Waves of Devotion

I hope this will be the last COVID article I write, but I honestly have little choice what I write. It’s not easy to come up with something of substance to communicate every week. I have to just grab whatever realization comes by the time I have to start writing my next post and run with it. Sometimes my inspiration is a topical issue. Hopefully I have the empowerment to see those issues through the eyes of śāstra, and also to get the facts right about what I am commenting on. That’s the challenge.

Someone asked me if making a recommendation about wearing masks is śāstra. I didn’t make a recommendation about masks. I made a recommendation to be independently thoughtful in order to avoid letting ideological predispositions overly influence one’s opinions. For that purpose, to help test my readers’ objectivity, I presented what I thought was a reasonable study on masks that had challenged my own understanding. Before I sent it, I then checked the reasonableness of that study with people I highly trust. After it was published, most of the people I got feedback from thought my last article was fair. Two academics, one trained in the field of logic and another in rhetoric, however, independently questioned the fairness of my presentation. A spirited conversation ensued. One of the main points of my article was that we should be open-minded and detached, and follow where the facts lead, even if that forces us to turn around a previously held position. Those discussions convinced me that in order to balance my presentation, I should include the comprehensive and up-to-date study testing the efficacy of masks that one of them sent me. I have posted that below. [1] I am convinced that holding a forum where the expression of opposing opinions is welcome, even if we vigorously oppose them, is the best way to bring the most people to the healthiest consensus.

When I think about these discussions and the attempt to get to the bottom of any of these issues, it always brings me back to the title of my last article, which is also commensurate with the problem I saw when I started trying to deeply understand these issues: “Whom do you trust?” I think the conclusion of my last post still holds in relation to the quandary of the modern age, which is identifying reliable authority.

Now, “whom do I trust?” I’m not sure in these matters, but there is one thing I did learn from Śrīla Prabhupāda that can be applied in all endeavors to understand the truth—without sincerely wanting and praying for the truth, no matter whether that truth conforms to our desires or not, and in addition cultivating the detachment to accept that truth, we will always be susceptible to the false authority of cheaters and rogues.

So, my main topic is really not about masks. It’s about the need to be detached, thoughtful, and the willingness to consider points of view different from one’s own, and I hope this article reaffirms my commitment to that.

I think I have had my fill of topical commentary for a while. I pray that next week Krishna inspires me to write more directly about transcendence. And that is my final conclusion on unmasking the truth.

[1] A summary of 58 studies on the effectiveness of masks can be found in Table 3 of “A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19”, published in the International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances (Volume 3, 2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X20300126?via%3Dihub#tbl0003. The table can also be viewed on page 6 of the PDF version of the study.

Whom Do You Trust?

I think that was the title of a quiz show in the late 1950s or early 1960s, hosted by Johnny Carson – if that means anything to my audience, most of whom were not even born yet. It is, however, the best title I could find for the subject I want to share today. I am concerned with how trust in our personal narratives is formed, and how difficult it is to change such trust even when what we previously believed is proven wrong. This is how my concerns arose.

I am not a big fan of masks. I generally avoid wearing them, but I have utilized them in certain situations for the simple fact that they protect one from airborne disease. I was then sent a video that said otherwise. I was not particularly attracted to the website where it came from, but the video itself seemed well-reasoned and authoritative. I am skeptical, however, about accepting anything on face value that I am not expert on. I thus shared it with a person whom I very much trust for his trained critical eye and objectivity. In several other instances where I have sent things to him, his response caused me to re-evaluate my initial judgment. His reply: “Sounds sensible and well supported. I’d be interested in seeing a reply. Otherwise: It does seem reasonable.”

As the conclusion was still puzzling when considering the overwhelming national consensus on wearing masks, for further confirmation I sent the video to another person whom I similarly trust for their intelligence and neutrality. It made sense to them especially considering “the size of the virus and the size of the natural gaps in even well-woven fabric?” They questioned, however, whether other factors were considered in terms of validating the utility of masks, such as “creating an automatic awareness of people’s space and staying safe and distanced enough, etc.”

Finally, I consulted an intelligent friend with a scientific background who thought that the video was not worth his time watching: “I made my decisions after reading at least 100 highly technical papers and attending 25 hours of Zoom discussion led by my own skeptical physician. Nothing I have read has convinced me otherwise other than saying more research is needed.”

