“A genuine relation of the living being with the Supreme Lord can take any form out of the five principal rasas, and it does not make any difference in the transcendental degree to the genuine devotee.”

Srimad-Bhagavatam is as great as Krsna, the Supreme Lord and shelter of everything. In each and every verse of Srimad-Bhagavatam and in each and every syllable, there are various meanings.’

What this verse means to me is that there are multiple valid, though maybe superficially contradictory, readings of scripture that are simultaneously possible. Coming from Lord Gauranga Himself, this statement is supremely authoritative, but my reckoning is also that it points to a fundamental principle which ought to be educible as far as any reasonably intelligent person with some knowledge of sastra is concerned.

Your expressed viewpoint all along was that a direct interpretation was necessarily wrong, or off the mark, and that much, if not most of sastra consisted of allegory and metaphor. I certainly don’t construe the above-quoted verse from the Caitanya Caritamrta as indicating or implying this. Rather, there logically should be, and to me, there surely is, room in Vaisnava Vedanta for both mukhya-vrtti and gauna-vrtti. Actually, unduly emphasising the latter at the expense of the former is a lot more the trademark of neo-Advaitins (not even orthodox monists) than that of the theistically-minded.

Evidently, the scriptures do contain a fair amount of poetry and non-literal delineations of truths, and in many instances, it is not too difficult to make out when that is so. The story of King Puranjana is a case in point, as is much of the Fifth Canto of the Bhagavatam. Notwithstanding, sastric pronouncements are in general often multi-faceted, in a manner akin to the nature of reality in fact, and it takes realisation more than anything else to comprehend this and be in a situation where one is able to delve into these mysteries.

I wasn’t commenting on what you wrote about Uddhava. I was referring to a broader issue, specifically taking what is written on lila too literally as the basis for your raganuga sadhana.

The problem, or one of them, is that you have introduced another topic altogether. The discussion before you commented was not dealing with descriptions of lila and the question of how literal or non literally such descriptions should be taken with regard to raganuga sadhana. But at the same time you were commenting on the uselessness of the actual discussion. Sound confusing?

You misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring to the waste of time when you attempt to follow the raga-marga with misconceptions about the nature of bhava, rasa, and lila. This is what I said:

“Trying to undersstand those truths through too literal of an interpretation of sastra can lead to wasting time and energy in your sadhana, especially if you are attempting to practice raganuga-sadhana. It can lead to false assumptions of how bhava and rasa in the here and now should be cultivated.”

So you are saying that the discussion was a waste of time because it was based upon misconceptions about the nature of bhava, rasa and lila, and that such misconceptions arise from taking what the Goswamis have written about them at face value. Please tell us what higher knowledge of the actual non literal meaning is.

The tattva is full of metaphor at the higher level. Not all of it, but a lot of it. For example the full true nature of the sthayi-bhavas isn’t literally spelled out, it is there though, told through metaphoric language. Take what is written there too literally on sthayi-bhavas and you will misunderstand the true nature of those bhavas. The literal understanding is not the true understanding.

Again, please tell us what the true understanding of sthayi-bhava is. Furthermore what is the literal understanding of it given by Sri Rupa that is harmful, since it is so prone to being misunderstood?

Until you reach the stage of bhava-bhakti where Krsna reveals his presence in your mind and begins a relationship with you, you are on a categorically different level of bhakti until then.

Now that sounds like something right out of the Goswamis books: bhava bhakti is different from sadhana bhakti. How do we know that such a literal understanding is not really a metaphor for a higher one? Problem.

The citation of Ramananda Ray you quote is ironically a metaphorical one! And you have taken it literally! Furthermore you have introduced the Paramatma into raga bhakti. As he enters raga bhakti in ruci Mahaprabhu has bid farewell to Paramatma. Ray Ramanada here is speaking metaphorically and by such he is saying that his (Lalita-sakhi’s) realizations that Mahaprabhu came to take advantage of in his pursuit of Radha bhava were in fact coming from Mahaprabhu himself, meaning his earnestness to taste this bhava is the driving force behind Ramanada’s speaking about it, a subject he could find no one else to speak to about it with. Of course on a lower level he is saying that Krsna knows everything and everything really comes from him. And this you have cited to prove that the Goswamis did not share their realizations with us.

