In Prabhupada’s books, we receive some philosophical conclusions that seem quite simple, but often these conclusions are the fruit of very long and complicated philosophical discussions.
For example, Prabhupada describes the Lord in the heart as Paramatma, who is an expansion of Krsna and accompanies the Jiva. Sounds quite simple, but this is a point of controversy for many. For Mayavadis, for example, Paramatma and the individual soul are one and the same, and thus the many passages in the scriptures that mention Him are interpreted in a different way.
There is an enigmatic passage on the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.2.25) which says:
yasya brahma ca kṣātraṁ ca ubhe bhavataḥ odanaḥ mṛtyur yasyopasecanaṁ ka itthā veda yatra saḥ
“There is a person for whom the brāhmaṇas and kṣatriyas are food, and death is the sauce. Who knows where this person lives?”
Who is this mysterious entity that eats even the most powerful Brahmanas and Ksatriyas? The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.6) mentions that “agnir annādaḥ” (fire is the eater), therefore one could consider that fire is the eater mentioned in this passage. However, fire is not a conscious entity, and therefore it can’t perform conscious actions, such as eating. Fire may “eat” in the figurative sense, but not in the direct sense.
One could then propose that the eater must be the living entity, since eating is an action, and jivas perform actions. This idea sounds logical in connection with the analogy of the two birds in the tree, since the jiva is the bird that perform actions, while Paramatma just observes.
In the Vedanta Sutra (1.2.9) however, Vyasadeva gives the proper conclusion: attā carācara-grahaṇāt. The eater is Brahman, the Supreme Person. He is the one who kills and eats everyone, including even the most powerful sages and warriors. How can we understand this?
One great problem we have in our movement is that many don’t go very deep into the philosophy, and prefer to just base their understanding on isolated quotes from Prabhupada’s books or other scriptures. We can see these battles of quotes everywhere. This is one point made by Srila Jiva Goswami in his Sat Sandarbhas: isolated quotes from the scriptures are of very little value since verses must be understood inside a context. When verses are taken out of context, they can be misused to support all kinds of conclusions.
Although we use quotes all the time to sustain different philosophical conclusions, as a general rule, no isolated passage can be accepted as proof of anything. We need to examine the context of the passage inside the book, studying the verses that precede and follow it, as well as understand what are the general conclusions of the book and the Vedas as a whole. In the case of a passage from Srila Prabhupada, for example, one needs to examine the context of the quote, and the general conclusions of the book and take into consideration the general conclusions Prabhupada gives on his teachings. If a passage appears to suggest that Prabhupada is authorizing divorce, for example, it must be taken inside the general context that Prabhupada was condemning divorce, and thus accepted as an exception, and not the rule. By then examining the context, we can then understand what exactly it means.
One good book to study in order to develop the critical sense necessary to deconstruct mistaken ideas sustained by isolated quotes is the Govinda Bhasya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana. The whole book is based on examining mistaken philosophical propositions and finding the real meaning of passages used to sustain them.
At the time of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, there were three great Vaishnavas who lived as humble babajis: Srila Jagannatha Dasa Babaji (the siksa guru of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura), Srila Gaurakishora Dasa Babaji (who later became the diksa and siksa guru of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura) and Srila Vansi Dasa Babaji.
Amongst the three, Vansi Dasa Babaji is the most difficult to understand in terms of behavior. He was absorbed in a paternal rasa with his deities and would often chastise them, just like one may chastise his own children when they misbehave. He was also completely averse to ordinary social interactions, avoiding attention as much as possible and behaving in ways ordinary people could not understand or appreciate. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was advising his disciples to not come close to him, in order to avoid committing offenses to such an exalted soul. Instead, he was instructing them to offer obeisances at a distance and leave offerings close to his door, so he could use them when appropriate without getting disturbed by the presence of uninvited guests.
He lived as a total recluse in a solitary place close to Ganga in the region of Navadvipa, behaving like a crazy person. He lived in his world, centered around his deities. As possessions, he had just a pair of kaupinas (loincloth) and a kantha (the patchwork blanket used by renouncers) for himself, and a pair of brass pots and a few other items for serving his deities.
Much of the behavior of Vansi Dasa Babaji is just incomprehensible to us. It’s just the behavior of someone maddened by the nectar of love for Krsna. However, there is an aspect I feel can be useful for deepening our understanding of the world and finding our way out of it, which is the way he referred to himself.
All of us face difficulties in life. Some of them are just ordinary difficulties, such as living on a budget, but others can be more serious.
Many have the belief that God never gives us more than what we can handle. This comes from a passage from the Bible (Corinthians 10:13), where it’s said: “No temptation has overtaken you, except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”
However, this doesn’t apply to everyone. Materialistic people live under the law of Karma, therefore often they get difficulties that are indeed more than they can handle. The law of Karma acts mechanically, giving one the results of his past sinful activities, without consideration for what he or she can handle or not. Since a materialist is not interested in God, He doesn’t participate in his life, it is just him and the clockwork of material nature.
For a devotee, however, things are different. A devotee is constantly praying to Krsna and chanting His names, and thus Krsna becomes present in his life. By chanting the holy names, all the stored Karma is very quickly destroyed, leaving just the Karma that is already manifest (what we are supposed to go through during his life). This Prārabdha Karma is responsible for maintaining the body, and therefore it remains active until the end of our lives, giving us an opportunity to continue living in this body and using it to advance in spiritual life.
