The Sahajiya Crusade; More Aropa

For the past year, I have studiously avoided participating in any forums and have practically stopped all correspondence with others, whatever their allegiances. Although most of my efforts have been going into the most mundane of goals--material survival--I have not entirely abandoned my soul.

In a websearch, I came across a long discussion that took place on Gaudiya Repercussions not long after my Sahajiya "outing" on the same forum. It was instigated by Nitai and Jijaji, and contains many valuable comments and reactions from the intelligent and learned participants in that forum. Nitai even starts the whole thing off from the same point that this blog does: My statement that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a bird with two wings: the orthodox and the sahajiya. He says,

I think orthodox CV can fly pretty well on its own without any help from its sahajiya kindred. I recognise the very close and complex relationship that exists between CV and SV, but in my view SV has been and remains dependent on CV is ways that CV is not on SV. I would alter the image Jagat gave somewhat and suggest that CV is the Garuda and SV is something like a stowaway rider, taking advantage of the rich theological ideas and literature and practices of CV, but not being particularly welcome onboard. Again relying on this image, there is reason to believe that this unwelcome rider at some point early in the history of the CV tradition tugged at Garuda's reigns and influenced to some degree the direction the mighty eagle flew in. That said, I don't think CV is in any way dependent on SV in the way that it is on CV. Their relationship is, however, very close and in very interesting ways.

I recognize this argument as it seems the most rational response to a statement that might best be characterized as an ecstatic utterance. Perhaps if I had stated something on the order of "material sexuality" and "the sexual imagery in Radha Krishna lila," it would have better approximated my intuition. The fundamental error in Nitai's statement is perhaps in the ascription of historical primacy to Orthodox Vaishnavism and not to Sahajiyaism, or to dualistic Tantric imagery.

Bhaktivinoda Thakur stated the following in the Kṛṣṇa-saṁhitā:

The condition of being male and female in the material world is a distorted reflection of the state of enjoyer and enjoyed found in the spiritual world. Searching through all the dictionaries we are not able to find the proper words to explain this non-material pastime of saṁyoga with the Supreme living force. On account of this, all the words concerning contact between man and woman in the material world are used figuratively to express this relationship. However, there should be no cause for obscene thinking. If out of fear of being obscene we stop, then there can be no discussion of the Supreme Truth. In fact we are only able to describe the principles of Vaikuntha by describing the phenomenal states in the material world that are reflections of the authentic experiences of Vaikuntha. There is no other way to describe this subject. (KS, Appendix V, 117, quoted in Hindu Encounter with Modernity, p. 242)

Kṛṣṇa-saṁhitā was written with a certain audience in mind and so our Thakur may have overemphasized the figurative nature of the divine sexuality; nevertheless, no matter how much "contact of man with woman in the material world" is diminished and the "non-material pastime of saṁyoga" exalted, "there is no other way to describe this subject."

One thing I have been trying to say is this: I don't know if I qualify as a "true" Sahajiya. As Nitai says, Sahajiyas themselves don't call themselves Sahajiyas, so who am I to do so? I adopted the nomenclature for several reasons, primarily because I accept the premise that "contact of man with woman in the material world" serves not only as a means of true insight into Radha and Krishna lila, but also increases bhakti experientially and towards the ultimate goal of prema. I don't believe that the two apparently contradictory points of view expressed in the orthodox and sahajiya positions are irreconcilable, moreover I say that they are complementary, like two wings on the same bird.

Whether or not the orthodox or the sahajiyas accept that they are complementary is of no concern to me. This is another thing I have been trying to say: Religion is concerned with ideals; with an expression of the ideal in human life and experience. Religions tend to survive and flourish when their practitioners are most able to mirror these ideals in reality, i.e., to create the "kingdom of God" on earth. When they begin to fail, the edifice begins to crumble, the luster wanes, and a vision more tenable replaces it. Of course, since no ideal can ever be fully realized in this world, it goes without saying that ALL religions are vulnerable to criticism. La perfection n'est pas de ce monde.

Our position is very clearly this: that if the only terms we can find to express the relationship of the soul to God is the analogy of human love then this automatically validates the experience of human love. This means that, despite the dangers that come from human weakness where sexuality is concerned, we cannot abandon the significance that the image itself presents to us and indeed the force that the symbol of the Divine Couple imposes on us to accept the spiritual power of human sexual love.

If I differ from traditional Sahajiyaism here, then I tread my own path with no concern for Sahajiya traditions. This means that I will disagree, or at least find it necessary to offer precisions, when Dasgupta defines āropa as follows:

We have seen that Sahaja as the absolute reality of the nature of pure love involves within it two factors, i.e., the enjoyer and the enjoyed, represented in the Nitya-Vrindavan by Krishna and Radha. These principles of the enjoyer and the enjoyed are known in the Sahajiya school as the Purusha and the Prakriti, manifested on earth as the male and the female. It has been said in a song (ascribed to Chandi Das) "There are two currents in the lake of love, which can be realised only by the rasikas (i.e., people versed in rasa). When the two currents remain united together in one, the rasika realises the truth of union."' (page 133)

Through man and woman flow these two currents of love, man and woman are, therefore, the gross manifestations of the same principles of which Krishna and Radha are the pure spiritual representations. Man and woman, in other words, are manifestations on earth of the eternal types that are enjoying each other in their eternal Vrindavan, and the bliss of intense love that is enjoyed by man and woman through their mutual attachment even in the physical body is but a gross transformation of the eternal purest love that exists only in Vrindavan. Man and woman as the representatives of the two flows of love are known in the Sahajiya literature as Rasa (the ultimate emotion as the enjoyer) and Rati (i.e., the object of Rasa), or as Kāma (the lover that attracts towards him the beloved) and Madana (the exciting cause of love in the lover).

