When the holy name is said to be Nama, Chintamani, Krishna, and why do we need to chant the Gayathri Mantra and why do we have a separate initiation for getting the Gayathri Mantra? We can look at it at three levels. At a devotional level, at a cultural level, and at a personal level. At a devotional level, sometimes there is a tendency to reduce the entirety of bhakti to one particular limb of bhakti based on a particular set of verses.

So, while the holy name is extremely important, at the same time, it’s ultimately about developing a relationship with Krishna. Bhagavatam says that, towards the conclusion that, And yet, for the last seven days of Parikshit Maharaj’s life, Shivdev Goswami does not say that we just chant the holy names. They discuss Krishna, which involves a significant level of philosophy and also a number of variated pastimes of various manifestations of the Lord.

Why? Because ultimately it’s a matter of fixing the mind of Krishna and developing a real and a rich relationship with Krishna. The holy name is undoubtedly an extremely important means by which we can develop that relationship. At the same time, it’s about a relationship.

And that relationship with Krishna includes various aspects in the world. If we say the holy name is everything, then why do we need to do deity worship? Why do we need to study Shastra? Why even have other limbs of bhakti at all? So in that sense, the relationship with Krishna can also include elements of the world which we can use in this service. And at an individual level, one person might find a total absorption in Krishna through the chanting of the holy names.

And yet others may not. But when we form a community, we form an institution, we form a tradition, a sampradaya, then many other factors come into play. That tradition also has to be accepted and respected in the broader community within which it belongs.

There needs to be a healthy tension where there are some points of connection and some points of difference. If there is total connection of any particular tradition with the broader culture, then it loses its street identity. If there is complete difference and no points of connection, then that tradition is seen as alien and suspicious and is constantly threatened.

So every tradition tries to create bridges with the broader culture within which it lives. And when the bhakti tradition gains its authority from bhakti texts, those texts themselves are not considered authoritative or not necessarily supremely authoritative by the entire community of Vedic followers. And therefore, every tradition needs to do certain things to gain acceptance and respectability within the broader culture and community and civilization in which it lives.

So one of the things that the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition had to do, for example, was to write a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra although Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that there is no need for it. Why? Because the very authenticity of our tradition was questioned at the time of Vande Vidya Bhakti. And what was not necessary at one particular time, what was considered a disobedience to Mahaprabhu’s explicit words became necessary to protect and perpetuate the mission that Mahaprabhu came for.

So similarly, within the bhakti tradition, there is always an attempt to differentiate itself from the orthodox brahminical tradition that was there at the time when the Vedanta tradition started gaining prominence. And there is also an attempt to connect with and be respected by, or at least accepted by, the orthodox brahminical tradition. By orthodox, I am talking about not what is orthodox is now, but what was orthodox at that time, what was established in the institute at that time.

So, adopting some of the rituals that were considered important for people who are respected in the Vedic tradition, such as adopting the Gayatri Mantra, was something which the bhakti tradition consistently did to connect with the broader culture. And of course, even by accepting elements of the broader culture, the bhakti tradition often gives certain insights about how we can see even such aspects more devotional. So our tradition may give a more devotional understanding of the Gayatri Mantra.

This understanding may not be accepted by others, but the very fact that we have a process by which we accept people and give them the Gayatri Mantra becomes important. Just like in today’s world, we may equip devotees to answer certain scientific questions about, say, the nature of the soul and the scientific evidence for the existence of the soul or the scientific evidence for the existence of God. This was not done in the tradition and the Hare Krishna Mahamantra is fully coated.

But for one’s own conviction, for one’s capacity to get acceptance and respect, a lot of other things are required. The third point is from a personal perspective, that ultimately, we need as many resources as possible for remembering Krishna and connecting with Krishna. Rather than seeing the Gayatri Mantra as non-devotional, we see it as a part of the various gifts that Krishna has given.

And some devotees can use those gifts. Some may give more emphasis to it, some may give less emphasis to it. That’s okay.

But the idea is that we use those gifts to connect more with Krishna. That’s how we grow in our life. The Gayatri Mantra requires a certain level of Sattva Puna to be chanted in a way that is important.

And the Gayatri Mantra may not take us to Goloka Vrindavan, which is the Guru Gayatri Mantra. But that journey from the beginning of Sattva to the Brahman level, where one becomes free from material craving and anger, that journey can be accelerated by the chanting of the Gayatri Mantra. And thus, it can help us as an aid in achieving the ultimate purpose that the Bhakti tradition considers the highest, which is the real appreciation.

The post When the Hare Krishna mantra is so potent, why do we have second initiation into the Gayatri mantra? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

If we don’t like to do something when we are a part of a community organization, just so that we are seen to be doing something valuable or something important, we want to do something which we feel is actually of value. But then those services are not valued in the community and then although we are doing something significant, but it is perceived as if we are not doing anything significant because we are not doing the visible services that are considered valuable by the community leaders. What should we do in such situations? In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna uses the word dharma in multiple senses.

So let’s look at some of the usages in the Gita itself. Arjuna is using it in 2.7. He is talking about what is the right thing for me to do. And then when Krishna says that, there he is using dharma in the sense of establishing the social order.

So, broadly speaking, while the word dharma has many different meanings, in one context it is harmonious belonging. For example, if we are driving on the road, then we following the rules of road traffic is the dharma that we need to follow. So the individual needs to adjust and adapt to the rules of the larger whole that they belong to or seek to belong to or they just are a part of.

At the same time, the larger whole also needs to be reciprocating with the individuals who belong harmoniously. So, for example, the rules need to be applied fairly. People of a particular demographic should not be pulled over more and others pulled over less or some people who are wealthy are allowed to get away and others are targeted because they do not have the influence.

That means we need to do our part for the whole and the whole needs to do its part for us. And when we say dharmasya glani can happen, it can happen in both ways where the individual is no longer doing the part and also the whole is not doing its part. Generally speaking, in any political system, there is the left and the right.

Here by using, I am using the word political, I am not using it in the sense of negative sense of being manipulating and all those things that are associated with politics. I am using it simply in the functional sense of administration. So, in any administrative setup, there will inevitably be the left and the right.

So the left is generally concerned about those who are left out by the existing system. The right is concerned about what is right with the existing system. So in general, the right tends to be conservative.

The system is good. You need to adjust and fit into the system. So the right focuses more on individuals aligning with the system and doing their dharma.

The left focuses more on the society or the larger whole and that reforming itself so that it also does its dharma and fairly reciprocates with and rewards everyone. So therefore, each individual will have to decide how important belonging to a particular larger whole is for them. And accordingly, they may have to choose their actions especially with respect to doing what is expected by the larger whole for them.

We may still be doing something valuable for the tradition but it may not be valued by the institution or it may not be valued by a particular branch of the institution where there is a particular ethos set up. So we may have to decide whether we want to belong to that particular branch or we can choose to belong to some other branch. In general, the individual may often want a certain level of autonomy and the larger whole may want a certain level of harmony.

Who is right? It depends. Autonomy taken too far can lead to anarchy. Harmony taken too far can lead to homogeneity where there is a complete crushing of or erasure of individuality.

In anarchy, there is no order at all and nothing gets done. People may even work at cross purposes sabotaging each other. So if we have a greater need for autonomy, then we need to acknowledge that we may not get a certain level of facility because the facility is available with the leaders of the larger whole and they will give facility to those who exhibit a certain level of harmony with the larger whole.

In general, in no organizational set up will one get total autonomy and total facility together or even a high level of autonomy and a high level of facility together. So, some organizations may facilitate certain maverick researchers and they may be given no structure, no clear tasks and they might just come up with a brainwave that changes the whole industry. Still at the end, something will be expected from them.

