->

Archive for March, 2024

Monday Morning Greetings 2024 #13 – A Day in the Life in Vraja

March 25th, 2024

“A Day in the Life in Vraja” comes from some notes I took during the last ekādaśī I spent in Govardhan.

 

An old acquaintance organized a retreat in Govardhan of prominent Vaiṣṇava scholars lecturing in English who were either living in or visiting Vrindavan. He texted me to please attend. I was off to Varsana that day for an overnight stay—a first for me—but on my friend’s request I first stopped by the retreat to hear the lecture of an elderly and venerable Vaiṣṇava, a retired Sanskrit professor and a Bhāgavatam scholar. He made some very interesting points. One stuck in my mind:

 

If we want to develop deep love for Śrī Krishna, we must know His svarūpa. Although I usually haven’t understood the term svarūpa in the way he was using it, I understood from his lecture that by svarūpa he meant Krishna’s inner self—His character or heart. This understanding is more inspirational, he said, than just knowing His position or opulence, like His beauty or power, for instance. He gave an example to illustrate the superiority of knowing a person’s svarūpa over just understanding their opulence. An honorable man who gets married to a qualified wife may initially be more attracted to her beauty or social status, but if the wife is a loving person and her husband develops a deep relationship with her, then even if she gets older or even disabled, she will still be attractive to him. In fact, she will be even more attractive to her husband than when he initially met her because he now deeply knows her heart. In the same way, the most attractive aspect of Śrī Krishna is not His opulence, but His heart, which is revealed to those who have developed a relationship with Him. The process to know the svarūpa of Krishna is the glorification of Him, an expression of love that naturally inspires Krishna to give His heart to His devotee.

 

After the morning class, I headed to Varsana with Savyasaci das, an ISKCON devotee and a resident of Govardhan. He accompanied my group on my Govardhan retreat this year, and we very much appreciated his insights. When we got to Varsana, we first sat at Pili Pokar [1] Kund near our hotel and reflected on what we heard that morning, then added our own points. The gist of our discussion:

 

The heart is the only instrument we have that can feel and express emotions, and therefore it is so important to keep the heart fit for devotion to Śrī Krishna by offering all respects to others. In other words, one just can’t be envious and hateful with people and then with the same heart turn to God and feel devotion. Savyasaci thought of an analogy to help illustrate this point by comparing the heart to a musical instrument. Just as a musical instrument that is not tuned properly cannot produce beautiful music, similarly a heart improperly tuned to hate and envy, will not be able to turn towards Krishna and feel and produce beautiful and devotional feelings.

 

After sitting at Pili Pokar for our discussions, we decided to complete the whole Varsana parikramā. Afterwards we took some rest and then attended the all night kirtan at the ashram of the venerable Śrī Vinod Baba. Baba used to chant every evening, but now he only chants on Ekādaśī, so his small ashram was especially packed. By the time I got there at 11:00 PM, the only place to sit was around the corner from the main kirtan maṇḍapa even beyond the mats covering the ground for the audience to sit on. I humbly sat down, but the locals saw me, an older visiting sannyāsī, and accommodated me. I was soon up front where I could see Vinod Baba and the other kīrtanīyās. I absolutely loved the kirtan, but what impressed me even more was the humble mood of the Vaiṣṇava audience, especially how eager they were to respect and serve others.

 

A day in the life in the real Vraja: Respect for all others and chanting the holy constantly. I will miss Govardhan.

 


[1] https://www.brajrasik.org/media/peeli-pokhar-barsana

 

Monday Morning Greetings 2024 #12 – Why Humility is the Jewel of Devotional Practice

March 18th, 2024

Humility is the most important quality in developing devotion. I am therefore always interested in explaining it in various ways to save it from conjuring up misconceptions, such as humility is weakness or that humility fosters low self-esteem. That’s what I will do in this post, but first I need to make the concept of “authority”, which is fundamental to my definition, properly understood, as “authority” means different things to different people based on their personal and cultural experience or what definition they use. First, my definition of humility and then a clarification of the use of the word “authority” in terms of that definition: Humility means to give up one’s false and personal authority to the abode of real authority.

