Tags
This is a reponse to Akincana Krishna dasa’s comments on the Review of Aindra Dasa’s book post.
Don’t you think it’s odd to live your entire life by someone’s interpretation of what “following in the footsteps” means — in one paragraph, in one guru’s essay?
So you’re saying: throw out everything that Jiva Goswami taught, throw out everything that Mahaprabhu taught — everything everyone taught is superseded and made irrelevant before people started to interpret those 4 words the way you claim?
If that’s what you want to do, I can live with that. I disagree that all of the Gaudiya world agrees with your version of raganuga. That’s just a rhetorical device to gain authority for your point of view, like I said in my previous comment: just claiming that everyone believes as you do, as if we are expected to accept your word alone on it, is lame. You would have to show me — but if you can show me only Prabhupada or just a few others, or people like him who actively promote a certain point of view which is easily proven as false, then that is not enough. Just because Prabhupada or some other guru makes a claim — that isn’t the totality of the Gaudiya world — as so many Prabhupada or Narayana Maharaja followers like to think, i.e. disagree with them and you are outside the mainstream.
But let’s get to the point at hand. What does “following in someone’s footsteps” mean? Does it mean imitating them or doing whatever they do? Do you have to live exactly like Rupa Goswami? Do you have to take up his profession of writing, do you have to take up his familial situation or lack of it, do you have to take up his clothing habits — how about his eating habits or bathing habits?
What you’re saying is that the sole meaning of those words is that raganuga bhaktas should live as vaidhi sadhana bhaktas. Why didn’t Rupa say that or Mahaprabhu say that? If people are supposed to base their entire lives by your interpretation of those few words, why didn’t Mahaprabhu or his close associates make it clear that they meant what you believe to be true? Rupa didn’t give your interpretation, nor did Mahaprabhu. In fact they said raganuga bhaktas don’t care about the rules and regulations of vaidhi sadhana. Also, Jiva Goswami goes into a long section in his Bhakti Sandharba describing how raganuga bhaktas don’t care about the rules and regulations — not even caring about japa or deity worship or any regulative sadhana.
Jiva Goswami makes it very clear that raganuga bhaktas can follow the vaidhi sadhana if they haven’t attained ruchi or if they are acting as gurus. Even Prabhupada said that raganuga bhaktas don’t necessarily follow the rules and regulations of vaidhi sadhana. But because some men decided to use that as an excuse to dress up as girls that means we should abandon what the foundational acharyas taught? Go ahead. Just don’t insist that what I’m saying is bogus when I’m simply repeating what the foundational acharyas taught about raganuga bhakti.
Following in the footsteps of Rupa Goswami means to follow the path he was on, i.e. raganuga bhakti. That’s all. It doesn’t mean imitating his lifestyle. There were many close associates of Mahaprabhu who weren’t ascetics — How about Ramananda Raya (would give massages to young dancing girls) or Pundarika Vidyanidhi (lived opulently — including indulging in ganja) and many others? Nowhere is it taught by the original acharyas that we need to follow in Rupa’s footsteps, or that following in Rupa Goswami’s footsteps means living like him. Of course you’re not saying we need to. Just that we should live externally as a vaidhi bhakta. Why? Evidently because a few guys decided to dress up as girls. Does that mean that all women have to worry about that and they also have to live like Rupa Goswami? How about if we get all the raganuga men to promise not to put on a sari — would it be all right then for them to follow the original Gaudiya teachings?
It’s clear to me, as I said before, that you don’t have a proper understanding of what raganuga bhakti entails. For example deity worship — raganuga is about developing the mood of the Vrajabasis who see Radha Krishna as equals — not as Gods to supplicate to and reverentially worship. For them to start treating Radha Krishna like that is rasabhasa — a bad mixture of flavors — like adding pakora batter to sweet rice. They each have their place in their respective dishes, but taste bad when combined.
Raganuga is about developing intimacy — vaidhi sadhana is about reverential rule following with a worshipful attitude. It’s made like that so that the bhakta takes very seriously what is necessary for him/her to do, i.e. studying and other sadhana on a regulative rule laden basis in order to develop ruchi (taste for wanting to be with Radha Krishna) and asakti/bhava (emotional attachment to being with Radha Krishna intimately/self-realization).
