Jagat

Every Indian knows that fat gurus are better than tall ones.

I can't believe a scholar like Basham wasted his time with this argument. From the scholarly point of view: It's a piece of literature, for God's sake! If Salman Rushdie writes about the Prophet running a house of prostitution with all his wives, does this tell us anything about the real Mohammed? Or about time or anything else? From the devotee point of view: Krishna can stop the sun if he likes, he can kill Hiranyakashipu though he cannot be killed inside or out, by man or by beast. He can transmit the knowledge of a thousand Bhagavad Gitas in the blink of an eye. The "interpolations in the Gita" theory has dozens of versios. Any inconsistency, and change in mood, any contradiction is taken as proof of multiple authorship. I am not convinced.

I am looking for something in the middle. Projecting archetypes, i.e., superimposing archetypal contents on other people, is according to Jung a kind of possession. "Falling in love" means projecting an archetype on another person. If the feeling is mutual it is considered O.K., but when it isn't, it can become pathological. However, even when it is mutual, it has pathological features. To say that love is "personal" is only partially true. In its most archetypal form it is impersonal role playing. When the curtain of Maya is pulled back a little, the man and woman look on horror at what they have wrought. Before the apotheosis of romantic love in the West, it was considered something of a disease. A successful romantic relation has to outgrow archetypal projection. Indeed, it is better for the relation from the beginning to be able to stand apart from such archetypal possession and let the intellect be the guide. The maturity of the relation is achieved when one can combine the subjective numinous feel of the archetypal experience with the genuine objective appreciation of the other person. Now the same kind of psychology is operative in the guru/disciple relationship. Wherever there is an archetypal experience, there is a feeling of contact with the numinous. (Synchronicity is also a kind of numinous experience.) The excessively rational viewpoint does not recognize this numinous element. The teacher is just a teacher, and as I have said above, the knowledge is often trivial, i.e., connected with purely mechanical or practical job skills, etc., and so the kind of response to the numinous (awe, respect, veneration, love, gratitude, etc.) can easily be minimized, whereas when issues of ultimate value are concerned, it is less easy to do so. Nevertheless, despite the strong bias in the West against "guru" archetypal projection (while the "love" projection is glorified as "the" numinous experience par excellence), it cannot be suppressed altogether. In such cases, the successful relationship still demands outgrowing the "possession" stage, which is rather what one expects from the neophyte (kanishtha) or newly converted type of devotee. This means penetrating the archetype to see the reality behind it--the humanity of the guru, as it were (as much as one must see the beloved as a human and not a god or goddess)--while still preserving the kernel of numinosity. This is why on another thread I talked about "forgiving the guru." The shastra says, "Never see the guru as human." But that is impossible, because you will inevitably see him as human, i.e., you will have doubts. When that happens, you have to find the kinds of resources that you need in any human relation to overcome the difficulties that arise. The primary resource is faith in the original numinous experience. Does this make any sense?<small><font color=#f7f7f7> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-16-2002).]

Good points, Suryaz.

Tarun and Shiva are forming an anarchists' league. Let's give Shiva a chance. I think that he seems intelligent and has good things to say. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, that is why I encourage him to improve his use of punctuation and endorse JN's suggestion that he make paragraphs. He's a stubborn guy, but he's not the only one. Punctuation is courtesy, Shiva, like using mouthwash before a date.

Colleagues, Forgive me if this e-mail reiterates information already provided in previous communications. As of late my RISA mailbox has been down. I was very sad to learn last night from Sthaneshwar Timalsina, a Nepali Sanskritist currently at UC Santa Barbara, that over the weekend Maoist rebels in Nepal reduced to ashes much of Mahendra Sanskrit University's main campus. Dr. Timalsina estimates that the damage is irreparable. This is a great loss, not just for Nepal, but for the international community of Indologists. Dr. Timalsina and I request that we all do whatever we can to bring the violence in Nepal to an end. thank you, Jeffrey Lidke Visiting Assistant Professor Religion Program Bard College

Please note the synchronicity of that advice, Shiva (1) There are many different archetypes, and it is true that the guru may fit several of them, depending on what the disciple is looking for. But I think the principle role the spiritual master is playing is that of the "wise man." (I guess magician or via medium would be the same one, expressed in different words.) (2) Syncronicity is a different concept that is relevant, but is distinct from archetype theory.

