tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post2615680730179019673..comments2024-03-26T13:06:41.178-04:00Comments on Jagat: The Sahajiya Crusade; More AropaJagadananda Dashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-4605206167832479382007-04-27T13:20:00.000-04:002007-04-27T13:20:00.000-04:00I went through more of Neil's work again. I maybe ...I went through more of Neil's work again. I maybe was a bit too harsh in my criticism. Indeed my opinion was also based on some articles that were a bit too much for me. It influenced my further opinion of him in a negative way. I got carried away. This is not good. I should know better. I always criticize people who get carried away and do not see grey, only black and white. This time I, myself, am the victim of this fault.<BR/><BR/>My apologies. (two months later)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-83322444318202189972007-03-08T12:22:00.000-05:002007-03-08T12:22:00.000-05:00Neal's academic articles, being of necessity objec...Neal's academic articles, being of necessity objective, tend to be free of some of the more antagonistic and provocative comments. I really don't quite understand why he insists on taking such a negative approach towards other devotees, no matter how much he disagrees with them. After all, kanistha, madhyama or uttama, everyone belongs to the same family. Even the Bauls...Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-50577685196712054052007-03-08T12:21:00.000-05:002007-03-08T12:21:00.000-05:00dr Phil and Jagadananda,I am too busy working myse...dr Phil and Jagadananda,<BR/><BR/>I am too busy working myself through loads of literatures of the acaryas and have not had the time to read much of the secondary work surrounding it.<BR/>Occasionally I do, such as here on the internet. The name Neil Delmonico does ring a bell with me. I also haven't read one book from his hands, because of one single article that kind of shocked me in a negative way. In that he was raging against my paramguru as being a mass-cheater who gives fake initiations, because he didn't received it himself, being too proud in the eyes of his alleged guru. It took me a while to understand he was implicating my paramguru. After that Neil Delmonico goes on a quest to proof his theory. <BR/>This kind of articles dishearten me, sadden me and make me disassociate myself from them (these writers).<BR/>Ofcourse I caught you too with a few articles trying to find the edge, or Advaita for that matter. At the same time I feel I must be able to take some hits, even if it concerns my teachers. I confronted Advaita (indirectly over the internet) with his article mISKCONceptions. Your controversial articles have been dealt with by many, maybe too many. You are ready to take a few blows yourself and then so must I.<BR/><BR/>In short I think I know where dr. Philly is coming from and I partly agree with him. It seems only logical.<BR/>Though I cannot comment on his later articles or books, for me it will also be difficult to disconnect this from that. I am an aspiring bhakta, not a scientist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-58247178807557290962007-03-08T11:28:00.000-05:002007-03-08T11:28:00.000-05:00I said I haven't read ALL his work. That still lea...I said I haven't read ALL his work. That still leaves room for a whole lot I did read, for example the works you've listed.<BR/>Some was okay, some was disgusting and some was scientifically incorrect. So to speak of a considerable contibution, doesn't show a very critical approach from your side.<BR/><BR/>I am not trying to insult anyone, neither you nor the Phd. You seem of similar nature as I am in this. Yet Phd Neil seems to be an expert in this field.... insulting and making a public show of his personal envy with the help of unsubstantiated arguments. It reflects in his 'scientific work'. That this goes unnoticed to you surprises me.<BR/><BR/>As a devotee I do not hold any personal grudge against you nor the Phd, though my style of writing may suggest otherwise.<BR/><BR/>As a scientist, be critical and scrutinize.<BR/>As a devotee, pray for Light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-38670760929581538132007-03-08T08:24:00.000-05:002007-03-08T08:24:00.000-05:00Thank you, Malati, for your comments. I am very aw...Thank you, Malati, for your comments. I am very aware of these and other potential criticisms. Indeed, in one sense, I sometimes think that the Gaudiya acharyas' silence on some of these questions may be a result of fear of the kinds of dangers that you mention here. So I will try to deal with these in a separate post.