Tattva-viveka
Over my head?
Baladev - September 1, 2004 8:48 am
post deleted
Gaura Krsna Dasa - September 1, 2004 3:43 pm
Don't be discouraged Bala. Some of us want 50 cents but Guru Maharaja is trying to give 20 dollars. Just take what you can and trust that the rest will come when you need it later. That's what I do.
Not everone is intellectual, that's a fact. But those who are need to utilize that capacity for Krsna's service. It keeps them out of trouble. And not every devotee is looking for the same experience on Tattva Viveka. Some devotees use discussions as a mental excercise to develop skills necesary for preaching and they are encouraged to do so by Guru Maharaja. It is necesary for the healthy development of Mahaprabhu's mission that at least some people know the philosphy inside and out and have developed critical thinking skills in relation to it. Such devotees think that is the purpose of the Tattva Viveka site although not everybody is interested in making everything into a philosophical debate. Regardless, we should respect everyone's interests.
You mentioned you're not charmed by the lilas, but you must be a little bit attracted to something or else you wouldn't feel conflicted. If you have feeling for Krsna then go with that and don't neglect to ask Krsna to give you more interest and understanding. Our heart should be getting deeper and wider and if that's not happening then we have to be sincere with Krsna and really ask for that. If we're all good with Krsna then this other stuff won't stress us out so much. But it's an ongoing process. You can't stop. You have to keep asking.
Gopakumardas - September 1, 2004 4:01 pm
Dear Bala,
I realize more and more in my life that when my sadhana is weak I will question everything that there is. Another side effect of my weak sadhana (spiritual practice) is that I am more unhappy. It is such a catch 22 because the way to make myself stronger is to do the process for which I am lacking inspiration. However, when I am regularly rising early, serving the deity, and chanting there is nothing in the world that can get me down. There is so much bliss to be extracted from Gaudiya sadhana. The two characteristics of sadhana bhakti (in its mature state) are that is relieves all distress and brings all auspiciousness. One thing this means is that you will be happy and you will be a joy and blessing to be around (there is more to it then just that, but this is most relevant). See this bit of info that I am sharing with you I got from 'disecting' a book called Nectar of Devotion. So it is helpful to do this. In my own moments of sraddha crisis these things are a consolation. It is NOT necessary that you 'disect' these things yourself if you are surrounded by people who know this. So I see two problems here, need for more sadhana (believe me..you're not the only one) and better association. This does not mean you need to come back here to Santa Rosa (since I like going to visit you and go to Disneyland), but you should seek out and associate with like minded devotees. In fact, one of my favorite godsiblings (not that I have favorites... 
is Audarya Lila. He is mature, intelligent, and a very nice devotee.
So in regards to the particulars of your statement... Attraction to lila and philosophy: this also comes with time, association and sadhana. When you are around people who are charmed by such things and you are also developing internally, you will begin to look at these things more deeply. You will develop affection for these personalities. When this happens you will love to hear who did what and when. It is like you and me; you love me and we are very close. For this reason everything that I do and that happens to me is of great interest to you. You are charmed by my happiness and saddened by my distress. I feel the same for you. Through sadhana and association you too can begin to love personalities of the lila and when they say something deep (philosophy) you will say, "I should listen to that!"
When I joined the mission I joined because the ritual was "so rad!" and "krishna was a representation of that high cosmic power". I really joined for the free vegetarian food. I did not know who Chaitanya was, I don't think it would have mattered to me. Over time... and sixteen rounds a day for two years in order to take initiation in ISKCON... I delved deeper into who he was. Then with the association of GM and the devotees here I have delved deeper into Gaura lila, and now when you mention Gaura or Nitai and I "swoon" (sort of). I can say that my reason for being a devotee is Gaura Nitai, even though I joined without knowing them. This means I had some sukrtti (merit- god knows how?) for Gaudiya bhakti. This means you do too. So for whatever reason, you are now feeling this way. Find some devotee friends and see them every couple of weeks. Try your best to get back to the chanting standard you kept when we first met two and a half years ago. You were very happy and inquisitive then. I used to spend hours speaking to you about Krishna philosophy and stuff ...and you seemed interested. Remember?
I too need to follow my own advise. The reason I am writing this to you, instead of you to me... is that despite my weak sadhana... I have kept good association.
I will see you in a week. I am coming down on Wednesday the 8th.
with much affection,
Gopa
your guru bhai
Gopakumardas - September 1, 2004 4:05 pm
P.S. Everything will come through the chanting. Everything is in there...including the potential to be in pure ecstatic love of Krishna. The prema that is in that mantra Rupa Goswami describes as "unimagined super duper condensed blissfulness". (OK..I am paraphrasing...)
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - September 1, 2004 4:59 pm
I'd rather "feel" than "dissect."
Does sunflower knows anything about photosynthesis? Can blind cub see mother’s breast? It’s all done by intuition; we “feel” what is right. The value of this feel, this intuition is much higher than academic knowledge because it’s based on your experience.
Srila Prabhupada SB 6.1.46 -- San Diego, July 27, 1975According to Vedic principles, there are three different types of evidences. Everything must be proved by evidence. So these are primarily three evidences. Pratyakna, direct perception, pratyakna; anumana; and sruti. Anumana means I cannot see directly, but by the symptoms I can imagine. That is anumana. Just like I have seen that in the month of April, May, June, we can get mangoes. That is our direct experience. So similarly, we can say, in the month of January, we can say that "In the month of April, May, June, we shall have mangoes." In the January there is no mango. But because I know, I experienced in my last April, May, June, so similarly, this intuition is nothing but experience of my last life. That is called intuition. The rascals, they say that there is no experience. Whatever life we have got just now, here experience. No. The intuition... Just like a dog’s cub born, it is also trying to find out milk from the body of the mother, and exactly in the same place putting his mouth. Or human child also. This is last experience. That proves that life is continual. Just like I came here about two, three years ago? So I immediately, while getting down, I immediately understood, "Oh, the same house." So this is called intuition, means past experience.
We have tendency to analyze things and information, if our mind can understand it we accept it. But it’s not the correct way. We cannot comprehend unlimited, so our attempt to understand God is futile. Intuition should be our guide, but scriptures must be our milestones and lighthouses so we don’t get lost.
Vamsidhari Dasa - September 1, 2004 8:22 pm
So many things have been said here that sparked my interest to add something. I do not know how to paste the block quotes from other posts so you will forgive me if I have to paraphrase. I humbly submit this post without intention to criticize but with the intention to stir thing up and make us think. Please forgive me if at times I will appear harsh.
Gopakumar made an excellent post which leaves little room for additions. It sounds comprehensive and to the point (as he often does). Association is very important and this cannot be stressed enough. If something is repeated throughout the scriptures and constantly called on by Guru Maharaja in lectures and such then IS BOUND TO BE VERY IMPORTANT AND TRUE! From personal experience my life has changed in so many ways and my spiritual understanding and taste have matured in ways previously unimaginable due to the fortune of good association. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.
I humbly disagree with Gour Krishna when he says something to the effect of "don't worry, to each his or her own, we are not all the same and require different things" and so forth (apologies for misquoting). I understand the spirit of compassion and understanding with which he submitted his post (being that he is good and compassionate person who is trying to help). But I would venture to say if you feel that "I also have no interest in philosophical discussion or spiritual understanding" then BE WORRIED BE VERY WORRIED!!!!!
This kind of interest will not just come without any effort on our part. Yes, most of us got where we are due to the infinite mercy of our Guru Maharaja who accepted us and teaches us. At the same time we have to actively seek to minimize those things that keep us uninterested in developing our spiritual life. I don't mean just to preach here from some kind of exalted position since I do not believe to hold one. I am often distracted myself and struggle in my progress as much as anyone else. I am expressing myself in this way to make a point. One cannot sit and wait for change to come from the outside it has to also be initiated on the inside.
In the same way I strongly disagree that we should rely on our intuition regarding the spiritual understanding and advancement. Srila Prabhupada might have been able to do that BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WHO HE WAS AND WHO EMPOWERED HIM. We are neither sunflowers nor blind cubs and in my opinion it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG that "we feel what is right" because we are most often swayed by our feelings in directions that are governed by forces we don't know anything about. The sunflower does not have to know anything about photosynthesis but WE DO. The blind cub is also guided by smell to find mothers milk if her eyes are not functioning. I am coming strongly on this point because people often misunderstand what it means to have "a feeling" or intuition about something. We have critical minds for a reason and we should be able to use it in all aspect of our lives. It is impossible to truly know anything, but unless something is put in question, even temporarily, it cannot be known. Dissection is only as good as one is able to put things back together and use them in ways that are beneficial. Dissection for its own sake is just an empty challenge that actually serves to prevent knowing. We can continue to ASSIMILATE the information but unless we ACCOMODATE it then it can never be a part of us (and here I would agree with Gour Krishna that we are not all the same and have different requirements). We have to be inquisitive in these matters and if we are not then we are doing something wrong. One has to have faith that understanding and spiritual advancement is possible and within reach otherwise why bother? The kind of progress we make is idiosyncratic but we are all progressing we all have the ticket and the most wonderful Guide we can possibly have. If one believes that no understanding will ever come then it probably won't.
Yes, ultimately we can never fully comprehend God because we are limited and God understanding is not only bound to the intellect. By His mercy God makes it possible for some to understand Him and they then teach us about it. Even though this understanding is limited it is NOT FUTILE. By this way we came to understand that God likes butter and often steals it. He also loves and protects the cows so we love and protect them too. We know what He likes to eat and when He likes to take rest. At what time He rises and what His daily activities are. We know who His favorite Gopi is and what She is about. This is not futile knowledge because we base our lives on it (or at least are trying to). The limited knowledge about God and His activities we have can be infinitely helpful to us.