The projection of the "wise man" archetype is a universal phenomenon, as are other kinds of projections, so there is not an East/West problem on the most fundamental level. The problem is not so much that people in the West will not submit to discipline--they have to. They will not give up the illusion that they are not submitting or do not need to submit. And yet, students at college still have to write their papers, pass their exams and qualify to get their degrees. Only for the most part they marginalize their relationship with individuals like professors and have an impersonal relation with the institution. The same goes for teachers, who usually play a cog-in-the-wheel role for students, who just flow by them like leaves on a river. There has been a lot of promotion of the "mentor" concept over the the past few years, especially in the business world. This is a kind of watered-down "guru" doctrine, but since the values being transmitted in most uneven relationships is usually trivial, there is no particular need to feel that there is a numinous aspect to the relationship. In certain intense relations, like patient/psychiatrist, a facsimile of the guru/sishya relationship takes place. Most guru/sishya relationships are in fact too distant to carry the kind of intense interplay of projections that are released in a relation of analysis. I think that thinking about guru/sishya relations needs to be deepened, taking the help of western psychological findings, such as Jung's ideas about projection and archetypes. It is rather funny that in Western society, we value certain kinds of archetypal possession, like "falling in love," while condemning others, like "surrendering to a guru." (Though "hero worship" or "role model emulation" might be considered variants of the latter.) I think the following post I made elsewhere is relevant:

Western.

It seems that every day there is a documentary on TV about Muslims. I turn on the radio -- on the local Catholic channel -- and I get an explanation of the five pillars of Islam. Last night, there was a program about Islam in the US on PBS. The CBC has been running stuff on Palestine wall-to-wall for months. TV5, the international French network, had a documentary on the Haj that they have already shown about three times over the last year. Most of this publicity seems to be curious and neutral, rather than negative and sensational. There has never been so much information about Islam available, ever. And most of its positive!

Wow! That's a great explanation of interpolations!! Do you know how critical texts are edited, JN? Have you seen the Poona critical edition? There is a very good explanation of the methodology they used in the introduction of that or the Harivamsa done by basically the same editing team. Jagat

I should just like to further amend that I think Western spiritual masters like Tripurari have a special contribution to make by interpreting Krishna consciousness for Western audiences that makes them specially meritorious. They are not "second-best" because they are Western, which my previous post may have sounded like. I couldn't get into my edit mode. So I missed two typos. attitude (one "t") and initiated