As a continuation of the previous article about the Vedanta Sutra, today we will study the meaning of two of the Sutras, 1.1.22 and 1.1.23. These two Sutras are a good example of how the sutras give conclusions to different philosophical discussions from the scriptures.
These two sutras are centered around the nature of ether and prana. As usual, the sutras are very compact:
1.1.22: ākāśas tal-liṅgāt 1.1.23: ata eva prāṇaḥ
What do they mean?
Here is the word-for-word meanings:
akasah: ether (space); tat: that; lingat: on account of qualities. atah: for the same reason; eva: also; pranah: life, vital air.
Here is a direct translation:
Akasa means brahman on account of qualities
For the same reason, prana (is also Brahman).
As you can see, even understanding the meaning of the words doesn’t help much. To understand the sutras we need to understand the context of the philosophical discussions being held and how the sutras give conclusions to them.
It’s said that after composing the Upanisadis, Srila Vyasadeva wrote the Vedanta Sutra (or Brahma Sutras), giving there the conclusion of the Vedas. As devotees we hear a lot about the Vedanta Sutra, being it central to the discussions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu with Sarvabauma Battacharya and Prakashananda Sarasvati, for example.
But what exactly is the Vedanta Sutra? The Vedanta Sutra is a relatively small book composed of 555 sutras that give a set of conclusions about the teachings of the Vedas. When we study the Bhagavad-Gita or the Srimad Bhagavatam we are used to studying verses containing four, or sometimes six lines, but the Sutras in the Vedanta Sutra are usually much more compact. Most include just one line, and some include just one word.
One example is the Sutra 1.1.9, which contains a single word, “svāpyayāt”. How are we supposed to understand something like that?
The point is that the Sutras are extremely dependent on the context and the definition of words. The word svāpyayāt, for example, is the result of a combination of two smaller words: sva (the Self) and apyayat (entering). We can see that even understanding the meaning of the words doesn’t help much. We need to also understand the context of what is being discussed.
All the different interpretations of the Vedanta Sutra (starting with the Sariraka Bhasya of Sankaracarya, and culminating with the Vaishnava interpretation of Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana) are based on giving a consistent explanation of the Sutras, giving the definition of the words and the context of each Sutra. This is the factor that makes the Vedanta Sutra so appealing to inquisitive minds since it poses a formidable intellectual challenge. For centuries great intellectuals in India have been inconclusively discussing the meaning of the Vedanta Sutra, and in this way debating about the conclusions of the Vedas.
According to many accounts, when Srila Prabhupada was living in Vrindavana, before coming to the West, he was living in very simple conditions in the Radha Damodara temple, chanting 64 rounds, sleeping little, eating just one time per day and writing extensively, as well as doing parikramas around the holy places of Vrindavana, organizing the printing of the first volumes of His Srimad Bhagavatam and giving association devotees that would come in contact with Him. Fortunately, his rooms in the temple were preserved, so anyone who goes to Vrindavana can visit.
There are two small rooms one in front of the other. On one Srila Prabhupada was working and sleeping and on the other one he was cooking and honoring Prasadam. When Srila Prabhupada went to live in Vrindavana, the managers of the temple offered these two rooms for him to live in exchange for him doing reformations in the rooms as he could. Srila Prabhupada describes that when he went to live there, the rooms were practically crumbling, but over time he improved the situation.
After Srila Prabhupada came to the West, he suffered several heart attacks and a stroke. According to a few accounts, another challenge he suffered was difficulty maintaining his sleep for more than a few hours per night.
One difficulty we often have in spiritual life, which causes problems both to ourselves and others, is to take just one side of a spiritual subject and try to apply it in a way that suits our misconceptions, instead of using it as a transformation tool. In this way, we change the philosophy to suit us, instead of changing ourselves to match the higher ideals of Krsna Consciousness.
One area where this is especially common is in family life. The main difficulty with men/woman relationships in this world is that relationships are often seen as a space to exercise our dominating tendencies. People, especially men, have a tendency to see their partner as someone who is there to serve them. This is something that often comes from lust since lust is the opposite of love. Love means to give, while lust means to take, to exploit.
There are different types of love according to their degree of purity. In this material world, love between men and women is generally quite low in the scale, because often this type of love is based on mutual satisfaction. I start a relationship with a person because I think he or she will bring me happiness, and I invest in the relationship to the proportion I expect to return. If at some point the relationship is not bringing me the happiness I expect, I break it and look for something else.
When we chant the Gayatri mantra we meditate on the sun. The light of the sun permeates the three planetary systems, bhuh, bhuvah, and svah, and fills them with life. This meditation on the divine light of the sun fills us with enthusiasm. However, who is the sun? Would the sun be just the planet, composed of material elements? Would the sun we meditate upon be the demigod who presides over the cosmic body of the Sun? Would the object of meditation be actually something else?
In his Sat Sandarbhas, Srila Jiva Goswami explains that one’s understanding of the sun as he meditates on it will vary according to his level of understanding. Materialists can’t see anything spiritual, and thus they meditate on the sun as the celestial body, or as a manifestation of the material energy. The ones who are a little advanced meditate on Vivasvan, the demigod who presides over the sun, while the ones who are more advanced understand that the light of the sun is a reflection of the spiritual light of the Supreme Brahman. However, the ones who are still more advanced go beyond this impersonal conception and understand that the light of the sun is a reflection of the effulgence of the Supreme Person, and thus they meditate on that Supreme Person who is the origin of the sun.
