|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Dec 21, 2010 22:18:47 GMT -6
Everything is faith based. Faith in our own experience through the medium/ senses we use and then we can have faith in somebody. Beleive that they are right. But who knows? Someone who has been right all his/ her life can make a mistake in the end. Ooops, wrong visions, conclusions, path...
2 cents (probably less than that)
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 22, 2010 12:56:40 GMT -6
Everything is faith based. Faith in our own experience through the medium/ senses we use and then we can have faith in somebody. Beleive that they are right. But who knows? Someone who has been right all his/ her life can make a mistake in the end. Ooops, wrong visions, conclusions, path... 2 cents (probably less than that) Depends on what you mean by "faith." I agree with Chris Hitchens when he regards "persons of faith" as fools. According to him a person of faith is someone who thinks something is true on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. The problem with this is that faith is rarely that kind of faith. Faith is usually based on some evidence, however bad that evidence may be. So faith is generally not without any kind of supporting evidence. Rather. it is generally based on some kind of evidence: a respected book, the word of a respected person, one's own experiences, or even one's own whims. If the evidence is weak or slim the faith will likely get one into trouble. If the faith is based on strong or good evidence, it will serve one well. So faith as I see it is a willingness to accept certain things as true or as sources of truth. So why do we accept certain things and not other things to be true or to be sources of truth? |
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Dec 22, 2010 18:44:26 GMT -6
So why do we accept certain things and not other things to be true or to be sources of truth? That always puzzles me. Or on what basis do we choose a "philosophy" or a guru for instance? Most people would say, it feels right. Then I ask where that feeling comes from. Intuition. Where does that intuition comes from? No reply. If it comes from a previous life, do I have to accept that in this life? I might have been (and probably was) a stupid yokel. So now I have to follow my intuition that was formed by being a yokel? And if you don't believe in reincarnation the question is totally beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Dec 23, 2010 2:26:33 GMT -6
"So faith as I see it is a willingness to accept certain things as true or as sources of truth. So why do we accept certain things and not other things to be true or to be sources of truth?"
I am not sure how much is it willingness rather than a basic need or a quality in us that in certain way and with some strenght forces us to submit to the expereinces of our own, or others, to accept them as valuble for our own advancement in achieving personal goals or maintaining the status we achieved. That brings me to your questions. I would say it is based on our own desires and how we would like to see things in us, in the world, in others... That leads us to verify our own thinking and of others through experience and practice just to come to a conclusion if it's real or not, truth or lies. There is also another thing, some things are real as they exist, while others are conceptual and symbolic and only exist within the realm of ideas, not in reality. So that might be one of the answers how and why we accept some things to be true/ sources of truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by malatimanjari on Dec 23, 2010 10:06:44 GMT -6
Faith seems to be very much fed by samskaras (or previous lives, you may say). One person immediately has faith in an object, a concept or a person because it triggers a positive samskara. Buddhi then filters all experiences so that they fit the conception which has been invested with faith.
It seems to me the question about faith is related to the issue of kartritva and bhoktritva which I have been pondering about for some time. If the agency is located in buddhi, as Samkhya and the Puranas claim, then since buddhi is part of prakriti, and prakriti is Krishna’s energy, what follows is that ultimately Krishna really IS the doer and everything is his lila. That means even e.g. the act of surrender has nothing to do with the atman, but only with pracritic buddhi, which ultimately is Krishna. So having faith an Krishna or attaing the mercy of devotees is also nothing but Krishna acting and deciding for Himself whom to favor, and the atman is only witnessing how this is happening.
At the same time least as I understand the Gita also says that the potential is in the I. It is the purusha who it is the ultimate agency and cause for action, and the one who thinks (kartAham iti manyate). How we act depends on our consciousness which manifests through the mind. The ultimate responsibility is with the soul (nAdatte kasyacid pApam, BG 5.15.).