 

I am not using the word “authority” here in the sense of “the power and right to give orders and to make others obey”, because to acquiesce to such authority would indicate that the blind followers of despots and cult leaders would be humble. Rather, I am using the word “authority” in the sense of “a person of special knowledge” and humility as the tendency to acquiesce to such an authority, specifically to the Absolute Truth.

 

Also, when I refer to the authority of an Absolute Truth, I am not referring to a specific deity or a particular religion, but more in the sense that there is a logos, a truth embedded within the universe, and that humility is the tendency and feeling to be ruled by universal principles or truths above one’s own authority.

 

To help make this concept clearer I thought of an analogy to put this perspective of humility in the proper light. Relinquishing one’s personal authority to a greater authority is like the mood of child happily taking full shelter of their loving mother. The analogy is not meant to demonstrate that a humble person needs to be under the constant direction of someone else, for such a person can fend and think for themselves, as those principles of authority (higher knowledge) have already been internalized by their education and life experience.   In other words, the analogy is meant to demonstrate that, like a child in their mother’s arms, a humble person has a positive sense of insignificance when acknowledging the care and direction from a higher authority.

 

The first symptom of humility is therefore realizing that one’s own personal authority in pursuit of happiness has miserably failed, and that prudence dictates that one seeks a greater authority than one’s own regarding such a pursuit. If one is sincere and fortunate, by God’s grace, one will certainly find such shelter and fully surrender to the direction of such authority (higher knowledge).  As one’s life flourishes under such truth and the people who represent it, the validity of God’s authority and the limits of one’s own becomes more apparent and a deep sense of humility wells in the heart. Feeling mercy from God in this way, one’s devotion also blossoms. So, in this sense I see humility as giving up one’s false and personal authority to the realm of true authority, which, even more significantly, is the jewel of devotional practice:

 

“One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street, more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and ready to offer all respects to others. In such a state of mind one can chant constantly.” (Śikṣāṣṭakam 3)

 

Monday Morning Greetings 2024 #11 – Immigration and the Gītā

March 11th, 2024

Immigration and the Gītā[1]

 

April 10, 2017

A friend of mine in Washington, D.C. complained to me that the Hare Krishna movement is losing a good opportunity to share the profundity of its teachings by not being involved in spiritual activism.[2] I will take up his challenge by commenting on the modern-day mess in governance by analyzing immigration policy based on the Bhagavad-gītā.

 

There are two extreme views of immigration. One is radically exclusive nationalism, wherein, in the US, “America First” is the only principle, and to protect that principle we have to apply the letter of the law seemingly without heart. In this view, families can sometimes be separated and people who have been terribly oppressed, some who have sacrificed their lives abroad for American interest, can be detained or deported upon arrival, even if they have already been thoroughly vetted.

 

The other view is radically inclusive globalism, a perspective that sees any imposition based on nationalist borders as antithetical to both humanistic and spiritual values. I will argue based on the Gītā that both of these views lack compassion and sensibility.

 

The extremism of the first view would be opposed by verses in the Gītā that present the universality of living entities based on the soul.

 

“The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].” (Gītā 5.18)

 

Such verses either imply or outright condemn viewing people according to the bodily concept of life such as nationalism. Another of many examples:

 

“That knowledge by which one sees that in every different body there is a different type of living entity you should understand to be in the mode of passion.” (Gītā 18.21)

 

It should also be noted in this discussion that at times Srila Prabhupada spoke very strongly against borders based on artificial bodily distinction:

 

“We pass through Canada to USA. Why Canada? Why USA? This is bodily concept. ‘It is meant for the Canadians,’ ‘it is meant for USA, Americans.’ Immigration, customs, the same mentality as a dog coming from another neighborhood. The other dogs, they all come together, ‘Yow, yow, why you have come, why you have come?’ In civilized dress only. This is the position. What is the difference between the dog’s mentality . . . When another dog comes to another neighborhood, these neighborhood dogs, you know that? All animals. ‘Yow, why you have come?’ So this department, ‘Why you have come here?’ dogs barking, and this immigration, what is the difference?” (June 2, 1976 Toronto)