I will summarize the finding below, include a link to the video[1], and then cite an opposing study. Finally, I will share what I learned about my own thinking from this endeavor at trying to figure out the truth here. A summary of the video:

Dr. Bostom is a respected professor of epidemiology and an experienced researcher on the science of medical intervention. He became skeptical about the use of masks after hearing Dr. Fauci dramatically change his previous declaration that masks are ineffective, a view also held at the time by the CDC and the NIH. What particularly disturbed Dr. Bostom was one of the reasons Dr. Fauci gave as a contributing factor to his previous statement about the ineffectiveness of masks—that he needed to discourage ordinary people from buying them at a time when there was a shortage for the health care workforce.[2] Dr. Bostom found that excuse quite strange for several reasons, but especially since cotton cloth is in abundance, can easily and quickly be mass produced, and even a makeshift one could be made in a few minutes. He therefore decided to study the published research on the matter. He was shocked by the findings:

Dr. Bostom explained that the “gold standard” of scientific testing is called random controlled trials (RCT), a type of scientific experiment that aims to reduce certain sources of bias when testing the effectiveness of a new treatment. He was quite surprised by the consistency of the studies. All the RCT studies, including those going back to a study during the Spanish flu, showed negative results. In other words, there is no benefit from masks in protecting one from airborne diseases. To confirm the conclusions of his research, Dr. Bostom even referenced a meta-analysis of all the major RCT studies on masks from The Journal of Emergency Infectious Disease, the CDC’s main inhouse journal. Again, the results were negative.

Finally, he referred to two recent studies, beginning with the Danmask-19 study, which was published in the peer reviewed Journal of Internal Medicine. The study was done in March 2020, where, of the 4900 people tested in Denmark, there was no significant difference in COVID-19 infection from those who used a mask and those who did not. Conclusion: “The answer was a nearly identical proportion – 42 of 2,393 people (1.8%) in the mask group and 53 of 2,470 (2.1%) in the no-mask group. The difference was not statistically significant.”[3] He also cited another RCT study about masking done with six thousand people visiting Mecca for the Haj. The results were exactly the same.

Although I couldn’t find any RCT study directly supporting the efficacy of masks to counter airborne disease, I did find a study in the respected Journal of Health Affairs[4] that found that states that mandated masks did better than states that didn’t, although the reasons why were not clear. [5]

Now let me share my thinking while reading these studies. Perhaps my readers can meditate on their own reaction.

I resisted claims that were against my previous opinions, almost as if I was a fan of my own opinions and against those that opposed it, rather than being a neutral umpire of the facts. I was surprised by just how difficult it is for me to change the direction I am moving on a particular ideological issue, which in many ways is what COVID has become[6], out of fear of being wrong and what that does to my ego’s thirst for superiority. Simply put, in so many ways I could see and feel the push to see the world according to my desire, rather than the way it is.

I could also see that by my practice of regularly writing on topical subjects, which forces me to look at issues objectively, how my mind has been trained a bit to resist the tendency to avoid facts that oppose my opinion and desires, although it is not easy.

It also dawned on me how our opinions are so dependent on which authority we accept, and how helpless we are in such material matters when, due to commercial interests and unbridled ego, all major public institutions have become substantially corrupted and untrustworthy.[7]

Now, “whom do I trust?” I’m not sure in these matters, but there is one thing I did learn from Śrīla Prabhupāda that can be applied in all endeavors to understand the truth—without sincerely wanting and praying for the truth, no matter whether that truth conforms to our desires or not, and in addition cultivating the detachment to accept that truth, we will always be susceptible to the false authority of cheaters and rogues.

“Those who are addicted to unrestricted sense gratification can never be truthful, nor can they be trusted with any faith.” (Krishna Book, Ch. 1)

[1] https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/03/no_author/dr-andrew-bostom-interview-with-naomi-wolf-on-studies-not-supporting-masking/

[2] https://www.bitchute.com/video/rJ3I74oEWvtq/

[3] https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778

[4] https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

[5] There is difference between being effective because they inoculate one from airborne diseases and being effective because they make one socially aware to socially distance and so on. I am also not a scientific researcher, so I can’t claim that my research is thorough.

[6] A bit of a disclaimer: While this video contains what some might consider explicit and implied vulgarity, it doesn’t change the relevance or importance of Maher’s message, which is the separation of politics and medicine: https://youtu.be/Qp3gy_CLXho

[7] The pharmaceutical industry has been sued and paid over 35 billion dollars in the last ten years for withholding, misrepresenting, or falsifying data that would impede their commercial interests, resulting in tens-of-thousands of deaths. Just one example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-texas-lawsuits-idUSKBN1KT0Q9

I travel every Sunday. That means an irregular schedule and diet. I feel it the next morning. My mind is more restless and my chanting less attentive. My solace: As long as I do my best, Krishna will see my heart and be pleased.

The mind offers millions of things to think of besides the holy name. Don’t fall for the bait. Have a time and place for chanting where there is absolutely no compromise with the mind. If our determination is resolute in that way, even if we sometimes fail, Krishna will see our effort and bless us with the holy name.

