"If I let go of my ego and realize that I’m not separate from Krsna, does that mean my love for Him disappears, since love typically relies on the separation between the lover and the beloved? And if there's no separation, how can I still love myself, or even love Krsna, when we are one?"
You need to be a member of ISKCON Desire Tree | IDT to add comments!
Replies
Beautiful explanation.
Thanks for sharing.
haribol
Hare Krishna Mataji and Prabhuji's
Can we please take this discussion down a couple of notches.
The whole of Gaudiya-Vaisnava tradition is based on love in separation from Sri Krsna.
But that does not mean that the separation is caused by the false ego. Where there is ahankara, there is no love. Absence of ahankara is also not the cause of oneness with Krsna according to acintya bheda-abheda tattva. That oneness is in quality as spirit. But still the soul and Supersoul are two, they never become one.
Please stop arguing due to misunderstandings. You are among the only devotees who are contributing on this forum. It's the nature of Kali-yuga that there will be arguments and that's what we have come here to avoid. Isn't it?
Hari Bol
Hare Krishna,
I want to understand what does letting go of ego mean? Can you please explain how anyone can let go ego.
If I am egocentric? It means I am always putting " me" as the center. How I am happy?
how I will do this work? how great I am? I am this .. I am that .. I do so many rounds of japa mala
I do so much of book read.
I do bhakti.
All is about "I"
where is Krishna in it?
You do something to please yourself then It is not loving Krishna.
IF YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT FOR WHICH YOU DON'T take any credit that time It pleases Krishna.
If you doing anything SELFLESSLY. THAT PLeases Krishna most.
HOW CAN I LOVE Krishna. IS A WRONG STATEMENT.... STILL IT IS DEALING WITH YOUR "I" SO it is wrong statement.
Say HOW CAN I BE LOVED BY SRI KRISHNA??
I love Krishna ... doesn't work much. EVERYBODY LOVES KRISHNA. AS KRISHNA IS MOST ATTRACTIVE.
HOW CAN I BE LOVED BY SRI KRISHNA? IS most important.
There is inconceivable oneness at the same time you are separate from Krishna.
That is called " Achintya Bedha Abedha" the core philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
There is always oneness.
YES YOU ARE NOT independent of Krishna. YOU CANNOT WORK by urself. Krishna is sitting in your heart.
But you are also seperate as " atma is seperate from Parmathma.
Atma and Parmathma are both having same quality yet one is minute and other is infinite.
The Vedas, like the Mundaka Upanishad, as well as the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, compare the soul and the Supersoul to two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds (the individual atomic soul) is eating the fruit of the tree, and the other bird (Krishna) is simply watching His friend. Of these two birds—although they are the same in quality—one is captivated by the fruits of the material tree, while the other is simply witnessing the activities of His friend. Krishna is the witnessing bird, and Arjuna is the eating bird.” (Srila Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita, 2.22 Purport)
so, You jeevatma and Lord ( Parmatma ) are eternally existing as seprate and this distinction wont dissolve. You are minute in quauntity and Parmtama is Infinite but ya.. quality wise both are same.
If you dissolve your ego and become loved by krishna and become KRISHNA CENTRIC rather then being "I'' centric. You will see that you don't and cannot exist without Krishna.
When the false ego that you are something and you can do something is gone, you will realize that Krishna is the actual doer.
Just like a mom lion takes care of the baby cub you will surrender to Krishna and become His eternal servitor and LOVE MEANS ONLY TO DO SERVICE. or Seva will be known.
Hare Krishna
Hare Krsna. Thank you deeply for your compassionate explanation. This will gently guiding me toward Krishna-centric consciousness. You’ve made it so clear. I hope my heart may become a sincere instrument for Krishna’s love and service. Hari Hari.
Hare Krsna
love typically relies on the separation between the lover and the beloved?
Requesting to please provide a bonafide scriptural reference to the above statement.
when we are one
This is bogus poisonous mayavada philosphy. Mayavada philosophy is not allowed in these forums.
Hare Krsna
Hare Krishna,
BG 4.35 Purport
"Even the millions of incarnations are only His different expansions. Similarly, the living entities are also expansions of Kṛṣṇa. The Māyāvādī philosophers wrongly think that Kṛṣṇa loses His own separate existence in His many expansions. This thought is material in nature. We have experience in the material world that a thing, when fragmentally distributed, loses its original identity. But the Māyāvādī philosophers fail to understand that in the Absolute, one plus one equals one, and one minus one also equals one. This is the case in the absolute world."
"For want of sufficient knowledge in the absolute science, we are now covered with illusion, and therefore we think that we are separate from Kṛṣṇa. Although we are separated parts of Kṛṣṇa, we are nevertheless not different from Him."
Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 4.31 Purport
"To celebrate this transcendental enthusiasm, there is need for a sentiment of separation between the lover and the beloved."
**CC Ādi 4.108, Translation and Purport:**
"Just as Rādhikā went mad at the sight of Uddhava, so Lord Caitanya was obsessed day and night with the madness of separation."
"Those under the shelter of the lotus feet of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu can understand that His mode of worship of the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa in separation is the real worship of the Lord. When the feelings of separation become very intense, one attains the stage of meeting Śrī Kṛṣṇa."
See prabhu, we cannot stick to one bhāva by compulsion. We all have different bhāva and different rasa. We cannot keep saying, 'You are a Māyāvādī, you are a Māyāvādī.' If you keep calling people Māyāvādī, you can never preach about Kṛṣṇa. Understand and accept the points based on others' perspectives.
CC Madhya 23.58, Translation
"Highly advanced ecstasy is divided into two categories—mādana and mohana. Meeting together is called mādana, and separation is called mohana."
**Lord Caitanya was feeling separation from Kṛṣṇa. That is the teaching of Lord Caitanya—feelings of separation, not meeting.**
**Rādhāṣṭamī, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī's Appearance Day — London, August 29, 1971**
"Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu demonstrates that His mode of worshiping the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa in separation is the real worship of the Lord."
Hare Krsna
Although we are separated parts of Kṛṣṇa, we are nevertheless not different from Him.
Yes, simultaneous oneness in quality and difference in quantity is acceptable. But when someone asks a question like - how can I still love myself, or even love Krsna, when we are one?
That clearly indicates that they think that loving Krsna and loving themself is same, then that is clealy bogus mayavada philosophy. This philosophy is bogus, poisonous, wrong. Highly condemnable.
"To celebrate this transcendental enthusiasm, there is need for a sentiment of separation between the lover and the beloved."
Please read carefully. Srila Prabhupada is not saying separation is a preqsuite for Love. Srila Prabhupada is saying to celebrate this transcendental enthusiasm, which is a type of rasa there is need for a sentiment of separation. Srila Prabhupada never says sentiment of separation is needed for love. Love between gopis and Sri Krsna is already present unconditionally. But the mellows of love in separation and in union are different. Srila Prabhupada further elaborates this in the same purport as below.
But in the transcendental form, the very same separation, being absolute in its nature, strengthens the ties of love and enhances the desire of the lover and beloved to meet. The period of separation, evaluated transcendentally, is more relishable than the actual meeting, which lacks the feelings of increasing anticipation because the lover and beloved are both present.(CC Adi 4.31 Purport)
In summary the mellows of love in separation and union are different. But whether in separation or in union, Gopis always love Sri Krsna.
Your question says -my love for Him disappears, since love typically relies on the separation
Srila Prabhupada's words DO NOT support such a statement.
See prabhu, we cannot stick to one bhāva by compulsion. We all have different bhāva and different rasa.
Question of Sticking to bhava comes after attain stage of Bhava. Bhava and rasa are attained in very high stages of Bhakti. If someone says they have bhava and Rasa for Krsna while at same time claims oneness with Krsna, then it is hypocrisy. These are symptoms of a dangerous combination of sahajiya and mayavada. Both are poison for Bhakti.
We cannot keep saying, 'You are a Māyāvādī, you are a Māyāvādī.' If you keep calling people Māyāvādī, you can never preach about Kṛṣṇa.
Of course it will be said a million times. Mayavadi is Krsna Aparadhi. Calling mayavada as bogus and poisonous is preaching. Sahajiyaism, Mayavada are cheap schemes to waste human form of life.
Understand and accept the points based on others' perspectives.
We understand and accept pespectives of Srila Prabhupada and vaishnava acaryas who are compassionate upon conditioned souls. Their pespective is perspective of Sri Krsna and Lord Sri Chaitanya. There is no question of accepting bogus pespectives of Sahajiyas and mayavadis. They will always be condemned in these forums and by devotees all over and eternally.
Hare Krsna
Hare Krsna, Bharat Prabhu,
Your aggressive tone and relentless accusations of "Mayavada!" at every sincere inquiry make me wonder—are you here to guide souls toward Krishna or to police their questions with dogmatic rigidity?
You demand scriptural references yet dismiss mine when provided. You claim separation is not a prerequisite for love, yet **Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself** immersed in *viraha-bhāva* (love in separation) as the pinnacle of devotion. Are you suggesting His ecstatic longing for Krishna was "bogus"?
You say, *"No, first provide a source!"*—but when I do, you reinterpret it to fit your absolutist narrative. If every nuanced question is met with *"Poison! Mayavadi!"*, how will struggling devotees like me ever progress?
