Sanga: “O My Friend!” Revisited
Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari
Q. I recently read your publication, O My Friend! O My Friend!, which implies that Srila Prabhupada’s rasa, or eternal spiritual identity, is that of a cowherd boy in Krishna lila (sakhya rasa). To my knowledge Srila Prabhupada did not specify which rasa he was in, so isn’t it speculative and therefore mundane to say he is in sakhya rasa?
A. There is a difference between mental speculation and sastra-yukti. My conviction as to Srila Prabhupada’s spiritual affinity is not simply speculation as I have supported it with Srila Prabhupada’s own words, the realization of sadhus, and Krishna conscious philosophy. This support constitutes sastra-yukti. Indeed, my position seeks to end speculation by directing attention to Srila Prabhupada’s own words on the matter, which incidentally refute the idea that he did not specify his rasa.
What is “mundane” about collecting everything that Srila Prabhupada said about his sentiment? As it turns out he said quite a lot, so is it not meaningful to make this evidence available to the community? We should be interested in all that Srila Prabhupada said about his sentiment and in thinking about the implications of his statements in light of sastra. This is exactly how the sentiments of other Gaudiya acaryas were determined. They said things and their followers have scripturally reasoned about them to reach a conclusion. This is exactly how Gaura-ganodesa-dipika was written. Kavi-karnapura collected the available evidence and testimony and reached his conclusions. This process is not speculative and mundane but rather the bona fide process of sastra-yukti.
Furthermore, I don’t think talking about what Srila Prabhupada has said about himself or the idea that he is in sakhya rasa or any other rasa is any more inappropriate than talking about Rupa Goswami’s spiritual affinity or Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s affinity. My siksa guru, Pujyapada B. R. Sridhara Maharaja, talked about it, and Srila Prabhupada considered him his own siksa guru.
So let us judge by the fruits. Srila Prabhupada said on a number of occasions that he identified with sakhya rasa. He also wrote a poem to Krishna in his intimate moments expressing the desire for sakhya rasa. We find no equivalent stated aspiration on his part for any other rasa. So, to keep it simple, if some devotees feel enthused to see Srila Prabhupada in sakhya rasa and pursue that ideal in relation to him, and we find that in doing so they remain enthusiastic about their spiritual practice, do we really need to condemn them for mental speculation?
Q. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura said that one’s rasa could never be grasped by a person who is not completely purified of material contamination. Therefore it should not be divulged to the general public in any medium. Could you explain your justification for making knowledge of Srila Prabhupada’s rasa available on the Internet by publishing O My Friend?
A. Actually Bhaktivinoda Thakura published a book called Navadiwip-bhava-taranga in which he speaks openly about his rasa, spiritual form, eternal seva, and so on. It is widely available in English, even on the Internet. So you misrepresent Bhaktivinoda here and misunderstand what he writes concerning confidentiality in bhajana.
In contrast, O My Friend! contains general information that speaks only about Srila Prabhupada’s affinity for sakhya rasa. It does not discuss details of his particular svarupa (form, dress, seva, and so on) but rather encourages devotees so interested to pursue intense spiritual practice by which such details can be known in the privacy of one’s own heart. Furthermore, far more intimate truths are available in Sri Caitanya-caritamrita and other standard Gaudiya scriptures.
Q. Nonetheless, in Sri Caitanya-siksamrita, Bhaktivinoda Thakura states, “Rasa is not a part of sadhana. Therefore if somebody says, ’Come, I will teach you rasa.’ Then it will be his wickedness or foolishness.” Doesn’t this quote give sufficient reason to avoid publishing O My Friend! or similar books?
A. O My Friend! does not “teach rasa,” it is citing and reasoning about what Srila Prabhupada said concerning his spiritual affinity. The book does not encourage anyone to do anything other than engage in hearing and chanting the name of Krishna. Yes, rasa is not part of sadhana. It is the perfection of bhava bhakti—prema. Ultimately, one cannot teach love, as it is experiential; nonetheless, we do teach the theory of bhakti rasa in books like Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu.
Q. In my view, whatever we say on behalf of Srila Prabhupada must be something we could say in front of him. I find it hard to believe he would be happy with our raising this subject matter for general discussion–confidential means confidential. Without a definitive comment from Srila Prabhupada or a mutually accepted arbiter there can be no conclusion to this discussion.
