By Babhru das
When I was teaching in gurukulas, the students would occasionally find out that another child didn’t like one sort of food or another and would tease them: âEwwâyou don’t like mangoes? That means you don’t like Prabhupada and Krishna!â These eight- or nine-year-olds were probably joking, or half joking, to the extent that kids are capable. But when adults insist in the rudest language that other devotees who don’t share their opinions on one detail or another regarding devotional practice or association are faithless, or even demons, they are not joking. And it’s not funny.
Rather, they are simply demonstrating a narrow-minded attitude and cramped thinking discouraged by Srila Prabhupada himself. Unfortunately, we see too much narrow-mindedness in discussions among devotees over the course of our association, both face to face and in online discourse. I have found it to be perhaps the most discouraging, most corrosive attitude among devotees. I believe it would immeasurably improve the quality of devotee association, and perhaps even the devotees’ preaching efforts, if, rather than seeing other devotees of Krishna in such a pinched, miserly way, we tried instead to imbibe and exhibit the kind of broad, generous vision of others that Srila Prabhupada exemplified.
Those devotees who have spent any time on the internet over the last few years have most likely observed a number of controversies among preachers, which often appear to be focused more on approaches to preaching than anything else. Sannyasi A rips into Sannyasi B for being too liberal, and Sannyasi C goes after Sannyasi A for being too medieval in his approach. Devotee D slams the BBT for editing Srila Prabhupadaâs books, and a BBT defender calls him foolish for not understanding the nature of BBTâs service. And so it goes, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
What’s more, we engage in all this bickering in public, across the internet! What does this say to the countless students who type âHare Krishnaâ or some such search phrase into their search engine as they work on that term paper? To someone who might have purchased a book about Krishna consciousness, or the father wondering if he should let his child visit a temple or stay at an ashram? It seems we can establish dialog and discuss contentious matters cordially with academics, with Christians, with Jews, perhaps with some Muslims and Buddhists, and even some atheists, but we can’t talk with another devotee who disagrees with us by even less than one percent without getting into a fight. And sometimes we do so in the most intemperate language. One can only imagine how Gaudiya vaisnavism must look to those whose experience of it is limited to what they see on the internet.
What seems to be missing here is discourse driven by the kind of vision Srila Prabhupada showed throughout his lifetime of spreading Krishna consciousness. Let us see, for example, how he responded to discord among devotees in a letter he wrote to Kirtanananda in 1973:
Now this displeasing of god brothers has already begun and gives me too much agitation in my mind. Our Gaudiya Math people fought with one another after the demise of Guru Maharaja but my disciples have already begun fighting even in my presence. So I am greatly concerned about it. . . .
Material nature means dissension and disagreement, especially in this Kali yuga. But, for this Krsna consciousness movement its success will depend on agreement, even though there are varieties of engagements. In the material world there are varieties, but there is no agreement. In the spiritual world there are varieties, but there is agreement. That is the difference. The materialist without being able to adjust the varieties and the disagreements makes everything zero. They cannot come into agreement with varieties, but if we keep Krsna in the center, then there will be agreement in varieties. This is called unity in diversity. . . . But, if we fight on account of diversity, then it is simply the material platform. Please try to maintain the philosophy of unity in diversity. That will make our movement successful. One section of men have already gone out, therefore we must be very careful to maintain unity in diversity. . . .
What we see here is an exhortation to a broader, more generous vision of how diverse devotees may serve the Mahaprabhuâs mission than some may be accustomed to. The basis of this generosity, Srila Prabhupada explains, is the generosity of spirit Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu teaches:
Following in the footprints of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu:
trnad api su-nicena taror iva sahisnuna
amanina manadena kirtaniya sada harih
âOne should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street; one should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly.â
We must always remember this verse and be as tolerant as the tree, as we execute the Krsna consciousness movement. Without this mentality we cannot be successful.
Srila Prabhupadaâs letter suggests that tolerating difference is essential to the broad vision he urges his disciple to develop here. This word is well worth examining.
Devotees generally use âtoleranceâ in the sense of forbearance, putting up with something we see as unfavorable. We often speak of tolerating the urges of the mind and senses, of tolerating abuse from an unappreciative public, of tolerating the devotees who get on our nerves, of tolerating bodily pain or the itching of bug bites. This certainly answers to one of the two meanings the word has in English; moreover, itâs a useful understanding for practicing devotees. But it is neither the sole nor the primary meaning.
