Tattva-viveka
Rasa
Kamalini-devi Dasi - January 9, 2006 4:51 am
In the purport to S.Bhag. 1.1.3, Srila Prabhupada describes the 12 varieties of rasas. Then, "The sum total of all these rasas is affection or love...There is no possibility of an exchange or rasa between a man and an animal or between a man and any other species of living beings within the material world. The rasas are exchanged between members of the same species...The spiritual exchange or rasa is fully exhibited in spiritual existence between livings and the Supreme Lord".
Some people love their pets more than any other people, and they feel loving exchanges with them, like their pets understand them or something like that.
I sell canendars during the holiday season and calendars with pictures of dogs are by far our most popular ones. One lady who works at the mall where I work told me that her dog died in the summer, and "Quite frankly, if I had a choice between my dog and my husband dying, I would prefer my husband died." Another lady purchased a calendar for her husband. "He loves his dog more than me. If one of us had to go, I know for sure who it would be." People grieve for months and years after they loose their dear pet.
Lord Krsna is experiencing rasa with all the different species, but as far as material relationships, or rasas. it seems as though people do have deep "affection and love" for their pets. Why is it not rasa?
Robertnewman - January 9, 2006 4:16 pm
Perhaps Srila Prabhupada never experienced genuine love for an animal, and he extrapolated his personal experience into a general rule. In my own experience, there is no difference between the sentiments I have felt toward my young children and for my pets. I identify both as vatsalya rasa.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 9, 2006 5:38 pm
In my opinion attachment to the pet is a dangerous attachment; story about King Bharata's attachment to a small deer comes to mind for example. I do have a dog though; I got it for a sole porpoise to teach my kids responsibility and some ahimsa, none the less it's an animal with very minimal realizations and conciseness, which is not part of your family, nor can it fully reciprocate to your affection. Love should be directed to the correct place. Serving a pet is quite a waste of valuable time and seems pretty detrimental to spiritual life. And statement "I would prefer my husband died" is just clearly atrocious. I'm sure that lady was madly in love with her husband before, so what happened? kalah kalayatam aham Besides loving "cute and fuzzy animals" and being a carnivore and slaughter billions of other animals does have a touch of hypocrisy, no? I'm not sure that animal is capable of love. I would go even farther and state that animal is an automaton guided only by it's instincts, thus experiencing rasa with it is not possible.
Shyam Gopal Das - January 9, 2006 7:35 pm
isn't a cow an animal?
Igor - January 9, 2006 8:25 pm
We can not live without love. In this material world love is twisted – we are searching that original love and substitute it whenever we can – if we do not get love or affection from our husband or wife we will try to surrogate it – maybe pets or plants.
We also have tendency to give love, but if we do not use that tendency properly, then object of our love is temporary, and we do not have eternal relation. That doesn’t mean that we should not take care for our pets, no, they are praja – someone that we should take care of. We can see that Krsna loves His cows so much that he knows all their names and after all His name is Govinda!
I am not sure but I think that I heard from some devotee that Lord Caitanya also had pet – dog? Do you know something more about that?
Syamasundara - January 9, 2006 9:14 pm
In my opinion attachment to the pet is a dangerous attachment; story about King Bharata's attachment to a small deer comes to mind for example. I do have a dog though; I got it for a sole porpoise to teach my kids responsibility and some ahimsa, none the less it's an animal with very minimal realizations and conciseness, which is not part of your family, nor can it fully reciprocate to your affection. Love should be directed to the correct place. Serving a pet is quite a waste of valuable time and seems pretty detrimental to spiritual life. And statement "I would prefer my husband died" is just clearly atrocious. I'm sure that lady was madly in love with her husband before, so what happened? kalah kalayatam aham Besides loving "cute and fuzzy animals" and being a carnivore and slaughter billions of other animals does have a touch of hypocrisy, no? I'm not sure that animal is capable of love. I would go even farther and state that animal is an automaton guided only by it's instincts, thus experiencing rasa with it is not possible.
