Dealing with psychological conflicts

As someone who has experienced significant changes in their belief-system over time (as if that was ever in doubt, how many people are born as Gaudiya Vaishnavas, for example?) it seems to me that one of the functions of an intelligent mind is to observe any arising conflicts and deal with them as an when necessary. Since religion seems to be a touchy subject for many and strongly-held beliefs rarely change except after a significant amount of persuasion and/or a shifting of the shores, it is a reason to celebrate when an intelligent mind becomes merely cognisant of a conflict. Changes that take place on account of said conflict are rather a rare event but equally laudable in my view, if not more so. Such changes should not take place lightly, but over time and with measured consistency and internal (or external!) discussion.

I find an example of an intelligent mind recognising a conflict in this recent article at Chakra.Org: When's the Time for Raganuga, Anyway? The author gets straight to the point in the very first paragraph:

"In Srila Prabhupada's books we see a stress on the need for following sadhana bhakti- up to a point- and then rejecting rules and regulations in favor of the spontaneous loving platform. The difficulty is knowing exactly when to make the transition, and again Srila Prabhupada's books have the answer- when one is pure, free from material desires. But this presents another problem- devotees never think themselves pure, or advanced. So does this mean that by definition, devotees never approach raganuga? That cannot be right as the implication of this would render meaningless much of Srila Prabhupada's teachings and that of the line of acaryas before him. How can one approach raganuga while still maintaining the vaisnava standard of humility? Is it that when one is free from material desires one is automatically in raganuga, without even knowing it? That cannot be so, for then there would be no meaning to the instruction to give up rules and regulations. Clearly there must be a conscious deliberate move towards it, and one not based on an assessment of one's personal level of purity. What then is the basis of this conscious decision to move towards spontaneity?"

This is a conflict that devotees in IGM must address in order to further along their journeys. A deeper theme to be observed from this writing relates to an issue of humility: How can one adequately measure one's advancement when one is trained to think of themselves in a continually subordinate position? A thoughtful concept indeed. The author then provides a couple of examples that show how mere following of rules is practically useless when they fail to serve the spirit of the rule. Just as it is the trend these days to make light of rules by quoting the following verse from the Padma Purana:

smartavyaH satataM viSNur vismartavya na jAtucit

sarve-vidhi-niSedhAH syur etayor eva kiGkarAH

"Always remember Vishnu and never forget Him.

All scriptural rules and regulations are the servants of this rule."

- Quoted in BRS 1.2.8

This is the active principle in devotional life. 'Tis indeed a pointless affair to regard the rote as the all-in-all and ignore the broader application in the wider service of the object. The author makes this point even clearer:

"It seems that while following rules and regulations, these servants of the Lord did not consider them very important, and certainly did not consider them the basis of their love. Yet in our temples we see, painted all over, the assumption that one can judge a person's merit by how many mangalarati's he attends each week, and, generally speaking, how strictly he follows all the rules and regulations, right up to how perfect he has applied his tilaka."

A fine observation indeed! Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in discussion forums will doubtlessly know of ridiculous instances of nit-picking such as whether 'pada' is an appropriate epithet to be affixed on the end of Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti's name, or other instances of some practices being criticised because there is no "historical precedent". This situation is sadly prevalent in the wider world too. But the general point of this article is that one should be sufficiently intelligent to examine his own motives and to be frightfully honest with one's own self in regards to his suitability and/or eligibility to pass upwards into the advanced stages of devotion:

"After all, the process we are following is about purification- and it is specifically purification of motives. If ones is following the rules and regulations to please the Lord, it is not an impediment, but if one is doing it just to please the Lord, it is unlikely that one will always follow, as there are other ways to please the Lord, which at times become apparent to the devotee. They may not be apparent to others though, and for this the inner followers may be judged by others to be not so strict- maybe even a 'fringie' but he cares not."

It is unfortunately a prevalent tendency - even among religionists - to demonise (in small or great ways) a person who deviates from the groupthink even if it is obvious that they have done so through careful and deliberate intelligent reasoning. It is unfortunate. But as an amusing riposte, why not observe that the judgers are themselves subject to judgement? Didn't a notably "Christian" preacher say that around 2000 years ago? ;-)

The article ends with a call to take up the process of raganuga-bhakti with due care and consideration. I can only imagine how certain quarters will howl in derision at this suggestion as they have done every time this issue comes up. For some groups, this issue of raganuga-bhakti is the elephant in the room that is troublesome to sweep up under the carpet. I cannot understand how this grudging attitude is so prevalent in supposedly religious movements; it is as if one is so poor and bitter and disappointed that they cannot make sufficient progress, that they would grudge against other people who want to move ahead. "I can't have it so no one else can have it either!" Childish and immature.