So I find it a little difficult to reconcile these two perspectives. Is acintya-bheda-abheda the only explanation for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Dec 23, 2010 11:08:39 GMT -6
If the agency is located in buddhi, as Samkhya and the Puranas claim, then since buddhi is part of prakriti, and prakriti is Krishna’s energy, what follows is that ultimately Krishna really IS the doer and everything is his lila. Here you seem to be saying: Krishna = prakriti. Of course that is possible ( vasudevah sarvam iti) but then you get into the kind of sentences like "all is one" that don't really say all that much. Wasn't buddhi a function of Balarama? |
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Dec 23, 2010 14:37:10 GMT -6
Faith seems to be very much fed by samskaras (or previous lives, you may say). One person immediately has faith in an object, a concept or a person because it triggers a positive samskara. Buddhi then filters all experiences so that they fit the conception which has been invested with faith. It seems to me the question about faith is related to the issue of kartritva and bhoktritva which I have been pondering about for some time. If the agency is located in buddhi, as Samkhya and the Puranas claim, then since buddhi is part of prakriti, and prakriti is Krishna’s energy, what follows is that ultimately Krishna really IS the doer and everything is his lila. That means even e.g. the act of surrender has nothing to do with the atman, but only with pracritic buddhi, which ultimately is Krishna. So having faith an Krishna or attaing the mercy of devotees is also nothing but Krishna acting and deciding for Himself whom to favor, and the atman is only witnessing how this is happening. At the same time least as I understand the Gita also says that the potential is in the I. It is the purusha who it is the ultimate agency and cause for action, and the one who thinks (kartAham iti manyate). How we act depends on our consciousness which manifests through the mind. The ultimate responsibility is with the soul (nAdatte kasyacid pApam, BG 5.15.). So I find it a little difficult to reconcile these two perspectives. Is acintya-bheda-abheda the only explanation for this? I'm not sure what has to be reconciled here. It is a relationship between two personalities, or more. Each stands in his/her own position and moves toward another one as desired. I don't have the experience of buddhi being involved in making all the decisions of what is good or bad, just because in some cases it doesn't get to that point. Prior to buddhi coming into play there are couple of other layers which can instantly accept or reject the stimuli which comes to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 24, 2010 13:21:01 GMT -6
The samskaras and vasanas do major service in the psychology of CV and of Hindu culture in general. They also account for aesthetic experience. Again I refer everyone to the first chapter of Sri Kanupriya Goswami's little book on sadhu-sanga which I am preparing for publication. He discusses there the different kinds of faith, guna-influenced faith and nirguna faith. There he says that the only way to get nirguna faith which leads to nirguna bhakti is through sadhu-sanga. He cites some good evidence from the relevant scriptures. There are problems and questions with his discussion as we have mentioned before. But the typical learned Hindu response to the question I asked about what inclines us to accept certain things and reject others is the influence of the samskaras which are also referred to as vasanas. These are deep impression left from past experiences that were either pleasant or painful and in the present birth or situation are translated into likes or dislikes. That is, they shape the realm of our desires. These are the things that sadhana cleanses away and replaces with the nirguna samskaras that support and strengthen the bhakti rasa experience (see Sri Rupa at Brs 2.1.6).
So is not the the fact that we were idiots in our past lives that gets translated into this life but the qualities of our experiences. If they were bad we are reluctant to relive them if they were good we are inclined to indulge them again. If somehow we managed to cross paths with a real sadhu, the seed of nirguna bhakti in the form of a nirguna samskara is sown. That manifests by being attracted to bhakti in this life. Can this sort of view of the nature of things continue to satisfy us in our modern contexts?
Anyway, for those of you who haven't yet done it, read the first chapter (at least) of Sri Kanupriya Goswami's book which is available in the Modern Caitanyite Literature section of this forum. Let us continue this discussion after that.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Dec 24, 2010 15:09:22 GMT -6
Just finished reading the first chapter. Have to admit that it is realy not new for me as other sadhus have explained the same things and he does quote Sri Rupa Goswami. Sri Vishvanata Cakravarti Thakur has explained that all people are made of faith and flows along the lines of the threaded and non-threaded faith as explained in the first chapter. So, the faith is intrinsic to us as even the most sceptical person has faith in his/her own conclusions. I understood, not long ago, that without proper association with saintly persons, chance of obtaining bhakti is next to zero. Same applies to faith in bhakti practices. But, bhakti being as she is, has ingrained herself in everything, from the smallest atoms of all creations to their infinite realms. How can anyone realy acomplosh anything without bhakti?