Yes, tell GM who slept with Bhumi in the stall in the cold the first time she got really sick.
I don't know what SP was referring to in the first place; like many things he said, it's important to know the context and the person. My first reaction after reading that was "As far as the material world I wonder if we can talk of rasa at all" or as Rupa Goswami (I believe) said: "The only rasa here is disgust."
Personally, Dharma and Bhumi gave me such an intense joy when I was living with them. By the way, love and attachment don't always go together, and everybody chooses who to love. They may be deluded if they prefer animals to humans, or they may be disappointed with mankind. Many elederly people use pet therapy against depression.
As far as the "automaton guided only by it's instincts" my philosphy teacher once made us reflect on the fact that her cat was about to scratch her face, but it stopped and withdrew its claws. It could be because she is the one who feeds it, but that proves, if not that animals can love, at least that they think to a certain extent. When I was living with a friend of mine who had three cats, they would spontaneously sit on my lap and I never fed them once.
Then if we want to talk about real love we already know that it must be in relation to Krsna.
By the way Krsna has lots of pets: a calf, a monkey, a dog, etc. Radhika has a swan, a parrot, I believe a baby goat...
The Vrajavasis definitely love their cows.
The dog in Caitanya lila who could chant the holy name was Sivananda Sena's.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - January 9, 2006 9:48 pm
I was waiting for this question. 
Cow is not quite an animal as Tulsi is not quite a tree. We are taught to relate to cows as to our mothers -- with reverence and respect. The Lord is the well-wisher of the cows -- namo brahmanya-devaya go-brahmana-hitaya ca and surabhir abhipalayantam. So we are following His example. I should note that it is known that surabhi cows are the Lord's pet animals, but it is also known that those cows are actually a personification of Vedic mantras.
Needless to say, Krsna as a mahapurusa, does have other pet animals as well, as stated in Srila Rupa Gosvami's Sri Sri Radha-Krsna-ganoddesa-dipika:
TEXT 109
Mangala, Pingala, Ganga, Pisangi, Manikastani, Hamsi and Vamsipriya are the most important of the surabhi cows, who are all very dear to Lord Krsna.
TEXT 110
Padmagandha and Pisangaksa are Krsna's pet oxen. Suranga is His pet deer and Dadhilobha is His pet monkey.
TEXT 111
Vyaghra and Bhramaraka are Krsna's pet dogs. Kalasvana is His pet swan, Tandavika His pet peacock and Daksa and Vicaksana His pet parrots.
This is another interesting quote from Science of Self Realization, ch.8:
The cows in Krsna's abode are also liberated souls. They are called surabhi cows. There are many popular pictures showing how Krsna loves the cows, how He embraces and kisses them. That passive relationship with Krsna is called santa.
Syamasundara - January 9, 2006 10:14 pm
This is the original question, I believe.
Like I said, if we are talking of real rasa I don't see the point of specifying this about animals in the material world.
However, if consider the reflections of rasa in our world, some humans definitely feel parental love with their pets, and some kids friendship.
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 10, 2006 12:04 am
I think animals are more like very young children than they are automotons. They all definitely have unique personalities. Animals are also very sensitive to emotions. Just because the body isn't human and doesn't have the same capacity as the human form doesn't mean that everything runs on instinct alone. Animals are defnintely more instinctual and habitual than a human but they still make choices. A dog is taught right from wrong (from the perspective of his caretaker) but still will sometimes choose to act in the wrong fashion. When they are caught you know they feel guilty. They knew they chose the wrong thing. Seems almost human eh?
As far as the reflection of rasa goes, the animal cannot reciprocate the way a human does with another human. There can be no exchange of words etc. In this sense even the reflection of rasa may be lacking.
Robertnewman - January 10, 2006 1:27 am
As far as the reflection of rasa goes, the animal cannot reciprocate the way a human does with another human. There can be no exchange of words etc. In this sense even the reflection of rasa may be lacking.
