Jagat Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 Tarun and Shiva are forming an anarchists' league. Let's give Shiva a chance. I think that he seems intelligent and has good things to say. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, that is why I encourage him to improve his use of punctuation and endorse JN's suggestion that he make paragraphs. He's a stubborn guy, but he's not the only one. Punctuation is courtesy, Shiva, like using mouthwash before a date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 Good points, Suryaz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 I am looking for something in the middle. Projecting archetypes, i.e., superimposing archetypal contents on other people, is according to Jung a kind of possession. "Falling in love" means projecting an archetype on another person. If the feeling is mutual it is considered O.K., but when it isn't, it can become pathological. However, even when it is mutual, it has pathological features. To say that love is "personal" is only partially true. In its most archetypal form it is impersonal role playing. When the curtain of Maya is pulled back a little, the man and woman look on horror at what they have wrought. Before the apotheosis of romantic love in the West, it was considered something of a disease. A successful romantic relation has to outgrow archetypal projection. Indeed, it is better for the relation from the beginning to be able to stand apart from such archetypal possession and let the intellect be the guide. The maturity of the relation is achieved when one can combine the subjective numinous feel of the archetypal experience with the genuine objective appreciation of the other person. Now the same kind of psychology is operative in the guru/disciple relationship. Wherever there is an archetypal experience, there is a feeling of contact with the numinous. (Synchronicity is also a kind of numinous experience.) The excessively rational viewpoint does not recognize this numinous element. The teacher is just a teacher, and as I have said above, the knowledge is often trivial, i.e., connected with purely mechanical or practical job skills, etc., and so the kind of response to the numinous (awe, respect, veneration, love, gratitude, etc.) can easily be minimized, whereas when issues of ultimate value are concerned, it is less easy to do so. Nevertheless, despite the strong bias in the West against "guru" archetypal projection (while the "love" projection is glorified as "the" numinous experience par excellence), it cannot be suppressed altogether. In such cases, the successful relationship still demands outgrowing the "possession" stage, which is rather what one expects from the neophyte (kanishtha) or newly converted type of devotee. This means penetrating the archetype to see the reality behind it--the humanity of the guru, as it were (as much as one must see the beloved as a human and not a god or goddess)--while still preserving the kernel of numinosity. This is why on another thread I talked about "forgiving the guru." The shastra says, "Never see the guru as human." But that is impossible, because you will inevitably see him as human, i.e., you will have doubts. When that happens, you have to find the kinds of resources that you need in any human relation to overcome the difficulties that arise. The primary resource is faith in the original numinous experience. Does this make any sense?<small><font color=#f7f7f7> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-16-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 Originally posted by Jagat: I am looking for something in the middle. [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-16-2002).] In my view, to help you ascertain this you must first widen the scope of your understanding as to what Love is. Then combine this with Boisen's social psychology with reference to the natures of the pathological and of that which is generally called mystic experience. To widen your understanding on the nature of love I suggest you read Plato's Symposium. Next I suggest you read Boisen, Anthon 1926 (???) Explorations of the Inner word (I think that is the title) This is a must. [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 05-16-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 Have any of you read any e.e. cummings. A style of writing called "stream of consciousness", is an accepted form of literary expression, sorry if i offend. I do know what an archetype is. I just do not think it has a reality in the Guru-disciple relationship. The imagery one associates with a Guru is often mistaken. For example someone commented on the saying "to see the guru as God", this means that the Guru is not the physical manifestation of the devotee,the Guru is God speaking through the devotee. Often the physical body of the devotee is seen as the Guru, and then maybe an archetype is percieved in some way, that is due to the ignorance of the disciple. The neophyte tends to put the Guru on an absolute plane of perfection, embodying the characteristics of a ruler, a superman among men. This is not the case always. While some Gurus may indeed have these qualifications ,the real role of the Vaisnava Guru is as a teacher, and may have no other qualifications other then knowledge of God. There are different levels of Vaisnava Guru, The devotee who may not be very advanced in realization can still be Guru, the qualification is not that he/she be on the highest platform,as some suggest. The only qualification is in the vision of the person being taught. To a person who is learned, the devotee who is not very advanced in realization, yet is repeating the message unchanged, then he is Guru, to those who can percieve God, in that message coming through him. No archetypal image may be associated with that Guru, still the flow of truth, is coming through him. When one has attained the highest level of consciousness, then he no longer is dependent on an individual devotee for instruction. Why? Because he is dealing directly with the source, His ability to directly commune with God, is the essence of the Yogic path. He still shows respect to his initiator, and siksa Guru or Gurus, but he is on a level that has transcended everything else. To him everything and everyone is a vehicle for God's manifestation, the entire world is