Although he is a fool, yet I am wise,

FB Memories June28

2019

Some verses I have always liked.

anya-kāmī yadi kare kṛṣṇera bhajana

nā māgiteha kṛṣṇa tāre dena sba-caraṇa

kṛṣṇa kahe "āmā bhaje māge viṣaẏa sukha

amṛta chāḏi viṣa māge ei baḏa mūrkha

āmi vijña ei mūrkhe viṣaẏa kene diba

sba-caraṇāmṛta diẏā viṣaẏa bhulāiba"

"If someone engages in Krishna bhajan while still desiring other things, the Lord even so gives him his lotus feet even though he was not asked for it. The Lord thinks, 'He worships me and at the same time asks for sense pleasures in return. He refuses ambrosia and asks for poison to drink instead. What a great fool he is! I am wise, so why should I give sense pleasures to this fool? Instead, I will give him the ambrosia of my feet and make him forget all sensual pleasures.'" (CC 2.22.37-39)

If someone worships Krishna with desire

For other things, nor seeks, nor does aspire

For grace, yet does Lord Krishna still confer

His lotus-feet upon his worshiper.

Says Krishna, ' whoso worships me for bliss

Of sensual pleasure and happiness,

Is like a fool who dread poison would take,

And immortal ambrosia forsake;

Although he is a fool, yet I am wise,

Why therefore should I grant him worldly joys?

The nectar of my feet I make his lot,

Whence sensual pleasures shall be forgot.'

(Madan Mohan Dasji's translation.)

2017

Feeling like a devotee, in Birnagar.

Bir = Vira = Bhaktivinoda Thakur. My Prabhu knew what he was doing, I think, when he refused to follow the path of Siddhanta Saraswati. On the face of it, there seems to be very little difference, but in a subtle way it is very different. It never "innovated" anything, but left things the way Bhaktivinoda left them.

I often use the example of a palimpsest to describe my own journey into the past of Bengali Vaishnavism, cutting through the layers to get to the authentic source. When I left Iskcon, I think I wanted something a bit more different than the Gaudiya Math and so I went scurrying in many directions, looking for the "authentic" at the bottom of the pile, the root of the tree.

Now it seems I have given up scurrying and have come home. Guru kripa hi kevalam.

2017

I think Gandhi was a yogi. Why not? He considered himself a karma-yogi and I think that is a correct assessment.

Unless one has something of this attitude, and I think it was quite prevalent still during Gandhi's time, there is no alternative to materialism.

India is still having difficulty with materialism, but it is getting there.

People are so confused about Gandhi and don't want to cut him any slack, blame him for everything that went wrong in India during the freedom movement. I am personally a fan.

As a yogi, he taught the yamas and niyamas, especially ahimsa. Those who hate him the most are the ones who don't believe in ahimsa. What a noble spirit to have led his people on the basis of love and non-violence, even when faced with hate and violence? This alone is a glorious legacy that outshines any flaws he may have had.

And it is the glory of India that it followed him.

Whatever mistakes he made were done with the right intentions, which was to create a unified, peaceful India that was not tied to Western materialism.

But materialistic and atheistic Indians especially hate his legacy and do everything they can to diminish him. How can a leader of such a large and fractious population unite them all? But he was indispensable to the movement and all his peers, among whom he was a giant, all knew it, even when they opposed him.

He is rightfully the "father of India" and will remain so for as long as it remains, despite the naysayers, faultfinders and doubters.

Rajarshi: Gandhi lovers, please don't read.

I have never tried to wean away a Gandhi lover from his love of Gandhi. But I am posting anyway since I already commented here, and ( until Drik asks me not to comment.) . The thread started with Koenraad Elst's comment on Gandhi, just a reminder.

I personally consider Gandhi to a great man, just not a Yogi. As per his own confessions, he was a politician trying to be a saint. Not my words, his own self assessement.

Ahimsa is a good rule to follow in a certain conditioned setting of spiritual growth, but becomes absurd when indiscriminately applied to the world. Of all people anywhere in the world, Sanatana Dharma understands this principle better and it's kind of superficial when we are told that ahimsa is all there is to life. If indiscriminate ahimsa was all then, both Rama and Krshna must have not know Dharma properly, or else why would they physically engage in war to destroy evil when all paths have failed? Everything is right in a context, and becomes a mostrosity when taken out of context. Thus when asked about Jews and Hitler's treatment of them, Gandhi came up with the embarassing reply that Jews must all commit mass suicide. Not only that he himself led many of his own political campaigns into wrong turns - but that's fine, all men are flawed after all - but all in the name of an intuition, which almost never seemed to work. Now an intuition is a thing that comes to great Yogis once they cross a point of sadhana. It did not happen with Gandhi but yet he kept insisting it did. Results? His political campaigns kept producing unintended negative results.

