Recently there was a tragic incident of gang rape in Delhi in which the victim was killed. This crime caught the attention of the entire nation. Since then much has been written about the safety, freedom and protection of women in India. In this article, I contrast the status of women in the Vedic period in India with their status in today’s modern times.

In Vedic times, more importance was given to the protection of women than to their freedom. Freedom existed mainly within the folds of dharma, and the autonomy of women was dependent on their status, class and education.

Indian scriptures laid down many rules to protect women. A famous verse of Manu Smrti (9.3) advises that a woman should not be given independence, but should be protected in her youth by her father, later by her husband, and in old age by her son. This verse has been the object of discussion and criticism by feminists. Usually it is seen as an injunction for men to oppress women. However, when seen in its proper context, it’s clear that the intention of Manu is not to oppress women, but to protect them.

Today the concept of protecting women has often been misunderstood. Women’s rights movements all over the world strive for women’s independence. Consequently, they interpret any form of restriction on women’s activities as ways to curb their freedom.

However, where Vedic injunctions appear to restrict women or make separate arrangements for them, it is not to discriminate against them, but to protect them from exploitation and to ensure their rights. In fact, the Vedic injunctions provided protection to everyone who needed it: women, children, the aged and even the cows, as everyone is subject to exploitation, albeit in different ways. The verse of Manu (9.3) is often misread to mean that women should not be given independence. But, when translated properly, it means that women are unable to protect themselves if left independent. If we see the number of women who are molested and exploited all over the world, we may appreciate Manu’s wisdom.

For Ladies Only

Rules and arrangements to protect women are made in present times also. Most of the trains in India have a Ladies Compartment reserved exclusively for women which allows them to travel comfortably without the risk of being hassled by men. In Delhi, metro trains have separate women’s compartments with guards to prevent men from entering, and there are special public buses for women only. The Delhi government is also protecting female employees by requiring employers to provide either dormitory facilities or transport home when they work after 7pm. Such measures are intended to provide protection for women, although they can also be seen as restricting their freedom.

In New York City, as early as the beginning of the 20th century, it was not acceptable for single women to rent an apartment on their own. There were, however, several residences for women in different areas of the city, including the famous Webster Apartments. Even today, the Webster Apartments serve as an oasis for women in midtown Manhattan, by providing safe and comfortable housing to women from all over the world who work, study or intern there.

The purpose behind these provisions in modern society and in Manu’s texts is the same: to protect women.  It is not to restrict their freedom.

Contextual Rules

Smṛti texts are written for a specific period in time and a particular public. If Manu had lived today, he would surely have made different rules. Seeing the Indian girls of today who have exchanged their saris for jeans and T-shirts and who race by on their motorbikes with their hair freely blowing in the wind, one may wonder how Manu would write the Manu-Smṛti today. His concern would still be the protection of women, because he knew its importance for the stability and peace of society.

By taking on today’s gender-free fashion from the West and with it the new-found “freedom” it symbolizes, the feminine characteristics of India’s women are bound to change  more and more. Many are out to prove their value outside the home by doing better than men, and many are succeeding. Moreover, they are challenging what for generations has been accepted as male behavior. Women, in India and all over the world, are increasingly discovering their new identity and its power, and are reveling in it. These assured women know what they want and feel that achieving this success will free them from their dependence on men.

But what does “women’s freedom” actually mean? Are women really independent? By gaining the freedom to compete equally with men, do women no longer need protection? Or does that independence mean that women accept the responsibility for their own safety? Seeing the world-wide rate of increasing violence against women, one wonders if it is actually possible that women’s freedom and protection co-exist.

The Concept of Freedom

The divergence between freedom and protection makes us question whether the modern women of today actually have more freedom than their ancient sisters. Freedom is a relative concept. The freedom to choose a life-partner had a different meaning back then. For women like Draupadī, who chose her husbands at a svayamvara, freedom of choice was based on dharma, on higher principles of life. Today, however, most choices are influenced by superficial factors, such as what or who gives the most pleasure. Consequently, what we consider to be our choices about what is best for our lives, is ultimately determined more by what we enjoy or not enjoy than by our intelligence. The result of this is evidenced by the short-term and often unfulfilling relationships in today’s societies.

This raises further questions. Has woman’s freedom created its own predicaments? Are women trapped by the consequences of their own freedom? Has this freedom set women free or created yet another bondag in the form of a more hidden expedient? Is it actually possible for women to be free when they are living within an environment of fear and exploitation?

Freedom entails both great responsibility as well as the possibility of unrestrained licentiousness. To use freedom for self-indulgence without any kind of boundary or self-moderation is the freedom of self-destruction. Taking this into consideration, it would be better to restate these questions:  “How well does the present day freedom serve the genuine and essential worth of the feminine?” Today, women have the freedom to choose different partners and divorce at will, but does that give them happiness? Does it give them love? What is the use of freedom without love?

Comparing the lives of women of the past and today, we can see how ultimately their bondage has only changed its appearance. Traditional women were bound by hundreds of rules and regulations, while today women are bound by the consequences of their freedom, their manifold desires to do whatever they want to or be whoever they want.

The Price of Freedom

Degradation of women is the price they pay for their freedom. This freedom may create the impression that these women are sexually available, and it teaches men to see and treat women as ephemeral play objects only.

Despite the freedom that some women claim is their right, we cannot deny the concomitant and increasing misogynistic trend of today. The degradation of women has become so acceptable that it now continues unabated without question or protest. All the different modes of communication have become portals to the most explicit pornography that maligns women as sex objects. A new breed of coarse men is no longer able to recognize or appreciate the finer qualities in the character of women. Such men have made themselves incapable of benefiting from the special quality of women that the Vedic texts recognized and honored, to restore and uphold masculine self-esteem.

Woman, the First Guru

Vedic culture was well aware of how the power of feminine purity enhances and influences masculine self-esteem. For example, freedom fighter Swami Shraddhananda (1856–1926) once told how his mother’s tolerance and self-sacrifice changed her drunkard husband.

Swami Shraddhananda‘s father, Lala Nanak Chand, was a police officer in Kanpur. His wife, Shiv Devi, being very devoted to her husband, observed the rule not to eat before everyone else in the family had eaten. One time, Lala Nanak attended a party and became so drunk that he could hardly walk. When he arrived home, he vomited and lost consciousness.

His wife gave him yoghurt and lemon water, bathed him, changed his clothes, fanned him and gave him a head massage. Finally, in the early morning, he awoke and realized the good care he was receiving from his wife.  When he asked her if she had eaten, the wife shook her head and said, “I have never eaten before you finish your meal.” In that moment, her husband realised his mistake and stopped drinking for good.

Such examples are no exception in India. The wife would not eat until her husband came home. She would wait for him, serve him affectionately and only then have something to eat herself.

Such real life stories demonstrate why more importance was given to the character and integrity of women than of men. A woman’s personality influences both her husband and children. Everyone comes to this world through a woman and is then brought up by her. Vedic culture therefore proclaimed women to be the first gurus and honored the position of women and motherhood as the foundation of society. Keeping this fact in mind, Manu, the first law-giver for Hindus, was very much concerned with protecting women from degradation at the hands of men. So, what may not be appreciated now by modern women, actually has a deep wisdom within.

Purva raga / Vrindavan Arts

Answer:  Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur himself writes in the commentary to this verse that the ‘follower’ gopis are lesser than those they follow; and without following there is no raganuga bhakti. This is one consideration. The other consideration is that the parama-preshta sakhis are the kaya-vyuhas of Srimati Radhika. Sri Radhika expands to give pleasure to Sri Rasaraja in different moods. Thus they are supreme. No one can take their place. They are followed priya-sakhis which make the latter also supreme.

I think when it is said that ‘manjari-bhava is the fullest measure of unnatojjvala rasa’ it means that this is the highest a jiva can attain, not that it is highest in the absolute sense. Highest manifestation of this rasa is in Sri Radhika. No one would argue against that. Next come the parama-presthas who are expansions of Sri Radhika, and then their followers, the priya-sakhis.

