Tattva-viveka
paintings and krsna's form
Vivek - February 4, 2008 8:21 am
One thing which comes to my mind always after having discussion with people in different vaisnava sampradayas is the dress of narayana or that of krsna. In gaudiya vaishnava paintings the heads of all females are covered with saris but in madhavas or ramanuja sampradayas this is not the case. Actually in south India there is no tradition of women covering the heads; it is certainly more due to the influence of muslim period( I think sridhar maharaj had also made this point although prabhupada was pretty strong on the point of woman covering their heads always.
Second point is that we have deities with all kind of marbles, ISKCON deities use white marble in many places to portray krsna but traditional gaudiya lineages don't. Actually the more ancient dieties are crude in the material manifestation than modern ones which are made to look very human like. And another thing is the narayana is drawn with more masculine features in south India but in gaudiya sampradaya the only distinguishing feature between radharani and krsna is their colour ( apart from that they are drawn with completely feminine characteristic).
Other issue is every sampradayas uses their own tilak and paraphernalia to identify God-- question can all be simultaneously. Can narayana wear both gaudiya tilak and ramanuja tilak? Then again yasoda in some paintings is wearing gaudiya tilak though prabhupada stressed that they wear only bindis).
Obviously that means that I am not able to see the real spiritual form of the Lord at this moment and just see the material manifestation. Impersonalists and buddhists score on the point that they are not biased towards any cultural and they are above vaisnavas as they are fighting over trifles which are culturally drawn. Like Vaisnavas will not eat food from anybody apart from vaisnava though in ancient vedic times rishis who had different philosophies could eat together too. And krsna and sudama and many other people were eating food in the house of sandipini muni. today a vaisnava will not eat food in the house of somebody like sandipani muni because he is worshiper of Lord Siva.
So there is no doubt that extreme sectarianism and overemphasis on some cultural aspects of vaishavism( and often different ones in different sampradayas) has denied the audience of vaishavism to people who want to free themselves from party spirit and go beyong the modes of material nature( brahma bhuta prasanatma) where pure devotion actually starts.
I would appreciate the viewpoint of other devotees on this matter.
Vivek - February 4, 2008 6:40 pm
Basically I was thinking about reasons how advaita and buddhist schools are gaining more grounds than Vaisnava schools in spite of the fact that our philosophy and theology can compete with them very well; Hence I came up with this post.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 4, 2008 7:57 pm
Basically I was thinking about reasons how advaita and buddhist schools are gaining more grounds than Vaisnava schools in spite of the fact that our philosophy and theology can compete with them very well; Hence I came up with this post.
Obviously then, theology and philosophy alone are not enough to capture people's hearts.
Along with your context, the other day I was talking with a colleague of mine. She's a part time worker, and a full time wife and mum of two and she started to look for some escapism in buddhism. Her life is too stressful, she said, too many demands from everywhere, and she just wants a little peace of mind, find some meaning in this crazy world going on and around her.
After some talks I've realised she's so fed up with "things" and "demands". At one side are things of this western-style civilisation where acquisition of things is what makes one "prosperous and happy", and on the other side she's frustrated with the idea of church and God; a God which existence in consequence makes people fight against each other in His name and the church, that is constantly condemning her life and existence as she is some sort of "eternal sinner" with no hope whatsoever.
I completely understand her.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 4, 2008 9:17 pm
Escapism, ouch! I think Gaudiya Vaisnavism is very life embracing, celebration of life and love.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 4, 2008 10:06 pm
Escapism, ouch! I think Gaudiya Vaisnavism is very life embracing, celebration of life and love.
When bottles are full, you can't pour in any more water.
If you want to do anything, the pressure inside bottle has to ease.
Of course she won't become a die-hard buddhist monk, so it is a form of escapism.
But even is she does, by becoming a die-hard monk doesn't necessarily mean one will grasp Buddha's way anyway.
For many even Vaisnavism is an escapism too; they can indulge in all new couture, embrace all external kitsch and slang, but inside they're still bottles full of stalled water. Nothing fresh -- a celebration of life and love as you have nicely noted -- can come inside.
And that's what Vivek was pointing out too. The living form of God -- our best friend -- is what's terribly missing in our lives and in our societies, no matter how we call them. People keep pointing out in the pictures on the wall and say, "That's God, that's Krishna, he wears this and looks like that and ... " ... but is he *really* that?
