Adharma, Mahaprabhu for Varnashrama, Sampradayas

3 Comments

• 

  Reply

  Subho November 19, 2024

  Did Mahaprabhu returned to Nabadwipa after Sannyasa? Some accounts say that he didn’t returned, while Lochana Dasa Thakura’s Caitanya Mangala say that He returned but stayed away from His home and gave spiritual instructions to His lamenting mother. How to reconcile both accounts?
  • 

    ksdasa November 20, 2024

    Variation in the accounts of Sriman Mahaprabhu’s return to Bengal after his acceptance of sannyasa can be observed when the works of Sri Vrndavana Dasa Thakura, Sri Krishna Dasa Kaviraja Gosvami, Sri Locana Dasa Thakura, and others are compared, that is, the number of sites he is said to have visited and the order in which he visited them is seen to differ between the accounts. All agree that Sriman Mahaprabhu visited Kulia (Kuliya), though there are differences of opinion about the exact location of this village, that is, whether it was located in the immediate vicinity of the village of Nabadwip or whether it was located down the Ganges south of Santipura. As far as how to reconcile the differences between the accounts, one way of doing so is to consider that each writer wrote in good faith based on the information available to them (since none of them were participants in the tour themselves), and the sources of information they received for their writing may have been different. It may also be considered that each writer writes with a certain emphasis and taste, and accordingly each may have considered certain points worthy or unworthy of mention, since none of the accounts can be said to be completely exhaustive such that they provide exact dates, exact number of days spent in each place, and so forth, as one might find in a modern historical record.
• 

  Reply

  Subho November 20, 2024

  So, can we say that Mahaprabhu’s biographical incidents which are found to be identical in all the 3 books actually and literally happened historically, those that not found in one book is found in other book hence no contradiction here also, and those can vary in their accounts of same event like this Sannyasa one– that can be considered as not historical event literally in material space-time but how the specific devotee or primary source documented the information based on their unique relationship with Mahaprabhu and also based on the specific bhava of the writers of these 3 books — thus these incidents are not literal or historical in prakata form but is true in the way each devotees in trance saw them– all of which varied based on their respective bhavas?? after all it is clear that all the 3 writers who were secondary sources and writers who were primary sources– none of them wrote from neutral/unbiased point of view but they were in trance and they were extremely emotionally attached to Mahaprabhu in specific bhava or rasa thus they saw one incident differently all of which are correct, like various prakasha forms of Krishna, right?