raga

The more you rouse up your chit character by means of the culture of Harinama, the better will you get a conception of the chit world. In fact, I reread the posting, and chose not to go and take rest. "The culture of Harinama" sounds better for now. Tomorrow I'll tell you what He told me.

I did, I did. But it is getting late here, I'd better get a bit of rest now and get back to it tomorrow. This was the best I could offer for now. Sorry.

<center> <font face="Georgia" size=2 color=brown>To fall or not to fall? To fall from Vaikuntha, or to fall from the Tatastha? To make an active decision of rejection in excercising our free will, or to be floating around since time beginningless without input into the issue? </font> <font font face="Georgia" color=blue>I came from the right side. I am a manifestation of the marginal energy. Prema is eternal and ceaseless by its constitution. There is no influence of illusion in Vaikuntha. </font><font font face="Georgia" color=red>That is what I've read in the scriptures. I have not seen it myself. </font> <font font face="Georgia" color=orange>If someone claims otherwise, I ask:</font> <font font face="Georgia" color=violet>How do you explain the hundreds of scriptural statements which clearly state that no-one falls from Vaikuntha, and that we are a manifestation of the marginal energy? </font> * * * * * </center><font color=#fefefe> [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-10-2002).]

Jagat, would you like to switch the MSN preface etc. over to RD, where we can speak topics as topics without getting comments into personal issues, either of the poster, or the one quoted, or whomever? [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-02-2002).]

Yes, please. I am very curious to see the context. On its own, passages like:<blockquote> According to Carstairs' analysis, the father-child relationship is not a warm one and the child has to submit to his authority completely. In the normal Indian extended family situation, as long as the father-figures live and dominate him, the male has to perform "symbolic self-castrations," denying himself the right to lead an emotional and sexual life of his own. ... To Carstairs, the passivity and symbolic self-castration of the upper-caste Hindu man results in a powerfully repressed homosexual fixation on the father, especially when he is seen as a fellow victim of the mother, as symbolized in the image of Kali dancing on the prostrate Shiva. This finds an outlet in paranoid-type reactions on the one hand and a relatively warm relationship with a guru on the other. This feeling is also transfered to the deity in his form as Krishna, the great lover.</blockquote> Without seeing the context, I have to say I am rather surprised to find content like this in the preface to Manjari-svarupa-nirupana... I am very curious to see where the paragrahps you posted come from, and even more, where they lead.

Thanks for putting me back my real position, and thanks for all the love and spiritual vibrations you have expressed towards this lowly creature. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you have misunderstood my use of the word "ego". The following is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "ego". I have used the first and third applications of the word, your concept appears to be prominently of the second. <blockquote> Main Entry: ego Pronunciation: 'E-(")gO also 'e- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural egos Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, I -- more at I 1789 1 : the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world 2 a : EGOTISM 2 b : SELF-ESTEEM 1 3 : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality -- compare ID, SUPEREGO </blockquote> The application to which you are pointing, "I'm this important attorney, I'm a great actress, I am a wonderful politician etc.. " fits an entry close to "ego", "egotism", as also mentioned above: <blockquote> Main Entry: ego·tism Pronunciation: 'E-g&-"ti-z&m also 'e- Function: noun Etymology: Latin ego + English -tism (as in idiotism) 1714 1 a : excessive use of the first person singular personal pronoun b : the practice of talking about oneself too much 2 : an exaggerated sense of self-importance : CONCEIT -- compare EGOISM 2 </blockquote> However, this is far from the more analytical, psychological concept of "ego", as expressed in the main entries above. You may kindly read my post again in this light to grasp a better understanding of my intentions, should it be of any concern for you. At any rate, I have no need or interest in participating in discussions where people misunderstand my postings because they think they know the real, actual and perhaps the only meaning of "ego", "spirituality" etc. and then inconsiderately blast me into the basket for things I never intended. It hurts me. I politely thank you very much for the brief time we shared together and wish that you will discover your inner spirituality in wherever it may suit you.

-- wrong thread -- [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-02-2002).]

Please show me a person who has no ego. He must be completely spiritual. "Nice to meet you, sir. You have no ego?" "Aum, Aum." Welcome, utopia. Welcome, flowers on the sky. Welcome, utopia.

They have the ego of "I am dropping my ego". That's all. The ego is, "We know what is the real meaning of being spiritual, we know it's all about dropping the ego." The fact that you exist means you have an ego. You know this bhumir apo 'nalo vayuh kham mano buddhir eva ca ahankara iti 'yam me bhinna prakrtir astadha thing. To find proper application for this ego, that is the question. The point is you can not just leave your self of identity. Even if you think individuality has no basis in reality. And anyway most of the folks who say "individuality is false" don't live up to it, nor do they really intend to live up to it. It is just a part of their ego "I am spiritual". [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-02-2002).]