I doubt it. He's much more beautiful and he's much more living and more present in our lives that just through the painting on the wall that we argue about.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 5, 2008 12:07 am
Well, Buddhism promises the deliverance from all pain, right? It is escapism in my opinion. In our case we say "pinastu mam", some thought required to buy into this idea, it’s more complex. I don’t want to sound to elitarian, but liberation is easier to understand. That’s why Advaita and Buddhist schools are more popular.
Vivek - February 5, 2008 12:09 am
When bottles are full, you can't pour in any more water.If you want to do anything, the pressure inside bottle has to ease.
Of course she won't become a die-hard buddhist monk, so it is a form of escapism.
But even is she does, by becoming a die-hard monk doesn't necessarily mean one will grasp Buddha's way anyway.
For many even Vaisnavism is an escapism too; they can indulge in all new couture, embrace all external kitsch and slang, but inside they're still bottles full of stalled water. Nothing fresh -- a celebration of life and love as you have nicely noted -- can come inside.
And that's what Vivek was pointing out too. The living form of God -- our best friend -- is what's terribly missing in our lives and in our societies, no matter how we call them. People keep pointing out in the pictures on the wall and say, "That's God, that's Krishna, he wears this and looks like that and ... " ... but is he *really* that?
I doubt it. He's much more beautiful and he's much more living and more present in our lives that just through the painting on the wall that we argue about.
I really agree with you Zvonimir.You have actually explained my point very well. I was working late last night when I decided to post this topic. I was kind of careless in writing at night;therefore I find glaring
grammatical errors in my original post. Pls forgive me for the errors.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 5, 2008 12:17 am
Well, Buddhism promises the deliverance from all pain, right? It is escapism in my opinion. In our case we say "pinastu mam", some thought required to buy into this idea, it’s more complex. I don’t want to sound to elitarian, but liberation is easier to understand. That’s why Advaita and Buddhist schools are more popular.
Well, I meant an escapism from everyday troubles, a hobby, or whatever else you want to call it.
An hour of some kind of relaxation during a crazy day. Many people accept such escapism because that little peace of mind, a minute aside everyday jungle's life is what they are looking for and it's not a real Buddhism.
It's a popular, recreational buddhism. Or there's also recreational yoga.
However, going deeper into the Buddhism, or Advaita, or anything else, needs more than just that.
Vivek - February 5, 2008 12:29 am
Nandatanuja,I don't think that the advaita and buddhist schools are prominent because liberation is easier to understand. You can find many people are in vaisnavism embracing a very rigid rule oriented sectarian framework.It helps many people who want the organization to completly to do the thinking for them. They can see the world as black and white and feel good about themselves.
The fact is that vaisnavism as it is represented well, compares well with fundamentalist christianity. Therefore the people who would have embraced vaisnanvism cannot do so as they are already taken by christian organization. This leaves us with people who are tired of the church or prefer to remain agnostic due to fundamentalist stance of christianity. these people obviously will prefer buddhist and advaita than indian version of the church.
Zvonimir Tosic - February 5, 2008 12:52 am
This talk about buddhism and everything else reminded me about koans*.
Here's my try in koans about Krishna:
Those lucky ones who love Krishna as their best friend and hug him dearly in their lives are true atheists.
* koan |ˈkōˌän|
noun
A paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment. (From American Oxford Dictionary)
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 5, 2008 2:32 am
The fact is that vaisnavism as it is represented well, compares well with fundamentalist christianity.
please elaborate
Vivek - February 5, 2008 3:10 am
The closed rigid representation of vaisnavism is current especially when we see a lot of fanatic people around. It is more of a material ego boost of feeling better than all those karmis and jnanis rather than real spiritual love many times. Maybe it just appears like that to people like me. ( most devotees say people in kali yuga are too materialistic so they cannot see their real spiritual love)
Swami - February 8, 2008 5:01 pm
Very briefly two points come to mind:
1. ye yatah mam prapadyante
2. Advaitins also accept the form of Krsna, Narayana, etc. to be reality, although a provisional one (saguna brahman).
Vivek - February 8, 2008 5:12 pm
Very briefly two points come to mind:
1. ye yatah mam prapadyante
2. Advaitins also accept the form of Krsna, Narayana, etc. to be reality, although a provisional one (saguna brahman).
Thank you Maharaj for your comments
How do we account for the fact that dresses in the paintings are very much a part of the culture, that particular tradition(GV or Sri Vaishnavism) appears in? And the dresses also keep on changing from previous yugas to ones now. To what extent should we identify the tradition with its dress? All the different sampradayas believe that their tilak is the one naryana is wearing, so devotees can even fight over this trifle.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 13, 2008 6:43 am
I still don’t understand the fixation on the dress. Why is it important? If sadhu in his ecstasy saw a vision of a particular color of Krishna’s dhoti he will say that what it is. Another sadhu might see something different. They both right, there is no single answer.
