Siddha Pranali

[Jagat]

But if we examine more closely the Gaudiya acharyas idea of perfection, we will come to a better understanding of the problem. Vaishnava philosophy holds that Krishna is the one supreme male and that in relation to him all others are prakriti, or energy. Radha is the supreme manifestation of the hladini shakti: she is the pleasure potency through whom Krishna, the supreme enjoyer, realizes the joy of his being. The Brahmana says that the Supreme did not enjoy in his undifferentiated state, so he divided himself into male and female, locked in embrace. It is clear throughout Hindu mythology that the gods are predominantly masculine, the goddesses are their energies. Here too, Krishna is called the supreme enjoyer (bhoktR), while the female is there to function as an accoutrement to his enjoyment.

 

The relation of purusha to prakriti in this theistic sense can only be understood with an appreciation of this sexist perception of the world. Thus the development of the bhakti analogy follows the lines of symbolism, lord/servant to father/child, man/woman. “My devotees conquer me just as a devoted wife wins over her husband.”(SB 9.4.46) This takes the extreme form: “Men must renounce their masculinity if they would become devotees.”(fn#1) This thought is met with elsewhere in other cultures. Vaiñëava thinkers have dug out the following quotation from the work of Cardinal Newman and repeat it frequently: “If thy soul is to go on to higher spiritual blessedness, it must become a woman, yes, however manly thou may be among me.”(fn#2)

 

Needless to say, this attitude is difficult for males in normal ego consciousness to swallow. Though aggressiveness, false overlordship and numerous other ego diseases are more normally found amongst men, they are not entirely absent from women. Woman here is a symbol of submission, which is couched in the machismo of sexual submission. The general Freudian understanding of the gods as human projections based on wish fulfilment resulted in fairly predictable patterns of interpretation. G. Morris Carstairs was the first Freudian to analyze the Krishna myth in some detail in relation to the Indian joint family situation and its effects.

 

According to Carstairs' analysis, the father-child relationship is not a warm one and the child has to submit to his authority completely. In the normal Indian extended family situation, as long as the father-figures live and dominate him, the male has to perform “symbolic self-castrations,” denying himself the right to lead an emotional and sexual life of his own.

 

This is a catastrophic reversal of the male infant's early blissful situation, especially that of the first-born, when he is the cynosure of all eyes. In order to recapture that bliss in fantasy, the male must again become a helpless child, and this he does through prostrating himself before the Mother Goddess. This is also the essence of the Hindu's attitude toward his father, his guru, and in his religious worship. In each of these situations he stresses on the one hand his own utter helplessness and unlimited appeal for blessings, and on the other, the ruthless suppression of his own sexuality and with it all other sensual gratifications.(fn#3)

 

To Carstairs, the passivity and symbolic self-castration of the upper-caste Hindu man results in a powerfully repressed homosexual fixation on the father, especially when he is seen as a fellow victim of the mother, as symbolized in the image of Kali dancing on the prostrate Shiva. This finds an outlet in paranoid-type reactions on the one hand and a relatively warm relationship with a guru on the other. This feeling is also transfered to the deity in his form as Krishna, the great lover.

 

<blockquote>[Krishna] is portrayed as an effeminate, seductive and yet divinely powerful youth. His devotees seem at times to identify with him as he makes his amorous conquests, at other times to identify themselves with the gopis who are overcome with pleasurable anticipation at his approach. This particular father-figure can be recognized as revealing a thinly veiled longing for him as a homosexual lover.(fn#4)</blockquote><hr>

fn#1: Glenn Yocum, "The Goddess in a Tamil devotional text," JAAR, 45: K. 372.

Cited in Wendy Doniger's, The Erotic Ascetic.

 

fn#2: I have never found the source of this reference. I am citing here from Paritosh Das's Sahajiya o Baishnab Dharma (Calcutta: Firma K.L.M., 1978), 157.

 

fn#3: G. Morris Carstairs, The Twice Born (Bloomington: The Indiana University Press, 1958) 158.

 

fn#4: ibid. <font color=#dedfdf><small>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-02-2002).]

[raga]

jijaji: So whats your recommendation for the rest of the planet? Certainly spirituality is needed more than ever in these times, what do you suggest..?

