Radical Religion - a discussion on Jagat's editorial

I found out I could not post a discussion in the editorial forum so I am commencing it here on this thought provoking paper by Jagat

Perhaps sectarian cults are an attempt by religion to tap into and exploit the mystic propensity of the free range soul ......


______________________________________________________________



What? Am I camped in a "Raganuga Site"?
What is the standard for being Raganugi, or a Gaudiya or a non-Gaudiya Chaitanyaite or whatever?
I mean a standard sort of standard - a point of discussion and comparison, a check list.
Perhaps it is a category/scale matrix of some sort?
Is there one here in this site somewhere, a ready reckoner?
(remember I am a newbie here).
Thanks.

I am sorry. This hardly applies across the board any more, as lately we have attracted people from a wide variety of backgrounds and sampradayas. A brief history of this board is that it started out as "Raganuga Forums", created by Madhavaji, and was connected to his websites http://www.raganuga.com and http://www.raganuga.org. There were some fears that purely raganuga topics should perhaps not be made too public, and so the forums were recast as Gaudiya Discussions.

You can see the archives of Raganuga Forums HERE.

At any rate, many of the original members of this forum still happen to be disciples in non-Iskcon or Gaudiya Math parivars. Madhava is a disciple of Radhakund Mahanta Pandit Ananta Das Babaji Maharaj, I am a disciple of Sri Lalita Prasad Thakur, and others have been initiated by various Goswamis, Babajis and sadhus into other traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava lines.

As you can see, we have tried to enlarge and extend the scope of these forums beyond a narrow focus. We have also tried to move away from an important difficulty that has come up repeatedly, namely that of conflict with Gaudiya Math and Iskcon. Many of the individuals here have originally come from a background in Iskcon or GM, often both, and have moved on for a number of reasons, which I stated in the article were "a search for authenticity." The desire to go directly to the roots of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, to understand and take up its traditions as they developed in the mainline Gaudiya Vaishnava world, and to be directly connected to the diksha paramparas beginning with one of the associates of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. This is far from being monolithic, and there is a great deal of variety within these lines, but we have developed an open and welcoming spirit to this internal pluralism.

The Iskcon background, however, occasionally causes issues related to the neo-Vaishnava groups to arise, but we have deliberately isolated such discussions in a separate forum where we ask that these matters be taken. Questions of parampara, etc., have been treated ad nauseum and a search through the archives will turn up a great deal of material on the subject. Of late, it appears that the participants here have shown a decreasing interest in those subjects, perhaps due to the fact that less GM/Iskcon people have been coming here to post and make challenges. Tant mieux.

There have been and probably still are members of these Forums who are strongly opposed to Iskcon/GM and consider them to be the devil incarnate, but Madhava and I do not hold that position. We recognize the positive accomplishments of these organizations and their founders, as well as their foundational role in our own interest in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Sri Yugala Kishor. We prefer thanks, praise and approbation to condemnation. Nevertheless, both of us have in the past written things that have been construed as highly offensive by the Iskcon/GM people, by raising sensitive historical issues. We continue to feel that these are legitimate areas of investigation and we have made life-decisions based on our conclusions, which led us away from those institutions (i.e. Iskcon/GM).

Thus, I have connected the idea of "radical religion" with the "search for authenticity." The conversion from your normal 20th century North American or European to someone imbued with Bengali cultural priorities is fairly radical, though many of us have subsequently undergone a great deal of "normalizing" or accomodation with our host societies. Nevertheless, (like the savant I cited) I see conversion itself as a radical act, based on genuine spiritual experience, however induced.

So this association with Raganuga Bhakti is and will continue to be the core of Gaudiya Discussions, even though the scope is widening more and more to include individuals who are outspoken, eloquent, poetic, learned, and devoted, and yet belong to groups that are not clearly connected to traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava parivars. One common factor seems to remain : the ex-Iskcon/GM background, as people gravitate here after becoming tired of forums that seem to do nothing but rehash the scandals of the past and present, turn interminably round and round the Ritvik issue, or take a very simplistic, face-value approach to Krishna consciousness that barely seems to penetrate the surface of this marvellous path to God.

This is why, in my editorial, I stressed the intellectual aspect of our group. As it is clear, the path that led us here was to a great extent an intellectual one--but one that was simultaneously grounded in the desire to find authentic forms of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. However, the scope of that inquiry for many of us (admittedly not all) has widened to understand the meaning of authenticity itself.

I admire and encourage those whose practice of devotion has less of the intellectual. A "big brain" is not a prerequisite for becoming an associate of Krishna. Bhakti is. Grace is. As a matter of fact, we try to balance our approach here, though it is sometimes hard. However, for those of us who are burdened with actively inquiring minds, we feel that the principle of dovetailing applies. We do not have to become lobotomized to find Krishna. Rather, we accept and find useful the work of modern thinkers in the field of comparative religious studies, either as purva-pakshas that need to be responded to, or as encouraging discoveries that strengthen our fundamental sense of wonder about our own nature and our relationship to the Divine Couple.

Kavi Karnapur says rasa-sAraz camatkAro yaM vinA na raso rasaH. "The essence of rasa is amazement, for without it, no taste/aesthetic or emotional experience can be called rasa." The intellect is a functioning organ in even the stupidest person, and so everyone is capable of amazement ("the sense that something is beyond understanding"). Religious experience is, in a sense, a refinement of the experience of amazement. That is why I quoted Herschel. Radical religion, in a sense, means to put oneself in a position to be amazed. The mystic, in effect, challenges God: "Show me your stuff."

And when the stuff has been shown (of course, God has been showing his stuff all along, the trick was seeing it) then by the power of grace, one sees that amazing power, presence and peace in all things.

Unfortunately, the endeavor to understand generally leads away from orthodoxy. (This is why mysticism has always been at odds with religion.) So this puts me (personally) in particular in a curious position of being simultaneously both more and less orthodox than most people in the Gaudiya Vaishnava world.

More orthodox because of an adherence to a traditional line of Vaishnavas in diksha succession going back to Jahnava Thakurani and Nityananda Prabhu. The idea of connection and identity are primordial in this parampara. I am not connected by ideas alone, but by a line of grace, concretely manifested in the transmission of the mantra. That is why the word "pranali" or "channel" is used.

The essence of this parampara is the siddha pranali, by which we cultivate the idea of being handmaids to Srimati Radharani, ever serving their pastimes in union and separation.

At the same time, less orthodox, because we are willing to call into question matters that are not essential to the cultivation of this mood, and because, being Westerners, we have been exposed to many things that were beyond conception in the time of Mahaprabhu and even Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

As a matter of fact, I feel that I have been doubly blessed, in that through my gurudeva, I discovered not only the Bhaktivinoda Thakur who was the disciple of Bipin Bihari Goswami and servant of Jahnava Mata, but also what Shukavak called "a Hindu encountering modernity." It is these two channels of grace that flow to me from Bhaktivinoda Thakur and to which I have made it my purpose to do honor.

Of course, my guru had a "mundane conception" of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, so I must be out in left field.

sorry to get off topic, but could someone please post a link to one good solid thread where this is majorly discussed. I'm searching around here and there but can't seem to find what I'm looking for and hesitate to start my own thread with questions about this subject. There must be some thread with back and forth debate about this stuff that would cover all the basics. Is it that bhagavata vs. pancaratrik diksa thread? If so, can someone help me find it? Thanks.

A good place to begin is perhaps here:

The Parampara Institution in Gaudiya Vaishnavism

Bhaktivinoda Thakur and Bipin Bihari Goswami

Charismatic renewal and institutionalization in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Gaudiya Math

Is it not God who challenges the mystic?
- "You have more.
Let me see!"

Jagat, I don't mean to digress this topic from its main thoughtful thrust
but, in the particular context at hand, the word "fascination" would have been a better translation for camatkAr.

Though "wonder", "amazement" and "fascination" can be accepted as synonymous,
the particular nuance of the latter is more suited to ras context, especially as it carries a sense of continuing attraction within its meaning.


For your consideration.

Thank you for raising an interesting fine point. Here are my speculations:

I used the word amazement because it was the one Herschel used, and seemed particularly applicable, but I have in the past also frequently used "wonder."

Herschel is, I think, following Otto, whose discussion of the root of religion as being the encounter with the mysterium tremendum et fascinosum was very influential. On thinking about your comment, I believe we can use your distinction to clarify Rupa's definitions of "bhava" and "rasa."

As is often the case, both words can be justified as translations for camatkAra, but I think that the onomatopeic "chamat" seems to communicate that sudden bewilderment of the intelligence in the face of something beyond comprehension, or that exceeds the realm of possible expectations. Fascination, on the other hand, seems to be a longer term intellectually-driven attitude towards things that are beyond comprehension.

Without going into the wider ramifications of rasa, I think that it represents primarily the sudden experience rather than the cultivated, long-term attitude, which is rather the springboard for the rasa experience, the one-time sudden, mind-expanding intrusion of the wonderful into the mundane consciousness.





Bhava and rasa are interacting states. The experience of rasa leads one to contemplate with fascination the sources of that experience, to cultivate the consciousness in order to retrieve that experience--a troubled attempt that leads one progressively through many dark nights, preserved only by one's bhava, or sense of fascination. Rasa is the light that penetrates that darkness.

In view of these reflections, I shall change my translation from "wonderment" to "amazement."

I most certainly agree with you about the onomatopeic "chamat"
which is to do with a "flash" (as in lightning)
but cannot agree with your semantic for fascination.
I would say fascination is less intellectual and more imaginal and feeling.

Perhaps, within an institutionalised religious context,
ras may be seen to be founded on awe and amazement,
whereas in the free range mystical meadow fascination is the running stream?

One of the characteristics of "radical religion" is,
what outsiders would describe as, obsession and fetish.
Both obsessing and feting are the stuff of attraction in continuum,
of fascination
rather than a flash of amazement.

I am not decided. Sharing some thoughts. Poetry is always difficult to translate.
That is one of its fascinations.
Kind Regards.

Ras is that taste
which fully fascinates
the heart shining in the Self



notes
* fascinate = relishing in wonderment
* Self = pure being transcending the path of thought

(And so the "haiku translation")

To me rasa is what is experienced emotionally in the moment, and it can be any number of emotions, wonder, amazement, fascination, and more.

Or it can be none of these things, it all depends on the moment and what is going on. For instance if you are having a conversation or watching an entertainment by your lover the rasa will be possibly more of wonder or fascination or amazement. If you are making love the rasa may be more about deeper emotional feelings or even something else.

Rasa is not a single emotion, rather it is the experience within a relationship that is occurring momet to moment, at least this is how I understand it.

Of course it isn't a single emotion. However, we can refer to any of the emotions
at any single moment and refer to it as ras just as generically "juice" doesn't mean just the juice of a single thing
but we can still point to carrot juice (or apple juice) at any one instance and
say, "juice!"

And no - ras isn't the experience of the feeling: the experience
(and the capacity to experience) is bhav.

Ras literally means juice in common parlance in the Indic languages.
By association it has taken the meaning of essence, flavour etc
and, in the mystical, devotional and aesthetic context: emotions that flavour
or colour the soul.

The question before us is what distinguishes ras in the common sphere
from ras in the spiritual sphere. Is there a difference and what is it?
Is the feeling of sadness in our day to day life qualitatively the same
as sadness in the Braj arena? Or is it absolutely different?
Perhaps it is qualitatively one and the divine context of Braj evinces its fullness
whereas the material context draws out a perverted reflection only.

A propos, does the above mentioned verse seem to suggest that the ras which can even attract one who is beyond attraction and aversion
(i.e. a liberated person beyond the thought modality - someone in samadhi
whose heart is Self effulgent) -
is the ras of devotionalism?

The word fascination derives etymologically from the Latin fari, to speak in excitement, present in German faseln, and from that: Fasnacht, the "fas"night, i.e. carneval. The fa-root is also in fanatic, fanaticism which is the state of excitement, ecstasy, trance that priestesses went into when an oracle was asked from them, an oracle being a god speaking through man. The Greek equivalent of fascination is enthousiasm, being captured by spirit, German Be-geist-erung. Geist is Ghost/spirit.

In fascination a (divine) energy takes hold of one.

Thanks for your support here, however,
though etymology is interesting and sometimes relevant ,
it is not the arbiter for the current meaning of a word.
Otherwise when the doctor prescribes lozenges for your sore throat
you would go suck a tombstone.

Amaze :: overwhelm with wonder.

Fascinate :: to compel delighted interest in; to hold (someone) as if under a spell.

These definitions from Webster seem to support my understanding.

Of course, we are dealing with a fluid concept, rasa ( ). Generally, however, the distinction between bhava and rasa is confused in most Western devotees, who take the relationship with Krishna itself as rasa. It is not. One's particular identity, or mode of relating to Krishna, is bhAva, or sthAyi bhAva.

Thus one is fascinated by Krishna, is held constantly under his spell, feels compelled to delighted interest in him, but from time to time, Krishna overwhelms one with a new sense of wonder. That is rasa.

Yes, and that primary ras of loving relationship
is itself elaborated by a fulsome range of
so -called secondary rasa-s:
joy, sadness, romance, valour, fear, anger,
disgust, enchantment and compassion.

And this is not remarkable, nor radical.

Each of these rasa-s has its ecstasy correlate
viz. orgasm for romance, laughter for joy, wailing for sadness and so on.
Radical religion is the engagement in these rasik ecstasies
within the rarified reality of Harinaam .....


Jay Shree Krishna! Gopi Manohar Giridhar Gopaal!

I thought these were bhavas.



I thought bhava was the particular kind of sentiment or emotion.



Again I thought this was bhava, isn't bhava the emotion and ingredient in the experience of the relationship ? What I was saying is that the experience of these emotions is rasa, whereas the emotions themselves are bhavas, when you are in a relationship and experience these bhavas then that is rasa, the experience is rasa the experienced is bhava.

Is this wrong ?

If we adopt the terminology used in the analysis of rasa in Rupa's Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, there are corresponding sthayI-bhAvas for each of the five primary rasas. When the sthayI-bhAva, or the permanent underlying mood joins with the other four rasa-samAgri, namely vibhAva, anubhAva, saJcarI and sattvika, a rasa corresponding with the sthayI-bhAva is experienced.

This means that when the bhavas or emotional ingredients are experienced within the permanent bhava (sthayi), then that is when rasa is experienced.

So when a rasika is aroused in some way or another into a variety of mental or emotional states or moods (rasa-samagri) then that experience is rasa when in relation to the mode of relationship with the beloved.(sthayi bhava)

The emotions or moods or mental states are bhavas, and the experience of those bhavas within the mode of relationship is rasa, which is neither one thing or another, but instead the experience of a flux of bhavas within the sthayi bhava during an actual involved relationship.

While astonishment or fascination or amazement have their place in rasa, and in Bhakti rasa this emotion is the singular defining difference from prakrta rasa, (astonishment or amazement to a much higher or sublime degree), defining rasa as needing this ingredient at all times would be incorrect.

This of course would cause the rasa to diminish, as anything in excess lessens it's taste. So sometimes the astonishment and amazement is there, othertimes not.

This is like sweet succulent fruit followed by spicy savory pakora, followed again by a sweet.

Actually the common everyday meaning of
both bhaav and ras is feeling
and this can lead to confusion
without a more refined grasp of thier meanings
when both words are used some theological elucidation.
To add to the confusion ras is used both to refer
to the different types of relationships with Krishna
and also in the sense of the nine primary emotions
as first put forward in the Natya Shastra millenia ago
and which serves as the basis for all Indic aesthetic theory.
Gaudiyas (certainly AC Bhaktivedanta Swami) uses ras
in both the senses referring to the former as primary
and the latter as secondary.

I am discussing the more general applicatiuon of ras as
the nine primary emotions as this is the usual reference
for it.

If you need to avoid confusion
you need to refine your understanding.
Not too much - just a little.
Ras is the existential substance of feeling and bhaav the experience of it
and the capacity to experience it.

If I may give an example:-
The joy that permeates a blooming lotus is is of ras
My joyful experience of that ras is bhaav.

Try to reflect on what I am saying.
Do not care too much whether you are wrong or right.
Thank you ....

Radhe Shyaam ki Joy!

You are right that rasa and bhava are used in similar ways, that is why secondary rasa's are really also bhavas, the using of different words for the same things is what causes confusion. Bhava is used for emotion or mood, to become or to be in some kind of state of mind.



This definition is the literal one, that which is tasted, and a rasika is a taster. Bhakti Rasa is different though, that is why these words are used interchangeably. Bhakti rasa is used to specifically mean the ananda one experiences from the relationship with Godhead. So in this use rasa is not just that which is felt but it is also the experience of it because this is in the realm of emotions, what is felt and the feeling of that are really two in one. Whereas in a prakrta rasa in the tasting of a piece of fruit, we can see the cause and effect as distinct.



Bhava also has different meanings in Bhakti use. It can mean simply emotion or state of mind, or it can mean a specific state or exalted emotion.

In the emotional realm of Bhakti Rasa the experience and the cause are really the same thing, Radha Krishna. This is another reason why Bhakti Rasa is different then prakrta rasa. When dealing with these concepts within the realm of consciousness and emotions we deal with either the seemingly real or the ultimate reality, so words change accordingly. Radha Krsna is rasa and the experience of rasa and the capacity to experience rasa. All of these things are different manifestations of a single cause, the cause and the effect are one.

As I said earlier ras is used in both senses in Bhakti Marga

"Gaudiyas (certainly AC Bhaktivedanta Swami) uses ras
in both the senses referring to the former as primary
and the latter as secondary. ............"

E.g. see paragraph 32 of Teachings of Lord Chaitanya, Chapter 1, by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami.

The question is, what was Rupa Goswami getting at? As far as I can see, he was trying to explain the theistic religious experience on the analogy of the aesthetic experience that comes through art, particularly as it was formulated in the literature surrounding the dramatic arts as it had developed in India from the time of Bharata.

Though Rupa used the same terms, there is a significant difference between his taxonomy and that given in the natya-shastra tradition. Some of these things Talasiga has alluded to: the natya shastra usually name eight rasas--what we know as the seven gauna rasa and sringara. To simplify things: If you think of movies, you will immediately recognize these as fundamental genres. These are principally comedy (hasya), Romantic (sringara), horror (bhayAnaka), action (vira), etc., with the other rasas playing subordinate roles.

Rupa Goswami has relegated these basically aesthetic or art-based rasas to a secondary position. They are still rasas, but in the traditional sense of the word. He is more interested in the Adi-rasa, which Bhojadeva said was the only rasa--i.e. love. Once love (rati) has been made the basis of rasa, then we enter into an entirely different dimension of understanding.

Now bhakti functions on two different levels. One is direct, as a relationship between bhakta and bhagavan. The second is indirect, through hearing and chanting about God in the third person. The devotee cultivates both kinds of bhakti, through prayer-kirtana and its associated activities, and through sravana-kirtana and associated activities.

I have to go, sorry.