suryaz

I think you have misunderstood Jiva Goswami in Jagat's posts in this regard Is it not for Jiva Goswami that the svakiya rasa of the gopis is found within the aprakata of THEIR prakata lila? What you are discussing is the physical acting out at a later date expressions of Krishna's prakata-lila by another [as opposed to the prakata-lila of lila-vibhuti of Krishna-lila of BRaj during its prakata] Yes it may be so Krsna in HIS prakata form returned to Vraj - but is it not also that when all [animals birds gopis etc] had divine forms when reference to union with the gopis is made? What in the context of prakata-lila [which in Braj does not recognise Krishna as God, but as a person, friend, son, lover etc] constitutes divine form? Could it not mean svakiya was there in the svapna form, sweet memories etc during the prakata-lila?

This came to my email box just now JAYA RADHE'S (Judy Way) PASSING AWAY Our dear God sister Jaya Radhe has left her body in San Fancisco. I'll give more details later. ----------------------- My whole family offers prayer and love to Jaya Radhe dd and may her family finds great spiritual strength in this moment of passing. No devotee is insignificant in Srila Prabhupad's eyes as we are all equal in His mercy and blessings. Please accept my most humble obeisances, jai! Srila Prabhupada. in the service of all vaisnava, rupa goswami das Adhikary ------------------------ Hare Krishna, Please accept my obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. I’m deeply saddened to hear that our godsister, Jaya Radhe, has left her body. She’s one of the sweetest devotees and most sincere disciples of Srila Prabhupada I’ve known. She made numerous uplifting posts to the forum. I think the best way we can remember her right now, is to read some of her posts and stories, some of the best of which I’ve preserved in the Srila Prabhupada website at - http://www.geocities.com/visoka123/visoka/VCN/VNC.htm Her writings can be found in the "Offerings to Srila Prabhupada" section, and the "Sankirtan stories" section, and the "storytelling" section. You can go to these pages, and press Control F, and type 'Jayaradhe' for search function, to find her writings there. There is one post, #2317, of which I know of, in VC, you can find and read. When devotees find some of her posts on VC, please send us the post #’s so we can go there and read. The best we can feel for her now, and have her good memory, is to read her wonderful writings, and be happy that she is in the protection of Srila Prabhupada and Lord Krishna right now, Ys visoka dasa

Humm??? Why??? I am going to miss you too Madhava [sad]

I do not know what to say – I am speechless. And as the tears moisten my eyes I offer my pranamas to Jaya Radhe We will miss you dearly /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Atma, You are way off any kind of moral content, Be careful of your use of language. For further reference see: http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000708.html

Mahaprabhu provides the answer in the 8th verse of his Siksastakam "I know no one but Krsna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me broken-hearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord unconditionally." I think the line: "He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord unconditionally." is the key. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 06-05-2002).]

When was Shiva samhita written?

I do not know how that happened above. I will try again. So to summarize this little dialectic: (1) thesis -> idolatry (2) antithesis --> humanity (3) synthesis --> divinity (which then becomes a new idolatry). Jagatji, Hmm I fear I am becoming more and more confused as we go - I am unsure what you mean by Maya. Are you referring to both maha and yoga maya as Maya or just one of these? Are you of the view that yoga maya is positive and maha maya is of the negative? OK let us try again In my view there is love in maha maya (as mentioned above), it is the seeing of beauty in things; not the want to possess for self-satisfaction or to control and possess another for the satisfaction of the Divine (if that is possible). Mundane as some may consider this view to be, for me it is the perception of beauty (in things of non-virtue, virtue and Divine) that is of the spirit of love. As we all know, even if one sees the divine in the prakat form as avatara one my not find love there. So it is the perception not the object. If the perceiver is of love than love is there (and love is only in that which is of good). The "Hell" in relationship (described by you above) is present when the destruction or death of love is present. As such a "hell" is where you have killed love (it maybe the long term or the momentary killing of love; but it is the killing of love). Therefore it has not beauty in it to be perceived. So love does not stop in Maha-maya and begin in Yoga-maya - but where the destruction of love is that is where "hell" (as you put it) begins. Yes - certainly the institutionalisation of anything binds personal expression and narrows personal freedom; this is especially so when the personal growth needs of individuals out grow the values and purposes of the institution. Further, my dear Jagat, I am a bit worried with your methodology The Hegelian dialect is essentially based on the notion of symmetrical inter-subjectivity that arises out of conflict and thus negativity. In my view this is not compatible with the quest for a middle-way and maturity therein. The process of maturity in terms of that which arises out of conflict and depends on such for its further development can only bring about a conflict continuum. This in the final analysis does not perpetuate balance, it may give a temporary alternative. Moreover, the dialectic prototype requires the negation of some elements and the selective acceptances of others as a basis for maturation. This in my view, is not the best approach in the quest to find a middle way Just some thoughts - I hope they help Yours, sr [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-25-2002).]

