raga

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, as I said in my post you made a perfect start. If you see the first 6 - 7 posts, it flows smoothly. But you lost me when you failed to explain how "niyamas affect the soul" by using pramanas. And later by not defining niyamas.

 

Niyamas for the soul is not a traditional concept. When you introduce these concepts, it has to be substantiated based on the sastras. I deferred discussion on your "examples to prove the point" because I first wanted to know if there is a sastric basis for your interpretation.

 

If you do, we should definitely proceed with the discussion. Hari bol.

Ram, when I mentioned "niyama" influencing the soul, my conception was very different from the end conclusion of what chose to define niyama for this discussion.

Niyamas for the soul is not a traditional concept. When you introduce these concepts, it has to be substantiated based on the sastras.

You never commented on what I said on the principle of "Atmanivedana".

You never commented on what I said about Atma being the source of consciousness, bhakti being the function of the Atma.

Would you like to comment on this?

This actually brings us to a fundamental philosophical question. Where is the problem? Is the problem of preserving material existence in the existence of body/mind, or is it in the crooked desire of the soul to enjoy this world? Let us clarify this first. That is, depending on where we want the discussion to proceed.

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-22-2002).]

It is very consistent. Thank you.

I hear the voice of Tripurari Maharaja there, is it not?

Originally posted by shiva:

Raga, you can't seem to make up your mind,

either what I am saying is to advanced to speak to the public at large, or not advanced enough to be called gaudiya siddhanta , which is it?

 

Hey, you either get it , or you don't.

 

You're either ready, and the truth will be understood by you, or you still need to understand the literal words and ideas expressed in sastra.

 

whatever.

 

 

[This message has been edited by shiva (edited 05-21-2002).]

I suggest it is simultaneously either or both, depending on our eligibility.

As stated in the Shiva-samhita (3.122):

Hey, you either get it , or you don't.

All I am saying is that you be kind enough to establish the basic precepts on which you are building your case in the Siddha Pranali Thread.

I have started the discussion by posting the basic yama-niyama from Upadesamrta as well as the definition of Saranagati from Hari Bhakti Vilasa. That was the basic precepts I gave for "rules and regulations".

Study the Upadesamrta. Then read the four books mentioned in the beginning of the discussion in addition to Gita and Bhagavatam. That's the basics.

Bhagavad Gita -- Overview of essential tattva-vicara

Srimad Bhagavata -- In-depth view on tattva-vicara and lila (7th skandha -- varna-asrama "rules and regulations)

Upadesamrta -- Overview of bhakti-marga from the beginning to the end

Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu -- In-depth view of various practices of bhakti and rasa-tattva

Raga Vartma Candrika -- Overview on the path of raganuga; five-fold classification of favourable and unfavourable items

Prema Bhakti Candrika -- Poetry on essential items for developing Prema Bhakti

What would you like to have established?

You were busy presenting information about niyamas for the soul, gradation of niyamas, niyamas to be followed at different ashramas, niyamas for different levels of advancement in devotional service etc. On your request, we moved the discussion the "basics" to this thread.

This is all in the books referred to above. We just never got beyond the beginning.

I am still insisting that the the "basics" are important before we proceed to so called advanced topics. If we cannot be clear in "basics", how can we go on to "advanced" levels ?

Of course basics are important to clarify first. I think I clarified them in the very first post I made, before we got into analyzing the word "niyama" from thirteen different angles without proceeding with the very simple basics I posted on the first place.

JNDas has contributed relevant content on the parallels of vows from Patanjali and the instructions of Rupa Gosvami. Would we like to proceed with them to get something essential discussed, or is there something you'd like to have clarified prior to that?

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, Neither did I ask you to accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada nor that of Patanjali. I just responded to your query honestly. As I said earlier you are free to establish your precepts based on the authority of the sastras. Otherwise, all that you are saying about (gaudiya vaishnava) vedanta would be without sastric basis and just so much disturbance to the society. And more than that to your good self.

Ram, which precepts do you want me to establish? If you wish to study all the practices of the Gaudiya tradition in the light of sruti-smrti, I recommed you get a copy of Sat-Sandarbha and Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa, which go extensively over the details of Gaudiya practice along with scriptural references.

