raga

When that happens, even while in the body, one becomes tattva vit (knower of brahman and situated therein) and hence transcendental to the gunAs.

Here you suggest that one becomes tattva vit, a knower of brahman and situated therein. Who is the one here who becomes? The mind, or the Atma?

By the influence of ahankara the mind thinks "I am the doer". Ahankara is destroyed through knowledge. When that happens, even while in the body, one becomes tattva vit (knower of brahman and situated therein) and hence transcendental to the gunAs.

All well, mind and ahankara are confused, thinking they are the doer. But they are the doer, is it not? After all, that's what it says in the verse, the elements of material nature are declared to be the doer. Why should the mind then be called foolish for thinking it is the doer?

Please answer this question: If the atma has absolutely no relationship with matter, then why is it aware of matter, and not of its eternally liberated position? And if the atma does have a relationship with matter, then what is that relationship, and what is its cause?

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?

Now, there is some doctrinal division over that within the Gaudiya sampdaraya. Some take it that the svarupa (and rasa) of the jiva is inherent within the heart of the jiva, and others understand that a jiva develops a particular rasa in accordance with his association. This includes a heap of theological controversies including the one about the origin of the jiva, and initiating such a debate would invoke a long and a laborious task. I suggest we don't do it in this thread.

As for why one soul is in one rasa and one in another rasa, originally this is certainly the desire of the Lord. The jivas' free will is limited, while the Lords' is unlimited. The jiva, being a part and parcel of the Lord, naturally reflects the Lord's desires when it is in a state free from selfishness.

To be practical about it, Rupa Gosvamipada advises us in regards to sadhu sanga:

sajAtiyAzaye snigdhe sAdhau saGgaH svato'vare.

One should associate with sadhus who are similarly disposed (towards attaining a particular rasa) as oneself, who are affectionate towards oneself, and more advanced than oneself. Recently I put together something on three categories of sthayi-bhava presented in the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu. If you like, you can read about it here.

Just sincerely pray to the Lord within the heart, and he will awaken a certain attraction within your heart and guide you to similarly inclined devotees. In a position where attraction has not awaken, questions on predetermination vs. free will in obtaining a rasa seem to be very important, but in truth, to pursue such questions instead of praying to the Lord and trying to undertand his desire with us is to have more inclination for the path of jnana than for the path of bhakti. Of course a certain degree of understanding is helpful, but really we are here to love and to serve.

Originally posted by ram:

OK. It was my misunderstanding that you are lifting questions from one thread and answering in another. Apologies for that.

 

BTW, does siddha pranali have direct influence on the soul or not ?

 

 

Let us first clarify the subject matter of whether anything can influence the soul or its citta-vRtti in the other thread. Otherwise answering this question is pointless.

So many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have gone beyond what he taught in his books. This is because he did not teach every thing the pUrvAcharyAs taught. And at some point, his teachings are found insufficient by them. What is wrong in me applying the same logic to the pUrvAchAryAs ?

And what is wrong if I apply the same to the scripture? After all, shruti does not teach all the details of worship and so forth. Just asking.

Of course we must understand that the nitya-parikaras of the Lord may descend in different forms during His different avataras. We have innumerable examples of Vraja-parikaras in madhurya-rasa, who exhibited the suddha-dasyam of Mahaprabhu in Navadvipa.

Additionally, some Vraja-parikaras have two identities. For instance from our lineage (Jahnava Parivara), we have Dhananjaya Pandit, who is one of the dvadasa-gopalas called Vasudhama who descended with Nityananda Prabhu. Additionally he also serves in a manjari-svarupa in Vraja-lila on account of his participation as a sadhaka in Gaura-lila and receiving the unprecedented gift of Mahaprabhu (sva-bhakti sriyam -- manjari bhava). Now, don't ask when he attained it -- Gaura-lila has been going on since beginningless time.

In other words, when I say there is no change in rasa, it means there is no rejection of the particular sthayi-bhava which has been attained. There may be evolution and expansion into multiforms under the divine arrangements of the svarupa-shakti, but there is no rejection of that which was perfectly attained.

