tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post1541142572884347096..comments2024-03-26T13:06:41.178-04:00Comments on Jagat: History is BunkJagadananda Dashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-27601743484962458162008-10-31T21:19:00.000-04:002008-10-31T21:19:00.000-04:00This is called ego inflation. How can a process of...This is called ego inflation. How can a process of spirituality be good if it leads to ego inflation rather than ego destruction?Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-26923920359458823092008-10-31T21:17:00.000-04:002008-10-31T21:17:00.000-04:00Clearly, it can be very dangerous. It is my feelin...Clearly, it can be very dangerous. It is my feeling that the kanishtha stage is an ambivalent one, because faith is weak. A kanishtha adhikari is a person who has some spiritual/religious experience but does not have shastriya-shraddha, which most kanisthas mistakenly think means memorizing the scripture and its rules; it actually means direct experience that confirms the essential experiential parts of the scriptural record. <BR/><BR/>All people are experiencing ego challenges in the material world, and a weak ego makes life difficult. Religious identification is a tactic used by such people to strengthen the ego, as can be identification with any other ideological group--skinheads, nazis, kukluxklan, etc. When faith is weak, the ego strengthening elements of one's belief are defended at the cost of genuine spiritual realization--humility rather than being real is a travesty, a treacly hypocrisy.<BR/><BR/>Once this shift has taken place, the kanistha becomes a danger to himself and to others.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-6971458217361006622008-10-31T13:20:00.000-04:002008-10-31T13:20:00.000-04:00The literal approach is actually the approach that...The literal approach is actually the approach that almost made me through the whole thing overboard as backward.<BR/>Psychological bias is all pervasive and especially within religious old and many times re-written scriptures. To declare old writings the literal truth is incompatible with what most of us now see around us even if there is a deeper meaning hidden somewhere.<BR/><BR/>My question is, is taking myth as literal history innocent or can it be actually dangerous ? What are the implications ? And why don't the teachers of the past give us tools of disection ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-61665473553113719652008-10-31T10:32:00.000-04:002008-10-31T10:32:00.000-04:00Dear Jagat, the rasa theory is definitely our grea...Dear Jagat, the rasa theory is definitely our great asset and I agree that it enables us to make sense of Krishna-lila. Nevertheless, as I wrote I am not sure about the Jungian approach. I personally am quite suspicious about combining two different theories. There may be collisions. Apart from that, Jung's theory, as you yourself pointed out, draws on Plato. Pato's theory of forms as well as Jung's archetypes have their own philosophical difficulties. Nevertheless, I would like to see somebody pursue this kind of thought and philosophically examine the relevance of these theories for our purposes. We need to revive philosophising in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. We do not have to battle Advaita-vadins any more, but I think that the Western intellectual tradition represents a serious challenge. Bhaktivinoda made a good start and I am glad to see that somebody follows in his footsteps although I have to admit that I am not sure I can agree on some issues with BVT or with you (especially your sahajiyaism, but it is another issue :-) ).KRISHNA DASAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359762371537677705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-40713593141607345022008-10-31T07:10:00.000-04:002008-10-31T07:10:00.000-04:00I am sorry, I did not answer your question. It is ...I am sorry, I did not answer your question. It is a good one, and I agree with you. They had a literal understanding, and I don't think of that as a negative, since for them this was in their frame of reference and understood intuitively.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, they buttressed their literal understanding with terms like "rasa-raja" and "maha-bhava" which define the meanings of their "symbols" on a profound level and make them amenable to a wider understanding. I don't think in the case of the Gita that they were unaware of the implications of the Upanishad rupaka, which is quoted in nearly every commentary of the Gita, somewhere. <BR/><BR/>So that would have been one enriching dimension of their understanding. Our situation is not that much different, except perhaps in that at some stage, our literal understanding is challenged and we have to fall back on these other avenues to support the sense of meaning that these symbols once had for us. Once that sense of meaning is restored, faith is revived and bhakti can go on--in an even richer way than it had before.