Transformative effects of diksa -

When we speak of dIkSA (initiation), we come across the following verse as Mahaprabhu's opinion:


The next verse is equally interesting:

Sri Ananta das Babaji follows on from this in his 'Sri Guru Tattva-vijnana': Then again the [initiation] mantra is the intrinsic form of the Lord ... The Lord enters into the disciple's heart in the form of the mantra to make his body, mind and life-airs transcendentally suitable for serving the Lord."

We understand that such a transformation is actually effected by the level of the disciple's Atma-samarpaNa, or surrender. But I think that there can be no denying that the potency of the dIkSA-mantras themselves effect a transformation of consciousness when side-by-side with surrender to the Lord. How are physical changes effected? For some, the term 'spiritualised body' may be more familiar. I have in mind such things as as the aSTa-sattvika-vikAras, Sri Narottam's divine form melting into milk, and so on. While Sri Narottam's case is beyond the reach of us ordinary souls, the aSTa-sattvika-vikAras would be a more appropriate consequence and more likely to happen.

So, in what way(s) does the physical body change due to the influence of sAdhana, as per Mahaprabhu's divine words and Sri Babaji's interpretation of them along the lines of the Lord's entering "in the form of the mantra to make his body, mind and life-airs transcendentally suitable" for seva?

An example of what I am getting at maybe be found in a Gopa Kumara type scenario, where Sri Gopa Kumara attained all of his achievements by meditating on the mantra alone without the guidance of a guru. He achieved so much just by the power of the mantra.

The context in which this diksa kale verse is spoken is interesting: Santanta Gosvamipada's body is covered in sores oozing with pus. And yet that body is a spiritualized body. From this I think we can learn that empiric evidence of spiritualization is not the standard by which to acertain anything. Indeed, we are advised of this by Sri Rupa Gosvamipada in Upadesamrita and in other places. Suffice it to say that the spiritualization takes place on the level of the Lord's acceptance of seva performed with the body.

While ecstatic symptoms are there, the basic empirical data available is quite simple: do the legs carry a person to the temple, does the nose smell the prasadi flowers (viz. Ambarisa Maharaja)? In Sarartha-varsini, Sri Chakravartipada speaks of how the bhakta's senses are like snakes with the fangs removed--their nature remains the same but they no longer have poisonous potency. The context in which he says this is again revealing: api cet suduracaro--the senses have engaged in an irreligious activity but because of the Lord's acceptance of the bhakta and because of the bhakta's taking shelter of the Lord, this external event is not to be judged at its appearance. So again, the empiric platform isn't the place to look for symptoms of transformation unless we take this at the most basic level--how does sit, what does he speak?

From another angle we can also understand that the body, as an element of prarabdha karma, is an element that is the least subject to major change (apart from its newfound engagements in the activities of bhakti). The unmanifest karmic tail and seeds of desire are very easily destroyed by bhakti but the physical and social environment remain, at least in a token formb(tat te ‘nukampam susamiksamano). From the most obvious level--you don't suddenly grow six inches when you take to sadhana, nor do your eyes change color or voice become deeper--up to the more subtle level of having inbuilt tendencies in the body one has obtained--a certain amount of appetite, libido, etc.--we can see that it is the subtle body that is really the fulcrum of spiritualization. (As a "subtle" body, again we are faced with the challenge of the symptoms not always being easily detectible.) As such, we can imagine that the tendency will be there for a move toward sattva guna in terms of how a bhakta lives in this world, just as with Kesava-ji's interesting post about dietal considerations--the bhakta wants to keep his body and mind in a condition that is suitable for seva. There is a practical endeavor to keep the body clean, healthy, etc. , and to always live in a manner whereby ignorance and passion are minimized so that consciousness of the Lord is more easily attained. Much of that general state is detectable, especially if the transformation is from a very different starting point (from punk to monk!). Indeed, the first two leaves of the bhakti-lata are subhada and klesahgni, auspiciousness and destruction of misery. These are conditions that would likely be apparent to an objective observer--but not necessarily given the earlier considerations mentioned above.

I've probably skirted around your question quite a bit but that's what comes to mind.

With regards to aSTa-sattvika-vikAra, sattvika-bhAvas are an element originally dealt with in Natya-shastra; they are not a spiritual phenomena as such, given that they arise on account of the prANa coming in contact with a particular element (paJca-mahA-bhUta). They become constituents of bhakti-rasa when the vibhAva is appropriate.

What does happen is that the entire being of the loving devotee becomes surcharged with svarUpa-zakti, and subsequently devotion is acquired through any contact with him; seeing him, touching him and hearing him all possess the same divine current.

Yes, but just see how long a detour he took!

If we read this verse carefully, we'll see that while the second line, aprAkRta, is justifiedly translated as "transcendental", there is more to the first line than the body being made "transcendental". The text says that the body is made cid-Anandamaya, it becomes imbued with cit and Ananda; on account of that, the next line concludes that the body is aprAkRta.