But the author indeed advises that one should attempt to move forward with due care and consideration:

"Taking all this into consideration, let us examine again the question 'When's the Time for Raganuga?'. It appears the time is now, in fact, don't waste a minute, but not because you are pure, but because you have started to cultivate an understanding of the spirit of vaisnavism, as opposed to all its rules, to the letter. Don't give them up prematurely, but don't make them your foundation, for they are not. The foundation is love and all the qualities that nurture it. If you cannot love, try to, for even the attempt is loving. Then Krsna will help you from within. It might be that you need to take his mercy in the form of helping words from a counselor or psychotherapist, to find out what history of abuse you suffered long ago, that now impairs your ability to give yourself to others, which is your inner nature. It might break the rule of 'avoiding association of non-devotees' but it might be, in this case, a rule that needs to be broken. And who is a non-devotee anyway, someone who helps devotees to find their hidden inherent nature, or someone who judges everyone by appearance alone- like at 4.30 am?" (emphasis added)

Bravo!

Abhimanyu

Wow, it has been an incredibly long time since I wrote on this blog. I would like to write more about this later but here is something for now. I have recently got a bunch of Indian channels to watch thanks to a new deal with my TV provider. I now get the 'Star' network of Indian TV channels, and every Sunday there is a wonderful "soap opera" serial of the life of Krishna. It is called 'Krishna Kathaiyen' and is broadcast on Star Plus, produced and directed by Ramanand Sagar who produces a lot of religion-oriented soap operas.

Krishna Kathaiyen has a wonderful theme tune that I just like listening to over and over again, and the opening credits are something to behold, showing a collage of scenes where the storyline is currently set. At the current point, we are at the start of the Mahabharata war and Krishna is advising Arjuna to overcome his grief and to fight. However, another important figure was shown in the opening credits who always plucks my heartstrings whenever I remember him: Abhimanyu.

Abhimanyu was, in my view, one of the truly great heroes of the Mahabharata. Being the son of Arjuna, he had mastered military strategy theory while still in the womb of his mother as he had heard Arjuna explaining these things to his mother. He enjoyed a particularly affectionate relationship with Krishna due to the latter's strong friendship with Arjuna. By the time of the Mahabharata he was sixteen years old, an exceptionally handsome and dashing young lad with the rare combination of joie-de-vivre and humility. Despite his parents' feelings of unease due to his young age, he managed to convince them that he was good enough and that it was his duty to fight.

And did he fight! His warrior skills were exceptional and he was incredibly good on the battlefield! His heroism was something to behold, and even the great elders on the Kaurava side were secretly full of admiration for his audacious bravery and valiant fighting skills. So valiant, that he was able to disarm great commanders with just a single arrow. So valiant, that some ran away from the battlefield for fear of tangling with him! So valiant, that he was able to fend off attacks from seasoned warrios such as Bhishma, Karna, Dushasana, and Drona. So valiant, that he managed to slay anyone who got in his way single-handed, including Duryodhana's son Laxman. So valiant, that he presented a serious problem to the opposing side who knew that they could not win the war without slaying Abhimanyu.

And so it happened. At the close of fighting for the day, the Kauravas hatched a plan to employ the 'Chakravyuha' formation in the next day's fighting with the intention of protecting what was left of their forces. This Chakravyuha formation was such a complex battle strategy that only a few knew how to penetrate and disarm it, a few such as Arjuna, Krishna and Pradyumna. Abhimanyu had learnt about this formation in the womb of his mother, though ironically she fell asleep after Arjuna had explained how to penetrate the formation. As a result, Abhimanyu was party to this knowledge but had not learnt how to exit from the formation. As fate would have it, Abhimanyu successfully penetrated the formation the next day but soon ran into problems when it was time to exit. He was caught in the coils of the serpent.

Seizing the opportunity, Duryodhana ordered his Kaurava colleagues to launch a full-scale attack on Abhimanyu. Although Abhimanyu continued to fight valiantly, his arsenal was gradually reduced with having to fight a gang of senior warriors and running out of ammunition. Nobody was able to help him because they did not know how to enter the formation, and Krishna and Arjuna had been successfully distracted in fighting elsewhere on the battlefield. An arrow sliced Abhimanyu's bow into half while another killed his charioteer. He then took a sword and chariot wheel for a shield and got down from the chariot in an attempt to make a ground attack. Almost predictably his sword was cut into half,and he was left to fight with only the chariot wheel. More arrows soon took care of that. However, the wonderful thing was that with every weapon reduction, Abhimanyu fought just as strongly, bravely and valiantly as he had fought with weapons. Hand-to-hand combat was the only thing left to do once all the weapons had been destroyed, with the result that the fight turned into a free-for-all with multiple warriors all ganging up on the young lad. Abhimanyu fought as best as he could but was no match for the attack launched upon him. Faced with fatigue, a final blow from Dushasana crushed his skull and killed him.

