# Back to Godhead Magazine #55 *2021 (02)* Back to Godhead Magazine #55-02, 2021 PDF-View Welcome This issue corresponds with the annual festival of Śrī Gaura *Pūrṇimā*, celebrating the anniversary of the appearance of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu in Bengal 435 years ago. Gaura, meaning “golden,” is a name for Lord Caitanya that refers to the hue of His glowing complexion. *Pūrṇimā* is the full-moon night. *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam**, composed more than fifty centuries ago, predicted that in this age Lord Kṛṣṇa would descend, not in His original cowherd-boy form, but disguised as a golden-complexioned devotee of Himself. The *Bhāgavatam* says that He and His associates will engage in chanting the holy names of the Lord (*harināma-saṅkīrtana*), thus revealing the prescribed spiritual practice for our times. Our cover story in this issue, excerpted from a biography of Lord Caitanya written shortly after His time here, gives us a glimpse into the beginnings of the saṅkīrtana movement. Though chanting is at the heart of Lord Caitanya’s movement, there’s much more to it than that. He taught extensively about philosophy and theology, drawing primarily on *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* to establish eternal spiritual truths. In “*Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*: The Postgraduate Study of Religion,” Satyarāja Dāsa describes some of the glories of that incomparable scripture. Hare Kṛṣṇa. —*Nāgarāja Dāsa, Editor* Letters *Two Senses of Duty* In her article “Royal Duty, Divine Duty” [July/August 2020] Viśākhā Devī Dāsī skillfully and endearingly raises our awareness of leadership—both external, influencing our lives under the monarch in the U.K., and internal, our own responsibilities as citizens and developing devotees in the International Society for Kṛṣṇa Consciousness, which Śrīla Prabhupāda wants us to truly represent. The wellbeing of the nation naturally must be based on a reciprocal relationship between the two leaderships, the two different yet unique senses of duty working cooperatively to uphold the teachings of the Lord and to please Him. During my time as a working doctor, I attended a meeting of the College of Medicine in London and had the opportunity to hear a wonderful conversation between the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, and an Indian-bodied doctor. What came across was the royal prince’s heartfelt gratitude for the very personal and diligent care the doctor had been providing. What was being expressed, as sincere appreciation, was the doctor’s totally dedicated sense of duty and caring. On another occasion, divine duty manifested with the magic that Mother Kulāṅgana’s sense of pure devotional duty or service must have inspired. As she lay in her cottage ashram bed, in her last few days with us at the Bhaktivedanta Manor, a new senior lead palliative-care nurse was brought in to review Mother Kulāṅgana’s pain-relief needs and to set up the required pain-relief delivery systems. Prior to bringing in this (Caucasian) professional nurse, I had the duty of briefing her about Mother Kulāṅgana and her clinical situation, her wishes, etc. When this highly experienced professional finally came by Mother’s bedside, she amazed us all by how she approached Mother Kulāṅgana, whose eyes were closed at the time, and she appeared as though deeply sleeping. The nurse paid obeisances on all four limbs, touching her head to the floor by Mother’s cot. In all my previous years as a home-visiting family doctor with many patients in their final days, I had never seen such a loving, respectful duty by a newly arriving professional to a patient’s side. Thank you, Viśākhā Devī Dāsī for your inspirational article. We hold all well-wishes for your leadership at the Manor. Hare Kṛṣṇa. Hare Kṛṣṇa Dāsī Nottingham Nama Hatta *Initiation in ISKCON* I was wondering, how does one ask a *guru* for initiation? What do I say? Kritika Via the Internet Reply: ISKCON requires persons interested in initiation to attend a class on the *guru*-disciple relationship. At many temples it is offered as a six-hour class. You can ask your local temple how to take it. It is also available online (http://www.iskcondisciplecourse.com/). The course is a wonderful source of information all about the *guru*, how to find one, the qualifications of *guru* and disciple, and so on. No question goes unanswered. *Struggling with Memories* I’m struggling with my old life and its memories. The thoughts cause so much stress and make me cry. I’m not able to see anything. I want to overcome this situation. Please help me. Naresh Via the Internet *Reply:* Great spiritual teachers advise that one should not dwell in the past or think too much about the future, but be in the present. We cannot change anything without the Lord’s will. Our wishing this and that is futile, a waste of our valuable time, which should be spent in pleasing Kṛṣṇa. Our life is too short to be hung up on our many mistakes, which are natural for the conditioned soul. We pick up, learn from them, and go on our way in devotional service. Kṛṣṇa overlooks our mistakes and sees our service attitude, faith, and determination to love Him. Find some project to serve Him with, and go forward, being grateful for everything He has given you. Spend your time in appreciating your position as His eternal servant who has the chance to be with Him. Chant His glories and be happy. Then He will be pleased, and you will be too. *Why Only Kṛṣṇa?* Why do you only worship Lord Kṛṣṇa? Ayush Raj Via the Internet *Reply:* Kṛṣṇa is the original name of God, but He is known by many names. So you can call Him something else, but there is only one God, who is Bhagavān, the possessor of all opulences in full: all wealth, intelligence, strength, beauty, fame, and renunciation. You can hear of Kṛṣṇa’s opulences throughout the Vedic literatures, which present the Absolute Truth. You can realize Him by chanting His names, serving Him, and glorifying Him. When we serve Kṛṣṇa, especially by chanting His names, we—the soul—feel relief from material distress and taste spiritual happiness. Kṛṣṇa is identical to His name. He says in the *Bhagavad-gītā* that worship of demigods is meant for Him alone but is misplaced. These are just a few reasons to worship only Kṛṣṇa, either in His original form or as one of His many avatars. Many devotees in the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement had never heard of Kṛṣṇa before Prabhupāda arrived in the West, but as soon as they came in contact with Prabhupāda or his followers and started to serve Kṛṣṇa, their conviction that Kṛṣṇa is God became firm. This is happening all over the world, so you can try the Kṛṣṇa consciousness experiment yourself and judge by the results. Founder's Lecture: A King with the Vision of a Sage *Though emperor of the world and a powerful warrior, Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja displayed the character of a compassionate Vaiṣṇava.* > sūta uvāca > iti bhītaḥ prajā-drohāt > sarva-dharma-vivitsayā > tato vinaśanaṁ prāgād > yatra deva-vrato 'patat > [SB 1.9.1] The Battlefield of Kurukṣetra, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira went to the scene of the massacre. There, Bhīṣmadeva was lying on a bed of arrows, about to pass away." *Pra*bhupāda: So the most important point is that the king, he was so responsible, he became afraid, that "I have killed so many *prajā.*" ***Pra*jā*.* It is not said there "human being." No. ***Pra*jā*.* **Pra*jā* means... *Pra* means *prakṛṣṭa-rūpeṇa,* and jā means *jāyate.* Just like every living entity takes somewhere birth. So considering nationalism... Just like American nation. What is the meaning of these people, American nation or Indian nation? The human being is the same—two hands, two legs, and they also eat. Everything is the same. Why this nationality? Nationality is only for the sake that that particular human being has taken birth in that particular land. That is called *prajā.* ***Pra*jā*.* *Jāyate.* Now, *jāyate,* one who takes birth... Just like the other day I was speaking... One Indian girl, she has given birth to a child in America. So because that child is born in America, she becomes naturally American national. So if this fact is to be accepted, that anyone who takes birth on the land of America, he becomes immediately American, and the American government takes charge for his protection, so why this is restricted only for the human child? If this is definition, *prajā,* "one who takes birth," so the animals also take birth. The trees also take birth. So many other animals, other living entities, they also take birth. So yes, therefore they are all *prajās.* Not only... Miserly, you limit your *prajā* conception, national conception, within the human society only. You expand it. Even it is taken nationally, anyone who takes birth in this land, he is national, either human being or animal or tree or plant. That is the definition of *prajā*. Prakṛṣṭa-rūpeṇa jāyate: any living entity who has taken birth. Just like in America, there are so many jungles and trees. If outsider like me comes and begins to cut the trees, so will the American government tolerate? Immediately I shall be prosecuted. I can say, "What is the harm? It is a tree. I am cutting." "No, you cannot cut this tree, because they are on the American land." So this conception should be prayed. So Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja is not only thinking of the human being who were killed in the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra. He is thinking of all the horses, elephants—because they are also living entities. They are also *prajā,* national. "National," this word there was..., we don't find in the Vedic literature, "national." It is modern invention. So if we feel nationally, then we feel for every living entity who is born in that land. That is real Kṛṣṇa consciousness, not sectarian, that "I feel for this living entities, not for that." So *iti bhītaḥ,* he was very much afraid, that "I have killed so many animals and men. So what to do?" *Prajā-drohāt. Droha, *droha** means to become enemy. Unless you become my enemy, you cannot kill me, neither I can kill you. So *droha* means if you become enemy. So when the *prajās* were killed, the king became enemy. He is thinking, "Otherwise, how I could induce them to be killed?" He was thinking like that. *Prajā-drohāt.* As you, if you rebel against the king it is also a great fault, similarly, if you rebel, revolt against the *prajās*, that is also great fault. Therefore he is afraid. *Bhītaḥ prajā-drohāt.* "Now what to do?" *Sarva-dharma-vivitsayā.* This is the position to approach a **guru*,* when you are bewildered. When things are not in order, brain is puzzled... Just like Arjuna accepted Kṛṣṇa as *guru* when he could not ascertain whether he shall fight or not. Bewilderment. So similarly, Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja also became bewildered, that "I have killed so many *prajās*. What is my position? I have become so much sinful. How can I rule over the empire?" So when all these questions puzzled him, he decided to go to Bhīṣmadeva, who was lying on the arrows' bed before his death. As I told you that Bhīṣmadeva could not be dead without..., so long he does not wish. That was the benediction given by his father, that "My dear boy, you have taken such a strong vow. So I give you one benediction." Formerly, everyone was so powerful. Of course, father's benediction always there, but they were actual benedictions. Everyone was so powerful. For example, the **brāhmaṇa*'s* son who cursed Parīkṣit Mahārāja, he was only twelve years old, a boy, and because he cursed Parīkṣit Mahārāja, that "Within seven days he will have to die," so he had to die. Just a small *brāhmaṇa* boy, how he was powerful. And it could not be changed. Although Parīkṣit Mahārāja was competent to change it, but he did not change. He showed honor to the brahminical curse. That is discussed by his father. So those who were powerful, actually they could benedict. *Yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādaḥ.* As we read in the *Gurvaṣṭaka,* "By the benediction of the spiritual master, one becomes benedicted by the Supreme Lord." So this Bhīṣmadeva*.**.**.* When he became puzzled, he went to Bhīṣmadeva, Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja went to Bhīṣmadeva*.* So this is the process*.* One must approach a superior person, who is called *guru*.** *Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet* [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1*.*2*.*12]*.* We, in this material world, we are confused, step by step*.* This is our position*.* Step by step*.* Every step*.* Padaṁ padaṁ vipadāt*.* Padaṁ padam means every step; *vipadāt,* danger*.* It is such a nice place, this material world, that every step there is danger*.* And as soon as there is danger, we are confused*.* So*.**.**.* And as soon as we are confused: "How to solve?" **Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa *guru*m eva *abhigacchet**.* Therefore the Vedic instruction is "Because you are confused, because you do not know which path to follow, therefore you *must* approach a **guru*.*" *Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa *guru*m eva *abhigacchet** [Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.2.12]. This word *abhigacchet* is used when there is compulsory, "You **must*.*" You cannot say that "Without going to **guru*,* I shall chalk out my own path." No, that is not possible. Therefore this very word is used, *gacchet.* In Sanskrit all words are meaningful. *Gacchet* means it is a question of **must*,* not that "I may and may not." Nowadays it is going on, and there is many rascals who come here in your country to preach that "There is no need of **guru*.* You can become your own *guru* yourself." That is not Vedic injunction. Vedic injunction is you *must* go to a **guru*,* *tad-vijñānārtham,* in order to understand the transcendental science. And that is natural. When we are confused in our ordinary life, we also go to a friend, senior friend or experienced friend, and ask him, "My dear friend, I am in this condition. I am very much confused what to do." That is natural. Similarly, when Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja was so much afraid that he had killed so many *prajās,* he knew that "Now, still, there is a superior person, my grandfather, who is lying on the bed of arrows. Let me go there." *Tato vinaśanaṁ prāgāt.* Then he decided, "Let me go to Bhīṣmadeva. He can give me instruction." What is that instruction? **Sarva-dharma.* Sarva-dharma:* instruction on all kinds of different varieties of religious system. *Sarva-dharma.* We will find*.**.**.* **Dharma**.**.**.* *Dharma** means occupational duty*.* *Dharma* means not a religious sentiment, that, as it is translated in English, "a sentiment*.*" Just like "Animal has no soul*.*" This is not *dharma*.** Without any scientific knowledge, if somebody says in some religion, for eating meat, that "Animal has no soul*.* You can kill as many as you like," that is not *dharma*.** *Dharma*, real meaning is occupational duty, not a sentiment*.* *Dharma*ṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam [SB 6*.*3*.*19]*.* It is just like state laws*.* The state laws are given by the state*.* You cannot manufacture laws*.* Similarly, *dharma,* which we call religion generally, you cannot manufacture by your concoction*.* It is stated by the Supreme Lord*.* That is *dharma*.** Just like Kṛṣṇa says that "I am the father of all living entities*.*" *Sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya sambhavanti mūrtayo yāḥ* [*Bg* 14*.*4]*.* And He is accepting not only human society*.* Sarva-yoniṣu*.* Sarva-yoniṣu means in all species of life*.* Kṛṣṇa claims that "Fish, beginning from fish, aquatic life, these living entities, they are also My sons*.* The birds, they are also My sons*.* The beasts, they are also My sons*.* The trees, they are also My sons*.* The human beings, they are also My sons*.* The demigods, they are also My sons*.*" *Sarva-yoniṣu:* in every species of life*.* This is the conception of Kṛṣṇa consciousness*.* We do not say that simply human being has soul*.* No*.* Every living entity*.* Even a small ant, a small plant, it is living entity*.* By its different work he has got a different dress only*.* Just like we are sitting, so many persons, and we have got our different dresses according to our different choice, similarly, we get these bodies*.* We are all sons of God. There is no doubt about it. We, all spirit soul, either in the human form of body or animal form of body or tree form of body—anything. *Sarva-yoniṣu.* We are all living entities. But we have got different dresses, that's all, according to *karma.* This is the philosophy. So we cannot make that "These dressed living entities are important than the other dressed living..." No. Everyone. The *paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ* [Bg 5.18], those who are actually learned, *paṇḍita, sama-darśinaḥ,* they are equal, equipoised: "Never mind here is a dog, he is also living entity, and here is a *brāhmaṇa,* he is also living entity. By his work he has got the body of a *brāhmaṇa,* and here he has got the body of a dog. But as living entity, they are all equal." So without Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the philosophy of equality, fraternity, as in your country they profess, it is not possible*.