<BR/><BR/>This is where I must mention, however, that Shiva is wrong with regards to the use of the term sandhya-bhasha. Sandhya-bhasha is a code language spoken between persons who understood the terms. It would have been a secret code. The Goswamis were not using code: They were saying up front what they meant--e.g. rasa-raja, maha-bhava, etc. We may deepen this understanding, but in general, we <B>follow</B> the general line of inspiration. <BR/><BR/>To radically change the interpretation is not necessarily a bad thing, and it may be a source of personal satisfaction. If you are persuasive, you may be able to convince others of your interpretation and create a new living tradition. So I say, All good fortune to you.<BR/><BR/>Sandhya bhasha was generally used by Sahajiyas to speak in mixed audiences of orthodox, Sahajiyas, and non-devotees about various aspects of Sahaja sadhana within the context of Krishna lila. These are usually references to Sahajiya allegorical interpretations of the various symbols, e.g., abhisara = rising of kundalini or whatever.<BR/><BR/>From what I have seen, it cannot really be done very smoothly, like double entendres generally. Nods and winks are usually used to excess, rendering the exercise comedic rather than serious.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-69923301468033345682008-10-31T06:57:00.000-04:002008-10-31T06:57:00.000-04:00Thank you, Krishna Dasji.Jung usues a Platonian ap...Thank you, Krishna Dasji.<BR/><BR/>Jung usues a Platonian approach, which was previously popular with Catholics as well. It is really the only alternative that we have. The shadows in the cave allegory of Plato was used, I remember, in a very old Back to Godhead article by Hayagriva Das. This is also what we often call "perverted reflection."<BR/><BR/>From the material perspective, everything evolves within matter, and there is really no reason why we have to do battle with this phenomenological or empirical approach. This means that what appears to be evolution can also be seen as progressive revelation. <BR/><BR/>No philosopher would accept this, because there is no proof. But at least it is intellectually more coherent than trying to defend a purely literal interpretation of scripture, or to argue for a consistent meaning to the huge varieties of scriptures that are present throughout the world.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-59064697630239833532008-10-31T04:57:00.000-04:002008-10-31T04:57:00.000-04:00Dear Jagat, good post! I am just wondering how ach...Dear Jagat, good post! I am just wondering how acharyas saw these things. What do you think?<BR/><BR/>In Europe, there is a long tradition of allegorical interpretation since the times of Ancient Greece. Christianity has also availed itself of allegorical intepretation. It was flourishing especially in the 14th and the 15th century.<BR/><BR/>I am inclined to believe that acharyas did not bother much about the historicity of the various narrations. Of course, this is difficult to prove, but I think that there are some indications that may lead to this conclusion. Already Yaska offers several allegorical intepretations in his Nirukta. Purva-mimamsakas in general did not believe that the descriptions of the gods in the Vedic texts are factual. Then there is sahitya-sastra which works with the notion of fictionality. Apart from that, one can find allegorical intepretations in Sanskrit commentaries on the Bhagavata, which is of direct concern to us. Among Vaisnavas, Vallabhacharya managed to interpret the whole Bhagavata in quasi-allegorical terms, although without cancelling the historical meaning. Our Visvanath Cakavarti offers several allegorical intepretations of Krishna-lila in his Bhagavata commentary.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the more intellectual people in the West as well as in the East has always tended towards allegorical interpretation and favoured a philosophical approach. However, acharyas proably did not want to disturb people who have sthula-drishti. The fact is that the majority of devotees will always be kanistha. <BR/><BR/>The atmosphere in our post-Enlightment society seems to be quite favourable to discuss these issues more openly and I am appreciate very much that you have come up with your articles so boldly, although I am not sure that your Jungian approach really answers all the issues I see are related to the problem of the meaning of "myth" (or whatever it is). <BR/><BR/>I wish that devotees with a scholarly bend of mind discuss these issues in an appropriate manner!KRISHNA DASAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359762371537677705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-89927286297560858752008-10-30T00:58:00.000-04:002008-10-30T00:58:00.000-04:00busy time of the year or there be more commentsbusy time of the year or there be more commentsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com