Tattva-viveka
Changing the world
Swami - October 29, 2006 3:45 pm
Margret Mead wrote, "Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Let's do this. At least we should endeavor to exemplify a contemporary form of Gaudiya Vaisnavism that has intellectual and personal inegrity driven by a heart that beats only for the inner ideal of Mahaprabhu's precepts.
Robertnewman - October 29, 2006 4:52 pm
You do!
Madangopal - October 29, 2006 6:01 pm
I will try to do my part Guru Maharaj, with you as competent guide. What a glorious commitment, and how refreshing to be in the company of people who hold this as their ideal. 
I always wanted to be part of a revolution!
Jason - October 29, 2006 11:20 pm
What a bold statement. I think that Maharaja has clearly opened the doors for his students to help push this vision forward through his approach to writing. At the event that I was at the other day, while it was small and could have been better promoted, I did get to meet a few people and make a few contacts. Two of these persons were PhD's from the CIF (Cultural Integration Fellowship) and CIIS (California Institute of Integral Studies), who have an interest in the contemporary presentation of Indian culture and philosophy. They were very favorable to the devotees they had met in the past, but admitted that the Hare Krsna movement, while incredibly rich, had become somewhat obsolete; unaccessable and uninteresting to the younger generation who would normally be interested.
As a gesture of goodwill, and in hopes to get my "foot in the door" for future possibilities, I donated a copy of Swami's Bhagavad-Gita to Professor Jim Ryan, the vice president of CIF. He was already familiar with some of Maharaja's writings and appreciated his style and presentation, saying, "...oh, yes, I've read some of his work...very beautiful." Stuart Sovatsky, PhD, a professor, author and co-founder of an organization (MBA) that reaches out to high school students and prisons and introduces people to meditation and chanting, was also quite favorable and interested in Swami's work.
When asked if I was from ISKCON, it was interesting to note the more favorable response that I got when I stated that Swami, while having come from ISKCON, has for many years, been preaching outside of that particular mission in hopes to expose others to Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy and the greater tradition without a lot of the stigma that has been associated with Krsna devotees. They completely understood.
Guru-nistha Das - October 30, 2006 12:08 am
Let's do it! The potential is definitely there.
Prema-bhakti Marga - October 30, 2006 3:27 pm
That's great news Jason.
Vamsidhari Dasa - November 1, 2006 4:22 pm
When asked if I was from ISKCON, it was interesting to note the more favorable response that I got when I stated that Swami, while having come from ISKCON, has for many years, been preaching outside of that particular mission in hopes to expose others to Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy and the greater tradition without a lot of the stigma that has been associated with Krsna devotees. They completely understood.
Thoughtful people do umnderstand thoughfulness. That is mostly lacking in ISKCON because there is no thinking in it. The HK movement has become a fundamentalist, religious cult that most people educated or lay, stay away from.
I might be alble to help if there is an impetus to organize something with CIIS since I know few graduates from there.
.... and by the way I love Ms. Mead especially her views on gender.
Bijaya Kumara Das - November 1, 2006 4:48 pm
Margret Mead wrote, "Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Let's do this. At least we should endeavor to exemplify a contemporary form of Gaudiya Vaisnavism that has intellectual and personal inegrity driven by a heart that beats only for the inner ideal of Mahaprabhu's precepts.
You have continued to lead the way on this Guru Maharaja with many inovations like the Airports book distribution, the Seattle water front, Our affectionate Guardians etcetra.
It is great to be a part of a continued reasonable presentation of Krsna conciousness as His Divine Grace A C Bhaktivedanta started here in the west and You emulate and encourage us in like the Finland godbrothers and sisters - "Krishangi's upcoming book is nothing short of spectacular"
Jason - November 2, 2006 4:14 am
I might be alble to help if there is an impetus to organize something with CIIS since I know few graduates from there.
Vamsi - I actually thought of you when I was speaking with Stuart Sovatsky; he was talking about some of the things that he's lectured on in the past and for some reason I thought, "I think that Vamsi probably knows about this stuff." I will get in touch with you!
Swami - November 2, 2006 4:43 am
Vamsi - I actually thought of you when I was speaking with Stuart Sovatsky; he was talking about some of the things that he's lectured on in the past and for some reason I thought, "I think that Vamsi probably knows about this stuff." I will get in touch with you!
BTW. I once interviewd Stuart for Calrion Call magazine in the 1980's. At the time he was heading a Kundalini Crisis Clinic--something like that.
Premarnava - November 5, 2006 12:14 am
Let's do this.