* Artificial*.* Without coming to the Kṛṣṇa consciousness, that every living entity is part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, or God, this equality, fraternity, big, big words, universal brotherhood, it is impossible*.* That is not possible*.* Therefore one has to become learned scholar, *paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ* [Bg 5*.*18]*.* Then he will be able to see equally*.* Just like Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira is thinking of all *prajās,* not only*.**.**.* Otherwise, the language would have been "human being*.*" No*.* *Prajā,* "All, all kinds of prajā*.*" This is universal understanding*.* Śrīla Prabhupāda Speaks Out: The Demoniac Mentality *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.* Śrīla Prabhupāda [to disciple]: Go on reading. Disciple [reading *Bhagavad-gītā* 16.10]: *Kāmam āśritya duṣpūraṁ dambha-māna-madānvitāḥ/ mohād gṛhītvāsad-grāhān pravartante ’śuci-vratāḥ:* “Taking shelter of insatiable lust and absorbed in the conceit of pride and false prestige, the demoniac, thus illusioned, are always sworn to unclean work, attracted by the impermanent.” Purport, by Śrīla Prabhupāda: “The demoniac mentality is described here. The demons have no satiation for their lust. They will go on increasing and increasing their insatiable desires for material enjoyment. Although they are always full of anxieties on account of accepting nonpermanent things, they still continue to engage in such activities out of illusion. They have no knowledge and cannot tell that they are heading the wrong way. Accepting nonpermanent things, such demoniac people create their own God, create their own hymns, and chant accordingly. The result is that they become more and more attracted to two things—sex enjoyment and accumulation of material wealth. The word aśuci-vrtāḥ, ‘unclean vows,’ is very significant in this connection. Such demoniac people are attracted only by wine, women, and meat-eating; those are their aśuci, unclean habits. Induced by pride and false prestige, they create some principles of religion which are not approved by the Vedic injunctions. Although such demoniac people are most abominable in the world, by artificial means the world creates a false honor for them. Although they are gliding toward hell, they consider themselves very much advanced.” Śrīla Prabhupāda: There are so many religious systems—“Yes, you can do whatever you like; you can eat whatever you like”—and still it is considered religion. This is demoniac. This will be explained further. *Pravṛttiṁ ca nivṛttiṁ ca janā na vidur āsurāḥ*: “The demoniac do not know what to do and what not to do.” Why? Because they do not take any standard idea. They manufacture their own ideas. Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, in the Catholic Church the early fathers upheld the principle of no flesh-eating. That’s part of the historical record. In time, though, the leaders became lax and changed the restriction to no flesh-eating on Fridays. Within our lifetime, they’ve changed their standard again. Disciple 2: They’ve changed so many things. When I was a boy, no one would have dreamed of defending homosexuality or abortion. Such things were utterly condemned. Now even some priests and nuns are openly promoting these things. The Church has lost much of its austerity and spiritual strength. Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is why they are selling churches. So many people are losing interest. For example, in London there are so many churches closed for lack of interest. Disciple: Reportedly, on account of the Pope’s taking such a firm stand against abortion and contraception, as many as one quarter of practicing Catholics may have reduced their practice—or may have left the Church entirely. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Where have they gone? [Laughter.] Disciple: Well, they have given up going to church, at least. Disciple 2: Their life has become hopeless. Śrīla Prabhupāda: No. Why do you say “hopeless”? There is certainly hope: there is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, this verse really captures today’s situation. The aśuci-vratāḥ—those who have made an unclean, materialistic vow—receive much respect. And yet genuine devotees of the Lord receive little, if any. Śrīla Prabhupāda: It is very fortunate that the materialists are not crucifying devotees. Lack of respect is one thing. But they crucified Lord Jesus Christ—they were so respectful. Because he was preaching God consciousness, he was crucified. What was his fault? He was talking of God: therefore he was crucified, with government approval. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* predicts, dasyu-dharmabhiḥ: as this age progresses, the government itself will consist of rogues and thieves. And just as rogues and thieves take your property away by force, so the government will take your property away by excessive taxation. Already, so many innocent people are being harassed. Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, if we all naturally desire to live, why do people perform so many horrible acts that will destroy both others and themselves? Śrīla Prabhupāda: They are thinking that they can go on existing by putting others out of existence. In this material world everyone has to struggle for existence. But they do not know how to exist. That is their foolishness. Everyone wants to go on existing, because actually he is eternal. He doesn’t want to be destroyed. That is his natural inclination. But he does not know how to go on existing eternally. So we are giving the formula: if you want to exist eternally, come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We are giving the right information. But people want to go on existing in the wrong way. That is not possible. Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, why does a demoniac person seem to want to exist by putting others out of existence? Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is simply the demoniac mentality. They are happy when others are unhappy. And when others are happy, they are unhappy. But the devotee of the Lord is *para-duḥkha-duḥkhī*—he’s happy only in seeing the happiness of others, and unhappy only in seeing the unhappiness of others. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is natural. Book Excerpt: *Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata* Lord Caitanya’s Nightly Kīrtana in Navadvīpa *Only the purest souls were fortunate enough to witness Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s ecstatic chanting and dancing in the home of Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura.* An austere *brāhmaṇa* is rebuked and then blessed when he desires to witness the private *kīrtana* of Caitanya Mahāprabhu and His close associates. by Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura [Excerpted from *Madhya-khaṇḍa*, chapter twenty-three, of the seven-volume Śrī *Caitanya-bhāgavata* of Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhakura, with commentary by Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja Prabhupāda. Translated by Bhūmipati Dāsa. Edited and published by Puṇḍarīka Vidyānidhi Dāsa. © Vrajraj Press 2002. This edition contains the original Bengali texts, which we have omitted here. It is available at ISKCON Vrindavan and is included in the VedaBase produced by the Bhaktivedanta Archives.] The author here refers to Lord Caitanya by the names Viśvambhara, Gaurahari, Nimāi Paṇḍita, Mahāprabhu, Śacīnandana, Gaurasundara, and the son of Śacī. TEXT 4 Day after day the abode of Navadvīpa became filled with ecstasy because of the presence of Viśvambhara, the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha. TEXT 5 Accompanied by His beloved Nityānanda, the Lord engaged in pastimes of relishing His own names in the association of the devotees. Commentary: The phrase *nija-nāma-rasa* is explained as follows: The Supreme Lord is *rasa-maya*, or full of transcendental mellows. The Supreme Lord and His holy names are nondifferent. Therefore the holy names are also *rasa-maya*. The Supreme Lord’s names, or spiritual names, are distinct from ordinary names or designations. Lord Gaurahari forgets Himself in the transcendental ecstasy of chanting the holy names in the midst of His devotees. Affection for His devotees is the cause of His forgetfulness. TEXT 6 The Lord performed kīrtana every night. No one except the devotees could participate. Commentary: While the Lord taught at night the process of worship through *kīrtana*, outsiders were not allowed. TEXT 7 The glories of Viśvambhara’s prowess were so great that no one in the three worlds knew their limits. Commentary: The glories of Viśvambhara’s prowess were unique. Since human knowledge is based on the three modes of material nature, it is unable to grasp transcendental concepts. TEXT 8 Hidden in the distance, five or ten people gathered together and spoke bad words that would take them to hell. Commentary: Ordinary unqualified people who blaspheme the process of worshiping the Supreme Lord are punished by Yamarāja after they die. TEXT 9 Someone said, “What kind of Vaiṣṇava can there be in Kali-yuga? Those Vaiṣṇavas we see are simply engaged in filling their stomachs.” Commentary: The blasphemers always say the Vaiṣṇavas are “simply interested in filling their bellies.” Their idea was that particularly in the age of quarrel there is no possibility of finding any Vaiṣṇavas or attaining devotional service to Viṣṇu. TEXT 10 “If we can tie up the hands and legs of these materialistic Vaiṣṇavas who are only interested in filling their own stomachs and then throw them in the water to get rid of them, then all our miseries will be extinguished.” TEXT 11 Someone said, “O brother, know for certain that Nimāi Paṇḍita will ruin the entire village.” Commentary: “By introducing pure devotional service, Nimāi Paṇḍita has destroyed the happiness of the village. Therefore the entire Navadvīpa has been ruined.” TEXT 12 They would threaten the devotees so that they could see the *kīrtana*. But because they were unfortunate, what could their cunning accomplish? Commentary: Because of the miscreants’ misfortune, the cunning they displayed to see Śrī Caitanyadeva’s most confidential saṅkīrtana pastimes by installing fear in the devotees was ineffective. TEXT 13 As the son of Śacī performed *saṅkīrtana*, the consciousness of everyone in the world was purified. Commentary: By glorifying Kṛṣṇa through *kīrtana*, Lord Śacīnandana purified the enjoyment-prone hearts of people who were averse to the Lord. TEXT 14 Ordinary people lamented because they could not see the kīrtana. They sighed deeply and considered themselves unfortunate. TEXT 15 Some people requested the devotees to let them inside so that they could secretly watch the *saṅkīrtana*. Commentary: The word *parihāra* means “request” or “appeal.” Someone revealed his own misfortune and requested one of the devotees to allow him to secretly watch the Lord’s kīrtana pastimes. TEXT 16 All the Lord’s servants understood that the Lord knew everything, so in fear of His reaction they did not take anyone inside. TEXT 17 There was one particular *brahmacārī* who lived in Navadvīpa. He was austere, saintly, and faultless. TEXT 18 He only drank milk and did not eat rice. This brāhmaṇa wanted to see the Lord’s kīrtana. Commentary: Since the *brahmacārī* who considered that cooked food destroyed life and who took a vow to live only on uncooked foods like milk and mango was unqualified to hear the glories of the Supreme Lord, he had no qualification to hear the *kīrtana* behind closed doors. Direct service to the Supreme Lord is never found within the principles of dry renunciation. Foolish people who misuse renunciation consider that the ingredients of the Lord’s worship are fit for rejection. TEXT 19 Since the Lord performed kīrtana behind closed doors, no one other than the devotees was allowed to enter. TEXT 20 This particular *brāhmaṇa* daily requested Śrīvāsa to allow him to see the Lord’s dancing. TEXT 21–22 “If you bestow mercy on me and take me one day inside your house, I will be able to see Nimāi Paṇḍita’s dancing. Then my eyes will be successful, and I will always remain grateful to you.” TEXT 23 In this way the *brāhmaṇa* daily appealed to Śrīnivāsa [Śrīvāsa], who one day replied to him. TEXT 24 “I know you have always been a good person. Throughout your life you have observed strict celibacy and eaten only fruits. TEXT 25 “Your body is free from sin, so you are certainly qualified to see the *kīrtana*. TEXT 26 “But I tell you, the Lord has instructed us not to bring anyone inside, so you will have to stay hidden.” Commentary: Since according to Mahāprabhu’s instructions, the milk-drinking *brahmacārī* had no qualification to hear the Lord’s chanting, despite possessing a sinless body, when he begged Śrīvāsa to allow him to see the Lord’s dancing, Śrīvāsa advised him to remain hidden within the house. TEXT 27 After speaking in this way, he took the *brāhmaṇa* inside and hid him in one corner. TEXT 28 Thereafter the Lord of the fourteen worlds began to dance in the midst of His most fortunate associates. TEXT 29 They all jubilantly sang together, “Kṛṣṇa, Rāma, Mukunda, Murāri, Vanamālī!” TEXT 30 Nityānanda and Gadādhara held each other as they twirled around. The lionlike Advaita ran here and there in ecstasy. TEXT 31 As the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha personally danced, everyone lost external consciousness in transcendental happiness. TEXT 32 Nothing could be heard other than, “Hari bol! Hari bol! O brothers, chant the holy names!” TEXT 33 Who can describe Viśvambhara’s transformations of ecstatic love like shedding of tears, shivering, hairs standing on end, and loud roaring? TEXT 34 Yet Lord Viśvambhara, the crest jewel of omniscient persons, knew that a brāhmaṇa was hiding there. TEXT 35 Lord Viśvambhara repeatedly stopped dancing and said, “Why am I not feeling any ecstasy today? Commentary: *Yogis* who are free from material activities and averse to the Lord’s name, form, qualities, associates, characteristics, and pastimes do not have any information about love of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, even though they are exalted in material calculation, their aversion to love of God, which is transcendental to the four goals of life, devours them. Although such bad association is considered desirable in the eyes of ordinary people, there is no possibility of attaining love of God in such association. Śrī Gaurasundara revealed that love of God is absent in the association of persons who are averse to love of God. TEXT 36–41 “I cannot understand; it seems someone is inside the house. Tell Me the truth.” In fear, Śrīnivāsa replied, “O Lord, no atheists have come inside. There is only one brahmacārī—a pious brāhmaṇa, who leads a sinless life and only drinks milk. He had a strong desire to see Your dancing. You have rightly surmised, O Lord; he is hiding inside the house.” On hearing this, Viśvambhara angrily said, “Quickly take him out of the house. What qualification does he have to see My dancing? Can one attain devotion to Me by drinking milk?” Commentary: Since Gaurasundara did not feel ecstasy in the kīrtana, and since He realized that some bad association had entered the house, He inquired about this from Śrīvāsa Paṇḍita, who replied, “No irreligious person envious of the Supreme Lord has entered this house. A sinless brāhmaṇa brahmacārī who has taken a vow to live on milk and who is devoted to his duties is hiding within this house, because he was eager to see Your dancing.” On hearing this, Mahāprabhu considered that person a nondevotee and expressed His anger by ordering that he should leave the house. When there is no guarantee that by only drinking uncooked milk one attains devotion to the Supreme Lord, then how can a nondevotee become eligible to see the dancing of a devotee? Because he was bereft of unalloyed devotional service, he developed a propensity for executing materialistic austerities. All austerities aimed at nonviolence and imagined to be favorable to religious life according to ordinary consideration can never be steps to devotional service to the Lord. Inclination towards the service of the Supreme Lord and lording it over the material world are not equivalent. TEXT 42 The Lord raised His two arms and extended His index fingers while saying, “No one can attain Me simply by drinking milk. Commentary: Attempts to achieve saintliness or supremacy in the world under the shelter of nonviolence are not evidence of inclination for the Lord’s service. This was specifically pointed out by Śrī Gaurasundara. TEXT 43 “Know for certain that if even a *caṇḍāla* surrenders to Me, he is Mine and I am his. Commentary: “If by his past *karma* a human being takes birth in a degraded family yet has a strong inclination for the service of the Supreme Lord, he is very dear to Me. He is certainly a brāhmaṇa whose body belongs to Me. There is no doubt about it.” TEXT 44 “If even a *sannyāsī* does not surrender to Me, he is not Mine. This is the truth I am telling you. Commentary: If even a *sannyāsī* situated in the topmost āśrama becomes averse to the