The logic is, "If I would find something higher, I would go for it." One may very sincerely believe that he is a rare object of causeless grace. The fact is, though, that for most of the folks, pride is there, to a great great extent. And, given that ego is there for everyone, I think let us just learn to live with it and be happy. You find that even the five rasas are analyzed "objectively" (by someone in madhurya-rasa) and it is concluded that madhurya-rasa is the supreme, and among those in the madhurya-rasa, the objective conclusion (by someone partial to Radha) has been drawn that Sri Radha is the supreme of all the gopis. I say if there was no ego, there would be nothing. Even God created the world because of His big ego, I say. He wanted to enjoy Himself. To stay within the thread topic, that's what siddha-pranali is all about as well -- getting a better ego. But it has a connection with spirituality.

Jagat, will you please give a context for the story? You start, "But". But what? To which earlier text do you refer, in the light of which we should understand your contribution?

Right. Frankly speaking, I suggest that each individual spiritual group & tradition carries on with its own work, while respecting others who advocate various forms of spirituality. This allows each individual to gradually, and over lifetimes, refine his conception of the Divine, and to refine his/her individual relationship and desires towards the Divine. Now, of course someone will object: "You say like this, and you think your thing is the highest, and others' practices are on lower levels which one day will lead to your stage!" Huh? Well, that's true. It is natural to consider one's own choice of spirituality to be of the highest quality. But on the other hand, if I meet, for instance, a group of Buddhists or Jains who tell me to keep up the good work, while thinking that one day I will also become like them -- I don't mind. As long as this takes place in a mutual spirit of respect, where neither of the two tries to convert or to minimize the feelings and the practices of the other as inferior or useless. Of course this is a bit difficult with the people who give you the "Have you thought, my friend..." booklet and tell you about the ocean of flames awaiting for the heretics, where you are to be cast for eternity, lest your name is found in the sacred book of life or so. Whatever we desire, accordingly our faith will develop, and accordingly we will adopt a particular brand of practices, and that is the perfect thing for us, for the time being. In this way, naturally (sahajiya ) everyone will progress on the same path. Same path? Yes. mama vartmAnuvartante manuSyAH pArtha sarvazaH. gItA 4.11.

I see you thought for at least a microsecond that I made a serious proposition. Huh. No, seriously -- I recall hearing Prithu Das once explain how Jesus displayed asta-sattvika-bhavas, he'd read it in the Bible somewhere, about the different ecstacies of Jesus.

In regards to my posting above, as well as some of the earlier postings in this thread, I must note that of course all of this sounds absurd to someone who does not have the belief that Bhagavan appears in the form of guru to guide the souls in this world. It boils down to the age-old question, "Do you believe in God, my friend?" "Have you thought..."

Of course Harinama is cintamani, a divine desire-fulfilling gem, and may yield any perfection at any time for the sincere practitioner. However, at the same time, all perfection is dependent on guru-kripa. yasya prasadad bhagavat-prasado yasya prasadad na gatih kuto'pi. Bearing this in mind, it is certainly recommendable to obtain the guru's blessing for one's aspiration, even if one has already obtained an insight of his coveted siddha-deha by the grace of harinama. Guru is saksad-dhari -- on account of his dearness to Hari, he is directly Hari, and the disciple sees him as the localized manifestation (vyasti-guru) of Hari as the universal guru (samastiki-guru). Hence, it would stand to reason to approach the manifestation of Hari sent to give us instructions for this particular brand of information as well.