Once attaining ruchi the purpose of vaidhi is over. At the ruchi stage the bhakta is supposed to try to develop intimacy — and intimacy is obstructed by vaidhi. That’s because intimacy is all about seeing yourself and trying to relate with Radha Krishna on an equal footing — as soul mates. How can you see yourself on an equal level with someone you obey as a student to a guru or child to parent, and engage in archana towards? (deity worship following rules and regulations)
To give an example of rasabhasa we can look at how children’s relationships with parents and teachers change as they get older. When they are very young they have to be obedient in order to stay safe. They can’t go wherever they want, or eat whatever and whenever they want, they have to undergo regulative schooling, etc. If they are given total freedom then they can harm themselves and not grow up properly.
When they get older they no longer have to follow the rules and regulations of parental educational control — their relationship with their parents and teachers changes from one of subservience to one of equals. If the children never mature they become a burden on the parents and the teachers. The parents don’t want to treat their children as children for the rest of their lives — they want their children to develop into friends on an equal level of maturity; and the teachers don’t want to spend all their time teaching the same students the same things over and over.
The same situation applies to our relationship with God. When we are spiritually immature we need to be under the control of God’s rules and regulations for our own good. But we are supposed to mature. We are supposed to move beyond that relationship with God. If we don’t — we become a burden. Vaidhi is childish, it’s all about treating God like a divine parental authority figure to be worshiped and reverentially obeyed. That’s supposed to be given up when you reach the level of wanting to live in an intimate relationship with God.
Take japa as an example. When you attain the stage of bhava-bhakti it’s taught that Krishna manifests in your mind. That means that at that stage you are given the ability to directly communicate with Paramatma. At that stage there is not only no need of japa, but it’s actually a hindrance, it’s a rasabhasa at that stage. It’s akin to while someone is trying to speak to you — you look off into the distance and chant their name. It’s counterproductive. It defeats the purpose of japa in the first place.
A major purpose of japa is to strengthen your power of concentration and awareness. It’s not the only purpose, but it’s a major purpose. It helps you focus the mind. It’s like lifting weights with your mind to make it strong. This comes into use to help you study and learn spiritual teachings, which can be difficult to comprehend for people with conditioned conceptions of reality — and it also aids when you need to concentrate and be aware of the difference between you and Paramatma in your mind so you can communicate. And also you need to be able to comprehend the difference between Paramatma and everything being controlled by Paramatma in your external environment.
That’s not easy to do for beginners. It needs a strong power of concentration and focus, and of mystical awareness, as well as spiritual education. But once you arrive at that level of bhakti, japa is rasabhasa because it’s hinders paying attention to Paramatma. It’s distracting at that stage. At a certain stage you are supposed to be aware of Paramatma all around and within you. You are supposed to be paying attention and know and be able to deal with the reality of Paramatma being always 100% present and in control of everyone and everything — including your mind.
At that stage (bhava-bhakti) Paramatma uses that ability of yours to constantly communicate with you — directly in your mind, and through everyone and everything you experience. From then on you develop your rasa constantly, directly with God. Chanting japa or doing any kind of sadhana which distracts from that is pointless and useless — and boring for Radha Krishna. God wants to relate to you as an adult to an adult, friend to friend – not as a parent/teacher/deity to a child/student/neophyte.
Not all raganuga bhaktas are on that level. There are different stages of progression — leading from familial to erotic. But the raganuga mood is about intimacy between soul mates — not about reverential worship or student-master. That is the purpose of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, that is the higher path all bhaktas should aspire for. They should know where their sadhana is leading them. It’s a path with a goal, it isn’t the goal. It’s the lower degree, there is a graduate course.
That is what Gaudiya Vaishnavism originally teaches. If later on some changes were made by various gurus, so be it. They are not the sole authorities on everything. Just because you are good at one thing, or many things, doesn’t mean that you are good at everything. Just like Prabhupada may have been good at getting people to take up vaidhi bhakti — in fact more successful then anyone since Mahaprabhu — still, that doesn’t mean everything he ever taught was perfect, or correct, or even sane (see the About page).
