Sunday, January 15, 2017

Last darshan of Shriji Maharaj at Nimbarkacharya Peeth

My day. I got back from Salemabad at 8 a.m. after all night driving. Started working on uploading photos. Kirtan at 9 with Babaji.

Worked on the Shriji article, etc., until noon. In passing I watched President Obama's farewell address. I felt some grief.

Took lunch, then slept until 6. In the evening I watched the film Kadambari with Andrej. Ah, the anguish of love in the world!!

Then I sang and realized that nothing in this world can be held onto, other than the eternal, underlying ground of being and love, which is my Divine Kishore and Kishori.

How much mercy of how many saints has had to fall for me to see this today. And yet, I feel so much grief letting go.

Vrindavan, 2017.01.15 (VT): Haridas Sharan's kindness, I was able to go on lightning run to the Nimbarkacharya Peeth in Rajasthan.

We got the news through Vrajvihari Sharan that Shriji Maharaj -- Radha Sarvesvara Sharana Devacharya Maharaj, the universally respected acharya for the entire Nimbarka Sampradaya -- had left his body in the morning of the 14th.

Haridas Sharan arranged for a car and after an eight hour drive with his mother and maternal uncle we reached Salemabad at around 11 pm and immediately went up to the room where hundreds of devotees were surrounding Shriiji Maharaj's Shrivigraha, keeping up a constant but subdued chant:

Radhe Krishna Radhe Krishna
Krishna Krishna Radhe Radhe
Radhe Shyam Radhe Shyam
Shyam Shyam Radhe Radhe
A steady line of people was passing through the open chamber where he was lying, covered in a mountain of garlands.

Haridas Sharan, his mother and maternal uncle brought prasadi cloth and garlands from Sri Bankey Bihari Ju Maharaj from Vrindavan. These were given him by Sumit Goswami and Raghu Goswami Ji of the Banke Bihari Goswami family.


Haridas Sharan is a disciple of Shriji Maharaj. His mother and uncle are in fact initiated in the Tatia Sthan, but they were brought up in their ancestral home right near the Badi Shriji Kunj in Retia Bazaar. So he and his sister used to attend events at the Kunj frequently and had the opportunity to meet Shriji Maharaj there many times even in their childhood, as well as many, many other saints of the Nimbark and other sampradayas.

On the long ride to Salemabad, they told many of them with much joy and laughter and praise for him.

With Yuvacharya Ji's permission, the three Brijbasis blissfully offered Bihariji's sri-anga prasadi to Maharaj Sri.

We were told that Shriji Maharaj got up at his usual time of 3 a.m. and had done his nitya-kritya as he did every day, even in his advanced age. He then met with a bhakta to discuss the panchang, as it was Makara Sankranti and its coinciding with other tithis had to be examined.

After the meeting, Maharaj went into samadhi in a seated position and left his mortal body. He was 88 years old and had adorned the Nimbark sampradaya's acharya gaddi for an amazing 74 years.

Yuvacharya Shyam Sharani Dev
His successor, usually called the "Yuvacharya"
is 38-year-old Shri Shyam Sharandevji.
Shriji Maharaj was a prolific author in Hindi and Sanskrit, yet able to communicate complex truths and give guidance in simple language, he has left an indelible mark on the sampradaya, establishing a unity in the tradition as well as a firm presence for it in the Vaishnava world.

It would not be exaggeration to say that he was the most respected figure in the Vaishnava world of today.

In the morning, Haridas Sharanji went to take darshan of the Mahant of Tatiya Sthan after coming back from Salemabad. The Mahant said in honor of Sriji Maharaj's entry into the nitya nikunj:

आइ मिल्यौ परिवार आपने हरि हँसि कंठ लगायौ ।
स्यामास्याम जू बिहरत दोऊ सखी समाज मिलायौ ।।
Aai Milyo Parivar Aapne Hari Hasi Kantha Lagayo |
Syama Syam Ju Bihrat Dou Sakhi Samaj Milayo ||

Translation:- Sri Sri Ji Maharaj has eternally entered into nitya nikunj lilas of Shyama Shyam, where Shyamsundar and Priyaju along with group of Sakhis including Rangdevi Ju Lalita Ju and Hari Priya Ju personally embraced their new sakhi and welcomed her into their pastimes.

 Devakinandan Thakur, one of Shriji Maharaj's most illustrious disciples, speaking with Yuvacharyaji.

The cremation of Shriji Maharaj's mortal remains was conducted the next morning at 10 a.m. According to sources in the press, more than 150,000 people attended, including many Rajasthani government dignitaries.

Shriji Maharaj

Salemabad is the place in Pushkar Kshetra where Jagadguru Nimbarkacharya Swami Shri Parashuram Devacarya Ji Maharaj performed austerities in the early 1540s. He was there because his own Guru, Jagadguru Nimbarkacharya Swami Shri Harivyas Devacharya sent him there to counter Masting Shah who was terrorising visitors to Pushkar at that time. From then, the Nimbarkacharya Peeth moved from Narad Teela to Salemabad. The first iteration of the Peeth was completed after the death of Swami Parashuram Devacharya by Gopal Ji Bhati of the Bhati clan in 1607. After a few of the Bharatpur kings sought refuge from the British onslaughts, the Peeth was destroyed and was rebuilt again soon after by the royal houses of Jaipur and Kishangarh. (Vrajvihari Sharan)

For more about Shriji Maharaj, see this article by Vrajvihari Sharanji from last year.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

BInode Bihari Baba in Barsana

The Rutgers students who came for a three-week course during their Christmas break went with a few others from Jiva including myself. We went to Binode Bihari Babaji's ashram near Priya Kund and then went with him on Barsana parikrama.

I first met Binode Bihari Das Babaji Maharaj in 1984 when his guru Tinkori Goswami came to Nabadwip. In those days, Tinkori Prabhu was the topmost bhajananandi in the Gaudiya Vaishnava world. It was a great surprise to everyone when, like Jagannath Das Babaji, he decided to spend the last part of his life in Gauda desh. So naturally there was a great attraction to go and visit him in Manipur Ghat, not far from the crematorium.

I visited several times since in those days there was a general enthusiasm building for Mahaprabhu's 500th appearance day anniversary. Tinkori Prabhu had many disciples in Nabadwip, and I used to join them daily for early morning nagar sankirtan through the streets of Nabadwip, singing "Sri Krishna Chaitanya, Prabhu Nityananda, Hare Krishna Hare Rama, Sri Radhe Govinda." As the anniversary drew closer, more and more such groups started forming, some chanting Hare Krishna, some Nitai Gaura Radha Shyam, some Bhaja Gauranga or Vishnupriyara Prananath. Ramananda Goswami took out a group from the Srivas Angan temple singing different Gaura padavali. It was quite an exciting time.

Tinkori Prabhu left his body before the 500th, however, and his Samadhi was built there in the ashram. After he left, however, I was invited a couple of times to speak on Chaitanya Charitamrita. I may even have done so when Tinkori Prabhu was present, I don't remember. Binode Bihari Baba was Prabhu's personal servant at the time.

It was rather embarrassing for when I introduced myself as Jagadananda, he immediately said, "Not the Jagadananda who used to come to Manipur Ghat and speak on Chaitanya Charitamrita." I said, "No, you must be thinking of Jagadish." But he insisted, "No, Jagadananda. Don't you remember me, I am Binode Bihari!"

I don't know why I have such a hazy memory of such important events. Sometimes I think I have lived my life in a kind of unconscious daze. Anyway, I was flattered like anything that he remembered me, and ashamed that I did not remember him from that time. I said, "I am such an ahankari manush that I only think of myself. I remember all the Vaishnava disciples of Tinkori Prabhu, but I don't remember anyone specifically, and over the years I have forgotten all of their names. But I am so glad that you remember me, I will come another time and stay for a while and get your association, if you bless me."

Then I translated for him as he gave a short homily to the Rutgers students and other members of the group: "We are not these bodies, that is the first thing to remember. We are in confusion because we separate ourselves from that which is truly close to us, and we try to possess the things that we can never have. This body is not the real self, and yet we try to make it our self. And we try to distance ourselves from Krishna, who resides everywhere within and without, and who is the Soul of our soul. Krishna is ours and we are Krishna's. The purpose of life is to realize this."

Then we went out on the Barsana Parikrama, during which Babaji distributes toffees to all the children and monkeys. Everyone knows he is coming, and even some older people come to get his mercy. We ended up in the Ladli temple for arati. It was a very nice atmosphere everywhere. There were many Gaudiya vairagis in the temple and most came to sit around Baba when he arrived. Some Braja vasis also came and they told stories and sang songs while waiting for arati.

Toni, one of the girls in the Rutgers group, took many photos. I found the ones of me and Baba to be interesting because it showed how Baba was surprised as he recognized me and my reaction. I am only putting a few of the pictures here as a sample. She took at least fifty.

This is me in a selfie with Toni, the photographer. Jai Radhe.

