The Power of Wearing a Sari and Bangles -

Yahoo is carrying an interesting story: "Doctors baffled as Indian man claims not to have eaten for 68 years."

In Vraja, and I assume all over Northern India as well, there are cults or tribes of men who not only dress like women, but who also amend their bodies to look like women. I don't know whether they take surgeries or what. They are not what we'd call sakhibhekhi, as far as I know, they have nothing to do with our tradition. Many local people are afraid of them, they believe that these folks have some sort of magical powers. You see them fairly often. I remember once being in a STD shop when a man in his 30's, with a bit of stubble, dressed in sari covering his breasts, walking like a woman. He came in demanding donations from the owners. I recall hearing they lead such lives from their childhood.

Strange folks indeed. Does anyone have a clue what they're up to, what's the background of this strange tradition?

Well, some devotees (link1 link2) have taken their own spin on them, "as seen on VNN," but there is a lot online, including quite regular coverage from from the BBC ("The number across India is estimated at between 500,000 and one million." See their sidebars also) and several other sites. I've never really delved into it so deeply (I look terrible in purple) but my impression is that they are/were considered simultaneously good luck and something to be avoided. Manu Samhita seems to be quite nasty about them, but I don't recall the same view regarding Arjuna's spell in a sari.

Interestingly, I think that jyotish texts suggest that true hermaphrodites and eunuchs would not be so rare, but it seems that instead of the physical traits, we now see many men trapped in women's bodies and vice versa while still possessing the genitalia of that gender.

Are we talking about eunuchs here, or transsexuals or whatever?

In any case the "Sari Brigade" is usually the butt of jokes all over India. They usually stick to their ghetto communities and all except when they decide to go out shopping for groceries and things like that. I remember stopping at the traffic lights somewhere in India and spotted a couple of ladies who were talking and laughing really loudly. I spotted that they had masculine features even though they were adorned in saris, ornaments, makeup and had quite big hair. Before realizing that I was staring, one of them saw me looking at them and loudly waved to me as if to say "HI!" At that point we drove off, lol.

Last year I was in Calcutta to attend my cousin's wedding. Somehow the local "brigadiers" heard about this marriage and decided to pay an impromptu visit to our flat to offer their congratulations. What they wanted to do was show off their androgynous singing and dancing skills and then demand money. This is why they are ridiculed in India; because they either dance and ask for money, and they clap their hands in an exaggerated fashion while talking. In fact, giving them money is probably the only way to get rid of them apart from a substantial "donation" of clothes (more saris) or some food. If they have no cause for complaint then they may go away without cursing you.

How effective their "curses" are all really depends on how superstitious you are. Scientifically it is impossible, but since they turn up at every auspicious occasion in the neighborhood (births, weddings, anniversaries, general parties, etc) it is considered to just give them some money to get rid of them so as not to draw any "inauspiciousness" to the occasion.

No idea what their purpose is. Most of them are usually eunuchs and are abandoned at birth by embarassed parents and then they are probably adopted by other eunuchs and are brought up by them. So they are just "there" in the communities and they make money by turning up at every party in the neighborhood.

I remember seeing them as I attended the Radhastami festivities in Barsana in the 1980s - they danced and sang, and were quite big and gross guys under their saris. They were begging so aggressively - it was more mugging than begging. I kept a safe distance.

For all the jokes about "sahajiyas," I may be the only man here who has worn a sari, at least in public. I played Kubja in a drama at Bhaktivedanta Village in the '80s. Frankly, it was fun, especially since folks who didn't know me well thought of me as serious, maybe eve a little intense. Actually, I'm something of a goofball, and that wasn't my first drag experience. In high school, I wore a 1919 lady's bathing suit, a wig, and makeup (along with my All-Stars) to a Halloween party. Several guys asked me to dance and were rather surprised by my baritone reply.

I don't know what the Sari Brigade crew's thing is, but I can say that wearing a sari didn't turn me into a manjari.

Back in my days in ISKCON, we once did a drama for Janmastami out of the third prank of Camatkara-candrika, where Krishna dresses up as Vidyavali, a brahmin lady from Benares, who comes to heal the snake-bitten Radhika. I played the lead role.

You should have seen the faces of some folks after I started leading a big kirtan in the costume after the drama was over.

Okay--let's get the rest of the cross dressers here out of the closet. Come out, with your hands up!

Sorry, the only play I was ever in I played the part of Narada Muni.