In standard Vaishnavism also Krishna is known as Kāma or Kandarpa, as he attracts the minds of all creatures towards him, while Radha is Madana or the object that renders pleasure to the enjoyer. Sahaja is the emotion of the pure love flowing between Rasa and Rati or Kama and Madana. For the realisation of this Sahaja nature, therefore, a particular pair of man and woman should first of all realise their true self as Rasa and Rati or Krishna and Radha,--and it is only when such a realisation is perfect that they become entitled to realise the Sahaja through their intense mutual love.  

This realisation of the true nature of man as Krishna and that of woman as Radha is technically known as the principle of āropa or the attribution of divinity to man. Through continual psychological discipline man and woman (page 134) must first of all completely forget their lower animal selves and attribute Krishnahood to man and Radhahood to woman. Through this process of attribution there will gradually dawn the realisation of the true nature of the two as Krishna and Radha. When man and woman can thus realise themselves as Krishna and Radha in their true nature, the love that exists between them transcends the category of gross sensuality, it becomes love divine, and the realisation of such an emotion of love is realisation of the Sahaja.

Here there is a difference of outlook among the Sahajiyas and the standard Vaishnavas of Bengal. Krishnadas Kaviraj has unambiguously declared in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta that kāma (love in its grosser aspect) and prema (divine love) are charateristically distinct in their nature like iron and gold, and while the keynote of kāma is the fulfilment of selfish desires, the keynote of prema is self-elimination and the fulfilment of the divine desires in and through our whole being. But the Sahajiyas, while agreeing to the latter part of the statement, do not agree to the former part of it. The same flow of emotion, they hold, that becomes kāma in association with the selfish desires, transformed itself into prema when dissociated from such desires through physical and psychological discipline. Prema is but the purified form of kāma, and as such the former has its origin in the latter. There cannot be prema without kāma, and hence, prema cannot be attained through the absolute negation of kāma; it is to be attained rather through the transformation of kāma.  

The prema of the Sahajiyas is not the emotion of the most intense devotion of man towards God, it is the most intense emotion of love existing between Krishna and Radha residing as the svarūpa in the rūpa of every man and woman. It is from this point of view that Candi Das exclaimed, "Harken men, my brothers, man is the truth above all truths, there is nothing above that." (Posted on Gaudiya Discussions)

My point here is this: we are not these bodies. So when Dasgupta says all men are Krishna and all women Radha, he is failing to make this primordial distinction. It is not the soul that becomes Radha or Krishna, it is merely the physical vehicle that is being ascribed (āropa) Radha-ness or Krishna-ness. The relationship of the soul to the Divine Couple remains that of a mañjarī, who is engaged in serving the Divine Union, witnessing it, partaking in it like the mañjarīs watching the līlā-keli by the windows of the kunja.

I often remember my godbrother Doctor Babu, a closet Sahajiya himself, who would quote the famous babaji Dina Sharan Dasji saying that if he had had no experience of sexuality, he would have no insight into Radha Krishna līlā. But the mirror works two ways: Insight into Radha Krishna līlā brings meaning to human sexuality. It is indeed a way of finding the mahā-sukha, as all Indian religion is at its very basis, by definition, a search for the highest pleasure, but this does not mean that sexuality on its own, devoid of smaraṇa, is the exclusive source of mahā-sukha or ānanda. Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu rightly rejected the griha sannyasi in the Chaitanya Bhagavata when he offered them a taste of this ananda.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, mañjarī-bhāva is the hidden ingredient to sacralizing human sexuality beyond its reproductive function. Mañjarī-bhāva is about sādhāraṇī-karaṇa which, I have come to the conclusion, is identical with āropa. Whereas sādhāraṇī-karaṇa is the response that the receptive audience has to a piece of literature through unconscious identification, āropa is the same relative stance that one consciously takes towards the experiences of one's own life and love, transformed through recognition of its relation to the Divine Lila.

I realize that this might seem outlandish to the ordinary devotee, but I ask you to try to understand what Rupa Goswami is getting at with all his rasa theories. Sahaja means that human experience itself is the door to understanding and experiencing Radha and Krishna. The means for that are sādhāraṇī-karaṇa and āropa. Sādhāraṇī-karaṇa is identification with Radha: it is the Bhagavata Rasa; it is viraha-pradhāna.

Aropa is the about identification with Radha and Krishna, but it is the Vasanta Rāsa; it is sambhoga-pradhāna. The two Rāsas together complement each other as orthodoxy and sahajiyaism, like two wings on the same bird. (Obviously, I am not yet finished explaining this analogy!!!)

Now, as a final statement, for today: Sahajiyaism is not about sexual obsession, in any sense of the word. It is about a normalization of sexuality through sacralization. Radha and Krishna are at the center of the spiritual experience. Everything else: social action, kindness to the unfortunate, ethics and morality, all radiate out from this. This is not automatic in the way that pushing a button means the lights go on, but means that the devotee idealist, having found the center, strives to manifest the ideals of the Vaishnava character in every aspect of his life.

OM TAT SAT.