Wow... I feel so unsignificant comparing to you all here, but if there is something in which I can help, please use me as a tool.
(btw, I always wanted to be a part in world's changing... 
)
Robertnewman - November 9, 2006 2:57 am
At least we should endeavor to exemplify a contemporary form of Gaudiya Vaisnavism that has intellectual and personal integrity driven by a heart that beats only for the inner ideal of Mahaprabhu's precepts.
Here's a quote from Shukavak Dasa that I came across when reading Hindu Encounter with Modernity, his biography of Bhaktivinoda Thakura. It seems relevant to the matter at hand:
"I suggest that if Chaitanya Vaishnavism is going to have a lasting position and a positive impact on the West, then it must intellectually move beyond the literalism by which it entered the West and begin to develop new forms of intellectual expressions and perspectives that are a part of the Western intellectual and academic traditions."
Vinode Vani Dasa - November 9, 2006 5:03 am
"I suggest that if Chaitanya Vaishnavism is going to have a lasting position and a positive impact on the West, then it must intellectually move beyond the literalism by which it entered the West and begin to develop new forms of intellectual expressions and perspectives that are a part of the Western intellectual and academic traditions."
That's a nice quote. Literalism would appear to be a problem for major religions at the present time, not just Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Christians who interpret the Bible literally run into all sorts of trouble with thoughtful people who find the stories in the book of Genesis (and Revelations for that matter) implausible as literal accounts of what actually happened (or will happen). I would suggest that these thoughtful people will likewise have similar difficulties with certain elements of our tradition as well. The fact of the matter is, if we insist that all of the strange stories found in Hindu (and Gaudiya) literature are completely factual, literal descriptions of reality, we're missing the point. If we take these stories as scientific fact, rather than extremely useful tales of instruction on how to act within this world, we're not getting all that we can from them. As human society evolves and throws off the shackles of its superstitious past, literalism will be the key stumbling block that disseminators of any religious movement will be forced to relinquish should they want to be taken seriously by intelligent, thoughtful people.
Robertnewman - November 10, 2006 1:12 pm
The fact of the matter is, if we insist that all of the strange stories found in Hindu (and Gaudiya) literature are completely factual, literal descriptions of reality, we're missing the point. If we take these stories as scientific fact, rather than extremely useful tales of instruction on how to act within this world, we're not getting all that we can from them.
That certainly applies to many of the stories that we find in the Puranas, but while the stories of Krishna lila have also been interpreted in that way (even by our acharyas), the essence of Gaudiya Vaishnava faith is the acceptance of Krishna lila, as presented in the Bhagavatam and other shastras, as ontologically real in all its details; in fact, as the highest reality. Their metaphorical interpretation is clearly secondary in our tradition. Of course, there is a world of difference between the neophyte's and the advanced bhakta's experiences of these descriptions, but I think the adjective 'literal' applies with equal justice in both cases. I know of no other religious tradition which presents such detailed descriptions of the form of the highest reality as the very core of its theology and practices. For these reasons, among others, I think Shukavak's prescription is uniquely difficult to carry out in the case of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
Vinode Vani Dasa - November 10, 2006 2:58 pm
That certainly applies to many of the stories that we find in the Puranas, but while the stories of Krishna lila have also been interpreted in that way (even by our acharyas), the essence of Gaudiya Vaishnava faith is the acceptance of Krishna lila, as presented in the Bhagavatam and other shastras, as ontologically real in all its details; in fact, as the highest reality. Their metaphorical interpretation is clearly secondary in our tradition. Of course, there is a world of difference between the neophyte's and the advanced bhakta's experiences of these descriptions, but I think the adjective 'literal' applies with equal justice in both cases. I know of no other religious tradition which presents such detailed descriptions of the form of the highest reality as the very core of its theology and practices. For these reasons, among others, I think Shukavak's prescription is uniquely difficult to carry out in the case of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
I agree with you that the Gaudiya tradition accepts Krishna-lila as ontologically real, but in this particular case there seems to be no other way of understanding the pastimes of Krishna that is spiritually significant. What metaphorical truth could be drawn from the immoral activities of Krishna and the gopis in Vrindavana? Only if we understand Krishna to be the personality of God do his pastimes have any significance. Otherwise they are at best a kind of mundane entertainment. For this reason, I believe a "literal" understanding of Krishna-lila leads one to disregard it as an anomaly within the Hindu tradition (as it was by Orientalists in the 19th century), whereas a deeper, "abstract" understanding (why do the descriptions of Krishna's pastimes in Vrindavana appear within a tradition that obviously has high regard for morality?) leads one to the correct conclusion that Krishna' activities are not mundane--that there is some great spiritual significance behind them, so to speak.
