Tattva-viveka
Rasa-tattva
Bhrigu - January 7, 2005 9:10 am
Dear devotees,
during his recent visit to Finland, Swami spoke a lot about the science of rasa, trying to teach us the meaning of sthayi-, anu-, sattvika-, sancari- and vi-bhavas. Since he spoke about them repeatedly, I think that he really wants us to learn this science. He explained the bhavas as follows:
sthayibhava: steady, basic mood towards Krishna. In Vraja, they are 1) dasya (servitude), 2) sakhya (friendship), 3) vatsalya (parental) and 4) madhurya (amorous). There are also seven secondary moods: 1) humour, 2) amazement, 3) effort, 4) sorrow, 5) anger, 6) fear, 7) disgust. The excitant (uddipana- see below) for the last is not Krishna but the body. The secondary moods are temporary.
anubhava: indications or voluntary movements arising from the sthayibhava. For example, when the cowherd boys clap their thighs to challenge Krishna to a fight, that is an anubhava. Rupa Goswami gives a list of twelve anubhavas in BRS 2.2.2, such as dancing, rolling on the ground, singing, etc. Guru Maharaja explained that all the action in Goloka is anubhava.
sattvikabhava: involuntary reactions, such as becoming stunned, crying, perspiring heavily, getting goose bumps, etc.
sancaribhava: also known as vyabhicaribhava, these are known as transitory emotions, modifying but not overtaking the sthayibhava. There are 33 such bhavas (BRS 2.4.4-6), such as indifference, grief, depression, envy, etc, but not all can be combined with all sthayibhavas.
vibhavas: excitants for love. The main excitant is Krishna and his associates. Krishna is the object of love (visaya), the bhakta the vessel of love (asraya). There are also uddipana-vibhavas or enhancing excitants, such as Krishna's qualities, actions, ornaments, smile, fragrance, etc. These are things that make the bhakta think of Krishna, "enflame" his/ her love for him.
There are (yet) more details to all of this, but this is the basics. In order to learn this better, I thought that we could practice by posting some illustrative verses, and then let each other read them and try to notice the different bhavas in them.
Here is excercise one: (BhP 10.7.25):
"When the force of the dust storm caused by the tornado abated, the gopis heard Yasoda's wailing. Not seeing Nanda's son anywhere, they became greatly agitated and began to cry, soaking their faces with tears."
Now, with regard to the gopis, what is
a ) the primary sthayibhava
b ) the secondary sthayibhava
c ) the uddipana
d ) the sattvikabhava?
Madangopal - January 7, 2005 3:28 pm
Wow, this is great Bhrigu! I'll give it a shot.
a. The primary stayibhava is vatsalya. These gopis are relating to Yasoda devi's motherly lamentation.
b. The secondary stayibhava is sorrow.
c. I'm taking a guess on the uddipana. Could it be that these gopis anxiety was enflamed by the remembrance of naughty Nanda-nandana stealing their butter - His actions of being a naughty neighborhood kid? They would go, very irritated, and report to Yasoda devi trying to get her to discipline Him, but really they loved it!
d. The sattvikabhava is their involuntary crying? Seeing their friend Yasoda in such distress must have automatically triggered their motherly instinct towards Krsna and they began crying profusely.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 7, 2005 6:04 pm
Thank you Bhrigu for the wonderful post! It makes terminology so much clearer. Because Guru Maharaja’s talks are done on such high level it’s difficult for neophytes (such as myself) to understand fine points without knowing of terminology. Unfortunately there is no Vishnava Dictionary available to just go and look something up (another idea for Audarya Publishing House 
), Vedabase helps but requires much research instead of simply providing definitions. Looking forward to seeing more posts along same lines.
Now the aswers for excercise one:
a ) the primary sthayibhava -- madhurya (first and foremost they love him at all times)
b ) the secondary sthayibhava -- fear (why I cannot see my Krsna? where is he? did he vanish in the dust storm? will I see him again?)
c ) the uddipana -- excitant is separation anxiety, uddipana (the object) can be different for each gopi (some might miss his smile the most, some his sweet smell, etc.)
d ) the sattvikabhava – crying
Bhrigu - January 8, 2005 11:49 am
Since no more suggestions have come in, here are the answers:
a ) madhurya, unless we take these gopis to be elderly gopis, in which case the answer would be vatsalya
b ) sorrow. I understand why you suggested fear, Nandatanuja, but sorrow is defined as "that burden of pain in the heart that is due to separation from the beloved" (BRS 2.5.60). The verse above is given as an example of that in BRS 2.5.61
c ) Krishna's absence
d ) crying
Then another verse (BRS 2.2.6):
"The Fair-limbed Beauty became helpless with a new love for you. Smelling the sweet fragrance of your garland of forest flowers, she became intoxicated and hurt herself rolling on the hard ground of Vraja."
What is Radha's
a ) sthayibhava
b ) uddipana
c ) anubhava?
Madangopal - January 8, 2005 12:38 pm
a ) madhurya, unless we take these gopis to be elderly gopis, in which case the answer would be vatsalya
I answered vatsalya because in Prabhupada's Bhagavatam the translation refers to these gopis as Yasoda's friends. Also, when they go and see her distress, like a cow who had lost her calf, they begin crying also.
Syamasundara - January 8, 2005 5:33 pm
What is Radha's
a ) sthayibhava
b ) uddipana
c ) anubhava?
a) madhurya
fragrance
c) rolling on the ground
Bhrigu - January 8, 2005 6:37 pm
I answered vatsalya because in Prabhupada's Bhagavatam the translation refers to these gopis as Yasoda's friends. Also, when they go and see her distress, like a cow who had lost her calf, they begin crying also.
I stand corrected. I also read earlier today that according to Rupa Goswami (BRS 2.1.335), there is no madhurya in Krishna's childhood pastimes. I thought I had read something to the contrary somewhere, but was evidently mistaken. At any rate, there is much to learn on this subject, what to speak of realise!
Since Shyamasundara already scored full points on excercise two, here is number three (BRS 2.4.17):
"In a dream, I gathered flowers and with great efforts made a forest garland with them. But alas, just as I was about to place it on Mukunda's breast, I suddenly woke up."
What is the
a ) sthayibhava
b ) sancaribhava
c ) anubhava?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 8, 2005 9:47 pm
I don't have BRS available at the moment; can you give a little more information about the quote? Who is "I" exactly? Btw, it there online text of BRS somewhere?
Bhrigu - January 9, 2005 7:24 am
I don't think that there is an online text of the BRS other than maybe in Sanskrit at the Gaudiya Grantha Mandira. The text itself does not mention who "I" is (and for the Southern Division I have only access to Jiva Goswami's commentary, which is silent on this), but it is not so difficult to guess: which devotees is it that make flower garlands for Krishna?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 9, 2005 5:17 pm
a ) sthayibhava -- dasya (servitude)
b ) sancaribhava -- supti (dreaming)
c ) anubhava -- savasa-bhuma (breathing heavily)
Babhru Das - January 10, 2005 2:21 am
"In a dream, I gathered flowers and with great efforts made a forest garland with them. But alas, just as I was about to place it on Mukunda's breast, I suddenly woke up."
What is the
a ) sthayibhava
b ) sancaribhava
c ) anubhava?
Oh, I really like this! It'll definitely rip me away from my little life of preparing for classes, grading papers, and working on the house and garden. Here goes:
1) stayibhava: servitorship (perhaps with some temporary sorrow)
2) lamentation
3) anubhava: crying loudly (I like "breathing heavily," but crying seems more directly implied here)
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 10, 2005 7:14 am
Hmmm, I guess then there is a possibility of two correct answers to this riddle -- mood of the physical body (which is sleeping) and mood of the conciseness (which is gathering flowers). I was writing about mood of the physical body -- dreaming/breathing heavily and you are talking about conciseness -- lamentating/crying loudly.
Bhrigu - January 11, 2005 5:17 pm
This one was a little bit more tricky! I think the speaker of the verse is a manjari, since they (at least) make flower garlands. But I suppose the servants would also do so. So
a ) madhurya or dasya,
b ) grief (because of waking up)
c ) making a flower garland. I am not 100% sure that have understood anubhava correctly, but I think Swami said that all voluntary action directed towards Krishna is anubhava. "All movement in the spiritual world is anubhava", I think he said.
Did I understand you correctly, Guru Maharaja?
Babhru Das - January 11, 2005 6:26 pm
I was going to second-guess myself on a) and make madhurya an alternative. I can buy grief rather than lamentation. Regarding anuhava, however, I need further clarification. Your earlier notes (and your last one, as well) give anubhavas as all voluntary action, implying that involuntary actions may not be included. But when I look at the beginning of Ch. 27 of Nectar of Devotion, the list of examples seems more inclusive: "The bodily symptoms manifested by a devotee in expressing ecstatic love for Krsna are called anubhava. Practical examples of anubhava are as follows: dancing, rolling on the ground, singing very loudly, stretching the body, crying loudly, yawning, breathing very heavily, neglecting the presence of others, drooling, laughing like a madman, wheeling the head and belching." I have a couple of other books on rasa from the UH library, but I couldn't find anything in either to clarify anubhava. So I join you, Bhrigu, in calling for help from Swami.
Shyam Gopal Das - January 11, 2005 6:43 pm
Although my name is not Swami;
In the book Waves of Devotion, Dhanurdhara Swami (I'm not sure how bonafide this book is?) quotes Srila Prabhupada:
"The bodily symptoms manifested by a devotee in expressing ecstatic love for Krsna are called anubhava" (NOD, p219)
There are 15 main types of anubhavas and two categories.
One category calles sita meaning without strong bodily movements and the other called ksepana meaning with strong bodily movements.
Anubhavas
Sita:
1. Gita - singing loudly
2. Jrmbhana - yawning
3. Svasa bhuma - breathing heavily
4. loka anapeksita - neglecting the presence of others
5. lalasrava - foaming at the mouth
6. hunkara - roaring
7. raktodgam - bleeding
8. utphulla - swelling of the limbs
Ksepana:
1. Nrtya - dancing
2. Vilutita - rolling on the ground
3. Tanu-motana - stretching the body
4. Krosana - crying loudly
5. Atta hasa - laughing like a madman
6. Ghurna - staggering
7. Hikka - hiccups
Looking at these types of anubhavas, it would seem odd to me if making a flower garland would be one too, since it is not a bodily symptom unless you are a magician of course.
But let's wait for Guru Maharaj....
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 11, 2005 7:14 pm
I agree with Shyam Gopal -- anubhava is involuntary bodily symptom, not the action consciously performed for a reason. Bhrigu, it seems that you are mixing awake/asleep states in your list:
a ) madhurya or dasya -- asleep state
b ) grief (because of waking up) -- awake state
c ) making a flower garland -- asleep state
I think we should differentiate between two.
Babhru Das - January 11, 2005 7:47 pm
This list, as well as that in Ch. 27, seem to include involuntary bodily symptoms. I see the same in the discussion of anubhava in Ch. 27 of Jaiva-dharma.
Swami - January 12, 2005 2:37 am
Anubhavas differ from sattvikas bhavas in that they are for the most part voluntary or diliberate. Those that appear to be involuntary are so rare that Rupa Goswamis does not comment on them. That does not mean that they are involuntary, but that what may be involuntary for conditioned souls may not be so for eternal associates of Sri Krsna. This is the general idea.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 12, 2005 5:15 am
Can you please explain this in a little more detail please -- I didn't grasp your idea.
Swami - January 12, 2005 2:45 pm
Sattvika bhavas are involuntary. They just happen. Srila Rupa Goswami explains that when the bhava bhakta's mind comes under the influence of the luminous state of bhava, this bhava establishes itself in the vital breath or prana. As the prana is transformed under its influence, it in turn excites the devotee's body in various ways. When this prana influenced by bhava affects the elements of the body—earth, water, fire, and air—this manifests as stupefication, tears, perspiration and change of color, and fainting respectively. When bhava's influence is independent of these elements, it causes horripilation, trembling, and stammering, when slight, average, or intense respectively.
Tears pouiring from the eyes is one such sattvika bhava. It differes from the anubhava of crying in that it is not the emotion of crying. When one feels sad one cries. This is an anubhava. There is no such emotion of sadness that corresponds with the puring forth of tears that is a sattvika bhava. Tears just come. Similarly, if one feels like dancing and roling on the ground, one does so. These are anubhavas, but stupefication, a sattvika bhava is involuntary.
In bhava bhakti the sattvika bhavas of tears, hairs standing on end, and stammering are prominent to a small degree. Anubhavas like singing and dancing are also prominent. Therefeore Mahaprabhu speaks of them in Siksastakam 6, which is about bhava bhakti.
Swami - January 12, 2005 5:13 pm
Further clarification on anubhavas and sattvika bhavas:
Anubhavas manifest as a result of deliberate concentration on Krsna in a particular way. Whereas sattvika bhavas manifest as a result of the force of bhava on one's prana causing the body to transform in unusual ways.
Bhrigu - January 12, 2005 5:25 pm
Thank you, Guru Maharaja, for clarifying the difference between sattvika-bhavas and anubhavas. I was also wondering about how crying could be both, but now I understand it. But what about the original question, could different actions be seen as anubhava?
And Nandatanuja Prabhu, I think that differentiating between the waking state and the dreaming state in verses such as the one quoted above is unnecessary. The devotee was experiencing her relationship with Krishna in both, first in union (in the dream), then in separation (when she woke). What happened to the physical body is somewhat irrelevant, in my opinion.
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 12, 2005 10:41 pm
I love the thread, Brighupada. 
In exercise one, I don’t think Krsna’s absence is technically an uddipana-vibhava. Yasoda’s wailing sounds more like an uddipana, but technically it isn’t either. Also, the crying in exercise 1 is an anubhava, not a sattvika-bhava.
Perhaps you could give examples that have all the elements of rasa. Some of the examples are difficult because the element you are asking for is implied not stated (like example 3, anubhava). Aesthetic Vedanta has an example that contains all the elements.
If anyone is having trouble with these terms, check out Waves of Devotion. There are extensive explanations and illustrations.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Swami - January 12, 2005 11:57 pm
Brs. list these as anubhavas. Notice that Sri Rupa leaves room for more.
nrtyam viluthitam gitam
krosanam tanumotanam
hunkaro jrmbhanam svasa-
bhuma lokanapeksita
lalasravo 'ttahasas ca
ghurna hikkadayopi ca (4)
“Dancing, falling down and rolling on the ground, singing and crying very loudly, bodily contortions, loud vibrations, yawning, deep breathing, disregard for others, frothing of saliva, mad laughter, spitting, hiccups and other similar symptoms are called anubhavas.”
Later when he describes each rasa and their subdivisions he lists many other anubhavas that are relative to each particular rasa. For example, he lists wrestling, ball playing, gambling, carrying one another on their shoulders, play fighting with sticks, sleeping and sitting with Krsna on his bed, telling entertaining jokes, playing in ponds, dancing, and singing as anubhavas common to all divisions of sakhya rasa. Then he lists others that are relative to each of the four divisions of sakhya rasa.
It is likely that the first 13 are all drawn from secular rasa sastra and applied to bhakti rasa. The others may be as well but in any case the lists are not conclusive. Suffice to say that every movement in lila is ecstacy or bhava in some respect.
The same holds true for udipina vibhavas. There is a general list that is quite short, although it includes Krsna’s qaulities, 64 of which are listed in Brs.—Krsna’s age, form qaulities, flute, etc. Then there are further lists for some of the rasas. Furthermore, in Krsna-sandarbha Sri Jiva lists 80 some qualities of Krsna. So there are more than that found in any list.
Sattvika bhavas are 8 with one extra for vatsalya in some cases (milk pouring from the breast). Vyabhicari or sancari bhavas are 33 and as far as lists go no others are mentioned. Not all of them are manifest in every rasa.
However, although there are more of the various bhavas than those listed, it is probably best to choose verses that demonstrate vibhavas, anubhavas, etc. that are listed in Brs. to avoid speculation.
Bhrigu - January 13, 2005 5:26 pm
Thank you for the answer, Guru Maharaja. All right, better stick to the safe side. And thanks Vrindaranya for correcting the answers to excercise one! I am very much a learner in this topic, but I like it. I hadn't realised that there are two kinds of crying until Guru Maharaja explained them. But would you agree, Vrindaranya, that the absence of Krishna could be seen as the uddipana, even if absence is not listed as one?
I still have a question on the difference between the secondary (gauna) sthayibhava and the sancaribhavas. I don't quite grasp the difference between the two. Both seem to be secondary, non-permanent feelings that augment the primary bhava. Is the gauna bhava more longlived, or what is the difference?
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 13, 2005 6:59 pm
But would you agree, Vrindaranya, that the absence of Krishna could be seen as the uddipana, even if absence is not listed as one?
There are four categories of uddipana (relating to the Lord or his devotee): the Lord’s qualities (guna), his adventures (cesta), his embellishments and attire (prasadana), and miscellaneous stimulants (prakirna). The prakirna are Krsna’s flute, buffalo horn, footprints, etc. Not everything that causes a reaction is an uddipana.
Otherwise, I would add this: uddipana are objects or qualities, etc. (i.e. things that have a positive presence) as opposed to lack of things. In the verse it said, “Not seeing Nanda's son anywhere, they became greatly agitated and began to cry, soaking their faces with tears.” Not seeing Krsna (a lack of something), therefore, isn’t an uddipana. Uddipana also have an immediate effect: you see the uddipana and relish the emotion. In the example, Krsna’s absence occurred previously.
The sthayi-bhava only rises to the platform of rasa when it comes in contact with the other four bhavas. This is another reason why it is good to find verses that exemplify rasa--you will find all the bhavas. Otherwise you can think that something is a bhava when its not.
I still have a question on the difference between the secondary (gauna) sthayibhava and the sancaribhavas. I don't quite grasp the difference between the two. Both seem to be secondary, non-permanent feelings that augment the primary bhava. Is the gauna bhava more longlived, or what is the difference?