I hope this helps or at least stirs up some thought.
Your humble servant,
Vamsidhari dasa
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - September 1, 2004 10:34 pm
I am coming strongly on this point because people often misunderstand what it means to have "a feeling" or intuition about something. We have critical minds for a reason and we should be able to use it in all aspect of our lives.
I might be mistaken, but the path of spontaneous love (raga-marga) is all about feeling and critical mind is a vulture feeding on the corpse of love.
Gopakumardas - September 1, 2004 10:51 pm
For someone on the raga marg none of these things are an issue. They would not be asking if feeling is OK and if 'disecting' is useful. In bhava and prema all questions are answered.
Short of that, 'feeling' can be misleading. GM speaks about "feelings" or what I think we are speaking of "intuition". There are pramanas for supporting or adjusting what we believe and these are sadhu, sastra, and guru. There is also a fourth he says, this is not emphasized as much...and that is one's heart. What we hear either 'sits well' or not. So one should use one's 'intuition' or 'feeling' combined with these other pramanas to figure something out. 'Feeling' alone is insufficient if it is not backed up by another authority.
Again, a raga-marg devotee would never have posed this question. So Bala, and others like him (most of us) need to go on more then 'feeling'. But regardless, when something doesn't 'sit well' with us, we will question it. This is when sadhu, sastra and guru come in.
example: The idea of Yamadhutas doesn't 'sit well' with me. Some devotees refer to siddhanta (sastra) to explain this to me. Others quote Bhaktivinoda Thakur (sadhu) and finally Guru Maharaja will give his conclusion to me (guru). This I will then look at again internally and see if it is resolved. If not I go through the process again. This is the work. Not as easy as 'feeling' your way through. But they are all important components. The heart does reign king. But we should exercise it before we depend on it.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 1, 2004 11:14 pm
Although in a generous sense we are on the raga-marg, we don't have ruci (taste), therefore we have to follow vidhi (rules and regulations) and use our intelligence and critical thinking (critical in the sense of analytical). By critical thinking, we have discerned that the path of spontaneous love is the highest path. So our inspiration for the raga marga at present is not actually raga, spontaneous attachment, but intelligence.
However, in time we will gain more eligibility for the raga-marga by applying ourselves in this way. The motivation for raga marg is eagerness coming from the heart to follow the Vrajavasis. As much as we do not have that, we are motivated to pursue the raga marg by logic and scriptural injunctions. This kind of motivation is more akin to that which motivates vaidhi bhakti. However, because we have enough eagerness to desire Vraja bhakti rather than Vaikuntha bhakti, we may be considered raga bhaktas without ruci. Sri Jiva Goswami calls us ajata ruci raganuga bhaktas, those following raga bhakti by the inspiration of one who has ruci, although they themselves as of yet do not.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - September 2, 2004 2:39 am
I'm feeling a little deja vu over here. Still, it's always good to discuss Guru, Sadhu, and Sastra. Essentially it seems that Vamsidhari has brought a spirit of debate in responce to my responce to a devotee I perceived as having a crises of faith. I understand your points and I'm happy I could inspire them. However in my understanding it may have been that spirit -inspired thinking and the recognition that inspired thinking is lacking- that the devotee was trying to deal with.
We all know we must hear from Guru, sadhu and sastra. That's food for us. But sometimes when we weak or ill we need to change or reduce our diet. Sometimes it is even appropriate to fast. If we are in a state in which we cannot digest what we are hearing, hearing more of the same will only make things worse. And when I say hearing I mean hearing with the mind. Sometimes we need to stop thinking.
I know you may have contention with this because you are a doctor of psychotherapy. You have your own method I'm sure. You talk about things, you question things, disect things and analyze things. But I'm a former yogi and I have never found that to work for me. I am always listening for the inner answer. When things get rough, I have to get quiet, shut off my mind and find a connection to someting beyond my thoughts. That is my samskara. Probably I assume, and maybe erroniously so, that everyone else has the same samskara.
It is an alien idea for me to hear devotees say that we cannot trust intuiton. I think this attitude is encouraged by those who cannot distinguish real intuition from surface emotion -reactionary emotion. I wonder if psychology acknowledges a distinction? I doubt it since the Buddhists who are the most realized psychologists around do not emphasize that distinction. But then, the Buddhists, like many psychologists do not distinguish the mind from the soul.
My post was responding to my devotee friend who appeared to be having a crises of faith and was reacting to something which had nothing to do with the real problem. I recognize that because I often find myself there as well. A lot of times hearing the correct siddhantic answer does not help and may only make it worse, although since this is Tattva Vikeka, we expect it to evolve into that. I was not advising Bala to abandon reason, sastra, Guru, etc. I was encouraging him to find a piece of sincerity in his heart and to go there and ask Krsna for help. When the light comes on then you can understand so many things and even relish so many arguments.
If we are associating with Guru, sadhus, and shastra, and are sincerely attmpting to follow their instruction then our intuition should not be too far afield. If we have that association then we have some connection to Krsna. Some inner life is available to us. Why would we need to be an advanced devotee or a raga bhakta? That feeling of inner rightness and connection is mostly just a dim reflection of Paramatman anyway. You don't even need to be a devotee to experience that.
During a crises of faith -including that time when our faith is the most chalenged, that is, at the time of death- philosophy will not help us. Only faith will. Prior to that philosophy may strengthen our faith, and after that, faith may be glorified through philosophy, but during those challeging times surrender is the only thing that's important. that's what I was trying to suggest.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - September 2, 2004 3:51 am
... I am always listening for the inner answer. When things get rough, I have to get quiet, shut off my mind and find a connection to someting beyond my thoughts ...
... Why would we need to be an advanced devotee or a raga bhakta? That feeling of inner rightness and connection is mostly just a dim reflection of Paramatman anyway. You don't even need to be a devotee to experience that ...
Jaya! Jaya! I completely agree with you!
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 2, 2004 12:29 pm
Dear Gaura Krsna,
If you are truly not interested in debate, I would humbly suggest that you don’t spike your posts with barbs that are likely to offend people. For example, in your original post, you said:
“Not everone is intellectual, that's a fact. But those who are need to utilize that capacity for Krsna's service. It keeps them out of trouble.” [Gee, I didn’t realize that discussing philosophy is for those otherwise prone to trouble.]
“Some devotees use discussions as a mental exercise.” [Thanks.]
“Such devotees think that is the purpose of the Tattva Viveka site although not everybody is interested in making everything into a philosophical debate. Regardless, we should respect everyone's interests.” [How big of you!]
To make these unflattering insinuations and then point a finger and yell, “Argumentative!” when someone reacts, seems underhanded, although I’m sure it isn’t intentional.
A debate is provoked, you address accusations one side makes, the other side is then obliged to respond, you respond to them, etc., all the while being in the smug position of having the evidence unfolding before everyone’s eyes, “See how argumentative they are?”
In addition, it seemed to me that in your reply to Baladeva you mixed your own issue—that devotees on Tattva-viveka are argumentative—into your response. He didn’t express a frustration with argumentativeness, but rather analyzing the philosophy (among other things).
In response to:
Why would we need to be an advanced devotee or a raga bhakta? That feeling of inner rightness and connection is mostly just a dim reflection of Paramatman anyway. You don't even need to be a devotee to experience that ...
The posts about raga-bhakti by Gopa (excellent post, by the way) and myself were not suggestions for Baladeva, but responses to Yuri’s post:
I might be mistaken, but the path of spontaneous love (raga-marga) is all about feeling and critical mind is a vulture feeding on the corpse of love.
Your latest post has several other points that I would love to address, but I don’t want to be accused of being argumentative. 
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Gaura Krsna Dasa - September 2, 2004 2:37 pm
Dear Vrndaranya,
I am sorry you feel offended by whatever I have said. But I honestly cannot understand the offence you are hearing. Perhaps I will need to consider more deeply what I have written when I can concentrate after work. At the moment I cannot see how I am pointing a finger or making unflattering insinuations. I cannot see how I am being smug. Nor do I have an issue with debate or even argument for that matter although not everybody feels the same. You have quoted 3 statements I made and you seem to think I am being condensending, but I do not see this. By "keeping one out of trouble" I was cutely trying to say that the mind benefits from being engaged in spiritual topics according to one's inclinations. Again, I will consider what you are saying gain later since maybe there is a subtle angle I am not seeing.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 2, 2004 3:54 pm
I was quite surprised that you said you don’t have a problem with debate. To see if my memory was totally off, I checked other posts you made. Here is how I got the impression that you don’t like debate:
On the one hand there is a sharp, scripturally-based critique, and on the other, there is an empathetic recognition…
But I think a problem arises when harsh philosphical critique comes up against people's experiences, feelings and perceptions. This has been mentioned before, but there always seems to be a reaction to the mood of pure debate, wether it is expressed on T.V. or not.
But for the record, the mood of pure argument turns me off. My environment and experience gives me no other option but to attempt to empathize with others, digest them, harmonize them, and move on. At this point, I'm still harboring fear of monastic life partly for these reasons.
Essentially it seems that Vamsidhari has brought a spirit of debate…
“Some devotees use discussions as a mental exercise.”
“Such devotees think that is the purpose of the Tattva Viveka site although not everybody is interested in making everything into a philosophical debate.
Is there some distinction I’m missing? I have taken it that you don’t like when someone disagrees with a point someone has made, preferring empathy.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Gopakumardas - September 2, 2004 4:03 pm
Since I am the one who most often puts his foot in his mouth I would like to share what I am seeing here. Vamsi reacted a bit strongly at Gaura Krishna's post and then Gaura reacted strongly to that.