There are different aspects to compare. A manjari is on top of the plant, so it is the highest. But it cannot subsist without the branch below it, and in that aspect, the branch is superior, being the support of the manjari above it.

Manjari is a ‘follower’ category, while parama-prestha is a ‘followed’ category.  Therefore the latter is superior. This is my understanding of Sri VCT’s comment. Others may have a different understanding from a different aspect of comparison.

Question: One of the reasons I raised this question was because someone has written a book stressing on the basis of this commentary that by following the parama-prestha-sakhi one can attain the status of a priya-sakhi. Whereas by following a prana-sakhi one can attain the status of a nitya-sakhi. Thus both are points of entry into tad-bhavechamayi madhurya rasa and both are followers, but the priya-sakhi has more prema in following the parama-prestha-sakhi than the nitya-sakhi has in following the prana-sakhi. If this is accurate, it takes away from some of the reasoning in your reply, while going against hundreds of years of tradition it seems.

Answer: The fact is that people write books on these topics without having a clear concept themselves. It is not a matter of reading books and commentaries by oneself. Books are an aid in studying under a qualified teacher. Recently an e-book was also sent to me. The author has worked diligently with profuse quotes from scriptures. But unfortunately it is full of misconceptions which are being supported by quotes and are meant to remove misconceptions.

I was asked to give my comments but frankly i do not want to be part of any controversy. I respect all Vaishnavas. Now the book is written and is available openly. What is the point in pointing out mistakes now?

I see three common problems at present.

1. Anyone can write books, no one bothers if one is qualified or not. Such was not the case in the past.
   2. Hardly anyone who writes has studied properly under a living qualified teacher.
   3. There is no one to check whether a book should be published or not. In the past there used to be pandit samaj to approve.

These are the problem of the modern age. It is for this reason that in the past in India books were not easily available and knowledge was not given openly lest unqualified people make mess out of it. Now that is gone. Everything is available on the net.

Coming to your specific question. The flaw with this argument is that the author assumes that it is up to the sadhaka to choose whom to follow. Just because something is written in Ujjvala Nilamani or Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu or Caitanya Caritamrita does not mean that it is the recommendation of the author. To make this more clear: There are various types of statements in shastra i.e. descriptive, injunctive etc. Descriptive statements are not recommendations to follow. For example, there are statements such as if you chant the name of the Lord jokingly, indicatively, as a refrain, or even with disrespect, you become free of all sins. (SB 6.2.14). This is not a recommendation to chant like this but a description of the power of the name. But someone can take this statement as authority and chant in the described way and also recommend so to others. In fact this goes on. Similarly there are statements about dying in Vrindavana.

So we have to see what is recommended by Mahaprabhu, and Gosvamis. Do they recommend following paramaprestha-sakhis or this sakhi or sakha? The author himself writes that Rupa, Visvanatha, Gopal Guru, Dhyanacandra, Bhaktivinoda etc are all Manjaris. Even Advaita Acharya and Nityananda are Manjaris, as per their followers, yet [he says that] UN etc recommend to follow parama-prestha sakhis. It means that author is smarter than every one else who preceded him up to Rupa Gosvami. This is a new discovery. A new siddhanta appears.

People are making siddhantas not even reading the books in their original language. Simply based on translations. These books are difficult to understand even when you study them in original under a teacher. What to speak of doing self-study using translations which may be even faulty. We understand according to our samskaras. Bhakti is not in our samskaras, otherwise we would not be here. That is why Krishna recommends, pranipata, pariprasna, and seva to know the truth (Gita 4.34) The meaning of this is to surrender mind, body, speech and ego, which means dump one’s samskaras and just listen. It is to be checked if the particular author has gone thru this process.

I do not argue against anyone because it is none of my business who believes in what. It is not my capacity to correct anyone, and why should I expect anyone to take my answer. I write this because you have raised the question and I needed to go the root cause of the misconception.

This is the age of “How To-Do-It Yourself”. The traditional style of education is out of fashion now. No one can put the humpty dumpty back on the wall. So I am working on a book “How to Understand Sastra”. This book will give some basic principles which will assist a self-reader in knowing the meaning of shastra.

Answer: Varnashrama in its original form is not being followed even in India. I agree with that. But I do not agree that the basic principle behind varnashrama is not relevant in modern society. The varna is based on the principle that everybody is born with some nature/aptitude and it is most natural for a person to train oneself according to one’s nature and work in that field.

I do not see anything wrong with that but only merit. Please let me know what your objection is to that.

The ashrama system was to train and facilitate one to work according to one’s nature.

If your aptitude is in business better you learn business and be a businessman than do something else and feel dissatisfied e.g. become a medical doctor and make a business of patients.

You will always feel dissatisfied working in a field which is not in line with your nature. This is one of the ills of modern society. In USA there is a saying TGIF – Thank God it is Friday, because people are bored with their work. But if work suits your nature, you will thank god every day, because you love to do your duty.

People will always have different natures/aptitudes. At present there is neither a way to recognize it, nor a way to maintain/ improve it. We worry about pedigree of dogs and horses but not about human beings. So there is chaos and confusion in the mind of people. I wrote genes just as a way to figure out nature, if at all possible. It is just a suggestion. I do not know what your objection is to that. When people are sick they undergo tests such as blood test. Why do you have no objection to that?

As far as Mahaprabhu rejecting varnashrama, that has not been understood properly. He is stressing the importance of bhakti over varnashrama. The real purpose of varnashrama was to facilitate bhakti. There is no point in following varnashrama without bhakti for which it is meant, that will be like driving nicely on a highway by following all traffic rules but not having any destination to reach.

Mahaprabhu was a sannyasi and remained so. Sannyasa, I believe, is part of varnashrama. He followed it very strictly and so did his followers. Why did he reject Chota Haridasa if He was not following varnashrama? Why did he not visit his birthplace after taking sannyasa?

Answer: There is no difference in the mechanism of experience of happiness or misery of a devotee or non-devotee. A devotee, like a non-devotee, also experiences through his/her senses. Both have five external senses and mind. The difference lies in the reaction of one’s experience. A devotee sees everything as grace of Lord, an opportunity to learn, advance and become stronger. He/she may see it as an act of purification. He/she will stay composed and fixed in his/her service. You can read the stories of the Pandavas or some contemporary devotees to see how a devotee takes his happy and miserable situations.

Question: If nitya-siddha devotees who appear in this material world according to the Lord’s will don’t have any sense of material duality because they are always absorbed in the Lord’s ananda, how could they know about the jiva’s miseries (and help them to get liberated) if they are not even aware or haven’t experienced the existence of such miseries?

Answer: If they have not experience material suffering themselves ever, then it is not possible for them to empathize with other’s suffering.

Nitya-siddhas like the Pandavas are a part of Lord’s lila. They are not under the influence of maya but seem to appear like that. Even Krishna most of the time appeared as if He was under the control of maya but He also showed that He was not.

Answer: Offenses are the activities which are against devotion. We have a list of them. It is important to avoid them because they are detrimental to one’s progress in devotion.

Question: Do the offences only affect the devotees or also non-devotees?

Answer: Both devotees as well as non-devotees.

Question: If non-devotees are also affected, how could this happen if they are not even aware of such offense?

Answer:  Even an ignorant person can commit a crime. Is it necessary to know that stealing is crime before one steals? If you have pain in your back and somebody pushes you, will you not feel pain and be upset with this person regardless of whether the person knows or does not know that you have pain or not, regardless of whether the person knows or does not know that pushing you will make you feel pain. Just as a non-devotee can benefit by chanting he can also commit offense and suffer.

Question: If we are making them aware of such offenses, is that considered an offence on our part because they have no faith in what we are saying?

Answer: If by making them aware you make them upset with bhakti or God or the Name then you are committing an offense. If they become careful and attentive and avoid offenses then you are doing welfare. So it depends how the person you educate reacts to you sermon.

Question: One of the offenses is to consider pious activities such as observing religious principles, fasting, renunciation and fire sacrifice to be equal to the chanting of the Holy Name of the Lord. Does this mean that we cannot replace such religious activities with the chanting of the Holy Name and vice versa?

