|
Post by ST on Jun 18, 2009 5:02:49 GMT -6
Sakhicharan, Yes, you are correct, I mis-stated that, but somewhat on purpose. I intended to have completed the thought by adding, "one cannot have prem for another jiva without the consiouness of the other jiva's connection with God. In other words, its because of God that one loves other jivas, and its because of loving other jivas that one attracts the love of God. In fact, without loving other jivas one cannot know God at all. Its all interdependent. Thanks for noticing that one. Its a very important point.
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jun 18, 2009 5:02:49 GMT -6
Maybe not particularly relevant here, but here's a sloka from Yamunacarya,
namo namo vANmanasAtibhUmaye namo namo vANmanasaikabhUmaye/ namo namo'nantamahAvibhUtaye namo namo'nantadayaikasindhave//
I bow to thee, I bow to thee, boyond the reach of mind and speech; I bow to thee, I bow to thee, the singular object of mind and speech; I bow to thee, I bow to thee, of infinite great puissance; I bow to thee, I bow to thee, the boundless ocean of exclusive grace.
Stotraratna, 21.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 18, 2009 9:02:02 GMT -6
Sakhicharan, Yes, you are correct, I mis-stated that, but somewhat on purpose. I intended to have completed the thought by adding, "one cannot have prem for another jiva without the consiouness of the other jiva's connection with God. In other words, its because of God that one loves other jivas, and its because of loving other jivas that one attracts the love of God. In fact, without loving other jivas one cannot know God at all. Its all interdependent. Thanks for noticing that one. Its a very important point. So, let me get this straight. You have gone from saying "You cannot have prem for an ordinary jiva" to saying one can have prema for an ordinary living being. You're making this up as you go, aren't you? Of course, one can have prema for an ordinary living being. Prema is not defined by its object, but by its nature. Prema is love that is totally focused on pleasing the object of one's love and is different from kama which is focused on pleasing oneself by means of the object of one's love. A major difference between prema for a living being and prema for Krsna is the first is temporary because its object is temporary and the latter is permanent, but not just permanent, ever new and fresh, because the object of that prema is permanent and becomes ever new and fresh. I still insist that one cannot have prema for a god. That is to say, if one thinks of someone or some thing as a god or God, one cannot have prema for that person or thing. In CV, prema is viewed as the flowering of bhakti. When a god is involved, bhakti does not flower into prema or even bhava, for that matter. It remains just bhakti, not the uttama bhakti we saw in Rupa's definition of bhakti. Well, on second thought, what I just said is not exactly true. There is the path of vaidhi. Vaidhi is a kind of bhakti that runs parallel to raga bhakti. It develops its own bhava and prema that focus on Vaikunthanatha. It does not afford the kind of intimacy that the bhava and prema of raga-bhakti does. Still, it is fine, I suppose. Many are quite satisfied with that kind of love. One can see that in the examples of the pious love of the brahmana and of the South Indian king in Sanatana's BB. Okay, so now I have gone from saying that one cannot have prema for a God to saying one can have prema for a God. We are in the same boat. We are both making it up as we go.
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 18, 2009 9:55:27 GMT -6
No no Nitai, I did not made as I went, don't tease me like that. Please go back and read carefully and then concede to me that I corrected myself by adding the complementing part of my thought: I actually thanked Sakhicharan for having noticed it and added my actual belief which is that there is no getting to God without the association of other jivas; who are inspired by love. Love comes from love. I am a strong believer in guru and sadhu-sangha. This is why ideas such as Shiva's do not appeal to me at all. Or sometimes Toongavidya's, when she says that ultimately its between you and your istadeva. I don't believe that. I believe there some mystery to it in a good way, that we don't quite get how it is that God is in the jiva but yet is not. The three are required, oneself, Krishna/Radha, and guru. I know you don't like Srila Sridhara Maharaja, but he spoke of a land of gurus. We beg prem from everyone. And the closer we get, the more we see how we need other jivas.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 18, 2009 10:07:31 GMT -6
No no Nitai, I did not made as I went, don't tease me like that. Please go back and read carefully and then concede to me that I corrected myself by adding the complementing part of my thought: I actually thanked Sakhicharan for having noticed it and added my actual belief which is that there is no getting to God without the association of other jivas; who are inspired by love. Love comes from love. I am a strong believer in guru and sadhu-sangha. This is why ideas such as Shiva's do not appeal to me at all. Or sometimes Toongavidya's, when she says that ultimately its between you and your istadeva. I don't believe that. I believe there some mystery to it in a good way, that we don't quite get how it is that God is in the jiva but yet is not. The three are required, oneself, Krishna/Radha, and guru. I know you don't like Srila Sridhara Maharaja, but he spoke of a land of gurus. We beg prem from everyone. And the closer we get, the more we see how we need other jivas. Okay, ST, I concede that you corrected yourself, admitted a "mis-statement," and thanked Sakhi for his sharp catch. Yes, I am only teasing you. As always things are very complex. Every time one thinks one has it boiled down to a manageable statement the kettle spills over and things get messy again. Witness my own statement that one cannot have prema for a God. I caught myself on that one. You're right I don't like Sridhar Maharaj very much. He did make stuff up, but I am sure there is something of value to his teachings.
