I was contemplating on GM's call last week where he said preaching was just a means to achieve the end of complete absorption in krsna. I have had such tendencies before but would feel guilty about it. I discussed this with a devotee here and as usual there were some arguments. He said prabhupada said : preaching is the essence and you are saying preaching is just a means. Then he quoted the verse from S.B which prabhupada cherished: the verse where prahlad maharaja says that unlike other transcendentalist who live only for their own salvation he wants to help other people. Here prahlada glorifies preaching over looking only for one's salvation and prabhupada liked this statement of prahlada.
Then I began to reflect that without GM's preaching I wouldn't be practicing GV right now, so however much I downplay these things from a absolute standpoint( where it is just krsna's play) from the practical standpoint GM's preaching benefited me immensely.
Where should we place the balance between deep absorption and compassion for other beings. I do understand that only through deep absorption genuine compassion can manifest. But if perfect yogi is one feels the suffering and happiness of others as his own, then how does he do it when he is deep absorption. Any thoughts?
Well, desiring salvation and being 100% absorbed in Krsna are not at all the same.
I couldn't listen to the last call, I hope it's going to stay up since we are not having it tomorrow, or I'll check out Madan's archives. At any rate, GM said something similar during tonight's talk: We don't need to make followers anymore, we need to work on ourselves.
During prasada Ratna commented about that, but I can't remember what. When I heard that statement during class, at first I thought it was in contrast with GM's own introduction to the Gita, then I realized that in the process of working on ourselves, we are naturally going to reach out, or people are naturally going to be attracted to us, and the parampara will go on; so his point was about where our focus should be. If it is "making followers" we may lose track of ourselves.
He just chuckled at that, so I don't know, but it's interesting to see how he mentioned that during the call.
I was contemplating on GM's call last week where he said preaching was just a means to achieve the end of complete absorption in krsna.
Actually it makes perfect sense. Think about it, the dynamics of preaching, etc.
My head is exploding now and I can't type.
Preaching is one type of service, any number of which one could become absorbed in and ultimately a perfected soul by.
Preaching is absorbing, no doubt, but it should not take too much thought to realize that it is a means: the prayojana is not preaching but to participate in the lila. By the logic given by the devotees Gaura Vijaya spoke to then every devotee would need to preach to enter into the lila, but that is clearly not the case: Gopa-Kumara didn't preach--he chanted his mantra.
And Prahlada Maharaja gives further evidence that preaching is a means and not the end: sravanam kirtanam visnuh. . . We hear that one can become perfect through any one or any combination of the nine limbs of bhakti. Outreach was conceived of by BSST as an extension of kirtana and as such is a very effective way of absorbing the mind, but it is not the only way to become absorbed.
So then we have to ask what SP meant when he said that preaching is the essence. The essence he's referring to is compassion: jive-daya, krsna-nama--sarva-dharma sara.
Where should we place the balance between deep absorption and compassion for other beings. I do understand that only through deep absorption genuine compassion can manifest. But if perfect yogi is one feels the suffering and happiness of others as his own, then how does he do it when he is deep absorption. Any thoughts?
We cannot separate Krishna from compassion, because he's compassion embodied. Compassion is just another word for love. When we walk, talk and think about Krishna, we're spontaneously wrapped up in his compassion and tenderness.
Then everything starts to melt around; if we smile because we think of Krishna's pastimes, or about some new exciting idea how to serve him and his dear friends, that smile cannot escape people around us; they'll be charmed and will become inquisitive. So, it's not just compassion but charm as well. It's like a fire; it's not only light, but warmth, and energy, a shelter against wild beasts, a beacon in cold, starless nights.
Why we like Swami so much? Because he's so charming and compassionate, among many other things. And he's a preacher par excellence. The beauty of it is, he cannot hide it; those qualities are self-revealing. Krishna wants us to see that, to experience such reality. Beautiful preaching, compassion and charm come from the same source; the capacity to love, to experience svayam bhagavan.
Wrapping ourselves in everything Krishna makes our heart satisfied. We then look for an opportunity to experience Krishna in everything around us and inside us, and we adjust our behaviour spontaneously. Suddenly we become better: sons, students, parents, friends, husbands .. and whatever else required. We don't even have time to think about all those duties .. we only think about Krishna. Is there anything to think beyond that?
Preaching is one type of service, any number of which one could become absorbed in and ultimately a perfected soul by.