My question is, how modern present times realy are?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 24, 2010 22:23:47 GMT -6
Just finished reading the first chapter. Have to admit that it is realy not new for me as other sadhus have explained the same things and he does quote Sri Rupa Goswami. Sri Vishvanata Cakravarti Thakur has explained that all people are made of faith and flows along the lines of the threaded and non-threaded faith as explained in the first chapter. So, the faith is intrinsic to us as even the most sceptical person has faith in his/her own conclusions. I understood, not long ago, that without proper association with saintly persons, chance of obtaining bhakti is next to zero. Same applies to faith in bhakti practices. But, bhakti being as she is, has ingrained herself in everything, from the smallest atoms of all creations to their infinite realms. How can anyone realy acomplosh anything without bhakti? My question is, how modern present times realy are? Well, sorry you didn't find it illuminating. I think his presentation is exceptionally clear. But no one else seems impressed. As for faith, again not to sound like a broken record but it depends on what you mean by it. Not everyone has faith in their own conclusions. Not all faiths are equal. The faith of a skeptic is not to accept anything on faith alone. One is a skeptic because one does not trust oneself or others to be free from error. A skeptic always demands proof for any claim he or she is presented with. If no proof is presented then the claim is rejected or at least put on hold until proof can be found. You might claim that the faith of the skeptic is the belief that all worthwhile claims or propositions must be provable. But even that must be proven and it is proven in the very fact that one who sticks to that principle discovers that it works. Moreover, that is how we all operate whether we recognize it or not. Nobody but a fool takes something as true without any proof. As far as bhakti is concerned, again it is a matter of what one means by it. From its root, bhakti means to partake in something or to be a part of. Thus, it is true that bhakti extends throughout cosmos since everything is a part of the cosmos. But, is that really what we mean by bhakti in this context? Kanupriya's point, which comes out later, is that bhakti is really the hladini-sakti. When it is in Krsna, he feels great joy and it is called the hladini-sakti, but when it is in a bhakta it is also great pleasure and it is called bhakti. The present is by definition modern. Can anyone who was raised in this scientifically and technologically advanced world buy any of this sadhu-sanga and guna stuff any more? Why should sadhu-sanga be considered special? It may have worked well in the days before science to have looked at things in this way because then not much was known and even less was demanded of knowledge. But, now that we can peer deeply into and out of the world we see that there is nothing at all that corresponds to the three guna and that as an interpretation of the nature of reality it no longer serves any useful purpose. Even the energies cannot be distinguished. One would think that there would be a difference between the bahiranga and the antaranga sakti, but no difference can be perceived. This is the modern condition. |
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Dec 25, 2010 9:41:24 GMT -6
Sorry, but I have a very hard time reading a text with words like “thread-induced faith” , “thread-free bhakti” or "thread-bound object". Also the translation of the three gunas with transparency, translucency and opacity I don't find very illuminating. And combined with "thread" you get a mixed metaphor. I apologize for being so critical, I'm sure you thought about these translations a long time, but I'm just not happy with them. I usually explain them somewhere and then after that leave the Sanskrit stand.
(The three gunas might not be very useful anymore in science when science means explaining the origin of the universe but when used psychologically and in all sorts of behaviour and qualities I find they can still be quite useful.)
Secondly Kanupriya Goswamiji thinks you need “tremendous good luck” to obtain nirguna faith. Where does that come from?
And in a passage like:
“…the best way to cross over the difficult-to-cross, three-threaded Maya is bhakti defined as surrender only to the Lord. For the living being, who is a minute particle of consciousness under the control of Maya, taking shelter at the feet of the Lord, who is unlimited consciousness in control of Maya is the natural path to overcome Maya”,
how many articles of faith are invoked?
With all respect, but perhaps relevant in this context, why faith in Kanupriya Goswamiji?