You misunderstood our (at least my) motivations. I am not saying that anyone is inferior. I was objecting to one person’s claim that initiation had no vital significance. Vaishnavism is in great part about humility. In Vaishnava society there is a hierarchy is there, as there is in any society, like it or not. The Bhagavatam tells us to respect Brahmins, but in general the Western devotees I know have a very condescending attittude to Brahmins in general. They are Mayavadis or brahma-bandhus, not real Brahmins, etc. Any excuse not to show respect. Mahaprabhu said that he did not like maryada-langhan, and praised Sanatan when he avoided Jagannath’s pujaris, even though He glorified Sanatan as greater in every way than the pujaris. maryAdA rakSaNa hoy sAdhura bhUSaNa. It would have been so very easy for Shiva to say, "I am not initiated, but I have been studying Vaishnavism for years and I think I have had some valid realizations that I would like to share for discussion." OR, he could have said, “I am initiated by a Gaudiya Math sannyasi, but I would rather not mention his name.” OR, “I was initiated in Iskcon, but my guru fell down and I’d rather not talk about it.” Any of these options would have been sincere, humble and endearing and would have permitted the conversation to go on as before. But rather than do that, Shiva decided to make an issue of the question itself by boldly stated that initiation is merely optional, an external ritual that has no real meaning and arguments of this sort (which he slightly modified later). Since he was making claims for his own independent realizations, which as Rati and Raga pointed out, he neglected to support with scriptural proofs, his status was a valid issue. These are the reasons I chose to object so strongly. Shiva managed to find a number of people supporting his position, from widely different groups—the uninitiated who think that access to the divine can be had spontaneously without sadhana, the Kripalu representatives, the Ritvik vadis, and the siksha-sampradaya vadis. Strange bedfellows, no doubt. The workings of Bhagavan and Bhakti Devi are mysterious and beyond the understanding of a conditioned soul like myself. I would not be so arrogant as to say who and when they should wish to bless someone. So who am I to say if Shiva, Valaya, Bhakta George, Shashi and all the other regular uninitated contributors to these forums are or are not kripa siddha? And as everyone likes to regularly point out, I am not a humble bee. Maybe one day I will get the point. Even so, I must bring out the worst in all these kripa siddhas! Nevertheless, I must point out that kripa siddhas should be as humble as sadhana siddhas, and recognize their position as “not even devotees.” If someone who has been initiated and engaged in sadhana all his life is supposed to be humble, how much more we should expect an unitiated devotee to say, “I am not a devotee.” An uninitiated person who makes exaggerated claims for his own high understanding should expect a reaction. Westerners are so “democratic” they forget about maryada sometimes. But in fact, even in the West, etiquette is important. If you're living on the streets, I guess it doesn't matter, but if you are in the workplace or the army, or business world, or the Mafia, you know that protocol is very important. Pecking orders are everywhere in America except its mythology—and that’s despite the star system and the Bush dynasty and everything. <hr>It is in no one’s interest to force initiation. There are many scriptures to that effect and I think that you should expect us to be fully aware of them. Bhaktivinoda Thakur states: Nevertheless, I think that Raga and I have quoted enough scripture to show that initiation is a necessary part of the bhakti path. One may reject the formalities of devotion at one's peril. <center>sruti-smriti-puranadi- pancharatra-vidhim vina | aikAntikI harer bhaktir utpAtAyaiva kalpate ||</center> Of course, it is understandable that some disillusionment has arisen about initiation, as Iskcon has seen so much tragic abuse of the diksha relationship. This is a very sad thing and there is little I can say to defend Iskcon history or to encourage those who have been burned. Jiva Goswami basically says, "Tough luck," if you picked an unqualified guru, because he hesitates to advise rejecting the guru except in extreme circumstances. <center>yo vakti nyAya-rahitam anyAyena zRNoti yaH tAv ubhau narakaM ghoraM gacchataH kAlam akSayam</center> <blockquote>One who speaks (gives diksha) without following the proper injunctions and the one who takes initiation in the same illegal manner, both end up in the worst of hells and stay there a long time.</blockquote><hr> Someone on Istagosthi just posted the following: This was written by a Ritvikvadi opposing Narayan Maharaj. In Iskcon, criticisms of Narayan Maharaj often take the form of mocking the Western neophytes for being stupid and gullible in their “need” for "an old Indian gentleman" as spiritual master. Yet this is basically what is behind the Hari-bhakti-vilasa's wise statement that one should seek a higher caste guru. Why? Because the samskara is deeper. Iskcon's gurus looked good in 1977, but they were sAbu kheye moTA. Looked good on the outside, but the inner samskara was shallow. No need for further details. By way of contrast, I had the good fortune to be close friends with a Goswami family in Nabadwip, "professional gurus." It was a big family with many sons, most of whom were engaged in non-devotional activities, or running the “family business” (a temple) with minimal devotional standards. Two or three of them, however, were deeply devoted and learned. One of the youngest sons was having a bit of an identity crisis; he had finished school, had no job, didn't know what he wanted to do, etc. His father decided to push the envelope by saying “If you want to get married, get your act together.” Then suddenly one day, this young Gosai started giving Bhagavata path. I remember thinking, "This guy, he's a shallow, frivolous person. How can he speak on the Bhagavatam?" So I went to hear him and though it was not great, it was pretty good. Besides which, he had the culture down pat. My point is to contrast the shallow and profound samskaras. The Gosai had a very profound samskara that came from a life of association with devotees and a birth identity that designated him as a descendant of Nityananda Prabhu. There is a certain stability of identity that makes for dependability. Add to that genuine practice, learning and devotion and you get something profound. Combine that with a lifetime of sadhana, as in the case of someone like Narayan Maharaj, or Gaur Govinda Maharaj, and you have a far better bet for stable spiritual guidance along the path than that given by some Johnny-come-lately who likely still takes his beadbag into the john. This is not to disparage those Western devotees like Tripurari Maharaj and others who have shown ample conviction and commitment to the devotional path and their predecessors, and merit the title of guru.<hr> Please excuse the length of this post. I just started it this morning and kept adding to it.