Originally posted by Rati:

I believe they are actually crocodiles in that part of the world (different from alligators). The question arises: Are they encroaching our territory or we on theirs? Did Radharani gather them their to guard her kund?

Hmm... You would have to ask the local maharaja I guess, or otherwise Radharani Herself.

Given that Radha Kund was meant for the benefit of visiting saints, I think an element of fear of crocodiles there would not fit into the scheme of Radhaji. It might (and probably would) distract the minds of the pilgrims from focusing on the sanctity of the place.

--

Originally posted by raga:

Wherever one is in a perfected state, there his sthayi-bhava (santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, madhurya) is a permanent foundational emotion.

--

 

 

Originally posted by Shashi:

Yes and in the Braj, Jasodha Maiya is foundational in the Vatsalya and never the Madhurya which is what you are now saying. There is no Madhurya in same.

 

 

What are you speaking about? You may want to refer to the post in which I said the thing on which you are commenting. It absolutely does not say so in my post quoted above.

You are not prpoerly understand the synchronicities of the rasas and are implanting rigidities on same. Are you eating too much salt?

And please spare me from this, particularly if you have no intention to seriously respond to what I write.

My point again is mere knowledge of material world (ignorance) does not make the soul ignorant.

But how is this relevant? The jIvAtmas out there, they do not recognize it as ignorance, as opposed to spiritual wisdom. They are in bondage.

Originally posted by nachiketa2:

because, before I used to eat meat, onions, garlic, drink coffee and tea, etc. It's just that most of my friends and relatives can't understand why I did a complete 180.

Tell them you are looking for peace of mind, and you find that these substances disturb your peace of mind as well as the peace of your body.

If we insist as an absolute fact the idea that there is no transformation in that which is eternal, then how do you explain the following:

Vedanta Sutra 4.1.18:

Atma-kRteH pariNAmAt

Atma - self; kRteH - because of making; pariNAmAt - because of transformation.

This sutra explains how brahman becomes the world on account of transformation. But how do you explain that?

Raga, come on. I asked this question in another thread. So it is you who started the mixing up of threads by bringing that question here. So I am pointing to another related thread "niyamas of bhakti yoga". Atkeast that is a related thread in the sense that it was an offshoot of this thread.

How do you want me to `"come on"?

You asked this question in another thread. This other thread is now closed by the administrator, so I could not post it there -- therefore I posted it in the thread "siddha pranali".

BTW, the evidence that you presented is an evidence for mAnasa pUjA and no one denied that in the first place. My point is that to prove that siddha pranAli is based on sAstrAs, we have to establish the basics of that. The first step is to establish that it has direct effect on the soul. There are many more steps. And we are definitely having a tough time establishing the first step itself as it fundamentally contradicts with shruti and smrti.

1. I never said that "siddha pranali" is categorized within the niyamas of bhakti yoga.

2. I never said anything about its influence or non-influence on the soul.

Is that all right with you?

An essential question

If we insist that neither the soul nor its conscious faculty can be influenced or covered over by ignorance, then why do we experience this material world?

If the soul and its citta-vritti (along with whatever else is related to it which is of the same quality) is completely and eternally liberated, then why do we experience this material world?

Objection: "One can study the nature of both [matter and spirit] and still be transcendental. Knowledge of ignorance does not make you ignorant."

Counter-objection: We do not consider the embodied living entities in this world as students of matter and spirit. They are in ignorance over the difference between the two. One who knows this difference is liberated.

Statement : tattva vit. If we take the word Atma to refer to the mind, then Bhagavan advices Arjuna to think that the mind is the knower of truth who is beyond guna and karma. This is not true, since the mind is a creation of tri-guna.

Objection: If a piece of stone can become transcendental in the service of the Lord, what is the problem in the mind becoming transcendental ?

Counter-objection: On account of their being connected with brahma, they obtain the qualities of brahma. However, a piece of stone does not become individually cognizant, and neither does the mind.

<small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by ram:

No one objects to mAnasa pujA or worshipping with the mind. It is non-different from serving the vigraha. There is also no problem in saying that the worship of the Lord is spiritual. The problem comes when we say that some forms of worship have special influence on the soul. As we are discussing in the "niyamas of bhakti yoga" thread, while it may seem easy to say that it is indeed very difficult to establish through the sastras.