Preaching is absorbing, no doubt, but it should not take too much thought to realize that it is a means: the prayojana is not preaching but to participate in the lila. By the logic given by the devotees Gaura Vijaya spoke to then every devotee would need to preach to enter into the lila, but that is clearly not the case: Gopa-Kumara didn't preach--he chanted his mantra.
And Prahlada Maharaja gives further evidence that preaching is a means and not the end: sravanam kirtanam visnuh. . . We hear that one can become perfect through any one or any combination of the nine limbs of bhakti. Outreach was conceived of by BSST as an extension of kirtana and as such is a very effective way of absorbing the mind, but it is not the only way to become absorbed.
So then we have to ask what SP meant when he said that preaching is the essence. The essence he's referring to is compassion: jive-daya, krsna-nama--sarva-dharma sara.
The question that devotees asked was how do you show compassion to others without speaking to them at all and just isolating and absorbing yourself in lila.
The question that devotees asked was how do you show compassion to others without speaking to them at all and just isolating and absorbing yourself in lila.
You don't, at least not in the way the question was most likely conceived. It takes some measure of absorption for preaching to be effective. As Guru Maharaja has said, preaching is an overflow of compassion from the heart of one who actually has something to share, some depth of realization. Such a devotee will come out of his or her samadhi and try to share that experience with others.
I think one has to ask if compassion is the highest expression of love. In the case of spiritual paths where the conception of the Godhead is vague or empty, such as in Christianity and Buddhism respectively, I think the answer may be yes. However in our tradition where the conception is specific in a way that fosters loving exchange with God, the answer is no. In our tradition the highest form of compassion may be karunya rasa for Bhagavan, rather than karunya for fallen jivas.
That said, Prabhupada liked to stress kirtanam and in this context compassion. Furthermore Mahaprabhu was very pleased with the compassionate heart of Vasudeva when Vasudeva expressed his desire to see all the jivas of the universe liberated. Gaura's heart softened and his eyes filled with tears to hear his devotee's desire. Then Sriman Gaurasundara told him that simply by his desire others would be liberated without the need for Vasudeva to do anything else, because Krsna fulfills the desires of devotees like Vasudeva. In stating this Mahaprabhu compared Vasudeva to Prahlada. He then asked Vasudeva "Why would Krsna induce a Vaisnava like you to suffer the karmic reactions of others, when he has the power to remove their karma himself?" This is an interesting response in consideration of the notion that the guru suffers the karma of his or her students.
At any rate it is clear from Mahprabhu's instruction to Vasudeva that one absorbed in Krsna consciousness has compassion for others regardless if he or she outwardly expresses it, and furthermore that such compassion, even when not expressed openly in the form of outreach, nonetheless has its positive effect. Thus compassion is not the exclusive property of preachers. It is inherent in Krsna consciousness and finds its way into the hearts of others by Krsna's grace.
Prabhupada's emphasis on outreach should also be balanced against his displeasure with imitative-hollow bhajana. We do not find him criticizing bhajananandis like Sri Gaura Kishore das babaji, but rather those imitating devotees like Gaura Kishore or Haridasa Thakura. Haridasa Thakura at one stage of his life was chanting 20 some hours daily. Should we ask if he had any compassion, and if so, how could he express it when he was so busy with his internal life? I think this puts the question in perspective.
.
I was reminiscing Swami's 'Aesthetic Vedanta'. Sublime preaching and true compassion reflect beauty. Good preaching and genuine compassion is inherently beautiful and it has a power to transform the narration into an out of this world experience. It captures heart. It shifts the audience into an enchanted atmosphere where sheer beauty is experienced. There's a world of difference between ordinary and beautiful preaching. The latter is pure art, a new reality in itself.
In Krishna's eternal lila, the participants experience love and great care for each other. Gopis are wonderful example of this; they're so selfless and always more concerned about how others will experience charms of Krishnacandra, not them. And they're always ready to comfort and encourage others, before anything else. Without it, the lila wouldn't be complete and beautiful. I think that bhava reflects in this world as our compassion towards fellow jivas as well.
One can rightfully argue that world is flooded with love for God today. Muslims, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Hindus .. everyone claims their love for God is paramount and will start thorough discussions on how magnificent their theology is.
But alas, all of them fail in basic test of loving and caring for the next living soul: there never were more religious wars, indifference to people's suffering, lack of compassion for environment and future generations and both spiritual and material poverty in the world than today.
Interestingly, this was a matter of discourse between Jesus and a rabbi, two millennia ago; when asked by Jesus what's the paramount law, the rabbi answered that it's love for God. Jesus then replied that was true, but also more importantly it's love for each other, and even love for those who are our enemies.
This statement creates a rift between Old and the New testament, or if I can say, between love ruled by law and love ruled by love itself. It was the most radical thing, and probably most difficult advice to follow (as we can see in the world today). But lets reflect on that: how can someone love God and not answer those in need, or even worse, completely neglect them?
A beautiful example of both love and compassion I've seen in life and teaching of Sri Caitanya -- whom we can call the compassion and love incarnate -- and that's why I was so attracted to it.
So, finally, is love an attribute of compassion or perhaps compassion is the expression of love? Which comes first? Following some bread crumbs, it seems to me that both are inseparable, same as light and warmth are inseparable from fire. As Swami has noted, the answer depends on perspective from which we're observing.
Jesus then replied that was true, but also more importantly it's love for each other, and even love for those who are our enemies.
Sorry to butt heads with you all the time, but this is not our siddhanta. However, this time I won't even bother explaining why. Why don't you give yourself the reply to that? Maybe if you have to find the words to refute yourself, you'll pay closer attention.
In stating this Mahaprabhu compared Vasudeva to Prahlada. He then asked Vasudeva "Why would Krsna induce a Vaisnava like you to suffer the karmic reactions of others, when he has the power to remove their karma himself?" This is an interesting response in consideration of the notion that the guru suffers the karma of his or her students.
But prabhupada was so careful about allowing people to touch his feet as he thought he was falling sick because of their karma. I cannot understand that?
But prabhupada was so careful about allowing people to touch his feet as he thought he was falling sick because of their karma. I cannot understand that?
I don't remember reading a lot of that. I think he commented in such a way, explaining the social customs/beliefs of the time, but my impression is much more that he didn't care and just gave out the mercy. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember him being very careful to avoid people's displays of respect towards him. Anyway, it was obvious that Prabhupada was dear to Krsna and therefore fully protected and yet a bhakta may think himself conditioned and vulnerable to such influences because of thinking himself not fully surrendered.
So, finally, is love an attribute of compassion or perhaps compassion is the expression of love? Which comes first? Following some bread crumbs, it seems to me that both are inseparable, same as light and warmth are inseparable from fire. As Swami has noted, the answer depends on perspective from which we're observing.
Compassion is an aspect of love, and they arise mutually, not one then the other.
I have the audio of one morning walk where GM asks Prabhupada about one preaching godbrother who was sick. GM says he heard that Prabhupada said they may be taking others' karma because day aftr day they are closely mixing with non devotees. SP said, "I have not said this." He goes on to say that in performing sankirtan there can be no contamination. I have not read this thread closely so I am not sure if this is entirely applicable, but I hope so.
But TKM said that he has to disallow people to touch his feet as he told he is getting their karma
He who? TKM or SP?
Sridhara Maharaja would say, Do you think that's what it means to take the dust from the holy feet? In other words, I don't know about SP being concerned with karma, it's more likely that he meant to teach that Sri Guru is not a commodity (touch the feet of a sadhu like the spiritual version of going to hotsprings) or a mercy dispenser.
He who? TKM or SP?
Sridhara Maharaja would say, Do you think that's what it means to take the dust from the holy feet? In other words, I don't know about SP being concerned with karma, it's more likely that he meant to teach that Sri Guru is not a commodity (touch the feet of a sadhu like the spiritual version of going to hotsprings) or a mercy dispenser.
SP actually told TKM to disallow people from touching his feet so that he doesn't get their karma.
SP actually told TKM to disallow people from touching his feet so that he doesn't get their karma.
Well this is the general idea. People touch your feet and some of their karma goes to you. Prabhupada is thinking himself less that what his actual position is and this is typical of Vaisinava gurus. Even Vasudeva was thinking like this, taking the karma of others upon himself.
I can't recall if read it or heard it somewhere, please forgive me, but I was thinking that the guru might accept karma of others consciously or more deliberately - compassion for the fallen souls - instead of merely being somehow "infected" by their association. Am I way off base Maharaj?
I can't recall if read it or heard it somewhere, please forgive me, but I was thinking that the guru might accept karma of others consciously or more deliberately - compassion for the fallen souls - instead of merely being somehow "infected" by their association. Am I way off base Maharaj?
He or she manages the students karma and teaches the student how to become free from its influence. The guru brings the disciple into a protected environment where the student's creditors are held off enough that the student can engage in spiritual practice. Something like coming under the court's protection after declaring bankruptcy. In this situation one still owes, but one also gets a life, part of which involves paying some percentage of one's debts and part of which involves developing love of God.