(With ‘faith’ I follow the dictionary which says,
a. faith is belief and trust in and loyalty to God
b. firm belief in something for which there is no proof
and, to which I add, which are for a large part determined by samskaras from previous lives, idiot or not. An idiot doesn’t necessarily find his experiences painful or idiotic. In my experience yokels c.q. idiots are usually very pleased with themselves.)
|
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Dec 25, 2010 9:41:46 GMT -6
No, no, I am still impressed at such presentations; I just said it is not new to me as I read it in some other works of other sadhus. This idea was presented in Sat Sandarbhas of Jiva Goswami.
As far as skepticism goes, that is exactly my point. Their way is to not believe until something is proven and they stick by it, that is their belief.
I will skip bhakti in regards of hladini sakti (internal) and bhakti (external) as I have limited experience of latter one. Never felt connection with hladini sakti which would manifest in me as a bhakti as explained in CV terms.
I think sadhu-sanga works and the proof are you and some others on this board, and then some others, who have travelled the distance to be with those sadhus and gain the insight in bhakti. We can accept it or not, but association with others and being present at places makes an effect on us. The present is already gone, and yet again, it went away right now. So what might be true today, it might not stand a chance tomorrow, and I think that is what you're trying to present in regard to sadhu sanga and the knowledge of gunas and different saktis. However, as we can see, preliminary teachings are filled with such explanations. I can only say from my limited experience that finding a sadhu who has devoted his everything to serving RK and connecting one self with him/her is much better than just floating around with no connection to the realm they entered. (this is in the context of CV)
As it was discussed at other places, no matter what nature and personal beliefs one has or doesn't, some are attracted to the RK lila and would like to develop a place and a role in it. That is the brilliance I see in CV and that is probably the reason why I'm coming back to it every so often with new interest.
The growth of science and technology which evolved might be a bonus to understanding some of the teachings of past sadhus and make us reflect upon both in correlation to each other. My main question, when it comes to any type of creating and learning something new is what/who stands behind it and what purpose it will have in the end, except the ones who are there to constantly give an impetus for evolvement.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by malatimanjari on Dec 26, 2010 9:48:51 GMT -6
I do not agree that in our present day scientific world the explanations based on gunas and sadhu-sanga don't work anymore, but I also find the translations disturbing. An English translation will never be able to fully convey the beautiful multi-faceted meaning inherent in the original Sanskrit terms. Therefore I also think it is not a bad idea after an initial explanation to leave the Sanskrit which which most readers are familiar. Otherwise one always has to re-translate the translations into one's own understanding. Yes, if you speak of thread which implies an empirical substance, it could look unsophisticated and outdated. But the understanding of gunas is essential for understanding the workings of material nature, and they are even more than just psychological concepts. They are metaphysical categories which are the very basis and substance of prakriti. I am convinced that with a proper understanding even the post modern scientific mind can be satisfied.
I like that Gosvamiji makes very clear that bhakti is part of the Lord's svarupa sakti and that it has to be attained through association by the mercy of the Lord and his devotees. That's exactly the topic I have been working on.
