The Tao of Krishna consciousness

[Jagat 1]

<h2>The Tao of Krishna Consciousness</h2>

 

I was recently given a censure on the Dharma Mela list, which read in part as follows:

“This is so very Western to have this fear of anger, and emotions in general, Jagat. … Maybe it's time you did shed some of that hard skull and get a bit thinner skinned. What do you think? I would love to see a softening in your heart, and see that shining devotee emerge. Enough dryness. Sorry if this offends anyone but why pussyfoot around it?”

 

This got me thinking. We all know Prabhupada’s famous dictum, “Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation.”

 

This statement indicates that the Krishna consciousness movement seeks a balance between the intellectual and emotional aspects of our being, to bring them into harmony. Let us call this the Tao of Krishna consciousness – finding the happy medium between the emotional yang and the intellectual yin.

 

All organisms seek equilibrium or homeostasis. They do this automatically, as a part of our nature. If we are hungry, we eat. If we feel sex desire, we act to meet that need. Every creature acts according to this law, but human beings apparently feel more profound dislocation resulting from psychic imbalances not encountered in other living entities.

 

These psychic imbalances can be the result of culture and family upbringing, or they may be extensions of our physical being. The understanding of what to do with the imbalances may become so disjointed that some persons may kill or rape in order to find equilibrium, even though this obviously does not result in the kind of spiritual felicity that unconsciously motivates his action.

 

We must face many kinds of dualities. The principal one that we are familiar with is usually called mind/body in the West, or spirit/matter in the East. This duality is often expressed symbolically as a male/female dualism. This distinction is not altogether artificial, as members of both sexes will attest. “Men are from Mars and women from Venus.” There are general lines of strength and weakness in men and women that run roughly parallel to the intellect-emotion duality.

 

Of course, as there is nothing pure in the world, there is no such thing as a “pure” male, nor a “pure” female, so we should be wary of judging men or women on the basis of what is, after all, a primarily symbolic identification.

 

This language has been used historically in many relations where domination has played a role. The Hindus, for example, were considered effeminate by both their Muslim and British conquerors. The Hindus also became complicit in this. It is not here that a detailed history of the “effeminate Hindoo” can be summarized, but suffice it to say that the same kind of discourse was found in many other cultures where a conqueror established his own cultural and intellectual superiority by attributing masculine qualities to himself, and female attributes to the conquered people – emotional, colorful, people with quaint customs. One of the frequent attributes given to the effeminate people is excessive attachment to sexuality and domesticity.

 

The dominated people usually respond with the claim of being more “spiritual” and “less materialistic” than their conquerors. Indeed, the identification of spirituality, especially mysticism, with femininity has also been made by strongly masculine cultures, especially in the 19th century, where religious practices that were not specifically this-worldly were seen as effeminate.

 

Now my thesis here is that bhakti is basically a “female” spiritual practice. Jnana, karma and yoga are masculine practices, ones in which the spirit exercises domination over matter through pure intellect or force of character. Bhakti is feminine (it is the only practice that has a feminine noun). It is characterized by dependence on the supreme soul, and in its more advanced forms is emotional and in its extreme forms even asks us to take on female characteristics. To use a Christian example, Cardinal Newman is often quoted as having said, “If thy soul is to go on into higher spiritual blessedness, it must become a woman; yes, however manly thou may be among men.”

 

In Hinduism, of course, the most radical form of bhakti is expressed in the idea that "Krishna is the only male, and all others are female." Taken to the extreme, this becomes manjari bhava.<small><font color=#dedfdf>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-02-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

Part II

 

In the above sentences, I have used the word “radical” and “extreme” deliberately. These terms are diametrically opposed to the concept of equilibrium that we used to begin this article. Fanaticism, as we have seen from Prabhupada’s dictum, is an extension of sentiment, or emotionalism. There are other kinds of radicalism – such as the radical attempts to rationalize society in Communism.

 

So, in fact, there are masculine and female types of extremism and both the masculine and feminine seek to reestablish balance where extremes have gone too far. Indeed, the Taoist idea is that extremes precede the integration of the opposite. The Taoist wheel states what is an obvious truth, that there are constant cycles in which balance and extremism follow on one another. Rajo-guna conquers Tamo-guna. Sometimes, Sattva guna arises -- when we find equilibrium.

