By Karnamrita dasa
A famous comedian now passed on was famous for his routine that “I Don’t get no respect”. Not getting respect means receiving disrespect. Respect is an important word, and a word with many meanings. Here is something to start on from the dictionary which I think would be useful to consider in beginning our brief discussion:
RESPECT: esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment. / deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect’s right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly./ the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
I think respect is really a way of life—a consciousness of the sacredness of all life and in fact everything that exists as it relates to God. In how I see the word, it is what Krishna consciousness is all about. We are learning to respect and honor God—Radha Krishna, Gaura-Nityananda and all their expansions and devotees—great teachers or gurus, devotees in general, but in fact all living beings and everything that exists. Although honor is not given as a synonym for respect, to me it could be. Given synonyms are deference and reverence.
Thus, there is a gradation of applications depending on context for the various inferred meanings of respect as in higher expressions of honor, reverence, or worship. We respect according to the person and our realization of who they truly are, though everyone should be respected to a degree. If we can accept this, we still might ask, “How much?” Some devotees have a problem with the use of honor when it is applied ordinary people, such as between a husband and wife who are encouraged by some marriage educators to honor one another. I think this is because some think it is meant only for saintly persons and God. I believe this is a cultural bias of Westerners, which doesn’t exist as much in the Eastern cultures especially of olden times.
I just took my wife to the airport and am sitting in a book store writing this and people watching—something I love to do. People are complex and fascinating. Being souls having human experiences, they are being subjected to so much less then their normal condition through the limitations of matter. Every person we meet or relationship we have in our life is important and educational if seen in the right way which gives us clues about the meaning of life. If only we could understand who we truly are and who we are part of, nothing else would matter save reviving our love and relationship with him/them, Shri Shir Radha Krishna [God]. If they do something to reveal themselves as less then their spiritual identity, like trying to steal from the store, I take appropriate action, praying to apply the idea to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Whenever I am with people, here or in the store where I work, or shopping etc, I feel respect and honor for everyone–well most everyone, I am not perfect, yet this is my general attitude. The tendency of the false ego is to create separation between me and others. I am the subject, they my object. We automatically categorize people, as if a label made them a known entity or less then I. We all have mental stereotypes in which we often put people—that seems to be the way our brain is wired, yet it is so much less that people are.
We also make such distinctions and categorizations with devotees, yet we have to be very careful in assuming we know someone, especially on-line where so much projection can go on and we rely on written communication which is so prone to be misunderstood. Of course misunderstanding happens face to face as well.
I would like to suggest that we assume the best about others—in a word, RESPECT and do unto others as we would have them to us, and practice EMPATHY or trying to understand why a person is asking or stating something. If we have some negative reaction to what someone says we have to stop and ask our self why. Could there be another way to understand them? Is it what they said, or did it bring up some doubt in our self or in Krishna consciousness [our spiritual life]? If a person expresses a doubt does it call in to question our own doubt?
Remember that people are like mirrors who we tend to see as we are. For example we usually think what something said would mean if we had said it, rather than what it might mean differently to the person. Another truth to consider is that a person may have faith in Krishna or certain aspects of the philosophy but have doubts in others. I would say that could be true for many, though it is not always admitted. To be able to express ones’ doubts is courageous and is the only way to get them retired, though one must find the right person to talk with. If devotees can’t share their doubts or reservations with other devotees, where are they to go?
One of the definitions of a guru—either instructing or initiating— is one who destroys our doubts. Having doubts is the nature of living in the material world which is the plane of doubts and limitations. We shouldn’t be surprised. The spiritual world is really the land of all possibilities, the land of true faith and love, and to get there we must find those who can end all our doubts and convince us to take up Krishna consciousness (or revive it) with full determination by their example and realized words compassionately shared. At least we would expect our friends to support us, believe in us, and respect us.
Let us all consider how much we are on a path of respect and honor for everyone and everything as we endeavor to see them with spiritual eyes, rather than seeing material friends or enemies. All things and souls are Krishna’s property and energy. That vision is Krishna consciousness. Respect! Don’t disrespect!
After some time when I re-read my posts, besides wondering how I could have possibly missed this typo or grammatical error, I always think of different points. I also hear from others perspectives I never considered. My intention in bringing up the topic of respect is that I see the value to having an attitude of respect and honor toward people in general and of course for devotees. It seems that so many disputes arise from not believing in the integrity of another person and assuming the worst, rather then taking the time to really understand a different point of view.
