suryaz

I think you have misunderstood Jiva Goswami in Jagat's posts in this regard

Is it not for Jiva Goswami that the svakiya rasa of the gopis is found within the aprakata of THEIR prakata lila?

What you are discussing is the physical acting out at a later date expressions of Krishna's prakata-lila by another [as opposed to the prakata-lila of lila-vibhuti of Krishna-lila of BRaj during its prakata]

Yes it may be so Krsna in HIS prakata form returned to Vraj - but is it not also that when all [animals birds gopis etc] had divine forms when reference to union with the gopis is made?

What in the context of prakata-lila [which in Braj does not recognise Krishna as God, but as a person, friend, son, lover etc] constitutes divine form?

Could it not mean svakiya was there in the svapna form, sweet memories etc during the prakata-lila?

This came to my email box just now

JAYA RADHE'S (Judy Way) PASSING AWAY

Our dear God sister Jaya Radhe has left her body in San Fancisco. I'll give

more details later.

-----------------------

My whole family offers prayer and love to Jaya Radhe dd and may her family

finds great spiritual strength in this moment of passing. No devotee is

insignificant in Srila Prabhupad's eyes as we are all equal in His mercy

and blessings. Please accept my most humble obeisances, jai! Srila

Prabhupada. in the service of all vaisnava, rupa goswami das Adhikary

------------------------

Hare Krishna,

Please accept my obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. I’m deeply

saddened to hear that our godsister, Jaya Radhe, has left her body. She’s

one of the sweetest devotees and most sincere disciples of Srila Prabhupada

I’ve known. She made numerous uplifting posts to the forum. I think the

best way we can remember her right now, is to read some of her posts and

stories, some of the best of which I’ve preserved in the Srila Prabhupada

website at - http://www.geocities.com/visoka123/visoka/VCN/VNC.htm

Her writings can be found in the "Offerings to Srila Prabhupada" section,

and the "Sankirtan stories" section, and the "storytelling" section. You

can go to these pages, and press Control F, and type 'Jayaradhe' for search

function, to find her writings there. There is one post, #2317, of which I

know of, in VC, you can find and read. When devotees find some of her posts

on VC, please send us the post #’s so we can go there and read. The best we

can feel for her now, and have her good memory, is to read her wonderful

writings, and be happy that she is in the protection of Srila Prabhupada

and Lord Krishna right now, Ys visoka dasa

Humm??? Why???

I am going to miss you too Madhava [sad]

I do not know what to say – I am speechless.

And as the tears moisten my eyes I offer my pranamas to Jaya Radhe

We will miss you dearly

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Originally posted by atma:

I always took that passage like women in general prefer an agressive guy sexually, somebody that dominates them, feel like the guy is so smitten by her that he can't control himself and if you hear women talking, in general is like that. When the man doesn't show too much interest in sex the woman may feel ugly, fat, unatractive, etc. She may take it personal. Of course we are not talking of devotees here, where the goals are completely different. If you by chance see one of those dates shows on TV the all thing is about sexual attraction and how the women dress very provocative to seduce the men and how the guys go for it.

I'm talking here about sex between consenting adults.

 

See it in the context that Prabhupada is saying it too, about the story of King Puranjana and all the thing that is going on with sexual desires. The girl is chaste and Puranjana has to be agressive but both of them are in accord.

 

Not to be misunderstood here, I'm sure that no woman will like an expert rapist but I always took Srila Prabhupada's words in the way I tried to explain above.

Atma,

You are way off any kind of moral content, Be careful of your use of language.

For further reference see:

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000708.html

Originally posted by atma:

Thank you for the answers, what I don't understand is if we feel atraction to a certain rasa while we are doing our sadhana is it because we experimented that particular rasa before? Another question is, why one soul will be in dasya rasa and other in madhurya, who determine that? Where is our free will? Our desires? Or we just want to serve the Lord in any capacity and He give us our service and we happily do it? Is that what we call unconditional love?

Mahaprabhu provides the answer in the 8th verse of his Siksastakam

"I know no one but Krsna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me broken-hearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord unconditionally."

I think the line: "He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord unconditionally."

is the key.

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 06-05-2002).]

Originally posted by raga:

The final answer about the primeval supreme nature of Goloka is provided in Shiva-samhita (4.623):

 

"Been there, seen that, realized."

 

When was Shiva samhita written?

I do not know how that happened above. I will try again.

So to summarize this little dialectic:

(1) thesis -> idolatry

(2) antithesis --> humanity

(3) synthesis --> divinity (which then becomes a new idolatry).

Jagatji,

Hmm I fear I am becoming more and more confused as we go -

I am unsure what you mean by Maya. Are you referring to both maha and yoga maya as Maya or just one of these? Are you of the view that yoga maya is positive and maha maya is of the negative?

OK let us try again

In my view there is love in maha maya (as mentioned above), it is the seeing of beauty in things; not the want to possess for self-satisfaction or to control and possess another for the satisfaction of the Divine (if that is possible). Mundane as some may consider this view to be, for me it is the perception of beauty (in things of non-virtue, virtue and Divine) that is of the spirit of love. As we all know, even if one sees the divine in the prakat form as avatara one my not find love there. So it is the perception not the object. If the perceiver is of love than love is there (and love is only in that which is of good). The "Hell" in relationship (described by you above) is present when the destruction or death of love is present. As such a "hell" is where you have killed love (it maybe the long term or the momentary killing of love; but it is the killing of love). Therefore it has not beauty in it to be perceived. So love does not stop in Maha-maya and begin in Yoga-maya - but where the destruction of love is that is where "hell" (as you put it) begins.