Right. Frankly speaking, I suggest that each individual spiritual group & tradition carries on with its own work, while respecting others who advocate various forms of spirituality. This allows each individual to gradually, and over lifetimes, refine his conception of the Divine, and to refine his/her individual relationship and desires towards the Divine.

 

Now, of course someone will object: "You say like this, and you think your thing is the highest, and others' practices are on lower levels which one day will lead to your stage!" Huh?

 

Well, that's true. It is natural to consider one's own choice of spirituality to be of the highest quality. But on the other hand, if I meet, for instance, a group of Buddhists or Jains who tell me to keep up the good work, while thinking that one day I will also become like them -- I don't mind. As long as this takes place in a mutual spirit of respect, where neither of the two tries to convert or to minimize the feelings and the practices of the other as inferior or useless.

 

Of course this is a bit difficult with the people who give you the "Have you thought, my friend..." booklet and tell you about the ocean of flames awaiting for the heretics, where you are to be cast for eternity, lest your name is found in the sacred book of life or so.

 

Whatever we desire, accordingly our faith will develop, and accordingly we will adopt a particular brand of practices, and that is the perfect thing for us, for the time being.

 

In this way, naturally (sahajiya ) everyone will progress on the same path. Same path? Yes. mama vartmAnuvartante manuSyAH pArtha sarvazaH. gItA 4.11.

 

[raga]

Jagat: But...

Jagat, will you please give a context for the story? You start, "But". But what? To which earlier text do you refer, in the light of which we should understand your contribution?

[jijaji]

quote:

Well, that's true. It is natural to consider one's own choice of spirituality to be of the highest quality.

 

jijaji:

It is EGO alone that makes one think that their spirituality is above all others ..EGO ALONE.

 

Everyone wants to be on the Top Winning Team..the EGO wants ONLY to be with the'HIGHEST TEACHINGS' etc..

 

Another trap of the mind I say..!

 

"Oh but our practice is the 'YUGA DHARMA'

 

[raga]

It is EGO alone that makes one think that their spirituality is above all others ..EGO ALONE.

The logic is, "If I would find something higher, I would go for it."

 

One may very sincerely believe that he is a rare object of causeless grace. The fact is, though, that for most of the folks, pride is there, to a great great extent.

 

And, given that ego is there for everyone, I think let us just learn to live with it and be happy. You find that even the five rasas are analyzed "objectively" (by someone in madhurya-rasa) and it is concluded that madhurya-rasa is the supreme, and among those in the madhurya-rasa, the objective conclusion (by someone partial to Radha) has been drawn that Sri Radha is the supreme of all the gopis.

 

I say if there was no ego, there would be nothing. Even God created the world because of His big ego, I say. He wanted to enjoy Himself.

 

To stay within the thread topic, that's what siddha-pranali is all about as well -- getting a better ego. But it has a connection with spirituality.

[jijaji]

raga..

 

don't worry about trying to control where the thread goes..people will say what they want and sometimes topics go off track and re-surface..

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 05-02-2002).]

[jijaji]

quote:

And, given that ego is there for everyone, I think let us just learn to live with it and be happy.

 

jijaji:

What a totally UN-SPIRITUAL thing to say...sorry but eastern teachings from pretty much any school teaches to 'Drop The Ego'

 

strange...

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 05-02-2002).]

[raga]

quote:

And, given that ego is there for everyone, I think let us just learn to live with it and be happy.

 

jijaji:

What a totally UN-SPIRITUAL thing to say...sorry but eastern teachings from pretty much any school teaches to 'Drop The Ego'

 

strange...

 

They have the ego of "I am dropping my ego". That's all. The ego is, "We know what is the real meaning of being spiritual, we know it's all about dropping the ego."

 

The fact that you exist means you have an ego. You know this bhumir apo 'nalo vayuh kham mano buddhir eva ca ahankara iti 'yam me bhinna prakrtir astadha thing.

 

To find proper application for this ego, that is the question. The point is you can not just leave your self of identity. Even if you think individuality has no basis in reality.

 

And anyway most of the folks who say "individuality is false" don't live up to it, nor do they really intend to live up to it. It is just a part of their ego "I am spiritual".

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-02-2002).]

[raga]

Please show me a person who has no ego. He must be completely spiritual.

 

"Nice to meet you, sir. You have no ego?"

