This is a reply to Seeker’s comment on the Superstar post.
Seeker wrote:
I am able to understand the gratitude that the innocent followers may have developed for Prabhupada which causes them go into a denial mode while hearing a critical analysis of his words or deeds. However, even they would try to rationalize his mistakes by either citing his good intentions or by citing a few counter-examples to refute the issue at hand.
I was not so much surprised to see Narayana Maharaj blaming the editors for the mistranslation in Prabhupada’s books despite Prabhupada’s expansion of the same theme (women as papa-yoni) in his various lectures. However, what is the need for attributing omniscience to Prabhupada? Does Narayan Maharaj really believe that Prabhupada was omniscient or does he say so to feed the sentiments of his followers? I don’t know which is worse.
I would be happy to hear out your thoughts on this issue.
Narayana Maharaja has this habit of telling people that the highest level guru is omniscient, not just Prabhupada. He wants people to see himself as some omniscient god-like super mystic so that they will be more inclined to support and surrender to him and his organization.
Prabhupada denied that he was omniscient btw.
Jayadvaita: …they know everything and they’re perfect in everything. But sometimes, from our material viewpoint, we see some discrepancies. Just like we think that…
Prabhupada: Because material viewpoint. The viewpoint is wrong; therefore you find discrepancies.
Jayadvaita: So we should think that we have the defect.
Prabhupada: Yes. Acarya is explained, bhakti-samsanah: “One who’s preaching the cult of devotional service, he’s acarya.” Then why should you find any discrepancy?
Jayadvaita: Because we see… For instance, sometimes the acarya may seem to forget something or not to know something, so from our point of view, if someone has forgotten, that is…
Prabhupada: No, no, no. Then…
Jayadvaita: …an imperfection.
Prabhupada: That is not the… Then you do not understand. Acarya is not God, omniscient. He is servant of God. His business is to preach bhakti cult. That is acarya.
Jayadvaita: And that is the perfection.
Prabhupada: That is the perfection. Hare Krsna.
Jayadvaita: So we have a misunderstanding about what perfection is?
Prabhupada: Yes. Perfection is here, how he is preaching bhakti cult. That’s all.
Many devotees within and outside of ISKCON think that their guru can hear their prayers or read their minds, that’s a type of omniscience. But when asked if he had that ability Prabhupada gave a sort of denial:
Regarding your questions are the Spiritual Master and the Grand Spiritual Master consciously aware of the prayers of a sincere devotee who prays in love to Them?–the answer is that no conscious prayers go in vain. They are transmitted positively. But one thing you must know that any prayer you offer to your Spiritual Master and Superior Spiritual Master, all of them are conveyed to Krishna, so no sincere prayers go in vain.
Prabhupada was smart enough to realize that he shouldn’t tell people that he had all sorts of mystic abilities. Once you do that it’s easy for people to lose faith in you if you seem to lack those powers at any given time. Narayana Maharaja doesn’t seem to care, or he doesn’t realize the risk of putting himself on such a god-like level.
Narayana Maharaja teaches differently from Prabhupada in that he tries to get people to believe that the guru (i.e. himself) has super mystic powers, such as omniscience.What’s funny is that in the quote of his you provide he gives himself an out for when it seems like a guru isn’t omniscient — saying that if it seems like a guru makes a mistake or seems to be ignorant in some way or another — that they are like God in lila — just pretending to be human. As obvious a ploy as that is, many people still think he is the highest level bhakta. Why? Because he is learned and is able to communicate what he has learned. Foolishly, most devotees will determine how advanced someone is according to their ability to speak or write — it doesn’t even have to be anything very deep — it just needs to appear to be comprehensive and detailed, especially when it comes to knowledge of lila. That’s why you see that the most popular gurus are the ones who speak a lot about lila, e.g. Radhanatha Swami, Narayana Maharaja.
This is the problem with most gurus today — they promote themselves as being something they are not. Whether it’s that they have mystic powers; or that they are “pure representatives of Krishna;” or that they are on the highest level of bhakti by dint of their knowledge (ability to repeat what they have read) of lila. Or, that they have some special understanding that other gurus don’t have. That is what is behind the kerfuffle between Tripurari and Narayana Maharaja. They both want to come across as knowing the secret of who Prabhupada is in Krishna lila so as to appear superior to other gurus.