 

Although the Gītā certainly speaks about the principle of universality, the underlying value against nationalism, it also promotes the value of reciprocity, a view opposed to indiscriminate globalism. I would define reciprocity as the principle of caring more for those dependent on one, such as family, or in this case a government, giving special care or consideration for its citizens, and to understand that not doing so is impersonal. Before I reference the Gītā, I would like to share an interesting exchange that Confucius had with an adversary specifically in relation to this tension:

 

“Confucius advocated ‘care with distinctions’: we owe everyone a baseline benevolence, but we have specific duties toward those close to us, those who have done us the most good, like our family, our parents, our close friends.

 

“He was opposed by Mozi, a philosopher who argued that we owe everyone the same care, that the idea of specific obligations was too much like partiality.

 

“Confucius’ disciples like Mencius argue that Mozi’s idea is completely impracticable; even Mozi’s best followers treated their parents with special care. But worse, it is immoral: to treat people who have sacrificed much for us, like our parents, the same way that we treat a stranger is grossly offensive.”[3]

 

It seems clear that in the Gītā Krishna also supports this principle, “care with distinction,” that challenges the extremism of the second view.

 

“I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.” (Gītā 9.29)

 

In his purport Srila Prabhupada discusses how the very basis of personalism is that one appropriately reciprocates with those under one’s care and such “partiality” is beyond selfishness and karma. I would recommend that one read the whole purport, but here is just a small excerpt where Srila Prabhupada defends special care as natural, not narrow:

 

“One may question here that if Kṛṣṇa is equal to everyone and no one is His special friend, then why does He take a special interest in the devotees who are always engaged in His transcendental service? But this is not discrimination; it is natural. Any man in this material world may be very charitably disposed, yet he has a special interest in his own children.” (Gītā 9.29, purport)

 

Another famous reference for the principle of reciprocity as being above prejudice:

 

“As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā.” (Gītā 4.11)

 

In his purport Srila Prabhupada comments on this principle of “care with distinction” in relation to the dealings of Krishna and how it is equally applicable in this world:

 

“Kṛṣṇa reciprocates with His pure devotees in the transcendental attitude, just as the devotee wants Him. One devotee may want Kṛṣṇa as supreme master, another as his personal friend, another as his son, and still another as his lover. Kṛṣṇa rewards all the devotees equally, according to their different intensities of love for Him. In the material world, the same reciprocations of feelings are there . . .” (Gītā 4.11, purport)

 

I think this “care with distinction” principle is also just common sense. I know one person close to me who, when growing up, had a father who was altruistic to everyone but not especially partial to her, and whose evenness to everyone caused her to feel sorely neglected.

 

In regard to the issue of immigration, both universality and reciprocity, as espoused in the Gītā, have appropriate application. Every entity, whether family or country, should extend itself as far as possible for all people, understanding the superficiality of bodily distinctions, including taking those less fortunate into one’s fold to whatever practical extent one is capable of (care). However, it is also reasonable for a country to protect its borders and show some special concern to the needs of its own citizens for economic, social, or security reason (distinction). According to the Gītā we can’t deal with even illegal immigrants just on the basis of law without some real consideration for them as spiritual beings, nor can we deal with people living here illegally in total neglect of the laws intended to protect its citizens.

 

The specific application of these contradictory principles is beyond the scope of this paper, but their application calls for compassionate and intelligent leaders who apply these principles neither as indiscriminate multi-culturalists nor as xenophobic nationalists, having respect both for the universality of all beings and the need for reciprocity with those under one’s care.

 

These are complex issues with many considerations, including the legitimacy of proprietorship of those who rule certain lands, but those discussions are again beyond the scope of this column. I have presented certain eternal principles in my attempt to add to these discussions a view through the eyes of shastra. I will send it to my friend and see if he is satisfied with my attempt at spiritual activism.

 

 


[1] It’s been quite a while since I used a reprint, Usually this is done only when I absolutely don’t have time to finish an article because of my schedule. This week I was tackling a complex issue and despite having the time I wasn’t able to achieve enough clarity on it to complete an article to my standard.