I only responded to your question as repeated below:

ram

Member posted 05-29-2002 11:56 AM

--

Raga, On the basis of what sastras do Bhakti Vinod Thakur and Jagannath Dasa Babaji teach Siddha Pranali ?

You asked a shastric basis for siddha pranali etc. and I offered some. This has nothing to do with the other thread about soul. Please don't mix them up.

Bhagavata 11.12.8:

kevalena hi bhavena

gopyo gavo naga mrgah

ye ’nye mudha-dhiyo nagah

siddha mam iyur anjasa

The inhabitants of Vrndavana, including the gopis, cows, unmoving creatures such as the twin arjuna trees, animals, living entities with stunted consciousness such as bushes and thickets, and snakes such as Kaliya, all achieved the perfection of life by unalloyed love for Me and thus very easily achieved Me.

An excerpt from Visvanatha’s commentary:

The cows loved Lord Krsna in vatsalya-rasa, or the love of parents for a child, because the cows were always supplying milk to child Krsna. Unmoving objects like Govardhana Hill and other hills and mountains loved Lord Krsna as a friend, and the ordinary animals, trees and bushes of Vrndavana loved Lord Krsna in dasya-rasa, or with love of a servant for his master. Snakes like Kaliya also developed this love in servitude, and after relishing their loving service to Lord Krsna, all of them went back home, back to Godhead.

<small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

I haven't got scriptural reference, but I believe it is in Nectar of Devotion that says in madhurya rasa all other rasas are contained. In other words, when a devotee is in love with Krishna as lover and beloved there are emotions of wanting to protect the Lord, that Krishna is one's best friend, and eternal servitude. True?

vizeSollAsa-mayy api

ratir vAsanayA svAdvI

bhAsate kApi kasyacit</center>

"Increasing love is experienced in various tastes, one above another. But that love which has the highest taste in the gradual succession of desires manifests itself in the form of conjugal love." (Bhakti-rasAmRta-sindhu, 2.5.38)

<center>pUrva-pUrva-rasera guNa——pare pare haya

dui-tina gaNane paJca paryanta bADaya</center>

"Of each previous rasa, its qualities exist in the following one. Thus we count two, three and up to five."

<center>guNAdhikye svAdAdhikya bADe prati-rase

zAnta-dAsya-sakhya-vAtsalyera guNa madhurete vaise</center>

"As the qualities increase, so the taste also increases in each and every mellow. Therefore the qualities found in zAnta-rasa, dAsya-rasa, sakhya-rasa and vAtsalya-rasa are all manifested in mAdhurya-rasa."

<center>

(Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya-lila 8.84-86)<blockquote>

Objection : The logic that mind is powered by the atma, and so the defect of the mind is attributed to the atma / atma vRtti is flawed.Every thing is due to the Lord but there is no ignorance in Him even though there is ignorance in the material world. tejo vAri mRtam yatA. A mirage in the desert does not make the ground muddy. Similaryly, the ignorance in the material body has no effect on the Atma.

Counter-objection: The Lord and the living entity cannot be equated. The Lord is the source of maya, and therefore beyond it. The jIvAtma is not the source and the master of maya. Therefore their relationship with the illusory energy and their immunity in regards to its influence differ.

The fact that the jIvAtma is cognizant of this world means there must be some fault there. Otherwise no conditioned existence or cognizance thereof would exist, and the jIvAtma would be in full awareness of its eternal constitutional nature.

Here if Atma is translated directly - without any word jugglery - to mean the mind, then there is no problem in saying the mind thinks that I am the doer - kartAham

"Soul" is a very direct translation of the word Atma.

Objection : The logic that mind is powered by the atma, and so the defect of the mind is attributed to the atma / atma vRtti is flawed.Every thing is due to the Lord but there is no ignorance in Him even though there is ignorance in the material world. tejo vAri mRtam yatA. A mirage in the desert does not make the ground muddy. Similaryly, the ignorance in the material body has no effect on the Atma.

