Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Jugupsā and Madhura-rati

I was thinking about a section of the Bhakti-rasayānam by Madhusudan Saraswati that made a big impression on me when I first read it so many years ago. Madhusudan says that the goal of spiritual practice to transform the mind by reshaping it into the image of God. How does one shape the mind? In this, Madhusudan’s insight into the efficaciousness of bhakti is remarkably modern: he says that the mind is like a piece of sealing wax that softens on being placed near a source of heat; when overwhelmed by an emotion, it takes on the shape of whatever happens to come into contact with it. Then, subsequently, when the emotion subsides, the mind is left marked with formative impressions, just as the wax is after cooling off. These impressions are called vāsanās or saṁskāras in Madhusudana's terminology.

We know that childhood experiences leave deep imprints on the subconscious that are indeed hard if not impossible to efface. These are the discoveries of depth psychology, which has its own methods of dealing with them in the attempt to find a "cure for the soul." Madhusudan, however, opens the door to understanding bhakti as a practical solution for the problems caused by these "sum-scars" as I like to call them.

Of course, in the Vaishnava vision of things, saṁskāras or vāsanās stretch across many lives; Rupa makes a point of saying that bhakti-rasa is experienced by devotees whose devotional conditioning (bhakti-saṁskāra) stretches across not only this life, but previous lives as well. No matter, the superiority of the bhakti process over other systems arises out of its effectiveness in effacing the negative conditioning of the subtle body--mind, intelligence and ahaṁkāra, as well as the citta, which I think might best be called the "unconscious." The difference between jnana and bhakti could be compared roughly to that which exists in modern psychology between the talking and behaviorist schools. The former are akin to jnana, in the sense that understanding the subtle causes, etc., of one's particular conditioning is primary, while bhakti is closer to behavioral therapies, which train the mind and senses to function in healthy ways even where there is an imperfect understanding of causes.

The bhakti process of transformation is thus practical. Madhusudana's choice of the word rasāyana, or alchemy, for the title of his book is a clear indication of this transformative power, which he explains in accordance with rasa theory. To Madhusudana, the essential feature of rasa is its ability to melt the mind. There are numerous verses in the Bhāgavatam that remind us of the kind of breakdown that devotees experience when chanting or hearing Krishna's names or glories. The point is that bhakti practices are meant to induce such states of breakdown whereby transcendental associations can be imprinted on the subtle body of the devotee. Evidently, no practice is more powerful than the chanting of the Holy Name, which can leave an indelible impression on the psyche. This is why Narada says,

na vai jano jātu kathañcanāvrajen
mukunda-sevy anyavad aṅga saṁsṛtim
smaran mukundāṅghry-upagūhanaṁ punar
vihātum icchen na rasa-graho janaḥ

A servant of Mukunda who has "caught the rasa" never experiences the material world in the same way that others do, for as he constantly remembers the taste of Mukunda's foot lotus nectar, he cannot bear to abandon those feet completely. (SB 1.5.17)
Ultimately, bhakti is truly holistic because it engages the human being at all levels of the mind and body in the task of attaining the prayojana, which is understood in terms of love. In other words, as with many other psychological systems, at least since the time of Freud, the ability of a human being to live healthily and holistically is seen as a function of his ability to love healthily. The particular viewpoint of the Vaishnava is, of course, that Krishna has to be the center of any such "cure."

The fundamental idea is that by fixing the mind on Krishna, the source of love, it takes on the shape of that love. The significance of the verses in Canto 7.1 that lead up to tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet ("Fix the mind on Krishna by any means whatsoever.") lies here: Kamsa and other demons who thought of Krishna with fear or hate experienced a transformation of their inner being until it became "Krishna-shaped," but that was for all intents and purposes limited in value. They may have attained mukti, but that is a paltry attainment in comparison to the offerings of bhakti.

If one's God is an object of fear or hate, then what benefit does that bring? It is said that they were killed at the hands of God and attained sāyujyā mukti. This is an interesting analysis of a particular religious posture. To know that one is being killed by God, as was inevitable, is the ultimate relief for the God-hater. The same God, as the famous mallānām aśanir verse shows, is experienced in different ways, but the quality of that experience differs, and that difference is significant in ultimate ways.

