# Back to Godhead Magazine #57 *2023 (01)* Back to Godhead Magazine #57-01, 2023 PDF-View Welcome Having been an editor for many years, I’m well aware of how grammar can influence readers’ understanding of the written word. For example, authorities on writing advise writers to be careful with pronouns. When coming across the third-person “he” or “she,” the reader must not be confused about who the intended referent is. In the *Bhagavad-gītā*, which, granted, takes some effort to understand, Kṛṣṇa sometimes uses “He” when referring to the highest truth. Shouldn’t He stick to “I” in that context? In “A Divinity Beyond Kṛṣṇa?” Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa presents some reasons why Kṛṣṇa uses both first- and third-person references when talking about the Supreme Truth. Considerations of this kind of occur when commentators seek to understand scripture. One of the most influential commentators of all time was the great Vaiṣṇava Śrī Rāmānujācārya. Vraja Vihārī Dāsa presents an overview of his life in “Rāmānujācārya: A Saint Who Taught Pure Love of God.” This issue includes a science-related article, something we haven’t seen in a while. Nāndīmukhī Devī Dāsī, in “Atomic Clocks and Time Dilation: Calculation of Time, from the Atom,” discusses a topic that has proved perplexing to many students of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*. Hare Kṛṣṇa. —*Nāgarāja Dāsa, Editor* Q&A *If we are vegetarian because we don’t want to kill animals—they are the children of God—then why do we kill plants to eat?* It is true that all created beings, whether humans, animals, or plants, are the children of God and therefore the ideal situation would be to cause no violence. But since this is not a practical option for us, we settle for the option where there is minimum violence. When we pluck ripe fruits that would fall off anyway, there is little or no pain involved. Very austere sages in the forest may live not even on plucked fruits but only on fallen fruits and leaves so as to not cause any violence at all. The Vedic scriptures do talk about that as the highest standard to avoid causing any suffering to any living being and to minimize one’s *karmic* reactions. But for most people that standard is not possible. Now, when we compare plants and animals, first of all even from a scientific point of view animals have a far more developed nervous system than plants. And depending on the development of the nervous system, the organism or living being feels more or less pain. Because we want to minimize the pain we cause to other living beings, we avoid eating animals since they feel far, far more pain than plants. Certainly, plants also feel pain, but, for example, we usually (at least traditionally) harvest crops that are fully grown—when if they are not harvested will rot and get wasted. And if we compare the enlivening atmosphere at the time of harvest in the field with the gruesome atmosphere in the slaughterhouse when animals are slaughtered—with blood and flesh strewn and spewing all around and the animals screaming and writhing in pain—our own conscience and intelligence will indicate to us the huge gulf of difference between the two levels of violence. Most animals are not killed when they are about to grow old and die. In fact, Śrīla Prabhupāda, the founder-ācārya of ISKCON, recommended that if people had to eat meat they could wait until the animals die and then eat them, so that at least the *karma* of killing the animals would be minimized. Ideally we harvest crops when they are at the right time for harvesting—that is, when nature indicates through the soothing atmosphere prevalent at the time of harvesting that it is the right thing to do. Of course, even when we harvest the crop there is pain; that is why vegetarianism itself is not enough. We have to go beyond vegetarianism—to offering food to God with an attitude of humble devotion. Then, Lord Kṛṣṇa promises in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (3.13), He will take away all the sins related to acquiring and eating the food. > yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo > mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ > bhuñjate te tv aghaṁ pāpā > ye pacanty ātma-kāraṇāt He says that those who offer food to Him before partaking of it themselves are free from all sins whereas those who don’t offer the food suffer from sinful reactions for every morsel of food they eat, even if it is vegetarian food. So the best situation would be that we take vegetarian food produced by the least violence possible and offered to the Lord with devotion, so that it is not only vegetarian and not only *karma-free*, but also pure and purifying. In the *Bhagavad-gītā* (9.26) Lord Kṛṣṇa says, > patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ > yo me bhaktyā prayacchati > tad ahaṁ bhakty-upahṛtam > aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ “If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I will accept it.” Kṛṣṇa is talking about the glory of the principle of devotion, wherein if someone offers food to the Lord with devotion, then He is ready to joyfully accept even the simplest of foods. So the emphasis in this verse is on the principle of devotion. The verse is not a comprehensive list of all the foods that can or cannot be eaten. Still, the verse clearly makes no mention of meat. Patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyam (leaf, flower, fruit, water) indicates a vegetarian diet, which can be sanctified by being offered to God. Then it becomes *karma-free*, pure, and purifying. *Is the worship of Deities a tool for less intelligent people that should be given up by the spiritually advanced?* No. The sacred scriptures like the Pañcarātras and the Purāṇas explain that the Lord’s appearance as the arcā-avatāra (the incarnation as the Deity) is a special kind of mercy for the spiritually under-evolved. As these people can’t perceive God’s all-pervasive presence, they can at least begin their God consciousness by respecting Him when He manifests to their sense perception as the Deity. But to properly understand the relationship of Deity worship to spiritual advancement, it helps to first understand how *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (Eleventh Canto) classifies devotees based on their level of God consciousness. 1. Kaniṣṭha-adikhārī (lowest level): Devotees at this level perceive God only in the Deity and nowhere else. The spirituality of these devotees is limited to the temple or the home altar; they can’t perceive God’s relationship with other aspects of their life. 2. Madhyama-adhikārī (middle level): Devotees at this level understand that their God consciousness depends not only on how they see the Deity, but also on how they relate to the things and people of the world. Accordingly, in addition to worshiping the Deity, these devotees make friendship with other devotees, share their wisdom with the uninformed, and avoid the envious. 3. Uttama-adhikārī (highest level): Devotees at this level are so advanced that they can perceive God’s presence everywhere. This does not mean that they worship everything as if it were God or that they give up worshiping the Deity as if He were not God, but that everything and everyone reminds them of God, just as everything in the house reminds a loving mother of her newborn baby. So whereas the kaniṣṭha devotees need the Deity to remember God, the uttama devotees don’t. But this doesn’t mean that the uttama devotees neglect or reject the Deity. Not at all. Rather, due to their great love for the Lord, they serve the Deity with even greater devotion than the lower-level devotees. Because the kaniṣṭha devotees can perceive God’s presence as the Deity, they are above those who can’t. The God consciousness of the iconoclasts or the iconophobes is so abysmally low that even the supremely merciful arcā-avatāra’s mercy is unable to reach them. Their reclamation is possible only when they open their minds to understand the profound philosophy underlying Deity worship and develop the humility to admit that they need the Deity to begin their God consciousness. Otherwise, though they may imagine themselves to be more intelligent, they will remain less intelligent. Founder's Lecture: Perfect Knowledge for Human Society *Śrīla Prabhupāda explains how and why Lord Kṛṣṇa is teaching us that we are by nature immortal.* London—August 25, 1973 Lord Kṛṣṇa, our benevolent father, comes to teach us how to end our suffering forever. > ya enaṁ vetti hantāraṁ > yaś cainaṁ manyate hatam > ubhau tau na vijānīto > nāyaṁ hanti na hanyate > na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin > nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ > ajo nityaḥ śāśvato ’yaṁ purāṇo > na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre “Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain. For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.”—*Bhagavad-gītā* 2.19–20 In different ways Kṛṣṇa is trying to convince us how the soul is immortal. Kṛṣṇa says that if one thinks, “This man has killed this man” or “This man can kill this man,” this kind of knowledge is not perfect. Nobody kills anyone. Then the butchers may say, “Then why do you complain that we are killing?” They’re killing the body, but you are not allowed to kill when there is the injunction “Thou shall not kill.” That means you cannot even kill the body without sanction. Although the soul is not killed and the body is killed, still you cannot kill the body without sanction. That is sinful. For example, suppose a man is living in some apartment. If some way or other you illegally drive him away from there, the man will go out and take shelter somewhere. That’s a fact. But because you have driven him away from his bona fide position, you are a criminal. You cannot say, “Although I have driven him away, he’ll get some place.” No. “That’s all right, but you have no right to drive him away. He was in his legal position to live in that apartment, and because you have forcibly driven him away you are a criminal, and you should be punished.” The butchers or the animal killers or any kind of killer cannot argue, “Here *Bhagavad-gītā* says that the soul is never killed—na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre—even after destroying the body. So why are you complaining that we are killing?” This is the argument. But you are not allowed to even kill the body. That is not allowed. That is sinful. So nobody kills anybody, nor is anybody killed by others. This is one thing. Again, in a different way Kṛṣṇa says, na jāyate: the living entity never takes birth. Birth is of the body, and death is of the body. The living entity, the spiritual spark, is part and parcel or Kṛṣṇa. As Kṛṣṇa does not take birth or die. the living entity also does not take birth or die. Kṛṣṇa is aja. Aja means one who never takes birth. Similarly we, being part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, also never take birth. Birth and death are of this body, and we are so absorbed in the bodily concept of life that when there is birth or death of the body we feel the pain and pleasure. There is no pleasure, of course. Birth and death are very painful. That is already explained. The consciousness of the soul is spread all over the body. Therefore the pains and pleasures are felt on account of this body. Kṛṣṇa has already advised that such kinds of pains and pleasures are mātrā-sparśās—touching the skin only—and one should not be very much bothered by them. He tells Arjuna that one must tolerate them: tāṁs titikṣasva bhārata. *Actual Meditation and Self-realization* In this way if we think about our position, how we are different from the body, actually this is meditation. If we think very seriously about ourselves and about the body, that is self-realization. Self-realization means to understand “I am not this body. Ahaṁ brahmāsmi: I am spirit soul.” That is self-realization. Na jāyate mriyate vā kadācit. Kadācit means “at any time”—past, present, and future. In the past, it has already been explained, we existed in a different body. At present we are existing, and in the future also we shall exist in a different body because after giving us this body, we have to accept another body. This is going on. But we are without knowledge of the self, and we are being kept in ignorance. In the so-called educational system, all over the world, there is no such education. The students are kept in darkness and ignorance, and still so much money is being spent, especially in the Western countries. They have got money and big, big high schools, but what is the production? All fools and rascals. That’s all. Because they do not know. They have no idea what is the self. Knowledge means self-realization: “I am not this body; I am spirit soul.” That is knowledge. And knowledge of how to eat, how to sleep, how to defend, how to enjoy sex life—and volumes of books on this subject matter—this is not knowledge. Eating, sleeping, sex, and defending are known even by the cats and dogs. The cats and dogs never read Freud’s philosophy, but they know how to enjoy sex life. *The Dog’s Philosophy* This dog’s philosophy will not help you. “I have got this body, so how to enjoy the bodily sex life?” This is dog philosophy. A dog knows all these things. Your philosophy should be how to refrain from sex life. That is knowledge. This human life is meant for tapasya, to refrain from sense gratification. That is knowledge, not how to enjoy sex life or sense gratification. This is known to cats and dogs without any education, without any philosophy. Every living entity has the propensity for sense enjoyment. Loke vyavāyāmiṣa-madya-sevā nityā hi jantoḥ. *(Bhāgavatam* 11.5.11) Jantuḥ means the living being. Nitya means always. He always has the propensity for vyavāya, āmiṣa, and madya-sevā. Vyavāya means sex life, āmiṣa means meat-eating, and madya-sevā means intoxication. These are natural instincts of all living entities. Even amongst the ants these propensities are there. The ants are very much fond of being intoxicated. Therefore they find out sugar and become intoxicated. Perhaps you all know. Liquor is made from sugar. Sugar is fermented with acid, sulfuric acid, and then it is distilled. That is liquor. Therefore too much sweet-eating is prohibited. Loke vyavāyāmiṣa-madya-sevā nityā hi jantoḥ. This is the propensity. Material life means every living entity has got these propensities. But they have to be restricted. They are your natural instinct, but if you can stop them, that is your excellence. That is called tapasya. We have got some naturally propensities that are not good. Not good in this sense: if we continue following those propensities, then we have to accept another material body. This is the law of nature. Lord Ṛṣabhadeva told His sons *(Bhāgavatam* 5.5.4): > nūnaṁ pramattaḥ kurute vikarma > yad indriya-prītaya āpṛṇoti > na sādhu manye yata ātmano ’yam > asann api kleśada āsa dehaḥ Everyone is mad—mad after sense gratification. Na sādhu manye yata ātmano ’yam asann api kleśada āsa dehaḥ. So long as we’ll continue this propensity of sense enjoyment, we’ll have to accept another body. That is birth and death. Therefore the process should be how to make zero all these propensities. That is perfection. Not to enhance them. Nūnaṁ pramattaḥ kurute vikarma yad indriya-prītaya āpṛṇoti. Nūnam, “alas,” “indeed”; pramattaḥ, “these madmen.” They are mad, those who are after these propensities, vyavāya āmiṣa madya-sevā: sex, intoxication, and meat-eating. They’re all madmen. Pramattaḥ. Nūnaṁ pramattaḥ kurute vikarma. Vikarma means activities which are prohibited. We see that for these three things—vyavāya, āmiṣa, madya-sevā, for sex life, for meat-eating, for drinking—people are working. Not only working, but dishonestly working. How to get money, how to get money, the black market, white market, this, that, only for these three things: vyavāya āmiṣa madya-sevā—sex, meat-eating, intoxication. In the Vedic literature these points have been studied analytically for a very, very long time. These propensities are always the living entities’ natural inclination. The creation is not new. There were many, many creations. All the records are there. It is not a new thing. *Don’t Be Misled* Therefore, nūnaṁ pramattaḥ kurute vikarma yad indriya-prītaya āpṛṇoti. This is the instruction of Ṛṣabhadeva to His sons. “My dear sons, don’t be misled. These rascal fools have become mad after these things—meat-eating and intoxication and sex life.” Na sādhu manye. “It is not good at all.” Na sādhu manye. “I don’t allow. I don’t say it is very good. It is not at all good.” Na sādhu manye. “Why it is not good? We are enjoying life.” Yes, you are enjoying now, but yata ātmano ’yam asann api kleśada āsa dehaḥ. So long as you will continue with these things, you’ll have to accept another body, and when you accept a body, there must be birth, there must be death, there must be disease, and there must be old age. You’ll suffer. But your actual position is na jāyate. You do not take birth, but you have conditioned yourself to take birth. Actually your position is no birth—eternal life. As Kṛṣṇa is eternal, similarly every one of us is eternal, because we are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa—the same quality. Kṛṣṇa is sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ. His transcendental, eternal form is full of knowledge and full of bliss. Similarly we are also of the same quality, although we are a particle. Therefore it is said, na jāyate. This rascal civilization cannot understand that “I am eternal; I am put into this condition of birth and death.” No rascal understands. So-called philosophers, scientists—all of them. Therefore they are rascals, fools. Reject them. Reject them immediately. They are working hard—nūnaṁ pramattaḥ kurute vikarma—just as a madman works. What is the value of a madman’s work? He’s busy the whole day and night. “I am very busy.” “So what are you, sir? You are a madman. Your brain is cracked, crazy. So what is the value of your work?” But this is going on. *The Best Welfare Activity* So just imagine how important this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is. It is the best welfare activity for human society. They are all fools and rascals, and they have no knowledge. They are ignorant of their constitutional position, and they are unnecessarily working hard day and night. Therefore they have been called mūḍha. Mūḍha means “ass.” The ass works day and night for the washerman for a little grass. Grass is available everywhere, but still he thinks, “If I do not work very hard for the washerman, I’ll not get