tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post2942147139806521263..comments2024-03-26T13:06:41.178-04:00Comments on Jagat: Rasa-rāja and Mahā-bhāvaJagadananda Dashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-80777585396542663012010-02-26T01:32:32.864-05:002010-02-26T01:32:32.864-05:00I also feel that we should not fight among ourselv...I also feel that we should not fight among ourselves to prove that 'my philosophy' is better than yours. Lets us keep in mind that we are honest seekers of God, the Supreme Lord, but on different paths. We should only add our understanding on the blog like this and hope it helps someone or may be we get helped by another true seeker. Lets all help each other to our only destination, God. God bless.Sudhirnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-40756981170352191042010-02-26T01:27:06.988-05:002010-02-26T01:27:06.988-05:00Dear Shiva,
There is a lot of philosophy, meanings...Dear Shiva,<br />There is a lot of philosophy, meanings (arths), opinions and cults. All this causes confusion. I, by no means, can say that I have a clear cut opinion or understanding on the topic of Supreme Power, God. Also I cannot proclaim that I know the way to achieve God. But reading a lot of books on beautiful subject of God, I came across one book that may clarify a lot of things. I came across this Sakhi bhava and Ras Bhav in this book, hence, reached this site and saw your comments. I suggest kindly read this book. ANURAG SAGAR, BY KABIR. It is freely available online in PDF form or just to read online itself. God bless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-77762627966658541152009-10-24T15:22:33.048-04:002009-10-24T15:22:33.048-04:00"I don't know about that. Wasn't that..."I don't know about that. Wasn't that, afterall, Prabhupada's tactic?"<br /><br />Shiva as Vrajabhumi is perhaps one of the fiercest "exposers" of Prabhupada today. Ironically though, even more, much more than Prabhupada ever did, Shiva calls stupid anyone who logically and rationally disagrees with his often flawed arguments. So this is not about Prabhupada really, but about Shiva/Vrajabhumi's calling others stupid and madly affirming that no one but himself knows the true nature of God and lila. Prabhupada at least claimed allegiance to his guru and to a parampara.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-10038546942130596722009-10-24T05:24:18.162-04:002009-10-24T05:24:18.162-04:00I don't know about that. Wasn't that, afte...<i>I don't know about that. Wasn't that, afterall, Prabhupada's tactic?</i><br /><br />Actually it was his tactics, and tactics of many before and after him. When cornered and without hope for a successful retreat, attack. <br /><br />Disregard original "unpleasant" question, make a bold statement and use it as a smokescreen to skip to something irrelevant else, but safe ground. <br /><br />Like, "Why should I answer this to you? What kind of dress you wear? Why didn't you shave? Is that Vaishnava behavior..." :-)<br /><br />One of the main reasons GVs in the West today can't talk like cultured persons and answer challenges fairly is rooted in that bad example they copy and think that's what parampara is all about. And they think it's so cool.Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-48113817091534249632009-10-23T11:59:13.908-04:002009-10-23T11:59:13.908-04:00"No one ever won any other person to his way ..."No one ever won any other person to his way of thinking by calling him stupid."<br /><br />I don't know about that. Wasn't that, afterall, Prabhupada's tactic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-26416753669884527192009-10-19T10:56:19.968-04:002009-10-19T10:56:19.968-04:00""No one ever won any other person to hi...""No one ever won any other person to his way of thinking by calling him stupid.""<br /><br />I am not for calling anyone stupid but I wouldn't mind certain type going away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-50621904010202535752009-10-19T09:54:46.559-04:002009-10-19T09:54:46.559-04:00"Try to stick to the topic "
Yes Shiva,..."Try to stick to the topic "<br /><br />Yes Shiva, try to stick to the topic. According to you the topic is that no one but you knows the reality of the lila. So again, if no one but you know, how can a discussion take place? Better you go be happy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-23551444637671314672009-10-19T02:24:51.314-04:002009-10-19T02:24:51.314-04:00"No one ever won any other person to his way ..."No one ever won any other person to his way of thinking by calling him stupid."Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-88851638780166648322009-10-19T02:23:37.745-04:002009-10-19T02:23:37.745-04:00"The One became many.""The One became many."Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-82865711415519124792009-10-18T22:31:31.507-04:002009-10-18T22:31:31.507-04:00You haved posed no challenge, you are simply angry...You haved posed no challenge, you are simply angry at me because I disagree with you and some others about what lila and rasa is really all about, or other things. You seem to think that a Vaishnava with a different opinion than your own is worthy of being treated with utter contempt. For all of your talk about guru this or that -- has any guru helped you rise to a level where where you see beyond literalism and neophyte behavior?<br /><br />Try to stick to the topic and rise above your hatred and abusive attitude of devotees with differing opinions than your own.Vrajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535159097241083544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-38865200219302175942009-10-18T21:24:06.333-04:002009-10-18T21:24:06.333-04:00Shiva,
I think you have been challenged enough bu...Shiva,<br /><br />I think you have been challenged enough but have always ignored the challenge: Who in the world thinks like you? What shastra and what individual(s) other than yourself have said that gurus are not needed anymore because nowadays there is internet to learn the Absolute Truth from? Who besides you has said such thing? And if you are alone in this, you are alone in this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-4621596532730487632009-10-18T16:48:36.738-04:002009-10-18T16:48:36.738-04:00Socrates
If someone who actually has experience w...Socrates<br /><br />If someone who actually has experience with what he is talking about has an opinion on what he has experience of, that doesn't mean that no one else's opinion is valid on that topic. I've never said or implied that I alone possess real knowledge of rasa. <br /><br />No need to lash out in hate at me simply because it is obvious to me that you are unqualified to act as an expert on God's love life. <br /><br />I have said repeatedly that people without experience of something shouldn't pose as experts on that thing. If you want to interpret that to mean that I'm saying "only I know the truth," what can I say? You are choosing to distort what I say because of animosity. What is the source of your animosity? I challenge your self-conception of knowing all about God's love life perfectly, even though you have zero experience of it? <br /><br />I assume also that your animosity towards me is because some guru or other of yours I am also in disagreement with. Does this really rise to the level of inspiring so much animosity towards someone? Simply because they challenge your self-conception as being the supreme authority on God?<br /><br />This is what I was talking about on Jagat's Facebook about the pathetic state of "rasika" Vaishnavism today. It is being mostly propagated by angry neophytes with zero experience and very limited understanding, yet who pose as experts, and actually hate and attack people who have something of actual value to share with them.Vrajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535159097241083544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-56646154795970572552009-10-18T13:16:35.982-04:002009-10-18T13:16:35.982-04:00"What you believe has no basis in anything re..."What you believe has no basis in anything real. Like i have said over and over -- until you understand that God is a single person and not interested in having a relationship with him/her self in different bodies anymore than a normal person would, everything you think about rasa and lila is completely without any basis in sanity, and therefore reality."<br /><br />Shiva, its true you say again and again that no one has real insight into the reality of lila but yourself. So the conclusion is that there is nothing for you here or anywhere but in your own world. So why come here? Why don't you let people alone since you cannot change the fact that no one has realization of the lila and are not even anywhere near to getting such realization? In other words, you are beating on a dead horse. How about scampering, going away, let it be? Your Vrajabhumi blog should be a good place to state your realizations without disturbance by less developed entities such as Socrates, etc. Your arguments are irrefutable <i>there</i>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-66057006347603562122009-10-18T03:47:13.762-04:002009-10-18T03:47:13.762-04:00Socrates
