Ramananda-samvada & the Ontological Ultimacy of Gaura Lila
By Swāmī Bhakti Praṇaya Padmanābha
It was said by the wise that silence is the language of God and that everything else is but a poor translation. At the same time, the concept of absolute silence is a ludicrous idea. When one stops speaking, another begins. Ideally, when we become silent, it is only to qualify ourselves for further hearing—the greater the silence, the greater the hearing, and the greater the message to be revealed.
Let us now turn to what may be the most resounding moment of silence in the Gaudiya tradition and consider its ontological backdrop and far-reaching implications. For this we will need to go south, “to go down.” Generally, those who want to go up must first “fall upward,” in the words of Richard Rohr. Before making a quantum leap to the northern peaks of Vraja lila, we must first go south—let us go to Godavari.
While Godavari is one of southern Bharata’s many sacred portals, the word “Godavari” indicates much more than just another Earthly holy place. Its inherent sacredness and significance are deeply embedded in each of its syllables. On one level, Godavari may refer to one of the main sources (vari) of giving (da) water (go). However, because the syllable go can also indicate the Vedas, Godavari ultimately points to that place where the highest conception (vari) of the sruti (go) is released (da). It’s here at Godavari that we can find the most comprehensive understanding of the Vedas and its corresponding conclusion: Gaudiya Vedanta.
This Godavari was the chosen stage for one of the Gaudiya sampradaya’s most crucial moments, when the very essence of its narrative presented itself in the context of a samvada between Raya Ramananda and Sriman Gaurasundara. A samvada, one of the four classical methods of Vedic communication, is a lively dialogue on a particular topic found in sacred texts such as the Upanisads, Gita, and Bhagavata, Gaura lila’s not being an exception.
Thus, popularly known as the Ramananda-samvada, this particular meeting was unique: a brahmana sannyasi (Sri Caitanya) broke with social convention, to surprisingly inquire from a sudra viceroy (Ramananda) about sadhya-sadhana-tattva, the highest possible attainment and its respective praxis, all on the basis of scriptural thesis. This so-called sudra was actually Visakha-devi in the role of an aprakrta-sahajiya (a supramundane bhakta of spontaneous nature).1 This so-called sannyasi was Sri Krishna in the role of Sri Radha, inquiring from one of Radha’s dearest friends about how to properly culture her bhava, a culture that was just beginning and that would eventually become more and more systematic in Jagannatha Puri’s Gambhira. Ramananda is thus considered to be one of Mahaprabhu’s gurus. Ramananda gave Gaura Krishna practical/realized knowledge (vijnana) about Radha tattva, which he knew only in theory (jnana), being fully conversant only with Krishna tattva. Krishna is the absolute object (visaya) of bhakti, but he is unaware of the experience of Sri Radha as the vessel (asraya) of prema. His pursuit of this experience as Sri Caitanya is the heart of the Gaura avatari.
After hearing Ramananda’s robust and systematic presentation of theological possibilities (starting from varnasrama sensibilities and going through diverse nuances of devotional expression, eventually converging into the depths of Vraja prema), Gaurasundara abruptly shut his mouth during the height of his speech. The resulting silence spoke louder than a million mouths, with both of them entering into what Sri Gopala-campu defines as “a state of the highest communication where nothing needs to be said.”2 What was about to be said at that point, and what were the ultimate reasons behind such ecstatic silence? The timeline goes as follows.
After rejecting Ramananda’s first four proposals by considering them superficial in relation to his cherished ideal, Sri Caitanya implored Rama Raya to augment those truths, eventually bringing the conversation to the shores of the rapturous bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu and the many valuable jewels to be discovered therein. Sri Caitanya, being exclusively interested in one of those particular gems, passionately asked for more, even when Ramananda had seemingly reached the utmost limit of his presentation in the form of a generic description of madhurya-rasa. This apparent limit may indeed be the conceptual end for many of us. But for someone like Gaura, it was just the introduction to the real thing. He said, “Speak more if there is more.” And indeed, there was.
