Harmonizing conservative and liberal approaches in bhakti

[Chaitanya Charitamrita class at the Bhaktivedanta Manor, London, UK]

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna. Hare Krishna.
Today we are discussing about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s pastimes. And this section of the Chaitanya Charita Amrit is very dependent on the context of the author. Krishna asked that because Swami was very old and he was apprehensive whether he would live long enough to describe the pastimes of Lord Chaitanya in full detail.
So he is giving a quick summary of the pastimes. At that time it was he who was not sure whether he has enough time or not. Nowadays, especially with social media and digital outreach, you have to make all the content as brief as possible.
Make a half a minute video, one minute video, one and a half minute video because people’s attention is like a bird which might just fly away at the slightest distraction. So what he is doing is concentrating here and quickly describing the pastimes. So the main point that he is describing is how Lord Chaitanya went to Vrindavan.
And Sanatana Goswami, when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu met him, Sanatana Goswami suggested maybe going with so many people. He was, wherever he went, he was a magnetic, charismatic personality. It was not just his personality but also his potency out of love of God.
Both of them attracted people to him and so many people were following him wherever he went. So then Sanatana Goswami said that maybe Lord, if you go with so many people to Vrindavan, that might not be the best. And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu actually changed his whole plan.
He decided to go to Nilachal and then finally he came to Nilachal, stayed there and again he is going to Vrindavan now. And this was described what he did when he reached Vrindavan. So today I will talk on this theme of how bhakti is dynamic in its application.
Normally we think about Sanatana Goswami, we have one prominent image in mind. Sanatana Goswami meets Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and surrenders and he says, My dear Lord, I do not know who I am. Why am I? Why are these three, four miseries afflicting me? And Prabhupada gives that as an example of how a disciple should approach the spiritual master with submission.
And that’s definitely important to have that mood of humble submission. At the same time, everything when we go deeper into it is complex. There are so many nuances to everything.
And here we see Sanatana Goswami giving a suggestion to Lord Chaitanya. And it’s not just a casual suggestion. It’s a suggestion which is going to make Chaitanya Mahaprabhu change his whole itinerary.
Now anybody who travels across the world, even a small change in the itinerary is not so easy to make. Of course, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu didn’t have to book flights and schedule things like that. He could go wherever he wanted.
But still he had a plan in mind. He was longing to see Vrindavan. But Sanatana Goswami said, My dear Lord, maybe that’s not the best thing to go like this.
And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accepted. So the whole process of bhakti, if we have this idea that the spiritual master or the authority gives instruction and the disciple follows. That’s true.
But there is much more to that. Ultimately, the spiritual master and the disciple, both are there for serving Krishna. So the service of Krishna, the pleasure of Krishna, that is the most important thing.
And here, Sanatana Goswami, we could say, almost goes against the etiquette, not entirely. He just gives a major suggestion. But so at one sense, who do you think you are? It might seem a little presumptuous.
And Sanatana Goswami at this point is exhibiting his keen sensitivity to the mood of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the mood of Vrindavan. So he is considering. It shows that the depth of his service attitude also.
Normally, if we just do what we are told to do, that reflects some service attitude. But if somebody gives some suggestions, maybe this could be done like this, maybe this could be done like this, then it also shows at some level, unless that person does nothing except give suggestions, that is not a very good service attitude. Then that suggestion is just a cover.
It’s a mask for fault finding. If somebody doesn’t do anything constructive, just gives suggestions, do this, don’t do this, then that’s a problem. But if somebody is suggesting, maybe this could be done like this.
That means they are putting in thought and they are thinking about how this can be most effective in us. And that indicates a certain level of engagement, commitment that is to be appreciated. Even if the suggestion is not accepted, still the thoughtfulness behind the suggestion can be appreciated.
And everybody is voluntarily serving Krishna. And that spark of the desire to serve Krishna, we all need to fan for each other. So if somebody is giving a suggestion, if we appreciate the suggestion, even if we don’t implement it necessarily, then they feel valued for what they are doing.
