The Development of Raganuga Sadhana - Haberman: Acting as a Way of Salvation

As far as I know, Haberman's book (Acting as a Way of Salvation) is an accurate and succinct outline of raganuga-bhakti. In chapters six and seven he relates many points that I found interesting regarding the development of raganuga sadhana. One key point was that Rupa Goswami did not define key terms, such as siddha-rupa and sadhaka-rupa, thus opening the way for various interpretations, some of which are apparently considered heterodox, e.g. Rupa Kaviraja. It is not until Visvanatha Cakravartipada that a clear definition is given for sadhaka-rupa, namely, to live as the Goswamis lived.

Another point is that Rupa Goswami does not mention manjari sadhana in any written text, instead conveying only a "skeletal frame," to use Haberman's expression. Indeed, he argues that none of the Goswamis mention it, although it is hinted at in Stavamala and Stavavali. There is also no mention of siddha pranali. (He suggests that the Goswamis believed that knowledge of the siddha-rupa would be obtained from the mantra.)

The systematization of the sadhana, as has become the norm, is done firstly by Gopalguru Goswami and Dhyanacandra Goswami, but it is not until the 18th Century that it is truly formalized.

All in all, Haberman very much presents that Gaudiya Vaisnava theology concerning raganuga sadhana was developed (and debated) over time. What we may see today is not necessarily what was taught by Mahaprabhu or the Six Goswamis.

Agree? Disagree?

Rupa Gosvami's Utkalika Vallari is pretty clear-cut manjari bhava, 70 verses long, and Stavavali, which includes the ultimate Manjari bhava book Vilap Kusumanjali, has many many descriptions of Manjari bhava. The concept has been presented in Prembhakti Candrika, Prarthana, Radha Rasa Sudhanidhi, Govinda Lilamrita, Krishna Bhavanamrita, Vrindavan Mahimamrita, Sankalpa Kalpadruma, Mukta Carita and whatnot. It is a true ocean....

I will agree with Advaita Das.Fullstop.
Cheers Braja.

There are a couple of sections in the book that I disagree with, but unfortunately my copy is in Vraja at the moment.

One would be his division of the theory of the revelation of ekadaza-bhAva; he distills two theories, while in my opinion there are at least three distinct approaches. This has been discussed in an earlier topic rather elaborately.



Though it was not systematically presented, I would have to disagree with the idea that it was only hinted at. Vilapa-kusumanjali (of Stavavali), for example, presents a rather exhaustive body of aspirations for various services in maJjarI-bhAva, though admittedly Utkalika-vallari (of Stavamala) is not as clear-cut in comparison in this regard.

I have earlier on argued on the reasons for siddha-praNAlI not being mentioned in the writings of the Gosvamins. The same would actually apply for guru-praNAlI, dIkSA-paramparAs or indeed any sort of paramparAs for that matter. The obvious - in my opinion anyway - reason for the lack of such considerations was that they were at the root of the parampara, being the nitya-siddha-parikAras who were to be the role-models for others to be emulated, and hence had little concern over the issue as they really had no siddha-models to follow and emulate. This was left for the following generations to outline.



Does he define its formalization in any way? There is a rather clear system presented in their paddhatis, and it was certainly practiced all along by their followers. Does he refer to its broader popularization when he speaks of formalizing it?



I am personally not an advocate of the "Everything is in my books. - Prabhupad Rupa Gosvami" approach. If one wants to get picky, it is open to debate whether all of what's in the writings of the Gosvamins was taught by Mahaprabhu, even - unless you take it on the mandate that whatever they ever wrote was inspired by Him. There is always the question of where there is divine inspiration and what can therefore be counted in as truly authoritative and revealed. That, of course, is a subjective matter we have here. Some followers of Visvanatha Cakravartin regard him as the new incarnation of Rupa Gosvamin, and Siddha Krishnadas of Govardhan is said to have written his Gutika, the first comprehensive manual of joint Gaura-Govinda-lIlAsmaraNa, on the direct inspiration of Sanatana Gosvamipad and Lalita-sakhi.

OK, but sticking to the oft mentioned principle that the Goswamis were given the task of presenting the siddhanta, i.e. leaving out Narottama Das Thakur, etc., would you say:

a. that no development took place over time?

b. if development did take place, why?

