|
Where Angels Fear to Tread by Rupanuga das Posted February 25, 2009 The editors of the 1983 revised Gita did not believe that they actually interpolated philosophy or style.* Their idea was to improve both translations and purports by transposing and clarifying portions of old manuscripts, etc. existing prior to the one finally submitted to Macmillan in 1972. Truly, many of the grammatical, spelling, format and historical inaccuracies corrected in the revision would have been approved by Srila Prabhupada himself had he been consulted. Be that as it may, Srila Prabhupada never instructed anyone to use a procedure of re-visiting and researching old manuscripts or dictations to revise future printings of his first editions. On the other hand, recordings made from 1972 until 1977, six years, demonstrate how Srila Prabhupada often personally read excerpts from the Gita in classes, room conversations, engagements, etc. Many times he also instructed devotees present to read aloud as he listened. There is no evidence indicating that he ordered extensive revisions for the next printing. As the current chief editor wrote; "To my knowledge, Srila Prabhupada never asked us to re-edit the book." ( letter to Amogha Lila, July, 1986 ) . Interestingly enough, none of the scholars, educators, professors and other reviewers of the Gita called for it either. From 1972 until 1983 we don't find requests from professionals for a revision to a higher standard. Nor do we hear any demand from devotees in general for such a thorough revision. In fact, the editors state in "A Note About the Second Edition" found in the BBT revised editions: "Yet their effort to publish Srila Prabhupada's work was a success, and the Bhagavad-gita As It Is has become the standard edition for scholars and devotees around the world." Still, after eleven years of documented success, the Gita was extensively re-worked. Why? What is the reason? The editors continue their explanation: "For this second edition, however, Srila Prabhupada's disciples had the benefit of having worked with his books for the last fifteen years. The English editors were familiar with his philosophy and language, and the Sanskrit editors were by now accomplished scholars. And now they were able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing Bhagavad-gita As It Is. The result is a work of even greater richness and authenticity... In places the translations, though already correct, have been revised to come closer to the original Sanskrit and Srila Prabhupada's original dictations..." The editors are claiming the benefit of 15 years work, which would mean 1968 until 1983, the year of the revision. However, the value of those benefits is uncertain, because in June, 1977 Srila Prabhupada severely chastised the editors for changes to his Isopanisad and Bhagavatam. He described the editors as rascals (a term he usually reserved for atheists, material scientists and politicians), and called them "dangerous" at least six times in ten minutes of discussion. Just five months before his disappearance, Srila Prabhupada made this a major issue for the Society. The same basic issue came up in 1983 and has continued more or less for the last 25 years. But for us, now, who will decide who is right and who is wrong? One side says "responsible editing," the other says "irresponsible, unauthorized, etc." But who is right and who is wrong? Who will decide? So now we must come to the point of reason. Is it reasonable to conclude that just five or six years after deserving that 1977 chastisement, editors could have emerged as "accomplished scholars" -by 1983? One editor escaped chastisement. Still, isn't six years a short time for everyone to turn up as "accomplished scholars?" But even if all the editors had been studying Sanskrit for 30 years by 1983, is it plausible that such editors could be able to dive into the superexcellent depths of Sanskrit revelation, and come up with an understanding of it's complexities---the same complexities-understood by previous acaryas? Was this the prerogative of such disciples, that they could be "able to see their way through perplexities in the manuscript by consulting the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada consulted when writing the Bhagavad-gita As It Is? Is it possible? And further, "In places the translations, though already correct, have been revised to come closer to the original Sanskrit..." Here the implication is that the editors in 1983, whoever they were, thought they could interpret the original Sanskrit texts comparatively as well as Srila Prabhupada himself, or at least well enough to put their new realizations in his book under his name. And, that they could understand the same complexities understood by previous acaryas (presumably Sridhar Swami et. al.) simply by using the same Sanskrit commentaries Srila Prabhupada used. Is this credible? Is it reasonable to conclude that such editors were capable of producing "a work of even greater richness and authenticity?" Or that translations "already correct" could have been revised to even more correctness by them? Was all this perfection really possible by 1983? May be, if they had received authorizations