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 18, 2009 10:07:59 GMT -6
And Nitai, one aspect of bhakti does indeed not only allows, but requires that the bhakta makes it as he goes. After shedding rules and regulations, its all good in love. ;D Of course this type of conclusion has Advaitadas dying to break out of his box and come here quote some rigid shastra. But he can't come, what can be done...
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 18, 2009 10:18:44 GMT -6
And Nitai, one aspect of bhakti does indeed not only allows, but requires that the bhakta makes it as he goes. After shedding rules and regulations, its all good in love. ;D Of course this type of conclusion has Advaitadas dying to break out of his box and come here quote some rigid shastra. But he can't come, what can be done... Well, Advaitadas is always welcome anytime.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 18, 2009 10:26:28 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 Glad to see you are still mixing with us, Malati. I always value your input whether I agree with it not not.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 18, 2009 10:46:05 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. I don't think you have understood this passage correctly. Perhaps the translation is flawed or unclear. The question is about the state of Krsna during the Vrndavna lila not the state of the bhakta. No one ever suggested that Krsna loses his godhood during Vrndavana lila only that the bhaktas do not see it, or if they see it, they immediately find some other cause or forget it. Read the passage again. The question is: if Krsna is completely enchanted or bewildered by his sports with the gopis, who is receiving the services of other practitioners in other places? Who is listening to their prayers and praises? The answer is that he is both bewildered and all-knowing. This is true of Krsna without his companions in the lila, whether ragatmika or raganuga, knowing it.
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 18, 2009 12:41:51 GMT -6
The question is about the state of Krsna during the Vrndavna lila not the state of the bhakta.
Yeah, I know. That was my point - Braj parikaras never know that Krishna is Bhagavan. Sadhaks think he is though, until they stop thinking like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 17:00:39 GMT -6
No no Nitai, I did not made as I went, don't tease me like that. Please go back and read carefully and then concede to me that I corrected myself by adding the complementing part of my thought: I actually thanked Sakhicharan for having noticed it and added my actual belief which is that there is no getting to God without the association of other jivas; who are inspired by love. Love comes from love. I am a strong believer in guru and sadhu-sangha. This is why ideas such as Shiva's do not appeal to me at all. Or sometimes Toongavidya's, when she says that ultimately its between you and your istadeva. I don't believe that. I believe there some mystery to it in a good way, that we don't quite get how it is that God is in the jiva but yet is not. The three are required, oneself, Krishna/Radha, and guru. I know you don't like Srila Sridhara Maharaja, but he spoke of a land of gurus. We beg prem from everyone. And the closer we get, the more we see how we need other jivas. I think you misunderstand where I am coming from. Sridhar statement's about a land of gurus was talking about seeing God everywhere, not about having traditional sisya relationships with various gurus. This is the context of his land of gurus conception, from Chapter Eleven of Sri Guru & His Grace entitled The Land of GurusThat is what I have always said about guru tattva. As far as jivas having prema for other jivas: In bhakti-rasa theology prema is a very specific concept, it's not used as a simple synonym for the word love. That's why you don't see the word used to describe the love between jivas. It would probably be more accurate to ask if there is love between liberated jivas who take part in lila. Of course there is, although it is not the same type of love that is exchanged between the jiva and Bhagavan. To go even deeper we need to understand the difference between real lila and fictional lila (lila that is created to teach philosophical concepts, i.e. meant to aid in the elevation of baddha-jivas, e.g. traditional exoteric literal interpretations of Krishna lila). In real lila the jivas are fully self-realized. Therefore they understand that all jivas are without any independent motivation in their actions, words, emotions -- because they realize that paramatma controls all of those things. They are always fully aware of this conception: Because they understand the above ontological truth of existence -- that paramatma is controlling everyone -- therefore when dealing with anyone they understand that what those persons are saying, doing, feeling, is