Finally, of course there are many levels of meaning in the scripture.

Not much of a debate really. But you wrongly characterize the discussion above. I at least have been citing the Goswamis opinion on the subjects raised. For example, does Uddhava desire to become a gopi? I have demonstrated that the answer is “no” according to Sri Jiva and Sri Rupa. Are you trying to tell us that their explanation is only metaphorical.

I wasn’t commenting on what you wrote about Uddhava. I was referring to a broader issue, specifically taking what is written on lila too literally as the basis for your raganuga sadhana.

The Goswamis wrote metaphorically when they described the lila itself, but not when they wrote about the tattva underlying it.

The tattva is full of metaphor at the higher level. Not all of it, but a lot of it. For example the full true nature of the sthayi-bhavas isn’t literally spelled out, it is there though, told through metaphoric language. Take what is written there too literally on sthayi-bhavas and you will misunderstand the true nature of those bhavas. The literal understanding is not the true understanding.

You say time is only wasted in such discussions. But the discussion is about what the Goswamis have said on a paticualr topic. Did they also waste their time writing about such things. Shall we say, “Well they wrote that about Uddhava but we can’t take that literally so let’s interpret it (KB), or better yet let’s not discuss it at all (you)?” Talk about wasting someone’s time

You misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring to the waste of time when you attempt to follow the raga-marga with misconceptions about the nature of bhava, rasa, and lila. This is what I said:

“Trying to undersstand those truths through too literal of an interpretation of sastra can lead to wasting time and energy in your sadhana, especially if you are attempting to practice raganuga-sadhana. It can lead to false assumptions of how bhava and rasa in the here and now should be cultivated.”

One’s ista is established at nistha, and the taste that follows from ruci is the basis of the bhava one will cultivate in bhava bhakti. Love of Krsna is the ideal and it is a cultivation that begins in sadhana bhakti. Chanting and hearing are exepressions of that love and when such is one pointed the relationship with one’s ista, one’s pran isvara has begun. In ruci three spiritual desires appear in the heart of the sadhaka. In asakti attachment for Bhagavan in a particualr relationship awakens. And for that matter, bhava bhakti itself is a developmental stage. Sri Rupa has described bhakti as an ongoing and gradual culture of love of God.

Until you reach the stage of bhava-bhakti where Krsna reveals his presence in your mind and begins a relationship with you, you are on a categorically different level of bhakti until then. Before bhava-bhakti you don’t have an actual person to person reciprocal bhava, afterwards you do. You speak with each other and begin your eternal bhava and rasa at that point. Until you reach that stage all of your ideas about lila, bhava and rasa are based on faith alone and may be right or wrong to varying degrees, you have no way of knowing with absolute certainty. When you reach that higher stage the truth of everything is directly revealed to you by Krsna as Paramatma speaking to you. That was the reason I disagreed with you when you said there is no black or white dichotomy between levels of bhakti. There most certainly is. When you are a close confidant and speak with God constantly, then you are categorically in a different state of reality from previous levels of bhakti. In the previous levels you cannot imagine what the higher level is like because it is beyond your frame of reference. It can be described, as I try, but the massive transformation of it simply cannot be fully understood until attainment of that stage.

Mahaprabhu chose them to write because of their realizations. They did not record Mahaprabhu and just repeat his words. Yours is a very odd idea.

C.C. Madhya 8.132-3

raya kahe, — “ami — nata, tumi — sutra-dhara
yei mata nacao, taiche cahi nacibara

Sri Ramananda Raya said, “I am just a dancing puppet, and You pull the strings. Whichever way You make me dance, I will dance

mora jihva — vina-yantra, tumi — vina-dhari
tomara mane yei uthe, tahai uccari

“My dear Lord, my tongue is just like a stringed instrument, and You are its player. Therefore I simply vibrate whatever arises in Your mind.”

