Hindu Encounter with Modernity: Sahaja samadhi
Hindu Encounter with ModernityAs a result of thoughts expressed a few days ago on this blog, I decided to read through Shukavak's book again, from beginning to end this time, and review the points that he made there. I have mentioned this book many times and I would like to emphasize once again what an important contribution Shukavak has made to the future of the sampradaya by opening the door to this aspect of Bhaktivinoda's thought, which Bhaktivedanta, by inadvertance or by design, decided to omit from his own preaching.
I wrote in Bhaktivinoda Thakur's meat eating and Lalita Prasad Thakur that Bhaktivinoda Thakur made two most significant contributions: the first is the opening of a door to a modern approach to Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and history, the other is the wholehearted acceptance of the raganuga sadhana practices that are generally rejected by all branches of the Gaudiya Math.
Shukavak quotes several times a passage from the introduction to the Krishna-samhita, in which Bhaktivinoda Thakur states quite clearly that he hopes future scholars, or madhyamadhikari devotees, will continue the work that he has begun (see HEM, page 150):
যত দূর পারা গেল, ঘটনাসকলের ও গ্রন্থ আধুনিকমতে কাল নিরূপিত হইল। সারগ্রাহী জন গণ বাদনিসষ্ঠ নহেন, অতএব সদ্যুক্তি দ্বারা ইহার বিপরীত কোন বিষয় স্থির হইলেও তাহা আমাদের আদরণীয়। অতএব এতত্সিদ্ধান্ত সম্বন্ধে ভবিষ্যত পরমার্থবাদী বা বুদ্ধিমান অর্থবাদীদিগের নিকট হইতে অনেক আশা করা যায়।Though the specific context here is the historiography of ancient India, I believe that it applies to other areas in which Bhaktivinoda Thakur was interested, including the dialogue with other philosophies and religions. This is what I meant when I said that initiation was an entry into this dialogue centered about faith and the goals of faith as it manifests in this particular tradition.
As far as possible, I have determined the chronology of the major events and important books according to the modern perspective. A saragrahi, however, is not attached to a particular view, so if, in the future, any of my conclusions are refuted by better reasoning, then those new conclusions are worthy of my respect and consideration. Indeed, there is much hope that future spiritual seekers and intellectuals will improve upon this matter.
For those who are not familiar by now with Shukavak's analysis of BVT, I will just mention a couple of the more salient points. Most of this I have been talking about previously, although I may not have used the same terms that Bhaktivinoda did.
Shukavak has emphasized three points, which are all very significant, as they go completely against the kind of fundamentalist tenacity to scriptural literalism that characterizes smuch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, including those branches that claim allegiance to Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
- His acceptance of personal intuition or personal revelation, which he called sahaja-samadhi.
- Bhaktivinoda's interpretation of the three kinds of adhikara for devotion.
- His acceptance of the evolutionary or progressive model.
- His acceptance of symbolic interpretation of the scriptures and his theory of symbolism.
So the question here is whether the creative impulse really stands at the opposite extreme of the parampara model.
Anyway, I starting writing all this more than a month ago. It is now Sept. 21, but I am posting it anyway with the original date on it, even though it is unfinished. These are important ideas and will need further contemplation. I especially want to discuss the questions of symbolism.
Student paper about Bhaktivinoda Thakur
Comments
He studied the progressive Christian and Unitarian thinkers of his day as I have in ours. I find that progressive Christian theology is a good fit with revisions for BVT's teachings as he also saw a connection. Tillich separates faith and belief as BVT does, as well as uses symbolic language. I struggle with the tension between my Western understanding of things and Gaudiya Vaishnav teachings and think of how to adapt the GV teachings by getting down to the essence and then reimagining it for today.
A major revision by those who have the natural intuition to do it is badly needed.