So Sanatana Goswami, he’ll give the suggestion to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is God. And in terms of the hierarchy here, Sanatana Goswami was never formally initiated by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, but he was like his disciple.
And still Sanatana Goswami is thinking, he’s thinking of both the mood of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the mood of Vrindavan. So the mood of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, he, Sanatana Goswami feels, and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu ponders and agrees that Vrindavan is a place where if you want to relish the presence of Krishna, then if he’s surrounded by many people around him, then he will have to pay attention to them. And then he will not be able to absorb himself that much in Vrindavan.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu overall, if we see the last 18 years of his life, he stays in Puri. Now, of course, whatever the Lord does is transcendental. At the same time, we can also use some analysis to understand or at least learn from what the Lord does.
So Lord Chaitanya, basically, we could say he loved solitude. And he wanted close devotee association, he could understand his intimate moods. And that’s how he stayed in Puri for most of the time.
In fact, his two tours, one to the southern part, one to the northern part, were immensely successful. And yet, if we consider from a perspective of a travelling preacher, just when his tours have been successful, he stops touring. He doesn’t tour ever again.
Just for 6 years he’s touring and 18 years he doesn’t tour. Now what is he doing at that time? He’s still preaching, but he’s preaching not so much by reaching out to new people, but reaching deeper into the hearts of his followers. The whole Anti-Deela is about how Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has sweet dealings with various devotees.
He’s meeting with Saradhan Goswami, meeting with Ramana Bhatta Goswami, he’s meeting with various people like that. Vallabha Bhatta, Ramachandra Puri, the whole Chaitanya, most of Anti-Deela is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s meetings. Unless, of course, it is his solitary ecstasies.
So from the sheer amount of sheer way a person lives, we can broadly understand their nature. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu loves solitude. And when he goes to Vrindavan also, he would love to experience Vrindavan in solitude.
Hari Shouripa writes in his diary that when Prabhupada was in Mayapur, he was serving Prabhupada and he would give a massage to Prabhupada. And at that time he felt that if nobody was there in the room apart from him, then his Prabhupada would become very internally absorbed. He felt as his realisation was, it’s like Prabhupada’s body is like his car.
And just like sometimes a person leaves a car with the mechanic, you fix it up and then he goes out for a walk. So he felt as if Prabhupada had left his body with him and he is going around Mayapur, relishing Mayapur. So Prabhupada was also relish.
There was a special flavour when he was alone, free to absorb himself in the Dham. And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also wanted to do that. So there is always a tension for us between our personal absorption and our service, which is meant to help others get absorbed.
Of course, for most of us in the sadhakal stage, it is the service that uses absorption. But there are times when we just want to focus on Krishna and nothing else. And sometimes at that time our duty calls and then says ecstatic kirtan is going on, a beautiful darshan is there, a very absorbing class is there.
And suddenly some service comes up and we have to go. And we feel a bit torn. So there is a time when we want to be exclusively absorbed.
And there is a time when we are happy to be socially engaged as a service, not mundane socialisation, but interacting with devotees. So here Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was followed by many, many people. And Swamiji felt that this would not be an appropriate way in which Chaitanya Mahaprabhu could relish Vrindavan.
And not only would he not relish Vrindavan, the mood of Vrindavan might also be disrupted. At that time, now Vrindavan is much more developed, although you could say transformed is a more appropriate word, whether it is really development in the positive sense, much of the spirituality of Vrindavan is far less accessible now. But it’s much more transformed.
So at that time, actually it is the Gaudiya Vishnu tradition that restored Vrindavan to some of its pristine glory. We see that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu when he went there, he discovered Radha Poonam. Radha Poonam is an important place, but it had become inaccessible.
So at that time, although Vrindavan was a holy place, but much of Vrindavan was very rustic, inaccessible. Not many people would go there. Of course, the great devotees would be there and the people there were also devoted.
