by Pandava bandhava das
Taking Krishna’s side
defines us as Krishna’s devotees. Taking a different side defines us as
something different. Krishna’s side is described in sastra and, therefore, sastra
is a self-evident authority.
I am writing this article
because our faith in sastra has
gradually slackened. Some 20-30 years ago, ISKCON devotees used to accept
certain sastric statements as they
are. Nowadays, the same statements are up for a discussion. Some time ago the
mood was, “This is the instruction, how do we apply it?” Now the mood is, “Do
you really expect us to believe in all of this? Do we really have to follow all
these rules and regulations? I mean it is 2019. Things have changed.” True,
some things have changed.
Taking Krishna’s side is
not so easy because all of us have many impressions from our previous
materialistic life. They are pushing us to enjoy as we did before. Some authorities
define anartha as “Fond memories of
sense enjoyment”; well, we have a lot of those stored in our subtle body.
Things worsen especially when the mundane influence infiltrates into the ISKCON
ranks and our internal enemies (doubts and misgivings) receive reinforcements
from outside. As a result, taking a stand on even simple issues seems to have
become a complicated affair.[1]
We all know that
materialists are “in maya” but
sometimes we hesitate to say this openly because one of the main tenets of
political correctness dictates that nobody should be made to feel inferior.
(Interestingly, the politically correct people do not mind putting down in
inferior position everyone who disagrees with them). Gradually, from being shy in
declaring who we are and what do we stand for, we move to the next stage of
decline, that is, we are not sure anymore who we are and what we stand for. The
lack of a strong sense of identity and mission paralyzes the preaching work so
much so that even the word “preaching” becomes outdated in ISKCON. That means
that we are, to some extent, siding with certain group of materialists.
Devotees are supposed to
accept what is favorable to their devotional service and reject what is
unfavorable. Therefore, devotees do not usually take sides in conflicts between
mundane people – this is unfavorable. Such conflicts are under the spell of the
illusory energy and whatever the outcome, there is no solution to the real
problems of life. Take for example the conflict between the environmental
activists and the pollution industry. The first group is trying to make the
world a cleaner and better place for sense enjoinment. The second group doesn’t
care whether the world is polluted as long as it gets their profits to ensure, again, their sense enjoyment. Both groups are not even
aware what the real problems of life are, what to speak of solving them. Therefore,
a devotee supports neither of them.
While recognizing that
clean environment is more conducive for developing Krishna consciousness
(Prabhupada said “cleanliness is next to godliness”), the devotees know that
there is no material solution to material problems. In fact, as pointed out by
Prahlada Maharaja, the so-called material solutions are worse than the problem
itself. Unless both parties, the one that demands clean environment in order to
enjoy better, and the one that simply does not care, recognize that this is
Krishna’s world and we should follow His rules in order to maintain it in
proper order, there will be no relief. Srila Prabhupada explains that in
Bhagavad-gita 5.29 Lord Krishna gives the peace formula:
A person in full consciousness
of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and
austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor
and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of
material miseries.
Here Krishna claims three positions,
which are extremely attractive to materialists. These are the position of the Supreme
controller, the position of the Supreme enjoyer, and the position of the best
friend of all living entities, respectively. The demons are really after them,
so much so that they regularly attempt to kill the Lord in order to be able to enjoy
full control over others and at the same time pride themselves as the
benefactor of human society. Here is how Kamsa was planning to become God:
And after killing these two boys
[Krishna and Balarama], I shall kill Vasudeva and Nanda, who are supporters of
the Vrishni and Bhoja dynasties. I shall also kill my father, Ugrasena, and his
brother Devaka, because they are actually my enemies and are hindrances to my
diplomacy and politics. Thus I shall get rid of all my enemies. Jarasandha is
my father-in-law, and I have a great monkey friend named Dvivida. With their
help it will be easy to kill all the kings on the surface of the earth who
support the demigods. This is my plan. In this way, I shall be free from all
opposition, and it will be very pleasant to rule the world without obstruction.
This is the demons’
ultimate ambition, to get rid of the Lord and the devotees and to establish
themselves as the supreme authority. Nowadays, such blunt mission statement
would not be very popular not because of religious sentiments, but because it
is not politically correct. Still, the ambition to be the controller and enjoyer
is at the bottom of all materialistic endeavors. The problem is that it just
does not sound nice. However, being “the best friend of all living beings”, man,
now we are talking. And that is what is going on, so many people talk on so
many different topics posing as the well-wishers of all living entities. You
name them environmentalists, vegans, humanists, liberals, conservatives; they
are all convinced that they have the formula of peace and happiness. However, all these ideas are simply a manifestation of envy to
Krishna’s supreme position as the best friend of all.
