|
Post by vkaul1 on Feb 16, 2012 8:48:50 GMT -6
I will put more from his recent wall post. Just wanted to know what members here think of his analysis. Anyway, generally traditional CV (at least right now or in portions of CC) does kind of completely separate the svarupa sakti from maya sakti and Nitai ji also seems to have a different views. Perhaps Jagat goes to the other extreme. "Brahmacharya is about sadhana. The word actually means "walking in God." The fundamental problem with all religions, as the quote extracted from the discussion to the original link shows, is that of transcendence and immanence of the Deity.
When we emphasize the transcendence of God, he becomes distant. This is the situation of vaidhi bhakti, where rules and regulations and philosophical argument dominate.
Gaudiya Vaishnavism is about God in intimacy, God in human form, where even sexual intimacy with God can be imagined. The more that we contemplate the "humanity" of God, the more we are obliged to come to face with the divinity of human beings.
This makes the argument that Radha and Krishna's loves are "different" from human love moot. How can we relate to Radha and Krishna's loves if there is no connection to human love? They would have no meaning to us, even as a metaphor. The transcendental purity of Radha and Krishna's love ONLY becomes meaningful if we can relate it to human experience.
If we don't have that link, then we put Radha and Krishna's love on a pedestal and it becomes vaidhi bhakti, consciousness of aishwarya and all that. Then this has the ironic consequence of making our religion of personalism and love one of impersonalism and fear. In other words, kanishtha level devotion.
Kanishtha level devotion is that stage in which transcendence and aishwarya are the strongest. It is the stage where dualism of God and devotee are the strongest. In the kanishtha stage sadhana is the most external, even if nominally it takes so-called raganuga forms.
It is not possible to do away altogether with these, and indeed in some way or another, they remain with the sadhaka to the very end, but the relationship of sadhaka to these practices changes radically when he comes to the madhyama stage.
In the madhyama stage, we are meant to find God in human relationships, and indeed that is where the sadhana's focus is taken. Though there may be other relationships where unconditional celibacy is functional, in the madhura-rasa sadhana, a relationship of love with a sadhana partner is highly desirable, indeed necessary."
|
|
kalki
Full Member
Posts: 161
|
Post by kalki on Feb 16, 2012 13:19:42 GMT -6
this bit about personal experience with a partner to experience madhurya is the reason some folks are calling Jagat a sahajya, right?
if I were to compare Jagat's beliefs with those in Tibetan Buddhism, it is corroborated that in order to experience the bliss of tantra, one should have a partner to do consort practice. But while in the Nygma tradition it is manadatory, in the Geluk tradition it is not. They prefer to do tantric visualization without a partner and still gain the transcendence they are after. But Geluk's also admit that the path they take is a lower one and the path of consort practice is higher.
So it makes me think that Jagat's notion is rather wise but I wonder if it is right to say that madhurya can "only" be experienced with a consort. Coudn't it be experienced without one?
|
|
kalki
Full Member
Posts: 161
|
Post by kalki on Feb 16, 2012 13:24:55 GMT -6
Here is a comment about Brahmacharya which emphasizes that while brahmacharya does not literally mean celibacy, it leads to it:
What is Brahmacharya?
The common meaning of Brahmacharya is observing celibacy. However, this is its gross meaning. The literal meaning of the term is "to follow Bramha, the supreme reality". At first glance you may think that this literal meaning and its gross meaning doesn't bear any relation. However, they are related. In Indian scriptures you find mention of trio - Bramha, Vishnu and Mahesh. It is believed that Bramha created this world, Vishnu nourishes it and Mahesh (Shiva) destroys at the end of the Kalpa. If you observe the scriptures you will realize that Vishnu and Shiva had consort in the form of Narayani (Laxmi) and Parvati. However, Bramha was single. He created this universe with the help of creative power of his mind. Even without this scriptural reference it can be observed that the supreme principal (often termed as God) alone created this universe. That supreme principal never needed to marry someone in order to spawn this world. Thus it was single or celibate. Thus the subtle meaning of Brahmacharya is to follow the Bramhan and develop our creative potential. Nevertheless both the meanings of Brahmacharya are important for a Yoga practitioner.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 16, 2012 15:07:01 GMT -6
Right. This is Jagat's sahajism. He has been flirting with it for a long time. Well, I guess he is no longer flirting with it. It's a tradition closely related to the orthodox CV tradition. There are tantrik influences in both the orthodox and the sahajiya traditions. In the orthodox the influence is mostly metaphorical. In the Sahajiya tradition the practices are embraced too. Naturally it matters philosophically and psychologically which one one adopts. Brahmacarya means abstinence in the orthodox tradition. It means the opposite in the Sahajiya tradition. Though the traditions are close and very similar they are not the same and I dare say the results will not be the same.
Doesn't Brahma also have a wife or sakti?