Robertnewman - November 10, 2006 4:09 pm
I believe a "literal" understanding of Krishna-lila leads one to disregard it as an anomaly within the Hindu tradition (as it was by Orientalists in the 19th century), whereas a deeper, "abstract" understanding (why do the descriptions of Krishna's pastimes in Vrindavana appear within a tradition that obviously has high regard for morality?) leads one to the correct conclusion that Krishna' activities are not mundane--that there is some great spiritual significance behind them, so to speak.
Agreed as far as that goes, but the abstract understanding you speak of is an intermediate stage, not the final one. In the final stage of realization there is nothing whatsoever abstract about Krishna lila; it is the most vivid and real actual experience there is (of course I do not speak out of my own personal attainment, but out of my understanding of the descriptions of the attainment of others). And yet even at that stage it is described via exactly the same terms which to the neophyte or atheist connote nothing beyond mundane (if somewhat exotic) pastoral life spiced up with a healthy dash of eroticism. Unless we insist, against tradition, that those terms are arbitrary or merely poetic, then until the actual experience is attained it would seem that its reality can only be accepted on blind faith. And blind faith is diametrically opposed to the dominant Western intellectual attitude.
Vinode Vani Dasa - November 10, 2006 5:59 pm
Agreed as far as that goes, but the abstract understanding you speak of is an intermediate stage, not the final one. In the final stage of realization there is nothing whatsoever abstract about Krishna lila; it is the most vivid and real actual experience there is (of course I do not speak out of my own personal attainment, but out of my understanding of the descriptions of the attainment of others). And yet even at that stage it is described via exactly the same terms which to the neophyte or atheist connote nothing beyond mundane (if somewhat exotic) pastoral life spiced up with a healthy dash of eroticism. Unless we insist, against tradition, that those terms are arbitrary or merely poetic, then until the actual experience is attained it would seem that its reality can only be accepted on blind faith. And blind faith is diametrically opposed to the dominant Western intellectual attitude.
I use the "abstract" here rather loosely, as I agree that the ultimate understanding of Krishna-lila is one in which the descriptions of the activities of the Lord are indeed real, actual happenings. I mainly want to draw the distinction between the mundane understanding of the activities of the Lord, which appear to have no moral value or ethical instruction, and the correct understanding in which all of the activities of the inhabitants of Vrindavana can be understood to be correct functions of the soul in relation to the ultimate object of love. This understanding is abstract in that it requires some deep thinking--it requires us to go beyond the artificial appearance of the lila to understand who these people are what their intentions are. Perhaps "penetrating" is a better term than "abstract."
Speaking generally, though, we should remember that in this world, the ability to think abstractly is a sign of intelligence--the ability to generalize beyond the appearance of things. The intelligent people who have rejected the literalism of the evangelical current in this country are not interested in replacing one sort of dogmatic literalism for another--this is something we should keep in mind when speaking to such people.
Swami - November 11, 2006 2:50 am
While Krsna-lila is an otnological reality--the highest reality--the experience of the lila is something that is impossible to fully covey through the limits of language and logic. The logic of the necessity for ultimate reality to be lila, to be a person, two people who are one for that matter, etc. is, however, compelling and reasonable enough.
For that matter the lila itself is not as literally true and accurate in all of its detail as presented in the Bhagavata as one might think at first, or as one might at first present it to be in order to stress its being the highest ontological reality as opposed to being only a metaphor for explaining truths that upon embracing in one's life lead one to a formless, etc. ultimate truth. Again, language can not completely convey the experience of lila. Thus we find different descriptions of the same lila offered by different devotees. When Sri Jiva rewrites the tenth canto of the Bhagavatam in his own poetry in Gopala Campu, his magnum opus, it is far more compelling than the Bhagavata itself and filled with different yet mostly related details. This is only one of many examples (read Kavi Karnapura, Sanatana Goswami, Visvanatha Cakravarti, etc.). The lila is not static. So how can it be literal in a static sense? It must be literal in a dynamic sense.
The realm of lila is described to us—we who live in a world derived from the perception that we are its center—by someone who lives in another world, a world of serving ego. The diffeence between these two worlds is like the diffeence between night and day. The posibilities of one world are very different from those of the other. Indeed lila occurs in a land where nothing is impossible. In lila we are speaking of the possibilities of love, where faults become ornaments. So, again, to go the the philosophical underpinning of the notion of life as lila is to make sense of it to sensible people in today's world. This sems to be the diection Vinode Vani is writing about on this thread.