 

Now, just as individuals can become imbalanced, or sick, there is no reason to believe that entire societies cannot also become “sick” in the same way. When they do, we usually find that forces arise to redress the balance. Since entire societies are conditioned in much the same way that individuals are, the idea of what constitutes balance will differ. Left and right wings, liberal and conservative forces, compete to establish their respective views of what constitutes a proper balance.

 

In India in the 19th century, as alluded to above, Hindu society was identified as a dominated and thus effeminate people. This had gone on for a long time, and Hindus society implicitly accepted this vision in the Islamic period through the bhakti movement. This should also been viewed as an implicit criticism of Islamic culture. However, the British brought about a different reaction by successfully shaming Hindu society for its lack of cohesiveness and rationality. Hindu society began to accept the British critique of itself as a society in need of cajones, to use Bhutabhavana's expression.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati form a part of the Hindu reform scene of the 19th century and its aftermath. We have to look at them in their historical context. Otherwise the very meaning of preaching according to time and place becomes lost. The question that I am asking here is, “What balance were they seeking to redress and how does that fit into the historical picture of bhakti?”

 

Both these acharyas were very intellectual in their approach to Krishna consciousness. They were critical of both monism and Sahajiyaism, which they considered the manifestations of the two extremes. Certainly they thought (as everyone does) that they had found a balanced point of view. They were redressing the imbalances created in society, particularly those created by the presence of modernizing Europeans on the one hand and decadent Hindu society on the other.

 

Not surprisingly, modernizing Hindus found the Gaudiya Math too mystical, while traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavas found them too intellectual or "jnani".

 

Now where does Krishna consciousness fit on the intellectual/emotional spectrum in Western society? Specifically, where did it fit into the American society in which it found the soil to sprout?

 

A great deal of literature has grown up around the rise of new religious movements (NRM) in the 60’s and 70’s. American history seems to go through cycles of about 20 years between influxes of NRMs. At any rate, the NRMs of the 70s are not separable from the hippy movement. Just remember they chanted Hare Krishna in “Hair.”

 

The hippy movement was a major statement against the “work ethic” that dominated American society. It was a reaction to war, which was seen as an extension of the same. It was also a statement against the excessive rationalism of modern society. The hippies rebelled against the “reality principle.” Clearly, it falls into the female/emotional side of the yin-yang spectrum.

 

Though it took a much more austere path, the early Krishna consciousness was imbued with the rebellious spirit of hippydom. It was always suspicious of karmi society, the establishment. It never really knew what to do with sympathetic voices within the establishment, which recognized that there was a very real need for spirituality being answered by movements like Iskcon. This is another sign of irrationality.

 

Preaching means the ability to encounter opposing opinions. If one cannot understand intuitively and emotionally the background of opposing ideas, then one cannot encounter them and “defeat” them. I put “defeat” in quotation marks because I think the term lacks dignity.

<small><font color=#F7F7F7>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-03-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

Part III

 

If religion is about sentiment, it is also about taste. There are many imponderables where our choices in religion are concerned. These are certainly not all entirely philosophically based. Most theistic religions talk about serving God, dedicating one’s life to His service, etc., but the ways in which they conceive of that service is different. The choice of Krishna consciousness as a religion is essentially an aesthetic one – it is born out of a taste for prasad, an appreciation of the beauty of the deities and Krishna, the Holy Name and sadhu sanga as much as on anything philosophical.

 

[This, by the way, is why I find the neglect of the <u>beauty</u> of kirtan to be such an aberration.]

 

It is also true that even philosophy is practically speaking never divorced from feeling. This is why ever since Marx, philosophers have constantly been “deconstructing” ideologies. Belief systems have social and psychological bases – we believe what we want to believe, no matter how sophisticated our rationalizations.

 

Thus even “the philosophy” for devotees is charged with an attraction to aesthetic elements – the battlefield of Kurukshetra, Krishna on the chariot with Arjuna, the exoticism of the Vishwarupa, the exoticism of the Sanskrit terminology, etc.

 

As such, though it seems trite when sociologists say that people who join the Krishna conscious movement have a predisposition to Indian culture, it is nevertheless a truism. This aesthetic tendency or predisposition is fortified by the cultural experience of participation in the movement.

