The perception of the learned
"So it is clear that the yogis receive their knowledge through non-imaginary, non-fictitious (a-vikalpita) samādhi, and use the fiction (vikalpa) of āgama and anumāna to convey the true knowledge." [Vachaspati Misra to Yoga-sūtra I.43 (trans. Swami Veda Bharati)]
[I get the problem here, but it is hard for me to believe that any experience is free of an overlay of memory and certainly when śabda is given as much importance as in Vaishnavism, one expects that "direct experience" will conform with what one has learned, heard or become conditioned to. But even a yogi who is directing his practice and self-conditioning is also working towards an expected experience that is strongly influenced by memory. This is a significant point and requires clarification, Memory is notoriously fallible just like sense perception -- indeed the defectiveness of both is intertwined -- but for Vaishnavas, memory is the locus of the practice, which is distinct from dhyāna although the two are also connected.]
tatra vaiduṣe ca vipratipatti-bhramādi-nṛ-doṣa-rāhityāt, śabdasyāpi tan-mūlatvāc ca |
"The perception of the learned (vaiduṣa-pratyakṣa) is the source (mūla) even of scripture. (Sarva-saṁvādinī)
"So it is clear that the yogis receive their knowledge through non-imaginary, non-fictitious (a-vikalpita) samādhi, and use the fiction (vikalpa) of āgama and anumāna to convey the true knowledge." [Vachaspati Misra to Yoga-sūtra I.43 (trans. Swami Veda Bharati)]
[Not sure exactly which Sanskrit sentence he was refering to as this sūtra's comment is very long. Probably this one: tasmād avikalpena pratyakṣeṇa gṛhītvā vikalpyopadiśanti copapādayanti ca | The subject is nirvikalpa-samādhi and specifically the cessation of memory, which is one of the citta-vr̥ttis.
Another of VM's sentences: yogināṁ paraṁ pratyakṣam asad-āropa-gandhasyāpy abhāvāt: "A yogi's supreme perception is free from any superimposition of the false reality." At any rate, my point here is that fundamentally there is agreement here on the basic idea of "yogic vision" being the source of authority. I don't really agree entirely. I don't think that it is possible to be entirely free of the memory that comes from hearing, but certainly one can perceive the inherited world in a way that is adjusted by experience and rationality. I discussed these matters in an article called Pramāṇa: Reading between the lines. It appears that this article was written just before these FB posts nine years ago.]
jānāmy ahaṁ śevadhir ity anityaṁ
na hy adhruvaiḥ prāpyate hi dhruvaṁ tat
tato mayā nāciketaś cito’gnir
anityair dravyaiḥ prāptavān asmi nityam
I know that what we call "treasure" is really perishable; we cannot attain the permanent through impermanent things. For this reason, O Nachiketa, I built up the fire, and through impermanent things, I attained the permanent. (KaU 1.2.10)
[These quotations are relevant to the discussion below.]
April 23 11 years ago
Once a devotee gets a taste of Radha-Krishna kathā,
there is no going back.
They will never get a taste for "prema" or "bhakti" or "Truth" or "transcendence"
They will never get a taste for "prema" or "bhakti" or "Truth" or "transcendence"
without Radha Krishna.
All the words will be just so much fluff in the air.
April 23 11 years ago
Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.[Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, 1973]
April 23 13 years ago
The other day I had an "encounter" with a young Gauḍīya Maṭha guru (GMG). He had written something about Bhaktivinoda Thakur and the birthplace. I have written about this before and even did a Bengali post today on the subject. At any rate, someone raised the question of the "nine islands" of Nabadwip, saying that some in the Vaishnava community object to this idea, and that it only originated with Bhakti-ratnākara in the 18th century.
The GMG responded by calling such people "pitiful losers," which I found rather arrogant and so I said something to that effect. As well as supporting the idea that the word navadvīpa is a "back formation" from nadīyā, which would literally mean "riverine." The back formation starts with Bengali na' meaning "nine" and diyā meaning "lamp," which becomes nava-dīpa in Sanskrit. This then also takes the form nava-dvīpa meaning nine islands. But there was never an archipelago of nine distinct islands in the area and there is no local tradition to support this etymology.
His claim was that the authority of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bhakti-ratnākara was adequate and that anyone who did not accept it was not worthy of consideration. He cited texts that insist on śabda as the only acceptable authority for Vaishnavas.
I said that of the three principal sources of knowledge, śabda had to be verified by direct experience and logical reasoning and that these two had to be taken as far as possible in order to understand śabda or āpta-vākya (See Pramāṇa: Reading between the lines).
But rather than dealing with the question GMG continued to emphasize that I did not have an absolute faith and literal belief in the authoritative statements of the guru and therefore.
