# Back to Godhead Magazine #54 *2020 (05)* Back to Godhead Magazine #54-05, 2020 PDF-View Welcome Viṣṇu is Kṛṣṇa. Keep that in mind as you read Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture in this issue. Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇa are not two different persons. God, Kṛṣṇa, can reproduce Himself unlimitedly without diminishing, and each reproduction (“expansion”) is still the original person. Academic sources and some Indian religious traditions say that Kṛṣṇa is an avatar of Viṣṇu. But we Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, in the line of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, say that Kṛṣṇa is the source of Viṣṇu (or, again, is Viṣṇu). We have plenty of scriptural evidence to support our conviction, including the authoritative *Brahma-saṁhitā*, which Śrīla Prabhupāda cites here. He is speaking on a series of verses from Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta that clarify the creative roles of Kṛṣṇa’s Viṣṇu expansions. It’s easy to see why people would tend to put Viṣṇu above Kṛṣṇa; mighty Viṣṇu just seems a better fit for the position of Supreme Lord. But power comes in many forms, and Kṛṣṇa’s great power is His irresistible sweetness, which ultimately conquers all. In this issue, we hear from Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa about how Kṛṣṇa once seemed to fail, unable to defeat Duryodhana’s obstinacy. But the episode sheds light on other aspects of Kṛṣṇa’s greatness. When You’re God, even Your so-called failures are a success. Hare Kṛṣṇa. —*Nāgarāja Dāsa, Editor* Founder's Lecture: Lord Kṛṣṇa’s Viṣṇu Forms *Before Lord Brahmā plays his role in the cosmic creation, Kṛṣṇa’s expansions set the stage.* New York City—December 19, 1966 *Lord Kṛṣṇa’s Viṣṇu Forms* Kṛṣṇa, the eternal cowherd boy who enjoys in the forests of Vṛndāvana, is the source of the majestic Viṣṇus who create the material world. > yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya > jīvanti loma-vilajā jagad-aṇḍa-nāthāḥ > viṣṇur mahān sa iha yasya kalā-viśeṣo > govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi “Brahmā and other lords of the mundane worlds, appearing from the pores of hair of Mahā-Viṣṇu, remain alive as long as the duration of one exhalation of the latter [Mahā-Viṣṇu]. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, of whose subjective personality Mahā-Viṣṇu is the portion of a portion.”—*Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā* 20.281 (quoting *Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.48) Kṛṣṇa’s third expansion is Mahā-Viṣṇu. Mahā-Viṣṇu’s potency is described in the *Brahma-saṁhitā*: *yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya*. *Niśvasita-kāla* means the breathing period. *Jagad-aṇḍa-nāthāḥ* means the supreme creature, the supreme created person, Brahmā. Brahmā is the principal, supreme creature in each universe. There are innumerable universes, and there are innumerable Brahmās also. You will find in Caitanya-caritāmṛta that when Kṛṣṇa was here on this planet, Brahmā was very proud. “Kṛṣṇa is now on the earthly planet, and this earthly planet is one of the innumerable planets under my control.” Brahmā is the controller, the primal, principal living entity in this universe, so he was little proud. “Kṛṣṇa is within my control.” Kṛṣṇa is Paramātmā, the Supersoul, and He knows everything—what one thinks, what one does. So Kṛṣṇa asked Brahmā to come and see Him in Dwarka. Kṛṣṇa was there as the king. Brahmā came, and Kṛṣṇa’s doorman asked him, “Who are you, please?” “Tell Kṛṣṇa that I am Brahmā. I have come to see Him.” When the doorman informed Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa asked, “Oh, which Brahmā?” The doorman returned to Brahmā and asked, “Which Brahmā are you?” Brahmā became astonished. “‘Which Brahmā?’ I am the Brahmā. I am the supreme creature within this universe.” He was surprised, and he said, “Tell Kṛṣṇa that I am four-headed Brahmā.” So Kṛṣṇa called for him. “All right, come on.” Brahma came and offered his obeisances, and he asked Kṛṣṇa, “Kṛṣṇa, my Lord, may I ask You a question?” “What is that?” “Your doorman asked me, ‘Which Brahmā?’ So does it mean there are other Brahmās also?” Kṛṣṇa said, “Yes, there are innumerable Brahmās. You are only four-headed. There are eight-headed, there are sixteen-headed, thirty-two-headed, sixty-four-headed, hundred-twenty-eight-headed, and millions of headed. All right, I am calling them all.” Kṛṣṇa called all the Brahmās, and by Kṛṣṇa’s māyā, or power, Brahmā could see them. But they could not see four-headed Brahmā, and each of them came and offered obeisances to Kṛṣṇa. They asked, “My Lord, what can I do for You? You have asked for me?” “Yes. I have not seen you for a long time, so many days, so I have called you.” Thousands and millions of Brahmās came, offered obeisances, and went away. And four-headed Brahmā remained in the corner. “Oh, what am I?” This is Kṛṣṇa’s creation. *The Length of Brahmā’s Day* Here it is stated, yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya: “Millions of Brahmās are living only during the breathing period of Mahā-Viṣṇu.” You have read in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (8.17) about each Brahmā’s period: > sahasra-yuga-paryantam > ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ > rātriṁ yuga-sahasrāntāṁ > te ’ho-rātra-vido janāḥ “By human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahmā’s one day. And such also is the duration of his night.” Brahmā’s one day is a thousand times 4,300,000 of our years. That is Brahmā’s twelve hours. His full day is twenty-four hours. Now calculate one such month, one such year, one such hundred years. That hundred years of Brahmā is only the period of one breath of Mahā-Viṣṇu. During the breathing period, when the breathing is out all these *brahmāṇḍas*, universes, become created, and when He inhales, they are all closed—account closed. This is going on. And Mahā-Viṣṇu is the fourth of Kṛṣṇa’s expansions. That is stated. Lord Caitanya is giving evidence from *Brahma-saṁhitā* (5.48): *yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya* . . . . “I worship Kṛṣṇa, Govinda, whose fourth expansion is Mahā-Viṣṇu, during whose breathing period all these Brahmās, the principal heads of each brahmāṇḍa, live.” > samasta brahmāṇḍa-gaṇera iṅho antaryāmi > kāraṇābdhiśāyī—saba jagatera svāmī “Mahā-Viṣṇu is the Supersoul of all the universes. Lying on the Causal Ocean, He is the master of all material worlds.” (*Madhya* 20.282) Now, this Mahā-Viṣṇu, the puruṣāvatāra, or Kṛṣṇa’s incarnation as the puruṣa, is the principal Supreme Personality of Godhead of all the many thousands of *brahmāṇḍas*. > eita kahiluṅ prathama puruṣera tattva > dvitīya puruṣera ebe śunaha mahattva “I have thus explained the truth of the first Personality of Godhead, Mahā-Viṣṇu. I shall now explain the glories of the second Personality of Godhead.” (*Madhya* 20.283) Now Lord Caitanya says, “Now I have explained to you about the first incarnation, or avatar. Now just try to hear about the second Viṣṇu.” The first Viṣṇu has been described. Now the second Viṣṇu is described. > sei puruṣa ananta-koṭi brahmāṇḍa sṛjiyā > ekaika-mūrtye praveśilā bahu mūrti hañā “After creating the total number of universes, which are unlimited, Mahā-Viṣṇu expanded Himself into unlimited forms and entered into each of them.” (*Madhya* 20.284) Innumerable universes came out during Mahā-Viṣṇu’s breathing period. Sṛjiyā means “He created.” This Mahā-Viṣṇu again expanded Himself as millions and millions of Viṣṇu forms and entered into each brahmāṇḍa. The same Viṣṇu, Mahā-Viṣṇu, expanded Himself in millions of other forms. > praveśa kariyā dekhe, saba—andhakāra > rahite nāhika sthāna, karilā vicāra “When Mahā-Viṣṇu entered each of the limitless universes, He saw that there was darkness all around and that there was no place to stay. He therefore began to consider the situation.” (*Madhya* 20.285) > nijāṅga-sveda-jale brahmāṇḍārdha bharila > sei jale śeṣa-śayyāya śayana karila “With the perspiration produced from His own body, the Lord filled half the universe with water. He then lay down on that water, on the bed of Lord Śeṣa.” (*Madhya* 20.286) What we are seeing is only half of this universe. The other half is full of water. We cannot see that water, but there is water. The universe is like a ball half filled with water. Where has this water come from? From the Viṣṇu who entered each universe. From His perspiration He created this water. And He lay down on the water. He is called Śeṣaśāyī Viṣṇu or Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. *Lord Brahmā’s Birth* > tāṅra nābhi-padma haite uṭhila eka padma > sei padme ha-ila brahmāra janma-sadma “A lotus flower then sprouted from the lotus navel of that Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. That lotus flower became Lord Brahmā’s birthplace.” (*Madhya* 20.287) You have seen that picture. > sei padma-nāle ha-ila caudda bhuvana > teṅho ‘brahmā’ hañā sṛṣṭi karila sṛjana “In the stem of that lotus flower, the fourteen worlds were generated. Then He became Lord Brahmā and manifested the entire universe.” (*Madhya* 20.288) Brahmā is a living being, *jīva-tattva*. He is not *viṣṇu-tattva*. Just see how powerful a living being can be. Brahmā was created by Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and Brahmā in his turn created all these planetary systems. There are fourteen planetary systems throughout the universe. There are seven upper planetary systems: Bhūrloka, Bhuvarloka, Svargaloka, Maharloka, Janaloka, Tapoloka, and Brahmaloka. And there are seven lower planetary systems: Atala, Vitala, Sutala, Talātala, Mahātala, Rasātala, and Pātāla. > ‘viṣṇu’-rūpa hañā kare jagat pālane > guṇātīta viṣṇu—sparśa nāhi māyā-sane “In this way, the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His form of Viṣṇu maintains the entire material world. Since He is always beyond the material qualities, the material nature cannot touch Him.” (*Madhya* 20.289) Now, this Viṣṇu has nothing to do. He is not affected by material contamination. That is the power of Viṣṇu. When we living entities come into this material world, we become contaminated, affected by the influence of this material nature. But Viṣṇu, although He is looking after the management of the creation of this brahmāṇḍa, is not affected. > ‘rudra’-rūpa dhari kare jagat saṁhāra > sṛṣṭi, sthiti, pralaya haya icchāya yāṅhāra “The Supreme Lord in His form of Rudra [Lord Śiva] brings about the dissolution of this material creation. In other words, only by His will are there creation, maintenance and dissolution of the whole cosmic manifestation.” (*Madhya* 20.290) When these material worlds, or universes, are to be annihilated, the same Viṣṇu in His form of Lord Śiva annihilates them. Viṣṇu creates, Lord Śiva annihilates, and Brahmā is in charge of this universe. > brahmā, viṣṇu, śiva—tāṅra guṇa-avatāra > sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralayera tinera adhikāra “Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva are His three incarnations of the material qualities. Creation, maintenance and destruction respectively are under the charge of these three personalities.” (*Madhya* 20.291) Now, this material world is created, it stays for some time, and it is annihilated, just as we have seen in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (8.19): > bhūta-grāmaḥ sa evāyaṁ > bhūtvā bhūtvā pralīyate > rātry-āgame ’vaśaḥ pārtha > prabhavaty ahar-āgame “Again and again the day comes, and this host of beings is active; and again the night falls, O Pārtha, and they are helplessly dissolved.” This material nature is like that. You have seen that a lamp is sometimes lit and sometimes extinguished. Similarly, there is creation, there is maintenance, and there is annihilation of this material world. These three functions are controlled by three *guṇāvatāras*, qualitative incarnations of the Supreme Lord. Viṣṇu is the incarnation of the mode of goodness, Śiva is the incarnation of the mode of annihilation, and Brahmā is the in-charge. Brahmā is the secondary creator. First of all, everything—the principal material ingredients and the guṇas, or qualities—is created by Viṣṇu. Then, with those ingredients, Brahmā creates the secondary creation, all these planetary systems. So Brahmā is a secondary creator. And then Viṣṇu maintains. You may give a carpenter wood and planks and materials and screws and other things, and the carpenter makes a very good cabinet. And you maintain that. Similarly, this brahmāṇḍa, the secondary creation, is done by Brahmā, and Viṣṇu is the maintainer. And when it is to be destroyed, it is destroyed by Lord Śiva. *Incarnations of Qualities* These three *guṇāvatāras*—Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva—are incarnations of Kṛṣṇa’s guṇas, or qualities, of goodness, passion, and ignorance. In other words, it is to be understood that the three guṇas are coming from Kṛṣṇa. So therefore, for Kṛṣṇa there is no such distinction. Several times I have explained that the distinction of material, spiritual, and qualitative differences is for us, not for Kṛṣṇa. How is that? A government has got different departments—criminal department, civil department, this department, that department, so many departments. Now, for us, the criminal department may not be so pleasing and the civil department may be very much pleasing, but for the government, the departments are equal, because the government has to maintain them equally, whether the criminal department or the civil department. The government cannot make the distinction that “This is the criminal department; therefore this department should be neglected” or “It is inferior.” No. Rather, the government may spend more in the criminal department than in the civil department. Similarly, these qualitative distinctions—matter, spirit, and the different kinds of modes, or qualities—are distinctions for us, not for Kṛṣṇa. He is absolute. To the Absolute there are no such distinctions. Therefore when Kṛṣṇa comes to this material world, He is not affected by it. Suppose the minister, the secretary of the president, goes to the criminal department to see the prison house. He is not affected by the prison rules. It is simple to understand. If the prisoner thinks, “Oh, he is also one of the prisoners because he has come here,” this is nonsense. He is not a prisoner. Similarly, when Kṛṣṇa comes to this material world, if a foolish man thinks that He is also one of us, he is fool number one. Therefore in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (9.11) Lord Kṛṣṇa says, > avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā > mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam > paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto > mama bhūta-maheśvaram “Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.” So here it is stated: > brahmā, viṣṇu, śiva—tāṅra guṇa-avatāra > sṛṣṭi-sthiti-pralayera tinera adhikāra “Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva are His three incarnations of the material qualities. Creation, maintenance and destruction respectively are under the charge of these three personalities.” (*Madhya* 20.291) > hiraṇyagarbha-antaryāmi—garbhodakaśāyī > ‘sahasra-śīrṣādi’ kari’ vede yāṅre gāi “Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, known within the universe as Hiraṇyagarbha and the antaryāmī, or Supersoul, is glorified in the Vedic hymns, beginning with the hymn that starts with the word *sahasra-śīrṣā*.” (*Madhya* 20.292) In the Vedas there is a prayer called *Sahasra-śīrṣā*. That is a very famous prayer. That prayer is offered to this Viṣṇu. Which Viṣṇu? Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, the Viṣṇu who has entered into every universe. > ei ta’ dvitīya-puruṣa—brahmāṇḍera īśvara > māyāra ‘āśraya’ haya, tabu māyā-pāra “This second Personality of Godhead, known as Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, is the master of each and every universe and the shelter of the external energy. Nonetheless, He remains beyond the touch of the external energy.” (*Madhya* 20.293) Although this Viṣṇu is the shelter of the material energy, still He has nothing to do with this material energy. He is free from the contamination of the material energy. In the *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (1.7.4) it is said: > bhakti-yogena manasi > samyak praṇihite ’male > apaśyat puruṣaṁ pūrṇaṁ > māyāṁ ca tad-apāśrayām “Thus he [Vyāsadeva] fixed his mind, perfectly engaging it by linking it in devotional service [*bhakti-yog*a] without any tinge of materialism, and thus he saw the Absolute Personality of Godhead along with His external energy, which was under full control.” When Vyāsadeva was attempting to write *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, by *bhakti-yog*a he saw two things: the Supreme Personality, *puruṣaṁ pūrṇam*, and the material energy, *māyām*, who was far away from Him—*apāśrayam*. *Māyā’s Thankless Task* Māyā’s task is a very thankless task, because she is in charge of the conditioned souls, and her business is to always give all the conditioned souls miseries. You might not have seen, but there is a picture of Durgā, or Māyā, and she has got a trident, *triśūla*. Her *triśūla* represents the three kinds of miseries. Māyā, this material nature, is always inflicting upon the conditioned soul three kinds of miseries so that they can come to their consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness. But the conditioned souls are so foolish and so dull that they have accepted, “Oh, these miseries are very palatable.” Yes. They have no sense that they are always in three kinds of miseries: *adhyātmika*, miseries from their own body and mind; *adhibhautika*, miseries from other living entities; and *adhidaivika*, miseries from nature. This is constantly going on. In the prison house, when the prisoners are there, it is not meant that they should be comfortably situated there. The prison house is meant for always giving them some trouble so that they can come to their consciousness that “We are lawbreakers. Therefore we are punished here.” But the prisoner may be so foolish that he thinks, “All right. I don’t care for this prison. Let me finish this term and again commit nuisance and again come to this prison.” That is going on. What is the position of the conditioned souls who are not coming to their senses? The grace of some special representative of the Supreme Lord, or of the Supreme Lord Himself, is offered to these conditioned souls. “This is not your place. You are part and parcel of God. Your place is in the kingdom of God. Your place is there. You are struggling very hard within this material nature. Just try to understand your position.” These things are described in the scriptures, in the Vedas, so that these foolish conditioned souls may come to their senses and try to become Kṛṣṇa conscious and make their life successful so that they can go back home, back to Godhead. Thank you very much. Understanding Two Weaknesses of Heart *Hiraṇyākṣa and Hiraṇyakaśipu exemplify our detrimental desires to possess and control.