Prema's testing ground and laboratory are in the human

In the last three articles, Another look at Aropa and Vatsalya, Worshiping Krishna as the substratum in all beings and The natural loves and prema, I have been responding to Muralisvara Dasa's letter. In these posts we have established several things that beginner devotees find problematic. Indeed, it takes a bit of a paradigm shift to move from the beginning level of duality between God and man in aiśvarya to the eradication of this difference in mādhurya. This is the human dimension of love.

To summarize: Without giving up the basic practice of arcanā, one has to cultivate the middle stage of devotion, which is, as we have all read in the Bhāgavatam:

īśvare tad-adhīneṣu bāliśeṣu dviṣatsu ca |
yaḥ karoti sa madhyamaḥ ||
One who behaves with love towards God, friendship to those who depend on the Lord, with compassion to those who are innocent, and indifference to those who hate the Lord, is on the middle level of devotional achievement and practice. (SB 11.2.46)
In Kapila Deva's verse, this was expressed as follows:

atha māṁ sarva-bhūteṣu bhūtātmānaṁ kṛtālayam
arcayed dāna-mānābhyāṁ maitryābhinnena cakṣuṣā
Therefore, through charity and offering respect to others, through friendship and by viewing others as non-different [from the Self], one should worship me, who have made my home within all living beings as the Supreme Self. (3.29.27)
Maitrī here takes the primary position, and this forms the bridge between the positive and negative paths. I have mentioned this here. This is also applicable to this sādhana in madhura-rasa. But of course, for the sake of this discussion, abhinnena cakṣuṣā, or seeing the devotees or, in particular, partners in sādhanā, as not different or in any way separate from Krishna, is the raison-d'etre and goal of this sādhana.

Krishna is the ultimate Self in all beings. To see and love him within oneself is the inner path. To see and love him in others is the outer path. The combination of both is the full path. Neither is complete without the other.

With this awareness, then, one should understand that āropa is a bit of a misnomer, since we are not falsely attributing qualities that do not exist onto something or someone that does not have them. Krishna in whatever form we wish to worship him, exists in that form in the Other as it manifests in the sādhaka's life, i.e., even in imperfection. If we understand Jiva Goswami's comment cited at the end of the previous post, we will understand that more clearly. The example of the other rasas is particularly cogent.

The point is that one way or another, the sādhanā is learning to love the Supreme Self in the self, in the other and in everything. It is not an artificial construct because there is in fact nothing other than Him. kim atad-vastu rūpyatām. This is how we learn to see Him in the other. When one sees that the Self in the other is the same Self existing within oneself, then the question of selfish desire does not arise. This is how kāma is conquered.

This is how the development of the vision of God as described in the verses 3.29.28-33 evolved from the unconscious to the most conscious entities. It reminded me of the following story from Sam Keen in his To a Dancing God:
Carson McCullers once wrote a short story which suggests the proper place for a course in loving to begin. She tells about a young paperboy who encounters a drunk in an all-night diner. The drunk insists upon showing the boy a picture of his wife who fifteen years previously ran away with another man. He goes on to explain that in those days he did not know how to love but that subsequently he has developed a science of love that will allow him to win his wife's love. The mistake he originally made was to begin with the hardest object of love – a woman. His new science established a hierarchy: first love a rock, then a cloud, then a tree, and gradually your powers will grow until it will be possible to love a woman. There is a wisdom in this story that the Greek philosophers would have understood. Plato also insisted that love had a ladder of ascent whose lowest rung was a simple object. Eros is first directed toward modest objects, and only afterward may it reach the good, the beautiful and the true. Practice in loving best begins with objects, things—rocks and trees, or beautiful machines. (Collins Fontana ed'n, 1971: 58).
This is why limiting love of God to the God on the altar, the One "out there," in a heaven or some liberated state, though good as a basis, eventually becomes problematic. Even if we superimpose personality on the object, in some way it keeps some of its limitations, which are not fully perceived by the beginner. Is this not the flaw identified by those who protest against any possibility of love in the world, namely that kāma can make us think of them in terms of our conditioned -- subtle or gross -- saṁskāras objects of sense gratification? In the Vishnu Purana verse quoted in Prīti Sandarbha (The natural loves and prema) the word viṣaya is often mistranslated as "sense object," when it is really meant as in the rasa-śāstra sense as the object of love, like Krishna is the object of Radha's love.

This is the basis for our speaking about "I-Thou" relationships mentioned here and there on this blog. And this is why the Christ's statement is so powerful: "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" (1 John 4.20, KJV) [Many translations have "believer" rather than "brother," which also sheds light on the idea of the madhyama stage, where the emphasis is on the loving relationships with fellow sādhakas.]

The denial of love in this world is the denial of God-as-Love. Sometimes God is thought of by atheist psychologists as a "transitional object" or a kind of substitute for cruel reality (example). The Christian psychotherapist see his role as a kind of guru who acts in the same way as mediator to God. What we are saying is that both these standpoints are correct: We learn to love God in a multiplicity of ways, but its testing ground as well as its laboratory are in human love.

This is also how I read the verse from the Gītā,

kleśo'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ dehavadbhir avāpyate
The anguish for those whose minds are attached to the Unmanifest is greater, because embodied beings can only attain the goal of the Unmanifest with great difficulty. (Gītā 12.5)
Here, the unmanifest means the God that does not exist anywhere except as a general concept in the mind. If one loves a mental concept (avyakta or unmanifest), this love does not have the impact that love for something concrete and accessible to the senses will have. And the worship of God in the vyakta corresponds to the sequential order as given in Kapila's verses: from the unconscious elements, worshiped in the deity form, to a human being, and of them, particularly the devotee.

Love for a devotee will always be higher because that love will confirm and increase the love for God in his human form, ultimately Radha and Krishna, since they are absorbed in Radha and Krishna and therefore the Radha-Krishna-ness radiates from them directly.

Not that it is necessarily easier to go there right away, as Carson McCullers' diner drunk recognized, for the person who has not developed the capacity to do so, or who lacks the requisite background knowledge, often chooses an unqualified object of love in the sādhanā stage.

But when a bhakti-yogi recognizes that the devotee is the closest that we can come to experience God in the human, due to his or her embodiment of Krishna-consciousness, and if that is revealed to him or her directly through the numinous experience or epiphany of falling in love, then he or she is ready to start the process of bhāva sādhanā.

The point I want to make is that all sādhana contains within it a process of āropa. We apply God-ness to objects that ordinarily we do not think of having God-ness. The Deity in the temple is called an "idol" by the non-believer for whom the concept of āropa corresponds to idolatry. The devotee defends against the charge: We are told to see Krishna in the deity; we are told Krishna is genuinely present there as a result of mantras and rituals that infuse it with his consciousness (prāṇa-pratiṣṭhā) In fact, there is nothing but Krishna. Krishna is the object of all love. It is only idolatry when we see something else that is meant to serve our interests separate from God. Nevertheless, in real terms, worshiping the deity is an act of superimposition or āropa; it is an act of the buddhi, imposing an awareness of God where in ordinary consciousness there is none. Thus the many legends about awakened murtis, like the story of Nrisingha arising from the Shiva linga.

With the devotee this should be less difficult, but alas our vision is impure. The fault finding tendency battles with our practice of "seeing the truth" (āropa), the so-called "real" and so-called "fantasy" fight it out to no conclusion. Seeing God in the human is not an easy practice.

[Take another look at the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu verses about rāgānugā bhakti in this light as well in that of the Bhakti-sandarbha 106.]

Now, in my view, one has to have undergone a thorough training in āropa in the pravartaka stage before one can start practicing it on the level of human beings. Your mind needs to be imbued with bhakti saṁskāras through hearing and chanting, and meditating on what one has heard, i.e., through the preliminary practices of vaidhī and rāgānugā bhakti. For anyone who has not got faith in the deity form of the Lord, or in the Lord's human pastimes, there is no point in attempting to go further in bhāva sādhanā.

When it comes to madhura-rasa, devotees who might otherwise accept the idea of āropa in vātsalya and other types of rāgānugā devotion find it difficult to make the leap from there to the erotic mood. This is no doubt why Rupa Goswami himself separated rāgānugā into two divisions, one called sambandhānugā (following the relation), the other kāmānugā (following the erotic desire). The latter is further subdivided into sambhogecchāmayī and tad-bhāvecchātmikā (BRS 1.2.297-298). These are then defined:

kāmānugā bhavet tṛṣṇā kāma-rūpānugāminī ||
sambhogecchā-mayī tat-tad-bhāvecchātmeti sā dvidhā ||
keli-tātparyavaty eva sambhogecchā-mayī bhavet |
tad-bhāvecchātmikā tāsām bhāva-mādhurya-kāmitā ||
That devotion which follows the erotic desire is that devotional thirst that follows the love [felt by the gopis] which appears like lust. It has two divisions: that which has as its goal the enjoyment of dalliance with Krishna is called "following] devotion which desires [erotic] union" (sambhogecchāmayī). That devotion which is filled with the desire to experience the sweetness of the mistresses' mood is called "devotion desiring their mood" (tad-bhāvecchātmikā). (BRS 1.2.299)
The former has its meaning (tātparya) in erotic enjoyment with Krishna. The latter in the desire to relish the sweetness of the moods of the lovers of Krishna such as Radha.

