Tattva-viveka
Krsna's control/mercy
Jim Churchill - April 10, 2006 2:01 pm
I am trying to differentiate between Krsna's being like a puppeteer pulling the strings and making EVERYTHING happen to us (good, bad...) as opposed to the manifestations of our karma (good, bad) which I thought I understood to be our doing in a sense - in that we do have some freedom to do the right thing or not - Krsna gives us what we want.
So I am somewhat confused, if not dismayed, when devotees attribute every single thing that happens in their lives to Krsna - not in the sense that he is all pervasive/powerful, but as if he is specifically controling/arranging everything. These are devotees who are much more engaged in service than I am and are much more advanced. I think that Krsna is involved in our lives as much as WE involve Him but this idea of absolute controller seems almost pessimistic to me when I see so much horror and tragedy in the world. I remember asking people as I was growing up, how can God be all powerful AND all good? How can He let these things happen if He is so good? Well, the laws of nature and karmic reactions really made sense to me as an answer(albeit incomplete) to that question.
This is probably an easy question to answer for you all, but perhaps hard to digest for me. Any thoughts on this would be interesting.
Jim
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 11, 2006 12:44 am
Karma is anadi (beginningless). Depending on the level of spiritual evolution jiva gets body more (or less) suitable to pursue farther spiritual advancement and more freedom. Freedom is pretty much limited to sankalpa-vikalpa (acceptance and rejection) performed by mind. Soul is being completely bewildered by material energy at this point and doesn’t play much role in that process. Identification with material body makes mind to get involved in play of three gunas and by making wrong choices jiva is implicated more and more, so by doing kriyamana-karma we are adding to aprarabdha-karma. Because jiva is tatastha-sakti the biggest choice we are given is under what influence we will exist -- svarupa-sakti or maya-sakti. So the choice is between spiritual and material activities, by acceptance of favorable and rejection of unfavorable to spiritual progress. By mercy of sadhu and sastra jiva is given a grant to pursue spiritual activities (sadhu-sastra-krpaya yadi krsnonmukha haya / sei jiva nistare, maya tahare chadaya) and knowledge of what favorable and unfavorable actually are. By doing sadhana-bhakti prarabdha, aprarabdha and kriyamana karma are negated and eventually person becomes jivan-mukta which exists and acts only under influence of svarupa-sakti.
So, going back to your question. In essence all is Krsna and he is an absolute controller. You are under the influence of maya and svarupa, both are Krsna’s saktis. But, we are his sakti as well, so we have a minuscule ability to control ourselves via the exercise of our free choice.
Robertnewman - April 11, 2006 2:14 am
This is probably an easy question to answer for you all, but perhaps hard to digest for me. Any thoughts on this would be interesting.
I have wrestled with this question again and again over the years, and studied the answers given in many traditions, including Gaudiya Vaishnavism. None of them have satisfied me completely, although surely they are all at least partial versions or approximations of the truth and many people do find them adequate. I have concluded that for me to really understand this requires a higher level of realization than I'm at right now. In other words, it's a Mystery that I haven't yet been able to grasp, try as I might. So you're not alone. 
Igor - April 11, 2006 6:43 pm
Well, that is interesting question. Two sides of coin and tiny line between.. We have free will and at the same time Krsna is Supreme controller. More then that Krsna is supreme controller, but He is controlled by Radha.
We are dancing on tiny strings of Supreme puppeteer and still have free will. Acintya-bheda-abheda philosophy is possible explanation of such unexplainable contrary.
Guru-nistha Das - April 11, 2006 8:56 pm
So I am somewhat confused, if not dismayed, when devotees attribute every single thing that happens in their lives to Krsna - not in the sense that he is all pervasive/powerful, but as if he is specifically controling/arranging everything. These are devotees who are much more engaged in service than I am and are much more advanced. I think that Krsna is involved in our lives as much as WE involve Him but this idea of absolute controller seems almost pessimistic to me when I see so much horror and tragedy in the world.
This is a good thing to talk about, since it has bothered me in the past as well and probably many other devotees.