Back to our previous
statement, devotees don’t like to take sides in controversies between
materialists. Devotees know that without Krishna consciousness nothing will
work and that there is no happiness in the material world. In CC, Antya 4.176
it is stated:
In the material world,
conceptions of good and bad are all mental speculations. Therefore, saying
’This is good’ and ’This is bad’ is all a mistake.
In Bhagavad-gita 7.27,
Lord Krishna says that our attachment to this duality of good and bad is the
symptom of our delusion:
O scion of Bharata, O conqueror
of the foe, all living entities are born into delusion, bewildered by dualities
arisen from desire and hate.
Neither do devotees like
to take sides in controversies among devotees (especially senior devotees) because
it may lead to offences. Neophytes (we are all encouraged to think of ourselves
as neophyte devotees) are often unable to understand the real meaning of the arguments;
thus leaping to a conclusion and taking a stand can amount to a serious aparadha.
There are, however, many
cases where a devotee should take a side, in fact one’s very identity as a
devotee requires one to do so. For example, Srila Prabhupada states that there
are two types of living entities in the Universe, suras and asuras,
devotees and non-devotees. The very acceptance of Krishna consciousness defines
us as devotees and distinguishes us from the nondevotees’ camp. We are supposed
to be faithful to our devotional camp, following in the footsteps of great
devotees like Prahlada Maharaja:
Narada Muni continued: When
Prahlada Maharaja spoke about the path of self-realization in devotional
service, thus being faithful to the camp of his father's enemies, Hiranyakasipu,
the King of the demons, heard Prahlada's words and he laughingly said,
"This is the intelligence of children spoiled by the words of the
enemy." (SB 7.5.6)
Of course, a devotee is ajatasatru, without enemy, because he is
a friend of all living beings, just like Krishna. Even if somebody considers
him an enemy, a devotee does not see him as such. Still, a devotee has to perform
his duty in spite of the opposition of the non-devotees. For example, Srila
Prabhupada continued his preaching work in spite of the vocal opposition of
certain non-devotees. A devotee does not like to provoke; he always tries to
present the spiritual knowledge in a respectful manner because he knows that
the Lord is in everyone’s heart. When despite this the envious are disturbed, a
devotee should simply continue with his preaching work avoiding the demons as
far as possible.
It is true that an uttama-adhikari sees no demons at all;
he sees everyone as a devotee of the Lord. He is above everything material, not
taking sides with anybody on the material platform. But it is also true that
the uttama-adhikaris are rare. The
method of attaining such an exalted level of devotion is to follow the process
of sadhana-bhakti which means to take
sides according to the injunctions of sastra.
For example, in The Nectar
of Devotion Srila Prabhupada writes that a devotee should tolerate offences
against his own self but should not tolerate offences against Krishna or the
Vaisnavas. If a devotee of the Lord is criticized we should take a stand and
defend him by silencing the opposition. We cannot stay idle on the pretext that
we are on a higher level of bhakti
and see with an equal vision. That would be hypocrisy and would betray a deep
impersonal contamination.
Another example. Ajamila
was a very sinful person. He left his young, beautiful and pious wife to marry
a prostitute. In order to maintain her and her children he performed many
abominable activities. At the end of his life, when he was about to be arrested
by the Yamadutas, he became very scared and called out the name of his son,
Narayana. Then the Visnudutas appeared on the scene and forbade the Yamadutas
to take him to hell. Their voices resounding, the Visnudutas proclaimed that
Ajamila has chanted the name of the Lord at the time of death and because of
this he was now sinless. They said:
Although calling the name of his
son, he nevertheless uttered the four syllables na-ra-ya-na. Simply by chanting the name of Narayana in this way,
he sufficiently atoned for the sinful reactions of millions of lives. (SB
6.2.8)[2]
This was outrageous to the
Yamadutas. “How is that possible? This person performed so many sinful
activities and you want to tell me that just by calling out the name of his son
once all his sins have been now wiped out?? Just because it so happened that his
son was named Narayana?? This is absurd! This is not fair! We demand justice!”
The Visnudutas replied,
“Yes, you think like this because you are materialists.”
