# Back to Godhead Magazine #58 *2024 (02)* Back to Godhead Magazine #58-02, 2024 PDF-View Welcome When Śrīla Prabhupāda left India in 1965 to introduce Kṛṣṇa consciousness to the West, he knew that practically no one here knew anything about Kṛṣṇa, if they had heard of Him at all. While introducing Kṛṣṇa, Prabhupāda naturally felt the need to inform people of Kṛṣṇa’s latest incarnation. If getting people to accept Kṛṣṇa as “the Supreme Personality of Godhead” was not enough of a challenge, Śrīla Prabhupāda also wanted to convince them that Kṛṣṇa was present on earth a mere five centuries ago—as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Disguised as a devotee, Kṛṣṇa taught and demonstrated how to develop pure love for Himself. In India, to this day, Lord Kṛṣṇa is widely accepted as God, but His appearance in Bengal as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is not well known or acknowledged. A main reason for this is that, because He descended to experience the exquisite spiritual taste of being a devotee of Himself, He generally did not reveal His identity as Lord Kṛṣṇa. And although, like any avatar of Kṛṣṇa, He is mentioned in the Vedic scriptures, the evidence there tends to be sporadic. In this issue, which coincides with the anniversary of Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s appearance, Satyarāja Dāsa discusses one particular reference to Lord Caitanya, found in the well-known epic the *Mahābhārata*. Hare Kṛṣṇa. —*Nāgarāja Dāsa, Editor* COVER: As Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Lord Kṛṣṇa descended to earth 538 years ago in the role of His own devotee, His advent having been foretold in the Vedic scriptures. (Detail of a painting by Jadurāṇī Devī Dāsī.) Q&A Can robots be conscious? Scientific advancement in fields like artificial intelligence promises to produce conscious robots. When consciousness is thus produced by robots, will the soul hypothesis—that the soul is the source of consciousness—be disproved? No. The advances in artificial intelligence are proving, not disproving, the soul hypothesis. Most people get their ideas of advancement in artificial intelligence from science-fiction movies depicting conscious robots. But such fictional robots can never be actualized, no matter how much science advances, because, as eminent authority John Searle of the University of California at Berkeley explains: “You can expand the power all you want, hooking up as many computers as you think you need, and they still won’t be conscious, because all they’ll ever do is shuffle symbols.” Despite all their technological wizardry, at the level of digital circuitry the most sophisticated computer does nothing more that change digital signals from zero to one or one to zero. Such processing, even if done at phenomenal speeds, can never produce consciousness because it does not even refer to consciousness. One of the most dramatic successes of artificial intelligence was the victory of the chess-playing computer Deep Blue over world chess champion Gary Kasparov. After the match, Kasparov was disgusted, and C. J. Tan, the scientist who led the team that made Deep Blue, was delighted. But what were the feelings of Deep Blue, which had actually won the match? No feelings. Deep Blue had simply done number processing in accordance with a sophisticated program written with the guidance of several chess masters. Thus, it had “played” chess and “won” the match without experiencing any of the emotions of playing and winning, such as the excitement of confrontation and the thrill of victory. In other words, its artificial intelligence didn’t make it conscious. Consciousness was not present in the digital circuitry of Deep Blue, but in its maker, Tan. Taking this analysis further, where was the consciousness of Tan? In his brain? But his brain, like Deep Blue, is merely an information-processing structure; all it does is change the electrochemical signals in its neuronal cells. Just as the changing of digital signals cannot produce consciousness, neither can the changing of electrochemical signals. The logical inference is that his consciousness comes from the nonmechanistic, irreducible source of consciousness, the soul. This indeed was the conclusion of Noble Laureate neurophysiologist John C. Eccles, who after four decades of brain research dismissed as “extravagant and unfulfillable” the promise that consciousness can be mechanistically explained or produced and asserted that each per¬son has a “divinely created psyche,” or, in other words, a soul. In regard to spiritual matters, is doubt an intellectual virtue that saves us from being misled, or is it a spiritual failing that deprives us of being led to the right path? It’s both. Let’s understand how. Doubt as a virtue: Contrary to the stereotypical condemnation of doubt as embodied in the phrase “doubting Thomas,” the Vedic scriptures recognize the value and even the necessity of doubt on the spiritual path. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (3.26.30) explains that doubt is one of the five characteristics of intelligence, the other four being misapprehension, correct apprehension, memory, and sleep. Let’s look at these five characteristics. 1. Doubt: Most people unthinkingly believe that they are their material bodies because that’s what they have been taught since infancy and that’s what everyone around them believes. Only intelligent people can doubt whether there may be more to their self-existence than the biochemical bags—their material bodies—that they are feeding, dressing, and parading in cars and planes. 2. Misapprehension: Using the faculty of doubt, intelligent people can recognize that identifying oneself as one’s body is a misapprehension. 3. Correct apprehension: When such intelligent people take guidance from the scriptures and practice the spiritual techniques offered therein, they arrive at the correct apprehension: I am an eternal soul. 4. Memory: Memory enables intelligent people to remember their correct apprehension, and not just in an intellectual sense, but in an application and transformational sense. 5. Sleep: During sleep we undergo many experiences, some joyful, some fearful, yet our bodies lie in bed experiencing nothing. Who is the experiencer? To intelligent people, sleep makes it obvious that the experiencer is not the body, but someone else: the soul, as explained in the scriptures. Doubt as a failing: When patients don’t use their ability to doubt and uncritically take treatment from anyone who claims to be a doctor, then they risk being cheated by quacks. But if due to such sad experiences they give up trying to find a good doctor, then they cheat themselves of their right to good health. Similarly, when spiritual seekers don’t use their doubting ability and uncritically accept anyone as a spiritual teacher, then they risk being misled. But if due to such unfortunate experiences, they give up trying to find a true spiritual teacher, then their perpetual doubting deprives them of their right to the everlasting spiritual happiness that comes from following the right spiritual path. To summarize, doubt is a virtue when it saves us from accepting any passing fad as a spiritual path, and doubt is a failing when it imprisons us in perpetual skepticism and prevents us from finding the true spiritual path. Founder’s Lecture: Arisen Like the Sun and Moon *Śrīla Prabhupāda explains that Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityānanda came to destroy the darkness of ignorance within our hearts.* *Mayapur, India—March 26, 1975* Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityānanda appeared like the sun and moon to bring light to this dark age. > vande śrī-kṛṣṇa-caitanya- > nityāndandau sahoditau > gauḍodaye puṣpavantau > citrau śandau tamo-nudau “I offer my respectful obeisances unto Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya and Lord Nityānanda, who are like the sun and moon. They have arisen simultaneously on the horizon of Gauḍa to dissipate the darkness of ignorance and thus wonderfully bestow benediction upon all.”—*Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā* 1.2 Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya has many expansions, and the first is Lord Nityānanda, who is Kṛṣṇa’s brother Balarāma. We have to understand these things from the *mahājana*s, the great sages who are learned in the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura, a *mahājana*, says, *brajendra-nandana yei, śacī-sūta hoilo sei, balarāma hoilo nitāi*: “Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is Lord Kṛṣṇa, the son of Nanda Mahārāja, and Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu is Balarāma.” Sometimes foolish people say Nityānanda is an expansion of Rādhārāṇī. That is not a fact. Nityānanda is Balarāma. We have to know from the *mahājanas*, the great devotees; we cannot manufacture our own ideas. That is blasphemy. A *mahājana* is one who follows the previous *mahājana*s. This is the system. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu strictly followed this principle, and Kṛṣṇa also recommended it in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (4.2): *evaṁ paramparā-prāptam.* We have to receive knowledge through the disciplic succession; we cannot manufacture it. The concoction of so-called spiritual philosophies has killed the spiritual life of India. “You can think in your way, and I can think in my way”—this idea is not at all scientific. Suppose you claim that two plus two equals three, or five. Is that acceptable? No, two plus two equals four, and you cannot claim otherwise. So, Balarāma is presenting Kṛṣṇa, and therefore He is the original guru. Any bona fide guru must be a representative of Balarāma, or Nityānanda. And because Balarāma is presenting Kṛṣṇa, He is called *prakāśa*. When the sun shines, you can see everything clearly. That is called *prakāśa*. At night, in the darkness, everything is covered and we cannot see, but during the daytime, when there is *prakāśa*, illumination, we can see everything. Nityānanda Prabhu is Balarāma, prakāśa-tattva. And just as Balarāma is manifesting Kṛṣṇa, Nityānanda is manifesting Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, who is also the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Nityānanda Prabhu was preaching in Bengal, He first of all delivered Jagāi and Mādhāi, and by delivering them He showed how to serve Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Lord Caitanya is Kṛṣṇa Himself: *śrī kṛṣṇa caitanya rādhā-kṛṣṇa nahe anya*—“Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya is Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa combined.” And Nityānanda is presenting Lord Caitanya. *A Lesson from Lord Nityānanda* How can one present Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya Mahāprabhu? By His personal example Nityānanda Prabhu has given us a lesson. Caitanya Mahāprabhu would send Nityānanda Prabhu and Haridāsa Ṭhākura to preach on the streets, home to home. Once they saw a big crowd on the street, and Nityānanda Prabhu inquired from the people, “Why are there so many people assembled?” He was informed that there were two guṇḍās, rogues, creating some trouble. The two guṇḍās were Jagāi and Mādhāi. Now, even though they physically attacked Nityānanda Prabhu, He continued to preach Kṛṣṇa consciousness to them, and He delivered them. This is the best way to serve Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu—by preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness boldly. The business of *guṇḍās* is to create trouble, that’s all. Especially at the present moment in Bengal there are many *guṇḍās* creating trouble. This is due to not enough preaching of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Nityānanda Prabhu is not being given the chance to preach. He is very eager to preach Kṛṣṇa consciousness, but He’s not being given the chance. In Bengal there is a family who say they are descendants of Nityānanda Prabhu. So there is a controversy concerning their claim. But apart from the controversy, if they are descendants of Nityānanda Prabhu, their business is to act like Nityānanda Prabhu. What is that business? That is described by Narottama Dāsa Ṭhākura: *dīna-hīna yata chilo, hari-nāme uddhārilo*. Their business should be to do what Nityānanda Prabhu did, along with Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and that is to deliver all the fallen souls by teaching them to chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya and Nityānanda are the same as Lord Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma. When Kṛṣṇa incarnated, these two brothers were engaged as cowherd boys, as friends of the gopīs, and as sons of mother Yaśodā and Nanda Mahārāja. That was Their life in Vrindavan village. Later, when They went to Mathura, They killed Kaṁsa and the wrestlers, and when They went to Dwarka They had to fight so many demons. But They spent Their childhood up to Kṛṣṇa’s sixteenth year in Vrindavan, living a happy life. Simply love. Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma enacted these early pastimes just to enliven Their devotees (*paritrāṇāya sādhūnām*). The devotees are always anxious to see Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma and Their associates, and they are always very much aggrieved when separated from Them. To rejuvenate their life, Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma played Their childhood days in Vrindavan. And out of Vrindavan, in Mathura and Dwarka and other places, Their business was killing the demons. *Two Businesses* Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma have two businesses—pacifying the devotees and killing the demons. Of course, since Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma are the Absolute Truth there is no difference between Their killing and Their loving. Those who are killed are also delivered from material bondage. Now these same two brothers have again descended as Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya and Nityānanda Prabhu. They are compared to the sun and the moon. The business of the sun and the moon is to dissipate darkness. The sun rises during the daytime, and the moon rises at night. But the sun and moon of Lord Caitanya and Nityānanda are wonderful because They have appeared simultaneously. Still, Their business is the same as that of the ordinary sun and moon: *tamo-nudau*, to dissipate darkness. Everyone in this material world is in darkness. In other words, they’re ignorant, like animals. Why are they animals? Such civilized men, so well dressed and with university degrees. Are they in darkness? Yes, they are in darkness. What is the proof? The proof is that they are not Kṛṣṇa conscious. That is their darkness. Now, someone may ask, “Who says this is proof we are in darkness?” We do not say it—Kṛṣṇa does: *na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ prapadyante narādhamāḥ māyayāpahṛta-jñānā.* (*Gītā* 7.15) *Māyayāpahṛta-jñānā* means that although someone may have a university degree, although he is called civilized his knowledge has been stolen by illusion, and therefore he does not surrender to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is personally canvassing: *sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja*. “Just give up your nonsense and surrender to Me.” He’s personally canvassing, but because these rascals and fools are in darkness, they do not know what the goal of life is. Therefore they are not willing to surrender to Him. Kṛṣṇa also describes these fools as *narādhama*, “the lowest of mankind.” How have they become *narādhamā*? By always engaging in sinful life. What is sinful life? Illicit sex, meat-eating, intoxication, and gambling. People who are addicted to these things are *duṣkṛtī*, “miscreants,” and *narādhama*, “the lowest of mankind.” And whatever knowledge they have acquired by their so-called education is all false knowledge (*māyayāpahṛta-jñāna*). This is their position. *Delivering a World Full of Sinful Activities* Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma, being merciful, have descended again as Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya and Nityānanda Prabhu. They are canvassing for the same principle—*sarva-dharmān parityajya* (*Gītā* 18.66)—but in a different way. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Nityānanda Prabhu have appeared in order to drive away the darkness of ignorance. There is no actual difference between Kṛṣṇa’s preaching and Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s preaching. The only difference is that Kṛṣṇa, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, demands, “You rascal, surrender unto Me. You are suffering so much on account of your duṣkṛti, sinful activities. I am your father; I want to see you happy. Therefore, I have come. Surrender unto Me and I shall give you all protection.” Except for Kṛṣṇa conscious activities, whatever you do is sinful. The whole world is full of sinful activities, and they have been summarized into four categories: illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling, and intoxication. This is the summary, but there are many, many branches of these activities. Still, if you cut the root of sinful activity—illicit sex, gambling, meat-eating, and intoxication—then automatically the other sinful activities will go. Therefore we who are propagating this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement are requesting that you give up these sinful activities. Otherwise, you will be implicated. What is that implication? Your implication is that your sinful life will get you another body. And again you will suffer. As soon as you get a material body, there is suffering. It may be a king’s body or a cobbler’s body; it doesn’t matter: the suffering is there. But because people are *māyayāpahṛta-jñāna*, ignorant, they are accepting suffering as pleasure. This is called māyā, illusion. When a pig is eating stool, he thinks he’s enjoying life. He does not know that he’s suffering. Māyā has given the living entity a pig’s body so that he will suffer, but even in the pig’s body he’s thinking he’s enjoying life. This is illusion. Everyone in this material world is suffering, but there are different grades of suffering, just as in the prison house. There are different grades of prisoner—first class, second class, third class—but if the first-class prisoner thinks he is enjoying life, that is ignorance. In the prison house, where is the enjoyment? It is all suffering. It may be first-class suffering, but it is still suffering. So the whole of human society is in darkness, and out of Their kindness Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Nityānanda Prabhu have appeared in order to dissipate this darkness. Thank you very much. Hare Kṛṣṇa. *See Kṛṣṇa in Everything* *The following conversation took place in Los Angeles on May 14, 1973.* Disciple: Śrīla Prabhupāda, if material nature is the absence of Kṛṣṇa, then what is material? Śrīla Prabhupāda: Nothing is material. If you continue Kṛṣṇa consciousness, there’s nothing material. When we offer this flower in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, is it material? Disciple: No. Śrīla Prabhupāda: So how has it become spiritual? It was material in the tree and now it has become spiritual? No. It is spiritual. As long as I was thinking that it is meant for my enjoyment, it was material. As soon as I take it for Kṛṣṇa’s enjoyment, it is spiritual. Disciple: So actually this entire world is spiritual. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. That we want—to engage everything in Kṛṣṇa’s service. Then this world will be the spiritual world. Disciple: So we can also appreciate Kṛṣṇa’s creation in that light? For example, this flower is very beautiful because it is Kṛṣṇa’s. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. We realize that. The Māyāvāda philosophy says *jagan mithyā*: “This world is false.” We don’t say that. Kṛṣṇa has created so many nice things for His enjoyment, why shall I say mithyā [false]? Suppose you build a nice house and you call me, “Just see,” and if I say, “It is all mithyā.” Disciple: I’ll be offended, because I can’t enjoy it if it is false. Śrīla Prabhupāda [Laughing.]: How depressed you’ll be! The *Bhagavad-gītā* explains that the demons say like this—*asatyam apratiṣṭhaṁ te jagad āhur anīśvaram*. The rascals, the demons say that this world is asatya, untruth, and that there is no cause, no īśvara, no controller. This is the declaration of the demons. But if Kṛṣṇa is a fact, His creation is a fact. His energy is a fact. Why shall I say it is false? We don’t say it is false. The Māyāvādīs say it is false. Disciple: If someone looks at the deity of Kṛṣṇa and thinks it’s only stone or wood, for him it’s still material? Śrīla Prabhupāda: That is his ignorance. How can it be material? The stone is also Kṛṣṇa’s energy. For example, electricity is everywhere, and the electrician knows how to utilize it. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is everywhere, even in the stone, and the devotees know how to utilize stone to appreciate Kṛṣṇa. The rascals do not know. The devotee knows because he has no other view than of Kṛṣṇa. Why should the stone be without Kṛṣṇa? “Here is Kṛṣṇa.” That is real oneness. The Māyāvādī philosophers propose oneness, but they divide—this is stone, this is not Kṛṣṇa. Why bring another thing? Disciple: For a Kṛṣṇa conscious person is Kṛṣṇa as much in the stone as in the deity? Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. Disciple: Just as much? Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. Why not? Disciple: But we order deities all the way from India? Śrīla Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa explains, “Everything is in Me, but I’m not everything.” This is called *acintya-bhedābheda*—simultaneous oneness and difference. Everything is Kṛṣṇa, but you cannot worship this bench as Kṛṣṇa. That is rascaldom. The sunshine is also sun. Is it not? But when the sunshine is in the room, you cannot say, “The sun is in my room.” This is called *acintya-bhedābheda*. Disciple: But you said one can see Kṛṣṇa within the stone. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. Why not? Disciple: And one can worship Him within the stone or within everything. Śrīla Prabhupāda: Yes. We worship everything. We see Kṛṣṇa everywhere. We don’t see the tree; we see Kṛṣṇa’s energy. Therefore the tree is also worshipable because Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa’s energy are both worshipable. Therefore we say, “Hare Kṛṣṇa.” Hare means Kṛṣṇa’s energy. We worship everything. In our childhood we were taught by our parents that if a grain of rice falls on the floor, we must pick it up and touch it to our head to show respect. We were taught like this—how to see everything in relationship with Kṛṣṇa. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, we do not like to see anything wasted, anything misused. Why are we preaching? Because we see that so many rascals are misusing their life. We think, “Let us give them some enlightenment.” This is our mission. We could think, “Let them go to hell.” Māyāvādī *sannyāsīs* engage in meditation or go to the Himalayas, but we have come to Los Angeles. Why? This is our mission. “Oh, these people are being misused under māyā. Let them gain some enlightenment.” We are teaching how to utilize everything for Kṛṣṇa, how to understand Kṛṣṇa in everything. That is our mission. See Kṛṣṇa in everything. Kṛṣṇa says, “Anyone who sees Me everywhere, and everything in Me, is perfect.” A Pause for Prayer *Painting of Lord Caitanya* Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu is always the most worshipable Deity of the demigods, including Lord Śiva and Lord Brahmā, who came in the garb of ordinary men bearing love for Him. He instructs His own pure devotional service to His own devotees. Will He again become visible before the path of my eyes? Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the protector of the demigods, the supreme goal of the Upaniṣads, the be-all and end-all of the great sages, the beautiful shelter of His devotees, and the essence of the love of the lotus-eyed gopīs. Will He again be visible before the path of my eyes? Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has manifested His own form, which cannot be compared to anything in the material universe. He is very dear to Advaita Ācārya, and Śrīvasa Paṇḍita is surrendered to Him. He is very respectful to Paramānanda Purī. He takes away the ignorance of the material world and delivers the conditioned souls suffering from the threefold miseries. He showered His mercy on Mahārāja Pratāparudra, the king of Orissa. Will He again become visible before the path of my eyes? Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu becomes maddened by tasting the mellows of devotional service. His effulgent form is the abode of sweetness for millions of Cupids, and He is the crest jewel of sannyāsīs. His garments display the effulgence of the sun, and the splendor of His body eclipses the beauty of gold. Will He again become visible before the path of my eyes? Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra in a loud voice, the holy name dancing on His tongue as He counts the number of recitations on a beautiful knotted string held in His effulgent hand. His eyes are large, and His long arms, bending as He performs His pastimes, reach down to His knees. Will He again become visible before the path of my eyes? Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the topmost of all devotees. Sometimes, while walking on the beach He would see a beautiful garden nearby and mistake it for the forest of Vrindavan. He would thus be completely overwhelmed by ecstatic love of Kṛṣṇa and begin to chant the holy name and dance. His tongue worked incessantly as He chanted “Kṛṣṇa! Kṛṣṇa!” Will He again become visible before the path of my eyes? Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu danced down the main road in great ecstasy before Lord Jagannātha, the master of Nilachala, who was sitting on His car. Overwhelmed by the transcendental bliss of dancing, and surrounded by the Vaiṣṇavas who sang the holy names, He manifested waves of ecstatic love of Godhead. Will He again become visible before the path of my eyes? Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu became joyful during the loud chanting of the holy names, and He sprinkled the earth with showers of tears. All the hairs of His body, standing on end, appeared like beautiful filaments of fresh kadamba blossoms, and His body glistened with profuse perspiration. Will He again become visible before the path of my eyes? May the great ocean full of waves of pure love for the two white lotus flowers of the feet of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu become immediately manifested at every moment to whatever pious person reads these eight most auspicious verses, his pure intelligence shining with faith as he meditates on Lord Gaurāṅga. – Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī Prathama-caitanyāṣṭaka The Magnanimity of Lord Kṛṣṇa *A core principle of bhakti is the conviction that Lord Kṛṣṇa wants only the ultimate good for each one of us.* By Brajanātha Dāsa Accounts of the activities of Kṛṣṇa and His avatars reveal His generous spirit in reciprocating the good intentions of those who approach Him. Lord Kṛṣṇa’s magnanimous nature is unparalleled. He is known as **bhāva*-*grāh*ī janārdana*, which means that as “the maintainer of all living entities” (*Janārdana*) He accepts (*grāh*ī) the mood (*bhāva*) of His devotees toward Him. He dynamically responds to the free-will choices of the living entities. His overall plan for the living entities in the material world is to help them revive their original consciousness and go to Him in the spiritual world. But He doesn’t interfere with our free will. We can use it to move toward Kṛṣṇa or away from Him. The Lord is most pleased by the attitude of service rendered by a devotee who has unalloyed devotion for Him. That pure devotional service attracts Kṛṣṇa to us and directly connects us with Him. Devotional service is practical in all circumstances, even for the materially conditioned soul. Kṛṣṇa reciprocates with us according to how we approach Him, as He says in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (4.11): “As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā.” Though Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is magnanimous and loves all of us despite our insignificance. Some of us are connected to His magnanimity, and some of us are disconnected from it. The practices of Kṛṣṇa consciousness connect us to Him. In the *Bhagavad-gītā* (10.8) Kṛṣṇa characterizes those devoted to Him as *budhāḥ* (enlightened) and *bhāva-samanvitāḥ* (infused with spiritual emotion for Him). This is the purified state of a devotee. Kṛṣṇa experiences a unique taste of a loving relationship with persons who have surrendered to Him. Unlike us, Kṛṣṇa is unlimited, and His enjoyment is also unlimited. He has manifest from Himself an infinite number of unique living beings so that He can constantly enjoy an infinite variety of sweet loving relationships with each of them. Our inner impulses that misdirect our rational and emotional capacities are removed when we connect with Kṛṣṇa. When we are free from such deception, we can clearly discern Kṛṣṇa to be our ultimate interest. He is attracted by our efforts to get close to Him, and He responds accordingly. Many have taken some steps in His direction, but to be elevated to His eternal abode, we must give a hundred percent to finish all the steps and complete the journey. The following *līlās* (pastimes) demonstrate Kṛṣṇa’s magnanimous reciprocation of service and devotion to Him. *Transcendental Action with Malicious Intention* Pūtanā was a child-killing witch who wanted to kill Kṛṣṇa by smearing deadly poison on her breast and having Him take it. Kṛṣṇa did suck her breast—and at the same time sucked out her life. Nonetheless, because by offering her breast she acted like a wet nurse, a kind of mother, Lord Kṛṣṇa accepted her as a mother and granted her a spiritual destination befitting a mother. This pastime seems to contradict the principle made at the beginning of this article—that Kṛṣṇa responds to the living entity’s intention. Pūtanā’s intention was to kill Kṛṣṇa, so in this case, Kṛṣṇa rewarded her for her motherly act, rather than her wicked intention. To understand how this act by Kṛṣṇa could be an illustration of His magnanimity in response to someone’s devotional intent, we can consider some background on Pūtanā: in her previous life she was Ratnamālā, the sister of King Bali (*Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa* 4.10.42; according to *Garga-saṁhitā* 1.13.30, Ratnamālā was the daughter of King Bali), who surrendered the universe to the Lord in His form as Vāmana. Upon seeing Vāmana, a beautiful incarnation of the Lord who descended to crush Bali’s false ego, she was overcome by the desire to be Vāmana’s mother (*Garga-saṁhitā* 1.13.31, *Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa* 4.10.43). Later she revolted at her brother’s imprisonment by Vāmana’s trickery and became a witch, Pūtanā. We can infer that Kṛṣṇa remembered her devotional feelings in her previous life and thus bestowed His mercy on her. Kṛṣṇa sees everything, both action and intention, not only in this life but in our past lives as well. As much as possible, our intention to please and satisfy the Supreme Lord must direct our actions. The intentions and actions of persons of demonic nature are the opposite of this. *Transcendental Intention with Malicious Action* In the Rāmāyaṇa, when Maṭaṅga Ṛṣi knew he was going to depart this world he told Śabarī, an old ascetic woman living in his ashram, that one day Lord Rāmacandra would come there. “I want you to stay here,” the Ṛṣi told her, “and welcome Him when He comes. Remain here until then, and after that you will return to me.” Śabarī represents a mahā-bhāgavata, a great devotee of the Lord. Her level of devotional service went on to influence many into becoming devotees. Therefore she was given the responsibility to stay behind and train many people in pure devotional service. Śabarī prayed to Lord Rāmacandra to come to her ashram. He was pleased with the loving service she had rendered to Him in faith and love, as well as her faith in her guru, Maṭaṅga Ṛṣi, and therefore He visited her. She collected little berries to offer to Him. The characteristic of those berries was that they looked the same whether they were bitter or sweet. The only way to tell the difference was to taste them. So she tasted a little part of each berry and offered the sweet ones to Lord Rāmacandra. Now, those of us who understand the science of rendering devotional service know that we are not supposed to taste anything before we offer it to the Lord. From a formal perspective, therefore, Śabarī was breaking the rules, but she did it with love and wanted nothing in return. She just wanted to please her beloved Lord Rāmacandra. And when He accepted the berries she had tasted, His enjoyment was immense. Śabarī is a *nitya-siddha*, an eternal servant of Lord Rāmacandra. Even though she was apparently waiting a long time to see the Lord, she was in fact always seeing Him within her heart. Whether present in the material world or the spiritual world, that does not make any difference for the *nitya-siddha* devotees. When Lord Rāmacandra’s activities on earth were winding up, He appeared before Śabarī to take her back home, back to the spiritual world. Every living entity is free to choose how to serve the Lord. Some may want to serve Kṛṣṇa as a mother or father, and others may want to serve Him as a servant or friend. Kṛṣṇa awards the opportunity to serve Him in whatever way the pure devotee desires. Śabarī chose to serve the Lord as a mother serves her son. Because she wanted to serve the Lord in that mood, the Supreme Lord fulfilled her desire by accepting the berries she offered to Him. Out of love for Him, she wanted to protect Him from eating something bitter. And Lord Rāmacandra responded to her pure affection. *Malicious Intention with Malicious Action* Lord Indra, the king of the heavenly planets, is fully aware that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the cause of all causes. One would naturally expect, therefore, that he would act in that pure consciousness. However, Kṛṣṇa has given Indra the privilege of being the supplier of rain, and once, due to pride or the illusion of accepting his body as his self, Indra clutched the notion of becoming the ultimate enjoyer of all the sacrifices of the Vrajavāsīs, the residents of Vrindavan. He demonstrated this abject ignorance and bodily consciousness during the Govardhana pastime. He became furious upon realizing that the Vrajavāsīs had given up the belief that he was the perfect entity to be offered a particular annual sacrifice. He forgot that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the supreme beneficiary and enjoyer of all sacrifices. Indra sent the clouds of universal devastation to wreak havoc on the cowherd community for its supposed impudence. The Vrajavāsīs went to Lord Kṛṣṇa to seek shelter, however, and they were completely and happily sheltered under Govardhana Hill until Indra’s torrential downpour ceased. Beneath that hill they happily sang about and glorified Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Lord. Indra realized that he had committed the most unforgivable offense to the Lord Himself. Upon receiving the advice of Nārada Muni, Indra knelt at the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa and pleaded for forgiveness. Pleased with Indra’s repentance and mood of worshiping Him, He forgave Indra. When we act in the bodily conception of life, attachments arise. For Indra this resulted in the misconception that he was the Lord of all. He exhibited this misconception in its fullest sense because he was blinded by the prestige of being the lord of the heavenly planets. Instead of being a representative of the Lord, he remained aloof and acted independently as a lord and master, attempting to enjoy his position instead of serving the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa. The Lord was pleased with Pūtanā’s action as a mother. He demonstrated that He knows the soul and rewarded her motherly act of offering Him her breast milk. He was pleased by Śabarī’s motherly devotion and her unflinching faith in her spiritual master’s words. And He was pleased by Indra’s pleading for forgiveness, which showed how to approach someone we have offended. The most important instruction we get from these incidents is that the Lord, being absolute, can give salvation to anyone, as He chooses. Lord Kṛṣṇa wants everyone to be in a loving relationship with Him. He wants only our love and devotion. What else can we offer Him? He is the proprietor of everything. The above *līlās* of the Lord also demonstrate that we conditioned souls, who have been influenced by ignorance since time immemorial and are bound by lamentation, illusion, and so forth, are delivered when we take shelter in Kṛṣṇa, who always demonstrates His magnanimous transcendental nature toward all living entities. We develop our attraction to Lord Kṛṣṇa and love for Him through the practice of *bhakti*, which involves sincerely striving with both favorable intention and favorable action to our best ability. Lord Kṛṣṇa will see our eagerness, sincerity, and endeavor and bless us with His mercy to progress in our relationship with Him. *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.* Be Spiritual, Be Different *Can it be nighttime and daytime at the same time? An analysis of an enigmatic verse of the Bhagavad-gītā.* By Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa *A multi-level analysis of an enigmatic Bhagavad-gītā verse.* The *Bhagavad-gītā* is a book of profound wisdom. One way to unpack its wisdom is by looking at its verses at multiple levels. Let’s consider seven broad levels. Verse level: Focusing on the verse by analyzing its words and their sequence, connotations, and denotations, we can ask, “What does the verse mean in terms of its language and structure?” Chapter level: Focusing on the verse’s implication within the thought flow of the chapter in which it occurs, we can ask, “What does the verse mean within its chapter?” Philosophy level: The Gītā integrates many schools of philosophical thought, such as Vedānta and Sāṅkhya, to offer its own distinctive metaphysical worldview. To better grasp the Gītā’s worldview, we can ask, “What does this verse mean in terms of the Gītā’s overall philosophy?” Kṛṣṇa-Arjuna–discussion level: Given that the Gītā is spoken by Kṛṣṇa to address Arjuna’s ethical conundrum about whether to fight or not, we can ask, “What does this verse mean for Arjuna on the battlefield?” Devotional-application level: The Gītā helps us develop our personal relationship with God. Indeed, studying it is worshiping Kṛṣṇa with our intelligence (18.70). To access the Gītā at this level, we can ask, “How can this verse help me connect more with Kṛṣṇa?” Spiritual-application level: For millennia, the Gītā has functioned as a concise handbook for spiritual seekers pursuing various paths. To find such insight, we can ask, “How can this verse guide me in my spiritual evolution?” Human-application level: The Gītā offers wisdom that can help all human beings live more meaningfully. To that end, we can ask, “How can this verse add value to my life?” These seven levels are not exhaustive. We could consider other levels, such as Sanskrit-grammar level or Gītā–chapter-section level. And not all Gītā verses may lend themselves easily to all levels of analysis. Still, this multilevel framework can be a powerful tool to find fresh meaning in our Gītā study. Let’s apply this seven-level analysis to an enigmatic *Bhagavad-gītā* verse (2.69): “What is night for all beings is the time of awakening for the self-controlled; and the time of awakening for all beings is night for the introspective sage.” *Verse Level: The Intriguing Day-Night Metaphor* This verse underscores the *Bhagavad-gītā’s* poetic nature, which is often forgotten or neglected while one contemplates its philosophical message. Poetry frequently features literary devices that add both beauty and complexity to the writing. Here, the literary device of a metaphor, or more precisely an extended metaphor, is used throughout the verse so that its actual meaning is far deeper than and different from the literal meaning. Intriguing though the verse sounds, it seems incoherent—day and night don’t differ for different categories of people. Might the verse refer to two categories of people who live in time zones that are twelve hours apart so that their times of sleeping and waking are opposite? Unlikely, because the Gītā neither mentions time zones nor indicates even remotely that people’s life-orientation, spiritual or otherwise, is determined by their time zones. If we seek the verse’s essential meaning with the guidance of time-honored *Gītā* commentators such as Śrīla Prabhupāda, we discover that it discusses the difference between spiritualists and most other living beings, who tend to be materialists. Herein, night connotes darkness, which in turn suggests lethargy, indifference, incomprehension; whereas the time of awakening, or daytime, connotes light, which in turn suggests energy, interest, insight. Thus night and day refer not to time durations but to domains of inactivity and activity respectively. The domains of self-discipline and self-realization are of little interest to materialists, who often dismiss