The principle of "All's fair in love and war" is inapplicable for this sick episode, because this event represented a turning-point in the history of combat whereby the rule of "honour in fighting" was deliberately disregarded for a military end. It was commonly accepted that multiple warriors should not gang up on a single warrior, but the greed and hatred of the Kauravas was so intense that they broke all the rules of war in their haste to kill Abhimanyu. As a result, Abhimanyu remains one of the heartbreakingly tragic heroes of the war.

As I said, we are now at the point in the series where the Mahabharata war is about to start just as soon as Krishna finishes giving the Gita to Arjuna. I'm not looking forward to watching the Abhimanyu episode for fear it will break my heart. I have always admired Abhimanyu ever since I read about him as a child. In my mind he represents a beautiful fresh flower that is cut down in the prime of its life. With events in the world today, one can only wonder how many young Abhimanyus are being cut down in ways that are far more despicable as performed by the Kauravas.

One saving grace is that Abhimanyu had been married at a young age and his beautiful wife was pregnant with their child: Pariksit Maharaja. He who would one day become the perfect 'hearer' just as Sri Sukadeva Gosvami was the perfect 'speaker' of the Holy Bhagavata.

Quiet Times

My usual hangout like Vilasa Kunja has been extraordinarily quiet lately. Hardly surprising when nobody has anything to post. This seems a bit like an oxymoron: Out of 87 members supposedly engaging in spiritual activities daily, no one has anything to say or share about it? Maybe I had better start posting verses from Gaura-centric shastras again, just as I did before. That revived the forum a bit, didn't it?

But anyway, one would think that if one forum is quiet, the best thing is to go and hang out somewhere else? Well, no, because quite a few of the existing forums or news websites are rather disputative and political to various extents. Now I'm being slightly hypocritical about this since I used to be a bit political myself in days gone by, whether the topic of the day was institutional or theological, but I can say that it has been quite a while since I engaged in disputation about such topics. One reason for this is because I am leaning towards the idea that sacred subjects are sanctified enough to be held above our heads in a mood of respect, not to be used as weapons of disputation in a debate that will ultimately have little substantive meaning. So I'm not really interested in nitpicky debates over tiny things on subjects such as the "fall" of the jiva, siddha-deha, raganuga-bhakti, or whatever. Sometimes it is also in the nature of people never to admit when they are wrong, so it also becomes exhausting to talk about something when your fellow disputant is resistant to new knowledge or a different way of looking at things.

Not that I have been doing any of this lately! These are just collected thoughts spanning a period of the last few months or so. Personally I have no wish to engage in discussions at Audarya. I only go there sometimes to ask a question or post a Gaura-centric shloka, but going there sometimes brings a temptation to check out the other sections and lo! You are sucked into the disputative whirlpool if your sense of self-contrl is not as developed as you would like it to be.

The other thing refers to websites such as Chakra, Dandavats, Sampradaya Sun, etc. In my day when I was curious about all these controversies, I noted even then that the discussions and articles posted on these websites fell far short of proper etiquette and behaviour. This is true even today of some articles on the above-mentioned sites. Sometimes when I input the first or second line of a shloka into Google to find a proper English translation, I am led to one of these sites where the shloka is quoted and can't help noticing a salacious political headline. I sometimes think to myself, how can Vaishnavas spend their time criticising and finding fault with others? And if that wasn't bad enough, shastras are employed in this endeavour too?

I remember reading an article by the late Tamal Krishna Gosvami (back when the ritviks were trying to take over the place) in which he made a casual yet profound observation: In this day of the Internet, one's offences may multiply at the click of a mouse.

How true! And this is why it shouldn't matter if one's favourite forum is quiet. If someone has said something, read it and reply if necessary. If nobody has said anything, no problem. Just get back to chanting or reading some shastras. This is the "real business of life."

Maharaja Rantideva

I'd like to talk a little bit about Maharaja Rantideva. I first heard about him when I was very young, and then too I heard about him through the famous Amar Chitra Katha comics! The title was "Tales of Vishnu" I believe, and I was very impressed with Maharaja Rantideva's story at that young age. I was extremely surprised to see that while his story is contained in the Srimad Bhagavatam, he is essentially a minor figure and hardly ever mentioned.

Here is his story, taken from Prabhupada's chapter summary of SB 9.21:

The son of Bharadvaja was Manyu, and Manyu's sons were Brhatkṣatra, Jaya, Mahavirya, Nara and Garga. Of these five, Nara had a son named Sankrti, who had two sons, named Guru and Rantideva. As an exalted devotee, Rantideva saw every living entity in relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and therefore he completely engaged his mind, his words and his very self in the service of the Supreme Lord and His devotees. Rantideva was so exalted that he would sometimes give away his own food in charity, and he and his family would fast.

Once, after Rantideva spent forty-eight days fasting, not even drinking water, excellent food made with ghee was brought to him, but when he was about to eat it a brahmana guest appeared. Rantideva, therefore, did not eat the food, but instead immediately offered a portion of it to the brahmana. When the brahmana left and Rantideva was just about to eat the remnants of the food, a sudra appeared. Rantideva therefore divided the remnants between the sudra and himself. Again, when he was just about to eat the remnants of the food, another guest appeared. Rantideva therefore gave the rest of the food to the new guest and was about to content himself with drinking the water to quench his thirst, but this also was precluded, for a thirsty guest came and Rantideva gave him the water.

