Caitanya's ecstatic experiences, Split from 'Abusive GV teachings' Options

[Prisni]

I don't know who got things messed up at first. Was it Chaitanya? If so I will be sad because he was a cool cat.

It was those coming after caitanya, FAIK. Directly after him, Vaisnavism was split up. On one hand those who emphesized litteraru study, and on the other hand those who emphesized ecstasy. The litterary study line has developed to the GV of today, and the ecstasy group has developed into the sahajiyas of today. In real Caitanyaism there is both.

Apart from all that, the brahmana's, who wanted to preserve their top position in society, where very fast to restrict Vaisnavism to only brahmana's again, since Caitanya who allowed sudras and muslims as disciples was not liked at all by them. And then hinduism was also divided up in Shaktism and Vaisnavism. Everyone wanted to hold on to their positions in society and did not want the unity of hinduism that Caitanya came with. Caitanyaism was unique in that it was not Visnu or Shakti, but it was Radha and Krishna, shakti and shaitiman together. It was really a challange to all the status quo of hinduism, and it was very fast undone.

Some don't like Bhaktivinode, and so on up to Prabhupada, since they again made an attempt to bring back original Caitanyaism as a kind of general hinduism, and again glue together the departed pieces of study and ecstasy. Prabhupada started the effort of bringing Radha and Krishna as a centerpiece of the faith. Just that ISKCON is clueless of the mission and has again banned ecstasy and now only focusing on Krishna to the exclusion of Radha.

[kalki]

I don't know who got things messed up at first. Was it Chaitanya? If so I will be sad because he was a cool cat.

It was those coming after caitanya, FAIK. Directly after him, Vaisnavism was split up. On one hand those who emphesized litteraru study, and on the other hand those who emphesized ecstasy. The litterary study line has developed to the GV of today, and the ecstasy group has developed into the sahajiyas of today. In real Caitanyaism there is both.

Apart from all that, the brahmana's, who wanted to preserve their top position in society, where very fast to restrict Vaisnavism to only brahmana's again, since Caitanya who allowed sudras and muslims as disciples was not liked at all by them. And then hinduism was also divided up in Shaktism and Vaisnavism. Everyone wanted to hold on to their positions in society and did not want the unity of hinduism that Caitanya came with. Caitanyaism was unique in that it was not Visnu or Shakti, but it was Radha and Krishna, shakti and shaitiman together. It was really a challange to all the status quo of hinduism, and it was very fast undone.

Some don't like Bhaktivinode, and so on up to Prabhupada, since they again made an attempt to bring back original Caitanyaism as a kind of general hinduism, and again glue together the departed pieces of study and ecstasy. Prabhupada started the effort of bringing Radha and Krishna as a centerpiece of the faith. Just that ISKCON is clueless of the mission and has again banned ecstasy and now only focusing on Krishna to the exclusion of Radha.

That was an interesting historical commentary. I like the observation that things split off into scriptural and sahajiya camps after Chaitanya. But there are some more ecstatic and Radha centered camps say in the Gaudiya Math, don't you think? If you like what Prabhupada did, then Narayan Maharaj more or less is running the same show with emphasis on Radha. Not that I agree with him for many other reasons though.

[Prisni]

That was an interesting historical commentary. I like the observation that things split off into scriptural and sahajiya camps after Chaitanya. But there are some more ecstatic and Radha centered camps say in the Gaudiya Math, don't you think? If you like what Prabhupada did, then Narayan Maharaj more or less is running the same show with emphasis on Radha. Not that I agree with him for many other reasons though.

I also don't agree with him on many points.
Do the followers of that camp experience ecstatic trance, or do they just talk about it?

[kalki]

That was an interesting historical commentary. I like the observation that things split off into scriptural and sahajiya camps after Chaitanya. But there are some more ecstatic and Radha centered camps say in the Gaudiya Math, don't you think? If you like what Prabhupada did, then Narayan Maharaj more or less is running the same show with emphasis on Radha. Not that I agree with him for many other reasons though.

I also don't agree with him on many points.
Do the followers of that camp experience ecstatic trance, or do they just talk about it?

Isn't trance something kinda relative? Chaitanya went into trance we believe, but he was God. His followers, probably only arrived in some form of trance by intense sadhana. I don't think that the traditional lines are against trance, but trance is induced with a real cultivation of practice and thus authentic. Do you think the sahajiya lines really have trance, or is it some spin induced frenzy thing like Sufis? I have been in a Sufi camp where people go into trances, but that isn't hard when you spin a lot. But a type of trance no less.

