Beware of Projections -

I have said before: Taking a guru and falling in love are fundamentally "projection" phenomena, as is religion in general. On one level, we filter all experience through a subjective lense, so remember: what we think we see is not necessarily what IS.

When we project with a great emotional charge, that is called "transference." When we see the guru, there is transference, and a similar thing happens when we fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. Psychologists make use of this phenomenon when it happens in therapy in order to mine the unconscious of the person receiving it.

The guru, the lover, the father, mother, friend--all are different forms of Krishna coming to teach us about our eternal relationship with him, either directly or indirectly. Keep your focus on guru and Krishna.

But, might I ask, does doing all these things: accepting a religion, accepting a guru, accepting a wife etc. etc. necessitate "great emotional charge"?

Cannot one accept a religious faith, a guru, a wife etc. through an intelligent judgement without all this "great emotion"?

I think it is possible to accept a guru, a faith or a wife without so much of this "great emotion". If so, does that change the "projection phenomena" into something else?

Religion can be an act of intelligence more so than an act of emotion.
If so, then does not this projection phenomena theory become inapplicable?

I would hold that Bhakti distinguishes itself from Jnana precisely by its recognition of the importance of irrational and emotional factors. Reason can only follow, it can never lead. That is why the distinction between initiation and science that I just made on another thread is so relevant.

In other words, when it comes to religious choices, we are led by irrational factors primarily (ahaituki kripa) and only then do we attempt to reform our world view in terms of those factors or experiences.

Since religions have formulated their theologies in quite sophisticated terms, it is quite easy to mistake conversion as a purely rational choice.

This is very interesting. Why is there such a need to formulate a theology in such sophisticated ways? Is it needed so that the dogma can survive and be taught effectively? Or is it human nature to try to rationalize everything? For example, why do you struggle so hard to psychologically reconcile your bhajan?

But, does not the stage of "emotion" come at some more advanced level? Also, is not there a difference between the spiritual emotions of bhava and ordinary emotions one might feel in the initial stages of devotion? Should we not make a very serious distinction between the emotions which move us to accept a faith and the emotions of bhava and prema? Is not the emotional nature of the bhakti dharma something beyond the sentimental emotions that might move us to embrace a faith system?
Is not the "emotion" that the bhakti shastra refers to legitimately described as "faith" (shraddha). Is not this faith the only real emotion that we are afforded in the beginning? Should we confuse our sentimental emotions in the beginning of our spiritual life with real spiritual emotion as in bhava or prema?
Is faith an emotion? Or, is faith an act of the intelligence? Is not the faith based on intelligence more stable and strong that sentimental faith. (I think Lord Krishna speaks of this in the Gita.)

Is it not possible that accepting a faith can be a purely rational decision?
Who says that accepting a faith is necessarily an emotional act?

You said;


Is that an absolute truism based on Vedic or Vaishnava shastra? Or, is that again a popular phrase from the academic world that really does not hold as absolute?



Again, I might challenge the wisdom of this idea.
I am not so sure of this.
Is this something taught in shastra and explained by the acharyas, or is this something from the academic world that is trying to be bled over into the Vaishnava siddhanta?

Very little, if anything, from the wisdom of the academic world can be held up as absolute truth. Most all of it is relative thought derived from mental reasoning based upon limited knowledge.

Yes, I am a vicara-pradhana devotee. But like Jiva Goswami, I get a lot of rasa out of understanding the relation of the world to devotion. Of course, I understand that it is a futile effort, but the little glimpses I get are a source of great joy. I had two protracted conversations today about Radha and Krishna and on my way home from town today, I was in a state of pure Ananda, with the Holy Name visiting my tongue with seemingly great enthusiasm.

I am not saying the theologies are wrong. I am saying they follow.

In answer to KB, it is my opinion that the quality of the feeling of devotion we get in our first taste of the Holy Name is the same as the one we get in the highest stages of prema, it is only a question of degree, intensity and pervasiveness. That is why the Bhagavata says bhaktyA sanjAtayA bhaktyA bibhraty utpulakAM tanum. Bhakti comes from bhakti.

I also say that "rasa" is qualitatively basically the same, only different in degree. But there are advanced devotees who don't agree with me on this exactly. My argument is based on texts like raso vai sah, pibata rasam Alayam and tad-rasAmRta-tRptasya, smaran mukundAGghry-upagUhanaM punaH vihAtum icchen na rasa-graho janaH, none of which talk about prema, but definitely talk about rasa. (Sorry about all the Sanskrit, those verses should all be available on this site somewhere).