this grass.” This is called ass. Therefore one must become intelligent by cultivating knowledge. One becomes intelligent by and by. A boy first of all becomes a brahmacārī, a celibate student who studies the scriptures under the *guru*. Then, if one cannot remain a brahmacārī, all right, take a wife and become a gṛhastha, a married householder. Then later in life give that up and become a vānaprastha, retiring for dedication to spiritual life. Then take sannyāsa, the stage of full renunciation. This is the process. But the mūḍhas will work day and night for sense gratification. Therefore at a certain period of life a man should give up that stupidity and take sannyāsa. “No. Finished.” That is sannyāsa. “Now this portion of life should be completely for Kṛṣṇa’s service.” That is real sannyāsa. Lord Kṛṣṇa says in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (6.1): > anāśritaḥ karma-phalaṁ > kāryaṁ karma karoti yaḥ > sa sannyāsī ca yogī ca > na niragnir na cākriyaḥ “One who is unattached to the fruits of his work and who works as he is obligated is in the renounced order of life, and he is the true mystic, not he who lights no fire and performs no duty.” It is my duty to serve Kṛṣṇa. I am an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. *Kāryam*. I must do it. I must serve Kṛṣṇa. That is my position. That is *sannyāsa*. *Anāśritaḥ* *karma-phalaṁ* *kāryam karma karoti yaḥ*. The **karmī*s*, fruitive workers, are expecting some good result for sense gratification. That is the characteristic of the *karmī*. And the *sannyāsī*s are also working very hard, but not for sense gratification. They are working for the satisfaction of Kṛṣṇa. That is *sannyāsa*. This is the difference between a *sannyāsī* and a *karmī*. The *karmī* works very hard—harder and harder—but all for this *vyavāya-āmiṣa-madya-sevā*. Only for sex life, eating meat, and intoxication. And a devotee works in the same way, hard, but for Kṛṣṇa’s satisfaction. This is the difference. And if you live one life like this—no more sense gratification, simply for Kṛṣṇa—then you come to this position: na jāyate, no more death, no more birth. Because your position is na jāyate na mriyate, no birth or death. That is your actual position. But because you are in ignorance, pramattaḥ, you have become mad, you have become crazy, and therefore you have taken to this process of sense gratification. Therefore you are entangled in a material body, and the body is changing. That is called birth and death. If you want to stop this birth and death, don’t indulge in sense gratification and become entangled again. > nūnaṁ pramattaḥ kurute vikarma > yad indriya-prītaya āpṛṇoti > na sādhu manye yata ātmano ’yam > asann api āsa kleśada dehaḥ “All right. This body is for a few years; it will be ended.” And that’s all right. It will be ended, but you’ll have to accept another body because you desire sense gratification, and that means you must have material senses to gratify. So Kṛṣṇa is merciful: “All right, this rascal wants like this. Give him this facility. All right. This rascal wants to eat stool. All right. Let him have the body of a pig.” This is going on. Nature’s law. *Well-wishing Father* This knowledge, *Bhagavad-gītā* knowledge, is perfect for human society. And Kṛṣṇa wants that this knowledge should be spread, because He’s the seed-giving father of everyone: *sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ* (*Gītā* 14.4). He’s the seed-giving father, and the father is naturally the well-wisher of his children. “These rascals—they are suffering. Simply guided by mental speculation and assisted by the senses, they are struggling so hard. And if they come back to Me in Vṛndāvana, they can live so nicely, as My friend, as My lover, as My father, as My mother. So claim them. Call them.” Therefore Kṛṣṇa comes to this world. Because the whole world is running on under the false impression of sense enjoyment, He comes and advises, sarva-dharmān parityajya . . . *(Gītā* 18.66): “You rascal, give up all these engagements. Don’t be proud that you are scientifically advanced. You are all rascals. Give up this nonsense. Come to Me. I’ll give you protection.” This is Kṛṣṇa. How merciful He is! And the same business should be done by Kṛṣṇa’s servant. Not to become a great *yogi*, magic player. No, that is not required. Simply speak what Kṛṣṇa says. Then you become a spiritual master. Don’t speak anything nonsense. Caitanya Mahāprabhu also said, > yāre dekha tāre kaha ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa > āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa “Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as they are given in the *Bhagavad-gītā* and *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land.” (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya* 7.128) Simply preach the instructions of Kṛṣṇa to whomever you meet. Then you become a spiritual master. That’s all. Very simple thing. Thank you very much. A Reason to Fight *The following conversation with a military officer took place in Indore, India, on December 13, 1970.* Guest: From what I have heard from you, I have not understood your conception of God. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Our conception of God is that He is a transcendental person. *Īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇa sac-cid-ānanda vigrahaḥ. Īśvara* means Lord. The Supreme Lord is a person. As you are a person, He is also a person. But He is the chief person. *Nityo* *nityānām*. He is the leader, and we are the led. Or He is the master, and we are the servitors. That is our self-realization, to understand that “I am an eternal servant of God.” In *Bhagavad-gītā* Kṛṣṇa says, *mamaivāmśo jiva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ*: “Eternally all living entities are My part and parcels.” So as the part and parcel of anything is meant to serve the cause of the whole, the only business of the living entity is to serve the Supreme. That is all. Guest: One more thing, sir. Lord Kṛṣṇa never asked Arjuna to sit and do bhajana [worship]. He said, *uttiṣṭha mām anusmara yuddhya*: “Get up and fight.” Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, so fight with whom? Guest: Whoever it is, but you must know who your enemies are. Śrīla Prabhupāda: That’s a nice proposal. Unless you know your enemy, how can you fight? We Vaiṣṇavas do not say that there is no need of fighting. We never say that. When there is need of fighting, we must fight. Someone in New York—Mr. Goldsmith—asked me, “Why is Kṛṣṇa advising Arjuna to fight, to become violent?” So someone may protest like that. But there is no meaning to protesting against the action of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is our view. We are Vaiṣṇavas, and we are chanting. But that does not mean that when there is need of fighting we shall lack in strength. We can fight. One gentleman told me, “Vaiṣṇavism makes one dull. One cannot act.” But I said, “No, you have not seen a Vaiṣṇava.” In the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa the heroes were Arjuna and Hanumān, and they fought. Guest: They fought. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. And who can be a better Vaiṣṇava than them? Guest: Nobody. Śrīla Prabhupāda: So being a Vaiṣṇava does not mean one is dull. No. Guest: That is well proved. If there is need . . . Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. So our present fighting is against atheism. Atheists say, “There is no God. God is dead. I am God. You are God.” We are fighting against these principles. Our fighting is very strong. Don’t think we are idle. I have come here to fight with the atheists. We say, “God is Kṛṣṇa. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is Kṛṣṇa. He is a person, and He is not dead.” This is our preaching. Therefore it is a fight. Guest: God is not dead. He is not dead. Śrīla Prabhupāda: How can He be dead? How can you think that God is dead? That is foolishness. Guest: If you think that God is dead, that is your own ignorance. Śrīla Prabhupāda: So we are fighting against this ignorance. And at the present moment so many [false] theories and religious principles have sprung up unnecessarily. You see? But we are sticking to the principle that the only religion is to surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is real religion: surrender. Guest: Complete surrender. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Complete surrender. That is real religion. Kṛṣṇa says, *sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja*: “Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me.” These are Kṛṣṇa’s words. *Bahunāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate. Prapadyate*—that is surrender. Guest: On the first day of this inauguration [of a program in Indore], the speakers were giving some definitions of *karma-yoga*. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Oh, the governor. Just see, he was speaking of *karma-yoga*. And in India—the land of sages, the land of Kṛṣṇa, the land of Lord Rāmacandra, the land of Mahārāja Parīkṣit—cow slaughter is going on without any restriction. And they are speaking of *karma-yoga*. Just see the fun. Guest: I don’t know where India is going to, where the land of Kṛṣṇa is going. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Well, we should try our best. Guest: Yes, we have to fight these habits. It is our duty. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes, that’s it. So you are a military man. I request you to fight against this nonsense. A Pause for Prayer “Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto the all-auspicious Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, about whom glorification, remembrances, audience, prayers, hearing and worship can at once cleanse the effects of all sins of the performer. “Let me offer my respectful obeisances again and again unto the all-auspicious Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The highly intellectual, simply by surrendering unto His lotus feet, are relieved of all attachments to present and future existences and without difficulty progress toward spiritual existence. “Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto the all-auspicious Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa again and again because the great learned sages, the great performers of charity, the great workers of distinction, the great philosophers and mystics, the great chanters of the Vedic hymns and the great followers of Vedic principles cannot achieve any fruitful result without dedication of such great qualities to the service of the Lord.” “He is the Supersoul and the Supreme Lord of all self-realized souls. He is the personification of the Vedas, religious scriptures and austerities. He is worshiped by Lord Brahmā and Śiva and all those who are transcendental to all pretensions. Being so revered with awe and veneration, may that Supreme Absolute be pleased with me.” – Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 2.4.15–17, 19 A Divinity Beyond Kṛṣṇa? *When speaking of God in the Gītā, Kṛṣṇa sometimes seems to be referring to some entity different from Himself.* by Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa Kṛṣṇa asks us to surrender to Him, but some *Gītā* commentators say He actually means something else. Some *Bhagavad-gītā* interpreters claim that Kṛṣṇa is just a medium for transmitting the wisdom coming from some higher, impersonal supreme entity. To support this, they point to Kṛṣṇa’s third-person references in the Gītā to some divinity apparently beyond Himself. Before examining their claim, let’s consider a specific example of a third-person reference. In the eighteenth chapter, Kṛṣṇa recommends working in a mood of worshiping that Supreme Person from whom everything comes and by whom everything is pervaded (18.46). A few verses later (18.54–58), Kṛṣṇa refers to the Supreme in the first person (i.e,. as Himself) Now, from three perspectives let’s analyze the claim about there being a divinity beyond Kṛṣṇa. First, the *Gītā* contains many categorical statements wherein Kṛṣṇa, referring to the Supreme in the first person, thus proclaims Himself to be the highest reality. Consider just a few such statements: 1. There is no truth superior to Me; I pervade all of existence. (7.7) 2. Everything emanates from Me and exists in Me. Those who thus know Me become enlightened and wholeheartedly devoted to Me. (10.8) 3. Those who know Me as the Supreme Person (Puruṣottama) know everything (sarva-vit); they become wholeheartedly devoted to Me. (15.19) 4. I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the witness, the abode, the refuge, and the most dear friend. I am the creation and the annihilation, the basis of everything, the resting place, and the eternal seed. (9.18) Second, even when the *Gītā* refers to the Supreme in the third person, nowhere does it declare that divine entity to be the highest reality. To the contrary, such third-person references are frequently and quickly followed by a first-person reference to the highest reality, with the context usually indicating that the later references point to a higher spiritual understanding (eg., 15.17 is followed by 15.18; 18.62 by 18.66; 6.29 by 6.30). Third, whereas the third-person references to the Supreme are few and far apart in the *Gītā*, the first-person references are many and clustered together. For example, both 9.34 and 18.65 contain five first-person references. And such emphatic first-person proclamations of the Supreme are usually preceded or followed by unambiguous declarations that what is being spoken is the highest truth (e.g., 10.1 and 18.64). Thus the *Gītā* categorically and repeatedly declares that Kṛṣṇa is the highest reality; nowhere does it state that anything else is the highest reality. When using a third-person reference, might Kṛṣṇa be referring to someone other than Himself? No, the attributes of the third-person divinity are said to be present in Kṛṣṇa. Consider the attributes mentioned in 18.46. These are the same as what Kṛṣṇa has earlier mentioned as His attributes. For example, he has declared that everything comes from Him (10.8) and is pervaded by Him (10.42) and that work is to be offered to Him (3.30 and 9.27). *Divinity As Conceived by Seekers* If Kṛṣṇa is referring to Himself when speaking of the highest reality, then why might He sometimes use the third-person reference? Possibly to indicate how the Supreme is conceived by the seekers described in those sections. For example, in the eighteenth chapter the section with the third-person reference is about *karma-yoga* (18.41–48), whereas the section with the first-person reference is about *bhakti-yoga* (18.54–58). *Karma-yogīs* don’t always have a clear conception of God; they are primarily concerned about staying detached and disentangled while working. Even if they start offering the fruits of their work to God, that needn’t immediately clarify their conception of Him. While discussing such *karma-yogīs*, Kṛṣṇa refers to Himself in the third person (18.46). Kṛṣṇa then outlines how *karma-yogīs* evolve through *jñāna-yoga* (18.49–53) to *bhakti-yoga* (18.54–55). After sketching this multipath progression toward liberation (18.41–55), Kṛṣṇa delineates an alternative: *bhakti-yoga* as the single pathway to liberation from wherever we are presently (18.55–59). *Bhakti-yogīs* know who their object of love is and why He is loveable. While discussing *bhakti-yogīs*, Kṛṣṇa refers to the Supreme in the first person (18.54–59). Thus Kṛṣṇa’s third-person and first-person references to the Supreme in particular sections could correlate with the conceptions of God of the seekers described in those sections. *An Evolving Understanding of Divinity* Another way to make sense of third-person references is by considering the triune conception of divinity provided by the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition: Brahman, the all-pervading impersonal effulgence; Paramātmā, the immanent manifestation who exists within all hearts and within the worlds; and Bhagavān, the all-attractive transcendental person who exists in the spiritual world. These three aspects are the same in that they are manifestations of the same one ultimate reality. And they are different in that each exists simultaneously and distinctly. This conception of inconceivable oneness and difference or unity and diversity can help in understanding Kṛṣṇa’s third-person references to the Supreme. Consider the fifteenth chapter (15.17–18). Kṛṣṇa uses the third person for God who has entered the universe (15.17) and the first person for Puruṣottama, the Lord in the heart (15.18). Consider how He describes the vision of the *yogis* as they progress toward the highest realization (6.29–30). He uses the third person when their realization is at the Paramātmā level (6.29) and the first person when their realization has risen to the Bhagavān level (6.30). Consider also the *Gītā’s* riveting conclusion. Kṛṣṇa uses the third person for the indwelling Supersoul (18.61) who is the object of surrender (18.62). But when Kṛṣṇa sees Arjuna lost in thought, unable to decide, His affection for Arjuna increases and floods His heart (18.64). He stops speaking as the dispassionate observer (Paramātmā) and starts speaking as the impassioned lover (Bhagavān). Naturally, He adopts the first-person reference in the final call for surrender that is the devotional crescendo of The Song of God (18.66). Thus, when discussing the Paramātmā manifestation of God, Kṛṣṇa sometimes uses the third person; when discussing the Bhagavān manifestation, Kṛṣṇa usually uses the first person. *Kṛṣṇa’s Complementing His call for “Surrender” with “Go,” Not “Come”* Some Gītā interpreters highlight the word vraja in the *Bhagavad-gītā’s* concluding verse (18.66), emphasizing that its literal meaning is “go,” not “come.” That Kṛṣṇa wants Arjuna to surrender and go, not come, means that surrender is meant to be directed toward some divinity other than Kṛṣṇa. Or so they claim. It’s true that *vraja* often means “go,” but it also generically means “walk.” The earthly replica of Kṛṣṇa’s pastoral paradise of Vṛndāvana in the spiritual world is referred to in short as Vraja; it is a place where everyone is walking or active. And the *Gītā* itself uses a variant of *vraja* in this generic sense of motion (2.54, *vrajeta*): Arjuna inquires how the self-realized move about in the world. And this generic meaning of *vraja* gels well with the *Gītā*’s vision of surrender: a surrendered Arjuna is to actively do the will of God in the world, not passively meditate on God by retreating from the world. Moreover, this sense