Jason - November 11, 2006 7:11 am
While Krsna-lila is an otnological reality--the highest reality--the experience of the lila is something that is impossible to fully covey through the limits of language and logic..... Again, language can not completely convey the experience of lila.
I've been talking to my folks lately about topics in this thread to some degree. My parents believe the Bible literally, and I've always thought that was a bit strange. It just always seemed, to me, that portions of it (at least) should be taken metaphorically to understand it in the fullest sense. However, when we talk a bit about Krishna, his pastimes and other stories from sastra, they immediately consider it fiction, foolish and completely preposterous. Yet somehow Jonah was swallowed by a whale and they spit up on the beach after some length of time?
I am reading a book called, "Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Benares", by Diana Eck, and was just reading something she said that Swami reiterated above:
"Thus the [Hindu] tradition is embued with a sense of the limitations of the world of language and the world of the theological imagination. Put in Vedic terms, the scope of our language and imagination is but one quarter of reality as it is. With the quarter of speech that we know, we stretch the mind to comprehend that quarter of reality. But the fullness (purnatva) of the Divine Reality exceeds what we can speak or imagine by three to one, by "ten fingers' breadth." The Upanisads, concerned with knowledge of the Ultimate Reality, also make clear that our language has a limit in its capacity to symbolize the Divine. As the Taittiriya Upanisad puts it, Brahman is that limit, "whence the mind and speech, having no hold, fall back" (2.4). The Kena Upanisad speculates, "There the eye goes not; speech goes not, nor the mind." (1.3). "
Reading this the other night, I thought about a few things Maharaja says: How jnana will only take us so far, and how maya is this perceived notion that we always need to quantify and calculate things....
Not sure if this is even relavant to the thread, but it seemed so when I started typing.
Vinode Vani Dasa - November 11, 2006 10:45 pm
I've been talking to my folks lately about topics in this thread to some degree. My parents believe the Bible literally, and I've always thought that was a bit strange. It just always seemed, to me, that portions of it (at least) should be taken metaphorically to understand it in the fullest sense. However, when we talk a bit about Krishna, his pastimes and other stories from sastra, they immediately consider it fiction, foolish and completely preposterous. Yet somehow Jonah was swallowed by a whale and they spit up on the beach after some length of time?
I noticed an interesting correlation between Christianity and Gaudiya Vaishnavism here. As you say, Jason, certain of the Biblical stories are probably best understood metaphorically, including that of Jonah. However, in the Christian tradition, the events of the Gospel need to be understood as true in every sense, not metaphorical. In other words, the resurrection of Christ is not a metaphor--it is the defining event of Christianity. Thus the Gospels are similar to our Tenth Canto, in that they relate the true activities of the Lord in the material world. From the Gospel, all of the basic tenets of Christianity are drawn--the Trinity, the acceptance of Christ as savior, etc.
My mother, who is also a Christian, is not a literalist. Often she tells me that the two most important instructions of Christ in the Gospel are: love God, and love your neighbor as your own self. Everything else should be seen in relation to this. The purpose of all the other books of Bible are simply to support this main thesis--thus literal understanding is often inferior to metaphorical understanding. Furthermore, certain of the precepts in the Old Testament are examples of what not to do. It is well known, for example, that Christ rejected the "eye for an eye" principle of Jewish society in the book of Exodus, replacing it with "turn the other cheek." The traditional Catholic view is that events in the Old Testament are exegetically understood as sort of reflections of the New Testament. Anyway, the point is here that a deeper understanding of any religion require that we go beyond the surface of the text to the heart of what is being said.
Swami - November 12, 2006 1:13 am
I noticed an interesting correlation between Christianity and Gaudiya Vaishnavism here. As you say, Jason, certain of the Biblical stories are probably best understood metaphorically, including that of Jonah. However, in the Christian tradition, the events of the Gospel need to be understood as true in every sense, not metaphorical. In other words, the resurrection of Christ is not a metaphor--it is the defining event of Christianity. Thus the Gospels are similar to our Tenth Canto, in that they relate the true activities of the Lord in the material world. From the Gospel, all of the basic tenets of Christianity are drawn--the Trinity, the acceptance of Christ as savior, etc.