* by Karuṇā Dhāriṇī Devī Dāsī The activities of two powerful opponents of Lord Viṣṇu exemplify qualities that root us in material existence. Hiraṇyākṣa was an adept, powerful demon. He and his brother, Hiraṇyakaśipu, were fierce and indomitable, and they challenged the invincible Lord Viṣṇu. The battles they fought against Him are fascinating. By hearing of the Lord’s enthralling pastimes with these two brothers, we get a special opportunity to understand Kṛṣṇa’s sublime personality as well as His absolute, eternal sovereignty over all that is. Hiraṇyākṣa and Hiraṇyakaśipu are not comparable to any modern villains or terrorists. In their youth they had steel-like frames that grew like mountains. They thrived at a time when the size of the bodies of living beings was grand, yet these two brothers were bigger and stronger than the most hale and hearty of their times. Their stature and thick waists blocked the sun’s glow, and when they walked, the earth shook. Being able to conquer anyone and obtain great riches, they donned gold crowns that seemed to kiss the sky. They were adorned with enormous gold bracelets and excellent gold belts. Hiraṇyakaśipu, the elder of the two, performed severe penance by fasting and meditating for thousands of years until his austerities allowed him supremacy over the very laws of time, space, and nature. His conquest was considered unlawful and abhorrent by the presiding demigods, who were fully authorized by Lord Viṣṇu. Eventually the greatest demigod, Lord Brahmā, felt obliged to give Hiraṇyakaśipu boons of near immortality. The activities of Hiraṇyakaśipu, who dominated the universe and tried to torture and kill His pure devotee son, Prahlāda, are famous throughout Vaiṣṇavism, but the effects of Hiraṇyākṣa’s reign of terror get less mention. In *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (3.18.23) Lord Brahmā says, “Since he [Hiraṇyākṣa] has attained a boon from me, he has become a demon.” And from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Daśāvatāra-stotra commentary we learn that Hiraṇyākṣa put planet earth into great peril. He became so frightful that when he visited the heavenly planets, the demigods hid, and he roared loudly. The demigods could no longer protect the creation, and Hiraṇyākṣa was able to toss the green and fragrant earth planet, along with all of her animal and human life, into the Garbhodaka Ocean at the bottom of the universe. Śrīla Prabhupāda explains how this was possible: Only under certain conditions do the planets float as weightless balls in the air, and as soon as these conditions are disturbed, the planets may fall down in the Garbhodaka Ocean, which covers half the universe. The other half is the spherical dome within which the innumerable planetary systems exist. The floating of the planets in the weightless air is due to the inner constitution of the globes, and the modernized drilling of the earth to exploit oil from within is a sort of disturbance by the modern demons and can result in a greatly harmful reaction to the floating condition of the earth. A similar disturbance was created formerly by the demon Hiraṇyākṣa (the great exploiter of the gold rush), and the earth was detached from its weightless condition and fell down into the Garbhodaka Ocean. (*Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 2.7.1, Purport) The Vedic literature speaks of two human weaknesses of heart that we may consider in the context of Hiraṇyākṣa and Hiraṇyakaśipu: to want to possess material things, and to want to have control over them. For Hiraṇyakaśipu, fulfilling the first of these desires, especially, was extremely important. He would not stop at gaining a palace or a continent; he envied the demigods for their positions in the universe. After thousands of years of severe penance, he acquired universal ownership. And what did his younger brother do? He delighted in becoming the patrol guard. If Hiraṇyakaśipu represents the first weakness of heart by seizing the entire universal creation of God, then his brother Hiraṇyākṣa represents the desire for control. He harassed the gods, tormented the earth, and traveled the length and breadth of Brahmā’s creation, carrying an invincible club. Always anxious to satisfy Hiraṇyakaśipu, Hiraṇyākṣa guarded his brother’s newly acquired territory with a fighting spirit, exploring the universe with zeal. Anklets of gold tinkled about his feet while a gigantic garland and a huge club rested on his shoulders. He had extreme mental and physical prowess, though his temper remained always uncontrolled. *The Lord Appears Unexpectedly* For sport, Hiraṇyākṣa liked to wade in the ocean and smash its waves with his pointed metal club. He once entered the ocean and arrived at the city of Vibhāvarī, where the elderly Varuṇa was residing as the lord of the ocean. Hiraṇyākṣa challenged Varuṇa to a fight, disrespecting and teasing him with harsh and sarcastic remarks. Varuṇa, angry and distraught, replied that he was too old to take up Hiraṇyākṣa’s challenge but that Lord Viṣṇu would certainly give him a satisfying battle. He said, “On reaching Him you will be rid of your pride at once and will lie down on the field of battle, surrounded by dogs, for eternal sleep. It is in order to exterminate wicked fellows like you and to show His grace to the virtuous that He assumes His various incarnations like Varāha.” (*Bhāgavatam* 3.17.31) The proud Hiraṇyākṣa simply ignored Varuṇa’s warnings. Instead, he found out from Nārada Muni the whereabouts of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and dove deeper into the depths of the ocean. There he saw a curious, astounding creature holding a pointed metal club that looked just like his and whose tremendous body was covered by a coat of reddish bristles. Hiraṇyākṣa was astounded to see Him lift the earth from the bottom of the ocean with His tusks. This colossal boar was just suitable to rescue the planet from deep water because He possessed a boar’s very long and sturdy teeth with which to pick up items sunk in unpleasant places. He carefully placed Mother Earth on the water and invested in her, by His mystic power, the ability to float there. It became obvious that He was no ordinary animal. He was Lord Viṣṇu, incarnating as Varāha just for the sport of rescuing Mother Earth. *The Sublime Character of Lord Viṣṇu* Hiraṇyākṣa’s arrogance turned into rage. “Oh, an amphibious beast!” he challenged. And he called the Lord a rascal and a fool. This was great disrespect of the noble and courageous creature, factually the Supreme Personality of Godhead enjoying His role as a divine boar. Filled with false prestige, Hiraṇyākṣa told Lord Varāhā that the earth belonged only to himself and his brother and he would smash His skull for taking it. “Although the Lord was pained by the shaftlike abusive words of the demon, He bore the pain.” (*Bhāgavatam* 3.18.6) Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purports in this section give revealing insight into Lord Viṣṇu’s sublime character. He presents for us a most beautiful, simple truth: God is a sentient being. The Supreme Lord has feelings just as we do. He hears our prayers and also any harsh words against Him. Additionally, Prabhupāda singles out impersonalists as similarly offensive because just like Hiraṇyākṣa they decry Kṛṣṇa’s existence. They label Him merely a product of human imagination. They say that certainly He could not take on the features of a beautiful boar with huge tusks to lift up the earth. Though the earth is replete with an immense variety of flora and fauna, the impersonalists cannot accept a person replete with sentient features as the creator and designer of it. It does seem peculiar that although we human beings arrange for varieties of sense enjoyments, of which we are very proud, like Hiraṇyākṣa we denigrate Kṛṣṇa and even speak disparagingly about His existence, thereby blocking out our own innate cognizance of His superlative sentience. Additionally, we disregard the value of the lives of living beings similar to us with whom we share the earth planet. This mentality lies at the root of the two human weaknesses being discussed here, for denying the fundamental rights of others is standard behavior for self-centered owners and controllers. Since we live on the earth and derive benefit here, let us note that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the most elevated and caring environmentalist, as He demonstrated when He lifted Mother Earth from the torment of being submerged. What followed this act was an unparalleled battle, featuring chivalrous dialogue, unique maneuvers with a variety of weapons, and cries and cheers from the demigods. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* describes the battle in fifty verses, several of which I quote here. There was a keen rivalry between the two combatants; both sustained injuries on their bodies from the blow of each other’s pointed maces, and each grew more and more enraged at the smell of blood on his person. In their eagerness to win, they performed maneuvers of various kinds, and their contest looked like an encounter between two forceful bulls for the sake of a cow. (*Bhāgavatam* 3.18.19) Seeing Varāha’s apparent fatigue in battle, the demigods begged Him to stop playing with the demon and finish him off. Lord Brahmā requested: My dear Lord, there is no need to play with this serpentine demon, who is always skilled in conjuring tricks and is arrogant, self-sufficient and most wicked. My dear Lord, You are infallible. Please kill this sinful demon before the demoniac hour arrives and he presents another formidable approach favorable to him. You can kill him by your internal potency without a doubt. . . . This demon, luckily for us, has come of his own accord to You; therefore, exhibiting Your ways, kill Him in the duel and establish the worlds in peace. (*Bhāgavatam* 3.18.24–25, 28) Lord Varāha listened to Brahmā’s prayers and heartily laughed. He accepted them with a glance laden with love. Yet Hiraṇyākṣa then brought a more formidable round of violence. He employed volleys of spears, hosts of demonesses carrying tridents, and armies of savage Yakṣas and Rākṣasas, and he tried to wrestle the Lord down. Lord Varāha went on enjoying the fierce fight until He suddenly decided to fulfill Brahmā’s request and gave Hiraṇyākṣa a slap to the root of his ear. Though slapped indifferently, the demon’s body wheeled, his eyes bulged out of their sockets, his arms and legs broke, his hair scattered, and he fell down dead like a gigantic tree uprooted by the wind. Lord Brahmā said with admiration, “Oh, who could meet such a blessed death?” *Avoiding Material Calculation* Hiraṇyākṣa and Hiraṇyakaśipu are alarming examples of dependence on material calculations. Influenced by the modes of passion and ignorance, to achieve dominance over the universe they misused and abused sacred Vedic formulas for sacrifice. Though their interactions with the Lord are from days gone by when a fully potent demoniac race held influence, their attitude is not dissimilar to the mood we see in the people of contemporary society. Mostly concerned with the prestige of acquisition and comfort, people today consider excessive mental and physical prowess as good as gold. The predominance of the mode of passion has become the standard of modern civilization. While people influenced by the mode of goodness prefer to see to the welfare of others, the mentality driven by the mode of passion narrowly focuses on “me” and “mine,” and it inspires ambitious and often very stressful activity. This pervasive modern influence is difficult to avoid. When we constantly associate with people who like to work strenuously in the mode of passion, the mode of ignorance tends to rear its thick head. Lord Kṛṣṇa says, “But the sacrifice performed for some material benefit, or for the sake of pride, O chief of the Bhāratas, you should know to be in the mode of passion” (*Gītā* 17.12) and “Penance performed out of foolishness, with self-torture or to destroy or injure others is said to be in the mode of ignorance.” (*Gītā* 17.19) How can we disassociate ourselves from material calculations when the twin tendencies to own and control are so demanding? Kṛṣṇa instructs us to worship Him, the *brāḥmanas*, the spiritual master, and superiors like the mother and father. We must also be clean, simple, sexually restrained, and free of the desire to harm any living being. Hiraṇyākṣa mercilessly teased Varuṇa. Similarly, by association with passion and ignorance, we develop offensive habits in our speech. How do we refrain from causing others pain and becoming ourselves degraded due to poor speaking habits? We do so, Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna, by speaking only words that are truthful, pleasing, beneficial. and not agitating to others, and by regularly reciting the Vedic literature. And we train our mind through satisfaction, simplicity, gravity, self-control, and purification of our existence. *Overcoming the Two Weaknesses of Heart* We can take a good look at our own lives and observe any tendency to own and control people or possessions. This world is so made that our sense of self-entitlement will usually inadvertently cramp someone else’s expectations. This congestion of expectations has us stopped in traffic, with envy conspicuously spewing from our exhaust pipes. Are we not always jockeying for position on the roads of life, often at the risk of danger to the others there? Śrīla Prabhupāda writes: For one who is always expecting some honor in this material world it is not possible to surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Pride is due to illusion, for although one comes here, stays for a brief time and then goes away, he has the foolish notion that he is the Lord of the world. He thus makes all things complicated, and he is always in trouble. The whole world moves under this impression. One has to get out of the false impression that human society is the proprietor of the world. (*Gītā* 15.5, Purport) The good news is that the limitless range of emotional experience in the bhakti relationship with Kṛṣṇa far exceeds the limited satisfaction to be gained from worldly possession and control. Queen Kuntī lays bare the hollow value of this type of prestige in an intelligent prayer: “My Lord, Your Lordship can easily be approached, but only by those who are materially exhausted. One who is on the path of material progress, trying to improve himself with respectable parentage, great opulence, high education, and bodily beauty, cannot approach You with sincere feeling.” (*Bhāgavatam* 1.8.26) Śrīla Prabhupāda explains in the purport to this verse that acquiring opulence puts us in a condition of life that is just like contracting a feverish disease. As our temperature is an indication of the disease’s effect on our body, the degree to which our mind is clouded by our desire to own and control is a measure of our spiritual illness. The two weaknesses of heart leave us no strength to serve Kṛṣṇa and His devotees or chant His holy names with sincere feeling. The Vedas describe a variety of fascinating demons and their diehard material calculations. Their ability to own and control what is not rightfully theirs is fascinating, but that same ability brings about their downfall at the hands of Lord Viṣṇu. By careful study of such pastimes of the Lord, we learn again and again that the temporary material strength we so value in this mundane world leads us to weakness. With this lesson learned, we may feelingly take up the saṅkīrtana of the holy names of Kṛṣṇa, who is the source and proprietor of all the material and spiritual worlds, who possesses divine character, and who appeared as Varāha, an immense divine boar who saved Mother Earth. *Karuṇā Dhāriṇī Devī Dāsī, a disciple of His Grace Vīrabāhu Dāsa, serves the deities at ISKCON Los Angeles, where she joined ISKCON in 1979. She has also been distributing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books since her earliest days in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. She lives with her husband and daughter.* Book Excerpt: Without Fear: Glimpses of Śrīla Prabhupāda *First Sight—Concerned With Love* “Then Śrīla Prabhupāda stepped out of the car, and my world changed.” by Rūpa-Vilāsa Dāsa Copyright © 2016 Robert D. MacNaughton *“His eyes were filled with love and compassion, and he seemed to scan us and see deeply into our hearts.”* After chanting sixteen rounds of Hare Kṛṣṇa for a week under the guidance of the devotees in the ISKCON temple in Tallahassee, Florida, I traveled in a van with them to Brooklyn, New York, in July of 1971, to see Śrīla Prabhupāda for the first time. We picked up Balavanta Prabhu and his wife, Ballavhi Prabhu, and some other devotees in Atlanta, Georgia, on the way. Once we reached New York, I stayed with some friends in Manhattan’s Lower East Side, and I traveled on the subway to Henry Street in Brooklyn, the site of ISKCON New York’s temple.1 I waited expectantly on the temple steps for my first sight of Śrīla Prabhupāda. I had seen his picture, read some of his writings, and heard his powerful chanting, and I was impressed by what I had heard up to that point. I had also heard some of the teachings of other gurus, but I wasn’t very impressed with them. I didn’t know what to expect, although I was convinced about the effects of chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa. Then Śrīla Prabhupāda stepped out of the car, and my world changed. I had never bowed down to anyone before,2 but I could immediately understand that he was that person I had been seeking, perhaps for lifetimes. I fell down to the ground and bowed down to him without reservation. He moved with a fluid, otherworldly grace, as though he were in a 3D film or hologram projected from another world to the earth. Immediately, I began to understand what it meant to be in the world but not of it. I dashed to the temple room, fighting for a spot near his *vyāsāsana*, an unusual and colorful op-art creation. As he walked down the middle of the temple room after greeting the Rādhā-Govinda Deities, he glanced left and right, and I had the same experience as many other devotees have reported: his eyes were filled with love and compassion, and he seemed to scan us and see deeply into our hearts. I was left feeling simultaneously exposed and blessed by his glance. Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswāmī has written about the presence of a great spiritualist in Prabhupāda Meditations, Volume II: Recently, a Godbrother asked me to read the biography of a Jewish teacher of Hassidism, The Great Maggid; The Life and Teachings of Rabbi Dove Ber of Mezhirech. The founder of the Hassidic movement was Bal Shem Tov, and his successor was the great Maggid (“the great preacher”), Rabbi Dove Ber. I found something in this book which gave me encouragement in my proposal that remembering Prabhupāda is very important. The most comprehensive evaluation of the Maggid, perhaps, is that offered by Rabbi Leib Sarah’s [sic]. This saint was wont to say that man’s purpose is himself to become a Torah; all one’s doings, every emotion, act and speech should personify the Torah. This ideal he found fully realized in Rabbi Dove Ber, of whom he said: “I went to see the great Maggid of Mezhirech of blessed memory, not to learn Torah from his mouth but to learn how he ties and unties his shoelaces!” It is important to hear the guru teach the Torah or the scripture, and yet we want to learn everything about him, because a bona fide guru is a living example of the scripture. We want to learn how the realized speaker of the *Bhagavad-gītā* dealt with his disciples; how did this great author of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* eat his prasādam? How did he sleep and how did he walk? This is similar to Arjuna’s request of Kṛṣṇa. “What are the symptoms of one whose consciousness is thus merged in transcendence? How does he speak and what is his language? How does he sit and how does he walk?” (Bg. 2.54)3 As the Hassidic Jewish ideal, expressed above, is to gain the audience of a being who is a “personified Torah” or who has “become a Torah,” that exactly describes the presence of Śrīla Prabhupāda and is elaborated on in his purports to *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*: Here is the remedy for eliminating all inauspicious things within the heart which are considered to be obstacles in the path of self-realization. The remedy is the association of the **Bhāgavata*s*. There are two types of **Bhāgavata*s*, namely the book *Bhāgavata* and the devotee *Bhāgavata*. Both the **Bhāgavata*s* are competent remedies, and both of them or either of them can be good enough to eliminate the obstacles. A devotee *Bhāgavata* is as good as the book *Bhāgavata* because the devotee *Bhāgavata* leads his life in terms of the book *Bhāgavata* and the book *Bhāgavata* is full of information about the Personality of Godhead and His pure devotees, who are also **Bhāgavata*s*. *Bhāgavata* book and person are identical. *(Author’s emphasis is in bold type throughout the book.) The devotee *Bhāgavata* is a direct representative of Bhagavān, the Personality of Godhead. So by pleasing the devotee *Bhāgavata* one can receive the benefit of the book *Bhāgavata*. Human reason fails to understand how by serving the devotee *Bhāgavata* or the book *Bhāgavata* one gets gradual promotion on the path of devotion. But actually these are facts explained by Śrīla Nāradadeva, who happened to be a maidservant’s son in his previous life. The maidservant was engaged in the menial service of the sages, and thus he also came into contact with them. And simply by associating with them and accepting the remnants of foodstuff left by the sages, the son of the maidservant got the chance to become the great devotee and personality Śrīla Nāradadeva. And to understand these effects practically, it should be noted that by such sincere association of the *Bhāgavata*s one is sure to receive transcendental knowledge very easily, with the result that he becomes fixed in the devotional service of the Lord. The more progress is made in devotional service under the guidance of the *Bhāgavata*s, the more one becomes fixed in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. The messages of the book *Bhāgavata*, therefore, have to be received from the devotee *Bhāgavata*, and the combination of these two *Bhāgavata*s will help the neophyte devotee to make progress on and on.4 And the *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* further clarifies and confirms: My Lord, devotees like your good self are verily holy places personified. Because you carry the Personality of Godhead within your heart, you turn all places into places of pilgrimage.5 This was my experience. I didn’t have the philosophical underpinning to understand that I was in the presence of a self-realized soul, nor did I know that my emotions and inner certainty were substantiated by the words of saintly persons and scripture. My response was instinctive and experienced as unflinching conviction. Some of the devotees didn’t look too pleased by the aggressive behavior of the long-haired hippie trying to get close to Śrīla Prabhupāda, but I got a spot close to him, and next to Kīrtanānanda Swami. Kīrtanānanda Swami sat and listened, his head cocked to the side like a bird, fully alert to Prabhupāda’s every word. I tried to do that too, but I was a bit overwhelmed, trying to take it all in: his presence, his heavily accented words in English, and the intensity of the scene and occasion. I do remember being particularly impressed when Śrīla Prabhupāda said that Prahlāda Mahārāja was praying to the Lord that he was unconcerned about his own situation, but that he was concerned, with love, for all those rotting in material existence. Śrīla Prabhupāda was referring to several verses from the ninth chapter of the seventh canto of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*: O best of the great personalities, I am not at all afraid of material existence, for wherever I stay I am fully absorbed in thoughts of Your glories and activities. My concern is only for the fools and rascals who are making elaborate plans for material happiness and maintaining their families, societies and countries. I am simply concerned with love for them.6 In another translation of the same verse, Śrīla Prabhupāda further elaborates on the mood of the Vaiṣṇava: My dear Lord, I have no problems and want no benediction from You because I am quite satisfied to chant Your holy name. This is sufficient for me because whenever I chant I immediately merge in an ocean of transcendental bliss. I only lament to see others bereft of Your love. They are rotting in material activities for transient material pleasure and spoiling their lives toiling all day and night simply for sense gratification, with no attachment for love of Godhead. I am simply lamenting for them and devising various plans to deliver them from the clutches of māyā. My dear Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva, I see that there are many saintly persons indeed, but they are interested only in their own deliverance. Not caring for the big cities and towns, they go to the Himalayas or the forest to meditate with vows of silence [mauna-vrata]. They are not interested in delivering others. As for me, however, I do not wish to be liberated alone, leaving aside all these poor fools and rascals. I know that without Kṛṣṇa consciousness, without taking shelter of Your lotus feet, one cannot be happy. Therefore I wish to bring them back to