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Feb 16, 2012 15:18:25 GMT -6
This is from his recent Facebook post. So I don't know what he is practicing. What do u think Nitai ji? Is there no connection between the mundane and the spiritual or it is just that we have to uncover the spiritual from the material?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 16, 2012 17:06:43 GMT -6
This is from his recent Facebook post. So I don't know what he is practicing. What do u think Nitai ji? Is there no connection between the mundane and the spiritual or it is just that we have to uncover the spiritual from the material? I think the two are the same. There is no difference between them. I know we have been programmed to think of the saktis as different, but in reality there is only one sakti. Giving them different names is just for ease of understanding or for some explanatory purposes. Sometimes one tells an untruth in order to make an important point or as a preparation for a truth that is hard to grasp on its own. That doesn't mean that there is not a difference between the way R and K love each other and the way we love each other. It is just not substantially different. The very same sakti viewed through the eyes of someone who wants to forget Krsna becomes maya-sakti and viewed through the eyes of someone who wants to remember Krsna becomes the antaranga or svarupa-sakti. Actually, if you think about it carefully you will see that it is the very teaching contained in the first mantra of the Isavasya Upanisad as commented on by Sankara.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 16, 2012 17:09:53 GMT -6
this bit about personal experience with a partner to experience madhurya is the reason some folks are calling Jagat a sahajya, right? if I were to compare Jagat's beliefs with those in Tibetan Buddhism, it is corroborated that in order to experience the bliss of tantra, one should have a partner to do consort practice. But while in the Nygma tradition it is manadatory, in the Geluk tradition it is not. They prefer to do tantric visualization without a partner and still gain the transcendence they are after. But Geluk's also admit that the path they take is a lower one and the path of consort practice is higher. So it makes me think that Jagat's notion is rather wise but I wonder if it is right to say that madhurya can "only" be experienced with a consort. Coudn't it be experienced without one? It is not the only way. Maybe it is the only way for him. But clearly there are many ways in which the mardhurya part of the experience of deity might be expressed, one of which calls into question the very idea of deity itself.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Feb 16, 2012 19:24:58 GMT -6
So the traditional CVs view of creating a huge separation between the two saktis is perhaps not going to work well I think today. Another thing, what do you mean it calls into question the idea of deity itself? Thanks for your answers.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 16, 2012 22:22:12 GMT -6
So the traditional CVs view of creating a huge separation between the two saktis is perhaps not going to work well I think today. Another thing, what do you mean it calls into question the idea of deity itself? Thanks for your answers. Madhurya opposes aisvarya. Aisvarya means godliness or deity-ness. I think there is a deep psychological problem caused by the very idea of someone's being a deity. Madhurya is meant to cure that problem. The question is, are we too foolish to take that cure?
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Feb 17, 2012 8:56:19 GMT -6
Jagat ji followed up his post with this "In my opinion, the example set by the Goswamis and Mahaprabhu himself are not meant to set the absolute standard, i.e., their renunciation is not meant to provide the last word in sadhana, but rather to act as a warning, precisely, that the madhura-rasa is not mundane but uniquely sacred.
In a society (as Indian society still is) that holds renunciation of the world in the highest honor, it was a necessity for Mahaprabhu to take the renounced order in a Shankarite sampradaya and to hold to the strictest standards in order to call attention to the _validity_ of the path of madhura-rasa.
This is why I make the point about nivritta, even with a full awareness of what the BRS commentators have said. Please again forgive me for striking out with my own understanding, which nevertheless to me seems perfectly obvious.
The word nivritti, as in nivritti-marga, means turning away from rather than engaging in (pravritti) worldly life.
This is the very fundamental and basic approach of Shankaracharya to spiritual life, whereby only absolute renunciation of the world gives one eligibility for moksha. All Vaishnava doctrines conclude that the world, being God’s energy, is not false and therefore not to be feared or despised. In Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s path, whether understood explicitly or not, the anarpita-carim cirat of prema transforms the erotic aspect of human life from a negative into a positive instrument, medium or apparatus for entering a particular dimension of spirituality that was not previously considered valid.
This is not simply Tantra, however. Although Tantra is ultimately assimilated by the Prema Marg, it is not its be-all and end-all. As the name itself shows, the goal of the Prema Marg is prem, not the stated goals of any of the Tantric paths.
Whether Vaishnava doctrine or Advaita doctrine, however, freedom from attraction and repulsion is considered a desideratum. Sannyasa based in fear of attraction or repulsion (jugupsa) of sexuality is not an advantage for liberation. You will notice that I say “liberation” and not prema."
Does he represent Sankara correctly Nitai ji?
|
|
kalki
Full Member
Posts: 161
|
Post by kalki on Feb 17, 2012 13:50:04 GMT -6
Doesn't Brahma also have a wife or sakti? Saraswati, right? I guess that means he was not a brahmachari? Unless he was a grihasta bramachari.
|
|
kalki
Full Member
Posts: 161
|
Post by kalki on Feb 17, 2012 13:57:00 GMT -6
Well now that we are on the topic of brahmachari, I want to ask something, without needing a new thread for it.
