Shikshashtakam 6 – Calling for mercy elevates us from our fallen condition

Talk at Bhaktivedanta Hospital

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna.
I welcome all of you to this morning where I will continue on the series on Shiksha Ashtakam. So we have taken five classes till now. The first was we took two classes and thereafter one class per verse.
Today we are on the fifth text of the Shiksha Ashtakam. Ayananda Tanuja King Karam Pratitamaam Nishame Dhavam Budham Krupaya Tava Pada Pankaya Sthitha Guli Sardusham Vichem Daya So Ayananda Tanuja King Karam So, Oh Krishna Krishna is being addressed here with a very intimate address. Nanda Tanuja, the son of Nanda Maharaj.
I will come back to this reference a little later. King Karam Karam means to do. King means what.
So, King Karam means one who asks what should I do? That means the word King Karam implies one who is a servant who asks the master what I should be doing. Ayananda Tanuja King Karam Oh Nanda Tanuja, Oh Krishna I am your servant. Ayananda Tanuja King Karam Pratitamaam Nishame Dhavam Budham Pratitamaam I have fallen in this material existence.
Nishame Dhavam Budham Material existence is filled with many great dangers. Krupaya Tapapa Tapam Kaja, By your mercy unto your lotus feet Sthitha Guli Sardusham Vichem Daya. Accept me as a Guli, as a dust particle at your lotus feet.
Sardusham, just like that. There are many important points in this verse. Before going into that let’s look at its position.
This is the fifth among the eight texts and this is the first text in which directly within the Shikshashtakam the concept of Krupa is talked about. Mercy. Now there is this contradiction or paradox between endeavour and grace.
So if we look at the western religions they have the idea, especially Christianity has the idea that heaven can never be earned. It has to be got only through grace and they hold that it is Jesus sacrifice which is the qualification for the grace of all living beings. And when western scholars came to India and they started studying the Indian tradition the most prominent expression of the Indian tradition was impersonalism at that time.
And they felt this impersonalist idea of we becoming one with God this is absolute anathema. It is completely opposed to the Christian idea of grace. And later as they studied the Indian traditions more they found that there is also bhakti within it.
And the principle of grace in bhakti is not only similar to what is there in Christianity but it is actually much deeper much greater as a prominent Christian theologian Ajit Gul said, I am not a Hindu but I find the Hindu understanding of grace is actually far more graceful than the Christian understanding of grace. Why is that? He said because the Christian understanding is always very limited. Limited in the sense that there is only one saviour.
Only if you accept Jesus you are going to be saved. And there is only one life. In this life one has to accept Jesus and then one goes back to heaven.
If one doesn’t then one goes to hell forever. So you see in contrast in the bhakti tradition there are many many avatars and there are many many lifetimes. So if one is not attracted to so much towards one particular incarnation one can be attracted to some other incarnation.
There are so many spiritual teachers, there are so many levels of spiritual paths and of course there are many lifetimes. Even if a soul does not evolve in this lifetime then soul can evolve in another lifetime. So now the major problem which even these Christians who accepted the path of bhakti I will come later to why I am talking about this from a Christian perspective.
I will explain that a little later. But the major problem they had was with the idea of sadhana in the Vedic tradition. They felt that sadhana or endeavour on the spiritual path indicates a lack of faith in God.
Their idea is that when we do sadhana then that means we are by our endeavour expecting to earn the right to attain God. And they felt that this idea of endeavour is completely opposite to the idea of grace. And because of that they said even the bhakti traditions are actually contaminated by the emphasis of sadhana.
So now Shri Bhakti Sutan Sri Thakur was responding to many such Christians when he said we cannot gate crash into Vaikuntha. He said we cannot gate crash into Vaikuntha. Sometimes the gate is locked and some people come with a big truck and they just break the truck and come inside.
So he said that actually the purpose of sadhana is not to make us qualified for mercy. Mercy itself is in the Vedic tradition also it is said to be ahaituki. Ahaituki means it has no head.
It is causeless. So then if mercy is causeless then what is the purpose of sadhana? The purpose of sadhana is twofold. First is that in the process of spiritual growth there are two aspects.
