|
Post by vs on Jun 16, 2009 18:51:28 GMT -6
To your credit you white boys are not as dumb as you look, albeit some of you are more fashion and philosophically challenged than others. (The white women, they be mighty fine in my book.) Now when it comes to Dawkins and Bill Maher, they hardly need to be religious scholars to be adept at pointing out the religiulous nature of many an otherwise pious person. We need to be able to laugh at ourselves first. Then maybe we have some entitlement to laugh at others, or maybe not. Either way, it does get us into the territory of the uber-absurd, don't you think?
But putting all of that aside for the moment, this discussion has taking a fascinating turn with respect to the role of atheism in the world today. There are no doubt many flavors of it. Is it just another ism, or is there something much more profound going on? Is it another new age of enlightenment akin to the one that spawned the great European Renaissance? All good questions to ponder. I am not any Aristotle or Plato or Kant, not by a long shot. So, I won't even try to come up with some of the answers, but it is a good exercise for us to at least take our brains out for a jog once in a while and tackle the deeper musings of the CV writers of the past five centuries.So, continuing on from previous discussions, the essential question is; Is theism a pre-requisite for raganuga bhakti? Mind you, we are discussing raganuga bhakti, not vaidhi. Example; lets say an atheist becomes charmed upon hearing lila-katha and wants to practice the sadhan of raganuga as a sort of self-help modality (modality means a "model of possibility"). Who would tell them that they first have to believe in "God" or "Ishwar" or "Para-brahm"? Anyone? Can we get some references from BRS? "The white women, they be mighty fine in my book."And gopi-gana say, "once you go black, you never go back".
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 16, 2009 19:24:16 GMT -6
This is actually the situation I'm in.
No longer believe in God; still have a burning desire for rasa. What's up with that??
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 16, 2009 19:57:13 GMT -6
This is actually the situation I'm in. No longer believe in God; still have a burning desire for rasa. What's up with that?? Do you believe in love?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 16, 2009 23:38:50 GMT -6
So, continuing on from previous discussions, the essential question is;
Is theism a pre-requisite for raganuga bhakti?
Mind you, we are discussing raganuga bhakti, not vaidhi.
Example; lets say an atheist becomes charmed upon hearing lila-katha and wants to practice the sadhan of raganuga as a sort of self-help modality (modality means a "model of possibility").
Who would tell them that they first have to believe in "God" or "Ishwar" or "Para-brahm"?
Anyone?
Can we get some references from BRS?
"The white women, they be mighty fine in my book."
And gopi-gana say, "once you go black, you never go back".
Perhaps the best citation is: anyAbhilASitAzUnyam jJAnakarmAdyanAvRtam AnukUlyena kRSNAnu- zIlanam bhaktiruttamA The word anuzilana is especially interesting here. it is not what one would expect. It does not mean worship or bow to or submit to. It means something more like to remake oneself after Krsna, to make oneself more like Krsna, to repeatedly cultivate a relationship with Krsna in a way that pleases him (AnukUlyena). Also the part about such cultivation needing to be uncovered by knowledge, karmic or ritual action, and so forth, means certainly knowledge of his god-hood as one of the knowledges that need to be removed. To think of him as god impairs the cultivation, weakens it, hides it, turns it into something else. In addition, this business about being free of desire for anything other than Krsna also implies wanting just him and not his godly powers. It is much like Arjuna's wanting Krsna as his charioteer, but not his armies when he was given that choice in the Mahabharata. The highest bhakti is not influenced by the fact that he is god. It a-theistic, either unaware of his god-hood or completely unconcerned with it. So I would say no. An atheist does not first have to be directed to become theistic before he or she can cultivate bhakti. On the other hand, theists who want to cultivate bhakti need to be weaned, gently for sure, from their theism. It might turn out that the atheist is closer to the goal.She has already managed to unburden herself of the fear and trembling that often goes along with theism in its cruder forms.
|
|
subala
Junior Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by subala on Jun 17, 2009 3:40:13 GMT -6
Interesting question, and after thinking about it, I would say that it depends, as not everyone comes to bhakti at the same place.
Like Nitai says, utimatley, thesim has to be given up (unless one wants Vaikuntha).
When speaking with atheists I tell them that I too don't believe in the god that they don't believe in, which usually generates a laugh.
Theism puts limits on love, but love is limitless...