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-55381562881049415652007-03-08T08:20:00.000-05:002007-03-08T08:20:00.000-05:00Dr. Phil, I stand by my comment. You haven't read ...Dr. Phil, I stand by my comment. You haven't read his work, so how can you comment? As to his personal position as a Vaishnava or a scholar, I have nothing to say on the matter. I know that he has criticized publicly and vociferously the stand of most Vaishnavas on the basis of his academic studies and his sampradayika affiliations. That is neither here nor there; I am impressed by his scholarship, especially where rasa shastra is concerned, which is his area of expertise.<BR/><BR/>Some of the things that I believe is positive about the contribution of academics (even non-devotees) to the discussion of Vaishnavism is that they force it to be honest with its history and with present-day realities on every front. Here again, Neal has made a considerable contribution.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-27241385895836989322007-03-08T04:57:00.000-05:002007-03-08T04:57:00.000-05:00I do not understand why you hold Neil Delmonico's ...I do not understand why you hold Neil Delmonico's studies so high. From the scientific and philosophical point of view they are full of unsound reasoning and reflexivity. From the devotional point of view, well, they are not really devotional either since he is trying to be scientific and distance himself from the subject in order to be so.<BR/>A friend of mine holds a doctorate in cultural anthropology on the subject "tarot". Another friend of mine holds a similar title in biology on the subjectmatter the effect pinquinshit has on the arctic. I am not joking.<BR/><BR/>Granted, I haven't read all his studies, but calling him one of the greatest experts on the matter seems a bit farfetched to me, especially on the basis of his writings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-9416901218008436932007-03-07T22:31:00.000-05:002007-03-07T22:31:00.000-05:00You consider yourself a Gaudiya Vaishnava incorpor...You consider yourself a Gaudiya Vaishnava incorporating a new practical take on the rasa. Be that as it may, I think your system (concoctions to many, maybe) will find difficulty in getting off from the ground for practical reasons.<BR/><BR/>- it’s appeal is limited – only those having sex life will find attraction to sexual sadhana. Other people will find sex (especially one that involves a program) to be cumbersome. And sexual sadhana definitely rules out children, legally and ethically.<BR/><BR/>- it will be viewed as immoral and rightly so. Not only would the extra-marital angle be viewed immoral, but also the question of paedophilia will come in. How far would the practical aspect of identification with the Radha-Krishna rasa go? How can the system , better yet the individual, self-control itself/herself to make sure the sexual sadhaka does not do it with a 12 year old, for example. Take note that Radha-Krishna are 12 & 13 in the rasa lila.<BR/><BR/>I guess, at the back of my mind while writing this , is that I hope you’ll go back to the fold.<BR/>Be well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-32295822228946461642007-03-07T16:24:00.000-05:002007-03-07T16:24:00.000-05:00I am sorry- I meant hysterical in the sense that i...I am sorry- I meant hysterical in the sense that it made me laugh.<BR/>Thank you for clarifying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-3941894083071399022007-03-07T09:05:00.000-05:002007-03-07T09:05:00.000-05:00Dear Anon,I do not speak for all Sahajiyas, and I ...Dear Anon,<BR/><BR/>I do not speak for all Sahajiyas, and I have stated from the very beginning that I am probably closer to orthodoxy than to many Sahajiyas. <BR/><BR/>It was perhaps wrong of me to say that "Bauls are not Vaishnavas," because there are evidently a large number of differing groups under the Vaishnava banner, including a variety of Baul sects. So I apologize if my statement was too broad (though hardly "hysterical.")<BR/><BR/>It is difficult to dissociate oneself from one's own experience and isolate the universal from the particular. Too often people fail to make the distinction. I am, on the whole, not an original thinker; I am an admirer of the Bhagavata tradition and the Goswamis, even though I reserve the right to be a critic. I attempt to follow Rupa Goswami as best I can (or at least make a point to try to understand him as best I can), and I find that there are certain Sahajiya ideas that help to make sense of his rasika theology. Nevertheless, I realize only too well that I am pretty much isolated in my interpretation. It may only make sense to me; that is the risk I have to take. <BR/><BR/>So I do not "appeal to Orthodoxy" or try to cater to the Orthodox, as such. But I do appeal to those who follow Rupa Goswami and ask whether this interpretation does not make a better story. But I admit that I have difficulty in isolating my point of view, which is the result of my experience and interaction with the tradition, from what might be universal truth, i.e. applicable to any others, what to speak of the entire world. As far as the latter is concerned, I have more or less given up. <BR/><BR/>But to get back to what is probably the essential point: Though I seek a synthesis of the theistic and monistic and humanistic positions (achintya-bhedabheda), I will never entirely subordinate the theistic position to either the monistic or the humanistic. <BR/><BR/>Jai Radhe, Jagat.