A. While telling me that I should not entertain the subject, you summarily dismiss the fact that Srila Prabhupada himself entertained the subject and then say that what Srila Prabhupada did say about himself in this regard was not definitive. It would seem safer to just go with Srila Prabhupada on this one. O My Friend! sets the record straight as to what Srila Prabhupada actually said on the matter.
Furthermore, there will be issues that arise that were not dealt with when Srila Prabhupada was here. Some of them could very well be spiritually progressive insights into the spiritual reality of our divine master. I certainly hope so, and it is reasonable that they would eventually be made public, as have such insights concerning our previous acaryas.
As for a final arbiter on this issue, I for one accept Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja’s words on the matter. Others may disagree, but let them present convincing insight and evidence to the contrary. In any case, I have no problem if devotees want to think of Srila Prabhupada as being in madhurya rasa as long as they don’t try to suppress evidence to the contrary. In regard to coming to a conclusion to this discussion, realization resulting from spiritual practice is the means of definitive knowing and O My Friend! encourages its readers to take up such practice.
See Also Sanga: The Dearmost Friend of Krishna
Download O My Friend! O My Friend!
Recently a Godbrother of mine saw fit to end a class on Srimad-Bhagavatam at an ISKCON center by asserting that my argument that the preponderance of the external evidence points to Srila Prabhupada’s affinity for sakhhya rasa is “total speculation.” I’m sorry to say this, but it is he who is simply speculating here. He says that Srila Prabhupada never said what his bhava is. (Please note that I use the present tense, whereas this speaker uses the past tense, even with regard to Lord Nityananda’s love for Krishna. I find this odd because what’s being discussed is the sthayi bhava, something which is the foundation for all the other elements of rasa in the devotee’s life. Sthayi means lasting or permanent. Of the five bhavas that interact to create rasa, this is the one that does not change.) In fact, I have pointed out several instances where Srila Prabhupada did so indicate, including at least one where he said it as explicitly as possible: “My spiritual master is in the mood of a gopi, manjari, but I am a cowherd boy.” How does he explain that away? What about the seventh verse of Srila Prabhupada’s “Prayer to the Lotus Feet of Krishna”? There he says, “O my dear friend! In your company I will experience great joy again. Wandering about the pastures and fields, I will pass the entire day with you, tending the grazing cows. Joking with you boisterously and frolicking throughout Vraja’s many forests, I will roll on the ground in ecstasy. When, oh when, will that day be mine?” Srila Prabhupada wrote in his journal, “Today I have disclosed my mind to my companion Lord Sri Krishna. There is a Bengali poem made by me today in this connection.” This is, then, Srila Prabhupada intimately revealing his heart to his friend, whom he addresses at the very outset: krsna taba punya habe bhai: My dear brother, you may become fortunate in this way.”
This speaker says that my work is “total speculation.” In fact, other devotees and I have shown that my work is not “total speculation”; rather, it is analysis by shastra yukti.
He cites another Godbrother as saying that a tree bears only one kind of fruit. However, as someone with some experience growing things, I’d like to suggest that one may graft different varieties of one species of fruit onto a tree, so we may have a tree with several varieties of mango. Moreover, Sri Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, says, through the pen of Srila Krishna das kaviraja, yuga-dharma pravartaimu nama-sankirtana/ cari bhava-bhakti diya nacamu bhuvana: “I shall personally inaugurate the religion of the age — nama-sankirtana, the congregational chanting of the holy name. I shall make the world dance in ecstasy, realizing the four mellows of loving devotional service” (Cc. 1.3.19). As I point out in my booklet, the Lord comes to taste the bhava of Radha, and he comes to give the four bhavas of Vraja. Moreover, I have shown that it is not a fact that, as this speaker cites his friend as saying, that all the previous acaryas were (again, his word) all gopis. All these points are covered in my booklet, and our speaker and I have discussed them a number of times, yet he still acts as though he has never heard it. He is certainly free to follow his friend’s assertion; I’ll follow Krishna’s.
Our speaker admonishes, “We don’t know what Prabhupada was [sic], so don’t speculate.” Still, on the basis of some general statements of siddhanta, he proceeds to speculate that it is offensive to assume that Srila Prabhupada could be in any bhava other than madhurya. How are we to take him seriously?
