Swami Tripurari

The Upanisads say that he who says he knows Brahman does not know Brahman. He who says he does not know Brahman knows Brahman. We are all students forever. Sri Caitanya is Krsna trying to understand himself!

Still there is certainty within the mystery of the larger uncertainty/mystery. It is certain that our biological/physical self will come to an end. It is also certain that consciousness is not physical. Consciousness is an inconvienent truth for scientific materialism/physicalism, without which there would be no science, physicalism, nor materialism.

Consciousness is experiential existence. The limits of its experience are uncertain, in that even the experience of prema is full yet ever expanding. But the fact that it is existence itself means that is not subject to nonexistence. Because it belongs to a first person subjective ontology, it is not part of the third person ontology that makes up the objective physical world. That objective world is within time and space and thus all manifestations of it are limited by time and space. But consciousness not being contingent upon the objective world is thereby not limited by time and space. If is not physical, it is not governed by physical laws or constraints. And is certain that it is not physical. That which is subjective is not objective. You can’t get subjectivity from objectivity. But logically objectivity is derived from subjectivity. Again, there is no possibility of “materialism” without consciousness. The idea that there is only matter is just that: and idea belonging to the subjective world.

Thus while it is certain that our physical biological bodies have a beginning and end, it is also certain that our existence that is not bound by physical laws, time and space–consciousness–has no beginning and no end. So we should be certain that the mystery of life lies in the exploration of consciousness. And Gaudiya Vaisnavism is all about such exploration, providing a map down the road to prema.

From The Liberating Embrace of Uncertainty

Saying everything is caused by the physical brain appears sensible in our waking state, but it might appear untrue if there are higher dimensions of consciousness that subsume the waking dimension. In other words, even if we were absolutely convinced by observable evidence that our self-awareness arises out of matter, we could still be wrong. Plato’s allegory of the cave speaks to us about the idea of multi-dimensional consciousness, and the waking dimension of consciousness seems the most real until we fall asleep. Similarly, a lucid dream appears real until we wake up. So given that this is the case with these two dimensions of consciousness, it is not at all unreasonable to think that a higher state of consciousness, the mystic experience, would from its perspective, demonstrate the relativity of our present waking dimension.

The fact is that when one enters into the mystic dimension of consciousness, the experience is that the waking state derives from it and is but a shadow of itself. From that perspective it appears that neuroscience and physicalism are but logical extensions of Edwin Abbot’s Flatland thinking. The bottom line is that we know that higher dimensions of consciousness exist and can be accessed. They also offer great value to human society, giving rise to compassion, self-satisfaction, etc. The only thing that is not agreed upon is what these higher dimensions portend. Given their demonstrated value, it’s quite reasonable to pursue them wholeheartedly, without concern for what they “mean”–whether they constitute the transcendence of biological death or the plasticity of awareness located in the brain. At the same time, it is quite reasonable to maintain that those who have experienced these mystic dimensions of consciousness are in a better position to talk about their actual meaning, especially when we can observe that they have achieved a sense of satisfaction and meaning that everyone is arguably looking for. Indeed, what is holding one back from pursuing this other than the quest for satisfaction and meaning through experiences that we know objectively, upon having, will not bring the same sense of self-contentedness?

From Is There a Secular Meditation?

Saints tell us that Rama and Krishna are the same person. But while Ramacandra was the most moral, Krishna appeared to be a cheater in some respects. But how can God cheat another when all others are but aspects of himself? We must consider Krishna’s apparent immorality in light of the fact that he is that self-same Ramacandra, the personification of perfect moral character. We must try to understand the meaning of lila, divine play. God can be moral or immoral in appearance, yet whatever he does is absolute good. Conversely, the moral realm is not absolute: That act which on its face is immoral in one instance may be moral in another. Morality is the means to check the evil of exploitation arising from material attachment, but if one has no such attachment, then what is one’s position? Does moral law bind such a soul? Certainly not. Such is the position of Krishna, and of Rama as well.

Rama Lila: From Vishnu toward Krishna

Actually we cannot ‘think’ of Krishna consciousness. It is beyond conception. For the sake of practicing, we try to get a handle on what Krishna consciousness is, but ultimately we have to go beyond the maya of conceiving. We have to understand that the whole mind has to stop for the heart to come out. Our heart is suppressed underneath the mind. All the time we are thinking, thinking, thinking, ‘How can I make my life better?’ There is no way that whatever goes on between your ears will produce the kind of life that will satisfy you. It’s not possible. So stop thinking. Chant Krishna nama. You have to chant with this kind of faith: “There’s nothing I can do, nothing that I can think of, that will improve my situation or enable me to come closer to what I really want than by just hearing this chanting.” We should try to chant japa like this at first. In time, the heart will come out and then there will be longing for Krishna.

From: Be Like Water

“Srila Prabhupada said on a number of occasions that he identified with sakhya rasa. He also wrote a poem to Krishna in his intimate moments expressing the desire for sakhya rasa. We find no equivalent stated aspiration on his part for any other rasa.”

See: Sanga: “O My Friend!” Revisited

Descending at Advaita’s request and fulfilling the role of yuga-avatara, Sri Caitanya is naturally full of compassion for the world’s inhabitants and their perpetual suffering in cycles of birth and death. But this aspect of Mahaprabhu is only one side of his descent, constituting his external reason for incarnating. While secondary, this role as yuga-avatar is unique, as it is no doubt informed by his internal reason for incarnating, to taste the highest form of divine love—ujjvala-rasa—that is the domain of Sri Radha. Here we find a theistic ladder of love on which compassion for worldly suffering lies at the bottom rung and the prema of Radha is the final step into a love that is unlimited and ever-expanding.