He’s not the only successful past acharya to have good ideas and mistaken ideas. We need to judge teachings on their merits — not just on the fame of those who taught them — whoever they are. From The Bhagavata by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
We Must Think for Ourselves
The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth as He gave it to Vyasa: when we earnestly seek for it.
Truth is eternal and unexhausted. The soul receives a revelation when anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the bygone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our inquiring spirit and assist in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma.
Our Shastras, or in other words, books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father. God’s revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th Skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be.
Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from within, “No, Vyasa! You cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of bygone days. You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the fountainhead of truth, where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind.” Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so.
Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love.
Gm said:
I think Vrajabhumi’s statements makes sense. I disagree with some like contempt towards some rasas like shanta, dasya ……
Bhakti is described by in SB 1.2.6 as yayatma suprasidata which means by which one’s self gets completely happy.
Narada Bhakti Sutra 18 states that bhakti is to remove all the obstacles to happiness from within.
That is how you can judge your bhakti. It should make you happy. You should lead a satisfied life.
It does not matter what process you follow. Basics of these process are still the same.
NBS 19 states bhakti as feeling extreme distress in forgetting Him. It also means feeling happiness in remembering Him.
So, try to attain above goal. Be honest with yourself.
All these arguments happen among those who are not serious towards these goals. If you follow above goals honestly, then Krishna will hopefully guide you.
Lakshman said:
Vraja, What is Ruchi?
What is the sole qualification for Raganuga Bhakti?
When should one start raganuga? Could you give the exact chapter of Bhakti Sandharba Please?
“Jiva Goswami makes it very clear that raganuga bhaktas can follow the vaidhi sadhana if they haven’t attained ruchi or if they are acting as gurus.”
Could you give a quote. This post is really inspired I think… I will make a translation.
Thanks Vraja.
Vrajabhumi said:
Lakshman
Ruchi means: having a desire for or taste for something.
The qualification for raganuga is described as lobha, simply the sincere greed or hunger to be in a relationship with God — not because of promises of salvation or heaven, etc — rather the desire to be with and live with Radha Krishna so you can enjoy a relationship with them. It’s about personal attraction to Radha Krishna.
I go into what Mahaprabhu and the goswamis teach about the qualification for ragaunga on numerous posts, here is one http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/reflections-on-the-book-authored-by-aindra-dasa-the-heart-of-transcendental-book-distribution-2/
Here is some of what Jiva Goswami wrote about the nature of raganuga: http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/iskcon-girls-make-me-sing-and-shout/
And here is what Rupa Goswami said about lobha: http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/slave-driver/
Lakshman said:
Thank I will study such posts are very enlightening,
I have another question I have reading some essays and posts of Jagadananda das and sometimes what both you say are very similar, have you some connection with him? have you read his articles? what do you think about him?
Thanks
Vrajabhumi said:
Lakshman
I’ve never met Jagadananda, from what I’ve read from him we differ on various points, but he is clearly one of the most progressive voices in the Gaudiya world.
Malati dasi said:
Vraja said:
I’ve never met Jagadananda, from what I’ve read from him we differ on various points, but he is clearly one of the most progressive voices in the Gaudiya world.
A progressive voice ?? I’m surprised by your statement. Please explain. I do’nt agree, btw. Thanks
Vrajabhumi said:
Malati
Here is the definition of progressive:
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.
Don’t you think that describes Jagadananda?
Malati dasi said:
Firstly, I assume you are talking of Jagat.
As Nitadas sees it, Jagat is not taking the Vaishnava dharma path but the sahaja path. Therefore he is outside of the GV or CV world or at least the community of devotees started by the GV foundational acharyas for all intents and purposes. I note you consider him a voice in the GV world.
He has a corrupt understanding of the Vaishnava dharma.
But let’s for a moment agree that he is a player in the GV world, then I dont think he is progressive at all. What new ideas is he pushing forward? Take a sexual partner who is not your usual partner or wife, preferably someone’s wife and engage in copulation sadhana (witout ejaculation) and make it as the lynchpin of your dharma? That’s nothing new. That has been going on in the backward, impoverished villages in the backwaters of India for centuries. There’s nothing progressive about that.
