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.
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.
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.
Often we have the idea that the Upanisads support the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth, but this is actually due to the many Mayavadi interpretations of the texts. In reality, the Upanisads directly speak about the personal form of the Lord, just like the Bhagavad-Gita or the Srimad Bhagavatam.
The difficulty is that the Upanisads are parts of the original Vedas, and thus the language is more difficult, and the concepts more abstract. Different from books like the Mahabharata or Ramayana, the Upanisads were written to be studied in the company of the spiritual master, receiving explanations, asking questions, and so on. Just being a Sanskrit scholar is not sufficient.
Unfortunately, not many of us have the opportunity to hear directly from a self-realized soul, but there is another process that can also work. This is based on the suggestions of Jiva Goswami in the Sat Sandharbas. To understand the Upanisads, we should start y studying the Vedanta Sutras, which have the conclusions of the Upanisads. To understand the Vedanta Sutras we should study the Govinda Bhasya of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who explains everything nicely.
However, the Govinda Bhasya is not an easy book. To understand it we need to have a very good grasp of the philosophy, understanding the references, and the correct conclusions. To get that we need to study the books of Srila Prabhupada very carefully.
We hear that the Vedas are eternal knowledge, and thus we get the impression that the Vedas are always available. While this is true in the absolute sense, there are cycles for the revelation of the Vedas inside the universe and on each particular planet.
In the Bhagavad-Gita, Krsna reveals that the knowledge of the Bhagavad-Gita had been transmitted to the sun-god, Vivasvan many millions of years ago, and this knowledge had reached our planet through Iksvaku. However, with the passage of time that succession had been broken and the knowledge forgotten. Because of this, Krsna was again transmitting the same knowledge to Arjuna.
Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana describes that not only the Bhagavad-Gita but the whole Vedic knowledge was almost lost at the end of the previous Dwapara-yuga, being replaced by different atheistic philosophies, like the atheistic Sankhya, Karma Mimansa, etc. that although superficially based on the Vedas, go against their conclusions. In this environment, it took an empowered incarnation of the Lord, Vyasadeva, to restore the real meaning of the Vedas.
Similarly, by the time of Lord Buddha the so-called followers of the Vedas had degenerated into a group of hedonists who were using the Vedas to justify their meat eating. This led to the advent of a sequence of acaryas, including Lord Buddha, Sankaracarya, Ramanujacarya, Madvacarya, etc. who gradually restored the meaning of the Vedas. This culminated with Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who brought the ultimate conclusion, pure love of Godhead.
In the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, there is a mysterious passage, the talks between Pariksit Maharaja and Dharma, who had taken the form of a bull.
Kali was beating the bull with a club. Although the situation is quite obvious, Pariksit addresses the bull trying to get a testimony proving the guilt of Kali, just like in modern justice systems. However, the bull refuses to directly accuse Kali directly, speaking instead in a cryptic way:
“O greatest among human beings, it is very difficult to ascertain the particular miscreant who has caused our sufferings, because we are bewildered by all the different opinions of theoretical philosophers. Some of the philosophers, who deny all sorts of duality, declare that one’s own self is responsible for his personal happiness and distress. Others say that superhuman powers are responsible, while yet others say that activity is responsible, and the gross materialists maintain that nature is the ultimate cause. There are also some thinkers who believe that no one can ascertain the cause of distress by argumentation, nor know it by imagination, nor express it by words. O sage amongst kings, judge for yourself by thinking over all this with your own intelligence.” (SB 1.17.18-20)
Understanding the deep meaning of the bull’s words, Pariksit replied:
“O you, who are in the form of a bull! You know the truth of religion, and you are speaking according to the principle that the destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator. You are no other than the personality of religion. Thus it is concluded that the Lord’s energies are inconceivable. No one can estimate them by mental speculation or by word jugglery.” (SB 1.17.22-23)
At first, this passage doesn’t seem to make much sense. It appears that it implies that if someone is a victim of some crime or violence and he reports the perpetrator, asking for justice, he is entitled to receive the same punishment reserved for the criminal, like, for example, if a man stabbed with a knife would be forced to spend ten years in prison alongside the criminal that stabbed him. How could this be called justice?
The pastime of Maharaja Pariksit renouncing his kingdom, hearing the Srimad Bhagavatam from Sukadeva Goswami, and going back to Godhead starts with him hunting in the forest.
It may sound strange to hear about a pure devotee going to the forest to kill animals, but this was actually one of the duties of Ksatriyas. Apart from people living in villages, there were many sages living in the forests, and thus one of the responsibilities of the Ksatriyas was to hunt dangerous animals such as lions and thus check their populations, reducing the risk for the people. These hunting excursions also served as an opportunity for the warriors to perfect their military skills by hunting stags and others, which was also connected with their duties. While hunting, Pariksit Maharaja became extremely thirsty, which led him to the hermitage of the great sage Śamīka Ṛṣi, from whom he expected to receive a little water.
However, the sage was in deep meditation, and when the king arrived, he didn’t hear. Normally, a sage would offer a reception to a saintly king like Maharaja Pariksit, with kind words, a place to sit, and some water to drink, but being absorbed in Samadhi the sage was not aware of his surroundings and was not able to do so.
Even though Pariksit asked for water repeatedly, the sage didn’t answer. The king thought that the sage was pretending to be in samadhi just to avoid receiving him, who was by social position inferior, being a Ksatriya, while the sage was a Brahmana. Therefore, to reciprocate the cold reception, Maharaja Pariksit used his bow to collect a dead snake that was lying on the floor and put it around the neck of the sage, like a garland.
In his purport, Prabhupada comments that becoming angry in this situation, when he needed water so badly and was not able to obtain it due to the negligence of the sage, was not unnatural even for a great devotee such as Maharaja Pariksit, but the fact that he acted on his anger instead of being able to control it was astonishing. In normal circumstances, hunger and thirst would not be able to disturb such a great devotee, much less to the point of disrespecting a Brahmana. Pariksit had already demonstrated his amazing tolerance by being able to tolerate the heat of the Brahmnastra of Aswattama while still in the womb.