I will share with you guys what I have to do in talking with people and in making posts. Because I so often sound like a jerk and react emotionally to stuff, I have to always take a deep pause before posting. I need to make sure I do not react aggresively and try to be underhanded and hurtful. I also need to look back and see if I am actually addressing the issue or going off on a tangent ussually related to my own mental stuff.
Despite this, I often fail miserably and need to go back and edit out rude things I say... like I did yesterday on the Yamadhuta post when I called them 'little demon people' which was clearly condescending and rude. So I suggest taking a step away from your post before sending it out to the world.
In relation to Gaura's statement about Buddhists being the best psychologists; I disagree. Buddhists are best at understanding the mind within the context of dismantling it and retiring it. But psychologists are the best psychologists for those who are keeping the mind and have to live with it. Sometimes Yoga and meditation will not help us with our repressed emotional baggage. I truly do recommend therapy for those who are being held back by mental stuff. This is an old debate between Gaura and I (we are flatmates). Some of us have done therapy and benefitted. Some of us study psychology and find it a valid science that Buddhists do not have a monopoly on.
with affection,
Gopa
Taruna Krsna Dasa - September 2, 2004 4:12 pm
I do not ordinarily jump into discussions, but Gaura Krsna seems a bit flustered as to why Vrindaranya thinks he made a few offensive statements, and I thought I would put in my 2 cents on behalf of Gaura Krsna.
I understood Gaura Krsna's comment when he said "Not everone is intellectual, that's a fact. But those who are need to utilize that capacity for Krsna's service. It keeps them out of trouble." As he commented, it is "cute". For me, Tattva-viveka is a great why to keep my mind and thoughts on Krsna Conscious topics. If I did not engage in reading the treads frequently, who knows where my mind would wander. But I can also see how one could take offense to this comment, looking at it another way. I think it would have been good to replace "Krsna's service" with "Krsna Consciousness". And saying instead that it keeps their minds out of trouble. Is this how you intended your statement to be read, Gaura Krsna?
I don't think it is very fair to quote "Some devotees use discussions as a mental exercise" without including the rest of the sentence which was "to develop skills necesary for preaching and they are encouraged to do so by Guru Maharaja." I do not see this as offensive. To say learning preaching techniques is a "mental exercise" might be considered a little dry, but I didn't take notice. I would say that analyzing discussions is a "mental exercise". It challenges my understanding, and opens my mind to better understand different topics, and different approaches to preaching about it, and from different angles also.
"Such devotees think that is the purpose of the Tattva Viveka site although not everybody is interested in making everything into a philosophical debate. Regardless, we should respect everyone's interests." I think you need to look at all of these quotes in context of his original post. What came before it, and what came after it. This one for example, when quoted right after the quote "Some devotees use discussions as a mental exercise", could easily be offensive to some of us (I know I would!). But that is only if they are in this context, but they are not, and I understood what Gaura Krsna was trying to say (at least I think so Dasa!).
Ofcourse someone could take it in different ways (as has already been shown) but I think it is unfair to choose short quotes when they are out of the original context.
Please forgive any of my offenses.
YS,
Taruna Krsna dasa
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - September 2, 2004 4:29 pm
We are all different; we have different backgrounds, different approaches and different tools. Sometimes our writing and speaking skills are lacking (I’m talking only about myself here) and we can be grossly misunderstood. None the less we are here for the same thing -- trying to understand who we are, who is God and what is our position is relation to Him.
I'd rather "feel" than "disect." Am I just in a different bhav of understanding?
So let us continue our discussion, I think it’s an important topic -- the role of intuition in our path.
Gopakumardas - September 2, 2004 4:32 pm
I don't think it is very fair to quote "Some devotees use discussions as a mental exercise" without including the rest of the sentence which was "to develop skills necesary for preaching and they are encouraged to do so by Guru Maharaja." I do not see this as offensive.
Very good point Tarun. Actually, I know Das (Gaura Krishna...sorry) and he does value those devotees who make it their business to learn siddhanta. He knows they will be the keepers of the line because of their knowledge. Things he says should be looked at within the context that he does value those who are involved in debate and argumentation. His big point I think was, "It's OK Bala, if you are not into depate and philosophy. You are not the only one." I believe the other statements he made are obviously other points he snuck in there without realizing it. I do understand why Vrindaranya takes exception to them and is addressing them.
Shyam Gopal Das - September 2, 2004 5:44 pm
This discussion leaves some questions unanswered.
The main one being: is discussing philosophy just meant for keeping up the parampara and preaching?
Others are:
Could one go without the philosophy and just chant and use one's intuition?
And is philosophy only meant for people who have the material intelligence to analyze it?
What should one do if one is not attracted to philosophical works?
I think the differences of opinion in this thread are caused by different points of view on the answers to these questions. That is just my humble opinion.
Audarya-lila Dasa - September 2, 2004 5:57 pm
Maybe the lesson to be learned is that we all need to think carefully about what we post. I liked your point Gopa about ruminating about what your saying before actually posting your thoughts. Still, communication in this manner - electronically - is inherently flawed. Most studies suggest that the greater content in human interaction is non-verbal messages and a very small percentage of the message is actually contained in the actual verbal content. This is a very important point. How can we really convey feelings and intent in this type of format for communication?
I believe that we should all give each other the benefit of the doubt that we respect each other and that our intent is never to denigrate or ridicule each other. If we do that then we can read posts a bit more carefully and rather than go on the 'counter attack' as a knee jerk response to percieved attacks on us personally - we can gently seek clarification from those whose messages strike a chord of discomfort in us.
It's just a thought......
On the point of a rational approach versus an intuitive feeling approach - this is a very big topic. There is a big danger in going over board on the rational approach - we lose touch we our feelings. On the other hand, our feelings should be tempered by scripture such that we can discern genuine spiritual feeling from feelings which are not conducive to spiritual growth. Everyone in the world is moving based to some extent on their own feelings and intuition but obviously most peoples intuition misses the mark.
As we develop a community around Guru Maharaja and connect as family members I think it is very important that we develop our feelings and our thoughts. What are the ornaments of Bhakti? Compassion, freedom from envy, charity, tolerance, truthfulness etc. We should look deeply at ourselves and see that our interactions with others are developing along these lines. If they aren't, then we need to reassess our position and application of the teachings in our lives.
enough for now. Just wanted to add a little bit to the discussion here.
Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Gaura Krsna Dasa - September 2, 2004 6:27 pm
Dear devotees,
I appreciate that Tarun, Juri, and Gopa can catch the gist if what I tried to say. And I also appreciate the great effort Vrndaranya has made to point out the inconsistancies in things I have said. She is correct; I am not especially fond of debate -mostly because I am not mentally vigorous enough to be successful and also because I lack sastric knowledge, memory, and patience to substantiate everything from Vaisnava scripture. That gives me a considerable handicap. For that reason I should not be participating in group forums like this due to lack of qualification, but because I cannot control the urge to speak, I comment anyway. At the same time, I do understand the necessity for more intelligent devotees to engage in tattva-viveka and I was trying to suggest to Bala that we should repect such devotees even if we are not interested in what they are doing. I request that you recognize that I am not an advanced devotee. I have not even acheived nistha, and given that, my thinking is subject to change as time progresses. Vrndaranya has pulled statements from from a time when I was frustrated with TV because I did not understand the intentions of different devotees. It was not clear to me that some devotees are engaged in "pure tattva-viveka" and others are not on the same page. Like Gaudiya Vaisnavism in general, there is a pure ideal and there is life for most devotees, and there is also a big gap in between. I am often very frustrated with that gap as are others and this sometimes results in devotees being timid to associate on Tattva Viveka site. This has been dissussed before both online and off, and if memory serves, Vrndaranya was not able (or comfortable) with accomidating this difference. However I have noticed that in reality she does. She is not always aggresively engaged in tattva-viveka and she is actualy very generous in her dealing with devotees online and in person. So perhaps her attitudes have changed over time as well.
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 2, 2004 8:43 pm
I very much appreciate Gaura Krsna’s honesty, and I feel that he has opened a door to discuss some very important questions. Of course, I do not agree with his assessment of his qualification, but appreciate the humility. I still felt prinked by a couple of barbs in the new post, but perhaps this is only over-sensitivity on my part.
Gaura Krsna spoke of a gap between the ideal of Gaudiya Vaisnavism and the reality of most devotees. He mentioned that this frustrated him as well as other devotees and that this frustration sometimes results in devotees being timid to associate on Tattva-viveka. He then said that he recalled that I was not able (or comfortable) to accommodate the difference in previous discussions, but that he noticed in reality I could.
On this thread and in other threads, this gap has been looked at in terms of thinking/philosophy and feeling/intuition. Another devotee has mentioned to me that those who are only interested philosophy are alienating those who are interested in feeling. If I understand correctly, this is also a concern of Gaura Krsna. Therefore, I thought we could discuss this.
My opinion is that the problem isn’t philosophy vs. reality, per se, but rather philosophy vs. reality that is opposed to siddhanta. In other words, no one is going to have a problem with someone who says they’re felt enlivened going to a program, or that they have been having trouble chanting and need inspiration, or even that they can’t follow any of the regulations and that they feel bad about it; the problem arises when devotee’s reality is not in accordance with Krsna conscious philosophy. I think the real problem arises in differences in opinion on how to approach this situation.