Here was one of the verses he threw at me:
Of course I pointed out the basic logical fallacy behind this one--the eternal perpetuation of conflict as everyone silos themselves off into absolute beliefs about things that are only subjective. We have to use direct experience and logical reasoning as far as they will take us. If you discard those on the basis of adherence to tradition, you are simply going to isolate yourself into little sectarian boxes that are ultimately divorced from all reality, material or spiritual. But then that is the danger for all of us, no matter how anchored we think we are in reality.
To prove my lack of such absolute adherence and mental speculation he even quoted some statements from an old blog to show this and derided me that even after 50 years of studying scripture everything was for nought. I was actually kind of pleased with the quotes and that he had taken the trouble to think about something I had written, but it was obvious he did not like them. They were taken I believe from this post: What is he on about? about archetypes.
As I said I was pleased and though I realize the conversation was already over I thanked him and said that these were things that I needed to still pursue as I felt they helped make Krishna bhakti accessible to those with a Western education and it also gave an opening into understanding rasa. Rasa theory is the basis of our understanding of psychology, both material and religious. I said, "Archetypes are just universals. They are categories like "tree" or "cow" that then have to be further described in order to come to the individual which is always different. Krishna is the akhila-rasāmr̥ta-mūrti because he embodies all the archetypes. Once you have gotten this far you will start to understand the rasa mysticism method.
Of course, he again completely ignored the substance of what I had said and "I was just trolling Jagadananda and it worked, because he admitted that he thinks that the scriptures are just stories and that his own intelligence is superior to that of the guru-varga.
So I said: "You are so clever! Your cleverness is beyond description. Your disciples must be falling all over themselves marveling at your cleverness!" I couldn't help feeling that he was condescending and grandstanding for his disciples. As expected, he removed the entire exchange from the thread, which is too bad because I would have liked to copy and paste it here, and now I am reduced to trying to reproduce it from memory which already means it is a distortion.
But there you have it, the guru problem in a nutshell. One of the things I said there, which I have always held, is that the Gita is about developing independent intelligence because intelligence is always individual. .
The whole of the Mahabharata is like that: Krishna and others behaving in ways that contradict strict scriptural interpretations because of higher principles. I also want(ed) to be a guru but I could never be such an absolutist. I see everything as mixed, everyone. The important thing everywhere is to be able to separate the essential from the peripheral. The guru thing makes people say it is ALL essential and they make people adjust artificially in that way. .
I admire the GMG and have to admit his good qualities, intelligence, charisma and energy. All things that I have in short supply. But the dangers of intellectual dishonesty are too great for those who put themselves in the position of guru and demand that kind of absolute loyalty to previous acharyas and hold to every word and belief that they espoused. It becomes a house of cards. .
And Vishwanath says this verse is the essence of the Bhāgavata!
Jiva Goswami also quotes:
Though that is less strong or clear for the way that I want to interpret it. Anyway 11.29 is very interesting as it is the "last instruction" of Krishna in the BhP. And it keeps coming back to seeing Krishna in everything and everywhere.
If bhakti is the means to attaining that, and if that is the Bhāgavata's idea of prema -- like I once said the very definition of love is to see God in someone (or vice versa). One way is through hard work -- vidhi bhakti. You do it because you are told to do it. The other way is when love or life or God come crashing down on you -- in the human, the human experience. That is what Krishna reveals in his pastimes, like it or not. That is the locus where Krishna reveals his pastimes.
And it is to protect us from the naked religious experience that institutional leaders like GMG refuse to recognize the role of archetypes. They think it is reductionist, "just stories." But rasa is described exactly that, entering the universal through the stories. You hear a love story and according to your natural tendency to want love and your experience of it in real life, you are moved. That is rasa. There is no possibility of finding meaning or Krishna rasa without the experience of material rasa, even if you say that is looking at things backwards. But the closer you look, the closer you see it works both ways. And the final result is when you see Krishna (i.e., love) in everything.
All the words will be just so much fluff in the air.
April 23 11 years ago
Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.[Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, 1973]
April 23 13 years ago
কৃষ্ণেরে নাচায় প্রেম ভক্তেরে নাচায়
আপনি নাচে তিনে নাচে এক ঠাঞি
kṛṣṇere nācāẏa prema bhaktere nācāẏa
āpani nāce tine nāce eka ṭhāñi.
(1)
Prema makes Sri Krishna dance
and the bhaktas dance apace.
Then prem itself joins in the dance,
The three dance in one place.
and the bhaktas dance apace.
Then prem itself joins in the dance,
The three dance in one place.