Until that day, nobody had asked Ramananda to go further (nor had anyone in religious history asked for more). Ramananda continued, sharing the specifics of Radha’s unmatched glories and engagement in loving affairs. Next, after giving some tattva to further ground his emotional points, Rama Raya, feeling himself to be a dancing puppet in Gaura’s hands, described how Radha and Krishna enjoy their mutual loving exchanges. By Gaura’s insistence, this divine viceroy mentioned that there was one final topic still to be presented. But he told Mahaprabhu, “I do not know whether you will be happy with it or not.”3 This topic is known as prema-vilasa-vivarta.
Vilasa-vivarta refers to Radha and Krishna’s identifying with one another even to the point of “melting” their minds and hearts into one another’s with only the bliss of their union remaining. Thus, in this vivarta (which also means “bewildered condition”), both of them forget their own identities, becoming fully immersed in seeing themselves as one another. For such an elevated subject, Ramananda was unable to provide any classical sastra-pramana (since the topic was far above the reach of the standard revealed texts). He had to compose some poetry of his own, being the rasika Vaisnava that he was. Thus, Sri Raya sang to Gaura his sweetest song, in which Sri Radha’s separation from Krishna in adhirudha mahabhava is beautifully portrayed.4 It was right after these very words that Ramananda’s silence began to speak for itself. Being ecstatically concerned and embarrassed, Gaura had to shut his teacher’s mouth, thus confirming that Sri Radha’s adhirudha mahabhava is the apex of every conceivable and inconceivable goal.
Of course, this frenzied interruption contained many different levels of significance. On the most immediate level, Gaura shut Ramananda’s mouth because this topic was already too confidential to be exposed in public. Here we find a very high degree of symbolism, with Mahaprabhu promotion of caution around esoteric content in the presence of unprepared audiences. In this regard, Sri Sarasvati Thakura has explained this divine silence, stating that for the prakrta-sahajiya sector of mundane imitationists, it is impossible to follow the concept of vilasa-vivarta, or inverted roles in lila (where Krishna adopts the position of Radha in the context of loving intimacy and vice versa), and that is why Mahaprabhu stopped Ramananda.
Before having his mouth shut, Ramananda was able to share some revealed support that further depicts this condition:
Vrinda-devi said: O king of mad elephants (Krishna), who dallies in Govardhana’s love bowers! There is an accomplished artist of the name Sringara-rasa (Kamadeva), and upon the fire generated from the heat of the emotions coming from both you and Radha, he has slowly melted the shellac-like hearts of you both, and made them one. Then mixing that with profuse quantities of the kunkuma of your ever-fresh driving love, he is painting an astonishing picture upon the inner walls of the grand temple of the universe.
Ujjvala-nilamani 14.155
In this astonishing profusion of prema, absorption in oneness reaches its highest stage. Radha’s knowledge that she is the nayika (heroine) and that Krishna is the nayaka (hero) becomes covered. In divine delusion, the roles are reversed, with Radha mistakenly considering herself to be the hero and Sri Krishna thinking himself to be the heroine. Therefore, we could say that to prevent such secrets from being spoken out loud, Mahaprabhu covered Rama Raya’s mouth. And while this explanation may justifiably be given as the ultimate reason for Ramananda’s silence, there is still more to be said.
Before presenting his ultimate conception, Rama Raya told Gaura that he was not sure whether his words would make him happy. One possible reading of this statement is that Ramananda’s final words revealed and established Sri Gauranga (and the prema for him) as the definitive sadhya to be attained while giving the inner reasons for his descent. While in Krishna lila we find Radha and Krishna forgetful of themselves but aware of each other (thus still being two), in Gaura lila the dyad of Radha and Krishna becomes one in the form of Sri Gauranga, thus providing a permanent solution for this most astonishing psychological quandary in the life of the Absolute.5
How does this solution work? When Radha and Krishna seek to become one in love, their union becomes so strong that Radha feels herself to be Krishna, and vice versa—Radha’s heart becomes Krishna’s, and Krishna’s heart becomes Radha’s. Thus they exchange hearts in order to become one, but they still remain two. As close as they try to become, the duality of the two remains. In this section of the Ramananda-samvada, we find the ultimate solution for this dilemma finally appearing in the form of Mahaprabhu, where the two become one.6
The final union of this dynamic duo is introduced by Krishnadasa Kaviraja in the theological zenith of Caitanya-caritamrta’s mangalacarana.7 There he invokes the term pranaya, which speaks about love in a general sense but also about a very unique type of love in the context of bhakti-rasa. In the latter case, Radha and Krishna consider each other’s existence, bodily functions, and belongings to be the same, total self-forgetfulness being its main symptom. Swami B. V. Tripurari writes about this verse thus:
The word pranaya refers to the pranaya within madanakhya–mahabhava—the deepest sense of loving identification between Radha and Krishna. It refers to Sri Radha’s complete merging in love with Krishna. She is the very form of mahabhava—mahabhava-svarupini—and she alone tastes this limit of love. She is the origin of love of Krishna. Thus, the words radha krsna-pranaya-vikrtir in this mangala verse tell us that Sri Radha is a transformation of love of Krishna—Krishna transformed into love of Krishna.