But for a large crowd of people, that would create Rasa Bhaas in Vrindavan. So both from the perspective, the mood of Vrindavan and the mood of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Swamiji was mindful, better you don’t go with so many people. So here, this is the specific context to make sense of why Sanatana Goswami gave that suggestion and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accepted the suggestion.
So basically, if you want to universalise this, is that there is a path or a process and there is a purpose of that path and process. And there can always be this tension between people who say that this is how things are to be done. And there are people who say this is why things are to be done and this is how is not working.
So we could say, broadly speaking, there are people who are conservatives and there are people who are liberals. Now, there can be two broad understandings of how to do things. The philosophy is called as contextual ethics and categorical ethics.
Categorical ethics is this is right, this is wrong. There are two categories and that’s how things are. Contextual ethics is that yes, there are categories, but context determines what falls in it.
So according to categorical ethics, a disciple is simply meant to follow the instruction of the spiritual master. That’s all. And that’s true.
So the moral categories are very important to know. If we don’t understand black and white, then we might think everything is a shade of grey. No, there is black and white and it’s important to understand that these are categories.
This is how it is to be done, this is how it is not to be done. But then once that category is understood, then after that, there is a purpose. Okay, this category is meant for what purpose? So there are values, but then there is a hierarchy of values.
So being submissive to the spiritual master is one value. Pleasing the spiritual master is another value. Being submissive, if you apply that to devotees in general, being submissive with devotees is one value.
Pleasing devotees is another value. Normally, it might be that being submissive is the way to please. But sometimes that might not be the way to please.
Sometimes that might not be the way to serve the purpose. So bhakti is dynamic in the sense that there is a path to be followed, there is a process to be followed. But we are not ritualists in the sense that we also have to keep in mind the purpose.
And sometimes, most of the times, it is following the path that will take us to the purpose. But sometimes the path may not take us to the purpose. And that’s why we have to be conscious of the path, conscious of the practical process, but also we have to be conscious of the purpose.
So Niyamagraha, if we can apply this for where I talk about conservatives and liberals, both can go towards the extremes. And that is included in the two meanings of Niyamagraha. Niyamagraha is at one level.
First it says is to just follow the rule Agraha, forgetting its purpose. And the other is to reject the rule itself, Agraha, to not accept at all, just reject the rule entirely. So we could say that those are conservatives.
They can err on the side of the first, just follow the rule and not keep in mind the purpose. This is how things are to be done. But this is not leading to the desire.
No, this is how it was done. This is how it is to be done. That’s all.
Nothing doing. So that could be, there could be an extreme where we accept the letter but forget the purpose, forget the spirit. But the liberals can go towards the other extreme where I might say this path is, they’re not moving forward with this path.
And suppose we are driving and there’s a lot of traffic or there’s a lot of road construction, they’re not moving. This path is not taking me to my destination. Let’s find another path.
So the conservatives are saying stay to this path only. Liberals may say let’s find another path. But in trying to find another path, if suddenly they decide to go cross country and you might find that is much more difficult.
There is a, in giving up what has been done in a traditional way, there is a lot of, there is danger. And agraha, just rejecting the rule because at present it is not serving the purpose. That can backfire.
Tradition is like the tree on which we are sitting. We are all sitting on a branch and the tradition is like the tree of a branch in which we are sitting. And if we break the branch, we don’t know how high we are.
And we don’t know how badly we will fall. So we can’t be indiscriminate in just saying this is not working, give it up. No, we have to have, we have to be conscious that this path has been followed by many, many people in the past.
And we can’t just, we can’t just simplistically, casually, nonchalantly reject it. So the extreme in liberalism is this is not working, just give it up. So both can go towards the extreme end.
This is niyama agraha, in either way. So if we are conscious of the path, this is the path to follow. And we are conscious of the purpose.
Then we can see this is the path I am following, this is the purpose. Is this taking me there? And if I don’t go this way, if I go this way, am I going to reach there faster? So as long as we stick only to the path, then this is what we have been doing. How dare you change it? How can you be so? So presumptuous? That’s what the conservatives may say.