and blessings from Srila Prabhupada in 1977 before he disappeared, but that didn't happen. It is known from that recorded conversation of June, 1977, that when Tamal Krsna suggested to Srila Prabhupada Jayadwaita check any changes before reprinting, Srila Prabhupada countered: "But they are doing without any authority!" In other words, no need for Jayadwaita to become an inspector of changes because nobody was authorized to make such changes in the first place! Tamal had already said to Srila Prabhupada: "Your original work that you're doing now, that is edited by Jayadwaita. That's the first editing." Srila Prabhupada had answered, "He is good." So Srila Prabhupada, in the midst of all the turmoil, made it clear that he was satisfied with Jayadwaita's work. Yet a "first editing" is entirely different from re-editing an already finished or printed work, which is what the others were doing. Srila Prabhupada never authorized anyone, including Jayawaita or Pradyumna to do that with the Bhagavad-gita then or in the future. The extent of Srila Prabhupada's disappointment in this matter can not be underestimated. He said, after being informed of the changes in the Isopanisad, "I know what these rascals are doing. What can be done? How they can be relied on?" And later, "It is starting. What can I do? These cannot...These rascals cannot be educated. Dangerous. Little learning, dangerous...What can I do? Ultimate it goes for editorial..." In the 3rd Canto (3.4.26), Srila Prabhupada writes, "Although one may be well versed in transcendental science, one should be careful about the offense of maryada-vyatikrama, or impertinently surpassing a greater personality. According to scriptural injunction one should be very careful of transgressing the law of maryada-vyatikrama because by so doing one loses his duration of life, his opulence, fame and piety and the blessings of all the world. To be well versed in the transcendental science necessitates awareness of the techniques of spiritual science." At this point the significant question emerges: Has maryada-vyatikrama, impertinently surpassing a greater personality, occurred in the process of editing and reprinting Srila Prabhupada's books? It certainly had by 1977, according to the momentous June 22nd room conversation about changes to the Isopanisad and Srimad Bhadavatam. Six years later, considering the exaggerated claims in the "Note About the Second Edition" and the extreme content-editing of the text, it appears to have occurred again in the 1983 "Revised and Enlarged" version of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Vaisnava etiquette demands that Srila Prabhupad's disciples, grand-disciples, et. al. always think themselves fools in front of Srila Prabhupada. But, unfortunately, sometimes some of them forget that, and dare to rush in where angels fear to tread. * "Our editing is to correct grammar and spelling errors only, without interpolation of style or philosophy." ( Srila Prabhupada, 02/17/70 )
This essay is in gratitude to Gerald May, whose book "Will and Spirit" delineates pitfalls to all who seek on the spiritual path. Reaching across the sectarian divisions between us, he arrives at the core of spirituality, our common experience of God and our hunger for His unconditional love. Love On the testimony of scripture and saint, sadhu and sastra, May proposes that all love is sourced in God and is expressed, however deficiently, through human channels. Therefore, we cannot deny the value of interpersonal relationships, even while at the same time we realize their limitation, specifically the inability to satisfy our deepest craving for unconditional love. We search for unconditional love particularly in emotional intimacy, which by way of its intensity, appears to approach what we are looking for, until it wanes over time, and the "I love you, no matter what" is replaced by "I love you, but..." Still, we can sense that unconditional love is out there, somewhere. It is like we are made aware of something like an ocean and just happen to approach it, and even in approaching it, we are in awe; we have not actually touched it, yet something of the ocean, maybe the salt air or the sea spray, has entered us, and we cannot forget it, and look for it everywhere. Love has its source in God, but taking this further, May goes on to discuss how all emotions are sourced in God, and how they are manifestations of His energies. This concurs with our Gaudiya vaisnava line of thought, but it is fascinating how he reaches such a conclusion, and instructive as to the implications he draws from it. To reach this conclusion, he disavows the western method of objective observation and analysis, and utilizes instead the eastern method of subjective experience. Consciousness is, after all, subjective experience itself. To examine it objectively, for example by measuring brain activity, brain chemical composition and behavioral cues, is exactly like the well-known analogy of tasting honey by licking the outside of the bottle. Tasting the Honey from the Inside Out... Through meditative practice and prayer, one is able to perceive (subjectively) the emotions as manifestations of energy. This