He dismissively talks of our choosing to be cows, trees, cowherd boys, or whatever. He admits at the end of his talk that our goal is Krishna prema, whatever our sthayi bhava. In that he is correct; however, just how we serve Krishna is ultimately determined by Krishna’s desire. He knows quite well what sort of service he wants from each of us.
The context for his remarks is the assertion by our acaryas that worship of Krsna’s most confidential devotees, the gopis of Vraja, is the most elevated spiritual activity. There has never been any controversy about whether madhurya-rati is objectively more elevated, more intense than the others. He raises that if it were an issue of contention, but it has never been. Still, subjectively, each devotee’s own bhava is the best for him or her, according to Ramananda Samvada. And the idea that it somehow denigrates one of Krishna’s associates to see him or her as something less than the “highest” is simply an imposition of material consideration on a completely transcendental situation. It is, in our speaker’s words, total speculation. And that is also something he and I have discussed more than a few times.
This speaker closes his class with a selection from a Caitanya-caritamrita purport in which Srila Prabhupada quotes Srila Sarasvati Thakura’s Anubhasya is concerned, which he seemed to feel was his trump card, claiming that it says that even those in other bhavas may become gopis. Here is what he read:
Then he says that Srila Prabhupada then quotes Narottama das Thakuura’s song, “Gauranga Bolite Habe.”
However Srila Prabhupada explains all this in comments after his translation of Narottoma’s song, which our speaker neglected to include in his presentation of the quotation. We can get a better understanding of what Srila Prabhupada intends if we read those comments, which clarify this speaker’s perhaps understandable misconception.
Here’s what Srila Prabhupada says after his translation of the song:
Our speaker exclaims, “So clear!” But this is not as clear as he seemed to think. There is no mention in Srila Prabhupada’s explanation of moving through the rasas, of being promoted from friendly or parental love to conjugal love. Rather, he explains Narottama’s song as saying that without first having become purified of material misconceptions, then receiving the mercy of Lord Nityananda, no one can enter Vrindavana under the guidance of Rupa and Raghunatha das Goswami, and only then, by their mercy, can one enter, as SBSST puts it, “the intimate circle of devotees in conjugal love” in Mahaprabhu’s company. He’s not describing “promotion” through the ranks, as it were, of the different ratis; rather, he is describing the process of entering madhurya rasa by those devotees who aspire for it. This is in perfect accord with everything else Srila Prabhupada has taught us, following Srila Rupa Goswami, regarding the sthayi bhava: it does not change but serves as the foundation for all the other bhavas. The confusion is not completely unwarranted. It takes a little work to discern the referent for the phrase “such devotees” in the last sentence of the Anubhasya quotation. That antecedent is not in the immediately previous sentence, which mentions devotees of Lord Nityananda and Advaita Acarya. Rather, “such devotees” refers to those most confidential devotees of Lord Caitanya engaged in conjugal service.
Once again, I have to point out that the misunderstandings are due to not reading carefully, either my booklet, or in this case, Srila Prabhupada’s purport. For the record, I never created a pretext for discussing this subject matter in a class at an ISKCON center. I actually avoided doing out of courtesy, aware of the sensibilities of ISKCON members. However, this devotee felt it necessary to go out of his way to dismiss my work as “total speculation” before an audience unable or unwilling to call him on his own speculation. So much for courtesy.
Dandavat pranams to all devotee writers and readers here. I want to share with you what I have heard from some present Gaudiya Acharyas on this topic to remember them to clear my heart and to increase my devotion and as gratitude to all devotees here that have written on this topic so far.
—–
Q : How is Krishna Das Babaji Maharaj a Rupanuga (being associated and initiated by Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami Thakur) and expressing his desire to serve in sahkya ras?
A : There is a connection between sahkya and madhur ras, but not with vatsalya. For example, in Varshan Dham the sakhas quarrel with gopis to extract taxes and also in morning nitya lila in Nandagram, in cowshed, both gopis and sakhas are present, but not Yashoda. For that Krishna Das Babaji Maharaj is required.
—–
Q : Does every jiva from tatashta sakti have potential to get gopi-prem?
A : If she gets such association.