Yes - certainly the institutionalisation of anything binds personal expression and narrows personal freedom; this is especially so when the personal growth needs of individuals out grow the values and purposes of the institution.

Further, my dear Jagat, I am a bit worried with your methodology

The Hegelian dialect is essentially based on the notion of symmetrical inter-subjectivity that arises out of conflict and thus negativity. In my view this is not compatible with the quest for a middle-way and maturity therein. The process of maturity in terms of that which arises out of conflict and depends on such for its further development can only bring about a conflict continuum. This in the final analysis does not perpetuate balance, it may give a temporary alternative. Moreover, the dialectic prototype requires the negation of some elements and the selective acceptances of others as a basis for maturation. This in my view, is not the best approach in the quest to find a middle way

Just some thoughts - I hope they help

Yours,

sr

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-25-2002).]

So to summarize this little dialectic:

(1) thesis -> idolatry

(2) antithesis --> humanity

(3) synthesis --> divinity (which then becomes a new idolatry). <small><font color=#dedfdf>

Jagatji,

Hmm I fear I aa becoming more and more confused as we go -

I am unsure what you mean by Maya. Are you referring to both maha and yoga maya as Maya or just one of these? Are you of the view that yoga maya is positive and maha maya is of the negative?

OK let us try again

In my view there is love in maha maya (as mentioned above), it is the seeing of beauty in things; not the want to possess for self-satisfaction or to control and possess another for the satisfaction of the Divine (if that is possible). Mundane as some may consider this view to be, for me it is the perception of beauty (in things of non-virtue, virtue and Divine) that is of the spirit of love. As we all know, even if one sees the divine in the prakat form as avatara one my not find love there. So it is the perception not the object. If the perceiver is of love than love is there (and love is only in that which is of good). The "Hell" in relationship (described by you above) is present when the destruction or death of love is present. As such a "hell" is where you have killed love (it maybe the long term or the momentary killing of love; but it is the killing of love). Therefore it has not beauty in it to be perceived. So love does not stop in Maha-maya and begin in Yoga-maya - but where the destruction of love is that is where "hell" (as you put it) begins

Further, my dear Jagatji, I am a bit worried with your methodology

The Hegelian dialect (above) is essentially based on the notion of symmetric hierarchial inter-subjectivity that arises out of conflict and thus negativity. In my view this is not compatible with the quest for a middle-way and maturity therein. The process of maturity in terms of that which arises out of conflict and depends on such for its further development can only bring about a conflict continuum. This in the final analysis does not perpetuate balance, it may give a temporary alternative. Moreover, the dialectic prototype requires the negation of some elements and the selective acceptances of others as a basis for maturation. This in my view, is not the best approach in the quest to find a middle way

Just some thoughts - hope they help

Ys

Jagat,

I still have a problem with your view of the disposition of Maya as such negativity implies an extreme position; a position your quest for a middle way seeks to avoid. I still think you need a more lateral interpretation to create the openness the middle way seeks to provide.

Certainly from Jung's stand point the symmetrical male-to-male guru-disciple relationship and non-symmetrical male and female love relation are of contrast. They include the projections of (as you have mentioned above) "the anima for men (the female side) and the animus or male side in the woman." And therefore in the male-to male guru-disciple relationship there is dis-balance at the unconscious level.

However, within the realm of conventional truths (or secondary socialisation) there can exist the possibility of conditioned necessities. But this is a superimposition coming from the external and therefore not part of Jung's unconscious. Under such conditions the male-to-male guru-disciple relation cannot be made to "closely parallel" the male-female love relationship either

As no doubt you already know, that neither at the micro nor the macro levels can any reality be identical to another (otherwise it would be the other - so there would not be another to compare to). Otherwise put - the same attribute can only belong to the same subject/object in the same respect (This is first stated by Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1005b19). As such to attempt to make others comparable, or the same, by both Aristolian and Jungin definitions means ultimately to seek untruth.

You mentioned:

!"Here again, I was contrasting sexual love with this "guru" love. Western society places great value on "falling in love". It is encouraged, glorified, apotheosed and seen as a general "good thing." On the other hand, the love for a guru or wise man is often seen as the root of all evil; just look at all the cult hysteria. Love can be good or bad; taking shelter of a guru can also be good or bad."

One of the main reasons I think there is a Western aversion to Guru-disciple commitment (especially when it comes to the male-to-male guru-disciple relationship in the way we know it) has to do with Western primary socialisation. Western primary socialisation focuses on personal creativity (as opposed to commitment to ritual and tradition for the sake of it) as with the freedom and equality of every human being (with the exception of women until about fifty years ago) [Hummm I had to add that bit ]. I agree that in Western society there are mateship and mentor relations. But such relationships are regulated by the collective primary socialisation (as described above) and therefore do not (nor is it expected to) develop into a servant-master relationship but rather the teacher is a temporary adviser and student as potential independent teacher. So the guru-disciple relationship as we know it threatens the very essence of Western foundations. It threatens the freedom in choice making (if not places it in an extremely vulnerable position) of the individual.

ys

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-23-2002).]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Thank you for this elucidation on Plato. But I am not quite sure how it responds to my discussion of archetypal possession, and the analogy of anima possession to guru possession. This was the subject on which you promised to expand my understanding.