Ram, you know this assertion of yours is not true. Where is it advised that knowledge is only to be given to the class of men who do not know? Then, for the most part, we should be quiet all the time, since in this world there are a lot of people who know the same things as we do, if not more. If you would believe it yourself, you would not have made your initial post in this forum, since there are many long-time practitioners of bhakti here who certainly are aware of the things you attempted to present. Please tell us about the niyamas of bhakti according to Hari-bhakti-vilasa. Upadesamrta we all know. Honestly, I have not read Hari-bhakti-vilasa, the essential yama-niyama-book for the Gaudiyas, cover to cover, so please do feel obliged to advice us on the essential niyamas according to Hari-bhakti-vilasa. It is interesting to note that the word "niyama" is not once mentioned in the Bhagavad-gita. At any rate, "yama", or positive assertions, come before niyama. In the Gita (2.59), the philosophy of attaining freedom from the lower urges and conquering the mind is presented: <center>viSayA vinivartante nirAhArasya dehinaH rasa-varjaM raso ?py asya paraM dRSTvA nivartate</center> "The embodied soul may practice restraint from the objects of sensual enjoyment by negative restrictions, but the taste for them will remain. Upon experiencing a higher taste, he ceases to hanker for them." It is obvious from the Gita that bhakti is not a path of progress through niyamas. Instead, it is a path of progress through positive experiences of the divine. Upon gaining access to a higher source of *rasa*, the taste for inferior rasa ceases. And this is what raganuga-bhakti and siddha-pranali is all about. Bhaktivinoda states in the Gita-mala, in the chapter called "Rupanuga-bhajana-darpana": <center>baidhi bhakti dhira gati, raganuga tivra ati, ati sighra rasavastha pay ragavartma-su-sadhane, ruci hoy jar mane, rupanuga hoite sei dhay</center> "Vaidhi bhakti progresses very slowly toward the goal, but raganuga bhakti moves extremely fast, and enables one to be quickly situated in the tasty transcendental mellows. By following the path of spontaneous devotional service, real taste awakens in one's mind, and he runs and chases after that current which flows from the lotus feet of Sri Rupa." [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-02-2002).] [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-02-2002).]

The word tatastha (marginal) is defined by Bhaktivinoda as follows in the 15th chapter of the Jaiva Dharma: Vrajanatha: What is the Vedantic meaning of the word tatastha? Babaji: The space between the ocean and the land is called the shore (tata), but the place that touches the ocean is actually nothing but land, so where is the shore? The marginal tata is the line of distinction separating the ocean and the land, and it is so fine that it cannot be seen with the gross eyes. If we compare the transcendental realm to the ocean, and the material world to the land, then tata is the subtle line that divides the two, and the jiva-sakti is situated at the place where the two meet. The jivas are like the countless atomic particles of light in the rays of the sun. Being situated in the middle place, the jivas see the spiritual world on one side and the material universe created by maya on the other. Bhagavan's spiritual potency on one side is unlimited, and maya's potency on the other side is also very powerful; and the innumerable subtle (suksma) jivas are situated between these two. The jivas are marginal by nature, because they have manifested from Krsna's marginal potency.

The souls of Goloka are not tatastha, because they are out of the marginal region between the material and the spiritual world. But this does not remove their minute free will. In theory anyone there could rebel and jump off the lotus flower, diving into the Causal Ocean with a triple somersault or so, but in reality, due to the overwhelming experience of prema-rasa and the influence of svarupa-sakti, no-one does it. But is this not limiting the free will, all this svarupa-sakti and prema and so? Yes it is, just as in the material world, our frame of decision is limited by maha-maya. All the people in this world, are they free to decide as they like, in an objective, neutral position without being influenced by anyone? The gist of it is that no-one has full independence. We say that Bhagavan is abhijnah svarat (omniscient and independent, SB 1.1.1), but even He simultaneously becomes mugdhata (bewildered) and completely dependent on the love of His consorts. Just see, the spirit souls have their vengeance: Bhagavan has deprived them of complete free will, and vice versa, they have had their revenge, having overpowered the freedom of Bhagavan by their prema. This is called a reality of love.

See the end of page one of the discussion where I linked you to in my previous posting. There is certainly room for misrepresentation, and what counts is the sincerity of the individual, for according to our desires we obtain a particular kind of faith and so on. This world is a shadow of the one beyond. Nothing here is exactly like the experience there, since all objects of observation here consist of matter, whereas there they are made of radiant pure spirit. Of course, initially the siddha-deha is a "prototype" to the sadhaka, so to say, simply due to the fact that the consciousness of the sadhaka is still clouded to an extent by the mundane. But this does not mean that the siddha-deha we are assigned to is a prototype in itself. Gradually, as the svarupa-shakti overtakes the sensory and mental functions (as in the example of iron and fire), the experiences turn more vivid, real, and original. This siddha-deha exists already there in the realm of spirit, although in an inactive state, as explained by Jiva Gosvamin. We are to gradually link up with it via the medium of sadhana, and of course, guru-kripa.