Guru, and there is never a moment when his communion is absent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhi_the_great Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 LAD, NEOPHYTE Well, the point is, we can provide out views without belittling the opponent. Afterall its not a Malla-yudha. Its just a simple discussion. Its upto the other person to accept our views or not. But, not accepting our views does not make someone a neophyte or a lad!! I commend raga on being very balanced in his posts here, although he is very knowledgeable, he has never been arrogant. A good example to follow. Originally posted by Rati: Believe me, when I display actual sarcasm, you'll know it. I could not have been more diplomatic and gentle in tutoring the lad, so go whine on some other forum, or grow up already. Tarun: Come on now - admit it - you are being ridiculous in giving him encouragement to write in that awkward style, which is worse than pidgeon English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 Shiva: Often the physical body of the devotee is seen as the Guru, and then maybe an archetype is percieved in some way, that is due to the ignorance of the disciple. Shiva, I respect your understanding of the vani-side of the guru as the message of Godhead. However, both aspects, vani and vapu do exist, and together they are Sri Guru in his manifest form. Particularly Sri Guru in his inner form, with which the disciple is eternally bound with ropes of love and allegiance, is more than the reception of a message -- this form of Sri Guru is our eternal guide and role-model in the world of the divine. (By the way, does anyone have a reference for the origin of terms vapu/vani?) To make the point that Sri Guru is more than the message of Godhead manifesting, I would like to present the qualifications of guru according to the Hari Bhakti Vilasa of Sanatana Gosvamipada. This is completely aside the inner form of the guru, something more down to earth so to say. I do not have HBV at hand, but I would tend to say that the following two lists (HBV 1.32-35, HBV 1.38-41) are for the most part the svarupa-laksana (the essential characteristics of guru) and the tatastha-laksana (the marginal characteristics of guru). A guru... [*] Is learned in the Vedas [*] Has realization of Sri Krishna [*] Is most peaceful [*] Is surrendered in Krishna-bhakti [*] Understands Sri Krishna as the benefactor of His devotees [*] Has offered his heart to Sri Krishna [*] Has a pure body (free from disease and invalidity) [*] Has defeated the six enemies headed by lust [*] Is deeply attached to Sri Krishna through his devotion [*] Knows the immaculate path of the Vedic literatures [*] Is approved of by the sadhus [*] Has control over his senses [*] Is in constant transcendental consciousness A guru also... [*] Is born in a faultless and sinless family [*] Is himself sinless and faultless [*] Behaves as is appropriate for him [*] Belongs to a certain asrama [*] Is free from anger [*] Knows the Vedas and all other scriptures [*] Has faith [*] Does not find faults [*] Speaks affectionately [*] Is nice to behold [*] Is pure [*] Is nicely dressed [*] Is young [*] Is engaged in the welfare of all living entities [*] Is intelligent [*] Is prideless [*] Is satisfied [*] Is non-violent [*] Is able to judge transcendental truths [*] Is endowed with parental love [*] Is expert in puja of the Supreme Lord [*] Is grateful [*] Is affectionate towards his disciples [*] Is able to punish and reward [*] Is practicing homa mantra [*] Is a knower of all kinds of arguments and counter-arguments [*] Is pure-hearted and merciful [*] Is an ocean of glories It is obvious from this list, that particularly a householder-guru (or the guru of a householder in Indian society) has features beyond the "vani" feature. There is clearly a certain guru-architype drawn here, much related to the guru's being aside the message he conveys. This along with the instruction of selecting a guru from the highest available varna certainly indicates a social function for the guru as well. This may have little or no relevance for the renunciate class of men, but these are certainly valid considerations for the Vaishnavas within the society. Imagine, your guru is the most divine personality with the most divine message, but he looks real awkward and goofy and his body moves to all eight directions at once when he walks around, plus he has the accent of a barbarian tribe from the backwoods when he speaks. By no means it diminishes his divine value for the faithful disciple, but given that the disciple also interacts with members of the society at large, it will inevitably invoke ridicule or contempt from the less faithful class of men, which is a good share of the world. Just a few practical thoughts on the position of the guru besides the carrier of the divine message. I'll leave it up to you analysists to figure out the rest. I am not all that familiar with all these books you refer to, so I have really nothing to comment on in that regard. Perhaps this will nevertheless contribute a thought or two for the discussion. Jagat, you have observed the practical life of family gurus in Bengal. I believe you would have much to contribute in regards to the position of guru in the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rati Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Yes, it does make sense. Archtypal projection had not come to mind, but seems to be very germaine. Synchronicity seems to be very similar to the consciousness of events at a distance, as Haridas Das has described in the various Vaishnava hagiographies. Brahma Samhita states that in Goloka time is conspicuous by its absence, so it would logically follow that all events in that realm are occuring simultaneously, which would be synchronicity implicitly, although it actually becomes a meaningless concept on that level - being something astounding for us living in a realm of linear time. Mythical time as well is cyclical rather than linear, so there should be a higher prevalence of synchronicity in sacred space. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-16-2002).] [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-16-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rati Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 There is also that siddhi known as tri-kAla-vit, whereby one can see past, present and future events. That is clearly numinous and suggests that the perception of time as linear is but an illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Originally posted by Jagat: Dear Suryaz, I haven't time for a reading list. I know the Symposium. If you have assimilated all this learning, surely you can summarize it. I am ready to widen my understanding. Jagat [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-16-2002).] Jagat I will address this later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Just one further comment. Formalizing a relationship is one way of routinizing it. The analogy of diksha to marriage is quite appropriate. There is nothing like marriage to kill romance! It takes love and brings it to a new phase where one commits to transcending the original, purely numinous phase and to maturing in the relationship. In order to do so, one still has to occasionally "find the romance." To expand the idea of archetypal possession to the social arena, which will no doubt stimulate your juices, Suryaz: the charismatic phase of a religious movement is a macro-archetypal possession phenomenon. The rationalization or routinization of the movement sometimes looks like a backward step, but it is in fact maturation. Calls to "return to the Golden Age" are calls to "find the romance." Those who try to routinize charisma often find themselves in a position of criticism vis-à-vis the guru/founder. Many of the radical ideas that originally appealed, motivated and inspired are seen as impractical. By the way, I thought the synchronicity comments were very good and relevant. The fundamental synchronicity on the path is the encounter with Sat Guru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Dear Suryaz, I haven't time for a reading list. I know the Symposium. If you have assimilated all this learning, surely you can summarize it. I am ready to widen my understanding. Jagat [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-16-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 I think people sometimes tend to put to much importance on things, that do not need it. The concept of Guru is one thing to one person ,another for someone else. When you are 5 years old almost everyone is worshiped and respected as Guru. As you grow up you can distinguish between knowledge and people. Your uncle is no longer seen as a great and learned man, he simply repeated something he saw on the television. This is the situation of the Guru-disciple relationship, when you are young and inexperienced, the guru may seem to be everything and anything to you. As you grow in realization that diminishes,and you understand that what you previously thought to be the Guru,was an illusion. You find that the Guru,really is God as the sastra states. The devotee who gives diksa or siksa as like an uncle who takes care of you while your parents are out of town. When they get back home to you, the uncle is then no longer needed as gaurdian. When the sastra states that your relationship with the Guru is eternal, this does not refer to the devotee who gives diksa or siksa, it refers to God. Any other relationship you might have at present, is temporary, and ends with the end of your body. It's not that when you enter into Vraja, there will be your diksa or siksa Guru, saying haribol!. At that stage you are equals, and have no recollection of previous relationships, that would only be a hinderance to the Rasa of Vraja. [This message has been edited by shiva (edited 05-17-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Originally posted by shiva: You find that the Guru,really is God as the sastra states. The devotee who gives diksa or siksa as like an uncle who takes care of you while your parents are out of town. When they get back home to you, the uncle is then no longer needed as gaurdian. When the sastra states that your relationship with the Guru is eternal, this does not refer to the devotee who gives diksa or siksa, it refers to God. Any other relationship you might have at present, is temporary, and ends with the end of your body. Shiva, wrong wrong wrong. Your philosophy is very fanciful, but unfortunately of your own design. Read Bhakti-sandarbha please, and read about the lives of saints. You speak all these things, but what is the basis? Guru, shastra, sadhu? The initiate has an eternal relationship of allegiance with the diksa-guru. This is evident from the lives and precepts of innumerable Gaudiya saints, including the illustrous acaryas of the Gaudiya tradition. On raganuga marga the diksa-guru is served by the initiate in his external form in this world for as long as their existence in this world lasts, and in his internal spiritual form forever. The disciple thus establishes an eternal relationship of allegiance in the guidance of guru-rupa-sakhi in his internal form. He is situated in a particular group of maidservants, in which Sri Guru is prominent in guiding the new sakhi. Hence the relationship with this particular great devotee manifest in the form of our worshipable Sri Guru is also eternal. Let me just ask this to make sure I am not mistaken: Are you speaking of guru-tattva within the boundaries of the Gaudiya tradition, as taught by the acaryas, or are you speaking of something different? Please clarify this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Shiva: Any other relationship you might have at present, is temporary, and ends with the end of your body. It's not that when you enter into Vraja, there will be your diksa or siksa Guru, saying haribol!. At that stage you are equals, and have no recollection of previous relationships, that would only be a hinderance to the Rasa of Vraja. Looks like you edited your message after my comment. Yes, of course the diksa-guru is not there in the same form in which we see him in this world. He is there in his siddha-deha. The point being that the relationship between these two souls is one of *eternal* guidance. Though you are intimate friends with your guru-sakhi, nevertheless you serve under her guidance, and she is a divine role-model for you. The eternity of the relationship is not only with Bhagavan, but also with the individual manifestation of guru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Yeah...hmmm....I don't think so... What