 

 

The post was place more in response to your request to broaden you understanding about love. I have a problem with the parameters and the starting point in the [your] quest to find a middle-way. I fear many of us seem to negate the possibility of love in the realm of the physical or the non-virtuous (as the Symposium describes it) as such the parameters placed around interpreting love in the physical domain turns out to be of negativity only. Even in the realm of the physical there is a middle way, Jagat

You mentioned something about devotees looking back on activities and viewing them as bad. Are they bad I would ask? Or are they activities? Are activates although physical, mundane not pertaining to the divine by (those who dare to define the divine as one thing and not that) definition all bad? Is there not beauty in physical activities? What of the work of a carpenter, a shoemaker, an artist and inventor etc? Is there not beauty and good in such activities? Is there not beauty in physical bodies? I think there is, and it is not a new thing.

Poets have spoken about it since the time of yore, and especially in the time and language of lore.

All this brings to mind [for me] some of the poems I learned as a child. I cannot recall them completely by verbatim now but bits here and there as with the themes of such I still remember

I think it was Robert Louis Stevenson who wrote:

Daffodils

(again I cannot remember the author)

I wondered lowly as a cloud

That floats o’r high o’r vales and hills

Then all at once I saw a crowd

A host of golden daffodils

Ten thousand saw I at a glance

Shaking their heads in sprinkle dance…

Jagat - can you see some beauty the above? Can you feel the presence of love in it?

In another poem from memory (I cannot remember the author nor have I time to look it up}the presence of love in the vision of beauty is evident – The poet says:

Sometimes my heart is shaken with great joy

to see a leaping squirrel in a tree

or a red ladybird upon a stalk

or little rabbits in the field at evening

lit by a slanting sun.

It is the aching of the heart with joy upon seeing beauty in any realm whether it is in the non-virtuous, virtuous and/or divine that is the domain of love.

There is another one that comes to mind, and is more divinely directed (perhaps this will make the notion more clear). I think it was of James Joyce or maybe GB Shaw who wrote it, but my memory fails me.. I was in primary school when I learned these – so it was a long time ago

I see his blood upon the rose

And in the stars the glory of his eyes

His body gleams amid eternal snows

His tears fall from the skies.

I see his face in every flower

The thunder and the singing of the birds

Are but his voice…

In the realm of the Physical, love is there, it is in seeing beauty in things -or in other words, when one sees the beauty in things the eyes are of the salve of love. I do not think you will ever find your middle way if the approach places thing physical as negative. Things physical also have a middle way (see Diotima et al above and in short below). For me your approach seems a little unbalanced.

Love is found everywhere in human creativity (which is part of maha-maya). In the Symposium in the realm of the physical it is identified as non-virtuous. However in this view, non-virtuous does not mean it is not virtuous, wise or beautiful. In this view Love in the non-virtuous is the seeing of the beauty in, and the appreciation of the physical, the beauty in strength, fame, fortune, power, renunciation, the creation of beautiful objects for the good of human society (eg: chairs, medicines, shoes, houses, beds, social security networks, printing press, art, dance etc). This is beauty and love is of beauty. Love is also of virtue and of divine wisdom

So when we criticise something of beauty, [and because it is of beauty it is something of a linchpin in the human development towards the good] then we are killing love. We are not making spiritual advancement. To criticise all of maha-maya even when it is performing its function towards the good then that is killing love and the killing of one’s spiritual advancement. Rather we should look for the beauty in maha-maya’s function.

It is also true that:

This loving happiness can be manifest as destructive, virtuous or divine (in four ways - but love in the destructive is the killing of love and thus not of the good). Or in other words, this all pervasive powerful, primeval force, fulfilling or un-fulfilling is manifest differently in people according to their desires (Aristophanes; Waterfield 1984:xi). But it is not the thing of the physical that is bad, it is the negation of aspiration for "the good" developmet (abuse) and the negation of seeing of beauty in such that kills love.

In short:

When we promote abuse in any form we kill love and in so doing we kill our spiritual advancement.

It appears [to me] your thought pattern is of the hierarchical approach (alone), you must also add the lateral mindset.

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-23-2002).]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

Thankyou, Raga. "Whose heart will not break upon hearing of these pastimes?"

 

Jaya Mother Janava! Jaya Revati-Balarama!

A sannyasi disciple of Narayan Maharaja told me that on a higher level Janava devi is an incarnation of Nityananda. And also Nityananda is also plays the part of a gopi (I cannot remember which gopi) I know in CC Ramananda Raya is part Arjuna and also part Lalita, and Mahaprabhu is Radha and Krsna. Does anybody know any more of the Nityananda expressions.

Originally posted by abhi_the_great:

In my understanding Bhakti Yoga is the same as prapatti of the Sri Vaishnavas. But, as far as I have heard from the Sri Vaishnavas, they hold Prapatti to be a one time final surrender to the Lord which guarantees liberation in the very same birth.