Tripurari’s tries to put across the conception that he is a special guru, superior to others who are not as rational and modern as he is, yet at the same time more thoroughly versed in the minutiae of lila. He rejects Narayana Maharaja’s opinions and Prabhupada’s opinions, and unlike most of the other Sridhar Maharaja followers — he wouldn’t work with Govinda Maharaja. He praises and says that Prabhupada was the highest level devotee possible, but, he disagrees with various things Prabhupada said. He wants it both ways — he wants to come across as “recognizing and worshiping” Prabhupada as the highest level mahabhagavat, but guess what — he’s even higher because he doesn’t make the mistakes Prabhupada made, e.g:
Prabhupada teaching that we came from or can fall down from the spiritual world; teaching that women are papa-yoni; teaching that procreative sex is the only sex God allows humans to have otherwise it is a sin; teaching that raganuga is only for “liberated self-realized pure devotees” otherwise you will become a “sahajiya and a demon;” teaching that the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory is true because it is impossible to go to the moon; teaching that girls shouldn’t be educated beyond reading and writing otherwise they will become prostitutes; saying that women who aren’t married or who get an education and aspire to something other than being a housewife are prostitutes; divorce is always the fault of women; feminism is a plot by men to exploit women for sex; there have never been women scientists, mathematicians, or philosophers in all of human history; after men have too much sex with women they become impotent — and that is the cause of homosexuality; that black people should be forced into and would be satisfied being slaves; the moon is further away from the earth than the sun, etc.
Tripurari disagrees with all of those teachings — yet Prabhupada insisted that it was all true. Prabhupada insisted that we should accept it all as Krishna’s holy absolute truth because he was simply a “transparent via medium” who was only giving us Krishna’s opinions, not his own. And, according to Tripurari, Prabhupada was in fact Krishna’s highest level pure representative. Tripurari has somehow convinced his followers that he isn’t being disingenuous by that type of sophistry? It’s probably because of what I wrote above — he’s like Radhanath Swami to them. Radhanath Swami is the most popular ISKCON guru even though he has a very troubling past. It’s because when he lectures he mostly talks about various stories and pastimes from various scriptures that the audience is often unaware of, he seems to be special and deep to them because, well, they think that is what special deep devotees do. They don’t realize that just because he has read more than them and is able to remember what he has read and tell it back to them in a somewhat skillful manner — that it doesn’t say anything about his character or level of self-realization.
Universities are full of teachers who specialize in certain genres of literature who can expound endlessly on what they have learned in an entertaining manner. It’s a skill of the intellectual, it doesn’t say anything about their personal character or level of spiritual awareness. Being able to tell stories and repeat what you have read from Vedic literature is no different. It’s an intellectual skill, not a sign of spiritual advancement. Narayana Maharaja is popular for that reason as well — he mainly just tells a lot of stories.
People who are not self-realized but who are trying to be Gaudiya Vaishnava gurus and gather followers, are only successful if they are able to convince people that they are more spiritually advanced than them. Because they are not self-realized they usually don’t understand or give much importance to the teachings on self-realization found in the Gita, Bhagavatam, etc. What they teach is usually focused on stories and minutiae from lila, and about the all-importance of following vaidhi sadhana-bhakti very strictly, e.g. this world is full of misery caused by you being a fallen worthless piece of crap who needs to give up everything in life but serving me – because I am Krishna’s representative who can magically give you his “mercy” by which you will no longer desire to do anything but “devotional service.”
Dear devotees,
Sri Guru, Vaishnavas, and Sri Bhagavan can act as antaryami, or the super soul, although this topic is rather inconceivable.