Shall we say then that vatsalya rasa between parent and child cannot really begin until the child learns to speak or otherwise develops to a certain stage? I don't think that's a tenable argument. A dog or cat can reciprocate with his/her caretaker as much as (in some ways, more than) an infant human can. And let's not forget that true love does not strictly depend upon reciprocation in any case!
It's pretty clear that the contributors to this thread are rather neatly divided into two groups: those who, presumably like Prabhupada, have never experienced real love for an animal, and those who have. Those in the first group may be able to offer many good arguments against the proposal that rasa with animals is possible. Those in the second group are beyond all arguments because they have the direct experience. They know that insofar as rasa is possible at all in mundane relationships, species need not make a difference.
Madangopal - January 10, 2006 1:05 pm
If you read this purport, it seems that Prabhupada is stating that rasa is only possible within the same species because he is trying to make 2 points.
1. There are mundane rasas (ordinary man and woman love - conjugal love) and spiritual ones.
2. That we are of the same "species" as God (spiritual beings) and therefore we can experience spiritual rasa with Him.
I don't think he is trying to make some prescription about human interaction with animals. It seems that this is just his line of argument, stating that the spiritual being can share a different type of rasa, a spiritual rasa with the lord.
"But as far as the spirit souls are concerned, they are one qualitatively with the Supreme Lord. Therefore, the rasas were originally exchanged between the spiritual living being and the spiritual whole, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The spiritual exchange or rasa is fully exhibited in spiritual existence between living beings and the Supreme Lord."
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 10, 2006 10:02 pm
My example of speaking was just that - an example, or one way in which humans interact. We also have non-verbal interactions that are also uniquely human. I have had relationships with humans and animals all of my life. They are categorically different - that is what I was really trying to convey. Not everyone will agree with that - but at least my own subjective experience is that as close as I may be with any animal, I personally cannot equate that relationship with the ones I have with members of the human race.
I became a vegetarian in a family of meat eaters because of my love for animals. In one sense I feel that the animals that have come under my care have always been a part of my family, but that sense is limited.
I'm not so sure it's a black an white issue - or one where some have a particular experience and others don't. I am quite sure we all have unique experiences that inform our opinions.
Let's look at the example of parental love. In the human context that will come with so many different expressions and will invoke so many unique emotions. A parent will want to see that the child is well nourished, properly educated, free from harm etc. The parent will relish in the growth of the child and all of his/her growing trials and tribulations. The parent will feel every bump and bruise that the child gets as if it was his/her own. Their hearts will swell when the child expresses himself/herself in their own unique and beautiful way. This is just touching on a very small portion of the myriad of emotions one feels in parenthood. I can categorically say that as a parent I have experienced these emotions in a much more profound way with my children than with any pet I have been privlieged to care for.
I don't know if you are a parent or not Robert but if you are then you may understand what I am getting at. You are obviously a pet owner and love your pets very much, as am I and as do I. We do seem to differ somewhat as to how much loving reciprocation is possible between a human and an animal.
I think if we were to discuss this in the context of the five primary rasas and the examples of each given to us in the scriptural canon it would be fairly obvious that the exchange and experience of rasa, even in it's reflection in the mundane world, is limited in the context of inter species exchange.
Robertnewman - January 11, 2006 2:51 am
I think if we were to discuss this in the context of the five primary rasas and the examples of each given to us in the scriptural canon it would be fairly obvious that the exchange and experience of rasa, even in it's reflection in the mundane world, is limited in the context of inter species exchange.
That is perfectly reasonable, but "limited" and "impossible" are very different concepts. I may not have made it sufficiently clear in my previous posts, but my objection is specifically to the categorical, black-and-white nature of Prabhupada's statement. He did not say that rasa between different species was limited or inferior. He said it was not possible, period. Unless I have completely misunderstood the meaning of rasa, and it really is by definition limited to members of the same species, such a sweeping statement is simply untenable.
Babhru Das - January 11, 2006 3:51 am
I think if we were to discuss this in the context of the five primary rasas and the examples of each given to us in the scriptural canon it would be fairly obvious that the exchange and experience of rasa, even in it's reflection in the mundane world, is limited in the context of inter species exchange.