Swami Tripurari, Sacred Preface (Darshan Press, 2016), p. 134
In that precise moment when Ramananda paralleled this mangala verse by singing a poem to Gaura where Radha expresses this unique type of pranaya, Gaura covered Rama Raya’s mouth. Immediately after this, Ramananda had the darsana of Radha and Krishna as one in the person of Gaura. In no uncertain terms, this epiphany—Mahaprabhu’s afterthought—only served to further confirm Ramananda’s intuitive poetry.
So, if we agree that Gaura lila also constitutes our ultimate eternal goal (in addition to Krishna lila), how can we place less emphasis on one of those two ultimate realms despite them both being eternal and non-dual? Although from an abheda perspective there may be only one goal in life (Krishna prema), from the bheda perspective there will be two goals in life (Krishna prema and Gaura prema). And although we may surely enter into the details of our post-liberated life in Krishna lila, it is important to do the same in connection to Gaura lila—and to the same degree or even more due to the reasons described above. Stalwarts such as Pujyapada B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami have followed this line of thought, saying, “This [Ramananda’s] song leads to Krishna, and it gives a hint of the avatara of Mahaprabhu… That is considered to be the highest attainment.”8 While this conclusion doesn’t try to present itself as an absolute statement to be accepted by all, the proper exercise of theology in the context of siddhanta can give rise to suitable emotions and support for this idea.
In summary, today’s journey began in Godavari, where the highest conception (vari) of the Vedas (go) was revealed (da). The word go can also refer to indriya (senses), from which we derive the word “Govinda.” Govinda is he who bestows our senses’ fullest engagement and highest purpose, which were announced here at Godavari through the inquiry of Gaura Govinda: Gaura asked Ramananda Raya about the highest goal of life, and Rama Raya’s ultimate proclamation was that Sriman Mahaprabhu is the ultimate form of divinity and that love for him constitutes the topmost eternal attainment.
According to Sri Caitanya-caritamrta,9 it was Gaura himself who actually spoke these truths indirectly, through the mouth of Ramananda! And Ramananda was Gaura’s very first associate to officially identify him as Govinda (gau) and Radha (ra) united as one. Mahaprabhu confirmed this truth—mahaprabhu sri-caitanya, radha-krsna nahe anya—by revealing his darsana as Radha-Krishna combined. To discuss these insights is rupanuga janera jivana—the life and soul of each and every Rupanuga Vaisnava.
This combination of Radha and Krishna arose from Sri Krishna’s deepest question: What is Radha’s sensory experience? Gaura was the answer. “Although more commonly thought of as a bridge to Krishna lila,” Swami B. V. Tripurari says, “Gaura lila resides deep within Krishna lila, being the logical extension of Krishna lila arising out of Krishna’s most introspective moments.”10
As Gaura’s lila unfolded, this inner culture became more and more overt and systematic in his life. But actually, such introspection was already there from the very beginning, expressing itself progressively in both indirect and direct terms. First, in Nadiya, he laid the foundation for the temple of prema by exhibiting his pandita-lila and its conclusion in the form of jnana-sunya bhakti (which was the very first proposal that Gaura accepted from Ramananda’s numerous replies in their samvada). After becoming a Vaisnava, he then accepted sannyasa and established himself in vipralambha-ksetra (Puri), the ideal place to relish Radha’s separation from Krishna. There he listened to bhagavata-katha from Gadadhara, being taught by Radha herself about the mysteries of her love. Finally (and only after this most important meeting with Ramananda), Gaura entered the Gambhira. In this way, every section of Gaura lila could be seen as Mahaprabhu’s attempt to further approach the main purpose of his descent, which could be properly described as “divine synaesthesis.”