Here’s a link with references.
http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/harmonist-monthly/37-year-1/1007-the-deep-meaning-of-akhanda-guru-tattva.html
Narayana Maharaja’s followers are known for being really really terrible when it comes to translating or even just transcribing his English lectures into the written word. If you listen to one of Narayana Maharjaa’s lectures and then read the transcript it’s really shocking how much they change. I’m assuming that what is in those letters in the link you gave is a correct translation of Vamana Maharaja, (which I seriously doubt it is) if not I apologize for the following:
Wow, what a load of crap. Almost everything he said was insanity. I’ll just point out one thing since to go over all of it would waste too much of my time on such madness:
Where does he come up with that from? Is Goloka described like that in any sastra or in any of the teachings of prominent founders of Gaudiya Vaishnavism? No. What about the gopas? Are they “female servants?” The conception that Krishna is “the only enjoyer” is concocted by the most ignorant or exploitative people seeking to have people give up “the desire to enjoy” in order to exploit them. Goloka is described as a place where Krishna is treated as an equal, therefore everyone is an enjoyer. Everyone seeks to enjoy by our nature, it is the nature of conscious intelligent people to seek to enjoy life. Exploiters or ignorant people will try to convince you that God is the only being who is allowed to have an enjoying mentality. That is rubbish and not backed up by any sastra. How can that person not have been been corrected and even have that nonsense posted on Narayana Maharaja’s website? Because Narayana Maharaja teaches similar insane stuff, and the people who run that website are seriously deluded. Pathetic, really, that that nonsense is being taught as the teachings of Krishna. Have they no sense at all?
The Deep Meaning Of Akhanda Guru-tattva
Vraj,
Vaman Maharaja’s mother brought him to Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja’s Calcutta mission fairly early in the 20th century, perhaps in the 1920s or 30s.
He remained a strict brahmacari/sannyasi throughout his entire life, so perhaps you are picking up on his mood of renunciation.
The only mistake I noticed in Vaman Maharaja’s letter, which has now been rendered into an English article, is in his reference to Sri Caitanya-caritamrita Adi 1.121. It should be Adi 1.20 I believe. There’s no such verse as Adi 1.121. Vaman Maharaj’s original letter is in Bengali.
Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but today’s prolific gurus have a world-wide audience and it’s not simple organizing an editorial team to perfectly represent the guru. We have seen this throughout the 20th and the 21st centuries now.
Narayan Maharaj can’t go anywhere without people pulling out microphones, camcorders, cameras etc. And there’s more people posting videos, pictures, lectures, and books than you can shake a stick at.
So being a guru, especially with a worldwide following, is not an easy job.
I met Narayan Maharaj in 2008 and he gave a lovely discourse on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I didn’t get the impression that he is at all manipulative. He’s quite a sweet old gentleman with a great sense of humor, and he’s very learned.
Here’s the mantra.
http://vedabase.net/sb/1/5/11/en1
THE RESIDENTS OF ETERNAL VRINDAVAN
http://www.vrindavan.de/vrindavana.htm
Vraj,
I don’t know who the gurus are behind the uproar on the above link, but I sure like it, especially the top link of the site – Sri Radhika, Queen of Vrindavan.
Perhaps you might be interested in giving the Sri Radhika link a read, and perhaps one other link as well, Sri Sri Radha-Krishna-Ganoddesa-Dipika.
The guru behind the latter link is Srila Rupa Gosvami, although I’ve never met the milk-girls or the milk-boys yet who run the site.
Don
I already link to that website on my links page. What uproar are you referring to?
Don
You said:
No, just the ridiculous things in those letters he says about gurus, and when he teaches how all jivas are females in their relationship with Krishna.
He tries to convince us that there really is no difference between paramatma and guru within his conception of guru-tattva. Real guru-tattva is about paramatma being manifested everywhere as guru (although guru isn’t the right word since it tends to imply teacher-student rasa rather than more intimate rasa) in the sense that when you advance in self-realization and attain the first stages of bhava-bhakti, paramatma will communicate with you through everyone and everything because you will know and realize that paramatma is controlling everyone and everything — with everything you experience predestined and preplanned before you were born.
Life is like a movie with a script and a director, we may not know the lines, but in reality paramatma is always feeding them to us. In that way everything in life that you encounter has been arranged beforehand. When you attain the first stages of bhava-bhakti you will see how that arrangement is used by paramatma to communicate with you through everything you encounter. That is the deeper meaning of guru-tattva. It is part of paramatma-tattva.