My mother, who is also a Christian, is not a literalist. Often she tells me that the two most important instructions of Christ in the Gospel are: love God, and love your neighbor as your own self. Everything else should be seen in relation to this. The purpose of all the other books of Bible are simply to support this main thesis--thus literal understanding is often inferior to metaphorical understanding. Furthermore, certain of the precepts in the Old Testament are examples of what not to do. It is well known, for example, that Christ rejected the "eye for an eye" principle of Jewish society in the book of Exodus, replacing it with "turn the other cheek." The traditional Catholic view is that events in the Old Testament are exegetically understood as sort of reflections of the New Testament. Anyway, the point is here that a deeper understanding of any religion require that we go beyond the surface of the text to the heart of what is being said.
As I have written elsewhere, the Bhagavata is in a way the new testament of the Vedic cannon. It is a doctrine of love emphasizing prema dharma over the law of dharma. Thakura Bhaktivinode has written that the essence of dharma is chanting the name of God (loving God) and showing kindness to others (loving one's neighbor). Very simply put, this is the message of the lila and it is also the consciousness that underlies the experience of the lila. Although I think that Guadiya Vainavism does a better job of explaining just what it means to love God and one's neighbor, how to do that, and the result that follows.
Jason - November 12, 2006 6:43 am
So, as Maharaja has stated, Bhagavata is the "New Testament" of the Vedic canon, and Vinode Vani has drawn the correlation between Christ's activities and those of Krsna's in earthly Vrindavan, but I wonder if it can go one step further?
While the death and ressurection of Christ is a defining event of the Christian faith, what I'm understanding from Diana Eck's book, is that the "uniqueness" of Christ's position was his humanness; he was fully human AND fully God, and this point, occuring in a conceivable frame of history that is much easier to verify. So the Christian scholar may say that this is what they have that other world religions don't.
What about Mahaprabhu? The fullest, most magnanimous appearance of God; fully God, appearing in the guise of a devotee to teach love of God as the highest goal; seen by his most intimate followers as fully God, and probably seen by others as just a Bengali saint.
Still, I would agree with Maharaja, that our tradition and Mahaprabhu dives deeper into all those questions. We've been fortunate to have so many illustrious and realized persons in our parampara who have meditated and written and made available so many insights, whereas, perhaps only recently have a small portion of Christian theologians started to paint Christ in a different way.
As I have written elsewhere, the Bhagavata is in a way the new testament of the Vedic cannon. It is a doctrine of love emphasizing prema dharma over the law of dharma.
...and isn't the love that Christ exemplified, different from the fullness of prema that Mahaprabhu demonstrated. While Christ's disciples carried on the teaching of brotherly love, Gaudiya Vaisnavism takes the idea of love to a whole new level.
What kind of love is "agape" (from the Christian tradition)?
Maybe we should start a new thread?
Bhrigu - November 12, 2006 1:10 pm
One point to consider, perhaps, is that the semitic religions have more of a literalism built into them. I mean, most of the stuff in the Bible can be taken quite literally. Some stuff is harder to digest: people living hundreds of years, Jonah, Jesus' miracles, but most is pretty straight-forward. With the Indic scriptures you have a completely different situations. Just take the Bhagavatam: kings having billions of bodyguards, women giving birth to 60 000 sages, rivers or cities, nights lasting for billions of years... You just can't take it literally without (rightly) being considered a crackpot. But we are speaking about a completely different way of writing and dealing with reality. Guru Maharaja often talks of the language of poetry. The Indic traditions are also, as Jason pointed out, aware of the limits of language, and often purposefully stretch them. Viewing the Indic scriptures from a literalist, linear angle is really imposing a foreign element on them.
And Jason, I also think of the CC as the real New Testament of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but there really are very few common denominators between the two. We have a devotee here in Finland who preaches about how Jesus really deep down preached Krishna-consciousness, a subject he had studied and learnt in India during his "lost years", but I can't really see anything in his teachings, either in the Gospels or the Apocrypha, that seems to come from India. The Christian concept of God differs in many ways from the Krishna conception of God. We may and indeed should respect it, but recognise the differences as well.
Jason - November 12, 2006 3:07 pm
And Jason, I also think of the CC as the real New Testament of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but there really are very few common denominators between the two. We have a devotee here in Finland who preaches about how Jesus really deep down preached Krishna-consciousness, a subject he had studied and learnt in India during his "lost years", but I can't really see anything in his teachings, either in the Gospels or the Apocrypha, that seems to come from India. The Christian concept of God differs in many ways from the Krishna conception of God. We may and indeed should respect it, but recognise the differences as well.