The main difference is that the gauna-rati have the power of dominating all the other emotions, taking prominence over the mukhya-rati, and rising to the platform of rasa. Although the gauna-rati disappear, they leave a permanent impression on the heart. This is why they are considered in the category of sthayi (permanent).
Sancari-bhavas are temporary emotions that don’t leave an impression on the heart and never rise to the platform of rasa, becoming more prominent than the mukhya-rati.
Citta Hari Dasa - January 13, 2005 7:56 pm
Thanks for that answer, Vrinda! I was also not clear on the relationship between mukya- and gauna-rati as well as between gauna-rati and sancari-bhava. This is good stuff!
Bhrigu - January 16, 2005 5:02 pm
I didn't find the verse Vrindaranya mentioned from Aesthetic Vedanta, but here is another (BRS 2.5. 19):
"When the divine sage Narada began to sing with his lute in great celebration of Krishna's lila, the body of Sanaka trembled, even though he had realized the highest reality of Brahman."
What is Sanaka's
a ) sthayibhava
b ) uddipana?
c ) is his trembling an anubhava or a sattvika bhava?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 19, 2005 5:01 am
I assume that Sanaka here is Sanaka-kumara son of Brahma.
a ) Santi-Rati
b ) Cesta
c ) Anubhava
Bhrigu - January 19, 2005 9:35 am
I assume that Sanaka here is Sanaka-kumara son of Brahma.
Yes, so the sthayibhava is Santa. The uddipana in this case is Narada's song and music about Krishna, which may be about his qualities (guna) or activities (cesta), but that we don't know. The last answer is actually sattvikabhava. Sanaka Kumara's trembling was involuntary (though I cannot off hand think of when one would tremble voluntarily). If you look at the list of anubhavas for Santa-rati given in the other thread, you will see that trembling is not mentioned. However, it is included within the sattvika-bhavas.
Swami - January 19, 2005 1:57 pm
I thought this unendited piece from my Siksastakam commentary (6) might be helpful.
One’s sthayi-bhava is the dominant spiritual sentiment in which one desires to serve Krsna in his eternal lila. In Vraja, devotees serve in one of four sentiments, servitude, friendship, parental, and romantic love. In bhava-bhakti one’s sthayi-bhava manifests and the devotees becomes self realized. However, the bhava bhakta’s sthayi-bhava requires cultivation in order for it to be fully experienced as one’s eternal identity in Krsna lila, at which point one’s identity as a sadhaka is retired. Thus Srila Jiva Goswami has discussed sthayi-bhava by differentiating it in terms of bhava-bhakti wherein it is not fully developed ((kroDIkRta-praNayAdi-prema-nAmnI), and prema-bhakti, wherein it is fully developed into the stages of sneha, mana, pranaya, raga, anuraga, and mahabava realtive to the sthayi-bhavas of dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and madhurya (raty-apara-paryAya-premAGkura-rUpA bhAva-nAmnI ca). From the perspective of one’s desired sthayi bhava in prema-bhakti one tastes rasa, as one’s sthayi-bhava is developed sufficiently to transform one’s world into an abode love. Whereas in bhava-bhakti one seeks to taste rasa by intensifying one’s identification with one’s budding sthayi-bhava.
As one’s sthayi-bhava develops through the sadhana of nama sankirtana and attendant internal practices, it eventually causes one to see the world entirely in relation to itself, giving rise to supports/excitants (vibhava), indicators (anaubhava), responses (satvtvika-bhava), and transitory auxillary emotional influences (vyabhicari-bhava). Sri Krsna and the devotee in whom the sthayi-bhava has arisen become the supports for the drama of divine love as love’s object (Krsna) and love’s shelter (his devotee). Krsna and things associated with him, such as his qualities and paraphenalia seen through the lense on one’s sthayi-bhava become excitants that further stimulate one’s sthayi-bhava. Similarly one’s sthayi-bhava gives rise to indicators of love or anubhavas that follow (anu) one’s sthayi-bhava (bhava), such as singing, dancing, and so on. Responses to the sthayi-bhava in the form of bodily transformations or sattvika-bhavas also manifest, as do transitory auxillary emotional influences or vyabhicari-bhavas. Thus bhava-bhakti involves the nourishment of one’s budding sthayi-bhava, and as it gives rise to all of these other ingredients it becomes competent to taste rasa in prema-bhakti. Srila Rupa Goswami has thus compared the sthayi-bhava to the ocean that gives rise to rain clouds which in turn nourish the ocean itself.
Swami - January 20, 2005 4:46 pm
I am not sure if everyone or anyone is understanding these concepts, bhava and prema. So let me try to explain further.
The sthyai-bhava dawns in bhava bhakti. What is it? It is the foundationl emotion to one's spiritual identity. It is a the spiritual sentiment that, for example, I am a cowherder and I love Krsna like my equal in friendship. This sthayi-bhava is constituted of Krsna's internal energy, his svarupa sakti. In bhava bhakti, however, one's budding sthayi-bhava is not developed sufficiently to afford one the experience of rasa, which is exclusive to prema.
This is lesson one. Any questions?
NrsinghaDas - January 20, 2005 5:23 pm
We hear of the natural development of devotional sentiments ie. santa then dasya and so on. Does this mean that one whos destination is sakhya rasa or madhurya rasa will initially expirence sthayi-bhava as santa and then progressivly up from there. Or does ones sthayi bhava automatically begin in relation to thier final stage of relization.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 20, 2005 6:53 pm
sthayi-bhava develops through the sadhana of nama sankirtana and attendant internal practices
This sthayi-bhava is constituted of Krsna's internal energy, his svarupa sakti.
How we can harmonize these two statements? First one implies that sthayi-bhava has to be cultivated and developed through practice and second implies that because it's svarupa sakti you can get it only by Krsna's mercy. Or does it mean that sthayi-bhava gets fully realized by practice of sadhana-bhakti/bhava-bhakti and it's not something you "get" but it's been in you all along? If it’s been in you from primordial times then how it can be "desired"? What if I desire sakhya but I'm actually situated in dasya?
Swami - January 20, 2005 8:39 pm
We hear of the natural development of devotional sentiments ie. santa then dasya and so on. Does this mean that one whos destination is sakhya rasa or madhurya rasa will initially expirence sthayi-bhava as santa and then progressivly up from there. Or does ones sthayi bhava automatically begin in relation to thier final stage of relization.
So, the value of an active agent of divinity as opposed to a passive one. Good question.
Although the qualities of santa are also in dasya and so on up the scale, this does not mean that one will first experience the sthayi-bhava of santa, then dasya, etc. before realizing one's identity in say, sakhya. No, one's sthayi-bhava of sakhya or madhurya, etc. will awaken in its own glory, albeit gradually. Even before one's sthayi-bhava manifests, one will have a sense of it and pursue it, especially in the stages of nistha (intellectually), ruci (with feeling), and asakti (with attachment). How will one pusrsue it? Basically by making it one's ideal, one's resolve. Gradually one will begin to see one's sadhana and evntually the entirte world through this lense.
Swami - January 20, 2005 9:01 pm
sthayi-bhava develops through the sadhana of nama sankirtana and attendant internal practicesThis sthayi-bhava is constituted of Krsna's internal energy, his svarupa sakti.
How we can harmonize these two statements? First one implies that sthayi-bhava has to be cultivated and developed through practice and second implies that because it's svarupa sakti you can get it only by Krsna's mercy. Or does it mean that sthayi-bhava gets fully realized by practice of sadhana-bhakti/bhava-bhakti and it's not something you "get" but it's been in you all along? If it’s been in you from primordial times then how it can be "desired"? What if I desire sakhya but I'm actually situated in dasya?
Another good question.
One engages in sadhana, sravanam, kirtananam, samranam, etc. and as the heart becomes cleansed, the svarupa sakti manifests in the heart of the sadhaka. Then it is further cultivated in bhava-bhakti wherein smaranam plays an important role. The experience of bhava is like a ray of the sun of prema. So in bhava-bhakti one cultivates this ray, and as it intensifies it turns into prema. Prema is nothing but the intensification of bhava. It is concentrated bhava that completely softens the heart and causes one to think of Krsna as "mine." Just as our material identity is based upon our sense of "mine," so too is our identity in Krsna-lila.
The jiva has the potential in connection with the svarupa sakti to enter Krsna lila. The jivas is a particle of the tatastha (marginal) energy. This energy has its origin in the svarupa sakti, Krsna's primal or internal energy. The tatastha sakti is a partial manifestation of the svarupa sakti. So one can say that the jiva has something of the svarupa sakti in its constitution being a partial manifestation of it. However, it requires an investment of the entire svarupa sakti in order to realize its highest potential, just as a start up company requires an investment in order to go public.
One desires a particualr relationship with Krsna based upon sadhana and sanga from this and previous lives. This desire is the beginning of realizing that which Sri Krsna has had in mind for you since time immemorial. That which you desire is that which you will be. Nama is cintamani, a touchstone.
Babhru Das - January 21, 2005 6:27 am
These explanations are a balm to the heart. Thanks for the questions, Nanda-tanuja.
Swami - January 21, 2005 6:36 pm
Lesson two:
So sthayi-bhava is the basis for the experience of rasa. When it is combined with the other ingredients, vibhava, anubhava, sattvika bhava, and vyabhicari bhava, this experience of rasa is at hand.
What is vibhava? The vibhava is twofold: support (alambana) and excitant (uddipana).
Support (alambana):
In order for there to be the experience of rasa two things are required. The object of love and love itself. These two, the object of love (visaya-alambana) and love itself or its shelter (asraya-alambana) are the support of the experience of rasa. The object of love is Krsna, the person/object to whom our love is directed. The love that is directed toward him is sheltered in a devotee, who is thus the shelter or vessel of that love. So for example in vatsalya or parental love, Krsna as a child is the object of love, and someone like Yasoda overflowing with motherly affection is the shelter or container of love. In sakhya rasa, Krsna as a chum with his flute tucked in his belt, cowherding stick in hand, etc. is the object of love, and someone like Sridama is the vessel of love.
For the sadhaka to experience one of the four sentiments of Vraja rasa, he or she follows the love of Yasoda, or Sridama, etc., ultimately internally seeing the guru as a representation of this love. At some point one’s stahyi-bhava is developed enough that the one becomes a shelter of love. Thus the asraya-alamabana-vibhava is in place, as is the visaya-alamabana-vibhava.
Excitant (uddipana):
Vibhava as an excitant is sometimes said to be the cause of rasa. However, under scrutiny it is clear that the sthayi-bhava creates the uddipana vibhava, while the uddipana or excitant then excites the sthayi-bhava further in order that it might taste rasa. In other words, the sthayi-bhava causes one to see the world in a particular way, such that things related to Krsna—his form, qualities, and so on that would do little for others other than afford them sukriti—serve to excite one’s sthayi-bhava. In advanced stages of prema, ordinary things like monsoon rain clouds serve as such excitants, reminding one of Krsna’s dark complexion, as one’s sthayi-bhava becomes the lens through which one experiences the world.
Any questions?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 21, 2005 9:24 pm
ultimately internally seeing the guru as a representation of this love
I’m not sure I understand this; could you please explain it in more detail?
Swami - January 21, 2005 9:51 pm
ultimately internally seeing the guru as a representation of this loveI’m not sure I understand this; could you please explain it in more detail?
In the higher stages of sadhana, one follows the bhava of one's guru. So one sees one's guru not as much as directly Hari—saksad hari—but more so as one who is dear to Hari—kitnu prabhor ya priya eva tasya. That is, one sees the guru as representing a particular bhava and corresponding associate of Krsna. One sees the guru as the asraya alambana vibhava and thus one pursues the love sheltered in him. It is love of Krsna that we are after, not Krsna. Of course, one who has love of Krsna has Krsna.
Citta Hari Dasa - January 21, 2005 10:12 pm
How does it work in cases like Dukhi Krsna dasa/Syamananda Pandita, i.e., after his natural affinity for madhurya rasa awakened would he continue to see Hrdaya Caitanya as a cowherder or would his vision change according to his own sentiment? If it did change, how could that be harmonized with the reality that his guru was in fact in sakhya-rasa?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 21, 2005 11:14 pm
One sees the guru as the asraya alambana vibhava and thus one pursues the love sheltered in him.
1. I love Krsna
2. My Guru loves Krsna
3. My goal is to serve Krsna and get His love, thus Him
How pursuing my Guru's love for Krsna will help me to reach my goal? Shouldn't I pursue Krsna's love for me?
Swami - January 22, 2005 12:56 am
How does it work in cases like Dukhi Krsna dasa/Syamananda Pandita, i.e., after his natural affinity for madhurya rasa awakened would he continue to see Hrdaya Caitanya as a cowherder or would his vision change according to his own sentiment? If it did change, how could that be harmonized with the reality that his guru was in fact in sakhya-rasa?
In the case of Dukhi Krsnadasa, who later became Syamananda, Dukhi was initated by Hrdaya Caitanaya. His guru was a direct disciple of Gauraidasa Pandita, who is an incarnation of Subala in Gaura lila.
Hrdaya Caitanay was following the sakhya bhava of a priyanarma sakha, a friend of Krsna who assists him in his romantic life, etc. One day his disciple Dukhi met Visakha gopi, one of Radha’s dearmost friends in an extraordinary spiritual vision. Visakha blessed him because he had found a piece of Radha’s jewelry that had fallen to the ground during her previous night’s trist with Sri Krsna. Visakha then took him to the Yamuna and gave him an internal gopi body.
During this period he had been under the siksa guidance of Sri Jiva goswami, who confirmed his expreience when Dukhi related it to him. Somewhere along the line his name was changed to Syamananda.
Later all this was revealed to Hrdaya Caitanya by Subala/Gauraidas. From then on Syamananada honored Hrdaya caitanya as his diksa guru and Jiva goswami as his siksa guru. He continued to see Hrdaya Caitanya as a sakha and prayed to him constantly, as did Narottama in his Prarthana
ei bara karuna koro lalita visakha
sakhya bhave mora prabhu subaladi sakha
"O Lalita, Visakha, and my lords in sakhya bhava, Subala and others! Be merciful to me.”
If in a instance a disciple develops a different sentiment of love for Krsna than that of his guru, there is no harm. The guru is like the president who although coming from a particular state himself, as president represents all the states and ministers to the needs of all of the citizens. My Prabhupada envisioned himself as a sakha, but he saw his guru as a manjari. Gopa Kumara of Brhat-bhagavatamrta realized himself as a priyanarma sakha, while his guru was a gopi dispatched by Radha to recruit him.
It is also worth noting that, according to Bhaktivinoda Thakura, it is possible that a disciple pursuing priyanarma sakhya bhava will see his guru in terms of the bhava that he himself is pursuing, even if his or her guru is situated in gopi bhava. The mysteries never end!
But the simple approach to all of this is to consider that Krsna has sent me to my guru who loves Krsna in a particular way because he wants me to serve him in the same way under the guidance of his dear representative. Keep it simple, and if their are complications, these are the kind of “problems” we look for!
Swami - January 22, 2005 1:01 am
One sees the guru as the asraya alambana vibhava and thus one pursues the love sheltered in him.1. I love Krsna
2. My Guru loves Krsna
3. My goal is to serve Krsna and get His love, thus Him
How pursuing my Guru's love for Krsna will help me to reach my goal? Shouldn't I pursue Krsna's love for me?
1. My guru loves Krsna.
2. I love my guru.
3. Krsna loves me.
Indeed, the fact that Krsna loves me is evidenced by the fact that he sent my guru to me to show me how to love him.
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 22, 2005 1:04 am
I think the general reality is that our goal is to actually love Krsna. Saying we love Krsna in the beginning stages of sadhana bhakti prior to bhava awakening within us wouldn't actually be correct.
I will second Citta Hari's question regarding the sisya having a different sthayi bhava than the guru - how will the sisya see his/her guru as this reality unfolds? Guru Maharaja I know you have mentioned that the guru will make all the necessary arrangements for the sisya and maybe that's the answer - if the sthayi bhava is different in the sisya and guru then the guru will arrange for proper guidance from one who does have the same sthayi bhava?
I have one other question in regards to this topic and discussion in general. I know it is important to have a conceptual orientation even without having developed to the stage of genuine feeling or rati - but could we discuss just how important it is and why? Sometimes I get a little frustrated ruminating over these details of rasa sastra because, for me at this point, it really is all in my head and so even though I can relate to the ideas from my experience in relationship to other human beings, sometimes I feel that categorizing it all and compartmentalizing it takes some of the naturalness out of it. I don't know if I'm expressing this very well - but let's use a mundane example. I love my children and when I see their picture or see something that reminds me of them my affection for them naturally rises in me. This happens without really understanding theoretically why it happens. It happens because I have affection. If I didn't have affection for them I am not sure I would really grasp the concept if it was explained in terms of classical aesthetic descriptions of such events. Because I have the feelings - I understand the conceptualization and description of them. Regarding bhava bhakti developing up to prema such that rasa can be experienced - I can only say that I really feel that what I have gathered from hearing the descriptions of rasa and reading about the interactions of the eternal parshadas of the Lord is far different from how I will think and feel about all this when I actually begin to develop as a sadhaka. Because of that I sometimes wonder if too much conceptualization or thinking about such sentiments before they develop could be detrimental because we develop an idea or picture in our minds eye of what all this is and what it 'feels' like but it really is only a mental image or projection from our current condtioned state unto a state which is by definition beyond our conditioning.
Swami - January 22, 2005 2:00 am
I will second Citta Hari's question regarding the sisya having a different sthayi bhava than the guru - how will the sisya see his/her guru as this reality unfolds? Guru Maharaja I know you have mentioned that the guru will make all the necessary arrangements for the sisya and maybe that's the answer - if the sthayi bhava is different in the sisya and guru then the guru will arrange for proper guidance from one who does have the same sthayi bhava?