Most English dictionaries give the primary sense of tolerance as fairness toward practices, opinions and perspectives different from our own; freedom from bigotry; a liberal, undogmatic attitude. This is certainly the sense in which Srila Prabhupada uses it in his letter to Kirtanananda, the most useful sense of tolerance for truly progressive devotees in a diverse, worldwide movement. And, unfortunately, this kind of tolerance among devotees is too uncommonly found.
Srila Prabhupada sometimes told us that one definition of a brahmana is liberal, broadminded, generous, as opposed to the narrow-minded kripana, who is miserly and grudgingâat bestâin appreciating others with whom he does not closely identify. And he made it abundantly clear throughout his teaching campaign that the dominant attitude in our movement should be that of the brahmana.
We should note carefully, though, that the generosity expressed should not be a kind of Pollyannaism that pretends away the differences between different groups of devotees. I suggest, rather, that we behave, as Srila Prabhupada often exhorted, as a society based on love and trust. The problem is that some devotees too often insist that we love and trust them, but they treat us as if we had little intelligence or sincerity. Love, trust, and cooperation are reciprocal activities, two-way streets. But if love and trust seem too lofty, too inaccessible, perhaps we could begin with simple mutual respect.
We need, of course, to be able to discuss contentious issues, but we should do so respectfully. We can only do that, however, if we begin to turn away from a Manichean view of the world, including the world of devotees. That is a black-and-white view that my perspective, my approach, my mission, my guru, is good, and all others are inferior, if not bad, perhaps even evil. We see that, in American political discourse, this perspective has led to such toxic rancor and demonization that government has been all but crippled. And the same thing has happened in discourse among devotees. Embracing unity in diversity, on the other hand, means accepting and openly acknowledging that devotees whose approach to service may appear more liberal or conservative, or different in any way we find significant, may also desire to make the perfection of Krishna consciousness available to everyone. It means moving from black and white to shades of gray, but also beyond that to a full-color spectrum of approaches to preaching and practicing, as long as they donât challenge the siddhanta established by our acaryas.
We should note that even discussed in a more civil manner, some ideas and policies will be rejected. Moreover, our discussion may be quite vigorous because of the strength of our convictions. But we should be able to discuss these issues vigorously without casting aspersions on each othersâ faith, denigrating each otherâs accomplishments, or calling each other names. We should be more interested in generating light than heat. Perhaps we need fewer lessons in logic and argumentation and more guidance from Miss Manners!
So let us by all means discuss those differences, but let us strive to do so with a more nuanced approach than we too often see these days. After all, discussion aimed at understanding the conclusions of the scriptures strengthens our faith. Moreover, the focus of our disagreements is usually how to serve guru and Gauranga. I hope we devotees can learn to discuss with real respect, not the sham respect we see among todayâs politicians. Doing so would be easier, of course, if we learn to respect each otherâs service and contributions, regardless of differences in approaches. We must respect boundaries, as well. Good fences, the proverb says, make good neighbors. How far this is true is another discussion altogether. Where Iâm from, on the island of Hawaii, we build rock walls, but theyâre usually only a foot or two high, not sky-scraping walls topped with broken glass or razor wire. Itâs easy to step over them to visit, as the mood there is âe komo maiâ: come on over. My kuleana (responsibility) is taking care of whatâs on this side of the wall, and yours is whatâs on that side. And if bananas, avocados, or mangos from trees on my side hang over the wall, theyâre yours. We devotees of Caitanya Mahaprabhu should be able to behave similarly, accepting responsibility for our own service, sharing generously, respecting, but not worshiping, boundaries. Intruding on other missionsâ affairs simply to break devoteesâ faith should be avoided.
In our attempts to create a discourse of love and trust, we may recall Krsnaâs praise of speech that does not cause distress, is truthful, agreeable, and beneficial as austerity of speech. And, bearing in mind that Krsna repeatedly praises nonviolence in Bhagavad-gita, devotees may want to consider approaches such as nonviolent communication. This helps us both express our own perspective honestly and clearly, while at the same time paying others respectful, empathetic attention. And when we do write, whether a book or an email, we should consider carefully a couple of things all conscientious writers learn: how we want to present ourselves, who our audience is (both our intended audience, and, given the reality of the digital world, who our audience is likely to become), and our purpose, what we hope to accomplish by writing a particular text. If we can do such things, we may find it possible to work together and realize Srila Prabhupada and Mahaprabhuâs ambitions for the sankirtana movement. Otherwise, weâre likely to find ourselves as divided by recrimination and name calling as the leaders of the two main political parties in the US are today. And our efforts will likely prove no more effective.