Maybe if he lived during the stone age when a man has many partners (polygamy) and its the norm of the society, and he started to philosophize about the whole idea and make the copulation between partners from different groups methodological can then he be considered progressive. Because , well, during that age, anything went.
Societies have evolved by which social family units had become the threads that hold the fabric of society, and which by just looking at the whole society will make us realize that it is to our great advantage.
In this modern world, Jagat’s ideas are narrow-minded and parochial (can 6 year olds engage in the sexual sadhanas? what about the oldies? or those who are just too lazy (just imagine the effort one has to put into to not ejaculate) for this methodological copulation?).
Jagat is sowing “immorality” and what he is proposing is anathema to a stable society. Think of the economic, psychological or moral issues that might arise from a botched sexual sadhana. I’m sure you can imagine what I mean.
If Jagat is not careful, he might be counting the days when he gets punched on the nose from a disgruntled husband.
Vrajabhumi said:
Malati
I really don’t think he believes in what you think. I think you’re projecting a bit. I don’t think he believes in sleeping around with men’s wives, at least I’ve never seen him push that as his beliefs. Nor do I think his beliefs will affect society in any way, it’s not like he has millions of people he is influencing.
Yeah, he believes in Sahajiya doctrine (sexual sadhana) but I think it’s a bit much to reduce everything about him and what he believes to just that. Just because the sahajiyas aren’t accepted by the orthodox tradition doesn’t mean Jagat isn’t a Gaudiya Vaishnava.
I don’t judge Jagadananda by his sexual beliefs, why should I? If I were to judge everyone who believes differently from me as not a Gaudiya Vaishnava then there would be very few Gaudiya Vaishnavas in the world. I like Jagadananda for what he is. He’s a scholar, deeply devotional, and committed to doing good things — e.g. his campaign to save Vrindavana from developers, his translation work, and his open minded/hearted views in general.
Like I said, we don’t see eye to eye on everything, but he is a progressive voice in the Gaudiya world. He speaks out against narrow mindedness and the extremes of sectarianism, judgmentalism, sexism, etc, so common in the Gaudiya world. Before he came out as a sahajiya he was respected by so many for his good qualities. So what if everything he believes in isn’t orthodox? It doesn’t diminish him in my eyes. I still respect him.
Malati dasi said:
Of course, he did good works and maybe still doing good works in other areas. But we are here on your blog talking about the finer points of GVism , not talking about civic work.
And so Im criticizing him on his ideas which to me are backward and parochial.
If one is out there pushing ideas coating them as if they were the real intentions of the foundational acharyas of GVism, ( he should look at the ways the GV acharyas led their lives and relate them with what they wrote) then one should expect a backlash, at least from me.
I remember a friend, SP disciple, who said to me that when he met the husband of Jagat’s erstwhile sexual partner, the husband felt so screwed-up.
In many ways, Jagat’s ideas are really screwed-up.
bhavaprema said:
Vrajabhumi,
A tad bit off topic…I have two questions for you.
1. What is your understood difference between a sahajiya bhakta and a raganuga bhakta, in reference to your post?
I was under the impression (right or wrong) that a sahajiya bhakta is one who has faith in Krsna, chants His holy names but not in a prescribed way (i.e. number of japa rounds), but is attached to intoxication and activities with the opposite sex. This understanding was obtained by studying the Sri Upadesamrita. This sounds a lot like your description of a raganuga bhakta. Please clarify.
2. What references do you know that cite reputable Vaishnavas indulging in ganga?
I came across your post on cannibas use in the vedas, but those references are not satisfying to a practicing Vaishnava. I regularly used cannibas before and during my initial days as a practicing bhakta. After 10 years of strict adherence to the 4 regs, I have now returned to ganjika. It is definitely a useful herb for my constitution and I derive physical and psychological benefits. However, it seems to go against the tenets of vaishnavism that I practice. Therefore, do you know of any “bonafide” sources of information (Vaishnava sastras) prescribe or allow ganja use? For instance, the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu lists the use of ganja as on offence to the Lord.
Bhavaprema
Vrajabhumi said:
bhavaprema
This place is fine for your questions.