 

Is there any one knowleadgeable of the possible differences in the way Gaudiyas understand bhakti and the Sri Vishanvas understand prapatti. Is the bhakti we follow as gaudiyas different from actual Bhakti Yoga?

 

Dandavat Pranams

Abhi

Yes! Gaudiyas accept the principle of nindastuti (derived from the Alvars and permeates BhP’s 10th canto) and Sri Vaishnavas do not

"Through his own episodes of schizophrenia and mystic experience, Boisen cultivated his theory about the structure of 'eruptive' or sudden growth episodes. In his discussion on schizophrenia and mystic experience Boisen (1936) points out that human attitudes, feelings undergone, and convictions highlighted during 'eruptive' or sudden episodes of growth depend on the character, world-view and determination of the people having the experience. The positive beliefs, attitudes and convictions of religious people who experience sudden transformations of character, or in other words, 'sudden expansions of growth' can manifest positive, creative episodes indicating exceptional and ameliorating mettle of reality/ies that are usually described as peak and/or mystic experiences. Alternatively, when 'eruptive' or sudden growth episodes expose the reflective thought processes of people who are engrossed with negativity the reading of reality/ies appear unhealthy, distorted and un-related. Such people manifests grave feelings of hopelessness that culminate in contorted ideas crowned with suspicion and distrust. Correspondingly, negative 'sudden growth' experiences 'are customarily' identified as episodes of mental illness (Boisen 1935: ix, 58-83). In this relation Boisen deems that 'eruptive' development or sudden expansion of growth experiences manifest as mental illness and mystic experience are bi-polar opposites, they are the negative and positive expressions of the human 'aspiration construction' schema at work.

This means that on the extended arms of the pole (the innate human 'aspiration construction' schema), people construct cognitive schemas and mental pattern that can intensify in 'growth' as the extremity increases. And as the extremity of growth intensify beyond the perimeters of normal expression the sudden or 'eruptive 'transformation of character' becomes manifest. At the negative pole there is mental illness. At the positive pole, individuals and/or groups of people construct positive schemas that encourage people to grow in less fearful and more positive ways.

In Boisen's view, self and social acceptance, trust, faith and forgiveness are the building blocks for the development of a positive self-attitude, fearlessness and social assimilation. Further, Boisen (1936: 80-2, 244) believes that the full acceptance of an 'authoritative prototype' is essential for positive development of socialisation, establishing supreme loyalties and the constructive transformation of human character (Boisen 1936: 244). Moreover, if the 'authoritative prototype' represents a meta-communicative schema that claims to transcend the negative effects of everyday life, a gateway to a positive concept of the self and society will be created. This gateway Boisen identifies as 'trust' 'faith' compassion, forgiveness and hope. Thus, when the human 'aspiration construction' schema or the 'sense of personal failure' is augmented through a sudden distension of growth with the help of hope and trustful faith in a religious belief system that claims to assist people in transcending the negativity of human conditioning and embodiment, and further proclaim to be a vehicle for forgiveness, compassion and liberation then the 'eruptive' experience is manifest in a positive and productive way. These positive and creative forms of 'eruptive' experiences are described as mystic experience even when a religious mystic has a negative sense of personal failure to begin with.1

The point Boisen is making here is that when the 'human sense of personal failure' is reinforced with a meta-communicative schema that acknowledges debility as an inherent part of being human and acts as a mechanism that gives support and re-assurance to the person in a magnanimous way, the person is unlikely to continue to maintain a 'sense of personal failure' in the mood of hopelessness and negativity. Moreover, when religion and/or ideas of Godhead are synthesised with experiences of failure in life, a person can seek help from his/her perceived supreme loyalties (Godhead/religion). In the frantic struggle against his/her inner fears a person out of desire to identify with the 'ideal good' becomes totally dominated by such desires and ideas. Consequently, the person hears inner voices which (are, or stem from the beliefs and ideologies of the supreme loyalties) give re-assurity and a sense of security to the person undergoing a sudden transformation of consciousness. These inner fabrications or 'voices' become a kind of therapist that act or function to help the person having the 'eruptive' experience avoid any destructive or negative experience (Boisen 1936: 80-2, 204-6). Through the above analysis we can see that for Boisen religious mysticism is an experience correlated with human aspirations to grow in a positive way and to attain the 'ideal good'; therefore religious mysticism is not madness nor is it mental illness.

As I have already mentioned, for transformation of character to be successful a person must have a process that aids the development of the schemas needed. For Boisen, religion provides a person with the positive mental constructs needed for a constructive transformation of character to occur. In this connection Boisen (1936:155, 204) explains that the positive mental constructs of religion are trust, compassion and forgiveness. On this point Boisen (1936: 240) further mentions that the most important of these positive constructs is 'trust', one 'must be able to confide in someone' (Boisen 1936: 242). 'There must be a facility wherein confidentiality and trust can occur' (Boisen 1936: 242). Religion, Boisen hypothesises is the vehicle for 'trust'.