Surely he will remain as one of the greatest political leaders India ever produced. The Yogi bit is a superficial stretch, but then there is no rule that perceptions have to be factual.

Love Sri Aurobindo's letter on Gandhi. When one of Gandhi's political moves backfired and Gandhi blamed it on supernatural reason, someone asked Aurobindo's opinion on the matter. The reply Sri Aurobindo gave was illuminating. An excerpt.

"As for Gandhi, why should you suppose that I am so tender for the faith of the Mahatma? I do not call it faith at all, but a rigid mental belief, and what he terms soul-force is only a strong vital will which has taken a religious turn. That, of course, can be a tremendous force for action, but unfortunately Gandhi spoils it by his ambition to be a man of reason, while in fact he has no reason in him at all, never was reasonable at any moment in his life and, I suppose, never will be. What he has in its place is a remarkable type of unintentionally sophistic logic. Well, what this reason, this amazingly, precisely unreliable logic brings about is that nobody is ever sure and, I don’t think, he is himself really sure what he will do next. He has not only two minds, but three or four minds, and all depends on which will turn up topmost at a particular moment and how it will combine with the others. There would be no harm in that, on the contrary there might be an advantage if there were a central Light somewhere choosing for him and shaping the decision to the need of the action. He thinks there is and calls it God—but it has always seemed to me that it is his own mind that decides and most of the time decides wrongly. Anyhow I cannot imagine Lenin or Mustapha Kemal not knowing their own minds or acting in this way—even their strategic retreats were steps towards an end clearly conceived and executed. But whatever it be, it is all mind-action and vital force in Gandhi. So why should he be taken as an example of the defeat of the Divine or of a spiritual Power? I quite allow that there has been something behind Gandhi greater than himself and you can call it the Divine or a Cosmic Force which has used him, but then there is that behind everybody who is used as an instrument for world ends, so that is not germane to the matter." - 29 July 1932

Well, thank you, Rajarshi, that was gently done and a good quote. I am not averse to hearing opposing opinion. As a matter of fact it is very difficult to assess a person like Gandhi, who like it or not had a tremendous influence over the history of this country, who in fact embodied the spirit of the mass of ordinary Indians, who in those days were still simple and religious folk for the most part, though not liked so much by the modern elites, of which I consider Aurobindo to be one, yogi or not. Everyone's legacy is mixed, no matter how sincere. No one is beyond criticism.

And yet I do think, from my admittedly partially informed position (and who is not?), that Gandhi had strong guiding principles. We have our independent India and independent India slogs on, abandoning any trace of Gandhiism. He has become more or less irrelevant to the vast majority of Indians.

But allow me to thank you and abscond from the discussion.

Jagat:

'Actually there is a lot of hypocrisy involved in this. The average ambitious guru (and here I mean ambitious for becoming a big guru) know very well that money and publicity are positive features, not negatives. Wear rudraksha interspersed with gold beads and more gold decorations, wear expensive red silks, go to rich men's homes by helicopter -- the greater the ostentation the more people will marvel and the more donations will flow. The more opulent your ashram, the more wealthy people you will attract.

And those who live a live of poverty and sadhana? They are not to be gurus, but sadhakas. But who wants to live a life of misery in the name of sadhana?

There was a time not so long ago when seths and rajas would seek out the renunciates who lived in caves or isolated huts, and the sants would avoid them like the plague for fear of being contaminated by their materialism. This was true even a generation or two ago.

The Bhagavata has some nice verses I am just reading at this moment and I spoke on them a bit in my class last night. In fact, these were among the first verses I ever read from the Bhagavata and were instrumental in inspiring me to follow my spiritual inclinations when I was still a young man.

satyāṁ kṣitau kiṁ kaśipoḥ prayāsair

bāhau sva-siddhe hy upabarhaṇaiḥ kim |

saty añjalau kiṁ purudhānna-pātryā

dig-valkalādau sati kiṁ dukūlaiḥ ||

When the ground is there to sleep on, why make efforts to have a nice bed?

You have the arms that God gave you, so why do you need pillows?

You have hands that you can cup, what need then for fine vessels for eating?