Ramananda Raya is speaking the absolute truth, it is essential we realize that truth to gain qualification for bhava-bhakti. The ontological nature of Paramatma-Tattva is absolutely essential to understand in order to delve deep into bhava.

But overall all you are saying is that their is a higher esoteric meaning to everything they wrote and that one has to understand that. Well sounds like you have understood it. What is it? Or is it just that? That “everything is a metaphor and therefor don’t take it literally.” Is that the higher teaching itself. If so where does that leave one? You are speaking in circles. I would ask you to cite some scripture in support of your position but . . . well as you say, I’d be waisting my time. I think you are right about that. I am not finding this conversation meaningful.

I didn’t say the higher metaphoric understanding is simply to know there is a higher esoteric understanding. That makes no sense. I said there is a lot of metaphor in Gaudiya siddhanta and that it is essential to understand it properly to successfully follow the raga-marga. I don’t understand how you can say I’m talking in circles. I haven’t given any examples because that wasn’t part of the discussion yet. If you don’t accept the validity of metaphor in Gaudiya siddhanta then what would be the point of my pointing some out? If you would like sastric citation there is this from Mahaprabhu.

krsna-tulya bhagavata — vibhu, sarvasraya
prati-sloke prati-aksare nana artha kaya

Srimad-Bhagavatam is as great as Krsna, the Supreme Lord and shelter of everything. In each and every verse of Srimad-Bhagavatam and in each and every syllable, there are various meanings.

Also Bhaktivinoda Thakura has said:

Goloka-Vrindavana is realizable in the symbolic Vrindavana that is open to our view in this world by all persons whose Love has been perfected by the mercy of the inhabitants of Transcendental Vraja, and not other-wise. The grossest misunderstanding of the subject of the Vraja Lila of Sri Krishna is inevitable if these considerations are not kept in view.

In the form of the narrative of the Bhagavatam, the Transcendental Vraja Lila manifests its descent to the plane of our mundane vision in the symbolic shapes resembling those of the corresponding mundane events. If we are disposed, for any reason, to underestimate the transcendental symbolism of the narrative of the Bhagavatam we are unable to avoid unfavorable and hasty conclusions regarding the nature of the highest, the most perfect and the most charming form of the loving service of the Divinity to which all other forms of his service are as the avenues of approach.

Well, you and KB have been having this long debate on very esoteric subject matter based upon many literalistic interpretations and therefore false assumptions about the nature of the “spiritual world,” bhava and rasa. The reality of the nature of the attainment of the highest level of God realization is described in metaphoric language in sastra, as is the nature of Vaikuntha, Goloka and lila. Trying to undersstand those truths through too literal of an interpretation of sastra can lead to wasting time and energy in your sadhana, especially if you are attempting to practice raganuga-sadhana. It can lead to false assumptions of how bhava and rasa in the here and now should be cultivated.

Not much of a debate really. But you wrongly characterize the discussion above. I at least have been citing the Goswamis opinion on the subjects raised. For example, does Uddhava desire to become a gopi? I have demonstrated that the answer is “no” according to Sri Jiva and Sri Rupa. Are you trying to tell us that their explanation is only metaphorical? The question was whether or not all souls attain gopi-bhava ultimately, and Uddhava was cited as an example. According to the Goswamis the answer is “no.” No on Uddhava (he did not) and no in general, and this was also demonstrated in the text of theirs I cited from Brs. (If one knows how to read it with its reference to the necessity of other sthayi-bhavas and the prohibition against forced kama rupa bhakti). Are these teachings of the most venerable Sri Rupa and Sri Jiva also a metaphor? I will answer that for you. “No.” It’s tattva/siddhanta. From what you are saying we will be deceived by taking the statements of the Goswamis on such points as conclusive, rather they are metaphors. Well if that is what you believe you are not even clear on what a metaphor is. It’s a poetic figure of speech. The Goswamis wrote metaphorically when they described the lila itself, but not when they wrote about the tattva underlying it. You say time is only wasted in such discussions. But the discussion is about what the Goswamis have said on a particular topic. Did they also waste their time writing about such things. Shall we say, “Well they wrote that about Uddhava but we can’t take that literally so let’s interpret it (KB), or better yet let’s not discuss it at all (you)?” Talk about wasting someone’s time.