I donât intend that this brief essay serve as a manifesto, or that it be read as a comprehensive treatment of the problem I identify here, which not that we devotees disagree among ourselves, but that the manner in which we publicly express our disagreement poisons our relationships and undermines the culture of bhakti. This is primarily an attempt mainly to begin a conversation. Read it as an opening gambit, if you like. It will also likely serve as the beginning to a longer, more comprehensive project I have been considering for some time. Meanwhile, I hope devotees will feel free to continue the conversation by offering their own insights and experiences.
Let us imagine together how much more easily the world may be able to appreciate the teachings of Lord Caitanya when his followers no longer publicly bicker like eight-year-old children. I hope we can all become humble enough to accept that devotees with perspectives different from ours may certainly love and honor Srila Prabhupada, our gurus, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as much as weâand to treat them as such. A broader vision, colored by the love and trust that should come naturally to progressive vaisnavas, will show that diversity of perspectives and approaches to be an asset, not a liability. At least addressing each other as if we had such a vision may at least be a step in the right direction. We may then begin to see how Mahaprabhuâs sankirtana movement is enriched by that diversity, which may provide a broader range of appeal to the larger society, which is in such dire need of the vaisnavasâ mercy.
Some readers have objected elsewhere that Iâm overreaching by focusing on the broader meaning of âtolerance.â They suggest that I should limit myself to the narrower sense, that of putting up with something we donât like or are uncomfortable with. To do otherwise, they say, makes my argument appear specious. They also say that, although the broader sense I use in my essay does indeed appear first in most English dictionaries, I should follow what they say is the most used sense.
I certainly anticipated precisely this objection and researched it pretty thoroughly. (It would be just silly to think that I hadnât, considering my experience as a writer and a teacher of serious writing.) That included asking devotees with PhDs in Sanskrit whether that broader meaning could be found in the Sanskrit word. I didnât get what I wanted, so I deliberately kept my argument from overreaching. However, that broader sense is clear to me in Srila Prabhupadaâs remarks to Kirtanananda in the letter I cite. As much as I tried, I could not at all reconcile myself to the idea that Srila Prabhupada used that verse to tell Kirtanananda to, in effect, just hold his nose and put up with devotees who had a different approach, different sensibilities, or whatever. There were other things I could have used to enhance my case here, such as a well-known letter to Tusta Krishna, or the festival at Kheturi. But the piece is already longer than I wanted.
When tolerance is discussed in the context of diversity, writers and speakers often complain that itâs too small a word. What I found in Srila Prabhupadaâs letter, backed up by several dictionaries I consulted, is that the broader sense, which is in fact the primary sense, is what he intended, and the most useful for the point I intend to make.
When tolerance is discussed in the context of diversity, writers and speakers often complain that itâs too small a word. What I found in Srila Prabhupadaâs letter, backed up by several dictionaries I consulted, is that the broader sense, which is in fact the primary sense, is what he intended, and the most useful for the point I intend to make.
I strongly disagree with any suggestion that I should restrict myself to the narrower and perhaps most widely used sense of the word. I do so after careful consideration (which consideration was an important part of the process of writing this piece). Iâm accustomed to working with at least six dictionaries (including OED) and as many usage guides. I chose to make this point very deliberately. (Starting to see a theme here, folks?) Every good usage guide includes what some refer to as âfrequency of useâ by educated writers as an important consideration, but certainly not the only, or even overriding, factor. Hereâs what Bryan Garner, whose Modern American Usage I have long found the most useful guide on my shelves, says: â[W]hile actual usage can trump the other factors, it isnât the only consideration.â Please note that he doesnât say âactual usageâ does trump, or even should trump, other factors; instead, he says, it can. Thatâs all.