Recently, Prabhavisnu maharaj from iskcon, "fell down," with a Thai girlfriend. My question, does it even matter?
Why is his qualification as a teacher dependent on his witholding of semen? Of course if he is making goo goo eyes at the Thai girl all the time, then his eye is not on sastra, but that will show in time if he people think his personal life is affecting his spiritual life. Can't he spiritualize what he does in his private life?
And the same question I have is for the TGV. When Bhaktisiddhanta complained about some babas at Radhakund for having sexual partners, still my question is, why does it matter? Does it affect their bhajan for sure? Can they be doing something that like what Jagat is talking about? Is there a problem?
In other words, why should an acharya either be celibate or lawfully married? Why can't there be something in between where the teacher expresses himself sexually? Is there some transgression in any way here?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 18, 2012 14:42:12 GMT -6
Jagat ji followed up his post with this "In my opinion, the example set by the Goswamis and Mahaprabhu himself are not meant to set the absolute standard, i.e., their renunciation is not meant to provide the last word in sadhana, but rather to act as a warning, precisely, that the madhura-rasa is not mundane but uniquely sacred. In a society (as Indian society still is) that holds renunciation of the world in the highest honor, it was a necessity for Mahaprabhu to take the renounced order in a Shankarite sampradaya and to hold to the strictest standards in order to call attention to the _validity_ of the path of madhura-rasa. This is why I make the point about nivritta, even with a full awareness of what the BRS commentators have said. Please again forgive me for striking out with my own understanding, which nevertheless to me seems perfectly obvious. The word nivritti, as in nivritti-marga, means turning away from rather than engaging in (pravritti) worldly life. This is the very fundamental and basic approach of Shankaracharya to spiritual life, whereby only absolute renunciation of the world gives one eligibility for moksha. All Vaishnava doctrines conclude that the world, being God’s energy, is not false and therefore not to be feared or despised. In Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s path, whether understood explicitly or not, the anarpita-carim cirat of prema transforms the erotic aspect of human life from a negative into a positive instrument, medium or apparatus for entering a particular dimension of spirituality that was not previously considered valid. This is not simply Tantra, however. Although Tantra is ultimately assimilated by the Prema Marg, it is not its be-all and end-all. As the name itself shows, the goal of the Prema Marg is prem, not the stated goals of any of the Tantric paths. Whether Vaishnava doctrine or Advaita doctrine, however, freedom from attraction and repulsion is considered a desideratum. Sannyasa based in fear of attraction or repulsion (jugupsa) of sexuality is not an advantage for liberation. You will notice that I say “liberation” and not prema." Does he represent Sankara correctly Nitai ji? Not really. I don't think he knows much about Sankara's view. He is just repeating the same tired platitudes that IGM has mouthed for years. And well okay CV has said similar things too. Nobody bothers to find out the truth because they think the case is settled. But let Sankara speak for himself. Read what he says there in his commentary on the first mantra of the Isavasya. Is he denying the existence of the jagat? Or merely recommending that we contemplate it as belonging to the Lord? He even suggests it is the Lord or Atman. Does this sound like someone saying it is unreal? I will post his comments on the second mantra a little latter. Sankara clearly makes room for those who are not able yet to understand the self. What does he mean by "absolute" renunciation? Whenever you hear someone speaking in absolutes, you know his full of it. [Oops! Is this statement not also an absolute?] And since when don't CVs fear or despise the world? I think Jagat is just shooting the bull here. Clearly the CV way is that recognized in the Bhagavata. Basically, bhakti is understood as the mother of knowledge and vairagya, renunciation. Remember that funny little allegory in the Bhagavata Mahatmya involving those three?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 18, 2012 14:50:14 GMT -6
Doesn't Brahma also have a wife or sakti? Saraswati, right? I guess that means he was not a brahmachari? Unless he was a grihasta bramachari. Let us first be clear. We are talking about a mythological figure. Brahma is not real. So he never even had an existence, what to speak of a wife. What we are concerned with here is the image of him the creators of the myth wanted to portray and that seems to be with a sakti. Isn't he even represented as chasing and copulating with his daughter? Or am I confusing him with Manu? Whoever you quoted before trying to make him out to be a brahmacari was just making things up. That is my favorite definition of theology: just making shit up whenever there is a perceived need.
|
|
kalki
Full Member
Posts: 161
|
Post by kalki on Feb 18, 2012 15:02:00 GMT -6
Whoever you quoted before trying to make him out to be a brahmacari was just making things up. oh, well the stuff i quoted before, i thought it just was trying to say that brahmachari can mean two things. One as being celibate and the other as following Brahma. Their point about Brahma was that Brahma created things from the his mind rather than with a consort. So I thought the only point that quote tried to make is that Brahma is a creative mental force and so being brahmachari meant following that way of following Brahma, a creative mental force having less to do with celibacy in that sense, although that meaning is also there secondarily.
|
|