They cannot just be doing research on subjects entirely of their own interest which have nothing to do with the organization’s purpose and its bottom line. So my understanding is that if certain kind of facilities say such as initiation, second initiation or something like that is required for us within the institutional structure, then we may have to do one of two things. Either sacrifice on our autonomy and come to a greater level of harmony with the expectations of the leaders or find out some other larger whole where that autonomy is respected and valued and which is also capable of giving us that facility.

The post If we are doing some valuable services but the institution values some other more visible services, do we need to change ourselves to do those institutionally valued services? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

If a woman who is introduced to bhakti asks, why do I need to get married? And even if I get married, why do I need to have children? How do we answer? I’ll answer in three points. First is, what is our purpose in attracting, in inviting or attracting people to practice Krishna consciousness? So, that will be the spiritual side. Then I’ll talk about the social psychological side.

And then third, I’ll talk about how we act in such situations at a practical level. So, first is at a spiritual level, our purpose is to spread Krishna consciousness. Our purpose is not to get people, whether men or women, to get married or to have children.

So, if somebody is coming to Krishna, they should never be made to feel that if I become a devotee, this is what I’ll have to do. And this is an essential part of being a devotee. It may be an essential part of the social fabric in which bhakti had been practiced in the past.

And not just that social fabric, but the social fabric of the world at large. But somebody may choose not to get married, somebody may choose not to have children. And at one level, that is their individual business.

So, there are things which are non-negotiable in Krishna consciousness and there are things which are negotiable. Sometimes, if we present a very digital version of bhakti, this is bhakti and this is not bhakti, one zero. Then, because of many things which are not centrally important in bhakti, people may go away from the path of bhakti.

They think, I cannot do this. So, just on the male side, sometimes if somebody is introduced to bhakti by a very strong brahmachari preacher, that person may start thinking that if I don’t become a brahmachari, I won’t be a serious devotee. And if they find that they can’t stay a brahmachari, then they don’t become a grahastha.

They think grahasthas are fallen and they just leave bhakti completely. So, no ashram is like a necessary thing for practicing bhakti. So, that’s the first thing.

What people do in their personal lives is not the most important thing for us. Our most important thing is that they learn to practice bhakti by chanting Jani Krishna’s name, by studying the scriptures and drawing their consciousness towards Krishna. Now, having said that Srila Prabhupada didn’t just want Krishna consciousness, he wanted a society for Krishna consciousness.

And that’s why it’s not just a university for Krishna consciousness. It’s not an academy for Krishna consciousness. It’s a society.

And that’s why the social fabric also is important. Now, in general, when women don’t want to get married or have children, there are many reasons for that. And those reasons may at an individual level need to be understood and addressed.

Especially if we are closely connecting with someone and training them or guiding them on the path of bhakti. However, at a broad level, I’ve seen there are three main reasons. One is that women may have had bad experience with men and they feel that no man can be trusted.

Second is that they feel marriage and motherhood are basically going to inhibit them, restrict them from having a full life. Maybe they are very ambitious in their career. They will be constricted in that.

And third is that they feel that that kind of role, that gender role of being a wife and a mother is a part of a patriarchal social structure. And they don’t want to be a part of that. So, it could be more of a personal emotional reason.

It could be a more professional reason. And it could be a more intellectual, philosophical, ideological reason. So, if it’s a personal emotional, if it’s more like an emotional psychological reason, then it’s going to take some time to heal.

Probably, if they see examples of stable marriages in the community, no marriage is without conflicts and problems, but there is also a cultured and dignified way to deal with the conflicts and problems. And maybe they have to practice bhakti for some time and they have to see how there is a possibility for healthy and happy marriages to work. And gradually, maybe by seeing men who are not just out to exploit women, but who are actually God-conscious men, gradually their faith in the male side of humanity will be restored.

We cannot force this process. Second is that they feel it will impede them professionally. And yes, there is truth to that.

At the same time, we have to think what actually brings fulfillment in life. From the Vedic perspective, there is varna and ashram both. So, broadly varna refers to our talents and our career and our contribution accordingly within the career.

And ashram refers to our relationship and what kind of focus we have within our relationships. So, basically, fulfilling human life requires both connection and contribution. Now, biology has designed humanity in such a way that the males focus more on contribution in terms of going out into the world and working.

And women focus more on connecting, keeping the whole family together, having children, connecting with the children. And traditionally, women could also do some varna. The idea that women should not have jobs or that is against Vedic culture is not an idea that is supported by Vedic culture.

The gopis themselves would sell butter and curd and other things. In Krishnalaya, there is the fruit vendor lady. But the point is that in general, for a woman, the ashram is more important than the varna.

In the past, women, whatever jobs they were able to do, whatever work they were able to do, women might have some talents, they might do some things. They were able to do it in a way that they also took care of the family. Of course, in the past, we could say life was tougher.

Much of the work outside was much more physically demanding work. And the male body was more suited for that. But anyway, historically, as things change, especially the post-industrial revolution and everything, jobs started going far away from homes, cottage industries went away.

And women had to basically choose between ashram and varna. And biology forced them to choose ashram. Because once you have children, you have to take care of children.

Then, over a period of time, resentment started coming up. And as feminism, as ideology developed, and as technology developed, through various means, birth control pills, abortion and other things, then women got an opportunity to subordinate biology. So that they could pursue varna while at the cost of ashram.

Over a period of time, now it has been made that women should focus only on varna, and ashram is not at all important. You can be happy on your own. You don’t need a family.

You don’t need anybody else to take care of you. It may well be true that a woman can go through life on its own. But nobody can be fully satisfied with only a career.

Even if you ask most men, even high-performing men who are very professionally successful, why are they doing it? They may say they want prestige in society, they want power, and all that is true. But at the end of it, they are doing it for the family. So, even the male heart cannot be satisfied only with a career.

So, women have been uniquely gifted by nature, by biology, ultimately by God, with a capacity to nurture. Women have a more well-developed emotional side, by which even when small babies who are not at all rational in their behavior can be taken care of very well by a woman much more than a man. Men will be very rational and will just not be able to deal with babies whose behavior is largely irrational.

So, the woman’s greater emotionality is also a gift. And we all have a need to nurture, that take care of someone else. And ultimately the choice is that will we be something for everyone or everything for someone.

What do I mean by something for everyone? Something for everyone means somebody becomes a manager in a company, somebody becomes a career woman. Well, from the corporate perspective, whether it is for your colleagues or whether it is for your clients, you are replaceable. If you are not there, somebody will replace you.

You will become something for everyone. Or you become everything for someone. For a newborn child, a mother is everything.

And that need to nurture is very much there within us. It is there for men, it is there for women. And many times when somebody chooses not to have a baby, they end up adopting a pet and taking care of that pet and lavishing all their affection on the pet.

So, this is not a criticism of pets at all. It is just that the need to nurture cannot be denied. And by the age of 40, 45, 50, one can start feeling extremely lonely and empty in their lives.

Now, is it possible that one can enter into a relationship and the relationship can go south and one may end up in the same place? Yes, that’s also possible. That’s a risk. No, nothing in life comes without risks.

So, one needs to be careful about what kind of relationship one enters into. But the notion that marriage and motherhood will restrict a woman professionally, it’s a very one-sided idea because we are not defined by our profession alone. A holistic life requires various things and relationships are also a very important part of that.

So, many times a woman can pursue her career after her children have grown up a little bit. And maybe the years that were invested, some people will say lost in taking care of children, but invested in taking care of children, maybe that means they will not rise as much in their career as much as they would have. But they will have a more fulfilling life.

A few decades, feminism arose about 200 years ago. A few decades or even a few centuries of ideology cannot overturn the history of humanity. And the idea is that women lose autonomy.