And the liberals may say, we are not moving forward by this path. How can you be so blind? There is no progress. But we have to look not just at the path, but at the purpose.
And this we see, this moor, we see even in the famous verse from the Vishnu Purana, sarvavidhi nishedasur etayor eva kim karam smartha uvye santam vishnu smartha uvye najatachit The purpose of all rules and regulations is to remember Krishna. And to never forget Krishna. All rules and regulations are meant to be subordinate to this purpose.
So I’ll talk a couple of examples of how this process and purpose need to be integrated. If you look at Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s life, Shri Prabhupada is the most prominent follower of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the modern times. Nobody has done as much to spread Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s legacy as Shri Prabhupada has done.
And Shri Prabhupada often insisted, I didn’t change anything. I just follow my spiritual master. And that meant that he, we see, what does it mean? Prabhupada says that my purpose in writing the Bhagavad Gita, he says in the Bhagavad Gita introduction, our purpose in writing the Bhagavad Gita is the same as Krishna’s purpose in speaking the Bhagavad Gita.
Krishna’s purpose in descending to the world, that is raising people to God consciousness. So Prabhupada, nobody can be as faithful to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as Shri Prabhupada. And yet we see this dynamism of process and purpose in Shri Prabhupada’s following Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
When Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was living in Puri, the king at that time, Pratap Rudra, was desperate to meet Lord Chaitanya. And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu repeatedly refused. Time and time again, he just refused.
And finally, it was when he adopted that dress of ordinary peasant, then Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave him his mercy. And why did Chaitanya Mahaprabhu refuse to meet him? He said that, what will people think of me if they see me hobnobbing with the wealthy, with the powerful, with the kings? Renunciate is expected to demonstrate renunciation. And in general, in the world, people, if anybody is famous, anybody is powerful, anybody is influential, people want the privilege of proximity, the pride of proximity.
Oh, I know this person. Generally, when people say, a famous movie star, a famous cricketer, a famous politician, anybody celebrity, I know this person. Well, you know this person, whether this person knows you, that’s a different question.
But this is a normal human tendency which everyone has. And a sannyasi should be free from that. That tendency to try to establish one’s fame by associating with the famous.
And that was the mood at that time. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, you could say, zealously avoided meeting the king. And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also, as a sannyasi, was very strict.
He would not meet closely with his female followers. Sannyasis, that’s also not to be expected, not to be done. And Prabhupada, who was the most faithful follower of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in modern times, what did he do? He was on a world tour, he was in America and he got an opportunity to meet the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi.
So she was the head of state and she was a woman. And Prabhupada not only met her, Prabhupada curtailed his international tour just to come from America to India to meet her. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was in Puri, the king wanted to meet him, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not meet him.
Prabhupada was in America and actually Prabhupada wanted to meet the head of state. Prabhupada’s disciple set up the meeting and Prabhupada went through all the trouble to meet her. So if we follow categorical ethics over here, we say Chaitanya Prabhupada is doing the opposite of what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did.
Although it was opposite in process, it was consistent in purpose. How is it consistent in purpose? That in today’s world or maybe in the world of 4-5 decades ago also, that if a spiritual leader is seen as the head of state, then that’s not going to do any harm to the reputation of the spiritual leader. That’s actually going to increase, improve, enhance the reputation.
And it was not just a matter of reputation for Prabhupada, actually it was to some extent. When Prabhupada’s book was first time when he wrote Bhagavatam and then Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri appreciated it and he wrote some appreciative note. So Prabhupada used that to have his books distributed to all the major libraries in India as well as he used that to distribute his books in America.
So reputation does matter. And in today’s world, the reputation would be enhanced. So if we are trying to share Krishna Consciousness in the world, we need to be mindful of the world’s perceptions.
Of course, we cannot make our mind full of the world’s perceptions. There are two different things. Be mindful means you have to be aware.