1. In Gaudiya Math/Iskcon related circles sahajiya has two meanings:
a) The first is as you describe, it’s meant as a pejorative used by people for vilifying other bhaktas who they see as either lax in their attitudes towards following the rules and regulations of vaidhi bhakti, or who display an inordinate amount of emotion towards Radha Krishna, or who show interest in raganuga bhakti.
b) The second use is the accurate use of the word. Sahajiyas are a tantric sect of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, related to other types of tantric sects in India (especially in the Bengal area). They have their own set of scriptures, their own unique philosophy, and their own system of gurus and so forth.
2. Actually marijuana or ganja (not ganga, ganga is sanskrit word for the ganges) is not mentioned by Rupa Goswami in his Bhakti-Rasamrita-Sindhu. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada mentions it in his english version Nectar of Devotion. I’m guessing he copied that from a translation by his godbrother Bon Maharaja, who includes in the same exact place a mention of Jiva Goswami’s commentary wherein he claims that Jiva Goswami lists some 64 extra offenses to be avoided while engaging in archana (worshiping the deity), which are all about being polite. Bon Maharaja lists one of those offenses as:
“To worship the Deity of Lord Vishnu in the temple after smoking hemp or hashish.”
Whereas Prabhupada doesn’t attribute his source, and includes opium, and says it a bit differently, he writes:
“(19) One should not smoke marijuana, or ganja. (20) One should not take opium or similar intoxicants.”
From Bon Maharaja you get the sense that Vaishnavas regularly used marijuana, so therefore they needed to be told that they shouldn’t engage in archana (deity worship) directly after smoking. This follows similar prohibitions in the list about not engaging in archana if you have indigestion so you won’t belch, that you shouldn’t pass gas while worshiping the deity, you should have clean feet, clean clothes, not worship right after having sex, etc. It’s all about being clean and smelling nicely. Prabhupada makes it seems like marijuana was simply forbidden, which it wasn’t. In Vedic culture it was an accepted part of the culture, including spiritual culture. There are no prohibitions against marijuana use in any writings of the previous acharyas of Gaudiya Vaishnavism until modern times. See Vedic use of cannabis
There is a source for a “reputable” Vaishnava using ganja. There is a story about Pundarika Vidyanidhi smoking a pipe. See http://www.bvml.org/SBRSM/pv.html
It couldn’t have been tobacco as there was none available in India at that time, tobacco wouldn’t enter into mainstream Indian culture till later. Cannabis was used commonly in Indian culture at that time, even today there are bhang shops all over India, and bhang or other related cannabis foodstuffs are used by the masses on sacred days like Holi, Shiva Ratri, etc.
bhavaprema said:
“1. In Gaudiya Math/Iskcon related circles sahajiya has two meanings:
a) The first is as you describe, it’s meant as a pejorative or euphemism used by people for vilifying other bhaktas who they see as either lax in their attitudes towards following the rules and regulations of vaidhi bhakti, or who display an inordinate amount of emotion towards Radha Krishna, or who show interest in raganuga bhakti.
b) The second use is the accurate use of the word. Sahajiyas are a tantric sect of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, related to other types of tantric sects in India (especially in the Bengal area). They have their own set of scriptures, their own unique philosophy, and their own system of gurus and so forth.”
Here are some interesting sites I just came across that seem to describe the prakrta sahajiya and the sect you mention. I do not endorse any of the sites…just interesting reading. It does seem that the Sahajayana Buddhists may have originated the lineage.
http://shamantaka.org/main/twohk/philo/roots/apasam/sahajiya.htm
http://www.vaniquotes.org/wiki/Sahajiya-sampradaya
http://www.be-pure.info/Gaudiya-Vaisnavismsub/Fake-sampradayas.html
“Actually marijuana or ganja (not ganga, ganga is sanskrit word for the ganges)”
I apologize for the typo…damn autocorrect! However, the link/talk by Sridar Swami you provided does nothing for me. First of all, many yogi’s used to/do smoke several herbs (especially calamus root) for clearing the mind and preparing for meditation. So I cannot rule ganja 100% as being the material that was in the pipe of Pundarika. Nor can I vouch for the telling of the story by Maharaja as being historically accurate.