service of the Supreme Lord, then it is a fact that such a person should not be accepted as dear to the Supreme Lord. TEXT 45-46 “Tell Me, what kind of austerities did Gajendra, the monkeys, and the cowherds perform to attain Me? Even the demons perform austerities, but what is the result? Unless they take shelter of Me, they cannot be delivered.” Commentary: In the *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (11.12.1–8) the Supreme Personality of Godhead speaks to Uddhava as follows: > na rodhayati māṁ yogo > na sāṅkhyaṁ dharma eva ca > na svādhyāyas tapas tyāgo > neṣṭā-pūrtaṁ na dakṣiṇā > vratāni yajñaś chandāṁsi > tīrthāni niyamā yamāḥ > yathā varundhe sat-saṅgaḥ > sarva-saṅgāpaho hi mām “My dear Uddhava, by associating with My pure devotees one can destroy one’s attachment for all objects of material sense gratification. Such purifying association brings Me under the control of My devotee. One may perform the *aṣṭāṅga-yoga* system, engage in philosophical analysis of the elements of material nature, practice nonviolence and other ordinary principles of piety, chant the Vedas, perform penances, take to the renounced order of life, execute sacrificial performances and dig wells, plant trees and perform other public welfare activities, give in charity, carry out severe vows, worship the demigods, chant confidential *mantras*, visit holy places or accept major and minor disciplinary injunctions, but even by performing such activities one does not bring Me under his control. > sat-saṅgena hi daiteyā > yātudhānā mṛgāḥ khagāḥ > gandharvāpsaraso nāgāḥ > siddhāś cāraṇa-guhyakāḥ > vidyādharā manuṣyeṣu > vaiśyāḥ śūdrāḥ striyo ’ntya-jāḥ > rajas-tamaḥ-prakṛtayas > tasmiṁs tasmin yuge yuge > bahavo mat-padaṁ prāptās > tvāṣṭra-kāyādha vādayaḥ > vṛṣaparvā balir bāṇo > mayaś cātha vibhīṣaṇaḥ > sugrīvo hanumān ṛkṣo > gajo gṛdhro vaṇikpathaḥ > vyādhaḥ kubjā vraje gopyo > yajña-patnyas tathāpare “In every yuga many living entities entangled in the modes of passion and ignorance gained the association of My devotees. Thus, such living entities as the Daityas, Rākṣasas, birds, beasts, Gandharvas, Apsarās, Nāgas, Siddhas, Cāraṇas, Guhyakas and Vidyādharas, as well as such lower-class human beings as the *vaiśyas*, *śūdras*, women and others, were able to achieve My supreme abode. Vṛtrāsura, Prahlāda Mahārāja and others like them also achieved My abode by association with My devotees, as did personalities such as Vṛṣaparvā, Bali Mahārāja, Bāṇāsura, Maya, Vibhīṣaṇa, Sugrīva, Hanumān, Jāmbavān, Gajendra, Jaṭāyu, Tulādhāra, Dharma-vyādha, Kubjā, the gopīs in Vṛndāvana and the wives of the brāhmaṇas who were performing sacrifice. > te nādhīta-śruti-gaṇā > nopāsita-mahattamāḥ > avratātapta-tapasaḥ > mat-saṅgān mām upāgatāḥ “The persons I have mentioned did not undergo serious studies of the Vedic literature, nor did they worship great saintly persons, nor did they execute severe vows or austerities. Simply by association with Me and My devotees, they achieved Me. > kevalena hi bhāvena > gopyo gāvo nagā mṛgāḥ > ye ’nye mūḍha-dhiyo nāgāḥ > siddhā mām īyur añjasā “The inhabitants of Vṛndāvana, including the gopīs, cows, unmoving creatures such as the twin arjuna trees, animals, living entities with stunted consciousness such as bushes and thickets, and snakes such as Kāliya, all achieved the perfection of life by unalloyed love for Me and thus very easily achieved Me.” A poet of South India is quoted in the Padyāvalī as follows: > vyādhasyācaraṇaṁ dhruvasya ca > vayo vidyā gajendrasya kā > kubjāyāḥ kim u nāma rūpam > adhikaṁ kiṁ tat sudāmno dhanam > vaṁsaḥ ko vidurasya yādava- > pater ugrasya kim pauruṣaṁ > bhaktyā tuṣyati kevalaṁ na ca > guṇair bhakti-priyo mādhavaḥ “Did the hunter named Dharma have any piety? Did age disqualify the five-year-old Dhruva? Did Gajendra, who lived by Trikūṭa Mountain, possess any learning? Did Mathurā’s Kubjā, the maidservant of Kaṁsa, have any beauty? Did Sudāmā Brāhmaṇa, the friend of Kṛṣṇa, have any wealth? Did the social status of Vidura disqualify him? Did the prowess of Ugrasena, the King of the Yadus, disqualify him? Mādhava was pleased with their devotional service. He is not pleased by material qualities.” TEXT 47 The Lord continued, “One cannot attain Me only by drinking milk. You will see right here how I smash him to pieces.” TEXT 48 As the *brahmacārī* left in great fear, that sober *brāhmaṇa* thought to himself. TEXT 49–50 “I am indeed fortunate to have seen something. I have also received appropriate punishment for my offense. I saw that wonderful dancing and wonderful *kīrtana*, and I was punished according to my offense.” Commentary: The austere brahmacārī was an impersonalist. Since he was devoid of the propensity to serve, he could not appreciate the display of intoxication in ecstatic love of God. This was the cause of his offense. Those who consider the dancing and crying in need of living entities intoxicated by material enjoyment in this world as equal to the devotees’ singing, dancing, crying, and laughing for the Supreme Lord are offenders. As a result of receiving punishment in the form of Śrī Gaurasundara’s chastisement, the impersonalistic brahmacārī became enlightened. TEXT 51 Only a servant of the Lord develops such a mentality and is able to tolerate the Lord’s chastisement. Commentary: Because of self-realization, persons whose hearts are constantly engaged in the service of the Supreme Lord never express displeasure in any of the Lord’s actions. Considering themselves fit for punishment, such persons respectfully accept the Lord’s judgment and remember their previous offenses. They do not endeavor to oppose the judgment of the Supreme Lord to attain religiosity, economic development, sense gratification, or liberation. In this regard one should discuss the *tat te ’nukampāṁ* verse1 along with the *āśliṣya vā pāda-ratāṁ* verse2 spoken by Śrī Gaurasundara. TEXT 52 As that exalted *brāhmaṇa* departed while thinking in this way, Lord Viśvambhara, the Supersoul, understood his heart. TEXT 53 The Lord, who is an ocean of mercy, called the *brāhmaṇa* back and placed His lotus feet on his head. TEXT 54 The Lord then told him that he shouldn’t be proud of his austerity, and he should know for certain that devotional service to the Supreme Lord is supreme. Commentary: Refer to the previously quoted *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* verses (11.12.1–8). Also, in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (10.23.43–44) it is stated: > nāsāṁ dvijāti-saṁskāro > na nivāso gurāv api > na tapo nātma-mīmāṁsā > na śaucaṁ na kriyāḥ śubhāḥ > tathāpi hy uttamaḥ-śloke > kṛṣṇe yogeśvareśvare > bhaktir dṛḍhā na cāsmākaṁ > saṁskārādimatām api “These women have never undergone the purificatory rites of the twice-born classes, nor have they lived as *brahmacārīs* in the *āśrama* of a spiritual master, nor have they executed austerities, speculated on the nature of the self, followed the formalities of cleanliness or engaged in pious rituals. Nevertheless, they have firm devotion for Lord Kṛṣṇa, whose glories are chanted by the exalted hymns of the Vedas and who is the supreme master of all masters of mystic power. We, on the other hand, have no such devotion for the Lord, although we have executed all these processes.” In the *Padma Purāṇa* it is stated: > mahā-kula-prasūto ’pi > sarva-yajñeṣu dīkṣitaḥ > sahasra-śākhādhyāyī ca > na guruḥ syād avaiṣṇavaḥ “A non-Vaiṣṇava is never fit to be *guru* even if he has taken birth in a great family, performed all sacrifices, and studied many branches of the Vedas.” In the *Nārada-pañcarātra* it is stated: > ārādhito yadi haris tapasā tataḥ kiṁ > nārādhito yadi haris tapasā tataḥ kim > antar bahir yadi haris tapasā tataḥ kiṁ > nāntar bahir yadi haris tapasā tataḥ kim “If one is worshiping Lord Hari, what is the use of performing extraneous penances? And if one is not worshiping Lord Hari, no such penances will save one. If one can understand that Lord Hari is all-pervading, within and without, what is the need of performing penances? And if one is not able to understand that Hari is all-pervading, all his penances are useless.” In the *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (11.20.31) it is stated: > na jñānaṁ na ca vairāgyaṁ > prāyaḥ śreyo bhaved iha “The cultivation of knowledge and renunciation is generally not the means of achieving the highest perfection within this world.” In the *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (10.81.19) it is stated: > sarvāsām api siddhīnāṁ > mūlaṁ tac-caraṇārcanam “Devotional service to His lotus feet is the root cause of all perfection.” In the *Padma Purāṇa* it is stated: > ārādhanānāṁ sarveṣāṁ > viṣṇor ārādhanaṁ param > tasmāt parataraṁ devi > tadīyānāṁ samarcanam “O Devī, the most exalted system of worship is the worship of Lord Viṣṇu. Greater than that is the worship of tadīya, or anything belonging to Viṣṇu.” TEXT 55 That exalted *brāhmaṇa* cried in ecstasy as he continually remembered the merciful qualities of the Lord. TEXT 56 All the devotees then jubilantly chanted the name of Hari and immediately offered obeisances to the brahmacārī. TEXT 57 Anyone who faithfully hears this confidential pastime will certainly attain Lord Gauracandra. TEXT 58 After bestowing mercy on the brahmacārī, the Lord profusely danced in ecstasy. TEXT 59 I offer my obeisances at the feet of that brāhmaṇa, whose intelligence was purified by Lord Caitanya’s chastisement. Commentary: This verse describes Śrī Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura’s desire to accept and respect as a devotee the brāhmaṇa who was punished for his offense. *NOTES* > tat te ’nukampāṁ su-samīkṣamāṇo > bhuñjāna evātma-kṛtaṁ vipākam > hṛd-vāg-vapurbhir vidadhan namas te > jīveta yo mukti-pade sa dāya-bhāk “My dear Lord, one who earnestly waits for You to bestow Your causeless mercy upon him, all the while patiently suffering the reactions of his past misdeeds and offering You respectful obeisances with his heart, words, and body, is surely eligible for liberation, for it has become his rightful claim.” *(Bhāgavatam* 10.14.8) > āśliṣya vā pāda-ratāṁ pinaṣṭu mām > adarśanān marma-hatāṁ karotu vā > yathā tathā vā vidadhātu lampaṭo > mat-prāṇa-nāthas tu sa eva nāparaḥ “Let Kṛṣṇa tightly embrace this maidservant who has fallen at His lotus feet, or let Him trample Me or break My heart by never being visible to Me. He is a debauchee, after all, and can do whatever He likes, but He is still no one other than the worshipable Lord of My heart.” (*Śikṣāṣṭaka* 8) *Śrīla Vṛndāvana dāsa Ṭhākura is known as the Vyāsa of Lord Caitanya’s pastimes. He was the son of Nārāyaṇī Devī, who was the niece of Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura, one of Lord Caitanya’s closest associates. Śrīvāsa appears in this excerpt, as it was in his home that the nightly kīrtanas took place.* Be Good—and Shrewd *As Sītā Devī’s example shows, good judgment must inform our desire to do the right thing.* by Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa Rāvaṇa’s exploitation of Sītā’s service attitude shows how, if we are naive, our virtues can be used against us. Few things cause us as much agony as when our good intentions backfire on us. When we try to do something good for someone but that very person exploits our goodness and hurts us, we feel betrayed, enraged, shattered. Such was the situation that led to the abduction of Sītā Devī. While she was living in a forest cottage with Lord Rāmacandra and His brother Lakṣmaṇa, she became the victim of a conspiracy hatched by the demon-king Rāvaṇa. With the aid of the shape-changing wizard Mārīca, Rāvaṇa had Sītā’s two protectors sidetracked. Then he approached her in a garb that would lower her guard: the garb of a sadhu. By asking Sītā for alms in that garb, he cynically exploited her service attitude and her respect for sages. When Sītā saw a sage asking for alms, she folded her hands in respect and said, “O venerable one, please take a seat on this log. My husband will soon return and offer you food.” Rāvaṇa replied, “O fair lady, I am hungry. Please give me whatever alms you have right away.” Sītā had been warned by Lakṣmaṇa, “Don’t go out of this protective circle I am drawing around the cottage.” He had infused the circle with mystical power so that anyone who tried to step over it would be burnt. Remembering Lakṣmaṇa’s words, Sītā said, “O sage, I can’t come out of this circle. Please wait.” Impatient Rāvaṇa tried to step over the circle and was immediately scalded by flames. Stepping back in alarm, he paused and decided to exploit Sītā’s tender sensibilities. “Will you let a sage die of hunger? If you don’t step out and serve me some food, I’ll leave, and you will have offended a sage. Do you want to do that?” In traditional *dharmic* cultures, offending a sage was among the worst things one could do; it could lead to severe reactions. Virtuous people were trained to respect sages and avoid offending them at all costs. Naturally, Sītā became apprehensive on hearing the sage’s words. Thinking, “I can’t become the cause of Rāma’s having to suffer the reactions of offending a sage,” she stepped across the protective circle. And Rāvaṇa pounced on her and abducted her. Rāvaṇa played ugly. Suppose two boxers are engaged in a boxing match. If one of them plays according to the rules and the other plays loose with the rules, then the rule-abiding nature of the first boxer makes him vulnerable to his opponents’ dirty tricks. A referee is meant to catch anyone who breaks the rules. And in the game of life, the law of *karma* acts as a referee, giving everyone their due, but often *karma* gives people their due in its own time. In the meantime, we might suffer at the hands of unprincipled opponents if they are manipulative and we are naive. If a player is known to be unprincipled and cunningly cheats behind the referee’s back, then the opponent needs to carefully guard against such tricks. And what makes us especially vulnerable to such manipulation is our vices. If we have vices such as lust or greed, we can be easily manipulated by those who promise to gratify our base desires. We are all fighting a war against the forces of illusion, which try to delude, degrade, and destroy us. In this war our vices are like enemy strongholds inside our consciousness. If we don’t want to be sabotaged from within, we need to be cautious about not pandering to our vices. Fostering such cautiousness, the Vedic literature contains many directives and narratives about how dangerous even a minor pandering to vices can be. But what we often overlook is that we may be vulnerable because of our virtues too. When we act virtuously, we usually expect to be appreciated, not manipulated. Even if we are not ego-driven, we expect that our good actions will produce good results for us and for others. But the world is a cruel place—it can take advantage of our goodness. It is good if we are charitable, but if we give charity indiscriminately, then people may exploit us by milking us for money. We may end up poor, with our wealth being exploited and abused by those who abused our charitable nature. Therefore we need to be on guard not just when dealing with our vices, but also when dealing with our virtues. *When Good Intentions Are Not Good Enough* Sītā’s virtue that made her vulnerable was her uncritical service attitude, a desire to serve not regulated by caution. To understand how something as noble as a desire to serve can backfire, let’s consider a medical metaphor. Suppose a doctor is treating patients in an epidemic area. She may have the best of intentions to treat the patients, but if she gets infected, then she can’t help anyone. In fact, care-givers who could have helped the patients will have to spend their time and energy in caring for the doctor. Lack of caution on the doctor’s part ends up reducing a giver of help to a needer of help. No matter how urgent the patients’ needs are, the doctor must first get the necessary protection such as vaccines or masks. A doctor who doesn’t temper compassion with caution won’t be able to show any compassion in the future. Similar was Sītā’s situation. Her service attitude was laudable. Still, it was important for her to remember that she was alone in a dangerous forest, and that danger could come from the most unexpected of places. Not so long ago, she had the experience of danger coming from unexpected places. While she and Lord Rāma had been in the seeming safety and prosperity of Ayodhya, Rāma’s stepmother Kaikeyī had suddenly turned inimical and had them exiled. In the light of that experience and in the context of her present vulnerable situation in the forest, for her to step over the protective circle was inadvisable, even if it was for serving a sage. Of course, the point here is not to blame Sītā. “Victim blaming” is reprehensible. Those who exploit and abuse others need to be condemned and punished in the strongest possible way. And Rāma did just that by ending Rāvaṇa’s reign and life. Sītā’s abduction was because of Rāvaṇa’s viciousness and deviousness. Simultaneously and regrettably, the world will always have vicious and devious people. Law enforcers need to regulate and, when necessary, even eliminate such evil elements. Still, some other people will become evil. Evil people can’t be entirely eradicated from society; that’s why virtuous people need to be cautious. For example, the police have