|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 5, 2009 11:55:33 GMT -6
Here is a nice little piece of Meister Eckhart that I discovered recently. It is from one of his German sermons: I have occasionally spoken of a light in the soul which is uncreated and uncreatable. I constantly return in my sermons to this light, which apprehends God without medium, without concealment and nakedly, just as he is in himself. Indeed, it apprehends him in the act of begetting. I can again say truthfully that this light has more unity with God than it does with any of the soul's faculties, although it coexists with these. For you should know that this light is not nobler in the being of my soul than the lowest or most basic faculty, such as hearing or sight or some other of the senses which fall victim to hunger or thirst, cold or heat. This is so because of the homogeneous nature of being. In so far as we take the soul's faculties in their being, they are all one and are equally noble. But if we take them according to their function, then one is far nobler and more elevated than another. Therefore I say that when we turn away from ourselves and from all created things, to that extent we are united and sanctified in the soul's spark, which is untouched by either space or time. That spark is opposed to all creatures and desires nothing but God, naked, just as he is in himself. He is not satisfied with the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit, nor with the three Persons together, as far as each exists in their particularity. I say truly that this light is not satisfied with the unity of the fertility of the divine nature. Indeed, I will say something that sounds even more astonishing: I declare by the good and eternal Truth that this light is not satisfied with the simple, still and divine being which neither gives nor takes, but rather it desires to know from where this being comes. It wants to penetrate to the simple ground, to the still desert, into which distinction never peeped, neither Father, Son nor Holy Spirit. There, in that most inward place, where everyone is a stranger, the light is satisfied and there it is more inward than it is in itself, for this ground is a simple stillness which is immovable in itself. But all things are moved by this immovability and all forms of life are conceived by it which, since they possess the light of reason, live of themselves. [Selected German Sermons, trans. Oliver Davies, p 135] So what can a Caitanyite make of this passage? In other sermons Eckhart talks about this light as a "power" that is present in the soul. For instance, he says: "I have said often enough that there is a power in the soul that is untouched by time and flesh p. 161, same trans.)." This reference to a power in the soul beyond time and flesh cannot help but remind us of the way in which Rupa talks about the suddha-sattva-vizesa which descends into the mind and unites with it in preparation for the experience of bhava and then when further development of rasa. This power, Kanupriya Goswami points out, is that very hladini-sakti that is when present in the mind or heart of the bhakta known as bhakti. That same power in connection with Sri Krsna produces bliss in him. It is the same power in two different contexts. As bhakti, it creates bliss in the heart of the bhakta by creating or manifesting as rasa and in the presence of Krsna it is manifested or exists as Sri Radhika. For Eckhart the main aspect of this power that he experienced is its light, that is to say, its ability to reveal God as he is in his nakedness. One of the ramifications of that revelatory power is that he was able to see beyond the Three Persons in Christianity to their source or substrate. The most poignant image for that substrate or ground that he arrived at is that of the desert into which distinction never peeps. This appears to be the first level of realization in CV, the realization of the impersonal absolute. But maybe Eckhart had some indication of something higher than even that, something not all that different from some of the madhurya understandings of CV, though not as highly developed. More on that another time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 4:40:53 GMT -6
Aha! So, Meister Ji may have been onto something... Very cool... Very Rasta...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 13, 2009 12:38:07 GMT -6
Here is another little piece from the Meister:
Augustine says: 'the whole of Scripture is in vain. If it is said that God is a word, then he is spoken, but if it is said that God is unspoken, then he is ineffable.' But God is something, yet who can speak this word? No one can but he who is the word. God is a word which speaks itself. Wherever he is, he speaks this word, and where he is not, he does not speak it. God is both spoken and unspoken. The Father is speaking work, and the Son is working speech. What is in me goes out of me: if I think something, then my speech reveals it and yet it remains within. In the same way the Father speaks the Son who remains unspoken and remains in him. I have said this repeatedly: God's going out is his coming in. The closer I am to God, the more he speaks himself to me. The more we rational creatures go out of ourselves in our works, the more we enter into ourselves. This is not the case with physical creatures (physical things?): the more they act, the more they go out of themselves. All creatures wish to speak God in all their works. They all speak as well as they can, but they cannot speak him. Whether they wish to or not, like it or not, even though they all want to speak God, he remains unspoken.
(Davies, p. 128)
So what do we have in this passage? Certainly not the madhuryatva I promised in another post. That will come later. But, there is some interesting reflections here about the relationship between God and language. The idea of God as a word that speaks itself for some reason put me in mind of the way the Vedas are regarded in India. They are said to be apauruseya, that is, not created or written or spoken by humans. They are in a sense words that speak themselves. Yet, something of God remains unspoken. Thus God is ineffable, in capable of being expressed in words.