The way that letter comes across makes it seem that we should see a physical devotee guru having the powers of paramatma. Instead of seeing paramatma as guru, manifesting through a devotee guru and everyone and everything else, he tells us that we should see a devotee guru or even other Vaishnavas, with the powers of paramatma, e.g. guru sees in your heart and mind like antaryami, he should have a relationship with you where you treat him like he is the husband/owner of you and you are his wife/slave.
Those are ignorant and exploitative teachings. You may not see the exploitation paradigm being taught by various gurus, like what you say about Narayana Maharaja, but that is because that is what they try to achieve. These guys have followings and are being worshiped like gods because they are master manipulators, if you easily see the deception then they cannot gain a following. You don’t see the exploitative manipulation because that is what they are good at, that is why they have slavish followers. They convince you that you are dependent on them, that Krishna and sastra demand that you (for your own salvation) must submit and surrender to them, and, to the degree that you do that you will gain Krishna’s “mercy.” Of course they don’t spend all of their time stating that directly or indirectly, but it is a major part of their teaching strategy.
Laugh Out Loud – Hare Krishna
Vraj,
I didn’t realize you had a link to the “Residents Of Eternal Vrindavan” site.
I found the site when I was googling some phrases and shlokas I have been reading lately, but I do see the “Links” button at the top of the page now.
Thanks for providing so much information to your readers.
When I used the term “uproar,” I was simply being humorous, as I know it’s your nature to critique gurus.
Vraja said: The conception that Krishna is “the only enjoyer” is concocted by the most ignorant or exploitative people seeking to have people give up “the desire to enjoy” in order to exploit them. Goloka is described as a place where Krishna is treated as an equal, therefore everyone is an enjoyer. Everyone seeks to enjoy by our nature, it is the nature of conscious intelligent people to seek to enjoy life. Exploiters or ignorant people will try to convince you that God is the only being who is allowed to have an enjoying mentality. That is rubbish and not backed up by any sastra.
Vraja
I believe we have to make the idea very clear here. I believe the essence of GVism and the essence of the vast literature written by founding acharyas is that the residents of Vraja enjoy only in relation to Krishna’s enjoyment.
Jai Sri Radha Krishna
Malati dasi
I’m not saying that self-realized liberated jivas enjoy separately from Krishna. What I was saying is that Krishna is not the only “enjoyer.” It’s impossible to enjoy separately from Krishna since everything is manifested and controlled by Krishna. What I objected to is the conception that jivas are supposed to see the desire to enjoy as against our nature and against God’s desire.
Vraj,
I agree with Malati dasi‘s statement, “I believe the essence of GVism and the essence of the vast literature written by founding acharyas is that the residents of Vraja enjoy only in relation to Krishna’s enjoyment.”
Krishna is described as the supreme enjoyer in sastra, not the “only enjoyer.” The sastras also state that Krishna is controlled by love, prem.
So sadhana-bhaktas are requested to regulate their enjoying spirit, not to give up enjoying altogether.
Therefore, if one enjoys singing, then one should sing for Krishna. If one enjoys sex, then one should have sex for Krishna. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur said he would have sex thousands of times if he were sure he would have a pure devotee as a child.
He was probably speaking figuratively, as he was extraordinarily renounced. He could also have been speaking to both his grihasta disciples and his renounced disciples.
I read an interested story about a brahmacari who gave a lecture during Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Maharaja’s time. The brahmacari began condemning householders for their enjoying spirit, but later he was chastised by his gurudev. Householders are devotees too, and if renunciants and householders work together in spreading Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s mission, success is assured.
Of course the sastras tell us that sex should be kept within the grihasta asram, and is limited to once per month. But can’t that be taken as an ideal? I don’t know of many devotees who are as extraordinarily renounced as some of the Gaudiya Vaishnav acaryas.
There are many other scriptures that deal with the natural enjoying spirit of the jivas, and they all point in the direction of Krishna-bhakti and reducing our exploitative enjoying spirit in favor of cultivating Krishna-prem.
Vraj said, “It’s impossible to enjoy separately from Krishna since everything is manifested and controlled by Krishna. What I objected to is the conception that jivas are supposed to see the desire to enjoy as against our nature and against God’s desire.”