The other side of the coin to respecting others, is to not be so easily disrespected. This point was brought up to me in discussion on this topic on Krishna.com. Here is in part what a devotees said to me:
_________________________________________________________________________
Which brings me to the point that people have very different ideas about what constitutes “respect”.
For example, there are Christians who feel disrespected if one is not a Christian and doesn’t show an interest to become a Christian.
There are people who feel disrespected if one doesn’t agree with them.
There are people who feel disrespected if one corrects their notions about oneself. (i.e. I say “X”, they claim I said “Y”. If I correct them and say I said “X”, they say or imply I am being disrespectful, that I am calling them a liar or that I am doubting their intelligence, or that I am just picking a fight. This phenomenon becomes especially poignant in online communication where all references are written, easy to look up.)
There are people who feel disrespected if one doesn’t put oneself down in their presence.
There are people who think respect and liking are the same.
Personally, I have the experience and impression that no matter what I will do or say, someone is always going to feel disrespected by it.
__________________________________________________________________________
In this article I was focusing on having an attitude of respect as a way for better relationships and dealings with people in our lives. After reading this devotees’ experience I also appreciated that part of being respectful is not negatively reacting to people , or being so defensive or easily offended. Although advised in Shikshastakam to respect others while not wanting it ourselves, it is not so easy to do. I think it is helpful to discuss the difficulties we have in applying these principles.
I feel guilty for not having said anything yet in response to this article. Not that I had anything in mind particularly to say, but I have a duty to respond to Karnamrita’s articles. :-)
It is an imprtant topic: Lord Caitanya placed so much emphais on “amanina mandena”, but what does it really mean? How do we really practice it?
I heard recently in Harivilas Prabhu’s audio commentary to one of the Yadubar DVDs of Prabhupada in Paris (I hope I am not remembering it wrong), Harivilas asked Prabhupada about humility, what it means to be humble, and Prabhupada replied that when you realize that you have nothing of value other than Krishna’s mercy, that all your so-called good qualities are totally dependent on Him and there is nothing else to take shelter of (okay I am adding my own words), then you can truly be humble.
It may not be possible to be ready to offer all respects to others and expect none in return unless you have true humility based on that actual platform of realizing that everything we think we have of value is really Krishna’s energy, belongs totally to Krishna and is meant only for His service.
Real “isavasya” life requires that vision that we are being maintained only by the Lord, and even our determination to work and be productive is His energy given to us by His mercy. It is He alone who is sustaining us and protecting us, not fallible soldiers like friends, family, education, bank balance, armies, medicine, fortune tellers, etc. Our material body will be devoured by Him as Time, and that’s okay: that’s what it is meant for.
If we cannot see it that way, we are always going to be in a state of duality and competition with our so-called “enemies”.
“The tendency of the false ego is to create separation between me and others. I am the subject, they my object. We automatically categorize people, as if a label made them a known entity or less then I. ”
Yes, Karnamrita, that nicely sums it up.
I used to wonder at what Srila Prabhupada (and SBSST) meant by addressing the Personality of Godhead’s expansions as “subjective” portions. Coud it be as simple as understanding ourselves, our bodies, minds, determination and everything we have as objects of His enjoyment? He is the subject and we are His objects and there is no quality of separation because His emanations are nondifferent from Him.
“The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there.” (S.B. 1.2.11 Purport)
“Some devotees have a problem with the use of honor when it is applied ordinary people, such as between a husband and wife who are encouraged by some marriage educators to honor one another. I think this is because some think it is meant only for saintly persons and God. I believe this is a cultural bias of Westerners, which doesn’t exist as much in the Eastern cultures especially of olden times.”
Yes!
I had a Burmese friend (Go Pe Win Khin) who had a good western education but was always depressed and disturbed by culture shock. He could not really stand being in the U.S., seen as just an “Asian”, an “other”, and yet he was not the same as a life-long Burmese who never left that isolated, traditional and xenophobic culture.* He was a riven cloud.
He would always complain to me about the flatness of American relationships, the lack of a sense of decorum and giving honor where it is due. The “Go” in his name was an honorific for males of his age (something like “Mister”, but carrying real feeling), whereas “U” (as in “U Thant”) is a higher honorific (like “Doctor” or “The Honorable” or “Lord”). [For women the titles “Ma” and “Daw” apply (as in “Daw Aung San Su Kyi”)]
Children in his home culture had to properly respect older family members and earned their place in the honor hierarchy as they grew up and did their duties. Certain types of bowing and so on were highly internalized customs that carried emotional meaning. Maybe this is Confucianism, but I got a sense it had a home-grown, traditional Burmese flavor (and something similar is found in most traditional societies, with highly developed kinship networks and associated customs and rules). Being a staunchly Therawad Buddhist society, boys all go through a monastic stint, and the people genuinely love to serve their monks.