Another striking sentence is "the closer I am to God the more he speaks himself in me." Any relationship between this an japa?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2009 5:10:57 GMT -6
If I can rewind this thread for a moment, trying to compare ISKCON to the Vaishnava community in India and its many diasporas is really a case of comparing jackfruits and mangoes, mon. ISK-CON has no cohesive community, being just a cult. Yeah, they tried their little experiment to create a new community, but it became more cult-like with each passing year. Without any cohesive community, they can't taste Rasta or rasa cause they have not the taste buds on their little culty tongues, mon. They just be dISKCONeccted.
Okay, mon, done w/me pulpit. Continue with the Ekhart discussion and ignore me (if you want).
|
|
|
|
Post by Amerika on May 17, 2009 8:55:19 GMT -6
I seriously doubt tasting rasta is even a consideration in ISKCON. Or in any Gaudiya group for that matter.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 17, 2009 13:29:59 GMT -6
If I can rewind this thread for a moment, trying to compare ISKCON to the Vaishnava community in India and its many diasporas is really a case of comparing jackfruits and mangoes, mon. ISK-CON has no cohesive community, being just a cult. Yeah, they tried their little experiment to create a new community, but it became more cult-like with each passing year. Without any cohesive community, they can't taste Rasta or rasa cause they have not the taste buds on their little culty tongues, mon. They just be dISKCONeccted. Okay, mon, done w/me pulpit. Continue with the Ekhart discussion and ignore me (if you want). The part of your comment about cohesion is true I guess. That is something others have said on this forum and I have no reason to disbelieve them. I don't pay any attention to IGM any more. The business about its being a cult is problematic, though bro. What do you mean by "cult?" If you mean that they (IGM) are small closed groups of rather fanatical followers of a leader with a strong, if not overpowering, personality, then that could be said of early Christianity, early Islam, and even Sri Caitanya and his immediate followers. Such "cults" sometimes become vast and powerful religious traditions. Mostly they die quick deaths, though. This is the problem of the institutionalization of charisma. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. This is the problem with using vague, pejorative terms like "cult" to dismiss a new religion or sect. The real question is has charisma successfully been transferred to anyone from the succeeding generation. We can see that that was successfully done in early Caitanya Vaisnavism. It was transferred to Nityananda Prabhu, Sri Advaitacarya, the six Gosvamins, Ma Jahnava, and many others. To a certain degree the transmission of mantra is a part of the transmission of charisma. Not the only part, but an important part. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 17, 2009 13:34:18 GMT -6
I seriously doubt tasting rasta is even a consideration in ISKCON. Or in any Gaudiya group for that matter. What does that even mean? Tasting Rasta? Sounds rather cannibalistic to me. Surely mojo jests. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2009 15:41:10 GMT -6
If I can rewind this thread for a moment, trying to compare ISKCON to the Vaishnava community in India and its many diasporas is really a case of comparing jackfruits and mangoes, mon. ISK-CON has no cohesive community, being just a cult. Yeah, they tried their little experiment to create a new community, but it became more cult-like with each passing year. Without any cohesive community, they can't taste Rasta or rasa cause they have not the taste buds on their little culty tongues, mon. They just be dISKCONeccted. Okay, mon, done w/me pulpit. Continue with the Ekhart discussion and ignore me (if you want). The part of your comment about cohesion is true I guess. That is something others have said on this forum and I have no reason to disbelieve them. I don't pay any attention to IGM any more. The business about its being a cult is problematic, though bro. What do you mean by "cult?" If you mean that they (IGM) are small closed groups of rather fanatical followers of a leader with a strong, if not overpowering, personality, then that could be said of early Christianity, early Islam, and even Sri Caitanya and his immediate followers. Such "cults" sometimes become vast and powerful religious traditions. Mostly they die quick deaths, though. This is the problem of the institutionalization of charisma. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. This is the problem with using vague, pejorative terms like "cult" to dismiss a new religion or sect. The real question is has charisma successfully been transferred to anyone from the succeeding generation. We can see that that was successfully done in early Caitanya Vaisnavism. It was transferred to Nityananda Prabhu, Sri Advaitacarya, the six Gosvamins, Ma Jahnava, and many others. To a certain degree the transmission of mantra is a part of the transmission of charisma. Not the only part, but an important part. The word or concept of a cult can have different meanings and cults can vary widely in how they function. They can be harmless and fun, or they can be harmful and distressing, or any combination thereof. Harmful cults are the ones that teach people they need to submit to the cult and it's leader or leaders; or you will suffer the wrath of God. ISKCON does that. Harmful cults teach that the society outside of the cult is dangerous and evil. And, if not avoided and renounced enough to the liking of the leaders -- you will be punished by the cult leaders. You are also led to believe that God will punish you as well. ISKCON does that. Harmful cults teach people they should sacrifice their own happiness