So to summarize this little dialectic: (1) thesis -> idolatry (2) antithesis --> humanity (3) synthesis --> divinity (which then becomes a new idolatry). <small><font color=#dedfdf> Jagatji, Hmm I fear I aa becoming more and more confused as we go - I am unsure what you mean by Maya. Are you referring to both maha and yoga maya as Maya or just one of these? Are you of the view that yoga maya is positive and maha maya is of the negative? OK let us try again In my view there is love in maha maya (as mentioned above), it is the seeing of beauty in things; not the want to possess for self-satisfaction or to control and possess another for the satisfaction of the Divine (if that is possible). Mundane as some may consider this view to be, for me it is the perception of beauty (in things of non-virtue, virtue and Divine) that is of the spirit of love. As we all know, even if one sees the divine in the prakat form as avatara one my not find love there. So it is the perception not the object. If the perceiver is of love than love is there (and love is only in that which is of good). The "Hell" in relationship (described by you above) is present when the destruction or death of love is present. As such a "hell" is where you have killed love (it maybe the long term or the momentary killing of love; but it is the killing of love). Therefore it has not beauty in it to be perceived. So love does not stop in Maha-maya and begin in Yoga-maya - but where the destruction of love is that is where "hell" (as you put it) begins Further, my dear Jagatji, I am a bit worried with your methodology The Hegelian dialect (above) is essentially based on the notion of symmetric hierarchial inter-subjectivity that arises out of conflict and thus negativity. In my view this is not compatible with the quest for a middle-way and maturity therein. The process of maturity in terms of that which arises out of conflict and depends on such for its further development can only bring about a conflict continuum. This in the final analysis does not perpetuate balance, it may give a temporary alternative. Moreover, the dialectic prototype requires the negation of some elements and the selective acceptances of others as a basis for maturation. This in my view, is not the best approach in the quest to find a middle way Just some thoughts - hope they help Ys

Jagat, I still have a problem with your view of the disposition of Maya as such negativity implies an extreme position; a position your quest for a middle way seeks to avoid. I still think you need a more lateral interpretation to create the openness the middle way seeks to provide. Certainly from Jung's stand point the symmetrical male-to-male guru-disciple relationship and non-symmetrical male and female love relation are of contrast. They include the projections of (as you have mentioned above) "the anima for men (the female side) and the animus or male side in the woman." And therefore in the male-to male guru-disciple relationship there is dis-balance at the unconscious level. However, within the realm of conventional truths (or secondary socialisation) there can exist the possibility of conditioned necessities. But this is a superimposition coming from the external and therefore not part of Jung's unconscious. Under such conditions the male-to-male guru-disciple relation cannot be made to "closely parallel" the male-female love relationship either As no doubt you already know, that neither at the micro nor the macro levels can any reality be identical to another (otherwise it would be the other - so there would not be another to compare to). Otherwise put - the same attribute can only belong to the same subject/object in the same respect (This is first stated by Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1005b19). As such to attempt to make others comparable, or the same, by both Aristolian and Jungin definitions means ultimately to seek untruth. You mentioned: One of the main reasons I think there is a Western aversion to Guru-disciple commitment (especially when it comes to the male-to-male guru-disciple relationship in the way we know it) has to do with Western primary socialisation. Western primary socialisation focuses on personal creativity (as opposed to commitment to ritual and tradition for the sake of it) as with the freedom and equality of every human being (with the exception of women until about fifty years ago) [Hummm I had to add that bit ]. I agree that in Western society there are mateship and mentor relations. But such relationships are regulated by the collective primary socialisation (as described above) and therefore do not (nor is it expected to) develop into a servant-master relationship but rather the teacher is a temporary adviser and student as potential independent teacher. So the guru-disciple relationship as we know it threatens the very essence of Western foundations. It threatens the freedom in choice making (if not places it in an extremely vulnerable position) of the individual. ys [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-23-2002).]

