Diksa initiation ,is it a magic wand?

[Rati]

Jagat earlier mentioned neophyte behavior. There is one tendency that tends to get overlooked - that of wanting to be the big preacher and deriving some satisfaction from that activity. The difference(between the neophyte and the uttama platform) is one of motivation, which is undoubtedly going to be tinged with any of a plethora of ulterior motives for the novice.

 

My suggestion is that one who is not yet ready to speak knowledgeably that they restrict their preaching activities to handing out plates of kRSNA-prasAda and deferring to senior Vaishnavas on matters of siddhAnta. There is no loss of face by just honestly admitting that one is a beginner and not having all of the answers to questions, for one will be respected for that simple quality of truthfullness.

 

Heck, we're all pretty much beginners when it comes to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. However, there are some that have hit the books in a serious way and have many years of intense practice behind them. A little etiquette goes a long way.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-10-2002).]

[Guest guest]

 

dear rati,i think you miss my point.

The desire for Krsna -prema is not what i was talkin about.

It is the desire to enjoy ,as opposed to the desire to give enjoyment.

If you spend your time trying to attain a postion, enabling you to satisfy your desire for enjoyment,even if that position is that of a pure devotee,engaged in rasa directly with Radha-Krsna,then you are disqualified by that very desire.

The qualification of the devotees on the very highest level, is that they are free from the exploitative desire.

This can manifest in a very subtle way.

We can fool ourselves into thinking that our desire to be in a specific rasa,with a very specific gender,is a pure desire.

It is not.

That is a desire for position,mixed with devotion.

The subtle desire of enjoyment mixed with bhakti,is purified by the process of the so-called "raganuga sadhana".

By the meditation on Krsna-lila ,one is gradually purified of the desire to enjoy or exploit.

The desire for love of God is mixed with the desire for exploitation,this is why you desire to love God,instead of actually BEING a lover of God. If you were free from the exploitative desire,then you would no longer desire to love God,because you would BE in love with God,and your desire would not be about attaining love, it would be about simply giving love.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Dear rati

Mahaprabhu descended to bring the highest realm, Goloka,to the lowest realm.

In Goloka, there are two pastimes going on simultaneously.

There is Radha Krsna lila,the tasting of rasa,divine love...

And there is Gaura lila,the distribution of that love.

The inhabitants of Goloka are sometimes engaged in Radha Krsna lila,and sometimes in Gaura lila.

The nature of Gaura lila is that it must take place on earth,where it is needed.

The conditioned souls are given entrance into Goloka,directly through Gaura lila.

While they may not be perfect,at first, the material desires are burned away in the fire of the sankirtan yagna.

The desire of distributing divine consciousness, or Audharya rasa,the mellow of the distribution of ecstacy,..is not a material desire.

It is the rasa of Gaura lila,Audharya rasa.

This transcendental desire is eternally part of Goloka.

[Rati]

Shiva:

I guess it is just not clear to me what exactly your point is. Does anyone else here have the same problem, or is it just me?

 

Are you talking about disqualification to actually take up sAdhana as a practice, on account of not having the right pure desire?

If so, then that is quite illogical, since the whole idea of a practice is to start from the impure state and eventually be purified in the process. Different paths lead to different goals. That was my point on other threads about worshipping in the mood of aizvarya (which leads to vaikuNTha or dvArakA) versus worshipping in the mood of madhUrya (which leads to goloka).

 

I am sure you are going to again explain at length what you really mean, but the result is going to be more dancing around in circles: the rAsa dance of this dialogue.

 

The only question in my mind at this point is whether or not your philosophical musings have any connection with reality, since they seem to center on some hypothetical set of persons rather than a real world set. Since I have other pressing matters, unfortunately I do not have the time to spend trying to get to the bottom of your agenda (and it appears that you have one, although what it is may not be apparent to the rest of us). I invite Raga and the others here to step in at this point to continue this conversation, as I have to leave these forums for a while.