JNDas, thanks for the comparative study of Patanjali & SB concepts of yama-niyama. Interesting. I would certainly not "reject" the version of Patanjali per se. My intention was to suggest it may not include everything we have in the category of "vows" in the Gaudiya tradition.

The definition of Patanjali is more specific than the generic dictionary definition. I think you'll agree that the specific five-fold definition of Patanjali is not what Rupa has particularly in mind when he speaks of "niyamAgraha".

But we can take Monier Williams definition instead? <http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif>

A generic definition of the word, sure.

The precepts of Patanjali are aimed for a certain path, the path of yoga, which I think you'll admit is not exactly the same as the path of bhakti.

Hence to insist the categorical definition of Patanjali would be the final word for the bhakti-tradition would be unjust, though the definition may be useful to comprehend the varieties of vows one may undertake.

In case you (Raga) do not establish your current beliefs sastrically and if you are willing, I may go in to the sastric premise of what I said just now in detail. But my first preference is to learn.

Ram, I have already stated that among both yama-niyama of Patanjali, I do not see anything directly related to the soul besides Isvara Pranidhana.

It may be that even that is not so, since I am not acquainted with the Patanjali definition of Isvara Pranidhana.

All in all, the discussion goes way beyond my expertise, since I am not well acquainted with the precepts of Patanjali, nor am I keen to mix then with the Gaudiya Vaishnava-tradition, since the same has not been done by our acaryas.

More on Jahnava Thakurani...

http://raganuga.com/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=8&t=4

(Sorry for not duplicating it here... too much to format the whole thing again, as I can't just copy & paste the html, and without formatting such a long text no-one will read.)

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, in response to my post JNDas seems to propose that Patanjali and Srila Prabhupada both may be accepted. As you are the one who is responsible for teaching on the topic, I would request you to give your opinion on my earlier post.

 

You may feel free to choose either, none or both with valid reasons.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-20-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-20-2002).]

Perhaps my previous posting already answered the question.

Depending on the context, a single word may assume multiple defined meanings in a particular context, or it may be left undefined with its generic meaning. To give an example, this occurs often with the term "bhava", which has multiple defined meanings in addition to its dictionary meaning, within the literature of one school. None of them need to be rejected, but we need to settle for one at a time if we choose to discuss the meaning of "bhava" in the Gaudiya tradition, or alternatively we have to recognize different meanings separate from each other. In this discourse, my initial "idea" (not all that much of a definition), the definition of Patanjali and the commentary of Prabhupada have mixed. Let us pick any one of them and proceed with the discussion, their relevance for the path of bhakti.

I assume you hinted to the meaning of "restraint" when you initially commented on the Sidhda Pranali - thread, though I may be wrong. It may have been a generic "vows and discipline" instead. You were confident that they are important for Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and I expected a definition.

I noted that "niyamAgraha" was defined already back in the previous thread (http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001200-5.html) .

To bring us back to the original discussion, I would like to quote from your (Ram) first post in the Siddha Pranali thread:

"So a sadhaka should first endeavour to control the mind by following the niyamas of bhakti yoga.

We cannot see the Absolute Truth through our mental imagination leave alone participating in His lilas."

In fact, I understood from this that you have a conception at hand. And my original question (http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001200-3.html ):

Would you define the niyamas of bhakti yoga to be followed according to bhakti-sastra, as you see it?

I am curious Ram, what was your original idea about "niyamas of bhakti-yoga" when you said that?

Ram: If you agree with Patanjali's definition, then you have to make sure you do it after fully considering the fact that it contradicts your conception of "things not to be done" as a definition of niyama.

 

Quote from my earlier posting:

>> I am here taking the literal, broader meaning of yama and niyama, as "things not to be done" and "things to be done". <<

Kindly excuse me if I confused niyama with yama in a later posting. Thanks to everyone for specifying the conception of Patanjali on yama-niyama. To be honest, I am not all that much acquainted with the precepts of Patanjali.

In regards to Rupa's "niyamAgraha", in this context the term is used in its very common dictionary meaning, without particular reference to the definition of Patanjali. In this context, the "niyama" would consist of both, "yama-niyama", in the definition of Patanjali. It is just "vows and observances" in general.

