddhanta is primarily based on bhava and not the other way around. ye yatha mam prapadyante. All the pramans are subject to bhava, or adhikara.
And the bhavollasa verse does indeed hinge on an ontology that is Krishna centered (krishna-ratyah suhrid-ratih). In a sense, this subordinates Radha, placing her on the level of any other parikara, which is technically correct, but not if we grant purna-shakti status to Radha.
That is why this verse is here, because it is saying that Radha's status, though we may call her a parikara (suhrit) since one's feeling for her can be greater than that felt for Krishna, her status is special.
So it opens the door to the Radha-Krishna ontology, which after all is NOT different, it is a difference in perception of the same thing. Krishna is not separate from his energies.
14 hrs · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das I don't understand your comment about Rupa Kaviraj "we know where that leads."
14 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das And I disagree that tattva belongs to sadhaka rupa and bhava to siddha rupa. First of all, I cannot recall having seen such a statement anywhere. But second of all, in BRS 2.1, Rupa is clear that the sadhaka is also an element in bhakti-rasa.
Bhava has to exist in the sadhaka to some degree, as does prema (as a gift of the internal potency, bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya, prema can only come out of prema, so it exists in the sadhaka by grace, though in atomic quantity).
This is why Ananta Dasji (and the commentaries to Bilvamangal Thakur's KK) always enter the lila through the bhava of the author, who is conceived of as a sadhaka. The reason Bilvamangal is so conceived is because of the trope that he is on pilgrimage to Vrindavan. For Prabodhananda or Raghunath Das, the mood (bhava) of the sadhaka is similarly clear.
One enters the siddha bhava through the bhava of the sadhaka ashrayalambana.
14 hrs · Edited · Like
Jagadananda Das And I may add, that because siddhanta follows bhava, we have so many arguments. Were we all rational beings for whom tarka and shastra were the most prominent impeti for action, then we would all be happily sharing the same bhava. But since the opposite is true, the arguments we construct follow a preconceived destination.
The exposure of such hidden agendas _in oneself_ is the result of a devotion to truth without which perfection in sadhana is impossible. We could call that bhava-pratyaksha.
14 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Hari Parsada Prabhu, in regard to your rhetorical question -So now bhāvollāsa is the "ocean" and kṛṣṇa-rati are the "nourishing waves"? - we can refer to VCT's point that krsna-rati increases suhrd-rati but still suhrd-rati remains krsna-rati-mulakatva. That is the point you have nicely framed as "BRS is not a sakta-grantha". Whatever happens, from the ontological point of view, krsna-rati remains the mula of everything.
14 hrs · Like · 3
Jagadananda Das In that ontology.
14 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Dear Prem Prayojan, we both know us for a long time.
I can't hold it in any more.
IMHO, the sole purpose of this thread here in this group is and was to discredit my Param Gurudeva, even to the point of saying there was "forgery" going on and even to the point of ignoring what your Gurudeva says in his tika to Venu Gita, verse 7.
You tried to discredit my lineage this year in Switzerland and you did the same thing to my godbrother Radhapad das last year in Alachua.
I have both recordings, video and audio.
Forgive me to mention this here, but to me, your intention here in this thread is clear.
And quite honestly, I don't want to be your friend anymore.
I respect you and I thank you for the wonderful things I learnt from you.
Jay Sri Radhe
14 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das You see, I will take the question one step further. If Krishna is a male, then he only represents maleness. The feminine is not give a place in the Supreme Truth, expressed as Krishna alone. Therefore we do not worship Krishna alone. By himself he is incomplete.
This is the whole point of our siddhanta, is it not? Krishna is not happy as vishaya, but desires to be ashraya. Why would he do that if he was complete in himself.
So in the case of Radha Krishna, we have gender mutuality. And that is a more effective description of the Param Tattva. The idea that we are not shaktas is only partially correct. We are Yugalopasakas.
14 hrs · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu yes, that's correct I asked a rhetorical question. kṛṣṇa-rati increases suhṛd-rati but in the case of Sri Radha this leads to further increase in kṛṣṇa-rati (because she keeps redirecting us back to him), so in a sense my translation is also correct when i say that suhṛd-rati nourishes kṛṣṇa-rati
14 hrs · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās Tarun Govinda prabhu I am completely unaware of what is going on between the vaiṣṇava groups here. Instead of discrediting each other, we should try to mutually help each other as we all are learning on our way.
kapilo yadi sarvajñaḥ
kaṇādo neti kā pramāḥ?
tāv ubhau yadi sarvajñau
mata-bhedaḥ kutas tayoḥ?
"If Kapila is correct and all-knowing, then does it mean that Kaṇāda is not intelligent at all? And if both of them are correct and all-knowing, why is there a difference of opinion between them both?"
14 hrs · Like · 2
Tarun Govinda Das Dear Hari Pārṣada Dās,
Yes. Thank you.
14 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Coming back to the topic. Raja-vallabha Gosvami has coined the phrase "bhavollasa-rati". Otherwise the combination of these two words occurs nowhere in any Gosvami grantha. I would be grateful if someone could find a reference. It could be interpreted to mean "the rati in which bhavollasa-bhava sometimes occurs" because a) Raja-vallabha does not call bhavollasa a sthayi-bhava, rather he calls it "sancari-anurupa" "following the form of a sancari" and b) he describes it arises when Radha-krsna meet c) he attributes it to all the sakhis and d) he describes it as a feature of suddha parakiya bhava in general. So bhavollasa as a sthayi-bhava cannot be attributed to him.
13 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das If it is a "rati" it is a "sthayi-bhava."
13 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Since Raja-vallabha Gosvami has bhavollasa occuring sometimes and the tikas of both Srila Jiva Gosvami and VCT also say "kvacit" "sometimes", would anyone like to suggest how bhavollasa is a permanent mood?
13 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Yes...thats the point Jagatji....no Gosvami calls it a rati. Only Raja-vallabha who says it occurs at certain times and all the sakhis have it.
13 hrs · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das I would like to know where you are going with this Prem Prayojan. It seems clear to me that this entire research is based on an agenda. What is it? You haven't made it clear here, but as Tarun points out, you have been aggressive in groups where representatives of Ananta Das are active.
You said something about innovations above. What is the innovation that troubles you here?
Is there something wrong with suhrid-rati towards Radha in principle? Is there a problem with this conception of Manjari Bhava? Is this a semantic problem, or are you going against the principle of Manjari Bhava itself?
13 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
Jagadananda Das suhrid-rati
13 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan It is not always true "If it is a "rati" it is a "sthayi-bhava." since suhrd-rati is generally a sancari-bhava.
13 hrs · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās that which may be sañcārī-bhāva at one place may become sthāyī in another place. For example "nirveda" is counted as a sañcārī-bhāva but in śānta-rasa it can become sthāyī-bhāva (in the opinion of some).
13 hrs · Like · 3
Jagadananda Das So that is the question. But if he calls it bhavollasa-rati, he is merely accepting the characterization as a rati which is already there.
13 hrs · Like · 1
Hari Pārṣada Dās why nirveda is a sañcārī yet at some places becomes sthāyī is given by Srila Rupa Goswami and the commentators in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ 2.4.13 ... the verse beginning with amaṅgalam api procya....
13 hrs · Like · 2
Prem Prayojan I have stated my point of curiosity earlier among with many other points that have not been addressed. In particular, if the bhavollasa verse refers exclusively to nitya-sakhis and prana-sakhis why is it completely absent from the relevant sections of UN defining the bhavas of nitya-sakhis and prana-sakhis, both in the mula verses and the tikas. I have endeavoured to suggest the reason why JG and VCT have not mentioned bhavollasa there is because they do not support the current theory which is a recent interpretation based on the covert reintroduction of the writings of Rupa Kaviraja into our sampradaya. What was VCT's agenda in opposing Rupa Kaviraja?
13 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Nirved is not sometimes a sthayi and sometimes a sancari. It is always one or the other depending on whose system you are following, Bharata Muni or Rupa Gosvami, is it not?
13 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das OK. So what is the answer to your own questions? In the context of the questions I asked. Or is it related to that "we all know where that leads"?
13 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das The absence of a particular interpretation does not disqualify that insight from being valid. Otherwise we would reject all who disagree with Sridhar Swami, would we not? The mahats leave their ucchishta so that we can be thrilled with new revelations. The condition is respect.
13 hrs · Edited · Like · 4
Prem Prayojan That goes without saying, but VCT was not particularly thrilled by Rupa Kaviraja's "realizations". Can we be thrilled selectively based on pada-sangati, adhyaya-sangati, sastra-sangati, upakrama, upasamhara, abhyasa, apurvata, phalam, arthavada and upapatti?
13 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan We are just starting to unpack the implications of the verse in question. For example, VCT and JG say bhavollasa is only in madhura-rasa, but the present theory stipulates that it is only to Radhika. Then VCT and JG are guilty of ati-vyapti dosa, the fault of over-extension of a definition. Why did JG and VCT not just say "in relation to Radhika"? I suppose it was because they actually mean what they are saying. All the signs are there that the current theory is either totally wrong or only partially right. In Priti-sandarbha the residents of Kundina are given as an example of tad-anumodanatmaka-rasa. Obviously they all love their princess Rukmini, and when they think of her getting married to Krsna, though they themselves may not all have madhura-rasa as their sthayi-bhava, they taste madhura-rasa by approving of the marriage of Krsna and Rukmini. At that time their prema increases exponentially. Jiva Gosvami gives this as an example of ullasa due to appreciating the madhura-rasa of another dear devotee, in this case Rukmini, meeting with Krsna. I am just suggesting that the original verse is very non-specific because it may have broader applications than are allowed by the current popular interpretation.
12 hrs · Edited · Like
Jagadananda Das Quite possible. At the same time, if it is seen as _particularly_ applicable in the case of Radha and her dasis, what is the harm?
12 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan The theological framework of Jiva gosvami's Priti-sandarbha allows for madhura-rasa to accommodate tad-anumodanatmaka rasa, in the form of love of friends of the heroine. So it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the only purpose of life of the manjaris is to taste this tad-anumodanatmaka rasa, to permanently have more love for Radhika, and still their sthayi-bhava is to Krsna, with occasions of bhavollasa when they are thrilled by the meeting of the divine couple. In this conception, which is fully supported and explained by the acaryas, all the mandates for the specialities of manjari-bhava are met without demolishing the foundations of Sri Rupa Gosvami's BRSindhu and creating a concept not expressly described by them, namely a sthayi-bhava to Radhika, as was the case with Rupa Kaviraja.
11 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Note that everywhere sthayi-bhava is explained as Krsna-rati. If there were exceptions the acaryas, who are extremely meticulous in their wording, would have used a word like "prayah" to indicate, "in most cases".
11 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das I am not particularly concerned about the words here, as long as the substance remains. Someone had a sphurti and saw this special not-sanchari, not-sthayi, rati/bhava as being in a category of its own, with special significance for Radha.
On the whole, I don't have a problem with your research, but I don't think that it is serious enough to delegitimize any Vaishnava who holds this idea, if that is your intent.
11 hrs · Like · 3
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu, in the very same book by the very same author, nirveda is sometimes treated as sthāyī and sometimes as sañcārī. Please see the final verse of Paścima-vibhāga, First Wave of the bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ... the one beginning with "nirvedo viṣaye sthāyī"...
11 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Hmmmm....all this HUGE debate...
But one thing is still not answered:
WHY HAS SRILA RUPA MANJARI...ooooops GOSWAMI PUT THIS VERY SPECIAL VERSE IN THE SECTION CALLED STHAYI-BHAVA???
If we accept that Srila Rupa Goswami is an eternal associate of Sriman Mahaprabhu and if we accept that Mahaprabhu FULLY empowered him to write about bhakti, why would he make the mistake of "forgetting" something and putting that "something" somewhere else entirely?
This would mean that he made a mistake.
I seriously doubt that he made that mistake.
And no, I don´t buy the "not enough space on the palm-leaves" - theory.
Jiva Goswamipada writes that it should be in the sancari-section, BUT in madhurya-rasa however it is not "wrong" there.
Maybe he did it because he had enough of all that Krishna-rati and wrote it there to tease...
If we assume that he is a nitya siddha, he couldn´t have made a mistake.
10 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Tarun Govinda Prabhu comments "Jiva Goswamipada writes that it should be in the sancari-section, BUT in madhurya-rasa however it is not "wrong" there." --- No Tarunji. He just writes that the verse should be moved to the chapter on sancari-bhava. There is nothing in the sanskrit that indicates that JG thinks it is OK in the sthayi-bhava section under any circumstances. If you think he has written "BUT in madhura-rasa " as you say, please provide the sanskrit. Jiva Gosvami has commented that his opinion in BRS tika is actually the opinion of Rupa Gosvami. JIva Gosvami was living with Rupa Gosvami, serving him, proof reading his writing, and was his only diksha disciple. If Jiva Gosvami says "it's in the wrong place" is most likely because Rupa Gosvami told him. By the way, the theory that it was more expedient to put the verse here rather than try to insert it elsewhere is Dr. Satya Narayana das Babaji's idea. He also believes bhavollasa cannot be a sthayi-bhava. It's somewhat tiresome to have to rehash this, but even Rupa Gosvami, before writing the bhavollasa verse says, "Now the chapter on sthayi bhava is finished." So I cannot understand why you keep pressing this point. Did Rupa Gosvami make a mistake when he announced the end of the chapter?
8 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Dear Hari Parsada Prabhu, you wrote -- "nirveda is sometimes treated as sthāyī and sometimes as sañcārī. Please see the final verse of Paścima-vibhāga, First Wave of the bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ... the one beginning with "nirvedo viṣaye sthāyī"... " point taken, but in the verse before this Rupa Gosvami does say that this is the opinion of some ancient theorists. He does not insist that it is a definite part of his thesis. More importantly, in the ancient theory the nirveda which is considered a sthayi-bhava does really not fit Sri Rupa's definition of krsna-visaya-rati at all since Krsna is not the object of nirveda. In this theory the visaya here is visaya itself, that is , sense gratification. nirvedo visaye sthayi tattva-jnanodbhavah sa cet i.e. When tattva-jnana awakens in the Rsi of santa-rasa he feels permanent nirveda (indifference) to visaya (sense objects). It is hardly an example of a simultaneous sthayi-bhava/sancari-bhava to Krsna.