shelter at Your lotus feet.7 In hearing Śrīla Prabhupāda speak on the essence of these verses detailing the incredible compassion and selflessness of a truly great soul, I understood the difference between Śrīla Prabhupāda and all the other so-called gurus whose teachings I had encountered. All the others talked about “becoming God” and personal gains (health, happiness, liberation), i.e., their appeals seemed focused on getting their followers tuned into that very familiar station WIFM (What’s In it For Me?). Śrīla Prabhupāda’s focus was not on personal gain. He spoke of and personified the mood of a Vaiṣṇava who is dedicated to relieving the suffering of others as a servant of God. His every word and gesture clearly embodied that concern. I understood: This person is a perfect example of the compassionate, fully liberated devotee he was describing. As already discussed, Arjuna had asked the same question about the behavior and symptoms of a liberated soul in the *Bhagavad-gītā*: Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, what are the symptoms of one whose consciousness is thus merged in transcendence? How does he speak, and what is his language? How does he sit, and how does he walk?8 And in Kṛṣṇa’s answers (*Bhagavad-gītā* 2.55–71), He dwells on how a liberated soul engages his mind and senses, i.e., how he lives and acts while situated within the machinery of a physical body. He explains and details the symptoms of a self-realized soul as being “free from all attachment and aversion,” “able to control his senses,” for whom the “threefold miseries of material existence no longer exist,” having “satisfied consciousness,” and “transcendental intelligence,” a “steady mind,” as well as being able to restrain his senses from their objects, who is “undisturbed by the incessant flow of desires,” who has “given up all desire for sense gratification,” who is “free from material desires,” having “given up all sense of proprietorship,” and is “devoid of false ego.” In the seventh canto of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, Prahlāda Mahārāja is described as follows: By the touch of Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva’s hand on Prahlāda Mahārāja’s head, Prahlāda was completely freed of all material contaminations and desires, as if he had been thoroughly cleansed. Therefore, he at once became transcendentally situated, and all the symptoms of ecstasy became manifest in his body. His heart filled with love, and his eyes with tears, and thus he was able to completely capture the lotus feet of the Lord within the core of his heart.9 Śrīla Prabhupāda exhibited these symptoms constantly throughout his life. His life was an open book to all, and those that knew him affirmed that he behaved in private as he did in public, fully absorbed in loving concern for the deliverance of those for whom Prahlāda Mahārāja had expressed his heartfelt concern in his prayers to Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva, as cited earlier in this chapter: “I am simply lamenting for them and devising various plans to deliver them from the clutches of *māyā*.” His whole life was dedicated for this purpose, to satisfy the desires of his spiritual master, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura Prabhupāda, the entire Gauḍīya sampradāya (disciplic succession), and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself Who desired that the chanting of the holy names be spread throughout the world. In every town and village, the chanting of My name will be heard.10 Śrīla Prabhupāda was clearly the embodiment of the verses uttered by Prahlāda Mahārāja and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Explaining this deep conviction of the pure devotee with piercing clarity, Śrīla Prabhupāda writes: The position of a Vaiṣṇava is to take compassion on all these ignorant people. The great Vaiṣṇava Prahlāda Mahārāja once prayed to the Lord, “My Lord, as far as I am concerned, I have no problems. My consciousness is always absorbed in Your very powerful transcendental activities, and therefore I have understood things clearly. But I am deeply concerned for these rascals who are engaged in activities for illusory happiness.” A Vaiṣṇava thinks only about how people can become happy. He knows that they are vainly searching after something that will never come to be. For 50 or 60 years people search after illusory happiness, but then they must die without completing the work and without knowing what will happen after death. Actually, their position is like that of an animal, because an animal also does not know what happens to him after death. The animal does not know the value of life, nor why he has come here. By the influence of *māyā*, he simply eats, sleeps, mates, defends, and dies. That’s all. Throughout their lives the ignorant animals—and the animalistic men—greatly endeavor to do these five things only: eat, sleep, mate, defend, and die. Therefore, the business of a Vaiṣṇava is to instruct people that God exists, that we are His servants, and that we can enjoy an eternally blissful life serving Him and developing our love for Him.11 ŚRĪLA PRABHUPĀDA KI JAYA! *ENDNOTES* 1 It was during the same visit to the Henry Street ISKCON center that Śrīla Prabhupāda introduced the chanting of “*Jaya Rādhā-Mādhava*,” the portrait of life in Vṛndāvana, and also the following wonderful exchange took place with Nanda Kiśora Prabhu: Nanda Kiśora: What happens to a person if we just give him, out on the street, one Simply Wonderful or some *prasādam*, one piece of *prasādam*? Prabhupāda: That is wonderful, simply wonderful. (laughter) He has not tasted such a wonderful sweet in his life. Therefore, you give him wonderful, and because he’s eating that wonderful sweet, one day he’ll come to your temple and become wonderful. Devotees: Jaya! Prabhupāda: Therefore, it is simply wonderful. So go on distributing this Simply Wonderful. Your philosophy is simply wonderful. Your prasādam is simply wonderful. You are simply wonderful. And your Kṛṣṇa is simply wonderful. The whole process of simply wonderful. And He acts wonderfully, and it is acting wonderfully. Who can deny it? Devotee: Prabhupāda is simply wonderful. Prabhupāda: That’s all right. You can become . . . Everyone. All right, have *kīrtana*. (New York 710720LE.NY) 2 My father, a very proud military man, a veteran of three wars, and very cynical about “authorities,” instructed me on a number of occasions: “Never bow down to anyone!” On one specific occasion, this admonition was in response to reading about a Native American shaman who had disciples who offered him respect by bowing down. However, just by seeing and hearing Śrīla Prabhupāda, I felt no hesitation to do so. In a conversation in Seattle, Washington, in 1968 (680930LE.SEA), Śrīla Prabhupāda had an exchange with a young man who objected to the idea of subordinating himself to anyone or anything. Śrīla Prabhupāda told him that this was his disease. The young man was taken aback at this, and Śrīla Prabhupāda explained: “You are bowing down to everyone. You are bowing down to death, you are bowing down to disease, you are bowing down to old age. You are bowing down to so many things. You are forced. And still you are thinking that ‘I cannot bow down. I don’t like it.’ Because you are saying: ‘I don’t like it,’ therefore, you are being forced. You have to bow down. Why do you forget your position? That is our disease. Therefore, the next process is that ‘I am being forced to bow down.’ Now we have to find out ‘Where shall I be happy even by bowing down?’ That is Kṛṣṇa. Your bowing down will not be stopped, because you are meant for that. But if you bow down to Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa’s representative, you become happy. Test this. You have to bow down. If you don’t bow down to Kṛṣṇa and His representative, then you will be forced to bow down to something else, *māyā*. That is your position. You cannot be free at any moment . . . Simply you have to seek out where you have to bow down, that’s all. That is Kṛṣṇa. You cannot stop your bowing down, but you have to see where you have to bow down. That’s all. If you artificially think that ‘I’m not going to bow down to anyone. I am independent,’ then you suffer. Simply you have to seek out the proper place where you have to bow down.” 3 Prabhupāda Meditations Vol II, PM 2.5.9, Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami. 4 SB 1.2.18 purport. 5 SB 1.13.10 purport. 6 SB 7.9.43. 7 SB 7.9.44. 8 BG 2.54. 9 SB 7.9.6. 10 *CB Antya-khaṇḍa* 4.126. 11 *Life Comes From Life*, Seventh Walk, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. *Rūpa-Vilāsa Dāsa (Robert MacNaughton) was born in Colorado in 1945. By Śrīla Prabhupāda’s grace, he received initiation from that great, empowered master in 1972. He is well known as a lecturer and author in ISKCON and has written a series of biographies called Lives of the Vaiṣṇava Ācāryas. Two of the titles (*Without Fear—Glimpses of Śrīla Prabhupāda and Nāmācārya—The Life of Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura*) are available from Torchlight Publishing. Without Fear—Glimpses of Śrīla Prabhupāda is volume V of the series and is also available from the Kṛṣṇa.com store.* The Humble Apology: Why, When, and How *With all our imperfections, the Lord’s forgiving nature and His mercy are our only hope.* By Gaurāṅga Darśana Dāsa What matters more than a formal apology is an honest repentance and an attempt to avoid repetition. The Vedic scriptures say that every human being is subject to four defects: we have imperfect senses, we make mistakes, we get illusioned, and we have the propensity to cheat. Even very intelligent and cultured people commit mistakes, and sometimes our mistakes hurt others in some way. Here I’ll discuss hurtful mistakes, beginning with the examples of two ancient kings. King Parīkṣit was the glorious descendant of the Pāṇḍavas. He was a noble king who was protected by Lord Kṛṣṇa even within the womb of his mother. During his reign, Parīkṣit was so powerful that he even chastised Kali, the personification of our current age of spiritual decline. Once, Parīkṣit went to the forest to hunt, which was the practice of kings as part of their training for war. Afflicted by thirst, he approached the hermitage of the sage Śamīka and asked for water, but the sage was absorbed in deep meditation and didn’t respond. Offended, Parīkṣit placed a dead snake around Śamīka Ṛṣī’s neck and then left the place and returned to his palace. King Citraketu was a great devotee of Lord Saṅkarṣaṇa, an expansion of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Citraketu attained the audience of Lord Saṅkarṣaṇa in only seven days by chanting a *mantra* given to him by Nārada Muni. The Lord awarded Citraketu an airplane that could travel throughout the universe. Once, he arrived at a place where Lord Śiva was embracing Pārvatī, his wife, who was sitting on his lap. Lord Śiva was addressing an assembly of great sages and other exalted persons. Citraketu laughed and said that even ordinary men embrace their wives only in private, so how could Lord Śiva do that in public in front of sages? *Intentional Versus Accidental Mistakes* Although committing mistakes that offend others is common for us, we should at least make sure we don’t commit them purposefully. Incidentally or accidentally, we may err sometimes, but premeditated, deliberate offenses can have serious repercussions. Honest people may accidently offend someone, but they do not justify their mistakes, and they sincerely apologize for them. Dishonest people offend knowingly, and instead of admitting their offenses, they try to cover them up or justify them. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes, “The Lord is always prepared to excuse His devotee, but if a devotee takes advantage of the Lord’s leniency and purposefully commits mistakes again and again, the Lord will certainly punish him by letting him fall down into the clutches of the illusory energy. One must strongly adhere to the lotus feet of the Lord in devotional service. Then one’s position is secure.” (*Bhāgavatam* 5.18.4, Purport) What Parīkṣit Mahāraja did was certainly a mistake, but it was due to his fatigue, thirst, and hunger and thus circumstantial. One proof of this is that he had never insulted any sages or brāhmaṇas before this incident, and he never did again. Another proof was his honest repentance for what he did. Citraketu’s criticizing Lord Śiva was also a mistake, but he did it with good intent. He knew that exalted Śiva would not be affected by the uncommon behavior he was displaying. But Citraketu was concerned that ordinary people might misunderstand Śiva’s behavior and criticize or disrespect him, and thus become victims of offending the great demigod. Citraketu wanted to protect Lord Śiva’s honor and protect common people from offending him. *Regret, But Don’t Forget* A mistake is truly a mistake if one fails to learn from it. An honorable person is not one who never commits mistakes, but one who regrets them, apologizes for them, atones for them, and genuinely tries to rectify them and not repeat them. He also takes responsibility for the consequences without shifting blame. Parīkṣit Mahāraja, after returning to his palace, reflected on his act of garlanding Śamīka Ṛṣi with a dead snake. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes, “The pious King [Parīkṣit] regretted his accidental improper treatment of the powerful *brāhmaṇa*, who was faultless. Such repentance is natural for a good man like the King, and such repentance delivers a devotee from all kinds of sins accidentally committed. The devotees are naturally faultless. Accidental sins committed by a devotee are sincerely regretted, and by the grace of the Lord all sins unwillingly committed by a devotee are burnt in the fire of repentance.” (*Bhāgavatam* 1.19.1, Purport) Genuine regret or remorse in a positive spirit brings auspiciousness, just as Parīkṣit’s regret made him turn with humility towards God and God’s representatives. But insincere and egoistic regret can lead to depression or destructive tendencies. We can benefit by remembering our mistakes. When we do good things, we may become proud of our accomplishments and think highly of ourselves. But if we are aware that we have shortcomings and honestly remember our mistakes, we really can’t be proud. This is in no way to discourage feeling good about our success in behaving well, but it helps us avoid becoming proud and looking down on others; it helps us keep our feet on the ground. By acknowledging our mistakes we can become humble, and by remembering them we can remain humble. *Expecting and Accepting the Reaction* Honest people are prepared to suffer the consequences of their misdeeds without trying to escape them. It’s natural to expect a punishment for one’s misdeed, but Parīkṣit not only expected a punishment, but, being a man of integrity, he desired a punishment. He considered that if he were not punished, he would be encouraged to offend again, or his family members might be punished for his wrong deed. Devotees don’t want others to suffer for their mistakes. > sa cintayann ittham athāśṛṇod yathā > muneḥ sutokto nirṛtis takṣakākhyaḥ > sa sādhu mene na cireṇa takṣakā- > nalaṁ prasaktasya virakti-kāraṇam “While the King was thus repenting, he received news of his imminent death, which would be due to the bite of a snake-bird, occasioned by the curse spoken by the sage’s son. The King accepted this as good news, for it would be the cause of his indifference toward worldly things.” (*Bhāgavatam* 1.19.4) A student of Śamīka Ṛṣi’s named Gauramukha informed Parīkṣit that Śamīka Ṛṣi’s son Śṛṅgī had cursed him to die in seven days (Śrīla Viṣvanātha Cakravarti Ṭhākura’s commentary on *Bhāgavatam* 1.18.4). Parīkṣit happily accepted the curse, seeing it as the Supreme Lord’s arrangement. He retired as emperor, and for his last seven days heard Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam* from Śukadeva Gosvāmī. When King Citraketu criticized Lord Śiva, Pārvatī became upset with what she perceived as his arrogant behavior and chastised him just as a mother chastises a mischievous son. Citraketu should have noticed Lord Śiva’s elevated position, she reasoned, and restrained himself from criticizing him in public. So, she became angry and cursed Citraketu to become a demon. He didn’t protest but accepted the curse gracefully and left. In his next life he became the great Vṛtrāsura—a “demon” who was actually a devotee. *Why and Why Not Apologize* Apologizing and begging forgiveness are natural responses for an honorable person who realizes he has acted improperly. A true apology is not an apology done just as a formality. It is born out of sincere regret for one’s misdeed and out of empathy towards others’ feelings. Parīkṣit regretted his mistake but didn’t go to Śamīka Ṛṣi and apologize, because the *ṛṣi* felt great remorse that his son had unnecessarily cursed a great monarch and devotee like Parīkṣit. Parīkṣit’s mistake was minor, but Śṛṅgī’s punishment of him was severe, highly disproportionate to the offense. When news of the curse was communicated to Parīkṣit, he understood that Śamīka Ṛṣi would feel regret over his son’s act. Therefore, to avoid increasing the sage’s suffering, Parīkṣit didn’t apologize. King Citraketu, when cursed by Pārvatī, got down from his airplane, bowed before her, and apologized, addressing her as “mother.” A chaste wife becomes angry and upset when her husband is disrespected. Thus Pārvatī felt offended by Citraketu’s criticism of Śiva. Acknowledging her feelings, Citraketu told her that he hadn’t meant to disrespect Śiva but that because she was displeased by his behavior, he begged forgiveness from her. > atha prasādaye na tvāṁ > śāpa-mokṣāya bhāmini > yan manyase hy asādhūktaṁ > mama tat kṣamyatāṁ sati “O mother, you are now unnecessarily angry, but since all my happiness and distress are destined by my past activities, I do not plead to be excused or relieved from your curse. Although what I have said is not wrong, please let whatever you think is wrong be pardoned.” (*Bhāgavatam* 6.17.24) Śamīka Ṛṣi was not offended by Parīkṣit Mahāraja’s action, but was regretful of Śṛṅgī’s behavior. Pārvatī, however, was offended by Citraketu’s action and was angry. So, in not apologizing and in apologizing, Parīkṣit and Citraketu honored the feelings of Śamīka and Pārvatī respectively. Being exalted devotees, Parīkṣit and Citraketu didn’t think that they had been cursed severely for their small mistakes. This showed their detachment, maturity, and dependence on the Supreme Lord. *Mistakes of Great Souls* In fact, the unprecedented behavior of the virtuous Parīkṣit and devoted Citraketu were part of the Supreme Lord’s divine plan. By the Lord’s will, Parīkṣit was put in an awkward situation so that the holy scripture *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* could appear. To purify a slight tinge of pride in King Citraketu and quickly bring him to the spiritual world within one short lifetime, the Lord inspired Pārvatī to curse him. By these arrangements in the lives of His pure devotees, the Lord also taught us beautiful life lessons. *The Attitude Behind the Apology* Expressing an apology is important, but the emotion behind the expression is more important. The internal attitude behind one’s external apology shows how sincere the apology is. To apologize isn’t a ritual, but it’s a heartfelt expression of one’s honest emotion. Some admit their mistakes and apologize for them, but later repeat the same mistakes. Of course, no one can become perfect overnight. It takes some time to come out of a bad habit, and thus one may repeatedly commit mistakes, but a sincere intent to overcome them will eventually bring the right consciousness and behavior. But if we have no intention to rectify our mistakes, but just formally or ritualistically say “Sorry” and continue making them, we are considered professional sinners. This kind of insincerity is compared to the bath of an elephant, which puts dirt on its body after bathing in a river. We may clarify the circumstances under which we happened to commit an accidental mistake, and we may clarify our intentions behind an apparently hurtful deed. But denying our faults and justifying our misdeeds by philosophizing is not the nature of sober people. Citraketu clarified his intentions to Mother Pārvatī, but didn’t justify his actions; he readily accepted her curse as his destiny and respectfully departed. Sometimes mistakes or offenses are not innocent and circumstantial, but are committed out of prolonged and deep-rooted envy and anger towards others. One such example is Prajāpati Dakṣa, who envied Lord Śiva, who was more exalted than him. Dakṣa once publicly criticized Śiva and cursed him. Dakṣa’s offensive mentality later made him even neglect and disrespect his own daughter Satī, Śiva’s wife, who then committed suicide. Angry Śiva created the powerful giant Vīrabhadra, who beheaded Dakṣa. Thereafter, upon Lord Brahmā’s request, Lord Śiva kindly revived Dakṣa, who repented for his offense and begged forgiveness from Lord Śiva. Yet, due to the traces of Dakṣa’s offensive attitude and behavior towards Śiva, in his next life he committed a similar offense towards the great sage Nārada Muni by criticizing and cursing him (Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura’s commentary on *Bhāgavatam* 6.4.52, 54). If our apology isn’t sincere, we may commit similar mistakes again. Once Indra, the king of the heaven, became overly proud of his position. To humble him, Lord Kṛṣṇa stopped the residents of Vrindavan from worshiping him and encouraged them to worship Govardhana Hill instead. Indra became angry and sent devastating rains to destroy Vrindavan. But Kṛṣṇa lifted Govardhana and saved His people. Indra realized his offense towards the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa and apologized to Him. Kṛṣṇa cautioned him and forgave him. Commenting on this episode, Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura explains that, after his failed attack on Vrindavan, Indra approached Kṛṣṇa because he feared punishment. He became submissive and apologetic in front of Kṛṣṇa to save himself. His apology wasn’t very sincere. As a result, he committed a similar mistake later. When Kṛṣṇa went to heaven and wanted to take a special tree called *pārijāta* to satisfy His beloved queen Satyabhāmā, Indra protested and got into a fight with Kṛṣṇa. *A Sincere Apology Attracts Forgiveness* Śamīka Ṛṣi regretted his son’s overreacting and cursing Parīkṣit. And Pārvatī felt ashamed for having cursed Citraketu for his small mistake. Without maintaining grudges, noble people wholeheartedly forgive those who humble themselves and sincerely apologize. When we accidentally offend someone, we hope for that person’s forgiveness. Similarly, when others offend us, we should be willing to forgive them. If the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa were to take all our mistakes seriously and not forgive us, who in the entire universe could give us shelter? Our worship of Kṛṣṇa is often filled with many shortcomings and mistakes. Thus it is recommended that we always beg forgiveness from Him after worshiping Him. There are various prayers in this regard. For example, > aparādha-sahasrāṇi > kriyante ’har-niṣaṁ mayā > dāso ’ham iti māṁ matvā > kṣamasva madhusūdana “I commit thousands of offenses day and night. But, thinking of me as Your servant, kindly forgive those, O Madhusūdana [Kṛṣṇa].” The Lord’s forgiving nature and His mercy are our only hope. Otherwise, with all our imperfections, we cannot be confident that our worship is flawless and worthy of winning His favor. > pratijñā tava govinda > na me bhaktaḥ praṇaśyati > iti saṁsmṛtya saṁsmṛtya > prāṇān saṅdhārayāmy aham “O Govinda, Your promise is that Your devotee will never perish. By remembering this over and over again, I am able to stay alive.” Making mistakes is common. But honest people realize them, remember them, regret them, rectify them, and don’t repeat them. They honestly apologize for their mistakes, not as a ritual, but as a heartfelt gesture. *Gaurāṅga Darśana Dāsa, a disciple of His Holiness Rādhānāth Swami, is dean of the Bhaktivedānta Vidyāpīṭha (www.vidyapitha.in) at ISKCON Govardhan Eco Village (GEV), outside Mumbai. He has written the Subodhinī series of study guides and other books, including Disapproved but Not Disowned and Bhāgavata Pravāha. He teaches scriptural courses at several places in India and oversees the deity worship at GEV.