Answer:  Yes, that is what this offence means. Considering the name of Lord equal to such activities or replacing such activities with name or vice versa is offensive.

Answer: They did not evolve from one another but independently. Of course, during their evolution each system influences the others. In India there is a system of purvapaksha or refuting the opponent’s view. Usually every system will refute the principle of other systems which is not acceptable to their own systems. Then there is counter refutation and couter-counter-refutation. This is how schools evolve or grow. In other words, there was always a dialogue among them.

Question:  The Vedas are eternal, so are the six darshans eternal as well?

Answer: The seeds of all schools can be traced back to the Vedas. In that sense they are eternal. But each school has been systematized by a particular sage. In that respect they are not eternal.

Question:  Sankhya accepts two tatttvas: prakriti and purusha. Does this philosophy accept or deny Isvara?

Answer: The classical Sankhya of Isvara Krsna neither accepts nor denies Isvara. But Sankhaya of Bhagavata Purana accepts Isvara.

Question:  What is the freedom, according to Sankhya, that the purusha achieves by understanding that it is distinct from matter?

Answer: From Classical Sankhya point of view, it becomes free of material conditioning. It has no other freedom in the liberated state. It becomes free from suffering, but remains inactive. Classical Sankhya accepts purusha as conscious but inactive, and prakriti as inert but full of action. They support it from Gita verse 13.20 (13.21 in the ISKCON version).

Question: Is Sankya similiar to Buddhism?

Answer: No, Sankhya is very much different from Buddhism. In Buddhism there is no purusha, no prakriti. Buddhism does not accept world as real. It is idealism. But Sankhya accepts the world as real. Sankhya also accepts the principle of satkarya-vada, i.e. the effect exists in cause. There is hardly any similarity between Sankhya and Buddhism. Sankhya accepts shabda pramana, Buddhism does not.

Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself has explained how a mortal being can attain Him (SB 11.29.34):

 martyo yadā tyakta-samasta-karmā

   niveditātmā vicikīrṣito me

tadāmṛtatvaṁ pratipadyamāno

   mayātma-bhūyāya ca kalpate vai

“When a mortal being has renounced all material activities and is totally surrendered to Me, then by My desire he is granted immortality and becomes situated in the self.”

The meaning of this verse is: Taking initiation from a qualified guru, a mortal being gives up all material activities (renounces all desire that can be fulfilled through varṇāśrama-dharma) and surrenders the ātmā (the sense of “I, me, mine”) to Me (represented by the guru).

An example of surrendering the ātmā: “O Lord, whatever I am and whatever I possess, here in this world and after death, I offer at Your feet.”

Creation of a Transcendental Body 

When a person surrenders in this way, then although his mind, body, and senses are mithyā – illusory – I desire to make him special (vicikīrṣita). Thus, as I have said (SB 11.25.26), one who takes shelter of Me becomes nirguṇa. This is how My devotee becomes free from the guṇas of material nature. He is not perishable as a product of māyā (Pariṇāma-vāda), nor is he illusory as an outcome of ignorance (Vivarta-vāda). Being a product of My own special attention, he becomes situated in his svarūpa – his own nature.

Moreover, instead of saying that he is “made special,” the word used in the above verse is vicikirsita, which is formed by applying the desiderative suffix –san on the root kr (to do),  the implication of which is as follows: When the Lord begins to make him nirguṇa, then slowly by the practice of bhakti he attains the stages of niṣṭhā, ruci, asakti and rati, and thus becomes completely nirguṇa. After that he has no dealings with any illusory objects. But before he attains this stage, he continues to deal with the material objects as needed by him in the service of the Lord.

The verse therefore indicates: “Already at the time of initiation, by My trans-logical power, I invisibly create the transcendental body, mind and senses of such a person, to demonstrate the greatness of devotion.”

Material Nature Dissolved through Devotion

In SB 5.1.35 also, Śukadeva Gosvami explains that the mind, body, senses of a devotee are not only freed from material bondage, but literally destroyed, yet the body remains visible. He refers to the wonderful act of King Priyavrata who once followed the sun in his chariot, so that there would always be light, and thus created seven oceans:

naivaṁ-vidhaḥ puruṣa-kāra urukramasya

   puṁsāṁ tad-aṅghri-rajasā jita-ṣaḍ-guṇānām

citraṁ vidūra-vigataḥ sakṛd ādadīta

   yan-nāmadheyam adhunā sa jahāti bandham

“Indeed such an achievement is not wonderful for those who have controlled the six enemies by the power of the dust of the feet of Lord Urukrama (Kṛṣṇa), who performs wonderful deeds. But what is wonderful indeed is that a person born as an outcast, e.g. not qualified for any Vedic rituals, becomes free from the material body immediately, just by chanting the name of the Lord once.”

The meaning of the verse is as follows:

Even a deed like creating seven oceans, as King Priyavrata had done, does not seem wonderful in comparison to the effect of bhakti: That even a vidūra-vigataḥ – the lowest born person – by chanting the name of Lord Urukrama even once, immediately at that very moment (adhunā), becomes free from the material body, (tanvam). Although his body remains visible, it is no longer material. The material body which was produced by prārabdha karma has fallen away.

This taken together with the previously cited SB 11.29.34, indicates: At that very moment (tadā), becoming freed from mortality (amṛtatvam) – acquiring a spiritual body, he or she becomes situated with Me (māyā, atma-bhavaya).

This means that wherever Krishna is situated, the devotee is also situated there, for the sole purpose of serving Krishna. In this way, whatever material objects he comes into contact with in this world, their material nature is dissolved by the Supreme Lord because of their contact with devotion. At that very moment, He creates supremely real objects according to the desire of His devotee. What is impossible for the Lord who has trans-logical powers?

Therefore, the statements of Kṛṣṇa, cited earlier, such as “My devotion is nirguṇa” and “My temple is nirguṇa,” are very appropriate.

The following verse from the Udyama Parva of Mahābhārata has been cited even by Bhāṣyakāra (Śaṅkarācārya), who believes that the world is not real, God is not real and śāstra is not real:

 acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā

na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet.

“One should not apply logic to trans-logical objects.”

In this context, we can also refer to the following verse of Sanātana Gosvāmī (from Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmritam, 1.3.61):

kṛṣṇa-bhakti-sudhā-pānād

deha-daihika-vismṛteḥ

teṣāṁ bhautika-dehe ’pi

sac-cid-ānanda-rūpatā

“After drinking the nectar of devotion to Kṛṣṇa, devotees forget about their material bodies and all things related to them. Even in their material bodies, the transcendental qualities of eternity, knowledge and bliss become manifest.”

Similarly, in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya 4.191 – 93, Lord Caitanya says:

prabhu kahe,—“vaiṣṇava-deha ‘prākṛta’ kabhu naya

’aprākṛta’ deha bhaktera ‘cid-ānanda-māyā’

The Lord said, “The body of a Vaiṣṇava is never material. His body is transcendental, made of cit and ānanda. When a person surrenders himself at the time of dikśa, at that very moment, Kṛṣṇa makes him just like Himself.”

Bhagavān, or the supreme personal manifestation of the Absolute Reality, is the worshipable object of the devotees. He has the other two aspects (Brahman and Paramātmā) within Himself. Bharata says that learned scholar address Bhagavān as Vāsudeva – “son of Vasudeva,” i.e. Kṛṣṇa.

Śāstric Evidence about Kṛṣṇa

Next, Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura cites several scriptural evidences from Bhagavat Purāṇa to substantiate Bharata’s claim that Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa is Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān simultaneously:

•   In his prayers to Kṛṣṇa, as part of brahma-mohan-līlā, Lord Brahmā says that Kṛṣṇa is the eternal, complete Brahman (SB 10.14.32).

•   In the story of the killing of Pūtanā, Śrī Śukadeva refers to Kṛṣṇa as Paramātmā (SB 10.6.36).

•   While relating the childhood activities of Kṛṣṇa, Śrī Śukadeva calls Kṛṣṇa Bhagavān (SB 10.8.27).

•   In Bhagavad Gītā (14.27), Kṛṣṇa says that He is the support of Brahman.