8 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan My last question for now - CC M.8,211. jātollāsāḥ sva-sekāc chata-guṇam adhikaṁ santi yat tan na citram describes that the ullasa of the sakhis and manjaris is jata (brought into existence) at certain occasions in the lila during the meeting of Radha and Krsna. If it appears at certain times, could someone explain how it is the permanent sentiment of the manjaris? And when Radhika is in separation or when Sri Krsna makes some offense is it not rasabhasa to say the manjaris are in permanent ullasa (joy/merriment) ?
8 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das ullAsa. m. light , splendour L.[L=37596]the coming forth , becoming visible , appearing Katha1s. xiv , 13 Sa1h. Kap. &c[L=37597]joy , happiness , merriness Katha1s. Amar. &c[L=37598]increase , growth BhP. vii , 1 , 7[L=37599](in rhet.) giving prominence to any object by comparison or opposition Kuval.[L=37600]chapter , section , division of a book (e.g. of the काव्य-प्रकाश) .
There are other alternatives to "joy, merriment"
7 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Jagatji - you wrote - Is there something wrong with suhrid-rati towards Radha in principle? Is there a problem with this conception of Manjari Bhava? Is this a semantic problem, or are you going against the principle of Manjari Bhava itself? - This question demonstrates that I have been completely unsuccessful in communicating my idea. I apologize for that. Just for the record, suhrd-rati the sancari bhava to Radhika is wonderful, as is manjari-bhava, which is the ultimate goal of our lives. The manjaris' bhava has been termed in Gosvami granthas as an aspect of nitya-sakhi-bhava, sakhi snehadhika, tad-anumodanatmika, and tat-tad-bhavechatmika. They also on occasion experience a sancari-bhava called bhavollasa-bhava. I am in full support of all these conceptions clearly written by our Gosvamis. What I am opposing is the mistaken conception of Rupa Kaviraja that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava to Radhika since such an idea is against the ontology of all the Gosvamis' writings and not supported by VCT, Mukunda Gosvami, Visnudas or any other reputable tikakara on BRS or UNilamani. All the nuances of manjari-bhava are most perfectly accommodated within the framework of terms already directly given by the acaryas and mentioned above, without having to bend the ground rules they have given to force our own misconceptions into the text. I hope my position is clear. Respected devotees are invited to supply direct evidence from the mula granthas to either support or refute this position. No "my guru says this " "his guru says that", please.
7 hrs · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das But bhavollasa is NOT a sanchari bhava. I thought that was established.
7 hrs · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das Nor is it a sthayi bhava. But it goes into a category of its own. And therefore, if it came into the sanchari bhava chapter, it would be saying, there is a 34th sanchari called suhrid rati, but there is something that cannot be so categorized and it is called bhavollasa.
7 hrs · Like · 3
Tarun Govinda Das "Yet we see that in the case of madhura-rasa there is a unique
situation in which some of the friends of Radharani feel more affection for her than they do for even Krishna and this affection is always increasing due to the intense desire they have to please her. This feeling is a special type of sthayi-bhava known as bhavollasa rati.Other than Srimat Radharani in the madhura-rasa, such a thing is unheard of in relation to any devotee of any other rasa. Nowhere has it been said anywhere that a devotee is hundreds of times greater than even Krishna, except in the case of Radha."
These words of my Param Gurudeva, Sri Srimat Kunjabihari das Babaji are perfectly in line with our acaryas.
He very well knew about the "dilemma" and he knew that this special type of BHAVA was neither a "real" sancari bhava nor a "real" sthayi bhava.
"Because the predominating feelings or sthayi-bhavas have been defined as exclusively those which deal directly with Krishna, the Supreme Lord and one object of all the different types of devotion, it can hardly be called a sthayi-bhava as its predominant object is Srimati Radharani.But as these feelings are not temporary, fleeting moods, they cannot be called sancari-bhavas either.
In view of this paradox, Rupa Gosvamin has explained Radha’s feelings toward the sakhis as a new sancari-bhava and the feelings of the manjaris to Radha as a new type of sthayi-bhava as a subdivision of madhura-rati."(Param Gurudeva)
I think his solution to call it a "new type of sthayi bhava as a subdivision of madhura-rati" is very accurate.
And when I read the books of my Gurudeva and when I see how far advanced he is in his bhakti, I seriously doubt that he did the wrong thing for his whole life.
It is up to us now to attain the goal of our lives, Radha-dasyam.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan "If love for a devotee, which is equal or less than love for Krsna, is (sometimes) more while being nourished (by krsna-rati) it will be a sancari-bhava called bhavollasa." VCT comments : atas trayastrimsat-sancärinäm ante idam api yojaniyam - "Therefore this verse should be placed at the end of the thirty three sancari-bhavas." JG comments sancärinäm ante yojaniyam, tatraiva sajätiyatvät - "This verse should be placed at the end of the section on sancari-bhava because it certainly belongs there in that category." Which part of these statements of VCT and JG is not clear to you?
6 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das And as previously explained, the verse settles a number of questions. It is supplementary to, not a substitute for anything else that was stated elsewhere. No one following manjari bhava is denying any of the other terminology that is used.
6 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das " sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā ratyāḥ samā syād ūnā vā syāt tadā kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā rateḥ sañcaryākhya eva bhāvaḥ syāt (if that attraction is on the same scale as the attraction to Krishna or is on an inferior scale then it is known as sañcārī-bhāva)
tan-mūlatvāt tat-poṣaṇāc ca (because sañcārī-bhāva arises from the sthāyī-bhāva and nourishes it)
evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā , tatrāpi puṣyamāṇā santatābhiniveśena saṁvardhyamānā syāt tadā sañcāritve’pi viśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate iti (In this way, in madhura rasa however if that attraction "SOMETIMES" is greater in scale even than the attraction to Krishna and yet it nourishes the attraction to Krishna by investing one's consciousness in Him, then even though it is sāñcārī-bhāva yet due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva) (End of Translation) "
I like this more...
6 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Tarunji has now cited a sentence from MSN - "Rupa Gosvamin has explained Radha’s feelings toward the sakhis as a new sancari-bhava and the feelings of the manjaris to Radha as a new type of sthayi-bhava as a subdivision of madhura-rati." This is again in the category of "My guru says this and he's really advanced so it must be true." You may recall I did ask for some sastric pramana, not just "My guru says that Rupa Gosvami says". I just want to see where it is that Rupa Gosvami actually says what you claim. The manjaris are not mentioned in any commentary on the bhavollasa verse in BRS or in the tikas of UN. Furthermore, wherever the manjaris are mentioned by Rupa Gosvami, VCT, JG etc, they never quote the bhavollasa verse. So you have zero evidence to support your theory. I'm just waiting for some sastra pranama. Just to make sure Jagatji does get confused again, let me reiterate. Like every aspiring Rupanuga vaisnava, I believe fully that the ultimate goal of life is Radha-dasyam. I just do not believe in the theory of Rupa Kaviraja that you are enthusiastically promoting. Please give me one sentence from Rupa Gosvami, JG, or VCT that mentions both bhavollasa and the manjaris. You either have a sastric reference or you don't. Can we see it please.
6 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das That is what it is all about.
To show that my parivar is "wrong".
Enjoy your victory. I am happy for you, no sarcasm intended.
Please next time you visit my beloved Gurudeva, ask him.
5 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Now we are getting somewhere. Tarunji. Your sastric reference is perfect. (your words) "then EVEN THOUGH IT IS A SANCARI_BHAVA yet due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva." So you agree that it is a sancari-bhava called bhavollasa.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Jagadananda Das
I am not particularly concerned about the words here, as long as the substance remains. Someone had a sphurti and saw this special not-sanchari, not-sthayi, rati/bhava as being in a category of its own, with special significance for Radha.
On the whole, I don't have a problem with your research, but I don't think that it is serious enough to delegitimize any Vaishnava who holds this idea, if that is your intent.
+1
5 hrs · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das " due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva. "
But a very special kind...
Radheeeee
6 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan So you have quotes on bhavollasa and quotes on manjaris but not a single sastra pramana from Rupa Gosvami, Jiva Gosvami, or VCT that connects the two. Just as I expected.
5 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Vedanta Sutra - sastra yonitvat ...srutes tu sabda mulatvat....etc etc. That is what sastra is for. Sadhus and Gurus have to represent the teaching of Vyasa. That is why the worship of Guru is called Vyasa-puja. If sometimes there is a difference of opinion, sastra has the final authority. But this is not the place for a discussion on pramana. This forum is for discussing Rare and Esoteric Literature. If you want to discus this we should do it elswhere to be respectful to this fine institution.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das So, it is all bhogus and you have all evidence.
All parivars who follow these items are of course apasiddhanta and only your parivar has the exklusive monopoly on shastric evidence
Dandavats
Maybe, one day we will realize bhavollasa bhava. Until then it is all theoretical.
I am fine in the anugatya of my Gurudeva
Please forgive me.
5 hrs · Edited · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās tasmāc chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau (BG 16.24) — Scripture is the pramāṇa.
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
Madhavananda N Krishnakund Nandini Radhe, there is no fault in Prem Prayojan requesting pramanas that are *not* from "my guru, or your guru". Sri Guru is a relative manifestation of the absolute. That person who is my guru, may not be the same as your guru, or his guru etc. Krishna is samaṣṭi-guru or the sum total of the position of guru. My personal guru, or your personal guru are vyaṣṭi-guru or a individual manifestation of guru. Samaṣṭi-guru Krishna is like the sun, while vyaṣṭi-guru is like an individual ray.
Therefore in Vaiṣṇava discussion we want to hear śāstra pramana, or evidence that will be accepted by all the participants. As my Guru Maharaja once told me, "It's not enough to quote your guru. You have to quote śāstra."
5 hrs · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās Nandini Radhe ji, your question was — "Is sastra de only source of pramana? And if so, according to whom?"
There are other pramāṇas too, but in the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta and the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ, Srila Rupa Goswami selects śāstra-pramāṇa as the ideal one for discussing matters of transcendence. Here is a quote from the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta:
yatas taiḥ śāstra-yonitvāt iti nyāya-pradarśanāt
śabdasyaiva pramāṇatvaṁ svīkṛtaṁ paramarṣibhiḥ
"Due to statements such as 'śāstra-yonitvāt' given by Sri Vyasadeva in the vedānta-sūtra, only śabda is selected as a pramāṇa here (in the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta)"
3 hrs · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās he says in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ that:
svalpāpi rucir eva syād bhakti-tattvāvabodhikā
yuktis tu kevalā naiva yad asyā apratiṣṭhatā
yatnenāpādito’py arthaḥ kuśalair anumātṛbhiḥ
abhiyuktatarair anyair anyathaivopapādyate (BRS 1.1.45 - 46)
Here he rejects logic and other pramāṇas except śabda in determining truths about bhakti. Sri Jiva Goswami says there — rucir atra bhakti-tattva-pratipādaka-śabdeṣu śrīmad-bhāgavatādiṣu — "Ruci means a taste in bhakti-tattva-delineating words of scriptures like Srimad Bhāgavatam etc".
3 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Hari Pārṣada Dās thank you ... all the comments unrelated to this thread have been deleted. The original thread was about discussing murali-vilāsa and then it went in the direction of mañjarī-bhāva. Finally, before it turns elsewhere, I would like to request everyone to keep it focused on these two topics only. Unrelated posts will be deleted.
1 hr · Edited · Like · 1
All of the individual posts start with the name of the poster. Unfortunately, in cutting and pasting from FB there are no colons after each poster's name, so be mindful when reading that the actual post starts after the name.
Murali Vilasa:Bhavollasa.pdf
Prem Prayojan uploaded a file.
December 7 at 9:30am
Please accept my humble obeisances.
My first question for our revered community of vaisnava scholars is does anyone know the date of the first published edition of Murali Vilasa by Raja Vallabha Gosvami?
It contains perhaps the earliest reference to "bhavollasa-rati". This reference is quoted by Sri Ananta Das Pandita in his commentary on Vilapa-Kusimanjali verse 16, wherein Sri Rupa Manjari and Sri Rati Manjari are specifically mentioned as examples of sakhis with bhavollasa-rati.
However, in a copy of Murali Vilasa printed in 1961 the same verse mentions Ananga Manjari instead of Rati Manjari, which is problematic for the popular "bhavollasa-rati=manjari bhava" theory since according to Srila Rupa Gosvami's Sri Radha-krsna Gannodesa Dipika Ananga Manjari is not listed amongst the manjaris, but rather, amongst the vara-sakhis. Indeed, if one reads the whole passage, it clearly describes Raja Vallabha Gosvami's opinion that bhavollasa-rati applies to all the sakhis and concludes that bhavollasa is simply a feature of suddha-parakya bhava in general.
If anyone has other editions of Murali Vilasa, please let me know if they mention Rati Manjari or Ananga Manjari in regard to bhavollasa-rati. It would be helpful to establish what Raja Vallabha Gosvami originally wrote and which version has been changed for whatever reason. Find the relevant pages are attached here.
Murali Vilasa:Bhavollasa.pdf · version 1
Portable Document FormatDownloadPreview
Like ·
Prisni Dasi Karolina Lindqvist, Angelo Pugliese, Kalki Enrique Farje and 2 others like this.
Jonathan Edelmann What are the dates of Raja Vallabha Gosvami?
December 7 at 10:49am · Like
Gaurabhāvana Dāsa Suniti Kumar Chatterji says ”Rāja-vallabha, early 17th century” in _Languages and literatures of modern India_, p. 170.
December 7 at 3:31pm · Like · 1
Madhavananda N Krishnakund The earliest reference I am aware of to bhāvollāsa-rati is from Srila Rupa Goswami. He gives the following definition in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.5.128:
sañcārī syāt samāno vā kṛṣṇa-ratyāḥ suhṛd-ratiḥ
adhikā puṣyamāṇā ced bhāvollāsā ratiḥ
"If the rati of the associates of Radha directed to Radha is
equal or less than their rati directed to Krishna, the rati directed to Radha is called sañcāri-rati, nourishing the rati towards Krishna. If the rati of Radha’s associates directed to Radha is greater than that directed to Krishna, and is constantly increasing, though it is still a sañcāri-bhāva, it is called bhāvollāsa-rati."
December 8 at 1:41am · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Notice the last line quoted by Madhavananda Prabhu "bhāvollāsā ratiḥ" is two syllables short. This version is a typo that has spread and gets quoted everywhere. It is not Srila Rupa Gosvami's version. The original is "bhavollasa itiryate" (8 syllables) with ullasah being masculine to qualify the implied (sancari) bhava. UllasA (ending in long "A" (feminine to qualify 'rati') is a form used in Murali Vilasa but not found anywhere in the Gosvami granthas or their main commentaries.