the duty to prevent robbery. But some people will still be looking for an opportunity to rob. A wealthy man walking along a lonely, dark street with a lot of currency notes bulging out of his pocket is likely to be mugged. Suppose he is on that dark street on a mission of compassion—say, to give money in charity for the treatment of a poor person on the verge of death. Still, a mission of compassion doesn’t alter the disposition of those without compassion. Robbers will still rob. And when that charitable person is robbed, the culpability lies with the robbers. The police need to catch the robbers, punish them, and recover the money. Simultaneously, the police would advise the kindhearted man to not walk again on that street with so much money showing so visibly. The point to learn from Sītā’s abduction is that just being good is not good enough; we need to be good and shrewd. Here I use “shrewd” in its positive sense of having a clever awareness or resourcefulness, especially in practical matters, not in its negative sense of being disposed to artful and cunning practices. If we aren’t shrewd enough to make sound judgments, good actions can lead to bad results. When we learn to complement good engagement with good judgment, our good intentions are more likely to be translated into good results. *Developing Good Judgment by Respecting Boundaries* When Sītā was abducted, multiple factors contributed to that tragedy: Rāvaṇa’s conspiracy to send Mārīca in the form of a deer, thereby getting Rāma out of the picture; the confrontation between Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa, which resulted in Lakṣmaṇa’s departing to aid Rāma, leaving Sītā defenseless; Rāvaṇa’s assumption of the garb of a holy man; and Sītā’s stepping over the protective circle. Among these factors, Sītā’s stepping over was the tipping point. Again, the aim here is not to blame her, but to understand what we can do to prevent unnecessary problems in our life. There is enough unavoidable trouble in life; if we can ensure that we don’t compound it with avoidable trouble, we can go through our life with less trauma and tragedy. We can compare the protective circle drawn around the hermitage to the regulatory guidelines given in scripture. Lakṣmaṇa can be compared to the *guru* who provides us scriptural guidelines that can best protect us. Sītā can be compared to the soul prone to be overpowered by demonic forces, represented by Rāvaṇa. If we respect the boundaries that are meant to protect us, we are more likely to be safe. While danger exists everywhere in the world, it is more in some places than others. Consider walking on a road. On the footpath we may be hit by a drunk driver, but if we are walking in the middle of the road without considering the vehicles, we are much more likely to be hit. The traffic rules that regulate walking on the streets are meant to protect us. If we respect the rules meant to protect us, we stay protected. The same applies to ethical and spiritual guidelines. Indeed, this is the mood of a celebrated aphorism from the *Mahābhārata*: *dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ*, “Those who protect dharma are protected by dharma.” Echoing this theme, Lord Kṛṣṇa states in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (16.24) that if we mold our lives according to the guidance of scripture, we can create a better future for ourselves. Apart from the standard ethical and spiritual guidelines given in scripture, we can consider what boundaries we require, given our particular vulnerabilities. First we need to recognize the need for boundaries, then we need to construct them, and then we need to respect them. For example, an essential boundary for a recovering alcoholic would be “Don’t go to a bar, and don’t keep alcohol readily accessible.” Boundaries to avoid bad things are easy to understand, but boundaries in doing good things require more contemplation to understand. For example, suppose we are euphoric and promise something to someone. Our euphoria may cloud our judgment and make us do things we later regret. That’s what happened to Daśaratha when in the joy of Rāma’s upcoming coronation, he promised Kaikeyī that he would fulfill any desire she had. When she asked that Rāma be exiled and her son, Bharata, be installed instead, Daśaratha was left shocked and shattered. Ultimately, boundaries are most effective not when they restrict, but when they connect. Put another way, we can best stay within boundaries when we find something so relishable inside the boundaries that we no longer crave what lies outside them. And if the boundaries help us connect more with what lies inside them, that’s even better. If a couple is happily married, then the boundaries of marriage help them connect better with each other and don’t seem restrictive. The same principle applies to our eternal bond as souls with the supreme soul. Various ethical and spiritual guidelines are ultimately meant to help us become better connected with the Lord. As He is the source of all pleasure, connecting with Him devotionally enables us to access the supreme pleasure. When we thus find inner fulfillment in our connection with the Lord, we don’t feel inclined to transgress any protective boundaries, for we no longer crave the things that lie outside them. *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, “Gītā-Daily,” visit gitadaily.com.* Which Is Greater: Ninety-Nine or a Hundred? *An incident involving King Pṛthu and Lord Indra shows that the higher of two scores is not always the better one.* By Gaurāṅga Darśana Dāsa Which is greater, 99 or 100? Of course 100 is greater. Then why ask the question? Because the question may be about more than just the numbers. Imagine that one student honestly scores 99% on an exam while another student copies from someone and scores100%. Whose score is greater? If one person has honestly earned 99 dollars and another has stolen 100 dollars, whose money is greater? In these examples, if we compare the process and consciousness in achieving the numbers, 99 is greater than 100. *Who Is the Greater King: Indra or Pṛthu?* Once upon a time, two kings scored 99 and 100 in some “subject.” The king who scored 99 is considered the greater of the two in many ways and is more honored. Why and how? Here is the story. Long ago, King Pṛthu was an exemplary ruler of the earth who took care of his citizens just like a loving father. In the Vedic culture, great kings performed fire sacrifices (yajñas) for the citizens’ welfare and to please God. Sacrifice is an act of making offerings to the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu and the demigods, whose pleasure brings peace and prosperity to the people and the rewards of piety to the performer. Once King Pṛthu intended to perform one hundred sacrifices. He completed ninety-nine and began the hundredth. But King Indra, the ruler of the heavenly planets, wanted to impede the sacrifice and therefore stole the sacrificial horse, an essential part of the sacrifice. Indra had performed a hundred sacrifices to attain his post, and he became insecure on seeing Pṛthu performing his one hundredth sacrifice. Pṛthu’s son Vijitāśava retrieved the horse from Indra, but he didn’t kill Indra, because Indra had dressed himself as a sadhu. Indra stole the horse again, and Vijitāśva brought it back again. As Indra repeatedly tried to seize the horse, Pṛthu became angry and prepared to kill Indra. But Pṛthu’s priests stopped Pṛthu, saying that they would chant *mantras* to cast Indra into fire. Lord Brahmā, who creates the universe with the ingredients supplied by Lord Viṣṇu, then appeared on the scene and said that Indra shouldn’t be killed. He told Pṛthu to stop the sacrifice so that Indra would give up his nefarious activities. Being obedient to Lord Brahmā, King Pṛthu stopped his one hundredth sacrifice. Then the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu, who is worshipable by all living entities, appeared there, bringing Indra with Him, and asked Pṛthu to forgive Indra. Indra felt guilty for his misdeed, and Pṛthu excused him wholeheartedly. Later Pṛthu offered fervent prayers to Lord Viṣṇu, who became pleased and offered him wonderful benedictions. Who is greater in this episode? Indra, the king of heaven, who maintained his record of one hundred sacrifices, or Pṛthu, the king of the earth, who stopped at ninety-nine? The following are a few perspectives in this regard. *Responsibility vs. Attachment* To seize Pṛthu’s sacrificial horse, King Indra adopted several disguises as a false sadhu that were nothing but symbols of sinful activities. Sinful men sometimes adopt these appearances. When ignorant people accept these imposters as religious, they spoil their life by following them. By disrupting Pṛthu’s sacrifice, Indra could maintain his record of being a śata-kratu (“performer of a hundred sacrifices”)—an epithet he was much attached to. But his attachment made him irresponsible towards the people. King Pṛthu, on the other hand, was detached enough to stop his one hundredth sacrifice because that meant stopping Indra from introducing false systems of religion that would misguide human society. Pṛthu’s sacrifice was ultimately intended for the welfare of the people, and if his stopping the sacrifice would improve the people’s welfare, then why wouldn’t he do so? He took it as his responsibility. What is good and what is bad can be dynamic, depending on the time, place, and situation. Intent and outcome are important considerations. A delicious, nutritious, and well-prepared food item may be very tasty and nourishing, but if the person eating it has a particular disease, that same food could be poison. One needs to be mature enough to understand the dynamics of good and bad and be detached and flexible enough to change one’s course of action for better results. It’s natural to be attached to our accomplishments, desires, and plans. But attachment shouldn’t make us irresponsible. And detachment doesn’t mean giving up responsibility. Responsibility shouldn’t lead to undue attachment, and detachment doesn’t mean irresponsibility. The *Bhāgavatam’s* narrations of great rājarṣis (sagelike kings) teach us how to live with responsibility and detachment. In this episode, Indra exhibited attachment to his position and irresponsibility towards the people. Pṛthu exhibited detachment from his accomplishment of the sacrifice, and responsibility towards the people. *Submissiveness vs. Stubbornness* Although Indra repeatedly failed in his attempts to steal the horse, he stubbornly kept trying. He knew that what he was doing was wrong, and he was even failing in his attempts. But he was stubborn. Determination to perform a destructive task is born of envy. A person bent on committing a wrong deed is stubborn and obsessed, paying no heed to the negative consequences. Stubborn people cannot be convinced by logic or reason or good advice. If asked to compromise, they might become more stubborn. On the other hand, submissive people follow good advice, such as from experienced superiors, even when it’s difficult to follow. Submissiveness towards superiors doesn’t mean blind following. If they are unreasonable and immoral in their orders and behavior, one need not be submissive to them. But when they are mature, well-wishing, and loving, a subordinate spontaneously submits to their instruction out of deep respect and trust. To end the competition between Indra and Pṛthu, Lord Brahmā thought that instead of stopping the stubborn Indra from introducing more irreligious systems, it would be better to stop Pṛthu from doing the sacrifice. King Pṛthu did not argue with Brahmā and say that there was no mistake on his part, which was a fact. The mistake was Indra’s. Still Pṛthu didn’t ask Brahmā why he was being stopped instead of Indra. Pṛthu submissively followed Brahmā’s instruction, knowing and acknowledging his greatness and the relevance of his advice. People who are submissive to worthy superiors are often bestowed the necessary intelligence and information to comprehend things from a broader perspective. Stubborn people who block their ears to good advice are deprived of a better understanding of life. *Flexibility vs. Rigidity* Lord Brahmā chose to solve the conflict between Pṛthu and Indra by stopping Pṛthu rather than Indra because he considered Pṛthu more mature. In a dispute between two children, the parents generally ask the older child to compromise because the older child understands things better. Therefore, Lord Brahmā said, “In order to make trouble and impede the performance of King Pṛthu’s great sacrifice, King Indra has adopted some means that in the future will destroy the clear path of religious life. I draw your attention to this fact. If you oppose him any further, he will further misuse his power and introduce many other irreligious systems. Let there be only ninety-nine sacrificial performances for Mahārāja Pṛthu.” *(Bhāgavatam* 4.19.31–32) Lord Brahmā had not told Pṛthu to stop his second or tenth or even fiftieth sacrifice. Pṛthu could have become angry at being stopped just as he was about to accomplish his long-sought goal of one hundred sacrifices, but he was flexible enough to understand Brahmā’s higher purpose, that of stopping the irreligious systems being introduced by Indra. Thus, without argument or negotiation, Pṛthu gave up his plan to do the one hundredth sacrifice. Being rigid and uncompromising in following certain authorized and universal principles is mandatory. But at times people tend to become too rigid in their opinions and desires, even unreasonable ones. Sometimes we need to be flexible according to time, place, circumstances, and the people involved. Flexible people can adapt according to the situation, giving importance to a higher principle and considering others’ welfare. But selfish and rigid people generally cannot compromise on their stance or ambition even if it causes great damage to others. Flexible people win more trust from their superiors than rigid and inflexible people. That’s the difference between Pṛthu and Indra in this episode. With a concerned heart, compromising for a higher purpose is not a defeat; it is a victory. But being rigid for one’s selfish purposes is a defeat. *Dependence on God vs. Insecurity* Indra felt insecure when Pṛthu was about to complete one hundred sacrifices and thus defeat Indra’s record. He couldn’t accept Pṛthu’s glory but tried to deceitfully subdue his power. When Pṛthu was stopped from doing his final sacrifice, however, Pṛthu took it as the supreme will of the Lord and prudently accepted the situation. Apparently Pṛthu’s score was 99 and Indra’s was 100, but Pṛthu’s faith, his dependence on the Supreme Lord, and his obedience to Brahmā made his score of 99 greater than Indra’s score of 100. We should do our duties with all good intentions and fight to overcome any obstacles with the best of our capacity. But we also need to understand that everything is not in our control, and we need to leave room for the unexpected. “Man proposes and God disposes.” When things are ordained by higher powers, we need to learn to submit to the situation and welcome the will of God. Such dependence on God’s will makes us peaceful in any situation. In this regard, Lord Brahmā told King Pṛthu: > māsmin mahārāja kṛthāḥ sma cintāṁ > niśāmayāsmad-vaca ādṛtātmā > yad dhyāyato daiva-hataṁ nu kartuṁ > mano ’tiruṣṭaṁ viśate tamo ’ndham “My dear King, do not be agitated and anxious because your sacrifices have not been properly executed due to providential impediments. Kindly take my words with great respect. We should always remember that if something happens by providential arrangement, we should not be very sorry. The more we try to rectify such reversals, the more we enter into the darkest region of materialistic thought.” *(Bhāgavatam* 4.19.34) *Forgiveness vs. Envy* Pṛthu’s sacrifices were ultimately meant to satisfy the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu, whose mercy is the source of all prosperity and power. By his devotion and meticulous performance of sacrifices, King Pṛthu pleased Lord Viṣṇu and received His favor. The nature of this material world, however, is that even if one does a good deed with a pure intention, as a service to the Supreme Lord and humanity, still there are envious people who cannot tolerate it. Indra became envious of Pṛthu and competed with him. Envy of others is in fact self-envy. One’s envy intended to destroy others ultimately destroys oneself. In an immature mind, envy manifests when one sees others’ success. If not eliminated in the beginning, envy turns into action, damaging oneself and others. Actually, envy is an indirect appreciation of others. So why not glorify others directly? Indra finally came to this consciousness by Lord Brahmā’s mature intervention and Pṛthu’s submissive attitude. When Indra repented his mistake and fell at Pṛthu’s feet, Pṛthu compassionately forgave him without any grudges. Pṛthu immediately embraced Indra and excused him wholeheartedly. Both of them forgot the past incidents. Although they had been angry at each other, being devotees of Lord Viṣṇu they again became cooperative. Selfless compassion and forgiveness can even transform the hearts of the most envious people. When two people desire the same thing and only one of them has it, the bereft person often becomes