To illustrate Boisen's above hypothesis I will now turn to mystic experiences described in Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology. When a Gaudiya Vaishnava mystic (bhakta) places his/her trust in Godhead and Godhead by definition is identified as the Absolute, the most loving (Madhana-Mohan), the sustainer of all existence (Nityah), the fulfiller of the individual's longings (Govinda) and the 'friend of the most fallen' (Patita-Pavan) the notion of Godhead as the object of religion provides the mystic (bhakta) with a sense of hope and the mystic (bhakta) believes that confidentiality between the Godhead and the self will be maintained (Boisen 1936: 265-6). Thus in Boisenian (1936) terms, the human entity, through religion creates a mind-set that provides a positive venue to accommodate and/or construct positive sudden and/or gradual forms of human growth.

For instance, in Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology there is the belief that the Godhead Krishna and spiritual selves (jivatman) enjoy a type of 'spiritual kinship', spiritually they are social entities with personal relationships (bhakti-rasa). Accordingly, the 'topmost' form of socialisation in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition is to associate with Krishna in the 'spiritual world' (Goloka/Vaikuntha), to spontaneously or primarily identify with ones 'spiritual' persona and relations (bhakti-rasa) (c/f. Deadwyler a. 1996; Bhaktisiddhanta 1932). Correspondingly, from the perspective of the Gaudiya Vaishnava spontaneous devotional mysticism (suddha-bhakti) is the most perfect expression of socialisation. However, for the materially conditioned living entity to re-establish his/her primary spiritual identity the individual must become socialised by a group whose focus of moral behaviour emphasises the re-kindling of one spiritual nature. For the Gaudiya Vaishnava, sadhana-bhakti is the process of re-establishing one's innate spiritual identity. That is to say, the individual performs sadhana-bhakti to reconstruct his/her spiritual consciousness and de-construct his/her identification with the 'madness' of material conditioning and embodiment (maha-maya).

Through the above analysis of Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology and the social psychology of Anton Boisen we can understand that for both, religious mysticism is a totally different experience to mental illness. However it is important for me to mention here that because Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology and the social psychology of Anton Boisen agree that religious mysticism and mental illness a totally different experience this does not mean that both Boisen and Gaudiya Vaishnavas have the same views about the nature of religion and mystic experiences. For Boisen mystic experience is in interpretation correlated to social and/or cultural conditioning and is in part an experience of the numinous. Hence religious mystic experience can include the view that customs and values of the material world influence the interpretation of the mystic experiences. For the Gaudiya Vaishnava however, the spontaneous mystic experiences of the uttama-bhakta are purely:

spiritual forms…embodiments of spiritual rasa…un-mediated concrete expressions of spiritual ecstasies… (and)…are non-different from the souls and from the spiritual bodies that bear them. The forms of love are not abstractions and their relations are not allegories. In the abode of God life is infinitely more real than any thing experienced in the material world (Deadwyler a. 1996).

In other words, the similarity between Boisen's social psychology and Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine is that both acknowledge the existence of a transcendent reality. Both Gaudiya Vaishnava mysticism and Boisen hold the view that there exists a reality that is independent of the embodied 'human' entity's conceptualisation. However, under Boisen's theory the transcendental reality can only be approached, but never fully understood. It is not fully understood because a human being can not transcend his/her subjective constructs while conceptualising a transcendent reality. While Boisen's, contextualisation is understood as an imposition of conditioned human constructs upon religious mystic experience, the Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching of spiritual origination prohibits material conditioned conceptualisation on devotional mystic experience (suddha-bhakti). Spiritual contextualisation can only be considered within the context of yoga-maya. If elements of the experience are not intrinsic to the jiva's spiritual identity (that is, if objects and concepts are not the product of yoga-maya), then the experience is dependent upon maha-maya for its existence and therefore does not belong the category of 'topmost' (uttama) mystic experience. For the Gaudiya Vaishnava, experience of the transcendent Godhead Krishna and his abode can be fully understood by the topmost mystic (suddha-bhakti) because the topmost mystic (uttama-bhakta) is functioning in full awareness of his/her spiritual identity (bhakti-rasa). Bhakti-rasa is a type of awareness that is native to the jiva and is re-kindled through the performance of disciplined spiritual practice (sadhana-bhakti).

Aside the above mentioned difference in views, Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology and the social psychology of Anton Boisen both agree that religion is a process for spiritual growth and awareness, a vehicle to gain faith and faith together with hope provides a sense of determination and optimism. Correspondingly, religion is a meta-communicative schema that serves as a tool for liberation, a vehicle of salvation and a means to remedy the negativity that is correlated with the human 'sense of personal failure' or lack. In this connection Boisen (1936: 50-70, 238-9) wrote:

Religion and psychoanalysis are dealing with the same thing…The position of religion is that it provides people with a device that give people a means to discuss and fix their sense of personal failure.

Although the underlying contrivance of Boisen's view is that religion always remains for the forthright or open-hearted religious person the image of ideal purity that gives hope and determination, Boisen does not overlook the view that a religious person can become mentally ill. Boisen himself experience many episodes of mental illness as well as mystic experiences. However Boisen's view is that unless the person's 'aspiration construction' schema is backed up with positive reinforcements, 'eruptive' (sudden) and/or 'gradual' human development will be negative and manifest as mental illness. In 'eruptive' development experiences, sudden transformations of character are defined as mystic experience if the person is determined to grow towards perfection and social acceptance. This determination to grow towards perfection or higher goals is that which provides the reconstruction of mental and/or spiritual health of the individual. In mental illness the opposite occurs.