December 8 at 3:37am · Edited · Like · 2
Prem Prayojan The translation - "If the rati of Radha’s associates directed to Radha is greater than that directed to Krishna, and is constantly increasing"- is also misleading firstly because the verse is not necessarily about Sri Radha and secondly because "pusyamana" is a passive participle. Thus suhrd-rati is not 'constantly increasing', rather the meaning is "while being nourished (by Krsna rati)." I'm still looking for the date of the first publication of Murali Vilasa. It was supposed to be written in the seventeenth century, but it seems the manuscript was never actually published until the late nineteenth century. Thus many scholars are of the opinion that Murali Vilasa, at least in its current form, is a forgery. Still, the date of publication in the late 1800's, the name of the publisher, also the availability of any old manuscripts would contribute to our understanding of the evolution of the "bhavollasa-rati" theory. Any clues?
December 8 at 2:17am · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das samāno should also be samonā. I am afraid that I may be responsible for both these typos, for which I am deeply and gravely sorry.
December 8 at 3:45am · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das So what is the sthayi bhava of the manjaris? Is a separate name necessary at all?
December 8 at 3:46am · Edited · Like
Advaita Das Look at the title of the chapter 2.5 itself - it is called sthayi bhava.
December 8 at 3:57am · Like
Jagadananda Das Chapter 2.5 of what?
December 8 at 4:08am · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Anyway, Prem Prayojan, you have been on this kick for years now. What exactly is it that you are trying to prove and why?
December 8 at 4:27am · Like · 3
Madhavananda N Krishnakund I think that Advaita must be referring to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu.
December 8 at 4:29am · Like
Jagadananda Das Of course. Temporary confusion.
December 8 at 4:30am · Like
Jagadananda Das I don't have any objection to deepening the interpretation of the bhavollasa verse. Somewhere and somehow the idea caught on. So it no doubt is fair game. I cannot speak for Murali-vilasa for the time being, but I would check with Kanana Bihari Goswami, the historian of the Baghna Para Goswamis. He might be able to provide a manuscript history, which would be helpful.
Rajavallabh is the nephew of Ramachandra Goswami, Ramai Thakur, who is the founder of the line. So he lived in the 17th century. Someone else could have written the book and ascribed it to him, or the verses in question could be interpolated. Nevertheless, someone thought it worthwhile to express the idea at some time.
Now new ideas are always coming along and if found valid can be accepted [by some], like, for example, saffron cloth and sannyasi names for Vaishnava sannyasis. With the passage of time, the bhajananandi Gaudiya Vaishnavas came to accept the concept of Manjari Bhava as their goal, even though it may be argued that Rupa Goswami was not very explicit about.
Furthermore, that conviction was concretized in the giving of siddha pranali. Whether it happened in the very beginning or not is not really the issue. An idea that is accepted by the tradition becomes part of the tradition, i.e., sampradaya. So therefore by the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakur it clearly was a part of the ethos of the Chaitanya sampradaya.
yad-avadhi mama kācin mañjarī rūpa-pūrvā
vraja-bhuvi bata netra-dvandva-dīptiṁ cakāra |
tad-avadhi tava vṛndāraṇya-rājñi prakāmaṁ
caraṇa-kamala-lākṣā-sandidṛkṣā mamābhūt ||14||
December 8 at 4:48am · Like · 2
Madhavananda N Krishnakund Prem Prayojan Prabhu, I'm confused and trying to understand your point. Are you saying that the understanding given above of BRS 2.5.128 is incorrect, and that bhāvollāsa-rati is a later concept not spoken about by our Goswamis?
I'm not a scholar, nor do I have anything to prove on this subject. I'm just trying to understand your point.
I've checked several editions of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu. The Bengali script edition published under Srila B. R. Sridhar Maharaja, the Bangla script edition of Sri Haridas Das, as well as the Devanagari with English gloss by David Haberman all give the same reading you mention above, ie: "itīryate".
I won't bother to paste them here, as I imagine you must be aware of the comments that Jiva Goswami gives in his tika on BRS 2.5128, and also Visvanath in his commentary on UJ 13.104 (wherein he quotes BRS 2.5.128). Both of which seem to support the concept of bhāvollāsa-rati. Similarly, amongst contemporary vaiṣṇavas, you must be aware that Srila B. V. Narayan Maharaja several times referred to bhāvollāsa-rati and cited BRS 2.5.128 as a pramana for it.
David Haberman, in his translation and footnote on BRS supports the same concept. His gloss and note:
TEXT 2.5.128: "If the love for a friend (with similar devotional feelings) is the same as or less than the love for Krishna, then it is a transitory emotion; but if this love grows to the point where it exceeds the love for Krishna, then it is called, "emotional rapture" (bhāvollāsa).
FROM HIS FOOTNOTE (number 69:) "Bhāvollāsa, which also could be translated as "the brilliance of another's emotion" is a technical term of great importance for the later tradition, for it opens the way for the love of Radha, which is the foundation of the important meditative path of mañjarī sādhana. Whereas in much of Rupa's theory Radha is an āśraya, or 'vessel' of devotion, in mañjarī sādhana, Radha becomes the viṣaya, or 'object' of devotion. Therefore, the love of Radha experienced by her close girlfriends, in effect, amounts to another type of foundational emotion for devotion."
Again, I'm not trying to champion anything. I'm just confused. Do you not accept the above translations, or the comments of Srila Narayan Maharaja? If you could explain your point I would be grateful and happy to learn something.
My pranams.
December 8 at 5:38am · Edited · Unlike · 6
Swami Bhakti Abhaya Ashram I like the churning going on here, and I'm commenting mostly so I'll get notification of further activity in the thread.
December 8 at 5:30am · Unlike · 1
Jagadananda Das My personal response to the question is based on a pragmatic approach. I want to know what manjari bhava is GOOD for. And why then would it be better than something else, sakhya-bhava lets say, or dasya-bhava.
Since the manjaris are only dasis of Radha, they cannot be said to have madhura-bhava, or can they? Bhavollasa rati was adopted to fill that empty space.
But what is this special attitude and why is it particularly conducive to the attainment of prema, the fifth and highest goal of spiritual life? And why is that ONLY in this specific madhura prema, i.e., in the mood of the manjaris, and not in that of the sakhis or of the competing nayikas or of sayujya into the form of Radha, that the highest gift of Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu is manifest?
In other words, the pragmatic approach asks: Show me (at least philosophically, but more practically through experience) what manjari bhava is good for in relation to the goal, which is prema, here and now in this world.
December 8 at 5:34am · Like · 2
Gaurabhāvana Dāsa Here is a reference to a printed edition from the late 1800’s:
Rājavallabha Gosvāmī. Muralī-vilāsa. Edited by Nīlakaṇṭha Gosvāmī and Binodabihārī Gosvāmī. Baghnapara: Surendranath Bandyopadhyay, 409 Gaurābda (1895). (Bengali)
(- found in: Shukavak Das. Hindu Encounter with Modernity, p. 321.)
December 8 at 9:23am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Thank you Gaurabhavana Prabhu for that important finding. I suspect the edition you mentioned may be the first ever publication. One indication would be the writings of Siddha Krsnadas Babaji. He was writing in the early 19th century. He specialized in writing on the topic of manjari-bhava, but I am yet to find a single mention of the bhavollasa-rati theory anywhere in his writing. You must admit that is rather strange. Admittedly I do not have all his works available to me at the moment, so I am depending on the mercy of this team of vaisnava investigators to inform me of any known pramanas. Thank you.
December 8 at 9:47am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan In response to my dear Madhavanda Prabhu, let me clarify my point ofview. I am not denying bhavollasa the
sancari-bhava. But the mula-granthas of our tradition reveal that bhavollasa is
not a sthayi-bhava, nor has it been described as the exclusive property of the
manjaris, an idea often promoted in many contemporary vaisnava circles. The reasons for my doubts in this regard are
presented in brief below. All Gaudiyas have a responsibility to be vigilant in
regard to philosophical innovations. I will be happy to present my thoughts
before this learned assembly to receive their honest appraisals of this
important topic.
December 8 at 9:47am · Like · 3
Prem Prayojan It is my personal opinion that the currently popular bhavollasa-rati
theory probably stems from Sri Hari Das Das’ commentary on the bhavollasa verse in his 1946 edition of Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu (Haribol Kutir). Haridas Das neatly explains the bhavollasa verse by saying that since the prana-sakhis and nitya-sakhis are Radha-snehadhika, that is, they permanently have more love for Radhika than for
Krsna, this verse describing greater love for a friend must be about them. Thus bhavollasa is the sthayi-bhava of the manjaris. This comment is so simple, sweet and succinct that it makes you wonder why Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura did not just explain the verse in one neat sentence instead of giving their vague and convoluted explanation?
The obvious answer is that if the verse could be explained so easily then the acaryas would have done so, since their presentations are extremelyterse. Thus, there must be somethingamiss. Especially when you notice that Srila Visvanath Cakravarti cites the bhavollasa verse in his Ujjvala-nilamani commentary in relation to the nayika’s friendship with her sakhis, where citing the verse would be optional. Then in the place where one would think citing the verse would be compusory, namely, in the sections defining the nitya-sakhis and
prana-sakhis, the bhavollasa verse is conspicuously absent. These are serious considerations enough to set off the alarm bells of any genuinely impartial academic. Under the current
interpretation we have the implausible scenario where Srila Rupa Gosvami alledgedly explains more about manjari bhava in his general thesis, Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu, than he does in his elabourate thesis dedicated exclusively to madhura-rasa.
December 8 at 9:51am · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan The next step after identifying the problem is to investigate why do
Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura, and every other
acarya until 1946, not acknowledge this apparently obvious equivalence between
bhavollasa and manjari bhava? The current
equation goes “bhavollasa means more love for Radhika” and “the
prana-sakhis/nitya-sakhis permanently have more love for Radhika” therefore
“bhavollasa = the sthayi bhava of manjaris”. All seems good except for one thing. The definition of bhavollasa includes two
criteria, not just “adhika” more love for the friend. It is this second
criterion that has been overlooked. Everything hinges on this. If there were only one criterion, permanently
more love for a friend, then I would gladly sign off on the theory. But there are two criteria, and if they are
not both present than it cannot be called bhavollasa.
The second criterion indicated by the word “pusyamana” is invariably
mistranslated as we have already witnessed earlier in this thread.
Here is David Haberman’s translation: “if this love grows to the point
where it exceeds the love for Krishna”
Bhanu Svami’s transation: “and is constantly increasing”
Another recent translation from Tarun Govinda Prabhu (with credits to
Advaita Prabhu and Hari Parsada Prabhu (??): “it nourishes the attraction to
Krsna by investing one’s consciousness in him”
As I mentioned before, all
these translations incorrectly make pusyamana an active participle and thereby
completely misconstrue the actual meaning by switching the subject and object
of the verb.
Pusyamana is defined thus
in the commentaries :
pusyamänä saMtatäbhinivesena samvardhyamänä
– While (love for the friend is)being
increased by (Krsna rati’s) pervasive entering into it.
A sancari-bhava usually nourishes the sthayi-bhava, but in the case of
bhavollasa the sancari-bhava is nourished by the sthayi bhava. That is why it
is necessary to give it its own nomenclature. All the commenatators insist that it still remains a sancari bhava. How can anyone look Srila Jiva Gosvami
and Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura in the face and say, well actually it’s
a sthayi bhava?
December 8 at 9:52am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan One reason the misunderstanding that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava has arisen, despite all acarya saying otherwise, can be traced to the word saMtata, which
has been almost invariably translated as “continuously”. So if the love for a friend is more than love
for Sri Krnsa and it is also continuously increasing, then it will remain more
forever. So bhavollasa must be permanent. If it is permanent, how can it be a
sancari-bhava? I appreciate the logic and it makes sense to everyone.
However, the reason bhavollasa exceeds the general definition of a
sancari-bhava is not because it is permanent, but because, as demonstrated
earlier, it is nourished by the sthayi-bhava, instead of acting to nourish the
sthayi-bhava. It is true that “saMtata” can mean continuously, but when it is
used to qualify a noun in the instrumental case, as it does in Srila Jiva
Gosvami’s commentary on pusyamana, it means saM – completely tata – extending. In other words,
pusyamänä saMtatäbhinivesena samvardhyamänä
Pusyamana – While (love for the friend is)being increased by (Krsna rati’s)
pervasive entering into it.
The implication is that just because the nitya sakhis’ love for Radhika is,
in the words of Srila Visvanath Cakravarti - kincid adhika – slightly more, their
love does not qualify as bhavollasa unless and until circumstances arise wherein
the second criterion of bhavollasa is present, namely, that their Krsna rati
nourishes their love for Radhika by fully entering into it, thereby, reversing
the general nature of the sthayi-bhava’s being nourished by the sancari-bhava.
This happens at the time of the sakhis and manjaris witnessing the meeting of
Radha and Krsna. At that time they experience bhavollasa, and when the lila is
over, the bhavollasa subsides. The manjaris’ love for Radhika always remains
kincid adhika, slightly more, and acts as a sancari bhava to nourish their
Krsna-rati until the next ecstatic opportunity of Sri Yugala milana occurs.
This explanation is consistent with the explanation given in Murali Vilasa
that bhavollasa takes place at the time of Yugala-milan. Srila Krsnadas Kaviraja
Gosvami also describes ”jatollasa”, that the ullasa-bhava of the sakhis and
manjaris arises under certain circumstances in this verse of Govinda-lilamrta,
also quoted in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta.
jātollāsāḥ sva-sekāc chata-guṇam adhikaṁ santi yat tan na citram (GL10.16, CC
2.8.209)
December 8 at 9:57am · Edited · Like · 3
Prem Prayojan If one does not accept this interpretation several faults arise. Firstly, the acaryas have said that
bhavollasa is a special feature of madhura-rasa. If it is only a feature of the
manjaris then the acaryas are guilty of ati-vyapti dosa – the fault of
over-extension of the definition. Secondly, if it is accepted that bhavollasa is permanent, then when Sri
Krsna meets with vipaksa yuthesvaris (Radhika’s rivals) and Radhika and her
sakhis are quite upset with his behavior, then we will have to admit that the
manjaris are still in a state of ullasa (joy or merriness) over Sri Krsna’s
behavior, which is obviously rasabhasa dosa.
Some suggest that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava because it comes at the
end of the chapter of Sri Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu describing the
sthayi-bhava. This argument is weak
because Srila Jiva Gosvami goes out of his way to tell us that this verse is
only tagged on to the end of this chapter because that is when Srila Rupa
Gosvami remembered about it. You have to
appreciate that itis not so easy to cut and paste paragraphs when you are
scratching the verses onto a palm-leaf with an iron pen.