Another important topic is how far to go in discussions. What about discussions that turn into heated debates or discussions that are critical of someone’s understanding (such as in the Siksa Guru book discussion). I don’t expect that we will come to total agreement on these issues, but I thought it would be valuable to discuss them.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 2, 2004 8:57 pm
One more point. As a spiritual family, I think it is very healthy to be able to have disagreements, as long as they don’t turn toxic. I think it is good to express feelings, within reason, lest they fester. I hope I haven’t overstepped any boundaries and I apologize if I offended anyone. I fear a family where everyone always agrees and no one gets upset occasionally. I also wanted to mention my great fondness for Gaura Krsna as well as all the other devotees.
Babhru Das - September 2, 2004 9:47 pm
I have been reluctant to enter this discussion because I don't really know any of the participants, beyond our discussions on this board. In fact, I have met only a very few TV members personally: Swami, Jagadishvara and Dhira-lalita, Satyadeva, Satananda, Agnideva and Ratnachintamani. I must have met Citta Hari and maybe Dayal Govinda when Maharaja visited San Diego in 1999, but that was probably little more than a smile and pranams, unless they were sitting close enough to hear our conversation at the farm. So I'm painfully unaware of many of the personal dynamics of the community; nevertheless, I do have a couple of thoughts about some of the things discussed here.
A couple of us have suggested that maybe they shouldn't be participating here because they're less philosophically inclined than others. Actually, this board is for all of us whose lives have been strongly influenced by Tripurari Maharaja's preaching. Just as a reminder, here's some of what he says in his welcoming post (I'm boldfacing some words and phrases to highlight them):
Tattva-viveka means deliberation (viveka) on truth (tattva). This exercise is necessary for devotees. Let them study the philosophical canvass on which the art of Krsna is drawn with a view to fuel their practice with the appropriate conceptual orientation to their ideal. The attempt to realize the truth can be aided considerably by theoretical knowledge of the same.
I originally conceived of this forum first and foremost as an aid to facilitate meaningful philosophical discussion of Guadiya siddhanta. I would like all of my disciples to participate in it in proportion to their capacity. Not all devotees will excel in studying and discussing the philosophy of Gaudiya Vedanta. Some have a propensity for this more than others. Still all can participate on some level and benefit. Asking questions is as important as giving answers.
Beyond philosophical discussion the forum also provides a digital meeting place for devotees, who while centered in the same place spiritually, often physically live at great distances from one another. Here they can share news, find out about important events, be in touch with the preaching field, get to know one another, etc.
This is clear enough that I can't find anything to add.
We've also seen some discussion about differences between analytical and intuitive thinking, as if the two were mutually exclusive. As Audarya-lila mentioned, I think this is a false dichotomy. The two should motivate our inquiry and practice in tandem (with the balance different for each of us, I suppose), perhaps symbiotically. It may be the differnences in that balance that influences some misunderstandings here.
And speaking of misunderstanding, I want to point out that we're using writing to communicate here, and it's not a chat room. It's perfectly okay to take time to consider our questions or our replies to others' posts. What I often do is print out posts I want to respond to and compose off-line, then paste my post in when I think it's ready. Srila Prabhupada sometimes said that the mark of a gentleman (and today I guess we could say gentle person) is that he thinks twice before speaking. Writing certainly affords us the opportunity to do so.
I found the candor in Baladeva's first post on this thread rather charming. It was a perfect opportunity for us to encourage him to focus on what he does appreciate, what he does have a taste for. That's what I liked about Gaura Krishna's and Gopa's first posts. Among the ways devotees express their love for each other is guhyam akhyati pricchati, discussing confidential topics together. That should, it seems to me, include having enough confidence in each other to reveal our hearts. Those of us still struggling can share that struggle with those we trust. Those of us who have some realization can also share that with those they trust.
I hope this doesn't sound condescending; I really just hope to share some of what has occurred to me as I read this thread.
Dayal Govinda Dasa - September 2, 2004 10:42 pm
Time for my 2 pence (approx 3.6 cents)
I would like to thank Babhru as he brought out a point that I was about to discuss, that of Guru maharaja's welcoming statement to the forum.
Clearly Guru maharaja wants all of his disciples to discuss and understand as much of the philosophy as they have the capacity, in this we should push ourselves such that our intellect is fully engaged in Krsna's service. We should, of course, be able to feel comfortable enough to ask questions about our understanding of siddhanta, or just make posts based on our day to day experience within the realm of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
It is how others should relate to these that I feel some of us differ.
As Vrindaranya said
…the problem isn’t philosophy vs. reality, per se, but rather philosophy vs. reality that is opposed to siddhanta
As sadhakas we need to be aware that we are trying to develop real feelings for Gaudiya vaisnavism which (whether we like it or not) run, in one sense, opposed to the 'feelings' and 'intuitions' we experience whilst identified with our present mind and senses. A distinction needs to be made, and no amount of self analysis will determine which is which, that is why we are in the predicament we are in, and that is the role of Guru, Sadhu, and Sastra.
I agree with Vrindaranya when she says that a family should be able to voice disagreements with each other and work them out together, in this way we can all become stronger (it is when things are left unsaid that I start to worry) but sometimes things are not ok and we should feel comfortable enough with each other that we can say so.
Naturally there is a gap between the ideal of Gaudiya Vaisnavism and where the majority of devotees are at, after all that is the position of the Sadhaka, neither baddha nor mukta but somewhere inbetween.
Obviously not all of us have the same capacity, I may talk big but am an intellectual lightweight in comparrison with Vrindaranya, but still I have chosen to engage myself in such a way that I am challenged daily, whatever that happens to mean for me. This is the key. To work within our own capacity yet feel challenged in our endevours will truly bear fruit.
There is another difference that is sometimes all too apparent, that between the monks and the lay community. It is expected that we will have different outlooks, I just guess there is times when both feel that their points of view are not being valued for what they.
In service
Dayal Govinda dasa
Vamsidhari Dasa - September 3, 2004 12:11 am
Dear siblings and friends,
I am so elated to have been able to stir up some debate by my post and hear some of your arguments. My intention was not to placate but to upset. If I appeared to be aggressive that’s because I intended it. However, I did not mean to offend or minimize anyone and I did make very careful statements avoiding ad hominem arguments. I reacted against what I thought was a bad advice to someone who complained about lack of understanding or interest in the aspects of philosophy and the Krishna Lila. Sometimes the best help is to shake someone and make him/her think about things rather then to say everything will be fine, its OK, you are not suited for this and that. I find such approach to be condescending. Complacency cannot lead to progress. I also reacted to intuition feeling thing that was reminiscent IN MY READING of some New Age-ish attitudes which are upsetting to me.
Vrindaranya, Gopa, Dayal Govinda and others have made many of the points I wanted to reiterate. I will comment on some of the things I thought were misconstrued about what I was saying in my previous post and dispel some misconception about why I am saying what I am saying.
I am very leery of "intuitive-feeling" approaches since they can run risk of making one rigid and fundamentalist in their spiritual life. I think I do not need to mention a particular religious organization that is doing just that. At the same time relaying strictly on the intellect can have a similar deadening effect to spiritual life. So the balance of the two that is suggested by many of you is greatly appreciated here.
In my previous post I did not want to dispense psychological advice or flaunt my "knowledge" in these matters since I think it to be inappropriate for this forum. At the same time I cannot but speak in a way that is informed by who I am as a professional. And this, I believe, requires some explanation. I am a Doctor of Psychology not psychotherapy (as previously characterized). The former being a science and the later an art of putting that science into practice. I am also a psychoanalytic psychotherapist which says something about a kind of theory I subscribe to. BUT MOST OF ALL I AM ASPIRING TO SERVE MY GURU WITH HUMILITY AND AFFECTION.
I feel offended to be compared to the Buddhist and believe that to call them the "supreme psychologist" denotes lack of knowledge about both Buddhism and psychology. To say that the psychologist does not understand feelings because the Buddhists do not is absolutely illogical. It would be like saying that physicians do not understand cancer because the Christian Scientists have not found a cure for it yet. Gopa has already made this point but I feel the need to say it again: BUDDHIST ARE BHUDDIST AND PSYCHOLOGIS ARE PSYCHOLOGISTS (that is in case someone might still have a doubt).
If I have spoken as a psychologist about feelings and intuitions THAT IS BECAUSE I AM WELL QUIALIFIED TO DO SO. At the same time if I did that I would have most likely privileged the feelings over everything else because that is what I do in my work. BUT I did not do that because I do not think that is appropriate in our spiritual practice. I also put in a lot of though into what I was writing even though I knew that some might not like it.
Forgive me if I sound as a psychologist in what will follow BUT I want to make a point again: IT IS HARD TO HEAR FOR EVERYONE THAT THEIR EMOTIONAL LIFE IS NOT UNDER THEIR CONTROL AND THAT THEY ARE LARGELY IGNORANT OF WHY THEY FEEL THE WAY THEY FEEL AND WHY THEY SAY WHAT THEY SAY. This is largely because we all want to think that we are the masters in our own house otherwise things get too crazy. So this forum lends itself nicely to reflection on how what we say and do here affects others differently from what we might have originally intended. I do believe that spiritual practice is often used to obscure personal and psychological issues which makes spiritual progress very hard if not impossible. It is dangerous, in my opinion, to confuse an internally generated whim and a feeling with a communication from the Paramatma or the intuition stemming from the Divine. I would humbly submit that most of us are cluttered with pain, loss, sadness, lust, envy, jealousy and NARCISSISAM (to name a few) which prevent us from achieving uninterrupted communication with the Paramatma and being guided from within no matter how hard we try to quiet our minds. That is why we are fortunate to be guided from the outside by our Guru Maharaja and follow his example.
I have to repeat that we are not sunflowers and we are not even TREE HUGGERS (both greatly upset me). We have to push ourselves to be inquisitive and develop critical thinking otherwise we will fall into the ISKONian rhetoric (and we all know where that leads).