In the realm of aesthetics, synaesthesis is defined as “the harmonious combination of differing impulses arising from a work of art.” Such a concept will undoubtedly find its final application in the figure of Sri Caitanya, the ideal meeting point between Radha-Krishna’s “differing impulses arising from a work of art.” They solved their deepest dilemma during their most intimate moments in lila through the figure of Sri Gauranga, the topmost synthesis of the Absolute. For us and for the Godhead, this attainment —the dynamic union of Radha and Krishna in the form of Gaura—is the sum and substance of what post-liberated life is all about. Fill your cup till it overflows, and only then will the real story begin!
To be continued.
- This is the opinion of Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and Bhaktivinoda Thakura, whereas Kavi-karnapura and Krishnadasa Kaviraja identify him with Lalita-sakhi and Subala-sakha, respectively. [↩]
- Gopala-campu 2.21.43 [↩]
- Sri Caitanya-caritamrta 2.8.192 [↩]
- Sri Caitanya-caritamrta 2.8.194 [↩]
- Since prema-vilasa-vivarta speaks of Krishna and Radha’s exchanging roles, one may rightfully ask about the necessity for Sri Gauranga (since Krishna is already tasting some form of Radha bhava in this prema-vilasa-vivarta). The answer is that Krishna’s experience in prema-vilasa-vivarta cannot compare with his appearance (and experience) as Gaura in Radha bhava. In prema-vilasa-vivarta, Krishna tastes only one aspect of Radha’s mood but not its full range, whereas in Gaura lila he systematically relishes all the many moods of Radha one after the other. And while vilasa-vivarta has mainly to do with sambhoga (union), Mahaprabhu was focused on tasting Radha bhava mainly from the vantage point of Radha’s vipralambha (separation). By seeing her love in separation, Krishna desired to experience all that Radha is in all circumstances (see Sanatana Goswami’s commentary to Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.32.22 in this regard). After tasting this, he mainly experienced sambhoga at the end of his Puri lila, this being represented in Siksastakam’s eighth verse. [↩]
- The unity that Sri Gauranga embodies is not a physical/literal merging between Krishna and Radha (since Radha is still there in Gaura lila in the form of Gadadhara) but a dynamic union where Krishna is still himself but “at the same time Radha.” That is, he appears as Mahaprabhu with the luster and mood of Radha. [↩]
- Sri Caitanya-caritamrta 1.1.5 [↩]
- B. R. Sridhara Deva Goswami, Encounters with Divinity (Gosai Publishers, 2005), p. 199 [↩]
- Sri Caitanya-caritamrta 2.8.264-265 [↩]
- Swami Tripurari, Sacred Preface (Darshan Press, 2016), p. 159 [↩]
Related Posts
The Rasa of Sri Radha →
Considering the Mercy of Srila Prabhupada →
The Glory of Krishna’s Birth →
Swami Tripurari has told us, regarding Ujjvala-nilamani, “one who develops strong affinity for sakhya rasa will study only the first two chapters of this book, in which the role of the gopas in Krishna’s romantic life is discussed. All of this is detailed in Thakura Bhaktivinoda’s Jaiva Dharma.” Indeed, Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s mood was such that he several times denied ever having read the Ujjvala-nilamani, and he rarely discussed it at all.
I can detect nothing wrong in the content of this very nice article by Padmanabha Maharaja, with its important quotations from Chapter 14 of Ujjvala-nilamani — but it is content coming from sources that Swami Tripurari’s mission had previously tended not to emphasize, especially in public, in Sridhara Maharaja’s mood of “Pujala raga-patha gaurava-bhange.”
How surprising it is to see the mission of Swami Tripurari moving away from what had been its firm anchor in the conservative mood of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja.
It is true that I have said that about the first two chapters of UN. In doing so I have followed the lead of BVT, who says the same thing in Jaiva Dharma. However, those pursuing the sakhya rasa of Krsna’s narma sakhas will find later chapters of UN useful as well.
That said, despite the statement of SM concerning UN, he was fully acquainted with Jaiva Dharma. And the latter portion of this tome is a retelling of the entire UN. UN itself is a book explaining the tattva of madhurya rasa.
SM also told us that BSST did not allow his disciples to read the antya lila of Cc or the Ramananda Samvada section of this text. However, his favorite section of Cc was the Ramananda Samvada.