I think that response is a cop out. Of course Krishna is the primary creator, but that doesn’t mean that baddha jivas shouldn’t cultivate Krishna-prem and begin the process of reducing their exploitative tendencies.
Don, you wrote:
I don’t think so, it’s a common teaching found among exploiter or ignorant devotees and gurus that “Krishna is the only enjoyer,” and that:
“Jivas are undergoing samsara because they desire to enjoy or exploit Krishna’s energy, bhakti-yoga is about purifying you of the desire to enjoy and replacing that with only a desire to serve Krishna’s enjoyment.”
Prabhupada taught that, and most Gaudiya gurus teach that. It’s a demented concoction, it’s not what sastra teaches. People who get their education about Gaudiya Vaishnavism from Prabhupada or similar teachers, have that insane conception drilled into them, they seem to become bewildered when you point out that they are believing in and advocating a contradictory and bizarre theology.
On the one hand the goal of bhakti-yoga is said to be the attainment of prema, i.e. receive a new body and physically live with God in an intimate relationship. The residents of Vraja lila are supposed to be archetypes or examples of the type of mood which you should emulate in your relationship with Krishna. What is the Vraja lila mood? It is described as having no awareness of Krishna’s aisvarya, no awareness of his majesty or opulence as lord of the universe. They treat him as a human. That is the ideal we are told to emulate in our relationship with God. We can’t and shouldn’t negate the reality of Radha Krishna being God, that isn’t the point of Vraja lila. What it aims to teach is how we should see ourselves as God’s equals, not in the ontological sense of being the same type of being as God, but rather equals in the sense of brothers and sisters, not servant and master.
The contradiction comes when people teach that only Krishna is the enjoyer, that jivas are not supposed to be enjoyers, and that jivas must take on a mentality of a self-denying servant who must see the desire for personal “sense gratification” as selfish and essentially sinful — “We must only desire to please Krishna’s senses” — they teach. To the degree that you are free from the desire to enjoy your senses (especially sex) you are spiritually advanced, they claim. Most Gaudiya gurus that I have heard from don’t seem to realize or don’t seem to care about the contradictory theology they are presenting. You can’t cultivate intimacy and equality with God while at the same time cultivate the mood of a self-denying slavish servant of God. They are opposite moods. The reason they push that contradictory theology is either because they seek to exploit people, or they are just ignorant of the craziness they try to pass off as the height of sophisticated God consciousness.
Vraj,
As much as I appreciate youir actions in Krishna consciousness, especially in terms of paying respects to antaryami, I think your understaning of GV teachings are not complete, although I’m equally as guilty in many respects as well.
I do in fact appreciate your policy of providing people with links to Gaudiya Vaishnav acaryas, gurs, vaishnavas, and vaishnavis.
Even in in the mundane sense, people who have been raised or reformed to have faith in right from wrong can experience guru, vaishnavas, and bhagavan as antaryami.
For example, I have seen situations where bhaktas and bhaktines have extarnally performed the function of anaryami in at least a simple sense.
They have caused me to consider my tendecies as exploitative rather than devotional, and have inspired me in my heartfelt devotion to Radha Krishna and the Vrajavasis.
Your polemics are of no use in sadhana bhakti, although you have a healthy skeptism of so-called gurus, as did Srila Swami Prabhupad. Your dedicaton to raganuga-bhakti is quite honorable.
Even though Srila Swami Praghupda did simplify his teachings regarding anartha-navriti, Bhaktisiddhanta did refer to anartha-navriti as a process. So exactly whent one is eligible for radanuga-sadhana is not exactly clear in Gaudiya Vaishnava theism.
Anyway, if one accepts Caitanya Mahaprahu as the universal guru, and Jaganath as the supreme personality of Godhead Krishna, then one receives the combined mercy of guru and Krishna.
Let me know what you think about the following link if you have time. I’d appreciate your perspective.
http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/13/18/en1 (Purport)
Don
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Good luck.
Vraj,
Agreeing to disagree is not only a great process for world peace, it’s also a great process for reducing divorce, crime, religious quarrel etc.
Your are appreciated.