 

Now, all true religion or search for mystic experience also requires self-deconstruction, which is what all talk of reducing ego is about. Self understanding is the beginning point of spiritual life. To understand what we are, we must also understand what we are not, though a personalist will begin from the premise that he or she is something.

 

"Neti neti" is deconstruction in its original form. But pure philosophy is essentially negative and tends to reduce variegatedness. They leave one with the tendency to relativize cultural particularities. This makes conversion particularly difficult, because conversion usually means adopting new cultural forms, even in cases less radical than Krishna consciousness. Conversion is essentially an emotional act.

 

This is why followers of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda in the west were essentially “armchair philosophers.” They had no need to adopt any Hindu cultural values because their philosophy told them that any kind of cultural attachment – forms and names – was relative and therefore inconsequential. To a certain extent, the same applies to Buddhism, though similar emotional factor and cultural features also play a big role in the rise of Buddhism in the West.

 

It is important to recognize this non-rational element in the conversion experience. We as Vaishnavas may vehemently deny that Krishna’s form and name are like all the rest, but this argument is faith-based, not rational. In recent threads, where the question of Chaitanya’s validity as an avatar according to scripture has been raised, we see that devotees find themselves in a quandary. They have been told scriptural proof is a necessity, so what are they to do when there is none, except for a few dubious references from the Bhagavata and a barrel of manufactured evidence that would be thrown out of any court? The counterfeit evidence has the further bad effect of making us distrust the good faith and ethics of its manufacturers. But, we continue to believe anyway. This is another example of the heart leading the head; another example of the contradictions of faith. But I digress.

 

So, the two components of religion and philosophy are like the body and soul of religious practice. The problem is that in their pure forms they are mutually destructive. Just like the body and soul need to find a modus vivendi that makes life livable, reason and religion need to find harmonious unity.

<small><font color=#dedfdf>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-02-2001).]

[Jagat 1]

Part IV

 

The above considerations also call into question cultural differences in Krishna consciousness. This question was raised on another thread here recently. Can our adopted culture overcome the deep-rooted culture of birth and upbringing?

 

As mentioned above, Buddhism in its purest form deconstructs totally to the point of negating all attributes, and so it has had a great deal of success in implanting itself in the Western context. So much so, that there is much talk of “American” Buddhism – which though it borrows from its Zen and Tibetan roots, is growing organically into something totally new in its western soil.

 

Is the same thing possible for Krishna consciousness? If our “philosophy” is so strongly contextualized, then how can it cut itself off from its cultural springboard?

 

This entire discussion is a very Westernized approach to Krishna consciousness. It is certainly not the kind of discourse we would expect to find in traditional Vaishnava circles. I am taking my experience as a Vaishnava and subjecting it to analysis according to tools developed by western intelligentsia. In other words, something organic is going on. I, as a Western individual, am interacting with Vaishnavism to produce something that has not yet been seen before in either East or West.

 

I do not know whether the question of organic union of East and West has been formulated seriously in Iskcon in these terms or not, but Iskcon is definitely moving in the direction of an occidentalized if not Americanized version of Krishna consciousness, simply by virtue of having cut itself off from Gaudiya Vaishnava influences. The GBC body is the final rule-maker, and it is dominated by Westerners (or Westernized Indians), who remain so whether they are conscious of the fact or not, despite their Indian dress.

 

Let us say that the Westernization is not altogether unwelcome, as Prabhupada himself intimated. But is “American” Vaishnavism a Western soul in an Indian body or an Indian soul in a Western body?

 

I know that Tripurari Maharaj is seriously considering this question, and he does so with a great deal of self-awareness, though he is no doubt fully conscious of the fine thread that has to be trod when dealing with his companions. Any Westernization of Vaishnavism will be considered dangerous innovation by the most conservative class of Vaishnava.

 

A Westernized Vaishnavism will have to begin with a dynamic concept of revelation. It will also have to be able to find a creative hermeneutic that will allow itself to keep its legitimacy through some form of faithfulness to Vaishnava tradition.

 

[Jagat 1]

Part V

 

Now I am sorry to have left so many strands of thought leading in different directions. And certainly this philosophical excursus will not satisfy my dear Jaya Radhe Dasi, who already finds me too dry for her taste and would like to see me become a little more emotional and soft-hearted.