Trance for the love of God, I have seen Iskcon devotees approaching a trance as well as NM devotees. It is more a humble thing. They are absorbed. They don't try to take credit for it. It is natural for them because of their sincerity.

[Prisni]

Soul or no soul, but still, computers cannot be sued if they do something wrong, even if they have "artifical intelligence". So what can be sued? Persons posessing a soul, and then groups of persons possessing souls.
Somehow or other, even though the concept is there is no soul, yet only things having that nonexisting soul are considered responsible for their actions.

Isn't that strange?

[Brainiac]

Isn't trance something kinda relative? Chaitanya went into trance we believe, but he was God. His followers, probably only arrived in some form of trance by intense sadhana. I don't think that the traditional lines are against trance, but trance is induced with a real cultivation of practice and thus authentic.

Some time ago when I was discussing the topic of "God in the brain" somewhere, Subal (formerly Subal Swami, disciple of ACBS, former GR member and now founder of "Radha-Krishna Universalist Association") shared with me his opinion that Caitanya was an epileptic. I found it surprising that he would believe this and spontaneously shared his opinion with me. It's not something I've looked into but I would like to think about the possibility at some point. Given that some studies entertain the connection between spiritual experiences (visions) and temporal lobe epilepsy, and the graphic descriptions of Caitanya's ecstasies in the CC, it remains an intriguing possibility.

[Brainiac]

Somehow or other, even though the concept is there is no soul, yet only things having that nonexisting soul are considered responsible for their actions.

Isn't that strange?

Yes, and it is the subject of a long-running debate.

[kalki]

Isn't trance something kinda relative? Chaitanya went into trance we believe, but he was God. His followers, probably only arrived in some form of trance by intense sadhana. I don't think that the traditional lines are against trance, but trance is induced with a real cultivation of practice and thus authentic.

Some time ago when I was discussing the topic of "God in the brain" somewhere, Subal (formerly Subal Swami, disciple of ACBS, former GR member and now founder of "Radha-Krishna Universalist Association") shared with me his opinion that Caitanya was an epileptic. I found it surprising that he would believe this and spontaneously shared his opinion with me. It's not something I've looked into but I would like to think about the possibility at some point. Given that some studies entertain the connection between spiritual experiences (visions) and temporal lobe epilepsy, and the graphic descriptions of Caitanya's ecstasies in the CC, it remains an intriguing possibility.

I think I have heard this before. I believe also it could be true. The descriptions of his falling into trance and barely being able to speak but a few syllables like Lord Jaganath (Jag-- Jag---ga---ga) seem just like an epileptic fit.

But wasn't epilepsy diagnosed back then? Why didn't any other commentator expose this at all? Chaitanya is not like Jesus, in that there are numerous indisputable sources of historical record about his existence, and it was modern enough that if doubts were raised, then it should be documented.

[Gerard]

I think I have heard this before.

That might have been on this forum: http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...c=438&st=60 for instance post #68 and #74.

[kalki]

I think I have heard this before.

That might have been on this forum: http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...c=438&st=60 for instance post #68 and #74.

It could very well have been a point of discussion here, but I believe I have heard of it totally elsewhere also. Which makes me think that the theory as it were is at least a little common, but probably not that common. Well, who would it be common with? People with no contact with KC wouldn't give a rats ass and those who do care, would consider it sacrilege. Gr is of course, more or less sacrilege according to the GV status quo.

Definitely I will check those posts you mention. Also I'd mention that any logical person, I think, upon hearing for instance stories of avadhutas being pure devotees, like Vamsi das Baba, would discount those individuals as madmen and also discount the orthodox story telling of such babas as pure devotees and not madmen at all. At least I did and few others around me.

But guess what? For some reason, I liked the concept of these madmen being not mad at all, but actually so absorbed in their devotion, that I followed suit and decided that the orthodox view was right. But now I am back to thinking they were all bonkers and I was bonkers to believe they weren't.

I believe it is also there in other religions that the extreme faith in the religion has turned the mind a bit bonkers. But I do believe however that any conditions that a person is born with or acquires some how on the path, can successfully practice their faith singlepointedly and not let their condition interfere with it. So I think that is why Mahaprabhu and other Babas with some form of madness were even more successful and noteworthy by the public.