Before writing the bhavollasa verse, Srila Rupa Gosvami writes “api ca”,
which Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura explains to mean - api ceti | tad etat
samäptam
“The chapter on sthayi-bhava is now finished” Thus bhavollasa is not a sthayi-bhava. Srila Jiva Gosvami comments - tad idam tv
atränusmrtya likhitam api sancärinäm ante yojaniyam, tatraiva sajätiyatvät : ”This
statement (about bhavollasa) has been written here because Srila Rupa Gosvami
remembered it at this point. Yet it should be included at the end of the topic
of sancari-bhavas since it belongs to that topic.”
December 8 at 9:52am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Since both acaryas insist bhavollasa is still a sancari-bhava, albeit an
extraordinary one, and that bhavollasa should not be accepted in the section dealing with sthayi-bhava, anyone who still insists that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava is directly contradicting the clear statements of the prominent acaryas.
Thank you for patiently considering these points.
December 8 at 9:53am · Like
Kalki Enrique Farje excellent post and comment from all the sadhus
December 8 at 10:10am · Like
Jagadananda Das Thank you for doing that research, Prem Prayojanji. It is certainly very useful knowledge.
Indeed we should guard against innovations. But even then, we can certainly innovate. Almost impossible not to. So if an insight comes from an advanced scholar and sadhaka like Haridas Das, there is no reason to think that it is not true. If it can be shown to be relevant and meaningful and not against the basic siddhantas of the parampara. So is Haridas Das's interpretation of bhavollasa meaningful or not?
And that requires answering the questions I posited above.
Thank God the greats leave us their ucchistha so that there will be some seva for us. Jai Sri Radhe.
December 8 at 10:39am · Edited · Like · 3
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu, the one person who put bhāvollāsa in the sthāyī-bhāva category is Sri Rupa Kaviraja. Here is an extract from his Rāgānugā-vivṛti:
śrī-rūpa-mañjaryādyāḥ sadā bhāvollāsānvayāḥ. mad-īśā-nāthatve vraja-vipina-candraṁ vraja-vaneśvarīṁ tan-nāthatve iti vacanāt.
Translation: "Sri Rupa Manjari etc. are eternally possessed of bhāvollāsa. The proof? The statement from manaḥ-śikṣā — "mad-īśa-nāthatve vraja-vipina-candraṁ vraja-vaneśvarīṁ tan-nāthatve" (End of Translation).
December 8 at 9:12pm · Like · 1
Hari Pārṣada Dās I would like to say here that it was Radhakrishna Das Brahmachari "Āmnāya-vācaspatī" ji who was also trying recently to defend Sri Rupa Kaviraja by posting a translation of his works on his personal blog. However, ever since I informed him that Sri Rupa Kaviraja places bhāvollāsa in the sthāyī category, the translations have stopped coming out for some reason...
I should also say that scholars in Vrindavan like Sri Haridas Shastriji have published the books of Sri Rupa Kaviraja without any criticism of him.
December 8 at 9:18pm · Edited · Like · 1
Advaita Das Does everything Rupa Kaviraja says have to be wrong just because it is Rupa Kaviraja?
December 8 at 9:20pm · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās not necessarily. However, if he says something which doesn't suit our pūrvācāryas, we do have the liberty to say "this is not in my sampradāya".
December 8 at 9:39pm · Like · 1
Advaita Das Of course but the Manah Siksa quote fits our concept of bhavollasa perfectly.
December 8 at 9:41pm · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Does Rupa Kaviraj mention bhavollasa in any of his works? That would be an earlier citation for Prem Prayojan to consider.
December 8 at 9:42pm · Like
Advaita Das Jagat, Hari Parsada just quoted that - śrī-rūpa-mañjaryādyāḥ sadā bhāvollāsānvayāḥ. mad-īśā-nāthatve vraja-vipina-candraṁ vraja-vaneśvarīṁ
December 8 at 9:43pm · Like
Jagadananda Das Sorry, I am reading too quickly.
December 8 at 9:44pm · Like
Jagadananda Das Sorry, yes. So Rupa Kaviraj, who is mid-17th century has identified bhavollasa as Rupa's mood. So if Haridas Das later follows, then he has not invented it. Rupa Kaviraj is also contemporary to Rajvallabh Goswami, nota bene.
December 8 at 10:57pm · Edited · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās yes, and somehow in the published book as well as in the Gaudiya Grantha Mandira transcription, the term 'śrī-rūpa-mañjaryāyāḥ' is found. I did not find this term grammatically suitable, so i have changed it to 'śrī-rūpa-mañjaryādyāḥ'.
December 8 at 9:54pm · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das And I would say that Haridas Das is a fairly responsible commentator.
December 8 at 9:54pm · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Thanks for that observation, Hari. I agree.
December 8 at 10:02pm · Edited · Like
Jagadananda Das Just looking at Rupa Kaviraj. Two quick observations.
First, since I probably cut and paste the verse (2.5.128) the mistakes that were pointed out above by PP and myself are both present and need to be corrected. Once again, my mistakes were unwittingly perpetuated and I am most sorry for that. The samona for samano is probably the more significant of the two errors, but neither are forgivable. So I hope that this error will be corrected throughout wherever this verse appears.
Second, Haridas Shastri produced the edition of Raganuga-vivritti in the early 50's, and he was most certainly privy to Haridas Das's work and discoveries, as this was the period of ferment when Puridas gathered the best of the Vaishnava scholarly community together to work on the immortal Gaudiya Gaurava Grantha Gutika series. I believe that Kusum Sarovarwala Krishnadas was the publisher, so maybe Rupa Kaviraj was considered too controversial to be included in that series.
Since the timeline appears to be fairly close, I am fairly sure that HDD was party to the discovery of the Vivritti (though I cannot say for absolute certain). Which would make it likely that this discovery of the use of bhavollasa in this text contributed to his interpretation as noted by PP above.
December 8 at 10:40pm · Edited · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Also, that vritti to the verse also appears loaded with errors. Maybe I should talk to Premdas Shastri about it.
December 8 at 10:42pm · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās Rāgānugā-vivṛti was published in Samvat 2026 (~ 1970 A.D.)
December 8 at 10:47pm · Like
Jagadananda Das Hm. I remembered it being earlier. OK. My failing memory. I don't know whether that affects my speculations though. Obviously this was an early text I transcribed and I did not put the source publication details, as I started to do later. Of course it was probably on the introductory page on GGM.
December 8 at 10:58pm · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das "... anyone who still insists that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava is directly contradicting the clear statements of the prominent acaryas. "
So, my beloved Gurudeva and my beloved Param Gurudeva are directly contradicting the prominent acaryas?
" Some suggest that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava because it comes at the end of the chapter of Sri Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu describing the
sthayi-bhava. This argument is weak because Srila Jiva Gosvami goes out of his way to tell us that this verse is
only tagged on to the end of this chapter because that is when Srila Rupa Gosvami remembered about it."
This argument is WEAK, but this is STRONG:
" You have to appreciate that itis not so easy to cut and paste paragraphs when you are scratching the verses onto a palm-leaf with an iron pen."
Ok....
" This statement (about bhavollasa) has been written here because Srila Rupa Gosvami remembered it at this point. Yet it should be included at the end of the topic of sancari-bhavas since it belongs to that topic.”
NOT if it is in the category of "madhurya-rasa", where the love is solely directed to Srimati Radhika.
" evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā... In this way, in madhura rasa however..."
Do you HONESTLY believe Sripad Rupa Goswami "forgot" something? Are you sure that there was no space left on the last palm leaf for the chapter "sancari bhava"?
Dear Prem Prayojan, I much rather believe what my beloved Gurudeva teaches, who has LIVED and studied the granthas of the Goswamis for his whole life, deeply absorbed in bhajan at Sri Radhakunda.
Yesterday at 8:01am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das My Param Gurudeva, Sri Srimat Kunjabihari das Babaji writes in his "Manjari Svarupa Nirupana":
3.5 Why has bhavollasa-rati earned the name of a separate sthayi-bhava rather than being known as a sancari-bhava?
In the commentary on the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu verse that defines bhavollasa, it is said that this particular devotional mood was added by Rupa Gosvamin as an afterthought and should actually be thought of as belonging to the sancari-bhavas.
The affection of the dearest girlfriends of Srimati Radharani such as Lalita is also included in the sancaris for madhura-rati. There are thrity-three of these sancaris described in the appropriate section of the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu; of these, all but two (augrya “nastiness” and alasya “laziness”) are considered to be suitable to the erotic mood of sacred rapture. Along with these thirty-one sancaris comes this additional feeling: “Love for friends of a similar temperament of feeling for Krishna are also known as sancaris.”
Along with friends are messengers and any other objects or persons that serve as go-betweens for the lover and beloved, including also Krishna’s male friends.
An example of Radha’s affection for a friend is given in Ujjvala-nilamani:
One day on Govardhana hill, Sri Rupa Manjari observed Radharani displaying extreme affection to Lalita during the course of her dalliances with Krishna. She said to one of Lalita’s friends in praise of her great fortune: “O friend, just see how Radharani is cleaning the perspiration and rearranging the hair from Lalita’s face even though she is simultaneously sporting with Krishna.”
The idea is that Radha’s strong show of affection to Lalita by wiping the perspiration arising in the course of their activities with the Lord does not take precedence over her feelings to Krishna, but serves to feed the fire of that love even more. Therefore, it is not a sthayi-bhava or dominant mood, but a sancari or transitory feeling.
On the other hand, in his Tika to the above verse, Srila Visvanatha Cakravartipada cites Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 2.5.128 and concludes that bhavollasa, the feelings that Mani Manjari and the other nitya- sakhis have for Radharani, feelings that are stronger than those they harbour for Krishna, are of a different type.
Because the predominating feelings or sthayi-bhavas have been defined as exclusively those which deal directly with Krishna, the Supreme Lord and one object of all the different types of devotion, it can hardly be called a sthayi-bhava as its predominant object is Srimati Radharani.
But as these feelings are not temporary, fleeting moods, they cannot be called sancari-bhavas either.
In view of this paradox, Rupa Gosvamin has explained Radha’s feelings toward the sakhis as a new sancari-bhava and the feelings of the manjaris to Radha as a new type of sthayi-bhava as a subdivision of madhura-rati.
(Here my Param Gurudeva EXACTLY follows what Srila Rupa Goswami wrote and what Srila Jiva Goswami explained - evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā. ..)
Sri Sri Radha and Krishna,
In either birth or death, my only goal,
Lord and lady of my life and soul.
Here the word prana-pati (“lord of my life”) is generally used to refer to one’s lover, but in the above line by Narottam Das, it is referring to the conjugal unit of both Radha and Krishna.
It is definitely something novel and has no precedent in Vaishnava theology.
Such an attitude cannot function other than towards Radha. The greatest of the tasters of sacred rapture, Srila Rupa Gosvamin has thus made another lasting contribution to the science of sacred rapture by coining the term bhavollasa.
Yesterday at 7:28am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das Manjari-bhava
Sri Rupa Manjari, Sri Rati Manjari, Sri Lavanga Manjari etc are adhik-snehadhika or Radha- snehadhika. They love Srimati Radharani more. We call them ‘manjaris’. In all situations they relish immeasurable and inexpressible ever-new pleasure of seva. Although they do not expect any pleasure – all they desire is seva – yet it is the nature of manjari-bhava and Sri Sri Radha- Krishna’s very confidential seva that they feel happy on their own. Their bhava is so immense that even when they are close to Sri Krishna Who is Madan-Mohan; they retain their individual freedom and yet submerge Him
in the ocean of joy simply by doing seva. Their rati is the only one of its kind; it reaches the height of wonder and becomes ‘bhavollasa rati’.
“When the rati of sakhis (for Srimati Radharani) such as Lalita is equal or less than the passion for Sri Krishna, then we call their rati for Srimati Radharani as the ‘passing rati’, and that rati also nourishes their passion for Sri Krishna. However when the rati for Srimati Radharani is more than the passion for Sri Krishna, and keeps on increasing due to constant absorption in that rati, we call that passion as ‘bhavollasa’.”
– (B.R.S.)
This bhavollasa-rati is the permanent bhava of the manjaris such as Sri Rupamanjari. When we determinedly follow in the footsteps of the manjaris in this bhava and perform seva then our bhava is called ‘manjari-bhava’.
This manjari-bhava alone is the ‘hitherto unoffered’ gift of compassionate Sriman-Mahaprabhu; Sri Rupa and
Sanatana have practiced and preached this bhava only.
Srila Narottama das Thakur Mahashaya has written in his Prema-Bhakti-Chandrika –
“Do not follow the sakhis who are in the mood of sama-sneha and vishama-sneha; I shall discuss only the adhik-sneha sakhis. They remain constantly with Srimati Radharani and indulge in charming talks about Sri Krishna – they are the narma-sakhis. Sri
Rupa-manjari is their leader while Sri Rati Manjari, Lavanga Manjari,
Manjulali, Sri Rasa Manjari and Kasturika are the chief manjaris.
They serve with love, joy and enthusiasm. I shall follow them and ask them to engage me in the loving service of the Divine Couple.
I shall understand what seva I should do by a mere hint from them.
Bouncing with beauty and talents I shall follow them with deep love and stay amidst the sakhis. When the Divine Couple will sit surrounded by the sakhis, I will serve them at the right time. When the sakhi gestures I will fan Them with the fly-whisk and offer betel-leaf at Their sweet lips.
I will meditate constantly on the lotus feet of the divine Couple with deep love. Whatever I meditate upon during my sadhana I shall get in my siddha-deha – this is the only process in the path of eternal love.”– (P.B.C.)
A raganuga devotee should take the shelter of the
eternal associates such as Sri Rupa Manjari and surrender unto them; in this manner we should worship in manjari-bhava (given to
us by our Spiritual Master). We should be more enthusiastic about
serving Srimati Radharani than serving Sri Krishna and think of
ourselves as Srimati Radharani’s very near and dear person. We may ask – ‘All the scriptures proclaim Sri Krishna-prema as the topmost achievable goal, then why should we love Srimati Radharani more than SriKrishna?” The reply is that – Sri Krishna is controlled by Srimati Radharani. When we love Her, we will attain Sri Krishna-prema much more and this will happen automatically.
Srila Rupa Goswamipad has written –
“vayam-idam-anubhuya shikshayama, kuru chature ! saha radhayaiva sakhyam, priya-sahachari ! yatra vadhamantar-bhavati hari-pranaya-pramoda-lakshmih.”