One is Jiva Goswami in his Sandarbhas explains that there is becoming gunatita and becoming swaroopasita. Becoming gunatita means going beyond the influence of the three modes. We are all influenced by sattva guna, rajo guna, tamo guna and these modes create different kinds of desires within us.
Suddenly we feel greedy. Suddenly we feel angry. Suddenly certain desires come in and we dance like puppets according to those desires.
This is the influence of the modes. Guna, to become gunatita means to go beyond the influence of the modes and to become swaroopasita. Swaroopasita means we all have an eternal position in the spiritual world and that position is what we need to become aware of.
So in disease terms Srila Prabhupada sometimes explains that becoming gunatita is like removing the infection. If somebody has got a terrible disease and then by treatment all the germs are removed. But after that there is a period of convalescence when the person recovers the energy.
So just removal of disease is not the same as restoration of health. After removal of disease there is the positive restoration of health. So becoming gunatita is like the removal of the disease.
And becoming swaroopasita is like the restoration of the health. Now by sadhana what is possible is to become gunatita. By consistent practise of sadhana a person can raise themselves from the mode of ignorance to the mode of passion.
They can raise themselves to the mode of goodness and to some extent towards transcendence. Not fully. So changing one’s modes is possible through endeavour.
And we see even in material life there are people who may be addicted to drugs or alcohol or cigarettes or whatever. And they may go to some de-addiction programmes and some of them are able to give up the addictions. Many of them are unable to and many of them may also have relapses.
But still there are people who are able to break free from certain bad habits. So by our endeavour it is possible to overcome the influence of the lower modes. Not to totally transcend the modes but to significantly elevate oneself above the modes that is possible.
And the higher the mode we are situated in, if we are situated in the mode of goodness then we can practise bhakti with greater focus. The process of bhakti can be started from any mode. But to be sustained it is good to be in the mode of goodness.
So when in the Bhagavatam in the second chapter of the first canto it is mentioned that when the lower modes are removed the characteristics are lust and greed. When these are removed then what happens the consciousness becomes cleansed and after that one becomes situated in sattva guna. And what happens when one is situated in sattva guna? one becomes cheered in sattva guna.
And then with prasanna manaso with cheerful mind when one practises bhakti like this then what happens? The systematic understanding of god awakens within one’s heart and then one becomes completely liberated from the modes. From all material association in fact. So we are talking about this sequence.
So in the mode of goodness one becomes prasanna manaso. Till we have not come to the mode of goodness we can practise bhakti but because there are so many other desires there is resentment. Oh I have to give that up.
Oh I have to do this so much. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don’t like it. But once we come to the mode of goodness we become steady in our bhakti practise.
And we become joyful in our bhakti practise. So now this coming to the mode of goodness is possible through our sadhana. If we diligently practise sadhana we can come to the mode of goodness.
But we cannot realise ourselves entirely to be parts of Krishna and our swaroopa merely by practise, merely by sadhana. For that we need kripa. So sadhana helps us to rise to the higher modes by which we can practise bhakti more steadily and cheerfully.
And sadhana serves one more purpose. Sadhana doesn’t earn Krishna’s mercy but sadhana shows Krishna our desire for his mercy. It’s like if there are some beggars on the street now some passing people may give charity.
Now when the passing people give charity that charity is in a sense causeless, a virtue. Now some beggar may beg very fervently, family and they are all starving, my child is sick and he is about to die of starvation. I have not eaten for three days.
And now when he begs like this at that time some passerby may give charity. That begging is not the job done to earn the charity as a salary. The begging may attract the charity but the begging is not the cause of the charity.
Last time I also discussed the difference between a cause and a stimulus. Cause is like when a person shoots a gun pressing the trigger basically the cause of the bullet going and killing someone. But actually pressing the trigger is simply the stimulus of the trigger.
If there had been no gun present in the bullet then pressing the trigger will have no effect. So pressing the trigger is actually a trigger. The presence of the bullet in the gun is the cause of somebody getting wounded by a gunshot.
Similarly a person may beseech fervently, please I am starving give me some food, give me some money. But if there is no compassion in the heart of the passerby no amount of beseeching will invoke in charity. So the cause of the charity is the compassion of the giver.
The stimulus is the begging by the person. And sometimes even without the stimulus also the beggar may have been getting rejected and a passerby may go and do charity. So Krishna’s mercy is causeless.
Our sadhana does not make us qualified to receive Krishna’s mercy. Our sadhana simply shows Krishna our desire. And it is because of his compassionate nature that Krishna responds and bestows mercy.
So in the previous verses of this text if you just look at the previous verse, there the focus was on human endeavour. na dhanam, na janam, na sundarim, na kavitam. So you say I don’t want this, I don’t want that, I don’t want that.
Essentially sadhana is a process of saying no to temptation and saying yes to Krishna. When we are chanting, when we are hearing scripture, when we are studying scripture, when we are coming in association. At these times we could be doing many other things.
We could be saying yes to many other things but we say no to those things and we say yes to Krishna. So sadhana essentially is a process of saying no to the world’s temptations and saying yes to Krishna. So the previous text, even before that, the third text also where it is said, one cultivates humility dhruna, dhapi, suni, chena, dharo, uram, nisai, jhuna, amanina, amanadhena, kirtani, sadhahari.
There the idea is cultivate humility and tolerance by which one can come to a level of constant glorification of the lord. Even in this, the emphasis on what one is doing, that is the sadhana part. So third and fourth text especially, talk about sadhana.
The first and second text talk about the glory of the holy name. Now in the fifth text, the central point is krupa. Oh lord, please have mercy on me.
And what is the mercy that is being asked? ayananda taroja ki karampatita My dear lord, I have fallen in this material existence and please lift me out. vishame bhavam Ashila Prabhupada in his translation of this text adds somehow or the other somehow or the other I have fallen in material existence. So the cause of how we came to the material existence is something which is extremely illusory.
And quite often Ashila Prabhupada when he makes some statements, often on an issue he makes many statements. And at different points he may stress different things. But sometimes we just take one statement of Ashila Prabhupada and overemphasise it.
But Ashila Prabhupada was very broad and at different times he said different things. Sometimes he would say the exact opposite things. And the reason for that would be the context.
So sometimes Prabhupada would say that some devotee wrote up to Prabhupada and said that Prabhupada I want to help you spread Krishna Consciousness all over the world. And save the whole world. And Prabhupada said this is good but first we should save ourselves.
So Prabhupada was bringing the person down on the ground. Another time one devotee wrote to Prabhupada, I am so fallen. I am utterly worthless without your help.
And Prabhupada wrote back saying I need many fallen people like you to help me save the whole world. So depending on the consciousness of a person Prabhupada would respond differently at different times. And this is easy to understand when there is a direct one to one correspondence.
You know ok this person’s background may be different, this person’s background may be different. But the same principle applies when Ashila Prabhupada speaks various things also. On various issues also.
So sometimes it is said that sometimes devotees have the notion that Prabhupada said that the soul fell from the spiritual world. Now that is not the only thing that Prabhupada said. In the fourth canto of Purport, Prabhupada clearly states that therefore the conclusion is that the soul never falls from the spiritual world.
So the point is Prabhupada made different statements on this issue. In some statements especially in his conversations he tends to say that the soul falls from the spiritual world. And in his written works, in his Purports he basically takes a non-committal position.
Sometimes he says the soul doesn’t fall, sometimes he says the soul falls. Or like here somehow or the other. The point is we should not reduce Prabhupada to one position.
Because we have to know that we are not just we are the Krishna Consciousness movement, but also the Krishna Consciousness movement is a part of a bigger tradition. That is the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. And the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition is a part of the Brahma Vaishnava tradition.
Now before Srila Prabhupada no no Acharya either from our Sampradaya or from any other Sampradaya has ever taken the position that the soul fell from the spiritual world. There is no explicit statement in scripture saying that the soul fell from the spiritual world. So when Srila Prabhupada makes a particular statement, we have Bhaktivinoda Thakur saying that the soul fell, some souls fall from Brahmajyoti.
Not from Golokundam. Not from Vaikuntha. Srila Prabhupada makes this statement, but when Srila Prabhupada was asked about it, he never gave any direct support about Sadhu or Shastra about it.
He basically said that it is an inconclusive question. He says don’t get into this too much. So this position somehow or the other this is a position which is a position of intellectual humility.
I mentioned in an earlier talk that humility can be expressed in different ways in different situations. So humility in the intellectual realm means admitting that I don’t know and admitting that I can’t know. I don’t know and I can’t know.
Certain things are unknowable. Purusha in 13.20, 21, 22 where the Bhagavad Gita talks about Purusha and Prakriti. So Both of them are Anadi.
Prakriti and Purusha. Both are Anadi. Beginningless.
So both Vande Vidya Munshan and Vishwanatha Shankaracharya would have heard. Both of them in their commentary to this word state that this Anadi refers not only to Purusha and Prakriti but also to the contact of Purusha and Prakriti. That means Purusha refers to the body.
Prakriti, sorry Purusha refers to the soul. Prakriti refers to the body. So our body can say matter.
So matter is also eternal. Material forms are temporary but matter is eternal. Matter is eternal.
Soul is eternal. And they explain the contact of the matter and the soul is also eternal. It’s Anadi.
So technically speaking the word Anadi does not mean eternal. It means beginningless. It just has no beginning.
So we don’t have to get too caught up in such technicalities. So sometimes some devotees say soul fell from the spiritual world. If that’s what they want to believe, that’s fine.
Some other devotees say no there is no basis. Soul did not fall from the spiritual world. That’s also fine.
But basically this is an unknowable subject. And we all in our spiritual life have to decide what is important for us. And really how the soul came is something which is not very important.
Standard example that we give is somebody has got malaria. It is not important to know which mosquito bit you to give the malaria. The important thing is take the treatment.
So like that the origin is not as important as the flaw. So Prabhupada uses the word somehow or the other over it. So I nandu tanuja kinkaram patitam mam vishame bhavam.
The point is patitam. I am fallen right now. And how one has become fallen that is not as important as the fact that we have fallen and more important the fact that we have an opportunity to become elevated.
Patitam mam vishame bhavam. How I have fallen in this mortal existence. Krupaya tavapadam khaja.
Krupaya, my dear lord, please by mercy, tavapadam khaja. That you rise, you please lift me onto your lotus feet. So I will now come to the point of why I am talking about this from a I started this talk from a Christian perspective.
Because Christianity has a particular perspective of bhakti. And there are certain Hindu groups who say that actually the Krishna consciousness movement is very much influenced by Christianity in its missionary mode. And one of the things they say is this idea of the fall of the Jeeva this is actually a Christian important to Hinduism.
Because in Christianity they have the concept of the fall of the soul. Now Adam and Eve were there and Adam, because Eve was tempted by Satan and then the Adam and Eve both fell from Eden. And they said this idea of the fall is what has been imported into Hinduism by Iskcon.
Now this is a complete misunderstanding. Why? Because the Christian conception of a fall is very very different. Their idea is Adam and Eve lived long long millions of years ago.
Not millions, thousands of years ago. And from that time they sinned. So their idea is because Adam and Eve sinned and all of humanity is descendant of Adam and Eve so everybody since then has sinned.
So sin rather than being a matter of individual misuse of free will sin becomes within this world view something like a genetic defect. Because Adam and Eve sinned and from that time for all of humanity all of humanity has got this inherent inborn genetic defect. That is what all of us are sinners.
So now take this now this is not the understanding of all branches of Christianity. Just like within Hinduism there are so many different groups with very different philosophical positions. Christianity also has a wide variety of interpreters and what the fall of Adam and Eve means? Different people have different ideas.
But if we take the whole Adam and Eve fall literally their idea becomes all evil, all suffering that is there in this world that is because of the original sin of Adam and Eve. And then it becomes very very unreasonable because all the tsunamis, all the earthquakes all the heart attacks all the catastrophes all of them happened because someone ate an apple long ago. Now this is I am not making a caricature of Christianity here.
I am just saying that if one takes everything literally then this is the implication that all suffering is caused by evil and the original evil act which is led to the evil in all of humanity is the eating of a forbidden apple. So now this is a very very different concept from the whatever Sri Prabhupada talks about. It is an individual misuse of free will by each soul.
Whereas there it is the idea of misuse of one of free will by one individual thousands of years ago. So the two are very different concepts entirely. Now one of the defining differences between that understanding of the fall and the Vedic understanding of the fallen state is that actually the fallen state is the embodied condition.
The soul is pure. The soul is an embodied condition and to have a body whatever be the nature of the body that is a condition of bondage and that is a condition of being fallen. Whereas there the idea is Adam and Eve whatever form they were in from that very form they came over here.
And that idea of fall is what leads to the idea of bodily resurrection within that idea. That the body should be buried because if the body is buried the person will be resurrected just like Jesus was resurrected. They will be resurrected just like that in future.
This is a very different conception. So the point which I am making again is coming to somehow or the other purposes. We don’t have to get too much caught.
If we wed ourselves to the idea that the soul fell from the spiritual world then we find ourselves targeted as being non-shastric. As having something brought into our tradition from elsewhere. And if we insist that the soul did not fall from the spiritual world then we have certain statements of Prabhupada which which do say the soul has fallen from the spiritual world.
So what do we do in such a situation? We understand that we can’t understand. So this is the attitude of humility. There are certain subjects which are not comprehensible.
And actually as Aishwarya Prabhupada did not take one position. Aishwarya Prabhupada said this is also acceptable, this is also acceptable. So sometimes when we think of faithfulness to parampara we think this is one position and everybody has to agree with this position then they are faithful.
But the tradition is not just one line. Tradition is like a circle. Within that circle there are different ways of serving Krishna that are acceptable.
So as long as something is within the circumference of that circle that is fine. So if tomorrow somebody starts saying actually you are not the soul, you are the body. Now that is not acceptable at all.
Because that is directly contradicting not just Guru, Guru Sadhu Shastra. So there are definitely things which are outside the circle and they cannot be accepted. But sometimes within the tradition there can be a range of positions which are acceptable.
Not just one position with which everyone has to agree entirely. So Krupaya Tava Pada Pankaj My dear lord, by your mercy unto your lotus feet Please make me situated on your lotus feet. Please take me as a dust particle on your lotus feet.
Now this idea of becoming a dust particle on the lotus feet of Krishna what does it mean? Actually all of us have our Swaroopa in the spiritual world. I answer questions on my website and just yesterday I was asked a question that you know in this life according to our philosophy if some soul is very fallen then the soul gets animal body. To get a dog’s body or to take a earthworm’s body it is a very unfortunate thing.
So what determines if some soul becomes an animal in the spiritual world? If I go to the spiritual world and I become an animal is it an unfortunate thing? I don’t want to become an animal there. So the point is if somebody thinks that I become a cow or I become a deer or something like that I would like to become a Gopa or a Gopi. I don’t want to become any of these things.
But we shouldn’t carry a material vision to the spiritual reality. See first of all as soon as a person becomes a person becomes free from material contamination at that time the soul’s joyfulness becomes fully evident. And Jeeva Goswami in his Gopal Chakra explains how everyone in Vrindavan is blissful.
Whether it be a blade of grass whether it be a deer whether it be Yamuna river whether it be a Gopi, a Gopa or anyone else. Everybody is blissful. So this material diversity is created by variety of karmic qualifications.
Somebody gets a good looking body because they have done some good karma. Somebody gets an animal body because they have done some bad karma. So the variety in material existence is because of disparity in karma.
Different people have done different kinds of karma. But the variety in the spiritual world is not because of any disparity in karma. The variety in the spiritual world is simply meant to increase the flavour of happiness there.
So everybody in the spiritual world whatever be their Swarupa they are all eternally happy. Not just eternally happy but fully happy. And the soul’s happiness primarily is in the remembrance of Krishna.
In the affection for Krishna. And whether one is a Gopi who is embracing Krishna whether one is a elderly mother or father of Krishna who are taking care of Krishna and feeding Him. Or whether one is a deer who dances in the forest.
Or a cow whom Krishna herds. All of them are absorbed in remembrance of Krishna. And the happiness is not so much how much one is proximate to Krishna.
How much one is close to Krishna. The happiness is how much one is remembering Krishna. And as far as devotion is concerned everybody in the spiritual world has deep devotion, total devotion to Krishna.
And that’s why everyone is eternally happy there. So coming to this point of being situated on Krishna’s lotus feet what does it mean? Make me a dust particle at your lotus feet. It is not that any soul has to eternally be a dust particle at Krishna’s lotus feet.
Everybody has a Swarupa. But the idea of becoming a dust particle at Krishna’s lotus feet means becoming reinstated in our position as a servant. So a dust particle at a feet is considered to be a humble position.
And that humility is what enables us to connect with Krishna. My dear lord, please lift me up and place me in the dust particle at your lotus feet. And Krishna when we are situated like this, then there is constant bliss in that remembrance of Krishna.
Because Krishna is the source of all happiness. And whatever way we are connected with him, as long as we are connected with him we are blissful. And this verse shifts the focus, to summarise now, this verse shifts the focus from sadhana to krupa.
We discussed how sadhana is not contradictory to krupa. Sadhana does not indicate a lack of faith as some people think. Sadhana serves two purposes.
Sadhana can help us to progress towards becoming guna dita. Sadhana can help us to rise from the lower modes towards the higher modes. And sadhana can show Krishna our desire for his mercy.
Just like a beggar’s fervent begging can show a passerby that this person really needs food. Just as the beggar’s begging will have no effect if there is no compassion in the passerby’s heart. Similarly, our sadhana alone doesn’t create Krishna’s mercy, doesn’t alone lead to our awakening of our soul.
That happens by Krishna’s mercy. So becoming guna dita is like becoming free from the infection of the disease. Becoming swaroop siddha is like being restored to health positively.
And that positive restoration to health doesn’t happen without Krishna’s mercy. Krishna’s mercy is our way to heal. Then we discussed about somehow or the other how the soul has come into this material world.
Prabhupada often took a variety of positions on various issues and there is no need to absolutely wed our whole movement to one particular position. So Prabhupada said both things that soul fell from the spiritual world to the soul. So somehow or the other the soul is here.
The soul doesn’t fall from the spiritual world. I said in Bhagavatam. So the point is that the idea of the soul falling from the spiritual world, even if it doesn’t have any basis in guru sadhu shastra, that does not mean that it is a import from somewhere else.
The Christian conception is a very different thing. Because there the idea is the body itself has fallen from there and it is one person’s misuse of people that is cause of the sin for all people like a genetic difference. It’s a very different conception.
And lastly we discussed about when we talk about being situated as a dust particle in Krishna’s lotus feet that is not a position of insignificance. Every position in the spiritual world even if it be the position of animal that is a position of complete spiritual fulfilment. So the spiritual fulfilment comes not by so much by our proximity to Krishna, it comes by our affinity for Krishna.
It comes by how much we are attracted to Krishna, how much we are absorbed in remembrance of Krishna. And that was the avenue for absorption is available for everyone. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions or comments? First question is about the fall of the soul. I don’t know what the scriptures or other have said about how the soul fell. The second thing is that I believe there is no mention about the fall of the soul.
So if it did fall then how did it get absorbed there? So what do scriptures or other traditions say about the fall of the soul? Actually we don’t talk about the fall of the soul. We just basically say that this is untraceable. Anadhi.
Bhaktivinoda Thakura was also famous of Anadhi karma phale, koli bhavarna vijayate. That because of beginningless karma I have fallen in this material existence. So usually the traditional Vedic position is to hold that the question of the origin of the soul is inscrutable.
And no one takes any definitive position on that. And Prabhupada also did not take a definitive position. So this is a question which is generally not explored because we are existing in the time domain and that is beyond the time domain is not comprehensible for us.
So with that understanding that question is not explored at all. And yeah so what does Swarupa Siddhi mean? Actually the word Swarupa has many different meanings in different contexts. the Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his Jayavadharma Jayavadharma he talks about two different positions.
He says for example when the disciple becomes very advanced, the guru reveals the Swarupa to the disciple. And then the disciple understands, okay I am this and this and then the disciple starts practising bhakti accordingly. But then he describes two sadhakas.
Another sadhaka, he comes and tells his guru, after the guru reveals the Swarupa, he tells the guru that you know I don’t feel comfortable in this Swarupa. I don’t feel natural, I don’t feel like practising bhakti in this Swarupa. And then the guru prays and the guru reveals another Swarupa.
And then the disciple feels satisfied with that. And then he goes on. So he talks about both these things.
the idea that our Swarupa is something which is eternally fixed and the guru simply reveals it, that has been the mainstream position in our tradition. But Bhaktivinoda Thakura does talk about an alternative where the disciple and the guru, they discuss and then the Swarupa is revealed. So the idea is that we all have eternal relationship with Krishna.
