On Dhanurdhara Swami 2

I wrote yesterday's port about Dhanurdhara Swami in quite an emotional mood yesterday, which is unlike me. But then again, the subject of violating childhood innocence is extremely emotional and heartbreaking.

So I'd just like to clarify my view: if Dhanurdhara Swami has genuinely taken to the spiritual path and weeps for forgiveness for his past actions, then of course there is no real obstacle to his endeavour there.

I just don't think it is correct to enthusiastically open your arms and embrace all and sundry in a world like the one in which we live today. That cartoon is a good pointer of the bias that exists towards the religiously-inclined, and the snootiness that exists in relation to nonbelieving 'good' citizens.

The story of Jagai-Madhai is a good model of forgiveness in the Mahaprabhu story. What is often not mentioned is that, after Jagai-Madhai were forgiven by Mahaprabhu, Madhai was especially repentant and wanted to do something to expiate for his sins. He was told by Nityananda Prabhu to construct a bathing-ghat for the Vaishnavas.

So if this is the sort of thing that Dhanurdhara is doing, all best wishes to him in his attempt at expiating for his sins. Still, just as the former history of Jagai-Madhai is always mentioned when retelling the story, a critical appraisal of Dhanurdhara's (in fact, any child-abuser or "devotee criminal") history should also take place so that people are conscious of it.

Some people may complain that it is unfair to drag up his history at every occasion and shove it in his face. Well, people are still dragging up Jagai-Madhai 500 years later as an example of Mahaprabhu's forgiveness. Who knows, maybe it will all turn out alright in the end for Dhanurdhara.

But who can say such a thing without the memory of his child victims pricking their conscience? They must not be forgotten. They should be compensated adequately.

On Dhanurdhara Swami

Much has been said on the Internet on this topic and I wouldn't want to add any unnecessary fuel to the fire, but since it has come up again.. I feel sorry about this post in that I have to criticise some dear friends, but this topic is far too serious for social niceties and people have to stand up and speak out against bigoted and misplaced attitudes passing as "devotion".

Advaita recently wrote a blog about his meeting with Dhanurdhara Swami which an anonymous commenter apparently criticised, leading Advaita to say:

"To the anon referring to Dhanurdhara Swami as a 'notorious child abuser' (comment rejected): Dhanurdhara Swami doing wrong things 27 years ago does not disqualify him from bhakti forever, especially since he elaborately apologized. The jiva is constitutionally eternally Krishna's servant - jiver swarup hoy krishner nitya-das. Have you been celibate, a teetotaller and vegetarian for the 27 years since, like DD Swami? You tell us nothing about yourself, not even your name - what right do you have to accuse others as long as we don't know your record? Let us look at the future, not the past - I believe Dhanurdhar Swami has potential for raganuga bhakti."

A further comment from "Vikram Ramsoondur" followed:

"Aptly put, Advaitaji. As Madhavananda Das wrote on one of his previous blogs in which he mentioned conferring with Dhanurdhara Maharaja in Vrindavana, no acts are irredeemable. Madhavaji even went on to opine the beautiful thought that saints are in fact forged in purgatory fires, to use his own words. What I find exceedingly jocular about some of the comments that you receive on these blogs is the hypocrisy, spinelessness and hilarity characterising them, and by extension their anonymous authors as well. I could also add temerity to the above list, since apparently some of these clowns would have us see more sense in their own worthless, materially conditioned views than in the transcendental realisations of our revered purvacaryas, thanks to whom we owe so much confidential information about the Supreme Lord and his activities."

Out of interest, the anonymous observer whose comment was deleted by Advaita popped up at Jagat's blog to reveal the nature of his original comment:

"Sorry to distract from your nice essay Jagat, but I wanted to say that Advaitadas is a censoring liar. One of his latest entries is about how he met Dhanurdhara Swami in Vrindavan and gave away some of his books to him. I made a comment that I couldn't believe that he would charge vaishnavas for his books and yet give them away for free to notorious child abusers. He didn't publish my comment and replied in such a way that completely twisted the point of my comment, turning it around on me and supporting Dhanurdhara Swami. I wrote another comment (which again he didn't publish) asking him to answer my questions about giving away books for free and not give me a lecture about Dhanurdhara which he hasn't responded.

"Advaitadas is a dishonest and censorious liar and cannot answer a question to save his life. He will charge vaishnavas money for his books and rudely answer back to critical questions to some of his ideas, but he will give free books to child abusers because they are likely to take 'raganuga bhakti'. He makes me sick."

Assuming that this is true, this does throw something of a different light on Advaita's harsh reply. But be that as it may, the comments in favour of Dhanurdhara Swami are part of what I see as a problem in religion, the ease at which a fallen or a publicly-acknowledged criminal is received back into the arms of supposedly loving and forgiving devotees of the Lord. It is because of this attitude that religion has come under fire these days; who can forget the sensational exposés of the Catholic Church's embarrassing moves to protect their child-abusing priests, making them complicit in the actual crime?

Here is a recent picture of Dhanurdhara Swami sitting in the Gambhira area at Mayapur, dated February 4th, 2008. He is wearing the characteristic orange robes that are donned by members of the renounced order in a spiritual sect. I do not know the exact details of Dhanurdhara's crimes (and nor do I wish to) as I expect some tabloid-minded people to have made hay about it somewhere in some parts of the Net, but I do know that this individual has been responsible for committing some of the worst crimes against ISKCON's children. I do not know if sexual abuse was involved, but that would not in any wish diminish the severity or seriousness of what he did do. Dhanurdhara, for his part, has openly and strongly expressed his grief and regret over his actions and has made endeavours to personally apologise to his former victims as well as making an open apology on the Net. Among the reasons he gave for his behaviour was the fact that he claimed to be maladjusted in his personal psychology. Despite Dhanurdhara's repentance, he has continued to bear the reactions of his history even now and even in the form of serious physical beatings from ex-gurukuli. I do not know whether he has been prosecuted legally, but there are extremely strict sanctions in place against him in ISKCON that make him more or less on the fringe; he is restricted in giving classes, working with children, taking disciples, and so on.