Though the language differs somewhat, it might be considered an attempt to deepen a comprehension of the mechanics spoken of in Gita 2.59:

viṣayā vinivartante nirāhārasya dehinaḥ
rasa-varjaṁ raso'py asya paraṁ dṛṣṭvā nivartate
The sense objects may cease to trouble the embodied soul who refrains from enjoying them, but the taste also ceases in the person who has seen the Supreme Truth.

Jugupsā rati

In view of the above, I thought it might be interesting to discuss some aspects of jugupsā-rati, which leads to bībhatsā-rasa. Srila Prabhupada used to like quoting one verse that comes from the sthāyi-bhāva chapter of the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu--and I may add that it made sufficient impression on me that I can still recite it from memory without difficulty nearly 30 years after leaving Iskcon:

yad-avadhi mama cetaḥ kṛṣṇa-pādāravinde
nava-nava-rasa-dhāmany udyataṁ rantum āsīt
tad-avadhi bata nārī-sangame smaryamāṇe
bhavati mukha-vikāraḥ suṣṭhu-niṣṭhīvanaṁ ca

Ever since my mind turned to cavorting in the light of ever new rasas at Krishna's lotus feet, as soon as I recall my past sexual adventures, my mouth turns in disgust and I have to spit.(BRS 2.5.72)
Sometimes this verse is attributed to Mukunda-mālā or some other work, but it is in fact Rupa's own. In his commentary, Vishwanath cites a similar sentiment from the Bhāgavatam--

tvaṅ-māṁsa-rudhira-snāyu-medo-majjāsthi-saṁhatau
viṇ-mūtra-pūye ramatāṁ kṛmīṇāṁ kiyad antaram

What is the difference between me, who takes pleasure in [sexual] contact with bodies made of skin, muscle, blood, nerves, fat, marrow, and bones, and the worms who relish disgusting things like rotting food, stool and urine? (SB 11.26.21)
Later, in his chapter on bībhatsā-rasa, Rupa gives another example that is quite similar to the earlier verse:

pāṇḍityaṁ rata-hiṇḍakādhvani gato yaḥ kāma-dīkṣā-vratī
kurvan pūrvam aśeṣa-ṣiḍga-nagarī-sāmrājya-caryām abhūt
citraṁ so’yam udīrayan hari-guṇān udbāṣpa-dṛṣṭir jano
dṛṣṭe strī-vadane vikūṇita-mukho viṣṭabhya niṣṭhīvati
Just look! This devotee was once a great student of the art of seduction. He was dedicated to the service of Kamadeva and had attained lordship over the unlimited realm of debauchery. How amazing it is to see him today, for now if this very same person sees a woman's face while singing Krishna's glories with tear-filled eyes, his face becomes disfigured and he spits. (BRS 4.7.3)
In BRS 4.7.2, Srila Rupa Goswami says that mainly bhaktas in the śānta mood take shelter of this rasa and are thus its ālambanas. Jiva there comments that the word śāntādyāḥ in this verse includes both the austere tapasvīs who are generally associated with the śānta-rasa and all others who have not attained closeness to the Supreme Lord (ādya-grahaṇāt aprāpta-bhagavat-sānnidhyāḥ sarva eva). These two restrictions are rather significant, because they indicate a kind of incompleteness in the primary rasa, name bhakti-rasa.

This is why Rupa Goswamipada concludes the chapter and the section on the gauṇa-rasas by making the significant statement that in fact there is only one bhakti rasa, which is based on the direct relationships with Krishna. This single rasa is then subdivided into five. In this optic, the other seven rasas, which are called secondary, function as vyabhicārīs rather than as full rasas in their own right. What is most exceptional about jugupsā-rati, however, is that it is the only sthāyi-bhāva of which Krishna cannot be the object.

This is underlined by the division of jugupsā into two--prāyikī ("generalized") and vivekajā ("born of discernment"). The examples given above are of the latter sort, whereas the kind of disgust of stool and other things, which has little at all to do with bhakti, is more generalized. In a world where there is no forgetfulness of Krishna, the latter has a place, but the former cannot arise. It is only those who are able to conceive of forgetfulness of Krishna who experience it.