I am saying this to make a point that we need the other to get to know ourselves. The self analysis is a lofty idea but an impossible practice because we just cannot see ourselves as well as others do. We are invested in not seeing who we are and make considerable and constant effort not to know even if we are on a spiritual path.
I appreciate everything that the monks have to say because they put in practice 24/7 what they preach. This is something I am unable to do. Even if I cannot follow completely the ideal I am inspired that others, at least can approximate it and constantly draw on that as to how to better my life. At the same time I do appreciate and empathize with the trials and tribulations of the householders (even though I am renting) since that is the life I am leading now.
I beg all of you to forgive my offences inadvertently committed in my posts and ask to please tolerate my grandiose professional self rampantly apparent in this post despite my intention to aspire for humility and offer some help.
Yours in service and with gratitude,
Vamsidhari dasa
Swami - September 3, 2004 1:18 am
. . . we need the other to get to know ourselves. The self analysis is a lofty idea but an impossible practice because we just cannot see ourselves as well as others do.
How true! And thus the appearance of Sri Caitanya, that Sri Krsna might see himself from Radha's perspective and better understand himself.
Babhru Das - September 3, 2004 2:44 am
Thanks, Vamsidhari, for sharing yourself so generously here. I also must admit that much of my perception and expression are to some extent influenced by who I am professionally. I've been a teacher almost all of the last 25 years, and for 15 years I have taught college English, mostly composition. My background is in rhetoric, so I have a tendency to see musch of our interaction through a rhetorical lens.
I want to quickly address something Vamsidhari said:
I reacted against what I thought was a bad advice to someone who complained about lack of understanding or interest in the aspects of philosophy and the Krishna Lila. Sometimes the best help is to shake someone and make him/her think about things rather then to say everything will be fine, its OK, you are not suited for this and that. I find such approach to be condescending. Complacency cannot lead to progress.
I'm not sure that the other approaches to Baladeva's distress were condescending. Of course it's often more beneficial to shake someone up, to really challenge them. However, as a teacher (and a preacher), I find that how we respond depends an awful lot on the relationship we have with the other party. If I had a well-developed big-brother relationship with Baladeva, and if I thought he were able to respnd to it, I might have also taken the heavy approach. But I dont' have that kind of relationship with him; all I know of him is what I read in the few posts he has made here. More than that, my experience has shown me that sometimes we need to meet the other party where they actually are and gradually move them from there. I think this is what Guru Maharaja refers to when he discusses his book-distribution days. I've heard him describe how he had to discover the other person's mentality and find a way to appeal to that. I remember one incident where a man to whom he had sold a book had second thoughts and came to the temple in the evening to get his money back. Maharaja recognized him and went to speak with him himself. After twenty minutes the guy was all smiles and had bought several more Bhagavatams.
And Dayal addresses the difference in perspective between the monks and the lay members of the forum. It's a fact that a monk's experience and perspective are very likely to be much different from those of someone who works in the world to maintain a family, or to maintain himself or herself because they're not well suited at that time for monastic life. I do remember going house to house around Honolulu when I was a brahmachari, and, even though we came from at least middle-class families, our monastic conditioning was such that we were often surprised or even appalled by the amount of stuff folks had in their living rooms. Now we all have houses of our own, and the stuff that goes along with it, even though we try to keep it to a minimum. (It's shocking how quickly it accumulates! And I know that I'll have to leave it all behind soon, either voluntarily or involuntarily.) I think that if the monks and householders can be open and appreciative of each others' perspectives, we can mutually benefit.
Babhru Das - September 3, 2004 4:11 am
Babhru das reposted Guru Maharaja's original welcome to TV and highlighted some key points. I would like to highlight the last paragraph:I don't see a forum on TV to facilitate this. Perhaps a place can be added for this type of interaction and association?Beyond philosophical discussion the forum also provides a digital meeting place for devotees, who while centered in the same place spiritually, often physically live at great distances from one another. Here they can share news, find out about important events, be in touch with the preaching field, get to know one another, etc.
I would think that the Sadhu Sanga forum could serve this purpose, along with Announcements. Its description makes it appear a pretty flexible forum. I think it's really just a matter of trying one out to see how it works. I know that I have really appreciated some of the more personal posts because they help me get to know something about some of the other members.
Vamsidhari Dasa - September 3, 2004 4:15 am
I wanted to briefly comment on posts by Babhru Prabhu and Baladeva. First of all Babhru prabhu I do appreciate your points and I am completely in agreement with you about way of presentation. I am aware that the way I speak can sound more demagogical then pedagogical. This is because I have firm conviction about what I say. Sometimes this kind of presentation is not well received. I only used what others said as a jumping board to make some arguments of my own. I purposefully avoided speaking directly to a particular person to circumvent getting too much into the personal.
I said these things because I care very deeply about both Gour Krishna and Baladeva and in case there was any confusion let me underscore that. I hope that both of them know that despite the tone of my recent post.
I am sure that if one of your students would tell you that they find no interest in Shakespeare you would get concerned and find a way to tell them that wanting them to appreciate Shakespeare’s place in the English literature. I am sure that you would not tell him or her to go read a comic book if they cannot understand everything about Shakespeare.
As to my quick response to what Baladeva said: "As I've tried to explain, most of what I read here is too high or uninteresting to me which makes me think, "Bala, you'll never get it, this isn't the place for you." Its discouraging for me."
Here is my ADVICE: Please try to get it and do not use the lack you perceive in yourself as an excuse to alienate yourself but as an impetus to come closer and encourage yourself to learn.
"Some of the replies to my original post have pointed out things I had forgotten or didn't recognize which helped to reassure me. Some have stressed the importance of debate and critical thinking in order to make progress. I agree. But...it must also be understood that one size does not fit all. Not everyone shares the same level of education, background, mental capacity, etc."
No not everyone shares the same capacities in these things, thank God, the world would be so boring! But try to find your size then and look for something interesting in what only appears unamusing. I do not believe that there is such thing as Krishna light because He is heavy and dense but He is not unapproachable due to a lack of intellect. In the end I do not believe that you lack intellect to understand these things and that is why I am adressing it strongly.
With much affection,
Vamsidhari dasa
Shyam Gopal Das - September 3, 2004 8:52 am
I have been thinking whether Bhagavad Gita verses 10.10 and 10.11 could be related to what is discussed here.
BG 10.10: "To those who are constantly devoted, who worship me with love, I give the power of discrimination by which they come to me"
BG 10.11: "Out of compassion for them, I dwelling within their soul destroy the darkness born of ignorance with the effulgent lamp of knowledge"
Some people on this board are more philosophically inclined than others and some have a better command of the scriptures than others. In that light, I could see how I am following Krishna Consciousness 101 and others follow more graduate courses. And relative to which course we follow now, it may be hard sometimes to follow a discussion because we can't see the practical implications of it. But that does not mean we should not try to understand, because later on we will be able to see it. And we should want to see it. That's why Sri Guru came into our lives, to delineate on the feeling and philosophy of bhakti. Maybe Bg 10.10 could be read in that way too, if we are devoted, Sri Guru will come into our lives to look for us and train us so we are able to see reality from illusion and experience it that way.
For us, sadhakas, the discipline to be devoted to sadhana bhakti may be hard and bitter. And we may feel not attracted to philosophy sometimes, and Baladev's sincerity to confirm that is a step forward to becoming attracted again. Isn't feeling bitter a natural condition of our state? Srila Rupa Gosvami states in his Upadesamrta:
"The holy name, character, pastimes, and activities of Krsna are all transcendentally sweet like sugar candy. Although the tongue of one afflicted by the jaundice of avidya cannot taste anything sweet, it is wonderful that simply by carefully chanting these sweet names every day, a natural relish awakens within his tongue, and his disease is gradually destroyed at the root."
Thus, when this relish is not awakened, we should be more careful. in chanting, but too in discussing and understanding our world through the eye of sastra, sadhu and guru.
The point is that we need philosophy to see our world in the proper perspective. Some may desire just philosophy and others may desire just spirituality or religion, but didn't Srila Prabhupada say: "Religion without philosophy is sentiment, and philosophy without religion is mental speculation."
So love to know and know to love.
Your humble servant,
Shyam Gopal das
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - September 3, 2004 3:22 pm
Here is my ADVICE: Please try to get it and do not use the lack you perceive in yourself as an excuse to alienate yourself but as an impetus to come closer and encourage yourself to learn.
Sri Rupa Gosvami -- Sri Upadesamrta -- Verse SevenAho! Those whose tongues are afflicted by the jaundice of avidya (or, in other words, those who are afflicted by the ignorance born of being indifferent to Sri Krsna from a time without beginning) cannot relish the nectarean names, form, qualities and pastimes of Sri Krsna, which are compared to the sweetest sugar-candy. Instead, these attributes taste bitter to them. But if with great faith one regularly takes this sugar-candy of chanting and hearing the transcendental names, form, qualities and pastimes of Sri Krsna, it gradually becomes relishable to him and destroys at the root his disease, the jaundice of avidya, or indifference to Sri Krsna. In other words he becomes spontaneously attached to Sri Krsna.
Dear Vamsidhari dasa, I've enjoyed your posts a lot and was wondering if you can elaborate a little more on this:
I am very leery of "intuitive-feeling" approaches since they can run risk of making one rigid and fundamentalist in their spiritual life. I think I do not need to mention a particular religious organization that is doing just that.
Thank you very much!
Gopakumardas - September 3, 2004 4:25 pm
Here is my ADVICE: Please try to get it and do not use the lack you perceive in yourself as an excuse to alienate yourself but as an impetus to come closer and encourage yourself to learn.