Are not the directions themselves or the bark of trees sufficient as clothing?

cīrāṇi kiṁ pathi na santi diśanti bhikṣāṁ

naivāṅghripāḥ para-bhṛtaḥ sarito'py aśuṣyan |

ruddhā guhāḥ kim ajito'vati nopasannān

kasmād bhajanti kavayo dhana-durmadāndhān ||

Are there no rejected garments lying on the open road?

Do the trees not bestow alms and take care of others?

Have the waterways all dried up? Have the caves been sealed?

Most of all, does the unconquerable Lord

not protect those who have taken shelter of Him?

Why then do the wise flatter those

who are blinded with the evil intoxication of wealth?'

SB 2.2.4-5.

I agree with Madanamohan. He is right to point to the previous verse in the series and I was myself going to post it. I think the last two lines of the last verse are the most important.

ataḥ kavir nāmasu yāvad-arthaḥ

syād apramatto vyavasāya-buddhiḥ |

siddhe'nyathārthe na yateta tatra

pariśramaṁ tatra samīkṣamāṇaḥ ||

Therefore, the wise man will be clearheaded about all matters in the world of names, having single-minded and determined intelligence. He will make no other effort for things that can be attained automatically, looking at it all as unnecessary effort for nothing. 2.2.3

(1) God will take care of you. That is a part of the sharanagati process, so it is universal for the bhaktas. It is a sign of faith. It applies to everyone, now and always.

(2) Don't go flattering the rich. In other words don't compromise your integrity, as far as you possibly can, to make a buck. Better to be poor and honest than to serve an evil master.

As to exclusive minority. There is a problem with how far you can get in bhakti without actually _wanting_ it. Really, wanting is the only qualification. If you want, then you do the necessary, no? The more you want, the more you will sacrifice to get it.

If it were given freely, then it would be like those BTG's we used to find filling the garbage cans. It is free for those who want it, for those who want it more, for those who want it most. It is just not dependent on previous qualifications or on material qualifications.

The sign that you have received the mercy is that you WANT bhakti. And that means you will do what is necessary to get it. And basically, that means giving up everything for bhakti. You cannot get around it, prema means exclusivity.

You can say, I will love God and mammon at the same time. It just cannot work. You might try to bullshit your way through it, but you are only fooling yourself.

Well, it is the availability that is free. If you put a table of wine and cheese crackers on the street and nobody takes them, is it your fault?

On another thread related to these same verses, doubts were raised about the standards necessary for spiritual life. Who can attain these high standards of renunciation and is it necessary?

First of all, these two verses are preceded by this one:

ataḥ kavir nāmasu yāvad-arthaḥ

syād apramatto vyavasāya-buddhiḥ |

siddhe'nyathārthe na yateta tatra

pariśramaṁ tatra samīkṣamāṇaḥ ||

Therefore, the wise man will be clearheaded about all matters in the world of names, having single-minded and determined intelligence. He will make no extraneous effort for things that can be attained automatically, looking at it all as unnecessary labor. 2.2.3

So this is followed by a strong rhetorical statement of rather extreme renunciation. It is the last two lines that are really the most significant.

(1) God will take care of you. That is a part of the sharanagati process (taking refuge in God or surrender), so it is universal for the bhaktas. It is a sign of faith. It applies to everyone, now and always.

(2) Don't go flattering the rich. In other words don't compromise your integrity, as far as you possibly can, to make a buck. Better to be poor and honest than serve an evil master.

All people are somewhere on the path to God. No one can ever be truly separated from God, no matter how evil. It is the extent of the awareness and the depth of feeling that are all that count.

Why lament those who do not take the gifts of love that are freely given. Take it yourself, enjoy and share to the extent you can.

2011

rādhāyā mukha-maṇḍalena balinā candrasya padmasya vā

vyākṣiptā suṣameti keyam abudhaiḥ ślāghā vinirmīyate |

yad dūre’py anubhūya bhūyasi sudhā-śuddhāpi candrāvalī

padmālī ca visṛjya śīryati nijāṁ saundarya-darpa-śriyam ||

After humbly expressing her inadequacy when it comes to glorifying Radha, Vrinda Devi says:

It seems that the charms of the moon and the lotus flower

are merely the reflections of Radha’s perfectly proportioned face,

and so the less intelligent praise them.

But as soon as they feel her presence, even from afar,

Chandravali, who is compared to a multitude of moons,

and her friend Padma, compared to an entire garden of lotuses,

both of whom are filled with spotless nectarean charms,

wither in shame, losing any pride they had in their own beauty.