In fact, to the best of my understanding, there is no specific definition of either yama or niyama in the Gaudiya tradition. The terms do not occur frequently in the Gosvami literature. I am now scanning through the Srimad Bhagavata, and only detecting the very same generic use of the concept, whenever it is given. Hence I have adopted the same "dictionary meaning", so to say.

From the list of "yama" as in Patanjali's text, none of them apply directly to the soul, though they are all constituents in facilitating acts with direct influence on the soul. So we agree on this, given that we wish to pursue the discussion in the wake of the definitions of Patanjali.

Of the "niyama", or on the positive side, Patanjali lists "Isvara Pranidhana", or surrender to God, which is certainly a vow directly related with the soul, since surrender and service unto the Lord is the sanAtana-dharma for the soul.

Now, my thesis again depends on the definition of Patanjali, which I am not familiar with. Going by its direct, dictionary meaning, my suggestion is true, but there may be a non-generic definition which proves it invalid for the context, and I stand to be corrected.

In fact every bonafide school of Vedanta defines the terms they use. I am sure that Gaudiya Vaishnavas would also have done so. Especially because Rupa Gosvami has used the term niyamAgraha. And others have commented. This is not an unimportant concept in gaudiya vaishnavism.

As I noted, the term "niyama", though used by Rupa, is used in a very generic sense. It is not that all words used need to be defined beyond the direct dictionary meaning, regardless of their importance or unimportance. Certainly regular practices, firm vows etc. are important in any disciplined tradition. More on this in my next posting.

That a broad meaning of the word is used herein is evident from the commentary of Radha Raman Gosvami, the first commentator on the title:<blockquote>"The word niyamagraha, when broken into its constituent parts, has two meanings: (1) niyama + agraha - over-zealous- ness in following rules, and (2) niyama + agraha - failure to accept rules. When the first meaning is applied, it refers to enthusiasm for those rules which yield an inferior result, such as promotion to the heavenly planets, leaving aside the endeavour for the superior attainment of the service of the Lord. When the second meaning is applied, it refers to indifference towards those rules which nourish bhakti.</blockquote>

Originally posted by abhi_the_great:

I read the song Sri Rupa Manjari Pada, addressed to Rupa Goswami in his eternal form. The author prays to become his/her servant, to serve him/her to serve the divine couple. If there is no personal relatioship, which continues beyond material time, then how is it possible? The author is no neophyte - sakshad Narottam Das Thakur.

 

Sri-rupa-manjari-pada, sei mora sampada,

sei mor bhajana-pujana

sei mora prana-dhana, sei mora abharana,

sei mor jivanera jivana

 

........

ciro-dina tapita jivana

ha ha rupa koro doya, deho more pada-chaya,

narottama loilo sarana

 

Also, we know that the spiritual master of Srila Narottam was Loknath Goswami. Then how did Narottam develope a taste to serve Sri Rupa directly?

Narottama explains this in his Prarthana. First, in song 17, he is praying for it:<blockquote><font face="Georgia" color=blue>4. prabhu lokanatha kabe sange lana jabe

sri-rupera pada-padme more samarpibe

When will my master, Lokanatha Gosvami, place me at the lotus feet of Srila Rupa Gosvami?</font></blockquote>Then, in song 19, he attains the same:<blockquote><font face="Georgia" color=blue>

1. sri-rupa pascate ami rahiba bhita hana

donhe punah kahibena ama pane cana

I timidly follow behind Sri Rupa-manjari. When will she say to me: "Fetch some water for the Divine Couple?

2. sadaya hrdaya donhe kahibena hasi

kothaya paile rupa ei naba dasi

When will the Divine Couple, compassionately smiling, say: "Where has Rupa-manjari gotten this young maidservant?"

3. sri-rupa-manjari tabe donha bakya suni

manjulali dila more ei dasi ani

Hearing these words, Sri Rupa-manjari will say: "Manjulali gave this maidservant to me."

4. ati namra-citta ami haibe janila

seba-karya niya tabe hethaya rakhila

At that time I will feel very humble at heart, and I will diligently engage in the service of the Divine Couple.