This was all ordained by the Supreme Personality of Godhead just to glorify His devotee and show how tolerant a devotee is in rendering service to the Lord. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, being extremely pleased with Rantideva, entrusted him with very confidential service. The special power to render the most confidential service is entrusted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to a pure devotee, not to ordinary devotees.

One really should read the whole story in the text for the astounding details but it is easy to see what a great devotee Rantideva is. Who can imagine that even after a mega-vrata of 48-day fasting, Rantideva was nonchalant about sharing his well-deserved food and even sacrificed his drinking water in respect to the principle of charity. Bhagavatam mentions that the brahaman, sudra etc. were actually the devas Brahma, Shiva, and so on. And also Bhagavatam doesn't say so, the ACK version held that Rantideva was vouchsafed a vision of his beloved Lord Vishnu. The whole drama took place because Vishnu and the devas were in Vaikuntha discussing Rantideva's devotion, and the devas wanted to test his dedication to charity.

I don't really know why I enjoyed this story so much when I was young. I think, in some ways, I observe similar principles myself. There have been several incidents in my life over the years where I ended up sacrificing something or other so that other people could enjoy. I still do this to some extent, even when unnecessary. I think that the trick is to think nothing of it. Sometimes it doesn't even register in my mind. It doesn't seem to register much in the minds of other people either, but that's another story.

But anyway, I think that this is in connection with the idea that we are supposed to dedicate every thought and act to Krishna, by which we need not worry about our own upkeep too much. Maybe such things happen through the will of the Lord. Who knows how many of us could be tested like Rantideva, and would we pass or fail? Here is a nice verse from Bhagavatam that was spoken by Rantideva:

na kAmaya 'haM gatim izvarAt parAm

aStarddhi-yuktAm apunar-bhavaM vA
ArtiM prapadye 'khila-deha-bhAjAm
antaH-sthito yena bhavanty aduHkhAH

"I do not desire to attain the abode of the Supreme Lord, nor do I desire the eight yogic perfections or the cessation of birth and rebirth. I simply want to stay among the living entitities and accept all sufferings on their behalf, so that they may be freed from distress." (SB 9.21.12)

Whoa! This is big! It is impossible to describe the glories of this one Bhagavatam verse, as it expresses spiritual sentiments that are so deep that only a rare soul can plumb. This shows how Rantideva's heart was so deep that, even when he was on the point of death, his heart never moved an inch away from his principles and even went further as to say that he was willing to suffer even more on behalf of others. Learned readers will be reminded of a similar petition to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by His great devotee Vasudeva Datta, who similarly prayed that he would be willing to suffer the karma of all living entities so that they may be delivered. He did this because it broke his heart to see people suffering (CC Madhya 15.159-171). And after hearing his prayer, how did Mahaprabhu react? "When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu heard Vasudeva Datta's statement, His heart became very soft. Tears flowed from His eyes, and He began to tremble." (CC 2.15.164)

Such a prayer touched the heart of Mahaprabhu, do you know how great that is? Mahaprabhu may listen to everybody's prayers with His ears, but how many prayers touch His heart? Shouldn't we all aspire for that? Mahaprabhu Himself noted that Vasudeva Datta's prayer was relatively "unsurprising" as Datta was the reincarnation of Prahlada Maharaja. By this, He meant that Prahlada had similarly prayed for the welfare of all suffering living entitites when he was granted the darshan of Lord Nrsimhadeva. One may look at the Prahlada-stuti of Srimad Bhagavatam for further information, especially SB 7.9.41-44. So this shows that Mahaprabhu is especially touched when one is not so concerned about oneself, but desires to ease the endless sufferings of others and to see them get deliverance from the same.

This is in perfect consonance with devotional sentiments. In Sri Vilapa-Kusumunjali (6), Sri Raghunatha das Gosvamipada praised his guru, Sanatana Gosvami, by referring to him as "kripambudhi" (ocean of mercy) and "para-duhkha-duhkhi" (rough translation: conscious of the suffering of others). The heart of the Vaishnava is like that. The Vaishnava may be self-satisfied in his worship of the Lord (yayAtmA suprasIdati, SB 1.2.6) but sooner or later one's attention will be called to the sufferings of others and how they are essentially bereft of the solution to their problems. A Vaishnava's deep heart is always considering how to relieve the suffering of others and how to deliver them. This is the reason why Caitanya Mangala begins with the story of Devarishi Narada and his petition to the Lord at Dvaraka.

And, of course, the most important reason for desiring the welfare of all is that such a sentiment is immensely pleasing to the Lord.

Wow, I wanted to talk about Maharaja Rantideva and look what's happened!