Krishna can appear whenever He wants, even in the restless mind. We would all fail controlling the mind if our success was dependent on our personal power born of a sattvic nature. I begged for mercy. It worked.

It doesn’t matter how much you chant the name, but rather how you chant the name. There is still strength in numbers if one uses that time to sincerely beg for the mercy of the holy name.

Concentration takes effort, which brings one to the point of realizing that our effort is not enough to be successful; We need mercy. Begging for the mercy of the holy name is the foundation of successful chanting.

A thought came while chanting about how much reading Krishna Book yesterday gave meaning and life to my mantra. I then remembered the instruction Vishal Prabhu told me he received from Śrīla Prabhupāda: “If you read Krishna Book every day, you will always be happy!”

Can you chant and think of Krishna’s pastimes at the same time without being inattentive? Yes, just like you can watch a movie and relish the background music at the same time. You must first, however, come to the platform of sattva by determined meditation.

Can you chant and think of Krishna at the same time without being inattentive? Yes! Words and names are spontaneously connected with their mental images, especially when we are attached to those objects.

Attachment to Krishna and His holy name comes by hearing His glories. Our practice of the chanting of the holy name is actually the practice of chanting and reading. You can’t separate the two.

Chanting is a competition for our attention between the name and everything else in the mind. For the holy name to win, we have to be more selective with what we put into our minds, especially through the channel of modern media.

Effort, mercy, focus. Then what? Hopefully we see our hearts and lament. What did I see today? I can’t sincerely call the holy name of Krishna because I don’t want Him. I want to be Him. It takes courage to go deeper and annihilate the false ego.

Chanting is a relationship with Krishna. He will tell you endless ways in which you can improve. The problem is that old habits die hard.

Good chanting is when sitting down to chant there is no other place in the world you would rather be.

The greatest blessing is when the things that are best for you are the things you most like to do. I pray for attachment to the holy name.

There is much discussion about how best to deal with COVID-19. There is something, however, that few seem to be talking about, even those well versed in traditional Indian literature—that the ultimate cause and cure for the COVID-19 pandemic is beyond a virus.

The Cause (collective karma):

“Any country where people indulge in unnecessary killing of animals will have to suffer from wars and pestilence imposed by material nature.” (Bhag. 7.15.24, Purport)

Śrīla Prabhupāda was especially concerned with the result of the pervasive slaughter of the cow:

“Therefore they are sinful. They must have, there must be war, pestilence and famine.” (Lecture, London, 24 July 1973)

The word “pestilence” comes from the Latin “pestis”, meaning plague, and is defined in English as “a contagious or infectious epidemic disease that is virulent and devastating.” Sound familiar? What to do? To cure a particular disease, you have to first locate its cause and then reverse or eradicate it.

The Cure (pious leadership):

“As soon as there is complete eradication of sinful activities in the state, then there will be no more war, pestilence, famine or natural disturbances.” (Bhag. 4.20.14, Purport)

I am not being facetious. The śāstra is saying something here that should be at the forefront of our discussion. The ultimate cause of pestilence is collective karma. Therefore, a vaccine, even if efficacious, won’t solve the problem. If the hearts of people are not purified, and corrupt leaders and ignorant educators continue to mislead people and sanction trillions of animals to be killed world-wide, the collective reactions to such mass exploitation will continue in one form or another, even if everyone on the planet is vaccinated, immune, and this particular karmic reaction is paid.

Does that mean that I should not take a vaccine? That’s another discussion. We should always deal with the symptoms of any ailment, as they also cause harm. When one has a very high fever, one must be very vigilant to bring it down. One should not, however, foolishly think that subduing the fever has eradicated the disease. Similarly, in dealing with COVID-19, we should do whatever it takes to help eradicate the disease, but not lose focus on its ultimate cause. As long as unqualified leaders continue to support and sanction the mass killings of animals, especially the cow, the sin of exploitation will certainly manifest in continual calamities and society will be ravaged by one disease or another.

There is an English metaphorical idiom: “The elephant in the room.” It indicates that something as conspicuous as an elephant can be overlooked for various psychological reasons, including ignoring an obvious truth that we can’t hear because it challenges our attachments or worldview. I changed the metaphor for this article to “the cow in the room” to indicate something that is so glaring, but too often overlooked in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings—that if we don’t gravitate to a more self-sustainable and karmic-free life based on the land and cow protection, we all will be subject to the karmic reaction for using and thus supporting an exploitive society. The result will not be pretty:

“European and America civilization will be finished on account of this sinful activity of killing the cows.” (Śrīla Prabhupāda letter to Kīrtanānanda, 31 May 1975)

So why are we not talking of “COVID and the Cow in the Room”?