really a manifestation of Radha Krishna. They see everyone like the above sloka tells us. So, can there be love for a jiva when everything that the jiva is and is doing is actually seen by the jivanmukta as being under the control of and therefore a manifestation of Radha Krishna? Yes, but it is categorically different than prema. Prema is used to describe the stage after bhava-bhakti, it is the stage when the jivanmukta is given entrance into his/her eternal physical bhava with Radha Krishna. At the stage of bhava-bhakti the jiva has become jivanmukta, he has become fully self-realized, entered into full cognizance of the truth of reality and establishes his or her eternal bhava and rasa with Radha Krishna because they have been enabled to constantly commune and communicate with paramatma. When the jivanmukta in bhava-bhakti perfects that bhava and rasa -- then he or she is given a new body and enters into an eternal physical relationship with Radha Krishna -- that is what is described as prema-bhakti. At that stage the devotee's life is consumed with his or her relationship with Radha Krishna. Because they are fully cognizant of the ontological truths of reality, they see all jivas as vehicles for Radha Krishna to use to communicate with them -- e.g. land of gurus. They may feel love for other jivas, but that love is more familial than it is with Radha Krishna, since they see everyone as under the same control and therefore not the source of whatever they do or think. Prema involves pure cognizance of our true ontological relationship with Radha Krishna, e.g. bhedabheda-tattva, which we do not share with other jivas.
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jun 18, 2009 18:40:18 GMT -6
Nitaidasji:The question is about the state of Krsna during the Vrndavna lila not the state of the bhakta. No one ever suggested that Krsna loses his godhood during Vrndavana lila only that the bhaktas do not see it, or if they see it, they immediately find some other cause or forget it. Read the passage again. The question is: if Krsna is completely enchanted or bewildered by his sports with the gopis, who is receiving the services of other practitioners in other places? Who is listening to their prayers and praises? The answer is that he is both bewildered and all-knowing. This is true of Krsna without his companions in the lila, whether ragatmika or raganuga, knowing it.
Thanks, Nitai for clarifying this topic. I completely agree with your explanation.
Buddy:Because they understand the above ontological truth of existence -- that paramatma is controlling everyone -- therefore when dealing with anyone they understand that what those persons are saying, doing, feeling, is really a manifestation of Radha Krishna. They see everyone like the above sloka tells us.
So, can there be love for a jiva when everything that the jiva is and is doing is actually seen by the jivanmukta as being under the control of and therefore a manifestation of Radha Krishna? Yes, but it is categorically different than prema. Prema is used to describe the stage after bhava-bhakti, it is the stage when the jivanmukta is given entrance into his/her eternal physical bhava with Radha Krishna. At the stage of bhava-bhakti the jiva has become jivanmukta, he has become fully self-realized, entered into full cognizance of the truth of reality and establishes his or her eternal bhava and rasa with Radha Krishna because they have been enabled to constantly commune and communicate with paramatma.
When the jivanmukta in bhava-bhakti perfects that bhava and rasa -- then he or she is given a new body and enters into an eternal physical relationship with Radha Krishna -- that is what is described as prema-bhakti. At that stage the devotee's life is consumed with his or her relationship with Radha Krishna. Because they are fully cognizant of the ontological truths of reality, they see all jivas as vehicles for Radha Krishna to use to communicate with them -- e.g. land of gurus. They may feel love for other jivas, but that love is more familial than it is with Radha Krishna, since they see everyone as under the same control and therefore not the source of whatever they do or think. Prema involves pure cognizance of our true ontological relationship with Radha Krishna, e.g. bhedabheda-tattva, which we do not share with other jivas.
Buddy, Many truths in what you said. However, although I agree that paramatma who is antaryami is in control , how can one know if we are not deceiving ourselves, that what we are seeing is the real land of Vraj?
About cultivating bhava which will eventually lead us to our real siddhas dont you think a Guru more advanced than us who have "seen" the truth can see through a devotee and can see an identity suitable for the devotee? What I'm driving at is that the Guru can be a sort of a check and balance in guarding self-deception that may arise form one who is cultivating bhava.