(2)
Prema makes our Krishna dance,
She makes the gopis dance.
And she herself is also there,
spinning in whirlwind trance.
So there they are, like tops, all three,
dancing for eternity.
She makes the gopis dance.
And she herself is also there,
spinning in whirlwind trance.
So there they are, like tops, all three,
dancing for eternity.
The other day I had an "encounter" with a young Gauḍīya Maṭha guru (GMG). He had written something about Bhaktivinoda Thakur and the birthplace. I have written about this before and even did a Bengali post today on the subject. At any rate, someone raised the question of the "nine islands" of Nabadwip, saying that some in the Vaishnava community object to this idea, and that it only originated with Bhakti-ratnākara in the 18th century.
The GMG responded by calling such people "pitiful losers," which I found rather arrogant and so I said something to that effect. As well as supporting the idea that the word navadvīpa is a "back formation" from nadīyā, which would literally mean "riverine." The back formation starts with Bengali na' meaning "nine" and diyā meaning "lamp," which becomes nava-dīpa in Sanskrit. This then also takes the form nava-dvīpa meaning nine islands. But there was never an archipelago of nine distinct islands in the area and there is no local tradition to support this etymology.
His claim was that the authority of Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bhakti-ratnākara was adequate and that anyone who did not accept it was not worthy of consideration. He cited texts that insist on śabda as the only acceptable authority for Vaishnavas.
I said that of the three principal sources of knowledge, śabda had to be verified by direct experience and logical reasoning and that these two had to be taken as far as possible in order to understand śabda or āpta-vākya (See Pramāṇa: Reading between the lines).
But rather than dealing with the question GMG continued to emphasize that I did not have an absolute faith and literal belief in the authoritative statements of the guru and therefore.
Here was one of the verses he threw at me:
yasya sākṣād bhagavati jñāna dīpa prade gurau
martyāsad dhīḥ śrutaṁ tasya sarvaṁ kuñjara śaucavat
The spiritual master should be considered to be directly the Supreme Lord because he gives transcendental knowledge for enlightenment. Consequently, for one who maintains the material conception that the spiritual master is an ordinary human being, everything is frustrated. His enlightenment and his Vedic studies and knowledge are like the bathing of an elephant. (BhP 7.15.26) BhaktiS 212*
Of course I pointed out the basic logical fallacy behind this one--the eternal perpetuation of conflict as everyone silos themselves off into absolute beliefs about things that are only subjective. We have to use direct experience and logical reasoning as far as they will take us. If you discard those on the basis of adherence to tradition, you are simply going to isolate yourself into little sectarian boxes that are ultimately divorced from all reality, material or spiritual. But then that is the danger for all of us, no matter how anchored we think we are in reality.
To prove my lack of such absolute adherence and mental speculation he even quoted some statements from an old blog to show this and derided me that even after 50 years of studying scripture everything was for nought. I was actually kind of pleased with the quotes and that he had taken the trouble to think about something I had written, but it was obvious he did not like them. They were taken I believe from this post: What is he on about? about archetypes.
As I said I was pleased and though I realize the conversation was already over I thanked him and said that these were things that I needed to still pursue as I felt they helped make Krishna bhakti accessible to those with a Western education and it also gave an opening into understanding rasa. Rasa theory is the basis of our understanding of psychology, both material and religious. I said, "Archetypes are just universals. They are categories like "tree" or "cow" that then have to be further described in order to come to the individual which is always different. Krishna is the akhila-rasāmr̥ta-mūrti because he embodies all the archetypes. Once you have gotten this far you will start to understand the rasa mysticism method.
Of course, he again completely ignored the substance of what I had said and "I was just trolling Jagadananda and it worked, because he admitted that he thinks that the scriptures are just stories and that his own intelligence is superior to that of the guru-varga.
So I said: "You are so clever! Your cleverness is beyond description. Your disciples must be falling all over themselves marveling at your cleverness!" I couldn't help feeling that he was condescending and grandstanding for his disciples. As expected, he removed the entire exchange from the thread, which is too bad because I would have liked to copy and paste it here, and now I am reduced to trying to reproduce it from memory which already means it is a distortion.
But there you have it, the guru problem in a nutshell. One of the things I said there, which I have always held, is that the Gita is about developing independent intelligence because intelligence is always individual. .
The whole of the Mahabharata is like that: Krishna and others behaving in ways that contradict strict scriptural interpretations because of higher principles. I also want(ed) to be a guru but I could never be such an absolutist. I see everything as mixed, everyone. The important thing everywhere is to be able to separate the essential from the peripheral. The guru thing makes people say it is ALL essential and they make people adjust artificially in that way. .