I think I have answered this above.
Swami - January 22, 2005 2:17 am
I have one other question in regards to this topic and discussion in general. I know it is important to have a conceptual orientation even without having developed to the stage of genuine feeling or rati - but could we discuss just how important it is and why?
It is important because Rupa Goswami has written about it. If it were not important, he would not have done so. Can one develop prema without knowing these detail? By the grace of sri guru, certainly without a doubt. But still they are meant to help us. Although the reality of loving Krsna is beyond description, experiencers have given these descriptions for our benefit. I fail to see how knowing these details can hurt one. One may abuse theoretical knowledge, but that does not make it detrimental in and of itself. Especially in today's world of Gaudiya Vaisnvaism it is good to be theoreticaly well informed.
Interestingly, by the example you have given regarding your love for your children it seems that you are understadning the concpet of sthayi-bhava and vibhava as an excitant. Does this not bring Krsna consciousness home so to speak? Its like loving someone, but that someone is Krsna. In bhava bhakti this person ceases to become a philosophical-theological-theoretical person. He is more real that your children. Incredible!
Swami - January 22, 2005 2:21 am
And can anyone (Fred, Nandatanuja) tell me how to get rid of this pesky ---------- that shows up at the bottom of all of my posts?
Swami - January 22, 2005 2:27 am
Thanks Fred. I saw that you were in the Control Panel. So I looked there and tried editing the singnature. It worked!
Gauravani Dasa - January 22, 2005 2:30 am
At the top of the page, there should be a link called "My Controls." If you click on that, the next page displayed should have a column on the left-hand side with a section called "Personal Profile." Under that header is a link called "Edit Signature." If you click there, you should see where your signature is set to SIZE=7. Just erase it or replace it with whatever you'd like it to say. Please let me know if this helps. 
Gauravani Dasa - January 22, 2005 2:31 am
LOL! Jai!
Babhru Das - January 22, 2005 6:03 am
Interestingly, by the example you have given regarding your love for your children it seems that you are understadning the concpet of sthayi-bhava and vibhava as an excitant. Does this not bring Krsna consciousness home so to speak? Its like loving someone, but that someone is Krsna. In bhava bhakti this person ceases to become a philosophical-theological-theoretical person. He is more real that your children.
As I read Audarya-lila's post, I though, "He does get it, and he's reminding me, too!" Our association is such that it's that accessible at the same time it's inconceivable (at least without this wonderful association).
Thank you all for this discussion. It's precisely the relief I needed from my day as a writing teacher stuck in a community-college bureaucracy. More balm for the soul.
Bhrigu - January 22, 2005 8:00 am
I have one other question in regards to this topic and discussion in general. I know it is important to have a conceptual orientation even without having developed to the stage of genuine feeling or rati - but could we discuss just how important it is and why?
In addition to what Guru Maharaja already said, I come to think of how he sometimes explains the Goswamis as taking some of the water from the Niagara waterfall that is Sri Caitanya and turning it into a lake for us to bathe in. By classifying, cathegorising etc, Rupa Goswami is trying to make devotional ecstasy easier for us to understand.
Still, I think you have a point in saying that all of this theory might be counterproductive in the sense that it might make us think of rasa as a static, easily classifiable thing. That is what according to some happened in a sense in Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the 18th and 19th centuries. The theory, accepted similes, etc kind of choked the poetic creativity. However, when we read for example the BRS, I think it is clear that Rupa Goswami does not intend it as book of rules of rasa set in stone. There are lots of nuances and exceptions, as some of the discussion in this thread has already shown. I think this should be kept in mind.
Also, when I started this thread I thought that learning and practicing these concepts, even though I at least am not on the bhava level, will be a good Krishna conscious excercise. For me at least it has been so, forcing me to think more deeply about the persons, relationships and so on of Goloka. At least in that sense, I feel all of this is important.
Madangopal - January 22, 2005 8:38 am
but could we discuss just how important it is and why?
I see the importance of this as being the development of bhakti jnana, theoretical knowledge, which will give rise to realization - vijnana. The vijnana will be much more expansive, natural and unlimited, but the jnana will gives us hints, structure, and little tastes of that ocean to set the course for our realization.
In bhava bhakti this person ceases to become a philosophical-theological-theoretical person. He is more real that your children.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 22, 2005 8:45 am
Cannot wait for lesson three
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 22, 2005 7:50 pm
What I meant by the possiblity of 'hurting one' is that we may begin to think about and feel about Krsna and his associates in terms of our own mundane experiences, which for most of us is what we have. I was thinking somewhat along the lines of why our lineage places the label of 'sahajiya' or 'imitationist' on those who take the highest ideal 'cheaply'. It seems to me that all of this - rasa - which is only played out on the level of prema - represents our highest ideals. So, the 'warning' about discussion of 'higher' topics by those who weren't 'qualified'.
I do realize that a conceptual orientation and understanding of rasa will help us in our reading of Srimad Bhagavatam and Chaitanya Caritamrita and give us more depth in theorhetical understanding. I also realize that mere dicussion doesn't constitute a pretense of being on the level of experiencing rasa.
Anyway, I really appreciate this whole thread and I am also anxiously awaiting lesson three.
Swami - January 23, 2005 1:54 am
Lesson three:
Anubhava and Sattvika-bhava.
Anu means to follow. So an anubhava is one that follows, in the case one’s stahyi-bhava that has been excited by the manifestation of alambana and uddipana vibhava, by way of expressing itself outwardly. It is not the stahyi-bhava expressing itself, for if it were there would be no need to call it something else. So an anubhava is distinct from one’s sthayi-bhava, yet it follows in its wake. It is a distinct ingredient of rasa. It manifests outwardly in the body of the devotee, whereas the stahyi-bhava is an internal mood or sentiment. Anubhavas reveal outwardly the internal presence of bhava within the heart.
Bhakti is expressed as what is called cesta-rupa. Cesta-rupa refers to something appearing in the form of an external activity (cesta = activities, rupa = form). This cesta-rupa manifests in both sadhana bhakti and bhava bhakti. In sadhana bhakti it is called sadhana-rupa (form of practice) and in bhava is is called karya-rupa (form of effect). Cesta-rupa in sandhana bhakti, or sadhana-rupa, manifests as devotional practices intended to awaken bhava. In bhava-bhakti this cesta-rupa or karya-rupa manifests as anubhavas that are a result of having attained bhava-bhakti. Thus chanting and dancing, for example, could be either an example of the cesta-rupa aspect of bhakti manifesting in either sadhana or bahva-bhakti. Such chanting and dancing, that is, could be a means to attain bhava or and expression of bhava. The latter is what we refer to as anubhavas. Fort the most part they appear when a devotee in bhava feels and then considers “Let me dance.”
Sattvika-bhavas are also independent ingredients of rasa that are expressed outwardly. Thus they are also karya-rupa. However, unlike anubhavas, there is no parallel activity to compare them with in sadhana-bhakti. Although such symptoms are sometimes imitated by sadhana-bhaktas, which is deplorable, and sometimes a semblance of bhava (bhavabhasa) appears in sincere sadhakas in the form of symptoms like shedding tears and hairs standing on end, which is a blessing. Another difference between anubhavas and sattvika bhavas is that sattvikas are not tied to intelligence as anubhavas are. They are a result of sattva (pure exisitence) affecting one’s citta, the internal organ by which one becomes conscious of oneself. This citta saturated with sattva in turn affects one’s prana. All of this is internal. When one’s prana is thus agitated it causes external bodily transformations in relation to the basic elements of the body (earth, water, fire, etc). Thus sattvika-bhavas directly express themselves without passing through one’s intellect, as anubhavas do, and they involve not only external but also some internal activity.
Bhrigu - January 24, 2005 9:27 am
I really like the explanation of the difference between anubhavas and sattvika-bhavas. It makes the difference quite clear -- except in some cases. How can "hickuping", "frothing at the mouth", "bodily contortions" be anubhavas? These do not seem to have anything to do with cesta-rupa sadhana bhakti. Neither does there seem to be any voluntariness involved in them.
Swami - January 24, 2005 9:43 pm
How can "hickuping", "frothing at the mouth", "bodily contortions" be anubhavas? These do not seem to have anything to do with cesta-rupa sadhana bhakti. Neither does there seem to be any voluntariness involved in them.
Other anubhavas like bleeding are are also problematic in this regard. These anubhavas are more rare, and all we can say about them is that becasue they are not sattvika-bhavas, since they are not manifest in the same way as the that sattvika-bhavas are, they are calssifed as anubhavas. Sri Rupa Goswamis does not comment on this at all, but such rare anubhavas did manifest in Mahaprabhu during Ratha Yatra sankirtana.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 24, 2005 10:38 pm
such rare anubhavas did manifest in Mahaprabhu during Ratha Yatra sankirtana
Please explain, I thought Mahaprabhu was firmly situated in sattvika-bhava. My understanding was that sattvika-bhava succeeds anubhava, so flow in anubhava goes as such: internal intellectual mood -> bodily expression, and in sattvika-bhava it goes as: sattva -> internal prana -> bodily expression. If this is correct then sattvika-bhava is higher then anubhava, so Mahaprabhu as reservoir of bliss, should be in sattvika-bhava, right?
Swami - January 24, 2005 10:56 pm
such rare anubhavas did manifest in Mahaprabhu during Ratha Yatra sankirtanaPlease explain, I thought Mahaprabhu was firmly situated in sattvika-bhava. My understanding was that sattvika-bhava succeeds anubhava, so flow in anubhava goes as such: internal intellectual mood -> bodily expression, and in sattvika-bhava it goes as: sattva -> internal prana -> bodily expression. If this is correct then sattvika-bhava is higher then anubhava, so Mahaprabhu as reservoir of bliss, should be in sattvika-bhava, right?
No, it is not that one of these bahvas is higher than the other. They are all independent ingredients of rasa. When they are all in place, one tastes rasa. Mahaprabhu's dancing and singing are anubhavas. His profusion of tears and horripilation are sattvika-bhavas. They occur in him all at once. Similarly in Krsna-lila devotees experience all of these bhavas at once. This is rasa. If any of them is "higher" it is the stahyi-bhava in that the others arise from it once it manifests. Therefore is it sometime said that shayi-bhava is rasa (when it matures).
Bhrigu - January 26, 2005 7:47 am
Vrindaranya, could you please post the verse from Aesthetic Vedanta you mentioned earlier, the one which has all the ingredients of rasa? I cannot find it.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 28, 2005 2:49 pm
Any more lessons?
Vrindaranya Dasi - January 28, 2005 3:17 pm
Dandavats,
I'm presently out of station, getting the car fixed, and I don't have an Aesthetic Vedanta. The example of rasa is in the last chapter toward the end. Perhaps someone else could locate and post it.
Ys,
Vrindaranya
Bhrigu - January 28, 2005 6:30 pm
Ok, found it.
"As dawn approached, Radha and Krishna went arm in arm from their forest cottage, about to step into the cow pasture on their way home. At that time, Syamasundara, the beautiful dark boy, fearing the imminent appearance of the sun and the arrival of Jatila, Radha's mother-in-law, suddenly removed Radha's arm from his shoulder. [...] When the doubts that threatened Radha and Krishna refused to allow them to continue to their homes together, their pain in separation caused their friends who were leading the way to sigh, break out in tears and become discoloured."
"Their friends" refers to the manjaris. They are the asraya-alambana-vibhava.
What is their
a ) sthayi-bhava
b ) visaya-alambana-vibhava
c ) uddipana-vibhava
d ) anubhavas
e ) sattvika-bhavas
f ) vyabhicari-bhavas?
And no cheating by looking in the book!
Swami - January 29, 2005 8:49 pm
Any more lessons?
Yes, just now coming. (That's and Benglish phrase)
Bhrigu - January 30, 2005 1:04 pm
Won't anybody try answering the last quiz? It would be nice to see someone who hasn't tried before give it a go. Guru Maharaja's "lessons" should provide all the necessary clues, as well as the other thread on rasa. And if you're wrong, the only thing that will happen is that everybody will laugh at you! But, seriously, mistakes are there to learn from. I have made plenty in this thread already, and I'm the one who had the audacity to start it.
Swami - January 30, 2005 8:44 pm
Lesson four:
Vyabhicari-bhava
Vyabhicari bhavas are those that are transitory. The come and go. When they appear, they enhance one’s stahyi-bhava. Like waves they arise out of the ocean of one’s stahyi-bhava. The word vyabhicari means “moving toward with certainty.” Thus these bhavas a capable of influencing one’s stahyi-bhava, although they are not capable of becoming dominant themselves in an enduring sense. They merely flavor one’s sthayi-bhava. Becasue they flavor one’s sthayi-bhava, they are also called sancari-bhavas. The word sancari also indicates movement. Thus vyabhicari-bhavas move within one’s sthayi-bhava creating variation within it. They are thirty-three in number.
These bhavas interact not only with one’s sthayi-bhava, but with one another as well. The appearance of one may cancel another.
When the sentiment of love for another devotee arises out of one’s stahyi-bhava for Krsna, this sentiment is also sometimes classified as a sancari-bhava because it serves to flavor and enhance one’s love for Krsna. This is an extended sense of the term sancari-bhava beyond the common thirty-three sancari-bhavas. Srila Rupa Goswami writes, “Love for friends of a similar temperament of feeling for Krsna is also known as sancari,” sakhyadinu nija-premapy atra sancaritam vrajet (UN 13.2).
Devotees of Krsna who share a common sentiment of love for him naturally feel a mutual empathy and think of each other as friends. The best of the devotees in each of the four rasas, such as Raktaka and Patraka amongst Krsna’s servants, Subala and Sridam amongst the friends, Krsna’s parents Nanda and Yasoda, and Srimati Radharani and Candravali amongst his girl friends, are usually loved by their friends to a degree slightly less than their level of love for Krsna himself. On occasion it may equal, but not exceed it. In such cases, the sthayi bhava is the love the devotee has for Krsna, and the feeling of friendship for the devotee is considered a sancari-bhava—a wave in the ocean of that love. This is the case for all sentiments except for manjari bhava, in which Radha is loved by her friends even more than Krsna, and the two combined, Radha and Krsna, become the visaya-alambana, or object of love.
Questions?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 30, 2005 10:27 pm
Won't anybody try answering the last quiz?
I was waiting for someone else to answer, but I guess it's not happening, so this is my take on that:
a. karuna-rasa (compassion in tragedy) and madhurya-rasa (conjugal love)
b. Radha & Krsna
c. guna (qualities)
d. svasa-bhuma (breathing heavily), sighs
e. asru (weeping), vaivarnya (changing color)
f. cinta (anxiety)
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 1, 2005 9:18 pm
Devotees of Krsna who share a common sentiment of love for him naturally feel a mutual empathy and think of each other as friends.
Actually I have a question about this. I understand this concept for vaidhi-bhakti (santa-rasa) -- "you revere my God, so we are brothers", but how does it work for madhurya-rasa? In our world affection to the same person will cause rivalry and envy, not empathy. Please explain.
Bhrigu - February 2, 2005 10:27 am
Nandatanuja, you got everything right, except for the uddipana. It is the tearful faces of Radha and Krishna, which is an aspect of their rupa.
There is something I don't understand though. I know I am slow in getting this, and sorry for that, Guru Maharaja, but how can the crying of the manjaris here be a sattvikabhava? It seems to follow their anxious thoughts about the imminent separation of Radha and Krishna, and not be a spontaneous, "ecstatic" emotion.
Audarya-lila Dasa - February 2, 2005 6:00 pm
That's actually the same question I have. I thought Nanda-tanuja had it wrong. I thought that the crying fell into the category of anubhava based on the distinctions draw earlier in this thread.
Swami - February 2, 2005 11:34 pm
There is something I don't understand though. I know I am slow in getting this, and sorry for that, Guru Maharaja, but how can the crying of the manjaris here be a sattvikabhava? It seems to follow their anxious thoughts about the imminent separation of Radha and Krishna, and not be a spontaneous, "ecstatic" emotion.
They are feeling separation and in the midst of this they change colors and tears pour forth. These are sattvika-bhavas. Actually tears are never an anubhava (correction). Previously it was mentioned by Babhru that crying was an anubhava, and I went that in my explanation differentiating between anubhavas and sattvika-bhavas. However, after looking at the Sanskrit I realized that this is not the best translation for the word hunkara in the primary list of anubhavas given by Rupa Goswami (although Prabhupada used it sometimes). "Loud shouting," "roaring," or "crying out" would be more accurate. So strike crying as in tears off the list of anubhavas altogether.
Thus there is no overlapping between the two, anubhavas and sattvika bhavas. Sattvika-bhavas are eight in number, stupefication, perspiration, hairs standing on end, choked voice, trembling, changing colors, tears and loss of consciousness. It should be clear from thinking about these symptoms that they are all involuntary, even though there are emotional conditions that accompany them.
Previously in differentiating between anubhavas and sattvika bhavas I explained that sattvika-bhavas are not tied to emotions in the same way that anubhavas are. Still sattvika bhavas do arise during different emotional conditions, while being involuntary nonetheless. For example, cold tears come in conjunction with joy and hot tears in conjunction with sorrow and anger.
For the most part, the background of anubhavas is the feeling (emotion) that one wants to do something, like roll on the ground, cry out, dance, etc. While the background of sattvika-bhavas may also be emotional to some extent, the expression of these bhavas is involuntary. It is not that one feels like crying and thus one cries as an anubhava (correction here), but rather that one may feel sorrowful and tears will come involuntarily when sattva carried on one’s prana contacts the water element of the body. I hope this explanation is more clear.
It is complex.