The full article is published at The Harmonist.

The perceived necessity for a culturally neutral transcendence is perhaps rooted in the postmodern sensitivity (or a common misunderstanding of postmodern philosophy—not sure which) that leads one to believe that all cultures are of equal value. Personally I see no reason to level the cultural playing field. I my experience, all cultures are not equally valuable. They are so only in as much as it is true that one can learn something from all cultures and all of them have some value.

Arguably, the one that God most prominently manifests within is notable. If God personally manifests within a particular culture—Sri Caitanya in Bengali culture of 500 years ago—and teaches about the nature of transcendence through that culture, it is reasonable to think that meditating upon him within that cultural setting has immense spiritual value for a the practitioner, if for no other reason than the fact that it provides a handle to grab on to that is practically essential for sadhana. But furthermore this is especially so given the theology of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, in which love of God that is the goal is very specific.

And the less specific the goal the less lovable it is. The more one loves an object the more one becomes acquainted with its details, and if it lacks details, the less loveable it is. It is erroneous to think that the summit of spiritual experience is that which is the least detailed, the least specific. No, such is rather the lowest common denominator. There are no details in the sunyavada—prakriti nirvana—of Buddhism, for example. Thus the fact that Buddhism as a religion has transcended cultural bias, is no great accomplishment. For that matter Gaudiya Vaisnavism has proven itself to be culturally adaptable in the past within India. The example of the Manipuri and Orrissan “Gaudiyas”—better referred to as Caitanya Vaisnavas—is there to learn from. Prabhupada also adapted, as did BSST Prabhupada before him by riding in motorized vehicles, etc.. etc.

And with regard to the specifics of the Gaudiya’s prema prayojana, it is has been presented primarily in terms of love psychology, which is pretty much a universal found in all cultures. The exception may be today’s industrial, technological, materialistic cultural mindset, in which one could argue well culture in a classical sense is lacking.

Rupa Goswami employed the love psychology of Indian aesthetics to explain his rasa theory. This gives us a handle and terms to use that enable us to talk about and contemplate the various bhavas of the lila, etc. more readily. And it is universal. In other words, it is not difficult to relate to Krsna lila because we are all familiar—regardless of our culture—with the love psychology of the Absolute by way of of our own human familiarity with love psychology.

For example, at least in times gone by no young illicit couple would want the young male lover’s older brother to know about their relationship, and thus he has no place there. Still that older brother might not discourage it and might even encourage it behind the scenes should he be aware of it. This was true of American and European culture in the not so distant past, not merely Indian culture. The elder brother is typically a senior who is looked up to and from whom the younger brother learns how to behave properly (my, things have changed!). Thus it is not difficult for anyone to understand why Balarama is not directly involved in Krsna’s love affair with Radha.

As for the demigods and the forces of nature, which is a more accurate description of nature, a poetic one or a mathematical one? I go with the poetic one. To me it is more real. One should not be enamored by reason. It is a petty thing. Still we should be reasonable in our love. There is nature and there is consciousness behind nature. That is a fact. Math won’t find that consciousness and it transcends words. Still poetry can do some justice to that which math cannot. In the world I live in, there are gods and goddesses. And there is Krsna, as Sri Caitanya experienced him.

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura points out that Krishna’s apparent punishment of the demons or unrighteous is in fact an act of mercy because the final result of this punishment is liberation. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Govinda Bhasya commentary on Vedanta-sutra says that the demons killed by Krishna experience not only the death of their gross material body but the demise of their subtle body as well. The subtle body carries the soul from one gross body to another. The subtle body consisting of a state of mind is the basis of the gross body that one acquires in the next life. When the subtle body of the unrighteous person is destroyed by Krishna, the person’s attitude toward him immediately changes, for his opposition to Krishna was a product of his subtle body–his unrighteous disposition. On the demise of the subtle body, his hostility toward Krishna is transformed into love for Krishna. Thus at the moment of death he sees Krishna as the greatest object of affection. His liberation is not directly a result of being killed by Krishna but rather the result of his newfound love for him.

Excerpt from Sanga: Liberating the Demons.

… if one attaches oneself to Radha as her assistant and intimate friend, the intimacy that she experiences with Krishna becomes the experience of oneself, a handmaiden who is wholly identified with Sri Radha in service to her. This is the position of Radha’s manjari. Sri Radha is the vine of love that most fully embraces Sri Krishna, and the flower (manjari) of that vine is nourished as the vine itself is nourished. Love of Radha is tad-bhavaeccha-mayi madhurya rasa. However, Sri Rupa Goswami also refers to it as bhavollasa, and as we shall see, love of Radha constitutes the fullest measure of this term.

From Jaya Rupa! Jaya Radhe!.

… for the most part Baladeva does not carry his plow in Vraja, but rather a buffalo horn. Every morning he blows this horn signaling the time for the young cowherds to assemble and awaken Kanai Krishna. Zillions of cowherds stampede to the courtyard of Nanda Baba at the sound of Rama’s horn. While Krishna sends his devotees into a trance with sound of his flute, Rama awakens those in vatsalya, sakhya, and dasya rasas to their nitya seva. Always in the forefront of seva, he is the root of the serving ego in all souls and the seva that underlies the entire lila, bhakta abhiman mula balarama. With his buffalo horn, he leads the world of divine service and with his plow he prepares the field of our heart where the seed of that seva is first planted.

From Haladhara and His Horn…