 

I started by saying that we naturally seek balance, yet that sometimes the organism takes extremist steps to find balance. This is often overcompensation. I gave the example of the sociopath who kills or rapes. Though the act of conversion is not nearly as radical an act as that of the sociopath, it is nevertheless pretty radical, especially when it takes the form it does in Krishna consciousness.

 

This is not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it is possible to argue that extreme steps are often a necessary prerequisite to religious experience, which can be defined as an encounter with the "totally other." If we leave our predispositions and preconceptions entirely untouched, how can we create the type of contrast that puts us face to face with the divine?

 

In the case of KC, there were many other positive things that came out of our experience that do not strictly fall into any particular category - religious or cultural. They are simply human.

 

Nevertheless, I suggest to you that the entire Krishna conscious experience is something of an overcompensation. Even for the most mystical individuals, it is rare that after undertaking the mystical journey, the saint does not make the "return journey" to the "world" where he finds harmony and imparts that harmony to his society.

 

Since the mystical search is a kind of overcompensation, the pendulum needs to swing back in the other direction until it finds equilibrium.

 

If there is an imbalance at present, it is in the overly emotional character of our religion. In our own rigorous efforts at self-understanding, we must be able to understand the irrational (or aesthetic, sentimental, emotional) motivations in our taking up certain religious practices. This does not mean we have to jettison them, but it does mean we may have to relativize some of our exclusivistic claims. Such exclusivism is, I believe, the "fanaticism" of Prabhupada’s dictum.

<small><font color=#dedfdf>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-02-2001).]

[BDas 0]

Dear Jagat,

 

I don't understand why you found it necessary to end your provicative essay with that little dig at the end. Certainly from the scholarly objective viewpoint everything is fair game. But as you know the disciples view of his master is not completely objective. A stern objective look at any philosophy or teacher will uncover numerous shortcomings and leave us with nothing but armchair philosophy. Therefore we are not advised to see our Guru with an overly critical eye but rather, with what faith we can muster, see him as a deligated agent of Divinity. In his role as Divine agent he supports and nourishes our devotion.

 

You seem to think that it is your role to add some critical objectivity toward our vision of our Master. This may be acceptable up to a point. I believe that point is where your analysis interferes with and is an affront to the faith our master came to give.

 

Sometimes there is a fine line between faith maker and faith breaker. If we are to tred this line we should be sure not to lean much to the side of faith breaker because faith once broken is difficult to repair.

 

What energy we have would be better used as faith maker and in our own way contribute something positive to the mission of our Master. And our own faith will be best served by this approach.

 

I believe wholeheartedly that you are a person of faith who is somehow trying to harmonize knowledge and devotion in your own mind. But faith and devotion are beyond knowledge and objectivity. Scriptural quotes support our faith superficially but as you noted full faith is beyond rationality.

 

We are told that Krishna can be found in scripture only by those who hear from a person of realized faith and not from mere study. naham vadair na tapasa

 

Therfore even more important than scripture is a person of realized faith. Such a person draws faith in Krishna from scripture, even from places no one else may find it.

Those of a different type of faith will see scripture in their own way according to their own faith.

 

Faith is Supreme and we are to appreciate and serve that faith. And faith is best served by full reverence to our Master and his servants and not by stressing thier shortcomings. Hare Krishna, With Respects, Brahma

 

 

 

 

[Jagat 1]

Originally posted by BDas:

I don't understand why you found it necessary to end your provocative essay with that little dig at the end.

That's a misunderstanding. What I mean is "That is what Prabhupada means when he refers to fanaticism in his dictum, 'Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism.'"

 

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Jagat 1]

Dear Brahma Prabhu,

 

I was waiting to see if my correction would lead you to revise your comments, as they seem to have been colored by a perception that I was being unduly critical of Srila Prabhupada, which I wasn't. I am accustomed to being accused of this, but I won't get into another defense of myself.

 

Anyway, you didn't write anything, so I will try to respond, despite being a bit confused.

 

In many ways what you have said echoes what I posted recently in a response to the latest kerfuffle over Satyarajji, both here and on the Mela. I assume you have read those, so you can see that we agree there.