Mahaprabhu loves humility

I've been looking through a Net edition of Bhakti-ratnakara lately and, with all my recent reflections about the importance of humility and so on, I found this nice passage that touched my heart:

"Whoever got the mercy of Sri Caitanya developed humble behavior. A devotee never considered himself great but took a most humble position. Although Sri Krsna Caitanya was God Himself, He nevertheless maintained the humble mood of a devotee. Gaura Raya knew that happiness lay in the mood of humility and He taught that principle amongst his followers." (BR 615-618)

This made me realise that even the principle of humility is observed by the mercy of Gaura as it is ia function of His kripa, and that those who are truly humble are such because they have received said kripa. At the same time, by virtue of the trinad api sunicena verse, His followers are enjoined to practice humility in all their dealings.

I thought about it for a long time, but I eventually decided against writing my reflections on recent less-than-civilised events in certain forums as I felt that that little good would be accomplished by my doing so. However, the said events did make me realise just how easy it is to give lip-service to the principles of Vaishnavism and to perhaps project an image of oneself as a "perfect" practising devotee. It then becomes interesting to observe the standard of behaviour employed when events happen that disrupt the general understandings of people. It seems to me that people are very quick to rip apart and demonise before first taking a step back and wondering if their reactions are really justified, or will they inflame the situation further. In any case, history has usually shown that it is not humble behaviour.

I find it useful to read and re-read the "basics" every once in a while, Bhagavad-Gita and all of that. The reason is because we may sometimes get carried away with our vanity and "higher knowledge" that we think we are in the "university class" and the lessons of the "elementary school" have been learnt long ago and are taken for granted. This is noted in Madhurya-kadambini as 'taraṅga-raṅgiṇī', a fault that is an eventual outcome of becoming 'proud' of one's devotional achievements. Although I think I'm being rather loose with that definition. In any case, a lesson from Bhagavad-Gita is useful here, I think:

anudvega-karaṁ vākyaṁ
satyaṁ priya-hitaṁ ca yat
svādhyāyābhyasanaṁ caiva
vāṇ-mayaṁ tapa ucyate

"Words that are unagitating, truthful, pleasing, beneficial, and engaged in the study of scriptural texts, certainly count as austerity in relation to speech." (Bhagavad-Gita 17.15)

In any case, I would venture to say that it goes without saying (!!) that such 'austere' speech would certainly consist of humility and humble expressions. I think it is vertaibly impossible to describe the wondrous nature of humility as a large number books can be written about the manifold ways in which this principle can be observed in all sorts of situations. Maybe that's why it is written in Bhakti-Ratnakara above that true happiness lies in humility and this is why Sriman Mahaprabhu made it a point to teach it to His followers. More so that humility descends as a a result of His mercy. What else is there to say?

Missing The Point

śabda-brahmaṇi niṣṇāto
na niṣṇāyāt pare yadi
śramas tasya śrama-phalo
hy adhenum iva rakṣataḥ

"For one who is expert in the scriptures
but does not fix his mind upon the Lord,
the fruit of his endeavour is like one who
cares for a cow that gives no milk."

(Srimad Bhagavata 11.11.18)

You'll have to forgive the raw translation but the basic elements are in place and the message should be clear enough. This is one of the verses that exemplify my own journey along the spiritual path. For years I used to admire those who were well-versed in scriptural literatures and the ease with which they presented their deep learnings of the shastras in spiritual discussions. As a matter of fact I still do admire such devotees because scriptural learning (especially those who have memorised entire scriptures) is no mean feat and not to be sneezed at. The wonder of it is how I desired to be one such "expert". Of course, I used to be one of those guys who always seemed to come up with an appropriate quote for any discussion that was going on, and as is naturally expected of such endeavours, a large amount of time was spent hunting for such quotes.

I now feel a mixture of disgust, revulsion and pity for myself when I was in that state of mind, though I can also laugh at myself as well. The reason for that is because, notwithstanding the fact that everyone is spiritually evolving according to their own pace and so will consequently arrive at their own realisations, attempting to use shastra as "weapons" in discussions/arguments is wrong, wrong, wrong! As per the above verse from the Holy Bhagavat, I believe that it is thoroughly inappropriate to be an "expert" in the scriptures only for the purposes of one-upmanship. This is a misdirection of the learning faculty and not at all in tune with Mahaprabhu's ideal of trinad api sunicena. It becomes an extension of one's ego when one acquires a queer satisfaction from presenting a "killer" quote that "wins" the discussion. "Ha ha ha! You can't find a quote to refute my quote, can you?? I've won, so take that!" This is a morbid and grotesque mentality.

Actually I am oversimplifying things. The ego and the desire to achieve fame and praise are actually very subtle and almost imperceptible things. It is very hard to detect them unless one is very good at introspection, humble, and always attempting to measure themselves against the 'trinad api sunicena' standard. In other words, one who excessively quotes shastra (unless their contribution is truly to aid a spiritual discussion) may or may not even realise that they are presenting themselves as an "expert" and would directly or indirectly receive praise for it thereof. The next challenge then relates to how to deal with such praise, but that is another story.