Here Iâm deliberately trying to prod devotees into considering that broader meaning in some contexts, not to discard the other. In the context of discussion of tolerance of diversity in the broader society, many writers and speakers have opined that tolerance is too small a word. Thatâs because they read it in the sense of just putting up with whatâs different or not comfortable. However, it appears that too many are simply unaware of that broader meaning or afraid of having their case labeled specious (or whatever) by small-minded readers. I am neither. I intend to changeâmore accurately, I think, to stretchâthe perceived meaning of the word, at least among followers of Lord Caitanya, and I think I have good bases for doing so. You may call it hubris; Iâm not afraid of that, either. Iâm not a Nobel laureate, and Iâm no celebrity guru, but I am an experienced sadhaka, an educated person, and an experienced writer. Iâm making a philosophical point, not playing to the crowd.
Babhru Prabhu,
However much I agree with your noble sentiments, it appears that the aim of everyone becoming âbroadmindedâ might be a tall order, and hence your call, at least for ‘manners.’ But then, doesnât the matter of being âbroadmindedâ hinge on a central point?
Srila Prabhupada gave an example of ripples being formed when stones are thrown into a lake. The causes of each of those ripples can be likened to people attempting to be broadminded through bodies such as the UN and so forth, but because their own centres are limited they will inevitably clash or overlap with other ripples created by others trying to be broadminded.
What you are highlighting in your essay, are the ripples created by the various centres of devotee interest that clash or overlap with each other. Obviously, each of the devotees are convinced of their own central interests, being either the Lord or their respective spiritual masters and so on.
Each devotee may even display broadmindedness based upon their own central interests. Can broadminded devotees clash or overlap with other broadminded devotees? It is known that great souls can differ in opinion on matters of how to spread Krishna consciousness, or differ based on their own unique perceptions in eternal relationships with the Lord.
Srila Prabhupadaâs definition of a true broadminded Mahatma, is when a devotee comes to the level of having as his or her centre âVasudevah sarvam itiâ (BG 7.19), when that proximity to the all-pervading or all-expanding Lord causes a great expanse of consciousness or broadmindedness â Mahatma, who possesses â van â great knowledge â jnanavan.
Now, depending on where the centre lies we could be witnessing broadmindedness from the level of ones spiritual master â as a head of a Math or international society – or from say, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
If we were to put Lord Chaitanya as our centre, then the claim to broadmindedness will permeate all the many branches of His being (central tree). But heading up each of those branches are the various acaryas whose teachings are central to the followers of each of those branches. When the centre is poised on the acaryas â and this is necessary â we will inevitably see overlapping.
In one sense, the overlapping is unavoidable. At the same time, it is most rare to find a true broadminded Mahatma whose outlook is only Krishna.
Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Kesava Krsna, the overlapping you suggest may be inevitable is certainly so only to the extent we maintain selfish interest. Those ripples are the clashing of personal interest, nothing more, caused by the materialistic inability to âadjust the varieties and the disagreementsâ Srila Prabhupad mentions in the letter I cite. When Srila Prabhupada spoke at the University of Hawaii in 1972, he gave the example of the ripples in a pond. If we drop stones here and there, each one will create a pattern of ripples, and those ripples will clash, overlap, creating a chaotic pattern on the pondâs surface. (These may be called eccentric circles.) However, if we drop every stone, regardless of its size, shape, color, etc., in precisely the same point, it will create a harmonious pattern of concentric circles, none of which will clash with the others. This is unity part of the equation, which Srila Prabhupada addresses when he says that if we âkeep Krsna in the center, then there will be agreement in varieties.â
However we serve, whatever our individual talents, perspectives, approaches, etc., it is this keeping Krsna in the center that makes possible the mutual appreciation I write of, that, as Srila Prabhupada puts it, will ensure our movementâs success. Thatâs how it works in Vraja. Everyone there has a different service for pleasing Krsna, a different relationship with Krsna. There are those who please Krsna by acting as servants, those who please him as friends (all of whom are different from each other in a number of ways), those who please him by acting as parents of one sort or another, those who please him by acting as girlfriends, again in a broad variety of groups, with different talents, temperaments, etc. But everyone has one focus of attention: pleasing Krsna. Thatâs called unity in diversity. It is not a detriment; rather, that diversity enriches Krsnaâs pleasure.