I noticed that the Burmese man-woman thing was very different from that in, say, Japanese culture, which seemed to the Burmese as harsh and disrespectful of women. The Burmese have distinct gender roles (who doesn’t?), but the men are romantic and dote on their wives and sweethearts.
Vaisnava culture of course has its own etiquette which belongs to Vaikuntha and is perhaps most “traditional” of all.
*[There are huge Indian and Chinese populations in Burma and they are economically successful but there is a lot of ethnic discrimination or racism by the main Burmese ethnic group. And there are also other indigenous groups in different Burmese states. ]
Sorry to go on so long about one national culture, but it is interesting to consider the ways various peoples or national cultures group themselves and relate to one another and honor each other’s roles in society.
And there is an historical as well as multicultural perspective: There must have been a sense of this in feudal European relationships, but it came to be seen as harsh or unjust (as it often certainly was), and the thrust of modernity has been to promote a mass society under the banner of communism or “national socialism” or some kind of democratic liberal capitalist meritocracy in which the same rules are supposed to apply equally to everyone. (Was it Anatole France who quipped that the rich and poor alike are prohibited from sleeping under bridges?)
I had a friend from Iran whose ancestors were Azeri tribal chiefs. She said her mother could never respect Americans because they have no aristocracy.
People do long for noble kshatriyas who have a deep sense of honor and justice, and courage in battle, but then they do not want to be bullied by unqualified tyrants who happen to be born in “noble families.” In Kali yuga everything goes upside down, and democracy and “leveling” are natural defense mechanisms that appeal to the oppressed.
It seems hierarchies in Kali yuga tend to become corrupted, abused. “Vitiated” is the term Prabhupada sometimes used to refer to the modern Hindu caste system when birthright takes the place of actual qualifications by guna and karma.
But getting back to the original point, it is true that in Vaisnava culture everyone is properly honored according to his or her social place (and all Vaisnavas are honored for being Vaisnavas).
We need to be careful in ISKCON not to just formally and ostentatiously honor certain choice few devotees and fail to properly honor others. We should not think “no one is worthy of honor,” but instead should properly honor all devotees.
In material life we are always desperate to be honored, and then when people become celebrities or something they get honored everywhere and sometimes do not know how to handle it.
Last week they had a big 50th birthday party for me in the temple and many devotees said many kind things in praise of me. It was embarrassing, but I could see the devotees were happy and were really showing respect to the devotional service I *try* to perform. In our temple we really all feel this honor and affection for each other. It’s nice
Just last night I had a dream in which devotees were in the temple and Srila Prabhupada was sitting next to one of his disciples who was giving class. [It wasn’t any particular disciple that I recognized; it was just some generic disciple, who sat on a raised chair to Prabhupada’s left, our right, his specific identity not even being a question in my mind.]
Prabhupada indicated that I could come up to “fan”, and I did acman and picked up a camara to begin fanning Srila Prabhupada. [He was doing something with his hands while listening to the disciple give class: I think he was taking care of some small tulasi plants or seedlings, the way devotees may sometimes do service like making garlands of ghee wicks during class. In retrospect this seems unusual or informal to me, because I would expect Prabhupada not to be doing anything else while this lecture was going on.]
Anyway, the point is, when I went to fan Srila Prabhupada he directed me, “No, he who is speaking, you should fan.” He had wanted that the person who was giving class to the assembly should be properly honored.
So of course I walked around and began fanning his disciple.
I remember reading something George Orwell wrote (probably in “Homage to Catalonia”) about the happiness he felt in Spain, in the days before the Fascist revolution,that the people all had self respect and “the waiters looked you in the eye.”
[Communist writer B. Traven also wrote of Republican Spain as a kind of utopia. Of course we know it was probably full of hellish bullfights and drunkenness and prostitution, as lovingly chronicled in Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises”]
Young Orwell (Eric Blair, I think his birth name was) had his own miserable experiences with the English class system, having been a scholarship student at an exclusive public school (Eton?) where he was always reminded of his lower social rank among “aristocratic” (by birthright but not by quality) schoolmates. He wrote about these formative experiences in “Such, Such Were the Joys.”