The post was place more in response to your request to broaden you understanding about love. I have a problem with the parameters and the starting point in the [your] quest to find a middle-way. I fear many of us seem to negate the possibility of love in the realm of the physical or the non-virtuous (as the Symposium describes it) as such the parameters placed around interpreting love in the physical domain turns out to be of negativity only. Even in the realm of the physical there is a middle way, Jagat You mentioned something about devotees looking back on activities and viewing them as bad. Are they bad I would ask? Or are they activities? Are activates although physical, mundane not pertaining to the divine by (those who dare to define the divine as one thing and not that) definition all bad? Is there not beauty in physical activities? What of the work of a carpenter, a shoemaker, an artist and inventor etc? Is there not beauty and good in such activities? Is there not beauty in physical bodies? I think there is, and it is not a new thing. Poets have spoken about it since the time of yore, and especially in the time and language of lore. All this brings to mind [for me] some of the poems I learned as a child. I cannot recall them completely by verbatim now but bits here and there as with the themes of such I still remember I think it was Robert Louis Stevenson who wrote: Daffodils (again I cannot remember the author) I wondered lowly as a cloud That floats o’r high o’r vales and hills Then all at once I saw a crowd A host of golden daffodils Ten thousand saw I at a glance Shaking their heads in sprinkle dance… Jagat - can you see some beauty the above? Can you feel the presence of love in it? In another poem from memory (I cannot remember the author nor have I time to look it up}the presence of love in the vision of beauty is evident – The poet says: Sometimes my heart is shaken with great joy to see a leaping squirrel in a tree or a red ladybird upon a stalk or little rabbits in the field at evening lit by a slanting sun. It is the aching of the heart with joy upon seeing beauty in any realm whether it is in the non-virtuous, virtuous and/or divine that is the domain of love. There is another one that comes to mind, and is more divinely directed (perhaps this will make the notion more clear). I think it was of James Joyce or maybe GB Shaw who wrote it, but my memory fails me.. I was in primary school when I learned these – so it was a long time ago I see his blood upon the rose And in the stars the glory of his eyes His body gleams amid eternal snows His tears fall from the skies. I see his face in every flower The thunder and the singing of the birds Are but his voice… In the realm of the Physical, love is there, it is in seeing beauty in things -or in other words, when one sees the beauty in things the eyes are of the salve of love. I do not think you will ever find your middle way if the approach places thing physical as negative. Things physical also have a middle way (see Diotima et al above and in short below). For me your approach seems a little unbalanced. Love is found everywhere in human creativity (which is part of maha-maya). In the Symposium in the realm of the physical it is identified as non-virtuous. However in this view, non-virtuous does not mean it is not virtuous, wise or beautiful. In this view Love in the non-virtuous is the seeing of the beauty in, and the appreciation of the physical, the beauty in strength, fame, fortune, power, renunciation, the creation of beautiful objects for the good of human society (eg: chairs, medicines, shoes, houses, beds, social security networks, printing press, art, dance etc). This is beauty and love is of beauty. Love is also of virtue and of divine wisdom So when we criticise something of beauty, [and because it is of beauty it is something of a linchpin in the human development towards the good] then we are killing love. We are not making spiritual advancement. To criticise all of maha-maya even when it is performing its function towards the good then that is killing love and the killing of one’s spiritual advancement. Rather we should look for the beauty in maha-maya’s function. It is also true that: This loving happiness can be manifest as destructive, virtuous or divine (in four ways - but love in the destructive is the killing of love and thus not of the good). Or in other words, this all pervasive powerful, primeval force, fulfilling or un-fulfilling is manifest differently in people according to their desires (Aristophanes; Waterfield 1984:xi). But it is not the thing of the physical that is bad, it is the negation of aspiration for "the good" developmet (abuse) and the negation of seeing of beauty in such that kills love. In short: When we promote abuse in any form we kill love and in so doing we kill our spiritual advancement. It appears [to me] your thought pattern is of the hierarchical approach (alone), you must also add the lateral mindset. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-23-2002).]