Anyway, faith is pre-rational. Faith is most definitely not intellectual, though it can be nourished by the use of reason.

As to reason following, it is definitely not an "academic" statement. Though I must say that the debate does exist as to how much of what we do is rational and how much governed by unconscious forces. But it is our basic philosophy as bhaktas. Bhakti is the path of emotion, of affects. The jnana-misra devotee is considered inferior to the pure devotee. Why do you think that is? It is because when all is said and done, it is love that we seek, and even jnana serves the interest of love, not the other way around. Where love nourishes jnana, it is simply to feed itself. The same goes for karma.

Freud basically says the same thing, except that he does not have a conception of Divine Love. He can only see things as far as empirical observation can take him. Like Prabhupada used to say, he was missing the "1" to stick in front of his zeros.

I agree with the perspective you offer here; I'd suggest that "pre-rational" may carry some connotations that faith may somehow be inferior to reason. How about "non-rational" (Kenneth Burke used this term sometimes) or "supra-rational"?

There is a debate going on in the USA now to include "intelligent design" theories (faith based concepts of the origin of the universe) into text books in public schools. Therefore, I might argue that empiric observation of the universe can most definitly lead to an "intelligent design" conclusion about the origins of life and the universe.

I would say that many times faith can be a pre-rational emotion, yet faith can also be a very rational conclusion based upon observing "intelligent design" in the universe. Einstein believed in God. Many great scientists believe in God. Is their faith "pre-rational"?

Some would argue that not having faith is pre-rational do to the fact that there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe. From the orbits of the planets down to the orbits of the atoms, there is evidence of intelligent design.

To say there is no God seems to be a lot more irrational than believing in God. Who can say there is not a lot more emotion in atheism than there is in theism? There are many very emotional atheists who are very feel passionate about their lack of faith.

If faith in God is irrational, then what is? Is faith in your car rational? Is faith in your country rational? Is faith in empiric knowledge rational?

Is there anything at all rational in materialism? Is faith in the theories of Sigmund Freud rational?

I don't see why faith in God is held as pre-rational while faith in the material world is considered rational.

I don't think there is anything rational about empiric knowledge. It is very irrational to have faith in Sigmund Freud.

Faith is the most rational emotion we can have. It is based upon the most intelligent understanding of "intelligent design".

However, I do agree that most of modern religion and especially ISLAM are based on pre-rational faith that they are most usually programmed with from early childhood.

Faith has a range from black to white with many shades of grey. But, there most defintely is rationalism in faith that is based upon intelligence. Faith based purely upon emotion is dangerous as it leads to fanaticism and terrorism.

Myself, I was never very emotional about faith. It was something that came after observing intelligent design in the world.

This post is for you Kshamabudhi, hope you like it. Happy Thanksgiving.

QUOTE

From Srila Shridhar Maharaja....

" So, in Krishna's pastimes, the potencies are sandhini, samvit and hladini.  hladini holds the highest position because of wholesale self-surrender. Next is samvit, and third is position of sandhini: thinking, feeling and willing.

WILLING is sandhini,  THINKING is samvit, and  FEELING is hladini. Ordinarily we may think of feeling to be last of all, but no, it is the FIRST.

FEELING IS FIRST. FEELING, real feeling has been given such a high position. WE ARE ALL UNDER FEELING.

We are ALL searching.... AND FEELNG IS COMMANDING. We think that feeling is the "result." NO, feeling IS COMMANDING EVERYTHING.

FIRST feeling, THEN thinking, THEN willing.  Generally karmis give the greater hand to  willing --  willpower --all command; and the jnanis place everything in thinking: "We command the will, so we are holding the high position." But feeling is at the basis of everything.  He or it or she is commanding everything. It has been told like that;  .....we have to understand the position of feeling.  Hare Krishna."

Faith is really inherent in life itself. If there was no faith at all, we would just curl up and die. I am really talking about faith-content. In other words, even the atheist still has some faith that life is worth living, but that faith does not require the existence of a God, or specifically rejects it.

Krishna says, yo yac-chraddhaH sa eva saH, which rather nicely sums up that point. You basically are identified with the faith that you have. You are your faith. So there is faith in the different modes of nature. The Gita's summary of those is somewhat identifiable with the cultural context, but we can elaborate on them according to our understanding of the modes of material nature and our observation of different religions and lifestyles. So, yes, I wouuld agree that materialism is also a kind of faith that has pre-rational causes.

When I talk about "faith-content", I am refering in large part to our ishta-devata, but this is also refined in a very personal way. Krishna says clearly in several places that he appears to everyone according to the way that they worship him, i.e., according to the nature of their faith-content. It is this faith-content that is the product of various pre-rational forces.

