In my opinion there is a dearth of transcendental reading material regarding sakhya-rasa and thus I am greatly appreciative of any small quote, article or book written on this subject. So thanks again for providing this “Four Dear friends” article!

I lack the scriptual knowledge as well as the realization to judge the level of truth of your suggestion. But I like the harmonizing spirit of it. Sounds quite possible to me.

Is it possible that certain, not yet fully mature followers of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj, whose ultimate constitutional goal lies in madhur-ras (or just needed associaton of higher relised devotees to proceed with their Krishna-consciousness) became connected to Srila BV Narayan Maharaj by the will of Sri Krishna and Srila Narayan Maharaj is just making them confortable to stay with him by presenting Srila Swami Maharaj as also being situated in madhur-ras, for the time being, by pointing to them evidence of Srila Swami Maharaj’s tatashta (objective) highest appreciation of madhur-ras during his preaching on the order of His Guru and Mahaprabhu, by giving them “simplified siddhanta” (only madhur-ras in Gaudiya/Rupanuga line)? Srila Narayan Maharaj himself once said that realised Vaishnavas and sastra may give different “siddhantas” to different devotees on diffferent levels of advancement which will then be gradualy clarified with progress of devotees, as is with the known case of Srila Swami Maharaj using explanation of jiva “fallling from Goloka”.

Cited from Srila Narayan Maharaj’s lecture to certain ISKCON leaders in 90′s.

“In sastra, numerous siddhantas (philosophical conclusions) have been told, only for us. It is not that all siddhanta is for all persons at all stages of their development in bhakti. There is some siddhanta for kanistha-Vaisnavas (neophytes in bhakti), some for madhyama-Vaisnavas (those devotees in the intermediate stage), and some for uttama-Vaisnavas, those devotees who have crossed over maya. It is not that all siddhanta is in the same category. In Srimad-Bhagavatam, so many categories of siddhanta are given for various classes of persons. We should therefore try to do bhajana and realize all these transcendental or spiritual truths (cinmaya-tattva). Mundane logic and reasoning will not go there at all.

Chant, “Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare,” and beg pardon. Perhaps what you previously thought about the jiva and bhakti has changed. Perhaps you are now thinking, understanding, and realizing differently. Similarly, your present understanding will also change when you will become a maha-bhagavata and cross over maya. Then you will realize everything.

An important point to note: the idea that the anadi-baddha jiva, the conditioned soul in this world, has fallen from the spiritual abode of the Lord is not accepted by our acaryas.”

I personaly think Srila Narayan Maharaj is giving much actual help to immature followers of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj, by at least pointing them the highest outreach of their connection with Srila Swami Maharaj and giuding them towards that realisation. Also Srila BR Sridhar Maharaj was doing this.

Dear devotees, please forgive me all my offences and kindly bless me that I may chant Harinam without ten-fold offences and also realise my highest contitutional potential in service to Sri Krishna and Gurudev.

You write the following to Madan Gopal:

Since you ask, you know very well there is a living senior vaisnava who wasn’t consulted. Swami wants to dismiss him, thats fine, he is free to do so. But look carefully and see that it is not someone to dismiss without giving at least a second thought.

You say past acaryas were consulted. Such consultation is actually relative. As for ‘present’ acaryas, which living acaryas were consulted?

This is a tradition not so much about Krishna as it is about devotees. Skip the devotee and your game is over, no matter how expert you may be at manipulating concepts.

So what your position is really all about is that I have a different opinion regarding the spiritual sentiment of my guru from that of B.V Narayana Maharaja, whose opinion you agree with on the basis of his being a senior Vaisnava. It would have been better to have just come out and said this to begin with.

At any rate, I am satisfied that I have met the criterion of Vaisnava standards in reaching my conclusion. But your concern could just as well apply to B.V Narayana Maharaja. Why didn’t he consult with senior Vaisnavas like BR Sridharadeva Goswami, BP Puri Goswami, and BH Bon Maharaja before propagating his notion of my guru being in manjari-bhava? All of them are senior to him and one of them was living when he began his campaign. They all personally voiced different opinions, placing Prabhupada in sakhya rasa.

Furthermore you have characterized my realization as “expert at manipulating concepts.” But to me this kind of accusation is what people resort to when they do not have good reasoning or scriptural support for their their position—no sastra-yukti. Unfortunately this is just an expression of religious fanaticism. You have accepted someone’s opinion as absolute, and if others do not agree, you fault them. In my opinion there is just way too much of this going around.

And finally, since I consulted living senior Vaisnavas who are senior to Narayaan Maharaja before Narayan Maharaja began his campaign, and since I also had the courtesy to speak with him on the matter, your criticism does not hold. I reached my conclusion after considering the opinions of not only these Vaisnavas in our line, but that of others outside of our line as well, others that also saw my Guru Maharaja in sakhya rasa as I do. Incidentally, in the the most recent exchange I had with Narayana Maharaja on this subject, one that he initiated, he wrote me this after I answered his questions:

Dear Sripad B.V. Tripurari Maharaja,

Please accept my heartly dandavats pranams. All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga, all glories to Sri Sri Radha Vinode Bihariji.