And that was that, the
Visnudutas won the argument and saved Ajamila from hellish suffering. Now, which
side would we have taken in this case?
It is a relevant question
because I sometimes see that we are not willing to forgive a devotee who performed
some sinful activities 20 or 30 years ago. What does that say about our faith
in the potency of the holly name, in the process of bhakti? What about our faith
in the Bhagavatam? Where from have we taken this concept of eternal damnation
of the soul? Surely, not from the Vedic philosophy because it does not exist
there. In Bhagavad-gita 9.30 Krishna says that even if a devotee commits the
most abominable action but is engaged in devotional service, he is to be
considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination. Do we
actually accept this for real?
Let us give another
example. Impelled by the illusory energy of the Lord, Prajapati Daksa begot ten
thousand sons in the womb of his wife. When their father ordered them to beget
children, they all went to the great place of pilgrimage, Narayana-saras, to
perform austerities in order to become purified. Gradually, becoming very much
purified, they became inclined toward the activities of paramahamsas. Nevertheless, because their father had ordered them
to increase the population, they performed severe austerities to fulfill his
desires. One day, the great sage Narada approached them. He convinced
them not to waste their time in materialistic pursuits and take sannyasa immediately. Hearing this,
Daksa was mortified because he thought that he has lost his sons. When Prajapati
Daksa was lamenting over his lost children, Lord Brahma pacified him with
instructions, and thereafter Daksa begot another thousand of children. But
Narada Muni came again and gave them the same instructions. The sons of Daksa
followed the example of their elder brothers and abandoned materialistic life. The
Bhagavatam says, “Like nights that have gone to the west, they have not
returned even until now”. This time Daksa became so angry that he cursed Narada
Muni. He spoke to him as follows:
Alas,
Narada Muni, you wear the dress of a saintly person, but you are not actually a
saint. Indeed, although I am now in grihastha life, I am a saintly person. By
showing my sons the path of renunciation, you have done me an abominable
injustice… If you think that simply awakening the sense of renunciation will
detach one from the material world, I must say that unless full knowledge is
awakened, simply changing dresses as you have done cannot possibly bring
detachment. Material enjoyment is indeed the cause of all unhappiness, but one
cannot give it up unless one has personally experienced how much suffering it
is. Therefore, one should be allowed to remain in so-called material enjoyment
while simultaneously advancing in knowledge to experience the misery of this
false material happiness. Then, without help from others, one will find
material enjoyment distasteful. Those whose minds are changed by others do not
become as renounced as those who have personal experience.
In
short, Daksa’s argument is that one should experience the troubles of the
family life for himself; only then is one ready for renunciation. In other
words, he thinks that everybody should be a person of a second-class
intelligence. (First class intelligence is to attain realization simply by
hearing from authority).
In
his purports, Srila Prabhupada supports Narada Muni’s position and discards
Daksa’s. Where do we stand on this? In the beginning of the Bhagavatam it is
stated that truth is different from illusion for the benefit of all. What is
our truth in this case?
I
have heard Daksa’s arguments defended by respected ISKCON devotees. Probably
you have, too. The problem is that such talks should not be talked inside of
ISKCON because our Acharyas do not approve of them. We cannot disagree with the
founder-Acharya and stay in his institution at the same time.
Or,
let us consider this: Srila Prabhupada wanted the Temple of Vedic Planetarium
built in Sridham Mayapur, ISKCON’s head-quarters. Inside there will be a
presentation of the Bhagavatam model of the Universe, which is at odds with the
contemporary western cosmology. Suppose, we’ve actually built the temple as
Prabhupada wanted, following his instructions. Imagine that you are an educated
person and somehow your friends and colleagues happen to hear about the newly
built enormous temple presenting the Puranic model of the universe with the Bhu-mandala,
Jambudvip, the tortoise at the bottom, the huge mango tree, the elephants and
all of that. They will perhaps ask you, “Do you really believe in all this bizarre
descriptions??”
What
would you say? Would you say “Yes, sure I do”, or, ashamed, you would try to find
a way to distance yourself from Bhagavatam, Prabhupada, and Krishna? Or
perhaps, too insecure to do any of those, would try for an “in-between” option?[3]
In
other words, what is more important to us, to be accepted by our “cool, intelligent,
open-minded, non-dogmatic friends as their peer”, or to be accepted by Srila
Prabhupada and the Acharyas as their faithful servant? Saint Peter denounced Jesus
because of fear of severe corporal punishment; would we denounce Srila
Prabhupada over trivialities like social acceptance, false prestige, or unwillingness
to feel guilty or inferior because of our weak faith in sastra?