Those sans
|
|
|
|
Post by malatimanjari on Dec 26, 2010 11:02:56 GMT -6
The two positions are that either the agency, which means the will to move towards the other, as you state, is in prakritic buddhi or in atman. If it is in buddhi, which is Krishna's tatastha sakti and according to Sankhya the first evolute emerging from prakriti, then where is the question of the individual choice of "free will?" Atman is only lending consciousness to the workings of prakriti. If however kartritva or agency is in the atman, then yes, you can speak of a relationship of free will. But we know that the living entities will is very minute since we are mainly directed by our previous samskaras.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 26, 2010 12:54:43 GMT -6
Actually, I am rather pleased that some of the readers of that translation are disturbed or uneasy. That means that I am doing my job as a translator. A translator has the difficult job of making complex and distant ideas available in a foreign language that in most cases is ill-equipped to receive them. I had a choice to follow the usual and commonplace practice of translating guNa as "quality," but I chose not to take that route because I think it is simply wrong. It is not that guNa does not mean quality in some contexts, but that it does not mean quality in this context. Here is why. Qualities cannot create things. They belong to things or as the Hindu logicians say they inhere or stick to things. To translate guNa as quality then is a mistake, the result of poor understanding and sloppy thinking, and it should not be promoted or continued. To translate guNa as threads is to capture the creative capacity of the guNa as represented in the Sankhya literature. Threads can be woven into the fabric of reality and the different variety of those threads create variation in the patterns in that fabric. It really does make the metaphor work, As threads there is also the suggestion, which very strong in the guNa tradition, of their binding as with ropes. Another important part of the metaphor. Lastly, understanding them as threads leaves open a possible connection to one of the most important modern theories of physics, string theory. I don't think the connection can be established yet, but there is that tantalizing possibility. According to string theory the fundamental elements of the cosmos are string loops which when they vibrate at different very high frequencies become the basic building blocks of the universe, the subatomc wave/particles. String theory has never been tested and thus proven, but it has a great deal of mathematical support. Usually, this means that it is only a matter of time before someone figures out how to test it. Anyway, I think my translation of guNa as threads succeeds in making sense out of the nonsense of Sankhya theory. I am surprised that two intelligent readers apparently lack the imagination to see this. I suspect it is your complacency that is getting in the way. That you are troubled by the translation suggests either that you are about to wake up or about to roll over a slip back into a deeper ego slumber (ie, that you are comfortable in your own untested assumptions and you think you know what you do not. Socrates faced the same smug complacency in his interlocutors. He at least was able to get them to recognize their own ignorance.)
As for the meanings of the three kinds of guNa, those are again mistranslations. Rajas is the give away. Rajas does not mean passion. It means dust. Sattva means purity or simple being (the state of being itself without admixture) and tamas means darkness not ignorance. The Gita gives the best clue to their real meanings when it gives the metaphor of the fire covered with smoke. no smoke = sattva (that is transparency), smoke-covered = rajas (translucency) and ashes = tamas (opacity). These are the three types of threads: The clear thread that lets light through the best, the translucent thread which lets some light through but which blocks some and finally the solid or opaque thread which lets no light through. The combination of these three threads creates the varying densities of matter. There is no mixed metaphor at all. There is just a misunderstood metaphor. The fundamental distinctions are based on whether light can pass through or not. It is important to read these things carefully and think about them, even if you think you already know it.
To leave Sanskrit words in a translation is in my opinion a terrible mistake. One should notify the reader what the original word is that is being translated in this or that way, but to leave these terms in the text is to fail as a translator. It is like the bad commentator who explains all the easy words but leaves the difficult words or concepts uncommented. It just promotes common ignorance. People don't know what these terms mean. You don't know what they mean. How can you leave them sitting in a translation? It is better to struggle with them and figure them out, even if your results sound strange to people who know a little, enough to have been mislead by previous misreadings.
Why have faith in Kanupriya Goswami? He knows more than we do. He also cites his sources at every step. He was a lifetime practitioner and was born in a family with deep roots in the CV tradition. Moreover, he was one of the most highly respected theologians of the twentieth century in mainstream CV. If we want to know the siddhanta of mainstream CV he is one of the best sources. That does not mean we have to accept his conclusions, but I think we should at least know them. He and a few other writers come about as close as possible to capturing the worldview of mainstream CV as is possible. Others in that category would be Rasika Mohan Vidyabhusana, Sundarananda Vidyavinode, Pranagopala Goswami, Shyamalala Goswami, and one or two others.
You ask about where "luck" comes from. It comes from the Bhagavata itself. The word is yadRcchA and it is found at 11.20.8. Look it up. It means "spontaneously , by accident , unexpectedly." Sri Kanupriya glosses it with "the good fortune obtained from the grace and meeting of a bhakta of Bhagavan." But that does not make it any less accidental, So, yeah, luck or good fortune. Even those favorable samskaras from previous lives are the result of chance or accident.
I can see I have my work cut out for me in the introduction. This is a useful exercise.
|
|