Vishwanath argues in his commentary to BRS 1.2.298 that this process the following of the gopis is not to be taken as imitation (anukāriṇī). Here he decries the "Sauramya" school, which is generally associated with Rupa Kaviraj, one of the earliest Vaishnava Sahajiya philosophers, about whom far too little is known. Jiva Goswami also emphasizes that of the two, the latter path is superior. This is because any ordinary jiva who thinks that he has the capacity to be a nāyikā who can control Krishna with her love the way that Radharani does is surely engaged in a futile pursuit. And the desire for sexual union contains a whiff of personal desire that is entirely absent in the tad-bhāvecchātmikā devotees, namely the manjaris or sakhis.

So the problem is here associated specifically with the sambhogecchā-mayī mood. It has been hinted at in other ways by Jiva Goswami. For example in Bhakti Sandarbha 310-311 where two verses of the 11th Canto are cited from Pingala's soliloquy. These are used by him as examples of rāgānugā bhakti, specifically to show that Pingala was not bound by rules and attracted to Narayan purely by ruci. The terms sambhogecchāmayī and tad-bhāvecchātmikā are not used in Bhakti Sandarbha, but Pingala clearly belongs to the former category.

suhṛt preṣṭhatamo nātha ātmā cāyaṁ śarīriṇām |
taṁ vikrīyātmanaivāhaṁ rame’nena yathā ramā ||
He [Bhagavān Nārāyaṇa] is the friend, the most beloved, the master and Self of all embodied beings. I shall purchase Him through the price of my self-surrender, and thus delight with Him, just like Goddess Lakṣmī. (SB 11.8.35, Bhakti Sandarbha 310)
Moreover, from her prayers, we can see that Pingala also belongs to the svakīyā mood.
santuṣṭā śraddadhaty etad yathā-lābhena jīvatī |
viharāmy amunaivāham ātmanā ramaṇena vai ||
Feeling contented and living upon with whatever I get, with full faith, I shall now sport with him alone as my husband, for he is my own true Self. (11.8.40, Bhakti Sandarbha 311)

Here Srila Jiva Goswamipada makes the distinction that Pingala is lamenting that her "natural husband" is the indwelling Lord, but she has instead chosen to prostitute herself to worthless men out of a desire for money and sexual pleasure. He states that in the world, marriages are based on mantra and ritual and are therefore the oneness of husband and wife is artificial (kṛtrimam ekātmatvam), not innate or natural. But in the case of Bhagavān this oneness is not so because He is the Supreme Self by his very constitution. But this statement applies to couples marrying within the varnashram system. As we have already stated above, the sādhaka is situated in the knowledge that it is not artificial, but as a ground for practising the presence of God in relationship.

To the second verse Jiva says that the sexual relationship with Krishna for those following Pingala's path, i.e., in this kind of rāgānugā bhakti, the mind is most important. This prevents the insolence (auddhatya) of physically engaging in such acts with the deity form. I am sure we will all agree that something does not sound quite right -- that would be a very gross understanding of the erotic relation with God -- and the fact that Jiva Goswami even had to mention it raises questions. But we also agree that the ground of rāgānugā is in the mind. And if one has not imprinted the mind with the image of the Yugala, the path of Yugala Sādhanā will be full of potholes.

In this post, I have discussed the following verses from Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, which are also relevant here. I will just conclude with the following reminder:

vartitavyaṁ śam icchadbhir bhaktavan na tu kṛṣṇavat
ity evaṁ bhakti-śāstrāṇāṁ tātparyasya vinirṇayaḥ
rāmādivad vartitavyaṁ na kvacid rāvaṇādivat
ity eṣa mukti-dharmādi-parāṇāṁ naya īryate

Those who wish for true joy (śam) should identify as devotees and not as Krishna. This is the conclusion of the devotional scriptures. "One should identify with Rama and not with Ravana, this is the method followed by those who are devoted to deliverance and justice." (UN 3.24-25)
The art of love lies in becoming the āśraya not the viṣaya. It is because of this whiff of personal desire that the sambhogecchā and svakīyā moods are considered lesser, as well as being associated with one another. (See BRS 1.2.303)

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

The glory of the human body

it is true that to speak on these matters in public is inviting opprobrium. People have already (as I suspected they would) complained to other senior Vaishnavas about me.

People hear the word "sex" and they immediately respond with their deepest samskaras.

Sex is the desire for love manifest in the human body. Love is the desire for giving and receiving the pleasure of union. Union with the non-physical normally does not precede union on the physical plane. Even while the experience of union on the physical plane without spiritual maturity is a pipe dream.

Union with God based on disgust with the material world is not love. It is mukti.

The human organism has many levels. The foolish think they can reach the spirit and the soul without first purifying the gross body, the prana body, the mental body, the vijnana body, the ananda-maya body.

Similarly the experience of love is beyond the body, but just like the lotus flower grows out of mud, this human form of life is the basis of our highest and most transcendental experiences. To say, "I am not this body" and then deny the body is the path of asceticism, which has been rejected by Buddha, by the yogis, but most of all by the bhaktas.

This does not mean that one does not engage in tapas, i.e., giving up sense pleasures for the sake of one's spiritual endeavor, i.e., prioritizing your spiritual life over your mundane predilections. Brahmacharya is a great tapas, and the householder who practices it attains the perfection of his ashram.

Jugupsa and madhura-rati.

Tuesday, January 03, 2017

Another look at aropa and vatsalya

Muralisvara further writes in comments on Understanding aropa through vatsalya. This was the first thing I wrote and will perhaps  follow up with another article related to the subject that takes account of the other articles I wrote after this:

Your idea of āropa or IMAGINING ourselves (human couple, I mean) to be the Divine Couple is beyond my understanding. It is just imagination and it will remain such forever. Because imagination is the product of material mind. What does it have to do with spiritual soul, what to speak about Supersoul, what to speak about Supersoul in Its highest manifestation (nara-līlā of Sri Krishna)?

I am not quite sure where I ever said that the human couple is to imagine themselves to be the Divine Couple, at least not in a real sense. In the links below you will see the effort I have made to distinguish my sādhanas from ahaṅgrahopāsanā. Jiva Goswami himself makes this distinction in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu verse about the sambandhānuga division of rāgānugā bhakti. Look at this n the light of the Bhakti-sandarbha passage with which we concluded an earlier post.

sā sambandhānugā bhaktiḥ procyate sadbhir ātmani |
yā pitṛtvādi-sambandha-mananāropanātmikā ||
lubdhair vātsalya-sakhyādau bhaktiḥ kāryātra sādhakaiḥ |
vrajendra-subalādīnāṁ bhāva-ceṣṭita-mudrayā ||
That is called sambandhānugā bhakti when devotees meditate on their relationship with Krishna as a father, etc., and identify themselves as such (āropanātmikā). Those sādhakas who are greedy for the relations of parenthood or friendship with Krishna should perform bhakti in this way by imitating the mood and activities of Nanda Maharaj and Subala, etc. (1.2.305-306)
Jiva Goswami and after him Vishwanath discuss the meaning of āropa here and warn against identifying with the nitya parikaras as being a type of ahangrahopāsanā and to be rejected. What is important is the bhāva and the ceṣṭita, the mood and activities, which are easily applicable in practical life also. As we saw there, the feeling and its corollary actions (anubhāvas) are cultivated and applied to Krishna, like the Brahmin who worshiped the Shiva linga as a form of Nrisingha.

Here is how it works: When we think of Mother Yashoda, we are to imagine the perfect mother with the perfect love for the perfect child. The devotee mother or father then aligns him or herself with all these elements: Mother Yashoda (or Nanda Maharaj) enter into me as the āśraya of that love, i.e., as the ideal representation of vātsalya. I look upon my child, the natural viṣaya of my parental love as a manifestation of Krishna. And by dovetailing (āropa) my love in this way, my natural love for my child becomes imbued with devotion to Krishna and divine rasa. My love for my child thus becomes an inspirer (uddīpana) for my love for Krishna, and my remembrance of Krishna imbues my love for my child with a sacred power.

Of course, if there is no purification of the heart to begin with, if there is no Krishna consciousness to begin with, then this will not work. It will remain "natural" love and be subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the criticisms that the shastra makes of such relations. The idea is that we are cultivating love, for if we cannot see Krishna in the relations we are experiencing now, then it seems unrealistic to think that we can enter the world of Pure Love.

Now of course, due to karmas, saṁskāras and so on, we are often caught in conditions that make this process difficult. A situation that is totally inimical to the culture of bhakti may have to be abandoned. Other than for the most advanced sādhakas, bhakti should only be cultivated in the association of devotees. Some people think that we can just access universal love without any culture or sādhana. But human beings have devised many methods of self-purification -- religious and secular sādhanas -- that, in one way or another, are attempting to achieve the same goal.