I admire the GMG and have to admit his good qualities, intelligence, charisma and energy. All things that I have in short supply. But the dangers of intellectual dishonesty are too great for those who put themselves in the position of guru and demand that kind of absolute loyalty to previous acharyas and hold to every word and belief that they espoused. It becomes a house of cards. .
jānāmy ahaṁ śevadhir ity anityaṁ
na hy adhruvaiḥ prāpyate hi dhruvaṁ
tat tato mayā nāciketaś cito’gnir
anityair dravyaiḥ prāptavān asmi nityam
I know that what we call "treasure" is really perishable; we cannot attain the permanent through impermanent (adhruva) things. For this reason, O Nachiketa, I built up the fire, and through impermanent things, I attained the permanent. (KaU 1.2.10)
eṣā buddhimatāṁ buddhir manīṣā ca manīṣiṇām |
yat satyam anṛteneha martyenāpnoti māmṛtam ||
This then is the intelligence of the intelligent, the cleverness of the clever, that a mortal attains immortality in this world by finding the truth in that which is untrue. (10.29.22)
And Vishwanath says this verse is the essence of the Bhāgavata!
sarvopadeśa-sāro’yaṁ śloka-cintāmaṇiḥ prabhoḥ |
hṛdaye yasya rājeta sa rājed bhakta-saṁsadi ||
This verse spoken by the Lord is a cintāmaṇi--the essence of all his instructions The person who takes this verse to heart resides forever in the society of Vaishnavas.
hariścandro rantideva uñcha-vṛttiḥ śivir baliḥ |
vyādhaḥ kapoto bahavo hy adhruveṇa dhruvaṁ gatāḥ ||
Hariscandra, Rantideva, Sivi, Mudgala and Bali, the hunter and the pigeon, all attained certainty through the uncertain (adhruva). (10.72.21) BhaktiS 85
Though that is less strong or clear for the way that I want to interpret it. Anyway 11.29 is very interesting as it is the "last instruction" of Krishna in the BhP. And it keeps coming back to seeing Krishna in everything and everywhere.
If bhakti is the means to attaining that, and if that is the Bhāgavata's idea of prema -- like I once said the very definition of love is to see God in someone (or vice versa). One way is through hard work -- vidhi bhakti. You do it because you are told to do it. The other way is when love or life or God come crashing down on you -- in the human, the human experience. That is what Krishna reveals in his pastimes, like it or not. That is the locus where Krishna reveals his pastimes.
And it is to protect us from the naked religious experience that institutional leaders like GMG refuse to recognize the role of archetypes. They think it is reductionist, "just stories." But rasa is described exactly that, entering the universal through the stories. You hear a love story and according to your natural tendency to want love and your experience of it in real life, you are moved. That is rasa. There is no possibility of finding meaning or Krishna rasa without the experience of material rasa, even if you say that is looking at things backwards. But the closer you look, the closer you see it works both ways. And the final result is when you see Krishna (i.e., love) in everything.
Comments
The definition of this Clear Thought- transformation is being given in this aphorism. On the complete purification of the retentive power, the appearance of the truth alone, as if devoid of its own nature,” is the Clear Thought-trans- formation. On the complete purification of the retentive power about the fictions of verbal and inferential ideas of the verbal convention, that Absorbent Cognition, which being coloured by the nature of the receivable object as if gives itself up, i.e., gives up the cognitional (exhibitive) manifestation of receiving character, and simply becomes transformed into the nature of the receivable object in the form of the (inhibitive) manifestation of its truth alone, is then called the Clear Thought-transformation. And this has similarly been explained (in the preceding aphorism.
Yogasūtra of Patañjali with the commentary of Vyāsa
Source:
https://archive.org/details/UaNM_yoga-sutra-of-patanjali-with-commentary-of-vyas-by-bangali-baba-motilal-banarasidas/page/22/mode/2up?view=theater
43. Distinctive (wordless) thought-transformation is that in which the mind shines out as the object alone on the cessation of memory, and is as it were devoid of its own nature.
Miśrá Rāma Prasāda Translation
N.B.* Read all pages from 71-75
Source:
https://archive.org/details/PatanjalisYogaSutraswithTheCommentaryOfVyasaAndTheGlossOfVachaspatiMisraRamaPrasadTranslation/page/n85/mode/2up
The description of this Distinctive Thought- transformation is given by the aphorism: — “It is Distinctive, when on the cessation of memory, the mind shines out as the object alone and is, as it were, devoid of its own nature.”
Source:
https://archive.org/details/PatanjalisYogaSutraswithTheCommentaryOfVyasaAndTheGlossOfVachaspatiMisraRamaPrasadTranslation/page/n87/mode/2up