That are the hijras. They are called various things in various parts of India, as far as I know. As eveything in India today, it is now something corrupted and distasteful from what it was originally. To be a hijra, you have to go through an initiation ceremony, where some superior hijra is doing the surgery, without anestesia or sterile conditions..... Whoever survives that procedure becomes one of them.

They worship their own Goddess, Bahuchara Mata and does not come from our tradition.

Some bigots and fanatics hold such views.


It was a cornerstone of Orientalist thought in the 19th Century that Indians were degenerate inheritors of a lost Golden age. This proved their inferiority and therefore the righteousness of the European Imperialists who ruled them 'for their own good', the 'white man's burden' of (re-)civilizing the degenerates. The Bengali Bhadralok, and even some Gaudiyas, came to believe this foreign assessment of their own degradedness. The belief that Gaudiyaism itself had become 'degraded' is also a product of this foreign imperialistic view.

Westerners who aspire to be devotees should take care that they do not simply reproduce and recreate past European Imperialistic prejudices, even unintentionally. Mainly because this time, such claims will simply be laughed at by those who have heard it all before.

There are references, in the biographies of Radharaman carana das babaji and his disciple Lalita dasi, in the matter of sari wearing. There is also a dialogue between Radharaman carana das and Bhaktisiddhanti Sarasvati on the subject of addopting the outward dress of a sakhi.

Well, too bad for them. I just like to add some drama to what I write.

The people in question are quite degraded compared to how it was around 500 years ago, when they visited Nimai's name giving (or birth?) ceremony, when they danced and singed and the blessing of them was considered auspicious. The common hijra that you meet begging on Indian trains today, might not be such an auspicious encounter.

In India you might meet many "false" persons, but among all them one of the persons might be true. You can find many false gurus, and holy men, but among them you might actually find a true sadhu and a guru. So even if the hijras of today are beggars and prostitutes, some person which you might label so might be a true person who actually have the power to give blessings and curses.

Blessings and curses are real. Many stories in the Srimad Bhagavatam is about that topic. A powerful enough blessing or curse might be enough to hold you one more lifetime on earth. And a blessing from a spiritually advanced person might give the greatest benefit and be the ticket back to Goloka. For a non-devotee the fear of being cursed by a hijra might be real and a consideration.

What is the conclusion of those discussions?

The arguments in that discussion are hardly convincing, at least the ones appearing in Kapoor's version.

The gist of the matter is that we are followers of Rupa-Sanatana, and Rupa-Sanatana did not wear sari or bangles, nor did they advise us to do so in their writings. It is really quite simple.

The arguements may not be convincing enough to make one adopt sakhi vesa, but I don't think a prescription is intended there, but rather the acceptance or acknowledgement that the adoption of external dress may for some sadhakas be condusive to the development of the inner bhav. Persons such as Lalita dasi cannot possibly be equated with ordinary transexuals or enuchs. The proposition of Radharamana carana das babaji is that this does not contravene the teachings of Rupa and Sanatana, though they may not have practised it.
The discussion can be found on page 473 of Kapoor's "Life of Love".

Another very interesting thing is the narrative from Chaitanya Bhagavat describing the lord Gauranga in Rukmini vesa to enact her part, recitinng Bhagavat slokas beginning with, srutva gunan bhuvanasundara....etc.(Bhag 10.52.37-43)

That is in a drama. Hardly a relevant case, a far cry from evidence. I've played Krishna in a drama. Is that a precedent for dressing up like Krishna outside the enactment of drama?



It does, however, contradict the teachings of Visvanatha Cakravarti, if my memory serves me at all.

I thought that "play-acting" was very relevant. Isn't this Haberman's insight: "Acting as a way to salvation"?

The arguements may not be convincing enough to make one adopt sakhi vesa, but I don't think a prescription is being made. Merely to acknowledge that such practises may be beneficial or condusive to the development of the inner bhava for some (rare) sadhakas. Persons like Lalita dasi are not to be (I think) equated with ordinary enuchs and transexuals. The proposition of Radharamana carana babaji is that this does not necessarily contravene the teachings of Rupa-Sanatana, though they may not have done it.
There is also the wonderful narrative in Chaitanya Bhagavat when our lord Gauranga enacts the part of Rukmini fully dressed for the part and reciting slokas beginning with "srutva gunan bhuvansundara....etc." from the 10th skadha (10.52.37-43

Sorry if I knew how to erase it I would but I posted the same thin twice.
I still prefer to err on the side of caution and draw a distintion 'twixt sadhakas who do ecentric things and nondevotee wierdos.