I feel that the system I teach is most direct because of bhakti. Because it recognizes the Divine Transcendent Being, the Divine Yugala Radha and Krishna as a real entity, the archetypal manifestation of Love, and stresses the role of grace. But bhakti to God is ultimately meant to go beyond the culture of vaidhī bhakti to love in the various direct relations and from there to universal love.

Try to understand: whatever we do is based on our imagination. Rāgānugā bhaktas are clearly imagining themselves to be participants in the līlā. We are told that this is real, but that is up to the sādhaka to decide. From the external point of view, it is an act of the imagination. The extent to which deep saṁskāras enter into the citta through the performance of such bhakti sādhanas -- either the vaidhī or rāgānugā mixed with vaidhī -- is fairly limited without the experience or culture of personal loving relationships in bhakti-yoga. In particular that of madhura-rasa, which is the ādi-rasa, or original rasa which contains all the rest.

Most devotees do not have a problem with the concept of friendship with other devotees, but they rarely actually do āropa, i.e., recognize the presence of the Lord in their friendships and, even though the relationships may be free of
aiśvarya, still attempt to practice pure sakhya rasa. How will you understand sakhya rasa without making friends with the devotees and seeing how friendship works within the context of real life situations, where your purity and honesty are tested from moment to moment?

In Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu there are many divisions of friendship given, and one can study from other sources also to understand how human beings have tried to understand human friendship and how to perfect it. The difference for us is that we see it as a religious practice in its own right. My love for my devotee friend is an act of conscious devotion to Krishna Himself.

Whatever sādhanas we perform is based on the āropa of a certain world view, which we accept as being most correct to our understanding. Someone may say it is an objective truth, and we may feel that way, but it is an act of āropa nevertheless.

Furthermore, the experience of rasa itself is based on a natural kind of āropa which is called sādhāraṇī-karaṇa. You can look up these concepts on this blog. Understanding the psychology of āropa or identification and its varieties in literature and sādhanas bhakti are an important element in understanding rāgānugā bhakti.

When we feel the natural loves, then we experience them as real, but defective in some way. They are defective in the sense that we ourselves and the object of love are contaminated by ego desires, or kāma. Nevertheless, the sentiment of something as a real experience is different from merely wishing it to be so.

Of course, a devoted bhakta feels something real in the Holy Name and other practices, and through self-purification in sattva-guna and so on strengthens that feeling. This is also the case with a sādhaka of any yoga practice or religion.

Now what I am really saying is that the natural loves need to be dovetailed with love of God. And that this process is facilitated by our particular concept of Krishna in Vrindavan. It is not that love in this world replaces love for Krishna, but that the two become one. One's love for a child IS vātsalya. In its purest form it is similar to the feeling of Nanda and Yashoda for Krishna. Therefore one who is feeling natural vātsalya should attempt to harmonize the two.

And so it is for other natural loves. Of course, the whole process centers around bhakti sādhanas. A parent wishes for the child to grow and become a good human being, or a pure devotee. So the process of training in love, accompanied by the vision of the Divine Lord, the object of vātsalya, residing within and manifesting as the child or student, is an act of DIRECT devotion to Krishna. And the reciprocation that is felt through the medium of the object of vātsalya is not different from the experience of vātsalya in the spiritual world.

Of course, in the material world, everything comes to an end. Children grow up, husbands and wives die. Sometimes love itself disappears for some reason when the object of love fails some test. But the experience as it has been directly felt then becomes the fuel for meditating on the eternal bhakti relation.

If this were not so, then the various metaphors and analogies comparing Krishna and the devotee's love to worldly love would have no meaning. Without integrating the experience of natural loves into bhakti sādhanas, it is unlikely that the higher realms of rāgānugā bhakti will be attained. This is true even though the relation with God is eternal.
God manifests in our human loving relationships. This is true whether one is a devotee or not. But for a devotee, these loving relationships combined with sādhanas bhakti become a direct route to transcending kāma. Think of it as prasāda.

And you should understand that until kāma has been purified completely it is not prema. This applies to your bhajan to Krishna also. Just because you claim to be worshiping Krishna does not mean you have prema. Just because you have a quotation from Chaitanya Charitamrita that says this is kāma, that is prema, does not mean you have prema or that you have understood prema.

Material relationships are kāma-maya. But for a devotee who sees everything in relation to Krishna, even the so-called material relationships with other devotees and even non-devotees become Krishna-ized. And that is a higher level of sādhanas because it directly addresses the question of kāma as it raises its ugly head exactly where we would expect it to -- in our relationships with other human beings. The ecstatic experience of union, which is the characteristic of love, in the love between devotees is the direct presence of Krishna.

Some devotees make the mistake of thinking that there is only madhura-rasa and so they meditate on that rasa alone. But in actual fact, one must really have experienced all the rasas to understand madhura, even vātsalya. You might find this strange, because normally we think of madhura as preceding vātsalya, but in actual fact the experience of parenthood, for a devotee couple, should enhance the madhura relationship, just as it will enhance the experience of love for Krishna in the classical understanding thereof. It all depends on the capacity to understand both love and Krishna bhakti as parallel tracks rather than opposing ones.

Other articles on this subject:

Sex and Love in the material world and as a sadhana

After a discussion on Facebook, I posted two articles I wrote on "Sex and Bhakti Yoga" (Part I and Part II)

Prisni responded by saying that "The biggest problem is not sex, but the identification of love with sex, and the inability to feel love except through sex. Men want sex, then its over, and they can go on doing whatever they really want. Fixing cars, fighting with swords, or playing football, or becoming a celebrated scientist." This led to the following response:

You have correctly described the material situation for sex. This is why the appropriate practice is to retain the semen. Nobody in the world learns this technique and so all the anarthas related to sex arise.

It is not that retaining the semen on its own solves the problem, but it is an important ingredient in the solution. When orgasm ceases to be the goal of sex, then one's mind is freed to enter into other dimensions of meditation and awareness.

I hope you will understand that this is a difference of night and day.

Sex does not equal love. This is quite correct. Love is about pleasing the beloved which is added to the pleasure that is experienced from the mutual act of reciprocal pleasure giving. This is the definition of prīti given by Jiva Goswami in Prīti Sandarbha 61. Please see "The Natural Loves and Prema."

The complex psychological process of "falling in love" is really only the awakening of a bhāva (see UN 11.6*), which is then to be the basis of a sādhana of prema. The stage of reciprocation is prema.

But in madhura-rasa, lovemaking is integral to the love itself. This is the feature of madhura-rasa, the extra added factor that distinguishes it from the other loves. Sex without love is trying to get the reward without paying the price.

Modern society has no concept of seminal retention. People are encouraged to masturbate as much as they can. The more sex the better. This is the current philosophy that is promoted by the consumer society. Pornography, "polyamory", and so on. There is no such thing as "bad sex."

People believe that it relieves tension and so on, without knowing that what is like nectar in the beginning turns to poison in the end. And that what is somewhat poisonous in the beginning, i.e., resisting the urge to orgasm and learning to sublimate the sexual energy into the subtler regions of the body, becomes the highest nectar in the end.*

On its own, this has nothing to do with bhakti. But as a complementary practice for madhura-rasa bhakti sādhana it is indispensable, whether one follows the pravṛtti- or nivṛtti-mārgas.

With regard to masturbation, there is no absolute condemnation of it, but the current promotion of unrestrained masturbation as-often-as-you-like is totally against any idea of spirituality and disruptive of spiritual or sāttvika health.

In the progressive development of the practice, as one becomes habituated to the rising of the semen, orgasmic retention becomes more pleasurable than orgasm, which is continual without interruption. The idea of masturbation to orgasm becomes repellant, what to speak of orgasm in lovemaking.

I do not subscribe to the Chari Chand sādhana. I don't really think it is necessary, though it is commonly found in various Sahajiya and Baul lineages. I may say here that for one who wishes to control the seminal discharge, it is better to masturbate and consume one's own semen. This could be a regular practice until one has no need of it. It is quite effective, though, in helping to speed up the process of mastery.

Spilling semen wastefully, however, is an abuse of the body. The semen is the carama-dhātu, the finest product of the body. Treating it as nothing more than a waste product like urine, stool or mucus is an offense to this beautiful natural system of sublimation of the energies. Someone who does not master this will have trouble understanding anything about real spiritual life. The finer cells of the brain will never develop.

Sigmund Freud was the one who explained sublimation in the West, though I suspect that there have been no successful measures applied to test his thesis. Nevertheless, the idea of oral, anal and genital development are directly related to the process of sublimation, which is in essence nothing more than sense control. Sense control is what makes the human being capable of separating the energies born of instinctual drives and diverting them into higher functions of the mind and intelligence.

