Exchange of rasa - SB 1.1.3
BVKS Sanga
| Question - Exchange of rasa - SB 1.1.3 | |
| From | Tames Moterani |
| Date | 12 Nov, 01:24 |
| To | BVKS Sanga |
Dear devotees,
I was hoping someone in this sanga could explain or help to elaborate the following points. On the purport to SB 1.1.3, Srila Prabhupada writes:
“Every living entity, beginning from Brahma, the first-born living being within the material world, down to the insignificant ant, desires to relish some sort of taste derived from sense perceptions. These sensual pleasures are technically called rasas. Such rasas are of different varieties. In the revealed scriptures the following twelve varieties of rasas are enumerated: 1) raudra (anger) 2) adbutha (wonder) 3) sringara (conjugal love) 4) hasya(comedy) 5) vira (chivalry) 6) daya (mercy) 7) dasya (servitorship) 8) sakhya (fraternity) 9) bhayanaka (horror) 10) vibhatsa (shock) 11) santa (neutrality) 12) vatsalya (parenthood)”
“(…) Such rasas are displayed between man and man and between animal and animal. There is no possibility of an exchange of rasa between a man and an animal or between a man and any other species of living beings within the material world. The rasas are exchanged between members of the same species (…)”
I’m intrigued by this, although I understand much of what people think they are exchanging with animals (specially pets) is mostly imagination, there also seems to be something similar to rasa between humans and animals. For example, there may be a feeling of horror toward a specific animal (snakes, scorpions, spiders etc) and there are cases of some type of parenthood in stories of so called feral children who got lost in jungles and were raised by animals.
When it comes to loving feelings such as conjugal love, fraternity and friendship, I can understand that type reciprocation would have to be between members of the same species, on a similar level, but other feelings, for instance, mercy and horror, it’s somewhat expected that it would happen between living entities that are not on the same level.
First Prabhupada mentions “between man and man and between animal and animal”, but then he says “between members of the same species”, so even between animals it seems it would be limited to exchange within the same species. That would mean a human would exchange rasa with another human in horror, but the feeling of horror in relation to an animal would not be a rasa exchange. And between animals, maybe a frog could feel horror in relation to a snake, but that also wouldn’t be a rasa exchange, it would only be so between two frogs. And then, if such exchanges are not rasa exchanges, what are they?
A few more points I’d like to raise in relation to this. Would that mean that it’s not really possible for a human to be merciful to an animal? Certainly there may be a lot of misconceptions in relation to this, for instance when people remove animals from their natural environment and raise them as pets, and they may have some intense feelings about it, even if that’s not really good for the animal.
Specifically in the Krishna consciousness movement there is the point of cow protection and I wonder if there could be issues regarding this, when it comes to people developing feelings for the cows which could be more on the imaginary side?
Any contribution to this discussion would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Tames.
BVKS Sanga
das,
Jaya Nityananda Dasa
("Nandagrama" Varnasrama Community Project)
BVKS Sanga
Prabhu, thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question.
Right now I only have access to Brs (among the literatures mentioned by you) and I did some research there and couldn’t clarify this point, so I was hoping you’d be willing to answer this: is “mundane rasa” the same as “rati”? Srila Prabhupada writes about “Bhakti-rasa” and “mundane rasa”, but there is no mention of “rati” in that book (except for the name of Pradyumna’s wife). Or are they three different things - Bhakti-rasa, mundane rasa AND rati?
In CC Madhya 19.183-184, we find:
“According to the devotee, attachment falls within the five categories of śānta-rati, dāsya-rati, sakhya-rati, vātsalya-rati and madhura-rati. These five categories arise from devotees’ different attachments to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The transcendental mellows derived from devotional service are also of five varieties.”
In the purport to CC Madhya 19.185, Prabhupada mentions this:
“When śānta-rati (neutral attraction) exists continuously and is mixed with ecstatic emotion, and when the devotee relishes that neutral position, it is called śānta-bhakti-rasa.”
So I’m guessing the “rati” would be an initial stage that develops into “Bhakti-rasa”, is that correct?
After all of this I’m even more puzzled by what Prabhupada wrote about exchange of rasa between animals, because it doesn’t seem that any exchange between animals would be on a very high level. Could it be that the word “rasa” there was used in a very generic way, including rati or even something lower (if there is something lower)?
In the preface to The nectar of devotion, Prabhupada writes:
“Bhakti-rasa is a mellow different from the ordinary rasa enjoyed by mundane workers. Mundane workers labor very hard day and night in order to relish a certain kind of rasa, which is understood as sense gratification.”
Ordinary rasa mentioned here would be the same as sense gratification, in this sense I wonder why it wouldn’t be possible between different species. If humans didn’t get any sense gratification from animals and vice versa, seems doubtful that there would exist such things as pets or any form of domesticated animals. Certainly between two humans such exchanges can be much more complex, but not necessarily so (they could be as superficial as an exchange between a human and an animal as well).
The most I can make of this now is that maybe it’s a matter of gradation, that different species have different levels of relishing interactions with other living entities, relations between two humans being the most complex of all, but still mundane. Then, relations between different species would be somewhat “one sided” even if both parts are getting some sense gratification out of it. Is this a proper understanding?
And then another question raised by this is if transcendental rasa is exclusively present in relation to the Supreme Lord, or if it could also be present in exchanges between devotees, in guru/disciple relationship etc.
This may be getting too complicated, so I understand if you don’t want to get too involved in the discussion. Anything you’re willing to say to help clarify it would be very much appreciated.
Best regards,
Tames.
BVKS Sanga
das,
Jaya Nityananda Dasa