As I already noted, in the following verse, Bhagavan refers to "tattva-vit" who is "guna-karma-vibhAgayoH", addressing the issue of vimUdhAtma. In the thirteenth chapter, the jIvAtma has been established as the kSetra-jñA.

If we take the word Atma to refer to the mind, then Bhagavan advices Arjuna to think that the mind is the knower of truth who is beyond guna and karma. This is not true, since the mind is a creation of tri-guna.

Originally posted by Rati:

Not only was there jungle in Mahaprabhu's time, Raga, but Radha Kund itself was a swamp where many dangerous crocodiles were living. There was considerable effort required to make it a place even possible to visit by pilgrims, let alone habitable.

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 06-04-2002).]

There was actually an alligator living in Shyama Kund until a few decades ago, when he attacked one baba who was taking bath. Then the local maharaja came and hunted down the alligator to protect the sadhus.

Originally posted by atma:

Dasya rasa is also permanent?

In Vaikuntha, dasya is permanent. In Vrindavana, there is no suddha-dasya, but dasya is always mixed with friendship, parental affection or amorous affection. Nevertheless, it is also permanent.

Please do understand that there are various vyabhicari-bhavas, various emotions which are like waves rising and falling in the vast ocean of sthayi-bhava (permanent basic emotion, one of the five).

Wherever one is in a perfected state, there his sthayi-bhava (santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, madhurya) is a permanent foundational emotion.

<small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by Shashi:

The Lila is showing otherwise. Are you not knowing Gopis concerns when they are thinking Kaliya will drown Lord? It is Vatsalya.

You are not prpoerly understand the synchronicities of the rasas and are implanting rigidities on same. Are you eating too much salt?

 

 

Shashiji, I recommend you study Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu, the second section of the ocean of devotion. Do you know the five constituents of bhakti-rasa?

The sthayi-bhava of the gopis does not change. Waves of other feelings may rise and fall in the ocean of their sthayi-bhava, which is and remains madhurya-rati.

<small>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by atma:

What about the sages that saw Lord Ramachandra in the forest and later become gopis in Krsna leela?

This is during sadhana, not siddhi. As I said, due to new impetus or aparadha, inclunation for obtaining a certain rasa may change during the time of sadhana (I'll look this up later today from BRS). When siddhi is attained, it is permanent.

Originally posted by theist:

No that is not what I meant by disatisfaction not being an impetus for change.There can be other impetus for change which our minds can't yet conceive of.

 

But let's step down a notch.One can change from awe and reverence into a more intimate mood right?

 

 

Given that our primary source for comprehending the beyond is scripture and saints, and since neither have indicated that such a change might take place, and given that it also goes against a basic understanding of humanlike pastimes in Goloka, I think it is safe to conclude that it does not happen. When you get there and if it does, please come down and tell us about it.

Aisvarya -> Madhurya, you mean from Vaikuntha to Goloka? No. No such records anywhere. Besides, Visvanatha outrules this in Raga Vartma Candrika (dvitiya prakasa) by explaining how one must take birth in the prakata lila (manifest pastimes) of Krishna in this world, and experience all the emotions from purva raga (falling in love) onwards and the social relations in Vraja, and how this is not possible just by popping straight into Goloka. Prakata lila must be in between. Visvanatha argues why one can't directly go from here to Goloka, but this is equally relevant from going anywhere else, given the need to develop emotions and gain certain impressions of taking birth and growing together with Krishna in Vraja which one would not get otherwise (if he would go directly to aprakata-lila in Goloka).

Now, to propose that people in Vaikuntha start meditating on a gopi-svarupa and attain svarupa-siddhi, and then take birth in Bhauma Goloka in this world and then go to Goloka Vrindavana sounds like a very extraordinary proposal. I would tend to discard such a proposal.

Of course, we may say that "anything may happen". That's true, but it does not mean it does. There may be any special pastime where something happens which breaks the rule so to say, but I guess we are speaking of basic principles here, aren't we?

ISKCON has two properties at Radha Kund, the Manipuri Gopal Mandir and the new building of Bhagavat Panda (I recall that's what his name was) on the bank of Radha Kund, the one with the riflemen 24/7 around it. What kind of arrangements do they have for sewage, do you know?