Some orthodox Jewish followers also believe Jesus was a madman.

[Brainiac]

I think I have heard this before.

That might have been on this forum: http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...c=438&st=60 for instance post #68 and #74.

I had been meaning to get back to this. While St John's writings are interesting, are there any records of Christian mystics (or indeed mystics from other religions) exhibiting the similar types of ecstasies as recorded in Caitanya's case? When St John speaks of disjointed bones, how can we be sure that what he means is what we understood as taking place in Caitanya's life? Is there evidence of Christians thinking in that way?

If Dasgupta was right in saying that such descriptions of Caitanya's ecstasies are without parallel in Indic religious literature, it seems to me that rather than believing the accounts and with the lack (?) of similar such examples occurring in the ecstatic lives of other mystics, a more prudent explanation or interpretation might be that those stories are literary exaggerations, ornaments, confabulations? The "biographies" are hagiographies, after all.

Interesting things to consider, no doubt. I remain intrigued by the human experience of Caitanya.

[kalki]

I think I have heard this before.

That might have been on this forum: http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...c=438&st=60 for instance post #68 and #74.

I had been meaning to get back to this. While St John's writings are interesting, are there any records of Christian mystics (or indeed mystics from other religions) exhibiting the similar types of ecstasies as recorded in Caitanya's case? When St John speaks of disjointed bones, how can we be sure that what he means is what we understood as taking place in Caitanya's life? Is there evidence of Christians thinking in that way?

If Dasgupta was right in saying that such descriptions of Caitanya's ecstasies are without parallel in Indic religious literature, it seems to me that rather than believing the accounts and with the lack (?) of similar such examples occurring in the ecstatic lives of other mystics, a more prudent explanation or interpretation might be that those stories are literary exaggerations, ornaments, confabulations? The "biographies" are hagiographies, after all.

Interesting things to consider, no doubt. I remain intrigued by the human experience of Caitanya.

Sure so the question is, has there ever been another mystic that had a symptom of disjointed bones, or is that a symptom that only occurs for those attaining Vraja Bhakti in the "authorized" lineage of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the 6 Goswamis?

[Gerard]

I think I have heard this before.

That might have been on this forum: http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index...c=438&st=60 for instance post #68 and #74.

I had been meaning to get back to this. While St John's writings are interesting, are there any records of Christian mystics (or indeed mystics from other religions) exhibiting the similar types of ecstasies as recorded in Caitanya's case? When St John speaks of disjointed bones, how can we be sure that what he means is what we understood as taking place in Caitanya's life? Is there evidence of Christians thinking in that way?

If Dasgupta was right in saying that such descriptions of Caitanya's ecstasies are without parallel in Indic religious literature, it seems to me that rather than believing the accounts and with the lack (?) of similar such examples occurring in the ecstatic lives of other mystics, a more prudent explanation or interpretation might be that those stories are literary exaggerations, ornaments, confabulations? The "biographies" are hagiographies, after all.

Interesting things to consider, no doubt. I remain intrigued by the human experience of Caitanya.

Sure so the question is, has there ever been another mystic that had a symptom of disjointed bones, or is that a symptom that only occurs for those attaining Vraja Bhakti in the "authorized" lineage of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the 6 Goswamis?

In the other thread I quoted St John of the Cross to show that 'disjointed bones' were not exclusive to Caitanya. An other example of this is St Teresa of Ávila. She wrote very conscientiously about her experiences because she was writing to her confessor.

She wrote in her Vida:

"... this is the habitual state of my soul, nowadays. Whenever I am not busy with something, it is plunged into these death-like yearnings; and I am afraid when I feel them coming on, because I know that I shall not die. But once I am in them, I long to suffer like this for the rest of my life, although the pain is so extreme as to be nearly unbearable. Sometimes my pulse almost ceases to beat at all, as I have been told by the sisters who sometimes see me in this state, and so understand better now. My bones are all disjointed and my hands are so rigid that sometimes I cannot clasp them together. Even next day I feel a pain in my wrists and over my whole body, as if my bones were still out of joint."


This kind of autobiography is quite reliable compared to the hagiographies in the Bhaktamala, Bhaktavijay or the CC. I have not found mention of disjointed bones in the autobiographical writings of for instance Tulsidas Goswami, Mirabai, Tukaram.