Swami - February 3, 2005 1:33 am
Devotees of Krsna who share a common sentiment of love for him naturally feel a mutual empathy and think of each other as friends.Actually I have a question about this. I understand this concept for vaidhi-bhakti (santa-rasa) -- "you revere my God, so we are brothers", but how does it work for madhurya-rasa? In our world affection to the same person will cause rivalry and envy, not empathy. Please explain.
When young girl friends all fall in love with a film star they have empathy for one another. It is something like that. They are all similarly stricken with love. Of course in Krsna-lila all the girls have no desire other than to please Krsna, so if it pleases him to go with another girl, Radha has no objection. This is the significance of the final stanza of Siksastakam, which is said to have been originally spoken by Radha herself. Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja explains her words thus:
"My dear friend, just hear the decision of My mind. Krsna is the Lord of My life in all conditions, whether He shows Me affection or kills Me by giving Me unhappiness.
Sometimes Krsna gives up the company of other gopis and becomes controlled, mind and body, by Me. Thus He manifests My good fortune and gives others distress by performing His loving affairs with Me.
Or, since after all He is a very cunning, obstinate debauchee with a propensity to cheat, He takes to the company of other women. He then indulges in loving affairs with them in front of Me to give distress to My mind. Nevertheless, He is still the Lord of My life.
I do not mind My personal distress. I only wish for the happiness of Krsna, for His happiness is the goal of My life. However, if He feels great happiness in giving Me distress, that distress is the best of My happiness.
If Krsna, attracted by the beauty of some other woman, wants to enjoy with her but is unhappy because He cannot get her, I fall down at her feet, catch her hand and bring her to Krsna to engage her for His happiness."
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 3, 2005 5:21 am
It is complex.
If anyone is having trouble with these terms, check out Waves of Devotion. There are extensive explanations and illustrations.
I've recently got that book and was using it during exercises; it was, in fact, very helpful. Just in case, if anyone is interested, you can get it here.
Bhrigu - February 3, 2005 11:01 am
"Loud shouting," "roaring," or "crying out" would be more accurate. So strike crying as in tears off the list of anubhavas altogether.
Ok, then it becomes clear! Thank you for clearing up all this for us, Guru Maharaja. Another exercise (BRS 2.4.243):
"During a festival, Radha was wearing Hari's necklace, when she spotted her mother standing right in front of her, and realised that she had guessed her secret. She also saw [Candravali's friend] Padma there with a smile on her face. And at a slight distance she saw both Hari and her husband, and she hung her head out of both excitement and depression."
Which are
a ) Radha's vyabhicari-bhavas
b ) what are their causes?
Madangopal - February 3, 2005 4:25 pm
I've fallen out of the nectar of this thread for a while so I'll try to jump back in.
The vyabhicari-bhavas are
1) Excitement - caused by seeing Hari, whose necklace she was wearing. Could She also be excited by the fact that She is wearing Hari's necklace and Candravali's camp (represented by Padma) is a witness to this, and thus She has scored a win in the transcendental competition for Hari's love? In a sense, showing off her gold medal?! Or am I stretching it?
2) Depression - could we also call this shame? - caused by being exposed in Her love for Krsna in front of Her mother and with Her husband nearby. Another possibility, I'm wondering what is the nature of Padma's smile? Is she smiling out of competitiveness, that Radha will get in trouble by being exposed in this way? If so, Radha's depression could be caused by Padma's smiling.
Bhrigu - February 3, 2005 4:32 pm
Not bad, Madangopal, you're on to quite a bit of the full answer. I'll give you a hint: there are four vyabhicaribhavas here...
Madangopal - February 3, 2005 4:51 pm
okay, I think I get it. There is one vyabhicari bhava for each person She sees because it is augmenting her stayi-bhava, right?
Vyabhicari-bhava's:
1) Seeing Her mother - shame at being "found out".
2) Seeing Her husband - depression, because Her love is for Hari and She has to supress it.
3) Seeing Padma - pride, because She has a token of His love around Her neck.
4) Seeing Hari - Excitement, because He is EVERYTHING to Her.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 4, 2005 5:16 am
1) Seeing Her mother - brida (shame)
2) Seeing Her husband - dainya (depression)
3) Seeing Padma - amarsa (intolerance)
4) Seeing Hari - harsa (jubilation)
Bhrigu - February 4, 2005 12:11 pm
Nandatanuja again gets all the points! 
All right, I'll have to post something more difficult then. BRS 2.4.246:
"Damn these two big eyes of mine, for they have never seen Mathura. Yet my knowledge enslaves kings! - But time destroys all things. My house is a house in which Laksmi always plays. But alas, my body is wasting away day after day. Therefore, I should remain at home and worship Hari. Ah, Vrindavana is pulling vigorously at my heart."
Which are the seven vyabhicarins illustrated here?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 4, 2005 3:18 pm
Who is this talking?
Swami - February 4, 2005 3:46 pm
Not to confuse anyone , but according to bhojana rasika Madhumangala, Krsna’s dear brhamana friend, there are only six rasas, pungnet, bitter, harsh sweet, sour, and salty relished through the five senses and the mind. The form of food can be beheld, its fragrance can be smelled, its sweetness tasted, its softness touched, the sounds of eating it can be heard, and mental satisfaction can be derived from eating food. Those who give up subji and dhal for some spiritual rasa are chasing illusion!
As for sattvika-bhavas, he tells Sri Krsna and his other friends that if he does not get a proper meal, tears pour forth from his eyes like waves. He experiences goose bumps when he gets his meal. His complexion becomes smooth and changes color after eating. His voice chokes as he tries to speak while eating. When he cannot get sufficient sweet rice he becomes stunned. He perspires after eating a lot very fast and then passes out in a swoon.
So Audarya-lila’s comments about all these things being quite different in Goloka is worth noting!
Bhrigu - February 4, 2005 4:45 pm
according to bhojana rasika Madhumangala, Krsna’s dear brahmana friend, there are only six rasas
Who is this talking?
It doesn't say, but it also doesn't really matter. The vyabhicari-bhavas can be seen in the verse itself. But Nandatanujaji, perhaps you could let someone else try this time? I'm sure this board is full of persons dying to have a go... 
Bhrigu - February 12, 2005 5:26 pm
But Nandatanujaji, perhaps you could let someone else try this time? I'm sure this board is full of persons dying to have a go...
All right, Nandatanuja, I think we have given the others enough time. Which are the vyabhicaris in the above text? And Guru Maharaja, any more lessons coming? I for one would love to learn more.
Shyam Gopal Das - February 12, 2005 9:32 pm
I think I have some catching up to do.... not having an internet connection didn't really help my understanding of bhavas
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 13, 2005 10:34 pm
All right, Nandatanuja, I think we have given the others enough time.
1. Damn these two big eyes of mine, for they have never seen Mathura. -- Augrya (fierceness/anger)
2. Yet my knowledge enslaves kings! -- Garva (arrogance/pride)
3. But time destroys all things. -- Sanka (apprehencion/alarm)
4. My house is a house in which Laksmi always plays. -- Dhirti (fortitude)
5. But alas, my body is wasting away day after day. -- Visada (lamentation)
6. Therefore, I should remain at home and worship Hari. -- Mati (understanding)
7. Ah, Vrindavana is pulling vigorously at my heart. -- Autsukya (impatience/eagerness)
Bhrigu - February 14, 2005 2:49 pm
Six out of seven correct! Not bad. The only mistake was number one, which Rupa Goswami gives as nirveda or indifference. Indifference is defined in BRS 2.4.7 as "Indifference for the self in the face of such experiences as great pain, separation, jealousy and realisation of the truth is called "indifference".
Anger or wrath (aughrya) is defined (BRS 2.4.155) like this: "Wrath" is violence produced by some offense or abusive speech.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - February 14, 2005 8:19 pm
Indifference usually means unconcern, apathy. When I say "Damn!" the last thing I'm feeling is indifference. I'm not questioning Rupa Goswami, but just wondering if translation is correct.
Bhrigu - February 17, 2005 11:30 am
Indifference usually means unconcern, apathy.
I think that is what the sentence is all about. "Alas! How useless are these twin eyes of mine, since they have never seen Mathura, the only place worth seeing." Indifference was defined as "indifference for the self in the face of such experiences as (...) realisation of the truth". The vyabhicaribhava anger is quite narrowly defined as produced by what someone has said.
But the "damn" may not be the best translation. I am not a native speaker, so I don't know whether it always has such a pregnant meaning as in a "Damn!" one might say when upset. I have been using Elkman's BRS translation. It is in some ways rather disappointing, but it is the only translation of the whole text available.
Bhrigu - March 2, 2005 5:26 pm
I have an idea for a good ending to this thread which I would like to hear your opinion about. We have covered the main points of the second part of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, and before moving on to the third (if there is interest), I think some kind of a small examination would be in order to check up on how we are doing. Not many have taken the time to answer the assignments I have posted, but I am hoping that the reasons for that have not been only that people haven't been interested.
I spoke with Mikko the other day about this thread and he mentioned that he found the main difficulty to be one of terminology. I feel the same, at first I thought all this rasa-tattva seemed so complicated, but once I learned the basic terms, things kind of fell into place. There are not that many terms to learn, and they have all been very nicely explained in this thread and in the one started by Cittahari. It is obvious that Guru Maharaja wants us to learn this, so I think we should put some effort into it. There is a bit of a learning hurdle in the beginning, but once you get over it, it is not at all as daunting as it may seem at first.
At any rate, I thought that I could compile a small examination about rasa-tattva and post the questions here, if you like the idea. After a week or so I could post the correct answers. What do you think?
Guru-nistha Das - November 30, 2007 4:29 am
I really loved this thread and I have a plan of bringing it back to life!
We have been reading Jaiva-Dharma in the mornings and right now we are in the Rasa-Tattva section. There are so many confusing and new things there so I'll just start posting my questions here.
The first questions is about sthayi-bhava. When Bhaktivinoda Thakur enlists all the Sthayi-bhavas, he's talking about suddha-bhava, which he divides into three categories, one of which is santa rasa. Why is it that normally the first shayi-bhava is referred to only as santa-rasa? And also, could someone explain the three divisions in more depth?
What a rich theology we have. :Raised Eyebrow:
Mayapurcandra Das - November 30, 2007 4:38 am
Thanks Guru-nistha for showing me this thread now I should start read and study this from begining very carefully, may be then Jaiva dharma and especially Rasa-Tattva section will be not so confusing :Raised Eyebrow:
Zvonimir Tosic - November 30, 2007 5:00 am
What a rich theology we have. :Raised Eyebrow:
And it seems to be constantly expanding!
Just observe; original Srimad Bhagavatam, Vyasadeva's Srimad Bhagavatam, then Sukadeva's narration of the Srimad Bhagavatam, then Jiva Goswami's (and other Goswmi's) explanations based on teachings of Sri Caitanya and Nityananda, then every other acarya has added something that fills up the complete picture; then Bhaktivinode Thakur, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, Sridhara Maharaja, Bhaktivedanta Swami, Swami Tripurari ... and it just goes on and on.
It never ends!
No wonder I loose my marbles.
Ys, Z.
Bhrigu - November 30, 2007 10:24 am
The first questions is about sthayi-bhava. When Bhaktivinoda Thakur enlists all the Sthayi-bhavas, he's talking about suddha-bhava, which he divides into three categories, one of which is santa rasa. Why is it that normally the first shayi-bhava is referred to only as santa-rasa? And also, could someone explain the three divisions in more depth?
Do you mean the threefold division of suddha-rati in chapter 28 (p. 625 in NM's hardbound ed.)? First of all, we should be careful to not mix the three terms sthayi-bhava, rati and rasa, as is very commonly done in ISKCON and all over. Sthayi-bhava is the foundational emotion towards Krishna, one's "mood". Rati means love, and is in this connection used to name the different sthayi-bhavas. Dasya-rati, for example, means the sthayi-bhava of loving Krishna as a servant. Rasa, again, is the intense, aesthetic experience which arises when one's sthayi-bhava is combined with a suitable vibhava, anubhava, vyabhicaribhava and sattvika-bhava. Dasya-rasa, in other words, is not the mood of loving Krishna as a servant, but a particular, ecstatic feeling a devotee in dasya-rati may experience. If I may be allowed to toot my own horn, The Little Book of Bhakti Yoga is good for getting these terms straight.
At any rate, suddha-rati is here a more general name for santa-rati, or then we could say that santa-rati is the most common form of suddha-rati. I think that is why we usually just hear of santa-rati. Following BRS 2.5.8-21, Bhaktivinoda divides suddha-rati into three types. Sâmânya-rati means general love, and indicates the rati of ordinary people and small girls of Vraja. Rupa Goswami says that it has "no special characteristics" (BRS 2.5.9). It seems to be just general "love". The second type is called svaccha or clear, and refers to a kind of love of Krishna that takes different forms according to different types of practices and association. Rupa Goswami likens it to a transparent crystal (BRS 2.5.13). Such a person will experience different moods at different times. Jiva Goswami comments that it is for those whose hearts are extremely pure, and who have some experience of Krishna through scripture, but who haven't yet developed their own mood for him. The third type, santa-rati is explained as (BRS 2.5.16, trans. Haberman) "The cessation of any fluctuations of the mind", so it is something like the ideal of the yogis. It is also explained as (BRS 2.5.17) as the natural state of the self, after on has abandoned engagement in sense-objects and is situated in the joy of the self. The Kumaras are the usual example of this.
Zvonimir Tosic - November 30, 2007 12:06 pm
The Kumaras are the usual example of this.
Dear Bhrigu Prabhu,
Do you mean Kumaras as before the incident with Jaya and Vijaya at the gate of Vaikuntha, or the Kumaras after the incident?
Ys, Z.
Bhrigu - November 30, 2007 3:25 pm
As far as I understood they were jnanins before that, so I would say after.
Guru-nistha Das - November 30, 2007 3:34 pm
Thanks a lot for the nice explanation, Bhrigu!
And thanks for reminding to be concise with the different terms.
So the svaccha-rati can't exist in Vrindavana, it only pertains to sadhakas who haven't fully developed their Sthayi-bhava?
There are no "sthayi-hoppers" in the prakrita/aprakrita lila?
Bhrigu - December 1, 2007 11:21 am
I don't completely understand this svaccha-suddha-rati. Or I understand the idea -- I for example can get inspired by reading a really majestic description of Vaikuntha, then the next moment by Yashoda's looking into Krishna's mouth and being bewildered by his yogamaya, then by Radha talking to the bumblebee -- but not how this can be called a sthayibhava. But it is described as a sthayi-bhava, not a stage of sadhana. A permanent mood of non-permanency?
Guru-nistha Das - December 1, 2007 3:38 pm
I remember Guru Maharaja talking about the svaccha-rati in one of his Sangas last year. Would be great if someone could dig it up from the archives.
Another question that came up today is this:
Sthayi-bhava is divided into two categories: mukhya-rati (the 5 main sthayi-bhavas like sahkya, madhurya etc.) and Gauna-rati (secondary sthayi-bhavas like humor, enthusiasm, disgust etc.). We had hard time understanding what exactly is the difference between gauna-ratis and anubhavas? I've heard it said that gauna-ratis "leave a permanent impression on the jivas whereas anubhavas don't" but I'd like to hear some more elaboration on this. Thanks.
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 1, 2007 7:21 pm
First of all, we should be careful to not mix the three terms sthayi-bhava, rati and rasa, as is very commonly done in ISKCON and all over. Sthayi-bhava is the foundational emotion towards Krishna, one's "mood". Rati means love, and is in this connection used to name the different sthayi-bhavas. Dasya-rati, for example, means the sthayi-bhava of loving Krishna as a servant. Rasa, again, is the intense, aesthetic experience which arises when one's sthayi-bhava is combined with a suitable vibhava, anubhava, vyabhicaribhava and sattvika-bhava. Dasya-rasa, in other words, is not the mood of loving Krishna as a servant, but a particular, ecstatic feeling a devotee in dasya-rati may experience. If I may be allowed to toot my own horn, The Little Book of Bhakti Yoga is good for getting these terms straight.
I still cannot grasp the difference between sthayi bhava and rati. How "emotion" (which is obviously love here) differs from "love"?
Vivek - December 1, 2007 11:42 pm
Thanks Bhrigu for your rigorous analysis. But sometimes all analysis falls short of conveying the language of love: Love moves in a crooked way so the Absolute needs some freedom to move or breathe. Therefore by compartmentalizing descriptions of the reality of bhava too much, we may be making the same mistake the science has made with its insistence of strict determinism.
Obviously I am not minimizing the importance of details in shastra, but just putting forth the point that sometimes we go too far in demanding exacting understand of the world of spiritual emotion.
Vivek - December 1, 2007 11:44 pm
Thanks Bhrigu for your rigorous analysis. But sometimes all analysis falls short of conveying the language of love: Love moves in a crooked way so the Absolute needs some freedom to move or breathe. Therefore by compartmentalizing descriptions of the reality of bhava too much, we may be making the same mistake the science has made with its insistence of strict determinism.Obviously I am not minimizing the importance of details in shastra, but just putting forth the point that sometimes we go too far in demanding exacting understand of the world of spiritual emotion.
sorry i meant "exact understanding" not exacting understand
Guru-nistha Das - December 2, 2007 2:14 am
Thanks Bhrigu for your rigorous analysis. But sometimes all analysis falls short of conveying the language of love: Love moves in a crooked way so the Absolute needs some freedom to move or breathe. Therefore by compartmentalizing descriptions of the reality of bhava too much, we may be making the same mistake the science has made with its insistence of strict determinism.Obviously I am not minimizing the importance of details in shastra, but just putting forth the point that sometimes we go too far in demanding exacting understand of the world of spiritual emotion.
I feel (a fitting word, huh?) that since we are so far from having those feelings, it's better to understand the subject matter really well even theoretically. That should naturally increase our interest in the subject and gradually turn our attention in that direction, which will in turn increase our feeling for it.