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 18, 2009 21:34:58 GMT -6
Shiva, no one said anything about " having traditional sisya relationships with various gurus. Go back and read the post again, please, and see that such words were never said by anyone but yourself. Indeed, I had understood Srila Sridhara Maharaja's land of gurus statement since a long time ago in my life, without your help, to be sure. In fact, I think you are the one who does not get that statement, as you have proven by your speculative writings that you think a transcendetal relationship is to be had directly with Radharani, not even with Krishna, what to speak with jivas. Your perception of guru tattva goes like this: guru is like a boat which, once you have crossed the river of material existence on it, you leave behind on the bank of the river - there is no further use for it/him. In other words, guru for you is like an object to be used for a personal purpose. Thats not what land of gurus mean, not in a million years of your twisting and bending.
|
|
|
Post by VS on Jun 19, 2009 11:31:58 GMT -6
If you are reading this, stop, take 3 deep diaphramic breaths, slowly, hold, release, again. Contemplate the malati flowers in Sri Kishorijis tri-veni (braid). Perhaps she is even wearing a pair as earrings.... Its all good. Nitaidasji:''The question is about the state of Krsna during the Vrndavna lila not the state of the bhakta. No one ever suggested that Krsna loses his godhood during Vrndavana lila only that the bhaktas do not see it, or if they see it, they immediately find some other cause or forget it. Read the passage again. The question is: if Krsna is completely enchanted or bewildered by his sports with the gopis, who is receiving the services of other practitioners in other places? Who is listening to their prayers and praises? The answer is that he is both bewildered and all-knowing. This is true of Krsna without his companions in the lila, whether ragatmika or raganuga, knowing it.'' Malatiji: ''Thanks, Nitai for clarifying this topic. I completely agree with your explanation.'' What needed clarification? The topic here is whether or not theism is required for the practice of raganuga-sadhan. I quoted a piece from Raga Vartma Chandrika citing that whether or not a person knows Krishna is sarva-gyata (a sadhak) or a person does not know (a Braj parikara), nevertheless, according to Chakravartipada, he is sarva-gyata, which is a symptom of Ishwar or Bhagavan. (And at the same time he is mugdhata as well). In short yeah, Krishna is Bhagavan and one symptom of that is his sarva-gyata, whether we know it or not. That was the point. Further on (in the text of RVC) the question comes up who is hearing the prayers of the raganuga sadhak, and the issue of Paramatma comes up ( attn: Buddysattva) wherein Chakravartipada states that a raganuga sadhak could never be satisfied with Paramatma hearing her prayers because, in short, Paramatma is not rasik. Therefore it is Rasik-shekhar Brajendranandan Shyamsundar who hears the prayers of the raganuga sadhak. Nitai says that he does not feel it neccessary for an atheist to become a theist in order to practice raganuga sadhan, and my feeling was the same. However, in all of the writings concerning the practice of raganuga bhakti, concepts of Krishna's bhagavatva (god-hood, if you will), are laced throughout. Example: aradhyo bhagavan vrajesa-tanayas tad-dhama vrndavanam ramya kacid upasana vraja-vadhu-vargena va kalpita shastram bhagavatam pramanam amalam prema pum-artho mahan sri-caitanya mahaprabhor matam idam tatradarah na parah Aradhyo bhagavan? Therefore, it does appear that an atheist would indeed have to cross over to theism in order just to digest the literature, is it not? This, by the way, is not a rhetorical question for me. I have met people who are atheists and who are charmed by and interested in the concept of raganuga sadhan at the same time, therefore I was curious as to how some vaishnavas here would address that if it came up in their experience. vs: Therefore even the earliest scientists realized their limitations.Malati: That’s the whole point. You lost the debate. Sigh. What debate? Where was I debating - anything? Malati: I like reading debates.And you also like participating in debates where there are none either, appearantly. (A malati is a sweet, soft, fragrant flower that is priya to our Priyaji.) Malati: ''V Seminaraga: (The white women, they be mighty fine in my book.) I’ll take note of that!'' Take note as you like, sakhi, but the white women qoute was not from me, it was mojo/mofo/whoever. My view is: "once you go black you never go back" and "the blacker the berry the sweeter the juice".... ... Aradhyo bhagavati brajesh tanayaas tad dham radha kundam
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 19, 2009 12:31:09 GMT -6