5. hena tattwa konhakare saksate kahiya

narottame sebaya mijukta kariya

When will the Divine Couple directly speak in this way to Narottama dasa, engaging him in Their service?</font></blockquote>

Lokanatha is Manjulali Manjari in Vraja-lila.

This is exactly the reason why I object to the idea of emphasizing the aspect of samasti-guru while devaluating the relationship with the vyasti-guru. Our relationship with the particular vyasti-guru is clearly and specifically eternal, with this very individual.

<font color=#fefefe>

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-20-2002).]

Originally posted by theist:

Does it matter if shiva considers himself to be advanced or neophyte?

 

Let's just address his points.

 

If he really is perceiving guru everywhere he will also be hearing guru through someone who corrects him right here and now.If he doesn't hear then we can understand he is a neophyte.If he does hear then we can know he has some level of real advancement.That is if our objections to what he says are sound.

 

Jaya Jesus,Hare Krsna

Naturally one hears and sees the guru everywhere, viz. Bhagavata 11th canto and the story of the avadhuta. Nevertheless there is diksa-guru and siksa-guru who are persons with whom you have a clear personal relationship of submission and learning. You are *dedicated* to learning from them, from them you do not learn according to your fancy, as you may do with the guru "out there".

I wonder if it is possible to hear the guru in others, if one is not even able to hear the guru in the Gosvami Granthas, considering their external meaning to be for the less advanced, and the real meaning to be something opposed to or different from what is given therein.

Let us hear the advice of Mahaprabhu (CC. M. 134, 135, 137):<blockquote>mukhyArtha chADiyA kara gauNArtha kalpanA

abhidhA-vRtti chADi kara zabdera lakSaNA

"Rejecting the direct meaning, by imagination you give secondary meanings. By giving up the literal understanding, you interpret the words."

pramANera madhye zruti pramANa pradhAna

zruti ye mukhyArtha kahe, sei se pramANa

"In the midst of various evidences, the sruti is the prime evidence. Whatever is the direct meaning, that is evidence indeed."

svataH-pramANa veda satya yei kaya

lakSaNA karile svataH-prAmANya-hAni haya

"The Vedas are the self-evident truth. Whenever we start interpreting, their self-evident nature vanishes."</blockquote>

Originally posted by abhi_the_great:

That is what SP expalins in the carama-sloka, he quotes HaribhaktiVilasa - anukoolasya sankalpa....sad-vidha saranagati.

 

At this point my Sri Vaishnava friend says - Yes, this is prapatti - not bhakti-yoga?? So are we actually performing bhakti-yoga or prapatti?

"Sad-vidha saranagati" -- this is prapatti. We might call it a "door to bhakti", if you will. It precedes actual pure devotional service, and is a requirement to the same, but it is not pure devotional service in itself. It is preliminary to engagement in actual navadha-bhakti (zravana-kIrtanAdi).

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, we have the following choices :

 

1. Accept Patanjali's

2. Accept Srila Prabhupada's

 

Which one shall we go with ?

Ram, I never saw a definition of niyama from Swami AC Bhaktivedanta in this thread. I did quote some verses with his translations though, being too lazy to start retranslating them.

The definition of Patanjali is fine with me. Patanjali is not a teacher of either bhakti-marga or Vedanta to the best of my understanding though, and definitions from one school to another may vary. Patanjali is not sruti either. Nevertheless, I found the definition of Patanjali interesting:

shauca-santosha-tapah-svadhyayayeshvara-pranidhanani niyamah

"Niyamas are the actions that should be performed in order to advance in yoga. They consits of shaucha (purity), santosha (contentment), tapas (austerity), svadhyaya (self study),and ishvara pranidhana (surrender to God)."

Ram, "ishvara pranidhana", would this apply to body, mind or.... the soul? Submission to God. "Atmanivedana", as we had it in the beginning of the thread. It implies complete surrender on all of these levels.

Thanks jndas for the definition.

Originally posted by shiva:

Are we there yet?

wherever you go there you are.

Have you gone where or there?

Shiva, are you presenting the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy?

Shiva, are you advanced or neophyte?