Anyway I think I'm raving on a bit so let me get to the point: People who are aware of my online activities may or may not know that, these days, I do not tend to talk so much on spiritual discussion forums unlike the way I used to do before. There are multiple reasons for this, but the main one is that I realised how much I was straying far from the path in my foolish attempts to imitate devotees and their learning in much the same way as is exemplifed in the above Bhagavatam quote. Of course, learning the shastras comes naturally from reading and meditation but it is an organic process that ought to evolve by itself. That is why, these days, I prefer to post inspirational verses from my readings with perhaps a few contextual comments. This is what I continue to do on a couple of the forums I hang out at. Occasionally I stray into some discussions but I would much prefer my contact with such discussions to be minimal. The nature of the Internet is such that people can get paranoid and lose their tempers over the slightest and innocent comments, so I would much prefer to restrit my participations in such events unless I am confident that I know the other respondents well enough and that they can exhibit a satisfactory level of Vaishnava ethics and behaviour.

Or, I might be vain enough to think that I actually know something and thus I have something to contribute to discussions. Here we go again, round and round in circles. At the end of the day it's not about what you know, it's about the extent to which you have practised your preachings in your daily life. So as per Bhagavata 11.11.18, what is the use of being an expert in the shastras when you haven't learnt how to fix your mind on the Lord? This is how I try to spend my time these days; I like to read shastras such as Caitanya-bhagavata, Caitanya-caritamrita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, and all the rest of it, and if I feel that I've stumbled across something nice that I think other devotees would appreciaste, I post it on a forum so that others can experience the joy that I get out of it.

The general idea is that one must not lose one's focus on the goal. The goal must always be kept respectfully upon our heads so that we are always reminded. Krishna-katha is the life of the Vaishnavas, it is the common bond that unites all Vaishnavas irrespective of lineage and sectarian mindsets. Krishna-katha can bring peace to the world as long as there are people to speak it and people to hear it. Krishna-katha can save us from the jaws of death. Brindavan is everyone's and Govinda belongs to all; Navadvipa is everyone's and Mahaprabhu belongs to all.

Priti Sandarbha 13

Read this for background. And now finally, Priti Sandarbha gives a few more details about the attainment of the spiritual body before proceeding to describe the activities and powers of the liberated soul:

The bodies of the liberated souls are also described in these words of Chandogya Upanisad (8.13.1):

azva iva romANi vidhUya ... dhUtvA zarIram
akRtaM kRtAtmA brahmalokam abhisambhavAni

"As a horse sheds its hairs, . . .so will I shed this external material
body and go to the spiritual abode of the Supreme Lord."

Thus, by the intervention of the Supreme Lord's inconceivable potency, the devotee leaves behind his material body and attains a spiritual body like that of the Lord. This is described in the following narration of Dhruva Maharaja's activities (Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.12.29):

bibhrad rUpaM hiraNmayam

"Before getting aboard, Dhruva Maharaja worshiped the airplane, circumambulated it, and also offered obeisances to the associates of Visnu. In the meantime he became as brilliant and illuminating as molten gold. He was thus completely prepared to board the transcendental plane."

Srila Sridhara Svami comments:

"This means he attained a form brilliant and illuminating as molten gold."

Sarsti liberation is described in these words of the Supreme Lord (Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.29.34), which I have already discussed in Bhakti-sandarbha (anuccheda 309):

martyo yadA tyakta-samasta-karmA. . .

. . .mayAtma-bhUyAya ca kalpate vai

"A human being who renounces all fruitive activities, offers himself to Me, and yearns to serve Me, becomes immortal. He becomes glorious like Me."

------------

So that's pretty clear I think, is it not? Sri Jiva Gosvamipada sets down the siddhanta in his stupendous Sandarbha series and succeeding Acharyas after him have followed his example: The weight of the evidence is in support of the "given" theory. However, there does seem to be anecdotal support in favour of the inherent theory and I hear that some say that both approaches are possible. Possibly the "given" theory is the "official line" but I wouldn't be surprised if both paths were possible. There are a multiplicity of ways to attain the Lord's company and we should rejoice that they are all possible. Consider BG 4.11:

ye yathA mAM prapAdyante
tAMs tathaiva bhajAmy aham
mama vartmAnuvartante
manuSyAH pArtha sarvazaH

As all surrender unto Me, them I certainly reward.
My path is followed by all men, O son of Pritha, in all respects.

What more need be said?

Priti Sandarbha 11-12

Read here for background.

Priti Sandarbha 11 contains a little more detail about the form by which the liberated soul possesses:

Liberation is also described in these words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.6.28):

prayujyamAne mayi tAM
zuddhAM bhAgavatIM tanum
Arabdha-karma-nirvANo
nyapatat paJca-bhautikaH

"Having been awarded a transcendental body befitting an
associate of the Personality of Godhead, I quit the body made
of five material elements, and thus all acquired
fruitive results of work (karma) stopped."