* When God “Fails” *In the end, Kṛṣṇa’s seeming failure to appease Duryodhana revealed His own greatness.* by Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa Kṛṣṇa’s unsuccessful peace mission successfully demonstrated His love for His devotees. The ancient Indian epic *Mahābhārata* features a massive war. In today’s world threatened by violence in the name of religion, such a war in a religious book can be worrying. Even more worrying may be the fact that Kṛṣṇa, who is God descended to the earth, was Himself involved in that war. He spoke the Bhagavad-gītā to prod a reluctant Arjuna to fight. Is Kṛṣṇa a war-mongering God? Not at all. The same *Mahābhārata* narrates in detail how Kṛṣṇa sought peace, even going as a humble envoy to reconcile with the evil opponent Duryodhana. Through this extraordinary incident, Kṛṣṇa demonstrated, beyond all doubt, who was bent on the war: Duryodhana. Kṛṣṇa went on a peace mission, and He failed. But did He really fail? *Did God Fail?* To make sense of God’s apparent failure, let’s better understand the Kṛṣṇa conception of God. Kṛṣṇa, being God, doesn’t delight in majestic isolation—He delights in the full gamut of relationships and in the activities that enrich those relationships. His relationship with the Pāṇḍavas is in the mood of intimate friendship. Within that friendship, He played various roles, such as aide, mentor, and charioteer. One role was that of a peace envoy on a doomed peace mission. “How can God fail?” we may wonder. “Isn’t He supposed to be omnipotent?” Yes. In fact, the *bhakti* tradition declares that one of Kṛṣṇa’s names is *Satya-*saṅkalpa**—meaning that whatever He resolves to do comes true. Did this incident falsify His name? No. We need to understand what His *saṅkalpa*, or resolve, was. It was not so much to prevent the war as to demonstrate to the world that the Pāṇḍavas, His devotees, had done everything possible to prevent the war. In that resolve He was superbly successful. Did Kṛṣṇa not want to prevent the war? Certainly, He wanted to, and He tried to. But preventing war was not what Duryodhana wanted, and Kṛṣṇa respected his free will. Despite being omnipotent, Kṛṣṇa never encroaches on the free will He has given to every living being. Duryodhana wanted to misuse his free will by staying obstinately on the path of vice and waging war, so Kṛṣṇa advised him for his own good, but didn’t force him. Kṛṣṇa’s intent to protect the Pāṇḍavas’ good name was revealed in His conversation with Vidura on the evening before the peace negotiation. Vidura asked Kṛṣṇa, “Why, O Lord, are You going to the Kuru assembly? You know that Duryodhana won’t agree to any peace proposal.” Vidura spoke from experience. He had been trying for years, even decades, to make Duryodhana see sense. But Duryodhana was adamant in his antipathy towards the Pāṇḍavas. Never had he listened to good advice. And now that he had the vast Kuru wealth and army with him, he was unlikely to start seeing sense and settle for a peaceful resolution. Kṛṣṇa replied to Vidura, “Yes, I know Duryodhana won’t listen. Still I will go because I want the world to know that the Pāṇḍavas tried everything to prevent the war. I don’t want them to be blamed for having instigated this war.” *A Most Accommodating Proposal to a Most Arrogant Prince* The next day, in the Kuru assembly, Kṛṣṇa expertly made the case for peace before the Kuru king, Dhṛtarāṣṭra. In a short while, Dhṛtarāṣṭra threw up his hands and said, “You don’t have to persuade me; I agree with You. But my son doesn’t listen to me or to reason. Please persuade him.” Then Kṛṣṇa addressed Duryodhana, trying to make him see sense. Kṛṣṇa resourcefully used all four broad methods for conflict resolution: *sāma* (highlighting shared interests), *dāma* (stressing the benefits of reconciliation), *daṇḍa* (emphasizing the consequences of confrontation), and *bheda* (sowing dissension among the opponents). Finally, while stressing the benefits of reconciliation, Kṛṣṇa offered Duryodhana a peace treaty on the most accommodating terms: “Just give the Pāṇḍavas five villages.” This was an astonishingly generous overture. The Pāṇḍavas had been the undisputed rulers of vast expanses of land and had been defrauded of it all by Duryodhana. Even the gambling match in which they lost everything had been rigged. Still, they had honored the terms of the match and had lived out a long exile of thirteen years, including an especially humiliating incognito hiding for one year. Now they had full right to demand at least their share of the kingdom, which was the half they had developed from scratch from abandoned wilderness. And yet Duryodhana rejected even this proposal. But through his rejection he unintentionally exposed his own arrogant attitude thoroughly. He replied, “I won’t give the Pāṇḍavas enough land to even put the tip of a needle through.” His pronouncement was not just a practical no to the proposal—it was a personal no to the proposer. Suppose we invite someone for dinner at our home and they decline, saying, “I have another engagement at that time.” That’s a polite no. But suppose they reply, “Even if I die, my corpse won’t come to your home!” That is not just a no to the request; it is a no to the person, a rude slamming of the door in their face. Duryodhana’s sharp response actually cut himself sharply. Anyone who heard that reply could understand beyond doubt that it was Duryodhana alone who sought the war, who indeed made peaceful reconciliation impossible. *Winning the Perception Battle* Before Kṛṣṇa went on His peace mission, Duryodhana had put the Pāṇḍavas in an untenable situation. Though he had committed atrocity upon atrocity against them, he had now cast them as the aggressors. Through a rigged gambling match, he had dispossessed the Pāṇḍavas of their kingdom for thirteen years and sent them into exile during that period. Though the Pāṇḍavas had faithfully served out the exile term, Duryodhana claimed they had been discovered before the end of the year of incognito exile and so would have to serve another thirteen-year exile. He based his claim on some technicalities and nonstandard ways of calculating time. His calculations were rejected by learned elders such as Bhīṣma, but he insisted on them. By portraying the Pāṇḍavas as violators of the terms of the exile, he tried to delegitimize their request to be returned their half of the kingdom. And when he thus forced them to take assertive action by preparing for war, he sought to portray them as aggressors, who were claiming a kingdom that was not theirs and who were ready to even attack their own brethren to win that kingdom. Duryodhana thus cunningly changed the narrative of events to make the Pāṇḍavas look like the bad guys. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The Pāṇḍavas were not greedy or power-hungry; they just wanted what was theirs, what had been unfairly snatched from them, what they had every right now to reclaim. But Duryodhana was casting the violated as the violators. Though the Pāṇḍavas might have been the ones launching the war, the Kauravas were the ones causing the war. This was the subtle but significant difference that Kṛṣṇa’s peace mission made unambiguously clear. Kṛṣṇa is expert at everything, including the art of managing the optics of situations. Managing optics is important because perceptions are important—in the public eye, perceptions often trump reality. We may be working for a right cause, even a glorious cause, but that doesn’t mean people will automatically support us. If we don’t take the effort to explain what we are doing and why, we may find public opinion mobilized against us. The importance of public perception is acknowledged in legal aphorisms such as “Justice must not just be done; justice must be seen to be done.” By asking for a merely symbolic gesture of reconciliation—give just five villages—Kṛṣṇa placed the onus for the decision on Duryodhana. And Duryodhana played right into Kṛṣṇa’s hands by flatly refusing, thereby exposing his envy. The Kuru kingdom was so large and prosperous that giving up five villages would not have mattered at all, geopolitically or financially or in any other way. Kṛṣṇa didn’t ask for any specific five villages that might have natural resources or strategic locations—He asked for any five villages. It was like asking for just a glass of water from a large lake. Any reasonable observer would acknowledge that five villages was a ridiculously low price to avoid a catastrophic war. When Duryodhana refused to give even that much, his actions made the reality crystal clear: it was Duryodhana who was bent on war, whereas the Pāṇḍavas were ready to bend way backwards to avoid the war. Duryodhana’s malice came fully out in the open when he rejected Kṛṣṇa’s peace proposal and especially in the way he rejected it. In trying to stand tall, he left himself with no leg to stand on. Whoever might have had any illusions that Duryodhana had some case could see that he was not interested in doing what was right—he was just interested in doing wrong to the Pāṇḍavas. Because he was so envious, he didn’t just want the whole kingdom for himself; he especially wanted that the Pāṇḍavas should have nothing. His joy came in reducing the Pāṇḍavas to penury and misery. His joy was not just in what he possessed, but in what he could dispossess the Pāṇḍavas of. He wanted them impoverished, humiliated, eliminated. Though he tried to conceal his envy under the garb of calendar calculations, his rejection of Kṛṣṇa’s peace proposal brought that envy to light for everyone to see. Though Kṛṣṇa failed in the peace mission, He won decisively in the perception battle. *Ridiculous Rationalization* We all have arrogance to some degree. But cultured people use their intelligence to curb their arrogance, not to inflate it. Duryodhana unfortunately used his intelligence to rationalize his arrogant actions. Initially, he tried to deny that he had committed any wrong at all. He went to the extreme of claiming, “Even after great introspection, I can’t see the slightest fault in anything I have done.” Such is the incredible capacity of the human mind for self-deception. When Kṛṣṇa’s cutting, uncompromising speech exposed the absurdity of Duryodhana’s claim, Duryodhana changed tack and tried to pass the blame on to his creator. “I am simply acting according to my nature. The creator gave me my nature. If I have done anything wrong, the creator who gave me my nature is responsible.” Is God the cause of our nature? Yes, He is ultimately the cause of everything, including our nature. But He is not the immediate cause; that cause is our own karma from our past lives. The rain is the ultimate cause of all vegetation, but it is not the cause of which vegetation grows where—that depends on the seeds sown there. Our past actions are like the seeds that give rise to our present nature. So, we can’t blame God for our nature. Even if we grant, for argument’s sake, that God is the source of our nature, still He is also the source of scripture, the guidebook to live with our nature and to live for something bigger than our nature. And the wisdom of scripture was explained to Duryodhana by the original source of scripture Himself, Kṛṣṇa. Duryodhana’s acceptance of nature, but not of scripture, showed that his argument was not sincere but was simply self-serving. Even if he had a particular nature, he could have used scriptural guidance as a resource to change himself for the better. What better resource could he have asked for to change himself than Kṛṣṇa Himself? We sometimes feel we lack the resources to change ourselves. While we all could do with more help for changing ourselves, no external help can replace the internal will to change, just as no alarm can get a person out of bed who’s determined to stay there. Such was Duryodhana’s unwillingness to face the facts about his culpability. *Sentimentality, Surgery, Society* Kṛṣṇa showed the same respect for human intelligence and independence in His interaction with Duryodhana that He showed in His interaction with Arjuna when speaking the Bhagavad-gītā. Yet Duryodhana and Arjuna responded oppositely. Arjuna chose to accept Kṛṣṇa’s proposal, understanding that Kṛṣṇa was his greatest well-wisher. In contrast, Duryodhana chose to defy Kṛṣṇa’s will, mistaking Him to be a partisan advocate of Duryodhana’s opponents and mistaking self-motivated people like Śakuni to be his well-wishers. Kṛṣṇa was proposing peace to Duryodhana, whereas He was proposing assertive action to Arjuna. But in both cases He was pursuing the same purpose: the welfare of everyone involved. In a hospital, the head surgeon may deter a drunk surgeon from picking up a scalpel, but may exhort a disheartened surgeon to pick up the scalpel. In both cases the chief doctor acts as the well-wisher of everyone. If we compare society to a body, then *kṣatriyas*, the martial guardians of society, are like surgeons for the social body. They need to remove the corrupted elements within the social body to maintain social order. Duryodhana was like a drunk surgeon whom Kṛṣṇa was deterring from war. But when Duryodhana’s obstinacy made the war inevitable, Kṛṣṇa exhorted Arjuna to not let sentimentality sabotage duty. A surgeon can’t refuse to operate just because the patient will feel pain. In the long run, not doing the surgery will hurt the patient much more. Similarly, though war would cause bloodshed, society would suffer far more if antisocial elements like Duryodhana were allowed to rein unchecked. Duryodhana, by his vicious actions and attitude, had shown himself to be not just a drunk surgeon, but also a dangerously infected limb in the social body. He had to be amputated. When treating a patient, if less intrusive methods fail, surgery becomes unavoidable. Through his peace proposal, Kṛṣṇa demonstrated that he had tried every option before resorting to the surgery in the form of the Kurukshetra war. Kṛṣṇa’s failure in His peace mission represents not His weakness, but His greatness. His greatness in humbly becoming a peace messenger to try to avoid bloodshed. His greatness in respecting the free will of even rebellious souls such as Duryodhana. And His greatness in accepting defeat in the world’s eyes to protect the good name of His devotees. *Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa serves full time at ISKCON Chowpatty, Mumbai. He is a BTG associate editor and the author of twenty-five books. To read his other articles or to receive his daily reflection on the Bhagavad-gītā, “Gita-Daily,” visit gitadaily.com.* Tat Tvam Asi: A Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Clarification *Although the Advaitins may want to coopt this famous phrase, Vaiṣṇavas have something to say about that.* By Satyarāja Dāsa Vaiṣṇava *ācāryas* have cut through the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta with the sword of a prominent Vedic *mantra*. Though there are many mahā-vākyas, or “great sayings,” four of them, one from each of the four Vedas, are often singled out as the standard mahā-vākyas of the Vedic tradition. They all refer to the same universal truth, evoking the true spiritual nature of all living beings. This article focuses on tat tvam asi, often translated as “Thou art that.”1 Many scholars interpret this to mean that all living entities are the same as God. As we shall see, the aphorism is far more nuanced than that interpretation. The verse originally appears in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad* (6.8.7) of the Sāma Veda as the culminating thought in a dialogue between Uddālaka and his son Śvetaketu. It is first uttered at the end of their discussion and then repeated as a refrain for the rest of the text. The story behind the phrase is that the young Śvetaketu was proud of his learning, and his father tried to humble him by articulating a teaching that would allow him to see the vastness of the universe and the limitations of each individual’s knowledge. In describing how everything emanates from one eternal Truth, and how his son indeed partakes of that Truth, he ended with the words “Of everything that exists, this Being is the innermost Self. He is the Truth, the Self. And you, Śvetaketu—you are that!” What did Uddālaka mean? What are the various ideas about how his son could be the innermost Self, the supreme reality? Was his son to be understood as God? Was Uddālaka excluding himself, saying that his son was God but that he was not? Was he saying that his son perhaps shares in God’s nature but is not necessarily God as such? There are various ways to view his proclamation, and we will briefly explore them in this article. *Śaṅkara’s View* According to Śaṅkara, the preeminent Advaitin philosopher of the eighth century, *tat tvam asi* expresses the oneness of the individual soul with Brahman, or the Supreme Spirit, i.e., God. From a certain perspective, that interpretation has merit, since there is a clear connection between all that is, because everything partakes of ultimate spiritual reality. But even a little sustained thought about what this actually means gives reason to pause. For example, Brahman is described throughout Vedic texts as all-pervading and all-knowing, while individual souls are atomic in size and limited in knowledge. How, then, can there be total nondifference or identity between the two? How can they be the same?3 Obviously, in the midst of any sameness of the living beings and God, there has to be a difference as well. This is the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava view, technically called *acintya-bhedābheda-tattv*a, the “inconceivable truth of simultaneous oneness and difference.” But Advaitins fail to acknowledge this, and so they devise dubious philosophical means to support their assertion: they often resort to metaphor or secondary word meanings to compensate for inaccuracy of interpretation. This is called **bhāga*-*tyāga*-lakṣaṇa*, or arriving at an indirect or implied meaning (*lakṣana*) by omitting (*tyāga*) a part (*bhāga*). Even objective Sanskrit scholars who do not align themselves with either Advaitins or Vaiṣṇavas have noted the inconsistencies in the Advaitin interpretation of tat tvam asi. For instance, Professor Edwin Gerow, a renowned Sanskritist and Indic studies educator, writes: The lakṣaṇa then is obvious for the “tvam”: it is to be taken not as referring to the individual Śvetaketu, but to his indwelling soul: ātman. Here we encounter the real problem for the Advaitin. For although the soul of Śvetaketu is in some sense identical to Brahman, the cosmic soul, the sentence still is defective in meaning, for “tat” still conveys the notion of “Brahman” as we ordinarily understand it: replete with qualities such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc. These qualities, which are part of Brahman’s primary meaning, are clearly not present in Śvetaketu’s soul, and also must be set aside if “tat tvam asi” is to convey an acceptable meaning: “the principle of pure consciousness evidenced in the World Soul is identical to the principle of consciousness evidenced in Śvetaketu.” Thus, the Advaitin has resorted to lakṣaṇa not once, but twice in the same sentence.4 Śrīla Prabhupāda would concur with Professor Gerow. As a preeminent representative of the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya, Prabhupāda reads tat tvam asi not as some all-inclusive statement about oneness with God—who obviously has qualities the individual soul does not—but as a reference to a very specific kind of oneness: “The Vedic version tat tvam asi, ‘Thou art the same,’” Prabhupāda tells us, “means not that everyone is God but that everyone is qualitatively of the same nature as God.”5 The key concepts here are quality and quantity. The sun, for example, might be seen as the sum total of all fire, as Prabhupāda often said, and while qualitatively it shares its “fire quality” with sunshine, sunshine issues forth in less quantity than the sun. Thus, in terms of God and His energies, we see that in one sense they are identical—we and everything that emanates from God are qualitatively one with Him—and yet, in another sense, God and His energies are fundamentally different. God is great, and His energies are comparatively small, which is a quantitative consideration. This, in a nutshell, is what is meant by tat tvam asi. *The Mādhva Sampradāya* Among all Vaiṣṇava traditions, the Mādhvites have been the most outspoken regarding the proper understanding of *tat tvam asi*. In fact, Madhva (1238–1317) himself writes in his work Śrī Tattva-muktāvalī (also known as *Māyāvāda-śata-dūṣaṇī*), verse 6: The Māyāvādī [Advaitin] commentator on Vedānta claimed that the words *tat tvam asi are the mahā-vākya*, the most important statement in the Vedas. According to this explanation, tat means “the Supreme,” tvam means “you,” and asi means “are.” He interpreted the phrase to mean “you are the Supreme,” and he claimed that there is no difference between the Supreme and the individual spirit souls. The Vaiṣṇava commentator on Vedānta interpreted these words in a different way, saying that *tat-tvam* is a possessive compound word (*ṣaṣṭhī-tatpuruṣa-samāsa*). According to his explanation, tat means “of the Supreme,” and the entire phrase means “you are the servant of the Supreme.” In this way, the proper meaning of the scriptural statement is clearly shown.6 Soon after Madhva’s time, during the early part of the fourteenth century, one of his prominent disciples, Akṣobhya Tīrtha, engaged in what would become a famous public debate. His challenger was Vidyāraṇya, a leading Advaitin of the period. The renowned Vedānta Deśika, a vastly learned figure in the Śrī Vaiṣṇava lineage, was the esteemed arbitrator, respected by both assemblies. After several days of debate, Deśika, weighing both sides of the argument, composed a now famous Sanskrit verse: “With the sword of the Vedic mantra tat tvam asi, which establishes the eternal distinction between the jīva and the Supreme Lord, Akṣobhya Muni cut down the dense forest [of monism] by destroying Vidyāraṇya’s arguments.”7 Today, epigraphic evidence (inscriptions) of the debate exists at Mulbagal, in the Kolar district of Karnataka, where a stone pillar commemorates this victory of Vaiṣṇavism over Advaita Vedānta. Madhva’s followers offer yet another linguistic perspective in an attempt for further clarity. Noting the full Sanskrit verse, they argue that tat tvam asi could just as easily be read as atat tvam asi. This would render it with the opposite meaning: “You are not God.” According to Hridayānanda dāsa Goswami: For non-Sanskritists, here is a simple explanation: In Sanskrit, a word-final long ‘a,’ which I will write as A, coalesces with (merges into) a following short ‘a’ or long ‘A.’ In CU 6.8.7, we have this: *sa AtmA tat tvam asi*. “. . . that [is the] soul. You are that.” But according to the rules above, this could be taken as “sa *AtmA* *a-tat* (not that) *tvam* *asi* (you are). In this case, the final A of *AtmA* coalesces with an imagined short ‘a’ of *a-tat*. In this case, ‘a,’ as in English a-theist, means “not.” The real point: this is possible grammatically. . . . Clearly, invoking the grammatical possibility of *a-tat* *tvam* *asi* is meant to refute any attempt to [mis]interpret *ātmā* [individual soul] as param*ātmā* [God].8 Such alternate readings of Sanskrit texts bring to mind scriptio continua (Latin for “continuous script”), an ancient style of writing without spaces, punctuation, distinguished letter case, and other marks between words or sentences. In the West, Classical Greek and late Classical Latin both used this method of writing, as did various Thai, Burmese, Khmer, Javanese, Balinese, Chinese, Japanese, and other scripts. Traditional editions of Sanskrit texts often used a form of scriptio continua as well, omitting numerous orthographic elements (elements related to letters and spelling) that would make the text more easily readable. Bart Ehrman, bestselling author and New Testament scholar, points out how scriptio continua can make it difficult to recognize the real and originally intended meaning of a text. As an example, he uses the word “godisnowhere,” which can be read by a theist as “God is now here,” and by an atheist as “God is nowhere.” One’s reading of it will depend on one’s understanding of the language and the phrase’s context, as well as one’s predilections and received tradition.9 Certain Sanskrit texts are received in the same way. This is especially pertinent in terms of tat tvam asi—the Advaitin reads it as “You are God,” and the Vaiṣṇava as “You are not God.” Clearly, in the end, the limited living being is not identifiable as the Supreme Being, and few would realistically claim otherwise. Consequently, that’s how the text should be read. As seen above, the Vaiṣṇava view on this subject has much to recommend it, for it has on its side logic, context, common sense, and corroboration from the overwhelming majority of India’s sacred texts. *Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Elaboration* The earliest literature on Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu offers an inner reading on *tat tvam asi*. In Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura’s *Caitanya-bhāgavata*,10 we learn of the Lord’s *sannyāsa* initiation, wherein He is given the *mantra* *tat tvam asi* by his Māyāvādī *guru*, Keśava Bhāratī. However, enacting a form of transcendental trickery, the Lord first whispers the *mantra* into Bhāratī’s ear, asking if this is indeed the one through which He will now be initiated. Bhāratī affirms that it is, and then repeats the *mantra* into Mahāprabhu’s ear. Thus, although Mahāprabhu actually gave initiation to his *sannyāsa* *guru*, by conferral of *mantra*, He was, for all intents and purposes, now a *sannyāsa* disciple of Keśava Bhāratī. The tradition teaches that earlier, when Mahāprabhu had first heard the words *tat tvam asi*, understanding it as “You are that,” with its usual Māyāvādī reading, He became terribly dismayed. But Murāri Gupta, His intimate follower, relieved His mind: He suggested that Mahāprabhu understand the mantra in terms of a genitive *tat-puruṣa* compound (possessive), meaning “I am Yours” or “I am His,” instead of “You are that.”11 Consequently, it can be viewed as a theistic mantra instead of a monistic one. In Sanskrit, the genitive and possessive are synonymous as semantic categories, the possessive being a subcategory of the genitive. The idea, briefly, is that you would read **tat tvam* asi* not as two separate words (*tat tvam* = “that you”) but as a compound (*tat-tvam*” = “that-you”). This would be comparable to how the name “Johnson,” for example, would historically have been the name of the “son of John,” so “that you” is the “you of that one,” i.e., “the you who belong to him.” All Sanskritists would acknowledge this as a legitimate reading of **tat tvam* asi*, even if its implications are peculiar to the Vaiṣṇava tradition. After Mahāprabhu’s time, the tradition continued in its understanding of the devotional perspective. Jīva Gosvāmī explains *tat tvam asi* from the Vaiṣṇava point of view [see the sidebar “Jīva Gosvāmī on *Tat Tvam Asi*”], and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa writes about it throughout his scholarly works. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, the great nineteenth-century Vaiṣṇava reformer, particularly revels in the ultimate Vaiṣṇava conception: Tat tvam asi and other teachings of the scriptures give love for Kṛṣṇa as their final fruit. In the end they bring the devotee to Kṛṣṇa. They make the devotee see Vṛndāvana, Lord Kṛṣṇa’s eternal, blissful, spiritual abode. (*Kalyāṇa-kalpataru*, first branch, song 8, verse 4) To underline this truth, and to bring it closer to both the Madhva and Murāri Gupta explanations, as cited above, Bhaktivinoda quotes Madhvācārya’s *Tattva-muktāvalī* (text 6, cited above) in his *Tattva-sūtra* (text 11). He thus makes it clear that the Advaitin conception is a forced interpretation, and that the Vaiṣṇava reading articulates the originally intended message of the *Vedas*. *Summing Up: Uddālaka’s Point* The individual soul is designated tvam (“you”) in the s*tat*ement *tat* tvam asi (“You are that”), and the Supreme is designated *tat*. If one acknowledges that this “you” is conscious and eternal—a spiritual being—in the same way that the Lord is conscious and eternal, then one can thereby easily understand how the Supreme Brahman (*tat*) has a nature similar to that of the ordinary living entity, and identification between “I and Thou,” or man and God, can be properly understood. This is the simple and direct point that Uddālaka was trying to make to his son Śvetaketu. But over the course of time, various schools of thought confused the subject by introducing arbitrary interpretations of this mantra, misleading readers into thinking that God and man are one in toto, without any distinction whatsoever—an obvious absurdity. In *Tattva-sandarbha* (*Anuccheda* 52), Jīva Gosvāmī advises that one can look at one’s own nature to learn certain fundamental truths about the Supreme, and this, he says, is the intent of the tat tvam asi verse: “One contemplates the individual living being to know the Other, the Supreme.” The sage Pippalāyana, too, Jīva Gosvāmī explains (*Anuccheda* 53), describes the soul as having the same nature as tat when he says to King Nimi (*Śrīmad Bhāgavatam* 11.3.38): Brahman, the eternal soul, was never born and will never die, nor does it grow or decay. That spiritual soul is actually the knower of the youth, middle age and death of the material body. Thus the soul can be understood to be pure consciousness, existing everywhere at all times and never being destroyed. Just as the life air within the body, although one, becomes manifest as many in contact with the various material senses, the one soul appears to assume various material designations in contact with the material body. By recognizing the similarities between God and man—and the distinctions as well—under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master, one can realize the true explanation of tat tvam asi. As Prabhupāda’s disciples sum up in their purport to this *Bhāgavatam* verse: From the s*tat*ement *tat* *tvam* asi, found in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, it is to be understood that spiritual knowledge is not impersonal but entails gradually perceiving the pure spiritual soul within the material body. Just as in *Bhagavad-gītā* Kṛṣṇa repeatedly says *aham*, or “I,” this Vedic aphorism uses the word *tvam*, or “you,” to indicate that just as the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the individual spark of Brahman (*tat*) is also an eternal personality (*tvam*). Therefore, according to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī it is to be understood that the individual spark of Brahman is eternally conscious. Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura has further pointed out that instead of wasting time trying to understand the truth in its impersonal aspect, which is merely the negation of temporary material variety, one should try to understand oneself to be an eternally conscious entity in the *jīva* category. In other words, one should understand oneself to be eternally a conscious servitor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the end, we must understand the ways in which all souls are one with the Supreme, but, more importantly, we must also understand how we are different from Him. It is this difference that allows for a mood of service (*bhakti*), for how can there be service if all living beings are the same? Who is serving whom? Indeed, the Vaiṣṇava conception is that by “division” we can become truly one—not in the sense of an ontological oneness, but in the sense of a oneness that has love at its basis, culminating in the Caitanya conception: “I am His.” *Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī on Tat Tvam Asi* Excerpts from *Prīti-sandarbha* From Anuccheda 1: Chāndogya Upaniṣad’s declaration *tat tvam asi* (“You are that”) actually describes the individual soul’s natural love for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Love is seen even in the ordinary dealings of the material world. Love is natural for all living beings. It is seen even among the least spiritual of materialists, who have destroyed their spiritual life. How can the soul give up its nature? Therefore every soul seeks someone to love. That search for love finds its culmination when one falls in love with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore falling in love with the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the highest goal of life. This the saintly devotees say. That love will be written about in this *Prīti-sandarbha*. From Anuccheda 5: In the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*’s statement *tat tvam asi* (“You are that”) it is seen that because they are His parts and parcels, the individual spirit souls are not different from the Supreme Lord. . . . The individual spirit souls are His parts and parcels eternally, like rays of light emanating from the sun that is the Supreme Lord. In this way it is proved that the Supreme Lord is always the supreme controller, the supreme enjoyer, and supreme in all other ways. —Translation by Kuśakratha Dāsa *Notes* 1. The other three *mahā-vākyas*: (1) *prajñānam* *brahma*: *“Prajñāna* is Brahman” or “Brahman is prajñāna,” i.e., “Brahman is supreme knowledge.” The idea is that knowledge leads to awareness of our spiritual nature. (*Aitareya Upaniṣad* 3.3 of the *Ṛg Veda*); (2) ayam ātmā *brahma*: “The Self is Brahman.” (*Māṇḍukya Upaniṣad* 1.2 of the *Atharva Veda*); and (3) *aham brahmāsmi*: “I am Brahman,” or “I am spirit.” (*Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad* 1.4.10 of the *Yajur Veda*). The sacred syllable AUM, or oṁ, is also sometimes known as a *mahā-vākya*; it is considered the sound representation of Kṛṣṇa and is honored as Kṛṣṇa (A), Rādhā (U), and all living beings (M). In other words, it is inclusive of all existence. 2. “*Advaitin*” literally means “not two.” *Advaitin* philosophers proclaim oneness with God, seeing themselves as nondifferent from the Supreme. They also tend to think of God as an abstract force, or otherwise view Him in impersonal terms. 3. Some *Advaitin* philosophers offer the argument that, despite our current limitations, in our self-realized state we suddenly have all the qualities of God in full. But this is just wishful thinking, conjecture that is never supported in India’s sacred texts or in the teachings of the great *ācāryas*. 4. Edwin Gerow, “*The Dvaitin as Deconstructionist*: *Viṣṇudāsācārya on ‘Tat tvam asi’*: Part 1,” Journal of the Oriental Society 107.4 (1987), p. 566. 5. See Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Chapter 85. 6. As we will soon see, a similar derivation will later be developed in the Gauḍīya tradition. 7. Original verse quoted in B. N. K. Sharma, History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its Literature, Volume 1 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, reprint, 2008), 229–230. Also see N. Narasimhachary, *Śrī Vedānta Deśika* (Kolkata: Sahitya Academi, 2010, reprint), 24. 8. Personal correspondence with H. D. Goswami, November 6, 2019. 9. See Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 48. 10. See Vṛndāvana Dāsa Ṭhākura’s *Caitanya-bhāgavata* (*Madhya-khaṇḍa* 28.153–159). Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, in his commentary on 157, clarifies, “He first initiated Keśava Bhāratī with the *sannyāsa* *mantra*, and then to teach people He accepted the same *mantra* from him as a disciple.” Also see See Murāri Gupta’s *Śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-caritāmṛta* 3.2.7–9, where we find the same narrative. 11. See Murāri Gupta’s *Śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya-caritāmṛta* (2.18.2–4) and Kavi Karṇapūra’s *Caitanya-carita-mahākāvya* (11.42) for this component of Mahāprabhu’s initiation story. *Satyarāja Dāsa, a disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda, is a BTG associate editor and founding editor of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies. He has written more than thirty books on Kṛṣṇa consciousness and lives near New York City.* Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Battlefield Commissions *The early Hare Kṛṣṇa movement grew because its leader elevated the efforts of his inexperienced soldiers.* by Kṛṣṇānandinī Devī Dāsī To fight his war against illusion, Prabhupāda empowered his disciples to accomplish many things for which they seemed unqualified. As Gaudiya Vaiṣṇavas, we are fortunate to be connected to a long line of great saints, highly empowered ācāryas who were progressive and revolutionary in the way they shared the Vaiṣṇava philosophy. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, his illustrious son Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī, and ISKCON’s own beloved founder-ācārya, Śrīla A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, were extremely resourceful and visionary in their endeavors to give Kṛṣṇa consciousness to everyone, to make the science of living accessible and applicable to people from all countries, castes, strata, and educational levels. In doing so, they took many risks, sometimes being innovative with details that diverged from traditional rituals and customs. One obvious instance of resourcefulness combined with faith can be seen in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s drafting unqualified people to take on the service of being ambassadors of Kṛṣṇa consciousness by initiating them as brāhmaṇas and sannyāsīs. This concept becomes clarified when explained in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own words, as we can see in this excerpt from a conversation he had with his secretary Tamāl Kṛṣṇa Goswami after ISKCON’s annual Mayapur Festival in 1976: I am in a war with *māyā*, the material energy, and I need leaders. It is called in wartime “battlefield commission.” There are no qualified leaders, but someone has to lead the charge. So you take every fifth man—“Now you are the lieutenant of the squad.” He really is a private, but we make him lieutenant for the day, and he leads the charge. It is to be understood that “you are not sufficiently equipped for this fight, and most of you will go down.” (Recalled by Dhṛṣṭadyumna Dāsa, who was present, in Following Śrīla Prabhupāda—Remembrances, DVD 11) Imagine a war, a serious battle where the generals, captains, and lieutenants on one side are almost all gone. One of the highest-ranking leaders still on the battlefield decides to empower lower-ranking soldiers, out of sheer necessity, to act as lieutenants, captains, or sergeants even though none are prepared or experienced enough for such posts. This is an emergency battlefield action, wherein someone is commissioned to serve despite his or her insufficiency. The leader, being experienced and qualified, knows that officers thus commissioned may not be able to handle the position. But a dutiful soldier who takes up the service and accepts the charge is appreciated and honored, often becoming more and more empowered because of willingness to simply follow the wartime instruction. In such a situation, as Śrīla Prabhupāda aptly foretold in regard to his own “soldiers,” there will be unavoidable casualties. Our Śrīla Prabhupāda accomplished a seemingly impossible task because he had profound faith in the holy names of Kṛṣṇa and the instructions of his guru. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī had requested our Prabhupāda to share the message of Caitanya Mahāprabhu with the western world to bring hope, peace, and understanding to a world rampant with materialism and ignorance. The request called for faith, boldness, wisdom, and humility. It demanded determination and the ability to delegate responsibility to others in the face of myriad obstacles. These qualities were pronounced in Śrīla Prabhupāda, who came to the United States at an advanced age to carry out his guru’s instructions. We can look at a comparable instruction five thousand years ago on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself, the original spiritual teacher for everyone, gave a similar instruction to Arjuna, His devoted friend. He requested Arjuna to fight to reestablish righteous principles on the earth in the face of a formidable opposing army that included many of Arjuna’s relatives. On Arjuna’s side were many highly qualified warriors. But when Śrīla Prabhupāda came to fulfill a similar function—to reestablish righteous spiritual principles in a decadent world culture—he had no qualified warriors to choose from. So in a great act of faith and love, he gave many battlefield commissions. Sometimes the Lord wants more glory to go to His devotee than to Himself. By giving the daunting task to Śrīla Prabhupāda, who then commissioned his woefully unprepared disciples to assist him, Lord Kṛṣṇa glorified the beloved founder-ācārya of the International Society for Kṛṣṇa Consciousness. Some fledging, neophyte devotees failed when accepting Śrīla Prabhupāda’s battlefield commissions—his emergency appointments of us to carry out duties and responsibilities for which we surely were unqualified. But some became purified and empowered to do “impossible” things. How else could the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement have become an ever-growing God-conscious society attracting thousands of people from almost every corner of the globe—people committed to cleanliness, truthfulness, compassion, and self-discipline while endeavoring to reestablish their long-lost relationship with Lord Kṛṣṇa? A battlefield commission is awarded to enlisted soldiers who are promoted to the rank of commissioned officer for outstanding leadership on the field of battle. For many of the early adherents of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, the promotion came first and the “outstanding leadership” followed. *Our Debt* Because of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s faith, because of his sacrifice, because of his love, we who are still here, still on the battlefield, whether disciples, granddisciples or great–granddisciples, have a responsibility and a debt of love to Śrīla Prabhupāda. We can try to pay that debt only by seriously imbibing into our hearts the Kṛṣṇa conscious teachings and practices and letting them reflect out. We owe it to our magnificent senāpati (general) Śrīla Prabhupāda to cooperate to demonstrate how Kṛṣṇa consciousness purifies the heart and makes us kind, humble, creative, compassionate, willing servants of God. We owe it to Śrīla Prabhupāda to be examples of respect for elders and to show how to have loving, healthy Kṛṣṇa conscious marriages while raising healthy children. When we dedicate ourselves to studying the transcendental storehouse of wisdom left for us in the Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhagāvatam, Caitanya-caritāmṛta, and similar scriptures, to regularly and sincerely calling out the holy names of the Lord, to being examples for others, and to serving others, our practices are instances of our acceptance of our battlefield commissions. *Leadership Today* Does the concept of battlefield commission mean that current ISKCON leaders are ill-equipped for the task of leadership today? Absolutely not. The mercy of the spiritual master and the mercy of the Lord come together to bless the sincere servant who accepts a “battlefield commission.” That mercy makes the unqualified qualified. For example, when Śrīla Prabhupāda sent young disciples to England to spread the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, they approached the service with enthusiasm and cooperation despite their apparent lack of experience, skills, or money. Their committed efforts resulted in amazing results, including more than one important ISKCON center in England, and connections with one of the most famous musicians in the world, who became an ardent supporter of many ISKCON projects. Another example of empowerment is Brahmānanda Dāsa. Śrīla Prabhupāda asked this young disciple, who had no experience in book publishing, to find a publisher for Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gītā. Because Brahmānanda dared to make the effort, he ended up securing the services of one of the top publishers in the United States. Numerous other examples could be cited, including the building of Prabhupāda’s Palace of Gold, a splendid, award-winning memorial to ISKCON’s founder-*ācārya* in West Virginia. Today the Palace has the distinction of being designated a National Historic Place. And yet this beautiful, artistic memorial was built by disciples who began the project with little or no skill or experience in construction and architecture. Consider also the many devotees who were sent to establish ISKCON centers in China, Africa, Europe, Australia, Japan, and elsewhere. Because of the dedication of these mostly young, inexperienced disciples who followed Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructions, the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement has hundreds of centers and thousands of followers in these places. There are many examples of devotees who, in spite of feelings of inadequacy, have accepted responsibility to be instruments of growth and transformation in our movement. And because of their acceptance of these responsibilities, they are receiving mercy from guru and Kṛṣṇa to become productive and committed leaders. Progress in devotional service does not depend on one’s material qualifications. Rather, success in devotional service depends on one’s sincerity and seriousness in following the instructions of the Lord and His pure representative. Even today, Śrīla Prabhupāda is asking his sincere followers to be leaders. He stated poignantly above, “I need leaders in this fight against *māyā*.” In spite of our inadequacies and fears, each of us has a choice to accept the battlefield commissions that are still being given. To paraphrase an old Christian song that reflects this attitude: “If the Lord wants somebody, here am I. Send me; I’ll go. I may be poor, insufficient, weak, but I’ll take up the charge of being a spiritual warrior, trusting and praying that the divine energy will provide the intelligence and the strength because I am submitting myself to divine guidance.” This is called faith and surrender. And this is the faith and surrender that can produce outstanding leadership, outstanding results in the battle against *māyā*. Kṛṣṇānandinī Devī Dāsī, a disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda, is a Certified Family Life Educator, a licensed minister, president of ISKCON’s Grihastha Vision Team, and co-director, along with her husband, Tariq Saleem Ziyad, of the Dasi-Ziyad Family Institute in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Foggy Morning at Govardhana Hill *Spiritual thoughts arise naturally at the holiest of holy hills.* by Ūrmilā Devī Dāsī Reflections during an early-morning walk in the holiest of holy places. Every spiritual and religious tradition has holy places where spiritual life is more easily accessible. The Sanskrit word for such places is *tīrtha*, literally meaning a place where one can cross—like a narrow part of a river. *Tīrthas* act as a passageway, crossing place, or portal where one can easily go from materialistic to transcendent awareness. We can think of a *tīrtha* as something like a place where one can get a phone or WiFi signal, allowing us to access another reality. A *tīrtha* can also be compared to an embassy of a country in a foreign land. *Tīrthas* can be created temporarily, as when we make an altar in our home or turn a building into a temple. There is another type of holy place, called a *dhāma* in Sanskrit. A *dhāma* is not a passage to the spiritual world, but is the spiritual reality itself, appearing as if part of this world. The *dhāma* is eternal and not created or destroyed even when the entire universe goes through cycles of creation and destruction. One such *dhāma* is Vrindavan in India. Spiritual activities there have a thousand times the effect of those done in ordinary places. Kṛṣṇa and His eternal associates are always there, though only those with purified hearts can perceive their presence directly. Of the whole Vrindavan area, the most sacred places are Govardhana Hill and the two ponds at the hill’s northernmost point: Rādhā-kuṇḍa and Śyāma-kuṇḍa. I had the fortune to spend some time on a writing retreat next to Govardhana Hill during the winter and wrote this reflection about a walking meditation at sunrise. *The Main Road* This morning, again, I decide to take my exercise and meditation walk early, in the cold and fog, rather than wait for the midday sun. It’s not a special holy day, and the mixture of an ordinary day and the cold means the *parikramā* *mārg*, the road used by pilgrims for the sacred walk around Govardhana Hill, is mostly empty. Still, at any time of day or night, on any day of the year, there are always some pilgrims walking around the hill. On a holy day with good weather the road is as crowded as Macy’s in New York City three days before Christmas. Generally, the pilgrims are obvious by their shoeless feet (out of respect, one is supposed to walk without shoes around the holy hill), though some wear heavy socks or wool slippers, or even cloth and plastic on their feet, so they are wearing “shoes that aren’t shoes.” On this very cold morning, most pilgrims have sweaters (jumpers), coats, and hats that seem out of sync with their bare feet on the numbingly chilly sand or asphalt. My own body, from head to toe, is covered with many layers. By the end of the walk, I feel slightly warm from the exertion. The government keeps most cars and motorized rickshaws off this road, so the vehicles today are electric rickshaws and bicycles, but even they are few. So there’s no noise of motors or blowing horns. There are street vendors on the side of the road, their handcarts piled with bananas and fried garbanzo beans. Pilgrims mostly buy these to feed the local wild fauna—rhesus monkeys, dogs, pigs, cows, and bulls. The cows and bulls eat bananas whole, peel included, whereas the monkeys leave the peels hither and thither. All these wild animals—especially because the pilgrims feed them and thus attract large numbers of them—also leave their excrement here and there, so a brisk exercise walk must be accompanied with frequent cautious glances at where one is walking. As I walk past, local keepers of “permanent” shops rather than handcarts open their closetlike structures, most of which look as if children assembled them for their first carpentry project. They sell snacks and bottles of water, catering presumably mostly to the pilgrims. Locals and shopkeepers huddle around fires they have made by burning trash and sticks. There are also the “intentionally homeless” people—mostly but not exclusively male. They may also be squatting around fires or, wrapped in shawls and blankets, sitting on the sandy part of the road by the fence that separates the road and Govardhana Hill, holding their begging bowls, perhaps reciting prayers. Some of these intentionally homeless are on the Govardhana side of the fence, where they have created something resembling a residence in the form of a lean-to type of tent. Others just have blankets. Most of them have come to Govardhana to renounce the world and find God, Kṛṣṇa. I’m sure some have other, not so lofty motives, but, regardless, their living conditions are less than rudimentary, and their residence is at the foot of this most holy of hills. *Through the Gate* I’m on the east side of Govardhana Hill, walking north, in the opposite direction of the pilgrims walking around the hill. Doing my best to avoid the huge, untended, generally peaceful bulls, I get to a gate in the fence that surrounds the hill. Making my way inside, I connect with the inner path around the hill. Most pilgrims walk on the outer path, though on holy days both paths are full. At this gate there is a kind of natural division—to the south, the path is very sandy, and pilgrims often switch from the outer to the inner path here; to the north, towards Govardhana town, the path is firm and solid. Many pilgrims visit the ponds, and many religious rituals are conducted there. Between those two gates there are rarely pilgrims on the inner path. I surmise that the ponds tend to hide the fact that the inner path starts there and so people simply do not know there is a place to walk in that area so very close to Govardhana Hill. That firm section of the path between the gates has trees on either side whose leaves cover the path as a canopy, welcome when the weather is hot and sunny. The beauty of this firm, tree-lined-and-covered path, with Govardhana Hill just a few steps away, is in its seclusion and privacy, though the road on the other side of the fence is clearly visible, and the sounds from the road usually audible. But the road sounds are not so much horns, as in most of India, including most of the general Vrindavan area. Rather, the sounds here are of singing and praying, often groups of pilgrims in call-and-response fashion, and sometimes with amplification. Today my main companions on this short part of the path are animals. The monkeys are having a battle, aggressively running at each other and screeching. I give the warring factions a wide berth, bringing me to a sister, sandier path even closer to Govardhana. Generally, the monkeys and I mind our own business in this area, though I carry a large stick to scare them if they get close, as they can be very dangerous. There are also huge pigs here with their offspring. They run at the sight of my stick. The many feral dogs are usually peaceful on this part of the path, as are the cows. Yesterday I saw a nilgai, a local antelope, climbing the hill within a few meters of me. Some days there are many peacocks and parrots. Sometimes a pilgrim or two walks here, but mostly the other humans are those who have made their home in this area, though without any structure one could call a house. One such person is still sleeping, wrapped in blankets, another is picking something from a tree, another is praying. As I come here nearly daily when I am visiting Govardhana, I quickly become part of the scenery for these people, as they become for me. We exist in this place in parallel, without the slightest overt interaction. This part of the path, and the pond by the far gate, is nearly always spotlessly clean. But now it is early morning, so some small trash has accumulated here since the cleaner went home yesterday. The cleaner is a woman, probably older than I am, though she could have aged faster in a harder life than I have had. She’s a widow, abandoned by her family but joyfully living in this holy place. Whereas most of the thousands of such women have only begging (or, if they are young, unmentionable things) as their means of living, the RadhaSeva project I support employs her and similar women in doing something they love—cleaning this holy land they have adopted as home. Before RadhaSeva hired her and took responsibility for cleaning this area, the pond was a giant garbage dump, and the path a veritable river of trash. I’m walking too early in the day to meet her today. When I come at midday, we greet each other, and if she’s not fully absorbed in her sweeping or in cleaning out the pond, she will beam me a wide smile and sometimes even grant me a hug. *With Govardhana* It’s too wet this morning to sit anywhere, so I pass the fallen trees and slabs of construction material I sit on when weather conditions are favorable. Standing as close as possible to Govardhana Hill, softly chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, I marvel at how Kṛṣṇa is manifest here as each stone, each pebble. Yesterday I saw many colors of rocks here, a number of them nearly white. Today I see a triangular pure-white crystal rock; it’s a cloudlike mini hill with a natural mark that looks like tilaka or a snake. I marvel at how Kṛṣṇa lifted the long and rocky Govardhana Hill so many thousands of years ago. I marvel at Govardhana Hill as a continuing shelter, a friend, a source of peace. The fog that obscures the more distant parts of Govardhana brings my thoughts to the descriptions in the scriptures of a dewy forest in the spiritual world. There is a kind of comfort and mystery in mist and fog, a feeling one gets when wrapped in blankets and without a care for the world on the other side of the thick wool. Such is the fog this morning, on this path, alone with Govardhana. Wherever I am in the world, my daily meditation and prayer is centered on Govardhana. Yet, to be here physically has a kind of soft magic. Especially early in the morning, especially on this firm, tree-covered part of the path, especially when the world feels like it’s only Govardhana and me, I am instantly in the presence of God. *Superexcellent Rādhā-kuṇḍa* by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī The holy place known as Mathurā is spiritually superior to Vaikuṇṭha, the transcendental world, because the Lord appeared there. Superior to Mathurā-purī is the transcendental forest of Vṛndāvana because of Kṛṣṇa’s *rāsa-līlā* pastimes. And superior to the forest of Vṛndāvana is Govardhana Hill, for it was raised by the divine hand of Śrī Kṛṣṇa and was the site of His various loving pastimes. And, above all, the superexcellent Śrī Rādhā-kuṇḍa stands supreme, for it is overflooded with the ambrosial nectarean prema of the Lord of Gokula, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Where, then, is that intelligent person who is unwilling to serve this divine Rādhā-kuṇḍa, which is situated at the foot of Govardhana Hill?—*Śrī Upadeśāmṛta* 9 *Govardhana Pūjā* The annual festival of Govardhana Pūjā commemorates events that happened when Kṛṣṇa was seven years old. The local villagers had an annual harvest festival where they performed a ritual of making offerings to the demigod Indra, whose name means “chief” or “lord.” He is the ruler of the many celestial beings who have positions of service to God in the universe. Indra regulates precipitation and has a lightning bolt as a weapon. In the harvest ritual, priests offered food into a fire while saying prayers to Indra. To curb Indra’s pride, Kṛṣṇa asked His father and the other village elders to stop the worship of Indra and instead worship Govardhana Hill. The word *govardhana* has two primary translations. Go translates as “cows,” and vardhana as “nourishment.” Go also means “senses,” and vardhana, “increase.” Thus Govardhana Hill increases the senses’ attraction to Kṛṣṇa. In other words, the personality of Govardhana blesses the devotee by increasing the devotee’s devotion (*bhakti*). One is therefore encouraged to reside at the foot of Govardhana Hill. When the Vrindavan villagers worshiped Govardhana Hill, the hill displayed a form of God Himself, showing that worship of Govardhana is worship of the Supreme Lord in the form of a mountain. The villagers happily cooked a feast, which they offered to Govardhana Hill. They went around the hill, walking or in animal-drawn carts, keeping the hill on their right side, which is a traditional sign of respect. While they went around the hill, they sang and danced, wearing their finest clothes. Up to the present day, people come from all over the world to walk around Govardhana Hill as a form of worship. Although Indra is supposed to be a servant of God, he rebelled with anger at losing the honor he expected, and he decided to destroy Vrindavan. His action shows that demigods are much like humans in that they have a complex nature and can be both good and evil. Indra sent a storm that is supposed to be reserved for destroying the universe during its eternal cycle of creation and dissolution. Vrindavan became flooded, threatening the lives of all of its human and animal residents. Kṛṣṇa then showed both Indra and the world that He is, indeed, God, by lifting Govardhana Hill and providing shelter underneath it until Indra came to his senses, stopped the deluge, and apologized. *Ūrmilā Devī Dāsī (Dr. Edith Best) has served ISKCON continuously since her initiation by Śrīla Prabhupāda in 1973. She and her husband are in the vānaprastha order*, and* have three children, fourteen grandchildren*, and* two great-grandsosn. She has a PhD in education and is the chairperson of the Sastric Advisory Council to ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission. She travels worldwide teaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness. She is the author of* Dr. Best Learn to Read*, an 83-book literacy program for children. Her books for adults are* Essence Seekers, The Great Mantra for Mystic Meditation*, and* Śrī Manaḥ Śikṣā*, all available on Amazon. Her official website: http://urmiladevidasi.org/; personal website: http://urmiladasi.com. To find out more about RadhaSeva, visit www.radharani.com.* A Journey from Sustainability to Meditation *Spiritual practices and a healthy planet go well together.* by Sākṣi-gopāla Dāsa The ecological challenges we face today demand a solution that goes to the root of the problem. It has been almost two years since I began to deal more deeply with the issue of sustainable living. When I started, I did not think that researching sustainability would lead me to another interesting field, which was meditation, a topic I had already known to some extent. I would like to share the key steps of this exciting intellectual journey so that I can rouse or further your interest in both areas. It is now generally accepted that human activity, especially in the last half century, has driven life on earth into an ecological crisis. Human activities have contributed to air pollution, freshwater and saltwater pollution; drastic loss of biodiversity, manifested, for example, in the whitening of coral reefs and the clearing of rainforests; soil destruction; and the spread of invasive species and new pathogens. Many ecologists and other scientists say that these ecological problems can be solved only with a significant change in the way we live. But what kind of change should occur? What could be the solution to this huge set of problems? I’ve been looking for answers to these questions from multiple sources. First, I started to study the literature on the topic and read scientific journals and books. Because we are dealing with a very complex set of problems, these scientific works span a wide range of disciplines, from biology and ecology to social sciences, from economics to philosophy. Of course, this does not mean that I have become a polymath, an expert in every field—I’m a biologist/ecologist with a PhD in environmental sciences—or that these papers were written by polymaths, but that these works are generally the syntheses of the results of several disciplines through the collaboration of representatives of these disciplines. In addition, I have turned to studies about traditional human societies that either survived or collapsed after the relatively small-scale ecological disasters they caused, as these societies can provide many positive or negative examples for us. As a third source, I turned to the scriptures of Vaiṣṇavism, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness. From these Vedic scriptures one can get to know the basis of one traditional society—its philosophy, theology, and knowledge in all walks of life. I find much of it still applicable and practicable. These scriptures include the Bhagavad-gītā and the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam). Of course, the scriptures of other religions also have answers to the above questions, but I haven’t yet researched them. *Ecological Communities* I found interesting results: virtually all sources emphasized that a widespread ecological (or other) disaster would liberate people from social atomization, where society is a collection of self-interested and self-sufficient individuals. They would have to live in collaborative autonomous local ecological communities, as most people lived before the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The steps towards this social organization, including the creation of the right political, economic, and social conditions, could first begin on a small scale, organized locally from the ground up (in some places it has already started, like the farming communities of ISKCON). Later, with the emergence and consolidation of more and more such communities, the transformation could become larger—regional, national, and even international—while preserving each community’s local and ecological character. In these communities, from an early age people could easily learn environmentally friendly lifestyles and behaviors. It would