•   Similarly, in the concluding part of His vibhūti or opulence, He says that He has entered the universe by one part of His, which means the Paramātmā feature (Gītā 10.42).

•   Similarly, while describing His opulence to Uddhava in Bhagavat Purāṇa, He says that among the various form of Bhagavān, He is Vāsudeva (SB 11.16.21).

From these statements it is clear that Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, has all three aspects of Reality, i.e. Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān and is thus the most complete manifestation of the Absolute Reality.

The word bhaga as part of the term Bhagavān means aiśvarya - the controlling potency. It implies that there must be something to control, which encompasses the material as well as the spiritual world. The material world is a manifestation of māyā and according to the previous instruction of Bharata to Rahūgaṇa, it is mithyā (not eternally existent). Therefore, the real objects of Bhagavān’s control are the devotees living in His abode, which is an eternal place.

Transcendent and Mundane Activity

Next, Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura explains Jaḍa Bharata’s full message. He describes Bharata as saying, “O King, although you can directly perceive your worldly activities, they are all illusions – coming in and out of existence. They are perishable, limited by time and space.

“This implies that there is another type of activity of an altogether different class, beyond the guṇas and thus not bound by time and space. These are activities related to the Supremely Conscious Being and His devotees. I am trying to inform you about this, but being influenced by ignorance you have been unable to grasp it.

“Some scholars [Advaita-vādīs] call the world and all its activities mithyā – illusory. Giving this same philosophy I have called the world illusory, although in my opinion it is not exactly so. I call it illusory to help you become detached from your material experience and give you a glimpse of the Absolute Reality, in which I am situated.

“You think that I belong to the worldly illusion, but I do not. Therefore your logic does not comprehend me. You called me “fat”, “tired” and a “carrier of your palanquin” – but I told you I am not fat, nor am I tired, nor am I the carrier of your palanquin. I am not a part of these illusions because I do not identify with the material body and I am constantly situated in devotion to Kṛṣṇa. Even the Advaita-vādīs will not disagree with me on this.”

Two Opposing Schools of Thought

Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura describes that the King raises a doubt upon hearing this. He asks, “Bhakti is defined as the function of body, senses and mind only for the sake of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Yet, Lord Kapila states (in SB 3.29.12) that bhakti is nirguṇa – beyond matter.

“Some people (Śakti Pariṇāma-vādīs) say that the material world is a real transformation of the Lord’s external energy: that the effect retains the nature of the cause. If this is the case, I can see how it is possible for matter to become spiritualized by the power of bhakti – so I can understand how the activities of body, senses and mind of a devotee can be become spiritualized just as a touchstone can turn iron into gold.

“However another school of thought (Vivarta-vāda a.k.a. Advaita-vāda) says that the material world is only an illusion of reality: that the effect of the cause does not retain its qualities – and thus Reality can produce something wholly illusory. If this school of thought is adopted, bhakti must also be an illusion – since it is an activity done with the unreal body, mind and senses. It cannot be nirguṇa, as Lord Kapila claims. It does not even exist. If it does not exist, it cannot be given by the guru at the time of dikṣa (initiation); its sādhana is as meaningless and unreal as sowing a seed in the sky; Kṛṣṇa bhakti, its practice, and its perfection – love which can even control Bhagavān – must all be illusory.”

Jaḍa Bharata responds (from the Pariṇāma-vāda point of view, which is accepted by Bhagavat Purāṇa):

What you say is true, but nothing is impossible for Bhagavān who has trans-logical supreme power. Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself says (SB 11.29.22):

eṣā buddhimatāṁ buddhir

   manīṣā ca manīṣiṇām

yat satyam anṛteneha

   martyenāpnoti māmṛtam

“This is the wisdom of the wise, and cleverness of the clever: one can use the illusory, temporary body to attain Me, who am real and immortal.”

The meaning of this verse is: By that (yat) which is not real (anṛtena) – the mortal body (martyena) – one attains Me (mām), who is real (ṛtam).

The full sense of the verse is: Even by a false (anṛta) [because of being temporary] mortal body (martyena), one can attain Me, the Absolute Truth (ṛtam), who has a supremely blissful nature (satyam). Thus one can use the mortal material body to express devotion to Krishna by offering a leaf, flower, fragrance, incense, lamps, etc. This is the wisdom of the wise and the realization of those who are expert in deliberation.

(to be continued)

The 5th Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (also called Bhagavat Purāṇa ) contains a description of a meeting between the great sage Jaḍa Bharata and King Rahūgaṇa.

One day, King Rahūgaṇa went to see Sage Kapila to take spiritual instructions from him. It was customary at that time for kings to travel on chariots or elephants with many servants in tow. However, as the King was going to visit a sage, he decided to travel by palanquin without the normal fanfare.

While travelling, one of the King’s carriers became ill with fever. The remaining carriers began searching for a replacement and happened to see Jaḍa Bharata who looked stout and healthy. Taking him to be an ordinary man, they asked him to assist them. Jaḍa Bharata was wandering carefree and absorbed in thought of Kṛṣṇa and did not object. He joined the team, even though he could have easily refused.

While carrying the palanquin, the other carriers noticed that Jaḍa Bharata was not keeping pace with them. There were two reasons for this: First of all, he had not been trained to carry a palanquin and in fact had not received any training for anything in his life. He purposefully never did anything right in his life. This may seem strange, but Jaḍa Bharata, from his very childhood, could clearly remember his past two births as a deer and as the emperor Bharata, and so he avoided any material entanglements, for fear that such entanglements would lead him to take another birth. To protect himself, he behaved as if he were deaf, dumb and dull-headed when in fact he was a spiritually enlightened person.

Sage Jaḍa Bharata Begins his Instructions

His second reason for not walking in harmony with his co-carriers was that he did not want to step on ants or insects on the ground. Whenever he saw any living entity on the ground, he would evade trampling on them by jumping up or restricting his pace.

Jaḍa Bharata’s behavior caused much discomfort to King Rahūgaṇa who sternly warned the carriers to walk properly. This warning scared the other carriers but had no effect on Bharata. When the King realized that his warnings were in vain, he lost his temper and shouted at the carriers. Terrified, they informed him that it was the new person who was unable to walk with them and that it was impossible for them to function with him.

The King then directly ridiculed Jaḍa Bharata, with no success. Finally, the king was furious and threatened to punish him. At this last threat, Bharata, who had been quiet all the time, decided to respond to the King. Upon hearing the philosophical response, the king was unable to comprehend its meaning, but immediately understood that Bharata was no ordinary man. Thinking that he had committed a great offense by engaging such an elevated sage in carrying him, and desiring to ask for forgiveness, he jumped down from the palanquin and fell at the feet of sage Bharata, beseeching him to forgive him.

Noting the King’s response, Bharata assumed the role of a teacher and began instructing the King. Since the King had a materialistic view of the world, Bharata first had to prove to the King that the world is not real, although this was not exactly what Bharata truly believed. Bharata wanted to awaken and uplift the King’s awareness by instilling renunciation in him and making him understand the Absolute Reality.

 Description of the Ultimate Reality

 In verse 11 of the 12th chapter of the 5th Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Jaḍa Bharata describes this Ultimate Reality:

jñānaṁ viśuddhaṁ paramārtham ekam

anantaraṁ tv abahir brahma satyam

   pratyak praśāntaṁ bhagavac-chabda-saṁjñaṁ

yad vāsudevaṁ kavayo vadanti

The learned scholars say that the Absolute Truth is pure consciousness. It is the ultimate object of attainment, one without a second, devoid of any divisions of inside and outside. It is beyond the material guṇas, ever present and directly perceived. It is all-pervading and known as Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān.

Śrī Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura wrote an elaborate commentary on this verse.  What follows is a translation, with explanation blended in.

Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura begins his commentary with a question, as if posed by King Rahūgaṇa to Bharata after hearing his previous statement that the world is made of māyā and not real: “If the world is not real, then what indeed is reality?” Viśvanāth Cakravārtī Ṭhākura explains this verse in the following as if Bharata was replying to this question.