Bhrigu - December 2, 2007 12:25 pm
I still cannot grasp the difference between sthayi bhava and rati. How "emotion" (which is obviously love here) differs from "love"?
Sorry for not being very clear with this. My main point was that we shouldn't mix rati and rasa. Still, rati has a larger connotation in general than the exact term sthayi-bhava. However, Rupa Goswami writes (BRS 1.3.13) that in the Puranas and Natya-sastra, rati is synonymous with bhava, and thus he will use them as synonyms in his book. For example, in Bhag. 3.25.25, (satam prasangan... sraddha ratir bhaktir anukramisyati), he understands "rati" to refer to bhava, "bhakti" to prema. So when used together with the name of a particular sthayi-bhava, rati just means "sthayi-bhava". In other contexts, it may sometimes mean something else.
Vivek Prabhu: this is not my analysis, I am just reading and quoting Rupa Goswami. He has chosen this language for describing the Absolute. Of course, words can never say enough about Krishna, as Guru Maharaja often points out, but that doesn't mean that we should be silent. We should come to a plane where shastra becomes irrelevant, but only very few fortunate souls will come to it without first studying the sastra, especially that of Rupa Goswami, who is after all the very cornerstone of our whole theology.
Re. gauna-rati vs. anubhavas, did you mean vyabhicari-bhavas, Gurunistha? Rupa Goswami deals with this in BRS 2.5.43-51. The difference seems to be that both gauna-ratis and vyabhicaris override the sthayi-bhava for some time, but while vyabhicaris disappear on their own, gauna-rati is displaced only by the reappearance of the mukhya-rati. Gauna-ratis also leave lasting impressions, while vyabhicari-bhavas do not (BRS 2.5.51). Gauna-ratis may also combine with vibhavas, anubhavas, sattvika-bhavas and vyabhicari-bhavas. This is not completely clear to me. Some examples would be helpful. However, Rupa Goswami writes later on in his book (4.7.13-14) that the gauna-ratis usually function as vyabhicari-bhavas, but that he has counted them as gauna-sthayi-bhavas out of respect for Bharata Muni, who lists them thusly.
Citta Hari Dasa - December 2, 2007 3:31 pm
Gauna-ratis also leave lasting impressions, while vyabhicari-bhavas do not (BRS 2.5.51).
I wonder what that means, exactlly. The lasting impressions of the gauna-ratis would then combine with the mukhya-rati to result in a slightly different sthayi-bhava? Wouldn't that means that the sthayi-bhava then undergoes some change and it would thus not be sthayi?
Vivek - December 2, 2007 5:23 pm
Sorry for not being very clear with this. My main point was that we shouldn't mix rati and rasa. Still, rati has a larger connotation in general than the exact term sthayi-bhava. However, Rupa Goswami writes (BRS 1.3.13) that in the Puranas and Natya-sastra, rati is synonymous with bhava, and thus he will use them as synonyms in his book. For example, in Bhag. 3.25.25, (satam prasangan... sraddha ratir bhaktir anukramisyati), he understands "rati" to refer to bhava, "bhakti" to prema. So when used together with the name of a particular sthayi-bhava, rati just means "sthayi-bhava". In other contexts, it may sometimes mean something else.
Vivek Prabhu: this is not my analysis, I am just reading and quoting Rupa Goswami. He has chosen this language for describing the Absolute. Of course, words can never say enough about Krishna, as Guru Maharaja often points out, but that doesn't mean that we should be silent. We should come to a plane where shastra becomes irrelevant, but only very few fortunate souls will come to it without first studying the sastra, especially that of Rupa Goswami, who is after all the very cornerstone of our whole theology.
Re. gauna-rati vs. anubhavas, did you mean vyabhicari-bhavas, Gurunistha? Rupa Goswami deals with this in BRS 2.5.43-51. The difference seems to be that both gauna-ratis and vyabhicaris override the sthayi-bhava for some time, but while vyabhicaris disappear on their own, gauna-rati is displaced only by the reappearance of the mukhya-rati. Gauna-ratis also leave lasting impressions, while vyabhicari-bhavas do not (BRS 2.5.51). Gauna-ratis may also combine with vibhavas, anubhavas, sattvika-bhavas and vyabhicari-bhavas. This is not completely clear to me. Some examples would be helpful. However, Rupa Goswami writes later on in his book (4.7.13-14) that the gauna-ratis usually function as vyabhicari-bhavas, but that he has counted them as gauna-sthayi-bhavas out of respect for Bharata Muni, who lists them thusly.
Bhrigu, I think you misunderstood me. I just said that sometimes there are some nuanced in the rasa tattva which cannot be clarified theoretically because Rupa Gosvami is speaking from the vantage point of his bhava. I don't deny the importance of reading the sastra well, but I was just saying that we should not be disheartened if some contradiction never get cleared in the plane of intellect.
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 2, 2007 7:16 pm
My main point was that we shouldn't mix rati and rasa. Still, rati has a larger connotation in general than the exact term sthayi-bhava. However, Rupa Goswami writes (BRS 1.3.13) that in the Puranas and Natya-sastra, rati is synonymous with bhava, and thus he will use them as synonyms in his book. For example, in Bhag. 3.25.25, (satam prasangan... sraddha ratir bhaktir anukramisyati), he understands "rati" to refer to bhava, "bhakti" to prema. So when used together with the name of a particular sthayi-bhava, rati just means "sthayi-bhava". In other contexts, it may sometimes mean something else.
Thank you Bhrigu for clarification.
Sâmânya-rati means general love, and indicates the rati of ordinary people and small girls of Vraja. Rupa Goswami says that it has "no special characteristics" (BRS 2.5.9). It seems to be just general "love".
What means "general love", "ordinary people" and "small girls" of Vraja? Any examples?
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 3, 2007 12:02 am
I don't completely understand this svaccha-suddha-rati. Or I understand the idea -- I for example can get inspired by reading a really majestic description of Vaikuntha, then the next moment by Yashoda's looking into Krishna's mouth and being bewildered by his yogamaya, then by Radha talking to the bumblebee -- but not how this can be called a sthayibhava. But it is described as a sthayi-bhava, not a stage of sadhana. A permanent mood of non-permanency?
Here is something that Guru Maharaj told about santa-rasa - Sanga 4.2.2006:
Q. In your Sanga “The Perfect Commentary on Vedanta-sutra,” you touched on the issue of apparently contradictory statements from Gaudiya acaryas regarding the existence of santa rasa in Krsna’s Vraja-lila. In some circles this is quite a controversial subject, so can you address this further?
A. Sri Krsna is known as Rasaraja. This name implies that he tastes all rasas, and it refers to him in his Vraja-lila. From this it should be clear that he does taste santa-rasa in Vraja. This is also confirmed in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 4.3.85. There Sri Rupa writes that Krsna tasted santa-rasa along with all other expressions of sacred aesthetic rapture while lifting Govardhana Hill. In this example Sri Krsna tastes santa-rasa from the vantage point of the shelter (asraya alambana) of santa-rasa. Later in Mathura he tasted santa-rasa from the vantage point of the object (visaya alambana) of love when he was wrestling in Kamsa's arena (SB 10.43.17). Therein it is clearly stated that the sages present experienced santa-rasa in relation to Sri Krsna. Such sages may very well include persons like Durvasa, who also resides in Vraja proper. So santa-rasa is expressed in his Vraja-lila within Mathura mandala.
At the same time, Krsna's Vraja-lila is primarily characterized by love that is devoid of reverence, and thus it is often said to begin with sakhya-rasa. Brahmaji described all of Vrndavana as being permeated by sakhya-rasa when he told Sri Krsna, aho bhagyam, aho bhagyam nanda gopa vrajaukasam yan mitram paramanandam purna brahma sanatanam: "Oh, how fortunate, Oh, how fortunate, are the Vrajavasis of Nanda gopa, for the supreme bliss and complete, eternal Brahman is their friend." Thus everything and everyone in Vraja is touched by friendship. Everything and everyone is also touched by the influence of romantic love that Krsna's Vraja-lila is centered on.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura acknowledges that santa-rati is present to some extent in the Vraja-lila when he writes in Jaiva Dharma, "At first I thought that there was no santa-rati in the devotees of Vraja, but now I see that it is present in them to a limited extent. " In the same book, however, he also writes, "Santa-rasa is absent in Vraja." Perhaps Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura sought to clarify Bhaktivinoda Thakura's statements when in his commentaries to Upadesamrta and Caitanya-caritamrta he attributed santa-rati to the nonhuman species and apparently inanimate objects of Vraja, such as cows, rivers, hills, and Krsna's flute. However, Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has attributed sahkya-rasa to the hills of Vraja and vatsalya-rati to Sri Krsna's cows. So there are different opinions among acaryas, and human reasoning renders any of these opinions problematic.
For example, while there is reason to believe that Vraja's cows are in vatsalya-rasa, their relationship with Sri Krsna is also one of being protected by Gopala. Anyone who raises cows knows that they are as much children in need of protection and constant care as they are mothers, and at least in Dvaraka, Krsna's children are considered to be in dasya-rasa. Krsna's cows are also his istadevata and thus worshipable by him. Furthermore, why do we find that Radha and Govinda are not inhibited in front of Vraja's bovines as they are before human elders relishing vatsalya-rati? After all, vatsayla and madhurya-rasa are not compatible. Neither are santa and madhurya-rasas compatible for that matter. Mahadeva and Brahma are said to have taken birth in Varsana and Nandagrama as hills; are they in sakhya-rasa? Sakhya-rasa is exchanged between equals. The gopis attribute a male gender to Krsna's flute at one time and a female gender at another time. Is it male, female, neither of these, or both? Sometimes the creepers of Vraja are thought to be tasting madhurya-rati, but what is the nature of this madhurya-rati and how can it compare to that of the gopis themselves?
Great devotees view the world through the lens of their bhava, and this may afford them different angles of vision at different times. Furthermore, some of Sri Krsna's devotees experience the suddha-rati known as svaccha (transparent), in which they taste the rati of those with whom they associate, moving between santa, dasya, sakhya, and madhurya. Therefore, on issues that lie beyond our present realization, it is best to respect the opinions of great souls, even when we cannot fully understand them.
Bhrigu - December 4, 2007 12:21 pm
What means "general love", "ordinary people" and "small girls" of Vraja? Any examples?
Jiva Goswami writes in the commentary to BRS 2.5.9 (Bhanu Swami's trans.): When it does not have the particular features of even svaccha or santa forms of suddha-rati, it is called sâmânya-rati or ordinary rati. But by attaining higher levels of excellence, progressing through the form of svaccha-rati, it finally becomes santa-rati. This samanya-rati is found in ordinary people: this means that it is found everywhere or commonly." (my italics)
So apparently, samanya-rati and svaccha-rati are according to Jiva Goswami earlier stages of santa-rati. That would explain why we generally hear only of santa-rati, but in that case, samanya- and svaccha- don't really seem to be sthayi-bhavas at all. Me no understanding!
There are two examples given (BRS 2.5.10-11). "O friend! Tell me why my mind, like bee's wax, has become very soft. It is because the sweet sun, Krishna, has risen on the street of Mathura in front of me? I can see no other cause for this happening." Visvanatha: "This is the statement of an ordinary person of Mathura on seeing Krishna."
And: "Old woman! See that child, just three years old, who, on seeing Krishna in front of here, is running after him and calling out."
Bhrigu - December 4, 2007 12:23 pm
I wonder what that means, exactlly. The lasting impressions of the gauna-ratis would then combine with the mukhya-rati to result in a slightly different sthayi-bhava? Wouldn't that means that the sthayi-bhava then undergoes some change and it would thus not be sthayi?
That seems to be exactly what it means. Perhaps we are understanding sthayi-bhava too literally as nonchanging? Guru Maharaja?
Bhrigu - December 4, 2007 12:28 pm
Bhrigu, I think you misunderstood me. I just said that sometimes there are some nuanced in the rasa tattva which cannot be clarified theoretically because Rupa Gosvami is speaking from the vantage point of his bhava. I don't deny the importance of reading the sastra well, but I was just saying that we should not be disheartened if some contradiction never get cleared in the plane of intellect.
Ok, sorry for misunderstanding you, Vivek Prabhu. You are of course right in that many contradictions cannot be cleared by using the intellect. I just feel that rasa-tattva is something I at least have neglected studying and should learn. Sometimes devotees forget the science behind the lila in the name of being "spontaneous" or whatever, and I've heard it so often that I mistook you for saying that. Sorry!
But I don't think Rupa Goswami wrote the BRS from the vantage point of his bhava. In fact, if I'm not completely mistaken, Guru Maharaja often says that he wrote the BRS from a neutral point of view, while the Ujjvala-Nilamani is all about his own bhava.
Vivek - December 4, 2007 3:44 pm
Yes BRS is neutral but so is Upadekshamrita. But in both sometimes there is some bhava. Like Rupa Gosvami says that everybody should reside in Radha Kunda as it is highest place in the world but many of Mahaprabhu's associates did not live there.
The second half of BRS does have some things which are hard to accommodate in the intellectual plane. Still as you pointed out correctly, BRS is as objective as any book from Rupa Gosvami can get.
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 11, 2007 1:58 pm
This topic is so difficult. I should probably ask 10 questions to every sentence in this part of Jaiva dharma. For instance- on page 663 there is description of anurasa rasabhasa and there are two examples of it- one gopis laughing after seeing a monkey and another- Narada laughing after seeing parrots discussing Vedanta. Why is it included among rasabhasa or something distasteful? Does it mean that anything in spiritual world that is not directly connected with Krishna is rasabhasa?
And uparasa is descibed as disfigurement of the sthayi bhava. What does it mean? Any examples?
Bhrigu - December 12, 2007 2:44 pm
Rasabhasa doesn't really mean something distasteful. That's how it is used in popular Western GV lingo ("yuck, shrikhand with tomato sauce, that's rasabhasa!"), but it actually means "semblance of rasa". In the last chapter of the BRS (4.9), Rupa Goswami deals with this topic. There are three types of semblance of rasa: uparasa, anurasa and aparasa, of which the first is best, the last worst.
Yes, uparasa means that the sthayi- or other bhavas are defective. There are many examples of this in this chapter, for different sthayibhavas. For example, in shanta-rati, there are three causes of uparasa: 1) absorption into brahman (how could there be rasa after that), 2) extreme non-dual perception of the supreme Brahman, or 3) excessive abhorrence. This example is given of the second: "Wherever I direct my gaze I see only you, O Transcendent Lord. You are the source of everything; except for you, nothing else exists". Here the extreme non-duality prevents the experience of real rasa.
Anurasa is when the seven secondary rasas and shanta-rasa arises out of contact with objects not having a connection to Krishna. That is why Narada's laughing in that example is rasabhasa. It is not distasteful or anything like that, but since it is not connected with Krishna, it is rasabhasa and not rasa.
Aparasa is "inverted rasa", when Krishna is the vishaya and one of his enemies the ashraya for a secondary rasa. For example, when Jarasandha laughs at Krishna, that is aparasa.
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 12, 2007 3:07 pm
Rasabhasa doesn't really mean something distasteful. That's how it is used in popular Western GV lingo ("yuck, shrikhand with tomato sauce, that's rasabhasa!"), but it actually means "semblance of rasa". In the last chapter of the BRS (4.9), Rupa Goswami deals with this topic. There are three types of semblance of rasa: uparasa, anurasa and aparasa, of which the first is best, the last worst.
Bhaktivinod mentions through Vrajanatha that Mahaprabhu had low opinion about rasabhasa. But he does not comment it further and I cannot see how it could refer to these semblemce of rasa
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 17, 2007 12:03 pm
Bhaktivinod mentions through Vrajanatha that Mahaprabhu had low opinion about rasabhasa. But he does not comment it further and I cannot see how it could refer to these semblemce of rasa
Let me try once again. My English is not very good so maybe my doubt is not clear...
I would like to know more about rasabhasa that Lord Caitanya avoided so much. These three types of rasabhasa mentioned by Bhaktivinod Thakur seem to be different category to me.
Bhrigu - December 17, 2007 4:54 pm
Sorry for not replying earlier, Brajasundari. The episode you are referring to is narrated in CC 3.5.95-158. Svarupa Damodara had been appointed to guard Sri Caitanya against rasabhasa, and then one Bengali scholar came with a drama he had written. Svarupa Damodara listens to the first verse, which everyone else likes, but he shows how it is actually offensive.
In the purport to 3.5.97, the beginning of the passage of the BRS that deals with rasabhasa is quoted, but when we look at the verse Svarupa Damodara analyses (CC 3.5.112: “The Supreme Personality of Godhead has assumed a golden complexion and has become the soul of the body named Lord Jagannâtha, whose blooming lotus eyes are widely expanded. Thus He has appeared in Jagannâtha Purî and brought dull matter to life. May that Lord, Srî Krishna Caitanyadeva, bestow all good fortune upon you.”), we see that the fault that Svarupa Damodara points out (making a difference between the soul and body of Jagannatha) is not really one of rasa, it is one of siddhanta. Indeed, verse 3.5.97 equates rasabhasa with siddhanta-virodha (inconsistent siddhanta). So it seems that you are right, this is something else than what Rupa Goswami speaks about.
Swami - December 17, 2007 5:12 pm
I will have to comment on this thread later. Keep going. I will say this, however: There is a lotta rasa in these pina coladas. It is hard to remain neutral to them on a hot day
Swami - December 17, 2007 5:29 pm
I will have to comment on this thread later. Keep going. I will say this, however: There is a lotta rasa in these pina coladas. It is hard to remain neutral to them on a hot day
That's the non alcoholic version.
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 17, 2007 5:38 pm
That's the non alcoholic version.
As an inhabitant of cold country I had to find on net what this pina colada is: pineapple mixed with coconut (sounds great 
)- is this correct?