If you are reading this, stop, take 3 deep diaphramic breaths, slowly, hold, release, again. Contemplate the malati flowers in Sri Kishorijis tri-veni (braid). Perhaps she is even wearing a pair as earrings.... Its all good. Nitaidasji:''The question is about the state of Krsna during the Vrndavna lila not the state of the bhakta. No one ever suggested that Krsna loses his godhood during Vrndavana lila only that the bhaktas do not see it, or if they see it, they immediately find some other cause or forget it. Read the passage again. The question is: if Krsna is completely enchanted or bewildered by his sports with the gopis, who is receiving the services of other practitioners in other places? Who is listening to their prayers and praises? The answer is that he is both bewildered and all-knowing. This is true of Krsna without his companions in the lila, whether ragatmika or raganuga, knowing it.'' Malatiji: ''Thanks, Nitai for clarifying this topic. I completely agree with your explanation.'' What needed clarification? The topic here is whether or not theism is required for the practice of raganuga-sadhan. I quoted a piece from Raga Vartma Chandrika citing that whether or not a person knows Krishna is sarva-gyata (a sadhak) or a person does not know (a Braj parikara), nevertheless, according to Chakravartipada, he is sarva-gyata, which is a symptom of Ishwar or Bhagavan. (And at the same time he is mugdhata as well). In short yeah, Krishna is Bhagavan and one symptom of that is his sarva-gyata, whether we know it or not. That was the point. Further on (in the text of RVC) the question comes up who is hearing the prayers of the raganuga sadhak, and the issue of Paramatma comes up ( attn: Buddysattva) wherein Chakravartipada states that a raganuga sadhak could never be satisfied with Paramatma hearing her prayers because, in short, Paramatma is not rasik. Therefore it is Rasik-shekhar Brajendranandan Shyamsundar who hears the prayers of the raganuga sadhak. Nitai says that he does not feel it neccessary for an atheist to become a theist in order to practice raganuga sadhan, and my feeling was the same. However, in all of the writings concerning the practice of raganuga bhakti, concepts of Krishna's bhagavatva (god-hood, if you will), are laced throughout. Example: aradhyo bhagavan vrajesa-tanayas tad-dhama vrndavanam ramya kacid upasana vraja-vadhu-vargena va kalpita shastram bhagavatam pramanam amalam prema pum-artho mahan sri-caitanya mahaprabhor matam idam tatradarah na parah Aradhyo bhagavan? Therefore, it does appear that an atheist would indeed have to cross over to theism in order just to digest the literature, is it not? This, by the way, is not a rhetorical question for me. I have met people who are atheists and who are charmed by and interested in the concept of raganuga sadhan at the same time, therefore I was curious as to how some vaishnavas here would address that if it came up in their experience. vs: Therefore even the earliest scientists realized their limitations.Malati: That’s the whole point. You lost the debate. Sigh. What debate? Where was I debating - anything? Malati: I like reading debates.And you also like participating in debates where there are none either, appearantly. (A malati is a sweet, soft, fragrant flower that is priya to our Priyaji.) Malati: ''V Seminaraga: (The white women, they be mighty fine in my book.) I’ll take note of that!'' Take note as you like, sakhi, but the white women qoute was not from me, it was mojo/mofo/whoever. My view is: "once you go black you never go back" and "the blacker the berry the sweeter the juice".... ... Aradhyo bhagavati brajesh tanayaas tad dham radha kundam Well I think we are perhaps dealing with a misunderstanding here. That passage had nothing to do with sadhakas or parikaras. It is about whether Krsna maintains his saravjnatva even when he is mugdha. It is a theological question not a question of sadhana (how we should look at him). Wait! I guess there is the question that might bother some sadhakas of who will receive their seva and prayers if Krsna is just deluded in love with Radha and the gopis. Still, if it's got nothing to do with the perspective of the sadhaka, why even cite it? Moreover, who says Bhagavan (Fortunate one, possessor of bhagas, etc) only means God? Also the word used is aradhya instead of pujaniya or arcaniya or yajaniya. I think that verse is rather light on god talk. My argument all along is not that it is better to be an atheist, although I tend to regard them as more honest, courageous and more intelligent than theists, but that we who want Krsna will at some point have to become like atheists in our efforts to become intimate companions of him/her. I suppose one can maintain some kind of theism as long as it is not directed at him/her. So we can pray to the goddess Katyayani to have Krsna as our husband (or as a manjari pray to Katyayani that he becomes Radhika's lover), but if we really thought that Krsna/Radha was the real source of Katyayani's power and in possession of limitless power and might how would we ever dare take an active role in bringing them together?
|
|