This is a not very well-known story from the Chandogya Upaniṣad. Uṣasti was a qualified Brahmana who lived in poverty together with his wife. Once, without any food to eat, he begged an elephant keeper for some cooked grains he was eating, just to be able to maintain his life. The elephant keeper also offered him some water he was drinking, but he refused it, arguing that he could get water from somewhere else, and thus there was no need to accept this contaminated water. However, he accepted the contaminated grains because he would not be able to maintain his life without them.
He shared these contaminated grains with his wife, but having already eaten, she just stored the grains. The next day, he got the news that the king was performing a great sacrifice and decided to go there in order to participate in it and receive some remuneration. He asked his wife if there was any food at home and she gave him the contaminated and now stale grains, which he accepted in order to be able to perform his duties. In general, a Brahmana should never accept contaminated food, but he may do so in case of emergency. In his purport to SB 1.17.16, Srila Prabhupada mentions: “In the scriptures there is mention of āpad-dharma, or occupational duty at times of extraordinary happenings. It is said that sometimes the great sage Viśvāmitra had to live on the flesh of dogs in some extraordinary dangerous position. In cases of emergency, one may be allowed to live on the flesh of animals of all description, but that does not mean that there should be regular slaughterhouses to feed the animal-eaters and that this system should he encouraged by the state. No one should try to live on flesh in ordinary times simply for the sake of the palate. If anyone does so, the king or the executive head should punish him for gross enjoyment.”
What is a “pure devotee”? The question may seem obvious, but it’s actually a little complicated.
Srila Prabhupada uses the term “pure” with different meanings throughout his teachings. There is actually no direct word for “pure devotee” in Sanskrit, there are different terms like uttama (highest), kevala (unalloyed), and so on. Srila Prabhupada uses the English word “pure” as a translation to different Sanskrit terms in different parts of his teachings.
Sometimes, he uses “pure devotee” in the sense of an Uttama Adhikari, the highest type of Vaishnava, someone who is in or at least close to the stage of Prema. In this sense, he says for example that “by even a moment’s association with a pure devotee, one can attain all success”. This appears to be the most common meaning for the term, but there are others.
One detail that puzzled me the first time I read the Prabhupada Lilamrta was the description of the family of Srila Prabhupada, more specifically his wife and children. According to the description in the Lilamrta, they didn’t appear to be very interested in spiritual life. It’s described, for example, how the wife of Srila Prabhupada would go upstairs and drink tea while Prabhupada was discoursing on Srimad Bhagavatam to visitors in the house’s main room.
From the same Prabhupada Lilamrta, we hear how even many of the most exalted disciples of Srila Prabhupada had the opportunity to directly associate with him for only brief periods. Most of their association would be through his books and through a few letters they exchanged with him. If just such brief moments of association were sufficient to make devotees on the stature of Jayapataka Swami, Bhakti Thirta Swami, and Gopal Krsna Goswami, one could imagine how purifying it would be to have the opportunity of associating with Srila Prabhupada for a few decades non-stop.
There is a verse in the Taittiriya Upanisad that speaks a lot about the organization of the cosmos and the life standards of the different inhabitants of different planets:
“Take a noble young man, who is well versed in the Vedas, very intelligent, handsome, and strong. Let the world be full of wealth for him. That is the measure of human bliss. If we multiply this limit of human bliss a hundred times, it equals the bliss of a manuṣya-gandharva. If we multiply the bliss of a manuṣya-gandharva one hundred times, it equals the pleasure of a deva-gandharva, and if we multiply that one hundred times, it equals the bliss of the ancestors living in Pitṛloka. If we go further and multiply this standard of bliss of the Pitṛs one hundred times, we come to the standard of bliss of a lower demigod born in Swargaloka. If we multiply the bliss of the lower demigods by one hundred, we reach the standard of bliss of the sacrificial demigods, and one hundred times that is the bliss of principal demigods. If we again multiply this one hundred times, we reach the standard of bliss of Indra. Each one of these different standards of bliss is matched by a self-realized soul who has no material desires.” (TU 2.8)
What are the manuṣya-gandharvas? What are the sacrificial demigods?
Because of the word “aham” (generally translated as “me”), mayavadis like to translate this verse as “I’m food, I’m the eater of food, I’m worthy of all praise, etc.” One famous translation, for example, reads: “I am food! I am food! I am food! I eat food! I eat food! I eat food! I set the rhythm! I set the rhythm! I set the rhythm! I am the first-born of Ṛta, Born before the gods, in the navel of the immortal. The one who gives me will indeed eat me. I am food! I eat him who eats the food! I have conquered the whole universe! I am like the light in the heavens (firmament)!”