What do you mean "a template"? It is not a mechanistic thing. http://raganuga.org/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=1&t=14 If the siddha-deha is revealed by Bhagavan Himself via the medium of the guru's trance, and considering that Bhagavan manifests as the guru and as the antaryami to guide us, how would there be no access to our inner recesses of our eternal being? Of course to digest this, one has to believe how IzvaraH sarva-bhUtAnAM hRd-deze ?rjuna tiSThati, upadraSTAnumantA ca bhartA bhoktA mahezvaraH paramAtmeti cApy ukto dehe ?smin puruSaH paraH and the like. Have you thought, my friend, where are you going to spend your eternity? [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-01-2002).]

Nothing I presented implies that the jivas have no free will. The jivas do have a minute free will. The concept of "tatastha-sakti-prakasa" means those who are manifest from the marginal energy on the borderline between the material and the spiritual world, emanating from the being of Maha Vishnu, creation after creation, in and out. Of course they also have free will to some extent. The point is that the *meaning* of the word "tatastha" is different from "having free will", although minute free will is included in the concept of jiva-tattva. To give an example of the logic applied here, if you say, "Theist means one who is praying", and I say, "Actually theist means one who accepts God", you should not object, "But what then is the meaning of theist if he does not pray?" The theist does pray, but this is not the exact meaning of the term, though praying is also implied when using the term.

From his commentaries: "This incident, therefore, proves that those who have once entered a Vaikuntha planet can never fall down. The case of Jaya and Vijaya is not a falldown; it is just an accident." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.16.12, purport) Bhaktivedanta presents his conclusion on the case of Jaya and Vijaya in two Bhagavata purports of the 16th chapter: "Thus He plainly says that it was done with His approval. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for inhabitants of Vaikuntha to come back to this material world simply because of a brahminical curse. The Lord especially blesses the so-called culprits: 'All glories unto you.' A devotee, once accepted by the Lord, can never fall down. That is the conclusion of this incident." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.16.29, purport) "The conclusion is that no one falls from the spiritual world, or Vaikuntha planet, for it is the eternal abode. But sometimes, as the Lord desires, devotees come into this material world as preachers or as atheists. In each case we must understand that there is a plan of the Lord." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.16.26, purport) For the sake of comparison, his conclusion on the subject matter in his letter presented in full earlier in this thread: "So the conclusion is that whatever may be our past, let us come to Krsna consciousness and immediately join Krsna." We leave it up to the reader to decide for himself which of the two conclusions is more conclusive.

The following is the famous "tatastha-sakti" (marginal potency) verse from the Caitanya Caritamrta, along with Bhaktivedanta Swami's rendition of the Amrta Pravaha commentary of Bhaktivinoda. * * * * * * * * * * * * <center>jIvera svarUpa haya kRSNera nitya-dAsa kRSNera taTasthA-zakti bhedAbheda-prakAza sUryAMza-kiraNa, yaiche agni-jvAlA-caya svAbhAvika kRSNera tina-prakAra zakti haya</center> TRANSLATION "It is the living entity?s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy." PURPORT Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains these verses as follows: Sri Sanatana Gosvami asked Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, "Who am I?" In answer, the Lord replied, "You are a pure living entity. You are neither the gross material body nor the subtle body composed of mind and intelligence. Actually you are a spirit soul, eternally part and parcel of the Supreme Soul, Krsna. Therefore you are His eternal servant. You belong to Krsna?s marginal potency. There are two worlds?the spiritual world and the material world?and you are situated between the material and spiritual potencies. You have a relationship with both the material and the spiritual world; therefore you are called the marginal potency. You are related with Krsna as one and simultaneously different. Because you are spirit soul, you are one in quality with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but because you are a very minute particle of spirit soul, you are different from the Supreme Soul. Therefore your position is simultaneously one with and different from the Supreme Soul. The examples given are those of the sun itself and the small particles of sunshine and of a blazing fire and the small particles of fire." (Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 20.108-109) [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-01-2002).]

And the final note for my monologue: <font face="Georgia" color=red size=2>Don't think this mental service is only for those who are perfected. It is a part of practice.</font> <center>bAhya, antara,ihAra dui ta' sAdhana 'bAhye' sAdhaka-dehe kare zravaNa-kIrtana 'mane' nija-siddha-deha kariyA bhAvana rAtri-dine kare vraje kRSNera sevana</center> "There are indeed two aspects to this practice, the external and the internal. Externally, within the practitioner's body, one hears and chants, and within one's mind, day and night one thinks about oneself in his siddha-deha, serving Sri Krishna in Vraja day and night." (Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 22.157) [This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-01-2002).]

Of course, before anyone gets the chance to say that I am advocating this process to anyone and everyone, I'll say: "Don't try this at home!" In other words, practice this only under the supervision of a qualified guru who is expert in rendering such mental services.