- (U.N.)
Srila Vishwanath Chakravartipad has explained this verse as follows in his Ananda-Chandrika purport –
Sri Mani Manjari instructed a new manjari –“My dear clever girl, I am telling you from my own experience, it is better you make friends with Srimati Radha. You may ask – why should I form a
loving relation with Srimati Radha? Rather, is it not better to
establish a loving relation with Sri Krishna? No, it is not. I’ll tell
you why – please listen carefully. No doubt it is highly pleasurable to
get Sri Hari’s love; but if you love Srimati Radharani deeply then that
precious pleasure will present itself to you on its own. This is because love for Sri Krishna is included within your love for Srimati Radha. Hence if you make friends with Her – it is needless to say that – a loving relation with Sri Krishna will form naturally.
When you become Srimati Radharani’s firm sakhi, then
Sri Krishna will consider you as His beloved’s dear friend and so He will love you all the more. He will not love you so much if you make friends with Him directly, however He will love you more if you love Her. So I am telling you if you can prove your love for Srimati
Radharani then Sri Krishna will love you even if you do not try for it.
Sri Krishna is happier when our love for Srimati Radharani is more than our love for Him. Also when Srimati Radharani does man or if
the elders shut Her up in the house, then Sri Krishna will need you
desperately to help Him meet Her. Then He will, on His own, run behind you to make friends with you. You see, you don’t have to work hard to make friends with Him.”
to be continued
Yesterday at 7:44am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das Especially if we wish to relish the sweet rasa of Sri Krishna then worshiping the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani becomes
inevitable. Srila Raghunath das Goswamipad has written –
“The one who has not worshiped the dust of Srimati
Radharani’s lotus feet, has not taken shelter of Sri Vrindavana that is decorated with Her footprints, has not conversed with the great devotees who are deeply immersed in Srimati Radharani’s servitude, how will such a person ever relish the most mysterious fathomless ocean of rasa that is Sri Krishna?” – (Stavavali)
This is the sole reason why Sripad Raghunatha das Goswamicharan has rejected the position of Srimati Radharani’s sakhi and has begged Her to exclusively make him Her maidservant –
“O Devi Radhike, to become a servant of Your lotus feet
is the highest position; leaving this I do not desire anything else
(such as the position of Your sakhi). I pay obeisance to Your sakhi-hood eternally, however please let me always remain rooted in the position of Your maidservant – this is my pledge.” – (V.K.)
Srimati Radharani’s servitude is not a mean thing – it
is the highest position or the most blessed status. Srimati Radharani’s maidservant is a servant in spite of being a sakhi. She has the right to the entire sweet rasa. First she relishes sweet rasa and then she performs seva. Therefore Srimati Radharani’s servitude is overflowing with rasa.
Sometimes, by Srimati Radharani’s wish sakhis such
as Lalita do unite with Sri Krishna, yet the manjaris never have a
conjugal relation with Him. They are so much averse to it that even if
Sri Krishna begs them for it and even if their group leader orders them to do so – the manjaris never ever have the slightest wish to
make love to Sri Krishna in spite of such an activity being extremely
joyous.
Sri Vrindavana-Mahimamritam says –
“The manjari is exclusively immersed in relishing the rasa of
serving the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani, and she never accepts
love-dalliance with Sri Krishna even in her dreams (definitely not when awake). When Sri Krishna forcibly tears her bodice and makes an advance towards her, then the manjari tearfully protests and laments – and beholding this scene – Srimati Radharani, the Beloved of my life laughs.’
Even sakhis such as Lalita do not get the pleasure of serving the Divine couple in a manner that the manjaris can serve. We are fortunate to get such seva when we are completely surrender at Srimati Radharani’s lotus feet.
“I seek the refuge of Srimati Radharani’s maidservants
headed by Sri Rupa Manjari – who can move freely and unhesitatingly in the sports ground of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna’s love-making – that even the pran-preshtha sakhis such as Lalita cannot – and they constantly please Srimati Radharani, Who is the controller of Sri Vrindavana, with their sweet seva, such as offering tambul, massaging feet, offering water and helping in abhisar.”
– (Vraja-Vilasa-Stava)
We, the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who wish to become Srimati Radharani’s maidservants, pray from the bottom of our hearts –
“When will I get the association of my sakhi and
sew flower-garlands for both of Them? O when will I stand in front of
them fanning Them with the fly-whisk? And anoint Them with aguru and chandan? When, on the command of the sakhi, will I offer tambul? And adorn Their foreheads with sindur and tilak?
When will I behold their charming and loving pastimes with my eyes? And gaze at Their moon like faces after seating Them on the throne? I wish to relish that sweetness with all my heart – when will Narottama das get
such mercy?”
– (Prarthana)
- Srila Ananta das Babaji (Raganuga-tattva-vijnana)
Yesterday at 7:46am · Like
Tarun Govinda Das These devotees of Krishna who share a common genus of love for the Lord naturally feel a mutual empathy and think of each other as friends. The best of the devotees in each of the four categories of loving relationship, such as Raktaka and Patraka amongst Krishna’s servants at Nanda Grama, Subala and Sridhaman amongst the friends, Krishna’s parentsNanda and Yasoda, and Srimati Radharani and Candravali amongst his
mistresses, are usually loved by their friends to a degree slightly less than their level of feeling that friend has for Krishna himself. On
occasion it may equal, but certainly not exceed it. In such cases, the
sthayi bhava or dominating mood is the love the devotee has for Krishna,and the feeling of friendship for the more advanced or superior devotee is a subordinate feeling or sancari-bhava—a wave in the ocean of that love.
Yet we see that in the case of madhura-rasa there is a unique
situation in which some of the friends of Radharani feel more affection for her than they do for even Krishna and this affection is always increasing due to the intense desire they have to please her. This feeling is a special type of sthayi-bhava known as bhavollasa rati.Other than Srimati Radharani in the madhura-rasa, such a thing is unheard of in relation to any devotee of any other rasa. Nowhere has it been said anywhere that a devotee is hundreds of times greater than even Krishna, except in the case of Radha. Krishna says in the Caitanya-caritamrita:
“The three worlds have me alone as the source of their pleasure—who is there who will give pleasure to me? That person who is hundreds of times more qualified myself is the one who will be able to gladden my mind; yet how is it possible that anyone in the universe can be more qualified than I?
I can only see such virtues in Radha. The whole world becomes happy at seeing the beauty of my form, yet my eyes become fulfilled only by seeing her. The sound of my flute fills the whole world with bliss, yet my ears are stolen away by the sound of her voice. The entire universe is fragrant due to my bodily odour, yet her fragrance steals my life and soul. The world is filled with flavour due my rasa, yet the taste of her lips completely overthrows me. Even though the touch of my body is cooling to all, I myself can become cooled only by touching her. In these ways am I the source of the world’s joy, yet the form and qualities of Radharani are my life and soul."
It is for this reason that only in madhura-rasa is it possible for
the manjaris to feel even more strongly about Radharani than they do
about Krishna. In no other circumstance could it possible for someone to
feel an affection of comparable strength for any other devotee;
bhavollasa rati is only possible in the case of Srimati Radharani
Devotees relish the nectar of Krishna’s sweetness according to their own particular dominant mood of love. The cause of relishing is thirst (trishna) and thus, according to the genus and degree of thirst or desire, it is possible to guage the relative values of the tasting of sacred rapture. The manjaris are very clever; they think that their degree of desire to serve the Lord is very little and that therefore it is best not to try to enjoy Krishna directly; they choose rather to remain constantly absorbed in the mood of Srimati Radharani, the embodiment of the ocean of desire for Krishna’s service, the epitome of the highest devotional affection of maha-bhava in its ultimate, maddening stage known as madana. They thus show more devotion to her than to him, convinced that by so doing they will be able, not just to attain a higher level of pleasure themselves, but will also be able to please him more.
Previously it was stated that madhura-rasa is only possible if the lover and beloved share a mutual desire for romantic love.
From this a question about the specific mood of the manjaris arises. One who is devoid of such erotic desire for Krishna may feel servitude, friendship or even parental affection for Radharani, but there is no possiblity of madhura- rasa. The relationship between two women of the type under discussion cannot be called romantic love. The dominant affection of the manjaris is toward the Divine Couple in a romantic way; they are attached to and absorbed in them as a unit. Thus, Caitanya Mahaprabhu was indicating this spirit of the manjaris when he asked Ramananda Raya to
“to hear of the loving dalliance of Radha and Krishna” after having
heard from him “the truths of the love that exists between them.
- Srila Kunjabihari das Babaji (Manjari Svarupa Nirupana)
Yesterday at 7:58am · Like
Prem Prayojan Yes Tarun Govinda Prabhuji. I think everyone here has already read Manjari Svarupa Nirupana in the original language so it's hardly necessary to post the whole book in this thread in installments.
Yesterday at 8:21am · Like
Prem Prayojan Srila Rupa Gosvami has defined the sthayi-bhava as krsna-visaya-rati consistently throughout the entire corpus of his works without exception. Srila Jiva Gosvami has also followed suit, along with Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura. The point is that rati is the essence of samvit and hladini. Hladini is Sri Krsna's pleasure potency, so its service is to give pleasure to Sri Krsna. The pleasure of the devotee is incidental. Since the sthayi-bhava is a manifestation of the hladini potency that has Krsna as its sole visaya, it is ontologically impossible for it to have another visaya. I am ready to be persuaded otherwise if, rather than 100's of words everyone is already familiar with, someone could just provide one quote from Sri Rupa to the contrary. (Rupa Gosvami that is, not Rupa Kaviraja.)
Yesterday at 8:54am · Edited · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan From the discussion you may have noticed that it has emerged that the earliest reference to bhavollasa being a sthayi-bhava to Radhika is actually from Rupa Kaviraja, whom Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura vehemently opposed. There was a huge legal case over the heresy of Rupa Kaviraja. Finally in 1727, Jaisingh II, the king of Jaipura (Amer) confiscated all his ashrams, property, and land and criminalized his followers. Ironically, in more recent times, the attempt has been made to pass off the philosophy of Rupa Kaviraja without mentioning his name, while invoking the authority of his nemesis, Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura.
Yesterday at 8:58am · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan I have already demonstrated earlier in this thread that the translations of the bhavollasa verse presented by Tarun Govinda Prabhu to date are grammatically incorrect, with a completely reversed interpretation of the subject/object and active/passive sense of adhika pusyamana cet. I humbly request the vaisnava sanskrit scholars in this community to confirm or deny the veracity of my claim. The purpose of this forum is to engage in a dispassionate and accurate analysis of what our acaryas have actually written, not to sling the mud of uninformed opinion. Thank you.
Yesterday at 9:13am · Edited · Like · 2
Tarun Govinda Das [Bhāva-ullāsa rati – an excerpt from Veṇu-gīta, Verse 7, purport by Śrīla Bhaƙtivedānta Nārāyaṇa Gosvāmī Mahārāja:]
Generally, devotees of the same mood and who are enriched with similar desires naturally share suhṛd-bhāva, intimate friendship, with each other. That is why the love and affection that Lalitā and the other sakhīs have for Śrīmatī Rādhikā is called suhṛd-rati. When their suhṛd-rati is the same as or slightly less than their kṛsna-rati (affection towards Śrī Ƙṛsṇa), this is called sancārī-bhāva, a temporary emotion that is compared to the waves that rise and then fall in the ocean of their permanent emotion of the mood of Ƙṛnṇa´s beloved.
In other words when this suhṛd-rati becomes equal to the waves in the ocean of their prominent affection for Ƙṛsṇa, it is a sancārī-bhāva.
However, in the case of the manjarī-sakhīs, their suhṛd-rati (for Śrī Rādhā and everything connected with Her), which abundantly exceeds their kṛsṇa-rati and which constantly increases by the moment due to their full absorption in it, is called bhāva-ullāsa-rati.
This is a special feature of madhura- rasa. Of the five types of sakhīs, only the nitya-sakhīs and prāṇa- sakhīs, who are known as manjarīs, have this bhāva-ullāsa-rati as their permanent emotion (sthāyi-rati).
It is no longer just a sancārī-bhāva.
These manjarīs nurture an abundance of sneha, tender affection, for Rādhājī.
It is seen that creepers are always endeavoring to embrace trees, but the leaves, flowers, and buds (manjarīs) of the creepers do not even slightly try to embrace the trees directly. When a creeper embraces a tree, the joy of those flowers, leaves, and manjarīs automatically increases. In Śrī Vṛndāvana, Śrīmatī Rādhikā stands supreme among all gopīs. She is famous as the kalpa-latā (the creeper that fulfills every desire) of love for Śrī Ƙṛsṇa. Some of Her sakhīs have the nature of leaves, some are like flowers, and some like manjarīs. That is why they are always eager for Śrīmatī Rādhikā to meet with Ƙṛsṇa, and are carried away by the bliss of Their union.
Yesterday at 10:00am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das Now, of course Prem Prayojan will say that this is "not correctly translated"...wrong edition....wrong this/wrong that...
VERSE 7 - purport
www.purebhakti.com/.../english/43-venu-gita/file.html
And by golly, I wonder how my Gurudeva could reach such a high stage of bhakti by following "bhavollasa rati" completely in the wrong way...
Yesterday at 10:01am · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das "slinging the mud of uninformed opinion"...
Jay Sri Radhe.
Yesterday at 10:07am · Like
Prem Prayojan It will be helpful if we can grasp the concept of examining the original texts and responding to the grammatical and historical questions being raised. Perhaps that is too much to ask for on Facebook.
Yesterday at 10:16am · Like · 2
Tarun Govinda Das I rather follow YOUR Gurudeva.
Yesterday at 10:18am · Like
Tarun Govinda Das Isn't anugatya more important than examining historical and grammatical questions?
I always thought so...
Yesterday at 10:21am · Like
Kalki Enrique Farje "When contradictory statements are made, one has to determine which one follows the siddhanta of the founding acaryas—our bhakti sastra gurus who composed our lineage's core texts— and which one does not. The one that does is then embraced as the siddhanta. The other one was spoken/written with something else in mind, something provisional or perhaps something not fully developed with all of its implications played out such that it is shown not to contradict the siddhanta." (commentary of Tripurari Swami on a different subject that can be applied to this case).
What I see is that PremPrayojan Pabhu is inviting to have a discussion based on historical evidence and not an emotional debate. Sarcasm does not allow proper discussion, neither feeling emotionally affected if historical statements or references are different from what our Gurudev taught us.
Yesterday at 10:34am · Unlike · 3
Advaita Das In this way you can talk your way out of anything............
