By Praghosa dasa
In the 1st canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam the personification of Dharma speaks powerfully when Maharaja Pariksit came to his aid after he had been mutilated by the the personality of Kali.
When asked by Maharaja Pariksit – who had mutilated him? He responded in a way that is generally not the case for the population at large. Although he knew exactly who the perpetrator was, indeed the perpetrator (the personality of Kali) was still in the vicinity, he answered as follows:
“It is very difficult to ascertain the particular miscreant who has caused our sufferings, because we are bewildered by all the different opinions of theoretical philosophers”
He then goes on to list many different theories as to the cause of our sufferings, such as:
We ourselves being responsible for our happiness and distress (karma). Superhuman forces being responsible for our suffering.
Nature being the ultimate cause of our distress etc. etc.
For most of us the easiest thing to do would have been to point over to Kali, cowering in the wings, and say “Pariksit Maharaja there is your man!”
Whatever about the philosophical reasons for our suffering, the ability and restraint of Dharma to not simply point out who the culprit was is most impressive. Often times people will point the finger of blame at someone even when they are either not sure if they are guilty or even sometimes when they actually know they are not guilty. So what to speak of not pointing the finger of blame when you know exactly who is responsible.
While reading this passage of the Bhagavatam it struck me that the propensity to defend is just as strong, if not stronger, than the propensity to eat, sleep and mate. For whatever reason I had subconsciously concluded that eating and sleeping were top of the list (things that could more or less only be ‘overcome’ by death) and then the attraction for sex life (mating) was naturally more difficult to overcome than the need to defend oneself. Studying this passage tended to change my perspective, as I could never imagine myself responding in such a way after being so brutally attacked by someone.
So this tendency to defend is very deep rooted and regularly manifests itself, particularly when the circumstantial evidence is that we are being wronged or when we are cent per cent certain that we are in the right.
Seeing all the different contributions on Dandavats also reminds me of this phenomena for two reasons. The first is when a debate is taking place and opposing positions are taken. It often becomes very difficult for the protagonists to separate themselves from their comments and the tendency to defend their position is difficult to resist.
In such circumstances the debate can sometimes become a little intense and maybe less than ideal, which of course was certainly the case as far as the actions of Kali were concerned. I hasten to add that I am not comparing the actions of Kali to the contributors to Dandavats! Still for some readers they may prefer not to witness the results of the locking of horns of various debaters. But just as Kali was given a place to operate by Maharaja Pariksit so also Dandavats is providing a place for the most intense of debates to continue via the structure of the site vis a vis the comment option. And those who prefer to not be involved can do so by viewing the front page as well as other areas of the website.
Hopefully this arrangement allows for the majority of readers and contributors to be somewhat satisfied.
Your servant,
Praghosa dasa
Nice meditations, Praghosa prabhu. As much as Srila Prabhupada defended the philosophy and became very angry even when discussing certain mayavadi tendencies, he didn’t become angry when challenged on philosophical points: rather, he became inspired to speak more and more…it encouraged him when someone argued or tried to find an “out” in the philosophy. But he certainly did get angry at them personally: “kick them on their face” is about as personal as it gets :) But that’s precisely what he was trying to show us: personalism. Not this modern day trend that, “everyone has a right to express their opinion, no matter that it is deviating from the philosophy, some see it differently.”
When debates and points of view are based on the philosophy, then there may be arguments and a great deal of back and forth, but still it’s enlivening to read. However, there should be one stipulation about dandavats.com articles and postings: the philosophy remains supreme, not the thoughts of trend-oriented individuals. If your website maintains that standard, then what is the problem….
Braja Sevaki: The “kick them on their face” method of philosophical persuasion is one Srila Prabhupada clearly intended for Mayavadis and other aggressors against the supremacy of the Lord. I do not ever recall His Divine Grace advocating that that method be employed against other Vaisnavas.
And, as with all other preaching strategies, purity is the force. While the pure devotee could kick miscreants in the face to their eternal benefit, your own signature style of kicking other devotees in the face – rude, insulting, distasteful and utterly lacking in basic Vaisnava etiquette – smacks of other, less-than-pure motives.
