shiva Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 If you guys are unaware, our good friend here at Audarya, Raga, also known as Madhavananda Das, who has spent the last few years in India, mostly in Braj, has converted to Theravada Buddhism. Over the years Raga gained quite a large following for himself over the internet for his preaching of his interpretation of "Raganuga Bhakti" aka what he liked to call "traditional" Gaudiya vaisnavism. Now he is starting to preach why he rejected Gaudiya vaisnavism and the superiority of his new chosen path. My new blog http://vraja-journal.blogspot.com/ will be an analysis and commentary on Raga's (now calling himself Ananda) preaching to the Gaudiya community. Madhava has given us a number of reasons for rejecting gaudiya vaisnavism. One of the reasons is that he claimed that the gaudiya path needs a certain level of "emotional cultivation" and that he was lacking in the emotional arena for a number of possible reasons. In a recent blog he wrote: "The emotional cultivation practiced in many bhakti-traditions, and particularly so in the raganuga-method, is a means of employing one's existing emotional patterns in conjunction with a specific god-relationship — hence verses such as kamad dvesad bhayad snehat — and as such particularly suitable for people with powerful latent emotional bases ready to be dovetailed, fueling the intensity of god-absorption. An obvious problem arises if people don't possess the adequate latent mental formations on which to build these god-redirected feelings. Even Sri Rupa recognizes the need for the appropriate previous samskara as a prerequisite for attaining prema in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. Then, engagement in raganuga-cultivation would in effect entail a backtracking to redevelop the eradicated or absent areas of human emotional nature to be redirected on towards god; in my view, a rather steep and unnecessary curve." In a previous blog he told us that another reason for rejecting the gaudiya path was because the raganuga path wasn't elaborated comprehensively enough to enable a practitioner such as himself to make progress. I remember some years back on either his forum or some other forum, where I was telling him that his vision of Gaudiya vaisnavism would eventually likely cause him to give up on the Gaudiya path. I remember explaining that the cause would be due to a lack of progress in his path, specifically I recall saying that he would get bored of doing what he was doing. I told him that the path he was following was erroneous, that he was prematurely getting involved with subject matter that was beyond his capability to understand, and that because of that he would not receive the result he desired and would simply get bored and move on to something else. I don't wanna be that guy who says "I told you so", but I guess I am. For years I told him that the higher path would only be understandable for someone who had become completely educated on Bhagavat ontology, that if people weren't educated enough and then attempted to immerse themselves in the higher path in the way that he was promoting, that you would not understand any of it, that you would only see the literal meanings of the words of the acaryas, and that you would therefore be unable to enter into the higher path. For years I told him that the works of the acaryas on rasa were deeply and almost totally symbolic and metaphoric in nature. The very first time I directed my comments to him on Kshamabuddhi's old forum (long gone), before I got active on his forum, I made a long comment where I said that it was obvious from reading him that he was completely clueless as to what he was talking about. I told him that his taking of it all literally (rasa sastra) was proof to me that he was completely clueless as to what the higher path was about. I told him that due to his vision of seeing Radha and Krishna as totally distinct individuals (instead of one soul in two forms) that I knew he didn't have a clue as to what the higher path is really all about. I told him that the higher path was called "confidential" because the truth of that path wasn't spelled out literally in any sastra, yet he was simply literally parroting that sastra and thinking he was engaged in the highest and most profound aspect of gaudiya vaisnavism. I knew he didn't get it because if he did "get it" he wouldn't be immersed in what he was doing. It was like children playing in the sand box thinking they were living the most sophisticated lives, and I told him just that. After that I would come to tell him time and time again that his failure in not accepting certain ontological realities concerning the nature of Radha Krishna and rasa lila would keep him from entering into the higher reality. Yet he fought me tooth and nail, he insisted that the rasa sastra should be literally interpreted, that he knew what he was doing, that everyone else who saw things differently then him was wrong. I have to reject his reasons for giving up on gaudiya vaisnavism. I told him from day one that his vision would end up nowhere. The problem isn't his lack of an "emotional component". Also his problem isn't a lack of a comprehensive account for the higher path in the gaudiya school. His problem is that he wouldn't accept the truth when it was made available to him by older more experienced bhaktas. He was sure, and it seems like he still is from what I can tell of his recent blogs, that he still thinks gaudiya vaisnavism is all about what he taught for years it was about. Yet his vision led where? He gave it up because there was no taste, he wanted the sweetness and all he ended up with was a bunch of romantic stories to read over and over. At the end of the day he wanted rasa with Radha Krishna, but couldn't achieve it quickly and lost faith. His long time friend and co-leader of the so called "traditionalists" who preached on the internet for so many years, Jagadananda Das aka Jagat, also publicly came out and revealed that the so called "traditional" path they liked to present as the "authentic" path of gaudiya vaisnavism, was given up by him in pursuit of a neo-sahajiya path. So yeah, I'm the guy who told them so. Over and over for years I said that their approach to raganuga was wrong and would lead nowhere. The same goes for anyone who took what Madhava taught as the bonafide higher path of gaudiya vaisnavism. The end result will always be the same. You won't get the promised result and you will end up bored and frustrated. If you are egotistic enough you will end up thinking there is no God because if there is he would show himself to you because you will think you are so advanced. So yes Madhava, there is a necessary emotional component to the higher path of bhakti, that emotion is humility. That is the only "emotional cultivation" needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malati dasi Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 Radhe Radhe I will check out your blog. It should be interesting, I 'm sure. Though I might not agree with you on certain points, like my practice of mental sadhana. I actually can't understand Madhava's point eg: <i>An obvious problem arises if people don't possess the adequate latent mental formations on which to build these god-redirected feelings</i> Of course I don't know what instructions he got from his line. But my siksa's intructions were both about activity on the practical level and about philosophical instructions that will help me have a good grounding as I start on the path of "real" spiritual evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiva Posted March 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 Radhe Radhe I will check out your blog. It should be interesting, I 'm sure. Though I might not agree with you on certain points, like my practice of mental sadhana. I actually can't understand Madhava's point eg: <i>An obvious problem arises if people don't possess the adequate latent mental formations on which to build these god-redirected feelings</i> Of course I don't know what instructions he got from his line. But my siksa's intructions were both about activity on the practical level and about philosophical instructions that will help me have a good grounding as I start on the path of "real" spiritual evolution. I think Madhava is trying to say that the raganuga sadhana path needs a specific type of emotional input e.g. imitating or trying to cultivate the emotions of a manjari If that is what he meant, then I can say that I warned against getting involved in what he was doing, that the higher levels of bhakti cannot be rushed into otherwise it becomes imitationism of a reality that you don't understand. It simply won't work, and it may seem like the problem is that you don't have the emotional proclivity to do what a bunch of babajis tell you that you should do, but that is because they are not really qualified. Madhava admits that in the end he felt let down by all the babajis he met, not surprising since they are not really on the level they claim and are not qualified to teach about the higher level of bhakti if they teach what Madhava taught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.