Development indicates that something was either clarified or changed. In either case, it means that something was not complete for all time in its original form, no?

As far as Rupa and Raghunath presenting manjari sadhana--where is there any need to codify or elaborate on what they gave?

Is the manjari sadhana content "clear cut" (as you say) in hindsight, i.e. as the Gaudiyas interpret those texts now through the interpretation of later acaryas, or was it always clear cut?

Would you say that the texts of Rupa and Raghunatha clearly enunciate manjari sadhana, specific practices, or manjari bhava, a mood without any definition of practices?

Can someone practice manjari sadhana based solely on their works, i.e. without later works, gutikas, etc.?

Is there an element of vaidhi in following the more--I've been shot down for using the mechanistic before, but here goes--mechanistic techniques of later practitioners and exponents?

I would use the term systematized, in that sense, yes, clarified.


Where is there any need to codify anything? As for elaboration, where is there any need to comment on anything? Why all those TIkAs you see? The ocean of wisdom is shoreless, and even the Gosvamins annotated their own, each others' and earlier works. There are always new angles from which to look at things.



In Vilapakusumanjali, I would say yes it certainly is in terms of proper aspirations which are the core of cultivating our manjari-identity.



Might I ask, what are these specific practices, technicalities even?

That's a reasonable argument except that Rupa and Sanatana in particular clearly delineate so many other practices that are meant for others, e.g. worship of asvatha trees, avoidance of pickles, etc. And, as you say, they are role models--people whose actions will influence others. We see that Mahaprabhu and other avatars take a guru just to clarify the point that this is what should be done. Why siddha pranali was not mentioned, let alone given as an example only is intriguing. Even with the Goswamis being the originals, Svarupa Damodar could have given...or, I don't know. Just looking for solidity here. What are the first direct references to siddha pranali?

Personally, I am not arguing against the concept at all--for all I know guru-pranalis have been given out since Day One and siddha pranali was just a variation on that.

But was is interesting to me is that:

a. I keep writing lists today
b. there always seems to be room for interpretation and misunderstanding even when getting back to the core texts. Why couldn't Mahaprabhu have had a team of lawyers and editors as his associates?
c. as far as I can understand, there clearly is development within Gaudiya Vaisnava theology and practice. I'm not saying that we can therefore now smoke pot or whatever, but it does mean that we should always be a little open to the idea that there is no principle written in stone. Our fundamentalism should be kept in check.



I'll have to find the exact quote. Couldn't find it now.



Ha. Thanks for that. I'd heard of the VC-Rupa Goswami one but not Sidda Krishnadas. Yes, my basic assumption is that there must be many different approaches. Some lines and individuals--much like our debates here, although of a different calibre--will hold faith in a specific form, method and mood, and others will be more eclectic in nature; some will take inspiration from the original sources, some the digested.

Worship of Asvattha-trees etc. is not all that much elaborated on. The siddha-rUpa sevA, on the other hand, is much elaborated upon in all those countless narrations of lIlA, particularly those involving maidservants. The lIlAs narrated are filled with siddhas engaged in sevA.

The first direct references are in Gopal Guru's paddhati, which unfortunately I don't have, but which is quite similar to Dhyanacandra's. You can find a collection of relevant references from this thread.



Well, the Gosvamins evidently overestimated the IQ of their audience. Or perhaps they underestimated the fertility of the audience's brains.



Don't they say that of everyone who was ever influential?

A commentary or elaboration is one thing, e.g. VC takes a few verses from BRS and explains them in detail, but with siddha pranali we are talking of something that seems to be very central to raganuga practice in the post-Sad Goswami era but which was not mentioned. It is so central that some might argue that without siddha pranali, perfection is not possible. As such, the introduction of this principle is intriguing. That the inherent vs assigned argument is a part of the issue also seems to indicate that it was not a central part of the Goswami thinking even from the ontological point of view or we might have seen Jiva Goswami comment.



Call it utsaha mayi but unfortunatey I'm going to need you or others to fill those in for me. Haberman left me short.

I have seen mention that Siddha Krishnadas Baba's Gutika could be followed in a mood of vaidhi, whereas the moods can be added by Bhavana-sara-sangraha. So by mechanistic, I'd suggest the regulation of order, timing, etc., of practices. But I'm way over my head, obviously.