In short, what Boisen wants to point out here is that aspiration for perfection by a person whose 'aspiration construction' schema is reinforces with hope and the feeling of positive reception from the object of his/her 'supreme loyalties' creates a situation conducive for a positive reconstruction of the self. Further, when the object of a person's 'supreme loyalties' is defined as a benign and magnanimous Godhead then this further creates a situation conducive for a positive transformation of consciousness to take place. Thus when people believe religion to be benign and magnanimous then religion provides a venue to cure mental illness (Boisen 1936: 246;265-8). Thus religious mysticism and mental illness are two distinctly different types of experiences.

Although, Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology and the social psychology of Anton Boisen agree that religious mysticism and mental illness a totally different types experience this does not mean that both Boisen and Gaudiya Vaishnavas have the same views about the nature of religion and mystic experiences. For the Gaudiya Vaishnava 'religion' in terms of sadhana-bhakti provides not only a cure for mental illness, but it also 'cleanses the heart' of the embodied jiva from the 'contamination of material existence'; material conditioning (Rupa Goswami a. b. 16th Century CE; Bhaktivedanta 1970; 1975). For Boisen, mystic experience is in part derived from social conditioning and in part correlated to the numinous (Boisen 1936: 306-7). Mystic experience according to Boisen is that 'which brings to the individual's sense of fellowship' in harmony with 'God'. Further, God

regardless of the metaphysical reality...symbolises that in the individual's social experience, which he counts of highest value and with which he would be identified. It represents the composite impress of those whom he most worthy of love and honour (1936: 306)............... "

In shot :

In the Symposium (Plato 427-347 BC) Diotima expresses the view that "love is neither good nor bad"; that love, 'Eros' is the motivating and spiritualising force behind all creative action (201a-b, 208e).

And although Diotima sees sexual desire as a mistake and unnatural in the context of homerotic sex, from Aristophanes' speech (191c) we learn that for some people to maintain physical and mental health some sexual activity is necessary. Diotima"s solution to these human biological and psychological needs and wants, is that human beings must attach "love" (Eros) to a worthwhile goal. Although (in Diotima's view), the most worthwhile goal in the human form of life, is to aspire for immortal happiness (203a, 210d), in the initial stage of moral and spiritual progress, people who engage in sensual activity can use the skills they have in this world to make advancement towards a higher manifestation of love5 (Eros) (206b, 209a).

The marked qualities of these moral forms of procreation are that they aim to preserve the human species and/or happiness in human society6 (eudaimonia) (Diotima 199b-201c, 207a-208c; Waterfield 1984:xxvii). They "perpetuate admiration for wisdom, justice, courage, good social habits' and "love" in the sexual inter-personal relationship is aimed at human procreation (Diotima 206b-e, 209a-b). Through these moral and virtuous mediums of "love", human beings aspire tocreate greater happiness by using human physiology and/or human psyche as their means. Although "happiness" in this virtuous stage of moral and spiritual progress, is manifest as sensual activity, Diotima accepts the view that happiness as the "desire for good things and their proper usage" (eudaimonia) is a bona fide human state of progress on the path towards perfect wisdom (206c).

And remember "love" means all forms of creativity/activities that are done with wise/virtuous intent. As such it is not an act that is wrong nor is love good or bad. Intent is the regulator of good or bad in this view.

If the intent culminates in abuse we can ask what of the moral content.

ys

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-18-2002).]

The following is part of something I wrote as an undergrad

Yours Truly

sr

Diotima/Socrates in the Symposium (Plato 427-347 BC).

In the Symposium (Plato 427-347 BC) Diotima expresses the view that "love is neither good nor bad"; that love, 'Eros' is the motivating and spiritualising force behind all creative action (201a-b, 208e).

DIOTIMA AND ANCIENT GREECE

The ancient Greeks had many names and definitions for various forms of love. These range from kindness to living entities of the same species (physike) to a love appropriate among people (Euripides), and from voluptuous relations between men and women (aphros) to sexual desire (erotike). Further, Eros is defined as "a love of feeling and passion which ennobles the soul" (Wiener 1973:94). In the Symposium, (Plato 427-347 BC) Diotima identifies Eros as the highest manifestation of love. According to Diotima (203a, 208c-209e), love (Eros) is the universal motivating force that underlies the actions of every living entity, it is the pursuit of human virtue and eternal happiness (Diotima 207b). In this sense "love" (Eros) is not a God,1 love is the essential dynamism (daimon) associated with every living entity; hence love is essentially "spirit" (Diotima 202e; Waterfield 1984:XXVIII). As the spirit "love" (Eros) is manifest in all living entities' aspirations for eternal happiness, and "love" takes sanctuary in the inherent creativity of every living entity (Diotima 203a; 207a-c). Accordingly, love's quest for immortality is manifest in all forms of life through sexual reproduction. In the human form of life however, where the facility of reason is added, the medium through which love aspires to find immortality expands and love is displayed through the pursuit human virtue and aspiration for absolute happiness or divinity. Correspondingly, what is called "love" is the manifestation of living entities" creative potential and aspiration for happiness and immortality (Diotima 208c-e).