In some ways it seems that Unitarianism and Vaishnavism are diametrically opposed. The Unitarian influence on the Brahmo Samaj, which BVT opposed, is well documented. Nevertheless, since the Unitarians were somewhat ahead of the game in the response to modernity, they developed certain arguments that Bhaktivinoda Thakur could avail himself of in devising his defense of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have a task for which we are uniquely equipped--in the sense that our connection to Bhaktivinoda Thakur makes it possible for us to apply the spirit of his modernizing project in the changing circumstances of today's world. The goalposts have moved a great deal since 1859. They have moved on from the time of Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta also. And the world-wide community of liberal believers who are also dealing with the questions of faith and belief, etc., in the present-day context have found numerous new tools, arguments and responses to help them deal with the unique challenges of faith, spirituality and religion in the present day.
We belong, I believe, to this world-wide community, even though our particular religious language, symbol system, etc., etc., are unique to our tradition. I would never sacrifice this unicity in the interest of an inchoate universalism. As I said recently, to me, a tradition means the historical dialogue that develops out of a particular revelation. We have to take that tradition, though which the epiphany of faith came to us, so to speak, as seriously as we take the new interpretive tools that have been given to us.
Anyway, I am happy that you are "out there" and I certainly look forward to more collaboration between us. We will have to eventually think of practical ways that we can do that.
Jai Radhe! Jagat.
You will surely agree with me that the Indian scholarly tradition has its own rationality and it would be interesting to explore and start thinking about the issue of Hindu encounter with modernity from there. In my opinion, BVT did not react to modernity as a traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava scholar but as a person who was already half-Westernized. Thus I doubt that he showed us the ropes.
Shukavak wrote this excellent book. But I think it is just a first step. We need studies that would critically examine BVT's views and check them against the teachings of the "fathers of the faith". The concept of sahaja-samadhi is fundemental for BVT. Before we accept it, it would be worth examining in relation to the concept of samadhi in traditional GV and other Indian traditions.
BVT's concept of sahaja-samadhi ith the traditional understanding of samadhi.
I see at least one problem with BVT's concept of samadhi. BVT accepts that samadhi is either
savikalpa or nirvikalpa. According to his explanation in Krishna Samhita 9.2, nirvikalpa-samadhi is
the real sahaja-samadhi and savikalpa-samadhi is kuta-samadhi. In classical yoga nirvikalpa-
samadhi is called asamprajnata-samadhi and savikalpa-samadhi is called samprajnata-samadhi. Thus
far I might agree with BVT.
However, according to Datta Kaustubha 75-78 there is gauna-samadhi and saksat-samadhi. Gauna-samadhi is threefold: samkhya-jnana-samadhi, atma-jnana-samadhi, and jnana-misra-samadhi and they lead to the realization of brahman, paramatma and bhagavan respectively. All these three
samadhis are characterized by conceptualization und thus, if I am correct, they are the same as
savikalpa-samadhi. Saksat-samadhi is twofold: sahaja-samadhi and nitanta-sahaja-samadhi, and
they lead to the realization of Narayana and Krishna respectively. They are free of conceptualization
and thus they are the same as nirvikalpa-samadhi.
From this follows that according to BVT yogis and jnanis who realize brahman and paramatma do not
attain nirvikalpa-samadhi. This is not correct in my opinion. Even a cursory look at Yoga-sutras
reveals that they are familiar with the concept of nirvikalpa-samadhi, and supposedly also experience it.
Please corret me if I am wrong. It might well be that BVT's concept of samadhi is different from the
traditional concept of samadhi, and thus it is quetionable if what he describes is samadhi at all.
As far as I can understand, his main concern here is revelation based in some kind of realization. But I agree that sahaja-samadhi, at least, in this context, is not equivalent to traditional yogic definitions of samadhi. It seems more associated with what he elsewhere calls svataH-siddha-jJAna in Amnaya-sutram. But this is something into which further research is necessary. You seem to have made a good start.
I confess that my knowledge of these works (Krsna-samhita, Tattva-viveka and Amnaya-sutra), all of which are necessary to get a more sophisticated understanding of Bhaktivinoda Thakur's "systematic theology", is not as strong as it should be.
As to the question of adhikara, you probably are refering to yesterday's post as well as this one. I am not entirely satisfied with my understanding. There is clearly a relationship between knowledge and devotion, which needs considerable finesse in distinguishing. I believe Jiva Goswami says somewhere that bhakti is a kind of jnana, by which I assume he means consciousness rather than knowledge per se (which in the West really means the objects of knowledge, i.e. the things known).