of active surrender works just as well even if we take vraja to mean “go.” In the context of 18.66, vraja doesn’t have to refer to the object of surrender; it can also refer to the mode of surrender. That is, “surrender and go” doesn’t have to mean surrender to some unspecified divinity other than Kṛṣṇa. It can also mean surrender by going into the world and doing Kṛṣṇa’s will. This world-engaging sense of “go” is not just acceptable, but quite sensible in the **Gītā*’s* physical setting. For learning the *Gītā*, Arjuna has turned away from the battlefield toward Kṛṣṇa; for living the *Gītā*, a surrendered Arjuna needs to turn back toward the battlefield and therein do Kṛṣṇa’s will. And that indeed is what Arjuna says he will do (18.73)—and what he does, as revealed in the Mahābhārata’s description of the subsequent Kurukshetra war. Thus, when Kṛṣṇa urges Arjuna to “surrender and go,” the “go” doesn’t imply that the object of surrender is some divinity other than Kṛṣṇa; it implies that the mode of surrender is active and engaged in the world, not passive and turned away from the world. *How Arjuna in the Gītā Is Much More Than a Student* Another way to understand the **Gītā*’s* teachings is to look at how Arjuna understood the *Gītā*. To appreciate why Arjuna’s understanding is so important, consider a metaphor. Suppose a celebrated professor delivers an important class on a controversial subject and the class is recorded. If different students present in the class interpret the class in different ways, where might they and others turn for an authorized understanding if the professor is no longer accessible? Maybe the transcript itself could be a source, especially if the class was actually a discussion between the professor and one student during which the student expressed his or her understanding of the professor’s explanation. The student’s words would be valuable, even vital, indicators of the professor’s central message. Arjuna’s words in the *Gītā* are similarly significant. Given that the *Gītā* is a discussion between him and Kṛṣṇa—a discussion that has been interpreted in many differing, even opposing ways—his words are crucial clues to its correct understanding. Consider, for example, Arjuna’s declaration that Kṛṣṇa is the highest reality (10.12–15). Kṛṣṇa doesn’t interrupt or correct him. When Arjuna follows up this declaration with a request to hear more about Kṛṣṇa’s glories (10.16–18), Kṛṣṇa doesn’t chide him for wandering off to a minor or tangential subject. Instead, Kṛṣṇa expresses His pleasure, as indicated by His use of hanta (10.19), which is often an exclamation, an expression of wonder. In this verse’s context, hanta broadly means, “Yes, certainly! I will speak with pleasure.” Even for those who don’t consider Arjuna an authority on spiritual subjects, his words in the *Gītā* can still be robust indicators of its core meaning. Why? Because his words are spoken in the presence of the supreme authority, the person who knows the *Gītā*’s message the best, the person who is the source of that message: Kṛṣṇa Himself. In the *Bhagavad-gītā’s* narrative structure, Arjuna is not just a student; he is also a reliable pointer to its central message. *How Can We Know Arjuna’s Understanding of Kṛṣṇa’s Position?* To know Arjuna’s understanding, we need to look at his words in the *Gītā*. Arjuna’s words fall in four categories: * Questions, which he asks throughout the *Gītā* * Resolve to act (18.73), which he makes after hearing the full *Gītā* * Prayers (11.36–46), which he offers on beholding the universal form * Declarative statements (10.12–15), which he makes after hearing the *catur-ślokī* *Gītā* (10.8–11) Among these, the first two categories mostly contain brief statements. Skeptics who claim that Kṛṣṇa is different from the ultimate divinity may downplay the prayers by arguing that they describe the universal form, not Kṛṣṇa. Actually, it is Kṛṣṇa’s universal form—by His will He reveals it and He conceals it; therefore the attributes of the universal form are ultimately Kṛṣṇa’s attributes. Nonetheless, let’s focus on the declarative statements Arjuna speaks while facing Kṛṣṇa and addressing Him in an unambiguous second person. First (10.12), Arjuna uses ten describers to assert that Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate reality. Supporting his assertion (10.13), he refers to the testimony of several sages from whom he has heard as well as Kṛṣṇa’s self-testimony in the *Gītā*. Thereafter (10.14) he proclaims that he accepts all of Kṛṣṇa’s words, while acknowledging that Kṛṣṇa’s personality can’t be understood even by the gods (devas) and the anti-gods (asuras). Concluding his declarative statements (10.15), Arjuna states that Kṛṣṇa alone knows His own glories, and he reasserts Kṛṣṇa’s supreme position by using five divine epithets. Nothing in any of these words suggests that Arjuna considers the highest reality to be anything other than Kṛṣṇa. Arjuna does acknowledge the difficulty in understanding how Kṛṣṇa, the seemingly finite person standing next to him, can be the supreme divinity. But by stating that this difficulty confronts even celestial beings, he indicates that the difficulty is universal: it arises when the finite strives to understand the infinite; it doesn’t in any way justify the claim that the infinite is anything other than Kṛṣṇa. Thus Arjuna’s declarative statements convey his unambiguous acceptance of Kṛṣṇa as the supreme reality. *How Arjuna’s Words Reveal the Gītā’s Sādhana and Sādhya* One traditional way to know the import of a complex text is the path-purpose hermeneutic, or the sādhana-sādhya approach. Sādhana refers broadly to the means or the path, and sādhya refers to the end or the purpose. Thus, to know the essence of a complex text, we can focus on what it says about sādhana and sādhya. This approach is especially relevant for the *Gītā* because it was spoken to a specific person, Arjuna. What Arjuna spoke and did on hearing the *Gītā* can reveal his understanding of the *Gītā*’s *sādhana* and *sādhya*. Though the *Gītā* talks about multiple *sādhana*s and *sādhya*s, what Arjuna speaks and does with Kṛṣṇa’s approval can be said to be Kṛṣṇa’s highest recommendation and the *Gītā*’s essence. To know Arjuna’s understanding of *sādhya*, let’s look at his declarative statements in the *Gītā*. These occur primarily in the middle of the *Gītā*, in its tenth chapter (10.12–15). In each of these verses, Arjuna unequivocally asserts Kṛṣṇa’s supreme position, beginning with eight signifiers of God (10.12) and ending with five (10.15). To know Arjuna’s understanding of sādhya, let’s look at his concluding statement, a solitary verse that ends with a resolve: I will do Your will (18.73, kariṣye vacanaṁ tava). Does Arjuna’s resolve convey simply a generic obedience to an authority? No, because first, the verse itself refers to Kṛṣṇa with a epithet signifying God: Acyuta; and second, the verse is preceded by emphatic calls for the practice of *bhakti* (18.65–66). Thus Arjuna’s resolve signifies his harmonization with the supreme will, which is the essence of *bhakti*. Can we be sure that Kṛṣṇa approved Arjuna’s understanding? Yes, because Kṛṣṇa didn’t correct Arjuna in any way. Far from correcting, Kṛṣṇa stayed vigilantly with Arjuna after the *Gītā* ended and assisted him repeatedly during the Kurukshetra war. Thus Arjuna’s words in the *Gītā* reveal Kṛṣṇa to be the *sādhya* and *kṛṣṇa-bhakti* to be the *sādhana*. *Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa serves full time at ISKCON Chowpatty, Mumbai. He is a BTG associate editor and the author of twenty-five books. He has two websites: gitadaily.com and thespiritualscientist.com (the source for BTG’s “Q&A”).* One Choice Away *We have free will, and for our eternal benefit, we must choose wisely.* By Brajanātha Dāsa We each have a major decision to make about which of Kṛṣṇa’s energies will control our life. Everyone is enthusiastic, but the distinguishing factor is what we are enthusiastic about. It is simply up to us whether we want to be enthusiastic about Kṛṣṇa by always engaging in His devotional service, or enthusiastic about *māyā*, or illusion, manifested through the three modes of material nature *(Gītā* 14.5). Enthusiasm within the three modes leads to rebirth in the material world due to bondage by one’s work. Enthusiasm for devotional service to the Lord leads to the ultimate liberation of going back home, back to Godhead—to Lord Kṛṣṇa. There are two kinds of *māyā: *yoga-māyā** and *mahā-māyā*. *Yoga-māyā* acts as the three modes of spiritual nature: hlādinī is Lord Kṛṣṇa’s aspect of bliss, sandhinī, of eternal existence, and samvit, of cognizance, which is also accepted as knowledge (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi* 4.62). *Mahā-māyā* acts as the three modes of material nature: sattva, or the mode goodness, characterized by knowledge *(Gītā* 14.11); rajas, or the mode of passion, characterized by uncontrollable desire *(Gītā* 14.12), and tamas, or the mode of ignorance, characterized by illusion *(Gītā* 14.13). *Mahā-māyā* is an expansion of *yoga-māyā*, and both these māyās are expressions of the Lord’s internal potencies. Ultimately, however, the Lord’s potency is one. Its action is like that of electricity, which can act both to cool and to heat. Mahā-māyā acts only in the material world. It deprives the conditioned souls of devotional service to Kṛṣṇa. It does not allow them to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who exists beyond the cosmic manifestation. We have been slaves of mahā-māyā for countless lifetimes. In this state of servitude to mahā-māyā, we have never been satisfied. Yet, inspired by the false hope of enjoyment, we have continued serving mahā-māyā just like a donkey that works hard all day chasing a carrot dangling in front of it. If we want to stop chasing the dangling carrot of false material enjoyment for some future favorable circumstances, all we must do is submit fully at the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa. The unlimited pleasure we desire is available in devotional service. It does not matter where we seek enjoyment; all the planets in the material universe are places of misery (Gītā 8.16), working under Kṛṣṇa’s direction (Gītā 9.10). Since Kṛṣṇa is in the unique position of directing *mahā-māyā* (material nature), only He can free souls dedicated to Him from its bondage. He declares this fact in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (18.66): “Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.” When we surrender ourselves to Him, we only give up our false independence, our thinking that we can enjoy freely in the material world. This is similar to surrendering to the laws of the state yet remaining free to live within it. When we surrender to Kṛṣṇa’s laws, we use our independence within their domain. This is surrender—to be submissive within Kṛṣṇa’s laws and act to please Him according to His instruction in *Bhagavad-gītā* 18.66. We always have only one choice to make: whether to surrender to mahā-māyā or, through *yoga-māyā*, to Kṛṣṇa. The choice is made through our attitude. One who is engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness will naturally have the right attitude to make a choice that is pleasing to Kṛṣṇa. Such a person derives happiness simply from making Kṛṣṇa happy and is privileged to receive direct guidance from Him within the heart. Because of having the right attitude, that person can render the best service to the Lord at all times and in all places and circumstances. *A War of Attitudes* The Mahābhārata war was not ultimately a war of militaries, but rather a war of attitudes. This can be recognized by studying two leading personalities in the battle: Arjuna and Duryodhana. The Pāṇḍavas lost their wealth and themselves to the Kauravas in a deceptive dice game. They fulfilled the condition of their wager by surrendering their wealth and kingdom, followed by twelve years in exile and one year living incognito. Yet the Kauravas refused to return the Pāṇḍavas’ kingdom to them. Peace attempts by Kṛṣṇa and other mediators to resolve the conflict between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas failed. Duryodhana refused to give up even a needle point of territory. The battle between them became inevitable. Both sides were preparing for the battle, and the situation was such that no one could remain neutral. As part of the battle preparation, Duryodhana and Arjuna coincidentally approached Kṛṣṇa within minutes of each other for His support. Lord Kṛṣṇa was sleeping. Duryodhana was the first to approach Kṛṣṇa for help. There were two chairs by His bed, one at His pillow and the other one at His lotus feet. Duryodhana, being egoistic, sat on the chair at the side of His pillow. Arjuna came moments later. Being a devotee, he stood facing the lotus feet of the Lord with his head bowed and hands folded. Though Arjuna belonged to an aristocratic family, he gave up all false pride and was happy for the opportunity to see his beloved Lord’s lotus feet. After hearing the purpose of their visit, the Lord wanted to support both of them by placing His army (energy) on one side and Himself alone on the other side. He said He wouldn’t take part in the battle but would only remain an advisor. Kṛṣṇa then gave preference to Arjuna to choose first because when Kṛṣṇa woke up, He saw Arjuna first. Arjuna chose the Lord, so Duryodhana received His army, which pleased him. Both had approached the Lord for His support to win the battle, but due to choosing Kṛṣṇa over His energy, Arjuna became victorious whereas Duryodhana, despite choosing the energy of the Lord, lost the battle. Kṛṣṇa says in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (4.11) that He responds according to how we worship Him. He is like a kalpa-vṛkṣa (desire-fulfilling tree), which gives whatever fruit one desires. If we simply depend on Kṛṣṇa, the material energy will become spiritual in our hands and will elevate us in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kṛṣṇa is very personal in His interactions with His devotees. The way of His mercy depends on the particular devotee because not everyone’s spiritual needs are the same at any particular time. But His goal is to enrich everyone in spiritual understanding. The difference between Arjuna and Duryodhana was their attitude towards Kṛṣṇa. This difference fueled Duryodhana’s loss in the battle despite his having an army significantly greater than Arjuna’s. If one goes against Kṛṣṇa, the ultimate result is going to be inauspicious. No matter how noble and righteous one may be, the ultimate consideration is the degree of one’s surrender to Kṛṣṇa. If one surrenders fully, then one’s destiny is fully in Kṛṣṇa’s hands. If the surrender is not full or complete, then Kṛṣṇa will intervene according to the degree of one’s surrender. If one depends on Kṛṣṇa with sincere devotional service and doesn’t let anything break his enthusiasm and momentum, Kṛṣṇa will personally reciprocate his devotion. Kṛṣṇa is always helping everyone, and He is ready to navigate all of us through the turbulence of choices we face. As He says *(Gītā* 10.10), He gives us the intelligence to reach Him provided we are ready to take His shelter. *Brajanātha Dāsa, PhD, and his wife, Suvarṇa Rādhā Devī Dāsī, PhD, both disciples of His Holiness Rādhānāth Swami, live in Longmont, Colorado, with their two daughters. They are active in book distribution and in serving Śrī Śrī Rādhā-Govinda at ISKCON Denver.* The Poor Man Who Purchased God *Why would a former classmate of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s, now grown up and married, be living in abject poverty?* By Gaurāṅga Darśana Dāsa Insights on Sudāmā’s rags-to-riches story. The story of Sudāmā and Kṛṣṇa in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* is popularly known as an example of “rags to riches.”