The knowledge necessary to enter into the highest reality is gained gradually, but you are completely out until you are completely in. At least to the level of bhava-bhakti wherein Krsna reveals from within his presence and you begin a direct relationship person to person.

One’s ista is established at nistha, and the taste that follows from ruci is the basis of the bhava one will cultivate in bhava bhakti. Love of Krsna is the ideal and it is a cultivation that begins in sadhana bhakti. Chanting and hearing are exepressions of that love and when such is one pointed the relationship with one’s ista, one’s pran isvara, has begun. In ruci three spiritual desires appear in the heart of the sadhaka. In asakti attachment for Bhagavan in a particualr relationship awakens. And for that matter, bhava bhakti itself is a developmental stage. Sri Rupa has described bhakti as an ongoing and gradual culture of love of God.

That aside I am driven to wonder if your position stated above is based on one of the so called metaphors you think you read in the Goswami granthas, or if it is based on your having attained bhava, and it is thus something you know by experience?

They’re not putting in their realizations, they are writing what Mahaprabhu wants them to write. They were empowered to present Mahaprabhu’s theology. Pretty much everything about lila written by the Goswamis and other empowered acaryas is metaphor at the higher levels. Anyone who considers themselves as followers of the raga-marga will find it most difficult to advance unless they understand that fact. Neophytes can take it all literally and it is alright for them, but those who want to go deeper need to understand the esoteric nature of those teachings.

Mahaprabhu chose them to write because of their realizations. They did not record Mahaprabhu and just repeat his words. Yours is a very odd idea. But overall all you are saying is that their is a higher esoteric meaning to everything they wrote and that one has to understand that. Well sounds like you have understood it. What is it? Or is it just that? That “everything is a metaphor and therefor don’t take it literally.” Is that the higher teaching itself. If so where does that leave one? You are speaking in circles. I would ask you to cite some scripture in support of your position but . . . well as you say, I’d be waisting my time. I think you are right about that. I am not finding this conversation meaningful.

One needs to understand tattva before attaining bhava. First become tattva vit then talk of bhava. As Sri Krsna says in the Gita, aham sarvasva prabhavo . . . prefaces bhajante mam raga bhava samanvitah. And the teaching that Krsna is svayam bhagavan, as pointed out in this verse, is not a metaphor either.

Again, while your point is an obvious truth, I question its application in this instance, at least with regard to the topic being discussed where you have made it.

Well, you and KB have been having this long debate on very esoteric subject matter based upon many literalistic interpretations and therefore false assumptions about the nature of the “spiritual world,” bhava and rasa. The reality of the nature of the attainment of the highest level of God realization is described in metaphoric language in sastra, as is the nature of Vaikuntha, Goloka and lila. Trying to undersstand those truths through too literal of an interpretation of sastra can lead to wasting time and energy in your sadhana, especially if you are attempting to practice raganuga-sadhana. It can lead to false assumptions of how bhava and rasa in the here and now should be cultivated.

Furthermore, those on the path do have some experience of the nature of the highest reality and that experience, limited as it may be, conforms with sastra. It is not that the sastric description is white and the experience is black.

I am going to have to disagree. You are either personally experienced and conversant with those truths by dint of your having been given entrance into that reality, or you are not. It isn’t something which is a gradual attainment. The knowledge necessary to enter into the highest reality is gained gradually, but you are completely out until you are completely in. At least to the level of bhava-bhakti wherein Krsna reveals from within his presence and you begin a direct relationship person to person. It’s like having a friend or lover, you don’t gradually have a friend or lover to talk to, you either have one or you don’t.

I am the last person to say that everything described in sastra should be taken literally. At the same time, the sastra of the Goswamis’ is an effort to put into words their experience.