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 17, 2007 6:41 pm
Coming back to Jaiva dharma... Vijaya then has a vision of Vraja and Krsna`s pastime with gopis. And he decides not to speak with Goswami about it because one should not tell others about seeing aprakrita lila. What is the reason for such restriction? Gurunistha told me that only those who preach may do it. But there are many descriptions of such visions in biographies of different saints (so obviously they told someone about them) and I even remember one story where one babaji was asking all his followers everyday to speak about what they had seen in their meditation on asta-kaliya-lila.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 17, 2007 11:13 pm
Coming back to Jaiva dharma... Vijaya then has a vision of Vraja and Krsna`s pastime with gopis. And he decides not to speak with Goswami about it because one should not tell others about seeing aprakrita lila. What is the reason for such restriction? Gurunistha told me that only those who preach may do it. But there are many descriptions of such visions in biographies of different saints (so obviously they told someone about them) and I even remember one story where one babaji was asking all his followers everyday to speak about what they had seen in their meditation on asta-kaliya-lila.
I won't jump into providing an explicit answer for your question, dear Braja Sundari, because I know these are very sensitive issues and anyone can object our bold statements for whichever reason.
However, I strongly believe that those personal affairs and visions should be preserved somehow, for generations to come, to ignite their faith and inspiration. They provide a valuable insight into our hearts and encourage us; that Krisna lila is not a mere philosophical mockup, not a myth or a vague idea, but a real thing.
That it is the ultimate reality, they say, and we can enter it, participate in it, and in such way provide even more inspiration for others. Because that is the supreme goal, our eternal abode, the summit of our journeys, a place and an affair that all scripture is pointing to. So why not say a few words about it?
For example, I believe many sincere devotees would be delighted to learn that their gurudeva, a dear friend, is having such realisations. That would mean their path is not in vain, that our philosophy is not theory only but a reality and the intimate and inspiring affair of the soul.
On the other hand, such personal affairs are so confidential that cannot be exposed on a large scale .. or maybe they can be, but properly encoded? When time comes, and who is able to decode the transmission and hear the proper message, I'm sure will be delighted.
Ys, Z
Bhrigu - December 18, 2007 10:52 am
Probably different saints have different opinions on this, and Bhaktivinoda is here expressing his. There are pros and cons with both sides, of course, though the emphasis in the Bhaktivinoda parivar is keeping such things secret so as not to foster pride, allow people to mix imagination with real revelation etc. But Bhaktivinoda is not fanatic about this, and does indeed reveal many secret things about his spiritual form etc in his songs and other places. Some of his followers have done likewise.
Swami - December 18, 2007 4:29 pm
That seems to be exactly what it means. Perhaps we are understanding sthayi-bhava too literally as nonchanging? Guru Maharaja?
Only if one has attained a mukhya-rati stayi-bhava (such as sakhya) can one also experience another rasa by the influence of a gauna-rati sthayi-bhava (such as humor). Becasue the guna-rati itself is not a loving sentiment (ie. laughter), as is the mukhya-rati (ie. fraternal love), only when it is experienced in connection with the mukhya-rati can it afford one the experience of rasananda. Thus the term gauna (indirect) is appropriate. Furthermore, the nature of the gauna-rati rasa is such that it is influenced by the the mukhya-rati. In other words the nature of the gauna-rati and the circumstances that give rise to it arise out of the mukhya-rati. For example, the friends of Krsna may respond in great laughter to his joking words. This laughter is a result of their sakhya-rati (whereas others of, say, vatsalya or madhurya-rati might not find his joke funny), and thus the gauna-rati of humor in this instance is connected to sakhya-rati, and becasue it is more powerful that a vyabhicari-bhava it indirectly causes the rasa of humor in Krsna's friends.
The guana-rati is differentiated from the mukhya-rati in that it is indirect in terms of its power to afford one the aesthetic height of rasa. It is differentiated from a vyabhicari-bhava in that the vyabhicari-bhava does not have the power to rise to the emotive height of rasa either directly or indirectly. It is also different form a vyabhicari-bhava in that it leaves a lasting impression (samskara)—something to be rembered and, for example, laughed at again in the future.
Syamasundara - December 18, 2007 5:35 pm
This sounds all very technical and complicated, but it is encouraging to realize it's not far from our everyday life (like the example of the internal joke) and we experience all that commonly. Only, we don't give names to everything and our present condition has nothing to do with rasa.
Swami - December 18, 2007 6:16 pm
This sounds all very technical and complicated, but it is encouraging to realize it's not far from our everyday life (like the example of the internal joke) and we experience all that commonly. Only, we don't give names to everything and our present condition has nothing to do with rasa.
Yes, love is complex but very human and thus easily understandable within the human experience. Krsna is, after all, human-like.
Vivek - December 20, 2007 2:31 am
I still could not understand how pure devotees like Narada exhibited rasabhasa. Is rasabhasa not that bad ( as Bhrigu pointed out) then it is ok, but BrajaSundari indicated that it is not desirable.
Syamasundara - December 20, 2007 7:34 am
Why would you desire Monopoly money if you can have real money?
2 AbhAsa m. splendour , light R. Veda1ntas. 195 ; colour , appearance R. Sus3r. Bhag. ; semblance , phantom , phantasm of the imagination ; mere appearance , fallacious appearance Veda1ntas. S3a1n3khS3r. ; reflection ; intention , purpose ; (in log.) fallacy , semblance of a reason , sophism , an erroneous though plausible argument (regarded by logicians as of various kind) ; ifc. looking like , having the mere appearance of a thing Gaut. Sa1h. &c.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 20, 2007 10:45 am
Veda1ntas. S3a1n3khS3r...
Dear Syamasundara,
Uh, is this some encoding problem? What is written here?
I can't read many posts in Tattva viveka that include copy of some external references and quotes. Those sources, do they utilise Unicode or they are built upon some home-made standard?
Many thanks,
Ys, Zvonimir
Vivek - December 20, 2007 11:17 am
But my question is how are pure devotees experiencing rasabhasa?
Syamasundara - December 20, 2007 4:19 pm
Dear Syamasundara,Uh, is this some encoding problem? What is written here?
I can't read many posts in Tattva viveka that include copy of some external references and quotes. Those sources, do they utilise Unicode or they are built upon some home-made standard?
Many thanks,
Ys, Zvonimir
This time what you read is exactly what it looks like on the online dictionary I used.
Bhrigu - December 20, 2007 4:56 pm
Rasa is not a permanent state, it is an experience. Pure devotees do not have the experience of rasa 100% of the time. There is nothing wrong about Narada becoming stunned by hearing parrots speaking Vedanta or the gopis laughing at a funny monkey. Comic relief! However, it is not real rasa (since it is not connected with Krishna), but just a semblance (abhasa) of rasa. It may be a great experience, but compared to the real thing, it is not much.
Guru-nistha Das - December 20, 2007 5:23 pm
Thank you for the explanation on gauna-rati, Guru Maharaja. It makes sense to me now. My misunderstanding was that I thought those gauna-ratis could somehow stand alone as sthayi-bhavas without being connected to the mukhya-rati.
About rasabhasa, it seems like there are two meanings for the same word: semblance of rasa, which doesn't have a negative connotation; and inappropriate mixing of rasas, which is distasteful. My question is, do our acharyas ever use the term rasabhasa in the latter context or has this come purely from the western Gaudiya world?
Guru-nistha Das - December 20, 2007 5:31 pm
Rasa is not a permanent state, it is an experience. Pure devotees do not have the experience of rasa 100% of the time.
Wow, this is a great point. Is this so even in the nitya-lila?
So would it be correct to say that rati is the background experience/feeling of the 'everyday' life in the nitya-lila and when the devotee has a peak experience of sorts that's directly related to Krsna, the experience rises to the height of rasa?
Also, what category do all the dealings fall into in the lila that are not directly connected to Krsna? ratyabhasa?
Zvonimir Tosic - December 20, 2007 8:04 pm
Wow, this is a great point. Is this so even in the nitya-lila?So would it be correct to say that rati is the background experience/feeling of the 'everyday' life in the nitya-lila and when the devotee has a peak experience of sorts that's directly related to Krsna, the experience rises to the height of rasa?
Dear Guru-nistha
I believe you already know all this, if only you refer to our human experience. Sanskrit references and exact technical terms only confuse us sometimes, because they're phylosophical outfits and milestones for already familiar feelings. So instead of exploring and dwelling into feelings, we try to understand their technical explanations believing they're Krishna Consciousness in fact. So it naturally confuses us.
The underlying principle of our love affair with Krishna is quite easy to understand (better say, feel) because it draws from our human experience of love affairs. Love affair is not a strange thing to humans at all so we all have what's needed to understand our love with Krishna. But I know you already know that
So relate all these technical terms to (y)our feelings in specific situations in (y)our love affairs and we'll have a straight answer, or at least, much better appreciation of the terminology. Better understanding (because they'll become a part of us).
As you already know, gopis didn't know any of these, no theory or terminology at all, but they had that what was required to love Krishna: an intense and deep emotional life. On the other hand, we sometimes stick to theory only, completely forgetting what we already have.
Ys, Z
Syamasundara - December 21, 2007 7:34 am
Well, everybody feel free to correct me, but rasa means essence, juice. I used to be one of those that mix up rati and rasa. After the latest clarifications I wonder if we could apply the analogy of citrus to all this. It could be explained by saying that all the different ratis are like lemon, orange, grapefruit, lime, and mandarin halves (there, I even came up with 5) all full of juice, and then the different situations, and causes that give rise to rasa are like squeezing those halves so that the juice, that was already there, can be tasted.
As far as Zvonimir, I don't know how much I agree with what you said, or at least how you said it.
Krsna is humanlike, but so are we: human-LIKE. The difference is that we are souls that are identified with the (human) form, and as such, the four imperfections of the identified soul manifest in a certain way, whereas through the human form Krsna expresses himself at best. I think this is a very important point to clarify, because myself I realized it five minutes ago after 11 years.
The Lord is aneka-rupa, but the supreme personality of godhead choses to appear human, and not as a kalpa-vrksa, or a kamadhenu, or a blissful nothingness, because the human form, with its arms, legs, eyes, smile, eyebrows, speech, but also the psychology that comes with it, is the best to express and relish love, and God is the source and shelter of the highest love. Without this understanding, I would always tense up when during class GM would say things such as Krsna appears humanlike because it's the best for love, because I would take it as a reductive, anthropomorphic vision of God, which is generaolly so childish and lame, maybe a preaching technique, or a poetic vision.
The human form is there in goloka and it has a specific function, and it's here in the realm of bodily identification for certain souls that are at a certain level of consciousness.
So, it's not that Krsna has appeared in our form. Then of course, the human psychology is the same, that's why, as you said, and myself a few posts above, it's very easy to understand Krsna's affairs, by relating them to ours. However it's just as easy to misunderstand and misapply the whole thing, as history has showed us time and again.
That's why it's very useful for us, and those we want to take to Krsna, to know all these details and technicalities, so we can always check in, because we are not humans, we are above all identified with matter, and our perception and knowledge is faulty.
Speaking of knowledge, you said that the gopis didn't know all these technicalities, but guess who brought them to us? They don't need to analyze them all the time or tell one another, but when and if the necessity arises, they know all the ins and outs or rasa, because, as you said, they are actually living it, tasting it.
I can say that an apple is really nice, but that doesn't mean I don't know that it's actually the chemical response of my tastebuds, that are connected to my brain, etc., although nothing really touches anything, because everything here is made of atoms with electrical charges all around that blink between existence and non-existence bla bla bla.
The catch with what I said before on the human form is that in the post-liberated state of existence every form is absolute, so a cow, or a tree are fully conscious, they could speak if they wanted, dance, express deep feelings, etc. but that's not on the script of the lila. However, if needed, anything from goloka, is full of all the knowledge we need. What to speak of a mañjari, like our goswamis, or a cow... the very scent of the Yamuna could tell us about the most confidential knowledge; a grain of sand. Sridhara Maharaja says the earth is in srngara rasa, because it's touched by Krsna's lotus feet, which is a privilege shared by the gopis' breasts.
Lila is the determining factor. I remember at kindergarten, I was impersonating some kind of animal for the Christmas play, and I was really walking on all fours, crying like that animal, etc. I am sure all the parents must have found my absorption (and that of others) endearing, certainly they didn't think it was odd because at that age I should have been able to speak or walk erected; and if I had started to speak and be myself, I would have spoiled everything.
So let's pray for the service and association of those dumb cows 
, those ignorant village girls, those dusty cowherd boys, the mist of the Yamuna.
OK, I re-read what you said, and it's not like it's wrong, but the advocacy seems somewhat misplaced or shifted.
You said tap from y(our) own perception of feelings, but although the potential is there, everything in our conditioned state is polluted, misled. Other than that, you are right. I remember reading all the varieties of laughters in the Nectar of Devotion, some 15 years ago, and getting these lifeless, static images from all those descriptions: smile where you just bend your lips, smile where you also show your teeth but don't open your mouth, all the way to clapping your hands, or slapping your thighs, 
However, over the years, I found myself laughing in all those ways, and every time, my mind would go to Vrndavana, or at least the NoD, and those were very sweet moments 
Same goes with every movie I watch, etc.
Even just for that, I think it's very beneficial for us to explore all those analyses of rasa, maybe only to realize that all those examples from Krsna lila can be found in our every day life, but there is a difference between relating our world of emotions to Krsna's and the other way around: yogurt is nothing but milk, but you can't get milk from yogurt.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 21, 2007 11:43 am
You said tap from y(our) own perception of feelings, but although the potential is there, everything in our conditioned state is polluted, misled.
Dear Syamasundara,
Thank you very much for your kind observation.
Oh no, I do not want to instruct devotees here, which are all senior to me. In my post to Gurunistha I wanted to encourage him, and I was just sharing my experience. I don't talk about things I didn't experience somehow.
I believe that sometimes we have all the answers at hand. Referring to one's own feelings and previous experience is not wrong. Of course, we have scripture too and sastras are milestones, so naturally, they're very important.
Our feelings are often a result of a prolonged observation, which is, as Swami and Jiva Goswami say, also a method of acquiring knowledge. So not just scripture, not just knowledge through books, but observation too. Observation is very direct, practical.
In my observation during the years, I've seen many dear people were discouraged in pursuing Krishna Consciousness further because almost every kind of emotion (except zeal) was considered to be wrong. You can't show feelings because they're wrong in some way, impure, they're not as perfect as scripture say. Only highly advanced devotees have them and, of course, don't show them at all.
Do you think it is silly? I do. For example, among other things, that is the reason they have banned Yadurani's new paintings. Because Krishna was showing emotions in them. Krishna was crying. As an artist, I was particularly sensitive to that. I was crying myself because they were killing the whole new expression in devotional art.
And then later, I was asking myself: This Swami Tripurari, he wrote "Aesthetic Vedanta" where he reveals the rich emotional life of the Absolute; then Jiva Goswami's "Tattva Sandarbha" where he goes to the aesthetic beginnings of our Gaudiya vedanta; then "Bhagavad-gita, Its Feeling and Philosophy" with such a tasteful, beautiful perspective. Then I've realised Swami Tripurari was writing about all those inner things which are terribly missing today. He is kindly giving us that missing link, that lost key. Without it, all this philosophy, theory we're so proud about, is all in vain. (And somehow secretly, and foolishly because fool I am, I'm hoping and praying in myself that we can see Swami's book on Srimad Bhagavatam, done in similar manner as Tattva-Sandarbha. To dispel superstition and misunderstanding built up during the last few decades, which horribly distort the spirit of the Bhagavatam.).
Swami himself said once that we should practice feeling sensing, not just pursue logic and arguments only. How are we going to experience the spirit of things if we shut down our feelings? Intellect alone cannot grasp spirituality because spirituality starts where intellect leaves. And if we don't have some emotional life in place, which is the ground to further develop our spirituality, we're in serious trouble.
So with proper scriptural milestones, with the help of Gurudeva, but also with our own observation in place and our own feeling sensing, we strengthen our own faith. We build our own confidence, we start to walk. We grow.
Ys, Z
Syamasundara - December 21, 2007 3:42 pm
Gotcha.
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 22, 2007 11:49 am
In my observation during the years, I've seen many dear people were discouraged in pursuing Krishna Consciousness further because almost every kind of emotion (except zeal) was considered to be wrong. You can't show feelings because they're wrong in some way, impure, they're not as perfect as scripture say. Only highly advanced devotees have them and, of course, don't show them at all.
I observed even worse thing- expresing duplicity, indifference, anger, harshness or even cruelty was often promoted as sign of one`s advancement.
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 22, 2007 11:59 am
I heard that devotees in Audarya stopped reading Jaiva Dharma but because it is not far from the end of the book I think I will try to finish reading it.
On page 692 there are descriptions of different nayakas. It would be nice if someone could write some examples... preferably from Krishna`s lilas but for me even material examples would be better then nothing. Exept for dhirrodatta-anukula-nayaka I completely cannot catch what is this all about
Prema-bhakti - December 22, 2007 4:50 pm
The underlying principle of our love affair with Krishna is quite easy to understand (better say, feel) because it draws from our human experience of love affairs. Love affair is not a strange thing to humans at all so we all have what's needed to understand our love with Krishna. But I know you already know that
Just a few thoughts.
This is an interesting point that I have thought about and heard explained in various ways in terms of approaching the raga-marga. Of course, we know our acaryas and maybe most commonly Srila Prabhupada as giving analogies of the human experience to give a frame of reference for us to try to perceive Vraja-prema. For example the statement of SP that the closest thing to pure love is a mother's love for her child. There is also RG's example quoting the Padma Purana, ""My Lord, I know that young girls have natural affection for young boys, and that young boys have natural affection for young girls. I am praying at Your lotus feet that my mind may become attracted unto You in the same spontaneous way." So these examples and many others I think serve to support your point.