In the anal phase one learns to control the bowel movement through strengthening the sphincter muscles. In the West this is useful only for stopping the bowel movement. In yoga this function has a far wider reaching purpose in what is called the mūla-bandha. The genital phase is accompanied by controlling the muscles that stop the flow of urine. These same muscles are also those that are used for controlling the external flow of semen, but they require much stronger development. Practices like vajroli and aśvinī are added to the mūla-bandha in order to strengthen them. These practices become a habit for the yogi. They accompany his breath.

The mūla-bandha is enhanced by other breathing practices which all have the purpose of awakening the kuṇḍalinī and sending it to the thousand-petalled lotus in the cranium. The bodily system is like a lotus flower, hence the love for the lotus symbol in yoga and puranic literature. The lotus draws its energy from the ground of the mūlādhāra and svādhiṣṭhāna, and sends those energies via the yoni-sthāna through the lotus stem, the spinal chord, the suṣumnā channel, and then progressively through the evolutionary stages associated with the genital, navel, heart, throat and forehead.

This should not be thought of as something esoteric or foreign to the ordinary man and woman. It is beneficial for all human beings, something that should be natural to everyone, but especially for the spiritualist. It has no sampradāya: you can belong to any religion or belief system, what to speak of madhura-rasa Vaishnavism, for which it is practically speaking the eternal consort of the external bhakti practices.

Freud recognized the necessity of control for attaining maturity, but feared that repression, especially in the name of God and religion vitiated the process and prevented one from satisfying natural desires, leading to neuroses and other psychological problems. One overly disturbed by desires cannot devote psychic attention to "finer" matters. Indeed, the Gita (3.33) agrees.

However, the solution is becoming a bigger problem than the original problem. Society has become degraded to the point that allowing free rein to one's desires so that everything is permissible has the direct result of brutalizing human beings. The philosophy of the Marquis de Sade is victorious.

Though the philosophy of seminal retention goes against the current popular wisdom, it is yet something that must be learned by serious spiritualists, especially those on the path of love, who wish to be able to distinguish between love and lust.

Vivarta-vilāsa states plainly that kāma means to spill the semen, prema means to retain it. That may seem like a gross generalization on a very mundane level to those who have read the refined texts about prema such as the Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, but without this principle, I don't believe that the brain will ever become refined enough to understand Radha-Krishna lila, what to speak of understanding prema in madhura-rasa.

Kaniṣṭha devotees who have never progressed to deha-sādhana or the advanced culture of relationships in bhakti repeatedly "fall down" because they foolishly think that sexual desire can be controlled by repression rather than conscious sublimation. Or they have a mistaken idea that boredom with sex is the same thing as freedom from sexual desire. And there are other misconceptions as well.

Without this training, and if one does not meditate on the pure loves of Radha and Krishna, then one's mind will eventually be led to pornography of the disruptive, degrading type that is so common and widespread throughout the world today.

Pornography -- from soft to hard -- is the fundamental tool of the consumer society to control the masses. Better you should make love to your exclusive sādhana partner in consciousness of the Divine Couple, in an act that is dominated by the sattva-guṇa.

yat tad-agre viṣam iva pariṇāme’mṛtopamam
tat sukhaṁ sāttvikaṁ proktam ātma-buddhi-prasādajam
viṣayendriya-saṁyogād yat tadagre’mṛtopamam |
pariṇāme viṣam iva tat sukhaṁ rājasaṁ smṛtam ||

Happiness in the mode of goodness may in the beginning seem like poison, but at the end is just like nectar, for it is born out of the peace of self-understanding. That happiness is rajasika which arises from the contact of the sense objects and is like ambrosia in the beginning, but is later transformed into something like poison. [Gītā 18.38-39]

Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 11.6:

prādurbhāvaṁ vrajaty eva raty-ākhye bhāva ujjvale |
nirvikārātmake citte bhāvaḥ prathama-vikriyā ||

When the sthāyi bhāva [Jiva: which is necessary for the culture of] madhura-rasa known as rati, the first transformation in the previously unperturbed mind is called bhāva.
It should be noted that this latter bhāva is one of the anubhāvas, not another category.

Friday, December 30, 2016

Worshiping Krishna as the substratum in all beings

I had to tend to other duties the past week or so and thus was unable to complete the article I started earlier. On thinking about Muralishwar's comment that my belief is that "human love IS Love Divine." Although I there said  "the natural loves can be sadhanas of Divine Love within the context of bhakti-yoga," the fact is that for a pure devotee human love and divine love are indeed one.

The reason for that is that Krishna is the atma of all atmas, the soul of all souls, the Self of all selves, ātmānam akhilātmanām. In the previous article, it was said that the difference between kama and prema is really centered on the Object of that love. If one loves Krishna, that is prema. If one loves someone else without any knowledge of the fact that there is nothing outside of Krishna, then it is kama.

kṛṣṇam enam avehi tvam ātmānam akhilātmanām
jagad-dhitāya so’py atra dehīvābhāti māyayā
vastuto jānatām atra kṛṣṇaṁ sthāsnu cariṣṇu ca
bhagavad-rūpam akhilaṁ nānyad vastv iha kiñcana
sarveṣām api vastūnāṁ bhāvārtho bhavati sthitaḥ
tasyāpi bhagavān kṛṣṇaḥ kim atad vastu rūpyatām
Know this : This Krishna is the Self of all selves. For the benefit of the world, he has appeared here by his illusory potency, as though an embodied being. Those who know things in their truth see Krishna in all conscious and unconscious manifestations. They see everything as the form of the Lord and do not see any substance other than him. There is a meaningful essence present in all things, but the essence of that essence is the Lord Krishna. Please tell me if you can identify anything that is not him.
It was thus further shown in that article that the process of "dovetailing" or āropa can be applied to our natural loves, as stated in Bhakti Sandarbha 217.

I would like to concentrate in this article by discussing the all-important Anuccheda (section) 106 of Bhakti Sandarbha, where the verses from Kapila's instructions to Devahuti are analyzed at length by Jiva Goswami. I have cited some of these verses in previous articles: Sexuality and Spirituality: Dangers, Compassion and Bhakti-rasa and Raganuga Bhakti and Sahaja Sadhana. All of those articles are relevant to the present discussion.

The purpose of Anuccheda 106 is to show how worshiping the demigods can be legitimized by looking at them in relation to Krishna. It also deals with the way devotees are to see and worship Krishna in all living entities. It is a flaw, says Jiva, to worship the gods like Shiva separately from Krishna. However, in the Vaishnava āgamas, where such worship is recommended, it should be understood that the gods can be worshiped as Vaishnavas, as external shields in formal worship (bahiraṅga āvaraṇa), as associates (pārṣada), as vibhūtis of Krishna, or as his adhiṣṭhāna or substratum. Jiva tells the story of an ekants devotee who in this consciousness worshiped Nrisingha in a Shiva linga when he was forced to do so, and Nrisingha indeed burst out of the linga to protect him when it was necessary.

Any recommendation to see the gods as equal to Krishna is meant for those on the jñāna-mārga or in the śānta-rasa. The conclusion, repeated several times is not that worshiping them is wrong, but the flaw is to worship them independent of Krishna (svatantropāsanā). Even so, Jiva Goswami warns against disesteem or contempt of the gods (avajñā or nindā). At this point Sri Jiva Prabhu makes a transition with the words "what to speak of such great personalities, even ordinary living beings are not to be blasphemed because they are also not separate from Krishna who resides within them, i.e., their substratum (adhiṣṭhāna). It is here that the discussion of Kapila's verses begins.

ahaṁ sarveṣu bhūteṣu bhūtātmāvasthitaḥ sadā |
tam avajñāya māṁ martyaḥ kurute'rcā-viḍambanam||
I am ever situated as the Supreme Indwelling Self in all living beings. If a mortal being disregards me there, his worship of my deity form is but a mockery. (3.29.21)
Let me interject here that although the word arcā is used here, in my opinion this refers to any kind of worship that is restricted to a God "out there", and this is being referred to elsewhere in this chapter of the Bhāgavatam as bhinna- or pṛthag dṛk, i.e., "separatist" or "one who sees something as separate from or independent of God."

yo māṁ sarveṣu bhūteṣu santam ātmānam īśvaram|
hitvārcāṁ bhajate mauḍhyād bhasmany eva juhoti saḥ||
One who out of foolishness abandons me who am present in all beings as the Self and Supreme Lord to worship the deity form, is pouring oblations into the ashes of the sacrificial fire. (3.29.22)
The parallelism is that just as God is present in the deity form, he is also present in the bodies of the living entities. If one sees Krishna in the deity form but not in the living entities, his worship is incomplete. As Jiva says, he is on the beginning levels of devotion. As one expands one's awareness through self-purification, one begins to see the presence of God in ever-widening clarity.

Our specific interest here is in going from the beginning state to the middle one. After all, one cannot possibly serve or worship all living beings with the single-minded devotion one offers to the deity, or to a guru. As a guide to this stage, which requires making distinctions between different behaviors and different entities, one is therefore advised to look at verses 28-33 in this same chapter:

O virtuous mother, sentient beings are superior to inanimate objects, and among them, those who breathe are better. Living beings that display consciousness are better than them, and better still are those endowed with sense perception. Those who have developed the sense of taste are superior to those who only have the tactile sense, and superior to them are those equipped with the sense of smell. Better yet are those who have developed the sense of hearing.