Originally posted by ram:

As I am travelling, I am not carrying the books. As a result I am unable to provide definitive quotes from the sastras. Is it not interesting that after 18 posts on the topic "niyamas of bhakti yoga", we have not defined niyama ? -

 

If you have any reference, please post that.

Ram, the reason why I asked you to define it is that it appered you were not comfortable with my simplistic idea, "things not to be done". I don't have a definition beyond the dictionary meaning of the word. Monier Williams (only the most relevant definitions):<blockquote>[*] m. restraining , checking , holding back , preventing , controlling

[*] keeping down , lowering (as the voice)

[*] limitation , restriction (ena ind. with restrictions i.e. under certain conditions Car.)

[*] reduction or restriction to (with loc. or prati) , determination , definition

[*] any fixed rule or law , necessity , obligation (ena and ?t ind. as a rule , necessarily , invariably , surely)

[*] agreement , contract , promise , vow R. Kath?s.

[*] any act of voluntary penance or meritorious piety (esp. a lesser vow or minor observance dependent on external conditions and not so obligatory as yama , see q.v.) T?r. Mn. MBh. K?v. &c.

[*] to quicksilver , w.r. Çy?ma) Cat.

[*] (in rhet.) a common-place , any conventional expression or usual comparison

[*] (in MIm. phil.) a rule or precept (laying down or specifying something otherwise optional)

[*] restraint of the mind (the 2nd of the 8 steps of meditation in Yoga)

[*] performing five positive duties

[*] N. of ViSNu

[*] Necessity or Law personified as a son of Dharma and DhRti

[*] -dharma m. a law prescribing restraints

[*] -niSTha? f. rigid observance of prescribed rites

[*] -para mfn. observing fixed rules

[*] relating to or corroborative of a rule

[*] -pAla m. " observer of vows "

[*] -vat mfn. practising religious observances MBh.</blockquote>

Feel free to pick yours!

Anyone has Amarakosa at hand?

Yeah...hmmm....I don't think so...

 

What you think you "know" about the highest realm, is based on sastra that has the sole purpose of elevating your consciousness.

 

I am thinking, why are the real truths not clearly revealed in the shastra or in the writings of the acaryas, but instead in Shiva's writings only?

It cannot be so that the acaryas would not have had the realization to express this truth which differs from the apparent purport of the scripture. It cannot be that their ability of expression was not sufficient for this.

If the truth is hidden behind the meaning of the scriptures and behind the apparent teachings of the acaryas, it must then be meant for remaining hidden until each individual gains his divine insight.

After all, if shastra and acaryas chose to not reveal these hidden truths Shiva is propounding, should they then be revealed openly on internet bulletin boards?

Perhaps it would be better for the mankind at large to just stick to the path of shastra and acaryas as they presented it, just to be on the safe side?

Just thinking.

What you think you "know" about the highest realm, is based on sastra that has the sole purpose of elevating your consciousness.

 

The reality after you have attained the highest level isn't necessarily the reality that you concieve of with limited experience.

 

The sastra is for purification of consciousness, do not get hung up on ideas

that may very likely have no substance when you advance to another level.

 

Like a child who is told "yes santa is real", and then discovers the truth.

It is for the childs benefit, not necessarily the truth.

 

So, a sastric verse or conception may mean one thing when literally taken, then something completely different when realization has advanced the reader to a higher level.

 

When you say things like, you are going to be the servant of your guru as a helper to his sakhi form, the real meaning is something different then you might at first believe.

 

Shiva, is it "bona fide" to skip all these preliminary and external steps like accepting diksa and so forth, and just jump into the divine oneness beyond formality?

Shiva: Any other relationship you might have at present, is temporary, and ends with the end of your body.

It's not that when you enter into Vraja, there will be your diksa or siksa Guru, saying haribol!.

At that stage you are equals, and have no recollection of previous relationships, that would only be a hinderance to the Rasa of Vraja.

 

Looks like you edited your message after my comment.

Yes, of course the diksa-guru is not there in the same form in which we see him in this world. He is there in his siddha-deha.

The point being that the relationship between these two souls is one of *eternal* guidance. Though you are intimate friends with your guru-sakhi, nevertheless you serve under her guidance, and she is a divine role-model for you.