[2] By spiritual activism, I mean having an active voice in contemporary problems—not taking partisan sides, but rather trying to find perspectives within the spiritual traditions by which we can make sense of our problems and challenges.

[3] From a correspondence I had with Professor Matthew Dasti, Associate Professor in the Philosophy Department at Bridgewater State University.

 

Monday Morning Greetings 2024 #10 – Substance is More Important Than Allegiance

March 4th, 2024

A few stories and the question they raise:

 

I have dealt with Father Ashley intimately and have observed him carefully as he manages the Isopanthi Retreat Center where we have been holding our Puri Retreat for years. He serves others selflessly and shows utmost deference to everyone, including the Vaiṣṇavas. As far as I can tell he tries to emulate Christ. We were impressed with him. If I had any criticism, I suspect it would be his diet.

 

I am still in touch with my elder cousin, Ma Seva Bharati, a sannyāsini, who, forty-five years ago, renounced a very comfortable and successful life to serve her guru in the Himalayas, at times high in the mountains without even running water. She has visited me in Vrindavan several times and has shown great respect to the devotees of Krishna, the holy name, and Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā, especially appreciating his strong purports. When I introduced my cousin to a god-brother who, for a second, was taken aback by her appearance—a shaved head with a bright orange kurta down to her ankles—I loved her response, indicating her study of those purports: “I’m a rascal impersonalist!” She’s good humored, respectful, and saintly. I enjoy her company.

 

Twenty years ago, due to visa problems, I had to leave India for six months and started visiting and teaching at yoga centers in New York. I especially liked the Broome Street Temple where Kaustubha was learning yoga and had become friendly with the head teacher, Eddie Stern. I was very impressed with his brahminical qualities, including how respectful he was to others, especially the devotees who visited. He even invited Kaustubha to bring his Radha-Krishna deities to his center, which Kaustubha worshiped there for a while. I was surprised how my mind initially responded to him, myself having been cloistered in a Hare Krishna center in India for so many years: “How can he be so elevated? He’s not a devotee,” but I quickly corrected such petty thinking by recalling the obvious—that although I have my faith as a Vaiṣṇava in the preeminence of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings, a person’s spiritual status is much more than just belonging to a group. I immediately branded my realization as “substance is more important than allegiance”.

 

I think my “mantra” is a challenge to the members of all institutions, as there is such a tendency to worship and serve an institution and forget what that institution is a vehicle for. That is not meant to minimize the importance and benefit we receive from proper spiritual institutions, which socialize, preserve, and disseminate the realizations of the great spiritual leader who founded them. I only mean to offer a caution to not fall prey to the illusion that I saw in myself—that just because one feels they have the best tradition or have the most elevated guru or belong to the most powerful organization, it makes one more elevated than others who adhere to teachings one finds less elevated or even questionable. In other words, if we don’t do the work to imbibe and practice the tenets or ideals of our tradition, then our allegiance to that tradition means little in terms of our stature.

 

A few years ago, while visiting Isopanthi, a friend of mine and I were walking around their center when we noticed two large, framed pictures of two prominent saints in their religious order. One of the saints, although from Poland, very much looked Chinese with a Fu Manchu beard and a traditional Chinese cap. We read how he spent his whole life in China preaching the gospel and so much appreciated being there that “he prayed to be Chinese in heaven.” We looked at each other and shared the same thought: “What a shallow understanding!” We were glad that we were in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s line where “you are not the body” is the most rudimentary of teachings. In a playful way I then challenged my friend:

 

“OK. Who does Krishna look more favorably upon, Father Ashley who serves Christ selflessly and shows utmost respect to the devotees or _______ who, although was a devotee of Krishna and had done a lot of service, also terribly mistreated the devotees, even banning people from his temple for personal and doctrinal reasons, all the while using it as base for his personal business eventually being forced to leave with probably millions of dollars only to sue ISKCON for more?” My friend thought for a moment and responded:

 

“Good question.”

 

Yes, good question, but I think ultimately the conclusion should be clear:

 

Substance is more important than allegiance!