Thanks, Bhrigu. Your mention of the devotee in Finland is interesting because there was a point, and maybe still is to some degree, when I felt that by putting the teachings of Christianity I had learned all my life, into some context within Krsna consiounsess, this was the only way that I could reconcile the two (Christian guilt of some sort I guess). Now, being so drawn to Gaudiya Vaisnavism, I've come to appreciate the differences. I still find myself trying to connect the dots, when, like you said, sometimes the dots just do not connect.
I gather that this is the essence of religious pluralism anyway; to have faith in your beliefs, but the ability to step outside the box and appreciate another "path" on its own merrits. Now I can see that to constantly compare and cross reference is not only not doing justice to the beauty of each religion, but it can actually hinder one's own faith.
The examle of the devotee you mentioned, if I understand correctly the definition, would be an inclusivist approach, right?
I much appreciate Swami's, Vinode Vani's and your points for me to consider....thanks.
Bhrigu - November 12, 2006 7:15 pm
Yes, inclusivist in the sense of trying to make everything fit into one frame of reference. As you say, that hinders you from appreciating something for what it is independently of yourself or your point of view.
Personally, I never got a Christian upbringing, but I still have strong feelings for Christianity. My parents are both quite secularised, especially my mother, but my grandmother taught me a couple of prayers, and I would read these "Bible Stories for Kids"-books at her place. Somehow these things stuck, and perhaps even more than that the kind of serious psalms of the Finnish Lutheran church. I have a kind of sentimental love for "the faith of my fathers" -- probably much more so than if someone had seriously tried to bring me up as a Lutheran. I go with my parents to church a few times a year for Christmas or other special occations, and I love singing along in the serious Lutheran psalms (though I sometimes leave out words that I consider inappropriate, such as "only son" 
). We have a Christmas psalm about how the Supreme Lord has condencended to lie in a crib among the animals of the stable, and that mix of aisvarya and madhurya is very appealing to me. Parts of the Lutheran liturgy is also quite moving, such as when the whole congregation stands up at the end of that same psalm giving praise to the Lord with angels above! Very majestic, especially in the ancient Cathedral of Turku, the old (and real!) capital of Finland.
Gaurangi-priya Devi - November 14, 2006 5:53 pm
I haven't been able to catch up on this thread, but today is my day "off", and so I got to read it all. Very interesting. I find it interesting especially in understanding how to preach to intelligent people of today. It seems, in my experience, that more and more, people appreciate spirituality rather than religion, or what they see as a dogmatic, exclusive, institutional view of spirituality. I also like discussing about appreciating other religions. I really like devotees that can respect other peoples' faiths, and the different paths that lead to Krsna.
It's also interesting to me, because I grew up with the stories of Krsna book, rather than Bible stories. As a child, I think, you take everything literally to be the truth. But to stay in a child-like mindset lacks maturity. So for me it's been a process of understanding that not everything is literal, and as Vinode Vani has said, when you get past that you can gain so much more from the meaning of the stories. It's about understanding that not everything can fit in our mental capacity. And then in regards to Krsna-lila, it makes so much sense that the lila is literal in a dynamic way. Even in a material conception, different people will relate and remember one same instance in different ways. So I find it so sweet to hear the different acaryas inner realities of the pastimes. It makes Krsna so much more charming, and his interactions with his devotees more individual and personal.
In regards to the inner realities of devotees, it actually brings up a question for me. How much dramatic license, so to speak, can devotees take in envisioning the lila of the Lord? We are supposed to take everything from previous acaryas, but I have heard GM say that the lila also manifests in the heart of the devotee. Like for instance, I was thinking about Sivarama Swami's books. I had someone tell me that in one of Sivarama Swami's book, he said that Krsna comes back and visits Vrindavana many times after he goes to Mathura, and thus the Brajbasis are perpetually in a state of separation and union. I thought that he saw them at Kuruksetra after a long separation. I guess I'm wondering what is being limiting and too literal, and what is crossing the line of sastra.
Swami - November 14, 2006 10:43 pm
In regards to the inner realities of devotees, it actually brings up a question for me. How much dramatic license, so to speak, can devotees take in envisioning the lila of the Lord? We are supposed to take everything from previous acaryas, but I have heard GM say that the lila also manifests in the heart of the devotee. Like for instance, I was thinking about Sivarama Swami's books. I had someone tell me that in one of Sivarama Swami's book, he said that Krsna comes back and visits Vrindavana many times after he goes to Mathura, and thus the Brajbasis are perpetually in a state of separation and union. I thought that he saw them at Kuruksetra after a long separation. I guess I'm wondering what is being limiting and too literal, and what is crossing the line of sastra.