"Aum, Aum."

 

Welcome, utopia. Welcome, flowers on the sky. Welcome, utopia.

[Jagat]

Originally posted by raga:

Jagat: But...Jagat, will you please give a context for the story? You start, "But". But what? To which earlier text do you refer, in the light of which we should understand your contribution?

Sorry. Just a segment of an unpublished article, actually the introduction to Manjari-svarupa-nirupana. Only slightly out of context here. I was responding for the Cardinal Newman quote. Would you like more?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-02-2002).]

[Guest guest]

 

When I see you writing about becoming conscious of your inner self,as female,I have to chuckle.

This is the result of reading confidential lila without proper guidance.

First you must understand what Srila Prabhupada meant, when he wrote in the intro to the Caitanya Caritamrta-"When Krsna desires to enjoy he BECOMES Radharani"-This is essential.

First we are told that Krsna is the supreme enjoyer,as we advance in understanding we are told something else-Radha is the enjoying potency of Krsna,yes Krsna is the enjoyer,but how does he enjoy?

This is the meaning of Hladini-Sakti.

The internal potency,or that which is inside of Krsna,what is that? That is Sri Radha!

Yes Krsna is the enjoyer,yet he enjoys through Sri Radha,She,we are told, is the ultimate supreme enjoyer,She is Krsna,as enjoyer.

This is the beginning of the understanding of Madhurya-rasa,without this essential understanding,whatever else you may think,will be useless.

At the debate I had at Gaudiya.net,the devotee I debated,insisted that Radha has no desire to enjoy,only the desire to serve

Krsna.

This is wrong,"when Krsna desires to enjoy he becomes Radha",this is the understanding of the Mahabhagavata.

Radha is the enjoying aspect, of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

This is the first step in understanding our ultimate identity,in relationship to God.

So, how does Radha enjoy?

Radha is described as expanding herself as the gopis,manjaris,and the goddesses of fortune,Sita,Parvati,etc.

These expansions are described as being like flowers,creepers,and leaves on the tree of the ecstacy of Sri Radha.

Srila Prabhupada used to say, that the "last snare of Maya,was to try to become like

god."

This does not refer to the sankarites attempt to merge with Brahman,that is hardly the last snare of maya,devotees sneer at such foolishness.

The "last snare" refers to something else.

It refers, to the attempt to enjoy like God.

To be the enjoyer of God,the last snare is bhakti, tinged with the desire to be the enjoyer of Krsna.

Real pure bhakti,at the highest level, is free from the desire to enjoy devotional service,it is of a different stamp.

Radha(and her expansions),we are told,are the enjoying potency,She is the ultimate enjoyer of Rasa,Krsna is enjoying pleasure,as Radha.

The highest level of pure bhakti,is the surrender,saranagati,of the desire to be the enjoyer,that is replace with the desire to give pleasure.

So,what gives pleasure to the Personality of Godhead?

Radha,we are told is the enjoying potency,she is the ultimate enjoyer.

Giving her pleasure,is the highest service,She as enjoyer,we as enjoyed.

What is the highest rasa? What gives the most pleasure to Godhead?

That is described as "the sweetest thing",Madhurya.

This understanding,being the giver of pleasure to Radha,is the essence of the Bhakti.

The topmost thing ever written, according to Mahaprabhu-"Gita-Govinda"-is showing the way.

There we find Radha at her most ecstatic,in the absence of Krsna,she turns to her devotee.

Is Radha finding the highest pleasure in sakya rasa? No,friendship is good,but conjugal love, is the sweetest ,madhurya.

Does this mean the sakhis are conjugal lovers of Radha? No,they are her expansions.

Sakhi means sakya,friend.

Her real desire for conjugal love,is not satisfied by the gopis,they are her friends.

Krsna is absent,this is the message of the Gita-Govinda,so what can she do,who can she turn to?

To understand this we must refer to Srila Prabhupada,in the intro to the Caitanya Caritamrta-"Radha and Krsna,are one and the same,never make the mistake of thinking otherwise"

 

 

The "last snare"

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by raga:

They have the ego of "I am dropping my ego". That's all. The ego is, "We know what is the real meaning of being spiritual, we know it's all about dropping the ego."