Three Names of the Absolute

Reality is known only through revealed scriptures and was described previously by Sūta Gosvāmī, in the famous “vadanti” verse (SB 1.2.11): “Knowers of Reality call it non-dual consciousness, naming it as Brahman, as Paramātmā, and as Bhagavān.” Bharata’s statement in the current verse elaborates on this.

Bharata describes Reality as “pure consciousness;” meaning that it is not touched by the guṇas of material nature. He says Reality is the supreme goal of life, which means that all other desirable objects or results including mokṣa emanate from  it. He explains the Truth to be “one.” This means that there is nothing equal to, superior to, or independent of it. Everything exists in and is supported by it. There is nothing which can be called inside or outside of it because it has no boundaries.  It is therefore all-pervading.  All-pervading implies that it not only pervades in space, but also in time. It exists everywhere at all times.

Sūta Gosvāmī’s previous statement adds that this non-dual conscious reality is known by three names: Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān. These terms are implicit in Bharata’s current statement, as well.

The word Brahman here refers to the indeterminate reality without any qualities or form. It is the goal of those who follow jñāna-marga, popularly known as Advaita-vādīs. They understand Brahman to be the Ultimate Reality. Brahman, although non-different from Bhagavān, does not manifest any qualities or form. The word “indeterminate” (nirvikalpaka) means that it is not a qualified object. All our perceptions are determinate. Whenever we perceive an object, we always perceive it with qualities, such as form and color. We have no experience of perceiving anything without qualities. Brahman realization however is devoid of any variety or qualities. Therefore it is called indeterminate. There is nothing which can be said about it. The jñānīs who have no interest in the material world and are completely detached, aim to achieve Brahman.

(to be continued)

Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis from a painting at Rupa Sanatana Memorial Tempel in Bangladesh

 Question: On your website [under Lineage], you say that “Jiva Gosvami’s uncles, Rupa and Sanatana Gosvami received diksha from Gadadhara Pandita and Jiva Gosvami followed in the line of his uncles.”  I do not see that anywhere in our Vaishnava literature. Is that in Chaitanya Charitamrta? Kindly assist me to know the correct answer as based on our shastra.

Answer:  I do not have any clear evidence from shastra on this. What I have written on the website is what I have heard from my Gurudeva, who is part of Gadadhara parivara (family) and has himself heard it in parampara. I trust his words and have no reason to think otherwise. Obviously it is not binding on others to have the same belief. Others will demand an evidence. Frankly speaking, I do not have any unambiguous, explicit evidence which will convince one without a doubt.  It is my personal conviction and I am not trying or expecting others to agree with me. But since I have put it on my website on the authority of my Gurudeva and a question is raised on it, I am obliged to give some explanation.

I will begin with an example. We Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe, have faith and trust that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is Krishna. But if a non-Gaudiya asks for evidence, it may not appear very convincing for them.  At least I am not aware of any such evidence. Obviously it would have to be acceptable to a non-Gaudiya, which means not the words of the followers of Mahaprabhu, but some shastra acceptable to both Gaudiyas as well as non-Gaudiyas, such as the Puranas. Evidences such as the Krsna-varnam verse (SB 11.5.32) are not very explicit, and have alternative interpretations by other scholars, including Sridhara Svami who is accepted as an authority even by Mahaprabhu Himself.

Nonetheless, we Gaudiyas have no doubt about Mahaprabhu being the Supreme Lord, Krishna Himself. [Just as an aside, I have collected a few explicit verses about Mahaprabhu in the Tattva Sandarbha Appendix, although these may also not be very convincing to a non-Gaudiya]

 The question about the guru of Sri Rupa and Sanatana Gosvami is similar, albeit within the Gaudiya community. Nonetheless I am giving some evidences which you may or may not accept.

 One possible evidence is Sri Gadadharastaka  in which the last line of each of the eight slokas reads – bhajami aham gadadharam supanditam gurum prabhum (I worship my guru and master Sri Gadadhara, who is greatly learned). According to my Gurudeva it is composed by Sri Rupa Gosvami. Sri Gadadharastaka is included on pages 49-51 in a book called Sri-stava kalpa-drumah (collection of verses, stotras, etc.),  compiled by Sri Bhakti-saranga Gosvami and Sri Purusottama Dasa, both disciples of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Maharaja. However, there the author’s name is mentioned as Sva-rupa Gosvami and not as Rupa Gosvami. I have no idea who Sva-rupa Gosvami is. As stated above, my Gurudeva believes it is Rupa Gosvami.

The other evidence is from a book called Sadhanadipika by Sri Radha-krsna Gosvami, a disciple of Haridasa, who is a grand-disciple of Sri Gadadhara Pandita. Sri Haridasa is mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrta in Adi-lila, Chapter twelve in the list of Sri Gadadhara Pandita Sakha and in Bhakti Ratnakara, Chapter thirteen. He was the pujari of Sri Radha Govindadeva in Vrindavan, the temple established by Rupa Gosvami.  In the mangalacaranam of this book he writes the following verse (1.3):

SrI-caitanya-priyatamaH Srimad-rAdhA-gadAdharaH

tat-parivAra-rUpasya Sri-govinda-prasevanam

tayoH sat-prema-sat-pAtram SrI-rUpaH karUNambudhiH

tat-pAda-kamala-dvandve ratir me syAd vraje sadA

 “Sri Radha-gadadhara (name used for Gadadhara Pandita) is most dear to Sri Caitanya. Sri Rupa who belongs to his (Gadadhara’s) family has [established] service to Sri Govinda. Sri Rupa Gosvami, an ocean of mercy, is a befitting recipient of the pure love of these two, i.e. Sri Caitanya and Sri Gadadhara. May I have love for the two lotus feet of that [Sri Rupa] in Vraja.”

Later on, in the same chapter, he writes that both Rupa Gosvami and Sri Sanatana Gosvami appointed devotees belonging to Gadadhara family as servitors of their respective temples as per the wish of Mahaprabhu. He further writes that Sri Rupa offered the service of Govindadeva to Haridasa Gosvami knowing him to be the svarupa of Sri Gadadhara.

Pancha-Tattva in assembly of sages

My Gurudeva’s comment on this is that Sri Rupa Gosvami did not appoint Sri Jiva Gosvami as the in-charge of Govindaji temple. Sri Jiva was definitely qualified and also belonged to the Gadadhara parivara, being the only initiated disciple of Rupa Gosvami. However, because the latter was his nephew, he appointed another person of the Gadadhara parivara, so that nobody could presume that Sri Rupa was favoring his blood relative. Sri Sanatana Gosvami did the same. He could have appointed Sri Jiva Gosvami or his own son Sri Rajendra who also lived in Vraja and is mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrita. Sri Sanatana Gosvami rather appointed Krsnadasa Brahmacari who also belonged to Gadadhara family. Both Haridasa and Krsnadasa are mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrita as part of the Gadadhara branch.

According to Sadhana-dipika, all the three main temples of Vrindavan, i.e. Govindaji, Madana-mohana and Gopinatha were served and managed by the followers of Sri Gadadhara.

There is also mention by Narottama Dasa in Prarthana, Song 10, that he also belongs to Gadadhara parivara.

dhana mora nityananda, pati mora gauracandra

prana mora yugala kiçora

advaita acarya bol, gadadhara mora kula,

narahari vilasai mora

“Nitananda is my wealth, Gauracandra is my master (husband), and the Yugala Kiçora is my very life. Advaita Acarya is my strength, Gadadhara my family and Narahari Sarakara always plays within my heart.”

Before Mahaprabhu sent Rupa and Sanatana Gosvami to Vrindavan, He had sent Sri Bhugarbha Gosvami and Sri Lokanatha Gosvami there. Bhugarbha Gosvami is mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrita as part of the Gadadhara branch. Lokanatha Gosvami is supposed to be the nephew of Bhugarbha Gosvami and in all probability was also a follower of Gadadhara Pandita.

Gadadhara Pandita reciting Bhagavata to Mahaprabhu, Nityananda Prabhu and others.