I feel the terminology of rasa-tattva serves to distance us in a good way and to distinguish what actual prema is as differentiated from mundane lust. I am not sure how much of a necessity it serves ultimately and of course once someone "is there" but in the interim as one's budding interest is developing naturally the intellect can be engaged in studying these terms that illuminate the preyojana.
I think it gets sticky when one asserts that it is necessary to have the human experience in order to connect with the higher experience. I have heard one acarya emphasize having the experience previously may be helpful. Of course coming from ISKCON it didn't quite sit well with me as there was so much empasis on jnana. Although now I still feel an assertion like that may be walking a narrow line it may hold true as long as one doesn't assert that it is a necessity or part of the practice. From my limited understanding then it crosses the line into prakrita-sahajiya territory.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 22, 2007 8:43 pm
I observed even worse thing- expresing duplicity, indifference, anger, harshness or even cruelty was often promoted as sign of one`s advancement.
Well, I've tried to be nice and show things better than they really were.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 22, 2007 8:48 pm
I think it gets sticky when one asserts that it is necessary to have the human experience in order to connect with the higher experience. I have heard one acarya emphasize having the experience previously may be helpful. Of course coming from ISKCON it didn't quite sit well with me as there was so much empasis on jnana. Although now I still feel an assertion like that may be walking a narrow line it may hold true as long as one doesn't assert that it is a necessity or part of the practice. From my limited understanding then it crosses the line into prakrita-sahajiya territory.
Let me try my best to illustrate my thoughts.
Our love for Krishna is often illustrated as a beautiful bhakti lata, that grows high, then higher and higher and eventually reaches the heights of Krisna's dhama, flowering under his feet.
That beautiful creeper, a climber, has branches, leaves, flowers too, but it also must have roots of some kind. Leaves are breathing and absorbing the rays of spiritual sun necessary to provide energy for growth, but the climber also needs water and nutrients, which are coming from her roots. What are the roots of bhakti-lata? Where she can grow?
In my experience as a rose grower I can certainly say that majority of garden roses wouldn't grow at all if they weren't grafted onto a good understock (rootstock). Good understock provides grafted rose disease resistance and strength to reach its full potential.
Rosa multiflora, or rosa canina, are few species roses (roses growing in wild) that are commonly used as the understock because of their vigour, natural strength, capability to resist disease and develop a root system to feed the delicate grafted rose which we admire.
I like to compare our human life, human emotional life and our human potential in general as our understock: single flowered and once blooming rosa multiflora, onto which the mercy of Sri Guru grafts delicate bhakti lata: a fully double, fragrant, repeat-flowering delicate gem meant for Krishna's pleasure. Yes, they're quite different roses, but also very, very similar and very compatible. One grows from another.
You cannot graft a rose onto a banana tree, or a nettle, because they're not compatible. It's same as grafting bhakti-lata onto heavenly or animal life forms. It will not develop.
Bhakti lata can be developed only from some compatible love, human love and lifetimes of human experiences, emotional life, human values and disease resistance to this world and its perils. From there she draws her own strength and grows high, higher.
And hopefully, doesn't forget to flower too.
Ys, Z
Syamasundara - December 22, 2007 9:39 pm
Bhakti is quite independent, why do you say it can't be found among heavenly beings and animals, if we have so many instances thereof? After all, bhakti pertains and refers to the soul, not its wrap.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 23, 2007 12:15 am
Bhakti is quite independent, why do you say it can't be found among heavenly beings and animals, if we have so many instances thereof? After all, bhakti pertains and refers to the soul, not its wrap.
Well, I was speaking allegorically, because this rose allegory fits very nicely.
This human life form is very precious in particular because it's perfectly fit for self realisation and understanding of love for Krishna, which is certainly similar to our human love and romance. Thus I've compared it to a wild species rose, which has a potential to be grafted with divine mercy and love -- Sri Guru's mercy and love -- and become a spiritual rose growing in magical gardens of Vridavana.
In other words, our humanity is not something bad, not something we should be ashamed of. It is all auspicious to embrace our humanity, grow on it and develop something out of it, add some spiritual values and transform ourselves.
But as with all allegories, there's more to it.
Sub rosa.
Ys, Z
Syamasundara - December 23, 2007 3:14 am
I got the allegory, but this statement seemed rather explanatory than allegorical:
"It's same as grafting bhakti-lata onto heavenly or animal life forms. It will not develop."
One thing is to say that human birth on earth is most suitable for the development of bhakti, as it's neither limited by animal nature, nor distracted by heavenly powers; another thing is to say that bhakti won't develop in those forms.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 23, 2007 3:29 am
Bhakti is quite independent, why do you say it can't be found among heavenly beings and animals, if we have so many instances thereof? After all, bhakti pertains and refers to the soul, not its wrap.
Thank you so much for your replies. It's a pleasure!
Even Brahma couldn't and can't understand Krishna. All the demigods were so many times puzzled, they couldn't grasp Krishna.
Even Kumaras didn't reach Krishna prema because that requires something else, not just proudly knocking on the heaven's doors. Even Narada rsi had to be born again as a human to understand the love for Godhead. And they are all heavenly creatures, best of them, so highly advanced!
But those innocent people, cowherds and girls of Vraja, they did love Krishna. Those mere humans: they were able to cherish Krishna prema because only humans can understand and naturally relate to Krishna. It's Krishna prema we're talking about, and the bhakti lata as the graft from the rose of Radha's own love. Sri Guru's is budding that love, coming from that Rose, and the right understock needed is the humble, kind and warm human heart.
Ys, Z.
Syamasundara - December 23, 2007 4:08 am
Please don't take my responses as direct attacks to you. If this was a private conversation and I had known you for years, I would mentally adjust and understand some inaccuracies from you, as I would know what you mean; but this is a public forum, ans as much as we all have the right to express our opinions, doubts, etc, we also have responsibilities when it comes to the "tattva viveka", dissertation on reality.
We were talking about bhakti, not prema. Brahma is obviously a bhakta; not only that, our Brahma in particular is a pure devotee and has got a saccidananda rupa. Then for the sake of lila anything can happen. You said "only humans" many times in the previous post, but all that would be true if you replaced "humans" with "devotees". The gopis were not some random inhabitants of planet Earth where the Supreme Personality of Godhead decided to appear and wham! by dint of their being human they naturally loved him and understood him. In the fighting arena of Mathura they were all humans, yet only some understood Krsna and Balarama to be the Absolute Truth, and fewer still loved him.
The earth is full of humans, and I don't know many who can naturally understand and relate to Krsna. Even Balarama can't fully undestand or know Krsna. Not even Krsna himself for that matter. Prema is a very, very, very rare thing. Human love or humanness in general can be the closest to the Krsna experience, I can give you that, because it's its specular version, but your overall emphasis seems misapplied.
Then of course, I'd be curious to hear somebody else's thoughts about it.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 23, 2007 4:45 am
Please don't take my responses as direct attacks to you. If this was a private conversation and I had known you for years, I would mentally adjust and understand some inaccuracies from you, as I would know what you mean; but this is a public forum, ans as much as we all have the right to express our opinions, doubts, etc, we also have responsibilities when it comes to the "tattva viveka", dissertation on reality.
Oh no, no such thing! I love hearing from you and all the devotees here.
I'm so privileged to be here and share my thoughts with you. I feel embraced, if that' the right expression for feeling so well right now
As you have said, Krishna prema is such a rare gem, and only given by Radha. If you allow me to translate the old western aesthetic expression into Gaudiya Vaisnavsm (and I say why not, because Gaudiya Vedanta is the summum bonum of all aestetics), she's the Rosa mundi, the original, supreme rose. So I hope you follow my thoughts about emphasizing our natural potential to experience her unique gift.
I hope others didn't mind this. I feel this very encouraging, very personal and very inspiring in my everyday life. And I hope we shall meet one day, where we can talk and share all this and many, many other inspirational thingies
Ys, Z.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 23, 2007 4:52 am
.. but your overall emphasis seems misapplied.
I was emphasizing the beauty and potential of humanity because I've seen so much despise and condemnation of humanity. I've seen it in war, I've seen it in society after the war and then in so-called spirituality.
I see it every day in so many subtle forms so maybe this was my subconscious counter reaction to defend it in some way.
Ys, Z.
Syamasundara - December 23, 2007 5:06 am
If you put it in terms of potential, then I agree.
Sometimes I seem to turn into the Torquemada of semantics in this forum, but I can't help it, nor do I think it's wrong for now.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 23, 2007 5:32 am
Sometimes I seem to turn into the Torquemada of semantics in this forum, but I can't help it, nor do I think it's wrong for now.
In Italian terms, then it would be Girolamo Savonarola.
I'm glad that "The Birth of the Venus" has escaped his bonfires
(just a joke, forgive me)
Being neutral is impossible and tasteless. No action there, nothing. Krishna Consciousness is all about being partial because it's all about love and care, which is all but impartial. So forgive my partiality because it's quite intentional. Partiality calls for action.
As you've said, people from the arena 5000 yrs ago didn't see Krishna as Krishna, the ultimate object of love. But now that cannot be forgiven, not to them, but to us, because now we have Sri Caitanya and his desire to distribute his love across the humanity. Who knows, maybe quite few of those people from the arena are now here among us, because by Sri Caitanya's mercy and desire they finally have a chance to experience love Krishna! So we have to be biased. We have to move people, to inspire humanity in all different ways. I cannot preach to the animals, I cannot see what's going on in celestial kingdoms, or if my statements are not in accordance to some bhur bhuvah svah peace treatise, but now it's not the time for it.
I'm concerned about now and here and about our humanity and about Sri Caitanya's desire. So I'd rather mindfully challenge anything that's stands in the way.
Thank you so much for all your inspiring posts! It's a pleasure!
Ys, Z.
Syamasundara - December 23, 2007 6:10 am
I know, but people may not know Savonarola as well.
I don't get the rest about neutrality and impartiality.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 23, 2007 7:16 am
I know, but people may not know Savonarola as well.I don't get the rest about neutrality and impartiality.
It may appear I'm partial in my expressions about the virtues of humanity.
I believe it is not inappropriate, considering the time and circumstances.
Ys, Z
Syamasundara - December 23, 2007 7:36 am
I was just referring to other aspects. You can be partial while still calling a spade a spade, or a human a human, or a devotee a devotee.
If to counteract a certain dehumanizing and out of touch tendency among gaudiyas you exaggerate on the other side, that is also not beneficial to anybody.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 23, 2007 8:40 am
I was just referring to other aspects. You can be partial while still calling a spade a spade, or a human a human, or a devotee a devotee.If to counteract a certain dehumanizing and out of touch tendency among gaudiyas you exaggerate on the other side, that is also not beneficial to anybody.
Uh, it seems we just keep replying to each other Hope people won't think we're acting like two boys in some silly argument
In one previous message in TV, I've expressed that true Gaudiya Vaisnavism is the summit of the expression of humanity in spirituality. So there's never enough emphasis on either humanity or spirituality under the scope of service for Guru and Krishna, because the other side automatically follows. One is tied to another in harmony. They're tied inside -- humanity is a natural subset, or graphically, a smaller part of the total spirituality.
From that viewpoint, I fail to understand to which suffering "other side" you're referring here?
Thank you for your eagerness and for staying so late! You're great!
Bhrigu - December 23, 2007 11:41 am
I think it gets sticky when one asserts that it is necessary to have the human experience in order to connect with the higher experience. I have heard one acarya emphasize having the experience previously may be helpful. Of course coming from ISKCON it didn't quite sit well with me as there was so much empasis on jnana. Although now I still feel an assertion like that may be walking a narrow line it may hold true as long as one doesn't assert that it is a necessity or part of the practice. From my limited understanding then it crosses the line into prakrita-sahajiya territory.
I think this is an important point, Premabhakti didi. I've heard it argued that one cannot understand the love affairs of Radha and Krishna unless having the experience of love in this world (from Gadadhara Prana). Guru Maharaja answered a question about this on one of the recent CD:s, I think a talk in North Carolina. If I remember correctly, he basically said that it helps, but that this doesn't mean that we have to get out there trying to experience all kinds of love. We all do have these experiences from countless of lifetimes, and almost always from this lifetime as well, without endeavoring for it. Who hasn't fallen in love? Still, that doesn't mean that everyone needs to have affairs, get married etc to understand prema-bhakti, as shown by many examples in our tradition. I find it important to emphasise also the "superhuman"-aspect, to counteract our nature to bring everything down to our own plane of experience.
Bhrigu - December 23, 2007 12:14 pm
I heard that devotees in Audarya stopped reading Jaiva Dharma but because it is not far from the end of the book I think I will try to finish reading it.On page 692 there are descriptions of different nayakas. It would be nice if someone could write some examples... preferably from Krishna`s lilas but for me even material examples would be better then nothing. Exept for dhirrodatta-anukula-nayaka I completely cannot catch what is this all about
Nayaka means "hero", and generally refers to the main character in a play. The point of this section is to show that Sri Krishna is the most perfect hero or worshippable person, and also that he embodies all types of heroes, even those that seem incompatible.
First, Bhaktivinoda mentions four types of hero-bhavas or moods (from the Ujjvala-nilamani?):
1) anukûla -- favourable: one who gives up the love of all other women for the sake of only one. Rama is the example here, but Krishna also, since he can give up everyone else for the sake of Radha
2) daksina -- sincere; one who sincerely loves many women at the same time, and never shows disrespect to anyone. Krishna is sometimes like this also, like in the rasa-dance
3) satha -- deceitful; one who is endearing in the presence of the lover, but who can secretly commit offences behind her back. Of course, Krishna can sometimes be like this as well -- to make Radha show mana (jealous anger) and inflame her love
4) dhrista -- daring; who is completely fearless and expert at lying. Krishna is sometimes like this as well, trying to explain away his trysts with Candravali to Radha, for the same reason as above
These four moods can be combined with four types of heroes (BRS 2.1.224-243):
1) dhîroddâta -- boldly noble. Profound, well-behaved, forgiving, compassionate, resolute, humble, modest and very courageous. Rama is again the general example, but Krishna also acts like this, especially when in Dvaraka
2) dhîra-lalita -- boldly amorous. Artistic, freshly youthful, humourous, carefree and usually under the control of his lovers. Kamadeva mundane example, Krishna in Vraja the transcendental one.
3) dhîra-sânta -- boldly tranquil. Naturally calm, good at enduring pain, discriminating, polite. Yudhisthira, but Krishna also.
4) dhîroddhata -- boldly haughty. Jealous, egoistical, deceptive, short-tempered, restless and a braggart. Bhima, but Krishna also. Like the satha and dhrista bhavas above, such things are usually considered bad, but since they are associated with divine play, these qualities are here considered faultless (lîlâ-vize.sa-zâlitvân nirdo.se 'tra gu.nâ.h sm.rtâ.h).
When these four moods and four types of heroes are combined with Krishna's three forms (perfect in Dvaraka, more perfect in Mathura and most perfect in Vraja), and the fact that he is both pati (husband) and upapati (paramour) in all places (this of course raises some questions!) we find that Krishna embodies 4 * 4 * 3 * 2 = 96 types of heroes.
Bhrigu - December 23, 2007 12:31 pm
It may help to note that all of this follows standard Sanskrit poetics, just "Krishnaizing it". These types of heroes are described in Sahitya-darpana (2.65-75). Visvanatha Kaviraja there gives king Vatsa from the play Ratnavali as the example of a dhira-lalita-nayaka and Madhava from Malati-Madhava for the dhira-santa-nayaka. (Perhaps someone could come up with modern, Western examples?). Ballantyne translates the four hero-bhavas above as faithful, impartial, sly and saucy, respectively. The counterpart of "perfect, most perfect and most perfect" in mundane drama is the "lowest", "middling" and "best" hero. This is the reason for the kind of awkward "more perfect" and "most perfect" -- we cannot say that Krishna is lowest or middling anywhere, but still he is better in Vraja! :-) However, Visvanatha Kaviraja does not recogize the distinction between heroes that are pati and upapati, so in his enumeration, there are 48 types of heroes.
Swami - December 25, 2007 4:46 pm
Regarding human love and its relation to prema it must be underscored that love is in one sense the same in any expression. It is filled with sacrifice and selflessness. To the extent that any relationship is lacking this, it is not love regardless of its appearance.
atmendriya-priti-vancha—tare bali ‘kama’
krsnendriya-priti-iccha dhare ‘prema’ nama
So when we speak about human love, unless we are talking about the sacrifice and giving involved we are not talking about love at all.
Syamasundara is quite correct in pointing out that prema can be given to any soul in any condition of life. Mahaprabhu gave it jungle animals.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 25, 2007 10:28 pm
Regarding human love and its relation to prema it must be underscored that love is in one sense the same in any expression. It is filled with sacrifice and selflessness. To the extent that any relationship is lacking this, it is not love regardless of its appearance.
atmendriya-priti-vancha—tare bali ‘kama’
krsnendriya-priti-iccha dhare ‘prema’ nama
So when we speak about human love, unless we are talking about the sacrifice and giving involved we are not talking about love at all.
Syamasundara is quite correct in pointing out that prema can be given to any soul in any condition of life. Mahaprabhu gave it jungle animals.
Dear Swami, thank you for this.
I think all of here believe the same, and agree with your remarks about this subject matter. This subject of feelings, love and human potential is intriguing, and very subjective too. By asking and proposing questions, and by receiving answers, same as collecting reflected light from so many mirrors, I was also exploring my own understanding and position on it.
As you have mentioned forest animals being attracted to Sri Mahaprabhu, it's quite understandable even from our intellectual perspective: because he was God (if our heart doesn't tell us, at least our intellect based on scripture does), the source of all love in the mood of distributing it widely.
On the other hand, I was often asking myself, why personalities such as Duryodhana and his friends have never admired anything coming from love's department? It was, in a way, a completely strange "thing" to them. (Thing because they had no word for feeling in their vocabulary; you can clearly see it by judging their actions) .