envious. That is due to the natural scarcity in this limited world, and more accurately the scarcity mentality of the people here. But in the spiritual world there is enough for everyone. There is no scarcity and no reason to be envious. Further, everyone there is satisfied with what they have and who they are. We can bring such an atmosphere into this world by cultivating spiritual satisfaction and genuinely appreciating others for what they have and are. *A Broad Vision vs. a Quick Solution* Although Indra made a petty mistake by disrupting Pṛthu’s sacrifice, Indra was not someone to be demeaned. Attaining the position of the master of heaven is not an easy thing. Such a responsible post is given to one who has performed heaps of pious activities and become qualified in many ways. But the illusory nature of the material world is so powerful that it impels even exalted demigods like Indra to be overwhelmed by circumstantial envy, anger, lust, and other lower tendencies. We may learn what not to do from the mistakes of great people, but we shouldn’t offend them. Lord Brahmā is fully aware of Indra’s exalted position and responsibility. So, although Brahmā disapproved of Indra’s action, he didn’t disown Indra. He didn’t want to punish or dethrone Indra, but he wanted to act in such a way that Indra would come back to his senses. This is an example of Brahmā’s broad vision. A mature leader tries resolving conflicts without rejecting anyone. Excluding someone may be easy, but accommodating and uplifting someone requires expertise and a good heart. The purpose of administration and the role of the administrators is the welfare of the people in the organization or affected by the organization. When conflict arises between two leaders, their superior shouldn’t necessarily think in terms of who is right and who is wrong, accepting one and rejecting the other. A superior needs to determine how to positively motivate both leaders, considering what best serves everyone’s welfare. Brahmā didn’t just want to finish the job of stopping the dispute somehow. He took a direction that brought out the best in both parties. Brahmā’s way of dealing with the situation announced the glorious qualities of King Pṛthu for all generations to come, and brought a positive transformation in Indra’s character too. Brahmā asked Pṛthu, rather than Indra, to stop what he was doing. Finally, Indra became ashamed, realized his mistake, and apologized to Pṛthu. Lord Viṣṇu brought Indra to Pṛthu so that Pṛthu could excuse him. Indra later resumed his role as the ruler of heaven and continued to contribute to the cosmic management. *Character vs. Accomplishment* All the aspects of Pṛthu’s character described above are much greater than an accomplishment of a hundred sacrifices. The benefits of Pṛthu’s completion of the one hundredth sacrifice would not have compared to what he received: Brahmā’s blessings and Lord Viṣṇu’s unparalleled mercy. Pṛthu’s flexibility in conflict, submissiveness to superiors, detachment from ambition, responsibility towards his citizens, forgiveness of a wrongdoer, dependence on God’s will, acceptance of good advice, willingness to compromise, blessings from Brahmā, mercy from Lord Viṣṇu, and the pure devotion in his heart—all together are millions of times greater than a hundred sacrifices. Pṛthu’s sacrificing his desire to perform a hundred sacrifices pleased Lord Viṣṇu and Brahmā and brought Indra back to his senses—a great sacrificial result. One’s glory depends not on the size of one’s accomplishments, but on the quality of one’s consciousness and character. *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. Removing the Vice from Device *How not to become spiritually foolish in an age of smart phones, smart appliances, smart everything.* by Karuṇā Dhāriṇī Devī Dāsī The technological innovations of modern times can empower a life of vice or virtue. It is the age of devices—smart appliances, smart weapons, smart phones. Scientists, engineers, and research students spend years in careers dedicated to increasing the efficiency, convenience, comfort, and profit from such devices. Yet finding ourselves in the midst of the wealth of these innovations can be confusing. Drawing a line between their wonderful utility and what may be undesirable can be challenging. For instance, mass communication is as rapid as lightning but with no guarantee of truth or illumination. Medical technology is highly developed, but disease and death have not at all decreased. That unimaginably fantastic new gadget waiting for us just around the corner may indeed be the agent of results we do not at all desire. The Vedic literature offers instruction to help us gauge when we have enough devices in our lives and when desiring or acquiring another one is a vice and it’s time to “de-vice.” We need to consider a device’s value for our devotional service to Lord Kṛṣṇa. *A Historical Account* In the days of yore there was no quest for electronic devices, which provide only minor abilities, but people sometimes worshiped demigods to achieve powerful subtle *yogic* powers. These powers could be dangerous if given to someone with ill motives. In Canto Ten, chapter eighty-eight, of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* Śukadeva Gosvāmī relates a historical account that exemplifies this principle. The story sheds light on how a devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa is empowered to use things in His service, and it exposes the vice of a device in the hands of a ruthless demon. Lord Śiva, the lord of Kailāsa Mountain, was once put into danger by awarding the benediction of a special mystic power to a sinful person. It all began when a peculiar person named Vṛkāsura asked Nārada Muni whom he should worship to get a swift benediction. Nārada told him to worship Lord Śiva because he easily becomes pleased by his worshiper. Why, Śiva even became pleased by personalities such as Rāvaṇa and Bāna, two notorious demons, although as a result he was beset with great difficulty. So advised, Vṛka began to offer pieces of flesh from his own body into the sacrificial fire (which in a bona fide sacrifice, unlike Vṛka’s, represents the mouth of Lord Viṣṇu). After doing this for seven days and not receiving the audience of Lord Śiva, Vṛka grew impatient. He bathed and prepared to lop off his own head. Lord Śiva rose from the fire and grabbed the demon by both arms. Śiva’s compassionate touch reconstituted Vṛka’s body. “Stop! Stop!” cried Śiva. “Ask from me what you want!” Vṛka did not hesitate: “May death come to whomever I touch on the head with my hand.” With an ironic smile, as if giving milk to a poison-toothed snake, which only increases its poison, Lord Śiva reluctantly granted the benediction. Hardly a moment passed before the demon wanted to test it, and he tried to put his hand on his benefactor’s head. Lord Śiva was quick, and he fled from Kailāsa, running to the limits of the earth, the sky, and the universe. None of the demigods he found could help him. Eventually he reached Śvetadvīpa, where Lord Viṣṇu saw Śiva’s difficult situation. Lord Viṣṇu decided to appear before Vṛka in the form of a brahmacārī student. He humbly greeted the demon, telling him he looked tired and should sit down and rest after so much travel. “After all, it is one’s body that fulfills all of one’s desires,” He told Vṛka, knowing that demons place great value on the condition of the material body. Vṛka easily accepted the advice. The charming brahmacārī boy spoke in a pleasing voice, inquiring why Vṛka had come so far and what he intended to do. Vṛka said he was trying to test his newly acquired powers on the body of Lord Śiva. Lord Viṣṇu smiled. “We cannot believe the words of Śiva,” Lord Viṣṇu said. “He is not in a sane mental condition. He was cursed to become a carnivorous hobgoblin by his father-in-law, Dakṣa. O best of demons, if you have any faith in him, because he is, after all, the spiritual master of the universe, then without delay put your hand on your head and see what happens.” Bewildered by Viṣṇu’s coy reasoning, foolish Vṛka placed his hand on his head. Instantly his head shattered as if struck by a lightning bolt, and the demon fell down dead. From the sky were heard cries of victory. “Obeisances!” “Well done!” Lord Viṣṇu addressed Lord Śiva, who was now out of danger. “Just see, O Mahādeva, how this wicked man has been killed by his own sinful reactions.” *Similar Modern Behavior* There are interesting similarities between the strategy of Vṛkāsura and that of modern people who employ innovation. Though Vṛka worshiped Śiva to achieve Śiva’s benediction, and modern people tend not to employ worship to achieve their goals, in both cases the achievements are hard sought. Billions of dollars and man-hours are exhausted in the quest of the engineer or entrepreneur. Materials such as steel, titanium, and oil must be extracted from nature. For this, disputes arise over land and manpower, the natural environment is damaged, and wars at the cost of lives are fought. Similarly, in order to excel, Vṛka was willing to sacrifice his flesh for seven days, to devastate others, and ultimately to destroy himself. Vṛkāsura’s sacrifice reached its fruition when Lord Śiva appeared to him. Similarly, a researcher may sometimes reach a turning point and out of sheer frustration and passion pray to God, witness His blessings of enlightenment according to the researcher’s need, and receive secret, mystical information by which a novel piece of software is created or a vaccine proves potent. But just as Vṛka had no affection for Śiva and no desire to worship him once he got what he wanted, modern people have no time for God. Śrīla Prabhupāda spoke of this mentality in a lecture: “Big spacemen, they are praying, ‘May God speed; may God protect us in our rocket ship,’ but once having achieved their goal and returned to earth, they exclaim, ‘We don’t talk of God! We are big scientists!’” Similarly, having achieved his goal of meeting Śiva, Vṛka had no gratitude toward him. Lord Viṣṇu coaxed Vṛkāsura into thinking that his newfound device of destruction might be a hoax. Vṛkāsura’s doubt had the effect of making him, for the moment at least, unaware of how much power he had. Similarly, even a high-ranking soldier today may be unaware of the magnitude of the lethality of modern weapons and strategies under his command. In Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, chapter eighty-eight, Śrīla Prabhupāda writes: Sometimes, for example, materialistic scientists invent a lethal weapon. The scientific research for such an invention certainly requires a very good brain, but instead of inventing something beneficial to human society they invent something to accelerate death, which is already assured to every man. They cannot show their meritorious power by inventing something which can save man from death; instead they invent weapons which accelerate the process of death. Similarly, Vṛkāsura, instead of asking Lord Śiva for something beneficial to human society, asked for something very dangerous to human society. *Devotees of the Lord* So what of devotees of Lord Kṛṣṇa who wish to use a range of material devices in Kṛṣṇa’s service? Are they in the same category as materialists who enjoy the use of possessions in the “vice device” category? In *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, Tenth Canto, chapter eighty-eight, titled “Lord Śiva Saved from Vṛkāsura,” we find a complete delineation of the position of a devotee of the Lord in regard to the devotee’s material assets. The power and opulence of a pure devotee of the Lord are shown there to stand in a unique category. A pure devotee is described as nirguṇa, or freed from the modes of nature, and thus on the same level as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is always transcendental to the modes. Moreover, the pure devotee can act as a perfect instrument of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s will, and that is called naiṣ*karma*, or the position in which one’s actions have no material effect, no resultant *karma*. In a lecture on *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (1.8.26), Śrīla Prabhupāda said: Lord Śiva, he voluntarily accepts all poverty. His wife is Durgā Devī, so powerful. She can make a new universe, she is so powerful. But this couple, Lord Śiva and Pārvatī [Durgā], they have no house even to live in. They live under a tree. So poor, no residential house even. Parīkṣit asked, “So when one becomes a devotee of Lord Śiva, he gets material opulence, he becomes rich, he gets good wife, he gets all material opulence. And when one becomes the devotee of Viṣṇu, the husband of the goddess of fortune, he becomes poor. Why this contradiction?” This is a contradiction. The worshiper of the Lord of the goddess of fortune is becoming poorer, and the worshiper of the vagabond, who has no house even, who lives underneath a bael tree . . . his devotee becomes so opulent materially. So why this difference? So Śukadeva Goswami said to Parīkṣit Mahārāja, “This very question was raised by your grandfather, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, to Lord Kṛṣṇa. ‘We are your friends, and why are we put into such tribulations that we have lost our kingdom? We are now living in the forest. Our wife is insulted. Why?’ “Kṛṣṇa said, ‘When I make one especially favored, then I take away all his riches to make him niṣkiñcana.’” Niṣkiñcana refers to a person who possesses nothing. This may mean that the person literally owns nothing, but it may also refer to someone who, though having possessions, considers that they all belong to Kṛṣṇa. This way of thinking is characteristic of a pure devotee. The way such a person employs invention is rarely seen in human society because of the rarity of pure devotees. For the ordinary person, material possessions may be an impediment to devotional service and thus objectionable from the spiritual point of view. But the devotee of the Lord may use a whole battery of otherwise objectionable devices in the service of the Lord, to the extent that the Lord is fully pleased by their use. Arjuna’s fighting is an example of this principle. He used a grand variety of highly evolved mystical weapons gifted to him by demigods such as Indra, but he never thought of using them solely for his own purposes. He did not waver in his service to Kṛṣṇa. Arjuna’s example is in line with a verse from Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s *Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu* (1.2.255–56) describing true renunciation: “Whatever is favorable in the service of the Lord the devotee accepts for His service, and whatever is unfavorable to the Lord the devotee rejects. One who rejects that which is favorable is not as complete in his renunciation.” *Kṛṣṇa’s Pleasure Is the Criterion* In regard to using material devices in Kṛṣṇa’s service, Śrīla Prabhupāda gave the apt example of a microphone. A microphone is made of material ingredients, and its inventor likely had no Kṛṣṇa conscious purpose in mind for it. However, by devotees’ using the microphone to amplify the recitation of Kṛṣṇa’s instructions and glories, it becomes, in effect, spiritualized. In fact, due to advances in technology, today a microphone can distribute Kṛṣṇa’s glories to one’s ears from a voice speaking on the other side of the planet. Sādhu-saṅga, association with learned devotees of Kṛṣṇa, is available through online conferencing, live broadcasts, social media, and the like, in the form of classes, seminars, and meetings. In an elaborate, artistic museum, devotees have created dioramas that exhibit the philosophy of *Bhagavad-gītā* via animatronics software. On a computer screen we can experience the wonder of transcendence in the vibrant sound and colors of the far-away holy places of Māyāpur and Vrindavan. Online social media conferences that feature training in techniques for the distribution, sales, and shipping of books such as *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* and *Bhagavad-gītā* have increased their proliferation in recent years. And Kṛṣṇa conscious missionaries use demographics software to locate institutions and populations that still await the opportunity to receive the spiritual message of these books. While human society has certainly taken to a plethora of amazing and powerful devices for better or worse, devotees discover the true potential of devices by appropriate use of them to serve the spiritual master and Kṛṣṇa. The historical account of Vṛkāsura illustrates for us the boomerang effect of a device used in the lower modes of material nature. Devices used for furthering the cause of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, however, do not produce *karma*; rather by worshiping the Supreme Lord, the devotee achieves freedom from passion and ignorance as well as *karmic* reactions. Lord Kṛṣṇa, who alone can award us the opportunity of transcendence, is realized by pure devotees who use His energies to serve Him. *Karuṇā Dhārinī 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.* Clearing Our Way Back to Godhead *To identify the subtle challenges to our devotional progress, we need the help of scripture and other devotees.