Our interpretation of sastra is inevitably colored by our philosophy formed about this world.
Without shedding the illusions about this world, we inevitably carry that baggage and apply it to our interpretation of sastra as well. The common theme running across many cultures is that selfishness is wrong but philanthropism is a virtue. This is taken as an indubitable premise. Many people think that it
is automatically virtuous to please others rather than pleasing oneself. A social worker rings a bell of virtuous character rather than a productive person who has earned his riches by his competence.
Sacrifice is seen as a virtue. Let me define that term. Sacrifice is giving up something higher in one’s value system and accepting something lower in one’s value system due to a sense of duty, being seen as virtuous, or whatever reason. With this definition, will I sacrifice my life for someone else? Never. Does it mean that I will not give up my life for anyone? No. I would be ready to give up my life for someone dear to me but it is not sacrifice. I see my life as being empty without them and that their existence in the world is so important to me that I am ready to give up my life. There is no question of sacrifice involved here.
To give another example, if the mother says that she is sacrificing her pleasure for the welfare of the child, then that’s a great insult to her motherhood as well as the child. However, if she says that her child’s welfare is more important to her for which she is able to suffer some pain, then that’s the correct context. The greatness of motherhood is not that she sacrifices anything but that she places the welfare of the child as something in her value system than her own. Similarly, in prema-bhakti, our focus will be on pleasing Krishna but it does not mean that our desires or propensity for enjoyment will cease to exist.
God is not dependent on our so-called sacrifice. On the contrary, Krishna wants us to enjoy and by nature of our constituitional position, it is impossible for us to experience enjoyment to the fullest when we are forgetful of Krishna. And so, Krishna wants us to remember Him and eternally enjoy with Him.
As a neophyte, one starts his journey with the conviction that he is going to enjoy his fullest with Krishna than what he can probably enjoy in all the heavenly planets for eternity. The end of that journey is that where one starts thinking Radha and Krishna as his life and soul that he is prepared to give up his life for Them. There is no sacrifice involved here or denial of enjoyment. In his value system, the pleasure of Radha and Krishna gives him the ultimate pleasure. The important thing is that all this is applicable without any philanthropic mood wherein one tries to evoke these emotions artifically out of a sense of duty or after being intellectually convinced that this is how it is supposed to be. Reading such flow of emotions in the sastra and confusing them with the tattva aspect of it is not the correct approach.
Our whole being is craving for enjoyment and to deny that is not spiritualism. It is just another tainted version of Mayavada. Mayavadis conclude that enjoyment is the cause of suffering and seek to merge in brahman. Gaudiya vaisnavism (GV) is not thinking that enjoyment is the cause of suffering and seek to become slaves of Krishna. It neither starts that way nor ends that way.
However, the exploitative or ignorant gurus send out the message either implicitly or explictly: “You develop the spirit of renunciation and sacrifice. Even though you want to enjoy your life, deny your enjoyment tendency, and dedicate your life to my mission. Start developing this spirit since that’s what is expected out of you in the spiritual world. Even in vraja, you will be serving as a servant of the servant without thinking about your own enjoyment since Krishna is the ultimate enjoyer”. That the gurus might believe this teaching in good faith might preach it with good intentions will not do any good for the listeners.
Such gurus do not need to teach anything new about the virtue of sacrifice since that is embedded as a default premise for many people. The only thing left is to emphasize the importance of guru, how the guru is heavy, how they sacrificed for their spiritual master, or going to the extent of claiming omnipotence for the physical guru. To give an example, people do not follow their psycho-physical nature to take up some service and think it is more virtuous to do some
menial service for the guru. Surrender is seen as a virtue and the easiest way to feel surrendered is to sacrifice your real interests or desires. Such convoluted thinking leading to a twist in our psyche is not the dynamics of the dealings in Vraja dham.
There is no better way to drive people away from Vaisnavism than saying that sacrifice and self-abnegation is a virtue and as living entities, our job is to dutifully serve the needs of Krishna and deny our own desires. In comparison, the conception of God as a father who serves our needs is far more attractive.