be natural for them to always consider the carrying capacity of their environment in their activities, so as not to deplete natural resources and pollute the environment. This transformation, however, would require not only political, economic, and social changes, but also a change in people’s worldview and value system. And this is where we get to the root of the problem. For the ecological crisis cannot be solved without solving a deeper crisis. The ecological crisis is just a symptom. The real crisis is a crisis of worldview and values. This is the root of the problem, and it is by going to the root that we can start eradicating the crises built on one another. We develop our worldview and value system largely during our childhood. Practically without conscious reflection, we take on the worldview and value system of our parents, relatives, teachers, companions, and friends. And the dominant worldview and value system of society are programmed into us through television, advertising, film, and the Internet. By getting into our subconscious minds, the resulting worldview and value system become so familiar and natural to us that we do not realize how strongly they influence our thoughts, emotions, decisions, behaviors, and actions. If we do not begin to think consciously, then we are letting our worldview, which probably contains false ideas, guide us as if we were marionettes in its hands. In our modern worldview, some misguided, unsustainable ideas might be the following: • in terms of material goods, more is always better than less, • human history is a chronicle of continuous development—that is, today’s society is of a higher order than any previous one, • economic growth is a good thing and needs to be sustained, • preference should be given to centralized, large-scale social structures, • technology (and the science behind it) can overcome any social problem (technological optimism). These and similar concepts in our subconscious make it very difficult for us to transition to environmentally friendly behaviors and lifestyles, join local ecological communities, or start to create them ourselves. The impact of these ideas may also explain why although since the 1960s many conferences have been held and many conventions and agreements have been signed by the world’s political, economic, and scientific leaders, none of these endeavors has brought about any significant change, since the basic paradigm has not changed. *How Religion Can Help* Because our worldview and value system are largely located in our subconscious mind and affect us from there, it is not easy to know them and change them. However, if we look at what is the most effective way to do this, we may discover that—for centuries, millennia, and up to the present day—the spiritual practices of religions have been dedicated to this goal, to changing people’s worldview and value system. And the essence of these spiritual practices is meditation, the continuous concentration of the mind. From the Vedic scriptures we learn that we need to follow certain principles to effectively perform spiritual practices such as meditation. The Vedic scriptures contain short and long descriptions of these principles, but the various descriptions are essentially the same. For example, the following ten principles are derived from the Yoga-sūtra, written by Patañjali: • *ahiṁsā* (nonviolence), • *satyam* (truthfulness), • *asteyam* (refraining from theft), • *brahmacaryam* (controlling sexual desires), • *aparigrahaḥ* (nonpossessiveness), • *śaucam* (cleanliness), • *saṅtoṣa* (satisfaction), • *tapaḥ* (austerity, minimalism), • *svādhyāyah* (study of Vedic literature), • *īśvara-pranidhāna* (commitment to God). The *Bhāgavata* *Purāṇa* contains a detailed list of thirty principles. It was interesting for me to realize that these principles are similar to those that sustainability scientists usually list as principles of sustainability. As an example, I list the four principles presented by András *Takács-Sánta*, head of the Human Ecology Department at Eṭtvṭs Loránd University (Budapest, Hungary): • moderation in population and in economic performance; • eco-efficiency in technology, in the structure of the economy (including production and consumption), and in the geographical pattern of the economy; • ecological thinking (knowledge, worldview, and value system); • ecological institutional system (legal system, local and participatory democracy, financial system: alternative money, money alternatives). In Vedic knowledge, the explanation for this similarity is that the principles revealed by God in the scriptures are in fact natural laws, like gravity or other physical laws, that may or may not be discovered by scientific methods. Natural laws cannot be ignored; otherwise we will get an unexpected result, such as a global ecological crisis. From a sustainability perspective, at an individual level we can follow these principles by, for example: • not consuming or at least reducing our consumption of meat and of dairy products produced in the dairy industry, • following the principles of a zero-waste lifestyle (refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle, rot [compost]), • as far as we can, producing our own food—herbs, vegetables, fruits, and grains, • using agricultural methods that renew the soil, • buying from local farmers who use regenerative agricultural methods, • traveling on foot, by bike, by public transport, by carpooling, • using renewable energy as much as we can, • using energy-saving machinery and tools when these things are necessary, • saving water. At the individual level, following all these principles or gradually moving to follow them creates in our mind and our nearby environment favorable conditions for meditation. And if most people lived according to these principles in local ecological communities, then our wider environment would be peaceful, beautiful, and clean, providing ideal conditions for our lives and our meditation. So, we can say that to meditate we must first be able to live in harmony with nature. This does not mean that until these ideal conditions are created we should not meditate, but rather that we must gradually make these changes in our lives as we meditate. *The Role of Meditation* Coming to the final stage of my journey of thought, I had to find the answer to the question, If the solution is meditation, what should its object be? I found an answer in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, where we learn that there are several levels of meditation and they differ in the subject of the meditation. At each level, however, it is advisable to focus our attention on the Absolute Truth, God. The only difference is that at the beginning we should concentrate on God’s more easily understandable forms, revealed in various manifestations, and later on we can concentrate on His forms that are more difficult to understand. Below I will briefly introduce the subject of the first level of meditation based on the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. This is a worldview and a conception of God that are a right foundation for an environmentally friendly lifestyle, as I hope the following paragraphs will reveal. At the very first level, one is recommended to fix one’s mind on the *virāṭ-rūpa*, God’s cosmic form. While God’s actual form is spiritual, the *virāṭ-rūpa* is a conception of God as the universe itself, the cosmos, which is a creation of His energy. It is an aid to meditation to counteract our atheistic tendencies. Accordingly, everything and everyone in the universe is a part of God, but He remains a separate, independent person. The parts within the universe form an organic system, like the body of any living entity. Therefore each component has a well-defined role, just as cells have certain functions in the body. In the cosmic form, the components remain alive and “feel good” when they serve the full form according to their specific functions. In exchange they receive everything they need from the cosmic form and can be satisfied with that, because they have a higher purpose than the accumulation of material goods: the service of the whole body, God. This worldview and conception of God, which belongs to the first level of meditation and understanding of the Absolute Truth, also shares many similarities with certain principles and ideas expressed by contemporary sustainability authors. In András Lányi’s book Sustainable Society, for example, we read about the “ecosystem principle,” according to which the functioning of human society cannot be interpreted independently of the ecosystem of which it is a part. I can also mention here the Gaia theory of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, according to which the earth is like a giant living entity whose living and nonliving parts work together to create a self-regulating system to provide the living conditions for the entire system. We can easily see that a worldview that regards humans as an integral part of the earth, or even of the universe, provides a value system that is the right foundation for building an environmentally sustainable lifestyle and returning to real communities. The *Bhāgavata* *Purāṇa* also recommends, however, that besides this meditation we simultaneously perform the highest form of meditation because it can greatly accelerate our personal development according to the principles mentioned earlier (nonviolence, truthfulness, and so on). It is a mantra meditation consisting of the loud or soft chanting (recitation or singing) of the names of God. Religions may differ in which names of God people chant. The Vedic scriptures suggest the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa *mahā-mantra*: Hare Krṣṇa, Hare Krṣṇa, Krṣṇa Krṣṇa, Hare Hare / Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. In short, through these steps I moved from sustainability to meditation, while making countless interesting discoveries. *Sākṣi-gopāla Dāsa, a disciple of His Holiness Śivarāma Swami, teaches at Bhaktivedanta College, Budapest.* *Bibliography* • Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, A. C.: *Śrī* *Īśopaniṣad*. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 2011. • ———. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*: Second Canto. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 2012. • ———. *Bhagavad-gītā As It Is.* The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 2015. • Biggs, Reinette; Schlūter, Maja; and Schoon, Michael L. (szerk.): Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. • Diamond, Jared: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking Press, 2005. • Gaura Kṛṣṇa Dāsa, Raṅginī Devī Dāsī, Medvegy, Gergely, and Kapisinszky, Judit: Jóga tiszta forrásból (Yoga from Pure Source). Budapest: Bhaktivedanta Hittudományi Foiskola, 2019. • Gowdy, John M.: Introduction: Back to the future and forward to the past. In: Gowdy, John M. (ed.), Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment, XV–XXXI. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1998. • Lovelock, James: The Vanishing Face of Gaia—A final warning. New York: Basic Books, 2009. • Orr, David W.: What is education for. In: Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect, 7–15. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1994. • Polányi, Karl: The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press, 1944. • Sachs, Wolfgang: Global ecology and the shadow of ‘development’. In: Sachs, Wolfgang (ed.), Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict, 3–21. London: Zed Books, 1995. Caring Kṛṣṇa and His Caring Devotees *A devotee sees all as God’s dear children and wants to relieve their misery.* *As eternal parts of Kṛṣṇa, we naturally possess some of His quality of being concerned for the welfare of all living beings.* by Viśākhā Devī Dāsī Kṛṣṇa, the seed-giving father of all living beings (*Gītā* 14.4), is also the well-wisher of all living beings (*Gītā* 5.29). As a father wants the best for his children, Kṛṣṇa wants the best for every one of us. And as a father provides for his children, so Kṛṣṇa provides for all of us—*eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmā*n (*Kaṭha* *Upaniṣad* 2.2.13): “The One fulfills the desires of the many.” Through His different expansions, the almighty Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, maintains all living beings, in their conditioned and liberated states. As part of Him, we living entities have Kṛṣṇa’s qualities to a minute degree, just as a drop of ocean water has the qualities of the ocean to a minute degree. By our nature we want to help others and we want the best for them. Even in lower species, parents care for their offspring, groups of the same species assist each other, and sometimes, in symbiotic inter-species relationships, different species help each other. We humans naturally care not only for ourselves and our own family, but also for our community, our society, our nation, our kindred spirits, humankind, and other living entities. Many people are trying to save endangered species, rain forests, and coral reefs, trying to reduce pollution and eliminate exploitation, and so on. The great moralist Cāṇakya Paṇḍita said that one of the characteristics of learned persons is that they see the suffering of others as their own. In other words, a learned person is not callous, but caring. Śrīla Prabhupāda concurs: “A pure devotee is always aggrieved to see others suffering.” (*Bhāgavatam* 7.9, Summary) A number of the twenty-six qualities of a devotee listed in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta relate to caring, such as being kind to everyone, being equal to everyone, and being charitable, benevolent, friendly, and compassionate. A devotee, knowing that all beings are God’s children and dear to Him, sees them equally and wants to relieve their misery. Kṛṣṇa is pleased with those who care about others and try to help them, and evidence of His pleasure may be in the measurable growth and happiness such kind-hearted people experience. A recent Time magazine article declares: “Scientific research provides compelling data to support the anecdotal evidence that giving is a powerful pathway to personal growth and lasting happiness.” (https://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4070299/secret-to-happiness/) Philanthropists and others who live more selfless lives are more fulfilled and happier than those who confine their focus to self-centered concerns. In former ages, leaders felt responsible for the well-being of all the citizens: “King Gaya gave full protection and security to the citizens so that their personal property would not be disturbed by undesirable elements. He also saw that there was sufficient food to feed all the citizens.” (*Bhāgavatam* 5.15.7) “Citizens” included all beings under the leaders’ jurisdiction: “The king is meant to protect all living beings, namely the aquatics, plants, trees, reptiles, birds, animals and man. Every one of them is a part and parcel of the Supreme Lord (*Bg.* 14.4), and the king, being the representative of the Supreme Lord, is duty-bound to give proper protection to every one of them.” (*Bhāgavatam* 1.12.4, Purport) *Spiritual Care* Protection and care are not limited to bodily protection and fulfilling bodily needs. Each one of us is an individual soul—an *ātmā*—incarcerated in a material body and mind. Spiritual care is to help free the *ātmā* from its awkward circumstance. Because of our spiritual identity as *ātmā* and our material predicament—our body and mind are mortal and subject to all sorts of suffering—we are kindred spirits with all beings. Kṛṣṇa says, “One is a perfect yogi who, by comparison to one’s own self, sees the true equality of all beings, in both their happiness and their distress.” (*Gītā* 6.32) Care and protection that ignore the *ātmā* and concern themselves only with the body and mind are incomplete and not approved by Kṛṣṇa. In a world full of “self-help” and “self-improvement” concerns, we can easily become self-engrossed and squelch our innate inclination to extend ourselves for others’ good—to desire that they benefit physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. If I suffer from a lack of caring, a callousness toward the spiritual and material suffering of others, that fault is my responsibility alone. I cannot command this unnatural, hard-hearted attitude to change, but I can control how I act and what I say. Even if I don’t feel like it, I can choose to act and speak as if I cared. This isn’t artificial or forced, but a reflection of who I really am—an *ātmā*, an integral part of God, who cares for and about all beings. It’s a lack of caring that’s artificial. Rather than act according to the dictates of callousness, I can try to care for and about others even when my emotions disagree. By tolerating whatever happens and by depending on my innate desire to care, which comes from the care Kṛṣṇa has for all beings, I unfold a new dimension in myself. Care isn’t stereotyped; it can even extend to negative relationships. Care directed toward someone who exploits or abuses others can include anger expressed without grudge or bias, and it can include punishment meted out to rectify the offense. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes, “The Battle of Kurukṣetra was fought according to the plan of God. Arjuna was refusing to fight, but he was told that he should fight in accordance with the desire of the Supreme Lord.” (*Gītā* 11.33, Purport) Arjuna showed his care not by nonviolence, but by fighting aggressors. How to best show care is not always easy or clear but is always necessary. Care can encompass sternness and softness, gravity and lightheartedness, chastisement and clemency. It can mean graciously accepting unpleasant, unlikely-to-change aspects of someone, or it can mean disassociating from someone. Care based on love and girded by spiritual knowledge and detachment withstands the onslaught of our fluctuating moods, phases, and vulnerabilities. With the dignity worthy of spiritual beings, devotees remember their goal—to please Kṛṣṇa with their service and love—and relate to others on the basis of achieving it. They do not allow heartlessness to strangle their mood of caring and constrict their vision, but they figure out how to extend themselves for others’ good. In Sanskrit, care and protection is called *poṣaṇa*, which includes nourishing, cherishing, fostering, keeping, supporting, and maintaining. *Poṣaṇa* also refers to the Lord’s special care and protection of His devotees. *Kṛṣṇa Takes Special Care of His Devotees* Kṛṣṇa declares (*Gītā* 9.29), “I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all,” which may cause one to question how He can take special care and protection of His devotees. Yet He does. He continues, “Whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.” Isn’t that partiality? Is God playing favorites? Śrīla Prabhupāda explains, This is not discrimination; it is natural. Any man in this material world may be very charitably disposed, yet he has a special interest in his own children. The Lord claims that every living entity—in whatever form—is His son, and so He provides everyone with a generous supply of the necessities of life. He is just like a cloud which pours rain all over, regardless of whether it falls on rock or land or water. But for His devotees, He gives specific attention. (*Gītā* 9.29, Purport) Prabhupāda further explains, “As a king maintains his kingdom and subjects but nevertheless gives special attention to the members of his family, so the Personality of Godhead gives special care to His devotees who are souls completely surrendered to Him.” (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi* 2.91–92, Purport) This so-called favoritism is actually impartiality and makes complete sense when we consider Kṛṣṇa’s famous statement “As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly.” (*Gītā* 4.11) Since Kṛṣṇa’s devotees are souls surrendered to Him, they are eligible to receive His special reward in the form of poṣaṇa: they are especially cared for by Him. How God reciprocates with each one of us is determined by what we give to our relationship with Him. “Those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā—for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.” (*Gītā* 12.6–7) Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: “It is explicitly stated here that the devotees are very fortunate to be delivered very soon from material existence by the Lord. . . . The Supreme Lord herein promises that without delay He will deliver a pure devotee thus engaged from the ocean of material existence.” Even in the face of life’s inevitable reverses, a devotee feels the Lord’s care. [A devotee] regards any reverses in life as blessings of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, instead of being agitated by such reverses, he continues his activities of devotional service, and Kṛṣṇa takes care of him and enables him to be promoted to the spiritual world, back to Godhead. If a devotee has to suffer the reactions of his past misdeeds, the Supreme Lord arranges for him to be given only a token of these reactions, and very soon he is freed from all the reactions of material contamination. One should therefore adhere to devotional service, and the Lord Himself will very soon see to one’s promotion to the spiritual world. A devotee should not be disturbed by unfortunate circumstances, but must continue his regular program, depending on the Lord for everything. (*Bhāgavatam* 8.4.11–12, Purport) As Kṛṣṇa takes special care of His devotees, so devotees, naturally, want to do the same—to take special care of Kṛṣṇa’s devotees. *Devotees Care for Devotees* In our relationships, we usually get back what we give out. Generally, when we express our concern for others, they are also concerned about us; when we’re attentive to them, they reciprocate similarly. These exchanges are due to love, and what is love but to want what’s best for the other, to care about and care for the other? Devotee care encompasses helping devotees who are in any way in need, and it is much more. Care is part of devotees’ lifestyle, for devotees are aware of the spiritual identity and value of every living being, as well as the goal of selfless love they and each living entity are meant to achieve. This dimension of care can create realizations as multifaceted as the *ātmā* is beautiful. Through Kṛṣṇa’s unparalleled ingenuity, care between devotees can initiate ecstatic insights that reveal harmony amidst diversity, unity within differences. Because devotees care about other devotees, they respect their personalities and are therefore gentle and polite and allow each other to be perfectly themselves. Caring for and about another devotee evokes that devotee’s innate acceptance, kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and friendliness, and that can solve seemingly insoluble relationship problems. Care expressed by both persons can help resolve relationship problems with freshness and vigor because it lets each person grasp the other’s feelings and opinions and, based on merit and mutual gain, find mutually agreeable resolutions to disagreements. And care allows us to be happy even if we don’t solve all our problems or overcome all adversity. Care is vulnerable to pain and yet continues. It lessens the expectations we have of others, enlarges what we expect from ourselves, and nurtures affinity. It lets us appreciate our companions’ qualities and know the satisfaction of using ourselves well to benefit another. An uncaring person criticizes the fault within the person; a caring one speaks to the person behind the fault. An attitude of deeply caring about others, an attitude that originates in the *ātmā*, allows me to laugh at and become detached from my whimsical mind and its foibles. Besides humor, a remarkable sense of equality accompanies caring, for it can shrink our own conceit and make us aware that we are simply a friend among friends. We move closer to the importance, the uniqueness, and the sameness of all life. A devotee’s care for other devotees is not ordinary, for it offers the supreme benediction. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes, “Living entities under a devotee’s care get the opportunity for God realization by the management of a devotee-master.” (*Bhāgavatam* 2.4.2, Purport) Why is this? Because Kṛṣṇa cares for and reciprocates with those who do likewise. In his *Kṛṣṇa-līlā-stava* (112), Sanātana Gosvāmī, a great Vaiṣṇava disciple of Śrī Caitanya, writes, “You [Kṛṣṇa] take special care for Your devotee’s devotee.” To care is an expression of our free will; it radiates from the *ātmā* and wants to expand to encompass each *ātmā* we contact. Genuine care for others, Kṛṣṇa’s gift to the grateful *ātmā*, is a powerful victory over the force of illusion that prevents us from coming closer to Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. *Viśākhā Devī Dāsī has been writing for BTG since 1973. She has written six books. Visit her website at OurSpiritualJourney.com.* Letters *Family Strife* I am a twenty-seven-year-old male from Assam, India. Till now I enjoyed my life totally by following Western culture, but now I have realized that the actual meaning of life is in *Bhagavad-gītā*, so I want to come under ISKCON. I have started being a complete vegetarian, and every day I read at least three or four pages of the *Gītā*, but my family and friends are shocked by seeing this change. My parents are nonvegetarian, so I have to face a big problem every day, and it ends with a quarrel, which I really don’t like. Please help me. Anal Sengupta Assam, India *Reply*: You are thinking quite clearly. You have some realization of things that ninety percent of the people in the world do not understand at all. For your own spiritual life, try to hear devotees speaking about Kṛṣṇa consciousness. There are many online opportunities for you to hear lectures and *kīrtanas* and even chat with devotees, such as through ISKCONdesiretree.com. There you can hear talks and even take courses on *Bhagavad-gītā* and *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*. You can get good association with devotees in that way and start to build opportunities to increase your association, your reading, and ultimately your involvement with ISKCON and the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness as given to us by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. As for quarreling with friends and family, it is best to listen politely and then do what you need to do without fighting. You are an adult man who can make appropriate decisions in your life. You should understand that the real fear your parents and family face is that you will neglect your responsibilities to your parents, especially in their old age, and especially financially, so you must act responsibly and not make them think that you are becoming a religious fanatic. Arjuna, in *Bhagavad-gītā*, wanted to leave his responsibilities and just chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, but Lord Kṛṣṇa told him that he had to fight, that it was his duty. We often have responsibilities or duties in the material sphere that are uncomfortable but necessary, and neglecting them prematurely will cause friction and may cause others to reject Kṛṣṇa and spiritual life. If, rather than quarreling, you keep good relationships with others by behaving responsibly and respectfully while remaining spiritually strong and presenting logical and even scientific arguments (e.g., about vegetarianism), you may find that they develop respect instead of anger. But it will take care and patience, both of which are qualities of a devotee. If you take the suggestions about online association, you will be able to make connections with devotees that can help you in your spiritual quest and also improve your family relationships. *That Pesky “S” Problem* How can I control my mind from sexual desires? Harsh Via the Internet *Reply*: Kṛṣṇa in the *Gītā* tells Arjuna to control the mind by constant practice and determination. Staying away from the opposite sex and people who like to enjoy the opposite sex will help. Why pour ghee on the fire? Be careful of your diet. For example, don’t eat heavily at night, stay away from yogurt after lunchtime, and eat fewer sweets. Try to increase your association with persons who are not so attached to sexual attractions. Rather, fill your mind with more scripture, *kīrtana*, and service to Kṛṣṇa. The mind has to be kept busy. If you are not married, you may want to consider it so that at least you can control your urge in regulated sex life in marriage. If there is a temple near you, you can see if they have a mentorship program for extra guidance and advice. Pray to Kṛṣṇa for the strength to overcome this urge so you can peacefully serve Him. *Ups and Downs* Whenever I want to do something good, something bad happens. I don’t know why. I want to have good relations with nature and people around me, but I am always scared that I may do something that may hurt them. At times I am high on confidence, and sometimes I am very low. I don’t know what to do. I want to learn the secrets of life so that I can be a better human altogether. Hey Lord Kṛṣṇa! Please help me out. Please. Ankit Via the Internet *Reply*: It sounds like you are a sincere devotee but maybe a little too attached to what people think of you. Yes, we all could be and want to be perfect and pure and great devotees. We have to be patient; these qualities come after some serious purification. If we are practicing Kṛṣṇa consciousness, we are “in the shower” getting clean. The process will work, gradually. Be patient and enthusiastic and see your mistakes as a way to become humble, a good quality. In Kṛṣṇa’s eyes each of us is great. He sees us as the soul and not the body. He is helping you by making you want to improve more and more and to really understand the mistakes you have made—not just in this life, but for lifetimes. We have a lot of work to do with Kṛṣṇa to prepare us to meet Him again. He is working with us, not against us. He is more anxious for us to come to Him than we are to go to Him. Just be determined and patient. *How Does One “Perform in Kṛṣṇa Consciousness”?* The *Bhagavad-gītā* states that one should perform in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. What does this mean exactly? Should the work I’m doing, whatever it may be, be done as a way to serve Kṛṣṇa? Or is it simply keeping Kṛṣṇa and His teachings in your mind at all times? Joseph Rubalcava Via the Internet *Reply*: Lord Kṛṣṇa speaks the *Bhagavad-gītā* to Arjuna on a battlefield. Arjuna is a warrior and is about to fight in a battle. His questions are similar to yours. “Should I work for You, or should I just keep You in my mind all the time? After all, war is not good, and I could just chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and be happy. I’m not interested in winning the kingdom anyway.” But Arjuna has misunderstood, so Lord Kṛṣṇa answers, “Yes and yes. Yes, do whatever you do as an offering to Me, and yes, even fighting in this war should be done as an offering to Me. And yes, do everything in devotion and do it with your mind fixed on Me. Make your life an offering.” “And,” the Lord even says to Arjuna, “fight and think of Me.” We may not have direct access to Kṛṣṇa to ask, “What should I do?” So for guidance we need to study the scripture and consult senior devotees. But the beauty of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, or *bhakti-yoga*, is that we can do almost anything and make it an offering to Kṛṣṇa. He says at the end of the ninth chapter of *Bhagavad-gītā*: “Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform—do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me.” Some things are easier to offer than others, but mostly it is a matter of consciousness. Take the fruit of your work and somehow use it to enhance your devotion to Kṛṣṇa, thereby benefitting others as well. A Pause for Prayer My dear Lord, for one who is being tormented on the terrible path of birth and death and is constantly overwhelmed by the threefold miseries, I do not see any possible shelter other than Your two lotus feet, which are just like a refreshing umbrella that pours down showers of delicious nectar. O almighty Lord, please be merciful and uplift this hopeless living entity who has fallen into the dark hole of material existence, where the snake of time has bitten him. In spite of such abominable conditions, this poor living entity has tremendous desire to relish the most insignificant material happiness. Please save me, my Lord, by pouring down the nectar of Your instructions, which awaken one to spiritual freedom. —Śrī Uddhava to Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 11.19.9–10 Śrīla Prabhupāda Speaks Out: Soul-Killing Rascals *Keeping People in a Hellish Condition* *This conversation between His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda and some of his disciples took place in New Vrindaban, West Virginia, on June 26, 1976.* Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, the *Gītā* verse we’ve just read [16.9] is very striking. Lord Kṛṣṇa says that with their materialistic views, “the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.” Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. Kṛṣṇa says *ugra-karmāṇaḥ*: these people are performing horrible works. The factory—this is *ugra-karma*, a horrible work. In reality, only a little *karma*, a little work, is required. You simply see to it, for instance, that some wheat is growing. A little tilling—that is sufficient. What is the use of opening a big, big factory? That is *ugra-karma*. How has it helped? How has it helped that people are kept in some factory, simply for earning their livelihood. Just a little work will provide people’s needs. Nature has given so much facility. You can grow a little food anywhere. The cows are there in the pasturing ground. Take their milk and live peacefully. Why do you open factories? What is the use? You are simply keeping yourselves in a hellish condition. So this is the description given by Kṛṣṇa in *Bhagavad-gītā*. Now discuss these points. Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, Kṛṣṇa says demoniac leaders are engaging in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world. And you said this statement anticipates nuclear weapons. These words of Kṛṣṇa are so true. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. God is speaking. Kṛṣṇa is speaking. Disciple: In college I was studying nuclear energy and thinking it would save the world—that by nuclear energy our leaders could give us bigger corn, bigger tomatoes, and . . . Śrīla Prabhupāda: Bigger deaths. The ultimate result of these rascals’ work is bigger deaths. Everything must be big. Formerly, during some conflict, only a few men were dying. Now, many hundreds of thousands will die. Bigger deaths. During your college days, you did not consider that these big leaders were bringing bigger deaths? Disciple: In a way, Śrīla Prabhupāda. It was very frustrating, because from every so-called good thing these people were trying to do, so many more bad things were coming forth. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Karma jagat. The law of karma, which governs this material world, is that if you want to make a house, then somewhere you have to cut trees down. Somewhere you have to destroy—only then can you make your house. You have to “adjust” things like that. So in reality, you cannot create. You create your house by destroying somewhere else. Is it not? So where is your creation? Real creation is God’s creation. Without destroying anything, He has created everything. But if you want to create, then somewhere you have to destroy. That is the law of karma. Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, as you know, in chapter seven of the *Gītā*, Kṛṣṇa describes rascals with the word *duṣkṛtina*. And as you explain in the purport, *duṣkṛtina* indicates merit and intelligence. Misused, of course, yet very real merit and intelligence. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, intelligence. For example, after destroying a tree, you use your intelligence to construct a house. So you have intelligence. There is no doubt. A human being must have intelligence. But that intelligence is given to him for getting out of the clutches of birth, death, old age, and disease. Unfortunately, the so-called modern man is not using his intelligence for that purpose. Therefore, he is a duṣkṛtina, a rascal. Intelligence he has got. We don’t say that modern man is unintelligent, that he is a complete fool. No. He has got intelligence. But he is utilizing that intelligence for *duṣkārya*, work which he should not have done. There are *kārya* and duṣ*kārya*, proper work and bad work. Man’s intelligence was given so that he could get relief from these clutches of birth, death, old age, and disease. But that intelligence he’s not utilizing. He’s opening a factory and creating a completely different atmosphere, a bad atmosphere. Therefore he is a rascal. To open a factory requires intelligence. All sorts of complicated machines have to be coordinated. So intelligence is there. But how is this intelligence being used? To keep people in a hellish condition of life. Therefore, modern man is a duṣkṛtina, an intelligent rascal. Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, it’s amazing. People have become so shortsighted. For instance, they open a factory for some kind of economic development, but they’re not thinking of the factory’s ill effects. Water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution, stress, broken families, delinquency, drugs, crime—so many things. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Therefore Kṛṣṇa calls them duṣkṛtinas, and then He calls them *mūḍhas*, asses. Disciple: At the same time, Śrīla Prabhupāda. Kṛṣṇa also says, *mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam*—“Everyone’s intelligence comes from Me alone.” So some might criticize that Kṛṣṇa Himself is misleading people, giving people faulty intelligence. Śrīla Prabhupāda: You wanted to do something, so Kṛṣṇa gives you the intelligence to do what you wanted. If you want to manufacture a very complicated machine. Kṛṣṇa will give you that intelligence: “All right, do like this. Here is how to manufacture.” But you’ll not hear Kṛṣṇa when He says, *sarva-dharmān* *parityajya*: “You rascal, give up all this and surrender to Me.” That is real intelligence. But you’ll not do it. Hare Kṛṣṇa *Mahā-Mantra* Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. From the Editor *Real Mercy* Last year, I spent about five months in Vrindavan living near ISKCON’s Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma temple. One memory of my time there was witnessing the enthusiasm of the Indian visitors to the temple in taking the *ārati* flame. As most BTG readers know, during the *ārati* ceremony a lamp of burning ghee wicks is offered to the deities. Because anything offered to the deities becomes *prasādam*, or the Lord’s mercy, after being offered the lamp is carried through the crowd of worshipers, who pass their hands over it to get the deities’ blessings. In the usually crowded Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma temple, visitors often forcibly push their way through the crowd to get to the flame, seemingly unconcerned about bumping into others. While their eagerness made me wish I had their strong desire to get the Lord’s blessings, I wondered, “What do these pilgrims want from this *prasādam* that makes their desire for it so intense?” Śrīla Prabhupāda often commended the Indian people for their natural piety, but he also pointed out that, unlike his disciples, most of them were not on the path of pure *bhakti*, which Kṛṣṇa calls us to in the *Bhagavad-gītā*. Considering the themes of Prabhupāda’s preaching in India, I think I can safely say that many of the eager pilgrims I saw at the Kṛṣṇa-Balarāma temple were not on the path of pure devotional service. They weren’t competing for the flaming lamp with the idea that it would help them develop pure love for Kṛṣṇa. I can’t say for sure what they had in mind, of course, but when Śrīla Prabhupāda spent time in India after he and his movement had become well known there, people would often ask him for his blessings (*āśīrvāda*), and he would remark to his disciples that most people are interested in blessings only for material benefits. My purpose in pointing this out is not to disparage the millions of pious Indians; Prabhupāda would often highlight their good qualities. But his mission was to promote the highest piety—pure love for Kṛṣṇa—and to do that he worked to raise people’s consciousness above the lower forms of piety. As a representative in a line of gurus going back to Lord Caitanya and Lord Kṛṣṇa, Prabhupāda taught that we should use our life only to develop kṛṣṇa-prema. When we pass our hand over the *ārati* flame, we want the deities to bless us with pure love of God. We may pray that the flame burn away the impurities in our heart. We followers of Śrīla Prabhupāda don’t ask for other kinds of blessings. We understand that there’s no need for anything besides kṛṣṇa-prema; only it can deliver the complete satisfaction of our real self. Asking Kṛṣṇa to fulfill one’s material desires is a sign of spiritual immaturity or of a lack of spiritual knowledge. I read or heard once that the Lord’s *prasādam*, or mercy, comes in five ways: from *sādhus* (pure devotees in one’s line), *śāstra* (Vedic scriptures), *guru* (one’s own *guru*), Kṛṣṇa, and *ātmā*. *Ātmā* here means one’s own self. We have to be merciful to ourselves by taking advantage of the mercy offered to us by the other sources. When asked for his mercy, Prabhupāda would sometimes reply that it was available freely to anyone in the form of his instructions. Prabhupāda’s mercy is in fact Kṛṣṇa Himself, who is present when we chant His holy names or perform any other devotional service under the direction of His pure representative. Hare Kṛṣṇa. —*Nāgarāja Dāsa, Editor* Vedic Thoughts Whatever a person may be in the estimation of the social order of things, if he tries to reciprocate a feeling of love towards the Supreme Personality of Godhead and is satisfied with the blessings of the Lord, he will at once feel the highest peace of mind, for which he is hankering life after life. Peace of mind, or in other words the healthy state of mind, can be achieved only when the mind is situated in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 2.6.6, Purport A person who gives up all fruitive activities and offers himself entirely unto Me, eagerly desiring to render service unto Me, achieves liberation from birth and death and is promoted to the status of sharing My own opulences. Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 11.29.34 Whatever combined sweetness can be found in all the sounds of the universe disappears into the sweetness of the smallest hint of a vibration from Kṛṣṇa’s flute. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī *Śrī Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta* 1.5.532 Every one of the millions and millions of cowherds—the children, young people, and elders—thinks, “I alone am most dear to Kṛṣṇa.” Just as the pure way they behave toward Kṛṣṇa always confirms this ecstatic mentality, so does the way He behaves toward every one of them. Yet none of them ever become satiated. Their love shows a thirst that is the mother of sheer humility and that simply grows stronger and stronger. Śrī Sarūpa *Śrī Bṛhad-bhāgatāmṛta* 3.6.211–213 All the names of Visnu give liberation (*mukti*), while Krsna’s names give love of God (*prema*). Padma Purana Pātāla-khaṇḍa, Mathurā-māhātmya The name Durgā, by which I am known, is Her name. The qualities for which I am famous are Her qualities. The majesty with which I am resplendent is Her majesty. That Mahā-Lakṣmī, Śrī Rādhā, is nondifferent from Śrī Kṛṣṇa. She is His dearmost sweetheart and the crest-jewel of His beloveds. Śrī Durgā Devī *Sammohana-tantra*, Quoted by Jīva Gosvāmī in his commentary on *Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.3–4 Only a person who can count all the particles of dust in the world may fully enunciate the heroic deeds of Lord Viṣṇu. *Ṛg Veda* 1.154.1 Effort in remembering Kṛṣṇa is not necessary for the devotee who hears and chants about Him. Even without great effort by the devotee, the Lord spontaneously enters the devotee’s heart. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Commentary on *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 2.8.4 BTG54-06, 2020