This is however not the correct interpretation.
The “aham” mentioned in the verse can’t refer to the jiva, because the jiva doesn’t have all the qualities mentioned in the verse. The jiva is not the one who creates the material world or creates the conditions for the activities of all. The jiva is also not the giver of liberation and so on. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in great length in his Govinda Bhasya that passages like that must be interpreted as meaning the Supreme Lord. The word “aham” in this verse thus refers to Paramatma, and not to the jiva.
How does it work? Let’s say, for example, that you would see me reciting the verse “ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo, mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate, iti matvā bhajante māṁ, budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ” (I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.)
Although the word “aham” ordinarily means “I”, you would be able to easily understand that I’m not speaking about myself, but just repeating a verse spoken by Krsna in the Bhagavad-Gita, since it would be absurd to presume that everything emanates from me, and so on. In this case you would understand that Krsna is the source of the spiritual and material worlds and so on, even tough I’m the one speaking the verse and the word “aham” is used. Therefore, when Krsna says “ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo” it means Krsna is the source, and when I say “ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo” it is also understandable by the context that Krsna is the source, and not myself.
In this way, the expression “aham annam” doesn’t mean “I’m food”, but “The Lord is food”. The Lord maintains everyone, therefore He is the giver of food. The Lord is also the Supreme enjoyer, so He is the eater of food. The Lord is both the Supreme maintainer and the Supreme enjoyer.
The Lord is also the creator of the material manifestation and in fact of everything that exists. Although the spiritual planets are not created, since they are eternal, still it is sometimes said that the Lord created them to indicate the relationship. Even though the souls, the Vaikunta planets in the spiritual sky, and everything else that is spiritual are never created (nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ), still the Lord is the origin of everything, and therefore He is worthy of all praise. Before the appearance of Brahma and all demigods, the Lord already existed as Maha-Vishnu, lying on the causal ocean.
It’s only because of the Lord that the living entities can perform material activities. He is the one who creates the material universes and the different conditions for them. The Lord is also the one who gives them the results of their karma. He does all of that only to give the souls an opportunity to return the their original position. When a soul is ready, He is also the giver of liberation, which is indicated by the words amṛtasya nābhāyi.
Because the material world is created with the ultimate purpose of teaching the conditioned souls about devotional service, so they can retain their original position of service to the Lord, devotees who dedicate their lives to teaching this transcendental science are thus very dear to the Lord. As He says in the Bhagavad-Gita (18.68-69): “For one who explains this supreme secret to the devotees, pure devotional service is guaranteed, and at the end he will come back to Me. There is no servant in this world more dear to Me than he, nor will there ever be one more dear.” Thus, one who teaches worthy students about the science of devotional service surely attains the Lord.
It’s also mentioned that the Lord pervades matter. This is another feature of Paramamtma: not only does He provide for everyone, from the elephant to the ant, but He also pervades everything. Although all material objects are nothing more than the energy of the Lord, they are vehicles to express our devotional sentiments. The Lord is not interested in material objects, but He is interested in our devotion, therefore when we offer some material object to the Lord, He happily accepts (patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati) and we make advancement. Everything we have should be thus offered to the Lord and used in His service.
The material universes are temporary, but the Lord is eternal, just like we are eternal. The temporality of life in this material world is an artificial condition for the soul. No one wants to die because unconsciously we understand that we are eternal, and thus we desire an eternal position. However, there is nothing eternal in this material world, just as the bliss we hanker for is not available here. Although we are eternal, we are thus forced to transmigrate from one body to another, following the desires of the mind. However, once we understand the glories of the Lord and revive our eternal relationship with Him, we can assume a shining, eternal spiritual body (suvarna jyotīḥ) and join the Lord in His eternal pastimes.
A more accurate translation for this verse would thus be:
“The Lord is the giver of food! The giver of food! The giver of food! The Lord is the eater of food! The eater of food! The eater of food! The Lord is worthy of all praise! He is worthy of all praise! He is worthy of all praise! The Lord creates the universe and the conditions for the activities of all! He is the giver of liberation! He is the one who existed before the demigods! One who instructs a worthy student about the Lord attains the Lord. The Lord pervades matter and is the enjoyer of matter. The Lord exists after the destruction of the universe. One who knows this assumes a shining spiritual form. This is the secret knowledge.”
As mentioned in the previous verse, a liberated soul who realizes his eternal relationship with the Lord can chant this verse in great ecstasy (hā vu hā vu hā vu).