Women come under the control of a man. And that’s not necessary. It depends on how the marriage works out.

And the idea of autonomy itself is highly overrated. It is before say 300, 400, 500 years ago, even men did not have much autonomy. For most people, whether in India or the caste system, in the West it was the class system, whichever family you were born in, that’s what your career would be in future.

If somebody was born a peasant, then they would probably be a peasant. If somebody was born a barber, what we call upward mobility was very much absent in feudal society. So men also did not have much autonomy.

A few men who might be in royalty or aristocracy had power. And sometimes a few women also had power, maybe lesser. So the idea that autonomy is lost, yes, autonomy is lost.

But sometimes the loss of autonomy is what brings intimacy. It is what brings community. It is what actually the human heart doesn’t just want to be free.

We want to be free and we also want to belong. We also want to love and be loved. So that’s more at a professional level.

And the last part is at an ideological level also. Are you joining a patriarchy? And you want to rebel against patriarchy? Well, ultimately we all want to be happy. And has a patriarchal society led to some problems? Yes, it has led to problems.

And are there ways to correct that? I think every family finds their own way of negotiating relationships. Maybe in the past it was more like a top-down kind of thing. The man was in charge and the woman listened to the man.

But even if you look at history, women always had a voice. And in today’s world, it is not that when a woman gets married, she is going to have to enter into some rigidly patriarchal family structure. Each husband and wife will find out the dynamic with which their relationship works the best.

Society today is very different from the way it was in the past. Just as we can’t parent our children the way our parents parented us. So a husband-wife relationship today will also not be the same way it was 30 or 50 years ago.

So now, having said this, the last point to make is that ultimately, we should not force people to make a particular choice. That we can encourage people, we can try to answer their questions, address their reservations. And after that, it’s up to them.

If a woman doesn’t want to get married, she should not be guilted by constant social pressure into marriage. Now, it should not be assumed that she will be a threat to other families, other men in the community. It may be, it may not be also.

So, is our society evolved to that much extent? And some people may not even consider evolution. But we need to be able to accommodate everyone in Krishna Bhakti. And how exactly that will happen? It depends.

Many churches have… Churches, especially the protestant churches, don’t accept the idea of either monks or nuns. Catholics do for both. But protestants, they have neither.

But still they have forums for single women, even single mothers also. And as our society integrates with mainstream society, or at least starts needing to function within the way the mainstream society is, such support structures may also be created. But on one side, we need to… we can’t force somebody to do something because if things go wrong thereafter, then they’ll blame us.

And it’s not just that they’ll blame us. We don’t want to be just… I don’t want to be blamed, that’s why I won’t get married. But it’s that everybody has individual choice.

Having said that, we also need to alert people that we are a traditional society. We are an old tradition. And we are a part of an old tradition that has survived for thousands of years.

And because it’s an old tradition, it’s not going to change quickly. And if you really want to be a part of something time-tested, you wouldn’t want it to change every five minutes. So therefore, there will be certain lack of acceptance or a certain level of lesser acceptance that they may encounter if they choose to stay single consciously.

Maybe there will be some communities which will be more accepting and some communities which will be utterly non-accepting. Each community within the broader Krishna Consciousness movement will have its own ethos. So, Krishna Consciousness doesn’t depend on a person getting married or having children, even a woman getting married or having children.

But one’s role and one’s respectability in a community, in a particular community, may be affected by that. And one may need to be ready to accept that and keep one’s relationship with Krishna as a higher priority and still move on in that path. So, to summarize, three things.

First is, if a woman doesn’t want to marry because she’s been psychologically scarred, then first is that we should not make them think that they can’t practice Krishna Consciousness without getting married or having children. Second is that, if they’ve been psychologically scarred, then they’ve been given time to heal the scars by seeing stable families and trustworthy men who are actually devoted to God and are not simply waiting for a chance to exploit women. If they have some professional reservations, then maybe we need to help them to see what actually makes for a fulfilling life.

It’s not just a career. It’s not just a contribution to our career, but it’s also a connection through family. If they have ideological reservations about feminism, then we need to know that feminism is actually a historically untested ideology, especially radical feminism.

And humanity has worked in a particular way. And while we want autonomy, we also want intimacy and community. And there’s a price for that.

And lastly, we tell them that it’s up to… you can practice Krishna Consciousness in whatever way you want. At the same time, because we are a part of an old tradition and things don’t change rapidly, nor should they in a time-honored tradition. Therefore, they may encounter a certain level of non-appreciation and they need to be ready for that.

Maybe they can find a community where that non-appreciation is lesser. Krishna Consciousness also has many versions based on the ethos of a particular community. They can find a place in Krishna Consciousness, but they may not find a place in a particular community in Krishna Consciousness.

The post If a Western woman aspiring for bhakti doesn’t want to marry or have children, how can we guide? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Transcript:

So, during, it was one to two weeks ago, and we mentioned that everyone should have a service, and not having service is an issue. So, in our temple community, we find that devotees are naturally attracted towards different types of services, and for my sake of understanding and realization, I have categorized them into intellectual and physical services.

And I see there is a phenomenon that sometimes some devotees are naturally enthusiastic about intellectual engagements, such as kirtan, preaching, studying, discussing scriptures, when others take up physically demanding some devotees, like teaching, healing, deity worship, and maintenance and so forth, and so on. But there is sometimes imbalance, like physical services are often undervalued or neglected, leading to disorganization, payouts, some mismanagement, and sometimes even uncleanliness in the temple. And also it leads to unfair distribution of services, like some devotees have a heavy burden of physically demanding services, and I am not saying that intellectual services are not demanding physically as well as intellectually, but I feel there is unfair distribution.

And also, there is also limited opportunities for mutual growth in both categories of services. So I feel how can we, my question is how can we cultivate a more balanced and respectful culture, where all types of services are valued equally, and where devotees are given great opportunities to participate in both physical and intellectual services for the holistic growth and smooth functioning of the temple. Sorry, I just asked Chaitra to make it better, whatever I want to talk.

That’s all I am getting at. So, I don’t know how much I am qualified to answer this question because I have not done many physical services, there are few physical services I can do physically because of the situation. But, I would say that, I don’t know whether kirtan can be called as an intellectual service, but I appreciate the broad classification.

See, there are some services which are more visible and even glamorous. There are some services which will be less visible and less glamorous. Now of course there are some services which are more intellectual, intellectual can be glamorous also.

Now some intellectual services are not very glamorous also. Somebody becomes a preacher who is a crowd puller, that is much more glamorous. But somebody is a preacher who becomes a shastra teacher, you know, that person doesn’t really get new people to come, that person is cultivating devotees.

Then that’s also glamorous to some extent. But it also depends if somebody is a nice krishna katha, then that person is a crowd puller, but somebody is going to siddhanta, teaching bhakti shastra, bhakti vaibhav, there is not so much glamour in that kind of service. But broadly I appreciate the question that there are certain services which people may want to do, devotees may want to do more.

Other services devotees may not want to do. So what do we do in such situations? See there is at one side the individual and the other side is the institution. So now one principle of dharma, the word dharma has many different meanings, but one simple meaning of dharma is that harmonious belonging, that we all belong to the larger roles.

If you are travelling, if you are driving a car on the road, then we belong to the road transport system, we are participating in that. So then we are taking the facility from the road transport system and we have to do something for that road transport system, that is follow the rules, pay the taxes, whatever it is, follow the rules. So dharma essentially is harmonious belonging.

So if you are sitting for this class, if somebody sits right in front, then they are back towards the speaker. So that is just harmonious belonging. Let me disrupt you for a second.