When the Harinama-chintamani I am currently working on comes out at Mandala Media, it will have a lengthy glossary at the end, something like the excerpt I posted on the Siddha Pranali thread. Raga is also working on typesetting the Manjari Svarupa Nirupana, which his param gurudeva Kunja Bihari Dasji compiled. This book also will have a fairly comprehensive glossary at the end. Of course, neither of these will contain absolutely everything, but I hope that you will keep an eye out for them when they are published. Yours, Jagat

Jai Radhe!! I just reread this thread from top to bottom. I already made a comment complimenting Raga, and I want to repeat it. He has done a good job of summarizing the siddhanta and his posts are clean and nice to read. Shivaji, you are no dummy and I would like to apologize if I treated you disparagingly at times. You make many good points, and as is usual in these cases, our differences are not absolute. However, I think that you would do well to read more carefully what other people say, especially the texts quoted, and become familiar with them. You cited Sridhar Maharaj in one place, but that was the only citation you made. As Raga pointed out, in discussions of this sort, Srila Prabhupada taught us to make reference to Shastra. I also liked Audarya-lila's post. The conciliatory, upbeat tone of Tripurari Maharaj and his followers is a very positive sign for Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the West. Bhaktavasya's post was short, but incisive. Theist played a great role as a submissive inquirer. Such a rare creature in these forums! It certainly helps to mellow the tone. To all others, Shashi, Sha, JNDas, my dandavats to you. Please forgive any offenses. Ys, Jagat

I would just like to compliment Raga on the high quality of his posts. This is not to minimize the value of other posters, but Dear Theistji, anyone like you who reads this thread will learn quite a bit about Gaudiya Vaishnava theories of initiation. The discussion has in general been of a very high quality with few digressions into the nether regions. Congratulations to all! Someone posted a part of our exchange (about exclusion and inclusion) on Istagosthi, to which I added the following brief comment:

What an astute reading of my post, Shivaji. Here is my latest instruction: "Don't go jumping off any cliffs, now."<small><font color=#f7f7f7> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-09-2002).]

Like singing yAni kAni ca pApAni after tulasi kRSNa preyasi namo namaH, which is the only raganuga song in Iskcon. It's like Venu Gopal Goswami singing Shiva Shiva after Radhe Radhe. Not even Gopishwar Mahadeva! <hr> The key passage to understand in the relation between mantra diksha and the Holy Name is found in Jiva Goswami's Bhakti Sandarbha. Jiva discusses the act of initiation itself in several places. Having already discussed the sovereign importance of the holy names of Krsna, for which initiation is not necessary, in the spiritual life of a devotee, he considers the possibility that initiation in the mantra is not necessary either: Once again, initiation from the guru is not given primary status by Jiva: it is not a magical act like the sakti-pat of the Kasmiri Saivas. It is functional in that it opens the door to the performance of deity worship, through which one can become purified and strengthen one's sense of identity in relationship to the Lord. Jiva elaborates on this later on, maintaining the same tension between the absolute powers of any devotional act and the necessity of initiation and worship of the deity. Taken from <a href=http://www.harekrsna.com/vada/nugas/param.htm>"The Parampara Institution in Gaudiya Vaishnavism"</a>. You can find the Sanskrit text and references there. (I think.) Jagat<small><font color=#dedfdf> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-09-2002).]

Please don't start on this subject, Raga, Rati and JN. We all bow down to Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and his disciples and take the dust of their lotus feet. We bow down to the feet of Gaur Kishor Das Babaji and take the dust of his lotus feet. We bow down to the feet of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and take the dust of his lotus feet. We bow down to the feet of Jagannath Das Babaji and take the dust of his lotus feet. We bow down to the feet of Baladeva Vidyabhushan and take the dust of his lotus feet. We bow down to the feet of Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur and take the dust of his lotus feet. We bow down to the feet of Narottam Das Thakur and take the dust of his lotus feet. We bow down to the feet of Krishna Das Kaviraj Goswami and take the dust of his lotus feet. We bow down to the feet of Sanatan, Rupa, Gopal Bhatta, Raghunath Das, Raghunath Bhatta and Sri Jiva Goswami and take the dust of their lotus feet. Our happiness comes from seeing Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's name being glorified throughout the world through their mercy. If we have differences, it is details. Let us not insult one another. [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-09-2002).]