—–
Q : Srila Swami Maharaj is in sakhya ras?
A : Yes, he expressed this in his song on Jaladuta.
—–
Q : Some disciples of Srila Swami Maharaj are saying he is in sakhya ras, but Srila Narayan Maharaj said he is in madhur ras, since he took sannyas mantra from Srila Keshav Maharaj?
A : Disciples of Srila Swami Maharaj are not so qualified, so he (Srila Swami Maharaj) expressed himself as being in sakhya ras, like actor, but his aim is gopi-bhav.
Q : And Krishna Das Babaji Maharaj?
A : Also, his aim is gopi-bhav.
—–
Q: Is Srila Swami Maharaj in sakhya ras
A : No, his favourite song was Jay Radha Madhava kunja bihari
—–
Q : Srila Swami Maharaj is in sakhya ras?
A : Yes. If he is satisfied there he will never change, but if he wants he may change (progress).
——
In Prema pradip in last chapter Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur explains gradual progressive steps through different rasas to reach one’s own siddha ruci.
In Navadwip Bhava Taranga Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur at one point expresses his desire to serve in sakhya ras (in description of Godrum), but at the end he is established in madhur ras.
On this link, even Srila Swami Maharaj says one may change his service mood : http://www.harekrsna.de/siddha-pranali.htm
I hope to get some comments on above topics, especially from Srila Tripurari Maharaj.
Thank you all.
1. The answer to question one is correct. Akincana dasa babaji realized his ideal in sakhya rasa as a priyanarma sakha. But also the term “Rupanuga” has a twofold meaning: to follow Rupa Goswami internally and externally–in one’s siddha and sadhaka rupa or to follow him only externally in one’s sadhaka rupa while pursuing a different siddha rupa–a different bhava–than the one Sri Rupa personally relishes. By this I mean that one can be a Rupanuga by following Rupa Goswami’s teachings on suddha bhakti detailed in Bhkatirasamrita-sindhu without following the particular bhava or internal reality of Rupa Goswami. Or one can be a Rupanuga by way of following him externally as well as internally. To follow him internally is to pursue manjari gopi bhava.
2. Association is crucial to the development of one’s svarupa. At the same time such association is arranged by Krsna, who sends us our guru–guru krsna prasade pay bhakti lata bija. In other words, Krsna arranges the association we get. From this it would appear that he has some say in the matter, and this in turn leads to a sense that one’s svarupa is eternally existing in the mind of God, if you will, as a potentiality to be realized in conjunction with sadhu sanga through which bhakti enters one’s life. The svarupa of the jiva is constituted of the essence of Krsna’s svarupa sakti–bhakti.
3. This answer is correct. My Guru Maharaja expressed his aspiration for sakhya rasa on the Jaladuta but elsewhere as well on numerous occasions. There is no need to speculate on the matter.
4, This is a silly answer. What would be the purpose of Prabhupada acting as if he were a gopa when in actuality he is a gopi? And is that what he was doing when he wrote his Prayer to Lord Krsna on the Jaladuta before he had any disciples in the West? No, in this prayer that was not written for public consumption he is expressing his heart, his bhajana rahasya. Furthermore Prabhupada readily taught his disciples about gopi bhava in his books anyway. What would be the advantage of teaching that gopi bhava is the highest reach of Gaudiya Vaisnavism and then pretending not to be in gopi bhava by acting and speaking as if one was in sakhya rasa. And if Prabhupada’s disciples are so neophyte that he had to do that (which makes no sense), why did Narayana Maharaja emphasize the ideal of gopi bhava to such neophytes?
5. Akincana dasa babaji wrote to Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja in detail about his attainment of sakhya rasa and Sridhara Maharaja shared that with us. But Babaji Maharaja’s sakhya rasa is, again, that of a priyanarma sakha, and this is also sometimes referred to as sakhi-bhava because of the madhurya component in this form of sakhya rasa.
6. Thakura Bhaktivinoda’s song “Jaya Radha Madhava” mentions all the rasas of Vraja–yasodanandana vraja jana ranjana . . . And in Prabhupada’s own comments on this song he emphasizes this fact and concludes his comments on it with a reference to sakhya rasa.