you think you "know" about the highest realm, is based on sastra that has the sole purpose of elevating your consciousness. The reality after you have attained the highest level isn't necessarily the reality that you concieve of with limited experience. The sastra is for purification of consciousness, do not get hung up on ideas that may very likely have no substance when you advance to another level. Like a child who is told "yes santa is real", and then discovers the truth. It is for the childs benefit, not necessarily the truth. So, a sastric verse or conception may mean one thing when literally taken, then something completely different when realization has advanced the reader to a higher level. When you say things like, you are going to be the servant of your guru as a helper to his sakhi form, the real meaning is something different then you might at first believe. When you see the Guru as God, and realize that God's highest deepest identity is that of the sakhis, then that concept of being a helper to your Guru has a basis in actual reality. Then also you will realize that "helper",also has another meaning to the realized soul. He will realize the true meaning of being a helper, it's not simply some person hanging around fetching things. It has to do with love,and intimacy, with God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 actually the editing was done before your post, and had to do with spelling errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 What you think you "know" about the highest realm, is based on sastra that has the sole purpose of elevating your consciousness. The reality after you have attained the highest level isn't necessarily the reality that you concieve of with limited experience. The sastra is for purification of consciousness, do not get hung up on ideas that may very likely have no substance when you advance to another level. Like a child who is told "yes santa is real", and then discovers the truth. It is for the childs benefit, not necessarily the truth. So, a sastric verse or conception may mean one thing when literally taken, then something completely different when realization has advanced the reader to a higher level. When you say things like, you are going to be the servant of your guru as a helper to his sakhi form, the real meaning is something different then you might at first believe. Shiva, is it "bona fide" to skip all these preliminary and external steps like accepting diksa and so forth, and just jump into the divine oneness beyond formality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted May 17, 2002 Report Share Posted May 17, 2002 Yeah...hmmm....I don't think so... What you think you "know" about the highest realm, is based on sastra that has the sole purpose of elevating your consciousness. I am thinking, why are the real truths not clearly revealed in the shastra or in the writings of the acaryas, but instead in Shiva's writings only? It cannot be so that the acaryas would not have had the realization to express this truth which differs from the apparent purport of the scripture. It cannot be that their ability of expression was not sufficient for this. If the truth is hidden behind the meaning of the scriptures and behind the apparent teachings of the acaryas, it must then be meant for remaining hidden until each individual gains his divine insight. After all, if shastra and acaryas chose to not reveal these hidden truths Shiva is propounding, should they then be revealed openly on internet bulletin boards? Perhaps it would be better for the mankind at large to just stick to the path of shastra and acaryas as they presented it, just to be on the safe side? Just thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2002 Report Share Posted May 18, 2002 woulda ..shoulda...coulda... When the devotee is a neophyte he might understand sastra in a particular way. He might think that the Guru is solely the individual giving initiation,and worship him alone as the representative of God, relegating all others as meaningless. As he advances he gains a newer insight to the sastra and then sees Guru differently. He then sees the initiator as the medium for God,and also sees the sadhus as a medium. He is no longer limited in vision by his earlier understanding of the sastra. As his vision deepens he sees that the Guru is god, as the sastra states everything is a medium for God, and he sees the world with that vision. So the sastra can have one meaning to a neophyte,and another meaning to an advanced devotee. Ultimately we are to understand that the Guru is God,manifesting anywhere and everywhere, the advanced devotee has this vision, his insight is not limited to what others might percieve as being unmanifest. When an advanced devotee is suffuciently advanced, he is brought to the highest level, what was previously unknown to him is now manifest. The sastra indeed has informed us of all the highest truths,they are hidden from those who are not ready to appreciate the significance, they are revealed to those who are ready. We cannot limit the actions of Guru, Guru is independent of our conception of what is proper or improper, what is revealed ,when or where it is revealed , or how it is revealed. These things are in the control of Godhead and should be appreciated in that light. [This message has been edited by shiva (edited 05-18-2002).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted May 18, 2002 Report Share Posted May 18, 2002 Shiva, are you advanced or neophyte? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2002 Report Share Posted May 18, 2002 Are we there yet? wherever you go there you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted May 18, 2002 Report Share Posted May 18, 2002 Shiva, are you presenting the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted May 18, 2002 Report Share Posted May 18, 2002 Originally posted by shiva: Are we there yet? wherever you go there you are. Have you gone where or there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shashi Posted May 19, 2002 Report Share Posted May 19, 2002 Originally posted by raga: Shiva, are you advanced or neophyte? I am always wondering why the neophytes are asking the questions, the answers to which they are having the little chances of understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts