Discussions on other Vaishnava-sampradayas and Gaudiyas other than the Rupanuga-tradition should go here. This includes for example Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Gaura-nagari, Radha-vallabhi and the such.
What is sahajiya? - The meaning of sahaja and sahajiya
gopidust - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:43:58 +0530
Here is my next question, but am I asking it to myself? Anyway, I want to hug the tamal tree in the temple in Vrndavana, although I heard it is not a tamal tree. But is it alright to hug a tamal tree in the mood of the gopis, that I am taking shelter of Krishna? Or is that an offense? Is it sahajiyistic? Is it raganugic? Does having the desire to do so mean I am on the platform to do it already? I only want to do it once.
Can anyone tell me authoritatively or am I just talking to myself in here?
Madhava - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:52:57 +0530
Unless you plan on having sex with the tree, it would not be sahajiyaistic.
I strongly urge you to use the word sahajiya in accordance with its commonly accepted usage, in referring to a doctrine in which the practitioner identifies him(her)self with the worshipable object and attains siddhi through sexual union.
As for what is rAgAnugA, rAgAnuga is following in the wake of the moods of the residents of Vraja, and particularly an associate of your choice whose mood inspires you.
Honestly, you should cover some of the basics a bit better before worrying about being rAgAnuga.
jijaji - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:53:35 +0530
| QUOTE (gopidust @ Aug 18 2004, 12:13 AM) |
Here is my next question, but am I asking it to myself? Anyway, I want to hug the tamal tree in the temple in Vrndavana, although I heard it is not a tamal tree. But is it alright to hug a tamal tree in the mood of the gopis, that I am taking shelter of Krishna? Or is that an offense? Is it sahajiyistic? Is it raganugic? Does having the desire to do so mean I am on the platform to do it already? I only want to do it once.
Can anyone tell me authoritatively or am I just talking to myself in here? |
You need to deprogram yourself from your false understanding of what a Sahajiya is..
jijaji - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:03:40 +0530
| QUOTE (Madhava @ Aug 18 2004, 12:22 AM) |
Unless you plan on having sex with the tree, it would not be sahajiyaistic.
|
Madhavaji,
I don't remember reading anything in Virarta Vilasa about Sahajiya Tree Sex Sadhana, nor do I think Dimock mentions it.
However I do think there may be a few folks in the backhills of Tennesse who could appreciate that kinda of woodsy appraoch to the Divine.
Talasiga - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:57:39 +0530
| QUOTE (gopidust @ Aug 18 2004, 12:13 AM) |
Here is my next question, but am I asking it to myself? Anyway, I want to hug the tamal tree in the temple in Vrndavana, although I heard it is not a tamal tree. But is it alright to hug a tamal tree in the mood of the gopis, that I am taking shelter of Krishna? Or is that an offense? Is it sahajiyistic? Is it raganugic? Does having the desire to do so mean I am on the platform to do it already? I only want to do it once.
Can anyone tell me authoritatively or am I just talking to myself in here? |
Sahaj is a Sanskritic adjective meaning easy, innate, natural , spontaneous and so forth. While Sahajiya may have a specific comprehension as Madhava insists, it also has a broad vernacular application for anyone who acts according to their nature. If someone is naturally attracted to the tree and hugs it - that is sahajiya. That does not mean it is a pejorative description unless the person ascribing the term considers that which is natural as antithetical to the spiritual.
My advice to you Gopidust is that you should hug that tree. Don't worry aboout the sex. Sex permeates our universe. Every breath is a sexual act. Every symbol of integrative divinity epitomises the reciprocative union of sex. Spiritual bliss is an orgastic rapture which is neither dependent on nor monopolised by genital sensations. If you hug that tree and you feel "lust", at least you will know that your reception of spiritual grace has not developed. If you don't hug it, you will never know this. Hug that tree. It is socially harmless and whatever happens it will help your growth.
jijaji - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:10:38 +0530
Let me add here Talasiga Baba..
( I call you that because you are here in this camp now..there is no escape)
There is a tradition of Sahajiya Vaishnava that has existed in Bengal since after the time of Mahaprabhu, with sciptures, diksha mantras, and guru-paramparas, the whole enchilada.
Sahajiya is not just some vapor like concept that can be summed up with 'Those who take things lightly',,,
The Sahajiya Vaishnavas of Bengal are an actual school that developed after the time of Sri Chaitanya with their own commentary on Chaitanya Charitamrtam, Vivarta Vilas amd more!
Radhe Radhe,
your pal,
pratap bangli
Talasiga - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:32:20 +0530
| QUOTE (bangli @ Aug 18 2004, 04:40 AM) |
.......................
There is a tradition of Sahajiya Vaishnava that has existed in Bengal since after the time of Mahaprabhu, with sciptures, diksha mantras, and guru-paramparas, the whole enchilada.
Sahajiya is not just some vapor like concept that can be summed up with 'Those who take things lightly',,,
The Sahajiya Vaishnavas of Bengal are an actual school that developed after the time of Sri Chaitanya with their own commentary on Chaitanya Charitamrtam, Vivarta Vilas amd more!
.......................
|
Yes, this is why I said, "[w]hile Sahajiya may have a specific comprehension..."
The fact is Bangli, "sahajiya" has a broader vernacular usage as I indicated. Perhaps another Hindi or Bengali speaker can confirm this. For instance, if one has a natural inclination towards Krishna since childhood, that could be said to be sahajiya (without the pejorative sense).
Keshava - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:37:33 +0530
| QUOTE |
| Sahaj is a Sanskritic adjective meaning easy, innate, natural , spontaneous and so forth. While Sahajiya may have a specific comprehension as Madhava insists, it also has a broad vernacular application for anyone who acts according to their nature. |
Both of you are right. Sahajiya certainly means natural or pertaining to oneself. However Madhava has rightly explained it as pertaining to a sexual form of sadhana. If we want to make the distinction we need to use the full term prakrta sahajiya or materially natural. Our true spiritual nature is indeed sahajiya or natural however it is the material perversion of that nature which is the problem. So in order to avoid confusion on should make a distinction between sahajiya and prakrta sahajiya. We should aspire for the former and not the latter.
Talasiga - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:37:42 +0530
| QUOTE (Keshava @ Aug 18 2004, 06:07 AM) |
.........
If we want to make the distinction we need to use the full term prakrta sahajiya or materially natural. Our true spiritual nature is indeed sahajiya or natural however it is the material perversion of that nature which is the problem. So in order to avoid confusion on should make a distinction between sahajiya and prakrta sahajiya. We should aspire for the former and not the latter. |
Prakrit sahajiya sounds like a tautology. I am not denying its existence and usage in certain circles. It may be a necessary tautology in the topsy turvy world of internecine sectarian squabbling, but tautology it is. The natural meaning of sahaj is easy, innate, spontaneous etc If we look at the gamut of its semantics it conveys a sense of ease and facility of natural tendencies. Natural is of nature - prakrit-ic. Both the the innate tendency to God and the innate tendency to the world of senses are prakrit-ic.
Prakrit sahajiya is a tautology posing as a definitive category.
Madhava - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:43:48 +0530
The word sahaja (lt. "self-born", or innate) itself is used rather frequently to describe for example the Vraja-vasis' love for Krishna. Something being natural seems to not have been a taboo at all, though in certain contemporary circles the word "spontaneous" is used practically as synonymous to "cheap, imitative" and so forth.
Satyabhama - Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:34:48 +0530
Funny... so that indicates to me that the term has become quite misused, as those who are accused of not being spontaneous (ie. literally "imitating" or faking devotional sentiments) are often labeled sahajiyas (spontaneous) which is actually giving a positive lable to something seen as being negative...
Seems to me the word is having an identity crisis... er... meaning crisis...
(So next time I am accused of being a sahajiya, I will take it as a compliment
hehehe)
sadhaka108 - Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:31:10 +0530
Talasiga - Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:51:06 +0530
QUOTE(Satyabhama @ Aug 18 2004, 02:04 PM)
(So next time I am accused of being a sahajiya, I will take it as a compliment
hehehe)
Given the broader and established semantics of sahajiya
only a
robot need be insulted by the term !
Chanahari - Fri, 24 Dec 2004 20:18:55 +0530
For its entertaining value, I translate there a passage from the little book we were taught from at the ISKCON college. There was a course with the title "Apasampradayas" (this is something very important in ISKCON education!
), and there we defined what a sahajiya is. In the booklet which was written by one of the influential temple brahmanas, 10 points were given which are signs of sahajiya tendencies. One is enough, of course.
QUOTE
1. They think that progressive spiritual advancement is a material manifestation, and they reach their pitiful "ecstasy" via enhancing their material feelings.
2. They think that to separate oneself from sinful habits is to artificially rape the consciousness; and they think that separation only makes one's heart tough.
3. Because they don't know the difference between pure Holy Name,
nAmAbhAsa and offensive chanting, they think that all types of chanting bring perfection to the chanter. For this reason, they don't make an effort to progressively advance in chanting the Holy Name.
4. For they don't use the differentiating knowledge which can separate the body from the soul, they accept fallen and sinful people as advanced persons, based on their material qualities, or they are disrespectful towards advanced devotees, based on faults of their material bodies.
5. They unnaturally imitate qualities of advanced personalities, like humbleness, freedom from material desires, mercifulness etc.
6. They oppose propagation of spiritual life. They think preaching is a superficial self-aggrandizement, and a sign of pride.
7. They have a dread of ecclesiastic hierarchy. [Reading this point, I decided for sure that I'm a sahajiya, although I was still a "member in good standing".
]
8. They are uneducated in the matter of
bona fide vedAnta philosophy. Consequently, they don't accept the transcendental nature of God's personal form, and they think that Divine's deeds are imitable and followable by conditioned souls.
9. Because of they think that the bodies of the avatAras are material, they think that Their divine qualities can be inherited by Their offsprings.
10. They don't accept the importance of the ethic laid down by the previous AcAryas of the sampradAya, separate themselves from the beliefs and philosophical doctrines propagated by the AcAryas, and
from the institution which brings forth pure devotion.
Anand - Fri, 24 Dec 2004 20:44:30 +0530
QUOTE
10. They don't accept the importance of the ethic laid down by the previous AcAryas of the sampradAya, separate themselves from the beliefs and philosophical doctrines propagated by the AcAryas, and from the institution which brings forth pure devotion.
And what institution is that, I wonder. The institution of human-dependence-on-the-divine?
Madhava - Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:15:42 +0530
That's cool. Let's add to the list, name any points you don't agree on and add them in. I would be curious if those sahajiyas described are something that actually exist in real life.
jijaji - Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:27:28 +0530
How uninformed those folks were, but thats what you get from people who have not investigated things properly.
Heresay generally leads to superstition and thats exacly what you see with this uninformed understanding of what a Sahajiya is.
This lack of understanding in Iskcon/GM became so bad it was a label for all who worshipped Krishna outside themselves.
namaskar,
bangli
Tapati - Sat, 25 Dec 2004 06:47:41 +0530
It almost sounds like a sahajiya is anyone who is having fun in their spiritual life. Sign me up!
Chanahari - Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:21:18 +0530
QUOTE(Madhava @ Dec 24 2004, 04:45 PM)
That's cool. Let's add to the list, name any points you don't agree on and add them in. I would be curious if those sahajiyas described are something that actually exist in real life.
I do unnaturally imitate the qualities of advanced personalities, and I also have a dread of ecclesiartic hierarchy. And I exist in real life. Do you question my existence?
QUOTE
It almost sounds like a sahajiya is anyone who is having fun in their spiritual life. Sign me up!
"Having fun" is sense gratification, therefore it should be strictly avoided, I was taught so!
(What to do if someone finds "sense gratification" in, for example, a kirtan...?)
ananga - Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:21:35 +0530
As someone who doesn't actually know whether they are sahajiya or not and doesn't honestly care anymore, I did a fair bit of reading about the subject and ended up not much wiser. One thing I do remember as quite interesting was a chapter in the book "Acting as a way to salvation" by David Haberman which had a list of four or five deciding differences between Sahajiya and mahapukka (or whatever he called it). Having returned the book to the library and not being in a position to ask my Baba about it. Does anyone have this book who would be willing to type in the relevant deciding qualities. I think it was in the chapter about Rupa Kaviraj who incidentally is in my guru parampara.