7. Yes, he is in sakhya rasa. But there is no change because the stahyi bhava does not change. Are we to think that one attains sakhya rasa in the Vraja lila wherein he is a member of a particular Vraja lila family and that one day he turns into a gopi? No.
The gradual “progress” you mention is only a description of the fact that there is a progression of intimacy from one rasa to the next. Each successive rasa contains within it that which is found in the previous rasa and more. This is the idea. And Prabhupada has expressed the ruci he has attained for that matter.
The aspiration expressed by BVT for sakhya rasa in NBT is a fleeting one owing to circumstance that can easily be identified as interest in the sakhya that is present in madhurya. The same is not true of Prabhupada’s stated, detailed aspiration for sakhya rasa in his prayer and his other repeated statements in this regard. And his repeated stated aspiration for sakhya rasa is not accompanied by any such stated aspiration for gopi bhava. In the case of BVT we find repeated and detailed aspirations of gopi bhava and one fleeting mention of interest in sakhya rasa that is circumstantial.
In my reading the link you provided does not say what you state it does. And if it did, we would have to harmonize that with Rupa Goswami’s siddhanta on rasa tattva that makes no room for attaining one rasa and then pursuing another. Rasa is the prayojana tattva, not abhideya tattva. And for that matter the two correspond: what one practices/aspires for one attains. In Prabhuapda we find clear aspiration for sakhya rasa that can only lead to its attainment. We find no other aspiration and thus there is no cause to speak of any other attainment. Such ideas are forced and unsupportable. They indicate an agenda, not siddhanta.
But to be generous, the idea that Prabhupada is in madhurya rasa may also indicate one’s lack of information as to what Prabhupada himself repeatedly said about his ideal. If we combine this lack of information with our sampradaya’s emphasis on gopi bhava, it is understandable that one might think that Prabhupad is in madhurya rasa. That is why we published O My Friend!
Another link to support the view that Srila AC Bhakti Vedanta Swami Maharaj is serving in sakhya ras
http://www.richardshawbrown.com/mysticarticles/gopi-or-gopa.html
Thank you Maharaj for this nice, quick, reasonable, clear and generous answer.
You wrote :
For my own learning, could you kindly give reference to this Rupa Goswami’s siddhanta? So Prayojana/Rasa tattva is not dynamic?
In this connection, I also remembered, that one of those Vaishnavas giving above answers, also told me, he once heard from Srila Bhakti Promod Puri Goswami Maharaj that Dhananjay Pandit changed his nitya-siddha (or attained) rasa from sakhya to madhurya. I heard such information also from a disciple of Srila Ananta Das Babaji of Radhakund.
How to harmonise Srila Rupa Goswami’s siddhanta you refer to above, your Guru Maharaj’s statement in that link (that one may change) and information of Srila BP Puri Maharaj and Srila Ananta Das Babaji?
Thank you in advance.
I looked again at the link you provided and now I see what you were referring to. Therein Prabhupada says in a conversation that the spiritual world is dynamic and change is possible but not common. He also uses the word “Vaikuntha.” In Vaikuntha devotees do change forms (not rasas) to serve Bhagavan. So perhaps he was referring to this fact. But the idea that a sadhaka who has attained his or her ideal in the Vraja lila may at some point change rasas is not explained in Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu or any where else. The very idea is questionable at best because each devotee is fully satisfied with the prema he or she attains. Their sthayi bhava is the basis of their experience of rasa and the stahyi bhava is not transient like sancari bhavas are. So how will one change one’s sthayi bhava, the dominant emotion that is the very basis of one’s spiritual existence? And why would one want to to? The clear teaching is that no such desire for change has scope for arising. Indeed from the perspective of one’s developed sthayi bhava in rasa one does not see that other rasas are better or more desirable, but rather that one has attained the best possible ideal. This is so even when aspects of one rasa or another stand out and are glorified by those in other rasas, as in the instance where Radha glorifies Subala and envies his ability to walk arm in arm with Krsna in public. Even Uddhava did not want to change his rasa upon understanding the transcendental superiority of the Vraja rasa of the gopis, etc. It is not that the spiritual world is not dynamic because of this, but rather that such are the dynamics of rasananda. Prema is characterized as being full yet ever increasing. To be more clear, one who attains the svarupa of a gopa in sakhya rasa does not think that gopi bhava is more desirable, but rather such a devotee thinks that his or her position is better than that of those in gopi bhava. Even advanced devotees who have not yet attained prema will think like this about their own cherished bhava and accordingly they will read and understand texts describing Krsna lila with such a spiritual bias.
