I was thinking today about the Lila of Krishna and Mahaprabhu and I realized something that gets mentioned all the time but has never really fully impacted me. The major undercurrent in the Lilas is one of potential and actual separation, loss and longing. Whenever I try to think about the Lila I am grasping at moments of bliss and union with Krishna, a dance, a laugh, or a glimpse. However, I think that one of the most important experiences retold in the scriptures concerns the precarious position of the family and friends of Krishna; always in danger of losing sight of him, for now or forever. Mother Yasoda must see him off, the sakhas must go to their respective homes or lose sight of him as he wanders off, and of course, the Gopis have only brief moments of union and the majority of their love is done from a painful distance. The same is the case with Mahaprabhu. His associates are always loosing sight of him, his mother loses him to sanyassa, and ultimately he is blissfully tormented with the rasa of separation while the majority of associates have a similar experience in relation to him.
In psychoanalytic thought it is often emphasized that the missing loved-one is experienced with greater intensity than even the loved-one who is present. In fact, the missing loved-one is not experienced as a void, but rather as a powerfully manifest not-here figure. I think this is so critical because it is this potential and actual separation that makes union so sweet and makes real longing possible. I was watching a Bollywood film today at the cinema and I realized this truth very palpably: the loving is sweet because you know they cannot keep it forever.
If chanting ever produces a taste or a feeling, it is predictable that the feeling will go away. The worst thing is that we cannot even make it return by our own will no matter how hard we try. But the longing is fueled; the wish for union and the wish to soften the ache of the not-here beloved, might cause us to strive with greater intensity.
Any thoughts, additions, or counterpoints?
Very nice comments Gopa. And welcome back!
Bollywood certainly reflects a lot of the components of rasa, though sometimes they are so over-the-top cheesy!
If chanting ever produces a taste or a feeling, it is predictable that the feeling will go away.
Maybe you mean if chanting produces a feeling of UNION it is predictable that it will go away. Yes, but the chanter will then be fueled by feelings of separation, and experiencing deeper union with the beloved (as you pointed out) until another union is achieved. This is what distinguishes levels of attainment in bhakti. Separation may discourage the less advanced sadhaka to give up chanting because they desire something more controllable, or predictably pleasing than the elusive Krsna. Chanting fueled by alternating feelings of union and separation is the ultimate attainment. This is what Mahaprabhu exhibited.
Again, nice comments. Thank you.
Thanks for the clarification Madan Gopala! It is union in chanting that I am presuming to be the case when one has a 'feeling' or 'taste'.
You said, "Separation may discourage the less advanced sadhaka to give up chanting because they desire something more controllable, or predictably pleasing than the elusive Krishna." I think you are right, but what I have heard from other sadhakas and experienced most often myself is a lack of taste or feeling that is not really interpreted as a separation or loss, but rather as a 'nothing is happening'. This is different because I think continued practice in this case is reliant on faith that someone you know or have known has achieved this taste or feeling and it is there to be achieved, if Krishna wills it.
However, if one does have such an experience (presumed to be union with the Absolute), the disappearance of such a feeling can be experienced as separation or loss. In this case, one can long for something that has been felt and experience it as an impetus for spiritual growth. I guess in this case, experience breeds enthusiasm or greed. It would seem that even a minor taste would cause us to become greedy for another.
I was pleased to see you say something about the "less advanced sadhaka desiring something more controllable than Krishna". This of course is so very true for me. This is a fascinating parallel with psychological theories of development. Donald Winnicott speaks very clearly about how the less developed individual cannot handle that the caretaker is outside of their control and that the needs that they wish to have fulfilled rely upon a caretaker who cannot be made to do what is needed. This less developed individual will imagine controlling the needed caretaker and the good-enough caretaker will allow for this illusion of being controlled by satisfying the needs whenever possible so that the individual can develop further. Only with further development can the subjectivity of the independent caretaker begin to be accepted. Thereby allowing for a real interpersonal exchange between two subjects, rather than a one-person, domineering kind of narcissism.
I think Krishna might do something like this too. I think he may give us the sense that we are powerful and in control of our progress... that if we follow the right rules and chant the right amount of rounds we will capture Krishna in our net. The truth is... we can't do that... we cannot chant our way into overpowering him... so I guess we do what Gurumaharaja often says (paraphrase), "Pray as if our progress depends on it, knowing full well that it depends on Krishna's will." or "Work & sweat until he feels sorry for us for our futile effort" However, at some point (with some maturity and experience), we can just let Krishna be himself, come and go as he pleases, and when he is away we may painfully & blissfully feel him more strongly than we did when he was with us?
A slight digression: gurunistha and I were discussing how, in light of the current article on the Harmonist regarding determinism and free will, perhaps it is most effective to emphasize the free will present in a sadhaka's life as these studies are indicating determinism leads to laxity (or cheating in the case of the study). It is not a revelatory point, but seems to add support to a "your responsible for your spiritual progress" approach.
It is union in chanting that I am presuming to be the case when one has a 'feeling' or 'taste'.
I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. The stage of ruci, in which one's taste is steady, is all about having a taste and attachment for the practice of bhakti itself--bhajana. In asakti, ruci has intensified into attachment for the object of the practices--bhajaniya. But taste for chanting is there in union or in separation, and it is said that the pain of separation, due to it being in relation to God, is supremely pleasurable--as much or more so than union.
A slight digression: gurunistha and I were discussing how, in light of the current article on the Harmonist regarding determinism and free will, perhaps it is most effective to emphasize the free will present in a sadhaka's life as these studies are indicating determinism leads to laxity (or cheating in the case of the study). It is not a revelatory point, but seems to add support to a "your responsible for your spiritual progress" approach.
It is such a complicated relationship between freewill and determinism that it is very difficult to sort it out indeed.
But freewill is indeed minuscule.
I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. The stage of ruci, in which one's taste is steady, is all about having a taste and attachment for the practice of bhakti itself--bhajana. In asakti, ruci has intensified into attachment for the object of the practices--bhajaniya. But taste for chanting is there in union or in separation, and it is said that the pain of separation, due to it being in relation to God, is supremely pleasurable--as much or more so than union.
Great points Cittster... but since bhakti is herself a manifestation of Krishna's svarupa sakti, attachment for sadhana can be viewed as attachment to Krishna. Right?
I like your point about separation as pleasurable, however, I think that it is a particular kind of pleasurable activity since it is in relation to Krishna, but is still a form of torment as well. Mahaprabhu manifested the furthest reach of Sri Radha's separation and it was clearly a sublime form of torment. My main point is that loss of contact with Krishna, or as you pointed out bhakti herself, is a very powerful experience of contact: contact in separation with a not-present object.
Great points Cittster... but since bhakti is herself a manifestation of Krishna's svarupa sakti, attachment for sadhana can be viewed as attachment to Krishna. Right?
Yes, in the sense that everything is ultimately Krsna. But there is a difference, otherwise Rupa Goswami would not have made the distinction between the stages. Both are mangos, but one is more ripe than the other.