So this harmonious belonging is dharma. So when we belong to an institution, then we also need to learn to belong harmoniously to the institution. Now harmonious belonging has to happen in both ways.

And Krishna uses the word dharma, he uses it both at the individual level and the institutional level. At the individual level Arjuna is asking, vichamiton dharmasamudhichitah, see what is the right thing for me to do? And Krishna says, dharmasamsthapanarthaya sambhavani. At that time he says, I come to establish dharma.

What does that mean? I come to establish the social order. That is virtues, that is guru. So for example, now when we are being a part of the road transport system, say if the road transport system is also just and fair, that means whoever follows the rules, they are allowed to go peacefully.

Those who break the rules, they are pulled over. They are penalized, they are fined or whatever. But if the road transport system, the legal system in this case, the law and order system is personal and partial.

Say people from one community are allowed to go free even if they break the rules. People from other community are pulled over more. Then what happens is the dharma has to work both ways.

The collective has to take care of the individual and the individual has to contribute to the collective. That’s the ideal way to practice dharma. But then it’s a dharmic society with dharmic individuals in the society.

Now from our perspective, what happens is that we are individuals, some of us may also be leaders. Then we have to play our role in contributing to the community. But then we may also be leaders who are upholding the community.

So it depends a lot on the community leaders. If the community leaders show favor or especially praise certain services, then what happens? Everybody wants to be appreciated, recognized. And that’s not a part of the ego.

That’s just a human need. The world is so big and our existence can seem so tiny even within the movement. We all want to be valued.

So whatever is the ethos that is built in the community, then that is what everyone else will want to do. So if some communities are focused very much on say, fundraising for building a temple. And then fundraisers are constantly glorifying.

Or some communities focus only on food distribution. Then food distributors are glorifying. Some communities focus on youth outreach.

Then only those who do youth outreach are glorifying. Others are not. Then what will happen is, it’s like the rewards from the community are coming especially for one group.

And everybody will want to belong to that group. And other services will get neglected. And I’ve seen this happen in almost every community.

Now naturally, the leader of the community or the leaders of the community will have certain inspiration themselves. And they’ll prioritize some things. But the challenge is when prioritizing some things, other things should not be devalued.

All of this is valuable. This is what is most valuable for us right now. So that is one big aspect that what is the dharma of the community that is being followed.

So if all these services aren’t recognized, there will be appropriate forums for recognizing those services. Say sometimes, after the Super Marathon, there may be some, or after fundraising or whatever, there’s a celebration. And there’s a, for everyone, not just for the big fundraisers, but all those who contributed to the service.

Then what happens is everybody feels valued. So that harmonious belonging requires that the harmony also come from top to the bottom. That’s one side.

The other side is from the bottom, the individual towards the institution. Within that, there is a, there is, you call it dharma and then apad dharma. Apad dharma is emergency duty, emergency emergency.

So in general, one principle of foreign ashram is everybody serve according to their nature. Now, of course, what is whose nature? That’s also, it takes some time to figure out. And if we leave it completely to individual, individuals leave it to their mind.

So what is your nature? The mind will say, whatever service you are doing right now, that is not according to the nature. But the mind always keeps us dissatisfied. There will always be some, even in the services that we like to do, there is something which we don’t like.

Isn’t it? So there’s never an ideal situation in the world. Even if somebody likes to preach, but then along with preaching, you have to make sure the logistics are right. I don’t want to arrange the logistics.

I only want to preach. Okay, then you can become a travelling preacher and others will arrange the logistics for you. But then you have to arrange the travelling.

Isn’t it? So now, even in the services, if somebody thinks I’ll only do whatever I like, then that is not the spirit of dharma. What Krishna says to Arjuna is that, sarvaarambhahi doshena dhume naagme. That every endeavour is covered by thought.

So individuals also need to recognize that we cannot just be doing what we like to do with advantage. Because even in what we like to do, there is something which we don’t like to do. And we are belonging to a community.

So sometimes we may need to do things which we may not like to do. So which we may feel is not our nature. So in general, in the initial stages of a community, devotees need to be trained or in the initial stages of spiritual life also, devotees need to be trained to do whatever service they are called to do.

And that way, that mood of service attitude is inculcated. However, as time progresses, each devotee, because we don’t just want devotees to serve, we want devotees to sustain themselves in service. And for that purpose, if a devotee can understand that sabhaav and serve according to sabhaav, then that ethos is healthy.

Because if we are serving according to our nature, we will be self-motivated in that service. Nobody else needs to push us. If somebody likes to study shastra, they will study shastra.

Nobody is watching them, so they will be studying shastra. Somebody likes kirtan, even though nobody is watching them, they will be learning new tools, they will be learning new things, they will be improving their kirtan skills. Somebody likes to keep.

Even if there is no big service, no senior devotee coming to college, they will be honing their skills. So for the purpose of longevity of a devotee, we need to eventually engage devotees in services according to their nature. What they feel naturally drawn to do, whatever they feel inspired, whatever they are talented in doing.

So one system that I have seen work in certain communities is that for the first five years, for the first three years, for the first ten years, whatever, for the first few years, the devotees are trained to do whatever services. And then after some time, by mutual discussion between the authorities and the subordinates, the devotees move towards the service of their own. And that becomes an understanding within the community.

That initially you learn service attitude, and as you grow senior, then you also understand your subhava better. And then you move towards the services that you naturally feel inspired to do. So if that principle is applied fairly, then what happens is everybody accepts that principle.

And then afterwards it moves forward. So then what happens is we give room for individuality. So like I was in Radha Gopinath community, we asked Radha Gopinath Maharaj.

Some devotees are introvert. For them to be together with people is very exhausting. Three, four of us had gone to Radha Gopinath.

Coming for the morning program, it’s like emotionally draining. It’s spiritually energizing, it’s emotionally completely draining. Just meeting people, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna.

So we asked Maharaj. Maharaj said that if that is really the case, you have been practicing bhakti for 15-20 years, you have to assess what gives you spiritual strength. Because if you don’t want to come for the morning program, you know, I trust you.

We won’t go enforcing it for those who are practicing. But if we don’t enforce it for anyone, then nobody will be trained. So there has to be some accommodation for people according to their nature.

Nature is not just permanent. Nature can be made in different ways. So the thing is that, but that cannot be made the norm right from the beginning.

So in the Radha Gopinath temple, for the first 5-10 years, devotees should be very serious about their morning program attendance. For the first 3-4 years, I am talking about the Brahmacharya Ashram family, they do whatever service they are told to do. And as they move forward then, they find themselves according to their Swabhava and they engage accordingly.

So that’s one system that has over collapsed. So the other way is that, some way, the other thing is that, when we are talking about Artha, that was the theme over here. See either the devotee has to find Artha naturally in a particular service.

For some devotees, visible services are overwhelming for them. I would much rather be in the background. That could be humility, but that could also be their nature.

They just naturally like to be in the background and do some services. Some devotees may like to do physical services and that’s great. So either the Artha comes naturally for them or the Artha has to be created.

Created means what? You have to show them the Artha. That what is the Artha over here? This is how this is. So maybe in the classes, those themes are emphasized.

Or there are some other ways in which those devotees are recognized and valued. So when that is taken care of, then it happens that both the individual and the collective. The individual training has to be there and the collective managerial vigilance also has to be there.

So that then, there are different kinds of Artha that will take us towards Paramartha. So it’s like, we can say this is Paramartha and this is Artha. So if people start thinking that there is only one path from here, that say for example, during Prabhupada’s time there was a notion that who distributes for peace, Prabhupada not.

That is true. When Prabhupada was asked, what pleases you the most? He said, Love Krishna. So it is not that there is one path from here to here.