Love this! Actually, this is very true. We are the first one's to rationalize our complacency. To be honest, Bala seems quite simple minded...but he's not. He is quite brainy. When he listens he gets it. I have seen it before. No offense, I have said it before, it is laziness that gets in most of our ways. Granted, having to get up early to work 8 hours for five or six days straight is rough! What to speak of some of you that have children. So with the three hours left to the day we want to just vegetate sometimes (I am projecting here)... but some effort goes a long way.
Sri Rupa Gosvami -- Sri Upadesamrta -- Verse SevenBut if with great faith one regularly takes this sugar-candy of chanting and hearing the transcendental names, form, qualities and pastimes of Sri Krsna, it gradually becomes relishable to him and destroys at the root his disease, the jaundice of avidya, or indifference to Sri Krsna.
Very nice pramana Yuri. You speak of intuition and yet you still come up with scripture to back what you think. See, this is the way. It is a relationship between all the valid forms of pramana. If you can make a point and substantiate it with Guru, sadhu and sastra then it is valid. Anyone can find a scripture to back up almost anything. They can also find the words of a sadhu (albeit often out of context) to support about anything. But the idea is to combine these. Find a powerful representative of Sri Krsna (guru) to back up a point that both scripture (sastra) and precedent (sadhu) have substantiated and you've got something worth listening to. I know this is not always possible, but it is best.
I have thought much about this lately. GM often makes statements that will turn one's head around. They are bold and sometimes controversial seeking to shake things up a bit. But the amazing thing is that each statement is backed up by this pramana system! He has his pramana in the background of what he says. Sometimes he states it, and sometimes he does not. But if one asks, it's there! The other day it happened that Bodhayana Maharaja was at Audarya and when GM was speaking Bodhayana Maharaja interjected with a sloka. Gm then said, "He is quoting the pramana for what i am saying." It was great, because I could see power that is there in speaking boldly with proper support of the pramana system. It is also what keeps the system vital. GM has insights that he shares with us. But they are also supported by Guru sadhu and sastra. His unique contribution is the manner it is expressed, the emphasis of the expression, the charm of his person, and the feeling he has for what he is speaking of.
We have to push ourselves to be inquisitive and develop critical thinking otherwise we will fall into the ISKONian rhetoric (and we all know where that leads).
Vamsi said this. He and I spoke on the phone yesterday about these things and we spoke a bit about this. It sounds a bit 'us and them', but I will share what I interpret here based on what we spoke of. I feel that much of the inapprpriate understanding the greater mission has about Prabhupada and Vaisnavism has to do with the fact that they often only substantiate things with their 'feeling' which often does not amount to much (for any of us- as Vamsi says we are plagued with so many anarthas). So they try to make arguments based on these feelings as the primary guide and pramana and try to find sastra or sadhu (Prabhupada's words) to back it up. They rarely seek the thought of another sadhu or precedent (as we see in ritvik) and as I said earlier anything can be backed up by scripture if you are savvy enough or have a Vedabase. I have done "cheap scholarship" before where I make a point I want to make and find something that supports it in the Vedabase. It is underhanded to do this because no one can rightfully say you are wrong without 'critisizing' Prabhupada or sastra. All points should be supported well, ussually by all of these pramanas. The truth is that if you make a good point and find sastra to back it, there should probably be precedent also to back it. If not, maybe it should be re-examined.
sorry, I went off on a tangent.
with affection,
Gopa
Citta Hari Dasa - September 3, 2004 6:27 pm
Baladeva has expressed a lack of interest in the philosophy and in the lilas; which together amount to Krsna consciousness. To me the issue revolves more around how one can generate and maintain interest in the subject rather than around how much intellectual capacity one has to understand what's being said about it. One who has interest will ask questions and try to understand which will naturally happen according to his or her capacity. Guru Maharaja has often said "Where there's a will, there's a way." We're not discussing highly abstract ideas like String Theory or advanced math here so it's not a question of "Why can't I understand?" rather it's "Why am I not motivated to do what it takes to understand?"
I think the answer to this is quite simple: due to material conditioning one cannot remain interested in this unless one keeps the company of those who are interested in it. How can we expect to make any progress if we do not interact on a regular basis with those who are more advanced than us? This is true in secular life as well as spiritual life, so to me it's a matter of shaping one's life in such a way that we can progress. This will sooner or later take us out of our comfort zone. Inviting a sadhu into our life means our life will change. We have the choice to either flow with that wave and flourish or avoid it and stagnate. Life or death, the choice is ours.
Baladev - September 3, 2004 7:34 pm
The World don't move
To the Beat of just one drum
What might be right for you
May not be right for some
I've had some time to think, and I'd like to clarify some things...
Lilas: I originally said I was not attracted to or charmed by the lilas. That was a bit harsh and not entirely true. I do appreciate them. My concern was that my appreciation for them is not to the degree I witness here. So many seem to relish in them, and I am not charmed to do so. I was concerned that something was lost on me and wanted to express that concern. Perhaps it is a matter of time and understanding.
Philisophical discussion and debate: I mentioned a disinterest in discussion and debate. I do see the importance of it. While there's nothing wrong with mere debate, philosophy and discussion, there comes a point when enough is enough and it becomes "beating a dead horse". At that point, to me, words just turn in to blah blah blah blah blah blah. And I think, "ok, we get it, let's move on already!" My real distaste, I guess, is not debate for the sake of comprehension, but debate for debate's sake.
Spiritual understanding: I also wrote that I was not interested in spiritual understanding. Obviously not true, given the fact that I am here partcipating in the grand thing. I just personally don't feel the need to know or understand everything about everything to appreciate and accept it.
Again, the usual disclaimer of no intent to be offensive. These are just my own personal thoughts of my own current level of comfort on this spiritual path.
Babhru Das - September 3, 2004 8:43 pm
I said these things because I care very deeply about both Gour Krishna and Baladeva and in case there was any confusion let me underscore that.
I assumed that the strength of your presentation was based on such concern. I meant to explain my own approach, as you seemed to characterize anything weaker than yours as a compromise that would do no good. I had no intention of criticizing you.
I am sure that if one of your students would tell you that they find no interest in Shakespeare you would get concerned and find a way to tell them that wanting them to appreciate Shakespeare’s place in the English literature. I am sure that you would not tell him or her to go read a comic book if they cannot understand everything about Shakespeare.
Well, I also know the limits of my relationship with the 6,000 college students I've taught over the last 15 years. My approach is to try to share my enthusiasm for the subject, whether it's literature or writing, and to show as systematically as I can what it is about the subject that is responsible for that enthusiasm. I don't fault anyone for being less excited about writing or Shakespeare (or whoever) than I am. I work hard to give them what I can, but it's up to them to take it. Not many have come up to me and asked what they have to do to become English professors, but when they do, it's pretty cool. But many of them have gone out and done other things that may be even more important. (Even fewer have asked me how they can better understand Bhagavad-gita! )
Vamsidhari Dasa - September 3, 2004 9:02 pm
I wanted to answer Yuri's question and address few other things but before I do that let me just say:
Shyam Gopl thank you for your post I really appreciate it especially because it shows us what it really means to hear and think. I think that if you go on like this you will soon reach those "graduate courses" you spoke of, AND I HOPE SOON TO FOLLOW.
Your post it is also a nice segway into answering Yuri's question because it shows what it means to gather evidence. You went directly to Sri Krishna to elucidate the points we are making that is very scholarly: going to the source. Granted that there are many sources some are better then others. In scholarly research when one reviews literature the most important works are cited first to support one's main contentions and then some illustration is also made by references to minor works and sometimes even personal communications from a particular author about the question at hand. It would not be considered a scholarly work if one only cited personal communications such as personal letters, voice recording during weddings, musings in the shower, etc.
That is exactly what I wanted to say about ISKON and Gopa clarified that for us so nicely. This past weekend Guru Maharaja also spoke about dangers of substantiating points about sidhanta based on 24 hours recordings of Srila Prabhupada regardless of situations in which he spoke.
This brings me to Yuri's question about my leeriness regarding "intuitive-feeling" approaches. Again Gopa clarified that one can justify one's feelings about anything by spending couple of minutes on the internet or with the Veda base and making it into scriptural injunctions. ISKON was the institution I was referring to.
I was also broadly speaking that you cannot make a religion based on your feelings. Here I was expressing my opinion regarding a myriad of "spiritual paths" that do just that (i.e. new age "philosophy" and comparing ourselves to sunflowers had just that feel to me). In the most extreme cases people talk about their "spirituality" based on what feels good to them. So many times I've heard statements like: "Well, I believe that God is in this mushroom and He put himself there so that I can eat the mushroom and be closer to Him." Or "if we just all love one another and sit naked in the forest holding hands God will come out from within us because we are all God." I think you got my point: people make religions out of their feelings and this leads not only to fundamentalism (ISKON) but also to lack of spirituality (new age).
Again, to go deep inside for answers is good in proportion to having an outside point of reference in Whom your spiritual progress can be reflected.
It occurred to me that there could be some misunderstanding about what I considered "intuitive-feeling" approaches. I do not feel competent enough to fully discuss this but, in my humble opinion, bhav and rag marg are not constituted from the feelings we commonly experience. These are different kinds of feeling that are actually, in my opinion, generated from the Outside but experienced inwardly. We often use these words colloquially even though most of us don't have a direct experience with them. I am reminded of a lecture in which Guru Maharaja spoke about what is the culmination of out path. In order to move forward we need to clean the temple so much and incessantly. At the and when it is all sparkly, nice and clean THEN CLEAN IT AGAIN.