 

[raga]

Originally posted by Rati:

Aspiring for the highest level in our tradition means a goal of achieving kRSNa-prema, not some royal status or the level of an Indra ruling over heaven. So, there is really no blotch on one's character, such as pride (as you have suggested), by harboring such a desire. Yes, our understanding is that attainment of such a goal is an exalted state. It is also our understanding that one is trying to realize genuine humility at the same time. You seem to tend to get overly concerned with certain details, rather than absorbing the essence of the teachings and putting them into practical application. You would do well to take the advice that others here have so kindly offered to you: Finding authority in the recognized sources of sAdhu and zAstra.

I discussed this already at length with Shivaji @ Raganuga Discussions. Now we are chewing it again. You may want to have a look at the thread back there.

 

http://raganuga.com/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=1&t=12

 

 

 

[raga]

Originally posted by Rati:

I invite Raga and the others here to step in at this point to continue this conversation, as I have to leave these forums for a while.

Thanks but no thanks. As I said, I already discussed much of this at length with Shiva, and it appears we never got anywhere much beyond his insisting that his prosaic expression is the final word in transcendence.

 

I thought of contributing something from the Caitanya Caritamrta in regards to how the rupa (form) of Krishna appears as the diksa-guru and the svarupa (inner being) of Krishna appears as the siksa-guru, as well as on the interaction and nondifference between the two, but I think I will save it for later, since the thread is getting disfocused to a great extent. But it is a very interesting topic. "Form" and "Inner Being". Take one and reject the other, right? No.<font color=#cccccc size=3>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-10-2002).]

[raga]

My concluding words from the thread to which I linked you above:

 

"To conclude with, could we please try to keep the discussions focused on a certain topic, and not allow them to branch into a million directions at once? It will be very helpful if the discussion has a logical structure, with a fixed topic (see the top of the screen for the topic), and everyone contributes relevant points on the basis of the earlier texts in the thread. Thank you."

[Jagat]

This thread more or less began with the conception that someone is not initiated, therefore he is inferior to me and unqualified to speak, because I am initiated (five, six, maybe a dozen times). It is a wrong conception and just a product of false ego.

You misunderstood our (at least my) motivations. I am not saying that anyone is inferior. I was objecting to one person’s claim that initiation had no vital significance.

 

Vaishnavism is in great part about humility. In Vaishnava society there is a hierarchy is there, as there is in any society, like it or not. The Bhagavatam tells us to respect Brahmins, but in general the Western devotees I know have a very condescending attittude to Brahmins in general. They are Mayavadis or brahma-bandhus, not real Brahmins, etc. Any excuse not to show respect.

 

Mahaprabhu said that he did not like maryada-langhan, and praised Sanatan when he avoided Jagannath’s pujaris, even though He glorified Sanatan as greater in every way than the pujaris. maryAdA rakSaNa hoy sAdhura bhUSaNa.

 

It would have been so very easy for Shiva to say, "I am not initiated, but I have been studying Vaishnavism for years and I think I have had some valid realizations that I would like to share for discussion." OR, he could have said, “I am initiated by a Gaudiya Math sannyasi, but I would rather not mention his name.” OR, “I was initiated in Iskcon, but my guru fell down and I’d rather not talk about it.”

 

Any of these options would have been sincere, humble and endearing and would have permitted the conversation to go on as before. But rather than do that, Shiva decided to make an issue of the question itself by boldly stated that initiation is merely optional, an external ritual that has no real meaning and arguments of this sort (which he slightly modified later).

 

Since he was making claims for his own independent realizations, which as Rati and Raga pointed out, he neglected to support with scriptural proofs, his status was a valid issue.

 

These are the reasons I chose to object so strongly. Shiva managed to find a number of people supporting his position, from widely different groups—the uninitiated who think that access to the divine can be had spontaneously without sadhana, the Kripalu representatives, the Ritvik vadis, and the siksha-sampradaya vadis. Strange bedfellows, no doubt.