Second, I’m not sure if I can follow you interpretation of Prabhupada’s “Nectar of Devotion” for I have not studied the sanskrit for the BRS. However, I did hear/read somewhere that Vamsidas Babaji smoked ganja, but I could not find any reference in his biographies. So, I am back to square one.
I understand that the Vedas may mention ganja in various places, but I don’t see it mentioned in the Vaishnava sastras either way (do or don’t). You seem to be quite the reference librarian yourself. If you come up with any clear mention in the sastras, in relation to Vaishnavism, please share.
Vrajabhumi said:
bhavaprema
Ganja was commonly used by sadhus and the masses, so it’s most likely what he was smoking. The link I provided references the Vedas and Puranas glorifying ganja both for medicinal and social use.
The BRS says nothing about ganja, what Prabhupada wrote seems to come from Bon Maharaja’s translation and commentary. In that commentary he mentions Jiva Goswami’s commentary, you can read on page 79 or search for the words hemp or hashish at http://www.iskconmedia.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=63&func=fileinfo&id=35532&displaynow=1
WillemV said:
Sorry for the total side-track, but shamantaka.org… wow, that’s a blast from the past…
A later iteration of the design of “The Complete Picture” site that was initiated in 1994 at the BBT in Sweden.
Harikesh had taken JAS’ original outline and set up a team to implement it. That team fell apart at the end of 1994 due to internal power trips and he gave the sole responsibility for the site’s development to me.
By the time of this design of 1997 (obviously for resolutions of 800×600 or less) the site was the most successful one of its kind. The former Virpramukhya Swami was its greatest opponent. He got the GBC to create an Internet Ministry with him as the head solely to play out a monopoly game, demanding that every other Krishna website submit to his uber-reach. Most refused and I moved the base of “The Complete Picture” to the USA and teamed up with the creator of iskcon.net. Through his financial mismanagement and political funding cuts by the BBT after Harikesh’s departure the project fell into decline. By then the site permanently resided on iskcon.org, with several redirecting domains (shamantaka, by the way, was a lame misspelling of syamantaka). I left the project in late 1998.
“The Complete Picture” was a site with many new and innovative features (including a complete text-only version with ASCII art). It served as a kind of one-stop portal and as the ISKCON/BBT cyber bastion for its copyright office. It was also a model of its days for many other sites. After its demise, the general outline it was based on became the foundation for krishna.com. I kept developing the address listing part as a personal pet project, taking it from HTML to PERL-driven, to PHP-driven. Several years ago I gave it to krishna.com, where it is used to this day.
In its proper historical context the site should be understood as the result of a blind-following attitude. Its content simply parrots the then-prevelent ISKCON doctrines and status-quo.
The sahajiya article on the site came from Suhotra’s apasampradaya treatise.
bhavaprema said:
WillemV
“In its proper historical context the site should be understood as the result of a blind-following attitude. Its content simply parrots the then-prevelent ISKCON doctrines and status-quo.
The sahajiya article on the site came from Suhotra’s apasampradaya treatise.”
Like I said, I do not endorse any of the 3 sites nor necessarily accept any conclusions stated within. They are simply a couple sites queried by Google that have content regarding the prakrta sahajiya. I personally do not agree 100% with any conclusions stated within. However, they do compile some interesting statements from AC Bhaktivedanta Swami. The Vanipedia site does include verses from the CC directly relating to the topic at hand. Simply put, they were referenced for interesting read only…that was the intended purpose anyway.
bhavaprema said:
WillemV
I almost forgot to ask….do you have a more balanced version describing the prakrta sahajiya?
Vrajabhumi said:
bhavaprema
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46252796/Vaishanava-Sahajiya-by-Shashibhushan-Dasgupta-MA-PhD-Calcutta-Firma-KLM-1976-first-edition-1946
And also
The Place of the Hidden Moon: erotic mysticism in the Vaiṣṇava-sahajiyā cult …
By Edward C. Dimock
Shringi said:
This is wonderful, truly wonderful. What an intellect you are, a true bramin. You saved me from falling to ISKCON. Now my mind is free and I finally feel progress I hanker. Even though I’m not a guy with any particular importance I must say that finding this page made me feel slightly more important (I actually prayed guidance from Paramatma because I felt unhappy and voila, here I ended at the very same day). Thank you for these life turning informations. Om Tat Sat!