Instructions are often relative to time and circumstance and thus constitute details rather than principles, and details can be changed to fulfill the principle. Let us say that I instruct students not to read a particular core text because I think that in their present position they are prone to misunderstand it. In principle, I want them to understand it. Thus at a later date as their adhikara to understand the text increases, I would want them to read it.
BTW, the verse I quoted from Ujjvala-nilamani has been presented not precisely because I have read such a book (which I haven´t done until now), but because such a sloka is quoted by Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami himself in his Caitanya-caritamrita (Madhya-lila 8.195) in the course of describing the present topic, and in his purport Srila Prabhupada gives the exact reference of this verse in connection to Sri Rupa´s book.
For some reason Prabhupada’s Cc purport to this UN verse cites the wrong number. The verse is UN 14.155. It is an example of the stage of mahabhava.After explaining the stage of mahabhava, as best one can, Rupa gives this example of a Vrindadevi speaking to Krsna and describing the manifestation of this most elevated stage of prema she just witnessed. Mahabhava includes the ecstasy of the prior stages and all of them are alluded to in this verse: rati, prema, sneha, mana, pranaya, raga and anuraga.
Interestingly, both Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja were and were not that conservative. Regarding the latter we have for example Srila Sridhara Maharaja´s explanation of the brahma-gayatri in terms of radha-dasya, which was something totally novel both for the traditional Hindu/Vedic understanding of such mantra, as wel as for how Gaudiyas would look upon it. On Srila Prabhupada´s side we find himself publishing the Tenth Canto of the Bhagavata as one of his very first books, when we know how conservative were many of the Vaisnavas at his time about “jumping” into those lilas without having first gone through the initial nine Cantos.
Actually, even if we were to say that neither Srila Sridhara Maharaja nor Srila Prabhupada ever read “non-conservative” books such as Ujjvala-nilamani or others, we indeed find themselves quoting verses from those books in their preaching and purports to other books and verses. So maybe they did not read the whole text, but they were acquainted with their principal sections and slokas (with its essence), as well as with other books which actually presented the distilled substance of Ujjvala-nilamani, just as Jaiva-dharam as Srila Tripurari Maharaja already quoted.
Finally, it is almost a fact that the conservative side of devotees like Srila Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada came from their own gurudeva, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. While Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta was on one side famous for his conservative mood regarding intimate topics, at the same time it is well known (apart from the reference already quoted by Srila Tripurari Maharaja) that he instructed some of his disciples to go into detail about certain sections of the most esoteric realms – blessing Professor Sanyal to write articles such as “The erotic principle and pure devotion”, or asking disciples such as Bhakti Jivana Janardana Maharaja to speak about rasa-tattva and radha-dasya to qualified audiences. Not only this, but Bhaktisiddhanta himself gave proper regard and context to when and how we are to immerse into the highest conceptions. Let me quote one section of a famous speech he delivered in this regard at Radha-kunda, titled “From anartha-nivritti to artha-pravritti” (1932, first printed in the Gaudiya in 1934):
“All these days we have not spoken about lila. Why? Because this is our most confidential asset. This is our only sadhya. But one should not make the mistake of thinking that anartha-nivritti is the prayojana. One thinking like this will never enter into artha-pravritti. For this reason, I will begin speaking about asta-kaliya-lila. I know that you are not ready to hear it. But we should know such a transcendental idea exists within the realm of devotion. This is why anartha-nivritti is essential. After the realm of anartha- nivritti is artha-pravritti, pure conjugal service to Radha and Krishna. This is transcendental reality. If we do not know of this transcendental realm, then all of our efforts may end in nirvisesa-vada. Do not let your day pass in trying for anartha-nivritti. Artha-pravritti is also necessary. Anartha-nivritti is necessary until artha-pravritti has started. When artha-pravritti is present, then anartha-nivritti becomes unimportant—artha-pravritti becomes prominent. Those who have chanted hari nama for fifteen or twenty years should know such things. Do not think that astakaliya-lila smarana is the property of the sahajiyas. Actually it is our affair. It has to be retrieved from the hands of the sahajiyas. Our Sri Guru-pada Padma heard these things from Srila Bhaktivonoda Thakura.”