is the testimony of a nun, who went on a prayer retreat to find calm amidst some emotional turmoil she was experiencing: "During the first part of the retreat my mind remained highly turbulent, but after many hours of just sitting with all the mental noise, things began to quiet down. The multiplicity of thoughts and images which had preoccupied my attention began to disappear. As they left, I became aware of another layer of turbulence beneath them, this consisting of emotions. Watching this very quietly, I experienced the whole gamut of emotions coming through my mind, one after another, as if on parade. Sadness, anger, frustration, sexual desire, guilt, fear, hope, and now and then some peace, lightness and humor. First I recognized all of these as feelings, much like body sensations but coming from deep within my awareness. They seemed to originate very deeply, and for a while I became fascinated with seeing how they came into being. It appeared that something lay behind these feelings- some origin or source- and that my usual experience of them had been very superficial. As I moved more intimately towards that point of origin, it seemed as if there was a level at which a kind of diffuse dynamic "percolation" was taking place. Indeed, this appeared to be at a very primeval point.... Out of this level, there seemed to come spurts of activity which became attached to certain mental concepts or words or memories or images. When this attachment took place, I could immediately identify that "spurt" or "spark" as an feeling, an emotion. And with just a little more discrimination, I could label the feeling as anger or sadness or whatever. I was left with the conviction that what I experience as emotions on a day-to-day basis is really just a superficial interpretation of a much larger and more generalized process. More importantly I was deeply impressed by the fact that while all this activity takes place it is possible for some kind of awareness to be present, totally unruffled, watching it all with complete serenity. There is something deeply reassuring about that." This stillness amongst the turbulence of emotions reminds us of Bg 7.20. It is also interesting how the evolution of emotions, as described here, closely resembles Krsna's description in 2.62- emotions develop into recognizable forms (lust, anger, etc) only after they become attached to something (an image or memory, or in other words, an object of the senses which is either physically present or remembered). Originally, in their raw state, emotions are pure energy, emanating from the energetic source, which the Vedas define as Brahman. This pure energy simply becomes transformed , and according to the transformation, it is perceived and labeled as such. When it becomes attached to a painful image or memory, it is transformed into fear or dread, and when it becomes attached to a pleasurable image or memory, it becomes transformed into desire. Attachment What is important is not to stop emotions, for being as energies emanating from God it is not in our power to control them, but rather try to seek out their source and in so discovering their source and nature, we cease to be propelled by them unconsciously, reactively, and often against our best interest. It may be asked how it is that simply becoming aware of something could protect us from being propelled unwillingly by it, but this is not a new concept in the realm of psychology. According to the current consensus of psychological thought, almost all our behavioral tendencies which do not make sense or which do us no good can be traced back to memories which we have repressed, which are out of our awareness, and which need to be brought into awareness to be healed of their malignant effects. We must not only be aware of how emotions arise and form attachments within us, but be prepared to disentangle from attachment itself. This is not easy, as we identify with our particular turbulence of emotions; and the behavior patterns it generates: easily recognized and identified, emotions allay our existential terror of not knowing who we really are. We form a concept of who we are, much as an actor on a stage chooses a character, then when an emotion arising from within us corresponds to that sense of personal selfhood, we feel we simply must respond, and when the emotion does not do so, it threatens us, and we repress it. This leads to considerable conflict and guilt, and we punish ourselves for having felt something, when it is only natural to feel. It's as if the guilt is a chain holding the thing in bondage, and if we let it go, it could get out and destroy us. The fact is, however, that it is not emotions that are a threat, but our attachment to them. One can feel something, acknowledge it and not act on it. We need not make it a part of who we are, or who we are not. But this surrender of self-image means letting go of control at a very deep level, and it is not easy to do. In fact it is logically impossible, as to let go of control is just another type of control. The contradiction is resolved when we consider that the desire for control itself, of being in charge of ones own destiny, sets us apart from the energy of