You quote *acintya-bhedābheda* but reject its implications when inconvenient. If a shashtra is expressing dvaita and advaita relationship between the jiva and paramatma, then where is the confusion? If oneness in quality (yet difference in quantity) is truth, why attack those exploring its depth?
Instead of compassion, you wield "condemnation" as your primary preaching tool. Is this how Śrīla Prabhupada won hearts—by branding everyone *sahajiyā* or *Māyāvādī* at first glance?
You dismiss separation (*vipralambha*) as irrelevant to love, yet the *gopīs’* agony in separation is the *highest form of prema* (CC Antya 14.50). Do you know more than Rūpa Gosvāmī?
Perhaps you’re right, Prabhu. Maybe I am a hopeless Mayavadi. After all, I dared to ask how love persists beyond duality. Hari Hari.
Your Servant
A Condemned Seeker
Hare Krsna
how will struggling devotees like me ever progress?
By chanting the Hare Krsna mahamantra and diligently studying books authored by Srila Prabhupada
You dismiss separation (*vipralambha*) as irrelevant to love
False. Never dismissed separation as irrelevant to love.
Do you know more than Rūpa Gosvāmī?
No
Are you suggesting His ecstatic longing for Krishna was "bogus"?
No
I dared to ask how love persists beyond duality.
No, you ascertained that love relies on Separation. It is not correct.
You demand scriptural references yet dismiss mine when provided.
Your references do not support your claim that love relies on separation. Your references only say that there is love in separation.
I still say, show me one reference which clearly says that love for Krsna relies on separation.
There is VERY BIG difference in saying love relies on separation and saying there is love in separation. Love in separation is undoubtedly the highest. But whether separation or union , love does NOT rely on it. It is eternal between devotees of Sri Krsna and Sri Krsna.
Just like Krsna is eternal, Jiva is eternal , similarly love for Sri Krsna is eternal. Your question mentions disappearance of love due to being not separate from Krsna -> This is the crux of mayavada. They think they merge into Krsna and hence no love is possible from their pespective. They downgrade the highest to the lowest.
You claim separation is not a prerequisite for love
Yes, love for Krsna is independent of separation or union. Lakshmana is almost always with Lord Sri Rama, does he not have love for Sri Rama ? How does Lakshmana love Rama when he is always with Rama ? Does Yashoda not love baby Krsna when she is with Krsna ?
Separation and union are different flavours of love for Sri Krsna. But for these rasas to manifest, first love has to be attained.
make me wonder—are you here to guide souls toward Krishna or to police their questions with dogmatic rigidity?
Anything that is mayavada will be questioned.
If a shashtra is expressing dvaita and advaita relationship between the jiva and paramatma, then where is the confusion?
This is not for me to answer, since I have not expressed any confusion.
If oneness in quality (yet difference in quantity) is truth, why attack those exploring its depth?
I am not attacking you. But I am challenging certain conceptions that show no understanding of tattva but make lofty claims of rasa and bhava.
I dared to ask how love persists beyond duality.
You acertained that love is conditional. Love is not conditional upon separation or union. Love is Supreme.
Hare Krsna
Hare Krsna…
I don’t understand why you’re attacking me like this. Did I ever say that loving Krsna and loving oneself are the same? Did I ever deny the concept of simultaneous oneness and difference? Why are you putting words in my mouth and twisting my intentions?
You’re accusing me of Mayavada, Sahajiya, hypocrisy, and even being a Krsna-aparadhi—just because I shared Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on separation (viraha-bhakti) and the different mellows of rasa? Where did I say we are one with Krsna in the Mayavadi sense?
Is this how Vaishnavas discuss? By falsely accusing, ignoring the actual points, and declaring others as ‘bogus’ without even understanding their perspective?
You say, “We understand and accept perspectives of Srila Prabhupada”—but you’re not even listening to what I quoted from him!
CC Adi 4.31 Purport clearly says separation enhances love—so why are you denying its importance?
CC Madhya 23.58 confirms mohana (separation) as a higher ecstasy—so why are you acting like I’m inventing this?
Radhastami lecture (1971)—Lord Caitanya taught separation, not meeting—so why are you attacking me for repeating His teachings?
Instead of honest discussion, you’re twisting my words and labeling me.
Is this your idea of preaching? To shut down anyone who speaks about viraha-bhakti by calling them Mayavadi, Sahajiya, or aparadhi? If you cannot answer, then why is this hypocrisy?
If you can’t address the actual points without false accusations, then what’s the use of this discussion?
you turned my question into a battlefield of labels and condemnations. I surrender. If this is how devotees treat each other, then what hope is there for meaningful dialogue? Hari Hari.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next