* Sudāmā, an extremely poverty-stricken brāhmaṇa, became greatly wealthy by the grace of Lord Kṛṣṇa, his childhood friend. But why was Sudāmā so poor? And what was the mysterious reason behind Kṛṣṇa’s making him so rich overnight? *The Pride of Poverty* Sudāmā was an exemplary brāhmaṇa endowed with all noble qualities. He was peaceful, self-controlled, and learned in scriptures. He was detached from materialistic desires and enjoyment. He maintained himself with whatever came of its own accord and was satisfied at heart. Such satisfaction is an important quality of brāhmaṇas. Ideal brāhmaṇas are not ambitious to accumulate riches but spend their valuable time in pursuing spiritual life and educating people. They voluntarily choose to live a simple life with only essential facilities. Sudāmā’s poverty, however, was so extreme that he didn’t have even sufficient food to eat or proper clothes to wear. He was so emaciated that his bones and veins were visible. Sudāmā was very detached from worldly enjoyment. There are two kinds of detached devotees. One is inimical to material enjoyment, and the other is indifferent to material enjoyment. The Supreme Lord does not force opulence upon His devotee who is extremely averse to worldly enjoyment. This is seen in devotees like Jaḍa Bharata. On the other hand, the Lord may give limitless wealth and power to His devotee who is neither repelled nor attracted by material things. An example of this type is Prahlāda. Sudāmā was averse to sense enjoyment, and Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī says that he had a slight pride in his renounced spirit. In this story, Kṛṣṇa purifies His dear devotee of that little pride. *Selflessness in Seeking Wealth* One day, Sudāmā’s chaste wife approached him with a request. She was fatigued from hunger and said hesitantly, “The Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa is your dear friend. He is affectionate to the brāhmaṇas. Please go to Him, and He will certainly give you enough wealth. He is so merciful that He even gives Himself to anyone who simply remembers His lotus feet.” She knew that Sudāmā didn’t like to beg anything from anyone. Yet she requested him repeatedly, not out of greed for material opulence, but out of love for her husband. She could not bear to see him suffer so badly due to hunger and poverty, and she was unhappy that she was unable to serve him food. To satisfy his wife’s desire, Sudāmā finally agreed to her proposal. Though he did not intend to ask for money from Kṛṣṇa, he felt that under this pretext he could see Kṛṣṇa, his worshipable Lord and dearest friend. Both the wife and husband had no desire for wealth, but they selflessly wanted to see each other happy. And this made the meeting of Sudāmā and Kṛṣṇa possible. Material enjoyment is not very desirable for devotees because in the long run it cannot give real satisfaction to the heart. *A Poor Man’s Gift to the Richest Man* Sudāmā asked his wife, “Is there anything in our house that I can take as a gift to my friend?” She had nothing, so she went and begged four handfuls of flat rice from neighboring brāhmaṇas. She tied the rice in a torn piece of cloth and gave it to Sudāmā. Sudāmā’s desire to serve Kṛṣṇa was beyond his capacity to serve Him. Though he had nothing, he went out of his way and against his nature to beg and offer something to Kṛṣṇa. This is love. When devotees serve Kṛṣṇa within their capacity, Kṛṣṇa is certainly satisfied. But when devotees take extra efforts to go out of their way to serve Kṛṣṇa, His heart becomes so obliged to them that He gives even Himself in return for their selfless loving service. Taking the flat rice, saintly Sudāmā set off for Dwarka. He had great anticipation and excitement that he was going to see Kṛṣṇa, yet his mind was filled with doubts about whether he would get His audience. He assumed that the gatekeepers might stop a beggar and mendicant like himself. *An Unexpected Reception* When Sudāmā reached Dwarka, he entered one of the palaces unobstructed and felt as if he attained the bliss of liberation. He stood for a moment in silence in the doorway. It was the palace of Kṛṣṇa’s foremost queen, Rukmiṇī Devī. Kṛṣṇa, who was then seated on His consort’s bed, spotted Sudāmā from a distance. He immediately stood up and, without Sudāmā expecting it, went forward to meet and embrace him. Kṛṣṇa is brahmaṇya deva, “the Lord who favors the brāhmaṇas.” So He naturally worships brāhmaṇas who come to His palace. Because Sudāmā was not only a brāhmaṇa but His childhood friend too, Kṛṣṇa did not just give him some formal reception as prescribed by etiquette or culture but treated him with deep intimacy and affection, with tears of love. Kṛṣṇa welcomed Sudāmā with pleasing words, made him sit on His bed, washed his feet, and sprinkled the water on His head. He offered him divinely fragrant sandalwood and other auspicious items of welcome. Rukmiṇī Devī personally fanned the poor brāhmaṇa with a cāmara whisk. All the people in the royal palace were astonished to see Kṛṣṇa so lovingly honoring this shabbily dressed brāhmaṇa. Generally, rich people do not like to identify with poor people. For instance, King Drupada and Droṇācārya studied under the same *guru* in the same school when they were boys. But after some years, when poor Droṇa approached Drupada for financial assistance, Drupada gave him a cold reception. In contrast to this, Kṛṣṇa’s reciprocation with Sudāmā was very loving. Kṛṣṇa unpretentiously and openly displayed His emotions, affection, and love for Sudāmā as if he were His elder brother. *An Embarrassment Turned into Excitement* Just as Sudāmā’s devotion to Kṛṣṇa was deep, Kṛṣṇa’s reciprocation was also profound. When Sudāmā had entered the city and the palace, people only saw him as a poor brāhmaṇa, but Kṛṣṇa exposed Sudāmā’s greatness by treating him royally. Kṛṣṇa was purchased by Sudāmā’s selfless and pure love. The friends talked pleasantly about their childhood days and fondly remembered some special incidents that happened in their *guru* school. Kṛṣṇa then asked his friend, “What gift have you brought for Me?” Sudāmā felt ashamed to offer his flat rice, thinking it unfit for Kṛṣṇa. But Kṛṣṇa said, “I regard as great even the smallest gift—a flower, a fruit, a leaf, or water—offered by My devotee in pure love. But even the greatest offerings presented by nondevotees do not please Me.” Kṛṣṇa sees the devotee’s heart behind the offering, and not the offering itself. Even after being addressed in this way, Sudāmā felt shy and simply kept his head bowed in shame, thinking, “How can the Lord eat this hard and stale flat rice? My dear master, even if you request me repeatedly, I will not give this flat rice to You. I have made up my mind.” But Kṛṣṇa snatched Sudāmā’s flat rice and said, “Why are you hiding this from Me? These grains of flat rice will satisfy not only Me but also the entire universe.” Saying this, Kṛṣṇa ate one palmful of flat rice with great excitement and satisfaction. When He was about to eat a second, Rukmiṇī stopped Him, for three reasons: (i) She meant to tell Kṛṣṇa, “This much of Your grace is sufficient to assure anyone vast riches, which are merely a play of my glance. But please do not force me to surrender to this brāhmaṇa, as will happen if You eat one more handful.” (ii) She also felt, “If You eat all this wonderful treat of Your friend, what will I have for my friends, cowives, servants, and myself?” (iii) She felt that the hard rice would upset Kṛṣṇa’s tender stomach. If one pleases Kṛṣṇa, naturally one will attain the blessings of His consort Lakṣmī. But if one desires only Lakṣmī (or wealth) without worshiping Nārāyaṇa (Kṛṣṇa), Lakṣmī won’t give her blessings to such a so-called devotee. *No Expectation, No Frustration* Sudāmā spent that night in Kṛṣṇa’s palace and felt great bliss, as if he had entered the spiritual world. The next day he set off for home. He never expressed that he wanted some money, and Kṛṣṇa didn’t offer him any wealth in Dwarka. Because Sudāmā didn’t expect any wealth from Kṛṣṇa, he wasn’t disappointed but was grateful for Kṛṣṇa’s loving treatment. If we have undue expectations from others and if they are not fulfilled, we get frustrated or discouraged. But if we don’t expect favors from others, yet receive some support, we become grateful for it. We need to make this conscious choice whether we want to be frustrated or grateful. All this depends on adjusting our expectations. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (11.8.44) therefore says, “Material desire is the cause of the greatest unhappiness, and freedom from such desire is the cause of the greatest happiness” (*āśā hi paramaṁ duḥkhaṁ nairāśyaṁ paramaṁ sukham*). Further, when one’s mind is filled with undue expectations, one cannot appreciate whatever gifts or blessings one has already received. When one thinks that one is entitled to certain reciprocation, comforts, treatment, or privileges, one’s mind tends to demand them. An unsatisfied mind always hankers for what one doesn’t have, and cannot value or acknowledge what one has. A person with an unsatisfied mind cannot be grateful. If Sudāmā had expected a specific quality or quantity of wealth from Kṛṣṇa, he wouldn’t have felt so greatly delighted and overwhelmed by Kṛṣṇa’s reception. *Cultivating Gratitude* Also, Sudāmā never felt that he deserved Kṛṣṇa’s special treatment. He felt utterly unqualified. He even doubted whether the guards would allow him into Dwarka. A devotee never feels qualified for special treatment from the Lord but thinks that the Lord, out of His causeless mercy, showers His blessings. Sudāmā knew well the difference between his lowly position and Kṛṣṇa’s exalted position. He contemplated while traveling: > kvāhaṁ daridraḥ pāpīyān > kva kṛṣṇaḥ śrī-niketanaḥ > brahma-bandhur iti smāhaṁ > bāhubhyāṁ parirambhitaḥ “Who am I? A sinful, poor friend of a brāhmaṇa. And who is Kṛṣṇa? The Supreme Personality of Godhead, full in six opulences. Nonetheless, He has embraced me with His two arms.” *(Bhāgavatam* 10.81.16) When the brāhmaṇa Ajāmila was protected by Viṣṇudūtas, he felt very grateful by considering his own fallen position and the exalted nature of the Lord, His name, and His associates. Similarly, when Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu cured the brāhmaṇa Vāsudeva of leprosy, Vāsudeva felt very grateful remembering his fallen state and the causeless mercy of Lord Caitanya. By remembering our previous fallen situation we can be grateful to all those who are instrumental in raising us to an elevated state. *A Pleasant Surprise* Humble Sudāmā considered his poverty the result of his previous sins and didn’t expect anything from the Lord. He also reasoned, “If a poor wretch like me suddenly becomes rich, he will forget Kṛṣṇa in intoxication. Kṛṣṇa, considering this, has not bestowed any wealth upon me. He is the genuine well-wisher; he wanted to protect me from the false pride of being a wealthy person.” Sudāmā could only see good intentions in Kṛṣṇa. Thinking thus, he reached his house. To his surprise, he didn’t find his hut but instead saw a splendorous palace filled with royal facilities. It had courtyards, gardens, attendants, and gem-studded pillars. As Sudāmā was wondering whose property it was, many beautiful maidservants came to greet him. Then came Sudāmā’s wife, adorned with an opulent dress and jeweled lockets. She looked effulgent, like a demigoddess in a celestial airplane. With tears of love she embraced Sudāmā within her heart. The night before, Sudāmā’s poor, emaciated wife had been sleeping in rags under their crumbling roof, but when she woke up in the morning, she found herself in a palace. She was confused, but only for a moment. She immediately realized that all that opulence was a gift of the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa to her husband, who must be on the way home. Sudāmā felt very happy, and he entered the palace with his wife. His body became young and beautiful at that very moment, and he wore fine clothing and jewelry. “I have always been poor,” he thought. “This opulence is certainly due to Kṛṣṇa’s merciful glance. He must have noticed that I secretly intended to beg from Him. Thus, even though I said nothing about it, He bestowed this wealth upon me like a merciful rain cloud, by accepting a single palmful of flat rice from me. He considers even His greatest benedictions to be insignificant, while He magnifies even the smallest service rendered to Him by His devotee.” *Even God Feels Incapable* When Sudāmā was at Dwarka, Lord Kṛṣṇa did not reveal to him that He had bestowed such opulence on him. Because Kṛṣṇa felt ashamed! He thought, “My dear friend Sudāmā gave Me this flat rice, which is greater than all the treasures I own. Even though in his house he had nothing, he took the trouble of begging this rice from neighbors. Therefore it is only proper that I give him something more valuable than all my possessions. But nothing is equal to or greater than all I possess. Therefore, all I can do is to give him such meager things as the opulence of Indra or Brahmā.” Thinking thus, Kṛṣṇa became embarrassed at being unable to reciprocate with his devotee’s loving offering. So He bestowed His favor upon Sudāmā secretly; it was revealed to him only after he returned home. Out of Kṛṣṇa’s humility and soft heart, He felt Sudāmā’s flat rice to be more valuable than the riches He offered him. Ultimately it is the love between the Lord and His devotees that nourishes the hearts of the Lord and His devotees with eternal spiritual bliss. *Seeing the Heart Behind the Dealings* Although Sudāmā received inestimable wealth from Kṛṣṇa, he didn’t become attached to it, because he knew that any amount of wealth in this material world is temporary and at some point one has to give it up. Sudāmā thought, “I just wanted to serve that supremely compassionate Lord Kṛṣṇa with love, friendship, and sympathy life after life. May I cultivate attachment for Him by associating with His devotees.” Humble Sudāmā considered himself unworthy of Kṛṣṇa’s most rare and valuable benediction of pure devotional service. “If I had any true devotion,” he reasoned, “the Lord would have granted me unflinching devotion rather than distracting material riches.” Thus he continued to perform *bhakti* by hearing about, chanting about, and remembering Kṛṣṇa always and attained the spiritual world. Kṛṣṇa may provide unlimited material wealth to some of His devotees when He is confident that they will not be distracted by it. The Lord bestowed immense wealth upon Dhruva, Prahlāda, and the Pracetās. But when the Lord finds opulence to be distracting His devotees from *bhakti*, He takes it away. Thus He took away wealth from Bali Mahārāja and the brāhmaṇa from Avanti. On the other hand, when the Lord sees that a devotee is proud of his detachment from material wealth, He may humble him by bestowing wealth. That is what He did in Sudāmā’s case. Although Sudāmā was undoubtedly an exalted devotee, the last trace of his illusion lay in the subtle pride of being a renounced brāhmaṇa. And this was also destroyed by his contemplating Kṛṣṇa’s kindness upon His devotees. In this way Kṛṣṇa purifies His devotees in all respects and lovingly takes them to His abode. Sudāmā recognized Kṛṣṇa’s compassionate heart behind His boon of riches. Similarly, a fruit vendor in Vrindavan received gold and many jewels from Kṛṣṇa when she offered fruits to Him. But she didn’t become attached to that wealth; she just wanted to serve the boy Kṛṣṇa and see Him smile in happiness. Although devotees sometimes receive material boons from the Lord, they only become captivated by the Lord’s loving heart rather than attached to the material wealth. This is similar to the Supreme Lord’s being captivated by His devotees’ loving attitude even if their specific offerings may not be impressive externally. Sudāmā offered flat rice, but Kṛṣṇa saw Sudāmā’s heart behind the rice. Kṛṣṇa bestowed riches to Sudāmā, but Sudāmā saw Kṛṣṇa’s love behind His wealth. In doing so, Sudāmā found his heart filled with an ever-increasing love for Kṛṣṇa. And that is the real richness he attained. *This article is based on *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, Canto 10, chapters 80 and 81, and the commentaries on these chapters by Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī as well as the purports of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples, which are drawn from Viśvanātha Cakravartī and other Vaiṣṇava commentators. *By Gaurāṅga Darśana Dāsa (www.gaurangadarshan.com), a disciple of His Holiness Radhanath Swami, is the dean of Bhaktivedanta Vidyapit?ha at ISKCON Govardhan Eco Village, outside Mumbai, and a member of ISKCON Board of Examinations. He is a* śāstric *teacher and is the author of over twenty books, including the Subodhini series of study guides and storybooks like Bhagavata Pravaha and Bhagavatam Tales.* Atomic Clocks and Time Dilation: Calculation of Time, from the Atom Science *Shedding some light on a section of the Bhāgavatam many of us may be inclined to skip.* By Nāndīmukhī Devī Dāsī Surprisingly to most people, the modern atomic clocks and the concept of time dilation have their analogs in the Vedic scriptures. Clocks keep the world moving on time. At one point the idea of atomic clocks—measuring the elapse of time by monitoring the frequency of radiation emitted by atoms—must have been revolutionary to modern people. For centuries, many scientific institutions worked to define the second—the basic unit of time—in astronomical terms, such as a fraction of a mean solar day, a lunar cycle, or a tropical year. It was recognized, however, that due to random and systematic variations, the rotation of an astronomical object is far from a natural phenomenon precise and consistent enough to define a standard unit of time. It was not until 1967 that an official definition of a second, based on the idea of atomic clocks, was announced (the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom).1 As important laboratory equipment, clocks also transform the modern concepts of physical reality. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity predicts that observers in relative motion with respect to one another or at different distances from a massive object measure disparate tick rates of identical clocks.2 Since it was proposed, the theory has been forcing the masses to give up a stereotyped notion of simultaneity (e.g., an event in Beijing and another in Washington, D.C., appearing to occur at the same time to an observer on Earth will appear to have occurred simultaneously to any observer). One of the outcomes of these predictions is that a person traveling in a high-speed spaceship would age more slowly than people back on Earth. Another consequence is that clocks closer to massive objects tick slower (due to a stronger gravitational potential). The time dilation predicted in theory is closely connected with modern life. For example, when analyzing navigational data, Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites orbiting in outer space with onboard clocks are equipped with software that accounts for tiny time shifts due to the relative motion with respect to Earth.3 In 2010, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) brought out clocks based on radioactive aluminum ions that are precise enough to measure a miniscule amount of gravitational time dilation resulting from lifting a clock vertically by 30 centimeters in 40 hours.4 *Atomic Clocks and Time Dilation in the Bhāgavatam* While generations of researchers have been enthusiastically building atomic clocks with ever-increasing sophistication, it may be startling to learn that the modern concept of time dilation finds its analog in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, an ancient Vedic scripture. For instance, it is said in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (3.11.12) that one day and night for the demigods is one year for human beings. Perhaps it is more startling to find that the idea of atomic clocks—measuring the elapse of time with regard to atomic particles—is also elucidated in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (Canto 3, chapter 11). The description takes place in a dialogue between Vidura and Sage Maitreya. In his exposition, Sage Maitreya first describes the finest and the greatest states of material elements as parama-aṇu (the supreme tiny) and parama-mahān (the supreme huge), respectively. Parama-aṇus are innumerable and unmixed, and are the material manifestation’s ultimate particles. They do not necessarily equate to a type of particle discussed in modern physics. Parama-mahān is the totality of parama-aṇus. Sage Maitreya then relates the states of material elements with the measurement of time and introduces the idea of atomic clocks: as matter has fine and huge states, time is measured in subtle (saukṣmye) and gross (sthaulye) forms. In particular, verse 3.11.4 states that atomic time (parama-aṇu time) is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called the great time (parama-mahān time). Sage Maitreya gives a list of units of time. An abridged summary based on *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 3.11.5–38 is provided in the box on page 53. The units are named after atomic terms (e.g., *paramāṇu*, aṇu), astronomical terms (e.g., māsa, vatsara), as