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 17, 2009 8:48:56 GMT -6
I still don't think atheists are closer to Krishna simply because of not fearing or not trembling before God. Actually, its hard to decide which of the two is less desirable: the fanatic fundamentalist or the over-confident repudiator. These are two extreme states which equally cause a distracting effect. The atheist has emerged again in the world today as a matter of fad, as if a newness. But the fact is, both forms of atheism 1. as a social phenomenon in history 2. as a state of consciousness in the individual, permanently take turns to emerge in the world. The ideal of course, as always, is the center, a state of being where the individual simultaneously is in awe of the Other as well as feels intimate enough to him/her as to influence his/her existence directly. This has been hinted at by Mahaprabhu by becoming human himself and showing how God, Krishna, and the jivas are dependent on one anther. There can NOT be prem without the object of prem, i.e., God, a human-like and yet sublime being whom we are perpetually intrigued by. Acincya-bedha-abheda. God has to be outside of human.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 17, 2009 9:27:47 GMT -6
I still don't think atheists are closer to Krishna simply because of not fearing or not trembling before God. Actually, its hard to decide which of the two is less desirable: the fanatic fundamentalist or the over-confident repudiator. These are two extreme states which equally cause a distracting effect. The atheist has emerged again in the world today as a matter of fad, as if a newness. But the fact is, both forms of atheism 1. as a social phenomenon in history 2. as a state of consciousness in the individual, permanently take turns to emerge in the world. The ideal of course, as always, is the center, a state of being where the individual simultaneously is in awe of the Other as well as feels intimate enough to him/her as to influence his/her existence directly. This has been hinted at by Mahaprabhu by becoming human himself and showing how God, Krishna, and the jivas are dependent on one anther. There can NOT be prem without the object of prem, i.e., God, a human-like and yet sublime being whom we are perpetually intrigued by. Acincya-bedha-abheda. God has to be outside of human. Well, we are close to agreement. I would urge that not all atheists are over-confident repudiators, just as all theists are not fanatic fundamentalists. We often err by making the extremes appear to be the mean or avarage. Most atheists are not activists like Dawkins and Hitchens and others. Most simply don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god who created everything. And why should they? He has hidden himself well behind the fundamental laws of nature. The only basis for belief in god is belief in the validity of somes ancient "revelation" supposedly recorded in some sacred text or another. And we know how bogus those all are. Yes, even the Bhagavata cannot be traced to earlier than about the 7th century CE. None of the arguments for the existence of god are worth a damn and the argument against god's existence, the argument from the existence of evil, is pretty powerful. Atheism is not a fad that rises and falls in time. It has always been with us. It was even present in ancient India. Atheism in its less extreme forms is really quite reasonable and sane. It is the result of the proper functioning of the unaided (natural) human faculty of reason and spirit of inquiry. One other small quibble. I dispute your statement: "There can NOT be prem without the object of prem, i.e., God." Once again God is not the object of prema, Krsna is. If there is any god-ness clinging to him then prema becomes severely retarded and diminished. Therefore, I don't think it is, strictly speaking, right to apply the word to love of God. Prema's true object is Radha and Krsna together, in flagrante delicto, if you will, or in other words, Gaura.
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 17, 2009 11:03:29 GMT -6
Well I did not present my case clearly enough still, it seems. My fault. I might not be able to after all, I am limited in my communication abilities.
But let me try still.
I said the same thing as you are saying: that atheism is always there in human society. But presently, it is manifesting as a 'new' fad, a sort of offshoot of newageism. The idea is catching on in a generic type of way, carelessly, like any superficial movement does, without a complete science about it. There is some value in the attempt, to be fair, but mostly its a sort of hysteria like any fad that comes and then subsides, leaving behind more material to be sort out than resolutions. In short, atheism is not new, so how is it that is brings humanity closer to Krishna? If you have the opportunity to exchange with brand-new Russian devotees, Russians who have just been "freed" of their atheist memes of three or so generations ago, you will see that these devotees have a good chance of becoming the most radical fundamentalists grabbers of another meme, i.e., 'Krishna Consciousness'. I have seen with my very eyes some such previous atheists demanding that their sidha deha work right, work as promised, work as if a well greased bolt purchased with legit Regime Vouchers, or else "we will march!"
Deeper thinkers (like yourself ;D) know that atheism is a constant in human society just as religiosity is. They are two sides of the same coin.
As for prem and Krishna/God, try to understand what I am saying: You cannot have prem for an ordinary jiva. It has to be for a being of other sort, and that being is Krishna. So he is not not God, abedha, but he is not just jiva either. So you have to have God in human-like state. But human-like still is not the same as just human. There has to be the inconceivable there. And that will always have to be named one way or other. God is just a word.
As for Mahaprabhu, um, did He really taste that Radha thingy or did his half-krishnaness got in the way? Just one more question.