 

The workings of Bhagavan and Bhakti Devi are mysterious and beyond the understanding of a conditioned soul like myself. I would not be so arrogant as to say who and when they should wish to bless someone. So who am I to say if Shiva, Valaya, Bhakta George, Shashi and all the other regular uninitated contributors to these forums are or are not kripa siddha? And as everyone likes to regularly point out, I am not a humble bee. Maybe one day I will get the point. Even so, I must bring out the worst in all these kripa siddhas! Nevertheless, I must point out that kripa siddhas should be as humble as sadhana siddhas, and recognize their position as “not even devotees.” If someone who has been initiated and engaged in sadhana all his life is supposed to be humble, how much more we should expect an unitiated devotee to say, “I am not a devotee.” An uninitiated person who makes exaggerated claims for his own high understanding should expect a reaction.

 

Westerners are so “democratic” they forget about maryada sometimes. But in fact, even in the West, etiquette is important. If you're living on the streets, I guess it doesn't matter, but if you are in the workplace or the army, or business world, or the Mafia, you know that protocol is very important. Pecking orders are everywhere in America except its mythology—and that’s despite the star system and the Bush dynasty and everything.

 

<hr>It is in no one’s interest to force initiation. There are many scriptures to that effect and I think that you should expect us to be fully aware of them. Bhaktivinoda Thakur states:

One who gives the Holy Name to the faithless becomes an offender.

 

A sadhu should not give the Holy Name to one in whom

faith has not taken birth; this is the rule of Vaishnava behavior.

People without faith who receive the Holy Name

will simply neglect or disrespect it, say the scriptures.

If you give a hog a jewel, he will grind it into dust;

if you give a silk cloth to a monkey, he will tear it into shreds.

A faithless person who takes the Name perishes from his offenses

and immediately transforms his spiritual master into a non-devotee.

 

How to behave with a faithless person who wants to be initated

 

A person devoid of faith sometimes falseheartedly

approaches a Vaishnava to beg initiation into the Holy Name.

The sadhu sees through such imposture every time

and will refuse him initation in the Holy Name.

The sadhu says to him, “Brother, give up your false heart!

Give up your desire for prestige and have faith in the Holy Name.

I will readily give you the Holy Name when you have faith,

then you will easily cross the material ocean, by the power of the Name.

But, my dear brother, you have no right to be initiated into the chanting

as long as you have no real faith in the Holy Name.

Go and hear the glories of the Holy Name from saints and scriptures;

then give up your desire for prestige and adopt a humble attitude.

Once you have faith in the Name, then an authorized spiritual master

will happily give you the great treasure of the Name, my dear brother.”

 

One who gives initiation in the Holy Name out of a lust for riches

falls down into hell as a result of his offense.

Nevertheless, I think that Raga and I have quoted enough scripture to show that initiation is a necessary part of the bhakti path. One may reject the formalities of devotion at one's peril.

 

<center>sruti-smriti-puranadi-

pancharatra-vidhim vina |

aikAntikI harer bhaktir

utpAtAyaiva kalpate ||</center>

 

Of course, it is understandable that some disillusionment has arisen about initiation, as Iskcon has seen so much tragic abuse of the diksha relationship. This is a very sad thing and there is little I can say to defend Iskcon history or to encourage those who have been burned. Jiva Goswami basically says, "Tough luck," if you picked an unqualified guru, because he hesitates to advise rejecting the guru except in extreme circumstances.

 

<center>yo vakti nyAya-rahitam

anyAyena zRNoti yaH

tAv ubhau narakaM ghoraM

gacchataH kAlam akSayam</center>

 

<blockquote>One who speaks (gives diksha) without following the proper injunctions and the one who takes initiation in the same illegal manner, both end up in the worst of hells and stay there a long time.</blockquote><hr>

 

Someone on Istagosthi just posted the following:

 

It is stated in Hari Bhakti Vilasa, "A guru should be of a superior caste. He should be very beautiful, young, and highly qualified. If such a guru is not found, you may then accept a guru from any caste."

 

But this statement is not very authentic. It has only been made to attract those with less qualification for bhakti.

 

From this great authority on siddhanta [?] we can understand that there are some verses in the Hari Bhakti Vilas that are not very genuine.

This was written by a Ritvikvadi opposing Narayan Maharaj. In Iskcon, criticisms of Narayan Maharaj often take the form of mocking the Western neophytes for being stupid and gullible in their “need” for "an old Indian gentleman" as spiritual master.