 

As far as it being my mission to provide "critical objectivity," I think I see it as my mission to be myself, which I agree is not particularly edifying, but it is all I can be.

 

My nature tends to make me more intellectual than emotional. That will not come as news to anyone, but I have had my moments of religious transport.

 

I think that there is nothing quite so educational as to put oneself in a radically unfamiliar situation. Spiritual practices are often that -- disciplines of sensory deprivation, etc., that force us inward. Though for some these become a way of life, for most people they cannot. Most of us are incapable of living at the psychological edge all our lives.

 

This is not only true of householders, but of sannyasis as well. Professional athletes go into coaching after their careers are over.

 

We may shift the center of gravity of our lives -- so that sense gratification and the pursuit of wealth don't quite occupy the looming center stage it once may have.

 

At any rate, I was not trying to do anything more than discuss my experience of the KCM in the light of the ideas of balance and extremism, looking at the issue from different angles, particular that of the female/male duality.

 

By the way, I notice that according to Tripurari Maharaj's newsletter, you are working with him these days. Keep us posted on how things are going.

 

Haribol,

 

Jagat

 

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-03-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Jagat:

I think that there is nothing quite so educational as to put oneself in a radically unfamiliar situation. Spiritual practices are often that -- disciplines of sensory deprivation, etc., that force us inward. Though for some these become a way of life, for most people they cannot. Most of us are incapable of living at the psychological edge all our lives.

 

If you really want education, try this:

 

 

Signed,

Your Extremeley Extreme Extremist

 

[This message has been edited by rand0M aXiS (edited 07-08-2001).]

[atma 0]

Very funny.

[BDas 0]

Dear Jagat,

 

Sometimes I think when I read an essay on these forums that I might have something to reply. But usually I regret saying anything.

That is more or less my feeling now about my comments above.

 

I think what you replied is a novel idea. Be yourself! If sometimes I don't appreciate the mood or angle you take in your writing than I guess I am only being myself and myself and yourself well are just different.

 

I once asked T-Swami about some of the critiques and angles you displayed in your posts and he replied with much the same " be yourself".

 

You are living with a particular mind that needs much intellectual stimulation. Analysis and study seems to be yourself. I guess I can say that if after all the analysis you have maintained your faith (in your own style) than that is good for you and I am happy with that. Hare Krishna, Brahma

[mahak 0]

Me, too, Jagat, I am happy with that. I have a new project, a little slow in the making, but it deals with the responsibility of the student in "discerning" what is actually meant from the classic criteria of Guru-shastra-sadhu. From Srila Prabhupada, I learned discernment, and have used such to avoid influence of the "prabhupada said-ers" over the years.

 

Discernment is not a common discussion in eastern thought in most cases. Faith is often very blind, and this is very displeasing to guru, who does not want sentimentalists who will never make advancement. Anyway, Im out of time today, and, yeah, we gotta be ourselves. As Lord Jesus says of the ones attracted to His Reality, "You are the seasoning of the world. If you lose your flavor, you will be cast outside and trampled underfoot as worthless." This loss of flavor can be construed is failure to discern what is meant of the teachings of guru-shastra-sadhu, but alas, this statement of mine may be actually labelled as "mental speculation".

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Jagat 1]

Brahma Prabhu,

 

I hope that you would not stop posting. You have usually been a voice for good sense and I can't think of any posting that you have made that I have not enjoyed.

 

I was a little perplexed by your comments on this thread, however, as I was trying to reach a kind of theoretical basis for understanding how theologies might change in different contexts.

 

I did not feel as though I was challenging anyone's faith, especially since I was trying to understand and explain a text that Prabhupada often used and must have found meaningful.

 

I don't consider myself a faith-breaker. I posted something a while back on faith as dialectic. (I couldn't find it on my hard disk, so I don't know what I did with it.) Beliefs change. Faith is a process.

 

Anyway, if I find it, I'll repost.

 

In friendship,

 

Jagat

 

 

[BDas 0]

Dear Jagat,

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

I would like to reply that I am not much of a philosopher in any real sense. I am uneducated and have not studied many books. I even find it a chore to apply my mind to the details of a philosophical analysis such as yours. Mostly I am a worker, a sudra and see myself as such. In the movement I was a worker from day one and if I gave a good class (as some tell me) it was because I told stories and jokes well.