Syamasundara - February 13, 2008 7:16 am
I only want to play with Krsna if he wears Mahaprabhu's tilak. 
Vivek - February 13, 2008 3:25 pm
then obviously we acknowledge the subjectivity of our vision as narayana is wearing different tilaks in different lineages. I am ok with this position; only thing is that people have fought over these differences and it is very neophyte to do that.
Shreekrishna - April 19, 2008 4:14 pm
The thing with tilaks is somewhat personal, and although it seems superficial, it is a display of affiliation, and for Vaishnavas, it shows their servitude to Vishnu, being His servants.
My mother's side of the family is Sri Vaishnava. Their tilak is pretty striking, and the deities wear this tilak. Many times, it obscures half of both of Vishnu's eyes. In dark temple sanctums, lit only by ghee lamps, the tilak shines (either because it fluoresces, or because it is made of diamonds and rubies), and worshippers can get a sense of where the deity's face is and some sense of His features...
I think tensions/emotions run high with tilaks because they also mean different things to their adherents. The Sri Vaishnava tilak is broad, bold, and has a white "U" or "Y" for Vishnu's feet, and a central red line for Sri, the Goddess of Fortune as She resides between His Lotus Feet. Attached are pics of the SV tilak, and one of Sri Ramanujacharya at Melkote, wearing this tilak.
The Gaudiya tilak is similar but also different, with it's lack of a central red line, and the presence of a Tulsi leaf on the bridge of the nose...
Although they seem superficial, tilaks are transcendental, and it pleases Krsna to see His devotees mark their faces and bodies this way, much as neck beads, sikhas, are also sacred. I for one, am not bold enough to adorn myself with all of these signs in public, but take pleasure when I see any of them...They purify because they give immediate remembrance of Krsna.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 19, 2008 4:18 pm
The thing with tilaks is somewhat personal, and although it seems superficial, it is a display of affiliation, and for Vaishnavas, it shows their servitude to Vishnu, being His servants.
My mother's side of the family is Sri Vaishnava. Their tilak is pretty striking, and the deities wear this tilak, and many times, it obscures half of both of Vishnu's eyes. In dark temple sanctums, lit only by ghee lamps, the tilak shines (either ebcause it fluoresces, or because it is made of diamonds and rubies), and worshippers can get a sense of where the deity's face is and some sense of His features...
I think tensions/emotions run high with tilaks because they also mean different things to their adherents. The Sri Vaishnava tilak is broad, bold, and has a white "U" or "Y" for Vishnu's feet, and a central red line for Sri, the Goddess of Fortune as She resides between His Lotus Feet. The Gaudiya tilak is similar but also different, with it's lack of a central red line, and the presence of a Tulsi leaf on the bridge of the nose...
Although they seem superficial, tilaks are transcendental, and it pleases Krsna to see His devotees mark their faces and bodies this way, much as neck beads, sikhas, are also sacred. I for one, am not bold enough to adorn myself with all of these signs in public, but take pleasure when I see any of them...They purify because they give immediate remembrance of Krsna.
Women don't use tilak in Sri Vaisnavism. Actually according to SP in the spiritual world the gopis don't wear tilak but bindis but then I don't think I am qualified to speak on these issues. I guess for a sadhaka as his/her siddha deha is not realized he/she always uses the tilak.
Shreekrishna - April 19, 2008 4:30 pm
Women actually do use tilaka in the Sri Vaishnava tradition. It's called Srichurnam, and my grandmother used to wear this... Take a look at the attached picture. It's smaller, with the white portion minimized compared to male tilaka, and the red portion for the Goddess Sri is the main component...
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Yes but the tilak is substantially different with the white portion minimized a lot. I gues only for Andal you have a more prominent white tilak.
No such distinction of tilaks in made in Gaudiyas.