The eternity of the relationship is not only with Bhagavan, but also with the individual manifestation of guru.

Originally posted by shiva:

You find that the Guru,really is God as the sastra states. The devotee who gives diksa or siksa as like an uncle who takes care of you while your parents are out of town.

When they get back home to you, the uncle is then no longer needed as gaurdian.

 

When the sastra states that your relationship with the Guru is eternal, this does not refer to the devotee who gives diksa or siksa, it refers to God.

 

Any other relationship you might have at present, is temporary, and ends with the end of your body.

Shiva, wrong wrong wrong. Your philosophy is very fanciful, but unfortunately of your own design.

Read Bhakti-sandarbha please, and read about the lives of saints. You speak all these things, but what is the basis? Guru, shastra, sadhu?

The initiate has an eternal relationship of allegiance with the diksa-guru. This is evident from the lives and precepts of innumerable Gaudiya saints, including the illustrous acaryas of the Gaudiya tradition.

On raganuga marga the diksa-guru is served by the initiate in his external form in this world for as long as their existence in this world lasts, and in his internal spiritual form forever. The disciple thus establishes an eternal relationship of allegiance in the guidance of guru-rupa-sakhi in his internal form. He is situated in a particular group of maidservants, in which Sri Guru is prominent in guiding the new sakhi. Hence the relationship with this particular great devotee manifest in the form of our worshipable Sri Guru is also eternal.

Let me just ask this to make sure I am not mistaken: Are you speaking of guru-tattva within the boundaries of the Gaudiya tradition, as taught by the acaryas, or are you speaking of something different? Please clarify this.

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, what is the sastric evidence to show that there are niyamas which affect the soul directly instead of merely serving the purpose of regulating the gross and sublte bodies ?

 

I have a number of questions on the "evidence" and interpretations that you have presented so far some of which I have raised. If this is all the proof you have to show, then I will state my questions. But if you think you have some direct sastric evidence over and above what you have given so far, then please present that so that we can move on to the next section of the topic.

 

 

Before we proceed anywhere, please present your conception of "niyama". Then I will tell you if such a thing exists for the soul or not. We are just playing around with different definitions, yours being different from mine.

Can you offer something from sruti, smrti or anywhere which defines "niyama"? Otherwise we are trying to find consensus on something indefinite.

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-17-2002).]

Shiva: Often the physical body of the devotee is seen as the Guru, and then maybe an archetype is percieved in some way, that is due to the ignorance of the disciple.

 

 

Shiva, I respect your understanding of the vani-side of the guru as the message of Godhead. However, both aspects, vani and vapu do exist, and together they are Sri Guru in his manifest form.

Particularly Sri Guru in his inner form, with which the disciple is eternally bound with ropes of love and allegiance, is more than the reception of a message -- this form of Sri Guru is our eternal guide and role-model in the world of the divine.

(By the way, does anyone have a reference for the origin of terms vapu/vani?)

To make the point that Sri Guru is more than the message of Godhead manifesting, I would like to present the qualifications of guru according to the Hari Bhakti Vilasa of Sanatana Gosvamipada. This is completely aside the inner form of the guru, something more down to earth so to say.

I do not have HBV at hand, but I would tend to say that the following two lists (HBV 1.32-35, HBV 1.38-41) are for the most part the svarupa-laksana (the essential characteristics of guru) and the tatastha-laksana (the marginal characteristics of guru).

A guru...

[*] Is learned in the Vedas

[*] Has realization of Sri Krishna

[*] Is most peaceful

[*] Is surrendered in Krishna-bhakti

[*] Understands Sri Krishna as the benefactor of His devotees

[*] Has offered his heart to Sri Krishna

[*] Has a pure body (free from disease and invalidity)

[*] Has defeated the six enemies headed by lust

[*] Is deeply attached to Sri Krishna through his devotion

[*] Knows the immaculate path of the Vedic literatures

[*] Is approved of by the sadhus

[*] Has control over his senses

[*] Is in constant transcendental consciousness

A guru also...

[*] Is born in a faultless and sinless family

[*] Is himself sinless and faultless

[*] Behaves as is appropriate for him

[*] Belongs to a certain asrama

[*] Is free from anger

[*] Knows the Vedas and all other scriptures

[*] Has faith

[*] Does not find faults

[*] Speaks affectionately

[*] Is nice to behold

[*] Is pure

[*] Is nicely dressed

[*] Is young

[*] Is engaged in the welfare of all living entities

[*] Is intelligent

[*] Is prideless

[*] Is satisfied

[*] Is non-violent

[*] Is able to judge transcendental truths

[*] Is endowed with parental love

[*] Is expert in puja of the Supreme Lord

[*] Is grateful

[*] Is affectionate towards his disciples

[*] Is able to punish and reward

[*] Is practicing homa mantra

[*] Is a knower of all kinds of arguments and counter-arguments

[*] Is pure-hearted and merciful

[*] Is an ocean of glories

It is obvious from this list, that particularly a householder-guru (or the guru of a householder in Indian society) has features beyond the "vani" feature. There is clearly a certain guru-architype drawn here, much related to the guru's being aside the message he conveys.

This along with the instruction of selecting a guru from the highest available varna certainly indicates a social function for the guru as well. This may have little or no relevance for the renunciate class of men, but these are certainly valid considerations for the Vaishnavas within the society.

Imagine, your guru is the most divine personality with the most divine message, but he looks real awkward and goofy and his body moves to all eight directions at once when he walks around, plus he has the accent of a barbarian tribe from the backwoods when he speaks. By no means it diminishes his divine value for the faithful disciple, but given that the disciple also interacts with members of the society at large, it will inevitably invoke ridicule or contempt from the less faithful class of men, which is a good share of the world.

Just a few practical thoughts on the position of the guru besides the carrier of the divine message.

I'll leave it up to you analysists to figure out the rest. I am not all that familiar with all these books you refer to, so I have really nothing to comment on in that regard. Perhaps this will nevertheless contribute a thought or two for the discussion.

Jagat, you have observed the practical life of family gurus in Bengal. I believe you would have much to contribute in regards to the position of guru in the society.

Essentially when I used the concept "niyamas for the soul" I meant things which invoke a direct negative influence on the soul, regardless of whether it has a subsequent consequence on the body/mind or not. I believe I already presented three clear examples.

Bhagavata 5.5.2:

mahat-sevAM dvAram Ahur vimuktes

tamo-dvAraM yoSitäM saGgi-saGgam

"Service of great souls opens the door to liberation, association with women and those associating with women opens the door to darkness."

It is obvious that this is not an injunction primarily to regulate the mind and the body. Asat-sanga has a direct negative influence on the desire of the soul to serve Bhagavan; neglectance (niyama) of which sets a favorable field for the cultivation of bhakti.

OK?

This is because niyamas are meant to remove the imperfections and whence the imperfection in the soul ?

Is the soul perfect when situated in the formless brahma above tri-guna? No. Bhagavata (2.10.6) states:

muktir hitvAnyathA rUpaM

sva-rUpeNa vyavasthitiH

"Liberation is the giving up of an illusory form and becoming situated in one's own form (svarUpa)."

In the cultivation of this unique svarupa, one needs to restrain himself from becoming attracted to various paths of devotion. I made this point earlier. Svarupa is cultivated. Gita 8.6:

yaM yaM vApi smaran bhAvaM tyajaty ante kalevaram

taM tam evaiti kaunteya sadA tad-bhAva-bhAvitaH

"Whichever nature one remembers when this body comes to end, the same nature (bhAva), O son of Kunti, he certainly attains."

In other words, the svarUpa does not awaken by the process of negation. The manifestation of the svarUpa of the jiva requires positive cultivation.

I could go on at length about this and that, but let me try to understand what do you want me to present. Two questions:

1. What is your definition of "niyama"?

If you define "niyama" as restraints which help in purifying the soul from the contamination of matter, I agree -- there is no such niyama particularly for the soul, because the soul acts in this world through the medium of the mind and the body. There is no such thing as niyama *only* for the soul. I believe I've made this clear several times before. Is this clear?

1. Things mainly influencing body/mind, creating a conducive platform for sadhana.

2. Sadhana itself, mainly influencing the soul.

Is this all right?