Do you mean intra-species--within the same species?
Audarya-lila Dasa - January 11, 2006 4:02 am
No, I meant inter - between members of different species
Babhru Das - January 11, 2006 4:57 am
Bhakta Ivar - January 11, 2006 2:59 pm
> Some people love their pets more than any other people, and they feel loving exchanges with them, like their pets understand them or something like that.
Pets cannot hurt you with sharp words, they cannot criticize you, they cannot dominate you, they cannot abuse you. Given the fact that criticism, domination and abuse are widespread in human relationships, it's no wonder people claim they love pets more than other people. But that is not love, but feeling comfortable in their presence.
Of course you can have lots of fun with animals. They can be entertaining to look at (like the rabbits running around the house in my case) or to play with (especially dog owners have a lot of interaction like this). Thus they give us pleasure, which develops attachment for them. Cats even reciprocate when we agitate their nervous system.
But is this love? If we think so, we do not really know what love really is, or can be.
Although in the myths of Gopala and some of the stories about Sri Caitanya the animals seemed to behave in a human loving way, in real life their nervous systems are constructed in a relatively simple way, which may allow attachment but not loving ecstacy, or ecstatic love. Human beings can experience ecstacy because their physical bodies (brains) support its manifestation.
But still, human relationships will not be ecstatic without the spiritual dimension being explored. I feel extremely attached to my two sons, but I never had the hairs on my body stand up in a wave of loving feelings, never. But there was a time when I had that experience numerous times in relation to God and Goddess. True rasa is only possible in relation to the same "stuff" that we are made of, namely sat, cid and ananda.
Ivar
Syamasundara - January 11, 2006 11:46 pm
After watching a pug saying I love you on TV the other day, and watching a documentary on quantum physics and unlimited possibilities, where they said that consciousness creates the world, I have no problem believing the "myths" mentioned before. Not like I didn't believe them before.
Whatever appears in the mind of a realized soul is much more real and much less mythical than all the simple and complex nervous systems out there.
Boy, that pug was really something. Of course he was just parrotting but he did articulate I.... love... youuuuuuuuuu 
From there to Hari bol it's not a big stretch.
Gopisvara Dasa - January 12, 2006 8:26 am
Interesting subject as well as somewhat disturbing.From my vantage point, I am daily inundated by people who are addicted,attached,enamored and obsessed with dogs and impose them in a most selfish and irresponsible way on those who want nothing to do with them.So it may be difficult for me to be very objective.
Nonetheless, the example of Bharata and the deer in the Bhagavatam is a good one.The vast majority of animals are in the mode of ignorance(cows and lions are some of the exceptions).We would be wise to associate with souls higher than ourselves to imbibe their qualities rather than people whose association is degrading,what to speak of animals.
Rasa is for liberated souls.That alone settles the arguement.Now if you want to talk about the shadow of rasa that is another thing.Humans,who exist in three modes exhibit a reflection of rasa. Animals in tama guna are even further removed from pure reciprocal dealings. Of course, since there is a soul in there,there is some potential,but it is largely inert,a reflection of a reflection.Also the idea of conjugal rasa with animals is disgusting.So the pick and choose rasa "system" is a concoction and sounds like the half hen philosophy.
I used to have a couple cats that I "loved".They could sometimes turn on you.It woke you up to the fact that they are still just animals and a lot of what we experience with them is projection.What to speak of animals, the affinity we have with other people is often largely just projection:" You think you know somebody!"
I respect all God's creatures and am excited to see a fox or rabbit,etc. in the wild.And domestic animals have there place and purpose,such as cows or cats(rodent control)or sheepherding dogs.Just as a side note;the cat your are in "rasa" with is killing innocent rodents.In Vedic culture dogs,for example are considered untouchable and are not allowed inside the house.Therefore the idea of rasa with them is certainly a stretch.