or pleasure seeking for the benefit of the leaders; or God will punish them. If they don't then the leaders will punish them. ISKCON does that. Harmful cults have authoritarian dictatorial social structures where the leaders exercise totalitarian control with the fear of the wrath of God as the basis of their power over others. ISKCON does that. Charisma is a quality of a person. You can't transfer that to another person anymore than you can transfer a person's musical talent to another person. You can teach a person how to play music, but that talent they learn is their own talent which comes from their own experience. Charisma isn't something which can simply be given to someone else as you would give someone a mantra. The Caitanya Vaisnava sampradaya is not about transference of charisma; it's about transference of teachings. Just like music teachers cannot transfer their ability to play, rather they teach others how to develop their own ability to play. That doesn't mean that people won't try to routinize charisma through an organization or even by themselves. I think we see this happening in Caitanya Vaisnavism quite profusely since the start of ISKCON. It's common for ISKCON believers and followers to believe in the conception where a person or group's charisma is dependent on the charisma of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. They believe and teach that to the degree you follow him, to that degree you will have his charisma transferred to you. But, that's not how it works. We don't see any of his followers have anywhere near the impact he had even though they may have been strictly following his teachings for over 40 years. Charisma is a god-given quality from within, it's not something that comes from outside ourselves. Even then charisma is not necessarily a good or positive thing. Lot's of people have charisma but use it for less than noble intentions. Many politicians, salesmen, religious leaders, etc, attract people due to their charisma; even though they have self-centered, selfish, or even hateful motivations. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 18, 2009 21:46:13 GMT -6
Thanks for your reflections on this, buddy. I still think the word "cult" is problematic. Take a common definition of cult, for instance:
A system of intense religious veneration of a particular
person, idea, or object, especially one considered
spurious or irrational by traditional religious bodies;
as, the Moonie cult.
It is the "especially one considered spurious or irrational by traditional religious bodies" that I think is the operative phrase here. It is the traditional religious bodies, themselves quite spurious and irrational, that point the finger and say "cult." In other words, cults are the loudest and most virulent opponents of other cults. They can't stand the competition. Which is to say that I don't think it is a very useful way of referring to a religious tradition. It is primarily a put down, a demonization. No consideration is given to the teachings and practices. My problem with IGM is that I don't think they contain the truth. They are a cheap, made-in-China knock off of Caitanya Vaisnavism. China makes some good products and when they are presented as Chinese products there is no problem. But when one thinks one is buying a fine name brand product and then finds out that it is an imitation made cheaply and with substandard materials in China, there is a problem.
On the other hand, if Prabhupadism makes someone happy, who am I to raise an objection? The hopes and aspirations instilled in me by my Gurudeva and guru-bhais make me happy. If someone else is made happy by similar hopes and aspirations derived from another source, how can I complain?
The real problem is as Eckhart indicates when he says: "True and perfect obedience is a virtue above all virtues, and there is no work, however great it may be, that can take place or be performed without this virtue, and even the very least of works, whether it be saying or listening to Mass, praying, meditating, or whatever you can think of, is more usefully done when it is performed in true obedience." (The Talks of Instruction, Davies trans., 3)
This is a hard and yet unavoidable lesson to learn. Obedience is from your point of view only a cultish demand. I suspect it is more than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 18, 2009 22:03:35 GMT -6
Charisma is not, as I see it, an actual quality belonging to a person or a gift from God to that person or this person. It is a quality that we impose upon persons. That is how it can be communicated from one person to the next. The charisma of the Gosvamins is due to their close association with Sri Caitanya, an association that is clearly in our view. The charisma of Sri Caitanya is the result of our developing or "catching" faith in his divine and highly rasika status. In other words, charisma is in the eye of the beholder and is communicated to other beholders by memes, i.e., imitation. Then whatever a leader does or says, no matter how trivial or even foolish, is regarded as charismatic. Moreover, the object of that vision, the one whom we color with charisma, is changed as well. How can one not be? One begins to think of oneself as "special." In some cases, even the radical denial of being in any way special is regarded as clear evidence that someone is special. Once one is in that maze, there is no way out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2009 23:56:35 GMT -6