This is my understanding of the issue, according to what I've heard from Guru Maharaja:
When we talk about Krsna of Vraja, in a way it's not accurate to say that he is the puppeteer, because he is so absorbed in his lila that he probably hardly knows there's such thing as the material world. The happenings in the material world are taken care of by the Vishnu portion of Svayam Bhagavan (the highest manifestation of divinity) Krsna. And only if a devotee becomes so elevated that he starts to reach to that lila of which Krsna is totally consumed by, then Krsna starts to really pay attention.
My personal approach is that I'm really cautious to say that things in my life are Krsna's arrangement because I'm lightyears away from actually being absorbed in lila or anything like that. It's such a high and rare thing to be that advanced. Guru Maharaja has made the point, though, that if one is in close relationship with a person who is connected to Krsna consciousness proper, then there's room for a person like that to think Krsna is paying attention to her/him. But I still don't personally pull that "Krsna's arrangement" card too often.
So when devotees that are more advanced than you attribute every little everyday incident to Krsna's will and so on, one explanation could be that that is their way of trying to be more absorbed and bring their thoughts to Krsna. And learn something from everything, which is good. But it's a bit sentimental maybe on their part if they actually think that Krsna made a special arrangement just for you that you, for example, forgot to pick your kids from school or something...
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 11, 2006 9:20 pm
We often hear that karma is destroyed at the time of initiation. This is taken from Jiva Goswami’s statement that “(Diksa) involves giving of transcendental knowledge, by which sins are destroyed." Some devotees misunderstand this statement to mean that directly after initiation a devotee has no karma. However, Guru Maharaja has explained that most devotees are still influenced by karma after initiation: “The idea is that the mantra, or seed of transcendental knowledge, imparted by the guru to the disciple at the time of diksa includes within it knowledge of one's eternal relationship with Krsna. This seed of transcendental knowledge has the potential to destroy ignorance (avidya), which is the cause of all distress (klesa) manifesting as one's karma. Thus one who is properly initiated is freed from karma to the extent that he or she takes advantage of diksa, causing the seed of transcendental knowledge to grow and bear fruit. This takes time. Initiation is not completed in a day. It is completed when knowledge of one's relationship with Krsna is realized and one's devotional orientation to life is thus complete.”
Thus to the extent that our karma is eradicated, Krsna controls our life or, more accurately, we are under the influence of the svarupa sakti (the Lord’s internal energy). At which stage of bhakti a devotee’s karma is eradicated is discussed in the Madhurya-kadambini, which Guru Maharaja cites in his Siksastakam commentary, verse 3. In summary, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur says that anarthas arising from good and bad karma are completely destroyed at the stage of nistha and absolutely completely destroyed at the stage of asakti. Guru Maharaja elaborates:
As [nistha] develops and one progresses to higher stages of sadhana-bhakti (ruci and asakti), one’s happiness and distress arise more from bhakti and aparadha than from karma.
Thus karma still plays a major role in most devotees’ lives, as most devotees have not come to the stage of nistha. In this regard, Guru Maharaja says that there are two kinds of tolerance based on the devotee’s advancement. He says, “The lower stand of tolerance involves merely tolerating one’s karma.” A devotee who is at the stage of asakti has a higher standard of tolerance. Such a devotee thinks, “Since a devotee is not entirely under the rule of karma and time, that which appears to be their influence in my life is actually Krsna’s personal arrangement (to help me spiritually). Bhagavan certainly knows what is best for me, whereas left to myself I do not. Thus it is out of his mercy for me that Bhagavan personally involves himself in my life, sometimes giving me happiness and sometimes giving me distress. He does this only in the course of engaging me in his service.”
In a Sanga, Guru Maharaja beautifully describes the situation of such an advanced devotee: “What happens to a devotee who has become free from the fetters of karma but has not yet developed pure love of Krsna (prema)? The Lord takes over the devotee's body and sustains it himself so that the devotee can further cultivate prema. This, however, does not mean that such a devotee will be free from sickness, calamity, or distress. It means that none of these are due to prarabdha karma. They are the special arrangement of the Lord to make his devotee more dependent on him, to increase the devotee's eagerness and love.”