This seems to be confirmed by Narottama Dasa Thakura’s song stated above (Gadadhara mora kula – Gadadhara is my family), since Narottama was a disciple of Lokanatha Gosvami as stated in Bhakti Ratnakara, Ch. 1, verse 346 and is also understood from the song sri guru carana padama.

From Caitanya Caritamrita and Caitanya Bhagavata, it is understood that Mahaprabhu gave vigraha seva, service to the deity and also the Tota Gopinatha deity Himself, to Gadadhara Pandita. He was also given the service to recite Bhagavata Purana.  Mahaprabhu personally used to listen to it from his mouth at the bank of Narendra Sarovara in Puri.  According to the author of Sadhana-dipika it means that He authorized specifically Gadadhara Pandita to propagate vigraha seva and the teaching of Bhagavata. This implies that Mahaprabhu also authorized Gadadhara Pandita to initiate because deity worship cannot be performed without mantra diksha. Therefore, it is not surprising that the deity worship in Vrindavan was performed by the followers of Gadadhara Pandita.

In Sadhanadipaika  (Chapter 7, page 143), it is written that in Puri, Navadvipa and in Vrindavan the service to the deities and recitation of Bhagavata Purana is done by the followers of Gadadhara Pandita,  who is the main representative of the internal potency of Mahaprabhu. This was according to the desire of Mahaprabhu. This point is reiterated in other  parts of this book with references to Caitanya Caritamrita and Caitanya Bhagavata.

We furthermore know that Acyutananda, the son of Advaita Acarya, was a disciple of Gadadhara Pandita. ACBS Prabhupada write in his purport to Adi Lila, 12.17:

“From a book named Sakha-nirnayamrta it is understood that Acyutananda was a disciple of Gadadhara Pandita and that he took shelter of Lord Caitanya in Jagannatha Puri and engaged in devotional service. The Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila, Chapter Ten, states that Acyutananda, the son of Advaita Acarya, lived in Jagannatha Puri, taking shelter of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Gadadhara Pandita, in the last years of his life, also lived with Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu at Jagannatha Puri. There is no doubt, therefore, that Acyutananda was a disciple of Pandita Gadadhara.”

In Antya Lila, Chapter Seven, there is also the story of Vallabha Bhatta visting Mahaprabhu. In verse 171 it is mentioned that Vallabha Bhatta took mantra diksha from Gadadhara Pandita. This also indicatives that Mahaprabhu wanted Pandita Gadadhara to accept disciples on His behalf. It also agrees with the idea that Mahaprabhu came to give Radha-bhava as Gadadhara is a manifestation of Radha.

Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu

From all these evidences it is clear that Mahaprabhu wished Sri Gadadhara Pandita who is Radha herself, to initiate on His behalf and propagate deity worship and teachings of Bhagavata Purana through his disciples.

Of course, to this one may object that I am biased because I belong to Sri Gadadhara’s family myself and am trying to include the Gosvamis as part of my own parivara. In any case, this is my personal view and I am not trying to convince anyone. Personally it does not matter to me what others have faith in, because whether Sri Rupa-Sanatana are disciples of Sri Gadadhara Pandita or someone else does not diminish their greatness, nor does it change our philosophy. As long as we agree on the siddhanata there is no problem, even if our beliefs about historical facts are different.

Question: Even though Narottam sings ‘gadadhara mora kula’ [Gadadhara is my family], this could be a metaphor only or glorification in poetry. Otherwise ‘pati mora Gauracandra’ (husband of Gauracandra) in the same song means Narottama is a nagari or gay or so?

Answer: The word pati does not always mean husband. It means protector, master or Lord, as in the words jagatpati (Lord of the universe), satvatpati (master of the Satvatas) used for Krishna. So the above song can be taken metaphorically or it can also convey some facts.

Question: In Bhakti Ratnakara (1.598-602) it is mentioned that Vidyavachaspati was the religious teacher of Sri Sanatana Gosvami – bhaTTAcAryaM sArvabhaumaM vidyA vAcaspatin gurun. Sanatana respectfully mentioned the name of his guru in his book Sri Dasama Tippani. Therefore it seems that he received diksa from Vidyavacaspati and not from Sri Gadadhara Pandit.

Answer: The word guru means any respectable person, it could be a teacher or family member. It does not always mean diksha guru. We have to understand the meaning of a word in the cultural context. At present, in spiritual societies the word guru seems to have only one meaning, i.e. one who gives initiation. But if you refer to any Sanskrit dictionary, you will see so many other meanings of this word. In Sanskrit literature, the word guru is not understood only in the sense it is understood at present. In fact, the word guru may be hardly used in the sense it is understood now. The closest you will find is one who does the upanayana samskara, the sacred thread ceremony which was performed for males at the young age of 8-11 years. One has to be knowledgeable how the words are used by the author. Therefore one needs to study in the tradition, know the cultural background. Words change meaning over a period of time. We have to keep that in mind.

Old Bengal Painting of Pancha Tattva with Sri Gadadhara to the left of Mahaprabhu

Sanatana Gosvami studied under Vidya Vacaspati. It does not necessarily mean that he took diksha from him. In fact, the above translation says “religious teacher”. He studied before he met Mahaprabhu. It is assumed that after he became a follower of Mahaprabhu, he accepted vaisnava diksha from someone. It is a well-known fact that of the  Pancha-tattva, only Gadadhara Pandita stayed with Mahaprabhu in Puri. Nityanada Prabhu and Advaita Acharya were not living in Puri. So it is quite probable that Sri Sanatana and Sri Rupa got diksha from Gadadhara Pandita. Gadadhara Pandita is supposed to be Srimati Radha. Mahaprabhu is supposed to have appeared to give Radha Bhava. Then it makes sense that he asked Sri Rupa and Sanatana to take mantra from Sri Gadadhara Pandita, since these two were the main proponents of his siddhanata.

Question:  In the invocation to Laghu Bhagavatamrita (1.5) it says, “Of Sri Brhad-bhagavatamrtam, manifested by the lotus words of my master, this book is a summary.”  So from this I would assume that Rupa Gosvami was a disciple of Sanatana Gosvami.

Answer:  The Sanskrit word used is mat-prabhupada – my master. This does not mean that Sanatana is his diksha guru. It is an honorific title. In the devotee community it is very popular to call each other prabhu. There is no difference between the word prabhu and prabhupada, although people think so. By adding pada after prabhu, it becomes more respectful, but the meaning is the same.

 Question: Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu,  Rupa Gosvami also states that Sanatan Goswami and not Gadadhara is his Guru – visrAma mandiratayA tasya sanAtana tanor mad Ishasya. Jiva Goswami comments on this: atha nija nijeSTa-devAvatArena nija guruM stavan prArthayate.

Gaura Gadadhara in Godruma-dvipa

 ”May this work named ‘the ocean of nectar composed of bhakti-rasa’ always serve as the recreation hall of my Lord, manifested in the form called Sanatana [Gosvami] for His pleasure.” [BRS 1.1.3]

 Jiva Gosvami’s commentary: “Praising his guru Sanatana as the avatara of his worshipable Lord, the author makes a prayer. This scripture is called ‘the ocean of nectar,’ in which the nectar is bhakti-rasa. May this work serve as the resting place of my Lord Sri Krsna who, although always situation in His own form, sanatana-tanoh, manifests many other forms including the body Sanatana.”

 Answer: The verse does not use the word guru at all. The commentator, Sri Jiva Gosvami, does say that the author prays to his guru. The word guru could mean initiating guru, or teacher or just elder brother. If one wants to take it to mean initiating guru, it is fine with me, but that is not how I take it.

 The problem is, as I have said elsewhere, that in the past it was not a custom to reveal the name of the guru freely. I gave the example of my own Gurudeva. He has printed more than 80 books, and whatever books I have read – and I have read most of them – I have not seen his guru’s name mentioned even once. I have never heard him say his guru’s name except on some very special occasions. Therefore, it is difficult to know the guru’s name of traditional Vaishnavas from their writings. Not that they never mention it, but it is not very common. The other cause of confusion is the word guru itself, which has various meaning besides initiating person.