And since I was just discussing Burma, I should also mention his excellent novel “Burmese Days”, in which he indicted the racism of the British Raj. He speaks from experience, having served as a police official in Burma in, I believe, the 1920s, and he is able to really bring alive all the disgust and discomfort of these phony hierarchies of the colonial system in its last throes.
Anyway, I wanted to say that we should have an ISKCON society in which, in spite of having duly allotted social roles according to varna and asrama, when outsiders visit and comment on our community they get a sense of the Vaikuntha atmosphere.
Even social levelers like Orwell should feel that the devotees are all happy and blissful and satisfied, full of those contagious ecstatic Vaisnava sentiments (which are the purest and happiest sentiments to be found anywhere).
The women may be modest, shy and chaste, and the servants may be servile, but they should not have that cowed, miserable, fearful self-loathing that Orwell found conspicuous by its absence in Barcelona when the “waiters looked you in the eye.”
Intelligent critics wander the globe describing the moods and customs and ways of life of different nations and peoples and religions. Increasingly the world is becoming a more homogenious, industrial, capitalistic and non-traditional place, and finer sentiments of devotion and obedience to God and Godly authority are being lost.
These critics should report that there is no culture anywhere that can compare for beauty or justice or happiness of its members than that of the Vaisnavas.
“Respect” is a common theme in mafia and inner city gang literature and movies. Getting enough respect must be important for survival in those hardscrabble, criminal environments.
In prison and on the “mean streets”, people actually get assasinated for “dissing” (i.e., disrespecting) the wrong person. The twisted, murderous mind thinks, “Unless the person who disrespected me is killed, others will lose respect for me and I will not survive.” In this sense, “respect” carries with it a connotation of fear of retaliation.
Expecting no respect from others is as much or more an “ideal” as offering all respect to others. We should not demand others to expect no respect. We should encourage them to feel that their highest glory is their connection to Krishna.
It is not a matter of “low self-esteem.” A devotee is proud of his service, his guru, the Bhagavad Gita, he just does not identify these things with his material body. He has no false ego, because he knows his real identity. He doesn’t walk around moping and lamenting and inviting others to mistreat him. He does not torture his own body and the Supersoul within with over-austerity. He is not the codependent enabler of an abusive master. (Krishna is not an abusive master! Nor are his representatives.)
The story of Narada Muni’s cobra disciple also comes to mind. Even though he would actually not kill anyone, being a Vaisnava, he had to learn to continue showing his hood, so that ignorant people would not lose all “respect” and start abusing him.
Miniketana Ramadasa understood that when the pujari did not stop the deity worship to honor him, it was out of disrespect for Lord Nityananda (and he was right.) Thus he called the pujari a “second Romaharsana.” Krsnadas Kaviraja Goswami’s brother took the side of the pujari and fell down from devotional service.
When acaryas like Krishnadas Kaviraja say things like, “I am lower than a worm in stool. Anyone who even pronounces my name becomes sinful,” they are expressing a kind of ecstatic mood of devotional service. This is not to be wrongly imitated by ordinary devotees.
I guess what I am trying to say is, devotees should not be lacking in the self-respect they need to keep them happy and productive individuals. Srila Prabhupada used to say, “Chant Hare Krishna and be happy.” We want all the devotees to truly be happy, and they should all get the respect they need and deserve.
I hope Akruranatha Prabhu is not feeling too lonely making most of the comments. At least they are getting read. Perhaps I can chip in for all it’s worth.
For devotees with a western upbringing the egoistic shift from self-centered respect based upon pride and achievement, seems to be greater than for one accustomed to traditional eastern mores, where pride in servitude is deemed effete in contrast.
When young people (and old alike) take to following big wrestling stars, who explode at the slightest jibe against them with a volley of body blows – in spite of warnings not to do so at home – does not teach gullible people how to handle threats to their pride and prestige. These (play acting) outbursts are spectacular signs of weakness, in terms of lacking in humility, self-respect, and so on. Unfortunately, such behaviour is taken as heroic, testosterone laden signs of strength, to be emulated on the streets or in the playground.
When Srila Prabhupada visited one tiny kingdom in India with his disciples, the king himself had great pride to personally serve him and his disciples. Such respect is still rather alien to the western mind, especially when those in servile occupations, ie; shop assistants, waiters, nurses, and the rest, do lowly paid long hour chores. Even schoolteachers who are actual leaders in society are generally uninspired.
If real respect begins with self-respect, then there is very little teaching in this regard. As evidence for this, when there is a cult following in politics, entertainment, or whatever, people have so much respect for their heroes that they lose their own self-respect and dignity. When people are not repected, they have no reason to pride themselves in any meaningful activities, so bad becomes good. If a person is respected, he or she will do more.