Yesterday at 11:26am · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Quite honestly, I wasn't sarcastic at all and I don't think that Srila Narayana Maharaja taught "something different".
Yesterday at 1:03pm · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu, here is how I translated it:
sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā ratyāḥ samā syād ūnā vā syāt tadā kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā rateḥ sañcaryākhya eva bhāvaḥ syāt (if that attraction is on the same scale as the attraction to Krishna or is on an inferior scale then it is known as sañcārī-bhāva)
tan-mūlatvāt tat-poṣaṇāc ca (because sañcārī-bhāva arises from the sthāyī-bhāva and nourishes it)
evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā , tatrāpi puṣyamāṇā santatābhiniveśena saṁvardhyamānā syāt tadā sañcāritve’pi viśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate iti (In this way, in madhura rasa however if that attraction "SOMETIMES" is greater in scale even than the attraction to Krishna and yet it nourishes the attraction to Krishna by investing one's consciousness in Him, then even though it is sāñcārī-bhāva yet due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva) (End of Translation)
The only improvement I see in this translation is that i should have highlighted the word 'santata' in my translation. However, i thought that writing the present perfect progressive tense in the word "investing" would be sufficient.
23 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das I gave Hari Parsada Das credit in my blog, because I used his translation.
This is what I used:
____
Let us EXAMINE what Srila Jiva Goswami writes:
sañcārī syād ity asyāyam arthaḥ -
The meaning of the verse ‘sañcārī syād’ is as follows
suhṛdāṁ nijābhīṣṭa-rasāśraye bhakta-viśeṣe śrī-rādhikādau viṣaye sajātīya-bhāva-bhaktānāṁ -
In relation to the special devotees of one’s desired mood viz. Sri Radhika etc. who are close to oneself and are belonging to the same mood
parasparaṁ ratyā viṣayāśraya-rūpāṇāṁ lalitādīnāṁ sakhī-mukhyānām ekatarāśrayā yā ratiḥ -
The attraction in the form of viṣaya and āśraya caused due to exclusive mutual affection towards main sakhīs like lalitā etc…
sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā ratyāḥ samā syād ūnā vā syāt tadā kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā rateḥ sañcaryākhya eva bhāvaḥ syāt -
If that attraction is on the same scale as the attraction to Krishna or is on an inferior scale then it is known as sañcārī-bhāva
tan-mūlatvāt tat-poṣaṇāc ca -
Because sañcārī-bhāva arises from the sthāyī-bhāva and nourishes it
THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā , tatrāpi puṣyamāṇā santatābhiniveśena saṁvardhyamānā syāt tadā sañcāritve’pi viśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate iti -
In this way, in madhura rasa however, if that attraction “SOMETIMES” is greater in scale even than the attraction to Krishna and yet it nourishes the attraction to Krishna by investing one’s consciousness in Him, then even though it is sāñcārī-bhāva yet due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva
tad idaṁ tv atrānusmṛtya likhitam api sañcāriṇām ante yojanīyam, tatraiva sajātīyatvāt -
This statement regarding bhāvollāsa although mentioned here by the author Sri Rūpa Goswami should actually be written at the end of the section named sañcārī-bhāva, for it belongs to that category
____
It was from another post here in this group.
23 hrs · Edited · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās According to what I have read, there are a few basic ground rules to the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ:
1) sthāyī-bhāva is only for Krishna. This is specified in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ (2.1.5) — eṣā kṛṣṇa-ratiḥ sthāyī-bhāvo bhakti-raso bhavet
So if someone develops a sthāyī-bhāva in someone other than Krishna, then you will have to define another deity which is "akhila-rasāmṛta-mūrtiḥ". From what I can see, you will have to create your own definitions, and maybe nothing short of creating your own bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ
2) According to Sri Jiva Goswami, bhāvollāsa does have some trace of being sañcārī. He says clearly in the purport to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ (2.5.128) — tadā sañcāritve’pi viśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate
Translation: (When such attraction is greater for someone else besides Krishna), then such a bhāva EVEN THOUGH having sañcārī-ness, is regarded as bhāvollāsa due to its speciality.
PLEASE NOTE: The tern 'sañcāritve' is nimitta-saptamī (cause based locative).
A question here is that if bhāvollāsa has sañcārī-ness, is it a sañcārī-bhāva? If yes, why is it not listed in the list of 33 sañcārī-bhāvas given in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ 2.4.4 - 6??
The answer is given by Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakura in his commentary on Ujjvala-nīlamaṇī (13.104). He says there in crystal clear words — na tasyāḥ sañcāritvaṁ nāpi tasyāḥ sthāyitvam iti bhāvaḥ — "Bhāvollāsa is neither completely belonging to sañcārī nor completely belonging to sthāyī"
At the same time, we should know that bhāvollāsa is MORE sañcārī than sthāyī. Why do i say so? Because Sri Jiva Goswami says in his purport to Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ (2.5.128) that — tatraiva sajātiyatvāt — (Due to bhāvollāsa being sajātīya to sañcārī-bhāva). So its not 50% sañcārī and 50% sthāyī. The exact formula maybe only Krishna knows.
22 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās So when Sri Rupa Kaviraja says — "atra bhāvollāsaḥ sthāyī-viśeṣaḥ" (In the case of the mañjarīs, bhāvollāsa is a special sthāyī-bhāva), it directly goes against what Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti says in his commentary to Ujjvala-nīlamaṇī (13.104) —
na tasyāḥ sañcāritvaṁ nāpi tasyāḥ sthāyitvam iti bhāvaḥ — "Bhāvollāsa is neither completely belonging to sañcārī nor completely belonging to sthāyī"
22 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Dear Hari Pārṣada Dās Prabhu, pranamas and thank you for you sober contribution. I feel that the key to understanding this verse is the interpretation of pusyamana. You have translated : "if that attraction "SOMETIMES" is greater in scale even than the attraction to Krishna and yet it nourishes the attraction to Krishna." The point I have repeatedly tried to make, without success so far, is that pusyamana does not mean suhrd-rati nourishes krsna-rati, as everyone including your good self have translated, but rather, krsna-rati nourishes suhrd-rati. Perhaps it is more clear in VCT expanation of the verse in his tika to UN 13.104 |
suhåd-rateù çré-kåñëa-rati-mülakatvät tat-poñaëäc ceti bhävaù | yadi kvacit çré-kåñëa-rateù sakäçäd apy adhikä syät tayä puñyamäëä ca syät tadä bhävolläsa itéryate
16 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan taya pusyamana ca syat - suhrd-rati is nourished by that (krsna-rati). So this is the special quality that makes this type of sancari-bhava unique. Another fascinating point to note is that VCT gives two reasons why suhrd-rati is a sancari-bhava. 1) mulakatvat - it has as its foundation krsna-rati and 2) it nourishes (posana) krsna-rati. Now, under special circumstances, when suhrd-rati becomes more and it is nourished (pusya) by (taya) krsna-rati (rather than nourishing (posana) krsna-rati) it is called bhavollasa. So we see the difference between an ordinary sancari-bhava and this special sacari-bhava is simply the switch in direction of the act of nourishing. The essential thing to note is that even though VCT says that point 2) the direction of nourishment is reversed, he does not say that point 1) mulakatvat is reversed. In other words, in bhavollasa the suhrd-rati remains sri-krsna-rati-mulakatvat "based on krsna-rati". And that is why it can never be a sthayi-bhava. And fortunately, as you have pointed out, we do not have to rewrite the entire Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu.
16 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan As far as calculating the percentages of sancari-ness and sthayi-ness is concerned, I suggest we compare two statements of VCT on this same subject from different places. First BRS tadä saïcäritve’pi sarva-bhäväpekñayä paramotkarñät bhävolläsäkhyo bhäva éryate iti - Here VCT says directly bhavollasa is a sancari bhava. Then in UN he says na tasyäù saïcäritvaà näpi tasyäù sthäyitvam iti bhävaù - He cannot contradict himself. Here he says "iti bhavah" the mood or the sense of the verse is that this bhavollasa "tasyah sancaritvam" - "is not possessed of the (precise) qualities of a sancari-bhava. Note that in the first example bhavollasa is directly called a sancari-bhava, and in the second tasyah (genitive) is used to denote "not possessed of all the qualities required to fulfill the general definition." The extra quality simply being the reversal of the direction of the act of nourishing.
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Thank you very much PP. You are quite correct, it is the suhrid-rati which is nourished by the krishna-rati. Which is what makes it special. Therefore it is an ullasa in the madhura-sthayi-bhava. It is neither a sanchari nor a sthayi per se, but a special situation within madhura-bhava.
Therefore it is unusual and, as Kunjabihari Dasji says, really only possible in relation to Radha, because where else does such a possibility arise? I.e., of krishna-rati nourishing suhrid-rati rather than the other way around?
So we must conclude and confirm that this verse is indeed meant to show that the Radha-snehadhika manjaris have a special sthayi, in the sense that even though they have madhura-rati, it is of a type that is particular to them and cannot be considered exactly the same as that of a nayika, but at the same time it is neither dasya nor sakhya as described in the sections on those moods.
So now, what is the problem? Is it simply a tightening up of the translation that is necessary? Is there anything else that is problematic?
16 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das By which I meant that though it is technically not a sanchari or a sthayi, it is not altogether wrong to classify it as a sthayi, because in a sense, it is, as it is the fundamental attitude of the manjaris, not a sanchari in their love for Krishna.
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das And thank you Hari Pārṣada Dās. As usual, your research and insights are most appropriate and helpful.
15 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Isn't it also "more sthayi bhava" because the mood of the manjaris is permanent?
When Raghunatha das Goswami says that we love Krishna only because He is Radhika's dear most, isn't it clear that this is a permanent mood and will not change?
Will he say under some circumstances that he now loves Krishna more?
15 hrs · Like
Tarun Govinda Das "Therefore it is unusual and, as Kunjabihari Dasji says, really only possible in relation to Radha, because where else does such a possibility arise? I.e., of krishna-rati nourishing suhrid-rati rather than the other way around?"
Thank you, dear Jagadananda Das.
I posted the parts of MSN not to create boredom for those who are able to read the original version but for those who want to understand my Param Gurudeva's approach which is perfectly in line with the acaryas.
15 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das I would like to make one more observation, on the basis of HP's notes above and discussion of the problem of akhila-rasamrita -murti. Radha or any other suhrit would have to be that murti if the sthayi was directed to them. Nicely stated, and clearly this exactly is the _other_ problem that is being dealt with here. The Gaudiyas have always stressed that Krishna is the parama-tattva and Radha is the shakti, in essence subordinate to him. That is the way the Sandarbhas and the Rasamrita are structured. Krishna is the "known", Radha is the "unknown."
So in a sense, the Goswamis are bound by their ontology to phrase things in this way.
If we adjust the ontology on the basis of the findings of the Goswamis and readjust our ishta or the Parama Tattva to include Radha, so that shakti and shaktiman are one entity, then the Manjaris are indeed in a class of their own. And then to call bhavollasa a sthayi is quite correct.
15 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan I have outlined above grammatically why it is not correct to say that it is technically not one or the other by reconciling VCT's two apparently contradictory statements. Perhaps you missed it Jagatji. Your comments on that particular comment would be appreciated.
15 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das I am sorry, I will have to go back. It appears that I skipped a few. Later then.
15 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das But off the top of my head, it seems to me that I have answered that. A special name has been given because technically it cannot be called either, _in the context_ of our Krishna centered ontology.
But in a Radha-Krishna centered ontology, we can accept it as a sthayi and not as a sanchari.
The supporting point of history here is this: the Goswamis were dealing with a scriptural tradition that placed a male God in the center. Their contribution, or their goal, was to shift that emphasis away from the patriarchal masculine image of the Deity as enjoyer or vishaya, and reimagine the Deity as the Dual form of the Yugal.
The Gaudiya sampradaya tends to get a little stuck in the preliminaries of argumentation because of this being on the cusp of a transformation or transition in the object of worship. This is the cause of the break, it may be said, with the Radha-vallabhis or other Vrindavan rasikas.
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Jagatji has hit the nail on the head with his comment about readjusting the Parama Tattva to include Radhika. If Srila Rupa Gosvami, as you say, has structured the whole Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu around the ontology of Sri Krsna being the Parama-tattva, why would he be so inconsistent as to write the bhavollasa verse in accordance with a different ontology?
15 hrs · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das Because he is in the process of changing it. You have to start from where you are. And in certain environments, it is best not to go too far all at once.
15 hrs · Like · 2
Tarun Govinda Das And this is why he put it in the section of STHAYI BHAVA...because it is something permanent but not directed to Krishna but to Radhika
15 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
Prem Prayojan If changing ontology was the intention of the Gaudiya acaryas then why would they break with the Radha-vallabhis?
15 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan I think that the Gaudiya siddhanta is that there are two perspectives -
15 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan In tattva Krsna is God --- in bhava Krsna is not God. He is the son of Nanda and Yasoda. Similarly, in tattva Krsna is the exclusive object of rati. Since the whole BRS is written from the point of view of tattva we cannot try to introduce a subjective "bhava" perspective into the text and say Srila Rupa Gosvami said...... As you mentioned, that is why the Gaudiyas broke with the Radha-vallabhis.
15 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan The word "kvacit" in the tikas means sometimes. Then are we to assume that suhrd-rati is "sometimes" a sancari-bhava and "sometimes" a sthayi-bhava?
15 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das To just add a footnote to my last comment. The Gaudiya acharyas first had to establish Krishna (over Narayan, etc.) as the Parama-tattva. Only from that basis could Radha's place be established.
15 hrs · Like
Uttamasloka Dasa Dandavats and much gratitude to everyone for an enlightening and beneficial discussion and elucidation of these esoteric details.
15 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan I'm not sure I can subscribe to the idea that the Gosvamis have a plan to introduce different tattvas in incremental steps. The point of view of tattva belongs to the sadhaka-rupa and the point of bhava to the siddha-rupa. And that really is the problem between VCT and Rupa Kaviraja. VCT, like Rupa Gosvami and Jiva Gosvami before him, always insisted on keeping the two perspectives separate, whereas Rupa Kaviraja tried to mix them. We all know where that leads.
14 hrs · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das Generally this is the argument given about Jiva Goswami and the parakiya bhava.
14 hrs · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu thanks for pointing it out that suhṛd-rati is nourished by kṛṣṇa-rati. I should have looked at Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi before doing the BRS translation.
Now, sthāyī-bhāva is like an "ocean" and sañcārī-bhāvas are the "occasional waves that rise and fall in the ocean but nourish the flow of the ocean".