Virtual Reality: Prema Sarovara

The first phase of the project is ready allowing users to view two historical sites (Prema Sarovara and Radha Kunda) which can be explored in a three dimensional manner from various viewpoints. For instance, the first site which has been developed is Prema Sarovara, the holy pond between Nandagaon and Barsana where Sri Radha and Sri Krishna met for the first time. Users can dive into the water of this serene, large sized pond or stroll around in the nearby beautiful orchards.

Dr. Dasa has also developed a specialized interface which will allow people to navigate in historical worlds with the power of thoughts. The Managing Editor of the magazine Rahasya Maya, Mr. Ajay Mishra, visited his research lab and is highly impressed with the research work and computer simulation model, ”a unique contribution, with great potential!”

As per Dr. Dasa, users will be now able to navigate with-in historical worlds and their avatars will be controlled with human thoughts (no keyboard or mouse is required) using specialized computer simulation hardware and software which is being specially developed by him.

Virtual Reality: Prema Sarovara

This model may also be used as an aid to practice manasi seva which is an important part of raganuga bhakti. One can have one’s own avatara (manjari svarupa) or spiritual representative within this virtual Vrindavan and by meditation can render seva to Radha and Krishna as one does by one’s manjari svarupa. While doing manasi seva one meditates on one’s siddha deha and executes the assigned service to Sri Radha and Krishna. In this model, one can practice meditation while actually seeing one’s own avatara performing the service because the model operates through one’s thoughts, with the result that the service naturally will be rendered through the mind. One does not need to operate the computer by using a mouse as the program has been designed in a manner which requires only the user’s thoughts and the hardware created by Dr Dasa.

This is the first time that such technology is being utilized for devotional service and spiritual advancement. In society at present it is being used, or rather misused, for playing games which are usually either violent or rajasic. Young children today spend endless hours in front of the computer, numbing their brains and creating miserable samskaras. This model will help people in controlling their minds, becoming sattvic and ultimately accepting pure devotion. In Bhagavat Purana, Sri Narada Muni instructs tasmat kenapy upayena manah krsne nivesaye (SB 7.1.32): Therefore, by any means one should absorb one’s mind in Krishna. Usually technology works against tradition and culture. However, it can also be used to protect and preserve it.

For further information please visit: Jivainstitute.com

Virtual Reality: Prema Sarovara

Dr. Dasa did his B.Tech, Mechanical Engineering 1976. Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, then M.Tech., Industrial Engineering 1978; Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi. He is also M.A. Sanskrit and Ph.D. 2002, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra, U.P., India
(thesis: ‘An Analysis of Bhakti Sandarbha’).

Question:  My understanding is that on a superior level of analysis, Brahman is made of persons: Jivas, like light is made of photons. Am I right?

 Answer: No, Brahman is not made of jivas.  Jivas are the tatastha sakti of Bhagavan and Brahman is Bhagavan with unmanifest qualities. Moreover, Brahman has no parts. If it were made of jivas, it would have parts in it.

 *

 Dharma

Question:  I am born in a particular family, so I have certain duties. It’s my dharma. I am also born in a certain country. The country is like a big family on a broad social level, so is it also my dharma to serve my country? Is patriotism also a dharmic duty?

Babaji at Sri Haridas Niwas

Answer: There are two types of dharma, for the atma and for the body. Whatever you have described above is related with the body. We cannot neglect or avoid the body and its dharma. But we have to keep in mind that the execution of dharma related to body should be to support the atma dharma which is our real dharma. Previously in India there was Varnashrama dharma in relation to body and it was designed to support and lead to atma dharma. At present such is not the case. So my advice is that we do our duty to family, relations and country,  keeping in mind our real dharma, not independent of the real dharma. If you do them independent of atma dharma, they will only bring material result which means bondage and suffering.

*

 Old age

Question:  The physical body loses its ability to properly function with time.  Is the subtle body also degrading with time? Is senility of senior people only due to bad living (mental and physical)? Can’t it be also an influence of the inexorable time (like for the physical body)?

Answer: The subtle body also changes with time. Everything material undergoes change constantly.

Senility is an outcome of time as well as lifestyle.

*

 Krishna Consciousness

Question:  My mother, who has been a devotee for  20 years,  has diabetes. The last time she had a hypoglycemic crisis she almost lost consciousness and forgot everything….even Krsna! So it seems that her Krsna consciousness had disappeared and is only mental. Where is her Krsna consciousness in such difficult situation? Is Krsna so easily forgotten?

Answer: I cannot answer this question satisfactorily unless I know the person. Krishna consciousness is not black and white state i.e., either you have it or you do not. There is also an in-between stage before attaining perfection, the sadhana stage. KC is never lost if one has it. One may not be able to express it due to a defect in the senses and brain.

Since such facilities are rare these days and not everyone is able to come to India to study in the traditional manner, Jiva Institute is now offering e-courses on a variety of subjects which one can study from the comfort of one’s home at one’s own pace.

At present the following three courses are available:

Sāṅkhya Philosophy

Sāṅkhya is the oldest of the six traditional Indian systems of philosophy and has influenced every other school of Indian thought. Since Sāṅkhya forms the metaphysical and ontological foundation of both Yoga and Āyurveda, a thorough understanding of its principles is essential to fully be able to practice these more popular disciplines. Sāṅkhya explains the evolution of matter and the three levels of material energy in the human body and universe at large. It is rooted in the principle of cause and effect and clarifies the reason for human suffering and the ability to transcend it. Sāṅkhya teaches us how to remain peaceful and stress free while functioning in daily modern life.

Vedic Metaphysics

The term “Metaphysics” refers to a branch of philosophy which attempts to describe the true nature of all realities. Metaphysics is beyond empirical science. It is the study of being and knowing, related to a universal law, to spirit and to social and physical science.

Sacred Texts such as the Vedas, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and Bhagavad Gītā describe the true underlying nature of everything. Vedic Metaphysics approaches this nature of reality from the Vedic perspective. It is the ultimate tool to explore the meaning of life, death, birth and rebirth, the soul, karma, pleasure and pain, the universe, time, the purpose of life, dharma and the creator, God.

Vaiṣṇava philosophy

Among the six tradition schools of Hindu philosophy and theology, Vedānta is considered the highest and most advanced school of thought. In Vedānta there are two major divisions, called personalism and impersonalism. The personalism school accepts Viṣṇu as the prime God and is thus called Vaishnavism.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

It is the most popular theology practiced in India and includes the most famous Indian scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gītā, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, Bhagavata Purāṇa, and Upaniṣads. Many of the most prominent Indian teachers and sages over the past 1000 years were Vaiṣṇava including Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Nimbārkācārya, Vallabhācārya and Caitanya Mahāprabhu. This course gives an overview of the various schools of Vaishnavism and their respective teachings. It explains the nature of the Absolute Reality and its intrinsic oneness and difference with the world and human beings.

Please find more details on all the courses here: jivainstitute.com

Jiva e-courses are free of cost. Anyone can create an account and start learning by self-study. However, to take the examination and get a certificate if one is qualified, a fee of 60 US$ is required.

New courses such as Vedic Psychology, Vaiṣṇava Tantra, Vedic Ufology and many others which enrich the present spectrum will be offered every few months.

In Indian Logic (Nyāya), non-existence is called abhāva. There are various divisions and subdivisions of non-existence.

Mutual Non-Existence (anyo’nya-abhāva)

“Mutual non-existence” means non-existence due to being different. For instance, a table is different from a chair. In a table, a chair does not exist. This is true for all three phases of time: A chair never existed within a table, nor does it currently exist within a table, nor will it ever in the future exist within a table. The chair and the table mutually demonstrate the non-existence of the other, because they are eternally different from each other.

Co-relational Non-Existence (saṁsarga-abhāva)

Another, more significant, type of non-existence is inherent within the object itself – not merely demonstrated by the object not existing within another object. There are three types of such “co-relational non-existence,” differentiated by the time at which the non-existence occurs.

Prior Non-Existence (prāg-abhāva)

Before an object came into existence, it was non-existent. That is “prior non-existence.” It implies that a non-existent object could be created, produced or generated in future.