Better than them are those who can perceive the distinction between forms. Superior to them are those who have teeth in the upper and lower jaws. Superior to them are those who have many legs, and better still are the quadrupeds. Better than them are the bipeds [human beings]. Amongst them, those who follow the system of the four varṇas are the best. Among the four varṇas, the brāhmaṇas are the best. Those who have studied the Vedas are the best amongst the brāhmaṇas, and better than them are those who know the purport of the Vedas.

Better than the brāhmaṇas who know the meaning of the Vedas are those who can dispel all doubts, and superior to them is one who executes his prescribed duty. Better than that person is one who has given up all attachment because he is not seeking any sort of reward from his prescribed duties. Better than him is a person who has fully dedicated his actions, wealth and self to me without interruption. I do not see any being superior to one who has surrendered his self and his actions to me, who does not act for material gain and who has equal vision. (3.29.28-33)

So just as one should not blaspheme or disrespect any of the above entities, the topmost position is reserved for the devotee. In other words, Krishna is most present in his devotee.

dviṣataḥ para-kāye māṁ mānino bhinna-darśinaḥ|
bhūteṣu baddha-vairasya na manaḥ-śāntim ṛcchati||
aham uccāvacair dravyaiḥ kriyayotpannayānaghe|
naiva tuṣye'rcito'rcāyāṁ bhūta-grāmāvamāninaḥ||
A proud person who feels hostility towards me situated in all bodies, who is proud and views everything as being without a connection to me, who is fixed in enmity to other beings, can never have a peaceful mind. O sinless one, I am never pleased with a person who disrespects other living beings, even if he worships me in the deity form through various types of rituals performed with all manner of articles. (3.29.23-24)
arcādāv arcayet tāvad īśvaraṁ māṁ sva-karma-kṛt|
yāvan na veda sva-hṛdi sarva-bhūteṣv avasthitam||
So one should worship me in the deity form, performing his prescribed duties, for as long as he does not know in his heart that I am present in all beings. (3.29.25)
At this point Sri Jiva underlines that one should not give up deity worship at any time. This is exactly right. Although the nature of deity worship may change somewhat in the madhyama and uttama (or sādhaka and siddha) stages, on the bhakti path, one's recognition of God's presence in the individual soul does not preclude his separate existence: one and different. The mutual nature of the culture of bhakti to Radha-Krishna and the culture of love to the living beings in this world is necessary to understand. This will be further explained in an upcoming article.

"Seeing everything as being without connection" (bhinna-darśinaḥ) means "one who is devoid of the perception of the unity of all things, because of not perceiving God as the Paramatma within everything." Alternatively, [it can be read as abhinna-darśinaḥ, in which case it means] he does not see that Bhagavan Krishna, the son of the King of Vraja, is absolutely distinct from everyone else, and thus is actually unable to perceive distinction. [Because he is devoid of the vision of the underlying unity of all things and devoid of the perception of Krishna’s uniqueness] he is therefore proud and egotistical. Consequently, he also behaves inimically towards other beings. The opposite of this mentality is described in the Mahābhārata: "Bhagavan Krishna is quickly pleased with a pure-hearted person who does not disturb others and who treats them in the same manner that a kind father treats his son."
The process is one of simultaneous oneness and difference. This means that one's respect or love for the individual soul is not artificial, i.e., by projecting some Krishna-ness on individual, but accepts that this individual is enacting a specific lila on behalf of Krishna, the underlying purpose of which is always love.

ātmanaś ca parasyāpi yaḥ karoty antarodaram
tasya bhinna-dṛśo mṛtyur vidadhe bhayam ulbaṇam
To a separatist who makes a distinction between his own insides and those of other living beings, I allot horrible fear in the form of death. (3.29.26)
The words "his own insides" (antarodaram) refers to the process of empathy, i.e., one recognizes the hunger of the other being just as one has hunger oneself. Empathy is an essential element of compassion and also of the capacity to experience rasa.

The series concludes:

atha māṁ sarva-bhūteṣu bhūtātmānaṁ kṛtālayam
arcayed dāna-mānābhyāṁ maitryābhinnena cakṣuṣā
Therefore, through charity and offering respect to others, through friendship and by viewing others as non-different [from the Self], one should worship me, who have made my home within all living beings as the Supreme Self. (3.29.27)
So here we have the all-important recommendation of how to relate to other beings as the adhiṣṭhānas of Krishna. Different suggestions are being made. Vivekananda used this series of verses to promote his Daridra Narayan concept. Although it seems to be a relatively minor series of verses in the Bhagavatam, which promotes the idea of theistic worship, in the final analysis, here as in the Eleventh Canto, the teaching is that one must go beyond the external forms of theistic religion, indeed in order to completely understand the concept of God as existing in a human form, with human-like pastimes, one must learn to love God in the human. That is what the anarpita-carīṁ cirāt verse is really getting at: It is teaching a process whereby one can dovetail one's love for a sādhaka or sādhikā into a deepening of devotion for the Supreme Truth in madhura-rasa.

This is not spoken of directly in the Bhagavatam, but the Bhagavatam does open the door to this understanding through indirect statement.

After quoting in full verses 28-33 cited above, Jiva draws from them the conclusion that "extraordinary respect is to be given to my devotees." (mad-bhakteṣu evādara-bāhulyādikaṁ kartavyam). There is no need to belabor the point, as the glory of the devotees and the injunction to see Krishna's presence in them is widely known. And so the passage finally concludes:

manasaitāni bhūtāni praṇamed bahu mānayan |
īśvaro jīva-kalayā praviṣṭo bhagavān iti ||
Considering that Bhagavān Himself, the Supreme Controller, has partially entered within all living beings, one should bow down in one’s mind to all of them with great respect. (3.29.34)
In this final portion of the discussion Jiva Goswami draws a distinction between five kinds of devotees:
  • beginners, for whom the injunction to respect all living beings is given;
  • the sa-śraddha sādhaka, for whom such respect arises out of seeing all things as the vaibhava of the Lord, 
  • the bhāva-sādhaka, i.e., one who is cultivating a relationship with Krishna in Vrindavan. Such a person cultivates relationships in this world on the basis of his culture and relationships in Gokula, and they thus arise naturally: vakṣyamāṇa-rītyā śuddha-bandhutvādi-bhāva-sādhakānām api bandhu-bhāva-siddha-śrī-gokula-vāsy-ādy-śīlanānusāreṇa tādṛśa-bhagavad-guṇānusaraṇena cāsau jāyate .
  • the jāta-bhāva, for whom non-violence and detachment are innate,
  • and the parama-siddha, as described in the Eleventh Canto 11.2.45ff.
Although the passage goes on to speak of the ultimate goal as devotion to Bhagavan, I think this statement is fairly clear in showing that the cultivation of different relationships with devotees is not only a legitimate process of cultivating that bhakti, but a necessary one for the  bhāva-sādhaka, which is the stage we are interested in here. It was already shown that it is the bhāva that one is cultivating and transferring or offering it up to Krishna.

Premature renunciation without understanding the ways of empathy, compassion, friendship and love will not result in any of the higher kinds of relationship with Krishna, because they will always be immersed in aiśvarya, i.e. bhinna-dṛk. Mādhurya means to bring prema into the realm of the human,, of human experience.

The secret of this sadhana is indeed to see Krishna's presence, i.e., the presence of the entire Vrindavan, in every person and experience, but especially beginning with those places where love relationships are already established spontaneously by Krishna's grace.

This is not to be done separately or abandoning one's awareness of bhakti to Krishna, or in our case, the Divine Couple. That is the purport of this passage from Kapila's instructions to Devahuti.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Vrindavan and Goloka in the Gopala Champu

I was reflecting on my Gopala Champu class for which I had not prepared myself properly and wrote:
The sin of a translator, of which I am often guilty, is to start translating before becoming the original.  
How do you become the original? Samadhi. By which I mean you should at least completely forget the language of arrival for as long as it takes to get to the end of the passage you are translating. In other words, not to translate. To get to the point of not translating.
I don't particularly like the "mysterious" style. I am more of a verbose and boring explainer. So I began to examine what provoked those thoughts.

In my class, I explain the passage word by word, so I am translating right from the very beginning. If I haven't understood the passage properly before I start that process, then in the public situation I will only produce an unclear sense, or one that deviates from the purpose of the passage. We were doing GC 1.1.17 and tomorrow we will have to do it again. All glories to the freedom of a daily class which has no end in sight! No purpose to fulfill but its own enjoyment.

And I am, let me say further, enjoying the readings. I cannot, of course, speak for the students. But from a purely objective point of view, it seems very appropriate for them. The first chapter of Gopala Purva Champu is a glorification of Vrindavan and Goloka, so for these students, many of whom are fairly new to Vrindavan, it is a nice introduction. And for me, it is a good refresher course. To be in Vrindavan means to study Vrindavan in both word and deed.