Srila Prabhupada mentions repeatedly in his books that the soul is an eternal servant of Krsna, but that due to contact with material nature we forget it. He also mentions that any progress in devotional service is permanent and therefore we never lose it. Even if we can’t complete our practice in this life, next life we continue from the point where we stopped.
This leads to the question: If devotional service is permanent, how were we able to forget Krsna in the first place? What is the difference between the service we do now, which is supposedly permanent, and the service we were doing before, which we somehow forgot? Considering this first point, what is the guarantee that we will not forget again, even if we go back to Godhead?
Good friends are something extremely important in life. Apart from supporting us in day-to-day life, friends are the ones who can save us in moments of crisis, when we feel betrayed by people we used to trust (which unfortunately happens frequently in our day and age). Without a few good spiritual friends, it’s quite improbable we will be able to make it in this life, there are too many things that can go wrong.
However, true friends are something extremely rare, and they are becoming more and more uncommon as time passes. Paradoxically, nowadays the average person keeps contact with more people than in any other period of human history, but still, most have very few (if any) real friends. In spiritual life, we may have the impression that it is even rarer. Why is that?
One problem is that friendships are based on letting our guard down, which not everyone is ready to do. Because most of us have a load of pain and betrayals from the past, we tend to build fences to protect ourselves around people. While this is useful to ensure basic survival, this prevents us from making good friends. We may thus have many acquaintances, but no real friends.
Social networks only exacerbated this problem since they are based on the idea of having admirers, people who follow us because of the image we project, and not based on what we are. Paradoxically, a great number of followers can lead to low self-esteem, as the gap between the successful image we project and our real self widens.
When we start practicing spiritual life, we often assume that we found a safe space where we can let our guard down. This is of course a healthy attitude that, if properly supported, can help us a lot. The problem is that often we are faced with the same betrayals we face in the general society. This leads us to harden even more and raise our fences even higher.
In the Bhagavatam, the universe of Brahma is described as being just 500 million yojanas (4 billion miles) in diameter, which is quite small compared to be whole observable universe studied in modern science, which is supposed to be billions of light-years in diameter. How can we reconcile the two views?
The universe created by Brahma is described as including Bhu-Mandala (the intermediate planetary system, of which the Earth is part), as well as the different planets that compose our solar system. After that there is the path of Sisumara (the Milky Way) in which the yogis meditate. At the end of Sisumara is Druvaloka, and after Druvaloka there are the planetary systems of Maharloka, Janaloka, Tapoloka, and Satyaloka. Each of these planetary systems is composed of numerous stars and other universal structures. After Satyaloka there are the seven universal coverings, each covering 10 times the length of the previous.
So, we can see that the universe is described in the Vedas as both a relatively small structure (roughly the size of the solar system) and as an extremely huge structure that goes far beyond the limits of our galaxy.
One point that we often come across is statements from other Vaishnavas as well as translations or interpretations of passages from previous acaryas that appear to contradict points made by Srila Prabhupada. What to do in such cases?
First of all, there is a hierarchy that should be observed. Prabhupada is one of the main acaryas of our sampradaya, and surely the most exalted in recent times. Other Vaishnavas may be very senior from our point of view, but they are still junior if compared to Srila Prabhupada. Therefore, if one of them starts to contradict points made by Prabhupada, this is something that should put their qualification in question, not the qualification of Prabhupada, who is in this case the higher authority.
However, devotees often navigate through it in a few different ways.
We often think that the false ego is something that has the be extinguished as part of our spiritual path. Often we think we have to chastise others to curb their false ego, or we think that we have to be chastised by others to become free of ours.
While this is true in a sense, this process of trying to forcefully destroy the false ego is not always positive.
The point is that we need a concept of identity to be able to operate. A pure devotee can become free from the false ego because he becomes established in his real identity as a servant of Krsna. As long as we are not at this level, we need some other identity to be able to operate, which brings us back to the false ego.
To see ourselves as a good devotee, a husband or wife, a good father or mother, a good disciple, etc. is something that gives us confidence to perform these activities well. Even when we commit a mistake, we can continue, because the identification as a good, capable person gives us the strength to learn from it and continue.
However, if I see myself as bad, incapable, unworthy, unholy, unintelligent, etc. this identification will lead me to lethargy, depression, and so on. Since I’m incapable, I can’t do anything well, since I’m unintelligent, I can’t learn. Since I’m unworthy, I will not try, and so on. This is an example of a dysfunctional false ego, which will prevent me from realizing my potential as a devotee and as a person.