 

Still I think I have some understanding and feeling for what Prabhupad gave so in my own simple way I try to pass that on. I was also fortunate enough to appreciate Srila Sridhar Maharaja from the beginning and I can not sufficiently stress how much his words helped me maintain my faith and appreciation for devotees through difficult times.

 

I neglected Sridhar Maharaja’s dictum: connect with a higher Vaisnava who inspires you and come under his guidance, for the past decade. Now I am trying to follow by rendering some small service to Tripurari Swami. As you noted he graciously accepted what service I am willing to offer and gave me in return a renewed appreciation for Krishna Consciousness.

 

As we are discussing dictums: (1 An authoritative, dogmatic or positive utterance; a pronouncement. 2. A popular saying; a maxim.) I took the opportunity to promote one in the paragraph above that I believe if applied selectively and according to our individual faith will bestow on us maximum benefit.

 

Anyway, thinking my first reply somewhat injudicious I took the time to read your essay again. I had to laugh when I saw that you defined what you called Prabhupads dictum on the first page. My mind being short and your essay long I had more or less lost the connection.

 

In general I will have to admit what you were trying to say eluded me at the time and may still not be very clear to me. If I was to distill it down I think you are trying to say:

 

Prabhupada warned us about religious fanaticism when he said,” Religion without philosophy is sentiment and sometimes fanaticism”.

 

But we did not expect that when we came face to face with the most serious type of religious fanaticism both faces would belong to ourselves. Hare Krishna, Brahma

 

[Jagat 1]

Brahma Prabhu,

 

I don't believe for a moment that you are not educated. I think you show the true characteristic of the learned man, "vidyA dadAti vinayam" -- "Education makes one a perfect gentleman."

 

You also write very well.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagat

[Guest guest]

 

" Religion without philosophy is sentiment and sometimes fanaticism".(Prabhupada)

 

Sadly most sects forget this premise as time goes on. Initially, the founder-acaryas and their immediate followers may be on good terms with other sanatana-dharma's schools , but as time progresses, the proponents of one sect will deride others to make themselves look better in the eyes of their own followers. It is also a way to stop their own followers from reading other sects' works - because they have been pre-judged to be lack-luster - and thus keep the sect insular.

 

Sad. Very sad indeed, as quest for knowledge is the basis of all sanata-dharma thought. All sects start with a quest for knowledge - knowledge on devotion, or Vedas, or philosophy, etc. If the quest for knowledge is itself abandoned, the sect stops growing intellectually and the subsequent generation of followers find that they can only regurgitate the sayings of the masters of the past. They will be proud of this parroting! All of their practices will be mere imitationism too.

 

So the Tao, the equilibrium between religion and philosophy is lost. Rsis from yore had taught by smrti texts that everyone should seek after information from as many sources as possible. Than only can someone make the right choice and say - "Whilst I respect all the various philosophies, this darsana (philosophy of a particular path / sage / scripture) best suits my temperament and hence I will adopt that as my path."

 

[BDas 0]

Dear Satyaraj and all,

 

Satyaraj wrote: Whilst I respect all the various philosophies, this darsana (philosophy of a particular path / sage / scripture) best suits my temperament and hence I will adopt that as my path."

 

This is a very nice idea that may be difficult to put into practice. I think to do so means that we would have to add a tenor of respect and appreciation for others to our posts that so far seems to have eluded us. If we have some respect at heart it does not often come out in our posting interaction.

 

This is not only our problem but it is in essence "everyones" problem. A problem we should try to face and rectify as Gaudiya Vaisnavism and other religious philosophies come under more scrutiny in the modern information age. In this age philosophies can be examined in greater detail than was ever possible before. And we see that our own bold arrogant proclamations can be opposed and returned in kind.

 

In Gaudiya Vaisnavism we have a great philosophy and much to offer in the way of a path to realization. But it is not the only great philosophy or path. In our idea of "Rasa" we offer something different than the general concept of dwaita or adwaita. But to think we can literally crush dwaita or adwaita with our philosophy is in my view a misunderstanding. And neither will those philosophies be able to crush achintya beda abeda.

 

Scholars and laymen alike may argue philosophy but those who are not preoccupied with argument will simply move according to their faith and taste.