Madhava, I do think, that Lord Caitanya ENACTING the role of Rukmini-devi is quite different than you playing the role of Krsna in a DRAMA. That is - it was NOT theatre at all, when Lord Caitanya did that. As weren't ALL the other times our Lord enacted different roles in His ecstatic love of God, which He did, and does, quite often as far as I know... All of those bhavas (natures), as for example Rukmini-devi's, are within Him naturally.

Further, to manifest them - and relish them - was the very purpose (the deepest purpose!) of Him appearing on this planet.

Do you call that theatre? I certainly do not. Rather I think, that would be to take it very simply. All too simply.

So, my first point here is: There is a HUGE difference between the two of you "play acting", in this regard. Don't you think?

And, secondly, I must differ from you: I namely think His example as qouted above to be VERY relevant.

But maybe I am wrong, in my first assumption? Maybe you DID appear here to manifest - and relish - the mood of Krsna? But in that case, that wasn't theatre either - just like the Lord's pastime. So... In that case, please over look my ignorance. Maybe that is what is within you - somehow or another? And you just call it theatre. And the Lord's too, then... But, honestly, I don't believe that.

So, if I am true here, that means:

1) There ARE a great difference between the two of you, Madhava and Lord Caitanya, "play" acting, aren't there? Yours were theatre; His was an outburst of ecstatic love, and bhava.

And...

2) Expression of bhava is certainly very relevant.

That leads us back to the original topic...

IF you dress up as a gopi, or a gopa, or... whatever is your natural bhava, according to your svarupa - and you do that out of uncontrollable ecstatic love for Krsna (then, and only then, it can - at least partly - be compared to Lord Caitanya's example) this is certainly not only bona-fide, or conducive, - but, as a matter of fact, part of the goal of life. Or rather, a natural, uncontrollable, result of you about to attain the ultimate goal of life - entering the pastimes of the Lord. It is you manifesting your svarupa, or at least partly expressing it - which is certainly nice, to say the very least, and far beyond play acting.

Lord Caitanya's goal was to relish the mood of Srimati Radharani. Our goal is to develope our personal moods. *slightly similar*

So, in that regard, I think Lord Caitanyas example is certainly to be followed. But never cheaply, i.e. never for play acting (at least not outside of an authorised, and devotional, drama). )

In conclusion, playing a role in a drama, as you did, is certainly very nice - but that is NOT what Lord Caitanya did; He manifested His bhava.

We are yet to search out, develope and manifest ours. And that is not theatre, either. That is the ultimate goal of our lives. And Lord Caitanya is our kind Lord, who are relishing that development of ours, with great pleasure. And He is our guide, as well. Making a perfect example Himself (for instance in this pastime). How merciful is our Lord!

Jay Gaura-sundara! )

Thank you for missing the point.

The point I made is that Caitanya's dressing up as Rukmini took place in a drama-performance before an audience, regardless of the depth of His absorption. He did not dress up in sari in His spare time. That's all.

For that you certainly do not have to thank me.

Before an audience, you say: What was that audience you are speaking about? A public audience? *very hard to believe* (- What scripture describe it like that?) Or are you speking about the "audience" of the associates of the Lord, who partook in His pastime?

As far as I know, Lord Caitanya never enacted in ANY public "drama-performance". (If you have references to prove otherwise, please post them.) He was not an actor. He was, to the extent that He ever had a profession (why should He?), a scholar and a teacher. A brahmana. Never an actor (the work of a sudra). And it was not at all a "performance"! Why do you call it that?

It was a pastime - enacted together with His devotees, of course. Like they had kirtanas, behind closed doors. They enacted different pastimes of the Lord and His associates, in different times and places - like "dramas", if you like. All this, and more, they did simply to relish and express their love for Krsna.

It certainly was in His "spare time", as you call it. It wasn't His job, was it?
(Does the Lord have anything but "spare time"!?)
It was pastime. Full of rasa, and bhava.
THAT'S all.
It is a typicall raganuga "thing" to do, in that sense - following the flow of one's rasa.

Lord Nityananda enacted similar pastimes, by the way, in His childhood in Ekacakra - together with His friends. Relishing HIS, and their, rasa.

And there are more examples of devotees of the Lord (and the Lord Himself) enacting such pastimes - for the sake of relishing. It is not a job. They certainly do it in their "spare time" - for the sake of tasting rasa.