Charisma is not, as I see it, an actual quality belonging to a person or a gift from God to that person or this person. It is a quality that we impose upon persons. That is how it can be communicated from one person to the next. The charisma of the Gosvamins is due to their close association with Sri Caitanya, an association that is clearly in our view. The charisma of Sri Caitanya is the result of our developing or "catching" faith in his divine and highly rasika status. In other words, charisma is in the eye of the beholder and is communicated to other beholders by memes, i.e., imitation. Then whatever a leader does or says, no matter how trivial or even foolish, is regarded as charismatic. Moreover, the object of that vision, the one whom we color with charisma, is changed as well. How can one not be? One begins to think of oneself as "special." In some cases, even the radical denial of being in any way special is regarded as clear evidence that someone is special. Once one is in that maze, there is no way out. Charisma is generally given two distinct definitions. One is personal magnetism and charm with the ability to convince others that you are special, even without trying. That was how I was defining charisma vis-a-vis Caitanya Vaisnavism. An example is Obama or Hitler. What you are describing is different than that, it's another definition of charisma: faith based charisma. Faith based charisma is based upon the belief that someone and their teachings are empowered by God. Someone can say or do any stupid thing and still have that type of charisma because it is based upon the faith of the people who have faith. An example is any religious leader who inspires devotion to them based upon their perceived authority given them by God. These are two very different things and probably it would be better if they were defined with different words. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2009 0:15:14 GMT -6
Thanks for your reflections on this, buddy. I still think the word "cult" is problematic. Take a common definition of cult, for instance: A system of intense religious veneration of a particular person, idea, or object, especially one considered spurious or irrational by traditional religious bodies; as, the Moonie cult. It is the "especially one considered spurious or irrational by traditional religious bodies" that I think is the operative phrase here. It is the traditional religious bodies, themselves quite spurious and irrational, that point the finger and say "cult." In other words, cults are the loudest and most virulent opponents of other cults. They can't stand the competition. Which is to say that I don't think it is a very useful way of referring to a religious tradition. It is primarily a put down, a demonization. No consideration is given to the teachings and practices. My problem with IGM is that I don't think they contain the truth. They are a cheap, made-in-China knock off of Caitanya Vaisnavism. China makes some good products and when they are presented as Chinese products there is no problem. But when one thinks one is buying a fine name brand product and then finds out that it is an imitation made cheaply and with substandard materials in China, there is a problem. On the other hand, if Prabhupadism makes someone happy, who am I to raise an objection? The hopes and aspirations instilled in me by my Gurudeva and guru-bhais make me happy. If someone else is made happy by similar hopes and aspirations derived from another source, how can I complain? The real problem is as Eckhart indicates when he says: "True and perfect obedience is a virtue above all virtues, and there is no work, however great it may be, that can take place or be performed without this virtue, and even the very least of works, whether it be saying or listening to Mass, praying, meditating, or whatever you can think of, is more usefully done when it is performed in true obedience." (The Talks of Instruction, Davies trans., 3) This is a hard and yet unavoidable lesson to learn. Obedience is from your point of view only a cultish demand. I suspect it is more than that. I explained how the word cult in and of itself isn't a bad thing, in it's literal sense it just means devotion to something. But there is a generally accepted definition of a harmful cult among scholars which is based upon dis-empowering the individual in the pursuit of exploitation based upon faith based coercion. The difference between the Moonies and ISKCON with the Church of England or Methodists or mainstream Judaism is that ISKCON and the Moonies try to convince everyone that they absolutely need to give up all other pursuits in life save for total submissive service to the guru or Rev. Moon, whereas those mainstream religions don't. Their religious cultures are more about self-empowerment through ethical, moral and spiritual growth. There are other differences as well that have to do with what I already said. Of course what you say is also correct in that people use cult pejoratively. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 19, 2009 9:20:35 GMT -6
Charisma is not, as I see it, an actual quality belonging to a person or a gift from God to that person or this person. It is a quality that we impose upon persons. That is how it can be communicated from one person to the next. The charisma of the Gosvamins is due to their close association with Sri Caitanya, an association that is clearly in our view. The charisma of Sri Caitanya is the result of our developing or "catching" faith in his divine and highly rasika status. In other words, charisma is in the eye of the beholder and is communicated to other beholders by memes, i.e., imitation. Then whatever a leader does or says, no matter how trivial or even foolish, is regarded as charismatic. Moreover, the object of that vision, the one whom we color with charisma, is changed as well. How can one not be? One begins to think of oneself as "special." In some cases, even the radical denial of being in any way special is regarded as clear evidence that someone is special. Once one is in that maze, there is no way out. Charisma is generally given two distinct definitions. One is personal magnetism and charm with the ability to convince others that