Here the aspects of transcendence have been clearly defined: cit or "knowledge", and Ananda or "joy", paralleling with saMvit and hlAdinI respectively. These two factors manifest as the devotee's cognizance of his specific relationship with the Lord and the love that comes along with it, respectively. These two are at the core of the spiritualization of one's existence.

Thanks to Madhavaji and Brajaji for their replies.


Would you mind elaborating on this in greater detail, please? What is Natya-sastra, etc?

Natya-shastra is the realm in which the theory of rasa developed, starting from the works of Bharata Muni, later on developed by Abhinavagupta and others. Habermann gives the history of rasa a good treatment in the preface to his translation of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, check that out.

If you want more details on something else, please elaborate in greater detail what etc. means.

Oh sorry, I meant the rest of what you said. Sattvika-bhavas, prana, maha-bhutas, vibhava, etc. Could you kindly explain all of that in a bit more detail please? If as you say that they are not a spiritual phenomena as such and can arise through "material" interactions (prana etc), then how to tell the difference between those bhavas which arise from material interactions and those that arise from spiritual interactions?

I have a feeling that you are saying that everyone can sweat, cry, shiver, and so on, but no one takes any notice of that since those are "normal" human and material exhibitions. But the same crying and perspiring etc that arises from hearing and chanting and advancement in sadhana are genuine symptoms of bhakti and are of an entirely spiritual nature? Have I understood you correctly?

Yes, you've understood correctly.

Rupa Goswami even outlines distinct varieties of sattvika-bhAva-AbhAsa, the grand difference between them and the real thing being the motivational factor that brings them about. While such phenomena might be factual sattvika-bhAvas in some contexts, they aren't considered genuine ingredients of bhakti-rasa on account of defects in factors such as sthayI-bhAva. In the sattvika-bhAva that is a constituent of bhakti-rasa, a transformation in the love for Krishna is the factor that drives the prANa into contact with a particular element.

How do you distinguish between the two? A sensitive devotee will feel the distinction in the devotional impact of the sight of such phenomena. The less sensitive will only know it after acquainting himself with the situation and examining the factors that brought about the transformation in the individual exhibiting the sattvika-bhAvas.

Please do read Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu cover to cover and learn it well. It's a very, very essential text, and very relishable at that. Whoever seeks to perfect a specific relationship with Krishna should study its facets from this text to gain a lucid understanding of the varieties of factors involved.

Excuse me for being enthuse in here…

Actually, I’m glade to have you devotees discussing such a topic about sattvika-bhavas in the way you are approaching it. I always tried to understand what are those emotions that one may feel when, for example, remembering somewhere, someone, or listening to a song, a message, seeing a picture about a nice place and all of sudden, the hears all over the skin stands on end… It is not spiritual, however, one experiment a particular type of emotion (bhava).


I found this article, which get in the details about rasa in dance; art; music:

"The universal but unique phenomenon known as dance springs from man's innermost creative impulses, religious urges, emotions and sensibilities. The aesthetic foundations of this Indian art form are laid on the rock foundations of spiritual sadhana or rigorous discipline leading to moksha or liberation, however fleeting and momentary in the beginning. Aesthetics as a branch of philosophy enquires into the ultimate cause and source of dance and its emotional content and significance as a ting of beauty and joy forever. In the words of C.E.M. (Joad, "Philosophy is not concerned with phenomena, but with their meaning; not with facts, but with values; not with what is, but with what ought to be; not with facts, but with values; not with ends." Thus, it is concerned with beauty in art, its experience and expression and values. Dance, manifested through rhythmic movements, is sensuous, but the experience of ananda (bliss) in it is transcendental and spiritual. In Indian aesthetics rasa (mood or flavour), as the cause of ananda (bliss), is central and fundamental. It is also the essence of beauty and harmony. The ultimate Reality, or Brahman, both in its impersonal and personal aspects, is Sachchidananda (Sat, Chit and Ananda), that is, he is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss absolute. Ananda (bliss) and rasa (sentiment) are two aspects of the same Reality. Therefore, God is rasa as well. Brahman is the ultimate cause of all manifestation. Reality can manifest itself in diverse shapes and forms of various splendour, beauty and grandeur, and yet remain the same. The different manifestations of the Divine are real but they cannot exist without the prior existence of That. Art forms may be different, but they all converge on the point of rasa. It is He who manifests himself in and through all art forms, each being reflecting a portion of his splendour, are fixed like spokes in a wheel or like branches around a trunk of a tree. He is there in everything artistic and beautiful, but more so in one than another in proportion to the manifestation of his glories and divinity. The greater the expression of divinity in a given piece of art, the richer the experience of bliss and sublimity. That is why a particular dance recital may be found equal, superior or inferior to the other."

Dance of India