So there is a complex hierarchy of adhikaras. But Bhaktivinoda Thakur is obviously inspired by the adhikaras for vaidhi bhakti listed in 1.2.8-10 of BRS. There three things are considered to be elements of one's degree of qualification: (1) Faith, (2) Knowledge of the traditional teachings, and (3) Knowledge of rational arguments. Of course, since the eligibility for bhakti is universal (as is bathing in the Ganges in the month of Magha), these degrees indicate some kind of special qualification in relation to the practice of bhakti.
The objection comes when one asks, what is the relationship of these qualifications and raganuga bhakti, which supposedly is based on ruchi alone (rather than faith per se, though I see it as a kind of transformation of faith) and has nothing to do with scriptural injunctions and logical arguments (clarifying somewhat the distinction between sastra and yukti given above).
In these cases, it would appear that the reasoning is that faith, traditional knowledge and awareness of rational arguments are all impetuses (codanA) that lead to actions, gross and subtle, that are defined as sadhana-bhakti.
In this context, Jiva Goswami's distinction between ruchi-pradhana and vichara-pradhana devotees is useful.
There is clearly a distinction between these three categories and the other categorization of kanistha, madhyama and uttama found in the 11th canto, or the description in Upadesamrita (verse 7, I believe, kRSNeti yasya giri, etc.) which is also followed in Mahaprabhu's instruction to the residents of Kulinagram (vaiSNava, vaiSNavatara, vaiSNavatama). Nevertheless, these various hierarchies need to be harmonized to get a better understanding of the overall nature of spiritual progress on the Vaishnava path.
Apart from that, if sahaja-samadhi is really BVT's translation of Emerson's natural intuition (as Shukavak suggests), it is necessary to explore the Western idea of intuition. Intuition is an understanding without apparent effort, a kind of insight, something I don't think applies to samadhi which one must make effort (i.e. sadhana) to attain. The effort is necessary because one needs to get rid of vrttis (which are fivefold as explained in Yoga Sutras). I doubt there is anything that would come close to Yoga Sutras' discussion of vrttis and sadhana in the works of Emerson, Tillich and similar thinkers.
As far as BVT's theory of adhikara is concerned, it does not seem to me necessary to relate it to bhakti. BVT's theory of adhikara apparently applies to everybody, including non-devotees. Since the theory is based on the notion of scriptural literalism, it has naturally to do with understanding or interpretation, i.e. ultimately with hermeneutics. Of course, some knowledge or understanding is needed in order to have faith which is the beginning stage of bhakti. From this perspective, BVT's adhikara-theory, if at all valid, has some relation to bhakti, but is not inseparable from bhakti.
The problem of literalism is not unkown to the Sanskrit tradition. Already Purva-mimamsakas rejected the literalistic interpretation of the Veda. For example, they don't accept that the devatas have a form etc. (see Jaimini Sutras 1.2.5 with Sabara-bhashya), whereas Vedantists say they have a deha (see Vedana Sutras 1.3.26-28, e.g. with our Baladeva Vidyabhushana's tika). Should purva-mimamsakas be considered madhyamadhikaris and Vedantists kanisthadhikaris? I don't think so.
As you may have noticed I am sceptical about some of BVT's idea. It seems to me that his theory of adhikara is too simplistic, if we start discussing the problems it tries to solve by taking into account the traditional scholarly discourse.
Nevertheless, I think you are right to seek precision in the concept of personal revelation, or intuition, and the varieties of understanding related to samadhi, a term which even at the best of times is riddled with mystification. In a sense, I like BVT's "democratization" of samadhi.
But I feel less convinced by your characterization of the adhikara question. I think that for BVT all knowledge would have been connected to devotion. This is why he used Rupa Goswami's terms (komala sraddha). The study of shastra (a concept that he no doubt widened) and the use of reason ultimately serve to strengthen faith, even if in the first instance it may appear to function as doubt.
For a madhyama adhikari, no one is a blooper.