I saw only one of Sivarama Swami's lila books, Venu-gita. This was his first of such books. In the book he manufactured lilas by combining incidents and persons from different lilas experienced by the Goswamis and recorded in their books. The "lilas" were not his experiences, but rather his imaginations that were rooted in the experiences of others. I have never seen anything like this before. It is not what the Goswamis did in their writing, nor have any of their followers done this to my knowledge. It certainly did not read like the works of Rupa, Sanatan, or Sri Jiva. I took exception to it for this reason and one other important reason. The book of "lilas" contained no philosophical insight into the significance of any particular story that could be applied in one's sadhana, no metaphorical insight if you will--no tattva, just stories that did not in my experience bring out the bhava of Krsna lila with any refreshing charm. Although we do not find much metaphorical/philosophical insight in the lila works of Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis, their understudy Sri Jiva's writing on lila is characterized by its combination of tattva and bhava. He brings out so much tattva and so much enhances the bhava of any particualr lila, helping the sadhaka to better enter into the feeling of the lila. I believe that he set a standard in this regard for the followers of Sri Rupa and Sanatana.
Regarding Krsna's returning many times to Vrindavana, this occurs in the form of sphurti (dream like vision) a described in Sri Krsna-sandarbha. In other words the gopis have visions of Krsna returning and interacting with them and in fact he does, but only in the form of visions. He is actually there, but not in such a way as to fully satisfy them as in the case of samriddhiman sambhoga, their final reunion that occurs at the end of the lila at which time he takes everyone in Vraja to the unmanifest lila (Goloka). So perhaps Sivarama Swami has manufactured lilas in which Krsna returns based on the reality of these visions. If so this could be an attempt to bring home some tattva, but it could also be problematic. Again, I have not read the book.
So how much license is a devotee allowed in terms of envisioning Krsna lila? If one has enough taste and is a tattvavit (well versed in siddhanta) one can alter the lilas slightly in order to bring home any particular point of tattva that and aspect of the lila seeks to make, or to bring out a particular bhava found in the lila. This is perhaps a good starting point, one that has been demonstrated by Jiva Goswami. This requires considerable familiarity or preoccupation with any particular lila and lila in general. Acquaintance with Krsna lila through serious study, contemplation, and ultimately meditation under good guidance will naturally awaken insight into its metaphorical/philosophical significance and gradually afford one some feeling for what it is about in terms of bhava. As one develops in this regard one gets a license so to speak.
Gaurangi-priya Devi - November 15, 2006 10:11 pm
Thank you for that reply.
Karnamrita Das - November 22, 2006 6:04 pm
One point to consider, perhaps, is that the semitic religions have more of a literalism built into them. I mean, most of the stuff in the Bible can be taken quite literally. Some stuff is harder to digest: people living hundreds of years, Jonah, Jesus' miracles, but most is pretty straight-forward. With the Indic scriptures you have a completely different situations. Just take the Bhagavatam: kings having billions of bodyguards, women giving birth to 60 000 sages, rivers or cities, nights lasting for billions of years... You just can't take it literally without (rightly) being considered a crackpot.
I guess I am a crackpot. 
I have never had a problem with the fantastic events and stories of Krsna lila. We read the Krsna Book when it came out and accepted this as the reality of Krsna lila. I was and am simply in that regard. Not like the devotee who heard how many cows Nanda Baba had in Vrindavana and told Prabhupada that he did the math and that many cows couldn't fit there.
Now I have heard from Swami that when Krsna comes his lila doesn't conform to the laws of material nature and shouldn't be understood in that way (under material laws). If we take the lila in terms of "natural" laws certainly they are "impossible", but when we accept Krsna's inconceivable power, then anything can occur.
So Brigu, why do we have to explain away such occurances---at least with Krsna lila? I have certainly heard Swami speak about the importance of seeing the point behind some of the discriptions like someone having thousands of arms represents strength etc, and we can't take everything literally. However, it seems to me that the danger is that we may explain everything away according to our limited reasoning power in order to make it seem acceptable to others. There are also different dimensions, different ages, different planets in which thiings are possble that are not possible on this planet, in Kali-yuga by Kali-yuga low born and acting people.
As in everything we have to have balance. We want to be reasonable non-fanatical people using our reason as far as it will take us, yet allowing for the inconceivable aspect of Krsna Lila and some discriptions in scripture. Isn't that part of what makes Krsna lila wonderful? Wonderful Krsna, and his charming activities! I think most people would agree that God can to anything. That seems like a reasonable explanation to me. Perhaps I don't have a big enough intellect to preach about Krsna lila to skeptics.