And, slightly different - Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura used to (at least I heard so; Sorry, I do not have scriptural reference on this one. Maybe some of you read about it, recently, and can tell us where...) dress up like a gopi (sari, bangles.. all!) sometimes for his puja. To please Krsna. (Neither he was acting professionally. Didn't get payed for it, you know! Or did it cheaply, for sense gratification... Or was asked by his temple authorities, or anyone, to play a role in a drama performance.) It was simply a part of his puja offering.

Why are you so against Lord Caitanya - or any one else, as long as it is free from material aspirations - dressing up in sari in their spare time?

And as far as Rupa (as you mentioned earlier): She was dressed up in sari, or other female clothing, ALL the time - in her svarupa. And having constant access to that form, why at all decorate the materialized body, be it in a female or male way? Rupa certainly didn't wear ANY fancy clothes - except for the sari etc, according to her svarupa.

I don't agree. The play as described in Chaitanya Bhagavata was conducted in ways that resemble the classical method of putting on plays and had an audience of spectators.

The play is described differently in different biographies, mostly in relation to the content, but it is agreed that it was a publicly performed play and not some kind of spontaneous, private moment.

As far as this being a "shudra" activity, I hardly think so. Putting on public performances of such plays is a devotional activity that is prescribed to all, irrespective of caste.

Quite so. Vraja-veterans will testify that it is the brahmin boys that are selected to play in the Rasa lila-performances. Brahmins are also amongst the most accomplished devotional musicians, although music is also a shudra profession in the Vedic context. Devotional performance transcends the caste system.

The Caitanya-mangala of Locana das contains descriptions of Mahaprabhu's wearing a sari (gopi-bhava?) that were not to supposedly take part in any plays. Madhya-khanda Chapter 9.

An audience of devotees, of course. But the point is that there was an audience, and there was a drama going on, and people were performing, and Mahaprabhu didn't wear sari outside such occasions. Is that not clear?



By this logic, kirtan was also not kirtan, but it was an expression of His bhava and a pastime. And taking prasad was not taking prasad, but expression of bhava and a pastime. And enacting a drama was not a drama, but an expression of bhava and a pastime. Does that make lots of sense?



Yes, "enacting", "acting out a role". But such incidents never became a part of sadhana outside drama performances, or "enactments" if you will.



So they say, some folks in GVS. The version I heard is that he pulled the end of his dhoti to cover his head, absorbed in bhava. Now he has a sari and bangles? I bet he'll have pink lipstick once the story goes around one more time.



I am not against Caitanya. I am against concoctions in His name. In this particular case, for two reasons: 1. It was never established as an orthodox practice by the Gosvamis. 2. It creates a very odd impression of our tradition to the public.



But this is besides the point. In your mind, you can dress up as you please and express all the gopi-bhava you like. That doesn't mean you can do it in your physical body. There's a clear distinction drawn between the two.

= = =

I hope nobody here thinks that the meaning of raganuga is that "you can do whatever you feel like".

Yes, there is an incident at Candrasekhara's house where He dresses up as a gopi, which led Him to remember Laksmi-devi, and He then manifest Himself as Vishnu with Laksmi-devi on His side. Soon afterwards He manifest Himself as Durga Ma. This incident is also narrated in the Caitanya-bhagavata (Madhya 18). It seems to be the same evening when the drama with Rukmini-devi took place.

One must see a difference between Caitanya's acts in bhakta-bhava and in bhagavat-bhava. The first is to be followed, the second is not.

A police officer who wears a uniform "on his job", might usually dress in normal clothes when coming home, or not on his job. But still, he might wear a uniform at some instance at home, just to show how he looks when performing his function as police officer. Is that a drama?

In a similar way, as Caitanya is Rukmini, when he came as Caitanya he generally behaved according to that, but at some point he obviously dressed as Rukmini, just to show that mood.

It is a big difference when you dress up as Krishna, in a drama, since you are not Krishna, and you are just playing the role of another person. But as Caitanya is Rukmini, he is not playing the part of another person, but just showing a different mood of himself. That's the big difference between drama and pastime.

If you have realised your svarup as a gopi, you might very well dress up and show yourself as that, for the sake of showing who you are, and that mode, if you so wish to. If you have not realised your svarup as a gopi, you might still act like one, just for getting into that mood.


Did Caitanya perform sadhana? Where is that stated?


I can imagine that Vamsi das and other babajis were giving quite an odd impression to the public. Caitanya and Nityananda also performed quite odd, in that they acted in their own very personal way in a way that no one else have before. Odd impressions is not an issue here.