In general, I'm just getting at two ideas:

1. did the Goswami teachings and practices become ritualized, formalized, and/or changed over time?

2. theoretically could someone practice manjari sadhana only with direct reference to their teachings? (Leaving aside the issue of guru, etc. Would their works suffice or are there gaps or subtleties that would prohibit success?)

It was clarified.



Clarification is the joy of the clarifier. A person who dives deep is satisfied with even the foundational works.



See above. There was no need, but there is surely no harm in more and more and more manjari bhava?



I think the statements in Vilap Kusumanjali (16, 100) and Utkalika Vallari (19, 20) are clear cut but I cant see whether the Vaishnavas in the 16th Century always got the point of bhavollasa rati. It is not so important. The Gosvamis knew what they were writing about.



Raghunath the bhava, and Rupa (BRS 1.2.270-309) the sadhana. They are like a horse and a carriage (forgive the somewhat crude example).



Yes. I never got any Gutika-tutika from my Guru....



You have been shot down before with BRS 1.2.296 ? No? POW!

Just joking here. The answer is already there in the previous question. The current practises of Gutika and so are just 200 years old, raganuga bhakti is 450 years old. It is not realistic to surmise that the pre-Gutika devotees could not attain perfection because of lacking it.

Ah, yes. I'm always looking for vaidhi in all the wrong places. If Krsna has lunch on time or eats everything his mother tells him to, I'd accuse him of lacking raga.



Thanks. And just to be fair, I'm not faulting history. It's all good. (Damn hippy in me!) But if Jiva Goswami or someone had just added a couple of words... well, I guess we would have found something else to misunderstand or quarrel over.

Indeed. If Krishna doesnt have lunch in time Mother Yashoda will die, so He will eat in time. And He doesnt eat everything His mother tells Him (see Govinda Lilamrita chapter 4) because He is too much in love with Priyaji. In other words, He follows the law of love. He has to. That is raga.....

Oh but certainly siddha-praNAlI is there by default, wherever there is a well-engaged sAdhaka or a siddha in a sAdhaka-body, there is the corresponding siddha-rUpa. You may read for example Kavi Karnapura's Ganoddesadipika to obseve how the audience of the times was aware of the dual identities of the samAja, existing both in sAdhaka-rUpa and siddha-rUpa.

Whenever there is a succession of gurus, there is a corresponding channel of siddha-rUpas or vraja-pArSadas by default, that goes without saying.

Sometimes we hear the statement, "In our lineage there is no siddha-praNAlI." Too bad, then, since you won't be going to Vraja if even your gurus aren't.

Perhaps you mean the revealing of ekadaza-bhAva when you speak of siddha-praNAlI? Let us try to be strict with the terminology while we're at it. Ekadaza-bhAva, sapta-bhAva or paJca-bhAva, each vraja-pArSada has certain innate qualities such as mood, complexion, residence and so forth. We all want to become vraja-pArSadas so we all evidently require a siddha-rUpa with certain characteristics, whether the sages enumerate its principle features as eleven, six or twenty-three in number.

When in doubt in matters of sAdhana and cultivation of proper bhAva, we approach the guru for instruction.

All of this should be obvious, right?

Where, then, is the controversy? This is the natural dynamics of engagement in the practice of sAdhana-bhakti. There need not be a separate mandate for inquiring about our siddha-rUpa from the guru, just as there need not be separate mandates for varieties of other topics we eventually need to inquire about. We are to inquire about all that is needful in our practice. The Gosvamins would have had to write a separate volume recommending the sAdhaka-samAja to inquire about every other thing they wrote when they come across the need to know more. This is just common sense.



Ah, that was said by my Baba to make the point that one cannot mechanistically do lIlA-smaraNa if the proper mood lacks; if it were done so, it would be nondifferent from vaidhi-bhakti by its nature. The same would apply for chanting prayers or the holy names without proper moods.

This "techniques of bhajan" is a bit of a hype, really. There are no ritualistic techniques, such as turning your right ear three times around and chanting "jabba-jabba-jabba" whenever a fly flies over your head to prevent distraction from smaraNa. SAdhana means regular practice, whether the practice of lIlA-smaraNa or of any other aspect of sAdhana-bhakti.