 

Therefore at this time I believe a new way to promote our concepts are in order, a way that does not insult or attack but rather draws one to the unique possibilities available in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. After all it was these "possibilities" and not arguments that Bhagavatam tells us drew Sukadeva from the adwaita conception.

 

And it is actually our sincere practice of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the form of hearing, chanting, etc (or the sincere practice of another path) that will draw us into the realizations available in our path. Those experiences and realizations are said to transport one beyond theological arguments and even beyond our own conceptions of what is rational and irrational.

 

Sincerely, BDas

 

[Guest guest]

Bdas: Dear Satyaraj and all,

 

Satyaraj wrote: Whilst I respect all the various philosophies, this darsana (philosophy of a particular path / sage / scripture) best suits my temperament and hence I will adopt that as my path."

 

This is a very nice idea that may be difficult to put into practice. I think to do so means that we would have to add a tenor of respect and appreciation for others to our posts that so far seems to have eluded us. If we have some respect at heart it does not often come out in our posting interaction.

 

Satyaraj: You are right in your premise. We are not perfect beings, we are seekers of the Ultimate Reality, Hari. Hari will reveal Himself as He wishes to, He is completely free. This is the essence of Sri Caitanya's realization on Siksastakam. And Mahaprabhu also has said that Hari will only reveals Himself to a humble heart, who respect everyone as part of Hari's lilas. At the same time this humility is a symptom of Hari's Grace. When Hari's Grace manifests itself, one sees no more difficulties to put this idea into practice, as it is natural to him.

 

Bdas: This is not only our problem but it is in essence "everyones" problem. A problem we should try to face and rectify as Gaudiya Vaisnavism and other religious philosophies come under more scrutiny in the modern information age. In this age philosophies can be examined in greater detail than was ever possible before. And we see that our own bold arrogant proclamations can be opposed and returned in kind.

 

Satyaraj:Gaudiya-vaisnavism does not need a rectification. It may be sweet or bitter according to our own previous tendencies. It is a particular path, it should be adopted by those whose temperaments suits to it, but we should consider that it is not an universal path. Hari has created it to help some of His beloved jivas, but it may be considered as a poison to some other jivas.

 

Bdas: In Gaudiya Vaisnavism we have a great philosophy and much to offer in the way of a path to realization. But it is not the only great philosophy or path. In our idea of "Rasa" we offer something different than the general concept of dwaita or adwaita. But to think we can literally crush dwaita or adwaita with our philosophy is in my view a misunderstanding. And neither will those philosophies be able to crush achintya beda abeda.

 

Satyaraj:The basic premise is always to remember Hari and never to forget Him. Undoubtedly 'rasa' theory is a very helpful instrument to always remember Hari, everyone can remember Hari in that way. No qualification or eligibility is needed. Advaita and dvaita paths are also very helpful instruments to always remember Hari. But one should have qualification for it. It is not an easy path. Hari is to be remembered by sruti statements that are absolute statements. Then it follows the inferences to these statements that are called smrti. Smrti should follow the essence of the sruti and never should deny it. In that way, one stays his whole lifetime remembering Hari and worshiping Him with his intelligence and knowledge. He is a lover too, not merely a jñani (see Gita 18.70). Hari is very very pleased with this effort. This lover is actually performing jñana-yajña, as he could understand the essence of sastra. This essence is merely ananya-bhakti to Hari here and hereafter, no matter if Hari reciprocates with him immediately or not. He will be there, nistha, fixed in his determination and lost in his love. This is Siksastakam too.

Bdas: Scholars and laymen alike may argue philosophy but those who are not preoccupied with argument will simply move according to their faith and taste.

 

Satyaraj:Philosophy is not to be argued, rather it is an instrument to worship Hari. One may find the Tao, the equilibrium between religion and philosophy, by thinking in that way.

 

Bdas: Therefore at this time I believe a new way to promote our concepts are in order, a way that does not insult or attack but rather draws one to the unique possibilities available in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. After all it was these "possibilities" and not arguments that Bhagavatam tells us drew Sukadeva from the adwaita conception.