In this way we can see how our acaryas share these two sides in perfect harmony: conservative and innovative, traditional and contemporary, dynamic and old-school. And it us up to present-day sadhus to keep updating such a principle, and since time changes and our Gaudiya community also changes (sometimes for better, sometimes for worst), the way these same principles will play themselves out may be considerably different in form than how they expressed in the past, but they will shame that same very essence which is at the core of the parampara principle – being loyal to our purva-acaryas while remaining relevant according to time, place and circumstance.
Thank you, Maharaj! I appreciate your points. They are much like the points I have read on websites operated by the followers of Paramadvaiti Maharaj and Swami B.V. Narayana. They are not so much like the points Swami Tripurari emphasized in years past. Your helpful post, like Swami Tripurari’s post up-thread, demonstrates nicely the changes in Sri Caitanya Sangha, as you put it, “sometimes for better, sometimes for worst [sic].”
It is not about where the points raised come from as much as it is about the points themselves. Do you have anything meaningful to say about them? As for changes in Sri Caitanya Sangha, there may be some but they are for the better and well explained.
What is the difficulty? The current of bhakti will zigzag as it likes, and it is up to each sadhaka to recognize the genuine and shun the fraudulent (or even the “not fraudulent, but not right for my bhava”). It’s not that people and institutions don’t or shouldn’t change; rather, it’s up to each sadhaka to seek the substance, not simply the form. Some would have run away from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura when he briefly put his renunciants in green robes (perhaps both out of rasik considerations and as a repudiation of Ramakrishna Mission). Others ran away when he gave the brahmana thread (which his father had stopped wearing) to those not born as brahmanas. Preaching about Prahlad Maharaja while at Radha Kunda? This shocked many who ran away. It would be unrealistic to expect Sri Caitanya Sangha not to change over the years, as disciples mature under their guru’s guidance. How others respond is up to them, dependent on their adhikara and their own inner life. Jayatirtha Das and Kirtanananda Das also grew beyond what they externally seemed to have received from their Gurudeva. So did Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. So did BV Narayana Maharaja. So did Gaura Govinda Maharaja. Yet each claimed to have remained faithful and to have grown because of that faithfulness. Discernment is necessary, as is recognition that different disciples have different adhikara. Again, what is the difficulty?
Well, it appears from this statement of yours that there was some difficultly in your mind to begin with:
” . . . it is content coming from sources that Swami Tripurari’s mission had previously tended not to emphasize, especially in public, in Sridhara Maharaja’s mood of ‘Pujala raga-patha gaurava-bhange.’ How surprising it is to see the mission of Swami Tripurari moving away from what had been its firm anchor in the conservative mood of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja.”
As for other sources, my position on reading UN has not changed nor is it derived from other sources. I have never said the book should not be studied. I have said that the first two chapters deal with sakhya rasa (in a limited way). To have said that is hardly to say it should not be studied. My position is one of spiritual common sense that I have explained in my first response to your expressed surprise (difficulty).
But yes, there is no difficulty. Better to spend time discussing the meaning and implications of the UN verse cited by Swami Padmanabha and Krsnadasa Kaviraja.
Regarding pujala ragapata. . . with regard to sakhya rasa and my anchor, please see this article:
https://harmonist.us/2019/04/aho-bhagyam-aho-bhagyam/
What is the meaning of being conservative with higher topics, if one is lax with Vaisnava aparadha?
As UN is appropriate only for advanced devotees, so constructive criticism is appropriate only for advanced devotees – don’t try to imitate, and ruin the whole thing.
Excellent article! Thank you for demonstrating the qualification that comes with “the greater the silence, the greater the hearing, and the greater the message to be revealed.” Looking forward to the continuation – “āge kaha āra!”
Jaay Mahaprabhu! always breaking paradigmatics conventionalisms and teachining in each desa, kala and patra with Your example opening, dynamic and revelator and sure more… You made me remembered too when ate food preparated of a sanodiya brahamana. Oh! You only could See that inner what have somebody (adhikar or the seed to bloosom like a Vaisnava in own time) over the material position aparent. Something similar and different with Ramananda Ray, could You see him and to know who was him and so give him Your mercyful darshan. Thanks for inviting us to learn to SEE the present eternal and go one day, to the deep reality of the heart in this great travel to Godavari, the Land of the Sacred Preface of ilimitaded liquid of dhara vari amanitvam. =)