Regarding Baladeva's last post I wanted to say that it is a perfect example of utility of such a forum. Even though his original intention and questions might have been different from the answers he got I hope it was a learing experience for all of us (I hope this will be reflected in ways other then actually DELETING the original post). Once one commits something to paper and offers it to others then the writing assumes its own life and brings its own results. What comes out of it can no longer be controlled by the originator. That, in my opinion, is the beauty of communicating with others.
In conclusion I wanted to thank every one who appreciated my posts and who encouraged me to say more. I am immensely pleased that in this way I was able to do some service to my Guru Deva and all of you who were interested.
Humbly yours,
Vamsidhari dasa
Citta Hari Dasa - September 3, 2004 9:41 pm
While there's nothing wrong with mere debate, philosophy and discussion, there comes a point when enough is enough and it becomes "beating a dead horse". At that point, to me, words just turn in to blah blah blah blah blah blah. And I think, "ok, we get it, let's move on already!"
Just when the point of 'enough is enough' is reached will vary from person to person and is directly related to one's interest level. If we take our Guru Maharaja as an example we see that he can give an entire lecture on each word in a single verse, and still feel when he's done that he has barely scratched the surface of the topic. Now that's interest, and we would do well to pray that such interest will arise in us. If we don't then the only conclusion one can reach is that we prefer to suffer in maya than to take the medicine to get out of it.
My real distaste, I guess, is not debate for the sake of comprehension, but debate for debate's sake.
I have yet to see debate for its own sake going on here. Sometimes a thread will get a little heated when opposing views are presented, but the underlying theme of the whole thing is to establish the correct siddhanta. Sometimes our understanding of the siddhanta is incorrect and yet we hold to that view even after the proper siddhanta has been amply demonstrated. In such a case then it may warrant that the person(s) putting forth the proper conclusion must repeat what was said to make the point. This can be construed as argumentative but it is not so. If we put our views out in a public forum, particularly one of this nature, then we should expect that our views will be analyzed and called into question if they are inaccurate. This is how we grow and deepen in our understanding of what Krsna consciousness is and in how to apply its principles in our lives.
Gopakumardas - September 3, 2004 9:49 pm
I do not feel competent enough to fully discuss this but in my humble opinion bhav and rag marg are not constituted from the feelings we commonly experience. These are different kinds of feeling that are actually, in my opinion, generated from the Outside but experienced inwardly.
From my understanding bhava and prema (our prayojana- goal) in love of Krishna are experienced when a devotee is invested with hladini sakti presided over by Srimate Radharani. Sambhanda jnana which is knowledge of one's relationship with Krishna comes from samvit sakti presided over by Krishna, and the entire existence and scenery of the lila rest on sandhini sakti presided over by Balarama.
So, there is a difference between our feelings now and bhava. Bhava comes when one has emptied oneself of all selfish intent, further still when one has completely sacrificed themselves in 'self-forgetfullness' in dedication to Krishna. It is a gift that makes us of the same nature as the love exchanges of which the lila are constituted. It is a lending to the jiva (tatastha sakti- marginal) of the svarupa (hladini) sakti in order to involve them in divine play and exchanges of love. So you are right Vamsi.... they are different emotions.
If I were to act on behalf of my own feelings right now I would say spirituality does not have to exclude sexuality and intoxication. This is self-serving and is based on my feelings of wanting to enjoy and exploit others for my enjoyment. So to the extent that I am motivated by these things I should take a step back from my 'feeling' and say, what do the 'self sacrificing ones' have to say about this? The problem in the 'spiritual marketplace' is that one's 'feelings' are not always so overtly incorrect. So one must look carefully for subtle expressions of self-interest arrising in one's 'feeling' spirituality. This way we won't be cheated by what we believe is spiritual into practising selfishness, a quality all agree is distasteful in excess.
Gopa
Baladev - September 3, 2004 10:35 pm
Just when the point of 'enough is enough' is reached will vary from person to person and is directly related to one's interest level.While there's nothing wrong with mere debate, philosophy and discussion, there comes a point when enough is enough and it becomes "beating a dead horse". At that point, to me, words just turn in to blah blah blah blah blah blah. And I think, "ok, we get it, let's move on already!"
You're right, I need to be patient and understand that while I may be satisfied others may not, and I hope it is reciprocated. The fact that I do not wish to over-debate something does not necessarily imply a lack of interest on my part, nor a desire to suffer in maya.
I have yet to see debate for its own sake going on here.My real distaste, I guess, is not debate for the sake of comprehension, but debate for debate's sake.
I think it does happen on occasion, though unintentionaly.
Babhru Das - September 3, 2004 10:45 pm
first to support one's main contentions and then some illustration is also made by references to minor works and sometimes even personal communications from a particular author about the question at hand. It would not be considered a scholarly work if one only cited personal communications such as personal letters, voice recording during weddings, musings in the shower, etc.That is exactly what I wanted to say about ISKON and Gopa clarified that for us so nicely. This past weekend Guru Maharaja also spoke about dangers of substantiating points about sidhanta based on 24 hours recordings of Srila Prabhupada regardless of situations in which he spoke.
Oh, this an excellent point! Thank you for bringing it up. As you point out, in scholarship there is a definite hierarchy of sources with regard to the weight they should carry. Too many devotees use some remark Srila Prabhupada made in a casual conversation in his room, or on a walk, or in a letter to a particular disciple, as proof that the point they want to make is irrefutable. In fact, Srila Prabhupada said different things, some hard to reconcile with others, about any number of topics.
I had a"debate" on VNN with a godbrother about polygamy a few years ago. He very carefully selected quotations, mostly from conversations, in an efort to prove that we are remiss if we don't institute polygamy. Never mind that there were twice as many quotations that would support the opposite conclusion, and many of those were in his books. (I once saw a letter written to a godbrother in which Prabhupada complained about the proliferation of "Prabhupada saids." He said it was simply another form of cheating. "If it is not in my books, I did not say it," he wrote.) Many of the ritviks, and others who continue to criticize Srila Sridhar Maharaja, do the same thing--pull one or two quotations and conveniently igonore the countless others that contradict the point they want to make.
We should use such "evidence" very carefully, always trying to understand the context in which the remarks were made. This can be really hard to do with the letters because we don't see the letter that posed a particular question, or we are unaware of the situation in that particular devotee's life that occasioned the instruction given. It can also be true of other remarks he made when devotees asked for personal advice. When I was a brahmachari in Honolulu, Govinda dasi mentioned casually that one godbrother had told Prabhupada that he felt especially lusty and asked for advice about how to dal with it. Prabhupada said he could try sleeping less and eat half of what he normally would. My friend Tarun Kanti and I thought we could become saints if we tried this. I don't remember overcoming lust by this process, but we lost a lot of weight (we were already skinny 23-year-old brahmacharis), became very constipated, and acted very strangely. We realized later that Prabhupada had made this suggestion to that boy because he knew him well (he was a little pudgy), and that it wasn't necessarily meant for anyone else. We were much better when we got back to sleeping for 6 hours a night and eating normally.
Although I was one of the editors of the first "Letters books" in the '80s, I sometimes wonder whether publishing them was such a great idea. At the time we did it to help loosen the grip some of the leaders had on other devotees; in doing so, however, we may have unnecessarily exposed for public view some of the problems others were having, as well as facilitated indiscriminate use of instructions or remarks made in those letters as evidence for ideas contrary to our siddhanta.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - September 3, 2004 11:27 pm
I think you got my point: people make religions out of their feelings and this leads not only to fundamentalism (ISKON) but also to lack of spirituality (new age).
In my original post I was simply suggesting a possibility of revelation as a valid pramana. A revelation doesn’t necessarily have to be of proportions of St John (Apocalpyse), but a simple nudge in the right direction, getting a right book at the right time, etc.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: feeling
Function: noun
-- an emotional state or reaction
-- or responsive awareness or recognition
Main Entry: intuition
Function: noun
-- the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference
-- quick and ready insight
Yuri (not a TREE HUGGER).
Vrindaranya Dasi - September 4, 2004 12:17 am
About there not being a lot of active posters on Tattva-viveka (I think 20% was quoted, but I can’t find the post; it seems to be deleted), we actually have a much higher percentage of active posters compared to the other boards. 1-2% is average.
Jason - September 4, 2004 6:37 am
This is an interesting thread....quite heated, and as Vrindaranya mentioned, perhaps deciding how far to take things is a good idea. This site is pretty "heavy" for the most part. You have to enjoy it for what it gives though.
I recall seeing some post somewhere on here, I think from Maharaja where he said that some persons are more philosophically inclined than others. Ain't that the truth. Tons of these threads I have to just read and steer clear of....I wouldn't even be qualified to "step in the ring".
I just want to say that it's totally rad that Baladev used the theme song from "Different Strokes" to start one of his last posts! That totally made my day...."whatchu talkin' bout Willis?" I dont' know that anyone else caught that....but it was probably a thing called humor.
And as for Vrindaranya mentioning the "Siksa post"....well, I started that one, and I don't feel that it got too heated. I didn't realize the implications. I welcome getting "schooled" on things that I am not aware of. About 10 years ago a crazy kid with a shaved head and a dhoti at a punk show in D.C. "schooled" me about not being the body, etc. Had it not happened I wouldn't be here now.
debate away....but keep it clean!
YS
Jason - September 4, 2004 6:51 am
Off this entire thread, the one thing that stuck out to me was when Baladev said that he doesn't necessarily feel the need to understand everything in order to be able to appreciate it or accept it. Now, I don't know Baladev, however, I will assume (from what others have said), that he's a pretty educated guy (regardless of how he might come off sometimes). That being said, I love this statement. I feel the same way.....I don't feel that it's blind acceptance either. For example, I thought that what I read in the book by Sivarama Swami was nice. After the debate/discussion that ensued, I realized that the devotees here were smart and educated me on some of the misconceptions present in the presentation of the book. I may not fully understand all of the philosophical concepts present....but I can accept what I've heard here and feel comfortable with that.