This loving happiness can be manifest as destructive, virtuous or divine. Or in other words, this all pervasive powerful, primeval force, fulfilling or un-fulfilling is manifest differently in people according to their desires (Aristophanes; Waterfield 1984:xi). In human society, the "highest manifestation of love is "love between soul and soul, without sensual desire" (Diotima :204a-b, 211b-c). Below this, are love of knowledge, moral homo-creativity and sexual reproduction (Diotima 208e-209b). The lowest manifestation of love is physical lust (Diotima 206e-d). Since a marked attribute of love is that love hankers and aspires for happiness and immortality, then falling in love, whether manifest as physical love, love for knowledge and love of wisdom are different manifestations in which people seek happiness and immortality (208c-e). The task, according to Diotima, is to direct "love" away from bodily lust toward philosophy and wisdom. In this connection Diotima (210a-210d) states:

"The proper way...for someone to start, is to love just one person"s body...next... he regards the beauty of all bodies as absolutely identical. ...Once he realises this, his obsession with just one body grows less intense and strikes him as ridiculous and petty. The next stage is for him to value mental beauty; (so that)...an attractive mind is enough to kindle his love and affection, and that's all he needs to give birth to and enquire after the kinds of reasoning which help young men"s moral progress. ...No longer a paltry and small-minded slave, he faces instead the vast sea of beauty,...love of knowledge becomes his medium in which he gives birth to...expansive reasoning and thinking, until he gains enough to ...catch sight of a unique kind of knowledge whose natural object is a kind of beauty I will not describe."

Through the above information we can see that Diotima's view of "love" as a basis "for moral and spiritual progress", centres on the idea that human beings can ascend through various levels of love towards absolute and perfect happiness. This is done by human beings transferring their affection from a lower object, creative or active medium of love to a more profound medium of love. The lowest medium for the manifestation of "love" is found in physical love; when aspiration for immortality is combined with creative physical love and/or the faculty of human reason, virtuous mediums for love are made manifest (Diotima 204b, 208c-209e). At the highest stage, the level of absolute wisdom, pure unadulterated immortal love is manifest through a life of philosophical contemplation (Diotima 208b, 210a-d).

What Diotima is suggesting here is that the attainment of a higher stages of "love" (Eros) are characterised by "procreation" whether human off-spring, knowledge or absolute wisdom (209e-211e). Further, it is this positive and virtuous creative potential inherent in human beings that perpetuates an ever increasing moral ambition and/or environment for advancement towards absolute goodness and happiness (Diotima 206c, 208e, 209c). The perfection of "love", in Diotima's process of purification culminates in the attainment of absolute goodness, revealed through a medium of eternal mystic beauty, manifest as absolute, indescribable perfect wisdom (209a-e, 210a-212d).

To more critically appreciate Diotima's assent towards mystic or spiritual perfection it is necessary for me to expand my discussion on the relationship between human desire and love (Eros) in terms of non-virtue, virtue and absolute virtue. Love within the realm of immortal happiness is the perfection of love and is manifest as absolute virtue or divine wisdom itself. Love in the realm of virtue is described as desire for, and admiration of wisdom, justice, courage good habits and human procreation2 (Diotima 206b-d, 209a). Love outside the sphere of virtue is defined as attraction to overt material constituents, such as physical strength, personal beauty and wealth3 (Diotima 210a-212a).

NON-VIRTUE, VIRTUE AND ABSOLUTE VIRTUE

For Diotima (206a-c), desire for immortal beauty is inherent in the creativity of all living entities, however "ignorant" people often mistake beauty to be a purely physical object. For instance when physical attraction is interpreted as sexual desire, in the context of homoerotic sex, or sex that is "incompatible" with procreation, an inferior expression of love (Eros) is manifest4 (206e-d, 212e, 216b, 217a-218a).

Diotima (211a-d), further mentions that physical love alone is a negative manifestation of "love"; as it creates obsession rather than broad-minded. Moreover, since physical bodily beauty is a temporary manifestation of beauty, then physical beauty alone is the wrong medium for immortality and the attainment of absolute happiness. Thus physical attraction in homoerotic sexual relations is incongruent and unnatural for moral and spiritual procreation as it not only has the potential to cause "enslavement", but upon the expiration of the physical beauty, or the inevitable death of the physical body, this form of love-making results only in grief and lamentation; and is therefore an un-fulfilling manifestation of love (Diotima 206e-d; Nussbaum 1986:185).

Although Diotima sees sexual desire as a mistake and unnatural in the context of homerotic sex, from Aristophanes' speech (191c) we learn that for some people to maintain physical and mental health some sexual activity is necessary. Diotima"s solution to these human biological and psychological needs and wants, is that human beings must attach "love" (Eros) to a worthwhile goal. Although (in Diotima's view), the most worthwhile goal in the human form of life, is to aspire for immortal happiness (203a, 210d), in the initial stage of moral and spiritual progress, people who engage in sensual activity can use the skills they have in this world to make advancement towards a higher manifestation of love5 (Eros) (206b, 209a).