Okay, if I do this, this is how people see this. If they do this, this is how people are going to see it. Now that should not be the sole basis for deciding what we do.
If we make our mind full only of that, our mind has to be primarily full of Krishna. But we also have to be mindful of how people are perceiving. So what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada did was ultimately serving the same purpose.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, by keeping a distance from the king, demonstrated the purity of his renunciation and that inspired people to hear him and to fix their minds on Krishna. And Srila Prabhupada, by meeting the head of the state, that convinced many people that, Oh, this Swami must be special. He gets to meet the head of the state, must be a big person.
And that inspired people to hear his message and that enabled them to fix their mind on Krishna. So there is a process or a path and there is a purpose. And Srila Prabhupada, when he says that I didn’t change anything, what it essentially means is he didn’t change the purpose even an iota.
He didn’t change the purpose even an iota. The purpose was consistently in his mind and that’s what he perceived constantly. But the specifics, Prabhupada was faithful and he was resourceful.
Faithful to the purpose, resourceful in pursuing the purpose according to time, place and circumstance. I’ll conclude with another example, then you can have questions. So if we consider Prabhupada’s Bhagavad Gita, in the title itself, Prabhupada says Bhagavad Gita as it is.
And yet if we read the Bhagavad Gita, we’ll see sometimes the Sanskrit is saying Karma Yoga and Prabhupada is saying Bhakti Yoga. It’s translating as Bhakti Yoga. In the sixth chapter, Krishna is telling to go to the forest.
Krishna has an elaborate description of how to go to the forest and perform yogic meditation. And Prabhupada in the purport says this is not practical. We should chant Hare Krishna.
So now here you could say Prabhupada is not only not commenting on Krishna’s words, in his commentary he is contradicting Krishna’s words. And he is contradicting Krishna’s words and then he has the, a critic might say, he has the audacity to say that this is Bhagavad Gita as it is. How do you figure that? Actually, Prabhupada is very transparent in what he is doing.
There are some Gita commentators who give their own interpretation and they don’t give the Sanskrit at all. Just give the way they translate the words and they give their commentary. So Prabhupada gives us the Sanskrit, Prabhupada gives us the word to word translation, Prabhupada then gives us the translation in the purport.
So what Prabhupada does, he doesn’t change, he lets us see that the original Sanskrit is Karma Yoga. But then he is translating it as Bhakti Yoga, as Krishna Consciousness. So Prabhupada doesn’t hide what he is doing and Prabhupada says in a lecture what his purpose was.
Prabhupada’s word was that people in Kali Yuga are so distracted, that people are not really focused in understanding scripture deeply. So his mood was that people might just, people are so lost spiritually that they might just pick up one book and read one page. And in that one page, any page of his book Prabhupada, if people would open, Prabhupada wanted them to get the essential message of the scripture.
And if you say Prabhupada is contradicting Krishna, it’s not exactly correct. Krishna himself contradicts himself. In the sense that Krishna gives Jnana Yoga, Krishna gives Dhyana Yoga, Krishna gives Karma Yoga, but then Krishna himself says, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja Just give up all varieties of religion and surrender to me.
Now when you read this verse you will be thinking, if I had to give up all this, why did I have to study all that? No, the point is that study all that to see how all that culminates in this. And then when Krishna says give up all this to do this, give up all other paths to practise bhakti, it doesn’t appear fanatical. If all the reasoning prior to that is not given, it will appear fanatical.
But when it is followed by all the reasoning, it seems not as fanatical but as philosophical, as the conclusion, culmination of the philosophy. So again, in terms of process or path, what Prabhupada may be doing seems to be objectionable. This is the verse, but the purport is the opposite.
But in terms of purpose, what Krishna is doing at the end of the Gita, Prabhupada is doing throughout the Gita. So Prabhupada is fulfilling Krishna’s purpose. And thus, just as Prabhupada was resourceful, we also need to be resourceful in our personal practise as well as our sharing of Krishna bhakti.