They’re not putting in their realizations, they are writing what Mahaprabhu wants them to write. They were empowered to present Mahaprabhu’s theology. Pretty much everything about lila written by the Goswamis and other empowered acaryas is metaphor at the higher levels. Anyone who considers themselves as followers of the raga-marga will find it most difficult to advance unless they understand that fact. Neophytes can take it all literally and it is alright for them, but those who want to go deeper need to understand the esoteric nature of those teachings.

Short of one’s own experience, discussions of the highest realm should be with reference to that which has been said about it by persons who have been there. And while they may speak about it in ways that are primarily useful for going there, one is not at liberty to speak about it oneself in other ways without having gone there oneself.

I agree. In fact no one can speak about the higher reality with real authority unless they are on that level, or unless they repeat what someone with real authority has told them.

There is a place for making the basic point you rise and I have raised it so myself many times in ways that I believe were conducive to the spiritual advancement of those who were listening, but there is also a place when making such a point will only lead to confusion, speculation, and irreverence for sastra, none of which is useful for one’s spiritual progress.

Confusion often comes when unqualified people are left to speculate by taking esoteric teachings too literally. Often they don’t even know they are confused. It seems to be inevitable for most progressive bhaktas unless they are corrected and set straight. After moving beyond the neophyte stage devotees hunger for more intimacy with Radha Krisna, yet I see that almost all of those who seek that intimacy are not attaining it because they believe in so many speculations about the true nature of bhava, rasa and lila due to their inability to properly interpret esoterica. The main problem for them is the idea that everything you read about Krsna-lila should be taken literally. Instead of trying to delve into a real relationship and develop initmacy from within which is the sole aspect of the raga-marga, so often I see them simply get obsessed with the minutiae of lila, obsessed with learning proper rituals and Sanskrit terminology for esoteric concepts, and learning comprehensive Vaishnava history, while considering themselves to be following the raga-marga.

The raga-marga is the path Mahaprabhu mainly taught about, but it was taught using metaphors so that neophytes would also benefit by hearing about Krsna-lila and would advance to the next stage. If you have advanced beyond the neophyte stage and desire to be intimate with God and develop your eternal bhava here and now, you cannot use what is meant for neophytes as the basis for your understanding of sastra and the teachings of Mahaprabhu. It’s perfectly alright for neophytes to hear more advanced teachings, that is how they advance. The warnings about teaching unqualified people Gaudiya esoterica is meant for the general public, not for those who have taken up sadhana-bhakti sincerely.

I am the last person to say that everything described in sastra should be taken literally. At the same time, the sastra of the Goswamis’ is an effort to put into words their experience. Short of one’s own experience, discussions of the highest realm should be with reference to that which has been said about it by persons who have been there. And while they may speak about it in ways that are primarily useful for going there, one is not at liberty to speak about it oneself in other ways without having gone there oneself.

There is a place for making the basic point you rise and I have raised it so myself many times in ways that I believe were conducive to the spiritual advancement of those who were listening, but there is also a place when making such a point will only lead to confusion, speculation, and irreverence for sastra, none of which is useful for one’s spiritual progress.

Although there is more to enlightened life than words and thought can do justice to, sastra has given us the guidelines as to how to think and speak about that more. Sastra yukti is meaningful in this regard, whereas kevala-yukti is not and moreover it is harmful. Thus one can know much about liberated life from sastra and reliable persons with spiritual experience, and while there is more, that more is not something that contradicts that which has been given in sastra. Regarding rasananda, sastra gives us the table of contents. So there is more to the book of spiritual life than this but not something not found in the table of contents. Rasananda is the highest love and love knows no bounds, but nevertheless rasananda manifests within specific paramaters. Fortunately Sri Rupa Goswami has written definitively on the subject for Gaudiya Vaisnavas.

To imply that the subject discussed on this thread is not meaningful to discuss, or that the points raised cannot be decided definitively is a misunderstanding of the truth that there is more to liberated life than the words of sastra can do justice to.