<BR/><BR/>Shivaji, I think that your points will best be answered in another post.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-86991119526314522332007-03-07T01:09:00.000-05:002007-03-07T01:09:00.000-05:00The second sentence in your quote is my exact poin...The second sentence in your quote is my exact point. The identification with the deity is advaita-vada, whether you want to be Krishna or Brahman. <BR/><BR/>You wrote- "Bauls are not Vaishnavas, by the way"- this is hysterical. By what measure can a sahajjiya-wallah be a Vaishnava but a Baul not? What makes you a Vaishnava and not a Baul who sings Nitai Gaur songs and wears kanti mala and tilak and is pure veg and is convinced that the practices in his lineage are the secret inner heart of GV and is the actual messsage of Gauranga and Nitai? No doubt you will rely on the writings of the Shatgosani. Were they, then sahajiyas like you?<BR/><BR/> I also find it interesting that you populate your response with appeals to Orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavas (who would certainly not agree with your philosphical outlook vis a vi sexual love) in addition to an ad hominem to the assumed lack of familiarity with this "Orthodox Vaishnava Siddhanta". The drive to feel like you represent orthodoxy is, it seems, intrinsic to the human animal and can, apparently, be applied to whatever program we happen to be practicing at the moment.<BR/>Thank you for your time and responses.<BR/>Joy NitaiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-3508629248084833052007-03-06T23:04:00.000-05:002007-03-06T23:04:00.000-05:00Jagat you wrote:"My point here is this: we are not...Jagat you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"My point here is this: we are not these bodies. So when Dasgupta says all men are Krishna and all women Radha, he is failing to make this primordial distinction. It is not the soul that becomes Radha or Krishna, it is merely the physical vehicle that is being ascribed (aropa) Radha-ness or Krishna-ness."<BR/><BR/>I don't think you are getting it right here. It is not the physical body which is identified as Radha and Krishna but the taking on of the archtypal persona of Radha and Krishna, an internal self identification using Radha and Krishna as archtypes for the relationship between the male and female. <BR/><BR/>You also wrote:<BR/><BR/>"And, at the risk of repeating myself, manjari bhava is the hidden ingredient to sacralizing human sexuality beyond its reproductive function."<BR/><BR/>That doesn't make sense to me because the originators of the manjari bhava ideal speak about manjari bhava as being a non sexual bhava i.e the manjaris assist the gopis and Krishna in their lovesports. Is their some writing where the manjaris are spoken of as being involved in direct erotic pastimes?<BR/><BR/>You also wrote:<BR/><BR/>"I realize that this might seem outlandish to the ordinary devotee, but I ask you to try to understand what Rupa Goswami is getting at with all his rasa theories. Sahaja means that human experience itself is the door to understanding and experiencing Radha and Krishna."<BR/><BR/>Since we are humans we cannot experience nor understand Radha and Krishna other then through experience of some type regardless if one follows the sahajiya or orthodox path. So whatever we experience is "human experience" regardless of what or how or where our experience is coming from. Maybe you meant to say that human relationships are the door to experiencing and understanding Radha and Krishna. Which I could agree with to a degree and also disagree with to a degree. Without any type of understanding of the concepts of human erotic/romantic relationships then it would be impossible to understand transcendental erotic/romantic pastimes and relationships. But for pretty much everyone who has grwon into an adult there is going to be some understanding of human erotic/romantic relationships, it least at the conceptual level. Beyond that there is no need of an actual erotic/romantic relationship in order to experience and understand transcendental madhurya bhava. That understanding and experience in fact