Seeker said:
Hi Vrajabhumi,
I have quoted below a reference from Satyanarayanadas Babaji (who co-authored the book “In Vaikuntha not even the leaves fall”) since it seems relevant to this original post.
http://wp.satyanarayanadas.com/raganuga-bhakti-not-inspired-by-injunction/
The key point that I wanted to bring up for discussion is this point in the above para – “When they do it, they will do it as per the rules, which are given by the Lord Himself”. This seems like artificially imposing something on the nature of raganuga where none exists. The example is constructed in such a way that the difference between vaidhi and raganuga is discernible only in intent and not in the nature of how one might operate – he explains that the mother and the maid need to follow the right rules to take care of the baby and so, whether one follows raganuga or vaidhi, one needs to prove himself by following all the rules. Of course, this seems to go against the correct understanding that you have described in this post. It seems more like a logical fallacy to me.
The understanding promoted in that link seems to be a logical fallacy to convince someone on a point by simply citing imaginary or even possible undesirable consequences if one were to believe in the right teaching. Just like the issue of free-will – “If people were to believe in no free-will, then they will become lazy, they will not be compassionate to others, etc.. and hence, we have free-will. QED”.
Similarly, if I want to summarize it, the thinking seems to be something along these lines about raganuga – “If people were to understand that a raganuga bhakta need not necessarily follow all/any rules for a vaidhi bhakta at some/all times, then they will become whimsical, commit sins and justify it, they will start dressing like gopis or whatever, spoil the name of Krishna by their actions, etc..,Hence, we will intervene between you and God and assume the authority to certify that you are on the path of bhakti. To get the certificate, you better imitate all the external practices and habits of a vaidhi bhakta since we don’t care about whatever inspiration that you might get from Radha Krishna and we don’t wish to recollect that Krishna is in complete control of everything. Even if you are bereft of any vaidhi tendency and don’t have intention to act in the role of a guru for the general public to emulate, you still tow the line if you don’t want us to brand you as a sahajiya”. Prabhupada twisted the idea of raganuga with his “Preaching will be finished” and I think that this author still carries that baggage.
1) I would like to hear your comments on the above points. I hope I am not being harsh with the author but the points in the link do seem to carry forward the distortion from Prabhupada. Even if someone becomes very scholarly and has severed the connections with ISKCON with years of sadhana, it makes me think that these fundamental points have been twisted out of shape by Prabhupada, Sridhar Maharaj, etc., that it might take a long time to go away from many people’s minds. Everything happens per Krishna’s will is all I can marvel about.
2) Also, one doubt that I have is regarding the frequent criticism levied against Bhaktisiddhanta as well from some quarters. Those criticisms may be unjustified but one thing I am eager is to know your stance since I don’t know much about the context or history, his purpose, etc..,- do you feel that he was partially a reason for this vehement attack on the true nature of raganuga that is seen in today’s vaisnava circles? Maybe, he did not promote an attack on raganuga but did he fail to clarify its true nature to his disciples? Sridhar Maharaj spoke against it with his “not disturbing the highest quarters” and Prabhupada’s stance is well known against raganuga – so, were these disciples honest that they misinterpreted the teachings or of course, they knew enough but they did it purposefully alter at a stage to suit their preaching needs?
I do realize that Bhaktisiddhanta did a commendable job in exposing so many deviations or the negatives but I am just wondering whether he failed to emphasize the positives enough in Gaudiya math.
Vrajabhumi said:
Seeker
I don’t know if what Satyanarayana is saying is due to what he learned from Prabhupada. There are other conservative or more vaidhi-centric gurus as well. Satyanarayana was associated with Haridas Shastri for a long time, I’m not well read on his teachings, but I seem to remember him being pretty conservative when it comes to following rules and regulations.