 

Yet this is basically what is behind the Hari-bhakti-vilasa's wise statement that one should seek a higher caste guru. Why? Because the samskara is deeper. Iskcon's gurus looked good in 1977, but they were sAbu kheye moTA. Looked good on the outside, but the inner samskara was shallow. No need for further details.

 

By way of contrast, I had the good fortune to be close friends with a Goswami family in Nabadwip, "professional gurus." It was a big family with many sons, most of whom were engaged in non-devotional activities, or running the “family business” (a temple) with minimal devotional standards. Two or three of them, however, were deeply devoted and learned. One of the youngest sons was having a bit of an identity crisis; he had finished school, had no job, didn't know what he wanted to do, etc. His father decided to push the envelope by saying “If you want to get married, get your act together.”

 

Then suddenly one day, this young Gosai started giving Bhagavata path. I remember thinking, "This guy, he's a shallow, frivolous person. How can he speak on the Bhagavatam?" So I went to hear him and though it was not great, it was pretty good. Besides which, he had the culture down pat.

 

My point is to contrast the shallow and profound samskaras. The Gosai had a very profound samskara that came from a life of association with devotees and a birth identity that designated him as a descendant of Nityananda Prabhu. There is a certain stability of identity that makes for dependability. Add to that genuine practice, learning and devotion and you get something profound.

 

Combine that with a lifetime of sadhana, as in the case of someone like Narayan Maharaj, or Gaur Govinda Maharaj, and you have a far better bet for stable spiritual guidance along the path than that given by some Johnny-come-lately who likely still takes his beadbag into the john.

 

This is not to disparage those Western devotees like Tripurari Maharaj and others who have shown ample conviction and commitment to the devotional path and their predecessors, and merit the title of guru.<hr>

 

Please excuse the length of this post. I just started it this morning and kept adding to it.

 

 

[Jagat]

I should just like to further amend that I think Western spiritual masters like Tripurari have a special contribution to make by interpreting Krishna consciousness for Western audiences that makes them specially meritorious. They are not "second-best" because they are Western, which my previous post may have sounded like.

 

I couldn't get into my edit mode. So I missed two typos. attitude (one "t") and initiated

[gHari]

Jagat Prabhu, I like it when you get so enthused about a topic. Your posts become very wonderful and filled with wisdom.

 

I might think, however, that a kripa-siddha would most humbly declare that he/she is a devotee. Otherwise, they would thanklessly be looking down upon the special mercy Sri Krsna has somehow afforded them, and down upon Sri Krsna Himself.

 

I think the kripa-siddha would spend most of the rest of their life in absolute disbelief that such fortune has befallen them. Their left-over lives may not be pure like a polished sadhana sadhaka, but in their hearts they could not abandon their absolute indebtedness to Sri Krsna. Certainly they would be very humble, for indeed sincerity manifesting as humility and greed was their only qualification to attract Krsna's mercy.

 

But deep inside, they can be nothing other than a devotee of Sri Krsna, as a diamond in a mud puddle can be nothing but a diamond, despite appearances.

 

This was a tangent, but perhaps I can add something from another angle to the initiation topic. It is said that Brahman realization corresponds to sat realization, whereas Paramatma realization adds cit realization, and finally Bhagavan realization completes it with ananda. Sat-cit-ananda, our real nature. It is further said that the spiritual master is the external manifestation of Paramatma. Might we conclude that sat and cit are added to the devotee upon initiation? I have heard other sampradayas speak something of the cit passed to the initiate as part of the initiation process. This idea may dovetail with the quote from Jiva Goswami presented earlier: "'Because it bestows divine knowledge and destroys sin, it is called diksha by the learned scholars. Therefore one should humble himself before the guru, offer him all his wealth and take the Vaishnava mantra from him through the authorized process of initiation.'(66)"

 

gHari

[abhi_the_great]

Jagat,

Are you western body or Indian body???

 

Abhi

[Jagat]

Western.

[jijaji]

From Chopra Board....similar topic.

 

Deepak Chopra

posted 05-08-2002

--

Question:

Deepak, I wanted to ask if you if you consider yourself a guru? It seems the guru-disciple relationship doesn’t work very well in the Western world. What do you think?