Luckily for us, GV offers much more. It is about developing an intimate relation with Radha Krishna in the mood of Vrajavasis. God Himself becomes bound by that love and by the arrangement of yogamaya, forgets that He is God and deals with us as equal, obeys our orders, etc.., The gopis think that Krishna has to stay in Vrndavan for their own enjoyment and not as a sacrifice. Of course, their enjoyment is complete when they see Krishna happy and so due to their love, they think that Krishna cannot be happy without them. They are oblivious of the tattva aspect and do not think that Krishna is atmarama or self-satisfied.
After understanding that Krishna is God, GV is all about the gradual and systematic path for forgetting that Krishna is God and become His eternal, intimate associate in Vraja. No other system proposes such an objective. More importantly, the interim period is not about becoming overridden with guilt about our desires or our propensity for enjoyment. In all probability, one cannot continue with that mindset for a sustained period and will eventually drop out of the path of bhakti due to the wrong teachings. Others will become dependent on the father-figure of a guru and assure themselves that they will get vraja-bhakti by following all his instructions.
We will reach a stage where we feel the pleasure of Radharani is our life and soul and for that reason, we will also naturally feel indebted to our guru and all the other vaisnavas who helped in various stages. It will help our spiritual life if we pay attention to our pratyaksha (direct experience), try to tune in the voice of Paramatma within us, and be open to change our understanding rather than interpreting the emotional pourings literally. Krishna, as promised in Gita, will supply us with the necessary intelligence if we are eager to seek the truth than priding ourselves as a sold-out Prabhupada man, as a menial servant who will not question the teachings of my Gaudiya math guru, etc..,
As Bhaktivinod Thakur writes, “New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be. Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by
the peace of conscience.
…
…
Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love”. Had Bhaktivinod Thakur joined any of the vaisnava organizations today and expressed such ideas, he would have received tons of sastric quotes, conversations of gurus, a good dose of advice on how one should be a staunch believer, distribute more books, do menial service, etc.., or worse, would have been labelled as a blasphemer and ostracized.
Seeker
I agree with most of what you said. The only problem is with your conception of what life is like for jivan-muktas who have attained to prema-bhakti. For example you wrote:
That’s not the highest reality, that’s not what Krishna wants. That conception is common amongst people who take what they have read about Vraja lila too literally. The Vraja lila that has been created by various authors has a very specific purpose — to aid in the elevation of the consciousness of baddha-jivas towards the level of jivan-mukta.
The highest reality, i.e. the world where God put’s all of his/her resources and thought into enjoying as much as possible — is not simply village life in ancient India. I can enjoy much more today in our modern world — what with jets, yachts, world travel, varieties of cultures and entertainments, varieties of physical environments, e.g. tropical islands, alpine mountains, rainforests, deserts, etc; the variety of beautifiul architecture all over the world, the variety of music, theater, cuisines, etc. The variety and quantity of enjoyment in our world available for a rich healthy person far surpasses the super simplistic repetitive Indian village life described as Vraja lila. The actual highest reality is where God puts ALL her/his thought and energy into enjoying as much as possible. That isn’t simple village life, not even close.
The actual reality of lila is very different than what has been created as meditation tools for baddha-jivas. Those descriptions of rasa lila are meditation tools that can aid bhaktas by giving them a vision of what they are aiming for. Just like a deity form is a meditation tool so that people can visualize God as a human person rather than just as a cosmic energy field. As they advance they no longer need aid in their vision because they no longer need an incentive to make them practice bhakti yoga, and they have a good idea of God as a person. When they reach the raganuga stage, when they are qualified and attain bhava-bhakti, God will reveal the true nature of their bhava and rasa and establish that relationship from within (through paramatma).
The variety and sophistication of the enjoying lifestyle of real lila is vastly superior to what most bhaktas think lila to be all about from reading various books. As you advance everything will be revealed directly to you. The spiritual and material world is the same place, the only difference is how you understand and relate with it. See http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/see-me-feel-me/
Radha Krishna do not live that highest lifestyle with people who are ignorant of who they are, just the opposite in fact — only people who are fully self-realized and know everything about Radha Krishna live with them eternally in the “spiritual world.” The concept of Krishna forgetting he is God or Vrajavasis not knowing he or she is God, is simply a philosophical teaching device for the purpose of teaching people about the level of intimacy Radha Krishna desires. In the real highest reality God loves showing off all of his/her abilities — all of the time. It’s no different than anyone else wanting to entertain and show off their skills and talents for their friends. God is just like that, but since he/she controls everything and everyone — your entire world becomes a showcase for Radha Krishna showing off to you through that control. That is what all jivas are progressing towards — complete self-realization, full knowledge, and the know-how and ability to exchange rasa on the highest level with the most sophisticated and intelligent person in the universe.