The following is my translation from 1992, which is heavily influenced (and really thanks to) Prof. J. Clifford Wright at SOAS who really picked up on stuff that I totally missed and still am missing -- as today's class proved. (But still needs tweaking!)
In an explanation which will follow in its proper place, based on the account of the Bhagavata Purana and giving all the essentials on this topic, it will be shown clearly that upon his return from the abode of Varuna to 'his own cowherd realm', the original lord (who is an ocean of mercy), plunged in and afterwards emerged from the felicitous Brahman lake where he would later reveal to Akrura [another] special aspect of his glories as found in Vaikuntha. By so doing he created a curiosity in the minds of his own folk [the cowherds and Nanda]; after which he showed them this manifestation of his glory (vaibhava-viśeṣa), rendered [more] miraculous by his own presence as the saviour being praised with Vedic hymns.
The Sanskrit, for anyone interested --

यं खलु वैभव-विशेषं सर्व-सारेण यथा-स्थानं प्रकाशयिष्यमाण-व्याख्या-विशेषावतारेण श्रीमद्-भागवतानुसारेण गोपानां स्वं लोकं वरुणालयाद् आगतः करुणा-वरुणालयः स्वयं भगवान् अक्रूराय वैकुण्ठ-विशेष-लक्षण-स्व-वैभव-व्यञ्जनया सुख-प्रदे ब्रह्म-ह्रदे मज्जनेन तस्माद् उन्मज्जनेन च तज्-जन-कौतुक-जननाद् अनन्तरं चन्दः-स्तूयमानेनात्मनावित्रा विचित्रम् अत्रैव वृन्दावने तदीय-नर-लीला-वेशेन साधारणम् अन्येभ्यस् तेभ्यः सन्दर्शयामास
Madan Mohanji wrote:
Interesting. I noted in the above you say, Krishna's immersion in the Brahma hrada created curiosity in the cowherds, but I thought that curiosity had been roused at the rescue of Nanda and his account of how their own Krishna was worshiped by the gods. It's a ambiguous passage which is evident from diversity of translations. I think Jiva, in Gopal Champu steers clear of what might seem in the Bhagavat an exultation of brahma jnan (?), then he reveals his supreme realm of Vaikuntha beyond time space and the gunas. Jiva equates that with Goloka which is not explicit in the Bhagavat. He seems to have interpreted the Bhagavat in terms of the Padma.
You are right about 10.28. Maybe I should look to find another meaning of kautuka. Or at least specify towards what this kautuka is directed. You are also right about the importance of the Padma "sandarbha" in constructing the Gopala-champu narrative.

I do think, however, that you over-read the Bhagavata emphasis on brahma-jnana here. At least, the commentaries always try to clarify the original intent of the Bhagavatam. They are successful inasmuch as they can demonstrate coherently that their views are justified in the original text, i.e., that they reflect the true intent of Vyasa. Thus, for them, it is a matter of clarifying how the Bhagavatam might be misinterpreted. Here they introduce the section by saying that the intention of the Bhagavatam is to reveal that Brahmajnana, etc., are all inferior to Vrindavan.

Jiva's point is also that Goloka itself is an expansion of the Vrindavan in this world, i.e., that the avatar lila is the source of the nitya-lila. The nitya-lila represents the culmination, the "happy ever after" of the janmadi-lila. And a great part of the happiness is remembering, again and again, the glories of having lived a great story, which is now finally over.

In a sense, in the nitya-lila, Radha and Krishna internally live the prakata-lila, and in the prakata-lila they live for the nitya-lila. The two are mutual cause and efffect. But to answer which came first, the chicken or the egg, it is the janmadi-lila, precisely because, as the name itself reveals, the beginning of both. The story begins with a birth. It begins in this world.

The theological implications are actually far reaching. This is why the "fall from Vaikuntha" debate has significance. The jiva is neutral in the material world, just like a child newborn comes into the world and becomes a story -- as it is for every one of us, therefore we have "nara-lila" -- he becomes a lover of God. He perfects his human life by perfecting love.

That is how Krishna's life is archetypal for Jiva Goswami and so that is how he has to tell the story. Without the purna-manoratha, it is incomplete. Like the old fortune teller lady said in answer to the question, "What if there is no happy resolution at the end?" -- "Then it isn't the end."

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

The natural loves and prema

Muraliswara das said...
I'm trying to understand your conception, Jagadānanda Ji, but I'm afraid that I fail to do it. As far as I understand you make essentially one simple point: human love IS Love Divine.

Let me quote from your writings: "You should understand that the love that exists between you and your wife is the very same feeling as that which exists between Radha and Krishna."

Or, as you've said in this article, "What it does mean is that the love that you feel for the child is the same qualitatively though not quantitatively as that cosmic vātsalya-bhāva exemplified and symbolized by Yashoda."

How is it possible? I'm neither theologian nor intellectual but I've heard something about Krishna-prema from certain Vaishnavas, and I heard from them one simple thing: human love is kāma, Love Divine is prema and kāma is a PERVERTED REFLECTION of prema, and kāma and prema although looking similar are opposite in nature, they are like Southern and Northern Poles. Then how can they be "same qualitatively," as you say?

You know better than me what Srila Swami Maharaj Prabhupad told on this point: "As there is a difference between iron and gold, so there is a difference between material lust and Kṛṣṇa's loving affairs with the gopīs" (CC Adi 4.164).

Although such loving affairs may sometimes resemble material lust, the difference is as follows:

ātmendriya-prīti-vāñchā-tāre bali 'kāma'
kṛṣṇendriya-prīti-icchā dhare 'prema' nāma
"The desire to satisfy one's own senses is called lust, while the desire to satisfy the senses of Kṛṣṇa is called prema, love of God" (CC Adi 4.165).

So, looking again at these questions, which are often repeated, I am going to try one last time to deal with them. But I have come to a rather unhappy conclusion: those who have been brought up with the conventional understanding of these questions, such as those following ISKCON or the Gaudiya Math, are unlikely to understand no matter how brilliantly I present my understanding. Their vision is in blinders, and trying to convince them is a fool's game. I would have a greater possibility with people who have no preconceived notions whatsoever.

First of all, I do not say that unreconstructed human love is "Love Divine." I say, rather, that the natural loves can be sadhanas of Divine Love within the context of bhakti-yoga.

You are correct in making the distinction between prema and kāma, and why would I, a follower of Kaviraj Goswami, reject this statement? This is exactly what we have been trying to understand and explain ever since we realized that Prema is the Prayojan and not anything else.

You may wish to watch the video and read the comments in the debate I had with Satyanarayana Dasaji.

There must be some similarity between the two kinds of love or the metaphor/allegory/example of love would be meaningless. If selfishness is at the bottom of every love relationship, then it would be meaningless to imagine such things in the spiritual world.

I am going to stick to shastra here. There are other posts that you can read, but this post will primarily focus on interpreting verses that are cited by Jiva Goswami in the Sandarbhas. Though there is some new material here, there is also a lot of repetition and referencing to earlier articles. This is by no means, however, an exhaustive discussion of the subject as there are nearly 900 articles in this archive, many of them dealing with different aspects of this sadhana.

In fact, I have come to the conclusion that it is pretty pointless to talk to people who have been indoctrinated in the nivṛtti-mārga, so I was hoping to do a once and for all final version of argumentation according to the rules of the vaidhi bhaktas -- i.e., śāstra and yukti. For the most part, our scriptures are not explicit in this matter. Though the underlying teaching is advaya-tattva, the beginner devotee gives so much emphasis to the duality of worshiped and worshiper and aiśvarya-jñāna that his intelligence is impenetrable. In some matters, indirect speech (parokṣa-vāda) dominates. See here and here.


It is easiest to understand through vātsalya, the parental mood. Krishna himself gives the example of parents' love being pure in the Rasa Lila:
bhajanty abhajato ye vai karuṇāḥ pitaro yathā
dharmo nirapavādo'tra sauhrdaṁ ca sumadhyamāḥ  
My dear slender-waisted gopīs, some people are genuinely merciful or, like parents, naturally affectionate. Such persons, who devotedly serve even those who fail to reciprocate with them, are following the true, faultless path of religion, and they are true well-wishers. (10.32.18)
Although there are self-interested parents, this example does not refer to the perversions that manifest in such love, but points to the highest selfless love in them.

Moreover, when we are devotees, we have already been imbued with the internal potency and so everything that we do can be transformed by bhakti. When we only worship the Deity on the altar (or in some other way) through regulated rituals, we are only at the beginning platform. When we learn to see Krishna in the midst of our personal relations, then we have the opportunity to experience human love in the context of devotion.