 

Satyaraj: Actually Gaudiya-vaisnavas should avoid an insular position by rejecting all the other sanatana-dharma's views without even known them by themselves. Most are just parroting whatever they had heard from their preceptorial line. If one hear (read) to some commentaries on Bhagavata made by advaitavadis who are very sincere and exalted bhaktas such as Sri Vallabhacarya, he will see that according to these smrtis Sukadeva was never drew up from his advaita conception; rather he has increased it by speaking the Srimad Bhagavatam. Monism doesn't means only brahmavada.

 

Bdas: And it is actually our sincere practice of Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the form of hearing, chanting, etc (or the sincere practice of another path) that will draw us into the realizations available in our path. Those experiences and realizations are said to transport one beyond theological arguments and even beyond our own conceptions of what is rational and irrational.

 

Satyaraj:Yes, those experiences and realizations will ferry us to another shore. Will my Hari be there? My heart is longing to meet Him face to face!!!

 

yours

Satyaraj

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 07-07-2001).]

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Yes, those experiences and realizations will ferry us to another shore. Will my Hari be there? My heart is longing to meet Him face to face!!!

 

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

Satyaraj:

 

Actually we find a great difficulty to accept that Hari's soul (Radha) is something different than Hari Himself. This seems to deny sruti's assertive that there is not a second Hari. We cannot find any evidence in sruti mantras that Hari's saktis may have an independent will, or any independent activities, or that they are apart form Hari at any circumstance. This position is only supported by some smrtis on smrtis, that cannot be taken as serious.

 

While commenting the sruti mantra that states that the sun is Hari's sakti, Baladeva made a clear inference that other saktis may also exist. But not even Baladeva could go more far than this in the saktis' theology, as Vedanta's IV pada, adhikarana VII clear states that Brahman is both the operative and the material cause, refuting any other theory.

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

Satyaraj:

Actually we find a great difficulty to accept that Hari's soul (Radha) is something different than Hari Himself. This seems to deny sruti's assertive that there is not a second Hari. We cannot find any evidence in sruti mantras that Hari's saktis may have an independent will, or any independent activities, or that they are apart form Hari at any circumstance.......

If Satyaraja accepts

that Hari is All

It follows that Hari is

the ferry

the devotion

the waiting of Radha

and every shore

And also that

Hari is the Difference

between them All

 

 

[kailasa 0]

Hari bol, talasiga, you gandharva. Very Vell.

 

 

[vishal krishna das 0]

I agree,

 

Talasigaji

 

You Gandharva very well indeed!

[Guest guest]

Talasiga:

 

If Satyaraja accepts

that Hari is All

It follows that Hari is

the ferry

the devotion

the waiting of Radha

and every shore

And also that

Hari is the Difference

between them All

 

Satyaraj:

 

Indeed Talasigaji has a beautiful stile of debate. His smrtis are always flowery and sweet, and they should be appreciated with an special care because he knows sruti.

Therefore let's comment his smrti only to glorify Hari.

 

Sruti states that is nothing than Hari. So, Satyaraj should accept that 'Hari is All It follows that Hari is the ferry the devotion the waiting of Radha and every shore.'

 

But Vedanta's IV pada, adhikarana VII clearly states that Brahman is both the operative and the material cause of all things, refuting any other theory.

 

And Vedanta also clearly states that no theological arguments should be employed to explain Hari's activities that are all beyond reasoning faculties.

 

That's to say, the operative way cannot be established in terms of difference and non-difference even when they are placed simultaneously into the three phases of time.

 

Therefore Satyaraj would simply state that "Hari activities are Absolute' and not that 'Hari is the Difference between them All.'

 

[vishal krishna das 0]

Satyarajji,

 

I refer you to sutra 16 of the same adhikarana (vii, Pada iv) which follows the assertion of Brahman's being both material and operative cause "because of His making Himself so, and by modifying Himself into the universe". That is 'parinaamaat', self-modification, by which the one Hari becomes many, by His own sweet will, or as Talasiga eloquently puts it, by which 'He is the difference...'.

 

Indeed, Baladeva in his Govinda-bhasya commentary to this sutra says 'He is the operative cause through His power called the Paraa Shakti. He is the material cause through His other two Shaktis called the Aparaa Shakti and Avidyaa Shakti which work through the souls and matter.' Which Baladeva supports by reference to the Sruti:

 

'The one formless being, with his purposes hidden, who with various powers creates many forms...' (Svet.Up. iv.i.)