There is a process, there is a purpose. And we have to make sure that we practise and share Krishna bhakti in a way that serves the purpose. Even if that requires, at times, doing things in a way that might not be the normative way.
As Sri Sanatana Goswami did when he gave a suggestion to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to revise his plans to go to Vrindavan. So I’ll summarise. I spoke today on this theme of the dynamism of bhakti, how Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was going to Vrindavan, and how Sri Sanatana Goswami, despite being his disciple, despite not having met Chaitanya Mahaprabhu many times, suggests, better don’t go with so many people.
And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu listens to the suggestion and revises the itinerary, goes much later. So what’s going on over here? It seems very opposite to the etiquette of how a disciple should relate to the spiritual master. Follow instructions, not give suggestions.
But we discussed how Sri Sanatana Goswami was so deeply devoted, when he was giving the suggestion, it was not out of arrogance or presumptuousness. It is because of thoughtfulness. And we talked about the mood of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, how he loved solitude.
That’s why he was in Gambhira in Puri for so many years at the peak of his teaching career. And he would relish Vrindavan much better if he could go without so many people. Vrindavan also being at that time at least a very isolated, secluded place.
Lots of people there would disrupt the mood. So he focused on the purpose and thus, if required, he adjusted the etiquette at that time. And then I talked about how there is contextual and categorical understanding of ethics, that there is a path and there is a process.
So the conservatives say this is how it has been done. This is how it always has to be done. The liberals say this is not working.
We need to do something else. Now both can go towards extremes. Niyamagraha, just stick to the letter, even if it is not fulfilling the purpose.
But Niyamagraha, it’s not working, just give it up. So traditionally, like a tree, if we cut the branch, we don’t know how far we’ll fall down. So we have to be very careful if we are changing anything.
But that doesn’t mean we be paranoid and not consider the context. And I talked about two examples of how Srila Prabhupada was dynamic. So Prabhupada was faithful, but he was also resourceful in making sure that the purpose was served.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu didn’t meet Pratapudra, but Srila Prabhupada curtailed his world tour to come and meet Indira Gandhi. And Krishna is recommending Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga, but Prabhupada is recommending Bhakti Yoga throughout. But Prabhupada is focussing on Krishna’s conclusive purpose throughout the Gita.
So if we are thoughtful in understanding both the process and the purpose, then we can follow the process in a way that leads to the purpose. And thus we can ourselves grow and inspire others to grow in their spiritual life. Thank you very much.
Hare Krishna. Any comments or questions? Yes, Mataji. Do we have a mic? Maybe you can ask.
I’ll repeat. Okay. In my preaching of doing some things different from the way they are done, as there are many, when I started travelling to the West maybe five, six years ago, initially I was thinking that to become spiritually conscious, you have to give up bodily consciousness.
And on one level that’s true. And I had read and heard about how yoga has been reduced to simply bodily exercises for looking better and stuff like that. So I had this idea that people practising yoga in bodily consciousness.
And when I went abroad and especially in America, I was invited to do talks at yoga studios, and then after that people would ask questions. And then it struck me that many of these people were very spiritually inquisitive. So, yes, normally bodily consciousness is the opposite of spiritual consciousness.
But people are anyway in bodily consciousness. But what yoga outreach can do is that use people’s bodily consciousness to foster spiritual consciousness. Because what is happening, if yoga helps them do what they want to do, maybe be healthier, look better, that at least increases their faith in yoga, increases their openness to the tradition from which yoga has come.
And then it can give them bhakti. So traditionally we have Baldevidya Bhushan, in his Vedanta Sutra commentary Govinda Vahishya, has a whole section on critiquing yoga. And he’s contrasting yoga and Vedanta, the six systems of philosophy in the Indian tradition.
So yoga and Vedanta are two competitors, you could say. And he says how yoga is inadequate and Vedanta is conclusive. So there is that tension.
And when yoga is taking people away from bhakti, we need to present the difference, highlight the difference. But today, for many people, yoga is the way to bhakti. Because that opens them to the Indian wisdom tradition.