And then everybody, whichever service and only then you can grow towards Krishna. That’s not the understanding. We have had some very moving stories of devotees who were never visible and very prominent features and then the last moment they had some extraordinary experience of Krishna and they were all in the background doing some small services.

So the idea is, it is from wherever you are, wherever we find Artha, from there we can move towards Paramartha. So there is a story of Prabhupada’s in Vrindavan and there was one widow. Prabhupada would see from her window that every morning she would go and pluck flowers even if it was cold and she would go and sometimes she would wake up the Pujari and tell these are the flowers for the ladies.

And Prabhupada said that because she is doing this service, she will go back to Krishna. So it is not, if we create that ethos that every service can actually take you closer to Krishna and that we value you for the service. Naturally based on the phase in which the community is, some services will be glorified more than others.

So generally in the morning program we glorify the book distributions. That itself leads to that book distribution being glorified as a very important service. We don’t mention any other services.

Now other services are also quantified. In some temples they don’t just glorify the book distribution, they also add fundraisers. They say this person raised this much funds, this much funds.

Now okay, that was not the tradition but maybe that is required at that particular time. But then we can’t make a list of all the services that are done throughout the day and make it less glorified. Within the existing system, some services may be glorified.

But then it is important to create the system for appreciating and valuing other services also. So it’s like that Artha has to be going back to this particular diagram. So it is that individual should feel the Artha in that thing and the collective should also create that sense of Artha.

When both happen, then it will move forward very nicely. So I was once a judge with Maharaj and we were talking various things. I said Maharaj, what has given you faith in Krishna Consciousness? We often ask questions, what brought you to Krishna Consciousness? So once I was trying to start a podcast, what kept you in Krishna Consciousness? I am going to talk about all the skeletons in our closet for that.

So I often ask this to devotee at an individual level. So Maharaj was amazing. He said that there is a Pujari in Vrindavan.

He first departed. He said that Pujari whenever I go to Vrindavan, I see him. He is an elderly devotee.

Sometimes he does Pujari service. He is there Sarvanchana. So he said that he has been there for years.

He is not a very well-known devotee. He is not a world-famous devotee. That the devotee has been able to do this service year after year after year is the proof that Krishna Consciousness is there.

That without any recognition by the world that he is getting some satisfaction. That’s why he is doing the service. And now that is a remarkable level of recognition.

There is no recognition in the institutional apparatus. But one particular institution is recognizing this is important. So we need to have that system of Artha.

Infusing Artha or infusing value and meaning to his services. And of course devotees need to be encouraged to see the Artha in the service. So both may happen.

It is possible that the community can be properly taken care of. And so the temples or the organizations needs, the devotees needs and the community needs. Both can be harmonized.

So tension, it needs continuous monitoring and discussion and negotiation. But it is possible.

The post How to ensure that devotees in a community do all services as required, not just intellectual services? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

So, I was trying to understand how in Lord Rama’s pastime, his Altha was to be a king, but he, his role was, I mean he was Lord himself, so his Parmartha also is like, it’s like kind of serving his own self, right? He’s the Lord. And in that context, I want to understand when Mother Sita was, when he told Lakshmana to meet Mother Sita in the ashram, when she was carrying the avankur. So, would you like to elaborate like in this context, like what was played out in his mind and it was, what was his priority, you know, in terms of his Altha and Parmartha? Would I like to elaborate? No.

Some pastimes are very difficult to understand and sometimes you cannot get, to get a satisfactory understanding of this. All that you can get is the least unsatisfactory understanding. So, I will share with you the understanding that I find least unsatisfactory.

I have written books on the Ramayana and I’m trying to write future also and this is, I have many scholars in the Ramayana, in our tradition, outside the tradition, I have talked with them, tried to read the traditional commentaries, whatever are available, but it is a very difficult pastime to go through all of it. So, we talked about it. The key point is that there is context.

Generally speaking, the principle is that if an action does not make sense, if I do good, if I am polite with you and you are rude with me, I can say that you are a terrible person or I’m a, I’m a worthless person. Or I can say maybe we have some history from behind, because of which this is happening. So, there are, that way, the world makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense in this context.

So, in the immediate context, there is no way you can make sense. If a man abandons his pregnant wife over an unproven allegation or rather an allegation that has been proven to be false, that man would not be considered even an ordinarily responsible person, what to speak of an ideal person. And if a civilization or a culture considers such a person to be ideal, that civilization should be condemned.

So, the point is that in the immediate context, there is no denying that it does not make any sense. So, if we consider only the dynamic of the husband-wife relationship, the context of the husband-wife relationship. So, then, so this is the immediate context, the husband and wife relationship.

So, in this context, it’s no sense at all. So, then sometimes we may have to put it in a bigger context. Lakshana Prabhupada says that sometimes in a family, the mother-in-law may chastise her own daughter to instruct her daughter.

So, that daughter may say, I am not doing anything wrong, but I am being chastised and she also understands, this is not meant for the daughter. So, like that, sometimes you speak one thing to one person, but somebody else is hearing. That thing is not meant for that person, that thing is meant for the other person.

But this person can become indignant. Why are you speaking this to me? I never did this. Understand, I have a purpose.

I’ll tell you later. It’s like that. So, in the context, it does not make any sense.

So, now we can broaden the context. So, there are four levels of broadening that are possible. The first level of broadening is that Lord Ram is a husband, but he’s also a king.

Now, he has a relationship with the healer. And in one sense, in that cultural context, for Lord Ram to be with his wife, who was suspected of something inappropriate, that would have reflected that he was attached to her. And he was excessively attached to her.

And because of that Rajdharma, he had to choose between Rajdharma and pati. And he chose the Rajdharma at that particular time. And that is a sacrifice.

It is. Now, if you see, so one context is Rajdharma, he has chosen as more important than the patidharma. So, it is clear that he is not rejecting her as a person.

And how do we know that? Three things. First is he does not remarry. He’s a king, he could easily remarry.

Now, he maintains her word to him. His word to him that I’ll be a king. Apart from that, not only does not he maintain his word to her, he also does not think it’s a royal duty.

When he has to perform yajna, the brahmanas say you need to have your wife with you. So, he actually creates a golden effigy of her. And he puts that golden effigy next to her.

So, now, which person do you even like? If you keep the photo of a person in your home, we keep the photo of people whom we love and respect. Now, if somebody has disgraced our family, sometimes some cultures are very reputation conscious or honor conscious. And if some person has disgraced that family, they will actually like deny the existence of that person.

They will not keep any photo in public. Even if there are albums, they will delete that person’s photo from there. Like erase that person’s existence.

Far from erasing her existence, Lord Ram actually makes an effigy of her and puts that in the yajna. Yajna is a place where he is putting that there itself is an indication that he has not rejected her. So, not only has he not rejected her, he does not even believe that accusation.

Because if he considers her impure for a pure activity like a yajna, he will not put her there. And even the brahmanas don’t object to it. So, it is not her purity that is being asked.

And the third thing is, and although the word banishment can be used, that he banished her, it’s not in the same sense in which Ram himself was banished. Because he sent her to Valmiki’s ashram. And Valmiki’s ashram was in Lord Ram’s yajna.

So, it is not that Valmiki’s ashram was being troubled by Rakshasas or being predators and she wasn’t physically there. So, in one sense, she was indirectly in his protection. So, now, what exactly about the Raja Dharma? This is where Indian culture, American culture are different.

The idea of a person renouncing his family for the sake of the larger good. That’s something in Indian culture it’s understood. The current Indian Prime Minister, he has a wife but he doesn’t, he has never spent much time with his wife.

He doesn’t have children. So, even Gandhiji was materially renounced. Some killers were not.