Therefore, most devotees should see the distressful situations that arise as opportunities to develop tolerance by thinking that someone or something has come to free them from the results of their past misdeeds. Such tolerance will give rise to liberation and the level of advancement in which Krsna truly does become personally involved in their life.
Swami - April 16, 2006 8:10 pm
I think that Gurunistha and Vrindaranya have answered Jim’s initial question well. Everything that happens to each and every devotee is not directly Krsna’s doing. Krsna is aloof and absorbed in love of his intimate devotees. Only when devotees advance and come under the influence of Krsna’s svarupa-sakti does he take settle permanenetly in their hearts and play an active role in their lives with a view to guide them to himself in terms of a particular sentiment. Before this stage of bhakti is attained, the devotee remains to some extent under karmic rule and should more readily attribute his or her material gains and losses to good and bad karma.
This karma, however, may very well be considered an abbreviated form of karma owing to the devotee’s spiritual practice and the grace of sri guru. For example, karma that lies in waiting that has not yet manifest is destroyed first, while one’s manifest karma is not destroyed until one reaches advanced stages of bhakti. This does not mean that God is not involved in neophyte devotees’ lives. He is. Otherwise how could their unmanifest karma be destroyed?
A mere shadow of Krsna’ name—namabhasa—can destroy one’s karma. This namabhasa represents Krsna’s partial influence in our lives, destroying our karma that impedes us from loving him. However, when the pure name of Krsna —suddha-nama—manifests, one comes directly under the care of Krsna, who helps his devotee to develop his or her budding sentiment of love, and in doing so Krsna personally maintains such devotees! He carries what they lack and preserves what they have, yoga ksemam vahami aham.
As to the larger question posed by Jim, one that Robert it seems has also been troubled by, this is of course a question that all spiritual traditions have to deal with. If God is all good, why is there evil in the world? Robert wrote that none of the answers offered by various traditions may fully satisfy one’s intellect. However, here at the outset it maybe worth asking if such intellectual satisfaction is required. No doubt it is to some extent, but can we expect the intellect to understand everything?
At any rate, Gaudiya Vedanta does offer its own answer. Can anyone represent it and further the discussion?
Robertnewman - April 17, 2006 2:58 am
As to the larger question posed by Jim, one that Robert it seems has also been troubled by, this is of course a question that all spiritual traditions have to deal with. If God is all good, why is there evil in the world? Robert wrote that none of the answers offered by various traditions may fully satisfy one’s intellect. However, here at the outset it maybe worth asking if such intellectual satisfaction is required. No doubt it is to some extent, but can we expect the intellect to understand everything?
I used to expect it, but no longer. Now I'm content to leave most of the big questions in the realm of mystery.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 17, 2006 5:58 am
If God is all good, why is there evil in the world?
The evil in the world starts as a result of beginingless karma, is not the arrangement of God. Later evil springs from ignorance (avidya) and is the result of unvirtuous acts by jivas. God is not directly involved in the good and evil in the world. God just provides jiva with the appropriate environment to enact her current desires and rip fruits of her previous actions.
The embodied spirit, master of the city of his body, does not create activities, nor does he induce people to act, nor does he create the fruits of action. All this is enacted by the modes of material nature. Nor does the Supreme Lord assume anyone's sinful or pious activities. Embodied beings, however, are bewildered because of the ignorance which covers their real knowledge. [bg. 5.14-15]
Good and evil are often confused. The attempt to define them is itself a false problem. The major concern is spiritual ignorance, in relation to which evil and morality have a secondary importance.
Madangopal - April 17, 2006 8:19 pm
If God is all good, why is there evil in the world? At any rate, Gaudiya Vedanta does offer its own answer. Can anyone represent it and further the discussion?
One angle that I believe comes from Thakur Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma is that the suffering of the jiva or we could say "all the bad things in the world" are part of the lord's lila of creation.