But it is clear that BVT (and BSS for that matter, and no doubt BVS as well) would have prefered that we not apotheosize their teachings, but rather that we enter into the spirit that comes from the essential revelations that transformed the heart. These transformations are synonymous with conversion, i.e., accepting the three principal teachings, the essence of sambandha, abhidheya and prayojana.
I admit that since reading Shukavak's book a second time, I have become inspired to go back to the abovementioned books, which I had never looked at in any depth, to see more directly how BVT dealt with these issues. Perhaps some day I will be able to say something meaningful on the issue.
In the meantime, thank you for your insights.
Datta-kaustubha -- 1873
Krishna-samhita -- 1880
Amnaya-sutram -- 1890
Tattva-sutra -- 1893
Tattva-viveka -- 1893
It's always good to be conscious of an author's evolution, and twenty years can make a big difference in one's thinking. Nevertheless, the idea of sahaja certainly seems to have been with BVT throughout, as he mentions it in almost all of these works.
With regards to your statement that the yogis knew of nirvikalpa samadhi, it seems as though BVT is requiring a rethinking of the terms, defending the personalist conception of God, which he calls the sahaja-vastu. (It is really hard to see why Shukavak did not follow up on the whole history of the word sahaja as it is used in a whole collection of traditions, starting with Buddhism and the Sahaja-yana, not least of which is the Sant tradition in North India (Kabir, Nanak, etc.), as well as the Baul tradition, which influenced Rabindranath and must have been to a degree in popular awareness. Perhaps Shukavak was worried about the connection to Sahajiyaism, which BVT clearly tried to avoid. But I don't think it is possible that he could have chosen the term, which is so loaded culturally and historically, without some awareness of the pros and cons of doing so.
In Tattva-viveka (23), BVT uses sAhajika-jJAna as a synonym: "There is one group of people who are unable to establish their doctrine on the basis of pure, natural understanding (sAhajika-jJAna), but at the same time do not believe in the universal efficacy of reason. On the basis of a partial acceptance of natural intuition (I can't help using this translation), they accept that God exists. And absorbed in jnana, they enter into samadhi, but this samadhi is not sahaja-samadhi, because they are aiming at a "kuta-chinta". With this kuta chinta they can break through the gross material world, but they cannot see the spiritual world. This is because without sahaja samadhi, the sahaja tattva cannot be revealed."
Then he goes on to indicate that he is refering to people like Theosophists, etc. The word kUTa has many meanings, and I will have to look around to see which one BVT is refering to. Here is a list from the Bengali dictionary, but I suspect he means, "illusion, fraud, trick, untruth, falsehood, puzzling question, enigma" (See BhP 6.5.10, 29). Or perhaps he is following Sridhar Swami (10.12.19)--AbhAsa. (Shukavak "false intuition.")
Anyway, those are more a set of notes than a real post.
Narada, as you will remember, came and told the Haryashvas indirectly to disobey their father's instructions. Even though he never told them directly, they, through their natural intelligence, could understand the underlying truth of his statements.
This may indeed be the origin of BVT's idea. Who knows? :)
Actually, Jiva Goswami explains in Bhakti Sandarbha that samadhi on bhakti-marga is different from the yogic samadhi. The yogic samadhi is citta-vRtti-nirodhaH, whereas vaishnava samadhi is bhagavad-AviSTa-cittaH. Jiva Goswami therefore concludes: tasmAd asamprajJAta-nAmno brahma-samAdhito bhinna evAsau.
Perhaps my choice of words was unfortunate. I do think that perhaps "expand" would have been better.
Perhaps we make too radical a break between intuition and samadhi, and one is just more of the same. I have been thinking along these lines where sraddha and prema are concerned, in the sense that sraddha arises out of a perception of prema, or a glimpse of the experience thereof.
Perhaps this is what BVT was getting at. Somehow, we know something is right when it touches our true self. And that touching of the true self, no matter how conditioned our state when it happens, is in fact an experience of samadhi.
According to Jiva Goswami's Bhakti Sandarbha, sraddha is either laukika or sastriya. Only the sastriya sraddha leads to uttama-bhakti which is our goal, and this sraddha is defined as zAstrArtha-vizvAsa. The aim of all the books written by our acharyas is to convey sastriya sraddha. In my opinion, the concept of sastriya sraddha makes BVT's adhikara-vada problematic. Komala-sraddhas and madhyamadhikaris clearly do not have sastriya sraddha. Therefore, their adhikara is actually no adhikara for bhakti (which means uttama-bhakti) at all.