 

Answer:

No, I don’t consider myself a guru in the traditional role it has in India where a teacher takes on disciples under his personal care. The classical sense of being a guru is a huge responsibility in which an enlightened teacher agrees to instruct individuals until they become enlightened. The word “guru” means remover of darkness. It’s based on the simple idea that if one wants to gain enlightenment, then you get instruction from one who has already attained it, just as when you want to learn calculus you learn from someone who knows calculus.

 

 

In the truest sense, the guru is not limited to the individual teacher or even to God; the guru is the higher self that is awakened deep within the heart. The higher self is already enlightened and always has been, and it is what leads the rest of you to that awakening. A human guru is there to skillfully assist that illumination of the Self. Ultimately, pure consciousness must awaken to its own nature on its own terms, the guru or God, is just an outer representation of that guidance toward its awakening.

 

 

In a more general sense, the guru can be anyone or anything that assists the process of self-realization. Vedic literature tells of an individual who attained enlightenment by observing and absorbing the lessons of nature around him and using that as a guru. When one is ready for knowledge, the guidance of the guru can come from anywhere--through a child’s casual remark, or an overheard fragment of a TV ad. It’s a question of being receptive and heeding the voice of wisdom beyond the ego.

 

 

As for whether the formal guru-disciple relationship is viable in the West—it probably isn’t in a culturally acceptable way. Individually there are certainly many students capable in the west of effectively utilizing that relationship with a guru, but modern society as a whole places such a high value on the power and rights of the individual (ego) that any person even suggesting a deeper knowledge is regarded by society as suspicious at best and at worst dangerous. This mindset is often dressed up by otherwise bright people as the need to “question authority.” Quite often all they are doing is doubting the validity of their own ability to see the truth inside themselves, and favoring their self-satisfied ego conceptions. The deeper value of questioning authority has always been a foundation of spiritual instruction. Genuine gurus have always encouraged their students to test the authority of traditional wisdom against their own inner experience because that is the only way to make knowledge practical and personal.

 

Love,

 

Deepak

 

 

[Rati]

I'm Body by Fischer.

[Rati]

I like his overall thesis, but his statement about the guru-disciple relationship being alien to Western culture is perhaps overly exaggerated. After all, there was clearly that type of formal relationship between Christ and his disciples. Also it does seem to have been widely accepted for a number of Indian gurus with Western disciples over the years. I think it is not so much that relationship, but the Eastern mysticism that is perhaps hard for people in the West to swallow. Don't know for sure. Just basing this on my personal observations in life, for what their worth.

[Jagat]

The projection of the "wise man" archetype is a universal phenomenon, as are other kinds of projections, so there is not an East/West problem on the most fundamental level.

 

The problem is not so much that people in the West will not submit to discipline--they have to. They will not give up the illusion that they are not submitting or do not need to submit. And yet, students at college still have to write their papers, pass their exams and qualify to get their degrees. Only for the most part they marginalize their relationship with individuals like professors and have an impersonal relation with the institution.

 

The same goes for teachers, who usually play a cog-in-the-wheel role for students, who just flow by them like leaves on a river.

 

There has been a lot of promotion of the "mentor" concept over the the past few years, especially in the business world. This is a kind of watered-down "guru" doctrine, but since the values being transmitted in most uneven relationships is usually trivial, there is no particular need to feel that there is a numinous aspect to the relationship.

 

In certain intense relations, like patient/psychiatrist, a facsimile of the guru/sishya relationship takes place. Most guru/sishya relationships are in fact too distant to carry the kind of intense interplay of projections that are released in a relation of analysis.

 

I think that thinking about guru/sishya relations needs to be deepened, taking the help of western psychological findings, such as Jung's ideas about projection and archetypes. It is rather funny that in Western society, we value certain kinds of archetypal possession, like "falling in love," while condemning others, like "surrendering to a guru." (Though "hero worship" or "role model emulation" might be considered variants of the latter.)