Either way, what Satyanarayana said about SB 2.1.7, is an extrapolation, the sloka itself, or it’s context makes no such implication which he draws from it. Instead his extrapolation is based upon his interpretation of something Visvanath Chakravarti Thakur said in his Raga-vartma-chandrika. He ignores what Jiva Goswami said, which the person asking the question brought up, e.g. Jiva makes it clear as I’ve quoted many times on this blog: that a devotee fully on the level of raganuga doesn’t need to follow any rules or regulations, that the rules and regulations only serve the purpose of getting someone to the full raganuga platform, after that they have no purpose.
What Visvanath Chakravarti Thakur said in his Raga-vartma-chandrika is also brought up by Jiva Goswami. There are two types of raganuga bhaktas who do follow the rules of Vaidhi. The first type is someone who is acting as guru, an acharya, someone setting an example for teaching purposes to vaidhi-bhaktas. The second type are those on the level of ajata-ruci, or not fully on the level of raganuga. Those types of bhaktas have the raganuga mood, i.e. their faith and inspiration isn’t based upon being told they need to do bhakti-yoga in order to attain liberation, it’s based upon full faith in Krishna and wanting to enter into our eternal relationship. They may have the mood but are immature in their education in tattva-siddhanta—scriptural knowledge and self-realization. Those types of raganuga bhaktas need to follow vaidhi sadhana, i.e. a regulated sadhana, like that found in ashrams. It’s not that uncommon to have seen that type of devotee in ISKCON not even knowing they were raganuga bhaktas because Prabhupada didn’t really teach about it. They were naturally desirous of bhakti practice solely because they were eager to enter into rasa with Radha Krishna, which is the only qualification for raganuga bhakti.
As to your second question: I can’t say with certainty one way or another to how much Bhaktisiddhanta taught about raganuga-bhakti, there must be a lot of lectures and so forth which weren’t recorded for posterity. One thing we know he did was try to clamp down on what he saw as excesses in the presentation of raganuga which was prevalent during his time, e.g. the giving of what he saw as improper initiations to unqualified people. In doing so he went overboard I guess, in order to keep his disciples from straying into what he saw as the dismal state of the wider Gaudiya Vaishnava community. For example he didn’t want his disciples reading books written by people like Rupa Goswami which focused predominantly on the sringara-rasa. And in his Prakrta Rasa Sata Dusini he makes criticism against the current of his day, in the form of rules about how to teach about rasa or raganuga.
The Gaudiya Math devotees had to contend with the predominant mood in Vrindavan and Nabadwip being very carefree with their attitude towards vaidhi and raganuga. It seems likely many people were given diksha into raganuga bhakti (ekadasa bhava), where they were given a gopi identity to meditate on, for a donation. And even if it wasn’t so cheaply being given out like that, it was still being given out to bhaktas at the beginning of their bhakti practice in many instances (from what I’ve read). Those initiates would then often neglect the necessary sadhana which will give them self-realization, in favor of lila smaranam, meditating on being part of Krishna lila.
We still see that type of bhakti today, with or without ekadasa-bhava diksha, where people neglect the process which will raise them to be qualified to enter into bhava and rasa, instead, focusing on lila smaranam, meditation on lila (in various ways—reading, writing, speaking, thinking, singing.). You can tell these types of bhaktas by their focus being primarily on Vraja lila and it’s various minutia, as well as their literal understanding of it.
As for Prabhupada, he made it clear he was afraid his disciples would give up their gung-ho preaching mood if they delved into raganuga bhakti, famously saying the preaching would stop and “everything will be finished.” As for Sridhar Maharaj, he must have had a different reason for discouraging raganuga-bhakti, since his mood wasn’t really much of a preaching one. Maybe he was still in the mood of his youth, where Bhaktisiddhanta was trying to shield his young disciples from the temptation to join in with the wider Gaudiya community and embrace the cheaper version of raganuga being promoted there.
That’s not really such a problem anymore, it’s still there being promoted to some degree, but the general mood has gotten to be much more conservative. Now the problem, due to the growth and domination of organizations led by Bhaktisiddhanta’s disciples, the opposite is more of a problem, i.e. their lack of understanding of what Bhaktisiddhanta was trying to do within the context of those times. Now the problem is raganuga bhakti being ignored or even denigrated, much more so than the amount of misuse.
Seeker said:
Thanks for the wonderful write-up, Vrajabhumi.