It is again described in these words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.6.23):

hitvAvadyam imaM lokaM
gantA maj-janatAm asi

"By service of the Absolute Truth, even for a few days,
a devotee attains firm and fixed intelligence in Me. Consequently
he goes to become My associate in the transcendental world after
giving up the present deplorable material worlds."

Jivapada's commentary: In Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.6.28 the Supreme Personality of Godhead promises to give the devotee a spiritual form like His own. Here "tAM bhAgavatIm" means "a form that is a fragment of the spiritual effulgence of the Supreme Lord", "zuddhAm" means "untouched by matter", "tanum" means "a form given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead", and "mayi prayujyamAne" means "attained by me when the results of karma came to an end". This happened when the material body made of five elements fell away (nyapatat paJca-bhautikaH). Here it is seen that the subtle material body of mind, intelligence, and false ego is also destroyed. Because of his faith in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the devotee's past karma also comes to an end. In his commentary on this verse Srila Sridhara Svami explains:

"The bodies of a personal associates of the Supreme Lord are eternal, pure, and free from karma."

This verse was spoken by Sri Narada to Sri Vyasa.

----
Priti Sandarbha 12

The body of a liberated soul is also described in these words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (8.3.19):

yaM dharma-kAmArtha. . .rAty api deham avyayam

"After worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, those who are interested in the four principles of religion, economic development, sense gratification and liberation obtain from Him what they desire. What, then, is be said of other benedictions? Indeed, sometimes the Lord gives a spiritual body to such ambitious worshipers."

Srila Sridhara Svami comments:

"In this way the Supreme Lord gives the devotee an eternal spiritual body."

------

So this is very clear: After Anuccheda 10 confirms that the soul can manifest many forms and that the residents of Vaikuntha have forms alike to the Lord's, Anuccheda 11-12 confirms that such a form is bestowed. In this connection, "bestowed" and "attained" both refer to the same thing in the context of Gaudiya sadhana practice. It is not inherent in any case, scripturally speaking.

Priti Sandarbha 10

If you just stumbled here, then read this first for background. The language of the text clearly points to a translator from ISKCON (probably the late Kusakratha das). Here we go with some choice quotes from Priti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 10) of Sri Jiva Gosvamipada after he briefly describes the five kinds of liberation:

By his own will a liberated soul can manifest many different forms. This is described in these words of Chandogya Upanisad (7.26.2):

sa ekadhA bhavati, dvidhA bhavati, tridhA bhavati.

"The liberated soul may manifest one form, two forms,
three forms, or more forms than that."

He then explains that Vaikuntha is free from maya and that one who reaches there never comes back. And then at the end of Anuccheda 10, he says:

In final liberation the devotees attain a spiritual nature and form like those of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. This is described in the following words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.15.14):

vasanti yatra puruSAH
sarve vaikuNTha-mUrtayaH
ye 'nimitta-nimittena
dharmeNArAdhayan harim

"In the Vaikuntha planets all the residents are similar in form to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They all engage in devotional service ot the Lord without desires for sense gratification."

Here "nimitta" means "result", and "animitta" means "without cause". These two words together mean, "without the desire for material sense gratification". "Dharmena" means "by devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead". Here the word "vaikuntha" means "the Supreme Personality of Godhead". "Vaikuntha-murtayah" means numberless forms of the individual souls who reside in Vaikuntha and who are manifest from tiny fragments of the effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many liberated souls, each with his own form, and there is one Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has His own form. Still, the liberated souls have forms that are like the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This verse was spoken by the demigod Brahma to the demigods.

----

So after first describing that it is within the capacity of the jiva to manifest one, two, or more forms, Sri Jivapada says that in Vaikuntha all the souls there have a form of their own that is similar to that of the Lord's.

More evidence of Siddha-deha

I'm not so keen on philosophical egghead discussions these days and would much prefer to do Krishna-katha, but of course it is necessary to have a strong philosophical grounding. Either way I would prefer not to argue too much about it. Back in August '06 I ordered some books via the Net including the famed Govinda-bhashya Vedanta commentary by Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushan, and David Haberman's "Acting As A Way To Salvation". I spotted some interesting tidbits that helped to make sense of a long-running controversy about the siddha-deha (spiritual body): Is it bestowed by the guru or is it inherent within?

Of course this is a bone of contention between those who adhere to those respective views as well, with much acrimony and bitterness being expressed in defending those views. Like I said I'm not interested in arguing but would prefer discussing this as a matter of shastra, a spiritual discussion that is elevating. So you can go ahead and see what I wrote about it back then, check out the comments too. The discussion went further on Advaita dasji's blog. The general view is that the majority of scriptural evidence (and also real history) argues for the "bestowed" view; that the siddha-deha is bestowed upon the aspirant by the guru, and that the siddha-deha is realized and perfected through appropriate spiritual practice. The other view - that the siddha-deha is inherent and automatically manifests upon reaching a certain level of purity - seems to be a minority view and has very little actual scriptural backing. How can we say this?