Now here, who says that you can't do it in your physical body? Who dictates the rules of what you can do and can not do?
Actually, it is the opposite, every jiva is completely free of doing whatever s/he wants to. The supreme personality of godhead never interferes. But according to our desires and actions we situate ourselves in different places. So there are absolute no rule that you can't dress up in your svarupa on the gross platform. If you have realised your svarup, you are constantly dressed up like that on the spiritual platform. Then having the material shape is actually the drama, not showing yourself in your svarup.


So what do you mean that raga means?

The very simple and clear point is that the occasion in this case was a drama, there was an audience and there were actors, and outside that, Caitanya did not dress up as Rukmini. I can't see why we have to try to stretch and bend this into something else.



First of all, one never shows outwardly one's inner bhava. Apana bhajana katha na kohibo yatha tatha, rakho prema hridaye koribe! Do not speak of your bhajan here and there, hide your prema within your heart! That is, at least if we care to follow Narottama Das Thakur, who by the way did not dress up in sari.

The inner mood of a gopi is not attained through attiring the sadhaka-body in sari. It is revealed within through grace.



Well, they are, if you care to look at the life of Caitanya. Why did he accept sannyasa? To reach out to an audience he couldn't have otherwise reached.

Vamsi das was by no means an example of a regular sadhaka, or a person we ought to follow. Rupa-Sanatana, Narottama, Srinivasa, Syamananda and the rest are good examples to look up to for proper conduct.



Oh yes, anyone can do whatever they please, but some of us are keen of following the acaryas, because we are not fond of just putting up a show and being the reckless do-whatever-you-please people of this world, some of us actually wish to attain the sadhya described in our scriptures, and consequently follow the sadhana prescribed for the same.

Would you care to tell us if you are interested in going your own ways, or following the path of the mahajanas?



I suggest you browse through http://www.raganuga.org to learn about the difference between raganuga and ragatmika, and all of that.

I found something interesting in another thread:



Here Rupa Goswami clearly says that we should proceed without regard for either scriptural instructions or logic in raganuga bhakti. Which does not oppose that a neophyte should practice following rules and regulations until the intense desire for the emotional states of the gopis (or whoever) arise and the state of "situated exclusively in Ragatmika Bhakti" is acquired.

So to answer your question, I have performed vaidhi bhakti for quite some time (18 years), and now feel ready in my heart to proceed to raganuga bhakti and thus appears to be straight on the path described by Rupa Goswami.

For the sari and bangles, if someone on the raganuga path, completely absorbed in the mood of the gopis, and in such excstacy, would take on sari and bangles to enhance that mood, it is certainly allright. If someone not in such a mood, thinking that wearing a sari and bangles will take him to it, it is sahajiya, taking it cheap.

The commentators are very clear on the meaning of the verse. The initial lobha is not prompted by scriptures or logic, but the consequent practice must be guided by scriptures and logic favorable for the practice of raganuga-bhakti.

As in the Raga-vartma-candrika of Visvanatha:

tataz ca tAdRza lobhavato bhaktasya lobhanIya tad bhAva prAptyupAya jijJAsAyAM satyAM zAstra yuktyapekSA syAt | zAstra-vidhinaiva zAstra-pratipAdita yuktyaiva ca tat pradarzanAt nAnyathA | yathA dugdhAdiSu lobhe sati kathaM me dugdhAdikaM bhaved iti tad upAya jijJAsAyAM tad abhijJApta jana kRtopadeza vAkyApekSA syAt | tataz ca gAM krINAtu bhavAn ityAdi tad upadeza vAkyAd eva gavAnayanatad ghAsa pradAna tad dohana prakaraNAdikaM tata eva zikSen na tu svataH || (rvc 1.7)

“Now, when the aforementioned greedy devotees become inquisitive about attaining their desired feelings, we see that they depend on scriptures and logic. The attainment of the desired feelings is taught through scriptural injunctions and scriptural logic, not in any other way. Just as when greed for milk awakens, what is the means for acquiring it? One desires to know the means, and at that time he relies on the instructions of a trusted person on the means for acquiring milk. He will say, ‘You should purchase a cow’, and so forth, instructing how to bring a cow, how to feed her with grass, and how to milk her. One cannot gain knowledge independently, without being instructed.”



The path begins by accepting a guru under whose guidance one pursues on the path of raganuga-bhakti. That's there in the beginning of the second chapter of the first wave of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. If you look up verse 296, you'll find that the aspects of vaidhi-bhakti are not to be renounced, but must also be followed. The difference lies in the motivation, and in the siddha-rupa seva.



It is not allright according to most Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas, nor was it sanctioned by them.

"Raganuga" does not mean "whimsical".