That said some eternal associates of Krsna, nitya siddhas constituted of svarupa sakti, do change forms and accompany him in other lilas, etc. tasting rasa in Dvaraka, Vaikuntha, etc. But we do not find them changing rasas in the same lila. The idea that Dhanajaya Pandita, one of the dvadasa gopalas in sakhya rasa, changed into a manjari is not an idea I accept. I would be surprised in B.P. Puri Goswami said that he did. But it does not surprise me that the lineage of Ananta dasa babaji makes this claim. The fact that the fountain of their lineage is in sakhya rasa is problematic for them, given their teaching. And we find elsewhere that the lineages of the dvadasa gopalas have somehow turned into manjari bhava lineages. I attribute such changes to an unfortunate development in the Gaudiya community, an inordinate emphasis on manjari bhava for the sake of collecting disciples. After all, if manjari bhava is the highest and your lineage does not have it, you are at a disadvantage in terms of collecting followers, or so it may seem to those who make a business out of initiating disciples. I am not accusing Ananta dasa babaji of this, but long ago I believe such mundane adjustments were made on the part of less than fully qualified devotees. And this relates to the problems Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura faced in his preaching.
That said, little of this if anything really has any bearing on Prabhupada’s ideal. Again, he has clearly stated his position privately and publicly. What is the need to try to make more out of it than what he himself has revealed?
Thank you for reply Maharaj.
I can belive your Gurudev is serving in sakhya ras. But in that link he is not using the word Vaikuntha, but spiritual kingdom and discussion is about relationships with Krishna in Goloka (cows, cowherd boys) which he says can be changed. But yes, that is another topic and as per your Gurudev for liberated souls which I am not.
Do you think one may also be aware that your Gurudev is serving in sakhya ras, but for the time being presents him as being in madhur ras, for the sake of encouragment for devotional practice of his followers who have “liking for your Gurudev” and “highest ras”, like clever doctor who will give rasagula to induce the child to take medicine?
Or one may have slightly awakened transcendental interest in madhur ras and still have some material conceptions of your Gurudev and of madhur ras and presenting him in madhur ras (for the time being) would encourage such person to practice sadhan to fully attain madhur ras?
I would be glad to read your comments on this.
Yes
Srila Rupa Goswami did say that he was only sharing just a drop from the great ocean of devotion. We cannot taste one drop and say we have drunk the whole ocean.
Pilgram Journey,
In which verse did Rupa Goswami say that? There is no such verse in Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu that I am aware of. But nonetheless what you imply is troubling: If a tenet of rasa tattva is not found in Rupa Goswami’s definitive text on bhakti-rasa and even if such a proposed tenet contradicts what Sri Rupa has written therein, one is free to say that such a tenet constitutes more of the ocean of bhakti-rasa that what Rupa Goswami has explained. This is not theology nor how a scripturally based lineage functions in terms of explaining itself.
thanks for your reply Maharaja. Actually, the reference I should have cited was Mahaprabhu’s teaching to Srila Rupa Goswami where he told Rupa that:
““The ocean of the transcendental mellows of devotional service is so big that no one can estimate its length and breadth. However, just to help you taste it, I am describing but one drop.”
Madhya 19.138
Mahaprabhu said that he was describing to Rupa but one drop as the ocean of mellows is inestimable. Sri Rupa in turn shared that one drop in his own teachings.
thank-you
Thank you Maharaj. Dandavat pranam.
This was spoken in response to those in Iskcon who opposed Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja’s own personal opinion—generously. It was also spoken without knowledge of all that has been presented in O My Friend!, evidence that includes Prabhupada’s own words on the subject stating his identification with sakhya rasa. And if we read Srila Prabhupada’s books we see that he did not hesitate to speak about madhurya rasa. He wrote about it as much or more than any rasa. How could he not when he presented Caitanya Caritamrta? But most conclusively, before he began his preaching campaign in the West he prayed in private to attain sakhya rasa. In other words before being empowered by Nityananda Rama he aspired for sakhya rasa. Thus his deference for Krsna Balarama was not a result of being empowered by Baladeva, but rather his affinity for sakhya rasa—to realize it in the context of gauravani pracarine and guru seva—resulted in his empowerment by Nityananda Rama.