Another related point is the differences in the types of ecstasy. Montague Summers in his Physical Phenomena of Mysticism 1950 makes a distinction between several types of ecstasy; diabolic, natural and divine, quoting St. Thomas who says that ecstasy is an abstraction which arises from one of three causes,
from a physical cause, which is natural ecstasy;
from the working of Satan, which is diabolic ecstasy;
from the supreme power of God, which is Divine Ecstasy, and, as I understand it, true Ecstasy in the real sense of the word.

I wont go into the diabolic but the learned tell us that a natural ecstasy results from natural causes, whereas Catalepsy (or Catochus, Catoche, as the disease was called) is in some sense a natural ecstasy, since persons seized thereby are deprived of all movement, and there is a total suspension of any sensation or consciousness. Perhaps Caitanya?

It is said that if heaviness of the limbs, torpor, a mental sluggishness, a paleness of the face, which may be drawn and sad, and depression generally, are the after effects of the ecstasy, it is certainly natural. Under the same heading come those distortions of the limbs, the hideous grimacing and writhing features, with foaming and frothing at the mouth, which might correspond to the desciptions of the Antya Lila.

Dom Schram lists seven signs which denote that this preternormal state is a natural ecstasy. It may, then

(1) be the consequence of some disease of debility.
(2) If the natural ecstasy recurs at fixed and regular intervals.
(3) If after the ecstasy, the subject is found to be weak and suffering pain.
(4) If the mind appears confused, and the subject is bewildered and perplexed.
(5) If the ecstasy originates from concentration upon some thing not of the divine order, but of them earth, earthly.
(6) Natural ecstasy may be induced by an extremity of fear.
(7) In certain cases music will produce a form of rapture, which is natural ecstasy.


St. John of the Cross so keenly appreciated the danger of ecstasy, unless it be certainly from God, that he refrained from desiring it, besides he was too busy to be ecstatic.

In contrast there is the Divine Ecstasy which takes place with the greatest tranquillity of the whole man, who is placid and calm, both exteriorly and interiorly. He who is rapt in a divine ecstasy speaks only of heavenly things, which mightily move the bystanders to the love of God; on returning to himself he appears humble, and even, as it were, daunted and abashed. Overflowing with heavenly delights and consolations, his face is cheerful and glad, whilst in his heart there is ineffable peace and security.

The true receptive attitude towards God brings joy, tranquillity, peace of mind, interior happiness and calm. This seems not to be descibed in the Antya Lila.



This is one the major reasons I'm an ex-GV.

[kalki]

St. John of the Cross so keenly appreciated the danger of ecstasy, unless it be certainly from God, that he refrained from desiring it, besides he was too busy to be ecstatic.

This is a good point. Why on earth should the symptoms of ecstasy be related only to God? Could it not come from more evil sources?

I wonder if someone like Hitler could develop ecstasy during one of his rallies. Perhaps ecstasy is even an adrenaline related thing.

Though we never hear of someone being in an ecstasy that is more evil related, do we?

So maybe it is more likely to be involved in ecstatic symptoms which are related to God or Goddess type of worship. A supreme entity who takes care of us with love. It may be that St. John was aware of non-Christian related ecstasies which he considered demonic, but in reality, they were probably benevolent forms of ecstasy coming from non-Christian religion.

[Aranesque]

It may be that St. John was aware of non-Christian related ecstasies which he considered demonic, but in reality, they were probably benevolent forms of ecstasy coming from non-Christian religion.

Like the ecstasies of those filthy witches and pagans dancing through the night with the Devil.

Burning's too good for 'em.

[kalki]

It may be that St. John was aware of non-Christian related ecstasies which he considered demonic, but in reality, they were probably benevolent forms of ecstasy coming from non-Christian religion.

Like the ecstasies of those filthy witches and pagans dancing through the night with the Devil.

Burning's too good for 'em.

Sarcasm noted. Yes various pagan, shaman, wicca etc, religious systems might have some forms of ecstatic rapture in their worship. The only thing that I might slightly agree with when some proselytizers might try to position faiths like Chrisitan or Vaishnava or Buddhist above other religions, is that these religions have a very profound and illustrated doctrine on surrender and service to others. I don't mean to down all faiths outside of these, but I notice a difference. So by this I don't say that some religions are hierarchically superior, but I wonder if these aspects of surrender and service are qualities that might yield the symptoms and activites that are noticed as a type of ecstasy?