Of course,anything is possible,as we have seen in the Jarikhanda forest and other places but that is certainly not the norm.
What is worth noting is the type of animals people gravitate towards.I once read that over 60% of the households in my county have dogs(largely for protection and security,which is a symptom of fear,the antithesis of love and the endless barking cacophony is a sign of selfish inconsideracy, also the antithesis of love)Prabhupada used to say things like "serve God not dog".
This age is sometimes called the dog-like age of Kali in that it is a respository of all bad qualities; selfishness,dirtiness,obstinacy,etc.(I know the dog-lovers will point out that they are loyal(sectarian) as well,and Kali yuga also has its good side(harinama).
And,as has been said,the "love" people have for their pets is folly if these people are meat-eaters.And people who treat their animals better than other people are not only not in rasa but have a seriously misplaced value system.
Bhakta Ivar - January 12, 2006 10:10 am
> the cat your are in "rasa" with is killing innocent rodents.
Although I agree with your post, the fact that the cat eats rodents doesn't make the cat sinful or mean. Rodents wouldn't be innocent, because they eat insects.
> Of course,anything is possible,as we have seen in the Jarikhanda forest
Well, we haven't actually seen that, have we? We believe it happened.
Bhakta Ivar - January 12, 2006 10:38 am
> a documentary on quantum physics and unlimited possibilities, where they said that consciousness creates the world, I have no problem believing the "myths" mentioned before.
I think you're referring to "What the Bleep do we know?!" If not, I recommend you see that one too (and the bonus material on the DVD).
Yes, consciousness creates the world, and focused consciousness can make "miracles" happen. But the main reason why I think one should not be hung up on the literal interpretation of the myths is that if one does so, one doesn't realize the hidden meaning(s) of the myths. The general public may keep the myths alive through festivals, recitation and songs, but the ultimate purpose is to preserve metaphysical (and quantumphysical) secrets. Quantum phycisists are actually rediscovering this knowledge, and they realize that it was all the time available to us, although coded in myths in ancient scriptures. Especially Vedic scriptures are of interest, because they obviously describe a scientifically and spiritually developed society (vimanas, nuclear energy, travel to other dimensions etc.), and it's beyond doubt that Vedic poets loved writing puns.
But it will be important to distinguish between the healthy elements of Vedic society and the unhealthy, dysfunctional ones. We tend to think and preach that the Vedic culture was somehow perfect. But it really wasn't. There were brutal elements to it (especially the later period), and it (city life at least) was certainly based on patriarchy and dominance (probably because the world went through the Age of Aries). The world today certainly needs an archaic revival, but not based on such recent male dominated systems. We need neither patriarchy nor matriarchy, but partnership. The domination/patriarchy model is like a virus, and it spreads through war. So on a global scale it seems we still have a long way to go...
Ivar
Bhrigu - March 4, 2006 7:31 am
I've had to go back to my Rasa-tattva studies for a project I'm involved with at the present, and that reminded me of this discussion. The answer really is quite simple. Devotees often confuse rasa (aesthetic experience) and sthayi-bhava (steady loving relationship). The second is just one ingredient of rasa, which is when sthayi-bhava, anubhava, vibhava, sattvika-bhava and vyabhicari-bhava combine (see the rasa-tattva thread for explanations of these terms). Since animals are not physically or mentally able to exhibit all of these bhavas, there cannot be rasa between a human and an animal. That, of course, doesn't mean that there can't be love between a human being and an animal, but that's another thing.
Robertnewman - March 4, 2006 5:36 pm
Well, let’s see. With the caveat that this whole thread deals not with rasa proper but its mundane shadow; i.e., as between two human beings vs. between a human being and an animal (or two animals, for that matter):
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.
Surely there’s no difficulty here. Have you ever seen a dog crouch in mock challenge? Of course, the details vary by species, but such examples are innumerable.
Vibhava: 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.
I see no difficulty here either. Surely any conscious living being could potentially serve as either the object or vessel of love. And dogs and cats certainly have qualities including actions, ornaments, smiles (of a sort), fragrance, etc. which can enflame the love of their caretakers; and in turn these animals can appreciate and respond similarly to these qualities in human beings.