This can be recognized in the sādhakas described by Krishna in the following verses of the Bhāgavatam--

jāta-śraddhā mat-kathāsu nirviṇṇaḥ sarva-karmasu
veda duḥkhātmakān kāmān parityāge’py anīśvaraḥ
tato bhajeta māṁ prītaḥ śraddhālur dṛḍha-niścayaḥ
juṣamāṇaś ca tān kāmān duḥkhodarkāṁś ca garhayan

One whose faith in my topics has arisen and who is indifferent to all works, who knows that material desires (kāma) are permeated with suffering, but is still unable to abandon them completely, should engage in my devotional service with love, faith and firm purpose, even as he tries to fulfill those desires while simultaneously condemning them for being the source of misery. (SB 11.20.27-28, Bhakti-sandarbha 172)
Vishwanath explains the latter part of the verse with the following description of the devotee in the above situation.

aho amī viṣaya-bhogā eva mamānartha-kāriṇo bhagavat-pada-prāpti-pratikūlāḥ,
yad ete bahuśo nāma-grāham api sa-śapatham api tyaktā api samaye bhoktavyā eva bhavantīti, "nindāmi ca pibāmi ca" iti nyāyena bhuñjānaḥ

Alas, these sense gratificatory activities bring about so much unwanted trouble and they are unfavorable to my real goal, which is to attain the Lord's lotus feet. And even though I have analyzed these desires, named them and sworn to give them up, from time to time it seems I must engage in them. I condemn them and drink them at the same time.
There may be a place for this kind of self-flagellation at an early stage of the self-purificatory process. We see it in certain places, in prayers of submission and humility. Nevertheless, the above statements by Sri Rupa and Jiva Goswamis indicate that this kind of consciousness of the conditioned state maintains rather than reduces the distance between the practitioner and the Lord. So, we must conclude that this is a characteristic of the vidhi-mārga and thus of limited usefulness to those on the path of rāga.

Mādhurya-rasa

The reader will have remarked the familiar juxtaposition of the erotic with jugupsā in the above examples. But before we read too much into these condemnations of sexuality, we should take all the above caveats into consideration. I will make my argument here brief. To some extent I have already made it before when I spoke about the engagement of the senses, including the sex organs, as elements of bhakti practice.

My real purpose, however, is to place make a distinction between the actual sex activity and sexual love, which may be better served by the term "romantic love." Let me state it in the following way: The idea presented by Madhusudan Saraswati is that the bhakta seeks to imprint his mind with Krishna, producing an inner transformation. Madhusudan's argument is ultimately that only bhakti-rasa produces the most profound levels of transformation.

My suggestion, however, is that the human being undergoes the most radical "meltdown" when he falls in love. If at this time he is able to imprint the image of Radha and Krishna on his consciousness, he will spring easily and smoothly into Radha and Krishna consciousness. The jugupsā part of the equation comes in any non-devotional elements that interfere with the process. Recently there were reports of vegan woman who found the very idea of having sexual relations with carnivorous men to be disgusting. Similarly, for a devotee who is seeking entry into the transcendental pastimes of Radha and Krishna, the very idea of a lust-based relationship with a non devotee is repulsive.

On the other hand, the transformative potential of love between practicing devotees, aided by ritual and the appropriate consciousness, is extremely great.

What I am getting at is this: There is a two-way relation between the ideal and the real, represented by Radha-Krishna and the human couple respectively. As Vaishnavas we are essentialists rather than existentialists, even though as acintya-bhedābheda-vādins we recognize the validity of both standpoints. Modern existentialism, which is really the basis of radical agnostic individualism, is something of an adolescent game. Human experience informs our experience of the Divine; our experience of the Divine helps us to shape our human experience. The combination of the two is like light concentrated by repeated reflection between two mirrors.

If you say that human love is abhorrent and you fail to recognize its value in informing our experience of the Divine, you cut the heart out of Radha-Krishna worship.

10 comments:

advaitadas said...

Jagat, if that were a general rule, then how can you explain that the vast majority of our acaryas were life-long monks - Sri Rupa Sanatan Bhatta Raghunath
Sri Jiva Gopala Bhatta Dasa Raghunath, Kaviraj, Lokanath, Narottam, Visvanath, Baladeva, Bhaktisiddhanta, my Guru and indeed your own Guru?
OK, there are also Ramananda Ray, Srinivasacarya, Bhaktivinod and many great Adwaita/Nityananda Vams Goswamis, but being a grihastha is surely not the hallmark of being a siddha.

Jagat said...