Indeed, upon being kicked in the face by you, it is not the transcendental fragrance of the lotus feet of the spiritual master which envelops one, but rather the fetid stench of the smelly, unwashed foot of false ego.
to defend or not defend oneself we may take a certain stance,depending on the maturity of the individual,
but when it comes to upholding the responsibility of our position in relation to others ,do we take that same stance ?
When Maharaja Pariksit appeared on the picture did he say”tough luck guys,its just your karma”? (forgive the language)
As his position befitted he was prepared to take the nessesary action.
Are we guilty of using our philosophy to justify our inaction when proper Krishna conciouss action would be more appropriate?
mvdas
After having read the essay itself and the commentaries by the different contributors, I wonder whether we need to focus more on the proximity of the case. Within the realm of raja-dharma, the king had the obligation of applying capital punishment on Kali, regardless of what philosophical statements the bull was submitting. Two types of teaching are presented in this passage of the Bhagavatam. One is the raja-dharma, and the second one is the philosophical reasonings. Obviously, raja-dharma is meant for those who have the job of government representatives (by the way, they may be Vaishnavas too); they must punished wrong-doers. As far as the philosophical spin of the story; that’s for philosophers and Vaishnavas.
ykd
Editor’s comment to Mahavidya das, comment 3:
Yes we all have certain duties and responsibilities that cannot be neglected. That of course was not the point of my letter but I am happy to underscore that whatever position of responsibility we find ourselves in, it is most important that we carry out those responsibilites to the best of our ability.
Notwithstanding that (and the point I was trying to make in my letter) was how much we can learn from the wonderful examples in the Bhagavatam of great personalities who are free from the modes of nature and the lower propensities that are associated with them. It is also worth noting that the more we are free from such things, the better placed we will be to perform our duty in a way that will be satisfying to all those we serve.
Editor’s Note to Yugala Kishora das, comment 4:
Maharaja Pariksit did NOT apply capital punishment to Kali.
Praghosa das
Praghosa: your note about being free from lower propensities and our resulting effectiveness in preaching is a good one. Still the Gita says that every endeavor is covered by fault. It’s unfortunate that some individuals suffer from lower propensities that prevent them seeing the good, and only focus on the faults.
Nice comments also mvd. Good points.
ps: Dear Lalita Madhava, I am flattered by your attention; you seem to be following me everywhere, ready to comment on my comments. Perhaps I should send you a photo and a copy of my journal so your absorption in me is a little more complete? :)
Seriously, I am sorry that my very existence seems to be such a distress to you. The bad news is that i’m not going anywhere… :)
Thanks Praghosa Prabhu for you comment on my comment. But what we should pinpoint to your audience (readers) is that M. Pariksit “was indeed about to execute” Kali. He didn’t do it because Kali cleverly — knowing the codes of Raja-dharma — surrendered to the King. Moreover, the time for the arrival of Kali Yuga had come.
But at any other time, under the same circumstances, a Vedic King must execute the wrong doer; regardless of the philosophical reasoning. In a sense, this means that Dharma (in whatever stage of life one is in) supersedes any philosophical reasoning.
We may have the freedom to dive into philosophical reasoning (which I do myself and encourage others to do the same); we should bear in mind, however, that Dharma stands supreme over all aspects of human life.
Actually, Braja Sevaki, if one notes the chronology of the postings, it becomes readily apparent that it is, in fact, the other way around. You follow me around and immediately launch a personal attack as soon as I comment on any issue on this website – even those issues which you’d previously had nothing whatsoever to say about until I did, at which point they apparently became another opportunity for you to attack me. Honestly, it’s gotten rather out of hand and this pattern of yours has been noted by a number of readers who have commented upon it in personal emails to me. I do not know why you are so hell-bent on constantly attacking and attempting to discredit me (is it, perhaps, that you are still angry because I strongly disagreed with you about the application of the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami?), but you are only succeeding in casting yourself in a really poor light. Let’s just get past this whole antagonistic mood and move on, shall we?