So I realise that, yes, it’s bodily consciousness, but you could even say all bodily consciousness is not the same. There is bodily consciousness that takes you away from spiritual consciousness. And there is bodily consciousness that opens people to spiritual consciousness.
So one of the things which puzzled me when I started coming to the West was that I saw so many people have pets. And even devotees have pets. So I just couldn’t digest it.
We already have so many attachments. And why add one more attachment? But then as I spend years, talk with people, talk with devotees. Yes, you could say it’s one more attachment, but there’s context.
People, the family structure is not that intact in the Western world. People are lonely. And OK, you could say that, oh, that’s another material attachment.
It’s true. But maybe it’s much better than spending your whole day playing video games or surfing the net. Just wasting time on social media.
Maybe interacting with another living being, even if it’s not a human living being. It’s better than just surfing the net. Or it might just be better than sinking into depression.
So, yes, if one is becoming attached to a dog instead of Krishna, then definitely we don’t want that. But for if somebody in the context where I don’t know. And there’s one devotee, she told me that she has started a whole.
She was a she was a foster child and her only thread of stability was she had a pet dog. And she came to Bhakti and then she gave her the she said she was heard the dogs are attachments. So she gave it up.
But then she said, when I would chant Hare Krishna, I would not think of Krishna. I would think of my dog. So now she realised that I just can’t give it up.
So now she has started like a clinic for especially children who come from broken homes or orphans. They often get traumatised. So one of the ways to help them calm down is to keep them with pets.
So she has started like a clinic, you could use that word, where there are all these pets and there are dogs. And then she has put all pictures of Krishna over there. And these children play with the pets and they calm down and she tells them Krishna stories.
So now she’s told me that actually it was my dog that brought me to God. Because when I was all alone in my childhood, a dog was the only thing with me. She says everything is changing in my life.
One thing that is stable is a dog. So maybe there is someone who really loves me. That’s why this dog is still there in my life.
So so yes, categorical ethics would mean pets are attachments. But in the context where people are living, I’m not in any way recommending devotees have pets. Please don’t quote me out of context.
I’m just saying that we need to understand the context. And if you understand the context, then we can present things in a way that doesn’t alienate people. So for some people, that attachment to a dog might bring a little bit sattva in their life as compared to all rajas and tamas that is there.
So yes, you could say everything in the material world can be a potential competitor to God. But not everybody is at a level where they can give up everything and directly turn towards God. So then what they are, what level they are at, instead of simply criticising that, we see, okay, in this context, this is what they need.
But how can I elevate them towards Krishna? So I have come up with my own working definition of humility. Humility means to acknowledge the complexity of reality. Reality is very complex.
I cannot just take this rule and this is how. Why are you not following this rule? Not like that. Reality is complex.
And how best in the complex reality we can help people find a path to rise from where they are toward Krishna. That is actually the service attitude of a teacher of Krishna consciousness. Service attitude, not just teach Krishna consciousness, but understand how from where people are, we can help them to come to Krishna.
Does that answer your question? Yes. So Krishna never leaves Vrindavan. So only the expansion lives, but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is Bhagawan and he is away and he has to endeavour to get to Vrindavan.
How do you understand that? Yes, when the Lord expands, especially in terms of where the expansion is a completely different person. Krishna expands as Balram, Krishna expands as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Then it’s the same person, but different personalities.
And the different personality has different role, different mission. So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s mission is to demonstrate devotion and especially devotion in separation. So this is the mood of Srimati Radharani when Krishna has gone to Vrindavan.
You are Vrindavannath, but you have become Mathurannath now. We can’t see you and I don’t know what to do. I’m dying.
I’m afflicted. So in that mood of separation, what was the ecstasy that was being experienced that Krishna wanted to experience? And the whole mood of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is Radharani relishing love for Krishna in separation from him. And that’s why Chaitanya Mahaprabhu most of the time he is separated from Vrindavan.