It’s amazing to read your thoughts, Vrajabhumi, about what it means to live in the spiritual world, to be in yogamaya’s influence, and live with Krishna, because in the iskcon scene most people (grihastras) spend most of their time feeling totally separated from Krishna and from ‘devotional service’ because they live ‘in the world’ (as opposed to a temple/ashram) and are not directly engaged in bhakti (i.e are not serving the temple or their guru 24/7).
It’s a shame that people (myself included) get tricked into thinking that something can come in between us and Krishna…not living in temple, not being initiated, not being in the presence of your guru, etc. etc….when it actually is a question of consciousness. Radha-Krishna is everywhere, in everyone, and thus we can be with him/her NOW; we don’t have to wait for some guru’s mercy, we don’t need to be a part of an institution, wear religious clothing, sell stuff on the streets. Phew, what a relief.
I find your views on Vraja-lila intriguing. I’ve never heard anyone view it like that…but it makes sense to me. Life, and the potential of our life with Radha-Krishna right here on earth, seems pretty amazing when you put it like that :)
In iskcon, us regular devotees are made to believe that Vrindavan is available for us – if at all – after this lifetime of service and self-denial and sacrifice. The teaching about Goloka Vrindavan has really become almost Christian-like; devotees go to this magical place after death and most importantly, only if they live a miserable, guilt-ridden life here on earth.
If someone asks you – a newbie, or someone who only knows little of bhakti-yoga (I am really a part of this group, too, despite being in iskcon for a while now): How can I practice bhakti? How can I learn to love Radha-Krishna and live and love with them eternally? How should I live my life (lifestyle, etc.) to attain prema? How would you answer them?
You have such a gift of being able to explain bhakti-yoga in a clear, sane and beautiful way that I am curious to hear you explain bhakti to someone who’s new to it and wants to take it up (bhakti 101, in a way)… All I could come up would be some iskcon version all about the 4 regs., importance of being celibate, vegetarian and chanting lots. I assume you would have something wiser and deeper to say ;)
Thanks again for maintaining this blog, Vrajabhumi!
The lyrics to a song I heard right after writing my previous entry:
Do you hear me
talking to you
Across the water
Across the deep blue ocean
Under the open sky
Oh my, baby I’m trying
Boy I hear you in my dreams
I feel your whisper across the sea
I keep you with me in my heart
You make it easier when life gets hard
Lucky I’m in love with my best friend
Lucky to have been where I have been
Lucky to be coming home again
They don’t know how long it takes
Waiting for a love like this
Every time we say goodbye
I wish we had one more kiss
I’ll wait for you, I promise you I will
Lucky I’m in love with my best friend
Lucky to have been where I have been
Lucky to be coming home again
Lucky we’re in love in every way
Lucky to have stayed where we have stayed
Lucky to be coming home someday
And so I’m sailing through the sea
To an island where we’ll meet
You’ll hear the music fill the air
I’ll put a flower in your hair
Though the breezes through the trees
Move so pretty, you’re all I see
As the world keeps spinning round
You hold me right here right now
Lucky I’m in love with my best friend
Lucky to have been where I have been
Lucky to be coming home again
Lucky we’re in love in every way
Lucky to have stayed where we have stayed
Lucky to be coming home someday
-Lucky, Jason Mraz
:)
[...] is a reply to a comment from Vaisnavi to the Day Trippers post. If someone asks you – a newbie, or someone who only knows little of [...]
“Does Narayan Maharaj really believe that Prabhupada was omniscient or does he say so to feed the sentiments of his followers?”
He does so to feed the sentiments of his (Prabhupada’s) followers.