I am not saying that is the case. In fact, I have said the contrary: Not everyone, by fortune, fate or inclination, can undertake this sadhana. The Indian mindset has always associated spiritual advancement with renunciation, mainly because it is so hard, if not impossible, to achieve. If not, why did the gods shower flowers on Bhishma when he took his vow of celibacy?

Nevertheless, no one in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya has ever said that anyone is ineligible to attain the highest perfection, regardless of external conditions--grhe thako, bane thako, sada hari bole dako!

However, now that the tables have turned and celibacy is considered suspect more often than not, it may be better for us to admit defeat (as I believe was always intended by the good Lord) and see how we can transform our consciousness and harness the spiritual power of human love and sexuality and make it part of our devotional life. When we consider the nature of madhura-rati, it seems perfectly natural to do so.

anuradha said...

But isn't it so that the sadhana you are talking about is even harder than celibacy ? Since it also involves mind-control, sense-control plus dodging the risk of cheating yourself in the name of yukta-vairagya.
You once implied this might be the very reason our Goswamis didn't preach this kind of sadhana.

So in what sense is it helpful as a sadhana considering all the risks involved ? If it is only for the lucky few then it doesn't correspond with being a sadhana more natural and thus easier than 'our' usual sadhana, which indeed includes the often broken vows of celibacy.

Jagat said...

BTW, Rupa and Sanatana were not lifelong monks.

Harisaran said...

Many are wondering when you and your friends will join
Nitai's caitanyasympos.proboards55.com

Congratulations for your interesting Blog!

Yours,
Hari Saran Das

Jagat said...

Sorry, Anuradha, for taking so long to reply to your comments. As you can probably see, I am a bit busy elsewhere.

I don't think you need to worry so much about this being "more difficult" or "less difficult." Perhaps my understanding has become needlessly complicated, and then again, maybe it really is very simple.

Religious life, communion with God, is simultaneously the easiest thing in the world and also the hardest thing. God is "closer to us than our jugular vein" as Muhammad liked to say. At the same time, the demands of surrender to the personal God are limitless and falling short of the glory of God, at least in our own minds, is inevitable.

Bhakti is, however, primarily a religion of love, with all that this implies. Though everyone who comes to the path will get a taste of God's love, of this there is no doubt, the sadhaka makes progress in the experience and practice of love and loving service to Krishna his or her single purpose in life.

Whether you follow the path of the celibate or of the sahajiya, you are already fortunate. I feel extremely fortune for the few crumbs that have been given me personally, but I yearn to be able to go ever deeper into Radha and Krishna's world.

All paths have their hypocrites and failures are there in every effort, as Krishna says in the Gita. But that is not an excuse to avoid pursuing the path to God that has been revealed to you in your heart and through the words of your guru. I do not believe that ultimately we are on different paths, though I am convinced that the particular insight that has come to me through the experience of human love has made Radha and Krishna more of a living thing than it ever was before. At the same time, I know that the discipline that I underwent beforehand was a necessary prerequisite. That is why I have made a point of speaking of the importance of the pravartaka stage.

Anonymous said...

Hum, Advaitadas, interisting of you to list Bhaktisidhanta as one of our acaryas, right up there with Rupa, Sanatana, etc. Congrats.

Jagat said...

The point is really that by hook or by crook, you should remember Krishna: tasmAt kenApy upAyena manaH kRSNe nivezayet. The purpose of all rules and regulations is to remember Krishna, and remember him with love.

Anonymous said...

"Just look! This devotee was once a great student of the art of seduction. He was dedicated to the service of Kamadeva and had attained lordship over the unlimited realm of debauchery. How amazing it is to see him today, for now if this very same person sees a woman's face while singing Krishna's glories with tear-filled eyes, his face becomes disfigured and he spits." (BRS 4.7.3)

Does this mean if the woman is singing Krishna's glories with tear-filled eyes and that male sadhak sees her, he will spit? Or does it mean that when the male sadhak, who has tearfilled eyes due to singing Krishna's glories, sees the face of a random woman, he spits???

And if someone is so absorbed in Krishna's glories, would they have the time or consciousness to spit? Seems like a rasabhas.

Also, he why couldn't he see the woman's face and remember a great female saint or even the female companions of Krishna?

Seems a bit sexist if you ask me.

Jagat said...

The second one. But you have understood my point.