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
And even among devotees in this world, we can appreciate that devotees will be different in any number of ways, and thatâs not necessarily an impediment to either the devoteesâ culture of devotion or its propagation. Instead, itâs an ornament, enhancing both. So, even looking just in ISKCON, we may find preachers as different as Indradyumna Maharaja, with his big flashy festivals around the world, and Purshatraya Maharaja, with his self-sufficient community in the forest of Brazil; Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja, with his traditional approach to bhakti culture, and Radhanatha Maharaja, with his broad approach to finding ways to help those who may otherwise not have the chance to appreciate the culture of Krishna bhakti. Having such different devotees does not impoverish ISKCON. It enriches it. We need devotees who can preach as renunciates to show the ultimate in dedication, as brahmacaris to add youthful exuberance, and as householders to bring stability and balance to the community of devotees.
As different as they are, they are all unified in their pursuit and propagation of the love for Krishna taught by Caitanya Mahaprabhu. If we go beyond ISKCON, as large and as broad as it is, we find many more missions inspired by Mahaprabhu, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and our Srila Prabhupada, and they all enhance the sankirtana movement in some very different ways, attracting yet more fortunate souls to the Lordâs lotus feet. And in order to grow our own bhakti most effectively, and to help the broadest range of living beings become as fortunate as we, we all must appreciate how all these different souls ultimately work as one while serving as a rainbow of diverse ornaments surrounding that one blazing sapphire that is Krsna, with no conflicting personal interest. This may seem a tall order, but it is the order we are called to fill to ensure the sankirtan movementâs success.
Babhru Prabhu,
Many devotees will feel comfortable that the ripples of various devotee interests are a sign of healthy diversity.
As we observe these differences between vaisnavas â and we should expect them â perhaps our own bias or limitation causes us to frown upon them as something undesirable. Not only should we expect them, but we should welcome them, within reason of course.
In Sri Goloka there are displays of innuendo, taking sides, sarcasm and other apparently negative traits, but they are done with such innocence and love that no malice arises. Sri Nityananda and Sri Advaita Acarya also appeared to harbour similar differences between themselves.
If these emotions and dealings of transcendence get tainted as they enter our sphere of attempted acarya or Lord Chaitanya centred preaching activities, could they be mistaken for the real thing? Or does our projection sully what really are genuine ripples of devotion?
It appears that many of us exaggerate our ripples of difference, which must stem from immaturity. This can happen if we are used to centralising what should pass as individual encouragement. It could also be that we remain extra sensitive where we need not be.
Real unity in diversity then, can and does test our boundaries of tolerance, and if we wish for the same to prevail across all mathas and branches as many would like, it will take a quantum leap of expectation. At least the holy names have the power to unite. Perhaps we need more sankirtana in the true sense of the term.
Ys Kesava Krsna Dasa.
This is the first part of an email message sent by Vaisesika Prabhu to those on his mailing list. I will post the second part below. I thought it was pertinent to the discussion on “tolerance”:
Burlingame, Ca
As with practitioners of other skills, those who consciously take up the practice of tolerance develop a greater capacity for it.
Unlike the practice of many other talents however, to practice tolerance one needn’t go anywhere or buy anything, as ample opportunities to exercise one’s toleration muscle come unsought.
A first step in the practice of tolerance is to prepare oneself to welcome disturbances when they arise.
As the Dalai Lama puts it, âIn the practice of tolerance, one’s enemy is the best teacher.â
Acting on such sage advice, once while my friend and Godbrother, Satyadeva Prabhu and I were touring through Japan, we were obligated by circumstance to travel for many hours in a car alongside an unruly child. At first, we both felt frustrated and disturbed. However, when we decided to take our encounter as a chance to practice tolerance, we felt relief and soon, we were both smiling after nicknaming our restless prepubescent travel mate, âguruji.â At the end of the trip, we both thanked guruji for teaching us tolerance.
In the Gita, Lord Sri Krishna lists tolerance among nineteen other vital elements on the path to spiritual knowledge. (Bg. 13. 8-12)
One who practices tolerance gains a unique perspective to see how circumstances come and go and also sees that he or she is not the master of them. Admitting that I am not the supreme controller is not only foundational to advancing in spiritual life; it is also a great relief.
Some synonyms for the word tolerance are: open-mindedness, broad-mindedness, forbearance, liberality, patience, charity, and understanding. (Sounds nice, right?)
Try greeting the day with a determined aim to tolerate some unfavorable news, a difficult person, or some awkward circumstance. Not only will you be surprised at how many opportunities you’ll get, you may also be stunned by the spiritual insight you gain just from this one simple practice.
…
Here is the rest of it:
Those who practice tolerance not only become spiritually wise, they also please Krishna.
âThe Lord is very satisfied with His devotee when the devotee greets other people with tolerance, mercy, friendship and equality.â (SB 4.11.13)
âOne who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego, who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Meâsuch a devotee of Mine is very dear to Me.â (BG 12.13-14)
Om Tat Sat.
With gratitude and affection,
Vaisesika Das
Rather than get caught up in discussing whether “tolerance” is the right word (it may have many different connotations and even ideological associations: words take on their meanings by how they are used and understood in different historical settings, and it may be that the reverberance of Sanskrt terms like titiksava and sahishnuna will bring the English word “tolerance” more in line with our overall Vaisnava perspective as we use it), I think we can all recognize the importance of what Babhru is saying about the sometimes acrimonious tenor of devotee disputes and discussions, at least on the internet.
In part it may be due to the nature of tender faith of neophyte devotees, who cannot very well accommodate different angles of vision without threatening their own tenuous attachment to devotional service. To protect themselves they may need to erect barriers such as, “Jesus is the only way” or “Mohammed is the seal of the prophets” or even “Srila Prabhupada said universities are slaughterhouses.”
It may be safer for neophytes to protect their creepers by not encountering concepts that may challenge their accepted principals. However, there is a tendency among such followers to break into factions, and to appear superstitious, fanatical and lacking in depth or wisdom to outsiders. One who cannot observe and engage the psychic movements of others and explain the message of Lord Caitanya in a way that will attract them, who can only repeat formulas like a parrot and defend them with increasing hostility and anger against all questions or opposition, cannot successfully preach.
Universities really are slaughterhouses for those who do not have a very strong attachment to the principles of Krishna consciousness. It is easy to get bewildered while talking to academics and humanists and reading their mundane literature, to become enamored by their erudition and even their methods of determining what is true and false. It is easy to become proud of one’s own learning and embarrassed by the innocence of simple devotees. Good devotees have actually given up chanting and reading Srila Prabhupada’s books after getting too cozy with modern intellectuals.
However, unless we can capture intellectuals and convert them to bhaktas, how will we accomplish our mission?
In that mood, Lord Caitanya set His sights on the Mayavadi sannyasis of Benares. To do likewise, we have to be charitable to opposing viewpoints without losing our deep devotional convictions.
I appreciate Babhru Prabhu’s good-hearted sentiments. I have not been writing lately, since I had the misfortune to interact with the SampradayaSun. I was very discouraged by their henchmen, and I must say that one can be discouraged from devotional service by people who want to make themselves look better by tearing you down. Here, however, I can appreciate the heart of a Vaishnava in Babhru Prabhu. I am encouraged to write and preach in this wonderful forum of Krishna consciousness.
Srila Rupa Goswami gave us some general principles to carry with one in their spiritual journey in bhakti-yoga. Enthusiasm, determination, and patience. These principles will help one avoid the discouragement that is natural. Srila Prabhupad said that one must “hope against hope” that Krishna’s full mercy will descend upon you. We search for that personal relationship with God. In the spiritual world, each and every jiva soul has a very personal relationship with Krishna. For example, when the cowherd boys are playing with Krishna, and when Krishna satisfies them by expanding Himself to play with each of them, then each one feels that they alone are playing with Krishna. The gopis similarly feel that they alone are dancing with Krishna, when in fact He has expanded Himself to dance with each and every gopi personally. What a wonderful Lord, Who reciprocates so sweetly and so personally.
Unity in diversity is actually rasa. It is the perfect and personal reciprocation that the Lord has with each jiva soul. It is the ultimate reality. If we take that unity to our current experience, then we must first become “selfless” Krishna conscious beings. The more we think of ourselves (to the exclusion of others), the more we separate ourselves from the unity. Om Purnam adah purnam idam…everything is perfect and complete…but is only realized as such when we realize the complete Whole, Sri Krishna.