Another such verse is

ajāta-pakṣā iva mātaraṁ khagāḥ
stanyaṁ yathā vatsatarāḥ kṣudhārtāḥ |
priyaṁ priyeva vyuṣitaṁ viṣaṇṇā
mano’ravindākṣa didṛkṣate tvām ||
Just as a fledgling whose wings have not yet grown awaits its mother, or a famished small calf awaits the udder, or the way a distressed wife awaits her husband who has gone to distant lands, so Lotus-eyed One, my mind yearns to see you. (6.11.26)
In another verse, Krishna says that "chaste" wives control their "virtuous" husbands and uses it as a metaphor for his own being controlled by his devotees, as a definition of love. So clearly here the existence of love in the world is confirmed. Now if you call this "perverted" then it is meaningless to use it as a metaphor.

mayi nirbaddha-hṛdayāḥ sādhavaḥ sama-darśanāḥ |
vaśe kurvanti māṁ bhaktyā sat-striyaḥ sat-patiṁ yathā ||
The saintly devotees who have tied their hearts to me and view everyone equally, control me by their devotion just as a chaste wife controls her virtuous husband. (9.4.6)


Now perhaps the most important verse to discuss in this regard is found in Priti Sandarbha 61. The section is long but fairly clear. In the first 60 anucchedas, Jiva Goswami has established that the parama-puruṣārtha is bhagavat-prīti, love for Krishna. Now he is going to describe the intrinsic characteristic of such love, or its svarūpa-lakṣaṇa. In order to do so, he takes the help of a verse from the Viṣṇu-purāṇa in which Prahlada says to Nrisingha—

yā prītir avivekānāṁ viṣayeṣv anapāyinī |
tvām anusmarataḥ sā me hṛdayān nāpasarpatu ||
That love those without discrimination have for their love-objects never goes away. I pray to you that since I remember you always, this same love should never leave my heart. (VP 1.20.19)
Sri Jiva has selected this verse and the immediate problem is the relation between the two clauses, which are connected by the relative pronoun and the correlative . He immediately nips the confusion in the bud by saying, "What is meant here is that the love of an undiscerning person for his wife and family has the same characteristics as the devotee's love for Krishna, not that they are exactly the same. The former is a manifestation of the external energy and the latter of the Lord's svarūpa-śakti.

Now he has to explain what the characteristics of such prīti are: He begins by saying that the verb root prī from which prīti is derived has both a transitive and an intransitive form. The verse itself is not immediately clear on this point. As an intransitive verb it simply means to take pleasure in something, so if viṣaya is translated, as it often is, to mean "sense object" then it would have this sense. But as a transitive verb, the meaning includes this sense of happiness, but has an object. In the first sense, Jiva gives sukha as a synonym, in the second priyatā, which we can translate as love. (See MMW, p 710, col. 1). Sri Jiva's definition is:

viṣayānukūlyātmakas tad-ānukūlyānugata-tat-spṛhā-tad-anubhava-hetukollāsa-maya-jñāna-viśeṣaḥ priyatā |
Priyatā is a particular state of consciousness that is favorable to its object (viṣaya); it consists of a feeling of elation, which arises from an experience of the object of love, as well as a longing for it, both of which follow from this favorable mood.
Babaji's translation is somewhat different, so I will include it here for reference:
[Priyatā is] the consciousness of elation which one feels from the experience of doing favorable action to the object of love and then feeling the desire for the object of love to do favorable actions.
Sri Jiva defines ānukūlya in his commentary to BRS 1.1.11 as śrī-kṛṣṇāya rocamānā pravṛttiḥ, "conduct that is pleasing to Krishna." BRS 1.1.11 does defines bhakti as a "culture" ("constant practice or study, repeated and devoted service" - MMW, p.39, col. 3), so it may seem that this applies here also, but since Jiva's definition of priyatā is that it is a jñāna-viśeṣaḥ or "a particular state of consciousness," just as sukha was, I don't think that "favorable action" is necessarily relevant.

So, although love has the quality of sukha (ullāsa-maya-jñāna-viśeṣaḥ), it is superior to it.
After some discussion about the transitive and relational nature of priyatā, Sri Jiva concludes that in the verse under discussion prīti refers to this, not to mere pleasure. So therefore one's love for God has this same characteristic as one's love for one's sons, etc. The latter, however, is a product of Maya while the former is of the svarūpa-śakti.

iyam eva bhagavat-prītir bhakti-śabdenāpy ucyate
parameśvara-niṣṭhatvāt pitrādi-guru-viṣayaka-prītivat |
This love for God is also called bhakti due to its being directed to the Supreme Lord, just is the love for one's parents or guru.
Although the rest of the anuccheda is not directly relevant to our concern here, in his discussion of the main verse in the section (3.25.32), Jiva does make it clear that prīti is exclusive:

eva-kāreṇa netaratra, na ca tatrāpi ca, itaratrāpi ca |
 eka-manasaḥ puruṣasya yā vṛttiḥ, tad-ānukūlyātmako jñāna-viśeṣaḥ |
The word eva denies prīti toward anyone other than the Lord in any one of his forms, nor for both Vishnu and someone else simultaneously. Eka-manasaḥ vṛtti means this particular state of consciousness that is favorable to its object, i.e. prīti.
Since the definition of love given here is entirely based on the similarity of both the worldly and spiritual spheres, it would be ludicrous to argue that "there is no love in this world."


The above verse is also found quoted in Bhakti Sandarbha 217, side by side with the following:

yuvatīnāṁ yathā yūni yūnāṁ ca yuvatau yathā |
mano’bhiramate tadvan mano’bhiramatāṁ tvayi ||
Just as the minds of adolescent boys take pleasure in thinking of girls, and girls in thinking of boys, so may my mind take pleasure in you. (BRS 1.2.153, PadmaP 6.128.258)
The context here is that of offering up both legitimate and illegitimate activities. The verses are followed by the explanation:

mama sukarmaṇi duṣkarmaṇi ca yad rāga-sāmānyaṁ
tat sarvato-bhāvena bhagavad-viṣayam eva bhavatv iti samādheyam |
Whatever passion I feel whether in my good or evil deeds, may it be completely directed toward Krishna as its object. This is the way to reconcile the statements.
This is in the section on āropa-siddha bhakti.

So to summarize: the problem is not the love, it is the object of love. If you define love as "exclusive love of Krishna" and nothing else, then it is possible to say that the conditioned soul has no love. But by the definition Jiva Goswami gives above, love as the model of love for Krishna cannot be denied. In other words, if love of God is modeled on the love of human beings for other human beings, then we must accept that it exists in the material. If it is "perverted" it is primarily because of the distinction of vishaya. So if the object of love is tamasic, then one's love is tamasic, and so on.

For one who does not have love for Krishna directly, he can love the proximate and offer up that love to Krishna. That is aropa-siddha bhakti.


Now the question of ātmendriya-prīti-vāñchā. From the foregoing discussion, we can see that Jiva Goswami's distinction of the two meanings of prīti becomes useful, since the desire to please one's own senses is the first kind of prīti, namely sukham, while kṛṣṇendriya-prīti icchā, being for another, is priyatā.

A further problem is the word ātmā. The Upanishads, which are really the basis of all Hindu philosophy, make many points about non-dualism that are accepted in the Bhāgavatam. In particular the discussion of the Self that is discussed in two places in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.4.5ff and 4.5.6ff). I have discussed these passages and the corresponding section from the Bhāgavatam (10.14.57) here and here. Please read before going on with this.

My understanding of the purpose of two passages is not to simply denigrate the love that one has for one's husband, wife, children, etc., but to recognize that one loves them for the sake of the self. Therefore one should know the true self in order to be able to love them truly and properly. When one knows that God is the Self of the self, then one loves them because one sees his presence in them. Indeed, because Krishna is the Self in all selves, one should properly love all. Loving Krishna is, in the final analysis, loving one's true self.

But this is not a state that is immediately accessible, therefore all paths talk about a beginning, middle and advanced stage. We are particularly interested in the middle stage where one loves those who are more closely connected to Krishna, whose association is beneficial to the culture of love for Krishna, i.e., those in whom we can recognize Krishna's presence more easily. We can thus call it a "transitional sādhana."

I have discussed these matters in the following articles in particular: Pravartaka, sadhaka and siddha, and Ahangrahopasana and aropa, Part IV.


The above-mentioned "transitional sādhana" can be better understood by reference to the following passage from Bhakti Sandarbha 106. The problem with the above, is the radical break made between the devotee and the non-devotee in this regard. I would have no problem in agreeing with the idea that the love relations of non-devotees without an ounce of devotion for Krishna or any kind of spiritual culture cannot be looked at with the same eye as those of Krishna.

The purpose of this section is to show how worshiping the demigods can be legitimized by looking at them in relation to Krishna. It also deals with the way devotees are to see and worship Krishna in all living entities.

The portion that I am particularly interested in is Sri Jiva's discussion of 3.25.21-34, which to some extent I have used previously in my argumentation, such as here and here. Jiva gives a more elaborate interpretation, so it is worth looking at again a bit more closely. I will have to do that in another post as this one is getting rather long.