A sannyasi disciple of Narayan Maharaja told me that on a higher level Janava devi is an incarnation of Nityananda. And also Nityananda is also plays the part of a gopi (I cannot remember which gopi) I know in CC Ramananda Raya is part Arjuna and also part Lalita, and Mahaprabhu is Radha and Krsna. Does anybody know any more of the Nityananda expressions.

Yes! Gaudiyas accept the principle of nindastuti (derived from the Alvars and permeates BhP’s 10th canto) and Sri Vaishnavas do not

"Through his own episodes of schizophrenia and mystic experience, Boisen cultivated his theory about the structure of 'eruptive' or sudden growth episodes. In his discussion on schizophrenia and mystic experience Boisen (1936) points out that human attitudes, feelings undergone, and convictions highlighted during 'eruptive' or sudden episodes of growth depend on the character, world-view and determination of the people having the experience. The positive beliefs, attitudes and convictions of religious people who experience sudden transformations of character, or in other words, 'sudden expansions of growth' can manifest positive, creative episodes indicating exceptional and ameliorating mettle of reality/ies that are usually described as peak and/or mystic experiences. Alternatively, when 'eruptive' or sudden growth episodes expose the reflective thought processes of people who are engrossed with negativity the reading of reality/ies appear unhealthy, distorted and un-related. Such people manifests grave feelings of hopelessness that culminate in contorted ideas crowned with suspicion and distrust. Correspondingly, negative 'sudden growth' experiences 'are customarily' identified as episodes of mental illness (Boisen 1935: ix, 58-83). In this relation Boisen deems that 'eruptive' development or sudden expansion of growth experiences manifest as mental illness and mystic experience are bi-polar opposites, they are the negative and positive expressions of the human 'aspiration construction' schema at work. This means that on the extended arms of the pole (the innate human 'aspiration construction' schema), people construct cognitive schemas and mental pattern that can intensify in 'growth' as the extremity increases. And as the extremity of growth intensify beyond the perimeters of normal expression the sudden or 'eruptive 'transformation of character' becomes manifest. At the negative pole there is mental illness. At the positive pole, individuals and/or groups of people construct positive schemas that encourage people to grow in less fearful and more positive ways. In Boisen's view, self and social acceptance, trust, faith and forgiveness are the building blocks for the development of a positive self-attitude, fearlessness and social assimilation. Further, Boisen (1936: 80-2, 244) believes that the full acceptance of an 'authoritative prototype' is essential for positive development of socialisation, establishing supreme loyalties and the constructive transformation of human character (Boisen 1936: 244). Moreover, if the 'authoritative prototype' represents a meta-communicative schema that claims to transcend the negative effects of everyday life, a gateway to a positive concept of the self and society will be created. This gateway Boisen identifies as 'trust' 'faith' compassion, forgiveness and hope. Thus, when the human 'aspiration construction' schema or the 'sense of personal failure' is augmented through a sudden distension of growth with the help of hope and trustful faith in a religious belief system that claims to assist people in transcending the negativity of human conditioning and embodiment, and further proclaim to be a vehicle for forgiveness, compassion and liberation then the 'eruptive' experience is manifest in a positive and productive way. These positive and creative forms of 'eruptive' experiences are described as mystic experience even when a religious mystic has a negative sense of personal failure to begin with.1 The point Boisen is making here is that when the 'human sense of personal failure' is reinforced with a meta-communicative schema that acknowledges debility as an inherent part of being human and acts as a mechanism that gives support and re-assurance to the person in a magnanimous way, the person is unlikely to continue to maintain a 'sense of personal failure' in the mood of hopelessness and negativity. Moreover, when religion and/or ideas of Godhead are synthesised with experiences of failure in life, a person can seek help from his/her perceived supreme loyalties (Godhead/religion). In the frantic struggle against his/her inner fears a person out of desire to identify with the 'ideal good' becomes totally dominated by such desires and ideas. Consequently, the person hears inner voices which (are, or stem from the beliefs and ideologies of the supreme loyalties) give re-assurity and a sense of security to the person undergoing a sudden transformation of consciousness. These inner fabrications or 'voices' become a kind of therapist that act or function to help the person having the 