In the beginning of this thread Swami speaks of another angle about Krsna lila not being literal which is important. My point is slightly different. There are always extremes done in the name of something, to avoid something else. Perhaps the real point is that we all have to be pure to really appreciate Krsna's lila and be able to conclusively comment on it. At least we are trying to look at it from different perspectives and go deeper than the surface that so many live in, and we are fortunate to have the guidance of someone conversant with scripture and the commentaries, with a developed vision of the lila.
Bhrigu - November 23, 2006 4:30 pm
So Brigu, why do we have to explain away such occurances---at least with Krsna lila?
I don't think we do. Krishna does extra-ordinary things in his lilas, but since he is the source of all shakti, as you point out, why shouldn't he be able to? In his lila, nothing is impossible. What I was trying to say was that on the whole, the Indic scriptures are not written in a literal way. For example, nobody is ever "shining like 1/4 of a moon", or even "shining like five moons", it is always like "one billion moons" or something like that. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, just that it is another way of writing and conveying things than the one used in the Bible.
It is perhaps also good to remember that Srila Prabhupada also generally didn't take the Bhagavatam literally. For example, with regard to the cosmology, he did not claim that the earth is flat, something the Bhagavatam (in a literal reading) does. Somewhere he interprets the seven concentric islands of Jambudvipa to be the continents of earth. Elsewhere he considers (one letter) the three planetary systems to be the planets and stars visible in the sky, but mixed together in different layers. All of these are interpretations of the text of the Bhagavatam. So my point is that nobody will take everything in the Bhagavatam literally, simply because it is not meant to be read like that.
Please forgive me for offending you, Prabhu. I certainly did not mean to do so, but my writing style is sometimes all too blunt. I'll try to be more careful in the future.
Swami - November 24, 2006 6:49 pm
From the perspective of the raga marg Krsna does not do extraordinary things. The cowherds felt the need to help him lift Mount Govardhana, etc. So in consideration of bhajana these miracles can be dismissed to a large extent.
Overall the author of the Bhagavata is juggling aisvarya and madhurya throughout his narration of Krsna-lila. He wants to show that the highest reality is found in the so called ordinary, and that when one realizes this, that which was previously viewed as ordinary is understood to be extraordinary (God is everywhere and wonderful in all respects). Majesty ultimately distances one from the highest reality, yet without any display of majesty one will have difficulty recognizing the highest reality to begin with.
Displays of majesty diminish our sense of self, our sense of I and mine and our false sense of self importance, as does and more so the offering of our sense of I and mine to the majestic. This in turn brings us closer to the heart of reality, and as the distance between our sense of self and ultimate reality is breached, majesty recedes. This then is where we find Krnsa, a mere cowherd.
Of course we have to realize what it means to be a cowherd in Vedic society. Vaysaraya has turned the Supreme God into such a commoner—the unapproachable accessible to all in love. God fallen in love has become like one of us. Thus the Bhagavata teaches the power of love—jaya Radhe!—in which all things are possible. The selflessness of the Bhagavata is, or course, a self forgetfulness in love, in which the self is lost yet preserved in union with the heart of reality. Do the math (Vedanta) yourself. To love is to live. Krsna can do anything, but what he likes to do is love.
I hope I have not confused anyone, but then again love is rather confusing and trying to make sense out of it is difficult.
Margaret Dale - March 13, 2007 7:07 am
"So in consideration of bhajana these miracles can be dismissed to a large extent. "
I thought I was half following this thread until I hit this line. Guru Maharaja, would you mind trying to clarify this a little bit? Thank you.
Citta Hari Dasa - March 13, 2007 4:41 pm
"So in consideration of bhajana these miracles can be dismissed to a large extent. "
I thought I was half following this thread until I hit this line. Guru Maharaja, would you mind trying to clarify this a little bit? Thank you.
Here Guru Maharaja is referring to the vision of the Vrajavasis, which he illustrated with the example of the cowherds putting up their sticks to help Krsna hold up Govardhana. Even though they were under the hill and Krsna clearly had a handle on the situation, their love for him--as their son, or friend, or lover--was so intense that the idea that he is the all-powerful absolute was obscured from their perception. They thought of him as a simple cowherder, and as such in need of help from them to do what he was doing. So from the point of view of bhajana--the land of love--Krsna's miraculous activites are not so. They see him as ordinary, and sometimes Visnu does extraordinary things through him.
That's the gist of it, though I'm sure Guru Maharaja can give a more succint answer.