I certainly don't think that intuition and samadhi are just more of the same, as you wrote. Samadhi can be attained only by those whose antaHkaraNa is suddha. It must be a permanent state. Samadhi is generally something attained by sadhana. As I have stated earlier, intuition does not require sadhana.
Of course, we have to explain religious experiences as those that were described by William James and his followers, and this is probably what you refer to. I think they can at best fall in category of what Jiva Goswami calls sAkSAt-kArAbhAsa because of the asvacchAntaHkaraNatva of those who experience it. This is just my first thought on this subject, so I may be wrong, I don't know.
But I would tend to categorize it differently. The CC says that Mahaprabhu came to give prema-nama, which I have heard explained as "prema first, name after." That was during Mahaprabhu's incarnation, of course, but the fact remains that through the Holy Name, pure or impure, qualified or unqualified, we get a taste of the Holy Name.
I have been having this discussion for quite a while. For instance, the word rasa also is put on the same distant pedestal, but there are places in the Bhagavatam (1.1.3, 1.5.16, 12.13.14) where it is described as a more immediate experience and not something only attained at the end of a long arduous process. That is the vaidhi concept, you might say, contrasted with the raganuga idea, where bhaktyA saJjAtayA bhaktyA, bhakti is the cause of bhakti; prema is the cause of prema.
I think we need to do a little demystification of all the concepts. We have a tendency to place them outside of "normal" human experience, when they are not. The very fact that we can somehow conceive of the possibility of things like samadhi--even though they are supposedly vAk-manasAgocara--is that they are within the realm of human conception.
This is what I believe BVT meant by sahaja.
This does not eliminate the need for sadhana, as that is the outcome of faith. What you want is basically "more of the same," both qualitatively and quantitatively.
The other generally accepted cause of faith is the association of a devotee. In fact, what this is is an experience of truth and love embodied in a person. This again fits into the idea of prema being the cause of prema.
Finally, I would like to corret your statement that the maxim bhaktyA saJjAtayA bhaktyA applies to both vaidhi and raganuga-bhakti. As far as I know, it speaks about the nirhetukatva of bhakti, its independence from jnana and karma. It is nowhere mentioned that it applies only to raganuga.
As for the rest, I will repeat myself that sraddha is the first ingress of svarupa-sakti of the Lord in the jiva, and that as the jiva gets rid of anarthas, the svarupa-sakti manifests fully as prema. If there are no anarthas, the process is immediate, and prema manifests at the very moment. The experience of prema is permanent, because it is sthayi-bhava.
As far as my abhasa idea is concerned, I need some time think about it. Jiva Goswami does not use the concept of saksatkarabhasa in the same sense I used it. It was just a suggestion, though maybe not entirely improbable.
I will end our interesting discussion here, although there are many questions that we could talk about.
(Correction: I noticed that in one of the previous posts I gave you an incorrect reference to Jaimini Sutras. Instead of 1.2.5 it should have been Adhyaya 9 Pada 1)
I believe that there is something about the svarupa-shakti question also that is very intimately related to the whole question of sahaja. The IGM is often associated with the idea that bhakti is inherent in the jiva. This is refute in various ways. There was just a discussion on Advaita's blog on the subject.
Bhaktivinoda never minimized the necessity for external blessings in the spiritual quest, but I think that there is some justification for stating that the natural state of the jiva is to be united with the svarupa-shakti.
I suppose the question is the relationship between potential and attainment.
I agree that this discussion has run its course, as is often the case. Someone will have to go into it more deeply and do a thorough job of investigating the question from both sides, looking into all the ramifications. I thank you greatly for your stimulating input.
Jagatji, this question may seem somewhat off the subject but fatre reading Sukavak's book I was wondering when the Thakura accepted vesh towards the end of his life, what was the name given to him? Did he become as 'Bhaktivinode Das Babaji" or was there another appellation given to him?