'eruptive' experience avoid any destructive or negative experience (Boisen 1936: 80-2, 204-6). Through the above analysis we can see that for Boisen religious mysticism is an experience correlated with human aspirations to grow in a positive way and to attain the 'ideal good'; therefore religious mysticism is not madness nor is it mental illness. As I have already mentioned, for transformation of character to be successful a person must have a process that aids the development of the schemas needed. For Boisen, religion provides a person with the positive mental constructs needed for a constructive transformation of character to occur. In this connection Boisen (1936:155, 204) explains that the positive mental constructs of religion are trust, compassion and forgiveness. On this point Boisen (1936: 240) further mentions that the most important of these positive constructs is 'trust', one 'must be able to confide in someone' (Boisen 1936: 242). 'There must be a facility wherein confidentiality and trust can occur' (Boisen 1936: 242). Religion, Boisen hypothesises is the vehicle for 'trust'. To illustrate Boisen's above hypothesis I will now turn to mystic experiences described in Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology. When a Gaudiya Vaishnava mystic (bhakta) places his/her trust in Godhead and Godhead by definition is identified as the Absolute, the most loving (Madhana-Mohan), the sustainer of all existence (Nityah), the fulfiller of the individual's longings (Govinda) and the 'friend of the most fallen' (Patita-Pavan) the notion of Godhead as the object of religion provides the mystic (bhakta) with a sense of hope and the mystic (bhakta) believes that confidentiality between the Godhead and the self will be maintained (Boisen 1936: 265-6). Thus in Boisenian (1936) terms, the human entity, through religion creates a mind-set that provides a positive venue to accommodate and/or construct positive sudden and/or gradual forms of human growth. For instance, in Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology there is the belief that the Godhead Krishna and spiritual selves (jivatman) enjoy a type of 'spiritual kinship', spiritually they are social entities with personal relationships (bhakti-rasa). Accordingly, the 'topmost' form of socialisation in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition is to associate with Krishna in the 'spiritual world' (Goloka/Vaikuntha), to spontaneously or primarily identify with ones 'spiritual' persona and relations (bhakti-rasa) (c/f. Deadwyler a. 1996; Bhaktisiddhanta 1932). Correspondingly, from the perspective of the Gaudiya Vaishnava spontaneous devotional mysticism (suddha-bhakti) is the most perfect expression of socialisation. However, for the materially conditioned living entity to re-establish his/her primary spiritual identity the individual must become socialised by a group whose focus of moral behaviour emphasises the re-kindling of one spiritual nature. For the Gaudiya Vaishnava, sadhana-bhakti is the process of re-establishing one's innate spiritual identity. That is to say, the individual performs sadhana-bhakti to reconstruct his/her spiritual consciousness and de-construct his/her identification with the 'madness' of material conditioning and embodiment (maha-maya). Through the above analysis of Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology and the social psychology of Anton Boisen we can understand that for both, religious mysticism is a totally different experience to mental illness. However it is important for me to mention here that because Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology and the social psychology of Anton Boisen agree that religious mysticism and mental illness a totally different experience this does not mean that both Boisen and Gaudiya Vaishnavas have the same views about the nature of religion and mystic experiences. For Boisen mystic experience is in interpretation correlated to social and/or cultural conditioning and is in part an experience of the numinous. Hence religious mystic experience can include the view that customs and values of the material world influence the interpretation of the mystic experiences. For the Gaudiya Vaishnava however, the spontaneous mystic experiences of the uttama-bhakta are purely: spiritual forms…embodiments of spiritual rasa…un-mediated concrete expressions of spiritual ecstasies… (and)…are non-different from the souls and from the spiritual bodies that bear them. The forms of love are not abstractions and their relations are not allegories. In the abode of God life is infinitely more real than any thing experienced in the material world (Deadwyler a. 1996). In other words, the similarity between Boisen's social psychology and Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine is that both acknowledge the existence of a transcendent reality. Both Gaudiya Vaishnava mysticism and Boisen hold the view that there exists a reality that is independent of the embodied 'human' entity's conceptualisation. However, under Boisen's theory