The system of the young touching the feet of elders, is still upheld, and shown in Bollywood films, though this form of deference is likened to antiquated conduct.
All these observances have a role to play when changing into a vaisnava. To become a selfless servant to one and all, will often mean making a gradual but major egoistic shift to vaisnava respect and dignity, which develops real strength of character.
Ys, Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Hare Krishna Akruranatha! You are prolific and I appreciate the time and thought you put into your comments. My wife wrote a BTG article tittled, “Humble and Feeling Good” in an attempt to counteract statements by her clients such as: “Maybe it’s good that I feel bad about myself because that will help me develop humility.” Devotees sometimes think that feeling bad about oneself is a prerequisite for humility. Some of the other points of that article have application here such as:
1)Humility and a healthy self-esteem are compatible on the path of spiritual progress.
2) There is confusion that comes from trying to equate feelings that come from our pure ego with feelings that come from our material, or false, ego.
3) Artificially trying to feel lower than the straw in the street can lead to self-loathing and despondency.
4) Aside from confusing humility with low self-esteem, devotees sometimes correlate the concept of high self-esteem with pride and self-absorption. But it is actually the contrary.
5) People who exhibit high self-esteem also exemplify a more humble attitude toward others. They show a willingness to admit and correct mistakes, whereas persons with low self-esteem are often defensive and feel a need to prove they are right.
6) Thinking oneself to be great is pride, not high self-esteem. A person with high self-esteem exhibits humility.
7) The perfection of self-esteem is seen in persons completely free from false ego, where humility is a product of their spiritual realization.
8) Persons steeped in the mode of ignorance are happy and feel good about themselves when their senses are pleased.
9) Persons immersed in the mode of passion are happy and feel good about themselves when others value and validate their accomplishments. In these lower modes, our sense of self fluctuates constantly.
10) Persons in the mode of goodness are happy and feel good about themselves when they act in knowledge, adhering to their ethical codes and values. They are less reactive to external stimuli so their self-esteem depends more on their inner life. Thus they have more control over how they feel.
11) As people move into pure goodness, they realize themselves to be instruments of the Lord. They no longer identify themselves as the doer of their activities.
I liked the point you both brought up about how respect for others comes from our own self respect. We are valuable as part of Krishna.
The study of how culture and language affect the consciousness of the people is not only fascinating, but important for devotees to try to understand—especially since we are a world wide movement. Perhaps it is an academic field in its own right. If not it should be.
I feel fortunate to have traveled and lived in many countries of the world to experience first hand different ways people deal with each other and life in general. Of course that doesn’t mean I am free from my conditioning, just more conscious of it then I was growing up. Not only do we have “global” cultural influences in our particular country, but we also have specific influences in a region, city and most importantly with our family and friends. All these filters have an affect on how we understand K.C and apply it. Then we have our particular personality type as well, giving yet another shade to these influences.
So it is no wonder that even a basic though not easily practiced teaching like humility, tolerance, respect and honor need to be thought of deeply and looked at culturally. How does all the conditioning I mentioned impact our application of developing these qualities or offering them to others.
In the beginning or on the surface everything seems simple enough, though in time, at least for many of us, we see the necessity to be extremely thoughtful about how to actually apply the teachings in our particular culture–or how our particular culture impedes them.
The Christians have hundreds of books unpacking the Bible. We need to do the same thing with our tradition.
As the Srimad Bhagavatam predicts, more respect is given to those who either inherit, or toil to amass a fortune, or a great reputation. When stars like Frank Sinatra sing, “I Did It My Way” it strikes a chord with those of passionate resolve, and they duly respect smart hard work of above average achievement.
To want to be “Top Of The Heap…” in places like New York, pretty much sums up the western ethic of going forward in life. Isn’t this the “American dream?” Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pacific, the Japanese bow in deference to each other and smile broadly, and is another way of showing respect, however peculiar.
We, as devotees pay full dandavats out of respect and reverence. When matched up against the nose rubbing of the Maoris, the high fives of chic youths, the kiss on the cheeks of the Gauls, and the rest, the full dandavats must be the most deferential. Yet at the right time and place, the dandavats can help amass a spiritual fortune.
Sometimes however, the devotee’s sense of pride can be misplaced. They either humiliate themselves into false oblivion, or exert themselves nicely until being awarded a position of authority that earns respect, and be tempted in many challenging ways.