But in the Indian ethos, like giving up the family for the sake of a larger cause is something which is accepted, even respected. But I’ve seen in America, people just don’t understand this. Because America, they have a culture of the first lady.

That, you know, it’s like you cannot be the president unless you have a, every politician generally, especially top politicians, they have to go with their family. And often they will put, they’ll proudly say, although I am the president, my family comes first. And so that, that is a very different value system.

So, to some extent, the idea of Lord Ram sacrificing pati dharma for raja dharma, it’s understandable for Indians. For Americans, it becomes much more difficult to understand. But this, in the bigger context, now how would it have affected his being a king? It’s a very cultural, contextual thing.

So, at that particular time, there was a particular time when purity of women was considered extremely important. Anyone, even in Europe, in the European tradition, the Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. So, that was, you could say, it’s an unfair standard of purity that is expected of a woman.

And especially in her case, she was not consenting at all. And all that is true. But every culture has its own ways of functioning.

Now, what is that in the first context? That the raja dharma is prioritized over the pati dharma. Having said this, none of the acharyas who have commented on the Ramayana, or even the tradition of the Ramayana, considers this as the behavior to be normalized and adopted by everyone. India has one of the strongest family structures.

In the West, families are falling apart. In India also, it’s happening, unfortunately. But it’s much lesser.

The family structure is very resilient. And no book has inspired the Indian mind as much as the Ramayana. So, if a core teaching of this book is that reject your wife over an unsubstantial allegation, then that culture would not have been so family-friendly, or family support would be so family-emphasizing.

So, within the tradition itself, from the story of the Ramayana, certain teachings are emphasized, certain teachings are not emphasized. And the Ramayana commentators of Sri Vaishnava tradition, they say that even Lakshman’s following Ram is not to be imitated. That Sita is going with Ram, then they are a family unit.

That is to be imitated. Lakshman’s following Ram is glorious because Ram is God. But Lakshman’s following Ram is actually unfair for Ramayana.

So, he’ll take her with him. So, even that is not to be imitated. So, that’s why one of the key principles in understanding a text is to see how the tradition that has emerged from the text understands the text.

So, this is certainly not something to be imitated. Now, the second context you could put it in is the context of previous life. Like I said, the Lord does not have a previous life and that is true.

But there is a story given in the Ramayana itself of a case where I won’t go into the full story, but Bhrigu Muni, his wife, I think her name is Kirti. So, there is a demon who has been chased by, who has been terrorizing the universe and that demon has been chased by, finally at a particular opportune time, Lord Vishnu borders him, is about to kill him. The demon flees and takes shelter in the ashram of Bhrigu Muni, where Khyati is there.

He says, please save me. And Khyati says, I will protect you. And Vishnu says, no, this is a terrible demon, I have to kill him.

Vishnu’s Khyati says, no, he has taken shelter of me, I am not going to kill him. Lord Vishnu says that this is a terrible demon. If we don’t kill him at this time, he will continue terrorizing and destroying the universe.

I have to kill him right now, this is the only time available. He says, no, I cannot let him, he has taken shelter of me. Then he says, for the sake of the universe, I have to kill you to kill him.

He says, whatever you do, I am not going to let you. Then Lord Vishnu kills Khyati and then he comes back. He is aghast.

Lord Vishnu says, this is what happened and I can revive Khyati right now for you. He says, how could you have killed a woman, you were meant to protect her. He says, just as you have caused me to suffer separation from my wife, I curse you, that you will suffer separation from your wife.

So, now the Lord is beyond all curses, but the Lord of Greece fully accepts that curse. So, that curse later comes back. So, when a curse from previous life acts, it may seem to have no rationale in this life.

So, that is another bigger context. So, Sita herself was blameless, but it was something from the previous life that was blamed. And the third is, so that is the context of the book itself and the mood of the book or the mood of the larger leela.

See, in general, the Ramayana’s mood is the mood of sacrifice. That, you see, Ram did not have to go on exile. Ram could have rebelled against his father and father.

But Ram did not do that. So, you know, Dasharatha is not a victimizer and Ram is not a victim. Both of them are caught in a circumstance.

Now, to some extent, we can understand this circumstance, but at least even now, the idea of honoring one’s word is something which people do respect. Although I have seen young people ask the question, just clearly, why did Ram even have to go to the forest? He said, you know, Dasharatha had given a word at a particular time. He said, this is blind obedience to somebody else’s word.

So, we could say that, we could question that also. But at least it’s understandable. Now, what happens is this is seen as noble, Ram’s nobility, Ram’s selflessness.

But Ram doesn’t become bitter towards Dasharatha and Dasharatha does not, is not angry with Ram. There is no fault on Ram’s side. So, that same spirit of sacrifice that Ram and Dasharatha, when Sita goes with Ram, Sita is giving up, Sita is giving up the kingdom, Lakshman is giving up the kingdom, that mood of sacrifice is the consistent theme of the Ramayana.

And finally, what Dasharatha does to Ram, Ram has to do to Sita. So, it is not that Ram is the victimizer and Sita is the victim. Just that Dasharatha is not the victimizer and Sita is not, Ram is not the victim.

Both Ram and Sita are caught in a circumstance. That circumstance is an unfortunate circumstance. And both of them have to participate in a sacrifice.

It’s a painful sacrifice. Just that Dasharatha does not celebrate when Ram goes away. Ram does not celebrate, oh this impure woman in my life, I got rid of her.

There is absolutely no celebration. And just as Ram is not bitter towards Dasharatha, Sita is heartbroken when Ram rejects her. Ram rejects also is a strong word, but Ram abandons her, whatever you want to say.

But she understands, she is heartbroken. At a level of emotion, she is completely shattered. But I understand why he has done this.

And the test that she accepts is that she does not poison her children’s mind about her. If there is a messy divorce in which, say one person feels that the other person has betrayed me, has manipulated me, has wronged me, and quite often the children are poisoned by it. So she does not do that.

So is she pained by it? Is she heartbroken by it? Definitely. But is she bitter? Is she vindictive? Not at all. So the mood of sacrifice, of putting a larger principle above one’s personal pleasure, that is the consistent mood of Ram.

This is Jata. You could have said that, why should I fight against Raavan? He is clearly younger than me, faster than me. Sita does not fight against him.

She is like, how can I just stand by and let him be abducted? Whatever it means by that, I have to try to fight it. So it is a sacrifice. The sacrifice can come in many different forms.

The broader principle of sacrifice is what has been discussed. So these three contexts, the context of a larger dharma, the context of the previous life, and the context of the purpose of the Leela, can help us make sense of that pastime to some extent. Still, the problem comes with twofold.

One is that this pastime is often seen through the feminist lens, that Ram is a man, and he is a male authority figure, and Sita is a woman, and she is victimized. Unfortunately, there have been many instances of patriarchal abuse of power, and then that all becomes very messy. But it does not have to be seen through that lens.

So when we see through that lens, then it becomes outrageous, unacceptable and outrageous. But that is not the lens that the Ramayan is seen through. That is not the lens in which the Ramayan tradition is encouraging us to So as I said, it has never become the norm in Indian society that a woman should be abandoned or rejected because of some unsuspecting actions.

So that is one problem. And the second is that quite often there are some traditions, some commentators who say that this pastime is interpolation. Now, even there are some scholars who go in that favor, and they say it’s interpolation by some people.

Now, no one would be happier than me if this were interpolation in one sense. It would be a big relief. But it’s difficult to make that argument because the traditional Uttarkhand, sometimes people say the whole Uttarkhand is interpolation.

But our prominent Acharyas have not spoken like that. In the Srivastava tradition, they have written commentaries on this. And there are songs about Sita’s agony, Ram’s agony.