I received your letter and became very happy to hear from you after a long, long time.

Regarding the contents of your message, if you have strong belief that your Gurumaharaja was in sakhya mood, I have no objection.

Vaisnavadasanudasa,

Swami B.V. Narayan

To be fair, he wrote me two letters and despite his statement above he made it clear that he still believed otherwise but appreciated my position. “Still,” he wrote in his second letter, “I appreciate your belief that he was in sakhya bhava.”

“[Hridaya Caitanya said:] ‘If you claim to be in my line, you must behave in the mood of Krishna’s friend. Do not entertain any other idea or you must go elsewhere to pursue your spiritual life.’

“‘I cannot comply with your wishes,’ Shyamananda sadly replied. ‘One cannot change his passion for God–it is an affair of the heart. It is a question of one’s eternal relationship. Surely there is a way to reconcile this difference of opinion. You are my lord and master, and if you abandon me, I will give up this worthless life. But please do not ask me to do something that I am unable to do.’

“At this point Hridaya Caitanya was so enraged that he picked up a branch and started to beat Syamananda, striking him repeatedly on his hands, legs, and back. Severely bruised, Syamananda fell to the ground.”

The entire incident is viewed as a transcendental pastime, meant to instruct us that there is no harm if a disciple relishes a rasa different from that of his or her guru. The author adds a sidenote: “Actually, it should be mentioned that Hridaya Caitanya is not a mundane personality but is instead an eternal associate of the Lord. The seemingly ordinary if also harsh way in which he interacts with Syamananda is part of the Lord’s divine pastime. By closely studying these complex devotional relationships, the truths of Vaishnava philosophy can unfold for the sensitive reader.”

(“The Lives of the Vaishnava Saints: Shrinivas Acharya, Narottam Das Thakur, Shyamananda Pandit” by Steven Rosen [Satyaraja dasa], p. 141, 143)

Since you ask, you know very well there is a living senior vaisnava who wasn’t consulted. Swami wants to dismiss him, thats fine, he is free to do so. But look carefully and see that it is not someone to dismiss without giving at least a second thought.

You say past acaryas were consulted. Such consultation is actually relative. As for ‘present’ acaryas, which living acaryas were consulted?

This is a tradition not so much about Krishna as it is about devotees. Skip the devotee and your game is over, no matter how expert you may be at manipulating concepts.

Madhurya rasa is complete on its own, as is each rasa, but it does not exist in a vacuum. The other rasas give support to it within the lila. But it is also complete in that it fully satisfies Krishna’s thirst for love, even to an extent that sakhya rasa does not. Still, Sri Krishna loves his gopas unlimitedly, as do they love him unlimitedly.

We can’t ask Prabhupada now can we?

We don’t have to, he has said enough himself. Certainly there is not anywhere near an equal amount of evidence for suggesting he had another aspiration.

So maybe we have been making some things up.

Yes, it is a living tradition that must be rooted in the siddhanta as presented by the acaryas. You can distinguish what is made up by how it differs from the siddhanta of Sri Rupa. I have seen nothing in this discussion outside of Rupa’s siddhanta, except for the possible inflexibility you have in your understanding of rasa-tattva. If madhurya rasa was complete on it’s own, why would Sri Rupa have bothered to speak of the other rasas, including (but not limited to) elaborating on the extent of priyanarma-sakhya bhava?

at least we should consult with senior Vaishnavas. You didn’t want to do that.

Okay, where are you going with this now? Is there a specific senior Vaisnava that you suggest Swami has not consulted with about this? As noted in “Oh My Friend”, Srila Sridhar Maharaj was consulted, Sripad B.P. Puri Maharaj was consulted about this… It may not be that your senior Vaisnava was consulted, but certainly the conclusion of “Oh My Friend” was arrived at with thorough consultation of past and present acaryas.

You ask, “where is it said that manjari bhava, if it were the sole bhava, it wouldn’t be enough?” As I have pointed out, it is not the sole bhava that Mahaprabhu came to give according to Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami, but it does fully satisfy Krishna. So perhaps you need to think about that.

The story of Gopa Kumara illustrates many things, one of which is that his gopijana-vallabhaya mantra, nama sankitana and corresponding smaranam gave him priyanarma sakhya rasa. This tells us, again, that sakya rasa is one possibility in the Gaudiya sampradaya coming from its architect Sanatana Goswami.

Anyway it is clear that you really can’t deny that sakhya rasa is part of the Gaudiya sampradaya since you have just admitted this in relation to Nityananda Prabhu’s sakhya rasa lineages by saying that the are a minority. Small is beautiful.