And so it should be. The pride we have in our own virtues should always be tempered by the knowledge that they are tiny fragments, at best, of the divine splendor.

tayor apy ubhayor madhye

rādhikā sarvathādhikā

mahābhāva-svarūpeyaṁ

guṇair ativarīyasī

Of Radha and Chandravali, Radha is in all respects superior. She is the very embodiment of mahābhāva and excels in all the virtues.

Zvoiir:  Just for the playful thought, can you say otherwise; that actually Candravali is superior because she must always provide background, or necessary comparison in which one is always supposed to lose, and on which brushstrokes of Radha's supremacy is then painted in?

But then by all means, can you please tell, in your best way, what's the philosophical, teological or any other purpose (theatrical? served with constant doses of willing suspension of disbelief) of constantly reminding us of 'a duel', so to speak, in which one party is simply supposed to lose?

But yes she is really nothing more than background. She stands in for everyone. Like Brahma and Shiva compared to Vishnu or Krishna. I don't think it really makes her superior in any kind of meaningful way.

Actually, a better answer is: Since Radha is beloved of Krishna, how can anyone comparable to her for him? Purely as a matter of love: If you love your wife, then your mutual love will both enhance her beauty and simultaneously your perception of it. In such circumstances, who would you compare to her? Your love would exclude all possibility of comparison.

In an ideal world. And of course, we take this as an ideal world.

And yes, the point is theatre more than theology, though that is there. How can Chandravali lose? She is serving the plot.

People only think they are free of myth. Myth is an integral part of psychology. Even your "awakened life" is a myth. It is a helpful myth, but it is feeble, because it is without bhakti. That is what makes it a myth in the sense of illusion.

There is no bhakti without myth, no love without bhakti. Human beings are myth making creatures because there is no reality without myth. Where would your reality go if it had no myth to follow?

I don't know what you are talking about "exploring past lives". We have not said anything about that. At least I agree with you on that.

Radha and Krishna are eternal archetypes. There is not much point in historical references except to see how the concept of the sacred nature of human love has developed.

As our understanding of love develops, our giving sacred form to that Love symbolically becomes a necessity.

Symbols encapsulate entire constellation of ideas. The words "Radhe Shyam" contain both the myth and the reality of Love. So sing the names of the Divine Couple.

Radhe Shyam! Radhe Shyam! Radhe Shyam! Radhe Shyam!

If our symbols are not consciously sacred they become mundane. It is better to take a mundane symbol of love that approximates the purity of the Ideal and attribute sacred character to it than to be without any sense of the sacred whatsoever. But better than that is to subsume all manifestations of love, to the degree that they are pure, into the overarching archetype of the Divine Couple. That way, the sadhana of love becomes possible, because it gives a point of connection between the Divine and the human.

Overall, though, my experience is that once the Divine Center in Radha and Krishna has been discovered experientially, all other partial symbols fade into insignificance, or as reference points for the sake of communication.

But there are so many of these "partial" manifestations that it becomes distraction. Abelard-Heloise, Cyrano-Roxane, Romeo-Juliet, Tristan-Isolde, and all the ancient mythical couples--even Lakshmi Narayan, Isis-Osiris, etc., etc., are all waves in the sea of Radha-Krishna.

You don't have any experience without mediation through myth. Just like you don't have any thought without language. If anything at all, it is a springboard to ineffable experience, but you always end up springing back. That is why we have bhakti, because bhakti gives you something to do, to express the ineffable.

Don't get confused. You just cannot have "half a hen" and expect to get eggs.

Really, there is no problem for people like you except the reluctance to accept God as a person. That is heartbreakingly difficult for so many. I can understand why. You are in a mode of rational rejection. It is a common enough state, but one that is unsynthesized and therefore incomplete. It is exacerbated by your arrogance and sense of superiority.

Ah, I was expecting you. How can Chandravali lose? She is there. How can Chandravali lose? She is just another aspect of Radha. How can Chandravali lose? Do you lose if I say that I do not think you are as good an artist as Michaelangelo? Are you diminished?

 

2011

The force of such self-discovery, in a healthy soul, always has the transcendent caveat that when you come out of the cave, down from the mountain, you bring a message for humanity. That you have something meaningful to say to others. That the discoveries you have made are communicable. Alienation is not a natural state of the soul. Alienation is a motivation to seek meaning, truth and community.