such pursuits as impractical, irrelevant, and irrational. But those domains are life’s primary purpose for spiritualists, who hold that these pursuits alone infuse life with enduring meaning and fulfilling purpose. In contrast, the domains of sensual indulgence and worldly opulence are life’s primary business for materialists, who see these pursuits as life’s best, if not only, pleasure. But those domains are of little interest to spiritualists, who see such pursuits as causes of distraction, if not degradation. Thus this verse highlights the difference between spiritualists and materialists by using the arresting metaphor of night and day to convey their opposing domains of activity. *Chapter Level: Be Ready to Stand Apart from the World* The **Bhagavad-gītā*’s* second chapter is essentially Kṛṣṇa’s summary answer to Arjuna’s central question in the *Gītā* (2.7): What is *dharma*, the right thing to do? While Kṛṣṇa answers the question at various levels, the essence is that right activity is founded in right identity: those who understand that they are at their core spiritual beings strive to act with detachment (*asakti*) for gaining spiritual realization (*yoga*). *Bhagavad-gītā* 2.69 describes how such spiritualists act. Within the second chapter, the last section (2.54–72) is essentially an answer to Arjuna’s question in 2.54: “What are the characteristics of a person situated in knowledge (*sthita-prajña*)?” In answering this question, Kṛṣṇa integrates description with prescription—that is, He doesn’t just tell how such spiritually evolved souls function; He also tells how spiritual aspirants can strive toward that level of consciousness. Verse 2.69 is a part of that prescription. Actually, Arjuna’s question in 2.54 has four parts: What is the defining characteristic of such spiritualists? (Answered in 2.55.) How do they respond to life’s ups and downs? (Answered in 2.56–57.) How do they restrain their senses and focus on the spiritual? (Answered in 2.58–63.) How do they engage their senses and function in the world while still maintaining spiritual consciousness? (Answered in 2.64–72.) While answering this fourth subquestion, Kṛṣṇa emphasizes that though spiritualists move about in the world, they don’t let their senses roam randomly (2.68); otherwise, such roaming can be the cause of delusion, degradation, and destruction (2.67). Kṛṣṇa’s emphatic directive raises an understandable concern: Most people routinely dwell on, even delight in, tempting objects—staring at them, fantasizing about them, gossiping about them. Won’t that make spiritualists who abstain from similar action be the odd people in society? Acknowledging this reality, verse 2.69 underscores how spiritualists (have to) stand apart from most of the world. In terms of their defining values and driving purposes, spiritualists will be as different from materialistic people as day is from night. But won’t functioning among such materialists subject spiritualists to temptation? The next verse (2.70) answers: spiritualists, by their realization of higher realities, are so internally full and fulfilled that tempting stimuli can flow into their consciousness without tempting them—and thus they can attain lasting peace. Thus *Gītā* 2.69 highlights a key characteristic of spiritualists who are engaged in the world without being entangled in it: they are (ready to be) radically different from materialists. *Gītā-philosophy Level: Stand Apart—Together* The readiness to stand apart from the world, as conveyed in *Bhagavad-gītā* 2.69, is central to the Gītā’s practical application. The Gītā’s message centers on providing a higher, spiritual vision of our place and purpose in the world. As most people don’t have or even care to have such a vision, they tread a path different from that tread by spiritualists. When we choose to live spiritually, we tread a path less traveled, as is asserted later in the *Gītā* (7.3): among thousands of people, only a few endeavor to know the ultimate reality, and even among them, only a few come to know that ultimate reality to be Kṛṣṇa. While *Bhagavad-gītā* 2.69 conveys that such spiritual topics don’t interest materialists, the *Gītā* later indicates that the wise are not interested in worldly topics. They prefer to stay in a secluded place, detached from the ways of people in general (13.11). Do these *Gītā* guidelines mean that we as spiritualists are condemned to loneliness? Certainly not. First, the *Gītā* recommends solitude, not loneliness. In loneliness, we crave for relating with people, but are unable to, whatever be the reason. But in solitude, we prefer, even prioritize, decreased socialization to focus on understanding and transforming ourselves. Second, the *Gītā* doesn’t deny the reality that we are social creatures who need to connect with others. It addresses this need by encouraging, even endorsing, the association of fellow spiritualists who cherish similar values and purposes. Indeed, the *Gītā* (10.9) declares such association to be a source of both enlightenment and enrichment. People who learn to cherish and relish spiritual association stand unitedly apart from the world. To live spiritually as the *Gītā* recommends, we need to stand apart from those who devalue spirituality and stay aligned with those who value it. *Kṛṣṇa-Arjuna–Discussion Level: Dutifulness, but with a Different Consciousness* *Bhagavad-gītā* 2.69 addresses Arjuna’s concern articulated earlier: he couldn’t see the point of fighting (1.31) when it was going to be at the cost of his relatives’ lives (2.4–5). In response, Kṛṣṇa initially articulates the two main reasons warriors fought: victory would give them sovereignty on the earth; death while fighting heroically in a righteous war would lead them to heaven (2.37). When Kṛṣṇa sees that Arjuna doesn’t find these reasons persuasive, He raises the discussion to a higher level by focusing on consciousness. Kṛṣṇa emphasizes that life’s ultimate purpose is to raise our consciousness to the spiritual level, free from the mortality and misery that beset a consciousness attached to matter. And Arjuna’s difficult duty of fighting can help him raise his consciousness if he fights unselfishly. Thus Kṛṣṇa urges Arjuna to fight without considering victory or defeat and concomitantly profit or loss (2.38). Generalizing, Kṛṣṇa articulates a universal principle (2.47): do your duty without attachment to results. What is the ultimate purpose of raising one’s consciousness? In this chapter Kṛṣṇa recommends detached dutifulness as the means to liberation from material existence. Eventually, the Gītā’s flow culminates in Kṛṣṇa’s recommending devotional dutifulness—that will lead Arjuna to the attainment of Kṛṣṇa’s own abode, for an eternity of ecstatic loving reciprocations (18.65). Indeed, if Arjuna acts with this disposition, keeping his mind and intelligence absorbed in a mood of service to Kṛṣṇa, he will already be with Kṛṣṇa even in this life (12.8). If Arjuna does his duty in such consciousness, that will be different from, even opposite to, the way most warriors fight. His intentions may be incomprehensible to most people. Some may criticize him for fighting against his own relatives, while others may praise him for being unflinchingly dutiful, even if it required fighting against his relatives. But neither will understand Arjuna’s ultimate purpose. Through this verse Kṛṣṇa readies Arjuna to walk that different, difficult, little-understood path. *Devotional Level: Transcendentalists among Theists* While verse 2.69 primarily points to the difference between spiritualists and materialists, it can also apply to a specific category of spiritualists—devotees of God—and specifically to the difference between transcendentalists and theists. Theism in the sense of belief in God and even deference to God through worship is fairly widespread in human society, extending across both geography and history. But devotion in the sense of making God the focus and purpose of one’s life is rare even among theists. Most theists don’t dwell too much on transcendence. They consider a modicum of religious practice a desirable or even essential part of life. Yet they disapprove of devotion that centers one’s entire life on God; they deem it premature, excessive, or impractical. Ritual theists see God more as a fulfiller of desire, whereas dedicated transcendentalists see Him as the fulfillment of desire (7.19). Such a relationship with God, wherein He becomes our life’s be-all and end-all, is so extraordinary that even theists may need several lifetimes of spiritual evolution to attain that level. Given that theists believe in God, they usually acknowledge the validity, even the glory, of being totally devoted to God. But they prefer that a saint emerge among someone else’s family or social circle, not theirs. Transcendentalists don’t just respect God for what He does for them; they adore Him for who He is. Such a giving of one’s heart to divine love is rare indeed. Even within religious cultures, such saintly people have had to face opposition from the very people who would later, maybe years or decades or centuries later, revere them. If we are to persist in our pursuit of wholehearted devotion, we need to seek God’s pleasure even if it costs us the world’s approval, including even the religious world’s approval. *Spiritual Level: Balancing Candor with Consideration* The *Bhagavad-gītā* is a holistic guidebook for spiritualists, as is seen in how it balances candor with consideration. Verse 2.69 candidly states that spiritualists and materialists have different values—they are as apart as day and night. Yet the *Gītā* doesn’t approve of unnecessarily escalating these unavoidable differences. Why? Because everyone is on the same journey of spiritual evolution (4.11), even if various people are at such drastically different levels that they seem to be opposite. Rather than seeing materialists as attached or ignorant, the *Gītā* focuses on how they are rich with spiritual potential. Wise is the vision that sees the essential spiritual similarity of all living beings (5.18, 18.20) even if they are at such a preliminary state in the evolution of their consciousness that their transcendental interests are hardly manifest. Compassionate spiritualists don’t berate others for not being more interested in matters of higher consciousness, such as life’s ultimate meaning and purpose; instead, they encourage others to take doable steps to raise their consciousness from wherever they presently are (3.26). Pertinently, evolved spiritualists are not disturbed by others and don’t disturb others (12.15). They remain true to their values without letting the apathy or antipathy of others get to them. Simultaneously, they don’t inordinately disrupt the views and worldviews of those who are not yet ready for a higher understanding. Such a live-and-let-live approach may be inferred from this verse’s day-night metaphor. Though day and night are opposites, they don’t exist in violent conflict. They have their dominion during their respective durations, and they give way to each other when the time of the other’s dominion begins. A similar harmony-amid-diversity is conveyed in the *Gītā* through its acknowledgement of the distinct locations of spiritualists and materialists on life’s expressway. Thus the Gītā is candid in reminding spiritualists that they need the courage to be different from others, and it is considerate in accepting and encouraging others from where they are in their spiritual evolution. *Human Level: Channeling the Need to be Different* This *Bhagavad-gītā* verse conveys that spiritual seekers need the courage to be different from the world. While being different requires fearlessness, it can also induce recklessness, especially when it fulfills a basic human longing to be special, to stand out in the crowd. In some psychological frameworks for analyzing human personality, such as the Enneagram, the need to be special is considered one of the core human needs. It’s what primarily, if not exclusively, drives some people’s actions. From the *Gītā’s* perspective, the urge to be special can be directed in two broad ways: counterproductive and constructive. When directed counterproductively, this urge can be an expression of the ego, or more precisely, the false ego. This subtle element in our inner world reduces our identity to our physical or psychological side. Fearing that we are just another insignificant being among the billions that populate our planet, the false ego makes us seek extraordinariness by, say, adopting a fashion, habit, or behavior that is eyebrow-raising, frown-triggering, or even gasp-inducing. Such action is often rebellion for rebellion’s sake; it may well be pointless, thoughtless, or even scrupleless. When directed constructively, the urge to be special can be synced with our deep-rooted human need to do something meaningful and be a part of something sublime that is bigger than ourselves. We all can channel this need to be special constructively by striving to do something valuable, something that really matters in the big-picture analysis—even if it is devalued, derided, or demonized by the world. We can strive to be different not just by trying to stand out amid a crowd, but by trying to stand up for something valuable, independent of the world’s evaluation. *Caitanya Caraṇa Dāsa serves full time at ISKCON Chowpatty, Mumbai. He is a BTG associate editor and the author of more than twenty-five books. He has two websites: gitadaily.com and thespiritualscientist.com (the source for BTG’s “Q&A”).* The Art of Giving and Receiving Feedback *Scriptural guidance for evaluating four combinations of feedback givers and feedback takers.* by Gaurāṅga Darśana Dāsa An analysis of four combinations of feedback givers and feedback takers. Giving feedback or correcting others for their mistakes is an art that requires responsibility, maturity, and a well-wishing nature. Receiving feedback in a positive way is also an art, and it requires humility, honesty, and sincerity. Based on episodes from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the Rāmāyaṇa, and the Mahābhārata, this article discusses four combinations of feedback givers and feedback takers: good-good, good-bad, bad-good, and bad-bad. *Good-Good* When the feedback giver and the feedback taker both are genuine. Even noble people can sometimes act in a way that may not be the best. But they don’t do so deliberately, with a negative intention. Their mistakes are incidental. And when they receive feedback from a well-wisher, they respect it and accept it gratefully, without justifying their mistakes. And the good feedback giver doesn’t intend to just find fault and discourage the person, but honestly desires to help. Even warriors need guidance: The Fourth Canto of the Bhāgavatam tells the story of King Dhruva, whose younger brother, Uttama, was killed in the Himalayas by a powerful Yakṣa, a semi-divine spirit and follower of Kuvera, the lord of wealth. Overwhelmed with lamentation and anger, Dhruva attacked Alakāpurī, the city of the Yakṣas. A fierce battle took place, and Dhruva was indiscriminately killing the Yakṣas, almost to the point of destroying their entire race. Seeing Dhruva killing so many innocent Yakṣas, his grandfather Svāyambhuva Manu approached him and said: My dear son, please stop. It is not good to become unnecessarily angry—it is the path to hellish life. Now you are going beyond the limit by killing Yakṣas who are actually not offenders. My dear son, the killing of the sinless Yakṣas which you have undertaken is not at all approved by authorities, and it does not befit our family, which is supposed to know the laws of religion and irreligion. My dear son, it has been proved that you are very much affectionate towards your brother and are greatly aggrieved at his being killed by the Yakṣas, but just consider—for one Yakṣa’s offense, you have killed many others, who are innocent. (Bhāgavatam 4.11.7–9) Manu ended by instructing Dhruva to pacify Kuvera with gentle words and prayers. On receiving this feedback and well-intended advice from Manu, Dhruva stopped fighting and approached Kuvera, who was happy with him and blessed him that he might have unflinching faith in and remembrance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Dhruva then returned to his capital city. Even authors need advice: Sage Vyāsa, with deep compassion for common people, wrote the four Vedas, the eighteen major Purāṇas, and the Mahābhārata. Despite his good efforts, he felt dissatisfied. Then Vyāsa’s guru Nārada Muni told him that in his works he had over-emphasized what are generally considered the four puruṣārthas, or human goals—dharma (religion), artha (economic development), kāma (sense gratification), and mokṣa (liberation)—and hadn’t sufficiently glorified the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa and the process of kṛṣṇa-bhakti. Nārada Muni commented that people are naturally inclined toward sense enjoyment and Vyāsa had encouraged them through his works. Nārada finally instructed Vyāsa to write Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to elaborately describe the Supreme Lord’s glories. Vyāsadeva gratefully received this advice and wrote Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam for the benefit of humanity. Even poets need correction: We read a similar story in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, a biography of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the most merciful incarnation of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Once, a Bengali poet wrote a drama describing Lord Caitanya and Lord Jagannātha. With great eagerness he recited his introductory verse in front of Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī, the personal secretary of Lord Caitanya. Svarūpa Dāmodara found serious philosophical deviation in the poet’s composition and gave him critical feedback. The poet realized that he had made a grave mistake. Being simple at heart, he felt humbled and embarrassed, but didn’t argue or try to justify what he had written. Seeing his humble demeanor, Svarūpa Dāmodara encouraged him to study and learn the Bhāgavatam in the association of devotees and then compose poetry with proper philosophical understanding. In the above three stories both the feedback giver and the taker are honest, and thus their interactions resulted in highly positive outcomes. One has to be honest enough to admit a mistake, humble enough to receive feedback, and sincere enough to work on the correction. Thus one can improve oneself. One who corrects others’ mistakes must do so with a well-wishing heart, and not with pride or a superiority complex. *Good-Bad* When the feedback giver is honest but the feedback taker is haughty. Pride, greed, and selfishness make one miss the opportunity to elevate one’s consciousness in response to a well-wisher’s good advice. Pride causes degradation: In another instructive story from the Fourth Canto of the Bhāgavatam, a king named Aṅga had a cruel son named Vena, whom he tried to reform but failed. Frustrated, Aṅga left the kingdom, and sages and brāhmaṇas enthroned Vena as the king. The innately cruel and proud Vena tormented innocent people and stopped brāhmaṇas from performing sacrifices and worshiping Lord Viṣṇu. Considering the citizens’ difficulties due to Vena’s atrocities, sages advised him that a king should protect citizens by maintaining varṇāśrama and worshiping the Lord. They asked him to stop forbidding sacrifices and disrespecting the devatās. Vena arrogantly retorted that the king is God and the reservoir of all the devatās. He said that the sages’ affection for the devatās was like the affection of an unchaste woman for a paramour. He told them to give up their foolishness and worship him with their sacrifices. The sages were furious at Vena’s impudence and his blasphemy of Lord Viṣṇu. They killed him simply by chanting *mantras*. Although the sages gave feedback on Vena’s activities with all good intentions, arrogant Vena didn’t receive them. That caused his own ruination. Lust makes one blind: In the Rāmāyaṇa, when demon Rāvaṇa kidnapped Sītā Devī, his brother Vibhīṣaṇa repeatedly advised him to respectfully return her to Lord Rāma. He warned him of the miserable consequences of his lust for the chaste wife of another man, who was in fact God Himself. But Rāvaṇa, blinded by lust, not only rejected Vibhīṣaṇa’s feedback and well-intended advice, but also banished Vibhīṣaṇa from the kingdom. Eventually Rāvaṇa had to meet his death at the hands of Lord Rāma for his offenses and evil acts. Selfishness makes one shameless: Blinded by the selfish desire to install his evil sons as the rulers, Dhṛtarāṣṭra supported their atrocities against the Pāṇḍavas. Akrūra, a minister in Mathura and a devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa, gave feedback to