So this is definitely an inconvenient part of our tradition. But then, convenience is not necessarily the way we learn about lessons of transcendence. So if somebody wants to take that interpolation argument, I mean, it’s up to them.

But generally in the tradition, that’s not what has been taken.

The post Why did Rama reject Sita? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Why does Krishna describe about Ashtanga Yoga in 5.27 and 28?

Three broad understandings can be there. Krishna has given the stage of perfection in the preceding verses, especially 5.25 and 26 and he is giving alternative pathways to that perfection.

After he has talked about Karma Yoga practice leading to that perfection and thus he talks about Dhyana Yoga which he will be elaborating in the 6th chapter and Bhakti Yoga which he will be elaborating in chapter 7 to 12 and which he points to in 5.29. Of course, because Krishna himself does not explicitly give any clear indications of the reason for that particular thought flow, we can only look at the context as well as the commentaries and try to figure out what is happening and see whether whatever insights we get actually make sense to us. The other point is that Krishna is focusing on the principle that the realization that is got about Brahman because he has largely used the word Brahma and not used any reference to himself till now in the 5th chapter. So, that understanding can be further deepened and evolved through the practice of Dhyana Yoga which will culminate in Bhakti Yoga and which will help a person understand that the highest realization of spiritual reality is to see not Brahman but Krishna and it is that which will give a person the ultimate unadulterated peace which is what is lacking in Arjuna’s life and which is what has led to the breakdown which led him to inquire about the Bhagavad Gita and that flow towards a deeper realization of the ultimate reality will happen in the next chapter which culminates in 6.47 with even the yogis getting the realization that the highest reality is Krishna himself.

So whereas the first analysis focuses on the progression of the paths with the future descriptions being given a preview here, the second explanation focuses on the progression of the sadhya of the understanding of the ultimate reality and this does not require the notion of a preview but this is just a progression and how to progress toward that higher realization will be described in the subsequent chapters.

The post Why does Krishna describe about Ashtanga Yoga in 5.27 and 28? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Thank you for a wonderful class. What comes to mind when you’re reading things of this stature is that it’s so phantasmagoria, practically. I mean, it’s like a movie or something.

How do you get the living energy to understand these principles of freedom, like Krishna Consciousness, when you have to read these kind of descriptions which how many people would really believe? In other words, if you’re out there, you’re talking to a normal person and he’s eating a hamburger, and you say, well, if you continue eating that, you’re going to have to take a… somebody’s going to eat you, or you’re going to have to eat something else. So how do you take that particular idealism and give it to someone to make them sincere or help them understand these principles of the Bhagavatam? It’s tough. That’s why the principle which I find is best is choose our battles.

You know, there’s a very almost humorous conversation when Prabhupada was in Hawaii. Some devotees came and told him that, Prabhupada, when you try to talk with the scholars, and we tell the scholars that that in Dwarka, the King Ugrasen had some astronomical number of bodyguards. It’s quite a phenomenal number.

So they start laughing at us. Where were their toilets? Where were their homes? How could they live in Dwarka? Now, Prabhupada could have… Dwarka? It was here only? Or maybe it was two different places also. So anyway, Prabhupada took a different approach at a different time.

Prabhupada, here, he said that in this conversation, among all the sections of the Bhagavatam, was it the only thing you found to speak to the scholars? So, it is… Choose our battles means what? Prabhupada himself says, intelligence means to see things in their proper perspective. That’s what he says in the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. 10.345 So that means, we ourselves need to know what are the big things in our philosophy and what are the not so big things.

So, from Sri Prabhupada’s example itself, we know how often did Prabhupada talk about hell. Generally, when he talked about giving up sense gratification, it is not that you will go to hell if you do sense gratification. That is the general Christian version of, they use the word adultery, adultery or fornication.

You will go to hell and you will suffer in hell. Prabhupada’s approach was, this pleasure is so insignificant. You are meant for far greater pleasure.

So, Prabhupada took a particular approach. My understanding is, first is, we don’t talk about it ourselves. And we don’t… This could work as a deterrent at a particular time.

Now, it doesn’t work as a deterrent. And that’s why we are having this discussion about how to explain it. So, to some extent, it is possible, although there is so much propaganda about sense gratification in the world today.

Many people soon realise that there is nothing so great about it. It’s just that because they don’t know any alternative, they keep trying it. And they keep trying it in new ways to hope that they will get some pleasure.

But for many people, if they can be presented Krishna Consciousness in an attractive way and they experience the happiness of Krishna Consciousness, then, okay, you know, there is a better way to live. And that’s how they give up sense gratification. So, I think that’s the much more healthier approach rather than… So, I think this is the approach of intelligence rather than experience.

That, you know, there is a better way to live. There is a better way to enjoy life. And so, we… Nowadays, there is enough arguments.

Like, we can make health arguments for giving up meat. We can make arguments based on environment which is a big concern for people. There is also an argument based on… I talk about meat-eating.

I talk about help the world with your food. I talk about four things. One is, at a health level, it is beneficial.

At the environmental level, it is beneficial. At the level of livestock, you know, so many people are killed just for your food. And then, at the level of poverty itself, global poverty.

That is, if the amount of land that is used to make meat is used to raise grains for human beings, then, far more people can be fed. So, poverty itself… And this is not just us. UNESCO has said that.

So, this is basically… There are different ways. That’s why I said… I gave the example of what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said. There is no need for this.

And Baldev Ji said, we have to do this. We have to write a commentary on Vedanta Sutra. So, I think the same purpose, but different approaches to that purpose.

I personally wouldn’t use hell at all to talk about it to people. Thank you.

The post How can we get a Westerner to believe that if one eats cow flesh, one will become a cow in a future life who will then be eaten? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

How would you respond to a person who says, well, I like your conception much better than the Christian conception, but, you know, here in America, in Western countries, they have a saying, if you give a fool enough rope, he’ll hang himself. So it seems like Krishna is giving people a lot of rope. Why doesn’t he, you know, in the Bhagavad Gita it says, savastha cahamrti sannivishtho mataksmati agam Why doesn’t he, you know, cut us off at the pass, so to speak, before we hang ourselves?

Well, I would say hell is the way he cuts us off the path.

So it’s like when actions have consequences, that’s what brings us to our senses. So in general, one person can guide another person only in three ways. Like many times when parents ask, you know, how do we guide someone? How do we guide our children? There are broadly three ways.

First is conscience. That now conscience is like an innate voice. Something just cannot be done.

If we grew up seeing our parents never doing something, it’s out of question. No matter however angry you are, you don’t hit anyone. Then we ourselves start feeling it’s wrong.

So conscience is like the voice of emotion. But it’s not just emotional. It’s that innate sense.

This is like an inner compass. Now, if the compass is not there, then there is intelligence. Intelligence is where we appeal to a person.

We tell him if you do this, this is what is going to happen. Intelligence is where you give the person a vision of the consequence that is going to come. And if intelligence doesn’t work, then there is the experience.

Experience of what? Experience of the consequence. So broadly speaking, we cannot force anyone to do anything. Conscience is they just innately feel it’s wrong, so I can’t do it.

Intelligence is, okay, I see this is bad, so I’ll not do it. If somebody just feels, I don’t want to kill animals. I don’t want to hurt animals.

If I eat red meat, I’ll get a heart attack. I don’t want to do that. Somebody gets a heart attack, I say, okay, now no more eating red meat.

So basically there are three ways. So in one sense, hell is the way by which God is ensuring that the rope is not too long. So hell is where God is giving experience to people so that they can reform.

The post Why does a loving God give us such a long rope that we can hang ourselves with it? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

There is one statement that says that whatever is written in the Vedas has to be taken as truth. Either you like it or you don’t like it. So I tried to understand in the Srila Bhaktivinoda Goswami’s statement and Srila Prabhupada in which take it literally and the other one, it’s not that important.