Sattvikabhava: involuntary reactions, such as becoming stunned, crying, perspiring heavily, getting goose bumps, etc.
Still no problem. Again, the details vary by species (most animals don’t perspire, for example), but involuntary reactions out of love are numerous. In particular, becoming stunned, crying, and horripilation are often seen in dogs experiencing a reunion with their caretakers after a long separation.
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.
Again I see no problem. Dogs and cats do exhibit indifference, grief, depression, envy, etc. At least, to those who are able to detect these emotions in their canine and feline manifestations.
I believe that the only way to confine the concept of rasa to human interactions is to explicitly and arbitrarily state that any other type of interaction is out of bounds. To my knowledge this has not been done anywhere in shastra. Examples and explanations in shastra almost always use human interactions and characteristics, but that is not the same as declaring that others are invalid. To do so I believe would do violence to the truth by unnecessarily limiting it. And I really don't understand why some members of Tattva-viveka are inclined to try. Is there no rasa between Krishna and his cows? Or is there none between the cows and cats of Audarya and its human inhabitants?
Swami - March 5, 2006 3:37 pm
I believe that the only way to confine the concept of rasa to human interactions is to explicitly and arbitrarily state that any other type of interaction is out of bounds. To my knowledge this has not been done anywhere in shastra. Examples and explanations in shastra almost always use human interactions and characteristics, but that is not the same as declaring that others are invalid. To do so I believe would do violence to the truth by unnecessarily limiting it. And I really don't understand why some members of Tattva-viveka are inclined to try. Is there no rasa between Krishna and his cows? Or is there none between the cows and cats of Audarya and its human inhabitants?
I think that the reason that members are inclined to reason as to why there is no rasa between humans and animals is that they are reluctant to and have a healthy resistence to concluding that the person they learned about rasa from and whom they understand to be absorbed in it (Srila Prabhupada) is wrong when he says there is no rasa therein. You, Robert, have also done this indirectly by way of suggesting that perhaps Prabhupada had no experience of loving one's pet, which is more common in the West.
There is rasa between Krsna and his cows, but they are of the same species in that they are both on the spiritual platform.
As for Audarya, the sthayi-bhava, which is the basis of rasa and out of which all other attendant bhavas arise to bring about rasa, is dasya-bhakti with Gaura Nityananda as the visayalmbana vibhava or object of love. The love that the humans here have for the cows, one another, the cats, etc. are sancari bhavas. Just like in Goloka, where the object of love is Sri Krsna and the love the devotees have for one annother is a sancari bhava augmenting their sthayi-bhava for Krsnacanda.
I think that Brighu got it backwards. The question is whether humans readily experience something analogous to sthayi-bhava for their pets, or if the norm is not that their love for their pets is more akin to a sancari-bhava that is part of their love life. There is an intimacy within the animal species that is difficult for humans to enter into, however much they love animals. Whereas within the humans species humans more readily center their life on a dominant relationship with another human. There may be rare exceptions, but this goes without saying.
So to say that there is no rasa (or sahdow of it in the material world) between humans and animals is not to say that there is not love between them. It is to say that such love is limited in that it does not have the potential to rise to something roughly analagous to a sthayi-bhava that can cause love to rise to the level of rasa.
Robertnewman - March 5, 2006 6:06 pm
I think that the reason that members are inclined to reason as to why there is no rasa between humans and animals is that they are reluctant to and have a healthy resistence to concluding that the person they learned about rasa from and whom they understand to be absorbed in it (Srila Prabhupada) is wrong when he says there is no rasa therein.
I count myself as one of those who has a healthy resistance to imputing any sort of error to Srila Prabhupada. But “healthy resistance” does not equate to “refusal under any circumstances.” To take that extreme attitude in this case is tantamount to affirming that Srila Prabhupada knew absolutely everything there is to know about rasa and could not be mistaken on any point. I would like to know whether that is a tenet of the Audarya worldview, so that I can conduct myself appropriately in future discussions.