In the case of bhāvollāsa, even though it has sañcārī-ness, it gets nourised by kṛṣṇa-rati (which is the sthāyī-bhāva). So what's is going on here is that in an exceptional situation, the sañcārī starts getting nourished by a sthāyī-bhāva. So now bhāvollāsa is the "ocean" and kṛṣṇa-rati are the "nourishing waves"?
This makes kṛṣṇa-rati an assistant to bhāvollāsa, and as I said, if this is allowed, then in this case the bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ will turn into a śākta-grantha and not a vaiṣṇava-grantha. This cannot be, and we must "in tattva" remain vaiṣṇavas. Not like the tāntrikas who say "internally a śākta and externally a vaiṣṇava".
Now in the case of the mañjarīs, there is considerable evidence to establish that they consider the service (dāsya) of Sri Radha to be the topmost goal of life. So does it mean that Krishna is no longer their rasāmṛta-mūrtiḥ and instead Sri Radha has taken that position?
I do not think so. The more we try to establish Sri Radha as the center, the more she will put Krishna in the center.
yadi āmā'-prati sneha thāke sabākāra
tabe kṛṣṇa-vyatirikta nā gāibe āra
If you have any affection for Me, then don't speak about any topics other than Kṛṣṇa. (Caitanya-bhāgavata Madhya 28.027)
Therefore, all our mantras, holy names etc. are "Krishna prominent", not "Radha prominent".
In the end, Sri Radha has to turn out to be the "best servant of Krishna" and not the other way. This is what we all want to see. This is what all the Goswamis want to see. They do not want to see Krishna winning in his service to Radha, because if that happens, it will be a great disservice to Sri Radha.
If bhāvollāsa permanently takes over kṛṣṇa-rati, then Sri Radha has taken over the position of "akhila-rasāmṛta-mūrtī" and then you are no longer a vaiṣṇava-sampradāya.
Therefore, although bhāvollāsa means more attraction to Sri Radha, it acts like a boomerang and produces even more attraction for Krishna. Therefore Sri Jiva Goswami says that bhāvollāsa is "MORE Sajātīya" to sañcārī-bhāva.
We love Sri Radha and we desire her "PERSONAL" service, but the more we try to render it, the more she redirects us to Krishna. Yes Krishna has won, he became the akhila-rasāmṛta-mūrtī and our aspiration to serve Sri Radha more than Krishna remains forever out of reach. No matter how hard we try, she keeps putting us back in Krishna's service. Thus, rādhā-dāsyam remains a goal which we eternally try to achieve.
14 hrs · Like · 6
Jagadananda Das Siddhanta and bhava are of course connected. How can they not be? According to your siddhanta your bhava will be different. What is shanta rasa, for example, but a different perception of the parama tattva. As a matter of fact, siddhanta is primarily based on bhava and not the other way around. ye yatha mam prapadyante. All the pramans are subject to bhava, or adhikara.
And the bhavollasa verse does indeed hinge on an ontology that is Krishna centered (krishna-ratyah suhrid-ratih). In a sense, this subordinates Radha, placing her on the level of any other parikara, which is technically correct, but not if we grant purna-shakti status to Radha.
That is why this verse is here, because it is saying that Radha's status, though we may call her a parikara (suhrit) since one's feeling for her can be greater than that felt for Krishna, her status is special.
So it opens the door to the Radha-Krishna ontology, which after all is NOT different, it is a difference in perception of the same thing. Krishna is not separate from his energies.
14 hrs · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das I don't understand your comment about Rupa Kaviraj "we know where that leads."
14 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das And I disagree that tattva belongs to sadhaka rupa and bhava to siddha rupa. First of all, I cannot recall having seen such a statement anywhere. But second of all, in BRS 2.1, Rupa is clear that the sadhaka is also an element in bhakti-rasa.
Bhava has to exist in the sadhaka to some degree, as does prema (as a gift of the internal potency, bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya, prema can only come out of prema, so it exists in the sadhaka by grace, though in atomic quantity).
This is why Ananta Dasji (and the commentaries to Bilvamangal Thakur's KK) always enter the lila through the bhava of the author, who is conceived of as a sadhaka. The reason Bilvamangal is so conceived is because of the trope that he is on pilgrimage to Vrindavan. For Prabodhananda or Raghunath Das, the mood (bhava) of the sadhaka is similarly clear.
One enters the siddha bhava through the bhava of the sadhaka ashrayalambana.
14 hrs · Edited · Like
Jagadananda Das And I may add, that because siddhanta follows bhava, we have so many arguments. Were we all rational beings for whom tarka and shastra were the most prominent impeti for action, then we would all be happily sharing the same bhava. But since the opposite is true, the arguments we construct follow a preconceived destination.
The exposure of such hidden agendas _in oneself_ is the result of a devotion to truth without which perfection in sadhana is impossible. We could call that bhava-pratyaksha.
14 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Hari Parsada Prabhu, in regard to your rhetorical question -So now bhāvollāsa is the "ocean" and kṛṣṇa-rati are the "nourishing waves"? - we can refer to VCT's point that krsna-rati increases suhrd-rati but still suhrd-rati remains krsna-rati-mulakatva. That is the point you have nicely framed as "BRS is not a sakta-grantha". Whatever happens, from the ontological point of view, krsna-rati remains the mula of everything.
14 hrs · Like · 3
Jagadananda Das In that ontology.
14 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Dear Prem Prayojan, we both know us for a long time.
I can't hold it in any more.
IMHO, the sole purpose of this thread here in this group is and was to discredit my Param Gurudeva, even to the point of saying there was "forgery" going on and even to the point of ignoring what your Gurudeva says in his tika to Venu Gita, verse 7.
You tried to discredit my lineage this year in Switzerland and you did the same thing to my godbrother Radhapad das last year in Alachua.
I have both recordings, video and audio.
Forgive me to mention this here, but to me, your intention here in this thread is clear.
And quite honestly, I don't want to be your friend anymore.
I respect you and I thank you for the wonderful things I learnt from you.
Jay Sri Radhe
14 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das You see, I will take the question one step further. If Krishna is a male, then he only represents maleness. The feminine is not give a place in the Supreme Truth, expressed as Krishna alone. Therefore we do not worship Krishna alone. By himself he is incomplete.
This is the whole point of our siddhanta, is it not? Krishna is not happy as vishaya, but desires to be ashraya. Why would he do that if he was complete in himself.
So in the case of Radha Krishna, we have gender mutuality. And that is a more effective description of the Param Tattva. The idea that we are not shaktas is only partially correct. We are Yugalopasakas.
14 hrs · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu yes, that's correct I asked a rhetorical question. kṛṣṇa-rati increases suhṛd-rati but in the case of Sri Radha this leads to further increase in kṛṣṇa-rati (because she keeps redirecting us back to him), so in a sense my translation is also correct when i say that suhṛd-rati nourishes kṛṣṇa-rati
14 hrs · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās Tarun Govinda prabhu I am completely unaware of what is going on between the vaiṣṇava groups here. Instead of discrediting each other, we should try to mutually help each other as we all are learning on our way.
kapilo yadi sarvajñaḥ
kaṇādo neti kā pramāḥ?
tāv ubhau yadi sarvajñau
mata-bhedaḥ kutas tayoḥ?
"If Kapila is correct and all-knowing, then does it mean that Kaṇāda is not intelligent at all? And if both of them are correct and all-knowing, why is there a difference of opinion between them both?"
14 hrs · Like · 2
Tarun Govinda Das Dear Hari Pārṣada Dās,
Yes. Thank you.
14 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Coming back to the topic. Raja-vallabha Gosvami has coined the phrase "bhavollasa-rati". Otherwise the combination of these two words occurs nowhere in any Gosvami grantha. I would be grateful if someone could find a reference. It could be interpreted to mean "the rati in which bhavollasa-bhava sometimes occurs" because a) Raja-vallabha does not call bhavollasa a sthayi-bhava, rather he calls it "sancari-anurupa" "following the form of a sancari" and b) he describes it arises when Radha-krsna meet c) he attributes it to all the sakhis and d) he describes it as a feature of suddha parakiya bhava in general. So bhavollasa as a sthayi-bhava cannot be attributed to him.
13 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das If it is a "rati" it is a "sthayi-bhava."
13 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Since Raja-vallabha Gosvami has bhavollasa occuring sometimes and the tikas of both Srila Jiva Gosvami and VCT also say "kvacit" "sometimes", would anyone like to suggest how bhavollasa is a permanent mood?
13 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Yes...thats the point Jagatji....no Gosvami calls it a rati. Only Raja-vallabha who says it occurs at certain times and all the sakhis have it.
13 hrs · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das I would like to know where you are going with this Prem Prayojan. It seems clear to me that this entire research is based on an agenda. What is it? You haven't made it clear here, but as Tarun points out, you have been aggressive in groups where representatives of Ananta Das are active.
You said something about innovations above. What is the innovation that troubles you here?
Is there something wrong with suhrid-rati towards Radha in principle? Is there a problem with this conception of Manjari Bhava? Is this a semantic problem, or are you going against the principle of Manjari Bhava itself?
13 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
Jagadananda Das suhrid-rati
13 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan It is not always true "If it is a "rati" it is a "sthayi-bhava." since suhrd-rati is generally a sancari-bhava.
13 hrs · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās that which may be sañcārī-bhāva at one place may become sthāyī in another place. For example "nirveda" is counted as a sañcārī-bhāva but in śānta-rasa it can become sthāyī-bhāva (in the opinion of some).
13 hrs · Like · 3
Jagadananda Das So that is the question. But if he calls it bhavollasa-rati, he is merely accepting the characterization as a rati which is already there.
13 hrs · Like · 1
Hari Pārṣada Dās why nirveda is a sañcārī yet at some places becomes sthāyī is given by Srila Rupa Goswami and the commentators in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ 2.4.13 ... the verse beginning with amaṅgalam api procya....
13 hrs · Like · 2
Prem Prayojan I have stated my point of curiosity earlier among with many other points that have not been addressed. In particular, if the bhavollasa verse refers exclusively to nitya-sakhis and prana-sakhis why is it completely absent from the relevant sections of UN defining the bhavas of nitya-sakhis and prana-sakhis, both in the mula verses and the tikas. I have endeavoured to suggest the reason why JG and VCT have not mentioned bhavollasa there is because they do not support the current theory which is a recent interpretation based on the covert reintroduction of the writings of Rupa Kaviraja into our sampradaya. What was VCT's agenda in opposing Rupa Kaviraja?
13 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Nirved is not sometimes a sthayi and sometimes a sancari. It is always one or the other depending on whose system you are following, Bharata Muni or Rupa Gosvami, is it not?
13 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das OK. So what is the answer to your own questions? In the context of the questions I asked. Or is it related to that "we all know where that leads"?
13 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das The absence of a particular interpretation does not disqualify that insight from being valid. Otherwise we would reject all who disagree with Sridhar Swami, would we not? The mahats leave their ucchishta so that we can be thrilled with new revelations. The condition is respect.
13 hrs · Edited · Like · 4
Prem Prayojan That goes without saying, but VCT was not particularly thrilled by Rupa Kaviraja's "realizations". Can we be thrilled selectively based on pada-sangati, adhyaya-sangati, sastra-sangati, upakrama, upasamhara, abhyasa, apurvata, phalam, arthavada and upapatti?
13 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan We are just starting to unpack the implications of the verse in question. For example, VCT and JG say bhavollasa is only in madhura-rasa, but the present theory stipulates that it is only to Radhika. Then VCT and JG are guilty of ati-vyapti dosa, the fault of over-extension of a definition. Why did JG and VCT not just say "in relation to Radhika"? I suppose it was because they actually mean what they are saying. All the signs are there that the current theory is either totally wrong or only partially right. In Priti-sandarbha the residents of Kundina are given as an example of tad-anumodanatmaka-rasa. Obviously they all love their princess Rukmini, and when they think of her getting married to Krsna, though they themselves may not all have madhura-rasa as their sthayi-bhava, they taste madhura-rasa by approving of the marriage of Krsna and Rukmini. At that time their prema increases exponentially. Jiva Gosvami gives this as an example of ullasa due to appreciating the madhura-rasa of another dear devotee, in this case Rukmini, meeting with Krsna. I am just suggesting that the original verse is very non-specific because it may have broader applications than are allowed by the current popular interpretation.
12 hrs · Edited · Like
Jagadananda Das Quite possible. At the same time, if it is seen as _particularly_ applicable in the case of Radha and her dasis, what is the harm?
12 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan The theological framework of Jiva gosvami's Priti-sandarbha allows for madhura-rasa to accommodate tad-anumodanatmaka rasa, in the form of love of friends of the heroine. So it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the only purpose of life of the manjaris is to taste this tad-anumodanatmaka rasa, to permanently have more love for Radhika, and still their sthayi-bhava is to Krsna, with occasions of bhavollasa when they are thrilled by the meeting of the divine couple. In this conception, which is fully supported and explained by the acaryas, all the mandates for the specialities of manjari-bhava are met without demolishing the foundations of Sri Rupa Gosvami's BRSindhu and creating a concept not expressly described by them, namely a sthayi-bhava to Radhika, as was the case with Rupa Kaviraja.
11 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Note that everywhere sthayi-bhava is explained as Krsna-rati. If there were exceptions the acaryas, who are extremely meticulous in their wording, would have used a word like "prayah" to indicate, "in most cases".
11 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das I am not particularly concerned about the words here, as long as the substance remains. Someone had a sphurti and saw this special not-sanchari, not-sthayi, rati/bhava as being in a category of its own, with special significance for Radha.
On the whole, I don't have a problem with your research, but I don't think that it is serious enough to delegitimize any Vaishnava who holds this idea, if that is your intent.
11 hrs · Like · 3
Hari Pārṣada Dās Prem Prayojan prabhu, in the very same book by the very same author, nirveda is sometimes treated as sthāyī and sometimes as sañcārī. Please see the final verse of Paścima-vibhāga, First Wave of the bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ... the one beginning with "nirvedo viṣaye sthāyī"...
11 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Hmmmm....all this HUGE debate...
But one thing is still not answered:
WHY HAS SRILA RUPA MANJARI...ooooops GOSWAMI PUT THIS VERY SPECIAL VERSE IN THE SECTION CALLED STHAYI-BHAVA???
If we accept that Srila Rupa Goswami is an eternal associate of Sriman Mahaprabhu and if we accept that Mahaprabhu FULLY empowered him to write about bhakti, why would he make the mistake of "forgetting" something and putting that "something" somewhere else entirely?
This would mean that he made a mistake.