God working through us. We must, through prayer and willingess towards His grace, be prepared to give up the security of control and self-image when the ability to do so is granted us. It is a step into the unknown, and groping around in the dark, we can only fumble for His guiding hand. Bedha! Abedha! Acintya! It would seem that in the first chapters of this book that Mr. May is somewhat of an impersonalist, as he describes spiritual ecstasy in terms of feelings of unity with God. However, such feelings are also natural for a devotee, and they are symptomatic of the uttama adhikari who cannot see distinctions but rather sees all as the Lord's energies, variously manifested in accordance with His will. However, the problem with unity, explains May, is that in that state of mind one cannot distinguish between right and wrong- one sees all as ultimately good and serving the plan of the Lord. This does not have bad consequences if one is actually on the uttama platform, for then one is wholeheartedly surrendered to the will of the Lord, to be used wholly and solely as an instrument of His unconditional love. Such a person is without false ego or sense of personal image, or sense of separateness, he is what we call transparent, does nothing of his own accord- he is the Lord's puppet and dances to His will only. Tremendous good comes from such surrender, as illustrated by the lives of the saints, avatars and sons of God. The problem is when one has not yet reached this level of utter surrender of personal self and will, when one still is of a dualistic mind and attached to self-image, but has simply glimpsed the vision of unity and is enamored of it. Then one can enter spiritual freefall in one of several ways. One can, subconsciously reinforce one's ego through believing oneself to be very pure, special, spiritual, blessed or favoured by this realization, which only furthers one from actual unity. Alternatively, the experience itself can be used to rationalize moral vacuity, failing to distinguish between good and evil, considering the dichotomy to not exist, or to be simply delusions of the dualistic mind. More than just moral danger can result if one applies these intellectualizations of unity to such everyday phenomena as approaching cars! Lord Chaitanya illustrated this madness to His mother by eating dirt, while claiming it is All One-but His mother corrected Him with the Oneness and Difference philosophy that while food and dirt are ultimately the same substance, they have different effects on the body. The duality of good and evil exists, but simultaneously it does not exist, being a creation of the dualistic mind that sees in terms of "good" and "bad". Dirt and food are One, yet Different. This is impossible to conceive, yet it is precisely this inconceivable oneness and difference that is not only Lord Chaitanya's philosophy, but is also at the heart of Buddhism and Christianity. Christ therefore said "I and the Father are One. I am in Him and He is in Me" yet he also spoke to the Father and even felt forsaken by Him- utterly separate. In Buddhist philosophy also, there is the teaching "Form is One and One is Form" - which is clearly monistic, but tempered by "Form is also form and One is also One" - which is clearly dualistic, simultaeously. Our philosophy also, of course, centres around love- or union... in separation- duality. Although inconceivable, it is conceivably perfect, for if reality was duality alone, there would be no union, no love, no connectedness, between ourselves, and ourselves and God. On the other hand, if there was only unity in reality, there would be no exchange, no sense of right and wrong, and beyond that, nothing to surrender up to the will of the Lord. Ultimately in this philosophy, it is the will to understand that we must surrender. It is simply and wholly beyond our mental grasp. It is acintya! The value of the acintya-bhed-abheda concept, as presented by May, helps us clear our minds of those weaknesses that befall the lower stages of bhakti, and understand better how progression happens. At the lowest level of devotion is the Kanistha or neophyte devotee, who sees the deity in the temple but not anywhere else, and sees his religion as superior to all others; his mind is in duality only and he interprets his relationship with God in that way. Because there is no sense of unity, his personal interactions are abrasive and tend to cause division, while his preaching puts people off spirituality, as he sees himself as separate and distinct, more holy, more pure, and so on; thus, he is perceived as self-righteous, which he is. The uttama devotee, on the other hand, sees only unity and has no impetus to preach unless he sees some duality of good and evil, and therefore he chooses such a vision, which is reality also. The madhyama platform of making distinctions- not on the basis of separateness between me and you - but between "right" and "wrong", rejecting what is bad for Krsna consciousness and accepting what is good for it, is that platform from which we can ultimately mould our will into that of the Lord, dissolving our sense of separateness from Him, while at the same time engaged in His service.