I hope that this angle of vision will help. Pusta Krishna das
I noticed a long comment in another article recently on Dandavats.com to Babhru’s article. I read that reply. I do not want to comment upon it specifically, but it suggests that sometimes it is ok to go one’s separate ways, even collectively, in order to avoid conflict. I hope to make two points about this approach. One important conscious transformation that needs to occur in the development of Krishna consciousness is that the environment is not our enemy. The example that Srila Prabhupad gave is that one looks in the corner of a room and perceives a snake, but in reality it is a rope. The point: Krishna is everywhere and in everything. Mayi sarvam idam protam. The environment is not adverse to us, for it is Krishna’s energy and Krishna is within it and behind it. Secondly, whenever we act in Krishna consciousness, even the taking of the Holy Names, we should think that we are doing so on the order and with the blessing of their Sri Gurudeva. Srila Prabhupad warns: do not try to become your own Guru. Why? You will cheat and deceive your self! You lose connection to the sacred Parampara.
A safe position is to always consider that you are before Srila Prabhupad or your Sri Gurudeva, and what you are offering is being offered before him. Then, you have a better and far safer position to proceed in Krishna consciousness. It is true that there are those who will grab hold of faults or shortcomings like a pitbull grabbing hold of a victim. These are tests, no doubt, to our faith.
Srila Prabhupad saw many men come and go from ISKCON in the days of his lila here. I know this from observation and experience. But, we must begin to appreciate that Srila Prabhupad was serving HIS Sri Gurudeva, and not at the whims of his disciples. When a favorable breeze of Krishna consciousness will catch your sails, ride that breeze forward. Remember, there is an area in the Atlantic Ocean which has almost no wind. It is called the “Doldrums”. In that place, it is difficult to move forward, and one can drift and drift. Think of that example, and don’t fight the favorable breezes…nor embrace the inertia of the “Doldrums”. Pusta Krishna das
Keshava Krsna prabhu,
I believe youâre right on the money to suggest that embracing unity in diversity challenges the boundaries of our tolerance. And that can only be a good thing. And I certainly agree that the appreciation on which such embrace is founded should reach to missions other than that with which we ourselves may be affiliated, whether it be ISKCON or one of the other missions working hard to share the teachings of Lord Caitanya with whatever fortunate souls we may encounter.
My perspective on the discord we see enacted within and among missions may be a little different from yours, though. I donât see them as slightly distorted expressions of the pure ego, as the examples you cite from Goloka or Gaura lila. Rather, and I say this after having participated in and having observed these interactions for over 43 years, I contend that they are motivated by narrow mindedness that symptomizes our lack of spiritual maturity. The evidence can be found in attempted suppression of diversity, in discouragement, in the dearth of actual appreciation for variety.
And, as you point out, over-centralization and bureaucracy can serve to encourage such narrow vision. I hope devotees will apply themselves to carefully studying the literature created by our acaryas, so they may be better equipped to discern between principle and detail, between superficial and substantive differences.
Thanks to Akruranatha for sharing Vaisesika prabhu’s letter, as well as his own insights into the benefits of a broad vision of preaching. That devotees with the kind of vision Vaisesika shows are as prominent in ISKCON as he is a good sign. It shows that there is still much vitality in the world’s most visible institution dedicated to spreading Lord Caitanya’s teachings. That should gladden the hearts of all of Mahaprabhu’s devotees.
I thank Pusta Krishna prabhu for his kind words. I’ve had few personal dealings with him over all these years, but those few encounters were consistently encouraging.
I think we all would do well to heed his advice about the environment’s friendly nature. I also have something to say about the longer article to which he refers, but I’ll respond to that piece itself. The author seems not to have quite understood the point I intended to make.
I also think Pusta Krishna’s advice about enthusiastically catching whatever favorable breezes of spiritual opportunity come our way. If the wind blows toward the shore of bhakti, let out those sails and take full advantage of it, regardless of doubts expressed by those who would have you stay stuck with them. We should not let ourselves flounder in the doldrums of suspicion. Suspicion, it is said, leads to suspension. Instead, we should let out the spinnaker of anukulyasya sankalpa and race for the shelter of the Lord’s service without hesitation.
1976 Correspondence
“Everything will become clear if you kindly read this chapter with attention. For example, we see that two lawyers in the courtroom may fight vigorously about a law point, but upon returning to the law library, they talk and embrace like friends. So you should always remember that we have no ill feelings towards Vallabha Bhattacarya. We have full respect for him, so there is no harm if these facts are discussed in the society of devotees. Devotees always humbly offer respect to everyone, but when there is a discussion on a point of sastra, they do not observe the usual etiquette, satyam bruyat priyam bruyat. They speak only the satyam, although it may not necessarily be priyam.” -AC Bhaktivedhanta Swami Prabhupada.