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 17, 2009 12:14:01 GMT -6
This topic is covered in Raga Vartma Chandrika (Passion Path Moonbeam), written by Vishvanath Chakravarti.
In the Dwitiya Prakash (Second Illumination) section the issue of Krishna's sarva-gyata (all knowingness) and mugdhata (forgetfulness) raises the issue of Ishwar bhav in Krishna and aiswarya gyan, or aiswarya bhav (feelings of reverence for Krishna's power) in the parikara, or associate of Krishna.
Much is said there but for convenience I will leave this snippet.
........................Just as we must accept mugdhata in Dwarka lila despite the presence of sarva-gyata, similarly, in Vrindavan lila we are obliged to acknowledge Sri Krishna's omniscience brought about by his acyintya shakti, despite the presence of mugdhata. Lilashuka has explained in Krishna Karnamritam "We see that sarva-gyata and mugdhata co-exist in each and every one of Bhagavan's lilas."....................................................
the word used by Lilashuka is "sarvabhaumam", which indicates the Bhauma lilas, lilas on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 17, 2009 12:29:47 GMT -6
PS: of course the above was written for raganuga sadhaks. Naturally the Braj parikaras, whenever they saw a miraculous feat of Krishna taking place, attributed it to Nanda Baba's worship of Narayan and therefore Narayan, being pleased, must have temporarily empowered his little son, or to some other such outside influence, never that Krishna himself did it. He is just a powerless and cute little boy, of course. However, as sadhaks we are interested in reading books and understanding "siddhant", "tattva", etc and engaging in sadhan according to that siddhant. Therefore such books were written --for sadhaks. Now back to the atheist interested in adopting the practice of raganuga sadhan as their personal modality. Would you turn them onto books like Raga Vartma Chandrika which clearly assume Krishna not to be an ordinary jeev? And if not, how would they come to learn what raganuga sadhan bhakti is all about? What reading materials would you point them towards for understanding the sadhan? ayi sumukhi kadaham malati-keli-talpe madhura-madhura-goshthim bibhratim vallabhena manasija-sukhade 'smin mandire smera-gandam sa-pulaka-tanu-vesa tvam kada vijayami !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jun 17, 2009 15:31:06 GMT -6
I could well imagine someone relishing the narratives of Hari lila from a purely aesthetic view; the poetry, wit, phylosophy, and if there is any chance of understanding or devoloping a concept about the 'Almighty', what's the harm? But I remember a nice sadhu once say, ' It will be your relish that guides you', implying perhaps that the pleasure derived from the narratives resolves the doubts that impede deeper relish and understanding. If the concept of the Almighty, ie., Bhagavan, is one of predominent sweetness, then what would give rise to awefull reverance? I once read that when the Thousand-eyed apprached Govinda in repentance for his angry assault of Vraja, that Krsna dismissed the cowherds so that they would not be 'disturbed' by witnessing his aweful aspect. Well it struck me that the reason he dismissed his cowherd companions was simply to spare Indra the indignity and humiliation.
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jun 17, 2009 15:36:37 GMT -6
Could one say that the Vraja associates know well enough about Krsna's godhood, but care little for that in the exuberance of their love?
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jun 17, 2009 18:57:06 GMT -6
TS: As for prem and Krishna/God, try to understand what I am saying: You cannot have prem for an ordinary jiva. It has to be for a being of other sort, and that being is Krishna. So he is not not God, abedha, but he is not just jiva either. So you have to have God in human-like state. But human-like still is not the same as just human. There has to be the inconceivable there. And that will always have to be named one way or other. God is just a word.
I agree with you , completely
|
|
|
Post by Sakhicharan Das on Jun 17, 2009 22:34:17 GMT -6
As for prem and Krishna/God, try to understand what I am saying: You cannot have prem for an ordinary jiva. It has to be for a being of other sort, and that being is Krishna. So he is not not God, abedha, but he is not just jiva either. So you have to have God in human-like state. But human- like still is not the same as just human. There has to be the inconceivable there. And that will always have to be named one way or other. God is just a word. No prem for a jiva? Will I not have prem for my guru rUpA sakhI and my guru rUpA nAgarI, for example?
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jun 18, 2009 4:50:12 GMT -6
Probably Malati means a jiva as in one totally identified with the sixteen evolutes of Nature, I don't know. sama sarveSu bhUteSu in the Gita means to see all creatures as the same ( self ), which might imply to love the Almighty is to love all creatures. Let alone the guru any Vaisnava, almost by definition, is not deemed an ordinary jiva, at least in the scriptures.
|
|