See, actually whatever is written has to be taken as truth. That is, there is a statement like that. At the same time, there is a clear understanding of context.

So for example, in the Bhagavad Gita itself, in 2.17, Krishna says, avinashita tad viddhi, that the soul cannot be destroyed. The soul is indestructible. And yet, in the same Bhagavad Gita, in the 16th chapter, 9th verse, 16th chapter, 21st verse, Krishna says that these things will destroy your soul.

etam drstim avashtabhyah nashtatmano alpabuddhaya This will destroy your soul. or trividham narkasyedam dvaram nashanam atmana So these will, these are soul destroyers. So now there is just no way both of these statements can be taken literally and they will be true.

So then we have to look at the bigger picture. So what is Krishna saying? That here, it’s non-literal. That Krishna is saying the soul’s spiritual tendency, the soul’s spiritual awareness, that will be destroyed.

So we have to look at the context. And that’s why, while shabda is the highest, but pratyaksha and anumana are also required. Jiva Goswami gives the example of Sandarbhas, that if somebody says that he lives, ganga abhyam graha, that his house is on the Ganga, then nobody can have his house on the Ganga, unless we are going to make a whole stretch of imagination and say this person is a mystic yogi who has built a house which floats on the Ganga.

This is a way to tell me to finish the class, no? So, the thing is that we have to use our intelligence. So pratyaksha and anumana, by pratyaksha, we know that there cannot be any house on the Ganga. Then it means it’s on the banks of the Ganga.

So we have to, Prabhupada said we have to make, we don’t want to do mental speculation, but philosophical speculation is required. So, there are clearly sections in the Bhagavatam, which are in the scriptures, which just cannot be taken literally. So, I would say it is, that’s why studying scripture requires faith, but it also requires intelligence.

And if it were only based on faith, just take it literally true, everything as it is, then why do we even need commentators? Just, this is it, that’s all there is. In fact, that is one of the big split between the Catholics and the Protestants. Some of the Protestants say that the scripture is self-evident, we don’t need any commentary.

But then when it’s self-evident, which part are you going to accept? Because even in the Bible also there are contradictory statements. So we need an approach. That’s why when we would say, whatever is said in scripture is true, that is true.

But there are two ways to approach. One is with faith, and the other is with intelligence. And both are important.

It is not only faith. If you have only faith, you can become fanatical. If we have only intelligence, we will become sceptical or even cynical.

So we don’t want to go in either directions. We want to have a balance of faith and intelligence.

The post When everything in The Vedas is said to be true, how can we interpret some Vedic statements to be non-literal? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.

Did Bhaktiv know Thakur go through a phase where he was averse to the Bhagavatam and the Bhakti path, and was this a result of his reading of western philosophy and western literature?

Answer, yes. He did go through a phase like that. And from a transcendental perspective, if you want to consider it as a arrangement of the Lord, then just as Mahaprabhu exhibited a phase of a scholar and became highly respectable in the scholarly circles of Navadvip. And then he embraced the path of bhakti, thereby bringing respectability to the path of bhakti even among scholars who would otherwise dismiss it as a sentimental path.

The Lord arranging something similar for Bhaktinod Thakur also. At that time, the Bhartraloka was the term used for people who in Bengal who were very well educated and educated in terms of knowing English and educated in the Western in in this case, the British way of education and were employed and were quite well read. And Bhakkirath Thakur was the pioneer later became the pioneer in taking Gaudiya Vishnuism to that demographic. And so, he did become respectable among the Bhadraloka at that time through His writings, through His intellectual vigor and accomplishments and these were not devotional writings. He basically moved among elite circle, intellectual circles in Calcutta at that time And then thereafter when he embraced the path of bhakti, he brought the respectability of the belonging to the Bhadraloka to the path of Bhakti, specifically Gaudiya Vaishnav Bhakti which had fallen into disrepute because of various reasons.

So now that brings us to second part, did he was he averse to bhakti and averse to bhagavatam because of western education. That’s only part of the reason. And it is true that Christianity as well as western rationality, while they themselves were at war in Europe, both of them attacked Hinduism in India for different reasons. Christianity, because it was a pagan religion, considered Hinduism to be a pagan religion that had to be eradicated and Western rationality considered it to be irrational and superstitious and therefore that was their general attack on religion per se, not specifically on Hinduism. They were attacking Christianity in the West also.

So when we say West reading western thinkers led him to become averse. It is basically an inter religious dispute as well as a dispute between the rationality and the seeming irrationality. That was the issue. So, I think the bigger problem was that the reality of the Gaudiya tradition was itself quite reproachable at that time. Lot of people had become sahajaic and were doing immoral things.

Be it eating meat and saying the holy name could remove all sins. Not just the sin of eating meat, but others far worse sins also. Or be it imitating Krishna Dila with the gopis and saying that it is that the Avesh of Krishna has entered into them. The Avesh of the go of Radharani and the gopis has entered into the women they were polluting. So there was immorality and often that put off a lot of people who were moral and thoughtful and upstanding.

And also we know that Chetan Cherta Amrata which gives a theological understanding of Mahaprabhu’s teachings was not available at all. Chetan lila was known, but it was more through the past time oriented books like Chetan bhagod and Chetanamangal. So the Gaudiya tradition itself had lost both its moral and philosophical moorings or anchoring. So, my understanding is it was far more the state of the Gaudiya tradition that led Bhakti Vinod Thakur to not having any appreciation for it. And of course, there are valid western criticisms and Bhakti Natakur wrote essay on the Bhagavatam.

There he mentions three challenges with respect to understanding the Bhagavatam. The first is the cosmology which is a problem even till now. It just makes no sense to the rational mind And he tried to address that question in the Krishnasammita which itself became a controversial book and which is controversial even now. Although many devotees are moving towards some variant of that approach given by him, where basically he tries to separate the material knowledge in the Bhagavatam from the spiritual knowledge. It is a very simplified position, explanation of what he is doing.

The second was that the philosophy of the Bhagavatam seems complex and sometimes contradictory. Sometimes it seems to be supporting personalism, sometimes impersonalism and sometimes it seems to be a bit of a hodgepodge of Sankhya and other things. So, then he says that a great book will not be reducible to any particular way of reading rather than we trying to reduce the book to our frame of reference and evaluating whether it fits, we need to expand our frame of reference to see what the book is saying. Again, I’m paraphrasing. And the third question was about the immorality of Krishna’s dealings with the gopis and the subsequent immorality in society created by that example.

And it was when he read Chechen Charita Amrut and when he understood perkyurus from Krishna’s Guru, Rajaswami’s explanations and his own prayer to the lord that he was satisfied that this was transcendental. And again that problem is there even today. So overall my understanding is that rather than holding the reading reading western philosophy as being the cause of his negative feelings towards the bhagavatam and the bhakti path. It was the problems in both of these as they were practiced and the problems in these which are natural to any thoughtful mind that is rationally evaluating them. Those were the cause of the issue and he himself became an exemplar in demonstrating how these issues could be resolved.

That’s why Prabhupada also called him the founder of the modern day Krishna consciousness movement. And he said father of the modern day Krishna consciousness movement. And we also need to consider today that we face the same challenges and we also need to find out ways to address those challenges appropriately. Especially in today’s world telling people don’t read these books or and that will cause you to lose your faith is not the healthiest approach because people are anyway through the social media and Internet exposed to opposing views and we need to equip them to defend those views.

The post Did Bhaktivinoda Thakura go through a phase of being averse to Bhakti and the Bhagavatam, and was this aversion due to his reading of Western philosophers? appeared first on The Spiritual Scientist.