And of course there is another point also in our tradition that it is said that even if somebody has a Swarupa somewhere else, if somebody is very much attracted to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu then that person can be transported to Chaitanya Leela. And there is also the point that some souls can be in both Leelas. Can be in Krishna Leela also and in Lord Leela also.
See the soul has immense attraction to Krishna, to the Supreme Lord and in both these forms, Krishna as well as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu the soul may go to both also. So exactly how the Swarupa plays out, is it that one soul expands into two or there are two souls over there in two different Swarupas or does the soul Swarupa change itself because of the desire of the soul. That is not clearly mentioned in our tradition.
The important point is from here by the practise of Bhakti we become elevated, we become liberated and get in Krishna. Now exactly what is our position in our relationship with Krishna that is something which will be revealed to us when we get there. So the point here is the concept of five Rasas and the concept of a Swarupa in one of the five Rasas this whole concept of five Rasas is a revelation of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.
Other Vaishnava traditions don’t talk about five Rasas. That doesn’t mean that there is no five Rasas. The concept of five Rasas is an analytical framework.
Even if you go to Sri Vaishnava tradition or Madhava Vaishnava tradition they also know that Yajuramayi has a maternal relationship with Krishna that Rakta Kanchitra have a servitor relationship with Krishna or Sudama Sudama they have a fraternal relationship with Krishna. But making these relationships into analytical categories this belongs here, this belongs here, this belongs here. This is something which our tradition, the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition has done.
So because other traditions don’t have these analytical categories so they don’t talk about when the soul becomes liberated whether the soul goes into one of these analytical categories or not. And in our own tradition when the subject has been talked about the focus has been on attaining the spiritual. So Swarupa if we see that way in the Brihad Bhagavatam story the soul actually goes to the spiritual world.
So it goes to Vaikuntha goes to Ayodhya and lives in Ayodhya, lives in Vaikuntha but doesn’t feel satisfied. And then comes back again to this world and then eventually goes to Goloka Vrindavan, practises sadhana in this world and then goes to Goloka Vrindavan and feels satisfied over there. So now the Brihad Bhagavatam is a story which is primarily meant to illustrate the exaltedness of service to Krishna in Goloka Vrindavan the middle pool of Madurai Rasa.
And that is what is explained through the narrative of the Gompa Kumar. So the point is that the concept of Swarupa, the word Swarupa comes in scripture. But Swarupa as referring to one particular kind of relationship among these five analytical categories.
That is something which it is our tradition that has talked about. And in our tradition the first person to talk about the fall of the soul to the spiritual world is Ishwara Prabhupada. So Ishwara Prabhupada has not exclusively talked about this subject any further.
That’s why I can’t say anything more. Any other questions? So the priority for Krishna or how does the mercy of Krishna come into picture? How does it decide to use mercy? So is the mercy proportionate to our endeavour? No. If it becomes like that then it becomes more of a it no longer remains causeless.
So certainly our endeavour increases the likelihood of getting mercy. And we shouldn’t think that Krishna deliberately wants to withhold mercy and not give mercy to us. It’s not like that.
Prabhupada writes in the 1st Canto Parpot that Krishna is more eager for us to come back to him than we are eager to go to him. So Krishna is always eager but he wants to see how much we are valuing what we are getting. Just like a father who is a billionaire and the father wants to hand over all the inheritance to his children.
But if he sees the children are frivolous, wasting their money in all sorts of frivolous activities then although the father wants to give the inheritance to the children, father will withhold at that time. Till the child becomes mature and after the child becomes mature the father will give the inheritance. So like that Krishna wants to give us pure love for him.
But if he sees that we are still caught up in loving this and loving that and loving that, we will not value what he is giving. So the more we start valuing what we have, the more Krishna starts giving it to us. So it’s not a linear or mathematical proportionate thing.
But the general principle is it’s a reciprocal relationship. It’s a reciprocal relationship. So the more we surrender to Krishna, the more Krishna reveals himself to us and Krishna is Krishna’s ultimate mercy.