Dhṛtarāṣṭra, advising him to treat the Pāṇḍavas fairly. But Dhṛtarāṣṭra said, “Because my unsteady heart is prejudiced by affection for my sons, these pleasing words of yours cannot remain fixed there, just as lightning cannot remain fixed in a cloud.” (*Bhāgavatam* 10.49.27) Dhṛtarāṣṭra continued to support his sons. He did not forbid Duḥśāsana’s abominable act of dragging Draupadī by the hair into the royal assembly, although she was weeping helplessly. He allowed Duryodhana and his party to cheat the Pāṇḍavas in a gambling match and usurp their kingdom. Once, Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s brother Vidura advised him, “You are maintaining offense personified, Duryodhana, as your infallible son, but he is envious of Lord Kṛṣṇa. And because you are thus maintaining a nondevotee of Kṛṣṇa, you are devoid of all auspicious qualities. Relieve yourself of this ill fortune as soon as possible and do good to the whole family!” (*Bhāgavatam* 3.1.13) Duryodhana became furious and insulted Vidura with poisonous words. He ordered that Vidura be driven from the palace with only his breath. Despite hearing all this, Dhṛtarāṣṭra didn’t take any action against Duryodhana or attempt to keep Vidura back. Eventually, in the Battle of Kurukshetra Dhṛtarāṣṭra had to lose all his sons, for whom he had maintained such undue attachment. Unfortunate are those who do not have access to worthy advice. More unfortunate are those who care nothing for good advice even when available. One has to humbly receive the suggestions of wise people for one’s own benefit. *Bad-Good* When the feedback giver is disingenuous, but the feedback taker is sincere. Sometimes the words of a proud person are truthful but the intentions are not. Although the heart of someone who gives a suggestion may be mean, a noble person tries to recognize the good part of it. Harsh but right: Dhruva was a five-year-old prince. One day, when he tried to sit on the lap of his father, King Uttānapāda, his stepmother, Suruci, harshly told him that he was unqualified to sit on his father’s lap because he was not born from her womb. If he wanted to become qualified, she said, he should go to the forest and worship Lord Viṣṇu and then take birth as her son in his next life. Her insensitive words pierced Dhruva’s tender heart. Uttānapāda’s silence further pained him. Being disappointed, he ran to his mother, Sunīti, who told him that what his stepmother had said was true. To fulfill any desire, he should worship Lord Viṣṇu. Suruci’s intention in advising worship of Lord Viṣṇu was just to impress her husband; she wasn’t a great devotee of Viṣṇu. Further, she was proud, and she was envious of Sunīti. But Sunīti, being a mature devotee, took the good part of Suruci’s words and told Dhruva to worship Lord Viṣṇu. She never hated Suruci, although Suruci hated her. Accepting the advice, Dhruva worshiped the Lord, became a pure devotee, and fulfilled all his desires. The truth in a critic’s words: Once, a *sannyāsī* named Rāmacandra Purī arrived in Jagannatha Puri, where Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was living. Rāmacandra Purī was a disciple of Mādhavendra Purī. Therefore he was a godbrother of Īśvara Purī, the spiritual master of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who treated Rāmacandra Purī with the respect his position called for. By nature Rāmacandra Purī was envious and critical. His nature was to induce people to eat more than necessary and then criticize them for overeating. He even criticized Lord Caitanya, falsely accusing Him of eating too many sweets. Due to this criticism, Lord Caitanya began eating much less than usual during His meals. Rāmacandra Purī then went to Lord Caitanya to give Him feedback. He told Him that dry renunciation was not the duty of a sannyāsī and that a sannyāsī eats as much as necessary to maintain his body but does not enjoy satisfying his senses materially. Lord Caitanya replied, “I am just like an ignorant boy and am like your disciple. It is My great fortune that you are instructing Me.” (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya* 8.69) Lord Caitanya even told the other devotees that Rāmacandra Purī was expounding the natural principles of sannyāsa life. A humble person sees good in the words of even envious people, without envying them. Thus, although the person who gives us a suggestion may not have good intentions, we can still see the suggestion in a positive light if it’s worthy. *Bad-Bad* When both the feedback giver and the taker are weak-hearted or selfish. Such persons cannot benefit each other or anyone else. Feedback givers of this type may speak so-called dharma or moral values just to suit their own purposes. And the equally selfish receiver won’t accept that ill-motivated advice. Even devils speak about morals: Once, the devatās and the asuras (demons) churned the milk ocean. This event, popularly known as Samudra-manthana, is described in the Eighth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. When the pot of amṛta (nectar of immortality) was produced from the churning, the asuras immediately snatched it. But instead of distributing it equally among themselves, they quarreled about who would get the first share of it, each saying, “Me first, not you!” Among the asuras some were strong and some were weak. Being unable to fight, the weaker asuras gave feedback to the stronger asuras, saying that because the devatās had also worked hard in churning the milk ocean, according to dharma they should get a share of the nectar. The stronger asuras paid no heed to this feedback. Of course, the weaker asuras never intended to share the nectar with the devatās, but they cited dharma just because they couldn’t fight with the other asuras to drink the nectar first. The love that ended life: The Mahābhārata tells the story of two powerful asura brothers named Sunda and Upasunda. They loved each other and were like one person divided into two. They received a boon from Brahmā that they could die only at each other’s hands. Thus, having no fear of death, they terrorized the universe. To destroy them, Lord Brahmā created a beautiful woman called Tilottamā and ordered her to go to these two asuras. Tilottamā then went before Sunda and Upasunda when they were intoxicated. Attracted by her beauty, both of them desired her. They argued. Sunda told Upasunda, “This woman shall be my wife and your sister!” Upasunda replied, “No, brother, I saw her first. She is mine! You shouldn’t see her in any other way.” Thus the two loving brothers argued, finding fault with each other’s words and intentions, all for the sake of a woman. They then fell upon each other with their fierce weapons and killed each other. The first concern of a demoniac person is personal sense enjoyment. Thus materialistic people regularly disagree, compete, and fight among themselves. Unless they are trained to satisfy God’s senses, there cannot be peace in society. *A Journey Toward the Best Combination* For obvious reasons, the first combination is the best in the above four cases. However, it’s not so easy to see such good-good combinations in this world. But if we are determined, it’s not impossible to come to this stage from wherever we are. Here is a story of a couple in this regard. Diti was one of the many wives of the sage Kaśyapa. Once, afflicted by lust and an intense desire for a child, she approached Kaśyapa in the evening for union. Kaśyapa tried to dissuade her, telling her that it was the inauspicious time of day when ghosts move about. It was not an appropriate time for union, he said, and it would make Lord Śiva, the lord of the ghosts, angry. Pressed by Cupid, however, Diti was not in a mood to take any feedback. Although Kaśyapa gave her good feedback, he himself didn’t have sufficient self-control. So he gave in to her unreasonable appeal and united with her. Sometimes although we tell people what is right, we ourselves may not have the ability to act right. As a result of this untimely union, Diti gave birth to the two ferocious asuras Hiraṇyākṣa and Hiraṇyakaśipu, who were later killed by Lord Viṣṇu in the forms of Varāha and Narasiṁha respectively. Thinking that Lord Viṣṇu had killed her sons just to favor Indra, the king of the devatās, Diti desired a son who would kill Indra. She served Kaśyapa affectionately to get his favor. Impressed with her service, Kaśyapa told her to ask for a boon, and Diti asked for a son who would kill Indra. Kaśyapa was surprised, but this time he didn’t give in to her demand. Although one might have acted inappropriately at some point in life, that doesn’t mean one must continue to do so. By honest deliberation and mature guidance, one can improve from where one is. Kaśyapa didn’t immediately point out the fault in Diti’s thinking, but he was concerned about her envious attitude and desired a transformation in her. He instructed her to worship Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa by a vow called Puṁsavana for one year. If she did so without any mistakes, she would get a son who could kill Indra. If she broke her vow, her son would be Indra’s friend. Diti followed the vow strictly and became pregnant. But once, when she was inattentive in performing the Puṁsavana, Indra entered her womb and cut her embryo into forty-nine pieces. They survived and came to be known as the Maruts. Seeing them, both Diti and Indra, who had been inimical toward each other, were transformed. Later Indra accepted the Maruts as his brothers. This was the result of Diti’s worship of Lakṣmī-Nārāyaṇa, by which everything became auspicious. Being a good feedback giver: Those who correct others’ mistakes must do so with responsibility and a well-intentioned heart, and not to show their superiority. Good feedback givers help people to be right rather than prove them wrong. They wish to continue the relationship, not to cut it. They communicate the feedback in a dignified way and at an appropriate time. If necessary one may use strong words, just as Kṛṣṇa chastised Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gītā, but ultimately one’s words should inspire people and not demotivate or intimidate them. We cannot expect a change overnight, so we must be patient enough to explain things just as Kṛṣṇa patiently answered all of Arjuna’s questions. A listener becomes more attentive to good advice when undue criticism and faultfinding are absent. So, in giving feedback to others, we need to shift the focus from a failed past to a positive future, and thus avoid negative feelings in oneself and others. Being a good feedback taker: A humble person is willing to receive feedback from others for self-improvement. On the other hand, arrogant persons, due to selfishness and self-righteousness, cannot take any feedback. They tend to think that whatever they think, do, or speak is all right. Just as a full pot cannot take any more contents, a mind filled with pride and greed cannot accept any well-intended advice. But if one is open to receiving corrections from one’s guru or other Vaiṣṇavas, and humbly attempts to improve oneself, one can have good relationships with others and serve the Lord effectively. When the feedback giver and feedback taker are both in the right spirit and consciousness, there is an improvement in the quality of service to the Supreme Lord, the community of His devotees, and humanity. *Gaurāṅga Darśana Dāsa, a disciple of His Holiness Rādhānāth Swami, is the dean of the Bhaktivedanta Vidyapitha at ISKCON Govardhan Ecovillage. He has written over thirty-three books, including the Subodhinī and Bhāgavatam Tales series, and has delivered over seven thousand hours of spiritual discourses. He regularly conducts scriptural courses for adults and children. Learn more at gaurangadarshan.com.* Science: Infinity and the Pursuit of Knowledge *The mathematicians’ failure to delineate infinity suggests that some wonders of the world are beyond human ability to compute or prove.* By Nāndīmukhī Devī Dāsī The Vedic perspective can help clarify the concept of infinity, a perennial challenge to modern mathematicians and philosophers. Lord Kṛṣṇa is the infinite Supreme Lord, the possessor of infinite power, and the source of diverse infinities. The *Brahma-saṁhitā* (5.32) states: “I worship Govinda [Kṛṣṇa], the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, and substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and He eternally sees, maintains, and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.” Infinity is a word that is easier to say than understand, and the notion of infinity has long been the subject of deep thought. In Zhuangzi (fifth-third century BCE), one of the major classical Chinese texts in Taoist philosophy, it is seen that thinkers and debaters at the time related infinity to a sense of endlessness: “From a foot-long stick take a half of it (the remainder) every day. Tens of thousands of generations cannot exhaust it (the stick).” Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (fifth century BCE) took a similar idea of infinity (infinite divisibility) and offered arguments that led to absurd conclusions: a fast runner cannot catch a slow runner, flying arrows are motionless, etc. In modern times the concept of infinity is treated in set theory, a branch of mathematics that mushroomed in late nineteenth-century Germany. In today’s era of science and technology, researchers put faith in mathematics, which occupies a prominent role in all branches of science. They rely on mathematics to achieve knowledge with the highest standard of rigor and validity, thinking that conclusions formally justified by mathematical proofs are not open to refutation. In this article, for a general audience, we revisit a few landmarks in mathematics during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. We will reflect on the concept of infinity as it exists in the history of mathematics and in Vedic teachings, and on the believed potential of mathematical study in the pursuit of knowledge. *The Question of Infinity and the Failure of the Axiomatic Approach* Infinity in mathematics symbolizes a boundless value larger than any number. Accepting actual infinity in mathematics (and not only as a manner of speaking) can make for paradoxical results and therefore gave rise to disagreements among the mathematical community.1, 2 If sets of infinite size are allowed, for example, consider the set of positive integers (1, 2, 3 . . .) and the set of even numbers (2, 4, 6 . . .). It is appealing to think that positive integers outnumber even numbers, since the set of even numbers is a proper subset of the set of positive integers. Meanwhile, it is plausible to think that there are as many positive integers as even numbers, since every positive integer can be paired with an even number with no overlaps or reminders (e.g., 1 is paired with 2; 2 is paired with 4; 3 is paired with 6). In a research paper published in the 1870s, German mathematician Georg Cantor propounded that when comparing sets of infinite size it is wise to give up the first rationale and keep the second,1 and thus defended the existence of infinity in that context. While all infinite sets had been considered the same size,1 Cantor demonstrated that there are gradations of infinity and infinity comes in infinitely many sizes.3 Cantor’s work brought new insights to mathematicians. His effort to probe into the nature of infinity and consolidate the mathematical basis of set theory, however, was unable to steer clear of undermining paradoxes.1, 2 A popular one in this connection is the Russell’s Paradox, proposed by British philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell at the beginning of the 1900s.1, 2 The paradox denotes that there can be no such thing as the largest of all sets of infinities—that is, a “master set” so big that it contains all sets not contained in itself. This paradox can be paraphrased in plain yet interesting ways: Does a barber who claims that he shaves all those who do not shave themselves shave himself? Can God, who is omnipotent, create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? The question of the greatest of all infinities remains unsettled in set theory.3 Along with the rapid development of set theory were continual attempts to establish the entirety of mathematics on the basis of axioms and rules of inference, promoted by some influential mathematicians at the time.4, 5 Essentially, the axiomatic approach implies that for any precise mathematical statement there will be a decision procedure that takes the statement as the input and, after some steps of computation, outputs the conclusion on whether the statement is true or false.5 If the attempt turned out successful, then no mathematical problem would be unsolvable. Further, by extending the axiomatic approach to other disciplines, it could amount to no truths of nature being beyond human ability to describe and verify. As a result, in the 1930s, before the invention of computers, mathematicians from a number of countries investigated what it means to be computable, including Kurt Godel from Austria-Hungary and Alan Turing from Britain.5 Godel was honored as a discoverer of the most significant mathematical truth of the twentieth century, revolutionary for philosophers and logicians.6 Turing was similarly remembered as a great mind in mathematics and science.7 The Turing Award, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize in Computing,” is named after him. In his doctoral thesis at the University of Vienna, Godel put forward his Completeness Theorem, which establishes that a formula is provable from the axioms if and only if it is valid.5 Afterwards, in 1931, the two Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems, for which Godel is widely known, were published.8 The theorems convey that there are inherent limitations to what can be described, computed, or proved within a formal axiomatic system; even something rudimentary like the arithmetic of natural numbers is too complex to be depicted completely within a specified and deterministic procedure capable of being handled by human beings.3 In short, if an axiomatic system did not produce contradictory statements, then there would be statements that are true yet can be neither validated nor refuted within the system.4 A few years later, Turing introduced his automatic machines, which are known today as Turing Machines. A Turing Machine is a simple model for performing computational tasks. Because of its simplicity, it is meant not for practical computer programming, but for understanding general facts about computers.3 It is accepted that any computational task that can be completed by an ordinary computer can be done on a Turing Machine; if no Turing Machine could possibly compute a function, then no ordinary computer could compute that function, even with unlimited supplies of computing time and memory.3 With Turing Machines, Turing proved some fundamental results. In particular, he demonstrated that there are functions that simply take natural numbers as the input and give natural numbers as the output and are not computable by Turing Machines.3, 5 As such, the ambitions of axiomatizing the whole of mathematics and sorting out all the mysteries of nature by logical reasoning cannot be achieved. Notice also that mathematical proofs are premised on a given set of axioms and rules of inference whose validity are not formally proved but assumed. In other words, mathematical truths are not as infallible and objective as believed. *The Need for Śabda-pramāṇa in the Pursuit of Knowledge* In Śrī Īśopaniṣad, Introduction, Śrīla Prabhupāda presents three kinds of evidence for knowing and ascertaining truths, i.e., *pratyakṣa* (information based on sense perception), *anumāna* (inductive knowledge), and *śabda-pramāṇa* (knowledge heard from authorities). *Pratyakṣa* and *anumāna* are gained through human efforts, whereas *śabda-pramāṇa* is received from authoritative sources free from human defects, such as to err, to be deluded, to cheat, or to be limited by sense perception. In this regard, perfect knowledge cannot be attained merely on the strength of experimentation, logic, and reasoning. To reach perfect knowledge, evidence needs to be taken from *śabda-pramāṇa*, which is passed down through *paramparā*, the chain of disciplic succession, and is made accessible to modern audiences through various Vedic writings. While set theory examines infinity from a quantitative perspective, Vedic teachings affirm that infinity is not just an abstract concept to be quantified in theory; infinity signifies a concrete entity who is infinite. “Unfortunately, in our mechanistic, industrial age we tend to define infinity only in its quantitative sense, and thus we fail to notice that an infinity of personal qualities is a necessary aspect of infinity.” (*Bhāgavatam* 12.3.43, Purport) “I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upaniṣads. Being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe, He appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless truth.” (*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.40) Even in a quantitative sense, can the scale of infinite sizes described in Vedic writings be captured in the set-theory hierarchy of infinity? Probably not. “The spiritual world is considered to be three fourths of the energy and opulence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whereas this material world is only one fourth of that energy”; “No one can measure the length and breadth of the one fourth of My energy manifested in the material world. Who then can measure the three fourths that is manifested in the spiritual world?” (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya* 21.55, 21.87) Although the existence of the greatest of all infinities remains unsettled in set theory, Vedic literature unequivocally states that Kṛṣṇa is the origin and the supreme of all infinite entities. “Kṛṣṇa, who is known as Govinda, is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, and He is the prime cause of all causes” (*Brahma-saṁhitā* 5.1). “All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead.” (*Bhāgavatam* 1.3.28). “O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.” (*Bhagavad-gītā* 7.7) While Cantor’s endeavor to characterize infinity was hindered by paradoxes, Vedic literature indicates that in an attempt to depict infinity completely, paradoxical statements are not unexpected. In fact, paradoxes surrounding infinity serve as a defense of the par excellent characteristics of infinity. “The Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He is far away, but He is very near as well. He is within everything, and yet He is outside of everything.” (*Śrī Īśopaniṣad, Mantra* 5) “By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence!” (*Bhagavad-gītā* 9.4–5) The concept of infinity studied in mathematics, if thoughtfully considered, may hint at some of the Vedic understandings. For example, consider this mathematical proposition: if the set of even numbers (an infinite subset of positive integers) is subtracted from the set of positive integers, the latter set is still infinite. This proposition may point to the Vedic understanding that the supreme *pūrṇam* (complete) remains the same *pūrṇam* even if an unlimited number of pūrṇas (complete units) are deducted from Him. (*Śrī Īśopaniṣad*, Invocation). The set-theory conception that there are gradations of infinity and that infinity comes in infinitely many sizes may allude to the Vedic conception that the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa displays infinitely many variegated expansions. “O mighty conqueror of enemies, there is no end to My divine manifestations. What I have spoken to you is a mere indication of My infinite opulences. Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.” (*Bhagavad-gītā* 10.40–41) Still, the richness and vastness of the Vedic ontology of infinity is beyond mathematical imagination. From Godel’s and Turing’s results it can be inferred that it is impossible to completely and perfectly delineate infinity based on a set of axioms and rules of inference, and that not all puzzles and wonders of the world can be deciphered based on human ability to compute or prove. Vedic teachings likewise disapprove of approaching infinity simply by means of logic. “Due to a poor fund of knowledge, the mental speculators try to bring the Supreme within the purview of words and minds, but the Lord refuses to be so intelligible; the speculator has no adequate words or mind to gauge the infinity of the Lord.” (*Bhāgavatam* 3.6.10, Purport) It is recognized in Vedic literature that even a portion of the original infinite cannot be portrayed fully. “Because the Lord [Ananta, a portion of Kṛṣṇa] is unlimited, no one can estimate His power. This entire universe, filled with its many great mountains, rivers, oceans, trees and living entities, is resting just like an atom on one of His many thousands of hoods. Is there anyone, even with thousands of tongues, who can describe His glories?” (*Bhāgavatam* 5.25.12) In addition, Vedic teachings enunciate that the pursuit of knowledge is more than a mechanistic process of accumulating and validating information; it is a process of self-realization and cultivation that culminates in devotional service. “The process of knowledge terminates in unalloyed devotional service to the Lord. . . . One should reach up to that platform of understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead and thus engage in the devotional service of the Lord. That is the perfection of knowledge.” (*Bhagavad-gītā* 13.8–12, Purport) Mathematical and scientific study, in contrast, lack the capacity to uplift researchers to such a perfection. Despite Cantor’s remarkable contributions to set theory, he was afflicted with chronic depression and spent his last days in a sanatorium. Godel suffered from mental instability. Toward the end of his life, he developed an obsessive fear of being poisoned and essentially starved himself to death to avoid poisonous food. Turing died of cyanide poisoning at the height of his researching power, his death claimed by official verdict to be a suicide. Kṛṣṇa discloses in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (15.15) that by all the Vedas (*veda* means “knowledge”) He, the infinite, is to be known. And knowledge of infinity is attainable by learning from and serving those who know infinity. “Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.” (*Bhagavad-gītā* 4.34) Ultimately, knowledge of infinity is revealed by the infinite out of His infinite mercy: “To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me. To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.” (*Bhagavad-gītā* 10.10–11) May seekers of infinity from all walks of life, matured by their unceasing pursuit of knowledge, eventually come to know the infinite, who is ever calling them and waiting for them to come to Him and associate with Him in loving devotional service. *References* 1. O’Connor, J. J. and Robertson, E. F. (1996). “A history of set theory.” MacTutor History of Mathematics, (University of St. Andrews, Scotland). https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Beginnings_of_set_theory/ 2. Ferreiro´s, J., “The Early Development of Set Theory.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition). Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U. (eds.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/settheory-early/ 3. Rayo, A. (2020). “Paradox and infinity.” MIT Open Course Library. https://openlearninglibrary.mit.edu/courses/course-v1:MITx+24.118x+2T2020/course/ 4. O’Connor, J. J. and Robertson, E. F. (2003). “Kurt Godel.” MacTutor History of Mathematics, (University of St. Andrews, Scotland). https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Godel/ 5. Immerman, N., “Computability and Complexity.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition). Zalta, E. N. (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/computability/ 6. Flint, P. B. (1978, January 15). Dr. Kurt Godel Obituary. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/15/archives/dr-kurt-godel-71-mathematician-more-than-a-monument.html 7. Newman, M. H. A. (1955). “Alan Mathison Turing. 1912–1954.” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. Volume 1, pp. 253–263. https://www.jstor.org/stable/769256?mag=remember-representing-alan-turing 8. Raatikainen, P. “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition). Zalta, E. N. (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ *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 undergraduate education in mathematics and biological sciences in mainland China and her graduate education in statistics in the U.S.* Artificial Intelligence and Kṛṣṇa Consciousness *Some thoughts on an increasingly unavoidable aspect of modern life.* *As the influence of AI increases daily, it behooves us to consider its potential benefits and challenges to our spiritual life.* By Rukmiṇī Vallabha Dāsa Artificial intelligence (AI) has taken the world by a storm, especially with the launch of ChatGPT, and is being seen as a potential replacement for human intelligence. AI is slated to replace millions of jobs and create more distraction by increasing people’s leisure time and powering social media tools and entertainment. But AI can be used in devotional service under the principle of *yukta-vairāgya*, or using everything in the service of the Lord. Let us therefore investigate various aspects of AI through the lens of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, considering its potential opportunities and threats. We are living in the Age of Kali, which is predominated by the modes of passion and ignorance. The mode of passion entails creation. As a result, the time we live in is marked by constant change. Practitioners of Kṛṣṇa consciousness must immunize their practice of Kṛṣṇa consciousness against the potential disruptions and distractions in these changing and challenging times. We must also help others adapt to these changes by providing people spiritual insight and practices. *Can AI Replace Human Intelligence?* Human intelligence analyzes the sensory information supplied by the senses and accordingly directs the working of the senses (*Bhāgavatam* 3.26.29). It can process and analyze the five types of sensory data: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile. No AI product can do this. Most of the AI products work only on textual data. The extent to which AI can learn is limited by the way it is programmed and its ability to train itself. Generally a particular AI system is designed to learn a particular thing and is dedicated to a specific purpose. Examples include self-driving automobiles and customer-recommendation systems. Human intelligence, however, is not limited by any programming. It can learn different skills and arts simultaneously. ChatGPT can store and process a text dataset of 570 GB. It answers over 10 million queries a day. Its processing power, scalability, and storage are far beyond a typical human intelligence. But its accuracy depends on the extent of its training. The computational-resource requirement is massive, consisting of 285,000 processor cores and 10,000 graphic cards. This poses a significant threat to the environment in terms of power consumption and e-waste. On the other hand, human intelligence is environment friendly and hardly needs any maintenance. AI systems also lack emotional intelligence and cannot receive all types of emotional stimulus. We convey our emotions not just through text but through gestures, voice modulation, and facial expressions. By themselves, AI systems cannot decode the emotions embedded in users’ queries, so they cannot respond in an emotionally appealing and fulfilling way. According to Forbes magazine, 86% of consumers prefer humans to bots for getting support. AI systems lack ethical intelligence, called viveka in Sanskrit—the ability to discriminate between right and wrong, or what is to be done and what is not to be done. Human intelligence has the innate ability to develop this discrimination through the study of wisdom and spiritual texts like the *Bhagavad-gītā* and *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*. The training data for AI systems are derived from general sources, which in Kali-yuga are predominated by the modes of passion and ignorance. Therefore AI systems are either partly confused or partly perverted in discriminating between what is to be done and what is not to be done. When AI systems provide intelligence, they cannot properly employ ethics, and they cannot provide ethical intelligence. The real specialty of human intelligence is the potential to pursue spiritual knowledge. That is the purport of the first aphorism of the Vedanta-sūtra—*athato brahma jijñāsā*: “Now, therefore, inquire about the Absolute Truth.” Human intelligence is fully equipped to inquire, understand, and experience spiritual truths (*buddhi-grāhyam atīndriyam*—*Gītā* 6.21). An AI system cannot provide support with respect to spiritual intelligence or spiritual experience. Nor can it help in core spiritual practices. Real spiritual help for a practitioner of **bhakti*-yoga* is through spiritual mentors and *bhakti* texts like the *Bhagavad-gītā* and *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*. An AI system may be able to quickly and accurately retrieve and process large amounts of mathematical and textual data, but it cannot be as diverse and complete as human intelligence, especially in regard to spiritual realization. *AI as a Distraction* If a host does not properly know about the needs, interests, concerns, and expectations of the guest, the host may end up distracting and disturbing the guest. An AI system does not know its users sufficiently. It guesses the user’s needs, interests, and expectations based on very few interactions of the user with the system. According to the MIT Sloan Management Review, recommendation AI systems employed in assisting customers in making purchase choices and media content choices potentially end up distracting customers. The Review states that recommendations do more than just reflect consumer preferences—they actually shape them. AI recommendation algorithms are prone to amplify biases, which may limit the exposure of users to diverse points of view, potentially making them vulnerable to misinformation. Since AI systems are complex, they may be inherently prone to give biased responses. According to Forbes, ChatGPT is prone to these biases, called sample bias. AI systems may also contain biases deliberately introduced to influence customers. Facebook was accused of promoting hate content. AI tools also provide easy and efficient means to make promotional content such as posters, write-ups, and even videos to some extent. AI can expertly and efficiently aid distractors and expand distraction. Thus, intentionally or unintentionally, AI systems increase distraction by making things that are more sophisticated, creative, and enticing. By making objects of sense gratification more attractive, AI can lead to deeper entanglement of the conditioned soul. In Kali-yuga, vice dominates virtue. Therefore many virtuous persons may get degraded to vice because of AI-created allurement. Kali-yuga is also dominated by passion in the form of selfish religious practices, as well as by ignorance in the form of imaginary and destructive religious practices. Therefore AI systems can pose a serious distraction to sincere spiritual seekers, including practitioners of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We need to exercise extreme and expert caution while using AI-powered media-sharing platforms to access spiritual or general-purpose content. *AI as a Disruption* AI is posed to bring changes in creative and industry fields and other aspects of life. It can make humans more dependent on technology, at the expense of real learning. According to Forbes, 89% of students admit to using ChatGPT for their homework. This attitude of choosing the least resistant path is in the mode of passion and is bound to create complexities. It can boost external productivity, but at the cost of internal growth. To depend on a technology that is error-prone, partly biased, and not robust is extremely risky. AI is not wholesome and cannot work in all situations. On top of it all, AI is controlled by a few people or corporations whose primary interest is profit. It is wise to learn something ourselves first, and then AI may be used cautiously for accuracy, efficiency, and scalability. Unless one is learned, one cannot validate AI. Every one of us is gifted with some abilities. Where we lack, we depend on others. This mutual dependence can foster harmony and happiness and is the idea behind the *varṇāśrama* system mentioned in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (e.g., 18.42–44). AI, however, is slated to replace the jobs of support assistants, record-keepers, clerks, writers, artists, and most likely many others. According to a report by Goldman Sachs, AI is expected to replace 300 million full-time jobs, forcing people to perform tasks that are not their natural inclination or making them jobless. This upsets the harmony and happiness in society, as is evident in the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor and in the increasing loneliness and depression found in developed countries. AI was invented to boost productivity and replace human labor. Its products are being developed by people interested in profit, performance, and a competitive edge. Therefore their focus is on enhancing the benefits of AI like scalability, speed, and user-friendliness, rather than robustness, reliability, predictability, and transparency. The people who deploy AI products are also interested in profit and convenience, and they hardly pay heed to the effects of AI on the culture and values of society. Therefore AI is conceived, created, and used in the mode of passion (*Gītā* 18.27). The focus is on material gain rather than genuine benefit to humanity. Though everyone may be forced to use AI in some way or other, as practitioners of *bhakti-yoga* we must be conscious and cautious of the possible and latent ill effects of AI. *Bhagavad-gītā* (3.37) cautions against the ill-effects of the mode of passion in the form of lust and anger. *AI as an Aid to Devotional Service* Devotional service to Kṛṣṇa includes sharing His message with people to attract them to *bhakti-yoga*. Our means of outreach may have to change to be relevant to the masses of the world. That can include the use of AI. AI can potentially make the outreach of Kṛṣṇa consciousness scalable, user-friendly, attractive, and insightful. Many people throng to the centers and festivals of Kṛṣṇa consciousness all over the world. AI systems can provide better visitor assistance with respect to basic amenities and navigation. The online content of Kṛṣṇa consciousness is already enormous in form of audio, videos, and blogs. AI recommendation systems can make it easy for the users to find suitable and relevant content and give a personalized experience. Since AI is considered attractive, if Kṛṣṇa consciousness is presented using AI, it can enhance the relatability and appeal of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Care should be taken to ensure accuracy and clarity, as AI has no spiritual intelligence. Since AI systems can analyze large amounts of complex data, they can provide insights into the effectiveness of outreach endeavors. With respect to serving devotees in the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, AI can help in organizational and financial efficiency, resource use, and specialized support, through intelligent monitoring, tracking, and analysis. In communities around the world there are many devotees with varied talents and interests, and there are various avenues of service. AI systems can help managers efficiently and effectively allocate services so that every service can be done by the best possible devotee in the best possible way. Due intelligence needs to be exercised to validate AI systems to ensure that they are working according to their intended purposes. They can provide specialized tools to greatly reduce the time and talent needed for services such as writing, designing, and accounting, complementing the talent and time of the devotees rendering these services. Regarding devotional practices like deity worship, chanting, and hearing, AI can at most help in maintaining regularity. Devotional practice is very personal, between Kṛṣṇa and the devotee. To progress in devotional service one needs to be patient and steadfast. Using AI might make one become lethargic or lose steadfastness and personalism in one’s devotional practice. AI systems may be able to help in maintaining consistency in the practices of chanting and hearing amidst the hustle and bustle of the world. Therefore AI can be a good servant but a bad master. We should use AI according to our ability to understand and control it. According to the *yukta-vairāgya* principle, it can be used in devotional service, but it has to be used with care and caution. *Rukmiṇī Vallabha Dāsa, a disciple of His Holiness Rādhānāth Swami, began practicing Kṛṣṇa consciouness in 2010 and serves full time at ISKCON Pune. He is a research student at Bhaktivedanta Research Center (Mumbai) and blogs at https://spiritualwisdomonline.com.* The Golden Sannyāsī: Śrī Caitanya in the Mahābhārata *Although Lord Caitanya generally hid His identity as Kṛṣṇa, scriptural references reveal the truth.* By Satyarāja Dāsa Desiring to relish His identity as a devotee, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu generally hid His identity as Kṛṣṇa, but scriptural evidence has another story to tell. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu appeared some five hundred years ago in West Bengal, India, as the most recent and most merciful of all of Kṛṣṇa’s manifestations. In fact, He is said to be Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa combined, the epitome of transcendence. Among the many scriptural predictions foretelling Śrī Caitanya’s appearance—some of which are no longer extant—the one in the *Mahābhārata*, specifically in the *Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma* (“Thousand Names of Viṣṇu”), remains for me the most interesting. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī quotes the following verse three times in his *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*: > suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo > varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī > sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto > niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ “The Lord [in the incarnation of Śrī Gaurasundara] has a golden complexion. Indeed, His entire body, which is very nicely constituted, is like molten gold. Sandalwood pulp is smeared all over His body. He will take the fourth order of spiritual life [*sannyāsa*] and will be very much self-controlled. He will be distinguished from Māyāvādī *sannyāsīs* in that He will be fixed in devotional service and will spread the *saṅkīrtana* movement.”1 Śrīla Prabhupāda, following our *ācāryas* in disciplic succession, refers to this same verse throughout his writing. And his disciples, commenting on a famous text in the *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (11.5.32), write: The incarnation of Caitanya Mahāprabhu is also described in the *Śrī* *Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma*, which appears in Chapter 189 of the *Dāna-dharma-parva* of *Mahābhārata*. *Śrī*la Jīva Gosvāmī has quoted this reference as follows: *suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī.* “In His early pastimes He appears as a householder with a golden complexion. His limbs are beautiful, and His body, smeared with the pulp of sandalwood, seems like molten gold.” He has also quoted, *sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ*: “In His later pastimes He accepts the sannyāsa order, and He is equipoised and peaceful. He is the highest abode of peace and devotion, for He silences the impersonalist nondevotees.” One may note that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples here offer no specific verse number and cites these two qualities—*suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgaḥ* (golden complexioned) and **sannyāsa*-kṛt* (taking *sannyāsa*)—separately. There is a reason for this. As we will see, these descriptions of Mahāprabhu originally appear in two separate *Mahābhārata* verses, spliced together for our convenience. *The Two Verses* The two original verses (13.135.75 and 13.135.92) appear in the Critical Edition of the *Mahābhārata* as follows, here rendered with the English translation of K. M. Ganguli.2 > trisāmā sāmagaḥ sāma > nirvāṇaṁ bheṣajaṁ bhiṣak > sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto > niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ “He that is hymned with the three Vedas (foremost Samans; He that is the singer of the Samans; He that is the Extinction of all worldly attachments (in consequence of His being the embodiment of Renunciation); He that is the Medicine; He that is the Physician (who applies the medicine); He that has ordained the fourth or last mode of life called renunciation (*sannyāsa*)3 for enabling His creatures to attain to emancipation; He that causes the passions of His worshippers to be quieted (with a view to give them tranquillity of soul); He that is contented (in consequence of His utter dissociation with all worldly objects); He that is the Refuge of devotion and tranquillity of Soul. (13.135.75) > suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgo > varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī > vīrahā viṣamaḥ śūnyo > ghṛtāśīracalaścalaḥ “He that is of golden complexion; He whose limbs are like gold (in hue); He that is possessed of beautiful limbs; He whose person is decked with Angadas made with sandal-paste; He that is the slayer of heroes; He that has no equal; He that is like cipher (in consequence of no attributes being affirmable of Him); He that stands in need of no blessings (in consequence of His fulness); He that never swerves from His own nature and puissance and knowledge; He that is mobile in the form of wind.” (13.135.92) I purposely use Ganguli’s translation to show that even when rendered by a Sanskrit scholar who has no ostensible connection to a devotee community, the reference to Śrī Caitanya is self-evident, with these verses referring to a form of God who engages with the *sannyāsa* *āśrama* and bears a golden complexion. Mahāprabhu is famous as the incarnation who entered the renounced order of life, and as Gaurahari He is well known as the “Golden Avatāra.”4 The identification of Mahāprabhu with the divine *sannyāsī* predicted in the Mahābhārata goes back to the formative days of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. In Kavi Karṇapūra’s *Caitanya-candrodaya-nāṭaka* (5.93), written in the middle of the sixteenth century, we see that Advaita Ācārya Himself articulates this truth: “Says Advaita: ‘[Other explanations] are all deception. You have accepted sannyāsa to fulfill the *Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma*’s prediction: “*sannyāsa-kṛc chamaḥ śānto niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇaḥ* [“The Supreme Lord will appear as a peaceful devotee, a *sannyāsī*.”]’”5 Similarly, in regard to Mahāprabhu being the Lord who famously appears with a golden complexion, this too is well known throughout the *sampradāya*, with numerous scriptural verses highlighting the “nonblackness” or “golden color” of the Lord, particularly in His form as Śrī Caitanya. And there is more. Gauḍīya teachers have pointed out that the word *varṇa* in this verse (and others) can also allude to the chanting of the holy name. Indeed, *varṇa* can mean “order of life,” as in varnāśrama; “color,” as in the Lord’s bodily hue; and “syllables,” as in the chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa. Consequently, su*varṇa*-*varṇa*ḥ in this verse, although clearly pointing to Mahāprabhu’s golden complexion, includes another, esoteric meaning, i.e., the Lord who always chants the names of the Lord.6 As for combining the two verses into one, this was the brainchild of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī in his *Krama Sandarbha*.7 Kavirāja Gosvāmī followed suit. After this, in his Nāmārtha Sudhā Bhāṣya, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, the famous eighteenth-century scholar of the Gauḍīya tradition, looked at the verses more thoroughly, specifically emphasizing six particular names and how they relate to Śrī Caitanya. According to David Buchta, Senior Lecturer in Sanskrit Classics at Brown University: [Quoting Baladeva on the *Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma*:] “Now, revealing that he is Kṛṣṇa Caitanya, he speaks six names. He renounces, i.e., lives the life of a wandering mendicant. Thus he is called Renouncer (*Sannyāsakṛt*). He reveals (*śāmayati* = ālocayati) secrets about Hari. Thus he is called Revealer (*Śama*). This word contains the *curādi* (tenth-class) verbal root śamā, used in the sense of seeing. He restrains himself (*śāmyati* = *uparamati*) from objects other than Kṛṣṇa. Thus he is called Restrained (*Śānta*). Devotional sacrifices predominated by glorification of Hari are consummated in him. Thus he is called Consummation (*Niṣṭhā*). This is according to the *smṛti* text (*ŚBh* 11.5.32), ‘The wise certainly worship, by a sacrifice consisting primarily of congregational chanting, him whose name is Kṛṣṇa, though he is not dark in complexion, along with his attendant weapons in the form of his limbs and ornaments.’ All things contrary to devotion, headed by pure non-dualism, are destroyed (*śāmyanti*) by him. Thus he is called Destruction (*Śānti*). He is the highest refuge of the varieties of *bhāva* ending in mahā-*bhāva*. Thus he is called Highest Refuge (*Parāyaṇa*).” This set of names in the Viṣṇusahasranāma came to be an important proof text for Caitanya’s divinity shortly after Rūpa’s time. *Jīva* Gosvāmin cites these and four other names in his own extensive discussion of Caitanya’s divinity while commenting on the *Bhāgavata’s* description of the *kali-yuga-avatāra*. In the *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja likewise cites these names three times: once in its opening argument for Caitanya’s divinity and twice in the mouths of devotees who had come to realize his identity. . . . The additional names cited by *Jīva* and Kṛṣṇadāsa, placed first, are from *Mahābhārata* 13.135.92a-b: *suvarṇavarṇo hemāṅgo varāṅgaś candanāṅgadī.* In *Jīva*’s commentary, the line *niṣṭhā śāntiḥ parāyaṇam* is not included. Kṛṣṇadāsa’s citations are found at 1.3.49 (in narratorial voice), 2.6.104 (in the voice of Gopīnātha Ācārya, trying to convince his brother-in-law Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya of Caitanya’s divinity), and 2.10.170 (in the voice of *Brahmānanda Bhāratī*). In introducing these names at 1.3.48, Kṛṣṇadāsa says that they consist of two sets of four names, one concerning the earlier part of Caitanya’s life; the other, the later part. (*dui līlā caitanyera ādi āra śeṣa. dui līlāya cāri cāri nāma viśeṣa*.)8 Baladeva’s esteemed predecessor Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī mentions the two verses as well, telling us again that the Mahābhārata indirectly refers to Śrī Caitanya by highlighting His gold complexion and the fact that He took *sannyāsa*. Viśvanātha tells us more: Though these esoteric names are indeed found in the Mahābhārata, other *śāstras*, he writes, avoid them altogether. This is because these names speak to a highly confidential subject, Viśvanātha adds, and he illustrates this with a reference from scripture. Prahlāda Mahārāja states in *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (7.9.38): *channaḥ kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo ’tha sa tvam*, “Because the Lord appears in a hidden way in Kali-yuga, He is addressed as Triyuga.” In other words, Mahāprabhu covered His original color and mood with a golden form and the garb of a renunciant so that the people of His time would not recognize Him. This was His method of experiencing earthly pastimes as a devotee, not as the Lord, for He came to this world to feel the bhāva of Śrī Rādhā. Viśvanātha is exceedingly clear on this point.9 *The Names According to Gauḍīya Siddhānta* Below we outline all nineteen names found in the two verses as interpreted by Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura (1838–1914), the saintly Vaiṣṇava *ācārya* who brought Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism into the modern world. His insights into these names are based on Baladeva’s gloss and are specifically in tune with Vaiṣṇava philosophy, often bringing out the inner meaning of the texts themselves, especially when they apply to Śrī Caitanya. Both Baladeva’s and Bhaktivinoda’s elucidations are contained in the same volume, published by Bhaktivinoda: Verse 75: *trisāmā*—Lord Kṛṣṇa, in His appearance as Śrīla Vyāsadeva, divided the original Veda into three parts; **sāma*ga*—Śrīla Vyāsadeva took pleasure in singing the Vedic hymns; *sāma*—He taught those hymns to His disciples; *nirvāṇam*—He freed them from ignorance and liberated them from material bondage; *bheṣajam*—He administered the medicine of pure devotional service to Kṛṣṇa, which freed the devotees from the disease of material existence; *bhiṣak*—He is the greatest physician; **sannyāsa*-kṛt*—in His appearance as Lord Caitanya, He accepts the renounced order of life, *sannyāsa*; *sama*—Lord Caitanya is equipoised; *śānta*—He is peaceful; *niṣṭhā-śānti-parāyaṇa*—He is the abode of the highest peace and devotion, for He silences the impersonalist non-devotee philosophers. Verse 92: *suvarṇa-varṇa* *hemāṅga*—Lord Kṛṣṇa appears in Kali-yuga as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and in His early years plays the role of a brāhmaṇa householder with a golden complexion; *varāṅga*—His limbs are beautiful; *candanāṅgadī*—His body, smeared with sandalwood pulp, seems like molten gold; *vīrahā*—He kills lust, greed and all other enemies of His devotees; *viṣama*—no one is equal to or greater than Him, who protects the devotees and kills the demons; *śūnya*—He is free from all material defects, and He made the entire world unsafe for the demons and atheists; *dhṛtaśī*—He grants all auspiciousness to His devotees; *a*cala**—He was unmoving in His determination to protect the Pāṇḍavas from all danger; *cala*—He broke His own promise not to take up any weapon in the Kurukṣetra war to keep the promise of His devotee Bhīṣma.10 In conclusion: Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura (1874–1937), Śrīla Prabhupāda’s beloved spiritual master, published a popular edition of Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī’s classic *Caitanya-candrāmṛta* that included a commentary by an Odiya poet named Ānandī. In a poignant section toward the end of Prabodhānanda’s work (12.141), Ānandī points out how, based on these two *Mahābhārata* verses, Kavirāja Gosvāmī composed a beautiful poem about Mahāprabhu’s form and purpose. He is referring to *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, *Ādi* 3.40–47:11 The religious practice for the Age of Kali is to broadcast the glories of the holy name. Only for this purpose has the Lord, in a yellow color, descended as Lord Caitanya. The luster of His expansive body resembles molten gold. The deep sound of His voice conquers the thundering of newly assembled clouds. One who measures four cubits in height and in breadth by his own hand is celebrated as a great personality.12 Such a person is called *nyagrodha-parimaṇḍala*. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who personifies all good qualities, has the body of a *nyagrodha-parimaṇḍala*. His arms are long enough to reach His knees, His eyes are just like lotus flowers, His nose is like a sesame flower, and His face is as beautiful as the moon. He is peaceful, self-controlled and fully devoted to the transcendental service of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. He is affectionate toward His devotees, He is gentle, and He is equally disposed toward all living beings. He is decorated with sandalwood bangles and armlets and anointed with the pulp of sandalwood. He especially wears these decorations to dance in *śrī-kṛṣṇa-saṅkīrtana*. Recording all these qualities of Lord Caitanya, the sage Vaiśampāyana included His name in the *Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma*. “By performing the sacrifice of congregational chanting of the holy name, learned scholars in the Age of Kali worship Lord Kṛṣṇa, who is now nonblackish because of the great upsurge of the feelings of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. He is the only worshipable Deity for the *paramahaṁsas*, who have attained the highest stage of the fourth order [*sannyāsa*]. May that Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Caitanya, show us His great causeless mercy.”13 Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī here quotes Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, specifically mentioning the two qualities highlighted in the Mahābhārata verses. This suggests yet again that He appears with the golden hue of Śrī Rādhā (*dyuti-bharād akṛṣṇāṅgam*) and that He is Lord of all *sannyāsīs* (*caturtha-āśrama-juṣām*). What more needs to be said? *NOTES* 1. See *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, *Ādi* 3.49, *Madhya* 6.104, and *Madhya* 10.170. Also see *Caitanya-bhāgavata*, *Madhya* 28.168. 2. Kisari Mohan Ganguli (1848–1908) is well known for his complete English translation of the Sanskrit epic *Mahābhārata*. See Ganguli, Kisari Mohan, trans., The *Mahabharata* of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991, reprint). For the two verses, see Volume 11, 341–343. In terms of the *Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma*, the numbering of the divine names in these verses appears as follows: 13.135.75 includes names 576 through 587, and 13.135.92 includes 737 through 746. These numbers may vary depending on the edition used. 3. The word **sannyāsa*-**kṛ*t** can be understood in at least two ways, as “one who creates the *sannyāsa* *aśrama”* or “one who takes *sannyāsa*.” Most Sanskritists would understand it here as the former, which would apply to any incarnation of God, since the *varṇāśrama* system is created by the Supreme. Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava commentators, however, see in this verse the latter interpretation, for Śrī Caitanya is famously that manifestation of God who “takes” *sannyāsa* in His later pastimes. In fact, **kṛ*t* is an action noun formed from *kṛ*, which is among the most versatile verbs in the Sanskrit language. It can mean “make” (i.e., make or cause *sannyāsa*) or “do” (i.e., do or take *sannyāsa*), and so on. So one has to discern in each instance whether one meaning is preferable to another, which is usually done according to the specific context in which the verb is used. But here context is unhelpful, since this is a list of Viṣṇu’s thousand names, without a plot or philosophical argument. In this case, then, the meaning will be determined by the reader according to his or her own philosophical conclusions, and, for reasons too numerous to express here, we would do well to honor the reading of the *ācāryas*. 4. These two verses contain other hints of Śrī Caitanya’s avatāra as well: For example, Sāmagāna is not merely a name given to the melodious hymns of a particular Vedic *saṁhitā* but represents the overall philosophy of sound vibration on the spiritual platform. The word *sāma*, in fact, comes from the root *sāma*n, meaning “a song of praise.” The *Nārada-pañcarātra* tells us, “The essence of all Vedic knowledge—comprehending the three kinds of Vedic activity [*karma-kāṇḍa, jñāna-kāṇḍa*, and *upāsanā-kāṇḍa*], the *chandas*, or Vedic hymns, and the processes for satisfying the demigods—is included in the eight syllables Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa. This is the reality of all Vedānta. The chanting of the holy name is the only means to cross the ocean of nescience.” Further, “Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī states that the substance of all the Vedic *mantra*s is the chanting of the holy name of the Lord. Every *mantra* begins with the prefix *nama oṁ* and eventually addresses by name the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By the supreme will of the Lord there is a specific potency in each and every *mantra* chanted by great sages like Nārada Muni and other ṛṣis. Chanting the holy name of the Lord immediately renovates the transcendental relationship of the living being with the Supreme Lord.” See *Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā*, 7.76, Purport. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the foremost champion of the holy name. One other example of a name that clearly points to Caitanya is the final name of verse 75—Parāyaṇa—which means the “great goal,” or as Bhānu Swami translates it, “the refuge of persons of the highest *bhāvas* [spiritual sentiments].” This, say our Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, can only indicate Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the manifestation of Kṛṣṇa who is the very vessel of the topmost love (mahābhāva). 5. See Kavi Karṇapūra, **Caitanya-candrodaya*-nāṭaka*, trans., Bhānu Swami (Chennai, Tamil Nadu: Bhanu Swami Books, 2018), 185–186. See also *Caitanya-candrodaya*, trans., Kuśakratha Dāsa (10 Volumes, The Krishna Institute, 1989), 5.93. 6. From the root varṇ, which means “to praise, explain, extol.” For this confidential reading, see Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, “*Prema-Bhakti* and *Śrī Gaurāṅgadeva*” (https://bhaktivinodainstitute.org/prema-bhakti-and-sri-gaurangadeva/): “**suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgaḥ*—*His limbs are golden and He is continuously chanting…” Śrīla Prabhupāda, too, states, “Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, the most authoritative *ācārya* of our *sampradāya*, has explained like this. *Kṛṣṇa-varṇam* means ‘always chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa.’ *Kṛṣṇaṁ* *varṇayati*, describing Kṛṣṇa, ‘Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa.’” (Lecture, London, March 10, 1975) Similarly, in *Viśvanātha* Cakravartī’s *ṭīkā* to *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 11.5.32, he writes, “Another meaning of kṛṣṇa-varṇa is ‘he speaks about the pastimes of Kṛṣṇa.’” So, in the context of these names, *suvarṇa-varṇo hemāṅgaḥ*, we can also see reference to “the Golden Avatāra who chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa *mahā-mantra*,” as Prabhupāda himself sometimes translates it. 7. See Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, Krama Sandarbha, Volume 6 (Cantos 11 & 12), translated by Bhānu Swami, commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.5.32 (Chennai, Tamil Nadu: Bhanu Swami, 2018), 95 and 609–610. 8. See David Buchta, “Pedagogical Poetry: Didactics and Devotion in Rūpa Gosvāmin’s *Stavamālā”* (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2014), 91–92. See especially fns. 45 and 46. 9. See *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam*, *Daśama-skandha* (*Pūrvārdha*) with Bengali translation of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī's *Sārārtha-darśinī* by Śrī Vijana-vihārī Gosvāmī, Chapter 8, Text 13 (*Iśodyāna*, Śrīdhāma Māyāpura: Śrī Caitanya Vāṇī Press, 2001), 181–182. Also see Viśvanātha Cakravartī, *Sārārtha-darśini*, Chapter 8, Text 13 (Vrindavan: Radha Book Trust, 2013), 256–257. 10. See *Śrī Śrī Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma Stotram* (Medinipur, West Bengal: Śrī Caitanya Āśrama, 1974), with Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s Bengali translation of Śrī Śrīmad Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s *Nāmārtha-sudhā* commentary (edited by Bhakti Kumuda Santa Gosvāmī Mahārāja), 60–61, 77–79. We have just included Baladeva’s gloss, although in the text itself, Bhaktivinoda further elaborates. 11. See Śrīla Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī, *Śrī Caitanya Candrāmṛtam*, with commentary of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Ānandī, trans., Sarvabhāvana Dāsa (Vrindavan: Rasbihari Lal & Sons, 2004), 517–518. 12. Medieval Bengali texts do not offer measurements in either inches and feet or meters and centimeters, and so Mahāprabhu’s exact height remains unknown, though tradition teaches that he was quite tall. Commenting on this verse, however, Tony K. Stewart, one of the foremost academic authorities on Caitanya Vaiṣṇavism in the modern era, estimates the Lord’s height: “[Caitanya] measured, by the measure of his own arms, four arms or hands (*hatha*) tall; Rādhāgovinda Nātha says that one hand is from the tip of the middle finger of one hand to the tip of the middle finger of the other when the arms are outstretched, but that is clearly impossible. More likely the measure is from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, an average of eighteen inches. Caitanya, then, was perhaps taller than 6' 2", extremely tall for a Bengali of the period. Such great height is one of the marks of a great man, a mahāpuruṣa, for so Kṛṣṇa himself is called in BhP 10.40.4 and in many other places.” See Edward C. Dimock, Jr., trans., and Tony K. Stewart, ed., Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja: A Translation and Commentary, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 56 (Cambridge, MA: The Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, 1999), 180, fn. 33. 13. This verse is from the *Stava-mālā* of Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, quoted in *Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, *Ādi* 3.58. *Satyarāja Dāsa, a disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda, is a BTG associate editor and founding editor of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies. He has written more than thirty books on Kṛṣṇa consciousness and lives near New York City.* Seek a Spiritual Master for Success *Lord Kṛṣṇa’s mercy comes to us through His pure representatives.* By Suvarṇa Rādhā Devī Dāsī *Lord Kṛṣṇa empowers pure-hearted representatives to deliver essential spiritual knowledge to human society.* The Vedic texts assert that all souls residing in this material world are afflicted by illness. This is not a physical illness, but rather a spiritual one. The word nescience (ignorance) is used to describe it. Despite our intellectual achievements in the modern age, ignorance of our true self still exists within each of us and takes the form of rage, greed, pride, and other negative emotions. Knowledge of our true self cannot be gained through psychological self-analysis; rather it must be obtained from a spiritual master aware of the Absolute Truth. To receive a formal education, we must enroll in a school or university. Similarly, to approach the path to immortality and the Absolute Truth, we require a spiritual master who will place us in our role as Kṛṣṇa’s eternal servant. The process to attain the Absolute Truth is to receive knowledge from the disciplic succession, an unbroken chain of transcendentalists who receive the message of the Lord and teach it to their disciples, who then teach their disciples, and so on. Lord Kṛṣṇa is the supreme authority for the disciplic succession because He is the perfect knower of everything. Some people believe that one can be Kṛṣṇa conscious without a spiritual master. But being Kṛṣṇa conscious means following Lord Kṛṣṇa’s instructions. And since Kṛṣṇa has said that we must accept a spiritual master, we cannot be Kṛṣṇa conscious unless we follow this instruction. Lord Kṛṣṇa teaches by His own example that to learn the spiritual science one must approach a bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession. When Kṛṣṇa descended in Dvāpara-yuga, the sage Gargācārya played the role of His priest, a type of guru, in His childhood. Later Kṛṣṇa moved to the *ashram* of Sāndīpani Muni with His brother, Balarāma, and learned all the Vedic scriptures in sixty-four days. Five hundred years ago, when the Lord came as Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, He accepted Śrī Īśvara Purī as His spiritual master. Kṛṣṇa states in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (4.34) that one must approach a bona fide spiritual master, without whom one cannot achieve perfection. Kṛṣṇa does not recommend that one approach Him directly. Lord Caitanya, in His conversation with Rāmānanda Rāya, quoted the following verse from the *Ādī Purāṇa*: “[Lord Kṛṣṇa told Arjuna:] Those who are My direct devotees are actually not My devotees, but those who are the devotees of My servant are factually My devotees.” This means that if one considers himself to be Kṛṣṇa’s devotee but not a devotee of the devotees of Kṛṣṇa, then he is not actually Kṛṣṇa’s devotee. There is no difference between the Lord and His instructions. Similarly, there is no difference between the Lord and His pure devotees who can deliver the message of the Lord intact. One who cannot understand the spiritual nature distinguishes between a devotee and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But Śrīla Prabhupāda states that the bona fide representative of the Lord and the Lord are the same. The knowledge seeker must approach a bona fide guru, but sometimes a guru approaches a disciple. This happens by the causeless mercy of the Lord, who sends His representative. For example, Nārada Muni approached Dhruva Mahārāja when Dhruva went to the forest to seek God, and Nārada approached Prahlāda Maharāja while Prahlāda was in the womb of his mother, Kayādhu. *Resolving Apparent Contradictions* Sometimes we may find contradictions in the scripture. Actually there is no contradiction, but because we cannot understand something we might think there is a contradiction. For instance, Kṛṣṇa says in the *Bhagavad-gītā* (4.8), “To reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium,” whereas in *Gītā* 18.66 He says, “Abandon all varieties of religion (*dharma*) and just surrender unto Me.” At this point in the *Gītā*, Kṛṣṇa has spoken extensively about religion, but now He says, “Abandon all varieties of religion.” At first glance we would think this is a contradiction, but it is not. “Abandon all varieties of religion” means that we must not focus on ordinary religious duties at the cost of devotional service to the Lord. Lord Kṛṣṇa’s instruction in *Gītā* 4.8 is especially for people in general. His instruction in *Gītā* 18.66 is for an intimate friend, a devotee, because He wants Arjuna to benefit immediately. This instruction is at the highest level—it is the conclusion of the *Bhagavad-gītā*. People who are fortunate can come to this highest conclusion through the mercy of a spiritual master. Therefore, to understand the scriptures we need to approach a spiritual master. A bona fide spiritual master knows the will of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is *jagad-guru*—the spiritual master of the world—and He speaks through the bona fide spiritual master. *Traveling Representatives* Most people are not interested in devotional service to the Lord. To shower the Lord’s mercy upon them, devotees of the Lord travel from place to place to impart spiritual knowledge to all unfortunate souls. Even if we don’t have any inclination for Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the glance of a bona fide spiritual master or pure devotee is so powerful that it immediately plants the seed of *bhakti* in our heart. Because of the pure devotees’ sincere surrender to Kṛṣṇa, they carry Kṛṣṇa in their heart, and the Lord manifests through their words and mercy. The power of Kṛṣṇa’s mercy that manifests through a spiritual master or pure devotee is inconceivable to mundane intelligence. *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* (3.5.3) says, “O my lord, great philanthropic souls travel on the earth on behalf of the Supreme Personality of Godhead to show compassion to the fallen souls who are averse to the sense of subordination to the Lord.” According to Śrīla Prabhupāda, “A person with a bona ?de spiritual master is supposed to know everything.” (*Gītā* 2.7, Purport) Knowing everything means to know Kṛṣṇa in truth. The essence of knowing everything is to know the answers to these questions: • Who am I and what is my relationship with Kṛṣṇa? • What is the process to establish that relationship? • What is the result and purpose of that relationship? When, through the *guru*, we know these three things in truth by realization, then we are eligible to go back home, back to Godhead. This is the purpose of the *guru*: to break the cycle of *saṁsāra* (repeated birth and death), to qualify us to go to Kṛṣṇa in Goloka Vṛndāvana, and most importantly, to help us achieve kṛṣṇa-prema, pure love for Kṛṣṇa. One should approach a spiritual master, humbly submit to him, and then inquire about how to progress in spiritual life. Just as a seed planted in fertile land can germinate, a bona fide *guru* can enlighten the heart of a receptive disciple with transcendental knowledge. After the disciple accepts a bona fide spiritual master and serves him by assisting him in his mission, without false prestige, the Lord dwelling in the disciple’s heart will destroy the material perplexities with the shining lamp of knowledge. *Humble Inquiry* Out of humility, a disciple always presents himself as a fool or completely unable to make any progress in life without the mercy of his spiritual master. Even Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu observed this etiquette, although He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the supreme authority on all spiritual knowledge. Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote in regard to his spiritual master: “It is to be admitted that whatever translation work I have done is through the inspiration of my spiritual master, because personally I am most insignificant and incompetent to do this materially impossible work. I do not think myself a very learned scholar, but I have full faith in the service of my spiritual master, His Divine Grace Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. If there is any credit to my activities of translating, it is all due to His Divine Grace.” (*Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, “Concluding Words”) It should be noted, however, that the bona fide disciple is never a fool, although he may regard himself as one. To submit oneself in all humility to the lotus feet of the spiritual master means that the student is obedient to the order of the Lord and therefore has perfect intelligence. The real fool is someone who does not take advantage of the order of the Supreme Lord by submission to the spiritual master. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes in his purport to *Bhagavad-gītā* 4.34, “In this verse, both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned.” We surrender with intelligence; we don’t surrender our intelligence. You can present yourself as a fool before your spiritual master, but that doesn’t mean you should be a fool. Absurd inquiry has little to no value even in material endeavors, and this is truer spiritually as well, because in spiritual life we are trying to contact Kṛṣṇa through a guru. When we do so by asking ridiculous questions, the guru is not pleased. We always have to remember that all our efforts, questions, service, *sādhana*, etc., are directed toward establishing a connection with Kṛṣṇa, who resides within our heart. Hence the degree of our seriousness is revealed by how carefully we approach the guru to submit inquiries and get our uncertainties cleared up. Blind acceptance and blind rejection are equally bad. Blind faith eventually results in failure. Human life is meant for reasonableness, not for blind faith. The best way to move forward is with a degree of faith, which one verifies through sādhu, śāstra, and guru. *Bhagavad-gītā* philosophy gives intelligent faith through analysis and realization. *How to Inquire from a Spiritual Master* Arjuna set an example by asking Kṛṣṇa (*Gītā* 4.4) how it was possible that, as He had just stated, He had explained the science of bhakti to Vivasvān, who seemingly was born much earlier than Kṛṣṇa. Although Arjuna was highly learned, for the welfare of humanity he inquired from the Lord as if he were ignorant, so that Kṛṣṇa might deliver truth from His own lotus mouth. Determining what is more pleasing to guru and Kṛṣṇa is not based on the specific type of devotional activity we perform but on the intensity of our devotional attitude. For example, if someone washes a pot in the temple kitchen with more devotion to the Lord than someone who gives a *Bhagavad-gītā* lecture to a large crowd, the pot washer is pleasing guru and Kṛṣṇa more than the lecturer is. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura writes in *Śrī Śrī Gurvaṣṭaka* (Verse 8), *yasya prasādād bhagavat-prasādo yasyāprasadān na gatih kuto ’pi*: “By the mercy of the spiritual master one receives the benediction of Kṛṣṇa. Without the grace of the spiritual master, one cannot make any advancement.” If we take shelter of Kṛṣṇa through a bona fide spiritual master, we receive Kṛṣṇa’s extraordinary mercy even though we are unqualified. Kṛṣṇa is so kind that He transforms our lives by allowing us to engage in His devotional service—an extraordinary blessing. Kṛṣṇa is all-in-all. We are His, and we can feel that He is ours as well. His mercy is everything. The spiritual master is always prepared to impart knowledge to the disciple, especially when the disciple is sincerely inquisitive. The desire to learn from the spiritual master is greatly necessary for the disciple’s progress. As Śrīla Prabhupāda would say, if one is not very inquisitive about self-realization, one need not approach a spiritual master simply to make a show of discipleship. If one is serious about being Kṛṣṇa’s devotee, then one must seek guidance from a bona fide spiritual master and take complete shelter of him. Serving the instructions of the spiritual master in all humility awakens one’s love for Kṛṣṇa. This is the ultimate perfection of human life. *Suvarṇa Rādhā Devī Dāsī, PhD, and her husband Brajanātha Dāsa, 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 Spiritual Value of Feelings By Viśākhā Devī Dāsī *Our emotions, which may sometimes override our intellect, can be directed toward the highest goal of life.* The Consumer Confidence Index is a measure of the optimism or pessimism buyers feel regarding the general state of their country’s economy, as well as their personal financial circumstances. Before a country’s economy shows any signs of change, consumer confidence indices are a leading indicator of a broad economic shift, such as resumed or slowed spending and growth. In short, throughout the world, feelings—although not always rational—play an outsized role in economies. Feelings play an outsized role in politics and governing as well. As Angela Merkel left office after sixteen years as Chancellor of Germany, she noted that the pandemic had been a demonstration of how important trust (a feeling) is to politics—“and how fragile it can be.” She also indicated how important feelings were to her on a personal level: she said that her approach in life had always been to work with “a cheerful heart.” Although we humans pride ourselves on being well-reasoned, in fact much of our lives is governed by largely ungovernable feelings. We all know that feelings like disappointment, discouragement, dissatisfaction, and depression can ruin an otherwise normal day—or week, or year, or even lifetime. And optimism can turn a bleak situation into a stimulating one. Boethius, a Roman statesman and theologian of the early sixth century, noted, “Nothing is wretched, but thinking makes it so, and conversely every lot is happy if borne with equanimity.” Not surprisingly, in spiritual life also, feelings surpass the influence of logic and intellectual acumen. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī writes, Some scholars recommend that knowledge and renunciation are important factors for elevating oneself to devotional service. But actually that is not a fact. Actually, the cultivation of knowledge or renunciation, which are favorable for achieving a footing in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, may be accepted in the beginning, but ultimately they may also come to be rejected, for devotional service is dependent on nothing other than the sentiment or desire for such service. It requires nothing more than sincerity. (*The Nectar of Devotion*, Chapter 14) The difference between material and spiritual feelings is that material feelings are centered on Kṛṣṇa’s external, material energy, while spiritual feelings are directly Kṛṣṇa-centric. Just as we are not our body or mind, we are also not our material feelings. Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: One can perceive one’s self-identification and feel positively that he exists. He may not feel it very abruptly, but by using a little intelligence, he can feel that he is not the body. He can feel that the hand, the leg, the head, the hair and the limbs are all his bodily parts and parcels, but as such the hand, the leg, the head, etc., cannot be identified with his self. Therefore just by using intelligence he can distinguish and separate his self from other things that he sees. So the natural conclusion is that the living being, either man or beast, is the seer, and he sees besides himself all other things. So there is a difference between the seer and the seen. (*Bhāgavatam* 2.2.35, Purport) *My Feelings Are Not Me* The seer is the ātmā, or spirit soul, an integral part of Kṛṣṇa, the supreme soul, and conscious. The seen is the material body and material energy generally. As Śrīla Prabhupāda explains, my hand is not conscious of itself, but I, as an ātmā, am conscious of it. I am similarly conscious of the state of my mind and feelings; my mind and feelings are not me—they are felt by me, the feeler, the ātmā. In the opinion of great spiritual teachers, the material dualities of happiness and distress, good and bad, pleasant and unpleasant, and so forth that we feel in this world are our mind’s concoctions. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes, When one is absorbed in the illusory energy of Kṛṣṇa and cannot understand Kṛṣṇa, one cannot ascertain what is good for him and what is bad. Conceptions of good and bad are all imaginations or mental speculations. When one forgets that he is an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, he wants to enjoy the material world through different plans. At that time he distinguishes between material plans that are good and those that are bad. Actually, however, they are all false. (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya* 4.176, Purport) As we strive to become increasingly conscious of Kṛṣṇa, the basis of our feelings gradually shifts. Rather than being based on bodily and mental sensations and concoctions, our feeling are more and more based on the pleasure of guru and Kṛṣṇa. A devotee of Kṛṣṇa feels happy when Kṛṣṇa and His representatives are happy. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes, “Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says that a devotee does not care about his own happiness and distress; he is simply interested in seeing that Kṛṣṇa is happy, and for that purpose he engages in various activities. A pure devotee has no way of sensing happiness except by seeing that Kṛṣṇa is happy in every respect.” (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Antya* 20.52, Purport) As devotees want to please Kṛṣṇa, similarly He is keen to please His devotees; as His devotees want Him to be happy, Kṛṣṇa wants His devotees to be happy, and to that end He assures them that service offered to Him with devotion is “joyfully performed.” (*Gita* 9.2) Śrīla Prabhupāda said, Even if you are in these bodies, material body, if you advance yourself in spiritual consciousness or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, you will be spiritualized. Your body will be spiritualized. You’ll no more be affected by this material contamination. The more you make advance, you’ll feel it. *Pratyakṣāvagamaṁ dharmyam* [understanding the principle of religion by direct experience]. It is not for future tasting, but you’ll understand it. Understand it. So we have to make our progress in that way. (Lecture, July 13, 1966, New York) However, the ultimate feeling all devotees aspire for, namely kṛṣṇa-prema—loving Kṛṣṇa without a tinge of material motivation, uninterruptedly, and with complete abandon—is far away for some of us (like me). As I flounder along the spiritual path, my more practical and immediate goals are, How can I feel Kṛṣṇa’s presence in my life? How do I increase my affection for Him? And how do I show Kṛṣṇa that I’m sincere in my desire for spiritual progress? For one, I understand that a sincere devotee will make time for Kṛṣṇa. In any relationship, we want to spend time with the person we value. When we value Kṛṣṇa’s presence in our lives, we make time for activities like chanting His names and reading about and discussing His character, activities, and teachings. We may or may not understand and remember what we’ve read and discussed, but the simple act of trying to understand and remember, of using our time in that way, is noted and appreciated by Kṛṣṇa. Śrīla Prabhupāda recalled that his spiritual master spoke in such an esoteric way that Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t always understand what he was saying, but still he patiently heard, and his spiritual master noted and appreciated his effort. Similarly, once when Śrīla Prabhupāda met some of his disciples in New Vrindaban, the first Hare Kṛṣṇa farming community, he asked them, “So, are you trying to understand my books?” These young and newly initiated disciples especially relished that Prabhupāda said “trying to understand.” Kṛṣṇa in our heart takes note of our sincere efforts. Those efforts are more important than their results, for ultimately the results are up to Him, while the effort is up to us. *Remembrance and Active Service* Besides spending time with Kṛṣṇa, to develop our affection for Him we can also actively serve Him in some capacity. And while offering physical service to Kṛṣṇa, we try to remember Him. In the *Gītā* (8.7) Kṛṣṇa says, “Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Kṛṣṇa and at the same time carry out your prescribed duty.” In other words, we’re supposed to be conscious of Kṛṣṇa while we act, and if we are, then those activities will be transcendentally sweet. In a lecture to his early followers, Śrīla Prabhupāda explained, One is engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa not officially or to make a show; he feels enlivened in rendering such transcendental service. Some of you must be feeling like that, I am sure; otherwise you cannot take so much responsibility, working all day, unless you feel. You see? So that is the test. *Kṛṣṇa-mādhurya*. There is some transcendental ecstasy, feeling, in the service of the Lord. So in the beginning we may not relish that transcendental feeling, but as we go on, increasing, we’ll feel it. K*ṛṣṇa-sevā kare, kṛṣṇa-rasa-āsvādana*. This is called kṛṣṇa-rasa. Just like anything we do, there is some humor, there is some taste. Suppose a person writes poetry. In writing that poetry he feels some taste; therefore he writes. Somebody plays on a flute. Somebody drinks. So there is some particular taste. Similarly, transcendentally, you will have a taste for Kṛṣṇa’s service. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness, a taste of mellow—mellow, or, what is called, a humor. You’ll like. You’ll like to serve more and more. The more you serve, you’ll like to serve more and more. That is transcendental service. (Lecture, December 5, 1966, New York) As we engage in this transcendental service that Śrīla Prabhupāda kindly offers us, it’s important to recognize and honor our fellow devotees who are similarly engaged; in fact, we should respect all beings, knowing that Kṛṣṇa is our common father and that our heartfelt respect for all beings pleases Him. A dominating and controlling mentality, a superiority complex, a suspicious, skeptical, or condescending attitude will block the sweet taste of devotional service. Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī tells us, “Lord Kṛṣṇa’s mercy is dependent only on affection. Being obliged only by affection, Lord Kṛṣṇa acts very independently.” (*Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya* 10.139) By His independent action, Kṛṣṇa guarantees that His devotee is never vanquished. He may or may not show this by materially protecting His devotees, but He most certainly does it by spiritually protecting them. If they so desire, Kṛṣṇa ensures that His sincere devotees progress spiritually. And that progress is something devotees will feel; no one will have to inform them of it. To illustrate this point, the *Bhāgavatam* (11.2.42) offers an analogy: “Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.” In the final analysis we will evoke our genuine feeling for Kṛṣṇa by His mercy. And there’s no formula for mercy. We can simply pray for it and hope against hope that, undeserving as we may be, Kṛṣṇa will kindly allow us to feel abiding affection and love for Him. Until then, we simply keep trying. *Visakha 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.* Be Small but Positive *Acknowledging our smallness can be empowering when we know we’re part of something great.* By Vraja Vihārī Dāsa Though it may seem paradoxical, recognizing our insignificance can lessen our worries. To alleviate stress and anxiety, we are often taught to be positive. “Believe in yourself” or “You can do it” are common mantras propounded by self-help gurus. For a change, why not try a different approach: “I am small and loved by God” or “I belong to Kṛṣṇa and am safe in the universe.” One day I witnessed the efficacy of this approach. I was sitting under an almond tree and gazing at the open sky. As horns blared from cars stuck in Mumbai traffic, the birds above flew gracefully back to their homes. The orange orb of the sun gave way to the stars and the moon in a clear night sky. Were these things telling me something? I saw an occasional plane twinkle with red and yellow lights, smoothly gliding upwards till it seemed to be swallowed by the heavens, the plane and its passengers tiny in the expansive world outside it. I too felt small and humbled. The next morning I was on a plane to Perth, flying seven thousand miles from home. As the plane finally began its descent, I looked at the city below. Its skyscrapers appeared no bigger than dots on a paper. I wondered about the people who lived there, people who had their own share of worries and needs. But at thirty thousand feet, looking at the stretch of land below, I felt their tragedies evaporate; their issues were nonexistent. Later that night, as I lay in bed, I again saw, this time through the window, the huge sky with its moon and stars. Suddenly I felt connected. Were they not the very same stars and moon I’d contemplated twenty-four hours earlier in that crowded and noisy Mumbai street? They had traveled with me, and I had so many friends up there. I felt a sense of belonging to the universe. I was indeed insignificant, so tiny in the face of this huge cosmos; yet, in a sense, I felt loved, I felt connected. I suddenly realized I knew who I was: I was inconsequential, yet I had a special place here and beyond. *Who Are We in the Universe?* Since that day, I have tried occasionally to connect to the principle of being small yet loved by God, of feeling safe in my relationship with the universe, and of being at home in my Kṛṣṇa conscious practices. These attempts at connection have had a much more pronounced effect in addressing my worries than the plethora of motivational self-talks available online. Images of planet earth from space show a tiny dot amidst countless heavenly bodies. And it’s so amazing that in that miniscule point exists my country, my state, my district, the street where I live, and the one small apartment I reside in. How much more insignificant are the worries packed up in my little head than the gigantic cosmos? What happens when we choose to become small? What’s the science of it all? *Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Magic Formula* To be part of a big plan is a refreshingly different paradigm than to be the center of the universe. Śrīla Prabhupāda taught us this principle through the process of saṅkīrtana, the congregation chanting of the holy names of Kṛṣṇa. The Vedic scriptures recommend that for the modern day and age the practice of saṅkīrtana is most effective for spiritual emancipation. To tap its power, we place ourselves as an instrument in the Lord’s plan, one insignificant member of the Lord’s transcendental army. As Hare Kṛṣṇa devotees chant and pray collectively in kīrtanas, they feel a sense of belonging; they know that although each of them is a miniscule part of Kṛṣṇa’s plan, they are embraced by Kṛṣṇa and nourished in their relationship with Him. Śrīla Prabhupāda appealed to us to connect to Kṛṣṇa, who is a reality beyond our body, mind, and senses. Often we are so preoccupied with our problems that we fail to see the beautiful reality beyond our small existence. If you hold a coin close to your eye, your vision of the sun is blocked. There’s no comparison of their sizes—the gigantic ball of fire is many billions of times bigger than a tiny piece of metal. Still, when close to our eyes, a tiny coin can block our vision of the colossal sun. We are often so engrossed in our daily worries that our vision of the big picture that is life is blocked. Yet our larger vision of life is a far more significant reality than a colleague’s harsh comment or the shrieking expletives of a haughty passerby. *Lesson from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* For an ordinary person, hardly any calamity can equal the prospect of meeting with death. But Emperor Parīkṣit, who was cursed to die by snakebite within seven days, saw the larger plan of the Lord, and also saw himself as an instrument in the Lord’s scheme of things. Therefore when many saintly persons appeared on the scene to honor him, he was unfazed. Knowing that an extraordinary event would happen, sages from different planets arrived, for the king had renounced all his material wealth to take complete shelter of Kṛṣṇa. Yet the king offered prostrated obeisances to the sages and declared that they were respecting him because his grandparents were glorious devotees of Kṛṣṇa. He claimed he had no qualification. He said that he was insignificant, like a place where people wash their feet before entering a house. This mood of the king attracted Śukadeva Gosvāmī’s arrival on the scene, as a result of which the immortal *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* was spoken. Śukadeva Gosvāmī is considered the greatest example of *kīrtana* (glorification of the Lord), and Parīkṣit Mahārāja exemplifies the mood of its best participant. He took shelter of the sages and asked for their blessings to serve devotees, get attached to the Lord, and be friendly with other living entities. He sought the shelter of the Lord and was happy to receive the poisoned bite of the snake-bird. Death didn’t matter—glorification of the Lord was all-important for him. *Application in Our Daily Lives* How does the “be small, be positive” principle translate to my daily reality? How can I heal my anxieties based on the practice of glorifying the Lord? Unprecedented devastation hit the coastal regions of Sri Lanka during the tsunami in December 2005. His Holiness Indradyumna Swami and his saṅkīrtana team traveled to the remote villages to offer relief and help. The local authorities frankly told him that a lot of economic aid had poured in from all over the world. There was no dearth of material facilities. Yet, the team learned, people were emotionally wrecked. The tsunami had left them shaken and feeling helpless, and it all happened in a few minutes. Could Indradyumna Swami address this challenge? He led the villagers in the congregational chanting of the holy names of Kṛṣṇa. The program was an instant hit. People smiled and danced. After a few days, as the team prepared to leave the first village for the next, the villagers surrounded the devotees and insisted they stay for some more days. Finally, there was a tearful farewell. The saṅkīrtana had captured the hearts of the suffering people; it gave them hope and happiness. Our daily lives are beset with worries. Worry is like a bird that flies to our roof. We can’t really prevent that, but we can stop the bird from building a nest there. The strength to thwart the mind’s attempt to build an anxiety nest comes when we spend quality time daily in a space beyond the mind and senses. That space is *saṅkīrtana*—the space of God. *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 *Characteristics of Prema* *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* and other devotional scriptures reveal that when Lord Kṛṣṇa descends to this world He comes for various reasons and accomplishes a multitude of tasks. In *Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta*, the author, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, guided by the recollections and realizations of Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s closest associates, tells us that Kṛṣṇa came as Lord Caitanya to inaugurate the religion for this age—the congregational chanting of God’s holy names—and, among other things, to bestow prema, pure love of God, on the spiritually debilitated people of our times. For this second reason especially, great spiritual authorities glorify Caitanya Mahāprabhu as Lord Kṛṣṇa’s most merciful appearance. Most people don’t know about Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu or His granting of prema. But those of us who know of Him can benefit from increasing our appreciation for what He came to give. In this regard, His disciple Sanātana Gosvāmī, in his *Śrī Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta* (2.2.103–105), has described seven characteristics of prema. (1) Prema is the goal of all paths prescribed in the Vedic literature, including *karma-kāṇḍa* (scripturally guided fruitive work), *jñāna-kāṇḍa* (philosophical pursuit of the Absolute Truth), and *vairāgya* (renunciation of the world). The Vedas guide human beings to the highest attainment from wherever they are in the range of spiritual qualification. Therefore, though apparently promoting competing paths, their aim is in fact one: *prema*. (2) *Prema* is the ultimate goal of existence, beyond even liberation, or full freedom from all influence of the material energy. Followers of the Vedic literature generally accept liberation as the goal of human life. An inestimable contribution of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was to reveal the superiority of prema above all else. (3) *Prema* brings God Himself under the devotee’s control. A beautiful example of this is Kṛṣṇa’s allowing Himself to be tied to a grinding mortar by His mother. Another example is Lord Viṣṇu’s telling the sage Durvāsā, seeking the Lord’s protection from His disc weapon, that He is fully dependent on the wishes of His devotees. Lord Viṣṇu directed Durvāsā to seek shelter at the feet of His pure devotee Ambarīṣa Mahārāja. (4) *Prema* is given by God; it is not acquired by one’s own efforts. Because the path of *bhakti-yoga* prescribes regulated spiritual practices, we might think that strict adherence to them will automatically give us *prema*. In fact, however, what we’re trying to do is please Kṛṣṇa. When He is pleased with our pure desire to love and serve Him, He will shower His blessings on us, His greatest blessing being the gift of *prema*. (5) *Prema* is the greatest treasure of God’s devotees. Having been blessed with prema, pure devotees have no desire but to serve the Lord for His satisfaction alone. (6) *Prema* overflows with transcendental bliss. Boundless happiness is an inherent quality of *prema*. The devotee doesn’t aspire for happiness for its own sake, but it comes of its own accord as a result of pure devotional service offered in *prema*. (7) *Prema* entitles devotees to join the Lord in His eternal ecstatic pastimes in the spiritual world. This last characteristic is not included in the list given in Śrī *Bṛhad-bhāgavatmṛta*, but Gopīparānadhāna Dāsa, the translator and commentator for the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust edition, includes it, reasoning that Pippalāyaṇa Ṛṣi, the speaker of these verses, may have felt that mention of entering Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes was too confidential at this point in the narration. Despite our wretched condition in this age, however, Lord Caitanya has allowed us entry into the narrations of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s confidential pastimes, where prema is exhibited in its full glory. Hare Kṛṣṇa. —*Nāgarāja Dāsa, Editor* Bhakti Wisdom The Lord is not only the creator and destroyer of the material manifestations of His different energies. He is more than a simple creator and destroyer, for there is His feature of *ānanda*, or His pleasure feature. This pleasure feature of the Lord is understood by the pure devotees only, and not by others. His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 2.10.44, Purport When the devotee’s spiritual emotions are awakened, he sees his worldly duties in relationship to Kṛṣṇa and not in relationship to the demands of the material senses, family, society, and so on. Thus he fulfills his responsibilities in a blissful mood of loving attachment to the Lord. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura *Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta-mālā* 9 To taste the fruit of devotional service in Goloka Vṛndāvana is the highest perfection of life, and in the presence of such perfection, the four material perfections—religion, economic development, sense gratification and liberation—are very insignificant achievements. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu *Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā* 19.164 If somehow or other by good fortune one develops faith in hearing and chanting My glories, such a person, being neither very disgusted with nor very much attached to material life, should achieve perfection through the path of loving devotion to Me. Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 11.20.8 Terrified, about to die, a man collapses on his bed. Although his voice is faltering and he is hardly conscious of what he is saying, if he utters the holy name of the Supreme Lord he can be freed from the reaction of his fruitive work and achieve the supreme destination. But still people in the Age of Kali will not worship the Supreme Lord. Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī *Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam* 12.3.44 An intelligent, equipoised person who has realized Brahman must endeavor to know the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, and surrender unto Him with loving devotion. *Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad* 4.4.21 The study of the Vedas and *Purāṇas*—verily, the study of all scriptures—is completed in all respects by one who studies the *Bhagavad-gītā* with devotion. Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī *Gīta-māhātmya* of the *Padma Purāṇa* 23 By the mercy of the personality of Godhead and by associating with His devotees, sages who take pleasure in the self can give up their attachment to the impersonal Supreme and enter the path of devotional service. Personified Devotional Scriptures *Śrī Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta* 2.2.206 BTG58-03, 2024