One can see many similarities between what is written in this book and in the books of our bhakti tradition. My reason for writing this is to appeal to the reader not to reject this book because it appears from the outset to be impersonalist literature, nor do so with any book, in fact, but try to see what is at its core and if it has anything valuable for bhakti. In respect to helping us with the finely detailed demarcations of anarthas, including those that arise from bhakti, in respect to overcoming the trappings of desire, fear, attachment, dualism, and even monism, and in respect to building up faith that is not blind but is built up on sound reason and direct perception, "Will and Spirit" is quite unique, and I hope that my defective attempt to show its value will inspire someone else to read and benefit from it as well. Thank you.
|
American Hypocrisy 101: Separation of Church And State by Prajyumna dasa Posted May 27, 2009 A lot of countries around the world seem to be have this mistaken belief that in America there is separation of Church and State. Nope, in America, religion is not separate from government. You see, Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers of America were very much influenced by the belief in absolute equality. Thomas Jefferson's brilliance was in shaping the United States around his religion of equality, and then saying that no other religion could come between his religion and the state. Then, like a prophet, he stated his belief so that it would be everyone else's belief also, "We hold it self-evident [for everyone] that all men are created to be equal....blah blah blah." That is when the state religion of America became Equality. What he really wanted was that no other religion would come in between his religion of Equality, and the state. Thomas Jefferson should definitely be revered. What he and the founding father's did was pure political genius. I guess that's where the Taliban learned to make their state religion, Islam. Why can't we have more politicians like that these daysā People think that God has a monopoly on religion. Crack open your Psychology 101 books, folks. The fact is that any unquestioned belief has a monopoly on you and starts to have religious coloring on you, including the notion of equality. Infact, you're not going to believe this, but there are very well funded and active religious movements running amok, proselytizing the world with impunity based on that very belief. Now I thought that it was obvious to an educated person that any absolute belief, whether that be coming from the Taliban or the equality movement has very negative effects on a nation. I thought that was apparent to everyone with the fall of communism. But apparantly not everyone is convinced because there are international organizations heavily funding the communistic party in Nepal. So basically, Western Conservatives try to shove their capitalistic fist down everyone's throat in the world. And the Western Liberals have their own agenda of 'social equality.' Well-funded Western Liberal organizations do this many times while completely ignoring what is in the long term best interest of the nation. The United Nations, that great arbiter of international justice, is clearly on the side of the Western Liberal organizations. Infact, many times, it often funds them. So how did America let herself be fooled like thisā See, what happened with America is that basically, with some poetic language and a flourish of their quill pens, the founding fathers of America, romantically ejaculated the seed of the communistic religion, equality, in the heart of America. Somehow no one else was paying any close attention. I suppose everyone was busy pursuing their life, liberty and happiness while their fates were being written. Who knows, perhaps there were no 24 hour news television stations that needed to fill the airwaves with propoganda to justify their existence, back then. In the spirit of their fore-fathers, today, many liberated Americans and their Western counterparts have formed International Non-Government Organizations (INGOs) all over the world, including my country, Nepal, to arrest our governments in the name of 'social justice.' Of course, unlike young America, who willingly took the seed of the communistic religion within her womb, at her inception, older countries like Iraq, with deeper cultural roots and history, don't have all the suppleness that may be considered desirable to Westerners. Yes, unfortunately, being older does have its disadvantages. And no, lubricating us with your false smiles and Western educated tongues doesn't make it any less painful. Communism's fault was apparant to most when it sped up faster and faster and became more and more and more equal, untill it, well, crashed. Many lessons were learned. And in the same way that the Protestant movement emerged enlightented from Catholocism, Western Liberal thought seems to have emerged enlightened and reincarnated from the communists. It seems the Western Liberal idea of 'equality' is the educated and polished "protestant" version of communistic equality. That means that basically in classic American style, communistic philosophy got a butt lift, a botox job, a bikini wax and now is being sold as 'social justice' around the world as an unquestionable global trend setter. Oh wise men from the west, we know you have been seeing all those who don't follow your beliefs as your burden, that you alone need to liberate. Yes, yes, we know that you have been seeing us as the "white man's burden" for quite a while now. But dear sirs, we humbly ask you to spare us your love and please refrain from ejaculating your communistic seed into our mother country. We have long loved our mother as she is, with her faults. You see, oh wise men from the west, unlike you, who feel that they have to criticise and change everything in the external world untill it is to everyone's satisfaction, we have long since seen the futility in that belief. That is why, we, for centuries, have long been focussing on the imperfections within us. Unlike your popular belief in external materialism, we believe that true satisfaction ultimately needs to come from within. So you see, we try not to take the external world as seriously as you do, untill we see you coming to mess with it.
Dear Prabhus, Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. As you may know, Malati Prabhu has inspired us to compile some of the memories of Srila Prabhupada's women disciples. We hope this compilation will preserve for posterity Srila Prabhupada's legacy of exchanges with his women disciples and will illumine still more facets of his glories - how his reciprocation with them endeared his women disciples to him and gave them life-long inspiration and guidance. We humbly request all women disciples of Srila Prabhupada who had personal experiences with him to provide material for this book. After so many years your life is still reposed around Srila Prabhupada's lotus feet. Why? Your answer to this question will form fragrant flowers for this garland of memories we will offer Srila Prabhupada together, with gratitude and love. Please contact us at daughtersofsrilaprabhupada@gmail.com to arrange for us to interview you or for information about writing or recording your memories and sending them to us. We will facilitate you in any way you require. In advance, thank you over and over for your cooperation. This project belongs to all of us and its success depends on all of us, Srila Prabhupada's loving daughters. May our efforts reflect Srila Prabhupada's teachings and mood.
Your servants,
A Bond of Love A Bond of Love SRILA PRABHUPADA and HIS DAUGHTERS A STATEMENT OF PURPOSES This book will be a compilation of carefully gathered eye-witness accounts and experiences from the women disciples of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. The book will document Srila Prabhupada's exchanges with his women disciples for the benefit of existing and future members of ISKCON as well as for anyone interested in knowing more about our beloved spiritual master and how he deeply and personally affected the lives of his beloved women disciples (spiritual daughters). Our intentions for this book include: 1. To give Srila Prabhupada's women disciples an opportunity to glorify him. 2. To insure that Srila Prabhupada's women disciples' voices are on record for posterity. 3. To allow Srila Prabhupada's women disciples to share their love for him by revealing their exchanges with him. 4. To reveal how Srila Prabhupada was attentive to his women disciples and their needs. 5. To show how his women disciples strongly felt Srila Prabhupada's signature love and care. 6. To reveal the instructions and lessons Srila Prabhupada imparted to his women disciples. 7. To reveal personal exchanges between Srila Prabhupada and his women disciples. 8. To detail life-transforming experiences that occurred as a result of interactions between Srila Prabhupada and his women disciples. 9. To show that Srila Prabhupada transcended the constraints of physical age, time, place, and mundane social customs. 10. To show that Srila Prabhupada had equal love and affection for both his male and female disciples and that he respected and gave credit to women. This book is an important, collaborative effort from all of Srila Prabhupada's women disciples. Through its pages we will be united with godsisters throughout the world and will grow even closer to our dearest beloved Srila Prabhupada.
Please participate by contributing your remembrances. This is our opportunity to be heard. Kindly take it!