[Aranesque]

Sarcasm noted. Yes various pagan, shaman, wicca etc, religious systems might have some forms of ecstatic rapture in their worship. The only thing that I might slightly agree with when some proselytizers might try to position faiths like Chrisitan or Vaishnava or Buddhist above other religions, is that these religions have a very profound and illustrated doctrine on surrender and service to others. I don't mean to down all faiths outside of these, but I notice a difference. So by this I don't say that some religions are hierarchically superior, but I wonder if these aspects of surrender and service are qualities that might yield the symptoms and activites that are noticed as a type of ecstasy?

My sarcasm is awful at times - excuse my unpleasantness.

Yes, you make a fair point regarding 'the higher' religions (let's not forget the likes of the Jains or the Sikhs either).

Much as I admire St John and St Teresa, I was trying to make the point - though, perhaps clumsily - that the Catholic Church (the holy key-keepers of authentic, authorised ecstacy) spread through the obliteration of all idealogical opposition.

One can hardly expect of them an honest and balanced appraisal of 'the phenomenon of ecstacy'.

[Prisni]

the Catholic Church (the holy key-keepers of authentic, authorised ecstacy) spread through the obliteration of all idealogical opposition.

One can hardly expect of them an honest and balanced appraisal of 'the phenomenon of ecstacy'.

Some kind of reverse Déjà vu?

[kalki]

Sarcasm noted. Yes various pagan, shaman, wicca etc, religious systems might have some forms of ecstatic rapture in their worship. The only thing that I might slightly agree with when some proselytizers might try to position faiths like Chrisitan or Vaishnava or Buddhist above other religions, is that these religions have a very profound and illustrated doctrine on surrender and service to others. I don't mean to down all faiths outside of these, but I notice a difference. So by this I don't say that some religions are hierarchically superior, but I wonder if these aspects of surrender and service are qualities that might yield the symptoms and activites that are noticed as a type of ecstasy?

My sarcasm is awful at times - excuse my unpleasantness.

Yes, you make a fair point regarding 'the higher' religions (let's not forget the likes of the Jains or the Sikhs either).

Much as I admire St John and St Teresa, I was trying to make the point - though, perhaps clumsily - that the Catholic Church (the holy key-keepers of authentic, authorised ecstacy) spread through the obliteration of all idealogical opposition.

One can hardly expect of them an honest and balanced appraisal of 'the phenomenon of ecstacy'.

Yes, the Jains, the Sikhs are I suppose there can be more. Even certain pagan tribes may have done their share of altruistic work. The Hopi are accredited to performing healing rituals for 'mother earth' which spawned the idea in hippie America to have a 'rainbow gathering,' to continue the tradition.

Its an unfortunate fact that the Catholic Church has done bounds of destruction of culture and traditions worldwide. But I believe they have luckily had some practioners that were able to transcend a bit. Wasn't St. Francis a Catholic? And Hildegard von Bingen, the female mystic.

It tells me that doctrines may be right on, doctrinally, but application of doctrine may be way off, culturally. For instance, Europeans have given Christianity a bad name, but in countries like India and Nepal, they often seem quite sincere. Some cultures are more innocent and less aggressive than others?

[Aranesque]

I don't know about anyone else, but I never took to Vaisnavism because I desired to go into ecstacies; I was never someone who wished to 'stay high forever'. In fact, I'd had enough of getting high - I was bored with it.

May I suggest though, that any proposed study of comparative ecstacy is best conducted upon purely experiential lines.

In other words, I feel it is best we speak from our own store on such matters.

Anyway, Re Gerard's point: There may indeed be similarities between Mahaprabhu's symptomology and both epilepsy and Teresa's bone displacement, just as there are physical similarities in the symptoms produced by a wide range of illnesses; it would help if one could time-travel in order to 'diagnose' for oneself.

It may also be helpful to bear in mind that Krishna is an altogether different type of Godhead from the One contemplated by St John or Teresa; His 'touch', therefore, may produce very different results from the benevolent Christian Father-God.

As a footnote, I remember reading an article on migraine by Oliver Sacks in New Scientist many years ago, wherein he proffered the opinion that Hildegard von Bingen's visions were caused by migraine aura. Speaking as one who suffers from migraine auru (replete with visuals), I must confess (like a good Catholic) that I have never - even in my wildest devotee years - had such blessed symptoms as hers.