But I agree with Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja: If some wants to think otherwise, I have no objection.
I guess we can’t argue with the conclusions of Sridhar Maharaja, but he did say that “at least temporarily he has showed like that”. To me that leaves open the possibilities and is not an absolute affirmation.
To say “temporarily” is not at all a final adjudication on the rasa of Srila Prabhupada. It seems that all of Sridhar Maharaja’s views on the rasa of Prabhupada were prefaced with this caution.
But you ignore my testimony as to the context of this statement, as well as the clear logic regarding Prabhupada’s aspiration for sakhya rasa prior to being empowered. And if you think you can’t argue with the conclusions of SM, it is important to understand them in context. Furthermore how can you argue with my guru’s own conclusions when he himself he speaks about his inner life? I guess you feel free to argue with my conclusions concerning the object of my devotion, but in my opinion you are not making a convincing case. That said I will admit that no one will convince me to change my opinion. I leave it to you to decide for yourself whether that is because I am closed minded or spiritually advanced.
Maharaja, thank-you for your thought-provoking response. My reply would be that Srila Prabhupada expressed sakhya-rasa bhava at times because in fact he was at least “temporarily” in sakhya-rasa. Of course we know that madhurya-rasa contains all the other rasas. That is the teachings of the Goswamis. So, theoretically a devotee in madhurya-rasa could easily enter into another rasa on a temporary basis if there were certain stimulating factors in place. I can’t remember where I read it but somewhere I read once that the gopis were not only lovers of Krishna but friends as well. So, being a lover includes being a friend. That seems to be what the science of rasa mandates.
Despite what my personal feelings are on the matter, it is quite obvious that Sridhar Maharaja several times stated that this sakhya-rasa bhava of Srila Prabhupada could be a “temporary” condition due to certain stimulating factors affecting the mood of Srila Prabhupada. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with his assessment. I am just admitting the facts of what the record states regarding his opinions as he voiced them.
Again, you ignore the context go SM’s statement as explained by myself. And the kind of aspiration we seen in Prabhupada’s prayer can not be explained in the manner you try to explain it. Manjari upasakas don’t pray to herd cows with Krsna throughout the day in the name of gopis sometimes desiring sakhya rasa. No, manjaris desire only to serve Radha, who herself expands as Subala sakha to experience sakhya rasa.
Pilgrim Journey said: “So, theoretically a devotee in madhurya-rasa could easily enter into another rasa on a temporary basis if there were certain stimulating factors in place.”
A devotee may experience transitory feelings associated with another rasa, but it does not change or overwhelm the stayi-bhava, in this case sakhya rasa. As you said, being a lover includes being a friend. This is true, but being in a gopi deha does not allow for experiencing full fledged sakhya rasa in the way that requires a gopa deha like Prabhupada is praying for, described here by Srila Sridhar Maharaj:
Please note as Swami is pointing out, Prabhupada is praying this way, for a gopa-deha in gopa-lila BEFORE his empowerment. This prayer is the clearest evidence of Prabhupada’s directly stated affinity for sakhya rasa, and is not a result of his empowerment, but rather a catalyst – such deep, focused bhava Prabhupada is expressing privately to his friend Krsna. The fact that Prabhupada continued to express this same affinity throughout the rest of his time here, AFTER being empowered by his friend only confirms his unwavering stayi bhava. Further, it should be considered that if Prabhupada’s sakhya sentiment was temporary but his stayi is really in madhura-rasa, there should be several comparable references wherein he demonstrates his affinity for that rasa, where the temporariness of sakhya bhava shows and some madhura shines through. This is not the case. There is not one comparable reference.
I wish there were a Like button for Madan Gopal’s comment. It’s pretty much just what I was about to write. Of course, it’s a point Swami, Madan, and I have made any number of times. It points out the importance of actually understanding the science of bhakti as outlined by Srila Rupa Goswami in a little book called Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu, presented in an easily digestable way by Srila Prabhupada in The Nectar of Devotion. We should read these books carefully and discuss them in the association of experienced devotees.