We can say that sounds callous; that our suffering should not be written off as a lila of the lord and that this view lacks compassion for the residents of devi dhama, but I think with higher vision we can appreciate this lila. It is the most merciful lila, one that we are directly involved in. The creation lila shows two aspects of the lord's mercy which contradict the idea that a creator of such a world lacks total benevolence. First, the lord allows for the living entity to attempt to fulfill all varieties of desire in a world separate from him. Instead of controlling those who neglect him, our god gives them freedom; as much as is possible according to their constitutional nature... Second, understanding that ultimate fulfillment is impossible without a relationship with himself, the lord descends to the material world to attract the jiva through different avataras and pastimes. Thus the jiva's eternal bondage comes to an end. This is his pastime, and what a glorious one!
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 17, 2006 10:07 pm
My dear friend, just hear the decision of My mind. Krsna is the Lord of My life in all conditions, whether He shows Me affection or kills Me by giving Me unhappiness. [CC Antya 20.49]
I do not mind My personal distress. I only wish for the happiness of Krsna , for His happiness is the goal of My life. However, if He feels great happiness in giving Me distress, that distress is the best of My happiness. [CC Antya 20.52]
Swami - April 22, 2006 5:19 pm
Nandatanuj has given the Gaudiya siddhanta on this point: God is not responsible for the evil in the world or the plight of the jivas becasue this is due to karma. One could argue that at the beginning of the creation there were no jivas and thus there was no karma. Then when the jivas did manifest they must have been made unequal, for had they been equal there is no reason to belive tha their acts would have been different resulting in different karma. Therefore God is not equal in his dealings. However, to this the sutras reply that this is not so becasue there is no beginning to the creation. It is beginningless (anandi), as is karma. You have to think about this a bit.
Karma is the principle of justice, which God honors lest he be guilty of capriciousness. He does however overule justice at times and is thus merciful. Without justice there is no meaning to mercy. So justice or karma has its place in the scheme of things. As materially conditioned jivas interact with matter reactions occur. This is the idea.
Another way to think about it is in terms of bhedabheda. If God were one in all respects with the jivas, he would be responsible for their actions. However, according to acintya bhedabheda he is not one in all respects with them—not absolutely so—becasue he is one and different from his sakti. One could also say that to the extent that God and the jivas are one, God cannot be blamed for the suffering in the world because there is no one to blame God to begin with, since it God alone exists.
Robertnewman - June 24, 2006 3:03 am
This thread has grown a bit cold, but I came across something in my reading that seemed appropriate. In broad outline it is remarkably similar to the Vaisnava viewpoint, although the source is the Protestant theologian Kierkegaard:
"God has only one passion-that of loving and wanting to be loved. What then it has pleased Him to do is to go through all the modes of loving and being loved. Naturally He Himself then plays His part and arranges everything in relation to it. At one moment He would be loved as a father by his child, then as a friend by a friend, then loved only as he who gives good gifts, then as he who tempts and proves the beloved... Then He transforms Him self almost into equality with man, by accommodation, so as to be loved in this way... My thought is: God is like a poet. This is the explanation for the fact that He puts up also with evil and with all the twaddle and pitiable insignificance and mediocrity, &c. Thus is it that a poet also is related to his poetical production (which likewise is called his creation), he suffers it to emerge. But just as one errs egregiously in believing that what the individual character says and does in the work of fiction represents the poet's personal opinion, so one errs also in supposing that what happens, for the mere fact that it happens, indicates God's approving consent. Oh, no, He has His own opinion. But poetically He suffers everything possible to emerge, He Himself is everywhere at hand, looks on, poetizes further, in one sense poetically impersonal, indifferently observant of everything; in another sense personal, positing the most frightful difference, as that between good and evil, between willing as He wills and not willing as He wills, &c., &c. Only it must be firmly held that what, if I may so say, determines God to want to poetize thus is not, as the pagans thought, a need of passing the time; no, no, right here is the serious thought, that to love and to be loved is God's passion, almost as if-Oh, infinite love!-He were Himself bound by this passion, so that He could not help but love, almost as if it were a weakness, whereas indeed it is His strength, His infinite love, which to such a degree is a love not subject to change."
Madangopal - June 24, 2006 12:12 pm
Wow, that is incredible insight! Thanks for sharing that Robert. Good stuff.