the transcendental reality can only be approached, but never fully understood. It is not fully understood because a human being can not transcend his/her subjective constructs while conceptualising a transcendent reality. While Boisen's, contextualisation is understood as an imposition of conditioned human constructs upon religious mystic experience, the Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching of spiritual origination prohibits material conditioned conceptualisation on devotional mystic experience (suddha-bhakti). Spiritual contextualisation can only be considered within the context of yoga-maya. If elements of the experience are not intrinsic to the jiva's spiritual identity (that is, if objects and concepts are not the product of yoga-maya), then the experience is dependent upon maha-maya for its existence and therefore does not belong the category of 'topmost' (uttama) mystic experience. For the Gaudiya Vaishnava, experience of the transcendent Godhead Krishna and his abode can be fully understood by the topmost mystic (suddha-bhakti) because the topmost mystic (uttama-bhakta) is functioning in full awareness of his/her spiritual identity (bhakti-rasa). Bhakti-rasa is a type of awareness that is native to the jiva and is re-kindled through the performance of disciplined spiritual practice (sadhana-bhakti). Aside the above mentioned difference in views, Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology and the social psychology of Anton Boisen both agree that religion is a process for spiritual growth and awareness, a vehicle to gain faith and faith together with hope provides a sense of determination and optimism. Correspondingly, religion is a meta-communicative schema that serves as a tool for liberation, a vehicle of salvation and a means to remedy the negativity that is correlated with the human 'sense of personal failure' or lack. In this connection Boisen (1936: 50-70, 238-9) wrote: Religion and psychoanalysis are dealing with the same thing…The position of religion is that it provides people with a device that give people a means to discuss and fix their sense of personal failure. Although the underlying contrivance of Boisen's view is that religion always remains for the forthright or open-hearted religious person the image of ideal purity that gives hope and determination, Boisen does not overlook the view that a religious person can become mentally ill. Boisen himself experience many episodes of mental illness as well as mystic experiences. However Boisen's view is that unless the person's 'aspiration construction' schema is backed up with positive reinforcements, 'eruptive' (sudden) and/or 'gradual' human development will be negative and manifest as mental illness. In 'eruptive' development experiences, sudden transformations of character are defined as mystic experience if the person is determined to grow towards perfection and social acceptance. This determination to grow towards perfection or higher goals is that which provides the reconstruction of mental and/or spiritual health of the individual. In mental illness the opposite occurs. In short, what Boisen wants to point out here is that aspiration for perfection by a person whose 'aspiration construction' schema is reinforces with hope and the feeling of positive reception from the object of his/her 'supreme loyalties' creates a situation conducive for a positive reconstruction of the self. Further, when the object of a person's 'supreme loyalties' is defined as a benign and magnanimous Godhead then this further creates a situation conducive for a positive transformation of consciousness to take place. Thus when people believe religion to be benign and magnanimous then religion provides a venue to cure mental illness (Boisen 1936: 246;265-8). Thus religious mysticism and mental illness are two distinctly different types of experiences. Although, Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine and ontology and the social psychology of Anton Boisen agree that religious mysticism and mental illness a totally different types experience this does not mean that both Boisen and Gaudiya Vaishnavas have the same views about the nature of religion and mystic experiences. For the Gaudiya Vaishnava 'religion' in terms of sadhana-bhakti provides not only a cure for mental illness, but it also 'cleanses the heart' of the embodied jiva from the 'contamination of material existence'; material conditioning (Rupa Goswami a. b. 16th Century CE; Bhaktivedanta 1970; 1975). For Boisen, mystic experience is in part derived from social conditioning and in part correlated to the numinous (Boisen 1936: 306-7). Mystic experience according to Boisen is that 'which brings to the individual's sense of fellowship' in harmony with 'God'. Further, God regardless of the metaphysical reality...symbolises that in the individual's social experience, which he counts of highest value and with which he would be identified. It represents the composite impress of those whom he most worthy of love and honour (1936: 306)............... "