 

I think the following post I made elsewhere is relevant:

One of the general theories of Indian psychology, if we can call it that, is that people grow into their roles. People almost are their roles more than they are individuals. If you read hagiographies of Indian saints, with few exceptions, you are struck by the absence of personal detail and the rhythms of archetypal characteristics. Even recently, Sridhar Maharaj advised Satsvarupa to be careful to make his biography of Prabhupada a hagiography and not a biography. How difficult it is for devotees to hear that Bhaktivinoda ate meat up until 1880 and probably still ate fish after that for some time before giving it up entirely!

 

Sometimes it fails, but generally Indians believe in destiny. What is the caste system but this? Westerners are much more fickle and less likely to feel predestined to a certain role. They will play a game or role for a while--like husband to one woman, or sannyasi, disciple or guru--and as soon as it feels uncomfortable, or goes against their sense of "self-fulfilment," they drop it. My generation, the hippy Prabhupada-disciple generation, is famous for this kind of fickle-mindedness.

 

The Hindu approach, as I have seen it, is to praise the person for what he is supposed to be, rather than what he is. In a way, this is what that "see guru as God" business is all about--all those warnings to "never see the guru or the Vaishnava as an ordinary human being."

 

Praise the child for being a good boy and he will want to be a good boy. Praise the sannyasi for his achievements and his appropriate response is to beg the sadhu (or even the householder) for mercy to help him live up to the praise. Appealing to one's higher motives is good advice.

 

This particular attitude to personal relations is one of those places where East is East and West is West. The British found Indians (and Chinese too), sycophantic and hypocritical.

 

[Rati]

Since you brough up the subject of Jungian archetypes, would you say that the guru could be considered as manfesting all of them in one person? He represents the King figure as an absolute authority of religious doctrine and Vishnu's representative on earth. He represents the Magician figure as the via medium. He can be said to represent the Warrior when propagating Sri Caitanya's movement, since the dharma of the warrior is to serve a higher purpose (i.e. the will of the King). He could even be considered to embody the characteristics of the Lover with respect to mAdhurya bhAva.

 

This all seems to fit in considering the India concept of the guru, whereas in the Western world view religious preceptors are more purely King or Magician or a combination of both.

 

Certainly avatAras of Vishnu or other deities embody all archetypes, since by nature they are archetypal characters. So, a guru (especially in the case one that is truly zaktyAveSa) as the theophant could function in the same capacity.

 

Archetypes are very much an integral part of myth, and when it comes to myth traditional societies are much more attuned to the inner message than our post-modern hi-tech civilization, which has stripped the sacred from everyday life and relegated to houses of worship.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-15-2002).]

[Guest guest]

 

I dont think that description of archetypes,fits well with the Vedic Guru.

For one thing The Guru is considered to be a medium of God, he can be materially not very good,as king,or warrior etc.

The physical manifestation of Guru,is the devotee who is connected to God,therefore anyone can be Guru.

The neophyte sees only a particular person as Guru,as he advances he realizes that Guru is God.

This understanding that the spiritual preceptor is a medium for God,is all important in the Vedic view.

The Biblical traditions vary,but generally they give precedence to the person over the message.

This can be seen in the Pope,changing doctrine at will, or mullahs and sheikhs inventing laws as will of Allah.

For protestants the minister is seen as having the holy spirit and others maybe not.

For the Vedic view,Guru can manifest anywhere ,through anyone,at anytime, in anyway.

The message is all important, the way the message is delivered is secondary.

This is like Jung's synchronicity.

Seeing a connection,between seemingly unrelated events.

That is the vision of the enlightened seer,according to the Bhagavad-Gita, "the enlightened soul ,sees Me in everything,and everything in Me."

This synchronistic vision is the vision of the enlightened seer.

He sees everything in this conception.

He knows that whatever is happening is factually connected to everything else.

The other faiths stress obedience to individuals,or institutions.

The Vedic concept is that obedience to individuals is only the beginning.

The Guru is seen as the facilitator to bring one to a higher plane of consciousness,in the here and now.

At that stage what was previously seen as necessary,loses it's value.

No longer is the individual guidance needed from a medium,at that stage direct interaction with God is accesible at all times,and circumstances.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

[Note: If you use double spaces between paragraphs it will make it easier for others to read.]