Indian Logic accepts eight general and three specific causes of any creation. The eight general causes are:

1. God
2. God’s knowledge
3. God’s will
4. God’s effort
5. Fate
6. Prāg-abhāva
7. Space
8. Time

Prāg-abhāva is particularly significant, because if an object is not initially non-existent, there is no question of “creating” it. If there is no non-existence, it means that the object already exists.

To give an example: Before a cake comes into existence, its non-existence was prevailing without any beginning. This non-existence is called prāg-abhāva. However, when the cake is produced, its non-existence terminates.

Subsequent Non-Existence (pradhvaṁs-abhāva)

Continuing with the example of a cake, when it is entirely eaten the cake once again exists no more. This is “subsequent non-existence.” It implies that the object previously existed.

“Subsequent non-existence” has no end. Never again will that specific cake come back into existence. It will always remain non-existent. “Prior non-existence has an end, but no beginning; and “Subsequent non-existence” has a beginning but no end.

Eternal Non-Existence (atyanta-abhāva)

“Eternal non-existence” refers to things that never existed in the past and will never exist in the future, like the horns of a rabbit.

Implications for the “Fall of the Soul”

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī says the living entity suffers because of an ignorance that has no beginning (prag-abhāva). Ignorance is merely the non-existence of knowledge, in this case of the Supreme Lord. In other words, the living entity suffers because of “prior non-existence” of divine knowledge.

This ignorance cannot be “subsequent non-existence of divine knowledge.” Because if it were so, then divine knowledge would have existed before the ignorance. However, it is a dictum that one who has knowledge of the Supreme Lord can never be put into ignorance. So Jīva Gosvāmī describes the soul’s ignorance as “beginningless” – the soul never possessed the divine knowledge to begin with. And this is why the jīva is called nitya-baddha, “ever-conditioned.”

When we apply this to the question of when, how or if the living entity fell from the spiritual world, we can conclude that he never fell, because his conditioned state has no beginning. This is the meaning of nitya-baddha. This also implies that it is possible to bring ignorance to an end. “Prior non-existence of knowledge” can be ended when one attains divine knowledge.

When divine knowledge comes into existence, it will never end. It puts ignorance into “subsequent non-existence” which is an endless condition. Therefore a person with divine knowledge is called nitya-siddha, “ever-liberated.” Such persons never fall down. This is the meaning of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s statement, yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaṁ mama: “reaching which one never returns – this is my supreme abode” (BG 15.6).

This abode, the Lord’s planet (dhāma), is not physical. When we say, “after going there,” we think “going” means moving from one physical location to another, but this is not the case here. “Going” here refers to consciousness: When one’s consciousness “goes” transcendental, it cannot be lost, na nivartante.

Therefore, once a person becomes liberated, he cannot be bound again, and if someone is conditioned, there is no question that he or she was liberated prior to that.

That is the meaning of Jīva Gosvāmī’s statement in Priti Sandharbha (Anuccheda 1), saṁsargābhāva yuktatvena: A person’s pre-non-existence of knowledge implies that there is a possibility of acquiring knowledge. Although the ignorance has no beginning, it has an end.

“Eternal”

Anything which has no prior non-existence, is called “eternal.” Things which were never created cannot be destroyed, they are outside the influence of chronology. Kṛṣṇa, for example, has no prior non-existence, therefore the terms “creation”, “existence” or “destruction” do not apply to Kṛṣṇa. To say Kṛṣṇa has existence implies in terms of Logic that prior to existence He did not exist, the non-existence was destroyed and then He came into existence. Obviously, this is not applicable to eternal objects.

However, this is not the case when it comes to ignorance, because ignorance itself is not a substance, it is merely the non-existence of another substance: knowledge. Thus, although it is beginningless, it has an end. Owing to our material conditioning, we think that everything has a beginning, and sometimes ācāryas may explain philosophy in terms implying that ignorance has a beginning, to circumvent the material conditioning that often prevents us from understanding the concept of “beginningless.”

Eternal beings like Kṛṣṇa and everything directly related to Him (e.g., His associates, His planets and His pastimes) have no beginning. Māyā and material nature are also related to Kṛṣṇa, and thus also have no beginning. We are also related to Kṛṣṇa, therefore we ourselves have no beginning and we seem to accept it without much thought. However, when it comes to our conditioned state, we somehow seem to object that our ignorance is beginningless.

Even though we may feel troubled by the thought that our ignorance has no beginning, we can rejoice to know that it can come to an end.

Answer:  Self-luminous means an object which does not need the help of another luminous object to see it or perceive it. For example, a burning candle is self-luminous because you do not need another burning candle or light source to see it. However a book or table is not self-luminous because you need a light source to see it.

A self-conscious object is that which not only does not need another luminous object to know it but is also aware of itself. A burning candle or light bulb is self-luminous, but is not aware of itself. Therefore, it is not self-conscious. An ātmā is aware of itself, therefore it is self-conscious.

Question: What is the meaning of “reveals itself to the self” of vṛtti-jñāna, and “conscious of itself” of jñātṛtva and of mano-vṛtti

Answer:  In our conditioned state, we know things through our senses and mind. When one of our senses comes in contact with a suitable sense object, such as our eye with a book, then our mind takes a specific shape corresponding to the sense object, the book. This specific form or state of mind is called a vṛtti or mano-vṛtti. This vṛtti or mano-vṛtti is the knowledge about the sense object and is known by the self. It reveals itself to the self.

The ātmā has the potential to know. That potential is called jñātṛtva or knowability. This potential however needs mind and senses to manifest itself or function. To give an example, a poet has the ability to write poetry but he needs pen and paper or a computer to write it. Ātmā cannot know by itself. It needs instruments to know objects and even to know itself or become self-aware. In the conditioned state, ātmā knows through material senses and mind. In the liberated state, it knows through the spiritual senses and mind.

Question: How is knowledge related to the self in terms of eternity?

Answer:  Knowledge stays outside the ātmā. Therefore it is not eternal.  However, the word knowledge is also used for the consciousness of the ātmā. In that sense it is the eternal quality of the ātmā and exists in ātmā.

Question: Can we say that only spiritual knowledge makes a permanent impression in our ātmā? If this so, then what is the use of our so much material? Which knowledge that classified as spiritual and which one is material (regarding our conditioned state)?

Are we aware of spiritual knowledge which we have acquired in a previous life?

Answer:  All your questions are related with one thing – ‘what is knowledge?’ If this is understood, your doubts will be removed automatically. First of all, no knowledge, spiritual or material, is impressed in the ātmā. The only thing which gets into ātmā is bhakti at the bhāva stage. In other words, only the internal potency of Krishna has the power to penetrate into ātmā.

All knowledge remains outside and is stored in the citta. In Vedānta, the mano-vṛtti is called knowledge. This I wrote before. Every vṛtti is temporary, so knowledge is also temporary. But vṛtti leaves an impression (saṁskāra) in the citta which becomes the source of memory.

Therefore we get knowledge in two ways  - 1. by experience and 2. by remembrance. Whether it is spiritual knowledge or material, it all creates impressions in the citta.  The knowledge from the past is also lying in your citta but you may not be able to remember it. Remembering means bringing the impression from the citta into the mind, just like when you remember the name of an old friend from your childhood. The name is lying in the citta. You do not know this unless it comes in your mind. When it is lying in the citta, it is called impression (saṁskāra). When it is comes to your mind, it is called knowledge arisen from memory.  I hope this makes things a little more clear.

Question: Thank you, my understanding is much clearer now. If I may ask one more question: Is it proper to say that all knowledge that we have had in so-many-lifetimes is only one purpose, to attracting us to bhakti and inquiry about bhakti? Even though bhakti is independent.

Answer: There are only two purposes of everything.

1. To enjoy materially and get frustrated.
2. After getting frustrated, to think of how to get out of the frustration.
Then one endeavors to attain liberation or takes to devotion. Even if one is not utterly frustrated, at least one understands that material life will not bring peace, happiness and fulfillment. The ultimate purpose of everything is to bring one to this realization.

]]> http://www.satyanarayanadas.com/questions-about-jnana/feed/ 0