Then I found a reference in Sadaputa Prabhu's book "Alien Identities" (a reference from Mahabharata), where he describes Duryodhana as Danava in his previous life (lives?).
As such, although looking like a human walking on Earth, Duryodhana's emotions and subtle body was not humanised at all. In his subtle body he was still a deceitful Danava and couldn't grasp even Krishna's divinity (he believed Krishna was just another powerful personality, because "power" was a known concept to him). So what to talk about "mere human" emotions others had who tried to relate with him ...
They say, it takes many, many human births to start grasping spirituality, which in turn is very much about understanding and incorporating love in one's life: selflessness, understanding, tolerance, sacrifice.
So in a way, I was somewhat advocating this aspect of humanity; it has a unique potential that has to be preserved and enriched, to become more. Because it's so fragile and it takes so long to develop; like a precious little fire in the frozen ground.
Mahaprabhu's gift to forest animals was truly unique and amazing, but he was God. However if we, by forgetting our own humanity, succeed to extinguish that little spark of hope and enormous potential in our fellow humans around us, all what will be left for Mahaprabhu is to come again himself and start his ecstatic dance in the darkness of the forest of this modern world.
When we turn our backs to this world, and see him approaching, shall we ask him then, again, "Quo vadis, Domine"?
Thank you very much for your answer dear Swami; it encouraged me to ask more and more new questions.
Ys, Z.
Syamasundara - December 26, 2007 12:02 am
By human, you seem to keep referring to the inhabitants of this planet, but the danavas and the devas are just as human.
Prahlada was a danava by race, a human by species, and a devotee by attitude.
Kinnaras, napumsakas, gandharvas, raksasas, and what not are all human, they all have a human form, they are no plants, no animals, although some of them are half and half.
It all lies in the definition of love. The Danavas have affection for their family members, think of Hiranyakasipu and Hiranyaksa, Bali, etc, but at the same time, that was all attachment, they considered their family members as "theirs", their belonging, something that was there for their pleasure, and Visnu, someone who disturbed all that, but they aren't really capable of love. Think of Kamsa with his own sister, or Hiranyakasipu, who is ready to kill his own son ten minutes after shedding love tears by only seeing him and sitting him on his lap. At the same time, if by love, we only mean the real one, the spiritual one, then everything else is but attachment, and all that separates humans and demigods from the demons is just the percentage of self sacrifice that brings them that much closer to the real, unbridled expression of love.
In general, it's probably best to think in terms of divine and demoniac natures, rather than actual and distinct races, which is also true, as it's true that personalities like Duryodhana are as real as functional to illustrate a teaching. Even just the humans on earth are not the same and they can display all kinds of natures, according to their karma and/or sukriti.
The privilege of human birth over the birth as a demigod or demon, or animal or plant, with regard to turning to spiritual life is that humans have a developed intellect compared to animals or plants, but not the incredible powers and pleasures that demigods and demons are possessed with. As a result, life on earth mirrors the simplicity and beauty of Goloka Vrndavana.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 26, 2007 1:40 am
By human, you seem to keep referring to the inhabitants of this planet, but the danavas and the devas are just as human.Prahlada was a danava by race, a human by species, and a devotee by attitude.
We approach to the problem with almost the same position, but the exact meaning of our words is balanced by our distinct backgrounds. So as we communicate, we're learning about our personalities and distinctive subtleties of our vocabulary too.
The term humanity in my language and culture has different overtones than in some other language and background. For example, being under constant occupation for almost one millennium, it's not surprising that I'm embracing the Renaissance Humanist approach which was so liberating and virtuous at the same time, and adding extra to it, so that it blends with superhuman and divine overtones.
Being human in my culture means almost literally to touch the God n a positive way, as symbolised by Michelangelo in his fresco. Divine Raphael or Amadeus Mozart, for example, those are all people who inspired others to think about God in some way and people treated them with reverence. In Christianity, and especially in its foundations (and fine examples in the lives of true saints), the humanity was best expressed in the figure of Christ; who was human by birth, but divine by nature. He represented those values we humans value the most especially in difficult times: love, sacrifice, end of humiliation based on creed or faith, understanding, love for God and each other. Very divine qualities.
So from the same perspective, when translating texts from English, trying to understand the text first is very important. For example, demoniac qualities you're referring to were not considered bad in ancient cultures and in the Renaissance too, and not in Slavic culture too. Why? Demon, or daemon, in Greek means simply a messenger, a creature living somewhere between humans an gods. Demon is not necessarily evil or good. So the extensive use of the word "demon" and "demoniac" in contemporary Gaudiya preaching I find misused completely. On the other hand, we stick to the sacredness of Sanskrit terms and their true meanings.
However, UNIX programmers are using the term properly; Mail daemons and web daemons, for example, are programs that simply communicate between users' requests and the systems' core programs.
So in translations in my language I translate it according to the purport of the text: if the demon was evil by nature, then is better to use devil or other terms not present in English, but which are borrowed from our ancient Slavic cultures, which was very similar to the old Vedic. They work really well and add another dimension to understanding.
Then again, if preaching in American culture, in many people's minds devil can be associated with "The Devil", or Satan, which again, is a term coming not from Christianity originally, but was adopted from the old Judeo-tradition, which was again borrowed it from other old cultures and beliefs in Asia Minor.
So depending from which branch of cultural heritage we're coming and from which perspective we're talking, all these terms can be confusing; sometimes very broad and sometimes aligned, but they add to our mutual understanding here and the complexity and value of our sanga.
Syamasundara - December 26, 2007 2:52 am
I don't like the word demon myself, but that didn't seem to be the issue until 10 minutes ago.
To me it's the same, let's say suras and asuras, daityas and adaityas, demidevils and demigods.
My point was that "human" corresponds to a certain gross and subtle bodily form, that there are many varieties of humans in the material world, that in kali yuga both suric and asuric nature coexist within humanity on earth, that bhakti is an affair between Bhagavan (no matter in what form) and jiva (no matter in what form), and it's universal.
If I seem to imply that you are abusing words such as "human" "emotions" and "feelings" by the bucketfuls, it doesn't mean that the bhakti culture is above these concepts, but that it has a much broader outreach than humanity, and the feelings involved are much more intense. I like to call a spade a spade, but the spade I am referring to is such a sweet one, already as it is.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 26, 2007 3:56 am
If I seem to imply that you are abusing words such as "human" "emotions" and "feelings" by the bucketfuls, it doesn't mean that the bhakti culture is above these concepts, but that it has a much broader outreach than humanity, and the feelings involved are much more intense. I like to call a spade a spade, but the spade I am referring to is such a sweet one, already as it is.
Well, I'm exploring them.
I hoped we could share some different approaches, maybe take some new perspectives into consideration, nothing more. Is that wrong?
I was thinking aloud, sometimes following possible conclusions and not necessarily my standpoints, wanting to share my thoughts on the subject matter (and not hide them) because it is one of the very important aspects of our life. And it can be a painful and disappointing one too. I was surrendering my thoughts here, unto you.
So, it implies I'm abusing those words .. Interestingly, no one has left ISKCON because of me and my abuse of those words. On the contrary. Many devotees in the ex-Yugoslavian ISKCON thanked me for saying inspirational words and helping them when they needed most. Although not officially in the organisation, and although I was referred by few officials with many adjectives, such as "Mayavadi" or "Christian", I was always trying to ignite confidence in those little invisible individuals like myself who had problems, or were neglected and abused, and inspire them to continue following their faith in Sri Krishna and Mahaprabhu. I felt it was a right thing to do. With pictures, poems, quotes, embraces, flowers, money, service, art, kind words, whatever else I had at hand. It was worth it and I would not change that experience for anything. Their need and my best possible help and also their response to my need for friendship were defining those words in my dictionary, not vice versa.
But thank you. This is Mahaprabhu in fact, telling me to shut up finally and adhere to work.
My sincere obeisances unto you.
Your servant,
Zvonimir
Braja-sundari Dasi - December 30, 2007 10:12 am
This I found this on page 699 of Jaiva Dharma and difference between these two translations makes me even more confused:
Vijaya-kumara: Who are the ayauthiki gopis?
Gosvami: Persons who, seeing the gopis' passionate love for Krishna, yearn to become like them, and to attain this end engage in sadhana bhakti, become the ayauthiki gopis (which are divided into two groups: pracina (elderly) and navina (young). In this way one, two or three of these gopis are born in Vraja. The pracina ayauthiki gopis eventually attain salokya-mukti, and in the spiritual world they associate with the eternally dear (nitya priya) gopis. After a lifetime as demigoddesses, human beings or other kinds of beings, the pracina ayauthiki gopis take birth in Vraja. Eventually they become pracina gopis and at the end attain the salokya-mukti I have just described.
Vijaya:
Who ara ayauthiki?
Gosvami: There are two types of sundaris celebrated by the name ayauthiki: long-standing (pracina) and new (navina). They are exeptionally attached to gopi-bhava, and perform sadhana with intense eagerness and natural anuraga. Some take birth alone, and others in groups of two, three or even more at the same time. The pracina-ayauthiki-gopis attained salokya (living on the same planet) together with the nitya-priya-gopis a long time ago. The navina-ayauthiki gopis come to Vraja by taking birth in the species of devas, humans and other beings. They gradually become pracina, and attain salokya in the way I have already mentioned.
What is the meaning of salokya in this regard? It seems to me that they first appear in one universe where Krishna lila is going on and then go to another. Is it proper understanding? Is it the same for the devotees with rati different than madhurya?
Bhrigu - January 1, 2008 2:27 pm
What is the meaning of salokya in this regard? It seems to me that they first appear in one universe where Krishna lila is going on and then go to another. Is it proper understanding? Is it the same for the devotees with rati different than madhurya?
Yes, that is the meaning. The whole point here is to explain that there are two kinds of sadhana-siddha-gopis: those who become gopis as a group (yauthiki), subdivided into the munis of Dandakaranya and the Upanisads, and those that become gopis as a result of their individual sadhana (ayauthiki). The subdivision of pracina and navina is perhaps from the Ujjvala-Nilamani which I haven't read, but it seems to be like this: the pracina (long-standing, not "elderly"!) became gopis a long time ago and have already gone to Goloka. The navina (new) gopis come to Vraja for the first time, and are born wherever the Lord performs his manifest pastimes at the present time, after which they will attain the same planet (salokya), Goloka, as the Lord. Some acaryas explain that the first time, they are not born in Gokula but somewhere nearby, from where they are brought as brides for the cowherds into Gokula and thus into Krishna's near proximity.
If you have access to Mahanidhi & Bhanu Maharajas' translation of Visvanatha Cakravarti's commentary to the 10th canto, you can read verses 10.29.9-10 for more information about these groups and how a jiva comes to Goloka. I would assume that the same process (first Gokula, then Goloka) applies to other ratis as well, but hasn't seen a direct quote.
In general, on the basis of the translations you quoted, I would recommend sticking to the second. The first contains several mistakes in this short passage.
Braja-sundari Dasi - January 3, 2008 4:33 pm
Page 772 of Jaiva dharma:
Sadharani rati appears from the desire for sambhoga. It is stimulated by utter infatuation when one sees Krishna face to face, but not so deep and neither is it thick nor permanent. When the desire for sambhoga subsides, this rati also subsides, which is why it is categirized as inferior.
So what happens with this rati when it subsides? Does it change to some other rati? Or maybe it refers only to sadhana devotees? Example of Kubja is given...
Bhrigu - January 3, 2008 4:48 pm
No, it does not change, it just becomes weaker. Just like a man may have a specific relationship to a woman, but if it is not particularly strong (sâdhâra.ni means "general"), he may not think that much about her when she is absent. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say. It is not that in her absence he deals with her in dâsya-rati or something like that, the rati is the same but more in the background. Kubja is the example here, which means that this isn't such a great thing.
Prema-bhakti - January 3, 2008 6:09 pm
No, it does not change, it just becomes weaker. Just like a man may have a specific relationship to a woman, but if it is not particularly strong (sâdhâra.ni means "general"), he may not think that much about her when she is absent. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say. It is not that in her absence he deals with her in dâsya-rati or something like that, the rati is the same but more in the background. Kubja is the example here, which means that this isn't such a great thing.
Nice analogy, Bhrigu bhai.
Braja-sundari Dasi - February 2, 2008 2:00 pm
In Jaiva dharma, page 856 Gosvami speaks about krama-hina-sravana-dasa- irregular hearing.
Gosvami: Krama-hina-sravana-dasa is hearing about krsna-lila in an irregular and unmethodical manner. Hearing krsna-lila with irresolute intelligence results in this sort of unmethodical sravana, because such hearing does not enable one to realize the relationship between the various lilas, and thus rasa does not awaken in his heart.
Can anyone explain what it actually means? Any examples?
Braja-sundari Dasi - June 19, 2008 4:07 pm
I would really like to know what is irregular hearing or rather what is regular hearing... Maybe it`s only because I`m not fluent in Engliush that I cannot understand? 
Swami - June 19, 2008 6:14 pm
I would really like to know what is irregular hearing or rather what is regular hearing... Maybe it`s only because I`m not fluent in Engliush that I cannot understand?
I believe that BVT is speaking of the difference between hearing lila katha, etc. with a specific focus to attain a particular rasa—selective hearing based on taste—as opposed to hearing without such a focus.
Braja-sundari Dasi - June 20, 2008 2:29 am
I believe that BVT is speaking of the difference between hearing lila katha, etc. with a specific focus to attain a particular rasa—selective hearing based on taste—as opposed to hearing without such a focus.
Thank you very much Guru Maharaj!
Braja-sundari Dasi - January 2, 2012 6:50 pm
I just remembered that we had this thread. It may be helpful in BRS study so I`m refreshing it.
Braja-sundari Dasi - February 13, 2012 4:41 pm
While listening to Guru Maharaja`s class on Lord Varahadeva appearence a thought came to my mind- for the rasa to appear one`s attitude has to be favourable towards Krishna. But Hiranyaksa and Hiranyakasipu were not aware that they were devotees. So on the surface they did not act to please the Lord. Did they enjoy the vira rasa then?
Kanailal Das - February 14, 2012 7:21 pm
More broadly, has any asura who has displeased the Lord and gone on to "suffer" mercy at his hands enjoyed any rasa? I have to believe they lack the ability and qualification. But I actually don't know.
Nitaisundara Das - February 21, 2012 12:45 am
Braja, I think perhaps Jaya and Vijaya's motive was not to experience vira-rasa, but to give Narayana the opportunity to experience it. Ananta Das Babaji paraphrases Jaya and Vijaya speaking as follows in his MK commentary: "O Lord Narayan! Our sole desire is to give you the pleasure of a good fight. We know you are complete in yourself, as a result we cannot bear to see even the slightest appearance of any deficiency in your self-perfection. All the devotees serve you in a favorable mood; no one thinks of making you relish the flavors of combat. Thus we pray that you mercifully give us an inimical mood so that we can challenge you to a good fight. This will give us all fulfillment."
It would seem to really give the experience of vira rasa, they had to really identify as enemies of Vishnu. But does that mean they couldn't experience vira-rasa? I am not sure. I don't necessarily think so. The vrajabasis are not aware that they are devotees of Krishna (they just think they are his friend, parent, lover, etc.) but they still experience rasa...
Kanailal, do you mean to ask if they experienced rasa while they were being vanquished or afterword? Putana attained vatsalya-bhakti eternally, but I don't know if she experienced bliss at the time. I believe she is the only one mentioned in this regard. Generally it is said the demons attain liberation in oneness with Brahman, but many of their fates are not specified.
Braja-sundari Dasi - February 22, 2012 10:13 am
Braja, I think perhaps Jaya and Vijaya's motive was not to experience vira-rasa, but to give Narayana the opportunity to experience it. Ananta Das Babaji paraphrases Jaya and Vijaya speaking as follows in his MK commentary: "O Lord Narayan! Our sole desire is to give you the pleasure of a good fight. We know you are complete in yourself, as a result we cannot bear to see even the slightest appearance of any deficiency in your self-perfection. All the devotees serve you in a favorable mood; no one thinks of making you relish the flavors of combat. Thus we pray that you mercifully give us an inimical mood so that we can challenge you to a good fight. This will give us all fulfillment."
It would seem to really give the experience of vira rasa, they had to really identify as enemies of Vishnu. But does that mean they couldn't experience vira-rasa? I am not sure. I don't necessarily think so. The vrajabasis are not aware that they are devotees of Krishna (they just think they are his friend, parent, lover, etc.) but they still experience rasa...
.
Thank you Nitai! Interesting points. I guess if sastras and acaryas say nothing about it we won`t be able to know for sure. Vrajavasis are not aware of being devotees but they are no doubt consciously favourable towards Krishna. In case of jaya and Vijaya this favourable mood became deeply subconscious. Hating the Lord to please him, how amazing!
Nitaisundara Das - February 25, 2012 3:30 am
I dont think the vrajavasis are always consciously favorable. Radha, for example, actually gets mad at Krishna. After I made this post I asked GM about it and he confirmed. He gave the example that the cowherd bows are not trying to defeat KRishna thinking of his pleasure, they just want to win!
Jaya Rasaraja!
Braja-sundari Dasi - February 25, 2012 10:43 am
I dont think the vrajavasis are always consciously favorable. Radha, for example, actually gets mad at Krishna. After I made this post I asked GM about it and he confirmed. He gave the example that the cowherd bows are not trying to defeat KRishna thinking of his pleasure, they just want to win!
Jaya Rasaraja!
:Cow:
The definition of pure bhakti is: continuous service or emotions directed towards Krishna, his expansion forms or others related to him, with a pleasing attitude towards Krishna. So I guess it manifests either on conscious or/and subconscious level? In material plane subconsiousness forms from our past experiences, convictions, desires. What is subconsciousness in spiritual realm? Is it sthayi-bhava?