cannot be realized by any other method then through either direct descent of realization from either God or from a person who has that realization and is empowered by God to share that with you.Vrajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535159097241083544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-34241468765700520652007-03-06T17:55:00.000-05:002007-03-06T17:55:00.000-05:00Jagat you say that in your version of sahajiyaism ...Jagat you say that in your version of sahajiyaism you remain internally as a manjari and that the identification with Krishna and Radha is purely an external meditational device in order to sacralize sexuality etc. Is that the view of the traditional Chaitanya sahajiyas? Do they also see themselves as manjaris?Vrajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535159097241083544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-20829829194037067572007-03-06T17:12:00.000-05:002007-03-06T17:12:00.000-05:00Thanks Anon, I was beginning to think I was all al...Thanks Anon, I was beginning to think I was all alone on here.<BR/><BR/>I don't really see the connection between that quote and the non-dual experience of the Tantriks. I see them as two completely different things.<BR/><BR/>As to the non-dual experience, I am arguing on the one hand that I do not care what anyone who claims to be a Sahajiya says, I am saying that in the sambandha and prayojana there is no fundamental difference between my siddhanta and the siddhanta of the orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I am trying to show how yogic or sattvika sexuality is compatible with that sambandha and that prayojana. So the answer to your question is, "Says I." <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, where this quote is concerned, what I was getting at is the same as stated before, I am talking about a middle path between dry renunciation and dry sense gratification. For a devotee, the normal is the sacred, and he therefore endeavors to bring his ordinary experience into line with the sacred, i.e. bhakti. I have been saying from the very beginning that <BR/><BR/>(1) the universe is real, therefore everything, or at least most things, can and should be dovetailed into bhakti, i.e., sacralized. <BR/><BR/>(2) Since madhura rasa plays such a prominent role in our entire system, both as allegory and as aesthetics, that therefore we should take a hint that it is also something that not only can be dovetailed, but has an important role to play in the culture of prema--aesthetically, psychologically and physiologically. <BR/><BR/>So <B>normalization of all experience</B>, i.e., our experience of THIS world, <B>means sacralization</B>, i.e., mapping of the Divine onto it. Please scroll down to an earlier post where I quote Eliade on the sacred and the profane.<BR/><BR/>Finally, whatever the Sahajiyas or Tantriks you have met (Bauls are not Vaishnavas, by the way) may believe, that is their way. The sexual yogic practices are like all yogas, they can be mapped onto different philosophical systems, like Buddhism, Shaktaism, etc. Each in their own way is indeed trying to engage in a process of sacralization of the sexual act. So, of course, there are advaita vadin practitioners of Sahaja-yoga. [This is why I think I should change the name, to help avoid confusion. I was told this would happen, but of course, I was pigheaded and did not listen.] There is no reason why the minor adjustment in the abhidheya, i.e. the addition of experiential human love, cannot be accomodated to the orthodox siddhanta of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In fact, I feel that it shows a better understanding of the sacred character of human love than that of the Tantriks, as well as showing fidelity to the fundamental genius of the Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta.<BR/><BR/>I think that in order to properly understand what I am getting at, you need to be fairly well acculturated into orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta. <BR/><BR/>Jai Radhe,Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-25775313502844043782007-03-06T15:56:00.000-05:002007-03-06T15:56:00.000-05:00Baba, regarding your final statement on sahajiyais...Baba, regarding your final statement on sahajiyaism- <BR/>"It is about a normalization of sexuality through sacralization." May I ask "says who"? The Tantricks and Sahajjiyas (primarily Baul) I spent time with had a Non-dualist pseudo-Vaishnava philosophy with strict sexual sadhanas meant to culminate in the para-samvit non-dual experience common to all Tantricks.<BR/>Please excuse me if I am missing the connection.<BR/>Please excuse the anonymous nom de plume.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com