 

> That is just a generalization of others outside your system who see things different from you. I personally canot stand how some people can make such broad sweeping statements, very indicative of a 'Us & Them ' mentality....

 

The fact that you exist means you have an ego. You know this bhumir apo 'nalo vayuh kham mano buddhir eva ca ahankara iti 'yam me bhinna prakrtir astadha thing.

 

> Disagree..in many spiritual groups the 'EGO' is seen as that which is given to you by the 'Mind' it serves ourselves up as being more than we are, kind of a 'LIE' we believe about ourselves. I'm this important attorney, I'm a great actress, I am a wonderful politician etc..

We are sac-cit-ananda eternally. The 'Persona' we assume to function in this temporary relm is the 'EGO'..devotees have referred to it as 'False Ego' which is a fine discription as far as I am concerned.

 

To find proper application for this ego, that is the question. The point is you can not just leave your self of identity. Even if you think individuality has no basis in reality.

 

> Unture....you drop the 'False Ego' and your 'True Self' begins to shine forth....not all at once, it takes time.

But it seems you need to go back to some basic understandings of spirituality dude!

 

And anyway most of the folks who say "individuality is false" don't live up to it, nor do they really intend to live up to it. It is just a part of their ego "I am spiritual".

 

> Again another 'SWEEPING STATEMENT' about those others....you don't know, or maybe I am wrong perhaps you HAVE gone around met with them all and watched them in there daily lives...

 

You have siddha-pranali..thats great, but you should drop your generalizations of others outside your limited sect and understand that you can be initiated into the most secret of all practices and be given mystical indications of what your spiritual body is like, but if you have not learned how to love and respect others outside your camp...your a 'dime a dozen' religious fanatic like any 'Bible Thumpin, Salivating Street Corner Preacher' even if you think your diksha has connected you to 'Ocean of Prem' itself.

 

This I have seen with 'MY' own eyes...

 

 

 

 

[Jagat]

That's quite an original philosophy, Shiva, all based on a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation. Do you have any knowledge of Sanskrit or Bengali, by any chance?

 

When Srila Prabhupada said that Krishna becomes Radharani in order to enjoy, he doesn't mean that he becomes Radharani, but that he becomes Sri Krishna Chaitanya, Krishna imbued with the color and mood of Radha.

 

Jiva Goswami has conclusively shown in his books that Radha and Krishna together are the Supreme Truth, neither Radha nor Krishna separately.

 

Hladini Shakti is explained as the energy through which he enjoys and through which he gives pleasure to the devotees; he remains (technically) the enjoyer. The devotees' enjoyment comes through complete identification as instruments of Krishna's pleasure, or instruments of Radha's service in giving Krishna pleasure.

 

Perhaps you are familiar with Ujjvala-nilamani? If not, read the fourteenth chapter. You can find a complete Sanskrit version at www.granthamandira.org.

 

Of course I have no objection to your glorifying Srimati Radharani, but I suggest that you try understanding what the Gaudiya siddhanta is first. It's like being a musician. Before you can improvise, you really should learn the notes.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagadananda Das.

 

 

 

[Jagat]

You may also find Krishna-sandarbha and Priti-sandarbha at the same site.

 

Jagat

[Shashi]

Originally posted by jijaji:

Some quotes from "On the Road"

by Jack Kerouac..

 

"....don't you know that God is Pooh Bear?"

 

 

JijaJi I am not knowing who is this Kerouac fellow but I am thinking he must be wrong. I am being told that the highest a bear can becoming is Yogi.

 

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Shashi:

JijaJi I am not knowing who is this Kerouac fellow but I am thinking he must be wrong. I am being told that the highest a bear can becoming is Yogi.

 

 

 

He He Lol

 

[raga]

raga: To find proper application for this ego, that is the question. The point is you can not just leave your self of identity. Even if you think individuality has no basis in reality.

 

jijaji: Unture....you drop the 'False Ego' and your 'True Self' begins to shine forth....not all at once, it takes time.

But it seems you need to go back to some basic understandings of spirituality dude!

...your a 'dime a dozen' religious fanatic like any 'Bible Thumpin, Salivating Street Corner Preacher' even if you think your diksha has connected you to 'Ocean of Prem' itself.

 

Thanks for putting me back my real position, and thanks for all the love and spiritual vibrations you have expressed towards this lowly creature.