Sri Rupa Gosvami, Sri Sanatan Gosvami, Sri Jiva Gosvami - three of the famous Six Gosvamis - subscribe to the "given" theory. So does Sri Baladev Vidyabhushan, the great Acharya who provided a commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. In fact you would be hard-pressed to find a prominent Gaudiya-acharya who does not back the "given" theory as, to cut a long story short, makes more sense in the whole context of Gaudiya siddhanta in the long run. But since Sri Baladeva's Vedanta commentary was being used to promote the "inherent" view, I took it upon myself to transcribe the relevant sections from the Govinda-bhashya. You can find it here. I was also surprised to find Sripada Madhvacharya backing the "given" theory.

So I wanted to tie up some loose ends now that I've found more evidence for the "given" theory by Sri Jiva Gosvami. Sri Jiva's Priti-sandarbha was briefly quoted in the original post which was what I had, and I did not have the original and whole text to see the quotes in their proper context.

Well, now I do! :-)

So roll on the next post.

--

Follow-ups:

Priti Sandarbha 10
Priti Sandarbha 11-12
Priti Sandarbha 13

When You Point A Finger..

Yes, we've all heard this little story before: When you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing right back at you. Ergo, be mindful of what/who you're pointing at and refrain from criticism lest you be hypocritical and end up being judged by your own standards.

But today it hit me in a flash: What are those three fingers actually saying to you?

1st Finger: Trinad Api Sunicena.
2nd Finger: Taror Iva Sahisnuna.
3rd Finger: Amanina Mana Dena.

Mahaprabhu's neat little trick, eh? But what about Kirtaniyah Sada Harih? That, you must do with your mouth.

And why not? You point a finger at someone and criticise them with your mouth, why not point a finger and say something nice about them? Or better still, use your mouth to glorify Hari instead of wasting your time criticising a Vaishnava. And didn't you know that criticising Vaishnavas makes Mahaprabhu angry?

So there you go: Mahaprabhu's secret formula to bring out the best in you when you're attempting to do your worst.

CB deeper thoughts

I haven't progressed with CB in the last two days due to taking care of my father and so on, and there may have been an element of laziness in there somewhere too. But tonight my memory went back to a verse about the dismal situation (of Kali-yuga) around the time of Mahaprabhu's imminent appearance. In verse 63 of Chapter 2, Sri VDT says:

kRSNa-rAma-bhakti-zUnya sakala saMsAra
prathama-kalite haila bhaviSya-AcAra

"The whole creation was devoid of devotion for Krsna and Balaram, and the future symptoms of Kali-yuga were manifest in the beginning of the age."

But the particular characteristic that made me wonder was Verse 71:

ati-vaDa sukRti snAnera samaya
'govinda' 'puNDarIkAkSa'-nAma uccAraya

"Only the most pious people would recite the names of 'Govinda' and 'Pundarikaksa' at the time of taing bath."

I was puzzled. I had heard that talking at the time of taking bath makes the bather lose the spiritual potency or energy that is gained from bathing, what to speak of the popular habit of singing in the shower that is widely prevalent in the West! On some occasions when I was showering, Sri Harinama danced around in my mind and I indulged it but I don't ever recall chanting it or singing it in the shower. For some reason my crazy mind stuck to that notion that to talk or sing during a shower would dissipate spiritual potency, hmmmm I think that qualifies as an offence to Sri Harinam Itself, eh?

Well, it surprised me when I read Text 71. It seems that while describing the pitiful situation of dharma in Kali-yuga, the author mentions that 'only' the most pious would chant the Names at the time of taking bath. The way it sounds as if this was one of the few good qualities of Kali-yuga at the time of Mahaprabhu's appearance. Well at least as far as this text is concerned, it seems to be a rather good activity to chant the Names at bath-time after all. What was I thinking all of this time?! Chanting the names at bath-time can only increase whatever potency you're getting from the bath. Man, do I need to get some queer ideas out of my head or what. I guess I know who I should blame, but let's not play that game here.

'prathama-kalite haila bhaviSya-AcAra' from Text 63 is also an interesting consideration. For a fuller explanation of this line, Srimat Kanupriya Gosvami has written an excellent treatise entitled 'The Dawn of The Age of Love' in which he mentions the reasons why the symptoms of Kali-yuga are so prominent in this Kali-yuga than it is in previous or future Kali-yugas. I have copied this text and uploaded this file somewhere on GD. I think I should update it and 'modernise' it with proper diacritics and all, as I just copied the original text in order to retain the flavour of the Bengali English. That's a project I can get along with. If only I could remember where I kept my copy of the original text....