What I always find fascinating is how pe...Socrates<br /><br />What I always find fascinating is how people with zero experience of bhava or rasa with Radha-Krishna can act as if they are experts on that topic. <br /><br />You say I lack logic yet your logic has Radha most interested in trying to taste rasa with herself via her expansions. How is that logical in any sense of the term?<br /><br />Until you understand that the conception of God enjoying or trying to enjoy rasa with her/him self in different bodies is not only not the true understanding of lila, but also totally absurd on the face of it, you can never understand what the descriptions of lila are supposed to inspire.<br /><br />So many people take lila literally and use that understanding to conceive of a convoluted absurd conception of what God likes to do to enjoy. God is no different than us in the sense that if you could expand into different bodies there is no way you could have a relationship with yourself as if those bodies somehow change you into different people.<br /><br />That is actual logic. But because you have been conditioned to see lila as literal absolute truth by people who are misguided and misunderstand the esoteric truth of lila, you try to create a bizarre conception of rasa based upon an illogical literal interpretation of purely esoteric metaphoric teachings.<br /><br />What you believe has no basis in anything real. Like i have said over and over -- until you understand that God is a single person and not interested in having a relationship with him/her self in different bodies anymore than a normal person would, everything you think about rasa and lila is completely without any basis in sanity, and therefore reality.Vrajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535159097241083544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-32809969387069474512009-10-16T09:38:26.397-04:002009-10-16T09:38:26.397-04:00The sakhis are needed to expand rasa -- but one mu...<i>The sakhis are needed to expand rasa -- but one must understand that the sakhis are said to be personal expansions of Radha, they are not jivas.</i><br /><br />And then again you missed the point of rasa. You're dissecting something that cannot e dissected and thus end up in a dead theistic alley. In love exchange between sakhis and their maidservants the love transforms one into another: a participant into an observer and vice versa. <br /><br />Or, love turns God into jiva, and jiva into God, for they share experience of each other and that's what intensifies love. Even that basic ontological classification is only symbolic too, for there's no separate existence of jiva and God -- we're taking only about symbols now. <br /><br />Sakhi and her manjari exchange love in a way that sakhi -- or a particular taste of love -- wants to observe herself and see its potential, and she's doing that thrugh a mirror, which is manjari. <br /><br />In turn manjari feels all what sakhi feels, through every pore of her body and soul (symbolically speaking), and becomes a vessel of understanding of love.<br /> <br />It's just a love reflected, for otherwise it cannot know what it is capable of. You cannot play around with symbols like with some dolls, and say one from another, and keep them at distance, or on some stage, because they're not separate entities with separate existence. <br /><br />Basically it is an incomprehensible idea that needs different mirrors and vague reference points to be explained, and in its core it's highly symbolic.Socratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-20641483859621702832009-10-16T09:19:28.775-04:002009-10-16T09:19:28.775-04:00This is what is meant by the concept of being free...<i>This is what is meant by the concept of being free from "selfish desire." It isn't selfish desire in the sense of being desirous of self-gratification, which is bad, it is the illusion of seeing "your self" controlling your thoughts and desires, seeing your desires under your own control, which are "selfish desires" -- in the ontology of self-realization.</i><br /><br />Shiva, I found profound weakness in your logic. I believe you misunderstand the idea of desire here, and who controls it. 'Freedom from selfish desire' is simply a statement that you won't do just things that please you, but be passionate about pleasing others.<br /><br />When pleasing others, your love is reciprocated. And that's the basic idea of sakhi -- sakhi loves other sakhi because she sees her very self in that other sakhi. Only in that way the exchange of bhava is possible. It starts from sakhi's mirror -- the other self, and reflects back, and through that love you can only understand yourself and what you're capable of.<br /><br />When talking about sakhis, we're also talking about symbols of love and how love is reflected, intensified and finally understood. That's why scripture says Radha expands in sakhis -- why? Because it's the way love can taste herself and what it is capable of.<br /><br />Desire has done nothing wrong in that process, for desire moves everything -- the language of love is desire. Same as this world -- it's an expression of desire. Do you think the world would be if there were no desire for it?<br />Again, world is just a symbol too -- a symbol of someone's creative desire.Socratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-63762801576798678242009-10-13T18:32:16.659-04:002009-10-13T18:32:16.659-04:00Another thing:
The sakhis are needed to expand ra...Another thing:<br /><br />The sakhis are needed to expand rasa -- but one must understand that the sakhis are said to be personal expansions of Radha, they are not jivas. The rasa between Radha and Krishna is purely archetypal. The highest rasa for God is experienced through manifestations of herself, Radha, through unlimited expansions or avatars of Radha, i.e. sakhis, in her seeking of bhava with unlimited expansions of Krishna -- who represents the jivas, i.e. jivas are said to come from Krishna's masculine expansions of Baladeva and Mahavishnu. <br /><br />Following the footsteps of the sakhis has an entirely different meaning that what is usually thought of when taken too literally. It's full esoteric meaning is something a bit to personal for to discuss here (to those uninitiated into Radha dasyam) but one meaning of it is about trying to see reality from Radha's perspective in order to more fully understanding where she is coming from, to understand what motivates her bhava and her seeking of rasa.<br /><br />So, these two conceptions above -- understanding the absolute nature of self vis-à-vis the supreme self, while also understanding the truth of Radha dasyam vis-à-vis Krishna, the sakhis and the jivas, is necessary in order to realize the highest esoteric truth of Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine. By doing so you can enter into that reality fairly quickly.Vrajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535159097241083544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-53888068172329043742009-10-13T18:32:04.413-04:002009-10-13T18:32:04.413-04:00A few things.
You wrote:
It is, however, a subtl...A few things.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>It is, however, a subtle reference to one inherent problem in the entire question of spiritual life: the contradiction between the pleasure promised in spiritual life and desirelessness needed to attain it. Union with God (sambhoga) is the promise, but freedom from selfish desire is the necessary condition to fulfill it.</i><br /><br />This is commonly misunderstood by most Vaishnavas. It's because they misunderstand the purpose of such an idea, and therefore misunderstand the true meaning of that conception. Let me try to explain -- It isn't "selfish desire" per se which you must be free from, why would that be a condition that one must need to attain in order to have "union with God?" Is God some type of sadist who demands exclusive devotion to him alone, allowing you no desire for self-gratification? No. This is where one must understand the full purpose of bhakti-yoga, without which one tends to misunderstand various concepts taught in bhakti-yoga philosophy. <br /><br />If I asked you what is the purpose of bhakti-yoga you might say something like "attaining prema and rasa" which would be correct. But what does that attainment entail for the consciousness of the prema-bhakta? It entails full comprehension of the ontology of the self in relation to the supreme self, i.e. self-realization. Not just theoretical comprehension, but actualized or realized comprehension. <br /><br />To be without "selfish desire" is therefore meant to be understood from an ontologically true or realistic perspective. The bhakta must come to understand the true nature of desire for the jiva -- that desire ultimately, like all thought, is not under his control. This is what is meant by the concept of being free from "selfish desire." It isn't selfish desire in the sense of being desirous of self-gratification, which is bad, it is the illusion of seeing "your self" controlling your thoughts and desires, seeing your desires under your own control, which are "selfish desires" -- in the ontology of self-realization. <br /><br />Delusional perception must be done away with in order that God can enjoy rasa with a jiva, otherwise God is more or less dealing with someone who doesn't understand that what he is thinking and saying and doing is not under his own power, not under his control, not being done by him -- the jiva must attain a state of pure emptiness, pure receptivity, in order to live in a non-delusional state, and therefore able to be a partner with God in rasa.<br /><br />Otherwise the jiva sees himself doing what in fact God is doing -- it is in seeing the reality of "who is in control of everything you experience including your own mind and emotions" where a real close relationship with God can be of real value and fun -- for God. <br /><br />To put it in more simple terms: Radha-Krishna controls your thoughts, emotions, actions. If you think you control those things then you cannot relate to God with full and pure awareness of yourself, or God. It is ignorance of absolute reality which must be eradicated in order to enter into a relationship of rasa with God. Otherwise for God you're just an egotistic moron blindly identifying with God's control as your own. There is no enjoyment to be had there because God is always aware of absolute reality and needs a partner who understands that so that rasa can be enjoyed through that level of awareness.Vrajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535159097241083544noreply@blogger.com