you are special, even without trying. That was how I was defining charisma vis-a-vis Caitanya Vaisnavism. An example is Obama or Hitler. What you are describing is different than that, it's another definition of charisma: faith based charisma. Faith based charisma is based upon the belief that someone and their teachings are empowered by God. Someone can say or do any stupid thing and still have that type of charisma because it is based upon the faith of the people who have faith. An example is any religious leader who inspires devotion to them based upon their perceived authority given them by God. These are two very different things and probably it would be better if they were defined with different words. I suspect that charisma is a function of the operation of both processes. There is something about the person that invokes awe and respect and there is something about the observer that has been prepared to respond to that. I remember back to my days in the Boulder Temple. I was prepared for months by the other devotees in the temple to respond with awe and reverence to Bhaktivedanta. Naturally, when I finally met him, I did. He could have farted and i would have sworn it smelled of roses. There was also a personal connection that was pushed. I dreamed of him one night when I was a lowly brahmacari in Boulder and everyone assured me that it was really him welcoming me in my dreams. It was an attractive interpretation that I wanted to believe. I suspect it takes both the objective and subjective dimensions of charisma to create the full effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 19, 2009 9:38:37 GMT -6
Thanks for your reflections on this, buddy. I still think the word "cult" is problematic. Take a common definition of cult, for instance: A system of intense religious veneration of a particular person, idea, or object, especially one considered spurious or irrational by traditional religious bodies; as, the Moonie cult. It is the "especially one considered spurious or irrational by traditional religious bodies" that I think is the operative phrase here. It is the traditional religious bodies, themselves quite spurious and irrational, that point the finger and say "cult." In other words, cults are the loudest and most virulent opponents of other cults. They can't stand the competition. Which is to say that I don't think it is a very useful way of referring to a religious tradition. It is primarily a put down, a demonization. No consideration is given to the teachings and practices. My problem with IGM is that I don't think they contain the truth. They are a cheap, made-in-China knock off of Caitanya Vaisnavism. China makes some good products and when they are presented as Chinese products there is no problem. But when one thinks one is buying a fine name brand product and then finds out that it is an imitation made cheaply and with substandard materials in China, there is a problem. On the other hand, if Prabhupadism makes someone happy, who am I to raise an objection? The hopes and aspirations instilled in me by my Gurudeva and guru-bhais make me happy. If someone else is made happy by similar hopes and aspirations derived from another source, how can I complain? The real problem is as Eckhart indicates when he says: "True and perfect obedience is a virtue above all virtues, and there is no work, however great it may be, that can take place or be performed without this virtue, and even the very least of works, whether it be saying or listening to Mass, praying, meditating, or whatever you can think of, is more usefully done when it is performed in true obedience." (The Talks of Instruction, Davies trans., 3) This is a hard and yet unavoidable lesson to learn. Obedience is from your point of view only a cultish demand. I suspect it is more than that. I explained how the word cult in and of itself isn't a bad thing, in it's literal sense it just means devotion to something. But there is a generally accepted definition of a harmful cult among scholars which is based upon dis-empowering the individual in the pursuit of exploitation based upon faith based coercion. The difference between the Moonies and ISKCON with the Church of England or Methodists or mainstream Judaism is that ISKCON and the Moonies try to convince everyone that they absolutely need to give up all other pursuits in life save for total submissive service to the guru or Rev. Moon, whereas those mainstream religions don't. Their religious cultures are more about self-empowerment through ethical, moral and spiritual growth. There are other differences as well that have to do with what I already said. Of course what you say is also correct in that people use cult pejoratively. Here too I think it is a matter of degree. The Church of England can bring to bear forces of ostracization and social control just as the Moonies can. With a big organization it is more difficult, however. Cults are just young or foreign religions, some of which will grow to maturity in their new environments and some will not. The same or similar forces operate in both, with greater or lesser efficiency. But my main point was that dismissal by reason of cultishness is not a very effective way of critiquing a religious group or movement. Being asked for obedience to the guru or the church is a common trait of religious groups, which is why I quote Eckhart. For me that typifies the religious frame of mind. As he says: "one should empty oneself completely so that God can fill one completely." If we want to keep our own wills, we are on our own. |
|
|
|
Post by OBrian on May 19, 2009 10:55:17 GMT -6
Nice handling Nitai, I am happy to see someone handling Shiva/Vrajabhumi smoothly but to the point, giving him/her that much needed wake up call of her own. S/he wants the kingdom of God without God. S/he wants to play without sharing. Not possible.
|
|