When Krishna manifests in our heart in his all attractiveness, then that is his ultimate mercy. Krishna is Krishna’s greatest blessing and he reveals that in proportion to our desire for him. Is it a matter of numerical counting? I don’t think so.
Because the point is that our heart should become open to Krishna. For some people, by chanting a lot of rams, the heart’s openness to Krishna increases. For some other people, just chanting around more and more just causes a sense of being too burdened, just becomes a number counting game.
They are not really opening their heart to Krishna. They should be doing some other services and they feel more connected to Krishna through those services. So we have to see how our heart opens most to Krishna.
How we feel most connected to Krishna. We have a basic process of sadhana which we follow, but beyond that depending on how we can best connect with Krishna, we observe ourselves in connecting with him accordingly. And as far as Krishna’s mercy is concerned, it will come at his face.
As long as we are doing the endeavour, Krishna is not out there withholding his mercy. He wants us to open our heart and when he sees we have opened our heart, he will give his mercy to us. Last question.
When we have to say to another person, maybe this is a mercy without any endeavour. But our endeavour or trial gives no mercy. In some ways, we have to take without any endeavour.
So when we get things without endeavour, then often we may take them for granted. So how do we understand why did we get this or what do we do about this? Just a couple of months ago, I was in Singapore. And Singapore is the only country in the world where ISKCON is officially banned.
So it is one of the places where we cannot do any public programmes. We can do programmes but not as ISKCON. They have Gita Reading Society work.
Then it struck me that the things which we take so naturally over in India, they are so difficult in many other parts of the country. So now, how is it that we have so much facility to practise bhakti in some other places? Some other people don’t have the facility to practise bhakti. Now we can look at a circumstantial reason.
Oh, there the government is inimical. Or there, in the past, some people did something because of which the government became hostile. Or if you go to the Middle East, you may say that, okay, Middle East or Communist China, wherever, the government is hostile.
That’s why that’s the cause. Now yes, there may be socio-political, socio-cultural considerations which may make the atmosphere less or more favourable for the practise of bhakti. The important thing is the soul’s relationship with Krishna doesn’t depend on any circumstances.
So, the same circumstances which are hostile, can, if the soul is sincere, they can make the soul’s desire for Krishna more intense. And so, there the devotees may not have any temple where, especially in the Middle East, the devotees have no temple where they can go. But then, at their home itself, they have a temple.
They worship that temple with greater devotion. And that cannot substitute in absolute sense for having a proper temple where there are reinstalled deities. But still, whatever we have, if we use it, or if we benefit, if we absorb ourselves in it, Krishna can manifest himself through that.
So, rather than going into the cause, now is it that the devotees who are people who are practising in Singapore, they have done some bad karma because of which they got in Singapore, and because of which now they are there where they cannot have, or in Middle East or whatever, we don’t have to go into that analysis of past karma. Our focus should be on what I can do right now. Because getting into the analysis of past karma is something which is very very judgemental at times.
if a person is poor, if I start thinking, this person did bad karma because of which they are poor, then where is my compassion in that? Where is my sense of beauty? Where will we stop that? If a baby is crying, should the mother think, oh, the baby is crying because of her past karma? No, the baby is meant to take care of the baby. So, like that, we shouldn’t go too much into the analysis of past karma. That’s the first thing.
Whatever facilities we have, if we tend to take them for granted, then quite often interacting with devotees who don’t have similar facilities, that often helps in appreciating what we have. And quite also another thing is that we all have to go through a learning curve. Some of us may learn by hearing, some of us may have to learn by experiencing.
It’s best to learn by hearing, but it may have to work that sometimes we are transferred somewhere or we have to go somewhere where we don’t have association and then the basic practises become very difficult. See, even without association we can practise bhakti. But it’s like, Krishna Das Kaviraj Goswami compares the association of devotees to a walking stick.
Even without a walking stick, if a person has a little leg problem, they can walk without a walking stick. But it’s much more, much slower and it’s much more insecure any moment they fall down. That’s what happens with us when we don’t have association.
Our progress becomes slower and slower and any moment we may fall again because there is no protection of association. So, like that, even by contemplation we can gain better appreciation of the gifts that we have. And that way, if we hear and learn, that is the best.
Is it answering Krishna? Thank you very much.