As a kid I used to enjoy joining up dots and creating pictures. Today I am doing the same thing with our philosophy and still getting much enjoyment. The dots are intriguing points of gaudiya vaisnava philosophy, such as the only truly free thing we can do is to surrender to the will of God. This point and others, such as that we are inconceivably one with and different from God, can be found dotted throughout various literatures on the subject of the absolute truth and of its manifestations of divine love as we experience it at ground zero. It is a truly wonderful experience to break out of the sectarian stranglehold of reading only "our" books and discover that God can speak through anyone, and His voice is always sweet both to the mind and the heart. It joins the dots given in the vedas so that one can see how they fit wholly the picture we call reality. I am in particular gratitude to Mr Gerald May, whose book Will and Spirit is laced with the joy of finding the Lord yet again in an unexpected place. "The true self, whatever its nature, seems to lie beyond, behind, around, or in some other relation to the qualities of self-image, in a different dimension of consideration. We reveal this assumption in speaking of my body, my will, my desire, as if the true "I' possesses these attributes. This of course becomes most paradoxical when we think of my self. This statement, without our knowing it, underscores the mystery of who we are..." This of course is the opening point of many of our lectures on self-realization, and it could easily have been written by a devotee in our line, yet the author is May. After thus laying waste to our assumed sense of identity, he proceeds, in this book, to make an examination of the anatomy of spiritual ecstasy and its ramifications for the soul, undesirable ramifications that we may call "anarthas". That spiritual bliss could cause anarthas to arise reminds us of Visvanatha Chakravarti's warning that "anarthas arise from bhakti herself". How bhakti, or spiritual love of God can give rise to anarthas, is certainly bewildering to us, so how could a so-called karmi, or a devotee outside our line, shed any light at all on the matter? As soon as we think in such terms of owning or having a monopoly on spiritual truth, the Lord who is Its embodiment, escapes from our sight, as purported by the story of Radharani being left by Krishna, only because she started to think that she was somehow special, or specially favoured by the Lord. Thus this pastime is an example of anarthas caused by bhakti. Not that Radharani really had a problem with feeling special or favoured- the Lord covers His devotees to teach us lessons. It is we who have a problem with it. What is the origin of such feelings and how to overcome them? May describes the ongoing struggle between the self which longs for loving union with God, and the ego or sense of separate self-image, a struggle that goes on even though such loving union brings one ecstasy, or even because it brings ecstasy: "As soon as one becomes aware of some spiritual growth, one also becomes vulnerable to spiritual narcissism. Simply stated, spiritual narcissism is the unconscious use of spiritual practice, experience and insight to increase rather than decrease self-importance. It is a subtle turnabout in which ego manages to identify self-image with "trying to become holy" or -worse yet- with actually having become holy, thus making the spiritual quest a self-aggrandizing process rather than a journey of deepening humility" May makes liberal use of the word "ego" and how it offers constant opposition to the nature of unconditional love. It is clear however by "ego" he is referring not to our true identity or who we really are, but the image we have of ourselves, which we call the "false ego". He makes this clear in this passage on what is idolatrous: "All of us are to some extent idolatrous. If we are relatively free from mistaking image from reality in other areas, we at least idolize our self-images. When I speak of myself, I am almost always referring to the image I have of myself, and I habitually assume that I am talking about something solid and objectifiable. I forget that my true "self" is mystery born of mystery. This happens simply because it is more comfortable to forget than to remember. It feels safer, more secure, and certainly more entertaining to assume that my image of me is really me, because then I can glory in "my" triumphs and wallow in "my" miseries...throughout this colourful arena of heroic and tragic self-entertainment, the mysterious reality of who I really am is studiously ignored. It would require too much sacrifice, humility and willingness to admit that in thinking "myself" I am referring to nothing other than "this symbol I have of myself" Clearly, there is a difference between parrotting "aham brahmasmi" and actually experiencing it! Even if we theoretically acknowledge the existence of false ego, and do the motions of full surrender, we can get caught up into thinking ourselves the "doer" in relation to grand preaching successes or subtle successes like triumphing over sex desire. We may even memorize slokas which state that Krsna is the ability in man, that Krsna acts through us, that not a blade moves without His hand, and so on. Preaching it is one thing; believing it another; living it is a totally different ball game. What can be done to actually live it? Actually we all without exception live it at some time or another. Everyone at some time has had an encounter with God, some time when one feels His guidance or protection or love, some time when self-image falls away and one sees no difference between oneself, others and the universe. This is common to all human beings regardless of race, creed, age or personality type. It is an experience that is had by both the materialist, the seeker, the faithful and the non-believer; its just that we all deal with it differently. Many people repress such experiences and need outside promptings to even recall them; others who may be already spiritually inclined may start to feel themselves special or "blessed" or "advanced". Both