How complex it all becomes!! Of course it is all-inclusive. But it is all-inclusive through the worship of Krishna. The whole world is my family, but I have a special family of bhaktas with whom I share the inner vision of the Divine. As human beings, as living entities, as creatures of the Supreme Divinity, we are all brothers and sisters, of course. That is the vision we aspire to, and which we cultivate. In the stage of sadhana, we have to set limits and the first limit is on sanga. It's again like marriage. We keep our family life at home. We choose to keep the company of one wife (or four) and other close relatives, etc. That is the inner world. When you transcend this state of sadhana and become siddha, you can wander through the streets like a madman, in rain or snow, heat or cold, suffer the lashes of the envious and the insults of the blind, and respond with limitless love, inspired by the vision of divine mercy working endlessly in every atom of creation and the divine lila that is reflected in them. ===== Raganuga bhakti differs from vaidhi bhakti principally in motivation and vision of the goal. In vaidhi bhakti these are unclear. If one had lobha all the time, then one would be perfect and there would be no need for sadhana. So wherever there is sadhana, there is some kind of rule. Therefore Bhaktivinoda Thakur talks about vaidha-krama and raganuga-krama (see HNC) when discussing the process of smarana in his discussion of raganuga bhajan. They are like two different phases of spiritual practice. When lobha arises, that is like pressing on the gas; your sadhana receives a spontaneous spurt of energy. But when lobh subsides, are you then to stop engaging in your spiritual practices because you don't feel like it? Even so, the vaidha-krama, or devotional activity pushed by yukti or shastra, when it is engaged in order to achieve the goals that were set by lobha are not vaidhi bhakti, but raganuga bhakti. It's the anuga part that we have to remember. Though raganuga breaks the rules and conventions, there is still a "sambandha" with the Divine Couple that needs to be established. Narottam says "When will Rupa say to the Divine Couple, 'Hey, check out this new sakhi Manjulali brought along.'" Your relationship with Krishna is direct. Of course it is. So why do we need to clean the mirror of the mind? Why the "ceto-darpana-marjanam"? Ys, Jagat

Shashi: Once again, Shashiji, you are being opaque in your wisdom. The guru is the point of commitment. After taking diksha guru one may go to siksha gurus, that is not a problem. But one's path is established by the formal connection to the diksha guru. That establishes the focal point, the spoke of the wheel. The divine world is separated from us by a thin veil. It seems that we could go through at any point, but the fact is we must go through at one particular point. That is the guru. Of course, if you are attached to Krishna and Radha without any formal connection, I will not despise you. Indeed, I will venerate you. But as long as I am somewhere on the lower rungs of spiritual advancement, it will be hard for me to think of you as family. (And I will understand if the feeling is mutual.)<small><font color=#f7f7f7> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-09-2002).]

Well Shaji, this shows how the Kripalu philosophy differs from the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. If our relationship with Krishna is eternal and needs no formalities, then what exactly are we doing in Maya? What is the necessity for sadhu sanga? I thought Krishna sent his devotees in the world to make prema available to the conditioned souls. There is a difference between zraddhA, which is the beginning of the spiritual path, and sadhu sanga which is hearing, and bhajana-kriya which begins with initiation. For Gaudiya Vaishnavas, raganuga bhakti is conducted on two levels. On the external level, they accept the rules of vidhi bhakti. sevA sAdhaka-rUpeNa siddha-rUpeNa cAtra hi tad-bhAva-lipsunA kAryA vraja-lokAnusArataH zravaNotkIrtanAdIni vaidha-bhakty-uditAni tu | yAny aGgAni ca tAny atra vijJeyAni manISibhiH Aargh! I've got work to do!!!