There is a deep sense of self-respect for a vaisnava, and that is the pride of following the orders of the spiritual master. If the guru is pleased, the joy of the disciple is a resulting sense of achievement that gives happiness. Such happiness comes from using our pride and self-respect properly. With such contentment, devotees hardly get concerned with ill-meaning jibes or insults directed at them. Though they may appear pride less externally, the inner pride of representing our illustrious parampara manifests in ways not quite understood by passionate minds.
Still, in normal social interaction, we communicate with those who show respect to us, or vice versa. This madhyama level is really another way of telling us how to be amongst respectful association. In other words, the full imports of practical respect are ingrained in the madhyama level of devotion. So vaisnava culture knows best how to engage and curtail the need to be “Top Of The Heap”.
Ys, Kesava Krsna Dasa.
Thanks Kesava Krishna Prabhu, for keeping up the discussion. We were leaving Karnamrta high and dry out there for awhile.
I agree, it seems Western devotees like myself find more challenges plugging into spiritual hierarchy and the sometimes effusive demonstrations of respect (like bowing and offering prayers to persons) that are part of our culture, than those who come from cultures (particularly Hindus) who are already accustomed to these things.
Satsvarupa Maharaja described on one of the “Memories” videos (I think), how difficult it was for some at first when the devotees began bowing to “Swamiji”. Some devotees even left the movement. They just could not handle it.
We have a lot to learn from those who were born and raised into Vaisnava culture to whom all these things just come naturally.
At San Francisco Ratha Yatra two years ago in the Question booth, an American sociology professor was commenting on how seamlessly and effortlessly it seemed (to him) that we were mixing both Indian devotees and American converts into one unified culture.
And yet we see when talking “in house” with devotees that there are still some persisting cultural debates about how much or how fast (or just how) to adopt certain aspects of Vedic or Vaisnava culture in our fledgling society in the modern world.
One of my wife’s close friends just got back from a trip in which she met lady devotees from different countries, and she reported still seeing signs among some Western devotee girls of a kind of unhealthy low self-esteem that makes them unhappy.
I am happy to say I do not notice any such phenomenon in our local San Jose temple. However, I cannot discount this experienced woman’s perception of what she encountered while traveling.
Probably our best hope is to take shelter of the holy name and Prabhupada’s books, of course, but also to learn from the sweet, happy devotees who were born and raised in India’s Vaisnava culture, and try to follow their example.
A kind of reality check should be that intellegent nondevotees who see us, who watch how we live and interact with one another and with them, should feel how happy we all are, even if we are not as rich in material opulence and sense gratification as they are.
My college experience of dealing with international students taught me that people from all over the world like the money in America, but feel something missing in the emotional and family life here.
Yes Karnamrta I remember how much I liked Arcana-Siddhi’s BTG article (that was over a year ago, right?) I do not remember all the points she made but I am glad of being reminded of them here.
I especially like your last points analyzing the modes of material nature. I am waiting to see a western psychologist write a book about the gunas as described in Vedic literature. If done well it could be an influencial masterpiece or at least a popular bestseller. (You better hurry up or a will beat you to it!) :-)
The interesting and curious thing to me about the modes is that they are present in the inanimate world. That is to say, all material objects are a combination of the different modes. They are created and destroyed, and thus passion and ignorance play a part in their existence.
It is hard for me to grasp, because I am so conditioned by the Cartesian mind set that sees the subtle psyche as animate and the gross material objects as part of an inanimate world that is understood though mathematical relationships of mass, time, velocity, charge and so on.
[Behaviorists are so enamored of “hard science” they try to ignore the subtle altogether.]
vedyam vastavam atra vastu sivadam (S.B. 1.1.2) “The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all.” To understand what substances (vastu) really are we have to understand how Krishna controls these spiritual and material “energies”, and how the material energy consists of these three modes.
The subtle mind, intelligence and ego are also coverings made of material nature and also move to the tune of the three gunas.
The gunas’ actions on the psyche are easily grasped. We understand the peaceful, happy state illuminated by knowledge, the state of longing and striving for things difficult to obtain, and the state of frustration, laziness, indolence, intoxication and sleep. We can easily see how these relate to godly, human and animal life.
If it seems too “occult” for the academic psychologists, they can at least appreciate it historically as part of a fascinating Classical world view (as C.J. Jung appreciated Alchemy), and perhaps as an heuristic device or model that promotes understanding or suggests other theories.
Besides, not all academic psychologists are afraid of thinking outside the “science” box, and you must appreciate the appeal this would also have among New Agers interested in Vedic astrology, medicine and so on…