* by Rukmiṇī Vallabha Dāsa As with any serious endeavor, the pursuit of the true goal of life presents challenges for aspiring devotees, but we need not face them alone. The purpose of every human life is to go back to Godhead, and the path to Godhead is pure devotional service. Those of us walking on this path will encounter challenges. Identifying these challenges and working to overcome them will accelerate our progress. Since devotional service has to do with our consciousness, which is very subtle, the challenges are also subtle. To detect gross challenges is easy because they are visible. To identify the subtle challenges to our devotional progress, we need the help of scripture and other devotees. One of the major challenges is the habits we acquired before coming to devotional service. These habits are learned in our post-modern society and education system and require unlearning. The more we unlearn our past habits, the easier it becomes to learn and adopt the principles of pure devotional service. We need to understand the fallacies that modern society and education eulogize; we need to see how they harm our devotional service; we need to cleanse ourselves of misconceptions and make ourselves immune to them. One of the six aspects of surrender to Kṛṣṇa listed in the guidebook *Hari-bhakti-vilāsa* (11.676) is *prātikūlyasya varjanam*—giving up things unfavorable to devotional service. *Materialism Distracts Us* Materialism is one of the strongest misconceptions taught and propagated by modern society. Capitalism, industrialization, and consumerism are catalysts in propagating materialism. The money spent to promote products through advertisements in various media is often greater than that spent on their production. The modern education system, being influenced by capitalism, aims to produce people who are expert in making and marketing goods on the one hand and becoming expert consumers of goods on the other. Students are made to believe that fat paychecks and corporate success are the ways to happiness. The role models are the billionaires who possess lots of material assets and the sports stars and movie stars who possess material talents and skills. Everyone is valued based on their net worth. “Things” are unconscious, dead, and unable to respond or reciprocate, but people are conscious and can reciprocate and respond to stimuli. We have an innate need to love and be loved, to exchange emotions and share knowledge. The things of this world can at most satisfy our gross physical needs. They are not at all equipped to satisfy our inner needs. To fulfill these vital needs that make us happy, we need to relate with other people. At most, the things of this world can serve as means to express love, communicating our emotions to others. Increasing materialism propelled by technology and consumerism causes people to value things over people. A smartphone is more loved than one’s spouse, a car more cherished than one’s own children. Our real focus should be to love people and use things, and not the other way around. For example, when a mother suckles her baby, what counts the most for the baby is not the milk but the love and care with which the mother feeds the baby. The milk is a means of expressing that love. In the personal financial classic Your Money or Your Life, authors Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin describe the curve that demonstrates how fulfilment varies with increase in consumption of resources. Up to the point where our basic survival needs and comforts are addressed, our fulfilment increases with the increase in consumption of resources. After that point, our fulfilment reduces with the increase in consumption of resources, following the law of diminishing returns. Our thoughts count more than things. Our happiness depends on things that money cannot buy. The fact that we are not the material body but the spirit soul is a basic tenet of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. As spiritual beings, our ultimate happiness cannot be based on something material. Lord Kṛṣṇa cautions in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (2.44) that the resolute determination for devotional service cannot be found in those attached to material enjoyment and opulence. The best way to overcome the materialistic tendency is to engage our material possessions—wealth, assets, skills, body, etc.—in devotional service and experience a higher taste. As we increasingly experience the spiritual higher taste, we easily overcome materialistic conceptions. Spiritual practitioners must also distance themselves as much as possible from the propaganda and propagators of materialism. Studying the wisdom of the *Bhagavad-gītā* and *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* to educate ourselves on how materialism is futile will lend a helping hand at times of materialistic temptations. The path of devotional service involves two aspects—disconnecting from matter and reconnecting with Kṛṣṇa. They are carried out in parallel, not one after the other. For example, a patient has to accept a restricted diet (to prevent further infection) along with medicine and other treatment (for healing). We reconnect with Kṛṣṇa through nine processes of devotional service, beginning with hearing about Kṛṣṇa, chanting His names, and remembering Him. To practice the nine processes of devotional service we need the association of devotees. Our advancement in devotional service depends greatly on the quality of our association with devotees. *Insensitivity Makes Us Impersonal* One of the challenges in dealing with devotees is insensitivity. Because the world is primarily conducted by the modes of passion and ignorance, sensitivity is hardly a priority for most people. Though practicing devotees may mostly abstain from materialism, they may carry materialistic leanings into the association of devotees and treat them the way one deals with matter. Material things don’t get back at us if we neglect or mishandle them. When my smart phone malfunctions and I yell at it, it doesn’t protest. But if we become callous towards people, they may become callous towards us. We all need help in our practice of devotional service, and we associate with devotees to get that help in various forms, such as inspiration, opportunities, and blessings. Unless we put our heart into our dealings and interactions with devotees, we cannot expect wholehearted reciprocation. We must treat devotees as valued persons and do our best to cater to their emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs. Kṛṣṇa says in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (4.11), “As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly.” Our surrender to Kṛṣṇa is expressed through our taking shelter of devotees and serving them. Kṛṣṇa chiefly reciprocates through His devotees. We please Kṛṣṇa to the extent we please them. To cultivate sensitivity, we need to aspire to be sensitive. If we deliberate on devotees’ sensitive dealings with us and also study in the scriptures about the devotees’ and the Lord’s dealings, then we will naturally be inspired to become sensitive in our dealings. Cultivating the mode of goodness helps us better understand others’ needs and interests. In goodness one’s speech and behavior naturally become polite and pleasing. We can also take guidance from mature and experienced devotees on how to cultivate sensitivity in our dealings with devotees around us. And we should understand the detrimental effects of displeasing devotees. *Self-centeredness Makes Our Heart Dry* Besides insensitivity, another obstacle one may encounter in dealing with devotees is one’s own self-centeredness—“What is in it for me?” Only a selfless gesture can touch the heart of another person and potentially invoke favorable reciprocation. Sensitivity is not sustainable and looks superficial when based on selfishness. What comes from the head touches only the head; what comes from the heart touches the heart. The disease of “I and mine” plagues modern society. British author David Mitchell writes, “Selfishness uglifies the soul.” If we value ourself over others, our world contracts. When we don’t value others, they neglect us. Then our need for fulfilling relationships remains unfulfilled. We start to feel dissatisfaction, which if unaddressed can lead to depression and even suicide. *Selfless Service* The central point of *bhakti* is selfless service to the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa and His devotees. Selfless service to the Supreme Lord is the original, constitutional position of every one of us. Self-centeredness is diametrically opposite to this. Kṛṣṇa condemns this mentality in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (3.13), stating that selfishness is tantamount to sin. We can develop the inspiration to become selfless by deliberating on the selfless sacrifices of the devotees who help us in our Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We can also contemplate the selfless sacrifices of our ācāryas. We are especially indebted to Śrīla Prabhupāda for his great sacrifices in spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness all over the world. At first, because sacrifice seems unnatural to us, we can practice it as an austerity. But as we progress spiritually, we will taste the sweetness of selfless service; it will become natural. Understanding how a selfish life is a source of misery can also help us in this regard. The obstacles discussed in this article—bad habits, materialism, insensitivity, selfishness—are connected to two primary obstacles to our progress in devotional service: sins and offenses. We commit sins because of our habits born of materialism, and we commit offenses owing to insensitivity and selfishness. Unless these obstacles are cleared, we cannot practice devotional service with one-pointed focus. To the extent these obstacles are cleared, we can realize the effects of devotional service, including faith in all-merciful Lord Kṛṣṇa and attraction to His devotional service. *Rukmiṇī Vallabha Dāsa, a disciple of His Holiness Rādhānāth Swami, came to Kṛṣṇa consciousness in 2010. He serves full time at ISKCON Pune, India.* *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*: The Postgraduate Study of Religion *Most people hope for heavenly rewards from their religion. The Bhāgavatam begins by rejecting that idea.* By Satyarāja Dāsa The scripture known as the ripe fruit of the Vedas frowns upon even religious practices motivated by the attainment of heaven, not to speak of lesser goals. Śrīla Prabhupāda taught that the *Bhagavad-gītā*, with its tripartite division of material nature, detailed philosophy of the soul, and introductory teachings about *bhakti*, represents the ABCs of spiritual life and that *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam** (also known as the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*) is the postgraduate study. The *Bhāgavatam* picks up where the *Gītā* leaves off. While the *Gītā* tells us that Kṛṣṇa is God, for example, giving us basic information about Him, the *Bhāgavatam* goes further, describing just who Kṛṣṇa is in terms of both His Godhood and His activities in the spiritual realm. It takes us far beyond the generalities of religion. *External Dharma vs. Internal Dharma* People practice religion for a host of good reasons—and some bad ones too. Many simply see it as part of their family inheritance. They are born into it, and they adopt certain labels and practices in their own lives, usually to whatever degree their forebears do, without giving it much thought. Some use it to distinguish themselves from their neighbors, often to the point of thinking themselves better than others who hold different beliefs. This attitude has even led to wars. Still others embrace religion for more noble reasons: inner peace, psychological empowerment, stability, and existential meaning. Or they simply want to be good people. Overall, religion involves a particular outlook on life (philosophy), ways of seeing humans and other species (biological anthropology), perceptions of hidden realities (mysticism), rules of personal conduct (ethics, morals), perspectives on our external universe (cosmology), and, often, belief in a supreme divinity (theology). In the twenty-first century nearly seventy-five percent of all humans identify as belonging to an organized religious tradition, though a new phenomenon is arising in the ranks of believers. The sobriquet “spiritual but not religious” (SBNR), also known as “spiritual but not affiliated” (SBNA), has been gaining ground for roughly a decade. Due to the failures of religious institutions, an increasing number of people now identify as believing in the essence of spirituality without aligning with an organized religion. They want a spirituality independent of any institution or established creed. Approximately seventy million Americans—nearly one in five—identify as being spiritual but not religious, and the statistics in other Western countries follow close behind. A similar phenomenon exists in the Vaiṣṇava world. The sāragrāhī (“essence-grasping”) Vaiṣṇavas, who come in a line of pure devotees, embrace the essence of religious thought but eschew external designations. They favor a nonsectarian, universal view of religion. Although identifying as “Vaiṣṇavas,” they do so because they see the word not as a designation for a particular religious tradition, but as the intrinsic nature of the soul—all living beings are eternal servants of Kṛṣṇa, which is what the word “Vaiṣṇava” really means. Śrīla Prabhupāda founded ISKCON to teach people this broad, nonsectarian spiritual vision. Prabhupāda often spoke about external *dharma* (religiosity) versus internal *dharma* (surrender to God). He would cite Kṛṣṇa, who throughout most of the *Bhagavad-gītā* lovingly explains the principles and purposes of standard religiosity, which includes how to live in the world, the proper procedures of a life permeated by goodness, and so on. But then, as the *Gītā* comes to a close, Kṛṣṇa advises Arjuna to abandon the accoutrements of *dharma*, to see that the essence of all *dharma* is to surrender unto Him and that all the other instructions are merely maidservants to that one central teaching. All of this may serve as an introduction to the *Bhāgavatam*, a scripture that brings its students to the highest spiritual levels. This is because “Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam* transcends religiosity” (SBTR), a natural, transcendental extension of SBNR. The *Bhāgavatam* (1.2.6) encourages adherence to universal religious principles that lead to love of God: “The supreme occupation [dharma] for all humanity is that by which one can attain to loving devotional service unto the transcendent Lord. Such devotional service must be unmotivated and uninterrupted to completely satisfy the self.” Clearly, it is purity of purpose that undergirds the *Bhāgavatam*’s system of religion. In addition, it offers unparalleled, detailed knowledge of just who God is and how He interacts with the inhabitants of the spiritual world. *The Road to Perfection* The *Bhāgavatam’s* uniqueness can be narrowed down to two points: It is pure, promoting selfless intentions, and it conveys the inner life of God as no other scripture does. Regarding the **Bhāgavatam*’s* purity, in its second verse (of approximately eighteen thousand), we learn its central method and profound standard: “All so-called religiosity covered by fruitive intentions is completely rejected herein (*dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavaḥ atra*).” That is to say, the *Bhāgavatam* gives little credence to the superficial reasons with which people generally approach religion. Those lesser reasons may be seen as stepping stones to the **Bhāgavatam*’s* enhanced spirituality, but if one wants true spirituality, one must eschew selfish motives and the desire for personal gain. The selfish motives (or *puruṣārtha*—“human goals”) are generally listed as four: *dharma* (in the sense of ordinary duty or religiosity), *artha* (economic development), *kāma* (sense gratification), and *mokṣa* (liberation). The *Bhāgavatam* tells us that while these goals have a place in the material world, they are obstacles for one pursuing true transcendence. The affairs of the mundane world, as alluring as they are, will deter us from the spiritual nectar we ultimately aspire for. Thus, over time—usually lifetimes—the living being becomes frustrated with religiosity, acquisition, and sense gratification, and then the desire for *mokṣa*, liberation, awakens. This awakening is usually the beginning of a serious spiritual pursuit. Traditionally, mokṣa was considered the highest goal of human life, and it remains so for most Hindus. Indeed, most religions, even if engaging their own language and concepts, also aspire for mokṣa, release from material bondage, considering it the end of *karmic* suffering and the doorway to heaven. People commonly seek eternal happiness through religion. It should be clear, however, that as long as self-interest exists, as long as we attempt to secure our own bliss before offering selfless loving service to God *(bhakti)*, we are never truly free. We are bound by personal desire, however subtle, and as long as there is even a tinge of selfish desire, there will always be suffering. Therefore the sages point us to the *Bhāgavatam*, and in the text itself (12.13.18) we learn why: *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam** is the spotless Purāṇa. It is most dear to the Vaiṣṇavas because it describes the pure and supreme knowledge of the saintly souls. This *Bhāgavatam* reveals the means for becoming free from all material work, together with the processes of transcendental knowledge, renunciation and devotion. Anyone who seriously tries to understand *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam**, who properly hears and chants it with devotion [*bhakti*], becomes completely liberated. “Because *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* is completely free of contamination by the modes of nature,” Prabhupāda’s disciples write in their commentary, “it is endowed with extraordinary spiritual beauty and is therefore dear to the pure devotees of the Lord. The word *pāramahaṁsyam* indicates that even completely liberated souls are eager to hear and narrate *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*. Those who are trying to be liberated should faithfully serve this literature by hearing and reciting it with faith and devotion.” Thus, while tradition generally emphasizes four puruṣārthas, culminating in mokṣa, the *Bhāgavatam* takes us beyond ordinary liberation, which it disparages as an undesirable goal. The *Bhāgavatam* introduces us instead to the fifth and ultimate goal of life, the real goal: devotional service to the Lord. *Bhakti: The Highest Attainment* Of the four *puruṣārthas*, the Vedic sages considered only mokṣa spiritual. It was known as the *parama-puruṣārtha*, the “highest human goal.” And that is indeed true for the average person. But the *Bhāgavatam* tells us that this understanding is shortsighted because *bhakti* is actually the *parama-puruṣārtha*, as mentioned above (“supreme occupation,” *paraḥ* *dharmaḥ*, 1.2.6). Following the *Bhāgavatam*, the Gosvāmīs of Vrindavan highlighted this same notion, explaining that the four *puruṣārthas*—including liberation—were practically useless in comparison to *bhakti*. They referred to transcendental devotion as the fifth goal of life *(pañcama-puruṣārtha)* and a state of being that is unsurpassable. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, for example, tells us that devotion is “heavy,” as in having depth, whereas liberation is “light,” meaning that it is no great accomplishment. In his *Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu* (1.1.17) he writes that compared to *bhakti*, “liberation is as light as can be (*mokṣa-laghutākṛt*).” He lauds *bhakti*’s superiority to everything else: “Even if the bliss of Brahman were magnified a hundred trillion times, it would not be equal to an infinitesimal droplet of the ocean of *bhakti*’s bliss.” (1.1.38) Echoing the words of the Gosvāmīs, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, in his *Caitanya-caritāmṛta* (*Ādi* 7.84–85), writes: “Religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation are known as the four goals of life, but before love of Godhead, the fifth and highest goal, these appear as insignificant as straw in the street. For a devotee who has actually developed *bhāva* [a high level of *bhakti*], the pleasure derived from *dharma*, *artha*, *kāma* and *mokṣa* appears like a drop in the presence of the sea.” He summed up the idea earlier: “Devotional service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the highest perfection of human activity.” (*Madhya* 6.184) This, then, is what the *Bhāgavatam* has to offer—the ultimate goal of life, shunning all subordinate derivatives. *Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa* Bidding adieu to all lesser goals, rejecting the impurity born of material desire, the *Bhāgavatam* emphasizes selfless devotion. But devotion to whom? The entire *Bhāgavatam* leads to an understanding and appreciation of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The first nine cantos (out of twelve) are full of genealogies, philosophy, heroes and villains, incarnations of God, and so on, all serving to prepare the reader for what is to come. The ultimate conclusion is Kṛṣṇa’s divine pastimes—ninety chapters of pure revelation introducing God in His most confidential and intimate feature. Early in the First Canto (1.3.28) we are told that Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead from whom all other manifestations arise (*kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam*), and we return to Kṛṣṇa in the Tenth Canto, learning about His glorious manifest pastimes from start to finish. Prabhupāda writes in his preface to the *Bhāgavatam*, “The Tenth Canto is distinct from the first nine cantos because it deals directly with the transcendental activities of the Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. One will be unable to capture the effects of the Tenth Canto without going through the first nine cantos. The book is complete in twelve cantos, each independent, but it is good for all to read them in small installments, one after another.” In his purport to text 1.1.2 he writes: Less fortunate persons are not at all interested in hearing this *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam**. The process is simple, but the application is difficult. Unfortunate people find enough time to hear idle social and political conversations, but when invited to attend a meeting of devotees to hear *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam** they suddenly become reluctant. Sometimes professional readers of the *Bhāgavatam* immediately plunge into the confidential topics of the pastimes of the Supreme Lord, which they seemingly interpret as sex literature. *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam** is meant to be heard from the beginning. Those who are fit to assimilate this work are mentioned in this śloka: “One becomes qualified to hear *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam** after many pious deeds.” The intelligent person, with thoughtful discretion, can be assured by the great sage Vyāsadeva that he can realize the Supreme Personality directly by hearing *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam**. Without undergoing the different stages of realization set forth in the Vedas, one can be lifted immediately to the position of *paramhaṁsa* [transcendentalist] simply by agreeing to receive this message. The *Bhāgavatam* is known as the literary incarnation of God. It is the Lord’s svarūpa, His internal, spiritual form: The *Bhāgavatam’s* first and second cantos are Lord Kṛṣṇa’s feet, and the third and fourth cantos are His thighs. The fifth canto is His navel, the sixth canto is His chest, and the seventh and eighth cantos are His arms. The ninth canto is His throat, the tenth His blooming lotus face, the eleventh His forehead, and the twelfth His head. I bow down to that Lord, the ocean of mercy, whose color is like that of a *tamāla* tree and who appears in this world for the welfare of all. I worship Him as the bridge for crossing the unfathomable ocean of material existence. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* has appeared as His very self. (*Padma Purāṇa*, as quoted in *Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava-kaṇṭhahāra*) Why should one reject the topmost path of spirituality offered in the Bhāgavatam, along with its intimate knowledge of the Lord’s original form? Instead, the wisest and most spiritually evolved people will dive deeply into the text and the path it espouses, allowing themselves entrance into the highest level of transcendence. Follow the advice of the author, Śrīla Vyāsadeva, who writes in the third verse of the text (as translated by Śrīla Prabhupāda in *Caitanya-caritāmṛta)*: *“*Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam** is the essence of all Vedic literatures, and it is considered the ripened fruit of the wish-fulfilling tree of Vedic knowledge. It has been sweetened by emanating from the mouth of Śukadeva Gosvāmī. You who are thoughtful and who relish mellows should always try to taste this ripened fruit. O thoughtful devotees, as long as you are not absorbed in transcendental bliss, you should continue tasting this *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, and when you are fully absorbed in bliss, you should go on tasting its mellows forever.” *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.* Knower of the Field: A Perspective on Consciousness *The Bhagavad-gītā tells us that someone besides us is fully aware of all our unique subjective experiences.* by Soumya Gupta No one besides you can understand your unique experience of the world. Well, almost no one. Lord Kṛṣṇa says in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (13.2–3): > idaṁ śarīraṁ kaunteya > kṣetram ity abhidhīyate > etad yo vetti taṁ prāhuḥ > kṣetra-jña iti tad-vidaḥ “This body, O son of Kuntī, is called the field, and one who knows this body is called the knower of the field.” > kṣetra-jñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi > sarva-kṣetreṣu bhārata > kṣetra-kṣetrajñayor jñānaṁ > yat taj jñānaṁ mataṁ mama “O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies, and to understand this body and its knower is called knowledge. That is My opinion.” In these verses Kṛṣṇa says that in every body there exist two knowers—the primary occupant and Kṛṣṇa Himself. As a knower of my body, I am aware of the activities and experiences within it. And along with me, Kṛṣṇa is also aware of my activities and experiences. Although this philosophy sounds simple, its implications are deep and often overlooked. I have a PhD in cell biology and have been researching the subject of consciousness and its relation to the mind. The above verses intrigued me, and I wondered how they were related to our experiences of the world. In my research I came across a concept that provided valuable insights—the concept of subjective experience. I am an individual with my own likes and dislikes. My individuality, with its preferences, applies to all sectors of my life, to every single activity I do, be it in regard to my eating or clothing or colors or car—the list is endless. It applies to my emotions as well. The things that make me happy, sad, exhilarated, or angry differ from what makes others feel the way they feel. Individuals are unique, and their preferences are different. Indeed, we see discord in relationships—between spouses, between lovers, between parents and children—because each member of the relationship cannot fully understand the other person’s preferences and may have a hard time accepting those preferences even when they are stated. I’ve had heated arguments with my parents or my husband over trivial matters simply because we could neither understand nor accept our differences in preferences. Why are there so many differences in preferences among people? Are they desirable? Would life not be easier without any differences? It has taken me a long time to find suitable answers to these questions. In my reading of the literature in consciousness research, I was struck with the concept of subjective experience. Any experience a person has is totally subjective because it is personal, qualitative, and unique to that person. No one else can understand what another person is experiencing, and no words can explain the experience. For example, when I see a red ball, I alone have access to the experience of the redness of the ball. I may try to explain what I am seeing, but no one else can see the color I am seeing. Each person perceives red according to his or her own field of knowledge—i.e., their senses and mental interpretation. People may be seeing the same shade or a different shade, but there is no way to decipher what each person is seeing. Consider the bitter gourd. Some people develop a liking for this bitter vegetable; others, myself included, never do. Why does this difference exist? It is because our preferences develop based on our experience of the flavor. Everyone perceives flavor within their field of knowledge; no one has access to the flavor being experienced by another person. This uniqueness and subjectivity applies to every sensory experience we have: seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, or touching. It is also applicable to all internal sensations, such as hunger, pain, and thoughts, and to all emotions, such as fear or love. We all have access to these experiences only within our field of knowledge, and have no access to the experiences within someone else’s field of knowledge. *The Fully Cognizant One* The *Bhagavad-gītā*, however, tells us that there is one person who is fully cognizant of all our experiences. That person is Kṛṣṇa. In sharp contrast to the soul’s limited knowledge, Kṛṣṇa’s knowledge is unlimited, and He is the knower of all fields. He knows what each person experiences when seeing a red ball or tasting bitter gourd or feeling love, anger, or anxiety. Being the source of everything (*ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavaḥ,* *Gītā* 10.8) and the all-knowing person, Kṛṣṇa is fully aware of everything we experience or feel. Why does Kṛṣṇa have access to everything an embodied soul experiences? He says in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (7.4), > bhūmir āpo ’nalo vāyuḥ > khaṁ mano buddhir eva ca > ahaṅkāra itīyaṁ me > bhinnā prakṛtir aṣṭadhā “Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.” Everything within the creation is Kṛṣṇa’s energy, whether it is the color red or bitter gourd or anything else. Our body and senses are also His energy. Thus both the senses and their sense objects are energies of Kṛṣṇa. In fact, the experiences emerging from their interaction are also His energy. How then is it possible for us to have any experience without His knowing about it? That our experiences are fully known to Kṛṣṇa implies there is nothing we have that is hidden from Him. Does that not sound like a breach of privacy? Contrary to being a breach, it tells us something very significant about our relationship with Kṛṣṇa. If Kṛṣṇa is aware of all our experiences, then He is the only person who knows us fully, inside out. Literally. He knows our experiences, likes, dislikes, preferences. He knows how we feel in love, pain, hunger, and thirst. He is fully cognizant of our thoughts and desires. How does that make you feel? Each one of us has been looking everywhere for a friend with whom we can share everything. Only Kṛṣṇa can be that best and dearmost friend. And we each have a unique, private, and confidential relationship with Him. The goal of *bhakti-yoga* is to revive this relationship and be united with Him without any inhibitions. All living entities are individuals, and chief among us all is Kṛṣṇa, the maintainer of all others. The *Kaṭha Upaniṣad* (2.2.13) states, *nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnām yo vidadhāti kāmān*: “There is one supreme eternal entity among all eternal entities and one supreme conscious entity among all conscious entities. The ‘one’ is supplying the needs of everyone else.” *Variety in Kṛṣṇa’s Creation* Furthermore, we tiny souls can never become Kṛṣṇa. Our knowledge is limited and will always remain so. Which means we can never truly understand what another person is tasting, smelling, seeing, feeling, liking, thinking, and so on. Each one of us has access only to the experiences within our field of knowledge, and these experiences dictate our preferences, likes, dislikes, and so on. On account of this, it is no surprise that people have widely different preferences and misunderstand each other, which sometimes ends up in terrorism, violence, and wars. But when understood properly, these differences are not a drawback. They are special mercy from Kṛṣṇa because every single soul in His creation is different and can offer Him a unique service. Surely Kṛṣṇa has not failed to amaze us at every step of His creation. *Soumya Gupta worked as a medical writer for several years. She now collaborates with the Bhaktivedanta Institute for Higher Studies (bihstudies.org) and the Atma Paradigm from the Science-Philosophy Initiative (s-pi.org). She is dovetailing her background in science and medicine to share spiritual knowledge with a wider audience. Her field of interest includes the mind-brain problem and consciousness in human and nonhuman life forms. She is based in Perth, Australia.* The Boundaries of Creativity *A life of Kṛṣṇa consciousness provides plenty of freedom to satisfy our inspiration to create.* by Viśākhā Devī Dāsī Our creative urge, born of our being part of Kṛṣṇa, will be most fulfilling when connected with His purposes. Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the original creator. In the *Bhagavad-gītā* (10.8) He says, *ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate*: “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.” The invocation verse of *Śrī Īśopaniṣad* says that because He is perfect and complete, His creation, taken as a whole, is also perfect and complete. But one may question, “How is that? The world appears to be rife with imperfections and insufficiencies.” The answer lies in the purpose of the creation. The creation is to give a chance to us, the spirit souls (jīvas), to return to Kṛṣṇa. In Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words, “Even for our manufacturing enterprises, we require so many raw materials like metal, sulphur, mercury, manganese, and so many essentials—all of which are supplied by the agents of the Lord, with the purpose that we should make proper use of them to keep ourselves fit and healthy for the purpose of self-realization, leading to the ultimate goal of life, namely, liberation from the material struggle for existence.” *(Gītā* 3.12, Purport) A second purpose of Kṛṣṇa’s creating the material world is to give us, the jīvas, an opportunity to try to enjoy ourselves. This is not what Kṛṣṇa Himself wants for us or what He ultimately wants His creation used for, but it’s what we want to use it for. Kṛṣṇa kindly facilitates our desire. If we forget the purpose of human life and simply take supplies from the agents of the Lord for sense gratification and become more and more entangled in material existence, which is not the purpose of creation, certainly we become thieves, and therefore we are punished by the laws of material nature. A society of thieves can never be happy, because they have no aim in life. The gross materialist thieves have no ultimate goal of life. They are simply directed to sense gratification. *(Gītā* 3.12, Purport) Kṛṣṇa’s material creation is perfectly suited to both allow us to reunite with Him and to allow us to try to enjoy ourselves apart from Him. *The First Created Being* Brahmā is the first being Kṛṣṇa creates within this and every material universe. Brahmā is born into darkness and doesn’t know who he is, where he is, or what he’s supposed to be doing. At first he searches here and there to find answers to these questions, but makes no progress. “Lord Brahmā, the first spiritual master, supreme in the universe, could not trace out the source of his lotus seat, and while thinking of creating the material world, he could not understand the proper direction for such creative work, nor could he find out the process for such creation.” *(Bhāgavatam* 2.9.5) After receiving a hint from the Lord that he should practice penance, Brahmā meditated with full faith and sincerity for a thousand celestial years, at the end of which he said, “I am now engaged in manifesting His [Kṛṣṇa’s] diverse energies in the form of the cosmic manifestation. I therefore pray that in the course of my material activities I may not be deviated from the vibration of the Vedic hymns.” *(Bhāgavatam* 3.9.24) And Kṛṣṇa reciprocated with Brahmā. Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: The mercy the Lord bestows upon a particular person engaged in executing the responsible work entrusted unto him is beyond imagination. But His mercy is received due to our penance and perseverance in executing devotional service. Brahmā was entrusted with the work of creating the planetary systems. The Lord instructed him that when he meditated he would very easily know where and how the planetary systems must be arranged. The directions were to come from within, and there was no necessity for anxiety in that task. (*Bhāgavatam* 3.9.30, Purport) However, Brahmā’s creation of our universe, an incredibly complex, diverse, and gigantic task, did not go completely smoothly. For example, at one point Brahmā had to turn to the Lord to protect him from his own created beings who were about to attack him: “My Lord, please protect me from these sinful demons, who were created by me under Your order.” (*Bhāgavatam* 3.20.26) At another point, Brahmā created four sons, the Kumāras, whom he wanted to help populate the universe, but they refused because they wanted to remain celibate and focused only on freeing themselves from material bondage. At this, Brahmā became angry, and although he tried to control his anger, it came out from between his eyebrows as Rudra, also known as Śiva. Brahmā asked Rudra to increase the population, and Rudra obeyed, but later Rudra’s unlimited numbers of sons and grandsons assembled and tried to devour the universe. Seeing this, Brahmā himself became afraid and told Rudra, “O best among the demigods, there is no need for you to generate living entities of this nature. They have begun to devastate everything on all sides with the fiery flames from their eyes, and they have even attacked me. My dear son, you had better situate yourself in penance, which is auspicious for all living entities and which will bring all benediction upon you.” (*Bhāgavatam* 3.12.17–18) Fortunately, Rudra agreed and left for the forest to perform penances, and Brahmā was able to continue creating. *Our Creative Powers* Kṛṣṇa creates, and we jīvas, as integral parts of Kṛṣṇa, also have the desire to create, to express our heart in an aesthetically pleasing way. As Kṛṣṇa’s creation has its purposes and is finely suited to fulfilling those, our creations should be attuned to Kṛṣṇa’s purposes to be fulfilling to ourselves and pleasing to *guru* and Kṛṣṇa. It’s not that anything goes. Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote, “Yesterday I have been in a Unitarian Church and there I saw two pictures of only logs and bamboos, and I was explained by our great artist Govinda dasi that these are modern abstract arts. Anyway I couldn't see in them anything but a combination of logs and bamboos. There was nothing to impel my Kṛṣṇa Consciousness.” (Letter to Jadurāṇī Dāsī, April 8, 1968) By the standards of *Śrīmad-*Bhāgavatam** it’s better for us to create something flawed for Kṛṣṇa’s pleasure than to create something perfect that’s not Kṛṣṇa-centered. “Transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.” (*Bhāgavatam* 1.5.11) Conversely, “Those words which do not describe the glories of the Lord, who alone can sanctify the atmosphere of the whole universe, are considered by saintly persons to be like unto a place of pilgrimage for crows.” (*Bhāgavatam* 1.5.10) In other words, devotees are encouraged to present Kṛṣṇa consciousness in fresh and novel ways, but they are discouraged from presenting anything that is not grounded in the scriptures. Śrīla Prabhupāda explains it this way: One must have full confidence in the previous *ācārya*, and at the same time one must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can present the matter for the particular circumstances in a suitable manner. The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it, yet it should be presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience. This is called realization. *(Bhāgavatam* 1.4.1, Purport) * * * Just like in law court two lawyers are fighting, but the lawyer who is giving evidences from the law book, he is accepted by the judge. And therefore, generally you will find, whenever we speak something, we give evidence from the śāstra in Sanskrit, in all our books. That is the way of proving that whatever I am speaking, it is fact. (Room Conversation, April 7, 1972, Melbourne) In His teachings to Sanātana Gosvāmī, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu pointed out that some unscrupulous persons make up stories that are not in accord with scriptural conclusions. Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes: “Illusory stories opposed to the conclusions of Kṛṣṇa consciousness concern the destruction of the Yadu dynasty, Kṛṣṇa’s disappearance, the story that Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma arise from a black hair and a white hair of Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and the story about the kidnapping of the queens. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu explained to Sanātana Gosvāmī the proper conclusions of these stories.” *(Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, *Madhya* 23.117–118) To see how Śrīla Prabhupāda applied these principles practically, we can study how he guided the many artists who illustrated his books. To three of them he wrote, “The best thing will be that you paint pictures to your best discretion and in controversial points you can write to me and I will send instructions. All of you are expert painters, so your mutual decision for painting a picture is more valuable than my suggestion. The descriptions are already there, given in the book, so there is no difficulty to take out the points and prepare a sketch.” (Letter to Jadurāṇī Dāsī, Bharadvāja Dāsa, and Muralīdhara Dāsa, June 4, 1970) Once in a while, when an artist created a painting without following scriptural descriptions, Śrīla Prabhupāda would correct that person, sometimes strongly. On one such occasion he wrote, “Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma fighting as bulls is completely rejected by me. It is not good. You have made it demoniac. Make Them as they are themselves, as boys fighting. Never show like this. Everything is there in the Kṛṣṇa book. Don't imagine.” (Letter Jadurāṇī Dāsī, August 9, 1974) *The Sum and Substance* Many of us have a deep-rooted desire to create, whether through writing, art, or some other endeavor. This is natural because we are part of Kṛṣṇa, the supreme creator, and we share His qualities, including the creative urge. This urge is misused, however, if we don’t keep our creations within scriptural boundaries. This is not repression of our creativity, but freedom for it. One asks, freedom through boundaries? Yes. In the *Bhagavad-gītā* (2.64) Kṛṣṇa explains that “a person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord.” By controlling our senses through following regulative principles, we free our minds to think of Kṛṣṇa. Similarly, by following scriptural guidelines when we create, we can please the spiritual master and Kṛṣṇa and thus be gradually released from the grip of material illusion. Otherwise, if we allow our creative impulses to be unbounded, we may become well known for our creations but we will also be further entrenched in material consciousness. Earlier I quoted a letter to Jadurāṇī Dāsī in which Śrīla Prabhupāda criticized abstract modern art as having “nothing to impel my Kṛṣṇa Consciousness.” He continued, “So, if you want to be a great artist in that way, I will pray that Kṛṣṇa may save you. . . . We are meant for satisfying Kṛṣṇa, not anybody’s senses. That should be the principle of our life.” *Vishaka Devī Dāsī* *has been writing for BTG since 1973. The author of six books, she has been serving as the temple president at Bhaktivedanta Manor in the UK since January 2020. She and her husband, Yadubara Dāsa, produce and direct films, most recently the biopic on the life of Śrīla Prabhupāda* Hare Kṛṣṇa! The Mantra*, the Movement, and the Swami Who Started It All. Visit her website at OurSpiritualJourney.com.* From the Editor *The King of Scriptures* Prominent among the followers of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu were the Six Gosvāmīs of Vrindavan: Rūpa, Sanātana, Raghunātha Dāsa, Raghunātha Bhaṭṭa, Jīva, and Gopāla Bhaṭṭa. Jīva Gosvāmī, the nephew of Rūpa and Sanātana, was the youngest of the group. Unlike the others, he never received direct instruction from Lord Caitanya, but his contribution to the Lord’s saṅkīrtana movement was immense. Because of his vast philosophical writings, Jīva Gosvāmī is known as the siddhānta-ācārya—the teacher of the philosophical conclusions—of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. At a young age he left his home in Ramakeli, Bengal, to join his uncles in Vrindavan. Before leaving Bengal, he met Lord Nityānanda, Lord Caitanya’s chief associate, at Navadvipa, where Lord Caitanya had spent His youth. Lord Nityānanda took Jīva on a tour of the places of Lord Caitanya’s pastimes in Navadvipa. On his way to Vrindavan, Jiva studied philosophy in Benares. He mastered all the traditional philosophies of India, and his depth of learning is evident in *Śrī Ṣaḍ-sandarbha* (“Six Treatises”), his magnum opus, also known as *Śrī Bhāgavata-sandarbha* because these works are in essence an extensive commentary on *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, the scripture most treasured by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu for the breadth and depth of its wisdom and devotion. The first of Śrī Jīva’s six treatises, *Śrī Tattva-sandarbha*, establishes *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* as the basis of the philosophy taught by Lord Caitanya, which Śrī Jīva sets out to explain. He begins by showing that the Vedic scriptures are the most reliable source of knowledge, the alternatives all suffering the primary defect of being part of the material world. He then establishes that the original Vedas (*Ṛg*, *Sāma*, *Yajur*, and *Atharva*, with their many subdivisions) are impossible for us to clearly understand today, and that the Purāṇas, the major part of “the fifth Veda,” present the same truths as those contained in the original Vedas but are more accessible. Finally, Śrī Jīva, citing Vedic and Purāṇic texts, shows that among the Purāṇas, *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* stands above the rest. It is the perfect source of knowledge about the Absolute Truth. Because the Vedic literature is overwhelmingly vast, choosing which part to look to for spiritual guidance can be daunting. An aspiring student of these books of wisdom, not knowing where to begin, may choose arbitrarily and be rewarded only with confusion. When Lord Kṛṣṇa descended as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He delivered a simplified spiritual process suitable for our troubled age. Two essential aspects of that process are chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa *mahā-mantra* and studying *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*. Śrīla Prabhupāda included *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* class as an essential part of the daily morning program in all his temples. He would sometimes say that anything we need to know can be found in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, praised as grantha-rāja, “the king of scriptures.” For those of us who have gained some familiarity with what the various parts of the Vedic literature are about, it’s easy to see why Lord Caitanya and His followers would treasure *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*. More than any other work in the Vedic library, it focuses on Lord Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa’s devotees naturally love to hear about all His activities, whether in His original cowherd-boy form or in His forms as incarnations. And His devotees also get great satisfaction in hearing philosophical arguments in support of Kṛṣṇa’s position as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* provides robust philosophy as well as moving accounts of Kṛṣṇa’s transcendental acts. Hare Kṛṣṇa. —*Nāgarāja Dāsa, Editor* Vedic Thoughts In the *Bhagavad-gītā* Lord Kṛṣṇa unequivocally declares that He is the Supreme Absolute Truth and that it is the duty of everyone to render Him loving devotional service. The *Bhagavad-gītā* was revealed for the sole purpose of explaining these two principal points. One who understands them is eligible to begin spiritual life as a neophyte devotee. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.9 Only that person whom Lord Kṛṣṇa sends us as spiritual master will manifest before us as our *guru*. By the Lord’s mercy we attain a spiritual master, and by the spiritual master’s mercy we attain Kṛṣṇa. We are given a spiritual master according to our fortune. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura *Amṛta Vāṇī,* Section: The Spiritual Master Devotional service is so strong that when one engages in it, he gradually gives up all material desires and becomes fully attracted to the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa. All this is brought about by attraction for the transcendental qualities of the Lord. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu *Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā* 24.198 Let the wise worship and serve Lord Govinda, the infallible Supreme Personality of Godhead, who lifts His devotees from the mud of material sufferings, takes them to His eternal and blissful spiritual abode, and out of deep love for them will not leave them for even half a moment. Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa *Govinda Bhāṣya* on *Vedanta-sūtra*, Epilogue The Supreme Personality of Godhead is so kind to the conditioned souls that if they call upon Him by speaking His holy name, even unintentionally or unwillingly, the Lord is inclined to destroy innumerable sinful reactions in their hearts. Therefore, when a devotee who has taken shelter of the Lord’s lotus feet chants the holy name of Kṛṣṇa with genuine love, the Lord can never give up the heart of such a devotee. One who has thus bound the Supreme Lord’s lotus feet within his heart with the ropes of love is to be known as bhāgavata-pradhāna, the most exalted devotee of the Lord. Śrī Havis Ṛṣi *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 11.2.55 By the Supreme Lord’s mercy the soul’s ancient knowledge is revived. *Svetasvatara Upanisad* 4.18 The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the life of all. He is the Supersoul splendidly manifest in all living beings. One who knows Him becomes wise. That person turns from the logicians’ debates. He meditates on the Lord’s pastimes. He loves the Lord. He serves the Lord. He is the best of transcendentalists. *Mundaka Upanisad* 3.1.4 COVER: Every night for one year, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu held a festival of chanting the Lord’s holy names and dancing at the home of Śrīvāsa Ṭhākura, one of His closest associates. BTG55-03, 2021