I seriously doubt that he made that mistake.
And no, I don´t buy the "not enough space on the palm-leaves" - theory.
Jiva Goswamipada writes that it should be in the sancari-section, BUT in madhurya-rasa however it is not "wrong" there.
Maybe he did it because he had enough of all that Krishna-rati and wrote it there to tease...
If we assume that he is a nitya siddha, he couldn´t have made a mistake.
10 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Tarun Govinda Prabhu comments "Jiva Goswamipada writes that it should be in the sancari-section, BUT in madhurya-rasa however it is not "wrong" there." --- No Tarunji. He just writes that the verse should be moved to the chapter on sancari-bhava. There is nothing in the sanskrit that indicates that JG thinks it is OK in the sthayi-bhava section under any circumstances. If you think he has written "BUT in madhura-rasa " as you say, please provide the sanskrit. Jiva Gosvami has commented that his opinion in BRS tika is actually the opinion of Rupa Gosvami. JIva Gosvami was living with Rupa Gosvami, serving him, proof reading his writing, and was his only diksha disciple. If Jiva Gosvami says "it's in the wrong place" is most likely because Rupa Gosvami told him. By the way, the theory that it was more expedient to put the verse here rather than try to insert it elsewhere is Dr. Satya Narayana das Babaji's idea. He also believes bhavollasa cannot be a sthayi-bhava. It's somewhat tiresome to have to rehash this, but even Rupa Gosvami, before writing the bhavollasa verse says, "Now the chapter on sthayi bhava is finished." So I cannot understand why you keep pressing this point. Did Rupa Gosvami make a mistake when he announced the end of the chapter?
8 hrs · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan Dear Hari Parsada Prabhu, you wrote -- "nirveda is sometimes treated as sthāyī and sometimes as sañcārī. Please see the final verse of Paścima-vibhāga, First Wave of the bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ... the one beginning with "nirvedo viṣaye sthāyī"... " point taken, but in the verse before this Rupa Gosvami does say that this is the opinion of some ancient theorists. He does not insist that it is a definite part of his thesis. More importantly, in the ancient theory the nirveda which is considered a sthayi-bhava does really not fit Sri Rupa's definition of krsna-visaya-rati at all since Krsna is not the object of nirveda. In this theory the visaya here is visaya itself, that is , sense gratification. nirvedo visaye sthayi tattva-jnanodbhavah sa cet i.e. When tattva-jnana awakens in the Rsi of santa-rasa he feels permanent nirveda (indifference) to visaya (sense objects). It is hardly an example of a simultaneous sthayi-bhava/sancari-bhava to Krsna.
8 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan My last question for now - CC M.8,211. jātollāsāḥ sva-sekāc chata-guṇam adhikaṁ santi yat tan na citram describes that the ullasa of the sakhis and manjaris is jata (brought into existence) at certain occasions in the lila during the meeting of Radha and Krsna. If it appears at certain times, could someone explain how it is the permanent sentiment of the manjaris? And when Radhika is in separation or when Sri Krsna makes some offense is it not rasabhasa to say the manjaris are in permanent ullasa (joy/merriment) ?
8 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das ullAsa. m. light , splendour L.[L=37596]the coming forth , becoming visible , appearing Katha1s. xiv , 13 Sa1h. Kap. &c[L=37597]joy , happiness , merriness Katha1s. Amar. &c[L=37598]increase , growth BhP. vii , 1 , 7[L=37599](in rhet.) giving prominence to any object by comparison or opposition Kuval.[L=37600]chapter , section , division of a book (e.g. of the काव्य-प्रकाश) .
There are other alternatives to "joy, merriment"
7 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Jagatji - you wrote - Is there something wrong with suhrid-rati towards Radha in principle? Is there a problem with this conception of Manjari Bhava? Is this a semantic problem, or are you going against the principle of Manjari Bhava itself? - This question demonstrates that I have been completely unsuccessful in communicating my idea. I apologize for that. Just for the record, suhrd-rati the sancari bhava to Radhika is wonderful, as is manjari-bhava, which is the ultimate goal of our lives. The manjaris' bhava has been termed in Gosvami granthas as an aspect of nitya-sakhi-bhava, sakhi snehadhika, tad-anumodanatmika, and tat-tad-bhavechatmika. They also on occasion experience a sancari-bhava called bhavollasa-bhava. I am in full support of all these conceptions clearly written by our Gosvamis. What I am opposing is the mistaken conception of Rupa Kaviraja that bhavollasa is a sthayi-bhava to Radhika since such an idea is against the ontology of all the Gosvamis' writings and not supported by VCT, Mukunda Gosvami, Visnudas or any other reputable tikakara on BRS or UNilamani. All the nuances of manjari-bhava are most perfectly accommodated within the framework of terms already directly given by the acaryas and mentioned above, without having to bend the ground rules they have given to force our own misconceptions into the text. I hope my position is clear. Respected devotees are invited to supply direct evidence from the mula granthas to either support or refute this position. No "my guru says this " "his guru says that", please.
7 hrs · Like · 1
Jagadananda Das But bhavollasa is NOT a sanchari bhava. I thought that was established.
7 hrs · Like · 2
Jagadananda Das Nor is it a sthayi bhava. But it goes into a category of its own. And therefore, if it came into the sanchari bhava chapter, it would be saying, there is a 34th sanchari called suhrid rati, but there is something that cannot be so categorized and it is called bhavollasa.
7 hrs · Like · 3
Tarun Govinda Das "Yet we see that in the case of madhura-rasa there is a unique
situation in which some of the friends of Radharani feel more affection for her than they do for even Krishna and this affection is always increasing due to the intense desire they have to please her. This feeling is a special type of sthayi-bhava known as bhavollasa rati.Other than Srimat Radharani in the madhura-rasa, such a thing is unheard of in relation to any devotee of any other rasa. Nowhere has it been said anywhere that a devotee is hundreds of times greater than even Krishna, except in the case of Radha."
These words of my Param Gurudeva, Sri Srimat Kunjabihari das Babaji are perfectly in line with our acaryas.
He very well knew about the "dilemma" and he knew that this special type of BHAVA was neither a "real" sancari bhava nor a "real" sthayi bhava.
"Because the predominating feelings or sthayi-bhavas have been defined as exclusively those which deal directly with Krishna, the Supreme Lord and one object of all the different types of devotion, it can hardly be called a sthayi-bhava as its predominant object is Srimati Radharani.But as these feelings are not temporary, fleeting moods, they cannot be called sancari-bhavas either.
In view of this paradox, Rupa Gosvamin has explained Radha’s feelings toward the sakhis as a new sancari-bhava and the feelings of the manjaris to Radha as a new type of sthayi-bhava as a subdivision of madhura-rati."(Param Gurudeva)
I think his solution to call it a "new type of sthayi bhava as a subdivision of madhura-rati" is very accurate.
And when I read the books of my Gurudeva and when I see how far advanced he is in his bhakti, I seriously doubt that he did the wrong thing for his whole life.
It is up to us now to attain the goal of our lives, Radha-dasyam.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Prem Prayojan "If love for a devotee, which is equal or less than love for Krsna, is (sometimes) more while being nourished (by krsna-rati) it will be a sancari-bhava called bhavollasa." VCT comments : atas trayastrimsat-sancärinäm ante idam api yojaniyam - "Therefore this verse should be placed at the end of the thirty three sancari-bhavas." JG comments sancärinäm ante yojaniyam, tatraiva sajätiyatvät - "This verse should be placed at the end of the section on sancari-bhava because it certainly belongs there in that category." Which part of these statements of VCT and JG is not clear to you?
6 hrs · Like
Jagadananda Das And as previously explained, the verse settles a number of questions. It is supplementary to, not a substitute for anything else that was stated elsewhere. No one following manjari bhava is denying any of the other terminology that is used.
6 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das " sā yadi kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā ratyāḥ samā syād ūnā vā syāt tadā kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā rateḥ sañcaryākhya eva bhāvaḥ syāt (if that attraction is on the same scale as the attraction to Krishna or is on an inferior scale then it is known as sañcārī-bhāva)
tan-mūlatvāt tat-poṣaṇāc ca (because sañcārī-bhāva arises from the sthāyī-bhāva and nourishes it)
evaṁ madhurākhye rase tu sā yadi kvacit kṛṣṇa-viṣayāyā api ratyā adhikā , tatrāpi puṣyamāṇā santatābhiniveśena saṁvardhyamānā syāt tadā sañcāritve’pi viśiṣṭyāpekṣayā bhāvollāsākhyo bhāva īryate iti (In this way, in madhura rasa however if that attraction "SOMETIMES" is greater in scale even than the attraction to Krishna and yet it nourishes the attraction to Krishna by investing one's consciousness in Him, then even though it is sāñcārī-bhāva yet due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva) (End of Translation) "
I like this more...
6 hrs · Like
Prem Prayojan Tarunji has now cited a sentence from MSN - "Rupa Gosvamin has explained Radha’s feelings toward the sakhis as a new sancari-bhava and the feelings of the manjaris to Radha as a new type of sthayi-bhava as a subdivision of madhura-rati." This is again in the category of "My guru says this and he's really advanced so it must be true." You may recall I did ask for some sastric pramana, not just "My guru says that Rupa Gosvami says". I just want to see where it is that Rupa Gosvami actually says what you claim. The manjaris are not mentioned in any commentary on the bhavollasa verse in BRS or in the tikas of UN. Furthermore, wherever the manjaris are mentioned by Rupa Gosvami, VCT, JG etc, they never quote the bhavollasa verse. So you have zero evidence to support your theory. I'm just waiting for some sastra pranama. Just to make sure Jagatji does get confused again, let me reiterate. Like every aspiring Rupanuga vaisnava, I believe fully that the ultimate goal of life is Radha-dasyam. I just do not believe in the theory of Rupa Kaviraja that you are enthusiastically promoting. Please give me one sentence from Rupa Gosvami, JG, or VCT that mentions both bhavollasa and the manjaris. You either have a sastric reference or you don't. Can we see it please.
6 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das That is what it is all about.
To show that my parivar is "wrong".
Enjoy your victory. I am happy for you, no sarcasm intended.
Please next time you visit my beloved Gurudeva, ask him.
5 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Now we are getting somewhere. Tarunji. Your sastric reference is perfect. (your words) "then EVEN THOUGH IT IS A SANCARI_BHAVA yet due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva." So you agree that it is a sancari-bhava called bhavollasa.
6 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das Jagadananda Das
I am not particularly concerned about the words here, as long as the substance remains. Someone had a sphurti and saw this special not-sanchari, not-sthayi, rati/bhava as being in a category of its own, with special significance for Radha.
On the whole, I don't have a problem with your research, but I don't think that it is serious enough to delegitimize any Vaishnava who holds this idea, if that is your intent.
+1
5 hrs · Edited · Like
Tarun Govinda Das " due to its speciality it becomes known as bhāvollāsa-bhāva. "
But a very special kind...
Radheeeee
6 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan So you have quotes on bhavollasa and quotes on manjaris but not a single sastra pramana from Rupa Gosvami, Jiva Gosvami, or VCT that connects the two. Just as I expected.
5 hrs · Edited · Like
Prem Prayojan Vedanta Sutra - sastra yonitvat ...srutes tu sabda mulatvat....etc etc. That is what sastra is for. Sadhus and Gurus have to represent the teaching of Vyasa. That is why the worship of Guru is called Vyasa-puja. If sometimes there is a difference of opinion, sastra has the final authority. But this is not the place for a discussion on pramana. This forum is for discussing Rare and Esoteric Literature. If you want to discus this we should do it elswhere to be respectful to this fine institution.
5 hrs · Like · 1
Tarun Govinda Das So, it is all bhogus and you have all evidence.
All parivars who follow these items are of course apasiddhanta and only your parivar has the exklusive monopoly on shastric evidence
Dandavats
Maybe, one day we will realize bhavollasa bhava. Until then it is all theoretical.
I am fine in the anugatya of my Gurudeva
Please forgive me.
5 hrs · Edited · Like
Hari Pārṣada Dās tasmāc chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau (BG 16.24) — Scripture is the pramāṇa.
5 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
Madhavananda N Krishnakund Nandini Radhe, there is no fault in Prem Prayojan requesting pramanas that are *not* from "my guru, or your guru". Sri Guru is a relative manifestation of the absolute. That person who is my guru, may not be the same as your guru, or his guru etc. Krishna is samaṣṭi-guru or the sum total of the position of guru. My personal guru, or your personal guru are vyaṣṭi-guru or a individual manifestation of guru. Samaṣṭi-guru Krishna is like the sun, while vyaṣṭi-guru is like an individual ray.
Therefore in Vaiṣṇava discussion we want to hear śāstra pramana, or evidence that will be accepted by all the participants. As my Guru Maharaja once told me, "It's not enough to quote your guru. You have to quote śāstra."
5 hrs · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās Nandini Radhe ji, your question was — "Is sastra de only source of pramana? And if so, according to whom?"
There are other pramāṇas too, but in the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta and the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ, Srila Rupa Goswami selects śāstra-pramāṇa as the ideal one for discussing matters of transcendence. Here is a quote from the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta:
yatas taiḥ śāstra-yonitvāt iti nyāya-pradarśanāt
śabdasyaiva pramāṇatvaṁ svīkṛtaṁ paramarṣibhiḥ
"Due to statements such as 'śāstra-yonitvāt' given by Sri Vyasadeva in the vedānta-sūtra, only śabda is selected as a pramāṇa here (in the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta)"
3 hrs · Like · 2
Hari Pārṣada Dās he says in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhuḥ that:
svalpāpi rucir eva syād bhakti-tattvāvabodhikā
yuktis tu kevalā naiva yad asyā apratiṣṭhatā
yatnenāpādito’py arthaḥ kuśalair anumātṛbhiḥ
abhiyuktatarair anyair anyathaivopapādyate (BRS 1.1.45 - 46)
Here he rejects logic and other pramāṇas except śabda in determining truths about bhakti. Sri Jiva Goswami says there — rucir atra bhakti-tattva-pratipādaka-śabdeṣu śrīmad-bhāgavatādiṣu — "Ruci means a taste in bhakti-tattva-delineating words of scriptures like Srimad Bhāgavatam etc".
3 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
Hari Pārṣada Dās thank you ... all the comments unrelated to this thread have been deleted. The original thread was about discussing murali-vilāsa and then it went in the direction of mañjarī-bhāva. Finally, before it turns elsewhere, I would like to request everyone to keep it focused on these two topics only. Unrelated posts will be deleted.
1 hr · Edited · Like · 1