So to say that there is no rasa (or shadow of it in the material world) between humans and animals is not to say that there is not love between them. It is to say that such love is limited in that it does not have the potential to rise to something roughly analagous to a sthayi-bhava that can cause love to rise to the level of rasa.
Of course that may be perfectly true, and it may be that my own non-acquaintance with rasa and faulty understanding of it are responsible for my misunderstanding. It is also possible that our disagreement is purely semantic and not substantive. But my opinion remains that “impossible” is too strong a word in connection with this topic.
Bhrigu - March 5, 2006 6:24 pm
I think that Brighu got it backwards.
You are right, Guru Maharaja, and that was shown also by how Robert was able to show how the other bhavas can at least roughly be seen in (some) animals. Some people focus their love more toward their pet than other humans, but still, of the stayibhavas, I guess sakya-rati and vatsalya-rati would be the only one that could be even remotely approximated toward an animal.
But otherwise I feel that this discussion really does focus mostly on semantics. Nobody denies the deep and genuine feeling that both owner and pet may feel for each other, call them what you may.
Swami - March 5, 2006 7:26 pm
I count myself as one of those who has a healthy resistance to imputing any sort of error to Srila Prabhupada. But “healthy resistance” does not equate to “refusal under any circumstances.” To take that extreme attitude in this case is tantamount to affirming that Srila Prabhupada knew absolutely everything there is to know about rasa and could not be mistaken on any point. I would like to know whether that is a tenet of the Audarya worldview, so that I can conduct myself appropriately in future discussions.
Of course that may be perfectly true, and it may be that my own non-acquaintance with rasa and faulty understanding of it are responsible for my misunderstanding. It is also possible that our disagreement is purely semantic and not substantive. But my opinion remains that “impossible” is too strong a word in connection with this topic.
No one knows absolutely everything there is to know about rasa. Sri Krsna himself realized this upon witnessing Radha's love for him. God is also rasa, rao vai sah, and as such rasa escapes comprehension. I agree with you when you say that you count yourself "as one of those who has a healthy resistance to imputing any sort of error to Srila Prabhupada." I think of you in that way and this is expected of members on the forum. I do not object to your question/doubt/ objection to the strong language (impossible). I was just suggesting an answer to your own query as to why some members seemed resistant to finding Prabhupada wrong. They may have had other reasons.
There are mistakes in Srila Prabhbupada's books, and in my opinion, Prabhupada would have been served well by a substantive editor, which he did not have. In writing one often writes such that, while intending one thing, one says something else or fails to make one's point clearly enough for the reader. This is problem is no doubt more likely to occur when writing in a second language. Thus the need of a substantive editor, especially in Srila Prabhupada's case. So on this basis alone there is considerable room for questioning something that he has written and asking for clarity, and as mentioned above, no one knows everything.
As for the discussion in general, let me be clear on one thing: I love our cows. Their milk is my rasa and it takes five primary forms, curd, butter, ghee, yogurt, and cream. Its also has seven secondary forms, burfi, sandesh, ksira, srikanta, rasgulla, rabri, and banana milk with ginger. Having said this, I also would like to admit that there are surely many other expressions of rasa that this milk appears that words fail to due justice to. After all, what is the value of words when there is milk to taste?
Madangopal - March 5, 2006 9:23 pm
So the essence of rasa between the species can be found in a rasa-goola? That's what I call synthesis! 
Swami - March 5, 2006 9:39 pm
So the essence of rasa between the species can be found in a rasa-goola? That's what I call synthesis!
Well, there is much to be had in rasa-malai as well. As I mentioned, the subject is vast!
Robertnewman - March 5, 2006 10:59 pm
I am perfectly satisfied.
Babhru Das - March 6, 2006 3:39 am
I am perfectly satisfied.
Well, I'll be happier when I'm able to immerse myself in such rasa by stroking those cows' throats and making some of that rasa-whatever (ooooh--rasamalai!).