To Paul: There are so many different philosophies about initiation. Saraswati Thakur deliberately set the bar very high because he was upset about the way that diksha was being conducted in the Vaishnava world at the time. Bhaktivinoda Thakur says that the minimum commitment for chanting the Holy Name is four rounds. One should stop eating meat. But making excessive demands of householders in the busy Western world is a way of deliberately alienating people. I don't agree with it. Iskcon has now started instituting an entire program of progressive initiation in India, with various levels of commitment. This is really unnecessary. Giving the japa mala is actually Harinam initiation. So if someone gives you mala (after chanting on it and blessing it) that is giving Harinam. This is not diksha as such. Mantra initiation for householders requires a greater degree of commitment to sad-achar, and the introduction of deity worship into the home. Since you are already doing this, I would say that you are qualified for initiation. If you are committed to Bhakti Marga Maharaj and want to take initiation from him, then of course, you must be ready to accept the discipline he establishes. If he says wait 15-20 years, that is his way of testing you. That is his prerogative. You could say that by accepting his test you are proving yourself worthy and that, as our friends are all saying on this thread, that you have been initiated "internally." But that internal acceptance will only be "consummated" by seeing it through to the end and building up your commitment to the level that he demands. As far as inviting sannyasis to your home is concerned: it is proper etiquette to ask the sannyasi to make the offering. To avoid being insulted, take the proactive stance of inviting the sannyasi to do it. (In fact, there are many sannyasis who would not eat the cooking of even an initiated householder. Even an initiated householder should invite a sannyasi, senior Brahmin, or respected Vaishnava guest to make the offering. Your servant, Jagat

For woman following sati-vrata,you understanding importance of marriage, I am thinking.Like bumblebee going woman flowertoflower not good thinking me. Like that.

How terribly modern of everyone. All those who are not initiated who don't think initiation is important, raise your hands! All those who think that if they defend formal initiation they will be opening the back door to those nasty diksha-sampradaya wallahs, raise your hand! Chaitanya did not give initiation, that has been mentioned by Sanatan Goswami as a special case. It is not a statement about the necessity of initiation. Rather, Mahaprabhu took formal initiation from Ishwar Puri. That is a better example to follow. Chaitanya's sannyas is easily misunderstood. There was a rather large group of Vaishnava sannyasis in the Shankara sampradaya based at Govardhan Math in Puri. This included the Puris (Madhavendra, Ishwar, Paramananda, etc.) and Bharatis (Keshava, Brahmananda, etc.). What could be more natural for Mahaprabhu than to join this group. However, what happened before and what happened after are two different things. We belong, I may remind you, to the "after" group. Similarly, Ramanuja is a sampradaya founder. There are often anomalies in the diksha of sampradaya founders, like Siddhanta Saraswati. Those who profess to follow them, however, generally follow the formalities. If you have an earth-shattering realization that transforms the very nature of the teachings you have received, you are welcome to repudiate or trivialize your diksha relationships and establish your own parampara, otherwise not! The example of Arjuna is also not applicable in this case. Krishna was his siksha guru. Where is the sampradaya coming from Arjuna? The siksha sampradaya wallahs confuse siksha with diksha whenever it suits their convenience. But really what you're doing is "opening the back door" to the Ritvik wallahs. Audarya Lila uses the marriage example, which is a very good one. Of course, like Bhaktivasya says, common law marriage is "recognized" nowadays. The arguments traditionally for common-law marriage resemble those given here for so-called "real" initiation. Love is more important than recognition in the eyes of the law or society. And there's divorce, too. There are so many reasons that formal marriage is irrelevant and unimportant. Yeah, well. Chant Hare Krishna. Accept the teachings of the sampradaya. Associate with devotees. It's all better than nothing, but if you mean it, then put your money where your mouth is. Commit. Anyway, I think I've said just about everything I want to say here. Jai Radhe! Your servant, Jagat P.S. If I were Rebecca, Peter, Gary, George or Don, I would put aside my false ego and all my excuses and take shelter of Bhakti Marg Swami, Tripurari Maharaj, Narayan Maharaj, Ananta Das Pandit, or some other real person, rather than remaining on the mental plane, beating round the bush, or playing the field. Pick a path and follow it. All roads may lead to Rome, but you've got to take one. Otherwise, you end up walking in circles. Commit.<small><font color=#f7f7f7> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-09-2002).]