I don't need to fully understand the various rasas, the moods of Vraja, the complex position of a demigod like Lord Siva.....to understand that Krsna consciousness is beautiful and the most pure way to understand God and my relationship with Him.
Isn't this called faith?
Caitanya-daya Dd - September 4, 2004 10:49 am
i have been reading along and just being an "innocent bystander," but suddenly i feel compelled to post something, although i definitely think this thread could probably end.
Religion without philosophy is sentiment, and philosophy without religion is speculation, as Srila Prabhupada said. This statement means one thing: balance.
For me, cultivating healthy balances in your life is the best way to go, something i was sorely lacking in while "growing up" in ISKCON (mainly due to the fact that it is not really taught or discussed). We all know how fickle our thoughts and emotions can be; if we don't have some sastra to keep us in line, we will veer away and make up some hodge podge sentimental "tree hugging" philosophy, as Vamsi-dhari Prabhu puts it. But if we merely ruminate on the technicalities and pick apart the sutras in an academic way, we are in danger of "missing the boat" and becoming philosophy/religion professors, thinking Radha-Krsna and Lord Caitanya to be "myths" or "folklore."
I think it's okay to flounder. I believe it's a part of human nature. As we advance more in our understanding and convictions, there will be less floundering. Recently Guru Maharaja told me that students are on a totally different learning curve than the teacher--that's why the student is the student and the teacher is the teacher!
Gopa-kumara Prabhu really hit the nail on the head: take shelter of the Holy Name. Ceto-darpana bhava-maha-davagni-nirvapanam! How merciful Lord Caitanya is to give us the maha-mantra. You know it must something of importance if the only works that Lord Caitanya left were eight verses on it!
BTW, i really hate debating as well, but i really like this emoticon *hehehe*
Vamsidhari Dasa - September 4, 2004 2:05 pm
I LOVE DEBATE WITHOUT IT WE CAN'T LEAN! I AGREE THAT WE NEED A BALLANCE, BUT WHO GOT OFF BALLANCE HERE? TO EACH THEIR OWN YES, BUT IF WE SEE SOMETHING AMISS WITH EACH OTHER THEN WE BETTER BE AVBLE TO EXPRESS IT OTHERWISE WE MIGHT AS WELL PUBLISH LITTLE RED BOOKLETS AND GET WITH THE PROGRAM ACCORDING TO THE PARTY LINE.
CULTIVATION OF FEELING SHOULD GO HAND IN HAND WITH UNDERSTANDING OF PHILISOPHY THEY ARE COMPLEMENTARY AND NEED EACH OTHER.
See, I don't even know what "Different Strokes" is so maybe that is over my head. We all have a sense of humor here in my opinion, its only that some things are not funny for everybody.
We have to debate, but do it with feeling. HARI BOL off to Audarya I go!
Ys,
Vamsidhari dasa
Swami - September 4, 2004 5:47 pm
I don't need to fully understand the various rasas, the moods of Vraja, the complex position of a demigod like Lord Siva.....to understand that Krsna consciousness is beautiful and the most pure way to understand God and my relationship with Him.
Isn't this called faith?
Yes, this is called faith, but Rupa Goswami qualifies it as komala sraddha, tender faith. Faith is strengthened by the study of sastra and sadhu sanga, not weakened-nasta prayesu abhadresu nityam bhagavata sevaya. The idea is to bring the head and heart together. The bhakti sastras with our acaryas commentaries, are an expression of their faith. Faith informed by scriptural understanding is identified with intermediate devotees. Whereas faith that is not scripturally informed is identified with neophyte devotees. It is alright and even necessary perhaps to be a neophyte (we have to start somewhere), but it is not beneficial for a neophyte stand in opposition to or minimize a more developed understanding or expression of faith.
On a personal note, I think you are doing well in this association, Jason. Nice to have you here.
Jason - September 5, 2004 3:15 am
Thanks Maharaja! I'm enjoying the conversations. I honestly feel that I am learning more here than I learned at the Chicago temple in 6 months. Devotees here actually bring personal experience to the table. I have an easier time relating. This is nice learning.
Guru-nistha Das - September 7, 2004 10:39 am
dandavats to everybody,
at first i have to apologise for not taking actively part on tattvaviveka. i felt like i first wanna read most of the discussions that have been up here, but i guess i´ll never catch up eith you if i don´t start posting.
considering the discussion about feeling vs. knowledge, the first thing that really moved me when i met Guru Maharaja for the fisrt time was how he had this inconcievable union of pure feeling and grave knowledge. i was totally astonished by it, because normally people go mostly either by feeling or reason. And this was one point that just further convinced me about how special Guru maharaja is. if i remember correctly, it´s said in the scriptures that on the spiritual platform oppisetes come together and in this regard they totally do in GM.
as for myself, i don´t have either scriptural knowledge nor real feeling.
but my question is: is a material feeling plagued by anarthas bad in all respects, even if it´s directed towards a proper source? i have feeling for Guru Maharaja but i keep questioning all the time if it´s real or sentimental because i´ve never been one of those "feeling-persons".
also, years ago when i was more connected with ISCKON but still living isolated from devotees, i would´ve not continued chanting if i didn´t have some intuition that i have to go on. i didn´t go on just because it said it in the scriptures. and no doubt, my chanting and my feeling were and are covered by anarthas but still a some kind of "feeling" or intuition kept me going.
i don´t really trust my feelings. and i don´t trust my philosophical understanding either. i guess there´s not much more left than trusting a person who really knows something about feeling and philosophy.
i´m so lucky to have found one.
Guru-nistha Das - September 7, 2004 11:25 am
oops. oppisetes=opposites.
Vamsidhari Dasa - September 9, 2004 7:39 pm
Dear Guru Nistha,
Please allow me to offer some thoughts as a response to your questions. I do not think that all feeling is bad and that because it might be covered by anarthas (or part of maya) it is undesirable and should be denied. In this thread we talked about different kinds of feelings associated with our path. I wanted to make the point that sometimes people confuse spiritual feeling of a realized soul with human feelings. The later are not bad because they are reality of our existence and should be dealt with appropriately, considered in the context they arise, and given proper attention when required. At the same time exclusive reliance on either feelings or intellect is equally detrimental for spiritual progress. That is, people create artificial distinction and deny either side. Some say feelings are bad, some say critical thinking (i.e. intellect) is mental speculation and there for it is bad. Both of these show erroneous understanding and create rigidity that impedes spiritual progress. It is hard to know when a particular feeling is "real" or what makes it so. Too much "feeling" can be used against actually feeling something as much as too much philosophy can preclude understanding.
I am glad that you understand that in case of confusion one should seek and relay on proper guidance. YES, YOU ARE LUCKY, WE ARE ALL LUCKY (more then we can know). Jaya Sri Guru Gauranga!
In service,
Vamsidhari dasa
Guru-nistha Das - September 13, 2004 8:13 am
Dear Vamsidhari Prabhu,
please accept my obeisances.
Thank you for your thoughts! It made the discussion and the subject matter more clear to me now. I think i´ve never even thought about how too much feeling can hinder real feeling but now that i think of some of my friends who are very passionate, it´s so true..
If you would like to tell something more about the concept of knowledge in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, i´d be eager to hear. I find it mind-blowing that Krsna is the embodiment of knowledge and that exclusively loving him means to be in full knowledge of reality! The idea that knowledge is so much more than endlessly gathering data, is very comforting, i think.
I feel humbled and very happy to be able to be in contact with all of you through this forum. The non-fanatical and analytical atmosphere is very nice. Thumbs up to Vrindaranya and all the devotees for keeping this up!
Best wishes,
Gurunistha dasa
Vamsidhari Dasa - September 17, 2004 6:14 pm
Dear Guru Nista,
Thanks for your kind question and sorry for the delay in answering.
If you would like to tell something more about the concept of knowledge in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, i´d be eager to hear. I find it mind-blowing that Krsna is the embodiment of knowledge and that exclusively loving him means to be in full knowledge of reality! The idea that knowledge is so much more than endlessly gathering data, is very comforting, i think.
I am afraid that I am not qualified to talk about the concept of knowledge from the Gaudiya perspective in any depth. I would venture to say, (and hope to be forgiven for possible misinterpretation) that I've heard it and read it several times that proper knowledge is revealed to a devote proportionate to the purity of his/her heart. For us Krishna is the ultimate reality Who possesses all the knowledge so by knowing Him or things about Him we come in contact with that knowledge.
namo vijnana-rupaya paramannanda-rupine"He is the embodiment of realized knowledge and possesses a form of supreme bliss" (Gopala- tapani v. 35, p. 72).
Guru Maharaja quotes Prabhodananda Saraswati saying that "'realized knowledge' means that everything is known perfectly through him" (p. 72).
From what I can understand our ultimate goal in approaching Sri Krishna is not to gain knowledge but to serve Him. In as much as we receive liberation by simply chanting and hearing about Krishna we also receive knowledge as a by product of hearing and chanting.
As far as the nature of knowledge is concerned on the human level you are correct it is NOT an accumulation of data. The data becomes alive only when it is integrated withing and its meaning has produced some emotional significance for the individual. Some people with autistic psychopathology can gather enormous quantity of data yet, they do not understand the meaning of that information. In fact such "data gathering" is used as a defense against uncomfortable anxiety brought on by social interactions.
I hope this satisfies you a bit. I would also like to invite others who are more qualified to answer questions regarding knowledge from the Gaudiya perspective. Thanks for your patients and interest.
In service,
Vamsidhari dasa