I
make it sound a bit dramatic and I guess there is a certain eschatological
flavor in it. And it is true that sooner or later we will be faced by this
dramatic and final (in this lifetime) choice between Krishna and maya, between staying chaste to our
tradition and making compromise with the mundane. The truth, however, is that
we are facing this choice every day. Every time we decide to compromise the
proper performance of our devotional duties we are choosing the wrong side.
Thus, in all cases taking
side is required if
we want at all to be counted among the suras,
devotees. And inside the devotee’s camp we still have to make the proper choice
between pure and mixed devotional service. And even then we will have to make a
further choice, this time between pure devotional service and pure unalloyed
devotional service.
All these choices mean
taking sides. In the mundane realm taking side means making opponents. Jesus
had them, Srila Prabhupada had them, even Lord Krishna had them. In the
material world it is unavoidable to make some people angry. This happens no matter if
you are right or wrong. As Michel Foucault wrote:
“…a battle front crosses the
entire society, continuously and constantly, and it is this battle front that
places each of us in one camp or another. There is no neutral subject. We must
be someone's opponent.”
This should not stop us
from performing our duties.
Since we will have to make
choices and bear the consequences of them, we might as well make the right
choice following the instructions of Srila Prabhupada and Krishna. Then our
unavoidable struggle in this world will be worthwhile.
We are tempted to take the
wrong side because we still do not accept sastra
as the absolute authority. As a matter of formality, we as devotees, will say
that sastra is always correct, but in
our personal life we often take our samskaras
as more important. That means that in general we do as we like and sometimes
what we like is supported by sastra.
That is the best we can hope for on the neophyte level. At least we are pious
enough to offer some lip service to sastra
while our most important decisions are taken on the basis of our likes and
dislikes (iccha-dvesha).
This is normal in the
beginning of our devotional practice. However, we should not stay neophytes, or
even worse – imagine that our neophyte ways are equal to pure devotional
service.
Nietzsche said that those
who have a “why” can deal with any “how”. Throughout history, people with firm
faith in something endured many hardships, even tortures and death without
wavering and kept their ideals. They sacrificed their comfort and their life,
often for trivial, materialistic causes. It so happened that by Mahaprabhu’s
causeless mercy we have the most exalted cause to serve – to spread the yuga-dharma, the congregational chanting
of the holy name. And by Mahaprabhu’s grace, we can still do this openly in
most places, without fear of persecution. Will we back on our duties just because we
want the acknowledgment of some fools and rascals? (Which they will never give
anyway. And even if they do, what is the value of it?)
A devotee should take all
the risks in serving Guru and Krishna, even the risk of being marginalized or
even banished by mundane society. This is the price we have to pay in order to
be recognized by Krishna. “Only once in a while does the Supreme Lord give bhakti, and only to a rare intelligent
person who desires only that, indifferent to the opinions of the world.”
(Brihad-Bhagavatamrita, 2.4.233)
[1] For
example, do we have to follow varsnasrama?
Or, do we believe that all of Prabhupada’s statements are absolute, or do we
take some of them to be materially influenced by his “cultural conditioning”?
[2] The
Lord always looks for an excuse to bring the soul back home, back to Godhead.
Sometimes, because of His unlimited mercy, He does so even by breaking His own
rules (like when He personally appeared as Gopa kumara’s Guru, Jayanta). This
is the opposite of the materialistic mentality, which always looks for an
excuse to act negatively because of envy. Srila Prabhupada said, for example,
that the job of the bureaucrat is to say “no”. This is the reason why ordinary
people and even neophyte devotees often insist on heavy retribution for sinful
action, generally not considering what the ultimate benefit for the person is
(engaging him in Krishna consciousness).
[3] For a long time, I was puzzled why would
Prabhupada insist on presenting the Vedic model of cosmology inside ISKCON’s
main temple. After all, we are not a Vedic Cosmology movement. Recently, it
dawned on me that Prabhupada might have foreseen how in the future many
devotees would lose faith and as a result would try to “blend in” the
materialistic society thus blurring the clear borders of spiritual and mundane,
or between pure and mixed devotional service. Therefore, Prabhupada wanted to
erect this huge temple as a challenge to materialists and materialistic
devotees. “Where would you take your stand? With the Bhagavatam, or with the karmis?”