Dear Lalita Madhava,
Let’s start at the beginning, in a genuine sense. Please accept my offered obeisances. May the glories of our founder-acarya be present in our minds always and imbue our dealings with each other with the proper intent, mood, and outcome.
Firstly, I apologize that you took my initial comment personally, about “familiarizing oneself with the teachings of our previous acaryas.” I might have said that in a different way, but it certainly wasn’t written with a particular person in mind. It is said in a general sense. Nor is it retracted. The essence remains: Prabhupada says in the Gita that one supports everything he says in a discussion with devotees with scripture. So that will always be there.
I think from this you became defensive, and so the ensuing exchanges have been wrapped in misunderstanding. But I don’t believe I deserve the venom I found present in your last posting. I feel you went far too far, it actually made me ill to read it. I felt sick to my stomach and sick at heart. Surely you can also come up to the line here and admit that this last posting went beyond what might be considered a decent limit?
So let’s call it a day. You don’t like my style, but you are not obliged to. Nor am I obliged to like yours. However we both have a common purpose, a common goal. We are in the same movement, dedicated to the same disciplic succession, and I find these dealings unnecessary.
I don’t really wish to have any further discussion than this, and definitely not in public. I really don’t even want a protracted discussion in private. I’m truly weakened by this whole exchange, and am discouraged to the extreme. I am sure you are too, and that is not the outcome anyone desires.
Your servant,
Braja Sevaki dd
I very much appreciate the mood and intent of Mother Braja Sevaki’s above comment and would urge that they (Lalita Madhava and Braja Sevaki) now discuss this further themselves privately. In the hope that such a corresspondence bears positive fruit, Dandavats would be very happy to report on that outcome.
Your servant, Praghosa dasa.
Dear Braja Sevaki,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you very much for your letter. It came at a time when I was feeling the same (sick to my stomach and sick at heart) and thinking that, somehow or other, we really got off on the wrong foot and needed to start over. I had planned to ask Praghosa Prabhu to forward a private email to you, and, while driving to and from work, was trying to consider what I might say to try and close the rift…..only to come home and find this posting from you.
For my part, I think I probably “started it” with my strongly-worded comment on your statement about the Dhanurdhara Swami issue. My perception was that you then became defensive after that. But whoever started it and whoever continued it, the whole thing rapidly deteriorated in a downward spiral after that.
You are absolutely right that we are in the same Movement and dedicated to the same disciplic succession. The same thought occurred to me yesterday, when my latest Time magazine arrived in the mail. On the cover was a feature about the atheistic big bang theory. When I looked at it, I thought, “My God, we are surrounded by atheists and abortionists and animal killers – why do devotees have to fight amongst eachother? We need to become united against the real enemies in this world, and not waste time and energy fighting amongst ourselves.”
So, thank you again for taking the first step forward. I admire your integrity and strength of character in doing so. And I sincerely apologize for any ways in which I may have misunderstood your writings or misinterpreted your intentions, and for any offenses I may have thus unintentionally committed.
Your servant,
Lalita Madhava
Below is an excerpt from Bhurijana Prabhu’s upcoming book, an overview of the Srimad-Bhagavatam. This is from the section where the Bull tells Maharaja Pariksit that he cannot ascertain who has done the harm to him:
“Generally on reflecting on the cause of one’s difficulty, one would answer with less philosophy and more accusation. By identifying someone as “the doer” and viewing that person as an enemy, one comes to seek vengeance rather than to practice introspection. While one tends to justify thoughts of retaliation and the ensuing plan of action, one may not realize that those actions will implicate him in painful exchanges for hundreds of births. In addition, by meditating on another’s bad qualities, one will develop those qualities himself. One’s mentality is formed by the object of his meditation: “A grassworm confined in a hole of a wall by a bee always thinks of the bee in fear and enmity and later becomes a bee simply because of such remembrance.” (Bhag. 7.1.28)”