[Jagat]

Please note the synchronicity of that advice, Shiva

 

(1) There are many different archetypes, and it is true that the guru may fit several of them, depending on what the disciple is looking for. But I think the principle role the spiritual master is playing is that of the "wise man." (I guess magician or via medium would be the same one, expressed in different words.)

 

(2) Syncronicity is a different concept that is relevant, but is distinct from archetype theory.

[Rati]

Thanks for the insight Jagat. It does not sound like our friend Shiva is very well acquainted with archetypes, based on his response. He seems to have mistaken the king and warrior archetypes for their actual types. There is a gulf of difference. Besides the Vedic guru is not quite the same thing as the Puranic (or Gaudiya Vaishnava guru). There may be some common characterstics, but there are also plenty of significant differences.

 

Shiva, I suggest you read any of the books published on the subject of archetypes first, then revisit the topic at that time.

If you want to look at something about the four I mentioned, you can read the work of Moore and Gillette.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-15-2002).]

[Rati]

Here's another suggestion for you Shiva: Before you post, gather your thoughts, then try to form paragraphs out of sentences (perhaps you should just avoid commas altogether, until you learn their purpose) to complete each thought. The standard practice is to either indent the first sentence of each paragraph or at least space between each one (as JNDas has suggested).

 

If you can do this, then people will be more interested in reading what you have to say, and there will be fewer complaints about your use of English. Once you have that down, we can work on some of your other writing problems. Just see - you're geting tutoring here, free of charge!

 

[Tarun]

Right on, Shivaji. Knock'em dead, then revive'em.

Your writing style is just fine. Don't check it one bit.

Agree with all but your last sentence.

Up there, way up there, most rasa - mellow - relationship is with others, not so directly with R or K, thus guru plurality intensifies ad infinitum.

Exclusivity won't even get us to the Moon.

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by Rati:

Thanks for the insight Jagat. It does not sound like our friend Shiva is very well acquainted with archetypes, based on his response. He seems to have mistaken the king and warrior archetypes for their actual types. There is a gulf of difference. Besides the Vedic guru is not quite the same thing as the Puranic (or Gaudiya Vaishnava guru). There may be some common characterstics, but there are also plenty of significant differences.

 

ar·che·type Pronunciation Key (ärk-tp)

n.

 

1.An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype: "`Frankenstein'... `Dracula'... `Dr. Jekyll

and Mr. Hyde'... the archetypes that have influenced all subsequent horror stories" (New York Times).

2.An ideal example of a type; quintessence: an archetype of the successful entrepreneur.

3.In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and

present in the individual unconscious.

 

 

syn·chro·nic·i·ty Pronunciation Key (sngkr-ns-t, sn-)

n. pl. syn·chro·nic·i·ties

 

1.The state or fact of being synchronous or simultaneous; synchronism.

2.Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related, conceived in Jungian theory as an explanatory principle on

the same order as causality.

 

Rati,

Since i'm also not so good in english and need to learn, I am not wasting this golden chance. Its rare chance in this universe to find such a sarcastic teacher like you.

 

All those willing to flatten up their egos are arrogantly/sarcastically requested to enroll!!

 

Cheers

Abhi

 

 

[This message has been edited by abhi_the_great (edited 05-16-2002).]

[suryaz]

I disagree. There are standards in the West. It is just standards are more individualistic and personalised. In the West the individuals in the relationship set the standard for the person-to-person relationship. Personal relationships are not regulated by what one person in that relation says what the relationship ought to be. As such standards in the West are not impersonal; they are more personal because they are more than often regulated through mutual consent not by common consent.

 

Human relations and ideas about what "ought to be" as designed by an authority are less imposed upon personal relations in the West.

 

Try living in society that dis-empowers you forever (where there is not way out of it; because of birth rite). The problem is that most Westerners who have lived in India are of the privileged sector (eg. white males). Try living as a dis-empowered person in India and then tell me how personal the relations are.

 

Tell me how humanely you will be treated - India has one of the worst records in the world for the dis-empowerment and the inhumane treatment of its peoples Is this personal relations. Is this human relations? How personal is that? Think about it.

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-16-2002).]