RASA SASTRA and BEHAVIOURAL IDEALS

Recently someone suggested we accept Sri Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu (BRS) as a guide for our social interactions. The examples of Sri Krsna's friendship with Draupadi, and the priya-narma-sakhas' friendship with the gopis were presented as ideals to be emulated between male and female devotees. The fundamental premise behind this idea is that BRS is based of Bharat Muni's explication of worldly rasa. Let's explore the validity of this proposition.

Although there is a superficial similarity between material rasa and spiritual rasa, there are also many differences. Is it sound reasoning to establish the correct standard for social interactions between conditioned souls on the basis of examples from transcendental rasa-sastra? Especially when sastra that directly discusses etiquette gives guidance to the contrary?

The examples from BRS are really not valid in an everyday human context. Here's why:

1) All devotees outside of Vraja have awareness of Sri Krsna's Godhood to greater or lesser degrees depending on the situation in the lila. This alone makes Draupadi's "friendship" completely different in nature from a friendship between jivas.

2) The friendship of the cowherd boys (priya-narma-sakhas) with the gopis is also absolutely not analogous to human relationships. The acaryas comment that the male sentiments of the priya-narma-sakhas are completely covered by sakhi-bhava. This is definitely not the case with regular jivas in male bodies.

3) To say that BRS is based on Bharata Muni's material rasa-sastra is the perspective of mundane scholars who assume that Bharata Muni wrote his text first and therefore it must be the origin of the framework of rasa theory. As devotees we know that material rasa is a shadow of transcendental rasa (chayeva yasya bhuvanani bibharti durga). Srila Rupa Gosvami's theory is the eternal, transcendental, original theory, which is neither based or dependent on material rasa-sastra. This is evidenced by the fact that, Srila Rupa Gosvami does not hesitate to depart from Bharata Muni's conclusions wherever the similarities do not apply. For example, Bharata Muni lists eight rasas, whereas Srila Rupa Gosvami divides one of Bharata Munis rasas into five and relegates the other seven to the category of sancari-bhavas. There are many other examples, but I would rather not digress from the core issues of the discussion at hand.

4) There are vaisnava smrti-sastras and the examples set by our acaryas to provide guidelines for social interaction. No acarya has ever presented BRS as the go to source for relationship advice. The very idea is thoroughly dangerous and corrosive to the moral fabric of vaisnava society because, as demonstrated, it is unjustly used to justify and encourage devotees to seek solace in unnecessary inter-gender relationships.

5) Before the stage of nistha, the devotee is strongly influenced by the anartha known as "bhajana-virodhi-bhrama", the fault of not knowing what activities are actually detrimental to bhajana. Since such a devotee has not truly experienced the state of ekagra - stabilization of the citta - he cannot really understand how apparently small things are keeping his citta destabilized.

At nistha, once the citta is stabilized, it becomes like a mirror, easily catching the reflection of Sri Krsna's svarupa. Then the devotee realizes that even slight unnecessary association with the opposite gender will destabilize the citta and deprive him of the eternal nectar of suddha-bhakti.

At that time, he will peacefully observe the rules of Vedic society without resistance, knowing them to be both healthy and compassionate, whilst all around him the neophytes will raise an uproar with false Freudian arguments about repression and social justice due to their natural inability to understand their own self-interest.

It has become popular today to interpret the sastra through the lens of political correctness and marginalize any perspective that does not fit the narrative. Our relationship with sastra is one of the utmost respect. Sastra embodies an eternal wisdom that is unblemished by the defective perception of conditioned souls. Is it proper to question that scriptural wisdom when it does not concur with modern western social standards, or is it better to seek to understand why the sastra is invariably correct?