I prefer to use pre-rational because, in my opinion, it begins before the rational process really even starts. Kono bhagye kono jiver sraddha jadi hoy. That is the meaning of "kono bhagya."

I am going to have to seriously ration my time. So I shall hold off replying until the end of my work day.

By the way, that was an excellent quote from Sridhar Maharaj. This is definitely true and this is how Freud comes into the picture, because basically that is what he says, too.

Our motivation is feeling. Our theologies and philosophies are often justifications of our feelings, which is why there has been so much "ideology critique" and "deconstruction" over the last couple of centuries. It is why hypocrisy is possible. We can either attribute hypocrisy to conscious bad faith (Marx) or to unconscious forces (Freud, etc.), but in either case a sophisticated modern theology has to answer suggestions that a religious person does not really know WHY he is engaged in religious activities, or that those reasons may be quite different from the one he professes.

Wait minute fellas. Let's start from the beginning here.
Jagat said:

Yet, in the Bhagavat it is said that the mind has two fundamental functions; accepting and rejecting [manas ca sankalpa-vikalpa-vritti yat]. Before someone accepts to embrace a faith it must first be filtered through the intelligence which acts to use thought and reason to arrive at a conclusion at what we believe in. Thus, when it comes to something as important as religious faith, surely we must filter through our intelligence what we decide to believe in.
How many people accept a faith purely on emotion without filtering it first through intelligence [accepting and rejecting]? Maybe, when it comes to mundane sexual attraction and lust, we bypass intelligence and go straight to impulse. But, when it comes to something as sublime as religious faith, surely we use some rational thinking to arrive at some conclusion.

It has been said:


So, from this we can understand that faith without philosophy is just sentimental emotions [feeling] that can lead to fanaticism and that philosophy without religion is the jnana-marga.
We can also understand from this that religion needs to contain philosophy that is the rational basis of the faith. Philosophy is rational. Religion without philosophy is not rational.

As far as the quote of Sridhar Maharaja goes:


We must take careful note here that he is saying that "IN KRISHNA's PASTIMES" hladini or "feeling" holds the highest position. That does not necessarily apply to anything Freud says about the mundane state of human existence.
In fact, hladini is about rasam and anandam and not about the sentimental "feelings" that motivate people to accept a religious faith. I certainly don't see how hladini can at all be equated with "feelings" or faith or trusting in something sublime.

These "feelings" can in fact be clearly divided into two aspects; sankalpa and vikalpa or the feelings of accepting or rejecting something. Usually, this accepting and rejecting is the decisive factor of the intelligence. Then, after the intelligence culls out what we reject, we are left with what we accept. Usually, this acceptance is what we call faith or belief - especially in terms of religion and God.

Sridhar Maharaja said:


So, yes, in the ordinary sense feeeling comes after we filter our existential experiences through the decisive factor of the intelligence.
In "Krishna's pastimes" hladini holds a status above knowledge and eternal existence because it is the energy of rasam and anandam.

In this world "feelings" are no more than accepting and rejecting based upon mental conceptions. It has NOTHING to do with the "feelings" that Sridhar Maharaja is refering to in "Krishna's pastimes".

From a devotee point of view we should study psycho-analysis from the teachings of Lord Krishna in the Gita. Freud was light years away from anything Lord Krishna taught.

So, finally we would have to say that there really is no such thing as a "projection phenomena" as it it quite clear from the teachings of the Lord that it is really an accepting phenomena. Faith is about acceptance - not projection. Maybe love is about projecting our feelings on someone, but faith and love are not necessarily synonymous. In spiritual science, love comes sometime after faith is fully mature through dedication and service.
Of course it should be understood that bhava and prema are not to be found in ordinary religion or even ordinary devotees. It is the bhava that is the feeling that Sridhar Maharaja is referring to. It certainly does not refer to the sentimental emotions of the mortal mind.

Even if we accept that "feelings" might be the first impulse to accept a religious faith, it shouldn't really take much longer before the accepting and rejecting faculty of the intelligence tackles the subject and makes it's conclusion. For most people that should only be a few hours or a few days. It certainly should not be something that takes a lifetime to sort out.

Certainly, I do not see how we can just casually mix and mingle Freud's theories into the Gaudiya siddhanta as if it were gospel.
We have got plenty of guidance in the Gaudiya canon without needing to find some parallels in Freudian theory.
This might be food for thought in the academic world, but it really doesn't shed any light upon Gaudiya siddhanta.

beware of being beware