are wrong responses in that they interrupt one's audience with God, being manifestations of the false ego whose business is self-definition, self-image, separateness. The modus operandi of the false ego is what May calls "willfullness", with "willingness" being its opposite and ultimate threat. May explains the subtle differences between these two essential attitudes thus: "Willingness and willfullness cannot be explained in a few words for they are very subtle qualities, often overlapping and very easily confused with each other ("the weed may look exactly like the creeper") But we can begin by saying that willingness implies a surrender of one's self-separateness, an entering-into, an immersion in the deepest processes of life itself. It is a realization that one is already a part of some ultimate cosmic process and it is a commitment to participation in that process. In contrast, willfullness is the setting of oneself apart from the fundamental essence of life in an attempt to master, direct, control or otherwise manipulate existence" One is reminded of Prabhupada's Prayer: "Oh Lord, I am merely a puppet in Your hands, and if You want me to dance, then, oh Lord, let me dance..." Feeling oneself to be an instrument of divine love and compassion which are sourced in God, or feeling oneself to loving and compassionate is the subtle difference between bhakti and anartha. Thus May is very good at giving gardening tips to the discerning cultivator of bhakti lata. Still, how to really feel oneself as an instrument, a conduit or a branch instead of a surgeon, electrical current or a tree? Hugely helpful, I find personally, is May's own testimony, given from his own raw data from countless interviews, that everyone has at some time or another had an encounter, or many encounters with God, that we are less searching for God than God is searching for us, and does find us in those moments when our defenses slip, and in those times we are helplessly overwhelmed by His love and beauty. If everyone has had those experiences, then His love is all around us, then I am not unique or saved or whatever. That it comes to even one who does not seek it, or tries to forget it, means that it is truly unconditional. Making myself holy does not guarantee His favour, nor does "falling down" disqualify me. The fallen, the righteous, the faithful and the atheists- all have at one time or another, whether they know it as such or not, have had experience of God's love. It is difficult to find such universality and unconditionality in love between human beings , there are always some conditions which cause love to disappear or even turn into anger or hatred. The reason given by May, is that human beings, by nature, are not sources of unconditional love, by nature, we sometimes feel love and sometimes not. However, being of the nature of spirit, it is spiritual or unconditonal love which we hunger for, and when we look to find it in a human being, we are certain to be disappointed and our need causes us to resent the deficiencies in the other, and an extreme need may cause us to hate. This is not to say that there is no value or meaning to interpersonal relationships, but it is simply to say that they do not satisfy our deepest spiritual yearning. They are not a one-stop-shop for the soul. May proposes that all love is sourced in God, and that some is expressed, be it deficiently, through human channels. Thus, it often happens that a person begins a loving activity from a genuine feeling of love and compassion, and later on it becomes a necessary ritual, something that is part of one's self-image, and then even the most charitable work becomes devoid of feeling. This can even happen in relation to parenthood, as even the most dutiful parent does not always feel love for their children. There may be times when they wish they had never chosen parenthood. Then they start to think that there is something wrong, experiencing terrible guilt about not feeing love all the time. They maybe deeply shocked and disappointed that at times they do not feel love even for their children or spouse, what to speak of ones neighbour. One is simply misidentifying one's self or one's role as unconditionally loving. Expecting oneself to be so causes unneccessary guilt, and expecting others to be so, causes unnecessary resentment. Realizing however, the source of universal love to be God, and that it freely flows to every atom of the creation, one can be at peace with oneself and the world, and on a spiritual level it is a crucial step in overcoming anarthas that arise from bhakti herself, or rather from false ego using the experience of bhakti to reinforce its sense of separateness and self-importance. There is more to it than that, like exactly how - and why- the false ego functions in this way, to separate us from the world...Achieving separateness is a necessary part of growth, as one learns first to become separate and independent of one's parents and later when one is fully mature one can then develop a relationship with them of what may ideally approach unconditional love, where there is nothing material we expect or need back from them. And so it is with our relationship with God, with the essential difference being that God is actually doing everything at every step of our development. It is only under the influence of false ego we think ourselves the doer, and see our future as laying in our own hands, and thus we exert our will and desire for survival. Then when we do approach God, we do so in neediness for His presence that is devoid of the necessity to survive, for that would degrade the relationship into beggar and charity-giver. The illusion that we can supply our own necessities for life frees up the relationship so that it is only a necessity of the heart, only in and of love.
This can be seen in the residents of Vrindavan, who under the influence of Yogamaya,
think that they have to rise early, milk the cows, sell the products and so on, and who
do so diligently, and who therefore look to Krishna not to perform these things for them
but simply to exchange loving feelings and nothing else.
|
|