That said, I do not agree with the opinions of Advaita and others who support and continue to support Dhanurdhara by dismissing his extremely serious history with a wave of their hands and proclaim his virtues instead. I wonder if they would say the exact same thing or have the same attitude towards John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Fred West, Richard Ramirez, and others? OK, in fairness Dhanurdhara is not quite in their league, but I don't see why someone could or should be easily forgiven just because they are supposed to have led a long life of sadhana? Why should Dhanurdhara be granted special treatment because he is a devotee of God? Idi Amin ran away to Saudi Arabia and lived a Muslim life at Mecca up to his death, I'm sure he had his supporters too but does that excuse any of the horrific actions he carried out while he was the dicatatorial ruler of Uganda?

Should Vaishnavas reflect the magnanimity of Mahaprabhu and be forgiving, they being more merciful than the Lord and all that? Yes, Vaishnavas are ever-loving and forgiving in a perfect and idealistic world which is not the world we are living in. In the real world, child abusers are fully taken to task for their crimes and sent to jail. That is, if they haven't already received a dose of 'street' justice.

But we are talking of entering into bhakti here. As Advaita correctly says, activities performed years ago (and apparently repented for) do not disqualify one from practicing the path of bhakti. This is true, since the path of devotion to God brings forgiveness in itself. But yet again we are living in the real world. How many rogues and philanderers throughout history have turned to the Church while on the run in the hopes of finding sanctuary? To the eyes of the average person, engagement in bhakti with its concomitant features such as vegetarianism, abstaining from alcohol etc. do not excuse the terrible and horrific acts that constitute child abuse, especially since the effects of the same upon the victim are a significant trauma that has lifelong effects. And no amount of bhakti performed on Dhanurdhara's part will be able to take even a pinch of that trauma away. All the japa and kirtan that Dhanurdhara chants and sings will never equal the loud screams of the children who were beaten on the head until their ears bled. All the prasad that Dhanurdhara eats will never equal the vomit that children under his care were forced to eat. All the dandavats that Dhanurdhara carried out will never equal the pain of the little children who were thrown to the floor and kicked in the stomach.

For someone to even enunciate the idea that Dhanurdhara's practice of bhakti somehow absolves him from acts he committed years ago (as if the time of said abuse makes any difference to the severity of trauma caused and experienced) is to openly reveal one's complete lack of compassion and expose their sneering heartlessness. Such people have not and will never understand the ramifications of abuse perpetrated upon children, that too carried out by so-called "devotees". I have a little experience of working with people who were abused as children and there is a tremendous amount of evidence of lifelong suffering and trauma that affects their every action. Perhaps that's a reason why I've come on so strong in this post, but it shouldn't make a difference whether I have experience or not, because I would expect that any decent human being has a sufficient amount of brain to be filled with revulsion when hearing tales of abuse perpetrated by anyone. It's not just Dhanurdhara people have to worry about: the entire child abuse scandal of ISKCON has been a horrific stillbirth of a maturing organisation.

Ramsoonder's comment bears some weight; he has quoted an old post made by Madhava on the same subject on his blog where he related how he met with Dhanurdhara. This is what Madhava had to say:

"A bit further along the way, I invited him over to visit us at Radha-kunda when he was over at Govardhana. Swami came across to me as a thoughtful, gentle and deep individual. Yes we all have a history, and his is particularly well propagated across the internet — and he's gone through nothing short of a small hell over it, experiences I gather have made him grow immensely in many ways. I refuse to believe in unredeemable acts, saints are forged in purgatory fires."

Not only is this attitude unbelievable, but it is ridiculous as it is idiotic. It is fair play to mention that Dhanurdhara has gone through his fair share of hell over his past - I have done the exact same thing above - but to enunciate and propagate the idea that engaging in child abuse was some sort of "growth experience" for a "potential saint" is SICKENING TO THE CORE. This view is so completely irresponsible beyond belief, how can anyone even think like this? People who say glibly say things like this obviously did not hear the heartwrenching screams of the children, they did not see the children hammered with clenched fists, and neither did they wipe the tears that fell from their eyes. How could they, with their noses buried deep in scriptures and their ears blocked with iPod headphones? It is an act of immense arrogance and thoughtlessness to say, "Yes, the scriptures have nothing against a child abuser like Dhanurdhara engaging in acts of bhakti", as if this makes any blind bit of difference to either the path of bhakti or to Dhanurdhara himself.

I have never met Dhanurdhara personally, although I imagine that he may very well behave as a member of the renounced order that he is these days. I have no reason to treat him with any particular malice and I imagine I will treat him with as much civility and courtesy I would offer to any human being. Though of course, I will be filled with revulsion when I consider his history. This is actually a fact of life: No matter whatever "hell" Dhanurdhara has been through, he will always have to run the gauntlet of public opinion wherever he goes. This is one of the signs of criminal activity, people will never let you forget it. My opinion hardly matters in the grand scheme of things and has probably blended in with the mass of criticism that already exists.

The most fetid thing of all is to consider that Dhanurdhara is to be excused because he appears a good candidate for "raganuga bhakti". It is this sickening and ingratiating attitude of servile acceptance along "Vaishnava ideals" that I strongly object to. Child abuse can never be excused, ever.

--------

Please see an update to this article: On Dhanurdhara Swami 2.

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!

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.

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.