As far as rAgAnuga-cultivation and its aspect of lIlA-smaraNa is concerned, basically it consists of sitting down and meditating; throughout the day on the aSTakAliya-lIlA (svarasikI-upAsana), and when the time comes for the daily yogapITha-milana, some traditions make it a point to focus in a detailed way on serving all pArSadas in order to better familiarize themselves with all the leading characters of the lIlA.

Other than that, there aren't really any mind-boggling techniques there, at least as far as I am aware of anyway.



Theoretically, if one were to leave aside the issue of guru, the writings of the Gosvamins would not suffice, nor would X quantity of later paddhatIs, guTikas and so forth suffice. One must engage in sAdhana under the guidance of a realized guru if he desires to learn the scenario of the lIlA properly.

The only alternative I could think of would be a complete virtual 3D-model of Vraja with all its inhabitants you could observe and learn of the lIlA, but even then you might misunderstand some of the moods in action, and the grace-factor propelling you forward in the cultivation of your identity wouldn't be there as much as it would when such topics are learned of with the best wishes of a sAdhu-mahAtma.

I can accept that based on my understanding of the totality of the acaryas' writings but it tends toward circular reasoning, or is at least a closed system*, as far as defending the point goes. Specifically, there is no teaching that "when lobha arises [or at some other specified time], approach a guru who will reveal his siddha identity and those of his predecessors."

It is safe to assume that at some point there is a crossover where we are no longer speaking of nitya-siddha parishads of Mahaprabhu whose identity is beyond doubt, but sadhakas, some of whom may be siddha. That area, at least to me, is the point where the lack of specific teachings by the Goswamis is apparent. Your argument presupposes that this has always been the way--and it certainly began that way as far as the associates of Mahaprabhu are concerned, with their siddha identities being known, although there is no mention of the process or requirements for subsequent generations.

[* By closed system, I mean that a guru is either in or out. His position as brahma-nistham, srotiyam, etc., doesn't figure in the equation. ]

The Goswami's positions as nitya-siddha makes the issue cloudy--their moving from panchanga bhakti to the most exalted intimate services does not seem to be based on anything outside of themselves, anything bestowed or revealed by another as it does not need to be.

This lack of definition gives rise to the differences in bestowal/revelation of ekadasa-bhava as described by Subal, Jagat, etc., versus that practiced by others. Anyone is free to run with the concept of "internally/mentally conceived" (within the basic tenets of Gaudiya theology) as the process is not defined.



No, I'm referring specifically to siddha pranali, as in the revelation by a guru of his siddha identity and those of his predecessors. I could equally have used ekadasa-bhava as something undocumented in the Goswami lietarature but specifically used SP because it is more telling, more crucial--either it has always been there, but simply was not mentioned (despite all the the injunctions to approach and serve a guru, his qualifications, etc.) or things don't quite make sense.

Historical evidence, patras, etc., sure would make the "case" more interesting. And ultimately it is clear that this is what the traditional did for the most part, no matter the actual origins. Even in ISKCON you hear every morning "Nikunja yunor..."

Well, there is only the tradition of predecessors to refer to as far as the practical implementation of the advice for siddha-rUpa-sevA goes, so yes, it is inevitably a closed system. So is the entire Gaudiya-tradition, for the most part anyway, as much of its core theology turns around Caitanya, His teachings and His divinity, and in proof of that we may only refer to Caitanya and those who recognized this. Either you are impressed by its merits, or you are out. The same applies both with the entire tradition as a broader picture, as well as with the methods of bhajana as a smaller picture within the broad picture. If you recognize its merits and find that it does the job, you take it.

As far as defending the point goes, there is really little need to defend siddha-praNAlI itself. It clearly fulfills the purpose and fits within the parameters of the teachings of the Gosvamins, as demonstrated in my compilation of related references. If someone wishes to come up with an alternative method that fits within the same parameters, I would be curious to hear of them.


This injunction for a disciple to hear of his eternal pArSada-form from the guru is there in the writings of Sri Jiva.




As cited above, indeed one should learn of a suitable pArSada-form from the guru, and serve in such a form. The need for a suitable form during sAdhana (the less realized stage) has also been confirmed in the three main commentaries on the siddha-rUpena verse. nIt is only natural that the guru would also tell of what was revealed to him by his guru, and so forth, as that is the core heritage of the paramparA, the summit of the fulfilment all aspirations: a siddha-identity.