So in a sense, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s relationship with Vrindavan is like Radharani’s relationship with Krishna. Her heart is constantly with Krishna, but at a Vapu level, at a practical, we don’t want to use the word physical because their bodies are transcendental. But in terms of practical association, she didn’t get that much association of Krishna.
So similarly, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in his whole life was just two months in Vrindavan, but his heart was always in Vrindavan. Yes. If we are following the process, why is the Lord testing our determination? The essence of commitment is recommitment.
The essence of commitment is recommitment. We go along a particular path and the nature of the world and the nature of the mind is that they will divert us. And we have to again come back.
Get diverted, we again come back. Wherever and whenever the mind wanders, bring it back under the control of the self. Krishna says in 625 and 26 in the Bhagavad Gita, 626 primarily.
So then the mind may stray away, but don’t let it stay away. It will stray away. So when we say Krishna tests us, basically what is happening is that Krishna is giving us options and he wants us to choose him and not choose the other options.
And it is through choosing him that we show our devotion. So whenever we say it’s a challenge, it’s essentially say if we have a challenges can be broadly of two types. We can have temptations and we can have tribulations.
Temptations. Oh, there’s so much pleasure. Why should I stay fixed on Krishna? Or tribulation.
There is so much trouble. I must deal with this first. I can’t stay focused on Krishna right now.
So these are two main distractions that we have in life. Now, of course, we need to stay away from temptation. And if trouble is there, we need to deal with the trouble.
But we don’t want to. Even when we have problems, we don’t want to become problem conscious. You want to be Krishna conscious and deal with the problem.
We may have to live with pain, but we don’t have to live in pain. You don’t want the pain to consume our consciousness completely. So the test is that when the world’s ups and downs come, do we just let our consciousness go in those ups and downs? Or do we still put Krishna first and then deal appropriately with that situation? The challenge is, in that sense, when Krishna is testing us, he’s basically giving us an opportunity to choose him.
That’s the essence of the test. So I was in Australia some time ago and then one person in Melbourne asked me this question. If God is good and God wants us to do good, then why are the good choices so few and the bad choices so many? So I answered, that’s how it always is in any multiple choice exam.
So one right choice, four wrong choices. And the choice is not, if it’s based on probability, then we could say the exam is rigged against us. But the probability of choosing the right is only 20%.
But the choice is not based on probability. The choice is based on education. So similarly for us, yes, there are many distractions from Krishna and there is Krishna.
So for us, we have to choose. And if we, broadly speaking, when we have the opportunity to be Krishna conscious directly, let me say we are here in class, we are doing japa. When we have the opportunity to be Krishna conscious, if we consciously strive to remember Krishna at that time, then at other times when there are provocations, there are distractions, the remembrance of Krishna will bubble up within our consciousness.
I don’t choose this. Choose me. But if you are not doing that, when we have the opportunity to remember Krishna, when there is no multiple choice exam and there is a straight choice, at that time also if you don’t choose Krishna, then when the multiple choice comes, we’ll get confused.
So, yes, life is challenging. It’s never easy. Bhakti is because you are doing it in the material world.
Again, it’s not easy. I write daily on the Bhagavad Gita at GitaDevi.com. So I wrote, I’m writing an article now currently that is called. Just because a path is the easiest doesn’t mean it is easy.
Among the various paths, Karma Yoga, Gyan Yoga, Ashtanga Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Bhakti Yoga is the easiest. But it is the easiest among tough paths. The path out of the material world is tough.
What to speak of the path out of the material world? Even living in the material world is tough. So challenges are just intrinsic to the material world. And Krishna is testing us so that he has the opportunity to choose.
Both at the time of the test and also when preparing before the test comes. Thank you very much. I think we’ll talk one to one.
Shri Chaitanya Charita Amrit ki? Jai! Shrila Prabhupada ki? Jai! Gaur Bhakt Vrinda ki? Jai! Jai Gaur Premanand ki? Jai!