well as human terms (e.g., nāḍikā, muhūrta). It is thus seen that phenomena at distinct levels (atomic, astronomical, human) accord well with each other in terms of measurement of time. Note that here vatsara (year) does not necessarily map to a tropical year, a sidereal year, or an anomalistic year5 as defined according to astronomical observations. In the list, the relativity of the passage of time is ubiquitously encountered; the duration of a nimeṣa, for example, would be different depending on where it is measured, such as the earthly realm, the Pitā planets, the heavenly realm, Brahmaloka, or the residence of the Supreme Lord. *The Supreme Constant* In modern theories, underlying phenomena that are relative are factors that are steady. For the time dilation induced by a difference in relative velocity, a prerequisite in Einstein’s theory is that the speed of light in a vacuum remains the same for any observers regardless of their relative motion. From the use of modern atomic clocks it is evident that physical properties of particles, such as frequencies of their radiations, are taken as consistent at any location in the universe. And there is an even deeper assumption: the laws of physics are unchanging over time and space. These assumptions about constancy are premises in the theories and are hard to verify empirically. From *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* it can be understood that the constant factor which regulates and harmonizes the operating characteristics of physical objects is ultimately the Supreme Lord, whose supremacy is represented by time: “Time is the potency of the almighty Personality of Godhead, Hari, who controls all physical movement although He is not visible in the physical world” (Bhāgavatam 3.11.3), and “Influential stars, planets, luminaries and atoms all over the universe are rotating in their respective orbits under the direction of the Supreme, represented by eternal *kāla* [time]” (Bhāgavatam 3.11.13). Time and space provide a support for the manifestation of the material universe. Recognizing that the universe and the objects within it known to us today are neither invented nor managed by human society, and that the sensory capacity and the intellectual power required for making experimental discoveries are neither devised nor maintained independently by the human being, inquisitive minds are inspired to search for meaningful foundations for understanding themselves and the world. In the practice of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, such foundations can be found in revealed scriptures in the line of disciplic succession from the Supreme Lord Himself. One only needs to develop one’s relationship with the scriptures under the guidance of a qualified spiritual master. Therefore, let us be encouraged to cultivate knowledge, wisdom, and more imperatively, our relationship with the source of knowledge and wisdom. *NOTES* 1. Benett, J. “The centuries-long quest to measure one second.” Popular Mechanics, March 24, 2017. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a25785/quest-measure-second-nist/ 2. Chou, C. W., Hume, D. B., Rosenband, T. and Wineland, D. J., 2010. “Optical clocks and relativity.” Science, 329(5999), pp. 1630–1633. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1192720 3. To determine its location, the GPS receiver calculates the distance between itself and the GPS satellite it communicated with. This calculation uses the time at which each signal from the satellite was emitted, as determined by the GPS satellites’ onboard clock, time at which each signal from the satellite was received, as determined by the GPS receiver’s clock on Earth, and the transmitting speed of the signal (i.e., the speed of light). The calculation needs to account for the time dilation between the GPS receiver and the satellite. 4. Bothwell, T., Kennedy, C. J., Aeppli, A., Kedar, D., Robinson, J. M., Oelker, E., Staron, A. and Ye, J., 2022. “Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample.” Nature, 602(7897), pp. 420–424. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04349-7 5. The anomalistic year (365 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes, 53 seconds) is the time between two passages of Earth through perihelion, the point in its orbit nearest the Sun. https://www.britannica.com/science/anomalistic-year Sidebar: 2 paramāṇus make 1 aṇu 3 aṇus make 1 trasareṇu 3 trasareṇus make 1 truṭi 100 truṭis make 1 vedha 3 vedhas make 1 lava 3 lavas make 1 nimeṣa 3 nimeṣas make 1 kṣaṇa 5 kṣaṇas make 1 kāṣṭha 15 kāṣṭhas make 1 laghu 15 laghus make 1 nāḍikā (or daṇḍa) 2 nāḍikās make 1 muhūrta 6 or 7 nāḍikās make 1 prahara (or yāma) for humans 8 yāmas make 1 ahanī (day and night) of humans 15 ahāni make 1 pakṣa (fortnight) 2 pakṣas make 1 māsa (lunar month) 1 māsa make 1 ahaḥ-niṣam (day and night) of the Pitā planets 2 māsas make 1 ṛtu (season) 6 māsas make 1 ayanam (half-year) 12 māsas make 1 vatsara (year) 2 ayanams make 1 ahanī (day and night) of the demigods 12,000 years of the demigods make 1 catur-yuga 1,000 catur-yugas make 1 dinam (day) or 1 niśā (night) of planets beyond the demigod’s up to Brahmaloka 50 years of Brahmaloka make 1 parārdha 2 parārdhas make 1 lifetime of Lord Brahmā and is 1 nimeṣa for the Supreme Lord *Nāndīmukhī Devī Dāsī (Yanying Wang), a disciple of His Holiness Romapāda Swami, was born and raised in mainland China. She came to the U.S. by herself in August 2014 and later came across Kṛṣṇa consciousness and devotees via a bhakti-yoga club at The George Washington University. She completed her graduate education in statistics in the U.S. She cares about the development of ISKCON in China and the spreading of Kṛṣṇa consciousness worldwide.* Kill the Rāvaṇa Within Before He Kills Us *From Rāvaṇa’s life we can understand a dangerous inclination of ours that can ruin our life.* By Puruṣottama Nitāi Dāsa An enemy lurks within our hearts, always ready to destroy our lives. Lord Rāmacandra, the Supreme Lord, did not have to personally appear in this world to free it from the atrocities of the demon king Rāvaṇa. The Supreme Lord creates this universe and also destroys it by His will. So He could have killed Rāvaṇa just by desiring to do so. But He incarnated in this mortal world to reveal that He is so magnanimous that He is always willing to forgive the conditioned souls for even the greatest sin and is ready to give His shelter to anyone who seeks it. In the Rāmāyaṇa we see that Lord Rāma was willing to forgive Rāvaṇa for all his misdeeds. He gave the demon king several chances to rectify his mistakes and become His devotee. But sadly, overpowered by lust and false pride, Rāvaṇa refused to take shelter of Lord Rāma, who is celebrated as the supreme shelter of the universe. *Lusty Rāvaṇa Disregards Godly Advice* Rāvaṇa’s brother Vibhīṣaṇa, a devotee of Rāma, tried his best to counsel Rāvaṇa, but the arrogant Rāvaṇa rebuked Vibhīṣaṇa and threw him out of the kingdom. The monkey soldier Hanumān, one of the most celebrated devotees of Lord Rāma, advised Rāvaṇa to return Sītā Devī, but Rāvaṇa, devoid of good sense, insulted Hanumān and tried to torture him by setting his tail on fire. Hanumān showed his prowess by setting fire to the entire golden city of Lanka. Also, just before the beginning of the battle to rescue Sītā Devī, the monkey commander Aṅgada went as a peace messenger, requesting Rāvaṇa to follow the principles of dharma and return Sītā. But the ten-headed Rāvaṇa was so full of ego, arrogance, and pride that he thought he would be able to enjoy Sītā by killing her husband, the Supreme Lord Rāma. Rāvaṇa’s stubbornness did not just cause his own death; his sons, brothers, ministers, and uncountable soldiers were also killed. In Lanka, women became widows, children became orphans, and elderly parents had to suffer the agony of the death of their sons and witness the suffering of their daughters-in-law and grandchildren. *Lust, the Gateway to Hell* In *Bhagavad-gītā* (16.21) Lord Kṛṣṇa says that lust, anger, and greed are the gateway to hell. Rāvaṇa is a symbol of lust, or uncontrolled desire, especially in the form of sexual desire. From Rāvaṇa’s life we can understand how dangerous lust is and how it completely ruins one’s life. As soon as one develops lustful thoughts and starts acting on them, one’s misery begins. Rāvaṇa’s suffering and humiliation began as soon as he desired to enjoy Sītā Devī and started acting on his lustful propensity. Although he succeeded in kidnapping Sītā, he was not even able to go close to her. He foolishly thought that Sītā, the eternal consort of Lord Rāma, would be captivated by his heroic deeds and vast wealth and kingdom. For his lust, Rāvaṇa was rebuked by his near and dear ones constantly. In fact, he became a laughingstock. Even his sons advised him to return Sītā. Just imagine if today the prime minister of a country who is married and has grown-up children were to kidnap someone else’s wife and try to marry her against her will? What would be his image among the people? From the example of Rāvaṇa we learn that we should never entertain lustful thoughts even if they come to our mind because of our past conditioning. They will ruin our life. *Help from Lord Rāma* Lord Rāmacandra killed Rāvaṇa long ago, but the demon still resides in our heart—as lust. If we are not vigilant, it will force us to indulge in sinful activities that will bring misfortune in our life. Lust is our greatest enemy, and we should put in our best efforts to free ourselves from all lusty thoughts. As Lord Rāma gave Rāvaṇa many chances to reform, the merciful Lord gives us many opportunities to destroy the Rāvaṇa within us. We contemplate lustful thoughts and act on them because we think they will give us the highest pleasure and we do not want to deprive ourselves of that pleasure. But if we analyze our own life, we will see that although lust-driven acts may give some temporary feeling of happiness, ultimately they bring misery. If we study the lives of great spiritual personalities in the Rāmāyaṇa, we find that instead of engaging their mind and senses in lusty thoughts and activities, they engaged them in serving Lord Rāma and experienced great bliss. Monkeys are considered inferior to humans, but the monkeys who assisted Lord Rāma in His mission became so glorious that great scriptures and great devotees of Lord Rāma sing their glories. By serving Lord Rāma, the monkey warriors enjoyed every moment of their lives and also perfected their lives. The happiness one experiences in serving the Lord is trillions of times greater than any material happiness, including the happiness of sexual pleasure. Transcendental joy, which is everlasting, can be achieved if, like Vibhīṣaṇa, with determination and courage we give up the shelter of Rāvaṇa. The all-loving Lord will happily accept us as He accepted Vibhīṣaṇa. One of the best ways to take shelter of the Supreme Lord is by chanting His holy names, especially the *mahā-mantra*: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare / Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. In Śikṣāṣṭakam (verse 1) Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that chanting is so potent that it cleanses the heart of all the impurities we have accumulated life after life. Once one starts developing a taste for chanting the holy names of the Lord, one begins to lose interest in trying to satisfy any material desire. Śrī Yāmunācārya, a great devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa (who is none other than Lord Rāma), says, “Since I have been engaged in the transcendental loving service of Kṛṣṇa, realizing ever-new pleasure in Him, whenever I think of sex pleasure I spit at the thought, and my lips curl with distaste.” (Quoted in *Bhagavad-gītā* As It Is 5.21, Purport) The fire of lust will destroy our life, but love for the Lord will purify it. Let each of us kill the Rāvaṇa within before it kills us by becoming a sincere devotee of the Lord and by engaging our mind and senses in His constant devotional service. The Supreme Lord, who conquered mighty Rāvaṇa, will help us conquer lust, a great destructive force, and open the gateway to unlimited transcendental happiness *Puruṣottama Nitāi Dāsa is a member of congregation at ISKCON Kolkata. He writes at https://discoverursupersoul.com/.* Sincerity Attracts Grace *How to turn obstacles on the spiritual path into steppingstones.* By Revatī Vallabha Dāsa Making steady progress in Kṛṣna consciousness takes effort, but Kṛṣṇa is always ready to help. The word sincere is derived from the Latin sincerus (sin—“one”; and crescere—“to grow”) and means “one growth” (not mixed, hence pure, clean). Double growth would be duplicity—different inside and outside. Sincerity is the virtue of one who desires, speaks, and acts in a manner that is honest and genuine. Nirvyalīkam, a Sanskrit word similar in meaning to sincere, also has an interesting etymology. Made up of two words, nir (negation) and vyalīkam (to cover), it means to not cover up things, i.e., to be without duplicity. Nirvyalīkam, along with its synonym avyalikam, appears several times in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, each time praising the quality of a person or an act as being sincere. *Sincere Versus Charlatan* In the **Bhagavad-gītā*’s* third chapter, Lord Kṛṣṇa explains that honestly working in a detached and spiritual consciousness is better than renouncing work, a practice adopted by some spiritual aspirants. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s concluding remark in his purport to *Bhagavad-gītā* 3.7 is striking: “A sincere sweeper in the street is far better than the charlatan meditator who meditates only for the sake of making a living.” Similarly, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 1.8.20 that the Lord knows our sincerity of purpose: “This simplicity in the form of acceptance of the Lord’s authority is more effective than showy insincere religious fervor.” A prominent feature of the current degraded Age of Kali is hypocrisy. There’s a marked difference between what people are in public and what they are in private. A person on the spiritual path has to carefully remain honest and earnest—fearing nothing except his or her own insincerity. A sleeping person can be easily awakened, but one pretending to be cannot be awakened at all. This kāpaṭya, crookedness, is a great hindrance on the spiritual path. The New Testament (Titus 2:7–8) explains, “Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.” Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s spiritual master, clarifies this point: “Cheating and weakness are two separate things. Persons devoid of a cheating propensity achieve perfection in life, but a cheater is never successful. Vaiṣṇavism is another name for simplicity. Sincere persons can be weak, but they are not cheaters. Cheaters say something but do something else. Weak people are embarrassed by their defects, whereas cheaters are maddened by their achievements.” (From Amṛta Vāṇī) *Stumbling Block or Steppingstone* Whether one is sincere or a charlatan, difficulties in life are inevitable. For an aspiring devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa, they are sometimes even necessary, because otherwise our tendency is to become complacent. Difficulties keep us on guard and help us practice and internalize what we have read and heard (and maybe even taught to others). Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: “An easygoing life and attainment of perfection in transcendental realization cannot go together. The Lord is more clever than any living entity; therefore He wants to see how painstaking the devotee is in devotional service.” *(Bhāgavatam* 2.9.24, Purport) Just as exams reveal the difference between the good students and the others, difficulties on the spiritual path distinguish the sincere practitioners from the others. If we are sincere, then the obstacles are not stumbling blocks but rather steppingstones. Obstacles accelerate our progress because if we act in a Kṛṣṇa conscious way when tested, then we make more spiritual advancement than at any other time. Success is not how things turn out; success is how we turn to Kṛṣṇa. Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: “For a pious person, if there is some calamity there is no other alternative than to take shelter of the lotus feet of the Lord. Constantly remembering the lotus feet of the Lord means preparing for liberation from birth and death. Therefore, even though there are so-called calamities, they are welcome because they give us an opportunity to remember the Lord, which means liberation.” *(Bhāgavatam* 1.8.25, Purport) *Attracting the Lord’s Grace* It is wise not to assume oneself as being someone who is always sincere. We should assess our own sincerity by monitoring how strictly we are endeavoring to accept only things favorable for devotional service and rejecting those that are unfavorable. Some more parameters are our diligence, hard work, not giving up, not being distracted, and doing the right things—in accordance with *guru-sādhu-śāstra*—and doing them with the right intentions. It is also helpful to take honest feedback from our mentors, seniors, and friends. And ultimately it’s the Paramātmā, the Lord as the Supersoul in our heart, who knows best whether we are sincere or not. A lot of our spiritual progress depends on the Lord’s grace, which He bestows on us in proportion to our genuine endeavors. The Eighth Canto of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* narrates how Lord Vāmanadeva took the heavenly kingdom from the great devotee Bali Mahārāja, who happened to be the king of the demons, to return it to the demigods. For me, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words inspire hope: When Vāmanadeva appeared before Bali Mahārāja, Bali Mahārāja immediately wanted to offer Him respectful obeisances, but he was unable to do so because of the presence of Śukrācārya and other demoniac associates. The Lord is so merciful, however, that although Bali Mahārāja did not actually offer obeisances but only endeavored to do so within his mind, the Supreme Personality of Godhead blessed him with more mercy than even the demigods could ever expect. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is known as bhāva-grahī janārdana because He takes only the essence of a devotee’s attitude. If a devotee sincerely surrenders, the Lord, as the Supersoul in everyone’s heart, immediately understands this. Thus even though, externally, a devotee may not render full service, if he is internally sincere and serious the Lord welcomes his service nonetheless.” *(Bhāgavatam* 8.23.2, Purport) When we face stumbling blocks and remain faithful to Kṛṣṇa, we access the profuse mercy of His heart. Seeing our sincere determination, Kṛṣṇa gives us the intelligence to make the right choices. He carries what we have and provides what we lack. God helps those who help themselves. We have to take our sincere baby steps towards Kṛṣṇa; Kṛṣṇa, for sure, reciprocates by taking His many big steps towards us. Sidebar *No Cause for Anxiety* “Do not be disturbed. There is no cause for anxiety. You are doing your best to serve Kṛṣṇa. That is very much appreciated, so do not lose enthusiasm out of frustration. That will spoil everything. Kṛṣṇa consciousness means we should always be satisfied and happy, not that we must work something impossible, becoming overburdened, and then because we are unhappy by so much trouble we lose enthusiasm altogether and give up all hope.… Kṛṣṇa does not like to see His sincere devotee suffer or become frustrated or depressed. He will not stand idly by in any such case, so do not fear on that account. Kṛṣṇa has got some plan for you. Always think in that way, and very soon He will provide everything to your heart’s desire.” —Śrīla Prabhupāda letter, December 19, 1972 *Revatī Vallabha Dāsa, a disciple of His Holiness Rādhānāth Swami, came to Kṛṣṇa consciousness in 2001, the year he earned a degree in engineering. In 2005 he joined ISKCON’s Rādhā-Gopīnātha temple, Chowpatty, full-time. He teaches Bhakti-śāstrī and Bhakti-vaibhava courses.* Beats, *Bhakti*, and Allen Ginsberg *The influential Beat poet assisted Śrīla Prabhupāda in significant ways during ISKCON’s earliest years.* By Satyarāja Dāsa A noted award-wining poet and icon of the 1960s counterculture was one of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s earliest followers. While many people know that Allen Ginsberg (1926–1997)—poet, author, cocreator of the “Beat” scene in both New York and San Francisco—played a subdued role in ISKCON’s formative stages and was even deemed a friend to Śrīla Prabhupāda, few realize the extent of his involvement. A careful perusal of the history, however, indicates that he was in some ways pivotal in the early days of the movement. I met Ginsberg on only two occasions, but both times were inspirational in my spiritual life. The first time, I had gone to see him at Pace University in the 1990s, ostensibly to talk to him about his relationship with Śrīla Prabhupāda and the formative years of ISKCON, though, truth be told, I always admired his work as a poet and was excited to make the connection. I had agreed to do the interview for the editors of ISKCON World Review, ISKCON’s monthly newspaper at that time, and to attract his attention I wore a Jagannātha t-shirt while sitting in the first row. I was there with a friend of mine, Bhakta Marino, who would take pictures. I wanted Ginsberg to clearly see that there were devotees in the audience. Sure enough, when his reading was complete, he walked over to us, and though we hadn’t yet introduced ourselves, he said, “Let me sit with the Vaiṣṇavas.” Those were the first words he spoke as he sat down next to me and Bhakta Marino. The conversation developed from there. He proceeded to tell me about his travels in India, his attraction to chanting the *mahā-mantra*, and his meeting with Prabhupāda. The conversation was short, and we went our separate ways. Then, a couple of years later, I noticed that he was scheduled to appear at Carnegie Hall. I wanted to go, to see if I could develop the relationship, and I immediately bought a ticket. I decided to arrive early to do some errands on the upper West Side, and right around the corner from the prestigious venue, who by Kṛṣṇa’s arrangement should I see meandering the streets but Ginsberg himself. Even though it was somewhat disorienting to see him out on the street, he was easily recognizable with his long hair, glasses, dress pants, and Converse sneakers. I was stunned to see him walking around like everyone else. But what was more surprising was that he recognized me. As we walked toward each other, he reached out both hands to grab mine, in friendly handshake, and said with a huge smile, “Ah, Bhaktivedanta’s disciple.” It warmed my heart, and we chatted until it was time for him to take the stage. *Early Life* Allen was born in Newark, New Jersey, the son of Louis and Naomi Ginsberg, two Jewish members of the New York literary counterculture. His trajectory was set in place with parents who bequeathed to him a love for the arts—particularly literature—and progressive political perspectives. In his youth, Walt Whitman’s poems captured his attention, and as he reached adulthood it was Edgar Allan Poe who became his favorite. Upon receiving a scholarship to Columbia University, he felt deep gratitude for his good fortune and made an internal vow to serve those less fortunate than he, a perspective that was as much a factor of his upbringing as it was the new political paradigm emerging at the time. During his time at Columbia University, he forged friendships that would define his life: William S. Burroughs, Neal Cassady, and Jack Kerouac, among others. These personalities, through their work and demeanor, would inadvertently give birth to the Beat Generation, a social and literary movement that centered on bohemian artist communities, creating a new jazz-inflected sensibility in musical tastes, jargon, and worldview. In 1956 he published Howl, the first “mainstream” poem to articulate the insights of the Beat Generation. It expressed a certain dissatisfaction with the material world, suspicion of the industrial revolution, the inevitability of madness if one were to continue down the road of superficial life, and ultimately the importance of seeing that something “Holy” undergirds all of existence. In short, it was his preparation for Kṛṣṇa consciousness. A large part of Ginsberg’s spiritual quest, especially during the 1960s, was his obsession with English poet and painter William Blake (1757–1827), whose mystical work he associated with the *bhakti* tradition. Blake’s oeuvre served as a catalyst for Ginsberg’s spiritual journey, inspiring him to continue on the path of transcendence. One well-meaning advisor, in fact, suggested that he accept Blake as his *guru*, a suggestion that, on an internal level, he obviously took to heart. It should be noted that in the 1960s and 1970s, Ginsberg studied under a number of spiritual teachers and Zen masters, and was somewhat conflicted about his own spiritual path. Prabhupāda was aware of this, of course, and yet still engaged him in Kṛṣṇa’s service whenever possible. He had helped Prabhupāda early on, as we shall see, and as a result His Divine Grace felt deep affection for him. Along similar lines, it should be mentioned that Ginsberg’s political concerns were legion, protesting the Vietnam War and supporting free speech and gay rights as passionately as he pursued the chanting of *mantras*. So his interests were varied, perhaps even distracting, and he never became a committed or full-time devotee. Overall, he is known for his collections of original poetry: Kaddish and Other Poems (City Lights, 1961), Planet News: Poems, 1961–1967 (City Lights, 1968), and The Fall of America: Poems of These States (City Lights, 1973), which won the National Book Award. But his life was clearly intertwined with the early days of ISKCON. *India Can’t Be Beat* In the early 1960s the Beats were morphing into hippies, a process that would take several years to complete. In the meantime, Ginsberg would travel to India. For the informed, this would not come as a complete surprise, since part of Beat/hippie culture was a fascination with exotic, mystical experiences, and India in particular. Ginsberg had expressed deep frustration with materialistic life, as expressed in Howl, and he was looking for a practical form of spirituality, leaning East. Like many of his generation, he wanted a higher alternative that veered away from mainstream Western culture. In 1962, when he first arrived in the land of the Ganges, and after a brief stop in Bombay, he found himself in Bengal, the homeland of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. He had not yet heard of Śrī Caitanya, and Prabhupāda’s movement had not yet begun. It would be another three years before Prabhupāda would journey West. But considering Ginsberg’s already developed predilection for the Beat lifestyle, he would be hosted by a group of Bengalis later called the “Hungryalists”* – anti-establishment, avant-garde poets, introduced to him by controversial poet Malay Roy Choudhury. What the Beats were to America, the Hungryalists were to Bengal. He felt at home. On this initial trip (he would return a decade later), he stayed in the subcontinent for two years. His personal journals, published later, offer information that might be of interest to devotees. For example, upon temporarily relocating to Benares, he “installed a bright 100-watt lightbulb and a wood statue of Caitanya” (Indian Journals, p. 126). Choudhury writes that the statue was “collected by him at Nabadwip, the paints on which had flaked off due to overuse.” Somehow, at this early stage, he had developed an attraction for Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the combined form of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa at the heart of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. The notes to Ginsberg’s Collected Poems 1947–1997 define Śrī Caitanya as a “16th-century North Bengali saint, founder of Hare Kṛṣṇa *Maha-mantra* lineage, pictured dancing, singing.” So even in the early ’60s he had some rudimentary, incomplete understanding of Mahāprabhu. He would of course learn more when he met Śrīla Prabhupāda several years later. Along similar lines, Ginsberg informs us in his conversations with Prabhupāda, recorded in 1969, that Kṛṣṇa had somehow directed him to other Vaiṣṇava holy places (besides Nabadwip) during that preliminary trip to India. In the following excerpt, he reveals that he had been to Mathura, Vrindavan, and Jagannath Puri as well: [inset] Ginsberg: I think I told you I had *darśana* with Jagannātha. Prabhupāda: Oh? Ginsberg: Yes, I got inside the temple. I was silent and made believe I was a madman. I had long hair and white pajamas. Prabhupāda: Just like some Punjabi. Ginsberg: So I went inside and when anybody came to ask me anything I was afraid of opening my mouth. Prabhupāda: There is no enemy of the dumb. Bobā śatrura nāhī. Ginsberg: So I just kept my mouth closed and got down on my knees and touched their feet, so they all thought that I was crazy and they kept away from me. [Laughter.] Prabhupāda: So you had a nice view of Jagannātha? Ginsberg: Yes. It was very beautiful. I was there, with Peter also, for about a week. Yes. Prabhupāda: So you were there several times? Ginsberg: One time. I was afraid to go in and out many times. I figured I got away with it once and I didn’t want to . . . Prabhupāda: In that Aquarian Gospel it says that the Lord Jesus Christ lived in the Jagannātha temple. He was thick and thin with the priests. One preacher was very friendly. And he was discussing philosophical subjects with them. Ginsberg: So according to the Aquarian Gospel Christ was in Jagannath Puri. Prabhupāda: Yes. And He saw Rathayātrā, as we are performing in San Francisco. Ginsberg: Yes. Prabhupāda: So Lord Jesus Christ saw. Ginsberg: We went to Mathura also. We were on the road several days. In Vrindavan for about a week. Prabhupāda: You stayed there in Vrindavan? Ginsberg: Yes, for about a week. Prabhupāda: You have seen Vrindavan nicely? Ginsberg: Well, we went from one temple to another, sang, sat by the river, went to the little garden where the tree is and met two *bhakti* devotees I mentioned, Śrī Mātā Kṛṣṇajī and Banki Behari. Prabhupāda: Banki Behari? Ginsberg: Yes. They translated from Mīrābāi into English. Good translations. They were published in the Bharati Vidya Bhavan series. They have about four or five books. One sufis, *yogis*, saints, poets, like Mukteśvara. And then another of Mīrā, two volumes of Mīrā and then a life of Mīrā. And one on the Kumbha Mela. Prabhupāda: They’re good scholars? Ginsberg: Yes, good scholars. They know Blake also. They know English. Prabhupāda: In which year have you been in Vrindavan? Ginsberg: Oh, 1962 in Vrindavan. Prabhupāda: Oh, at that time I was there. Ginsberg: Yes, we probably passed on the street. [Both laugh.] You were there then? 1962? Prabhupāda: Yes, I left Vrindavan in 1965. From 1956 I was there. Ginsberg: I would like to go and live there for a while and stay. I liked it when I was there. It would be a good place to live. [end inset] Despite the mercy bestowed upon Ginsberg in the early 1960s, and the enhanced mercy he would receive upon meeting Prabhupāda in 1966, he maintained a lifelong attachment to worldly pleasures, which he admits in his Journals. For example, “I went down for milk & cigarettes—at the tobacco stall always greeted by Jai Guru or Jai Hind—I reply Jai Tamara or Jai Kṛṣṇa or Jai Citaram & namaste clasped hands to brow or breast, clutching cigarettes & matches in one fist.” (Indian Journals, p. 138) There are other such admissions that need not be reiterated here. So too did he sustain a combined taste for both Buddhism and Vaiṣṇava practice: [inset] I’m not going to eat meat anymore I’m taking refuge in the Buddha Dharma Sangha Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare (from his poem “Angkor Wat”) [end inset] Meanwhile, in the early 1960s, just prior to Prabhupāda’s appearance in New York, the East Village had become the world center for hippiedom, and upon returning from India, Allen Ginsberg resumed life on East 12th Street, where he had an apartment—not ten blocks from Prabhupāda’s first storefront temple at 26 Second Avenue. Prabhupāda had been living with a friend on the Bowery and needed a more permanent place to stay. Consequently, various well-wishers tried to help him find a more stable location. Mukunda Goswami (then Michael Grant) had picked up the Village Voice and was drawn to a small ad indicating the availability of a storefront at 26 Second Avenue. This was clearly not a product of chance. Prabhupāda would move in soon thereafter, and the first Hare Kṛṣṇa center in the West would finally take its place on the world stage. *Kṛṣṇa Consciousness* Ginsberg happened into Prabhupāda’s storefront and was immediately enamored. Big time. He had been preparing for this his entire life. The chanting, as he often said, was sublime, and he was thrilled when Prabhupāda suggested that they would be taking it to the streets. “It is Allen Ginsberg,” writes Hayagriva Dāsa in his book Hare Kṛṣṇa Explosion, “who first suggests Tompkins Square between Avenues A and B on the Lower East Side.” Those kīrtanas are now legendary. When a New York Times reporter saw Ginsberg taking part in them, playing his karatālas with wild abandon, the reporter asked for an interview, hoping to seize the moment. “You shouldn’t interrupt a man while he’s worshiping,” Ginsberg said, and resumed his absorption in the holy name. Some weeks later, when one of Prabhupāda’s early followers was sent to Bellevue Hospital, it was Ginsberg who was able to get him out. As the story goes, Kīrtanānanda, the follower in question, was one of the first to shave his head and wear a dhoti, the dress of a Vaiṣṇava. Thinking him mentally deficient for this radical change, the hospital staff wanted him committed as a live-in psychiatric patient. Unfortunately, by signing certain papers under their supervision, they achieved their goal. Ultimately, however, Allen Ginsberg helped extricate Kīrtanānanda through a psychiatrist friend named Dr. Edward Harnick. It was Harnick who performed the necessary function to set Kīrtanānanda free. Ginsberg writes: [inset] Peter Orlovsky and I met Harnick at a group that I knew called the GAP, Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. We had been to their conference. They had invited us to talk about hippies and they wanted to know what was this generation thing. It was like a breakthrough between the poets and the new culture and the psychiatry groups. So we’d given a big poetry reading and made friends with a lot of them, and sang Hare Kṛṣṇa with them, the whole thing. Over the years Harnick and I developed a pleasant friendship and worked out an arrangement that if I knew anybody particularly gifted among the younger generation that was getting screwed up in the Lower East Side for drugs or busts or madness or whatever, that rather than have them go through the whole horror mill of Bellevue and not know what to do, to put them in touch with him and the Einstein Clinic, so he could intervene to make sure that they had a safe refuge. When Kirtanananda’s case came up, at that time he wasn’t the only one in trouble. There were a lot of hippies going through the same problem, wandering the street, flipping out. It was a question of finding a psychiatrist who had a little political clout in the New York psychiatric community among the hospitals, whom we could talk to and explain what the situation was, that this guy was a devotee practicing traditional Vaishnava practice, and that’s why he looked so funny in the American context, but it was all right, he wasn't crazy, he was just doing his thing. Harnick was good. He picked up fast and could intervene. (The Beginning, The 1966 New York Journal, September 14) [end inset] After all was said and done, Harnick received several volumes of *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, compliments of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Ginsberg helped Prabhupāda in numerous ways, not least in helping him get his visa. “Swami Bhaktivedanta,” wrote Ginsberg, “was having difficulty getting a permanent visa. He had a lawyer whom I met. He seemed like a naive local lawyer. Maybe somebody he’d met from Ananda [Ashram]. I couldn’t figure the guy out.” Ginsberg continues: [inset] I met him in the Jewish vegetarian restaurant a couple of times and talked with him on Second Avenue. At that time I was having problems with the narcotics bureau, which was trying to set me up for a bust, and that year, J. Edgar Hoover put me on the dangerous security list, and the narcs made several attempts to frame me. So I went to Robert Kennedy’s office in Washington to put counter-pressure and complain, and to warn them that someone might bring marijuana into my apartment, bust the door down, and accuse me of having it. I had a long talk about this with Kennedy. Later, I’d gone back to see his secretary, and he came back into the office in his shirt