Swami - March 6, 2006 4:35 am
Satisfied? We are just getting started! This thread began with a discussion of pibata bhagavatam rasam alayam (SB 1.1.3), "Drink the rasa of the Bhagavata again and again, forever and ever," and everyone knows that the Bhagavatam came to us from the mere shore of ocean of milk. Why even Srimad, the new moon of Sri Radha, was churned from the milk ocean of the herdsman Vrsabhanu, vrsabhänüdadhi-nava-sasi-lekhe! As they say, "Got milk?" Therefore I say drink, drink this dugdha-rasa again and again. Relish it in all of its inumerable, inebriating expressions.
Bijaya Kumara Das - March 8, 2006 5:19 am
Satisfied? We are just getting started! This thread began with a discussion of pibata bhagavatam rasam alayam (SB 1.1.3), "Drink the rasa of the Bhagavata again and again, forever and ever," and everyone knows that the Bhagavatam came to us from the mere shore of ocean of milk. Why even Srimad, the new moon of Sri Radha, was churned from the milk ocean of the herdsman Vrsabhanu, vrsabhänüdadhi-nava-sasi-lekhe! As they say, "Got milk?" Therefore I say drink, drink this dugdha-rasa again and again. Relish it in all of its inumerable, inebriating expressions.
That is for sure. For every time You let us in on what is actually happening I am caught up in complete bliss. No matter what the subject is You enlighten us on Gurudeva the rasa just keeps getting better.
Caitanya-daya Dd - March 9, 2006 4:28 am
this has been a v interesting thread for me to read, esp since i am actually v much favourable toward and love dogs v much. They are intelligent creatures that help humans out in many ways by making good companions, acting as certain kinds of therapy, etc. But they are not programmed for higher thinking; that is something we learned from the get-go in our siddhanta. So yes, the "rasa," or so-called rasa or love, as guru maharaja stated, is limited between them and humans.
when i was in india, i took it upon myself to feed maha-prasadam to the dogs. Perhaps people think i'm strange, but i considered it to be a service. Animals in many ways are like young children: unknowing of many things, incapable of doing many things, etc. And for those reasons, i believe we should help them as much as possible--within reason, of course. But as kamalini prabhu revealed, some people go way overboard. That is nothing but a perverted reflection. i mean, i love dogs and cats and most animals, but i don't let them eat from my plate (as i know some people do) nor do i fetch them cups of water in the middle of the night (as i know some other people do).
In a sad but funny way because of the backwards nature of kali-yuga, dogs are almost easier to deal with than people a lot of the time! Kali-yuga is just filled with backwards thoughts and behaviours.
i'm not going to add anything that no one else said in this thread, but there is one thing my eye did catch sight of. As far as i'm aware, lord caitanya didn't formally have a pet dog, but there is a pastime i've read where he took a puppy home with him (as young nimai) and mother saci was very displeased at him, saying it was dirty, we can't keep it, etc. He was rather attached to the puppy so saci told him she'd keep it tied up while he went to take bath. Of course, she let it go, and nimai was upset when he got back to find this out. Meanwhile, the puppy ran into town and then was overcome by prema through its association with the lord. It started chanting name sankirtana and manifested ecstatic symptoms. The townspeople witnessed its leaving its body, and a chariot came from the sky to take the dog's spiritual body away to the spiritual world.
I believe this is told in caitanya-mangala, whose authenticity i know is oftentimes debated. I heard this story many years ago (always been one of my favourites); can anyone confirm its validity? Thank you for reminding me of it, btw!
Swami - March 10, 2006 5:16 pm
It is also mentioned that sivasa Thakura had pet cats and dogs in Navadwipa.
One year stray dog also joined the pilgrimage party of devotees travelling from Nadiya to Nilacala. and I believe it was Sivananda Sena who took care of him and expressed great remorse when the dog was missing, considering the dog to be a saranagata. Later the dog was found in Mahaprabhu's company taking prasada. He also attained liberation.