Accordingly, Diotima (204a, 206c-e 209a) further points out that when human insight of immorality and human creativity combine, they form virtuous phenomena that range from sexual reproduction to human creativity in artistic expression, and from the creation of knowledge to the making of moral law. The marked qualities of these moral forms of procreation are that they aim to preserve the human species and/or happiness in human society6 (eudaimonia) (Diotima 199b-201c, 207a-208c; Waterfield 1984:xxvii). They "perpetuate admiration for wisdom, justice, courage, good social habits' and "love" in the sexual inter-personal relationship is aimed at human procreation (Diotima 206b-e, 209a-b). Through these moral and virtuous mediums of "love", human beings aspire to create greater happiness by using human physiology and/or human psyche as their means. Although "happiness" in this virtuous stage of moral and spiritual progress, is manifest as sensual activity, Diotima accepts the view that happiness as the "desire for good things and their proper usage" (eudaimonia) is a bona fide human state of progress on the path towards perfect wisdom (206c). For the perfection of wisdom, according to Diotima, rests upon the human desire to make manifest a quest to perpetuate goodness (206a, 207a). However the natures of sensual creativity and moral virtues are that they are worldly activities and are therefore temporary manifestations of goodness (208a). Since they change from moment to moment, the goodness and wisdom found them are no more than shadowy-reflections of pure immortal goodness (Diotima 211e-212a).

Diotima further explains, "just as physical beauty fades in beauty", so too human activities and institutions change, even our knowledge will change, the only thing that remains constant is that we hanker for beauty, and therefore the most worthwhile goal is to find immortal beauty (207a-208a). Human aspiration for absolute beauty however, is driven by the need for perfect love. But love can only be perfect when it is displayed through a medium of immortality (Diotima 207a, 212a). The medium of immortality is the attainment of absolute wisdom, absolute goodness (Diotima 207a).

In short, what Diotima is saying is that although beauty is the attracting factor, it is the permanent possession of goodness that ultimately gives the human entity eternal happiness. That which is called "love" is the manifestation of living entities' creative potential and aspiration for happiness and immortality (208c-e). In addition, it is "immortality which makes... love, a universal feature" (208b). Thus the universal human desire is not for beauty but it is for everlasting goodness and happiness. This everlasting happiness/goodness is attained through perfect wisdom (205a-206a).

Where absolute wisdom is "perpetuated", absolute beauty and absolute aspiration (the ever perusing aspect of love) are simultaneously manifest. For the wise the desired object of love (Eros) is the immortal procreation of perfect wisdom (Diotima 208c-209e, 210d, 211b). The procreation of perfect wisdom is marked by pure, unalloyed, undying, divine "revelation" (Diotima 204a-b, 211a; Nussbaum 1985:184). Thus for Diotima, love for wisdom takes preference over love for moral acts, physical creativity and reproduction as a means to attain perfection in human life.

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-18-2002).]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Dear Suryaz,

 

I haven't time for a reading list. I know the Symposium. If you have assimilated all this learning, surely you can summarize it.

 

I am ready to widen my understanding.

 

Jagat

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-16-2002).]

Jagat I will address this later

Originally posted by Jagat:

I am looking for something in the middle.

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-16-2002).]

In my view, to help you ascertain this you must first widen the scope of your understanding as to what Love is. Then combine this with Boisen's social psychology with reference to the natures of the pathological and of that which is generally called mystic experience.

To widen your understanding on the nature of love I suggest you read Plato's Symposium.

Next I suggest you read Boisen, Anthon 1926 (???) Explorations of the Inner word (I think that is the title) This is a must.

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-16-2002).]

I disagree. There are standards in the West. It is just standards are more individualistic and personalised. In the West the individuals in the relationship set the standard for the person-to-person relationship. Personal relationships are not regulated by what one person in that relation says what the relationship ought to be. As such standards in the West are not impersonal; they are more personal because they are more than often regulated through mutual consent not by common consent.

Human relations and ideas about what "ought to be" as designed by an authority are less imposed upon personal relations in the West.

Try living in society that dis-empowers you forever (where there is not way out of it; because of birth rite). The problem is that most Westerners who have lived in India are of the privileged sector (eg. white males). Try living as a dis-empowered person in India and then tell me how personal the relations are.

Tell me how humanely you will be treated - India has one of the worst records in the world for the dis-empowerment and the inhumane treatment of its peoples Is this personal relations. Is this human relations? How personal is that? Think about it.

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-16-2002).]

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-06-2002).]

It is for certain, a tangled web.

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-04-2002).]

So what of the Mohini incarnation? How does she fit into this Divinised gender dichogamy of opposites? Who/What is the hladini sakti of Mohini?

This leads us to ask is it sakti that creates the expressions of the Absolute? If so what of the maleness of the Krsna expression, the Vishnu expression? With that in view, we can also ask, are these (Vishnu male expressions) all male expression of the hladini sakti? This then leads to the question - how feminine is hladini sakti?

Furthermore, opposites are only functional within a dominated – dominant dichogamy. The term “opposite” is functional in conflict theory. When the power struggle is absent the perception centres on difference not opposites.

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-04-2002).]

Originally posted by Tarun:

suryazji: who is the Poor Guy?

Tarun - Which guy? I see two men in one boat and a dog in a life-boat