 

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you have misunderstood my use of the word "ego". The following is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "ego". I have used the first and third applications of the word, your concept appears to be prominently of the second.

 

<blockquote>

Main Entry: ego

Pronunciation: 'E-(")gO also 'e-

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural egos

Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, I -- more at I

1789

1 : the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world

2 a : EGOTISM 2 b : SELF-ESTEEM 1

3 : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality -- compare ID, SUPEREGO

</blockquote>

 

The application to which you are pointing, "I'm this important attorney, I'm a great actress, I am a wonderful politician etc.. " fits an entry close to "ego", "egotism", as also mentioned above:

<blockquote>

Main Entry: ego·tism

Pronunciation: 'E-g&-"ti-z&m also 'e-

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin ego + English -tism (as in idiotism)

1714

1 a : excessive use of the first person singular personal pronoun b : the practice of talking about oneself too much

2 : an exaggerated sense of self-importance : CONCEIT -- compare EGOISM 2

</blockquote>

However, this is far from the more analytical, psychological concept of "ego", as expressed in the main entries above.

 

You may kindly read my post again in this light to grasp a better understanding of my intentions, should it be of any concern for you.

 

At any rate, I have no need or interest in participating in discussions where people misunderstand my postings because they think they know the real, actual and perhaps the only meaning of "ego", "spirituality" etc. and then inconsiderately blast me into the basket for things I never intended. It hurts me.

 

I politely thank you very much for the brief time we shared together and wish that you will discover your inner spirituality in wherever it may suit you.

[Shashi]

Ego Ergo I go

[raga]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Sorry. Just a segment of an unpublished article, actually the introduction to Manjari-svarupa-nirupana. Only slightly out of context here. I was responding for the Cardinal Newman quote. Would you like more?

 

Yes, please. I am very curious to see the context. On its own, passages like:

<blockquote>

According to Carstairs' analysis, the father-child relationship is not a warm one and the child has to submit to his authority completely. In the normal Indian extended family situation, as long as the father-figures live and dominate him, the male has to perform "symbolic self-castrations," denying himself the right to lead an emotional and sexual life of his own.

...

To Carstairs, the passivity and symbolic self-castration of the upper-caste Hindu man results in a powerfully repressed homosexual fixation on the father, especially when he is seen as a fellow victim of the mother, as symbolized in the image of Kali dancing on the prostrate Shiva. This finds an outlet in paranoid-type reactions on the one hand and a relatively warm relationship with a guru on the other. This feeling is also transfered to the deity in his form as Krishna, the great lover.</blockquote>

Without seeing the context, I have to say I am rather surprised to find content like this in the preface to Manjari-svarupa-nirupana...

 

I am very curious to see where the paragrahps you posted come from, and even more, where they lead.

 

[Shashi]

Ego Ergo I go

No ego No go

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-02-2002).]

[raga]

Shashi:What a clever fellow he has summing up 20% of worlds people with such a snap of his fingers.

Maybe I would be appreciating more this analasses if I am being one Westerner who loved herself and could speak Sanskrit and Bengali also ahving become one elective univarsity scoolar diletaunting in hundreds of books.

 

Jagat, would you like to switch the MSN preface etc. over to RD, where we can speak topics as topics without getting comments into personal issues, either of the poster, or the one quoted, or whomever?

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-02-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Of course I have no objection to your glorifying Srimati Radharani, but I suggest that you try understanding what the Gaudiya siddhanta is first. It's like being a musician. Before you can improvise, you really should learn the notes.

 

Ohh MasterJi May I please be attending the music recital and joining in the applausing even if I am not being the composer?

If it is being OK with your learned highness my heart is thirstying to improvise an appreciation to the beautiful music. Your permit will be most pleasing.

 

 

[Shashi]

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 05-02-2002).]

[jijaji]

[jijaji]

raga...

 

I said...

 

"if you have not learned how to love and respect others outside your camp...

your a 'dime a dozen' religious fanatic like any 'Bible Thumpin, Salivating Street Corner Preacher' even if you think your diksha has connected you to 'Ocean of Prem' itself."

 

**

That is 'IF' you have not learned how to love and respect..

 

when you quoted me saying this you left out that preface, you know you did...

 

litte dirty pool eh?

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 05-03-2002).]