sleeves to see one of the secretaries. I said, “Oh, there’s something I forgot. I was going to sing you a little song.” He said, “Okay, I got a minute.” So I sang about eight verses of Hare Kṛṣṇa *mantra* and he said, “What’s that?” And I said, “When you hear this, it’s supposed to bring immediate liberation.” So he said, “Well, the guy up the block needs it more than I do,” pointing up to the White House when Johnson was running the Vietnam war. That was Kennedy’s introduction to Hare Kṛṣṇa. . . . Later on, when the Swami was having trouble, he asked around everybody who could help, and I said, “Well, let’s see now. We could write to Kennedy.” It’s just a normal thing, you know. That’s what senators are for. In this case Kennedy knew who I was and I knew Kennedy’s people, or I was somewhat a celebrated literary figure, so if I wrote a letter saying this swami was good it would be taken seriously. So I wrote Kennedy a letter saying here was this nice swami who was really doing something interesting, bringing Hare Kṛṣṇa, and his work could only be good; and if he was having trouble, that could only be bad. Is there anything they could do to facilitate and make sure that he didn’t have any difficulties? That he really was a legitimate swami, and was doing something great. I don’t know if it helped or not. (The Beginning, The 1966 New York Journal, September 27) [end inset] It did help, at least temporarily. Allen was able to get Prabhupāda a six-month extension on his visitor’s visa, which would be enough time to establish his movement in America. Afterwards, Prabhupāda took shelter of his newfound center in Montreal while making arrangements for a Green Card, which would allow him permanent residency in the U.S. Even when Prabhupāda spread his movement to the West Coast, in January 1967, Ginsberg worked with the devotees to organize a ‘‘mantra-rock dance’’ at the Avalon Ballroom, which helped in funding the newly established Haight-Ashbury temple. Prabhupāda asked Ginsberg to address the audience and speak about the Hare Kṛṣṇa *mahā-mantra*, which he did. Similarly, Ginsberg promoted Prabhupāda’s movement in the fall of 1968 when he appeared on William F. Buckley’s talk show, Firing Line. Clearly, Ginsberg was playing his part to bring the *mahā-mantra* into public view, er, earshot. Significantly, Prabhupāda and Ginsberg also engaged in extensive philosophical conversations in Columbus, Ohio, in 1969, which are available online. Although the two sometimes differed in terms of specific philosophical positions, they supported each other, and Ginsberg considered himself Prabhupāda’s follower and friend. Indeed, his Foreword for Prabhupāda’s original edition of *Bhagavad-gītā* As It Is (1968) helped popularize Kṛṣṇa consciousness in the West. What is little known is that Ginsberg’s introductory essay basically predicts Prabhupāda’s success. He writes: [inset] The Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra’s now a household word in America (through the appointed Beatles among other Musicians and Bards). Or will be before the end of the present decade, “this Prophecy, Merlin shall make, for I live before his time.” “Covers The Earth,” said an old media advertisement for a household paint. The personal vibration set up by chanting “Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare Hare Rāma Hare Rāma Rāma Rāma Hare Hare” is a universal pleasure: a tranquility at realization of the community of tender hearts; a vibration which inevitably affects all men, naked or in uniform. [end inset] His reference to the movement as “covering the world,” which was his way of paraphrasing the old Sherwin-Williams paint ad, spoke to his faith in Prabhupāda and the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa. Sherwin-Williams was the nation’s largest paint manufacturer and known for their slogan “It Covers the World.” But at that point Prabhupāda’s movement hadn’t yet achieved such ubiquitous covering. Not by any means. Nonetheless, Ginsberg clearly anticipated it. It seemed to him to be an inevitability. And indeed it came to pass. *Prabhupāda’s Assurance* Ginsberg himself summarized his interaction with Prabhupāda in a 1968 interview with Peter Barry Chowka in the New Age Journal: [inset] Since ’66 I had known Swami Bhaktivedanta (leader of the International Society of Kṛṣṇa Consciousness) and was somewhat guided by him, although not formally—as a spiritual friend. I practiced the Hare Kṛṣṇa chant, practiced it with him, sometimes in mass auditoriums and parks in the Lower East Side of New York. . . . Actually, I’d been chanting it since ’63, after coming back from India. I began chanting it, in Vancouver at a great poetry conference, for the first time in ’63, with (Robert) Duncan and (Charles) Olson and everybody around, and then continued. When Bhaktivedanta arrived on the Lower East Side in ’66 it was reinforcement for me, like “the reinforcements had arrived” from India. [end inset] The feelings were reciprocal, as Prabhupāda indicates in an early interview from the Evergreen Review (February 1967): [inset] “I asked about Allen Ginsberg, who often participates in the evening Kirtan.” “Allen is our friend, he is a good man and a spiritual man.” “But I’m sure Allen doesn’t observe the taboos.” “I know Allen uses intoxicants, maybe LSD and such things. But sooner or later he will give them up. He will have no more need of these contaminating substances. To achieve real spiritual advancement we must become pure.” [end inset] In Prabhupāda’s association, and under his direction, purity will naturally arise in due course. Indeed, it is only a beat away. *The word Hungryalism was coined by the Hungryalists from English poet Geofrey Chaucer’s line In the Sowre Hungry Tyme. The Art of Action *Lord Kṛṣṇa says, “No one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.” So what should we be doing?* By Viśākhā Devī Dāsī Lord Kṛṣṇa teaches us how to make the best use of our natural tendency to act. In the *Bhagavad-gītā* (3.5) Kṛṣṇa tells us, “No one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.” It’s the nature of the soul to be always active, and that natural proclivity keeps our body and mind always active. Because we’ve been active since before we can remember—since we were in our mother’s womb (not to speak of after we were born)—we generally don’t think about the purpose of activity. Rather, we tend to go through life acting in the ways those around us act. Generally, it’s something in the order of play—education—work—family—pleasure. At some point as we pass through these various phases, we may pause to ask a vital yet often overlooked question: “What’s the ultimate purpose of action?” Again, if we don’t take time to introspect, the answers will most likely be to have fun—acquire knowledge—make money—create a home—enjoy. This may seem innocuous enough to most of us, but *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (2.1.3–4) doesn’t agree: “The lifetime of such a householder is passed at night either in sleeping or in sex indulgence, and in the daytime either in making money or maintaining family members. Persons devoid of ātma-tattva [inquiry into the Absolute Truth] do not inquire into the problems of life, being too attached to the fallible soldiers like the body, children and spouse. Although sufficiently experienced, they still do not see their inevitable destruction.” *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, *Bhagavad-gītā*, and all the great world scriptures repeatedly insist that our lives and the actions we do are not meant simply for fulfilling our own desires or those of our family, or even of our extended family. For example, in the beginning of *Bhagavad-gītā* Arjuna did not want to fight. Materially, it appeared laudable that he was giving up his claim to the kingdom to avoid fighting and killing his relatives over it. But Lord Kṛṣṇa did not approve. Why? Because Arjuna had decided to satisfy his own senses. Externally Arjuna’s renouncing his claim to the kingdom may have appeared good, but anything that’s done for the satisfaction of one’s own senses is kāma—lust, personal desire. Instead of gratifying our personal desires, the spiritual adept wants to satisfy God’s and God’s devotees desires. *Devoid of Sense Gratification* Śrī Kṛṣṇa explains: “One is understood to be in full knowledge whose every act is devoid of desire for sense gratification. He is said by sages to be a worker whose fruitive action is burned up by the fire of perfect knowledge.” *(Gītā* 4.19) To understand the implications of this statement, we first need to understand our ontological position, meaning our metaphysical nature. Each one of us is more than a combination of material elements. Although our body is composed of material elements, we are ultimately none of these elements but are spiritual beings. It’s the presence of spirit—the soul, or ātmā—that gives apparent life to our body, mind, and intelligence. This has monumental significance, for if our body, mind, and intelligence are not our actual identity, then gratifying these won’t actually gratify us. Gratifying the body is compared to decorating a dead body. If we decorate a dead body with costly garments and flowers, it may look attractive, but it’s dead. It’s not enjoying; in fact, it can’t enjoy. What’s the benefit of decorating it? It’s a common custom, but there’s no actual benefit to the dead person. Similarly, our body is dead from the very beginning, because it’s matter and matter is always dead. But our body appears alive due to the presence of a small spark of spirit, the ātmā, within it. The ātmā is our actual identity. To act to gratify our senses is likened to decorating a dead body, because in the final analysis there’s no actual benefit from such activity. We may become wealthy or comfortable or win the praise of others, but these things are temporary, and from such accomplishments we’ll not get the satisfaction we seek. *Action with Purpose* The soul is always active, so our body or mind is always active, but what should we act for? What is the ultimate purpose of activity if it’s not to satisfy ourselves, our family, our friends, or our extended interests like nationalism and altruism? In the *Gītā* (2.47) Śrī Kṛṣṇa begins to respond to this question by telling Arjuna, “You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action.” Kṛṣṇa wants Arjuna to do his duty—to act—without being attached to the results of that activity. In *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (11.29.21) the Lord elaborates: “Activities offered to Me without personal motivation, even if they are externally useless, amount to the actual process of dharma [the eternal function of the living entity].” In other words, dharma means that according to our qualities and proclivities we act in society not for personal aggrandizement but for Kṛṣṇa’s pleasure. Work is not meant to be results based, but motive based. When we act in accord with the directives of a bona fide spiritual master without personal desire but with a desire to serve and please God, then even the most insignificant activity can elevate us spiritually. And that is the ultimate purpose of activity. When we act, however, to materially benefit from the results of our activity, ironically we become the losers in three ways: (1) Ultimately we are frustrated because in fact we cannot control the results of our actions, for to a large degree those are up to forces far greater than we are. (2) By trying to control the results of our activity we give up our natural, constitutional dependence on Kṛṣṇa. And (3) when we’re motivated by results, we’re *karmically* implicated by our actions. In Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words, “One who is attached to the result of his work is also the cause of the action. Thus he is the enjoyer or sufferer of the result of such actions.” (*Gītā* 2.47, Purport) So according to our innate individual qualities and proclivities *(Gītā* 4.13), we should function in society to the best of our ability. Arjuna, for example, was a military man, and Kṛṣṇa instructed him: “Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat—and by so doing you shall never incur sin.” *(Gītā* 2.38) Śrīla Prabhupāda elaborates: Lord Kṛṣṇa now directly says that Arjuna should fight for the sake of fighting because He desires the battle. There is no consideration of happiness or distress, profit or loss, victory or defeat in the activities of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That everything should be performed for the sake of Kṛṣṇa is transcendental consciousness; so there is no reaction to material activities. He who acts for his own sense gratification, either in goodness or in passion, is subject to the reaction, good or bad. But he who has completely surrendered himself in the activities of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is no longer obliged to anyone, nor is he a debtor to anyone, as one is in the ordinary course of activities. *(Gītā* 2.38, Purport) Arjuna fought on the battlefield, as did his enemies. Externally the activities appear the same, but there was a wide gulf of difference between them. His enemies, who were in material consciousness, were convinced by false ego that they were the doers of everything. They did not recognize the supremacy of the Supreme Lord and had no knowledge that ultimately they were under His control. Arjuna, on the other hand, fought without false ego, giving all credit to Śrī Kṛṣṇa and depending on Him while fighting to the best of his ability. In other words, our external activity is not as important as our consciousness. In Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words, “A man working in Kṛṣṇa consciousness in a factory does not associate himself with the work of the factory, nor with the workers of the factory. He simply works for Kṛṣṇa. And when he gives up the result for Kṛṣṇa, he is acting transcendentally.” *(Gītā* 18.9, Purport) Persons engaged in devotional service—the activities of Kṛṣṇa consciousness—rid themselves of both good and bad reactions even in this life. Kṛṣṇa says, “By thus engaging in devotional service to the Lord, great sages or devotees free themselves from the results of work in the material world. In this way they become free from the cycle of birth and death and attain the state beyond all miseries.” *(Gītā* 2.51) Devotees of God go to His world after they pass away. In the final analysis, the purpose of activity is to increase our awareness and appreciation of Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. To this end we use the body and mind He has given us according to His directives and for His pleasure. Over time, we naturally become uninterested in the results of our efforts, which are ultimately up to Him, and increasingly interested in acting with the best possible intention, namely to please Him and His devotees. We want to identify ourselves with our actual, divine nature and our source, God. Then we’ll naturally act with great pleasure for His pleasure. Of this sort of activity the *Gītā* (2.72) says, “That is the way of the spiritual and godly life, after attaining which a man is not bewildered. If one is thus situated even at the hour of death, one can enter into the kingdom of God.” Viśākhā Devī Dāsī has been writing for BTG since 1973. The author of six books, she is the temple president at Bhaktivedanta Manor in the UK. 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. Rāmānujācārya: A Saint Who Taught Pure Love of God *The life and teachings of this pure devotee of the Lord, who appeared in the eleventh century, were a major turning point in Vaiṣṇava history.* By Vraja Vihārī Dāsa An empowered spiritual leader in South India greatly broadened people’s understanding of bhakti. Rāmānujācārya was a foremost teacher of the bhakti tradition. His example and teachings have shaped the bhakti movement in South India for over a thousand years. He was born on April 13, 1017 at Sriperembudur, twenty-five miles west of modern Chennai. He was named Ilaya Perumal by his religious parents. *Historical Context* Before his advent, *bhakti*, or devotion to God, was seen as one of the means to salvation. Śaṅkarācārya (eighth century CE) and his followers taught that the Absolute Truth, known as Brahman, is formless and that *bhakti* is at best a ladder that can help us come close to realizing the formless, nameless Brahman. They maintain that the path of *bhakti* is temporary and is merely a product of illusion (māyā). Because they declare God and this world to be māyā, these philosophers are called Māyāvādīs. And because they dismiss the personal aspect of God, they are also referred to as impersonalists, and their teaching, impersonalism. Rāmānujācārya, coming after Śaṅkarācārya, broadened the scope of Vedic teachings. He taught that *bhakti* is eternal. It’s not simply a means to God; it’s also an end in itself because it entails an active relationship with God. Service to God and His devotees is an integral part of *bhakti*. Rāmānuja presented God as a person, a sentient being with whom anyone can establish a loving relationship. He also broke the rigid caste barriers of his time and embraced people from all walks of life into the *bhakti* fold. He thereby made relationship with God not only a tangible reality, but also accessible to all. *Four Prominent Schools of Bhakti* In the *bhakti* tradition there are four prominent schools, and Śrī Vaiṣṇavism, led by Rāmānuja, is one of them. This school maintains that the Lord Himself imparted the *bhakti* knowledge to His consort Lakṣmī (Śrī), and in the disciplic line the legacy was passed to Rāmānujācārya. The other three schools of *bhakti*: Brahmā—The Lord first imparted transcendental knowledge to Brahmā, and then in a chain of disciplic succession it passed down to Madhvācārya. In recent times, the ISKCON movement, established by Śrīla Prabhupāda, follows the same tradition. Kumāra—The four Kumāras learned the spiritual science from the Lord, and one of their foremost teachers was Nimbārkācārya. Rudra—Viṣṇusvāmī was prominent in this school, which traces back to Lord Śiva, and centuries after Viṣṇusvāmī, Vallabhācārya became the foremost teacher in the tradition. *Rāmānuja’s Devotion in Childhood* The story of Rāmānujācārya begins years before his birth. A stalwart devotee of Lord Viṣṇu named Yāmunācārya desired that the message of love for God should spread far and wide. He fervently prayed for a successor who would spearhead this movement. Through his divine vision he realized that the young boy Rāmānuja would carry forward this tradition of loving devotional service. Yet Yāmunācārya saw a serious challenge to this prospect: the prevalent philosophy of impersonalism was so deeply rooted in the society that even the prodigious Rāmānuja was enrolled in the school *(gurukula)* of a prominent Māyāvādī, Śrī Yādava Prakāśa. How then would the *bhakti* movement spread? Yāmunācārya chose patience; he waited for the right time and knew that things would soon fall in place. While Yādava Prakāśa taught the impersonal interpretation of the scriptures, young Rāmānuja’s heart hankered to hear personal and devotional explanations. As a submissive student, he quietly tolerated the dry, speculative theories that were devoid of deep sentiments for Lord Viṣṇu—until one day when he could tolerate no further. Yādava Prakāśa relaxed as he lay on the floor and chanted verses from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad while Rāmānuja massaged the feet of his *guru*. Yādava Prakāśa then babbled an offensive interpretation of a verse where he compared Lord Viṣṇu’s eyes to a monkey’s buttocks. Rāmānuja’s fine devotional sentiments were hurt, and he felt furious, but being a humble student, he wouldn’t confront his teacher. He swallowed the pain, but his eyes brimmed with tears on hearing derogatory statements about his worshipable Lord. As he quietly continued to massage, hot tears from his eyes fell on the thigh of Yādava Prakāśa, who rose with a start. “You are crying?” asked Yādava Prakāśa. “What’s wrong with you?” Rāmānuja fearlessly yet humbly replied, “Dear Gurudeva, your interpretations of this verse are not only insensitive to God but also wrong.” Outraged by Rāmānuja’s response, Yādava Prakāśa challenged, “You arrogant fool; you think you are better than your own spiritual master?” Rāmānuja hung his head low. The *guru* roared, “Let me see if you can offer a more cogent description.” Rāmānuja replied, “The verse says that Lord Viṣṇu’s eyes are kapyāsam, and you translated the word literally, where kapi means a monkey and āsam means buttocks. But this smacks of your insensitivity, because scriptures offer poetic descriptions of the Lord’s beauty. When you understand this mood, you will see the word differently. The word kapyāsam also means ‘that which grows in water.’ Kapi can mean ‘that which swallows darkness,’ and āsam can mean ‘blossom.’ What does the sun, which swallows darkness, cause to blossom? That’s a beautiful lotus that abundantly grows in lakes. Therefore to say that the Lord’s eyes are like kapyāsam means they are like the beautiful petals of a lotus.” *The Lord Offers Protection* Yādava Prakāśa was stunned to see Rāmānuja’s clarity and devotion. Instead of celebrating his student’s talent, however, he felt threatened. He knew he had a rival in-house. Plotting to kill the young Rāmānuja, he organized a pilgrimage to Kashi. The plan was to murder him on the way and then atone for the sin by bathing in the Ganga. Only a select few of Yādava Prakāśa’s students knew of this evil design. But during the journey, Rāmānuja’s cousin Govinda, who studied in the same school, learned of the plan and alerted Rāmānuja. On a quiet night when the party rested in a forest, Rāmānuja fled deep into the woods. Once he had run a far distance away, he realized he was lost and surrounded by wild animals in a dangerous forest. Just then, out of nowhere, an effulgent and unusually attractive hunter couple, dressed in deerskin, appeared before him. Rāmānuja was wonderstruck to see their majestic appearance. Instantly, devotional sentiments filled his heart, and tears swelled up in his eyes. The hunter asked the young Rāmānuja, “You seem to be lost in this forest, young man. Are you alone?” “Not anymore,” Rāmānuja replied, crying tears of joy. The couple helped Rāmānuja cross the forest. They walked the whole night, and during the journey Rāmānuja’s love for his worshipable Lord Viṣṇu and His consort Mother Lakṣmī grew a millionfold in his heart. After a few hours, the man turned to Rāmānuja and said they could all take rest for some time before continuing the journey. A little while later, Rāmānuja woke up and to his astonishment discovered that the couple had disappeared and he was right outside the town of Kanchipuram. He realized the hunter couple was none other than his worshipable Lord Varadarāja (Viṣṇu) and Goddess Lakṣmī. He ran to the temple of Varadarāja and offered prayers of gratitude and love. He was now under the shelter and protection of his Lord. *Strains in Relations with Yādava Prakāśa* Meanwhile Yādava Prakāśa and his students woke up to discover Rāmānuja was missing. Govinda spun a yarn. He said he had seen a wild boar chase Rāmānuja, who had drowned in the river. Yādava Prakāśa feigned sadness, but internally rejoiced at the news. Further, he considered that he had been saved from committing the sin of murder. Happily he returned to Kanchipuram. Soon, however, he discovered that Rāmānuja was alive. Rāmānuja even resumed his studies in Yādava Prakāśa’s school. He explained to his teacher how he was saved by someone in the river and had returned to Kanchipuram safely. While Rāmānuja humbly continued to serve his spiritual master, Yāmunācārya returned to find Rāmānuja. Again he saw that Rāmānuja was serving a Māyāvadī *guru*, and he left, realizing the time was still not right. He continued to pray to Lord Viṣṇu to release Rāmānuja from the clutches of this deviant *guru*. He fervently desired that Rāmānuja would spread the Śrī Vaiṣṇava teachings. During this time, the daughter of the king fell seriously sick. She was haunted by a ghost, and her fits and pain caused great anguish to her parents. After trying all conventional methods, they called for the respected *guru* Yādava Prakāśa to exorcise the ghost. As soon as the ghost saw him, he screamed that he would never leave the princess’s body and Yādava Prakāśa wouldn’t be able to try any of his powers because he lacked spiritual potency. The ghost within the body of the girl declared loudly, for everyone to hear, that he’d leave the body only if he got the water that had washed the feet of the saintly Rāmānuja. While Yādava Prakāśa was shocked, the king excitedly sent for Rāmānuja, who humbly did what was asked of him. The ghost vanished. The news soon spread far and wide. Rāmānuja’s devotional stature was now confirmed. Yādava Prakāśa, however, felt humiliated. Soon Rāmānuja and Yādava Prakāśa’s relations became strained. The **guru*kula* saw intense philosophical debates between the *guru* and the disciple. Meanwhile Rāmānuja’s popularity soared; his devotional interpretations had many takers, and Yādava Prakāśa was losing popularity and goodwill. The two finally, officially, separated one day after a showdown in a public program. During their discourse, Yādava Prakāśa quoted the famous Chāndogya Upaniṣad verse (3.1) sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma and gave it an impersonal interpretation. He said that everything in the creation, and the universe itself, is Brahman—God, or the Absolute Truth. There is nothing more to reality. Rāmānuja humbly protested. On being challenged, he qualified the verse by saying that the universe rests within Brahman but by itself is not Brahman. It is pervaded by Brahman. Just as a fish is born in the water and lives and dies in the water, similarly the universe is created, sustained, and dissolved within Brahman; the universe itself is not Brahman. Just as the fish belongs to water but doesn’t become water, similarly the universe is within Brahman, but it is not Brahman. Rāmānuja’s sound logic didn’t go well with Yādava Prakāśa. In a desperate attempt to salvage his pride, he roared another verse from the scriptures. “The Kaṭha Upaniṣad (4.11) says neyaṁ nānāsti kiñcana, and this confirms that there is no distinction between the individual souls and God. We are all identical to God and the Absolute Truth.” Immediately Rāmānuja countered, “This verse doesn’t say that we are equal to God; it only says that the soul and God are connected. Pearls are strung together in a necklace. Although all of them are similar, each has a distinct reality, and they have a common connection with the thread. Likewise everything in the universe shares the common connection with Brahman. Yet each aspect of this creation has a distinct identity and reality.” Yādava Prakāśa was livid. Rāmānuja quietly left the ashram; he had now rejected his *guru*. *Breaking Caste Barriers* Rāmānuja’s mother, seeing the turn of events, suggested he take shelter of Kāñcipūrṇa, a devout lover of Lord Varadarāja. She reasoned that Kāñcipūrṇa’s association would soothe his heart and nourish his *bhakti* sentiments. Rāmānuja leapt at this sagacious advice. Rāmānuja, although born in a high-caste brāhmaṇa family, accepted Kāñcipūrṇa, a lower-caste devotee, as his spiritual master. This was socially unconventional; brāhmaṇas never took lessons from those lower in the social hierarchy. Yet Rāmānuja saw devotional substance, and by his actions declared boldly that all other considerations didn’t matter. But Kāñcipūrṇa refused to accept Rāmānuja under his tutelage. “I’m a lowborn śūdra,” he cried, “and you are a great devotee of God. I’m not qualified to be your teacher.” His humble disposition only intensified Rāmānuja’s determination to accept him as his *guru*. Finally Kāñcipūrṇa relented and engaged the great scholar Rāmānuja in the menial service of carrying water for Lord Varadarāja. Daily Rāmānuja offered various simple services to the Lord and heard and chanted the Lord’s glories in the association of his spiritual master, Kāñcipūrṇa. Rāmānuja’s heart churned with ever deeper and more intense emotions for Kṛṣṇa. Meanwhile, Yāmunācārya, who lived at Śrīrangam, turned old and weak. He learned that Rāmānuja was now under the guidance of the great devotee Kāñcipūrṇa. Yāmunācārya was delighted; he declared that Rāmānuja was now ready to spread the message of *bhakti* all over. He sent his trusted disciple Mahāpūrṇa to Kanchipuram to fetch Rāmānuja. Yāmunācārya desired to meet Rāmānuja, for he felt his own departure was now imminent. He wanted to offer some final instructions to him to carry forward the legacy. Mahāpūrṇa met Rāmānuja, and they rushed to Śrīrangam. *Rāmānuja Makes a Vow* On arrival, they discovered the great Yāmunācārya had already left this world; his followers surrounded his transcendental body and cried in grief. Rāmānuja felt devastated. As he entered the assembly, a hushed silence filled the room. He came close to Yāmunācārya’s body, which lay with three of his right-hand fingers closed. Rāmānujācārya loudly proclaimed a vow before the dead body of his revered Yāmunācārya. “O great teacher, I vow today that I shall dedicate my life to fulfill three of your wishes. I shall teach the universal message of surrender to the Lord in pure *bhakti*.” No sooner did Rāmānuja say this than one of Yāmunācārya’s fingers opened. To the astonishment of the devotees gathered around, Rāmānuja spoke his second vow. “I promise I shall write a detailed commentary on the devotional poems of the Ālvārs (the great devotees of South India).” Yāmunācārya’s second finger opened. It was now obvious that these were his unfulfilled desires, and Rāmānuja was promising to fulfill them. “I promise I shall write a Śrī Vaiṣṇava commentary on the Vedanta-sūtra,” said Rāmānuja, “and reestablish the position of Vedavyāsa and Parāśara Muni.” Immediately the third finger of the great saint opened. Thus it was established that Rāmānujācārya was the chosen one; he’d now carry forward the legacy of the Śrī Vaiṣṇava tradition. After Yāmunācārya’s final rites were performed, Rāmānujācārya returned to the devotional association of Kāñcipūrṇa. Soon after, he accepted sannyāsa, the renounced order of life, and spread the *bhakti* movement all across India. *Vraja Vihārī Dāsa, a disciple of His Holiness Rādhānāth Swami, has served full time at ISKCON Chowpatty since 1999. He has an honors degree in economics and a master’s in international finance. He teaches Kṛṣṇa consciousness to youth and the congregation and has written four books. You can read his daily reflections at www.yogaformodernage.com.* From the Editor *Surrender for Shelter* In one of the most important verses of the *Bhagavad-gītā*– chapter 18, text 66—Lord Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that he should simply surrender to Him. The Sanskrit phrase Śrīla Prabhupāda translates as “surrender” is śaraṇam vraja (śaraṇam—shelter, refuge; vraja—go). Kṛṣṇa is inviting Arjuna to take shelter of Him. If Arjuna does so, Kṛṣṇa says, he need not worry about suffering the consequences of neglecting routine religious duties; Kṛṣṇa will take care of everything. The phrase śaraṇam vraja also appears in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 3.32.11, where Lord Kṛṣṇa’s incarnation as the sage Kapiladeva says, “Therefore, My dear mother, by devotional service take direct shelter [śaraṇam vraja] of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is seated in everyone’s heart.” I must admit that my mind tends to react negatively when I hear the word surrender; an invitation to take shelter is much more appealing. Maybe that’s because in the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement, “surrender” often connotes agreeing to do something we don’t want to do. For example, a manager struggling to get all the temple services covered may say to a reluctant or overworked devotee, “I’m afraid you’ll just have to surrender, Prabhu.” Although that connotation is common in ISKCON, when I look at how Śrīla Prabhupāda uses surrender, the impression I get is that he’s not suggesting we just need to grit our teeth and do what Kṛṣṇa wants. Rather, surrendering to Kṛṣṇa is the most natural thing there is, just as it’s natural to run for shelter in a torrential downpour. Life in the material world is like being stuck in a constant rainstorm. Or maybe a better metaphor is the kind of downpour we hear about in the *Bhāgavatam* when Dhruva Mahārāja is fighting against higher beings known as *Yakṣas*, one of whom killed his brother. By their mystic power, the *Yakṣas* created a terrifying “rainfall.” The sage Maitreya says, “In that rainfall there was blood, mucus, pus, stool, urine and marrow falling heavily before Dhruva Mahārāja, and there were trunks of bodies falling from the sky.” (*Bhāgavatam* 4.10.24) And that was just the beginning. In a situation like that, who wouldn’t spontaneously surrender to Kṛṣṇa—that is, take refuge in Him? The shelter Dhruva took advantage of was the chanting of the holy names of the Lord, which immediately destroyed the illusion created by the Yakṣas. That same shelter is available to all of us. The Yakṣas’ rain may seem much more terrifying than anything we will ever face, but what horrors haven’t we experienced in our countless lifetimes in the material world? The notion that we don’t need shelter—and that surrender is optional—is misinformed. In wartime, surrender usually brings negative consequences; the losing side has fought to win but is now forced to submit to the will of the victor, who may not be in a charitable mood. But Kṛṣṇa is never at war with us. Although we are His errant children, He is graciously waiting for us to take shelter of Him. He is ready—eager—to forgive our transgressions. He simply wants to know that we want Him exclusively and have abandoned all hope of finding shelter elsewhere. Hare Kṛṣṇa. —*Nāgarāja Dāsa, Editor* *Bhakti* Wisdom The desire to merge into the impersonal Brahman is the subtlest type of atheism. As soon as such atheism, disguised in the dress of liberation, is encouraged, one becomes completely unable to traverse the path of devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda *Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā* 1.92, Purport Although the quality of being self-satisfied is eternally present in Kṛṣṇa, the quality of enjoying pastimes is also eternally present in Him. For the Supreme Lord to possess contradictory characteristics in perfect harmony is natural. In one respect, Kṛṣṇa has the quality of self-satisfaction, and in another respect, He manifests His opposite quality of enjoying pastimes with others. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura Śrī Caitanya-śikṣāmṛta, Part 2 The highest devotion is attained by slow degrees by the method of constant endeavor for self-realization with the help of scriptural evidence, theistic conduct and perseverance in practice. Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa Brahma-saṁhitā 5.59 Accepting the bona fide spiritual master as one’s life and soul and worshipable Deity, the disciple should learn from him the process of pure devotional service. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, the soul of all souls, is inclined to give Himself to His pure devotees. Therefore, the disciple should learn from the spiritual master to serve the Lord without duplicity and in such a faithful and favorable way that the Supreme Lord, being satisfied, will offer Himself to the faithful disciple. Śrī Prabuddha *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 11.3.22 O Lord Mukunda! I bow down my head to Your Lordship and respectfully ask You to fulfill this one desire of mine: that in each of my future births I will, by Your Lordship’s mercy, always remember and never forget Your lotus feet. King Kulaśekhara Mukunda-mālā-stotra 3 The Supreme Lord is the Supreme Brahman, devoid of any connection with māyā and without any transformation. He resides in the effulgent supreme abode beyond the material covering. The self-realized souls know Him to be the bright illumination of the sun. Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 2.2.9 By showing mercy to all living entities, being satisfied somehow or other and controlling the senses from sense enjoyment, one can very quickly satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Janārdana [“the Lord of all living entities”]. Śrī Nārada Muni *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 4.31.19 The material desire to enjoy the material world and the desire to become liberated from material bondage are considered to be two witches, and they haunt one like ghosts. . . . As long as these two witches remain in the heart, there is no possibility of enjoying the transcendental bliss of devotional service. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī *Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu* 1.2.22 COVER: Throughout the *Bhagavad-gītā* and numerous other books of India’s ancient wisdom tradition, Lord Kṛṣṇa is clearly identified as the Supreme Truth. Still, some commentators find reason to doubt that fact. (Painting by Dhṛtī Devī Dāsī.) BTG57-02, 2023