What do you mean by "either it has always been there..."? There was no-one to reveal such a thing to the Gosvamins, since they are at the root, the leading characters unto whom all others are subservient. The issue really only arose with the following generations, and learning of the siddha-identities of one's predecessors was only natural, if not obvious, for one who aspires to serve in a siddha-rUpa in allegiance to guru. I trust that the concept of serving in the anugatya of someone is not in dispute here.

As far as I can see, we are more or less talking about a 1+3=4 issue here. If the teacher writes about 1 and 3 in his books, he expects that 4 goes without saying. If only the Gosvamins had written a book, "Raganuga for Dummies".

Without having gone into the discussion in detail: it seems to me that the doubt being raised here is one of the Gaudiya Math's criticisms of the siddha-pranali system.

Of course there has been innovation and development in the system. Why should this be a problem. As Advaita says, it was no doubt clarification of what was being done by the Six Goswamis. It is said that the activities of the siddhas are the practices of the sadhakas, so naturally following in their footsteps could mean formalizing certain practices that were not instituted by the original acharyas.

Kusakratha has this as:



It is still an amazing section, despite the difference there.



Oh for a long life, good translations, the guidance of learned and pure souls....

yathA caike tAdRzam upAsanaM sAkSAd vraja-jana-vizeSAyaiva mahyaM zrI-guru-caraNair mad-abhISTa-vizeSa-siddhy-artham upadiSTaM bhAvayAmi

As also some - in such upAsana - upon directly a specific vraja-jana - unto me - revered sri-guru - the fulfilment of my desired specific siddhi - as he has instructed - I meditate upon.

First: The specific context of this statement is that it comes immediately after the famous lines:


Those who have not achieved this kind of ruchi may still engage in raganuga bhakti simply due to their association with a particular devotee who has this kind of attraction, but he should engage in such practice combined with vaidhi bhakti. Furthermore, those who have already attained a well-established ruchi of this sort should still [follow the rules of vaidhi bhakti] in order to set an example for others. The meaning of mixed raganuga and vaidhi is that one [externally] practices vaidhi bhakti by making it one with raganuga to the extent one is able.

Haridas Shastri reads pratiSThitena jAta-rucinA as "one who is established in a position of leadership and has awakened ruchi."


So, it would appear that the above instruction is about mixed vaidhi/raganuga. The entire section is an introduction to the discussion found in Bhagavatam 7.1.

Haridas Shastri's interpretation of the above passage goes:


I'll have to dwell on this some more, but Haridas Shastri's contextualization seems totally irrelevant to what has gone on previously. However, his translation does appear to be somewhat more accurate.

Certainly there is something unusual about the syntax. But here's my grammatical explanation: kecit and yathA caike have to mean two contrasting approaches to the practice of mixed vaidhi and raganuga bhakti. The word "bhavayanti" completes each full thought, so (1) kecit bhAvayanti, (2) eke bhAvayanti.


The subject now changes, so we get no further clues from what follows.


So what is the point here? First of all, nothing is being said about the guru instructing the disciple in a specific Vrajavasi form. Nevertheless, the second category of devotees is clearly engaged in raganuga worship while chanting the mantra (i.e., following a vidhi), whereas the former is purely engaged in vidhi, or at least in a vidhi that has fewer of the elements of raganuga.

Why? The second set of practitioners, though knowing full well they are engaged in a sadhana (gurUpadiSTa upAsana), they (1) attribute to themselves a specific identity as Vrajavasis, (2) they have a specific spiritual goal (abhISTa-siddhi), and (3) they have faith that both on the level of external practice and through their internal meditation, Krishna is being served directly.

The first category of practitioners, though meditating on Vrindavan lila in the mantra, lack these three specifics: identity, intention and meditation on direct service.

As such, Haridas Shastri's interpretation is somewhat clarified, though his way of contextualizing the question remains a distraction. The first category of practitioner definitely fits into the category of ajAta-ruci, in that such practitioners have no clear affinity for a particular sthAyi-bhAva, i.e., a preliminary undeveloped stage, like the sAmAnya-bhAva described in BRS 2.5.9. The latter, though perhaps technically ajAta-ruci, clearly shows signs of the specific desires that characterize the raganuga devotee.

What makes the mantra-upAsana, instead of the specific vraja-jana and/or the specifically desired siddhi, the object of the guru's instructions in this passage?